|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: There are easy creationist answers to problems evolutionists pose | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Frankly, I 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.
Before I start to drill down and try to untangle your mess (I do have lots of other tasks to attend to), here is the site abstract from the creation/evolution section of my web site, which should clear up a lot of your confusion. And an added bonus is that it explains more about the Two Model Approach which is fundamental to "creation science":
quote: BTW, in Message 57 I requested of you a definition for "evolutionist": DWise1 writes: Now to return the favor, riddle me this!: Define what an "evolutionist" is! (please note that an exclamation point is quite appropriate for a command, though not absolutely necessary, whereas a question mark almost never is (ie, there could be stylistic or narrative reasons, such as to convey the speaker's great uncertainty in issuing that command as discussed above, but those are special cases). 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. 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"? Well, since you obviously will never reply, I will note that almost every single creationist source that even began to offer any kind of definition for "evolutionist" basically classified anybody, regardless of religious belief, who accepted evolution was an "evolutionist". And that they were all atheists! Which would include the vast majority of Christians. Well?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Another interim post sharing some more information from my C/E index page which should prove useful or at least interesting. What I'm posting here is a very short summary, so follow the links to the rest of the text.
From the section, A Few Basic Facts:
These are a few basic facts that I will develop here on my creation/evolution site.
From the next section, My advice to both creationists and non-creationists:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
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.
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. 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. In your Message 61: 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? Within the context of this forum, creationists are opponents of "evolution" (in scare quotes because they never ever attack evolution, but rather some strawman boogeyman they've created and labeled "evolution" even though it has nothing whatsoever to do with actual evolution -- what part of the Two Model Approach and its bogus "evolution model" did you not understand?). Traditionally they've been YECs employing the lies and deceptions of "creation science", but creationists have mutated and diversified over time to include old-earth creationists and IDists (who have their own set of lies and deceptions). Do please try to keep up. 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. There are also local creationist groups dedicated to the decades-old anti-evolution practice of pressuring local teachers, schools, and school boards to keep evolution out of the classroom or to get creationist "equal time" "balanced treatment" curricula included. In a number of cases, individual teachers who are creationists (eg, Ray Baird, John Peloza, Roger DeHart) will unilaterally sneak creationism into their classes. Some have even run as stealth candidates to get elected onto the school board and into other public offices that they could use for their cause. Other groups will work on the state level lobbying state legislators to propose state laws restricting evolution or promoting the inclusion of creationism. Some groups will work to pressure textbook publishers to remove evolution from the textbooks (not sure how well that effort is going). There is no national leadership, but there are nationally known organizations (eg, ICR, Answers in Genesis) and creationist writers and lecturers (eg, Kent Hovind, who doesn't write but rather gives presentations and does debates) whose words, claims, and arguments get taken up by the sprawling landscape of small local creationist groups. 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. Garbage in, Gospel out. But now you should know that whenever you read about "300 years of observational data collected at Boyle Observatory" that you are reading a totally bogus claim. That's all, nothing mysterious about it.
Message 61:
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. Since most of their activity is local and rises no higher than the state level in some other state, news of their activity remains local and hence we don't hear about them. But they're still there doing their thing. The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) would report on such activities, being the national-level clearinghouse for the Committees of Correspondence, and their website used to post news of creationist activity in various states, especially new creationist state bills and laws as well as any court action (when I checked their site the other day, they had redone their site and I couldn't find that "in the news" section). 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:
Then in 1981 when Dr. Duane Gish's traveling snake-oil show came to town, I was surprised that they were still around, so maybe they have a point to make after all -- I had duty that night and could not attend the show. From that point on, every single time a creationist brought up an "objection", i knew precisely why it was wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
DWise1 writes:
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? 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,... 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. Absolutely untrue! Perhaps even bordering on a damned lie! 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? Is that a tell (a term I recently learned in my poker class)? Are you yourself being disingenuous? Are you yourself a dishonest creationist? We have most certainly seen far too many creationists start out posing as innocent and fair-minded only to then reveal how died-in-the-wool creationist they are. Is that what we are seeing here? And, no, it is not at all a situation of:
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. 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. 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? And even your religious objections are misguided and just plain wrong. As is said of guided missiles that have lost lock on their target, you keep going stupid. What is wrong with you? You have created your strawman boogeyman to pose some kind of existential threat to your religion that actual evolution simply does not pose. Just so you can go into some religious frenzy that actual evolution would never cause. Again, what is wrong with you people? Is it that idiotic Christian persecution complex where you have to imagine that you are being persecuted and when that persecution doesn't exist you have to create it yourself? Jebus H (BTW, check out my very informative page, "Jesus H. Christ": Why "H"?, but you have to be willing to learn a little Greek). Yes, there can indeed be scientific evidence against actual evolution. Your fake "evolution" boogeyman is nothing but pure bullshit which falls apart the moment that it is examined. So your accusation is nothing but a bullshit lie. You want to actually fight evolution? Well then fight evolution itself, not your monstrous bullshit lie that you call "evolution". And in doing so don't use bullshit creationist lies about evolution, but rather address the actual problems with actual evolution. And do so honestly.
That is how you would fight evolution honestly and truthfully. The truth is right there in front of you and you refuse to see it. What is wrong with you? Could there be any evidence against evolution that would be honest or true? Yes! So present it already! What the frak is wrong with you? Two professors at San Diego State University (SDSU), Frank Awbrey and William Thwaites (I have to be careful to avoid any reference to T&A) were leading debaters against the ICR master debaters (such as Drs. Henry Morris and Duane Gish whom I have seen them go up against in 1985 -- do please play with "master debaters" as much as you may please, since it would be appropriate for creationist arguments). They created the only true two-model class I have ever heard of in which half the lectures were given by members of the ICR which at that time was less than 30 miles away. Their class was shut down after all the campus Christian clubs rebelled against it. Guess Christians cannot tolerate truth and honesty. Here's the thing, after 15 years of those debates, they retired. Read their article about their decision, Our Last Debate: Our Very Last. In that article they describe having entered into the debates with the hope and expectation that:
quote: What they did discover after those 15 years was that none of the creationists ever presented any real paradoxes or genuine quandaries. The creationists had no actual case to present. Creationism has proven to be nothing but pure bullshit. Period. What part of that do you still not understand? 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Am I right, David? Generally, yes. And certainly far closer to correct than WookieeB would ever allow himself to get.
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. Though one could argue that science-at-large is continually evolving and growing new theories and directions, dwise1 sees the Creation Institute and perhaps AiG as dishonest. It is quite true that creationists have a very long and astoundingly consistent history of lying about science and promoting false claims. It's like hearing Trump (and now the GQP) say something: with such a long and unbroken record of lies and deceptions, you must never take anything they say at face value but rather you must verify everything! And in the case of the ICR and AiG and other professional creationist organizations, their goals are not only to battle against a contrived boogeyman that they created and which they call "evolution" (see below), but also their goal is to proselytize using "creation science", thus "saving souls" through deception. Though at least AiG has made a few attempts at honesty, including the occasional articles of "claims we really wish creationists would stop using". The tradition of compiling false claims of "scientific evidences for creation" ("evidences" is a uniquely apologetics expression) extends back to at least to the 1920's, mostly through the efforts of the Seventh Day Adventists. The immediate progenitors of "creation science" creationists (who are strongly YECs) borrowed very heavily from that body of false claims and added their own, especially in the 1970's. 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. And they were soundly refuted many decades ago, but the creationist literature makes no mention of that fact, but instead tells each new generation of creationists (suckers born every minute) that these claims are all new findings that scientists have never addressed (yet another big creationist lie). Rather, the reason WookieeB couldn't find much since the 1990's was because creationists were working hard to hide the YEC behind a smokescreen of ID false claims and arguments. But those old YEC claims are still out there being circulated within the YEC community and surfacing mainly from inexperienced creationists who are not yet hep to the ID jive. Further on the question of the inevitability of creationist honest. For the Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. topic Pressie in Message 1080 had replied to Dredge's misquoting of S.J. Gould by himself quoting S.J. Gould's complaint of being constantly misquoted by creationists including "—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—" and then asked Dredge whether he had done the same through stupidity. RAZD replied in Message 1081 (26-Jul-2017) with:
RAZD writes: Dawkins' "ignorance is no crime" gives three other alternatives, which includes mendacity ("design"), ignorance and insanity ... But I have been giving this a bit of thought and would like to break it down slightly differently: There are Five types of people that don't understand how evolution works:
Enjoy In that same topic, I presented some ideas I'd been developing about the evolution of dishonesty in creationists based on their increasing levels of activism and experience (Message 1174, 02-Aug-2017). Basically, the more active they become, the more they gain experience which shows that their creationist claims are false. Since creationist theology demands that those claims must be true or else "then Scripture has no meaning" (and all that entails for biblical literalists), they cannot afford to admit the truth even to themselves so a pattern of self-deception and dishonestly establishes itself. The longer they remain active and the more active they become, the more they experience the ever mounting truth about their false beliefs and the more dishonest they have to become to maintain the illusion. Or else they finally admit to themselves that it's all a crock, but their mission of using it to deceive others into "Salvation" is far more important than the truth. And the higher up the creationist hierarchy they climb, the more highly dishonest they must become. And how they justify that to themselves, nobody knows because they won't talk about it. As I tried to explain it to Dredge in Message 1176 (02-Aug-2017):
DWise1 writes: Dredge writes:
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. But generally, speaking creationists are honest, since honesty is a very important requirement of their religion. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit demand honesty. I have no doubt that some honest creationists exist, but being honest they would know that their claims have very serious problems so, being honest, they would be very unlikely to present them in public and so we never hear from them. And typical creationist hearing them would find what they have to say to not be convincing enough to use. Above you quote WookieeB as saying: 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. Where does he get that nonsense from? First he violates the Square of Opposition from formal logic. 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). That he misconstrues as the position that anyone who opposes evolution is a creationist. Wrong! 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. 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. Their "evolution model" is filled with false ideas and misconceptions of evolution, which is what they attack instead of attacking evolution itself. Creationists have created a Frankensteined boogeyman constructed of stitched together misconceptions and falsehoods. All their claims about and arguments against evolution are actually solely against their false "evolution" boogeyman and have nothing whatsoever to do with actual evolution. And it doesn't help much that none of them can understand their own claims, but rather those claims seem to confirm their own misconceptions. This page at Berkeley, Misconceptions about evolution, lists several common creationist misconceptions about evolution and corrects them. On the same site is the much referenced Evolution 101. And of course that creationist boogeyman "evolution" does not just misrepresent and lie about evolution, but it also includes a plethora of bogus young-earth claims which lie about other sciences such as astronomy and geology and population dynamics, etc. 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? Mostly because it serves their purposes of deceiving their audiences. Of course, most of them are just scientifically illiterate and don't know any better, especially if they get most of their "science" from creationists. But there are those creationists who do know better and yet still push the lies. That is some deliberate lying there.
WookieeB writes:
So just out of curiosity...are you a believer? I'm not a creationist. 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? He certainly would not be the first creationist to try to hide behind false denials. If I had a nickel for every creationist who claimed not to be a creationist, I could play video poker for much of the night. But if he is not a creationist, then it's up to him to make that case. Let's not hold our breath waiting for that to happen. Edited by dwise1, : Replaced creationism's false "evolution model" with summary; the original is repeated in the next message
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
I'm not a creationist. Really? Not as if we have never heard that one before. If I had a nickel for every time I was fed that line by a creationist, I could play video poker for a good long time. So we need some kind of corroborating evidence to back up your claim. The problem is that the Duck Theorem has you pegged as a creationist. You look like a creationist. You sound like a creationist. You smell like a creationist. You probably also walk like a creationist. So you must must be a creationist. You need to demonstrate convincingly that you are not a creationist. Please state what you are. Define what you claim that you are. Describe your position fully enough to show that you're not just blowing smoke. For that matter, what do you even mean by "creationist"? You've been tossing so much word salad in order to generate confusion that nobody can keep track.
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?!? I did not claim that. You are the one who are trying to twist my words around and make false claims about what I've said. Just like a creationist would do! And you have any idea what a dichotomy even is? Stop tossing word salad.
DWise1 writes: ...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! Certainly! Mind you, this will not be complete, but it should get the job done. As I've stated, what creationists have done and still do is to lie about what evolution is. Evolution is biological evolution, the study of the cumulative effects over many generations of populations doing what life does: procreate, survive, procreate, survive, rinse and repeat. Procreation creates genetic variation through recombination, genetic mutation, and other factors (some of which we have not yet discovered). Survival involves an individual's fitness, including characteristics of others within the context of the population's society (eg, nurturing, altruism), etc. Those who survive long enough to reproduce and are allowed to participate in procreation (varies from species to species) have their genes represented in the next generation and the gene pool in each generation is a bit different from the previous generation's. So actual evolution is simple biological evolution and what that results in. But to creationists, "evolution" is something altogether different -- though exactly what they think it is is very difficult to discover since they won't answer any questions about what they think it is, so we have to try to deduce it from their arguments. They will present "evolution" as requiring some kind of magical processes (the more ridiculous that they can imagine those processes to be the better for their purposes of creating a strawman), which is not true of actual evolution (as just described above). They have presented "evolution" as some kind of religion which is atheistic and which denies God and wants to destroy God, which is absolutely ridiculous (I believe that John Peloza even tried to use that argument in court; his lawsuit against his school was thrown out as being frivolous, but the appeals court that that was too hasty and reviewed it only to themselves throw it out as being frivolous). And they have presented "evolution" as some grand all-encompassing anti-religious philosophy that seeks to destroy Christianity, but that is absolutely ridiculous since actual evolution is just simply the study of what happens to populations after generations of them simply doing what they naturally do. No magic, no kind of religion, no philosophy, just Nature. Even when creationists try harder to pretend to address actual evolution, they get that completely wrong because they are still trying to attack their "evolution" boogeyman. The processes of actual evolution involve the interplay between increased variability (eg, through mutation) and natural selection (this is especially seen in experiments with genetic algorithms), but creationists present distinctly separate arguments that, first, selection can only remove traits and never add new ones, and second, that mutation is random and provides no direction for change, but creationists never team the two up together as actually happens in actual evolution because that would reveal their deception. They appear to believe that speciation happens suddenly from one generation to the next, usually using their bastardization of Punctuated Equilibria (which actually happens over many generations which do not usually make it into the fossil record) which they falsely describe as "a snake lays an egg and a bird hatches out." Completely ridiculous! In reality, speciation in actual evolution takes several generations within a population -- did I forget to mention that individuals do not evolve, but rather populations do, a simple fact that creationists constantly overlook in order to create "objections to evolution" which have nothing to do with how actual evolution works. So a very common "objection to evolution" is that an individual of the new species suddenly appeared in a single generation, but where could it ever find a mate that had done the same instantaneou "evolution" thing in the exactly same way? In actual evolution, the entire population had been evolving over several generations, so when, for example, the first 100% chicken finally evolved, then the rest of its flock were still only about 99.99% chicken, which is plenty close enough for breeding (actually, chickens can also breed with their ancestral species, the red junglefowl, which would be roughly 0% chicken). In one "chicken or the egg" argument, creationists not only fail to understand how speciation works, but they also claim that every single system in the chicken's body would have to have completely re-evolved from scratch (eg, reproductive systems, skeletal system, nervous system, etc). Why would they think something so completely idiotic and ridiculous? Nobody knows, because they refuse to explain it. It just sounds convincing to their creationist audience so they keep using it. Like the argument about lizards evolving into birds, because lizards need their front legs to run with -- well, nobody but creationists would claim that birds evolved from lizards, but rather from Coelurosaurs which were therapod dinosaurs (about as distantly related to lizards as to turtles or mammals) which were almost all bipedal (eg, Velociraptors). Yet another ridiculous creationist claim based on nothing more than their not understanding anything about evolution. Their probability arguments are just pitiful. Their dedication to instantaneous change seen in their ideas on speciation extends to expecting all change to happen all at once. For example there's the claim of modern proteins "evolving" by just falling together in a highly specific amino acid sequence in a single event, "evolving" by pure chance (there are a whole slew of other "by pure chance" arguments which equate "evolution" to pure chance, which is contrary to how actual evolution works). So of course they come up with some astronomical improbability of that ever happening and hence it couldn't have. Well first, I'm not aware of any protein that has every single amino acid so highly specified that any change at any locus would destroy that protein. In most proteins, a small number of amino acids are specifically needed in specific loci as part of active sites on the protein, some other loci on the protein can take any of a particular type of amino acid (of which there are 4 types, as I recall), and then about half the loci are purely structural and can accept any of the 20 amino acids used in proteins. Creationists don't understand proteins. There's another class of related creationist claims that has pretty much died down because it was so horrible: comparing protein differences between species. Different species have the same proteins, but there are differences in their amino acid sequences. Basically, the fewer the differences, the more closely related those species are. Creationists tried to make claims of comparisons conflicting with accepted science (eg, humans and bullfrogs, rattlesnakes and humans (a documented case of a deliberate lie by a creationist)), but all their claims were bogus; see my page, The Bullfrog Affair. But please notice how creationist's fake "evolution" can't even keep its story straight. They both claim that no amino acid in a protein could be changed without breaking the protein, and they also make claims based on the fact that many amino acids in a protein can be replaced by other amino acids. Science has no problem keeping all that straight, but creationism is completely hopelessly lost. And the other problem with those claims about proteins just falling together by chance is that that is not how it would ever work. Rather, proteins would have evolved. Having stuff fall together randomly in a single attempt uses what Dawkins called single-step selection which is infamous being highly improbable -- after each failure, you start again all over from scratch. But while creationists' strawman boogeyman "evolution" uses single-step selection, actual evolution uses cumulative selection in which small changes within a population that work a bit better in each generation are inherited by the next generation as its starting point such that they accumulate over time. While each individual change may have low probability, the overall probability complete failure of each and every attempt in the population (eg, hundreds or thousands of individual attempts each generation) over each and every generation is so vanishingly small as to make change by cumulative selection virtually inevitable. I couldn't believe it either, so I did the math. It works and that's how I finally understood why it works. Those are just a few examples of how the creationist boogeyman "evolution" misrepresents and lies about actual biological evolution. Of course, their "evolution" is also filled with claims that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with evolution nor biology, including a plethora of bogus young-earth claims which lie about other sciences such as astronomy and geology and physics and population dynamics (eg, Dr. H. Morris' pet "human population growth model"), etc. But we were specifically talking about how their false "evolution" is not the same as actual evolution. So if one wants to actually oppose, evolution, then one needs to address evolution itself and not that bogus creationist boogeyman. Hopefully, that should now be so clear that even you cannot fail to understand it. So why do creationists constantly lie about evolution and science? Mostly because it serves their purposes of deceiving their audiences. Of course, most of them are just plain scientifically illiterate and don't know any better, especially if they get most of their "science" from creationists. But there are also those creationists who do know better and yet still push the lies. That is some deliberate lying going on there.
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. Nope, that lazy cop-out is inadequate. Explain the characteristics that "evolutionists" are supposed to have. Creationists describe "evolution" and "evolutionists" as "atheistic". Why? What is their justification? How could actual evolution or any science have anything at all to do with atheism? That is yet another example of their boogeyman "evolution" fraud.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
And if he weren't a creationist, he'd be able to explain his true self quite easily.
Though, yes, if he's a creationist then he would be stuck because he wouldn't be able to fake it. One classic case of a dyed-in-the-wool YEC trying to fake it was one who showed up saying that he was open-minded, could go either way, and stuck in the middle wanting to weigh both sides, etc. I took him at face value (a common tactic of mine against creationist claims, which works mainly because they don't understand their own claims) and discussed it with him. It took no time at all for him to lose his cool and come out full blown Bozo YEC on us. WookieeB has already given us one of the classic tells of a creationist playing this deceptive game: repeatedly whining that we are attributing things to him without ever revealing what his position actually is. Similarly, a local YEC (not that viciously lying local YEC activist I've mentioned) with actual technical training (in chemistry) has engaged in debates in which he raises several questions about science. I've asked him several times what his point is and he just sits there with a coy smile on his face and denies that he has any point. Creationist dishonesty wears various faces. As I seem to recall, WookieeB is an IDiot. So he will deny being a "creationist" but rather will say he's a "design proponent". Though he's far more likely to be a "cdesign proponentsist", as per the smoking gun glitch in the Of Pandas and People manuscript's global find-and-replace presented in the court case, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), that led to that court showing that ID is nothing more than yet another smokescreen to hide their disingenuous religious intent. WookieeB has been asked to come clean. Let's see if he can or will even try to. Personally, I don't think there's enough soap in the world for that. {
Johnny Carson Show Carnac the Magnificent joke: "The hottest show on TV." "Reruns of the Mary Tyler Moore Show."
}
I remember when people would stay home on Saturday night to watch the MTM Productions TV shows which were classic. In one episode of the Mary Tyler Moore Show Lou Grant shows up to work in a pleasant mood and not hung over as usual, but it's because he's still drunk from the night before. I might be conflating episodes here, but Sue Ann Nivens (Betty White) who's always trying to snag him as a lover asks if he would like her if he's drunk enough. He thinks for a moment and says "Yes, if I were drunk enough." Then as soon as she leaves overflowing with joy he mutters, "There's not enough booze in the world!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
An important and very meaningful ADDENDUM to my Message 79 reply to your Message 77.
I stated quite truthfully and correctly:
DWise1 writes: It's like hearing Trump (and now the GQP) say something: with such a long and unbroken record of lies and deceptions, you must never take anything they say at face value but rather you must verify everything! That does not mean, as WookieeB will no doubt try to distort it to mean, that absolutely nothing those invertebrate liars say can ever be trusted. Rather, that is to say that we must verify everything they say and only then can we trust what they have said. So if we verify something a creationist says and find it to be true, then we would trust it. For that matter, if we can verify something that a Republican says and find it to be true, then we would trust it. As if that could ever happen! But then that's the joy of being a pessimist: 99% of the time you have the satisfaction of being right and then 1% of the time you are pleasantly surprised. Edited by dwise1, : changed "conflate" to "distort"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
BTW, I would submit robertleva's proposed topic as a prime example of that false and completely bogus creationist boogeyman "evolution model" in action. Message 1.
In that post, he completely separates Natural Selection from the various sources of increasing genetic variation.
Exactly as I described creationists doing in propagating their lies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
I have not yet determined it is classic creationist ********** and instead will attribute it to simply the product of an education that has taught him how not to think and to avoid actually thinking. This "natural selection acting all on its own lonesome cannot create new features" claim is a "classic" creationist "argument". Or at least it's been around for several decades. Dr. Henry Morris (PhD Hydraulic Engineering, which makes him an expert in biology and evolution ) included it in his book, Scientific Creationism. I have the latest, the 2nd edition from 1985, and I have no doubt that this claim was also in the first edition (1974). I also have no doubt that he had gotten from creationist sources going back to the anti-evolution movement's 1920's heyday (where he had gotten his material for Flood Geology). WookieeB complains that Google'd references to creationist claims go back to the 1990's, though they also go back several decades before that. As usual, he completely missed the point. The point is that so many of these claims have been around for about a century now and they are still being used despite having been refuted repeatedly (AKA PRATTs, "Army of the Undead"). What normally happens is that creationists repeat any old claim that they think sounds convincing -- go to creationists' sites and you will see the exact same list of claims with the exact same wording on each of them (the penultimate source usually ending up being Kent Hovind, but he just did the same thing by repeating other creationists' claims claiming them to be his own (now that he's been kicked out of the family business, his son Eric still uses Kent's material but claiming to have written them himself)). Then a new creationist hears or reads one of those claims, thinks it sounds convincing, and so sallies forth to confront "evolutionists" with that "new scientific information" only to get shot down because it's an old claim that has been refuted for as long as it's been around. That is the truly "classic" aspect of this. Here's an example. Around 1990 I was involved in some "amateur night" debate events where anyone who had a case to make could get up and present his case. This young creationist (maybe about 20 years old) got up and announced that he had a "brand new scientific discovery that will blow you 'evolutionists' away!": the speed of light has been slowing down. Immediately, the entire non-creationist half of the audience burst into uncontrollable laughter mixed with attempts to explain why that then-decade-old claim by Setterfield is wrong. Instead of blowing "us 'evolutionists'" away, his own use of an outdated and false creationist claim blew him away. Creationist, meet your own petard. He had no idea what had just hit him.
Truly pitiful though that it's even possible these days to still find anyone so fundamentally misimformed. That's the result of the generally poor quality of science education in the USA. The reasons are many and include science textbooks filled with errors and misconceptions (most are written by professional textbook writers, not scientists -- we saw that play out when California was shopping for new biology textbooks in the late 1980's), science teachers lacking schooling in science so they teach their own misconceptions (eg, PE teachers being assigned to teach biology as in the case of creationist John Peloza, my son's middle school biology teacher being the home ec teacher), lack of funding, etc. But a contributing set of factors come from creationist activities, including pressuring textbook publishers, school boards, schools, and individual teachers to exclude evolution. That also includes running creationists as stealth candidates for the school board and individual teachers engaging in their own creationist agenda. Frankly, I think that opposing the teaching of evolution is the single stupidest and most self-defeating thing that creationists could possibly do. As Sun Tzu is frequently quoted:
quote: If creationists truly want to fight and defeat evolution, then they must learn everything they can about evolution! Duh? Then they could concentrate their efforts on attacking the real problems of evolution instead of wasting all their efforts on false and ineffective claims as they've been doing. Plus their long history of false claims only serve to discredit both them and their religion and god. They've been shooting themselves in the foot for so long that they have no more toes to lose. Furthermore, if they want their children to also become "Christian soldiers" to carry on the War Against Evolution into the next generation, then, wishing their children to be successful warriors, they should want to arm them with all the knowledge of and intel on their enemy, evolution. Instead, they are stripping their children of any effective weaponry and sending them forth blindfolded and burdened with ignorance to be slaughtered. They are keeping their children ignorant both of their enemy and of themselves, so they are certain in every battle to be in peril. To quote Scott Rauch, a former creationist warrior against "evolution":
quote: And to quote from memory from a radio interview with the then-governor of Mississippi defending his campaign for education reforms:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Here's the MeetUp page: Login to Meetup | Meetup
Sunday, May 9, 20211:00 PM to 3:00 PM PDT on ZOOM Dr. Eugenie Scott: What people get wrong – and sometimes right – about evolution quote: Dr. Scott was Executive Director for the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). She also was a university professor teaching physical anthropology. She told this story when I saw a presentation by her about 25 years ago. Surprisingly, many biology departments do not teach evolution to their undergraduates -- maybe they're saving that for grad school. So her physical anthropology class would include biology seniors who needed one more science class to meet their general ed requirements and they figured her class would be an "easy A". Poor fools! For one thing, she most definitely taught evolution in her class. That meant that these biology majors were learning about evolution for the first time. As the semester progressed, she would watch these bio majors for that "aha!" look to show up on their faces as they would suddenly realize, "So that's why ... ". Up to that point, they had had to memorize biological facts with no idea why it was that way. Now they understood why. Dr. Scott had presented that story to illustrate the truth of Theodosius Dobzhansky's statement that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher 35:125-129 (March 1973), p. 129 (complete article available at that link):
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
DWise1 writes: 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! Since the Duck Theorem was being invoked, that dictated the formulation. Duh? What you write, what you do, how you conduct yourself are all typical of how creationists conduct themselves. Especially a creationist who tries that very tired old dodge of claiming to not be a 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!" 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! And here you are going through all the typical motions of that very old creationist dodge. Everything you're doing just reeks of "creationist." Including how you keep distorting and misrepresenting what I've written in typical creationist manner. 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. You know, like what you've been doing. That is why we have requested that you support your flimsy assertion that you are "not a creationist.":
DWise1 writes: You need to demonstrate convincingly that you are not a creationist. Please state what you are. Define what you claim that you are. Describe your position fully enough to show that you're not just blowing smoke. For that matter, what do you even mean by "creationist"? You've been tossing so much word salad in order to generate confusion that nobody can keep track. And of course, you have dodged that. In typical creationist fashion.
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! 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. All you need to do is to pull your head out.
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. That includes false conclusions about the effects of evolution (eg, creationist beliefs that it "disproves God" or turns believers into atheists (rather, that is what I've seen creationism do)). 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. Why don't you present an honest and truthful case? Preferably a scientific case. And do please avoid any misrepresentations (which would of course void any claim of it being honest or truthful). Are you even able to? And don't forget to present your own position in order to offer some support for your bare assertion that you are "not a creationist."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
WookieeB writes:
Creationists, at least the ones that try to think, abandoned that criterion decades ago. "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. That reminds me of when arch-creationist former member Faith had inadvertently proven macro-evolution (and upon realizing what she had just done, she immediately started back-pedaling at relativistic speeds). One common clade is the "felid basic kind", AKA "Felidae". That "basic created kind" consists of two genuses, the Pantherinae and the Felinae. Within each genus there are many cases of hybrids which creationists will ironically cite. The thing is that between the two genuses there are no hybrids (actually there is at least one case of hydridization which was a huge surprise to scientists). So here we had a testable case of felid evolution. And the creationists still avoid that test.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
To begin with, Mike the Over-the-side-Urinator (Whizzer) went straight to that dired old false claim about sea salt which was refuted decades ago!
Go to Mike's profile. He is supposed to be active on some "Evolution Fairy Tales" forum, yet he offers no explicit links to that (very odd approach that). Hmmm. What is he trying to hide?
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. Just starting off, Mikey offered his "sea salt" argument. In your criteria, that would be an old and obsolete claim, yet that self-same "old and obsolete claim that "creationists somehow magically no longer use"" is still being used by creationists. Sorry, but you fracking stupid creationists have to get your stupid lies straight.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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. By which you completely missed my point (how typical of a creationist). That entire issue of that moon dust claim is the very dishonesty of the creationists. Oh! They've since then added some wording to prefaces of some creationist books that tries to distance themselves from that moon dust claim. At the same time they continue to publish and sell their books that continue to spread that self-same lie -- Amazon.com right now at the very instant I'm writing this, so how much more "current" do you require? Amazon.com That takes you directly to Dr. Henry Morris' book that contains that moon dust lie. It is still a current source of creationist lies which continue to be made despite having been refuted so many times before. What more do you need?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024