Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 8:24 AM
41 online now:
Aussie, PaulK, RAZD, Tangle (4 members, 37 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,541 Year: 3,578/19,786 Month: 573/1,087 Week: 163/212 Day: 5/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
6789
10
11Next
Author Topic:   What is an Articulate Informed Creationist
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 54 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 136 of 154 (445790)
01-03-2008 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by imageinvisible
01-01-2008 5:46 PM


Re: questions
we are going to find very, very few well-informed creationists, as creationism is largely misinforation

Which I personaly would concider an attack on my foundational (i.e. creationist) view point.

it is not an attack on your views. it is an attack on the methods of those who taught you your views. the pillars of the creationist community that believe they should "lie for jesus." ask the people who aren't creationists just how many times they've seen some particularly false claims repeated (why, you've got a few in this very post!), or how very rarely they run into a creationist who even understands what evolution actually is? the creationist campaign is largely misinformation.

Questions, Can I even answer these questions in this thread without going off topic, and if not then where can I go to answer these questions?

here would be the place, i believe.

I, personaly, am a 'big picture' thinker, I attempt to look at the whole, determine where the majority of the interpritations of the evidence leeds, etc. etc. to determine what the big picture is, and go from there. Appearently I find it quite difficult, or so I've been told to stay on topic, since I generaly try to include some of the evidence/interpritations/reason behind my statements. i.e. why I make a particular statement. I do not include this information to intentionaly lead the thread off topic, but give the read an idea as to where i am coming from. Is this wrong?

well, no. evidence, reason, and logic are all good things. the problem seems to be that the creationist argument is made up of a bunch of little, disparate claims that add up to the "don't trust science!" whole. these little claims are often thrown in as support for various arguments (where they might have no real relation) but are themselves wholely different debates that deserve to be examined in detail. normally, we call this sort of thing a "red herring." it derails debate by redirecting it to a rather insignificant throwaway argument. example:

for instance: * ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is still stated as a proven scientific fact in science and biology texts books (at least on the middle to highschool level) even though it was disproven within months of the theory being published.

no, it's not still used. there have been whole threads on this topic, where no creationist has ever been able to cite a single valid example of recapitulation theory in a middle or high school textbook. only a few vague examples of drawings that looked like haeckel's in rather trivial ways. the historical aspect (regarding the outting of the fraud) outnumbered the vaguely similar drawings 3:1, but "not mentioned at all" was the runaway winner of that survey. this particular topic was one of our former member's favourite red herrings. he'd throw it into every conversation, everywhere.

this example, really, has very little to do with your argument, however, it does support my statement about misinformation.

and: Evolution has no problem siting that cave pantings depicting man with bison, deer, and giraffs, etc. as proof that man cohabitated with these animals, but when the same cave painting depicts what can only be a dinosaur, the drawing is relagated to a mythological creature because the idea of man and dinosaurs living together is inconsistant with the currently held interpritation of the geological column. Ergo there is a certain amount of nonsence on both sides of the fence.

this is another topic that continues to fill up entire threads. and it's actually not nonsense, if you think about it. we have thousands of cave paintings of mammoths. we have artifacts made by primitive man using mammoth parts. we have both found in the same locations in the geologic column. cave paintings are not the only evidence.

now, to contrast, we have a single picture of what appears to be a dinosaur. on closer examination, it's a snake, with a set of legs painted on. the snake part is exactly identical to thousands of other snake paintings made by the same natives in the region. meanwhile, we have no evidence of any sauropod living withing 65 million years of a hominid. no artifacts, no locations where both are buried, and a huge gap in the geologic column between the two.

see... one has to actually look at the evidence, and not just say "OMG it looks like a dinosaur." and besides, this particular claim is silly for two other reasons:

1) evolutionary theory has absolutely no problem with dinosaurs being alive today. "living dinosaurs" colloquially speaking are animals that are found to be living today that were previously thought long extinct, such as the coelocanth. such an animal does not disprove evolution, or show that the fossil record is errant -- just incomplete. which we knew all along.

2) in fact, there are animals alive today that fall under the superorder dinosauria. there's a good chance that you ate one as recently as today. so yes, people DO live with dinosaurs.

but, as you have noticed, we have now spent more time discussing matters that do not pertain to the thread than we have the actual topic. when someone goes to support their argument with relatively unrelated falsehoods, people generally try to take the time to correct those errors rather than ignore them as "off topic" and let them seem correct.

As to this: "we cannot expect our creationists to be scientists, when by definition they are not." I would have to say that the most articulate of creation scientists are too busy gathering observational data to support thier view concerning their piers; to bother debating their view on a forum such as this.

funny, we have a lot of scientists of the evolutionist persuasion here. frankly, you're not going to find creationist scientists very often because creationism isn't science. that's been ruled a number of times in court, btw. your portrayal of the situation is precisely the reason why -- science isn't "here's my view, let's find data to support it." that's often what creationists do: support their apriori viewpoints through selective use of data. in academic circles, that's called "dishonesty."

you also have the problem that because creationism is so largely composed of misinformation, people in higher education very, very rarely are creationists. it's quite hard for someone to get through 8 or more years of school, recieve a doctoral degree in biology, and still hold the same falacious viewpoints regarding what creationism says evolution is. and those few who somehow do make it through are generally weeded out on the job for the same reasons nasa would fire a geocentricist astronomer.

no, nearest we can tell, the only thing the real, legit, creationists scientists are doing is publishing books directed at the general population. thus the reference to behe, who seems to be doing no actual research at all (and regularly gets torn apart by lowly graduate students in the various fields he dares to abuse in his books). and even he is barely a creationist. he accepts common descent, for instance.

but by far, most of the creationist support is comprised of church-going, relatively average people, without science degrees behind their names. it's important to remember that because, as i said, we do have working scientists here. we cannot expect our creationist members to make the same sort of academic arguments, backed by experiments and research, that the scientists will make. creationists are not scientists, they are people of faith.

But even when a creatinist sites one of these scientists via a link I have found that the sitation goes greatly ingnored simple because of where it comes from.

creationists are also well known to misrepresent scientific references. i have seen darwin, gould, and dawkins quotemined into supporting creationism. that generally falls under "pull the other leg, it's got bells on it." but most examples are more subtle. like omitting the word "inclusions" when describing the radiometric dating of a lava flow. makes it sound like the lava flow is really, really old even though it was witnessed only 50 years ago, so radiometric dating must be flawed. when in reality, the study they cited was about the little bits of older rock contained in the fresh lava.

again, this is because of the "here's my point of view, what evidence can i select to support it" methodology. by selecting only parts of that study, a creationist makes it sound like there's a real problem. similarly, by selecting the ONE textbook out of several hundred thousand that seems to present haeckel's flawed hypothesis as fact (and generally, further distorting it so it's solid), creationists make it seem like haeckel is still being used by decietful evilutionists as a cornerstone of evolution. when in reality, it was overturned by evolutionary embryologists (not creationists!) months after it was first published.

or similarly, they select the one cave painting that looks a little like a dinosaur, and not the thousands that far more like identifiable creatures we knew lived with primitive man. and they of course select the version of the picture that looks most like a dinosaur, instead of the snake you'd see in person.

And when these laypersons attempt to site such scientists 'in thier own words' they generaly misrepresent the idea or confuse the facts and end up being accused of siting misinformation.

but, as you will likely note, not a lot of creationists are out there reading science journals. they get their information from somewhere. and THAT source is misrepresenting things and providing misrepresentation. and some of these sources... well, it stretches the limits of credulity to think it's always an honest mistake. especially when the sources of creationist propaganda are so readily known for shutting down discussion that might expose their errors.

I have also noted a strict adherance to ones own personal and widely varing views on both sides of the fence as well as on the part of those who ride the fence. Which begs the question; are we tring to determine the truth (whatever that may be) or are we debating just to win the arguement?

if you want to know the truth, take some biology classes. seems to me that if one is to understand the "controversy" one should actually be exposed to the real information. not evolution filtered through creationism. but beware -- you might find it interesting. and it might take 8 years and a doctoral degree before you get to the really good stuff.

frankly, the same can be said of religion. i've been arguing against fundamentalists on this site on an almost purely biblical basis for the last few years. you would not believe the resistence to learning about the bible that i have encountered among people who claim to honor it. seems to me that some of these people treat their religion the same way they treat science: "here's what i believe, now what can i quote to prove it?"


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by imageinvisible, posted 01-01-2008 5:46 PM imageinvisible has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by tesla, posted 01-03-2008 11:00 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded
 Message 151 by imageinvisible, posted 01-04-2008 4:50 PM arachnophilia has responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2134 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 137 of 154 (445791)
01-03-2008 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by molbiogirl
01-01-2008 6:38 PM


Re: questions
imagine invisible did raise one very valid question, although i'm not sure how on topic it would be:

is this site frequented by scientist who are debating for the truth, or debating to "win" an argument?

Edited by tesla, : spelling


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by molbiogirl, posted 01-01-2008 6:38 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by obvious Child, posted 01-04-2008 1:17 AM tesla has responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2134 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 138 of 154 (445797)
01-03-2008 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by arachnophilia
01-03-2008 10:34 PM


Re: questions
i tell you : if evidence was shown that God was , it is not silly to say it would be rejected, and the scientist who proved it called a fool, or even considered crazy.

how many great scientist in history were considered crazy in their day, only to be glorified in the science books of tomorrow?

Edited by tesla, : spelling

Edited by tesla, : No reason given.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by arachnophilia, posted 01-03-2008 10:34 PM arachnophilia has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Chiroptera, posted 01-03-2008 11:18 PM tesla has not yet responded
 Message 141 by obvious Child, posted 01-04-2008 1:19 AM tesla has responded
 Message 146 by sidelined, posted 01-04-2008 6:47 AM tesla has responded

  
Chiroptera
Member (Idle past 12 days)
Posts: 6531
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003


Message 139 of 154 (445805)
01-03-2008 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by tesla
01-03-2008 11:00 PM


Re: questions
how many great scientist in history were considered crazy in their day, only to be glorified in the science books of tomorrow?

Not very many. I can't even think of one off-hand.


He fought for the South for no reason that he could now recall, other than the same one all men fought for: because he'd been a damn fool. -- Garth Ennis
This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by tesla, posted 01-03-2008 11:00 PM tesla has not yet responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2192 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 140 of 154 (445829)
01-04-2008 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by tesla
01-03-2008 10:37 PM


Re: questions
What is truth?

As people who understand science, we should understand that what we believe may not be entirely true, that it is subject to new information that may change it, leave it alone or completely refute it.

People here I believe are merely trying to dispute what does not make sense (at least in the science sections). Aka, all species existed at the same time prior to the flood.

But one must also understand that all debate centers around what the audience thinks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by tesla, posted 01-03-2008 10:37 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by tesla, posted 01-04-2008 1:30 AM obvious Child has responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2192 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 141 of 154 (445830)
01-04-2008 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by tesla
01-03-2008 11:00 PM


Re: questions
Crazy?

Not many.

Their ideas without evidence?

Many. But that changes with evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by tesla, posted 01-03-2008 11:00 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by tesla, posted 01-04-2008 1:33 AM obvious Child has responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2134 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 142 of 154 (445832)
01-04-2008 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by obvious Child
01-04-2008 1:17 AM


Re: questions
What is truth?
As people who understand science, we should understand that what we believe may not be entirely true, that it is subject to new information that may change it, leave it alone or completely refute it.

to most things in science this can apply. but some things are truths that cannot be refuted. for instance, you cannot deny that your typing on a keyboard. ill agree with this statement for the most part though

People here I believe are merely trying to dispute what does not make sense (at least in the science sections). Aka, all species existed at the same time prior to the flood.

and I'm very glad they do, because unless something is debated, the "kinks" cant be worked out. it is sad to me that scientist have had to work within the funding of the government in this country and are so very limited to only studying accepted "proven" science, when so much of science was discovered by asking questions about what was not known.

But one must also understand that all debate centers around what the audience thinks.

so very true, and only when a person changes the way they look at things, does what they look at change.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by obvious Child, posted 01-04-2008 1:17 AM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by obvious Child, posted 01-04-2008 4:17 AM tesla has not yet responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2134 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 143 of 154 (445833)
01-04-2008 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by obvious Child
01-04-2008 1:19 AM


Re: questions
Crazy?
Not many.

Their ideas without evidence?

Many. But that changes with evidence.

yes, but until the question is asked, or a law understood, no evidence can hope to be found.


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by obvious Child, posted 01-04-2008 1:19 AM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by obvious Child, posted 01-04-2008 4:21 AM tesla has not yet responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2192 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 144 of 154 (445845)
01-04-2008 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by tesla
01-04-2008 1:30 AM


Re: questions
quote:
to most things in science this can apply. but some things are truths that cannot be refuted. for instance, you cannot deny that your typing on a keyboard.

Assuming you believe in Descartes's statement.

quote:
and I'm very glad they do, because unless something is debated, the "kinks" cant be worked out. it is sad to me that scientist have had to work within the funding of the government in this country and are so very limited to only studying accepted "proven" science, when so much of science was discovered by asking questions about what was not known.

Not necessarily. Debate may function to further obscure an issue. Just because you challenge something does not make the subject any clearer. The problem with science in the US is that politicians rest so much of their future on statements and projects that science may find to be false or completely unfeasible. Thus, it makes sense for science to be limited when the funding comes out of Congress.

quote:
only when a person changes the way they look at things, does what they look at change.

For the most part.

Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by tesla, posted 01-04-2008 1:30 AM tesla has not yet responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2192 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 145 of 154 (445846)
01-04-2008 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by tesla
01-04-2008 1:33 AM


Re: questions
True. Plate tectonics was considered a evidence free idea. But it's dishonest to compare the age were religion dominated what we believed to be true and a time where empirical evidence, not dogma rules the (well most) of the land.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by tesla, posted 01-04-2008 1:33 AM tesla has not yet responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 154 (445854)
01-04-2008 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by tesla
01-03-2008 11:00 PM


Re: questions
tesla

i tell you : if evidence was shown that God was , it is not silly to say it would be rejected, and the scientist who proved it called a fool, or even considered crazy

Since none has ever provided evidence of God we cannot say that the evidence would be rejected nor the scientist providing it considered crazy.

This is typical drivel of the sort that seeks to weigh the consequences of actions for events that have not yet occurred. Rather like claiming to know that people around you are talking behind your back about you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by tesla, posted 01-03-2008 11:00 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by tesla, posted 01-04-2008 11:01 AM sidelined has not yet responded

  
Tusko
Member
Posts: 605
From: London, UK
Joined: 10-01-2004


Message 147 of 154 (445858)
01-04-2008 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Percy
08-02-2007 1:06 PM


Sorry - I've come late to this topic, so apologies for any repetition of later themes.

In an earlier quote in this thread you ask what will come next after the apparent stalling of 'Trojan Horse' ID. I think we already have a partial answer: home schooling. If the school system can't be changed, then remove the children from the percieved corrosive environment and teach them your truth at home.

But this isn't the whole story. I think the desire to challenge scientific method on its own terms is great. When, as with our society, technological development is so visible and integrated with everyday life, people seem predisposed to view science and scientific investigation as somehow legitimate. To try and find a way of legitimise creationism in these scientific terms - if only superficially, to satisfy those with a weaker grasp of science itself - must surely be the holy grail of Creationist sophists. My guess is that their next aim will be to find a novel, punchy approach which gives the resemblance of scientific rigour to their ideas.

The fundamental question though is this: has ID failed? I'm not sure it has. When furvent ID believers try to engage scientists in debate, the scientific inadequacy of their preferred doctrine is made visible - but think of all the people for whom the veneer of 'sciencosity' on creationism is suficient to still their curiosity, and who don't feel the need to debate. There must be so many of them, and with them, the inventors of ID have triumphed.

(Its a bit like all the people who still believe that the rigorously secular Saddam Hussein had secret sympathies for Islamic nutters, despite the deafening roar of the void where the supporting evidence should be.)

Edited by Tusko, : tiepoe

Edited by Tusko, : a bit more specificity to the final paragraph

Edited by Tusko, : brevity is the lemon soul of wit

Edited by Tusko, : missing 'is'


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 08-02-2007 1:06 PM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by imageinvisible, posted 01-04-2008 5:47 PM Tusko has not yet responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2134 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 148 of 154 (445899)
01-04-2008 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by sidelined
01-04-2008 6:47 AM


Re: questions
Since none has ever provided evidence of God we cannot say that the evidence would be rejected nor the scientist providing it considered crazy.

i have, and who here has agreed with me?

existence is real, so you say in science its a condition. but a condition is a real able to be studied environment by science definition. another poster once made the statement that scientists must take for granted what they are studying "exists"

if you look at existence within those terms, a "real" condition, then its able to be studied by science. the problem is everyone is looking for a "cause" of existence, when existence is the energy that the "cause" of the universes existence is based on.

you can say that it would "appear" that something can come from nothing, but its impossible to suggest that something can come from "literally" nothing.

which leads to defining existence as real, and real means a singular energy, which leads to my definition under scientific scrutiny.

to suggest anything other than that would mean that you do not take existing literal, and would have to conclude that its possible you don't exist at all. who would accept such a thing? are you not sitting there?

i didn't bring this here to call you stupid or stagnate science, i came here to bring you revelation that's so simple and obvious its been taken for granted and overlooked, and that by observance of it that science would be reborn and forced to "keep digging"

so in effect, i have offered "proof of God".


keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides
This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by sidelined, posted 01-04-2008 6:47 AM sidelined has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by AdminNosy, posted 01-04-2008 11:09 AM tesla has not yet responded
 Message 150 by Admin, posted 01-04-2008 11:36 AM tesla has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 149 of 154 (445903)
01-04-2008 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by tesla
01-04-2008 11:01 AM


Topic
tesla,
You were warned to keep you not-so-articulate ideas to one thread.

Do NOT continue your ramblings on existence here or anywhere but your thread for it.

Edited by AdminNosy, : spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by tesla, posted 01-04-2008 11:01 AM tesla has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12579
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 150 of 154 (445916)
01-04-2008 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by tesla
01-04-2008 11:01 AM


Re: questions
Tesla, let me add my voice to AdminNosy. Do not continue posting off-topic or you will be suspended.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by tesla, posted 01-04-2008 11:01 AM tesla has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
6789
10
11Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019