Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You clearly either lied or made statements that you could not support due to your own ignorance. This is as I said shameful behavior, especially for one that claims to be a Christian.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Argumentum ad populum
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
nPeace
Veteran Member
You're making no sense.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, I made perfect sense.You're making no sense.
Tell me do you want to debate honorably?
nPeace
Veteran Member
You mean like pretending I know everything, and then picking two lines from a post to get into nonsensical and useless arguments? No.
nPeace
Veteran Member
@Subduction Zone why are you always so vague in your comments?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Please, you know that you are not being honest in this answer. Don't play cute. You have been making obviously false statements. Your only excuse is rather extreme and probably self imposed ignorance or else you were purposefully lying. As has been shown countless times unfortunately there is no such thing as an honest and informed creationist. Most try to keep themselves ignorant on purpose so that they at least have plausible deniability. Yours is about worn out.
So let's fix that. We can do that and it will help your ability to debate. Can you think of any reason at all that you are afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Where have I been vague? At best you are only using self applied ignorance again.
If you learn the basics of science you will be able to avoid such obvious errors and falsehoods.
nPeace
Veteran Member
The only thing I seem to get from you, is a critique of a user's post. Nothing meaningful to respond to... It's like you are just trying to create useless arguments.
There is usually nothing useful to debate.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What are you talking about? I offered you a solution. You ran away. Please do not make false claims about others. Remember the Ninth Commandment.
I offered you a solution that does not immediately support evolution. In fact if creationism is correct you should be able to use my solution to support it. Yet you ran away from that. That is very telling as if you knew deep down that you are wrong.
nPeace
Veteran Member
What are you talking about?
This is the way you roll.
You "There is a gaping hole in your gut. Let me plug it for you."
Me "Hole? What hole?"
You "Are you going to let me plug the hole, or just stay and let your guts spill out?"
Me "What hole? What are you talking about?"
You "Do you want the plug or not? Why are you refusing?"
I don't know what you are talking about.
Get it? What is meaningful about such a dialogue?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Wow! You cannot follow a direct conversation? Your earlier remarks were so wrong as to indicate that you were either lying or had no clue as to what you were talking about. I would rather assume that you had no clue and offered a solution. Instead you prefer to run away.
At best you do not understand the nature of evidence. I offered to discuss this with you. You ran away.
At best you do not understand the scientific method. I have offered to discuss this with you. You ran away.
It appears that you know that ignorance is your only hope to keep a least plausible deniability (I did not know that was false, even though any high school graduate should be able to understand why it was false). That only works for so long.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Wow. Nearly an entire page, and nothing meaningful.
I won't ask again, what are you talking about.
Signing off, for now.
The question is, what test do you use to determine whether a statement is true or not.
Nowhere have you stated the test you use. You haven't, for example, said, 'I agree with your correspondence test' or 'I don't use a test, truth is anything I like' or 'Truth is anything uttered by someone I respect' ─ or anything else.
I assume that a world exists external to the self. I assume it because I can't give a sufficient demonstration that it's correct without first assuming it's true.
I also assume that my senses are capable of informing me about that world, and I assume it for the same reason.
I also assume that reason is a valid tool, again for the same reason.
But that's not an impediment to our conversation, since you demonstrate by posting on RF that you share the first two assumptions, and if you don't share the third one, please let me know straight away.
Against that background, reality is the world external to the self. It's the same thing as nature, or the realm of the physical sciences, or the sum of things with objective existence. The test for whether something is real is whether it has objective existence, that is, exists in nature, would continue to exist whether you were aware of it or not.
I have a number of very good reasons to think so. But bear in mind that our emotions are generated by the interaction of our nervous system, not least the brain, and our hormones. Imagine how different you'd be without adrenaline, testosterone, oxytocin, and so on through a long list. Love is both an evolved thing ─ think of the survival benefits of pair bonding (in humans and in other species) and of child nurture and protection (found in humans and a great many other species) ─ and a cultural thing, so that eg society itself is changing as women's equality creeps closer.
in response to the biochemistry, we pay attention to specific others in particular ways; we have courting rituals, weddings and commitment rituals, birth and childrearing customs, grief and funeral rituals. So 'love' manifests itself as particular kinds of conduct between specific people, and I recognize it from a lifetime of experiencing it. (Charitable 'love' has a slightly different function.)
Given the human capacity for deceit, perhaps not infallibly, but we've all evolved to recognize it, respond to it, and ourselves demonstrate it.
Yes, of course ─ as above.
It's usually possible to show that specific classes of conduct by one person to another fit the concept 'love', yes. But not always.
No, I just checked the history books.
No, do what I do ─ actually check what we know and how we know it. You could start with the cosmology of the bible, if you like ─ a flat earth immovably fixed at the center of creation (there being no notion of 'solar system' or 'star' or 'universe' in the modern sense in those days) over which was a hard dome (the 'firmament') which you could walk on, and to which the heavenly bodies were affixed so that if they came loose they'd fall to earth. The records are there ─ you just have to look. (Did I give you this >link< earlier?) And of course that's consistent with the records of ancient beliefs we find for other cultures in that region. It's true that we find ideas among the Greeks that are noted without generally being adopted, like Aristarchus of Samos placing the sun at the center and the earth around it, and Eratosthenes demonstrating that the world was spherical and measuring its circumference (both 3rd cent BCE). But there's no evidence of such thinking in the bible.
That's a strangely evasive reply to the point being made ─ trying to dismiss it by waving your hand instead of addressing the substance of it.
(Incidentally, I don't reply 'Nope' to your question; I reply, 'I know what an imaginary god might be ─ anything you want ─ but I've never come across a coherent definition of a real god, such that if we found a real candidate we could tell whether it were God, or a god, or not. If you have one, I'd be grateful to hear it.)
You've yet to say what truth is, what test you use, so we can compare notes between my idea and yours when you finally get to say it out loud.
In some senses, definitely. The earth was flat in biblical times (you've checked that link above, so this time I can add, 'As you know'); the air and earth and sea were full of gods, and spirits, and ghosts, and godlings; there was magic black and white, so you were commanded to put witches to death; madness was demonic possession; tsunamis and hurricanes and earthquakes were the judgment of one or other brainless and brutal god; and all these views are still alive in parts of the world today ─ for instance, check with Pat Robertson about the last one.
Because it wasn't wrong at the time. As I said, truth is never absolute, just retrospective.
My understanding of reality has definitely changed as I've grown up, been educated, and continue to read. How about you?
A very particular community, yes ─ people who've studied the matter as objectively as possible.
You're still groping around for absolute truths, aren't you. Yet you still can't give me an example of even one. (I've dealt with your purported example below.)
That's just an ordinary day in the history of science.
How is that an absolute statement in any sense? Bees, beavers, birds, build houses, and until you give me that meaningful definition of a real god, there's no sense in which that part of your statement is a statement about reality.
Thanks for that. Happy to oblige.
Can we objectively tell design or not?
Depends what you mean by 'design'. Is intention essential, or do you think what evolution does can be called 'design'? Can landform be said to 'design' the course of rivers? Does the weather 'design' snowflakes? Does a plant developed by selective breeding count as 'designed'?
Does objective reality dictate that, design requires a designer?
Again that depends on what you mean by 'design'. My own view is that design requires a designer because I require 'design' to have an intentional element; but that's simply my definition. As far as I can tell, objective reality as such (as distinct from some of the beings in it) has no opinions of its own.
Does objective reality dictate that for us to have a system which is designed to carry out specific instructions, based on a "blueprint", or a "structure" of precisely coded instructions needed to be communicated... that an intelligent 'mind' must be involved? What objective reality is opposed to these?
No, biology provides endless examples to the contrary. (Do you keep track of progress on modern research into abiogenesis? We're not there yet but we're inching closer.)
And that leads directly into the central question about your own position, which ─ correct me if I'm wrong ─ relies on at least one magical being wielding magic. We have not one single authenticated example of real magic ─ the alteration of reality independently of the rules of physics, often just by wishing ─ so how can it be a credible alternative?
Oh, and this time don't forget to state clearly and specifically the test you use to determine whether any statement is true or not. If you claim you've already done so, quote that answer.
Last edited:
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Actually, we can:
Massive genetic study shows how humans are evolving
Humans are still evolving—and we can watch it happen
High-altitude adaptation in humans - Wikipedia
How are they evidence that dramatic changes can ONLY occur over short periods of time?
Yes, because natural selection is a real, observed phenomenon. Darwin wasn't right about everything, and he had no way of knowing the whole story, but his observations regarding natural selection turned out to be correct.
And on what do you base this assumption, considering we have directly observed gradual changes resulting in speciation (examples of which I have provided in previous posts)?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Even better, I'll let an actual expert tell you a bit more about it. Here's Ken Miller, professor of evolutionary biology (and if it makes you feel better, also a devout christian), explaining what we know about human chromosome 2 and what it tells us about our ancestry:
What functions the genes have today in a species, or what its counterparts in cousin species do today, is not relevant to their origins.
Speaking of expert, you are the first person I ever heard with the Chromosome 2 argument (Hmm..I wonder why...)
Misplaced sarcasm?
Don't tell me this is in fact really the first time you heared of this?
This isn't a mere claim. It's a fact. A testable, verifiable, commonly observable fact.
Watch the 4-minute clip. It gets quite detailed in explaining how we know this.
Good. A brain that receives oxygen is better at paying attention. ;-)
How did you prove it? And why isn't this world news?
Huh? What the heck are you talking about?
Not an opinion.
That is not at all what I said and how dishonest of you to pretend that I did.
No, the fossil record is completely consistent with evolution.
For crying out loud..........................................
Last edited:
tas8831
Well-Known Member
It is interesting to see what you ignore in posts that you respond to. Not to worry - I will put it back in in RED so that others can see how you operate.
I know you will not do so, for to do so will reveal your level of ignorance/deception, but what do YOU think "peer" means in "peer review"? Anti-science zealots? Religious fanatics? People who think 'dream it up and assert it science' is REAL science? People who think 10 paragraphs of assertions are actually evidence? People who want to be thought of as having expertise on the anatomy and physiology of language but who call the motor speech area "broccas area" and thing creatures can just grown one?
Thanks for living up to my expectations.
I am well aware that you have "said" this many times. Yet in none of the many times you have asserted this, you have never provided ANYTHING other than your assertions, which I do not believe or accept at face value, as anyone with legitimate science knowledge should.
Why are you so adamantly averse to providing anything worthy of consideration? The ruminations a self-taught egotists are trivial nonsense, especially when they run counter to actual evidence.
No sane person will accept you repetitive assertions as anything other than evidence that you cannot support your claims.
Evidence please, Mr. "Grow a boccas area."
OK, I was just using your words in the hopes that you might, for once, give a straightforward reply. You ignored this:
I know you will not do so, for to do so will reveal your level of ignorance/deception, but what do YOU think "peer" means in "peer review"? Anti-science zealots? Religious fanatics? People who think 'dream it up and assert it science' is REAL science? People who think 10 paragraphs of assertions are actually evidence? People who want to be thought of as having expertise on the anatomy and physiology of language but who call the motor speech area "broccas area" and thing creatures can just grown one?
Thanks for living up to my expectations.
I am well aware that you have "said" this many times. Yet in none of the many times you have asserted this, you have never provided ANYTHING other than your assertions, which I do not believe or accept at face value, as anyone with legitimate science knowledge should.
Why are you so adamantly averse to providing anything worthy of consideration? The ruminations a self-taught egotists are trivial nonsense, especially when they run counter to actual evidence.
Please demonstrate how you determined this, using published evidence in your support.
No sane person will accept you repetitive assertions as anything other than evidence that you cannot support your claims.
Indeed.
I would say, an egotist Dunning-Krugerite, but that is because I have an extensive background in things like evolutionary biology, anatomy, etc. And I can tell quite easily that you do not.
Evidence please, Mr. "Grow a boccas area."
Last edited:
tas8831
Well-Known Member
I care for neither what you accept nor what you think relevant. Your scientific opinions are hilariously inept,.
You hit all the tropes of the under-informed, bravo!
Indeed, the moment someone writes something so monumentally uninformed as:
"Individuals must "grow" a new speech center (broccas area) to translate the now analog higher brain functions with the still digital speech center near the ears."
That is the gibberish of a child with a wild imagination. Or a self-taught religious zealot. Or someone suffering from a major case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
You know their only recourse is to play martyr and double-down on their infantile, naive understandings of the world to prop up their fragile faiths and egos.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Apparently, 'we' also never bothered to learn how to spell an area of the brain that 'we' then later pontificate on.
Broca's area, also known as the motor speech area, was named after French physiologist Paul Broca, who first described it. I know this because I taught a neuroanatomy class a few times. You would know it too, if you had done more than skim some popular press article on the subject and wildly extrapolated it to fit your fantasies.
And then, of course, it was you that wrote:
"Individuals must "grow" a new speech center (broccas area) to translate the now analog higher brain functions with the still digital speech center near the ears."
Clearly, you have no idea how naive and silly that sounds to someone that actually knows this material.
Clueless.....
I assume that you understand how the internet works, and how you can, you know, look things up? As such, I am at a loss to understand why you prefer to retain these ignorance and fantasy-based notions about things that you self-education clearly failed you on.
Here you go, Genius:
Know your brain: Broca's area — Neuroscientifically Challenged
Read it and .... keep posting the same garbage you do.
Complete ignorance presented with confidence? I wouldn't be so proud of that if I were you.
Last edited:
cladking
Well-Known Member
Appeals to authority and links to wiki pages are not evidence. I understand you believe in gradual change in species but you don't seem to understand you can't support it as the major driver of change.
It's funny that I supply facts and reason and the one time I make a link it wasn't even followed. There's a view counter on it! But when I follow your links all I get are irrelevancies; studies that do not support the contention that change in species is gradual.
People get swept up by the "truth" because this is about the only thing any of us are looking for. Being Homo Omnisciencis we each find it. We start with our beliefs and then observe all our beliefs are spot-on. Of course being a social animal there are many who agree. Consensus is prevailing opinion, no more no less. The more unanimous this opinion is the more likely they are each wrong.
cladking
Well-Known Member
I suppose you never considered the possibility that if the location of the Brocca's Area varies among individuals then we might not have been born with one.
I believe this is the translator between the digital speech center and the now analog brain. If we still used digital language we'd need no such translation.