Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the point of this forum?
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 60 of 139 (535809)
11-18-2009 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by slevesque
11-17-2009 5:01 PM


The problem with creationist debates is that it's the creationists' game and they cheat at it. It started at the beginning of the "creation science" movement, which formed shortly after the US Supreme Court decision on Epperson vs Arkansas (1968) which led to the anti-evolution movement's over-40-year-old "monkey laws" being struck down as unconstitutional. Since laws barring the teaching of evolution on religious grounds were no longer allowed, the anti-evolution movement created "creation science", a lie and deception that their objections to evolution were "purely scientific."
Part of their strategy was creating the debate circuit. During the 1970's, they travelled across the country, recruiting local "evolutionists" to "debate" against. Many of their opponents agreed and went into those events thinking that it would be an actual debate. Instead, the creationists would make a mountain of false statements and claims that their opponents had never heard before, being unfamiliar with "creation science", and provide their opponents with virtually no time to effectively counter those false claims. Thus, the creationists wandered through the countryside chewing up and spitting out opponents everywhere they went. I'm sure that on occasion they encountered an opponent who was able to get the better of them, but since it was only the creationists who were reporting on these debates to any kind of national audience, the creationists always without fail reported creationist successes and even reported their failures as successes.
For example (I'm having to quote all this from memory for now, since it's late and I won't have much time to dig through my references until Friday (I work all day, plus on Wednesday I help at a West Coast Swing venue and then Thursday evening it's Country Two-Step followed by salsa)), circa 1981, Tampa Bay, FL, was considering a "balanced treatment" curriculum. There were two debates, one with Dr. Henry Morris and the other with Dr. Duane Gish, and I believe that opposing them both times was Dr. Ken Miller, a self-described creationist (since as a practicing Catholic he believes in God the Creator) and one of the fiercest opponents of the lie and deception that is "creation science" -- still is. At most, the creationist press described the outcome of the debates as Miller being "one of the ablest opponents" they had faced, but still they had "significantly strengthening the creationist position in Tampa Bay". As in, the local school boards after the debates shelved their plans for any kind of creationist curriculum. In case your English didn't catch that, that means that the school board abandoned all its previous plans to teach any creationism. Which means that the creationist cause totally lost in Tampa Bay, even though the creationist press claimed victory. In other words, creationists lie through their teeth.
Now, a lot of scientists and college/university professors had answered the call to debate creationists and got burned by it. And they started writing to and talking with each other. And reading up on the creationist literature. And discussing their experiences and their reading with each other. And at the grass-roots level, they organized state-level "Committees of Correspondence" (CC; a name derived from the Committees of Correspondence who had operated within the colonies leading up to and during the American Revolution) and shared their findings and counter-arguments with each other. That led to a national gathering-point of all this information, which became the "National Center for Science Education" (NCSE), headed by Dr. Eugenie Scott. What all this information-sharing resulted in was that, around 1980, the tide started turning. As creationists with their highly-polished presentations would make their exact-same presentations at these debate events, their opponents would produce the same rebuttals to which the creationists had no response. All across the country, those rebuttals would follow those creationists. And the creationists would complain that their opponents were sharing information, even though that was what the creationists had been doing all along.
Ken Miller's debates against the two mightiest "creation science" debators, and the subsequent defeat of creationism, in Tampa Bay, FL, was one of the culminations of the CC's efforts. This shows that when the evidence is actually considered, creationism has absolutely no chance at all.
Now, here's the problem with creationist debates per se. The opponent is restricted to being truthful and scientifically correct, whereas the creationist can make whatever wild-ass claim he wants to make. It doesn't matter to the creationist how incredibly false his claims are, just so long as he deems that it sounds convincing. In contrast, the creationist's opponent has to remain truthfulness, which in a creationist debate is a distinct disadvantage.
There is a term that's used by opponents: "The Gish Gallop". Obviously, it's named after its inventor and best-known practitioner, Dr. Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), who in my personal opinion is visually one of the best candidates for "ape man" that I have ever seen. Here is basically how it works. The debate is structured so that each participant has so many minutes to make their initial presentations and then so many minutes (usually 20 to 40 minutes) to present their refutations to their opponent's presentation. OK, I hope that your math is up-to-snuff here. The creationist starts making multiple claims very rapidly -- this is the Gish Gallop -- which are totally false and utterly misleading. Let's say that it takes 10 seconds to make one of these false claims. If you allocate a minute to this gallop, then we're talking about six such false claims. OK, let's assume that the opponent actually knows about those false claims and knows exactly each and every one of those six false claims are false. Furthermore, let us assume that it takes 30 minutes to refute each false claim. Well, guess what! With only 20 minutes to refute all false creationist claims, their opponent hasn't even been given enough time to refute a single one of those false claims, let alone six
IOW, public debates is purely a creationist game and their cheating guarantees that they will always "win".
Instead, shouldn't the truth win?
Here's a venue that works towards the truth coming out. Instead of a staged event, have a written debate. One in which each opponent has all the time they need and are required to give each and every reference that they are using, so that their opponent is able to to then go to that reference to check it out. And both parties are then able to thoroughly discuss each reference that each opponent uses.
Guess what? When such a written venue is suggested, most "evolutionists" will immediately come on board, but all creationists will refuse to participate (OK, some "IDists" will agree, but I don't know of any biblical creationists who will agree to such a venue). There is a local activist creationist in Orange County, Calif (the "real OC"), Bill Morgan, who repeatedly tried to get me into a public debate, yet when he promised "any venue, anywhere" and I interpreted that as allowing for a written, on-line debate, he absolutely refused to follow through with his promise. Before an audience, the creationists can play their deceptive games, but in a written debate where everybody has to actually present their evidence, then creationists pull out so quickly that we would have to take relativistic effects into account (IOW, they couldn't pull out anywhere near fast enough).
OK, slevesque, if we only use the creationists' debate game, then that does absolutely nothing towards the truth.
If we use the "evolutionists'" game, which wants to seek the truth of the matter, then creationists want absolutely nothing to do with any of it.
OK, so what can we deduce from this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by slevesque, posted 11-17-2009 5:01 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2009 7:40 AM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 66 by slevesque, posted 11-18-2009 4:39 PM dwise1 has replied
 Message 68 by Arphy, posted 11-18-2009 6:00 PM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 85 of 139 (535987)
11-19-2009 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by slevesque
11-18-2009 4:39 PM


And I would never propose a debating method where you could Gish Gallop around. It would be focused debates on particular points. With the points being told in advance so the participants can come prepared.
Been tried. The "evolutionists" were totally on-line with the idea -- indeed, they're the ones who made that requirement. It's the creationists who refuse to participate; in the particular case I have in mind, it was Duane Gish, "creation science's" Master Debator himself, who absolutely refused to debate.
Not that I can really blame the creationists -- except for their dishonesty -- , since there's really no other position they could take. To engage in an honest debate such as you and "evolutionists" propose, one has to present and support and discuss the evidence. "Creation science" has no evidence, so the creationist debator would have no evidence to present or to support. "Creation science" depends on misrepresenting science and the actual evidence, so there's no way that a creationist can honestly discuss the evidence without conceding defeat. All they have going for them are lies, deception, and outrageously dishonest "debate" tactics, like the Gish Gallop.
The problem is not all debates, but rather the dishonest public shows put on by creationists. An actual constructive discussion of the evidence is something that "evolutionists" would welcome, but sadly with creationists such an event is not possible. Believe me, I and many others have tried for decades and in vain to have some kind of meaningful discussion with creationists. Review the threads started by Calypsis4 to get some idea of how the archetypical creationist conducts himself.
Besides, I'm creationist, are you implying I'm not looking for the truth ?
There are indeed creationists who look for the truth, but sadly they are in the minority. They also tend to be rather short-lived (as creationists, not in terms of life expectancy), the honest ones at least, because as they learn the truth they discover how much "creation science" lies and how its advocates make Christianity dependent on those lies (eg, John Morris of the ICR, son and heir of Dr. Henry Morris who co-founded the ICR, who stated absolutely "If the earth is more than 10,000 years old, then Scripture has no meaning" -- and the earth is indeed immensely older than 10,000 years, which is why ICR-trained geologists working directly with rock-hard geological evidence that the ICR had taught did not exist and could not exist or else Scripture would have no meaning suffered severe crises of faith; the then-still-creationist who reported that, Glenn R. Morton, would shortly thereafter be driven to the verge of atheism solely by "creation science"). Another one I knew "back in the day" on CompuServe was the most honest creationist I had ever encountered. Within a year, he was not only no longer a creationist, but he was also no longer a Christian. Some honest creationists, as they examine the actual evidence honestly, end up becoming atheists. Others remain Christians, but not the same as they had been; many even become avid anti-creationist (ie, the "creation science" brand of creationism). Others lose their honesty and become dishonest creationists, the only way they can retain their beliefs.
Most creationist already "know" the "Truth". All they're interested in is convincing people: both themselves and fellow creationists and potential victims ... er, I mean, potential converts.
So then, are you really looking for the truth? Or are you just interested in convincing yourself? I cannot answer that question; you must answer it yourself.
My introduction to a Mormon science-fiction writer, Orson Scott Card (eg, "Ender's Game"), was through a tape played in the mid/late 1980s at a local atheists' meeting called "The Secular Humanist Revival Meeting" (the tape was so-called, not the meeting). You see, Card lived (and possibly still does) in Greensboro in one of the Carolinas, firmly in the "Bible Belt". He delivered the sermon in archtypical "fire and brimstone" Southern Baptist manner, but his message was clearly a warning against the then-surging Religious Right movement which denounced everything they were against as "secular humanist". Sadly, during the administrations of "Dubya", he had disowned his presentation against the "Religious Right" at the very time that they were at the height of their political power.
One of the things that "Rev" Card proclaimed was that "in order to learn anything, you have to change your mind." Similarly, my church (Unitarian-Universalist) has a catch-phrase of: "To question is the answer." I view that as absolutely necessary, if for no other reason than that our human mental processes are so imperfect that we must constantly question our understanding of all aspects of "The Divine" in order to try to correct any mistakes that we may have introduced in our imperfect understandings.
So, then, are you really looking for the truth?
PS I spotted a fallacy in your text, when you talk about '' ... most, the creationist press described the outcome of the debates as Miller being "one of the ablest opponents" they had faced, but still they had "significantly strengthening the creationist position in Tampa Bay". As in, the local school boards after the debates shelved their plans for any kind of creationist curriculum. In case your English didn't catch that, that means that the school board abandoned all its previous plans to teach any creationism. ''
Temporal succession does not implie a causal relation (post hoc ergo propter hoc).
Of course, for events that I did not myself personally witness, I must rely on the reports of others.
The school board in question had already developed the creationist curriculum. Everything was a "go". The school board is totally behind this project. Now, the only thing that happens are these two debates. Now suddenly the school board puts a complete halt to their previous plans. The causality is very plain to me, as it was to writers of the article in question.
OK, I'm going from my memory here. I'm pretty sure that the first creationist to debate Dr. Ken Miller was Dr. Henry Morris and the second was Dr. Duane Gish. Now, understand that H. Morris is quite literally the Father of Flood Geology and that together with Gish the two of them quite literally wrote the book of "creation science". The writer of the article (sorry, but it will not be until this weekend that I could even begin to research that source for you) talked with a local creationist (in Tampa) who actually described the first debate as having been a case of the creationist having been totally defeated (even though the creationist press misrepresented it as a case of the creationist cause having been substantially strengthened), but he believed that the situation would turn out differently now that the most powerful creationist debator would have a go at it. By that, I read it as being Gish as the second opponent of Miller. As I recall from the reports, Gish did not fare much better than Morris had.
Indeed, temporal successtion does not imply a causual relation, but I'm sure that we are well beyond that minor technicality.
The local school board was totally for including creationist teachings, yet after Miller's debates against the two foremost creationist debators (their "Master Debators") the school board decides to not
Edited by dwise1, : Corrected misnaming. Miller taught/teaches at Brown.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by slevesque, posted 11-18-2009 4:39 PM slevesque has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 97 of 139 (536066)
11-19-2009 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Arphy
11-18-2009 6:00 PM


It doesn't matter to the creationist how incredibly false his claims are, just so long as he deems that it sounds convincing.
It does matter to the creationists because as christians we find it important not to lie. To lie is to sin against God which is the opposite of the way that christians are trying to live their lives.
Rather, it should matter to the creationists, especially since their theology also includes the idea of God's Laws being absolute. And yet by their repeated and persistent actions it doesn't.
For example, in our email correspondence, Bill Morgan repeatedly lied to me, even to the point of switching which of us had said or done what; I had to keep a copy of all our emails and repeatedly had to show him what had actually been written. One example of him deliberately lying to the public can be found on his website at No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.fishdontwalk.com/aviewer.asp?i=7. It's an article that he wrote for his newsletter about the hole in the ozone layer being caused by chlorine released from refrigerant molecules high in the atmosphere. He raised a number of questions about how those molecules could have gotten there and what about other sources of chlorine and posed them to the "experts" -- air-conditioning salesmen at a trade show -- and since those "experts" couldn't answer his questions about atmospheric dynamics he concluded that nobody could answer them and that scientists don't know what they're talking about and were only assuming that there are refrigerant molecules up there causing the trouble. So I immediately Googled and within 15 minutes had the answers to all of his questions from a FAQ written by the real experts, the scientists at NOAA, and I presented it to him -- well, I had to present it twice because he at first tried to deny that those answers even existed. That FAQ even described how they had taken air samples from those high altitudes and showed the concentrations of refrigerants that they had directly and empirically measured. Knowing that he didn't have a leg to stand on, he dropped the subject and refused to discuss it. Then a few months later, he posted his article on his new website without any changes or corrections, even though he knew that it was false. Since he had made a deliberate choice to post it, that is a deliberate lie. And since he's gone through about 3 or 4 websites and has made the deliberate choice each time to post it on each of those websites, he has deliberately lied each time. I took him to task for it, especially when he insisted that "nothing is more important than the truth!", and the moment I would bring up his deliberate lie he would run away, knowing that he had yet again been caught in a lie.
{EDIT: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) FAQ that I had found has moved a couple times. It's currently at Error - File Not Found if anyone is curious. I used to have a much more detailed accounting on my website of this particular issue with Bill, but my web host pulled out of the business. }
Several times over the decades on forums, I would see a creationist make a standard false claim (eg, sea salt) and I would explain to that creationist what was wrong with that claim and why it was wrong, to the point where the creationist had to admit that the claim was wrong. Then a few months later I'd see that very same creationist use that very same false claim yet again against somebody, knowing full well that it was false. When I would bring up that fact, he would run away, caught yet again in a lie.
One on-line fundamentalist friend, Carl Drews, has a website where, among other things, he wrote a short autobiography (No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.theistic-evolution.com/mystory.html). Early on, he learned that creationist claims were a pack of lies. But then he and his wife found a great little fundamentalist church that they really liked, until the minister gave a "creation science" sermon and started a "creation science" class based on a series of videos by a creationist organization. He took notes and checked out the videos' claims and again found them to be false:
quote:
The ninth commandment makes no distinction between bearing false witness about Biblical and non-Biblical materials. It's extremely important to tell the truth about science, too.
I prepared a sheet of notes about what I had found that was wrong in each class, and made this available at the beginning of each next class. Only about a third of the other students even looked at my findings. During our short discussions there were some attempts to explain away the errors that I had found. These attempts were not researched very well, and usually I could point out that some creationist example like Paluxy River had been discredited years ago.
I wrote three detailed letters to the pastors during the long 12 weeks of the video class. They responded to my objections by saying that the speakers do a good job of preaching against evolution, and that the incorrect statements about science don't matter very much in that big picture. They contended without details that the errors I had cited were subjective. They refused to announce that some of the information presented was misleading or not accurate, and they also refused to exhort people to check out and verify the claims that were made. They urged me to continue the class.
. . .
We left that church. We left not because they conducted a video series attacking evolution, nor even because that series supported those attacks using incorrect information. We left because the church refused to announce that the class had flaws, declined to investigate the errors that were properly reported, and refused to urge people to get independent witness. The problem was not differing views. The problem was that they bore false witness. They lied.
His pastors told him that incorrect statements about science didn't matter? Most of the students in the class refused to even look at the truth? Elsewhere, I've heard from students of such classes described their motivation as being to gather ammo for street proselytizing. Yet again, the truth did not matter to them, only that they could learn some claims that would sound convincing. That is why a creationist claim that's been completely refuted continues to be used (eg, the leap-second claim which takes the slowing down of the earth's rotation and extrapolates back to an impossible rate of rotation hundreds of millions of years ago), because all creationists are interested in is that the claim sounds convincing and so might convince someone to convert or to support creationism's political agenda, etc. The truth does not matter to them. Nor, apparently, does breaking God's absolute Laws.
You know, for years I've wanted the answer to that, but every creationist I've asked has refused to answer it (starting with Bill Morgan). Why doesn't it matter to creationists that they're breaking God's laws by lying? Do they think that they're somehow exempt from "absolute moral standards"? Do they think there's a loophole which allows for the breaking of God's laws as long as they're doing it for Jesus -- ie, that those "absolute moral standards" are actually relative and that situational ethics is the way to go? That "lying for the Lord" is permissible in Christian doctrine? Or maybe that they'll just ask for forgiveness and God would forgive them for lying? -- that's the great thing about an invisible friend; he always agrees with you and forgives you.
Really, what are they thinking?
As a different subject, what compels an athiest to tell the truth and not lie?
Morality. We live in society too. Lying is a betrayal of trust and is harmful to our relationships with each other. Sure, we could choose to lie, but then we would have to live with the consequences, just like everybody else. The only difference is that atheists know that they must take responsibility for their actions whereas creationists believe that they don't have to take responsibility.
Edited by dwise1, : Added NOAA FAQ URL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Arphy, posted 11-18-2009 6:00 PM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Arphy, posted 11-19-2009 9:48 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 101 of 139 (536108)
11-19-2009 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Arphy
11-19-2009 8:41 PM


Re: Lying for the lord?
Yes, scientists are quite human and all humans are capable of bad conduct. However, the community in which they operate sets the standards, standards which are needed for science's goals.
Basically, the primary goal of science is to learn all we can about the physical universe and to discover how it works. It's something of a massive team effort, with scientists doing their own research and reporting the results of that research.
Each scientist's research is based on the research of other scientists, just as each scientist's research will be the basis of other scientists' research. This means that the quality of those other scientists' research is very important to each scientist, because if the research that a scientist is basing his own research on is shoddy or falsified, then that endangers his own research. It is for that reason that all research is reviewed carefully and why any instance of dishonesty or shoddy work can spell the end of a career; the scientific community as a whole has to ensure the quality of the research that is its life-blood.
One practice that the community uses is duplication of results. When a new discovery is made, other scientists immediately duplicate the experiment in order to see whether they get the same results. For example, do you remember the discover of "cold fusion"? The instant one scientist got a copy of the paper, he FAX'd it to several other scientists and they all immediately read it and duplicated the experiment. And failed to get the same results, thus disproving "cold fusion".
Yes, a scientist could be tempted to lie and to create a hoax or otherwise falsify his research. And he might even get away with it for a short time. But under the intense scrutiny of the scientific community, that lie will be found out and the perpetrator will be dealt with.
Now, contrast the scientific community with the creationist community. The primary goal of the creationist community has nothing to do with learning the truth; they believe that it's been handed to them through the Bible. Rather, their primary goal is to kill evolution; from my quotes page (no longer up):
quote:
Paul Ellwanger, author of the "Balanced Treatment" model bill on which Arkansas Act 590 was based, from the closing of a letter written to Tom Bethell, which was admitted as evidence and cited by Judge Overton in his Decision of the Court:
"... -- the idea of killing evolution instead of playing these debating games that we've been playing for nigh over a decade already."
In order to work towards that goal, creationists try to find anything they can to discredit and refute evolution and other fields of science (such as geology, physics, and astronomy). Since the evidence supports evolution, they have to turn to dishonest means and create false claims. Since their goal requires them to convince the public to further their political agenda, those false claims must be convincing. Therefore, the more convincing-sounding a claim or argument is, the better it is in the eyes of the creationist community. It doesn't matter how false it is, just so long as it sounds really convincing. And even if a claim is proven to be false, if it sounds convincing then the creationist community will continue to use it unabated.
So if a creationist is caught in a lie, it will have absolutely no impact on his career -- just about the only thing that would kill his career would be a theological indiscretion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Arphy, posted 11-19-2009 8:41 PM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Arphy, posted 11-19-2009 10:21 PM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 116 of 139 (536142)
11-20-2009 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Arphy
11-19-2009 10:21 PM


Re: Lying for the lord?
Yes, there are many systems in place especially duplication which help in keeping standards. However, this doesn't mean that it is foolproof.
So what man-made system is perfect and foolproof? Indeed, one of several reasons why I cannot accept fundamentalism (its gross hypocracy and dependence on outright lies being others) is that I cannot accept the concept of human infallibility.
However, if you have ever learned anything at all, you should know that there is not one supremely perfect answer for each real-world problem, but rather there are sets of solutions, some of which work reasonably well. Let's say you have a problem that needs solving. While there is maybe one solution that will work the best, there are also about a dozen that will work reasonably well. If you had perfect knowledge, you would of course choose the best solution. But with our imperfect knowledge, even if you chose a less optimal solution, your problem would still get solved.
You are wanting to claim that if we cannot find the absolutely perfect solution, then we might as well give up. I'm saying that as long as we find a working solution, then we've solved the problem.
A couple quotes if I may:
quote:
Douglas Adams:
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.
(BTW, Douglas Adams, who would be my age if he were still alive, is the radio-playwrite and author of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". The Ultimate Answer to Life, The Universe, and Everything is ... 42. Share and enjoy!)
Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.
No, science is not foolproof. But it is workable. It is a system that has been put into place to try to reach a goal. And it is vastly superior to an attitude of "WTF! Nothing is foolproof, so let's accept any absolutely crazy idea any drunk off the street has to offer!" (The "any drunk off the street" was one programmer's standard for a user-friendly program) No, science is not foolproof. And some errors could conceivably slip by for longer that it should. But at least some kind of system is in place to try to keep that from happening. Which is still a helluva lot more (practically infinitely more) than what the creationist community has in place.
Nor does it mean that it stops some results being promoted at the exclusion of others, for example.
Though in the vast majority of such cases, what is being excluded is pure crap anyway. We don't need to re-consider geo-centric astronomical models anymore. Nor do we need to re-consider the Caloric Theory of Heat.
Now, if the offended party really does think that his idea has merit, then he is perfectly free to do actual science (Gee! What a weird concept! No creationist would ever think of such a thing!). He is perfectly free to research his idea and build a case for it. After all, most of the currently accepted ideas were once weird ideas that nobody could accept.
Whats'a'matta? Your creationism can't do science? Well, there's probably a very good reason for that!
Nor does it mean that it stops some results being promoted at the exclusion of others, for example.
Every so-far-unaccepted idea has the same chances as any other so-far-unaccepted idea.
Please stop and think for a moment (hopefully, this is not too radical an idea for a creationist -- you know, actually thinking).
And as I said before, even if a scientist lies and he is found out, s/he may have already caused considerable damage, where their ideas persist even though it has been shown to be wrong.
Yes, that is true. And yet from the moment that that lie is revealed, science rejects that lie. Indeed, the only people who continue to use that lie are the creationists, as we can readily see from the continued use of "Nebraska Man" and "Piltdown Man", even though there's no mention of either from science since the 1930's or the 1940's. Duh?????
When an scientific idea is disproven, it is banished. Duh?????
What part of that do you not understand?
Now revisit creationist claims. A claim is disproven and what happens? It continues to be used unabated!!!Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot-Over!!! OK, what's the difference? In science, the truth matters. In creationism, to hell with the truth! Just give me something that sounds convincing!!!!!
And as I said before, even if a scientist lies and he is found out, s/he may have already caused considerable damage, where their ideas persist even though it has been shown to be wrong.
Uh, no, that doesn't happen. If an idea has been discredited, then it does not persist.
If you disagree, then please present some specific examples.
dwise1 writes:
The primary goal of the creationist community has nothing to do with learning the truth
You are coming at it from the angle that truth is unknowable.
Uh, no! What I was saying is exactly what I was saying! The creationist community has absolutely nothing to do with learning the truth. They think that they know the Truth beforehand, but they don't!
Also, the truth is indeed knowable. Which is how we know that you don't know it!
We KNOW that the bible is true, therefore we trust it, and we gain more confirmation of this every day as more scientific discoveries, historical corroboration, and supernatural experiences show that the bible is trustworthy.
Sorry, but bullshit! You only believe that it is true. And scientific discoveries do absolutely nothing to confirm it. And just what exact "supernatural experiences" are you talking about? I must demand absolutely verifiable "supernatural experiences", you understand.
IOW, complete and utter bullshit!
Men wrote the Bible! Your theology may demand that the Bible is completely true and trustworthy, but prove it!
So, yes, we continue to work at bringing down the "evidences" for evolution, because many people feel that it has been "proven" that evolution is true, and find it hard to let go of the "mountains of evidence". If we can destroy the "mountain" with good science and logic, well....
So why can't you do it? Try it! You can't, can you? Believe it or not, that is exactly what I have been imploring creationists to do for about 3 decades now (are you even that old yourself?). Don't use lies. Don't use deceptions. If you honestly believe that you have a valid case to make, then make it!!! Nobody's stopping you!!! Make your frakin' case!!!
Here, basically, is what I've been telling creationists for a few decades now. Make your case. Don't rely on lies, because that will only destroy your case. Don't try to deceive us, because that will only work against you. If you really think that you have a case, then make it! Lies and deception will only work against you, so don't resort to that.
Guess what? No creationist has ever made his case! Instead, those creationists have viciously attacked me. Clearly, the truth has no meaning for them.
And as for that "mountains of evidence", you do still need to deal with it.
As for just using "convincing-sounding" arguments for the sake of sounding convincing is also wrong, as far as i am aware. Feel free to convince me otherwise, this is the place to do so.
Sorry, but that is all that "creation science" gives you. False "convincing-sounding" claims and arguments that only sound convincing to those who don't know anything.
Here's one. Moths that had evolved into a new species, but the creationist exclaims, "But they are still moths!!!" The stupid idiot! That "but they are still moths!!!" may sound convincing to a creationist who has no idea how evolution works, but it is complete and utter nonsense to anyone who has half a brain to work with.
Sorry, but that is all that your stupid "creation science" has to offer you. A complete and utter deception that you're too stupid to realize.
Here's a stupid question for you: why are there mountains of evidence FOR evolution, and yet none FOR creation? That should be telling for anyone who's actually paying any attention.
As for just using "convincing-sounding" arguments for the sake of sounding convincing is also wrong, as far as i am aware. Feel free to convince me otherwise, this is the place to do so.
Oh, I completely agree! But then, that is all that the creationists have!
The arguments sound convincing because they are convincing!!!
TGhe arguments are complete and utter nonsense. I have already offered you one.
If you actually believe one to be true, then please offer it for consideration.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Arphy, posted 11-19-2009 10:21 PM Arphy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Coyote, posted 11-20-2009 11:26 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 117 of 139 (536143)
11-20-2009 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Arphy
11-20-2009 1:32 AM


Re: More creationist pap
Cleaned up for language.
It was my reaction to Arphy having used colors that made his message physically unreadable.
It was way late, I was way tired and in a bad mood. I sincerely apologize for the wording I had used.
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.
Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Arphy, posted 11-20-2009 1:32 AM Arphy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Huntard, posted 11-20-2009 5:40 AM dwise1 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