Evolution, Entropy, the Big Bang, and the Second Law

[CommandoDude]

tl;dr but I'm sure it was highly intelligent and packed with so much information I couldn't possibly add anything more.

Gj.

[VoijaRisa]

(Posting in several parts because apparently Gaia doesn't like big posts right now)

Dodge Beast

You and I both marvel at the complexity of something, but we come to separate conclusions.

Yet to come to your "conclusion" you must ignore evidence and trust blatant liars. That's not a very respectable conclusion.

Dodge Beast

There is just as much out there that science (well, that which you deem as your version of it, anyway) in terms of Darwinism cannot offer an explanation

You mean like gravity? Oh wait. Darwinian evolution isn't supposed to explain gravity. Yet Creationists seem to think it does.... And I'm supposed to treat them with respect?

Dodge Beast

what does your hostility towards a believer lead them to interpret?

If they had the least bit of intellectual honesty, that perhaps, their ideas are wrong and they should actually objectively analyze them with a basic understanding of the scientific method and statistical analysis. If someone criticized my ideas, I'd go back and review them. Creationists don't do this.

Dodge Beast

all these "loonies" are simply destined to die out in the face of advancement, yeah?

Sadly, they seem to be quite well adapted to their environment.

Dodge Beast

Interestingly, someone else already came up with that theory and applied it to that end. After all, while I will admit that religion, taken to the extremes it has been in the past, has caused incredible loss...its counterpart is no more innocent.

If you're trying to blame evolution of genocides, then you fail (just as those that have tried to use it to justify such ambitions) to understand what evolution truly says and how it works.

Incidentally, the incidences Creationists constantly trump up as examples are anything but. They were all fed by other desires.

Dodge Beast

I'm sure [Hovind's] standards are no less reasonable than yours.

They're far less reasonable. They define no objective criteria on which to judge. They require "proof" of which there is none in science. I merely ask for evidence without logical fallacies and appropriately utilize the scientific method.

Dodge Beast

Haekel’s embryos, the evolution of the horse, the original thought that the appendix is vestigial

*Yawn*

And how was it discovered that any of those were wrong (some never were although Creationists continue to lie and pretend the latter two are)? Oh that's right. Collection of evidence. Not magical dogma.

Dodge Beast

Even the speed of light is in question, as light has been slowed, stopped, and even sped up.

Nope again. The speed of light is still held to be constant under all the same conditions. It's only when you change the media in which it travels that the speed changes. But this has been known for a very long time.

[VoijaRisa]

Dodge Beast

Evolution does make the claim that it “understands” where matter and energy originate

Dishonest conflation of evolution with the Big Bang.

Dodge Beast

it does imply that matter spontaneously came into existence

Again, that's the Big Bang and you're getting that wrong as well. Check out the link in my profile of the Astronomy Mega Thread and check the index for Misconceptions About the Big Bang. You seem to have several of them.

Dodge Beast

the planets were formed from a sudden....

The Big Bang and planetary formation are causally disconnected.

Dodge Beast

...mysterious expansion of energy (where none of these existed initially)

It was never said that "none of these existed initially". Yet another Creationist strawman.

Again, why do you feel you deserve to be treated with respect when you can't even bother yourself to actually understand what the person you're attacking says? Instead, you're using pathetic standards for your sources that have no bearing on what evolution actually states. If you want respect, earn it. That means a bit of basic education though.

Dodge Beast

They try to shoot the messenger because they don’t like the message.

Another Creationist myth: We reject Creationism because we don't want to believe in God. In reality, it's often the other way around: We reject God because we accept that science has made God superfluous. And even then, many that accept evolution do not reject God. (See: Ken Miller, Clergy Letter Project, official support from Catholic Church, etc....).

Thus, this "not liking the message" is complete bullshit that should be rejected on very basic examination of the evidence. Oh wait... I forgot. I'm talking to a Creationist.

Dodge Beast

Creation Science is based on much of the same principles

Bullshit. The principal foundation upon which Creationism is based is rejection of the scientific method and substitution of the logical fallacy of arguments from ignorance. You can't get much more disparate than that.

Dodge Beast

they feel that accepting the presence of a God would inhibit that which they view as their ‘right’ to live an amoral lifestyle.

Again, this is complete self-righteous nonsense.

Dodge Beast

I don’t necessarily imply this of you or anyone else here, personally…just so you understand.

Then why bring it up? Red herring much?

Dodge Beast

I can agree that animals can show change over time (variation within a kind of creature), but that change doesn’t make a lizard turn into a bird, a bird change into a dog, or a frog change into a prince.

Yet the fossil record demonstrates just such changes. Speciation has been directly observed in labs. The amount of genetic change lines up perfectly with predictions....

And while we're at it, please define "kinds". It's a word Creationists love to toss around, but until it actually has a strict definition in which they can no longer move the goalposts, it's more hot air.

[VoijaRisa]

Dodge Beast

you can claim that the Bible account of Creation is subject to human flaw and that Faith is “magical thinking”, the same can equally be claimed in regard to evolution.

Sorry. You can't make that claim without lying. The Bible has no objective evidence for the supernatural accounts. Even many of the non-supernatural events are contradicted by evidence and the stories themselves are contradictory.

The same cannot be said for evolution.

Dodge Beast

We spend billions to “educate” kids to believe the planet is (How old is it this decade?) 4.6 billion years old

Ever since accurate dating techniques became available, the number has not changed greatly. It used to be 3-5 billion years, and has been narrowed down as techniques were improved. Reduction of error via statistics. But again, what would a Creationist know about that?

Dodge Beast

using a geologic column that exists only in textbooks

In much the same way that evidence in a courtroom exists nowhere other than there. It's all collected from various sources and put together in a comprehensive picture in the courtroom. But to reject that because you can't go to one source and get it all at once is utter folly. But what should I expect from someone that thinks life comes with a divinely inspired instruction manual?

Dodge Beast

God and love versus death and dirt that came from nowhere.

What a lame form of Pascal's wager.

Dodge Beast

Evolution still hasn’t explained how life developed from non-life

Nor does it have to. Abiogenesis however, has explained many of the steps along the way which is infinitely more than Creationism has ever done.

Dodge Beast

I never implied that I haven’t done any reading

Yet you've made it obvious that your reading leaves much to be desired. You can't even correctly define evolution, have no idea how the scientific method functions, don't know any statistical analysis.....

Dodge Beast

Additionally, what is considered “proper research”?

Rejecting claims that rely on logical fallacies, are unsupported by honest evidence, actually knowing what your opponent says without adopting strawmen, using basic logic....

You've done none of these.

Dodge Beast

How about symbiosis? How about the little whiptail lizards? How did a woodpecker get its unusual skull and tongue design? What of monotremes?

All of those are addressed at talkorigins.

Dodge Beast

I believe in science just like you do

Yet you reject the entire foundation of the scientific method. I call bullshit.

[VoijaRisa]

Dodge Beast

your ilk refer to my belief as “BS” and dismiss it as though it is somehow equivalent to “divining with bones” or some other savagery.

Yes. I also refer to anti-vaxers beliefs as BS. I refer to moon conspiracy theorists beliefs as BS. Anything that's not supported by the evidence (or worse as is the case with Creationism, contradicted by the evidence) should rightly be called BS. Just like divining with bones and other savagery.

Dodge Beast

Then how exactly does evolution glorify God?

I don't think it does. But many theists think otherwise. Ken Miller being a prime example. He wrote an entire book on the subject. I suggest you read it. It's called Finding Darwin's God. Basically, the God of Creationism is a deceitful cheap parlor magician. The only God he can conceive of that's worthy of any respect is one that can set up a system as complex and elegant as evolution.

Dodge Beast

Evolution assumes much on the part of blind chance, and is cited to eliminate the need of a creator. If there is no need for a creator, there was no need for God. All the wonderful diversity in the world is an accident, rather than something genuinely worthy of our respect and amazement that was created by a Divine Hand. God becomes vestigial…an indifferent, nodding presence…benign rather than benevolent.

You know, I agree. Which is why I gave up on my faith. But now you reveal that you've done exactly what you accused me of earlier: Rejecting something because I don't like the implications. Now you reveal that you're simply rejecting evolution because of the perceived theological implications. I wish I could say I'm surprised.

Dodge Beast

wouldn’t asexual reproduction be much more effective?

No. It stifles genetic diversity.

Dodge Beast

Well, the holocaust comes to mind, for one…Stalin will work, too, as would Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot…all for the reason that they thought they were the ones who should rule because their race was the best and thus deserved to lead or perpetuate.

Sorry. This didn't meet the request. Not a single one committed those atrocities in the name of "no-God" or even in "evolution". Some tried to rationalize it via evolution but just like Creationists, this was only a pathetic strawman of how evolution actually works. You can't blame evolution for some idiots misinterpreting it any more than you can blame spoons for making people fat.

Dodge Beast

he pretended he was a devout Catholic to the Public Eye, but he rigidly hated religion.

Uh. No. He was a pretty big fan of religion, and religion of him. Which is why the Church endorsed him for a long time.

Dodge Beast

Interestingly, what do you suppose the fate of all those deemed “unfit” is?

Simple: To die with a statistically decreased chance of having reproduced. Ta da!

Dodge Beast

“Survival of the fittest” is a tautology.

It's also not an accurate reflection of what evolution actually says due to the frequent misinterpretation of "fittest". Much the same way the "Big Bang" doesn't really describe the event for which the name is given.

[VoijaRisa]

Dodge Beast

the philosophy of the classroom in one generation will be the philosophy of Government in the next

Which is why governments did wonders for the people before Darwin's time....

Dodge Beast

there is no need to believe in such ridiculous things as a Creator.

Evolution carries no such implicit statement.

Dodge Beast

it doesn’t teach anyone much more than they are an accident and thus expendable

Yep. We're expendable. Which is why you see so many atheists flying planes into buildings. Oh... wait....

Dodge Beast

Kent Hovind has said himself that he doesn’t want to take evolution out of the schools, and he feels that anyone who tries to have it (evolution) removed, or tries to put “Creationism” in is wasting their time. He has said, however, that he’d like to see anything that is a deliberate lie removed from the textbooks.

Well no s**t. He knows that to do so would be a losing strategy. Creationists got their asses handed to them in 1987 in EvA. Then again a few years ago in Dover. That's why the newest strategy has been to push for the false criticisms of evolution with flaws that don't really exist.

Incidentally, if they don't want it in schools, why do most Creationists organizations have teacher packets, lesson plans, textbooks, etc...

Dodge Beast

no one has been able to prove evolution well enough to get the money from Kent Hovind, either.

Obviously. It's rigged because he can always move the goalposts. A sleazy Creationist trick that I've noted in other threads.

Dodge Beast

[Hovind] has in fact, welcomed correction

Really? Then why do the slides I have of his make errors that should have been corrected by an elementary science course? Why do they contain questions that were answered well over 50 years ago?

Doesn't sound like he's interested in actually making those corrections. Rather, he just "offers" to correct his inaccuracies to sound legit, but then dances around the issues of corrections by equivocating, asking for "proofs", moving the goalposts, etc....

Again, not intellectually honest in any fashion.

Dodge Beast

he worked just as hard for his education as you did for yours.

Review of his "dissertation" for his supposed "PhD" says otherwise. It wouldn't have even passed muster for a freshman undergraduate course.

Dodge Beast

Is he somehow less honest, because his message doesn’t harmonize with Darwin’s theory?

No. He's less honest because he's been caught in blatant lies. There's a website that lists over 300 of them!

Dodge Beast

Considering there has been plenty of falsification engineered to support the theory of evolution

I can only think of a handful and they weren't so much to prop up evolution (in fact, most really didn't fit into the evolutionary framework which was in large part what made them stand out like sore thumbs and be revealed as frauds) as personal get-rich-quick schemes. As such, those don't really help your point.

[VoijaRisa]

Dodge Beast

don’t discredit others for believing differently.

I never have. I discredit them for lack of evidence and abuse of logical fallacies.

Dodge Beast

My point in responding was to simply present that which is my view

In which case, you're off topic and spamming.

Dodge Beast

and perhaps clarify on the remark your friend claimed that Kent Hovind made, which is completely false.

No. It was entirely accurate.

Dodge Beast

folks who consider themselves to be classed as “freethinkers” and “open-minded” are most often anything but.

There's a difference between having an open mind and one that gets soggy when it rains.

Dodge Beast

I do believe you have the right to feel and believe as you do.

I do too. The difference is that I don't feel your belief is somehow inherently worthy of respect. Especially when, after six years of study, I've yet to find anything honest or correct about it in any fashion.

Dodge Beast

The same tired links to the same sites (provided by the omnipresent nasal, banal atheists so littered about Gaia) that I have read portions of, but it still hasn’t changed how I feel my belief is grounded.

Obviously. But you've also demonstrated that you don't even have a basic understanding of the fundamentals of science. No wonder you didn't actually absorb anything. It all went over your head.

Dodge Beast

I can point you to the Creationist alternative to that site, here

You realize that everything on that site is already addressed on talkorigins?

Dodge Beast

I have an issue with the broad application of evolution

I do too. Especially when they have nothing to do with what evolution actually says or is like everything you've described. But I'm intellectually honest enough to realize this isn't an indictment of evolution any more than the misuse of spoons in over eating and making people fat is an indictment of spoons.

Dodge Beast

I never refuted that this type of evolution on no account happens (microevolution).

Yet I've yet to actually see a useful definition of the so called "microevolution". Until then, what you're saying is just more hot air.

Dodge Beast

I am not the one who insists “evolution means we came from monkeys”. Just so you know I am familiar, and have stated no less, despite the fact that you continuously allege otherwise.

Your statements ring hollow when you lump evolution in with the Big Bang, planetary formation, abiogenesis, and make several mischaracterizations.

[VoijaRisa]

Dodge Beast

if evolution isn’t about the origin of life, perhaps you should look at the title to Charlie’s book: “Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or, Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

Yeah. Good idea. But you got the emphasis wrong. Let me fix it.

Charles Darwin

Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or, Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

It's the origin of species. Not the origin of life.

Dodge Beast

posts aren’t sequestered specifically for the likes of you and yours.

But they are regulated by the topic of the thread. Your posts aren't terribly on topic.

Dodge Beast

I am not here to challenge your worldview, but to state TO YOUR FRIEND that his dishonest misquote in regard to what Mr. Hovind said is in direct conflict with the very rules he expects everyone else to adhere to.

And it's not a misquote. It's very direct. Hovind is asserting that without God, there is no meaning, there is no purpose, there are no morals, and there would be no reason for him not to murder his children on a whim. He's using the argument from (perceived) consequence.

Dodge Beast

I can see why public school takes so long; it appears that it takes more than a decade to get information to stick with some, apparently.

You're right. Especially when they've been trained from birth to disregard science and engage in magical thinking.

Dodge Beast

What is the purpose of creating whole threads dedicated to trashing why others believe as they do

Because they're blatantly wrong, self contradictory, and ignorant. I'm not a fan of ignorance and as such, I do my best to dispel it. You seem to be of the mind that willful ignorance is a blessing however.

Dodge Beast

If you are convinced, get out of your comfort zone and challenge someone equally studied/educated to you.

I've tried to. Sadly, any that are as well studied and still cling to ID/Creationism are all blatant liars which I have repeatedly called them out on.

Dodge Beast

What makes you think that those who study science and connect it with Creation have invested any less time?

Time is not a good measure of the worthiness of an idea. Rather, actual evidence is a true test. Creationism lacks this.

Dodge Beast

Furthermore, attacking someone’s character instead of addressing him or her personally on what you may disagree with in his or her view of things doesn’t grant you a correct by default condition.

Which is why we've been going in detail on your statements, providing links etc... But since that's not the purpose of you being here, you just ignore them.

[Jaaten Syric]

Dodge Beast

You can believe it to be a lie because it doesn’t agree with your view. I really do not care. Stop assuming your opinion matters to me.

Can I believe it to be a lie based on the fact that it is directly contradicted by all known evidence? Because were I in your position I'd certainly care about that.

Quote:

I don’t provide anything because I am not here to debate evolutionism. For the umpteenth time. And you’ll hear it again and again throughout this writ, as well.-

That being the case, your trolling needs work.

Quote:

Do you see a trend emerging, with your scientific mind?

Seen it for a while actually, just most people aren't stupid enough to flatly admit they've resorted to spamming when the chips are down.

Quote:

The same tired links to the same sites (provided by the omnipresent nasal, banal atheists so littered about Gaia) that I have read portions of, but it still hasn’t changed how I feel my belief is grounded.

Oh? Because I believe I linked to TO once or twice, and as vipr said, the vast majority of his sources were actual peer-reviewed papers.

Quote:

After all, I can point you to the Creationist alternative to that site, here , but then I’ll just hear how all the dedicated folks who have invested their time are “liars” by your standards.

Only because they are, demonstratively lying about the second law of thermodynamics and its effect on evolution. Vipr's provided a very good in-depth explanation of why their terminology is wrong (read: A well established and obvious lie), so I'll take a different path; Showing how it fails eeven if we assume that their definition is more or less accurate (which it isn't).

Now under the definition of entropy as 'disorder', even creationist hacks, at least the less dishonest among them, will admit that so long as the total measure of 'disorder' in a system increases, it's fine if small pockets of increased 'order' arise (see: Crystal formation. The even less dishonest will even admit that this law only applies in a closed system (which the earth is not), but I'll leave the sun for another time. The argument presented fails for one very, very good reason; evolution is a great way to maximize entropy in a system. Seriously, what is more ordered: A planet with five or ten varieties of extremely primitive prokaryotes distributes across the oceans on the whim of the tides.

or

A planet with millions of different organisms running the gamut from those simple prokaryotes to us? Seems a good deal less 'ordered' to me...

Quote:

I am aware of the secular standard for hypocrisy.

Apparently not...

Quote:

It works well for you.

No, I'm afraid it doesn't. SZee, we actually know what the hell we're talking about, and don't have to lie to get people to believe it. wink

Quote:

Lest I forget, those aren’t the only reasons I have an issue with the broad application of evolution; they were just a couple I came up with off the top of my head.

Broad application of evolution? How does one apply a rather well established biological phenomena to societal fields?

Quote:

After all, according to a singular, long-winded bellyache about how I’m such a bad guy because my belief (and apparent “refusal to accept”) all the hard and longsuffering work of these poor schmoes who tirelessly invest hours, days, months, years of their lives researching and poring over data to provide us ungrateful masses with their hard won efforts is met with a slap in the face by “perfect poster-boys” like meself.

No, it's about the fact that you refuse to see the evidence provided by these brilliant men based not on reason or fact but dogmatic superstition and a threat to your world view. The fact that real scientists do invest quite a bit of time and effort into educating and helping the unwashed masses is not particularly relevant to this point, merely that the evidence their experiments produce actually exists, unlike creation 'scientist's' claims.

Quote:

(Never mind the fact that some of these “poor schmoes” live a life many long for, because there’s always room for a few “extras” in all those grants they’re getting, in addition to awards and bonuses…and a salary.

The biggest bonus for a research scientist I've ever seen was about ten thousand dollars (and that was a fairly shady deal). And the annual salary of your average researcher is Between forty and sixty thousand per year. That isn't exactly going to put you in the poor-house, but it is not a huge sum of money, especially considering the hours involved. Hell, at the moment, I'm a lowly photo-tech and I make about half that.

Quote:

But if a minister (of any congregation) or if Ken Ham or Kent Hovind were to have a really nice car, or fancy home, well…they must be fleecing the flock!

To quote Hovind at his sentencing:

Kent Hovind

"If it's just money the IRS wants, there are thousands of people out there who will help pay the money they want so I can go back out there and preach."

It seems Kent has no problem trying to reach out to his flock so that they can pay for his crimes. And no, one or two houses doesn't raise many eyebrows especially if the ministry is comparatively wealthy. But ten? Including a theme park? I'm a bit skeptical, especially in light of the fact that he did try to bleed his flock dry after the zoning battle for it.

Quote:

Members of our government haven’t paid taxes in YEARS, but mysteriously, they aren’t in jail…but let Mr. Hovind try to claim his ministry as a Church that isn’t 501 {c} 3 and he’s gonna smoke a corn-cob in jail for it. )

I'm not aware of any government representatives who so consistently flaunted the law, or owe over a half million in back taxes. Or who are willing to spend over $40,000 in legal fees because they're two cheap to buy a fifty dollar building permit.

Quote:

You assume a great deal about how I feel in regard to data that is available to me. But that’s fine; so far, you all have went to some lengths to prove to me how “open minded” you are and how “stubborn” I’m being, so you can go on believing what you think you might know about me. It’s a mutual thing, just so you know.

Clearly not. Being open minded means being able to listen to new evidence and judge it based on its merits, not that every idea is accepted instantly. And it's difficult for the same standard to apply. I mean, we can't be 'stubborn' if you consistently refuse to provide evidence for your claims debate, right? wink

Quote:

After all, how can one defend oneself, when their opponent refuses to accept the credibility of their sources?

By providing sources that have some credibility, maybe?

Quote:

It’s win-win, as the odds are heavily stacked in your favour, so it’s easy for the usual pedantic, eye-rolling pomposity and snide diatribe offered in forums like these.

Odd how real facts that aren't contradicted by everything we've ever observed do this. You may want to look into getting some, the rush is simply amazing.

Quote:

It is this attitude that normally leaves me shaking my head and chuckling over how some can point at others, unaware that three of the five digits on their hand are turned back to themselves.

The irony in that statement is among the more comical examples to appear on my PC in a good while, I must say.

Quote:

Evolution is the cumulative genetic changes in a population from generation to generation. I never refuted that this type of evolution on no account happens (microevolution). I am not the one who insists “evolution means we came from monkeys”. Just so you know I am familiar, and have stated no less, despite the fact that you continuously allege otherwise.

I'm curious to know how that does not fit under the established definition of 'macroevolution', and what the actual difference between the two, other than timescale, is personally. Too bad no creationist has ever had the integrity to tell me...

Quote:

Then if it wasn’t an accident that means there was a guiding purpose.

Uhm...no? I'd like to know how gravity attracting masses is indicative of a 'purpose' as its actions are clearly not random myself.

Quote:

Purpose denotes intelligence, and intelligence implies a Creator. This is what I believe to be true.

An argument from incredulity? Wonderful.

[pquote]Aside from that, if evolution isn’t about the origin of life, perhaps you should look at the title to Charlie’s book: “Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or, Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

Let me help you there:

Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection

Darwin is speaking about the origi9n of differing species, not the origin of life itself, and should be plainly obvious to anyone with a second0grade level or reading comprehension.

Quote:

If it was not an ordered, intended and guided purpose, it was an incident by pure circumstance; a fluke, an accident.

Or perhaps it was 'guided' as we said it was; Based off which traits are beneficial to an organism depending on the environment in which it lives. That's rather non-random, non-accidental, and pretty well devoid of 'purpose' when last I checked, but something tells me that four rebuttals won't stop you from claiming such.

Quote:

I never made this claim. I never made ANY claim, as to “how” I could disprove any possibility of evolution. I simply stated that I believe in Creation.

Wait for it...

You

You have the facts you believe in, and I have mine

...Oops.

Quote:

I invite you to do the same, then. You see, the same thing that you and your contemporaries are complaining to me—“Why are you here?” and “Why bother posting here?” is just as well applied in my favour; I wasn’t even talking to any of you, but you surely had to leap at the chance to challenge what motivates my belief.

Unfortunately for this point, you stated them. Openly and often in point of fact...

Quote:

How can I be lying about my belief…or lie on what the troupe of you are inclined to accept? (That’s called a “rhetorical question”, by the way.)

Its fairly easy; It's called shifting the goal posts.

Quote:

Hmmm…maybe, because I didn’t say I would, personally?

The claiming to have 'facts' which support you would seem to be a poor idea.

Quote:

You think that might be it? I mean, how many times have I said that I’m not here to debate you on evolution? It might surprise you, that I don’t argue the repair of my vehicle with my mechanic, either, even if I have helped rebuild a trans or two and an engine.

You might want to if you see a a charge for parts that have nothing to do with the problem. In fact, I know I'd argue pretty vehemently with my mechanic if I went in to get a new alternator and found out he replaced the manifold and transmission. I know, I'm odd like that.

Quote:

I can say my reasons are valid TO ME, just like you could say you’re a particularly wonderful person because of reasons that matter TO YOU. I can choose to either agree or disagree. The difference is the fact that I can choose to disagree with you without turning it into an ugly affair.

What a ridiculous cop-out. If you claim to have 'facts' their validity should be obvious and well supported by reams of research, if you have none, I'd suggest shutting up and not claiming them as such.

Quote:

Other than that, I wasn’t here to “claim validity” to anything, other than the fact that your buddy directly misquoted Mr. Hovind.

Unfortunately, he didn't. wink

Quote:

Regarding TalkOrigins, everyone posts from that same site, so it’s really nothing new. And being open-minded has nothing to do with swallowing the dogma of another. (Argumentum ad populum: “Most scientists believe in X, therefore X must be true.”)

Odd how that fallacy doesn't work that way, isn't it? They aren't 'right' by virtue of them being the most numerous, they're 'right' because their evidence is infinitely better than their opposition's. You'd be on stronger ground to claim it as an appeal to authority...but then they actually have that authority.

Quote:

Incidentally, having an open mind has much more to do with simply accepting everything everyone does as being okay or that others believe differently; it has a lot more to do with the fact that even if they don’t believe as you do, they are no less deserving of common courtesy and the value associated with it.

Since...when? Being open minded simply means that one is willing to accept new ideas if they have sufficient evidence, it does not mean that ridiculous positions are worthy or respect any more than the idiots that make them.

Quote:

I have demonstrated a degree of urbanity, whereas it has not been returned (and really, I am not at all surprised). This isn’t contradiction if this is truly a “debate”-inclined forum, it is just part of the civility of debate.

Civility is not granted by virtue of being here, it is granted when one shows their ideas are worthy of respect and consideration. You've not done this. And, hell, I'm the only one whose really been an a**, Setar and vipr (and now Voija) have shown you infinately more patience that I felt you'd deserved.

Quote:

Even as a Christian, I don’t “fault” someone being gay, or if they choose to worship another god or even Satan…I don’t agree with their inclination, but I can still respect the rights of the person who makes that selection.

You mean...like we have? No one's challenging your right to believe anything you wish, as has been stated, just your dfecision to declare your beliefs to be factually supported when they are not.

Quote:

but if someone is going to expect others to play by a construct of rules, then that person should demonstrate the standard he expects others (even who it is apparent he seems to view as lesser) to abide.

And...we have. The fact that you see civility as more important than evidence is not my concern.

Quote:

Last I checked, posts aren’t sequestered specifically for the likes of you and yours.

No, but they must abide by forum rules. One of those being 'ED is not a place to drop opinions without support' If you don't like it, take it up with the mods.

Quote:

This is my first post here, as I have been reading many of the subjects here for a while now. If you don’t want to hear my “tripe”, then perhaps it is you who need not respond to me?

The world have never made any progress by standing by and letting idiots rail about subjects they do not comprehend. In fact...it tends to end badly.

Quote:

I wouldn’t say that’s your ‘biggest’ problem. Absorbing the glaringly simple fact that you’re trying to somehow convince me that I came in here with the intent to challenge your belief in evolution seems to be second in line to it, though.

Except that isn't what any of us claimed. We do however expect you to provide evidence of supposed 'facts' that you use to ground your beliefs. You've consistently avoided providing them.

Quote:

I can see why public school takes so long; it appears that it takes more than a decade to get information to stick with some, apparently.

Funny how evidence can do that as opposed to simply believing anything an authority figure says, no matter how vague or in conflict with reality.

Quote:

As if I owe you an explanation.

You do. It's part of the burden of claiming you have 'facts' to provide them for scrutiny.

Quote:

That’s the funny thing in all this. You claim I am missing a point, but I’m not having any trouble seeing what is going on; you’re trying to get me to quarrel with you on evolution, knowing that I had already admitted it’s likely I don’t have the study invested in it that you have, so I’m an easy target for a game of proverbial “fist”.

That being the case, I'd avoid statements of fact unless you want them challenged.

Quote:

By calling what I choose to believe a lie, and by making posts trying to “shatter” the beliefs [much of what one’s worldview is based on] of another person (which you obviously cannot, and it does appear to frustrate you), what then, is you ambition other than to change another person’s belief? What is the purpose of creating whole threads dedicated to trashing why others believe as they do, if not for the purpose of making oneself feel superior by picking apart the education of another?

To continue to advance our knowledge and ensure that another dark age never occurs. As we've said; Believe whatebver the ******** you want, but the second youi claim it as fact you lose any immunity we may have given you.

Quote:

If you are convinced, get out of your comfort zone and challenge someone equally studied/educated to you. (Another trend…?)

Find a creationist with my level of education and I will do so gladly. Unfortunately, if they had any knowledge of biology 9n particular) they wouldn't be creationists anymore.

Quote:

Last time I checked, I don’t believe it was against the law to use those words together, was it?

The 'laws' of debate, as it were, yes. If you claim something as fact (or factually supported) it should come as no surprise that people who you've admitted know more on the subject should wish to see that evidence presented.

Quote:

Are you the thought police?

Depends. Is claiming things with no basis in reality to be 'fact' and then refusing any and all requests to provide evidence of it still doubleplusungood?

Quote:

What makes you think that those who study science and connect it with Creation have invested any less time?

Who gives a ******** about time? It's their experiments and the evidence they gain from them that we're interested in. Unfortunately, creation 'scientists' invest in neither.

Quote:

You can cry how people you don’t like have “stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something because they could, but didn’t bother to wonder whether or not they should” to achieve a view you don’t like, it doesn’t change the fact that they have invested time and effort into their pursuits.

As did L. Ron, that doesn't mean that his followers get respect simply for effort. Effort is meaningless here, only results matter, and creationism has none.

Quote:

Add to that, I’m willing to bet, that they’ve dedicated more to it in years than you’ve been able to go potty all by yourself.

And yet there's a startling lack of actual peer-reviewed papers coming from them. Even when offered money and a guaranteed publishing venue by a 'friendly' agency.

Quote:

Then I suppose the inverse could hold true in terms of that which you feel is lacking in Creation Science

Nope. Evolution stands on its own merits. It would whether or not creationism's every claim was contradicted by observed reality based solely on the predictions drawn from the theory and our observations. I'm afraid it doesn't work in reverse here, much to your chagrin.

Quote:

Got tired of saying “red herring”, did we? Was "strawman" too obvious?

And less fun.

Quote:

What’s funny is how you toss out all these terms from a book on “logic” to make yourself feel all superior, and commit innumerable instances of ad hominem yourself.

I('ve seen none on his part. We're not saying you're wrong by virtue of the fact that you're an idiot, just that you happen to be an idiot whose 'beliefs' happen to be contradicted by everything we observe. Slight difference, though given your earlier misuse of the appeal to numbers fallacy, the fact that you managed to ******** this up too doesn't really surprise me.

Quote:

I know I lol’d, to coin the vernacular.

Malapropisms are fun, aren't they kids?

Quote:

Well, since the post was directed to someone who was not you, perhaps you should have considered looking into it, before your decided to join the rest of the puppies barking at me from the porch (I believe this is what I have been accused of, yeah?).

Oddly, I have. I'm simply unwilling to wade through a few thousand slides to find a particular quote when others that show his position more visable.

Quote:

If you all seem so keen on a real debate, why don’t you seek it outside the comfort zone of a place like Gaia (where the greater majority think in agreement with you, and the likelihood of real challenges are less prevalent)?

What makes you think I do not? I live the state where Ken Ham built his god-awful monstrosity, and deal with this crap on an almost daily basis. The fact that I also take pleasure in eviscerating morons online is not an indication that I am not fully willing and able to do so in the real world.


Though I must say, for going on a pages long tirade about how we're assuming quite a bit and making inferences which simply aren't there, this is rich.

Quote:

After all, isn’t it the unanimous claim here, that I’m ignoring the plethora of links provided by others, and this somehow makes me a hypocrite?

When you claim to have 'facts' and steadfastly refuse to provide evidence of them, yes.

Quote:

I have looked through the links…however, I didn’t come here to debate what all of you accept as true, but to point out an error made by your friend, who claims he disdains intellectual dishonesty, then commits it. Double standards aren’t any fairer for your lot than they would be for mine.

A pity that the evidence suggests he didn't, isn't it? wink

Quote:

Incidentally, I think you have the wrong name; I am not defending David Koresh. Mr. Hovind doesn’t stand accused as a militant, or a child molester or murderer.

WA quote mine from a creationist? I'm shocked. I'm not making any statements about Koresh you blithering moron, I'm saying that Hovind coming to his defense and lying abiut the government's reasoning for involving themselves in the Branch Davidian's affairs is indicative of his character.

Quote:

Furthermore, attacking someone’s character instead of addressing him or her personally on what you may disagree with in his or her view of things doesn’t grant you a correct by default condition.

Nor did I claim such, but it is rather useful in establishing a pattern of behavior.

[Lord Setar]

Dodge Beast

The same tired links to the same sites (provided by the omnipresent nasal, banal atheists so littered about Gaia) that I have read portions of, but it still hasn’t changed how I feel my belief is grounded.

Is that an implied claim I see here?

[Friendly Merchant]

I'm confused. Is this an attack on a specific group of people for their beliefs?

[Katherine1]

Lord Setar

Quote:

Lest I forget, those aren’t the only reasons I have an issue with the broad application of evolution; they were just a couple I came up with off the top of my head.

Broad application of evolution? How does one apply a rather well established biological phenomena to societal fields?

The only application of Evolution that I know of outside of Biology is Evolutionary Programming in Computer Science. It's used mostly in AI programming. That works very well, too. Don't know any other "broad" applications of Evolution, though.

[Redem]

Pasty Angsty Teenager

I'm confused. Is this an attack on a specific group of people for their beliefs?

It's a response to a specific group of people who make false (some unknowingly and some in full knowledge that they're liars) claims about a part of science, and try to use it to undermine the theory of evolution.

[Friendly Merchant]

Redem

Pasty Angsty Teenager

I'm confused. Is this an attack on a specific group of people for their beliefs?

It's a response to a specific group of people who make false (some unknowingly and some in full knowledge that they're liars) claims about a part of science, and try to use it to undermine the theory of evolution.

Is this really the place for that? I imagine one could get banned for singling out a specific group and making claims against their claims; it's a form of extreme intolerance especially in the way he posed this with such phrases as "Ignorant Creationist". I see no one saying Satanism is a crock. Perhaps I should get on this?

[alittlebitsometimes]

Evolution is not something for you to decide if you believe in or not, like true love. It's an established theory that has stood up to nearly 150 years of experiments and observations. The overwhelming evidence, too, backs it up. Be it the distribution of species, the genetic sequences of every animal and, of course, the fossil record. The stigma attached with evolution is just astounding; though, strangely, not completely illogical when you consider particular bronze age myths that have a way to feed on people's minds and evidently the part of their brain which deals with critical thought. Religion has a lot to answer for.

Disbelieving evolution is tantamount to not believing in gravity.