Science, CSI and the Evolution/Creationism Debate

[AV1611VET]

Of course it wasn't 'taught as science', and I am not trying 'show the Bible in a poor light' - simply to juxtapose the quote with the earlier reference to 'philosophers' teaching a flat earth to the masses.

I have never seen a poorer example used of flat-earth cosmology in all my years debating --- ever.

A man's dream???

I'm still laughing.

That is definitely a new low for critics.

And you want to "juxtapose" it with earlier references?

 

[anagnostic]

I have never seen a poorer example used of flat-earth cosmology in all my years debating --- ever.

A man's dream???

I'm still laughing.

That is definitely a new low for critics.

And you want to "juxtapose" it with earlier references?

I don't understand your point. Whether it was dream or not is irrelevant.

Do you think people in the Bronze Age would have known the world is a sphere? Does it matter?

Are you implying that a Biblical scholar can never be ignorant about certain aspects of the material world?

There is no such thing as flat-earth cosmology in history. By the time of the Ancient Greeks it was commonly understood the world was a sphere.

Did you read the websites I 'referenced'?

 

[uke2se]

To a 30-year-old like you, it would be --- to a 55-year-old like me, it would not.

I grew up learning --- i.e. learning --- the difference between microevolution and macroevolution.

And you'd better know the difference too, as it would be on a test.

It wouldn't be on any test, and it hasn't been on any test I've had, even when I studied biology at university. The reason for this is that there is no difference between micro and macro evolution. It's the same governing process.

The difference was simply this:

• micro = species to species
• macro = genus to genus

There is no such difference. The evolutionary process is the same. Who taught you this? Did you learn this in grade school when you were young or did you learn it from an university. If the latter, which one?

Oh, really?

I've never done that?

Wanna check my posting history to see if that's true?Keep that up --- I love it when people come on here and say that.

As you have a history of redefining words to suit your argument, I didn't use you as an example, but rather "creationists" as a general term.

It shows what you think of science's heritage.No --- the distinction between the two prefixes was dropped when creationists consistently pwned evolutionists in debates by simply asking evolutionists to show evidence of genus-to-genus change.

They couldn't do it, so they quietly dropped the distinction and plutoed the prefixes.I'm already sure what a psychiatrist would tell me.

A false assertion. Breaking the ninth a lot today, AV?

I've asked three times here what a psychiatrist is trained to diagnose a person who sees Christian symbols in a Rorschach Test, and haven't gotten an answer.An ape swipes the banana out of another ape's hand --- a human swipes a banana out of another human's hand --- any difference?

Any pshychiatrist would be trained to diagnose that, but then again, a Rorschach test is designed to let you see whatever you want to see. A deeply religious person would certainly see evidence of his religion. A sex-crazed maniac might see erotic motifs. The phenomena is called pareidolia, and is a trait in humans that lets us easily recognize danger. The problem was that the evolutionary process never weeded out false positives.

 

[gaara4158]

And you're the one qualified to do so?

Here's a question I've been asking for awhile, and so far haven't gotten an answer:

What's the official diagnosis of a person who takes the Rorschach Test and sees Christian symbols?

Fail.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7371872-10/#post51968201

 

[Dream3wb723]

So you're admitting that you will not and cannot change your mind?

That is the very definition of close minded, a label I'm sure you'd love to apply to us.

Been close minded has nothing to do with this. I is just it took me a while come to the conclution that my mindset was wrong in the first place. I'd rather first here and your theories and why and how you came to your conclution. I am open for opinions...

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't understand your point. Whether it was dream or not is irrelevant.

Do you think people in the Bronze Age would have known the world is a sphere? Does it matter?

No ... no ... no.

I'm not going to let you pass this off on people living in the Bronze Age.

It's 2009 --- the 21st century --- a man using the Internet has just interpreted a passage in the Bible where a man is dreaming about a tree growing so large that all the kingdoms can see it, as the Bible Itself teaching Flat Earth Cosmology.

And when I point out that he was dreaming, you suddenly want to blame the Bronze Age desert dwellers?

When you just made the same mistake?

Mamma mia!

And you didn't even get the verses right!

 

[AV1611VET]

The reason for this is that there is no difference between micro and macro evolution. It's the same governing process.

Ya --- you've said that now about half a dozen times.

It's not taught today --- as I also mentioned.

Any pshychiatrist would be trained to diagnose that, but then again, a Rorschach test is designed to let you see whatever you want to see.

Ya --- and what's the diagnosis? (For the fifth time.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Fail.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7371872-10/#post51968201

That did not answer my question --- all it says is to walk out of his office after he diagnoses me.

And the question is, what would the diagnosis be? (Sixth time I've asked this now.)

 

[gaara4158]

That did not answer my question --- all it says is to walk out of his office after he diagnoses me.

And the question is, what would the diagnosis be? (Sixth time I've asked this now.)

Yeah, maybe I wasn't clear.
There is no official diagnosis because the test isn't objective, it's subjective. It can be used to supplement other methods of diagnosis if the practitioner sees fit, but the Rorschach test can NEVER be used as the sole means to diagnose an illness.

So there's your answer. Not the answer you were looking for? Why don't you go ahead and move on with whatever point you're trying to make?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why don't you go ahead and move on with whatever point you're trying to make?

Okay --- but only because I'm tired of begging.

The guidelines reveal the test’s religious bias. If a person sees religious symbols, those responses will generally be scored as abnormal.

SOURCE

(Now watch everyone who refused to answer me suddenly come out of the woodwork to tell me I'm wrong.)

 

[gaara4158]

Okay --- but only because I'm tired of begging.

SOURCE

(Now watch everyone who refused to answer me suddenly come out of the woodwork to tell me I'm wrong.)

No, no... we seem to be on the same page here. You've just shown one problem with the validity of the test. Here's more.

Again, what's your point?

 

[AV1611VET]

No, no... we seem to be on the same page here. You've just shown one problem with the validity of the test. Here's more.

Again, what's your point?

But I'm not interested in the validity of the test.

The test, in my opinion, can take a hike.

 

[Naraoia]

And for the past three years here, I've begged science to use their tools to find evidence for the Creation and the Flood.

While at the same time, telling us that there is no such evidence.

There are at least three frauds in science.Scientists can and do record observations which never took place, they ignore those observations which dont fit the average, and "cooking" where only the data which fits the hypothesis is used and the rest is ignored.

Evidence, or what you're doing is defamation.

Just take a look at the countless finds in the past and the quick conclusions ToE believers come to only later its found to be far from the truth.

We'll look at them the moment you give examples. Until you do that, it's defamation.

Now that you are all a little angry because your faith is slightly threatened here, let me tell you your response before you write it.

I am pretty angry because someone who hasn't demonstrated any understanding of the relevant science comes here throwing pretty serious accusations around without backing them up. How do they say? Put up or shut up?

OK Tommy, tell us what particular observations we claim never took place. And what pray tell are the observations we ignore. Please elaborate Tommy.

Precisely. Because otherwise what you're doing is defamation.

Why are you surprised that we want you to back up your claims?

We have tiktaalik, and ERV.

Yes, we do. Have you ever explained why they aren't evidence for evolution? I must have missed it, so please explain or link to your explanation.

Every fossils is a transitional.

Well, I'm not sure I agree, though I doubt you'd make the effort to understand why, or why people say this in the first place.

We have a bird fossil thats was changing form a lizard that walked and was sproating wings and learning to fly.

Who told you that?

And, um, yes. We have dinosaurs displaying several different stages of feather evolution, arms and hands going from pretty conventional five-fingered reptilian forelimbs to wings with three partially fused fingers, and a whole number of other characters that transform a running reptile into a flying bird.

Again, what's your problem with the fossils? Please be specific. Waving around vague strawmen is not only not nice, it also does nothing to help your argument.

We have tested ALL this in the science lab, that makes it empirical. Evolution is a fact not a theory.

Evolution is both, but again, I doubt you'd make the effort to understand why I say that.

Your a monkeys uncle no matter what you think.

Basic grammar mistakes aside ("your" means "belonging to you", and "monkeys" is the plural of "monkey", not its genitive...) about half of humanity couldn't possibly be anyone's uncle

You use to be a fish. Not sure what you were between a fish and a monkey? But we will find the fossils.

As a matter of fact, we have found quite a lot of those fossils. Have you ever heard of stem tetrapods, reptiliomorphs, pelycosaurs, therapsids and all that?

(If you haven't heard of most - or any - of these creatures, you're in no position to criticise the fossil record of fish-to-humans evolution...)

We have a tree made by unbiased, unassumed, unindoctrinated believers in ToE.

Gross, rosy oversimplification on more than one count

BTW, it's pretty much impossible to infer the Tree of Life (even assuming evolution is always tree-like, which it is demonstrably not). We are limited by data. We also have to make assumptions to even begin to construct a tree. For certain methods, you must assume that evolution usually follows the shortest route from A to B, and even the most advanced methods find best trees given a certain model of evolution.

Figuring out the tree of life is probably far more complicated than you think it is

Its there, check out a biology book if you dont believe us.

Better still, study how phylogenetic trees are made if you don't believe us. Inevitable uncertainties aside, AFAIK they are actually quite good at reconstructing known trees produced by simulated evolution, and we know a few things about situations where they aren't reliable. So there's at least sometrust to be placed in them.

(But TheGnome could tell you more about this, I think I'm a newbie when it comes to phylogenetics, though the Honours project I'm starting this autumn will be partly about it)

I think in one of the first posts I ever put up in these forms I stated "I have heard it all" like it states in Ecclesiastes 1:9 "there is nothing new under the sun."

If you've heard it all and still don't believe us, you must be able to counter it all... yet all I've seen from you is accusations and jeering.

 

[gaara4158]

But I'm not interested in the validity of the test.

The test, in my opinion, can take a hike.

So (for the third time) what's your point?

 

[Naraoia]

No, no... we seem to be on the same page here. You've just shown one problem with the validity of the test. Here's more.

Again, what's your point?

Don't you see? It's another manifestation of the widespread persecution against religious people.

Believe it or not, I kept a straight face while typing that.

 

[AV1611VET]

So (for the third time) what's your point?

Don't you see? It's another manifestation of the widespread persecution against religious people.

I'd say Naraoia nailed it --- except I wouldn't use the phrase "persecution against".

I'd go more with "attitude toward".

 

[AV1611VET]

And for the past three years here, I've begged science to use their tools to find evidence for the Creation and the Flood.

While at the same time, telling us that there is no such evidence.

That's right.

You guys remind me of these guys:

And when they urged him till he was ashamed, he said, Send. They sent therefore fifty men; and they sought three days, but found him not.

Despite the fact that I don't believe there is any evidence, you guys keep asking for it.

Thus my "keep looking" responses.

 

[Dream3wb723]

Don't you see? It's another manifestation of the widespread persecution against religious people.

Believe it or not, I kept a straight face while typing that.

thank you. there is light at the end of this tunnel.

 

[AV1611VET]

thank you. there is light at the end of this tunnel.

I could never understand why anyone would throw Christians to lions, until I came here.

Nor could I figure out what they said to Jesus when they mocked Him at His trials, until I came here.

 

[Dream3wb723]

Ok, I've seen many creationists say this, and it's one of the stupidest arguments I've heard. You're essentially saying that you believe in evolution but you don't believe in evolution. Macro/micro it's the same thing.

Ok
I, as a language studier, need more info than the just the jockes been made here about Micro and makro. Can some one please explain this so even I can get this. Is there actualy a divrance? Why is it (Im most defniatly not one.) that some claimed Christiance believe in the one and not the other? If one is claimed or even both claimed something to do with the evolution theory, why is it that creationist want to believe in this? I'd rather keep to the totall creationist theory and believe in "God created everything.". Just so I can be on the same level as you, I need some inside info:...