Continuing Challenge to Creationists

a reply to: Astyanax

There is indeed ample evidence that it is not strictly infallible. But it is the base assumption when dealing with something familiar: it will behave as we have previously observed. In contrast, doing something repeatedly and expecting a different result...that's just insanity.

But we are wandering off topic here. Inductive reasoning has proven undeniably effective, and while not perfect, is still one of our oldest allies in terms of innovation and research.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Nah, it's where I say evolutionists are terrified of abiogenesis because it's a scientific and biological house of cards, not a great foundation for what comes next.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: TzarChasm

Nah, it's where I say evolutionists are terrified of abiogenesis because it's a scientific and biological house of cards, not a great foundation for what comes next.

Enough of the strawmen. This thread is not supposed to be a showcase for your ignorance.

a reply to: GetHyped

Enough of the strawmen. This thread is not supposed to be a showcase for your ignorance.

This statement shows why many disengage in the discussion, and why you won't get any takers on the debate.
Don't like the way the discussion goes, just label it ignorant and "strawman" to shut posters down.
The cycle continues, every thread is the same.

I think the issue with both sides of the coin is the idea that the human mind is actually capable of truly figuring out "the universe."

There is an innate advantage to the process of the scientific method, however, it relies on the concept that human logic and reason can transcend the human perspective. While it can recognize and utilize observable patterns, it makes the initial assumption that the human experience is applicable to the Truth. This faith is also the foundation behind belief in God(s), though the former allows for the individual to change an incorrect view if properly practiced.

The issue is that, much like religion, the modern general view on science eschews personal participation in favor of easy answers based on appeals to authority, I.e. "Google Research."

The vast majority of those involved in the "conversation" do little more than perpetuate whatever consensus reality that confirms bias. In other words, there is little interest in actual exploration.

If we already know everything, then there is no use for science and it turns into faith based behavior the very same as in the religions that are decried. Attempts at proselytizing and conversion predictably follow, and over time, a religion is born.

As a scientist who believes in God, I see no conflict other than what I might make myself. It has no impact or relevance to my science, as it explicitly does not change what is being explored, or how it is explored.

The conflict between a Creator and Evolution is not one born of the search for truth, but zealotry.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

to be fair, you could be a little more specific about your theory concerning abiogenesis. Or do you not actually have one?

Mind you, I'm talking about actual theory. Not a coddled hypothesis.

a reply to: Serdgiam

Your theology takes advantage of research and evidence accrued by legitimate scientific methods in order to support an untested and unrelated hypothesis. That makes it a "god of the gaps" signified by the knowledge lacking rather than the knowledge present.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

You persistently misrepresent the hypothesis of abiogenesis and the theory of evolution to make clumsy, fallacious arguments (and I'm being generous), yet I'm the one apparently the obstacle to intellectually honest discussion and debate? Don't make me laugh. Actually, please, carry on. Do you do weddings and birthday parties as well?

a reply to: TzarChasm

That assertion relies on the assumption that you somehow know my beliefs, as well as how I apply the scientific method. Both of which are incorrect.

I view the term "God" as a cultural term more than anything. In this context, an accurate statement would have been more akin to the opposite of the "God of the gaps."

Though, I will assume, perhaps incorrectly, that you will base your perceptions on past interactions rather than treating this as a new interaction. This happens from both sides, as it is easier to confirm bias when one asserts what is true and known without any exploration, using generalized and easily dismissed archetypes.

Regardless, many tend to have their own explanation for any and all new information that is perceived, regardless of ignorance. This makes most discussion a complete waste of time to anyone who is interested in, and participates in, scientific exploration. Hell, its a waste of time for anyone who does not operate on a foundation of perceived omniscience.

a reply to: UniFinity

Awww you think I care about what you think, that is sweet.

Of course you care, else you wouldn't have troubled to reply.

The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying
tao te ching
Dhammapada
Hua Hu Ching
yoga vashista
The Essen gospels
different vedas

Which of them are quoted on that page?

Which of them — fourth time of asking — have you read?

a reply to: Phage

’Fraid that flew over my perch, old chap. Care to elaborate?

a reply to: TzarChasm

But it is the base assumption when dealing with something familiar: it will behave as we have previously observed.

Indeed. I'm not sure, though, if this is rationality or merely operant conditioning.

I don't think we're off topic. Isn't the topic a challenge to Creationists to debate their position? Since none of them have taken the OP up I think it's okay to discuss terms and possible strategies. If I was to take a Creationist position in such a debate, I wouldn't try to attack the findings of evolutionary scientists or the integrity of the theory. Those are adamantine battlements against which the religious have thrown themselves for over a a century and a half without once making a dent in them.

No, the way to go is to stick a wedge into that 'room for reasonable doubt' that all scientific investigation must allow for. Exploit the reasons why we accept that nothing can ever be proven for certain. Insist that, however firmly the arrow of evidence points towards undirected evolution and even abiogenesis, science can't show that it had to happen that way.

Once the space is wide enough, insert the basic Creationist premise of Paley's Evidences and stand back. The burden of proof then falls back on the scientists, and the job is done.

Are we going to have a debate, then? I hope not. I'm feeling a bit lazy these days...

a reply to: Serdgiam

Though, I will assume, perhaps incorrectly, that you will base your perceptions on past interactions rather than treating this as a new interaction.

He's using inductive logic. See the trouble it gets you in, Tzar?

a reply to: TzarChasm

See, you are confusing me. First you address creationists directly in your challenge, then you say it's not about creationism, then you make it sound like creationists own the monopoly on pseudo science, then you say you don't care what they believe and you are fine with having god in a lab, then you turn around again and say that there is no science to support it...and you are okay with that?

You are all over the board here.

Did you just wait til I left to notice that Tzar?

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Actually they don't, what they must do is accept that they are inextricably linked and that is all.

Please explain exactly how they are linked, showing the common mechanisms.

If evolution is equal to a large 30 story building, abiogenesis is equal to the underground parking underneath the building, it is only a few percentages in size and scope of the total structure, but structurally it's important to the building above it, they are linked.

Nonsense. Abiogenesis isn't part of evolution, it never has been. They operate on completely different mechanisms. The ONLY thing they have in common is that the environment affects both of them. Evolution is true whether life was created or it emerged on its own. Evolution is not dependent on abiogenesis.

It's a choice to ignore the logic.

Yes it is and it's exactly what you have done here.

Nah, it's where I say evolutionists are terrified of abiogenesis because it's a scientific and biological house of cards, not a great foundation for what comes next.

Terrified? Why? Since when is fear a response to scientific hypothesis? You are once again making stuff up. There is no house of cards, the foundation of evolution is genetic mutations sorted by natural selection, basically the increase in frequency of alleles in a population and this is SUPER SOLID in science. Abiogenesis does nothing to prove or disprove this concept. They aren't linked, regardless of the lies you choose to believe.

Don't like the way the discussion goes, just label it ignorant and "strawman" to shut posters down.

Claiming that evolution is dependent on abiogenesis or that they are linked IS a strawman. You don't like it but your arguments don't follow basic logic and they rely on ignorance that has been called out time and time again, and yet you still refuse to do an ounce of research to see why people keep giving you a hard time about it. If you can't bring anything aside from logical fallacies to the table, why should anybody take your posts seriously? Calling out faulty logic isn't a personal attack and it isn't to shut you down. It's to encourage you to do real research instead of regurgitating nonsense from propaganda sites that has no basis in reality. You keep playing the victim card as if people are attacking you personally, but they aren't. They are attacking your misinformed opinions on evolution. If you disagree with this, then by all means, offer counterpoints and explain why they are wrong.

a reply to: Astyanax

No, the way to go is to stick a wedge into that 'room for reasonable doubt' that all scientific investigation must allow for. Exploit the reasons why we accept that nothing can ever be proven for certain. Insist that, however firmly the arrow of evidence points towards undirected evolution and even abiogenesis, science can't show that it had to happen that way.

I don't agree with that. Here's why: Reasonable doubt in a courtroom is based on a LACK of evidence to convict. "Reasonable doubt" in science suggests that there exists other evidence that may conflict with the current findings. But here's the clincher: that other evidence has to have been acquired under the standards of the scientific method. And that can certainly happen. But typically prior to publishing, a thorough search of the literature is conducted. If that other evidence did exist, then it would be the responsibility of the current author to include it in some way in his publication either by citation or inclusion of some aspect of that research, for instance a table which reflects the data. But that doesn't constitute reasonable doubt. It only says that another scientist worked in a similar area of research.

Scientists don't say "it had to happen that way and no other way is possible". That would be foolish. However, we do know when something "works" based on the simple fact that anyone who repeats the experiment achieves the same results. If we were discussing spectroscopic methods in radiometric dating for any particular type of fossil, we could easily confirm the results within a standard deviation simply by asking other scientists to repeat the work in their lab.
If a half dozen labs around the world got the same results, well it's obvious that the method has validity. But does that mean that no other method could be developed in the future that could be more accurate or acquire more information? No, certainly not. That's the discovery part of science. The door is never closed.

If you had used that strategy with me during a debate, I would throw it right back at you using the above explanations. You can't throw the ball into the other guy's court without momentum. I don't think your logic would have momentum.

Science isn't about "proving" something with absolute certainty. That's impossible - we all know that. I think people read the popular media and draw the conclusion that science is set in stone. It isn't. Never will be. Always room to gain further knowledge.

a reply to: Barcs

Nonsense. Abiogenesis isn't part of evolution, it never has been. They operate on completely different mechanisms. The ONLY thing they have in common is that the environment affects both of them. Evolution is true whether life was created or it emerged on its own. Evolution is not dependent on abiogenesis.

I don't know if we can say that. Here's why: Let's say we discover the self assembly process of the DNA molecule always contains a specific sequence that triggers the process of evolution downstream. At that point the origin of what we call life would be inextricably tied to evolution. If the initial conditions for life included a unique set of criteria, let's say a coding sequence, that was mandatory for survival via evolution, then they would have to be related.

Just to be clear, this is NOT to say that abiogenesis and evolution are the same thing. They most definitely are not. But are they related? I'd hazard a guess that they are, probably in ways we haven't discovered yet.

Of course, we haven't discovered anything like that. But that doesn't mean it's not possible. I realize that the current perception is that they are not linked. But in my own mind, I wonder about that.

Both creationism and evolutionism are theories. As theories, regardless how many people may believe one over the other...there is no fact. Debating a theory proves nothing except who is the better debater.

And no...I don't believe in creation.

a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

It's been [0] days since someone in this forum has misconstrued the layman and scientific definitions of the word theory.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

en.wikipedia.org...

The more you know!

star swooshes across the screen

a reply to: GetHyped

the·o·ry
ˈTHēərē
noun
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"
synonyms: hypothesis, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presupposition;

In other words...not a fact.

The more we all know the better