|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You might want to put the whole discussion of the fish instead of just quote mining those two lines.
quote: Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member (Idle past 290 days) Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: |
Hi BD,
Now Granny, I have been asking for evidence of your mechanisms for the ToE for quite some time-and it is you who has refused to give that first. You made a claim. I asked you, quite nicely I thought, to back it up. Trying to distract us by demanding evidence for an entirely irrelevant claim isn't going to work. The ToE is not at question right now. Your Ebert/NDE claim is. I am going to assume from your latest descent into a childish temper tantrum that you have no evidence that Ebert ever had a near-death experience. I am going to further assume that you heard something about his (very sad) illness, got a bit confused and thought he'd had a near-death experience. That or you just made the whole thing up. But I'm betting on a misapprehension. Disagree? Feel free to back up your own claims any time. Or we could move on to some other example of a near-death experience, so you can get that hopelessly wrong instead.
So you refuse to provide evidence of your claims, but demand it from others. Wow. That's pretty shitty Granny. Ain't I a stinker? It might though, give you some insight as to why scientists don't value personal anecdote as a form of evidence.
But then again, we both know you have a problem with honesty don't we? Projection is fun!
ME: Richard Dawkins discussed life beginning with replicating crystals of silicon. Case in point. That's what you would like to claim you said. here's what you really said;
Bolder-dash writes: I mean, its not like you would just make up that you know the path of humanity from flecks of sand to Feynman-right? and:
Dr Adequate writes: Why are you pretending that Richard Dawkins said that we are "descended from flecks of silicon? Bolder-dash writes: Because that's what he says! Is that a good enough reply? You were wrong then and you're still wrong, only now you've decided to tell a few silly lies about it. Another triumph for creationist rhetoric. I can't be arsed to wade through all of your little fantasy. Fortunately there's no need; what we actually said is still up on the board for all to see.
GRANNY: Um, no , no..he was just , just, saying...um..Hey, you made a spewlling mistake, I mean spalling, er spelling mistake, see see..you don't understand English..nanananana..nananana. And mine was just typing mistake..nanana..I am goodest speller. You're a very strange man Bolders. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Are you as intellectually as dishonest as Granny, or is this just another example of xenophobic behavior, where all evolutionists try to support the others no matter how bizarrely incorrect they are. Explain to me exactly how I was talking out of MY ass? He didn't discuss this just like I said he did? She didn't flat out refuse to accept that he discussed this in any way shape or form, even saying "he didn't say this or anything like it. He never discussed silicon or flecks of sand. You completely made that up". And she didn't try every cop out lie in the book to try to deny it after she arrogantly mistook that he DID in fact discuss this, both in lectures and in his best selling book? How full of shit are you? If you're trying to lie about your bullshit on this thread, then I'm not surprised you didn't link to it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1719 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
. A person doesn’t become a Christian, or realize he/she is a Christian, as a simple quick decision of hey, why not, that looks easy, as they do with so many other subjects, including atheism IMO. What’s not quick and easy about atheism? You can't possibly be serious, are you? Do you even know any atheists? I've never met or heard of a single one who came from a background of faith who didn't describe the process of conversion to atheism as being primarily a frightening, alienating period of their lives. Many atheists can't even come out to their loved ones; that's how profoundly society associates atheism with immorality and untrustworthiness. It certainly wasn't an easy process with my Christian family. Take a look at some deconversion stories if you genuinely labor under the misapprehension that there's anything easy about conversion to atheism:
Nonreligious Questions For example, I’d expect when Darwin was finishing up his Beagle voyage, one of his first stops on land was to visit some atheist geologists. What "atheist geologists" were those? Please be specific.
In exactly the same way, there is no indication in science that Darwinism is encouraged to be put to any tests. I borrowed a friend’s son’s high school biology textbook a few months ago, and saw no encouragement for it No high school textbook, on any subject, is going to ask students to put anything to the test. Elementary and high school pedagogy, for better or for worse, is about telling students the way it is and expecting them to remember it. I'd prefer it if students in high school were challenged more, challenged to do some of the experiments and research that lead to the state of knowledge we have, but they don't. It's not a conspiracy to shelter evolution from challenge, it's simply the consistent, across-the-board state of education in America. You may have noticed that your friend's son wasn't challenged to independently corroborate the Holocaust, either. That said by the time they enter college they are performing experiments that test and confirm the mechanisms of evolution. I did many as a freshman, and every year since. Maybe you will too, if you choose to pursue study in the biological sciences in college.
The dividing line is too fuzzy between actual science and metaphysics. Is it? Can you give an example from the peer-reviewed literature? What was the last scientific study you read that you thought blended science and "metaphysics"? Please be specific - I'm looking for authors, title, and date and journal of publication.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Otto Tellick Member (Idle past 2583 days) Posts: 288 From: PA, USA Joined:
|
Hi marc. I'm curious about this statement of yours:
marc9000 writes: If meaning comes from 'a creator', no human, not even Christians, can claim a monopoly on it, in a way that physically intrudes on other peoples lives. Each human can apply it to their life as they see fit... Is that a position that you sincerely hold? If so, I am truly impressed by the open-mindedness it evokes. If I understand it correctly, you are asserting a fundamental basis for freedom of choice with regard to religious belief. By acknowledging that no one, and no single religious creed, has a "monopoly" on defining "the meaning of life", you are admitting that Christianity is only one among (potentially) innumerable, equally valid points of view on this matter. That strikes me as a remarkably refreshing point of view to be coming from an otherwise dogmatic Christian theist. I wanted to make sure I understood you correctly, because I would not have expected that from you. In any case, I need to point something out about the atheist position that you are apparently missing (the opinions of Frank Crick, whoever he is, notwithstanding): I think that your statement (if I understood it correctly) would still be true without your "if" condition; that is, if meaning does not come from a creator, no human can claim a monopoly on it, in a way that physically intrudes on other peoples lives. In other words, it makes no difference whether we attribute our respective meanings to supernatural or natural causes. The fact remains that we all perceive and conceive meaning in our lives. It's part of being human; it's intrinsic to our cognitive toolkit. You can believe that this sense of "meaning" was deliberately designed and implanted in us by some inexplicable entity who is responsible for all existence. I can believe that it is in fact an emergent property that follows naturally from the general principles governing the evolution of life, that its "design" is as much a natural outcome of physical laws as the hexagonal pattern of snowflakes and the curvature of rainbows. Either way, we must both acknowledge that our current understanding is limited... The major difference between us is that your position can only be held and promoted by appeal to religious belief or dogma, whereas mine can find confirmation in real-world observations. You may fail to grasp why my notion of "meaning" is equivalent to yours, given that mine is not asserted to be the creation of a supernatural being. I certainly fail to grasp why attribution to a supernatural being adds anything of consequence to the notion. In either case, we both perceive and conceive of meaning in life. We all experience emotions; we love our parents, our siblings, our spouses, our children; we cooperate with our neighbors to further the common goals that benefit our communities. These things apply regardless of the choice of religion, and regardless of the presence or absence of religious belief. If you don't agree with that, you are actually contradicting your statement that I quoted above (or else I must have misunderstood your statement). One last comment to expand on Crashfrog's notion "that humans are the source of their own meaning." In my own view: the universe prior to the existence of life cannot be said to have any meaning. Meaning is something that arises from awareness, and without life, there is no awareness. As life emerges and evolves, awareness develops, and with that comes a meaning -- a purpose: to continue living, to grow, to diversify, to acquire broader capabilities, to overcome adversity, perhaps to "transcend" (though I'm not sure what this term really means). As life succeeds in its purpose, awareness expands; in the case of our particular species, it has expanded to the point of self-awareness, of realizing that we have a purpose, and the ability to consider it. This is a confusing situation to be in, especially since human development has been marked by a tendency to ascribe causality to unknowable entities, rather than trying to work out how things came about naturally. autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DC85 Member (Idle past 248 days) Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
I don’t consider Christianity to be on the same level as all other secular subjects. A person doesn’t become a Christian, or realize he/she is a Christian, as a simple quick decision of hey, why not, that looks easy yet those Christians seem to expect it from others with absurdity like Pascals wager.
hey, why not, that looks easy, as they do with so many other subjects, including atheism IMO. What’s not quick and easy about atheism? I didn't choose to be atheist anymore then I choose to pass gas. I can hold it in but that would be rather painful and will come out sooner or later. How does one choose to not believe something? I cannot choose to believe in a deity as in my mind it's unnecessary and in most cases absurdity.
Darwin was finishing up his Beagle voyage, one of his first stops on land was to visit some atheist geologists. Can you help me out with an old earth there buddy? I’m sure they assured him that if he needed geological evidence for an old earth, he would certainly have it! It's seems you know nothing about Darwin or his beliefs.
Their engagement with people on personal views seems to get around to flat earths and flying spaghetti monsters pretty quickly These are used to show why your argument doesn't make sense to us. Unfortunately if we make upan example of something we see as the same you get offended. ....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3882 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
You:
Right, I wouldn't make that up. Because that would be silly. We're no more descended form flecks of silicon than we are from turtles. In fact, if anything, the sand comment is even dumber and more ignorant than the silly turtle comments. And more incorrect statements from you that you can't hide from:
You have been asked to show us where Dawkins says any such thing. Of course you can't, because he hasn't. You were the one who claimed that evolutionists think we are descended "from flecks of sand ". That is a misrepresentation, or more charitably, a misapprehension. Whatever it is, it's wrong. No-one thinks that. Now at this point there are only two possibilities, you didn't know that Dawkins has hypothesized and referenced other people who also hypothesize this (repeatedly in fact) about the possibility of life beginning from flecks of silicon crystal, or the like, as the first non-living replicators; or you DID know that he has hypothesized about this. If you didn't know then you are ignorant of claims made (not just by him) about the theory you claim to know so much about, or you DID know that he has hypothesized, but are a liar. So which do you prefer that I call you, ignorant, or a liar, or both? I mean because its written right there, those are your words correct? I am not misquoting you am I? You did ask for me to show you where he has said "any such thing" right? And English is your first language, correct? And furthermore these are YOUR words right Granny:
Also, sand is not clay. You mentioned sand. This is about clay. Sand is made of grains that are far too large for the sort of thing you're talking about here. Now from the Selfish Gene (that's a Richard Dawkins book, do you know that?:
Along these lines, A. G. Cairns-Smith has made the intriguing suggestion that our ancestors, the first replicators, may have been not organic molecules at all, but inorganic crystals-minerals, little bits of clay "Cairns-Smith believes that the original life on this planet was based on self-replicating inorganic crystals such as silicates. If this is true, organic replicators, and eventually DNA, must later have taken over or usurped the role
So which is it Granny, you knew Dawkins had spoken of this possibility before, or you didn't know, please choose one. I prefer to call you a liar (since that is what you have called ME for pointing out the facts to you) but I guess I am just as happy to call you ignorant (or dumb as you prefer). Now of course, we both know that you understand English so well (I am mean look at your nearly flawless spelling corrections you made-I think you only got two words wrong) so you do understand what it means when you say that Dawkins never said any such thing right? You understand that meaning right??? And you also know what silicates are right? You are not going to try to hide with that boner of a lie again are you. So what I really want to ask you is, What kind of gall, what kind of audacity, what utter fucking shamelessness do you have to have to call ME the liar in this discussion? And you are going to say to me that you are polite? How shitty are you Granny, how completely shitty? Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given. Edited by Bolder-dash, : So Granny can't use a typo as a smokescreen for her utterly shameless dishonesty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1719 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So what I really want to ask you is, What kind of gall, what kind of audacity, what utter fucking shamelessness do you have to have to call ME the liar in this discussion? And you are going to say to me that you are polite? How shitty are you Granny, how completely shitty? quote: Those are from the forum guidelines.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22940 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Hi Bolderdash,
You seem to have an extremely profound reading comprehension problem. Every one of your examples of someone else's error was actually of glaring errors in understanding on your part of the most basic sort. They're such fundamentally simple and obvious errors that I'm beginning to wonder if you're making these errors on purpose to disrupt and distract discussion and whether you're actually a troll. Let's just stick to the topic, shall we? Can you provide any substantiation whatsoever of your Ebert supernatural near-death experience story, or of your other near-death experience story where someone flatlined, recovered, and then described conversations that took place while he was dead? At least one thing's very clear. Whatever you personally might believe about the way evolutionists think, we sure don't think like you do. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3353 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
So what I really want to ask you is, What kind of gall, what kind of audacity, what utter fucking shamelessness do you have to have to call ME the liar in this discussion? And you are going to say to me that you are polite? How shitty are you Granny, how completely shitty? For a supposed religious person you sure are a hypocrite. Do you wonder why other religious people on this forum, such as ICANT, Buzz and others do not back you up in your conflict with Granny Magda. You not only made a fool of yourself on the "When does design become intelligent?" thread, now you are trying to continue your infantile tirade on this thread. Furthermore, it seems you are misconstruing what Dawkin's is talking about in the selfish gene. This is what is called "quote mining" and is an infamous tactic used by creationists to take what scientists say out of context and use it against them. Here is what Dawkins says in complete context:
'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins writes: For simplicity I have given the impression that modern genes made of DNA, are much the same as the first replicators in the primeval soup. It does not matter for the argument, but this might not really be true. The original replicators may have been a related kind of molecule to DNA, or they may have been totally different. In the later case we might say that their survivial machines must have been seized at a later stage by DNA. If so, the original replicators were utterly destroyed, for no trace remains in modern survivial machines. Along these lines, A. G. Cairns-Smith has made the intriguing suggestion that our ancestors, the first replicators, may have been not organic molecules at all, but inorganic crystals- minerals, little bits of clay. Ursurper or not, DNA is in undisputed charge today, unless as I tentatively suggest in Chapter 11, a new seizure of power is now just beginning... So basically Dawkins is sugesting that the first replicators COULD have consisted of inorganic molecules instead of organic ones, specifically inorganic replicating molecules in clay (not sand) as proposed by organic chemist and molecular biologist, Graham Cairns-Smith. There is no indication there that he actually believed this to be 100% true or correct, just that it was a possibility. In fact, the clay theory of abiogenesis is one of several that have been proposed (but have not been confirmed). Anywho, back to the point. Please provide evidence of an "out of body experience" besides mere hearsay. Or are you going to keep throwing up irrelevent posts in order to defelect your unsubstantiated claims. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3882 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Where did I err Percy? What did I not understand?
You have constantly just thrown out these one line little jabs, as if they mean something-"Can you understand English, you have comprehension problems, you make no sense...Blah blah." Well why don't you explain articulately, what didn't I understand? I didn't understand that Granny said Dawkins never talked about the hypothesis of life originating from silicon crystals-when he actually did? I didn't understand that? Because I am quite sure I did. I didn't understand that she tried to say I was lying and made that up? I am sure I did understand that Percy. I didn't understand that she tried to worm her way out of it by then saying that was an old concept. or that he was referring to clay and not sand, or that she never said that and I was putting words in her mouth. I didn't understand all those things? Because I am quite sure I did understand Percy. I didn't understand after all of that she STILL tries to say I am the one who was lying? I think I understood quite well, thank you. I also understand that the topic of this thread is about how creationists think evolutionists think. And I personally think you are quite dishonest. Tell me which part I didn't understand. Because I understood everything you and Granny said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22940 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Bolder-dash writes: Where did I err Percy? What did I not understand? Oh, come on, stop playing dumb, everyone is commenting about your comprehension problems. It's not like they aren't as obvious as all get out. If you'd like to begin a thread about it over in Coffee House then go ahead and we'll attempt to help you as much as we are able, though I don't hold out much hope since the same comprehension problems will still be in play as we try to explain your comprehension problems to you - talk about a Catch 22! It's almost as if your strategy is to behave so stupidly that no one can ignore it so that you can derail the discussion onto how mistreated you are. The goal of EvC Forum is to have discussions that actually get somewhere, but with you we're stuck on explaining what simple English sentences mean. So back to the topic. Can you provide any substantiation whatsoever of your Ebert supernatural near-death experience story, or of your other near-death experience story where someone flatlined, recovered, and then described conversations that took place while he was dead? If we have something concrete to work from then it will be easier to assess how well they qualify as scientific evidence. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3882 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined:
|
You are making me laugh now. You are just taking the piss out of me, right?
On your pro-evolution website everyone can agree its me who has the comprehension problems? Ha, ha..that's a good one Percy. You and Granny and Dr. A are now the voices of objective reason. Have you even bothered to look at what the topic is about? Hint-its not entitled Bolder-dash needs to provide evidence of supernatural phenomenon. Its about what creationists think evolutionists think! Who is the one being intentionally stupid? Hahaha...let's get back on topic!!! Oh, man, that's a good one. You had me going with that. You really did, when you repeated the whole explaining what English means prank. Your parody was turning nearly slapstick, that's why you had me going..I was like Percy, he has really lost it...oh no no silly, he is taking the piss. Whew. Man, and you never even cracked a smile, that's the beauty..how, how do you keep a straight face? You have even outdone you. Its a classic. Thank God you never erase posts, because this one is a rare prize for posterity. I can't understand anything you said, its way too complex!! You are the Master!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Percy writes: Can you provide any substantiation whatsoever of your Ebert supernatural near-death experience story, or of your other near-death experience story where someone flatlined, recovered, and then described conversations that took place while he was dead? Can he even tell us what the term Flatlined means and what the indicator that flatlined is measuring? I really think that might be part of the problem. Maybe he thinks that the indicator has something to do with the brain? Edited by jar, : No reason given. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3882 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
So which do you believe, When Granny said Dawkins NEVER hypothesized anything about the possibility of silicon being an early building block of life (or an early ancestor as Dawkins puts it) and then called me a liar for suggesting such a stupid thing, did she actually already know Dawkins had said this, or do you think she was unaware of it at the time? Which do you think?
Are evolutionists dishonest, or just ignorant of their subject matter?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024