Bowtiemenace Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 MormonFreeThinker is that you with a new name?No, we're different people. MormonFreeThinker seems to be quite reasonable though, and I'm glad my comments can get mixed up with his
SmileyMcGee Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 No, they aren't capable scientific attacks. You think they are. You obviously no nothing about science. (But that's ok, you're a heartland modeler anyways.) Bottom line is, there is absolutely no attack against evolution that withstands any real scrutiny. What you're reading is evangelical apologetics. You won't understand that they're liars until you do some fact checking though. I'd recommend doing it.Its like what the evangelicals did with radiocarbon dating for years. They talked about countless supposed "holes" in radiocarbon dating that were based on a fundamental misunderstanding (or should I say misstating, they lie all the time) of the science. Now we do know there are holes, but it wasn't any of the holes that the evangelicals proposed. It was what real scientists proposed. When there are solar flares, the radioactive decay rate changes. In other words, the earth is younger than we once thought. Now is the earth 7000 years old? No, obviously not. We have over 100 methods of dating the earth to where we know its not 7000 years old, so it doesn't matter for there case. It just shows the earth isn't as young. Evolution is the same way. We know it occurs for sure, because the information comes from like 10 sciences. (And direct observation) There is no dispute among real scientists about evolution. Only crazy evangelical apologists.+1. Good comment. You highlight a common logical fallacy that many faithful members need not fall into: an error or shortcoming in science does not prove one's beliefs to be true. Being faithful doesn't mean we have to accept poor arguments to defend our position, however popular those arguments may be.
guerreiro9 Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 Sorry, but I can't if you don't believe in evolution. The most obvious theory next to Newtons laws of motion :|I would if you'd accepted that though You do realize Newton's laws of motion are incorrect don't you? Or more precisely stated they only accurately describe motion given certain specific assumptions.Things that are mathematically possible are not necessarily "really" possible. Once in a quantum physics course we were asked to calculate the probability of a racquet ball tunneling through the wall rather than bouncing back. It turns out there is a nonzero mathematical probabilty that it will happen. Before you injure yourself trying to accomplish this feat you should know that the "real" probability of this happening is zero. It will never happen. How can this be? The universe is not governed by mathematics.On second thought your comparison of evolution to Newton's laws is probably a good one. They are both mostly correct, and under certain conditions can accurately describe what is being observed, but they do not accurately describe everything.Your love for math and science will take you far young padawan, but you are at the beginning of your journey not the end.-guerreiro9 1
ERayR Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 (edited) No, he is a smart kid, he said he is 16 years old. When I was 16 years old I believed that the Earth was only thousands of years old. Ah that explains a lot. When I was sixteen I knew everything too. Edited July 17, 2014 by ERayR 2
ERayR Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 No, we're different people. MormonFreeThinker seems to be quite reasonable though, and I'm glad my comments can get mixed up with his Not the comments but the rigid intolerance of other views.
ERayR Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 It is extremely hard to convince people online, I had a debate with ID creationists a few weeks ago, and nobody changed their mind. You misrepresent some of those trying to communicate with you. Maybe one or two was ID but the rest were not. If you had taken the time to communicate instead of battle you would have known. 1
ERayR Posted July 17, 2014 Posted July 17, 2014 I just thought of something ERayR for you to check out... Here's a link to something on the Sorites Paradox. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/ Truth comes in degrees. The statement: a frog is not a fish, or a fish is not a frog is only partially true. We might say .9% true. A frog is genetically very similar to a fish, and has many similar anatomical features. The distinctions we make are very arbitrary. What you're doing is your making those distinctions larger between classes of organisms in order to be able to ignore evidence for evolution. Comments like "its not a change in kind" or "not a change in species" don't refute the point, because those are arbitrary classifications. At what point does it become a different species? Or a different kind? Anyways, I should probably stop derailing so much now... But definitely take a look at the Sorites paradox. I hope it will enlighten you. Don't you think that in over six decades I would not have been aware of these things?
MormonFreeThinker Posted July 17, 2014 Author Posted July 17, 2014 You misrepresent some of those trying to communicate with you. Maybe one or two was ID but the rest were not. If you had taken the time to communicate instead of battle you would have known. What I mean by ID is someone that doesn't believe in macro-evolution. I am tolerant.
Bowtiemenace Posted July 18, 2014 Posted July 18, 2014 You do realize Newton's laws of motion are incorrect don't you? Guerrio9: Yes, I do. I agree with you a few sentences in the future. Newton's laws haven't been completely overturned, just shown to be false in the very large and small. I'm not opposed to another force driving biological change. In fact, it seems probable there is another one, but to deny evolution is wrong, because it is at least one of the forces driving biological change. And yes, I am at a starting point in these things. Definitely not at the end. The world isn't at an end either, there's still a lot more to discover, and nobody, definitely not I, knows everything that has already been discovered. Don't you think that in over six decades I would not have been aware of these things?ERayR: Actually, if you are, I'd guess you're beating at least 60% of the adult population or so. Few know philosophy and logic at any serious level. Usually the ones who do believe in evolution
ERayR Posted July 18, 2014 Posted July 18, 2014 (edited) Guerrio9: Yes, I do. I agree with you a few sentences in the future. Newton's laws haven't been completely overturned, just shown to be false in the very large and small. I'm not opposed to another force driving biological change. In fact, it seems probable there is another one, but to deny evolution is wrong, because it is at least one of the forces driving biological change. ERayR: Actually, if you are, I'd guess you're beating at least 60% of the adult population or so. Few know philosophy and logic at any serious level. Usually the ones who do believe in evolution I am not say evolution is incorrect either. Just at the very large level (macro-evolution). When you get a little older you will see that in this you are incorrect. Meanwhile don't let the arrogance of youth become a habit in your older years. You become unteachable if you do. Edited July 18, 2014 by ERayR
MormonFreeThinker Posted July 18, 2014 Author Posted July 18, 2014 (edited) I am not say evolution is incorrect either. Just at the very large level (macro-evolution). When you get a little older you will see that in this you are incorrect. Meanwhile don't let the arrogance of youth become a habit in your older years. You become unteachable if you do. I named many Mormon Biologists, Paleontologists, and Geneticists that think that the evidence for macro-evolution is strong, and you think that you and your evangelical "scientists" know more than them. Perhaps it's because you have rejected Macro-Evolution for so many years that it is impossible for you to open your eyes and change your mind. Edited July 18, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
Nemesis Posted July 18, 2014 Posted July 18, 2014 If you can't have a discussion I'm going to shut the thread downNemesis
ERayR Posted July 18, 2014 Posted July 18, 2014 I named many Mormon Biologists, Paleontologists, and Geneticists that think that the evidence for macro-evolution is strong, and you think that you and your evangelical "scientists" know more than them. Perhaps it's because you have rejected Macro-Evolution for so many years that it is impossible for you to open your eyes and change your mind. Once again: You have born false witness against me and made your elitist judgements from your throne on Mount Olympus. I see that it is impossible to have a conversation with you. The best one can do is to bow to your edicts, which I respectfully decline to do.
MormonFreeThinker Posted July 18, 2014 Author Posted July 18, 2014 (edited) Once again: You have born false witness against me and made your elitist judgements from your throne on Mount Olympus. I see that it is impossible to have a conversation with you. The best one can do is to bow to your edicts, which I respectfully decline to do. Why don't you believe in Macro-Evolution? It's because you see no evidence. There is a lot of evidence, but you don't accept it because Evangelical "scientists" invent excuses, and twist the evidence. My hope is that you trust what most scientists are saying, especially the Mormon biologists, not Evangelical "scientists". I think you are the one that linked to an Adventist anti-evolution website called evolutionfacts. Edited July 18, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker 1
Recommended Posts