Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

You are willing to believe that Wikipedia, which has tons of articles about the christian faith and every other conceivable supernatural-based religion, is trying to promote naturalism?

This is demonstrably false by virtue of what I just said.

The truth with you, is that anything that isn't actively promoting christianity, is deemed "materialistic." This is blind bias.

Your perception of talkorigins originates from the same bias. In actuality, Talkorigins accurately describes the scientific theories that theists so often get wrong. This is not an agenda to promote naturalism, but to promote actual truth about the current state of our collective scientific inquiry on matters of evolution, abiogenesis, and other topics so often misquoted by theists. It is simply an educational tool. The fact that it does not align with your beliefs does not mean it is naturalistic, simply because your beliefs are mired in supernaturalism. Try to be a little less self-centered when assessing these things.

I can now admit I am biased for the truth not vivid imaginations.

This is a completely subjective statement, and therefore meaningless as far as this discussion goes. Until you can demonstrate something, you don't have truth.

I have many times and it gets ignored because of semantics.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your views on amino acids are formed by really simple mathematical probability calculations. These is not an apt description of reality we know little about, so can not account for it in the math. You can not demonstrate that something is impossible by trying to show how unlikely it is with these simple calculations. There is not enough data to make those calculations descriptive of anything resembling what would have actually taken place. So, another argument from ignorance.

I can reach my views through reasoning of the evidence.

No, you can't. You have reached your views by fallacious reasoning, namely attempting to probabilistically rule out the competing theory, and then fallaciously trying to build-up your own theory using a non-deductive method. There is no valid reasoning here that allows anyone to demonstrable these "truths."

The theory has ruled itself out by not being able to withstand scientific scrutiny.

 

[newpolitics]

Maybe you should if you are concerned with the truth and whether a designer does exist or not.

You must demonstrate that something is true. You can not and have not. I know all about Stephen Meyer's probability calculations with respect to amino acid coupling combinations in forming viable proteins. This is not useful information in describing what happened. It is vastly simplistic and relies on ignorance to the actual conditions during abiogenesis. Nor is an inductive argument to try and show that DNA must have a designer simply because digital code has a designer. This is using the availability heuristic. Intelligent Design is so far from science that it is laughable. The more I learn about it, the more I realize that it is simply faith-based. Nobody actually searching for scientific truth could ever rely on this kind of flawed methodology. It is simply unscientific, and even Meyer admits this when he says this is a "semantics question" (paraphrased).

I can't think of one thing in nature that chaos has produced through order. They are opposites.

I don't care. That is an incoherent expectation and an blatant mischaracterization of some fundamental concepts about the universe. What does "chaos producing something through order" even mean? When you actually understand reality, maybe we can have this discussion. All this is another attempt to discredit materialism because you think that necessarily makes supernaturalism viable without providing any actual evidence for it. This is the weakness in your position. Your only options is to try and discredit everything around you, because by definition, supernatural phenomena can not exist in the natural world. Hence, you will always require faith to believe supernatural claims, which in my opinion, is unjustifiable.

 

[newpolitics]

I can reach my views through reasoning of the evidence.

No, you can't. You have reached your views by fallacious reasoning, namely attempting to probabilistically rule out the competing theory, and then fallaciously trying to build-up your own theory using a non-deductive method. There is no valid reasoning here that allows anyone to demonstrable these "truths."

The theory has ruled itself out by not being able to withstand scientific scrutiny.

Are you talking about Intelligent Design?

 

[newpolitics]

I can now admit I am biased for the truth not vivid imaginations.

This is a completely subjective statement, and therefore meaningless as far as this discussion goes. Until you can demonstrate something, you don't have truth.

I have many times and it gets ignored because of semantics.

This is only your interpretation that the cause of this is a semantics issue. The actual reason your demonstrations get ignored is because they are not demonstrations that utilize valid reasoning, but rely on faith and logical fallacy.

 

[daws101]

You are running from my question. Have I posted from Harun Yahya? Where is such a link?? Or even ICR for that matter? Prove it or shut the Daws up.

awwww some one's having a tantrum either address me directly or stfu.

I won't use profanity so Daws seemed like an appropriate substitution.

and always you'd be showcasing your immaturity.

taking God’s name in vain means throwing around reckless promises, oaths, and pledges using the Christian God as your witness.

if that's why you don't use profanity then you're far more dense than I expected.

 

[daws101]

According to this it was perfectly in conext. Nice try theatre boy. I bet Hawly would love to see you in your Shakespearean tights.

"The phrase has come to mean that one can "insist so passionately about something not being true that people suspect the opposite of what one is saying."

NP's phrase was "Stop trying to make it seem like I am only picking on you because I disagree with you." Picking on me because he disagreed with me is exactly what he was doing. The epic fail is yours SlapHawly.

theatre boy? hmm.. that's an admission that you do know my educational background ,making all your faux protesting that I never posted it a lie.
the slapdick doth protest too much to cover his dishonsty...

Not really. I just read it in YWC's recent post. Sorry to burst your bubble.

yes really. can you back peddle harder..
BTW they're called leggings not tights, and I look damn fine in them.

 

[UltimateReality]

You are lost in your ignorance even though you can't see it and continue to shout that I lack understanding. Watch this short 7 minute video and then maybe YOU will understand YOUR argument from ignorance. I welcome your rebuttal after you have watched this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1--tP49mOoE&feature=related

Interesting, unconvincing, and a confirmation of what I have been saying about ID all along, that it rests on ignorance.

This doesn't even make any sense. I don't know how to respond. You are just babbling at this point. A naturalistic explanation rests on what ignorance? You are simply mirroring what I say about ID because you have no other retort. However, in this case, it is simply a bald assertion, because scientists aren't making claims that aren't supported by evidence. Even in the case of abiogenesis, there aren't any strong contentions being made about what exactly happened. It is simply conjecture at this point until they gather more evidence.



He makes an argument alright, an argument from ignorance. He makes a claim about what actually happened, when he is in total ignorance as to what happened, yet because his claim is unfalsifiable, being that it involves a supernatural element, it can not dispoven. This is a textbook argument from ignorance.



This fact doesn't demonstrate anything about how DNA was formed. This is the basis of your argument from induction, and this is fallacy when you try to make it seem as if this conclusion is based on deductive reasoning, which you have to do if you want to be scientific. I don't care how similar DNA is to the codes we make. I don't care if it is the exact same fucking code, with zeroes and ones and everything. This does nothing to show that DNA was also created by an intelligence.

You are assuming that because humans created a complex, specifiable code, and DNA shares some similar attributes, that DNA must also have been created by an intelligence. Do you not see how this is conclusion is fallacious and why many doubt the validity of ID "science"? There are other possibilities for how DNA could have been created. AGAIN, until you show positive evidence for this creator, you don't have a theory.



Actually, it isn't useful in describing what didn't happen, at all. Crunching numbers is not a description of what could actually have occurred. This is also based on ignorance.



Nice try, but no, and I don't have a religion. I have a lack of reigion, and lack of faith in a supernatural being. I have trust, based on evidence, which informs my reliance on induction to an extent, but not when drawing scientific conclusions. I've already gone over this. This belief that tomorrow will be similar to today is not faith, because we have an entire history of the universe to show that things have not changed fundamentally. If they did, it would be an anomaly, and would require an entire revamping of our scientific models.



I don't care what I was saying a few posts back. This is what I am saying now, so instead of dodging the point, try to actually respond to it.



Fine.

which means you now how to account for the probabilities of of amino acid combinations happening anywhere in the universe where this is chemically permissible. We don't enough information to even calculate this probability, so Meyer's attempt at establishing probabilities is completely unsound.

Wrong!!! Meyer isn't talking about Amino Acids!!! You do understand that proteins are made from long chains of amino acids, right?

Yes, I do. The point is that Meyer has not basis on which to form his probabilities, because we have never seen abiogenesis elsewhere. For him to say it is impossible is based on ignorance to this fact. This guy swims in ignorance. He loves it!

The probabilities are based on the "warm little pond" with amino acids in it.

Other than that, I don't even know where to begin with everything that is wrong with your rebuttal so I will just let the information presented stand on its own merit.

 

[UltimateReality]

All of this means NOTHING in proving a designer. I don't care about chirality and how much more improbable that makes anything. All you are doing is trying to discredit abiogenesis, with NO POSITIVE EVIDENCE for a designer. Your argument from induction in using humans and digital code, is not positive evidence. It is inductive reasoning, which would allow inferences, at best. You are left with nothing to show for your designer. This attempt at science is utterly pathetic.

I don't feel the need anymore to defend a single facet of abiogenesis or evolution, because if both of these were disproven tomorrow, you still would have zero proof for an intelligent designer.

Newsflash, it was disproven yesterday. Instead of clinging to fairytales, its time for scientists to find another explanation for the origin of life.

It is hilarious to me that you keep bringing up arguments from induction multiple times. Have you been reading Wiki again? Without any understanding of what you are reading? I have another newsflash for you. Evolutionary Biology is a historical science in most regards. Most of the hypotheses originate from, yes, you guessed it... inductive reasoning. Like I said, to discredit Meyer's argument is to discredit Darwins. I'm not sure why you are unable to grasp this.

What I have read between the lines in your posts on several occasions is you saying you don't care what the evidence says, you just believe Darwinism to be true. The first step to getting help is realizing you have a problem. You are committed to materialism and atheism first, not science.

Problem of induction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The problem of induction is well-known in the philosophy of science. You might want to check it out.

The problem of induction is the philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge understood in the classic philosophical sense,[1] since it focuses on the lack of justification for either:

1.Generalizing about the properties of a class of objects based on some number of observations of particular instances of that class (for example, the inference that "all swans we have seen are white, and therefore all swans are white", before the discovery of black swans) or
2. Presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will hold as they have always been observed to hold). Hume called this the Principle of Uniformity of Nature.[2]

wikipedia.org

Science relies on induction simply because without it, we couldn't make any measurements and have them be consistent day to day. We are forced to assume that tomorrow will be like today, simply because today was like yesterday, and the day before that, and so and so forth. Otherwise, there would be no ability to conduct scientific experiments if the fundamental aspects of of nature we rely on for consistency were ever-changing. However, it is unscientific to make conclusions based on inductive reasoning. Induction is something we must live by, not conclude with. Scientific conclusions are based on deductive reasoning, not inductive reasoning, and this goes for evolutionary biology too and all historical sciences. However, we can not get around this problem of induction. This paradox is inherent to the scientific process.

You are committing a category error in assuming that simply because the problem of induction involves the past conceptually, it is more involved in the "historical sciences" than in other sciences. This is false. Historical sciences also must use deductive reasoning to form their conclusions. It is clear you don't understand what induction really is, or else, you might actually recognize it.

Don't get me wrong, induction is incredibly important for our day to day functioning, and we rely on it heavily as humans. In science, inductively-reached conclusions are simply invalid. Find me another conclusion in science based on induction, and I'll grant that I am wrong. All claims must be proved on their own merit. You are trying to sidestep this using inductive reasoning. It is cheap. In other words, you are trying to say that we can prove DNA was intelligently created because digital code was intelligently created. But, you haven't actually proven that DNA was intelligently created. You are inferring that using inductive reasoning, or rather, you are assuming it to be true.

It is well established in logic that inductive arguments can only establish probabilities. Deductive arguments are therefore much stronger in reaching higher degrees of certainty. This is why they are used in science. Therefore, IDers can only produce a probabilistic determination for their conclusions, yet they pretend that their conclusions are reached deductively, like in all other sciences. This is a sham.

Evolutionary biology being a historical science has nothing more to do with induction that does particle physics, so you're point is completely moot.

Everything you just posted applies just as equally to evolutionary science. Nice try though. Maybe you should investigate your own blind faith more.

 

[UltimateReality]

I know about the concepts of redshift and parallax shift as it applies to making these measurements, but I do not know the actual methodology of how they use these concepts to obtain such measurements, mathematically, although I seem to remember it involving trigonometry and parallax view, but I could be wrong. I don't see how any of this important, and I don't know why I follow you on these wild goose chases. I am truly a sucker. Are you saying that because I don't understand the methodology behind these measurements, that I am not able to use them?

If you consider the methodology in determining these distances to be flawed, then just say so. If you don't, then you have no basis for needing to know whether or not I understand how these measurements were obtained. It is irrelevant to my using them, unless you think they are questionable, in which case, we can have a discussion about that, and I will do the proper research to learn how these measurements were garnered. I must say that, this just seems like an ego-trip for you, and I don't understand what it has to do with my purposes here.

At bottom, you seem to be implying that a star that has been measured at 13 billion light years away, is not actually 13 billion light years away, and therefore I should not cite this measurement. Is this the case?

That's for you to decide. I am saying there are many things in space that don't follow the laws here on earth. We can use earthly laws to make estimates of astronomical distances but in the end, they are just educated guesses, because we truly have no way of verifying them.

Earthly laws? As if this region of space is fundamentally different than another region of space, excluding regions near black holes? What is it with creationists and trying to posit that the four fundamental forces of nature are ever-changing? You would need to back this is up with something . Anything, pointing to this possibility.

You are, in fact, implying that astronomy is unreliable with regards to astronomical measurements of distance. Therefore, you need to prove this. Go ahead.

This shows your total ignorance to current cosmological science. When was the last time you measured the effects of dark matter and dark energy here on earth? When?

 

[daws101]

NP, since you couldn't answer the star distance question I will you provide you with a few links to your favorite source so you can speak intelligently on the topic. There are several different ways scientists determine the distance to stars and as you can see, they are all based on theories, some with many variables...

Cepheid variable - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Extragalactic observations

The most distant objects exhibit larger redshifts corresponding to the Hubble flow of the universe. The largest observed redshift, corresponding to the greatest distance and furthest back in time, is that of the cosmic microwave background radiation; the numerical value of its redshift is about z = 1089 (z = 0 corresponds to present time), and it shows the state of the Universe about 13.7 billion years ago, and 379,000 years after the initial moments of the Big Bang.[59]

Redshift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spectroscopic parallax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know about the concepts of redshift and parallax shift as it applies to making these measurements, but I do not know the actual methodology of how they use these concepts to obtain such measurements, mathematically, although I seem to remember it involving trigonometry and parallax view, but I could be wrong. I don't see how any of this important, and I don't know why I follow you on these wild goose chases. I am truly a sucker. Are you saying that because I don't understand the methodology behind these measurements, that I am not able to use them?

If you consider the methodology in determining these distances to be flawed, then just say so. If you don't, then you have no basis for needing to know whether or not I understand how these measurements were obtained. It is irrelevant to my using them, unless you think they are questionable, in which case, we can have a discussion about that, and I will do the proper research to learn how these measurements were garnered. I must say that, this just seems like an ego-trip for you, and I don't understand what it has to do with my purposes here.

At bottom, you seem to be implying that a star that has been measured at 13 billion light years away, is not actually 13 billion light years away, and therefore I should not cite this measurement. Is this the case?

That's for you to decide. I am saying there are many things in space that don't follow the laws here on earth. We can use earthly laws to make estimates of astronomical distances but in the end, they are just educated guesses, because we truly have no way of verifying them.

me smells an end run around taking responsibility for what you post..
now to burst your bubble the laws you speak of are the same in space as they are on earth.

 

[UltimateReality]

But true, nonetheless.

I can only suggest that you learn about the science of evolution from sources other than the creationist ministries. The information they supply is incorrect and your re-use of the information makes you an accomplice to fear and ignorance.

There is no required "belief" in evolution, science, biology, etc., required to accept those disciplines and to accept the inescapable conclusions which are drawn from the evidence. Science is not a "belief". Religious dogma (ie., creationism), as admitted by its adherents, is unchangeable - it is an inerrant guide. Science makes no such claims. It is certainly not unchanging (no scientific subject is excluded from change) and makes no claims to being absolute or inerrant (as our methods for testing and our technology improves, our theories more closely model reality). Evolution remains as the best analog of the available physical evidence, in spite of your violent rejection evolving from your religious affiliation.

Obviously, science is in no danger of being superceded or "overturned" by fundie christian creationism.

You mean like all the classes you took?

Hawly, you wouldn't know real science if it hit you in the face. All your science "knowledge" comes from Panda's Thumb.

I just gave you a lesson in science and I hope you will reflect and improve yourself.

You're offering more than the silly cut and paste that the other fundie has fumed in the board.

You have become totally irrelevant to this thread.

 

[daws101]

You're embarrassing yourself. Hollie has lied about me on numerous occasions and I am sick of her repetitive posts of continually lying just as a put down. I am asking her to back up her accusations with proof or get lost. End of story.

This is all well in good, but you implied that Hollie was indicting herself in her conversation with you when you said "were were are talking about her lies about me," which simply isn't true. You have not shown her to be a liar, so you shouldn't use that word. She maybe incorrect at best, but that doesn't make her a liar. She is indicting whoever posted from Harun Yahya. I don't care who is right here. I am just stating the facts, because you like to obfuscate.

Now, I am playing the arbiter.

Did you mean arbitrator? If so, then you would make a really lousy one, because you are incredibly biased to one side.

UR
this might have been a good time to to stfu.

Definition of ARBITER
1: a person with power to decide a dispute : judge
2: a person or agency whose judgment or opinion is considered authoritative <arbiters of taste>

Definition of ARBITRATOR
: one that arbitrates : arbiter
another failed attempt to get over on another poster.

 

[UltimateReality]

that's all of your beliefs are based on faith as you have no evidence if you claim you do you're lying.

My observations of mutations and cells are not based on faith nor the bible daws. My views on amino acids forming proteins are not either. Do I need to go on ?

Your views on amino acids are formed by really simple mathematical probability calculations. These is not an apt description of reality we know little about, so can not account for it in the math. You can not demonstrate that something is impossible by trying to show how unlikely it is with these simple calculations. There is not enough data to make those calculations descriptive of anything resembling what would have actually taken place. So, another argument from ignorance.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. How is it that the distance past is a reality we know so little about yet evolutionary science makes up all kinds of fairy tales which you buy hook, line and stinker? Your atheism drives your interpretation of science. And you are so deep in it you can't see it. This type of close-mindedness runs deep with all you materialists.

 

[UltimateReality]

Wikipedia is bullshit. May as well cite Dr. Sueus.

Those that have been supporters of evolution in this thread has stated that evolution did not begin at the beginning of life. You contradict their sentiment.

Just because you think you have the answers doesn't mean God wasn't involved.

The "soup thing" is from berkeley. So you're saying that you know better than researchers at berkeley? Where did you go to college, Redneck U?
And how's that slave flag thing working out for you southern pig fuckers?

Berkley now that is a fair and balanced source.

You didn't know that? Pot and evolutionary made up stories go hand and hand.

 

[UltimateReality]

All of this means NOTHING in proving a designer. I don't care about chirality and how much more improbable that makes anything. All you are doing is trying to discredit abiogenesis, with NO POSITIVE EVIDENCE for a designer. Your argument from induction in using humans and digital code, is not positive evidence. It is inductive reasoning, which would allow inferences, at best. You are left with nothing to show for your designer. This attempt at science is utterly pathetic.

I don't feel the need anymore to defend a single facet of abiogenesis or evolution, because if both of these were disproven tomorrow, you still would have zero proof for an intelligent designer.

Maybe you should if you are concerned with the truth and whether a designer does exist or not.

You must demonstrate that something is true. You can not and have not. I know all about Stephen Meyer's probability calculations with respect to amino acid coupling combinations in forming viable proteins. This is not useful information in describing what happened. It is vastly simplistic and relies on ignorance to the actual conditions during abiogenesis. Nor is an inductive argument to try and show that DNA must have a designer simply because digital code has a designer. This is using the availability heuristic. Intelligent Design is so far from science that it is laughable. The more I learn about it, the more I realize that it is simply faith-based. Nobody actually searching for scientific truth could ever rely on this kind of flawed methodology. It is simply unscientific, and even Meyer admits this when he says this is a "semantics question" (paraphrased).

What is amazing to me is that you still deny Meyer uses the exact SAME SCIENTIFIC METHOD Darwin and Lyell used. Apparently you are in denial of that.

 

[UltimateReality]

You are willing to believe that Wikipedia, which has tons of articles about the christian faith and every other conceivable supernatural-based religion, is trying to promote naturalism?

This is demonstrably false by virtue of what I just said.

The truth with you, is that anything that isn't actively promoting christianity, is deemed "materialistic." This is blind bias.

Your perception of talkorigins originates from the same bias. In actuality, Talkorigins accurately describes the scientific theories that theists so often get wrong. This is not an agenda to promote naturalism, but to promote actual truth about the current state of our collective scientific inquiry on matters of evolution, abiogenesis, and other topics so often misquoted by theists. It is simply an educational tool. The fact that it does not align with your beliefs does not mean it is naturalistic, simply because your beliefs are mired in supernaturalism. Try to be a little less self-centered when assessing these things.

I can now admit I am biased for the truth not vivid imaginations.

This is a completely subjective statement, and therefore meaningless as far as this discussion goes. Until you can demonstrate something, you don't have truth.

Okay, please demonstrate a modern day example of Natural Selection acting on a random mutation and producing a trait that increases fitness.

 

[UltimateReality]

Your views on amino acids are formed by really simple mathematical probability calculations. These is not an apt description of reality we know little about, so can not account for it in the math. You can not demonstrate that something is impossible by trying to show how unlikely it is with these simple calculations. There is not enough data to make those calculations descriptive of anything resembling what would have actually taken place. So, another argument from ignorance.

I can reach my views through reasoning of the evidence.

No, you can't. You have reached your views by fallacious reasoning, namely attempting to probabilistically rule out the competing theory, and then fallaciously trying to build-up your own theory using a non-deductive method. There is no valid reasoning here that allows anyone to demonstrable these "truths."

You have not provided any evidence as to why the probability arguments are not valid. And in your ignorance, you are arguing against a majority of scientists in the field and your high priest, Dawkins. Most smart Darwinists don't want to touch origins questions with a 10 foot pole.

 

[UltimateReality]

awwww some one's having a tantrum either address me directly or stfu.

I won't use profanity so Daws seemed like an appropriate substitution.

and always you'd be showcasing your immaturity.

taking God&#8217;s name in vain means throwing around reckless promises, oaths, and pledges using the Christian God as your witness.

if that's why you don't use profanity then you're far more dense than I expected.

So I can't take Daws name in vain??? I don't use profanity because it is trailer trashy.

 

[UltimateReality]

This is all well in good, but you implied that Hollie was indicting herself in her conversation with you when you said "were were are talking about her lies about me," which simply isn't true. You have not shown her to be a liar, so you shouldn't use that word. She maybe incorrect at best, but that doesn't make her a liar. She is indicting whoever posted from Harun Yahya. I don't care who is right here. I am just stating the facts, because you like to obfuscate.

Now, I am playing the arbiter.

Did you mean arbitrator? If so, then you would make a really lousy one, because you are incredibly biased to one side.

UR
this might have been a good time to to stfu.

Definition of ARBITER
1: a person with power to decide a dispute : judge
2: a person or agency whose judgment or opinion is considered authoritative <arbiters of taste>

Definition of ARBITRATOR
: one that arbitrates : arbiter
another failed attempt to get over on another poster.

Arbiter is a fictional ceremonial, religious, and political rank bestowed upon alien Covenant Elites in the Halo science fiction universe.

NP must be a theatre boy too!!! Maybe you guys could compare tights.