08-21-2003, 07:39 AM | #501 |
Domesticated Swing Babe
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Reality
Posts: 5,340
|
My kids have been in school for two weeks. Ahhhhhhh! I start my art class today though! Wheee! Unfortunately I have to commute to Indpls for it. I hope my butt doesn't go numb sitting that long!
__________________
Happy Atheist Go Democrats! |
08-21-2003, 07:55 PM | #502 |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Well, I think I've finally hit the point where I want to wrap this thread up, at the very latest by Wed. next week before the surgery on Friday. As I said before, I'm aware of many of the counter-arguments, and the counter-counter-arguments, and I think the evidence still favors creationism. Note - FAVORS, not exclusively supports.
I'll hit a few points of some of the responses, then I would like to ask the evolutionists to answer a question Cirdan - you said I made some "serious charges without any proof" about dating - which of the 3 points were you objecting to? I re-read all three points, and I don't see any problem with how I stated them. As far as the chicken lysozomes, I'll contact ICR about that if I get the time - it looks like Gish is wrong here, and he should acknowledge it, if that is the case, IMO. GrayMouser - I don't see a problem with the Gen. 6 and 7 verses - from my engineering background, I see a very common-sense reason. I've written many specs for our systems, and one starts out with a *drumroll* top-level spec. Then comes the lower-level spec with many more details. It doesn't make sense for God to give all the exact details at the Gen. 6 timeframe - He gives the basic idea, plus info on boat-building. At the Gen. 7 point in time, the "loading" is starting to occur, and it makes sense to give the final exact details. I really see no problem here - do you? Also, re "kinds" - why should identifying kinds be the "MOST important task"? I think we all have a pretty good sense of "kind". And it's so painfully (to evolutionists) obvious and repeatedly observable that: kinds remain kinds! And the mechanisms that seems to keep kinds in their kind include: breeding for traits involves loss of genetic info and loss of viability, and non-neutral mutations are harmful. IMO, the purpose of the Bible is not to provide a really good scientific textbook to mankind - (science is very helpful, but it's not the most important thing, by any means) - it's to (and this is a massive simplification) reveal truth about God and the human soul. However, because it expresses truth, any scientific details that happen to be in it will be correct (allowing for the fact that often they will be expressed in historically current terms of the people that wrote it; also, a particular person may be incorrect if stating a personal opinion). The record in Genesis is written as a history, and I believe it makes sense to take it that way. And I believe the scientific evidence supports creationism more than evolutionism (not entirely, but more). IRex - I think that Willow Oran's point (which is entirely right) is that one CANNOT throw out creationism by using the argument "well, where did GOD come from, then?" because one can say the same thing about the raw material for evolution - "well, where did the raw material for evolution come from, then?" You may try to evade by saying that evolutionism doesn't deal with origins - that is irrelevant - I can say just as easily that creationism doesn't deal with the origin of God. BOTH theories have an unexplainable source of the original stuff. Also, birds are taken on the ark (Gen. 7). Fish are not. I don't see any reason why "all" marine life would die. I imagine a lot of them would die, but not "all", as you stated. Also, remember it's "kind", not "species", so there would not need to be aviaries for each "species" as currently defined today (and to my understanding, there are disagreements as to which types are separate species, anyway.)
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç Ã¥ â„¢ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! Last edited by RÃan : 08-21-2003 at 08:01 PM. |
08-21-2003, 08:13 PM | #503 |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
And my question for evolutionists:
I've said before that I'm interested in TRUTH. I have no problem with acknowledging areas of difficulty in creationism or areas of strength in evolution, and I would hope that you guys have no problem acknowledging areas of difficulty in evolutionism or areas of strength in creationism. We are Entmoot friends, and this has been a very interesting and considerately-held discussion on an emotional topic. I've learned a lot, and I hope the discussion has been of some benefit to you guys, too. I would like to ask the evolutionists here to share what they think are: areas of difficulty in evolutionism and areas of strength in creationism. Personally, I think the weakest point in creationism is the grouping of fossils. I think the 3-point explanation of (living areas/sorting by water/catastrophism) is a feasible explanation, but it needs a lot more research and supporting evidence. I think the strongest area in evolutionism is a trend (altho by no means an exclusive trend) of simpler/smaller to more complex/larger in the fossil record. OK, would you guys please share your opinions now on areas of difficulty in evolutionism and areas of strength in creationism? Thanks
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç Ã¥ â„¢ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
08-21-2003, 08:26 PM | #504 | |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
Quote:
__________________
There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary |
|
08-21-2003, 08:58 PM | #505 |
Domesticated Swing Babe
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Reality
Posts: 5,340
|
Wrap it up, baby!
I think the weak point in creation is the mythological God who did it all. Who, what, and where is he. (no, don't tell me! I've heard it before too....and I just can't swallow it! ) I think the strong point in evolution is the fossil record and DNA evidence. Evolution is a scientifically accepted tool used to explain how biological life developed on earth, not the creation of the entire universe, as the creation theory claims to do.
__________________
Happy Atheist Go Democrats! |
08-21-2003, 09:06 PM | #506 |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
I had hoped you would address the more seriously damaging criticisms of some of your ideas. As it stands creationism is a intelletually bankrupt concept. You attempt to equivocate by saying creationism is just as short of facts as evolution. One large problem is that crerationism fails to explain what we see in nature and requires a great amount of ignorance about science. At least evolution works within the framework of reality. Even within this thread when terrible flaws in creationism are pointed out we just wander off to some arguement about the semantics and avoid the obvious conclusions.
Evolution may take too many kinds of scientists to explain properly for many people, but creationism only requires one to be proved false. Evolution may have open questions but it does not have the fatal flaws that creationism has. I am not critquing relion or deism or theistic evolution, only the various pseudo-sciences referred to by the "creationism" label. It is still obvious that no "creation scientist" has even produced one iota of legitimate laboratory or field study work. Every "theory" turns out to be some armchair fantasy packed with twisted, second-hand facts and outright fabrications. During our dialogs my view on evolution has only strengthed due to the amount of research needed to understand just how wrong creationism can be. I'm open to the idea of a creator, a grand design, etc., but I reject outright that which elevates dogma over observation. I can't accept the idea that god could somehow be limited by a book. That makes it come down to which man-made version of god you're rooting for. Evolution asks you to see between the facts; creationism asks you to ignore them.
__________________
There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary |
08-21-2003, 11:01 PM | #507 | |||
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
So just to be really clear, I'll quote what I wrote: Quote:
Quote:
Point 1 - How can you deny that dating methods are based on extrapolation, or that extrapolation can be highly inaccurate? Point 2 - How can you disagree that different dating methods yield different dates? Are you claiming that the many, many different dating methods all give pretty much the same date for different samples? Point 3 - Isn't this true? If there is not direct measurement involved, there MUST be some assumptions - one very obvious one would be that it is assumed that the decay rates remain constant as one extrapolates back in time millions and millions of years, and back into an environment that has been proposed to be very different in areas such as radiation and atmosphere. Conclusion - It is correct to conclude that the dates are NOT "hard and fast". How can it NOT be correct to conclude this, especially considering that figures of the estimated age of the earth have changed?
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç Ã¥ â„¢ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! Last edited by RÃan : 08-21-2003 at 11:02 PM. |
|||
08-21-2003, 11:05 PM | #508 | |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
I believe in creationism, and I shared what I thought was its weak point and what I thought was the opposing view's strong point. I'm asking those that believe in evolutionism to share what they think evolutionism's WEAK point is and what the STRONG point is in the opposing view, creationism. Yeah, I'm about ready to wrap!
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç Ã¥ â„¢ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
|
08-21-2003, 11:18 PM | #509 | |||||||||||
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
OK, Cirdan, pick a topic and I'll address it, except for the layering of fossils, because as I stated, I think that's the weak area and there is not much behind that particular mechanism idea and I'm getting tired of looking things up. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç Ã¥ â„¢ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! Last edited by RÃan : 08-21-2003 at 11:19 PM. |
|||||||||||
08-22-2003, 01:55 AM | #510 | ||||
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
Quote:
Quote:
Do yuou mean that some methods of dating the age of the earth yeild a age of 4.51 billion years while others yield a age of 4.52 billion years? I have yet to come across SIGNIFICANT differences in dating method results (although the french restaurant yields better dating results than McDonald's). YEC requires variation on the order of 10 to the fifth to even be in the ballpark. No such discrepancy exists. Quote:
So it should be easy to create an experiment that would prove that the decay rates could be accelerated under conditions were life could still exist, right? Gee, you think someone would have tried that by now. Quote:
An still we see no examples of inexplicably uncorrelated dating methods that show the earth is actually very young...(stands next to mountain of data that points to a very old earth)
__________________
There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary |
||||
08-22-2003, 02:42 AM | #511 | |||||||||
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
Quote:
Nobody's put a gun to your head (I hope) Quote:
Quote:
Ummm... not so much facts as characterizations, suppositions, and opinions. Facts would be something like "scientists have confirmed that radiometric dating is flawed due recent studies of volcanic formations in east africa by Dr, Hossenpfeffer and a team of researchers. The data has been confirmed by several other independent reseasrch teams" and not "it's extrapolation so it must be wrong." Quote:
This is what is annoying me to no end. There is no barrier to biological change. You just say "there must be 'cause...". SHOW ME THE BOUNDARY! You gave a homily about a dog breeder like that has anything to do with change over millions of years. And the thermodynamics bit has been debunked in this thread yet you bring it up again. There are energy sources feeding into the system (solar, chemical, electrical, geothermal) so it doesn't fly. Adding energy to a system is EXACTLY how it gets from a lower state to a higher state so that entropy can occur. Otherwise everything would already be at its lowest state. Quote:
What ever flaws evolution has are flaws of ommission where evidence is sparse. There are no fatal flaws that render the theory invalid. Creationism has many fatal flaws such as the age of the earth, the fossil record, lack of actual evidence for it's main premise (the creation event). Your "mega-post" contains nothing that points to a fatal flaw in evolution. The "Cambrian Explosion" is no problem for evolution. Your ideas about limits to change and genetic diversification are quaint but hardly scientific. You say radiometric decay rates might vary but biological mutation rates don't? Seems like logic would tell us that DNA could be exposed to greater stresses and is known to mutate under stess. Again there is no fatal flaw here. Quote:
Creationists depend on the complexity of evolutions proofs being too difficult for the layman, so the simplistic creationist answer is mopre comforting. However, it only requires a specialist from any related field to prove that the creationist view of that aspect is flawed. Quote:
Oh, and who has said that there is only one interpretation of the theory and that it is immutable? Dogma is the literal reading of a document of faith. It is the biblical literalists that lock themselves into the genesis story. Which book is it the the "faithful" reading the one true definition of macroevolution. Pulleeeze. Quote:
He may have inspired it but he sure didn't write it. Can you prove his statement wasn't misinterpreted or too complex for the author to understand? Doesn't the physical world stand as a better testament to what god is? Aren't there other different inspired texts of the subject? Quote:
__________________
There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary |
|||||||||
08-22-2003, 03:50 AM | #512 | |
The Chocoholic Sea Elf Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: N?n in Eilph (Belgium)
Posts: 14,363
|
Quote:
__________________
We are not things. |
|
08-22-2003, 07:17 AM | #513 | |
Domesticated Swing Babe
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Reality
Posts: 5,340
|
Quote:
Strong point in creation......uh.....It's "fun" to believe in. Weak point in evolution....uh....places where there isn't lot's of fossil evidence yet, I guess. OK...It's a wrap!
__________________
Happy Atheist Go Democrats! |
|
08-22-2003, 07:22 AM | #514 | |
Domesticated Swing Babe
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Reality
Posts: 5,340
|
Quote:
__________________
Happy Atheist Go Democrats! |
|
08-22-2003, 09:33 AM | #515 | ||
Elf Lord
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ilha Formosa
Posts: 2,068
|
Quote:
"a pretty good sense"??? Well, after half an hour searching on-line biology dictionaries I didn't find any entries for "kind", so biologists apparently don't have any sense of what a "kind" is. Since, creationists maintain that a kind is the most fundamental category in biology, I really do think they should put forth an explanation of what it actually means and how organisms should be classified accordingly (closest definition was "Kindred:A groups of organisms that have common ancestral time lines, and are therefore related in some way.") Quote:
What information has a St. Bernard or fox terrier lost? and how has a Husky lost viability in the Arctic? Most domestic breeds lose viability for life in the wild because that's what we breed them for. UK: May 9, 2003 LONDON - Mosquitoes carrying West Nile virus and a strain of malaria have developed a resistance to insecticides because of a single-letter mutation in their genetic code, scientists said. http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsst...0746/story.htm How is not dying from insecticide harmful?
__________________
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep. Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them? "I like pigs. Dogs look up to us, cats look down on us, but pigs treat us as equals."- Winston Churchill |
||
08-22-2003, 10:25 AM | #516 | |
Elf Lord of the Grey Havens
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 2,381
|
Quote:
Horrah! My insomnia is paying off. Nice outfit, BTW.
__________________
There exists a limit to the force even ther most powerful may apply without destroying themselves. Judging this limit is the true artistry of government. Misuse of power is the fatal sin. The law cannot be a tool of vengance, never a hostage, nor a fortification against the martyrs it has created. You cannot threaten any individual and escape the consequences. -Muad'dib on Law The Stilgar Commentary |
|
08-22-2003, 11:23 AM | #517 | |||||
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
Come, GM, I didn't claim that was a scientific definition! I am arguing along the common sense lines here. And I think even without a super-specific definition of "kind", one can easily use COMMON SENSE and observation to see that kinds remain kinds. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç Ã¥ â„¢ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
|||||
08-22-2003, 11:29 AM | #518 | |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
I just re-read your post and as far as "new layers", if the new layers are laid down by water, too, then I don't know why they should look very different. Do you think they should? (just trying to get some more details so I can try to find a better answer) Did you read my multiple post? If so, what did you think of all the other areas of evidence I discussed? To repeat yet again, I think there are strong points and weak points in BOTH theories, but creationism is better supported.
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç Ã¥ â„¢ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! |
|
08-22-2003, 11:53 AM | #519 | ||
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
There is more than one truth in life that must be sought after by a truth-seeker, and seeking evolution/creation truth does not take up the vast majority of my life (nor does it yours, I imagine). There are more important things out there. This is a conversation among peers, and NONE of us here are PhDs. Several of us hold BS degrees, but only in ONE subject. I think it is a pretty valid request for me, personally, to say I am not familiar and don't have time to research one particular area, don't you? If you disagree, then I will just ignore you, because disagreeing with this would be pretty silly and unrealistic. And I think that even counting the layering of fossils as a flaw in the creationism model (and NOT fatal, BTW - there has been a mechanism proposed, but there is not enough research in to support it or disprove it yet) that creationism is the better fit. I'll deal with the rest of your post later - I started to deal with it, then saw I was misquoted by you yet again .... so it will take time to wade thru and find my original statements. I WILL deal with this, however: Quote:
Riiiiight. What do you propose - shall I preface opinions with "My opinion ->" so you can tell when I'm stating an opinion versus a fact?? YOU have stated plenty of opinions (many of which I disagree with) and I can easily tell they are opinions vs. facts.
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç Ã¥ â„¢ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! Last edited by RÃan : 08-22-2003 at 11:59 AM. |
||
08-22-2003, 11:57 AM | #520 | |
Half-Elven Princess of Rabbit Trails and Harp-Wielding Administrator (beware the Rubber Chicken of Doom!)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not where I want to be ...
Posts: 15,254
|
Quote:
__________________
. I should be doing the laundry, but this is MUCH more fun! Ñá ë?* óú éä ïöü Öñ É Þ ð ß ® ç Ã¥ â„¢ æ ♪ ?* "How lovely are Thy dwelling places, O Lord of hosts! ... For a day in Thy courts is better than a thousand outside." (from Psalm 84) * * * God rocks! Entmoot : Veni, vidi, velcro - I came, I saw, I got hooked! Ego numquam pronunciare mendacium, sed ego sum homo indomitus! Run the earth and watch the sky ... Auta i lómë! Aurë entuluva! Last edited by RÃan : 08-22-2003 at 12:01 PM. |
|