02 Jul 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadNeither of us really knows, we only believe based on our worldview. Then we use information, experience, logic, and reason to guess about unknown details. We have different worldviews and experiences and therefore we come to different conclusions and beliefs. It is nothing personal. We just disagree.
You said nothing about it being hypothetical. You stated it as fact. It makes no sense whatsoever when stated as a hypothetical. Do you even know what hypothetical means?
[b]We know that man breeded dogs, as well as cats, to produce many varieties. So that had nothing to do with evolution either, as far as I can see.
Breeding is also evolution.
...[text shortened]... up as you go along.
Maybe Noah only had cats, and man bred dogs from cats. How would you know?[/b]
The instructor
02 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHinds
Neither of us really knows, we only believe based on our worldview. Then we use information, experience, logic, and reason to guess about unknown details. We have different worldviews and experiences and therefore we come to different conclusions and beliefs. It is nothing personal. We just disagree.
The instructor
Then we use information, experience, logic, and reason to guess about unknown details. We have different worldviews and experiences and therefore we come to different conclusions and beliefs.
The “we” here does not include you for you do not use “ information, experience, logic, and reason to guess about unknown details” -at least not flawless logic. So your “world view” does not originate like ours but originates without any intelligent logic but rather just stems from religious faith. Sorry, we can NOT agree to disagree!
02 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, you simply make it all up. I base it on the evidence. This can easily be demonstrated by the fact that we both know that I can present evidence and you can't. You admitted that you made it up and pretended it was a 'hypothetical' not realizing what that actually meant.
Neither of us really knows, we only believe based on our worldview. Then we use information, experience, logic, and reason to guess about unknown details. We have different worldviews and experiences and therefore we come to different conclusions and beliefs. It is nothing personal. We just disagree.
The instructor
You have only one reason for your claims and that is you think they are in line with the Bible and you are protective of the Bible because you think your religion requires you to be.
If it was merely a case of interpreting the evidence differently due to differing world views, you wouldn't have to lie and make stuff up. You could simply present your case, and I could present mine and we could see where the differences were and hopefully work out who is wrong and who is right (if any). But you and Kelly, who started this thread, cannot do that because you both know perfectly well that the data does not support your positions. Hence you are forced to try and go for the 'all beliefs are equal claim that Kelly is so fond of, but it is flawed logic. All beliefs are not equal. Those beliefs that are based on evidence, are considerably more reliable and we all know that to be true.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell I am not that knowledgeable on this particular subject and haven't studied it, but other Young Earth Creationist's have. The following is a link to one such article.
No, you simply make it all up. I base it on the evidence. This can easily be demonstrated by the fact that we both know that I can present evidence and you can't. You admitted that you made it up and pretended it was a 'hypothetical' not realizing what that actually meant.
You have only one reason for your claims and that is you think they are in line wi that are based on evidence, are considerably more reliable and we all know that to be true.
Speciation and the Animals on the Ark by Daniel Criswell, Ph.D.
http://www.icr.org/article/speciation-animals-ark/
Here is a link to a youtube video that goes in to more detail as to what I said in my earlier post.
Different species that can actually be bred together
Objections that Noah's ark was to small debunked.
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsExactly my point. Your beliefs are not based on evidence, they are based on your religion. You did not look at the evidence then decide that it pointed towards Noahs Ark. You believed Noahs Ark existed because your religion tells you so, and when challenged, you can look for youtube videos that you think support your belief.
Well I am not that knowledgeable on this particular subject and haven't studied it, but other Young Earth Creationist's have.
If we were to discuss one of the lines of 'evidence' you think those websites provide, and we found it wanting, your beliefs would not change. You would simply go look for a new website with new ideas. So there is really no point discussing those websites because you yourself don't really know what they contain nor necessarily agree with them, you only post them because you think they will support your case.
03 Jul 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadI post those links because those people agree with my worldview and can express the ideas better than I could because thay are more experienced in those certain areas of a particular subject area than I am. Anyway, I believe I am right and you are wrong. Therefore, it makes no difference that I am not an expert in every area, because I can just refer you to some one who is an expert.
Exactly my point. Your beliefs are not based on evidence, they are based on your religion. You did not look at the evidence then decide that it pointed towards Noahs Ark. You believed Noahs Ark existed because your religion tells you so, and when challenged, you can look for youtube videos that you think support your belief.
If we were to discuss one o ...[text shortened]... ecessarily agree with them, you only post them because you think they will support your case.
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsIts not that you are not an expert that I am pointing out. Its that you do not understand the subject matter sufficiently to be able to claim you based your beliefs on the evidence. You did not in fact base your beliefs on the evidence. You did not know about those 'experts' or their findings prior to this discussion, and you held your beliefs prior to hearing about them. Your beliefs are not based on interpreting the evidence differently, your beliefs are based on a religion, and nothing else.
Therefore, it makes no difference that I am not an expert in every area, because I can just refer you to some one who is an expert.
My beliefs are based on the evidence, and nothing else.
That is why we are different.
04 Jul 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell, see there. My beliefs just happened to have turned out right even though, as you say, I did not know about those experts beforehand. What better evidence can one get than that?
Its not that you are not an expert that I am pointing out. Its that you do not understand the subject matter sufficiently to be able to claim you based your beliefs on the evidence. You did not in fact base your beliefs on the evidence. You did not know about those 'experts' or their findings prior to this discussion, and you held your beliefs prior to he ...[text shortened]... else.
My beliefs are based on the evidence, and nothing else.
That is why we are different.
The Instructor
04 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsWhy are your so-called experts always human? Can't you get your god to tell us the truth? Listening to your so-called experts bleating about creationism is a built in oxymoron. The more oxy they get, the more moronic they become.
Well, see there. My beliefs just happened to have turned out right even though, as you say, I did not know about those experts beforehand. What better evidence can one get than that?
The Instructor
04 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsYes, experts are well-known for expressing their views through YouTube videos.
I post those links because those people agree with my worldview and can express the ideas better than I could because thay are more experienced in those certain areas of a particular subject area than I am. Anyway, I believe I am right and you are wrong. Therefore, it makes no difference that I am not an expert in every area, because I can just refer you to some one who is an expert.
The Instructor
04 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraDidn't you know there is giant conspiracy to prevent any creationist from posting in the real journals. They are being suppressed by the accursed atheists in the biggest conspiracy of the 21st century. I'm surprised you didn't know that....
Yes, experts are well-known for expressing their views through YouTube videos.
04 Jul 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraActually I learnt a lot about quantum mechanics from Richard Feynman on youtube, and am now watching some Yale University lectures on youtube.
Yes, experts are well-known for expressing their views through YouTube videos.
I wish more experts were willing to freely share their knowledge instead of hoarding it.
04 Jul 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. I'm afraid I'm not as charismatic as Richard Feynman, so my YouTube contributions would probably be in vain.
Actually I learnt a lot about quantum mechanics from Richard Feynman on youtube, and am now watching some Yale University lectures on youtube.
I wish more experts were willing to freely share their knowledge instead of hoarding it.
05 Jul 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOK, I will start a thread on it. I have found it remarkably difficult to find good layman explanations of quantum mechanics. I also find almost all discussions of physics focus heavily on the history of it, and have very little content about the current knowledge we have, so you have to sit through a 2 hour history lesson to get 10 minutes of physics. Feynmans lectures were excellent in that he simply said this is how it works, we don't know why, but it does, and he spent most of his time on physics.
If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. I'm afraid I'm not as charismatic as Richard Feynman, so my YouTube contributions would probably be in vain.
05 Jul 13
In case Kelly still wants an answer to the OP, here are a few things to note:
1. A good introductory course on the topic is here:
http://oyc.yale.edu/ecology-and-evolutionary-biology
It can also be watched on youtube. I haven't finished yet.
2. Sex exists because it has many advantages in evolution.
3. Sexual dimorphism (a totally different thing, and what the thread title asks) arises because there are two distinct and incompatible needs for the gametes in sexual reproduction:
a) the requirement to get from the locations of the parents to each other.
b) the need to be fostered in some way either by the parent or in the form of an egg.
A good example would be the typical flowering plant process. The pollen needs to be light so it can be transferred over large distances to another plant. Then the receiving plant creates a large fruit which protects the early stages of the new plant until it is ready to be dispersed.
Similarly in animals, the sperm is given by the male to the female who then nurtures it in its early stages of life.
Of course there are many exceptions which actually serve to highlight the point.
4. Evolution explains sex. Creationism doesn't. The best a creationist could come up with is "Man was lonely". But that wouldn't explain the reason why some fish in Madagascar has sex. If, as Kelly argues, sexual dimorphism is difficult and costly, then why would God have designed it that way? Obviously there are advantages that God knows about. If there are advantages, then Kelly cannot use a lack of advantages or a disadvantage as an argument against evolution.
Basically I am saying a creationist argument that any feature would not have evolved due to its disadvantage, is fundamentally flawed.