WhatshallIcallmyself

Joined

• started 1 topics
• posted 369 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by WhatshallIcallmyself

• 
  147

  Challenge to Creationists

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

  predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

  entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  A point about entropy. Entropy, in a simplistic term, is a measure of how distributed energy is in a specified environment/system; an increase in entropy means a more distributed and less effective energy supply. In the context of this thread we can assume the system to be the universe. With no outside influence the energy in the universe will tend towards the less organised state which means it spreads out and dissipates; entropy increases.

  That, however, describes the universe as a whole and does not mean that it will spread out equally everywhere. Instead there will be localised areas where entropy decreases, our Solar System being one of them. The Sun gives out its energy which our planet receives and that decreases the entropy on Earth i.e. the energy we receive from the Sun is feeding the Earth and it's systems.

  The Universe is a closed system, the Solar System is an open system. Overall, entropy increases in the Universe but decreases (at the moment) in the Solar System.

  I said it was a simplistic explanation...

  
  
• 
  114

  Evidence for a Young Earth

  by Perry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  for additional information:.

  for additional information:.

  for additional information:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  Again, the hassle of dealing with claims made by someone who has not bothered to actually learn about the subject they are commenting on... Perry, virtually every post you make only proves you know so little about the subjects you talk about that you actually think what you post is correct and relevant to the discussion! Either that or you are a troll; it is truly hard to decide which you are.

  
  
• 
  147

  Challenge to Creationists

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

  predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

  entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  "Whence evil? Now, I've got another one: Why evil?" - snowbird

  Evil is subjective. It is just how an individual sees a situation. It's nothing more than a descriptive observation that is born of an evolved mind. It is not a question that needs answering in this topic's context...

  
  
• 
  147

  Challenge to Creationists

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

  predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

  entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  "I believe God created ..." - snowbird

  You can believe what you want about anything. It's when you start asserting these beliefs as reality against all rational evidence that you will find people objecting....

  "But, you will never accept that, will you?" - snowbird

  Of course I accept that you believe that. You seem to have ran off down a side alley instead of addressing the points I was making about how it is illogical to insist life is designed....

  
  
• 
  147

  Challenge to Creationists

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

  predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

  entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  "???" - snowbird

  If you wish to assert something like the cell is designed, rather than the product of non-guided process you either have to bring the designer forwards to explain how it was all done (or to simply say "yeah it was me, good eh?") or demonstrate that there is no natural process that could bring it about.

  For the latter you would have to know everything so as to not overlook a potential natural process. You can't just say "I can't think of an explanation therefore..." or "I can't see how it could have happened naturally..." because that is nothing more than an argument from ignorance/incredulity and as such is logically flawed.
  

  
  
• 
  147

  Challenge to Creationists

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

  predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

  entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  "What about the evidence of obvious design being presented by Vidquin?" - snowbird

  How can it be obvious when you don't know how everything in the universe came to be? The position you have taken is to go from not knowing something to asserting something based on not knowing anything in the first place.

  In order to state these things are designed you would need to offer evidence that these things cannot appear naturally; without divine guidance. In order to do that you need to understand everything about this universe because if you don't then there is always a chance that you have over-looked something. Don't forget, you aren't offering evidence for design here, you are instead stating that because something "looks" designed then it must be designed.

  When these things are eventually explained away where will you then go to still insist this god of yours exists? Your gaps are getting smaller by the day.

  
  
• 
  47

  Evolution is a Fact #37 - Testicles

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  take a look at the back of your tv/entertainment centre.

  a mass of power and signal cables connect the various pieces of equipment in very specific ways.

  imagine you wanted to switch the locations of your satellite receiver and your dvd player.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  Its called the concept of design. Its simple. A house needs an architect and a builder. It doesn't appear out of the blue. It was designed by somebody. It was built by somebody. That's not to complicated, is it? A living cell is much more complex. It also needs a designer and a builder. I know, evolutionists struggle with the concept. Sorry about that. - Vidqun

  I struggle with logical fallacies. The one you present here is the non sequitur variant. Perhaps you don't understand what I mean? I don't care! I'm not your mother...

  
  
• 
  47

  Evolution is a Fact #37 - Testicles

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  take a look at the back of your tv/entertainment centre.

  a mass of power and signal cables connect the various pieces of equipment in very specific ways.

  imagine you wanted to switch the locations of your satellite receiver and your dvd player.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  "Do you really believe the reproductive system of living things came about by itself and then merged to improve itself?" - Vidqun

  Nobody believes that. Except creationists of course.

  "By the way, man with the most advanced laboratories, cannot replicate a sperm or egg cell, much less a gonad. If they could, the need for fertility clinics would become something of the past" - Vidqun

  What has that got to do with this discussion? Evolution is not reliant on what humans can or cannot do. That should be obvious really...

  
  
• 
  114

  Evidence for a Young Earth

  by Perry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  for additional information:.

  for additional information:.

  for additional information:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  "Take this example for instance" - Perry

  Here we are talking about evolution or geology and there you are linking us to a journal editor who is worried about the state of pharmaceutical research.

  Do you not realise that in one fell swoop you have both shown exactly how well peer review works (the editor is openly stating there is a problem) and that you think pharmaceutical research is something relevant to this conversation. You are meant to be arguing against, not for!

  "How is the average person supposed to know which half is true and which half isn't ?" - Perry

  You rely on the experts in whatever field is relevant to the question at hand. The consensus amongst the scientific community is what counts. And let me make it clear to you that this consensus is not reached by sitting down and debating the "evidence". A consensus is established when numerous avenues of research all interconnect, mutually supporting each other and demonstrating that the underlying idea is sound.

  
  
• 
  114

  Evidence for a Young Earth

  by Perry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  for additional information:.

  for additional information:.

  for additional information:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  "People interpret those facts differently, plain and simple." - Perry

  People can only interpret facts if they are aware of all the other facts that go with the initial fact. This is where creationists diverge from scientists. The scientist interprets a set of related facts and the conclusion is drawn from where all the evidence leads whereas the creationist will interpret certain facts whilst ignoring all those that refute their desired conclusion.
  

  "The tendency is to attack anothers interpretation of the facts and call that interpretation not science, psuedo science, fairy tale etc.," - Perry

  If the conclusion is drawn from a limited data set that supports the conclusion whilst ignoring everything else that disagrees then yes, that is not science etc... If you claim to be a scientist and behave in that manner (Henry Morris et al...) then you will rightly be called on that.
  

  
  "when in fact many times interpretation, especially theoretical interpretation, is a process of the mind and not a falsifiable conclusion." - Perry

  Then it isn't science.... Stop pretending it is.... Science has to be falsifiable at all levels or it isn't science. I can write that last sentence in capitals, in bold, with a lovely background highlight if you are struggling to understand that simple concept.