Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9041 total)
73 online now:
anglagard, Coragyps, ringo, xongsmith (4 members, 69 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 885,917 Year: 3,563/14,102 Month: 183/321 Week: 43/59 Day: 4/4 Hour: 0/1


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Creationist Shortage

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist Shortage
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8168
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 121 of 415 (662195)
05-13-2012 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Buzsaw
05-13-2012 10:29 AM


Re: The Delusional Ones
Buz writes:

They're too thin skinned to take the heat that creationists get sooner or later here at this site.

You finally said something that might actually have some merit.

The question is why? Do they have so little confidence in their beliefs that they can't defend them adequately against reason? It seems so to me. Creationists prefer to preach rather than debate - it's much safer than arguing fact.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Buzsaw, posted 05-13-2012 10:29 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by nwr, posted 05-13-2012 11:31 AM Tangle has responded

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3966
Joined: 07-01-2005


(3)
Message 122 of 415 (662197)
05-13-2012 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Buzsaw
05-13-2012 8:19 AM


Re: The Delusional Ones
There is nothing visibly observable in our environs that, through random and natural means progresses from chaos into order.

Except snowflakes.

And other crystal formation.

There are others, but you won't even acknowledge those.


“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.”
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

“A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.” – Albert Camus

"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Buzsaw, posted 05-13-2012 8:19 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by NoNukes, posted 05-14-2012 8:14 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5723
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 123 of 415 (662198)
05-13-2012 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Tangle
05-13-2012 10:44 AM


Re: The Delusional Ones
Tangle writes:
Do they have so little confidence in their beliefs that they can't defend them adequately against reason?

I think you have that wrong.

The problem is that they have a huge amount of confidence in their beliefs, but they have no ability at all to communicate a basis for that confidence (probably because there is no basis).


Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Tangle, posted 05-13-2012 10:44 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Tangle, posted 05-13-2012 1:12 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Meddle
Member (Idle past 202 days)
Posts: 179
From: Scotland
Joined: 05-08-2006


(3)
Message 124 of 415 (662200)
05-13-2012 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Buzsaw
05-12-2012 5:14 PM


Re: YEC: Say What?
This is another example of why creationists are ill treated here. We all get painted with the same broad brush. A significant percentage of us are not YEC 6000-ers. Many YECs like Kent Hoven even call for a young Universe. That's nonsense, though he has some valid evidence and arguments for many aspects of ID and creationism. I don't through out the baby with the bathwater as some critics of Hovind do.

As I understand it you see yourself as an old-earth, young-life creationist, yet have never explained what evidence you are basing this on. After all the evidence that shows the earth is old also shows that life is almost as old, so you suggest that a pre-flood canopy throws out any radiometric data to suggest old life. But this also affects evidence for an old earth, so your position becomes indistinguishable from a YEC.

The Buzsaw unique creationist paradigm factors an infinite Universe. Jehovah, god who exists in the cosmos/heavens, is eternal; thus an eternal Universe and thus an infinite stable amount of energy as per LoT1. No energy is created or destroyed infinitely. As per science, it only changes forms.

Yet in the topic when you described the actions of your god in maintaining this universe it became quite clear you didn't know what the laws of thermodynamics actually were and that your god completely contravened them. The rest of the topic devolved into everyone trying to explain the problems to you, and you refusing to learn. You just reiterated your original claim as if you didn't understand what was being said to you. What made your insistence on this point odd was that if your god does exist it would be completely understandable if it was capable of contravening the laws of thermodynamics.

Just like in this topic where you are adamant that you know what 'crysper' was and proceeded to throw together random words that were vaguely related to genetics as some sort of explanation. I feel sorry for shadow71 who has obviously put in the effort to read up about CRISPR, yet you haven't even made it as far as a wikipaedia article. Now if you were released back into the general populations of this forum and you got involved in a formal topic about CRISPR the exasperation trying to describe the basics to you would affect his chances of getting a fair hearing. In fact your posts, as they stand, would probably drown out his contribution.
Like others I would like to see you start posting again in the main forums, but you are going to have to show a willingness to learn, and to admit your mistakes. Maybe even the "is this science?" forum, since question of what is evidence would fall under this.

Edited by Malcolm, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Buzsaw, posted 05-12-2012 5:14 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8168
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 125 of 415 (662208)
05-13-2012 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by nwr
05-13-2012 11:31 AM


Re: The Delusional Ones
nwr writes:


The problem is that they have a huge amount of confidence in their beliefs, but they have no ability at all to communicate a basis for that confidence (probably because there is no basis).

Yes, I've never met a creationist that wasn't extremely confident in their beliefs, but their reaction to being shown evidence of things that might contradict it is often to stick their fingers in their ears and go lalalalala.

A Jehova's Witness on anther forum thinks that I am Satan - quite literally - because I try to tell him about evolution. He won't/can't read anything written about it. That doesn't strike me a someone with any real confidence - it seems more like bravado to me.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by nwr, posted 05-13-2012 11:31 AM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16873
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 126 of 415 (662211)
05-13-2012 2:52 PM


The Creationists are at fault, too.
As we've seen on this thread. Buz, babbled nonsense and refused to accept any reply pointing out the fact as legitimate. Apparently creationists need us to pretend that they are making valid points even when they are being completely clueless. I don't think that the board can work that way and Buz's demands to the contrary are completely ludicrous.

Foreveryoung isn't that much better. Apparently he feels the need to violently assault people who contradict him. He's confessed to violent feelings but hasn't pointed to anything that would justify his anger and hate.


  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19125
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 127 of 415 (662214)
05-13-2012 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Granny Magda
05-05-2012 6:53 PM


Re: CreationJon
Granny Magda writes:

How long have you been working on your thesis?


In the true spirit of creationism, I'm going to start it any time now. Meanwhile, I'd be glad to answer any questions on an ad hoc basis.

Edited by ringo, : Added quote.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Granny Magda, posted 05-05-2012 6:53 PM Granny Magda has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 128 of 415 (662223)
05-13-2012 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Buzsaw
05-12-2012 5:14 PM


Re: YEC: Say What?
frako writes:

So fi for example a creationist posts a claim that the earth is 6000 years old and has no evidence but the bible to back it up let him post that then let him read detailed information of numerous dating techniques that prove him wrong and none that prove him right.

This is another example of why creationists are ill treated here. We all get painted with the same broad brush. A significant percentage of us are not YEC 6000-ers.

Frako's post was about a creationist who believes that the earth is 6000 years old. So it wasn't about you. At all. Does it really make sense to adopt the position that his comments included you so you can claim to be injured? There are still YECs who still post here.

I'm beginning to understand Percy's issues with your participation. I still think it would be best to let you post in the science forum, but I no longer see any reason to talk him out of his position.

What I find hilarious your complaint included your own shot at YEC beliefs.

zI've been here over 8 years and I still get lumped by you people in with the YECs who's paradigm makes no sense.

Sigh.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Buzsaw, posted 05-12-2012 5:14 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19125
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 129 of 415 (662226)
05-13-2012 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Buzsaw
05-12-2012 5:14 PM


Re: YEC: Say What?
Buzsaw writes:

I've been here over 8 years and I still get lumped by you people in with the YECs who's paradigm makes no sense.


Yes, the paradigms that make no sense do get lumped together. You and the YECs are identical in the fact that you reject science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Buzsaw, posted 05-12-2012 5:14 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Buzsaw, posted 05-14-2012 7:41 AM ringo has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 415 (662265)
05-14-2012 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by ringo
05-13-2012 6:35 PM


Re: YEC: Say What?
ringo writes:

Yes, the paradigms that make no sense do get lumped together. You and the YECs are identical in the fact that you reject science.

Not at all. The problem is that you, et al, reject any science supportive to to ID Biblical creationism and the existence of a higher intelligence existing in the Universe than what is common to humans,

You reject the supernatural realm, including a majestic supreme creator/manager god, angels, both good and evil and all other hosts inhabiting the cosmos, even though scientific evidence has been aired supportive to higher powers. One example being fulfilled predictions of events subsequent to those predictions. Another example, archeological discoveries; another, cultural and historical evidence, such as the phenomena of all cultures of human history being religious.

Mysterious objects, such as particles, etc are good to go with you, but narry a thing implicating other forms of life.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool." :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by ringo, posted 05-13-2012 6:35 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by frako, posted 05-14-2012 7:51 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 133 by jar, posted 05-14-2012 8:16 AM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply
 Message 166 by ringo, posted 05-18-2012 12:51 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2931
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 131 of 415 (662266)
05-14-2012 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Buzsaw
05-14-2012 7:41 AM


Re: YEC: Say What?
Not at all. The problem is that you, et al, reject any science supportive to to ID Biblical creationism and the existence of a higher intelligence existing in the Universe than what is common to humans,

Ok show me a scientific method that objectivity shows a young earth, or spontaneous creation, or show meascientific device that goes bleep when thers magic man running about.

You reject the supernatural realm, including a majestic supreme creator/manager god, angels, both good and evil and all other hosts inhabiting the cosmos, even though scientific evidence has been aired supportive to higher powers.

well oyu reject Apollo, Zeus, and the flying spagethie monster the same evidence supports them.Show me an angel or the residue of an angel, or the energy signature of an angel, anything that points to an angel.

Mysterious objects, such as particles, etc are good to go with you, but narry a thing implicating other forms of life.

YES BECAUSE THERE IS EVIDENCE POINTING TO STUFF LIKE THAT!!!
Dark matter well we have indirect evidence for it. So what do we do we build research stations trying to find concrete evidence for it.

What do you do you go and preach the word when by some cosmic fluke something "miraculous" happens that can be otherwise explained, and you deny other explanations. It has to be proof of the judeo Christian god because other gods are just made up, and its pointless to do a scientific inquiry on the event because science cant detect god right?

Edited by frako, : No reason given.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

Click if you dare!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Buzsaw, posted 05-14-2012 7:41 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 415 (662267)
05-14-2012 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Rahvin
05-13-2012 11:07 AM


Re: The Delusional Ones
Buz Sawyer writes:

There is nothing visibly observable in our environs that, through random and natural means progresses from chaos into order.

Rahvin writes:

And other crystal formation.

And every element or compound that goes from liquid to solid or vapor to liquid. And every infant organism that develops from an embryo. Photosynthesis. Food becoming body parts. Salt water evaporating and then raining down as pure water.

We've done this exercise before. Some people never learn.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : Add attributions to quotes to remove impression that Rahvin is at fault.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Rahvin, posted 05-13-2012 11:07 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 133 of 415 (662268)
05-14-2012 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Buzsaw
05-14-2012 7:41 AM


Re: YEC: Say What?
Buz writes:

The problem is that you, et al, reject any science supportive to to ID Biblical creationism and the existence of a higher intelligence existing in the Universe than what is common to humans,

In that case perhaps you can provide a link to a post where you have EVER presented ANY science supportive of ID Biblical creationism and the existence of a higher intelligence existing in the Universe than what is common to humans.

Buz writes:

You reject the supernatural realm, including a majestic supreme creator/manager god, angels, both good and evil and all other hosts inhabiting the cosmos, even though scientific evidence has been aired supportive to higher powers. One example being fulfilled predictions of events subsequent to those predictions. Another example, archeological discoveries; another, cultural and historical evidence, such as the phenomena of all cultures of human history being religious.

Great, then can you please provide a link to ANY post where you have EVER provided ANY evidence?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Buzsaw, posted 05-14-2012 7:41 AM Buzsaw has acknowledged this reply

  
shadow71
Member (Idle past 1865 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 134 of 415 (662328)
05-14-2012 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Granny Magda
05-12-2012 6:01 PM


Re: CRISPRs redux
Granny Magda writes:

Whether or not you understand Shapiro is irrelevant to your understanding of CRISPR.

You miss my point. It is not about CRISPR it is that when I make a valid point such as in re Shapiro's writings and theory I am told I don't understand it, by people who have never read Shapiro.

Shapiro says I understand it, but the "scientists" on this board, most of whom have never read Shapiro say I don't understand.

Whats the point?
If one is set in their beliefs they will not accept any other opinions.

That is what they accuse "Creationists" of doing, yet they do not realize that is what they are doing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Granny Magda, posted 05-12-2012 6:01 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by nwr, posted 05-14-2012 8:18 PM shadow71 has responded
 Message 137 by Percy, posted 05-14-2012 9:52 PM shadow71 has responded
 Message 143 by Granny Magda, posted 05-15-2012 10:53 AM shadow71 has not yet responded
 Message 144 by Taq, posted 05-15-2012 11:39 AM shadow71 has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5723
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 135 of 415 (662330)
05-14-2012 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by shadow71
05-14-2012 7:52 PM


Re: CRISPRs redux
shadow71 writes:
Shapiro says I understand it, but the "scientists" on this board, most of whom have never read Shapiro say I don't understand.

I have read Shapiro.

He disagrees with neoDarwinism, but he disagrees only in the emphasis. He has different ideas about what is most important, and would like a different theory more consistent with his views.

I agree with Shapiro on that point. However, in my opinion, he overstates things when he is talking about intelligence of the cell, and he does not clearly define what he means by some of his terminology.

It is hard to know how well you understand Shapiro. For that matter, it is hard to know to what extent he agrees with you. He has not been here participating in these debate, so it is hard to assess what he would have said about them if he had been here.

A while ago (it was earlier this year, I think), Dembski raised the question of whether Shapiro is still a Darwinist, even though he criticizes Darwinism. I read about that on the UncommonDescent blog, though I think Dembski may have actually raised the issue on the Evolution News and Views blog (which is an ID blog, in spite of its name). I seem to recall that Shapiro responded, possibly also on ENV. In any case the upshot is that Shapiro's views are such that Dembski would consider him a Darwinist.

I'm not sure where that leaves you with your view of Shapiro's ideas.

Here's a recent assessment of Shapiro's views by Larry Moran, a biochemist at U. Toronto. Moran is somewhat critical. Incidently, Moran also claims to not be a Darwinist, though I'm pretty sure that most ID proponents would consider him to be Darwinist.


Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by shadow71, posted 05-14-2012 7:52 PM shadow71 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by shadow71, posted 05-15-2012 9:02 PM nwr has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021