Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8961 total)
329 online now:
caffeine, DrJones*, PaulK, Taq (4 members, 325 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,404 Year: 1,152/23,288 Month: 1,152/1,851 Week: 276/320 Day: 48/87 Hour: 3/17


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Great Creationist Fossil Failure
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4667
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 211 of 1163 (787038)
07-01-2016 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Pressie
07-01-2016 8:59 AM


Pressie writes:

mike the wiz, you still don't want to answer me on geological periods not being 'rock layers'. Take your time, mike the wiz. I've read most of the nonsense written by creationists about geology. Every single one of them told lots and lots of untruths about everything.

Naturally with so many posts aimed at the creationist at sites like this it can be easy to miss comments. I also only intended to address the O.P. in my original response, I don't remember saying that I would pretend to be a geologist. If you actually read my initial response I didn't really mention too much about geology really, I just addressed the errors of generalisation, etc...it is others who have tried to drag me into a debate I wasn't really taking part in. (Perhaps understandably if you guys are thirsty for creationists to debate with.)

I know it would be an advantage for the evolutionists if I did pretend to be a geologist of course. Are you a geologist?

No, geological periods are not "rock layers", it's possible I might have conflated the two while typing quickly. Please tell me you are not going to INFLATE such a minor error to now constantly make some kind of ad-hominem allusion, because of course, the debate focusing on me, would be precisely that, a diversion of arguing-the-person. (I know you haven't done that YET).

I would say the geological periods, are a neurotic-agreement. You're entitled to disagree, but I think there is more too the rocks than just geology, I think geomorphology is very important, and I believe geomorphological features are better explained by catastrophism. Especially planation and erosional remnants and inselbergs. (I don't have a great knowledge of those things, but my genetically modifed intellect allows me to see the most important points) (Trekkies will get the joke)

Pressie writes:

I've read most of the nonsense written by creationists about geology. Every single one of them told lots and lots of untruths about everything.

You say this as though you are some authority on geology. Am I to assume you have a phd in geology?

Saying creationists are liars and argue, "nonsense".

Think about it - that is why an ad-hominem argument exists, as diversions. The only thing that fascinates me about them is how they also turn into an argumentum ad nauseam P.R.A.T.T (point refuted a thousand times)

Must I re-address regurgitated ad-hominem comments each and every time, or can we turn the page?

Why would you need to constantly debate the person? I don't. The fact I don't need to, shows I am not insecure in my beliefs. (if I do make personal comments it is for the purpose of mikey-mischief and I always leave smilies or say, "only kidding" to let people know I am being cheeky rather than serious).

Think of how it comes across to me. It comes of as just a nad desperate. Here comes a creationist, and *BANG* "creationists are liars," *bang* "creationists are idiots* ETC. "creationists are dimly aware of X*.

It's a yawn-fest. You're proving that you are just prejudiced and have a chip on your shoulder pertaining to creationists. I propose what my good friend Mike Summers would propose - that you forgive creationists for not doing what you, think they, "should" do, in your opinion.

Accepting reality is a part of forgiveness. It seems to me you guys can't forgive people for the crime of creationism, because it reminds you that God could be there and you may have to answer to Him one day, despite your great efforts to intellectualise Him out of existence.

I apologise for believing I am not random pond scum, I apologise for not wanting to treat others like they are random pond scum. Now what should I do? Sacrifice a bull to Darwin?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Pressie, posted 07-01-2016 8:59 AM Pressie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-01-2016 7:57 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 213 by edge, posted 07-01-2016 10:01 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 214 by NoNukes, posted 07-02-2016 12:06 AM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 219 by edge, posted 07-02-2016 7:37 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 220 by Pressie, posted 07-03-2016 8:01 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 222 by Pressie, posted 07-03-2016 8:18 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 223 by Pressie, posted 07-03-2016 8:23 AM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 224 by Pressie, posted 07-03-2016 8:41 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 239 by 14174dm, posted 07-03-2016 6:50 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 212 of 1163 (787041)
07-01-2016 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by mike the wiz
07-01-2016 4:15 PM


mike, post #211 writes:

Why would you need to constantly debate the person? I don't. The fact I don't need to, shows I am not insecure in my beliefs.


mike, post #153 writes:

you are simply dim-witted


mike, post #177 writes:

If only you had the intelligence to understand why. Alas, you never will.


mike, post #177 writes:

you are not smart enough to understand deductive reasoning, whereas I am


mike, post #179 writes:

if you love FALSEHOOD and LIES then that's your problem


mike, post #183 writes:

As for Dr A, if intellect were hearing, he couldn't, "hear a dump truck driving through a nitroglycerine plant"


mike, post #211 writes:

you are just prejudiced and have a chip on your shoulder.


mike, post #211 writes:

you guys can't forgive people for the crime of creationism, because it reminds you that God could be there and you may have to answer to Him one day, despite your great efforts to intellectualise Him out of existence.


mike, post #211 writes:

Why would you need to constantly debate the person? I don't. The fact I don't need to, shows I am not insecure in my beliefs.

It's great to hear that you're not insecure in your beliefs. Good for you. Now, do you have any sort of explanation for the order manifest in the fossil record, or would you like to keep on with the dreary personal attacks and the futile diversionary tactics?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by mike the wiz, posted 07-01-2016 4:15 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 90 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 213 of 1163 (787043)
07-01-2016 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by mike the wiz
07-01-2016 4:15 PM


I would say the geological periods, are a neurotic-agreement. You're entitled to disagree, but I think there is more too the rocks than just geology, ...

Please explain. What do you mean by a 'neurotic agreement'?

... I think geomorphology is very important, and I believe geomorphological features are better explained by catastrophism.

Do you think that geomorphology is not studied by geologists?

Do you think that geology is not instrumental in geomorphology?

Especially planation and erosional remnants and inselbergs. (I don't have a great knowledge of those things, but my genetically modifed intellect allows me to see the most important points).

Words, Mike.

Please show that you understand the words and are not just regurgitating words here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by mike the wiz, posted 07-01-2016 4:15 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 214 of 1163 (787045)
07-02-2016 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by mike the wiz
07-01-2016 4:15 PM


Perhaps mike the wiz, ICANT, and Faith together make a great point. None of those folks subscribe to the stuff that AIG and ICR put out. In fact, I cannot remember too many folks who toe that particular line very closely visiting here in the last few years. It seems to me that we used to get the occasional poster who tried to defend the creation science as put out by the "Big boys", but I've met plenty of creationists; my family has includes lots of folks who insist that Genesis is literally correct. Most of those folks haven't looked at a picture of the Grand Canyon since high school, and they could not tell a microscope from a telescope.

When we generalize about what Creationist think, we mainly mean YEC folks. But how many of those folks care about Creation Science or have ever debated with someone who knows anything about real geology? Maybe attributing any particular creation science belief to creationists in general is just wrong.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


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

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by mike the wiz, posted 07-01-2016 4:15 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-02-2016 1:20 AM NoNukes has responded
 Message 225 by mike the wiz, posted 07-03-2016 9:11 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply
 Message 240 by herebedragons, posted 07-04-2016 7:31 AM NoNukes has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 215 of 1163 (787047)
07-02-2016 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by NoNukes
07-02-2016 12:06 AM


Well, yes, when one attributes any even slightly detailed ideas to creationists one is talking about the activists. Behind them lurk a great lumpen mass who just think creationism is true because someone (their pastor, their parents) told them so, and think it has some sort of evidential and scientific support for the same reason.

I don't think either mike or Faith actually said they don't subscribe to this stuff: Mike in particular is going to extraordinary lengths not to mention the topic.

Still, to the extent that "Flood geology" is a body of thought at all, it consists of the sort of thing outlined in my O.P.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by NoNukes, posted 07-02-2016 12:06 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by NoNukes, posted 07-02-2016 5:15 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 216 of 1163 (787063)
07-02-2016 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Dr Adequate
07-02-2016 1:20 AM


I don't think either mike or Faith actually said they don't subscribe to this stuff

Faith has at least acknowledged that there is no way to explain the sorting so that's at least a tacit admission that folks who do make those explanations have not got it right. Morr generally. Faith seems to have her own explanations about geology and biology that may reach similar conclusions, but which have a wackiness separate from that of conventional Creation Science.

Mike isn't all that specific, but from what I can gather, he does not seem to think that your some of you specific accusations apply to him.

Well, yes, when one attributes any even slightly detailed ideas to creationists one is talking about the activists.

Activists means a tiny fraction of the folks who subscribe to a fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis. It would not even include most fundamentalists pastors.


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

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-02-2016 1:20 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-02-2016 6:24 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 217 of 1163 (787066)
07-02-2016 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by NoNukes
07-02-2016 5:15 PM


Activists means a tiny fraction of the folks who subscribe to a fundamentalist interpretation of Genesis. It would not even include most fundamentalists pastors.

Sure. I'm not quite sure activists is the right word, looking back, but I mean those people who have tried to rationalize their beliefs. And yeah, most creationists haven't, they just assume it's been done somewhere else by someone else. Which would be a perfectly acceptable approach to the question if they weren't wrong.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by NoNukes, posted 07-02-2016 5:15 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by NoNukes, posted 07-02-2016 7:10 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 218 of 1163 (787068)
07-02-2016 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Dr Adequate
07-02-2016 6:24 PM


they just assume it's been done somewhere else by someone else

I think even this assumes too much. A more common fundamentalist view is that what scientists do regarding is simply fraught with the same error that plagues all human endeavor. More extreme folks might insist that Satan is involved somehow. No other explanation for why science gets things wrong is even needed. The real proof that there was a great flood is that Genesis, the first book in the unquestioned Word of God, says that there was a great flood.

Need more than that? Then where is your faith, brother? Do you question the resurrection of Jesus Christ too?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


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

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-02-2016 6:24 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 90 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 219 of 1163 (787069)
07-02-2016 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by mike the wiz
07-01-2016 4:15 PM


You say this as though you are some authority on geology. Am I to assume you have a phd in geology?

I suppose in a relative sense, Pressie is a PhD compared to most YECs.

Maybe even the ones with official PhDs.

Saying creationists are liars and argue, "nonsense".

Think about it - that is why an ad-hominem argument exists, as diversions.


Once again, a logical fallacy is not necessarily fallacious. Taken in the context of all of the available data, YEC explanations ARE nonsensical. (You will notice that I refer to YEC posts rather than YEC persons.)

The only thing that fascinates me about them is how they also turn into an argumentum ad nauseam P.R.A.T.T (point refuted a thousand times)

While it may be nauseous, this is not an argumentum ad nauseum. It's shorthand for, 'yeah we've heard it all before and it's still wrong.'

Think of how it comes across to me. It comes of as just a nad desperate. Here comes a creationist, and *BANG* "creationists are liars," *bang* "creationists are idiots* ETC. "creationists are dimly aware of X*.

But what if it's true?

It's a yawn-fest. You're proving that you are just prejudiced and have a chip on your shoulder pertaining to creationists.

Actually, we are just exasperated at the tedium of answering the same old arguments again and again. It's only natural to wonder at the cognitive abilities of the YEC participant.

I propose what my good friend Mike Summers would propose - that you forgive creationists for not doing what you, think they, "should" do, in your opinion.

The only thing I think they should do is read our posts and understand that some kind of rebuttal would be useful.

Accepting reality is a part of forgiveness. It seems to me you guys can't forgive people for the crime of creationism, because it reminds you that God could be there and you may have to answer to Him one day, despite your great efforts to intellectualise Him out of existence.

Actually, it's more basic than that. We are simply weary of hearing the same old arguments warmed over some hellfire, with no acknowledgement of our refuting posts.

Actually, I'm a very forgiving guy.

I apologise for believing I am not random pond scum, ...

Ah, well ...

A point we agree upon, but what unearthly version of evolution is that?

I apologise for not wanting to treat others like they are random pond scum.

Then why do you completely disregard our posts? Not very civil, wouldn't you say?

Now what should I do? Sacrifice a bull to Darwin?

I think it's pretty clear: you should address our actual points and not attack what your version of evolution seems to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by mike the wiz, posted 07-01-2016 4:15 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2083
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 220 of 1163 (787072)
07-03-2016 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by mike the wiz
07-01-2016 4:15 PM


mike the wiz writes:

Naturally with so many posts aimed at the creationist at sites like this it can be easy to miss comments.

Well, with tens of thousands of peer-reviewed articles published in geological journals every year in lots of languages, it must be easy for you to miss the vast majority of most of them...

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by mike the wiz, posted 07-01-2016 4:15 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2083
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 221 of 1163 (787074)
07-03-2016 8:13 AM


Oh, and mike the wiz. You still don't want to answer me on geological periods not being 'rock layers'. Take your time, mike the wiz. I've read most of the nonsense written by creationists about geology. Every single one of them told lots and lots of untruths about everything.

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2083
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 222 of 1163 (787076)
07-03-2016 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by mike the wiz
07-01-2016 4:15 PM


mike the wiz writes:

I would say the geological periods, are a neurotic-agreement.

Really? How exactly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by mike the wiz, posted 07-01-2016 4:15 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2083
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 223 of 1163 (787077)
07-03-2016 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by mike the wiz
07-01-2016 4:15 PM


This one is funny.

mike the wiz writes:

Please tell me you are not going to INFLATE such a minor error to now constantly make some kind of ad-hominem allusion

So, you agree that the Cambrian is not a 'rock layer'?

I mean, the reference you posted here pretended that "The Geological Column" represented "layers".

You call it a 'minor error'? It's major. Creationists never tell the truth, mike.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by mike the wiz, posted 07-01-2016 4:15 PM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by mike the wiz, posted 07-03-2016 9:20 AM Pressie has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2083
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 224 of 1163 (787078)
07-03-2016 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by mike the wiz
07-01-2016 4:15 PM


This one really is funny

mike te wiz writes:

Think about it - that is why an ad-hominem argument exists, as diversions.

Pointing out an untruth is not an ad hominem. We're not all as stupid as your sheep, mike.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by mike the wiz, posted 07-01-2016 4:15 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4667
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 225 of 1163 (787081)
07-03-2016 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by NoNukes
07-02-2016 12:06 AM


NNukes writes:

When we generalize about what Creationist think, we mainly mean YEC folks. But how many of those folks care about Creation Science or have ever debated with someone who knows anything about real geology? Maybe attributing any particular creation science belief to creationists in general is just wrong.

I appreciate that, yes, the fallacy is the sweeping generalisation fallacy. When people take one example of a creationist and apply that to all creationists, it is the hasty generalisation fallacy. The "sweeping" type is to infer something about an individual from something we can say about the group.

For example if we took the, "mean average" IQ of religious people and for argument's sake it was 90 but for atheists was 100, it wouldn't follow that a particular religious person had an IQ of 90 and the atheist he was debating an IQ of 98. In fact a particular religious person may have an IQ of 98 and the atheist he is debating, 92.

I actually have not referred to myself as a "YEC" for some years, and have even written topics explaining how I am not of the "YEC" position in fact. I agree with a lot of what YECs argue but basically I do not insist that the earth or universe is a particular age.

If I share a conclusion with a, "YEC" that does not mean my argument is the same as theirs, ( Ag Logicam fallacy).

Example of two arguments that share the same conclusion;

"I conclude mike is a human being predicated on the fact that pigs are mammals"
"I conclude mike is a human because he has all of the elements of humanity, human DNA/anatomy/blood,.etc.."

As you can see, it is quite irrelevant as to what some other creationist argued, or how terrible you deemed his argument to be. It may well have been terrible, it may be that you were in fact conversing with someone akin to or similar to Hovind, nevertheless that does not affect the veracity of any arguments I make.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by NoNukes, posted 07-02-2016 12:06 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-03-2016 11:25 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020