Jump to content

Clodhopper

Community Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    495

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Clodhopper

    The Geologic Column

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    Mythos Ruler:

    Okay, you win.

    Thank you, thank you. I'm glad we cleared this up.

    I suppose inference and context to be beyond you.

    Ad Hominem is not a reasonable argument, Mythos. Don't say "No I didn't do that," either. You are clearly attacking my intellectual ability and not the argument at hand (which has been cleared up, except for some minor issues).

    And with all my quoting I did prove you were refering to a rock.

    Absolutely not. You refered to previous statements that I made, and not my specific question. Specific, but simple.

    You are indeed trying to change the subject when you ask me a question about the universe (when the topic at hand is evolution/abiogenesis), and you push me to answer the question. That is hardly a use of a rhetorical "example."

    First, We were talking about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and closed systems, and how that applies to evolution/abiogenesis. Secondly, I do not push you to answer the question. I have no idea where you get that.
    From that sentence, it is clear I did not say the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics erroneous - only that your grasp of the concept was flawed.

    Oh, ok, I see what you are saying, now. But, how is the Creationist view flawed? IIRC, we were only disscussing my view.
    First, I was only paraphrasing, so if utilizing a word of the exact same contextual meaning can be contrued as a "misquote", then I am sorry.

    Let me restate the question with the "proper quote."

    Where in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does it refer to "disorder"?

    Ok, that's cool. :D

    Nothing, actually. Explain the theory for me, please.

    Information is immaterial, we must establish that. e.g. mRNA "reads" the information from DNA(which contains all our genes) and carries it to the ribosomes. Information is not just order, but intelligent patterns. Like the Search for Extraterrestrial Intellegence is looking for intellegent patterns, not just order. So- "information"

    e.g. the nonliving "soup" that life supposedly came from is disorder. It shows no Intellegent patterns in it. So- "disorder"

    You really don't understand Evolution much at all, because no current biologist still relies solely on Darwin for their Evolutionary theory. Darwin started the ball rolling, yes, but the Theory of Evolution has "evolved" since its inception.

    I have no idea where you get that, since I simply stated that, "Darwin has a different opinion then you do" ;)
    Please, quote me and state the context.

    alrightsky, here we are:

    Eken, the reason I don't believe in an intelligent creator is because there is no evidence. Simple as that. It is not a dogmatic point of view, because if there ever is evidence found for a creator, then I will believe it.

    This is practically your whole post. I omitted the "Simple concept, no?" line because it has not the word "creator in it. You are atheist, am I right?

    Your "proof" for your POV comes from religious doctrine,

    Please, when did I refer to my religious doctrine as proof?

    I really am having a hard time grasping what you think you're talking about, since such a term does not exist in science. Are you talking about supernatural beings? Are you talking about consciousness? Are you talking about electromagnetic energy? What?
    I take it you are a materialist. Could you prove the laws of mathamatics and the laws of logic for me, mate? You seem to be using them quite a bit and yet they have no "Scientific" definition, so, technically they do not fit your worldview. :(

    The Geologic Column

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    Klaas:

    Clodhopper, I'm not going to explain everything two or three times just because you want to read something in my posts that's not there.

    And yet you state it a third time here anyway:

    So for the third time:
    I'll again make a comparison to historical research. So the historian uses sources in trying to find out what happened in the past, much like a scientist uses observation, deduction, etc. to make a theory. But since you can't have all the sources, since those sources aren't always that relieable a historian will never say that his findings are absolutely correct. They are only correct in the context of those sources that are available. So the same goes for evolution, it's not set in stone, it's just what we now up til now, but that can always change.

    I don't think there's much to say about this, except that that is how science is supposed to work, although from reading what I have been saying to Mythos, you probably know that much of the theory is indeed believed by faith, not evidence "e.g. The origin of life."

    Ever heard of museum depots containing many old organic specimens? In the Belgian museum of Tervuren for example the whole (huge) cellar is filled with organic material dating between 1908 - 1963, all found in Congo.

    Or lets make it easier: what about a graveyard? In the Westhoek region of Belgium a few hundred thousand WW1 soldiers are burried. That's quite a bit of specimens there

    Have they been carbon-dated? And, how can you be sure that there has not been a nuclear age before?

    dathui:

    Now i'm confused what kind of proof you want? The various sub-species of human isn't enough? All the kinds of birds that have local variations but can still mate successfully? These are the tiny tiny variations that after the years lead to new species. If you want to see it happening before your eyes you'r going to be dissapointed.
    Once again, dathui, you believe this all by faith, because you have no evidence of:
    Enough of these tiny alterations over the years and you have an entierly new species.

    All these variations are reproducing after their own kind, oddly enough, not entirely new species...

    No i'm not a racist, i think the different "types" of human(african, caucassian, asian) are sub-species but no are better than the other in any way whatsoever yadda yadda yadda. But the inuits does have different eyelids than we caucassians have. Some africa peoples got slighly different muscles, making them excellent sprinters, i'm sure you've heard of famous africans in the world championchips or olympics, like Kipketer. These little changes are what makes us unique and nobody is worth more because they've got change A and not change B.

    As I stated before, all these variations are reproducing after their own kind, oddly enough, not entirely new species...
    thought of something, you actually can see it happening. I'm sure you've heard of bacteria and viruses becoming resistant to various medications, that's natural selection and evolution at work.
    I'm sure you've heard of a vaccine?

    Yiuel:

    There has been a case of observed speciation in Canada, and it may happen again. Because of Global Warming, northern Canada has gr(o)w(n) way warmer, and some kind of ant has already speciated, .

    So you're saying that before this global warming, we knew all the ant species? Is this connected with Natural selection?

    and I know of a squirrel that might speciate in a few years or decades.
    Really? Could you host a pic for us? Let us know whether it evolves in a decade or so.

    The Geologic Column

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    Actually it does. If a squid get a tiny increase in arm-length it means he might be able to get more food, which means it will probably be able to provide more offspring, spreading the increased-armlength-genes to more squids. Enough of these tiny alterations over the years and you have an entierly new species.

    Once again, one needs proof. "Enough of these tiny alterations over the years and you have an entierly new species" is not proof. It has not even been proved. If you think about it, all creatures procreate after what they are. We have not seen Natural Selection in motion in such a manner at all.

    Flag-Burning Amendment

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    Personally, [you], I have come to a conclusion: There is so little left to what the American flag used to stand for that although I would not burn the flag (waste of fabric) unless in extreme circumstances (Having nothing else to keep warm by), I would not object much to the burning of it by others. Anyway, that's my conclusion. :D

    The Geologic Column

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    Mythos Ruler cont:

    And here's something you said earlier that I don't think anyone addressed:
    Here I failed to point out earlier, that natural selection, or "survival of the fittest" is not even a scientific concept. Rather it is circular reasoning. Who is the fittest? The ones who survive. Who are the survivers? The fittest. You see what I mean.

    Your assertion is the absurdity here, Clod. Lemme restate in less scientific terms:

    Who won the game?

    The winner.

    Who is the winner?

    The one who won the game.

    Does that mean there wasn't a winner? Does that mean there wasn't a game? Does that mean there isn't a tournament that continues after this game?

    Now, for survival of the fittest to truly be "circular reasoning" the game must end there, but it doesn't. It is a never ending tournament of survival.

    Darwin has a different opinion then you do, Mythos, and I'm not sure exactly where you're site stands, but one thing is evident: Natural selection does not produce different kinds of animals; we have no cases, of this anyway.

    The proof is in the math, the chemistry, and the science.

    That's not an answer befitting the question, dude. Once again, no proof, Mythos.

    Your "proof" for your POV comes from religious doctrine,

    Hahaha! That's funny, Mythos, but I'm sorry, when did I resort to my religious doctrine for "proof"?

    And hey, neither of us have been shy in the useage of that "Fallacy" website, so why stop now?

    Okay, since you put it that way, I would say it is a "reification" fallacy. I don't think I need to post the link, because it takes too much space and you're already familiar with it.

    Why not share with the class, hmm? I did you a favor and gave you a "cheat-sheet" site for Rationalists/Evolutionists. Reciprocate!

    I can't do that, Mythos, because the there will be no suprise. Besides, you already know that theism is wrong, anyway, and you know how to refute it, so you shouldn't have a problem with us anyway. ;)

    In reference to what? Where did I talk about a creator?
    Your previous post.
    Define "immaterial" in a scientific way and I'll answer.

    "Not consisting of matter, not using space; incorporeal; disembodied." So on and so forth you get what I mean.

    EDIT: Yep, the quotes are all goofed up...

    Yeah, see? I hate this. I shouldn't have to double or triple post to get all my quotes working... :D Tim! Where are you when we need you!

    dathui:

    In my mind the fact that we exist is proof enough, but since you do not agree i don't really know what kind of evidence you want. We have a working theory(the "Miller experiments" and the mentioned iron-sulfur world model) of how amino acids can evolve into protocells, and from there the cells is the next step. Amoebas are single-cell organisms, they evolve and evolve for a couple of million years... we have humans. The fact that it took life almost as long to make the cell as it took to evolve all forms of life that has lived on this earth is just strengthening this imho.

    dathui, despite all that you are saying, you really aren't giving an answer here. Because a creationist can say the same: "The fact that we exist is proof enough that God created us." But that is not reasoning. Once again, you pin something down like a fact, and yet by your own confession you have no evidence.

    alright, i can agree with that his days might have been very long days. Sorry for upsetting anybody by calling it "story".

    You meant long days? That's not what I meant... and don't worry, at least I'm not upset, I have no reason to be anyway. It's just that as Creationists, We believe that it is not just a "story".

    The Geologic Column

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted · Edited by Clodhopper

    Mythos Ruler:

    Bro, ever heard of the American Museum of Natural History? The British Museum of Natural History? Those are only two examples of repositories of thousands of biological samples predating 1955.

    Which, many of them happen to be way over 65 years old.

    First, you mistating abiogenesis:

    Here we go (again):

    My reply:

    Then you again:

    For all your quoting, you still haven't answered my question: Where did I refer to a rock in my specific question: "Whoa... Where did life come from then?" I'm still waiting for a reply that answers the question.

    The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only applies to Earth in the context of our discussion, which is, IIRC, the origin of life on earth. Your question regarding the universe takes the discussion into completely different territory. You do this after I expose the Creationist stance regarding abiogenesis and the 2nd Law as erroneous.

    We were actually talking about closed systems, Mythos. I am not trying to get you to talk about the entire universe. I used it as an example only. And the 2nd Law as erroneous? How, may I ask? btw, all this does not excuse you from trying to ignore me. If you'll take care to notice, I didn't ignore you on this issue, red herring or not.

    but where is your evidence that the ratio of isotopes has done so?

    What? What are you talking about?

    You (and many other Creationists) have completely misinterpreted the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

    Didn't I already address this issue in let me think... one of my previous posts?

    Secondly, I never misquoted you. I have proven this more than once.

    *Sigh* I have to bring one of your quotes to attention:

    Let me ask you a specific question: What part of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics refers to "disorganization?"

    Now, we bring My quote to attention:

    Since when does order appear from dissorder?

    Now, if you notice, "disorganization" and "disorder" are slightly different. And it's all in the spelling. This, in and of itself, is not that big of an issue. What boggles my mind is why you did not notice, or if you noticed, you did not correct yourself.

    And what does information have to do with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? What does information have to do with the chamical processes that began life? Not to mention your statement makes no sense.

    Nothing anymore. :D My hypethesis is not set in stone, Mythos. There's always room for change. If I find something wrong with my statement, I can make it adapt. Anyway, I can thank Klaas for this anyway:

    Scientific theories simply adapt to new observations or findings, they aren't set in stone...

    What do you not understand about "information does not from dissorder?"

    The Geologic Column

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted · Edited by Clodhopper

    Ok, Gaurdians or whoeever: This is getting really bad. My quotes are not working well at all! It's like the capacity has been reduced to 1/4 of a meg. I have to post more than twice, now.

    Mythos Ruler:

    Clod, you did not ask a "specific" question, because you never qualified the term, "rock." Which rock are you talking about? Are you talking about the surface of the earth? If so, IIRC, the surface of the earth, even at such an early date, had much more on its surface than ROCK.

    I don't see where I have "rock" in my question, Mythos. Refresh my memory, where did I use this term in my question? I still don't know what IIRC means.

    Talk about performing a red herring, Clodhopper. I will go on record to say that I am ignoring that question because we are talking about biological abiogenesis/evolution on Earth.

    Red Herring? So you say I'm (this is according to your site, Mythos.), "diverts the attention by changing the subject."? I struggle to see how I was "changing the subject". Since when does the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics only apply to Earth? And, we were talking about closed systems that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to. Ignoring the question is not the answer.

    First of all, I never doubted the mechanics of how Carbon-14 was created. I simply stated that C-14 comes from the atmosphere. Secondly, that site itself is fallacious and misleading. It's not the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere (which I admit might change through history) that is important, but rather it is the ratio of Carbon-14 to the other Carbon isotopes (something that doesn't change) that is the key to dating.

    Now is where you need to rely on your own thinking, Mythos. What is an Aurora? What causes an aurora? Strangely enough, it is the earth's magnetic field. There is also plasma surrounding this field, which interacts with gas atoms to create auroras. Strangely enough, solar wind powers it. So you can imagine that with fluctuation in the magnetic field, this has an effect on the concentration of ozone, plasma, and other stuff in the atmosphere. You can probably figure the rest out.

    And now, I must address your form of debate: You perform what I call a "have my cake and eat it too" where you go ahead and accuse me of misquoting you, then flippantly decide to change your quote after realizing I didn't misquote you (btw - you didn't even restate the "new" quote).

    I don't see a fallacy like that in this site... What's more, you did misquote me. Go back and see excactly what I said. And for not being an "Ad Hominem" attack person, "flippantly" is a rather strong verb, don't you think? And about the revised quote, I did forget to restate it, didn't I? Here it is: "information does not come from disorder"

    the fact that life began as a simple chemical process

    Once again, you have absolutely no proof. I could say something about this being some sort of fallacy, but not this time. If you really want me to tell you, though, just ask.

    Eken132:

    Each side is unwilling to give concessions to the other, because each side is so firm in it's own belief that they cannot fathom anything the other side has to say is correct.

    I'll PM you a link that is indeed, astounding when it comes to the existence of a god. Whether it is God or just a god, it certainly tells you how to debate with athiests.

    Mythos Ruler again:

    By creator, do you mean God? Or a god?

    Oooo, oooo, Mythos, I did want to ask you if, being atheist, you think anything is immaterial. Do you?

    The Geologic Column

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    Klaas cont.:

    And I'm not trying to use the two wrongs make a right.

    Although you may not have meant to create one, you did. This is your quote:

    It is a bit wild but at this point it's very safe to say that. It isn't as wild as what creationists do since they have absolutely no proof for their theories except the Bible which cannot be considered as a relieable source in historical criticism.

    Let's take this phrase here: "It isn't as wild as what creationists do" Basically, you said: This is wild, but the opponent's is also wild, if not wilder. That is a "Two wrongs make a right" fallacy.

    We do have tons of stuff to use to date that died before the 1940s and it does make a strong argument.

    If you will notice, Radiocarbon dating was invented in the year of Sir Arthur Keith's death in 1955. So why would anyone want to keep something for 15 years without any reason to do so? Plus, where are these tons of specimens, anyway?

    Seems it remains almost constant.

    So who's wrong? Your site or Mythos'?

    The Geologic Column

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted · Edited by Clodhopper

    dathui:

    In a couple of hundred million years you can do alot of trying, and it succeeded.

    You present that like a fact, and yet you produce no evidence.

    One possible solution is that god created human later than the others, but that kind of contradicts thiirc.the genesis-story

    If you have read the Bible, you will find out that God created man last anyway, on the 6th day (Gen. 1:26-28), so technically, it does not contradict the Genisis "story."

    Klaas:

    Well we're all biased here, that's not the point of discussion.

    You need to review your posts, Klaas. If you do so, you can see that you act as if evolution has already been proved, when talking about the 2 different kinds of "scientists."

    I'm not acting as if evolution has been proved, what I'm telling is that science is based on deduction, observation and reasoning, that's the way how theories like evolutionism were created. You make it sound as if evolution was invented by atheist scientists who wish to find an alternative to the creationist belief.

    That's excactly what you're doing. Sir Arthur Kieth, evolutionist, makes it sound like that, too (see previous quotes by him that I posted.). As for the alternative, evolution is the only other option.

    Whoever gets the 100th post wins...

    in Fun and Games

    Posted

    Wha-? What happened? By the way, [you] thinks that Lorian is fat. That means that by [you]'s own admission, Lorian needs to watch what he eats... It's the kind of thing that can make us all fat... even [you]. BTW, [you], it does not mean that just because I eat a can of pringles every day I will get fat, ok? [you]? Are you listening to me???

×
×
  • Create New...