Creation vs. Evolution

[Stripe]

Standing for creation as claimed in Genesis and by Bishop Ussher is not wishy washy, just irrational.

Nope. This shows that you have no appreciation of what logic is. There is no standalone statement — premise — that can be illogical on its own. One of the things you could do, for a charge of irrationality to stick, is assert two statements that contradict each other.

You declaring what we believe to be irrational without showing any contradiction shows how desperate you are that your evolutionism not be challenged.

 

[Kdall]

Nope. This shows that you have no appreciation of what logic is. There is no standalone statement — premise — that can be illogical on its own. One of the things you could do, for a charge of irrationality to stick, is assert two statements that contradict each other.

You declaring what we believe to be irrational without showing any contradiction shows how desperate you are that your evolutionism not be challenged.

Stripe, you have far too much free time to troll more intelligent people than yourself. Go read a book that isn't in the Bible

 

[Stripe]

My accusation is that any ancient scripture can be deemed as infallible and adhered to if empirical evidence can always be dismissed should it ever seem to contradict it.

Same with those dedicated blindly to any religion. Evolutionists, for example, will never consider anything that contradicts their beliefs.

What you need to do is learn to talk evidence instead of wailing.

No ancient scripture is evidence of itself, it is only evidence that someone once wrote something.

Yep. And the Bible says "six days." A rational response to that is not to claim that the Bible could allow for "billions of years."

Science otoh suggests that a whole variety of complimentary evidence based conclusions indicates that a particular chain of events occurred and an old Earth timescale.

Nope.

The evidence points to a young Earth.

Which for fundamentalists simply gets automatically trumped by their unquestioning belief in an ancient scripture, as compiled for the first Christian Roman emperor.

Nope.

Evidence, remember?

Stipe has learned that coming out and trying to form a cogent argument is beyond his ability. So mostly, he just hides in the bunker chanting his mantras and tossing insults.It's interesting to see if one can draw him out to try to make an argument, but mostly he's comic relief, these days.

Meanwhile, the Bible says "six days." You asserting that it is compatible with "billions of years" eliminates you from a rational discussion.

 

[DavisBJ]

Surgery via Prayer???

Surgery via Prayer???

When Cadry expressed skepticism as to whether radiological decay rates are really reliable, I mentioned the use of radiological decay as a treatment option for prostate cancer (which both he and I have):

… Prostate Cancer – know what that is? One of the several treatments for it was (is?) the implantation of radioactive pellets whose radiation interferes with the intricate biology of the rapidly dividing cancer cells. But, according to you, that medical procedure must be a wild stab in the dark, based on poorly understood radioactive half-lives. …

As part of Cadry’s response he said his prostate (or at least the cancer) was removed: (Surgically removing the prostate is often done when it turns cancerous):

I had prostate cancer, BJ. I got it removed …

Later, when I mentioned the use of radioactive pellets to treat prostate cancer in my brother, Cadry responded with:

… Yes, they wanted to put radiation pellets in me too, but I copped out before that happened. My cancer was a PSA of 6, then it went down to 4, then to 2. Now it's 3. I'm really not worried about it all. …

PSA – Prostate Specific Antigen – is a chemical secreted into the blood by prostate calls. If the concentration of that chemical in the blood starts to rise abnormally, then cancer may be part of the cause. 3 is a pretty normal value for a healthy prostate. 6 is cause for concern.

In another post, Michael confirmed that his prostate is gone:

… Okay, thanks for worrying about me. I don't have a prostate gland anymore.

Then, had I been more attentive in my reading I wouldn’t have asked the following of Cadry (but I wasn’t, and I did):

What method of treatment did your Dr. use to get your PSA level down?

Michael’s response somehow doesn’t quite jive with what he said about his prostate being removed earlier:

My doctor didn't use any method. I used prayer and it worked.

Michael, did you really pray your prostate right out of your body?

 

[alwight]

I don't believe that the earth is billions of years old. But even if it were, it wouldn't prove evolution to be true..

Evolution is patently true whether you believe it or not imo since it is plainly there to be seen in domesticated animals and crops.
Otoh the Peppered Moth example shows how evolution occurred by natural selection from within an albeit unnatural environment.

To suppose that evolution can't happen totally naturally when clearly it does artificially would surely require some kind of strange mechanism that prevented it from happening, which seems rather unlikely to me anyway.

 

[Daniel1611]

Evolution is patently true whether you believe it or not imo since it is plainly there to be seen in domesticated animals and crops.
Otoh the Peppered Moth example shows how evolution occurred by natural selection from within an albeit unnatural environment.

To suppose that evolution can't happen totally naturally when clearly it does artificially would surely require some kind of strange mechanism that prevented it from happening, which seems rather unlikely to me anyway.

No one has ever seen one species produce another species and its illogical to suppose it would

 

[alwight]

No one has ever seen one species produce another species and its illogical to suppose it would

Not actually witnessing speciation is perhaps the last redoubt for creationists.
But there is nevertheless plenty of reasonable evidence that speciation is routine and is currently in progress right now.

 

[Stripe]

Michael, did you really pray your prostate right out of your body?

I think it was more likely his brain.

 

[DavisBJ]

… No, I do not want to discuss science with a (sic) someone who has gone to college for 6 years ago (sic), and has a PhD.

I don’t recall ever saying how much college I have had, or what college degrees, if any I have. Where did you come up with that info?

So, in essence, you said you were a scientist for nothing. You are a novice scientist, I take it?

Wow, just one post ago you had me pegged as someone who had a PhD, and now you think I am just a novice. No matter, as has been pointed out many times, it’s the facts that count, not the credentials of the person that presents them.

I am amused by your reluctance to discuss science with me when you thought I was a guru of sorts, and now you seem to be equally reluctant to discuss science when you perceive me to be unqualified. Is there no middle ground I can occupy?

But anyway, whatever your justification is, I think we have reached a mutual accommodation. You prefer to remain in scientific ignorance because you don’t like the fact the I am over/under (take your pick) qualified as a scientist, and I kinda don’t see much reason to continue watching my information flow in one of your ears and instantly come out untouched from the other ear.

Let’s just be friends, and sing kumbayah together (is that a Cat Stevens song?) You can strum your guitar, and I will compute the distance between the crests of the longitudinal compression waves of music in the air spreading out symmetrically out (unless there is a breeze) from your … (Ooops, sorry, I forgot, I’m not supposed to talk about such. I will just hum along).

 

[patrick jane]

I don’t recall ever saying how much college I have had, or what college degrees, if any I have. Where did you come up with that info?

Wow, just one post ago you had me pegged as someone who had a PhD, and now you think I am just a novice. No matter, as has been pointed out many times, it’s the facts that count, not the credentials of the person that presents them.

I am amused by your reluctance to discuss science with me when you thought I was a guru of sorts, and now you seem to be equally reluctant to discuss science when you perceive me to be unqualified. Is there no middle ground I can occupy?

But anyway, whatever your justification is, I think we have reached a mutual accommodation. You prefer to remain in scientific ignorance because you don’t like the fact the I am over/under (take you’re your pick) qualified as a scientist, and I kinda don’t see much reason to continue watching my information flow in one of your ears and instantly come out untouched from the other ear.

Let’s just be friends, and sing kumbayah together (is that a Cat Stevens song?) You can strum your guitar, and I will compute the distance between the crests of the longitudinal compression waves of music in the air spreading out symmetrically out (unless there is a breeze) from your … (Ooops, sorry, I forgot, I’m not supposed to talk about such. I will just hum along).

good stuff ! - atrol:

 

[DavisBJ]

Like I said, there must be a discrepancy. C14 dating works best for 10,000 years maybe, but not for 100,000 years. You would think we have more fossils that are 10,000 years old instead of 100,000 years old.

Michael

:cheers:

:rain:

Can't talk with you about this, Michael. Remember, you are on a science-free diet now.

 

[DavisBJ]

Dear Davis,

You know that Stripe is just saying that IF the moon were circling the earth billions of years ago, there would be mile-high tides. Not that the moon and earth are billions of years old. No, he still is claiming that the earth and moon are a young age.

Michael

I suspect I know the details of the argument Stipe is alluding to, but as I have already explained to Stipe, I don’t feel much like wading through his sewage to look at the science in question. If someone else in the creationist camp who conducts themselves in true “Christian” fashion wants to pursue the subject, then I would be more than happy to respond. (But not you, Michael, remember why?)

 

[Daniel1611]

Not actually witnessing speciation is perhaps the last redoubt for creationists.
But there is nevertheless plenty of reasonable evidence that speciation is routine and is currently in progress right now.

Except not really. Variations within a species is not remotely similar to speciation .

 

[Stripe]

I don’t feel much like wading through his sewage.

But you'll spend hours talking to a drug-addled moron. :chuckle:

If someone else in the creationist camp who conducts themselves in true “Christian” fashion wants to pursue the subject, then I would be more than happy to respond.

:darwinsm:

When you find someone who will treat you nicely, let us know. :loser:

 

[DavisBJ]

I've always thought that 6days is smarter and wiser than I. I call upon him for help also, when I need to. I do my best, but sometimes need a lot more help. Thanks 6days!!

Michael

:guitar:

:cheers:

I appreciate the fact that 6days and I have almost diametrically opposing ideas on some pretty important issues, yet we have been able to converse in a pretty civil manner.

 

[Stripe]

I appreciate the fact that 6days and I have almost diametrically opposing ideas on some pretty important issues, yet we have been able to converse in a pretty civil manner.

It’s the evidence that counts, not the civility of the person who presents it.

 

[Kdall]

It’s the facts that count, not the civility of the person who presents them.

On both counts, you're out

 

[alwight]

Except not really. Variations within a species is not remotely similar to speciation .

Rather more convincing in my opinion are species that are genetically similar enough to produce hybrids, or the existence of ring species, but it's the genetic information itself that I find most convincing, endogenous retrovirus' show beyond reasonable doubt imo that modern species do in fact share a common ancestry.

 

[6days]

I think you and I have fundamentally different understandings of some aspects of Carbon dating. Specifically, you mention “how fast C-13 decays”...

OOPS... :bang: Yup... C-12 :dizzy:

 

[6days]

BTW, I often see asterisks at various places in your posts, such as the ones after “agree.”, “C14 “, and “also.” Are those significant, or are they just an artifact of some software quirk as your posts flow from your computer to mine?

LOL... NOT significant. I have no idea why asterisks appear in so many of my posts.