Announcement

Collapse

Creation Science Rules

This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective.
Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed.
1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team
2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
See more
See less

Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    Yes. I think I have here already, haven't I?
    Why would you be willing to say of something, "That is true, but it is not truth"? How can something be true without being truth? Would you really wish to say that (for instance) the proposition, 'Florida is south of New York', is true, but not truth?

    Is it true that Florida is south of New York? Yes or No?
    Is it truth that Florida is south of New York? Yes or No?

    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    Yes.
    Well, you've somehow had your mind fried. That you can say that something is evidence, but not truth, is a function of your mental disorder.

    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    You and I might have the same piece of evidence but hold different truths about it.
    "piece of evidence"? Since you've consistently failed (on TOL, at least) to speak rationally regarding your use of the word, "evidence", why do you think that somehow, magically, you'll be able to do any better regarding your phrase, "piece of evidence"?

    What (if anything) do you mean, here, by "different"? You do not mean mutually-contradictory, do you? You are not trying to say, "hold [mutually-contradictory] truths", are you? Because only mental degenerates, despisers of truth and logic, could hold that truths are contradictory, one to another.

    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    Although we might agree the evidence is true, there would not be agreement about 'truth'.
    I definitely do not agree with the stupidity you exhibit, that of saying that something can somehow be true without being truth. Would you also wish to say--which would be equally stupid--that something can be false without being falsehood?

    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    If I present myself as evidence, then it is true that I exist.
    True propositions about yourself (for instance, 'Stuu writes posts on TOL', 'Stuu says he's a cricket fan') could be evidence, but Stuu, himself is not evidence.

    At least you are sane enough, though, to admit that it is true that you exist.

    Originally posted by Stuu View Post
    Is the truth of my existence that I am a divinely created being, or that I am the product of an unbroken chain of reproduction with modification going back billions of years?

    Stuart
    What (if anything) do you mean by your phrase, "the truth of my existence"? Are you referring to the truth that you exist--the true proposition, 'Stuu exists'? If not, then to what (if anything) are you referring by your phrase? And, why would you call anything other than the true proposition ('Stuu exists') "the truth of my existence"?



    All my ancestors are human.
    PS: All your ancestors are human.
    PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
      Well, the supposed global flood of a few thousand years ago is already disproved beyond doubt.
      Repeating yourself ad nauseam is no substitute for facts.

      Originally posted by Stuu View Post
      So how can someone like RD, already committed to such a presupposition be of any use as part of a scientific discussion, as you put it?
      RD is quite happy to follow the facts. You, on the other hand, are the one with a commitment to your philosophy over the facts.

      Originally posted by Stuu View Post
      Is the flood open to falsification or not? If it is then it's falsified already.
      Your consistent use a fallacious logic is a testament to your commitment to your philosophy over the facts.

      Originally posted by Stuu View Post
      Science doesn't think it is silly semantics. It is really important to understand the nature of the body of knowledge that science accumulates. I think RD perhaps might not have thought much about the type of claim that a scientific theory, or the scientific consensus is, compared with the nature of the knowledge claimed to be written in scripture. In terms of epistemology, they are not equivalent, and are barely comparable. Perhaps he doesn't know, and that's understandable, but I hope you would be one who would tell him to keep an open mind and learn about such things.
      Your constant insults do not move me or impress anyone.
      All of my ancestors are human.
      Originally posted by Squeaky
      That explains why your an idiot.
      Originally posted by God's Truth
      Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
      Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
      (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

      1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
      (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

      Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
        What (if anything) do you mean by your phrase, "the truth of my existence"?
        Well, I would have thought you were able to work out which of the two options given was my one.

        Stuart

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
          RD is quite happy to follow the facts.
          Your facts are the alt-facts. They are not the science facts.

          Your consistent use a fallacious logic is a testament to your commitment to your philosophy over the facts.
          What, you mean that because there is no shred of empirical evidence whatever that supports the story of a global flood within the past few thousand years, I should conclude something other than the fact no such thing ever happened?

          Stuart

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
            Your facts are the alt-facts. They are not the science facts.
            Those two sentences are lies. But thanks for your consistency.

            Originally posted by Stuu View Post
            What, you mean that because there is no shred of empirical evidence whatever that supports the story of a global flood within the past few thousand years, I should conclude something other than the fact no such thing ever happened?
            Dr. Walt Brown's book is full of facts that describe in scientific details what caused the flood and its effects.

            That you continue to ignore everything that you don't like is your own problem.
            All of my ancestors are human.
            Originally posted by Squeaky
            That explains why your an idiot.
            Originally posted by God's Truth
            Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
            Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
            (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

            1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
            (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

            Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
              Dr. Walt Brown's book is full of facts that describe in scientific details what caused the flood and its effects.
              It has facts. One I particularly appreciate is that he mentioned that if you put a Crook's radiometer in the freezer, it goes backwards. Haven't tried it with mine yet, but interesting science. Next, it contains some scientific details well explained, but it also contains models that are poorly constructed, for example his estimation of the forces acting on the end of a tectonic plate are so poor as to being useless because his model is essentially a straw man. But most importantly, his writing does not establish there was actually a flood.

              If you read it carefully, everything about the alleged flood starts with the assertion that <something> happened, but he has not established the fact of it happening. Anyone can write that all comets and asteroid zoomed off the surface of the earth, but we have discussed here the evidence that shows that asteroids were never on the earth. Anyone can write that there were massive chambers full of water, but he gives no evidence that unambiguously shows they ever existed. Anyone can write that radioactive elements were produced a few thousand years ago, but his mechanism does not have the required energies, and we can see those same elements being formed in stars, which do have the required energy.

              Mr. Brown has a nice story to sooth christian fundamentalists, and there are some good moments of science education in it, but if you want to take it as a whole, it's not true, it's not a theory, it's not even a hypothesis actually, and the premise of what his flood can do is not directly supported by any evidence at all, so I would recommend being quite careful about calling it your truth, because it's not truth in any honest sense.

              The kindest thing you could call Mr. Brown's hydroplates is science fiction.

              That you continue to ignore everything that you don't like is your own problem.
              I don't 'like' evolution by natural selection. You don't see me ignoring that.

              Stuart

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                It has facts. One I particularly appreciate is that he mentioned that if you put a Crook's radiometer in the freezer, it goes backwards. Haven't tried it with mine yet, but interesting science. Next, it contains some scientific details well explained, but it also contains models that are poorly constructed, for example his estimation of the forces acting on the end of a tectonic plate are so poor as to being useless because his model is essentially a straw man. But most importantly, his writing does not establish there was actually a flood.
                What's wrong with his careful calculations? I think that your evaluation of his work is a straw-man.

                Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                If you read it carefully, everything about the alleged flood starts with the assertion that <something> happened, but he has not established the fact of it happening.
                His starting point is far better than your "dust cloud".

                Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                Anyone can write that all comets and asteroid zoomed off the surface of the earth, but we have discussed here the evidence that shows that asteroids were never on the earth.
                You made some claims to what effect. I think that his evidence is support by actual facts.

                Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                Anyone can write that there were massive chambers full of water, but he gives no evidence that unambiguously shows they ever existed.
                "Dust cloud"?

                His theory is supported by evidence of water deep below the surface of the earth. Something that your theory cannot support.

                Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                Anyone can write that radioactive elements were produced a few thousand years ago, but his mechanism does not have the required energies, and we can see those same elements being formed in stars, which do have the required energy.
                False

                Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                Mr. Brown has a nice story to sooth christian fundamentalists, and there are some good moments of science education in it, but if you want to take it as a whole, it's not true, it's not a theory, it's not even a hypothesis actually, and the premise of what his flood can do is not directly supported by any evidence at all, so I would recommend being quite careful about calling it your truth, because it's not truth in any honest sense.

                The kindest thing you could call Mr. Brown's hydroplates is science fiction.
                You've failed as a 'scientist' so many times. Dr Brown's work is solid.

                Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                I don't 'like' evolution by natural selection. You don't see me ignoring that.

                Stuart
                You believe in a myth, whether you "like it" or not.
                All of my ancestors are human.
                Originally posted by Squeaky
                That explains why your an idiot.
                Originally posted by God's Truth
                Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                  Well, I would have thought you were able to work out which of the two options given was my one.

                  Stuart
                  So you, once again, meant absolutely nothing by your words. Why are you so keen on saying things meaninglessly?
                  All my ancestors are human.
                  PS: All your ancestors are human.
                  PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                    I don't 'like' evolution by natural selection. You don't see me ignoring that.

                    Stuart
                    Since, by your phrase, "evolution by natural selection", you are referring to nothing but sheer nonsense, I beg to differ with you: indeed, you obviously do like, nay, love, nonsense--especially the nonsense you call "evolution by natural selection". Of course, what you are consistently ignoring is the fact that you are deluded into pretending that you're not talking nonsense.

                    All my ancestors are human.
                    PS: All your ancestors are human.
                    PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                      Your facts are the alt-facts. They are not the science facts.


                      What, you mean that because there is no shred of empirical evidence whatever that supports the story of a global flood within the past few thousand years, I should conclude something other than the fact no such thing ever happened?

                      Stuart
                      Why do you continue to use the word, "evidence", meaninglessly, in light of your persistently-showcased incompetence to deal with the fundamental questions I have been asking you concerning the nature of evidence? What do you imagine you get out of such irrational behavior as you have been displaying, here?


                      All my ancestors are human.
                      PS: All your ancestors are human.
                      PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                      Comment


                      • Observe Stuu's hypocrisy:

                        Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                        If you read it carefully, everything about the alleged flood starts with the assertion that <something> happened, but he has not established the fact of it happening. Anyone can write that all comets and asteroid zoomed off the surface of the earth, but we have discussed here the evidence that shows that asteroids were never on the earth. Anyone can write that there were massive chambers full of water, but he gives no evidence that unambiguously shows they ever existed. Anyone can write that radioactive elements were produced a few thousand years ago, but his mechanism does not have the required energies, and we can see those same elements being formed in stars, which do have the required energy.

                        Stuu, whenever you call something "the evidence", or "the evidence that shows....", you're starting with your assertion that what you are calling "the evidence", is evidence. Anyone can write "the evidence shows...", as you write, and all you're doing, in so writing, is starting with your assertion, "the evidence shows..." But you have not established that what you call "the evidence" is evidence. Stuu, why do you write, calling something "the evidence", starting with your assertion that what you are calling "the evidence" is evidence, despite the fact that you have not established that what you call "the evidence" is evidence?

                        Why do you so love to remain the hypocrite that you are, Stuu?



                        All my ancestors are human.
                        PS: All your ancestors are human.
                        PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                          What's wrong with his careful calculations?
                          Wrong coefficient of friction for crust on mantle, wrong model of plate end jamming into mantle (it melts in). It's a cartoon model for the amusement of christians, it is not physics.

                          His starting point is far better than your "dust cloud".
                          We have photographs of gas and dust nebulas forming exoplanets. Do you have photographs of chambers, or video of comets flying off the earth?

                          Does Mr. Brown have a model of how the solar system came to be that doesn't involve magic? Remember he is very keen on not discussing religion, so how did the solar system come to be?

                          You made some claims to what effect. I think that his evidence is support by actual facts.
                          Mr. Brown should have meteorites containing the same uranium content as the earth's crust, with no Widmanstatten crystals. It fails on both points. You might also have noticed a discussion between JR and me about interstellar meteors, which would be examples of bodies that cannot have come from the surface of earth. And hopefully they would not hit the surface of earth, because that would be very bad for us indeed.

                          His theory is supported by evidence of water deep below the surface of the earth. Something that your theory cannot support.
                          The fact that there is water there could indicate all sorts of ways of it getting there. It is not unambiguous. If you want to show there were 'chambers' you really need evidence of chambers, not of water.

                          There is water below the crust because it is dragged down there with subducting tectonic plates. A lot of it comes back out via the arc volcanos, but not all. I understand there is quite a lot of water dragged down through the Mariana trench (which is a subduction zone, contrary to the claims of Mr. Brown).

                          Stuart

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                            The fact that there is water there could indicate all sorts of ways of it getting there. It is not unambiguous.
                            There you go in continuance of your war against truth and logic.

                            You are claiming that the fact--the true proposition--'There is water there', could entail not only the true proposition, 'The water got there by the way, W', but also, its contradictory--the false proposition, 'The water did not get there by the way, W'. You are claiming that a fact can entail falsehood. What stupidity from you! What a worse-than-useless mindset you have regarding the nature of evidence. According to your stupidity--your irrationally-held, false doctrine concerning the nature of evidence--were one to "Follow the evidence wherever it leads", he must, having been led by the evidence, end up accepting both truth and falsehood--end up accepting mutually-contradictory propositions. If evidence leads both to truth and to falsehood, one is not following the evidence wherever it leads where one refuses to accept the falsehood to which it leads. But, you're a dyed-in-the-wool irrationalist, so you'd have not qualm one about whether or not you believe both sides of a pair of contradictories. I'd not even be surprised to hear you claim to embrace, with relish, both sides of a pair of contradictories.

                            Of course, you've thus far hid yourself away from all the questions I've asked you concerning the particular stupidity embodied in your phrases, "ambiguous evidence" and "unambiguous evidence".

                            Oh, also George Orwell says that what you wrote--"It is not unambiguous"--is bad usage and debased language.





                            All my ancestors are human.
                            PS: All your ancestors are human.
                            PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                              Wrong coefficient of friction for crust on mantle, wrong model of plate end jamming into mantle (it melts in). It's a cartoon model for the amusement of christians, it is not physics.
                              I don't believe you.

                              Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                              We have photographs of gas and dust nebulas forming exoplanets.
                              This process supposedly takes HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of years and you have a video of this happening?

                              This is more bluff and bluster that we are NOT falling for.

                              Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                              Do you have photographs of chambers, or video of comets flying off the earth?
                              The bursting of the great deep was a ONE time event in the distance PAST. This is something that evolutionists seems to lack the understanding to handle. You did NOT see the solar system "evolve" into being either. Your "model" lacks scientific integrity and yet you continue on with it as if it did.

                              Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                              Does Mr. Brown have a model of how the solar system came to be that doesn't involve magic?
                              Neither DOCTOR Brown nor I need magic (i.e., a magic dust cloud).

                              Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                              Remember he is very keen on not discussing religion, so how did the solar system come to be?
                              You're confused about the debate. Your "magic dust cloud" is NOT science.

                              Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                              Mr. Brown should have meteorites containing the same uranium content as the earth's crust, with no Widmanstatten crystals. It fails on both points. You might also have noticed a discussion between JR and me about interstellar meteors, which would be examples of bodies that cannot have come from the surface of earth. And hopefully they would not hit the surface of earth, because that would be very bad for us indeed.
                              You're sadly mistaken once again.

                              Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                              The fact that there is water there could indicate all sorts of ways of it getting there. It is not unambiguous.
                              And YET you will not even mention one of them. You're full of hot air.

                              Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                              If you want to show there were 'chambers' you really need evidence of chambers, not of water.
                              Your ignorance is amazing.

                              Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                              There is water below the crust because it is dragged down there with subducting tectonic plates.
                              More anti-science.

                              Originally posted by Stuu View Post
                              A lot of it comes back out via the arc volcanos, but not all. I understand there is quite a lot of water dragged down through the Mariana trench (which is a subduction zone, contrary to the claims of Mr. Brown).
                              More anti-science.

                              All of my ancestors are human.
                              Originally posted by Squeaky
                              That explains why your an idiot.
                              Originally posted by God's Truth
                              Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                              Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                              (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                              1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                              (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                              Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                                [On Mr. Brown's cartoon subduction modelling] I don't believe you.
                                You shouldn't take my word for it. You should read for yourself the page of Mr. Brown's calculation on frictional forces on tectonic plates. Check out his mathematical expressions and the values he substitutes. You will see the two large wrong assumptions that invalidate everything he claims on that page.

                                Stuu: We have photographs of gas and dust nebulas forming exoplanets.
                                This process supposedly takes HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of years and you have a video of this happening?
                                I recommend reading what I wrote. And the process of planetary accretion takes not quite 100 million years. That's a small fraction of the age of the solar system.

                                The bursting of the great deep was a ONE time event in the distance PAST. This is something that evolutionists seems to lack the understanding to handle.
                                What bursting of the great deep? There is not a scrap of evidence for any kind of event like that. It's part of Mr. Brown's shtick that he tells you a wide-eyed story then goes on about science for a bit, in a way that makes you think he has an evidence-based model for the story. He doesn't.

                                Do you not recall conversations about knowing how life started from chemistry, a one time event in the distant past? What is special about your one time past event?

                                You did NOT see the solar system "evolve" into being either. Your "model" lacks scientific integrity and yet you continue on with it as if it did.
                                That is exactly what we are seeing in other solar systems.

                                You're sadly mistaken once again.
                                Widmanstatten patterns? Uranium content of meteorites? These are killers for Mr. Brown's story.

                                And YET you will not even mention one of them. You're full of hot air.
                                Stuu: There is water below the crust because it is dragged down there with subducting tectonic plates.
                                Your ignorance is amazing.
                                Evidence of chambers? There isn't any, is there.

                                Stuart

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X