Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Creation/Evolution
 Debunking of Jimi's points
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 17

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 10/22/2004 :  18:07:23  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message
A couple of general things to note in his post. He attacked geology, not Biology. Someone should remind him of the topic of the debate. Next thing is to consider the length and quality of his post. I truly believe he did not use that extra week. And the most important thing to note: HE DIDNT REFRENCE A SINGLE FREAKING SOURCE He did say at the end that all of this came from drdino.com, but that's far from appropriate referencing.

quote:
If you look back in history, you will find that mankind only has records that go back about 5-6,000 years [using things OTHER than the Bible and includes “accurate” historical facts – (i.e., no myths or legends)]. Why do evolutionists then claim that humans came about 3 million years ago? Also, if all we've ever known to have existed is 5-6,000 years, then how can anyone scientifically claim that the earth is older than this? Several “calendars” of ancient civilizations say that we are in the year around 4500, and some 5700. (not exact dates) Why don't we have any ancient calendars that date older than this?

The point: We have about 6,000 years of human history that we know. From what we know, we should conclude that the earth is close to 6,000 years old.


First thing to note is the straw man, that humans came about 3 million years ago. Next thing is that language came about 6,000 years ago, to my knowledge first as a way to keep track of trading goods such as food. Anyone know some good sources showing the evolution of language? The third is that he comes to a false conclusion that because history is 6,000 years old, the Earth must be 6,000 years old.

quote:

This one might take a little more time to explain, but I'll try to make it brief and easy to understand. One of the dating methods that evolutionists use is called Uranium-Lead dating. In the process of Uranium decaying to lead, Helium is given off. Helium cannot escape the earth's atmosphere and is therefore present from the “beginning of time”. If you measure the amount of Helium in the atmosphere, it is MUCH less than what would be expected of a billion year old earth.


http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/matson-v.htm

It's: Young-earth "proof" #14: The amount of helium in the atmosphere divided by its formation rate on Earth gives only 175,000 years.

I had found a great picture taken by a satellite which shows helium escaping the atmosphere, but I can't find it now. I'll keep searching though.

quote:

Uniformitarianism states that (layman terms Wink ) “the way things happen now, is they way they've always happened.” This is the very foundation of gradualistic evolution. This is where the old ages of the earth come from. Every argument that the evolutionist uses to try and prove an old earth is based on this very faulty assumption. There are several obvious reasons why uniformitarianism is a faulty assumption:
A. We know and can observe things changing in the environment today.
B. There is no way to know if things have been constant from the time the world began until the time that humans came about.
C. Every argument based upon uniformitarianism has been shown to be flawed to due the amount of outside interference (i.e. it wasn't constant.)

If every argument used to support an old earth is based upon this very faulty assumption, then it is not scientific. Uniformitarianism is not only something that can't be proven correct, but it has also been proven to be wrong.


Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov

Edited by - Ricky on 10/22/2004 18:08:30

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 10/22/2004 :  18:16:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
His entire post is laughable.

It's filled with so many fallacies that it's just abour unreadable.


quote:
Also, if all we've ever known to have existed is 5-6,000 years, then how can anyone scientifically claim that the earth is older than this?


rofl! That's amazing. Lets see, how many fields of inquiry does this dimwit dismiss entirely with that sentence?


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 10/22/2004 :  18:39:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
Nope. Nothing new. Obviously, jimi knows zilch about the ToE beyond the ron-de-lay he gets from Dr? Dino. Which is a bit less than nothing.

I know it's not possible in this debate(?), but I would begin by happily running his one and only 'reference' through the mangle. Then pick apart the argument at my leasure. If the reference is no good, and I can't think of a worse one than Hovind, then the argument is little more than wind.

I can't be sure as I only read Hovind for amusment, but I think some of that was word for word from the good doctor(?).


"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25997 Posts

Posted - 10/22/2004 :  21:08:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
For those readers who may not have the link already: here's the debate.

For rebuttal purposes, first begin with a damning but short section on how jimi's third point is not evidence in favor of creationism, but instead a "rebuttal" of evolution and thus against the specific rules of this formal debate. Actually, all three of his points are arguments against what science tells us, and not specifically evidence in favor of creation, but only the third fails to mention anything which might possibly be pro-creation, and thus fails the "no rebuttal" test entirely. This is, of course, based upon the fact that evidence against evolution is not evidence for creation, which apparently needs to be said over there.

Secondly, a long discussion of the assumptions actually in use by scientists would be good, followed by a pointed disection of the assumptions jimi hypocritically uses in his arguments (especially his reliance on linguistic uniformitarianism is assuming that people understand what he means by "the," "you," "introduction," etc.). There are also several good places to find info on what "uniformitarianism" really is, and none of them have been read by jimi, who apparently insists that it means that things don't change, ever. Geologically, it simply means that the processes which are shaping the Earth now are assumed to be the same processes which shaped the Earth in the past, and that the laws of physics haven't changed. There is no evidence that this is not the case, and so the idea that these processes and constants and laws have changed requires more assumptions without evidence, and is thus the more complex idea which should be trimmed away with Occam's Razor.

I'll probably have more to say, later.

Oh, hell, I'll say more now, since I feel that the uniformitarianism bit should be the central foundation of the rebuttal. Especially since it is likely that jimi is going to smugly "rebut" Peptide's first round with "it's all uniformitarianism, and so all faulty." That likelihood should even be brought up in the rebuttal, so as to deny jimi the opportunity.

The rebuttal to jimi's post should be a truly devestating response to the uniformitarianism part. The fact that jimi is probably not surprised to find his bathroom in the same place every morning should demonstrate jimi's own reliance on uniformitarianism is his daily life. "Oh wow! My socks are just where I left them this morning!" is (generally) an ejactulation uttered only by the deranged. Heck, tkster's own announcements that atheists are - as a rule - "nasty" people is another example of the uniformitarian assumption in action (not that I'd bring that particular example up in rebuttal).

People can't escape uniformitarianism in one form or another without doubting almost everything about their own existence. Those who try to do so should spend every waking second wondering if their heart is going to take another beat. If the assumption is so wrong, so illogical, and so unscientific, how can jimi find time to type, when he should be busy nailing his money to the floor in a vain attempt at making sure it doesn't just wander off on its own ("vain" in that he should also realize that he's got no evidence that the nails themselves won't suddenly grow legs and stroll away).

Anyway, follow-up the rebuttal of point #3 by rebutting his point #1 by showing how it relies on uniformitarianism ideas (that people have only ever recorded history since there were people around to record it), and so is not scientific by jimi's own (poor) definition. And then rebut point #2 on uniformitarianism grounds, that he's using the assumption that helium has always been formed at a steady rate, and has never left the atmosphere, when in fact, we've only been able to record the presence of helium since 1895 (!!!), and thus - according to jimi - we have no evidence that it even existed before that year.

In other words, destroy his first two arguments by using his third argument, since if he's right about #3, then he's wrong about #1 and #2 (just as wrong as "evolutionists" are to him). Actually, this should be quite doable without using any references other than jimi's post, and without mentioning Hovind at all. A proper description of uniformitarianism isn't even required, although it would be a nice extra (and reference that).

And don't forget to say, if you go this route, Peptide, that since his uniformitarianism argument is wrong (or else he posted zero evidence for creation), any mention he makes of uniformitarianism being false in his own rebuttal will be - by his own logic - incorrect and false. This will short-circuit his own defense. His rebuttal will either ignore yours (and thus look pretty pathetic), or will have to assume uniformitarianism, in which case you will have "pre-rebutted" his rebuttal.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 10/22/2004 :  22:16:00   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
I'd like to comment on jimmi's first point. For those who haven't read it, it reads as follows:

quote:
If you look back in history, you will find that mankind only has records that go back about 5-6,000 years . . . Why do evolutionists then claim that humans came about 3 million years ago? Also, if all we've ever known to have existed is 5-6,000 years, then how can anyone scientifically claim that the earth is older than this? . . .

The point: We have about 6,000 years of human history that we know. From what we know, we should conclude that the earth is close to 6,000 years old.


There are a number of problems here, many of which stem from a tragically basic ignorance of the evidence. For instance, we're told "mankind only has records that go back about 5-6,000 years," but does this mean than there's no evidence of humans past 5-6,000 years? Do written records signify the only evidence of human activity?!?

Anyone with any basic training in archaeology will tell you that human settlements in the Near East pre-date writing-- or even proto-writing-- be thousands of year. Excavations at Jericho, for instance, show settlement at early as 12,000 BC (see E. Meyers, ed. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, vol 3 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), s.v.).

One might question how archaeologists arrive at such dates, but the answers aren't complex. At, for instance, Uruk, where writing first developes, there is clear evidence for human settlement for at least a thousand years before the first proto-cuneiform tablets appear (ibid. s.v. Uruk-Warka).

The evidence is clear: human records do not mark the "start" of human presence on earth. Instead, is it simply an indication of intellectual achievement no different (but perhaps superior to?) the car or the cumputer. Indeed, very basic investigations show humans existing for thousands of years before such writing.

Others more skilled than I will doubtless be able to point to evidence showing human evidence existing beyond, say, 12,000 BC. But for those (Peptide?) wanting more on the archaeology of Mesopotamia, please let me know.

Which leads me to this: what is the next thing the 'evolutionist' is allowed to address? It's my understanding that rebuttals aren't allowed. If not, what's the next plan of attack? Jimi did a piss poor job-- as [b[Dave[/b] and others have noted-- and it's sad that he cannot be directly refuted. Thus, what's left on the agenda?

(Edited to add: I just read the final debate rules at the debate site and see that it's alreadyt rebuttal time-- thus, if you need any help discussing argument #1, let me know!)
Edited by - Cuneiformist on 10/23/2004 05:51:20
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25997 Posts

Posted - 10/22/2004 :  23:15:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
Cuneiformist, I believe the best route to demolishing jimi's first argument is still to demonstrate that he is guilty of assuming uniformitarianism in asserting his first point to be true, thus either #1 or #3 must be wrong. As a "bonus" rebuttal, Peptide could go into the information you provide, but until his uniformitarianism argument is dismantled completely and definitively, rebuttals regarding Jericho or Uruk will simply be dismissed as more examples of those nasty "assumptions."

Right now, they've got a wonderful, magic "shield" by the name of uniformitarianism. They can use it to block any historical argument at all. But, as can clearly be seen in jimi's post, it's used prejudicially against arguments they don't like, and ignored for arguments they do like. jimi can be directly refuted, by applying his third argument to his first and second arguments, which he would obviously not do himself.

Again, using jimi's argument against uniformitarianism, he has either presented no non-faulty evidence at all for creationism, or the argument against uniformitarianism itself is incorrect, in which case it was a double waste of space in a supposedly "formal" debate (since right or wrong, it's not an argument for creation), and it can no longer be used by jimi in rebuttal against Peptide's first post.

So, until the "tragically basic ignorance" of formal logic and argumentation is dealt with, the "tragically basic ignorance of the evidence" will continue unabated, and simply isn't worth the effort to rebut.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9669 Posts

Posted - 10/23/2004 :  02:39:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
If you look back in history, you will find that mankind only has records that go back about 5-6,000 years . . . Why do evolutionists then claim that humans came about 3 million years ago? Also, if all we've ever known to have existed is 5-6,000 years, then how can anyone scientifically claim that the earth is older than this? . . .

The point: We have about 6,000 years of human history that we know. From what we know, we should conclude that the earth is close to 6,000 years old.


There are a number of problems here, many of which stem from a tragically basic ignorance of the evidence. For instance, we're told "mankind only has records that go back about 5-6,000 years," but does this mean than there's no evidence of humans past 5-6,000 years? Do written records signify the only evidence of human activity?!?

The problem is that Creationists get very picky about the evidence in cases like this. I was debating a creationist in a forum that were ready to be raptured, arguing that year-rings on trees can be traced back in time past 10 000 years.
His counter argument is that all 10 000 years were never recorded on a single trunk, and that several trunks overlapping must be used in order to create a time-line. But since no tree is exactly alike in it's ring record, there is no "perfect" match between different trunks. Thus they can not be used to create a time-line.

Back to present: The only really non-disputable evidence should be a calendar or history record which can be used to establish a time-line that is not dependant on uniformitarianism. Even several overlapping history documents can be used as long as there is no doubt that they document the same events where they overlap.

Edit: Why did I install IeSpell if I don't use it?

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 10/23/2004 02:43:40
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 10/23/2004 :  06:05:28   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.

Cuneiformist, I believe the best route to demolishing jimi's first argument is still to demonstrate that he is guilty of assuming uniformitarianism in asserting his first point to be true, thus either #1 or #3 must be wrong.


True, Dave. But I guess my point was that he makes a false assumption that if records only date back 5-6,000 years then the world must be that old. But archaeologically, this just can't be the case. This is because at Uruk (where writing is first attested) there are levels of human settlement below the levels with writing. Thus, humans have to have been around longer than ca. 5,200-5,300 BC (the first appearance of writing).

Now I suppose that he could just say that those settlements only amount to another 500 years, and then this is where I'd have to do some digging to see what would show and even greater extention downwards. It's possible, but it would take me awhile to go through the material.

Again, though, you're right. By destroying uniformitarianism, then I don't have to rely on material comparison between Uruk and elsewhere in Mesopotamia-- I can just use C-14 dating. That way, it's easy to show human settlements that date back much longer.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13462 Posts

Posted - 10/23/2004 :  09:07:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message
Sheesh! There are still hunting and gathering cultures that don't keep written records. In fact, that is what you would expect from a more “primitive” culture that doesn't plant our farm. The need to write came with the need to keep records. And that came as a result of permanent settlements leading to cities and the rise of commerce…

I am disappointed by Jimi's arguments. I was hoping he would dig a little and come up with something better than recycled Hovind nonsense.

I think this also demonstrates why Hovind himself will not debate in writing…

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25997 Posts

Posted - 10/23/2004 :  09:50:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
Cuneiformist wrote:
quote:
Now I suppose that he could just say that those settlements only amount to another 500 years, and then this is where I'd have to do some digging to see what would show and even greater extention downwards. It's possible, but it would take me awhile to go through the material.
And it'd be pointless, since you're assuming that so-many levels of settlement equal so-many years of time, when - if you ignore uniformitarianistic assumptions - a "year" could have been equal to one of our current days before writing came along.

Of course, the same argument can be applied to clocks: before there were accurate clocks, humans had no way of measuring how long a day took - and thus we can show, using jimi's own argument, that Christ may have walked the planet just 1,000 years ago, and perhaps the creation took place 1,100 years ago (or ten trillion years ago, or whatever absurd value you want). He's assuming 6,000 years because it agrees with Bishop Ussher's "calculation" (also based upon uniformitarian ideals).

Heck, jimi is assuming uniformitarity of language in the Bible, at the very least, in which case - for all he knows - Genesis at first read like this.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 10/23/2004 :  13:21:24   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And it'd be pointless, since you're assuming that so-many levels of settlement equal so-many years of time, when - if you ignore uniformitarianistic assumptions - a "year" could have been equal to one of our current days before writing came along.


True, of course. I guess I'm having trouble grasping just how far one can go by assterting that things in the past could easily-- indeed, almost certainly did-- happen at different rates than they have in more recent periods.

* * *


Reading through Jimi's post again, I am shocked by how bad it is. Granted, it is an argument for creationism and therefore likely to be weak. Still, I wasn't expecting something that bad.

It's easy to spot early on how he misinterprets the word observe to mean "to watch attentively or carefully" when, in terms of evolution, the definition "to take note of or detect scientifically; to watch or examine methodically, esp. without experimental or therapeutic intervention; to perceive or learn by scientific inspection or measurement" is better (both taken from the OED on-line).

And as has been noted already, none of his arguments actually argue for creationism. Instead, they all three simply hint that the earth is much younger than 4.6 (or whatever) billion years. But does this mean that creation as spelled out in Genesis is right? Hardly-- a point that Jimi seems to forget. The earth could be young, but life on it might have been the result of alien seeding, high-speed evolution, or the Magical Pink Unicorn (peace be upon his horn).

The only time he argues for creationism is in his concluding remarks. But here he sets up a sort of straw man, arguing that the evolutionist position that dogs came from rocks is illogical. He's right that it's illogical, but wrong in maintaining that this is a tenent of evolutionary theory.

His conclusion that "creationism . . . is more scientific" is a bit weak, since at no time in his post did he make an honest scientific claim about or supporting creationism.

I will be interested to see what Jimi's rebuttal to Peptide will be. Given his rudimentary introduction and argument, I question if he can even adequately digest all (or even some) of Peptide's arguments.

We'll see, I suppose. When are the rebuttals due?

Edited by - Cuneiformist on 10/23/2004 13:25:02
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 10/23/2004 :  14:20:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message
They are due on Friday for Peptide, next Friday for Jimi.

I have read over his post again, and now I'm noticing some different things. The first thing that Jimi does is try to change the entire point of the debate:

quote:

Second, I'd like everyone to know the creationist stance: We are not trying to get creation in schools. We are not trying to get evolution out of schools (not necessarily). We want science to be taught in science class!



The debate was supposed to be Creation vs. Evolution, which one is correct. Jimi just said that Creation is not a science, it is not backed up by facts. Does this mean we already won?


quote:

Finally, the skeptic's creed says that the simplest explanation is usually right. Which is simpler? All the dogs in the world coming from a rock 4.6 billion years ago? Or all the dogs in the world coming from two dogs? Also, which one is scientific? Dogs coming from rocks? Or dogs coming from dogs? The conclusion can be made that not only is creation more of a skeptical solution, but it is also more scientific.


Here Jimi is using Occam's Razor to try to defend Creation by saying it is more reasonable. But what he fails to mention is the need of an unknown, God, for his Creation to be true. Evolution does not need an unknown, it works off of principles which are all known today.

Also, another thing to note, uniformitarianism is built off of Occam's Razor. It would be irrational to say that the laws of science or the processes on Earth completely change without evidence or reason. So if he supports Occam's Razor, he must support uniformitarianism.

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25997 Posts

Posted - 10/23/2004 :  17:00:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
Cuneiformist wrote:
quote:
I guess I'm having trouble grasping just how far one can go by assterting that things in the past could easily-- indeed, almost certainly did-- happen at different rates than they have in more recent periods.
Right. jimi's argument against uniformitarianism says that nothing can be assumed, unless we can measure it directly and constantly, and saying that there's no reason to believe things have been different is not a "good enough" reason to believe things have always been as they are. And so, with uniformitarianism shot to hell, there's no reason to think that prehistoric human beings did not have green skin with blue dots.
quote:
I will be interested to see what Jimi's rebuttal to Peptide will be.
If my prediction holds true, jimi will simply rebut all of Peptide's arguments by saying "uniformitarianism" rather smugly. This is why I feel it's important to destroy his third point before then, by showing it to be contradictory to his first two points. It will force his rebuttal to either ignore the problems with his anti-uniformitarianism stance, thus invalidating his first two points in his first post, or it will force him to drop that stance, making it worthless.

Hopefully, Peptide's rebuttal will discuss all this, making the case air-tight.

By the way, I bold people's names when they are members of the SFN. Thus we are commenting on a debate between Peptide and jimi, on tkster's Christian forum.

Ricky wrote:
quote:
The debate was supposed to be Creation vs. Evolution, which one is correct. Jimi just said that Creation is not a science, it is not backed up by facts. Does this mean we already won?
Good catch, Ricky, but no. They are all aware that creationism isn't science, and the debate is actually between religion and science. To put forth evidence for creation, it should really have been nothing more than the best pro-God evidence there is. Because jimi failed to do that, tkster should obviously declare him to have defaulted on his argument. Think he will? Think tkster will even go so far as to declare jimi's third point to be a bald-faced rebuttal of science in its entirety? I doubt either will happen, as tkster himself has too much to lose by playing fairly.
quote:
Here Jimi is using Occam's Razor to try to defend Creation by saying it is more reasonable. But what he fails to mention is the need of an unknown, God, for his Creation to be true. Evolution does not need an unknown, it works off of principles which are all known today.
No, jimi is simply saying that if skeptic really, truly believes that Occam's Razor is a good tool, then he or she should see that God is the less-complicated hypothesis. And "Goddidit" is a very simple hypothesis, and covers everything, but it explains nothing at all, and so fails as a scientific theory.

So, jimi doesn't actually support Occam's Razor, he's just saying that if skeptics do, they should apply it in this case, too. But he doesn't understand why "Goddidit" is not a valid competing theory, and so does not explain the data equally well as evolution, natural and sexual selection, genetics, etc.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 10/23/2004 :  17:53:33   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message
quote:
No, jimi is simply saying that if skeptic really, truly believes that Occam's Razor is a good tool, then he or she should see that God is the less-complicated hypothesis. And "Goddidit" is a very simple hypothesis, and covers everything, but it explains nothing at all, and so fails as a scientific theory.



Now what I understand from this is that you are saying if we were to assume that "Goddidit" is a valid scientific theory, then due to Occam's Razor, because it would be much simpiler, it would be considered the correct explaination.

This is where I disagree. Even if "Goddidit" was a valid scientific theory, it still requires you to "invent" something... God. We have no evidence of God, and we would therefore have to "create" him for this theory to work. Evolution on the other hand works by the rules of nature which we have already observed, and nothing would need to be created. In this way evolution is much simpiler than "Goddidit" and Occam's Razor selects Evolution.

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Go to Top of Page

Ricky
SFN Die Hard

USA
4907 Posts

Posted - 10/23/2004 :  18:08:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Ricky an AOL message Send Ricky a Private Message
What Peptide must also consider is what tone his rebuttal will take on. Being there for 2 months, mine would must likely go as far as to take on one of insulting Jimi, scolding him for his inability to consider the evidence and make a good conclusion, although I don't think that would be appropriate in a formal debate. I would suggest a very strong but polite tone. Anyone else think differently?

Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25997 Posts

Posted - 10/23/2004 :  20:28:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
Damn, how did I miss these gems:
Also, evolution has not stood the test of time. What I mean is that every argument that the evolutionists use is a new argument. This is because all of their old arguments have been proven wrong or faulty. If evolution really was true we would have found out a long time ago. Nearly all of creation arguments have stood the test of time. Most of them could still be used today.
Seems that jimi doesn't have a clue as to how old evolutionary theory is. Many of the arguments Darwin used are still applicable, even if new ones have been added as new evidence is uncovered. jimi, of course, doesn't mention a single evolutionary argument which has "been proven wrong or faulty," he just wants people to think that "all" of them have been. The creationist "argument" about helium hasn't stood the test of time, because it's flat-out wrong, and it's also much younger than Darwin's arguments.

jimi also probably hasn't seen "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use" from Answers in Genesis, and the follow-up article, "Maintaining Creationist Integrity - A response to Kent Hovind" which answers Hovind's attempted defense of the crappy creationist argument from the first article. Or, if jimi has seen them both, he's ignoring the vast amount of wisdom in them in favor of Hovind's crapola, even though AiG was a suggested "reliable" source by tkster, wasn't it?

Ricky wrote:
quote:
This is where I disagree. Even if "Goddidit" was a valid scientific theory, it still requires you to "invent" something... God. We have no evidence of God, and we would therefore have to "create" him for this theory to work.
No, the point is that if "Goddidit" were a scientific theory, then we would have evidence of God, and things would be very different.
quote:
I would suggest a very strong but polite tone. Anyone else think differently?
Not me. I'm free to speak as I please about jimi's arguments here, but Peptide isn't free to do so over there. When I talk about the devestation and destruction which should be brought to bear upon the anti-uniformitarianism thing, I'm talking about logical and scientific mayhem, not insults and denigration.

On a different note, another thing to go into in the debate, as rebuttal material, is the fact that every single field of science is based upon an unprovable assumption: that there is an objective reality. If jimi thinks that using assumptions means that something is unscientific and should not be in a science class, then science classes will be empty - period.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 17 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 2.88 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000