+- Southperry.net (https://www.southperry.net)
+-- Forum: Social (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Current Events (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=55)
+--- Thread: Creation VS Evolution (/showthread.php?tid=69714)
Creation VS Evolution - xparasite9 - 2014-02-08
KhainiWest Wrote:The vastness of space was not the basis of the deduction, the following sentence shows the basis of my deduction. The vastness of space brings endless possibilities which result in the variety that would be throughout space. It's exactly taking a cup of the ocean and saying there is no life, intelligent or otherwise in it.
I mean when you have planets with frozen fire does an intelligent being seem out of the question? lol
For that matter, does Intelligent Design seem out of the question?
KhainiWest Wrote:we lack two of the top 10 elements found in our galaxy, let alone universe. I mean come on really?Ignoring the percentages and going straight off of the number of unique species of elements, are we?
And might I add that you are making quite an assumption with "let alone universe". Because what you mean is observable universe. Which is quite small, really.
Creation VS Evolution - KhainiWest - 2014-02-08
xparasite9 Wrote:For that matter, does Intelligent Design seem out of the question?
I'm not arguing whether the existence of a god like force or grand architect may or may not exist, all of those are completely possible
Creation VS Evolution - xparasite9 - 2014-02-08
KhainiWest Wrote:I'm not arguing whether the existence of a god like force or grand architect may or may not exist, all of those are completely possible
Oh, but for that same entity to be so far above us in terms of intellect that it would be able to keep watch on each and every thing is too much?
Creation VS Evolution - Mute - 2014-02-08
xparasite9 Wrote:Oh, but for that same entity to be so far above us in terms of intellect that it would be able to keep watch on each and every thing is too much?
I like the idea of the Watchmaker god in this instance. God would just be a man making a machine, and once it's done, he lazily moves on to make another, and repeats this process ad infinitum, never once looking back to maintain or repair his older, more busted and worn down clocks.
Creation VS Evolution - KhainiWest - 2014-02-08
xparasite9 Wrote:Oh, but for that same entity to be so far above us in terms of intellect that it would be able to keep watch on each and every thing is too much?
I don't recall arguing whether he could or not, just that such a being with that ability wouldn't deal with petty things such as what the many religions define us to do. I mean you're picking at straws here for some type of argument to stand on or that's what I'm getting from you at this point.
Mute Wrote:I like the idea of the Watchmaker god in this instance. God would just be a man making a machine, and once it's done, he lazily moves on to make another, and repeats this process ad infinitum, never once looking back to maintain or repair his older, more busted and worn down clocks.
...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
Also like to note majority of our founding fathers were deists iirc.
Creation VS Evolution - Kunagisa - 2014-02-09
MuscleWizard Wrote:the only reason people don't want to outright declare evolution as scientific fact is because it completely rapes one of the basic tenets of most religions
god created man in his own image
Not really. Even concepts well established for centuries like gravitational forces are still scientific theory. It has more to do with the fact that people misinterpret scientific theory by emphasizing the "theory" part of the term and relate it to how the term is used colloquially. When people think of "theory" the first thing that comes to mind is what's essentially an educated guess based on evidence, when scientific theory is more than that. When scientific theories get submitted for peer reviews, everyone wants to try to tear the theory apart. They want to find something with it that could be wrong, because the whole point is to learn more about a topic; not to just accept something that sounds good and collectively agree that its a sound explanation. Rather than saying "this is the conclusion, how can we get evidence that can be twisted to support it?" its "this is the evidence we have, what conclusions can we draw from it?"
So it's not particularly "fact" as it could technically be debunked with any new evidence that'd say otherwise. There's also the fact that statistically, we as humans have never really been good at knowing things for sure. There are many points in history where things were scientifically agreed on by everyone and have been completely wrong; but everyone from that lifetime died without ever knowing said theories were wrong. But at the same time, that's whats great about scientific advances; the fact that it will adapt and with each error grant us a better understanding of things when looked over again.
Just because its theory doesn't mean that it has a high likely hood of being incorrect. It just means that it has a possibility (even if small) of being incorrect.
That aside, this may be an interesting watch for some of you.
[video=youtube;U0QLjA1GSVI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0QLjA1GSVI[/video]
Humans can be pretty stubborn at times at protecting their stances when presented with facts, but there are reasons behind it after all. Y'know, aside from the general uneasy feeling one would get from learning a fact that completely shakes the foundation they built their lives off from.
Creation VS Evolution - Jazeon - 2014-02-09
Kunagisa Wrote:Rather than saying "this is the conclusion, how can we get evidence that can be twisted to support it?" its "this is the evidence we have, what conclusions can we draw from it?"
Funny enough although your second statement is how it should be done, working with people who are doing PHDs and professors from different disciplines and talking to many people in research, you come to realize that quite often, researchers sometimes try to skew the data by the manipulation of statistics or using vague words. Or if the research is legit but going along the lines of what they want, misquote the data by using pieces to prove what they want. It works because the common members of society can't tell the difference especially when it comes to statistics which is well known be to easily misused. A small example of this would be with things like 99.9% on bottles of sanitizer, Sounds great but when bacteria is in the millions and billions usually that 0.1% becomes very substantial.
I say this because i've seen people constantly use scientific data to draw a conclusion that is completely incorrect, and it happens more often than one might think. Looking at carbon dating, it makes two assumptions: that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, that its rate of decay has always been constant and once an organism dies, nothing alters the proportion of carbon-14 to carbon-12 other than radioactive decay. If you look at the size and mass of the fossils you would know that the quality of oxygen in our atmosphere today would not sustain the size and life of the animals found long ago. I'm sure they found ways to compensate for these but were all the errors accounted for.
I'll post this video for you guys to think about it might be of interest. Skip to about 16 minutes to find the stuff relevant to this topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zz8_MxcnzY
Edit: You know kanye west you could just block me like I did with you so you wouldn't have to see what I post, but i guess you like just the drama
.
Creation VS Evolution - KhainiWest - 2014-02-09
Jazeon Wrote:and it happens more often than one might think. Looking at carbon dating, it makes two assumptions: that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, that its rate of decay has always been constant and once an organism dies, nothing alters the proportion of carbon-14 to carbon-12 other than radioactive decay.
Retorts Wrote:Independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques, give consistent results (Dalrymple 2000; Lindsay 1999; Meert 2000). Such results cannot be explained either by chance or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions.
Retort Wrote:Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods. For example:
The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot (Rubin 2001).
Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity (Hilgen et al. 1997).
Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method (Thompson n.d.; Thorne et al. 1999).
Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "deeper is older" (Lindsay 2000).
The creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rest on a relatively few examples. Creationists ignore the vast majority of radiometric dates showing consistent results (e.g., Harland et al. 1990).
Retort Wrote:The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from products of the Oklo reactor, where a natural nuclear reaction occurred 1,800 million years ago. These measurements show that the fine structure constant has remained constant (within one part in 1017 per year) for almost two billion years (Fujii et al. 2000; Shlyakhter 1976).
Retort Wrote:Despite some weak evidence that the fine structure constant may have varied slightly more than six billion years ago (Musser 1998; Webb et al. 1999), analysis of the spectra of quasars shows that it has changed less than 0.6 parts per million over the last ten billion years (Chand et al. 2004)
Experiments with atomic clocks show that any change is less than a rate of about 10-15 per year (Fischer et al. 2004).
Absorption lines in light from quasars suggest that the ratio of masses of the proton and electron may have changed by 20 parts per million over the last 12 billion years (Cho 2006).
Jazeon Wrote:If you look at the size and mass of the fossils you would know that the quality of oxygen in our atmosphere today would not sustain the size and life of the animals found long ago.
...Yes, everyone is aware the atmosphere was completely different millions of years ago vs the thousands of years that carbon dating can actually measure.
This is your day job, how can you be so misinformed?
jazeon Wrote:Edit: You know kanye west you could just block me like I did with you so you wouldn't have to see what I post, but i guess you like just the drama
![[Image: tongue.png]](http://www.southperry.net/images/smilies/Maple/tongue.png)
....Well no one else is clearly going to correct your inaccuracies, and this is drama? Me correcting you? OH GEEZE. Stop being so melodramatic.
Creation VS Evolution - Flonne - 2014-02-09
Mute Wrote:I like the idea of the Watchmaker god in this instance. God would just be a man making a machine, and once it's done, he lazily moves on to make another, and repeats this process ad infinitum, never once looking back to maintain or repair his older, more busted and worn down clocks.
That's kind of the way I look at it. That, or it's like that South Park episode where Earth is a reality TV show.
Creation VS Evolution - Mute - 2014-02-09
Creation VS Evolution - KhainiWest - 2014-02-09
Creation VS Evolution - Mute - 2014-02-09
KhainiWest Wrote:
His universe is flawed. He makes the universe by using the materials in it to make the materials in it.
Creation VS Evolution - KhainiWest - 2014-02-09
Mute Wrote:His universe is flawed. He makes the universe by using the materials in it to make the materials in it.
I believe the concept is called recycling
Creation VS Evolution - Mute - 2014-02-09
KhainiWest Wrote:I believe the concept is called recycling
But where do the original materials come from? How does he make them from nothing?
Creation VS Evolution - KhainiWest - 2014-02-09
Mute Wrote:But where do the original materials come from? How does he make them from nothing?
Well considering he was drunk and destoryed the universe by accident, I'm going to say he's a functional alcoholic and can spontaneously create matter but doesn't know how to consciously.(whyarewedisccussinganobviousjoke)
Creation VS Evolution - Mute - 2014-02-09
KhainiWest Wrote:(whyarewedisccussinganobviousjoke)
What's the difference between this and religious debate?
Creation VS Evolution - KhainiWest - 2014-02-09
Mute Wrote:What's the difference between this and religious debate?
One wasn't made to be a joke?
Creation VS Evolution - Niernen - 2014-02-09
Mute Wrote:What's the difference between this and religious debate?
Nothing except scale.
Creation VS Evolution - Mute - 2014-02-09
KhainiWest Wrote:One wasn't made to be a joke?
touche, but I was more poking fun at the people who think religion is a silly thing.
Creation VS Evolution - KhainiWest - 2014-02-09
Mute Wrote:touche, but I was more poking fun at the people who think religion is a silly thing.
I'd say religious doctrine is silly, the idea of a creator is not.