Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8926 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-21-2019 4:52 PM
45 online now:
AZPaul3, JonF, PaulK, ringo, Tangle (5 members, 40 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,194 Year: 15,230/19,786 Month: 1,953/3,058 Week: 327/404 Day: 45/96 Hour: 4/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why "YEC"/Fundamentalist Creationism is BAD for America
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 238 (711215)
11-15-2013 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by ICANT
11-15-2013 9:38 PM


Re: Creation
Has the universe existed infinitely into the past?

If it has not existed infinitely into the past it had to have a beginning to exist which means it had to be created by something.

I've explained to you multiple times the exceptions to your false dichotomy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by ICANT, posted 11-15-2013 9:38 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by ICANT, posted 11-15-2013 10:00 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 238 (711491)
11-19-2013 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by ICANT
11-15-2013 10:00 PM


Re: Creation
CS writes:

false dichotomy

What is the third option?

A gradual emergence with no discernible beginning.

Two half-verses, with their own existence, combining to make a whole universe.

Or, you know, something like the Big Bang model where time is a component of the universe, itself, and thus the question of a beginning is meaningless.

But we've been over this before. You never acknowledge that there's other options and then some time goes by and you just repeat your tired old refuted claim again.

Pretty much the same behavior that we see from the YEC's. Its one of the ways in which YEC is bad for America.

You just can't budge on your position, despite any explanation or evidence, and then you go on holding the position regardless.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by ICANT, posted 11-15-2013 10:00 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by ICANT, posted 11-19-2013 3:58 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 238 (711503)
11-19-2013 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by ICANT
11-19-2013 3:58 PM


Re: Creation
CS writes:

A gradual emergence with no discernible beginning.

A gradual beginning just means that it had a beginning but just took a long time to complete.

No, as stipulated, there is no discernible beginning.

CS writes:

Two half-verses, with their own existence, combining to make a whole universe.

But those two verses existed already just not in the form it was after they combined.Would those two verses you are talking about have had a beginning to exist or would they have existed eternally in the past?

My first claim is the universe has existed eternally in some form just not the form we see today. In other words the materials it is made of existed eternally.

But they are not the universe existing in some form. And those two half-universes emerged from two quarter-universes each.

Did the universe exist at T=0? No

There is no at T=0, its an asymptote.

You haven't ever presented another option.

But I have. Multiple times now. With explanations how they refute you.

Once you have presented evidence I will consider it. If it is true then I will change what I believe.

Your behavior shows this to be a lie. You will just dig your heels in further and maintain your belief in spite of all the evidence and explanations.

Until you are some one else presents evidence that the universe has not always existed in some form or had a beginning to exist I will keep that position.

No, you will keep your position regardless. And we'll all watch it happen (its already begun).

That's one of the problems with YEC. They already think they're right and nothing anyone ever says can change that. You're exhibiting this behavior exactly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by ICANT, posted 11-19-2013 3:58 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 68 of 238 (711600)
11-20-2013 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by marc9000
11-20-2013 3:39 PM


Re: another empty argument attempt to push religious views in education
The words 'science', 'atheist' and 'liberal' are not synonyms. Your conspiracy paranoia is telling.

The tone of the O/P is loaded with all three.

Um, the OP self-proclaims himself to be a deist...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by marc9000, posted 11-20-2013 3:39 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by marc9000, posted 11-20-2013 3:58 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 71 of 238 (711607)
11-20-2013 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by marc9000
11-20-2013 3:58 PM


Re: another empty argument attempt to push religious views in education
Um, the OP self-proclaims himself to be a deist...

There is often a lot of difference between what someone claims himself to be, and what he writes.

Well thank god we have you here to set us straight!

But todays deists don't show themselves to be any different from atheists anyway.

Well, apart from the whole believing in god thing.

Very little similarity between todays deists and those few who were involved in U.S. founding.

Psh, Thomas Jefferson rewrote the Bible and took all the magic out of it...

I think your arrogance exhibits one of the reasons that creationism is bad for America.

It takes a certain amount of conceit to think that you can take some writing from a guy who calls himself a deist and "determine" that they really aren't one.

Or call all scientists atheist liberals.

The hubris, its maddening.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by marc9000, posted 11-20-2013 3:58 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 83 of 238 (713099)
12-09-2013 4:21 PM


Pope on ideology
Seems like it could be applied to Creationism:

quote:
“The faith passes, so to speak, through a distiller and becomes ideology. And ideology does not beckon [people]. In ideologies there is not Jesus: in his tenderness, his love, his meekness. And ideologies are rigid, always. Of every sign: rigid. And when a Christian becomes a disciple of the ideology, he has lost the faith: he is no longer a disciple of Jesus, he is a disciple of this attitude of thought… For this reason Jesus said to them: ‘You have taken away the key of knowledge.’

http://en.radiovaticana.va/...r_greater_openness_/in2-738150


  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 93 of 238 (718526)
02-07-2014 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Jaf
02-06-2014 10:37 PM


Re: Ape-tooth monkeys
I'm not closely related to any apes,

Where do you draw the line?

You have a backbone, so you're Cordata, you're a Mammal, and a Primate, and a Hominid, and a Homo sapiens.

They really only start calling them "apes" when you get to Hominid, so lets look at the qualifiers for that:

quote:
  • large, tailless primates
  • omnivorous
  • mobile shoulder joints and arms due to the dorsal position of the scapula
  • broad ribcages that are flatter front-to-back
  • a shorter, less mobile spine
  • Gestation lasts 8–9 months, and results in the birth of a single offspring, or, rarely, twins.
  • The young are born helpless, and they must be cared for for long periods of time.
  • a remarkably long adolescence, not being weaned for several years.


Does any of that not describe you?

Or maybe you don't like being a Primate? Let's look at the qualifiers for that:

quote:

  • forward-facing eyes on the front of the skull
  • A bony ridge above the eye sockets reinforces weaker bones in the face which are put under strain during chewing.
  • skull has a large, domed cranium,
  • generally have five digits on each limb
  • with keratin nails on the end of each finger and toe
  • collar bone is retained as prominent element of the pectoral girdle; this allows the shoulder joint broad mobility
  • a reduced snout
  • lost most of their incisors, all retain at least one lower incisor

Again, does any of that not describe you?

I understand people not wanting to think that they are apes, as it gives a connotation they are uncomfortable with.

But without any bias, and just looking at the morphology, humans are clearly classified as Hominids, i.e. apes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Jaf, posted 02-06-2014 10:37 PM Jaf has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Jaf, posted 02-07-2014 6:45 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(4)
Message 99 of 238 (718604)
02-07-2014 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Jaf
02-07-2014 6:45 PM


Re: Ape-tooth monkeys
Are you a theistic evolutionist. Is god not allowed to use similar materials, clearly this is what he did, manufacturers do this all the time. Common ancestor common creator, mate

Okay, regardless of the origin, and based upon the classification systems that are used, a human is an ape, right?

mate if I was just primate

Wait right there, without simply denying the classification outright, take a look at what the requirements are (that I posted), and you'll find that you do not disqualify for any of them, and that is why you should be classified as a primate.

Can you do that?

there is no way in Gods good green earth I would be in here chewing the fat with you, I'd be smacking you over the nut and banging your wife,

Think of your father's father's father's father's father. Then think 10 times that much. There was some ubergrand-father of your's, that was "smacking you over the nut and banging your wife" to others.

And if you think back to Darwin's seemingly racist quotes about the "savages", and also realize that the point he was making was that all of our forefathers were once in that state, then can you get a sense of the broader message of unity that he was actually to make?

We are all apes. That is what we are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Jaf, posted 02-07-2014 6:45 PM Jaf has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Jaf, posted 02-07-2014 10:29 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 127 of 238 (718681)
02-08-2014 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Jaf
02-07-2014 10:29 PM


Re: Ape-tooth monkeys
Just because someone invents a classification doesn't mean I belong to it

Actually, it does, regardless of whether or not you, personally, accept the classification.

EvC Members Who's Name Begins With J

You do not have the ability to decide that you don't belong to that classification.

You also don't have the ability to decide that you are not an ape.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Jaf, posted 02-07-2014 10:29 PM Jaf has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by RAZD, posted 02-08-2014 1:38 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 133 by Jaf, posted 02-08-2014 4:53 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 238 (718776)
02-08-2014 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Jaf
02-08-2014 4:53 PM


Re: Ape-tooth monkeys
God created you and you don't accept that

That's not true. I'm a Christian.

and you tell me I have accept what you say I am,

No, you were talking about belonging to the classification, regardless of whether or not you accept it, if you belong to the classification then you do belong.

dude get your head read. It's a free country until RAZD is president.

One of the things you are not free to do, because its impossible, is discount yourself from a classification just because you don't accept the ramifications of belonging to it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Jaf, posted 02-08-2014 4:53 PM Jaf has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Jaf, posted 02-08-2014 10:02 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019