Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12  [ show all ]
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
I want to debate a "creation scientist".
    #3396052 - 11/22/04 10:13 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Any takers?


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleHuehuecoyotl
Fading Slowly
Male User Gallery

Registered: 06/13/04
Posts: 10,689
Loc: On the Border
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Phluck]
    #3396065 - 11/22/04 10:15 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Creationism and science are conflicting terms...so you cannot find such a "scientist".


--------------------
"A warrior is a hunter. He calculates everything. That's control. Once his calculations are over, he acts. He lets go. That's abandon. A warrior is not a leaf at the mercy of the wind. No one can push him; no one can make him do things against himself or against his better judgment. A warrior is tuned to survive, and he survives in the best of all possible fashions." ― Carlos Castaneda

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Phluck]
    #3396073 - 11/22/04 10:17 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Every time I try to debate them, they always come up with random "facts" and "findings" by so-called "scientists," and while they're never supported by mainstream science, it's usually tiring to try and refute every single one.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Huehuecoyotl]
    #3396099 - 11/22/04 10:23 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Exactly, which is why I put the term "creation scientist" in quotation marks.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: silversoul7]
    #3396102 - 11/22/04 10:25 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Sometimes the facts and findings are real, they just don't prove what they claim they prove, because they ignore part of them, or misunderstand them.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleJellric
altered statesman

Registered: 11/07/98
Posts: 2,261
Loc: non-local
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Phluck]
    #3396148 - 11/22/04 10:36 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

I don't think you're going to find very many Christian scientists 'round these parts. Maybe I could pretend to be one.

No, you're better off finding a Christian science forum and who knows..you might even become the Swami of the CS forum!


--------------------
I AM what Willis was talkin' bout.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedEyeSamurai
Non-Prophet
Registered: 10/20/04
Posts: 47
Loc: The Valley
Last seen: 18 years, 10 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Jellric]
    #3396180 - 11/22/04 10:45 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Alright, while I might not believe in creationalism I am pretty sure I could play a good advocate for the devil.

What the shit are you talking about evolution, it is suggested by the half life of ....


never mind, the bible is a story.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSchazWat
Stranger
Registered: 11/21/04
Posts: 28
Last seen: 19 years, 4 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: RedEyeSamurai]
    #3396252 - 11/22/04 11:05 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

I could make a fact out of fiction, and fiction out of fact.

What do you want to debate about?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: SchazWat]
    #3396446 - 11/22/04 11:59 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Why are the thoughouly untested methods used in creation science to be considered on the same level as the vigorously investigated, criticized, and tested ideas and research that back up evolution?


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Phluck]
    #3396519 - 11/23/04 12:22 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

well let me ask you something: need creationism and evolution be mutually exclusive?

Call evolution a maintenance procedure

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3396525 - 11/23/04 12:26 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Well, no, there are all kinds of stories you could make up to connect the two ideas.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Phluck]
    #3396535 - 11/23/04 12:29 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

stories?
And what is science?
Aside from uninterpretted and useless data, theories *are* "stories"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3396547 - 11/23/04 12:34 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Aside from uninterpretted and useless data, theories *are* "stories"

Theories are uninterpretted and useless data?

Science is a lot more about experiments and tests than simple stories. A theory is admittedly a proposal of a possible explanation, based on the available data, if the data begins to contradict it, it must be changed.

We have no data regarding god. Putting that concept into the theory makes it a story, and not a theory.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Phluck]
    #3396558 - 11/23/04 12:38 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

An analogy:

You keep an aquarium upstairs. Downstairs, below the aquarium, water is dripping through the ceiling.

Theory: The water is somehow leaking from the aquarium.

Story: A gorilla made the water leak from the aquarium.

Later it turns out that the cleaning lady knocked over a bucket of water next to the aquarium, and it appears to have leaked through to the ceiling below. The theory was wrong, and is now discarded.

The story is still a story.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Phluck]
    #3396561 - 11/23/04 12:39 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

ehm
correct and incorrect

first, you must define god.
God can be construed as the universe- he is supposed to be greater than everything. Well, he cant be smaller than the Universe, now can he? Well, he can't be bigger than the Universe if it's to be the Universe either! You should conclude that they are one and the same. Different approaches, but just secure this premise.

Well, I think you can see how that would lend a hand to "creationists"

and about what I said before - theories are intepretations of OTHERWISE uninterpretted and useless data. There are alot of different ways to make a theory satisfy all the data you want them to : simplification is just a convention scientists try to use.


Anyway, so we DO have data regarding the Universe AKA God, correct?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineJCoke
dream observer
Male

Registered: 02/17/04
Posts: 1,229
Loc: maryland Flag
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3396572 - 11/23/04 12:42 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

the fact is, are human brains have yet to come up with answers about evolution, we ask how did it all start, you say from dust, we ask how did dust start? you say from smaller dust, and so on...

if there is a God who created us, i'm 100% sure he's working on a level we have yet to see, we have only five sence's, taste, smell, sight, sound, feel, wtf does that mean? we have no say in how life was started, nor christian nor scietist, we are here with what we got, who gives a fuck?


--------------------
hello, your name is life on earth
------------------------------------

"I traveled a long way seeking God, but when I finally gave up and turned back, there He was, within me! O Lalli! Now why do you wander like a beggar? Make some effort, and He will grant you a vision of Himself in the form of bliss in your heart." -the saint of the Kashmir Shaivism tradition: Lalli.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: JCoke]
    #3396579 - 11/23/04 12:44 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

I don't care; I'm just trying to dislodge the superiority of a pure evolutionist concept of existence

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: JCoke]
    #3396581 - 11/23/04 12:45 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

the fact is, are human brains have yet to come up with answers about evolution, we ask how did it all start, you say from dust, we ask how did dust start? you say from smaller dust, and so on...

You might want to do some research on evolution. Nobody says we started from dust.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Phluck]
    #3396584 - 11/23/04 12:47 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

really now, thats all just semantics ;p

Haven't you heard that we've likely come from clay aggregates, aka dust? Also, i think he was mixing creationism in there, it's just not too coherent for most people.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Phluck]
    #3396596 - 11/23/04 12:51 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

My grandfather, though he's not against evolution per se, has raised an interesting objection against current evolutionary theory(aka Natural Selection). He says that it focuses too much on the supremacy of genes, and not on the behavior or interactions of animals(other than breeding). I'm not sure I can fully articulate his position, but I just thought I'd throw that out there.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: silversoul7]
    #3396601 - 11/23/04 12:52 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

so are you just saying he doesn't believe behaviour and genetics are closely related?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3396613 - 11/23/04 12:55 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Sure, there's a relation there. But there's more to behavior than just genetics. Again, this is his position, not mine, so I'm not sure I'm not sure I can properly defend it.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3396623 - 11/23/04 12:57 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

God can be construed as the universe- he is supposed to be greater than everything. Well, he cant be smaller than the Universe, now can he?

Why not? That's a complete assumption.

Well, he can't be bigger than the Universe if it's to be the Universe either!

If you define "universe" as "all that there is.

You should conclude that they are one and the same. Different approaches, but just secure this premise.

Only if first I assume that the concept of God even makes any sense whatsoever, which I don't exactly see how it does.

Well, I think you can see how that would lend a hand to "creationists"

Yup, making a whole bunch of illogical assumptions makes it easy to validate anything you want.

and about what I said before - theories are intepretations of OTHERWISE uninterpretted and useless data. There are alot of different ways to make a theory satisfy all the data you want them to : simplification is just a convention scientists try to use.

Some scientists make assumptions and mistakes, but the basis of science is the process of peer review and criticism. There is lots of infighting and arguing about all kinds of scientific theories, and flawed ideas are quickly rooted out. While looking over all available data and putting together an idea of what most likely happened based on what we can prove isn't guaranteed to give us perfect answers, it is the only method we have that has shown results that can be proven to be more than psychological experiences.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineJCoke
dream observer
Male

Registered: 02/17/04
Posts: 1,229
Loc: maryland Flag
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3396645 - 11/23/04 01:02 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

lol phluck, go ahead and change dust with whatever you want, i was'nt talking about actual tiny piece's of dirt when i said "dust".

I now ask you with what did it all start?

i'm not gonna say God can't be within all things (like i'm against Gnostism or something.), i'm not gonna say God was'nt the only part in creation (maybe the "big bang" was God's words or something)

but what proof can you change my mind, go ahead, what makes you so sure? what makes you put creationism and evolution apart?


--------------------
hello, your name is life on earth
------------------------------------

"I traveled a long way seeking God, but when I finally gave up and turned back, there He was, within me! O Lalli! Now why do you wander like a beggar? Make some effort, and He will grant you a vision of Himself in the form of bliss in your heart." -the saint of the Kashmir Shaivism tradition: Lalli.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: silversoul7]
    #3396646 - 11/23/04 01:02 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

behavior or interactions of animals(other than breeding)

Do you mean like ideas and stuff passed on?

Or like, various events like predators having an effect on a species, because that's definately been studied a lot.

If you mean ideas, most animals tend to exhibit the same behaviours no matter their location, so it would seem that memes are less existant in the animal world likely due to different capacity.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Phluck]
    #3396673 - 11/23/04 01:08 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

you're not being very helpful.
Ok, fine, YOU define God so I have something to work with. Make sure its completely comprehensive :rolleyes: . PS not everything works with logic

Quote:



Some scientists make assumptions and mistakes, but the basis of science is the process of peer review and criticism. There is lots of infighting and arguing about all kinds of scientific theories, and flawed ideas are quickly rooted out. While looking over all available data and putting together an idea of what most likely happened based on what we can prove isn't guaranteed to give us perfect answers, it is the only method we have that has shown results that can be proven to be more than psychological experiences.




Yes, and scientists don't work well in groups. Groups are good for linking together new discoveries or checking results. Random chance is the primary source of actually new discoveries. Peer review based on other speculative reviews based on relative observations only *seem* more accurate

the creation of new, "better" theories renders much other theory AND its proposed uses, links etc useless if the new theory is adopted by the scientific community. One of the many problems within the scientific community is that it is an exclusive heirarchical social organization.  If you do not agree with basically 99% of what they say, you are disregarded, unless they decide to steal your idea some time down the road.

"Flawed" in what respect? Remember that you're only trying to fit a "theoretical line" to a points of data- if you even dare rely on another theory, you're digging yourself into a hole. What seems a best fit may be a complete misinterpretation. Atomic theory was "flawed" until, of course, it was adopted as almighty truth.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Phluck]
    #3396716 - 11/23/04 01:20 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

also, an inconception about science you hold - it is impossible to *prove* a single thing in science.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3396756 - 11/23/04 01:34 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Yes, and scientists don't work well in groups. Groups are good for linking together new discoveries or checking results.

Scientists don't work well in groups? That's a vast generalization if I've ever seen one. Scientists generally have to work well in groups in order to succeed.

Peer review based on other speculative reviews based on relative observations only *seem* more accurate

Uh huh, and where are you getting that from? Again, nothing is perfect, but peer review is an extremely effective way of criticizing ideas and weeding out the ones that haven't been well thought out. While I'm sure you can find examples where people weren't treated fairly, that hardly proves peer review to be ineffective. Also, if this were even remotely true, someone like Stephen Wolfram would have been completely ignored by the scientific community, and while he's certainly receiving a lot of scrutiny, people in the scientific community are paying attention to his work.

One of the many problems within the scientific community is that it is an exclusive heirarchical social organization. If you do not agree with basically 99% of what they say, you are disregarded, unless they decide to steal your idea some time down the road.

What are you basing this on, exactly? The reason outside ideas are usually disregarded is not because they're just being elitists... it's actually because most outside ideas are horrible.

"Flawed" in what respect? Remember that you're only trying to fit a "theoretical line" to a points of data- if you even dare rely on another theory, you're digging yourself into a hole.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Thinking about two things at once is too hard?

Atomic theory was "flawed" until, of course, it was adopted as almighty truth.

Um, it was?

Science isn't just a bunch of people presenting ideas and saying they're right. Not being able to understand how much the collection and interpretation of data, and the rules of proper science figure into the knowledge that science has accumulated shows that you don't really have much knowledge of how the scientific community works or how science is carried out.

To claim that the main reason a theory like evolution is widely accepted has more to do with politics than plain old facts doesn't really give the impression that you're even very familiar with the facts.

Evolution is predominant despite politics and extremely strongly held convictions. Very powerful people were very opposed to the idea, including many scientists. However, it does such a good job of explaining the biological makeup of the world that it was extremely difficult for people who were actually familiar with it not to accept it.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3396766 - 11/23/04 01:38 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

also, an inconception about science you hold - it is impossible to *prove* a single thing in science.

Well, I'm not sure what an inconception is, but I know that absolute proof isn't possible for anything, but we can certainly collect evidence for certain things. Some things have no evidence to back them up, some have lots.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleninjapixie
newbie
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/04
Posts: 417
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Phluck]
    #3396769 - 11/23/04 01:39 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

According to this poll 45% of americans believe in creationism- that god created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=14107

You don't have to believe in evolution but to take the bible so literally is just absurd.


--------------------
Put that monkey back in the oven.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: ninjapixie]
    #3396790 - 11/23/04 01:46 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

That's pretty frightening, actually.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Phluck]
    #3396795 - 11/23/04 01:48 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

You say this because I have a different take on it? Trust me, I've seen a bit too much of scientific community and inquiry, and I am thoroughly disgusted. I no longer follow the illusion of truth the community tries to present.

Quote:

Scientists don't work well in groups? That's a vast generalization if I've ever seen one. Scientists generally have to work well in groups in order to succeed.



Success, yes. NEW discovery, no. Of course helpers can be used, but actually new discoveries are based on random chance and not collaboration. How will you keep true to the scientific heirarchy while trying to find something which contradicts some part of it! feh




I did not claim that evolution is accepted because of politics. You keep confusing matters more and more. In no point did I say that science is based on politics - I very obviously pointed you towards the fact that it plays a *large* part . In fact, are you even aware that natural selection had been generally understood for *at least* centuries before Darwin wrote a book on it? He kept from publishing it until someone else decided to write a book on it, at which point Darwin published his and just plain attacked the other man.

Quote:


I'm not sure what you mean by that. Thinking about two things at once is too hard?



I was quite plainly telling you to support your claim that there are inherently flawed theories ( without circular logic ) that can instantaneously be flung into the trash barrel.

Quote:

Um, it was?



yes. you seem to be lacking in scientific history.

Quote:

Science isn't just a bunch of people presenting ideas and saying they're right



thanks, captain obvious!



Quote:


Evolution is predominant despite politics and extremely strongly held convictions. Very powerful people were very opposed to the idea, including many scientists. However, it does such a good job of explaining the biological makeup of the world that it was extremely difficult for people who were actually familiar with it not to accept it.



and this still has nothing to do with diminishing the value of creationism. I tell you again: define God ! That, I contend, is the one link between evolution and creationism. Until you define God, your point about creationism is completely null and void.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBleaK
paradox
Registered: 06/23/02
Posts: 1,583
Last seen: 10 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3396798 - 11/23/04 01:50 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

i feel like quoting leary but im sure uve all heard it.


--------------------
"You cannot trust in law, unless you can trust in people. If you can trust in people, you don't need law." -J. Mumma

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibleninjapixie
newbie
 User Gallery

Registered: 02/06/04
Posts: 417
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Phluck]
    #3396822 - 11/23/04 01:59 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Probably the same people that voted for Bush.


--------------------
Put that monkey back in the oven.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3396859 - 11/23/04 02:13 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

You say this because I have a different take on it? Trust me, I've seen a bit too much of scientific community and inquiry, and I am thoroughly disgusted. I no longer follow the illusion of truth the community tries to present.

:rolleyes: :smirk: I'm sure you were heavily involved.

Success, yes. NEW discovery, no. Of course helpers can be used, but actually new discoveries are based on random chance and not collaboration.


Random chance plays into everything, but working in groups can certainly help.

How will you keep true to the scientific heirarchy while trying to find something which contradicts some part of it! feh

What's that supposed to mean? Scientists try out new ideas that go against common and popular theories all the time...

I was quite plainly telling you to support your claim that there are inherently flawed theories ( without circular logic ) that can instantaneously be flung into the trash barrel.

A theory that claims something that blatantly goes against the available evidence, or that is disproven through testing would certainly be flawed.

yes. you seem to be lacking in scientific history.

Explain the flaws in atomic theory that are still widely accepted today.

I tell you again: define God ! That, I contend, is the one link between evolution and creationism. Until you define God, your point about creationism is completely null and void.

Why am I defining God, exactly? Creationists generally say that God is the all powerful dude that created everything about 10,000 years ago.

My argument was that creation science does not follow the same principals as real science, does not have anywhere near the evidence to back it up, and is therefore not equal to evolution theory. I'm not sure what the definition of God has to do with this.

In fact, are you even aware that natural selection had been generally understood for *at least* centuries before Darwin wrote a book on it?

Uhm... sort of true. Darwin's theory is a lot more refined than those that came before him

He kept from publishing it until someone else decided to write a book on it, at which point Darwin published his and just plain attacked the other man.

Not really true at all. In fact, urban legend material. They were friends.
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/cd-aw.htm


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3397198 - 11/23/04 06:17 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Trust me, I've seen a bit too much of scientific community and inquiry, and I am thoroughly disgusted. I no longer follow the illusion of truth the community tries to present.

No?

Ok, then. Turn off that computer, pack it up, and bring it back to the store.

Forgive me for saying it, but it seems rather hypocrtical to call science a fraud while taking advantage of one of the MANY tools science has DIRECTLY provided for us.

Turn off all the lights in the room, you don't need them...they're just part of an illusion.

What is this "illusion of truth the community tries to present"? Science is NOT is the business of presenting "truth" to the world. That would indicate a death of science - if it were possible to find "THE TRUTH" there would be nothing left for us to search for.

No. Science searches for answers. If you are unwilling or unable to accept the answers it finds, then stop using all the wonderful little gadgets that have come from those answers.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: trendal]
    #3397582 - 11/23/04 09:24 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

We're not all perfect. I would if I could. I'm not going to change a damn thing about the system i see full of holes either. Do you support the exploitation of masses ? Do you support big brother? Do you support the jailing of harmless drug users? No? Why are you living in a country? Sorry, but trendal, you sir are a being a stupidhead by saying "LEAVE IT OR LOVE IT"


"Science is NOT is the business of presenting "truth" to the world."

Theres one very, very important thing which most people ignore. There is science AKA knowledge and the pursuit of, and science the human social organization. I am not against knowledge. I am against human heirarchical organization supposedly in pursuit of knowledge. Scientists don't blindly point a finger in any random direction and see if they can get an answer from that area. Their human desires and emotions push them to different areas and different questions, but their involvement in the scientific community forces them to be subservient.

I will not proclaim support for people who claim to be objectively seeking knowledge, but will be directed by the flow of money. Knowledge, inventors and truly motivated scientists have my respect. The scientific community does not.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3397608 - 11/23/04 09:33 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

also, an inconception about science you hold - it is impossible to *prove* a single thing in science.

This is not entirely correct.

In mathematics, in the field of Formal Logic, you can prove something to yourself, without any doubt whatsoever, so long as the theorem and the postulates that prove it are defined within an internally consistent and complete framework.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Phluck]
    #3397619 - 11/23/04 09:38 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

i wrote a response earlier. i submitted it. I do not see it. Fuck.
Ok, ill rewrite it to a lesser degree.

Quote:

I'm sure you were heavily involved.



I was on the track to be. I've talked at very long lengths with different people on the subject, and have generally convinced them of my position. Before you say something stupid about the legitimacy of their position, one of them is going to be on the front page of the next issue of Nature.

Quote:



Random chance plays into everything, but working in groups can certainly help.




How? Contrary to popular belief, the more brains a group, the *worse* it performs. Mobs are an extreme example. Study groups are a small example. Offer me at least one piece of support for your claim.

Quote:


What's that supposed to mean? Scientists try out new ideas that go against common and popular theories all the time...




They test things or try out possible loopholes. They *cannot* do anything actually new without witnessing something that has not been named, studied etc some more. This is almost entirely in the hands of random chance, though I will admit that some scientists can find completely new things without too much random chance. However, their progress is too inefficient to be ultimately useful in the long run - random chance requires no preparation, but the % decreases with time - a > a-1 > a-2 etc, where a is all the things that havent been discovered. *LOOKING* for something new requires preparation, predictions etc. I cast doubt if this will be sufficient to continue scientific growth in a few hundred years.

Quote:


A theory that claims something that blatantly goes against the available evidence, or that is disproven through testing would certainly be flawed.



Evidence is often contradictory; data is not perfect.
You can't entirely disprove anything through testing. You can bring the scientific community to shun someone who presents something they cannot recreate, however.

Quote:


Explain the flaws in atomic theory that are still widely accepted today.



You misunderstand. They were flaws until atomic theory was adopted as reality. I'm sure there are still flaws somewhere in atomic theory, but they have not been exposed yet.



Quote:

Why am I defining God, exactly? Creationists generally say that God is the all powerful dude that created everything about 10,000 years ago.

My argument was that creation science does not follow the same principals as real science, does not have anywhere near the evidence to back it up, and is therefore not equal to evolution theory. I'm not sure what the definition of God has to do with this.



Fine, you win. Creationist scientists who do nothing but make shit up and twist evidence are useless. Too bad that doesn't say anything about creationism itself. My argument is that creationism and evolution can get along quite well.





I will refrain from answering the Darwin stuff; I did in my wiped post, but basically that link contradicts some of what I read in The Moral Animal (wright).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3397630 - 11/23/04 09:42 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Diploid said:
also, an inconception about science you hold - it is impossible to *prove* a single thing in science.

This is not entirely correct.

In mathematics, in the field of Formal Logic, you can prove something to yourself, without any doubt whatsoever, so long as the theorem and the postulates that prove it are defined within an internally consistent and complete framework.




mathematics. Science is not mathematics, though mathematics can sometimes be science's bitch.

Applying mathematical proofs to science is not so easy. Furthermore, mathematical proofs are essentially a form of logic, meaning that all premises must be 100% true.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3397990 - 11/23/04 11:28 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Do you support the exploitation of masses? Do you support big brother? Do you support the jailing of harmless drug users? No? Why are you living in a country? Sorry, but trendal, you sir are a being a stupidhead by saying "LEAVE IT OR LOVE IT"

No, no, and no :smirk:

Why am I still living in "a country"? Last time I checked, the ONLY place left on Earth that isn't part of "a country" is the south pole...though it IS claimed by several countries. However despite my current situation, being stuck in a place I have no wish to be, I have removed myself from being "part of the problem". I do what I do on my own, not by the wishes of the society/country around me...and I am currently in the process of ESCAPING. Can't be done over night, though.

However you COULD give up your computer over night. You COULD give up electricity over night. You COULD remove yourself from the grip of science...but chose not to. Why?

Is it because you enjoy the things science gives you? (I know I do)


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezahudulallah
Sexual Heretic

Registered: 10/20/04
Posts: 10,579
Loc: Tokyo, Japan
Last seen: 18 years, 10 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Huehuecoyotl]
    #3398012 - 11/23/04 11:34 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Huehuecoyotl said:
Creationism and science are conflicting terms...so you cannot find such a "scientist".




You can.. www.harunyahya.com

This perhaps offers the best scientific argument for creationism, and he's not even Christian.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3398114 - 11/23/04 12:01 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

How? Contrary to popular belief, the more brains a group, the *worse* it performs. Mobs are an extreme example. Study groups are a small example. Offer me at least one piece of support for your claim.

Mobs are a group.
Mobs don't work well together.
Therefore groups don't work well together.

Nice logic. The thing is, all people are different. Some work far better in groups, and some work far better alone.

They *cannot* do anything actually new without witnessing something that has not been named, studied etc some more.

So... they can't do anything new without studying things that haven't studied before? I remember you said something about Captain Obvious in a previous post.

This is almost entirely in the hands of random chance, though I will admit that some scientists can find completely new things without too much random chance. However, their progress is too inefficient to be ultimately useful in the long run - random chance requires no preparation, but the % decreases with time - a > a-1 > a-2 etc, where a is all the things that havent been discovered. *LOOKING* for something new requires preparation, predictions etc.

This is pretty silly. This assumes that there's a limited number of things to discover, and that we're making a big enough dent in the knowledge that is out there that we're taking away from the new things to discover. It's also silly to say that scientists methods are inefficient because random chance is a factor in discoveries

Random chance is not the only factor, but it's a factor in everything. If I set out to build a house I'm going to need some funding, strength, perseverance... and a bit of random chance.

When making a scientific discovery you're going to need a lot of background knowledge, the ability to study your own ideas objectively, the ability to think creatively of new possibilities, and random chance. However, knowledge is not like a pool that we're continuously dipping into and removing things from, it's more like a growing tree. With each new discovery, the possibility of other discoveries opens up. So new discoveries are not taking away from the odds of subsequent discoveries.

Sure, there are lots of questions science hasn't answered, or tried to answer. There are questions that we could have explored already but haven't. Do internal politics play a part? Somewhat. There is nothing in the world that is perfect, and there is no organization that is free from political squabbling.

Science is the only method we have that provides us with objective views of new ideas, and a method of testing them.


Evidence is often contradictory; data is not perfect.
You can't entirely disprove anything through testing. You can bring the scientific community to shun someone who presents something they cannot recreate, however.


Evidence is on some occasiona contradictory, and data is never perfect. If that's the case, it's time to do more testing. I've never heard of a scientist being shunned simply because he couldn't recreate something. I've heard of scientists being shunned because they FAKED RESULTS that couldn't be recreated. If the study has been done properly, and the results contradict another study, and you stubbornly say that what your study says is right, then you're an idiot. What needs to be done then, is the question needs to be approached from other angles.


You misunderstand. They were flaws until atomic theory was adopted as reality. I'm sure there are still flaws somewhere in atomic theory, but they have not been exposed yet.


So all of science just suddenly started ignoring the flaws and it was accepted as reality? Or did subsequent discoveries show that it wasn't really flawed?


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: zahudulallah]
    #3398199 - 11/23/04 12:14 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

This perhaps offers the best scientific argument for creationism, and he's not even Christian.

I don't see any science at all. I see a description of creationism using scientific terms.

This is the technique started when The Genesis Flood was released in the '60s. Carefully selected pieces of scientific discovery were selected, and used to back up the biblical version of creation.

If you can find any argument that this guy presents that you think is valid, check here:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/

and see if it's covered. If not, post it here, and I'll try to explain the difference between "creation science" and real science.

You'll also want to read this:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_stat.htm


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezahudulallah
Sexual Heretic

Registered: 10/20/04
Posts: 10,579
Loc: Tokyo, Japan
Last seen: 18 years, 10 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Phluck]
    #3398383 - 11/23/04 12:55 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Personally I'm an evolutionist - but I'm also a creationist since I believe God created everything via evolution.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: trendal]
    #3398457 - 11/23/04 01:09 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

If you wish to use that logic, what on Earth has not been touched by the effects and byproducts of science?

Hell, without science we wouldnt even have a giant hole in our atmosphere or pollution and synthetic chemicals everywhere either.

If you can remove yourself from supporting those things yet remain in a country, why can I not remove myself from supporting the effects of science, yet continuing to use them?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Phluck]
    #3398544 - 11/23/04 01:23 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:


Nice logic. The thing is, all people are different. Some work far better in groups, and some work far better alone.




quit doing that! Thats not what I said. The mob was an obvious example of how intelligence degenerates as group member numbers rise. The study group should also have been obvious, but on a smaller scale.

What people work best within groups? Perhaps those who need to rely on the others in the group? Examples please


Quote:


This is pretty silly. This assumes that there's a limited number of things to discover, and that we're making a big enough dent in the knowledge that is out there that we're taking away from the new things to discover. It's also silly to say that scientists methods are inefficient because random chance is a factor in discoveries

Random chance is not the only factor, but it's a factor in everything. If I set out to build a house I'm going to need some funding, strength, perseverance... and a bit of random chance.

When making a scientific discovery you're going to need a lot of background knowledge, the ability to study your own ideas objectively, the ability to think creatively of new possibilities, and random chance. However, knowledge is not like a pool that we're continuously dipping into and removing things from, it's more like a growing tree. With each new discovery, the possibility of other discoveries opens up. So new discoveries are not taking away from the odds of subsequent discoveries.

Sure, there are lots of questions science hasn't answered, or tried to answer. There are questions that we could have explored already but haven't. Do internal politics play a part? Somewhat. There is nothing in the world that is perfect, and there is no organization that is free from political squabbling.

Science is the only method we have that provides us with objective views of new ideas, and a method of testing them.



i suppose herein lies the crux of our conflict.

i dont feel like making paragraphs, so
a) there are a limited number of things to discover
b) I didnt say NOW we're running out - i said in a few hundred years at least, assuming that science keeps growing.
c) I keep looking at this in the long run. Random chance is a very serious factor if you consider how many discoveries could simply not have been found in any reasonable amount of time without some freak occurance.

Quote:

knowledge is not like a pool that we're continuously dipping into and removing things from, it's more like a growing tree. With each new discovery, the possibility of other discoveries opens up



Yes. Groups of scientists are good at connecting parts of the growing tree together. They are not, however, good at going out, scrounging up something completely unseen, and introducing it into the growing mass. I claim that discoveries fal into two categories:

1) Combination, application of other discoveries
2) freak occurance which is then studied and added to the growing tree

The scientific community, groups etc are good at 1). They are very very bad at 2) . If you increase the number of scientists etc sufficiently, 1) can go pretty quickly. 2) will barely increase at all.


Quote:


Science is the only method we have that provides us with objective views of new ideas, and a method of testing them.



It may well be the most objective method available. However, to quote jefferson airplane "Nobody's right if everybody's wrong"

Quote:


So all of science just suddenly started ignoring the flaws and it was accepted as reality? Or did subsequent discoveries show that it wasn't really flawed?



Both I suppose. Internal politics swayed the people to look hard at atomic theory and embrace it. There have been times when scientific discoveries were ignored and bashed because they were simply too nutty to bear.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3398589 - 11/23/04 01:33 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

The mob was an obvious example of how intelligence degenerates as group member numbers rise. What people work best within groups? Perhaps those who need to rely on the others in the group?

WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE POLICTICAL AND SOCIAL RAMIFICATIONS (please!), the Manhattan Project employed over a million people and was quite successful.


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Swami]
    #3398607 - 11/23/04 01:38 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

yes, and as in the other part of my post,
they never discovered anything completely new, though they did a good job of bringing a project to fruition.

Hrm though I suppose that does seem to contradict my intelligence going down assertion. Or does it? Most of the work that needed to be done was mechanical, and the supervising thinkers were free to independently pursue solutions. It was essentially not a big group of people, it was a group of varied groups.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGomp
¡(Bound to·(O))be free!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/11/04
Posts: 10,888
Loc: I re·side [primarily] in...
Last seen: 1 year, 27 days
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Phluck]
    #3398882 - 11/23/04 02:31 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

""Any takers?""

maybe me?

This is not concluded, I leave it open cause maybe one know not the truth nor shall try to
change peoples minds. This is a hypothesis?
One need not know where one is going but be on the way.


One thing that ?great? about all religions and stuff is the similarities between them. Most of all of it is pretty much open to however you interpreter it.
The ?problem? with it, is when people take what is said one way, and they
claim that one what they say IS the truth.
Putting a belief into anything, until it is ??proven? in a ?strongly
convincing? way?, could give inn to the benefit of the doubt?
Well, to maybe make this ?hypotheses? a little bit more ?comprehensible?, I
mention the words of a ?smart man?: Albert Einstein, he figured out by 1905, as he was formulating his special theory of
relativity: while you can't exactly get something from nothing, you can come close.

His famous formula, E=MC2, works both ways. Just as matter can be converted into
energy, so too can energy become matter.

Creation, the void is always there, and never there. (No thing) applies to the void. To
understand the void is impossible, because it is of infinity. We cannot comprehend
infinity, so let us just ?accept? it for what we can understand of it? (Individually?)
(Far out shit, insert her)
Earth
Then anything got something... An object (tellus). Energy, melted rock from  ?explosion? in the sun (in creation process of sun?).This object appeared in the
void. Can we call it god? The Earth, it was born in the Sun?s plasma (and cosmic ?shit??) and was put into the circumsolar orbit more than 4 billon years ago.
"spinning" in this void. It moves through the void, in (a universal?)orbit.
At the  orbit, under the action of powerful centrifugal forces resulted
from the fast axial Earth?s rotation, a part of the melted layer as a big drop was
separated from the Earth to rotate about. This is a way the Moon could have formed?it could just been matter, caught by the early Earths atmosphere, Evolutionary changes of the Earth are huge up to this moment today, of course?
So, the area of the Earth has now been created. Space to move through, and space to
place objects within.
If we do call the earth God, now God has created the heavens and the earths and all
that exists!

Then god evolves, Relativity, Life is created? Objects within the space are made up
of god. These objects evolve to be us and many other animals and stuff. So in a
sense, "we are god" since we are of the same thing. We are all of the same
source, yet we are different in appearance. Since matter is energy,
there are different frequencies of energy. We could happen to be made of all form of
energy. There are higher forms that make up the total god object. We can currently
move through the world in this very moment, and what makes this moment, different from the last moment? For one, you remember the last moment this
moment?
Lets say time is nothing in history, the calendar, or to make
scheduled appointments and so on. No age. We are only as "old" as we
think we are. we are immortal, mortals
could maybe have the body and enough functions to live ?3? times longer than average death
age today? :laugh: (random number?)

Religions and spiritual things say, we will move on?
This ascension, this evolution, this death of our current forms, and the birth of a new.
let us say that when you die, what ever you think is gone happen in your mind, will
happen. Death is the beginning of a new life, or the final darkness if that is what
you think it is?
It may be death to our bodies, but our bodies could be vessels. Our mind  within our bodies, and our body within our mind.
That it is the mind and the mind that "control" how we (again the mind?) interoperate what we feel, smell, hear, taste and see?

Are we all of one source. Made up of god, god being everything, anything, something, nothing?

Do wrong to each other, and do wrong to ourselves?
Maybe that is why some strive to
do good?
Realized by the creation of a world, whit inn, whit out. One united language and intent, where this dimension comes to close the "end of the world", apocalypse,
judgement day people de-ascend into heaven\hell?
Creation is now? Has been? Could be? (It?)

The golden age is something from the past, because it is no past, it is this
moment (picture a circle, spiraling) over, and over again, and we could call it the Golden
moment instead???


Btw: no desires to neither prove nor disprove these views, (?and philosophies??).
Does it matter?
Could still talk about them? :P


:confused:  :heart:


--------------------


--------------------
Disclaimer!?

Edited by Gomp (11/23/04 02:34 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: zahudulallah]
    #3399877 - 11/23/04 06:25 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Creationism and science are conflicting terms...so you cannot find such a "scientist".




You can.. www.harunyahya.com

This perhaps offers the best scientific argument for creationism, and he's not even Christian.


He's not even a scientist either.

From the Harun Yahya (why are all these New Age places always so hard to spell?) web site where it gives a bio of the guy you're referring to:

"Oktar started his intellectual struggle in 1979 during his education at Mimar Sinan University's Academy of Fine Arts."

Academy of Fine Arts?? This is not a scientist. Try again.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3399884 - 11/23/04 06:27 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

all scientists are not factory-built.

are you suggesting that someone who concentrated on art for roughly 4 years of their life cannot make a scientific argument?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3401052 - 11/23/04 10:18 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Science is not mathematics

That's like saying science is not biology. Where did you go to school?

though mathematics can sometimes be science's bitch.

I have no idea what you mean by this. Care to explain?

Furthermore, mathematical proofs are essentially a form of logic, meaning that all premises must be 100% true.

A study of logic (or philosophy) at the high school level would convince you that you're wrong. Have you ever heard of Kurt G?del?


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (11/24/04 09:42 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3401091 - 11/23/04 10:27 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

are you suggesting that someone who concentrated on art for roughly 4 years of their life cannot make a scientific argument?

I'm suggesting that someone who has never studied science is not a scientist the same way that someone who has never studied medicine is not a doctor.

While you might take passing medical advice from someone who dabbles in medicine, I doubt you'd let that person perform surgery on your liver.

There's nothing wrong with believing in creation if that's what floats your boat, but let's stop passing it off as science, shall we?


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (11/23/04 10:49 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSwami
Eggshell Walker

Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3401178 - 11/23/04 10:43 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

There's nothing wrong with believing in creation if that's what floats your boat

Don't get me started on Noah's Ark and the two of every species thing...


--------------------



The proof is in the pudding.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineld50negative1
lethal dosage

Registered: 07/01/04
Posts: 821
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3401194 - 11/23/04 10:45 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

This isn't really an argument based on what's going on in this thread, but I wonder. Where did the idea of God come from? Just think about it? Why or how could anyone formulate this? I mean, it's easy to say we evolved because you look at things around you and say, "that makes sense because I can SEE it and analyze it!". But the idea of God seems like it'd be an impossible idea if we only originated from some other way/evolution.

There would have to of been/is some form of interaction between God and his creation to really know of God.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineld50negative1
lethal dosage

Registered: 07/01/04
Posts: 821
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Swami]
    #3401206 - 11/23/04 10:47 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Swami said:
There's nothing wrong with believing in creation if that's what floats your boat

Don't get me started on Noah's Ark and the two of every species thing...




Come on Swami, I'm interested.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineoceansize
fuckin' right.

Registered: 08/31/04
Posts: 216
Last seen: 17 years, 5 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: ld50negative1]
    #3401305 - 11/23/04 11:06 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

But the idea of God seems like it'd be an impossible idea if we only originated from some other way/evolution.

Is this a joke?

But seriously, are you serious? So even with the broad vast differences in the 10,000+ (32,000 Christian denominations alone) distinct religions on the planet, they are all from the same source?

If god never existed, man would invent him. The same way he invented every for of theology, from animism and scientology, and don't tell me those are all from the same true source.


--------------------
"And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh." - Friedrich Nietzsche


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineld50negative1
lethal dosage

Registered: 07/01/04
Posts: 821
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: oceansize]
    #3401685 - 11/24/04 12:49 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:


But the idea of God seems like it'd be an impossible idea if we only originated from some other way/evolution.

Is this a joke?

But seriously, are you serious? So even with the broad vast differences in the 10,000+ (32,000 Christian denominations alone) distinct religions on the planet, they are all from the same source?

If god never existed, man would invent him. The same way he invented every for of theology, from animism and scientology, and don't tell me those are all from the same true source.




opinion. Just because (assuming) you don't believe in God does not mean that this is impossible. Man seems take things as it is around him - an idea of God is impossible without an actual God or at least spiritual realm to draw man to this. oceansize saying that "God is the figment of your imagintion" doesn't provide any answers to anything.

Why are all of these theologies/ideas all based on the same thing? spirituality. Who would come up with the idea HEY! there's another "other form" of us inside our bodies!

No this is not a joke.

I believe in God and also believe in the divinity of Jesus. I'm the worst kind then right?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3407094 - 11/25/04 02:26 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

The mob was an obvious example of how intelligence degenerates as group member numbers rise. The study group should also have been obvious, but on a smaller scale.

I'm pointing out that the fact that mobs does not prove that people work worse together as you put more people in the group. When you have one mob of people crying out for something, that's a lot different than many independant groups of people working to study different things.

They are not, however, good at going out, scrounging up something completely unseen, and introducing it into the growing mass.

Of course science can't magically pull information out of thin air. Nobody can.

Religion and spirituality can certainly create emotions that make you feel like you've made discoveries, but these will always directly contradict someone else's equally strong emotions, and there is absolutely no way to verify them.


1) Combination, application of other discoveries
2) freak occurance which is then studied and added to the growing tree

The scientific community, groups etc are good at 1). They are very very bad at 2) . If you increase the number of scientists etc sufficiently, 1) can go pretty quickly. 2) will barely increase at all.


So the greater the number of people working on something does not significantly increase the odds of someone randomly making a discovery?

What universe do you live in?

It may well be the most objective method available. However, to quote jefferson airplane "Nobody's right if everybody's wrong"

Science doesn't say everybody is wrong. It says nobody is sure of anything without evidence.

Big difference.


Both I suppose. Internal politics swayed the people to look hard at atomic theory and embrace it. There have been times when scientific discoveries were ignored and bashed because they were simply too nutty to bear.


Name one.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: ld50negative1]
    #3407110 - 11/25/04 02:36 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Man seems take things as it is around him - an idea of God is impossible without an actual God or at least spiritual realm to draw man to this.

People don't seem to take things as they are though. They constantly make up stories to explain things they don't understand.

Hell, we even have people whose job is to make up fake stories about fake people.

Saying that because the idea of god exists, there must be a god doesn't make any sense.

When we're growing up we have parents that we believe know everything, can provide anything, and are always able to tell us what is the right thing to do, and what is the wrong thing to do. As we grow older, we begin to realize that parents aren't any different than us, but our entire psychological development has been based upon the existance of an all knowing, all protecting being so we invent a replacement that is tied into the very fabric of the cosmos, and that can never be taken away.

That's just one possible explanation for the source of the idea of god, without there having to actually be a god.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Phluck]
    #3407777 - 11/25/04 11:02 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

christ

just came back after a bit, im way too tired to reply to all of the above, most of which is multiple people misinterpretting my position and what i said ( A-fucking-GAIN ). Basing it not *exactly* on what I wrote, but taking it into their own context. fuck!

ok, to start
Quote:


Science doesn't say everybody is wrong. It says nobody is sure of anything without evidence.

Big difference.




I wasn't talking about within science. I was talking about scientific method itself - it inevitably has many flaws which will present themselves later on. You yourself, in the previous post, said something along the lines of "well it's the best method we have!"

I'm just saying it's not good enough. Don't take me wrong. I'm not even a creationist ( my position is more of a not-enough-data-to-compute one ), and I do support certain technological and scientific developments.

Quote:


Name one.



how far back can I go? Eratosthenes calculating the round world's circumference. What, he doesn't count as a scientist to you? Do you want to stick with post-mendel people? Einstein. How long must their theories be ridiculed to count?

Quote:

So the greater the number of people working on something does not significantly increase the odds of someone randomly making a discovery?

What universe do you live in?



And this is where my earlier thing comes into play. People are fairly similar. If they are scientists, they are all following scientific method. The number of events that they *can* randomnly chance upon is thus decreased. They will only get really obvious things which just haven't been noticed before - randomnly chancing on radium for example.



Diploid:
Are you suggesting science is a subset of mathematics? Mathematics is a limp tool - it doesn't search out anything - it is a method of analyzing data which has already been collected and interpreted. OR it can be used, to a degree, in interpretting data. However, the data must exist outside of mathematics.


Quote:


There's nothing wrong with believing in creation if that's what floats your boat, but let's stop passing it off as science, shall we?



I'm fighting uphill against rabid "scientists" who claim no "unjustified" belief in anything ( but science ), who think that I follow what I'm defending? No no no, I'm not a creationist. However, I do enjoy poking holes in the very subtle holes in your boat.



Quote:


A study of logic (or philosophy) at the high school level would convince you that you're wrong. Have you ever heard of Kurt G?del?



Are you telling me that the ouput can be correct with garbage input?

Quote:

I'm suggesting that someone who has never studied science is not a scientist the same way that someone who has never studied medicine is not a doctor.

While you might take passing medical advice from someone who dabbles in medicine, I doubt you'd let that person perform surgery on your liver.

There's nothing wrong with believing in creation if that's what floats your boat, but let's stop passing it off as science, shall we?




Studied ? Why at a university? I never said he didn't study it - you were saying he's not a scientist because he went to art school ( thats all you had to work with )

Also, I doubt I'd let just anyone who studied medicine perform liver surgery. Seems like you would? I would trust a man well known for doing well with liver surgery, not some cretin who simply went to medical school.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3408125 - 11/25/04 01:04 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

I'm just saying it's not good enough.

I'd like to change that from "It's the best method we have" to "it's the best method we could possibly have.

how far back can I go? Eratosthenes calculating the round world's circumference. What, he doesn't count as a scientist to you? Do you want to stick with post-mendel people? Einstein. How long must their theories be ridiculed to count?

So you're saying that these guys had perfectly good theories that have been discarded for no reason other than prejudice?

Einsteins theory of relativity came nowhere near close to being proven, and many people are therefore sceptical that it's entirely accurate. I'm not sure what the problem is there.

If you're trying to say that he was shunned when he first proposed it, the fact that he is probably the most internationaly recognized scientist around kind of proves that didn't last very long.

And this is where my earlier thing comes into play. People are fairly similar. If they are scientists, they are all following scientific method. The number of events that they *can* randomnly chance upon is thus decreased. They will only get really obvious things which just haven't been noticed before - randomnly chancing on radium for example.

I'm really not sure what you're getting at here, ideas and discoveries are not entirely random, often they rely on good, creative thinking more than random chance.

But either way, there's no way anybody can magically pull information out of thin air, and saying that this is a flaw in science is ludicrous.

Science can't answer questions that are impossible to answer. That is why they are impossible.

I'm not sure why anyone would expect science to answer impossible questions. I don't know why anyone would expect ANYTHING to answer impossible questions.

You can't make completely unreasonable demands of something, and then when it fails to come through, claim that it's flawed. It's like saying that the fastest runner in the world isn't really that good because he can't go faster than the speed of light.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Phluck]
    #3408179 - 11/25/04 01:30 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

except that the questions are answerable by other means. Not verifiably according to science, but thats only because it restricts all of reality to matter/energy its reactions, and their abstractions


Quote:

I'd like to change that from "It's the best method we have" to "it's the best method we could possibly have.



Can you support this claim at all - your faith in science is shining through a bit too brightly methinks?

Quote:


So you're saying that these guys had perfectly good theories that have been discarded for no reason other than prejudice?



No, I'm saying prejudice played a huge part, are you saying that it didn't play a big part?


Quote:


But either way, there's no way anybody can magically pull information out of thin air, and saying that this is a flaw in science is ludicrous.



Thats not what I demand of it. I demand it to be useful ALWAYS.
Let me give you an example to illustrate the form of inefficiency: explaining the universe binarily is basically impossible without computational powers far beyond the capacity of the entire universe. Science is this binary force.

Explaining the Universe via massive abstraction is possible ( yes yes blah blah science using abstraction, moron! blah blah this is an analogy, not a direct argument ). It is, however, truly difficult. Art, while inaccessible to many, is able to do this. Does it provide "answers" ( the answers are constantly changing anyway ) ? No.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3408204 - 11/25/04 01:39 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Mathematics is a limp tool - it doesn't search out anything - it is a method of analyzing data which has already been collected and interpreted. OR it can be used, to a degree, in interpretting data. However, the data must exist outside of mathematics.

Your ignorance is showing. You *REALLY* need to take a course in logic and/or philosophy.

Where did you go to school? I'm really curious.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3408215 - 11/25/04 01:43 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Studied ? Why at a university? I never said he didn't study it

His bio never said he studied it either.

you were saying he's not a scientist because he went to art school

Nope. As my friend Swami is fond of asking: reading comprehension problems?

I said he's not a scientist because he hasn't studied science. What part of that sentence are you having trouble with?


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3408235 - 11/25/04 01:50 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Not verifiably according to science, but thats only because it restricts all of reality to matter/energy its reactions, and their abstractions

How does "science" restrict "all of reality to matter/energy its reactions, and their abstractions"?


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3408282 - 11/25/04 02:04 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Which I'm assuming you implied from his attendance at art school, not science school.

"During his university years, he carried out detailed research into the prevalent materialistic philosophies and ideologies around him, to the extent of becoming even more knowledgeable about them than their advocates"

This can be interpretted as scientific study, since he considers scientific theories to be included in "materialistic philosophies and ideologies."

Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Quote:


Your ignorance is showing. You *REALLY* need to take a course in logic and/or philosophy.



care to enlighten me then? Tell me how science is a subset of mathematics instead of asking stupid questions.

As for the school, i'm a bit disappointed to say i entered the college of arts and sciences at boston university and am currently working on a college of fine arts degree.

trendal:
Quote:

How does "science" restrict "all of reality to matter/energy its reactions, and their abstractions"?




physics is the foundation of science, and the atom is considered the smallest building block of matter. The abstractions i refer to are large collections of atoms into objects, creatures, people, etc.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3408318 - 11/25/04 02:15 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

This can be interpretted as scientific study, since he considers scientific theories to be included in "materialistic philosophies and ideologies."

You can interpret studying art as studying science all you want, but that won't make it true.

physics is the foundation of science, and the atom is considered the smallest building block of matter.

Wow. Your ignorance of science is truly profound... even troubling.  :sad:

am currently working on a college of fine arts degree.

Figures...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3408356 - 11/25/04 02:26 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Not verifiably according to science, but thats only because it restricts all of reality to matter/energy its reactions, and their abstractions

Why would we even bother with information that isn't verifiable in any way? There's definitely no reason to think that it brings us any closer to the truth.

I enjoy thinking up strange stories and images, funny situations, and bizzare explanations. I like it a lot, actually. But there's a huge separation between being creative, and aquiring actual knowledge. The world inside my head is in constant change. Dreams don't have any laws, or even a proper use of memory. But in this concrete world, things have clear patterns, and my own actions can have an affect on them. My actions often have consistant effects, and I am able to apply this directly, without fail, to all kinds of everyday things.

The real world is the only one anyone can gain any consistant information on.

I am quite sure that the universe is wildly more complex than I can possibly understand, and it does bother me to some extent that I can't fit a bigger picture into my view of the universe, but the last thing I want to do is replace that void with something that is false. Considering the sheer number of spiritual ideas out there, the odds of any one of them being anywhere near correct seems a little low.

I always thought it odd that people think that conciousness is somehow important. Like it's the key to the universe, or that there are higher concious beings. It seems a little bit arrogantly in favour of what might be a fairly simple trait in the whole scheme of things.

No, I'm saying prejudice played a huge part, are you saying that it didn't play a big part?

When it came to Einstein, he was the dinosaur who refused to accept that quantum mechanics had any validity. This was when he said "God doesn't play dice", which I think we can all agree is a baseless assumption. People still had a lot of respect for him, but the newer, better ideas, which were more refined versions of his own ideas went on.

Let me give you an example to illustrate the form of inefficiency: explaining the universe binarily is basically impossible without computational powers far beyond the capacity of the entire universe. Science is this binary force.

That doesn't make any logical sense though. Science is not "binary". That isn't a rational statement at all. Bananas are hexadecimal! Science doesn't claim it can explain every single thing about everything.

If this:

Can be explained by this:
zt+1 = z tk + C where Cs = -0.824-0.1711i

Then I don't see how it can be claimed that it's been proven that science cannot calculate the nature of the universe. It may or may not be the case, but it certainly hasn't been proven either way.

Is anything able to explain the full nature of the universe? We know we can certainly create a set of experiences and emotions that will convince a human being that they understand the nature of the universe, but we don't have any evidence whatsoever that this has anything to do with actually discovering the nature of the universe.

Explaining the Universe via massive abstraction is possible ( yes yes blah blah science using abstraction, moron! blah blah this is an analogy, not a direct argument ). It is, however, truly difficult. Art, while inaccessible to many, is able to do this. Does it provide "answers" ( the answers are constantly changing anyway ) ? No.

Art reflects the interpretation of the world through the mind of someone, but it's not even necessarily reinterpreted by the viewer in the way the artist sees it. Art can be used to explain a lot of things, but I don't see how it explains the universe.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3408374 - 11/25/04 02:33 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

physics is the foundation of science, and the atom is considered the smallest building block of matter.

I think the general consensus now is that atoms are not the smallest building blocks. There's a little theory called quantum mechanics that deals with sub-atomic structure.

This is all that has been discovered to date. It is not a restriction, because science is a progression not an end. Obviously "science", or the scientific community, did not stop with the discovery of the atom. What we once thought were the smallest building blocks, are now only another layer of structure.

You can't blame science for what it hasn't discovered yet.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: trendal]
    #3408488 - 11/25/04 03:06 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

yes, i know this.

I suspected some of you would jump on that.

It's been a while since I've done any physics. Note that I used the word "considered." If I remember correctly, some subatomic particles are considered to make up energy. Atoms are not. I was alluding only to this possibility.

besides which, that's really not very relevant. People, objects etc are made up of something far smaller and describable via physics according to science, correct?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3408502 - 11/25/04 03:09 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

People, objects etc are made up of something far smaller and describable via physics according to science, correct?

No, but this is what we have discovered about what we are made of. That does not exclude the possibility of future discoveries, ones that we had no idea existed.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3408511 - 11/25/04 03:11 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:


You can interpret studying art as studying science all you want, but that won't make it true.



You changed the question to reading comprehension. You incorrectly assumed something very significant, and you continue to do so. He was not restricted to studying art. Like it or not - believe it or not - not everyone has a one-track mind. You have no textual evidence to back up your claim that he only studied art; he may well have studied science independently in an attempt to understand his .. opposition.


Quote:

physics is the foundation of science, and the atom is considered the smallest building block of matter.

Wow. Your ignorance of science is truly profound... even troubling.

am currently working on a college of fine arts degree.

Figures...



Could you kindly either shut the hell up, or teach me the "right" way? You're being nothing but an unhelpful curmudgeon in this discussion.

Note that I'm exploring this position entirely; I hold no actual, unchanging position here; you simply have not provided a single insight.

"figures" is a disgusting show of ignorance on your part.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3408527 - 11/25/04 03:19 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

The fact that you forgot that atoms weren't the smallest particle does seem a little odd. Strange that someone who was "heavily involved" in science would forget the lessons from the first day of high school physics...


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleFucknuckle
Dog Lover

Registered: 04/24/04
Posts: 6,762
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Phluck]
    #3409941 - 11/25/04 09:28 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Atoms are made of things called Quarks and some other sub Atomic shit

And guess what quarks are made from??

Something and they are made from something and they are .......


It will never end just like the cosmos. If you look very close or very far you will only find infinity.


--------------------
What it is, is what it is my Brother.
It is as it is, so suffer thru it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3410291 - 11/25/04 10:29 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

You have no textual evidence to back up your claim that he only studied art

I make no claim other than his bio says nothing about having studied science. You're the one claiming he did, or may have. If this were true, why isn't it in his bio? Does this makes sense to you? Leaving out so important a detail from his bio?

he may well have studied science independently

If he did, it would be in his bio. It isn't.

Could you kindly either shut the hell up

Nope. As long as you keep putting out nonsense, I'll keep jumping on it. Don't like that? Don't type nonsense.

teach me the "right" way?

I wouldn't know where to begin. You don't have even a fundamental grasp of science or the scientific method. And I'm not your tutor; if you really want to learn, audit a science class or two, or pose a specific question; I'll be happy to answer if I can.

you simply have not provided a single insight.

If you poke around in the forums here, you'll find that I frequently work my ass off typing up, editing, and finally posting reams of information to teach people with questions in the areas I happen to have expertise in.

I would do the same here, except that when I tried above to bring to your attention a rudimentary error you made in the field of mathematics:

Quote:

also, an inconception about science you hold - it is impossible to *prove* a single thing in science.

This is not entirely correct.

In mathematics, in the field of Formal Logic, you can prove something to yourself, without any doubt whatsoever, so long as the theorem and the postulates that prove it are defined within an internally consistent and complete framework.




you replied with attitude:

mathematics. Science is not mathematics, though mathematics can sometimes be science's bitch.

and followed up with another giant blunder:

Applying mathematical proofs to science is not so easy. Furthermore, mathematical proofs are essentially a form of logic, meaning that all premises must be 100% true.

then you topped even that one with:

Mathematics is a limp tool - it doesn't search out anything - it is a method of analyzing data which has already been collected and interpreted.

If you want to start over with a neutral, open mind, and only post things you know about and that aren't patently wrong, then this conversation can move forward.  :thumbup:


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (11/25/04 10:59 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAlan Stone
Corpus

Registered: 11/23/02
Posts: 986
Loc: Ten feet up
Last seen: 18 years, 8 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3411381 - 11/26/04 06:42 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

I won't enter into this debate, as I feel there is not enough evidence to support either stance - be it evolution or creation - but I have one thing to say, though.

Morrwind said "science is not mathematics", not the other way around. That statement was correct. Science is not biology either, Science is a term that includes mathematics, biology and other fields. The whole is more than the sum of its parts, and definately not just one of its parts.

Cheers,

Captain Obvious


--------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

- Aristotle

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Phluck]
    #3411861 - 11/26/04 10:38 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

i didn't say they were. Do you honestly think I didn't know about subatomic particles? I was able to go into independant physics studies at brown u. during high school because I well finished off both the honors and AP.

i explained why i said atoms in my next post. Would you rather I said a couple of things, like gluons? But the problem is that those might well be not the smallest. I picked a moderate position, and I find it ridiculous that I have to explain that.

also, i was going to reply to your other post now. However, I see this is going nowhere at all.

You all think I'm some uneducated retard ( your interpretation warms my heart ), and that makes abstract discussion impossible. Why the hell would you try arguing with some idiot who can't even answer a simple question without involving a something that obviously has nothing to do with the subject at hand?

and diploid,
Are you afraid of a little attitude? What do you expect when over four pages I keep replying and people keep chiming in You ignorant bastard, heres MY antiargument to yours: "..." ( well ok that may have been an inaccurate re-enactment, but it need not be accurate)

The fact that you did nothing but insult, and didn't explain yourself even ONCE speaks for itself. The fact that you mull over minor details is even more annoying.


Let me leave you with something which you'll probably find easier to swallow.


On a psychological level, religion and science ( just examples ) are worldbuilders - an entire interpretation of the universe is written with either of them.

Religion is based on belief, stories and philosophical elements such as morality.

Science is based on asking questions, and answering them, most often with quantitative interpretations of qualitative phenomenon.

On a purely epistemological level, religion's value lay in creating answers from its stories to propogate harmony within an individual and society - ie opiate of the masses. It's undoing, in science's eyes, would be that it is variable - it is not "objective" and relies on the interpretor. Religion could be seen as compensating for this with the creation of priests and etc, the catholic church makes this more efficiently controlled with a head priest, the pope, and a heirarchy of priests.



Science's value lay in making things "objectively" comparative- helping to make decisions on a mathematical level ( i still detest calling one part of the other, fundamentally they are not the same, but i digress- let them seem so )- this allows for creating an efficient "tree of knowledge". Human interaction with this in both choosing areas to explore and ways to deal with problems essentially upgrades the binary tree to an AVL tree (analogy).


Religion is mostly a process of interpretation - all the data is present. Science has interpretation down at the most fundamental level - but has no data to start with. Which one is more "accurate" or "useful"? That depends entirely on the purpose.

Science is a piece of trash without enough data. Religion is a piece of trash with many clashing AND equal points of view.

Creationist scientists are essentially making an in-between version - they change the mode of interpretation to allow variable controls. They can answer many things without data, because they can point exactly to where the data should be. Scientists would find this questionable because the data is not there. Religious people would find this questionable because it relies on data which simply does not get interpretted by them - religious text is the sum of their data. Adding more to it would require making religious a dynamic data structure, which would make it a piece of trash.

Now, please refrain from making science the ultimate. Data-collection is its most serious flaw- all data in the universe will not be collected. ever. When society is falling because religion has been dismantled by rabid scientists and there is no data to interpret, I will be laughing my ass off in the grave.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3412712 - 11/26/04 02:57 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Science has interpretation down at the most fundamental level - but has no data to start with.

Wha--- huh?

Why do we have to be able to answer every single question? I'm simply not going to lie to myself because I don't know what the answer to a question is.

Yes, religion has many differing viewpoints, but there's no reason to think they have any validity.


Now, please refrain from making science the ultimate.

When it comes to answering questions, science IS the ultimate. Not being able to know everything about everything might be disturbing so to some people that they need to invent answers, but it does bother me enough to have to do that.

When society is falling because religion has been dismantled by rabid scientists and there is no data to interpret, I will be laughing my ass off in the grave.

Yeah, that's right, the only reason society is standing is because we believe in fairy tales.  :rolleyes:

Morality does not require religion to exist. There are many people who do not buy into religions who are very good people.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3412725 - 11/26/04 03:04 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

You all think I'm some uneducated retard ( your interpretation warms my heart ), and that makes abstract discussion impossible. Why the hell would you try arguing with some idiot who can't even answer a simple question without involving a something that obviously has nothing to do with the subject at hand?

I never said anything of the sort. I just thought that since you hadn't given any details about your studies, and you said something that made it seem like you didn't know some basic facts about physics, you might have been exagerrating your knowledge about science in order to make it sound like you were more involved. If that's not the case, I'm sorry, but I've seen people do that kind of thing a lot in other discussions.

I'm also sorry that you're not going to listen to my viewpoint at all simply because I said something that offended you.

You've been talking down to me as much as I have to you, that's the nature of debate. It's competative, that's human nature. No wonder you thought there was too much in fighting in science, it seems you get easily offended.

PS. If this post offends you even more,

SORRY, ALREADY.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Phluck]
    #3412771 - 11/26/04 03:18 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:



Why do we have to be able to answer every single question? I'm simply not going to lie to myself because I don't know what the answer to a question is.

Yes, religion has many differing viewpoints, but there's no reason to think they have any validity.




I was making an outline. For science to always be very useful to it must be much, much faster ( even relatively ) at getting data. Through science's eyes, religion is basically trash ( and vice versa ).

However, religion is invaluable at keeping people and culture together. Yes, it has its problems. Both sides do. Morals have nothing to do with the usefulness of religion to society, mind you. I said NOTHING of morals.

I suppose it would be possible to replace religion with an actual drug distributed to everyone, but i think there are too many complications to make that work. hmm..

Quote:

Yeah, that's right, the only reason society is standing is because we believe in fairy tales.




So once said the bored critic to a new writer. :p

You devalue religion far too much ( are you born and raised American? Purely curious, i won't even comment on it ). Stupid people will never follow science. They will follow religion. Making religion as basic and helpful as possible is beneficial to everyone.

Consider religion a double-edged sword with the edge facing you being duller. In context of society, science would be the opposite. Yes, for every new discovery you have a flurry of new directions and questions. You also have new objections. There will always be more stupid people than smart people - they breed faster, longer and stronger.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Phluck]
    #3412818 - 11/26/04 03:29 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

you didn't

Phluck, I see you are mostly just debating. And you put forth good several strong arguments.

I'm not really offended by anyone here - just that certain attitudes make any sort of debate .impossible. ( they are often hard, but impossible is 100% useless ). Note that while I may show no signs of an actually different argument, that's only because I'm trying to preserve consistency - consider it a control in an experiment i'm learning from.


You're right that I left the sciences because of the competition. I am extremely sick of the politics in it- I looked to the higher level with researchers, their superiors and onward and saw that there was actually much more crap the higher you go up the chain ( especially at the independant research level, opposite groups actually try sabotaging/discrediting opposing teams! ughhh ) .

Again, I'm not offended, I'm just annoyed when people don't contribute .anything. but snide side-comments.


As a personal aside, art is different because you don't need to compete. Yes, there are many artists who try to compete a hell of a lot. It's possible to actually avoid those people, unlike science ; the heirarchy of artists is fairly loose compared to the sciences. I do much better competing with my own ambitions than others', however odd that may sound.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3413014 - 11/26/04 04:25 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Are you afraid of a little attitude?

Not at all, attitude all you like, but don't expect me to go out of my way to help you out of ignorance by giving me attitude.

I keep replying and people keep chiming in You ignorant bastard

Nobody called you a bastard, but I did call you ignorant and I'll stand by that as long as you keep making absurd statements about science and mathematics that are blatantly wrong.

There's an easy way to shut me up: stop posting nonsense.

On a purely epistemological level, religion's value lay in creating answers from its stories to propogate harmony within an individual and society - ie opiate of the masses. It's undoing, in science's eyes, would be that it is variable - it is not "objective" and relies on the interpretor. Religion could be seen as compensating for this with the creation of priests and etc, the catholic church makes this more efficiently controlled with a head priest, the pope, and a heirarchy of priests.

This is the first thing you've posted here that I can relate to intelligently. You've confined this paragraph to theology and haven't tried to foist it on us as if it were science.

Science's value lay in making things "objectively" comparative- helping to make decisions on a mathematical level ( i still detest calling one part of the other, fundamentally they are not the same, but i digress- let them seem so )- this allows for creating an efficient "tree of knowledge". Human interaction with this in both choosing areas to explore and ways to deal with problems essentially upgrades the binary tree to an AVL tree (analogy).

So far, so good...

Which one is more "accurate" or "useful"? That depends entirely on the purpose.

[Diploid nods (a qualified) yes]

Science is a piece of trash without enough data.

Ouch! You were doing so well there.

I can go off and write volumes on why this statement is wrong, but suffice it to say that, in the beginning, science had nothing, and through the wonderful tool the Scientific Method is, we've gone from savages in the wilderness to landing men on the Moon. Science did this with no data to start with.

Creationist scientists are essentially making an in-between version

Dam, you did it again. And I was starting to hold out hope for you.

Creation Scientists are scientists in name only.

You see, in order for something to be called science, there are certain prerequisites. Among them is the *REQUIRED* use of the Scientific Method. Creation Scientists do not use the Scientific Method and this is just one of many prerequisites that they do not comply with.

You can call them scientists all you like, but that will not change the fact that they are theologians, and more than that, they are theologians with the arrogance and audacity to go around calling themselves scientists.

Sorry, you don't get to change the rules of science just because you think it includes magic.

Now, please refrain from making science the ultimate.

Where did I do that?

When society is falling because religion has been dismantled by rabid scientists and there is no data to interpret, I will be laughing my ass off in the grave.

Society exists in large part due to science, not in spite of it. Don't agree? Stop being a hypocrite; turn off your computer and go live in a hut in the woods with no power, running water, access to modern medicine, or DSL. :thumbdown:


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (11/26/04 04:55 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Alan Stone]
    #3413073 - 11/26/04 04:41 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Morrwind said "science is not mathematics", not the other way around. That statement was correct. Science is not biology either, Science is a term that includes mathematics, biology and other fields.

Don't you think I know that?  :tongue:

My comment was a subtle joke; a double-play on Morrwind's words to humorously draw out and demonstrate his error by repeating it re biology.

No more subtlety for you guys.

[Diploid sighs in disappointment]


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3413077 - 11/26/04 04:43 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:


Ouch! You were doing so well there.



At the moment it had no data, it was in itself useless at that period in time, correct ( ignore potential. It's not within the bounds of what I was talking about )? I meant nothing else. Data was added, and it was made useful.

Quote:

Creation Scientists are scientists in name only.




correct. As I explained, they are not scientists or strictly religious. So far we're not in disagreement. But, as you yourself said,
Quote:

Creation Scientists are scientists in name only.



So their name/label, in fact, is "Creation Scientists." What did you want me to call them?

Quote:

Where did I do that?



Sorry, that was directed at a wide area of people, not you. Many people feel that adopting scientific principle as a basic foundation of society is a worthy goal. THAT is what I most fight against. Not science -rather, calling science something more than it is.


Quote:


Society exists in large part due to science, not in spite of it. Don't agree? Stop being a hypocrite; turn off your computer and go live in a hut in the woods with no power, running water, access to modern medicine, or DSL.




Trendal suggested the same thing. Look back to my reply on that.

Yes, modern society exists in large part due to science. HOWEVER - invention is not science, correct? Many inventions have been pure tinkering. Science was used in seeing why those inventions work.

BTW - I'm not a creationist/creationist scientist or even religious. The voice I use in debate is never my own, and rarely the same. Here, let my lay out a few of my "beliefs" in my own voice:

Science can lead to alot of good, but can lead to much horror in the wrong hands.

Government funding for science should be pure funding if it exists - no government-imposed purpose in mind, same for any other funding source.

Religion can be very useful to society.

For a long while, I was a computer science major - it is ridiculous that I would *actually* fear technology.

HOWEVER - I've come across many people who feel that science is the most useful method, and the salvation of the human race. This is a very dangerous course of development - it would force science into becoming religion. People ( note: I did not say individuals ) simply *must* have religion - and, well, if science is the only thing left.. this is probably the shakiest of my beliefs in others' eyes; it is supported mostly through the anthropology I've studied/written/watched, including independant research into the matter.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3413089 - 11/26/04 04:49 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Also,
as to
Quote:

making absurd statements about science and mathematics that are blatantly wrong.




This is one reason why many people find it hard to debate with me. They're not inherently absurd statements; they are statements which might be re-evaluated in some time in the future, if they happen to develop as I suggest they might. Sort of like I'm pointing out shaky spots in your proof for a statement.

A similar approach is used in security applications. Sometimes, just sometimes, those overlooked holes lead to disasters; this is often seen in computer systems. "That'll NEVER happen!!" "*PROVE* it!!!!"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3413334 - 11/26/04 06:02 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

At the moment it had no data, it was in itself useless at that period in time, correct ( ignore potential.

You're inserting an arbitrary restriction on what can be considered useful in order to prop up your position. This isn't fair. If your position is valid, then it can stand up to the truth without restriction.

Science, in the beginning, had only potential. This is the essence of the scientific method. The Scientific Method allows no assumptions, no guesses, no inventions of facts, none of that. So, because of the rigid adherence to the Scientific Method that science requires, science must necessarily have had nothing except potential at the beginning.

It then proceeded to make observations, postulate theories and suggest experimental and observational ways to rigidly and objectively test those theories to determine their veracity. If the theories failed the test, they were discarded in favor of new theories that passed those tests. Those theories, in tern, were also rigidly tested as the pool of knowledge increased. By repeating the cycle of theory, test, refute/support, and repeat, science has brought us to where we stand today.

Religion has been around much, much longer than science, but all we have to show for it are beautiful cathedrals and child-molesting priests.

So their name/label, in fact, is "Creation Scientists." What did you want me to call them?

Uhm, theologians? Or anything you like as long as you don't call them Scientists.

If you persist in calling them scientists, I'll persist in asking you for their credentials as such. I'm strongly motivated in this and I'm fortunate to have lots of free time, so it's up to you how we proceed.

Many people feel that adopting scientific principle as a basic foundation of society is a worthy goal.

Count me among them. You see, I'm not a hypocrite, so I recognize that, for instance, were it not for the life-expectancy increases society has gained directly from science, I probably wouldn't be around today to debunk theology trying to pass itself off as science.

THAT is what I most fight against.

And this is where we most disagree.

HOWEVER - invention is not science, correct? Many inventions have been pure tinkering. Science was used in seeing why those inventions work.

That may have been true when inventions consisted of bicycles, or brooms, or door hinges, or washing machines.

But, trust me when I tell you that the ubiquitous transistor, radios, TVs, computers, the Internet, cell phones, Radiation Oncology, MRI machines, engineered drugs like the ones likely to cure AIDS, Leukemia, and the common cold, or the lasers that make your DVD and CD players work, or the math that makes your MP3 Player play, or the chemistry that tests for Mad Cow and Prostate Cancer, or the airliners that hold the promise making the world smaller such that maybe through mutual understanding there will one day be peace on Earth, or any number of other things all have very little to do with invention and a lot to do with science and mathematics.

Here's an example: How does someone "invent" a 300 gigabyte disk drive like the ones selling now for about $200? The answer is that it's not invented. Achieving such high aerial densities requires the application of an area of physics known as Quantum Scattering Theory. Without this theory, it would be impossible to design a read-write head capable of imparting so much information onto so small a surface area as is available in a modern hard drive. This is why most of the technical staff at the major hard disk manufacturers are physicists, not priests.

Science can lead to alot of good, but can lead to much horror in the wrong hands.

I don't agree. Science can lead to a lot of *information*. What people do with that information is what can lead to good or horror.

If someone is murdered by a knife, do you blame the knife or the murderer?

Religion can be very useful to society.

Religion may comfort those who prefer the ignorance of a sugarcoated lie to a harsh truth, I'll concede that, though I don't know that I'd characterize it as good.

However, here is why I don't agree with you that religion is "very useful to society":

-Torture at the hands of the Inquisition

-Witch burnings at the hands of the Catholics

-Endless killing in Northern Ireland

-Genocide in Rwanda

-War in Bosnia-Herzegovina

-Civil was in Sudan

-Extreme, radical fundamentalist Muslim terrorists in Afghanistan

-Fragile peace in Bosnia holding only due to the presence of UN peacekeepers

-C?te d'Ivoire murders of Muslims at the hands of the government

-Fragile peace in Cyprus holding only due to the presence of UN peacekeepers

- Ongoing conflict in India among Animists, Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs

-Ambon Province in India - Sporadic conflicts between Christians and Muslims

-Kashmir; Hindus and Muslims both claim Kashmir, have been fighting over it longer than I've been alive, and now both are nuclear-capable.

-South Africa where hundreds of people accused of being witches are murdered each year.

Kosovo, Kurdistan, Macedonia, the Middle East: West Bank, Israel, Nigeria, Northern Ireland, Philippines, Chechnya, Vojvdina Province in Serbia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tibet, Uganda, Iraq, Afghanistan...

I could go on all night, but my fingers are getting tired. All these conflicts are, at least in part, religious in nature. Don't believe me? Watch CNN.

If fact, religion has even recognized itself as the source for much of the world's suffering when a group of world religious leaders from Buddhist, Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Christian, Jewish, Muslim and many other faiths met in Geneva in 1999 to issue a document, The Geneva Spiritual Appeal, asking  political and religious leaders and organizations to ensure that religions are not used to justify violence in the future. Delegates believed that the then-current 56 conflicts around the world all had religious elements.

So, don't sit there telling me that:

Religion can be very useful to society.

:mad2: !


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (11/26/04 07:06 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGreat_Satan
prophet of God
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 953
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3413393 - 11/26/04 06:18 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Here's a debate on evolution vs. creationism:

http://forum.faithfreedom.org/viewtopic.php?t=2351

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3413539 - 11/26/04 07:00 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

the key word is can. Not is, but can. I thought it was horrible until I actually learned something about it.

Many of those conflicts are actually better defined as cultural, and have been going on since before christianity. Looking at it as just religious is both very ignorant and very common for purely Western thinkers. Religion, culture and language are VERY tied together outside of the US and Europe. You're quite naive if you think that its possible to cut out religion, or even just nuetralize it.

Did you know that life and religion are actually the same word in many places? they are indistinguishable in certain places. For the most part, the middle east is an example.

This may come as a shock to you, but genocide could be both relatively bloodless and kind. There are thousand+ year fueds going on ( kurdish areas for example, many slavic areas are BRUTAL ). There is far more killing that goes on over a thousand years than a simple ethnic cleansing. Is this horrifying to you? It was to me.

I still don't support genocide in the least. However, I'm not going to bullshit or make up stories like a child and say that it's for the greater good to prevent it. It's our own weakness that prevents us from thinking that way. Ohh but it's so unfair!!

think of all the people slain - the fighting will not end until the other side brutally murders the other.


I'm sorry to break it to you, but individuals are not so special. It is good to protect individuals, but when millions will be destroyed through the protection of a few thousand, no bloodless or innocent hands will have protected the thousands.


In short, learn a bit about human history and nature. It is full of blood and will continue to be so. Science is a false reprieve for dreamers who want it to stop. I too want it to stop, but that will not be achieved by trying to be objective. If you nuetralize yourself to violence, you are like a vine in the jungle, ready to be cut down when anyone wants to pass.

I tried being pacifist - but I learned of history and human behaviour. I am not so stupid to be a martyr- look at the millions slaughtered during WW2 . But when people suggest we turn to science, whose influence is at the whim of politicians and government, I grow angry.

Religion is bloody, yes. But it is less bloody than the alternative. Religion helps the shortsighted to realize that ethnicities are not quite so different and bad. The concept of Jesus is groundbreaking in his treatment of others- it told people NOT to kill each other over ethnicities - and it worked for a long while, then it started breaking down a bit due to corruption and bad decisions.

I'm sorry to point out such a grim outlook to you, but it is something that must be dealt with, and not ignored.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3413599 - 11/26/04 07:17 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

I think you may be confusing religion with true spirituality.

Religion is Spirituality encoded into rigid sets of dogmas, rules, and so on. In other words, Religion is usually egoically-driven spirituality, and that's where it all goes wrong.

The one religion that I can think of that is the most free of such entanglements, is Zen-Buddhism.

Scientology may be one considered by Diploid, eh?  :wink:

But on a last note, I see what both of you are saying, and am not taking any 'sides' on this or anything, just offering a clarification.





--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3413624 - 11/26/04 07:28 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Many of those conflicts are actually better defined as cultural

Not according to the religious leaders who produced the Geneva Spiritual Appeal in 1999. The group consisted of Buddhists, Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims and numerous other faiths. Don't believe me? Google "Geneva Spiritual Appeal".

Looking at it as just religious is both very ignorant and very common for purely Western thinkers.

With a few exceptions, I haven't claimed that list of conflicts to be "just religious". Don't put words in my mouth; I take great pains to communicate precisely.

Here's what I said:

Quote:

All these conflicts are, at least in part, religious in nature.




And the Geneva Spiritual Appeal agrees with me.

This may come as a shock to you, but genocide could be both relatively bloodless and kind.

Geez, here we go again with your nonsense.

This may come as a shock to you, but Merriam-Webster OnLine says that Genocide is:

"the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"

Religion is bloody, yes.

No shit.

[Diploid skips over the incoherent rant]

Let me get this straight. You are justifying genocide??? Did I read you correctly?

You JUSTIFY GENOCIDE???! :whoa:


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (11/27/04 02:11 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: SkorpivoMusterion]
    #3413745 - 11/26/04 08:19 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Yes, I know. But I also put forth the claim that the masses are incapable of true spirituality - religion is somewhat of a trick to give them a conscience, which will be better for all than not having one.


Diploid - they say that every issue has negative and positive aspects. Yes, I justified genocide to a degree. Did I say I agreed with it? No. But by god, I justify it.

Are you really so paranoid of it? Embrace your fears and demons - they will teach you alot. You seem to be falling into this group:
Quote:

those who prefer the ignorance of a sugarcoated lie to a harsh truth




"the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"

correct, did you think you misread me?

Quote:

And the Geneva Spiritual Appeal agrees with me.



Not really. It's a group of religious leaders ( not all of whom are accepted ) who are saying never to use religion in killing people. What does that really tell you? Of course its religious in part - religion is entirely part of culture.

What, exactly, are you getting at?
I said religion CAN be useful. Did I say it always is? No. Did I say it's incorruptible? Most definately not. Violence occurs in everything's name in existence, it's foolish to suggest violence shouldn't occur in religion's name.

The basis of my argument is as follows:

Violence will always occur.

Religion can be used to curb it.

science does not have that ability, unless it becomes religion, at which point it's not science.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3413755 - 11/26/04 08:23 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Morrowind:

Quote:

Yes, I justified genocide to a degree. Did I say I agreed with it? No. But by god, I justify it.




--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3413768 - 11/26/04 08:25 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

You're afraid of admitting any positive aspects to it.
How mature. ( sarcasm )

You're overrun by emotion now, not the rationale you claimed to hold above emotion.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblekaiowas
lest we baguette
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/14/03
Posts: 5,501
Loc: oz
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3413801 - 11/26/04 08:35 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

off topic quick question morrowind

how do you know how others are feeling when there is no tone?

analyzing the poster does nothing for the debate.

otherwise you guys have been kicking ass!!!


"any takers"

well there is an underlying assumption that God exists.

lets assume this is true.... (please bear with me :wink: )

1) what definition of god?

if the definitions are different, then who's correct?  how is there any coordination...how is there any balance between people who believe in god as a seperate being vs the idea of god being "everything"?

if there is no stability, no solid foundation, no continuity between creation scientist regarding their beliefs, does their research change?  or does their opinions about the research change?


--------------------
Annnnnnd I had a light saber and my friend was there and I said "you look like an indian" and he said "you look like satan" and he found a stick and a rock and he named the rock ooga booga and he named the stick Stick and we both thought that was pretty funny. We got eaten alive by mosquitos but didn't notice til the next day. I stepped on some glass while wading in the swamp and cut my foot open, didn't bother me til the next day either....yeah it was a good time, ended the night by buying some liquor for minors and drinking nips and going to he diner and eating chicken fingers, and then I went home and went to bed.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: kaiowas]
    #3413846 - 11/26/04 08:45 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Only because he is being irrational in that mentioning genocide means I simply MUST be wrong. I suppose I'm mostly just guessing, but ehhmm his last post only quoted the part where I said there are positive aspects to genocide. Yes, it sounds bad, but I see no logic at all to support it. 1000 years of nonstop, accumulated violence vs a short time of decimating a fairly small group of people.. hmmm.. Quantitatively, genocide is much better, though it saddens my heart to say so.

edit: I didn't mean to analyze the poster in support of my argument or anything, but I'm trying to make him expand on his argument. Ehm.. Should I simply have coolly mentioned that his post has no content?


Quote:

if the definitions are different, then who's correct? how is there any coordination...how is there any balance between people who believe in god as a seperate being vs the idea of god being "everything"?

if there is no stability, no solid foundation, no continuity between creation scientist regarding their beliefs, does their research change? or does their opinions about the research change?




For the first part, I don't think it would change anything. Within religions. The only people disenfranchised would be the atheists, and they'd splinter off into agnosticism or religion.. By far, most people believe in some sort of God.. anyone with a different version is generally ignored/hated/treated normally or whatever - depends on the individual. Hmmm. If no definition of God is presented, then the only people are hurt are those who think there is NO god.

for the second,
I don't think it would change according to what it is now -at all-. There are no atheist creationists ( I think? I can't conceive of that position... ) They'd all probably have explanations for creationism that satisfy either their own religion or many religions ( simply for widespread support ) - why go farther?

Edited by Morrowind (11/26/04 08:46 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Phluck]
    #3414836 - 11/27/04 12:59 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Wha--- huh?

Why do we have to be able to answer every single question? I'm simply not going to lie to myself because I don't know what the answer to a question is.




But if Science is based off one VERY simple law of Action:Reaction, yet we have no idea what caused the first Action or what even came before the Action, why would anybody in their right mind conclude that "God" didn't have some role in it then? Oh how arrogant the human race has become!

Science is it's own worst enemy now: a close-minded dogmatic belief that doesn't want to flow with the new evidence provided.

Science was never supposed to disprove creation; it was supposed to explain how creation occured. Just because Evolution exists doens't mean God didn't draw the blueprints for the plan.

Being a former Atheist, I used to see this wonderfully and beautifully complex world that just happened to come together this way, no specific reason though.

Now I see this wonderfully and beautifully complex world that has design and purpose.

And life without design and purpose is chaotic and moot. God is essential to who we are, no matter how much we try and refuse it.

Edited by EgoTripping (11/27/04 01:01 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3415853 - 11/27/04 12:46 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

But if Science is based off one VERY simple law of Action:Reaction, yet we have no idea what caused the first Action or what even came before the Action, why would anybody in their right mind conclude that "God" didn't have some role in it then? Oh how arrogant the human race has become!

Why would anybody in their right mind conclude that god DID play a part?

Science is it's own worst enemy now: a close-minded dogmatic belief that doesn't want to flow with the new evidence provided.

What new evidence is science ignoring?


Being a former Atheist, I used to see this wonderfully and beautifully complex world that just happened to come together this way, no specific reason though.

Now I see this wonderfully and beautifully complex world that has design and purpose.


I see neither. Both are attempts to answer a question that cannot be answered.

And life without design and purpose is chaotic and moot. God is essential to who we are, no matter how much we try and refuse it.

Bananas are essentially evil, no matter how much we try and refuse it.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Phluck]
    #3415881 - 11/27/04 12:56 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Why would anybody in their right mind conclude that god DID play a part?

If I handed you a Computer and told you it built itself, what would you say?

What new evidence is science ignoring?
Non-locality, uncertainty principle, Zero Point Field, Near Death Experiences, the latest studies in Consciousness, Water Memory/Homeopathy,Out Of Body Experiences (which actually have been reproduced in laboratories, but rarely talked about) and almost anything dealing with the full implications of Quantum Mechanics. Basically, everything that removes the fundamental building blocks of the standard Newtonian physics that Science is STILL adhering to. Essentially, everything that points to the ideas that we're all interconnected and that reality is subejctive to only the perception of the individual...which ties into the idea that there is a 'central consciousness' which is in other words, God.

I see neither. Both are attempts to answer a question that cannot be answered.

Answered? No. Experienced? Yes. There's a difference. Science wants tangible answers to intangible questions, yet what if the answer itself is intangible? Not everything can be explained because you can't even explain to me with any amount of Mathematics or words what Love feels like, what the color Red looks like, or what Am sounds like. Why? They all must be experienced to be understood. We do not observe Gravity directly, yet we all accept it's existance. Why? Because you witness it's effects on things around you. It's the same with God.

Bananas are essentially evil, no matter how much we try and refuse it.

Nice duck + run tactics to avoid an obvious fact. Your entirely life is based off structure and patterns, yet you take solace in a belief that says there's no such thing? Everything is random and swirving around and all this happened with absolutely no higher guidance, yet everything you experience contradicts this.

Edited by EgoTripping (11/27/04 12:56 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3415885 - 11/27/04 12:57 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

You devalue religion far too much ( are you born and raised American? Purely curious, i won't even comment on it )

Nope. But I'm kind of curious as to why you ask this. I've found a much more rabid aversion to science in the US than in many other places.

I do agree that religion has the ability to provide comfort to people, and religious organizations are often the cornerstones of small communities, but I'm not sure that faith in a God or any sort of supernatural belief is necessary to create an organization that does the same thing.

Think of groups like the Boy Scouts, which admittedly do have some religious basis, but have become largely secular. They provide the sense of community, and teach people many lessons about co-operation.

Then you've got new things like psychotherapy and analysis. In some cases, these fields have a little too much pseudoscience, and not enough science mixed in, but they provide a forum and guide for introspection and self healing that again does not require supernatural belief.

I think that religion was very good at what it did, but in the future it will likely be eclipsed by new systems which provide the same comforting psychological effects, and the same opportunities for community growth as religion.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3415889 - 11/27/04 12:58 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Btw, if you don't look around this existance with awe and wonder (no matter what your spiritual beliefs are, or lack thereof) then all I can do is pity you, what a sad, boring existance.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3415924 - 11/27/04 01:18 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

If I handed you a Computer and told you it built itself, what would you say?


The development of computer technologies is well documented. I put my computer together myself.

Nobody saw God create anything. There is no evidence that God was involved in the creation of the universe other than the fact that SOME people feel that he was.

Just as it may seem obvious to you that God was involved, it seems obvious to me that there is no evidence. These are just emotions and have no bearing on the actual answer to the question. Only, in addition to the fact that I feel like there's no evidence, I haven't been able to find any evidence.

Non-locality, uncertainty principle, Zero Point Field, Near Death Experiences, the latest studies in Consciousness, Water Memory/Homeopathy,Out Of Body Experiences (which actually have been reproduced in laboratories, but rarely talked about) and almost anything dealing with the full implications of Quantum Mechanics. Basically, everything that removes the fundamental building blocks of the standard Newtonian physics that Science is STILL adhering to. Essentially, everything that points to the ideas that we're all interconnected and that reality is subejctive to only the perception of the individual...which ties into the idea that there is a 'central consciousness' which is in other words, God.

I'm not entirely sure you understand science. For a lot of the things here, like homeopathy, science has been used to test it, and has often come back showing that there really isn't significant evidence to support it. If you want to hear someone ignoring scientific evidence, ask a homeopathist about what kinds of science has been done to back up their field.

What kind of scientific studies or tests do you propose that would study God? I can't think of a single way to test something like that... which is precisely why God is largely left out of science. If it's not testable, it CAN'T be science.

Answered? No. Experienced? Yes. There's a difference.

Exactly. One is a collection of testable information. The other is simply a set of emotions. Emotions can be explained many ways. Simply because you feel something, does not make it so.

I can say with a pretty good degree of certainty that it's possible for your mind to experience a set of emotions that makes you believe with 100% certainty that there is a god.

This says something about the way our emotions work, and the way we think, but it tells us nothing about God, and whether or not there is one.

Nice duck + run tactics to avoid an obvious fact.

It's only an obvious fact if you convince yourself that it is. If you put faith in anything it becomes "obvious" to you, because you interpret everything you see through the lens of that being the case. Whenever anything happens, you think about how god must have done this, etc... After a while, you've interpreted your entire perception of the world through a "faith in God" lens, and it's difficult, even impossible to have any other perspective. If you have the assumption that there are little prankster elves running around causing all kinds of minor inconveniences, everytime anything happens to you, you assume it was a prankster elf. Eventually, after attributing dozens of events to prankster elves each day, it becomes impossible to think that they couldn't exist, as you have made them part of your worldview from the beginning.

Your entirely life is based off structure and patterns, yet you take solace in a belief that says there's no such thing? Everything is random and swirving around and all this happened with absolutely no higher guidance, yet everything you experience contradicts this.

You rail against newtonian physics, and then you say this. These are two directly contradicting statements. Quantum mechanics states that there ARE random improbable events that seem to have no pattern of effect.

And no, I never once claimed that everything is random.

Also, if there is a pattern, this does not mean it MUST have been conciously created. That is a blatant leap in logic.

Why must things with a pattern be conciously created?


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3415940 - 11/27/04 01:29 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)


Btw, if you don't look around this existance with awe and wonder (no matter what your spiritual beliefs are, or lack thereof) then all I can do is pity you, what a sad, boring existance.


Why the heck would you think I don't?

Science is based on wonder and fascination with the world around us. Without a sense of wonder, nobody would have bothered to make any of the great scientific discoveries of the past.

It baffles me to think that someone would believe it's necessary to put faith in a "higher" conciousness in order to appreciate the beauty and wildness of the universe.

I think God is a simple explanation for something far more complex, and far more beautiful than can be explained through human ideas like conciousness.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Phluck]
    #3416000 - 11/27/04 01:48 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

The development of computer technologies is well documented. I put my computer together myself.

Nobody saw God create anything. There is no evidence that God was involved in the creation of the universe other than the fact that SOME people feel that he was.

Just as it may seem obvious to you that God was involved, it seems obvious to me that there is no evidence. These are just emotions and have no bearing on the actual answer to the question. Only, in addition to the fact that I feel like there's no evidence, I haven't been able to find any evidence.


You miss the point. Complexity in Science arises out of Odds. The odds of Existance happening just this way that allowed conscious, intelligent life to form is staggering. If I went to Vegas, what are the chances that I'd win on every single bet I made? Once again, if I handed you a computer, and told you that it 'just happened' to come together this way, you'd most likely call me a nutcase. That is what Science equates reality to. Even the most hardcore Scientists admit that it APPEARS the Universe has a configuration specifically geared towards the intent of having Conscious, intelligent life arise.


I'm not entirely sure you understand science. For a lot of the things here, like homeopathy, science has been used to test it, and has often come back showing that there really isn't significant evidence to support it. If you want to hear someone ignoring scientific evidence, ask a homeopathist about what kinds of science has been done to back up their field.

http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/nov1/cwater.htm

http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/aug1/consciouswater.html

Take it as you want, but how would you explain such a thing? Or would you pass it off as bunk info just because it doesn't fit your classical view of the world? It's undeniably there, like Non-Locality (which you conviniently dodged of course) yet it defies every single shred of 'logic' that the Scientific community follows.

What kind of scientific studies or tests do you propose that would study God? I can't think of a single way to test something like that... which is precisely why God is largely left out of science. If it's not testable, it CAN'T be science.

None. I think Science IS study of God. Science was never EVER meant to disprove God, it was merely a way to study our world as we should. But then we simply gave creedence to the idea that maybe it just 'came together' so perfectly without higher authority. That's pure arrogance.

Exactly. One is a collection of testable information. The other is simply a set of emotions. Emotions can be explained many ways. Simply because you feel something, does not make it so.

Actually, since you feel it, that's exactly what makes it so. Since you're so Scientific, you should know already that Objectivity does not exist. So if the world is Subjective (which Quantum Mechanics clearly shows), just because I feel it, is EXACTLY what makes it so.

I can say with a pretty good degree of certainty that it's possible for your mind to experience a set of emotions that makes you believe with 100% certainty that there is a god.

How odd. Because technically, you can't say with any certainty that you even exist. Quantum Physics states that matter MUST be percieved for there to be a reaction (uncertainty principle). If we set up a Particle Collider, the particles don't start colliding automatically. Phycisists cannot sit back with a cup of Coffee and just "watch" matter react. They must make it react. So essentially, this same mind you say produces God actually must percieve ITSELF to exist. How is this possible?

This says something about the way our emotions work, and the way we think, but it tells us nothing about God, and whether or not there is one.

This goes back to my previous point. You can't even define what Emotion is or feels like, it's simply a word attatched to a concept that is as fleeting as trying to grasp at the wind.

It's only an obvious fact if you convince yourself that it is. If you put faith in anything it becomes "obvious" to you, because you interpret everything you see through the lens of that being the case. Whenever anything happens, you think about how god must have done this, etc... After a while, you've interpreted your entire perception of the world through a "faith in God" lens, and it's difficult, even impossible to have any other perspective. If you have the assumption that there are little prankster elves running around causing all kinds of minor inconveniences, everytime anything happens to you, you assume it was a prankster elf. Eventually, after attributing dozens of events to prankster elves each day, it becomes impossible to think that they couldn't exist, as you have made them part of your worldview from the beginning.

That's fine. Quantum Mechanics have shown us that our realities are not objective but we simply create our own world. This is apparent in this conversation now. I see a tree and I see God's word, endless beauty and complexity that never ends. You see, apparently, just a tree. Two very different realities from one very common observation. Is God in my head? Possibly. Does this invalidate the experience? No sir.

You rail against newtonian physics, and then you say this. These are two directly contradicting statements. Quantum mechanics states that there ARE random improbable events that seem to have no pattern of effect.

Ah, that's where your wrong my friend. We've scratched the surface. Any Physicist will tell you, it only seems random and improbable because we can't see the rest of the rules it adheres to. Could you buy a 250 Piece puzzle and tell me what's of if you only had 10 pieces and no picture to relate it to? Chew on that for a while.

And no, I never once claimed that everything is random.

Also, if there is a pattern, this does not mean it MUST have been conciously created. That is a blatant leap in logic.

Why must things with a pattern be conciously created?



Because your very ability to have the cognitive processes to sit back and wonder that very question is proof of that. If patterns weren't related to Consciousness, we'd still be picking lice out of each other's hair. Ever wonder why the Human Race is the only species on the planet that has the free will (which Evolution states occurs naturally through natural selection and adaptation...yet no other species developed it) to contemplate these very questions?

Don't mistake me for someone who doens't enjoy Science. I was a former Atheist for many, many years and only about 4 years ago began to realize how pointless a life without God is. What was the one thing that caused me to change? Study of Science, believe it or not. Nothing provided more evidence of a Creator than that of Cosmic Evolution. So yes, I understand Science because I still immensly enjoy it. But rather than see a Field that is trying to disprove God, I see a field simply studying the way God functions.

The problem with you is you seem to relate God to Religion and then to all the surrounding Dogma. I don't have an iconic view of God and I don't even enjoy calling God by some 3-letter word, it does no justice. I see God as one might see The Force in Star Wars. An infinite energy field that permeates every single unit of existance. If you've done any research into the Zero Point Field, you'd see that this is no longer Science Fiction, but becoming Science Fact.

Over the years I realized how Spirituality is saying the same thing Science is. Ancient Mystics reached the same conclusions that the latest study in the Quantum Field has revealed. Don't you find this strangely coincidental?

We're a brief glimpse in the history of Humanity. Many societies came before us, all claiming they had the answer to it all, we're no different, we just use more elaborate machinery to do so.

My argument is a belief in dis-belief. Once you realize you know nothing at all, you'll realize that is the same as know everything...and that paradox can only be explained by one force...some call it Light, some call it Love, some call it God.

Shit, I wrote too much. Cheers.

Edited by EgoTripping (11/27/04 01:53 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Phluck]
    #3416011 - 11/27/04 01:52 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

I think God is a simple explanation for something far more complex, and far more beautiful than can be explained through human ideas like conciousness.

LOL. 1) You think comprehension of God is simple. You need to break away from your Dogmatic and narrow (dare I say, un-educated) views of what the implications of God is/could be.

2) Consciousness is all you got, brotha. I'd treat it with more respect.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3416264 - 11/27/04 03:16 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

You miss the point. Complexity in Science arises out of Odds. The odds of Existance happening just this way that allowed conscious, intelligent life to form is staggering.

No it's not. Read a biology book!

There are no odds involved, natural selection is exactly the oppostie of odds, it's selection, not random, and in your profound ignorance of the topic, you equiate random MUTATIONS with natural SELECTION.

It's astonishing to me how people so utterly ignorant of the principles of natural selection go around talking as if they understand it.

You people seem to me like a yard of hens clucking around as if they understood higher mathematics.

Read a book!

Here's a good one:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/det...ks&n=507846

Stop insulting my intelligence. Read that book, then come back and argue informed.

Edit: Fixed the link


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (11/27/04 07:16 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3416333 - 11/27/04 03:40 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

No it's not. Read a biology book! 

I have.  I still do, my stance is unchaning.

There are no odds involved, natural selection is exactly the oppostie of odds, it's selection, not random, and in your profound ignorance of the topic, you equiate random MUTATIONS with natural SELECTION.

Funny how you'll spew the word 'mutations' out yet, in all of Evolutionary history, there has never been one malignant or detrimental "mutation" to occur.  Every mutation that occurs is beneficial for the race or it is simply "selected" for extinction.

Who does the selection?  That's the part that most Scientists and Evolutionist ignore.  To say NATURE selects these, then that is also saying that Nature is inherently intelligent and if Nature is inherently intelligent then Nature is also Conscious.  What do I call a conscious, intelligent matrix of energy?  God.  If Nature is not doing the selection then it's playing Craps with the game of Life and thus, it's defeating all statistical odds for positive mutations occuring in such an astronomical amount to give rise to the modern Homo Sapien mind.


It's astonishing to me how people so utterly ignorant of the principles of natural selection go around talking as if they understand it.

You people seem to me like a yard of hens clucking around as if they understood higher mathematics.

Read a book!

Here's a good one:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/det...ks&n=507846

Stop insulting my intelligence. Read that book, then come back and argue informed.


I remember that drivel from years back.  Pompous, arrogant and just plain sad.  Consisntely tries to say Nature does all this by itself and never chooses to explain how Nature works this way, just as all 'hardcore scientists' stutter, bob and weave questions like "What came before the Big Bang?"  Can't answer it, so it automatically gets lodged into "philosophy" and then disregarded.  Is it Science anymore?  No.  Does that make it any less profound or significant to our existance and human nature? No.  Just because it cannot be tested does not mean it does not matter.

I give kudos to the effort, but it falls flat on it's face when you question the very intracacies that in Dawkins tries to pass off as 'natural laws.'  If I run a Red Light, I get a ticket.  Why?  Because I broke the LAW.  But is this the Law Of Red Lights that took form naturally with the City?  No, a law must be designated from a higher authority or else chaos soon ensues.  'As Above, So Below'  Existance doesn't funtional any differently.  There must be a lawmaker for there to be only one specific outcome or law.

The best part is that everyone tries to relate Atheism to Darwinism when Darwin never desired to disprove God or Christianity or any Religion for that matter, but simple study "god's methods' just as Einstein wanted to "know God's mind."

"Science without Religion is lame, Religion without Science is blind."

Edited by EgoTripping (11/27/04 03:45 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3416388 - 11/27/04 03:49 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:


Funny how you'll spew the word 'mutations' out yet, in all of Evolutionary history, there has never been one malignant or detrimental "mutation" to occur. Every mutation that occurs is beneficial for the race or it is simply "selected" for extinction.

Who does the selection? That's the part that most Scientists and Evolutionist ignore. To say NATURE selects these, then that is also saying that Nature is inherently intelligent and if Nature is inherent intelligent then Nature is also Conscious. What do I call a conscious, intelligent matrix of energy? God. If Nature is not doing the selection then it's playing Craps with the game of Life and thus, it's defeating all statistical odds.




Oi! But the reason there hasn't been a single malignant mutation is exactly how natural selection works. If it is malignant, it makes the creature more likely to die than others.

Nature does not need to be intelligent- only certain parts of DNA actually mutate through natural selection, and it has been shown that this restriction makes the probability viable to explain life.


Just wanted to point that out... there is no inherent proof that God exists - even consciousness does not explain him.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3416430 - 11/27/04 03:56 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Taken from one of the Book Reviews on Amazon:

Is everything an accident, and is there is no intrinsic purpose to anything? Has Dawkins read much contemporary wisdom literature lately? Those who have done so will know that Dawkin's claims are on shaky grounds, and that his ultimate conclusions won't stand the test of time. We're on the threshold of a new spiritual awakening, y'all. It's time for humanity to grow up.

"Religion and science are opposed . . . but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp everything." - Sir William Blagg


I find it ironic that you posted this book to convey the idea of no Intelligent Creator when most of the reviews themselves state that this only re-affirms their belief in God (I'm one of them). The book by itself is awesome and it's theories practical...but only if you add in God on top of it all, otherwise it's a sprawling mess of intracies and wanna-be theories that hold as much water as the '7 Day Theorists'.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3416448 - 11/27/04 04:00 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Oi! But the reason there hasn't been a single malignant mutation is exactly how natural selection works. If it is malignant, it makes the creature more likely to die than others.

So you're saying Nature knows what is going to be malignant and what isn't? Once again, if Nature is CHOOSING anything or playing any role in the direction of any Species, then Nature IS INTELLIGENT. If it was just fumbling along "naturally", we'd have detrimental mutations many times over.

Nature does not need to be intelligent- only certain parts of DNA actually mutate through natural selection, and it has been shown that this restriction makes the probability viable to explain life.

What selects that part of DNA to mutate?

Just wanted to point that out... there is no inherent proof that God exists - even consciousness does not explain him.

See above. Once again, nobody can answer this without falling back onto 'Ockam's Razor' which still does not explain how Nature does this with such precision and complexity and not ONE fuckup.

Nature does not un-balance itself yet these theories state that Nature has every chance of un-balancing itself, it simply 'just doesn't.' If you were to ask a Scientist why the Sky is Blue and he said, "Well....it just is." You'd probably feel he doesn't know.

That's all that's going on here.

Science has successfully created it's own Dogma!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Phluck]
    #3416456 - 11/27/04 04:02 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

I've found a much more rabid aversion to science in the US than in many other places.



I've found a rabid aversion to religion compared to elsewhere. I suppose the insane bible belt is a counter-example, but I haven't really had direct contact with them.


Quote:


I think that religion was very good at what it did, but in the future it will likely be eclipsed by new systems which provide the same comforting psychological effects, and the same opportunities for community growth as religion.



I think this is correct to an extent, but do not think it will happen everywhere. The physiological benefits of religion can be imitated or satisfied, but on a psychological level, doesn't that just switch religions?

I've always had an idea that if someone really, truly has a role model, then that role model is essentially their god - their goal, their ultimate version of themselves. The new god to come, based in psuedoscience or not, could very well be worse than a god easily read about in religious texts.

He would be, at least in part, objectively justifiable! I think it could be used to have more permanent strife, oppression etc. Question a rabid religious person, and they often can do nothing but quote the bible and try explaining it. Question a pseudo-scientist, and he will provide you with "proof" which often has very subtle but deadly holes in it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Evolution Requires as much Faith as Intelligent Design [Re: vampirism]
    #3416504 - 11/27/04 04:10 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Evolution (without any intelligent design/creator involved) states the following should be accepted:

*The development of a Process before Processing existed, before development existed and before anything existed.
*The development of Time from non-Time.
*The origination of Nature from non-Nature.
*The origination of Origination from non-Origination.
*The origin of Physics from non-Physics.
*The origin of Blind Watchmaker from neither seeing nor non-seeing Watch from non-watch,Maker from non-Maker.
*The origin of Selection from non-Selection; Choices from the absence of Choices or Choosing.
*The origin of a Cosmic Manufacturing Assembly Line complete with Raw Material, Work-in-Process, Finished Goods and all that entails for Bio-chemistry (zero to Human Brain) from Absolute Zero existence of Rawness or Material.
*The origin of Consciousness from non-Consciousness.
*The origin of Life from non-Life, Zilch.
*The origin of Evidence from non-Evidence.
*The origin of Feedback at every micro-step of Mutation & Adaptation to justify continuation of the Selection Process from non-Feedback, non-microsteps, non-Mutation, non-Adaptation,
non-Justifiability, non-Standard of utility, non-Continuation.
*The origin of Motive(Necessity) and Motion(Directed/Purposeful Energy) to Initialize Nature and its Selection Process and the Momentum to keep it rolling from non-Motive,non-Necessity, non-Motion, non-Purposivability, non-Momentum.
*The origin of Information, Sorting, Evaluation, Organization into Organic Organisms from non-Information, non-Sorting, non-Evaluatability, Dis-Organization, neither Organic or Inorganic, non-Organisms.
*The origin of Scratch-formulating-Recipes (DNA, Physical Laws) from non-Scratch, non-Receipes, absence of Laws.


I've heard of using a recipe to make things from scratch, but never heard of scratch making a recipe. Talk about Blind Faith!

Edited by EgoTripping (11/27/04 04:11 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCatalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3416521 - 11/27/04 04:14 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Funny how you'll spew the word 'mutations' out yet, in all of Evolutionary history, there has never been one malignant or detrimental "mutation" to occur. Every mutation that occurs is beneficial for the race or it is simply "selected" for extinction.





Detremental mutations happen all the time. Most of the time, the organism wont even make it to birth and if they do, they will either die or the mutation may be passed on. If the mutation is beneficial, the mutation has a better chance of being passed on. Sometimes mutations happen that are not beneficial but not detremental and they are passed on as well.

Quote:

What selects that part of DNA to mutate?




DNA mutates because of its chemical structure and the need for it to be suseptable to bond cleavage in order to preform its function. Sometimes the bonds break and pieces will be taken out or inserted randomly. It has to do with thermodynamics, bond-breaking enzymes, and/or exposure to chemicals and substances that act as a mutagen. I can elaborate more if you desire.

Quote:

See above. Once again, nobody can answer this without falling back onto 'Ockam's Razor' which still does not explain how Nature does this with such precision and complexity and not ONE fuckup.





See above.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Catalysis]
    #3416543 - 11/27/04 04:19 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Detremental mutations happen all the time. Most of the time, the organism wont even make it to birth and if they do, they will either die or the mutation may be passed on. If the mutation is beneficial, the mutation has a better chance of being passed on. Sometimes mutations happen that are not beneficial but not detremental and they are passed on as well.

Cool, then you won't mind me asking for a comprehsive lists of all 'failed species' and their interm-states before they became beneficial mutations. As you seem to insinuate, Nature is 'touch and go' so Nature should lose sometimes, make mistakes. Where are these mistakes? And if there are none, then how did Nature know before these species developed that the mutations were not beneficial for the species? Unless you agree that Nature is intelligent.

DNA mutates because of its chemical structure and the need for it to be suseptable to bond cleavage in order to preform its function. Sometimes the bonds break and pieces will be taken out or inserted randomly. It has to do with thermodynamics, bond-breaking enzymes, and/or exposure to chemicals and substances that act as a mutagen. I can elaborate more if you desire.

Please do, but also explain exactly how those chemical laws 'know' to work just the way they do. Yes, I realize this is absolutely impossible to answer. But all you are doing is explaining the process but not the rhyme or reason.

See above.

Ditto.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineld50negative1
lethal dosage

Registered: 07/01/04
Posts: 821
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Phluck]
    #3416582 - 11/27/04 04:31 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

That's just one possible explanation for the source of the idea of god, without there having to actually be a god.




That's assuming that there isn't a god. I don't think you understand what I am saying.

Quote:

They constantly make up stories to explain things they don't understand.



But their ideas are limited to things around them. You couldn't imagine aliens without there first existing a being.

You couldn't come up with the idea of teleportation without the existence of "objects" first.

You couldn't come up with black holes without there first being space or gravitational pull.

You couldn't come up with worm holes without there first being point A and point B.

Tell me something, anything that you can think of, that is NOT based on ANYTHING in the world around us that you haven't heard or seen before.

Create something new.

(I'm not literally asking you to do this, but I'm trying to help you understand AT LEAST what I'm trying to say)


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCatalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3416614 - 11/27/04 04:43 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Cool, then you won't mind me asking for a comprehsive lists of all 'failed species' and their interm-states before they became beneficial mutations. As you seem to insinuate, Nature is 'touch and go' so Nature should lose sometimes, make mistakes. Where are these mistakes? And if there are none, then how did Nature know before these species developed that the mutations were not beneficial for the species? Unless you agree that Nature is intelligent.





You misunderstand. A species doesn't just mutate into another species spontaneously in one mutation. It takes a long period of time and an eventual shift in the gene pool of the relative population.

We can look at the species of moth in the Northern US i believe...they were mostly white until industrial pollution changed the color of the trees they inhabited. These moths were easily seen by predators while the few moths with black pigment gene mutations began to thrive where they couldnt before. Eventually the white genes died off and the new variation dominated due to change in natural conditions. There is no evidence of divine intervention in this case of evolytion.

I already said there are "mistakes" as you call them. What about kids born with no legs due to genetic defect? or no heart? or whatever they need to thrive. They usually do not reproduce and therefore do not pass on that trait. Life adapts to its environment by trial and error. I dont see why thats so hard to understand.

What about hair color? thats not a beneficial mutation.

We can also look at sickle cell anemia. It is a mutation in the hemoglobin gene which causes the cells to "sickle" and lose thier ability to transport oxygen. This mutation happens relatively frequently but most will die from it. However, this gene confers some resistance to malaria by killing off blood cells so when there was a huge malaria epidemic, this gene would make its way into the population until those people died off again. The gene has come and gone throughout history but after the last malaria outbreak, it stayed and now thousands around the world are dying from this horrible condition.

Quote:

Please do, but also explain exactly how those chemical laws 'know' to work just the way they do. Yes, I realize this is absolutely impossible to answer. But all you are doing is explaining the process but not the rhyme or reason.





Chemical laws dont "know" anything. They are just an arbitrary language we use to describe things.

Most DNA mutations are not even seen. The hemoglobin DNA sequence is the most famous because most complex organisms posses it but in varying amounts and types. It creates the protien that carries oxygen. It is also one of the most repetative because over the millenia, the sequence would be copied by transcription and accidently reinserted in the DNA, but this was beneficial of course, so the trait thrived. We know this happens because it can be recreated in the lab. You can also look into molecular evolution where scientists can actually map how closely species are related by looking at how many hemoglobin inserts they have and where they are located in the DNA.

Edited by Catalysis (11/27/04 04:59 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Catalysis]
    #3416653 - 11/27/04 04:58 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

You misunderstand. A species doesn't just mutate into another species spontaneously in one mutation. It takes a long period of time and an eventual shift in the gene pool of the relative population.

Right, I know this. So where are the interm-species and developments? If this is a gradual process then where are the 'mistakes' that Nature obviously attemped but stopped due to their malignancy?

We can look at the species of moth in the Northern US i believe...they were mostly white until industrial pollution changed the color of the trees they inhabited. These moths were easily seen by predators while the few moths with black pigment gene mutations began to thrive where they couldnt before. Eventually the white genes died off and the new variation dominated due to change in natural conditions. There is no evidence of divine intervention in this case of evolytion.

Of course not. But you are confusing simple adaptation to Evolution. What you also did not explain is HOW these species become better over time with no 'information' being put into the system. If I had a NES playing Super Mario Bros. and a few days later had the latest version on my Gamecube, and told you that "well, the game just kind of got better without any of the designers doing anything to it..." You would not believe me.

My problem with Evolution isn't the process of which it happens or the idea that it is real (it is)...it's saying that there is no intelligent work going on behind that scenes that is ludicrous.

I already said there are "mistakes" as you call them. What about kids born with no legs due to genetic defect? or no heart? or whatever they need to thrive. They usually do not reproduce and therefore do not pass on that trait. Life adapts to its environment by trial and error. I dont see why thats so hard to understand.

Ehhh! Wrong. You're explaining adaptation incurred from enviromental changes or chemical imbalances brought on by hundred if not MILLIONS of potential variables that could have altered that Child's outcome. You seem to confuses these two, which proves to me you don't even know how the very theory you defend even works.


What about hair color? thats not a beneficial mutation.

It's not malignant either. But how did a Ape become a Man without any kind of failed species in between? I'm still waiting for this.

Chemical laws dont "know" anything. They are just an arbitrary language we use to describe things.

Right, but you are using them as self-choosing intelligent processes which direct the flow of Evolution. Yet, you say they do not 'know' anything? If these processes are happening strictly by trail + error, then where's the ERROR?

Most DNA mutations are not even seen. The hemoglobin DNA sequence is the most famous because most complex organisms posses it but in varying amounts and types. It creates the protien that carries oxygen. It is also one of the most repetative because over the millenia, the sequence would be copied by transcription and accidently reinserted in the DNA, but this was beneficial of course, so the trait thrived. We know this happens because it can be recreated in the lab. You can also look into molecular evolution where scientists can actually map how closely species are related by looking at how many hemoglobin inserts they have and where they are located in the DNA.

Once again, you are only explaining the process in which it develops but no rhyme or reason of why it works so perfectly.

Let me be clear...I do not oppose the theory of Evolution or any of it's proponents. I think it's one of the best theories we have to explain the Evolution of MOST life on the planet. But we forget it is a THEORY, it is not fact. It still has a long way to go in explaining exactly how Homo Sapiens got to be where we are now, including explaining the evolution of Consciousness, which as it stands, Evolution does not explain. And lastly, it has the incredible feat of explaining how all this occured by Natural Selection without Nature actually 'knowing' what was going on...Dawkins tried this and failed miserably...see my list above for why.

Why is it so damn tough for Evolutionists and Spiritualists to meet in the middle? Why can't "God" (or Nature, which is obviously intelligent) guide the process? Is this so impossible to believe? Research the Golden Mean, Nature's watermark of "design." Obviously there was rules set in the beginning (big bang) and the result is simply these rules interacting and reacting with each other. Divine intervention is EVERYWHERE because everthing IS the Divine. The intitial settings were placed and the subsequent systems are what we have now. Perfectly solves both sides, Creationist and Evolutionist and doesn't involve any Dogma from either side.

Edited by EgoTripping (11/27/04 04:59 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3416673 - 11/27/04 05:03 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Cool, then you won't mind me asking for a comprehsive lists of all 'failed species' and their interm-states before they became beneficial mutations.

Impossible. As was already pointed out, if a mutation is malignant the organism will probably not survive until birth or will only survive for a short time after birth. If a fox is born with only three legs due to a mutation, and that fox dies before it has a change to reproduce (meaning the mutation is LOST), how do you expect anyone to know of it? Fossils are actually EXTREMELY rare if you consider just how many individual organisms have existed in the 4 billion years that life has existed on this planet. The chances of that fox becoming a fossil are slim...and our chances of finding a SPECIFIC fossil, should one exist, are even more slim.

As you seem to insinuate, Nature is 'touch and go' so Nature should lose sometimes, make mistakes. Where are these mistakes?

Dead and gone. Returned to dust in the wind.

Please do, but also explain exactly how those chemical laws 'know' to work just the way they do.

"chemical laws" are not conscious. They are descriptions we have come up with for physical processes.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCatalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3416696 - 11/27/04 05:07 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Well then you are talking about physics and not evolution. Of course im not gonna sit here and try to convince you the the "laws of physics" were not made by an imaginary man because i can't. There is also plenty of evidence of intermediate huminoid species. Im not sure where you got that from, there is an entire branch of science based on it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: trendal]
    #3416728 - 11/27/04 05:12 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Impossible. As was already pointed out, if a mutation is malignant the organism will probably not survive until birth or will only survive for a short time after birth. If a fox is born with only three legs due to a mutation, and that fox dies before it has a change to reproduce (meaning the mutation is LOST), how do you expect anyone to know of it? Fossils are actually EXTREMELY rare if you consider just how many individual organisms have existed in the 4 billion years that life has existed on this planet. The chances of that fox becoming a fossil are slim...and our chances of finding a SPECIFIC fossil, should one exist, are even more slim.

*coughcopoutcough*

Terrible explanation. On one hand, the Theory is staying Nature is touch and go, and Evolution simply drives itself by knowing it's past mistakes. So Evolution is Evolving itself but it's not INTELLIGENT? Wtf?

What you're basically saying is Nature is making a choice without ANY idea what the choices are (because Nature is not intelligent/lacks design), is that correct?

The example you used is not adequate and STILL dodges my question, so I guess I'll spell it out:

How does Nature, if containing no traces of intelligence, design, or consciousness know and choose which species are to be selected for extinction? What is the governing law behind Natural SELECTION?


Dead and gone. Returned to dust in the wind.

No evidence, no proof, that's the Scientific Method. You can't simply pick and choose your choice of application of these rules.

"chemical laws" are not conscious. They are descriptions we have come up with for physical processes.

Yet they are making conscious decisions in the future of a Species? These chemical reactions are obviously aware of what mutations are beneficial and not beneficial for a specific species, and "evolving" accordingly. Where does Nature store all this past information? How do these mutations not re-occur over and over is Nature is evolving and learning from it's mistakes? Only conscious entities learn from mistakes, right?

Still waiting for a decent response to this quandry you got yourselves into........

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3416759 - 11/27/04 05:20 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

No offense...but you aren't making a whole lot of sense :smirk:

What you're basically saying is Nature is making a choice without ANY idea what the choices are (because Nature is not intelligent/lacks design), is that correct?

No, actually. That's not what I'm saying at all. You seem to be trying to apply the HUMAN notion of "choice" to the non-conscious physical world.

Nature doesn't "chose" which species live and which go extinct. Species go extinct due to a VASTLY complex string of events which result in too much pressure on the species.

The dinosaurs did not "decide" their time was up and just lay down to die. An asteroid probably impacted the Earth, causing enough upset to the global environment to CAUSE the dinosaurs to go extinct.

Yet they are making conscious decisions in the future of a Species?

No, they aren't.

These chemical reactions are obviously aware of what mutations are beneficial and not beneficial for a specific species, and "evolving" accordingly.

No, they aren't "obviously" aware of anything. Chemicals are not humans. They don't have brains to think with. :smirk:


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCatalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3416849 - 11/27/04 05:39 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

How does Nature, if containing no traces of intelligence, design, or consciousness know and choose which species are to be selected for extinction? What is the governing law behind Natural SELECTION?





It doesn't. You first have to show that nature uses a certain critera to "choose" certain species and that there is in fact intervention going on. We have already given our evidence for how different traits and/or mutations cause an organism to thrive or die, resulting in speciation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Catalysis]
    #3416985 - 11/27/04 06:13 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

If nature isn't choosing, why is it called Natural Selection? Why not, Natural Progression?

I suppose I wouldn't make much sense to a class of individuals that don't give any creedence to the idea that there's more than we know going on.

Nobody has explained the laws that GOVERN Natural Selection because there are none. Apparently, this miraculous process happens without any error, and Nature apparently learns from itself (reason why we're not all mutants and also why no recent species have failed due to detrimental 'mutations'), but does so in a manner that has nothing to do with any form of Intelligent energy behind it all. You want to pass things off as "chemical and chemical reactions" but if you've done your own studies enough, Science is now saying those same Chemicals don't really exist unless something is there to make it exist. Nothing is independent anymore. So prey tell, what becomes of Natural Selection when merged with the greater rules and laws of Quantum Mechanics?

So what we have is basically an entire existance based off Nothingness, which developed into Somethingness, carried through the 14.5 Billion Years through laws still unknown, developed into basic life (primordial) which then developed through 'natural selection' into what we have now as a bunch of people arguing over the internet. All this occuring with no Intelligent Design behind it...yet, we're Intelligent, right? We've obviously evolved through Natural Selection into a Species that can fathom the greatest mysteries of existance while all life around them is 'dumb.' We've Evolved into Free Will, yet no other species has done this. We've been able to contemplate our own existance, yet no other species has done this. Natural Selection seemingly just 'stopped' dead in it's tracks once it got to Humans.

So, if Intelligent Life (Humans) could arise out of all these non-intelligent processes, then what's so hard to believe that the reverse cannot happen? How could Intelligence arise from "stupidity" or a complete LACK of intelligence? Isn't this again, something out of nothing? You honestly expect people to believe this idea, rather than a Beginning (creator/design)? That's absurd. I challenge anybody defending this stance to even begin explaining the above listed problems with this belief.

And after all this thinking back and forth, the ultimate irony of this theory you defend so strongly (non-intelligent design that is) doesn't explain one iota of how you are even able to think in such a manner. The larger irony is that the same belief system you hold to (Science alone) can't even explain how thought even occurs.

Interesting.

Edited by EgoTripping (11/27/04 06:19 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3417106 - 11/27/04 06:52 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

No it's not. Read a biology book!

I have. I still do, my stance is unchaning.




The bible doesn't count.

If you'd read a book about Natural Selection and biology, you wouldn't be in here embarrassing yourself with statements like:

odds of Existance happening just this way that allowed conscious, intelligent life to form is staggering.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3417129 - 11/27/04 06:58 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

this is odd. You seem convinced that every intangible has a personality. This is an interesting way of looking at things, but it makes no sense if we consider that the intangibles are just labels for concepts.

It's called natural selection because the opposite is OUR selection- ie breeding. Call it natural progression if the personality seems more attune to ours, whatever.

Besides which, WHY don't you think we could evolve consciousness or "free will" ? Are you sure that you're conscious, or is the process running your brain just executing? Is it free will if there's only choice in relatively small matters? You can't choose to fly because Aerodynamics has just become your friend and asked if you'd like to.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3417150 - 11/27/04 07:02 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Science is now saying those same Chemicals don't really exist unless something is there to make it exist.

Actually...no. The Copenhagen interpretation of QM theory does not say that things "don't really exist" until we observe them...it says that every possibility exists until we make an observation, at which point ONE of the possbilities is "chosen" by the observer. The Copenhagen interpretation is only ONE viewpoint of QM theory. There are others.

"Natural selection" is an extremely complex system. You are right, though, that the word "selection" is a little misleading. It does not mean to intend that there is some consciousness doing the "selecting". Random mutation is probably NOT the driving force behind evolution. An entire species does not all undergo a mutation all at once, either...mutations take MILLIONS of years to create a new species. "Natural selection" is based on environmental pressure, NOT random genetic mutation.

Lets say you have a tree that does quite well in temperate climates. It could exist in southern Canada (for example) for millions of years with very little pressure from the environment. During all those million years, random genetic mutations build up in SOME of the trees. The mutations which do not cause death are passed on to the next generation of trees when the ones WITH the mutation reproduce. In this way, the mutation spreads throughout at least SOME of the tree population. If the mutation is "bad", in that it causes the tree to die, it cannot be passed very efficiently down the generations because the trees WITH the mutation will die too soon to reproduce. For our example, we'll say the mutation is one which causes the leaves to be much thicker, with less fluids in them.

Now along comes an ice-age. Glaciers move south, and temperatures drop. Now the trees which once THRIVED in a temperate climate are faced with conditions in which they can no longer survive AT ALL. Except for the ones with the mutation. Their leaves are thicker, better able to withstand cold temperatures. Less fluid in the leaves means a thicker sap, which is more resistant to freezing. The trees without this mutation all die, but the mutated trees go on living.
In fact, their numbers explode. Where once there were only a few mutated trees among many more "normal" trees, there is now ONLY the few mutated trees and a LOT of room to expand into. They do exactly that. Now we have an extinct species, but also a new species.

Oh, and NO: I am NOT saying there is NO Creator to this Universe. There very well could be. That's not what I'm arguing about, though :wink:


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3417200 - 11/27/04 07:13 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

So where are the interm-species and developments?

Alright, you ask a good question here. After all, if evolutionary theory is correct, there should be a continuum of species rather than discrete species in the fossil record. So you're asking where all the transitional fossils that demonstrate a smooth, continuous transition from prior species to current ones are.

That fossils form at all is a minor miracle. Think about what happens to the typical dead animal. First it's torn apart by scavengers, then decomposition sets in which if left unchecked will consume even the bones after a while, next UV exposure bleaches what's left, then rain erodes it further, and the constant churn of soil by plant roots finally removes all traces of the animal's existence. People take advantage of this when they murder someone and dump the body in a forest. Most of the time, the body is never found, even when the police know where to look.

In the ocean, conditions are even more unfavorable for fossil formation.

My point is that for an animal to be preserved in the fossil record it must die in a place where it will be undisturbed for a very long time; couple that with the requirement for very specific and unique conditions and the likelihood that any given animal will fossilize is tiny. That we have fossils at all is testament to the enormous quantity and diversity of species in the history of our planet. Given how unlikely it is for any given fossil to form, it's not surprising that we haven't yet found a continuum of species.

But we're making progress. Every year more and more transitional fossils are found to fill in the gaps. One of the most famous, Archaeopteryx, is very strong evidence supporting the idea that birds evolved directly from dinosaurs. Comparative anatomy shows it has many of the skeletal features of extinct terrasaurs, but the Swiss cheese internal bone structure which makes modern bird skeletons so strong and lightweight. More amazing is that Archaeopteryx had both teeth AND feathers.

Even with the discovery of Archaeopteryx there are still gaps in the fossil record, but then more recently a team of scientists working in the Spanish Pyrenees uncovered the fossilized remains of a bird hatchling dating to the Lower Cretaceous, approximately 130 million years ago. The researchers believe the bird hatchling falls between the very early Archaeopteryx (approximately 150 million years old) and the more modern fossil birds Hersperonis and Ichthyornis, both of which are ~85 million years old.

Here's another example. One of the things I do for fun when I'm not reading the Shroomery is scuba diving in caves. This is a great place to see evolution at work. Inside these caves are such critters as catfish and crayfish (like little lobsters). These animals are albino (they have no pigmentation), and they're blind (they have eyes, but they're covered over by skin and scales). This is because they were once species living outside, but over time found a niche inside the perpetual darkness of the caves where neither eyes nor pigmentation were of any benefit. The fossil record suggests that they slowly evolved away eyes and pigments and gained other traits more useful for living in the dark.

Here's a picture of one I found while diving in a cave in north central Florida recently:



Notice the lack of eyes and the total lack of pigmentation. Non-cave dwelling crayfish are typically brownish like lobsters... and they have eyes.

The evolutionary relatives of these guys can be found in the fossil record outside the caves. Two different species, very similar except that one has eyes and pigmentation, the other doesn't as a result of selective pressures because eyes, if they're of no use, are susceptible to infection and other pathologies. Because eyes in a cave have no benefits and numerous disadvantages, evolutionary pressures removed them.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3417289 - 11/27/04 07:44 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

But we forget it is a THEORY, it is not fact.

You don't know what a theory is.

The Atomic Theory is JUST a theory too. After all, nobody has ever seen an atom, and all we know about atoms comes from theories.

But, the Atomic Theory incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII; the Atomic Theory runs the nuclear power plant 100 miles south of me which provides electricity to power my home; the Atomic Theory is used every day in hospitals around the world by radiation oncologist to treat cancer; the Atomic Theory guides the development of semiconductor lasers that are right now carrying this message to your monitor.

You don't even know what a theory is, yet you come here using your non-knowledge of it to critique Evolutionary Theory.

This is why I don't believe you when you say you've read a biology book.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (11/28/04 11:43 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3417294 - 11/27/04 07:45 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

I suppose it must be clarified again...

I am not opposing the processes of Natural Selection Or Evolution. I am not opposing their existance. That entire post Diploid, is completely moot because you're not even on the same page.

I'm opposing the stance that they can function without a Creator behind it all. Simply put: they cannot. Just like the Big Bang can't be explained without adding in SOME form of Deity or Higher Authority which caused the intial 'bang' to begin with. As the quote I posted above stated...they are only opposing until you combine the two, and then they are much more powerful and convincing.

And the only reason I'm aruging this stance is due to the book that Dipolid posted. Nothing unfortunately, will ever convince me of otherwise because even during my Atheistic period, I still was never opposed to the idea of an Intelligent Designer behind all Creation, never will be. Where you all see 'chance' and Nature 'just being', I see evidence for Design and Intelligent Design at every single angle. I'll never belive Life can simply just 'happen' and that Something came from Nothing. It defies all the same 'logic' you all so desperately cling to in a world and existance that makes no logical sense to anybody.

I apologize for the confusion.

On a final note, Creationist does not mean Christian, as Diploid seems to confuse. Where did I ever say that I read the Bible or that I'm even Christian for that matter? Exactly, I didn't. Simply someone trying to put words in other peoples mouths (or posts in this case) to further a faltering and shaky argument.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3417311 - 11/27/04 07:49 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Diploid said:
But we forget it is a THEORY, it is not fact.

You don't know what a theory is.

The Atomic Theory it's JUST a theory, after all, nobody has ever seen an atom and all we know about atoms comes from theories.

But, the Atomic Theory incinerated Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII; the Atomic Theory runs the nuclear power plant 100 miles south of me which provides electricity to power my home; the Atomic Theory is used every day in hospitals around the world by radiation oncologist to treat cancer; the Atomic Theory guides the development of semiconductor lasers that are right now carrying this message to your monitor.

You don't even know what a theory is, yet you come here using your non-knowledge of it to critique Evolutionary Theory.

This is why I don't believe you when you say you've read a biology book.




Still a Theory, still not fact. You can have 1000 pieces of Evidence to support a Theory, but you only need 1 piece of contradictory evidence to destroy it.

Besides, what's an Atom, besides a propable wave function that has certain probalities for existing in certain probable regions? Does it have shape, color? Do they look exactly like what I would read in my Biology book? No, they are human concepts and pictures put on something we haven't even begun to understand. If you believe everything your Biology book is telling you to a T, then you're no better than a Bible Thumper who quotes a Psalm for every argument. If you rely on one source of information to get your world view, I don't care to debate with you, I pity you.

Think for yourself, break the mold, and above all, stop being stupid.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3417328 - 11/27/04 07:53 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Does it have shape

Yes, actually. They can measure individual atoms these days with atomic force microscopy.

color?

Also yes, in the sense that anything has "color". Photons hitting an atom can cause electrons to jump into higher energy states. When the elctrons fall back to their ground state they release another photon of specific frequency. This is the reason for all color. You are just seeing the color of billions and billions of atoms combined :wink:


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: trendal]
    #3417345 - 11/27/04 07:59 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Color you're right on...kind of. That doesn't mean an Atom has an inherent color as say a piece of Gold would. Not as a 'biology book' would show.

I would love a picture of these individual atoms if you could find one. Doubtful it looks like this...


Edited by EgoTripping (11/27/04 07:59 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3417356 - 11/27/04 08:02 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

I'm opposing the stance that they can function without a Creator behind it all. Simply put: they cannot.

Why not?

Just like the Big Bang can't be explained without adding in SOME form of Deity or Higher Authority which caused the intial 'bang' to begin with.

All you can say about the Big Bang is that it can't be explained at the moment. If that explanation eventually comes in the form of God, alright, if it comes in the form of an advance in String Theory, alright too.

Saying that the Big Bang can't be explained without inserting $DIETY is like primitive peoples saying that condensed water vapor in the form of rain cannot be explained without God's Tears, which is how some people use to explain rain.

Nothing unfortunately, will ever convince me of otherwise

This explains it all. Instead of an open mind, you've closed it and rigidly hold to your position, wrong or right. This is dogma.

Think for yourself, break the mold, and above all, stop being stupid.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (11/27/04 10:54 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3417374 - 11/27/04 08:08 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Ya, but we're way past that part of human history and STILL no better explanation than "oh...it just kinda happened." Blah.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3417388 - 11/27/04 08:12 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Diploid said:
I'm opposing the stance that they can function without a Creator behind it all. Simply put: they cannot.

Why not?

Just like the Big Bang can't be explained without adding in SOME form of Deity or Higher Authority which caused the intial 'bang' to begin with.

All you can say about the Big Bang is that it can't be explained at the moment. If that explanation eventually comes in the form of God, alright, if it comes in the form of an advance in String Theory, alright too.

Saying that the Big Bang can't be explained without inserting $DIETY is like primitive peoples saying that condensed water vapor in the form of rain cannot be explained without God's Tears, which is how some people used to explain rain.

Nothing unfortunately, will ever convince me of otherwise

This explains it all. Instead of an open mind, you've closed it and rigidly hold to your position, wrong or right. This is dogma.





I've been on the opposite side already. Why would I switch back? Why would I deny all my experiences?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3417394 - 11/27/04 08:13 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Hehe... I think you're a pro-science regular here posing as a nut. You're too whacky to be real.

:lol:

You had me going there for a bit.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3417415 - 11/27/04 08:19 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

I've always been pro-science, I still am.

The best part is you think Science goes against the existance any kind of Deity. And that's just ignorant. :/

Edited by EgoTripping (11/27/04 08:19 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3417455 - 11/27/04 08:32 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

That doesn't mean an Atom has an inherent color as say a piece of Gold would.

A piece of gold doesn't have "inherent" color, either. "Color" isn't inherent to anything...it's just our way of explaining the way different wavelengths of light "look" to us. Different wavelengths are reflected by different materials, giving them different colors.

Doubtful it looks like this...

No, of course not. I never said it did, just that atoms do have shape to them. Contrary to what you stated.

Here is a picture of the surface of a piece of graphite, taken using a scanning tunneling microscope. Each of those peaks is an individual atom (the color is artificial, of course):


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3417456 - 11/27/04 08:33 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

The best part is you think Science goes against the existance any kind of Deity.

As far as I've read, you're the only one who keeps saying that in this thread. :smirk:


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: trendal]
    #3417468 - 11/27/04 08:38 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Here's another rather famous picture of atoms. IBM is spelled out with xenon atoms on top of a nickel plate (again, coloring is artificial):


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3417501 - 11/27/04 08:47 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

The best part is you think Science goes against the existance any kind of Deity.

Where did I say that? Stop putting words in my mouth.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3417550 - 11/27/04 09:10 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Just like the Big Bang can't be explained without adding in SOME form of Deity or Higher Authority which caused the intial 'bang' to begin with.

Let me ask you a serious question.

If I accept that $DEITY created the universe and it could not be otherwise as you say, then, does it not follow that $HIGHER_DEITY created $DEITY and it could not be otherwise using your own logic?

The universe, according to you, can't have just spontaneously appeared without a Creator. The Creator can't have just spontaneously appeared without a Bigger Creator, using your own reasoning.

Where did I go wrong?

This seems to follow as a corollary from your logic. I'm not mocking you, it's a serious question.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSkorpivoMusterion
Livin in theTwilight Zone...
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/30/03
Posts: 9,954
Loc: You can't spell fungus wi...
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3417808 - 11/27/04 10:36 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

So what we have is basically an entire existance based off Nothingness, which developed into Somethingness,

It's the Universal-Seinfeld.
We're all little goofy Kramers and George Costanzas in the eyes of God.


:wink:


--------------------
Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3418116 - 11/28/04 12:26 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

You really, really, really need to learn what evolution and natural selection MEAN before jumping into a debate about them.

The reason why it's called "natural selection" is because a creature with superior abilities is selected to survive, not by a concious choice by anyone, but by being able to live on and reproduce.

Everytime a creature reproduces, there are a few little flaws in the copy. More often then not, these flaws are fatal. We've all heard of babies being born dead with strange mutations.

Occasionally, something is born with a flaw in the copy that gives it an advantage; a slight change in the shape of the leg that allows for faster running, or sharper teeth, which allows a creature to have the ability to hunt its prey more successfully.

These are the animals that outlive their peers, and go on to reproduce, passing these advantages on to their offspring.

A great example of natural selection in action would be the fact that anti biotics only work for a while, before becoming ineffective.

When you get a bacterial infection, there are billions of bacterium in your body, and a small number will likely have a mutation that makes them able to survive certain antibiotics. After you take that antibiotic for a while, they will begin to make up the majority of the infection inside you, and will begin to thrive. It's a small bit of evolution happening inside you. If you spread that out a few billion years, you get all kinds of wild things happening.

This is the process of natural selection. Not the universe magically adding new traits to animals.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3418129 - 11/28/04 12:31 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quantum Physics states that matter MUST be percieved for there to be a reaction (uncertainty principle).

You might want to actually learn what quantum mechanics and what the uncertainty principle are.


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCatalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 15 years, 8 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: trendal]
    #3418310 - 11/28/04 01:38 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Hehe, now you guys are getting into my area of expertise. We actually can never see atoms because they are smaller than the wavelength of visible light. But as trendal showed, we can see them with electron microscopes because electrons are smaller than atoms. Also, the Bohr model of the atom shown earlier (with electrons shown as spheres around a nucleus) has long been disproven. Now we look at atoms as having an extremely small nucleus surrounded by a large radius that represents a 95% probability of having an electron in it at any given time. This is because electrons approach the speed of light. Theoretically there is an extremely small chance of an atom's electron being anywhere in the universe at any given time. I think thats kinda cool. :p

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Catalysis]
    #3418487 - 11/28/04 03:36 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Theoretically there is an extremely small chance of an atom's electron being anywhere in the universe at any given time. I think thats kinda cool.

Me too! :thumbup:


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: trendal]
    #3418515 - 11/28/04 03:56 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

The Copenhagen interpretation of QM theory does not say that things "don't really exist" until we observe them...it says that every possibility exists until we make an observation, at which point ONE of the possbilities is "chosen" by the observer.

Not to pick nits, but, to be precise:

The Copenhagen Interpretation actually says that every possibility is mapped to some probability as characterized by the wave function. The observing system causes the collapse of the wave function, yes, but which possibility actualizes is 'chosen' by chance, not by the observing system.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (11/28/04 01:56 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3419203 - 11/28/04 12:27 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

There comes a point in any Creation/Intelligent Design vs. Atheistic argument where it hits a wall; that of experience. Coming from a very un-spiritual Family and unbringing, it's something I've experienced rather than deducted from study.

Mankind is on the verge of it's greatest discoveries, and we've only just begun studying this field. There's so much more that we have to learn before we can say anything 100%. Quantum reasoning says that free-will is just a random swirving of events, somehow coming together to form a personality, a person, a life even.

That explanation was good for a time, for myself. But from just simply questioning my hardcore beliefs more, the more they fell apart from my own doing and developed into a Spiritual belief system with skeptic roots.

Do I know there is any God? Do I know where God came from? Do I have any answers at all? No to all questions. But see, I have Faith. Strange for me to even write that, but what is Faith? It's complete acceptance of something that works, even if you don't know how it does. Science nor Religion knows how any of this works, we just think we do. So both sides require Faith either way. But my belief in God co-existing with all Scientific theories allow my life to be more than a random swirving of chance from random neuronal activity. Now it's more like a turning gear in a 'watch' that my Self (which is independent of the Brain) makes these choices along a Divine Plan.

It's whatever you are comfortable believing. I've felt His presence and there's no reason for my to deny God any longer. But there's no way I'm going to be able to describe or detail on here the reasons for believing there is a creator and a purpose to all of this, it's just something you trust works.

Edited by EgoTripping (11/28/04 12:33 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3419485 - 11/28/04 02:20 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

ET,

Maybe you're right, and if so, I'll accept it instantly when it's shown to be so, like a good scientist. But maybe you're wrong and the universe is and always has been the proverbial closed watch whose behavior we can observe, and whose innards we can speculate about but never know with certainty, and which has no designer. Or the truth may be somewhere inbetween. The difference between us is that I don't hold dogma and am able to acknowledge and embrace, pending evidence, a continuum from Created Universe to Spontaneous Undesigned Universe.

It seems to me that people like you have thought about all this and, in the end, found the objective view of the scientist to be psychologically painful, as have I. But you've chosen the sugarcoated, unsubstantiated point of view, faith, over the objective one.

Even you concede, by way of faith which denies evidence, that there is no evidence for a Creator, yet you believe anyway. If that pacifies your fears, accommodates your psychological need for a creator, and makes you happy, then by all means, believe rigidly and expound dogma.

I hold that if the Creator requires faith and simultaneously endowed me with the intellect to refute it, he's wholly unfair and I want nothing to do with him.

But, I also believe that if there is a Creator, he couldn't care less about faith and designed the universe as a giant, hilarious joke for the benefit of intelligent life, and we'll all laugh into eternity together.

Meanwhile, I stand neutral and ready for whatever turns out to be true.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (11/28/04 11:49 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3419538 - 11/28/04 02:41 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Diploid said:
ET,

Maybe you're right, and if so, I'll accept it instantly when it's shown to be so, like a good scientist. But maybe you're wrong and the universe is and always has been the proverbial closed watch whose behavior we can observe, and whose innards we can speculate about but never know with certainty, and which has no designer. Or the truth may be somewhere in-between. The difference between us is that I don't hold dogma and am able to acknowledge and embrace, pending evidence, a continuum from Created Universe to Spontaneous Undesigned Universe.





But do you KNOW? If you do not KNOW, then you are simply using Faith to take it any further. The evidence is still not here yet, but you're still embracing the outcome before it's here.

Quote:

It seems to me that people like you have thought about all this and, in the end, found the objective view of the scientist to be psychologically painful, as have I. But you've chosen the sugarcoated, unsubstantiated point of view, faith, over the objective one.




"People like you."

What exactly are people like me? One who fuses Spirituality and Science is suddenly a rarity? Just because I choose to not believe that we're an 'accident' makes my view sugarcoated? Why is believing that I have purpose any more sugarcoating my life than yours of no Creator, no judgement, no purpose or responsibility? Either way, your trusting in a belief that makes you feel more secure in your actions otherwise, you wouldn't believe it. Why trust in something you know is false? You're quite the pompous ass.

Quote:

Even you concede, by way of faith which denies evidence, that there is no evidence for a Creator, yet you believe anyway. If that pacifies your fears, accommodates your psychological need for a creator and makes you happy, then by all means, believe rigidly and expound dogma.




There is no proof of non-existance of a Creator but you believe that anyway. What does that make you?

Quote:

I hold that if the Creator requires faith and simultaneously endowed me with the intellect to refute it, he's wholly unfair and I want nothing to do with him.




Funny, I see that as choice merely on your part and since you have the choice to choose otherwise, that's complete fairness. Would you rather have a God that dicated your life and allowed you not to question anything? Would you be happier living under a Dictatorship or a Democracy?

Quote:

But, I also believe that if there is a Creator, he couldn't care less about faith and designed the universe as a giant, hilarious joke for the benefit of intelligent life, and we'll all laugh into eternity together.




In a way, you're entirely right. Mankind, especially your kind of thinking, over-complicates things and the simplicity of it all is quite laughable. Laughter is why we're here.

Quote:


Meanwhile, I stand neutral and ready for whatever turns out to be true.




Neutral, yet completely insulting to the opposite choice. It's quite ironic how you condemn me for beliving in something without proof when that's all you are doing in the meantime. No matter what Science says, it's still never a complete picture. Science is ever-changing and you would most likely be the person defending that the Earth is flat because current scientific studies say so.

The only point I concede to is that I am completley unknowing to the outcome. But experience unfortunately causes logic to take a backseat in my worldview. This is my choice and it's just as 'blind' as your choices are. Is one better than the other? Not if it brings you that same satisfaction and security that even your beliefs bring you.

You're happy denying God because you can...I'm happy accepting God because I can.

Edited by EgoTripping (11/28/04 02:46 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3419619 - 11/28/04 03:16 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

But do you KNOW? If you do not KNOW, then you are simply using Faith to take it any further. The evidence is still not here yet, but you're still embracing the outcome before it's here.

Of course I don't "know". Where have I said I do? Stop putting words in my mouth; I'm very careful about communicating precisely, especially in a debate such as this.

I've said just the opposite. I've said that I'm neutral pending the discovery of the truth, whatever that may be. You're the one saying things like:

Quote:

Nothing unfortunately, will ever convince me of otherwise




I don't say things like that.

Just because I choose to not believe that we're an 'accident' makes my view sugarcoated?

Yes, IMO, because there is no reason, other than self-pacification, to believe either way, Created or Spontaneous Universe; and you chose the warm-fuzzy Created with no rationale behind your decision. I stand neutral; if it turns out to be a Created Universe, I'll be happy, if Spontaneous, I'll stand in wonder.

I think you're scared that the truth may turn out to be the cold, hard, unpleasant, Spontaneous Universe, and to avoid thinking about that nasty truth, you invent a Creator who is not in evidence.

This is why I accuse you of believing a sugarcoated psychological pacifier.

than yours of no Creator, no judgement, no purpose or responsibility?

A Creator is not required for these things. My life is full of critical self-judgment, full of purpose, and full of responsibility, and I love my life.

There is no proof of non-existance of a Creator but you believe that anyway.

And again you put words in my mouth. I have not, and never have, said any such thing. I have said only that there is no evidence supporting the idea that there is a Creator or that the Universe was designed.

Please, stop putting words in my mouth. This is, I think, the third time I've asked this. I take great pains to ensure that what I write is exactly what I think, and I do not think there is proof either way. I only state that I stand neutral on the issue pending the discovery of evidence.

I see that as choice merely on your part and since you have the choice to choose otherwise, that's complete fairness.

I'm not faulting having a choice, I'm faulting having a choice, and expecting, in the absence of any criteria for making that choice, to be penalized for making the wrong one. If God exists and expects me to chose him without any reason to, and if he penalizes me for not doing so, then he's unfair.

That's like driving into a town with no traffic signs, and being given a ticket for breaking one of the driving rules. It's unfair.

especially your kind of thinking, over-complicates things

If by 'your kind' you mean Scientists, then I don't agree with you. Things are as complicated as they are. Science just gathers the evidence. If that evidence is complicated, why do you blame the scientist? Seems more logical to blame the Creator of that evidence for its complication.

It's quite ironic how you condemn me for beliving in something without proof when that's all you are doing in the meantime.

And yet again you put words in my mouth. Please provide a citation to where I claim belief in *anything*, especially anything unsubstantiated by evidence.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (11/28/04 08:35 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3419700 - 11/28/04 03:42 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

"It seems to me that people like you have thought about all this and, in the end, found the objective view of the scientist to be psychologically painful, as have I. But you've chosen the sugarcoated, unsubstantiated point of view, faith, over the objective one."

You keep avoiding this.  How do you not practice Faith in your beliefs as well?  How is your view not sugar-coated to fit your world?

I'll end this debate on a point that I use to argue all the time, just as you are:

"I'm not faulting having a choice, I'm faulting having a choice, and expecting, in the absence of any criteria for making that choice, to be penalized for making the wrong one. If God exists and expects me to chose him without any reason to, and if he penalizes me for not doing so, then he's unfair."

Even with your ultra-skeptical roots and disbelief...God still loves you no matter what. :wink:

The only penalization would be denying Him once experienced.  That's where I currently stand.  I can't ever convey to you the full impact of what I believe because I cannot convey experience.  You want tangible proof while the proof is intangible, and always will be.  That's the ironic thing about God that I realized.  You must accept (truly accept) that God exists before you'll start to see it.  It's called Faith, but I can defiantely see how a Scientist or a Skeptic would call it "blind."  I can't help that though.  Choosing one side of the coin as opposed to the opposite doesn't make either side sugar-coated, you're simple beliving through what you've experienced and feel. 

It seems, despite the back-and-forth roundabout, we're more or less in agreement.  I stand open to the option there is no God, but through experience, choose to believe otherwise.  You stand open to the option there is a God, but through lack of experience (or proof in the form you want it in) you choose otherwise. 

Neither choice is right or wrong if you are a good person and live a good life.  God cares nothing about your Religion or beliefs, just simply who you are.  I can attend church every week and be a good Christian all the while abusing my wife + kids at home. 

I don't believe because I fear not to, I believe because there is nothing to fear.

Edited by EgoTripping (11/28/04 03:45 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCanonPants
busy lurking
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/28/04
Posts: 120
Last seen: 10 years, 5 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3419709 - 11/28/04 03:44 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Diploid just beat the piss out of you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: CanonPants]
    #3419719 - 11/28/04 03:48 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

CanonPants said:
Diploid just beat the piss out of you.




Meh, I received IM's from people saying they were in agreement with me, but it's too moot to argue as I chose to. It's not a contest and if it was, I'd go in knowing I was going to 'lose.' You can't win these arguments because they both stand on the edge of something un-provable. The last thing I'm attempting to do is validate my beliefs to others, that would entail I would need such validation.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3419728 - 11/28/04 03:51 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Diploid said:
If by 'your kind' you mean Scientists, then I don't agree with you. Things are as complicated as they are. Science just gathers the evidence. If that evidence is complicated, why do you blame the scientist? Seems more logical to blame the Creator of that evidence for its complication.




It seems to me that people like you have thought about all this and, in the end, found the objective view of the scientist to be psychologically painful, as have I. But you've chosen the sugarcoated, unsubstantiated point of view, faith, over the objective one.

You generalized me, I generalize you.

I don't think the evidence is complicated at all! I think Science is simply making it complicated.

Edited by EgoTripping (11/28/04 04:29 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3420224 - 11/28/04 06:34 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

You keep avoiding this. How do you not practice Faith in your beliefs as well?

Belief in something not in evidence is the definition of faith. Please cite one example where I claim belief in something not in evidence?

While you're at it, please cite one example where I claim absolute belief in something that IS in evidence.

What you're attributing to me is called dogma. Dogma is not part of my psyche, that's your specialty as clearly articulated by you here:

Quote:

Nothing unfortunately, will ever convince me of otherwise




How is your view not sugar-coated to fit your world?

My view is to follow the evidence, pleasant, warm and fuzzy, or cold, and harsh, I don't care, I follow the truth. I don't sugarcoat anything. THAT IS NOT FAITH!

The only penalization would be denying Him once experienced.

It would be dogma to deny God were I to experience him. As I said, dogma isn't part of my psyche, that's your area of expertise.

Even with your ultra-skeptical roots and disbelief...God still loves you no matter what.

Perhaps, and with no evidence either way, I will not dispute it.

But don't come in here saying that biological diversity is caused by magic and not by Natural Selection because that I *WILL* dispute.

God cares nothing about your Religion or beliefs, just simply who you are.

If this is true, I have nothing to worry about.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3420260 - 11/28/04 06:42 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Meh, I received IM's from people saying they were in agreement with me,

You received IMs from cowards afraid to voice their position for fear of being beaten into the ground with common sense.

Truth can withstand scrutiny. If these cowards espouse the truth, then let them come forward into the light rather than slink around in IMs where their 'truths' will never be scrutinized.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (12/07/04 06:17 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3420288 - 11/28/04 06:48 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

No, they just realize it's pointless to try and convey something to a mind that is not ready. I, unfortunately, don't mind wasting my time doing so. It's quite interesting to see how sad my thinking was just a few years ago by having this conversation with you.

"Belief in something not in evidence is the definition of faith. Please cite one example where I claim belief in something not in evidence?




That there is no Creator. While you might not have absolute belief in it, you choose (until 'proven') otherwise, there is none. Do you know? No. But you choose to accept that belief until something signifies otherwise. Thus, you accept that it works without God, even though you're not 100% sure how. That is Faith.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3420336 - 11/28/04 06:59 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

While you might not have absolute belief in it, you choose (until 'proven') otherwise, there is none.

Nope. You misconstrue neutrality as non-belief.

When discussing the possible existence of a thing, the epistemological default is non-belief. This is distinct from, and different than, active non-belief.

Philosophy 101. Where did you go to school?


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3420352 - 11/28/04 07:01 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

And as thick-headed and apalling as it is to you, no, nothing (besides a direct experience) can convince me of no Creator or Intelligent Design, especially since I experienced evidence of that very idea. Why would I deny something that I have experienced? Would you deny the Sky is Blue even after seeing it? Such a belief would be classified as ignorant or blind.

Biological Diversity IS caused by "magic" because the rules and laws that drive the very process of Natural Selection are still unknown. But what you think of Magic I think as Divinity, and that's in everything anyways.

I don't mind having Faith in my choices but you seem to have a terrible time accepting that you must have Faith to believe in what you believe.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3420386 - 11/28/04 07:08 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Why would I deny something that I have experienced?

Because in the absence of objective evidence that can be examined by someone outside your head, that experience *MAY* be just a quirk of psychology, and I *NEVER* kid myself.

Biological Diversity IS caused by "magic" because the rules and laws that drive the very process of Natural Selection are still unknown.

The rules that drive rain were once unknown and so rain was once attributed to magic. Today we know better. Stop being so short-sighted.

you seem to have a terrible time accepting that you must have Faith to believe in what you believe.

I don't believe anything. I just go where the evidence leads me.

Edit: quick = quirk*


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (11/28/04 07:27 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3420448 - 11/28/04 07:19 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

If you're claiming to be so neutral, why aren't you studying reasons FOR the existance of a Creator/Intelligent Design? Why do you pursue the studies of a Non-intelligent design (as your Amazon link shows you do) and then argue against the idea of a Creator? That's not Neutrality, that's being biased, taking a 'side' of the argument. If you didn't have a side in this debate, it wouldn't exist.

For someone so Neutral, I've yet to see an example of your desire to seek out answers from both sides, rather than choosing what you desire to read that will further convince you of a belief you adhere to already. Nobody wants to be proven incorrect or realize maybe they were wrong the entire time.

I've been in your position. Perhaps this is why I continue to keep this going, it's in every way, like talking to myself, its intruiging. I now see exactly what I was up against beforehand and why the same arguments and reasoning I use here makes absolute no sense to you. Quite ironic, at least for myself. Science (the sole belief in it without merging with Spirituality) has caused the progression of Mankind's soul to slow down severely. It's cold, abrasive, un-deterministic. It gives people endless wonder and nothing to back it up besides the idea that we're all an accident. It does not encourage Unity or Love because it has no consequences for its actions. And it's not supposed to, it's not a Philosophy, it's science. It was merely a way to study HOW the world worked, never WHY the world works the way it does. But people have now bought into it as they would a Religion. A spiritual belief 'fills in the gaps' for me and allows me to accept everything you believe in the realm of Science and then allows me to better my soul to in turn better Mankind. Science gives me the HOW and my Spirituality gives me the WHY.

Is it blind to believe this? Only as blind as it would to believe otherwise.

Edited by EgoTripping (11/28/04 07:21 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3420479 - 11/28/04 07:26 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

why aren't you studying reasons FOR the existance of a creator/Intelligent Design?

There's no evidence to study.

Science (the sole belief in it without merging with Spirituality) has caused the progression of Mankind's soul to slow down severely.

How do you measure this progression that you can claim it's slowing down?

[Diploid skips incoherent rant]

You're beginning to sound like SpaceDragon.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3420482 - 11/28/04 07:26 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Because in the absence of objective evidence that can be examined by someone outside your head, that experience *MAY* be just a quick of psychology, and I *NEVER* kid myself.

You can't even prove you exist. You can't prove anything outside your consciousness because as far as we know, it might not even be there. There's a possiblity that this could all be part of mine or your imagination. Yes, I realize all these are possibilities but that doesn't mean it's wrong to choose what feels right and what doesn't.

The rules that drive rain were once unknown and so rain was once attributed to magic. Today we know better. Stop being so short-sighted.

And the process that makes matter which creates the clouds which creates the rain is still unknown. Stop being so short-sighted.

I don't believe anything. I just go where the evidence leads me.

And once the evidence can't be seen to follow?

You don't see Gravity, but you accept it's existance, why?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3420499 - 11/28/04 07:29 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

There's no evidence to study.

As I said above, not all evidence can be found under a Microscope. That's a terrible refutation. You might think I'm ignorant on Science, but I can see you're obviously ignorant on Spiritual matters. Have you ever read any texts concerning God or the Existance of God? Any Scriptures (news flash: the Bible is not the only Scripture around)? Ever attempted meditation? Ever tried studying Astrology or Yoga? Gnosticism?

How do you measure this progression that you can claim it's slowing down?

I see it in every single person I encounter in my daily life. Or just turn on the News.

You're beginning to sound like SpaceDragon.

I care.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3420526 - 11/28/04 07:34 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

And the process that makes matter which creates the clouds which creates the rain is still unknown. Stop being so short-sighted.

That it's currently unknown says nothing about whether or not it will one day be known. The short-sighted position is to assume that it will never be known. The neutral position is to state only that it is unknown at the moment.

And once the evidence can't be seen to follow?

I dunno. When/if that happens, I'll consult a theologian. But for the time being, the trail of evidence is obvious and distinct, and shows no sign of diminishing.

You don't see Gravity, but you accept it's existance, why?

You're silly.

Unlike $DEITY, gravity is in evidence. It can be studied, measured, and characterized precisely enough to send satellites into orbit, men to the moon, and probes to Jupiter, and beyond.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (11/28/04 09:27 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3420583 - 11/28/04 07:42 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

You're silly.

Unlike $DEITY, gravity is in evidence. It can be studied, measured, and characterized precisely enough to send satellites into orbit, men to the moon and probes to Jupiter, and beyond.





Actually, that's incorrect. All you can study is the effect Gravity has on it's surrounding physical objects. Can you measure a Cup of Gravity? Can you localized Gravity to a part in the Universe? Can you draw me a picture of what Gravity looks like?

Gravity is a Force and it's only 'seen' and measured by what it does to everything it interacts with, much like say, a Black Hole.

God is the same way.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3420620 - 11/28/04 07:51 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Have you ever read any texts concerning God or the Existance of God? Any Scriptures (news flash: the Bible is not the only Scripture around)

Do the Koran, Gita, parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, parts of the Tibetan Book of the Dead, the Book of Mormon, parts of the Mishnah and Gemara, and of course the Old and New Testaments (both in English and Spanish) count?

How about assorted works on Freemasonry, the Vampire Bible, the Satanic Bible and a few others that don't come to mind at the moment?


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (11/28/04 08:06 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3420631 - 11/28/04 07:52 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

that's incorrect. All you can study is the effect Gravity has on it's surrounding

You're picking on my nits because your argument is falling appart. We both know you know what I meant.

Stick to the topic.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3420643 - 11/28/04 07:55 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

But you only adhere to evidence that can be tested or seen. I'd say you better read them again.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3420651 - 11/28/04 07:56 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Diploid said:
that's incorrect. All you can study is the effect Gravity has on it's surrounding

You're picking on my nits because your argument is falling appart. We both know you know what I meant.

Stick to the topic.




Nope, that is the topic. Not 'picking your nits' at all, you didn't say that so how can I know what you meant?

Besides, I was purposely using that frame of reference to incur how I see God's 'evidence.' I may not be able to see it, but I can see it's affects on things around me.

Edited by EgoTripping (11/28/04 07:57 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3420679 - 11/28/04 08:01 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

But you only adhere to evidence that can be tested or seen.

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that there is no evidence supporting the existence of gravity? Is this what you're saying? :whoa:


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3420713 - 11/28/04 08:07 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Diploid said:
But you only adhere to evidence that can be tested or seen.

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that there is no evidence supporting the existence of gravity? Is this what you're saying? :whoa:



Gravity is a plot by the Jews to get people to drop money.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3420714 - 11/28/04 08:08 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

No. It was in reference to your spiritual studies. Hence the part about 'reading them again. I don't believe we discussed any books on Gravity. Way to read only what you want to.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3420746 - 11/28/04 08:13 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

No. It was in reference to your spiritual studies. Hence the part about 'reading them again. I don't believe we discussed any books on Gravity. Way to read only what you want to.

Wait a minute. You're the one who asked:

Quote:

You don't see Gravity, but you accept it's existance, why?




in an attempt to discredit me by showing me to believe in the existence of something for which there is no evidence.

I believe gravity exists because there is evidence supporting that belief. And even in this, my belief is conditional and subject to review should conflicting evidence be found.

I don't kid myself, not even in areas where belief in a thing seems 'obviously' correct.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3420868 - 11/28/04 08:34 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

in an attempt to discredit me by showing me to believe in the existence of something for which there is no evidence.

I believe gravity exists because there is evidence supporting that belief. And even in this, my belief is conditional and subject to review should conflicting evidence be found.

I don't kid myself, not even in areas where belief in a thing seems 'obviously' correct.


No. You miss the point. Many points really. Especially because you think I'm trying to 'discredit' you. On the contrary. I know why you believe what you believe and it's not faulty logic. You can't see it or test it, hence, it probably isn't there and you'll keep that position until something says otherwise. There's nothing 'wrong' with that because that would be passing a judgement on you, and I cannot judge another being in that fashion because you're my equal.

I was not using gravity to show that it doesn't have evidence supporting it's existance. I was using that as an example of something you cannot percieve directly or measure directly, but only know of it's existance by its affects on it's surroundings. Gravity and Light work in this fashion, only observed by what they change or bring about change in, but not ever observed directly as an independent entity. I can measure a cup of sugar but not a cup of gravity.

I was equating this idea to the idea of God. I do not percieve or measure 'God' directly, only His/It's affects on me and those around me.

I'm not trying to prove you wrong, never was. As I stated before, this all becomes moot because its dependent on experience or its in the realm of 'untestable/unprovable.' I'm merely giving my side of this debate from the perspective of someone who decides to believe in a Creator. And I fail to see how choosing this belief, the belief of no Creator, or in your case, no belief at all, is any less valid than the other when everything that is required to determine your placement cannot be tested in the first place.

Edited by EgoTripping (11/28/04 08:37 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3421100 - 11/28/04 09:17 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

I was using that as an example of something you cannot percieve directly or measure directly, but only by its affects on it's surroundings. Gravity and Light work in this fashion, only observed by what they change or bring about change in, but not ever observed directly as an independent entity. I can measure a cup of sugar but not a cup of gravity.

You're referring to the quantum effects that appear to govern the behavior of subatomic particles and which can never be, as far as we know, directly measured. However, this doesn't prevent us from ascertaining their existence through indirect objective measurements of those effects. Brownian motion can't be seen either, but it's existence can be deduced by the pressure air exerts on a pressure measuring instrument. Again, this is not faith, this is logical deduction from the observation of evidence.

There is no objective evidence in the net sum of all human knowledge, direct, indirect, or of any other type, supporting the existence of a Creator. There is only suspect testimony from the faithful which could very well be psychological in origin; testimony from the faithful who by their own admission are not even objective:

Quote:

Nothing unfortunately, will ever convince me of otherwise




--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (11/28/04 09:34 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3421446 - 11/28/04 10:24 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

No, they just realize it's pointless to try and convey something to a mind that is not ready. I, unfortunately, don't mind wasting my time doing so. It's quite interesting to see how sad my thinking was just a few years ago by having this conversation with you.

It's interesting to see how much better you think you are than us. I find it incredible to think that you believe that your life is somehow more rich or noble than ours, simply because you believe in god.

I also find it a little odd to think that you believe you were somehow thinking in a similar way to us when you were an atheist.

For one thing, I don't think that Diploid or I, nor any of the others who have taken our side in this thread are atheists. I'd certainly call myself an agnostic, which is not the same at all. Secondly, considering the stuff you've been saying about evolution and quantum mechanics, it hardly seems like you had come to your athiest opinions through after carefully studying science.

For you, having faith may have enriched your life, but my brain simply doesn't work the same way yours does. I find far more satisfaction in constantly questioning everything, than in forcing myself to accept a single explanation.

I'm sure there are some things that I'll never get to experience without having the kind of faith you do, but I'm also sure that there are lots of things you will never get to experience without having my kind of outlook.

Is it so hard to believe that someone could live a happy, fulfilling life without having to believe in god?


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3421506 - 11/28/04 10:38 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

You're referring to the quantum effects that appear to govern the behavior of subatomic particles and which can never be, as far as we know, directly measured. However, this doesn't prevent us from ascertaining their existence through indirect objective measurements of those effects.

Exactly. I do recall saying many posts back that the evidence of a Creator isn't going to be found in a laboratory or replicated as an experiment. But that doesn't mean 'it' can't be experienced by the individual. This does not invalidate the experience, especially when multiple people experience the same thing. I said, many times now, that its all on what side of the fence you choose to stand on. I stood on one side, it was nice for a while, but the grass was greener over here.

There is no objective evidence in the net sum of all human knowledge, direct, indirect, or of any other type, supporting the existence of a Creator.

Funny, all I see when looking back across human history and the net sum of human knowledge, is endless support for a Creator. What about the new theories arising (which are still works in progress, but as you stated...we can't remain short-sighted) which point to such things as Global Consciousness, Consciousness residing OUTSIDE the Body (you never seem to touch this topic), and most importantly, multiple-world Dimensions? So far, the further along we trek, the more we are understanding that our classical view of the World is breaking apart on it's own through the same methods Science is attempting to find objectivity in a seemingly completely subjective existance.

http://www.hedweb.com/everett/everett.htm

For every lack of evidence that you seek to support no God, there's an equivalent to match it supporting one. Didn't I state that it's a matter of faith no matter what viewpoint you argue?

I'm also curious on your take on Near Death Experiences and Out Of Body Experiences. Are they simply hallucinations? Are they fabrications from some group bent on proving God exists? All your beliefs are based off the idea that the Brain creates Consciousness (which would invalidate my experience of God personally), but this is so far, turning out to be less and less true (OBE's have even been observed in Laboratories). Just curious how your beliefs would change if Science deducted that Consciousness simply is not a result of the Brain? No longer could we say that all these interpretations of God and experiences of the 'otherside' are "hallucinations" of the Brain, especially in a state where the Brain isn't active enough to produce the lucid and vivid experiences one has. Science has still not yet localized Consciousness or even Long Term Memory (hypothesized that it's stored in the out layer of the Brain...still a hypothesis) to our Brains and so far, is becoming less successful in trying to do so.

There is only suspect testimony from the faithful which could very well be psychological in origin; testimony from the faithful who by their own admission are not even objective.

Objectivity doesn't even exist as far as we know, so why should anything about my beliefs or your beliefs, especially when concerning such matters, be objective? This relates back to my previous point. Until it's proven that my Thought stems from my Brain entirely, I see no reason to accept the idea of a non-creation based existance. If the Brain is the function of Consciousness, the Brain should have an Observer function, something that takes all this random neuronal activity and organizes it into a coherent and singular entity that I call 'myself'. But so far that has not been found.

You're waiting for evidence of a Creator, I'm waiting for evidence of no Creator. Round and round we go!

Edited by EgoTripping (11/28/04 10:44 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3421516 - 11/28/04 10:43 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Near Death Experiences and Out Of Body Experiences. Are they simply hallucinations?

Quite possibly, yes. A few years back some brain surgeons discovered that if you shock a specific area of the brain with electricity it produces a full-blown out-of-body experience. The section of brain in question is believed to be involved in personal spatial orientation - in effect it gives you the "sense" of being inside your own skull. I think the idea was that the elctricity shut this function off, resulting in the patient being unable to tell where "she" was relative to her body. She reported floating above the table, up near the ceiling.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: trendal]
    #3421541 - 11/28/04 10:55 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

trendal said:
Near Death Experiences and Out Of Body Experiences. Are they simply hallucinations?

Quite possibly, yes. A few years back some brain surgeons discovered that if you shock a specific area of the brain with electricity it produces a full-blown out-of-body experience. The section of brain in question is believed to be involved in personal spatial orientation - in effect it gives you the "sense" of being inside your own skull. I think the idea was that the elctricity shut this function off, resulting in the patient being unable to tell where "she" was relative to her body. She reported floating above the table, up near the ceiling.




Yes, Out Of Body Experiences have been replicated in a Laboratory. This only furthers support however, that the Brain does not create consciousness but simply is a bridge-like device that passes information back and forth from the Physical experience of the Senses to the Consciousness of Thought/perception. They've also done this by using magnetic waves around the Brain and patients said they felt like they were 'outside their body.' To me, the Brain is just the encoder/decoder of the Body and also a filter of Cosmic Information. Bypassing it, whether it's through drugs, dreaming, meditation, Astral Projection or even death allows us to access the infinite sea of information lying just outside our perception.

However, these replications are only similiar to Near Death Experiences in one respect, that the Consciousness can somehow 'project' itself onto the outside world. They unfortunately do not replicate the actual Near Death Experience that millions of people have reported, such as talking with deceased relatives, going to other realms, meeting Jesus/Buddha/whoever, meeting God, receiving the answers to the biggest questions, etc..

What is interesting about all these experiences is their subjectivity with an objective meaning. The Buddhists saw Buddha, Christians saw Jesus, Atheists saw bright lights, etc.. But every experience, no matter who it was, dealt with the same events such as a life-review, seeing the bright light/tunnell, the feeling of leaving the Body, seeing their Body from outside the Brain, etc.. Just like a book or paper can be written and translated in many different languages, the meaning is always the same.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence06.html

Take that as you want it. Not a site for the ultra-skeptic I'm sure.

Could all these people be hallucinating the same exact things? Possibly, since we all have similiar 'wiring'. Is this extremely improbable? Yes. Is it easier to say simply that the Brain does not produce Consciousness (simplest theory is usually correct)? Yes.

Edited by EgoTripping (11/28/04 10:57 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3421550 - 11/28/04 10:59 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

I'm waiting for evidence of no Creator.

Alright, let's try a hypothetical. Please indulge me. Please confine your answer to the universe I'm creating for the sake of this discussion and don't wonder outside. This is necessary to illustrate my point.

Here are the facts in this hypothetical discussion:

1. I say that the universe was created when it was flung out of the nose of the Great Green Arkelseizure, a gigantic supernatural being.

2. I am wrong, and there actually is no such thing as the Great Green Arkelseizure.

3. You don't know one way or the other whether or not the Great green Arkelseizure exists.

So, to review, in this hypothetical, it is a fact that there is no such thing as the Great Green Arkelseizure, and it is also a fact that you don't know if he does or does not exist.

============

Now, can you give me a single example of something that you would accept as proof that the Great Green Arkelseizure does not exist?

Please, indulge me.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3421602 - 11/28/04 11:13 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Diploid said:
I'm waiting for evidence of no Creator.

Alright, let's try a hypothetical. Please indulge me. Please confine your answer to the universe I'm creating for the sake of this discussion and don't wonder outside. This is necessary to illustrate my point.

Here are the facts in this hypothetical discussion:

1. I say that the universe was created when it was flung out of the nose of the Great Green Arkelseizure, a gigantic supernatural being.

2. I am wrong, and there actually is no such thing as the Great Green Arkelseizure.

3. You don't know one way or the other whether or not the Great green Arkelseizure exists.

So, to review, in this hypothetical, it is a fact that there is no such thing as the Great Green Arkelseizure, and it is also a fact that you don't know if he does or does not exist.

============

Now, can you give me a single example of something that you would accept as proof that the Great Green Arkelseizure does not exist?

Please, indulge me.




If this being supposedly created everything, then the evidence of It's existance is already around me everywhere and thus, I cannot find anything to disprove it at all. In fact, I could never find anything to disprove it's existance because to do so would leave only one alternative for where everything originated from: nowhere/spontaneously. But this goes against all human logic, as does is it's existance anyways...iif Great Green Arkelseizure created the Universe, what created the Great Green Arkelseizure?

So I suppose I wouldn't attempt to find proof of either. I would have be open to both possiblities but either one would depend soly on how much one wants to believe without proof.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3421616 - 11/28/04 11:17 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

You didn't answer my question, and you didn't follow the instructions.

The GGA *DOES NOT EXIST*. This is a given in the hypothetical. Now the question is simple; here, I'll rephrase it to make it more specific:

What would you accept as proof that the Great Green Arkelseizure does not exist?


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3421629 - 11/28/04 11:22 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Quote:

Diploid said:
You didn't answer my question and you didn't follow the instructions.

The GGA *DOES NOT EXIST*. This is a given in the hypothetical. Now the question is simple; here, I'll rephrase it to make it more specific:

What would accept as proof that the Great Green Arkelseizure does not exist?




I realized that, but you also stated that I would not know if it did or it did not. So if you aren't divulging this very important piece of information in the Hypothetical, then it's hypothetically plausible for me to think it still DOES exist and thus, not seek proof of it's non-existance. If I was attempting to disprove it, I already stated, there would be no proof of such a thing. How can you disprove a completely super-sentient being that created all existance and itself, was not created? You can't, you either accept it or don't.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3421637 - 11/28/04 11:24 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

ET, this is a very simple exercise.

1. The GGA doesn't exist.

2. What would you accept as proof of this?


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3421654 - 11/28/04 11:28 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Nothing, it very well could exist for all I knew. Your hypothetical sucks and I'm going to bed. God bless you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3421663 - 11/28/04 11:31 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Nothing,

Exactly. You can't prove a negative. If God in fact does not exist, it is not possible to prove it.

The burden of proof is upon the one who claims a thing does exists because, as this hypothetical illustrates, proving the non-existence of a thing is never possible.

A test that cannot be failed tests nothing. For this reason, holding a belief that is not falsifiable is meaningless.

Edited by Diploid (11/28/04 11:38 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3421713 - 11/28/04 11:43 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Exactly. You can't prove a negative. If God in fact does not exist, it is not possible to prove it.

I said this already. We knew this already. You wasted my time on this? I already said it's all about faith, you dolt. You over complicate the easiest ideas.

The burden of proof is upon the one who claims something exists because, as this hypothetical illustrates, proving the non-existence of a thing is not possible.

I don't claim to know that God exists, at least for you. I claim that I've experienced God and that proves his existance to me. If I told you I saw Bigfoot, and I did, I'd believe it but you would't. Why? Because you didn't experience it. I don't expect you to agree or believe the same, as I stated at least 4-5 pages ago. It's my experience that validates my belief. And my experience cannot be communicated to you or anybody else. There's no burden of proof for me at all, only for those seeking to find it that way.

And holding a belief that is not falsifiable is meaningless.

Jesus loves you too.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3421745 - 11/28/04 11:51 PM (19 years, 4 months ago)

you dolt.

Ad hominem attacks are the recourse of those with poor arguments.

I claim that I've experienced God and that proves his existance to me.

I have no beef with what you believe, but if you come in here espousing your beliefs as if they were science by saying that biological diversity is mediated by magic, well, yeah, I have beef with that. Don't expect it to go unchallenged.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (11/29/04 12:15 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3422377 - 11/29/04 08:13 AM (19 years, 4 months ago)

Ad hominem attacks are the recourse of those with poor arguments.

But they're so fun! Besides, you deserved it by that pointless run-around of a hypothetical that just repeated what was already said many times over.

I have no beef with what you believe, but if you come in here espousing your beliefs as if they were science by saying that biological diversity is mediated by magic, well, yeah, I have beef with that. Don't expect it to go unchallenged.

Yah, I still stand by that statement until its proven otherwise. Matter is more similiar to magic than it is to Science, as discovered recently by our examination of it on it's "base" level. Sorry man, I know you fear the idea that maybe things aren't as cut + dry as you want them to be. FYI, you still never attempted to discuss the NDE or anything concerning Consciousness residing outside the Body. I don't blame you, it more or less causes most of your ideas to fall apart at the hand of discovery (no faith required, either).

Edited by EgoTripping (11/29/04 08:15 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3422429 - 11/29/04 08:58 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

But they're so fun!

They also skirt along the edge of flaming, which is NOT welcome in this forum :wink:

So please don't do it again.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3422490 - 11/29/04 09:39 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

essentially it looks like you're trying to pass of existentialism as science. That can be done, but it's not convincing at all the way you've been doing it :/ .

If you treat matter as fact, yes it is more like magic to your human mind. If you treat matter as a concept, then it is more theoretically maleable and predictable. Is it truth ? No. Does that matter? Also no.

Science =/= truth, and when it is passed off as such, it is simply wrong. Science is a way of relatively explaining every observation into an easily searchable/understandable( on smaller scale )/changeable mass of concepts.

However, how can YOU explain everything relatively, in a way that everyone can relate to? YOU cannot - you're doing it metaphysically, cryptically and bluntly. Whatever experiences you've had, they are exclusively yours. No one can pop into your head, and you can't pop into anyone else's.

Your experiences, thoughts, etc etc etc etc have molded your brain into the unique.. creature.. it is now. You're sort of putting a theoretical offset on "scientific" ideas, and exposing the apparent lack of concrete inner workings. There was a well-known physicist, whose name escapes me at the moment, who basically said that we are all one, experiencing everything a little at a time. Still, he was a physicist, and a devoted one at that.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3422997 - 11/29/04 12:41 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Matter is more similiar to magic than it is to Science, as discovered recently by our examination of it on it's "base" level.

It's interesting to note how you make recourse to science (Quantum Weirdness) when it suits your argument, but disavow science when it doesn't. Double standard.

Sorry man, I know you fear the idea

I do not fear the truth. If I find God to be the truth, so be it; if I find cold, impersonal, Universe Without Design to be the truth, so be it.

You are the one who has latched irrationally onto one explanation and will not even consider the other even if it turns out to be true. You're the fearful one.

I still stand by that statement until its proven otherwise.

Nothing in science, outside some areas in Formal Logic, can be proven. However, Natural Selection is as close to science fact as anything ever is. There are massive volumes of evidence in the fossil record to support it and more evidence is found every day. None of that evidence supports the conclusion you've dogmatically reached that God runs the show.

you still never attempted to discuss the NDE

That's because it wasn't necessary; Trendal neatly summed up my position on NDEs. Care to rebut?



--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (11/29/04 12:50 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3423309 - 11/29/04 02:12 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

It's interesting to note how you make recourse to science (Quantum Weirdness) when it suits your argument, but disavow science when it doesn't. Double standard.

I have no reason to disavow Science's evidence...only their conclusions. Nothing in Science contradicts my beliefs.

I do not fear the truth. If I find God to be the truth, so be it; if I find cold, impersonal, Universe Without Design to be the truth, so be it.

You are the one who has latched irrationally onto one explanation and will not even consider the other even if it turns out to be true. You're the fearful one.


Odd, considering I was on your side of the fence already....

Nothing in science, outside some areas in Formal Logic, can be proven. However, Natural Selection is as close to science fact as anything ever is. There are massive volumes of evidence in the fossil record to support it and more evidence is found every day. None of that evidence supports the conclusion you've dogmatically reached that God runs the show.

Um, incorrect. I never said Natural Selection is incorrect...I feel it's incorrect to say such a perfect and wonderful process runs without any "driver behind the wheel." I think God makes your heart beat as well...but that doesn't mean I don't support anything concerning the Circulatory System. I already said this many, many, many times. Science = How, God = Why. Is this that hard to comprehend for you? You accept the world entirely on How, and if you're happy with that, awesome. Why condemn those or accuse them of being fearful and sugarcoating their worldview, who also seek the Why?

That's because it wasn't necessary; Trendal neatly summed up my position on NDEs. Care to rebut?

See that funny bar on the right side of your screen? It's a scroll bar, and when used, discovers tons of useful information from posts-once-past! If you use this nifty tool, you'll be amazed to find I already did!

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3425132 - 11/29/04 08:19 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

it's incorrect to say such a perfect and wonderful process runs without any "driver behind the wheel."

God = Why

Please cite objective evidence supporting this conclusion. If you can't, it's unsubstantiated opinion, it's religion, it's anything you wanna call it, but it's not science.

Why condemn those or accuse them

I'll tell you why.

When Creationists try to foist their beliefs on hapless kids trying to learn biology in public school, I'm appalled, and more so when they actually manage to succeed. I hate that and for the sake of the minds of these kids, I'll fight your dogma as long as I am able to do so.

If Creationists like you kept their beliefs confined to their places of worship where they belong, I'd leave them alone, but when they have the balls to come to a School Board meeting demanding that their religion be taught in science class, they should expect a fight like the one you're getting when you try to do the same thing here.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (11/30/04 12:20 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3427492 - 11/30/04 11:41 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

I read that the problem alot of creationist-supporters had was not that evolution was being taught, rather that it was being exclusively taught as absolute fact. Does this at all affect your opinion? It would seem that they don't want to expel evolution, rather they want to present it much more carefully. Essentially, it is *their* business what they're going to teach and why, but can there be a moral opposition to them if they're just offering an alternative for whatever reason?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3428054 - 11/30/04 02:07 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

I read that the problem alot of creationist-supporters had was not that evolution was being taught, rather that it was being exclusively taught

Of course it's exclusively taught. It's a biology class. Do they teach Evolutionary Theory in Bible school? Should I be upset that they don't?

as absolute fact.

Evolutionary Theory is never taught as fact, at least not by any competent science teacher. If anyone says that Evolutionary Theory is fact, I'll jump on them as fast as I jump on the Creationists, because nothing in science is absolute fact. The best science can achieve is very, very persuasive evidence.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (11/30/04 07:43 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3428062 - 11/30/04 02:10 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

"Creation" should not be taught anywhere outside of a Religion class.

Evolution should not be taught anywhere outside of a science class.

Doesn't seem that difficult to understand...


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3428065 - 11/30/04 02:11 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Nothing in Science contradicts my beliefs.

You've already made it clear that your beliefs are dogma and that you will not change your mind even if it turns out you're wrong.

Nothing unfortunately, will ever convince me of otherwise


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: trendal]
    #3428169 - 11/30/04 02:42 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

and?
Why teach science and not a religion class then? Or maybe a class which will teach about different religions, which IMO would be more beneficial to society than trying to teach them science.

Why, exactly, does science win? Perhaps a choice between the two, making them electives?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3428304 - 11/30/04 03:09 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Why teach science and not a religion class then? Or maybe a class which will teach about different religions, which IMO would be more beneficial to society than trying to teach them science.

Actually, EVERY school I went to had manditory religion classes. First in Catholic School, for obvious reasons, and later in public school we had to take "world religion" courses. So yes, BOTH sides of the story were provided to all students.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelooner2
ABBA fan

Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 3,849
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: trendal]
    #3428408 - 11/30/04 03:35 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Mutation of a certain organisms offspring is, theoretically, the only way to initiate speciation.

99.9% of mutations are harmful to the organism, so then, what are the chances that 2 offspring will have the same exact mutation, at the same time?

Some other things to ponder...

speciation at different hierarchies is marked by MANY changes, for example, mammals all have the same nerve innervation, facial musculature, sebacceus glands...etc.. The list goes on and on. How could these changes all occur at the same time? If they occured at different times, wouldn't there be part reptile-mammal features? That isn't seen!.... the reptilian features are completely removed from mammal lineage.


--------------------
I am in love with Acidic_Sloth


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: trendal]
    #3428577 - 11/30/04 04:03 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

weird =/

nevermind then. perhaps its the shitty american school systems which don't know what they're teaching, even when they try. Here All high school taught me was math, history, science, language and a little art.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: looner2]
    #3428675 - 11/30/04 04:15 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Just thought I'd point out a problem with your "neutrality"....

There is no objective evidence in the net sum of all human knowledge, direct, indirect, or of any other type, supporting the existence of a Creator.

Wouldn't a Neutral position that you claim to have sound more like:

"There is no objective evidence in the net sum of all human knowledge, direct, indirect, or of any other type, supporting the existence OR the non-existance of a Creator. It's all in how you interpret the information and both possibilities are likely...however, I choose to believe in the lack of existance of Intelligent Design."

I don't have a problem standing up for my belief and not trying to dodge-and-weave around the idea that everything that you're basing your belief off is 100% interpretation of the same 'evidence' I'm looking at. I have no problem admitting I need Faith to believe what I believe...but you refuse to concede to the idea that this is the case for you as well.

Furthermore, your dislike of Creation obviously stems from your own personal angst against certain generalized groups...

When Creationists try to foist their beliefs on hapless kids trying to learn biology in public school, I'm appalled, and more so when they actually manage to succeed. I hate that and for the sake of the minds of these kids, I'll fight your dogma as long as I am able to do so.

If Creationists like you kept their beliefs confined to their places of worship where they belong, I'd leave them alone, but when they have the balls to come to a School Board meeting demanding that their religion be taught in science class, they should expect a fight like the one you're getting when you try to do the same thing here.


Am I claiming to be a Christian-Scientist? Am I supporting the idea of teaching Bible-led Creation? Have I not, over and over and over and OVER again in this thread, claimed I believe in Science 100%, but that I simply merge Science with Spirituality (not the same thing as Religion, slick) to obtain a less narrow and more accepting belief in Life entirely? You have a problem with Religion and your dislike of the idea of Intelligent Design is, as with most people with your thinking, generalized, un-informed and directed at the wrong group. I see now you're no different and your dislike of Intelligent Design stems from your own personal problems and issues with those radicals of a Religion that force their beleifs on others. When have I not remained open to the idea that what fits for me might not fit for you? I may not be staying "neutral" in the matter (as you claim to be) but at least I concede to the fact that I only believe this because of my interpretation and experience.

On a side note, I do not support Creation being taught in schools, ESPECIALLY in a Science class because it is not Science. Science only deals with the seeable and/or testable. It's Philosophy and if they want to teach it in a Philosophy class or elective, that's fine. Evolution is the closest thing we have right now and I support its findings...but that doesn't mean I don't question it's findings OR support it blindly as it was fact when it's not...there's still a long way to go and I see no problem (for me personally...I can't stress this enough) to merge the idea of Evolution/Natural Selection together with Spirituality/Intelligent Design.

You need to stop claiming you're neutral in this when you're clearly not. The evidence will never be objective and since you've just interpreted the evidence your way, you're no different than me with my interpretation. At least I realize and admit, its not what you see, its how you see it.

Edit - Looner, I meant reply to Diploid so ignore the top of my post. However I agree with your post too.

Edited by EgoTripping (11/30/04 04:35 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3428950 - 11/30/04 05:06 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

My grade 13 physics teacher did NOT believe in Evolution at all, he thought the Bible was word-for-word truth (this is in a public school, not Catholic).

Despite this, he still taught Evolution in the classes where he was supposed to. I asked him if he had a problem doing so, and he said it was up to the students to decide which theory they wanted to follow...not him.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: trendal]
    #3429017 - 11/30/04 05:16 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

I know many teachers/scientists that had Religious beliefs. The most logical, accurate, and Scientifically minded individual I met was my College Astrology 101 teacher and I stayed after class to discuss his Religious beliefs (I was just starting on my path back then). I was shocked to find out he had intense spiritual beliefs as well. He said Science never conflicted with his views either. I was still Agnostic/slightly Atheistic so I never understood what he meant, but now I do.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblevampirism
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3429027 - 11/30/04 05:18 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

do you mean astronomy? There's a very large difference between astrology and astronomy.....

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: vampirism]
    #3429057 - 11/30/04 05:23 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Doh, I meant Astronomy...I'm at work and hungover, don't mind me :laugh:

Edited by EgoTripping (11/30/04 06:58 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3429577 - 11/30/04 07:29 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

"There is no objective evidence in the net sum of all human knowledge, direct, indirect, or of any other type, supporting the existence OR the non-existance of a Creator.

ET, did you not 'get' the Great Green Arkelseizure demonstration that you called me a dolt over?

You can't prove a negative; it is not possible to find evidence of the non-existence of a thing.

If you say otherwise, please show evidence that the Great Green Arkelseizure does not exist. If you can't do that for something that clearly does not exist, how can you expect anyone to show evidence that God doesn't exist.

And you have the nerve to call ME a dolt?

your dislike of Intelligent Design stems from your own personal problems and issues

I neither like, nor dislike Intelligent Design any more than I like or dislike any other theory, I simply don't see any evidence to support it.

Furthermore, your dislike of Creation obviously stems from your own personal angst against certain generalized groups...

Thanks for the psychoanalysis. Now, can we stick to the topic?

On a side note, I do not support Creation being taught in schools, ESPECIALLY in a Science class because it is not Science.

Hallelujah! You're unique among your ilk, and I applaud at least this aspect of your position.  :thumbup:


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (11/30/04 07:48 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3429623 - 11/30/04 07:44 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Don't be calling anyone a dolt, or anything like that, anymore. Not in S&P, anyway.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3429684 - 11/30/04 08:01 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

ET, did you not 'get' the Great Green Arkelseizure demonstration that you called me a dolt over?

You can't prove a negative; it is not possible to find evidence of the non-existence of a thing.

If you say otherwise, please show evidence that the Great Green Arkelseizure does not exist. If you can't do that for something that clearly does not exist, how can you expect anyone to show evidence that God doesn't exist.

And you have the nerve to call ME a dolt?


Yup.  Because that means its all interpretation...a concept you just can't seem to recognize.  If you can't prove something does not exist then is it illogical to assume there's an equally likely chance it does?

I neither like, nor dislike Intelligent Design any more than I like or dislike any other theory, I simply don't see any evidence to support it.

You don't see it, does that mean it doesn't exist? 

Thanks for the psychoanalysis. Now, can we stick to the topic?

*watches Diploid dodge again*  Considering you're generalzing my ideas under a horrible misconception of what you think Creation is, I'd say its very much the topic.

Hallelujah! You're unique among your ilk, and I applaud at least this aspect of your position.  :thumbup:

Eh, keep it.

Edited by EgoTripping (11/30/04 08:03 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: trendal]
    #3429691 - 11/30/04 08:02 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

trendal said:
Don't be calling anyone a dolt, or anything like that, anymore. Not in S&P, anyway.




No offense, but it's a very mild term. I'm sure if I said "dummy" nobody would have anything to say.

But with that said, duly noted. It was uncalled for.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: looner2]
    #3429692 - 11/30/04 08:03 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

99.9% of mutations are harmful to the organism, so then, what are the chances that 2 offspring will have the same exact mutation, at the same time?

Some other things to ponder...


Here we go again with the armchair scientist whose knowledge of biological diversity comes from the guy who taught his Sunday-school class.

Your comment above demonstrates a profound ignorance of the topic. I started to type up a long, carefully-worded post to help you out of that pit of ignorance, but I changed my mind.

You can take the time to educate yourself by reading a book (I've provided several links to good ones) or you can live in ignorance thinking you know the first thing about the subject. The choice is yours.  :rolleyes:


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3429736 - 11/30/04 08:13 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Here we go again with the armchair scientist whose knowledge of biological diversity comes from the guy who taught his Sunday-school class.

Your comment above demonstrates a profound ignorance of the topic. I started to type up a long, carefully-worded post to help you out of that pit of ignorance, but I changed my mind.

You can take the time to educate yourself by reading a book (I've provided several links to good ones) or you can live in ignorance thinking you know the first thing about the subject. The choice is yours.  :rolleyes:


Nevermind, you guys can gladly ban me for this:

You're a pompous, asshole know-it-all that never admits to the idea that everything you know is strictly your interpretation of the same ideas everyone else seems (in your mind) to get wrong.  I tried leveling with you and even agreeing to disagree that we're both just two stupid humans that think they know what they are talking about.  But you refuse to budge. 

Yah, that was worth it.  See you all later (or perhaps not?).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3429747 - 11/30/04 08:17 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

If you can't prove something does not exist then is it illogical to assume there's an equally likely chance it does?

Yes, that would be an illogical position to hold. When have I said otherwise?

God may exist, or maybe not. The available evidence supporting belief in God is the same as the available evidence supporting belief in the Tooth Fairy.

I hold that both may in fact exist, but pending discovery of evidence of this, I remain in the epistemological default position of neutrality, neither believing, nor disbelieving.

You're the one interpreting my position as active disbelief, which is different from lack of belief, i.e. neutrality.

You don't see it, does that mean it doesn't exist?

Of course not. The planet Pluto wasn't seen for a long time, but evidence of its existence was found in the form of it's gravitational influence on it's neighbors. The gathering of that evidence was refined and made more precise until it became possible to calculate the orbit of Pluto, point a telescope at the calculated position, and voila, there it was.

This theme repeats itself over and over throughout the history of science, but never once... let me say that again... NEVER ONCE has any evidence at all supporting the existence of a Creator been found.

This does not speak to the possibility that a Creator may exist, or may not exist. All it says, and all I say, is that there is no evidence of his existence and barring the discovery of that evidence, there is no more reason to believe in a Creator than there is to believe in the GGA.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3429795 - 11/30/04 08:30 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

You're a pompous, asshole

Oooh, what would God think of so nasty a comment coming from the mouth of one of his True Beleivers? :whoa:

It's been my experience that only the truth can upset people so. Something to think about.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (11/30/04 08:44 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3429848 - 11/30/04 08:44 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Diploid said:
You're a pompous, asshole

Oooh, what would God think of so nasty a comment coming from the mouth of one of his True Beleivers? :whoa:





You're delerious, I never spoke it once, did I?  Unless you have to read aloud, which I wouldn't doubt.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3429859 - 11/30/04 08:46 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

It's been my experience that only the truth can upset people so. Something to think about.

Your 'experience' could be nothing more than a collection of random electrical signals in your brain and unfortunately holds no Scientific value and is rendered irrelevant, so that doesn't matter.

Something to think about.

Edited by EgoTripping (11/30/04 08:46 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelooner2
ABBA fan

Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 3,849
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3429885 - 11/30/04 08:50 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Diploid said:
Here we go again with the armchair scientist whose knowledge of biological diversity comes from the guy who taught his Sunday-school class.

Your comment above demonstrates a profound ignorance of the topic. I started to type up a long, carefully-worded post to help you out of that pit of ignorance, but I changed my mind.

You can take the time to educate yourself by reading a book (I've provided several links to good ones) or you can live in ignorance thinking you know the first thing about the subject. The choice is yours.  :rolleyes:




Mutations are very rare, and are mostly harmful when speaking in the sense of evolution. I am not here to talk about the detail of mutations, I am here to talk about the flaws of evolution. I can speak broadly without you jumping down my throat about semantics.

Mutations at the molecular level make sense when applied to the formation of diseases, the resistance of bacteria, and the passing of genes.... however, when it comes to organisms speciating there is only 1 way this can occur, by mutation. For this to occur, refer to my previous post. Why isn't macroevolution seen in the lab? E.Coli reproduces at an astronomical rate, and hence can produce thousands of mutations in days. Not once do any of these mutations produce a new species of E.coli, just different strains. If it hasn't occured with billions of e.coli in the lab producing millions of mutations, then how could it possibly happen with larger scale organisms which produce 1 or 2 young?


--------------------
I am in love with Acidic_Sloth


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: looner2]
    #3429906 - 11/30/04 08:55 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

If everyone else is Armchair Scientist/Philosopher, what exactly does that make Diploid? For a guy with such immense and unquestionable knowledge, you'd think he'd be doing something a bit more productive and beneficial for his field of expertise than showing up a bunch of 'ignorant' druggies on an internet messageboard.


Edited by EgoTripping (11/30/04 08:56 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3429919 - 11/30/04 08:57 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

ET, I'm done with you.


--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: looner2]
    #3429931 - 11/30/04 09:00 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Why isn't macroevolution seen in the lab?

More ignorance. Speciation (macroevolution) has been observed in the lab; more than once.

For starters, read:

Weinberg, et al. 1992

and

Callaghan 1987

Come back and debate when you're better informed. :poke:

Edited by Diploid (11/30/04 09:15 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEgoTripping
journeyman
Registered: 04/30/04
Posts: 180
Last seen: 18 years, 3 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3429969 - 11/30/04 09:10 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Quote:

Diploid said:
ET, I'm done with you.




Good idea, I think your Armchair needs some company.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: looner2]
    #3430334 - 11/30/04 10:30 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Mutations are very rare, and are mostly harmful when speaking in the sense of evolution.

What do you mean? Mutations happen every time anyone is reproduced. There are mutations happening in your body right now.

Tumours are mutations.

Not once do any of these mutations produce a new species of E.coli, just different strains.

What's the difference between a species, and a strain?


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada Flag
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: EgoTripping]
    #3430338 - 11/30/04 10:30 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Have fun with your time off, ET.

:thumbdown:


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedEyeSamurai
Non-Prophet
Registered: 10/20/04
Posts: 47
Loc: The Valley
Last seen: 18 years, 10 months
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: trendal]
    #3431211 - 12/01/04 01:52 AM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Sorry if I kick a dead horse with this comment, I just dont want to read the whole 20 pages. I think that science is a prison to its own belief. Those who believe in science are jsut reinforceing that the world is 1 way. Just because something seems to be 1 way doesnt mean it is. Thier is no proof gravity works beyond are own empirical knoweledge. And we all know (a) empirical knoweledge can be false and (b) things change(heck mabey gravity is slowly starting to reverse, who am I to tell).

Science is just 1 more story trying to explain what is before our eyes. It does nothing more then provide people with 'neat tricks' and some form of knoweledge (whether actually thier or not).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhluck
Carpal Tunnel
 User Gallery

Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 3 days
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: RedEyeSamurai]
    #3433102 - 12/01/04 02:24 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

Science is the accumlation of data. All we know about gravity is what we have observed. Science makes no assumptions beyond that, and is always welcome to new ideas that have a solid foundation.

Why is science able to come up with neat tricks that can clearly be demonstrated, which things like astral projection, and esp are all wishy washy things that only work under certain circumstances, and are constantly being thrown off by "negative vibes"?


--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelooner2
ABBA fan

Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 3,849
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Phluck]
    #3433367 - 12/01/04 03:12 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)

What do you mean? Mutations happen every time anyone is reproduced. There are mutations happening in your body right now.

They happen every time anyone is reproduced? I hope you don't mean that is the basis for genetic variability. But yes, mutations occur whenever DNA is replicated, but there are enzymes that constantly repair them and are quite effective.

What's the difference between a species, and a strain?

A species is defined as an organism that can exchange genes with eachother but can't with other groups. A strain is a pure-breeding lineage of organisms, but mainly bacteria.


--------------------
I am in love with Acidic_Sloth


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelooner2
ABBA fan

Registered: 06/20/04
Posts: 3,849
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: Diploid]
    #3433373 - 12/01/04 03:13 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)


For starters, read:

Weinberg, et al. 1992

and

Callaghan 1987

Come back and debate when you're better informed.


I couldn't find that. Could you please provide a better link? I find this to be an amazing discovery and I'm surprised I haven't heard of it.


--------------------
I am in love with Acidic_Sloth


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleDiploidM
Cuban

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
Re: I want to debate a "creation scientist". [Re: looner2]
    #3433694 - 12/01/04 04:26 PM (19 years, 3 months ago)



--------------------
Republican Values:

1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you.
2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child.
3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer.

4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.

Edited by Diploid (12/07/04 06:59 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12  [ show all ]

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com APE Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   North Spore Bulk Substrate   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Problem With The Intelligent Design Debate
( 1 2 3 all )
Divided_Sky 4,988 42 10/06/05 05:05 PM
by dr0mni
* Creationism / Evolution
( 1 2 all )
angryshroom 2,497 23 11/11/03 06:29 AM
by StrangeDays
* Jesus wasn't a scientist - the bible in context gluke bastid 1,086 15 05/10/06 12:15 PM
by Silversoul
* evolution or creationism?
( 1 2 3 all )
top 5,387 52 11/17/05 09:19 PM
by Moonshoe
* Is evolution still being debated???
( 1 2 all )
GoBlue! 4,312 34 11/29/02 08:14 AM
by Adamist
* The new galaxy scientists discovered
( 1 2 3 all )
2Experimental 4,767 48 02/19/04 09:48 AM
by fireworks_god
* Scientist's Research Debunked LunarEclipse 2,260 18 12/31/05 03:03 PM
by MushmanTheManic

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
16,426 topic views. 2 members, 12 guests and 16 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.112 seconds spending 0.013 seconds on 14 queries.