AronRa vs phicomingatya Debate Analysis

[Raistlin Majere]

Only few people understand the full implications of Einstein's special relativity theory. To many observers in our universe, the whole future of our planet is ancient history right now!

:facepalm:

No it's not.

Firstly, the Special Theory does not apply to our universe (except on very local scales) because a gravitational field permeates every region of space. In fact, in the General Theory, space is a gravitational field. There is no distinction between the two. So clocks cannot be synchronised using the Minkowski metric, because the Riemann tensor is non-zero. In sum, local spaces only appear flat to a high degree of accuracy, but at cosmic distances, curvature prevents the exclusive employment of SR to make accuracte predictions. GR is required.

Secondly, and much more importantly, relative motion never allows you to see events which have not yet occurred in the frame of reference of the source, unless you excede the speed of light. This notion itself violates the Principle of Relativity. You are misrepresenting the Relativity of Simultaneity. These "many observers in our universe" will only be unable to synchronise events in the Earth's past with another clock of their chosing.

To complicate matters further, the frame of reference of the source is not inertial (in GR there are no inertial frames after all) because the Earth is always accelerating in accordance with orbital motion. So no observer can ever be in an inertial frame and move with uniform motion with respect to the Earth. If both the observer and Earth are in non-inertial frames of reference, the observer can, again, not rely on Special Relativity.

Apparently you are one of the few of which you speak, who do not understand the implications of the Special Theory. Good luck trying to demonstrate an error in an ideal mathematical framework by using a non-applicable real-world example.

Oh, and you're debating AronRa on the Theory of Evolution? Your funeral...

Far more thorough than I could have hoped to have been Thanks!

 

[Case]

he still needs to respond to the evidence AronRa provided or else risk defeat.

Yup. Rightfully so.

 

[Giliell]

Do I smell shifting of goalposts? From argument to evidence?
He's arguing semantics, and, I must pride myself on it, I predicted that he would argue about the rules.

@Andromedas Wake
Wow, I understood every single word (except for propper names) in that post but not half a sentence :lol:

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

Phi's conduct is offensively stupid...

Alright.

Your first argument/evidence is the tree of life.
You state that the biodiversity can best be explained by common ancestor of all animals (or some even think all life including plants even). Furthermore, you claim that creationists have no valid explanation for the biodiversity and consistent order of the tree of life.

It looks like he agrees that "the tree of life" is one piece of evidence!

Your second argument involves predictions made by evolution theory, being confirmed by observations in many fields in biology and other relevant fields.

It further looks like he agrees that predictive power is another single piece of evidence...

I've just put it in my own words now. Correct me if I got anything wrong.
To start with your second argument. This is the general idea of how science works. A theory is tested and it's predictions are tested. You've listed a bunch of data. I cannot accept this as one piece of evidence. I'm asking you to pick two of your best pieces of evidence. Together with your tree of life makes it three.

Now he's saying, without justification, that he cannot accept predictive power as a single piece of evidence. It looks like he's using a very narrow meaning of the phrase "one piece of evidence." Of course there are many examples of evolution's predictive power. If it only had one or two predictions, it wouldn't be very powerful!

Strangely, at the end he's saying that there are only three pieces of evidence so there appears to be no violation of the debate terms after all. It looks like he's just typing random words in the blind hopes that we'll forget what we're talking about...

I do not intend, nor do I have the time to discuss each subject you've mentioned. So pick which you think, are the best.

I don't want to end up in an endless discussion, where you win some arguments and lose some and try to score some points by bringing more evidence and intimidate me with thousands of peer reviewed papers.

This first part of the debate has to be about three pieces of evidence you choose. Three, not four, not ten, not twenty.
Do you understand?

I'll continue after you've chosen and presented your evidence.

I do wish that he'd simply state what his problem is. There were only two subjects mentioned! Did he underestimate how involved each subject would be? He could simply ask to narrow the discussion rather than accuse AronRa of violating the debate terms...

Indeed, another example of Creationist dishonesty...

 

[Mafiaaffe]

Just look at what kind of diversity we have in clothes. We've got all kinds of shoes, and many shapes in between other shapes and colors in between other colors. If you wear your clothes long enough, it can get damaged, stretched, shrinked, torn, stained, colors get faded. You can line them all up and see how they gradually changed. But no one will say that if you wear a scarf long enough, it can become anything.

I lold :lol:

 

[Krpi]

AronRa should admit defeat. Phi Tran made an analogy about clothes. I have no idea how such an ingenious move could be countered. Not to mention that there was a hint of goddidit in there. Checkmate atheists, as a certain comedian would say.

 

[Gnug215]

AronRa should admit defeat. Phi Tran made an analogy about clothes. I have no idea how such an ingenious move could be countered. Not to mention that there was a hint of goddidit in there. Checkmate atheists, as a certain comedian would say.

A devastating development.

The only way out of it for Aron that I see is.... an analogy about food.

It's his last hope.

 

[Giliell]

Oh dear, why are creationists CONSTANTLY comparing inanimate matter to living things and think that they scored?
The good old watchmaker, only disguised as a seamstress.

Oh, and of course the good old false dichotomy of "if you'Re wrong and don't know a better answer it means that "GODDIDIT"
God of the gaps

 

[australopithecus]

I.....I wasn't prepared for the stupid.....

So you can make predictions. Big deal.

YES IT IS!!! IT IS A BIG DEAL, THAT'S HOW WE KNOW A THEORY WORKS!!!!

:facepalm:

 

[biology4life]

All he has done is misrepresnt Aron's point and then dismiss his straw man.
I can't tell if this is deliberate dishonesty or if he simply doesn't get it.

I'm tending towards the latter though, he doesn't get it and more importantly he doesn't even get that he doesn't get it.

 

[e2iPi]

It's so sad to see perfectly good oxygen go to waste like that.

-1

 

[barrybert]

It seems to me that either side could wriggle around to define what the terms of this debate are, because they have not been pre-defined with enough clarity or rigour.


Resume Writing Services

 

[nemesiss]

if pixels are concious, they would facepalm.

 

[Case]

creationists never fail to disappoint.

:lol:

 

[5810Singer]

It seems to me that either side could wriggle around to define what the terms of this debate are, because they have not been pre-defined with enough clarity or rigour.


Resume Writing Services

Dude!

This is the second time you've quoted someone without using quote tags,.....and you leave a link which doesn't appear to work, or at least takes me to a random youtube advertising page.

What is your intention in using this tactic?

 

[Gnug215]

It seems to me that either side could wriggle around to define what the terms of this debate are, because they have not been pre-defined with enough clarity or rigour.


Resume Writing Services

Dude!

This is the second time you've quoted someone without using quote tags,.....and you leave a link which doesn't appear to work, or at least takes me to a random youtube advertising page.

What is your intention in using this tactic?

It's some kind of spam.

The initial link was to an actual resume writing service, we uh.. changed the link a bit when we banned him.

 

[5810Singer]

It's some kind of spam.

The initial link was to an actual resume writing service, we uh.. changed the link a bit when we banned him.

I see,...how come he doesn't appear as banned?

BTW, am I the only one who always reads "resume" as in "to recommence"?

 

[Gnug215]

It's some kind of spam.

The initial link was to an actual resume writing service, we uh.. changed the link a bit when we banned him.

I see,...how come he doesn't appear as banned?

BTW, am I the only one who always reads "resume" as in "to recommence"?

The hamster wheel spins only so fast... I believe the banned icon thing has to be done manually.

As for the resume thing, you're not. I think it's supposed to be "resumé" if totally accurate... But in this case I read it in the context, which seemed to be resumé, so...

But yeah, if you remember, this isn't the first time we've seen this. It may not be the same person, but the last time this happened, the guy was peddling a website that sold term papers.

 

[Aught3]

Phi's last post was very interesting. He said at various points that he accepts that both natural selection and descent with modification occurs. He also hinted that he thinks mutation does occur. From this position he is forced, logically, to accept biological evolution. In a system with both the conditions he says he accepts, evolution will automatically occur.

However, Phi also says that he thinks the power of mutation and selection has been over-rated. So although he has to accept that evolution occurs sometimes, Phi presumably thinks there is another 'creative' force at work. The question is now one of degree, AronRa thinks that evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life while Phi thinks it is necessary but another force is required to form a sufficient explanation of life. I conclude that AronRa has won the evolution part of the debate as both parties seem to accept at least a rudimentary form of evolution will occur in biological systems. I think it's time for Phi to present his evidence for the additional force that he wants to postulate.

Interestingly, Phi has already offered a way to falsify creation, namely to show that reptiles have evolved into mammals. I think this should be fairly easy for AronRa do to and so with his hypothesis falsified Phi could lose the entire debate in the next round. I still want to see his evidence though!

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

I will say three things about this debate so far:

I do not like where AronRa's going with the lack of competitive theories. A theory can be disproven without there being any competitors to replace it. The strength of evolution is not its lack of competitors but that there is so much evidence for it that it must be true!

Interestingly enough, Phi admits that evolution makes predictions but then claims that it has never been tested, seemingly oblivious to the fact that any prediction is necessarily a test! If you're making a prediction then you risk being incorrect in your prediction and thus you have been tested. In fact, I'm pretty sure that all scientific tests come in the form of a prediction...

Finally, I would like to state my understand of the significance of phylogeny and I'd like to be corrected if I'm mistaken. The significance of phylogeny isn't merely that things can be categorized. As Phi has shown, you can do that with clothes. It's even more fundamental than the distinction that life reproduces while clothes don't. It's that there are strict hierarchical categories that are never violated that makes phylogeny compelling evidence!

I can't give biological examples since I know so little about biology but I can give an example of how other categorical systems fail this strict hierarchical structure and hopefully give an idea of how hard it is to invent one for arbitrary things. Taking Phi's example, you can categorize clothes into male and female clothes. You can further divide male clothes into adult and child clothes. However, you can also do the same to women's clothing and that would violate the strict hierarchy... The branches of the phylogenetic tree are defined by properties that are unique across the entire tree. It would be like looking at all clothes and finding blue clothes for men but never for women. This kind of strict hierarchy is very difficult to invent for large collections of things, including life, and that it exists for life demands a very powerful explanation. What can possibly explain this? Of course, evolution does...