Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 166 (8186 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-18-2014 10:23 AM
76 online now:
Aurelia, Coyote, DrJones*, dwise1, GDR, jar, NoNukes, PaulK, Tangle (9 members, 67 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: sausan
Post Volume:
Total: 744,034 Year: 29,875/28,606 Month: 1,604/3,328 Week: 380/674 Day: 23/70 Hour: 1/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
567
8
910Next
Author Topic:   Books By Creationists?
Tram law
Member (Idle past 1226 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 106 of 142 (613594)
04-26-2011 11:10 AM


To slevesque

You are not even discussing. You are making grandiose claims that you and only you have the entire truth on evolution and atheism and that only your definitions are correct and anybody else are being dishonest when they don't agree with you. You are not even considering real evidence to show you are wrong, you can't not conceive of what atheism is and that it is not a requirement to believe in evolution to do so as one example.


I do not deny reality. I deny how it is interpreted by others.

So what did the Pope really mean when he said this:


"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studieswhich was neither planned nor soughtconstitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

And as well as:

We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementaryrather than mutually exclusiverealities.

Cardinal Ratzinger, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall [Eerdmans, 1986, 1995], see especially pages 4158

Edited by Tram law, : fixed quotes

Edited by Tram law, : fixed quotes

Edited by Tram law, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Theodoric, posted 04-26-2011 11:25 AM Tram law has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 4725
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 107 of 142 (613600)
04-26-2011 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Tram law
04-26-2011 11:10 AM


Well it is obvious the Pope is not a true christian.

I must agree with Slevesque on one thing.

Please use the reply button on the bottom of each post. When you make a general reply it is more troublesome for us to find the post you are actually responding to. Also, the person you are replying to will get an email saying they have a response. Sleve has requested you do this numerous times and I see you are still not doing it.

If you continue to make general replies I will assume you are just being an asshole and will consider that whenever you post anything.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Tram law, posted 04-26-2011 11:10 AM Tram law has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 88 days)
Posts: 2284
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 108 of 142 (613603)
04-26-2011 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by slevesque
04-26-2011 8:41 AM


Re: Evidence
Admiration is a very strong word, I simply think because with both have a mathematical background that I would have the same approach.

Well you are very clearly wrong about that. Dr Adequate also has a mathematical background. I kinda doubt that he and Berlinski would find much to agree on.

I further doubt that you have as much in common with Berlinski as you seem to think. You are not a professional contrarian, making a career out of controversy. You don't strike me as being an arse. Berlinski does.

And btw, this isn't the topic but, you have a very bizarre view of how a scientists should act if he disagrees with a scientific theory, given what you have said earlier about how science is supposed to work.

Yet here you advice me that if I disagree with the mainstream theory, I should just keep it to myself ?

Yeah, I know that I am somewhat contradicting myself here. I still maintain that you should challenge any theory with which you disagree. I just don't want you to sabotage your scientific career before it has even begun.

It may or may not be fair, but that fact is that your YEC beliefs are laughed at by most scientists. Publicly doubting the Big Bang, one of the most important ideas in physics, is only going to mark you out as a crank. Rightly or wrongly, that kind of talk is something that I would advise you to keep separate from your academic and professional life. It would be naive to do otherwise. I offer this as friendly and well meant advice rather than as something for debate. If you listen to nothing else I say in this thread, please take that advice.

It was simply to try to put a figure on how many scientists doubted the theory of evolution, since you brought up looking at it from a numbers POV in the first place.

Yes. And you have ably demonstrated that it's not very many at all.

I was saying that, if I changed my mind today on YEC and concluded is was false, I would still not believe in the ToE. Meaning that I would prefer to live intellectually unsatisfied rather then embrace a comforting fiction

Seriously though, can you point to any YECs who have abandoned their religion but still retained a vigorous skepticism of evolution? I can't think of any. I can think of quite a few though who have abandoned their religion because they realised that evolution was real and that YE Creationism was a delusion.

I also notice that you have not come up with any more evo-doubters who are not strong theists. I would suggest that there is a reason for this paucity.

I do not deny reality.

People who are in denial rarely perceive that they are in denial.

I know that you think you are right. It's something we'll have to agree to disagree on for now.

No, because I have reasons to doubt evolution that do not rest on my religious convictions. Therefore, were I to abandon my religious convictions, I would still doubt evolution.

Okay then. My advice is that you stop wasting time with me on this thread, take those reasons and start some new threads on them. Bring your biggest concerns to the table and we'll see what we make of them.

You're a smart guy Slevesque, but if you will forgive me for being blunt, I see you talking a lot about philosophy and definitions and kind of talking around the issue. I see you talk far less about the actual science of evolution. I suspect that if you were to shift your emphasis a little more toward the hard facts, you might just come to realise that evolution rests on firmer foundations than you think.

Mutate and Survive


On two occasions I have been asked, "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage
This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by slevesque, posted 04-26-2011 8:41 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by slevesque, posted 04-26-2011 5:51 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 11005
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 109 of 142 (613629)
04-26-2011 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by slevesque
04-26-2011 2:52 AM


CMI are not honest
Their list of "scientists" includes Jack Cuozzo. If they have to pad their list with someone who is NOT a scientist, and is in fact nuts, how can the list be taken seriously ?

But here's better evidence.

The evolution trains acomin which attempts to argue:


How the claimed mechanism for evolution does the wrong thing.

Which in fact means "Natural Selection works in exactly the way evolutionists say it does" Yes, it's the old "natural selection doesn't create" argument (complete with the pretence that evolutionists say that it does). So the article is actually claiming that natural selection works in the RIGHT direction for evolution. True the article does claim that mutation doesn't produce "new information" but that's another dishonest creationist claim. (Creationists have never produced any sensible measure of "information" for this argument so strictly speaking it is nothing more than a vague assertion which cannot even be tested). And in fact we know of a mechanism - genetic duplication and diversification - which adds information by any reasonable standard.

So, while CMI might be better than other YEC organisations, saying so hardly paints a rosy picture of YEC. It seems that the best that can be said of them is that they recognise that some arguments are too weak to be used (true they got into a fight with Kent Hovind over that and it might have contributed to the acrimonious split with the U.S. branch but that only reinforces my point.).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by slevesque, posted 04-26-2011 2:52 AM slevesque has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Theodoric, posted 04-26-2011 1:42 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Tram law
Member (Idle past 1226 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 110 of 142 (613630)
04-26-2011 1:36 PM



If you continue to make general replies I will assume you are just being an asshole and will consider that whenever you post anything.

Then I'll have to consider you a retard for not being able to follow a discussion when I am directly quoting a specific point. You want to be an asshole, I'll just be an asshole right back. Especially when I am not trying to be an asshole and there are no rules in the FAQ that says I must use the general reply button. And I'll treat you accordingly. In other words, screw you.

No, the fault is yours and I will respond how I see fit.

You can consider that being an asshole if you wish.


Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Theodoric, posted 04-26-2011 1:44 PM Tram law has not yet responded
 Message 115 by dwise1, posted 04-26-2011 2:01 PM Tram law has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 4725
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 111 of 142 (613631)
04-26-2011 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by PaulK
04-26-2011 1:20 PM


Re: CMI are not honest
So, while CMI might be better than other YEC organisations

Hardly.

Peruse the articles in their so-called journal. Nutball city.

Their list of "scientists" includes Jack Cuozzo.

Sleve's response will be.
But he studied Neandertal teeth.

Here is a small sample of Cuozzo's cluelessness

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/stringercuozzo.html


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by PaulK, posted 04-26-2011 1:20 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 4725
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 112 of 142 (613632)
04-26-2011 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Tram law
04-26-2011 1:36 PM


I rest my case.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Tram law, posted 04-26-2011 1:36 PM Tram law has not yet responded

    
Tram law
Member (Idle past 1226 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 113 of 142 (613633)
04-26-2011 1:51 PM


No, you don't.
  
Cat Sci
Member
Posts: 9816
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 114 of 142 (613637)
04-26-2011 1:58 PM



Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Tram law, posted 04-26-2011 2:05 PM Cat Sci has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2223
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 115 of 142 (613638)
04-26-2011 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Tram law
04-26-2011 1:36 PM


Whom are you addressing? We have no way of telling unless you reply by clicking the Reply button, in which case your reply will indicate the message you are replying to and hence also to whom.

Basic common courtesy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Tram law, posted 04-26-2011 1:36 PM Tram law has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Theodoric, posted 04-26-2011 2:07 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Tram law
Member (Idle past 1226 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 116 of 142 (613639)
04-26-2011 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Cat Sci
04-26-2011 1:58 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:

Hey, I apologize to you and other members of this board. I was not trying to be an asshole, but I will not be insulted over something extremely petty such as not responding with a reply thing, especially when there are no hard rules in the FAQ that says I must do so.

You guys are far smarter than I am. I am just a layman and you guys are the intellectual elite. You should be smart enough to realize that I am using a direct quote and you should be smart enough to figure out who that quote belongs to.

Now, other than this post, because one person got really upset over this insignificant and petty issue and insulted me for no reason, I feel no need to comply with this request.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Cat Sci, posted 04-26-2011 1:58 PM Cat Sci has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by AZPaul3, posted 04-26-2011 2:14 PM Tram law has responded
 Message 127 by Cat Sci, posted 04-26-2011 3:09 PM Tram law has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 4725
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 117 of 142 (613640)
04-26-2011 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by dwise1
04-26-2011 2:01 PM


Tram law seems to think he is above the need to use basic common courtesy.

According to him we are all retards if we cannot instantly figure out who he is replying to. I wonder when he is going to resort to saying nah nah nah booboo and start swinging his dick around.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by dwise1, posted 04-26-2011 2:01 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 2412
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 118 of 142 (613641)
04-26-2011 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Tram law
04-26-2011 2:05 PM


Now, other than this post, because one person got really upset over this insignificant and petty issue and insulted me for no reason, I feel no need to comply with this request.

Fair enough. However, I'm not one of the intellectual elite and it would be nice to see to who you reply without having to search a thread of hundreds of messages looking. It also makes following the chain easier since all I have to do is click "This message is a reply to ..." for each message as I backtrack the chain.

It's not done for any other reason than to help follow the chain of long tangled discussions. Please help.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Tram law, posted 04-26-2011 2:05 PM Tram law has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Tram law, posted 04-26-2011 2:19 PM AZPaul3 has responded
 Message 121 by Theodoric, posted 04-26-2011 2:19 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 1226 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 119 of 142 (613642)
04-26-2011 2:18 PM


You sure as hell are not using common courtesy through your continued insults that I simply do not deserve.

All you're doing is browbeating me, and I will not respond to being browbeaten or bullied into submission.

And it ceases to be common courtesy when it becomes hard rules. Common courtesy is a request, not a hard rule.

And a request does not have to be granted or followed.


Tram law seems to think

You are the one who's created this, not me. And I will not comply with your request because of your continued attacks against me.

You want me to treat you with respect, you treat me with respect and stop insulting me. I refuse to be in a one way relationship.

And I do not deserve these insults.

I was not being an asshole in the first place.

Thank you for derailing the subject.

Edited by Tram law, : No reason given.


  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 1226 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 120 of 142 (613643)
04-26-2011 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by AZPaul3
04-26-2011 2:14 PM


AZPaul3 writes:

Now, other than this post, because one person got really upset over this insignificant and petty issue and insulted me for no reason, I feel no need to comply with this request.

Fair enough. However, I'm not one of the intellectual elite and it would be nice to see to who you reply without having to search a thread of hundreds of messages looking. It also makes following the chain easier since all I have to do is click "This message is a reply to ..." for each message as I backtrack the chain.

It's not done for any other reason than to help follow the chain of long tangled discussions. Please help.

All right, I will, thank you for asking.

But how does one reply when there are multiple posts to reply from.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by AZPaul3, posted 04-26-2011 2:14 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Theodoric, posted 04-26-2011 2:23 PM Tram law has not yet responded
 Message 124 by AZPaul3, posted 04-26-2011 2:30 PM Tram law has not yet responded
 Message 128 by jar, posted 04-26-2011 3:10 PM Tram law has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
567
8
910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014