|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
also he commits the begging the question fallacy here:
MrID writes: Non-intentional change is wrong since biological cell is intellen intellen is an intelligent agent that resides within the cell? This is even more confusing than the rest of ID insisting on an external Intelligent Designer "who shall remain nameless and unidentified, but who is in fact the fundamentalist Christian "God"; they are One And The Same (refer to DC superhero secret identities)." Now it's making far less sense than it wasn't making before. But that begs yet another question: What is "intelligent design" supposed to have to do with biological evolution in the first place? Evolution is a completely natural process/set of processes that would function the same and produce the same results regardless of how life got here in the first place. IOW, regardless of whether life had arisen entirely through natural processes or were instantaneously poofed into existence by God wrinkling Her nose to the accompaniment of a tinkling sound (other churches insist on the folding the arms and blinking while making a very exaggerated head nod), the instant that life came into existence it would have immediately started evolving. And OBTW, an actual creationist (opposed to fake ones like YECs and IDiots) would recognize that those natural processes had themselves been created by their Creator and hence there is no inherent conflict between science (including evolution) and religion just so long as religion doesn't insist on silly ideas about reality, like YEC et al. Anyway, at what point in biological evolution acting through life doing what life naturally does an external intelligence ever have to step in? Populations of organisms produce offspring. No need for an external intelligence there. For a given trait, the more parents possessing it means the more offspring inheriting it. No need for an external intelligence there. BTW, most seeds and zygotes fail to develop so they never become part of the gene pool and we never see them (figure we hear for humans is that 50% of conceptions abort spontaneously), which would account for MrID's bizarre "Dislocated Parts" ideas. Only some of the offspring end up surviving to adulthood. No need for an external intelligence there, but rather it is intuitively obvious even to the most casual creationist observer that the offspring with traits that are more beneficial for survival will be more likely to survive. The offspring that end up being the parents of the next generation will be the ones who survived (whose definition should include being able to make it past sexual selection as well as having fully functional baby-making parts). Yet again, no need for an external intelligence there. Whether given traits are beneficial or not depends on the environment in which the organisms must live and survive. No need for an external intelligence there. Over generations we should expect to see many if not most of the members of a population possess more of those beneficial traits and fewer of the disadvantageous traits. No need for an external intelligence there. As the environment changes (or the population moves into a new environment), which traits are beneficial or disadvantageous or neutral can and will also change. No need for an external intelligence there. Under those changed conditions and over the generations, the newly beneficial traits will come to dominate in the population. No need for an external intelligence there. Genetic mutations happen; it's a simple fact. No need for an external intelligence there. Most genetic mutations are either neutral or deleterious (remember those large percentages of seeds that fail to germinate and fertilized eggs that fail to develop?), but some are beneficial (both in terms of viability and of being advantageous in the environment). No need for an external intelligence there. Those new beneficial traits will spread through the population in accordance with population dynamics. No need for an external intelligence there. I probably should have formatted those four paragraphs as a list, but I'm in a rush to get to a monthly skeptics brunch. So, exactly what role is an external intelligence supposed to play in biological evolution? Since biological evolution works just fine without an external intelligence, why insist on imposing one? Neither MrID's "New ID" (whatever that's supposed to be) nor conventional (ie, non-gibberish) ID make any sense. Evolution ain't broke, so why do you insist that you must fix it? Edited by dwise1, : subtitle
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
It seems to me that is the definition of religion, insisting on silly ideas about reality. Wellll ... . Religion rightfully deals in ideas about non-reality. Things we cannot test. And, yes, a lot (but not all) of those ideas about non-reality are also silly. Science deals in ideas about reality and hence those ideas are testable and do get tested. But since reality has no bearing on those ideas of religion, there's no conflict. But religion just cannot keep its damned dirty paws off of reality. That's when their ideas become testable, have been tested, and have been disproven. Which brings us to a response to proselytizers: "Every one of your claims that we've been able to test have proven to be wrong, so why should we trust your claims that we cannot test?" Edited by dwise1, : corrected last word: prove -> test
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
Uhhh, he does say he's catholic. One of the defining differences between Catholics and Protestants is supposed to be that Catholics are required to believe what they're told (forbidden to read the Bible until relatively recently) while Protestants are supposed to read the Bible and figure it out themselves. Of course it's different in practice where Catholics tend to become skeptical of what they're told while Protestants are the blind and gullible believers. One of the benefits to the church of the traditional Catholic ban on reading the Bible is that it's been able to stay together so well. Let people read the Bible for themselves and they'll start interpreting it for themselves which leads to schisms and new denominations, exactly what we see among Protestants. For Catholics, any different interpretation is heresy. Bertrand Russell is quoted as saying that if a Catholic becomes a freethinker then he will most likely become an atheist, whereas if a Protestant becomes a freethinker then he'll just form a new church.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
Apparently the term I coined for candle2 also applies to Dredge: willfully stupid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
Agreed. While candle2 works zealously to make himself stupid and to keep himself stupid, Dredge is putting on an act. In order to be a troll.
Now how is that supposed to serve his church?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
Gunter Bechly came up with a similar challenge. And several biologists answered it. But, of course, Bechly rejected all of their answers, because what he was really asking was a matter of his subjective opinion. And he was not about to accept any responses to his challenge. So then Dredge is engaging in the typical brainless bottom-feeder creationist activity of using some stupid creationist claim or stunt without understanding any of it nor even giving it any thought at all. We see that all the time as creationists copy-and-paste the same old stupid PRATTs on forums or in emails, etc. Or in creationist videos showing their favorite archetype, the single Christian who stands up to the bullying science teacher and decimates him with a set of "unanswerable" questions (eg, in both versions of Chick Pubs' Big Daddy?) at the end of which all the other students start to convert (has anyone ever pointed out that such cartoons (and now videos too) are a primary form of training?). Then a decade or so again there was a "grass roots" campaign, Question Evolution, with urged schoolchildren to confront their teachers with a list of nearly 30 "unanswerable questions." My favorite questions was "There are so many chemical compounds, but where did they come from?", which was never coupled with the teacher's response: "Well, Suzie, if you had ever managed to stay awake in chemistry class then you would know the answer to that question." I was in a long correspondence with a YEC. He never ever answered a direct question, but rather kept throwing "unanswerable questions" at me. I would answer his damned questions, but then we refused to ever discuss any of them.Instead, he would claim that I hadn't answered his question (and then ignored my own question of "why do you think that I hadn't answered it?"), tried to change the subject with different "unanswerable questions", or simply run away (in one case of running away, he even went so far as to cancel his email account and go into hiding for nearly two years -- see my page on that question, BILL MORGAN'S QUESTION: Should Kids be Taught About God?). He projects a Hovind-esque image of being an expert, but I finally figured out that he is no different from any other creationist: he has no clue what he is talking about and just repeats stupid creationist claims without any comprehension. In typical encounters with creationists (see my Encounters with Creationists) any attempt to engage in discussion with a creationist about his how claim causes that creationist to be increasingly hostile. Not only would discussion be counter-productive for his agenda, but he's not even capable of engaging in discussion. Saying that there's no there there would be a gross understatement. Stupid is as creationists do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
We KNOW how an internal combustion engine works ... hence there is no Theory of Internal Combustion Engines. We KNOW how to build a house ... hence there is no Theory of House-building. YOU STUPID IDIOT!! There are most definitely Theory of Internal Combustion Engines and Theory of House-building and theories explaining every single aspect of technology and science! You know-nothing bottom-feeder idiot! You have no fucking clue what you are talking about nor how anything works! And to make your idiocy so much worse, we have repeatedly explained it to you, but you refuse to ever learn anything! You are a prime example of willful stupidity as you stubbornly cling to your stupidity. On active duty I was a technician, an electronic computer systems repairman. We had a bookshelf filled with our tech manuals which had several sections. One very important section for every piece of equipment was its Theory of Operation. The other sections listed parts, test procedures, alignment procedures, schematics, etc. But none of that was of much help without the Theory of Operation which explained to us how that equipment worked. That is what a theory does: explain how something works. So we do indeed have multiple theories of internal combustion engines, since there are so many different kinds of those engines. And far more multiple theories of house construction, including many theories of architecture and structural engineering. You are not only too stupid to know what a theory is, but you are also far too stupid to ever learn what a theory is. Sound clip from a progressive radio show, usually played for the more outlandish idiots like you (picture it being sung -- sorry, cannot find it on YouTube):
quote You should take advantage of these excursions of yours out of the silt and slime on the bottom in order to learn something. Instead, you only try to spread the slime that you wallow in. It would be best for you to simply slither back to the bottom and stay there.
ABE: Found the song:
Edited by dwise1, : ABE: Found the song
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
Dredge writes:
Yup. The late science historian and atheist, Dr. William Provine, said,"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented". According to you he was talking complete crap. He was wrong. Provine was an atheist and was a very active opponent of creationism, Phillip Johnson's ID in particular. All atheists have their own particular reasons and thoughts about atheism, there being no such thing as an "atheist dogma" (unlike Catholicism), so we would do well to listen to his own reasons and thoughts on the matter. Unfortunately, what Dredge gave us is an obvious quote-mining, a single statement pulled out of context freed of any surrounding text that could provide further illumination (the only citation I can find is reference to an address posted (or cited from) on a "Darwin Day website" from the mid-1990's, so good luck there!). Of course the quote-miner will proclaim, "But those are the words he said!" To that I would point out that the Bible says, "There is no God." Of course, we need to read further to discover what the Bible is actually saying, but those are the words it says! Similarly, even when creationists cite actual scientific studies, they typically only quote from the abstract and even then only from the very beginning of the abstract, the statement of the problem, that problem being the one that the paper solves as is normally stated later in the abstract. IOW, they quote-mine that abstract in order to lie about that paper. The article from the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) tells us more about Dr. Provine (abbreviated here):
quote So my interpretation of Provine's atheism with regards to evolution was that science, including evolution, provided natural explanations that eliminated the need for postulating supernaturalistic explanations. IOW, we no longer need to create and invoke gods and spirits to explain natural phenomena -- we no longer need the likes of Zeus or Thor to explain lightning and thunder. IOW, goodbye God of the Gaps. And if the only purpose of their god is to serve as a God of the Gaps, then they're better off without the intellectual laziness engendered by that god. So if Provine's atheism was born out of rejecting the God of the Gaps, then that would be part of his views on atheism. For many of us atheists, it was reading the Bible that led to our atheism, so that would part of our views. For those who were raised on creationism and then learned the truth, rejection of creationism would be part of their views. But until Dredge can provide us with a proper citation that will get us to the original source of that Provine quote-mining, there is no reason for us to take him seriously.
quote
quote Edited by dwise1, : Added link to page on the creationism class in Livermore
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
1 + 2 + 3 = your claim to know how evolution works is clearly bullsh_t. No, rather any claim you would make that you know or understand reality would clearly be complete and utter bullshit. We know that from direct observation of your multiple and determined demonstrations of your inability to understand anything despite everybody's attempts to explain it to you. Maybe if you were to stop working so zealously at willful stupidity, you might be able to rise above your origins in the slime of the bottom. I take it that your avatar is a photo of your mother who had dredged you up and that you named yourself after her. Oh well, stupid is as creationists do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
That's a creationist lie. First, I don't give a flying fuck about "Darwinists". I have never met a "Darwinist". For the most part, "Darwinists" went extinct by the middle of the 20th Century having been replaced by neo-Darwinists via the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis of Darwinism and Mendelian genetics (et alia) -- it's a bit more involved than that summary, so follow the link. Darwin was never able to solve the problem of inheritance, which was solved by Mendel -- ironically (and perhaps anecdotally) a copy of Mendel's monograph was in Darwin's library, but he had apparently never gotten around to reading it. Darwin had tried to solve that problem with his pangenetic theory which basically amounted to a revival of Lamarckian ideas of acquired traits. When biologists rediscovered Mendelian genetics and started to study and experiment with mutation around 1900, they considered Darwinism as having been disproven. In reality, it was Darwin's pangenetics that had been disproven, but not the other aspects of his theory of evolution such as natural selection. One outcome of that early period of genetics is a wealth of quotes from actual scientists stating that "Darwin had been disproven" because just that one of his ideas (ie, pangenetics) was wrong. Of course, that source has been thoroughly quote-mined by creationists. So in the first half of the 20th Century scientists developed a synthesis of Darwinism and Mendelian genetics which resulted in neo-Darwinism which employs population genetics, a rigorous mathematical study of the genetics of populations (for Dredge's edification, populations evolve, not individuals). So anyone who is not a neo-Darwinist but rather instead a Darwinist is several decades out of date (rapidly approaching a century out of date). Yet again, we see creationists failing to keep up as they remain mired in old ideas and superseded sources.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
As for being "anti-science" ... not me. And yet here you are being flagrantly anti-science. Flaming, even.
ringo writes:
What "evolution" are you referring to? But evolution is a fact. And the theory of Evolution is an explanation of that fact. As ringo replies in his Message 299:
ringo writes: Biological evolution. What's confusing about that? Of course, it's biological evolution. That's what we have been talking about all this time and have been explaining to you over and over again.
So what are you talking about? What do you think evolution is? Please describe it as completely as you can. How to you think that evolution works or is supposed to work? Please include what you would consider to be the results or consequences of evolution and explain completely why those would be the results or consequences. What do you think is the evolutionary explanation of how speciation (the formation of a new species) works and happens? Do try to be as specific as you can be. Of course, you will never answer any of those questions. In the past four decades I have never seen any creationist even attempt it, but rather all they ever do is avoid those questions. Why won't any creationist ever answer those basic questions? In part because they have no clue what they are talking about, but rather just mindlessly repeat creationist claims and "arguments" (read "cheap rhetorical tricks") they have heard but do not understand. Although that is obviously true, there's also the simple fact that actual discussion, exchanging of ideas, and learning would be directly counter-productive to their mission:
For most creationists, their mission is to be nothing more than bottom-feeding trolls.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
He doesn't seem to have a goal or desire meaningful discussion. One common characteristic of creationists is that they are all bad-faith actors. Or at least I cannot think of any creationist I've encountered in the past 35 years who had acted in good faith. They do whatever they can to prevent any kind of honest discussion. In this YouTube video, Debating Bad Faith Actors , Aron Ra and Erika (Gutsick Gibbon) discuss having to deal with those bad-faith actors. The description: quote If you don't already know his history, the convicted fraud they refer to is Kent Hovind who served a ten-year federal prison sentence for tax fraud. It's only two hours long, so it's one of Erika's shorter videos.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Yes, I agree ... All creationists are evil. A rarity! You actually made a true statement. Could somebody please look up the weather report in Hell to see if they're issuing frost warnings. But then you go and spoil it all with the subsequent BS:
Good people are products of evolution, whereas evil people - such as creationists - are products of evilution. Dat's de awful troof. We are all the products of evolution, as are all species. Simple obvious fact, like the one that all mammals breathe air. But what, oh what, is "evilution" supposed to be? Definitely not evolution. Instead, in my experience that term, a standard puerile creationist pejorative, is more appropriate as a label for creationist misrepresentations (AKA "lies") about evolution and the other sciences. Or more simply, that "evilution" is everything that creationists mean by "evolution" even though it is entirely different from evolution. Again, creationists' "evilution" is nothing more than a pack of lies. And that is where creationist evil comes from. Creationists aren't born evil. Nor were they already evil when they first became creationists. OK, I'm giving creationists the benefit of the doubt, but maybe too much. Maybe some creationists did start out evil, but that is neither here nor there. It is not the initial levels of evil that are important, but rather the far greater levels of evil as they were inevitably corrupted by the false theologies in their religion. False theologies such as "creation science", "Intelligent Design", and really stupid ideas about Divine Creation (which end up telling you that if the Creation is really as it actually is, then that would disprove God, that being an incredibly stupid teaching which is why we cannot understand how creationists could fall for it. Oh, and also that stupid one that if something (like life) were produced by natural processes, the exact same natural processes that a Divine Creator would have created, then that somehow would disprove God. What is wrong with you people?). No, I do not expect you to understand any of that. You are too willfully stupid, so you would never even consider trying to read any of this, let alone try to understand it. You are a creationist, so that is your corrupted nature. You are already lost. However, others may find this discussion interesting or even useful. This is the fundamental problem for a creationist. His stuff is pure crap, but he doesn't know that at first. And then as he learns through bitter experience that his stuff is nothing but pure crap, he's too invested in it so he enters a spiral of self-deception and rampant dishonesty (actual trajectory into complete and utter religious depravity varies between customers). Or else he decides to cut his losses and leaves creationism (and usually also religion) behind. Being too invested in a theology. There was a documentary about Scientology on HBO, "Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief"; I just found it again on HBO Max. They suck you in with their galvanic skin response BS, compile many notebooks of inner-most personal confessions as you're trying, though galvanic skin response, to "go clear" (AKA, blackmail material ... ever notice how completely compliant major celebrities involved in Scientology are with the Church?). Well, after you have advanced far enough in "going clear" (AKA, donated enough money to the church), then you reach a level where you are allowed to read L. Ron Hubbard's actual notes ... Revelation itself! They hand you the briefcase with his writings and what you find inside is really bad science fiction. Really bad. But that is the central dogma. So what do you do at that point? You've sunk so much into this church only to discover this? Do you go out and tell the world what a complete idiot you have been? Don't forget the Church's army of lawyers who will sue you into oblivion and beyond. Or the stack of notebooks filled with your inner-most thoughts, AKA blackmail material. Or do you double down on your stupidity and continue to play the game? For me, the main difference between Christianity (especially fundamentalist) and Scientology is that Scientology waits to show you the actual craziness only until you are far too deeply invested to be able to pull out. Christianity in all its 45,000 myriad forms, at least shows you the craziness up front. Or at least very shortly into the process of assimilation -- first they insist that you only need to accept Jesus as your personal Savior, but then they start to pile on the rest of the theology that you are required to belief or else Jesus will no longer be your Savior. That is an entirely separate discussion. But at least in this one (and possibly unique) respect Christianity is more honest than Scientology in respect to when they reveal to you that they are nucking futs. But creationists have no such out. They are trapped within their system of false theology that can only be supported and served through lies. The false theology that creationists have become enslaved to requires them to reject reality. Creationism makes them believe that if the physical universe were really as it actually is, then that disproved God. For example, their theology says that the earth has to be young, so an old earth would disprove God ("If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning.", John Morris, 1986, Institute for Creation Research (ICR)). And so on. The problem is that everything that the creationists tried to claim conflicted with science, the actual study of the real physical universe. With reality! So in order to maintain their faith, they must reject reality and try to disprove reality. But the only way to disprove reality is to misrepresent it, to lie about it. So then every creationist claim has to be a lie. Which means that creationists using those false claims can remain innocent (ie, unaware of their transgressions) only so long as they do not receive any feedback revealing the truth about their claims, that they are spewing utter BS. They can only keep that up if they isolate themselves from the outside and instead remain in the bubble of their religious community. The moment they venture out of the safety of that bubble (eg, in order to proselytize or to fight against the teaching of evolution in public schools or participate in forums such as this one), their false beliefs will be challenged as they repeatedly stub their toes on reality as it maneuvers to bite them in the ass. If they accept reality, then that will destroy their faith and "disprove God" (according to their false theology). Some will accept reality and leave creationism and the religion that teaches it, brushing its dust off of their sandals as they leave it forever. Some will flee back to the safety of their bubble never to emerge again. And some will continue to fight against reality, but at such an enormous cost. They have to misrepresent reality and lie about it even to themselves. And the more they collide with reality the more they must delude themselves and others -- ie, the more they must lie about just about everything. And a very important aspect of lying to themselves is to avoid learning about reality, so creationists must cultivate the constant practice of willful stupidity. If they do not practice willful stupidity, then they run the risk of learning the truth about reality which will disprove their false theology, etc. For some inconceivable reason preserving the pack of lies which is their false theology is far more important to them than the truth. As they interact with non-creationists, they cannot afford to ever act in good faith. That is especially true when those non-creationists are knowledgeable, because a good-faith discussion would result in exposing the creationist's errors and misrepresentations (AKA "lies") and revealing the creationist's position to be completely untenable and indefensible. Therefore, a creationist has to and will do everything he can to thwart any and all attempts at honest discussion. Even to the point of refusing to answer simple direct questions such as "What do you think evolution is and how it works?", "Why do you think there's any conflict between evolution and God?", or just simply "What are you talking about?" Or the one that candle2 refused to answer, "What would that trace C14 in coal and diamonds possibly have to do with radiocarbon dating methods?" It is virtually impossible to ever get a straight answer for a simple direct question from a creationist. In sharp contrast, creationists rely on "gotcha" questions that are intended to be impossible to answer, analogous to "Describe in complete detail every single step taken by the Israelites during their forty years in the wilderness, including the exact location of every single one of their encampments." Of course, a very large part of the reason why creationists won't answer any of our simple questions is because their willful stupidity has its cost. They quite literally do not know what they are talking about. They don't even understand their own gotcha questions, so they are at a complete loss when we do answer their stupid questions and try to discuss our answer with them. They are literally completely ignorant. And their very sad, sorry state is directly caused by the corrupting effects of their false theologies, including creationism. It is the nature of creationism that corrupts creationists and turns them into dishonest, deceptive, and morally bankrupt bad-faith actors. In my four decades of studying "creation science" and 35 years of dealing with creationists, there is only one single creationist I can remember as being honest and acting in good faith. That was Merle on CompuServe circa 1990. Being an honest creationist, he did not remain a creationist for long; within a year he had dropped that nonsense and started arguing against other creationists' stupid false claims. It was because he would actually research his creationist responses to non-creationists that he learned the truth and that creationism was false. So anyone who remains a creationist for a long time has to be dishonest, since that's the only way he can protect his beliefs from the truth. A few years ago, I started a study of creationists, trying to develop from my decades of observations in the trenches a theory of how creationists function. My intention was to include that on my website. Of course, the problem with such research is that, since no creationist will answer any simple direct question, it can only rely on observations and not on interviews with the subjects. My approach was to consider the progression of creationists up the ladder from mere rank-and-file consumer of creationist claims to initial contacts with non-creationists, to active proselytizer, to activist, to debater, to professional. What I found is that the further up that ladder they progress, the more dishonest and self-deluded they must become just to remain creationists. At each rung of that ladder, I considered the effects of their increasing encounters with knowledgeable non-creationists (bearing the truth about reality) and a few different outcomes from those encounters. Basically, the higher you are on that ladder the more encounters you will have to deal with and with non-creationists who are increasingly expert in the sciences in question. And, of course, the lowest rung on that ladder is the rank-and-file creationist whose contacts are exclusively with creationists and not with any knowledgeable non-creationists; basically, they stay in their bubble wrapped up safely in their abject ignorance and their lack of desire to learn anything. The possible outcomes at each rung would be:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Please be advised that ToE is a product of atheism and is the religion of atheists. Absolutely false. But then you do keep telling us that your IQ is way down there around 10, which officially qualifies you as a mid-range idiot: " ... "idiot" (IQ of 0–25) ... " Yet again (even though you are a lost cause, a willfully stupid self-professed idiot):
Of course, being a willfully stupid self-professed idiot, you will understand none of that. Pearls cast before yet another creationist swine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
And it's no laughing matter. You are YEC. You just lie about it like you do everything else. With your history of lying you can't prove otherwise. Kind of a technicality, but there is a difference between young-earth creationists (YEC) and old-earth creationists (OEC). Creationists even see that as a major schism and have devoted some debates and rhetoric on it. Basically, the only difference between a YEC and an OEC is the single issue of how old the earth is. The rest is mostly the same stupid nonsense. Check out NCSE's article, The Creation/Evolution Continuum (2016 -- based on an earlier article by Eugenie Scott which formed the material of a chapter of her book, Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, second edition, 2009). So YE/OE notwithstanding, Dredge is still a willfully stupid lying evil creationist. His attempts to deflect and divert over the YE bit is just further evidence of his malfeasance. BTW, it is not quite true that YECs are incapable of learning. When a particular claim proves to be too blatantly false (eg, their moon dust claim, bullfrog protein and other false claims regarding protein comparisons), then they will drop it, albeit as quietly as possible (eg, they announced dropping moon dust in the preface of a creationist book). Then they won't use it again, except maybe trotting it out again every few years hoping that everybody had forgotten about it. But more generally, it becomes increasingly difficult to get a self-avowed YEC to discuss any YEC claims. They avoid making those claims on their own, ignore attempts to get them to present a YEC claim to a non-creationist, or to discuss/support/defend any particular YEC claims we try to raise with them. YE claims are the weakest part of YEC and they have learned through experience to avoid them at all costs. Though I suspect that when they're safely back in a YEC circle-jerk that they use those claims freely.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024