Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8873 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-19-2018 7:36 PM
214 online now:
AZPaul3, GDR, JonF, kjsimons, Meddle (5 members, 209 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arkangel Daniel
Post Volume:
Total: 842,381 Year: 17,204/29,783 Month: 1,192/1,956 Week: 189/506 Day: 125/64 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
404142
43
4445Next
Author Topic:   Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3192
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 631 of 661 (828748)
02-23-2018 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 628 by Coyote
02-22-2018 12:26 PM


Re: Why do we have so few creationists
Lies are lies. Period.

Regardless of whether the person telling the lie does so knowingly or believes that lie to be true, it is still a lie and they are still spreading a lie.

The consequences of telling and spreading a lie is the same whether the person telling and spreading that lie knows it to be a lie or thinks that it's true. The consequences are exactly the same.

The only difference is one of moral judgement, since a person has to know that she is telling a lie in order to be a liar. But that still does not make that lie not a lie. A lie is still a lie and still has the same consequences.

BTW, creationists have indeed been caught deliberately lying. On a Yahoo Groups forum (ruined when the moderators dropped out leaving only one moderator, a creationist, who immediately turned it into his own private dictatorship), a creationist tried to use the sea sodium claim, so I corrected him and he fully admitted that that claim was false. Then a few weeks later there he was using that exact same claim on a new-comer, that exact same claim that he knew was false and had admitted was false. When I reminded him of that, he ran away.

Similarly, in their two-models class when Duane Gish was the guest speaker, Thwaites and Awbrey refuted Gish's bombadier beetle claim by mixing those two chemicals together and, lo and behold, they did not explode spontaneously as Gish had claimed. Gish acknowledged that his claim was wrong, but then he continued to use that same false claim with the full knowledge that it was false; ie, he was deliberately lying. Since then the ICR has reworded that claim slightly.

In 1981 on a PBS-TV program, Duane Gish made up lie on the air. In response to Dr. Doolittle's story of comparing human proteins with chimpanzee proteins and trying to find a protein that was different (they did finally find one, but not before rumors had started that the differences between humans and chimps were purely cultural{grin}), Gish claimed to have evidence of a protein that shows humans and bullfrogs to be more closely related. When asked about it, Gish insisted that it did exist and that he had documentation of it. When asked for that documentation, Gish insisted that that documentation existed and that he would send a copy of it. Of course, he never delivered on that promise. Then he found excuses to absolve himself of the responsibility to support his obviously false claim. It turned out that his source was a joke he had once overheard (seriously!). This was a case of Gish deliberately lying. For more information including actual quotes, read my page, THE BULLFROG AFFAIR.

On that same page is the story of Walter Brown's rattlesnake protein claim, which is another deliberate lie. He had to word it very precisely in order to claim it to be technically true. Then when he was observed telling a group that false claim, the observer, Robert Kenney, started to explain the truth about the claim, whereupon Brown immediately changed the subject. Walter Brown knew full well that he was lying.

Leading up to that, Robert Kenney had gone to the ICR in order to ask Gish for the documentation of his false protein comparison claims. Noticing a copy of the article which refuted those claims, Gish referred him to former biologist Gary Parker, whom Kenney could never find, not even at his scheduled office hours.
The ICR promised to send Kenney that documentation, which of course never happened. Deliberate covering up of their deliberate lies.

In his false moondust claim, Henry Morris falsely claimed that his source was a "1976" NASA document, when in reality his source was another creationist, Harold Slusher, who misquoted that 1965 NASA document as well as misrepresenting its publication date -- that "1976" date was very important to Morris because he was trying to refute the observation that creationists keep using out-of-date sources. When I wrote to Morris with questions, Gish responded. When I found the NASA document in the university library and learned the truth, I wrote to Gish with a xerox copy of the document's cover. Gish insisted on the "1976" date. I wrote back with the same xerox copies and Gish never replied again. Two astronomers went through the same evolution only with Henry Morris and they got the same bum's rush. A year or two later, I went to a local Gish presentation after which I asked him about that claim. He feigned complete ignorance of it, but took down my name and address to send me the information I requested. Suddenly my subscription to the ICR newsletter, Acts & Facts, was cancelled -- even Dr. Eugenie Scott was shocked that Gish would sink so low as to do that. Again, deliberate lies and cover-ups of their lies. See my page, MOON DUST.

So then even though many creationists actually do believe their lies, many creationists are undeniably lying deliberately. I have written (and need to rewrite) an attempt to analyze what's happening.

Most creationists don't know any better and simply accept what they're told; these same creationists normally don't get out and present these claims to non-believers, so their false beliefs are never exposed to the truth and challenged. When they do venture out to proselytize or to do battle with the Enemy, they quickly learn which claims to avoid using because they are proven to be false -- whether or not they allow themselves to admit to themselves that their claims are false, they do nonetheless learn to cover up their claims' weaknesses. The more active a creationist becomes, the more they experience contact with non-believers and the more they are exposed to the truth and the more their claims are challenged and are exposed as lies. So the primary factor is how active a creationist is, which will determine how much he is exposed to the weakness of his claims, etc.

The next question is how a creationist reacts and responds to learning that his claims (and hence his beliefs) are false. My opinion is that they cannot help but respond with increasing levels of dishonesty, starting with self-deception and delusion which can escalate to outright deliberate lies and deception.

One of the reasons why we have so few creationists is that they cannot withstand exposure to the truth about their claims. Most creationists cannot maintain the necessary levels of dishonesty while also deceiving themselves into believing that they are not being dishonest. As a result, the only creationists who stick around end up being the most extreme cases.

I have met honest creationists before. Merle was a creationist on CompuServe who, unlike all the other creationists there, would make honest attempts at discussion and would actually research his responses. After about a year, he had switched to the evolution side. Honest creationists simply do not last long. Only the dishonest ones have any lasting power.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 628 by Coyote, posted 02-22-2018 12:26 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 640 by Phat, posted 05-30-2018 8:40 AM dwise1 has responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3480
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 632 of 661 (833482)
05-21-2018 3:37 PM


Message 259 banning Faith.

I agree.

However ...

it is not entirely Faiths fault---she is often goaded by other members who know just how to push her buttons.

There was some very aggressive button pushing in play here. Where is the ban on those initiators?

Seems a bit one-sided from here.


Replies to this message:
 Message 633 by AdminPhat, posted 05-21-2018 3:50 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1886
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 633 of 661 (833483)
05-21-2018 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 632 by AZPaul3
05-21-2018 3:37 PM


Concerning The Need For Discussions and "The Last Word"
It all started when i stepped in here and shut a runaway insult-fest down for an hour. That was essentially my blanket warning. Faith and I then exchanged a private message. Meanwhile, publically she was demanding action. Percy seems to be able to describe her habits and actions quite well.

All that I will comment is that she has the same addiction to these types of conversations as we all do...I know I find it tempting to have the last word in many a debate exchange. Nobody is getting banned or suspended for any length of time---we all need each other, we just need to be polite about it.

Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.


  • Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.
  • Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation.
  • The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 632 by AZPaul3, posted 05-21-2018 3:37 PM AZPaul3 has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 634 by AZPaul3, posted 05-21-2018 4:52 PM AdminPhat has acknowledged this reply

        
    AZPaul3
    Member
    Posts: 3480
    From: Phoenix
    Joined: 11-06-2006
    Member Rating: 2.3


    Message 634 of 661 (833487)
    05-21-2018 4:52 PM
    Reply to: Message 633 by AdminPhat
    05-21-2018 3:50 PM


    Re: Concerning The Need For Discussions and "The Last Word"
    Nobody is getting banned or suspended for any length of time--

    Faith suspended 4 days seems a length of time to me.

    But the offending message I have in mind did take place before your well deserved timeout.

    Your call. I have no quibbles to make.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 633 by AdminPhat, posted 05-21-2018 3:50 PM AdminPhat has acknowledged this reply

      
    Faith
    Member
    Posts: 30079
    From: Nevada, USA
    Joined: 10-06-2001
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 635 of 661 (834022)
    05-29-2018 11:19 AM


    some aggressive off topic posting
    Registering a few complaints about jar who has intentionally misattributed a quote to me while at the same time continuing the political theme I just asked people not to continue on the thread about Christian principles in government:

    Message 77

    Earlier on the thread about historical science he also posted his off topic demand that I explain various geological phenomena because I wasn't interested in that topic when he first posted it.

    Message 20

    And let me add his latest Message 91 posting of the same off topic material along with a personal accusation of me, which he continues in the next post on this thread as well where he says he attributed no quote to me. OK, but he addressed this repeated post TO me while aggressively ignoring my request to take the politics elsewhere.

    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

    Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


    Replies to this message:
     Message 636 by jar, posted 05-29-2018 11:25 AM Faith has not yet responded
     Message 638 by Phat, posted 05-30-2018 3:22 AM Faith has not yet responded

        
    jar
    Member
    Posts: 30934
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004
    Member Rating: 1.3


    Message 636 of 661 (834023)
    05-29-2018 11:25 AM
    Reply to: Message 635 by Faith
    05-29-2018 11:19 AM


    Re: some aggressive off topic posting
    Maybe learning to read is another thing you have decided to not understand. There is no quote attributed to you in that message.

    My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 635 by Faith, posted 05-29-2018 11:19 AM Faith has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 637 by Phat, posted 05-30-2018 2:52 AM jar has not yet responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 11444
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    (1)
    Message 637 of 661 (834077)
    05-30-2018 2:52 AM
    Reply to: Message 636 by jar
    05-29-2018 11:25 AM


    Re: some aggressive off topic posting
    She does have a point. You keep challenging her to address you in your thread and you often insult her personally by asking her if she has ever read the bible and does she know what evidence is....etc...sometimes you get a bit carried away.

    Look at what you said here:

    jar writes:

    What she thinks is irrelevant.

    The fact is that she cannot provide a single possible model, method, mechanism, process or procedure to explain the reality that is the geology, paleontology, radiometric data, isotopic data, cultural data and other things that exist in the real world.

    You may have won the argument at the expense of belittling your opponent. Not consistent with our Forum Guidelines.

    In my opinion, what she thinks is a sacred right of free speech. She can put her own foot in her mouth at times, but you certainly don't need to belittle her intelligence. This is not a high school argument on the front porch late at night where no prisoners are taken. Faith is the epitome of the creationist side. Without her there would be precious few debates even occurring here.

    Thats my 2 cents.

    Edited by Phat, : added

    Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 636 by jar, posted 05-29-2018 11:25 AM jar has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 641 by ringo, posted 05-30-2018 3:30 PM Phat has not yet responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 11444
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 638 of 661 (834079)
    05-30-2018 3:22 AM
    Reply to: Message 635 by Faith
    05-29-2018 11:19 AM


    Re: some aggressive off topic posting
    I'll take your side here against jar, but I notice that you are being a bit aggressive towards edge. We all get a bit carried away at times...myself included.

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 635 by Faith, posted 05-29-2018 11:19 AM Faith has not yet responded

      
    AdminPhat
    Administrator
    Posts: 1886
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-03-2004


    Message 639 of 661 (834080)
    05-30-2018 3:32 AM


    I May Experiment With Time Outs
    Perhaps instead of suspending individuals in the case of heated argumentative exchanges and personal jabs, we administrators should simply give the topic a brief timeout in order to let everybody re-examine the basic argument and focus more on thinking through the response, focusing on the position and not the opponent. I'm thinking topic timeouts could last as little as an hour and no longer than a day.

    Who thinks this might work? (Brief comments only...no lengthy discussion) Just give me a thumbs up or down.

    Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.

    Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.


  • Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.
  • Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation.
  • The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.

  •     
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 11444
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 640 of 661 (834083)
    05-30-2018 8:40 AM
    Reply to: Message 631 by dwise1
    02-23-2018 2:17 PM


    Re: Why do we have so few creationists
    dwise1 writes:

    Lies are lies. Period.
    Regardless of whether the person telling the lie does so knowingly or believes that lie to be true, it is still a lie and they are still spreading a lie.

    The consequences of telling and spreading a lie is the same whether the person telling and spreading that lie knows it to be a lie or thinks that it's true. The consequences are exactly the same.

    The only difference is one of moral judgment since a person has to know that she is telling a lie in order to be a liar. But that still does not make that lie not a lie. A lie is still a lie and still has the same consequences.

    I disagree. In a forum conversation, there are differing points of view and interpretations of data. If a person is ignorant of the lie, and if the lie can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be a factual falsehood, this still gives no one the right to brand an individual as a lier.

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 631 by dwise1, posted 02-23-2018 2:17 PM dwise1 has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 642 by dwise1, posted 05-31-2018 9:02 AM Phat has responded

      
    ringo
    Member
    Posts: 15606
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005
    Member Rating: 1.6


    Message 641 of 661 (834101)
    05-30-2018 3:30 PM
    Reply to: Message 637 by Phat
    05-30-2018 2:52 AM


    Re: some aggressive off topic posting
    Phat writes:

    ... you often insult her personally by asking her if she has ever read the bible....


    Why would that be insulting? If I ask you if you've ever read Pearson's James Bond: The Authorized Biography of 007, are you insulted? Do you even have a right to be insulted?

    What's insulting is somebody claiming to have read a book and then habitually contradicting everything it says.


    An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 637 by Phat, posted 05-30-2018 2:52 AM Phat has not yet responded

      
    dwise1
    Member
    Posts: 3192
    Joined: 05-02-2006
    Member Rating: 3.8


    Message 642 of 661 (834147)
    05-31-2018 9:02 AM
    Reply to: Message 640 by Phat
    05-30-2018 8:40 AM


    Re: Why do we have so few creationists
    You wrote:
    Phat writes:

    I disagree. In a forum conversation, there are differing points of view and interpretations of data. If a person is ignorant of the lie, and if the lie can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be a factual falsehood, this still gives no one the right to brand an individual as a lier.

    And yet I had written (as you just quoted me):

    DWise1 writes:

    Lies are lies. Period.
    Regardless of whether the person telling the lie does so knowingly or believes that lie to be true, it is still a lie and they are still spreading a lie.

    The consequences of telling and spreading a lie is the same whether the person telling and spreading that lie knows it to be a lie or thinks that it's true. The consequences are exactly the same.

    The only difference is one of moral judgment since a person has to know that she is telling a lie in order to be a liar. But that still does not make that lie not a lie. A lie is still a lie and still has the same consequences.

    So just what the hell do you think you are disagreeing with? The fact that I had said the same thing that you just said? What?

    Let me put that part in bold for you:

    DWise1 writes:

    The only difference is one of moral judgment since a person has to know that she is telling a lie in order to be a liar. But that still does not make that lie not a lie. A lie is still a lie and still has the same consequences.

    If you want to disagree with me on something, then do so. But if you can only disagree with me by accusing me of having written something that I very clearly did not, then please refrain from doing so.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 640 by Phat, posted 05-30-2018 8:40 AM Phat has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 643 by Phat, posted 05-31-2018 11:34 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

        
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 11444
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 643 of 661 (834156)
    05-31-2018 11:34 AM
    Reply to: Message 642 by dwise1
    05-31-2018 9:02 AM


    Re: Why do we have so few creationists
    Perhaps my objection could have been better written, but my position is essentially the same as caffeine. here. If there is to be a debate at all, the evolutionist side cannot simply claim that they have defined the rules according to reality and thus frame the debate in the context of truth vs lies. It is fair game to attack the so-called lies themselves without connecting them to the creationist. My position is that no side has a right to reality in this discussion. Reality is suspended for the purpose of reasoned argumentation.

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 642 by dwise1, posted 05-31-2018 9:02 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 644 by ringo, posted 05-31-2018 12:02 PM Phat has responded

      
    ringo
    Member
    Posts: 15606
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005
    Member Rating: 1.6


    Message 644 of 661 (834159)
    05-31-2018 12:02 PM
    Reply to: Message 643 by Phat
    05-31-2018 11:34 AM


    Re: Why do we have so few creationists
    Phat writes:

    Reality is suspended for the purpose of reasoned argumentation.


    There isn't much point to "reasoning" if it isn't anchored in reality.

    An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 643 by Phat, posted 05-31-2018 11:34 AM Phat has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 645 by Phat, posted 05-31-2018 12:16 PM ringo has responded

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 11444
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.2


    Message 645 of 661 (834161)
    05-31-2018 12:16 PM
    Reply to: Message 644 by ringo
    05-31-2018 12:02 PM


    Re: Why do we have so few creationists
    The point is that you have no right to claim the default position

    Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
    "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
    ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
    Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 644 by ringo, posted 05-31-2018 12:02 PM ringo has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 646 by ringo, posted 05-31-2018 12:38 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
     Message 647 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-31-2018 12:39 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

      
    RewPrev1
    ...
    404142
    43
    4445Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018