Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9045 total)
595 online now:
Adminnemooseus (Minnemooseus), AZPaul3, Christian7, jar, nwr, Percy (Admin) (6 members, 589 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 887,199 Year: 4,845/14,102 Month: 443/707 Week: 174/197 Day: 63/55 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   There are easy creationist answers to problems evolutionists pose
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16974
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 76 of 111 (885717)
04-24-2021 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by WookieeB
04-23-2021 2:31 AM


Re: Already Convinced
I would assert that anyone who thinks that they conclude divine creation based in scientific evidence is either deceived or lying.

The Intelligent Design movement, for instance has always been religious in nature. It’s primary goal was not scientific research, but changing science education to better fit with their beliefs. The Wedge document is evidence of this, as is their inclusion of Young Earth Creationists and their beginnings with Of Pandas and People a hastily-rewritten Creationists text book (where even the definition of Intelligent Design was originally given as a definition of Creation). (And there is plenty more evidence. The fact that the IDEA Clubs only admitted Christians as members is further evidence of their religious nature).

Indeed, their insistence on changing science education before producing the science to justify it is evidence that they were “already convinced” as is their failure to convince even believing scientists (Kenneth Miller, Darell Falk and Francis Collins are three prominent examples). See Falk’s review of Stephen Meyer’s latest book. Or the discussion of the same book on Peaceful Science

Even the amateur ID supporters here seem “already convinced”. One went to great lengths arguing about Dembski’s Complex Specified Information even though he didn’t understand that Dembski’s “Complex” was based on improbability - and was quite resistant to understanding it even after I directly quoted Dembski. Another tried to argue that an alleged analogy was a strong argument (even though it was only alleged to be an analogy, without any evidence), and that accepting it as such was the same as accepting the use of diagrams as illustrations. Needless to say both points are obviously false, so we may include him, too among the ranks of the “already convinced”.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by WookieeB, posted 04-23-2021 2:31 AM WookieeB has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Phat, posted 04-24-2021 11:59 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15596
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 77 of 111 (885718)
04-24-2021 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by WookieeB
04-23-2021 2:31 AM


Re: Already Convinced
WookieB,addressing dwise1 writes:

Normally, I would think you're exaggerating here. But via all your posts and tone, I now doubt it.
So, per your definition in Message 72, "Within the context of this forum, creationists are opponents of "evolution"". That means opposing evolution == creationist. And per you, "creationists never ever address evolution nor ever present any evidence against evolution" (which you even bolded)" We already agreed that scientific evidence is the only valid kind. So if opposing evolution == creationist and creationists never ...present any evidence against evolution, then it results in what I effectively noted that according to you, "by default there can be no scientific evidence against evolution".

You say that it is possible to fight evolution honestly and truthfully, but your premises actually make that impossible. Whenever any even begins to try to put up a fight, you automatically categorize them as creationists, which you have a priori already determined is a category group that cannot present valid evidence.

From my perspective, dwise1 is arguing that creationists y definition are lying about the science that they collectively create and challenging established science, which is more mainstream. Though one could argue that science-at-large is continually evolving and growing new theories and directions, dwise1 sees the Creation Institute and perhaps AiG as dishonest. Am I right, David?
WookieB writes:

Oh, and by the way, in case you haven't figured it out yet.....

I'm not a creationist.

So just out of curiosity...are you a believer?

"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 75 by WookieeB, posted 04-23-2021 2:31 AM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by dwise1, posted 04-25-2021 12:09 AM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 83 by dwise1, posted 04-25-2021 2:31 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 88 by WookieeB, posted 04-30-2021 9:05 PM Phat has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15596
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003


Message 78 of 111 (885719)
04-24-2021 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by PaulK
04-24-2021 6:13 AM


Re: Already Convinced
PaulK writes:

I would assert that anyone who thinks that they conclude divine creation based in scientific evidence is either deceived or lying.

I would agree. Its the same thing as concluding that GOD is based on scientific evidence. Which I think is what motivates some of us. We seek to validate our Creator through objective evidence and we just cant do it.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


"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 76 by PaulK, posted 04-24-2021 6:13 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 79 of 111 (885731)
04-25-2021 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Phat
04-24-2021 11:55 AM


Re: Already Convinced
Am I right, David?

Generally, yes. And certainly far closer to correct than WookieeB would ever allow himself to get.

From my perspective, dwise1 is arguing that creationists y definition are lying about the science that they collectively create and challenging established science, which is more mainstream. Though one could argue that science-at-large is continually evolving and growing new theories and directions, dwise1 sees the Creation Institute and perhaps AiG as dishonest.

It is quite true that creationists have a very long and astoundingly consistent history of lying about science and promoting false claims. It's like hearing Trump (and now the GQP) say something: with such a long and unbroken record of lies and deceptions, you must never take anything they say at face value but rather you must verify everything!

And in the case of the ICR and AiG and other professional creationist organizations, their goals are not only to battle against a contrived boogeyman that they created and which they call "evolution" (see below), but also their goal is to proselytize using "creation science", thus "saving souls" through deception. Though at least AiG has made a few attempts at honesty, including the occasional articles of "claims we really wish creationists would stop using".

The tradition of compiling false claims of "scientific evidences for creation" ("evidences" is a uniquely apologetics expression) extends back to at least to the 1920's, mostly through the efforts of the Seventh Day Adventists. The immediate progenitors of "creation science" creationists (who are strongly YECs) borrowed very heavily from that body of false claims and added their own, especially in the 1970's. WookieeB complained that those claims are "old" since the references he said he found dated from the 1990's, but in reality they go back decades even before that. And they were soundly refuted many decades ago, but the creationist literature makes no mention of that fact, but instead tells each new generation of creationists (suckers born every minute) that these claims are all new findings that scientists have never addressed (yet another big creationist lie).

Rather, the reason WookieeB couldn't find much since the 1990's was because creationists were working hard to hide the YEC behind a smokescreen of ID false claims and arguments. But those old YEC claims are still out there being circulated within the YEC community and surfacing mainly from inexperienced creationists who are not yet hep to the ID jive.

Further on the question of the inevitability of creationist honest.

For the Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. topic Pressie in Message 1080 had replied to Dredge's misquoting of S.J. Gould by himself quoting S.J. Gould's complaint of being constantly misquoted by creationists including "—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—" and then asked Dredge whether he had done the same through stupidity. RAZD replied in Message 1081 (26-Jul-2017) with:

RAZD writes:

Dawkins' "ignorance is no crime" gives three other alternatives, which includes mendacity ("design"), ignorance and insanity ...

But I have been giving this a bit of thought and would like to break it down slightly differently:

There are Five types of people that don't understand how evolution works:

  1. people too stupid to understand the concepts. These are the unfortunates. It is not their fault.
  2. people ignorant of the concepts, possibly through no fault of their own. These are the fortunates -- they can be cured via education. A good starting source is Berkeley: Evolution 101.
  3. people that have been misinformed. These are the deceived. It may be possible to cure them with education, however the victims need to be willing to learn, and willing to give up the false concepts they have regarding how evolution works. Cognitive dissonance comes into play here when this affects core beliefs that are strongly held.
  4. people who are charlatans. These are the people that do the deceiving of others. These are the deplorables. They too can be deceived (and likely deceive themselves), however they continue to present falsehoods even when they have been corrected. Trolls also fit in this category.
  5. people who are clinically insane. These are also unfortunates, as it is not their fault.

Enjoy

In that same topic, I presented some ideas I'd been developing about the evolution of dishonesty in creationists based on their increasing levels of activism and experience (Message 1174, 02-Aug-2017). Basically, the more active they become, the more they gain experience which shows that their creationist claims are false. Since creationist theology demands that those claims must be true or else "then Scripture has no meaning" (and all that entails for biblical literalists), they cannot afford to admit the truth even to themselves so a pattern of self-deception and dishonestly establishes itself. The longer they remain active and the more active they become, the more they experience the ever mounting truth about their false beliefs and the more dishonest they have to become to maintain the illusion. Or else they finally admit to themselves that it's all a crock, but their mission of using it to deceive others into "Salvation" is far more important than the truth. And the higher up the creationist hierarchy they climb, the more highly dishonest they must become. And how they justify that to themselves, nobody knows because they won't talk about it.

As I tried to explain it to Dredge in Message 1176 (02-Aug-2017):

DWise1 writes:

Dredge writes:

But generally, speaking creationists are honest, since honesty is a very important requirement of their religion. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit demand honesty.


They may start out honest, but "creation science" corrupts them very quickly. It starts with being taught that if the claims of "creation science" are wrong, then God does not exist (or something to that effect; actual mileage may vary case-by-case). Then whenever the believer encounters any evidence contrary to "creation science" or any of his YEC beliefs, he has to start lying to himself, to deceive himself. One creationist lie follows another, creating a slippery slope that turns him into a dishonest hypocrite, a typical creationist.

I have no doubt that some honest creationists exist, but being honest they would know that their claims have very serious problems so, being honest, they would be very unlikely to present them in public and so we never hear from them. And typical creationist hearing them would find what they have to say to not be convincing enough to use.

 
Above you quote WookieeB as saying:

So, per your definition in Message 72, "Within the context of this forum, creationists are opponents of "evolution"". That means opposing evolution == creationist. And per you, "creationists never ever address evolution nor ever present any evidence against evolution" (which you even bolded)" We already agreed that scientific evidence is the only valid kind. So if opposing evolution == creationist and creationists never ...present any evidence against evolution, then it results in what I effectively noted that according to you, "by default there can be no scientific evidence against evolution".

You say that it is possible to fight evolution honestly and truthfully, but your premises actually make that impossible. Whenever any even begins to try to put up a fight, you automatically categorize them as creationists, which you have a priori already determined is a category group that cannot present valid evidence.

Where does he get that nonsense from?

First he violates the Square of Opposition from formal logic. I identified creationists within the context of discussion on this forum as those who use "creation science" and similar false teachings to oppose evolution (though they have no idea what evolution even is). That he misconstrues as the position that anyone who opposes evolution is a creationist. Wrong! The premise, "Some who oppose evolution are creationists", does not lead to the premise, "All who oppose evolution are creationists". So the words that he is trying to put into my mouth are simply not valid.

His false claim is just that, false: "You say that it is possible to fight evolution honestly and truthfully, but your premises actually make that impossible." As I explained to him carefully (Message 73):

DWise1 writes:

So if you really want to fight evolution, then do so honestly and truthfully.

Honestly means that you address and fight evolution itself, not some bullshit lie pretending to be evolution.

Truthfully means that you use real objections that address real and actual problems with evolution, not bullshit creationist lies.

It can be done. So why do you refuse to do it? Is there something wrong with you?

What creationists have done and still do is to lie about what evolution is. Their "evolution model" is filled with false ideas and misconceptions of evolution, which is what they attack instead of attacking evolution itself.

Creationists have created a Frankensteined boogeyman constructed of stitched together misconceptions and falsehoods. All their claims about and arguments against evolution are actually solely against their false "evolution" boogeyman and have nothing whatsoever to do with actual evolution. And it doesn't help much that none of them can understand their own claims, but rather those claims seem to confirm their own misconceptions.

This page at Berkeley, Misconceptions about evolution, lists several common creationist misconceptions about evolution and corrects them. On the same site is the much referenced Evolution 101.

And of course that creationist boogeyman "evolution" does not just misrepresent and lie about evolution, but it also includes a plethora of bogus young-earth claims which lie about other sciences such as astronomy and geology and population dynamics, etc.

So if one wants to actually oppose, evolution, then one needs to address evolution itself and not that bogus creationist boogeyman.

So why do creationists constantly lie about evolution and science? Mostly because it serves their purposes of deceiving their audiences. Of course, most of them are just scientifically illiterate and don't know any better, especially if they get most of their "science" from creationists. But there are those creationists who do know better and yet still push the lies. That is some deliberate lying there.

 

WookieeB writes:

I'm not a creationist.


So just out of curiosity...are you a believer?

Frankly, he's running a fowl ... err, afoul of the Duck Theorem.

He looks like a creationist. He sounds like a creationist. He smells like a creationist. He probably also walks like a creationist (however that would look like). What else can he be but a creationist?

He certainly would not be the first creationist to try to hide behind false denials. If I had a nickel for every creationist who claimed not to be a creationist, I could play video poker for much of the night.

But if he is not a creationist, then it's up to him to make that case. Let's not hold our breath waiting for that to happen.

Edited by dwise1, : Replaced creationism's false "evolution model" with summary; the original is repeated in the next message


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Phat, posted 04-24-2021 11:55 AM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by WookieeB, posted 04-30-2021 9:19 PM dwise1 has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 80 of 111 (885732)
04-25-2021 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by WookieeB
04-23-2021 2:31 AM


Re: Already Convinced
I'm not a creationist.

Really? Not as if we have never heard that one before. If I had a nickel for every time I was fed that line by a creationist, I could play video poker for a good long time.

So we need some kind of corroborating evidence to back up your claim. The problem is that the Duck Theorem has you pegged as a creationist. You look like a creationist. You sound like a creationist. You smell like a creationist. You probably also walk like a creationist. So you must must be a creationist.

You need to demonstrate convincingly that you are not a creationist.

Please state what you are. Define what you claim that you are. Describe your position fully enough to show that you're not just blowing smoke.

For that matter, what do you even mean by "creationist"? You've been tossing so much word salad in order to generate confusion that nobody can keep track.

I did give you a way out though. All you have to do admit you have been using the formal fallacy "affirming the consequent" and then realize that anyone that opposes evolution is not necessarily a creationist. How is that for a dichotomy?!?

I did not claim that. You are the one who are trying to twist my words around and make false claims about what I've said. Just like a creationist would do!

And you have any idea what a dichotomy even is?

Stop tossing word salad.

DWise1 writes:

...but rather they have created an incredibly stupid strawman boogeyman which they have called "evolution" to scare themselves with.

As for this, I'll reiterate my prior request. Provide an example, THE EXAMPLE!

Certainly! Mind you, this will not be complete, but it should get the job done.

As I've stated, what creationists have done and still do is to lie about what evolution is. Evolution is biological evolution, the study of the cumulative effects over many generations of populations doing what life does: procreate, survive, procreate, survive, rinse and repeat. Procreation creates genetic variation through recombination, genetic mutation, and other factors (some of which we have not yet discovered). Survival involves an individual's fitness, including characteristics of others within the context of the population's society (eg, nurturing, altruism), etc. Those who survive long enough to reproduce and are allowed to participate in procreation (varies from species to species) have their genes represented in the next generation and the gene pool in each generation is a bit different from the previous generation's. So actual evolution is simple biological evolution and what that results in.

But to creationists, "evolution" is something altogether different -- though exactly what they think it is is very difficult to discover since they won't answer any questions about what they think it is, so we have to try to deduce it from their arguments. They will present "evolution" as requiring some kind of magical processes (the more ridiculous that they can imagine those processes to be the better for their purposes of creating a strawman), which is not true of actual evolution (as just described above). They have presented "evolution" as some kind of religion which is atheistic and which denies God and wants to destroy God, which is absolutely ridiculous (I believe that John Peloza even tried to use that argument in court; his lawsuit against his school was thrown out as being frivolous, but the appeals court that that was too hasty and reviewed it only to themselves throw it out as being frivolous). And they have presented "evolution" as some grand all-encompassing anti-religious philosophy that seeks to destroy Christianity, but that is absolutely ridiculous since actual evolution is just simply the study of what happens to populations after generations of them simply doing what they naturally do. No magic, no kind of religion, no philosophy, just Nature.

Even when creationists try harder to pretend to address actual evolution, they get that completely wrong because they are still trying to attack their "evolution" boogeyman. The processes of actual evolution involve the interplay between increased variability (eg, through mutation) and natural selection (this is especially seen in experiments with genetic algorithms), but creationists present distinctly separate arguments that, first, selection can only remove traits and never add new ones, and second, that mutation is random and provides no direction for change, but creationists never team the two up together as actually happens in actual evolution because that would reveal their deception.

They appear to believe that speciation happens suddenly from one generation to the next, usually using their bastardization of Punctuated Equilibria (which actually happens over many generations which do not usually make it into the fossil record) which they falsely describe as "a snake lays an egg and a bird hatches out." Completely ridiculous! In reality, speciation in actual evolution takes several generations within a population -- did I forget to mention that individuals do not evolve, but rather populations do, a simple fact that creationists constantly overlook in order to create "objections to evolution" which have nothing to do with how actual evolution works. So a very common "objection to evolution" is that an individual of the new species suddenly appeared in a single generation, but where could it ever find a mate that had done the same instantaneou "evolution" thing in the exactly same way? In actual evolution, the entire population had been evolving over several generations, so when, for example, the first 100% chicken finally evolved, then the rest of its flock were still only about 99.99% chicken, which is plenty close enough for breeding (actually, chickens can also breed with their ancestral species, the red junglefowl, which would be roughly 0% chicken). In one "chicken or the egg" argument, creationists not only fail to understand how speciation works, but they also claim that every single system in the chicken's body would have to have completely re-evolved from scratch (eg, reproductive systems, skeletal system, nervous system, etc). Why would they think something so completely idiotic and ridiculous? Nobody knows, because they refuse to explain it. It just sounds convincing to their creationist audience so they keep using it. Like the argument about lizards evolving into birds, because lizards need their front legs to run with -- well, nobody but creationists would claim that birds evolved from lizards, but rather from Coelurosaurs which were therapod dinosaurs (about as distantly related to lizards as to turtles or mammals) which were almost all bipedal (eg, Velociraptors). Yet another ridiculous creationist claim based on nothing more than their not understanding anything about evolution.

Their probability arguments are just pitiful. Their dedication to instantaneous change seen in their ideas on speciation extends to expecting all change to happen all at once. For example there's the claim of modern proteins "evolving" by just falling together in a highly specific amino acid sequence in a single event, "evolving" by pure chance (there are a whole slew of other "by pure chance" arguments which equate "evolution" to pure chance, which is contrary to how actual evolution works). So of course they come up with some astronomical improbability of that ever happening and hence it couldn't have. Well first, I'm not aware of any protein that has every single amino acid so highly specified that any change at any locus would destroy that protein. In most proteins, a small number of amino acids are specifically needed in specific loci as part of active sites on the protein, some other loci on the protein can take any of a particular type of amino acid (of which there are 4 types, as I recall), and then about half the loci are purely structural and can accept any of the 20 amino acids used in proteins. Creationists don't understand proteins.

There's another class of related creationist claims that has pretty much died down because it was so horrible: comparing protein differences between species. Different species have the same proteins, but there are differences in their amino acid sequences. Basically, the fewer the differences, the more closely related those species are. Creationists tried to make claims of comparisons conflicting with accepted science (eg, humans and bullfrogs, rattlesnakes and humans (a documented case of a deliberate lie by a creationist)), but all their claims were bogus; see my page, The Bullfrog Affair.

But please notice how creationist's fake "evolution" can't even keep its story straight. They both claim that no amino acid in a protein could be changed without breaking the protein, and they also make claims based on the fact that many amino acids in a protein can be replaced by other amino acids. Science has no problem keeping all that straight, but creationism is completely hopelessly lost.

And the other problem with those claims about proteins just falling together by chance is that that is not how it would ever work. Rather, proteins would have evolved. Having stuff fall together randomly in a single attempt uses what Dawkins called single-step selection which is infamous being highly improbable -- after each failure, you start again all over from scratch. But while creationists' strawman boogeyman "evolution" uses single-step selection, actual evolution uses cumulative selection in which small changes within a population that work a bit better in each generation are inherited by the next generation as its starting point such that they accumulate over time. While each individual change may have low probability, the overall probability complete failure of each and every attempt in the population (eg, hundreds or thousands of individual attempts each generation) over each and every generation is so vanishingly small as to make change by cumulative selection virtually inevitable. I couldn't believe it either, so I did the math. It works and that's how I finally understood why it works.

Those are just a few examples of how the creationist boogeyman "evolution" misrepresents and lies about actual biological evolution. Of course, their "evolution" is also filled with claims that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with evolution nor biology, including a plethora of bogus young-earth claims which lie about other sciences such as astronomy and geology and physics and population dynamics (eg, Dr. H. Morris' pet "human population growth model"), etc. But we were specifically talking about how their false "evolution" is not the same as actual evolution.

So if one wants to actually oppose, evolution, then one needs to address evolution itself and not that bogus creationist boogeyman. Hopefully, that should now be so clear that even you cannot fail to understand it.

So why do creationists constantly lie about evolution and science? Mostly because it serves their purposes of deceiving their audiences. Of course, most of them are just plain scientifically illiterate and don't know any better, especially if they get most of their "science" from creationists. But there are also those creationists who do know better and yet still push the lies. That is some deliberate lying going on there.

 

DWise1 writes:

Now to return the favor, riddle me this!: Define what an "evolutionist" is!

Umm, OK. Lets type this in google..... and.....
{noun. a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, especially in biology. a person who supports a policy of gradual growth or development rather than sudden change or expansion.}
That seems fine to me.

Nope, that lazy cop-out is inadequate.

Explain the characteristics that "evolutionists" are supposed to have.

Creationists describe "evolution" and "evolutionists" as "atheistic". Why? What is their justification? How could actual evolution or any science have anything at all to do with atheism?

That is yet another example of their boogeyman "evolution" fraud.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by WookieeB, posted 04-23-2021 2:31 AM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19226
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 81 of 111 (885748)
04-25-2021 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by WookieeB
04-23-2021 2:31 AM


Re: Already Convinced
Wookie B writes:

I'm not a creationist.


That's a bit of a catch-22, isn't it? If you were a creationist, you'd be lying.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by WookieeB, posted 04-23-2021 2:31 AM WookieeB has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by dwise1, posted 04-25-2021 2:20 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 82 of 111 (885751)
04-25-2021 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by ringo
04-25-2021 11:40 AM


Re: Already Convinced
And if he weren't a creationist, he'd be able to explain his true self quite easily.

Though, yes, if he's a creationist then he would be stuck because he wouldn't be able to fake it.

One classic case of a dyed-in-the-wool YEC trying to fake it was one who showed up saying that he was open-minded, could go either way, and stuck in the middle wanting to weigh both sides, etc. I took him at face value (a common tactic of mine against creationist claims, which works mainly because they don't understand their own claims) and discussed it with him. It took no time at all for him to lose his cool and come out full blown Bozo YEC on us.

WookieeB has already given us one of the classic tells of a creationist playing this deceptive game: repeatedly whining that we are attributing things to him without ever revealing what his position actually is. Similarly, a local YEC (not that viciously lying local YEC activist I've mentioned) with actual technical training (in chemistry) has engaged in debates in which he raises several questions about science. I've asked him several times what his point is and he just sits there with a coy smile on his face and denies that he has any point. Creationist dishonesty wears various faces.

As I seem to recall, WookieeB is an IDiot. So he will deny being a "creationist" but rather will say he's a "design proponent". Though he's far more likely to be a "cdesign proponentsist", as per the smoking gun glitch in the Of Pandas and People manuscript's global find-and-replace presented in the court case, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), that led to that court showing that ID is nothing more than yet another smokescreen to hide their disingenuous religious intent.

 
WookieeB has been asked to come clean. Let's see if he can or will even try to. Personally, I don't think there's enough soap in the world for that.

 


 
{


Johnny Carson Show Carnac the Magnificent joke: "The hottest show on TV." "Reruns of the Mary Tyler Moore Show."

I remember when people would stay home on Saturday night to watch the MTM Productions TV shows which were classic.

In one episode of the Mary Tyler Moore Show Lou Grant shows up to work in a pleasant mood and not hung over as usual, but it's because he's still drunk from the night before. I might be conflating episodes here, but Sue Ann Nivens (Betty White) who's always trying to snag him as a lover asks if he would like her if he's drunk enough. He thinks for a moment and says "Yes, if I were drunk enough." Then as soon as she leaves overflowing with joy he mutters, "There's not enough booze in the world!"


}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by ringo, posted 04-25-2021 11:40 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 83 of 111 (885752)
04-25-2021 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Phat
04-24-2021 11:55 AM


Re: Already Convinced
An important and very meaningful ADDENDUM to my Message 79 reply to your Message 77.

I stated quite truthfully and correctly:

DWise1 writes:

It's like hearing Trump (and now the GQP) say something: with such a long and unbroken record of lies and deceptions, you must never take anything they say at face value but rather you must verify everything!

That does not mean, as WookieeB will no doubt try to distort it to mean, that absolutely nothing those invertebrate liars say can ever be trusted. Rather, that is to say that we must verify everything they say and only then can we trust what they have said.

So if we verify something a creationist says and find it to be true, then we would trust it. For that matter, if we can verify something that a Republican says and find it to be true, then we would trust it.

As if that could ever happen! But then that's the joy of being a pessimist: 99% of the time you have the satisfaction of being right and then 1% of the time you are pleasantly surprised.

Edited by dwise1, : changed "conflate" to "distort"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Phat, posted 04-24-2021 11:55 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 84 of 111 (885760)
04-25-2021 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by WookieeB
04-23-2021 2:31 AM


Re: Already Convinced
BTW, I would submit robertleva's proposed topic as a prime example of that false and completely bogus creationist boogeyman "evolution model" in action. Message 1.

In that post, he completely separates Natural Selection from the various sources of increasing genetic variation.

Exactly as I described creationists doing in propagating their lies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by WookieeB, posted 04-23-2021 2:31 AM WookieeB has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by jar, posted 04-25-2021 4:09 PM dwise1 has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33412
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 85 of 111 (885761)
04-25-2021 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by dwise1
04-25-2021 3:59 PM


Re: Already Convinced
Yup, that OP is simply another example of hopefully ********* at best. I have not yet determined it is classic creationist ********** and instead will attribute it to simply the product of an education that has taught him how not to think and to avoid actually thinking.

Truly pitiful though that it's even possible these days to still find anyone so fundamentally misimformed.


My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by dwise1, posted 04-25-2021 3:59 PM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by dwise1, posted 04-26-2021 11:33 AM jar has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 86 of 111 (885775)
04-26-2021 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by jar
04-25-2021 4:09 PM


Re: Already Convinced
I have not yet determined it is classic creationist ********** and instead will attribute it to simply the product of an education that has taught him how not to think and to avoid actually thinking.

This "natural selection acting all on its own lonesome cannot create new features" claim is a "classic" creationist "argument". Or at least it's been around for several decades. Dr. Henry Morris (PhD Hydraulic Engineering, which makes him an expert in biology and evolution ) included it in his book, Scientific Creationism. I have the latest, the 2nd edition from 1985, and I have no doubt that this claim was also in the first edition (1974). I also have no doubt that he had gotten from creationist sources going back to the anti-evolution movement's 1920's heyday (where he had gotten his material for Flood Geology).

WookieeB complains that Google'd references to creationist claims go back to the 1990's, though they also go back several decades before that. As usual, he completely missed the point. The point is that so many of these claims have been around for about a century now and they are still being used despite having been refuted repeatedly (AKA PRATTs, "Army of the Undead").

What normally happens is that creationists repeat any old claim that they think sounds convincing -- go to creationists' sites and you will see the exact same list of claims with the exact same wording on each of them (the penultimate source usually ending up being Kent Hovind, but he just did the same thing by repeating other creationists' claims claiming them to be his own (now that he's been kicked out of the family business, his son Eric still uses Kent's material but claiming to have written them himself)).

Then a new creationist hears or reads one of those claims, thinks it sounds convincing, and so sallies forth to confront "evolutionists" with that "new scientific information" only to get shot down because it's an old claim that has been refuted for as long as it's been around. That is the truly "classic" aspect of this.

Here's an example. Around 1990 I was involved in some "amateur night" debate events where anyone who had a case to make could get up and present his case. This young creationist (maybe about 20 years old) got up and announced that he had a "brand new scientific discovery that will blow you 'evolutionists' away!": the speed of light has been slowing down. Immediately, the entire non-creationist half of the audience burst into uncontrollable laughter mixed with attempts to explain why that then-decade-old claim by Setterfield is wrong. Instead of blowing "us 'evolutionists'" away, his own use of an outdated and false creationist claim blew him away. Creationist, meet your own petard. He had no idea what had just hit him.

Truly pitiful though that it's even possible these days to still find anyone so fundamentally misimformed.

That's the result of the generally poor quality of science education in the USA. The reasons are many and include science textbooks filled with errors and misconceptions (most are written by professional textbook writers, not scientists -- we saw that play out when California was shopping for new biology textbooks in the late 1980's), science teachers lacking schooling in science so they teach their own misconceptions (eg, PE teachers being assigned to teach biology as in the case of creationist John Peloza, my son's middle school biology teacher being the home ec teacher), lack of funding, etc.

But a contributing set of factors come from creationist activities, including pressuring textbook publishers, school boards, schools, and individual teachers to exclude evolution. That also includes running creationists as stealth candidates for the school board and individual teachers engaging in their own creationist agenda.

Frankly, I think that opposing the teaching of evolution is the single stupidest and most self-defeating thing that creationists could possibly do. As Sun Tzu is frequently quoted:

quote:
Sun Tzu, Scroll III (Offensive Strategy):
  1. Therefore I say: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.
  2. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal.
  3. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."

(Sun Tzu The Art of War, translation by Samuel B. Griffith, Oxford University Press, 1963)

If creationists truly want to fight and defeat evolution, then they must learn everything they can about evolution! Duh? Then they could concentrate their efforts on attacking the real problems of evolution instead of wasting all their efforts on false and ineffective claims as they've been doing. Plus their long history of false claims only serve to discredit both them and their religion and god. They've been shooting themselves in the foot for so long that they have no more toes to lose.

Furthermore, if they want their children to also become "Christian soldiers" to carry on the War Against Evolution into the next generation, then, wishing their children to be successful warriors, they should want to arm them with all the knowledge of and intel on their enemy, evolution. Instead, they are stripping their children of any effective weaponry and sending them forth blindfolded and burdened with ignorance to be slaughtered. They are keeping their children ignorant both of their enemy and of themselves, so they are certain in every battle to be in peril.

To quote Scott Rauch, a former creationist warrior against "evolution":

quote:
I still hold some anger because I believe the evangelical Christian community did not properly prepare me for the creation/evolution debate. They gave me a gun loaded with blanks, and sent me out. I was creamed.

And to quote from memory from a radio interview with the then-governor of Mississippi defending his campaign for education reforms:

quote:
We know that ignorance doesn't work, because we've already tried it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by jar, posted 04-25-2021 4:09 PM jar has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


(2)
Message 87 of 111 (885956)
04-29-2021 7:19 PM


Online Event: Dr Eugenie Scott on What People Get Wrong about Evolution
Here's the MeetUp page: Dr. Eugenie Scott: What people get wrong – and sometimes right – about evolution

Sunday, May 9, 2021
1:00 PM to 3:00 PM PDT
on ZOOM

Dr. Eugenie Scott: What people get wrong – and sometimes right – about evolution

quote:
The Humanist Association of San Diego is proud to bring to our Southern California community the former Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education: Dr. Eugenie Scott.

Among scientific theories, evolution is one that everyone “knows”. But lots of what people “know” about evolution isn’t so: it’s scientifically unsupported or wildly misunderstood. And sometimes the tidbit of information is wrong, but there’s an underlying grain of accuracy. After spending over 30 years explaining evolution to the public, I’ve learned a few things about what people get wrong, and I have some ideas about why. I also have some suggestions for communicating evolution better, should you be in a situation where you might be able to steer someone in a more accurate direction.


Dr. Scott was Executive Director for the National Center for Science Education (NCSE).

She also was a university professor teaching physical anthropology. She told this story when I saw a presentation by her about 25 years ago.

Surprisingly, many biology departments do not teach evolution to their undergraduates -- maybe they're saving that for grad school. So her physical anthropology class would include biology seniors who needed one more science class to meet their general ed requirements and they figured her class would be an "easy A". Poor fools! For one thing, she most definitely taught evolution in her class.

That meant that these biology majors were learning about evolution for the first time. As the semester progressed, she would watch these bio majors for that "aha!" look to show up on their faces as they would suddenly realize, "So that's why ... ". Up to that point, they had had to memorize biological facts with no idea why it was that way. Now they understood why.

Dr. Scott had presented that story to illustrate the truth of Theodosius Dobzhansky's statement that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.

Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher 35:125-129 (March 1973), p. 129 (complete article available at that link):

quote:
Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light, it becomes a pile of sundry facts -- some of them interesting or curious, but making no meaningful picture as a whole. . . . Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. As pointed out above, the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by dwise1, posted 07-10-2021 4:23 PM dwise1 has not yet responded
 Message 111 by dwise1, posted 07-10-2021 11:34 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

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


Message 88 of 111 (885978)
04-30-2021 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Phat
04-24-2021 11:55 AM


Re: Already Convinced
PaulK writes:

I would assert that anyone who thinks that they conclude divine creation based in scientific evidence is either deceived or lying.

As you all may tell, I'm a stickler for definitions. It may depend on what is meant by "conclude divine creation", but I generally agree with your statement.

Indeed, their insistence on changing science education before producing the science to justify it is evidence that they were “already convinced”

I dont agree with this, but what is meant by "changing science education"?

as is their failure to convince even believing scientists (Kenneth Miller, Darell Falk and Francis Collins are three prominent examples

True. But it is also irrelevant.

See Falk’s review of Stephen Meyer’s latest book.

Thanks for the link. I'm in the process of reading Meyer's book, and this review of it is pretty good as reviews go. But even if we take Falks objections and corrections as 100% accurate, it doesn't really change much. Unfortunately, Falk's conclusion mischaracterizes Meyer’s argument, and he ends up arguing against a strawman.

Phat writes:

From my perspective, dwise1 is arguing that creationists y definition are lying about the science that they collectively create and challenging established science, which is more mainstream.


One thing to consider is how an argument is structured. Any argument will usually be able to be broken down into a series of premises that should logically lead to a conclusion. The premises have to be unconditionally true or at least agreed upon by all parties in order for an argument conclusion to be sound. The conclusion of one argument may then be taken to become a premise for another argument.

The point you are commenting on is within dwise1’s overarching argument. In a really simplified form, it could be structured like:
premise 1: lying is bad
premise 2: misrepresentation is bad
premise 3: creationists lie and misrepresent
Conclusion: creationists are bad

If someone wanted to attack that argument, they would have to show one of the premises is incorrect. Since I think everyone would agree on premise 1 and 2, the best place to attack the argument is at premise 3. Premise 3 is essentially what you are referring to as dwise1's argument.

But here is the kicker: I don’t have a dispute with premise 3!

I get that dwise1 has a problem with creationists. But early on he seemed, imo, to have a pretty visceral reaction to them, exemplified in Message 41. As I knew that defining what a “creationist” was could be very different to different folk, and since my own view of them didn’t rise to the level of dwise1’s antagonism, I sought to understand how dwise1 was defining them. Thus I asked my question (or really requested a definition).

Definitions often form the basis for premises in an argument. Dwise1 initially stated his definitions in Message 46. His definitions were fairly specific and narrowly tailored, which is usually good for definitions as it makes them easier to defend. And I initially approached it like each paragraph was a separate argument. Also remember, premises (or definitions) may be the result of prior arguments.

To express this in an argument structure -
Premise 1: If a and b exist, then C.
Premise 2: a and b exist.
Conclusion: C

I stated that I didnt agree with every position he was taking, but I also didnt comment on those positions I may have disagreed with. See Message 61. Of the definitions he gave at the beginning, I had no problem with them. Since his definitions were restricted, I then started asking him how he would classify some scenarios that were close in some aspects of his already stated definitions, but different in others.

In a structure form, I essentially asked what his premise would be in the case of:
If a and not b, then ?
or it could be stated:
If a and z, then ?

And that is where the problems started. AZPaul3 mischaracterized my question and assumed that I was talking about a particular group, and then applied a status that was not germane to the question I was asking. For some reason, dwise1 picked up the false equivalency and ran with it, while also piling on unsupported other accusations. He also added some additional premises that conflicted with his prior statements.

I responded with Message 70, which is sufficient an answer itself. I do not need to cut/paste it again. Effectively, dwise1 does not appear to understand logic, nor does he seem to recall what he posted before. Because he is so obviously confused, his only recourse is to lash out with unsupported accusations against me. So let’s look at a few of them….


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Phat, posted 04-24-2021 11:55 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Phat, posted 05-01-2021 2:58 AM WookieeB has responded

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


Message 89 of 111 (885979)
04-30-2021 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by dwise1
04-25-2021 12:09 AM


Re: Already Convinced
dwise1 writes:

From Message 79 WookieeB complained that those claims are "old" since the references he said he found dated from the 1990's, but in reality they go back decades even before that.

From Message 86 WookieeB complains that Google'd references to creationist claims go back to the 1990's, though they also go back several decades before that.


No, it wasn't Google'd references (I never mentioned that). It was YOUR references dwise1. I was referring to YOUR site(s) that you frequently link. All your arguments, quotes, rants, etc, appear to be no later than the 1990's. I asked you for some example that you can point to from this 21st century. Yet all you can do is claim in some nebulous manner that they are there, but not actually state any specifics.

So to be clear, what I am saying is: all your examples are fringe and old. The issues you keep claiming to be fighting against only get modern traction because YOU are the one bringing them up. TILT!
Get with the modern age.

Where does he get that nonsense from?

From you! Despite me laying it out at least 2 times in detail, you still don’t seem to remember your own words, nor understand mine. This is not some creationist trick, for 1) I’m not a creationist, and 2) you do not have reading comprehension. The fault is all your own.

So, I’ll have to break it down again. Pay attention, cause I’m not going to repeat everything I said previously all over again, but I’ll instead just summarize the logic and reference it all.

I identified creationists within the context of discussion on this forum as those who use "creation science" and similar false teachings to oppose evolution (though they have no idea what evolution even is).

Yes you did indeed. Good starting point. You gave this kind of definition first in Message 46 . Among that post, one specific phrasing you used was:

quote:
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".

I then developed a question based on this phrasing that you had used, and asked:
quote:
So, I do understand that in your view, someone that does believe in Divine Creation is not necessarily a creationist. The deciding factor appears to be merely whether the attitude opposing evolution is based solely on a religious stance. Otherwise, a person could believe (but not necessarily) in Divine Creation and evolution and not be a creationist.
I re-stated your characteristics of someone that would not be a creationist.

Thus, based on that precedent, I then asked a clarifying question as to a scenario on which you had not explicitly defined yet.

quote:
Where would you categorize someone that accepts Divine Creation and that opposes evolution based on a non-religious stance, such as having scientific reasons for rejecting (some aspects of) evolution?

The part about “Divine Creation” is essentially irrelevant, as you had already established that it wasn't a “defining characteristic” of a creationist. As for the rest of my question, it by default is not coming from an assumption that the scenario is involving a “creationist” per your definitions.

And before I get to how you responded to that question, let me emphasize that my scenario should fit the case of your “So if you really want to fight evolution, then do so honestly and truthfully.”, assuming you really do allow that as possible.

So, how did you respond? Well, first AZPaul3 assumed a mischaracterization of my scenario. Despite that he never answered the question, you also assumed the mischaracterization that my question was (by your extension) referring to a creationist. This you did in Message 65 , even quoting my question and then commenting “we have seen that subterfuge used by creationists and IDiots so many times in this past half century.”, and later “despite your attempt to mischaracterize your position as "non-religious", reality proves you wrong on that point.”
You restated this all in Message 66.
I pointed out your mistaken assumption in detail in Message 70. In that post, I even pointed out, that if according to your stance of: “If you honestly and truly want to fight evolution, then at least do it right!”, then doing so would require opposing evolution on only scientific grounds. As I said:

quote:
Since evolution, in the context being used here, is a scientific study, and any evidence used in favor of it is scientific, then any evidence against it should also be scientific in nature.
That statement is in harmony with my earlier scenario of how to classify someone: “ ... that opposes evolution based on a non-religious stance, such as having scientific reasons for rejecting (some aspects of) evolution?” I then warned you that if you were going to assume my question was referring to a creationist (which you had no warrant to do so), you are making it impossible to ‘honestly and truly fight evolution’. You had two options, either be disingenuous, or admit your assumption was incorrect.

In your next relevant response at Message 73, you essentially doubled down. You obviously didnt understand what I had written, as you started attacking a statement of mine which actually agreed with what you were saying. I guess attacking me was more important than listening. I pointed this out and other inconsistencies on your part in Message 74 and Message 75.

First he violates the Square of Opposition from formal logic.

That he misconstrues as the position that anyone who opposes evolution is a creationist. Wrong!

Not really. Whereas I was allowing for someone “ that opposes evolution based on a non-religious stance, such as having scientific reasons for rejecting (some aspects of) evolution” to not be a creationist, you assumed that they had to be a creationist. You did so at least 3 times despite me pointing out that such a view was not warranted. It is your own bias that reflexively assigns anyone claiming to have ‘scientific reasons for rejecting evolution’ as a creationist, even before you have heard any of the reasons. Thus, despite your saying: “if you really want to fight evolution, then do so honestly and truthfully”, your very actions so far invalidates any chance of that.

The premise, "Some who oppose evolution are creationists", does not lead to the premise, "All who oppose evolution are creationists". So the words that he is trying to put into my mouth are simply not valid.

I agree with your statement on the premises. Unfortunately, your actions have belied your words. Actions speak louder than words, and your actions have shown you will allow no opposition to evolution that doesn’t result in a charge of “creationist”.

I think your automatic bias is easily shown by what you say next -

His false claim is just that, false: "You say that it is possible to fight evolution honestly and truthfully, but your premises actually make that impossible." As I explained to him carefully (Message 73):

DWise1 writes:
So if you really want to fight evolution, then do so honestly and truthfully.

Honestly means that you address and fight evolution itself, not some bullshit lie pretending to be evolution.

Truthfully means that you use real objections that address real and actual problems with evolution, not bullshit creationist lies.

It can be done. So why do you refuse to do it? Is there something wrong with you?

What creationists have done and still do is to lie about what evolution is….blah...blah…
Creationists have created a Frankensteined boogeyman constructed of stitched together misconceptions and falsehoods.….blah...blah…
...blah...blah…lists several common creationist misconceptions about evolution...blah...blah…
And of course that creationist boogeyman...blah...blah…
So if one wants to actually oppose, evolution, then one needs to address evolution itself and not that bogus creationist boogeyman.
So why do creationists constantly lie about evolution and science? …...blah...blah… But there are those creationists who do know better and yet still push the lies. That is some deliberate lying there.

Even when you mention the possibility of performing the fight honestly and truthfully,...It’s all creationists!!!

Frankly, he's running a fowl ... err, afoul of the Duck Theorem.

He looks like a creationist. He sounds like a creationist. He smells like a creationist. He probably also walks like a creationist (however that would look like). What else can he be but a creationist?


Well, then, since it is your charge, you should be able to take some definition from your walls of text in all your prior posts and clearly indicate -
How I look like a creationist?
How I sound like a creationist?
How I smell like a creationist?

C’mon? Justify yourself!

But if he is not a creationist, then it's up to him to make that case.

Easy. Of all the history, examples, and definitions dwise1 gives for a creationist, I have not fit any of those descriptions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by dwise1, posted 04-25-2021 12:09 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by dwise1, posted 05-01-2021 12:24 AM WookieeB has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 4702
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 90 of 111 (885981)
05-01-2021 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by WookieeB
04-30-2021 9:19 PM


Re: Already Convinced
DWise1 writes:

Frankly, he's running a fowl ... err, afoul of the Duck Theorem.
He looks like a creationist. He sounds like a creationist. He smells like a creationist. He probably also walks like a creationist (however that would look like). What else can he be but a creationist?

Well, then, since it is your charge, you should be able to take some definition from your walls of text in all your prior posts and clearly indicate -
How I look like a creationist?
How I sound like a creationist?
How I smell like a creationist?
C’mon? Justify yourself!

Since the Duck Theorem was being invoked, that dictated the formulation. Duh?

What you write, what you do, how you conduct yourself are all typical of how creationists conduct themselves.

Especially a creationist who tries that very tired old dodge of claiming to not be a creationist and responds by acting very indignant and insulted at being identified as a creationist, including cries of condemnation for being "so misjudged and falsely accused!"

In every single case of that tired old dodge that I have witnessed, the creationist eventually is unable to maintain the deception. In many of those cases, he even turned out to be a YEC!

And here you are going through all the typical motions of that very old creationist dodge. Everything you're doing just reeks of "creationist." Including how you keep distorting and misrepresenting what I've written in typical creationist manner.

And one favorite bit of sophistry that creationists like to use is argumentum ad dictionario, arguing over definitions (they commonly will turn to dictionary definitions) in order to create confusion and to lead their opponent into a quagmire. You know, like what you've been doing.

That is why we have requested that you support your flimsy assertion that you are "not a creationist.":

DWise1 writes:

You need to demonstrate convincingly that you are not a creationist.

Please state what you are. Define what you claim that you are. Describe your position fully enough to show that you're not just blowing smoke.

For that matter, what do you even mean by "creationist"? You've been tossing so much word salad in order to generate confusion that nobody can keep track.

And of course, you have dodged that. In typical creationist fashion.

I was referring to YOUR site(s) that you frequently link. All your arguments, quotes, rants, etc, appear to be no later than the 1990's. I asked you for some example that you can point to from this 21st century. Yet all you can do is claim in some nebulous manner that they are there, but not actually state any specifics.

So to be clear, what I am saying is: all your examples are fringe and old. The issues you keep claiming to be fighting against only get modern traction because YOU are the one bringing them up. TILT!
Get with the modern age.

Hard to tell whether you are speaking out of abject ignorance or trying to practice a deception.

Go into any fundamentalist Christian bookstore and look at the creationism books and materials -- if they do not have an actual creationism section, you should find them under "apologetics". You will find those same "old fringe" claims throughout those books, in 2021!

Hang around other creationists. Many of them will still be YECs. Of course, when they present themselves to the general public, they'll hide their YEC behind the smokescreen of ID, since that's the current tactics. But among themselves, they'll still share those "old fringe" YEC claims. And in sermons and seminars, those YEC claims will still be repeated and pushed to each new generation of creationists.

All you need to do is to pull your head out.

Thus, despite your saying: “if you really want to fight evolution, then do so honestly and truthfully”, your very actions so far invalidates any chance of that.

Actions speak louder than words, and your actions have shown you will allow no opposition to evolution that doesn’t result in a charge of “creationist”.

Completely untrue! In fact, that's a fucking lie!

Show me a case of opposition to evolution that is honest and truthful! Do you know of any?

True, all the cases of opposition to evolution that I have seen have depended on misunderstanding and even misrepresenting evolution, so those cases were not honest nor truthful. That includes false conclusions about the effects of evolution (eg, creationist beliefs that it "disproves God" or turns believers into atheists (rather, that is what I've seen creationism do)).

But do not falsely accuse me of never allowing for any opposition to evolution just because no one has ever presented an honest and truthful case.

Why don't you present an honest and truthful case? Preferably a scientific case. And do please avoid any misrepresentations (which would of course void any claim of it being honest or truthful).

Are you even able to?

 
And don't forget to present your own position in order to offer some support for your bare assertion that you are "not a creationist."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by WookieeB, posted 04-30-2021 9:19 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by WookieeB, posted 05-03-2021 2:17 PM dwise1 has not yet responded
 Message 94 by WookieeB, posted 05-03-2021 2:31 PM dwise1 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