A Guide to the tactics of Evolutionists

Uh huh....seems like DA posted a good 10-20 times, calling me a liar, falsely I might add since I explained to him fully what I meant by refusing to debate, and yet he was just warned, and now banned for a day or something.I don't think there is an IDer or creationist on this board that could get away with doing that.Heck, jar and others called me a liar essentially for a very long time, and then I respond back, not too often either, and point out where I don't think he was truthful, and wholla, I am banned.But I do see where others didn't just a get a warning.....I think their general attitude is always present, and always wrong, and whether the word "liar" comes up, that many evos assume the reason people disagree with them is because they are "lying for Jesus."I'll be gone 10 days or so after today anyway....in case anyone wonders...I'll check back then, but have little hope DA will address the topic, nor refrain from immediately trying to be insulting. He's learned that ridicule and abuse is acceptable within limits at EvC, and that the other side cannot do the same, and so he finds himself perplexed that at Showcase the same doesn't hold.....imho.Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Yes and no. You admit that God as a concept is natural and so within the realm of science, correct?All of those things as concepts are real. They may not be real, just as the Biogenetic Law of recapitulation wasn't real , but they are real or natural in the sense that if they are true, they are natural and real. Even within science, there is room for theories about what something is. Some fossils are found and thought to be of one species and then they are later considered to be of another, but the fossils are real. People are detecting something in the spiritual arena. You can argue it's just emotions, or you can argue it's Jesus or whatever, but that doesn't mean the thing itself is by definition outside the realm of science and nature.I think we are in agreement there now, which is significant. But here you slip back into the old evo way.....smearing your critics' motives falsely (your smear is a lie by the way), and also providing false data to somehow back up your claim. Your false data is the absurd notion I prefer fuzzy thinking. Heck, I spend enormous amounts of time trying to correct the fuzzy thinking of evos like yourself (Take a look at the TalkOrigins thread for example, or trying to at least get across the concept to you that Spinoza was a theologian). However, it is evidence of something going on. There is a phenomena, whether real or imagined, and that is an area science could presumably investigate, and so taking an ID approach to see if the data fits is 100% proper. Another false smear on your part, and a dumb smear on that, not worthy of a response. Name the evidence I have discussed in a science forum that qualifies as unscientific quality.Prove your point or withdraw it and apologize, please.How is discussing Pakicetus, the fossil record, whale fossils, genetics, mutation, definitions of evolution and randomness, Haeckel, peppered moths, quantum physics, etc, etc,.....discussions of unscientific evidence?Moreover, though I do discuss how some of the Bible dovetails with factual findings, the simple truth is ID does not make a statement about the nature of the Designer, but is restricted to the concept itself, not theological speculations of what the Designer should and should not do, as evos do all the time. So a Hindu, Muslim, Spinozan, Christian, whoever could all be IDers without ever advancing their particular religion. I would have thought you garnered this much by now, but evidently you failed to read and listen and so continually misrepresent what I have posted.Is it deliberate on your part? Which is why I am not an evo. Evo models do not match the facts, and evos have presented false data and analysis as facts when they were not, as well as false logic.

percy, I only had time to read the post banning DA ....I am heading overseas but will be back in Feb and read and respond to your post and others then.thanks for your patience

So if I am positing a concept of God where part of His being and substance is detectable, you admit that this concept of God makes Him natural or partly natural? and so potentially within the scope of science? If something is detectable by people, why wouldn't it be within the realm of science? Really? How would we know if science delves into spiritual areas? Wouldn't the most logical thing to be if we considered what a spiritual tradition claimed about spiritual principles interacting with reality, and then if we see such principles at work, we could say, hey, this looks like we are getting into spiritual realities?I think if you really studied what spiritual traditions say about reality, and studied QM with an open mind, you would probably agree that QM appears to involve spiritual dimensions.

If someone wants to see circular reasoning of evos in operation, just check out this thread where nemesis asks. http://EvC Forum: Population Genetics -->EvC Forum: Population GeneticsThe response of evos is quite predictable. In other words, if data does not support ToE, then the data must be wrong because ToE is a fact. This really is the basic approach of evolutionism.RAZD echoes the same error. Keep in mind the facts "it" doesn't explain are evo theory. There is no refuting of the math, of the concept on data, but rather because it must be that man evolved from apes naturally, and so any analysis that suggests otherwise must be wrong.....not explaining "reality", better understood as evo doctrine.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Well, if you'd just drop all the bull-crap, personal assumptions and nastiness for a minute, you might just see my questions here as completely straightforward. Basically, I am not asking you about your beliefs per se on God, but rather about the concept of God related to science. Let me repeat, about the CONCEPT. The CONCEPT of a God where part of His being and substance is intertwined or partly detectable would make that God "natural" in the sense we are discussing.Yes, or no?The point in asking is very straightforward as well. You guys, meaning the evo camp, often claim that God is by definition supernatural and off-limits to science. I am saying this is nothing but sophistry since the concept of God includes an immanent aspect in most spiritual traditions. Immanence refers to God's being and presence within the creation. Transcendance refers to God being above and apart from the creation or universe. Both aspects of God exist within traditional biblical and Christian theology, but some theology only includes one or the other.So just to reiterate so there is no misunderstanding. The reason to ask you the question is to obtain some clarity to move the conversation forward. Do you or do you not accept that a concept of God where His being is partly detectable makes God at least partly natural per science?I am not asking you what you believe about God, but rather about a specific concept about God.Understand? I think you need to look in the mirror. Evos are the ones doing what you accuse me of. You guys have stated as much. You think no reasonable, educated, intelligent, and objective person can look at the data impartially and reject ToE as hogwash, and your attitude and those of most evos here display that underlying, but false belief. I am not the one that thinks you guys are always lying to yourselves. I have said on more than one occasion that I think the indoctrination process in the way ToE is presented clouds sound reason and so in one way, you can hardly help yourself in beleiving the sham.

Percy, you realize that this thread and it's title is basically a semi-parody of the exact same thread promoted on this forum about creationists?It's not that this is not a serious thread, and in that sense, it is not a parody, but keep in mind the tone and title of the thread is basically copying what you guys promoted in the main forum.Why do you think promoting these beliefs and attitudes about your critics is appropiate and will further your goals of civil discussion, but that if your critics do the same, it is wrong and should be penalized?

I think the evidence for God is amply provided in the design of the universe. Now, that could be the Christian or Spinozan God admittedly, and we haven't progressed and probably never will to the point where science can be all we need theologically. I think there are aspects of spiritual principles within the domain of science, and aspects of theology that will never be. Ok, so we can move the discussion forward. One of the objections towards ID is that science can never, by definition, deal with the reality of God as a causal agent for the universe and physical reality. My hope is you can see this is wrong.If you want to ignore, imo, the design argument and say science cannot YET address God as causal, I will disagree but understand you genuinely think that. But what I think is categorically wrong is to dismiss ID as by definition outside the realm of science.Hopefully you will see this an advancement of nuanced understanding of the debate?

Percy, we do detect God, however, by detecting design in the universe. It is clear that some sort of Intelligence is involved in the creation of the universe. We also have evidence that without consciousness for observation, according to guys like Wheeler, the building blocks of matter cannot take on form, and so the universe cannot exist without Intelligence.This discovery within QM is predicted by ID or design theory. In other words, we see design which from everything we know stems from intelligence, and we would predict that prior to any physical form, if there is a God, Intelligence must exist, and lo and behold, we find that Intelligence and Consciousness are prerequisites to the formation of matter.The fact we cannot perhaps directly observe God does not change that we indirectly do.

You believe that percy? You really think evos are not saying God is off-limits to science a priori?You want me to go through some posts here on EvC or statements elsewhere to demonstrate that evos do hold this position?

I genuinely believe if you would divorce yourself from the beliefs these discussions entailed, you would see I have acted better, not worse, than my critics. It seems, however, you are bent on ignoring an objective view of the facts, as I tried to show in getting you to see where the exact same post was lauded by a poster that wanted discussion and other posters immediately criticized it and started down a path of ridicule, hostility, rules-breaking, unfounded accusations, etc, etc.....all without censure, as is normal.....I did not reply in kind, but it made no difference in ameliorating these guys wanting to make things personal because the issue isn't my posting style or my attitude. The issue really lies with coddling evo posters that feel justified and empowered and indeed are empowered, to continue the worst behaviour possible with only a few facing any serious moderation whatsoever.If Jesus Himself was posting here and took the same arguments I have made, I suspect you guys would say he wasn't a nice guy either and would have a lot of problems with Him as well, accusing Him of intellectual dishonesty, a bad attitude, etc.....You basically have a very partisan moderation group with a couple of less active creationist posters, as far as I can tell, but at least with Buzz I can say this....His stance, like many Christians however, is that the Christians and IDers and creationists should behave better than the others to win them over. That is all fine and well and good. However, it should not lead to varying standards where effectively one side in debate is given leeway to make false accusations and personal insults and attacks all day long, as is the case with evos here, and creationists and IDers are considered somehow to blame. I am not saying that buzz is contributing to that, but I do think it is a risk considering his beliefs.What would be better is to see a creationist of ID moderator e given the leeway someone like Nosy has, who routinely moderates so biased as to be near laughable. Not saying the IDer should be biased liek Nosy and some others, but if they were to weigh in continually to force evos to behave and be given leeway to do that, you might see an improvement.I have noticed that when you have had creationist posters in the past moderate an evo, it often as was the case with me, it led to their dismissal. Imo, this is once again evidence that it's not the creationists here causing the problems, but rather the coddling of evos being given a pass to falsely smear and attack their critics on a personal level.It's no accident that most well-reasoned critics of evolution are eventually forced and harassed from this site. It isn't that their arguments are ever defeated, but that they are harassed by the biased moderation and false accusations, and just to be clear, although this is not "nice", you are empowering this and undermining your stated goal of "discussion" in a civil tone by continuing to blame IDers and creationists rather than the evos that are actually igniting and driving the poor tone, lack of civility and personal attacks.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

I'd say it's half and half......half the evos say this, and others ridicule this concept. Brenna, for example, was critical of Dawkins over this basically, and Crash insisted that the only reasonable inference is hostility towards faith in God or some such. But maybe most are like you here....we'd have to poll folks.More significantly, the shapers of evolutionism have essentially taken the opposite view of your's and held to the belief that Darwin's significance is to discredit the concept of a Creator God. When asked on the Charlie Rose show for example, Wilson and the other guy (just forgot his name) made that abundantly clear and ridiculed any scientist having faith, one of them saying they knew of no scientist, and I assume they mean credible scientist that believed, and the other corrected him, if my memory serves me correct, and they admitted they knew one. Rose confirmed it was Charlie Rose.Personally, I think these esteemed evo gentlemen's remarks ought to be eye-opening and that rather than try to defend those remarks, I think it's important for you and others to see that indeed they do believe science disproves the existence of God. I agree that this is an absurd and nonsensical position, but I also believe they understand evolutionary theory much better than you do, and they are rightly communicating it's heart and logic in their denunciation of the concept of God.

Civility? I waa aware to a degree of his accomplishments.....just couldn't think of the name for a sec, and yes I saw the smiley.Oh, and really the thing that they only were talking of a personal God is a stretch. If that was the case, why not say that?Moreover, there are plenty of other scientists that believe in a personal God. What they were saying and did say is that they believe science and Darwin's discoveries exclude belief in God. If you want to whitewash it and claim they only meant the Christian or Jewish God or a personal God, it really makes no difference at all for this discussion. It's still nonsense and yet that nonsense is the very heart and soul, or as they said the primary "significance", of Darwinism. Which just shows that it's possible to make an advance in a field of science without having a clue about what science actually is, it's significance, nor what reasonable logic is either. I suppose this is the result of the specialized nature of science, but it's still quite pathetic and delusional on their part.

That's what you should expect intelligent, independent thinkers to do....

Just have to drop in here. So what? Science cannot as of today detect it, right?God is potentially detectable as well, but somehow despite the fact we cannot detect abiogenesis, and it seems pretty far-fetched since it's adovocates mostly advocate it occurring just once here on earth and it really is a form of sponteneous generation and counters everything we know about biology, somehow evos can go as far as to claim IT IS A FACT....lol.But God isn't?At least with God, we have some subjective evidence in the form of people's reports and indirect, objective evidence via the creation. With abiogenesis, we have nothing......and yet it is a FACT!Science? or something else?Edited by randman, : No reason given.