Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Meatros · Jan 29, 2004, 08:30 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)

You are comparing a semiconductor device which works via the principle of quantum mechanics...to a thingy with counting beads. Now if thats not over simplification I don't know what is.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

oversimplification? have you ever heard of binary? what do you think your "semiconductor device" conducts? the only difference is in the number of beads (abacus) or switches (computer)

they both work in exactly the same way<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yes you are oversimplify things and your are committing the fallacy of distraction. I'm done with your little 'game' here. If you wish to discuss the OP then please continue, but this game of semantics is old.

Impenitent · Jan 29, 2004, 10:00 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Meatros,)

Yes you are oversimplify things and your are committing the fallacy of distraction. I'm done with your little 'game' here. If you wish to discuss the OP then please continue, but this game of semantics is old.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

distraction? hardly... the workings of a computer and an abacus are the same... do a little research on computers...

http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/eniac-story.html

you brought it up, it is your distraction...

the point remains, "science" requires a leap of faith as does religion because of the inductive fallacy.

**Pooeypants** · Jan 29, 2004, 11:23 am

*yawn* Not much more to say to a man whom believes science requires as much faith as religion.
Apart from that you're a loonie.

Impenitent · Jan 29, 2004, 11:31 am

I never said as much, but both do require a leap of faith... if you were speaking strictly logically, science would be impossible and as unprovable as mystic events...

a loonie? LOL ok...

Meatros · Jan 29, 2004, 01:26 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)
*yawn* Not much more to say to a man whom believes science requires as much faith as religion.
Apart from that you're a loonie.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That's two votes for loonie.

Impenitent · Jan 29, 2004, 04:35 pm

name calling does not win the argument

**Pooeypants** · Jan 29, 2004, 05:06 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
name calling does not win the argument<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
What's there to argue? There's no reasoning with you at all...

Meatros · Jan 30, 2004, 08:01 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
name calling does not win the argument<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

How can you win any arguments when you take science/rationalism out of the equation.

Face it dude, you put yourself into the 'timecube' corner here.

Impenitent · Jan 30, 2004, 12:29 pm

LOL there is no argument...

science, religion, leaps of faith... all mean...

NOTHING

**Pooeypants** · Jan 30, 2004, 12:35 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
LOL there is no argument...

science, religion, leaps of faith... all mean...

NOTHING<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
And now we should move on to why you'd even bother to post on here if you that is your view on all things...do you like to waste time?

Impenitent · Jan 30, 2004, 12:37 pm

because I enjoy the argument...

it's the same reason Socrates had

**Pooeypants** · Jan 30, 2004, 01:14 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
because I enjoy the argument...

it's the same reason Socrates had<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
But you just said and I quote
"LOL there is no argument...

science, religion, leaps of faith... all mean...

NOTHING"

I'm sure Socrates didn't contradict himself as much as you did...

damnrad · Jan 30, 2004, 01:53 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,)
I am interested in this, because ID has been in direct part of the arguement from 'Creation Science' for a long time and a general belief of Theists that hold to the evolution model as the way God created existence.

Does this change in emphasis or strategy change the basic thrust of central role of the Bible in the 'Creation Science' view.

Do you have some references to help me.

One thing I have seen lately is 'Creation Science' supporters have been trying to clean up their 'Act' and improve the basis of their scientific arguements.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

On ID, I suggest the following website: http://www.talkdesign.org/. A lot of good materials on evo/Creo generally, including ID, are available at: http://www.talkorigins.org/.

LogicaLunatic · Jan 30, 2004, 02:17 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)

the salient point was that science works on induction... science is based on an error...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You're right. Error is completely invaluable to the scientific method. Without error we wouldn't be able to do a thing.

But, I challenge you to find a better method of understanding. Science absolutely isn't perfect but it works far better than gazing into a crystal ball or even reading Hume.

LogicaLunatic

LogicaLunatic · Jan 30, 2004, 02:27 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
...leap of faith...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Impotent er sorry, Impenitent is simply saying that the way the scientific method is designed there is room for error in every and all scientific theory that will ever be. He is right about that. But he is calling that margin of error, no matter how small it may be, a leap of faith.

Fine, call that a leap of faith. But to say that the scientific method means nothing is different. Chemo Therapy is not science but we do have it BECAUSE of the scientific method. If he ever gets Leukemia I'm sure he'll assign at least SOME value to the scientific method.

LogicaLunatic

Impenitent · Jan 30, 2004, 05:40 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
because I enjoy the argument...

it's the same reason Socrates had<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
But you just said and I quote
"LOL there is no argument...

science, religion, leaps of faith... all mean...

NOTHING"

I'm sure Socrates didn't contradict himself as much as you did...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

oh but he did... he knew that he knew nothing... yet he knew it was the proper thing for a citizen to do by obeying the law, thus he killed himself while maintaining that life was a disease... and no, I don't contradict myself... the argument is nothing and I enjoy the argument are not contradictory

Impenitent · Jan 30, 2004, 05:44 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (LogicaLunatic,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)

the salient point was that science works on induction... science is based on an error...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You're right. Error is completely invaluable to the scientific method. Without error we wouldn't be able to do a thing.

But, I challenge you to find a better method of understanding. Science absolutely isn't perfect but it works far better than gazing into a crystal ball or even reading Hume.

LogicaLunatic<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

none is needed, understanding is an impossibility as you have admitted... I never claimed that what we accept as science didn't work, I simply claim that it is taken on faith as religions are and thus has the same value... does science work better than religion? sure, and I never claimed otherwise... but science isn't everything and it certainly isn't the truth

shunyadragon · Jan 31, 2004, 01:40 am

There are several key issues where 'Creation Science' utterly fails as a science.

(1) The idea of a young earth and a young static universe is contrary to the basics of physics and astronomy. The vast size of the universe and the need of time, for the speed of light, to explain the vast distance between galaxies and stars we can see and we cannot se all of them. The observations of change in the expanding universe, constantly changing galaxies and stars with time, and the big bang are essential to the principles of modern physics began with Einsteins theory of relativity. If 'Creation Science' sticks to this view than physics, chemistry and astronomy are based on faith and not sciences either.

(2) The flood. One of the key anchors (or lode stone around their neck) of the arguement that the bible is a literal history. There is no evidence in the Geologic record of a world flood. There is significant evidence to local and regional catastrophic flooding events, but never involving the world. Instead there is overwhelming evidence of continuous cyclic deposites of different kinds of rocks extending millions of years in the past all over te world. There are limestone formations hundreds of feet thick with associated coral reefs that can only be deposited very slowly over a very very long time in warm tropical and subtropical environments.

(3) The short history view cannot explain sea floor spreading we observe now and the continuous evidence that his sea floor has been spreading for millions of years in a neat concise and continuous record without a pause or break under all the oceans of the world.

There is not any evidence or basis for these concepts in modern science, in fact they run contrary to the basic nature of all science.

Meatros · Feb 2, 2004, 10:43 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
none is needed, understanding is an impossibility as you have admitted... I never claimed that what we accept as science didn't work, I simply claim that it is taken on faith as religions are and thus has the same value... does science work better than religion? sure, and I never claimed otherwise... but science isn't everything and it certainly isn't the truth<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You just contradicted yourself. If understanding is an impossibility then it would be impossible to understand that understanding is an impossibilty-thereby rendoring your position a logical contradiction.

In otherwords your position is intellectually dishonest.

Impenitent · Feb 2, 2004, 02:06 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Meatros,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
none is needed, understanding is an impossibility as you have admitted... I never claimed that what we accept as science didn't work, I simply claim that it is taken on faith as religions are and thus has the same value... does science work better than religion? sure, and I never claimed otherwise... but science isn't everything and it certainly isn't the truth<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

You just contradicted yourself. If understanding is an impossibility then it would be impossible to understand that understanding is an impossibilty-thereby rendoring your position a logical contradiction.

In otherwords your position is intellectually dishonest.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

no it isn't... you just didn't understand it...

Jan 29, 2004, 08:30 am	#21 (permalink) (top)
Meatros Molten Ash Posts: 41	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,) You are comparing a semiconductor device which works via the principle of quantum mechanics...to a thingy with counting beads. Now if thats not over simplification I don't know what is.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> oversimplification? have you ever heard of binary? what do you think your "semiconductor device" conducts? the only difference is in the number of beads (abacus) or switches (computer) they both work in exactly the same way<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes you are oversimplify things and your are committing the fallacy of distraction. I'm done with your little 'game' here. If you wish to discuss the OP then please continue, but this game of semantics is old.

Jan 29, 2004, 10:00 am	#22 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Meatros,) Yes you are oversimplify things and your are committing the fallacy of distraction. I'm done with your little 'game' here. If you wish to discuss the OP then please continue, but this game of semantics is old.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> distraction? hardly... the workings of a computer and an abacus are the same... do a little research on computers... http://ftp.arl.mil/~mike/comphist/eniac-story.html you brought it up, it is your distraction... the point remains, "science" requires a leap of faith as does religion because of the inductive fallacy. "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Jan 29, 2004, 11:23 am	#23 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,549	yawn Not much more to say to a man whom believes science requires as much faith as religion. Apart from that you're a loonie. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jan 29, 2004, 11:31 am	#24 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	I never said as much, but both do require a leap of faith... if you were speaking strictly logically, science would be impossible and as unprovable as mystic events... a loonie? LOL ok... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Jan 29, 2004, 01:26 pm	#25 (permalink) (top)
Meatros Molten Ash Posts: 41	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,) yawn Not much more to say to a man whom believes science requires as much faith as religion. Apart from that you're a loonie.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That's two votes for loonie.

Jan 29, 2004, 04:35 pm	#26 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	name calling does not win the argument "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Jan 29, 2004, 05:06 pm	#27 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,549	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) name calling does not win the argument<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What's there to argue? There's no reasoning with you at all... War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jan 30, 2004, 08:01 am	#28 (permalink) (top)
Meatros Molten Ash Posts: 41	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) name calling does not win the argument<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> How can you win any arguments when you take science/rationalism out of the equation. Face it dude, you put yourself into the 'timecube' corner here.

Jan 30, 2004, 12:29 pm	#29 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	LOL there is no argument... science, religion, leaps of faith... all mean... NOTHING "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Jan 30, 2004, 12:35 pm	#30 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,549	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) LOL there is no argument... science, religion, leaps of faith... all mean... NOTHING<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> And now we should move on to why you'd even bother to post on here if you that is your view on all things...do you like to waste time? War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jan 30, 2004, 12:37 pm	#31 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	because I enjoy the argument... it's the same reason Socrates had "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Jan 30, 2004, 01:14 pm	#32 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,549	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) because I enjoy the argument... it's the same reason Socrates had<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> But you just said and I quote "LOL there is no argument... science, religion, leaps of faith... all mean... NOTHING" I'm sure Socrates didn't contradict himself as much as you did... War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Jan 30, 2004, 01:53 pm	#33 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (shunyadragon,) I am interested in this, because ID has been in direct part of the arguement from 'Creation Science' for a long time and a general belief of Theists that hold to the evolution model as the way God created existence. Does this change in emphasis or strategy change the basic thrust of central role of the Bible in the 'Creation Science' view. Do you have some references to help me. One thing I have seen lately is 'Creation Science' supporters have been trying to clean up their 'Act' and improve the basis of their scientific arguements.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> On ID, I suggest the following website: http://www.talkdesign.org/. A lot of good materials on evo/Creo generally, including ID, are available at: http://www.talkorigins.org/.

Jan 30, 2004, 02:17 pm	#34 (permalink) (top)
LogicaLunatic Hrm... Location: MN Posts: 445	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) the salient point was that science works on induction... science is based on an error...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You're right. Error is completely invaluable to the scientific method. Without error we wouldn't be able to do a thing. But, I challenge you to find a better method of understanding. Science absolutely isn't perfect but it works far better than gazing into a crystal ball or even reading Hume. LogicaLunatic "Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive." -- Wallace Irwin

Jan 30, 2004, 02:27 pm	#35 (permalink) (top)
LogicaLunatic Hrm... Location: MN Posts: 445	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) ...leap of faith...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Impotent er sorry, Impenitent is simply saying that the way the scientific method is designed there is room for error in every and all scientific theory that will ever be. He is right about that. But he is calling that margin of error, no matter how small it may be, a leap of faith. Fine, call that a leap of faith. But to say that the scientific method means nothing is different. Chemo Therapy is not science but we do have it BECAUSE of the scientific method. If he ever gets Leukemia I'm sure he'll assign at least SOME value to the scientific method. LogicaLunatic "Statistics show that of those who contract the habit of eating, very few survive." -- Wallace Irwin

Jan 30, 2004, 05:40 pm	#36 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) because I enjoy the argument... it's the same reason Socrates had<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> But you just said and I quote "LOL there is no argument... science, religion, leaps of faith... all mean... NOTHING" I'm sure Socrates didn't contradict himself as much as you did...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> oh but he did... he knew that he knew nothing... yet he knew it was the proper thing for a citizen to do by obeying the law, thus he killed himself while maintaining that life was a disease... and no, I don't contradict myself... the argument is nothing and I enjoy the argument are not contradictory "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Jan 30, 2004, 05:44 pm	#37 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (LogicaLunatic,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) the salient point was that science works on induction... science is based on an error...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You're right. Error is completely invaluable to the scientific method. Without error we wouldn't be able to do a thing. But, I challenge you to find a better method of understanding. Science absolutely isn't perfect but it works far better than gazing into a crystal ball or even reading Hume. LogicaLunatic<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> none is needed, understanding is an impossibility as you have admitted... I never claimed that what we accept as science didn't work, I simply claim that it is taken on faith as religions are and thus has the same value... does science work better than religion? sure, and I never claimed otherwise... but science isn't everything and it certainly isn't the truth "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Jan 31, 2004, 01:40 am	#38 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	There are several key issues where 'Creation Science' utterly fails as a science. (1) The idea of a young earth and a young static universe is contrary to the basics of physics and astronomy. The vast size of the universe and the need of time, for the speed of light, to explain the vast distance between galaxies and stars we can see and we cannot se all of them. The observations of change in the expanding universe, constantly changing galaxies and stars with time, and the big bang are essential to the principles of modern physics began with Einsteins theory of relativity. If 'Creation Science' sticks to this view than physics, chemistry and astronomy are based on faith and not sciences either. (2) The flood. One of the key anchors (or lode stone around their neck) of the arguement that the bible is a literal history. There is no evidence in the Geologic record of a world flood. There is significant evidence to local and regional catastrophic flooding events, but never involving the world. Instead there is overwhelming evidence of continuous cyclic deposites of different kinds of rocks extending millions of years in the past all over te world. There are limestone formations hundreds of feet thick with associated coral reefs that can only be deposited very slowly over a very very long time in warm tropical and subtropical environments. (3) The short history view cannot explain sea floor spreading we observe now and the continuous evidence that his sea floor has been spreading for millions of years in a neat concise and continuous record without a pause or break under all the oceans of the world. There is not any evidence or basis for these concepts in modern science, in fact they run contrary to the basic nature of all science. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 2, 2004, 10:43 am	#39 (permalink) (top)
Meatros Molten Ash Posts: 41	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) none is needed, understanding is an impossibility as you have admitted... I never claimed that what we accept as science didn't work, I simply claim that it is taken on faith as religions are and thus has the same value... does science work better than religion? sure, and I never claimed otherwise... but science isn't everything and it certainly isn't the truth<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You just contradicted yourself. If understanding is an impossibility then it would be impossible to understand that understanding is an impossibilty-thereby rendoring your position a logical contradiction. In otherwords your position is intellectually dishonest.

Feb 2, 2004, 02:06 pm	#40 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Meatros,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) none is needed, understanding is an impossibility as you have admitted... I never claimed that what we accept as science didn't work, I simply claim that it is taken on faith as religions are and thus has the same value... does science work better than religion? sure, and I never claimed otherwise... but science isn't everything and it certainly isn't the truth<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> You just contradicted yourself. If understanding is an impossibility then it would be impossible to understand that understanding is an impossibilty-thereby rendoring your position a logical contradiction. In otherwords your position is intellectually dishonest.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> no it isn't... you just didn't understand it... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...