Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
The Rue and Causal Thread--Philosophical Grudge Match!
Saturday, August 4, 2007 11:41 AM
ANTIMASON
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: The earth has seasons. right? Let's assume one winter and one summer per year. More dust falls in summer, more snow falls in winter, creating visible annual layers. Until the ice becomes so compacted (deep ice) that the layers become indistinguishable, except through detailed chemical analysis, it is possible to COUNT the annual layers- just like rings in a tree- to determine the number of years if ice accumulation. It's called Visual (or visible) stratigraphy.
Saturday, August 4, 2007 11:48 AM
SIGNYM
I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.
Quote:and i understand that. but they use these same methods in geology, yet you cannot predict, nor do you factor in: mudslides or floods or extreme weather variations. you take a single method, and apply it.. and whatever your results are, you disregard any unpredictable variables, and state your claims as fact
Saturday, August 4, 2007 11:56 AM
Quote:and im perfectly aware of this.. but ive seen the inconsistencies in carbon and radioactive dating methods, and i am inclined to believe that these types of marking and paintings could easily have been done by native, indigenous peoples from any period of time.
Quote:So my first question is: why do you say that recorded human history is only 10,000 old? Which human records and artifacts are you excluding, and why?-Signy anything acquired through speculative methods-Anti
Quote: your claim is that every single living organism began from nothing, and designed its own functions, thereby finding its own niche and particular function. this is your claim about the entire universe, all the order and complexity. how fortunate we are then that the earth settled where it did, by 'chance'.. or no life would be possible.
Saturday, August 4, 2007 12:02 PM
Quote:Signym- So, can we stipulate that the earth is at least 200,000 years old? Or do you want to propose a heretofore unknown orbital disturbance to explain a "young" earth.
Saturday, August 4, 2007 1:25 PM
Quote: Signym- So, how did YOUR "recorded history" achieve it's 10,000-year-old date?
Quote: What is a "speculative" method?
Quote: Now YOU'RE the one making huge assumptions that have never been shown in a lab! "Life", as it turns out, is possible in many environments that we thought initially impossible.
Quote: I'm not so sure that "life" is as limited or a fragile as you think.
Saturday, August 4, 2007 1:32 PM
Quote:So, can we stipulate that the earth is at least 200,000 years old? Or do you want to propose a heretofore unknown orbital disturbance to explain a "young" earth.-Signy unless some other piece of data contradicts this. whats important is why 200,000 yrs? if that is all the strata our ice cores are capable of retaining(identifiably), then its possible we're quite a bit older yes... but we need to know that to be true first. otherwise i can argue that we may be no older based on that same data
Quote:So, how did YOUR "recorded history" achieve it's 10,000-year-old date?-Signy mostly historical and archeological evidence-Anti.
Quote: Now YOU'RE the one making huge assumptions that have never been shown in a lab! "Life", as it turns out, is possible in many environments that we thought initially impossible-signy i would'nt argue otherwise.. but i think our view of 'life' might differ. IMO life doesn't create itself, it exists because it was created-anti
Quote: i'm just curious how life originates(under your view),
Quote: and where it derives the foresight to assume its role and function in the universe
Saturday, August 4, 2007 2:09 PM
Quote: Signym- So can we agree that, unless contradictory evidence show up, we can agree the earth is at least 200,000 years old?
Quote: So, how did YOUR "recorded history" achieve it's 10,000-year-old date?
Quote:SUCH AS? Archeological evidence by itself doesn't have a "date" attached to it. So how are archeological finds dated? Also, what kind of "historical" evidence?
Saturday, August 4, 2007 2:24 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: Anti, you missed the point. YOU'RE the one who said that conditions would need to fall into a very very narrow range in order for "life" to come about. I countered by saying that "life" is more durable than we previously thought, and is capable of thriving in a much lagre ste of conditions that you might think. I gave specific examples, not of where life might exist but where life actually does exist. Little shrimp at volcanic vents. Bacteria in solid rock. Archaebacteria requiring poisons like cyanide and hydrogen sulfide as food. What does my "view" of life have to do with the point under discussion?
Saturday, August 4, 2007 8:31 PM
Sunday, August 5, 2007 2:45 AM
LEADB
Sunday, August 5, 2007 2:51 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: So, you pulled 10,000 years out of thin air?
Sunday, August 5, 2007 3:36 AM
Quote:Originally posted by antimason:Saturday, August 04, 2007 09:29 Quote:LeadB Sorry, I oversimplified because I didn't feel like getting into the details you normally ignore.(...) its not that i 'ignore' them.. i just dont pretend i know the absolute truth about everything. why do we even discuss this subject, if your side cannot possibly be wrong?
Quote:LeadB Sorry, I oversimplified because I didn't feel like getting into the details you normally ignore.(...)
Quote:Originally posted by antimason Friday, August 03, 2007 - 21:53: Quote: LeadB (for Creationists) that for the presentations to be correct or 2) Creationism is in conflict with basic and fundamental science which has proven itself continuously. Creationism isnt in conflict with science. Creation is in conflict with evolution. an evolutionist wants to argue a natural cause to the universe, a process taking over billions(if not trillions) of years. we advocate a supernatural cause, which occurred in an unknown but finite period of time. neither can be produced in a lab. in this case, we should be free to interpret the data through which ever hypothesis better fits the data. right now, both exist outside the bounds of observable 'science' by your own definition! we dont even question our presumptions, and no one will be fair and acknowledge that your side artificially established the rules, inherently excluding our perspective
Quote: LeadB (for Creationists) that for the presentations to be correct or 2) Creationism is in conflict with basic and fundamental science which has proven itself continuously.
Quote:Originally posted by antimason Saturday, August 04, 2007 09:22: Quote: LeadB- first, any approach that tries to put the creation of the universe less than 10,000 years ago im not saying the earth is only 10,000 years old... im saying we do not accurately know how old the earth is. (...) Quote: is in conflict with so much basic science with supports an age of the universe beyond a billion (and almost universally believed to be over 13 billion) years old. This is strong refutation to any Young Earth Creationism. personally, the indeterminate age of the universe is less important to me than whether there was a natural or supernatural cause to everything(or not). i am willing to concede that the bible doesn't give an age to creation (except that man was created on the final day). my dispute is that people begin with an a priori assumption, that the causes are strictly material and chaotic, and from there deduce that an incomprehendable amount of time and chance was necessary for the universe to form(then conform the data to fit the hypothesis).(...) Quote:The problems come in as you take basic science concepts and expand them to estimate the age of things. (...) the crux of my argument centers around design. i am not a scientist, or an expert in the fields of cosmology or astronomy or astrophysics like many of you are apparently.. so i am not the best person to argue the ID side. but its also not an easy task, given that no one will concede that you have fixed the debate to include only what fits within your naturalist paradigm. i will certainly try to lay out our side(as best i can), but only if we can agree to start from a clean slate. otherwise, you all can safely settle back into your comfort zones where no one questions the naturalistic theories of our origins
Quote: LeadB- first, any approach that tries to put the creation of the universe less than 10,000 years ago
Quote: is in conflict with so much basic science with supports an age of the universe beyond a billion (and almost universally believed to be over 13 billion) years old. This is strong refutation to any Young Earth Creationism.
Quote:The problems come in as you take basic science concepts and expand them to estimate the age of things. (...)
Sunday, August 5, 2007 3:45 AM
Quote:Originally posted by fredgiblet: Quote:Originally posted by SergeantX: I'm not wanting to pile on anti. I've been thinking about this lately. One of the complaints that comes out of the Creation\ID camp occasionally and from anti in this thread, is the idea that science treats creationism unfairly. In the interest of fairness we should pile on to anti everything we have. Why? because that's what scientists do, when a theory is proposed they don't try to be nice to the proposer and make sure his feeling aren't hurt, they mercilessly point out every flaw and explain how and why the idea is wrong. To do otherwise would be to treat anti unfairly.
Quote:Originally posted by SergeantX: I'm not wanting to pile on anti.
Sunday, August 5, 2007 4:19 AM
Quote:So can we agree that, unless contradictory evidence show up, we can agree the earth is at least 200,000 years old?-Signy did you read my previous comments? you seem to want to sidetrack me from the design aspect, when i conceded before that the bible doesn't even specify the earths age(therefore, it is not relevant to my hypothesis).
Sunday, August 5, 2007 4:29 AM
Sunday, August 5, 2007 4:59 AM
Sunday, August 5, 2007 6:38 AM
Monday, August 6, 2007 5:49 AM
MAL4PREZ
Monday, August 6, 2007 6:53 AM
FREDGIBLET
Quote:Originally posted by mal4prez: Dude, do you really think yourself wise and omniscient enough that, without any real education in science, you see things missed by thousands of trained scientists? Have you ever really tried to *understand* what they're doing before you dismiss it all?
Monday, August 6, 2007 8:08 AM
Monday, August 6, 2007 8:31 AM
Quote:Originally posted by antimason: Quote:Originally posted by fredgiblet: First off, when Darwin proposed evolution fossils were scarce because there wasn't much push to get them, that has since been rectified and we now have an extensive (though imperfect) collection of fossils all pointing to (surprise) evolution. alright.. what about primates? what were they prior to their current form?
Quote:Originally posted by fredgiblet: First off, when Darwin proposed evolution fossils were scarce because there wasn't much push to get them, that has since been rectified and we now have an extensive (though imperfect) collection of fossils all pointing to (surprise) evolution.
Quote:you have a variety of human skeletons, and ape skeletons, that you artificially try to link.. but what about the rest?
Quote:you mean Darwins theories have been surpassed(or refined)? does that mean he wasnt entirely correct a hundred years ago?
Quote: .. who knows, maybe we still dont have the final word
Quote:you cannot point to one species right now which is in the process of changing its archetype
Quote:Quote: Your comment about half-creatures represents a distorted view of evolution, dogs evolving into cats would not get the head and hind legs of a cat one generation and then the body and front legs of a cat the next generation, instead it would very slowly change bit by bit, forming many complete species in between my view is distorted?
Quote: Your comment about half-creatures represents a distorted view of evolution, dogs evolving into cats would not get the head and hind legs of a cat one generation and then the body and front legs of a cat the next generation, instead it would very slowly change bit by bit, forming many complete species in between
Quote:if you couldnt rely on speculative amounts of time
Quote:you would have no observable evidence to support your claims.
Quote:you are simply interjecting your hypothesis as fact
Quote:.. nevermind that we have yet to witness any of these changes personally
Monday, August 6, 2007 8:39 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: Well, I'm kinda waiting for Anti's response to concept that the earth that might be at least 200,000 years old.
Quote:My next topic would be one that has already been introduced: How are archaeological finds dated?
Monday, August 6, 2007 8:43 AM
Quote:Originally posted by antimason: i believe carbon dating may be accurate to a point, but it has its limits; you have to assume that carbon 14 forms at a constant rate, which is doesnt necessarily.
Quote:on the other hand i do take the reports of a global flood 'myth' as an accurate account
Monday, August 6, 2007 8:59 AM
Quote:Originally posted by mal4prez: Fred: ...dozens of messages that go like "I can't believe you people don't know that the Second Law of Thermodynamics prevents evolution!!!!" And then you ask if they've ever actually *studied* thermodynamics, and I bet they disappear from the thread.
Quote:Or claim that they don't need to study. They just know... intuitively... it comes to them on a ray of light...
Quote:No wonder ID-ers think science is a belief system, that's how they treat it LOL!
Monday, August 6, 2007 9:13 AM
Quote:Debating with Anti is oddly like arguing with my mom. If I manage to wade through the emotional reaction enough to address the actual issue, she runs away. And then there's this unwritten law that if enough time expires, the issue must never be brought up again... OMG... do you think Antimason is really my mom??
Monday, August 6, 2007 9:45 AM
Quote:Originally posted by fredgiblet: More likely what they do is retreat to creationist forums where they can ignore reality to their hearts content.
Quote:A religion would hide information that went against it's teachings, scientists gain fame by replacing old theories with new ones so if there was scientific evidence that went against evolution it would be trumpeted by it's finders not hidden away.
Monday, August 6, 2007 10:39 AM
Quote:Originally posted by mal4prez: BTW, great link Fred...It covers C14 dating, references and all. Good stuff!
Monday, August 6, 2007 11:13 AM
Quote:Originally posted by mal4prez: Scientists LIVE to prove other scientists wrong. Like this: http://www.pangaea.org/wegener.htm The guy who first suggested plate tectonics was resisted, mocked, shunned. But evidence kept turning up to support him. That's how science works
Monday, August 6, 2007 11:22 AM
Monday, August 6, 2007 2:45 PM
Quote:Originally posted by mal4prez: As I catch up with the weekend's posts, I've can't get this analogy out of my head: it's like Anti is saying, "I may not speak Italian, but I do know that prego means that pasta sauce, and that's the only possible meaning and all those so-called Italian speakers are wrong!"
Quote:Dude, do you really think yourself wise and omniscient enough that, without any real education in science, you see things missed by thousands of trained scientists?
Quote:Have you ever really tried to *understand* what they're doing before you dismiss it all?
Quote: I fleetingly got this insane desire to try and fill that gap, to find references for some of the many independent lines of research that support the age of earth and the evolution of life, but I don't have time to be a teacher to a closed mind. Maybe, someday...
Monday, August 6, 2007 8:50 PM
Tuesday, August 7, 2007 3:56 AM
Quote:Originally posted by antimason: Quote:Originally posted by mal4prez: As I catch up with the weekend's posts, I've can't get this analogy out of my head: it's like Anti is saying, "I may not speak Italian, but I do know that prego means that pasta sauce, and that's the only possible meaning and all those so-called Italian speakers are wrong!" huh ?
Quote:Quote:Dude, do you really think yourself wise and omniscient enough that, without any real education in science, you see things missed by thousands of trained scientists? i would ask you the same question? at least i admit that i dont know the truth..
Quote:apparently you are the omniscient one(although, you dont posses the truth yourself, you rely on indoctrinated 'scientists').
Quote:if i were omniscent, i would know whether God exists or not..
Quote:Quote:Have you ever really tried to *understand* what they're doing before you dismiss it all?yes
Quote:sure, the sources on evolution are innumerable.. and hypothetical and theoretical, and unsubstantiated. it takes a lot of gall, and more then a little ego, to state that you know we were once 'a fish'
Tuesday, August 7, 2007 8:05 AM
Quote: Mal4prez- you have to have proof, more than just "because I said so."
Tuesday, August 7, 2007 8:07 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: So, Anti... Now that Sunday is over, can we agree that the earth is at least 200,000 years old, and possibly older, as evidenced by the visible annual layers found in ice cores? It's not a terribly important point, but I would like to get thru it so we can move on to other things.
Quote:I suggest that you ask me the next question, and I will do my best to answer it w/o introducing irrelevant topics, until we reach a conclusion.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007 9:16 AM
Quote:Originally posted by antimason: so where are all these missing links
Quote:(and why do the same primates still exist after all these years)?
Tuesday, August 7, 2007 9:30 AM
Quote:Originally posted by antimason: Quote: Mal4prez- you have to have proof, more than just "because I said so." and what evidence do you have that we came from primates.. which came from.. where? that logic would assume that every species ascended from nothing. so where are all these missing links (and why do the same primates still exist after all these years)? the only proof you have is the repetition of your hypothesis
Tuesday, August 7, 2007 9:41 AM
Tuesday, August 7, 2007 2:10 PM
Quote:Originally posted by fredgiblet: They're being found all the time. there's probably a dozen or more species in the human progression alone that are no longer around and if you researched the evolution of the other primate species you'd probably find dozens more extinct species.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007 1:13 AM
Quote:Originally posted by antimason: this is the way i look at it. there are gorillas, and chimpanzees, and orangutans.. and they all share a common 'archetype'(or phenotype). within their code, amongst the 'junk' and/or unidentified DNA, exists the potential for all the different varieties we see. the bible calls these distinctions 'kinds', such as the "Felis silvestris catus"() or cat, followed by the lynx, or lions etc.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007 1:59 AM
SERGEANTX
Quote:Originally posted by antimason: and what evidence do you have that we came from primates.. which came from.. where? that logic would assume that every species ascended from nothing. so where are all these missing links (and why do the same primates still exist after all these years)? the only proof you have is the repetition of your hypothesis
Wednesday, August 8, 2007 7:10 AM
Quote:Originally posted by antimason: this is the way i look at it. there are gorillas, and chimpanzees, and orangutans.. and they all share a common 'archetype'(or phenotype).
Quote:within their code, amongst the 'junk' and/or unidentified DNA, exists the potential for all the different varieties we see.
Quote:the bible calls these distinctions 'kinds', such as the "Felis silvestris catus"() or cat, followed by the lynx, or lions etc. i dont dispute that kind of variation.. but how do you explain how each 'kind' established its 'archetype'?
Wednesday, August 8, 2007 7:26 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SergeantX: Uh... we are primates. As far as missing links, how many need to be filled in before you're satisfied?
Quote:What I don't get is that you acknowledge the process of evolution. But you hold on to the idea that there is some barrier that prevents a species from straying too far from some arbitrarily defined 'archetype'. That's the thing. The process of evolution has been reasonably proven. The magical archetype barrier has not. Honestly, at this point the burden of proof is on you. Where's the evidence that a species can't change past a certain limit?
Quote:Nearly every discussion I have with evolution doubters involves blatant misunderstandings. I'm always a little unsure whether they are deliberate or out of ignorance.
Quote:I'm reasonably sure that the leaders of the creationist movement distort and misrepresent evolution purposefully in an effort to build a strawman they can poke at. I've yet to find a 'real' argument for their position.
Thursday, August 9, 2007 12:59 PM
Quote: LeadB- Just curious, you have a list... "there are gorillas, and chimpanzees, and orangutans.. ", which I presume are within a particular 'archetype' as you define it. Do homo sapiens fall into this 'archetype', or are they in a different 'archetype'? If so, is anything else in the same 'archetype' as humans?
Thursday, August 9, 2007 1:46 PM
Quote:The "missing link" claim is nice hook to hang your creationist hat on because there will always be missing links.
Quote:What I don't get is that you acknowledge the process of evolution. But you hold on to the idea that there is some barrier that prevents a species from straying too far from some arbitrarily defined 'archetype'. That's the thing. The process of evolution has been reasonably proven. The magical archetype barrier has not.
Quote: Honestly, at this point the burden of proof is on you. Where's the evidence that a species can't change past a certain limit?
Thursday, August 9, 2007 1:55 PM
Quote:Originally posted by fredgiblet: An infinite amount, as long as there is not a perfectly smooth continuum from the first self-replicator to modern man they will continue to complain about "missing links"
Quote:i can answer that, the answer is both. Ignorance from not investigating the information they are given from their creationist sources (after all why would a Christian lie?), and deliberate distortions from said creationist sources.
Thursday, August 9, 2007 2:36 PM
HKCAVALIER
Quote:Originally posted by antimason: ...for a primate to even walk upright would require different knees, hips, and a redesigned inner ear... never mind the other obvious physical and mental alterations. these changes do not exist within the primate 'archetype', they are unique features of ours, because we were created uniquely
Thursday, August 9, 2007 2:41 PM
Thursday, August 9, 2007 3:09 PM
Thursday, August 9, 2007 3:17 PM
Quote:Originally posted by antimason: what about the missing links between primates and their predecessors?
Quote:..thats because we dont know how (for example) primates acquired or 'evolved' their distinct archetypical characteristics.
Quote:... they clearly share a distinct design.
Quote:but the people on your side always assume strictly natural causes, because the alternative(ID) is out of the question.
Quote:the burden of proof is in fact on you
Quote:look.. you choose to believe in naturalism. you dont know the absolute truth, but you have faith that there was no higher power involved. the kind of evolution you believe in is just as much a religion as creationism. i believe in a Creator, you dont.
Quote:... and im not ignorant because i choose otherwise
Thursday, August 9, 2007 4:15 PM
Quote: SargeantX- Since every single generation represents subtle changes from the previous, I suppose we'll never find enough 'missing links' to satisfy you.
Quote:I don't care so much, as long as you don't try to shovel the ID nonsense to my kids in school.
Quote:you're missing the point of religious faith in the first place. My understanding of religion is that it's concerns are spiritual, not physical. You're wrapped up in trying to defend your faith in rational, naturalistic terms and it's pointless. Spiritual faith is by definition supernatural and irrational (or at least not bound by rationality)
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL