|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Dredge writes: Are you suggesting that a man of Gould's intelligence and knowledge was not aware that the "sudden appearance" and "stasis" he saw in the fossil record was not used by creationists as evidence of creation? That is not the same thing. You said that Gould thought it was evidence for creationism, not creationists. That is bearing false witness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
This quoting-out-of-context is the rule rather than the exception. That comes right out of their shitty "How to Use the Bible" playbook
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
New Cat's Eye writes:
Or, to put it another way: If they can warp the Bible to fit their preconceived notions, they can warp anything else too.
That comes right out of their shitty "How to Use the Bible" playbook
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
I do believe that the average creationist is well-meaning and sincerely believes they are being honest. Its the leaders and "experts" that are dishonest and deceptive. Do you really consider Kent Hovind to be an honest, truthful advocate for creationism? Ken Ham? These men are shysters, snake-oil salesmen. Is that how the "truth" is advanced? God forbid! At one point I tried to classify different types of creationists and to analyze how and why those types develop. Of course, one disadvantage we have in such efforts is the creationists' own reluctance, avoidance, and outright refusal (often quite hostile) to discuss such questions, so all we have to go by are our observations in the field. I will try to return to this topic in the future. Obviously, there is a wide range of types of creationists with their associated behaviors, even though we normally only see a rather small subset within that spectrum because we normally only see the ones who wish to confront us, to "fight evolution" head-on. Most of the followers are not motivated enough nor feel ready to confront us and most of the professionals and experienced creationists avoid us because they have learned through bitter experience that their claims cannot withstand direct examination and so find other venues that they can control or exploit (eg, creationist "debates"). My classification approach was not to define types as RAZD had done in this topic in Message 1081 (26 Jul 2017), but rather a kind of a sequence of levels that an individual creationist could progress through with each level having certain characteristics, including an increase in dishonesty as one moves up through each level. Each level is primarily identified by the level of activism and involvement and a principal driving force in shaping the characteristics of each level is how the activities of that level bring them into contact with non-creationists and how they then respond to discovering the problems with their claims and with their YEC beliefs. Basically I break YECs out into three groups: inactive, active, and professionals and activists. Similarly, I break the non-creationists into two main groups: knowledgeable (ie, us), ignorant (further sub-divided by what they are ignorant of: science, creationist claims. And then there's the general public, the typical target of the creationists (they prefer to avoid us non-creationists, especially us knowledgeable ones) since members of the general public are usually easy pickings since they tend to be ignorant of science and of creationism. Of the inactive creationists, I have written:
quote: Of the active creationists, I have written:
quote: I then sub-divide the active creationists as inexperienced or experienced:
quote: And of the professionals and activists:
quote: I also discuss non-creationists in a similar manner, though classified differently. In my introduction:
quote: Those groupings are knowledgeable non-creationists and ignorant non-creationists with the latter group sub-divided as those who are knowledgeable about science but ignorant of creationist claims and those who are ignorant of science (and of creationism, it goes without saying). Those who are ignorant of science usually share somewhat the same "folk science" as the active creationists (eg, comic books, sci-fi B movies, poor quality science textbooks, "common sense") and so are vulnerable to creationist claims and arguments. Anyway, I should cut this short now. As I said, these are my draft notes so far.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Or, to put it another way: If they can warp the Bible to fit their preconceived notions, they can warp anything else too.
And cherry-pick what they want while ignoring the rest. Because that is how religion works. But it is not how science works, where you have to take everything into account and cannot afford to ignore anything. And you cannot simply re-define an inconvenient fact out of existence or into something else like they do all the time with religion. Edited by dwise1, : added qs box
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
But generally, speaking creationists are honest, since honesty is a very important requirement of their religion. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit demand honesty. They may start out honest, but "creation science" corrupts them very quickly. It starts with being taught that if the claims of "creation science" are wrong, then God does not exist (or something to that effect; actual mileage may vary case-by-case). Then whenever the believer encounters any evidence contrary to "creation science" or any of his YEC beliefs, he has to start lying to himself, to deceive himself. One creationist lie follows another, creating a slippery slope that turns him into a dishonest hypocrite, a typical creationist. I do agree that in Christian doctrine honesty is a very important requirement and that the religion demands honesty. That was very much a part of my own Christian training before I left over half a century ago. And it was also very much a part of my fundamentalist training as a "fellow traveller" with the Jesus Freak Movement (circa 1970 at the epicenter, Chuck Smith's Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa, Calif.). Though the fundamentalists were also very heavily into Satan and demons (opposing both, of course, but they did obsess a lot) and emphasized how lies and deception serve Satan, not God. So then, the question remains: Why do you persist in your lies and deception? (plural "you" being applied to the YEC/"creation science" community as a whole, as well as to many individuals within that community) By preaching honesty and practicing gross dishonesty, you are also practicing hypocrisy. I'm sure that you have heard or may feel that you "true Christians" are hated. Well, there is some truth behind that, but not for the reasons that you (pl.) want to whine about. One of the reasons is because normals are disgusted by your (pl.) flagrant hypocrisy. Your "true Christian" witness and Christian example serves to thoroughly discredit Christianity and to drive away those who otherwise might have wanted to consider becoming a Christian, but then they'd be afraid of becoming like you. At this point, I would like to express to you our appreciation for your zealous and untiring contributions to the growth and spread of atheism. Now if we could only get you to stop misrepresenting what atheism is. Now on the subject of the corrupting influence of creationism on Christians, let me introduce you to Carl Drews, a believing, practicing Christian who has seen it in action. He joined a fundamentalist church whose work he really liked, but then he had to leave them in disgust because the pastors advocated and supported "lying for the Lord" (another example of hypocrisy that normals hate and point out). His autobiographical page, My Story, tells that tale of how his pastors cared nothing for whether the creationist materials were true, but only whether they could be used against evolution -- ie, "the ends justify the means", the lowest form of opportunistic morality which the Radical Religious Right used to denounce as "secular humanism". It also describes his first exposure to creationist materials, a cartoon pamphlet, in 1985. Through an email, he verified that it was Chick Pubs' "Big Daddy?", but instead of the current edition which was reportedly rewritten by Kent Hovind, that was the original, which I had also read circa 1970 during my fundamentalist training with the Jesus Freaks at Chuck Smith's Calvary Chapel. That part of the story illustrates the creationist practice of misquoting sources which is common creationist practice. The part about the classes at his church serve to illustrate the lack of quality and veracity of other creationist materials which is sadly very typical of all creationist materials. In this case I think it was probably the "Back to Genesis" seminars or at least something similar. Every week he would research the claims of the presentation and return the next week with notes about what he found to be wrong -- he posts a lot of those notes elsewhere on his site. That brings us to another problem: hardly any of his fellow students cared that there were serious problems with what they were learning, that those claims were not true. The Trinity demands honesty, you say, so why did those "true Christians" not care about honesty? The problem there is that creationists who go to those classes and those meetings are not interested in the truth nor in honesty. Rather, they are looking for ammo to use in their own proselytizing efforts. For that purpose, they don't care whether the claim is true, but only that it sounds convincing, since the intended use is to convince others to convert (or to convince themselves that their creationist beliefs are true). On a science and religion forum maintained at conservative Christian Calvin College in the 1980's/1990's, I found this quote by Scott Rauch (Page Not Found - Error pages | Calvin University (link broken -- can't keep the stupid forum software from making that a link)):
quote: From Carl Drews' page:
quote: They lied. The pastors of a fundamentalist church lied. Solely because they had been seduced by the lies of "creation science." "Creation science" started out as a deliberate crafted deception to fool the US courts, but then it spread to the churches which it immediately started to corrupt. It has already cost far too many Christians (now ex-Christians) their faith and keeps many more from ever taking Christianity seriously. It has been called "one of the major causes of atheism and materialism."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
If the first parts of Genesis are allegorical, when does the allegory stop and the literal begin?
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
My aptitude for mathematics is Einstein-like, but I can't figure out how to got from Now let's assume the creationist case where the expected value is 10,000 years, but the dating method gives us a measured value of 100 million years:% error = 100 abs(100,000,000 - 10,000) / abs (10,000) = 100 abs( 99,990,000 ) / abs (10,000) = 100 99,990,000 / 10,000 = 100 9999 = 999,900 % = 100 99,990,000 / 10,000to = 100 9999
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Percy writes:
Ok, thanks for that; I'll have my researcher look into it. The full book review from which you took your quote can be found here: HOW EVOLUTION BECAME A RELIGION - Creationists correct?: Darwinians wrongly mix science with morality, politics. He's not saying what you think he's saying. But in the meantime ... "In February of 1993, Ruse made some remarkable concessions in a talk at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) ... Ruse (spoke) on a topic labelled "Nonliteralist Anti-Evolutionism: The Case of Phillip Johnson" ... Mainly we talked about metaphysics and my position that naturalistic metaphysics underlies Darwinist belief. Ruse admitted to his AAAS audience , "In the ten years since I performed, or I appeared, in the creationism trial in Arkansas, I must say that I've been coming to this kind of position myself." Although he is as much an evolutionist as ever, Ruse now acknowledges "that the science side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science, which - it may not be a good thing to admit in a court of law - but I think that in all honesty we should recognize.""- Darwin on Trial, 2nd edition, Phillip E. Johnson, p.163
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
I got that Raup quote from Darwin on Trial (2nd edition) by Phillip E. Johnson, p.187.
Did you even quote Raup? Or did you just copy somebody else's quote-mining of that article? That article whose name you didn't even provide. And why the copy errors?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
My aptitude for mathematics is Einstein-like, but I can't figure out how to got from = 100 99,99to = 100 9999 Really? 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 857 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
My aptitude for mathematics is Einstein-like, but I can't figure out how to got from = 100 99,990,000 / 10,000 to = 100 9999 Lol... Try using a calculator instead of doing all your calculations on the chalkboard like Einstein did. HBD Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
So, you didn't quote from the original work? All hearsay? You quoted from a book you didn't read yourself? No wonder you're a creationist.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
If the first parts of Genesis are allegorical, when does the allegory stop and the literal begin? Ah, there's the rub. You are probably one of those who's scared to death of losing your get-out-of-hell-free card. If you have to decide what's literal and what is not, you might decide wrong, and then it's the fiery pit for you, boyo. So you avoid the problem by deciding everything is literal. Which immediately leads to no end of contradictions and a worldview that has no connection to reality. Step up to the plate, belly up to the bar, and decide. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 857 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
If the first parts of Genesis are allegorical, when does the allegory stop and the literal begin? You fundamentalists just love your false dichotomies don't you? They rank right up there with your love of definitions and logical fallacies (pointing out others supposed fallacies whilst ignoring your own, of course) Most of the book of Genesis is obviously stories that were passed down orally for generations and generations. They are likely based on real events but then, over time, they developed into what has been recorded in Genesis. Just because they are not historically accurate doesn't mean they are allegory or even that they are false. They are stories that have a lesson, a lesson about God, humans and relationships. Just because the stories are not absolutely, literally, historically true doesn't mean they are absolutely false. That is a false dichotomy (unless the whole of the issue is historical accuracy - then they are either historically true or historically false). But I don't believe that is the central issue, nor what literalists insist on. This is what literalists do... they force people to choose between absolutely historically true and absolutely theologically false. In fact we could have several options: a) historically true, theologically true; b) historically true, theologically false; c) historically false, theologically false; d) historically false, theologically true. Literalists force people to choose between a) and c); choices b) and d) aren't even on the table... How do you expect people who are skeptical to accept the theological lessons and truths of the Bible when you force them to choose between absolutely historically true and absolutely theologically false? Fundamentalists/literalists think they are upholding the sovereignty/authority of the Bible, but all they really do is "tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders..." Do you really expect to convince people of the truth by forcing them to accept untruth? by bearing false witness? HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem. Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024