There are easy creationist answers to problems evolutionists pose

WookieB writes: 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….

I see your argument but dont fully agree. Which is fine. Iron sharpens Iron. But you did not answer my question. WookieB, are you a believer in Jesus Christ? Being honest with this answer helps me to respond both to you and your critics. Reality is not always rational or logical.

WookieB, are you a believer in Jesus Christ?

Yes, I would say I am.

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.

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.

The Biologic Institute is closing. Axe is taking up a full-time position at Biola (Bible Institute of Los Angeles). Their publications list reports nothing since 2014 so it seems that it’s been effectively dead for the last few years.

(Reported at The Panda’s Thumb)

I guess the Discovery Institute prefers crude Nazi apologetics

You seem to be saying that dwise1 is misleadingly characterizing contemporary creationist views by referencing old publications. What are these new views? Don't repeat yourself if you've already posted this information just a link to the message would be fine.

--Percy

mike the wiz writes: I am not so much talking about complicated or difficult matters but rather SIMPLE matters, where there are actually very simple, straight forward solutions to the "problems" evolutionists pose.

Easy answers to SIMPLE matters?
Sure - everyone can answer those.

Who cares?

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

1. The Problem of Evil.
   aka - If God is perfect (all-powerful and always-benevolent), then why are things not perfect?
   If disease and defect arise over time - then God's creation isn't perfect, right? As a perfect creation would not generate disease and defect, even over time.
   If disease and defect arise because of The Fall - then God's creation isn't perfect, right? As a perfect creation would not fail it's very first test.
   -either God isn't powerful enough to create life without having disease and defects arising, or God isn't benevolent enough to care

2. Usage of the term Kinds.
   Follow the logic:
   If Kinds are defined as the creature's God made
   ...and God made all life
   ...and all life is classified well under a phylogenetic classification system
   ...but Kinds do not line up with a phylogenetic system well and add a lot of unexplainable confusion
   ...and the phylogenetic system is very useful and helpful when studying all the life we see
   ...and Kinds are not useful or helpful when studying all the life we see
   ...then why use the word "Kinds" at all when studying any of the life we see?

3. 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.)
   There is also no evidence that the entire Earth was ever under water at the same time (there just doesn't seem to have ever been enough water on the planet to make this happen.)

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.

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.

Am I missing something?

Why does the word matter?

quote:

---

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.

---

For a definition it works well enough. And of course, the Biblical usage has very little to do with the concept.

quote:

---

"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.

---

Does it? And I will point out that creationists - who invented their usage - generally insist that fertilisation is not an adequate criterion. It can only show that two species are the same “kind” - lack of interfertility does not show that two species are different kinds.

quote:

---

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.

---

A kind - in creationist usage - is a phylogenetic grouping. All members of a “kind” are descended from the originally created population - in Young Earth Creationism all current members of a kind are descended from the population on Noah’s Ark (whether one pair or seven).

quote:

---

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

---

Now THIS is vague. Do you mean that “kinds” are only useful as a fiction to pretend that the Noah’s Ark story - as interpreted as YECs - could actually happen?

quote:

---

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

---

The biggest problem is finding the supposed boundaries. At what point do you decide that evidence of common ancestry should be rejected ? And why, other than theological concerns which have no scientific basis at all ?

quote:

---

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

---

Obviously it would be archaeological evidence. Exactly what that evidence would be depends on the time and the site. Nevertheless we can say that the Egyptian culture - for example - has a long prehistory, with considerable continuity. Here is a presentation of some archaeological finds from predynastic Egypt.

"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.

Creationists, at least the ones that try to think, abandoned that criterion decades ago.

It inexorably links to the conclusion that Noye would have needed a fleet of arques to accommodate two or seven of each kind.

A huge fleet. One that would put the US Navy to shame.

WookieeB writes: "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. Creationists, at least the ones that try to think, abandoned that criterion decades ago.

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.

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.

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?

Scientific Creationism: Henry M. Morris (Editor): 9780890510032: Amazon.com: Books

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?