Well, now I feel lazy. theVOID has addressed my would-be points with far more coherence than I could muster.

(December 14, 2010 at 12:05 am)orogenicman Wrote: [quote=Statler]Brush up on your logic. In a two possibility model, evidence against one possible answer is evidence for the other option.

Logical fallacies:
1) Slippery slope. The consequence does not necessarily follow from the premise.
2) Either or argument.

Scientific theories stand or fall on their own merit. You seem to think that all one has to do is refute evolution and creationism will somehow be seen as the logical alternative. Such is NEVER the case using the scientific method. Creationism must be seen as providing a better explanation than evolution. And when we look at the scientific data compiled over the last 150 years, we see that there simply is no merit whasoever in supposing that creationism explains anything, much less replaces evolution as a valid scientific argument.
[/quote]

You again? Posting two logical fallacies that I did not commit does nothing to support your position. The experts on your side of the aisle (including Darwin and Dawkins) agree that life on Earth either came about by naturalistic means or by supernatural creation. Evolution is considered the best and only option for naturalistic means, so evidence against it is evidence for supernatural creation. You should take your beef up with Dawkins and tell him to stop saying it’s a two model system. You will also see even Evolutionists try to use the Disjunctive Syllogism in peer reviewed journals.

“Evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.”
- Professor D.M.S. Watson in his article “Adaptation” in Nature Volume 124
This is a valid argument, though the way he uses it is not a sound argument because he fails to give any reasons as to why Special Creation is not possible.

Seems to me like maybe you either don’t have a firm grasp on the rules of logic, or you really need to take up issue with today’s Evolutionists because they completely agree with me from a logical perspective.

(December 14, 2010 at 12:18 am)theVOID Wrote:

Quote:Gravity is rounded to zero in most equations in QM... Does gravity not exist?

Gravity is an empirically measured force; we are talking about the origin of life which is not observable, bad analogy.

---

Quote: Also, a low P is not a zero P. Take any group of 100,000 stars, their positions relative to each other out of every possible set of relative positions is near zero, does that mean that 100,000 stars cannot be in an arbitrary configuration? Of course not, so you cannot claim that Abiogenesiss is false because a low probability event is near zero, it's plainly illogical.

---

Actually a low P IS a zero P when it is rounded off. This is done in statistics and probability all the time, if a P value is lower than 1/50,000 it is automatically treated as P= 0. Even taking into account all the interactions between particles in the universe and throughout the history of the universe the P value is STILL so low it gets rounded off. Even when we spot you guys a few extra points, all in the spirit of Christian charity, you still lose. Nice try though.

Quote:You want to argue against the existence of improbable events? Go ahead, amuse us with your stupidity.

No, I want to argue against the occurrence (not existence) of statistically impossible events. I do find you amusing though lol.

Quote:Finding evidence for parts of the abiogenesis set does the same thing. Finding amino acids forming in predicted early-earth conditions increases the probability, having self-replicating RNA massively increases the probability, finding hundreds of extremophiles increases the probability etc, the more evidence we find corresponding to the Abiogenesis set the more likely it becomes that the set is 'true'.

Oh stop it, the fact that you can’t produce the homochirality necessary for life under the most controlled lab experiments actually decreases the probability of it happening naturally not increases it.

Quote: Any phoyosensitive system gathers solar energy and converts it to energy necessarily. Photosynthesis is an example of an nth generation photo-type structure that evolved from simple photosensitive structures.

Skin burns are an example of photo sensitivity, so is a rock blackening in the sun.

Wrong. The skin itself is not a mechanism that “converts” the energy into a form that the organism can use. The skin burning is an example of how raw energy increases entropy and actually breaks down organic material. Try lying out in the sun for a month and don’t eat and see how well your body does by just using raw energy from the sun. Not only will you most likely die from lack of usable energy (food), but your body will be burned to a crisp because of the application of raw energy.

Quote:That is false. Photosynthesis deals with turning carbon into organic compounds and is powered by solar energy, you can have (and there are literally millions of examples) of photo sensitive cells (and inorganic) that convert solar energy by some mechanism.

You really need bio 101 if you have such a piss-poor understanding of photosynthesis.

Haha false? To think you tell me to go take 101. Let’s see, in living cells energy is produced by the ATP Pump, but wait! This pump must also be assembled by using energy, where oh where would we get this energy from? Could it possibly be borrowed from other cells that produced it with their ATP Pumps? Yes! That’s what happens. This ATP pump however is built up of numerous small parts. Majority of these parts are intermediate and provide no immediate advantage to the organism. The probability of natural selection fixating one intermediate protein that does not provide an advantage is less than one in ten quintillion. This number becomes even more ridiculously small when you consider that these intermediate proteins would have to all be preserved and in the right order. Maybe you are the one who should retake (or take it for the first time) Bio101. I will confess though, I never took Bio101, rather I started at 221 because I was a Science major.

Quote:This argument is even on AiG's "don't use these arguments because they're debunked to fuckedy" list.

Oh really? So now you are using AIG as a source? Well let’s look to see if you were even being honest. Here is the article I believe you are referring to…

[url] http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answ...e-dont-use[/url]

Nope! Nothing on there. Maybe you saw the “The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics started at the falls” part and you thought it said, “Evolution is impossible because of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics”? Or maybe you were just being dishonest. I don’t care either way.

Since now you seem to care what AIG says, maybe you should read their article, “12 Arguments Evolutionists Shouldn’t Use” and try not to use these arguments.

[url] http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answ...lutionists[/url]

Quote:Not only is the argument your analogy is based on a false premise, but you couldn't even manage to find a valid analogy. Lucky for you we can already see what you were getting at (because like I've mentioned it's debunked) else you'd be nearly totally incomprehensible.

This is a very lazy way of responding. “That’s not a valid analogy, but because I am either too lazy or I am being dishonest I am not going to give a reason why”. So actually because you did not give any reasons, and I already addressed your erroneous reasons above, my argument stands un-refuted. That was easy, you should post more often!

---

Quote: Atheism is less than a single position, it is a statement about belief. In this case from the latin "A Theos" which means literally "without belief in god". That isn't even a position on the existence of God (disbelief vs lack of belief)... Some religion.

I love that shit-stained brush you're using in this argument. It's like the "you're just as bat-shit as me" argument, which is not only misplaced in this circumstance, but it's also fucked because of the intended support for a position that necessarily cannot arise. It is like "you're just as unsupported as me therefore i'm right (or not wrong)" The reality is that this argument has absolutely no impact on the validity of the position being espoused.

---

You are actually using a revisionist’s definition of Atheism that is not used by the majority of reputable sources on the subject. I can see why you are using this illogical definition though, who wants to be religious right? It’s kind of like Dawkins seeing his purpose in life is to show everyone that life has no purpose haha.

---

Quote: Statler, if I said disproving evolution proves that we didn't get here by accident and we are infact living in a computer simulation by another race of creatures whose own universe was much better than ours at producing and sustaining life (and had come into existence through natural processes). That explanation has more going for it than the god hypothesis, which is something put there to prevent infinite regress, but fails to explain anything. I'm afraid there are more than 2 possiblities and you can keep making them up (hence as I stated a near infinite range of them could explain us, the earth our solar system etc). The best ones are the ones we have derived through the scientific method and it continues to be refined as we smash more particles together at higher speeds and as we get better telescopes. However if through the scientific method you can prove otherwise then... we are all ears. Otherwise you are just throwing spin and half/no-truths from the sidelines and spouting the same stuff (the politest word there is for it) that comes from convicted fraudsters like Hovind.

---

Why would that made up hypothesis have more going for it than the God Hypothesis? Just because you made it up? Do you always base things on your personal opinion and bias?
As I pointed out above, the guys on your aisle even admit this is a two model system. Creation by naturalistic means (Evolution) or Special Creation (Infinite source or God). The fact that creation by naturalistic means becomes more improbable (and statistically impossible) gives valid logical support to Special Creation. However, when we interpret the evidence with the special creation framework it is far more consistent than when we interpret the evidence using a naturalistic framework. I find it funny you appeal to the Scientific Method, something created by a Creationist, but you ignore the very valid logic known as the disjunctive syllogism.
So let’s play a bit of a game. You tell me, how do you know the pyramids did not arise by naturalistic means?

[quote='orogenicman' pid='109930' dateline='1292335409']

Quote:In Historical Science you never say you "know" anything for sure.

This, of course, is untrue. We know for sure that Stenos' law (the law of superposition) is true.

Sometimes I don’t even think you read my posts. You will notice that I said “Historical Sciences”, and then you run off and use an analogy that uses a principle used in Physics and Mathematics. Physics of course is not a historical science but rather an empirical science. C’mon man.

(December 14, 2010 at 12:37 pm)Lethe Wrote: Well, now I feel lazy. theVOID has addressed my would-be points with far more coherence than I could muster.

Oh no! I was looking forward to your response. Don't sell yourself short like that. Don't let "theVOID" fool you, his posts look awesome at first because they contain a bunch of formulas and big words. However, when you really examine them, it's just a bunch of illogical, un-cited, anecdotal B.S. that he tosses out there and hopes it sticks. You should definitely write a response and not let him speak for you!

The dance with the turnip goes on........

Statler Wrote:You again?

Me again. Hello Statler.

Statler Wrote:Posting two logical fallacies that I did not commit does nothing to support your position.

Oh, but clearly you did commit them.

Quote:The experts on your side of the aisle (including Darwin and Dawkins) agree that life on Earth either came about by naturalistic means or by supernatural creation.

Clearly you are mistaken. Both Darwin and Dawkins have had no problem whatsoever making it very clear that evolution is a fact and that the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution.

Statler Wrote:Evolution is considered the best and only option for naturalistic means, so evidence against it is evidence for supernatural creation.

Except:

1) There is no evidence refuting evolution, and
2) Even if there were, by itself, such evidence would not be evidence that your "God did it". For all you know it could be evidence of a magical woodpecker.

Statler Wrote:You should take your beef up with Dawkins and tell him to stop saying it’s a two model system. You will also see even Evolutionists try to use the Disjunctive Syllogism in peer reviewed journals.

Darwin has been dead for over 130 years, dude. I take it up with you because you are still trying to push a 19th century religious philosophy in the 21st century.

Statler Wrote:“Evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.”
- Professor D.M.S. Watson in his article “Adaptation” in Nature Volume 124
This is a valid argument, though the way he uses it is not a sound argument because he fails to give any reasons as to why Special Creation is not possible.

Hey thanks for agreeing our point that evolution is a universally accepted theory. Oh, and it is a universally accepted theory because 150 years of experiments and observations support its validity. Likely he doesn't give any reasons why special creation is not possible because that's not his theory and it isn't for him to defend. It's for creationists to defend. So when are you going to actually start defending it?

Statler Wrote:Seems to me like maybe you either don’t have a firm grasp on the rules of logic, or you really need to take up issue with today’s Evolutionists because they completely agree with me from a logical perspective.

Seems to me that you should try getting an education before you try to lecture anyone on the rules of logic or the merits of scientific thought.

---

Statler Wrote:Sometimes I don’t even think you read my posts. You will notice that I said “Historical Sciences”, and then you run off and use an analogy that uses a principle used in Physics and Mathematics. Physics of course is not a historical science but rather an empirical science. C’mon man.

Geology is a historical science. And Steno's law is the only natural law that has been entirely devised and documented from geologic research. See, Statler, if you had taken rocks for jocks in your youth, you'd know this.

Statler Waldorf, the only reason why you believe the universe is 6000 years ago, is because some Iron Age book said it was true. If Genesis 1 had not ever been included in the bible. Right now we would not be having this conversation and you would accept the discoveries countless scientists over a period of two hundred years or more.

(December 14, 2010 at 8:04 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Why would that made up hypothesis have more going for it than the God Hypothesis? Just because you made it up? Do you always base things on your personal opinion and bias?
As I pointed out above, the guys on your aisle even admit this is a two model system. Creation by naturalistic means (Evolution) or Special Creation (Infinite source or God). The fact that creation by naturalistic means becomes more improbable (and statistically impossible) gives valid logical support to Special Creation. However, when we interpret the evidence with the special creation framework it is far more consistent than when we interpret the evidence using a naturalistic framework. I find it funny you appeal to the Scientific Method, something created by a Creationist, but you ignore the very valid logic known as the disjunctive syllogism.
So let’s play a bit of a game. You tell me, how do you know the pyramids did not arise by naturalistic means?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

So there you have it and no surprise. More interested in playing games than evidencing supernatrual creation. Rather than give you attention around the infantile discussion of: "are the pyramids built by hitherto unknown geologic processes and not by humankind". Why don't you try something novel and stop presenting arguments AGAINST evolution (which so far have been very unconvincing) and show us evidence or arguments FOR supernatural creation. I suspect the reason you don't is becuase you don't have any, or that the ones you might present my have a new hole ripped in their backside very quickly.

Quote:Oh, but clearly you did commit them.

Assertion. I already demonstrated why I didn’t commit them.

Quote:Clearly you are mistaken. Both Darwin and Dawkins have had no problem whatsoever making it very clear that evolution is a fact and that the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution.

You clearly didn’t get my point. The point was that they both admitted that there were two possibilities, creation by naturalistic means, or creation by supernatural means. So that is why disjunctive logic is completely valid in this instance and that is why both of them have used it and that is why I too use it.

Quote:Except:

1) There is no evidence refuting evolution, and
2) Even if there were, by itself, such evidence would not be evidence that your "God did it". For all you know it could be evidence of a magical woodpecker.

There are actually loads of evidence refuting evolution. The very fact that evolution has never increased information content and violates the very laws of Information Theory refutes it. You just don’t want to acknowledge this because it’s become more than a scientific theory and more of a religious dogma.

If a magical woodpecker had created everything I am sure you are aware that this would still be an example of special creation. So my argument still stands, it’s a two model system- either evolution or special creation. So evidence against evolution is still evidence for special creation. Like I have said many times, once you admit that life had to be created by special creation, then we can discuss why it has to be the God of the Bible and not a magical woodpecker.

Quote: Darwin has been dead for over 130 years, dude. I take it up with you because you are still trying to push a 19th century religious philosophy in the 21st century.

I think the scariest thing of all is that you actually got two kudos for your post when you didn’t even read my post correctly. I clearly said “Dawkins” here, not “Darwin”, and I assure you, Richard Dawkins is still very much alive.

Quote: Hey thanks for agreeing our point that evolution is a universally accepted theory. Oh, and it is a universally accepted theory because 150 years of experiments and observations support its validity. Likely he doesn't give any reasons why special creation is not possible because that's not his theory and it isn't for him to defend. It's for creationists to defend. So when are you going to actually start defending it?

I am not arguing that Evolution is not the accepted theory. I am sure you are aware though that the fact it is widely accepted does not make it valid since scientific fact is not based on consensus. So you agree with this quote when he says it is the accepted theory, but you disagree when he says it is not because it is based on logical or scientific evidence? How very convenient. My point, which you seemed to miss, was that he is using the exact same logic I am using. However, you seem to approve when he uses it but think it’s not valid when I use it. Special pleading.

Quote: Geology is a historical science. And Steno's law is the only natural law that has been entirely devised and documented from geologic research. See, Statler, if you had taken rocks for jocks in your youth, you'd know this.

I am pretty sure that empirically measuring the angles between crystal faces would not count as a historical science since you directly observed them and measured them. So my statement still stands, in historical sciences you never use the term “know”, because you are dealing with the past, not the present. Get an education

(December 14, 2010 at 11:59 pm)ziggystardust Wrote: Statler Waldorf, the only reason why you believe the universe is 6000 years ago, is because some Iron Age book said it was true. If Genesis 1 had not ever been included in the bible. Right now we would not be having this conversation and you would accept the discoveries countless scientists over a period of two hundred years or more.

The evidence completely confirms the account in Genesis 1 when interpreted using the Creation framework. Quite frankly, if Genesis 1 was not in the Bible none of us would be here because it is impossible for all that we see to arise by purely naturalistic means.



I noticed you didn’t answer my pyramid question and I know exactly why. In order to believe the pyramids were created by humans you have to use the exact same logic that I use to demonstrate that life on Earth was created. So you knew that I would ding you for this, so you just dodged the question. Classic.

*laughs!*

Wow. I had a shitty couple of days at work and this thread has provided me with a good chuckle. Thanks, Statler. You're a real goofball.

(December 15, 2010 at 6:21 pm)Paul the Human Wrote: *laughs!*

Wow. I had a shitty couple of days at work and this thread has provided me with a good chuckle. Thanks, Statler. You're a real goofball.

Anytime Scooter.

(December 15, 2010 at 4:43 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

---

Quote: zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

So there you have it and no surprise. More interested in playing games than evidencing supernatrual creation. Rather than give you attention around the infantile discussion of: "are the pyramids built by hitherto unknown geologic processes and not by humankind". Why don't you try something novel and stop presenting arguments AGAINST evolution (which so far have been very unconvincing) and show us evidence or arguments FOR supernatural creation. I suspect the reason you don't is becuase you don't have any, or that the ones you might present my have a new hole ripped in their backside very quickly.

---

I noticed you didn’t answer my pyramid question and I know exactly why. In order to believe the pyramids were created by humans you have to use the exact same logic that I use to demonstrate that life on Earth was created. So you knew that I would ding you for this, so you just dodged the question. Classic.

The only guy avoiding the questions is you. I have no intention on getting engaged in a debate on the pyramids, its a strawman and a ridiculous one at that, to avoid the extreme weakness of your position. Now I clearly don't hold this view but lets say you had convinced me that evolution was wrong. Still waiting for arguments or evidence FOR supernatural creation and not some other explanation. When you have done that just the roughest of skethches on the mechansim whereby supernatural immaterial beings can intervene in a a natural material world. When you have done that how this theory not only explains the wide variety of life but akso the evidence from other disciplines: paleontology, biogeography, molecular biology to name 3. When you have done that could you tell us how superntural creation can be used to predict results as successfully as evolution does in its application in the fields of medical research and agricultural research? When you have done that evidence it was your god/s.

My expectation of your response...the sound of silence..followed by some bizarre rant about pyramids or logic or lack of evidence for evolution or invented unresearched problems with evolution (again) or something else...just no evidnce FOR supernatural creation and what a surprise that will be!