The Big Think Creationism debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-08-2013, 06:24 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
My great aunt Ruth is older than 6000 years jk
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BrokenQuill92's post
23-08-2013, 06:48 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(23-08-2013 06:09 PM)excubitor Wrote:  
(23-08-2013 05:46 PM)Chas Wrote:  However, your facts are incomplete. The facts that place stars light years away from us are verified independently by many observers and by many different kinds of observation. Your knowledge is very limited and your model flawed.

You are also assuming that an ancient book, unsupported by fact, contains truths about the universe that are disprovable and disproven.

You are welcome to live in your little world, but you will convince no one here that it is rational.
Which observers? How independent were they? How did they verify that the stars were man light years away? Can you confirm these observations for yourself? Why do you believe their testimony? How is my knowledge limited and my model flawed?
Which teachings of the scripture are disproved and how are they disproved? You are just spouting out semantics. Not good enough.

You don't seem to understand evidence or theory.

However, I make my own observations and they are consistent with other reported observations. I use a quite large telescope and have observed from the much larger telescopes in university observatories, including using a spectrometer.

Have you ever observed the Ring Nebula? The Andromeda Galaxy? The Trapezium in Orion?
No, I didn't think so.

I also think you don't know the meaning of the word 'semantics' since you just used it to make a syntactically correct but semantically anomalous statement. Dodgy

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2013, 07:09 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(23-08-2013 06:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-08-2013 06:01 PM)excubitor Wrote:  Evolution has been falsified a thousand times and does not die because it is itself not a falsifiable scientific system. It is a philosophical belief every bit as much as ID is.

No, it hasn't. Not once. Please present a peer-reviewed citation.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/new...30221.html
(23-08-2013 06:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-08-2013 06:01 PM)excubitor Wrote:  The difference between the two systems is probability. Evolution is highly improbable to the point of absurdity. The junkyard tornado analogy demonstrates this.

This merely shows your lack of understanding of cumulative change.
I am talking about the probability of evolution not the process.

(23-08-2013 06:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-08-2013 06:01 PM)excubitor Wrote:  The improbability of the simplest living cell being constructed by natural forces in the environment is so ridiculously improbable which therefore indicates that ID is the most probable system.

Ditto. You do not understand the mechanism. At all.
Perhaps you think that you know the mechanism better than Michael Behe.
He was one of your evolution buddies until he looked into the incredible complexity of the simplest cell. You know nothing compared to him. He actually went into his study to understand the chemical processes by which a cell might be formed. What he discovered was astonishing. The simplest cell more complex and intricate than a small city.

(23-08-2013 06:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-08-2013 06:01 PM)excubitor Wrote:  In actual fact, Evolution is not a science at all, it is a pseudo-science or a philosophy. Philosophies are deductive and cannot be absolutely proven, but measures of probability are important aspects of deducing truth. If probability is considered then the probability that the simplest cell was designed by a superior intelligence approaches certainty every bit as much as the existence of a Boeing 747 demands an intelligent designer.

The mechanisms of biology do not look designed, they look jerry-built.
Do you have a peer reviewed journal to support this contention?
I can't see the workings inside a simple cell but I can see a human eye, and it does not look jerry-built to me.

(23-08-2013 06:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-08-2013 06:01 PM)excubitor Wrote:  Some people call this philosophy or pseudo-science or some other disparing title. I just call it common sense.

Your common sense is shallow. Look more deeply into the reality of the natural world.
You mean like Michael Behe did.
If you did not like the term common sense then try the Universal Plausibility Metric.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Universal-Plau...id=3893421
Evolution fails this metric everywhere you look. All this proves is that evolution is not a falsifiable scientific method at all, because every time is falsified or fails the UPM the diehard tragics, the atheistic evolutionists, continue to believe and teach it.

Grow up. The world is moving on. Science's house of cards is tottering in the winds which are building with every passing year. No wonder you are in a panic
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2013, 07:15 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(23-08-2013 07:09 PM)excubitor Wrote:  Do you have a peer reviewed journal to support this contention?
I can't see the workings inside a simple cell but I can see a human eye, and it does not look jerry-built to me.

I'll let Chas school you on your other points but if you can't watch this and still believe that animals are 'well designed.'

National ****ing Geographic (not some ass backwards pseudo science website):




Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2013, 07:18 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(23-08-2013 06:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-08-2013 06:09 PM)excubitor Wrote:  Which observers? How independent were they? How did they verify that the stars were man light years away? Can you confirm these observations for yourself? Why do you believe their testimony? How is my knowledge limited and my model flawed?
Which teachings of the scripture are disproved and how are they disproved? You are just spouting out semantics. Not good enough.

You don't seem to understand evidence or theory.

However, I make my own observations and they are consistent with other reported observations. I use a quite large telescope and have observed from the much larger telescopes in university observatories, including using a spectrometer.

Have you ever observed the Ring Nebula? The Andromeda Galaxy? The Trapezium in Orion?
No, I didn't think so.

I also think you don't know the meaning of the word 'semantics' since you just used it to make a syntactically correct but semantically anomalous statement. Dodgy
Yes I admit that 'semantics' was not quite the right word. However I doubted that anyone here would notice, so hats off to you as you are obviously educated. Nevertheless you understood what I was saying which is the main object of written communication. I do not see you pulling up your mates here who cannot even spell let alone get any grammar right. This shows that you are biased. That's disappointing.

I have seen photos of these objects taken through these telescopes. How is seeing it with the naked eye through the telescope as compared to looking at a photograph of the same thing going to reveal to you that these things are ridiculous quadzillions of kilometres ( sorry, wrong word but surely you get my point)

You are just being pompous. Surely common sense or the UPM should tell you that if you can see them at all that this evidence that they are not ridiculous quadzillions of kilometres away.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2013, 07:38 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(23-08-2013 07:09 PM)excubitor Wrote:  
(23-08-2013 06:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, it hasn't. Not once. Please present a peer-reviewed citation.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/new...30221.html

The Origin of Life Science Foundation, Inc,? No, a scientific paper, please.

Quote:
(23-08-2013 06:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  This merely shows your lack of understanding of cumulative change.
I am talking about the probability of evolution not the process.

The process is an algorithm and the probability of the changes is determined from not only the time span but the number of chances for there occurrence - the time is immense, the number of opportunities enormous.

Quote:
(23-08-2013 06:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  Ditto. You do not understand the mechanism. At all.
Perhaps you think that you know the mechanism better than Michael Behe.
He was one of your evolution buddies until he looked into the incredible complexity of the simplest cell. You know nothing compared to him. He actually went into his study to understand the chemical processes by which a cell might be formed. What he discovered was astonishing. The simplest cell more complex and intricate than a small city.

I'm quite sure my understanding of evolution is quite a bit better than Michael Behe's.

Quote:
(23-08-2013 06:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  The mechanisms of biology do not look designed, they look jerry-built.
Do you have a peer reviewed journal to support this contention?
I can't see the workings inside a simple cell but I can see a human eye, and it does not look jerry-built to me.

Then you have not understood the structure of the human eye. It is built backwards with the light sensitive cells facing inward, with the nerves running across the light receiving side, and a huge blind spot where the nerves exit to the brain. Designed? Only if the designer is incompetent.

Quote:
(23-08-2013 06:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your common sense is shallow. Look more deeply into the reality of the natural world.
You mean like Michael Behe did.
If you did not like the term common sense then try the Universal Plausibility Metric.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Universal-Plau...id=3893421
Evolution fails this metric everywhere you look. All this proves is that evolution is not a falsifiable scientific method at all, because every time is falsified or fails the UPM the diehard tragics, the atheistic evolutionists, continue to believe and teach it.

Grow up. The world is moving on. Science's house of cards is tottering in the winds which are building with every passing year. No wonder you are in a panic

The UPM is not universal - it's a subjective reading by pre-supposionalists.
No serious scientist accepts that.

David Abel? Seriously?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2013, 08:04 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(23-08-2013 07:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  Then you have not understood the structure of the human eye. It is built backwards with the light sensitive cells facing inward, with the nerves running across the light receiving side, and a huge blind spot where the nerves exit to the brain. Designed? Only if the designer is incompetent.
What arrogance. What do you think God thinks about this comment?
You do not call the creator God incompetent without this idle word being called to account at the judgement day.

I'd like to see you knock up a human eye in your garage.

When a baby forms in the womb there are 1.2 million nerves that grow from the babies brain and 1.2 million nerves that grow from the eye. By some miracle these nerve endings find their way through the flesh to meet up with each others exact matching nerve ending. How? These are mysteries that science has not even begun to scratch the surface to understand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2013, 08:10 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(23-08-2013 07:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  The UPM is not universal - it's a subjective reading by pre-supposionalists.
No serious scientist accepts that.

David Abel? Seriously?
So you know more than Dr. Michael Behe and Dr. David Abel is not a serious scientist. Here is a list of peer reviewed publications of Dr. David Abel
http://davidlabel.blogspot.com.au/

I think you are burying your head in the sand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2013, 08:11 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(23-08-2013 08:04 PM)excubitor Wrote:  
(23-08-2013 07:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  Then you have not understood the structure of the human eye. It is built backwards with the light sensitive cells facing inward, with the nerves running across the light receiving side, and a huge blind spot where the nerves exit to the brain. Designed? Only if the designer is incompetent.
What arrogance. What do you think God thinks about this comment?
You do not call the creator God incompetent without this idle word being called to account at the judgement day.

I'd like to see you knock up a human eye in your garage.

When a baby forms in the womb there are 1.2 million nerves that grow from the babies brain and 1.2 million nerves that grow from the eye. By some miracle these nerve endings find their way through the flesh to meet up with each others exact matching nerve ending. How? These are mysteries that science has not even begun to scratch the surface to understand.

This is not arrogance. The human eye is a rather poor design compared not just with optimality, but with those of other animals like the octopus or the eagle.

Actually, we do know some of those mechanisms. One flatworm has been studied so extensively that the development of every single cell in the organism has been traced from conception to larval organism. And the entire genome mapped.

More complex animals are being studied now.

I do not fear a judgement day that I have no reason to believe is ever going to happen.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2013, 08:50 PM
RE: The Big Think Creationism debate
(23-08-2013 06:13 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  I made a video just for you excubitor...

I've got a small stash of 380 million year old fossils. Genesis is a load of BS, the earth is a much older place.

Ps. BeardedDude let me know if I got anything wrong/how to pronounce 'crinoid.'

Awesome. Upstate New York - particularly to the Lake Ontario coast and the St Lawrence valley - that's just over the border from where I grew up. It's Devonian/Ordivician limestone laid over pre-Cambrian bedrock. Glacially carved, of course. Silt deposits define the limits of arable land; it's visible on satellite photos. The spur of the old Laurentides reaches down to the Thousand Islands; the limestone layer circles around up the Ottawa valley. I drive through a crash course in geological history every time I pass by. Thumbsup

(23-08-2013 07:18 PM)excubitor Wrote:  I have seen photos of these objects taken through these telescopes. How is seeing it with the naked eye through the telescope as compared to looking at a photograph of the same thing going to reveal to you that these things are ridiculous quadzillions of kilometres ( sorry, wrong word but surely you get my point)

Parallax. Relative intensity. Read a book.

(23-08-2013 08:10 PM)excubitor Wrote:  So you know more than Dr. Michael Behe and Dr. David Abel is not a serious scientist. Here is a list of peer reviewed publications of Dr. David Abel

I think you are burying your head in the sand.

Oh. Look at that. Two guys.

Lemme just point you towards a list of 1200+ scientists who accept that evolution is a foundational principle and undeniable reality of modern natural science.

Also they are all named Steve.

http://ncse.com/taking-action/list-steves

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: