Keroro1454 Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 As you are a true and constant manicheist, Don't try to afraid people to investigate into creationists arguments, if creationists are so wrong as you say, just let people figure it out. the best scientific arguments don't come from evolutionists but from creationists. Let's be clear, the best scientific arguments I heard came from creationists not as being creationists but as being scientists or using their reason. They sometimes refer to religious beliefs (especially the 2nd which is mounted and based on Harun Yahya's books who is a muslim). Heated Bread, I'm going to quickly tag in for this one. Join if you'd like to help me out here, I'm just going to hit the basics. 1. What is with you accusing everyone of being a Asian Supremacist. PLEASE ANSWER: DO YOU ACTUALLY KNOW THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD MANICHEIST? 2. That effectively is rejecting the education system? "Oh you don't know something and thus are incorrect? Eh, I'm sure you'll get it." Its a idiotic assumption that people are always capable and willing to seek answers themselves, especially if it means their previous beliefs are incorrect. 3. Have you actually listened to the foundations of the beliefs of creationists. They believe the Bible is scientifically true in every respect. They legitimately believe the universe is ~7000 years old. I don't care about evolution here, their basic argument is false, lunacy, and easily disproven. Their constant rejection of proof is also a good example of why people can't always be trusted to figure things out on their own. 4. Your video was from 1997. Something from this decade would be nice, as its information is highly outdated, especially in the field of genetics, which has advanced rapidly since the 90s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heated Bread Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I am [not] denying there are fossil records, I say they don't prove evolution. ... I started the topic saying Evolutionism is a theory and there is no scientific evidence for it. Then nothing will ever reach you. The fossil record is a vast trove of physical evidence concerning the history of life on earth over 3.5 billion years, starting from bacteria and progressing to ever greater complexity and diversity. One cannot be aware of this progression and reasonably deny that life on earth began at a simple stage, gradually evolving to what it is today. In order to do so, one must believe in a vast conspiracy amongst scientists to fabricate and lie about the massive amount of fossil evidence that has been found to support this. Then there's our somewhat recent discovery and study of DNA, which is able to show the relations between different species through the amount of genetic similarity. There's also our real observation of evolution, which is the emergence of new traits, something creationists accept and refer to as microevolution. There's also our observations of speciation, something you've chosen to deny because you don't like the definition being used, even though you can't deny that it does happen and can't deny the significance of it because it means traits can no longer be passed from one population to another, marking a divergence of populations from a common ancestry. These are all multiple lines of evidence supporting the same conclusion, and these are the things you are choosing to ignore by claiming there is no scientific evidence for evolution. I'm sorry but you are just plain wrong. While it is your choice to accept evolution or reject it, your denial of the existence of the evidence itself is simply absurd, and that denial is not worthy of being respected. Some persons then called me a creationist which implies that I believe in God. It's probably because we're all somewhat familiar with you from your posts in other threads. You're a muslim. While there are many muslims who believe in evolution, there are also many who do not, and from your posts it is obvious that you do not. You are essentially a creationist, although in the united states, that term typically refers to a christian who denies evolution and believes in the special creation of each "kind" of animal by god, but you're close enough. You believe in the same god they do, deny evolution, and I'm willing to bet good money that you also believe in the same kind of special creation that they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tats Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Heated Bread > datings of fossil records are based on flawed scientific hypothesis of superposition. Just look at sedimentoly. Are you guys honest ? I can doubt it. I have gone through all your arguments, watched your videos and so on. Now I post two videos that give scientific arguments, and you don't dare to watch them for some pretexted fallacy : "it is a video from 1997" or "it is a creationist [bullshit]" from Keroro's side, "it is a conspiracy from creationists" from Heated Bread's side. If you don't watch the videos, it means you are the dogmatic persons which means no further debate. I studied both evolutionists and creationists arguments, if you don't make the same, there is no place for debate. PS : Stop saying I am muslim because I am not indeed. I don't know from which statement from me you got it. That's an interesting point, it shows how your sense of interpretation can drive you in a bad direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keroro1454 Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Okay then... 1. Stop using an assortment of random English words in order to... sound smarter? Not really sure why you're using them if you don't know what they mean, you just sound stupid when you do. 2. You posted like an 8 episode series 3. I don't know what you are getting at here. Are you stating that my statement that technology has significantly advanced since 1997 in the fields related to the argument is false? If so, this argument is null and void. 4. Yes, claiming the planet is 7000 years old is bullshit. I stand by that, we've disproved it many times over. 5. This debate was Heated Bread and I trying to convince you on the scientific legitimacy of fossil evidence, evolution, etc. I'm not arguing about the two sides, I'm arguing that you are trying to reject the scientific evidence we presented. That doesn't require us to research your (flawed) statements, unless it is necessary for us to present our proof. 6. I personally thought you were a Christian, given from your hints throughout this argument. Tats, stop skirting around my questions. Do you understand some of the words you saying? This response is probably your worst offense yet, you've inserted a LOT of random obscure words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heated Bread Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Heated Bread > datings of fossil records are based on flawed scientific hypothesis of superposition. Just look at sedimentoly. Your objection is pretty weak for a few reasons, one of which is that the position of fossils within rock layers is not the sole method of dating them. You are misrepresenting or misunderstanding science. The more factors there are that lead to the same conclusion, the more likely that conclusion is to be true. So it is that when examining a thing or collection of things, the tendency is to look at it multiple factors and to try and contextualize it/them within a larger picture. Furthermore, you cite no reason at all for objecting to the examination of rock layers to help establish a time frame for a fossil. You only say "look at sedimentoly". Sedimentology is an entire area of study unto itself. it would be similar to me saying something like "Particle mass is calculated incorrectly. Just look at Quantum physics." You're floundering, Tats. Are you guys honest ? I can doubt it. Whether you doubt my sincerity or not is irrelevant to the information presented and the arguments themselves. I don't care what you think about me personally. It's beside the point. I have gone through all your arguments, watched your videos and so on. Now I post two videos that give scientific arguments, and you don't dare to watch them for some pretexted fallacy : "it is a video from 1997" or "it is a creationist [bullshit]" from Keroro's side, "it is a conspiracy from creationists" from Heated Bread's side. If you don't watch the videos, it means you are the dogmatic persons which means no further debate. I studied both evolutionists and creationists arguments, if you don't make the same, there is no place for debate. For you summarize my counter-arguments as "it's a creationist conspiracy" is extremely dishonest on your part. Speaking for myself, the external content I have posted posted has all been fairly short and to the point. They were all in chunks which are easily digestible and clear. I think it's fair to say that for the most part, this has also been true of my posts themselves. I do tend to be wordy at times, but this is for the sake of clarity and for the sake of anyone else who may be trying to follow the discussion. Overall, I think have made an honest attempt to be very clear at each point what my arguments were and what the videos I had posted were about. You on the other hand have apparently not gone to the same lengths for clarity that I have. This for me is compounded by your writing style, which is at times not easy to follow, possibly because you are not a native english speaker, and you jump from topic to topic without addressing significant criticisms of previous points. This entire time, only one of your posts contains any attempt to support your position by providing external sources (edit: correction - another one of your posts does contain citation for various alternative definitions of speciation to the one that was being used). And how do you do that? You dump well over two hours of content at the end of your post and expect me to sit through both of them before I am allowed to be considered fair by you. Well here's me being fair: documentaries (which is what you've apparently posted) are not rare on the internet. It doesn't mean what they are saying is correct, and I don't have to sit through over two hours of them to be reasonably assured that the overall consensus of the scientific community on evolution has not been successfully refuted by them. Don't like it? Tough. Label me however you like. It won't change anything. PS : Stop saying I am muslim because I am not indeed. I don't know from which statement from me you got it. That's an interesting point, it shows how your sense of interpretation can drive you in a bad direction. As I have have both witnessed and participated in discussions with you wherein you acted in the role of a muslim apologist, I think it's a fair assumption to make. I think it's also fair to say that your initial posts here have also made you seem like a creationist. However, if I am incorrect, then I apologize. Okay, you're not a muslim. Possibly not even a creationist. I will accept this. However, this does not in itself serve to refute any of the points I have made concerning the subject of evolution. ------------------------------------------------------------ edit: Having watched part 1 of the first film, I am already dubious. It discusses 2 unscientific views concerning entire flies being spontaneously generated from garbage piles (basically magic), and the spontaneous generation of bacteria (also basically magic). It discusses simple scientific experiments which can be conducted to disprove the notion of the spontaneous generation in the case of flies and bacteria (YAY SCIENCE!), but yet goes on as if the scientific community must somehow still believe in spontaneous generation, while in reality science is what is used to falsify these ideas. It then misrepresents a NASA mission as being an attempt to look for spontaneous generation on Mars (it was not), and goes on to pretend that since no evidence of life was found on Mars, it definitively means that 1) no life exists/existed there, and 2) that spontaneous generation must be false (even though this was again not the purpose of the mission and this is not how science or logic works at all to begin with), and 3) evolution must be false. Meanwhile, no mention of abiogenesis has yet be made, so it's as if the narrator is pretending that the concept doesn't exist. Abiogenesis does not deal with entire organisms magically appearing fully formed. But there are at least 2 things that do: spontaneous generation, and religion. I'm willing to bet that the idea of spontaneous generation probably came from the influence of religion to begin with. There are many religions containing creation myths about whole animals being poofed into existence by what is essentially magic. So what I am seeing so far is an inexcusable misrepresentation. Moreover, it has basically nothing to do with evolution! As I said earlier, evolution deals with how life evolves, not how life originated! But yet the narrator behaves as if this is evolutionary theory! Wow, Tats, wow. This was the best you could do? Are you for real? Seriously, are you just fucking with me? Is this your version of comedy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tats Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I know you must be honest to discuss and spend time to reply. As you said, I should have used the term "fair". I studied both evolutionist and creationist arguments, so as to compare and make my mind. I watched your videos even if I wasn't interested to do so. I watched the full debate (2h45) posted by Keroro which opposes Bill Nye to Ken Ham. I read many articles, websites, blogs, encyclopedies, etc. I would expect from you (or someone else) to watch documentaries before critizing them. Well I spent more than 2 hours viewing the two documentaries I posted. In fact I have watched several documentaries (in french and in english) and I selected these documentaries because I think they are the most relevant and synthetic. Their goals may or may not be for creationist purposes, they scientifically highlight why some common arguments, in favor of evolutionism, which are presented to be scientific are not in reality. Concerning the datings, I know sedimentology is not the only way of dating fossil records. However I think it is the most relevant to mention because it is quite a recent discipline, and evolutionists used stratigraphy (which sedimentoly now contradicts with) during decades to justify a flawed chronology. If we look at other disciplines of dating, many of them will contradict with the evolutionist chronology. Many scientists warned about the limits of dating techniques. You can have a quick overview in the first documentary I posted. For sure it goes in favor of creationists but why not consider it and discuss ? Evolutionism tends to be more and more a dogma : if Evolution occured, which is now acknowledged, it is surely because it was technically possible. I am confused to see how Evolutionism has become a belief among the vast majority of people. When you ask the average person, they will say that Evolutionism is scientifically well-backed up. Many scientists (from both sides) will tell you that we are not sure that the Evolution (macro evolution) has occured as regards with many aspects. The problem is that many scientists are forced to adopt evolutionist theories to pursue their scientific careers. Funds and subventions are a way to orientate the scientific sphere. Many scientific disciplines rely on flawed postulates which means there is many clean-up to do, and it very difficult for scientist to admit their mislead. It is kind of a vicious circle where Inertia serves Omerta and so on. Darwin and his philosophy of evolutionism made Science lose a lot of time with flawed postulates and some really of these flawed postulates have a thick skin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heated Bread Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Tats, I watched the first clip from the playlist you posted, and added an analysis to my previous post. Suffice to say, I am not impressed, nor do I think anyone else should be. Please read my analysis. I think I've done more than enough at this point to reasonably demonstrate that you are just flat out wrong. Your position is obviously not based on any real understanding of evolution or the arguments being made by either side, as I think I have repeatedly demonstrated by this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tats Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Part 1 is really not representative of the documentary, it just shows the genesis of an Evolution theory based on some oscurantist philosophers of the 18th century. Edit : The most interesting parts of this documentary are from the interviews of Pr. Sermonti, Berthaut and Boudreaux. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heated Bread Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Part 1 is really not representative of the documentary, it just shows the genesis of an Evolution theory based on some oscurantist philosophers of the 18th century. No, Tats. See, this is why I'm saying you don't understand the subject matter. The genesis of evolutionary theory was with Charles Darwin and has nothing at all to do with the unscientific concept of spontaneous generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tats Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Theory of Evolution didn't exist at that time, but it had a materialist perspective which greatly influenced both Lamarck and Darwin. Just like we can say Darwin's theory influenced many political or philosophical ideologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heated Bread Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I think we're done, Tats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tats Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 If you stop here, I will take it as a sign of weakness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keroro1454 Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 If you stop here, I will take it as a sign of weakness. Jesus Tats, you could at least try to not come off as a jerk whose too arrogant to admit he's wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tats Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 I think Heated Bread doesn't need a Cerberus to defend himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puddingkip Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Locking. Neither side has really brought up any argument lately and all this has become is another flamewar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.