|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,480 Year: 3,737/9,624 Month: 608/974 Week: 221/276 Day: 61/34 Hour: 0/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there anything up with the "Altenberg 16"? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2128 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Perhaps the reason is that creationists are known neither for accuracy nor veracity when making claims about science.
Just gotta laugh at that one. In my experience, creationists have been far more accurate and reliable in their factual claims than evos. This is off topic here, so set up the new thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 4921 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Already read all of those sites, and as far as off-topic, maybe so. Please don't digress the discussion further then into off-topic insults and claims such as your bogus claims about me or creationists not understanding the issue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2499 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
randman writes: Just gotta laugh at that one. In my experience, creationists have been far more accurate and reliable in their factual claims than evos. So, the claim that the earth was created less than ten thousand years ago is a factual claim which is accurate and reliable in your opinion? Good. Now, explain to us why, in your experience you find that reliable. If you don't find it reliable and accurate, why were you lying above?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 4921 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
So no answer....any lurkers please note that my response is strictly to avoid being banned and not an inability to answer...nor is the poster correct in stating I have lied here.
Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13023 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Copasetic writes: You are clearly unqualified to object to any aspects of evolution as you can't seem to even wrap your head around why "new phyla aren't emerging". Let's face it, you have no idea what you are talking about and your rejection of evolution is clearly not on scientific grounds. From the Forum Guidelines:
And coincidentally, your message is a reply to someone who has violated rule 10 so many times that his next suspension will be permanent. What would take you a solid month of dedicated Forum Guidelines violating he can achieve on his next faux pas. I've read ahead in this thread and can see he's not taking such challenges lying down, so cut him a break and don't tempt him. Please, no replies to this message.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It's an interesting phenomena among evos that they will strenously object to even admitting basic facts if someone that is a critic brings them up but when one of their own discusses the same fact in reevaluating or modifying evo models, then somehow the same fact or argument has become magically true. Your ridiculous fantasies would be more convincing if there were any examples of this; and if we didn't all know better than to take your word for anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Just gotta laugh at that one. In my experience, creationists have been far more accurate and reliable in their factual claims than evos. Really? Then may I be the first to welcome you to planet Earth and hope that you learn something during your stay here. In my experience, not only are creationists ridiculously inaccurate as to the facts, but they also tell the most stupid and ludicrous lies about the opinions and arguments of their opponents. What's more, to put the cap on how dumb they are, they tell these stupid lies to their opponents, who are the last people in the world they could hope to fool. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
grandfather raven Junior Member (Idle past 5468 days) Posts: 27 From: Alaska, USA Joined: |
Just gotta laugh at that one. In my experience, creationists have been far more accurate and reliable in their factual claims than evos. uh huh. remind me again which "side" was found to have lied deliberately and repeatedly (under oath, even) in Kitzmiller v. Dover, would you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2499 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
randman writes: Just gotta laugh at that one. In my experience, creationists have been far more accurate and reliable in their factual claims than evos. So, the claim that the earth was created less than ten thousand years ago is a factual claim which is accurate and reliable in your opinion? Good. Now, explain to us why, in your experience you find that reliable. If you don't find it reliable and accurate, why were you lying above?
randman writes: So no answer....any lurkers please note that my response is strictly to avoid being banned and not an inability to answer...nor is the poster correct in stating I have lied here. randman writes: Just gotta laugh at that one. In my experience, creationists have been far more accurate and reliable in their factual claims than evos. To spell it out simply. in your experience, creationists have been far more accurate and reliable in their factual claims than evos So, the claim that the earth was created less than ten thousand years ago is a factual claim which is accurate and reliable in your opinion? Good. Now, explain to us why, in your experience you find that reliable. It's easy, son. All you have to do is describe your experience which leads you to believe in the accurate factual claims of creationists. Never be shy. Just tell us about your experience. As you say, in your experience, the factual claims that...... Have you got photographs? Or were these just.... err... experiences.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Otto Tellick Member (Idle past 2352 days) Posts: 288 From: PA, USA Joined: |
randman writes: Personally, I don't object to some aspects of evolution on religious grounds but simply because it's not factual. I wonder whether you extend the same consideration to some aspects of biblical text -- i.e. object to it because it's not factual. If you don't, why not? Having seen that you express an interest in this "Altenberg 16" meeting, I hope that you will follow through with an interest in its outcome. It is not impossible that some of the "not factual" issues you currently object to would be addressed in a way that would answer your objections. That is a common enough process in science, in stark contrast to religious doctrine. autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 4921 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
I wonder whether you extend the same consideration to some aspects of biblical text -- i.e. object to it because it's not factual. If you don't, why not? That's a different topic, but I certainly don't believe everything in life should be decided upon via the scientific method. However, I do think scientific theories should follow scientific standards or at least be qualified with a caveat if they do not.
It is not impossible that some of the "not factual" issues you currently object to would be addressed in a way that would answer your objections. That is a common enough process in science, in stark contrast to religious doctrine.
I think you misunderstand the nature of religion personally and also seem to think religion and science should work on the same sort of basis, which is a fundamental error but then again, I think of evolutionism as religion. I do hope the conference and other sorts of things will address issues with evo theory that need to be addressed and not glossed over as somehow non-existent. Also, I don't mean to sound so harsh as some of my comments above and do appreciate that you address the possibility of some items needing to be revised, updated or whatever in evo theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Otto Tellick Member (Idle past 2352 days) Posts: 288 From: PA, USA Joined: |
randman writes: I think you misunderstand the nature of religion personally Personally, I think people who hold firm religious beliefs misunderstand nature.
and also seem to think religion and science should work on the same sort of basis, which is a fundamental error On the contrary, I know that religion and science each work on fundamentally different sorts of bases. My initial comment (considering some portions of biblical text open to objection due to being counter-factual) was an attempt to pinpoint a sort of cognitive schism in your world view. Some of the things you say seem to indicate an open-mindedness toward findings based on observation and physical evidence, yet based on other things you say, you absolutely accept certain assertions that are physically impossible, simply because they derive from your chosen interpretation of some fragment of biblical text (or you reject assertions that are based on firm observation because they contradict your interpretation of the text).
but then again, I think of evolutionism as religion. I find it astonishing and sad how frequently and persistently this opinion is expressed. If religion were like "evolutionism" (i.e. scientific method), my initial comment (objecting to biblical text because its counter-factual) would have been on topic, or you might have at least responded that you are open to re-interpreting some portions of the text (e.g. as being metaphorical or symbolic in some way, rather than as historical record), as you improve your own understanding of the physical world around you. autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 4921 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
of the things you say seem to indicate an open-mindedness toward findings based on observation and physical evidence, yet based on other things you say, you absolutely accept certain assertions that are physically impossible, simply because they derive from your chosen interpretation of some fragment of biblical text (or you reject assertions that are based on firm observation because they contradict your interpretation of the text).
No, it's because I have seen the things you say are physically impossible occur in my life and many other people's lives. The fact these things are not the types of things anyone has figured out how to test scientifically, and perhaps never will, doesn't change the fact they've been observed. So when you see the Bible true on so many "impossible" things, it's track record is very good and there is little reason to doubt that such things occured then just as they are occuring now. You choose to reject people's testimony of such things and that's your perogative, but don't mischaracterize it as solely based on some ancient writings absent genuine experience. In terms of the text, you also incorrectly assume you know what I believe about it. Of course, any Bible scholar or educated person knows that certain things such as mountains dripping with wine knows that's an expression of an abundant land with many vineyards, not that literally mountains run with wine streams and rain day and night or some such. Other areas are meant to be taken literally. Actually, figurative language in some sense is meant to be taken literally as an expression. In the mountains dripping sweet wine, it is meant to literally suggest a fruitful and abundant land for agriculture. Biblical analysis though belongs on a different thread so let's not delve into it here. Edited by randman, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2499 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Some preliminary descriptions of what went on at the Altenberg conference from Massimo Pigliucci.
here So far as I've read, there's stuff on contingency and the importance of the order in which mutations happen, fitness landscapes, sympatric evolution, evolution of lactose tolerance, epigenetic inheritance, niche construction and inheritance, and many other things. I didn't notice any surprises, but lots of interesting stuff. The author of the O.P. of this thread will find little comfort in the proceedings, unless it's in historical contingency seemingly limiting the importance of natural selection in favour of drift. The intelligent designer doesn't get a look in, apart from a brief mention of Lyle's views in the nineteenth century. ![]()
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No, it's because I have seen the things you say are physically impossible occur in my life and many other people's lives. Please give examples.
So when you see the Bible true on so many "impossible" things ... ... then I shall be the first to let you know.
In terms of the text, you also incorrectly assume you know what I believe about it. Of course, any Bible scholar or educated person knows that certain things such as mountains dripping with wine knows that's an expression of an abundant land with many vineyards, not that literally mountains run with wine streams and rain day and night or some such. Other areas are meant to be taken literally. Actually, figurative language in some sense is meant to be taken literally as an expression. In the mountains dripping sweet wine, it is meant to literally suggest a fruitful and abundant land for agriculture. Well, if you want to duck out, I shall content myself with the one word: "Galileo".
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024