Freethought & Rationalism Archive

You Betcha · 01-03-2002, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Logic Bot:

This sounds like a "sleight of hand" ad hoc explanation.

No matter what evidence is presented, no matter what counter-point is given out, you can always use this answer to weasel out of the debate.

The conclusion you draw is untestable, it might be ripe for the church, but we are debating scientific issues. This is apparent, you asked for the facts, we are giving them to you.

What example can you give me that shows something with meaning and specific complexity can form naturally. Thanks.

You Betcha · 01-03-2002, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Logic Bot:
[QB]
Not entirely, what intelligent designer creates the complexity of a snow flake? Evolution taught that we didn't need to postulate a designer to have a workable model that explained biodiversity, science appears to be removing God from the picture. This doesn't mean that he doesn't exist, only that when it comes to lab coats, microscopes, and the field, God doesn't tell us anything.[QB]

God designed the building blocks for snowflakes to exist, along with the complex process which forms them.

This is the same thing as crystal formation. Crystals cannot form unless the complex structures exist to allow them to.

Quote:

Originally posted by Logic Bot:
[QB]You postulate microevolution, but don't include macro, tell me why not? Speciation has been observed both directly and indirectly. Micro and macro do not utilize different mechanisms, so what's the problem?[QB]

Speciation is has nothing to do with macroevolution. Species are formed within the same family of animals.

Quote:

Originally posted by Logic Bot:
[QB]But a marsupial has similar charecteristics, why is this? Can you postulate a natural explanation?
Evolution does, the explanation created can be shaped and formed by the evidence, and is backed by the evidence.[QB]

Evolution can make anything fit, because it is a flexible theory that accomodates any circumstance that arises. Except the fact that macroevolution has not been observed.

You Betcha · 01-03-2002, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:

And that is exactly why YEC is not scientific and never will be.
scigirl

Creation is a valid science. It explains the observable phenomenon.

Evolution is not science when you talk about macroevolution, because it is not observed.

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:
In order for an idea to be a scientific theory, it must be able to make predictions.

Your theory makes no testable predictions about the genetic similarities between animals, and does not explain why we see the similarities as well as the differences.
scigirl

Creation makes predictions. If all creatures have the same creator, then their will be many similarities between them.

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:
Even if "goddidit," than why did "goddoit" in such a way to make it look like evolution occured? scigirl

He didn't. You are forcing it to.

Someone made up the conjecture that all living creatures today came from the same single living organism. To this day there is no observation of this, but because people want so badly to believe it they will force anything they can to fit the preconceived conjecture.

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: You Betcha ]

You Betcha · 01-03-2002, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless:
YouBetcha:

You still seem to be overlooking the irrefutable fact that the Genesis chronology is FALSE. The fossils are all in the wrong order!

Therefore creationism cannot be "scientific", because it is FALSE.

Sheesh...

The fossil evidence supports creation and not evolution.

Liquidrage · 01-03-2002, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by You Betcha:


If the universe and life did not evolve, then do you believe it was created?

I have no idea how it was created.
There no evidence for any theory at the present. Now will there likely be for a long time if ever.

Belief requires evidence from my point of view.
Of which, as I mentioned, there is none.

For all anyone knows aliens did it, godditit(though you have your choice of gods to use on this one) or it could have just formed on it own.

My personal theory is this.

At the time humans lack the ability to understand how the universe was created.
My dog does not understand the concept of infinity nor can my dog comprehend Relativity.

What is out there beyond the grasp of human intelligence? Who knows?

What concepts do we just not even have enough understanding to ask questions about as is?

What would humanity be able to understand 10,000 years from now? 1,000,000 years from now?

So to answer your question, I believe at the current state humanity lacks the ability to answer the question of how it all started.

That doesn't mean we should stop asking how, because one day, someone just might figure it out. It could make sense. I just don't think I'll ever know.

Kevin Dorner · 01-03-2002, 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by You Betcha:
What example can you give me that shows something with meaning and specific complexity can form naturally. Thanks.

Someone did, right after you said this: a snowflake. You then conveniently ad hoc'ed the snowflake idea by saying that God made the physical laws that allow the snowflake.

This is why debating creationists is pointless. All it does it make creationism sound valid. If it's valid, publish your discoveries in the peer-reviewed journals and then it will become a science.

You Betcha · 01-03-2002, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquidrage:
I have no idea how it was created.
There no evidence for any theory at the present. Now will there likely be for a long time if ever.

There is evidence. All scientific evidence shows that anything with meaning and specific complexity comes from an intelligent being, and cannot form naturally. Therefore, a supernatural being created the unvierse and life as we know it.

Quote:

Originally posted by Liquidrage:
For all anyone knows aliens did it, godditit(though you have your choice of gods to use on this one) or it could have just formed on it own.

There is no evidence that the universe formed on its own.

You Betcha · 01-03-2002, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kevin Dorner:

Someone did, right after you said this: a snowflake. You then conveniently ad hoc'ed the snowflake idea by saying that God made the physical laws that allow the snowflake.

This is why debating creationists is pointless. All it does it make creationism sound valid. If it's valid, publish your discoveries in the peer-reviewed journals and then it will become a science.

You are just in denial.

Snowflakes cannot form by themselves, unless the molecules are specifically designed to allow them to.

If you can show me how molecules can form by themselves, then you may have something.

Kevin Dorner · 01-03-2002, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by You Betcha:
You are just in denial.

If you want to waste your time replying to me, please go right ahead. However, considering I just stated how I feel about debating with creationists, I think someone else might be "in denial" as well.

Orpheous99 · 01-03-2002, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by You Betcha:

Creation is a valid science. It explains the observable phenomenon.

No, it isn't and never will be a valid science. It is religion.

Evolution is not science when you talk about macroevolution, because it is not observed.

Wrong, it can be observed through the fossil record.

Creation makes predictions. If all creatures have the same creator, then their will be many similarities between them.

Correction, cretinism makes up predictions.

He didn't. You are forcing it to.

Someone made up the conjecture that all living creatures today came from the same single living organism. To this day there is no observation of this, but because people want so badly to believe it they will force anything they can to fit the preconceived conjecture.

You MUST be a troll since no one can be this stupid as you are.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-03-2002, 06:36 AM	#90
Orpheous99 Banned Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Nova Scotia, Canada Posts: 1,258	Originally posted by You Betcha: Creation is a valid science. It explains the observable phenomenon. No, it isn't and never will be a valid science. It is religion. Evolution is not science when you talk about macroevolution, because it is not observed. Wrong, it can be observed through the fossil record. Creation makes predictions. If all creatures have the same creator, then their will be many similarities between them. Correction, cretinism makes up predictions. He didn't. You are forcing it to. Someone made up the conjecture that all living creatures today came from the same single living organism. To this day there is no observation of this, but because people want so badly to believe it they will force anything they can to fit the preconceived conjecture. You MUST be a troll since no one can be this stupid as you are.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.