YEC explanation for traveling light.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-03-2012, 07:55 AM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
Heard of human tails?
http://www.anatomyatlases.org/AnatomicVa...s/19.shtml
Here is a tail which has voluntary motion, as seen from the pictures, extended and contracted. It is different from sacrococcygeal teratomas, a tumour at the coccyx. The later usually lead to the formation of pseudo-tails, growths that look like tails but are not tails.

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2012, 04:19 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(26-03-2012 04:30 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(26-03-2012 03:36 AM)SixForty Wrote:  Well, if someone denies that God exists, then I can completely understand that it might look that way. But that's circular reasoning. If God does exist, and was powerful enough to create the entire universe, and all life as we know it, then speaking to a prophet and having them write down His words isn't really the stretch of the imagination that you make it out to be, now is it.
Um... why would God entrust such a vital thing to nomads in the desert, encrypted with his own special WTF algorithm which can only be decoded by those who believe?

Cause ya gotta be a nutbag to be a prophet. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
04-04-2012, 12:06 AM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2012 12:08 AM by SixForty.)
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(26-03-2012 04:30 AM)morondog Wrote:  Um... why would God entrust such a vital thing to nomads in the desert, encrypted with his own special WTF algorithm which can only be decoded by those who believe?

Well, I'd have to say the answer to the first half of that question is in the bible itself, (and why is it a bad thing anyway to trust such people?) while the second half I'd simply have to disagree with. The bible is relatively straightforward, for the most part. All the major important parts are very straightforward, and can be understood by anyone. And there's extra for those who want to dig.

But this question seems to be an argument from ignorance - but you wouldn't do that on me now, would you morondog? Smile Just because you may not know why "God entrusted such a vital thing to nomads in the desert", does that automatically mean there can be no good reason?
(26-03-2012 05:23 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Creationism? Multiplication of words without knowledge. Wink

See, from where I sit, that sounds exactly like evolutionism. The theory is expanded and changed constantly, with what used to be true decades ago no longer being true today. Multiplication of words without knowledge.

Creation? Same words, no multiplication, plenty of knowledge. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2012, 12:33 AM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(04-04-2012 12:06 AM)SixForty Wrote:  Well, I'd have to say the answer to the first half of that question is in the bible itself, (and why is it a bad thing anyway to trust such people?) while the second half I'd simply have to disagree with. The bible is relatively straightforward, for the most part. All the major important parts are very straightforward, and can be understood by anyone. And there's extra for those who want to dig.

But this question seems to be an argument from ignorance - but you wouldn't do that on me now, would you morondog? Smile Just because you may not know why "God entrusted such a vital thing to nomads in the desert", does that automatically mean there can be no good reason?


It's not an argument, it's a question Wink

You can't give me this guff of "read the Bible and then you'll understand, the answers are all in the Bible". I've read it multiple times and my level of belief and faith in the writers has gone down every time.

Why do you think a desert nomad knows more than you about how things work? Because *he says* that *God says* X ? Who is God ? *Mr Desert Nomad says* that God is this amazing being who created the universe and inexplicably maintains a vast interest in some specks of dust stuck to the surface of a slightly larger speck. And oh yeah *Mr Desert Nomad says* "you can trust me, I'm the most trustworthy guy ever"... Doesn't make you think "waaaait a minute!" ???

PS I will reply to your PM sometime Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
04-04-2012, 12:37 AM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2012 12:57 AM by SixForty.)
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(26-03-2012 10:06 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  And who cares if extraterrestrial seeding is true or not? I even stated that I don't personally believe in it --- I was merely presenting an example to illuminate your false dichotomy of creation or evolution.

I don't think I've presented it as a dichotomy. It's simply the only 2 options on the table at the moment. If there is a third, I'd be happy to discuss it. My comment about extraterrestrial seeding is meant to make the point that it doesn't provide a third option - it simply moves the question of abiogenesis, and hence evolution, to a different world. Even if extraterrestrial seeding were proven to be true, it still wouldn't answer the question of evolution - it just moves the debate to a different planet.

(26-03-2012 10:06 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Your understanding of probability is limited. Let me educate you on probability, especially on how it pertains to abiogenesis. There are plenty of people who make this same assumption that you've made, that it had to be a one-shot opportunity that could only happen in one place at one time, rather than an event that could happen in any cubic inch of ocean during any given minute.

I'm well aware of Ian Musgrave's paper on the issue. The problems involved with his ideas are too numerous to mention. Honestly, the first time I read it a number of years ago, I actually laughed - I had difficulty believing whether or not he was serious here. Either his understanding of probability is weak, or he's intentionally misguiding people with some not so subtle hand waving. The number of unreal assumptions he makes to support his point is painful. And what he calls "living things" is nowhere close to what any rational person would call life. And in the end, he's really only pointing to a single small part of the idea of abiogenesis. That article even gives a picture of the roadmap, but he only tackles one step, with no real methodology of how the rest of it is supposed to happen. There would be dozens of other steps, each just as unlikely as the number he's come up with. Joint probability calculations simply amplify his number right back up to the insanely improbable 10^5000 range I've already mentioned.

But regardless, his ideas here are so out of date, they have already been dealt with numerous times. Just check the date off that page - last updated in 1998. (This is why I advise against using material off TalkOrigins - It's mostly very out of date, and the science presented there is often very low rate. There's a reason it's collected there, as opposed to the peer-reviewed journals that most scientists would otherwise expect) Even so, the concept was already shown to be an oversimplification by Dr Jonathan Sarfati before Musgrave last updated that article. Musgrave is using an example already known to be fallacious. Better yet, pick up Dr. Sarfati's latest book "By Design", where he gives the topic a more thorough discussion. Or ultimately, you could take Dr. Ghadiri's word himself (the guy whom Musgrave's peptide is named after), where he admits to an atheist interviewer that in no way should this be considered life, like Musgrave assumes. And why does this not match his definition of life? Perhaps it's because Ghadiri and his research partners later had to publish corrections in the journal Nature clearly stating that they have no direct experimental evidence for some of their claims. Maybe this is why Musgrave hasn't updated his article?

(26-03-2012 10:06 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  none of them are scientifically verifiable. That's the currency we trade here. If you can't describe God through evidence, then we don't take any of these descriptions as "fact".

On this I would beg to differ. The currency traded here (and in all atheistic, or evolutionary discussions) is much more than just "scientific verifiability". There are philosophical assumptions at the core. Naturalism, uniformitarianism, materialism. Even your very next statement "If you can't describe God through evidence" screams of empiricism! Now, I'm not going to deride someone for having philosophical assumptions like this - everyone does. But don't try and pretend they don't exist. Don't try and pretend they don't influence how you view the world.

And your argument here is effectively circular as well. By assuming empiricism, you've assumed atheism. So of course you won't accept empirical evidence for God - you've already implicitly assumed he doesn't exist!

As for needing to describe things only through evidence - please describe logic through evidence. I would like to hear how you can describe logic only by using the scientific method. And don't forget, you can't use logic in your explanation, since that would be arguing in a circle! Or how about describing why the laws of nature remain uniform throughout time. Why does the law of gravity always work the same, and why can I rely on it to work the same tomorrow? Please describe that only using evidence.

(26-03-2012 10:06 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  I would also add the point that there's no logical reason to make a case of special pleading for God to be exempt from this rule that you quoted: "the law of cause and effect that exists within this universe effectively rules out an infinite past".

I think there is a perfectly logical reason for God to be exempt from this rule - two reasons actually. 1 - All of our observance of the law is internal to this universe, and God is external to the universe. Therefore, he does not need to be subject to the laws inside it. 2 - God created the universe, and in doing so, created the law of cause and effect. Therefore, he does not need to be subject to it.

I think both of those are perfectly logical.

(26-03-2012 10:06 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  I notice you add "within this universe" to try to exempt God, but literally anything outside of this universe is hypothetical... it can't be observed (if there even is anything outside of this universe), so it's entirely possible that something "outside the universe" is also subject to cause and effect. How could we know that this is not true?

We don't know that it's not true, but we don't know that it is either. You are right - there may actually be some form of "cause and effect" law external to the universe. We can hypothesize about that all day long. However, the law of cause and effect that we see internally within the universe would logically not be a NECESSITY outside the universe. Just like the law of gravity - there may exist some parallel form of gravity, or something like it, in whatever is external to the universe, but no "thing" external to the universe would be subject to OUR law of gravity. This is especially true if that external "thing" were actually a being that created our law of gravity.

(26-03-2012 10:06 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  I also once thought, as you do, that time couldn't be infinite because we'd never reach this point... but you're thinking of it in a linear or "Euclidean" fashion. Stephen Hawking posits that time is an enclosed 3D manifold like the surface of a sphere --- no beginning or end, but still plenty of points to be charted. This isn't necessarily the answer to the question of time, but it is an answer that solves the logical paradoxes that I produced. And as you may have noticed, it's an "always existed" argument much like God's "always existence"... but we have much stronger evidence for the existence of time.

Even if I grant that we have more evidence for the existence of time than for God, all our evidence points to the very linear fashion you mention. Despite Hawking's postulations, I'm unaware of any actual evidence that supports his idea here. If you can point me to any, I'd be interested in reading it.


(27-03-2012 07:55 AM)robotworld Wrote:  Heard of human tails?
http://www.anatomyatlases.org/AnatomicVa...s/19.shtml
Here is a tail which has voluntary motion, as seen from the pictures, extended and contracted. It is different from sacrococcygeal teratomas, a tumour at the coccyx. The later usually lead to the formation of pseudo-tails, growths that look like tails but are not tails.

Yes, I've heard of human tails. I've also heard of people with 6 fingers, or 3 toes, or supernumerary nipples, or diphallia. I've seen a person born with no limbs, and a person with two heads (or I guess 2 people with one body). Which of those would be an example of an evolutionary ancestor?

Embryonic genetic mutation happens all the time, unfortunately. It is in no way proof of evolution.

(04-04-2012 12:33 AM)morondog Wrote:  It's not an argument, it's a question Wink

You can't give me this guff of "read the Bible and then you'll understand, the answers are all in the Bible". I've read it multiple times and my level of belief and faith in the writers has gone down every time.

Fair enough. Smile

The answer I was getting at there is God's promise to Abraham, to bless him and his descendants. God's good to his word, so he looks after Israel. When they migrate out of Egypt, they will be creating a country of their own, so God has Moses start writing things down so that they can be recorded and referenced. Basically, he's saying "here's your history, here's where you came from, here are my requirements, here is my side of the covenant I made with your forefathers, don't forget it". So at that point, why does it matter if they are nomads in the desert? That just happens to be where they were at that point in time.

(04-04-2012 12:33 AM)morondog Wrote:  Why do you think a desert nomad knows more than you about how things work? Because *he says* that *God says* X ? Who is God ? *Mr Desert Nomad says* that God is this amazing being who created the universe and inexplicably maintains a vast interest in some specks of dust stuck to the surface of a slightly larger speck. And oh yeah *Mr Desert Nomad says* "you can trust me, I'm the most trustworthy guy ever"... Doesn't make you think "waaaait a minute!" ???

Of course it makes me say "waaait a minute"! But I don't then toss it all in the trash - I investigate the claims made! And when I do, I find that in every way I can test it, it comes up telling the truth. It matches up with many other historical records, it matches up with archaeology, it matches up with biology and geology, genetics, astronomy, philosophy. In every way I can test it, it keeps coming up true. So even after saying "waaait a minute", I still find every reason to trust it. I don't think that the desert nomad knows more than me about how things work (although he would know more about some things!) But I do think that the God who created the universe and was telling that desert nomad what to write knows WAAAAY more than I do about how things work!

And I don't think the vast interest that God maintains in humanity is inexplicable. Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2012, 06:57 AM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2012 04:43 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(04-04-2012 12:37 AM)SixForty Wrote:  I don't think I've presented it as a dichotomy. It's simply the only 2 options on the table at the moment.


I can't believe this thread is still alive.

Creationism is not an option "on the table" except by a few "left field" nut cases. It's not a serious "debate". 99.999 % of all scientists do not believe in creationism. The Argumentum ad Vercundiam is falsly used, because no creationist stands within the concensus opinion. Telling people, "Your understanding of probability is limited", is bull shit. You keep insulting people, but making no valid arguments.

"are so out of date, they have already been dealt with numerous times. Just check the date off that page - last updated in 1998. (This is why I advise against using material off TalkOrigins - It's mostly very out of date, and the science presented there is often very low rate"

is not an argument.

You use "peer reviewed" when it's convenient, and 99.999% of the time, you refuse to accept it. Peer reviewed indded. No YEC should say anything about "peer review".
You will be laughed out of the room.

"There are philosophical assumptions at the core. Naturalism, uniformitarianism, materialism. Even your very next statement "If you can't describe God through evidence" screams of empiricism!"

We DID notice you failed to examine the weaknesses in ANY of those.

"By assuming empiricism, you've assumed atheism. So of course you won't accept empirical evidence for God - you've already implicitly assumed he doesn't exist!"

No dear, that's the Fallacy of Special Pleading.


"I think there is a perfectly logical reason for God to be exempt from this rule - two reasons actually. 1 - All of our observance of the law is internal to this universe, and God is external to the universe."

Oh really ? I thought she was everywhere ? Oh my !
Which means YOU have never observed ANYTHING outside this universe, including your god.
You have ABSOLUTELY no evidence for that, and 2. you keep using dimensions which exist ONLY in this universe, in which your god "exists" and "acts". Creation is an "act". Acts require time. You must have forgotten you lost that argument 2 weeks ago. Saying something is logical, when it isn't, doesn't make it so. Then you contradict yourself "

"but anything outside of this universe is hypothetical... it can't be observed (if there even is anything outside of this universe), so it's entirely possible that something "outside the universe" is also subject to cause and effect. How could we know that this is not true? We don't know that it's not true, but we don't know that it is either."

You just asserted you KNEW god exisits outside this universe. Do you read what you babble ?

"And I don't think the vast interest that God maintains in humanity is inexplicable."


Oh right. 10,000,000 Africans starve last year, thousands of Japaneese die in a tsunami. Yeah, she's REAL interested, isn't she. Such VAST interest in stunningly breathtaking.

The question remains. Why would anyone espouse this nonsense, of a 6,000 year old earth, when virtually ALL the evidence points to a far older planet ? You never told us where you were educated. Bible college..oh wait, that can't be, since you knlw basically nothing about the texts of the Bible. How and when EXACTLY did your Yahweh god arise in the archeological record, who discovered "him", and how did that concept change over the centuries ?
The fact is , all cretionists know their house of cards, based on ingorant bible foundations REQUIRE that you take a mythological set of texts literally, (a concept that was UNKOWN in the Ancient Near East), and read it with YOUR world view. THAT is profoundly ingorant, both literarily, and methodologically. HUMANS, who knew nothing except their local culture wrote it, and apart from their cultural myths, have nothing to offer humans. THEY were in no way "special". There is no need to turn their writings into something unique. It is not. Scholars know where almost all the texts developed from, and who changed them, and who edited them, in their long process of formation, and change.


Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Sent by Jebus to put the stud back in Bible Study. "I believe Mr. Peanut is the Messiah" -- onlinebiker
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
04-04-2012, 09:51 AM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(04-04-2012 12:37 AM)SixForty Wrote:  I'm well aware of Ian Musgrave's paper on the issue. The problems involved with his ideas are too numerous to mention.

Mention them anyway. Otherwise you haven't provided an argument. You've just waved your hand and hoped no one would call you out on it.

(04-04-2012 12:37 AM)SixForty Wrote:  Joint probability calculations simply amplify his number right back up to the insanely improbable 10^5000 range I've already mentioned.

Which is irrelevant. Given the time scales and numbers of planets involved, even something as improbable as that is practically guaranteed to happen.

(04-04-2012 12:37 AM)SixForty Wrote:  On this I would beg to differ. The currency traded here (and in all atheistic, or evolutionary discussions) is much more than just "scientific verifiability". There are philosophical assumptions at the core. Naturalism, uniformitarianism, materialism. Even your very next statement "If you can't describe God through evidence" screams of empiricism!

Yes.

Because empiricism is the only one that can actually back up any of its assertions.

(04-04-2012 12:37 AM)SixForty Wrote:  And your argument here is effectively circular as well. By assuming empiricism, you've assumed atheism.

Not at all. Empiricism would fully support the existence of a god if there was any reason to believe it - but there isn't.

So, de jure, no. De facto, however, yes. Because the existence of a god is one of those things that entirely lacks any supporting evidence.

(04-04-2012 12:37 AM)SixForty Wrote:  As for needing to describe things only through evidence - please describe logic through evidence. I would like to hear how you can describe logic only by using the scientific method.

So are you arguing that logic cannot be used to form arguments?

(04-04-2012 12:37 AM)SixForty Wrote:  Or how about describing why the laws of nature remain uniform throughout time. Why does the law of gravity always work the same, and why can I rely on it to work the same tomorrow? Please describe that only using evidence.

Induction.

(04-04-2012 12:37 AM)SixForty Wrote:  I think there is a perfectly logical reason for God to be exempt from this rule - two reasons actually. 1 - All of our observance of the law is internal to this universe, and God is external to the universe.

Which means that, by definition, he does not exist.

(04-04-2012 12:37 AM)SixForty Wrote:  2 - God created the universe, and in doing so, created the law of cause and effect. Therefore, he does not need to be subject to it.

Except that he couldn't have created anything without cause and effect.

(04-04-2012 12:37 AM)SixForty Wrote:  
(26-03-2012 10:06 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  I notice you add "within this universe" to try to exempt God, but literally anything outside of this universe is hypothetical... it can't be observed (if there even is anything outside of this universe), so it's entirely possible that something "outside the universe" is also subject to cause and effect. How could we know that this is not true?

We don't know that it's not true, but we don't know that it is either.

Actually, we do. Because Starcrash is, in this instance, just a little bit wrong.

Things "outside" the universe, by definition, do not exist. If they effect the universe in any way, they are part of it; the universe is, by definition, everything that exists. If something has an effect on the universe, it is inside the universe and thus subject to its laws. If something is outside the universe, it has absolutely no effect on it, and so there is no difference between it and something that does not exist.

There is nothing "outside" the universe. "Outside the universe" is a nonsensical phrase.

(04-04-2012 12:37 AM)SixForty Wrote:  Of course it makes me say "waaait a minute"! But I don't then toss it all in the trash - I investigate the claims made! And when I do, I find that in every way I can test it, it comes up telling the truth. It matches up with many other historical records, it matches up with archaeology, it matches up with biology and geology, genetics, astronomy, philosophy.

No, actually, it doesn't.

"But are not the dreams of poets and the tales of travelers notoriously false?"
- H. P. Lovecraft, "The Street"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2012, 08:43 PM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2012 08:47 PM by San Onofre Surfer.)
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
Wow. He's trying to get rid of me. Obviously the last post which went completely unanswered, was too much. Interesting. He sent this to me.
(04-04-2012 06:57 AM)sixfourty Wrote:  I decided to send this to you directly, instead of embarrassing you again in the public forum. (I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you)

First, you ignored the entire list of logical fallacies that I pointed out. You could provide no supporting arguments for any of the positions you took. You couldn't turn a single one of your fallacies into an actual coherent point. Stop and take a look back at that list - 10 logical fallacies clearly labeled and described. No rebuttal. You can't dodge that truth.

Second, you were called on the carpet for 6 separate and distinct lies. All verifiable by anyone who wanted to check up on you. And yet you simply ignored it and continued to rant away. Just another example of you ignoring a true conclusion - you lied.

Third, despite being told numerous times that I'm not the one making the arguments you claim I am making, you continue to ask irrelevant questions. You keep wanting to run down rabbit holes, apparently hoping I will chase you. It seems like you have no actual facts or logic to address the points at hand, so you have to twist the discussion to your direction. I'm not going to chase your irrelevant points - there's no need for me to give into your clear, documented, verifiable logical fallacies.

Fourth, although you tried to flip things back on me, you apparently don't know what argumentum ad verecundiam really means. The argument from authority is a perfectly valid inductive argument, when the authority has credentials for the subject matter being discussed. Dr Humphreys credentials are exemplary in these areas of physics: a BS and PhD in physics, numerous awards and a patent to his name, almost 30 years working directly in the field of nuclear physics, at highly prestigious locations. Your accusation here simply doesn't hold any weight.

Fifth, as for not representing the consensus opinion on a subject (your logically fallacious elephant hurling list aside), this is simply how science is done. Was Kepler wrong simply because he went against the status quo? How about Galileo? By your logic here, Darwin himself, and his theory of evolution, are logically fallacious, because they went against all the scientists of the day! If we followed your logic, we'd all still believe in geocentrism! Sometimes, the majority is simply wrong.

Honestly, you really should sit this one out. You can probably learn some things by reading, but you clearly have no idea what you are talking about when you jump into the discussion.


He actually thinks that someone who tries to say that this planet is a few thousand years old, actually has ANY authority, to call anyone "on the carpet". Hahaha.

What a patronizing, pompous jerk. The point of where your god arose is NOT irrelevant. You obviously can't deal with the questions, about history, and religion, (because you can't find Humphries opinions on the subjects). Your lame attempt to have me stop asking my embarrassing questions is not going to work. Nice try, pops. Calling my questions "rabbit holes", is your usual evasion. again...ANSWER THE QUESTION. Clearly, there are things being raised, you can't deal with.

You are 110 % wrong about the Argumentum ad Verecumdiam. Credentials are only ONE part. The other half, is that the authority lies within the consensus of opinion. Humphries DOES NOT. There are kooks in every field, (even Einstein was wrong about some things). Humphries is one. Weren't you just talking about "peer reviewed" ? Hahahahaha.

Don't worry about embarrassing me, you embarrass yourself. YEC indeed. Carbon dating is verified, because it has been independantly corroborated, with dates that are KNOWN, aside from Carbon dating, (pyramids, mummies, myriads of ancient artifacts, who age is KNOWN, independantly of Carbon dating). How stupid can anyone be ? So much for that nonsense.

"List aside", is no argument. Kepler and Galileo had EVIDENCE, and observations, that were eventually verified. You have none, except contorted attempts to support your babble crap. As he asked... why is that ? Are you SO insecure, you can't face reality ? The majority is NOT wrong in this case. Sorry my points are making you nervous enough to attempt to get rid of me, It isn't going to work, old man. You need an education badly. It shows in every sentence you blab. You can't posasibly think that stuff is going to convert anyone, do you ? So again, what are you doing here ? So go back, and ANSWER the QUESTIONS !

Here's a little group you obviously have a LOT in common with. Go out and play now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

The angry gods require sacrifice. Now get outside and slay them a goat. Cadet in Terse But Deadly
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes San Onofre Surfer's post
05-04-2012, 06:26 AM (This post was last modified: 05-04-2012 06:52 AM by SixForty.)
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
Oh Bucky, you just keep digging yourself deeper.

(04-04-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Creationism is not an option "on the table" except by a few "left field" nut cases.

Logical Fallacy - Ad Hominum Attack

(04-04-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  99.999 % of all scientists do not believe in creationism.

Logical Fallacy - Prejudicial conjecture. This is clearly incorrect information. Provide proof to back up your claim.

(04-04-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The Argumentum ad Vercundiam is falsly used, because no creationist stands within the concensus opinion.

You are actually misapplying this here. If the argument was made with no reason or supporting evidence, you'd have a point. But the arguments at issue here (namely Dr Humphreys research that you keep coming back to) are backed up with significant evidence and the support of numerous credentialed scientists. Once again, I don't hold up any of that as deductive proof - however it is a perfectly valid inductive argument to use as supporting evidence for theories.

As for creationists that don't stand within the consensus opinion, here's a list for you: Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Boyle, Bacon, Pascal, Pasteur, Faraday, Joule, Maxwell. Every one went against the consensus opinion, and it turns out, with God as their inspiration, they were right. So if you want to lump all creationists in with that list, fine with me!

(04-04-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Telling people, "Your understanding of probability is limited", is bull shit.

Once again, do you actually read what I write before you start your nonsensical ranting? I was not the one who wrote that statement! Starcrash wrote that statement directed at me! But I don't expect you to acknowledge a clear mistake on your part - you'll just run from the truth again, ignore it and rant about something else.

(04-04-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You use "peer reviewed" when it's convenient, and 99.999% of the time, you refuse to accept it.

Logical Fallacy - Prejudicial Conjecture. Please provide a list of the times I've refused to accept peer-reviewed evidence, along with a statistical analysis which concludes your 99.999% number.

In addition, the only reason that I'm providing peer-reviewed materials is because it often appears that it is the only evidence the atheists here will accept. I'm being asked to provide evidence in a certain form, and when I provide what I am asked for, I then get accused of using it for my own convenience? All you've done here is show that you have no desire to do anything but rant - you'll rant if I don't provide the answers to your questions, and you'll rant if I do.

(04-04-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No YEC should say anything about "peer review". You will be laughed out of the room.

Logical Fallacy - a veiled, back handed form of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Completely arbitrary.

(04-04-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  We DID notice you failed to examine the weaknesses in ANY of those.

Logical Fallacy - Irrelevant Thesis. I was not attempting to examine the weakness in any of those. I was simply making the point that those are philosophical assumptions, which they are, by definition. You keep arguing against claims that I am not making!

(04-04-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No dear, that's the Fallacy of Special Pleading.

Wrong. You've clearly misapplied the concept of Special Pleading here. And you've further compounded it by not backing up your claim. How about, for once, just one time, you actually back up what you claim. Clarify exactly why this is Special Pleading.

(04-04-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You have ABSOLUTELY no evidence for that

For the claim made, none was necessary. It is simply true by definition.

(04-04-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  you keep using dimensions which exist ONLY in this universe, in which your god "exists" and "acts". Creation is an "act".

You seem to misunderstand so many fundamentals here. It's hard to distinguish between your rantings and your ignorance. It's really not that hard to understand. An entity which created the universe is not subject to the conditions and attributes of that universe he created. However, that universe that he created is subject to him. Maybe if I really dumb down an analogy for you, you might grasp it. Let's pretend you build a bookcase. You can make all sorts of designs for it and changes to it. It is subject to how you want to build and maintain it. You, however, are not subject to the bookcase. You are not required to sit on one of the shelves. That's a very basic example, and the situation is much more complicated than that, but I can't really think of a more basic way to put it that you might understand.

(04-04-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You must have forgotten you lost that argument 2 weeks ago.

So you ignored all my answers, kept asking the same question over and over again, and declared yourself the winner! Kudos to you! I will send you a nice blue ribbon for your exploits!

(04-04-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Saying something is logical, when it isn't, doesn't make it so.

Good thing it WAS logical then, isn't it! This is just another example of you not understanding basic logic.

(04-04-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You just asserted you KNEW god exisits outside this universe. Do you read what you babble ?

Wow - this isn't even a logical fallacy. It's a complete lack of reading comprehension skills. The comment "We don't know that it's not true, but we don't know that it is either" had nothing to do with the existence of God at all. It had to do with the possible existence of cause and effect laws external to the universe. And you accuse me of not reading???

(04-04-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Oh right. 10,000,000 Africans starve last year, thousands of Japaneese die in a tsunami. Yeah, she's REAL interested, isn't she. Such VAST interest in stunningly breathtaking.

Logical Fallacy - Straw Man. You are making an argument against interceding, but the point at issue here was interest. Someone can clearly be interested in something without interceding.

Logical Fallacy - Argument from Ignorance. Just because you don't understand why something might have happened it does not mean that God doesn't have a good reason. For all you know, without God interceding, 50,000,000 Africans would have starved last year, and tens of thousands of Japanese would have died in the tsunami. You're trying to make an argument based on a lack of understanding - it just doesn't fly here.

(04-04-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The question remains. Why would anyone espouse this nonsense, of a 6,000 year old earth, when virtually ALL the evidence points to a far older planet ? You never told us where you were educated. Bible college..oh wait, that can't be, since you knlw basically nothing about the texts of the Bible. How and when EXACTLY did your Yahweh god arise in the archeological record, who discovered "him", and how did that concept change over the centuries ?
The fact is , all cretionists know their house of cards, based on ingorant bible foundations REQUIRE that you take a mythological set of texts literally, (a concept that was UNKOWN in the Ancient Near East), and read it with YOUR world view. THAT is profoundly ingorant, both literarily, and methodologically. HUMANS, who knew nothing except their local culture wrote it, and apart from their cultural myths, have nothing to offer humans. THEY were in no way "special". There is no need to turn their writings into something unique. It is not. Scholars know where almost all the texts developed from, and who changed them, and who edited them, in their long process of formation, and change.

This paragraph is nothing but more Logical Fallacy - Genetic Fallacy (arguing against creationists simply because they are creationists), Philosophical Bias (assuming historical texts are mythology), Straw Man (arguing against a God I don't actually believe in), Ad Hominem Attacks (questioning my schooling), Faulty Appeal (claiming scholars know biblical texts are changed and edited, without any evidence provided)

So I've listed 12 different logical fallacies here that you've committed. And I've detailed each one, specifically showing why they are logically fallacious. I've also clearly pointed out 2 places where you accuse me of saying something I didn't even say! And this doesn't even mention the numerous other fundamental flaws in your thinking. Honestly Bucky Ball, anyone who wants to can go back and look at the history of our conversation and know that what I'm writing here is true. You keep arguing against points that I don't make, you keep asking me to explain claims that I haven't made, you commit numerous errors in logic in your own rantings, and you provide no backing at all for what you say.

Instead of ranting, how about once, just one time, you actually answer a question that's been put to you? Please provide evidence of your claim that 99.999% of all scientists do not believe in creation. Please provide an explanation of why you accused me of Special Pleading above. How about we go back to the videos you posted trying to prove the existence of dark matter - do you want to answer the questions I brought up on those? Or are you simply going to dodge all of this again and go back to ranting on the same Straw Man arguments, or possibly begin ranting on something new?

(04-04-2012 09:51 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Mention them anyway. Otherwise you haven't provided an argument. You've just waved your hand and hoped no one would call you out on it.

No hand waving here. I actually provided the problems externally. They were too numerous for me to mention myself, but I provided links to detailed information. These included an article by a PhD chemist, a book by the same chemist where he goes into further detail, an interview with the discoverer of the very peptide Musgrave uses for his example where the discoverer himself contradicts Musgrave, and a link to an article where the team who discovered the peptide in question corrects their original findings to clarify that they had no experimental evidence to back up some of their claims. That should be more than enough for you. If it's not, then I doubt any amount of information will be sufficient for you, so I won't go any further.

(04-04-2012 09:51 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Which is irrelevant. Given the time scales and numbers of planets involved, even something as improbable as that is practically guaranteed to happen.

No. You clearly don't understand the question of probability here, and the size of that number. As already mentioned, even if every single atom in the universe could interact with every other atom in the universe once every microsecond, for the entire supposed 13.5 billion year history of the universe, you'd still only have about 10^190 atomic interactions. Even if our universe was only one in a multiverse that had a trillion, trillion universes, and there were a trillion, trillion of those multiverses, you've still only bumped that number up to 10^238. You can do ridiculously absurd things to try and make it more likely, and it still doesn't even come close to the 10^5000 to make it statistically likely.

Pulling out the old "given enough time, anything will happen" philosophy only shows two things: 1) you truly don't appreciate the magnitude of the numbers involved and the probabilities they present; and 2) your position is one of faith, not knowledge - you simply believe it could happen. And without understanding the numbers involved, it actually ends up being blind faith.

(04-04-2012 09:51 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Because empiricism is the only one that can actually back up any of its assertions.

Really? Empiricism can't even back up itself! "All true knowledge can only come through sensory experience"? Really? Is that statement true? Did the truth of that statement come through sensory experience? Empiricism can't even back up itself - forget about it's assertions! It's self refuting.

(04-04-2012 09:51 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Not at all. Empiricism would fully support the existence of a god if there was any reason to believe it - but there isn't. So, de jure, no. De facto, however, yes. Because the existence of a god is one of those things that entirely lacks any supporting evidence.

This is simply more circular reasoning. Empiricism, by definition could not itself prove the existence of God, since God, by definition, is something not accessible through sensory experience. Empiricism implicitly assumes the non-existence of God, so of course you will come to a conclusion that God does not exist. You started with that as an assumption in the first place!

As for saying there is no reason to believe that there is a God, there is. You simply choose to deny it. As for lacking any supporting evidence, again, you simply choose to deny it.

(04-04-2012 09:51 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  So are you arguing that logic cannot be used to form arguments?

Not at all! I believe logic is perfectly acceptable in reasoning and helping us understand the world. The problem is this - I know where logic comes from: the mind of God. If you don't believe in God, please explain to me where logic comes from? That's what I am asking. I'd love to hear someone explain where logic comes from if they believe it doesn't come from God.

(04-04-2012 09:51 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Induction.

That's not an answer. Induction is a method for believing something to be likely. But regardless of that, you haven't actually given the reasons for how or why you can induce it anyway. I didn't ask for the form of reasoning that you would use to get there, I asked for the actual reasons.

(04-04-2012 09:51 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Which means that, by definition, he does not exist.

??? I'm not sure how you conclude that. It doesn't come close to logically following from the statements I made! Unless you arbitrarily claim that the universe is the only thing that exists.

(04-04-2012 09:51 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Except that he couldn't have created anything without cause and effect.

Again, you're jumping back and forth from conditions inside the universe to outside the universe, and trying to force one upon the other, when it just doesn't logically follow.

(04-04-2012 09:51 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Things "outside" the universe, by definition, do not exist. If they effect the universe in any way, they are part of it; the universe is, by definition, everything that exists. If something has an effect on the universe, it is inside the universe and thus subject to its laws. If something is outside the universe, it has absolutely no effect on it, and so there is no difference between it and something that does not exist. There is nothing "outside" the universe. "Outside the universe" is a nonsensical phrase.

Ahhh. So it seems here is an answer to part of the issue. You are equivocating on the nature of the universe here. I don't think most people would agree with your definition of the universe. Most would define it as all matter, energy, space and time. But most people would accept that other things can possibly exist outside of those, whether it be philosophers discussing the abstraction of time, scientists considering other dimensions or the possibility of a multiverse, religious people who believe in a spirit world, or someone who believes in ghosts. According to your definition, you would force all those things to come under the definition of your universe, and then arbitrarily pick and choose which ones you would allow and which you would claim don't exist.

(04-04-2012 09:51 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No, actually, it doesn't.

Well, yes, actually, it does. You can deny it all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that it does.

I tried to be nice to you, San, but you just don't seem to get it do you?

(04-04-2012 08:43 PM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  Wow. He's trying to get rid of me.

Another Lie - Not trying to get rid of you - I was actually doing you a favour and allowing you to save face. As can be clearly seen in the first line of my message to you, I was not trying to get rid of you. But since you went ahead and published my PM to you anyway, it seems you just want to embarrass yourself more. It clearly points out more verifiable places where you have been wrong - if you want to publicize that, I guess you're free to do so!

(04-04-2012 08:43 PM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  Obviously the last post which went completely unanswered, was too much. Interesting.

And Another Lie - and an obvious one at that. Since I sent you the message with answers to what was in your post, that obviously means that your post DID NOT GO UNANSWERED. When somebody "answers" something, it can no longer be called "unanswered".

(04-04-2012 08:43 PM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  He actually thinks that someone who tries to say that this planet is a few thousand years old, actually has ANY authority, to call anyone "on the carpet".

Logical Fallacy - Genetic Fallacy. The true fact is that you lied 6 times. All verifiable, all documented. It doesn't matter who called you on the carpet for them - whether it was me, some other creationists, an evolutionist, the pope, or Ghengis Khan. The 6 lies you were called on the carpet for are verifiable facts. Claiming that someone doesn't have the authority to call you on the carpet for them because of what they believe speaks only to where the argument comes from, not what the argument actually is, and therefore commits the genetic fallacy.

(04-04-2012 08:43 PM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  Your lame attempt to have me stop asking my embarrassing questions is not going to work.

At least you admit you are asking embarrassing questions here. If you want to keep on doing so - fire away.

(04-04-2012 08:43 PM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  Calling my questions "rabbit holes", is your usual evasion. again...ANSWER THE QUESTION. Clearly, there are things being raised, you can't deal with.

I'm not actually the one evading here - you are by arguing against points that I haven't made! I'm not going to answer arguments against points I haven't made, for the very reason that I didn't make them!

(04-04-2012 08:43 PM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  Carbon dating is verified, because it has been independantly corroborated, with dates that are KNOWN, aside from Carbon dating, (pyramids, mummies, myriads of ancient artifacts, who age is KNOWN, independantly of Carbon dating). How stupid can anyone be ? So much for that nonsense.

Back to an argument with no support - just conjecture. I've provided examples where Carbon dating shows known flaws. I've provided examples of where the assumptions Carbon dating is built upon are flawed. All you do is throw out a conjecture with no support. Well done!

(04-04-2012 08:43 PM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  "List aside", is no argument.

It wasn't meant to be - and this shows your complete lack of understanding in what I was trying to say. My comment regarding "your logically fallacious elephant hurling list aside" was a declaration that I WASN'T making an argument against it. I was actually letting you slide on that one. I was giving you a free pass, instead of embarrassing you again.

(04-04-2012 08:43 PM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  Kepler and Galileo had EVIDENCE, and observations, that were eventually verified.

Which is exactly what Dr Humphreys and his research partners have in the issues at hand. Evidence, observations, and independent verification. But answer me this, have you even read the published work I've referenced on this topic? Can you even have a conversation on what they have written?

(04-04-2012 08:43 PM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  Sorry my points are making you nervous enough to attempt to get rid of me

Hahaha - nice try. As mentioned, wasn't trying to get rid of you. I actually felt sorry for you and was trying to help you save face.

(04-04-2012 08:43 PM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  It isn't going to work, old man. You need an education badly. It shows in every sentence you blab.

More Ad Hominem attacks. Seems like that's the only thing you can do these days.

(04-04-2012 08:43 PM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  So again, what are you doing here ?

I came here originally to see if the guy who made the website was actually serious about the videos he posted on YouTube. They were so painfully awful on their arguments against creation and religion, I actually had to find out if it was a super subtle satirical jab at atheism. Turns out it wasn't. I found some posts in the forum on topics I find interesting, so I thought I might contribute. And I've had some interesting discussion with a number of the people here. Some of them actually live up to the term "Thinking Atheist" quite well. Ah, but then there's you, isn't there.

(04-04-2012 08:43 PM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  So go back, and ANSWER the QUESTIONS !

The questions on a Straw Man argument that I didn't make? The questions about comments that I didn't actually post? As mentioned, I'm not going to chase you down those rabbit holes.

(04-04-2012 08:43 PM)San Onofre Surfer Wrote:  Here's a little group you obviously have a LOT in common with. Go out and play now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

Ahhh - another Straw Man argument. Good to end on a high note!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2012, 09:51 AM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(04-04-2012 06:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Oh right. 10,000,000 Africans starve last year, thousands of Japaneese die in a tsunami. Yeah, she's REAL interested, isn't she. Such VAST interest in stunningly breathtaking.

Just a pet peeve - but what the fuck does that hafta do with traveling light? Know how many Africans and Japanese I see in my house? If you guessed zero... How come shit like this only gets mentioned to express a degree of moral outrage? Are we theists, or are we atheists?

Having seen the LC, I got a sense of "moral relativism" that's kinda absolute. When I say there ain't no "right thing," I mean - there ain't no right thing. Wink

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: