Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
58 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 57 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,243 Year: 4,355/6,534 Month: 569/900 Week: 93/182 Day: 0/27 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3296
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 1 of 95 (891956)
02-18-2022 2:42 PM


It seems that all the new topic proposals by creationists/ID proponents grossly mischaracterize evolution and then think members of EvC will defend any of those sill versions of evolution.

They also seem to think that people on the science side of this argument are as lazy as the creationists are and never actually put any work into research and broadening our knowledge.

All we ever get from them is "evolution is bad and it's a religion, just like us."

So the newest member at EvC, BISQUITCUTTER21, seems to think "If an unintelligent living organism came out of nature's goo and it was of one sex what are the chances another similar unintelligent organism came out as the opposite sex.", is a description of evolution. Evolution vs Creation

Does anyone think he will realize he's wrong when we tell him, if this pathetic thread proposal is promoted? I predict he will ignore us and spout other total BS mischaracterizations of evolution.

I'm bored and procrastinating when I should be working.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Tangle, posted 02-18-2022 2:45 PM Tanypteryx has replied
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 02-18-2022 3:40 PM Tanypteryx has replied
 Message 10 by Taq, posted 02-18-2022 5:12 PM Tanypteryx has taken no action
 Message 12 by nwr, posted 02-18-2022 5:52 PM Tanypteryx has taken no action
 Message 14 by dwise1, posted 02-18-2022 6:05 PM Tanypteryx has replied
 Message 16 by dwise1, posted 02-18-2022 8:15 PM Tanypteryx has taken no action
 Message 17 by dwise1, posted 02-19-2022 1:22 AM Tanypteryx has taken no action

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8492
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 2 of 95 (891957)
02-18-2022 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tanypteryx
02-18-2022 2:42 PM


We're arguing with uneducated nutters, there's really no point.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-18-2022 2:42 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-18-2022 2:59 PM Tangle has taken no action

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3296
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 3 of 95 (891958)
02-18-2022 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tangle
02-18-2022 2:45 PM


Yeah, the quality has gone down a bit, but really that's who we've been arguing with all along, uneducated nutters.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tangle, posted 02-18-2022 2:45 PM Tangle has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by jar, posted 02-18-2022 3:03 PM Tanypteryx has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33900
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 4 of 95 (891959)
02-18-2022 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Tanypteryx
02-18-2022 2:59 PM


Remember that they are Willfully Ignorant.

When they want to be ignorant there is no surprise when they remain ignorant.


My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-18-2022 2:59 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-18-2022 3:40 PM jar has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 5 of 95 (891960)
02-18-2022 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tanypteryx
02-18-2022 2:42 PM


I wonder if he got that off Kent Hovind. I don’t think that AiG or the ICR would publish anything that bad. Of course he could be a troll. Poe’s law is a pain like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-18-2022 2:42 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-18-2022 3:47 PM PaulK has taken no action

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3296
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


(4)
Message 6 of 95 (891961)
02-18-2022 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by jar
02-18-2022 3:03 PM


Yeah, I remember kids resistant to learning anything and kids that wanted to know how everything worked. The former always puzzled me.

The willfully ignorant seem to be afraid of everything, especially people who know more than them. They fear knowledge and see it as a threat.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by jar, posted 02-18-2022 3:03 PM jar has taken no action

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3296
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 7 of 95 (891962)
02-18-2022 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by PaulK
02-18-2022 3:40 PM


It sounds like Kent Hovind's level or Kirk Cameron.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 02-18-2022 3:40 PM PaulK has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 02-18-2022 4:48 PM Tanypteryx has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33900
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 8 of 95 (891966)
02-18-2022 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Tanypteryx
02-18-2022 3:47 PM


More like Jack T. Chick with Chick's Tracts.

My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-18-2022 3:47 PM Tanypteryx has taken no action

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6642
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 9 of 95 (891968)
02-18-2022 5:09 PM


Promote, please
Is he or isn't he?

Maybe a kid stepping up to slay the dragon. Let's find out. It may ultimately be maddining, ehh, most probably will end up maddening, from the absolute unresponsiveness and imperviousness to logic. But, maybe this one will put some intellect behind their musings. Or at least some humor.

Take a chance. Go for it.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8519
Joined: 03-06-2009


(1)
Message 10 of 95 (891969)
02-18-2022 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tanypteryx
02-18-2022 2:42 PM


Tanypteryx writes:

All we ever get from them is "evolution is bad and it's a religion, just like us."

Strange how you never hear scientists saying, "Creationism is just another scientific theory that uses evidence!". It seems creationists start out already believing that their beliefs are inferior to science because they are both religious and based on faith.

Does anyone think he will realize he's wrong when we tell him, if this pathetic thread proposal is promoted? I predict he will ignore us and spout other total BS mischaracterizations of evolution.

That's my guess as well. When someone fails to understand that the majority of species on Earth are asexual, where can you really go from there? Will such a closed mind even let in the additional facts of hermaphroditic species?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-18-2022 2:42 PM Tanypteryx has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by AZPaul3, posted 02-18-2022 5:17 PM Taq has taken no action
 Message 13 by jar, posted 02-18-2022 5:56 PM Taq has taken no action

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6642
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 11 of 95 (891970)
02-18-2022 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Taq
02-18-2022 5:12 PM


When someone fails to understand that the majority of species on Earth are asexual, where can you really go from there?

Does he believe this? How strongly?

Is it possible he could be honestly ignorant? And willing to talk?

Might it be interesting to find out?


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Taq, posted 02-18-2022 5:12 PM Taq has taken no action

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5972
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 12 of 95 (891971)
02-18-2022 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tanypteryx
02-18-2022 2:42 PM


So the newest member at EvC ...

On the plus side, at least we can tell what this creationist is talking about. That's more than we can say for another recent poster.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-18-2022 2:42 PM Tanypteryx has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33900
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 13 of 95 (891972)
02-18-2022 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Taq
02-18-2022 5:12 PM


Male & Female
There is the problem that so many of the members of the Christian Cult of Ignorance and Deceit have been taught that God made males and females.

Blame it on Genesis 5:2.

But they have never been taught that there are asexual critters and critters that change sex and critters that normally have more than two sexes and critters that are both male and female at the very same time and it's all right and normal and reality.

So much of modern evangelical fundamentalist conservative Christianity is depraved on account of the fact that they have been deprived of education and information because their parents and pastors and elders and priests have lied to them since birth.


My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Taq, posted 02-18-2022 5:12 PM Taq has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by xongsmith, posted 02-19-2022 10:37 PM jar has replied
 Message 30 by Jzyehoshua, posted 02-25-2022 9:01 PM jar has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5073
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 14 of 95 (891974)
02-18-2022 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tanypteryx
02-18-2022 2:42 PM


Overall I agree with your assessment, but I always hold out the hope that a dialogue could be established. I'm the model of the happy pessimist: 99% of the time I have the satisfaction of being right and then on rare occasions I'm pleasantly surprised.

A perennial problem with creationists is that they have no idea what they're talking about. That's not a bug, but rather a feature. Creationism has been constructed to get everything wrong, the better to fool everybody with. Because their goal and purpose is not to seek truth, but rather to convince (I recently heard again Martin Luther's infamous quote in which he approved of lying in order to gain converts, a form of the ends justifying the means, which the Radical Religious Right of the 80's identified as "secular humanism").

That means that even when they learn the truth, they will stick with their lies solely because those lies sound more convincing. Refer again to my page-still-under-construction, Fundamental Differences Between Scientists and Creationists, which compares those differences starting with scientists seeking truth and creationists seeking to convince and discusses how that manifests into the two very different endeavors. We see that at work in the GQP where they spout their "alternative facts" even when they are fully aware that they're lying, but they stick with their lies in order to convince their followers.

The basic problem stemming from their misunderstanding/misrepresentation of evolution is that it leads them to many false conclusions. Indeed, most creationist claims make absolutely no sense in light of what evolution actually is, which is why I keep trying to find a creationist who will tell us what he means by "evolution". EWolf is the most recent attempt, but I have no doubt that he will not return let alone answer my questions in Message 2042 which include:

DWise1 writes:

  1. There is no inherent conflict between Divine Creation and evolution (nor any other science for that matter); the only conflicts that arise are due to foolish and contrary-to-fact ideas about Creation and even more foolish and contrary-to-reality ideas about evolution.

    All your assertions indicate that you believe that there is some kind of inherent conflict between Creation and evolution. Why would you believe such a thing? What are the reasons for your belief in that? What are the actual points of conflict that you perceive and why do you see them as conflicts? Provide some kind of reasoned argument, not more baseless bald assertions, please.

  2. What do you think evolution is? Or how it works? Until we know the answers to those questions, none of your conclusions about evolution can make any sense.

    Seriously, what are your unstated assumptions about evolution. For decades, we keep hearing the same nonsensical assertions about and "disproofs" of "evolution" but never ever any basis for those assertions. So yet again, what are you talking about?

  3. That brings us back around to that primary question of just exactly what is this "evolution mindset" you keep blathering about and what is it based on? That is yet another bald assertion that is nothing but nonsense since we do not know what your assumptions are and hence we cannot know what you are talking about.

  4. What do you think the consequences are of evolution being true? Why do you think that? (again, a reasoned argument, please, not just more baseless bald assertions) Of course, in order to answer that we would need to establish what you think evolution is.

  5. I don't think we were able to establish whether you are a young-earth creationist. If you are, then what would the consequences be of the earth actually being billons of years old? Again, why do you think those must be the consequences?

  6. Bonus Question: Since all theology is created by Man, if error is found in one's theology, then what does that mean about God? And what should one do about that error which has been found?

Another example not found on this forum is a "the chicken or the egg" travesty:

quote:
Q: Which came first? The Chicken or The Egg?
A: It wasn’t a chicken or an egg…it was two chickens! A male and a female. Sexual reproduction requires a male and a female. The first male chicken needed to have 100% functional male stuff and the first female chicken needed 100% functional female stuff. They need to be at the same place at the same time. They can’t wait for millions of years for the opposite sex to evolve. They need a muscular, circulatory, respiratory, skeletal system and many others as well. Before the chickens can make an egg, they need an environment with the right temperature, the right food, the right amount of oxygen the right amount of gravity etc. The answer to the chicken and the egg is someone with incredible intelligence instantly designed an adult male and an adult female at the same time, at the same place, and the place had the right temperature, gravity, food etc. The Garden of Eden story answers the chicken and the egg question.

Implicit in that travesty are fundamental misunderstandings of how speciation would work. Trying to piece those together (with absolutely no input from creationists outside of that text):

  • "It wasn’t a chicken or an egg…it was two chickens! A male and a female. Sexual reproduction requires a male and a female. The first male chicken needed to have 100% functional male stuff and the first female chicken needed 100% functional female stuff. They need to be at the same place at the same time. They can’t wait for millions of years for the opposite sex to evolve"

    So that begs the question of how chickens evolved (actually, they were bred through domestication, but the natural process was still fundamentally the same). The creationist misconception appears to be that one "kind" suddenly gives birth to another and different "kind" all at once. I am confident that that's how that creationist was thinking about this because he would not only repeatedly play the card of "a dog giving birth to a kitten" or "why don't we see apes in the zoo giving birth to ape-men?", but he would also repeatedly misstate punctuated equilibria as "One day a snake laid an egg and a bird hatched out." None of which has anything at all to do with evolution!

    Here's a more accurate account of the evolution of the chicken. People captured several red junglefowl and domesticated them. Domestication involved generations of selective breeding. In experiments in Russia with wild silver foxes, it took less than 10 generations to domesticate them into lap dogs. So with the proto-chickens, you started with a flock that was 0% chicken and over generations that flock slowly became more and more chicken-like until you arrived at a flock that was 99% chicken. And then out of that flock of 99% chickens we get an individual yard bird that was 100% chicken.

    Where would that chicken find a mate? From within its flock, of course! There was no need to "wait a million years" for that chick to show up, because a whole flock of prospects was already right there right then! A 100% chicken could still mate with a 99% chicken, duh? For that matter, 100% chickens can still mate with 100% red junglefowl (indeed, the chicken gene pool has leaked so heavily into the red junglefowl gene pool that it is virtually impossible to even find a 100% red junglefowl anymore). In addition, we hear so much creationist blather about "basic created kinds" include the ability of closely related species to interbreed that even they are saying that this "where oh where would he ever find a mate?" "dilemma" just simply does not exist. Until they find that inconvenient, of course.

    And where would those mates have gotten their "jiggly bits" from? (actually, chickens don't have jiggly bits; that seems to be much more of a mammal thing) The same place that we got ours, from our parents! But that discussion is in the next list item.

  • "They need a muscular, circulatory, respiratory, skeletal system and many others as well."

    Yeah, and where did they get those from? Uh, from their parents, you think? The craven stupidity of these creationists can be just too painful to watch.

  • "Before the chickens can make an egg, they need an environment with the right temperature, the right food, the right amount of oxygen the right amount of gravity etc."

    Already existed. And if those conditions went away, then even the pre-existing species would not be able to produce eggs, so none of that pertains to a new species. That "concern" is just BS.

  • "The answer to the chicken and the egg is someone with incredible intelligence instantly designed an adult male and an adult female at the same time, at the same place, and the place had the right temperature, gravity, food etc."

    No. They evolved (albeit within the confines of domestication by humans). No need to invent some deus ex machina bullshit to explain away something that happens naturally.

BTW, there's a 2014 Christian film, A Matter of Faith, with Harry Anderson (of the sit-com, Night Court) playing a secular college biology professor pushing evolution with the chicken-or-the-egg question. Nothing more was covered in his class, just that one question. Like the "God is Not Dead" movie which grossly mischaracterized how philosophy would be taught in a college, it gives us the impression that none of those filmmakers ever attended a single day of college in their collective lives. This film even included a scene with a creation/evolution debate which never once touched on either subject. Don't worry; it left Netflix years ago.

 
Not really done on this topic, but my Tequila intake is starting to catch up with me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-18-2022 2:42 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-18-2022 7:34 PM dwise1 has taken no action

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3296
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 15 of 95 (891976)
02-18-2022 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by dwise1
02-18-2022 6:05 PM


The basic problem stemming from their misunderstanding/misrepresentation of evolution is that it leads them to many false conclusions.

True, but I really suspect that none of them have had any exposure to biology or any description of actual evolution. They have only been exposed to the rubbish they post here and the source of their mistaken description is also someone they trust because of religious authority. The brainwashing that religion accomplishes is amazingly efficient at closing their minds to new information.

Indeed, most creationist claims make absolutely no sense in light of what evolution actually is, which is why I keep trying to find a creationist who will tell us what he means by "evolution".

It is quite extraordinary that every single creationist, no matter which branch, cannot provide an accurate description of evolution, let alone show they understand it, or indeed, of creation science/ID either.

EWolf is the most recent attempt, but I have no doubt that he will not return let alone answer my questions

Well, the last time we heard from him was from the hospital...

Not really done on this topic, but my Tequila intake is starting to catch up with me.

Aw well, the thread will still be here.

I don't know much about tequila, but I had a shot of some really smooth Tequila in a Mexican restaurant in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan years ago. It was free when we paid our bill and there was no need for salt or lime, this was sipping liquor. When I was at a dragonfly meeting in Austin, Texas in 2019 a professor friend made her recipe of prickly pear margaritas that took her several weeks of complex preparations beforehand. They were the best margaritas I have ever or will ever have! (I have to say that)


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by dwise1, posted 02-18-2022 6:05 PM dwise1 has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022