Proof against abiogenesis/evolution -- affirmative proof of God

[True_Blue]

In that case contact the writers of the paper you are interested in and ask them if they can provide the data, most researchers will be happy to do this if it is not owned by a third party.

Then you will have a huge pile of data and not a clue what to do with it so you can go back to the original paper

So there were huge chambers of water in the earth that were voided but left no traces either as voids or collapsed voids.

I have no idea what you mean by chamber, and I doubt whether you do either. I imagine you started off thinking of large caves in the earth's crust, your post seems to suggest that when you said they later collapsed and formed the continental shelf. Now you have realised how ridiculous that idea is you seem to be fishing around for something more plausible, with no luck as yet, so you are asking me for an explanation of what chamber means. I have no idea what you are on about it is your fantasy.

Ye gods we are getting into " invisible pink unicorns did it" territory now aren't we, AV's " a big boy did it and ran away" scenario, god cleaning everything up for sanitary reasons.

It is not my fault if your fantasies don't coincide with reality when tested against it and I am sorry my imagination is up to the job of coming up with what you mean by the word chamber.

By "chamber," I mean the region enclosing a compressed mass of water. If said water escapes, nothing would remain of the chamber. No direct evidence would remain to suggest such a chamber existed. By definition they no longer exist once collapsed. Only indirect evidence would exist. Continental shelfs are marvelous evidence of this hypothesis, and other suggested theories of continental shelf formation seem very weak to me.

 

[True_Blue]

Why? It just shows that the universe is deterministic. Where does the "Therefore, God" conclusion come from?

In my view, if a quality called "purpose" and/or "order" can be attributed to a given system or feature, a conscious mind is required to produce such purpose and order. If our entire universe can have the words "purpose" or "order" attributed to it, then an extremely powerful being with capacity to give order and purpose to the universe must exist.

 

[True_Blue]

NOTE TO BIOCHEMISTS: Bite it suckers! Ha!

You biochemists and all your fancy pantsy "chemistry". Krebs Cycles and Glycolysis pathways and all those big words! They are meaningless. Every day you breathe is a miracle! A MIRACLE! Yay! Just take the simple act of procreation! It's a MIRACLE! Some day science may understand this miracle. Until then the scientists will have to sit and stare at the naked ladies in the magazines until a provable experiment comes to their heads.

(Sorry female scientists, but you'll have to stare at the naked ladies too.)

Hey, since we're going to have a lot of former scientists around when we finally get rid of science, what are they all gonna do? I know! They can all become lawyers! It's gotta be easy. No real "learning" necessary apparently.

And hey, I'm already more than half-way there because I can use some random latin phrases! Watch:

[Lawyer Mode]
Quicquid acquietur servo, acquietur domino.
In the present sense I wish the defended to realize that I consider this to be estoppel owing to the laches defense.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
I demand certiorari!
[/Lawyer Mode]

There, see, I may as well be in front of a judge just adjudicating right and left. I know absolutely as much as any lawyer because I've got some words there. AND technically speaking, I've taken a "law" class in the Extension Service here at the local University of California. So I'm ready to be hang out me shingle.

NOTE TO STATE BAR EXAM:Bite it! Sucker Lawyers who studied to get it, I want my law credentials to be honored.

You see, I approach the law not from a "technical understanding" of it, but rather from a sense of entitlement that my "insight" is equivalent to those who have spent years studying it. I don't bother with "learning it", I rather just use my instinct and "first principles" (ab initio as we latin-savvy lawyers like to say) to formulate the most logical and meaningful critiques of the Law.

And just to drive the point home, here's a legal citation:

In the matter of:
Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc. 296 F. 3d 894, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, July 24, 2002
(LINK)

QEfD.

Thaumaturgy, for one thing, I'm very consistent. I happen to believe law school could be accomplished in one year, not three, and I think that state licensing of lawyers is unnecessary. I think Latin jargon is ridiculous, and that legal writing should use plain language. I don't think that lawyers learn any special skill that gives them an advantage over others. The LSAT, law school, and bar exam are little more than glorified IQ tests that serve to artificially increase salaries by reducing the number of lawyers allowed to practice law. Lawyers make the biggest money by experience, not by education. Some education is necessary and very useful, but the overall construct is over the top.

 

[True_Blue]

I would like a detailed explanation of how subduction affected the magnetic polarity recorded of sea floor thousands of miles away.

You may have discovered an electro-magnetic mechanism completely unknown to science, or you could be making things up off the top of your head again.

But basically i think you are right, this is not very accurate at all.

I fail to see how subduction can affect the earth's magnetic field and that is what sets the polarity of the iron minerals in the magma as it solidifies.

"In the case of the Earth, the magnetic field is believed to be caused by the convection of molten iron, within the outer liquid core, along with a Coriolis effect caused by the overall planetary rotation that tends to organize currents in rolls aligned along the north-south polar axis. When conducting fluid flows across an existing magnetic field, electric currents are induced, which in turn creates another magnetic field. When this magnetic field reinforces the original magnetic field, a dynamo is created which sustains itself." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory

I'm actually quite suspicious of the dynamo theory. But let's accept the dynamo theory as being true. If the convection of iron ore underneath the plates, as illustrated by the image from Wikipedia that someone threw up earlier, is generating the magnetic field and governing its properties, then it stands to reason that a sudden subduction of the plates into the mantle [if the theory is true] would change the fluid dynamics of the mantle, thus playing havoc with the magnetic field. Is this really such a ridiculous assertion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oceanic_spreading.svg

 

[Tiberius]

First of all, you'd need to show how large a disturbance in the convection of iron ore is needed to create such a change in the Earth's dynamo. Then you'd need to show that such a disturbance can be caused by the actions of the earth's crust. Then you'd need to show that such actions of the Earth's crust have taken place AND you'd also need to show that these actions were accompanied by a corresponding change of the right degree in the Earth's magnetic field.

Wanna do that?

 

[Baggins]

By "chamber," I mean the region enclosing a compressed mass of water. If said water escapes, nothing would remain of the chamber. No direct evidence would remain to suggest such a chamber existed. By definition they no longer exist once collapsed. Only indirect evidence would exist. Continental shelfs are marvelous evidence of this hypothesis, and other suggested theories of continental shelf formation seem very weak to me.

No this still makes no sense.

If the "region enclosing a compressed mass of water" only contained water then it would leave behind a void which would be obvious to seismologists.

If these voids collapsed they do would be completely obvious to seismologists, why would there be:

No direct evidence would remain to suggest such a chamber existed

The overpressure on a chamber voided of water would be massive, it would collapse leaving a large area of chaotic material which would be obvious on a seismic section. If these chambers were truly large enough to flood the earth we would also see large scale sink structures on the earth's surface where they had collapsed beneath.

If by "region enclosing a compressed mass of water" you meant a saturated reservoir then you have problem that there is nowhere near enough water available for this fantasy. Most of the earths rocks capable of holding a liquid do so already. that is why you can drill almost anywhere on earth and hit water, and, coincidentally, why dowsers can make a good living.

The problem you have is you have no idea how much water it would take to flood the earth to even modest heights. That is why you have to come up with lunacy like there where no mountains back then, why, because Adam was naked and he couldn't have got cold, that is just nonsense reasoning.

Then you have to say that these voids existed but left no trace of their existence, again just nonsense, you may as well say that god created huge aitborne water buffalos made of real water which he popped over the earth to flood it.


Once you have started making things up which cannot be tested by science and whose only basis is in biblical interpretation you have entered the realms of fantasy, so why post it on a board dedicated to discussing science?

It isn't science.

Then you go on to say that this theory is evidence of how continental shelves formed You have no idea how continental shelf forms, admit it. You can't even explain how your theory explains continental shelves you just assert it. that is a joke.

This is getting embarrassing

 

[Baggins]

Thaumaturgy, for one thing, I'm very consistent.

yes, consistently wrong, I'll grant you that.

.

Some education is necessary and very useful, but the overall construct is over the top.

And this is why.

You have no education in earth sciences but think you know it all anyway or can make it up as you go along

 

[Baggins]

"In the case of the Earth, the magnetic field is believed to be caused by the convection of molten iron, within the outer liquid core, along with a Coriolis effect caused by the overall planetary rotation that tends to organize currents in rolls aligned along the north-south polar axis. When conducting fluid flows across an existing magnetic field, electric currents are induced, which in turn creates another magnetic field. When this magnetic field reinforces the original magnetic field, a dynamo is created which sustains itself." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory

I'm actually quite suspicious of the dynamo theory. But let's accept the dynamo theory as being true. If the convection of iron ore underneath the plates, as illustrated by the image from Wikipedia that someone threw up earlier, is generating the magnetic field and governing its properties, then it stands to reason that a sudden subduction of the plates into the mantle [if the theory is true] would change the fluid dynamics of the mantle, thus playing havoc with the magnetic field. Is this really such a ridiculous assertion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oceanic_spreading.svg

Yes this is a ridiculous assertion.

This is why:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earths_Magnetic_Field

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subduction_zone

This is not affected by subduction into the earth's upper mantle. the earth is a giant iron magnetic dipole. Subduction also doesn't change the fluid dynamics in the mantle on the scale of the earth over deep time. Subduction of plates is not sudden, you have been shown hydroplate theory is bunk yet you appear to cling to it. Plates subduct at the rate of cms a year .

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH420.html

On a side note there is no iron ore beneath the plates, Iron ores are oxides of Iron. The mantle is made up of Iron, Aluminium and Magnesium silicates

You need to look at how far subduction zones penetrate into the mantle, about 100km, and how deep the mantle is 1000-3000km, how much of the mantle they disrupt; 3-10% of its depth over a miniscule area of the earth's surface, and the fact that they are processes running over tens of millions of years. they don't suddenly spring up and totally change all, or even some, of the convection cells in the mantle generating the magnetic field.

If you think that subduction can affect the earth's magnetic field I, for one, would like to see some maths supporting that.

Your problem is you discard perfectly reasonable scientific ideas about how the earth's magnetic field imprints itself on oceanic basalts to go with your own gut instincts and hunches which, let's face it, have faired poorly against scientific orthodoxy so far.

It is just gross intellectual hubris.

But I'm sure a physicist will be along shortly to show why you are wrong better than me.

You habitually grasp at things you don't understand, extrapolate them to areas they don't belong and then assert that somehow this is evidence of your assertions.

Baffling, a more accurate assumption for you to make would be scientists know more about this than you do, sadly it doesn't appear in your intellectual make up to believe anyone could be more intelligent than you are. All the evidence suggests this is a fallacy.

 

[True_Blue]

No this still makes no sense.

If the "region enclosing a compressed mass of water" only contained water then it would leave behind a void which would be obvious to seismologists.

If these voids collapsed they do would be completely obvious to seismologists, why would there be:

The overpressure on a chamber voided of water would be massive, it would collapse leaving a large area of chaotic material which would be obvious on a seismic section. If these chambers were truly large enough to flood the earth we would also see large scale sink structures on the earth's surface where they had collapsed beneath.

If by "region enclosing a compressed mass of water" you meant a saturated reservoir then you have problem that there is nowhere near enough water available for this fantasy. Most of the earths rocks capable of holding a liquid do so already. that is why you can drill almost anywhere on earth and hit water, and, coincidentally, why dowsers can make a good living.

The problem you have is you have no idea how much water it would take to flood the earth to even modest heights. That is why you have to come up with lunacy like there where no mountains back then, why, because Adam was naked and he couldn't have got cold, that is just nonsense reasoning.

Then you have to say that these voids existed but left no trace of their existence, again just nonsense, you may as well say that god created huge aitborne water buffalos made of real water which he popped over the earth to flood it.

Once you have started making things up which cannot be tested by science and whose only basis is in biblical interpretation you have entered the realms of fantasy, so why post it on a board dedicated to discussing science?

It isn't science.

Then you go on to say that this theory is evidence of how continental shelves formed You have no idea how continental shelf forms, admit it. You can't even explain how your theory explains continental shelves you just assert it. that is a joke.

This is getting embarrassing

You've got an attitude problem, Baggins, especially considering how many paradigm shifts geologists have gone through in the last 200 years. The recent paradigm shift in the scientific community from uniformitarianism to catastrophism is a case in point. If you're "embarrassed" by alternative ideas, that should be a red flag to you and everyone who reads your posts.

The reality of geology is that no one has a clue about plate tectonics and all the associated effects. Evolutionists and creationists are completely riven on the subject, and both camps have several conflicting theories within each side. I count at least three separate major theories by creationists, and perhaps a half dozen theories by Old Earth theorists. There are three separate major theories on the magnetic field alone. There are several sets of theories on plate tectonics and continental drift. I can't really defend a particular paradigm with the enthusiasm I'd prefer because I see elements of truth in separate theories, and I'm trying to piece them together in a cogent fashion. Based on the wholesale adoption of catastrophism by Old Earth theorists, it stands to reason that other Bible-based ideas should not be discarded without VERY SERIOUS consideration. I've been spoon-fed evolution for my entire academic career, and I have a reasonable understanding of Old Earth theories, but the same is not true for you. So I ask you to keep your emotions cool and your mind open.

My approach to science on this forum is high-level, principles-based reasoning in language that makes sense. Ideas that are simple tend to be the ideas that are correct.

 

[tanzanos]

The reality of geology is that no one has a clue about plate tectonics and all the associated effects.

The only one here without a clue seems to be you!

My approach to science on this forum is high-level, principles-based reasoning in language that makes sense. Ideas that are simple tend to be the ideas that are correct.

I cannot see you therefore you do not exist!!! Simple eh?

 

[Baggins]

You've got an attitude problem, Baggins,

I'll admit to that, Earth scientist know nothings that think their hunches and gut instincts about science trump 200+ years of scientific endeavour are very annoying

especially considering how many paradigm shifts geologists have gone through in the last 200 years.

Those paradigm shifts were brought about by earth's scientists collecting evidence and making a case, not lawyers following their gut instincts.

Show me one paradigm shift brought about by a creationist having a bright idea about geology, or any science for that matter.

The recent paradigm shift in the scientific community from uniformitarianism to catastrophism is a case in point.

That is a paradigm shift in your imagination. Geology has been uniformitarian for 200 years and remains so. In all that time no one, apart from a few uneducated creationists, has believed that uniformitarianism precludes catastrophic events:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism_(science)

it was in opposition to catastrophism who's adherents believed, like you, that the earth's geology was formed by a supernatural catastrophic flood:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophism

Geologist have always known that catastrophic events occur, volcanic eruptions are a bit difficult to miss. But even these events and others like earthquakes and asteroid impacts are uniformitarian in that they occur on a regular if unpredictable basis.

Some writers like to say that Uniformitarianism has been tempered by catastrophism, in its non-creationist sense, in recent decades. I say that is bunk. reading of historical documents like Lyell's Principles of Geology shows geologists in the early 19th century were well aware that catastrophic events occur within a uniformitarian frame work.

If you're "embarrassed" by alternative ideas, that should be a red flag to you and everyone who reads your posts.

I am embarrassed by unevidenced fantasy parading as erudite thought on geology.

All your posts show that you haven't made more than a cursory examination of the science you are about to "debunk", hence the embarrassment.

You are not some free thinker having his ideas laughed out of court without due consideration. You are a fantasist without any basic scientific training.

Your post were taken seriously at the beginning of your threads, but it became increasingly apparent that not only do you not know what you are talking about but you also believed your unevidenced musings were on a par with evidenced science and often you felt your ideas explained things better.

that is gross intellectual hubris.

The reality of geology is that no one has a clue about plate tectonics and all the associated effects.

You obviously don't, geologists do. There are areas within plate tectonic theory that aren't fully described yet, as there in all theories - how radiogenic heat from the core is coupled with the mantle is one such area - but these do not mean that the theory is not accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonic

There is a simple layman's description, critique it. Show us where this lack of clues is. Looks like a fairly comprehensive theory explaining the earth's surface to me.

But a free thinking renaissance man like you should be able to shows us poor earth scientists where we are going wrong.

Evolutionists and creationists are completely riven on the subject, and both camps have several conflicting theories within each side.

I can believe that about creationists seeing as it all comes down to personal interpretations of the bible rather than evidence.

But I would be interested to see where geologists ( what evolutionist have got to do with any perceived controversy in plate tectonics I have no idea ) are riven on the subject of plate tectonics. As far as I am concerned it has been settled for 40 odd years, I am not even aware of a competing theory I could be riven on so I would be glad if you could enlighten me as to this controversy.

I count at least three separate major theories by creationists, and perhaps a half dozen theories by Old Earth theorists.

And one by scientists.

There are three separate major theories on the magnetic field alone.

By scientists? name them.

There are several sets of theories on plate tectonics and continental drift.

There have been in the past, for the last 40 years there has been one - plate tectonics - unless you can show differently.

I can't really defend a particular paradigm with the enthusiasm I'd prefer because I see elements of truth in separate theories, and I'm trying to piece them together in a cogent fashion.

Not very well. Only one theory can be the most correct way to explain current evidence.

This illusion of open mindedness also annoys me, you are a YEC, you are not a free-thinking seeker of truth, you are someone who is attempting to shoe horn the bible into science.

Based on the wholesale adoption of catastrophism by Old Earth theorists, it stands to reason that other Bible-based ideas should not be discarded without VERY SERIOUS consideration.

They were given that 200 years ago, some people just didn't get the memo.

Earth scientists were originally looking for proof of the bible. They didn't find and were honest enough to follow where the evidence lead. A prime example of this was William Buckland:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Buckland

a YEC catastrophist who became OEC uniformitarian when faced with the evidence

I've been spoon-fed evolution for my entire academic career, and I have a reasonable understanding of Old Earth theories, but the same is not true for you. So I ask you to keep your emotions cool and your mind open.

I haven't needed to be spoon fed evolution for my whole career as I grasped the essentials early on and have taken an increasing grip on the detail over the years. I know more about "Old earth" geology than you.

My emotions are coming under increasing strain because of your inability to grasp that your musings do not trump 200+ years of scientific endeavour.

If you keep your mind too open, all sorts of nonsense flies in, as Harold Stone said:

I try to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out.

I'm open-minded to evidence and evidenced hypothesis. Not to assertion and uneducated musings, especially those of people who have shown themselves to be uneducated in the field that they are making assertions about, even more especially when I have 2 degrees and 20 years industrial experience in that field and can spot a faker a mile off.

My approach to science on this forum is high-level, principles-based reasoning in language that makes sense.

If only it was based on knowing something about what you were reasoning about.

Anyone can reason and use logic to expound on an idea, but if you don't know what you are talking about chances are it will be garbage in garbage out. You also come at any idea from a pre-conceived position of creationism, so the facade of reason and logic is only that.

Ideas that are simple tend to be the ideas that are correct.

Ideas that have evidence tend to be better than ideas that have none.

Plate tectonics is a simple idea, hydroplate theory needs the constant invocation of the supernatural, which is simpler?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

In my view, if a quality called "purpose" and/or "order" can be attributed to a given system or feature, a conscious mind is required to produce such purpose and order.

With all due respect, that view is quite demonstratively flawed: the eye is "for" seeing, but one doesn't require a concious mind to explain its origins.

And as for order, well, have you ever seen a crystal?

If our entire universe can have the words "purpose" or "order" attributed to it, then an extremely powerful being with capacity to give order and purpose to the universe must exist.

Why? There are a plethora of theories and hypotheses that explain the various types of structure in the universe, and only the "goddidit" explanation requires a concious mind.

Moreover, can you actually demonstrate that 'purpose' exists in the universe? As far as we can tell, the universe is as it is because of wholly mundane forces and phenomenon.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Thaumaturgy, for one thing, I'm very consistent. I happen to believe law school could be accomplished in one year, not three, and I think that state licensing of lawyers is unnecessary.

And that's good for you. So can I critique the law with only my one "extension school" class which provided me with little more than a glimpse at what you guys do for a living?

I don't think that lawyers learn any special skill that gives them an advantage over others.

Except for the discipline of logical thinking and analysis of propositions.

You see, my point is that we all learn special skills and we all learn details of things in our fields. Anyone can come and critique it, but the critiques only have meaning if the person critiquing the field actually appears to know what they are talking about.

Again, you are missing my point. If I, with my vast ignorance of the law, were to come and tell you how the law really works and you were to correct me on points of order, but I insisted on ignoring what you said and telling you repeatedly you are mistaken and my ignorance is more correct then you would have every right to call me a fool.

You make grand claims about what chemistry is or how probabilities work in chemistry and when you are shown this incorrect (or worse when you are asked to prove your point by a simple test on a known scenario) you just blithely move on. As if we, who have spent years studying this stuff, had no reason to have wasted our time studying.

Personally I don't believe what I have learned could be learned in a single year. Nor do I believe that Law School can be a year long endeavor simply because any journeyman apprenticeship should have time to engender the appropriate discipline. I don't care much for "week-long seminars" because it's easy to walk away and forget the stuff. I'd much rather invest a longer amount of time in a study to make sure I walk away with a stronger background.

But what I find most amazing about Creationists in general is that they seem to have so little care about the discipline of others. I bet if an atheist came up to a fundamentalist and after a brief "flip" through the bible tried to tell the fundamentalist all that was wrong with Christianity they'd rightfully be a bit miffed. But what happens on boards like this to those of us who have spent not just years learning but years practicing science is not dissimilar.

 

[Naraoia]

In my view, if a quality called "purpose" and/or "order" can be attributed to a given system or feature, a conscious mind is required to produce such purpose and order. If our entire universe can have the words "purpose" or "order" attributed to it, then an extremely powerful being with capacity to give order and purpose to the universe must exist.

The way I see it, "purpose" and "order" (especially "purpose"; in my view, "order" of some definition actually exists) are attributed to systems by conscious minds. However, there is nothing in the universe to say that "purpose" and "order" can only originate from conscious minds.

I know of only two kinds of purposeful and ordered system in the world: one we know is made by conscious minds (human-made objects, of course), the other we don't know, but no evidence* suggests it is (that is natural objects and phenomena). That dataset doesn't really imply that "purpose" and "order" require intelligent agents.

*personal incredulity or lack of understanding is not evidence.

 

[True_Blue]

I'll admit to that, Earth scientist know nothings that think their hunches and gut instincts about science trump 200+ years of scientific endeavour are very annoying.

Plate tectonics is a simple idea, hydroplate theory needs the constant invocation of the supernatural, which is simpler ?

"There is no clear theory as to how the geomagnetic reversals might have occurred. Some scientists have produced models for the core of the Earth wherein the magnetic field is only quasi-stable and the poles can spontaneously migrate from one orientation to the other over the course of a few hundred to a few thousand years. Other scientists propose that the geodynamo first turns itself off, either spontaneously or through some external action like a comet impact, and then restarts itself with the magnetic "North" pole pointing either North or South. External events are not likely to be routine causes of magnetic field reversals due to the lack of a correlation between the age of impact craters and the timing of reversals. Regardless of the cause, when magnetic "North" reappears in the opposite direction this is a reversal, whereas turning off and returning in the same direction is called a geomagnetic excursion." Link. I have come up with a clear theory on geomagnetic field reversals, using the hydroplate theory as a basis.

As to the different theories describing the origin of the field, this link does an OK job summarizing a few of them. The bottom line is that some theories can be rejected out of hand with very little specialized knowledge in the field. For example, if the theory says or implies that the summation of the strength of the dipoles and all the non-dipoles is doing anything other than declining over time, whatever the underlying force sustaining the magnetic field, the theory is wrong.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

EDIT: nm

EDIT2: I'm looking forward to responses to the "'purpose' and 'order'" theme

 

[Baggins]

I have come up with a clear theory on geomagnetic field reversals, using the hydroplate theory as a basis.

The bottom line is that some theories can be rejected out of hand with very little specialized knowledge in the field.

For example, if the theory says or implies that the summation of the strength of the dipoles and all the non-dipoles is doing anything other than declining over time, whatever the underlying force sustaining the magnetic field, the theory is wrong.

I'm sorry you are a joke, and like Rob Byers, I am no longer replying to your posts.

I am sick of correcting basic errors in my field made by someone who thinks he knows it all when it is apparent to anyone with an earth science degree that he knows nothing.

I don't mind correcting people who show a willingness or ability to learn, but you just move from one crass error to the next.

welcome to ignore city

 

[True_Blue]

And that's good for you. So can I critique the law with only my one "extension school" class which provided me with little more than a glimpse at what you guys do for a living?



Except for the discipline of logical thinking and analysis of propositions.

You see, my point is that we all learn special skills and we all learn details of things in our fields. Anyone can come and critique it, but the critiques only have meaning if the person critiquing the field actually appears to know what they are talking about.

Again, you are missing my point. If I, with my vast ignorance of the law, were to come and tell you how the law really works and you were to correct me on points of order, but I insisted on ignoring what you said and telling you repeatedly you are mistaken and my ignorance is more correct then you would have every right to call me a fool.

You make grand claims about what chemistry is or how probabilities work in chemistry and when you are shown this incorrect (or worse when you are asked to prove your point by a simple test on a known scenario) you just blithely move on. As if we, who have spent years studying this stuff, had no reason to have wasted our time studying.

Personally I don't believe what I have learned could be learned in a single year. Nor do I believe that Law School can be a year long endeavor simply because any journeyman apprenticeship should have time to engender the appropriate discipline. I don't care much for "week-long seminars" because it's easy to walk away and forget the stuff. I'd much rather invest a longer amount of time in a study to make sure I walk away with a stronger background.

But what I find most amazing about Creationists in general is that they seem to have so little care about the discipline of others. I bet if an atheist came up to a fundamentalist and after a brief "flip" through the bible tried to tell the fundamentalist all that was wrong with Christianity they'd rightfully be a bit miffed. But what happens on boards like this to those of us who have spent not just years learning but years practicing science is not dissimilar.

Thaumaturgy, here is an example of my analytical thought process as applied to law, which has some relevance to this discussion on science.

Assumption #1: The words of the Constitution are the law of the land and are binding upon all branches of government, include the justices of the Supreme Court.
Assumption #2: The words of the Constitution mean way they say, and should neither be added to no detracted from.

The Sixth Amendment says, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." The Supreme Court has construed the Sixth Amendment to forbid the police from wiretapping a suspect's car after arraignment and with a warrent from a magistrate on the basis of denial of the suspect's right to counsel. But the 6th Amendment only says that a suspect has the right to counsel during trial--it does not say that his car cannot be wiretapped where the police have a warrant. On the basis of my common sense and the two propositions above, I conclude that the Supreme Court ruling has no merit. Anyone can rightly look at that particular ruling and say that the case was wrongly decided, whether or not they have a law degree or a special expertise in constitutional law. Obviously the Supreme Court justices are in a position of power so their decrees must be obeyed. But their power does not mean they are right and everything they say should be treated as gospel. If people believed everything the Supreme Court said, we would be giving ourselves over to an oligarchy.

Now, scientists don't have any power to dictate to people in the way that the Supreme Court does. Moreover, the opinions of scientists can be very easily disregarded and disbelieved by lay people for any reason at all. Even more so if the lay person has a proposition that it unassailable. The natural laws are unassailable propositions that can substantiate the position of a lay person and discredit the opinion of a highly-trained scientist. As I have shown, a lot of scientific ideas have no merit on the basis of the 2nd Law. Much of evolution and associated theories fall into that category. One doesn't need to be a full-time scientist to recognize this.

 

[True_Blue]

EDIT: nm

EDIT2: I'm looking forward to responses to the "'purpose' and 'order'" theme

Either one agrees or does not. There isn't any wiggle room on this particular issue for a debate. It's a pure matter of opinion and religion. If you disagree that purpose and order in the universe does not require an exogenous intelligence, we have no common ground with which to formulate a point of debate.

 

[mpok1519]

Now, scientists don't have any power to dictate to people in the way that the Supreme Court does.

They don't dictate; they report their findings based upon years of evidence. Your evidence for hydroplate and such are utterly false and baseless.

Moreover, the opinions of scientists can be very easily disregarded and disbelieved by lay people for any reason at all.

Any reason? At all? Any, no matter how stupid it is? And scientists don't base their research and findings on their 'opinions', but upon observations that reflect upon the state of empirical evidence.

Even more so if the lay person has a proposition that it unassailable.

No proposition is unassaliable.

The natural laws are unassailable propositions that can substantiate the position of a lay person and discredit the opinion of a highly-trained scientist. As I have shown, a lot of scientific ideas have no merit on the basis of the 2nd Law. Much of evolution and associated theories fall into that category. One doesn't need to be a full-time scientist to recognize this.

the 2nd law? What 2nd law?

The thing is, evolution is based upon natural laws; it is a fact, not an opinion of a scientist. It is not an idea, or a theory anymore, it is a fact, much like how the existence of gravity is a fact. Denial of this is to deny truth, and to deny truth is to deny reality, and denial of reality is unhealthy.