Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1081 of 1311 (815895)
07-26-2017 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1080 by Pressie
07-26-2017 7:20 AM


five reasons
So, Dredge, did you quote Gould because of your stupidity?
Dawkins' "ignorance is no crime" gives three other alternatives, which includes mendacity ("design"), ignorance and insanity ...
But I have been giving this a bit of thought and would like to break it down slightly differently:
There are Five types of people that don't understand how evolution works:
  1. people too stupid to understand the concepts. These are the unfortunates. It is not their fault.
  2. people ignorant of the concepts, possibly through no fault of their own. These are the fortunates -- they can be cured via education. A good starting source is Berkeley: Evolution 101.
  3. people that have been misinformed. These are the deceived. It may be possible to cure them with education, however the victims need to be willing to learn, and willing to give up the false concepts they have regarding how evolution works. Cognitive dissonance comes into play here when this affects core beliefs that are strongly held.
  4. people who are charlatans. These are the people that do the deceiving of others. These are the deplorables. They too can be deceived (and likely deceive themselves), however they continue to present falsehoods even when they have been corrected. Trolls also fit in this category.
  5. people who are clinically insane. These are also unfortunates, as it is not their fault.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1080 by Pressie, posted 07-26-2017 7:20 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1082 by Pressie, posted 07-26-2017 8:33 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1084 by NoNukes, posted 07-26-2017 8:42 AM RAZD has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 1082 of 1311 (815899)
07-26-2017 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1081 by RAZD
07-26-2017 8:16 AM


Re: five reasons
So, in the end Dredge is basically insane in him/her quote-mining Gould for YEC creationism. That's what I thought.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1081 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2017 8:16 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1094 by Dredge, posted 07-27-2017 1:33 AM Pressie has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1083 of 1311 (815900)
07-26-2017 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1072 by Dredge
07-26-2017 1:44 AM


Re: Insecticide resistance
It's likely that when the serpent "spoke" to Eve, it may not have been in an audible voice, but something telepathic...
Oooh, a likelihood... can you show me your math? How did you determine the odds?
Or did you just make that up?
The way Genesis is written (at least in the NIV), when the Lord speaks to Adam & Eve it has quotation marks around exactly like when the snake is speaking to Eve. They're both characters in the myth that speak to Adam & Eve in the same way as any other conversation would go. There's no reason to think that it was telepathic and not verbal.
But this thread is about evolution and not Genesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1072 by Dredge, posted 07-26-2017 1:44 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1095 by Dredge, posted 07-27-2017 2:32 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 1084 of 1311 (815901)
07-26-2017 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1081 by RAZD
07-26-2017 8:16 AM


Re: five reasons
Categories 3 and 4 probably describe most of the current Creationist posters here, although I suspect some folks of being in category 5. (Not naming names). That is purely my own opinion.
But 3 and 4 have some series areas of overlap.
3....Cognitive dissonance comes into play here when this affects core beliefs that are strongly held.
4...They too can be deceived (and likely deceive themselves), however they continue to present falsehoods even when they have been corrected.
Quite frankly, I am not sure it is worth the trouble of sorting out the difference. There is no way to get a rational discussion out of either group. Only folks in group two are worth engaging seriously outside of a discussion forum.
Within a discussion forum. I'd choose a category 4 or 5 occupant every time for the pure entertainment value.
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)
I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1081 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2017 8:16 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1085 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2017 10:12 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1085 of 1311 (815911)
07-26-2017 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1084 by NoNukes
07-26-2017 8:42 AM


Re: five reasons
But 3 and 4 have some series areas of overlap.
3....Cognitive dissonance comes into play here when this affects core beliefs that are strongly held.
4...They too can be deceived (and likely deceive themselves), however they continue to present falsehoods even when they have been corrected.
I see Ham, Hovind, Batten, etc as type 4 -- they are the ones making up stuff and peddling it as "alternative facts" ... they may have started as type 3 but have built on it and this addition makes them type 4 ... imho.
I see the type 3 as the people Dawkins describes as tortured because they are deceived into believing falsehoods that conflict with reality (hence the cog-dis).
Categories 3 and 4 probably describe most of the current Creationist posters here, although I suspect some folks of being in category 5. (Not naming names). That is purely my own opinion.
Well I though Davidjay might be a 5, certainly a 4, making up stuff and trying to pawn it off as real.
But this is getting off topic.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1084 by NoNukes, posted 07-26-2017 8:42 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 1086 of 1311 (815916)
07-26-2017 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1070 by Dredge
07-26-2017 1:32 AM


Re: Let's call this the Genesis 2:7 message
Dredge writes:
The point is not whether life being magically poofed into existence is reasonable or not; rather, whether it's true or not. When did reality become confined to what humans think is reasonable?
You, CRR, and Faith are writing posts where you try to ridicule evolution for being a fairy tale, and yet the whole time you three are the ones who believe life was magically poofed into being. That's the point.
Also, Faith actually said that it is reasonable to conclude that the Universe and life were magically poofed into being. Take that up with her.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1070 by Dredge, posted 07-26-2017 1:32 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 1087 of 1311 (815917)
07-26-2017 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1071 by Dredge
07-26-2017 1:37 AM


Re: Let's call this the Genesis 2:7 message
Dredge writes:
Point 1. You have taken Dredge's important statement of fact and - somehow - interpreted it as a vacuous insult.
Point 2. If you think any scientific yarns regarding what happened on earth billions of years ago carry any weight, then your appetite for science-fiction rivals that of any
We can add the word "fact" to the list of words you don't understand. It is your OPINION. Do you understand the difference between opinion and fact? I am guessing that you don't.
Also, the only people telling yarns are your, CRR, and Faith with your myths about magical poofing. The rest of us are discussing science.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1071 by Dredge, posted 07-26-2017 1:37 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 1088 of 1311 (815918)
07-26-2017 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1075 by Dredge
07-26-2017 2:21 AM


Re: Interesting question...
Dredge writes:
Agree. But the existence of nested hierarchies doesn't rule out the existence of a Common Designer. How do know the Creator doesn't have a penchant for nested hierarchies?
How do you know that he does? The burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate that life was created.
Why does Porsche, for example, make different models of sports cars? Their models are similar, but different. The answer is: Because they want to.
Porsches don't fall into a nested hierarchy. You are making this too easy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1075 by Dredge, posted 07-26-2017 2:21 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1104 by Dredge, posted 07-28-2017 1:38 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 1089 of 1311 (815919)
07-26-2017 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1078 by Dredge
07-26-2017 2:39 AM


Re: seven "assumptions"
Dredge writes:
The whole story is, Gould clearly saw the evidence for creation, but as a committed atheist, he tried to explain it away with his stupid PE theory.
This is called "putting words in other peoples' mouths". This is as dishonest as it gets.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1078 by Dredge, posted 07-26-2017 2:39 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1096 by Dredge, posted 07-27-2017 2:46 AM Taq has replied
 Message 1131 by Faith, posted 07-29-2017 2:55 AM Taq has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1090 of 1311 (815935)
07-26-2017 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1077 by Tangle
07-26-2017 2:31 AM


Re: seven "assumptions"
{to Dredge's use of a SJ Gould quote-mine:}
Tangle writes:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html
Why not read the whole article so that you don't keep making the same mistake?
Why would you assume that Dredge had read the article? I'm quite sure that he had just lifted it from a creationist quote-mining source and fraudulently claimed their claimed source as his own -- and I'm also quite sure that his creationist handlers had themselves committed the exact same fraud, claiming someone else's quote-mined material as coming from the claimed source.
Claiming a source that they have never seen themselves instead of their actual creationist source is SOP for creationists and is practiced on all levels. I document a classic example on my page, Moon Dust. In a debate I attended, Dr. Henry Morris made the standard claim that if the moon were as old as we claim, then it should be covered with a layer of dust about 280 feet thick. He claimed as his source a NASA document dated from 1976, "well into the space age." In fact, since he was responding to the criticism that creationists use out-dated sources, that very date, 1976, was the most important part of that claim. I asked him for more information and Dr. Duane Gish sent me a letter written by Harold Slusher which named the document and developed the calculation -- the calculation did not come from the NASA document, but rather it used a few rates from that document. Then I found that very NASA document in the university library. It was a 1967 printing of papers presented at a conference in August 1965, before our first soft landing on the moon on 02 June 1966. In fact, that date of 9-13 August 1965 was very clearly displayed on the front cover, such that nobody who had actually held that document in their hands could have missed it. It was obvious that Morris had have never seen that document, yet he claimed it as his source. It has since become obvious that Slusher had also never seen that document even though he also claimed it as his source; other mistakes he made (eg, saying it was "Volume II" instead of "Volume 11" as was very clearly printed on the front cover) leads me to suspect that his actual source was hand-written by another unidentified creationist.
IOW, creationists not only lie regularly about what scientists say, but they also lie regularly about what their actual sources are.
Edited by dwise1, : Explicitly attributing the qs box to Tangle in order to improve the word flow

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1077 by Tangle, posted 07-26-2017 2:31 AM Tangle has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1091 of 1311 (815938)
07-26-2017 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1074 by Dredge
07-26-2017 2:04 AM


Re: Let's call this the Genesis 2:7 message
Dredge writes:
I didn't know astronomy can tell us what happened on earth billions of years ago.
If astronomy can tell us what happened billions of years ago, why can't geology? Why would you reject one and not the other?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1074 by Dredge, posted 07-26-2017 2:04 AM Dredge has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1092 of 1311 (815939)
07-26-2017 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1076 by Dredge
07-26-2017 2:30 AM


Re: Interesting question...
Dredge writes:
God could make the sky and grass any colour he wants to. Science can't explain why he chose blue and green, respectively.
Science can and does explain why the sky IS blue and the grass IS green. You can put any fairy-tale spin on it that you want but that's not as satisfying as knowing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1076 by Dredge, posted 07-26-2017 2:30 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1093 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2017 3:22 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1102 by Dredge, posted 07-28-2017 1:33 AM ringo has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 1093 of 1311 (815941)
07-26-2017 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1092 by ringo
07-26-2017 3:12 PM


Re: Interesting question...
Science can and does explain why the sky IS blue and the grass IS green.
There is in fact a paper that is called "why the earth is green" because of ecology ....
Hairston, Nelson G., Frederick E. Smith, and Lawrence B. Slobodkin. "Community Structure, Population Control, and Competition." The American Naturalist 94, no. 879 (1960): 421-25. JSTOR: Access Check.
... known as the "Why is the world green" paper.
Note: you can register for JSTOR and have free access to a "bookshelf" to read this (and other JSTOR) papers.
Or message me your email and I can email a pdf of the paper. Frederick E. Smith was my dad. The others were regulars at our house at the time.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1092 by ringo, posted 07-26-2017 3:12 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1094 of 1311 (815960)
07-27-2017 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1082 by Pressie
07-26-2017 8:33 AM


Re: five reasons
Pressie writes:
So, in the end Dredge is basically insane in him/her quote-mining Gould for YEC creationism. That's what I thought.
Except Dredge is not YEC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1082 by Pressie, posted 07-26-2017 8:33 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1095 of 1311 (815961)
07-27-2017 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1083 by New Cat's Eye
07-26-2017 8:37 AM


Re: Insecticide resistance
NewCatsEye writes:
The way Genesis is written (at least in the NIV), when the Lord speaks to Adam & Eve it has quotation marks around exactly like when the snake is speaking to Eve. They're both characters in the myth that speak to Adam & Eve in the same way as any other conversation would go. There's no reason to think that it was telepathic and not verbal.
So when Satan communicated his will to Judas Iscariot, do you imagine he did so in an audible voice that everyone could hear, or was the communication achieved silently? If silently, how does that work?
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1083 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2017 8:37 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1098 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-27-2017 11:11 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 1100 by ringo, posted 07-27-2017 12:36 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024