Are Creationists hypocrites on evolution?

Originally posted by arollingstone
Why the attitude and condescending tone?

Condescending? I wasn't being condescending, I was just explaining. I don't pretend to be more intelligent than others for that would be silly, but I do point out when others are wrong.

I was just stating the way I feel, didn't even read most posts here - wasn't attacking you or anyone else's beliefs.

But you were still wrong. I pointed out where you were wrong. Now, you're free to feel the way you want, but I'm still free to show you where those feelings are wrong and/or possibly stupid.

I'm not going to go through every one of your points in response - the way I personally feel is there must be something beyond the laws of physics out there.

Well, go ahead and feel that, but the argument from personal gut instinct has no bearing on a rational discourse.

I use the term evolutionists to describe those who argue in favour of evolution of life disproving the existence of god because it reduces the credibility of the scriptures.

You mean nobody? Because nobody does that. Evolution merely explains the diversity of life and anyone who claims otherwise is...well...silly.

Obviously not all scientists argue such an irrational debate, but many do - especially casual atheists who do not even give the topic much thought.

No, they don't. Now, they might argue against specific religious claims like Biblical literalism with evolution, but I'd like to see evidence of anyone participating in such a claim.

You don't seem to care about anything that can't be proved by physics, even though the main universal truth of scientific theory is that there are no known universal truths.

"Scientific theory" isn't a thing, it's a label. The whole point of science is that there are universal truths. There are things we can learn that we apply universally. What we learn about electricity can be applied everywhere we can use electricity, like in the computers that we're using now.

I was clear to distinguish between the evolution of the universe and the evolution of life on earth.

And there is no such thing as 'the evolution of the universe'. The formation of the universe can only be described as 'evolution' in the most vague and metaphorical sense. Evolution relies on self-replicating systems that pass on heritable traits. Nothing in the cosmos except for life fits in to that.

I'm no expert physicist but I've seen some pop-science documentaries on history channel, discovery, etc. that seems to suggest that universes may have been created as a result of the existence of other universes (whether they collide or whatever, phase transitions etc.) - whereas these in turn must have originated from something material that exists.

Exactly, pop-science documentaries. They are made for the broadest possible audience and reduce things down to the lowest common denominator to make sure that everyone gets it and sort of feels smart afterwards. These ideas are currently hypothetical.

Now, you're claiming now that things must have originated from pre-existing material, yet you previously stated:

...how can a plain of non-existence suddenly become one of existence?

So excuse me if I'm not a bit confused by how you're asking such a question after understanding that something seems to have always existed.

With the regards to the insignificant comment I made about aliens, that is why I said 'even if', I am aware that it is just a theory amongst millions of theories

It is not a theory, it is a conjecture. I don't know if you ever learned the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. A theory has proof. A hypothesis is a conjecture made based on observation. Evolution? That's a theory. Aliens caused it? That's a hypothesis.

- you're clearly in need of self-reassurance if you feel the need to jump on comments like these.

Look, another example of ad hominem attack that I'll start referring to as keyboard psychology.

Get over yourself dude,

Hey look, another personal attack.

maybe there is nothing outside the realm of what we know as reality - believe that if you want, I choose to disagree.

I never claimed that there isn't anything, I claimed that we are unaware of anything. We have no solid evidence to show that there is anything beyond reality.

I am clearly seeking answers if I ask questions such as these, whereas you seem to think you know all the answers already.

Third personal attack. I never claimed to have all the answers. In fact, I'm just going to quote myself and leave you with what I said in the post you clearly didn't read thoroughly yet chose to reply to.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
But again, why venture to make a claim prior to any understanding? What happened before the Big Bang? We don't know yet. If saying you don't know something is condescending and closed-minded...well, it simply isn't.

Emphasis added.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Hey I didn't state anything as fact, how could I be 'wrong'? My beliefs are based on my own rational observations, without specific technical scientific justification - that's the way I roll. This does not remove anything from the rationality of my argument - this is the first time I've ever heard that matter can simply pop out of nowhere, and as I've mentioned that is within what I call, by my understanding, the plain of existence. Schoolyard physics claims energy cannot be created or destroyed, going by this it seems rational to me that something that defies the laws of physics must have created it. I heard about subatomic particles being able to 'teleport' or be in more than one place at once, but what it didn't seem the same as what this experiment claims to have achieved. I'm the first to admit my understanding of physics is very basic but the more that I do learn of physics, evolution of life on this planet and the ridiculously low probability of intelligent life forming at all, the more it seems to me that science is almost a path to discovering something larger, whether it's god or karma or whatever it is, for me there's something out there. Maybe we're all part of a universal self experiencing itself subjectively, I don't know. But slowly, its becoming clearer to me that there is a point to existence - otherwise what is the point in being compassionate? Why would we feel love, or guilt, or shame without some sort of reason for a moral compass? Perhaps we simply associate these feelings with certain situations, but we've evolved past the survivalist mentality. I don't get how a fairly similar number of males and females are born if there is not some sort of cosmic balance of male and female energy. Yeah, maybe it seems kooky but then I'm a kook I guess, I'm not the only one who thinks along these lines - it is unfair to objectively call me wrong when I make no claims other than a rational belief in something unspecific much more important than myself.

An attempt at an intellectual tearing apart of my post just seemed unnecessarily hostile. All I know for sure is that as humans we know next to nothing for certain. I did not intend to demean atheists, if you have made the effort to think outside the box, or within the scientific box, and come to a different conclusion from the status quo then I respect the validity of your argument and I would have liked to discuss the issue with you and share our points of views. But I do personally know some logically lazy atheists/agnostics who have even less understanding of physics or evolution than me and simply disbelieve in god because many of the sources and arguments that empower the concept of an intelligent god have been debunked (i.e. dinosaurs were put there to test our faith) or they have not explored various potential differing concepts of god. However, I've had slight spiritual (not religious) experiences that a scientist would clutch at straws to explain and the concept of something from nothing - until its a universally accepted, applicable and provable truth outside of a single experiment, seems just as plausible as many other theories - regardless of my scientific understanding. I don't have to back up my argument with proof that someone else has told me is the truth, because I don't have any, I live by experience.

reply to post by arollingstone

Originally posted by arollingstone
Hey I didn't state anything as fact, how could I be 'wrong'?

...you made a statement. The statement is wrong. You made the statement, therefore you are wrong.

QED.

My beliefs are based on my own rational observations, without specific technical scientific justification - that's the way I roll.

No, they seem to be based in popular science television and a lack of understanding of some basic scientific principles. You're missing the very basics of what constitutes a theory vs a hypothesis, rational observation doesn't seem to play a factor.

This does not remove anything from the rationality of my argument

No argument is presented, nor is a rational train of thought presented. An argument would be the espousing of an idea in a cogent manner with a series of premises and a conclusion derived from them. Instead you are simply throwing out a conjecture. There is no rationality involved.

- this is the first time I've ever heard that matter can simply pop out of nowhere, and as I've mentioned that is within what I call, by my understanding, the plain of existence.

It's not certain as to what is happening in these experiments. They're so far called 'virtual particles' and they're not 100% sure what is going on with them, but it's an idea and it will be pursued. Now, if what is happening is truly the introduction of matter in a vacuum it wouldn't be from 'nowhere', it would be via a mechanism we don't understand yet.

Schoolyard physics claims energy cannot be created or destroyed, going by this it seems rational to me that something that defies the laws of physics must have created it.

Or you could go with the much simpler explanation that doesn't posit a being that is infinitely more complex than the universe and go with "It always existed".

See, your claim is not rational, it's one of personal preference.

I heard about subatomic particles being able to 'teleport' or be in more than one place at once, but what it didn't seem the same as what this experiment claims to have achieved.

Yes, that's quantum entanglement. This experiment seems to deal in virtual particles...which we don't understand yet. It's a giant question mark.

I'm the first to admit my understanding of physics is very basic but the more that I do learn of physics, evolution of life on this planet and the ridiculously low probability of intelligent life forming at all, the more it seems to me that science is almost a path to discovering something larger, whether it's god or karma or whatever it is, for me there's something out there.

Probabilities? Aside from the probability of an event happening being irrelevant after that event has occurred, there is no way to ascertain the probability of life arising on this planet. The other problem is that even if the probability is incredibly low, the universe is incredibly vast and incredibly old.

You're basically using the argument from incredulity. You can't understand how it happened naturally, therefore it didn't. This is not a rational argument.

Maybe we're all part of a universal self experiencing itself subjectively, I don't know.

Or...we could just be finite material beings.

But slowly, its becoming clearer to me that there is a point to existence - otherwise what is the point in being compassionate?

Survival of the species. Or just being a nice person. I mean, I understand what it means to suffer, so I can understand what the point is in helping someone else through a difficult time.

Why would we feel love, or guilt, or shame without some sort of reason for a moral compass?

Reproduction, species-wide harmony, species-wide harmony.

Love? Helps us reproduce.
Guilt? Helps us prevent ourselves from destroying each other.
Shame? Ditto.

Of course, we can read into these emotions far more than other species because we have developed reasoning faculties beyond those of other creatures.

Perhaps we simply associate these feelings with certain situations, but we've evolved past the survivalist mentality.

No, we haven't. There's no such thing as evolving past survival. Evolution plays on survival (well, except for genetic drift). Everything we do? Still plays to survival. And we're not even that far removed from a life span of 50 being considered long.

The last 100 years has brought us more progress in understanding the world around us and improving our lives through science than the last 10,000. Less than 200 years most people wouldn't reach their 40th birthday. Today we have an average life expectancy of over 70 in the western world.

Hell, we've only existed as Homo sapiens sapiens for a few hundred thousand years.

I don't get how a fairly similar number of males and females are born if there is not some sort of cosmic balance of male and female energy.

*facepalm*

Basic
Genetics

A potential father has 2 sex bearing chromosomes, X and Y
A potential mother has 1 sex bearing chromosome, but in duplicate, X and X

If your parents have sex then the gender of the resulting coupling has a 50/50 chance because it is entirely determined by the sperm cell that reaches the egg.

Yeah, maybe it seems kooky but then I'm a kook I guess, I'm not the only one who thinks along these lines - it is unfair to objectively call me wrong when I make no claims other than a rational belief in something unspecific much more important than myself.

It's kooky because *ahem* it's wrong, I just showed you how it's wrong. Those other people who think along those lines? They're wrong too. I just demonstrated how you're not just being irrational, you're being entirely ignorant to the basics of genetics. How can you make such an ignorant claim?

An attempt at an intellectual tearing apart of my post just seemed unnecessarily hostile.

4th ad hominem attack. I'm not being hostile, I'm just showing you how and why you're wrong. You don't seem to have listened.

All I know for sure is that as humans we know next to nothing for certain.

Except how to construct computers, understand the human genome, get to the moon, send a space probe out of our solar system, double our life expectancy ...damn, I could just go on and on and on, but we're arguing over the internet, claiming we know next to nothing for certain is stupid in light of this.

I did not intend to demean atheists, if you have made the effort to think outside the box, or within the scientific box, and come to a different conclusion from the status quo then I respect the validity of your argument and I would have liked to discuss the issue with you and share our points of views.

Think outside the box? There isn't a box. There's a method that works. It's called critical thinking.

But I do personally know some logically lazy atheists/agnostics who have even less understanding of physics or evolution than me and simply disbelieve in god because many of the sources and arguments that empower the concept of an intelligent god have been debunked (i.e. dinosaurs were put there to test our faith) or they have not explored various potential differing concepts of god.

Then those people are morons.

However, I've had slight spiritual (not religious) experiences that a scientist would clutch at straws to explain

Except...probably not. I mean, I guess a geologist might, but that's probably not the right person to talk to. I'm guessing an neurologist wouldn't have too much of a problem.

and the concept of something from nothing - until its a universally accepted, applicable and provable truth outside of a single experiment, seems just as plausible as many other theories - regardless of my scientific understanding.

..nothing in modern physics relies on 'something from nothing'.

I don't have to back up my argument with proof that someone else has told me is the truth, because I don't have any, I live by experience.

Therefore you live by ignorance. The reason we have science is to counter such ignorant thinking.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Wow.. you really have too much time on your hands there guy! If there's a 50/50 percent chance that a newborn will be male or female, the populations of the two still wouldn't be as close as they are - is it not random? Anyway, this is getting very silly now, very silly indeed! The more open-minded my posts are, the more you attempt to jump on every single sentence and the clearer it becomes that you are in fact the scientific equivalent of a preacher. You have also, in fact, only served to contribute towards my original argument, thank you for this. It is indeed much easier to take the defensive stance, quoting every single sentence of a post and attempting to undermine it than it is to actually read it and respond in a mature manner. Good talking to you sport, however I have grown tired of this silly billy business and will now leave you to overanalyse the threads of my respectable peers. Cheerio.

reply to post by Nogard2012


I have asked the same question myself. I have just set up a website and I have a video which looks at Forbidden Archeology which might interest you. Don't feel this is the hard sell, just thought it may be of interest. I have lots of other questions that I would like answers to and I would like to know others views.
www.globalconspiracy.co.uk




www.globalconspiracy.co.uk

reply to post by arollingstone

Originally posted by arollingstone
Wow.. you really have too much time on your hands there guy!

No, it just seems I'm a really fast typer. People have informed me about this lately, I was completely unaware.

If there's a 50/50 percent chance that a newborn will be male or female, the populations of the two still wouldn't be as close as they are - is it not random?

I'm sorry, but what? If there's a 50/50 chance then the odds are that the populations will be close to even...so you don't only have ignorance of basic genetics, but basic statistics.

Try 7 billion coin flips. You'll get approximately 3.5 billion heads (females) and approximately 3.5 billion tails (females). Of course, there are other factors at play. Males in the western world tend to be more prone to death from accidents and males in general tend to have shorter lifespans and are more likely to die in warfare.

Anyway, this is getting very silly now, very silly indeed!

Yes, your claims are getting downright ridiculous.

The more open-minded my posts are, the more you attempt to jump on every single sentence and the clearer it becomes that you are in fact the scientific equivalent of a preacher.

I'm sorry, but being wrong and ignorant, which I've demonstrated you to be, isn't the same as being 'open-minded'. Of course, you're going to continue with this particular brand of ad hominem attack...ad hominem means "against the person"..it's a personal attack.

You have also, in fact, only served to contribute towards my original argument, thank you for this.

Your original argument? You didn't have an argument, you had two paragraphs of rambling ignorance.

It is indeed much easier to take the defensive stance, quoting every single sentence of a post and attempting to undermine it than it is to actually read it and respond in a mature manner.

Wow, so apparently responding to individual points individually isn't mature now. You and seem to prefer critiquing my style rather than actually respond to my points. I respond to each sentence individually for a reason, you aren't paragraphing things properly and are smashing together things because there isn't a cogent argument.

Were you separating your individual points out in a recognizable manner, I might not have to respond to individual sentences. Hell, if you had something resembling an argument I wouldn't have to do that either.

Good talking to you sport, however I have grown tired of this silly billy business and will now leave you to overanalyse the threads of my respectable peers. Cheerio.

Translation: "I'm going to belittle you and then move on because I can't keep up with the discussion".

Originally posted by arollingstone

 

Hey I didn't state anything as fact, how could I be 'wrong'?

Calling people "evolutionists", which is a belittling, made up word like "Islamists", invented by creationists to put those who don't believe in creation into a box, was not a good way to start.

Does acknowledging gravity happens make you a "gravitationalist"? If the "Earth Just Sucks" movement started calling you a gravitationalist, would you be impressed?

Then you expounded on your interpretation of the word evolutionist, to explain you mean by it, "those who argue in favour of evolution of life disproving the existence of god because it reduces the credibility of the scriptures."
Firstly, that's not happening here. Certain people are arguing against evolution and for creationism/I.D. in order to prove god exists. Not only is there no science behind creationism/I.D., but some so-called Christians are trying to push the teaching of it into schools. This teaching in schools is helping keep American kids stupid, by teaching them to take the easy way out, ignoring scientific research, by just saying, "god did it".

The attitude of those arguing here for evolution is not: "God didn't do it", or: "this debunks god", it's: "stop letting beliefs and belief-based sources blind you and look at the bloody facts for a change!"

The people arguing the case for evolution here are not all atheists. They are just people who are interested in science for its own sake. If, as you put it, arguing in favour of evolution of life is, "disproving the existence of god because it reduces the credibility of the scriptures," that's hardly the fault of scientists. There are passages in the bible which are provably not literal truth. If that fact influences peoples' beliefs, so be it. Or do you think anything disproving biblical passages should be hushed up like Galileo was when confined to house arrest to stop him disproving that the earth stood still while the sun rotated around it?

My beliefs are based on my own rational observations, without specific technical scientific justification - that's the way I roll. This does not remove anything from the rationality of my argument - this is the first time I've ever heard that matter can simply pop out of nowhere, and as I've mentioned that is within what I call, by my understanding, the plain of existence. Schoolyard physics claims energy cannot be created or destroyed, going by this it seems rational to me that something that defies the laws of physics must have created it.

School-yard science is often simplified, just like pop-science videos. Sometimes it's because it's taught from outdated texts, sometimes because the latest advances in science are yet to be verified, sometimes because things are too complex to teach easily to teenagers, and often because schoolteachers are not scientists, and are just muddling along, doing the best they can.

When you are beginning learning in a field you have not mastered, you need to regard what you are learning as an introduction, and remember there are increasing levels of complexity to study as you progress in understanding.

You sound sceptical about matter just popping into existence. However that's just from having a mindset trained to accept the concept of nothingness. Even as a kid, I never could; the world felt too alive to me for that. So I was arguing with a science teacher over 40 years ago who was teaching that the universe just happened out of nothing, that there's no such thing as nothing, because zero contains an infinite supply of +1s and -1s, and the universe is similar, containing positive and negative energies that came from "nothing" being divided up into an endless supply of positive and negative energies.

I heard about subatomic particles being able to 'teleport' or be in more than one place at once, but what it didn't seem the same as what this experiment claims to have achieved. I'm the first to admit my understanding of physics is very basic but the more that I do learn of physics, evolution of life on this planet and the ridiculously low probability of intelligent life forming at all, the more it seems to me that science is almost a path to discovering something larger, whether it's god or karma or whatever it is, for me there's something out there. Maybe we're all part of a universal self experiencing itself subjectively, I don't know.

Shuffle a pack of cards, look at the order you have them in, and then work out the chance of you getting them in that order, and you'll discover it was practically impossible.

Working out the chance of occurrences happening by working backwards like that is just silly, isn't it.
The same with the chances of intelligent life forming. First, it may be inevitable, for all we know. Second, it may be unlikely, but not be important to any grand scheme. All we can know is we are here, and if we weren't we wouldn't be discussing that fact.

But slowly, its becoming clearer to me that there is a point to existence - otherwise what is the point in being compassionate? Why would we feel love, or guilt, or shame without some sort of reason for a moral compass? Perhaps we simply associate these feelings with certain situations, but we've evolved past the survivalist mentality.

Humans are pretty weak creatures on their own. Therefore we have evolved as groups, societies, rather than simply evolving as individuals. Humans who could fit in as part of a group had much better survival chances than those who couldn't. So we evolved the feelings which make it likely we will care for our undeveloped young. We evolved the feelings which would help us live within groups and aid the group's survival.

I don't get how a fairly similar number of males and females are born if there is not some sort of cosmic balance of male and female energy.

When the male cells divide to form gametes, inevitably half are male and half are female. There's no need to involve cosmic energies. More interesting are the factors which sometimes change the ration of males to females being born.

Yeah, maybe it seems kooky but then I'm a kook I guess, I'm not the only one who thinks along these lines - it is unfair to objectively call me wrong when I make no claims other than a rational belief in something unspecific much more important than myself.

Madness spends time here in order to discuss and teach. As a teacher he pointed out you were wrong, - not for believing in god, but for your assumptions and arguments. Nobody except you is using the term "kook".

An attempt at an intellectual tearing apart of my post just seemed unnecessarily hostile.

It's just discussion. You began with a hostile term, "evolutionist", and cast insulting and incorrect aspersions on those explaining evolution. So what did you expect?
If you walk up to someone and slap them, does it surprise you if they slap back?

All I know for sure is that as humans we know next to nothing for certain.

As Madness already pointed out, we know many things for certain.

I did not intend to demean atheists, if you have made the effort to think outside the box, or within the scientific box, and come to a different conclusion from the status quo then I respect the validity of your argument and I would have liked to discuss the issue with you and share our points of views.

If you want to discuss atheism, why not do so in an appropriate thread, rather than in a thread on evolution?
Obviously it's because of your assumption you have admitted to that "some" people are arguing for evolution just to debunk god. Insulting people is demeaning them, and is not done by people who are genuinely looking for a friendly discussion.

There are already many threads on atheism/belief. if you like, you could even create your own.

But I do personally know some logically lazy atheists/agnostics who have even less understanding of physics or evolution than me and simply disbelieve in god because many of the sources and arguments that empower the concept of an intelligent god have been debunked (i.e. dinosaurs were put there to test our faith) or they have not explored various potential differing concepts of god.

So what?
I know believers in god who rape and murder. But that's not relevant in a forum unless it's a thread about the odd behaviour of some believers.

However, I've had slight spiritual (not religious) experiences that a scientist would clutch at straws to explain and the concept of something from nothing - until its a universally accepted, applicable and provable truth outside of a single experiment, seems just as plausible as many other theories - regardless of my scientific understanding. I don't have to back up my argument with proof that someone else has told me is the truth, because I don't have any, I live by experience.
All I get from this ramble is that you don't want to accept the idea that something can come from nothing because it means the universe did not need a creator to bring it into existence.

If you've had experiences proving the existence of god to you, why do you need a world-view which says god was necessary for this world to exist? Can't you just be happy with your awareness, and fearlessly and open-mindedly look at scientific evidence?

reply to post by Kailassa


None of my original comments were directed at any previous posters, as I have already stated. I wouldn't make a sweeping statement about those who promote the theory of evolution (such as that they are all atheists, which is what seems to have been inferred), since evolution is pretty much proven to have occurred - it makes complete sense. I was referring to specific ignorant people that I've encountered amongst my travels, people who do not think for themselves. Yeah, I said evolutionists - but I explained what I meant by bringing in the term to simplify an example, and it was an extremely specific point - that biological evolution and the concept of god (whatever form the concept of god takes - this is not necessarily a reference to the traditional religious forms of God) are not mutually exclusive. Yes, this would seem obvious to many - however, surprisingly I meet many educated people in life who do not seem to grasp this and think the only possible spiritual path is through organised religion. Why the huge uproar? As aforementioned, I even issued a sort of disclaimer in a later post to clarify that I did not intend to direct this at all atheists, or anyone at all on the forum in case this other chap was offended - which he seems to have been. Whatever you hold to be true or what you believe in is fine by me as long as you've come to this conclusion as a result of a rational and personal thought process.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Sigh.. You go and flip a coin ten times now, chances are it will not turn out 5 heads and 5 tails. Does this mean that 'you are wrong, you are ignorant'? You underestimate the power of randomness within your supreme understanding of statistics. Good bluff with your 'attack against the person' hype, except you're not fooling me. The moment I got onto this thread, all you've done is pick apart my posts just because you disagree with them and seemed to have gotten the impression I was directing my statements at you, I wasn't. I didn't say anything at all about ALL atheists, or ANYONE on this thread so don't take it so personally pal. Go heckle the guy I quoted, if anything. I've clearly stated that I'm not interested in a debate with you about my own views on metaphysics - yet this is all you want to debate, arguing that I am 'wrong' and 'ignorant' as if you're some sort of absolute authority. The last post of mine was childish yes, but was rather tantamount to yours - simple baiting for the sake of further attempts at debunking. Be respectful, arrogance is a terrible personality trait - especially when it's on the internet.

Nobody can truthfully know anything that lies outside of their own experience - you could not, at current, actually prove that there was a big bang. You could not prove that matter can be created from nothing. Neither could you prove that yellow is not in fact red (i.e. what you see as yellow, perhaps another may see as red but still associate the colour with the word yellow). Prove to me that there is not a universal consciousness. Prove to me that life itself is not an illusion. Yes, there's the old 'I think therefore I am' - which is true - but what 'is'? Who is to say with absolute certainty that you are not just a brain in a vat, experiencing your own imagination? Yes, through rational thought you can make certain deductions and reach preferential conclusions but you cannot objectively prove all that much. You can prove that a computer is a computer, because we all see it as such. However, when it comes to scientific THEORY you can't even 100% prove to me that the universe is expanding while you're sat on planet earth. So how can you objectively prove that there is nothing in existence that defies, or contradicts, the laws of physics?

reply to post by arollingstone

Originally posted by arollingstone
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Sigh.. You go and flip a coin ten times now, chances are it will not turn out 5 heads and 5 tails. Does this mean that 'you are wrong, you are ignorant'?

No, it means that a sample of 10 is a very bad basis for probability estimates. The smaller your sample, the greater the deviation size. Seriously, learn some statistics.

We're talking about a system of billions. Even if you take a sample of a country that has a population numbering in the hundreds of thousands you get an acceptable statistical deviation when mortality factors come into play.

You underestimate the power of randomness within your supreme understanding of statistics.

Supreme? Definitely not. Competent? I guess. Of course, there is no 'power of randomness'. It's just something that people who don't understand statistics like to toss around.

Good bluff with your 'attack against the person' hype, except you're not fooling me.

You've launched several attacks against myself. Need I quote them to you?

Here's one from an earlier post:

- you're clearly in need of self-reassurance if you feel the need to jump on comments like these.

That's directing things away from the argument rather than the person.

The moment I got onto this thread, all you've done is pick apart my posts just because you disagree with them

No, I picked them apart because they were wrong, and I've demonstrated that they were wrong. I never said anything bad about you except for noting your ignorance of a few subjects. Of course, we're all ignorant about something, so don't feel bad.

and seemed to have gotten the impression I was directing my statements at you, I wasn't.

I never said you were.

I didn't say anything at all about ALL atheists, or ANYONE on this thread so don't take it so personally pal.

Except you did say quite a few things about me. You called me the "scientific equivalent of a preacher", questioned the amount of free time on my hands, and postulated that I am in need of self-assurance.

Go heckle the guy I quoted, if anything.

Heckle? I'm not heckling, I'm pointing out that you're wrong.

I've clearly stated that I'm not interested in a debate with you about my own views on metaphysics - yet this is all you want to debate, arguing that I am 'wrong' and 'ignorant' as if you're some sort of absolute authority.

You are not making metaphysical claims, you are making very physical claims. When I call you wrong, I demonstrate that you are wrong. I don't simply proclaim it. When I say you're ignorant, I base it on the statement you make and show you. I had to explain elementary level statistics and elementary level genetics to you, it's not a stretch to say you're ignorant of those subjects.

But again, don't worry, we're all ignorant in some areas.

The last post of mine was childish yes, but was rather tantamount to yours - simple baiting for the sake of further attempts at debunking.

I'm not baiting anyone. I'm showing you that you are wrong. That's all. If I were baiting you, there would be a bunch of leading questions. I know how to bait, you don't bait with periods.

Be respectful, arrogance is a terrible personality trait - especially when it's on the internet.

The insinuation that I'm arrogant, looks like you're attacking my character again.

Nobody can truthfully know anything that lies outside of their own experience - you could not, at current, actually prove that there was a big bang.

This is why people shouldn't stop their study of epistemology until they hit empiricism...

We can know things that lie outside of our own experience. We have a system for this very thing known as the scientific method. I know about a lot that lies outside of my experience because I've read scientific literature...not popular science literature, actual scientific literature...and found that the data isn't just consistent, but the experiment is well designed etc.

Of course, we can prove there was a Big Bang. It's been done. Old science. Einstein railed against the idea for a while but even he accepted it.

You could not prove that matter can be created from nothing.

I'm not claiming that it is. I'm saying that matter may have always existed and had no need to be created. I've stated that repeatedly, you've repeatedly ignored it and seemingly the majority of the content of my posts.

Neither could you prove that yellow is not in fact red (i.e. what you see as yellow, perhaps another may see as red but still associate the colour with the word yellow).

"Yellow" and "red" are labels humans assign to a range of frequencies of light on the EM spectrum. I can actually prove the "yellow" is "yellow" because I can come to a consensus amongst people that "yellow" is approximately this or that frequency.

That's why I always thought that was a silly thought experiment about the nature of perception.

Prove to me that there is not a universal consciousness.

Now you seem to demonstrate a basic ignorance of logic. The onus is on you to prove the claim that there is a universal consciousness. The burden of proof lies upon the claimant, not the person who does not accept the claimant's claims.

Prove to me that life itself is not an illusion.

Might be, might not be. Guess what? I don't care. In fact, I stopped caring about onanistic philosophical questions such as this after I realized that it doesn't matter. Maybe life is an illusion, but it would have to be one hell of a consistent one.

Yes, there's the old 'I think therefore I am' - which is true - but what 'is'?

Well, Descartes only arrived at his conclusion of a rational basis by positing the existence of an omnibenevolent deity, so I'll have to skip that idea.

Who is to say with absolute certainty that you are not just a brain in a vat, experiencing your own imagination?

Well, if I were a brain in a vat I'd have to be able to simulate the laws of physics in a manner dissimilar from that of a dreaming individual. I'd also have to contain the information in all of the books I've read and all of the movies I've seen.

Yes, through rational thought you can make certain deductions and reach preferential conclusions but you cannot objectively prove all that much.

Except that we can. And have. It's called the entire body of science. I'm sorry, but you're demonstrating a basic and primitive application of concepts of philosophy in an incredibly certain manner...and you seem to be ignorant of all but the basic idea.

Sure, you can never prove anything with 100% epistemological certainty...but what sort of person cares about 100% epistemological certainty? I can apply the same information that someone in Australia can apply to make a computer from scratch...as in from raw materials.

You can prove that a computer is a computer, because we all see it as such.

I can also prove how it works. And I can demonstrate this by building a damn computer from some raw materials.

However, when it comes to scientific THEORY you can't even 100% prove to me that the universe is expanding while you're sat on planet earth.

You can't 100% prove anything outside of the fields of formal logic and mathematics. So what? 100% of the evidence points towards an expanding universe.

So how can you objectively prove that there is nothing in existence that defies, or contradicts, the laws of physics?

You seem to fail to understand the basic ideas of rational thought that I've explained thoroughly. The impetus to prove something is on the person who is claiming it exists, not on the person denying its existence. You're claiming something which defies the laws of physics exists, prove it.

reply to post by Kailassa

Calling people "evolutionists", which is a belittling, made up word like "Islamists", invented by creationists to put those who don't believe in creation into a box, was not a good way to start.

Does acknowledging gravity happens make you a "gravitationalist"? If the "Earth Just Sucks" movement started calling you a gravitationalist, would you be impressed?

same o same o - nothing new under the sun.

Kailassa,


If Dr. Edward E. Max, (M.D., Ph.D of TalkOrigins.org) has no problem using the the terminology “EVOLUTIONISTS”, why do you? Why does it offend evolutionists here on ATS whenever the term “EVOLUTIONISTS” is used?

If a Ph.D holder has no problem using it, then why prevent others from using it? Is Dr. Edward E. Max, (M.D., Ph.D of TalkOrigins.org) wrong on his usage of such terminology? If you ridicule those who use it here, are you also ridiculing the Dr. himself? Or is it OK for the gander to use it but not for the goose - because of a phud?

What's up with that? Please enlighten me, those of you who don't agree with Dr. Edward E. Max, (M.D., Ph.D of TalkOrigins.org).


Ciao,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2


Dr. Edward E. Max, (M.D., Ph.D of TalkOrigins.org), isn't the authority on everything just because of the letters after his name. It's a silly label used by creationists to make evolution seem like it's on the same level as creationism. It's the same reason that I think most biology professors shouldn't give creationists the time of day with debates, it's silly and it brings them down to a lower level.

There's a window broken in. You see a baseball ball on the floor.

i would think being called a evolutionist, or creationist would be better
than being called a evotard or a creatard which i have seen on other sites. and acording to the
dictionary evolutionist is concidered to be a from of the word evolution.
and can be used as a noun or adjective.

Originally posted by Nogard2012
Recently something has puzzled me that shouldn't since I tend to stay away from the evolution vs creationists debate, but why do "Creationists" consider dinosaurs as being on there side of the debate when the discovery of "feathered" dinosaurs lead to evolution being widely accepted by many.

Perhaps one of their favorite hoaxes?

reply to post by hounddoghowlie


....no, evolution merely comes up when you search for 'evolutionist'. Nowhere in the dictionary entry does it show you the term 'evolutionist', it is merely a redirect that happens when you search for 'evolutionist'.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


evo·lu·tion noun ˌe-və-ˈlü-shən, ˌē-və-
Definition of EVOLUTION

1
: one of a set of prescribed movements
2
a : a process of change in a certain direction : unfolding
b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : emission
c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : growth (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance
d : something evolved
3
: the process of working out or developing
4
a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : phylogeny
b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; also : the process described by this theory
5
: the extraction of a mathematical root
6
: a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena
— evo·lu·tion·ari·ly adverb
— evo·lu·tion·ary adjective
— evo·lu·tion·ism noun
— evo·lu·tion·ist noun or adjective
See evolution defined for English-language learners »
Examples of EVOLUTION

changes brought about by evolution
an important step in the evolution of computers
Origin of EVOLUTION

Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
First Known Use: 1622
Related to EVOLUTION

Synonyms: elaboration, development, expansion, growth, progress, progression
Antonyms: regress, regression, retrogression, reversion
[+]more
Britannica.com

Learn more about "evolution" and related topics at Britannica.com
Browse

Next Word in the Dictionary: evolutional
Previous Word in the Dictionary: evolute
All Words Near: evolution



scroll about half way down it will even play the spoken word
look under entry 6 and see varints of word

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution?show=0&t=1297677716

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Ultimately, you cannot prove scientific theories outside of the conveniences deemed rational by the Church of Science - theories are beliefs. So why is the burden of proof on non-scientists, or those who present potential alternative beliefs and frameworks? Agreeably, Science is much more rational than traditional religions were but what I'm saying is it that this still does not constitute absolute truth.

Iv found that it is best to let people believe what they want. Im not sold on evolution beacuse iv not learned all the details my self. and I think it would be ignorant of me to say evolution is fact when iv not researched it fully. That said I do believe from what i have seen that evolution is more likely than creationism.

But If you stand back and think about both sides from a non bias point of view they are both crazy ideas in my opinion.