|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
So, Dredge, did you quote Gould because of your stupidity? Dawkins' "ignorance is no crime" gives three other alternatives, which includes mendacity ("design"), ignorance and insanity ... But I have been giving this a bit of thought and would like to break it down slightly differently: There are Five types of people that don't understand how evolution works:
Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
So, in the end Dredge is basically insane in him/her quote-mining Gould for YEC creationism. That's what I thought.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
It's likely that when the serpent "spoke" to Eve, it may not have been in an audible voice, but something telepathic... Oooh, a likelihood... can you show me your math? How did you determine the odds? Or did you just make that up? The way Genesis is written (at least in the NIV), when the Lord speaks to Adam & Eve it has quotation marks around exactly like when the snake is speaking to Eve. They're both characters in the myth that speak to Adam & Eve in the same way as any other conversation would go. There's no reason to think that it was telepathic and not verbal. But this thread is about evolution and not Genesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Categories 3 and 4 probably describe most of the current Creationist posters here, although I suspect some folks of being in category 5. (Not naming names). That is purely my own opinion.
But 3 and 4 have some series areas of overlap. 3....Cognitive dissonance comes into play here when this affects core beliefs that are strongly held. 4...They too can be deceived (and likely deceive themselves), however they continue to present falsehoods even when they have been corrected. Quite frankly, I am not sure it is worth the trouble of sorting out the difference. There is no way to get a rational discussion out of either group. Only folks in group two are worth engaging seriously outside of a discussion forum. Within a discussion forum. I'd choose a category 4 or 5 occupant every time for the pure entertainment value. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
But 3 and 4 have some series areas of overlap. 3....Cognitive dissonance comes into play here when this affects core beliefs that are strongly held. 4...They too can be deceived (and likely deceive themselves), however they continue to present falsehoods even when they have been corrected. I see Ham, Hovind, Batten, etc as type 4 -- they are the ones making up stuff and peddling it as "alternative facts" ... they may have started as type 3 but have built on it and this addition makes them type 4 ... imho. I see the type 3 as the people Dawkins describes as tortured because they are deceived into believing falsehoods that conflict with reality (hence the cog-dis).
Categories 3 and 4 probably describe most of the current Creationist posters here, although I suspect some folks of being in category 5. (Not naming names). That is purely my own opinion. Well I though Davidjay might be a 5, certainly a 4, making up stuff and trying to pawn it off as real. But this is getting off topic. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Dredge writes: The point is not whether life being magically poofed into existence is reasonable or not; rather, whether it's true or not. When did reality become confined to what humans think is reasonable? You, CRR, and Faith are writing posts where you try to ridicule evolution for being a fairy tale, and yet the whole time you three are the ones who believe life was magically poofed into being. That's the point. Also, Faith actually said that it is reasonable to conclude that the Universe and life were magically poofed into being. Take that up with her.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Dredge writes: Point 1. You have taken Dredge's important statement of fact and - somehow - interpreted it as a vacuous insult. Point 2. If you think any scientific yarns regarding what happened on earth billions of years ago carry any weight, then your appetite for science-fiction rivals that of any
We can add the word "fact" to the list of words you don't understand. It is your OPINION. Do you understand the difference between opinion and fact? I am guessing that you don't. Also, the only people telling yarns are your, CRR, and Faith with your myths about magical poofing. The rest of us are discussing science. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Dredge writes: Agree. But the existence of nested hierarchies doesn't rule out the existence of a Common Designer. How do know the Creator doesn't have a penchant for nested hierarchies? How do you know that he does? The burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate that life was created.
Why does Porsche, for example, make different models of sports cars? Their models are similar, but different. The answer is: Because they want to. Porsches don't fall into a nested hierarchy. You are making this too easy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10067 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Dredge writes: The whole story is, Gould clearly saw the evidence for creation, but as a committed atheist, he tried to explain it away with his stupid PE theory. This is called "putting words in other peoples' mouths". This is as dishonest as it gets.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
{to Dredge's use of a SJ Gould quote-mine:}
Tangle writes: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html Why not read the whole article so that you don't keep making the same mistake? Why would you assume that Dredge had read the article? I'm quite sure that he had just lifted it from a creationist quote-mining source and fraudulently claimed their claimed source as his own -- and I'm also quite sure that his creationist handlers had themselves committed the exact same fraud, claiming someone else's quote-mined material as coming from the claimed source. Claiming a source that they have never seen themselves instead of their actual creationist source is SOP for creationists and is practiced on all levels. I document a classic example on my page, Moon Dust. In a debate I attended, Dr. Henry Morris made the standard claim that if the moon were as old as we claim, then it should be covered with a layer of dust about 280 feet thick. He claimed as his source a NASA document dated from 1976, "well into the space age." In fact, since he was responding to the criticism that creationists use out-dated sources, that very date, 1976, was the most important part of that claim. I asked him for more information and Dr. Duane Gish sent me a letter written by Harold Slusher which named the document and developed the calculation -- the calculation did not come from the NASA document, but rather it used a few rates from that document. Then I found that very NASA document in the university library. It was a 1967 printing of papers presented at a conference in August 1965, before our first soft landing on the moon on 02 June 1966. In fact, that date of 9-13 August 1965 was very clearly displayed on the front cover, such that nobody who had actually held that document in their hands could have missed it. It was obvious that Morris had have never seen that document, yet he claimed it as his source. It has since become obvious that Slusher had also never seen that document even though he also claimed it as his source; other mistakes he made (eg, saying it was "Volume II" instead of "Volume 11" as was very clearly printed on the front cover) leads me to suspect that his actual source was hand-written by another unidentified creationist. IOW, creationists not only lie regularly about what scientists say, but they also lie regularly about what their actual sources are. Edited by dwise1, : Explicitly attributing the qs box to Tangle in order to improve the word flow
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
If astronomy can tell us what happened billions of years ago, why can't geology? Why would you reject one and not the other?
I didn't know astronomy can tell us what happened on earth billions of years ago.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Science can and does explain why the sky IS blue and the grass IS green. You can put any fairy-tale spin on it that you want but that's not as satisfying as knowing.
God could make the sky and grass any colour he wants to. Science can't explain why he chose blue and green, respectively.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1430 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Science can and does explain why the sky IS blue and the grass IS green. There is in fact a paper that is called "why the earth is green" because of ecology .... Hairston, Nelson G., Frederick E. Smith, and Lawrence B. Slobodkin. "Community Structure, Population Control, and Competition." The American Naturalist 94, no. 879 (1960): 421-25. JSTOR: Access Check. ... known as the "Why is the world green" paper. Note: you can register for JSTOR and have free access to a "bookshelf" to read this (and other JSTOR) papers. Or message me your email and I can email a pdf of the paper. Frederick E. Smith was my dad. The others were regulars at our house at the time. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Pressie writes:
Except Dredge is not YEC.
So, in the end Dredge is basically insane in him/her quote-mining Gould for YEC creationism. That's what I thought.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 99 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
NewCatsEye writes:
So when Satan communicated his will to Judas Iscariot, do you imagine he did so in an audible voice that everyone could hear, or was the communication achieved silently? If silently, how does that work? The way Genesis is written (at least in the NIV), when the Lord speaks to Adam & Eve it has quotation marks around exactly like when the snake is speaking to Eve. They're both characters in the myth that speak to Adam & Eve in the same way as any other conversation would go. There's no reason to think that it was telepathic and not verbal. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024