Debunking creationism

Remove all ads!

I reread your post again, and it makes just as little if not less sense than before. Particularly this passage:

What on Earth could verification mean besides corrobarative (matching) evidence? Seriously?

 

Well, I don't know if I'm neutral, but personally I think everyone has gone a little nuts.

IMO, the best we can hope for in a debate like this is something resembling a vague understanding of where the other side is coming from. I don't think one side will ever convince the other.

On a completely different note, I wonder if it's possible for someone to get the IotW plaque after only one post?

 

I agree with you Spunge...maybe it's just time to agree to disagree and close this thread with the mutual understanding that we always need to guard either sides right to hold whatever belief they want.

On your other note...IotW with one post has happened before I think...Maybe I'll start a thread at SS to find out.

Thanks for the affirmation on my insanity .

 

@Hacken Slash

I made a mistake. I typed "Death Rattle" instead of "Death Rabbit". Pretty obvious that it was not an intended slight or I would have typed something like "Deaf Rabbi" or "Silly Rabbit" or some such. DO you really think it rose to the level of "RuneMolestor"? Not that any personal attacks phase me much but it is a curious respnse to such an innocent faux pax for a christian to call me a "molestor".

AGAIN, we have the bald assertion followed by the excuse for not substantiating the assertion. This seems to be a key ingredient in your postings.

What "cut & paste" are you refering to? I QUOTED YOU because it is proper to make clear exactly what one is replying to adn the context the original statement was made.

Also, I do not have any religion. In addition to being atheist I am also "areligious". Surely you do not think much of YOUR OWN position if your strongest charge against us "closed minded atheists" is that we "have faith" or "are religious"!

You never hear scientists OR scientific atheists accusing the religious or faithful of being "just as scientific" or "just as rational" as we/they are.

*Sigh* I do not have any positive "beliefs"(at the very least none related to this discussion). Atheism is a LACK of a belief(in gods) and accepting the findings of science when they are well founded requires no "belief".

Also the thread is called "Debunking creationism", not "Here is my comprehensive worldview on all matters of import!". Therefore it is proper that I concentrate on showing that creationism is "bunk".

Another bald assertion(gets old hearing me say that? Gets even OLDER seeing this fallacy repeated over and over and over!)

In order for this charge to hold ANY water you must show how I am guilty of mererly "shouting" to see how loud I can shout. You are free to disagree with what i say but to pretend that I have been just screaming irrelevent nonsense here with no fixed point or reference...that is just lazy.


@Splunge:

First off, I am not "Keldor". You may call me "RQ", RUne", "Quest" or even "Molestor" if you are from Hacken's sect of christianity.

You are right that many are arguing for/against "God" in addition to the subjecxt at hand. But when you accuse ME of doing this I expect a cite or refernce to back this up. I think a few here are guilty of assuming things about me that are not demonstrated in my postings. Hacken' assumed I was trying to debunk God(what a fruitless adn silly venture that would be!?), Chev' assumed I was arguing that science could disprove God or some such(wrong again!) and seemed taken aback wehn I pointed out that we largely AGREED on the points he was presneting in refutation of(what he thought was) my positions.

Let me make this clear once and for all: I am no more interested in trying to "disprove God" than I am in trying to disprove fairies, Santa, vampires or any other alleged supernatural phenomenae.
When I set out to "debunk creationism", I do so on the grounds that, according to the methodology creationists claim is valid(science) creationism IS bunk!

*No grounds for falsification

*Makes no predictions which can be verified/falsified

*Cannot be tested

*Contradicts virtually ALL other areas of scientific discovery/study

By the standards of SCIENCE(and critical thought) creationism is BUNK!

[ April 23, 2004, 22:55: Message edited by: RuneQuester ]

 

@RuneQuester

If you were offended or slighted by my rather childish twist on your name, please accept my apologies.

Everything else stands .

Then why you keep trying to "debunk" it?

 

@ RuneQuester

Oops! Sorry about that!

Before I made that post, I had been looking in an older AoDA thread in which an SP member by the name of Keldor was very active (he hasn't been around lately). Your style of posting is very similar to his in terms of layout, approach, tone and, well, everything. So when I posted here, I had a "senior moment" and thought I was responding to him rather than you. My apologies; I've edited my other post.

As to the other comments directed at me - hopefully you've gathered that I'm not really interested in debating this topic any more, so please forgive me if I take a pass on responding.

 

Hehe. Splunge, you got almost caught in the middle of the raging forces of AoDA.

 

No problem Splunge. At least you didn't call me "Molestor"...

 

Good morning, gentlemen. Since I'm drunk, let's dispense with the pleasantries and move on to the schedule:

Ankiseth_Vanir, your pertinent zeal in mending the world has merited you a special honorary mention in this post. However, that zeal clouds your vision. You're quite knowledgeable and no one denies that, but it doesn't dispense you from the very basic requirement of actually making some sense. It is not enough to quote scientists or scientific theories to be rational. Despite knowledge is power and a great thing to have, everyone can quote. Not everyone can think rationally and push his thoughts through. I don't find pleasure in playing your menthor, so let's just make a deal like two adult, sensible people: either you start backing your claims and framing them in some rational fashion, or I'll start to skip them. We don't have to agree, but going so far as you tend to do requires some grounding. If I were in your shoes, I would follow Hacken Slash's advice and go get that grounding the sooner the better.

It is not my theory, it's a law of logic. The dichotomy between the true and the false is the very base of logic. Either true or false, not grey area in between. Whatever is grey, is not a logical claim but evaluation, impressions and whatever subjective views else can be.

Now, let's be mean for a while and choose your sentence for the prey:

"Chevalier's argument that something either is or isn't is completely false", ERGO: something can be and not be at the same time.

Please show me how a logical claim can be both true and false at one time. Or how an object can exist and not exist at the very same time.

And gravity and the finding of Neptune are proof to what exactly? Are you going to prove the non-existence of any Creator entity basing on the fact of existence of Neptune? Doctors might have something to say about that, if you're being serious.

How I love such sentences. I will spare you the questionning of your knowledge of ancient to rennaissance history, but I won't let you get away with one thing: what you mention is the state of science in the given time. Scientists were all clergymen or somehow else connected to the Church? Doesn't matter, they were still scientists. Personally, those guys look to me a bit like today's scientists who choose convenient safe ideas to follow and believe in and scold everyone who comes up with anything new. In short: scientists of that era were almost all convinced that Earth was flat. And some time in the past Pythagoras believed that beans had soul, you know

No point, it's doomed to fail. Whatever doesn't fit in his precious little universe will be promptly disregarded. No offence intended, some people just need more time.

I know it wasn't referred to me, but I couldn't just let go of it. If his post makes less sense to you each time you read it, it logically means you gradually lose your mental ability.

 

I'm sorry, but I just have to point out something:

ROTFL

Agree with him or not, but let this serve as undeniable proof that Chev is a bad-ass. I didn't even read the rest of his post.

/me salutes chev (there's not a smiley for a salute, so this'll have to do)

You may now return to your respective soapboxes.

 

Chev is proof that There is a God.

No way that anything could evolve into Chev...

He's a created being through and through.


I somehow think it would be a good idea if all the participants in this thread could sit down and share some of what chev's having.

 

This is quite possible the most bizarre post I've read at this website. But you did say you were drunk.

My argument was/is very simple. All I sought to do is to prove that your statement "Human science has no experience as to what is conducive to the forming of organic molecules from non-organic ones spontaneously." is incorrect. I proved you were incorrect by showing that energy + certain concentrations of compounds is conducive to the formation of organic molecules spontaneously.

See, this is why I'm still on your back - because you ALREADY have skipped over my claims. My posts are rational, logical, and incredibly easy to understand and you somehow managed to misinterpret the meaning of my posts.

I always write as if I'm writing for a rube. Feel free to point out how my claims are not framed in a rational manner. It would do wonders for your argument.

Isn't it funny how HackenSlash overanalyzed every word in the source I provided to the point of blatant misinterpretation, yet you can make blanket statements such as "Human science has no experience as to what is conducive to the forming of organic molecules from non-organic ones spontaneously." with *no* source provided. And HackenSlash's response? Not a peep! I *did* provide a credible source. YOU are the one who needs to find solid grounding.

 

@Ankiseth

I did state my objections, to not only the Miller experiments but to the defense of them at the NAI site.

You just either don't agree or don't understand.

I think it may be the later. The source may indeed be credible (at least as opposed to partisan), but the answer given was unsatisfactory to me as a person who doesn't already accept the answer. . There was no answer given except for "don't ask"...that has as much critical viability as me expecting you to have faith in God because God says to.

There is a huge difference between "not a peep" and the responses I made. And this started as such a civil conversation.

 

Ankiseth, no one is taking it personal against you, but in all honesty it's you who bring it on your own head. Here's more:

Simple doesn't necessarily mean free of formal error. For about third or fourth time I tell you you have proven nothing so far with regard to my posts.

Next, what part of "Despite knowledge is power and a great thing to have, everyone can quote." can't you understand? It's a basic sentence consisting of just one main clause and one simple adverbial clause of concession without any baroque structures

Well, no. It hurts me as much as you, but I have to disagree. Your posts are not fully rational and not fully logical even if they are indeed easy to understand. A good way to having your posts NOT misinterpreted is to frame them clearly, precisely and unequivocally. And, most of all, to do a good debugging before hitting the final button.

There is no such thing as overanalysing here. You make posts which are not exactly free of formal errors, so it's natural that formal analysis follows.

I'm quite sure you would do the same if Hacken Slash in his posts created an opportunity for critical analysis on formal grounds. A la guerre come a la guerre, they say. If you don't like to soak with blood you don't become a soldier.

Peace, brother

 

Yes I have. If your going to reply back the validity of your quote instead of just saying "you have proven nothing." I systematically debunked your claim pertaining to the formation of organic molecules from non-organic ones. HOW have I proven nothing? You have NOT been addressing the issue.

Once again, if you want to make a point PROVIDE EVIDENCE. *HOW* was I NOT clear? HOW was I NOT PRECISE?

Read this: don't bother replying until you explain how I was not precise and/or clear.

 

I already have and it's up there in posts that you were replying when the whole formal issue started. I'm not going to let you stray this all in a loop, sorry. Perhaps other participants have something to say?

 

Someone has problems following clear, precise, and simple directions.

 

@Chev'


I am going to answer a 'pre-drunken' post of yours I somehow missed earlier as teh 'post-drunken' ramblings you are offering make absolutely no sense.

First off, notice how Chev' tries to dodge the fact that he made an error and rather than aknowledge his logical error he tries to latch onto a tagentially related issue? Chev' does this a lot! I think most don't seem to notice because he is good for chastising others about alleged "logical errors" even while he is commiting fallacies by the handful!

So Chev' are we clear on teh fact that I have not been trying to "disprove God" and Hacken Slash's initial challenge/response to me in this thread WAS in error?(go back and read her firt reply if you need a refresher)

Second, creationism is "bad theology" for the same reason as it is bad SCIENCE. Religion wearing a lab coat to try and justify it's tenets by scientific criteria only brings down said religion and attempts to make a mockery of science, just as if scientists were to promote theories and such according to religious criteria would be bad science.

*Shrug*

You made a God of the gaps argument. This is not changed by the statement you offer here(regardless of whether there is anything sensible to be found in the above assertion)

Another bald assertion. Why did the universe HAVE to have a beginning? At the sub atomic level, "beginning" does not even apply or make sense(not much really makes sense at this level). You are PRESUMMING the necessity of a beginning. My speculation above(not something I believe btw) is about a CYCLICAL universe! That measn it has no proper beginning. it is like one of those staircases in an M.C. Escher picture where the steps manage to climb higher and higher(with no apparent descencion as counter-logical as it seems) and ultimately meet the "bottom" steps or something.

Either things CAN exist eternally, in which case the universe itself can have done so OR things must be created or caused by others, in which case your God requires a creator, and his creator requires a creator ad infinitum.
Logically, you cannot assert that all things must have causes as a premise and then give arbitrary exemption to "God".

Be clear Chev'. No more cryptic inferences. What are you saying here?

*Sigh* Listen you keep misunderstanding this whole truth issue.

Statements/claims are either true(boolean 1) or fasloe(boolean 0). We do not disagree here. But humans are incapable of making such determinations to the satisfaction of their ideaological opponents/dissenters. SImply put we cannot LNOW anything with 100% certainty so the rationalist deals in LIKELIHOODS. We CAN make judgements as to the LIKELIHOOD of something being 'true' or 'false'.

No. A bald assertion is a logical fallacy which involves stating something as if it were objective fact WITHOUT providing any substantiation ofr the assertion. Above you maker the assertion that science is just another "faith" with the strong implication that this alleged "faith" of science is no more substantial than any other faith(i.e. YOUR religious faith). This is akin to someone stating "Well, sure if you use MATH to quantify the number of apples you may THINK farmer Brown has a dozen but I am not going to exchange your blind guessing for my own blind guessing!"


Again, I find it odd that religionists will espouse the virtue of "faith" so loudly out of one side of their mouths and then out of the other side condemn science as "Just another faith". You never hear scientists accusing religionists of being "Just more science" or being "Just as rational as we are".

You guys seem quite taken with teh methods of science and critical thought in an "appeal to authority" sort of way but you do not like what these things actually tell you when you practice them.

Pretty safe bets. I am not much of a gambler.

Yes...so?

I don't know about "specualtions" but I will AGAIN wager here...my wager will be that YOU YOURSELF when suffering serious injury or illness will rely on the "speculations of scientists" and those "speculations" will have obvious adn measureable effect. You might also "pray"(if concious) or others might pray for you but this "speculation of priests" will have NO measurable effect.
I can already here your response:"How do you KNOW my praying did not influence the attempts to ressucitate my heart or whatever?"

My answer: We don't. We also don't know that the ant crawling outside the hospital did not invoke the benign sorcery of an other-dimensional sentient cube to heal you. We DO know however that if the doctors decide to ignore your plight adn do nothing, you will die whereas if they engage in their "scientific speculations" there will be a measureable effect(Blood loss will slow or stop, the heart will start beating again, etc.).

Got to stop you right there. Proper controls are simply constraints put on an exp[eriment to eliminate the logical possibility that OTHER explanations can account for a certain observed effect. If an alleged "Remote viewer" claims he can see things outside his physical LoS adn this ability is not hampered by distance or obstacle then a controlled experiment will involve some way to eliminate "cheating", using cameras/mirrors etc.. AN example might be the subject sitting in a room with no windows and no electronic devices allowed in and given a pad of paper and a pencil while the scientist sits in a room, also with no windows adn such with a sealed deck of flashcards that number in the hundreds ...each symbol being distinctly different. The scientist would be asked to choose a single flash card and place it back in the envlope and place the rest in a seperate container. Seal the envelope adn lock the lockbox with the other flashcards.
The 'viewer' would then be asked to draw or write a description of the symbol which was in the envelope.

There is nothing skullduggerous or underhanded about a controlled experiement adn I can only guess why supernaturalists are so opposed to the procedures.

Wrong. Proper controls in science are a very specific thing(which varies for claim to claim adn experiment to experiement and no that is not a contradiction). A non-scientist can devise an experiemnt adn claim he has developed his own "proper controls" to prove that God exists or something but that does not make the experiemtn valid by scientific criteria.

No I don't. THAT'S another bald assetion.


Dare I ask for a cite/reference?

*sigh* See above.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. What is your point?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Explaining the above.

 

First of all, my personal favourite: Ankiseth.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font>

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:

[ Warning pending, and for Akiseth Vanir as well. ] - Beren

[ April 25, 2004, 05:07: Message edited by: Beren ]