Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discussing the evidence that support creationism
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 196 of 301 (442943)
12-23-2007 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Cold Foreign Object
12-22-2007 7:47 PM


The Emperor's New Clothes
The first thing you will learn about is the Emperor's New Clothes, which is a metaphoric story corresponding to society today.
One thing about that story that you might like to think about is that if you'd gone round all the people in the crowd and asked them to describe the clothes, they'd all have given radically different answers.
So, for example, you write:
I was attempting to say that whatever arguments are made to support a young earth I reject. Everything else is top notch stuff.
It's as though a man in the crowd was to say: "The emperor's flowing, elegant satin garments are flesh-pink. Now the guy standing next to me is convinced that his clothes are bright blue, but every other part of his description is top-notch stuff".
The last person to try this trope on me was one of the 9/11 Truth mob. I answered him as follows:
Dr Adequate writes:
Troofers: What beautiful clothes the Emperor's wearing!
Debunkers: Er, we're looking at him, and he's stark naked.
Troofer #1: Then how do you explain his satin garb of red and black checks?
Debunkers: But he's not wearing any clothes.
Troofer #2: There is abundant evidence that he's clad in garments of orange and ultraviolet striped cotton, but you won't admit it 'cos you're in denial.
Debunkers: And because we can't see them.
Troofer #3: His clothes are woven from silk of the purest sky blue pink. Any fool can see that.
Debunkers: Look, we can see all his naughty bits.
Troofer #4: No, I have scientific proof that he's wearing a costume fabricated out of microwave radiation by Keebler Elves.
Debunkers: But, look, the man is wearing nothing whatsoever. That's why you can't agree what he's wearing.
Troofers #1, #2, #3, and #4, in perfect unison: But at least we all agree that he is wearing clothes, unlike you poor brainwashed conformists.
I also wrote:
Dr Adequate writes:
A similar thing happens with Creationism, of course. I've seen them arguing that all sedimentary rocks were deposited by the Flood; that only some sedimentary rocks were deposited during the Flood; that sedimentary rocks were creating by God "in the beginning"; that such rocks all postdate the Flood; that there were no mountains before the Flood; that marine fossils were deposited on mountains during the Flood ... the one thing their gibberish has in common is that they all believe that there was a magic flood.
Meanwhile, those geologists who spend their entire professional lives studying rocks all agree that there was no magic flood, and they also agree about the details of geology. To extend the metaphor, they all independently agree on what tattoos the Emperor has on his butt.
We might call it the E.N.C. principle. Mindless conformity to a preconceived dogma which is not evidence based will agree on the dogma, but not on the details, and indeed will splinter into sects according to the details which they invent without evidence. By contrast, intelligent and open-minded people trying to make their ideas conform to reality by studying the evidence will be in pretty good agreement as to the details, because these details will be drawn from reality and conform with the evidence.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-22-2007 7:47 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-23-2007 5:28 PM Dr Adequate has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 197 of 301 (443033)
12-23-2007 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by jar
12-22-2007 7:22 PM


Re: Evidence and Creationism in the same sentence?
CFO writes:
Could you please show us where Aquilegia or any Creationist came to this Forum to learn?
There is no indication so far that Creationists can learn.
I must disagree. I have seen creationists learn. At which point they began to stop being creationists.
{DISCLAIMER: by "creationist", we mean "creation science" believing YECs. Statemens here are not at all intended to say that loss of "creation science" YEC beliefs must also include loss of belief in creation or in God, though solely because of creationist lies that is all too often the result. }

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by jar, posted 12-22-2007 7:22 PM jar has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 198 of 301 (443055)
12-23-2007 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by dwise1
11-12-2007 10:24 PM


Re: Evolutionism Definition
dwise1 writes:
Evolution, not evolutionism! Why did you just pull a bait-and-switch there? We were talking about evolution, but you switched it to a creationist invention, a manufactured scapegoat. A lie, a deception.
Evolutionism is in the dictionaries and all over the www. It's definition is the same as that of evolution for all practical purposes.
Definition of evolutionism according to the free online dictionary:
ev·o·lu·tion·ism (v-lsh-nzm, v-)
n.
1. A theory of biological evolution, especially that formulated by Charles Darwin.
2. Advocacy of or belief in biological evolution.
Evolutionism - definition of evolutionism by The Free Dictionary
Evolutionists do their best to disclaim the ligitimate term of the English language so as to have the edge on the creationism vs evolutionism debate. Evolutionist scientists tend to avoid the term for that reason. The word belief is another ligitimate word which evolutionists purposefully avoid for the same reason.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 10:24 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-23-2007 4:58 PM Buzsaw has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 199 of 301 (443062)
12-23-2007 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Buzsaw
12-23-2007 4:35 PM


Re: Evolutionism Definition
Evolutionism is in the dictionaries and all over the www. It's definition is the same as that of evolution for all practical purposes.
No.
Definition of evolutionism according to the free online dictionary:
You will notice that neither of those definitions is synonymous with "evolution", as you can easily see by substituting either such definition into sentences containing the word "evolution".
The word belief is another ligitimate word which evolutionists purposefully avoid for the same reason.
Actually they avoid it to prevent dishonest creationists from conflating it with "faith".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Buzsaw, posted 12-23-2007 4:35 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Buzsaw, posted 12-23-2007 5:58 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 200 of 301 (443064)
12-23-2007 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by jar
12-22-2007 7:56 PM


Re: A new, all-time low for Ray
The topic, in case you missed it, is "Discussing the evidence that support creationism".
Do you ever expect to actually present something on topic?
Okay, let's start with reality: the observation of design seen abundantly in nature and organisms.
design indicates Designer = evidence supporting Creationism based on observation, which is the cornerstone of science.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by jar, posted 12-22-2007 7:56 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by NosyNed, posted 12-23-2007 5:13 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 202 by jar, posted 12-23-2007 5:14 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 204 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-23-2007 5:30 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 201 of 301 (443065)
12-23-2007 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Cold Foreign Object
12-23-2007 5:10 PM


This design indicates NO designer
Okay, let's start with reality: the observation of design seen abundantly in nature and organisms.
design indicates Designer = evidence supporting Creationism based on observation, which is the cornerstone of science.
Why, then Ray, have you avoided this thread?
Distinguishing "designs"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-23-2007 5:10 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-23-2007 5:39 PM NosyNed has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 202 of 301 (443066)
12-23-2007 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Cold Foreign Object
12-23-2007 5:10 PM


Re: A new, all-time low for Ray
Okay, let's start with reality: the observation of design seen abundantly in nature and organisms.
Sorry but you have never presented any evidence of design, only the assertion (unsupported) of the appearance of design.
design indicates Designer = evidence supporting Creationism based on observation, which is the cornerstone of science.
Sorry but that is simply assertion piled on assertion.
Thanks for playing.

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-23-2007 5:10 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 203 of 301 (443073)
12-23-2007 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by Dr Adequate
12-23-2007 6:50 AM


Re: The Emperor's New Clothes
One thing about that story that you might like to think about is that if you'd gone round all the people in the crowd and asked them to describe the clothes, they'd all have given radically different answers.
[SNIP...]
It's as though a man in the crowd was to say: "The emperor's flowing, elegant satin garments are flesh-pink. Now the guy standing next to me is convinced that his clothes are bright blue, but every other part of his description is top-notch stuff".
It is of no surprise that you have missed the point or do not understand at all.
The Emperor's New Clothes story is the traditional metaphor that Creationists have adopted to describe the success of the Theory of Evolution.
The Emperor represents the recognized status quo, whether it be the government or the media or the scientific community or all three. Everyone is afraid of their powers so they commend the Emperor. But in reality the Emperor is naked. His nakedness in comparison to the adoration of his new clothes is in direct ratio equal to the degree that the masses are afraid to offend him and the consequences that will befall.
Since the Emperor is naked, this represents the amount of evidence that evolution actually has - ZERO. But it carries on in success because everyone is afraid to offend the Emperor and tell him that his new clothes are not even bad since they do not even exist.
Again, this is how we explain the success of a theory that has no legitimate or credible evidence.
I recommended the website except for those parts which argue for a young Earth (I am a OEC).
Ray
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-23-2007 6:50 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-23-2007 5:36 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 204 of 301 (443075)
12-23-2007 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Cold Foreign Object
12-23-2007 5:10 PM


Petitio Principii, A Game For Any Number Of Players
Okay, let's start with reality: the observation of design seen abundantly in nature and organisms.
design indicates Designer = evidence supporting Creationism based on observation, which is the cornerstone of science.
Okay, let's start with reality: the observation of adaptation seen abundantly in nature and organisms.
Adaptation indicates evolution = evidence supporting the theory of evolution based on observation, which is the cornerstone of science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-23-2007 5:10 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 205 of 301 (443076)
12-23-2007 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Cold Foreign Object
12-23-2007 5:28 PM


Re: The Emperor's New Clothes
It is of no surprise that you have missed the point or do not understand at all.
I have neither "missed the point" nor failed to "understand at all". I know perfectly well what you mean. I am pointing out that you are wrong, and that it is creationists who correspond to the believers in the Emperor's new clothes. This is why, as I pointed out, you are unable to agree amongst yourselves whether your Emperor is clad in orange velvet or purple silk or sky-blue pink cotton. You just agree that he has clothes, and very fine ones at that.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-23-2007 5:28 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 206 of 301 (443077)
12-23-2007 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by NosyNed
12-23-2007 5:13 PM


Re: This design indicates NO designer
Why, then Ray, have you avoided this thread?
Thread Distinguishing "designs" in Forum Intelligent Design
I haven't avoided anything. Maybe I will take my reply over there.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by NosyNed, posted 12-23-2007 5:13 PM NosyNed has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 301 (443083)
12-23-2007 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Dr Adequate
12-23-2007 4:58 PM


Re: Evolutionism Definition
DA writes:
You will notice that neither of those definitions is synonymous with "evolution", as you can easily see by substituting either such definition into sentences containing the word "evolution".
For all practical purposes, why not? You're being nitty picky for the sake of argument. If Dwise's contention was valid journalists should have the same problem with the term journalism. What's the difference?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-23-2007 4:58 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-23-2007 6:11 PM Buzsaw has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 208 of 301 (443084)
12-23-2007 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Buzsaw
12-23-2007 5:58 PM


Re: Evolutionism Definition
For all practical purposes, why not?
As I pointed out, you can substitute those definitions of evolutionism (nor, indeed, the word "evolutionism" for the word "evolution") with any reasonable expectation of getting a sensible sentence out of it.
You're being nitty picky for the sake of argument. If Dwise's contention was valid journalists should have the same problem with the term journalism. What's the difference?
They would certainly have a problem if you used the word "journalism" to mean "journal".
---
Consider these pairs of sentences, and see which ones are English.
* Evolution has been occurring for billions of years.
* Evolutionism has been occurring for billions of years.
* Darwin came up with an explanation for evolution.
* Darwin came up with an explanation for evolutionism.
* Evolution happens in accordance with Darwin's theory.
* Evolutionism happens in accordance with Darwin's theory.
They are not synonyms.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Buzsaw, posted 12-23-2007 5:58 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Buzsaw, posted 12-23-2007 8:32 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 209 of 301 (443147)
12-23-2007 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Dr Adequate
12-23-2007 6:11 PM


Re: Evolutionism Definition
Oh, so this is becoming a lesson on gramatical correctness. Like I said, you're being nitty picky. Well then forget it. Discerning folks know my point relative to topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-23-2007 6:11 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by dwise1, posted 12-23-2007 11:38 PM Buzsaw has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 210 of 301 (443189)
12-23-2007 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Buzsaw
12-23-2007 8:32 PM


Re: Evolutionism Definition
Not grammatical correctness -- grammar being the structure of a language -- , but rather semantic correctness -- semantics dealing with meaning. Each of those sentences are grammatically correct, but half of them are semanticly wrong and don't make any sense.
Evolutionism is not the same thing as evolution. To try to claim that they are the same thing is both false and misleading.
Besides the usual problems that creationism has with the truth and truthfulness -- which creationism very often violates through their practice of "semantic shifting" -- , the confusion this particular semantic shifting generates works directly against creationists.
As best as I can gather from creationist rants about "evolutionism", it is supposed to be a philosophical position that is atheistic and anti-God and that bases itself on evolution and uses evolution and science to attack religion. Note that evolution, which is a scientific idea, is none of those things. The only connection between evolution and this "evolutionism" is that "evolutionism" claims to base itself on evolution.
Now, there is no real reason for believers in divine creation to be threatened by evolution. Evolution is the natural results of how life works. The only reason for a particular theology to have a problem with evolution is if that theology's teachings are contrary-to-fact, but then evolution would be least of such a theology's problems.
However, there is real reason for those same believers to have a problem with an anti-religion philosophy that makes the false claim that science disproves God. And it is both right and justified for them to oppose such a philosophy.
But in their self-inflicted confusion, creationists attack the wrong target! Instead of addressing the claims of "evolutionism" and the very real problems with any claim of using science to disprove God, they instead attack evolution and science.
is the

{When you search for God, y}ou can't go to the people who believe already. They've made up their minds and want to convince you of their own personal heresy.
("The Jehovah Contract", AKA "Der Jehova-Vertrag", by Viktor Koman, 1984)
Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the world.
(from filk song "Word of God" by Dr. Catherine Faber, No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.echoschildren.org/CDlyrics/WORDGOD.HTML)
Of course, if Dr. Mortimer's surmise should be correct and we are dealing with forces outside the ordinary laws of Nature, there is an end of our investigation. But we are bound to exhaust all other hypotheses before falling back upon this one.
(Sherlock Holmes in The Hound of the Baskervilles)
Gentry's case depends upon his halos remaining a mystery. Once a naturalistic explanation is discovered, his claim of a supernatural origin is washed up. So he will not give aid or support to suggestions that might resolve the mystery. Science works toward an increase in knowledge; creationism depends upon a lack of it. Science promotes the open-ended search; creationism supports giving up and looking no further. It is clear which method Gentry advocates.
("Gentry's Tiny Mystery -- Unsupported by Geology" by J. Richard Wakefield, Creation/Evolution Issue XXII, Winter 1987-1988, pp 31-32)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Buzsaw, posted 12-23-2007 8:32 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Buzsaw, posted 12-24-2007 11:03 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