I don’t have much “religious” affiliation with this mob but [quote=“twisty, post:56, topic:1148”]
Play the ball ya nob. Still waiting for evidence supporting your first assertion …
[/quote]knock yourself out arguing with this mob of scientists who, I doubt, will be much impressed with your armchair degree in babbling commonplace nonsense.
https://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.php
Is it possible to get a “dislike” option added alongside the “like” button? Admin?
But … it’s symbiotic for me. Gets my juices flowing …
Yair. It seems painfully obvious.[quote=“twisty, post:61, topic:1148”]
ya know what mate? You’ve got me fired up again. Thanks for that. Pirates Rule!
[/quote] Truth and Virtue are what suits the Pirate at the time. That’s what politics is… piracy! the big guys eat the little guys.
Good luck with your campaign… I will do everything I can to put you into the same basket as Malicious Turdful.
Is that a good thing? Or, is that he best you’ve got?
Hey Pirates, I’m proud of such a strong and forceful response to a creationism peddling, but what our mate @Oldavid is trying to do here is muddy the water and derail the conversation.
Remember, the OP asked what should our policy on creationism be, yet here we are debating the facts of evolution with a person that 200 years of evolutionary science did not convince.
Reality is that we we are a political party consisting of mainly science laypeople. This is not the right platform to discuss scientific validity of evolution and @Oldavid knows that because if he did truly have some fundamental refutation of evolution he’d be feverishly writing a paper that would easily win him and Nobel prize and scientific renown beyond all dreams.
By derailing this thread, @Oldavid is preventing PPAU from forming a policy consensus and preventing further participants in this discussion from making a comment as they stare down the enormity of this thread without knowing ahead that it’s essentially full of creationism shilling and us taking the bait.
I propose that mods split off the “validity of evolution” posts into their own thread and leave them to rot in an off topic section of the forum and for us to resist the urge to debate somebody who’s views won’t be changed and instead discuss policy implications of creationism.
3 Likes
on it …
vghjc cfgcvgcvh ch
edit: when I figure out how to do it …
edit again: Admin … help? I can’t see how to do it …
Good idea! but it’s not new. It’s been done since parliaments were invented to confuse the issue of what’s good for the commonwealth.
Anyhow*, I have written several short articles on science; here’s one that I wrote for High School level some years ago:
Firstly, the spurious “open/closed system” evasion. (It’s not an argument).
There can be no such thing as a “closed system” being acted upon by an external force or energy supply. Any interaction between systems is itself a system. That the Earth gains energy from the Sun’s loss is a system and entropy always applies overall.
Secondly, the sly inference that order spontaneously arises out of energy input. Entropy applies to both the dissipation of energy and the “dissipation” of order. The two are related but one does not spontaneously cause the other.
Here is something I wrote long ago to show in a practical way the principle for some barely post adolescent university trained experts.
Entropy.
The best (most succinct and precise) definition (description) of entropy is as it occurs in the “Second Law of Thermodynamics”; “All ordered systems, left to themselves, tend toward maximum randomness and lowest energy (potential or differential)”. That means that order naturally tends to degenerate into randomness (disorder) and energy potential tends to dissipate into a uniformity without potential because there’s nowhere of lower potential left to go to…
Because energy must be dissipated in the establishment and maintenance, or sustaining, of an orderly system some con men with an ideology to sell will try to pretend that the energy consumed in the process creates the order. A sly mental trick.
Let’s propose some practical examples to illustrate the process.
Most mothers like to have an orderly home. Order in her home requires:
- An intellect to conceive the order.
- The will to want the order.
- The capacity, or power, to implement, or bring about, the order.
Now, that poor Mum who has been toiling away for years to install and maintain the order suddenly finds herself confronted by a clever-dick progeny who’s been to school and learned that energy spontaneously creates order. Smarty tries to convince Mum that letting off a bomb (great release of energy) in the middle of her expertly managed domain, will spontaneously create order and she’ll never have to tidy up again. Good luck with that one Smarty.
Or let’s lift great weights to great heights. An intellect comes up with an idea of a crane to do the job. Skilled minds and hands divert energy and materials to make the machine using entropy in every step of the process. Smarty, with the benefit of his recently aquired great insights, comes along and proclaims that because the energy to build and operate the crane comes, ultimately, from the Sun then the Sun built the crane. Now, I just happen to know for sure that Central Australia gets lots and lots of solar energy but not one giant crane has ever spontaneously appeared in the desert.
Oh well, counters Smarty, “that only applies to non-biological systems. Energy applied to biological systems creates an increase in order and complexity opposed to entropy”. Smarty has never heard of the “Law of Morphology” (which is really only entropy applied to biological systems) which says, simply, that “the more complex an organism and the more often it is reproduced, the more likely it is that something will go wrong in the process”.
So, the thousands of generations of Drosophila (fruit flies) that have been subjected to every imaginable radiation “stimulus” to produce “sped up” “evolution” have only ever produced some wreckage of their DNA or genome… not one super-human spaceman.
Ultimately, untold thousands of generations of diligent and wise housekeeping Mums are in tune with reality… the Smartys are not.
Order is a product of Intellect, Will, and Life.
Fail. Gish Gallop. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity is the fallacious debate tactic of drowning your opponent in a flood of individually-weak arguments in order to prevent rebuttal of the whole argument collection without great effort. The Gish Gallop is a belt-fed version of the on the spot fallacy, as it’s unreasonable for anyone to have a well-composed answer immediately available to every argument present in the Gallop. The Gish Gallop is named after creationist Duane Gish, who often abused it.
Try again …
Well, give me something else to play with …
I’m pretty sure I supply a ready stream of controversial content.
1 Like
Are you proposing that intellect, will and life create themselves as in “a thing that does not exist causes itself to exist”?
Don’t change the subject.
Supply evidence for your fist assertion or, (edit: oxford comma placed here …) evidence against my rebuttal or, STFU.
Actually I’m not against people having a different view. I do think some views are harmful, but the ability to have a society that can function with many people with many views is critically important.
That said, we do not have to respect the view, but do respect the person. Unless they’re a dick, in which case that’s about them being a dick, not their view.
1 Like
Neither am I … as long as they agree with me when it counts …