Anyone up for a private debate on the merits of creationism as a science?

[Technosoul]

Creationist evidence #1.

An Intelligent Designer is a Mind.

If that Mind created everything then that mind would be pure Consciousness. (at least to start with).

It is not possible for science to locate anything in a physical sense that would be that consciousness.

We can detect that consciousness does exsist but cannot prove it visually or as an absolute "thing".

Consciousness is the link between nothing and something.

1 is 1 realative to 0.

(your turn).

[Technosoul]

Okay I agreed to the challenge but the other person backed off, so on behalf of creationism I here by claim a win.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Technosoul Okay I agreed to the challenge but the other person backed off, so on behalf of creationism I here by claim a win.

by default not actual presentation

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Technosoul Creationist evidence #1. An Intelligent Designer is a Mind. .

Supposition, no evidence given.

If that Mind created everything then that mind would be pure Consciousness. (at least to start with).

An IF,WHAT proposition, not evidence.

It is not possible for science to locate anything in a physical sense that would be that consciousness.

Then knowledge of it is based on faith rather than evidence. To argue that creationist has evidence is to say that science does have the means to locate consciousness.

We can detect that consciousness does exsist but cannot prove it visually or as an absolute "thing".

Then how can we detect it?

Consciousness is the link between nothing and something.

Conciousness is a product of the human mind, you have yet to prove it can exist outside that boundary.

1 is 1 realative to 0.

Existentialist crap.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Supposition, no evidence given. An IF,WHAT proposition, not evidence. Then knowledge of it is based on faith rather than evidence. To argue that creationist has evidence is to say that science does have the means to locate consciousness. Then how can we detect it? Conciousness is a product of the human mind, you have yet to prove it can exist outside that boundary. Existentialist crap.

What? You need evidence for what a mind is?

Not crap, mathimatics.

The point is that science cannot detect consciousness any more then a creationist can detect it as the source. You cannot really detect the past or future, it is all a matter of establishing a propersition but yet, as I pointed out if you had started your debate with the opening posts I wrote instead of coming in late in the explanation, we can experience mind and conscousness first hand. Nor can you prove the mathimatical idea of nothing with evidence, only by the total subtraction of known events or things.

Can conscousness exsist outside of the mind you asked. Scientific studies have found evidence that would favor such a propersition.

www.in-formation-only.com |

That study would suggest the possiblity of an Overmind that each member of a species is connected too, beyond group thinking (monkey see monkey do) or individual consciousness. You might not like that study, but for me it indicates that the mind is not limited to just the physical parts of a given human or animal. And based on that evidence I can claim that behavior designership is involved in controlling speices advancement. Aka - evolution.

Your turn.

[SoylentGreen]

Technosoul What? You need evidence for what a mind is?

What I need is a creationist who will not provide titles like

Creationist evidence #1.

and then not provide the evidence.

Not crap, mathimatics.

1+1=2 is mathematics. Giving numbers arbitrary meanings such as consciousness is symbolism , eg existentialist crap.

The point is that science cannot detect consciousness any more then a creationist can detect it as the source. You cannot really detect the past or future, it is all a matter of establishing a propersition but yet, ..... we can experience mind and conscousness first hand. .

Typical double speak. How is it science or creationists cannot detect that which apparently every one else can experience?

Nor can you prove the mathimatical idea of nothing with evidence, only by the total subtraction of known events or things.

Yes it can. In fact until a mathematical idea can be proven with empirical evidence to its validity it remains only one of many theories, not truths.

Can conscousness exsist outside of the mind you asked. Scientific studies have found evidence that would favor such a propersition.

Again the misuse of the word evidence.
Scientist have witnessed a phenomena and given theories to explain it . No evidence has been produced and the 100th monkey is a questionable proposition.

That study would suggest the possibility of an Overmind that each member of a species is connected too, beyond group thinking (monkey see monkey do) or individual consciousness

It suggests nothing of the kind.
Fact: the potato and other foods were introduced to the animals as a new food source.
An unusual change in circumstances that resulted in the unusual method of a youngster of a species teaching the elders a new trick.
Since the food was introduced at the same time throughout the islands then the passage of knowledge would be similar. Nothing supernatural about it.

And based on that evidence I can claim that behavior designership is involved in controlling speices advancement. Aka - evolution.

But you have presented no evidence. Only a theory that chooses to disregard the facts .

[Technosoul]

None the less 0 = zero.

What you said is the the Big Bang Theory based on physics is just a lot of Existentialist Crap. (also). So what is the point of demanding such math to prove a theory if it is just crappy science?

So you disprove of a theory, such as the theory of evolution and the theroy of the big bang. Good. We do not wish to confuse truth with theories. That will help to reduce a lot of time wasted in those science classes by not teaching any sort of theory. And please note I did not claim to be presenting a theory. Only an explaination.

Ha, so the young monkeys swam across the ocean to the other islands to teach the older monkeys, but that is not what they witnessed happening at all. The same kind of behavior was witnessed in the study of a monkeys in Africa and South Amreica where they learned to open shells with a rock or stick. Which had nothing to do with the introduction of sweet potatos. It matters not if they make up their own theories or explainations for what is being witnessed. I have as much right to do the same concerning my more logical explaination of those observations. I did not use the word "supernatural". I coined the term "designer behavorism".

What fact did I discard and how would that fact prove that my explaination is not true? What caused each tribe of monkeys to learn to do the same thing on different island seperated by an ocean? How could they know what the monkeys on the first island had learned and then copy it a generation later? Did they all learn it form a supernatural sweet potato? Your explaination or theory is not answering those questions and it is bias to the logic that my explaination has offered. I might agree that the science of monkey epidemiology is questionable science, but the problem of random errors is not as dominate in animals as it is in humans. Only the bias interpretations of the information is potentially a problem. The bias factor however can work equally for both sides of a debate, but my bais is prone to be more logical.

Are the monkeys into mind reading or remote viewing? Is that what you wish to propose?

[Technosoul]

Now did Native Americans learn to make bows and arrows like they did in the old world during the middle-ages, when the two human cultures were not connected with a communicational network? Why did they prehistoric people discover how to make campfires when they lived so far apart form each other? How come two different inventers come up with a design for a car when they did not share information with each other?

Random chance? Why is that sort of random chance being repeated over and over relative to so many situations if something is not connecting all those things together? The odds of 7 come 11 do not favor your kind of determinaiton.

Can you prove that "intelligence" is supernatural, can you prove that a design is supernatural? If not why do you claim that Intelligent design is supernatural? How did you come up with that idea with all your evidence collecting?

[Rainbow]

@SoylentGreen

The chronological phases for the Univerese (we are part of) to exist :
1. Creation
2. Friction
3. Evolution
If you think it is incorrect, then post your findings, please.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Rainbow @SoylentGreen The chronological phases for the Univerese (we are part of) to exist : 1. Creation 2. Friction 3. Evolution If you think it is incorrect, then post your findings, please.

I would say that friction and aspects of evolution are all intelligent methods for creating the universe and life on earth. Novelty and/or random changes also must be part of this overview. I would not suggest that one thing followed the other in a order of events.

[SoylentGreen]

Technosoul None the less 0 = zero.

Which defines nothing but zero.

What you said is the the Big Bang Theory based on physics is just a lot of Existentialist Crap. (also). So what is the point of demanding such math to prove a theory if it is just crappy science?

No what I said is existentialist crap is:
"1 is 1 realative to 0."
Which is meta-physics not physics.

So you disprove of a theory, such as the theory of evolution and the theroy of the big bang. Good.

No! But I do disapprove of your trying to pass a piece of meta-physical symbolism as maths.

Ha, so the young monkeys swam across the ocean to the other islands to teach the older monkeys, but that is not what they witnessed happening at all.

No it isn't , nor did I suggest it did, so why bring it up?

The same kind of behavior was witnessed in the study of a monkeys in Africa and South Amreica where they learned to open shells with a rock or stick

Post a link if you want this accepted.
Otherwise please explain how rocks , sticks and shells which have been lying around for thousands of years and yet it only occurs to the monkey"s now in modern times when it can be witnessed to use them?

Which had nothing to do with the introduction of sweet potatos

Take several different tribes of monkeys living on separate islands and introduce a new food source.
Observation they learn something new at relatively the same time.
Good science, not something supernatural, Oh sorry i forgot the new word for I learnt for that, "designer behaviorism".

What fact did I discard and how would that fact prove that my explaination is not true?

The fact that it was an artificial set up. The food was not a natural resource. This was an experiment set up by humans.

What caused each tribe of monkeys to learn to do the same thing on different island separated by an ocean?

Because the laws of physics is the same on each island. Monkies on all islands don't like sand on their food. Monkeys are known to eat close to a water sources on all the islands. The incident of a potato falling in the water and the monkey catching on is similar on all islands.

Are the monkeys into mind reading or remote viewing?

No, the monkey is reacting to the physical world around him. I thought mind reading is what your suggesting?
After all how would the monkeys know how the "designer" wants them to "behave" unless they could read the designers mind?

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Rainbow @SoylentGreen The chronological phases for the Univerese (we are part of) to exist : 1. Creation 2. Friction 3. Evolution If you think it is incorrect, then post your findings, please.

I guess those titles might be suitable depending on what they mean.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Which defines nothing but zero. No what I said is existentialist crap is: "1 is 1 realative to 0." Which is meta-physics not physics. No! But I do disapprove of your trying to pass a piece of meta-physical symbolism as maths. No it isn't , nor did I suggest it did, so why bring it up? Post a link if you want this accepted. Otherwise please explain how rocks , sticks and shells which have been lying around for thousands of years and yet it only occurs to the monkey"s now in modern times when it can be witnessed to use them? Take several different tribes of monkeys living on separate islands and introduce a new food source. Observation they learn something new at relatively the same time. Good science, not something supernatural, Oh sorry i forgot the new word for I learnt for that, "designer behaviorism". The fact that it was an artificial set up. The food was not a natural resource. This was an experiment set up by humans. Because the laws of physics is the same on each island. Monkies on all islands don't like sand on their food. Monkeys are known to eat close to a water sources on all the islands. The incident of a potato falling in the water and the monkey catching on is similar on all islands. No, the monkey is reacting to the physical world around him. I thought mind reading is what your suggesting? After all how would the monkeys know how the "designer" wants them to "behave" unless they could read the designers mind?

one is one relative to nothing. (and also relative to having two). You will not find that in any metaphyics book. If you can then prove your statement with such evidence. The law of realitivity is one of the most respected theories in science. If 0 did not come before 1 then everything always exsisted in some form. Which is your proof of the religious concept of eternity. Meaning that the creative souce of creation is a eternal force. Hmm, can we qoute you on that for our Creationist schoolbook?

(2) - Then do not use the term "metaphyical symbolism" and use a more pleasing term. I did not use that term (as I recall). You are gripping about your own name-tags.

(3) The report did not say why they are just now learning that new skill but it was a while since I read it. I think they suggested that the climate had changed and their normal food scouce was less and so they started to look for other things to eat, smelling something good inside the shell would have motivated the monkey to find a way to open the shell. A monkey in captivity can learn new tricks to get some food. I do not think that is much of a big mystery and so I will not waste time getting a link. The point is that this new behavior was noticed in more then one tribe and the 2nd tribe which was seperated by an ocean learned it the very next generation from the first group. Those groups have been under study for a long time, though the life spans of many generations.

(4) So what? In the sweet potato study they introduced a change in their environment (acturally the natives just started to grow the potatos not those doing the study). Perhaps washing them made the potato softer and more like eating fruit? Or they did not like the taste of dirt on thier food? Whatever. It is not uncommon for environments to change and for animals to adopt to the new circumstances, taking advantage of some of the changes happening. This happens all the time. I do not see how your can fluff off the theroy of adaptation as part of evolution? Gee, you science book is getting smaller each time you speak. That will ease the task of science teachers.

(5) - How did the monkeys learn it without reading the minds like a phyic does (claims to do)?

This time I will post a link for your review that can explain it to you in more scientific terms. This should answer your last question.

Articles and Papers - Scientific Papers - Morphic Resonance - Morphic Fields

That theory will be included as part of my own more elborate version the Overmind which is part of the Designer Mind.

[SoylentGreen]

Technosoul one is one relative to nothing. (and also relative to having two). You will not find that in any metaphyics book. If you can then prove your statement with such evidence. The law of realitivity is one of the most respected theories in science. If 0 did not come before 1 then everything always exsisted in some form. Which is your proof of the religious concept of eternity. Meaning that the creative souce of creation is a eternal force. Hmm, can we qoute you on that for our Creationist schoolbook?

One is one relative to zero only when the numerals have been assigned a value. In this case the numerical value of 1 is greater than zero. That is maths.
But when you assign another value to one, like one is everything then it is no longer maths but a discussion in meta-physics where we can challenge values such as everything and eternity.

I did not use that term (as I recall)

You are using meta-physical symbolism when attempting to assign numerals values that can not be tested.

A monkey in captivity can learn new tricks to get some food.I do not think that is much of a big mystery and so I will not waste time getting a link. The point is....

That without a link it is so much questionable hear say so I will not waste my time with it either.

Whatever. It is not uncommon for environments to change and for animals to adopt to the new circumstances, taking advantage of some of the changes happening. This happens all the time. I do not see how your can fluff off the theroy of adaptation as part of evolution?

How am I fluffing off adaption? My explanation was as you just said a group of separate but similar animals facing similar changes at similar times made relatively similar adaptions.
Isn't it you who is trying to say that all the similarities don't count because it was god that told them to wash the potato when you say:

(5) - How did the monkeys learn it without reading the minds like a phyic does (claims to do)?

They all learned because the lesson was similar to all.

That theory will be included as part of my own more elborate version the Overmind which is part of the Designer Mind.

I will look forward to finding the holes in your theory.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: SoylentGreen One is one relative to zero only when the numerals have been assigned a value. In this case the numerical value of 1 is greater than zero. That is maths. But when you assign another value to one, like one is everything then it is no longer maths but a discussion in meta-physics where we can challenge values such as everything and eternity. You are using meta-physical symbolism when attempting to assign numerals values that can not be tested. That without a link it is so much questionable hear say so I will not waste my time with it either. How am I fluffing off adaption? My explanation was as you just said a group of separate but similar animals facing similar changes at similar times made relatively similar adaptions. Isn't it you who is trying to say that all the similarities don't count because it was god that told them to wash the potato when you say: They all learned because the lesson was similar to all. I will look forward to finding the holes in your theory.

So you do not think that something is of greater value then nothing, gee, I would hate to see your home budget accounting.

Of course it can be tested. Remove single cell life organizems from water and you got nothing but water, remove the water and you got nothing but space. Remove everything containing that space and you got nothing but nothing. Not even space because space is relative to what it is compared with, which gives it a dimension with boarders.

The last part of the test would be impossible to do physically but in principle it makes sense.

But of course if both groups did not have access to the potatos or the shells then they could not have done the same thing. It is always possible that all the ones in the 2nd group just happen to come up with the bright idea which the first monkey did in the first group. But what would cause them to have that same ability to conduct such a experiment between the two groups? What would cause them both to make the same connection between eating a potato after soaking it in water to make it soft? Being that the first monkey found it out accidently ( I would assume). The uniformity of accidental behavorism is somewhat unlikely to ocur in the way you discribe it. Where as the one I presented makes sense and also made sense to the people involved in observing those monkeys in that epidemology experiment.

You kept demanding links and when I provided one you ignored it and made no comment. Proof that finding links for you is a waste of time.

Well, if you do find a black hole in my explaination then it will just gobble up your so-called enligtened solar system of ideas.

Chomp chomp, the gator ate your granny.

Epidemology is not sound scince as it just provides clues to be interpreted in the most logical way possible. If you have two interpretations then you can select which one you prefer to use. But the evidence (observations) still would support both findings.
At which point bias would be the only determining factor for creating a conclusion.

Nothin' is still nothin' and something is still something. 1 - 1 is still 0. Call it metaphyical or call it basic math, the result is the same.

I assigned the symbol 0 to mean nothing and assigned "thought" to the symbol 1, opening the potential for two thoughts, which would multiply until you have enough thoughts to consitute a mind. AKA - Intelligence. and then added that those thoughts orbited in the mind around a still center which is the point of nothingness. As in the theroy of relativity. There-by establishing in principle the contrast for something that then can be called "space". A space that could be occupied.

Other then you trying to dodge that by naming it metaphysical, you did not prove that anything is basically default in that particular outline. Anyone in gradeschool can go around calling something funny names, I was hoping to have a debate based on a higher level of maturity.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: SoylentGreen I guess those titles might be suitable depending on what they mean.

#1
2 atoms (at least !) needed to start with ---> Creation

#2
2 atoms get into interaction ---> Friction

#3
2 atoms (by process of friction) start creating the Environment ---> Evolution

[SoylentGreen]

Technosoul So you do not think that something is of greater value then nothing, gee, I would hate to see your home budget accounting.

Of course I do, I even said so. Why assume I can't give a numeral a value?

Of course it can be tested. Remove single cell life organizems from water and you got nothing but water, remove the water and you got nothing but space. Remove everything containing that space and you got nothing but nothing. Not even space because space is relative to what it is compared with, which gives it a dimension with boarders.

Good now you have proved 0 = 0 , now assign a value to zero. In this case lets say 0 = before creation.
1 = after creation., or assign the value 1 = creation of a god or over mind or generic deity or spaghetti monster or whatever.

But of course if both groups did not have access to the potatos or the shells then they could not have done the same thing. It is always possible that all the ones in the 2nd group just happen to come up with the bright idea which the first monkey did in the first group

Yes that's true.

But what would cause them to have that same ability to conduct such a experiment between the two groups?

All physical abilities between monkeys should be relatively similar.
The physical aspects of their environment should be relatively similar.

Your question is good but it is to soon. To ask your question first it is necessary to see whether given that all things are similar would two separate groups of identical beings discover similar methods of dealing with the environment.
If it occurs that the two groups would then it is appropriate to ask your question.

What would cause them both to make the same connection between eating a potato after soaking it in water to make it soft?

Actually, the trick observed was that the monkey washed the potato in the river to remove sand which they found gritty and unpleasant.
I only mention this to point out that the reaction of the monkey brought it instant results. If the monkey had shown an ability to actually wait the time required for a potato to grow soft in water then that would have been a sign of greater intelligence ie, actual future planning instead of immediate action / reaction response.

If that had passed on through out the islands then you might have a case.
But a simple action /reaction is not beyond the mental capabilities of any average monkey.

Being that the first monkey found it out accidently ( I would assume)

Accidents occur and monkeys are known to learn from them.

The uniformity of accidental behavorism is somewhat unlikely to ocur in the way you discribe it. Where as the one I presented makes sense and also made sense to the people involved in observing those monkeys in that epidemology experiment.

What uniformity of accidental behaviour?
You seem intent on making this appear as if it all occurred out of the blue, that there is no uniformity between events on the island.
What you have described as accidents were actually planned.
The monkeys (They are Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata),)
all live in tribes on similar type islands.
The food source was new and deliberately introduced and left by the sea on each island.
The learning process was similar throughout the islands and was a process that took 6 tears starting with the younger learning first.
The period of learning happened over a series of years not in an afternoon.

Where as the one I presented makes sense and also made sense to the people involved in observing those monkeys in that epidemology experiment.

You mean epistemology I think?
Yours might make sense if the facts were presented correctly. But you have not been doing so.

You kept demanding links and when I provided one you ignored it and made no comment. Proof that finding links for you is a waste of time.

My apologies I didn't realise you needed a response to that.
I thought you were presenting it as some back ground info to your overmind theory that you would be presenting later.
I have bookmarked it and am still reading it. Thanks, it's interesting.

But the evidence (observations) still would support both findings. At which point bias would be the only determining factor for creating a conclusion.

But the evidence (observations) does not support both findings.
In fact most of the evidence you have supplied is misinformation.

You said

Ha, so the young monkeys swam across the ocean to the other islands to teach the older monkeys, but that is not what they witnessed happening at all.

Actually one young monkey was observed having doing that and living on the island for 4 years.

you said

(acturally the natives just started to grow the potatos not those doing the study)

During 1952 and 1953 the primatologists began "provisioning" the troops - providing them with such foods as sweet potatoes and wheat. The food was left in open areas, often on beaches. As a result of this new economy, the monkeys developed several innovative forms of behavior

you said

Perhaps washing them made the potato softer and more like eating fruit? Or they did not like the taste of dirt on thier food?

Imo was a member of the troop on Koshima island. She discovered that sand and grit could be removed from the sweet potatoes by washing them in a stream or in the ocean.

Nothin' is still nothin' and something is still something

.
True

1 - 1 is still 0.

true

Call it metaphyical or call it basic math, the result is the same.

I call it math when the the numerals are only assigned a numerical value.

I assigned the symbol 0 to mean nothing and assigned "thought" to the symbol 1,

Now it's metaphysical.

and then added that those thoughts orbited in the mind around a still center which is the point of nothingness

the point of nothingness which is a meta-physical concept.

Remember we have agreed to there being two separate identities, 0 = nothing and 1 = thought.
And that 1 +1 +1 (continued for unspecified length ) = mind.
And that 1 - 1 = 0 or that without thought there is nothing
But I don't remember you putting forward any reason to believe that
1 = 0, or that there is "a still center which is the point of nothingness" that can coexist , let alone be orbited by the mind.

As in the theroy of relativity.

Einstien did physics not meta-physics.
Nor does relativity have anything to do with mind or the concept of nothingness.

You said

one is one relative to nothing. (and also relative to having two).

Which is the definition of the word relative , not the theory of relativity.

A space that could be occupied.

which would make 0+1, not 0 =1. One or the other not both at same time.

Other then you trying to dodge that by naming it metaphysical, .

I don't believe I am dodging anything. Naming it meta-physical is placing the argument in its context.

you did not prove that anything is basically default in that particular outline.

Need I remind you that you have not presented any real connection yet between "my (Technosoul)own more elaborate version the Overmind which is part of the Designer Mind., and the link you gave.
Though you have the advantage , you have read it and I still am reading.

Anyone in gradeschool can go around calling something funny names, I was hoping to have a debate based on a higher level of maturity

Right,... now you have hurt my feelings.
If I am to dumb for you then fine go find some one else to play with.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Rainbow #1 2 atoms (at least !) needed to start with ---> Creation #2 2 atoms get into interaction ---> Friction #3 2 atoms (by process of friction) start creating the Environment ---> Evolution

Ok very basic , I am waiting for the specific that will be the trap your setting.

[Simonius]

Quote by: LuDaCrIs I would like to challenge someone to a debate regarding the validity of creationism and/or ID as a science. This could mean a debate on whether or not it should be taught in a science class along side evolution or in more general terms. The exact topic will be left open until i get some feedback. I am interested in taking the side of opposing creationism be taught alongside evolution in science and that creationism is not science. Is anyone else interesting in taking the other side? Thanks.

Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent design all have a number of things in common.

They can not be tested in a laboratory, they are not therefore part of true empircal science. They are philosophies.

The physical scientific evidence is consistent or at least does not conflict or disprove any of them.

They are all equally valid if you have the courage to approach them in a truely scientific and non-dogmatic mindset, which of course very scientists are willing to do.