The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

I don't know about that. I want to see a in depth Tyrus Vs. Perfection debate to see..

 

[stratego]

I challenge you to debate Tyrus in his new thread Perfection. He seems to know science as much as you do.

Yes, Perfection this is going to be a tough one. You may have your scientific know how, but this Tyrus guy's got an edjucashun.

 

[Yom]

Living organisms do change but NOT so drastically.

It doesn't matter. Little changes add up, as those who benefit from the changes exist in larger numbers, since they are able to survive better.

Either way, sometimes, drastic changes do occur. How else would you explain polydactylism? If having six fingers became desirable (e.g. increase Darwinian fitness - get more mates for some reason or another), then humans could eventually all have six fingers on each hand (and six toes on each foot).

BTW africans usually are born white and regain black only after some time.

As an African, I can tell you that is an utter lie.

 

[Perfection]

I challenge you to debate Tyrus in his new thread Perfection. He seems to know science as much as you do.

He's experienced, and quite knowledgable, but I got the magic key, the flaw in his logic!

Yes, Perfection this is going to be a tough one. You may have your scientific know how, but this Tyrus guy's got an edjucashun.

Yeah but I'll beat him so bad he'll need a shoehorn to put his hat on.

 

[Chairman Meow]

Found an interesting article about the dispute over "Intelligent Design" in Dover, PA.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4248679.stm

From the article:

"Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view."

It's pretty clear that the people who wrote that statement lack understanding about Darwin's Theory, or even what a scientific theory is. First of all, of course Darwin's Theory continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. So does every functioning theory. Just last year, a satellite in Earth's orbit performed an experiment testing frame dragging in Einstein's Theory of Relativity. By the logic of these people, the fact that relativity is still being tested discredits relativity.

And, since they define a theory as being a well-tested explanation, Intelligent Design fails to meet that, since there is essentially no empirical evidence supporting it.

 

[Perfection]

Reply to stuff in this thread

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=112391&page=4&pp=20

Edit: Ok, take 2:

The more I learn about the early universe, the early earth, and primitive life, and the closer I examine Scripture, the better my understanding of Genesis, and the greater my acceptance of it as written.

I'm curious how do you learn about these topics?

I started with Creationism, I've heard and learned a lot of Science, and some Evolutionism, and the more I hear of all three, the less sense the third makes, and the closer the first two align.

Well, how don't these "make sense" and you said earlier that creationism wasn't scientific, how can they align?

This is still discussed controversary, but this is not the point here

I was strictly thought evolution. From school as well as from home. Although from a cristiona tradition I was never forced to visit a church or smth.
But TOE has for my opinion too many weak points to be true.

I'm curious to what you describe as weak points

Since Darwin there had been many discoveries made in addition which make things doubtful.

Such as?

And one most important point is that science-magazines are very biased on this topic.

For good reason, there is so much evidence for it and it is so crucial for many biological ideas that we treat it as true.

If someone takes place of a creationist he's considered nuts, but I do not agree with this.

Well, I don't think it's right to consider them "nuts" either, but their arguements tend not to be as well reasoned or they're flawed.

As long as none of both theories are really proven I still stand in the middle.

What would it take to "prove" something to you?

Got your point, just he mentioned it already as a proven fact which it is not. Vice versa there are fossiles found meanwhile which are about the same age but much closer to modern birds than him. Even a lot of evo-scientists are in doubts or deny that Archaeopterix is a link or intermediate but much more a real bird. On specimen 7 there was also found a sternum which indicates that he had in fact muscles for flight developed so he must be considered a real bird.

Well, transtional fossil doesn't mean that it was on the transitional line

Think of it this way

even though species B is younger then species C it's still a transitional fossil between A and C due to the closeness to the actual transtional line, not being on the line doesn't mean it's not a transitional fossil.

As for bird versus not bird it doesn't really matter, as it still has that relationship between A and C regardless if it's a bird or not. A good example is the platypus, just because it's technically a mammel doesn't mean it's not a transtional form between reptiles and modern mammels, it's reptilian eggs and lack of nipples attest to it.

But what I really wanted to say is that taking facts just because the majority believes them is even dumber than everyone believes creationists to be. If you would follow some of their arguments without predjudices you'd see this. And besides there are many Profs. among them with profound knowlage. To consider them "dumb creationists" is just a tiny,tiny,tiny bitty bit arrogant from a 15 years old student IMO

While I agree with you there on not classifying them as dumb, I still thinks it's acceptable to call them wrong.

TOE is not proven, this is mainly accepted even from evo-scientists, nevertheless it is always presented as a fact.

Well, it hasn't been absolutly proven but it put it at the level of extremely well-evidenced sort of the "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" mentality. Look at all other "facts" this is true to them as well. So it's acceptable to treat evolution as any other fact.

That it is still just a theorie one shouldn't loose out of sight totally no matter which side you're on.

What about flat-earth theory?

Just imagine god exsists and he made all living beings. If it would be like that evo would look dumb in the end.

First off, it wouldn't look dumb, it would look wrong, dumb and wrong are not the same, second it's okay to be wrong in science, if the evidence points that way go with it, if it turns out you're wrong, you'll learn about the phonomena your investigating, if it turns out you're right you learn more, it's a win win situation.

As long as both theories aren't able to convince me as much as that the earth isn't flat I simply don't take a choice for one or another.

Your standards of prrof seem a bit high...

And as I said before in a similar thread- during the history of science there have been disproven a lot of theories which were considered to be waterproofed.

Most of those theories are still vital and mostly correct. And for the few that aren't should we just not accept any theory because it might be wrong? Science is imprefect you must recognize that, but it's also pretty much the best thing we got to go on, and because it's self-correcting it's okay if you believe in something and it turns out wrong.

So personally I simply wouldn't take things for granted as long as they aren't.

You take things for granted all the time I bet you are taking for granted that gravity won't suddenly quit and let you fling out into deep space

 

[FearlessLeader2]

EDIT: I'm done with this thread.

 

[Perfection]

I get most of my information about new science from the news, and some from you and carlos, and some from the web while researching whatever.

So not stuff like books.

Also, established science is something that no one knows all of, and I learn what's already known as I come across it. They SAY 'never stop learning', I actually PRACTICE it...

Umm, are you saying someone doesn't?

While Creation (the belief that everything arose from the act of a Creator) is not scientific in and of itself, the account in Genesis, when viewed objectively, does not significantly differ from the established historical record of time, both in basic ontology, and in earth's biology, other than in offering God as the mechanism.

Please state your reasoning behind concluding that there is no signficant difference

The fact that this feat was accomplished around 4,500 years ago by a 'Palestinian goatherd' lends enormous credence to the Bible, considering that it has taken science an interminable amount of time to do little more than corroborate the Genesis account and embellish on it.

How does science corroborate the Genesis account?

Well, I think it lends enormous credence to the Bible...as always, your mileage may vary.

And, what I mean by 'viewing the Bible objectively' is that, instead of assuming it is wrong and evo is right, or assuming that it is right and evo is wrong,

Or assuming they are mutually exclusive

is to just work from what is known, and what is claimed, and see if the two match up.

Well, my issue with the bible is it's vagueness, while you can explain the cause of it's vagueness the vagueness still lends itself to many interpretations and thus it's quite easy to fit it in with many exaplainations

What is known is easy enough to find with a web search or two. Determining what is claimed requires two things: access to a Bible, and a willingness to think.

I got both, now what

It is not enough to merely read a verse, compare it directly to scientifically-obtained facts, and draw a conclusion. The information in Genesis was not scientifically obtained. One must analyze its data in the light of how it was obtained. Did God recite Genesis 1 to Moses, or did He show Moses a vision? Was the vision telepathic, or did God set up a projector and roll some home movie reels? What sort of phenomena could show a person images from the past? Which of those phenomena are consistent with or merely do not conflict with other parts of the Bible (internal consistency should always be maintained)?

One internally consistent theory is that Moses was shown a vision of the universe's and the earth's developments through a wormhole (Bible makes no mention either way about wormholes. We can't make one without more energy than is available in the solar system, but for a god that can start the Big Bangs, it should be a snap. Passes Internal Consistency tests. ).

So, where was this wormhole aimed? Was it full spectrum matter-energy permeable, or just visible light and enough kinetics to pass sound? Well, there is mention of smokes and thunders on the mountain while Moses was up there, so I'm guessing that the 'soundtrack was available on CD', and God has a rockin' 'surround sound system' and a fog projector. Seems likely that He had a very nice hologram projector too, since all that smoke would make a great 'screen' to display the hologram in. (And, WOW, the more I verbalize this, the more it makes sense. It practically writes itself.)

Again, to maintain consistency, the only target that makes sense is a point somewhere within the eventual location of earth's atmosphere, near the meeting point of water and land, probably an estuary just to maximize the variety of lifeforms exposed to the wormhole's aperture. I would go so far as to specualte that the location shown to Moses would be one he had some familiarity with, probably the mouth of the Tigris-Euphrates.

Ummm, if it's billions of years ago the location of the mouth of the tigris would different to the point of no familiarity whatsoever...

If these assumptions, which do not conflict with other parts of the Bible, are made, then the listed order of appearance presented in the rest of Genesis 1 would be an accurate log of what was visible and when. Science theorizes the existence of wormholes, is fairly sure the Big Bangs happened, and the order of appearance of lifeforms seems literally set in stone. No conflicts with the Genesis account and factual data are evident.

What about all that data about evolution...

There is no validity at all to placing a burden of scientific knowledge, taxonomy, and modern language skills on Moses and his descendants prior to literacy to require them to record all of this in scientific terms and with mil-spec accuracy. As an observer of his time, Moses can only be expected to take the measurements of his observations in the media available to him.

Then how can we be able to make conclusions on those fields based off of his account?

(God opens a wormhole to t=0 and hits the pause button. He adds some minor graphics to the holographic display set in the fog to show scale and give reference points.)
t=0: In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the earth. Now the earth proved to be formless and void, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.

So what exactly is that scientifically?

t=0+: Big Bangs,

Multiple?

coalescence of Sol and earth, dimming of universe sufficient to darken lee side of earth relative to Sol appreciably:

Umm, the universe was relatively dim before earth came to being...

And God proceeded to say: 'Let light come to be.' And there came to be light.

So where did this light come from, didn't we already have light?

After that God saw that the light was good, and God brought about a division between the light and the darkness. And God began calling the light Day, but the darkness He called Night. And there came to be evening, and there came to be morning, a first day.

But day and night came when earth first coalesced...

Get the idea? Yet?

I'm getting your idea, but all you are doing is (poorly) fitting science around genesis, I'm not seeing the striking correlations you see, and certainly am not seeing why evolution can't be stuffed in there as well.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

EDIT: I'm done with this thread.

 

[E-Raser]

@ perfection

Sorry me but I honestly do not feel like writing a book here. But if you're interested you may read from another source another point of view.
http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/books.php
They are for free so easy to abtain, just download. I just must add that I do not agree with those contents completly, it is just to show that there are a lot of arguments for the creationists side also available which are also not less convincing.

Besides you're right, I have a very sceptical personality and therefore I am not easy to convince. But if you'd read one of those books I wouldn't mind to discuss some of those arguments. For the beginning I'd advice "evolution deceit". Awfully biased, but that's all - from one or the other side.

 

[Perfection]

Oh, so we're back to this? Dandy.

No, of course not books. God forbid I should forget to mention books. Do you have to be this openly hostile to everything I say on the subject?

How was I being "openly hostile" I was just asking for clarification.

No, I was just making an undirected statement for emphasis. The choice to take it as a personal assault was all yours.

I didn't take it as a personal assault, I was wondering who that was directed at.

Why don't you read the answer to the question instead of asking it and ignoring the answer? Obviously this is more fun...

Where did I ignore your answer?

But hey, there's always room for a cheap shot, right?

It's not a cheap shot, not only do you need to shoe the validity of the bible but the inconsistancy of evolution

Hard vacuum and matter are mutually exclusive. Light and darkness are mutually exclusive. Scientific fact and the truth should align perfectly. As it turns out, they do.

Ah, but my scientific facts are true and yours are not

It's only vague if you steadfastly refuse to read what isn't written. Example:

"Looking at his face as he was squinting into the horizon, I noticed the sun's red light gave him a bestial look, as if he were bathed in blood. Even so, he too appeared to be drawing strength from its rays to fight the long chill of our wait for this battle."

Now, nowhere in there does the author actually come out and say: 'The time was precisely 0547, and the two were cold from holding their positions all night.', yet it's pretty safe to assume without any other mention of the setting that a) the sun has just come up, and b) it is not summer, or if it was, it was a cold summer night, and presumably held a clear, starlit sky.

Your assumptions are not nearly as safe as these

It wasn't written, but it was there to read. If you can't do that, then just stop pretending at literacy. If you won't do that, stop pretending at debate.

Just because you give me assumptions that make sense doesn't mean that your assumptions that don't make sense make sense.

Do you? Are you willing to make use of either?

Yes and yes

I'm willing to bet, however, that those coordinates still existed, regardless of what terrain was occupying them. Would you care to bet against that? No?

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of familiarity.

Great, let's move on to your next effort at infuriating obtuseness.

What about it? All it is is road signs.

Can you justify that metaphor?

It would be there whether lifeforms evolved on their own or were part of a design. Its presence proves niether evo nor creation.

But it's branchin phylogeny tells a different tale...

By reading what is not written. If a caveman says 'Ugh see star fall from heaven.' do you conclude that an actual star has landed on the earth? No, you take his observation, and apply it to what you know, and conclude that he knows the location of a meteorite impact. Then you give him a shiney and make him lead you to it.

Unfortunatly Moses didn't make as easy an observation to interpret, your caveman friend seems to lead to only one conclusion Moses on the other hand leads to many.

Nothing. It's the beginning. Everything has to start somewhere, the Bible starts there.

but the passage reads "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the earth. Now the earth proved to be formless and void, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters." so there was an earth and water and the heavens, how must that be interpreted as nothing?

Um, yeah. Maybe you should do some reading on the subject before you comment on it?

I've read quite a bit on the subject, I'm still not getting why you put in multiple.

You really ought to read up on the conditions in a protostar before you comment on them.

Actually I have, that's why I know that the sun was past the protostar stage before earth was formed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Universe

*SIGH*...inside a protostar's nebula...

Except Earth hadn't formed yet

If you understood the science better, you might see how perfect the fit really is. Perhaps you should try reading a book or two?

Oh, I've read more than two books on the matter

For wormholes, you could try Hyperspace, by Michio Kaku.

I never question wormholes, it really doesn't matter if they exist or not, god could get Moses to see it anyways

I can mail you my copy if you like.

Free books are always apreciated, even if they have no relevence in the debate

Here's a link to a good book on protostars

$68.00!!! I don't have that kind of money!

Well, I go sleep now!

G-Night All!

 

[The Last Conformist]

I'm willing to bet, however, that those coordinates still existed, regardless of what terrain was occupying them. Would you care to bet against that? No? Great, let's move on to your next effort at infuriating obtuseness.

Those coordinates with reference to what? The same bit of the relevant tectonic plate (which may or may not have existed millions of years ago)? The same same spot with reference to the coordinate system rotating with the earth's crust? The same spot relative to the cosmic background?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

EDIT: I'm done with this thread.

 

[Blasphemous]

No, I'm just not going to bother. You have no interest in discussing this concept, you just want to score points.

Actually, it seems to me that he's trying to highlight a gap in your logic, which is an important thing to do when you're trying to be logical.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I'm not discussing the concept, I'm pointing out it does not make any sense.

internal consistency [of the Bible] should always be maintained

Another point. Creationists tend to take it as axiomatic that the Bible is internally consistent. Somehow, they don't feel obliged to convince the rest of us of it before using it as the starting point for further arguments.

Edit: That's to say, they should convince us that the internal consistency of the Bible should be assumed.

 

[Perfection]

@ perfection

Sorry me but I honestly do not feel like writing a book here.

Nor do I feel like reading a book

But if you're interested you may read from another source another point of view.
http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/books.php
They are for free so easy to abtain, just download. I just must add that I do not agree with those contents completly, it is just to show that there are a lot of arguments for the creationists side also available which are also not less convincing.

Well, in my experience they are less convincing

Besides you're right, I have a very sceptical personality and therefore I am not easy to convince.

Well, skepticism is good. I myself maintain a high amount of skepticism, but in my experience with evolution vs. creationism evolution becomes a complex will ordered theory while creationism turns out to be well mostly people spewing out whatever flaws they find in evolution weather real or not.

But if you'd read one of those books I wouldn't mind to discuss some of those arguments.

Well, I'm not going to read a book just for this thread, I'm already backlogged on my reading. However if you care to summerize the arguements be my guest

For the beginning I'd advice "evolution deceit". Awfully biased, but that's all - from one or the other side.

Well, you seem to be looking way too much into bias, I believe the notion that scientist's biases are enough to keep the theory going is false, if you take a look at all the arguements back and forth between evolutionists and antievolutionists in the beginning of evolutionary biology and the subsequent debate among evolutionists afterwords you can see that evolution has been through a whole lot of trials.

 

[Perfection]

No, I'm just not going to bother. You have no interest in discussing this concept,

Yes I do, that's why I was discussing this concept. Just because I don't accept your arguement doesn't mean I'm unwilling to listen!

you just want to score points.

No, I want to evaluate your theory.

 

[The Last Conformist]

@Perf: I believe FL2 was addressing those remarks to me.

And he's right in so far that I have little desire to discuss what is patently crazy.

 

[punkbass2000]

/me pencils in a question mark beside TLC's name on The List of Ignorance...

 

[Perfection]

/me pencils in a question mark beside TLC's name on The List of Ignorance...

List of ignorance?