U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 01-17-2008, 05:20 PM
 
Location: Charlotte, NC (in my mind)
7,947 posts, read 8,938,566 times
Reputation: 4210
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk View Post
The world is only 6000 years old. If we use Usshers date of 4004 for creation then it would be 6012. Scientific dating methods are not scientific. They are always out even in the evolutionary context. The scientist doesn't just get a print out after scanning a bone saying 10 millioin years. He is given data on the content of the bone. He then interprets the data. The problem is that the data is always interpreted in terms of a Unitarian time scale. If the lab comes up with an incorrect date, the scientist will re-submit the sample to that or another lab. The results will again be judged and may end up in the file 13. Only if the data somehow supports a find is it used. So there is no science in Scientific dating.
I agree there are flaws in certain forms of scientific dating, it is impossible to be completely accurate when dealing with such a large time scale. The difference though between 6,000 years and 10 million is too large to be viable. There is also an abundance historical evidence other than the Bible dating back 6,000 years or more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk View Post
4000 year to the present and having the population double every 150 years would give a number close to the current population of the earth (aprox. 6.5 billion). So the numbers support creation. If we compare that to the supposed millions of years by evolution we end up with numbers that are astonomical and unrealistic to what we observe in nature.
That is not taking into account that the rate of population increase has been nowhere near constant throughout all of earth's history. Life expectancy used to be much shorter, fewer babies were born, famine and plagues killed large portions of the population. Only in the past century has global population shot up to the current levels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk View Post
Who ever said that God was limited by our understanding of the Universe? It says that God stretched out the Heavens. So God could have formed the stars close to earth and pushed them out to the desired distance causing the light of the stars to be enjoyed by Adam and Eve only a few days after the Stars were created.

I think that math does work. And it is in favor of Creation.
This right here proves that creationism is NOT science and should NOT be taught as science. It belongs in church and possibly philosophy and civics classrooms, but NOT the SCIENCE classrooms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-18-2008, 12:07 AM
 
Location: Sydney Australia
14 posts, read 25,119 times
Reputation: 15
MRiedl,

You said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MRiedl View Post
Nikk: You may want to actually read the post you just quoted.

He didn't ask for something invented by a Creationist. Regardless of who made it, the MRI and the principles it utilizes have absolutely nothing to do with Creationism itself.

He asked for actual Creationist literature being put into practice. In short, we are looking for evidence of Creationism being used to produce technology, show predictive power, or otherwise benefit science.

For example, evolutionary principles are heavily applied today, particularly in medical research.
Clear enough you are proposing that evolution theory is

Quote:
being used to produce technology, show predictive power, or otherwise benefit science.
in your example.
Now you say

Quote:
However, I never claimed that Artificial selection was a "Benefit of the Theory of Evolution." I was asked to point out fields where the Theory of Evolution has been put into practice and produced results.

Again you are trying to side step what you previously said.

I have pointed out that the process of artificial selection upon which all your examples are based predates the Theory of Evolution and are therefore not attributable to it. Try to read this carefully and think about it before you reply that I haven't read your examples.

Your reference:

was given to show ADDitive mutation - I suggest YOU read it again. It talks about a beneficial DELETION. I don't need to give an example since you gave one for me.

Quote:
Actually I linked to an article that listed the various fields in which evolutionary principles have been applied to useful effect.

You simply picked out Artificial selection as the first term it mentioned and immediately objected to it.
No, I read the short article and noted that they were all similar. Selection principles yes, Theory of Evolution NO.


Check out:

Unintelligently Attacking Intelligent Design

which addresses some of the issues we are discussing.

Quote:
I also pointed out the scientific consensus toward the scientific standing of YEC teachings:
Namely that it is pseudoscience.
I am shocked that so many -not just you - people these days continue to argue that if most scientists think it is right it must be.
This is logical bunkum.
Lets just make all scientific understanding the result of a ballot. We can decide, or no rather you can decide who should be given the right to vote - afterall there is a great precedent for that...

Sorry vitreol is unecessary - I would really like it if we BOTH stopped using it.

Quote:
I am confident that you didn't actually read the material I listed as evidence and objected to it from a mistaken position, simply raising the first objection you could think of even though you were attacking a strawman.
sorry can't help it, but if you must lead with your chin - I agree I am attacking a strawman. It would be better if your arguments were made of firmer stuff.

Quote:
I've pointed out several fields which utilize evolutionary principles. Your failure to actually read and consider the material is no failing of mine.
That would be true if it were so, but your own failure to stick to the thread of your argument and to carefully read what others say and especially to understand the consequences of your own references is entirely your responsibility.

Now, can we turn it down a notch or two. The main reason I responded to your earlier post was that you were being disrespecful and pompous - it is better if none of us tries to tell others what they have or haven't done. If you are really here just to ridicule others OK, I wont bite back from now on. Otherwise I hope you can moderate your approach, but must admit that in my experience most peole find it difficult to do so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2008, 02:00 AM
 
Location: Minnesota
206 posts, read 354,630 times
Reputation: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by SebastianLamington View Post

Again you are trying to side step what you previously said.
Not in the least.

Antibiotic resistance is an example of its predictive power in practice as well as showing an example of how the theory has provided benefit to science. You are splitting hairs.

Quote:
I have pointed out that the process of artificial selection upon which all your examples are based predates the Theory of Evolution and are therefore not attributable to it. Try to read this carefully and think about it before you reply that I haven't read your examples.
Incredibly misleading. You don't have to invent something to contribute to it.

That is like saying that antibiotics aren't a beneficial part of medicine because they aren't where medicine originated.

Artificial selection and its applications may predate the ToE, but that doesn't mean that ToE hasn't lead to a better understanding of artificial selection and increased applications in the field.

Quote:
was given to show ADDitive mutation - I suggest YOU read it again. It talks about a beneficial DELETION. I don't need to give an example since you gave one for me.
Oh?

It's easy to just claim that, but it is demonstrably false for anyone who actually takes the trouble to read the article. I notice you didn't actually provide a quote. You just alluded to the support for your statement being in the article I linked to. Well, here is a quote from that article:

Quote:
Mutations create variations in the gene pool, and the less favorable (or deleterious) mutations are reduced in frequency in the gene pool by natural selection, while more favorable (beneficial or advantageous) mutations tend to accumulate, resulting in evolutionary change.
This isn't to say that it doesn't mention beneficial deletion. It does however mention addition as well as I have just demonstrated.

Quote:
No, I read the short article and noted that they were all similar. Selection principles yes, Theory of Evolution NO.
Evolution is simply change accumulated over time. You can dispute it all you like, but we see change happening on the small scale very clearly.

A lot of creationists admit to this change, calling it anything but evolution.

Still, your claim here is utterly false, and demonstrably so.

CB102: Mutations adding information

Quote:
Check out:

Unintelligently Attacking Intelligent Design

which addresses some of the issues we are discussing.

Same old, oft refuted arguments
I have seen a thousand times before. Here are some relevant rebuttals:

"No new genetic material"

"The Eye couldn't have evolved"

"Claims about Haldane"

Quote:
The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science but pseudoscience.[11][12][13][14] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[15] The National Science Teachers Association, an organization of American science teachers and the largest organization of science teachers in the world, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[16] Others have concurred, and some have called it junk science.[17]

Quote:
I am shocked that so many -not just you - people these days continue to argue that if most scientists think it is right it must be.
This is logical bunkum.
Lets just make all scientific understanding the result of a ballot. We can decide, or no rather you can decide who should be given the right to vote - afterall there is a great precedent for that...
Not in the least. Respecting the Scientific Consensus is very different than considering it infallable. One of the best things about science is that when it is wrong, it corrects itself. When the evidence no longer supports a conclusion, that conclusion has to be changed so it fits the evidence. To do otherwise would be dishonest.

Regardless, it all comes down to how much value and credibility we attribute to science. While I admit that science is imperfect, it is by far our best method of gaining understanding of things.

What really shocks me, is the way people seem completely willing to write the whole enterprise off as a big conspiracy theory or some sort of mass delusion despite the fact that every claim science provides is effectively tested for accuracy every time it is applied practically or experimented with.

It seems downright rediculous to me that those same people don't question things like the scientific consensus on things like the principles behind transistors or anti-lock brakes, but will discount everything the scientific community has to say when they advocate a theory which conflicts with their religious beliefs.


Quote:
sorry can't help it, but if you must lead with your chin - I agree I am attacking a strawman. It would be better if your arguments were made of firmer stuff.
You seem confused. Allow me to quote what a strawman fallacy actually is:

Quote:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position.[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
Sometimes it is deliberate, sometimes it is unintentional.


Quote:
That would be true if it were so, but your own failure to stick to the thread of your argument and to carefully read what others say and especially to understand the consequences of your own references is entirely your responsibility.

Now, can we turn it down a notch or two. The main reason I responded to your earlier post was that you were being disrespecful and pompous - it is better if none of us tries to tell others what they have or haven't done. If you are really here just to ridicule others OK, I wont bite back from now on. Otherwise I hope you can moderate your approach, but must admit that in my experience most peole find it difficult to do so.
In these forums we are not allowed to bring up personal attacks, and I refrain from doing so.

However, there is no rule against debunking arguments, and when it comes down to it, I am not going to pretend that a fallacious or deceptive argument is anything but what it is, and I will do my best to show them for what they are. Sometimes this results in the tone of my posts to become a bit adversarial. Still, I am not aiming to cause offense.

As to my mentioning that you appeared not to have read the articles I posted... well, that is just how it looks to me. Admittedly, I may have overstepped my bounds somewhat when I questioned your motives with regard to it, but you were repeatedly doing things like arguing against claims I never made or attributing claims to the articles I listed which were not included in their actual content.

From that I can only conclude that it is either a matter of willfull deception, or a lack of actual consideration of the argument. I don't consider it a personal attack, and don't intend it as such.

Last edited by MRiedl; 01-18-2008 at 02:12 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2008, 08:55 PM
 
Location: Iraq
51 posts, read 70,483 times
Reputation: 24
Quote:
SebastianLamington
..I agree I am attacking a strawman. It would be better if your arguments were made of firmer stuff.
....Hilarious. R.O.F.L.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2008, 06:22 AM
 
Location: Minnesota
206 posts, read 354,630 times
Reputation: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickcopernicus View Post
....Hilarious. R.O.F.L.
The ironic thing is that he could have avoided that little embarrassment simply by reading the link I provided when I first referenced the strawman fallacy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-19-2008, 07:05 AM
 
Location: Sydney Australia
14 posts, read 25,119 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by MRiedl View Post
Not in the least.

Oh?

It's easy to just claim that, but it is demonstrably false for anyone who actually takes the trouble to read the article. I notice you didn't actually provide a quote. You just alluded to the support for your statement being in the article I linked to. Well, here is a quote from that article:
Quote:
from you ref
Beneficial mutations
A very small percentage of all mutations actually have a positive effect. These mutations lead to new versions of proteins that help an organism and its future generations better adapt to changes in their environment. For example, a specific 32 base pair deletion in human CCR5 (CCR5-Δ32) confers HIV resistance to homozygotes and delays AIDS onset in heterozygotes.[6] The CCR5 mutation is more common in those of European descent. One theory for the etiology of the relatively high frequency of CCR5-Δ32 in the European population is that it conferred resistance to the bubonic plague in mid-14th century Europe. People who had this mutation were able to survive infection thus its frequency in the population increased.[7] It could also explain why this mutation is not found in Africa where the bubonic plague never reached. Newer theory says the selective pressure on the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation has been caused by smallpox instead of bubonic plague.[8]


This was your ref so I didn't quote it - the link was there to follow.
Quote:
a specific 32 base pair deletion
Note also that the result of this mutation was not that something new like an extra bone that happened but rather that less died - more bred.

Quote:
One of the best things about science is that when it is wrong, it corrects itself. When the evidence no longer supports a conclusion, that conclusion has to be changed so it fits the evidence. To do otherwise would be dishonest.
So if science can be wrong...

doesn't that mean...

that the theory of evolution...

could be wrong?

BLASPHEMY - burn him!

Admit it. If tomorrow the Earth is Proved to be less than 10,000,000 years old it would all be out on its bumpy bits.
What happens to the theory when it turns out to be about 6000 years.

Quote:
What really shocks me, is the way people seem completely willing to write the whole enterprise off as a big conspiracy theory or some sort of mass delusion despite the fact that every claim science provides is effectively tested for accuracy every time it is applied practically or experimented with.
Hey those of you who have actually studied science at University - isn't it great how the most improtant part of lab reports is explaining why your results DONT agree with the theory (LOL)

Quote:
It seems downright rediculous to me that those same people don't question things like the scientific consensus on things like the principles behind transistors or anti-lock brakes, but will discount everything the scientific community has to say when they advocate a theory which conflicts with their religious beliefs.
That is because those things are demonstrable as opposed to imaginable.
You apply a voltage to the gate of a transistor and the current flows - it can be measured, demonstrated, is repeatable. The Faith of Evolution can be none of these. It must be accepted as a religion and is defended with the same fervour. You accept it as proven because according to your world view it COULD have happened thus it must have.

Quote:
You seem confused. Allow me to quote what a strawman fallacy actually is:
Oh come on can't you see the humour - not even a bit - it was a joke!Oh NOW your smiling that's better.
I did apologise.

In the end you see my faith as ridiculous.
I see your faith as ill founded.
We are unlikely to change one another's views.
I can see that at least you have put some though and study into what you believe - that doesn't make you right but does show a rresponsible approach to your faith.
The thing that concerns ME is all the people out there who don't even know that it is a THEORY of Evolution and beleive it becaue they are told it is true.
To be fair to them there are a lot of people who try to pass it off as PROVEN FACT when it quite simply isn't measurable, demonstrable or repeatable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2008, 02:06 AM
 
Location: Sydney Australia
14 posts, read 25,119 times
Reputation: 15
Default Answering Original Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by victorytampa View Post
Why is it such a hot subject?
Sorry Victory,

I came in half way and never answered your original question.
Evolution is a hot subject because with it we do not NEED a creation myth of any sort... or so the beleivers (EVOLUTIONISTS) would have you think [whereas I class it simply as a very sophisticated creation myth of its own]. It is the ultimate There is no God!

If one does not beleive in evolution then it is hard to remain atheistic.

One might question even whether the early motivation for such a theory was to reduce the power of the church...

An even hotter topic might be the age of Earth.
If the Earth is young evolutoin is impossible and God more or less a given.

If the Earth is old then evolution becomes imaginable and Gid more or less irrelevant or disinterested at best.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2008, 02:27 AM
 
Location: Mississippi
6,572 posts, read 8,366,578 times
Reputation: 3931
Quote:
Originally Posted by SebastianLamington View Post
If one does not beleive in evolution then it is hard to remain atheistic.
Really? That's quite interesting. My wife, who is a devout atheist, probably couldn't even tell you who Darwin was. Of course, she grew up in an entirely different culture where bashing people over the head with religious beliefs and trying to force people to believe in God was seen as pretty childish and downright ridiculous. Atheism has nothing to do with evolution. I threw God in the garbage dumpster long before I ever attempted to understand evolution. Yes, evolution does explain a lot of things, but it's not a precursor or an excuse for not believing in God. The mere notion of some man in the sky making things is enough for me to discard the idea in the first place. I didn't need any help from evolution in helping me make my choice nor did my wife. It does explain a lot, but it's in no way the mode in which I decided to "kill God".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2008, 11:03 AM
 
Location: PA
2,616 posts, read 2,586,239 times
Reputation: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvxplorer View Post
The Windows operating system was created by an atheist. Therefore, your use of a computer proves God doesn't exist.

*smacks head*
You missed the point. There is no such thing as Evolutionary science, like there is no thing as Creation science. Evolution depends upon the evidence found in Operational Science. Evolution is not a science in and of itself, it is a guess at the past based on evidence in the presence. The same evidence in the present can also be used to prove Creation. I just think that more of the evidence supports Creation.

The computer proves that God exists. Since God creates, so must we since we are made in his image. As humans we created the computer. The computer is an intricate machine and requires all of its parts to work together for the whole to operate correctly. So, the computer is deliberately made and no amount of year applied to the raw matterials would cause a computer to arise out of pure chance. So the computer proves that intelligence is required for the computer to be created. This can be applied to humans. In order for us to appear on this earth we must have had a creator because we are complex with parts that cannot work independant to the whole or without the hole. Therefore man was created by someone who was intelligent. This someone we call God.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-21-2008, 12:42 PM
 
7,775 posts, read 5,040,820 times
Reputation: 1588
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nikk View Post
You missed the point. There is no such thing as Evolutionary science, like there is no thing as Creation science. Evolution depends upon the evidence found in Operational Science. Evolution is not a science in and of itself, it is a guess at the past based on evidence in the presence. The same evidence in the present can also be used to prove Creation. I just think that more of the evidence supports Creation.

The computer proves that God exists. Since God creates, so must we since we are made in his image. As humans we created the computer. The computer is an intricate machine and requires all of its parts to work together for the whole to operate correctly. So, the computer is deliberately made and no amount of year applied to the raw matterials would cause a computer to arise out of pure chance. So the computer proves that intelligence is required for the computer to be created. This can be applied to humans. In order for us to appear on this earth we must have had a creator because we are complex with parts that cannot work independant to the whole or without the hole. Therefore man was created by someone who was intelligent. This someone we call God.
This has absolutely nothing to do with your original claim. I missed the point indeed.

(Your locic is faulty; i.e, who created God? If you claim that God - an incredibly complex entity - can exist without need for creation, then your logic fails again.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top