Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How long does it take to evolve?
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 61 of 221 (770102)
09-29-2015 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by herebedragons
09-29-2015 12:39 PM


Re: Thanks to all of you for reading my question
it's a piddly 4.9
Piddly? Piddly!? Do you know how long it took me to earn that memb...
Wait.
I'm not supposed to care.
Never mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by herebedragons, posted 09-29-2015 12:39 PM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-29-2015 5:25 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(10)
Message 62 of 221 (770105)
09-29-2015 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Lamden
09-25-2015 10:50 AM


False Dichotomies and the Two Model Approach
Lamden:
From your Message 9:
And in order for the creationists to win, they don't have to prove that creation happened. They just have to prove that e/v could NOT happen.
As several replies have pointed out to you, you committing the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy, AKA "false dilemma". And for the record, yes, the creationists do need to prove that creation happened. And they also need to prove that there is a conflict between believe in Divine Creation and evolution, because the "creation/evolution controversy" that they have created is just as contrived and false as their implementation of that false dichotomy, their "Two Model Approach" upon which their entire case depends.
Not knowing how much you do or don't know, let's start with what a dichotomy is. After all, you need to know what a true dichotomy is before you can understand what a travesty a false dichotomy is.
A dichotomy is where you prove something by eliminating all other possibilities, like the oft-quoted Sherlock Holmes quote to the effect of "Once you have eliminated all other possibilities, then whatever is left, however unlikely, must be the truth." Another example is a common type of mathematical proof in which to prove something you assume the complete opposite and when that proves to be false, then what you wanted to prove must be true; I believe it's called "proof by contradiction" (it has been a few decades for me). There are conditions that must all be met in order for a dichotomy to be valid:
  1. All the alternatives must be considered.
  2. They must all be mutually exclusive.
If either of those two conditions are not met, then you have a false dichotomy (AKA false dilemma), which is a logical fallacy and a common means of deception and of demogoguery.
With its Two Model Approach (TMA), creationists claim to have created a valid dichotomy, but it is instead a false dichotomy. They posit two and only two "models" -- their "creation model" and their "evolution model" -- which they claim to be "mutually exclusive".
The Two Model Approach (TMA) is a false dichotomy specially designed to deceive -- indeed, in a Wikipedia article that provides a link for "two-model approach", it links directly to the False Dilemma article (see link in the first line of this paragraph). The Two Model Approach posits two and only two "mutually exclusive" "models" for origins: their "creation model" and their "evolution model". In reality, there are vastly more models than just two: vastly more creation models than, many more evolutionary models, and many other models which are neither creation nor evolutionary, including the ones we don't know about yet. And many of those different models are not mutually exclusive. The Two Model Approach fails both tests of a valid dichotomy. The Two Model Approach is a false dichotomy.
In its most fundamental function, creationists use the Two Model Approach to "prove" their "creation model" solely by attacking their "evolution model". In this manner, they seek to achieve their goals without ever having to present any evidence for their creation position or even ever having to present what their creation position is. This has led to the description of the Two Model Approach as being a book with two chapters: Chapter One is "Evolution" and Chapter Two is "Everything That's Wrong with Chapter One." In debates, this has led to the ironic situation where creationists absolutely refuse to present the "creation model" and, when their opponents then have to present it for them, they absolutely refuse to discuss it or to defend it.

Let us take a short break here for a reality check. If you have an idea or a position that you want to promote, how should you go about it? Would you go out of your way to avoid presenting it? Would you refuse to discuss it? Would you just concentrate all your efforts on arguing against what you see as a competing idea and claim that that by disproving that competing idea you have proven your own idea? No, that is not the way to promote your idea or position. Instead, you would need to present your idea and argue for it.
So why don't creationists just present their "creation model" and their evidence for it? Maybe because they don't have any evidence? Maybe because actually presenting their "creation model" would reveal the deception they're practicing?
IOW, the approach for creationism that you offered, that all they do not need to prove creation but only need to disprove evolution, is dead wrong. Disproving evolution would never prove creation, because there will still remain other explanations that are neither evolution nor creation, including the ones we don't know about yet. That situation is not helped by the fact that creationists don't go anywhere near evolution, but rather only attack their misrepresentations of it. Instead, creationism must present its ideas for creation and its evidence for creation and argue for creation instead of merely arguing against their false ideas about evolution.

The Two Model Approach was invented in 1971 by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), which also invented "creation science" itself (based on the Two Model Approach) as a deliberate deception for circumventing the courts and which for many years was the foremost propagater of "creation science" (mainly through creationist "debates" based solidly on the Two Model Approach) and foremost publisher of creationist textbooks, including "public school editions" (which were merely scrubbed superficially of explicit religious and biblical references) based solidly on the Two Model Approach (when Arkansas' 1981 "balanced-treatment" law was passed, school districts trying to comply found the ICR to be the only source of creationist educational materials). And, indeed, every aspect of "creation science"-style creationism (which is the only type of creationism involved in creation/evolution) is fundamentally and intricately based on the Two Model Approach.
You may observe and point out that in the debates and presentations you've attended you didn't see the creationist explicitly present the Two Model Approach. Well, not only does each creationist have his own style and prepared presentation, but he's also of a different generation. Since "creation science" has been exposed as a religious fraud (see below), "intelligent design" has become a far more popular fraud with which the creationists deceive their audiences. And yet, that most fundamental purpose of the Two Model Approach, the use of a false dichotomy of "two models" to "prove" creation solely by attacking "evolution", is still fully in effect and serves as the single most basic premise of the creationist's strategy. Even though you don't actually see it that often, the Two Model Approach is still very much in play.
By the time I arrived on the scene in 1981, the Two Model Approach had already existed and operated for a full decade. Since it was very widely and well-known by that time, especially among its opponents, I learned about it from the very start. So you can imagine my surprise during my first presentation at those local informal debate nights (c. 1990). I started my first presentation discussing the Two Model Approach and most of the creationists in the audience started shouting that they had never heard of it before and denied following it. They also denied having ever heard of the ICR before, nor of any of the leading creationists. All I can think of that is that creationists are very poorly schooled in creationism. They haven't made an actual study of it, but rather they have been told various claims and been taught or preached to what they are supposed to think and believe, but without ever learning the basis for those claims and teachings. Instead of having learned it from the sources as I and other opponents of "creation science" have done, they had gotten it all third- and fourth-hand by word of mouth from friends, acquaintances, ministers, or TV or radio televangelists.
So just exactly what is the Two Model Approach? It posits that there are two and only two mutually exclusive models for "origins": the "creation model" and the "evolution model". Every old=school ICR presentation I can think of would start out with a presentation of these two "models" and with the premise that if the entire question of which is right will be determined by how well the "evolution model" holds up, whereupon the presentation would then concentrate on attacking the "evolution model" or simply by unsupported assertions that "the creation model is the better explanation." This was their first order of business in debates, in public presentations, in radio and TV appearances, in interviews, ain their books, and in their educational materials.
It was the cornerstone of everything they presented to the public. And it was the cornerstone of their proselytizing efforts, including in the public schools. In 1981, public school teacher Ray Baird used ICR materials at his elementary school in Livermore, Calif. The format of each lesson was to present basic premises of the Two Model Approach, followed by a misrepresentation of the scientific evidence, and ending by urging the student to make a life-long decision right then and there between their so-called "unnamed Creator" and "atheistic evolution" -- blatant proselytizing! Some of those fifth- and sixth-graders found creationism so stupid that they became atheists, exactly as instructed and urged by the ICR materials. More information is at http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/Livermore.html.
Dr. Henry Morris, then-President of the ICR, described the two models in a letter to me in response to my question of why they never present any positive evidence FOR creation instead of only negative claims against evolution. He insisted that negative evidence against evolution does constitute positive evidence for creation and he presented his description of the two models which included something very interesting. I would like to quote from that letter, but I don't know which box it's filed away in, but I will present below that something very interesting. Instead, to expidite this writing, I will use the definitions presented by the then-Vice-President of the ICR, Dr. Duane Gish, in a 1981 ICR article from their site, Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II):
quote:
Definitions of the Creation Model and the Evolution Model
The scientific model of creation, in summary, includes the scientific evidence for a sudden creation of complex and diversified kinds of life, with systematic gaps persisting between different kinds and with genetic variation occurring within each kind since that time. The scientific model of evolution, in summary, includes the scientific evidence for a gradual emergence of present life kinds over aeons of time, with emergence of complex and diversified kinds of life from simpler kinds and ultimately from nonliving matter. The creation model questions vertical evolution, which is the emergence of complex from simple and change between kinds, but it does not challenge what is often called horizontal evolution or microevolution, which creationists call genetic variation or species or subspecies formation within created kinds. The following chart lists seven aspects of the scientific model of creation and of the scientific model of evolution:
The creation model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:
The evolution model includes the scientific evidence and the related inferences suggesting that:
I. The universe and the Solar system were suddenly created. I. The universe and the solar system emerged by naturalistic processes.
II. Life was suddenly created. II. Life emerged from nonlife by naturalistic processes.
III. All present living kinds of animals and plants have remained fixed since creation, other than extinctions, and genetic variation in originally created kinds has only occurred within narrow limits. III. All present kinds emerged from simpler earlier kinds, so that single-celled organisms evolved into invertebrates, then vertebrates, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals, then primates, including man.
IV. Mutation and natural selection are insufficient to have brought about any emergence of present living kinds from a simple primordial organism. IV. Mutation and natural selection have brought about the emergence of present complex kinds from a simple primordial organism.
V. Man and apes have a separate ancestry. V. Man and apes emerged from a common ancestor.
VI. The earth's geologic features appear to have been fashioned largely by rapid, catastrophic processes that affected the earth on a global and regional scale (catastrophism). VI. The earth's geologic features were fashioned largely by slow, gradual processes, with infrequent catastrophic events restricted to a local scale (uniformitarianism).
VII. The inception of the earth and of living kinds may have been relatively recent. VII. The inception of the earth and then of life must have occurred several billion years ago.

Now, normally that table is not presented. Normally, they just make define the "models" in very general and vague terms, especially the "creation model". The reason is that they need to be stealthy about the "creation model", since it is so blatantly a statement of fundamentalist religious beliefs that include a young earth (VII) and Noah's Flood (VI), albeit it superficially scrubbed of overt religious wording. You can see this far better in a table the ICR published in December 1978 (which I reprinted at http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/cmodel.html) meant to "differentiate" between the "Scientific Creation Model" and the "Biblical Creation Model", but by placing them side-by-side you can see that they are identical except for superficial rewording (eg, substituting "on the basis of scientific evidence" for "on the basis of Genesis") -- BTW, that article was written by a lawyer, Wendell Bird.
Similarly, Paul Ellwanger, the author of the model bill that was the basis for the 1981 Arkansas and Louisiana "balanced treatment" laws, included definitions for the two "models" which were virtually identical to Gish's list above. Those definitions were included in the Arkansas law (see https://en.wikipedia.org/...ean_v._Arkansas#Arkansas_Act_590), which proved very useful in exposing that law as being religious in nature and having it struck down (McLean v. Arkansas (1982)). The Louisiana legislatures, seeing what was happening in Arkansas, stripped those definitions from their bill, but to no avail. The Lousiana law was challenged and the case went to the US Supreme Court where it was found to have a religious purpose and was struck down as well (Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)). Both those rulings exposed "creation science" as being nothing more than an attempt to hide a religious purpose (commonly referred to as a game of "Hide the Bible"), so creationists changed their strategy by replacing "creation science" with "intelligent design" (literally! *), which was in turn revealed as nothing more than "creation science" in disguise (a game of "Hide the Creationism") in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005).

{FOOTNOTE *:
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District revolved around a creationist textbook, Of Pandas and People. Manuscripts of the book were acquired as evidence. The authors started writing the book before Edwards v. Aguillard before the term "creation science" was exposed in the courts as a deception, so they used the term "creation scientists" throughout the book. Then after the shift to the game of "Hide the Creationism", they changed all references to creation and creationism to "intelligent design" and creator to "intelligent agency", and "creationists" to "design proponents". The smoking gun for what they were doing was one instance of "creationists" that wasn't changed cleanly, creating the word "cdesign proponentsists". In the ruling, Intelligent Design was found to be religious in nature. }

So then, the Two Model Approach consists of two "models" (since they're not even true models): the "creation model" which is pure YEC and fundamentalist beliefs, and the "evolution model" which is everything else. That means that the "evolution model" is a jumbled mess of every single idea non-YEC idea. Now, that opens an immense CostCo-size can of worms which we'll discuss below, but first let's concentrate on the evolutionary ideas contained in the "evolution model".
The "evolution model" contains all the ideas about evolution that have ever existed and that will ever exist. The vast majority of those ideas are obsolete, having been found to be wrong; eg, Lamarckism, the idea that genetics disproves Darwin (early 20th century), saltationism (mid-19th century idea that entire complex organs or species would appear in a single generation), Ladder of Life. And it also contains all the misconceptions and mistaken ideas that anyone has ever had or ever will have about evolution; eg, Social Darwinism, that evolution somehow "knows" what changes are needed, "why are there still monkeys?", "but they're still moths!". With such an overabundance of false ideas about evolution, creationists are embarrassingly rich in forms of "evolution" that are easy to refute. And since most of those wrong ideas about evolution have been pronounced wrong and false by reputable scientists, creationists have extremely rich fodder to forage through in order to find quotes by reputable scientists doubting or rejecting "evolution".
But the "evolution model" is not restricted to evolution, but includes all the sciences that do not agree with YEC. So geology, physics, astronomy, etc are also open to misrerepresentation.
So then, when the strategy is to prove the "creation model" solely by eliminating the "evolution model", then in practical terms, how do you do that? If the "evolution model" were an actual model, it would be an integrated whole with the model's validity and truth being dependent on the validity and truth of each of its parts. In refuting an actual model, you should be able to disprove it by disproving its key component parts.
However, the "evolution model" is far from a true model and even further from being an integral whole. The many disparate ideas that it contains do not depend on each other in any manner and, indeed, the vast majority of them contradict each other. Disproving one of those ideas has no effect on the rest, except to strenghten the probability that they are the right one since you've just eliminated one of their competitors. The only way that you can possibly disprove the "evolution model" would be to eliminate each and every one of the ideas that it contains. Clearly, that is a monumental task, even an intractable one (a task that is possible, but so immense as to be deemed impossible to actually accomplish) -- when we consider what Dr. Henry Morris had told me, we will see that it is clearly impossible. Not that any creationist would actually attempt it, since that would force him to deal with the actual ideas about evolution, something that no creationist dares to do (except for the nave ones, but then they do not last long).
The picture should become clearer by examining what's really going on in the Two Model Approach. In reality, there are vastly more than just two models. Each of the disparate ideas about evolution is one of those models. The same with the ideas about the age of the earth (though most of those can properly be grouped together into single models). The same with the non-YEC ideas of creation that have been consigned to the "evolution model" (a bit of fore-shadowing there). What the creationists have done was to lie about that simple fact by clumping all non-YEC ideas together and falsely proclaiming them to be a single model. And by falsely declaring creation to be true just because they had poked a few holes in a few wrong ideas.
Clearly, instead of two and only two models, there are thousands of models that must be processed and eliminated in order to whittle it down to the one single remaining model proven through a valid dichotomy. Obviously intractable. And, it turns out, also impossible because a huge number of those models are supernatural.
Now for what Dr. Henry Morris wrote to me. In his letter, he stated explicitly that the "atheistic" "evolution model" includes "most of the world's religions, ancient and modern."
That means that all the non-YEC creation myths are part of their "evolution model". That's literally thousands of myths, all of them supernatural in nature, which makes them impossible to prove or disprove. That makes it literally impossible to ever disprove the "evolution model" and hence literally impossible to every prove the "creation model" by means of a dichotomy.
It would prove far more effective and efficient for creationists to prove their "creation model" giving up on the Two Model Approach and presenting evidence for creation and demonstrating that it is true. Yet they absolutely refuse to do so and insist on continuing to use the Two Model Approach. Why? Because the real reason why they use the Two Model Approach is so that they can deceive their audiences. They know full well that they have no evidence for YEC, so they use the only tools at their disposal: lies and deception.
But wait! There's more! Order now and you get ... oops, wrong script {grin}
But there is more. YEC is not the only Judeo-Christian model for creation nor even the only Christian one. There are several Christian models for creation, including many old-earth ones. In a survey of Christian creation models, YEC is considered one of the worst. Well, guess where all those Christian creation models are consigned. Into the atheist "evolution model"!
Of course, no creationist would admit to that. When confronted with that fact, Duane Gish would just hem and haw and mutter evasively about there being disagreement on the details, etc, all to avoid admitting that those other Christian creation models were excluded from their "creation model". But when amongst themselves they would spare no vitriol against Christian creationists who would not toe the YEC line (especially the old-earth/young-earth line); that particular hornet's nest was especially kicked by Ken Ham when he moved from Australia to join the ICR.
Another extra treat is the fact that the Two Model Approach is a sword which cuts both ways. They intended it to prove creation by disproving "evolution". But what would happen if you were to prove evolution to be true? By the Two Model Approach, that would disprove creation and, by extension through fundamentalist logic, it would disprove God.
quote:
"If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning."
(John Morris, current President of the ICR, as reported at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism)
quote:
"If evolution is true, then the Bible is not true."
(John L. Groenlund, What is the Purpose of Creation Ministry, in Institute for Creation Research Back to Genesis Report No. 78, June 1995)
quote:
"We have been taught that the Bible demands a young earth interpretation and when the facts of nature become inescapable - our faith becomes shattered! My pastor was wrong, the opposite was the case. If "R" had been offered the truth from the beginning, he would never have experienced the turmoil he went through. When "R" could no longer deny that the universe was billions of years old, the only option left for him was to deny the Bible. How many others have been disheartened in like manner?"
(Ed, formerly "ceaa151b@aol.com", from his site, Creation, Evolution and Adam)
quote:
"If the Darwinian theory is true, Genesis is a lie, the whole framework of the book of life falls to pieces, and the revelation of God to man, as we Christians know it, is a delusion and a snare."
(unnamed contemporary of Darwin quoted in Andrew Dickson White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, Second printing, 1917, p. 71-72)
quote:
"If this hypothesis be true, then is the Bible an unbearable fiction; ... than have Christians for nearly two thousand years been duped by a monstrous lie. ... Darwin requires us to disbelieve the authoritative word of the Creator."
(unnamed contemporary of Darwin quoted in Andrew Dickson White, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, Second printing, 1917, p. 71-72)
There are many people who have wanted to disprove God and many who have tried (I am not one of them), but they have all failed because that is an impossible task. The opposite task, proving God, is also impossible for the same reasons. So you just have to appreciate the sheer deliciousness of the creationist irony: in their attempts to prove God, they end up disproving God conclusively. These rabid theists have succeeded where the most rabidly anti-God atheists have always and would always fail. All you have to do is to accept their premises: "If evolution is true, the God does not exist" or "If the earth is older than 10,000 years, then God does not exist." Since evolution is true and since the earth is indeed older than 10,000 years, once you have accepted those creationist premises then the only possible conclusion is that God does not exist. QED and amen!
quote:
"It may be true that scientism and evolutionism (not science and evolution) are among the causes of atheism and materialism. It is at least equally true that biblical literalism, from its earlier flat-earth and geocentric forms to its recent young-earth and flood-geology forms, is one of the major causes of atheism and materialism. Many scientists and intellectuals have simply taken the literalists at their word and rejected biblical materials as being superseded or contradicted by modern science. Without having in hand a clear and persuasive alternative, they have concluded that it is nobler to be damned by the literalists than to dismiss the best testimony of research and reason. Intellectual honesty and integrity demand it."
(Conrad Hyers, The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science, John Knox Press, Atlanta, Georgia, 1984, page 26 -- my emphasis added)
Before we all go to the book-signing party for Well, That About Wraps It Up For God, we must note that that creationist syllogism for disproving God is false, because the premises are false. Though if any fundamentalist wants to insist emphatically that they are true, then he's back to having disproven God. Again, how delicious such a dilemma is to watch, kind of like observing a Christian Scientist with appendicitis.
{a tip of the hat to both Douglas Adams and Tom Lehrer}
Please remember back to the conditions for a valid dichotomy:
quote:
  1. All the alternatives must be considered.
  2. They must all be mutually exclusive.

So then, are the "two models" mutually exclusive? Obviously not, since the "evolution model" contains a plethora of creation models. But that begs the most basic question:
Are creation and evolution truly mutually exclusive? Are they truly incompatible?
I believe that they are not incompatible. And indeed, I draw a distinction between creation and "creation science" (see my site at http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/).
Science, including evolution, is the study of how the universe works in a manner that digs into the nitty-gritty details. Creation is one idea about why and generally how (while skipping the nitty-gritty details) the universe came into existence. There is no reason for the two to be incompatible, since the universe still does work the way that it does regardless of how it had come into existence. Even cosmological ideas such as the Big Bang are not incompatible with Divine Creation, since human knowledge of Divine Creation does not even begin to get into enough detail of the processes involved to be able to determine incompatibility with ideas such as the Big Bang.
The only incompatibility that arises is when a religious group decides to dictate to God how He had to have created. Normally, one wouldn't consider it wise to dictate anything to God, but you know how those fundamentalists can be. They insist that the universe must agree with their Man-made fallible theology in all aspects, including their fallible Man-made interpretation of a young earth, thus creating a world-view that is contrary to fact. Then they declare the very existence of God to depend on their contrary-to-fact world-view being true, such that if they turn out to be wrong then God does not exist. And since their contrary-to-fact world-view is indeed false, ... well, we all know what happens when a creationist discovers that. The booby-trap they had so carefully constructed is triggered and their faith is destroyed.
quote:
Satan, being the Great Deceiver, never creates a lie by itself, but rather always creates lies in pairs. The first and lesser lie is intended to alarm the faithful and to drive them to embrace the second and more pernicious lie, trapping them there. That Christian viewed both creation science and evolution as lies, but evolution was the lesser lie which Satan uses to frighten Christians and to drive them to embrace the truly pernicious lie, creation science.
(by a Christian who opposed creation science on CompuServe's Science Forum, 1997, summarized from memory)
What I do not get is why former creationists believe the creationist proof that God does not exist. They learned that the creationists lied to them about everything else: about the Two Model Approach, about the young earth, about evolution, about all other aspects of science, etc, etc, etc. Why don't they realize that the creationists also lied to them about God?
What are they thinking?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Lamden, posted 09-25-2015 10:50 AM Lamden has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-29-2015 5:19 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 63 of 221 (770107)
09-29-2015 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Lamden
09-25-2015 1:41 PM


Re: the other side of the question
First, out of personal curiosity: Lakewood. WA? I have family there.
For crying out loud, this is supposed to be an opportunity to discuss issues,
So discuss already! Nobody's stopping you.
The attacks against me are so asinine , ...
What attacks? You want to discuss? I also want to discuss. So stop whining and start discussing already!
I have heard many a presentation from both the evolution side and their detractors.
So tell us about those. Please, name names and offer descriptions. Give examples.
One big question I have is what presentations from "the evolution side" you would have seen. Certainly, creationists are very active in organizing presentations and debates, since that is part of their proselytizing effort, but I cannot say that I've seen "the evolution side" being so active except to respond to the creationists. So tell us about that!
You can start a new topic about those presentations if you want. Though one suggestion I would make is that when you present a question or an assertion that you cite it. That way, we will know when you are repeating a creationist claim or a statement from "the evolution side".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Lamden, posted 09-25-2015 1:41 PM Lamden has not replied

  
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 799 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 64 of 221 (770108)
09-29-2015 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by AZPaul3
09-29-2015 11:09 AM


Re: Thanks to all of you for reading my question
AZPaul3 writes:
You never will be invited. That's not the way it works
Do you think I should apply using the following link? --> Royal Hanover Lodge - Do you want to become a Freemason - Enquire Today
Edited by Big_Al35, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by AZPaul3, posted 09-29-2015 11:09 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Omnivorous, posted 09-29-2015 4:41 PM Big_Al35 has replied
 Message 66 by AZPaul3, posted 09-29-2015 5:15 PM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


(1)
Message 65 of 221 (770110)
09-29-2015 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Big_Al35
09-29-2015 3:09 PM


Re: Thanks to all of you for reading my question
Big_Al35 writes:
Do you think I should apply using the following link?
Why would you want to join a club that would accept you as a member?

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.
-Terence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Big_Al35, posted 09-29-2015 3:09 PM Big_Al35 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Big_Al35, posted 09-30-2015 8:04 AM Omnivorous has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 66 of 221 (770111)
09-29-2015 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Big_Al35
09-29-2015 3:09 PM


Re: Thanks to all of you for reading my question
Do you think I should apply using the following link?
No. If you don't know anybody in the lodge a web site is useless.
You have masons in your church? work? friends? Ask them.
It is always best to have a friendly sponsor bring you into the social settings before you decide if you even want to join. Then you will have to meet every member of that lodge before you interview with the Masters.
[abe] You already have one strike against you. You are asking an atheist these questions.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Big_Al35, posted 09-29-2015 3:09 PM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 67 of 221 (770112)
09-29-2015 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by dwise1
09-29-2015 2:49 PM


Re: False Dichotomies and the Two Model Approach
dwise, I just wanted to say thanks for all your efforts over the years to compile, preserve, and make available all of the information about creationism and scientific creationism. Yours must be one of the most, if not, THE most, complete history of this movement.
I first got interested in the early '70s, when my sister's fundamentalist roommate gave me a tabloid sized newsletter from a creationist outfit (probably ICR). I wish I had had the foresight to keep it. Anyway, I knew it was BS and started picking up creationist books at a used bookstore and also researching direct refutations of their claims.
Most of the creationists I know of do not have the attention span to read all of your material and seeing their own reflection (as dupes) would be too embarrassing for most of them.
Those of us who remember when the ridiculous con game of creationism started really appreciate your efforts.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by dwise1, posted 09-29-2015 2:49 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 68 of 221 (770113)
09-29-2015 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by AZPaul3
09-29-2015 1:42 PM


Re: Thanks to all of you for reading my question
it's a piddly 4.9
Piddly? Piddly!? Do you know how long it took me to earn that memb...
Wait.
I'm not supposed to care.
Never mind.
I am in ratings freefall.....it seems like it was just last month that I had a 1000 rating and now look at me!

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by AZPaul3, posted 09-29-2015 1:42 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by AZPaul3, posted 09-29-2015 5:59 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 69 of 221 (770116)
09-29-2015 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Tanypteryx
09-29-2015 5:25 PM


Re: Thanks to all of you for reading my question
...last month that I had a 1000 rating and now look at me!
Oh, Tany, we don't care what Percy says, you're still a 10 in our book.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-29-2015 5:25 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 70 of 221 (770117)
09-29-2015 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by herebedragons
09-29-2015 12:39 PM


Re: Thanks to all of you for reading my question
HBD writes:
...but if you had a much better rating, like say a 7.5 or higher...
Mind your humility: 5.0 of that is for Calvin & Hobbes.

"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.
-Terence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by herebedragons, posted 09-29-2015 12:39 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(5)
Message 71 of 221 (770120)
09-29-2015 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Lamden
09-23-2015 10:34 PM


Once we know the number of mutations needed, the mutation rate , and lifespan, how long would a best-case-scenario human evolution have taken?
To put this question in perspective, let's pose a similar Creationist question. How many joules of energy would be required to transform inanimate material into a living, breathing human being, and exactly what was the mechanism by which God did so. What is a safe wattage to deliver such energy?
Would it be fair to say that if we don't have an answer to such questions that it would be a mark against any hypothesis that God did it?
I don't think this line of argument is worthwhile unless your sole point is to explain what is personally required for you to accept evolution or creation. Questions like these are not a reasonable way to evaluate either hypothesis.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King
If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Lamden, posted 09-23-2015 10:34 PM Lamden has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 72 of 221 (770142)
09-30-2015 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by AZPaul3
09-25-2015 7:13 PM


Re: Thanks to all of you for reading my question
I'm going to be a Prophet now and predict that, if Lamden returns, 'Haldane's dilemma' may or may not feature somewhere...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by AZPaul3, posted 09-25-2015 7:13 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 799 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 73 of 221 (770144)
09-30-2015 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Omnivorous
09-29-2015 4:41 PM


Re: Thanks to all of you for reading my question
Omnivorous writes:
Why would you want to join a club that would accept you as a member?
That reminds me of an old Happy Days episode where Howard Cunningham has just returned from an evening at the Lodge. He shows off his Fez and tells us that poor Fonzie got blackballed. He wasn't allowed to join. This all happened in Milwaukee back in the 50s and 60s. They had power way back then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Omnivorous, posted 09-29-2015 4:41 PM Omnivorous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Theodoric, posted 09-30-2015 8:35 AM Big_Al35 has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 74 of 221 (770147)
09-30-2015 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Big_Al35
09-30-2015 8:04 AM


Re: Thanks to all of you for reading my question
You do realize that Happy Days was a fictional TV show don't you?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Big_Al35, posted 09-30-2015 8:04 AM Big_Al35 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Pressie, posted 09-30-2015 8:48 AM Theodoric has not replied
 Message 76 by Big_Al35, posted 09-30-2015 9:14 AM Theodoric has replied
 Message 219 by Big_Al35, posted 10-31-2015 10:26 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 75 of 221 (770151)
09-30-2015 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Theodoric
09-30-2015 8:35 AM


Re: Thanks to all of you for reading my question
Big_Al is trying to divert attention away from reality. Big-Al can't face reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Theodoric, posted 09-30-2015 8:35 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024