Jump to content


Photo

Bias


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
71 replies to this topic

#41 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 29 July 2012 - 12:37 PM

Go back and reread Mike Summer's statement. Where is the Ad Hominem attack? Let me remind you that an ad hom is a statement that attacks a person's character rather than responding to their argument. He was not responding to an argument, rather saying evolutionists think they are always right, grouping them with Stalin, Hitler, and Marx, which he calls scary. I would call this stereotyping, not ad hominem.

The warning in Ringo's post was an explanation for the suspension, not a description of what was going on in that post in particular. So what was the difference between this and Ringo's post? Context. In that particular post Ringo was trolling, dodging the question posed to him and posting a stereotype of Creationists as an attempt to evoke an emotional response rather than further the discussion that I was having with him. Mike Summers shows no such intent to troll, but to discuss his point "people who think that they are always "right" are very scary. This can easily lead into a discussion that creationists can be just as scary, thus quite easily expanding the examples he provided to point out quite embarrassingly that his statement has larger implications than he originally intended.

Would it surprise you to know that Ringo is still allowed to post here? (as long as he follows the forum rules of course)

I am fully aware that everyone has bias. That is actually one of my big arguments against people suggesting that all science is objective.

If you would like to do things properly in the future, you should try using the report button for posts that you believe contain rule infractions. This time you chose to handle this situation poorly with intent to cause spectacle and challenge the wisdom of the forum moderators (me in particular) concerning past handling of infractions. You only showed your own ignorance about what happened with Ringo and earned yourself a:

WARNING: Complaining about forum moderation is against the forum rules and will not be tolerated.


Oh, what a surprise! Moose, you've only been here a few days and already arguing with the moderators.

Was it too much to expect that you would bring forth some great dissertation giving evidence for evolution? What is your purpose here anyway? Are you looking to get kicked off so you run back to your comrades on EvC and tell them how you were 'treated' on this creationist website?

State your case, fella. We are waiting.

#42 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,242 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 29 July 2012 - 02:04 PM

Especially interesting when you ask for proof that God does not exist. What you get as a response is purely agnostic musings.

Agnostic = doesn't know whether God exists / Atheism = Belief that God does not exist.

An agnostic can tell you that he isn't really religious and still be intellectually honest. When an atheist tells you he isn't religious than he's not being intellectually honest. Since he also acts with some confidence in his position, leading him to mock all (theistic) religions, it's quite fair to call his position a faith statement.

Most atheists seem to be rather agnostics tough. That stems from being the more known term and of course from atheists having broadened the definition a bit.
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#43 Minnemooseus

Minnemooseus

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Duluth, Minnesota
  • Age: 56
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Duluth, Minnesota

Posted 31 July 2012 - 02:43 AM

I'm going to do a fairly short reply to message 42 right now. I intend to do longer replies to some of the upthread material later

Agnostic = doesn't know whether God exists / Atheism = Belief that God does not exist.

An agnostic can tell you that he isn't really religious and still be intellectually honest. When an atheist tells you he isn't religious than he's not being intellectually honest. Since he also acts with some confidence in his position, leading him to mock all (theistic) religions, it's quite fair to call his position a faith statement.

Most atheists seem to be rather agnostics tough. That stems from being the more known term and of course from atheists having broadened the definition a bit.


I think that agnosticism is rather a non-position rather than being a position. But indeed an agnostic is a non- theist. But there is another term for non-theist – a-theist, atheist.

Now there is what is called weak atheism – No belief in God. Then there is strong atheism – Belief there is no God. Personally, the think the difference is really splitting hairs.

Now, I find no reason to think there is a God, and many reasons to think that there is no God of certain definitions (such as a young Earth creationist God). I also will extend my non-belief to include the general belief there is no God, but there is a degree of agnosticism to go with that extension. I won’t say I know there is no God, especially when the definition of what God is is so vague.

Now atheism is not necessarily to be anti-theistic. I think most atheists don’t care what theists believe in or think. It’s just when theists start pushing their beliefs onto other people and into public policy that some atheists are inclined to push back. Indeed, even other theists may also push back.

Once again, I’ll readily admit my position includes some agnostic. The question is, how many of you theists are willing to admit to also being at least a bit agnostic?

Enough for now. I’ll get back to bias considerations and the nature of evcforum.net in another message. But I do encourage any and all to look over that topic I supplied links to upthread. I challenge anyone to find an example in that topic or any other evcforum.net topic, where either Minnemooseus or Adminnemooseus personally treated a creationist badly.

Moose

Edit - Added "the general" to 3rd paragraph below quote.

Edited by Minnemooseus, 31 July 2012 - 02:47 AM.


#44 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 31 July 2012 - 02:57 AM

I'm going to do a fairly short reply to message 42 right now. I intend to do longer replies to some of the upthread material later



I think that agnosticism is rather a non-position rather than being a position. But indeed an agnostic is a non- theist. But there is another term for non-theist – a-theist, atheist.

Now there is what is called weak atheism – No belief in God. Then there is strong atheism – Belief there is no God. Personally, the think the difference is really splitting hairs.

Now, I find no reason to think there is a God, and many reasons to think that there is no God of certain definitions (such as a young Earth creationist God). I also will extend my non-belief to include the general belief there is no God, but there is a degree of agnosticism to go with that extension. I won’t say I know there is no God, especially when the definition of what God is is so vague.

Now atheism is not necessarily to be anti-theistic. I think most atheists don’t care what theists believe in or think. It’s just when theists start pushing their beliefs onto other people and into public policy that some atheists are inclined to push back. Indeed, even other theists may also push back.

Once again, I’ll readily admit my position includes some agnostic. The question is, how many of you theists are willing to admit to also being at least a bit agnostic?

Enough for now. I’ll get back to bias considerations and the nature of evcforum.net in another message. But I do encourage any and all to look over that topic I supplied links to upthread. I challenge anyone to find an example in that topic or any other evcforum.net topic, where either Minnemooseus or Adminnemooseus personally treated a creationist badly.

Moose

Edit - Added "the general" to 3rd paragraph below quote.


Absolutely incorrect... If you used the actual terms in the dictionary rather than those of your own creation you would see where you err....

Or will you debate about the dictionary and how its wrong?




a·the·ism
   [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

http://dictionary.re.../browse/atheism



The prefix of the a means "anti" therefore if theism is the belief that there IS a God then atheism is the belief that there is NO God. You've basically equivocated agnostic to mean "non" then "non" to "a"

Agnostics realize and accept the possibility of a God, they cut BOTH ways, sitting on the fence giving the same amount of creditability to either side. That definitely is not "non-theism" nor is it remotely atheism.

#45 Minnemooseus

Minnemooseus

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Duluth, Minnesota
  • Age: 56
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Duluth, Minnesota

Posted 31 July 2012 - 03:20 AM

Absolutely incorrect... If you used the actual terms in the dictionary rather than those of your own creation you would see where you err....

Or will you debate about the dictionary and how its wrong?




a·the·ism
   [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

http://dictionary.re.../browse/atheism


Weak atheism (sometimes referred to as "negative atheism") describes all belief systems and philosophical stances which lack a belief in God, without claiming to meet the burden of proof that God or gods does not exist. It differs from strong atheism, which claims to have positive reason or evidence proving for certain that God or gods does not exist. It also differs from agnosticism, in that a weak atheist says he doesn't believe in God or gods, while an agnostic says he doesn't know whether there is a God or not. Many weak atheists are also agnostics.


http://www.conservap...om/Weak_Atheism

Strong atheism (sometimes called "positive atheism" by its adherents), is a type of atheism that asserts the absolute doctrine that there are no gods. It is different from weak atheism, in which the atheist claims only that there is insufficient evidence that any god exists.


http://www.conservap.../Strong_atheism

Perhaps my wording wasn't the best, but I believe my usage is in alignment with the conservapedia defintions. I think this might be a case where conservapedia and wikipedia agree.



The prefix of the a means "anti" therefore if theism is the belief that there IS a God then atheism is the belief that there is NO God. You've basically equivocated agnostic to mean "non" then "non" to "a"

Agnostics realize and accept the possibility of a God, they cut BOTH ways, sitting on the fence giving the same amount of creditability to either side. That definitely is not "non-theism" nor is it remotely atheism.


a-, an-

(Greek: prefix; no, absence of, without, lack of; not)



http://wordinfo.info/unit/2838/ip:1

No "anti" there. Do you wish to supply a source that includes "anti"?

Atheist - no belief in God, absence of belief in God, without belief in God, lack of belief in God.

Not "anti-God".

Moose

#46 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 31 July 2012 - 04:12 AM

http://www.conservap...om/Weak_Atheism



http://www.conservap.../Strong_atheism

Perhaps my wording wasn't the best, but I believe my usage is in alignment with the conservapedia defintions. I think this might be a case where conservapedia and wikipedia agree.





[/b]

http://wordinfo.info/unit/2838/ip:1

No "anti" there. Do you wish to supply a source that includes "anti"?

Atheist - no belief in God, absence of belief in God, without belief in God, lack of belief in God.

Not "anti-God".

Moose

I didn't use conservapedia

I used an online dictionary which already destroyed your claim.

#47 Minnemooseus

Minnemooseus

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Duluth, Minnesota
  • Age: 56
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Duluth, Minnesota

Posted 31 July 2012 - 04:45 AM

I didn't use conservapedia

I used an online dictionary which already destroyed your claim.


Whatever makes you happy. I'll leave it to the judgment of others.

I've come to not totally like the conservapedia's (which I figured you'd like better than wikipedia) descriptions of weak and strong athesim. The basic definitions are OK, but I think weak atheism is independent of agnosticism (I know I lack belief) while my strong atheism is subject to agnosticism (I believe in the lack of God, but I recognise that I may be wrong).

But I'm not anti-theistic about much of religion. Just the ones I find to be in conflict with what I see as worldly reality.

Bottom line - I believe many varieties of creationism to be wrong because they conflict with worldly evidence.

I have nothing further to say about atheism.

#48 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 31 July 2012 - 03:00 PM

But I'm not anti-theistic about much of religion. Just the ones I find to be in conflict with what I see as worldly reality.

Bottom line - I believe many varieties of creationism to be wrong because they conflict with worldly evidence.


I'll say it again: state your case. Let's see if creation conflicts with 'wordly' evidence. We are eagerly waiting.

#49 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,242 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 31 July 2012 - 03:27 PM

If someone answers the question:"Do you belief in (a) God?" with "NO"
Then he can be an assist, but isn't necessarily one. He could be an agnostic as well.
But I think I explained it well enough above.

#50 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 13 August 2012 - 09:16 AM

I think most atheists don’t care what theists believe in or think. It’s just when theists start pushing their beliefs onto other people and into public policy that some atheists are inclined to push back. Indeed, even other theists may also push back.

Moose, This is the sort of bias that gilbot mentions in his original post. Notice this sentence; "It’s just when theists start pushing their beliefs onto other people and into public policy that some atheists are inclined to push back."

If public policy allowed both positions to be taught there would be not opposition. At any rate we all believe what we want anyway. I just have a hard time believing there can't be intelligent beings in the universe(no God). More specifically because I exist I see no reason that other beings can and do exist.

As Christian we believe there is an intelligent being called God that lives in outer space. If an atheist evolutionist believes that there might be intelligent life(even more intelligent than us) hasn't he lost the criteria for thinking of himself as an atheist?

Furthermore it is my contention that many evos (like Hawkings & Dawkins) come across so dogmatically that it's easy to conclude that they think they are god--all wise and all knowing.

Evos have a god. He's called evolution! Their god can do anything. He created the universe and everything in it!

#51 Minnemooseus

Minnemooseus

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Duluth, Minnesota
  • Age: 56
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Duluth, Minnesota

Posted 13 August 2012 - 06:30 PM

Moose, This is the sort of bias that gilbot mentions in his original post. Notice this sentence; "It’s just when theists start pushing their beliefs onto other people and into public policy that some atheists are inclined to push back."

If public policy allowed both positions to be taught there would be not opposition. At any rate we all believe what we want anyway. I just have a hard time believing there can't be intelligent beings in the universe(no God). More specifically because I exist I see no reason that other beings can and do exist.


The quoted (within the quoted) is my statement. I fail to see such in Gilbo's message 1 text, and I'm not about to sit through a 2 hour video unless someone gives me a real good reason.

Anyway, (U.S.) public policy does allow both positions to be taught. The scientific position is (maybe) taught in the public schools and the religious position is taught in the churches. Certain private schools are free to teach both, and certain churches might be willing to explore both.

As Christian we believe there is an intelligent being called God that lives in outer space. If an atheist evolutionist believes that there might be intelligent life(even more intelligent than us) hasn't he lost the criteria for thinking of himself as an atheist?


I don't think I've ever before heard the specific theological position that God lives in outer space. Also, you are equating belief in the possibility of intelligent life outside of Earth with the belief of the possibility of God?

Furthermore it is my contention that many evos (like Hawkings & Dawkins) come across so dogmatically that it's easy to conclude that they think they are god--all wise and all knowing.


By the way - "Hawking" - no "s" in the name (I assume you're talking about Stephan Hawking). Personally, I fail to see them in that way.

Evos have a god. He's called evolution! Their god can do anything. He created the universe and everything in it!


For many, faith in God and God's creation, and acceptance ("belief") of evolution are compatible. God created and evolution is part of the process he used. Me - I'm agnostic about God being behind it all, but I find no reason to believe such, so I default to calling myself an atheist. If it makes people feel better, I can go from atheist to agnostic. I make no claim of absolute knowledge of God's absence.

Lastly, I thank you for your hospitable reception of my presence. Despite being from the "den of evil" evcforum.net, I do think I'm a nice guy. Upthread, I supplied some links that members here have the option of exploring (or explore anywhere else there). My challenge remains - Go find something at evcforum.net that shows me as being mean or unfair to creationists, either as Minnemooseus or the admin version Adminnemooseus. It may be there, but I think finding such will at least be a challenge. Try finding a creationist that is angry at Minnemooseus or Adminnemooseus. Again, it will be at best quite a challenge. On the other hand, it's real easy to find quite a few evolution side members who are angry at Adminnemooseus. I even had one evo member accuse me, via e-mail, of being a creationist. Which I am definitely not.

Moose

The added by edit is the "(within the quoted)"

Edited by Minnemooseus, 13 August 2012 - 06:32 PM.


#52 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 13 August 2012 - 07:36 PM

[quote] name='gilbo12345' timestamp='1342146472' post='84970']
I was watching a debate between William Lane Craig and Peter Atkins and it seems to me that Atkins fully believes that he himself is not biased or has presuppositions of his own. Such s evident in his opening remarks, (which was merely a tirade of slanderous accusations, about being ignorant / lazy etc).

I pondered this and I realised that many evolutionists / atheists seem to think the same, in that they are completely unbiased with no prejudice of any kind. I am wondering on what basis can this belief be maintained, since its very basic understanding which comprehends that ALL people have their own personal bias and presuppositions. To have no bias is to claim one must be infallible which is impossible, this then leads to the incredulity of the claims that an evolutionist / atheist has no bias towards their own worldview.


(Yes I am sure not all evolutionists / atheists are like this, however it does seem to be the case with the more outspoken ones, Dawkins / Atkins etc.)





Atheist philosopher Michael Ruse stated: “People forget that it is possible to be intensely religious in the entire absence of theological belief". (Michael Ruse, Darwin and Design, p. 335)
[/quote]

Gilbo, some logicians term this the Pretended Neutrality Fallacy. People who claim to be neurtral are in a state of self-decption. It is impossible to be neutral with respect to worldviews, and to pretend so is to be dishonest. Every person on Planet Earth has a set of presuppositons that make up his worldview. Any evidence presented to him will be interpreted through his worldview. For example, the Christian creationist will look at the Grand Canyon and see undeniable evidence for a world-wide flood. The atheist evolutionist will see billions of years of erosion.

The Pretended Neutrality Fallacy is logically flawed. Here's why:

Since both the creationist and the atheist have positive worldviews, a third (hypothetical) "neutral" worldview will, of necessity, provide a different interpretation of some evidence than both the creationist and the evolutionist would. Otherwise, it would not be distinguishable from those two worldviews. And, most importantly, if the "neutral" interpretation of some evidence is incorrect, why would we trust it to reliably point to either creation or evolution? We would be using a faulty worldview to point to a correct worldview--which would be absurd. And alternatively, if the "neutral" interpretation was correct, the the other two worldviews are wrong. Everyone must have a ultimate standard by which all evidence is evaluated. This ultimate standard can't be judged by a lesser "neutral" standard, Otherwise it would not be ultimate. Clearly, the pretended "neutral" standard is logically flawed.

A "neutral" approach is incompatible with the Bible. Jesus indicated that there is no neutral when it comes to an ultimate commitment (Mat. 12:30; Rom. 8:7; James 4:4). Now the atheist will argue that the Bible is not infallible. But since the Bible says there is no neutral ground, the atheist who argues against the Bible is anything but "neutral." It is really not possible to be neutral and live in the real world.

TeeJay

#53 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 14 August 2012 - 10:21 AM

The quoted (within the quoted) is my statement. I fail to see such in Gilbo's message 1 text, and I'm not about to sit through a 2 hour video unless someone gives me a real good reason. Anyway, (U.S.) public policy does allow both positions to be taught. The scientific position is (maybe) taught in the public schools and the religious position is taught in the churches. Certain private schools are free to teach both, and certain churches might be willing to explore both. I don't think I've ever before heard the specific theological position that God lives in outer space. Also, you are equating belief in the possibility of intelligent life outside of Earth with the belief of the possibility of God? By the way - "Hawking" - no "s" in the name (I assume you're talking about Stephan Hawking). Personally, I fail to see them in that way. For many, faith in God and God's creation, and acceptance ("belief") of evolution are compatible. God created and evolution is part of the process he used. Me - I'm agnostic about God being behind it all, but I find no reason to believe such, so I default to calling myself an atheist. If it makes people feel better, I can go from atheist to agnostic. I make no claim of absolute knowledge of God's absence. Lastly, I thank you for your hospitable reception of my presence. Despite being from the "den of evil" evcforum.net, I do think I'm a nice guy. Upthread, I supplied some links that members here have the option of exploring (or explore anywhere else there). My challenge remains - Go find something at evcforum.net that shows me as being mean or unfair to creationists, either as Minnemooseus or the admin version Adminnemooseus. It may be there, but I think finding such will at least be a challenge. Try finding a creationist that is angry at Minnemooseus or Adminnemooseus. Again, it will be at best quite a challenge. On the other hand, it's real easy to find quite a few evolution side members who are angry at Adminnemooseus. I even had one evo member accuse me, via e-mail, of being a creationist. Which I am definitely not. Moose The added by edit is the "(within the quoted)"




I respect very much what you said here. But when my thoughts turn to some evo's, like Hawkings and Dawkins, they have decided that there can't be a God. They will point to the Bible and say that it is not a credible book (it was written by men) and then refer to Darwin's book (also written by a man) as being totally credible. That's the incongruency (bias) gilbot12345 is addressing in his OP.

Dawkins, like the rest of us, is not all knowing! I would venture he is able of understanding that! But he puts on his "evo science hat" and then his pronouncements are "absolute truth!" again, I am sure he will admit that he is not ominoptent (all knowing) If he is, where is his cure for cancer, etc..,?

I pick up a rock containg a fossil (with college biological educationn behind me) and I can't tell from that rock who the former animal had s@x with, what creature it allegedly evoled from or how many offspring it did or did not have? Perhaps it was unfit and had none. So, how can Dawkins et al come across so sure of what they know?

The human mind, I think we will agree, is a finite source of information (that includes all of us) . Bias exists all around! We are capable of realizing that. So like TeeJay said (paraphased)--why pretend that there is something called neutrality? If it does exist, it's only for a short time before we decide which "position" to take. But then clever being that you are and since you are creative like the rest of us you might argue, "I am 'neutral' by being agnostic." My conclusion is that you can't out create a fellow creator. In other words you can't "win" a power struggle with an equal.

On the other hand creationism is a lot more efficient than evolution. It didn't take long for the phone to come into existence. Bell created it! No phones have"naturally' occured in the alleged 3.8 billion years that evo has existed on earth! Ditto for all the other things intelligence has quicly brought into existence. As I argued in my post, "'Is Evolution Obsolete?' which is more efficient intelligent creationism or an an inherently long winded system (evolution).

Think of evo as training wheels on a bike. If we are really going to be able to "ride" a bike, at a specific time our training wheels have to come off.

Bias? Yes there is bias on both sides--no one has absolute truth--not even Dawkins!

#54 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 16 August 2012 - 02:45 AM

"Me - I'm agnostic about God being behind it all, but I find no reason to believe such, so I default to calling myself an atheist."

Moose,

What would cause a leading scientist in any sub division of biology to be convinced that he had found such evidence and convert to being a full fledged YEC?

#55 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 16 August 2012 - 08:42 AM

Moose,,

I (we) don't think you are being honest with your self. There are over 7 billion people on planet earth. How many do you know? The average amount of people we know in our life is around 2500. Anyone of the remaining people could be the Messiah (God).We are all made in His image. Jesu looked like the average human of his time. Moreover, surely you admit that you are just as human as the rest of us and at least we are made in each others image.
.

What you call default is really a choice. Yet you have not even approached checking out the other 7 billion people on earth.
An atheist is certain there is no God.

#56 Minnemooseus

Minnemooseus

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Duluth, Minnesota
  • Age: 56
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Duluth, Minnesota

Posted 16 August 2012 - 02:58 PM

"Me - I'm agnostic about God being behind it all, but I find no reason to believe such, so I default to calling myself an atheist."

Moose,

What would cause a leading scientist in any sub division of biology to be convinced that he had found such evidence and convert to being a full fledged YEC?


Well, I think that YECism fails right from the Y - The geological evidence says the Earth's age is much older than the YEC time frame. This has little to nothing to do with biology. And any discussion of the geological evidence need to go to a proper title for such.

Moose,,

I (we) don't think you are being honest with your self. There are over 7 billion people on planet earth. How many do you know? The average amount of people we know in our life is around 2500. Anyone of the remaining people could be the Messiah (God).We are all made in His image. Jesu looked like the average human of his time. Moreover, surely you admit that you are just as human as the rest of us and at least we are made in each others image.
.

What you call default is really a choice. Yet you have not even approached checking out the other 7 billion people on earth.
An atheist is certain there is no God.


At this point, I guess I must ask what are the defining characteristics of God? For some definitions I may be able to say "I think that there is no such God". For other definitions I would be more agnostic.

I have discussed the cocept of soft and hard atheism in message 45. I don't think I've ever claimed to be certain there is no God (very hard atheism). Richard Dawkins doesn't even claim that lever of atheism.

But if you wish to define atheism as "certain there is no God", then I'm an agnostic.

Moose

Edit - left an "are" out of a sentence.

Edited by Minnemooseus, 16 August 2012 - 03:00 PM.


#57 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 17 August 2012 - 02:41 AM

Well, I think that YECism fails right from the Y - The geological evidence says the Earth's age is much older than the YEC time frame. This has little to nothing to do with biology. And any discussion of the geological evidence need to go to a proper title for such.



There is a lot of rock, which could have been produced shortly by a lot of water. These are circular interpretations, which have nothing to do with empirical biological predictions. Geology isn't the be all of dating methods. In fact, there are very few ways to date anything in the rock record and YEC own most of them.
  • Soft tissue and proteins in Paleozoic and Mesozoic fossils.
  • Helium diffusivity rates in zircons.
  • Carbon 14 in fossils.
  • Polystrate fossils.
  • Experimental confirmation of accelerated nuclear decay rates.
The fact remains that a valid hypothesis is one that makes accurate predictions. John C. Sanford was one of the leading geneticists in the US and he certainly wasn't a YEC when he began his research. After creating software and conducting genetic experiments on corn, he was able to determine that the rates of mutations were a perfect match for the YEC model. So even without a belief in God, scientists are able to determine that there is one if they allow themselves to quantify data instead of reading their bias into it. John Sanford could have easily said "Well, the data doesn't fit the model, so we just need to change the model to fit the data" and kept on pretending that the observations just happen to support creation by chance.

When John Sanford tested genetic entropy against what was believed to be a mythical book called the bible and found a biological decay curve, how does one justify their continued disbelief?

Attached File  curve.jpg   22.65KB   5 downloads

Could people 2,000 years ago know about genetics and make up ages that would deceive people in the future? Or could it just be a lucky chance occurrence? I personally have never visited a casino and never put my money on chance. If observation matches a prediction, then I am looking at the correct hypothesis.




Thanks.

#58 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 17 August 2012 - 06:14 AM

Well, I think that YECism fails right from the Y - The geological evidence says the Earth's age is much older than the YEC time frame. This has little to nothing to do with biology. And any discussion of the geological evidence need to go to a proper title for such.


I would have to disagree as well.

https://en.wikipedia..._volcanic_field
http://youtu.be/bGB-PfFSV2w?t=2m51s (starting at 2:51)
Uinkaret lava flows which flow into the grand canyon were measured by 6 K-Ar which suggested 10,000 to 17 million years of age, 5 Rb-Sr suggested 1.27-1.39 billion years of age, 1 Pb-Pb isochron dating suggested 2.6 billion years of age, 1 Rb-Sr isochron dating suggested 1.34 billion years old. More solid evidence for the age of the flow: Native American pottery found in the lava indicates that it was only 800-1000 years old. Weird huh? If we get such extreme and hugely false dates from a lava flow with a known age, what does that say for fossils and rock formations with an unknown age? Radiometric data shows time progression, but we must be very careful when making assumptions about long ages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surtsey
http://www.youngeart...atures-10-years

Surtsey Island off the coast of Iceland is currently being studied very closely by an exclusive team of scientists so as not to affect it's ecosystem. It formed in a volcanic flow that lasted from 1963-1967. It now has wide sandy beaches and precipitous crags... gravel banks and lagoons, impressive cliffs… hollows, glens and soft undulating land... fractures and faultscarps, channels and screes... boulders worn by the surf, some of which were almost round. This island is taking geologists to school. Some features that were thought to take thousands of years happened in weeks or days, while other features thought to take hundreds of thousands or millions of years happened in only ten years.

Cheers.

#59 Minnemooseus

Minnemooseus

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Duluth, Minnesota
  • Age: 56
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Duluth, Minnesota

Posted 17 August 2012 - 06:27 PM

Geology isn't the be all of dating methods. In fact, there are very few ways to date anything in the rock record and YEC own most of them.


So you're saying, the dating methods geologists use are mostly bad, but the YEC's have come up with most of the good ones. Maybe this does belong in the "Bias" topic. Posted Image

Soft tissue and proteins in Paleozoic and Mesozoic fossils.


What I'm somewhat acquainted with is the dino bones thing (Mesozoic). The previous prevailing thoughts were that organic material could not survive millions of years - Then they found allegedly millions of years old organic material. Assuming the material is indeed dino organics, there are at least 2 possible modifications of the prevailing thought:

!) The bones are not actually that old, or
2) In certain conditions, organic material can actually persist for millions of years.

So, why do you choose #1 while I choose #2? I choose #2 because all the other reasons the bones are thought to be old.

Helium diffusivity rates in zircons.


Talk Origins covers this at http://www.talkorigi...c/CD/CD015.html

The short version is, the zircon samples were taken in an area that has a lot of outside helium contamination. Apparently the zircon/helium dating method has not been tested at other areas. You have a highly unproven dating method.

Carbon 14 in fossils.


The old usual complaint was that things like living clams dated old. This is true, understood, and explained. The clams were getting a significant part of their carbon from old carbon sources, not from the atmosphere or a source that is equilibrium with the atmosphere.

But I have seen somewhere at EFT, some sort of discussion of old fossils dating young. I know nothing about this, but apparently there is a young carbon contamination problem. Care to guide me to the appropriate topic an/or a link to more data.?

Polystrate fossils.


The main item usually brought up is the Joggins, Nova Scotia upright trees (I don't recall if they're still wood or fossilized). Anyway, mainstream geologic thought does not deny that rapid sedimentation can happen in certain situations. And, I believe, trees don't necessarily rot real fast. Some can persist intact for hundreds of years, or maybe even still grow while they are being buried.

The other "biggy", as I recall, what the whale buried in a vertical position. I believe the error is that the whale was actually buried horizontally, conformable with the enclosing sediment, and everything was later tilted up on end.

Experimental confirmation of accelerated nuclear decay rates.


I've read somewhere that experiments have shown that a very few of the various element isotopes radiometric rates can be effected by temperature, pressure, and (?). But these are oddball cases and not at all the elements/isotopes used in radiometric dating.

Per the rest of your message - I do science discussions, not Bible verse discussions. And I'm not any variety of biologist, know nothing of the genetic entropy concept, and I not interested in learning about the genetic entropy concept.

Moose

#60 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 18 August 2012 - 02:54 AM

Oh, yes. Helium contamination that just happens to fall within the error bars of a prediction. How convenient. Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users