|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Mar 3, 2003 0:07:12 GMT -5
MAGIKOOPA:
The skeptic's argument is generally drawn out as:
1. If I have knowledge, then I can distinguish truth from error. 2. I cannot distinguish truth from error. 3. Therefore, I don't have knowledge.
Descartes grants the first premise, but disagrees with the second premise. Surely you're familar with his famous statement Cogito, ergo sum (I think, therefore I am)? Whereas Descartes assumes a malicious force is deceiving him to where he could be wrong about his senses or that he even has a body, he cannot be deceived at all unless he exists. Hence, we can have knowledge (although Descartes blows it by Meditations III).
LUEY:
Jacket is a Youth-Earth Creationist (I'm fairly sure of this, since he quotes Kent Hovind). Hovind believes dinosaurs co-existed with humans (based off passages such as the account of the Leviathan in the book of Job), but became extinct in Noah's Flood (Hovind also believes all fossils were laid down and formed during the flood).
The usual explanation to your question about the flood is that Noah didn't have to take each individual species, but just the kinds. This has some problems, beyond the vagueness of the term kind. After all, YECs would certainly be having great "faith" in the quickness of microevolution in organisms.
JACKET:
...beyond this, I have another, higher nature; the life that sustains all beings in the world.
Know that it is the womb from which all beings arise; the universe is born within me, and within me will be destroyed.
There is nothing more fundamental than I, Arjuna; all worlds, all beings, are strung upon me like pearls on a single thread. (Bhagavad Gita 7:5-7)
Gee, a book says it, so it must be true!
|
|
|
Post by Sanovarak on Mar 3, 2003 11:39:11 GMT -5
SleepyTemplar, This was just who believes to Adam and Eva thing, and who don't. If you really wonder why I made this poll.
Okay, back on topic.
|
|
|
Post by Magi on Mar 3, 2003 14:07:37 GMT -5
LUEY: Jacket is a Youth-Earth Creationist (I'm fairly sure of this, since he quotes Kent Hovind). Hovind believes dinosaurs co-existed with humans (based off passages such as the account of the Leviathan in the book of Job), but became extinct in Noah's Flood (Hovind also believes all fossils were laid down and formed during the flood). The usual explanation to your question about the flood is that Noah didn't have to take each individual species, but just the kinds. This has some problems, beyond the vagueness of the term kind. After all, YECs would certainly be having great "faith" in the quickness of microevolution in organisms. Tell me something Sleepy Templar... You seem to be completely against the idea of creationism, due to the fact that you seem to find all evidence to be far, far too vague for anyone to fully comprehend. Though, then what basis do you stand by? Science and evolution? In terms of vagueness, you've got all you could want right there. The only evolution which could "slightly" have some truth is microevolution. You are familiar with this term aren't you? Anyway, evolution seems to stand firmly by the theory that all beings of a... "higher intelligence" began as the simplest lifeforms in an oceanic environment. They claim that the smallest lifeforms have occured since near the beginning of time. Though, there is no substantial evidence, at all to support this how should I say "evolutionary fairytale." In fact, how could evolution be any more or less feasable than creation? It isn't. There are many flaws to the theory, and many so called striking discoveries have indeed proved to be wrong such as the Nebraska man. Though, if you're against this theory too, by all means, please do state your position on the topic. Or I rest my case.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Mar 3, 2003 17:50:29 GMT -5
Not quite. The reasons why I'm against Creationism (regardless of the form, including the new brand named Intelligent Design) is first, and foremost, it is not science. Science involves explaining natural phenomena that occur in the world through hypotheses that are observable, testable, and that which empirical evidence can be gathered for. By appealing to the supernatural (which cannot be tested through empiricism), this makes Creationism pseudo-science from the get-go. Another reason would be that it presupposes a deity, but since no good, credible evidence exists for a deity, this is an unwarranted assumption. In addition, when evidence is there for biological evolution without the need of a deity, Occam's Razor states we shouldn't make unwarranted presuppositions. The vagueness of the term "kind" is something Creationists use intentionally (Hovind himself will never define the word, even when asked) as a smokescreen. Evolution is science, for starters. Evolution is defined as the change in allele frequency amongst populations as they become better adapted to their environment. Microevolution involves genetic change within species (i.e. Insects becoming immune to pesticide), whereas speciation involves change in genetic material that has enough differences to classify it as a new species. Oh, and it certainly has been observed: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htmlIs this supposed to somehow be an attack against evolution? Perhaps you might try reading up on phylogenetic trees... The age of the earth has been established at 4.5 billion years. The earliest fossils go back to 3.5 billion years. Your ignorance on the matter does not discredit evolution. I'd recommend www.talkorigins.org , which explains evolution in-depth. I'm a bit shocked if your high school or college hasn't taught you anything about biology yet. I suppose the fossil record, genetics, morphological structures, and observation isn't enough? If not, what *WOULD* be enough to show you that evolution is true? Unless you consider the fact that evolution has mountains of evidence, Creationism doesn't, and that Creationism isn't science to begin with. If you want to believe in a creation myth, be my guest. However, don't try to put it on the same level as scientific theories. Only Creationists bother to bring up Nebraska man and Piltdown man. Those mistakes happen over 50 years ago, and were mistakes *ADMITTED* by scientists. That's the beauty of science: they correct their mistakes (Religion does, but only if it's absolutely necessary and not essential doctrine; plus they're slow to do so). Just because you can cite one mistake of scientists doesn't invalidate the other *REAL* fossils such as Austropithecus afarensis, Homo erectus, Homo halibus, and so on. I notice you don't bother to mess with them. And are you going to elaborate on these flaws, or just make unsupported claims?
|
|
|
Post by Magi on Mar 4, 2003 10:20:31 GMT -5
You've got far too much to quote on. First off, I based many of these assumptions off of an old essay. As for evolution is biology, the teacher skipped that chapter for some reason. If you have mountains of evidence like you say, how bout explaining now. From what I head, fossil records and dating methods aren't quite exact. Vague? Vague shows little evidence in anything. Shall I define the term?
Vague: Not clearly, precisely, or definitely expressed or stated. So as you see, evolution is vague too. Admit that there are flaws in it. Evolution is just a theory. Therefore, until it is proven, I find it completely unfeasable. Why would anyone be so afraid to define the term vague? I defined it right then.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Mar 4, 2003 10:46:18 GMT -5
Okay... you've gone off on a tangent, didn't address any of the stuff I presented, and are still muttering nonsense. If your biology teacher skipped what unifies all of biology, then perhaps it's time to bring this to the attention of the school district so that you can get a proper education (I knew high schools were bad, but not that bad... oh wait, yes, I did). You mean putting one link to a website that explains evolution in-depth by those qualified to do so is considered "far too much to quote"? Did you even *GO* to the site, anyway? If you didn't, and you're still going on about these flaws (which you seem unable to say), this only gives the impression that you are willfully ignorant on the matter. Mind providing a link to this essay? Notice I don't say "speciation has been observed, but I won't provide a link to a credible source that documents it". Talking about some essay you read somewhere (in which the author could just been someone asking questions about evolution that have been answered numerous times) doesn't really impress me. In a discussion, if you cite something (be it a book, essay, etc), it is important to cite your sources. I *DID*. You didn't address any of it! If you want in-depth coverage of evolution (since for one I am a philosophy major, not a biology major), I recommend www.talkorigins.orgWhere did you hear this? Once again, what are your sources? If you bothered to read my post, I defined evolution quite clearly. What are these flaws? I'm still waiting to hear them. The term "theory" has a different meaning in science. Theory means a firmly established hypothesis, supported by evidence. This displays a gross misunderstanding of science. You don't prove anything in science, ever. Proof is used in deductive reasoning, which exists in areas such as mathematics and logic. Science instead is based upon inductive reasoning, in which evidence provides strong support for the conclusion being true (although it's possible that the conclusion is false). It's why theories, paradigms, and hypotheses can change as new evidence comes to light. In addition, if you bothered to read the site I gave you, or took an actual biology class, you'd be able to hear all this evidence. In your next post, I certainly hope you'll try sticking to the topic, and provide sources. I'm still waiting for these alleged flaws in evolution. EDIT: By the by, I'm wondering why you've been silent on using Descartes to refute the "Can we know anything at all?" bit you used. Do you have a reply to it?
|
|
|
Post by The Jacket on Mar 4, 2003 11:24:32 GMT -5
Good Morning all.
Hey sleepy, welcome back. How'd your exam you reffered to go? I just dropped back in to let you know I've been absent to and I've got some things to take care of so I'll be absent a while longer.
NOTE: Though I am leaning heavily towards a young earth position I am still looking at what the Bible says and some other points of view on it.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Mar 4, 2003 12:09:56 GMT -5
Exams went well, although it's Mid-Term week here, so I have more to do.
Just take your time and get back whenever you can.
What are these other points of view you mention?
|
|
|
Post by The~Inquisitor on Mar 5, 2003 15:55:38 GMT -5
Science all the way.
|
|
|
Post by Sanovarak on Mar 6, 2003 1:18:22 GMT -5
Science. What means "Big Bang".
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Mar 6, 2003 2:45:13 GMT -5
Could you clarify what you just said?
|
|
|
Post by Sanovarak on Mar 6, 2003 11:03:50 GMT -5
I am atheist. I don't believe God or Heaven things.
Did you mean when I said "What means Big Bang". Oops, another mistake. I should said Which.
|
|
Micaiah
RPG Townie
"Brethren We Are Here to Worship.."
Posts: 35
|
Post by Micaiah on Mar 9, 2003 19:13:22 GMT -5
The term "science" is rather vague and doesn't necessarily mean "The Big Bang Theory" is what you believe.
|
|
|
Post by Magi on Mar 9, 2003 23:46:25 GMT -5
The jacket actually returned... Maybe he'll save me from sleepy templar. He's more machine than man the way he spews out arguments. He's... the deabte generator!!! *runs*
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Mar 10, 2003 0:55:10 GMT -5
Welcome back, Micaiah. Was wondering at first who you were, until I saw your other post. Nice signature too. What makes me curious though is that your use of the cartoon suggests you now ascribe to AiG's Creationist position, which warns against arguments that Kent Hovind use. Does this mean that you no longer utilize Hovind (as I intend to listen to his other sermons still, but just curious whether it has any basis for future discussions)? And Magikoopa, when in debates, I stick to the proper frame of mind. It does come off as rather cold, but emotions have no justification for proving truth claims. I'm also curious whether you intend to respond to my earlier posts, and bring up the alleged problems of evolution you mentioned earlier.
|
|