Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-21-2019 5:56 PM
103 online now:
PaulK, Taq (2 members, 101 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,531 Year: 3,568/19,786 Month: 563/1,087 Week: 153/212 Day: 20/49 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
7677
78
7980
...
88NextFF
Author Topic:   Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Dredge
Member
Posts: 776
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1156 of 1311 (816175)
07-31-2017 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1134 by Faith
07-29-2017 3:56 AM


Re: Gould's observations do support Creationism
Faith,
In post #1108 I recanted my claim that Gould was an atheist. As far as I ascertain, he was an agnostic. Nevertheless, it seems to me that he had an a priori commitment to evolution. Why else would he resort to something as contrary as what Darwin himself predicted as PE? New creatures suddenly appearing is reminiscent of the fantasy of Spontaneous Generation. It's interesting that despite professing devotion to reason and science, some minds suffer from a natural predilection for superstition. The farce of PE finds acceptance only because creation is unacceptable.

Faith writes:

there are NO gradations of transitionals evidenced in the fossil record, such as between reptiles and mammals, where they are nevertheless assumed, or as I said, hallucinated. They do not exist.


"The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." - S.J. Gould

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1134 by Faith, posted 07-29-2017 3:56 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1162 by Taq, posted 07-31-2017 10:48 AM Dredge has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6672
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 1157 of 1311 (816176)
07-31-2017 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1153 by Dredge
07-31-2017 1:45 AM


Dredge writes:

This statement is at least an improvement on "Evolution is the unifying concept of biology" or "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

It's not an improvement on anything it's just a statement of fact.

Even better would be to understand this: Evolution needs biology, but biology doesn't need evolution.

Biology and evolution don't need anything. All biology and evolution do is explain things in the natural world. Try not to embarrass yourself further.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.

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

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1153 by Dredge, posted 07-31-2017 1:45 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14749
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


(2)
Message 1158 of 1311 (816177)
07-31-2017 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1154 by CRR
07-31-2017 1:47 AM


Re: Gould's observations do support Creationism
You should read the criticisms. They aren't rejections of the basic idea, but of Gould's hype. To sum up what your link says:

Dawkins says that PE is just an "interesting but minor wrinkle on the surface of neo-Darwinian theory.

Dennet says that Gould made more radical claims for PE but tended to retreat to a more Darwinian position.

Scott simply criticises Gould's style of argument without - so far as can be told from the article you cite - offering any substantive criticism of the idea.

And Lyne and Howe agree that the basic idea of PE is in accord with the fossil record.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1154 by CRR, posted 07-31-2017 1:47 AM CRR has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 1159 of 1311 (816188)
07-31-2017 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1131 by Faith
07-29-2017 2:55 AM


Re: Gould's observations do support Creationism
Faith writes:

What Dredge said is completely true, and Gould's observation of the fossil record does indeed support creationist arguments. Dredge put no words in Gould's mouth, he simply drew a different and very reasonable conclusion from Gould's observations. There is nothing dishonest about that.

Let's read what Dredge said again:

"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."

Where did Gould ever say that what he saw was evidence for creation? He never did, yet Dredge is trying to put those words in his mouth. That is dishonest.

Gould pointed out the obvious: the lack of the gradations of transitional forms that Darwin expected and led others to expect if his theory was correct. That prompted Gould to devise his Punctuated Equilibrium as a way to explain this obvious failure of the ToE.

Darwin stated quite clearly that he didn't expect to see those gradations. Now you are putting words in Darwin's mouth.

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. "--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"

Darwin spent an entire chapter explaining why we don't see fine gradations of transitional forms in the geologic record.

I was recently making the same observation as Gould's when I pointed out how trilobites and coelecanths show no signs of evolving over hundreds of millions of years beyond the variations built into the genome of the Kind, so when transitionals are available they do not support the ToE.

Then show me a fossil representation of the modern coelacanth. Bet you can't do it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1131 by Faith, posted 07-29-2017 2:55 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1167 by Dredge, posted 08-02-2017 6:18 AM Taq has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3309
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 1160 of 1311 (816189)
07-31-2017 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1147 by Dredge
07-31-2017 1:19 AM


Re: seven "assumptions"
For the sake of brevity, I didn't quote Raup word-for-word, but used only what was necessary to get the point across, without distorting its meaning.

Did you even quote Raup? Or did you just copy somebody else's quote-mining of that article? That article whose name you didn't even provide. And why the copy errors?

If you do have a copy of Raup's article sitting in front of you, then provide us with a few more quotes. Such as the last two entries in his bibliography on page 162. And the first paragraph of the Introduction section on page 147.

I very much doubt that you can meet those two simple requests, because I am quite sure that you do not possess a copy of that article. I am quite sure that you did not create that quote-mine yourself, but rather that you had gotten it from one of your creationist handlers (please to not blaspheme against the Trinity again). I am quite sure that your claim which I just quoted is a deliberate lie.

DWise1 writes:

Why does your religion have to depend almost completely on lies?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Because you and the rest of the creationist community almost constantly use claims which are lies. They lie about the evidence, they lie about the science, they lie about what scientists say, and then they lie to cover up those lies. "Creation science" itself is a deliberately crafted deliberate deception for the purpose of fooling the courts, but then it was repurposed to deceive people into converting. And creationists proclaim that they do that to support and defend their religion, to serve their god. With lies and deception.

So why does your religion have to depend almost completely on lies?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1147 by Dredge, posted 07-31-2017 1:19 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1166 by Dredge, posted 08-02-2017 5:56 AM dwise1 has responded
 Message 1180 by Dredge, posted 08-03-2017 2:18 AM dwise1 has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1161 of 1311 (816190)
07-31-2017 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1149 by Dredge
07-31-2017 1:30 AM


Re: Gould's observations do support Creationism
Dredge writes:

Evolutionary biology - real biology's wacko little brother - is notorious for it pseudo-scientific ideas. Relying on evolutionary biology to explain the fossil record is like relying on Jehovah's Witnesses to explain the Bible.

And yet more name calling. Is that all you have? You can't address the evidence?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1149 by Dredge, posted 07-31-2017 1:30 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 1162 of 1311 (816191)
07-31-2017 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1156 by Dredge
07-31-2017 2:06 AM


Re: Gould's observations do support Creationism
Dredge writes:

Nevertheless, it seems to me that he had an a priori commitment to evolution. Why else would he resort to something as contrary as what Darwin himself predicted as PE? New creatures suddenly appearing is reminiscent of the fantasy of Spontaneous Generation.

Gould agreed with Darwin.

"Only a small portion of the world has been geologically explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species." [Charles Darwin, Origin of Species 1st Edition 1859, p.439]

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1156 by Dredge, posted 07-31-2017 2:06 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3309
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 1163 of 1311 (816255)
08-01-2017 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1142 by Rrhain
07-29-2017 5:36 PM


Because I still had two years of active duty when I received my Computer Science degree and I only needed four more classes to earn the Applied Math degree, I just went for it. However, my main strength in math was less in proofs but rather more in understanding the concepts and in problem-solving and practical applications. Needless to say, the Math Dept's Numerical Analysis classes were much more proof-oriented (ie, much more theoretical with very little attention given to implemention), so I kind of just squeaked through them. Good thing that my money degree has been computer science.

The main thing I remember of the proofs was that we used them to determine the upper bound on that method's error, the maximum amount of error that we could possible incur. I was reminded of that recently in some exchanges with Dredge, such as:

DWise1 writes:

Message 842

Dredge writes:

Message 816
What I'm going on about about is, scientific explanations can be wrong.


Yes, that is true. It is also very true that religious explanations can be wrong. In fact, you know that is true because you can point to all the other religions and their explanations and denounce them all as being wrong.

The difference between science and religion is that science knows that it can get something wrong, so it also knows that it needs to test its results and detect those errors and then correct those errors. Furthermore, science and scientists are very motivated to find and eliminate errors.

What about religion? When errors creep into religion as they inevitably must, how does religion handle them? It doesn't! Religion has no protocol for testing, error-detection, nor error-correcting.


I then referred him to my unfinished page, Fundamental Differences Between Scientists and Creationists, which also discusses how we differ in our motivation and the great differences that that motivation makes (eg, scientists want to actually learn or discover something and have a vested interest in the validity and veracity of others' research that they are about to base their own research on, whereas a creationist just wants to convince others and himself, so all he is interested in is how convincing a claim sounds even if it happens to be completely false).

Of course, Dredge has avoided those questions, but rather has continued to fault science for being subject to error while ignoring the fact that the same goes for religion which is worse off than science since it has no process nor mechanism for testing for and correcting errors. I sought to clarify that with the following (which I guess I had never had a chance to post yet):

DWise1 writes:

I have repeatedly tried to discuss this with you and you have repeatedly avoided it, namely the fundamental difference between science and religion. Science knows full well that error exists, even in each and every one of the very measurements we make, so it has worked out means to deal with that -- it simply has had to! Religion appears to be indifferent to all that, because it is based on Revelation which contains no error (or so they baldly assert!), even though that is ignoring the fact that once it gets into Man's hands Revelation can only become corrupted and degrade as error after error creeps in. Science is very strongly motivated to detect and correct error. Religion appears to be completely oblivious to the problem, in denial of the problem, and can even actively oppose any attempts at detection or correction on the pretense that such actions question God. Science has mechanisms in place to detect and correct error and it uses them both actively and pro-actively. Religion simply ignores errors and denies that they exist.

My experience in Numerical Analysis class verifies how science tackles the problem of error head-on. My science readings repeatedly address the problems of observational and other forms of error and how to deal with them. The very first lab in Physical Science class in junior college involved taking exact measurements of the same things and using the results to illustrate observational error, which shows that it's a problem that students are made aware of from the very beginning.

In contrast, religionists refuse to acknowledge the existence of error and have no clue how much in error they are. Well, the honest ones recognize the problem, but unfortunately they are not the ones we encounter.

The fact that science knows how to deal with error and can even determine the amount of error that is present leads to the other side of the issue.

Most creationist claims and arguments involve a lot of hand-waving. They point to maybe one value (eg, the rate at which the sun loses mass due to fusion, about 4.6 million tonnes per second) and then they wave their hands and make incredible claims (eg, that the sun 5 billion years ago would have been incredibly huge and massive and would have sucked the earth). Unfortunately for them, when we actually do the math we find that their claims are false (eg, although the rate was right, the effect of those billions of years of mass loss only amounted to a few hundredths of one percent of the sun's mass and hence had extremely little effect on the ancient earth's orbit). The same thing with their claim that the ancient earth would have been spinning impossibly fast -- sometimes they give a rate (which is wrong and greatly inflated) and sometimes not, but with rare exceptions they never work out just how fast the ancient earth would have been spinning, but rather their versions of the claim consist almost entirely of hand-waving.

{ NOTE: Kent Hovind's Solar Mass Loss Claim, Earth's Rotation is Slowing }

More to the point, one way in which they will "disprove" radiometric dating is by proposing all manner of things such as massive neutrino bombardment as causing decay rates to change thus causing dating errors. Yet again, they do a lot of hand-waving and show no indication that any actual calculations had actually been performed to see just how much effect their proposed rate-changers would have. They just simply assert the results that they desire.

Another form this takes can be found in recent articles at Answers in Genesis which admit that certain classic bogus creationists claims are indeed bogus (eg, the "shrinking sun", Niagara Falls), but then they try to grasp at straws by pointing to a slim sliver of doubt which they take to mean that their YEC theology could still be true after all. We often see a variation of that from creationists who take any amount of uncertainty or of honest ignorance as leaving a gap for their god, kind of a variation of the "God of the Gaps".

In responding to claims of there being enough error in science to leave room for their claims, one approach we could take might be to calculate how great the error they claim would have to be, which is where that error calculation from class comes in. Not trusting my memory over 36 years, I consulted Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/...nge_and_difference#Percent_error) for the formula (and I did remember it correctly after all):

% error = 100 × abs(experimental-value - theoretical_value) / abs(theoretical_value)
where:
theoretical_value = the expected value
experimental-value = the measured value

For example, let's assume the expected value to be 100 million years, but the dating method gives us a measured value of 110 million years:

% error = 100 × abs(110,000,000 - 100,000,000) / abs (100,000,000)
= 100 × abs( 10,000,000 ) / abs (100,000,000)
= 100 × 10,000,000 / 100,000,000
= 100 × 0.1
= 10 %

10 million years is a lot of time to be off by, but compared to the actual age it's not really too unreasonable.

Now let's assume the creationist case where the expected value is 10,000 years, but the dating method gives us a measured value of 100 million years:
% error = 100 × abs(100,000,000 - 10,000) / abs (10,000)
= 100 × abs( 99,990,000 ) / abs (10,000)
= 100 × 99,990,000 / 10,000
= 100 × 9999
= 999,900 %

Now that is a helluva lot of error!

Or more to the point of the age of the earth, let's calculate the amount of error it would take to measure a 10,000 year old earth as being 4.5 billion years old:

% error = 100 × abs(4,500,000,000 - 10,000) / abs (10,000)
= 100 × abs( 4,499,990,000 ) / abs (10,000)
= 100 × 4,499,990,000 / 10,000
= 100 × 449,999
= 44,999,900 %

Nearly 45 million percent error? Absolutely ridiculous! Obviously it is the assumption of a 10,000 year old earth that's wrong.

From what I've read over the decades, most creationists schemes for things that might possibly change decay rates would have the effect of adding less than 1% error. I remember a list of isotope half-lives accompanied by their margins of error and that those margins of error ranged from about 2% to about 5%.

Compare that 44,999,900% error that creationists actually need with the less than 1% error that their claims would actually buy them. Borrowing from the camel-and-needle metaphor, they are trying to open a millimeter wide crack of lack of total certainty in order to slip an adult blue whale through it. Ain't going to work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1142 by Rrhain, posted 07-29-2017 5:36 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1178 by Dredge, posted 08-03-2017 2:11 AM dwise1 has responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 1164 of 1311 (816257)
08-01-2017 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1145 by CRR
07-30-2017 9:04 PM


Re: self-replicating, auto-catalysing, homochiral molecules
CRR responds to me:

quote:
A chiroselective peptide replicator (paywall)

So you're unwilling to do the work to find out by going to your local library and reading the copy there. It won't cost you a thing other than getting out of your chair. Why am I not surprised that you are unwilling to do your homework?

quote:
The origin of biological homochirality (requires MyJSTOR account.)

So you're unwilling to do the work to find out by signing up? It won't cost you a thing other than typing. Why am I not surprised that you are unwilling to do your homework?

quote:
A cross-chiral RNA polymerase ribozyme (paywall)

So you're unwilling to do the work to find out by going to your local library and reading the copy there. It won't cost you a thing other than getting out of your chair. Why am I not surprised that you are unwilling to do your homework?

quote:
The eightfold path to non-enzymatic RNA replication (open access)
And Jack W Szostak sums it up pretty well. "Although several RNA polymerase ribozymes have been evolved in vitro, the creation of a true replicase remains a great experimental challenge." and "In this review, I discuss recent findings that suggest that chemically driven RNA replication may not be completely impossible."

It seems you didn't understand that last sentence. What part of "may not be completely impossible" are you having trouble with? You do understand that that means that it is possible, yes? You do understand how double negatives work in English, yes? If something is "not impossible," that means it's possible.

Yes, the work into abiogenesis is still ongoing, but this comes back to the question that you are steadfastly refusing to answer despite me having asked it multiple times:

What do you mean by "life"?

That is not a trivial question. Even biologists have a hard time defining it. Again, if a self-replicating, auto-catalysing, homochiral molecule that evolves isn't life (and I'm not saying it is), then what is it?

When are you going to do your homework?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1145 by CRR, posted 07-30-2017 9:04 PM CRR has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 776
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1165 of 1311 (816270)
08-02-2017 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1144 by Tanypteryx
07-30-2017 3:04 PM


Re: seven "assumptions"
Tanypteryx writes:

You trying to characterize Punctuated Equilibrium as being the opposite Darwin's theory predicts shows that either you don't know what either of them said or thought on the subject or you are dishonestly quote mining both of them.


I don't recall stating that PE is the "opposite" of Darwin's theory.

other dimwitted creationists

You might have a point there, because I'm obviously not not intelligent enough to figure out how PE's saltations can be reconciled with Darwin's gradualism. Not that it matters to me - I think they're both wrong. (Does it really matter what colour the Tooth Fairy's dress is?)

Dawkins must be as dumb as me - he couldn't come to terms with PE either.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1144 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-30-2017 3:04 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 776
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1166 of 1311 (816271)
08-02-2017 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1160 by dwise1
07-31-2017 10:43 AM


Re: seven "assumptions"
It's a fact that some creationists have used the odd quote out-of-context. But generally, speaking creationists are honest, since honesty is a very important requirement of their religion. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit demand honesty.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1160 by dwise1, posted 07-31-2017 10:43 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1168 by Tangle, posted 08-02-2017 6:21 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 1170 by herebedragons, posted 08-02-2017 9:56 AM Dredge has responded
 Message 1176 by dwise1, posted 08-02-2017 7:18 PM Dredge has responded

    
Dredge
Member
Posts: 776
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1167 of 1311 (816273)
08-02-2017 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1159 by Taq
07-31-2017 10:41 AM


Re: Gould's observations do support Creationism
Taq writes:

Where did Gould ever say that what he saw was evidence for creation? He never did, yet Dredge is trying to put those words in his mouth. That is dishonest.


Are you suggesting that a man of Gould's intelligence and knowledge was not aware that the "sudden appearance" and "stasis" he saw in the fossil record was not used by creationists as evidence of creation?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1159 by Taq, posted 07-31-2017 10:41 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1169 by JonF, posted 08-02-2017 8:48 AM Dredge has not yet responded
 Message 1171 by Taq, posted 08-02-2017 10:48 AM Dredge has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6672
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 1168 of 1311 (816274)
08-02-2017 6:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1166 by Dredge
08-02-2017 5:56 AM


Re: seven "assumptions"
Dredge writes:

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit demand honesty.

Yes it's a paradox isn't it?

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.

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

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1166 by Dredge, posted 08-02-2017 5:56 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 4481
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1169 of 1311 (816278)
08-02-2017 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1167 by Dredge
08-02-2017 6:18 AM


Re: Gould's observations do support Creationism
He knew. He was pissed. But that's no reason for discarding a theory.

Eminent biologist hits back at the creationists who 'hijacked' his theory for their own ends


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1167 by Dredge, posted 08-02-2017 6:18 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1493
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(3)
Message 1170 of 1311 (816280)
08-02-2017 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1166 by Dredge
08-02-2017 5:56 AM


Re: seven "assumptions"
But generally, speaking creationists are honest, since honesty is a very important requirement of their religion.

I do believe that the average creationist is well-meaning and sincerely believes they are being honest. Its the leaders and "experts" that are dishonest and deceptive. Do you really consider Kent Hovind to be an honest, truthful advocate for creationism? Ken Ham? These men are shysters, snake-oil salesmen. Is that how the "truth" is advanced? God forbid!

It's a fact that some creationists have used the odd quote out-of-context.

This quoting-out-of-context is the rule rather than the exception. When quotes from scientists are taken out of context and used to mean something different than they were intended to mean... is that honest? Notice the quotes being used are not data or observations; but conclusions, assessments or opinions... the former can be reinterpreted without impunity, the latter need context. It seems obvious to me that manipulating someone else's words is dishonest.

When evidence is misrepresented and conflicting evidence is omitted, is that honest? This is standard creation science operating procedure. Give just the evidence that supports a premise. The details and conflicting evidence are either irrelevant or inconsequential since the evidence presented provides the "correct" answer.

What ends up happening is... the average creationist starts out with the belief that the earth is young and was created in 6 literal days... that is the "truth" and that is the starting point. It then is irrelevant how evidence is collected and interpreted as long as the answer is that the earth is young and was created in 6 literal days. If the answer is right... it doesn't matter how you come up with it.

Is that really honest?

When a claim is demonstrated to be wrong and it is continued to be put forth as evidence, is that honest?

Is it honest to repeat claims that are lies or just plain wrong even if you don't know they are wrong?

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit demand honesty.

And that, Dredge, is why I abandoned creationism and am passionately opposed to creation science... creation science is not an honest endeavor, despite the general honesty and good intention of the average creationist. If I have to lie and manipulate evidence to support my beliefs, they are just not worth having.

I would encourage you to truly examine the claims of creation science and see if they are really honest claims or do they just come to the right conclusion?

And BTW, rejection of creationism does not equal atheism. Acceptance of evolution does not equal atheism. Despite the lies that the creation science leaders tell you.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1166 by Dredge, posted 08-02-2017 5:56 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1172 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2017 12:09 PM herebedragons has not yet responded
 Message 1174 by dwise1, posted 08-02-2017 3:52 PM herebedragons has not yet responded
 Message 1204 by Dredge, posted 08-04-2017 2:24 AM herebedragons has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
7677
78
7980
...
88NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019