The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread!

[punkbass2000]

Oh just a little inside joke I have running... Well, that's inaccurate. I think "inside joke" implies there's more than one person in on it.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

EDIT: I'm done with this thread.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Without at least a small patch of common ground, dialog is difficult at best and in OT almost impossible. I did see where you were going.

 

[carlosMM]

option 2.

why didn't you say so? Is this another case of the 'kinds'?

Not that anyone cares, but the point is if Moses watched the Creation unfold up to now, and saw that place as the finished point, he would recognise it, and the idea that he was seeing Creation would be neatly and convieniently underscored without making a big deal of it (any more so than viewing 18-odd billion years of history in a few minutes or hours would, that is).

If if if - and even if he must have been on some pretty powerful drugs.

But really, I'm tired of try to 'explain' something that's easy to understand to someone who obviously understands it perfectly, just so they can feign ignorace and demand explanations for the obvious. It's tiring, demeaning, and pointless.

well, in this case you gave broad weeping claims with significant flaws in logic, base your argumentation on the tales of along-dead goatherders and actually use this to attack science. Don't you think it is OK to demand a tiny bit of SUBSTANCE?

To go to all the trouble to post that, and have to see snide little stupidities like 'my scietific facts are facts, and yours aren't', when I'm talking about the same things he is...

Nope, you did NOT bring any scientific facts, and whenever anyone asks you for evidence you whine just like this

Why effing bother? Seriously. I just have no further desire to interact with him ever again. Yeah, the List of Ignorace sounds pretty darn good right now...

See, there we go: your pos is going down the drain and you cry foul and run off. Weak, very weak.

 

[The Last Conformist]

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

Considering I was added to it for asserting that people are made of atoms and ions, I'm not sure I want off it.

 

[punkbass2000]

There will be no mockery of The List of Ignorance!

 

[Perfection]

EDIT: I'm done with this thread.

You'll be back! They all come back!

 

[The Last Conformist]

Heard of Morton's demon? Unlike Maxwell's and Laplace's, this one does not seem to be exorcisable by scientific progress.

 

[Perfection]

Heard of Morton's demon? Unlike Maxwell's and Laplace's, this one does not seem to be exorcisable by scientific progress.

Well, considering FL2's swear laden PM he just sent me, it's seems pretty valid, although in this case it applies to an old earth creationist as well.

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

The main points against Evolution are this:

1. No Transitional forms have ever been found regarding Species-to-species Evolution in the fossil record. What "Missing-Links" haven't been found have later been found to be a hoax, or can logical be explained as a young child's skeleton, or even a human skeleton(Because people with less nuitrition not grow as big).

2. While the Earth is not a closed system, the universe is. If the Universe is infinite, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the Universe would already have reached maximum entropy...meaning that the Big Bang is impossible.

3. No other life in the universe has been found to arise spontaniously.

 

[The Last Conformist]

The main points against Evolution are this:

1. No Transitional forms have ever been found regarding Species-to-species Evolution in the fossil record. What "Missing-Links" haven't been found have later been found to be a hoax, or can logical be explained as a young child's skeleton, or even a human skeleton(Because people with less nuitrition not grow as big).

That's a lie. There's plenty of transitional fossiles around, incl a continuum of fossil hominins cataloging just about every stage from australopithecines to modern humans.

(Small, BTW? H. erectus was about the height of H. sapiens sapiens, and more heavily built. Malnutrition isn't known for causing heavier bones and extra muscle mass.)

2. While the Earth is not a closed system, the universe is. If the Universe is infinite, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the Universe would already have reached maximum entropy...meaning that the Big Bang is impossible.

That's just clueless. The big bang is when the universe started. If the 2nd law said that systems have to start at maximum entropy, there wouldn't be any chemistry, for a start.

(Incidentally, if the 2nd law worked as SoG thinks, Genesis would necessarily be false, since it definitively does not describe a universe at thermal equilibrium.)

3. No other life in the universe has been found to arise spontaniously.

No other has been found to be created either.

Actually, this is a reasonable objection to the accepted account of the origin of life, but as I suspect SoG knows, it doesn't address evolution as such. Perhaps it's time to spin off an abiogenesis thread?

 

[Yom]

The main points against Evolution are this:

1. No Transitional forms have ever been found regarding Species-to-species Evolution in the fossil record. What "Missing-Links" haven't been found have later been found to be a hoax, or can logical be explained as a young child's skeleton, or even a human skeleton(Because people with less nuitrition not grow as big).

Some have been hoaxes, but transitional forms have certainly been found. Archaeopteryx is one such transitional fossil that is an animal in between a dinosaur and a bird. Either way, the relative lack of transitional forms is explained by punctuated equilibrium, it doesn't mean that evolution does not occur.

2. While the Earth is not a closed system, the universe is. If the Universe is infinite, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the Universe would already have reached maximum entropy...meaning that the Big Bang is impossible.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics gives no time period on reaching entropy. Given an infinite amount of time, yes, entropy will be maximized, but an infinite amount of time has not been passed. Moreover, what does the Big Bang have to do with this? We're discussing evolution, not the origin of the universe.

3. No other life in the universe has been found to arise spontaniously.

First of all, a rarity of life in the universe does not mean that evolution is wrong. A solar system How many planets have been searched for life?

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

The Scientific Method states that a theory can only become a law after it has been analyzed and tested and shown to be repeatable. This is impossible with all forms of Orgins science. Therefore, point number 3 is still valid. If you can't prove a theory, then it can never be described as True. To believe it is true...would require a leap of......faith

 

[The Last Conformist]

The Scientific Method states that a theory can only become a law after it has been analyzed and tested and shown to be repeatable.

In a word, no.

One of the things I detest about creationists is their tendency to redefine words, show that something follows from the new definition, and then claim it therefore applies also to the old definition. It's a highly annoying species of dishonesty.

This is impossible with all forms of Orgins science. Therefore, point number 3 is still valid. If you can't prove a theory, then it can never be described as True. To believe it is true...would require a leap of......faith

As you should know by know, "proof" doesn't apply to the natural sciences. What we can do is test our theories against observation and experiment. There is no fundamental difference 'tween observational science (eg, natural history) and experimental (eg, chemistry) here.

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

There is because you can never see Evolution as in Species-to Species occuring, because it takes Millions of years. That is one of the requirements of the scientific method.

But you would lecture me about Morality? According to Evolution Purists, there is no God, and what we know as "Morality" is merely a quirk of Evolution, so it doesn't really exist. The only thing that exists under the theory of Evolution in its purest form is Darwinism, as in Survival of the Fittest.

 

[Yom]

The Scientific Method states that a theory can only become a law after it has been analyzed and tested and shown to be repeatable. This is impossible with all forms of Orgins science. Therefore, point number 3 is still valid. If you can't prove a theory, then it can never be described as True. To believe it is true...would require a leap of......faith

Definition of Scientific Law.

Physical laws are:

* true. By definition, there have never been repeatable, contradicting observations.
* universal. They appear to apply everywhere in the universe. (Davies)
* simple. They are typically expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. (Davies)
* absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them. (Davies)
* eternal. Unchanged since first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate laws—see "Laws as approximations" below), they appear to be unchanged since the beginning of the universe. It is thus presumed that they will remain unchanged in the future. (Davies)
* omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them. (Davies)
* "omniscient" (loosely speaking). The behavior of everything in the universe is automatically and immediately "known" to the laws. (Davies)
* generally conservative of quantity. (Feynman)
* often possessive of symmetry. (Feynman)
* typically theoretically reversible in time (if non-quantum), although time itself is irreversible. (Feynman)

 

[Cu Chulainn]

According to Evolution Purists, there is no God

Show me where it is stated in evolutionary theory that there is no God. Evolution has nothing to do with the existance of God.

A great many Christians believe in Evolution, as do many Jews and Muslims. If members of all three one true faiths can entertain both God and evolution simultaneously I think the idea at least has merit.

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

That changes nothing, because you cannot prove Species to Species, let alone molecules to Man Evolution here, so you expect to find your evidence elsewhere? If such cannot be found here, why do you think that you could find it out there according to the laws you have just posted above?

 

[The Last Conformist]

There is because you can never see Evolution as in Species-to Species occuring, because it takes Millions of years. That is one of the requirements of the scientific method.

What the heck is this a reply to?

But please check out the discussion of HeLa cells in the other thread.

But you would lecture me about Morality? According to Evolution Purists, there is no God, and what we know as "Morality" is merely a quirk of Evolution, so it doesn't really exist. The only thing that exists under the theory of Evolution in its purest form is Darwinism, as in Survival of the Fittest.

It's decidedly ironic to base an argument on morality on a lie.

 

[Blasphemous]

Saying many Jews believe in evolution may be an understatement... I think almost all of the Jews who have ever studied science (as in, everybody but the ultra-orthodox and very young) don't have a problem with Evolution. It's mainly the American Evangelical Christians who think there's such a huge problem between God and Darwin nowadays...