SatelliteOfLove
Member
DJ Brannon said:
Come, let us weep.
Bork: Yeah. I was seethe when I see Pterodons/pelycosaurs/plesiosaurs slapped with "dinosaur" too, (which is, of course, 2 orders in and of itself).
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Breaking news about dinosaur tissue (seriously)
- Thread starter Brannon
- Start date
- Status
Come, let us weep.
Bork: Yeah. I was seethe when I see Pterodons/pelycosaurs/plesiosaurs slapped with "dinosaur" too, (which is, of course, 2 orders in and of itself).
I guess I subscribe closer to the evo/creation theory. I do believe there is a God and that he is the 'creator'. I believe He originally created the earth and set things in motion. However once He did that, everything that has happened since then has done so on it's own. I believed He purposesly designed it that way to self sustain and to EVOLVE. I don't think God has personally and actively been tinkering with life as we know it the way a chef creates recipes, adding a dash here or a pinch there.
I just don't believe that God is that much of a micro-manager. Just like with us as a human race. God created the earth and everything in it we need. It is then up to us whether we are going to exist peacefully, responsibly, and be good stewards of our own existence. I do NOT believe God is some kind of cosmic "puppet master" pulling all the strings. He gave us free will and the ability to choose for ourselves how to live. Fundamentalists need to stop being such slaves to 'the book' and start thinking and reasoning things out for yourselves. Ultimately your only argument is "well the Bible says it and I believe it so it's true." Well, ok good for you but that dosen't prove a damn thing.
Regarding dinosaurs I find it funny that even though some claim that dinosaurs and man existed together, there has NEVER been dinosaur bones AND human bones uncovered together anywhere. You would think that if at one point or another that man and dinosaurs existed together, they would've hunted and preyed on each other in some way or another. Therefore human and dino bones should be found together at some point or another. Personally I don't see how it would've been possible for mankind to exist during the rein of the dinosaurs. Dinosaurs would've preyed upon humans mercilessly and there is no way humans could survive.
I just don't believe that God is that much of a micro-manager. Just like with us as a human race. God created the earth and everything in it we need. It is then up to us whether we are going to exist peacefully, responsibly, and be good stewards of our own existence. I do NOT believe God is some kind of cosmic "puppet master" pulling all the strings. He gave us free will and the ability to choose for ourselves how to live. Fundamentalists need to stop being such slaves to 'the book' and start thinking and reasoning things out for yourselves. Ultimately your only argument is "well the Bible says it and I believe it so it's true." Well, ok good for you but that dosen't prove a damn thing.
Regarding dinosaurs I find it funny that even though some claim that dinosaurs and man existed together, there has NEVER been dinosaur bones AND human bones uncovered together anywhere. You would think that if at one point or another that man and dinosaurs existed together, they would've hunted and preyed on each other in some way or another. Therefore human and dino bones should be found together at some point or another. Personally I don't see how it would've been possible for mankind to exist during the rein of the dinosaurs. Dinosaurs would've preyed upon humans mercilessly and there is no way humans could survive.
geogaddi said:
Welcome, everybody, to Creationist quote-mining 101!
Firstly, I don't understand what you're trying to say. Science is often confounding and may seem patently absurd at the cutting edge, but that's no reason for scientists to invoke supernaturalism. You believe what you want to believe and let the 99.985% of scientists who who support evolution continue with what they're good at. Creationists always like to say 'we don't/can't understand therefore it must be God' and have historically always been proven to be wrong, while the scientist who says 'we just don't lnow yet' has always been proven right.
...
geogaddi: Science is based in things that can be tested. The stuff outside of materialism can't be tested by definition.
If scientists aren't sure about something, they say so. But when something can be explained in terms of the material world, and when this explanation is borne out again and again in thousands of tests and observations...
Well, what should they do? Add a page to every paper they ever write, saying "of course the data could be what our computer overlords in the Matrix want us to believe, but there's no way for us to test that?"
I don't see how speculation about the supernatural would make any branch of science more effective.
If scientists aren't sure about something, they say so. But when something can be explained in terms of the material world, and when this explanation is borne out again and again in thousands of tests and observations...
Well, what should they do? Add a page to every paper they ever write, saying "of course the data could be what our computer overlords in the Matrix want us to believe, but there's no way for us to test that?"
I don't see how speculation about the supernatural would make any branch of science more effective.
soundwave05
Member
ElyrionX said:
Eh, I'd say the majority of Christain's are a bit more liberal in their ideology. It is the year 2005 after all.
I went to Catholic school and we still took regular science/biology classes and learned about evolution, dinosaurs (and no, we did not learn that dinosaurs lived with humans :lol ).
I dunno but I think the position of the Vatican is that the Bible is not meant to be taken absolutely literally anyway.
In the next 30-50 years I think creationist types are just going to have their head explode as science/technology and our understanding of the universe grows. Just imagine them trying to explain how there is/was life on Mars, and NASA seems pretty confident its only a matter of time until we find definitive proof of that.
ElyrionX said:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html
"Despite many people's tendency to think of all creationists in one group and all evolutionists in another, "creationism" refers to a wide range of beliefs. This article gives a brief introduction to creationist positions. It tries to cover the breadth of creationist beliefs (and a little of the variety of evolutionist belief), but it gives little depth. In addition to the positions, it lists some influential people, organizations, books, and periodicals which espouse the positions. Interested readers may look up these references. Also, a section near the end gives suggestions for further reading.
The differences between types of creationism are not minor. Most of the creationist beliefs described below are mutually exclusive, and often their differences are as great as their differences with evolution. Many creationists disagree as much with other creationists as they do with evolutionists. Morris, for example, devotes the last 20% of his book Scientific Creationism to attacks on other forms of creationism (Morris 1985).
Part 1 of this article examines varieties of Christian Creationism, because Christianity in its various forms is by far the most prevalent religion in the United States. (Creationism in any form is a relatively minor force in other parts of the world.) Since creationism grades gradually into evolution, part 1 also considers evolutionary beliefs. Part 2 considers non-Christian creationism and some other views of origins. Creationist ideas through history and non-creationist anti-evolutionism are not covered here (but see the "Further Reading" section).
Part 1: The Creation/Evolution Continuum in Christian Creationism
Creation and evolution are not a dichotomy, but ends of a continuum (see figure), and most creationist and evolutionist positions may be fit along this continuum (Scott 1999). The successive steps labelled in the figure are described below.
* CREATION
o Flat Earthers
o Geocentrists
o Young Earth Creationists
+ (Omphalos)
o Old Earth Creationists
+ (Gap Creationism)
+ (Day-Age Creationism)
+ (Progressive Creationism)
+ (Intelligent Design Creationism)
o Evolutionary Creationists
o Theistic Evolutionists
o Methodological Materialistic Evolutionists
o Philosophical Materialistic Evolutionists
* EVOLUTION
Flat Earthers
Flat Earthers believe that the earth is flat and is covered by a solid dome or firmament. Waters above the firmament were the source of Noah's flood. This belief is based on a literal reading of the Bible, such as references to the "four corners of the earth" and the "circle of the earth." Few people hold this extreme view, but some do.
* International Flat Earth Society, Box 2533, Lancaster, CA.
Charles K. Johnson
Geocentrism
Geocentrists accept a spherical earth but deny that the sun is the center of the solar system or that the earth moves. As with flat-earth views, the water of Noah's flood came from above a solid firmament. The basis for their belief is a literal reading of the Bible. "It is not an interpretation at all, it is what the words say." (Willis 2000) Both flat-earthers and geocentrists reflect the cosmological views of ancient Hebrews. Geocentrism is not common today, but one geocentrist (Tom Willis) was intrumental in revising the Kansas elementary school curriculum to remove references to evolution, earth history, and science methodology.
* Biblical Astronomer, Cleveland, OH
http://www.biblicalastronomer.org/
Gerardus Bouw
* Creation Science Association for Mid-America, Cleveland, MO.
http://www.csama.org/
Tom Willis
Young-Earth Creationism
Young Earth Creationists (YEC) claim a literal interpretation of the Bible as a basis for their beliefs. They believe that the earth is 6000 to 10,000 years old, that all life was created in six literal days, that death and decay came as a result of Adam & Eve's Fall, and that geology must be interpreted in terms of Noah's Flood. However, they accept a spherical earth and heliocentric solar system. Young-Earth Creationists popularized the modern movement of scientific creationism by taking the ideas of George McCready Price, a Seventh Day Adventist, and publishing them in The Genesis Flood (Whitcomb & Morris 1961). YEC is probably the most influential brand of creationism today.
* Institute for Creation Research (ICR), El Cajon, CA.
http://www.icr.org/
Henry Morris (president emeritus), John D. Morris (president), Duane Gish, Steven A. Austin, Larry Vardiman, Kenneth B. Cumming, Andrew Snelling, ...
Whitcomb, John C. & Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia, PA, 1961)
Morris, Henry M., Scientific Creationism (Master Books, Green Forest, AR, 1974, 1985)
newsletter: Acts & Facts (includes Back to Genesis and Impact)
* Answers in Genesis (AIG), Florence, KY.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
Ken Ham
periodical: Creation Ex Nihilo
* Creation Research Society (CRS), St. Joseph, MO.
http://www.creationresearch.org/
D. Russell Humphreys, Wayne Friar, Donald B. DeYoung, Eugene F. Chaffin
periodical: Creation Research Society Quarterly
* Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL.
http://www.drdino.com/
Kent Hovind
* Carl Baugh
Creation Evidences Museum, Glen Rose, TX.
Omphalos
The Omphalos argument, first expounded in a book of that name by Philip Henry Gosse (1857), argues that the universe was created young but with the appearance of age, indeed that an appearance of age is necessary. This position appears in some contemporary young earth creationist writing. For example, Whitcomb & Morris (1961, p. 232) argue that earth's original soils were created appearing old. The position is sometimes satirized by suggesting that the universe was created last week with only an appearance of older history.
Old Earth Creationism
Old-Earth Creationists accept the evidence for an ancient earth but still believe that life was specially created by God, and they still base their beliefs on the Bible. There are a few different ways of accomodating their religion with science.
* American Scientific Affiliation, Ipswich, MA.
(This groups has mostly OEC members, but it doesn't turn away members and has some YEC and Theistic Evolutionist members, too.)
http://www.asa3.org/index.html
periodical: Perpsectives on Science and Christian Faith
Gap Creationism (also known as Restitution Creationism)
This view says that there was a long temporal gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, with God recreating the world in 6 days after the gap. This allows both an ancient earth and a Biblical special creation.
* Armstrong, Herbert W., Mystery of the Ages. Dodd, Mead, New York, 1985.
* Jimmy Swaggart
Day-Age Creationism
Day-age creationists interpret each day of creation as a long period of time, even thousands or millions of years. They see a parallel between the order of events presented in Genesis 1 and the order accepted by mainstream science. Day-Age Creationism was more popular than Gap Creationism in the 19th and and early 20th centuries.
* Anonymous, Life--How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or Creation? (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Booklyn, NY, 1985)
Progressive Creationism
Progressive Creationism is the most common Old-Earth Creationism view today. It accepts most of modern physical science, even viewing the Big Bang as evidence of the creative power of God, but rejects much of modern biology. Progressive Creationists generally believe that God created "kinds" of organisms sequentially, in the order seen in the fossil record, but say that the newer kinds are specially created, not genetically related to older kinds.
* Reasons To Believe, Pasadena, CA.
http://www.reasons.org/
Hugh Ross
Intelligent Design Creationism
Intelligent Design Creationism descended from Paley's argument that God's design could be seen in life (Paley 1803). Modern IDC still makes appeals to the complexity of life and so varies little from the substance of Paley's argument, but the arguments have become far more technical, delving into microbiology and mathematical logic.
In large part, Intelligent Design Creationism is used today as an umbrella anti-evolution position under which creationists of all flavors may unite in an attack on scientific methodology in general (CRSC, 1999). A common tenet of IDC is that all beliefs about evolution equate to philosophical materialism.
* Discovery Institute, Seattle, WA.,
Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC)
http://www.discovery.org/csc/
Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Paul Nelson, Jonathan Wells, Stephen C. Meyer.
periodical: Origins & Design
Behe, Michael, Darwin's Black Box (Free Press, NY, 1996)
Dembski, William, The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1998)
Johnson, Phillip, Reason in the Balance (Inter-Varsity, Downers Grove, IL, 1995)
* Davis, Percival & D. H. Kenyon, Of Pandas and People (Haughton, Dallas, TX, 1989)
Evolutionary Creationism
Evolutionary Creationism differs from Theistic Evolution only in its theology, not in its science. It says that God operates not in the gaps, but that nature has no existence independent of His will. It allows interpretations consistent with both a literal Genesis and objective science, allowing, for example, that the events of creation occurred, but not in time as we know it, and that Adam was not the first biological human but the first spiritually aware one.
* Schneider, Susan, 1984. Evolutionary creationism: Torah solves the problem of missing links.
http://www.orot.com/ec.html
Theistic Evolution
Theistic Evolution says that God creates through evolution. Theistic Evolutionists vary in beliefs about how much God intervenes in the process. It accepts most or all of modern science, but it invokes God for some things outside the realm of science, such as the creation of the human soul. This position is promoted by the Pope and taught at mainline Protestant seminaries.
* Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre, The Phenomenon of Man (HarperCollin, San Francisco, 1959, 1980)
Methodological Materialistic Evolution
Materialistic Evolution differs from Theistic Evolution in saying that God does not actively interfere with evolution. It is not necessarily atheistic, though; many Materialistic Evolutionists believe that God created evolution, for example. Materialistic evolution may be divided into methodological and philosophical materialism. Methodological materialism limits itself to describing the natural world with natural causes; it says nothing at all about the supernatural, neither affirming nor denying its existence or its role in life.
* Gould, Stephen J., Rock of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life (Ballantine Publishing Group, NY, 1999)
Philosophical Materialistic Evolution
Philosophical materialism says that the supernatural does not exist. It says that not only is evolution a natural process, but so is everything else.
* Richard Dawkins
* William Provine"
There's more at the link about non-religious creationism.
...
Instigator
Banned
soundwave05 said:
Since the majority of Creationists seem to be located in the good ol US of A and are of various protestant denominations, I don't think your liberal Catholic upbringing would impress them and it might just feed on their deep-rooted anti-Catholic bias. It just shows you the divide between Christians grows larger.
Oh, I think you're getting ahead of yourself and you do underestimate the power of faith. With a little imagination, I have no problem seeing how finding life, past or present, on other planets or moons would be immediately refuted by Creationists.
I can already see them claiming Earth probes polluted those alien worlds, that the samples got mishandled somehow, that maybe an asteroid hit our planet and a piece of Earth rock landed on another planet, that something that looks like fossilized bacteria is not definite proof of past life.
And that is assuming they would refuse to accept life on other planets. The book of Genesis can still be spun and it can argued that nothing in the Creation myth explicitly says God didn't create life on other planets. The Bible can not be blamed for men failing to see the 'real truth'. The entire universe doesn't revolve around the Earth as they used to think a few centuries ago and christianity is still alive and well. It's foolish to assume a concession of the same sort concerning extra-terrestrial life would somehow have a devastating blow on religion.
Heck, as this thread showed, the rebuttals from Creationists don't even have to half sound, so anything is possible really.
Hitokage said:
I wasn't aware of some rule called "quote mining", it wouldn't have made a speck of difference to me if I gave the source for the quote (even if I gave the direct reference), just to satisfy those people in the forum that are more concerned about making impressions of others rather than the actual discussion at hand. Everytime I read "Makes you look like..." you open up a can of pure subjectivity and nothing more, so I don't know why they are constantly spring forth.
I see that some people in these forums are confusing operational sciences with origins sciences. Operational sciences are the sciences that deal with observations that are possible today (advancing in biology, medicine, technology, etc.) and this requires the scientific method for repeatability and testing. Origins sciences are filled with unsubstantiated conjectures that cannot be tested via the scientific method, for example, how can anyone use the scientific method for something in the past (billions of years), the past already happened! How can you be testing the past whilst being in the present? What origins sciences try to do is to build models and do massive inductive work, this is where "preset conclusions" influence the scientist (the real word for this is presuppositions). Scientists allow what they assume to be true (that we live solely in a closed natural system) even though those things that they assume to be true can't be tested. If scientists want to prove that we are indeed governed only by virtue of natural occurences (closed system), they would have to prove that before they accept it to be true. But it seems that in 1927, scientists ran into a MAJOR problem in proving just that when Heisenberg (quantum mechanist) published his observations of the Uncertainty Principle.
"I see that some people in these forums are confusing operational sciences with origins sciences."
There is only one science and its only competition is the psuedo-science propoted by 'creation scientists'.
"Origins sciences are filled with unsubstantiated conjectures that cannot be tested via the scientific method..."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe
""Evolution has never been observed."
Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.
The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.
Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.
What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution."
""preset conclusions" influence the scientist"
I would love to know what the source/s of the alleged "preset conclusions" are? Is it the fact that you don't share your faith in a book myths and fairytales (one of many)? Or is their 'preset conclusion' that they only consider what they can observe and test?
"If scientists want to prove that we are indeed governed only by virtue of natural occurences (closed system), they would have to prove that before they accept it to be true. But it seems that in 1927, scientists ran into a MAJOR problem in proving just that when Heisenberg (quantum mechanist) published his observations of the Uncertainty Principle"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html
Too long to post.
There is only one science and its only competition is the psuedo-science propoted by 'creation scientists'.
"Origins sciences are filled with unsubstantiated conjectures that cannot be tested via the scientific method..."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe
""Evolution has never been observed."
Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.
The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.
Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.
What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution."
""preset conclusions" influence the scientist"
I would love to know what the source/s of the alleged "preset conclusions" are? Is it the fact that you don't share your faith in a book myths and fairytales (one of many)? Or is their 'preset conclusion' that they only consider what they can observe and test?
"If scientists want to prove that we are indeed governed only by virtue of natural occurences (closed system), they would have to prove that before they accept it to be true. But it seems that in 1927, scientists ran into a MAJOR problem in proving just that when Heisenberg (quantum mechanist) published his observations of the Uncertainty Principle"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance/chance.html
Too long to post.
This is a popular logical fallacy known as Fallacy of the Excluded MiddleJeffahn said:
You shouldn't be surprised that in real life, it is absolutely impossible to observe a process which takes billions of years, such as a molecule-to-man process, but this is only common sense.
You falsely used "Evolution has never been observed" as an example that I would endorse to make my point of "unsubstantiated conjectures that cannot be observed", this is a strawman. Most people equate natural selection with evolution but the word evolution itself is questionable since some people use that word interchangeably between fish-to-philosopher evolution and simple changes like the beaks in Darwin's famous finches. People like to make the extraordinary claim that "because the beaks vary in sizes given the environmental pressures (p), then, molecule-to-man evolution is true (q)". Some people that I've talked to make those "leap of faith" sort of conclusions. I am not saying you do, but, I just want to show that the word evolution has been utterly abused.
You missed my point. I was talking about the philosophical principle of presuppositions that people have that influence their way of interpretting matters.
Half life testing (if we stick to the dinosaur thing for the time being) measures the half life of isotopes in the dinosaur fossil determining an approximate age dependant on decay. This is an observational fact. If we're talking about astronomical terms, there are computers tracking the heavens as we speak collecting data and along with our understanding of physics (again based on observation and testing) this can be used to create extremely advanced simulations of our Solar System, Milky Way or indeed the Universe and track both forward and backward in time. The more data we collect, the more we observe, the more accurate the simulations become.
geogaddi said:
Ummmm... why?
The whole Creationist argument is that 'something' or 'someone' had a hand in shaping the past. That there's absolutely no proof of this seems to be beside the point to them. As scientists in the here and now empirical/proven evidence evidence and observation is all we have to go on. Its a solid, logical basis from which to argue from. To say its up to us to prove your whacko theory wrong is beyond ridiculous, since from what I've read, any and all scientific proof is ignored and what isn't is miraculously explained by Bible spin. By the same token I could say that He-Man and the Masters of the Universe killed off all the dinosaurs and its up to the Creationists to prove otherwise. And would they? Would they fuck.
geogaddi said:
It's not a logical fallacy because I'm debating your apparent creationist stance. I say apparent becuase I've find it difficult to determine your position on the issue. Am I arguing evolution vs. creationism with you, or is it something else?
Do you want all the evidence on this? All 150 years worth? Thousands upon thousands of scientific papers and links to hundreds of websites? Before you say 'Yes', consider the following:
99.985% of scientists support evolution, including those who can reconcile it with their religion.
No strawman on my part, nice to yours dressed in his Sunday best though.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
Again, what is the source of this supposed presupposition? Is it some kind of demonic possession? I'm guess that you think they should have the same suppositions you have developed as a result of your faith.
...
refreshZ said:
About half-life, you mustn't leave out the questionable assumption that radioactive decay rates have always been constant. Nuclear Physicist Dr. Russel Humphrey suggests that decay rates were once faster, on the basis of radiohalo analysis . Remember that we have only tested decay rates for only about 100 years, yet, many evangelical evolutionists are convinced that it has to be true that decay rates were always constant. Let me inform you that there are even scientists that are not creationists that have challenged the idea that decay rates have always been consistent.
About the second point of astronomy, I have reiterate that no matter how much data we can collect, we still have to interpret the data! People have this crazy idea that scientists are absolute neutral data interpreting machines. Quite frankly, there are scientists that have made a priori commitments and they allow these commitments (presuppositions) to influence their interpretation of data. Everyone has presuppositions and the problem is that many ardent molecule-to-man evolutionists don't bother in examining their presuppositions before they begin to interpret matters. I am about to drop from this thread for being such a parrot about this.
...
geogaddi said:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#creacrit
"2. Claims that the assumptions of a method may be violated
Certain requirements are involved with all radiometric dating methods. These generally include constancy of decay rate and lack of contamination (gain or loss of parent or daughter isotope). Creationists often attack these requirements as "unjustified assumptions," though they are really neither "unjustified" nor "assumptions" in most cases.
2.1 Constancy of radioactive decay rates.
Rates of radiometric decay (the ones relevant to radiometric dating) are thought to be based on rather fundamental properties of matter, such as the probability per unit time that a certain particle can "tunnel" out of the nucleus of the atom. The nucleus is well-insulated and therefore is relatively immune to larger-scale effects such as pressure or temperature.
Significant changes to rates of radiometric decay of isotopes relevant to geological dating have never been observed under any conditions. Emery (1972) is a comprehensive survey of experimental results and theoretical limits on variation of decay rates. Note that the largest changes reported by Emery are both irrelevant (they do not involve isotopes or modes of decay used for this FAQ), and minuscule (decay rate changed by of order 1%) compared to the change needed to compress the apparent age of the Earth into the young-Earthers' timescale.
A short digression on mechanisms for radioactive decay, taken from <CK47LK.E2J@ucdavis.edu> by Steve Carlip (subsequently edited in response to Steve's request):
For the case of alpha decay, [...] the simple underlying mechanism is quantum mechanical tunneling through a potential barrier. You will find a simple explanation in any elementary quantum mechanics textbook; for example, Ohanion's Principles of Quantum Mechanics has a nice example of alpha decay on page 89. The fact that the process is probabilistic, and the exponential dependence on time, are straightforward consequences of quantum mechanics. (The time dependence is a case of "Fermi's golden rule" --- see, for example, page 292 of Ohanion.)
An exact computation of decay rates is, of course, much more complicated, since it requires a detailed understanding of the shape of the potential barrier. In principle, this is computable from quantum chromodynamics, but in practice the computation is much too complex to be done in the near future. There are, however, reliable approximations available, and in addition the shape of the potential can be measured experimentally.
For beta decay, the underlying fundamental theory is different; one begins with electroweak theory (for which Glashow, Weinberg and Salam won their Nobel prize) rather than quantum chromodynamics.
As described above, the process of radioactive decay is predicated on rather fundamental properties of matter. In order to explain old isotopic ages on a young Earth by means of accelerated decay, an increase of six to ten orders of magnitude in rates of decay would be needed (depending on whether the acceleration was spread out over the entire pre-Flood period, or accomplished entirely during the Flood).
Such a huge change in fundamental properties would have plenty of noticeable effects on processes other than radioactive decay (taken from <16381@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> by Steve Carlip):
So there has been a lot of creative work on how to look for evidence of such changes.
A nice (technical) summary is given by Sisterna and Vucetich (1991) . Among the phenomena they look at are:
* searches for changes in the radius of Mercury, the Moon, and Mars (these would change because of changes in the strength of interactions within the materials that they are formed from);
* searches for long term ("secular") changes in the orbits of the Moon and the Earth --- measured by looking at such diverse phenomena as ancient solar eclipses and coral growth patterns;
* ranging data for the distance from Earth to Mars, using the Viking spacecraft;
* data on the orbital motion of a binary pulsar PSR 1913+16;
* observations of long-lived isotopes that decay by beta decay (Re 187, K 40, Rb 87) and comparisons to isotopes that decay by different mechanisms;
* the Oklo natural nuclear reactor (mentioned in another posting);
* experimental searches for differences in gravitational attraction between different elements (Eotvos-type experiments);
* absorption lines of quasars (fine structure and hyperfine splittings);
* laboratory searches for changes in the mass difference between the K0 meson and its antiparticle.
While it is not obvious, each of these observations is sensitive to changes in the physical constants that control radioactive decay. For example, a change in the strength of weak interactions (which govern beta decay) would have different effects on the binding energy, and therefore the gravitational attraction, of different elements. Similarly, such changes in binding energy would affect orbital motion, while (more directly) changes in interaction strengths would affect the spectra we observe in distant stars.
The observations are a mixture of very sensitive laboratory tests, which do not go very far back in time but are able to detect extremely small changes, and astronomical observations, which are somewhat less precise but which look back in time. (Remember that processes we observe in a star a million light years away are telling us about physics a million years ago.) While any single observation is subject to debate about methodology, the combined results of such a large number of independent tests are hard to argue with.
The overall result is that no one has found any evidence of changes in fundamental constants, to an accuracy of about one part in 1011 per year.
To summarize: both experimental evidence and theoretical considerations preclude significant changes to rates of radioactive decay. The limits placed are somewhere between ten and twenty orders of magnitude below the changes which would be necessary to accommodate the apparent age of the Earth within the young-Earth timescale (by means of accelerated decay).
2.2 Contamination may have occurred.
This is addressed in the most detail in the Isochron Dating FAQ , for all of the methods discussed in the "age of the Earth" part of this FAQ are isochron (or equivalent) methods, which have a check built in that detect most forms of contamination.
It is true that some dating methods (e.g., K-Ar and carbon-14) do not have a built-in check for contamination, and if there has been contamination these methods will produce a meaningless age. For this reason, the results of such dating methods are not treated with as much confidence.
Also, similarly to item (1) above, pleas to contamination do not address the fact that radiometric results are nearly always in agreement with old-Earth expectations. If the methods were producing completely "haywire" results essentially at random, such a pattern of concordant results would not be expected."
Well lets just interpret it according to the Bible! Or better yet why not the writing on the packet of marshmallows sitting next to me! I think I'll call my new field of science...uh...back-of-packet-of-marshmallows science, and I I'll be the first ever back-of-packet-of-marshmallows-ist!
I'm still not clear on when or how you think scientists allegedly lose their neutrality? Watching cartoon shorts? Heavy petting? Playing Zelda? Oh wait, it was so obvious, it was when they stopped going to church! Your presumptions are clearly faith-based and that is where we differ, so don't try to lump me in with your lot.
Well, firstly, you're a bit late with this because that link is dated about 2 years before the link I provided and all of that material has been addressed and refuted. Anyways here's the original response to Ashby Camp:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html
I think you'll be interested in this extract from the above:
" Mr. Camp's critique is error-ridden in various ways, and is primarily characterized by:
1. Straw man arguments
2. Red herrings
3. Self-contradictions
4. Equivocation
5. Two wrongs make a right
6. Fallacies of accident and converse accident
7. Ignoratio elenchi
8. Naive theological assumptions
9. Insufficient knowledge of basic biology, molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics
10. Misunderstanding of the scientific method
11. Forwarding of untestable competing "hypotheses"
12. Mischaracterization of evolutionary theory
13. Misleading mis-quotes
14. Fallacies of accent
15. Distortion of scientific controversies
16. Arguments from authority
17. False analogies"
Secondly, about 'trueorigins', don't you find it odd that they don't have a link to talkorigins (or any other pro-evolution websites) while talkorigins have a link to them (and many other creationist/ID websites)? And why don't they have a forum or a newsgroup? Is it maybe because they fear an open debate?
...
Rob said:
Cool, this is basically the theory I subscribe to as well.
It's nice to see that not all Christians are completely batshit insane...if that makes me intolerant of other viewpoints, fine, but I think of it more as being intolerant of ignorance. Nothing wrong with that, imo. kablooey said:Cool, this is basically the theory I subscribe to as well.
By his description, he's not really a Christian at all, but rather a Deist.
So, back to Christians being batshit insane.
Not to be prodding. I'm just curious..
Why do you believe that he created the Earth? What about the rest of the universe? Do you think God created just the Earth in a separate framework? Why not just take the most convenient stance and say God created everything that we know (or, at least, the beginnings of)?Rob said:
Not to be prodding. I'm just curious..
Jeffahn said:
Why not summarize all of that in terms both you and I can understand, until then (because I am confident you don't understand 1/5 of what you quoted) this is just an all-too typical elephant hurl.
Poking fun of the existance of presuppositions doesn't invalidate it! Nice try though.
geogaddi said:
Thats rich coming from someone who posted a link to a Creationist study on Radiohalos. Maybe you should go first.
geogaddi said:
If any one group 'presupposes' anything its Creationists. You have the gall to blithely discredit many hundreds, even thousands of vastly learned individuals who enrich our understanding of the Universe we live in with their hard work, insight and subsequent breakthroughs by naively stating that the foundations of our understanding are based on some shared, biased, science-centric fallacy? Take a long hard look at yourself and realise the depth of your hypocrisy because its stunning in its completeness.
geogaddi said:
1. The principles behind and the reliability of various scientific dating methods have been repeatedly tested (against each other and other scientific knowledge and principles, for example the fossil record, where applicable) and proved to near absolute certainty.
2. Multiple independent dating methods are always used as far as possible.
It's not my problem you can't understand what was posted when it was only in response to your statments questioning the established scientific dating methods, and that I had previously stated I was loathe to post reams of text (mainly 'cox most people won't read that much).
Well, I note that you still haven't stated the exact nature and cause of these alleged presuppositions, so what exactly is there to poke fun at? Unless...could it be...that scientists are born with a gene that...makes them presuppose that they can only believe in what they can observe and test? Not unlike the 'religious gene' which was in the news recently.
...
Do The Mario
Unconfirmed Member
I think its a bit rich that geodaddi the man with no Biological qualifications sits there spraying what boarders on scientific lies. Why dont you try providing evidence of creationism rather then disprove a theory adopted by every credible university in the world?
Also
I will repeat this question
Geodaddi if we are created in gods image how come hominids like
Homo erectus
Homo neanderthalaensis
Homo heidelbergensis
Look like much like us and are not mentioned in the bible?
Also
I will repeat this question
Geodaddi if we are created in gods image how come hominids like
Homo erectus
Homo neanderthalaensis
Homo heidelbergensis
Look like much like us and are not mentioned in the bible?
So-called Biblical Literalists have a rather twisted interpretation of the cosmology implied by the Hebrew Bible. A good overview of the cosmology of Genesis is summarized in the following picture from the New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition:
For instance, Biblical literalists ignore the fact the earth was imagined to be covered by a translucent, hard dome (like an inverted bowl), which is translated as the firmament in the KJV of the Bible (see Gen 1:6-8). The Hebrew word for firmament is raqia, which gives the sense of something metal that is hard and hammered out. For instance, the Hebrew verb raqa which is used in Exodus 39:3 to described gold leaf being beaten out is very likely related to raqia (see http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1969/JASA3-69Seely.html for more examples of this). In the Hebrew Targum it also says that the raqia is three fingers thick, which would imply it was solid. Furthermore, the raqia separates out the waters of the deep (Gen 1:7), so it must be hard in order to hold up the waters above the earth. Gen 7:11 describes the windows of heaven being opened to flood the earth - the ancients imagined that the firmament could be opened by God to let the oceans above the earth in.
Literalists try to get around this by translating the word raqia as "expanse"; although the word has the sense of something that is spread out, this translation alone ignores the hardness of the firmament which was implied by the verb raqa used in other parts of the Hebrew Bible and ancient interpretations, one of which I mentioned above. Some young earth creationists imagine that the earth was surrounded by a vapor canopy prior to the flood; aside from the scientific problems with this idea, it contradicts Genesis 1:14-16 which puts the sun, moon and stars in the firmament, under the oceans above the firmament. Moreover, as I stated above the waters above the earth were imagined to be supported by something solid. They also weren't imagined to be vapor, but part of the primeval ocean of Gen 1:2.
For instance, Biblical literalists ignore the fact the earth was imagined to be covered by a translucent, hard dome (like an inverted bowl), which is translated as the firmament in the KJV of the Bible (see Gen 1:6-8). The Hebrew word for firmament is raqia, which gives the sense of something metal that is hard and hammered out. For instance, the Hebrew verb raqa which is used in Exodus 39:3 to described gold leaf being beaten out is very likely related to raqia (see http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1969/JASA3-69Seely.html for more examples of this). In the Hebrew Targum it also says that the raqia is three fingers thick, which would imply it was solid. Furthermore, the raqia separates out the waters of the deep (Gen 1:7), so it must be hard in order to hold up the waters above the earth. Gen 7:11 describes the windows of heaven being opened to flood the earth - the ancients imagined that the firmament could be opened by God to let the oceans above the earth in.
Literalists try to get around this by translating the word raqia as "expanse"; although the word has the sense of something that is spread out, this translation alone ignores the hardness of the firmament which was implied by the verb raqa used in other parts of the Hebrew Bible and ancient interpretations, one of which I mentioned above. Some young earth creationists imagine that the earth was surrounded by a vapor canopy prior to the flood; aside from the scientific problems with this idea, it contradicts Genesis 1:14-16 which puts the sun, moon and stars in the firmament, under the oceans above the firmament. Moreover, as I stated above the waters above the earth were imagined to be supported by something solid. They also weren't imagined to be vapor, but part of the primeval ocean of Gen 1:2.
Yes. The answer is yes.
Go ahead and triumph in your numbers.
I apologize for ignoring your posts (especially the fact that you ask that question for the 3rd time I believe), its just that most people here have already made up their minds about what to believe (specifically on the presuppositonal level, though they uphold the virtue of "openmindedness", but will fight to death to maintain their presupposition that naturalism/materialism is all their is), so, I try to limit my responses to those that I believe that are not arguing for the sake of arguing but for the sake of fulfilling their epistemic duty, by virtue of critically examining one's highly embedded motivations, and not merely buying into things that are comfortable with one's worldview and rejecting those things that threaten the worldview.
Let me point out what I think are myths that I find in this thread.
Myth #1
Scientists are neutral in their position.
This is a huge misconception, it is epistemological impossible for a scientist to be neutral, no matter how hard she tries. Side note: W.V.O. Quine and Richard Rorty's metaepistemological skepticism has been dismissed and hammered down by contemporary philosophers (the problem of making normative statements under metaepistemological skepticism/hard naturalized epistemology)
Myth #2
It is possible for one to not have presuppositions (which influence interpretation of things that occur in reality)
Anyone with properly functioning noetic equipment (intellectual faculties) have pre-suppositions organized in their minds [since childhood] (see Warrant and Proper Function). If skeptical about presuppositions, do your own research.
Myth #3
Data as is is sufficient for one to find the truth about reality.
Follow these premises which i believe to be true, and then how it refutes that myth.
(p) Data without any minds to evaluate it is worthless
comment: This is true, a mind is necesarry to do the evaluation
(q) Minds have presuppositions that influence one's interpretations
comment: Pre-suppositions do exist in minds and do influence one's interpretation. (before this premise is attacked, make sure you understand the nature of the premise).
(r) There are minds that evaluate data
comment: Scientists use various tools like scientific method, by virtue of their minds to evaluate data
So,
p^q^r => (conclusion) Data is interpreted by minds that evaluate it with presuppositions.
If this conclusion is true then we can say that the interpretation of data is influenced by presuppositions. Some presuppositions could be (1) Materialism/Naturalism is all there is (2) Numbers exist (3) We know something when its justified true belief (4) Properties exist/not exist (5) Trust our noetic equipment as being reliable (6) Have an epistemic duty to reject invalid things but to accept valid things, among others.
Some people might be surprised to know that the interpretation of information is mind-driven and not driven by virtue of other information independent of the mind (people forget this!), in other words, it is not possible for information to interpret other information without a mind. This is a basic philosophical principle. Most people just miss this important common-sense maxim.
-----------
Also, it shouldn't be a surprise to know that most people actually hang on their presuppositions out of sheer faith (surprise! even Nobel-prize winning scientists). For instance, ask yourself if you have any sensible reasons to believe that naturalism/materialism is all there is, then, ask yourself why your reason is sensible. On what grounds did you decide that that is how it ought to be? If one has no sensible reasons to believe that naturalism/materialism is true, then faith is driving the presupposition. Don't dimiss this as pure crap without entertaining the thought that it could probably be true, please. Do it in the name of epistemic duty.
-----------
Going back to you Do The Mario, YEC creationists would claim that Homo erectus,
Homo neanderthalaensis, Homo heidelbergensis are 100% human. An evolutionist, doing the logical outworking of what they were taught (something one can't hold him against) would immediately think of them as being not exactly totally human. This might show how much the evolutionary way of thinking influences how one interprets "evidence" (alleged evidence, that is).
I will drop out of this conversation (see image).
geogaddi said:
Yes. The answer is yes.
Go ahead and triumph in your numbers.
I apologize for ignoring your posts (especially the fact that you ask that question for the 3rd time I believe), its just that most people here have already made up their minds about what to believe (specifically on the presuppositonal level, though they uphold the virtue of "openmindedness", but will fight to death to maintain their presupposition that naturalism/materialism is all their is), so, I try to limit my responses to those that I believe that are not arguing for the sake of arguing but for the sake of fulfilling their epistemic duty, by virtue of critically examining one's highly embedded motivations, and not merely buying into things that are comfortable with one's worldview and rejecting those things that threaten the worldview.
I haven't made up my my mind to believe anything -I know what the truth is based on my own (and others) tests and observations. You have faith in a book written by your fellow men, and the preachings of your fellow men; and this is the basis for your presuppositions. i'm alright with you labelling me as having a naturalistic/materialistic presupposition, because this is what the scientific method is based on, and many can reconcile this with their religious beliefs. So lets for a minute discard the naturalistic/materialistic scientific method, where do we go from here? Well, we have to choose a religion, so should we roll the dice, or base our decision on our presuppositions? How about examining the assorted creation stories of the the various religions? Might you favour the 100's of billions of years old of the Hindu faith? Perhaps, an aboriginal amazonian tribe's belief that the Earth and the rest of the solar system are the result of the bodily functions of divine cosmic monkeys? Don't suppose any of this would require presupposition of any sort though.
Rather fancy way of trying to say you believe that the scientific community is orchestrating a clandestine conspiracy to destoy all forms of religious belief. Well, the creationist/ID movement has yet provide any proof of this so I think it's safe to say that you certainly don't have any either.
Ok, so what you're actually trying to say is that the 99.985% of scientists who accept evolution are just a bit potty? Interesting position, yet, again, I doubt you have any proof and think your statement gives us a pretty clear indication of who the potty one is.
Well, your first problem is that your whole argument collapses when you realise that you might actually have to apply same methodogical critique to your own ways of thinking and then realise that your little flowchart has little value other than lead you onto a perpetual philosophical merry-go-round, with the only way to get off being to adopt the naturalistic/materialistic presupposition you despise so much and try to reconcile it with your faith (assuming you still believe in your faith).
It is no surprise that people maintain their belief in naturalism/materialism when it is all they have observed and been able to test, not to say that it's impossible for them to still have a religious faith. The sensible reason many people reject supernaturalism is that it remains unobserved and and is untestable. *remainder dismissed as crap*
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
Summary: none of the specimens listed are 100% human as per the creationist claims.
...
geogaddi: Operational Science, Origin Science, Macroevolution, Microevolution.... all bullshit labels used by creationists such as yourself to cherry pick the inoffensive from the plethora of scientific research while ignoring that which threatens your core, unquestionable belief: the bible is literal inerrant truth. I'm amused you have the gall to dictate the terms of discussion here. You don't even know what the scientific method is, or you'd know you had just labeled historians, archaeologists, and forensic anthropologists as all unscientific in your post. After all, there's no possible way we could ever find out how somebody died.. because nobody was there, right?
You dodged my accusation of following dogma earlier, and I'm not letting you get away with it. You sit in your ivory tower completely shut out from the outside world yet you insist you can still say what goes on in it, and furthermore excuse yourself from any wrongdoing because supposedly scientists are either guilty of the same crime or simply persecuting you. Look, you know and I know it doesn't matter what I say, because to you... any information that disagrees with your complete and unquestionable worldview is automatically false. Until you stop parroting apologism and actually STUDY science(and I do NOT mean the latest faith-promoting tome), you are banned from making ANY posts in ANY science related thread ever again.
You dodged my accusation of following dogma earlier, and I'm not letting you get away with it. You sit in your ivory tower completely shut out from the outside world yet you insist you can still say what goes on in it, and furthermore excuse yourself from any wrongdoing because supposedly scientists are either guilty of the same crime or simply persecuting you. Look, you know and I know it doesn't matter what I say, because to you... any information that disagrees with your complete and unquestionable worldview is automatically false. Until you stop parroting apologism and actually STUDY science(and I do NOT mean the latest faith-promoting tome), you are banned from making ANY posts in ANY science related thread ever again.
Do The Mario
Unconfirmed Member
Hitokage said:
You got a tag for having a go at Geodaddi and so did I when I was in your position back in the last evolution thread.
The truth is out there!!
Do The Mario
Unconfirmed Member
Hitokage said:Uh, I happen to be in a position where I set my own tags.
I just coped a bad tag after accusing Geodaddi of being ignorant for having no biological education and coming out and saying scientifically proven facts were not possible (genetic mutation was one of them IIRC).
I was thinking there was some kind of Creationist mod agenda.
*Que Twilight zone music
Do The Mario
Unconfirmed Member
Hitokage said:
Wasnt I partly right in the microwaved ants thread?
I think most people bagged me about the cold spot theory (which IIRC got told to me 1st year uni) when talking about ant behaviour, but google proved I was partly correct. There were also physics nuts talking about the Ants heat sink which I wasnt overly familiar with.
Do The Mario
Unconfirmed Member
Hitokage said:*shrug*
At least you looked stuff up.
Well just look up the thread for the most part I was right, there was also the matter of the ants effective heat sink that allowed them time to find cold spots. I just stated they used cold spots to survive in the microwave.
However in the wild an ants nest (depending on the species) is heated by a continuous cycle of ants moving from the outside which heats the nest then back out. But then the heat gain from the ground/sun is different to that of the microwave.
Mr. Bigglesworth
Member
Clone the bastard things and then let them loose on all the bible bashers.
"Where's your God now?", I'll shout as the T-Rex eats them all up.
Oh yeah.
"Where's your God now?", I'll shout as the T-Rex eats them all up.
Oh yeah.
Hitokage said:
Very, very loaded assumptions there. How are you to tell if I've studied science sufficiently so that I can post science-related posts? This is a blatant argumentum ad baculum.
I didn't dodge your accusation; You accused me of throwing out testability, which is something I would never endorse, I had a hunch you just weren't understanding how presuppositions play a necessary role in interpreting the data. Instead of assuming that I don't know the scientific method and making other charges, why not ask or challenge me? In other words, shouldn't you test out your assumptions? If one doesn't, then one resorts to one's mere subjective impressions.
I value respect amongst people involved in debates and there is no reason to appeal to force by virtue of disagreements in mere premises; I've granted you your say, but cheap shots like these say something more about your epistemic duty rather than my apparent "trolling" (if thats what you think I am blatantly doing).
I wasn't going to contribute to this thread anymore but somehow, I get punished at the end of the rope.
"It is the mark of an educated
mind to be able to entertain a
thought without accepting it."
Aristotle
happyfunball
Member
geogaddi, do you know the entire process required for data to be considered scientific fact? Are you a scientist?
In order for data to be even considered for publication it must be interpreted by a number of scientists all with different preconceived notions of what is correct. Also, the problem with your argument that scientific explanations of things are tainted by inherent human bias is that the data ALMOST NEVER comes out the way expected initially by the scientist. The healthy part of that is that now we must question the accuracy of everything we know before that. I can imagine that there is very little questioning of the Bible in creationist theory.
And good god, if you are going to quote an article to argue your point, DO NOT quote one which only uses creationist journals as it's references.
In order for data to be even considered for publication it must be interpreted by a number of scientists all with different preconceived notions of what is correct. Also, the problem with your argument that scientific explanations of things are tainted by inherent human bias is that the data ALMOST NEVER comes out the way expected initially by the scientist. The healthy part of that is that now we must question the accuracy of everything we know before that. I can imagine that there is very little questioning of the Bible in creationist theory.
And good god, if you are going to quote an article to argue your point, DO NOT quote one which only uses creationist journals as it's references.
geogaddi said:
"You accused me of throwing out testability, which is something I would never endorse..."
Please state exactly how you test and/or falsify Supernaturalism.
"...you just weren't understanding how presuppositions play a necessary role in interpreting the data."
Please describe these presuppositions and how they affect the interpretation of data, in relation to both evolutionary scientists and creationist/ID proponents.
...
"You accused me of throwing out testability, which is something I would never endorse..."
Please state exactly how you test and/or falsify Supernaturalism.
"...you just weren't understanding how presuppositions play a necessary role in interpreting the data."
Please describe these presuppositions and how they affect the interpretation of data, in relation to both evolutionary scientists and creationist/ID proponents.
...
It'll show quite clearly.geogaddi said:
Do you even understand logic or do you enjoy throwing out "fallacies" whenever words match up? I'm not arguing a point. I'm an admin. I'm telling you I'm banning you because of said reasons.
You spent several posts doing so.
Why assume when you shout it out as loud as you can? The fact that you haven't any idea what you are talking about is OBVIOUS in your case.
I'm not saying you're a troll. I'm saying you're a completely uneducated dogmatist, and one I don't want to waste any more of my time on.
Hitokage said:
Here is the logic;
What are my prior actions?
- Much disagreement with your philosophy of science
What happens to me for doing such a horrid thing?
- I am forced to stop posting science-related premises that are in disagreement with your philosophy of science and IF I DON'T, I get banned
I don't know how else to put it, this is appeal to force. I enjoy modest debating and the flexing of mind muscle, not pointing out logical fallacies for the sake of pointing them out and dealing with appeals to force.
You have to give an example. The theme I have mostly majored in is that scientific data/evidence is constantly being interpretted by presuppositions that are not always entirely testable (like naturalism/materialism is all there is, properties exist, numbers exist (Fibonacci numbers), our sense experience is reliable, states of affairs, porpositional attitudes, etc.). Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty is key in challenging the presupposition that naturalism/materialism is all there is. Many here aren't digesting this because they themselves are presupposing that I have to be wrong since I hold a particular philosophical position that is not in favor with theirs and that it challenges their foundation for their worldview.
I'll give an example on how this is true from one the biggest atheistic, molecule-to-man evolution-supporting online communities, Infidels.org ;
Source
Notice that science needs to construct from facts (concepts, principles, conclusion). The article says that science builds up a faith on these observable facts and if the faith is challenged then science needs to go back to those observable facts to see if their faith was justified by it. Most people forget that science is always in the process of doing just that, so, if molecule-to-man evolution is being challenged, then this is a good thing, not a bad thing. Let it be challenged by its creationist detractors so that science can go back to its concepts, principles and conclusions and see if those facts are still valid.
As the article discussed, certain biases influence the way they are doing inferences from those facts (concepts, principles, conclusions), afterall, it is the human mind that is doing the inferences from those observable and testable facts, not the observable and testable facts themselves.
I can't believe these "debates" go on so long. People who believe in the "prime mover" idea of a god that created the universe and then let it roll at least seem to have reconciled reality with their irrational beliefs. People who believe in Biblical-style Creationism are idiots. It really is that simple. To ignore all evidence of reality in favor of a comforting fairy tale is idiocy defined. Wake the hell up.
- Status