Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1201 of 1311 (816394)
08-04-2017 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1176 by dwise1
08-02-2017 7:18 PM


Re: seven "assumptions"
dwise1 writes:
One of the reasons is because normals are disgusted by your (pl.) flagrant hypocrisy.
Oh, how I yearn to be one of the "normals"! But as hard as I try, I just can't do it. I don't have it in me.
---------------------------------
They lied. The pastors of a fundamentalist church lied. Solely because they had been seduced by the lies of "creation science."
In your feverish haste to malign a creationist church, you've overlooked a few obvious considerations:
You forgot to mention the possibility that the church in question considered that their creation science was sound and that they considered Carl Drews' opinion to be in error or considered that he wasn't scientifically qualified to make a judgement. Or maybe the church had another reason for not trusting Drews' judgement - like the little ol' fact that he was an evolutionist. So the church ignored him and continued to preach in good conscience what they thought was good science.
That's not lying. At worst, it's preaching bad science out of ignorance.
Or it could simply be a case of preaching good creation science despite the protestations of an disgruntled evolutionist in the congregation. Preaching good creation science isn't lying; it's preaching the truth.
You haven't supplied any details of the scientific material in question, so there's no way of knowing if the church was at fault or of assessing how right or wrong Drews' opinions were.
And we haven't heard the church's side of the story. You accuse this creationist church of lying solely on the testimony of one malcontented evolutionist. Is that fair and reasonable? Could it be that your sense of justice has been warped by a pathological hatred of creation and/or of creationists? Should anyone be surprised that you have come down on the side of Drew the evolutionist and condemned a creationist church? I'm not.
Even if Drews had good reason to oppose what that church was teaching, he was a theistic evolutionist and therefore a heretic; an enemy of the truth.
----------------------------------------------
It has been called "one of the major causes of atheism and materialism."
By whom?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1176 by dwise1, posted 08-02-2017 7:18 PM dwise1 has not replied

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


Message 1202 of 1311 (816395)
08-04-2017 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1171 by Taq
08-02-2017 10:48 AM


Re: Gould's observations do support Creationism
Taq writes:
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.
I can't accept that Gould would not consider "sudden appearance" and "stasis" to be evidence of creation. If not "sudden appearance" and "stasis", then one wonders, what would he consider to be evidence of creation? I should think that without "sudden appearance" and "stasis" in the fossil record, mounting a case for creation would be futile.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1171 by Taq, posted 08-02-2017 10:48 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1214 by herebedragons, posted 08-04-2017 8:11 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 1225 by Taq, posted 08-04-2017 10:54 AM Dredge has not replied

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


Message 1203 of 1311 (816396)
08-04-2017 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1174 by dwise1
08-02-2017 3:52 PM


Re: seven "assumptions"
dwise1 writes:
These creationists are basically honest (or at least start put that way)
Yes, I know what you mean: The longer I believe in creation the more dishonest I get. See what I mean? ... I just lied! Sometimes I can't tell if I'm lying or not.
Oh, and I'd better come clean on who my "creationist handlers" are. There are two: Chicko - the dog next-door; and Mr. Wong - a mysterious Asian man who comes to my door once a week, says nothing and gives me a brown-paper bag containing instructions. Also in the bag is enough LSD to last me one week, if taken twice a day. Mr. Wong has a large cross tattooed on his forehead and has bad breath that smells like petrol. He drives a blue-and-silver Bugatti Veyron with personalised number-plates that say, "Jesus Freek".
---------------------------------
You mentioned that some creationists have become "extremely hostile" with you.
Has one of those creationist death-squads (CDS) ever cornered you and tried to stone you to death?
-----------------------------
Has anyone ever suggested to you that you may have a pathological obsession with creationists? If a psychiatrist showed you a photo of a gas-chamber and asked you to blurt out the first thing that comes to mind, would you say, "creationists!"?
-----------------------------------------
Anyway, I should cut this short now. As I said, these are my draft notes so far.
Well, good on you, because that was fascinating! Have you shown this stuff to your therapist/psychiatrist yet? Maybe you shouldn't; but then again, if you want to get better, maybe you should.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1174 by dwise1, posted 08-02-2017 3:52 PM dwise1 has not replied

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


Message 1204 of 1311 (816397)
08-04-2017 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1170 by herebedragons
08-02-2017 9:56 AM


Re: seven "assumptions"
HBD writes:
Do you really consider Kent Hovind to be an honest, truthful advocate for creationism? Ken Ham?
I've heard of Ken Ham but never read or heard him; never heard of Kent Hovind.
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.
I can't speak for YECs. I don't believe the Bible indicates how old the earth is, so it could be billions of years old. But using the "starting point" of a young earth is no worse than using evolution as a starting point, which is what most atheists do.
If I have to lie and manipulate evidence to support my beliefs, they are just not worth having.
I agree. Most evolutionists are honest, I think, but mistaken. Some people can believe in miracles (creationists) and some can't (Darwinists). Trying to explain miracles with science is futile and only produces bad science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1170 by herebedragons, posted 08-02-2017 9:56 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1215 by herebedragons, posted 08-04-2017 8:41 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 1224 by Coyote, posted 08-04-2017 9:45 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 1244 by RAZD, posted 08-05-2017 7:17 AM Dredge has not replied

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


Message 1205 of 1311 (816398)
08-04-2017 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1183 by Pressie
08-03-2017 8:07 AM


Re: seven "assumptions"
Pressie writes:
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.
Good point, but I trust the judgement of Phillip Johnson. He's formidably intelligennt and, I believe, very honest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1183 by Pressie, posted 08-03-2017 8:07 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1213 by Pressie, posted 08-04-2017 5:23 AM Dredge has not replied

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


Message 1206 of 1311 (816399)
08-04-2017 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1192 by ringo
08-03-2017 11:53 AM


Re: seven "assumptions"
qs writes:
Hint: Talking snakes are not literal.
I agree, to a certain extent: As I have already explained in a previous post, it would seem that demons, or Satan, are not capable of "speaking" to humans in an audible voice. However, they can "speak" to the human mind by some mysterious inaudible process and thereby influence their thoughts and actions.
It would also seem that demons cannot appear in their own from or in the form of a human being or any other creature (apparition) - the only way they can manisfest themselves visually is by possessing the body of a human or another creature.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1192 by ringo, posted 08-03-2017 11:53 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1228 by ringo, posted 08-04-2017 11:42 AM Dredge has not replied

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


Message 1207 of 1311 (816400)
08-04-2017 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1194 by ringo
08-03-2017 11:58 AM


Re: seven "assumptions"
ringo writes:
Because everything is subject to human error - including and especially your view of the Bible.
God arranged to have his Word recorded in written form to preserve its accuracy down through the centuries. An oral method wouldn't work as it would be very prone to mistakes when being passed from one person to the next. Plus there would be no way of checking if the contemporary version of the story is faithful to the original.
The Jews went to extreme lenghts to ensure that each and every word was accurately copied from one Bible copy to the next.
The primary use of intelligence is for correcting errors.
Human intelligence is infallible? I didn't know that!
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1194 by ringo, posted 08-03-2017 11:58 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1219 by JonF, posted 08-04-2017 9:25 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 1220 by JonF, posted 08-04-2017 9:26 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 1221 by jar, posted 08-04-2017 9:29 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 1229 by ringo, posted 08-04-2017 11:54 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 1239 by dwise1, posted 08-05-2017 12:58 AM Dredge has replied

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


Message 1208 of 1311 (816401)
08-04-2017 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1195 by PaulK
08-03-2017 12:43 PM


Re: seven "assumptions"
PaulK writes:
And of course you are right to doubt the Exodus. The Book of Exodus was obviously written at a time when the story had become legend - whatever it's origins. Its implausibilities (and I don't mean the miracles!) give more cause to doubt
You were there so you would know.
as dies the fact that archaeology finds no trace of it.
Oh well, that proves it - it didn't happen. For all you know, the evidence could well be there but hasn't been discovered yet.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1195 by PaulK, posted 08-03-2017 12:43 PM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 1209 of 1311 (816402)
08-04-2017 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1196 by dwise1
08-03-2017 3:53 PM


Oh, thank you for that. Someone told me the division can also be performed on a calculator, whatever that is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1196 by dwise1, posted 08-03-2017 3:53 PM dwise1 has not replied

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


Message 1210 of 1311 (816403)
08-04-2017 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1198 by New Cat's Eye
08-03-2017 4:22 PM


Re: seven "assumptions"
NCE writes:
ringo writes:
Because everything is subject to human error ...
Faith writes:
Except writings inspired by God Himself.
Prove it.
Religion requires faith, not proof. Besides that, it will be proven ... in time. That is to say, when one kicks-the-bucket one comes face to face with the God who wrote the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1198 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-03-2017 4:22 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 1211 of 1311 (816405)
08-04-2017 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1200 by dwise1
08-03-2017 5:26 PM


Okay, what you seem to be saying is that
99,990,000/10,000 = 9999.
Whaaaaaat? How did you work that out? I think you've just made that up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1200 by dwise1, posted 08-03-2017 5:26 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1212 by CRR, posted 08-04-2017 4:02 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 1216 by herebedragons, posted 08-04-2017 8:46 AM Dredge has replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


(1)
Message 1212 of 1311 (816406)
08-04-2017 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1211 by Dredge
08-04-2017 3:26 AM


99 990 000
` 10 000
Remove 4 zeros from each line, 9999/1=9999
You can check it on a calculator.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1211 by Dredge, posted 08-04-2017 3:26 AM Dredge has not replied

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


Message 1213 of 1311 (816411)
08-04-2017 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1205 by Dredge
08-04-2017 2:31 AM


Re: seven "assumptions"
Dredge writes:
Good point, but I trust the judgement of Phillip Johnson. He's formidably intelligennt and, I believe, very honest.
Bad point you have. Read the originals before quoting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1205 by Dredge, posted 08-04-2017 2:31 AM Dredge has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 1214 of 1311 (816414)
08-04-2017 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1202 by Dredge
08-04-2017 1:55 AM


Re: Gould's observations do support Creationism
I can't accept that Gould would not consider "sudden appearance" and "stasis" to be evidence of creation.
So... you think God created some species of animal and it thrived for a time and then died out so God created a new species that was very similar to the original species but had some modifications, but that also died out after a number of years, so God tried again... and again... and again... until he finally hit upon a suitable design - and those are our modern species.
Unless this this the scenario you are imagining, "sudden appearance and stasis in the fossil record" is hardly evidence of creation. The "sudden appearance and stasis" that we do observe in the fossil record sure doesn't line up with the account given in Genesis.
If not "sudden appearance" and "stasis", then one wonders, what would he consider to be evidence of creation?
Sudden appearance of all forms of life at one point in time and then stasis and/or rapid evolution from original forms into to modern forms.
I should think that without "sudden appearance" and "stasis" in the fossil record, mounting a case for creation would be futile.
How about not "making a case" for any preconceived notion, but honestly examining the evidence and seeing where it leads. But that is dangerous... it might lead somewhere you don't want to go.
HBD
Note: I put "sudden appearance and stasis in the fossil record" in quotation marks because I don't agree that is really a valid description of our overall observation of the fossil record. Nor do I think that observations of "sudden appearance" or "stasis" in the fossil record are all that surprising.

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 1202 by Dredge, posted 08-04-2017 1:55 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1222 by JonF, posted 08-04-2017 9:29 AM herebedragons has not replied
 Message 1282 by Dredge, posted 08-06-2017 2:10 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 1215 of 1311 (816415)
08-04-2017 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1204 by Dredge
08-04-2017 2:24 AM


Re: seven "assumptions"
I don't believe the Bible indicates how old the earth is, so it could be billions of years old.
Well then, I suppose you are just as much a "heretic" as you accuse theistic evolutionists as being. Just ask anyone who is a True Bible Believer.
I am also a creationist in that I believe, without doubt, that God created everything that is and has being. But I believe he used processes that we can observe to bring creation into existence. The reason I believe that over other versions of creation, is because we can observe those processes and patterns in nature and in the historical record (the geological record). So do I think that makes the Bible a false and meaningless book? No, it just tells the story from a different perspective and with a different purpose. It is not a historic or scientific textbook.
The problem is each of these different fundamentalist groups consider themselves to be the True Bible Believers and all others to be heretics and compromisers. Remember there is only 1 Gospel, 1 Truth, 1 Word of God, 1 Way and if you vary from that one, even in the smallest detail, you are outside the Truth. That is fundamentalism. You may not consider yourself to be a fundamentalist, but you are falling into that same trap by accusing others of being heretics, etc... when you yourself are a heretic (at least in someone's opinion).
Some people can believe in miracles (creationists) and some can't (Darwinists).
False dichotomy. There is no reason why a person who accepts evolutionary theory as the best explanation of how life on earth came to be so diverse can't also believe in miracles.
Trying to explain miracles with science is futile and only produces bad science.
Like... flood geology, rapid plate tectonics, rapid evolution, changing properties of physical phenomenon (speed of light was faster in the past, radioactive decay was different in the past, etc.). I would have to agree those are bad science.
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 1204 by Dredge, posted 08-04-2017 2:24 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1218 by CRR, posted 08-04-2017 9:01 AM herebedragons has not replied
 Message 1279 by Dredge, posted 08-06-2017 1:59 AM herebedragons 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