This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

C_Mat: You're a YEC. Can you explain and prove creationism?

#11Moorish_IdolPosted 5/26/2013 11:30:02 AM
C_ Mat has admitted before that he lacks enough understanding of biology to argue against it. I don't think he even cares to debate it. But I guess we like to claim our "victories" whenever we can.
#12DeadPresidents2Posted 5/26/2013 1:40:03 PM
Moorish_Idol posted...
C_ Mat has admitted before that he lacks enough understanding of biology to argue against it. I don't think he even cares to debate it. But I guess we like to claim our "victories" whenever we can.


This. I'm not especially fond of YEC, but there's a difference between the people who incessantly espouse it, and those simply adhere to it because it's what they've learned and what they're most comfortable with. This is the kind of topic you direct at someone like, say, Kent Hovind, someone actively seeking to oppose modern scientific thought.

I mean, I can't "explain" a lot of what I think I know either. I've been told about things like Big Bang Theory, and I've perused some wikipedia articles and watched some Through the Wormhole episodes, but I'm no more prepared to defend it than C_Mat probably is YEC. It doesn't all makes sense to me, but it makes enough sense to me that I'm comfortable with it as a view.
---
Me to this random girl : Mygirlfriendsayswhat? Random girl: What?
Me: Zing!
#13Julian_CaesarPosted 5/26/2013 10:15:26 PM
YEC is predicated on a worldview which believes in a God who is capable of anything besides self-contradiction. God could have made the world look any way He wanted if He so desired.

Silly? Yes, absolutely. But nothing about God as a basic concept means He couldn't be a very silly God. Rather, you have to go to the Biblical accounts of God to point out things in His character/actions which contradict the idea of a God of the Bible who would make everything appear to have evolved just for the hell of it.

That is to say, the materialist's real logical attack on YEC lies in the Biblical accounts of creation and God's own character. YEC needs no "proof" or "explanation" besides "God did it," unfortunately.


Note: I'm an OEC myself, in fact the switch from YEC was one of the first worldview changes in my life as a result of discussion on this board. But logically speaking, YEC is only assailable through the Bible itself. Practically speaking I agree that the notion appears completely silly.
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#14JonWood007Posted 5/26/2013 10:18:18 PM
^^And that's why YECism is a completely insane position. It's basically saying "screw the facts, I have faith."

And as for dealing with raising contradictions, good luck doing that because they'll rationalize all the contradictions away.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#15Faust_8Posted 5/26/2013 10:58:07 PM
If he just WAS a YEC that would be fine. But he has attempted to discredit evolution before, or spreads lies (no transitional fossils my ass) and other such things.

That's my issue. I can't stop someone from believing whatever inane crap they want to, but the minute they open their mouth and try to support it with BS or attack something legitimate with falsehoods, I'm going to challenge them.

It's sort of like how I am with religion. Oh, you're a theist? Whatever floats your boat.

Oh, you've just said something illogical/incorrect/immoral/preachy/claimed knowledge you don't have/justify laws based on your religion? Now I might fight against you, depending on the context. Because such things can be dangerous or counter-productive, or at least damn silly.
---
You are the universe
Expressing itself as a human, for a little while
#16MoistenPosted 5/27/2013 6:20:47 AM
The instructions to make DNA are already embedded in the DNA itself. Irreducible Complexity.

When a giraffe reaches down to sip water from a pond or something, in order to keep blood circulating to the head, the heart has to make extra strong pulses whenever the giraffe dips its long neck. These are irreducibly complex; if the heart's extra strong pulse developed before the long neck, the pulse would kill its head. If it developed after the long neck, the giraffe would have died first when it dipped its head.
#17Faust_8Posted 5/27/2013 8:51:43 AM
Irreducible complexity has been debunked many, many times.

Besides, that kind of argument is weak anyway--simply pointing out two current systems and removing one isn't a good argument. You have to show how they could not have simultaneously, and slowly, evolved.
---
You are the universe
Expressing itself as a human, for a little while
#18TheBlackCat13Posted 5/27/2013 10:17:12 AM
Moisten posted...
The instructions to make DNA are already embedded in the DNA itself. Irreducible Complexity.

Ignoring the fact that such a system is not irreducibly complex even by the creationist definition, it is not even useful. You cannot make DNA with DNA, you need RNA and proteins. You can, however, make RNA with just RNA, you don't even really need DNA at all (although it is useful for stable, long-term storage of genetic information)

Moisten posted...
When a giraffe reaches down to sip water from a pond or something, in order to keep blood circulating to the head, the heart has to make extra strong pulses whenever the giraffe dips its long neck. These are irreducibly complex; if the heart's extra strong pulse developed before the long neck, the pulse would kill its head. If it developed after the long neck, the giraffe would have died first when it dipped its head.

Or, the heart could have slowly gotten stronger as the neck slowly got longer. Neck gets a little longer, heart is functioning fine but not optimal so the heart gets a little bit stronger. The neck can now safely get a little bit longer without overloading the heart. The heart then gets a little stronger to catch up. Wash, rinse repeat.

You want to talk about giraffes, let's talk about the laryngeal nerve. This nerve starts in the brain, works its way down the neck, then loops around the heart. In fish, it then goes to gills. This makes sense since the gills are right near the heart.

In mammals (and other land vertebrates) it goes into the vocal cords (which develop from some of the same tissue as fish gills). However, it still goes from the head, past the vocal cords, to the heart, loops around, then comes back to the vocal cords.

In humans this adds probably a good foot the length of the nerve. In giraffes, it adds about 15 feet.

This makes perfect sense from evolution, since it is more or less stuck with the path it originally evolved in fish. But any human designer that did something that stupid would be fired on the spot.
---
Man Is The Lowest Cost, 150 Pound, Nonlinear, All-purpose Computer System Which Can Be Mass Produced By Unskilled Labor
-- NASA
#19OrangeWizardPosted 5/27/2013 10:26:18 AM
From: TheBlackCat13 | #016
heart is functioning fine but not optimal so the heart gets a little bit stronger.


You're saying it like the heart knows it's not optimal, so it just writes a little note for the next generation: "Get stronger!"
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#20JonWood007Posted 5/27/2013 2:10:59 PM
^^what I think he means is that giraffes that don't have stronger hearts will die, but those that have them will survive.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768