Primordial Groove

This is an email I sent to a friends' friend who had a few ideas that I didnt agree with. We both agreed on an email exchange:

(my email after a long telephone conversation)

I was intrigued by your Austin hammer story. I searched the web and came up with this site.
http://home.texoma.net/~linesden/cem/hamr/hamrfs.htm

The claims made on this creationist site have been debunked on another site.
http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/hammer.htm

It is obvious you have been deceived. The hammer is clearly a mining hammer. According to the creationist who has it, it's content is 'almost' pure Iron.
It would be interesting to see an independent study of the hammer but, that won't happen. Carl Baugh would lose his business and his reality if a real scientific investigation was allowed. Again, these are unverifiable claims of someone with his own motives.

Creationists spin fables everyday and this is just another example in a long history of fairy tales.

Speaking of fairy tales, another we touched on was that of human cloning. There is not a single, verifiable case of a human being cloned. Without evidence, saying humans have been cloned is merely an assertion.
Humans aren't cloned at this time due to the limitations of our technology and our knowledge of biology. A soul has nothing to do with it. If scientists were allowed, I'm sure given a few hundred+ tries they could produce a living human. But that would be unethical due to the other hundreds of human clone attempts that fail. If any of the 'failures' survived with any medical issues, imagine the lawsuits. Why go down that road? Again, a soul has nothing to with the cloning issue. It's a matter of ethics and technology.
By the way, have you came up with any proof of a soul yet?

Evolution is true. It is proven. Here is a small example of the proof of evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Your first claim in our conversation was that people that do not believe in god do not do well in life. That assertion is proven false by the richest man in the world, Bill Gates. He is (debatably) an atheist. Ted Turner is another example. We can also turn this around and see people that do believe in god living in destitution.
What about them? Do they not believe enough, or, is
it they believe in the wrong version of god? I say a god has nothing to do with it.

Your bible claims just make no sense to me. Perhaps with a better understanding of your position it would, but, I'm skeptical. The bible was put together by an organization attempting to gain power. The supernatural claims therein are merely a way to control superstitious people. I would not live my life by the claims of sheepherders of today so I cannot understand living my life by superstitious sheepherders of 2000 years ago.
Yes, I have read the bible. Yes, it is inconsistent and false in many ways. Noah's Ark was one example. The claim of the Earth being the center of the universe and everything within revolving around the Earth is another. A world wide flood? I can go on.

I'd like to bring up a valid point. When we are born, we know nothing of god or a creator. We are by default, atheist. It is only through indoctrination or brainwashing that we 'come to know god.' I choose to remain at my default position.

(His reply, unedited for your eyesore please):


well as far as the hammer he had the results and it was published or i wouldnt have stated it as i had read it, 2 as far as human cloning go's haha man i dont know where you get your imformation but it has been tried by quite a few countries multiple times and have failed the only one not verified is the one that was claimed to have worked here a few months ago that was splashed all over tv then when tried to be verified gee what do you know /fail and umm that was by a group that beleives in evoltion evolution has been proven wrong in every asset many of times. i do find it funny that people that beleive in evolution theories are always trying to convince others its true and the story of how evolution started has to change on a regular basis. if you think about it if evolution is proven it wouldnt have to change so much and when someone can make life from no life at all ill beleive it. my statement wasnt that all that are evolutuionists dont succed is incorrect i said almost all or something like that cause its a well known fact that ted turner is an evolutionist and an eletest with stattements of alot. hehe you can spend all your time looking to prove something is wrong
with an everchanging story wich really doesnt look smart or scientific or you can just chill on it and wait till it actually comes up with something other than a theory. much like the bible could be considered a theory and argued all day long. but learn some more science before you argue it off of someone elses knowledge and statements. like i said i saw the report on hammer so i know thats there.for instance you made a statement that some are
starting to beleive we came from a pile of shit( beleiving again it all changes) again the evolution theory has to start from life it it doesnt start from life where did life come from. one thing you need to check into is how they date things i think if you went to sites thazt werent all for evolution like when i research like hell if id go to a bible site or ebvolution based research area. either one is usually a radical from either side who will twist truths for their own gain in statement. if i find anything even remotely related to a religious or evolution based theory people that do research i run fast. its like the doctor that wanted to prove gay's were born that way so he took hundreds or corpses and tested each brain looking for signs and wow gee he found it before going to jail (but
what? when they checked it wasnt true)"the real medical research community". last thing when i see a fanatic on either side it means twisted truths lost or cant find studies and always stateing that other proven wrong w/o proof or the so called well cant be verified even though it was verified bs. i stay clear but i do urge you to research dating systems IE carbon dating and
how it works and such and not from an either side perspective.


He defines god as being a sort of game master (his words by phone). He gets this view from the bible.

So, what do you all think? Other than maybe 'wrong forum.'

Here is the thread that I started due to this 'conversation' a while back.

Roland98

That maybe you should debate him again after he finishes the 8th grade.

Primordial Groove

Unfortunately, he is between the age of 35 and 40 years old. He owns his own business, upstanding member of the community, etc.etc.etc

GunnerJ

I'm not sure how accurate such sentiments are. Do you mean to say that evolution is an absolute certainty that can never be corrected by future evidence? This is absurd, and it is also the implication that your words carry.

KC

Um, if he doesnt go to a bible site or evolution based research area, where does he go for his information?

KC

Valentine Pontifex

That is a very bad example. I don't think that anyone is claiming that there are no rich atheists. And I don't think we know enough about Mr. Gates personal life to judge its quality.

Primordial Groove

So your saying evolution is not true? Please point me to your information and please dont let it be the AIG site. I think your point is absurd GunnerJ. How can you claim evolution is not true? The opposite of true is false. Are you claiming, at this moment, that evolution is not true? I think your implication is absurd but am willing to hear your case.

I agree. Thats why I threw in the debatable in paranthesis. I certainly have no qualms about retracting this statement if asked. I wanted something to shake his pov and I did see a claim about Mr Gates being an atheist.

Primordial Groove

He seems to pull the info out of an unknown orifice but I'll be sureto ask with the next email.

NonHomogenized

The same goes for the idea that, say, the light of the sun is a product of hydrogen (and helium) fusion.
Or the (observed) ways in which gravity functions.
Or anything else in science. Yes, it could one day be refuted, it's never an absolute certainty.
However, the likelihood that it (specifically, evolution) will be demonstrated to be completely incorrect is so small as to be on the verge of the absurd. Yes, it might not be 100% correct, but the mistakes will almost unquestionably fall in terms of details, not the overall idea.

GunnerJ

I would think that having a moderator title on the II E/C forum would exempt me from accustaions of being a creationist, but there you go...

Saying that something is proven or true carries the connotation of absolute certainty. That all current lifeforms descended from a common ancestor is a fact backed up by such a large amount of evidence that discounting it without an even larger amount of evidence is ludicrous. The theory of evolution as it stands is the best theory available to explain this fact. But niether of these things can be said to be "proven" in an absolute sense, which is what your statement implies.

Not that objecting that something is not "true" or "proven" is not tantamount to saying that it's false. Science doesn't deal in truth, it deals in evidence and finding the most likely expanation for that evidence.

NonHomoginized:

Note that Primordial stated that evolution is "ture" and "proven." Maybe it's just me, but these words imply absolute certainty. In order for such "witty" demonstrations to have any value against my contention, you would have to show that I was arguing that if something is not absolutely certain, then it is not worth considering as a good scientific explanation. You have not shown this, and it is not the case, so you have wasted your time in typing all that out.