Ignorant Creationists vs. Knowledgeable Evolutionists

It is beginning to appear that you don't know the meaning of the word "obfuscation". It is amusing that the second sentence above is a light example of it.

Okay Buz, whatever.

---

How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

It means to confuse, to misconstrue, darken, obscure etc, and you, Ned, are obfuscating my charges of jar's obfuscative post by isolating a short statement outa context from my post. That's dirty pool, somewhat like the thread title, implicating creationists as ignorant because we think and interpret what is observed differently than you.

I don't have time right now, but later today I'm going to try to explain the issue with your position. I'm going to have to spend a bit of time seeing how close to your viewpoint I can get myself first.

This might be a reasonable assumption in say, oooh, a billion years or so, when you can begin to compare things without ignoring huge differences of several orders of magnitude in timescale.If mankind could produce something as complicated as the human brain within a million years of now would you concede that RM/NS might do so given a billion? This is obviously a hypothetical question.TTFN,WK

First, if you will look at my posts I believe you'll find that I was trying to figure out what your position really is. I was asking questions.You claim that you are talking about observations yet what you actually write is quite different.Is this what you wrote? If so, then then let's parse it together.Item one is a stement about machines. No one argues with that statement.But beginning in statement two, you move from observation to beliefs, from science to faith. You are saying that your belief is that the mind is more complex than anything made and that regardless of evidence YOU do not believe something comperable could be made. So it seems to me that you are saying it is simply a matter of your beliefs.Then, in statement 3, you say: So in this statement you affirm that it is simply your belief and that it is based on your interpretation of the Bible. You also say that you will hold that belief regardless of the math or theories. There is no mention of evidence.Finally, in your summation you say: Again, you include "imo" which implies that it is your opinion.Is that a reasonable summation of what you have said?edited to add requisite spelling errors.This message has been edited by jar, 11-19-2004 10:25 AM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

SHUT TUP, BRAT!

---

Rot in a nursing home, jerk!

Children!

I think this paragraph is at the centre of our differences: I hope that you understand that many non-believers(but not all) here don't have a particular arguement with pure religious belief. If you choose to believe something is true for your religious reasons that is fine with most of us.In that case, you also should understand that there is no common ground for a debate. You may say that because of the Bible or some personal religous feeling or experience you have had something is true for you but it will make no difference what-so-ever to us.If you make those claims and then try to make any other arguments about why our understanding of the natural world is wrong or why we should accept your views you start to step into a realm where evidence and logic apply, not faith.It was, IIRC, you who brought up the concept of complexity as if it is some sort of basis for an argument supporting your religious views. This concept is not a religious one. It can be subject to critical analysis. If you don't like that then simply do not bring it up. You have done this sort of thing a number of times.If you step outside of the realm of faith you are subject to critical analysis. It is your choice.While most of us don't have a specific disagreement with faith most of us do have a disagreement with anyone pretending that they can support that faith with natural-world evidence that is subject to examination and testing through the methods of science. We disagree especially strongly that children should be lied to about that.ABEI believe you have suggested that the issue is a matter of "differences of interpretation". If so, perhaps you'd like to give some examples? In this thread WT was asked for examples of how the same facts can be interpreted differently. However, when asked to be specific he never did. Can you? The Interpretation of Evidence Colored by "GodSenseless" worldviewThis message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-19-2004 03:34 PM

No I wouldn't. Look how far ID technology has been advanced via humanity (ID) in just the last two centuries. It's ID that does complex things with precision. I don't think RM/NS, void of ID is capable of producing a human brain in a trillion years.

Jar, you people "believe" certain things based of your observations just as we creos do, though we interpret differently. Just because I used the word "believe" you are spinning the argument set forth in my post as based on faith. So by the same token aren't you implicating that things you "believe" involves "faith?"Please note the word "observe" in item one and the same word "observe" in item two. My point which you are avoiding is that my position is based on observation of how ID is operative in our daily lives to produce complex things with precision and using that observation I go on in item two to say, "by the same token scientists observe......." What in item one or item two makes you think I am moving from science to faith?I believe the human mind is far more complex than anything man-made. No amount of co-operative human intelligence can make one from scratch. Again you're obfuscating/spinning my argument by the way you masterfully rephrased my statement. My argument goes thus:1. What we observe in our lives is that humans, via ID produce complex things with precision.
2. What science observes is that the human mind involves far more complexity and precision than anything man made.
3. As intelligent as men are, all the minds of men combined are unable to produce a living human operative brain.
4. Based on the above observations, I believe it would be impossible for mindless RM/NS void of ID to produce a human living operative brain. If all our intelligence and capabilities combined can't do it, how in the world is it going to simply come to be randomly?So far, how can you construe my argument to be faith based?I believe the human mind is far more complex than anything man-made. No amount of co-operative human intelligence can make one from scratch. Another spin job by the masterful spinster. Please cite where in item 3 my argument set forth "is based on your interpretation of the Bible." I am a fundamental Biblical Creationists,, yes, but all my statements in this argument are based on what is observed by all of us and by science. Oh, come now, jar. You're really scraping the bottom here. Are you implying you have no opinions about how things are? You surely do.No, it's not a reasonable summation. It's a spun up obfuscation of what I posted.

Buz, I quoted what you said exactly. Folk can read your posts and my responses and then make their own decisions. I rephrased nothing, I quoted what YOU wrote.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I didn't say you missquoted me. I said you spun and obfuscated quotes of mine and in at least one place this was done by rephrasing words from my quotes so as to spin my position.So are you going to admit that my argument was indeed based on things observed, as I am contending and not on faith, so we can move on to better use of our time and bandwith, or are we moving on further into this strawman notion of yours?

Buz, the readers can decide what you are saying.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I would say that it is primarily an apologetic argumnet - i.e. one intended to back up a preconcieved view rather than assessing the actual evidence.The essential problem is that it utterly refuses to even consider the capabilities of the processes it is supposedly about. Instead it assumes that human intelligence must do better than any natural process could ever achieve. However genetic algorithms, using processes similar to those of evolution are used precisely because human design skills are inadequate and can be bettered
(an example) http://tetra.mech.ubc.ca/CFD03/papers/paper29PB2.pdfWhile not so obviously wrong as invoking the 2nd Law of Thermodynaimcs to limit Natural Selection, the argument still lacks any value and certainly cannot be used as a valid excuse to set aside the evidence for evolution