|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Question for creationists: Why would you rather believe in a small God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
EXCUSE ME, of course I should have said the PREHISTORIC past. And excuse you because you should have known that's what I meant. Anything past that is within the range of living witnesses is possible to evidence, or even written history up to a point. The prehistoric past is not.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Foreveryoung capitulated to the usual mental acrobatics, sad. It is possible to be a Geologist and remain true to the Biblical Young Earth; Kurt Wise has done it. Well, that was bizarre. There is nothing acrobatic about what f.e.y. is doing, namely looking at the evidence for an old earth and conceding that it is old. What is acrobatic to the point of contortionism is to do what Kurt Wise does, admit that all the evidence proves him wrong and maintain his fundie beliefs in the face of it. Imagine two men looking at an elephant. One of them says: "It looks big, so I think it is big". The other says: "It looks big, but I believe that it is small, because I am a Small Elephant Creationist". Which one is indulging in mental gymnastics?
I began having doubts about evolution long before I was a Christian. It is true, however, that I probably wouldn't have pursued them beyond my initial attempts if I hadn't become a Christian and read some Creationism, I would simply have lived with the cognitive dissonance indefinitely, constantly recognizing the lack of evidence, the evidence that goes nowhere and so on, while having to accept the party line at the same time. Or you might have learned something. It seems unlikely given what we know of you now, but you might have taken an interest in facts before you became a fundie. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Look, they had smallpox vaccine back in the 18th century before anybody believed in evolution, and all kinds of other vaccines into the 20th century that were simply developed on the basis of permitting the body to develop antibodies to a given pathogen. I was enough of a science nut that I saved clippings on the Salk vaccine when it first came out.
Let me guess, you are going to claim that the flu "evolves" from season to season which requires new formulas to adapt to its new forms or something along those lines? Then let me hasten to assure you that that level of "evolution" is not a problem for YECs. That's the usual "microevolution" that we all know and love, not "macroevolution."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I spent a fair amount of time trying to track down the evidence, back in the 70s sometime, based on popular accounts of evolution and the periodical Skeptical Inquirer, and found that it never led anywhere conclusive. Nevertheless I didn't give up on the theory, it's what the scientists claimed after all, and I respected science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
EXCUSE ME, of course I should have said the PREHISTORIC past. And excuse you because you should have known that's what I meant. How should I have known which particular delusion you're suffering from? A: I'm an elephant, trumpety-trump!B: Where's your trunk, then? A: You should have known I meant giraffe! Anything past that is within the range of living witnesses is possible to evidence. The prehistoric past is not. If you think that only living witnesses can inform us about past events ... please never sit on a jury, OK? If you don't think that, then maybe you could inform us which delusion you are suffering from right now. (See, I've learned caution, I'm not assuming that I know in which way you're trying to be wrong.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined:
|
Look, they had smallpox vaccine back in the 18th century before anybody believed in evolution, and all kinds of other vaccines into the 20th century that were simply developed on the basis of permitting the body to develop antibodies to a given pathogen. I was enough of a science nut that I saved clippings on the Salk vaccine when it first came out. What is your point? I wasn't talking about smallpox or any other vaccine since they are not all the same.
Let me guess, you are going to claim that the flu "evolves" from season to season which requires new formulas to adapt to its new forms or something along those lines? I don't need to make claims. I have evidence and I just showed you the science that you have made an entire thread about accepting, but since it goes against your beliefs, you are going to call upon all your cognitive dissonance to now deny it. Can you go ahead and admit to only accepting science that has been properly vetted against your religious beliefs?This makes the choices very few since your particular brand of religion is YEC. Also, could you finally point me/us to science you actually accept?
Then let me hasten to assure you that that level of "evolution" is not a problem for YECs. That's the usual "microevolution" that we all know and love, not "macroevolution." Ahh, I see. The goalposts weren't adequately shifted. I certainly hope I have proven a point to onlookers or at the very least, taught someone a valuable lesson in honesty."Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I did add a phrase about written testimony as well, not just living witnesses. Sorry you apparently missed it. The point, again, is that the past that precedes any sort of witness possibility cannot be subjected to scientific testing. Not that you can't know SOMETHING about it, but you can't know what you think you know, which is all conjecture. Like the meaning of the supposed order in the geologic column. That is unprovable, pure conjecture. My conjecture says the geologic column was clearly laid down in a short period of time by a cataclysmic flow of water. Fits the actual facts a lot better than your conjecture does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I spent a fair amount of time trying to track down the evidence ... Plenty of scientists seem to have managed it, as indeed did I. I shall not speculate on whether your deficiency lies more in the area of competence, diligence, or intelligence. Since your religious conversion, how much time have you spent looking for evidence of talking snakes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Honesty? YECs have NEVER had a problem with "microevolution," we can SEE it after all. The problem here is yours, not mine. Yes I see I was right from your links that flu vaccine is developed to keep pace with "evolving" strains of flu. Yep, "microevolution." There is no moving of goalposts here, there is merely your failure to understand anything about Creationism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There IS no evidence of descent from one Species to another and you have never found any either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Faith writes: I did add a phrase about written testimony as well, not just living witnesses. Sorry you apparently missed it. Then I shall update my post to reflect that:
Dr A writes: If you think that only living witnesses can inform us about past events ... please never sit on a jury, OK? If you don't think that, then maybe you could inform us which delusion you are suffering from right now. (See, I've learned caution, I'm not assuming that I know in which way you're trying to be wrong.) Please. Just recuse yourself. If you explain your views to the judge, I'm sure he'll excuse you. The risk of being confined for psychiatric examination is one that you'll just have to take.
Faith writes: The point, again, is that the past that precedes any sort of witness possibility cannot be subjected to scientific testing. But scientists do test statements about the past. Obviously. So once again, honesty requires that you should use an adjective other than "scientific". Say, if you wish, that past events cannot be subjected to "bunch-of-hooey-Faith-made-up-in-her-head-that-makes-scientists-laugh-with-contempt-and-has-nothing-to-do-with-the-scientific-method-'cos-of-not-being-scientific testing".
Not that you can't know SOMETHING about it, but you can't know what you think you know, which is all conjecture. Like the meaning of the supposed order in the geologic column. That is unprovable, pure conjecture. My conjecture says the geologic column was clearly laid down in a short period of time by a cataclysmic flow of water. Fits the actual facts a lot better than your conjecture does. Could you not at least try to make your falsehoods mutually consistent? (I would also ask if you could make them less flagrantly absurd, but I fear you cannot.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.4 |
quote: Just from the artificial speciation section on Wikipedia. We have observed new species differentiating from parent species. We've directly observed it, both in the wild and in the lab. I know that you're going to respond by saying that these are all examples of "microevolution" because a fly didn't turn into a dog, and a cat didn't turn into a fish. But the entirety of the micro/macroevolution distinction is nothing more than an arbitrary rationalization, a way to dismiss unwanted evidence and restrict acceptable evidence into a subset that wouldn't be found according to the actual predictions of evolution. New species form as existing species differentiate. It happens. It's happened for the entire history of life on Earth. You share a distant common ancestor with me, and a still more distant common ancestor with a dog, and a still more distant common ancestor with a tree. The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus "...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995... "Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." - Gandalf, J. R. R. Tolkien: The Lord Of the Rings
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
That is a distinction witout a difference, Faith. Only science haters make that distinction. Also of note is that you only care about this distinction now that I have created an internal problem for you. Previously, you were fine calling ALL evolution just evolution. If we put forth miniml effort, we can point to where you have objected to forms of microevolution.
quote:Sausage quote:(bolding mine) Sausage (note: you previously accepted this as a source, so no bias for you) quote: Sausage Finally: Can you once and for all make this easier and point to science you DO accept?"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 829 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Not that you can't know SOMETHING about it, but you can't know what you think you know, which is all conjecture. Like the meaning of the supposed order in the geologic column. Go dig something up. Is what you now hold in your hand conjecture? No? THAT is how the geologic column is determined. Your window of available sciences that you claim to accept is rapidly dwindling. Quick! Tell us what sciences you DO accept so we can dash your hopes and dreams and destroy any notion that they are compatible with your goat herder mentality. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given."Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Previously, you were fine calling ALL evolution just evolution. If we put forth miniml effort, we can point to where you have objected to forms of microevolution. No, I never intended by the word "evolution" in my remarks about it as unscientific to include "microevolution" which is a term somebody made up to make a necessary distinction in a certain context. Unfortunately in making such a statement I forget that evolutionists lump it all together and claim, without the slightest evidence, that microevolution becomes macroevolution. In the current context I've been using "evolution" ONLY to refer to macroevolution which is the contested theory after all. Again, creationists do not have a problem with microevolution, it is the way all varieties within species develop. I've written at great great length about all this on various threads here. It is absurd that this still needs to be argued after months and years of this debate. You just refuse to know anything about the Creationist point of view.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024