Response to "eworkhard", part three...
Another response to eworkhard's comment last post...
"I might remind you that evolution seems to make good use of ‘ad hoc hypothesis’ if that is your definition. At first it was proposed that the big bang had occurred just millions of years ago. Now it is billions. At first dating supported millions, now it supports billions. Sound to good to be true? Is this an example of data changing a theory, or theory changing data?
Gah! I know you disagree with many parts of comtempory science, such as the Big-Bang, geology and most of all evolution. Okay, that's fine, it's good to critisise science, but don't do it because it disagrees with your religion, and that's waht you're pretty much doing.
Anyway I have a huge problem with dating methods that are used as you can see on my blog http://www.creation-evolution.blogspot.com . The problem with evolution is that the theory needs billions of years to explain how things could have evolved. As this time increases, dating also began to show an increase in time."
What, this? Or how about this?
"No, although all you state is true, that is not what I was talking about.(although you can add Einstein) Data is data. Scientists take it and try to INTERPRET it. Sometimes they are wrong. Sometimes they simply do not know enough to properly interpret it. I am especially thinking about science around the atom. Many times the theory changes, sometimes quite dramatically."
Funny you should mention that, creation science does this all the time.
The MO theory is like evolution. Always changing. Yet never true. If you left civilization and came back 10 or 20 years later you would be surprised at the changes to the theory. Yet Dawkins tries to quite critics and say evolution has all of the evidence. It does not.
Yeah, I have kind of stopped arguing about Dawkins....
"First off, I have pointed out that much data is INTERPRETED to support evolution. Yet most, if not all data, that fits evolution also fits creation."
Like what?
"I do not want to come out and debate societal decline or anything (note: we were talking about whether or not Harry Potter is immoral etc). Yet I feel that I must state that I believe that all this magic and even murder gets to people. They feel that they can also do it. That is why that I think that many movies are also wrong. By portraying something, you are condoning it."
You're not giving me any evidence that it gets to people. Even so, you cannot say that your book is moral, not by a long shot.
"Well, I do not necessarily agree with that, and that is the first time that I have heard that. However, I find that they are not saying the evolution caused racism as you originally stated. Rather the articles are stating that evolution antagonized the situation. I am not an expert in this, but I imagine both creationists and evolutionists somewhere would both agree that ‘non white’ races are inferior."
"I might remind you that evolution seems to make good use of ‘ad hoc hypothesis’ if that is your definition. At first it was proposed that the big bang had occurred just millions of years ago. Now it is billions. At first dating supported millions, now it supports billions. Sound to good to be true? Is this an example of data changing a theory, or theory changing data?
Gah! I know you disagree with many parts of comtempory science, such as the Big-Bang, geology and most of all evolution. Okay, that's fine, it's good to critisise science, but don't do it because it disagrees with your religion, and that's waht you're pretty much doing.
Anyway I have a huge problem with dating methods that are used as you can see on my blog http://www.creation-evolution.blogspot.com . The problem with evolution is that the theory needs billions of years to explain how things could have evolved. As this time increases, dating also began to show an increase in time."
What, this? Or how about this?
"No, although all you state is true, that is not what I was talking about.(although you can add Einstein) Data is data. Scientists take it and try to INTERPRET it. Sometimes they are wrong. Sometimes they simply do not know enough to properly interpret it. I am especially thinking about science around the atom. Many times the theory changes, sometimes quite dramatically."
Funny you should mention that, creation science does this all the time.
The MO theory is like evolution. Always changing. Yet never true. If you left civilization and came back 10 or 20 years later you would be surprised at the changes to the theory. Yet Dawkins tries to quite critics and say evolution has all of the evidence. It does not.
Yeah, I have kind of stopped arguing about Dawkins....
"First off, I have pointed out that much data is INTERPRETED to support evolution. Yet most, if not all data, that fits evolution also fits creation."
Like what?
"I do not want to come out and debate societal decline or anything (note: we were talking about whether or not Harry Potter is immoral etc). Yet I feel that I must state that I believe that all this magic and even murder gets to people. They feel that they can also do it. That is why that I think that many movies are also wrong. By portraying something, you are condoning it."
You're not giving me any evidence that it gets to people. Even so, you cannot say that your book is moral, not by a long shot.
"Well, I do not necessarily agree with that, and that is the first time that I have heard that. However, I find that they are not saying the evolution caused racism as you originally stated. Rather the articles are stating that evolution antagonized the situation. I am not an expert in this, but I imagine both creationists and evolutionists somewhere would both agree that ‘non white’ races are inferior."
There's still too many straw-man arguments going around at the moment...
"I would say do not worry. You wanted to debate me, and I will do that. It may be sporadic due to my schedule, but I will try to reply. As long as things do not get anyone upset…. I take your reply to mean that you absolutely do not agree. Therefore the debate…. ;)"
Yep. I'm actually enjoying this mini-debate, so, I'll be waiting for your next response...
Labels: Creationism, Creationist, Debate?
posted by Joe Mc'Lynch @ 12:14 AM
3 Comments:
At 13 January, 2007 00:02,
eworkhard said…
I will eventually reply. However, I am again busy and it may take a few weeks. In addition, you say many things, but you are not backing up your arguments. 5 minute thoughts with a couple of googled links? You are not debating science with science. I assumed that is what you wanted. BTW when you say you no longer want to talk about Dawkins, does that mean you no longer care about him? Remember that was your first point that I criticized.
At 03 February, 2007 20:29,
eworkhard said…
As to the argument on dating. All that I will say is that if you date something, and it does not fit, then you usually change the theory. Since in evolution we are talking of such long times ago that we do not know what happens, if soemthing does not fit that we know the date of, that throws everything back into a huge question. This goes back to fitting that science to the theory, or the theory to the science.
As to straw man argument, I am not sure what you mean. Straw man arguments are those that you present your opponents arguments in a invalid or incorrect way that allows you to defeat them. You mention straw man arguments, but you do not mention what.
Further, I mentioned that Harry Potter may fit into the immoral section of literature. This is only from a perspective of what it contains vs. what we have to fight as evil in our society. Any correlation? Whether we accept it in books and not in real is not the question.
As to the morality of the Bible and some trumped up arguments that you make about it being immoral. Very few people would consider the Bible immoral, even those who believe that it is incorrect.
Morality is defined as: a system of principles and judgments based on cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs, by which humans determine whether given actions are right or wrong. Therefore you cannot determine that in a society that is based on the Bible, that the Bible is immoral.
Further, as the the charges against the Bible that are made at your link, many of those are humans that have misused the Bible to try benefit themselves. Although I cannot go through all of the claims I will mention a few: 1)Abraham wanting Isaac to not marry a Caanite is not racism, but rather the fact that we should be married to someone within our religion. (To not be unequally yoked with the unbeliever) 2) The 10 commandments further command obedience to God. This seems to bother you as religious intolerance. Yet there is one God, then how can you worship another.
However, this is all concerning morals and ethics and not creation/evolution. This is not the arguments that I am going to pursue. If you are not going to give arguments against creation, or at least defend those issues I have made about evolution, then I will no longer reply to you.
At 04 October, 2007 16:29,
Anonymous said…
Eworkhard, You fuck around in the hood like a mother fucker and you get jumped in the hood like a mother fucker.
Post a Comment
<< Home