Wednesday, 5 June 2013

Post debate misses

Post debate misses, I missed rebutting a few of the oppositions one liners, I doubt they will ever read this, but it is more for my sanity, I can't leave something unanswered.

Definition of faith

Definition 2 "belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact." If this is not what you believe your Faith is, then don't use the word. I don't use the word as I don't have faith in science or anything in life, I have evidence based beliefs, and if it is pointed out I don't I will re-evaluate.

Virtual particles

Yes virtual particles exist in vacuums and inside atoms, virtual photons carry the electromagnetic force between the nucleus and the electron cloud keeping them in orbit. So it was disengenuos for Sven to say that Virtual particles have a cause and the cause is a vacuum, they have no cause, but yes they exist within our universe and space time.
In fact virtual particles if anything put a hole in creationism as they reveal how much we know about Quantum mechanics and thus radiometric dating is a pretty assured science.

Universe had a beginning

Again, we don't know this. I think I said that in my talk, yet you didn't address it. It may not have "begun" in a true sense of the word, a new phase may have begun with the expansion from a singularity we call the big bang, again there is a lot of evidence for this event. The COBE satellite, WMAP satellite and the European space agencies recent Planck Satellite, as well as polar launched high altitude balloons and the sky surveys that have revealed the retreat of almost all extra-galactic objects at a rate that means the further something is away the faster it is moving. Again claiming this beginning of the universe damages your own case as it shows an old universe (13.82 billion years old), not a literal 6 day creation 6-10,000 years ago.

a/Sexual reproduction

Interestingly we don’t know how sexual reproduction started exactly, it likely conveyed an advantage against parasites and for survival so it was selected for, meaning passed on. Again this probably originated early on in life’s development, as some forms of bacteria don’t procreate asexually, some procreate with DNA from another party, some are not just binary male and female, but multi-sexed, having up to 7 different sexes. But larger than bacteria, we are pretty much limited to the binary male and female. Though some switch such as certain fish and amphibians and for example the whip tail lizard and some lie along the gender path such as humans who can be born with both male and female genitalia, although a lot of these are non-functional there have been instances of functioning intersex humans. Mark Harwood, seemed to argue the irreducible complexity line here along genitalia, I would have liked to have shot back with how he obviously knows very little about genitalia in animals including humans. Some mammals and humans are born with both, some other species don't have the usual mammalian kit, reptiles and most birds externally look the same as mammal females, with their cloaca, the aforementioned 7-sex bacteria have hairs on their cell walls that simply intermingle, or look at the Bdelloid rotifers that don't have sex but to increase their gene pool by simply stealing DNA from other bacteria.

Human fallibility

This one was a real stretch by the opposition. Humans aren't fallible was their basic claim, we have evolved to be infallible. I think not guys, you do realise that people lie, get lied to and believe it, get conned, sometimes to the point of death of them or others, to say that we are not fallible is either not knowing the human condition or trying to exploit the viewers fallibility by being being blatantly dishonest.
Humans are so fallible that is only by shared experience and by repeatable evidence we can know anything, this is how science came about as a reliable way to remove biases and enforce repeatability and remove any errors caused by our fallibility.
This is actually one of my areas of study, social engineering it is called, being able to talk and convince your way into a company, and it is done with surprising ease in most situations where people should know better.

There are likely going to be more of these posts to come as I review the footage and any furphies my opponents spouted.

No comments:

Post a Comment