Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Comparitive delusions
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 1 of 216 (295957)
03-16-2006 12:58 PM


quote:
It makes it impossible for another interpretation of the same phenomena to be offered. You don't give enough of the particulars for a person to think about and you don't like your interpretation being questioned because it's "science" and so on, but that attitude prevents your reader from thinking through the evidence, and especially if one is a YEC makes it nearly impossible to sort out enough fact from fiction to have an answer to you. But of course you don't want to hear the creationist's answer anyway. All you want to do is prove to us we're wrong, so there's not much motivation to be very careful about distinguishing the facts from the interpretations and imaginative scenarios.
IrishRockhound writes:
Imagination and speculation are more the creationist's forte.
Boy is that a delusion.
Creationists seem very ready to jump to an accusation such as this - that scientists are deluded for thinking that evolution might be true and the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. This shows a lack of critical thinking - that they are ready to point the finger at others, but do not seem to recognise that they could be just as deluded.
For example, literalist creationists believe:
1) some guy 2000 years ago (it happened so long ago and no one witnessed it, how do you know it really happened?) healed the sick just by touching them, raised someone from the dead, rose from the dead himself, made lots of loaves and fishes out of thin air.
2) some being who is supposedly all-powerful (but somehow can't make himself known to anyone who doesn't already worship him) poofed the world into existence and has been screwing around with it ever since for reasons unknown.
3) a man can be swallowed by a whale and survive, that humanity started from one man and one woman, that snakes and burning bushes can talk, and that some evil bogeyman called Satan is making people do bad things.
All this is in defiance of what doctors, physicists, geologists, biologists, whoever say about it based on their years of rigorous training and research in their particular fields. In comparison, thinking that the world is very very old and creatures can evolve is pretty tame.
Essentially this seems to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. What right does a creationist have to call scientists deluded when they themselves are apparently deluded about a lot of things?
IRH
Topic promoted from Message 1 (AdminNWR)

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Jazzns, posted 03-16-2006 1:12 PM IrishRockhound has not replied
 Message 3 by roxrkool, posted 03-16-2006 4:14 PM IrishRockhound has not replied
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 03-16-2006 8:44 PM IrishRockhound has replied
 Message 5 by ikabod, posted 03-17-2006 3:41 AM IrishRockhound has replied
 Message 19 by Phat, posted 03-17-2006 10:08 AM IrishRockhound has replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 2 of 216 (295963)
03-16-2006 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by IrishRockhound
03-16-2006 12:58 PM


Whiners
I think most of the problem comes from the fact that your average YEC on this board won't pony up the time to even be mildly educated about geology or biology. Heck they don't even put in the effort to understand what the other side is actually saying. While most of us have actually read much of ICR, AIG, etc, they cannot even be bothered to explore talkorigins in depth because of its 'evil' factor.
SO all of this delusion rant is pretty much just sophisticated whining. When I parse it what I hear is, "I don't have enough knowledge to interpret what you are saying so therefore you are being prohibitive to my ability to challange you. Therefore I am going to abandon any sense of being reasonable and resort to intellectual poo flinging rather than take this as an opportunity to learn about something that I don't understand."
This does not apply to all YECs. TheLiteralist is one I remember who was very open to learning and was always asking questions even though he obviously rejected the explanations. I miss TheLiteralist. =)
This message has been edited by Jazzns, 03-16-2006 11:13 AM

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IrishRockhound, posted 03-16-2006 12:58 PM IrishRockhound has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 988 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 3 of 216 (296020)
03-16-2006 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by IrishRockhound
03-16-2006 12:58 PM


It makes it impossible for another interpretation of the same phenomena to be offered. You don't give enough of the particulars for a person to think about and you don't like your interpretation being questioned because it's "science" and so on, but that attitude prevents your reader from thinking through the evidence, and especially if one is a YEC makes it nearly impossible to sort out enough fact from fiction to have an answer to you.
I am actually quite offended at the above.
First of all, no one can stop anyone from providing another interpretation of the data.
Secondly, I have NEVER taken issue with anyone who has questioned my interpretations or who has asked me to elaborate further on something I've posted. I may have lost my temper a few times because for the most part, arguing with staunch YECs feels like a complete waste of time - most of them don't know the basics of geology and don't even care to learn - but I certainly do not have a problem elaborating for people who have a real interest in finding out the hows and whys of geology.
What prevents any reader from considering and making sense of the evidence, is the reader him/herself.
This message has been edited by roxrkool, 03-16-2006 04:17 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IrishRockhound, posted 03-16-2006 12:58 PM IrishRockhound has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 4 of 216 (296090)
03-16-2006 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by IrishRockhound
03-16-2006 12:58 PM


I don't see that there's anything to discuss here, but I suppose you all need a special opportunity to rant against us ignorant mean creos from time to time.
But I think you took my post out of context. Sorry it upset you so but I thought the context should have made it clear I'm talking about something very specific and I'm not accusing anyone of intentional deception either.
It happened to occur in some posts on the Grand Canyon thread so I took the opportunity to try to define it. It's something that's bugged me for years, but usually in the context of evolutionist presentations more than geology. It just happens to occur there too.
But apparently you can't see a problem with it so it was a futile hope on my part that it might be appreciated.
Here's the original post just for the record, from the Grand Canyon threadwhich is a reply to a post of yours.
Peace.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IrishRockhound, posted 03-16-2006 12:58 PM IrishRockhound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by IrishRockhound, posted 03-17-2006 6:57 AM Faith has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 5 of 216 (296132)
03-17-2006 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by IrishRockhound
03-16-2006 12:58 PM


while almost totally agreeing with you say , you do seem to over look the , and pardon the word , fundamental point , those who hold to the religious line base their world view on faith , and faith does not require reasoned argument as by its nature it is all about the miraculous ,your 3 examples all happened ,inspite of and laws of physics , chemistry or biology because they where miricales ... if you have faith .
the only evidance we can have about a miricale is that it has happened , and by the nature of any such event it can only be reported from eyewitness accounts from the time it happened .
HOWEVER the same can be said to be true for mundane events ie in the during the 3 week of the 4 th year of his reign King Henrey the VIII of England had a cold , and blew his nose a lot .. easy to provide evidence of the king but of a did he really have a cold at that time ??
and taking you point about defiance in the face of other "experts" .. thats what any religion have all was done .. as it competes vs other religions and creeds
the issue as i see it is when religion tries to use scienctic methods to "prove " itself ..and this is where it fails because its now using the wrong tools to make its arguments
" if god had wanted to convert people by the starta and fosile content of the earths crust , priest would study geology not the bible , "

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IrishRockhound, posted 03-16-2006 12:58 PM IrishRockhound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by IrishRockhound, posted 03-17-2006 7:42 AM ikabod has not replied
 Message 9 by ramoss, posted 03-17-2006 8:25 AM ikabod has not replied

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 6 of 216 (296142)
03-17-2006 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Faith
03-16-2006 8:44 PM


I think it's quite clear, Faith. You accused me of delusion because I hold the opinion that creationists' ideas on geology are a result of fevered imagination rather than fact - bearing in mind that I have the training to examine such ideas and come to an informed decision about them.
It is a very simple question - what right do you have to accuse me of that, and to accuse scientists in general of being deluded, misguided, of making things up to suit themselves, when you seem to believe without a shadow of a doubt in some very questionable things yourself? You have not offered any proof for your accusations or insinuations, I might add.
This speaks of deep hypocrisy on your part, and you are not the first creationist to make this charge against science. That is what this discussion is about - creationists, who believe odd things and make stuff up, accusing scientists of the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Faith, posted 03-16-2006 8:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 03-17-2006 8:21 AM IrishRockhound has replied

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4436 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 7 of 216 (296146)
03-17-2006 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by ikabod
03-17-2006 3:41 AM


See, there's the crux of the matter - those who hold the religious line base their world view on faith, and they see fit to consider scientists do the same! Then they accuse them of such without showing any kind of evidence of the truth of that claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by ikabod, posted 03-17-2006 3:41 AM ikabod has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 8 of 216 (296150)
03-17-2006 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by IrishRockhound
03-17-2006 6:57 AM


This has nothing to do with my religious beliefs
What you are saying makes no sense. My reaction to the way people are customarily presented with unprovable conjecture in the supposed ancient scenarios of the ToE and OE is something that's bugged me all the way back before I was a Christian. Mostly the ToE where I would try to track down the evidence for some scenario or another, in layman's terms of course, and couldn't.
I haven't accused anyone of evil motives -- or delusion or anything else. Oh my mistake -- I did accuse you of delusion about how creationists are the ones guilty of fantasies etc. So you are delusional that we are delusional. That's true.
That's my statement. There is no more. It has nothing whatever to do with my religious beliefs and there's no point in arguing with you about all that anyway, as you clearly are not open to any of it and it's just a distraction from the point I wanted to make.
Peace.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-17-2006 08:22 AM
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-17-2006 08:24 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by IrishRockhound, posted 03-17-2006 6:57 AM IrishRockhound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 03-17-2006 8:46 AM Faith has replied
 Message 11 by Mammuthus, posted 03-17-2006 8:50 AM Faith has replied
 Message 14 by LinearAq, posted 03-17-2006 9:10 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 24 by IrishRockhound, posted 03-17-2006 11:33 AM Faith has replied
 Message 25 by Modulous, posted 03-17-2006 12:05 PM Faith has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 9 of 216 (296151)
03-17-2006 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by ikabod
03-17-2006 3:41 AM


Eyewitness evidence is very poor, demonstratably so.
Also, in the case of the miracles of the gospels, they were recorded at least 30 to 40 years after the alleged events by people who were not there.
How can those claims be even taken on faith?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by ikabod, posted 03-17-2006 3:41 AM ikabod has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 10 of 216 (296156)
03-17-2006 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
03-17-2006 8:21 AM


Re: This has nothing to do with my religious beliefs
My reaction to the way people are customarily presented with unprovable conjecture in the supposed ancient scenarios of the ToE and OE is something that's bugged me all the way back before I was a Christian.
But the TOE and old earth are unsupportable only by wilfully ignoring the evidence.
You keep asserting that they are unsupportable when you wilfully disregard all of the evidence presented to you and even joyously say that you know that anything that disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible is wrong.
Sorry Faith, but YECs and the Classic Biblical Creationists, in the words of the Clergy Project:
...deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 03-17-2006 8:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 03-17-2006 9:00 AM jar has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 11 of 216 (296158)
03-17-2006 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
03-17-2006 8:21 AM


Re: This has nothing to do with my religious beliefs
quote:
Mostly the ToE where I would try to track down the evidence for some scenario or another, in layman's terms of course, and couldn't.
Just because the explanation is not available in layman terms does not mean it is unavailable. Mostly "science-lite" soundbites are distilled for the general public. But to track the evidence down for specifics requires an effort on your part to understand the primary literature where scientists communicate with each other. Maybe surprisingly for you, scientists are not consumed with making sure you understand what they say in seminars, scientific literature, etc. but rather that those in their fields do. It is up to the layman whether they want to do the work to learn enough to be fluent in science (some on this site have made that effort..none of them YECs)...don't complain that you can't read a menu in Rome if you don't bother to learn Italian. Your lack of knowledge of Italian does not suggest that pasta is not on the menu.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 03-17-2006 8:21 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 03-17-2006 9:01 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 12 of 216 (296160)
03-17-2006 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by jar
03-17-2006 8:46 AM


Re: This has nothing to do with my religious beliefs
I couldn't even FIND any evidence for YEARS. And that was in the days when I BELIEVED in evolution. All you'd get was these prepackaged scenarios. So many millions of years ago such and such a landscape prevailed and such and such creatures roamed sort of thing. Not a shred of evidence.
This message has been edited by Faith, 03-17-2006 09:00 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by jar, posted 03-17-2006 8:46 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 03-17-2006 9:11 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 13 of 216 (296162)
03-17-2006 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Mammuthus
03-17-2006 8:50 AM


Re: This has nothing to do with my religious beliefs
Oh believe me I'm giving up complaining. Waste of breath.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Mammuthus, posted 03-17-2006 8:50 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Mammuthus, posted 03-17-2006 9:29 AM Faith has replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4675 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 14 of 216 (296166)
03-17-2006 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
03-17-2006 8:21 AM


This has nothing to do with my religious beliefs
Faith writes:
My reaction to the way people are customarily presented with unprovable conjecture in the supposed ancient scenarios of the ToE and OE is something that's bugged me all the way back before I was a Christian.
Well, honestly, your reaction has bothered a lot of people. (ABE: in the quote above, "reaction" = subject; "is" = verb; "something that's bugged me" = descriptor of the subject)
Here you go again with the accusation that these scientists provide "unprovable conjecture". Is this the third or forth thread that you will walk away from when asked to provide something, anything at all, that justifies this assertion?
You may not understand this but scientists are supposed to support their interpretations with evidence. They are supposed to provide reasonable interpretations that explain ALL the evidence. To put forth "unprovable conjecture" or "wild speculation", in their specialty, that is not supported by the evidence is tantamount to dishonesty or stupidity.
From my point of view, with my meager understanding of how science is conducted, you are saying that all mainstream geologists are either dishonest or stupid. Additionally, you are saying that the physicists involved in the interpretation of radioactive decay research as it applies to the dating of ancient objects, are stupid or dishonest.
On top of that, you still refuse to provide any support for your disparaging accusation against this large group of professional people.
So...put up or shut up. Where is your case? What leads you to believe that the scenarios presented by geologists rank lower in likelyhood than the world-wide flood as shown by the evidence.
Also, which are they, dishonest or stupid? I would add delusional but you specifically denied that in this post.
This message has been edited by LinearAq, 03-17-2006 09:13 AM
Edited to put a question mark at the end of a question
This message has been edited by LinearAq, 03-17-2006 09:25 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 03-17-2006 8:21 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 03-17-2006 10:15 AM LinearAq has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 15 of 216 (296168)
03-17-2006 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
03-17-2006 9:00 AM


Re: This has nothing to do with my religious beliefs
I'm sorry but
So many millions of years ago such and such a landscape prevailed and such and such creatures roamed sort of thing. Not a shred of evidence.
to say that involves not a shred of evidence is very hard to believe and seems to be self-contradictory.
Are you saying that people assert that some critter lived without any evidence such a critter ever existed? No bones, no fossils? I find that to be a ludacrous statement again showing wilfull ignorance. Can you provide evidence for all those assertions of a critter where no evidence exists?
Are you saying that people asserted that the critter of no evidence lived at a time with no evidence for when that critter lived? Are you saying that they did not have information about where the critter was found, radiometric dating, samples of the dirt it was found in, other samples of criters and things found in the surrounding areas?
Faith, please show us these examples of evidence less critters and dates?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 03-17-2006 9:00 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 03-17-2006 9:12 AM jar 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