Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.

Hi Marc, Oh, I see; it's going to be one of those weird ones where you tell me what I think. Funny, I would've thought that I knew what I thought better than you did. But apparently, no, your psychic powers allow you to better gauge my opinions than I can myself.I don't believe in the ToE because Darwin just says so.No-one believes in the ToE because Darwin just says so.If you disagree, please show us some evolutionist sources saying; Darwin says it. I believe it. That settles it.or something equivalent. Now if you can't find any such statements, the sane conclusion would be to conclude that evo's don't think that way, that there is some other reason for our belief in the ToE. You could perhaps try asking us why we believe in the ToE. Instead, you seem to have decided that you know what we think, despite having absolutely no evidence of any kind to back that up. That's crazy talk my friend. Even if we grant that this is true, it is irrelevant. The ToE is completely unconnected to moral and ethical decisions. I make no reference to the ToE when making a moral judgement, nor does anyone I know of do so.It makes a certain amount of sense for Christians to refer to their foundational texts in solving moral dilemmas; there is at least some material in there that addresses morality. In the case of evolution proponents however, there is no foundational text. The Origin is not a foundational text, and even if you insist that it is, it doesn't dispense moral advice, so there would be little point in consulting it for moral advice. I have a passion for the books of George MacDonald Fraser. I also have a passion for Mexican food. My attitudes to the two are not identical just because I am keen on them both. I have no desire to eat Fraser's books, nor to sit down and read a bowl of nachos. My enthusiasm for each manifests in a different way.Many people who believe in evolution are keen on science, but that doesn't mean that we regard science in the same way you see your faith. That is just you projecting (so far as I can tell). You should remember that not everyone thinks the way you do and not every action people take can be fitted into a framework that makes sense to you.Personally, I do not feel that I have replaced religion with science in my own personal philosophy. I was never religious, not to even the smallest extent. There is nothing to replace. Religion is of so little importance to me that it has never played any part in influencing any of my opinions (save for those that are actually about religion itself). I have no desire to replace religion in my thinking, with science or anything else. There is no need. I don't think anyone ever claimed that to be the case. Evolutionists, whether laymen on internet message boards, or preofessionals, are only human. Science is not a perfect process, that's why it has built in checks and balances, to defeat such prejudices. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Why don't try and find just the smallest scrap of evidence for a young Earth and put your theory to the test? You're right, that does sound reasonable. Oh. I see. you are engaging in the tu quoque fallacy. Tell me Marc, if you think it so unfair to judge others views without letting them speak for themselves, why do it? Because they did it first? That's not much of a justification. Either it is wrong to label the views of others contrary to their objections, or it is not. Claiming "They started it!" is not sufficient justification. But in this case there is good evidence that Behe was mistaken or lying. His claims were shown to be misleading. Other ID proponents were shown to be telling downright lies whilst under oath. What conclusion do you expect?In telling me that I only believe in the ToE because Darwin says so, you are effectively accusing me of a) being a moron and b) lying about my motivations. Now if you are making that accusation, as the Dover court pretty much did against Behe, you better have evidence. Accusing me of lying about my own beliefs without any evidence would be a shitty thing to do. So... where's the evidence that I hold The origin to be a sacred text Marc? I am oh-so-curious to know what I think. Except that science is created by and defined by humanity. It is ours to decide on as we please. We get to decide what it is and isn't.Christianity by contrast is split into a thousand factions, all claiming to be the true Christianity. The truth of their claims is not a matter that humanity can reasonably judge, at least not with any authority. Only God, if he exists, can decide that. Why not leave it to God to decide who's a real Christian, and leave it to me to tell you what my opinion is.Mutate and Survive

Hi Marc, Well of the shoe fits... Fact is that many, if not all creationists I have encountered are deeply ignorant of science. They demonstrate that on a daily basis. It's not an evolutionist who cited the "Second Law of Thermal Documents".It is also worth noting that there is a difference between telling someone what and how they think and correcting someone when they voice obvious errors. Yes. Do any of them claim the the ToE is true simply because Darwin says it is? No they do not. But Huxley isn't talking about evolution or the Theory of Evolution, nor is he making an argument from authority. Can you find me an evolution proponent arguing that the ToE is true because Darwin says it is or can't you? I make absolutely no connection between my politics and the ToE. They are two separate issues. You are welcome to conflate them if you wish, but I do not.The ToE does not inform my politics, sexual or otherwise.My politics had no bearing upon my acceptance of the ToE. Please document where the ToE was cited in the Schiavo case. If you cannot, there is no relevance in this. Merely mentioning "people with scientific credentials" does not count. Please back this up with some kind of evidence. Of course, you may find that tricky, 'cos it's a lot of old rot... Try to get some perspective Marc. Try, please try, even if only for a minute, to realise that not everyone thinks like you.I'm English. I live in the UK. I have no particular animus toward the constitution of a foreign country. Nor is it of any amazingly special interest to me. Nonetheless, insofar as I do care about the US Constitution, I am an admirer of it, contrary to your ignorant assumptions. One thing is for sure though; the US constitution has absolutely no relevance to my views on evolution. Only a creationist would make that connection. Yes, it's a thing called "progress". Sorry if you find it distressing. I know that you Evangelical chaps value very old books, but I'm pleased to say that not everyone thinks like that. Some of us prefer new books, full of newer and more accurate information, just one of the many differences between the evo and creo "mindsets". I'm curious; by whom? It is not my fault or Dennet's fault if traditional concepts are flawed.I also notice that Dennet is not making the foolish argument from authority that you accused evo's of making. Are you ever going to back that up? Or withdraw it? It's comments like the above that make me wonder if you are even following what I'm saying. I agree that The Origin is both profound and applicable to the subject of evolution. Where we disagree is over your claim that evolutionists believe the ToE for the same reasons that you believe the Bible; Remember that? Are you going to show me any evolutionists claiming to believe the ToE simply because they read it in The Origin? Or not?I do not believe in the ToE because I read Darwin. Indeed, I haven't even read more than a couple of chapters of The Origin. There's no need; it has been superseded. Right. So you understand that a person can hold separate motivations for their beliefs, that not all of a person's beliefs need share the same motivations or thought processes. But then you say this... ...once again conflating politics and evolution in the mids of others.How many times must I tell you before you start to believe me; I do not link politics with the ToE. I have no inkling how that would even work. You link the two, I do not. Got it? Oh look, another quote where an evolutionist doesn't argue the point you claimed we argue. These don't help your case. What would help your case would be if you found a quote that actually backed up your claims, y'know, one where an evo claims to believe the ToE just because they read it in Darwin. Like you claimed... No, the subject of this thread is "Creationists Think Evolutionists Think Like Creationists". You continue to do a bang-up job of proving this thesis right. Yes I do. But they are not informed by the ToE, nor do my political opinions inform my views on science.You do realise that a political belief is of a rather different nature to an objective claim about the physical world, right? Nice fantasy. Here in the real world of course there are hundreds of thousands of theists who accept the ToE. Compare and contrast with creationists, who are always fundamentalist religious believers of some stripe. Where does the OP assert that? I cannot see it. As can lies. Behe misled the court, telling it that little work had been conducted on the evolution of the mammalian blood clotting system. This was shown to be false. Whether he lied or was merely ignorant of his own field of study, only he knows. Bill Buckingham, another ID proponent actually told flat-out lies whilst under oath. Again, what reaction do you expect? Nice. So you accept that I do not believe the ToE simply because Darwin said so? Great!Given that you have not shown any evidence that any atheist does think this way, might it not be an idea to extend this courtesy to atheists as a whole? And again and again, evolutionists are telling you that you are mistaken. We do not have any problem with the world having meaning. We just differ over the source and nature of that meaning. Why do you keep doing this? Why do you insist upon telling us what we think rather than asking? If I offend you, I regret that, it is not my intent. You are the one though, who said this; Given that you ascribe divine inspiration to the Bible, I think the phrase "magic book" is a fair one, if less than wholly respectful. I am only going on what you write. Total nonsense. From Wiki;

quote:

---

Nature's chosen group of "greater" scientists were members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The survey found near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2% and 69.0%, respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79.0% and 76.3%. Most of the rest were agnostics on both issues, with few believers. The highest percentage of belief was found among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality), with physicists and astronomers slightly higher (7.5% in God, 7.5% in immortality).

---

No, once again, the thread is about whether "Creationists Think Evolutionists Think Like Creationists". You would seem to have proved this beyond all reasonable doubt. Of course, if you want to prove that "Evolutionists Think Like Creationists" you could always provide us with some evo quotes that make the silly argument from authority that you accused us of making. But we both know you can't do that.Mutate and Survive

Hi BD, Indeed not. That is why you have been asked to provide some evidence that it actually happened. This is not an unreasonable request.Indeed, you agreed to back up your arguments with "evidence and/or reasoned argumentation" when you joined this forum. Given that you are making an objective claim about a specific incident, reasoned argument doesn't really apply, so it would seem reasonable to expect you to be true to your word and provide us all with some evidence.Got any?You say; Now I have had a bit of a google around for this story, but I can't find it. Can you help me out? I would be genuinely interested to read about Ebert's experiences. Where can I read about them? Specifically;Precisely what happened?What evidence exists to verify the account?How do you think this supports the supernatural?Why, given that Ebert himself remains sceptical of the supernatural, should we accept it as evidence of such? I mean, Ebert is the one who experienced this, yet even he remains unconvinced. So what makes you think this evidence is so compelling?Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Yes, I am aware of what you wrote. I agree. That would constitute excellent evidence of the supernatural. Well I'm saying that I am happy to accept your point. If these events occurred, they would constitute reasonable evidence for the supernatural. But did they occur? Right. Where? When? What exactly was said?I need to know this stuff don't I? You might have misremembered important details. You might have misunderstood the language used (I'm not trying to attack you here, but we both know that your English isn't 100%). You might even be lying for all I know. I'm not saying that you are lying, but unless you provide me with some evidence, how can I know for sure? Actually you do. You promised to back up your arguments with evidence when you joined this forum. If you refuse to do so, you are only proving yourself to be a liar and a bearer of false witness. So you refuse to provide evidence for your claims but demand it from others? Wow. That's pretty shitty BD.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi jar (welcome back by the way ).I found one about him having an "out-of-body experience" but he was just talking about a movie. Maybe he told BD about it when they were both astrally projecting.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi BD, 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. 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. Projection is fun! Case in point. That's what you would like to claim you said. here's what you really said; and: 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. 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

Hi BD,I can see that you are still very upset about having been so wrong in the When does design become intelligent? (AS OF 8/2/10 - CLOSING COMMENTS ONLY) thread. That's fine, you can be as upset as you like, just as you are free to be as wrong as you like. What you're not free to do is to derail this thread with your childish temper tantrums in the way you derailed that ID thread. If you want to continue making foolish errors about silicon and abiogenesis, please take it there. You might actually notice that my last missive to you remains unanswered.In the mean time you have three options on this thread;1) Provide us with evidence for Roger Ebert's NDE (tricky, because it never happened).2) Withdraw the claim about Ebert (tricky for you, because that would be the honest thing to do, so not really your strong point).3) Forget about Ebert and provide us with another example of a supernatural NDE so we can all have a bit of a giggle showing you how you're (inevitably) wrong about that as well.I mean, this is your argument right? That evolutionists are hypocrites? That we use lax standards in gathering evidence for evolution, whilst holding supernatural effects up to an unfair and unattainable level of scrutiny? Isn't that what you've been telling us? Well here's your chance to show us how your supernatural science is supposed to work. Come on Bolders, we're all waiting with bated breath...Or you could continue to scweam and scweam and stamp your little foot. Your choice kid.Mutate and Survive

I've told you Bolders, if you want to talk about silicon and abiogenesis, the thread is still open. My last message to you remains unanswered. Take it there. If you are going to get an apology, it will be there; although I wouldn't hold my breath.So, to repeat;When did roger Ebert have a NDE? Where's the evidence?If you can't provide us with such evidence, will you withdraw the claim?Can you provide us with any examples of other NDEs that qualify (in your view) as supernatural?We're all waiting. Right now though, you don't seem to be willing to back up your own arguments. How is your supernatural science supposed to work? If you won't say, I guess we have to assume that it doesn't and that you were talking nonsense. Again.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi Subbie, That was pretty much my assumption. He is doing a bang up job of it. In my opinion, guys like Bolders (or CFO, or Calypsis, etc.) should be given plenty of leeway. Then they can spread their muck all over the internet like some sort of electronic dirty protest. They are seemingly oblivious to how much they damage their own cause when they do this. That's just fine by me. Even if I dedicated myself twenty-four hours a day to making creationism look foolish, I couldn't do as good a job as Bolder-dash manages in a single post.I say let's give him as much rope as he likes. Then he can continue to blather on about how we're simultaneously both Nazis and Stalinists, or how we control the layouts of book stores and other such paranoid fantasies. He can score as many own goals as he likes.With friends like Bolder-dash, creationism really doesn't need enemies.Mutate and Survive

Hi marc, If "Darwinsim" is so toxic to Christianity, that is the fault of Christians, for tying their faith to a false concept; creationism.The evidence does not support creationism. It just doesn't. If you insist upon placing Christianity upon such flimsy foundations, you should not be surprised when some people's faith comes down like a house of cards. I think the point here is that the religious beliefs of Nineteenth century geologists is irrelevant. When he returned from his voyage, Darwin went to the geologists of his day simply because he had been doing geology. He had important geological information, new and important geological data... but he wasn't really a geologist, so he took it to those who were. What could possibly be wrong with that? I am neither a student nor a scientist, but I hope I've never made you feel that way. I am always happy to answer any of your questions as best I can.I may disagree with you about... well, almost everything, but at least I get the feeling that you are engaging in a genuine dialogue. That's not always the case with creationist posters. One thing that you have to remember is that in my experience (and that of many other members no doubt) there are two kinds of creationist questions. There are genuine inquiries and there are questions that are only designed to try and poke holes in the ToE. The latter kind don't tend to engender sympathy from evolutionists. After one has been of the receiving end of a few of these annoyances, one becomes a little wary of creationist questions. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but there it is nonetheless. I'm unsure what you're asking for here. Of the books you mention, the only one that is about evolution is Darwin's Dangerous Idea, which is really more about the social and philosophical implications of evolution. Dennett is a philosopher, not a scientist. the rest are atheist books, that only touch upon evolution. None are serious attempts to explain evolution. If you are interested in a popular science book about evolution, I recommend Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne.If you do pick it up, you'll quickly notice that Coyne never appeals to TOOS as if it were the Bible. He makes no appeal to Darwin as if he were Christ. His approach differs greatly from that of the average religious apologist or evangelist. So yes, evolutionists do differ in approach to creationists, even outside of peer review.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : typos

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod