Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
73 online now:
dwise1, Tangle (2 members, 71 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,321 Year: 4,433/6,534 Month: 647/900 Week: 171/182 Day: 4/47 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 1171 of 1311 (816283)
08-02-2017 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1167 by Dredge
08-02-2017 6:18 AM


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

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?

That is not the same thing. You said that Gould thought it was evidence for creationism, not creationists. That is bearing false witness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1167 by Dredge, posted 08-02-2017 6:18 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1202 by Dredge, posted 08-04-2017 1:55 AM Taq has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1172 of 1311 (816293)
08-02-2017 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1170 by herebedragons
08-02-2017 9:56 AM


Re: seven "assumptions"
This quoting-out-of-context is the rule rather than the exception.

That comes right out of their shitty "How to Use the Bible" playbook


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1170 by herebedragons, posted 08-02-2017 9:56 AM herebedragons has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 1173 by ringo, posted 08-02-2017 3:42 PM New Cat's Eye has taken no action
 Message 1177 by Dredge, posted 08-03-2017 2:05 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19537
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 1173 of 1311 (816310)
08-02-2017 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1172 by New Cat's Eye
08-02-2017 12:09 PM


Re: seven "assumptions"
New Cat's Eye writes:

That comes right out of their shitty "How to Use the Bible" playbook


Or, to put it another way: If they can warp the Bible to fit their preconceived notions, they can warp anything else too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1172 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2017 12:09 PM New Cat's Eye has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 1175 by dwise1, posted 08-02-2017 3:55 PM ringo has seen this message

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5076
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 1174 of 1311 (816311)
08-02-2017 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1170 by herebedragons
08-02-2017 9:56 AM


Re: seven "assumptions"
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!

At one point I tried to classify different types of creationists and to analyze how and why those types develop. Of course, one disadvantage we have in such efforts is the creationists' own reluctance, avoidance, and outright refusal (often quite hostile) to discuss such questions, so all we have to go by are our observations in the field. I will try to return to this topic in the future.

Obviously, there is a wide range of types of creationists with their associated behaviors, even though we normally only see a rather small subset within that spectrum because we normally only see the ones who wish to confront us, to "fight evolution" head-on. Most of the followers are not motivated enough nor feel ready to confront us and most of the professionals and experienced creationists avoid us because they have learned through bitter experience that their claims cannot withstand direct examination and so find other venues that they can control or exploit (eg, creationist "debates").

My classification approach was not to define types as RAZD had done in this topic in Message 1081 (26 Jul 2017), but rather a kind of a sequence of levels that an individual creationist could progress through with each level having certain characteristics, including an increase in dishonesty as one moves up through each level.

Each level is primarily identified by the level of activism and involvement and a principal driving force in shaping the characteristics of each level is how the activities of that level bring them into contact with non-creationists and how they then respond to discovering the problems with their claims and with their YEC beliefs.

Basically I break YECs out into three groups: inactive, active, and professionals and activists. Similarly, I break the non-creationists into two main groups: knowledgeable (ie, us), ignorant (further sub-divided by what they are ignorant of: science, creationist claims. And then there's the general public, the typical target of the creationists (they prefer to avoid us non-creationists, especially us knowledgeable ones) since members of the general public are usually easy pickings since they tend to be ignorant of science and of creationism.

Of the inactive creationists, I have written:

quote:
Most creationists are followers who are primarily consumers of creationist claims. They don't normally transmit the claims, but when they do they tend mainly to share with fellow creationists and may on rare occasion try to repeat one to convince a non-believer (though they will rarely seek out non-believers to try to convince; that is what an active creationist would do). They almost never understand the claims nor any of the science they're "based" on, and they have been known to "get it wrong" and end up garbling the claim, though thanks to the magic of copy-and-paste though almost never happens in written form (eg, emails, discussion forums) but only verbally.

These creationists are basically honest (or at least start out that way) and they actually sincerely believe the creationist claims to be true, including the claims that the "truth of the Bible" depends directly on YEC and its "creation science" claims being true. The "truth of the Bible" is the "rock" upon which they have erected the whole of their faith, something of the utmost importance to them. Therefore, learning how false those claims are can be devastating.


Of the active creationists, I have written:

quote:
Active creationists have graduated from being passive consumers and idle chatters to taking an active role in their "culture war" against "evolutionism". They will actively seek out and confront non-creationists, primarily for the purpose of proselytizing -- I have encountered many creationists who are extremely eager to "discuss" creationism with me until they finally realize that it is impossible to convert me, whereupon they suddenly lose all interest and try to leave, even becoming extremely hostile if I try to continue the discussion. Active creationists will also study creationist materials more closely as well as other proselytizing training materials; eg, depictions of dialogues between the proselytizer and his victim in which the proselytizer easily responds to the victim's standard questions and objections while the in return hitting the victim with a series of non-trivial questions (which I call "unanswerable questions" because their purpose is to be impossible for most victims to answer, thus knocking them off balance and softening them for the kill or at the very least "make them look stupid" as one practitioner admitted). In other words, they make a study of how to proselytize effectively, which includes knowing which creationist claims to use and when along with a plethora of other dishonest tricks.

Since most of the victims they target will be "ignorant non-creationists" (see below), who are unfamiliar with creationist claims (and are often also ignorant of science) and so cannot tell that those claims are completely bogus, active creationists are usually safe enough. But every so often they encounter a knowledgeable non-creationist, someone who is familiar with those creationist claims and so is ready to reveal the truth to the creationist. To keep this short, I will discuss the creationist's possible reactions below.


I then sub-divide the active creationists as inexperienced or experienced:

quote:
  • The inexperienced active creationist has either just started being active or else is active very sporadically. He has most likely not yet encountered any knowledgeable non-creationist and so has not yet been exposed to the truth. When that does happen for the first time, it is a shock. And the second time it's another shock, but not as great. And the third time it's an even lesser shock. And so on until the creationist has gotten used to it and has worked out ways to deal with a knowledgeable non-creationist. And at that point he has become an experienced active creationist.

    Or he might not continue long enough to become experienced, but rather would either retreat back to being inactive or else leave the ranks of the creationists and become a non-creationist. It's up to the individual.

  • The experienced active creationist has been at this game for a while and so has seen some things. He should have encountered knowledgeable non-creationists on more than one occasion and so has been exposed to the truth on more than one occasion. He will have also worked out ways to deal with those knowledgeable non-creationists, mostly consisting of early identification and avoidance or tricks for quick disengagement. In the meantime, he will continue to use creationist claims against the ignorant non-creationists even though he knows that they are false (ie, he will readily use bogus claims if his mark is ignorant, but do everything he can to avoid any discussion of those bogus claims if the intended mark turns out to be knowledgeable). Of course, that involves a considerable amount of deliberate dishonesty on the creationist's part. But then, dishonesty is a standard creationist characteristic.

That is a distinguishing difference between experienced active creationists and inactive or inexperienced creationists. While the inactive and inexperienced creationists are typically honest (or as honest as they could be), with experience comes the knowledge that their claims are false. As a creationist begins to learn the truth, he could try to remain honest and end up in one of a number of ways, none of which involve him continuing to actively employ creationist claims. Indeed, one of the options is to stop being a creationist altogether and even become an opponent of "creation science" -- a great many "creation science" opponents were once creationists themselves.

The experienced active creationists are typically dishonest. After having learned that their claims are false, the only way they can continue to use them is by being dishonest.

But since most of the non-creationists they would encounter tend to be ignorant of "creation science" and even of science, it can take a while for active creationists to gain that experience. But it will come.


And of the professionals and activists:

quote:

Basically, an activist is an active creationist who has become even more active. Whereas an active creationist would prowl the streets, loiter outside of public schools, leave pamphlets in public restrooms, and frequent chat rooms and online forums, an activist would assume larger roles in order to reach a larger audience. Using a local activist, Bill Morgan, as an example, an activist would do such things as:

  • Develop and deliver creationist presentations at churches and wherever invited.
  • Develop and teach "creation science" classes in churches and/or private schools.
  • Train others how to proselytize using creationist claims.
  • Organize creationist clubs.
  • Organize and participate in creationist debates.
  • Write creationist pamphlets.
  • Write creationist articles.
  • Write and publish creationist newsletters.
  • Create a creationist web site.
  • Network with other creationists to plan events.

Another characteristic of an activist is that he has much more experience than an active creationist does. Which would mean that his level of dishonesty would be that much higher. Indeed, Bill Morgan is so astonishingly dishonest that he is clearly the most dishonest man I have ever encountered in my entire life (ie, in more than 60 years).

The main differences between a professional and an activist is that a professional normally operates on a national or world-wide scale, plus he gets paid for it. And he is no less dishonest, though now he's in a position to avoid contact with those pesky knowledgeable non-creationists.


I also discuss non-creationists in a similar manner, though classified differently. In my introduction:

quote:
Basically, all non-YECs, which means ironically that "non-creationists" includes a very large number of creationists, people who do believe in Divine Creation, just not of the YEC/"creation science" variety. While they could also be broken out into active and inactive groupings, a much more important classification criterion would be what they do or don't know

Those groupings are knowledgeable non-creationists and ignorant non-creationists with the latter group sub-divided as those who are knowledgeable about science but ignorant of creationist claims and those who are ignorant of science (and of creationism, it goes without saying). Those who are ignorant of science usually share somewhat the same "folk science" as the active creationists (eg, comic books, sci-fi B movies, poor quality science textbooks, "common sense") and so are vulnerable to creationist claims and arguments.

Anyway, I should cut this short now. As I said, these are my draft notes so far.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1170 by herebedragons, posted 08-02-2017 9:56 AM herebedragons has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 1203 by Dredge, posted 08-04-2017 2:03 AM dwise1 has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5076
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 1175 of 1311 (816312)
08-02-2017 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1173 by ringo
08-02-2017 3:42 PM


Re: seven "assumptions"
Or, to put it another way: If they can warp the Bible to fit their preconceived notions, they can warp anything else too.

And cherry-pick what they want while ignoring the rest. Because that is how religion works.

But it is not how science works, where you have to take everything into account and cannot afford to ignore anything. And you cannot simply re-define an inconvenient fact out of existence or into something else like they do all the time with religion.

Edited by dwise1, : added qs box


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1173 by ringo, posted 08-02-2017 3:42 PM ringo has seen this message

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5076
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 1176 of 1311 (816325)
08-02-2017 7:18 PM
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. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit demand honesty.

They may start out honest, but "creation science" corrupts them very quickly. It starts with being taught that if the claims of "creation science" are wrong, then God does not exist (or something to that effect; actual mileage may vary case-by-case). Then whenever the believer encounters any evidence contrary to "creation science" or any of his YEC beliefs, he has to start lying to himself, to deceive himself. One creationist lie follows another, creating a slippery slope that turns him into a dishonest hypocrite, a typical creationist.

I do agree that in Christian doctrine honesty is a very important requirement and that the religion demands honesty. That was very much a part of my own Christian training before I left over half a century ago. And it was also very much a part of my fundamentalist training as a "fellow traveller" with the Jesus Freak Movement (circa 1970 at the epicenter, Chuck Smith's Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa, Calif.). Though the fundamentalists were also very heavily into Satan and demons (opposing both, of course, but they did obsess a lot) and emphasized how lies and deception serve Satan, not God.

So then, the question remains: Why do you persist in your lies and deception? (plural "you" being applied to the YEC/"creation science" community as a whole, as well as to many individuals within that community)

By preaching honesty and practicing gross dishonesty, you are also practicing hypocrisy. I'm sure that you have heard or may feel that you "true Christians" are hated. Well, there is some truth behind that, but not for the reasons that you (pl.) want to whine about. One of the reasons is because normals are disgusted by your (pl.) flagrant hypocrisy. Your "true Christian" witness and Christian example serves to thoroughly discredit Christianity and to drive away those who otherwise might have wanted to consider becoming a Christian, but then they'd be afraid of becoming like you.

At this point, I would like to express to you our appreciation for your zealous and untiring contributions to the growth and spread of atheism. Now if we could only get you to stop misrepresenting what atheism is.

Now on the subject of the corrupting influence of creationism on Christians, let me introduce you to Carl Drews, a believing, practicing Christian who has seen it in action. He joined a fundamentalist church whose work he really liked, but then he had to leave them in disgust because the pastors advocated and supported "lying for the Lord" (another example of hypocrisy that normals hate and point out). His autobiographical page, My Story, tells that tale of how his pastors cared nothing for whether the creationist materials were true, but only whether they could be used against evolution -- ie, "the ends justify the means", the lowest form of opportunistic morality which the Radical Religious Right used to denounce as "secular humanism".

It also describes his first exposure to creationist materials, a cartoon pamphlet, in 1985. Through an email, he verified that it was Chick Pubs' "Big Daddy?", but instead of the current edition which was reportedly rewritten by Kent Hovind, that was the original, which I had also read circa 1970 during my fundamentalist training with the Jesus Freaks at Chuck Smith's Calvary Chapel. That part of the story illustrates the creationist practice of misquoting sources which is common creationist practice.

The part about the classes at his church serve to illustrate the lack of quality and veracity of other creationist materials which is sadly very typical of all creationist materials. In this case I think it was probably the "Back to Genesis" seminars or at least something similar.

Every week he would research the claims of the presentation and return the next week with notes about what he found to be wrong -- he posts a lot of those notes elsewhere on his site. That brings us to another problem: hardly any of his fellow students cared that there were serious problems with what they were learning, that those claims were not true. The Trinity demands honesty, you say, so why did those "true Christians" not care about honesty?

The problem there is that creationists who go to those classes and those meetings are not interested in the truth nor in honesty. Rather, they are looking for ammo to use in their own proselytizing efforts. For that purpose, they don't care whether the claim is true, but only that it sounds convincing, since the intended use is to convince others to convert (or to convince themselves that their creationist beliefs are true). On a science and religion forum maintained at conservative Christian Calvin College in the 1980's/1990's, I found this quote by Scott Rauch (http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199801/0077.html (link broken -- can't keep the stupid forum software from making that a link)):

quote:
"I still hold some anger because I believe the evangelical Christian community did not properly prepare me for the creation/evolution debate. They gave me a gun loaded with blanks, and sent me out. I was creamed."

From Carl Drews' page:

quote:
In about 1985 I was attending a Young Singles Bible Study at my church when creationism first came up. Someone had brought in a small pamphlet attacking evolution. It was a comic book featuring an overweight goateed college professor and a clean-cut handsome male student who easily refuted all the professor's teaching about evolution. "I've seen that one!" reported a friend named Rick gleefully. "That guy really slams evolution!" I volunteered to check it out and report back to the group. My attitude was, "I knew that evolution had some holes in it. Let's see what he found." I went to the public library to look up the references that were cited in the pamphlet.

The first citation wasn't quite what the original source had said. The second one contained some distortion, too. So did the third. It got worse and worse. None of the original authors would have agreed with the conclusions drawn in the pamphlet. I was shocked and upset! This Christian pamphlet contained substantially wrong information! I was able to locate most of the references, and all the ones I found had twisted the meaning of original information. I remember that in one example the author had neglected to mention the chemical benzene that was involved in an experiment to form oil quickly.

I brought my findings back to the Young Singles group and presented them. I tried to be gentle, but the writing was on the wall. The group was shocked, surprised, and angry. Afterwards Rick said in a small voice that he thought that somewhere there was some information that could disprove evolution.

I wrote to the publisher of the pamphlet and asked them why a Christian would put together such a poor pamphlet. I got a fairly lengthy response that admitted no wrong, misinterpreted several things I had said, defended the pamphlet, and supplied additional examples to replace the ones I had rejected.

This experience was so upsetting to me that I refused to discuss evolution for many years after that.

In 1999 my wife and I and our two young children joined a fundamentalist Christian church. Evolution and creationism had already come up in a prayer group, so I asked the senior pastor if I could be a member there and still accept evolution. I already knew that evolution was the minority belief in that church. He said that the important thing to agree on is that God is the Creator, and I wholeheartedly agreed with that. So I became a member.

From that meeting I assumed that we had agreed to disagree, that our differing views would be mutually respected. It was my mistake not to verify that assumption. A month or so later I heard the following declaration during a sermon: "Evolution - what a lie that is!" This statement shocked me in the light of our earlier meeting, but I ignored it.

About a month after that I heard that the church was to begin a class on evolution and creationism, featuring a videotape series by a creationist organization. The pastors enthusiastically endorsed the class during worship announcements. It was obvious that evolution would be attacked and scoffed at. I confronted the senior pastor and asked him how he could do this in the spirit of what we had discussed. He urged me to take the class.

So I did. I checked out the references that the video speakers cited, and looked up their claims in the public library and on the World Wide Web. I quickly discovered the same pattern that I had found in the pamphlet years before.

Certain portions of the presentation mocked and derided evolutionists. The speakers' scholarship was sloppy, with numerous misquotations and incorrect or obsolete statements about evolutionary theory. Their science was weak and not very convincing. It was deeply discouraging to sit in class week after week and hear the two speakers make statements of science that I knew to be wrong. It was upsetting to hear them cite a mainstream or evolutionist reference so confidently, and then to find when I checked the reference that they had distorted the meaning of the original source. I cannot and will not tolerate false statements and distortions, no matter what is the point being made, no matter what is the greater truth that is supposed to be served.

The ninth commandment makes no distinction between bearing false witness about Biblical and non-Biblical materials. It's extremely important to tell the truth about science, too.

I prepared a sheet of notes about what I had found that was wrong in each class, and made this available at the beginning of each next class. Only about a third of the other students even looked at my findings. During our short discussions there were some attempts to explain away the errors that I had found. These attempts were not researched very well, and usually I could point out that some creationist example like Paluxy River had been discredited years ago.

I wrote three detailed letters to the pastors during the long 12 weeks of the video class. They responded to my objections by saying that the speakers do a good job of preaching against evolution, and that the incorrect statements about science don't matter very much in that big picture. They contended without details that the errors I had cited were subjective. They refused to announce that some of the information presented was misleading or not accurate, and they also refused to exhort people to check out and verify the claims that were made. They urged me to continue the class.

I hated going to church on Sunday mornings. When the class was finally over I had a final talk with the senior pastor to make sure that I understood his position correctly, and to verify that no corrective action concerning the class was in the works. There was none; in fact, there were plans to show one of the videos to the children's group.

We left that church. We left not because they conducted a video series attacking evolution, nor even because that series supported those attacks using incorrect information. We left because the church refused to announce that the class had flaws, declined to investigate the errors that were properly reported, and refused to urge people to get independent witness. The problem was not differing views. The problem was that they bore false witness. They lied.


They lied. The pastors of a fundamentalist church lied. Solely because they had been seduced by the lies of "creation science."

"Creation science" started out as a deliberate crafted deception to fool the US courts, but then it spread to the churches which it immediately started to corrupt. It has already cost far too many Christians (now ex-Christians) their faith and keeps many more from ever taking Christianity seriously. It has been called "one of the major causes of atheism and materialism."


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 1201 by Dredge, posted 08-04-2017 1:51 AM dwise1 has taken no action

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1354
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1177 of 1311 (816337)
08-03-2017 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1172 by New Cat's Eye
08-02-2017 12:09 PM


Re: seven "assumptions"
If the first parts of Genesis are allegorical, when does the allegory stop and the literal begin?

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1172 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2017 12:09 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1184 by JonF, posted 08-03-2017 8:23 AM Dredge has taken no action
 Message 1185 by herebedragons, posted 08-03-2017 8:40 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 1188 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-03-2017 10:18 AM Dredge has taken no action
 Message 1192 by ringo, posted 08-03-2017 11:53 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1354
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1178 of 1311 (816338)
08-03-2017 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1163 by dwise1
08-01-2017 5:22 PM


dwise1 writes:

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 %


My aptitude for mathematics is Einstein-like, but I can't figure out how to got from

= 100 × 99,990,000 / 10,000
to
= 100 × 9999


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1163 by dwise1, posted 08-01-2017 5:22 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1181 by RAZD, posted 08-03-2017 6:54 AM Dredge has taken no action
 Message 1182 by herebedragons, posted 08-03-2017 7:48 AM Dredge has taken no action
 Message 1196 by dwise1, posted 08-03-2017 3:53 PM Dredge has replied
 Message 1200 by dwise1, posted 08-03-2017 5:26 PM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1354
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1179 of 1311 (816339)
08-03-2017 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1114 by Percy
07-28-2017 8:45 AM


Percy writes:

The full book review from which you took your quote can be found here: HOW EVOLUTION BECAME A RELIGION - Creationists correct?: Darwinians wrongly mix science with morality, politics. He's not saying what you think he's saying.


Ok, thanks for that; I'll have my researcher look into it.

But in the meantime ...

"In February of 1993, Ruse made some remarkable concessions in a talk at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) ... Ruse (spoke) on a topic labelled "Nonliteralist Anti-Evolutionism: The Case of Phillip Johnson" ... Mainly we talked about metaphysics and my position that naturalistic metaphysics underlies Darwinist belief. Ruse admitted to his AAAS audience , "In the ten years since I performed, or I appeared, in the creationism trial in Arkansas, I must say that I've been coming to this kind of position myself." Although he is as much an evolutionist as ever, Ruse now acknowledges "that the science side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science, which - it may not be a good thing to admit in a court of law - but I think that in all honesty we should recognize.""
- Darwin on Trial, 2nd edition, Phillip E. Johnson, p.163


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1114 by Percy, posted 07-28-2017 8:45 AM Percy has seen this message

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 1354
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1180 of 1311 (816340)
08-03-2017 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1160 by dwise1
07-31-2017 10:43 AM


Re: seven "assumptions"
dwise1 writes:

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?


I got that Raup quote from Darwin on Trial (2nd edition) by Phillip E. Johnson, p.187.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1160 by dwise1, posted 07-31-2017 10:43 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1183 by Pressie, posted 08-03-2017 8:07 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 1189 by dwise1, posted 08-03-2017 10:44 AM Dredge has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 644 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1181 of 1311 (816343)
08-03-2017 6:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1178 by Dredge
08-03-2017 2:11 AM


My aptitude for mathematics is Einstein-like, but I can't figure out how to got from

= 100 × 99,990,000 / 10,000
to
= 100 × 9999

Really?

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 1178 by Dredge, posted 08-03-2017 2:11 AM Dredge has taken no action

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 97 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 1182 of 1311 (816346)
08-03-2017 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1178 by Dredge
08-03-2017 2:11 AM


My aptitude for mathematics is Einstein-like, but I can't figure out how to got from
= 100 × 99,990,000 / 10,000
to
= 100 × 9999

Lol... Try using a calculator instead of doing all your calculations on the chalkboard like Einstein did.

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 1178 by Dredge, posted 08-03-2017 2:11 AM Dredge has taken no action

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2102
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 1183 of 1311 (816347)
08-03-2017 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1180 by Dredge
08-03-2017 2:18 AM


Re: seven "assumptions"
So, you didn't quote from the original work? All hearsay? You quoted from a book you didn't read yourself? No wonder you're a creationist.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1180 by Dredge, posted 08-03-2017 2:18 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1205 by Dredge, posted 08-04-2017 2:31 AM Pressie has replied

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 1184 of 1311 (816349)
08-03-2017 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1177 by Dredge
08-03-2017 2:05 AM


Re: seven "assumptions"
If the first parts of Genesis are allegorical, when does the allegory stop and the literal begin?

Ah, there's the rub. You are probably one of those who's scared to death of losing your get-out-of-hell-free card. If you have to decide what's literal and what is not, you might decide wrong, and then it's the fiery pit for you, boyo. So you avoid the problem by deciding everything is literal.

Which immediately leads to no end of contradictions and a worldview that has no connection to reality.

Step up to the plate, belly up to the bar, and decide.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1177 by Dredge, posted 08-03-2017 2:05 AM Dredge has taken no action

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 97 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 1185 of 1311 (816351)
08-03-2017 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1177 by Dredge
08-03-2017 2:05 AM


Re: seven "assumptions"
If the first parts of Genesis are allegorical, when does the allegory stop and the literal begin?

You fundamentalists just love your false dichotomies don't you? They rank right up there with your love of definitions and logical fallacies (pointing out others supposed fallacies whilst ignoring your own, of course)

Most of the book of Genesis is obviously stories that were passed down orally for generations and generations. They are likely based on real events but then, over time, they developed into what has been recorded in Genesis. Just because they are not historically accurate doesn't mean they are allegory or even that they are false. They are stories that have a lesson, a lesson about God, humans and relationships. Just because the stories are not absolutely, literally, historically true doesn't mean they are absolutely false. That is a false dichotomy (unless the whole of the issue is historical accuracy - then they are either historically true or historically false). But I don't believe that is the central issue, nor what literalists insist on.

This is what literalists do... they force people to choose between absolutely historically true and absolutely theologically false. In fact we could have several options: a) historically true, theologically true; b) historically true, theologically false; c) historically false, theologically false; d) historically false, theologically true. Literalists force people to choose between a) and c); choices b) and d) aren't even on the table...

How do you expect people who are skeptical to accept the theological lessons and truths of the Bible when you force them to choose between absolutely historically true and absolutely theologically false? Fundamentalists/literalists think they are upholding the sovereignty/authority of the Bible, but all they really do is "tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders..."

Do you really expect to convince people of the truth by forcing them to accept untruth? by bearing false witness?

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 1177 by Dredge, posted 08-03-2017 2:05 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1186 by Faith, posted 08-03-2017 8:53 AM herebedragons has taken no action
 Message 1284 by Dredge, posted 08-06-2017 2:28 AM herebedragons has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022