Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9174 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,605 Year: 4,862/9,624 Month: 210/427 Week: 20/103 Day: 0/9 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment?
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5972
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 271 of 507 (907429)
02-23-2023 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Tangle
02-23-2023 3:56 PM


Re: dishonesty is not a good look
Using established terminology is always far superior to making up new words and then refusing to define your made-up words (eg, "evolutionist"). That should be intuitively obvious to even the most casual of observers.
Honest discussion depends on both sides understanding and agreeing to the definitions of the terminology used in the discussion. Without that mutual understanding and agreement, discussion cannot happen. Introducing made-up or misdefined primary terminology without providing their new/fabricated meanings can have no other possible effect than to generate confusion.
Confusion serves no function in honest discussion and hinders honest discussion. Confusion does however serve a purpose in deception. Honest discussion hinders the practice of deception in that honesty and the presentation of actual facts ends up exposing the deception for what it is. Therefore, those who wish to practice deception (eg, creationists) have a vested interest in generating as much confusion as they possibly can as they do everything they can to sabotage attempts at honest discussion.
A very common creationist tactic is to make up new words or to redefine existing words to mean something completely different ... and then to refuse to share that new definition/redefinition with others especially when directly requested to do so. That is why they are all so terrified of our simple direct question: "What are you talking about?"
BTW, not all creationists are in on the deception, but rather are themselves victims of it. All they know is the lies that the creationists have taught them. They have memorized the claims and the words (eg, "evolutionist") but never learned any of what's behind those claims nor what those words mean. That is why they are so terrified of our attempts to discuss their claims with them: They literally do not know what they are talking about, so they are literally incapable of discussing those claims. Or the meanings of the terms that they use.
Banned member Faith was one of the most flagrant violators, making up nonsensical geological terminology while explicitly refusing to even try to learn the actual terminology. She ended up a victim of her own confusion, incapable of understanding anything, including her own false creationist claims (again, "false creationist" is redundant). Now sensei is following in her meandering footsteps.
And it is those creationists abysmally ignorant of their own creationism who show up here and in other forums. The smarter more self-aware creationists who fully realize what they are doing know better than to expose themselves to those of us who know what they are up to. It's only the dumb and ignorant ones who think they have a real argument behind them and not just pure bullshit.
 
"Evolutionist" is nothing but more creationist bullshit which they deploy in their efforts to deceive.
They do so to serve their god, a god who must be served through lies and deception. Christian doctrine clearly identifies who that god is ... and it sure as hell ain't YHWH (יהוה)!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Tangle, posted 02-23-2023 3:56 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by sensei, posted 02-25-2023 6:19 PM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5972
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 272 of 507 (907430)
02-23-2023 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Tanypteryx
02-21-2023 3:40 PM


Re: dishonesty is not a good look
And don't forget the classic: evolutionist atheists or atheist evolutionists, I can never remember which is which though.
They actually mean for it to be redundant, like "dishonest creationist". In four decades of watching creationists use that term and refuse to define it, I have seen them constantly equate "evolutionist" with "atheist" ... not that they understand what an atheist is either.
From my field observations, they divide the world, in re "origins", into two opposite and opposing camps: creationists and evolutionists. Basic definitions are that evolutionists accept evolution and creationists don't, but in their minds they're thinking, "Creationists accept God while evolutionists, who are atheists, reject and oppose God. Evolutionists are atheists and atheists are evolutionists. They are one and the same thing."
A side benefit for them -- and purely by accident, I'm sure -- is at "debates" or wherever a creationist can have his opponent introduced as an "evolutionist", at which point the same thought clicks in the mind of every creationist in the audience: "The opponent is an atheist!" Regardless of the opponent's actual theistic position, to the audience he has all be admitted to them that he's an atheist. IOW, the word "evolutionist" is mainly just a dog whistle.
But we haven't gotten the weird part yet. Yeah, it gets weird! Because according to creationists, the vast majority of Christians are atheists because they accept evolution and hence are evolutionists!
This stems back to their Two Model Approach (TMA) which asserts two-and-only-two mutually exclusive "models": the "Creation Model" and the "Evolution Model". The TMA formed the basis for all creationist tactics: "Only one of the two models can be true, so if I can disprove (or at least cast doubt on) the Evolution Model, then I have proven Creation." Creationists Drs. H.Morris and Gish would start every debate by establishing the TMA. When I wrote to Dr. Henry Morris asking why no positive evidence for Creation, he responded emphatically that negative evidence against evolution is "positive" evidence for Creation. Thus, they think they can prove Creation by taking a few pokes at "evolution" without ever having to present any evidence for their "Creation Model", or defend it, or discuss it, or even to present it at all. They think they can prove Creation without ever having to tell anybody what it is.
In their "two-models balanced treatment" school materials and books intended for the general public, they creationists are very careful to be extremely vague about their "creation model". Officially, they just wave their hands and make vague references to "some unnamed Creator". The reason for this is that they had started out being honest about what creationism was based on, Bible verses and all. But part of the aftermath of Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) et alia, besides the demise of their "monkey laws", was the Lemon Test which disallowed their religious beliefs as a basis for barring the teaching of evolution in the public schools. So they took their already written textbooks and superficially scrubbed all explicit Christian references from them in what has been described as "The Game of Hide the Bible." Part of that game was to create the Two Model Approach and "creation science" as a deliberate legal deception to get around the courts (Lie: "Our opposition to evolution is based entirely on scientific reasons. Nothing religious about it.").
That is why they keep their public description of their "Creation Model" so vague, to maintain the public face of their deception. But amongst themselves they are more forthcoming; my page on the Creation Model which quotes directly and verbatim from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR):
  1. Special creation of the universe and earth (by a Creator), on the basis of scientific evidence.
  2. Application of the entropy law to produce deterioration in the earth and life, on the basis of scientific evidence.
  3. Special creation of life (by a Creator), on the basis of scientific evidence.
  4. Fixity of original plant and animal kinds, on the basis of scientific evidence.
  5. Distinct ancestry of man and apes, on the basis of scientific evidence.
  6. Explanation of much of the earth's geology by a worldwide deluge, on the basis of scientific evidence.
  7. Relatively recent origin of the earth and living kinds (in comparison with several billion years), on the basis of scientific evidence.
That page follows the ICR presentation by also including their "Biblical Creation Model" which, point for point, is exactly the same as their "Scientific Creation Model" listed above except each point is "on the basis of Genesis". The 1981 Arkansas "balanced treatment" law included the same definition of the "Creation Model", which helped the judge to identify creationism as being religious and hence failing the Lemon Test. Note that the Louisiana law passed shortly after that trial was identical to the Arkanasa law (both were based on the same model bill) except it left out the definition for the "creation model" -- that one went to the US Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987) where it was found to be unconstitutional, creating the legal precedence that creationism is indeed religious, which led to the new creationist game of hiding behind "intelligent design" (ie, creating the new game of "Hide the Creationism").
That is relevant because it shows that the "Creation Model" is very narrowly defined as young earth creationism (YEC), which includes both the Global Flood and a young earth (no more than 10,000 years, because saying "6,000 years" would reveal the deception). And according to the Two Model Approach, that makes their "Evolution Model" everything else, everything that isn't in their YEC "Creation Model". Dr. Henry Morris even expressed it explicitly, saying that the "atheistic" "evolution model" includes "most of the world's religions, ancient and modern." That means that according to creationists as per the Two Model Approach, the vast majority of theists are actually atheists, including the vast majority of Christians since they are not YECs.
So then through the logic of the Two Model Approach, an "evolutionist" would be one who is not a creationist. And in order to be a creationist you must be a YEC -- even if you believe in the Christian god and Jesus and in Divine Creation but not in the Flood or in a young earth then you are an atheistic "evolutionist".
So then, as we already knew, their term "evolutionist" is nothing but stupid bullshit. It don't mean a thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-21-2023 3:40 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 273 of 507 (907436)
02-24-2023 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by Taq
02-23-2023 3:25 PM


Re: dishonesty is not a good look
Science is very broad. Such term is vague and unspecific. Consensus science includes me in almost every field. The term evolutionist does not.
And there are many people who support common ancestry that are not biologists. So your terms are not good at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Taq, posted 02-23-2023 3:25 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by AZPaul3, posted 02-24-2023 7:11 AM sensei has replied
 Message 277 by Taq, posted 02-24-2023 10:49 AM sensei has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 274 of 507 (907440)
02-24-2023 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by sensei
02-24-2023 3:57 AM


Re: dishonesty is not a good look
Sensei, who do think manifests this consensus? I doubt very much if it includes you in any field. To be considered in the consensus you have to be recognized by your peers as expert in the specifics of the subject. Unless you're a bigwig in the specific science you are not qualified and your views are not considered.
And there are many people who support common ancestry that are not biologists.
What is this supposed to mean? A lot of people support The Dallas Cowboys that are not from Texas either. I fail to see where support for an observation of fact is limited by your discipline.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by sensei, posted 02-24-2023 3:57 AM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by sensei, posted 02-24-2023 11:17 AM AZPaul3 has not replied
 Message 280 by sensei, posted 02-24-2023 11:23 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18388
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 275 of 507 (907451)
02-24-2023 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Theodoric
02-20-2023 8:13 AM


Re: dishonesty is not a good look
Theodoric, addressing sensei writes:
We are not discussing creationists, we are discussing the term "evolutionist". I am not defending an argument. You made the claims, you need to provide definitions and support or crawl back under your rock.
I just want to know if we all agree on the basic terminology. Sensei, the ball is in your court.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Theodoric, posted 02-20-2023 8:13 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Theodoric, posted 02-24-2023 8:46 AM Phat has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9277
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 276 of 507 (907460)
02-24-2023 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Phat
02-24-2023 8:21 AM


Re: dishonesty is not a good look
You are not a moderator. How about you back off.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Phat, posted 02-24-2023 8:21 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Phat, posted 02-24-2023 11:52 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


(2)
Message 277 of 507 (907474)
02-24-2023 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by sensei
02-24-2023 3:57 AM


Re: dishonesty is not a good look
sensei writes:
Science is very broad. Such term is vague and unspecific. Consensus science includes me in almost every field.
The point is that over 99% of biologists accept the theory of evolution. There is no debate within science. The only debate that exists is outside of science, and the dissenters are basing their rejection of the theory on their religious beliefs. The sides really are science and religious dogma.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by sensei, posted 02-24-2023 3:57 AM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by sensei, posted 02-24-2023 11:15 AM Taq has replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 278 of 507 (907477)
02-24-2023 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Taq
02-24-2023 10:49 AM


Re: dishonesty is not a good look
Do you believe that scientific consensus is always correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Taq, posted 02-24-2023 10:49 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Taq, posted 02-24-2023 12:02 PM sensei has replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 279 of 507 (907479)
02-24-2023 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by AZPaul3
02-24-2023 7:11 AM


Re: dishonesty is not a good look
Most people are not biologists, yet many of them side with the evolution theory and common descent.
If you disagree, then how do you define biologist? Is everybody who follows evolution theory a biologist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by AZPaul3, posted 02-24-2023 7:11 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 280 of 507 (907480)
02-24-2023 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by AZPaul3
02-24-2023 7:11 AM


Re: dishonesty is not a good look
I'm saying, I follow scientific consensus on quantum mechanics and on many other topics and theories in many different fields.
Scientific consensus is a bad term to describe all members who are on the side of evolution, as science is much broader than biology, and biology is much broader than origin of species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by AZPaul3, posted 02-24-2023 7:11 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by AZPaul3, posted 02-24-2023 1:53 PM sensei has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18388
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 281 of 507 (907485)
02-24-2023 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Theodoric
02-24-2023 8:46 AM


Re: dishonesty is not a good look
Grumpy as usual. How about I exercise freedom of speech?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Theodoric, posted 02-24-2023 8:46 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 282 of 507 (907488)
02-24-2023 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by sensei
02-24-2023 11:15 AM


Re: dishonesty is not a good look
sensei writes:
Do you believe that scientific consensus is always correct?
You reject the scientific consensus of evolution because of religion, not science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by sensei, posted 02-24-2023 11:15 AM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by sensei, posted 02-25-2023 6:19 PM Taq has replied
 Message 289 by sensei, posted 02-25-2023 7:01 PM Taq has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


(2)
Message 283 of 507 (907492)
02-24-2023 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by sensei
02-24-2023 11:23 AM


Re: dishonesty is not a good look
Scientific consensus is a bad term to describe all members who are on the side of evolution
"Scientific consensus" is an excellent descriptive term to those who understand what it is.
You're trying to obfuscate the language.
A scientific consensus on a specific issue is achieved by the knowledge experts in that field NOT by other scientists in other fields.
Biologists, geneticists, paleontologists and others of related disciplines have a voice in determining any consensus about common descent, nested hierarchies and relatedness. Computer scientists, chemists, nuclear physicists and most certainly internet denizens without any scholastic standing, do not.
Of all the knowledge experts in the biological fields the vast majority understand and agree with what a nested hierarchy is and what it represents. The outliers, any other scientist from any other field and internet lurkers have no say.
I follow scientific consensus on quantum mechanics and on many other topics and theories in many different fields.
But not biology, not evolution, because your religion is involved. Hypocrite.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by sensei, posted 02-24-2023 11:23 AM sensei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by sensei, posted 02-25-2023 6:21 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 284 of 507 (907553)
02-25-2023 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by dwise1
02-23-2023 9:11 PM


Re: dishonesty is not a good look
Making dumb excuses for why you don't like a word, is your problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by dwise1, posted 02-23-2023 9:11 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by dwise1, posted 02-25-2023 9:21 PM sensei has replied

  
sensei
Member
Posts: 482
Joined: 01-24-2023


Message 285 of 507 (907554)
02-25-2023 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Taq
02-24-2023 12:02 PM


Re: dishonesty is not a good look
Another one of your false assumptions. You evolutionists are full of those.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Taq, posted 02-24-2023 12:02 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Taq, posted 02-27-2023 10:43 AM sensei has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024