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

Can somebody please prove creationism?

#21GuideToTheDarkPosted 8/16/2013 2:24:41 PM
C_Mat posted...
Side-note: You guys have inspired me to read books on evolution/creationism, and someday I will come back here to talk/debate about what I've learned. But that will probably be some months away at least, just wanted you to know I've made it a priority to do at some point.


This is good, but if you try to cherry pick, you will gain nothing out of this.

Actually, you should make a topic with all the reasons why you think evolution is false that aren't exclusively faith-based. I think that would be a fairly quick way to get answers, if you really want to know about evolution.
---
SHUTUPPU ANDE EAT! TOO BAD NO BON APPETIT!
#22Fingerpuppet(Topic Creator)Posted 8/16/2013 7:24:24 PM
rick alverado posted...
Quick, someone complain about radiometric dating. I want to see this interesting argument.


Radiometric dating is founded on the idea that, at a certain point, an atom's nucleus is unstable (where the protons are too far apart for the force between them to hold them together, which is caused by neutrons). This would imply that our understanding of radioactive decay was fundamentally flawed. Do you know what else works via radioactive decay?

Atomic bombs, and the ones over Japan worked by the splitting of an atom's nucleus (which is radioactive decay.)

To assert that radiometric dating has some sort of flaw is to do two things:

1. That our knowledge of basic differential equations is flawed (which it isn't)

2. Japan was never nuked twice, there were never any nuclear disasters at Fukushima and Chernobyl, that nuclear power doesn't work, and that the sun does not work.

You pretty much have to break reality in order for radiometric dating to be flawed.
---
"Not knowing something is one thing, refusing to know about it while pretending that you do is something I'd call stupidity." -Faust_8
#23rick alveradoPosted 8/16/2013 8:58:32 PM
Fingerpuppet posted...
rick alverado posted...
Quick, someone complain about radiometric dating. I want to see this interesting argument.


Radiometric dating is founded on the idea that, at a certain point, an atom's nucleus is unstable (where the protons are too far apart for the force between them to hold them together, which is caused by neutrons). This would imply that our understanding of radioactive decay was fundamentally flawed. Do you know what else works via radioactive decay?

Atomic bombs, and the ones over Japan worked by the splitting of an atom's nucleus (which is radioactive decay.)

To assert that radiometric dating has some sort of flaw is to do two things:

1. That our knowledge of basic differential equations is flawed (which it isn't)

2. Japan was never nuked twice, there were never any nuclear disasters at Fukushima and Chernobyl, that nuclear power doesn't work, and that the sun does not work.

You pretty much have to break reality in order for radiometric dating to be flawed.


Nice, that is interesting. I'll have to remember that.
#24C_MatPosted 8/16/2013 9:33:13 PM(edited)
GuideToTheDark posted...
This is good, but if you try to cherry pick, you will gain nothing out of this.

Actually, you should make a topic with all the reasons why you think evolution is false that aren't exclusively faith-based. I think that would be a fairly quick way to get answers, if you really want to know about evolution.


I was going to read a book from the perspective of a creationist (The Lie by Ken Ham), one from a Christian evolutionist (not sure exactly who yet), and one from Steven Meyer called Signature in the Cell (I'm not sure if he's an old earth creationist or what, but he was kind of in between the other perspectives). I was also considering trying one from Richard Dawkins if I can stomach it. Will depend on my budget/time constraints once I actually decide to attempt the project.

I think it would be more productive at this point to make a topic asking for the reasons evolution is true that aren't faith-based. Ray Comfort's question from that recent documentary seemed like a good start: is there any observable evidence of one kind of animal changing to another kind? Since the people against that movie claimed that Ray Comfort misrepresented the interviewees' views, I was really curious to see if anyone here can provide that evidence.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#25Faust_8Posted 8/16/2013 9:51:02 PM
1) No reason that evolution is true is faith based.

2) Evolution NEVER says that one thing turns into "another kind." Both because "kind" is an invented term by creationists that is never defined, and also because in evolution nothing ever outgrows its heredity, it just becomes something more. (As in, dinosaurs become aves but are STILL dinosaurs too. Everything still belongs to the group before it, it just can become a member of a new group as well.)

A human is still an ape, which is still a mammal, which is still a chordate, which is still a eukaryote, yadda yadda. Nothing ever leaves its parent group. Nothing ever begets something different under the theory of evolution.

You've been TOLD this multiple times and yet you still parrot the same misinformation. You really do need to read up on the subject or you'll just keep repeating the same lies.
---
I'm not against religion. I'm against all bad ideas, held for bad reasons, prompting bad behavior.
#26C_MatPosted 8/16/2013 9:54:09 PM
^I don't remember being told this before, as this is the first time I remember bringing up "kinds." Maybe you're confusing me with someone else again?

However, I think the definition of kind is more specific than you do. Do you want to answer the question I quoted from the Ray Comfort video?
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#27C_MatPosted 8/16/2013 9:58:45 PM
And the word "kind" was definitely not invented by creationists lol

From the Oxford Dictionary defintion of evolution:

1the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#28GuideToTheDarkPosted 8/16/2013 10:03:14 PM
I think it would be more productive at this point to make a topic asking for the reasons evolution is true that aren't faith-based. Ray Comfort's question from that recent documentary seemed like a good start: is there any observable evidence of one kind of animal changing to another kind? Since the people against that movie claimed that Ray Comfort misrepresented the interviewees' views, I was really curious to see if anyone here can provide that evidence.

You're starting with a question framed in a way that doesn't make much sense, but let's try: What is your definition of "kind"?
---
SHUTUPPU ANDE EAT! TOO BAD NO BON APPETIT!
#29Faust_8Posted 8/16/2013 10:10:17 PM
Ok, how about you find a definition of "kind" agreed upon by biologists. Or agreed upon by anyone, really. I've seen kind mean phylum, family, genus, and so on. Its definition seems to be whatever the creationist wants it to be.

Because, guess what, biology isn't defined by the dictionary. Dictionaries reflect usage, not scientific accuracy.

Besides:

1) Creationists all use the same (already debunked) arguments anyway

2) Even if not directed at you, you should have seen enough talk about "kinds" on this board unless you ignore every topic about evolution that doesn't address you directly. (Granted, you ignore a helluva a lot to begin with, so this isn't surprising. You can't BE a creationist without ignoring knowledge in the same way you can't be a geocentrist without ignoring knowledge.)
---
I'm not against religion. I'm against all bad ideas, held for bad reasons, prompting bad behavior.
#30takashi351Posted 8/16/2013 11:36:06 PM(edited)
C_Mat posted...
GuideToTheDark posted...
This is good, but if you try to cherry pick, you will gain nothing out of this.

Actually, you should make a topic with all the reasons why you think evolution is false that aren't exclusively faith-based. I think that would be a fairly quick way to get answers, if you really want to know about evolution.


I was going to read a book from the perspective of a creationist (The Lie by Ken Ham), one from a Christian evolutionist (not sure exactly who yet), and one from Steven Meyer called Signature in the Cell (I'm not sure if he's an old earth creationist or what, but he was kind of in between the other perspectives). I was also considering trying one from Richard Dawkins if I can stomach it. Will depend on my budget/time constraints once I actually decide to attempt the project.

I think it would be more productive at this point to make a topic asking for the reasons evolution is true that aren't faith-based. Ray Comfort's question from that recent documentary seemed like a good start: is there any observable evidence of one kind of animal changing to another kind? Since the people against that movie claimed that Ray Comfort misrepresented the interviewees' views, I was really curious to see if anyone here can provide that evidence.


I'd like to note here that none of the books you're planning on reading are by reputable scientists who understand biology. If you honestly want to learn about evolution, you should read at least one book by an actual scientist and not just ones espousing different flavors of creationism. Ken Ham is an unabashed supporter of YEC and openly admits to completely disregarding any evidence that conflicts with his idea of YEC. And Steven Meyer is an ardent supporter of ID. Furthermore, he is a philosopher of science, not a scientist. He doesn't publish in peer reviewed journals, but instead chooses to publish his work in non-rigorous creationist vanity journals. If these are the people whose work you're reading to gain actual understanding and insight into what evolutionary theory is and what it entails, your endeavor will fail miserably and you might as well have not bothered at all. Given the books you listed, and the fact that you're only considering reading a book by a non-Christian, it seems to me like you'd rather confirm what you already believe rather than be exposed to new, different ideas. Of course, I'd love to be proved wrong!

And I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to in your last post, but here are two links from one of the people Comfort interviewed (who has a PhD in biology and currently works as an evolutionary biologist) who explains why the interview was disingenuous:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/07/23/ray-comfort-confesses/

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/07/02/lie-harder-little-man/
---
"Five zombies. Four bullets. Two zombies."-Brian