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

In response to a YEC

#1hunter_gohanPosted 9/13/2013 8:05:09 AM
Funny how a YEC comes here, starts a thread, complains about such things as the lack of transitional fossils, and then completely ignores them when presented to go on a rant right before closing the topic huh? Certainly no sticking fingers in your ears and screaming "Lalala I can't hear you evidence" present there.

UberEvolution?


Yes uberevolution. In another thread, a different YEC pointed out that "kinds" are equivalent to orders. So Noah taking 2 (or 7) of each "kind" onto the arc would have humans evolving into every single primate on the face of the planet within ~4,000 years.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Primates_-_some_families.jpg

All descendants of humans within the past ~4,000 years according to that. The rate of evolution required to diversify life from Noah's Ark without having to make room for 400,000 species of beetles (along with every single other life and the food to feed them all) is quite simply impossible and far, far beyond what the ToE claims.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#2GBALoserPosted 9/13/2013 8:47:23 AM
I doubt he's going to come back consider we're all "groupthinkers" and will refuse to take HIS views into consideration.
---
Every once in a while I realize the human race may be worth saving. Of course, then I come back here, but still, those are good moments. -Readyman
#3FlashOfLightPosted 9/13/2013 9:27:14 AM
Well, I suppose every topic creator reserves the right to close their own thread as they see fit, but what was the last point of contention, in summary, that both sides left off on?
---
"Ep-pe, pep-pe, kak-ke! Hil-lo, hol-lo, hel-lo! Ziz-zy, zuz-zy, zik!"
#4JonWood007Posted 9/13/2013 9:51:25 AM
That topic was hilarious. He closed it because he got pwned. Fyi, if he reads this, I called you a newbie not because I have some grudge against new posters, but because I didn't appreciate you calling a long time poster here who is most definitely not a troll, a troll.

This board does not have group think, we're at each others' throats all the time.


The guy didn't post much logic and reason, so there's no logic or reason that we ignored. Moreover, the only link I recall posted was that ecoli one, which was pretty laughable because it only demonstrated microevolution. If you can directly observe the changes in your lifetime, of course you're not going to have much change. Even in 20000 generations of bacteria. Just because you watched bacteria reproduce for like a year doesn't disprove macroevolution, which happens over millions of years. It seems silly and arbitrary that minor mutations are the limits of evolution.

Seriously, I'm open to new evidence that disproves a viewpoint, but it's awfully hard when your viewpoint is more or less proven and consistent with all other relevant scientific evidence we have.

@Thug, ok, fair enough, not all religions promote ignoring anything that doesn't coincide with its worldview. I was mainly thinking of the western religions I am more familiar with in that comment you responded to.
---
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
#5Al-UzzaPosted 9/13/2013 10:35:25 AM
Noah's Ark makes no damn sense no matter what era it supposedly took place in.
#6bfslick50Posted 9/13/2013 11:43:16 AM
YEC forget the purpose of the Bible. The AP physics teacher at my school teaches his students the derivative shortcuts because they need to know them to do the work but doesn't teach the theory behind the derivative. It's not part of his curriculum. In fact he doesn't teach them the derivative shortcuts, but a derivative shortcut, the power rule. The students who come to my calculus class don't even know that there are other shortcut rules. The Bible is not a textbook and it was not written for a scientifically literate society. It was written so that anyone could understand the message. How the physical world works is not part of the Bible's message (curriculum) so one should not expect to get a complete picture of the physical world from reading the bible.
---
"Something's wrong! Murder isn't working and that's all we're good at." ~Futurama
#7ryan0991Posted 9/13/2013 11:49:37 AM
I've been going back and forth with him in private messages. I expect to get looked down upon for posting private messages, but I was going to summarize them anyway. And I'd rather post exactly what he said than misrepresent something.

Response 1:

Considering the amount of insults I took and the sheer ignorance, cutting my loses was only logical. It took me 4 clear-cut posts to get you and the rest to accept what I meant by the connection between abiogenesis and tToE. When people can't absorb material more quickly than my slowest students it stands to reason that I'm wasting my time. Many logical fallacies were used. For example, flood theory was said to be wrong based solely on the fact that a) it doesn't fit the Evolutionary Paradigm; and b) that the Bible is wrong, though no proof was presented. Continued.


Response 2:

As I said twice in the thread, if the worldview is different then the evidence will be different. Within a YEC context and and Evolutionary context, tToE fails. Even without abiogenesis it goes against all Laws of Logic. Yet this was not entertained and I was merely insulted. You see, you and the others speak of logic yet don't even seem to know the Laws of Logic and how they apply to the subject matter at hand. Let alone the Law of Biogenesis and abiogenesis, but I digress. Yet in the face of this simple rebuttal there was no "but the Laws of Logic do support Evolution, here's why..." or anything of the sort. There were more insults and more ignorance. I fail to see how such an "un-exchange" can be helpful. If you and/or the others can demonstrate tToE can work according to the Laws of Logic (let alone Probability, etc) then I'll go a second round with you all.


Response 3:

My burden of proof is irrelevant when Logic is validated. Besides, the elitist attitude of "You have no credentials in science" precludes much actual discussion.

Proof of the Bible revolves mainly around archaeology, history, and geology. When I presented a plausible explanation for geologic structures being the way they are, I was told the Flood never happened. Let's look at that more closely: To validate something that already happened, we need evidence. I barely even got started on presenting that evidence before I was told I was wrong, because the event never happened. This is circular reasoning: I present something to prove; I present compelling evidence/proof; that evidence or proof is wrong because the event in question never happened. Such preclusion makes my task impossible.

I believe as it is said here on the forums "Try harder."


Response 4:

See my last message. And if you don't know the Laws of Logic, then at the risk of sounding crude I say "Obviously." Do some research. And bias? Holding to a view is a bias.

Perhaps I'll right up a log from my journals and such. If you and the others and such could keep from shooting your mouths off you'd be able to read it and see the steps I went through and how it change my worldview. I was adamantly opposed to OEC and YEC. I didn't wake up one day and say "I'm a YEC, let's see what other YEC say and that's good enough support."

But as my sig suggests I function on respect. You and the others obviously have none. If you actually take the time to learn about Logic and how it works, then feel free to message me further. At least you'll have a way to defend yourself. Until then, do not bother me anymore.

---
http://www.xboxlc.com/cards/sig/newblack/BOBtheMASTER.jpg
Could care less = you care at least somewhat. Couldn't care less = you don't care at all.
#8ryan0991Posted 9/13/2013 11:58:08 AM
And my responses. His "response 1" is a reply to my "response 1" and so on.

Response 1:

You definitely didn't "bow out gracefully". You got your last jabs in and then closed the topic. That's not graceful, it's childish. You said you were being insulted and then used that as an excuse to ignore the large majority of the arguments made.

Your sources were addressed. Which is honestly more than they deserved considering how bad they were.

"It doesn't even matter who is right; it matters that nothing productive is taking place here."

This is a cop-out. Plenty of completely legitimate points were brought up. Many of them would have been very tough for you to address properly. So I guess it's not a surprise that you found a way to ignore them. You create a topic with the intention of defending YEC and then use a weak excuse to bail out when the opposition gets tough. The only thing I was convinced of is just how utterly biased YECs are. My respect for YECs is at an all time low after your performance.

Message 2 incoming...


Response 2:

You act intelligent and educated, but cling to an utterly and completely indefensible view. It's hard to even properly emphasize just how totally unsupported YEC is by science and just how absolutely it's contradicted by many fields of science. You do not fully appreciate the insane implications of YEC. I don't have a problem with YECs on their own, I have problem with YECs that have the audacity to claim the science supports them. Even more baffling when a seemingly intelligent and educated person clings to it with such passion. It demonstrates the potential power of religion to make even an intelligent person reject reason, logic, and science. I used to be a YEC, but I saw how little scientific support it had. I genuinely hope that you someday see how unsupported YEC is. The more likely outcome from this though is that your convictions will get stronger. In the face of overwhelming evidence, your demonstrably false beliefs will get stronger.

Bonus points for playing the part of the persecuted Christian.


Response 3:

And you're STILL wrong about abiogenesis and the theory of evolution depending on each other. This was explained to you countless times and you still do not get it. The evidence for evolution is what it is regardless of the origin of life. Even if abiogenesis completely fell apart and was discarded as a legitimate explanation, the ToE would remain as it was.

"For example, flood theory was said to be wrong based solely..."

That's hardly the only reason given. It's one of hundreds of glaring issues with the global flood theory and Noah's story in general. The burden of proof is on you to prove the Bible's version of events is true. And YECs have never even come close to fulfilling that burden on any of their views.

---
http://www.xboxlc.com/cards/sig/newblack/BOBtheMASTER.jpg
Could care less = you care at least somewhat. Couldn't care less = you don't care at all.
#9ryan0991Posted 9/13/2013 11:58:14 AM
Response 4:

"if the worldview is different then the evidenc..."

I think you just admitted that you shape the evidence around your worldview instead of letting the evidence shape your worldview.

"If you and/or the others can demonstrate tToE can work acc..."

What does this even mean? You're throwing out vague phrases like "the laws of logic" and asking us to prove that they don't contradict evolution. That's pretty silly. People who approach evolution from an unbiased perspective have no trouble understanding it. It's always YECs that struggle with it. It's no more controversial a theory than any other firmly established scientific theory. The only reason even a small minority of people are so adamantly opposed to it is because it conflicts with deeply held religious convictions. When your main source of information is apparently "creation.com", then it's no wonder you're so hopelessly biased and misinformed.

---
http://www.xboxlc.com/cards/sig/newblack/BOBtheMASTER.jpg
Could care less = you care at least somewhat. Couldn't care less = you don't care at all.
#10hunter_gohan(Topic Creator)Posted 9/13/2013 12:16:46 PM
GBALoser posted...
I doubt he's going to come back consider we're all "groupthinkers" and will refuse to take HIS views into consideration.


I know. People that close their own thread just so they can get the last word irk me though.

JonWood007 posted...
Just because you watched bacteria reproduce for like a year doesn't disprove macroevolution, which happens over millions of years. It seems silly and arbitrary that minor mutations are the limits of evolution.


Well if you take micro/macro evolution as they're actually defined, then we've observed all kinds of macroevolution. Micro is within species; macro is getting new species. The problem is creationists instead like to define them as: Micro is evolution we can no longer blindly deny; Macro is evolution we can still blindly deny.

At that point it's a lock. Species is really the only classification that has real meaning. Everything above that is just larger and larger groups of related species. Creationists just sit there desperately hoping there's something to stop 1+1+1+1+1... from eventually reaching a double or triple digit number.

ryan0991 posted...
And you're STILL wrong about abiogenesis and the theory of evolution depending on each other. This was explained to you countless times and you still do not get it. The evidence for evolution is what it is regardless of the origin of life. Even if abiogenesis completely fell apart and was discarded as a legitimate explanation, the ToE would remain as it was.


Honestly at this point, it seems he's moving past being ignorant and is instead just being intentionally dishonest.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.