|
|
|
Peptide
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
 Posted - 10/25/2004 : 09:37:06 [Permalink]
|
Hey everybody, sorry for taking so long. My buddy flew into town on Friday from Alaska, opening day for the local minor league hockey team was on Friday, the Fresno St vs BSU football game was on Saturday (I live in Boise, home to the undefeated 7-0 Broncos), and I watched pro football and baseball all day Sunday. Needless to say, fun but busy weekend.
WOW!! That is all I can say after reading jimi's post. When I wrote my first post I thought this would be a well informed debate which is why I went into such detail. I didn't think he would use such easy arguments to attack. I thought creationists had given up on the lunar dust, too little helium, etc arguments long ago. The scary part is that I can use CREATIONIST sources to falsify the helium argument. That fact gave me a little chuckle.
Plan of Attack:
My overall attitude is going to be firm without being arrogant (hopefully). The best route is to attack the data without even mentioning jimi's name. I would like to complain about his main source of info (Mr. Hovind) but that probably would work against me since most of the creationists at skeptic times seem to think that Hovind has "good" arguments.
Human History: I think there is evidence of human culture much older than 6,000 years old. I'll do a little digging, but I think chinese culture is quite old. Also, if jimi is against uniformitarianism it makes me wonder why he assumes that humans were around for the entire history of the earth. I could also show that human artifacts are only present in the uppermost strata of the geologic column. If humans were around for the entire history of the earth we should be able to find human remains, tools, firepits, etc in the earliest strata. Thirdly, carbon dating of anatomicly modern humans places them well past the 6,000 year date. I don't know if I will use this or not since I will also have to bring in ice core data, dendrochronology, and lake varves. However, this may be helpful in arguing for uniformiatarianism.
Well, I get back to you guys once I start writing. Thanks for the help.
Helium: This one is easy. Helium escapes freely in it's uncharged state and is stripped from the upper atmosphere through ionization and solar winds. This one is quite simple to refute.
|
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2004 : 09:41:51 [Permalink]
|
| Peptide, check Dave_W's posts in this thread for some additional ammo to use in your rebuttal. Good stuff. |
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2004 : 10:26:39 [Permalink]
|
Peptide wrote:quote:
My overall attitude is going to be firm without being arrogant (hopefully). The best route is to attack the data without even mentioning jimi's name.
Andquote:
Thirdly, carbon dating of anatomicly modern humans places them well past the 6,000 year date. I don't know if I will use this or not since I will also have to bring in ice core data, dendrochronology, and lake varves. However, this may be helpful in arguing for uniformiatarianism.
I believe the above (and other things you've mentioned) is going to be such a big mistake, I will go ahead and write jimi's rebuttal, as an exercise in Devil's Advocacy:HERVs: assumes uniformity of genetics (and uniformitarianism is false), when we knew nothing about genetics until just recently. We have no way of being sure that chimps had, even 100 years ago, the genes that they do now.
Middle Ear Evolution: assumes uniformity of geologic and biologic processes (and uniformitarianism is false). We have no way of being sure that all of those fossils weren't laid down during the Flood.
Nylon Bug: assumes uniformity of genetics (again, uniformitarianism is false), when we have no idea if this bacteria had the ability to digest nylon before nylon was invented.
Peptide's rebuttal of my first argument: radiocarbon dating, ice core dating, dendrochronology and varves all assume uniformity of various physical properties (and uniformitarianism is false). They're all wrong, and it's simply coincidence that they're all wrong by the same amounts.
Peptide's rebuttal of my second argument: assumes uniformity of helium's escape from the atmosphere (and uniformitarianism is false). We have no clue as to whether helium was escaping from the atmosphere just 100 years ago, even if it is doing so now.
And so we can see that all of Peptide's arguments are based upon uniformitarianism, which I've already demonstrated to be a faith, and thus not a science. Peptide can argue for uniformitarianism until he's blue in the face, it doesn't change the fact that it uses big assumptions in its premises. It's going to be something like that unless you rip the heart out of the anti-uniformitarianism argument, rather than just argue for uniformitarianism. And then go ahead and show that jimi's first two arguments are based upon uniformitarianism, as well, so that if he relies on anti-uniformitarianism in his own rebuttal, it'll make his own introduction that much weaker.
Because of the route jimi chose to go - cleaving to bad references, using a travesty of what most would call 'logic', and dredging up long-debunked crap as the "best evidence" for creation - this is no longer a debate about science. It is, instead, about rhetoric and appearances. If all you do, Peptide, is contradict jimi, even with impeccable sources and pristine argumentation, he'll be able to claim victory in a "so you say" sort of way that will be untouchable in the unfair short format available - tkster, BTW, obviously doesn't understand that baseball teams average out their "home team advantage" over many games between the same teams). It is my firm belief that you must demonstrate that jimi contradicts jimi, in just that one post. Call him a flip-flopper on the issue of the truth of uniformitarianism (not in so few words, of course). I bet he'd just love to be compared to Kerry so favorably. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Peptide
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2004 : 11:15:36 [Permalink]
|
The only assumption in science is that the physical world is real and it can be tested. Uniformitarianism is not assumed, it is tested. For isntance, uniform radioactive decay rates have been tested numerous ways and in numerous places (eg Oklo reactor, Supernovae, dendrochronology, formation of the Hawaiian Islands). If I can show that uniform. is not assumed, and in fact is scrutinized, then this takes the wind out his sails.
And of course, all of us assume uniform. in our everyday lives. When we start our car we expect gasoline to be flammable. When we turn the key we expect the laws of electricity will be the same every time. If the car doesn't start do we assume that the laws of physics have changed or do we assume that the car is broken? According to jimi, we have to consider that the laws of physics have changed.
Secondly, jimi never offers one single example of why uniform. should not be trusted. He simply asserts it without any evidence to back up his statement. The fact is that uniform. has been tested and it has shown it is trustworthy. Geologists, biologists, and numerous other scientists in other fields are able to make predictions based upon uniform., and those predictions keep coming true. If uniform. is supposedly so faulty why does it work? This is the question that jimi can not answer.
As jimi has shown, creationism is not about reason, logic, and especialy not science. It is about agreeing on a conclusion beforehand and then accepting or excluding evidence on the assumption that your conclusion is correct.
What really gets my goat is that he claims that skeptics only accept the simplest mechanism. Skeptics don't except any conclusion that includes supernatural mechanisms or paranormal mechanisms, period. That is why they are called skeptics. For instance, you may remember the TV special where David Copperfield magically moves through the Great Wall of China, seemingly violating every known physical law. Now, the simplest explanation is that David Copperfield possesses supernatural powers. However, a skeptic would argue that David Copperfield used a complicated system to fool the human eye into believing that he went through solid matter, a more complicated argument. Jimi doesn't even seem to understand what skepticism is, much less a valid (scientific) argument. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2004 : 11:32:20 [Permalink]
|
Looking at the form of the post I guessed that it is a first draft of your rebuttal. I added the bold part, I think it is a good way to checkmate him, although you might want to revise it.
quote:
Originally posted by Peptide
The only assumption in science is that the physical world is real and it can be tested. Uniformitarianism is not assumed, it is tested. For isntance, uniform radioactive decay rates have been tested numerous ways and in numerous places (eg Oklo reactor, Supernovae, dendrochronology, formation of the Hawaiian Islands). If I can show that uniform. is not assumed, and in fact is scrutinized, then this takes the wind out his sails.
And of course, all of us assume uniform. in our everyday lives. When we start our car we expect gasoline to be flammable. When we turn the key we expect the laws of electricity will be the same every time. If the car doesn't start do we assume that the laws of physics have changed or do we assume that the car is broken? According to jimi, we have to consider that the laws of physics have changed.
Secondly, jimi never offers one single example of why uniform. should not be trusted. He simply asserts it without any evidence to back up his statement. The fact is that uniform. has been tested and it has shown it is trustworthy. Geologists, biologists, and numerous other scientists in other fields are able to make predictions based upon uniform., and those predictions keep coming true. If uniform. is supposedly so faulty why does it work? This is the question that jimi can not answer.
But Jimi does more. Although he claims that uniformitarianism is a faulty assumption, he needs this argument for his case that Helium proves that the earth is 6000 years old. He assumes that the rate at which helium is produced has always been the same. He also assumes that Helium never escaped the earth's atmosphere, because, according to him, it does not do so now. So although Jimi rejects the assumption of uniformitarianism, he needs it for his arguments to be correct. This is inconsistent at best.
As jimi has shown, creationism is not about reason, logic, and especialy not science. It is about agreeing on a conclusion beforehand and then accepting or excluding evidence on the assumption that your conclusion is correct.
What really gets my goat is that he claims that skeptics only accept the simplest mechanism. Skeptics don't except any conclusion that includes supernatural mechanisms or paranormal mechanisms, period. That is why they are called skeptics. For instance, you may remember the TV special where David Copperfield magically moves through the Great Wall of China, seemingly violating every known physical law. Now, the simplest explanation is that David Copperfield possesses supernatural powers. However, a skeptic would argue that David Copperfield used a complicated system to fool the human eye into believing that he went through solid matter, a more complicated argument. Jimi doesn't even seem to understand what skepticism is, much less a valid (scientific) argument.
|
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2004 : 13:07:39 [Permalink]
|
Cuneiformist wrote:quote:
No, Dave, the fault lies with me. I was so focused on the first arguement-- one where I have a vested interest and therfore struggled to see how one could have troubles with basic archaeological tenents-- than the second, about helium, slipped my mind. But once it was really brought to my attention, it all made sense.
And the same argument as can be brought to bear against jimi's helium thing can be brought against jimi's first point, as well. Simply because he assumes uniformitarianism when he implies that human beings have left "records" since day one on this planet. That is, after all, the only way his argument works.
jimi's argument is about "records," however poorly defined. Human beings certainly aren't the only creatures which leave traces behind, and the traces humans leave behind change over time (for examples, before 1984 or so, it would have been impossible to find a glam-rock CD anywhere; it should also be impossible to find a model T within the remains of any 15th-century American settlement; firearms should be absent from 1 AD civilizations; etc.). So jimi's argument fails - using his own logic - by assuming uniformitarianistic principles: that human beings have always left "records" which were unambiguously human.
Nevermind that the earliest known quern is over 30,000 years old. The dating of such a thing relies on uniformitarianistic principles which jimi disputes are accurate. Nevermind that the evidence of camp fires goes back even further in time, for the same reasons.
As I suggested above, this debate is no longer about science - real science - but instead about the caricature of science and evolution which jimi has presented. I wouldn't want my kids learning that people came about three million years ago, when in fact Homo sapiens is a species between 120 and 200 thousand years old. I wouldn't want my kids learning that dogs came from rocks, when that's obviously not what the science of evolution says at all.
And so, I'm still of the mind that the best rebuttal is one which uses jimi's arguments to destroy jimi's arguments. Only after that is complete should the rebuttal turn to presenting the real science behind any of the points, and with a tone of "oh, yeah, by the way, this is the way things really are." As an afterthought, in other words, to the demonstration that jimi's idea of evidence for creation fails miserably, a demonstration which needs no references but jimi's own post.
Peptide wrote:quote:
The only assumption in science is that the physical world is real and it can be tested. Uniformitarianism is not assumed, it is tested. For isntance, uniform radioactive decay rates have been tested numerous ways and in numerous places (eg Oklo reactor, Supernovae, dendrochronology, formation of the Hawaiian Islands). If I can show that uniform. is not assumed, and in fact is scrutinized, then this takes the wind out his sails.
I believe you are severely overestimating the rationality of the person you are debating at SkepticTimes. Radioactive decay rates have only been tested in the last 100 years or so. jimi will simply assert that before the discovery of radioactive decay, we have absolutely no evidence that it occured at the same rate it does now, or even that it happened at all.
All of the arguments you can bring to bear assume uniformitarianism to be true in some way, shape or form. With a changing speed of light, it's impossible to say what supernovae actually tell us. With variable tree-ring sizes in various locations, it's not precise enough to be "science." The Hawaiin Islands were simply plopped into the Pacific by God, who then fired up the volcanoes for fun. Etc.
The only way you're truly going to be able to demonstrate that jimi's argument is wrong is to show that it invalidates his own arguments about human "records" and helium, and in fact invalidates all of scientific endeavor. If it were true, by their own desires to eliminate non-science from the science classroom, jimi and his friends should be arguing for the termination of all science classes, whether they teach evolution or not. But since they aren't doing so, they're employing a "pick-and-choose" definition of "uniformitarianism" to attack something which they don't like.
Anyway, once you show jimi's argument to be wrong, then you can add in the real science behind uniformitarianism. Just doing the latter is not going to be convincing at all, and my prediction is still that jimi will do nothing but claim "that's more of that false uniformitarianism" in reply, and claim victory. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Peptide
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2004 : 13:45:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Anyway, once you show jimi's argument to be wrong, then you can add in the real science behind uniformitarianism. Just doing the latter is not going to be convincing at all, and my prediction is still that jimi will do nothing but claim "that's more of that false uniformitarianism" in reply, and claim victory.
That is a very good point. The dating of the dead sea scrolls, for instance, depend on carbon dating. The same could be said for all ancient human records. The dating of ancient cultures depends uniform. (I hate spelling the whole word) principles, as does the helium argument.
After I show how inconsistent, and dependendent, jimi is regarding uniform I can then move one to bigger fish. The bigger fish being the experiments that support uniform mechanisms through history. Next, I will discuss how science could not even be taught if physical laws were varying to the degree required for the earth to be young. I will then finish with the assumption that everybody operates with on a daily basis, that physical laws are uniform over time. Sound good? |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2004 : 13:56:09 [Permalink]
|
You'll crush him by illustrating the uniformitarianism inconsitencies in his argument.
All the rest is just icing :P
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2004 : 14:13:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Peptide
WOW!! That is all I can say after reading jimi's post. When I wrote my first post I thought this would be a well informed debate which is why I went into such detail. I didn't think he would use such easy arguments to attack.
Honestly, I don't know if I should laugh or be angry. Yes, Jimmi's three points were ridiculously infantile, but they were poorly argued on top of that. I mean, I don't see two weeks of effort on his part. (Oops, I mean one week's time. Jimmi has god to keep him honest.) It looks like his skimmed a Hovine site, scribbled down 2 arguments, coupled them to him favorite rant on uniformitarianism, and voila! Instant debate.
Well, I couldn't agree with Dave W. any more on his points. The helium and human documents arguments even feel like filler or fluff. It's clear that Jimmi thinks the uniform. point nullifies any exploration of history or the earth's past as being science. It's doesn't matter to him if that reduces his own arguments to shit, because I doubt he'll defend them very hard anyway.
Remember his stated goal: to show that evolutionary theory isn't science. (Even though it was supposed to be about why Creationism is valid.) The primary and bulk of the rebuttle should be about Uniformarianism.
I would also ask tk to have Jimmi list his sources in detail and PRONTO. His sources should necessarily be made available prior to the rebuttle. Anyone in college knows that such a lame-ass notation as "all my info was taken from X" is not satisfactory. Now, I don't think his arguments really need greater documentation, but it's the principle of the thing. It's the effort involved. Jimmi should be held accountable under the same degree of scrutiny as Peptide.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/25/2004 14:22:00 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2004 : 14:18:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Peptide
That is a very good point. The dating of the dead sea scrolls, for instance, depend on carbon dating. The same could be said for all ancient human records. The dating of ancient cultures depends uniform. (I hate spelling the whole word) principles, as does the helium argument.
Actually, at least as far as the ancient Near East is concerned, it's simply more common to use other techniques for dating written documents. Experts in paleography are usually pretty good at dating things like the DSS and such. Other internal indicators-- e.g. orthography, vocabulary, etc. help to fine tune such estimates. Documents found in situ (that is, in their original context, and not, for example, on the antiquities market) can also be dated by comparing them to pottery and other items along side which they were found.
The problem with carbon dating is that it destroys the item. Thus, to meature the date of a DSS, you'd have to more or less tear off a large enough piece of the document, thus ruining that part.
Having said that, I'm sure (though I cannot confirm, since I have no books in front of me) that at least one such text or fragment has been tested.
Still, Dave's right. If we cannot assume a constant rate of radioactive decay, then C-14 goes out the window. So does just about any other dating technique. Even so-called "absolute" dating methods-- such as calibrating a text to an astronomical event-- is worthless under jimi's argument. Jimi seems to be quite happy in a world where even tie is in a state of flux.
But back to the point-- I think Dave is right. Even jimi's own arguments collapse in light of his views uniformitarianism. So that's the thing to work on! |
|
|
|
Plyss
Skeptic Friend
Netherlands
231 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2004 : 15:25:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
The problem with carbon dating is that it destroys the item. Thus, to meature the date of a DSS, you'd have to more or less tear off a large enough piece of the document, thus ruining that part.
I'm not familiar with modern dating technology, but wouldn't you need fairly minor amounts of a compound to determine its isotopic composition? I'm fairly certain FT-ICR equipment can record isotopic patterns at resolutions exceeding 1 million on nanomole samples. |
Miss Tick sniffed. 'You could say this piece of advice is pricesless', she said. 'Are you listening?'
'Yes' said Tiffany.
'Good now...If you trust in yourself.."
'Yes..?'
'..and believe in your dreams...'
'yes?'
'...and follow your star..' Miss Tick went on.
'Yes?'
'You'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy. Goodbye.' |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2004 : 16:13:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Plyss
I'm not familiar with modern dating technology, but wouldn't you need fairly minor amounts of a compound to determine its isotopic composition? I'm fairly certain FT-ICR equipment can record isotopic patterns at resolutions exceeding 1 million on nanomole samples.
Actually, I'm not too familiar with such dating methods, either 
Since archaeology isn't my main focus, I don't keep up too much with the particulars. Rather, I just try to remember the stff I read in the articles...
I'll do some checking and get back to you... |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2004 : 17:38:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Good write-up, Mab. Congrats.
Thanks, though I'm sure you could have done at least as well, had you put your mind to it...
quote:
Now, don't get me wrong: I really enjoy reading Mab's and Cuneiformist's remarks on the falsity of points 1 and 2, posted as if jimi had not made point 3.
That was the point of my post: I missed the contradiction myself, until you pointed it out the first time. But I think that one should try to cover all angles, so I thought that Helium was appropriate for me to address since physics was one of my favourite subjects at school.
quote:
I believe that most people, even creationists, would see that particular tactic to be equivalent to "winning" a debate by sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "lalalalalalala!"
Wasn't that the point of us "evolutionists" joining forces in the first place? To force them to realize that that is the only real course of action if they keep insisting on Young Earth Creation. |
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. |
|
|
|
mountain_hare
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 10/25/2004 : 18:17:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I believe the rules only say 3 arguements for the first post, but I'm also fairly sure that it would be against the rules (or at least the purpose of a debate) to rebute things which Jimi hasn't touched on. I would therefore strongly advise against such.
OOPS. Me bad. I assumed that attacking Creationism was allowed in the intro since Jimi done it, and was not reprimanded.
Has peptide complained about Jimi's breach of the rules? Oh, wait, breaching the rules is fine as long as the person who is arguing 'truth' wins the debate. *snorts*
quote:
While I understand why you are saying this, and you probably are right, I disagree. If you don't have the patience or knowlege to deal with science, you have two choices, don't deal with science or learn about it. I suggest the 2nd.
While you are correct in theory (heh), in practice, how many bystanders watching the debate are actually going to research science? They may be attracted to Jimi's fallicious arguments because they are shorter, and easier to understand.
The problem with intelligent people arguing evolution (eg. Peptide) is they forget that teenagers with very little knowledge in science are watching the debate. You need to make your arguments accessable to them.
LOL. I love how Jimi blows his own arguments out of the water by arguing against Uniformitarianism.
"The oldest written records were written 6000 years ago."
"How do you know that a year has always been the same period of time that it is now, Jimi? That's Uniformitarianism!"
"Uniformitarianism has been tested and shown to be reliable. For example, I predicted from my past debates with Creationists that my current opponent (a Creationist), would use fallicious and weak arguments from crackpots to support their pseudoscience. My prediction has been shown to be correct!"
Ummm, on second thought, I don't think that you should say that! :P
|
"This may sound really off the wall, but listen to me. You've got to believe me. I've not gone crazy, and I'm not fooling around. At first I thought I was losing my mind. But now I know I'm not. It's not me. The scientific community. It's being invaded by Creationism. Someone's ignorant delusions come to life. Little by little, the
invasion is spreading. Trying to swallow up everything in ignorance."
The words of Dr. Harry to the disbelieving scientific community, who were amazed that such idiotic ideals as "Creationism" would ever be taken seriously.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
