Stupid Creationist!

[Nihtgenga]

Originally Posted by Alien Armistice

So you're telling me that no creationist, anywhere, has ever researched evidence debunking the big bang theory or other associated non-creationist views?

Irrelevant. One of the main principles of science is to constantly question established theories. Yes, many creationists have done this, as have many non-creationists. Just because one theory is proved wrong (in this case, the Big Bang theory), doesn't prove any other theories (such as creationism) to be wrong.

EDIT- Oops. I meant to say right.



The thing that annoys me most about the various religious theories out there is that science says 'We don't know. This is just an educated guess.' whereas religion says 'We know.'

[sodacat]

Since there appear to be some honest creationists showing up in this thread here's a question I've never been able to get a straight answer for:

What is the point of studying creationism?

Does anyone actually expect to find a 'made by god' copyright hidden away in DNA? Is anyone actually working on studying the attributes, actions, or motives of god based on what they perceive as god's divine work? In short, what will science, or anyone, gain from the validation of creationism aside from peace of mind and a theological victory?

[Guado]

Originally Posted by polarkrackin

The big problem is that determinism explains more than anything else. It is the sole reason that we can use the past's examples to predict future events. If things happened at random, I would not be able to boil water at the temperature I did yesterday. Now you will say, "but no, that has nothing to do with choice behavior." And to that I say, "how can you prove this?" Did you know the number one predictor in suicidality was previous suicide attempts? The best predictor of someone committing a sexual offense is their criminal history to related offense, too. And the strongest predictor of someone who rebounds from a diet is number of past rebounds.

Why do humans think that their brains work above and beyond the laws of physics. Isn't that a bit cocky of us? I believe so. We have no evidence at all to support this idea of free will. Most people just say, "boy that'd be annoying to change society all on account on one silly idea."

Well I think you just proved natural selection wrong. Or rather you will if you are allowed to reproduce. Never have I seen so much inane nonsensical logical fallacies in a single post. It was meaningless incoherent ramblings based on nothing remotely provable in the slightest.

Your point has little actual merit, not everything happens at random, the idea that thermodynamics can influence decision isn't even stupid, it's barely able to be addressed. It's like saying I wake up every morning because the moon orbits the Earth.

Yeah, sure many criminals were sexually abused, but if we lacked free will all sexual abuse victims should be criminals. That's obviously not the case.

There also would be no survivors of suicide as eventually they'd succeed, or people who have quit smoking, or people who stick with a diet and there are MANY people in all of those categories that have defied their past experiences.

If there was no free will psychology would be completely correct at all given times and their would be no doctors left scratching their heads on how to deal with a patient. That is definitely not the case.

Your problem is you seem to be under the impression that free will means that everyone is completely random and just listens to every impulse they get. Free will is not the lack of being subject to sociological influences it is the ability to be influenced by all the things in your past and all the things in your presence and choose to do otherwise.

Bottom line is your experiences are often people's guide in life (and a whole lot of others use religion) but that's just it, it's only a guide. You can choose to not listen to it you can choose to follow it absolutely but ultimately tat was your choice. Of course a large chunk of people have trouble not following their past, it was after all the majority of their life if you follow what you know you feel safe. But to say their is no free will is just ridiculous as long as their is one person that defies their experience in life you have no ground to stand on.

What is the point of studying creationism?

If you don't understand that you probably shouldn't be debating in a subject about it. You missed one of the basic tenants of the worlds three major religions. (probably most religions actually)

[sodacat]

To no great surprise the question remains unanswered.

[Guado]

Originally Posted by sodacat

To no great surprise the question remains unanswered.

I was trying not to insult your intelligence (or your ability to use Google) but very well.

One of the basic tenants of all major if not all religions is evangelism/preaching/converting/whatever. If creationism was found to be the only thing that can explain the creation of the universe there would have to be a god of some kind. No if, ands or buts obviously. Thus making atheism obsolete and making it far easier to fulfill that basic tenant.

I'm sure some are just out to say "HA HA I RIGHT U WRONG" but the same silliness happens in science as well.

[sodacat]

So creationism is entirely a tool of religion and is totally useless to all science.

Wonderful. Fantastic. I'm glad someone is finally willing to admit it.

[Guado]

Originally Posted by sodacat

So creationism is entirely a tool of religion and is totally useless to all science.

Wonderful. Fantastic. I'm glad someone is finally willing to admit it.

Useless to science how? I was under the impression that science's ultimate goal was to discover how things work/origins/basic pursuit of understanding. If it turns out that creationism is the truth then it's VERY valuable to the ultimate goal of science. Really didn't think I'd have to explain that but that's what I get for assuming things.

I mean honestly I r dum creationist remember? Why must I spell everything out for you? A little critical thinking will do you some good.

Cute way you tried to warp my words though. Gotta love dogma c:

I think your problem is that you are under the impression that religion and science are mutually exclusive. I assure you that's not the case. Something that's supposed to be about the pursuit of understanding, you are treating as dogma. You essentially are making science a religion.

[ElastiGirl]

Man created God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[polarkrackin]

Originally Posted by Guado

Well I think you just proved natural selection wrong. Or rather you will if you are allowed to reproduce. Never have I seen so much inane nonsensical logical fallacies in a single post. It was meaningless incoherent ramblings based on nothing remotely provable in the slightest.

Here ya go kiddo! Since I doubt you actually read the first post I made I will make this clear as I can.

Also, I said people who have committed sexual offense are more likely to repeat than someone who never has. I did not say victims of it had a chance to do something. I have no idea where you got that idea from.

Ok Guado here it is. Behavior spelled out for ya, and let's see where free will fits.

Of all the factors of behavior, it has been boiled down into three parts.

Firstly, genetics- this defines your senses capabilities and your body's potential. Some people grow up to be very tall, very short, double jointed and have red hair! There are some chemical factors involved that can alter our growth, so genetics is simply our potential. Also, many personality traits have been researched and concluded to be heritable (not all of course).

Second, history- This is everything we have experienced and learned. This is our habits and our conditioning. Some people would say this is all of our skills. Well the second something is absorbed through our senses and stored in our memory, it becomes our history. History of events, and history of environments. Such as understanding the world you live in now based on your view of it in the past. And the past is anywhere between 1 second ago to 1 million years ago.

Third, environment- This is the last factor that impacts behavior. The air pressure in the room, the amount of lighting, how hungry you are, how much caffeine is in your system, how much sleep you've had, the social forces at work, and so on. Clearly your history with the world helps inform you how to interpret each environment. And clearly your genetics help give you the information through your senses.

So my genetics give me the information through my senses, my history tells me how to interpret the data, and my environment normally tells me what I want and where I am(such as what urges am I under the impression of right now).

If the unit of analysis is behavior, the person really isn't that important. It is simply where the behavior is taking place. Oh no, I probably pissed someone off by saying that! So as a scientist we try to understand what combinations of genetics/history/environment will yield replications of results. Seems reasonable, but people hate the idea of no free will and take to attacking me personally. Yes, a good defense is calling me a loon!

Anyways, I think the absolute best example I can leave you with is this.

What happens when we take someone with no long term memory and test them in the same situation multiple times? Interesting direction to take this, I know. The reason this is so important is that it gives the researcher a new level of control over the subject. History will never change for this person. They will not add more data to their history, so that is controlled for. Also, genetics never change from day to day (well im sure somehow they could...) so they will be considered controlled for. So if we test someone with no long term memory function again and again the only thing we do not have direct control over is the environment. The environment is internal and external. We can control the room they are in, the temperature, the humidity, the lighting, but we cannot readily control their level of stress fatigue, amount of sleep they got that day, how frustrated they are, etc. One would assume if you made them conform to a pattern they would be easier to deal with, but that would be simply unethical. In light of that, I predict that if one tests a person with no longer term memory multiple times in the same situation, they will yield identical results. <------ that is a prediction. I am putting it all on the line. I haven't seen a creationist do that. I haven't seen someone defending free will do that. That is an enormous difference.

The famous saying is, you cannot step in the same river twice. Controlling every aspect of an environment is practically impossible. If nothing else, the subject will continue to grow older day by day. I am unsure how that would impact anything.

Also, I think I put a lot more into this thought process than you gave me credit for. A good theory offers a more fruitful explanation. Free will is just a cop out. "why did that person do that, because he chose to!" Failing to want to dissect and analysis the causes of behavior is rather hilarious. It's like saying, "why is the sky blue, because god wanted it to be!"


In closing, psychology has a long way to go. Their correlations are pretty weak most of the time, and it's hard to see the effects of what they do. However, each and every day we find out that people are in less control of themselves than they believe. It's just like as science finds out more about the world, less and less is attributed to god. "Why are their mountains, because of god!" Well we know that to be wrong, as we learned more about the world. This is why I do not hold it against you that you basically called me an idiot, you just didn't have control of yourself. Though, failure to recognize that this direction has a lot to offer is a bit... odd to me at least.

[Guado]

Originally Posted by polarkrackin

Yes, a good defense is calling me a loon!

Anyways, I think the absolute best example I can leave you with is this.

What happens when we take someone with no long term memory and test them in the same situation multiple times? Interesting direction to take this, I know. The reason this is so important is that it gives the researcher a new level of control over the subject. History will never change for this person. They will not add more data to their history, so that is controlled for. Also, genetics never change from day to day (well im sure somehow they could...) so they will be considered controlled for. So if we test someone with no long term memory function again and again the only thing we do not have direct control over is the environment. The environment is internal and external. We can control the room they are in, the temperature, the humidity, the lighting, but we cannot readily control their level of stress fatigue, amount of sleep they got that day, how frustrated they are, etc. One would assume if you made them conform to a pattern they would be easier to deal with, but that would be simply unethical. In light of that, I predict that if one tests a person with no longer term memory multiple times in the same situation, they will yield identical results. <------ that is a prediction. I am putting it all on the line. I haven't seen a creationist do that. I haven't seen someone defending free will do that. That is an enormous difference.

The famous saying is, you cannot step in the same river twice. Controlling every aspect of an environment is practically impossible. If nothing else, the subject will continue to grow older day by day. I am unsure how that would impact anything.

Also, I think I put a lot more into this thought process than you gave me credit for. A good theory offers a more fruitful explanation. Free will is just a cop out. "why did that person do that, because he chose to!" Failing to want to dissect and analysis the causes of behavior is rather hilarious. It's like saying, "why is the sky blue, because god wanted it to be!"

More likely isn't an absolute. Because that absolute does not exist is a vicious point against your argument

The only thing I haven't refuted yet, the rest was you reiterating your own points without attacking my rebuttals.

I didn't call you a loon I called your point stupid. I think you are taking incomplete data and making an assumption based on incomplete data. More commonly known as a logical fallacy. That very long and ultimately fruitless conclusion you have reached is the definition of a logical fallacy. I'm actually near overload on specifically where to start.

Here goes:

First I think that the word you are looking for is short term memory. Short term memory is day to day memories if a person had no longer term memories but had short term memories they would make a history each and every day. Well actually they'd be regressed to an infantile stage since your long term memory is (assuming I'm remembering correctly) also where you keep functions like walking and talking.

In any case assuming they forgot each day is what I'm guessing you're trying to get at and I have to say you don't really have anything to say.

All of your point is based on assumption and unlike creationism which cannot be proven or disproven via science and thus trying will inevitably lead to frustration, your point IS subject to proof and you have offered none. You are literally preaching (irony most delicious) about a subject you thought of with zero back up. Even some of your assumptions were proven to be fallacies.

Your example is an extreme to a ridiculous extent. It's almost as bad as saying a person offered a choice between getting stabbed to death or winning a million dollars will always decide to pick a million dollars. BRILLIANT!

But your example is just silly a person given the exact same choices if they have nothing raising them or any memory of things raising them would do the exact same thing isn't really saying much. Now if there were some way to put in morally questionable tests like a guy losing his wallet on whether or not the person would return it but since they have no memories they don't even know what a wallet is they'd probably just pick it up and try to determine what the hell it is. Others probably would be to shy to pick it up perhaps their curiosity would get the best of them perhaps it wouldn't. I doubt even their sleeping patterns would remain consistent. They also would be influenced on how the hell they felt. That right there is free will! Free will isn't choosing to do something else it is merely the ability to do so.

You risked absolutely nothing since your prediction cannot be tested. I can tell you that you're wrong but ultimately you'll stick with your dogma. And thus bad for something like science.

The point you seem to be missing is you can only be influenced by your surroundings, memories or anything. You make the choice to do something or decide not to. That seems to be what you keep missing.

You are amusingly self assured that what you think you know to be scientific fact and that you actually have to bolster your own faith in your opinions to make it seem more valid only speaks volumes that you yourself aren't to convinced by it. You don't want to believe your opinion is wrong and that mentality is the exact opposite of science.

[darththeo]

How come in every topic about Evolution someone mentions the Big Bang ... honestly, it is quite annoying. I had to explain to people that the Big Bang Theory is outdated and very few scientists believe that a "singularity exploding" was the cause of the universe anymore.

[polarkrackin]

Originally Posted by Guado

First I think that the word you are looking for is short term memory. Short term memory is day to day memories if a person had no longer term memories but had short term memories they would make a history each and every day. Well actually they'd be regressed to an infantile stage since your long term memory is (assuming I'm remembering correctly) also where you keep functions like walking and talking.

Short term memory last about 7 seconds. I question your background in psychology if you have any at all. Clearly psychological functions aren't an area of your expertise. Short term memory is often called "working memory." From working memory our hippocampus takes it and begins to encode it. There is a next part, called the medium term memory, and then long. Issues that effect the hippocampus normally effect medium and long term, but each case is different. Most common would be a massive vitamin B deficiency often found in alcoholics. I see the error I made in referring to "no long term memory." My original version of the post named the disease, but I felt like it was going to warrant too much explaining. I meant to say it like this, "unable to create new long term memories." With that in mind, you may be able to make sense of the comments I made. Clearly a person with no long term memory would certainly be an oddity.


Next, you are saying I am working off an assumption. However, free will is also an assumption. So the best you can do is give both ideas the same amount of merit. However, you have gone out of your way to say it's foolish, though you may argue that isn't what you said, it's simply the tone. I'm not sure what more I can say on the idea. Both ideas are assumptions. One theory is more fruitful, more parsimonious, answers more questions... so empirically speaking it is more useful. I know it does not make it true.

I think you missed the part of my posts where I said, "I have faith in my assertions, oh no, faith, now it sounds like I am part of the problem."

I understand my position and my limitations. However, I am willing to explain it, and give examples of FALSIFIABILITY more-so than a creationist view. Falsifiability is paramount to a theory. Though, I know currently we lack the sophistication to carry out a procedure with enough control to show what I wish to show.

Then ya said this "Your example is an extreme to a ridiculous extent. It's almost as bad as saying a person offered a choice between getting stabbed to death or winning a million dollars will always decide to pick a million dollars. BRILLIANT!"

My extreme example of what? I left it open ended. I said if we put someone in a situation where they had to make a choice I predicted they would make the same choice over and over if they could not add to their history. So just to spell it out to you, it could be innocuous and simple. Three playing cards laying face down. We ask him to pick one. He picks the middle one. We replicate the situation to the perfect degree and ask him once his history is control for, and ask him again. If he does again and again and again... what does that mean? The level of control required is the only thing that is extreme. For me to say that I can create an environment in which he will absorb his environment the same way over and over sure is questionable. Let's imagine he is about to make his choice. He looks at me, he looks at the cards, he looks at me again, then chooses. Then the next time, he looks at me and then the cards and picks without looking at me again. Suddenly I realize a portion of the control has been lost.

(Now I understand your comments were made based on my poor explanation of "no long term memory" instead of "unable to create any more long term memories." So you may have not meant all of that, or perhaps your responses will remain the same.)

If you wanted to point out the obvious flaws with this, you could have chosen this route instead of saying silly things like "tea cake or DEATH." I understand how almost impossible it is. However, I feel it is the best route to take.



"The point you seem to be missing is you can only be influenced by your surroundings, memories or anything. You make the choice to do something or decide not to." -- Well, much like you are holding it against me. PROVE IT. You are critiquing me for my lack of a provable example, so I must hold the same to you. In the end, we are left with the consensus that they are both currently assumptions. One is a more useful theory, one isn't. That much could be up to debate. However, simply ignoring the idea doesn't do anyone any favors.