Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
50 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, jar, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, Theodoric (7 members, 43 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,252 Year: 4,364/6,534 Month: 578/900 Week: 102/182 Day: 9/27 Hour: 1/1

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   There are easy creationist answers to problems evolutionists pose
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 44 of 111 (885352)
04-07-2021 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by dwise1
04-01-2021 3:50 PM


Re: Already Convinced
Define what a "creationist" is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by dwise1, posted 04-01-2021 3:50 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-07-2021 1:07 PM WookieeB has taken no action
 Message 46 by dwise1, posted 04-07-2021 2:49 PM WookieeB has replied
 Message 57 by dwise1, posted 04-10-2021 8:14 PM WookieeB has replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 60 of 111 (885595)
04-19-2021 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by dwise1
04-10-2021 8:14 PM


Re: Already Convinced
dwise1 writes:

WookieeB writes:

Define what a "creationist" is?

First, the syntax of that sentence is positively not a question, so just exactly why did you use a question mark? Please note that I just asked you a "why" question, therefore a question mark is required (AKA "an interrogative"). But you gave me a command (AKA "the imperative"), which does not in any manner call for a question mark.

You're right, my punctuation is incorrect. I got caught between thoughts and didn't correct the edit entry punctuation. I had originally written: "Can you define what a "creationist" is?", but realized even a yes or no answer to that might not elicit a definition. So I changed the request to what was posted and didn't update the punctuation. If I were to write it again, it would be: "Please, define what a "creationist" is."

dwise1 writes:

So just where is WookieeB?
He asked me a simple and direct question and I answered it immediately.
It has been almost 24 hours. So just where is he?
I did see him still logged into this forum during that time. So just where did he disappear to?


I do appreciate you answering the request.

But I was unaware that on this forum there was a requirement to further acknowledge your response with one of my own, much less be held to a 24-hour time limit to accomplish that. Considering that some of the threads on this forum have stretched on for years without having a daily request-response-response-..., I would not have expected such a standard. Did I miss some posted rule to that effect when I originally registered on this forum? If so, please point out the relevant text.

As to where I disappeared to, well that is none of your (or anyone else's) business. Despite your apparent posting standard, I do not feel I am beholden to any level of participation here, but will engage at my own discretion and according to the freedoms that the forum rules and society allow.

Define what a "creationist" is?

Add a "Please" and change the punctuation, and I'm still appreciative of your response.

There were a few reasons why I made this request -
1) The term "creationist" tends to have different meanings depending on where it is used. (A similar case can be said for the term "evolution"). In the majority of definitions, there is often an overlap of the description, usually that being the involvement of something supernatural. But there are distinctions between the varying definitions that are important to know as well. I can usually figure it out, but this thread seemed to be all over the place with meaning of the term.
2) Regardless the weakness of the OP's (mike the wiz) arguments, his apparent meaning of creationist was a more general one. Whereas dwise1's usage seemed to refer to a more formal group of people, of whom he had argued over YEC related topics over 30 years ago, and of whom he somehow has worked up a full psychological profile.

I value clarity over agreement, and as such I was having some difficulty reconciling the OP's and others usage of the term to what dwise1 was alluding to. Despite some of the past arguments dwise1 had been involved in, there was a desire in my mind to further explain the general description and beliefs of this group he referring to. Thus, my request.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by dwise1, posted 04-10-2021 8:14 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by dwise1, posted 04-20-2021 11:42 PM WookieeB has taken no action

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 61 of 111 (885596)
04-19-2021 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by dwise1
04-07-2021 2:49 PM


Re: Already Convinced
dwise1 writes:

Within the context of these discussions, a "creationist" would be a member of the anti-evolution movement which was originally based almost completely on a particular literalist belief in the Creation stories in Genesis.

A lot to unpack in your long description, but thanks again for the effort put in here. I just have more clarifying questions, you can answer or not at your discretion.

You mention here and throughout the rest of your answer of a "movement", which makes it sound more-or-less like a formal group. So assuming that is correct, would a person that is not part of this 'movement', but that holds similar beliefs as you describe, be a creationist?

Any formal movement put aside, would a person that does not believe in the particular literalist belief of the Creation stories in Genesis, but that does believe in Divine Creation apart from evolution, be considered as a creationist?
I'm think your answer here would be "No", and I'm thinking here primarily of differences between those holding to a young earth (~6000 years old -YEC?) vs someone who holds to an old earth. But your wording describing this later is a little confusing.

Therefore a simple operational definition of "creationist" would be one who practices or supports creationism. So what is creationism? It is a movement or position of opposing evolution for religious reasons basic on the mistaken idea that Divine Creation and evolution are somehow mutually exclusive. General belief in Divine Creation does not involve rejection of specific science like evolution, so that would not be the defining characteristic needed to identify a "creationist".

So, I do understand that in your view, someone that does believe in Divine Creation is not necessarily a creationist. The deciding factor appears to be merely whether the attitude opposing evolution is based solely on a religious stance. Otherwise, a person could believe (but not necessarily) in Divine Creation and evolution and not be a creationist. Where would you categorize someone that accepts Divine Creation and that opposes evolution based on a non-religious stance, such as having scientific reasons for rejecting (some aspects of) evolution?

What could confuse the matter is that the basic definition of "creationist" should just be someone who believes in Divine Creation, which in reality would include a very large number of people who accept evolution...people whom creationists denounce as "atheistic evolutionists".

Though much of this was stated by you prior, I'm quoting this again to just point out how the flow is lending to my understanding of what you mean. Someone that believes in Divine Creation is not necessarily a creationist. Someone that rejects evolution is not necessarily a creationist. Someone that believes in Divine Creation AND opposes evolution is not necessarily a creationist. But if someone in the category last mentioned does oppose evolution on primarily religious grounds, and/or has a belief in a particular literalist belief of creation described in Genesis, then they are a creationist. Here's your sign!

A common type of creationist would be an advocate of "creation science", which itself is a deliberately crafted legalistic deception designed to circumvent the plethora of US court decisions against the anti-evolution movement's attempts to bar the teaching of evolution on the basis of their actual motivation which is purely religious.

So any legalistic maneuvers to try to ban the teaching of evolution based on a religious motivation would be an additional sign of a creationist. What about someone that does not want evolution banned in teaching anywhere, nor wants religious ideas taught in public schools, but that wants academic freedom to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory, while privately holding a belief in Divine Creation? Would they be considered a creationist?

So besides these already strict standards, the rest of your characterizations also appear to have a strict and formal structure. I do not agree with every characterization or extension you mention. But in the descriptors that I have no reason to initially doubt, I suspect that today they are not very prevalent, as I have not encountered anyone that even comes close to embodying majority of the many features and tactics you describe. It seems most of your experiences are with limited cases and occurred a long time ago. Where have these factors been displayed in the 21st century?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by dwise1, posted 04-07-2021 2:49 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by AZPaul3, posted 04-20-2021 3:29 PM WookieeB has replied
 Message 66 by dwise1, posted 04-20-2021 10:18 PM WookieeB has taken no action
 Message 68 by dwise1, posted 04-21-2021 4:06 PM WookieeB has taken no action
 Message 69 by dwise1, posted 04-21-2021 6:30 PM WookieeB has taken no action

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 63 of 111 (885620)
04-20-2021 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by AZPaul3
04-20-2021 3:29 PM


Re: Already Convinced
AZPaul3 writes:

See you in court.

And yet you still didnt answer the question. So I wonder what your position in court will be.

Besides, you're going to be arguing with dwise1, since it's his definition and standard that I'm trying to unpack.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by AZPaul3, posted 04-20-2021 3:29 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by AZPaul3, posted 04-20-2021 6:10 PM WookieeB has taken no action
 Message 65 by dwise1, posted 04-20-2021 8:17 PM WookieeB has replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 70 of 111 (885663)
04-21-2021 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by dwise1
04-20-2021 8:17 PM


Re: Already Convinced
dwise1 writes:

AZPaul3 is quite correct. I don't understand why you think that my definition is so different from his.


You both seem to have reading comprehension issues. I was asking a question. AZPaul3 replied with some statement that seems to be trying to force some group identity regarding what I was asking about, yet he never answers the question. Then he (apparently) referenced some old legal decisions. AZPaul3 didn't give a definition.

If you all would actually care about context instead of trying to project something on me without any basis, you might have noticed that the question quoted of me is all couched in trying to unpack your (dwise1) prior descriptions of what a "creationist" is. I was just asking about a potential scenario that you had not explicitly covered. Though you later talked about a (formal?) group that shared similar sounding characteristics to the scenario I was asking about, the context of my question gives you no warrant to assume that I was speaking about that particular group.

The anti-evolution movement in the US started in the early 20th century....
...
...That is when that legalistic deception, "creation science", was created for the precise purpose of circumventing the courts. Though it also worked well to deceive the general public. Their big lie was "We do not oppose evolution for religious reasons. We oppose it for purely scientific reasons, nothing religious about it."

All very interesting. I appreciate the history lesson.
And yet, since I was not referring in any way to the legal state of things in my question, none of what you posted here is germane.

Gee, does that sound familiar to you? Maybe if we were to examine what you had stated and to which AZPaul3 had replied:

Where would you categorize someone that accepts Divine Creation and that opposes evolution based on a non-religious stance, such as having scientific reasons for rejecting (some aspects of) evolution?

As he said, we have seen that subterfuge used by creationists and IDiots so many times in this past half century.

No, it doesn't sound familiar, because aspects of your history lesson were not what I was asking about. You and AZPaul3 are falling prey to the formal fallacy of 'affirming the consequent' by assuming I must be referring to the prior practices of "creation science" advocates. But I was not doing so.

Recall, it was your (dwise1) words I was commenting on:

quote:
Therefore a simple operational definition of "creationist" would be one who practices or supports creationism. So what is creationism? It is a movement or position of opposing evolution for religious reasons basic[sic] on the mistaken idea that Divine Creation and evolution are somehow mutually exclusive. General belief in Divine Creation does not involve rejection of specific science like evolution, so that would not be the defining characteristic needed to identify a "creationist".

Per your description, creationism involves, in part, opposing evolution for religious reasons. You also clearly state here that one having belief in Divine Creation on its own is not enough to classify one as a creationist. So thinking about a scenario that was not covered by what you said here, I wanted to ask about how do you classify someone 1) opposing evolution on non-religious grounds and 2) holds to a belief in Divine Creation (which you already stated on its own is not sufficient to describe a creationist).

Where you and AZPaul3 are committing the fallacy is in assuming that my hypothetical person holding these parameters is being purposely deceitful. And that is very apparent by both of you characterizing the parameters of my scenario as "subterfuge". You assume that I mean one of those people that claim to oppose evolution on scientific grounds, but they are really lying and only are opposing it on religious grounds. I agree, according to that assumption and based on your history lesson, that would place a person in the "creation science" camp.

But you have no cause to assume that a person holding that position is being false. Perhaps you might be thinking that anyone holding a position of opposition to evolution on non-religious grounds is impossible. You have no warrant for that stance, it would just be your subjective opinion. (And then your treading into the no-true-Scotsman fallacy territory) The only other possibility that might work for you would be you think belief in Divine Creation and evolution are actually mutually exclusive, but then you're contradicting your prior statements.

Frankly, simply answering my question as: "Yes, that would be a creationist." would have been a sufficient. We could have moved on from there.

Instead, the whole rest of the post is more of the same, history and characterizations (many of which I do not agree with). Again, that is not germane to what I was asking about.

So despite your attempt to mischaracterize your position as "non-religious", reality proves you wrong on that point.

No, you were the one mischaracterizing my position. Considering it was a hypothetical situation anyways, you had no reason to characterize a position that was explicitly stated as "non-religious" in the premise to being "religious".

------

Your next post solidifies what I have been saying. Either you are fallaciously implying intent where none is warranted, or you are being disingenuous.

dwise1 writes:

The entire "creation science" deliberate deception was based on this big lie: "We oppose evolution for purely scientific reasons. Has absolutely nothing to do with religion." When in reality "creation science" is purely religious in nature and in purpose. So that big lie was intended first to deceive the courts and then to deceive the public.


According to your statements, "creation science" opposes evolution. And it claims it does so for purely scientific reasons, though in reality its reasons are religious, not scientific. So they are lying when they say opposition is for scientific reasons. Fine, for the sake of the argument I can accept that premise.

Now, how about a different person/group that truly did oppose evolution for scientific reasons. Do you allow that this is possible? You should, cause you have no warrant to exclude such a possibility. If so, this 2nd person/group would not be lying and would NOT be a part of "creation science".

That claim of "rejecting evolution for scientific reasons" is nothing but a massive fraud.

For the "creation science" group, based upon the premise that we are both agreeing to, this is true.

But for the 2nd person/group, which my question was hypothetically establishing, there is no deception. They are honestly opposing evolution on non-religious (or scientific) grounds.

If you are instead trying to infer that one can never oppose evolution on scientific grounds, you need to go back and rewrite your whole argument. But I hope that is not what you mean, as you would then have the result of undermining the whole scientific endeavor to arrive at that kind of claim.

Now, look at that and look at what you had written. Aren't they virtually identical in what they claim?

No, they are not virtually identical.

We have watched creationists for decades lying out of every orifice of their bodies and shoveling tons of bullshit all over everybody.
How else could you expect us to view you when you try to shovel that same old bullshit lie on us as you just now did?

No, I didn't. You just assume I did. I never made any statement that could be considered a lie. I simply suggested a scenario and asked you for your categorization. You are affirming the consequent by linking my scenario with a formal group you want it linked with, and then projected that groups presumed motives onto my scenario. You are changing the premises to suit your desire, and you cannot logically do that.

But if you insist on that and try to reason that it is correct to do so, then you are being disingenuous with your next part.

My position basically boils down to this:

If you honestly and truly want to fight evolution, then at least do it right!
Learn everything you can about evolution and then attack it, not some stupid strawman caricature of it.
And do so honestly and truthfully!

By refusing to fight evolution honestly and truthfully, but rather using "creation science" instead,...


How would one "honestly and truthfully" fight evolution? You obviously dont allow any religious arguments. And frankly, I don't blame you on that front. They are entirely different categories?

Since evolution, in the context being used here, is a scientific study, and any evidence used in favor of it is scientific, then any evidence against it should also be scientific in nature.

Yet you apparently will not allow that either. If by default there can be no scientific evidence against evolution, as any claim in that manner is, to you, a lie because it really is a religious argument, then there is no viable option to "fight evolution" and "do it right!". You ask for honesty and truth, but exclude any possible evidence in that manner as unable to be honest or true.

Thus, if you are not using the formal fallacy, you are then being disingenuous.

What part of "then do so honestly and truthfully" are you unable or unwilling to understand?

I have no problem understanding that term. The funny thing here is, so far in this thread, I have not submitted any arguments for or against evolution. I have merely questioned your definition of what a creationist is. The suggestions by you otherwise point to you not paying attention to what has been written and projecting an unwarranted classification. You're tilting at windmills.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by dwise1, posted 04-20-2021 8:17 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by NosyNed, posted 04-22-2021 1:05 AM WookieeB has taken no action
 Message 72 by dwise1, posted 04-22-2021 2:57 AM WookieeB has replied
 Message 73 by dwise1, posted 04-22-2021 10:58 AM WookieeB has replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 74 of 111 (885703)
04-23-2021 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by dwise1
04-22-2021 2:57 AM


Re: Already Convinced
As I've already said, I frankly cannot tell what you are talking about because you keep using the word "creationist" with different meanings and without any attempt to identify which meaning you are using, thus committing the creationist sin of "semantic shifting" whether intentionally or not.

As you indicated, this is the second time you have said that. But WTH are you talking about??? Go ahead, show me where I have 'used the word "creationist" with different meaning? Where? Go ahead and show me where I have done a semantic shift? Provide your evidence!

I don't think you can. Perhaps once you fail at that, you can work on your reading comprehension.

Also, I'm starting to suspect that you are just trying to muddy the waters and generate confusion. Confusion is a creationist's best friend.

You definitely are the one that is confused. But it is not because I'm doing anything unusual. You apparently cannot read something and understand it, and you apparently cannot remember what you yourself wrote. Projecting your own faults onto others is not a good sign. You are beginning to look paranoid.

I have already established the context of "creationist" that is being used in this forum. If either of us deviate from that established context, then we need to qualify the term; eg, I will refer to "actual creationists" as those who believe in Divine Creation but not in the lies of "creation science". I suggest that you also qualify your terms properly so as to avoid generating confusion.

Defining of terms is important. I applaud that request.
But then you give an example that is puzzling. Perhaps you are giving this example purely as an example form, and we are not to take your example as actually how you are defining something. I will accept that it being merely a form of what you are proposing, since you included the 'exempli gratia' before your example. I hope you can confirm this. Because if you actually are defining ""actual creationists" as those who believe in Divine Creation but not in the lies of "creation science"", then you have some warped contextual usage or are just plain contradicting yourself.

I'm very interested in how this may play out.

Within the context of this forum, creationists are opponents of "evolution"

Have you here modified your definition? In post Message 61 you stated:
quote:
Within the context of these discussions, a "creationist" would be a member of the anti-evolution movement which was originally based almost completely on a particular literalist belief in the Creation stories in Genesis.

and
quote:
Therefore a simple operational definition of "creationist" would be one who practices or supports creationism. So what is creationism? It is a movement or position of opposing evolution for religious reasons basic on the mistaken idea that Divine Creation and evolution are somehow mutually exclusive.

So, prior, you indicated a "creationist" would be someone that opposed evolution base on some specific conditions. But this time you omitted the conditions. Was that just perhaps an error, or are you now assuming that the prior stated conditions are a given in this thread? If neither, than you are "semantic shifting".

Do please try to keep up.

Do try to improve your reading comprehension.

wookieeb writes:

You mention here and throughout the rest of your answer of a "movement", which makes it sound more-or-less like a formal group. So assuming that is correct, would a person that is not part of this 'movement', but that holds similar beliefs as you describe, be a creationist?


And why would you think that the anti-evolution movement would be some formal organization complete with membership cards and a national HQ? It's diverse and decentralized, consisting mainly of small local groups usually associated with churches of a certain theological persuasion -- indeed, many such churches actively include "creation science" as part of their doctrine.

Reading comprehension time!
Let's see. From my words, a formal group is defined as: "A formal group is a collection of persons, who came together for achieving a specified goal. It has its own set of distinct characteristics. These include well-defined rules and regulation, an organizational structure, and determined objectives and policies"
Your word that you used frequently, movement in a sociological sense means: "consists of a number of people organized and coordinated to achieve some task or a collection of goals".
So the overlapping meaning in both terms is referring to a group of people that is trying to achieve some task or set of goals.

Your further description in Message 46 also was "thus identifying creationists as practicing "creation science"", of which you said: ""creation science", which itself is a deliberately crafted legalistic deception designed to circumvent the plethora of US court decisions against the anti-evolution movement's attempts to bar the teaching of evolution on the basis of their actual motivation which is purely religious". You also mentioned: "Fundamental to "creation science" is their "Two Model Approach" (TMA)...". So here we have, by your own words, a set of practices that need to be met (a set of policies) , a practice that would necessitate involvement in the courts (that would need well-defined rules and regulations to follow, and probably involve some organization structure to accomplish), and a set of guidelines and practices all referred to with official double quotes and an acronym. [I actually did a search on the web which led me to the ICR site that actually confirmed that the "Two Model Approach" was an official thing.]
- all this is at least supporting the concept of a formal group.

And by the way, churches are formal groups, as is ICR and AiG. .

Yet I never said anything like it "would be some formal organization complete with membership cards and a national HQ" That is of your own projection. Besides, if you notice from where you quoted me, I said your descriptions " makes it sound more-or-less like a formal group". Reading comprehension time! More-or-less means: "approximately; to a varying or undetermined extent or degree". So my statement was hardly anything close to firmly claiming it as "some formal organization complete with membership cards and a national HQ"

Then, my next statement was a question, starting with the words: "So assuming that is correct,..", which means for the sake of the singular thought that follows and according to the prior statements, the 'creationist movement' is considered a formal group. And then my question was regarding the converse case, how would you classify someone that doesn't follow the formal group practices, but still holds roughly the same beliefs.
And just to further support this, my very next sentence started with: "Any formal movement put aside,..." which means we are no longer considering anyone as a formal group.

You could have answered that question easily and simply. Instead you misunderstand context and you freaked out. Tilt!

And the Internet has made the dissemination of creationist nonsense far easier and wide spread. One classic example that keeps cropping up is a "shrinking sun" claim that talks about 300 years of data gathered at "Boyle Observatory". In reality, that data was gathered at the Royal Observatory between the years 1863-1953, so ninety (90) years, not 300. But some creationist made those mistakes and now it's plastered all over the Internet.

This one made me laugh. Of course the internet has made it easier for the dissemination of creationist nonsense, but it has also made it easier for the dissemination of anti-creationist nonsense, evolution nonsense, anti-evolution nonsense, and every other nonsense topic out there. Whoopee!
But then you fret about this "shrinking sun" story. So I looked up on Google: "Boyle Observatory shrinking sun", thinking I'm going to get a whole bunch of entertaining pages. And what is the result? Of the first 70 or so results, only 5 had anything to do with creationism. And of those 5 results, 3 of the pages were dated or had references dating to well prior of year 2000, and 1 of the results was actually a thread for these EvC Forums from 2001 with an oh-so impressive 7 posts. On the last page I could not find a reference date, but the HTML looked like an old style (pre-2000) and the link from where it claimed it got its information was no longer active.

And this is what you consider is "plastered all over the Internet". LOL

wookieeb writes:

I suspect that today they are not very prevalent, as I have not encountered anyone that even comes close to embodying majority of the many features and tactics you describe. It seems most of your experiences are with limited cases and occurred a long time ago. Where have these factors been displayed in the 21st century?

Even though their activity ebbs and flows (not to be confused with the 60's rock duo, Flo and Eddie), they have not gone away.

Never indicated it had all gone away. But of the ebb and flow, it seems to be be greatly ebbing. Considering your internet case mentioned above, the great majority of all the history you've put into the posts, and your own website links, it doesn't appear that much of anything has happened since the 1990's. I get the feeling you are still mentally in those times, reliving your fight-the-creationists-glory days of 2+ decades ago.

Now please try to get this straight. You keep worrying questions of motivation and other trivial matters (like a dog worries a shoe by chewing on it all the time). That is not the issue! Stop letting that distract you!

Rather, the issue is that:

1. The basic creationist deception is that they oppose evolution for purely scientific reasons, not any religious reasons in any way or manner. The truth is that their opposition is for purely religious reasons which are suspect even within the realm of Christian doctrine.

Really? This is too good!!!

You complain that I'm too worried about motivations, and then first thing you list as to what the issue really should be about, is: creationist motivations.

GOLDEN!!!

They don't even oppose evolution, never had, never will. Rather, what they oppose is their fraudulent "evolution model" which has nothing at all to do with actual evolution. They have created a monstrous strawman boogeyman which they call "evolution" even though it has nothing to do with evolution.

From this point on, the points are getting irrelevant. Though because you have mentioned this item a few times, and it does relate to your post following the one referenced here, I'll ask you to please provide an example of this monstrous strawman boogeyman.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by dwise1, posted 04-22-2021 2:57 AM dwise1 has taken no action

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 75 of 111 (885704)
04-23-2021 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by dwise1
04-22-2021 10:58 AM


Re: Already Convinced
Absolutely untrue! Perhaps even bordering on a damned lie!

Ya, you go boy. Clutch those pearls!!!

First, it should be intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer (an engineering catchphrase that was popular when I was at Hughes Aircraft) that a religious argument would be inappropriate in a scientific discussion, so why would you even begin to raise such a specious objection?

Reading comprehension time!

My words:

quote:
How would one "honestly and truthfully" fight evolution? You obviously dont allow any religious arguments. And frankly, I don't blame you on that front. They are entirely different categories?

"You obviously don't allow any religious arguments." and "I don't blame you on that front. They are entirely different categories.*" is pretty much a match for "a religious argument would be inappropriate in a scientific discussion"
* I do note now I put a "?" mistakenly at the end, but I think in context it's easy to see it should be a "."

My words:

quote:
Since evolution, in the context being used here, is a scientific study, and any evidence used in favor of it is scientific, then any evidence against it should also be scientific in nature.

Here, I'll simplify it for you. "evolution...is a scientific study....[and] then any evidence against it should also be scientific in nature." That pretty much again matches up with "a religious argument would be inappropriate in a scientific discussion"

There is nothing specious about this. If you actually removed the back of your hand from your forehead and stopped panting, you might be able to actually read what I said and comprehend it. You can lighten the grip on your pearls.

You are ignoring the simple fact that creationists never ever address evolution nor ever present any evidence against evolution, but rather they have created an incredibly stupid strawman boogeyman which they have called "evolution" to scare themselves with.

Normally, I would think you're exaggerating here. But via all your posts and tone, I now doubt it.

So, per your definition in Message 72, "Within the context of this forum, creationists are opponents of "evolution"". That means opposing evolution == creationist. And per you, "creationists never ever address evolution nor ever present any evidence against evolution" (which you even bolded)" We already agreed that scientific evidence is the only valid kind. So if opposing evolution == creationist and creationists never ...present any evidence against evolution, then it results in what I effectively noted that according to you, "by default there can be no scientific evidence against evolution".

You say that it is possible to fight evolution honestly and truthfully, but your premises actually make that impossible. Whenever any even begins to try to put up a fight, you automatically categorize them as creationists, which you have a priori already determined is a category group that cannot present valid evidence.

And that, makes your stance disingenuous.

I did give you a way out though. All you have to do admit you have been using the formal fallacy "affirming the consequent" and then realize that anyone that opposes evolution is not necessarily a creationist. How is that for a dichotomy?!?

...but rather they have created an incredibly stupid strawman boogeyman which they have called "evolution" to scare themselves with.

As for this, I'll reiterate my prior request. Provide an example, THE EXAMPLE!

If you actually want to address evolution, then address evolution itself, not some stupid strawman of your own invention! What is wrong with you people? How can you not understand that?

First I'll address the last part of that statement. So far in this thread, I haven't provided any arguments regarding evolution itself. So once again, you are projecting some false status on me.

But you now speak of addressing "evolution itself". What is that exactly? Well, in Message 69 you describe "actual evolution" as:

Basically, evolution is what happens when life does what life does. There's nothing magical about it. If you've got populations of organisms living and reproducing, then evolution is happening. The moment that God had finished creating life, evolution would be happening. Even if God had chosen to get life started through natural processes such as described in abiogenesis, then as soon as that life or proto-life could reproduce then it would be evolving.

So, evolution is "what happens when life does what life does"? So profound. **snicker**
There's more? Oh goodie. "If you've got populations of organisms living and reproducing, then evolution is happening." Amazing! **guffaw**

Wow! And creationists cannot understand that?

Wait, there is more. Some good advice from the same message -

Creationists' main stock-in-trade is misunderstanding and misrepresenting evolution and all their claims "refuting" evolution are based on those misunderstandings and misrepresentations.
The better you understand what evolution really is, the less you will be deceived by those creationist arguments. And, if you are a creationist who wants to fight populations of organisms living and reproducing itself, then by understanding what evolution really is you will know to avoid using those false arguments and fighting those strawman caricatures, and instead be able to concentrate your efforts on actually addressing what happens when life does what life does and addressing its real problems, not the fake BS other creationists waste their time and efforts dishing out. Why waste your time and effort? Do something meaningful!

OK. I'll admit I did a bit of creative editing on that last one. But it flow so much better now, don't ya think? LOL
----
And to round this out, I'll answer some questions posed a while back

dwise1 writes:

Now to return the favor, riddle me this!: Define what an "evolutionist" is!


Umm, OK. Lets type this in google..... and.....
{noun. a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, especially in biology. a person who supports a policy of gradual growth or development rather than sudden change or expansion.}
That seems fine to me.
I assume that you are familiar with that uniquely creationist term, "evolutionist", and would not be surprised to learn that you have often used it yourself.

Not really. I'm sure I've heard the term before and guessed as to it's meaning. But no, I have not used it often. As others have pointed out, it is a bit of an anachronistic and unneeded term.

So just exactly what is the definition? And how would you know to classify someone as an "evolutionist"? What are the other characteristics assigned to one who is an "evolutionist"?

See above for definition.
It's not a word I would normally use, but if I was forced to, I suppose you would classify an evolutionist as "a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, especially in biology". *shrug*
I have no idea what the other characteristics of an evolutionist would be. To find out, I suppose I would have to review some out of date websites from the 1990's.

Oh, and by the way, in case you haven't figured it out yet.....

I'm not a creationist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by dwise1, posted 04-22-2021 10:58 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by PaulK, posted 04-24-2021 6:13 AM WookieeB has taken no action
 Message 77 by Phat, posted 04-24-2021 11:55 AM WookieeB has replied
 Message 80 by dwise1, posted 04-25-2021 12:11 AM WookieeB has taken no action
 Message 81 by ringo, posted 04-25-2021 11:40 AM WookieeB has taken no action
 Message 84 by dwise1, posted 04-25-2021 3:59 PM WookieeB has taken no action

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 88 of 111 (885978)
04-30-2021 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Phat
04-24-2021 11:55 AM


Re: Already Convinced
PaulK writes:

I would assert that anyone who thinks that they conclude divine creation based in scientific evidence is either deceived or lying.

As you all may tell, I'm a stickler for definitions. It may depend on what is meant by "conclude divine creation", but I generally agree with your statement.

Indeed, their insistence on changing science education before producing the science to justify it is evidence that they were “already convinced”

I dont agree with this, but what is meant by "changing science education"?

as is their failure to convince even believing scientists (Kenneth Miller, Darell Falk and Francis Collins are three prominent examples

True. But it is also irrelevant.

See Falk’s review of Stephen Meyer’s latest book.

Thanks for the link. I'm in the process of reading Meyer's book, and this review of it is pretty good as reviews go. But even if we take Falks objections and corrections as 100% accurate, it doesn't really change much. Unfortunately, Falk's conclusion mischaracterizes Meyer’s argument, and he ends up arguing against a strawman.

Phat writes:

From my perspective, dwise1 is arguing that creationists y definition are lying about the science that they collectively create and challenging established science, which is more mainstream.


One thing to consider is how an argument is structured. Any argument will usually be able to be broken down into a series of premises that should logically lead to a conclusion. The premises have to be unconditionally true or at least agreed upon by all parties in order for an argument conclusion to be sound. The conclusion of one argument may then be taken to become a premise for another argument.

The point you are commenting on is within dwise1’s overarching argument. In a really simplified form, it could be structured like:
premise 1: lying is bad
premise 2: misrepresentation is bad
premise 3: creationists lie and misrepresent
Conclusion: creationists are bad

If someone wanted to attack that argument, they would have to show one of the premises is incorrect. Since I think everyone would agree on premise 1 and 2, the best place to attack the argument is at premise 3. Premise 3 is essentially what you are referring to as dwise1's argument.

But here is the kicker: I don’t have a dispute with premise 3!

I get that dwise1 has a problem with creationists. But early on he seemed, imo, to have a pretty visceral reaction to them, exemplified in Message 41. As I knew that defining what a “creationist” was could be very different to different folk, and since my own view of them didn’t rise to the level of dwise1’s antagonism, I sought to understand how dwise1 was defining them. Thus I asked my question (or really requested a definition).

Definitions often form the basis for premises in an argument. Dwise1 initially stated his definitions in Message 46. His definitions were fairly specific and narrowly tailored, which is usually good for definitions as it makes them easier to defend. And I initially approached it like each paragraph was a separate argument. Also remember, premises (or definitions) may be the result of prior arguments.

To express this in an argument structure -
Premise 1: If a and b exist, then C.
Premise 2: a and b exist.
Conclusion: C

I stated that I didnt agree with every position he was taking, but I also didnt comment on those positions I may have disagreed with. See Message 61. Of the definitions he gave at the beginning, I had no problem with them. Since his definitions were restricted, I then started asking him how he would classify some scenarios that were close in some aspects of his already stated definitions, but different in others.

In a structure form, I essentially asked what his premise would be in the case of:
If a and not b, then ?
or it could be stated:
If a and z, then ?

And that is where the problems started. AZPaul3 mischaracterized my question and assumed that I was talking about a particular group, and then applied a status that was not germane to the question I was asking. For some reason, dwise1 picked up the false equivalency and ran with it, while also piling on unsupported other accusations. He also added some additional premises that conflicted with his prior statements.

I responded with Message 70, which is sufficient an answer itself. I do not need to cut/paste it again. Effectively, dwise1 does not appear to understand logic, nor does he seem to recall what he posted before. Because he is so obviously confused, his only recourse is to lash out with unsupported accusations against me. So let’s look at a few of them….


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Phat, posted 04-24-2021 11:55 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Phat, posted 05-01-2021 2:58 AM WookieeB has replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 89 of 111 (885979)
04-30-2021 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by dwise1
04-25-2021 12:09 AM


Re: Already Convinced
dwise1 writes:

From Message 79 WookieeB complained that those claims are "old" since the references he said he found dated from the 1990's, but in reality they go back decades even before that.

From Message 86 WookieeB complains that Google'd references to creationist claims go back to the 1990's, though they also go back several decades before that.


No, it wasn't Google'd references (I never mentioned that). It was YOUR references dwise1. I was referring to YOUR site(s) that you frequently link. All your arguments, quotes, rants, etc, appear to be no later than the 1990's. I asked you for some example that you can point to from this 21st century. Yet all you can do is claim in some nebulous manner that they are there, but not actually state any specifics.

So to be clear, what I am saying is: all your examples are fringe and old. The issues you keep claiming to be fighting against only get modern traction because YOU are the one bringing them up. TILT!
Get with the modern age.

Where does he get that nonsense from?

From you! Despite me laying it out at least 2 times in detail, you still don’t seem to remember your own words, nor understand mine. This is not some creationist trick, for 1) I’m not a creationist, and 2) you do not have reading comprehension. The fault is all your own.

So, I’ll have to break it down again. Pay attention, cause I’m not going to repeat everything I said previously all over again, but I’ll instead just summarize the logic and reference it all.

I identified creationists within the context of discussion on this forum as those who use "creation science" and similar false teachings to oppose evolution (though they have no idea what evolution even is).

Yes you did indeed. Good starting point. You gave this kind of definition first in Message 46 . Among that post, one specific phrasing you used was:

quote:
a simple operational definition of "creationist" would be one who practices or supports creationism. So what is creationism? It is a movement or position of opposing evolution for religious reasons basic on the mistaken idea that Divine Creation and evolution are somehow mutually exclusive. General belief in Divine Creation does not involve rejection of specific science like evolution, so that would not be the defining characteristic needed to identify a "creationist".

I then developed a question based on this phrasing that you had used, and asked:
quote:
So, I do understand that in your view, someone that does believe in Divine Creation is not necessarily a creationist. The deciding factor appears to be merely whether the attitude opposing evolution is based solely on a religious stance. Otherwise, a person could believe (but not necessarily) in Divine Creation and evolution and not be a creationist.
I re-stated your characteristics of someone that would not be a creationist.

Thus, based on that precedent, I then asked a clarifying question as to a scenario on which you had not explicitly defined yet.

quote:
Where would you categorize someone that accepts Divine Creation and that opposes evolution based on a non-religious stance, such as having scientific reasons for rejecting (some aspects of) evolution?

The part about “Divine Creation” is essentially irrelevant, as you had already established that it wasn't a “defining characteristic” of a creationist. As for the rest of my question, it by default is not coming from an assumption that the scenario is involving a “creationist” per your definitions.

And before I get to how you responded to that question, let me emphasize that my scenario should fit the case of your “So if you really want to fight evolution, then do so honestly and truthfully.”, assuming you really do allow that as possible.

So, how did you respond? Well, first AZPaul3 assumed a mischaracterization of my scenario. Despite that he never answered the question, you also assumed the mischaracterization that my question was (by your extension) referring to a creationist. This you did in Message 65 , even quoting my question and then commenting “we have seen that subterfuge used by creationists and IDiots so many times in this past half century.”, and later “despite your attempt to mischaracterize your position as "non-religious", reality proves you wrong on that point.”
You restated this all in Message 66.
I pointed out your mistaken assumption in detail in Message 70. In that post, I even pointed out, that if according to your stance of: “If you honestly and truly want to fight evolution, then at least do it right!”, then doing so would require opposing evolution on only scientific grounds. As I said:

quote:
Since evolution, in the context being used here, is a scientific study, and any evidence used in favor of it is scientific, then any evidence against it should also be scientific in nature.
That statement is in harmony with my earlier scenario of how to classify someone: “ ... that opposes evolution based on a non-religious stance, such as having scientific reasons for rejecting (some aspects of) evolution?” I then warned you that if you were going to assume my question was referring to a creationist (which you had no warrant to do so), you are making it impossible to ‘honestly and truly fight evolution’. You had two options, either be disingenuous, or admit your assumption was incorrect.

In your next relevant response at Message 73, you essentially doubled down. You obviously didnt understand what I had written, as you started attacking a statement of mine which actually agreed with what you were saying. I guess attacking me was more important than listening. I pointed this out and other inconsistencies on your part in Message 74 and Message 75.

First he violates the Square of Opposition from formal logic.

That he misconstrues as the position that anyone who opposes evolution is a creationist. Wrong!

Not really. Whereas I was allowing for someone “ that opposes evolution based on a non-religious stance, such as having scientific reasons for rejecting (some aspects of) evolution” to not be a creationist, you assumed that they had to be a creationist. You did so at least 3 times despite me pointing out that such a view was not warranted. It is your own bias that reflexively assigns anyone claiming to have ‘scientific reasons for rejecting evolution’ as a creationist, even before you have heard any of the reasons. Thus, despite your saying: “if you really want to fight evolution, then do so honestly and truthfully”, your very actions so far invalidates any chance of that.

The premise, "Some who oppose evolution are creationists", does not lead to the premise, "All who oppose evolution are creationists". So the words that he is trying to put into my mouth are simply not valid.

I agree with your statement on the premises. Unfortunately, your actions have belied your words. Actions speak louder than words, and your actions have shown you will allow no opposition to evolution that doesn’t result in a charge of “creationist”.

I think your automatic bias is easily shown by what you say next -

His false claim is just that, false: "You say that it is possible to fight evolution honestly and truthfully, but your premises actually make that impossible." As I explained to him carefully (Message 73):

DWise1 writes:
So if you really want to fight evolution, then do so honestly and truthfully.

Honestly means that you address and fight evolution itself, not some bullshit lie pretending to be evolution.

Truthfully means that you use real objections that address real and actual problems with evolution, not bullshit creationist lies.

It can be done. So why do you refuse to do it? Is there something wrong with you?

What creationists have done and still do is to lie about what evolution is….blah...blah…
Creationists have created a Frankensteined boogeyman constructed of stitched together misconceptions and falsehoods.….blah...blah…
...blah...blah…lists several common creationist misconceptions about evolution...blah...blah…
And of course that creationist boogeyman...blah...blah…
So if one wants to actually oppose, evolution, then one needs to address evolution itself and not that bogus creationist boogeyman.
So why do creationists constantly lie about evolution and science? …...blah...blah… But there are those creationists who do know better and yet still push the lies. That is some deliberate lying there.

Even when you mention the possibility of performing the fight honestly and truthfully,...It’s all creationists!!!

Frankly, he's running a fowl ... err, afoul of the Duck Theorem.

He looks like a creationist. He sounds like a creationist. He smells like a creationist. He probably also walks like a creationist (however that would look like). What else can he be but a creationist?


Well, then, since it is your charge, you should be able to take some definition from your walls of text in all your prior posts and clearly indicate -
How I look like a creationist?
How I sound like a creationist?
How I smell like a creationist?

C’mon? Justify yourself!

But if he is not a creationist, then it's up to him to make that case.

Easy. Of all the history, examples, and definitions dwise1 gives for a creationist, I have not fit any of those descriptions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by dwise1, posted 04-25-2021 12:09 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by dwise1, posted 05-01-2021 12:24 AM WookieeB has replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 92 of 111 (886001)
05-01-2021 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Phat
05-01-2021 2:58 AM


Re: Already Convinced
WookieB, are you a believer in Jesus Christ?

Yes, I would say I am.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Phat, posted 05-01-2021 2:58 AM Phat has seen this message

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 93 of 111 (886051)
05-03-2021 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by dwise1
05-01-2021 12:24 AM


Re: Already Convinced
Since the Duck Theorem was being invoked, that dictated the formulation. Duh?

You're an idiot. I never spoke against the Duck Theorem. Duh?

What you write, what you do, how you conduct yourself are all typical of how creationists conduct themselves.

Except you still haven't justified this. Go back to your walls of text and history and show me specifically one thing I have said that is like a creationist!

Or is it because I'm calling you on your BS? That is probably it. Anyone who opposes dwise1 must be a creationist, cause that is how dwise1 feels about it and he's the expert on creationists. An assertion is all that is needed. Put up some evidence? Nope, never have to. Just keep assigning motives based on dwise1's feelings and that is enough to start applying his group identities.

Especially a creationist who tries that very tired old dodge of claiming to not be a creationist

Ahh, yet another standard from the 'expert'. So now creationists are also people that say they are not creationists. What a scholarly opinion! So now it doesn't matter whether a person fits the definitions of a creationist per dwise1, all they have to do is deny being a creationist and they end up being a creationist.

I wonder what a non-creationist now really looks like. I guess that could only be someone that actually says they are a creationist, but doesn't really follow all the dwise1 identifiers of creationists, and agrees with dwise1 on everything. But disagree with dwise1....secret creationist.

and responds by acting very indignant and insulted at being identified as a creationist, including cries of condemnation for being "so misjudged and falsely accused!"

And where have I done this? I have never been indignant or insulted by your charge of me being a creationist. I have simply stated I am not one, and then pointed to there being no evidence that I am. What I do get excited about, which dwise1 reads as being indignant or insulted, is calling out dwise1 for all his BS.

In every single case of that tired old dodge that I have witnessed, the creationist eventually is unable to maintain the deception. In many of those cases, he even turned out to be a YEC!

Really? So, give us an example where that "tired old dodge that I have witnessed" happened.

Sit back folks, get ready for a quite a dwise1 yarn to be spun!

And I don't believe in YEC, never have, never will. Of course, dwise1 will probably try to spin that I actually am a YEC and am just hiding it.

And here you are going through all the typical motions of that very old creationist dodge. Everything you're doing just reeks of "creationist."

Ahh, there it is! It's not that you can point to anything I've said that matches your creationist paradigm, it's that you can SMELL it. Why didn't you say that in the first place? We could have just talked about olfactory senses instead of listening to you drone on about ancient history.

And one favorite bit of sophistry that creationists like to use is argumentum ad dictionario, arguing over definitions (they commonly will turn to dictionary definitions) in order to create confusion and to lead their opponent into a quagmire.

LOL, classic. I don't think you know what argumentum ad dictionario even really means. Of course, you don't actually have to use a dictionary to fall afoul of this fallacy. It also doesn't mean that if one does use definitions, they are running afoul of this fallacy.

But lets see..... whom is it that is constantly complaining about some people's every attempt to explain something as 'misunderstanding and even misrepresenting' what they are talking about? Hmmmm? Seems to me to be someone whose name starts with "d", ends in "1", and a middle that certainly doesn't exemplify that user.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by dwise1, posted 05-01-2021 12:24 AM dwise1 has taken no action

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 94 of 111 (886052)
05-03-2021 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by dwise1
05-01-2021 12:24 AM


Re: Already Convinced
Wookieeb writes:

I was referring to YOUR site(s) that you frequently link. All your arguments, quotes, rants, etc, appear to be no later than the 1990's. I asked you for some example that you can point to from this 21st century. Yet all you can do is claim in some nebulous manner that they are there, but not actually state any specifics.
So to be clear, what I am saying is: all your examples are fringe and old. The issues you keep claiming to be fighting against only get modern traction because YOU are the one bringing them up. TILT!
Get with the modern age.


Hard to tell whether you are speaking out of abject ignorance or trying to practice a deception.

Go into any fundamentalist Christian bookstore and look at the creationism books and materials -- if they do not have an actual creationism section, you should find them under "apologetics". You will find those same "old fringe" claims throughout those books, in 2021!


Hard to tell if you will ever improve your reading comprehension or understand context, or if straw-manning your opponents arguments is the normal course for you.

Pay attention. Again, I was talking about YOUR examples, dwise1. YOUR references are old and fringe. See, I capitalized it again, like I did previously, to highlight the subject. In case you still dont get it, lets add some more styling.

Again, I was talking about YOUR examples, dwise1. That any better?

No? OK. Take one of your hands, make a fist, then extend just your index finger (thats the finger closest to your thumb). Now turn your hand so that just the tip of the index finger is against your chest. Keeping your hand in the same orientation, now move your hand away from your body about 6 inches so the index finger is no longer touching your chest. Then move your hand back again so that your index finger returns to the same spot it was before, touching your chest. Repeat these last two movements over and over again, while saying to yourself: "He is talking about MY references. MY creationist examples are old and fringe" Capeesh?

Your mention of books in bookstores is irrelavant. It amounts to a citation bluff. Of course you can find just about any reference for anything in a book in some bookstore. Doesn't mean it is a relevant subject today, or being discussed much.

Hang around other creationists. Many of them will still be YECs. Of course, when they present themselves to the general public, they'll hide their YEC behind the smokescreen of ID, since that's the current tactics. But among themselves, they'll still share those "old fringe" YEC claims. And in sermons and seminars, those YEC claims will still be repeated and pushed to each new generation of creationists.

Not that I really care much about your conspiracy theories, but I was just curious how your creationists, when in public, are hiding behind some smokescreen. Then again, if they only share those "old fringe" claims amongst themselves, how do you know about them? And if their claims are repeated to each new generations....and YOU know about them...WAIT A SECOND!!!!!! Could it be?!?!? dwise1 is a closet ......?

WookieeB writes:

Thus, despite your saying: “if you really want to fight evolution, then do so honestly and truthfully”, your very actions so far invalidates any chance of that.
Actions speak louder than words, and your actions have shown you will allow no opposition to evolution that doesn’t result in a charge of “creationist”.


Completely untrue! In fact, that's a fucking lie!

Show me a case of opposition to evolution that is honest and truthful! Do you know of any?

True, all the cases of opposition to evolution that I have seen have depended on misunderstanding and even misrepresenting evolution, so those cases were not honest nor truthful.


Again, reading comprehension would do you a world of good.

You say you would allow an honest and truthful case of opposition to evolution.

But then again, as you have written before: "You are ignoring the simple fact that creationists never ever address evolution nor ever present any evidence against evolution." So, according to your words, anyone you accuse of being a creationist is already excluded from being able to submit an honest or truthful case.

As for your ACTIONS, you admit here that ALL cases you have seen have "depended on misunderstanding and even misrepresenting evolution". So, despite your protestation, your ACTIONS have confirmed that you have excluded all cases.

Is this only because these cases actually have not been truthful or honest? It seems a bit unbelievable that every single case you have seen is untruthful. I somewhat doubt then that you have actually seen many cases. But even if it is TRUE that every case you have seen has been a misrepresentation, are you really willing to allow a true case to go through? Your ACTIONS say no!

Case in point, I presented a scenario early on in our discussions that proposed someone opposing evolution on scientific grounds. The actual 'scientific grounds' were never actually yet presented, so there is nothing yet that could be construed as a misunderstanding or misrepresentation. Yet, despite it being repeatedly shown that there being no warrant to dismiss this scenario, you automatically labeled is as "creationist", and thus is was not allowed. Your ACTIONS demonstrated that you do not allow any opposition to evolution.

As I said - ACTIONS speak louder than WORDS

But do not falsely accuse me of never allowing for any opposition to evolution just because no one has ever presented an honest and truthful case.

Am I the only one that finds this statement deliciously ironic?

Nevertheless, I didnt falsely accuse you of "never allowing for any opposition to evolution just because no one has ever presented an honest and truthful case", cause that is not what I accused you of. I accused you of simply "never allowing for any opposition to evolution". Period! Whether or not an argument can even be possibly true is not considered. You reject any arguments out of hand.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by dwise1, posted 05-01-2021 12:24 AM dwise1 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Percy, posted 05-24-2021 10:36 AM WookieeB has replied

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 98 of 111 (886636)
05-28-2021 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Percy
05-24-2021 10:36 AM


Re: Already Convinced
You seem to be saying that dwise1 is misleadingly characterizing contemporary creationist views by referencing old publications.

Not exactly. Simply, dwise1 has not presented any modern views of contemporary "creationinsts". All his examples are from pre-2000. So my charge that his examples are old are indisputable.

Now, could modern creationists hold to the same old reasonings that dwise1 is presenting? It is possible. But no evidence has been presented to support that. I think it is less than likely though. For example, dwise1's rant in Message 41 about an argument over Moon dust is a type of evidence that has been discouraged to be used, even pre-2000, by (those who I think are) contemporary creationists. His examples also appear to be as I described them, fringe. Those arguments might have been more 'creationist' accepted long ago, but today they are not mentioned and/or rejected by contemporary creationists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Percy, posted 05-24-2021 10:36 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by dwise1, posted 05-29-2021 1:13 PM WookieeB has taken no action
 Message 105 by dwise1, posted 05-29-2021 1:43 PM WookieeB has taken no action
 Message 107 by dwise1, posted 05-29-2021 7:40 PM WookieeB has taken no action
 Message 108 by Percy, posted 05-31-2021 11:28 AM WookieeB has taken no action

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 99 of 111 (886637)
05-28-2021 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Stile
05-25-2021 3:30 PM


Just for fun....

What about answer to the REAL matters, though? Like:

The Problem of Evil.
aka - If God is perfect (all-powerful and always-benevolent), then why are things not perfect?...

What is the definition of "perfect" you are using here?

Usage of the term Kinds.
Follow the logic:
If Kinds are defined as the creature's God made

No. It is more than that. You are applying a very vague definition, and one that doesn't really fit the Biblical usage well enough. "Kinds" there seems to refer to divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. So one kind vs another kind could be determined where fertilization ceases to occur.

..but Kinds do not line up with a phylogenetic system well and add a lot of unexplainable confusion

Well, Kinds is not supposed to line up with a phylogenetic system. They are two totally different systems, with different ways of setting properties and both based on different assumptions.
Sure, using Kinds in a phylogenetic system would cause confusion, and using phylogenetics in a Kinds system would be confusing as well. Apples and Oranges.

...and the phylogenetic system is very useful and helpful when studying all the life we see

Depending on the parameters you are considering, indeed!

...and Kinds are not useful or helpful when studying all the life we see

Well, that really depends now on what parameters you are studying. If you are using phylogenetic system parameters, yes, it would be confusing. But if you were using other parameters, like those that encompass a Kinds meaning, then no, it should not be confusing.

...then why use the word "Kinds" at all when studying any of the life we see?

Kinds works just fine when you stay within its boundries. Don't mix your Apples and Oranges is all you got to do.

Global Flood.
Not only is there evidence that conflicts with the idea of a flood while humans are alive (whenever evidence of a flood is found, evidence of people-living-elsewhere-at-the-same-time is also found.)

What is that evidence? I'm not disputing whether there is evidence or not. I'm just curious what you are referring to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Stile, posted 05-25-2021 3:30 PM Stile has seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by PaulK, posted 05-29-2021 2:36 AM WookieeB has taken no action
 Message 102 by JonF, posted 05-29-2021 10:55 AM WookieeB 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