Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9042 total)
92 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, ICANT (3 members, 89 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 886,127 Year: 3,773/14,102 Month: 78/315 Week: 78/131 Day: 28/50 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   There are easy creationist answers to problems evolutionists pose
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4652
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(2)
Message 46 of 111 (885356)
04-07-2021 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by WookieeB
04-07-2021 12:56 PM


Re: Already Convinced
Define what a "creationist" is?

Certainly!

Within the context of these discussions, a "creationist" would be a member of the anti-evolution movement which was originally based almost completely on a particular literalist belief in the Creation stories in Genesis. Even though the anti-evolution movement has diversified a bit since then (eg, to include some IDists who describe their opposition as being for "philosophical reasons" like ID founder Phillip Johnson saying that he opposes evolution because "it leaves God with nothing to do"), this is still a good basic description of the type of creationist we're talking about.

Therefore a simple operational definition of "creationist" would be one who practices or supports creationism. So what is creationism? It is a movement or position of opposing evolution for religious reasons basic on the mistaken idea that Divine Creation and evolution are somehow mutually exclusive. General belief in Divine Creation does not involve rejection of specific science like evolution, so that would not be the defining characteristic needed to identify a "creationist". What would be the defining characteristic of a "creationist" in this context would be one's involvement with creationism. That is to say that since not all believers in Divine Creation would also practice creationism, then they would not be classified as "creationists" in our discussions -- indeed, most believers would not be creationists, but rather would be labeled by creationists as "atheistic evolutionists".

What could confuse the matter is that the basic definition of "creationist" should just be someone who believes in Divine Creation, which in reality would include a very large number of people who accept evolution (eg, Dr. Kenneth Miller, one of the leading opponents of creationism), people whom creationists denounce as "atheistic evolutionists" (more on that below).

Also, please note in my Message 41 to which you are "replying" specifically identifies the creationist side as "Creation Science / Creationists", thus identifying creationists as practicing "creation science". So what part of that don't you understand?

A common type of creationist would be an advocate of "creation science", which itself is a deliberately crafted legalistic deception designed to circumvent the plethora of US court decisions against the anti-evolution movement's attempts to bar the teaching of evolution on the basis of their actual motivation which is purely religious. Thus "creation science", which falsely and deliberately deceptively proclaims "our opposition to evolution is purely for scientific reasons, nothing religious about it whatsoever", seeks to hide from the courts their actual religious purpose, which led their opponents to call "creation science", "the game of 'Hide the Bible'." That game was exposed for the fraud that it is in the late '80s through the court decisions McLean v. Arkansas (1981) and Edwards v. Aguillard (1987). Once the game of "Hide the Bible" had been exposed and could no longer be used to deceive the courts, the anti-evolution movement had to find a new game to play, a game of "Hide the Creationism". That game would now be (and is still) played with "Intelligent Design" (ID).

Fundamental to "creation science" is their "Two Model Approach" (TMA) which allows for two and only two mutually exclusive "models" (in scare quotes because they are not actual models): the "Creation Model" (CM) and the "Evolution Model" (EM). The definitions of the two "models" are very telling. The CM is worded only in very vague terms in which some "unnamed Creator" created everything by means that we do not know. The EM is then everything else, "including most of the world's religions, modern and ancient" (as Father of Flood Geology Dr. Henry Morris told me himself and as he has written elsewhere). While the CM is so vaguely worded that they could argue in court that it covers all kinds of traditions, in practice it is very narrowly defined as the very narrow fundamentalist literalist interpretation of Genesis which is YEC hiding behind the "Hide the Bible" smokescreen of "creation science". That is only one of many forms of creation (including old earth creationism) which get lumped into the "atheistic EM" -- so creationists classify the vast majority of Christians as "atheists".

With the TMA creationists set up a false dichotomy. In a true dichotomy, you can list all the possible models and then test each one and eliminate the ones that prove to be false. After that process, the one that remains, however unlikely, must be true (Sherlock Holmes said that and was quoted centuries later by CDR Spock). Therefore, with their TMA creationists seek to prove the CM solely by disproving the EM. In doing so, they never ever present the CM, nor discuss it, nor present any evidence for it, nor even attempt to support it nor to defend it in any way. In debate when Dr. Morris would be challenged to present or discuss the CM, he would refuse to do so saying explicitly that doing so would be injecting religion in what is supposed to be a purely scientific debate.

Instead, all they have ever done has been to attack their fallacious EM. One of their critics describes "creation science" as a book with two chapters: Chapter 1 "Evolution", Chapter 2 "Everything that's wrong with Chapter 1". The problem is that they have piled into their EM a multitude of different actual models along with all kinds of outdated and just plain wrong ideas, not to mention just about every religion there is or has been (including Christianity minus fundamentalism). They seek to prove the CM by disproving the EM, but in order to disprove their EM they would have to disprove each and every single idea in it, a truly Herculean task, which is rendered absolutely impossible by the inclusion of religions which have their own supernaturalistic ideas which cannot possibly be disproven.

It would be so much easier and more practical to just present the evidence for the CM and to attempt to prove it. But they absolutely refuse to even consider doing so. Why? Because that would expose their deception.

An extension of our definition of "creationist" would be to include the "Intelligent Design" (ID) movement. Many people think that ID was invented in 1987 because they hadn't heard of it before then when "creation science" had been exposed by Edwards v. Aguillard (1987). Rather, they had been developing some years before that it was only in 1987 that creationists chose to repurpose it to "Hide the Creationism". ID had developed on a parallel track which avoided the young-earth trap and the need to base itself on the Bible -- quite literally, the ICR's public school educational materials started out in the late 60's with explicit Bible references and verses, when they started to create their "creation science" deception they edited those materials doing a superficial scrubbing and eliminating of all explicit Bible references. In similar fashion, the creationist book, Of Pandas and People, exposed how the creationists were masking their deception in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005). The book started out as a creationist book but then had to be "rewritten" because of the switch to the ID smokescreen. Practically all they did, since it was on a word processor, was to do a global find-and-replace of "creationists" to "design proponents", but which got munged up at one place to create "cdesign proponentsists", the smoking gun of what was really going on.

Also, for the most part ID writers had technical and academic training and tried to keep mainly to their areas of expertise (though not failing to talk over the heads of their audiences and using obtuse mathematics in order to deceive them), whereas most "creation science" creationists would operate outside their areas of expertise and keep getting caught in their mistakes -- ie, creationism is almost pure BS, but ID's BS is stronger (refer to the Lone Gunmen and how Melvin and Richard would bicker over whose Kung Fu was stronger).

Does that answer your question? Was there any part of that which you did not understand?

Edited by dwise1, : Added qs box of WookieeB's message to preserve context since this went to the next page


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by WookieeB, posted 04-07-2021 12:56 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by dwise1, posted 04-08-2021 1:52 PM dwise1 has not yet responded
 Message 49 by Sarah Bellum, posted 04-10-2021 10:05 AM dwise1 has not yet responded
 Message 61 by WookieeB, posted 04-19-2021 8:14 PM dwise1 has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4652
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 47 of 111 (885368)
04-08-2021 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by dwise1
04-07-2021 2:49 PM


Where is WookieeB?
So just where is WookieeB?

He asked me a simple and direct question and I answered it immediately.

It has been almost 24 hours. So just where is he?

I did see him still logged into this forum during that time. So just where did he disappear to?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by dwise1, posted 04-07-2021 2:49 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by AZPaul3, posted 04-08-2021 4:03 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5851
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.3


(2)
Message 48 of 111 (885372)
04-08-2021 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by dwise1
04-08-2021 1:52 PM


Re: Where is WookieeB?
He's praying for guidance. Some demon named dwise1 has him by the brain and he needs to be cleansed.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by dwise1, posted 04-08-2021 1:52 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Phat, posted 04-10-2021 11:38 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 738
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 49 of 111 (885383)
04-10-2021 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by dwise1
04-07-2021 2:49 PM


Re: Already Convinced
There's quite a variety of religious beliefs.

There are those who think a "Creator" set off the Big Bang a few billion years ago and let the natural laws that he (it's always he isn't it?) devised take their natural course.

At the other end there are the ones who think everything was created pretty much as it is now a few thousand years ago with fake dinosaur skeletons and iron deposits with their magnetic fields turned around and whale hip bones and radioactive isotopes and all the other science-y stuff to test their faith.

These views, and everything in between, are simply relics of a primitive human past.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by dwise1, posted 04-07-2021 2:49 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Phat, posted 04-10-2021 11:32 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15485
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 50 of 111 (885384)
04-10-2021 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by jar
04-01-2021 7:07 AM


Re: Already Convinced
jar writes:

As long as you continue to place SOURCE over content and BELIEF over evidence you will continue to be unable to make reasoned arguments.

Before I comment, I'm going to go get out my old copy of Language In Thought & Action and read about SOURCE vs CONTENT in the original argument. I have never considered your whole mantra of "throwing God away" nor your oft repeated point that there is no evidence that the Bible is anything more than stories to be reasoned arguments on behalf of Jesus.

As dwise1 says and which I now acknowledge, I am already convinced that I am right and will dig in my heels defending SOURCE. After all, why would I even pray were it not to connect to SOURCE? Do you honestly think that GOD simply expects ME to figure it all out? (Yes, I know you do and will ask me what the EVIDENCE shows.) And its why you and I have argued here at EvC for 17 years and the same tired argument resurfaces.

And David,(dwise1) I DO find your information potentially fascinating except that it challenges my internal argument. jar insists I throw God away. But I am not a scientist. I do not attempt to falsify my beliefs.
For the sake of argument, however, I will think about these things for the next post.


"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killo

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 04-01-2021 7:07 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15485
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 51 of 111 (885385)
04-10-2021 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Sarah Bellum
04-10-2021 10:05 AM


Believers/Apologists vs Creationists
Sarah Bellum writes:

There's quite a variety of religious beliefs.

There are those who think a "Creator" set off the Big Bang a few billion years ago and let the natural laws that he (it's always he isn't it?) devised take their natural course.

That's kinda me. Oh, and the reason GOD is always a "He" apart from the patriarchal culture of that time is simply that Jesus is a He. Not a She. No offense, Sarah. I respect women more every year...but I will admit I have a way to go.

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killo

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Sarah Bellum, posted 04-10-2021 10:05 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by dwise1, posted 04-10-2021 12:19 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 59 by Sarah Bellum, posted 04-12-2021 6:25 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15485
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 52 of 111 (885386)
04-10-2021 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by AZPaul3
04-08-2021 4:03 PM


Re: Where is WookieeB?
AZ writes:

He's praying for guidance. Some demon named dwise1 has him by the brain and he needs to be cleansed.

I just realized that this could apply to me as well, though I dont see dwise1 as being a demon. At worst, he is only guilty of labeling me a lying creationist scum. But then again, I don't think I knowingly lie. I also never tried to defend Biblical Creationism like our old sister Faith did. And I'm a bit mad at Mike. (MTW) I tried to defend him and he goes and runs off. As for the Wookie, perhaps the old Millennium Falcon got refurbished and he got lost in space. Hans Solo has yet to make an appearance with him.
(reads further and edits post...)
dwise1 writes:

Therefore a simple operational definition of "creationist" would be one who practices or supports creationism. So what is creationism? It is a movement or position of opposing evolution for religious reasons basic on the mistaken idea that Divine Creation and evolution are somehow mutually exclusive. General belief in Divine Creation does not involve rejection of specific science like evolution, so that would not be the defining characteristic needed to identify a "creationist". What would be the defining characteristic of a "creationist" in this context would be one's involvement with creationism. That is to say that since not all believers in Divine Creation would also practice creationism, then they would not be classified as "creationists" in our discussions -- indeed, most believers would not be creationists, but rather would be labeled by creationists as "atheistic evolutionists".

As I have said before, I am not a Biblical Creationist. I am more of a Cosmological Creationist only in that I believe God was involved in starting it all...including the whole good vs evil scenario. I realize there is controversy in that line of belief.

Edited by Phat, : spelling...as usual.

Edited by Phat, : just saw dwise1's comment and added it.


"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killo

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by AZPaul3, posted 04-08-2021 4:03 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by AZPaul3, posted 04-10-2021 9:41 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15485
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 53 of 111 (885388)
04-10-2021 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by FLRW
03-30-2021 4:23 PM


Tolstoy
Do me a favor and link me up to more about Tolstoy. I never knew as much bout him as you have already said. I just liked the quote.

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killo

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by FLRW, posted 03-30-2021 4:23 PM FLRW has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15485
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 54 of 111 (885389)
04-10-2021 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by mike the wiz
03-28-2021 7:12 PM


Calling The Lords Servant
MTW writes:

You tend to IMPLY things about the person FAR TOO MUCH, Paul, most likely because you haven't the intelligence to win in a toe-to-toe debate so you have to fall back on the use of flimsy rhetoric instead.

Your post was about as difficult to deal with as eating cake.

Keep stating false and evil things about the Lord's servant, for your time grows ever shorter, so as they say, "enjoy it while it lasts".

First off, I wont take sides here.
I will mention Forum Guidelines and remind all of us to respect the opponent and focus on the argument. And yes, Mike, you must present all of the arguments again in a topic which YOU wanted promoted. GET BACK OVER HERE!

I believe that you have some intelligence and respect you more than jar does...but you simply can't run away. You make me (and yourself) look bad. It is easy to hide out at Evolution Fairy tales where you are the administrator and control the arguments. I want you to address this topic with our gifted yet rude peanut gallery. Surely our Lord would expect nothing less from His servant.

Edited by Phat, : added features


"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killo

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by mike the wiz, posted 03-28-2021 7:12 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 04-10-2021 1:21 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4652
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(3)
Message 55 of 111 (885390)
04-10-2021 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Phat
04-10-2021 11:32 AM


Re: Believers/Apologists vs Creationists
Oh, and the reason GOD is always a "He" apart from the patriarchal culture of that time is simply that Jesus is a He. Not a She.

Actually, that is not how parthenogenesis ("virgin birth") works. Instead, the products of parthenogenesis are clones of the mother. Therefore, female.

If you're going to take stuff like that seriously, then you do need to take them seriously.

Didn't you read my page, "Jesus H. Christ": Why "H"?, which I had recommended to you? In it I attribute that "middle initial" to English speakers mistaking the Greek letter eta (Η, η) for an "H" when it appears in Christograms, religious symbols constructed out of a few letters from "Ιησους Χριστος" (or "ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ" which is the same thing only in all caps).

Towards the end, I note a few other popular hypotheses including one humorously advanced by biology students that the "H" stands for "haploid" (having only the half of the alleles such as found in an unfertilized egg), though naturally occurring parthenogenesis can produce diploid offspring (ie, an exact clone of the mother).

 
ABE:
From what I've gathered about the letters "H" and eta, they both derive from the same source, Old Semitic to Phoenician, in which it was pretty much the same voiceless pharyngeal fricative as English "h", Spanish "j", German "h" and voiceless "ch" (eg, as in "ich" but not as in "doch"), Russian "х" -- to write "hahaha" in Spanish it's "jajaja" and in Russian it's "хахаха" (when reading a Mexican cousine's email, I had never seen it written before so I at first made the mistake of pronouncing her "jajaja" as in German).

From Phoencian "H" entered into Etruscan and Old Latin as that same "H" sound and it also kept that same sound in Archaic Greek. It was later that it turned into a vowel sound in Greek.

The history of the Cyrillic letter "Н" for the "n" sound is entirely different. According to my Russian professor from the Linguistics Dept it started out being borrowed from the Greek letter nu ("Ν") which looks just like the Roman "N". But once borrowed that diagonal member started shifting towards the center until it became a horizontal member and we ended up with "Н".

Edited by dwise1, : ABE: a bit of linguistical history on "H"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Phat, posted 04-10-2021 11:32 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16892
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 56 of 111 (885391)
04-10-2021 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Phat
04-10-2021 12:06 PM


Re: Calling The Lords Servant
Of course the comment Mike was reacting to was unquestionably true. Answering weak versions of cherry-picked arguments doesn’t help his case.

So Mike’s comment was less than honest and hypocritical since his answer was diversionary rhetoric.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Phat, posted 04-10-2021 12:06 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4652
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 57 of 111 (885393)
04-10-2021 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by WookieeB
04-07-2021 12:56 PM


Re: Already Convinced
Define what a "creationist" is?

First, the syntax of that sentence is positively not a question, so just exactly why did you use a question mark? Please note that I just asked you a "why" question, therefore a question mark is required (AKA "an interrogative"). But you gave me a command (AKA "the imperative"), which does not in any manner call for a question mark.

Is English your native language? It is mine, but I'm also a bit of a polyglot so I have learned more about English than do most monoglots raised with English. I used to participate on a C programming forum (gone now) which attracted many non-native English speakers. The posts of foreign members would often get a bit off with the syntax (word order is extremely important in English since we no longer have case except with personal pronouns ... and even that is fast eroding away, between you and me) and they would sometimes choose the wrong word *, but the posts of monoglot Americans were virtually incomprehensible.


FOOTNOTE *:
There was one programmer from Portugal who wanted to know how to use "lights" in multi-threaded programming. Nobody had any idea what he could be talking about. But I know some Spanish, so I checked out the Portuguese Wikipedia page on traffic lights (AKA "lights" as in "turn right at the next light") and found that they call traffic signals the same thing as Spanish does, "semáforo". In multithreaded and multiprocessing programs with multiple lines of execution accessing the same resources at uncontrolled times, those multiple lines of execution use a method of signaling to everybody else when it is using that resource so "keep your hands off it!". That method is called semaphores. I also used that opportunity to teach him that dictionaries are not always your friends (so I have a collection of language dictionaries between various pairings of languages that I know).

A similar incident happened to me in West Germany in 1973 when I needed to buy a pen. Not seeing what I sought, I asked the clerk for a "Feder", literally a feather but then that is what we had been taught in class. She had no idea what I wanted -- a quill? Then when I was leaving in frustration, I saw the pens and held one up. "Ach! Sie wollten einen Kugelschreiber!" (a "ball writer", AKA "ball-point pen"). Too often we are taught archa¨i;c vocabulary that the writers of new textbooks have just simply copied from older textbooks.

And a classic American monoglot faceplant from that programming forum was when someone wanted to know how to write the code for a "Barber Poll". Thinking that it must be some kind of statistical method that we hadn't heard of, we asked for more information. "You know, that twirly thing in front of a barber shop." We just wanted to reach through the screen and slap that idiot up the side of the head to wake him up. Not even knowing the difference between a "pole" and a "poll" (two entirely different words!).

BTW, there are some people who use the intonation of an interrogative every time they give a command. That can be very confusing, since it indicates a complete lack of confidence, like you're not even sure that you want them to do what you are telling them to do. Is that your issue? That you are so unsure of yourself?

I have already complied with your command (even though you are not sure about it) in Message 46 and apparently duly ignored by you.

Now to return the favor, riddle me this!: Define what an "evolutionist" is! (please note that an exclamation point is quite appropriate for a command, though not absolutely necessary, whereas a question mark almost never is (ie, there could be stylistic or narrative reasons, such as to convey the speaker's great uncertainty in issuing that command as discussed above, but those are special cases).

I assume that you are familiar with that uniquely creationist term, "evolutionist", and would not be surprised to learn that you have often used it yourself.

So just exactly what is the definition? And how would you know to classify someone as an "evolutionist"? What are the other characteristics assigned to one who is an "evolutionist"?

 
Well, since you obviously will never reply, I will note that almost every single creationist source that even began to offer any kind of definition for "evolutionist" basically classified anybody, regardless of religious belief, who accepted evolution was an "evolutionist". And that they were all atheists!

Which would include the vast majority of Christians.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by WookieeB, posted 04-07-2021 12:56 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by WookieeB, posted 04-19-2021 8:09 PM dwise1 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5851
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 58 of 111 (885394)
04-10-2021 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Phat
04-10-2021 11:38 AM


Re: Where is WookieeB?
I am more of a Cosmological Creationist only in that I believe God was involved in starting it all...including the whole good vs evil scenario.

I’m not so good at cosmologies. I once couldn’t decide between big bang and Hoyle’s steady state. Then I thought the universe would expand a bit, actually a really big bit, then gravity would balance that expansion and the steady state might be achieved for an even bigger bit before beginning the slow, but accelerating, collapse to the singularity - rinse, repeat. I liked that. I really liked that one. I was so sorry when she left me.

My problem is I’m wishy-washy. I’m a parrot of the latest trends in science. Raphael would say I have a strong faith in science. Seems reasonable. But maybe more like a robot. Load science in here it comes out there pretty much intact but wrapped in a personality.

Reality does that to me. If our views of reality are forced to change by reality then only reality remains. Strange how that works.

Remember that reality is defined as our best guess at the time. A best guess backed by a universe-load of evidence as devoid of emotion and wishful thinking as we can make it, to be sure, but a guess nonetheless. And people ask why evidence is so important.

As for a divine spark at t=0? A quantum spark? A brane crash? A momma universe?

My personal creation myth is we are but one bubble in a dense frothy foam of universes covering the back of a turtle which is riding the back of another foam-covered turtle on yet another and it’s turtles all the way down. No, we're not at the top of the stack. It's turtles all the way up too. There might be a frog or two in there somewhere but I’m not certain.

Meaning I have no friggin' idea, yet.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Phat, posted 04-10-2021 11:38 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member
Posts: 738
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 59 of 111 (885446)
04-12-2021 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Phat
04-10-2021 11:32 AM


Re: Believers/Apologists vs Creationists
I've always wondered why people believe in a deity in the first place. It's understandable that in prehistoric times people would ascribe some personalities to natural phenomena (Poseidon making the waves, Indra making the thunder, etc.) but nowadays, what gives?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Phat, posted 04-10-2021 11:32 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 60 of 111 (885595)
04-19-2021 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by dwise1
04-10-2021 8:14 PM


Re: Already Convinced
dwise1 writes:

WookieeB writes:

Define what a "creationist" is?

First, the syntax of that sentence is positively not a question, so just exactly why did you use a question mark? Please note that I just asked you a "why" question, therefore a question mark is required (AKA "an interrogative"). But you gave me a command (AKA "the imperative"), which does not in any manner call for a question mark.

You're right, my punctuation is incorrect. I got caught between thoughts and didn't correct the edit entry punctuation. I had originally written: "Can you define what a "creationist" is?", but realized even a yes or no answer to that might not elicit a definition. So I changed the request to what was posted and didn't update the punctuation. If I were to write it again, it would be: "Please, define what a "creationist" is."

dwise1 writes:

So just where is WookieeB?
He asked me a simple and direct question and I answered it immediately.
It has been almost 24 hours. So just where is he?
I did see him still logged into this forum during that time. So just where did he disappear to?


I do appreciate you answering the request.

But I was unaware that on this forum there was a requirement to further acknowledge your response with one of my own, much less be held to a 24-hour time limit to accomplish that. Considering that some of the threads on this forum have stretched on for years without having a daily request-response-response-..., I would not have expected such a standard. Did I miss some posted rule to that effect when I originally registered on this forum? If so, please point out the relevant text.

As to where I disappeared to, well that is none of your (or anyone else's) business. Despite your apparent posting standard, I do not feel I am beholden to any level of participation here, but will engage at my own discretion and according to the freedoms that the forum rules and society allow.

Define what a "creationist" is?

Add a "Please" and change the punctuation, and I'm still appreciative of your response.

There were a few reasons why I made this request -
1) The term "creationist" tends to have different meanings depending on where it is used. (A similar case can be said for the term "evolution"). In the majority of definitions, there is often an overlap of the description, usually that being the involvement of something supernatural. But there are distinctions between the varying definitions that are important to know as well. I can usually figure it out, but this thread seemed to be all over the place with meaning of the term.
2) Regardless the weakness of the OP's (mike the wiz) arguments, his apparent meaning of creationist was a more general one. Whereas dwise1's usage seemed to refer to a more formal group of people, of whom he had argued over YEC related topics over 30 years ago, and of whom he somehow has worked up a full psychological profile.

I value clarity over agreement, and as such I was having some difficulty reconciling the OP's and others usage of the term to what dwise1 was alluding to. Despite some of the past arguments dwise1 had been involved in, there was a desire in my mind to further explain the general description and beliefs of this group he referring to. Thus, my request.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by dwise1, posted 04-10-2021 8:14 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by dwise1, posted 04-20-2021 11:42 PM WookieeB 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 © 2021