|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Light Time Problem | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
I ask that you shorten your posts and make one or two points at a time. I have been making one or two points per message. Unfortunately, you are forcing those single points to be the same one: Answer the damned question! I have to post the same question over and over again. Your stated goal ([mid=893610)]) is to dismiss and ignore the questions. That is 100% unsat! Just answer the damned questions directly and honestly (while that is out of character for you, your finally coming out as possibly human is a good start) and I will not have to repeat them so much. But you need to realize that you are causing those long responses from everybody, not just me. If you do not want long replies, then stop posting Gish Gallops. It's really that simple. The response to a single-sentence creationist claim requires at least a paragraph. You post claim and we need to reply with a paragraph. All you do is regurgitate a false claim and we have to point out that it is false and explain why it is false, though sometimes we have to try to figure out what the hell you are talking about (which is made so much more difficult by your refusal to answer our questions). Of course, not knowing how much you understand requires us to explain everything to you. If we knew that you do understand something, then we won't need to explain it to you, right? But if you instead repeatedly that you still don't understand something, then we have to keep explaining it to you, right? And your persistent posting of the same old false claims announce very loudly to us that you have learned nothing, so we are required you explain everything to you yet again! If you want to stop our responses to your stupid crap, simply stop with the stupid crap. Or do I need to explain the whole thing to you again? And again? And again? Is it starting to make sense to you? Now, the Gish Gallop was Dr. Duane Gish's signature move. Since a few seconds of false creationist lie requires a response of several minutes, Gish would gallop through about a dozen false claims in a minute or so, to which his opponent needed an hour or two to respond to. But that happened in a creationist debate with very strict time limits, so Gish's opponent had only five minutes at most to respond. Then Gish would go out and boast "That evolutionist didn't have any answers to my long list of questions!", that dishonest sack of shit. This is the first time that I am addressing your posts as a Gish Gallop, but others here have already done so. Almost every single one of your posts includes a Gish Gallop of false claims, so that you then have the gall to complain about our "long" replies is particularly galling. And hypocritical. If you want us to restrict ourselves to single points, then restrict yourself to a single point per message! It's that simple. And when we ask you a question, answer it! That's a difference between us. Creationists ask questions as a form of attack, usually marked by throwing "unanswerable questions" at us (ie, ones that are difficult, require much expertise, are intended to chase away the opposition, etc). Normals ask questions in order to gather information or to further discussion, whereas creationists ask questions in order to kill discussion. You are among normals, so please try to conduct yourself as a normal. When a question is asked, answer it. But if you continue to conduct yourself as mindless beast, then you will be treated accordingly. Your choice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Also, I am not asking that creationism Be taught in school. You just told us that you're an old guy, but that still doesn't tell us how long you have been involved with "creation science". Back in 1981, Arkansas passed a new law, Arkansas Act 590 of 1981, entitled the "Balanced Treatment for Creation Science and Evolution Science Act," which mandated that "creation science" be given equal time in public schools with evolution. That led to the well known trial, McLean v. Arkansas, which found that "creation science" was religious in nature. That decision was based on text in the law which defined "creation science", so the Louisiana law removed that part from respiratory therapist Paul Ellwanger's model bill that both laws were based on. The lawsuit against the Louisiana law became a US Supreme Court decision, Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), that exposed the "creation science" deception on a national level and led to creationists adopting "intelligent design" in order to hide the creationism. Did you live through those developments? When you read the text of Arkansas Act 590 (1981) as I have done, you will see that its purpose is not to have creationism taught, but rather to force the schools to stop teaching evolution by requiring equal time for creationism whenever evolution is taught. So they were relying on the threat of creationism being taught, which demonstrates that creationists themselves know how horrible creationism is. Interesting. And one of the many smoking guns in the Arkansas trial was a letter submitted as evidence (and cited in Overton's decision, which I've also read) from journalist Tom Bethell and Paul Ellwanger (author of the model bill):
quote: So the purpose of it all is to kill evolution. The question is "Why?" Why do you hate evolution so much? Not as if we ever see creationists actually talking about evolution, but instead all kinds of nonsense that have nothing to do with evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
In addition, I would like to see the theory of evolution stop being taught as fact, ... It shouldn't be, because the theory of evolution is different from the fact of evolution. Which one can clearly see when one knows what facts and theories are -- something which seems to always escape creationists causing them to make such stupid statements. Most basically, facts are what happens; theories explain how they happen. The fact(s) of evolution are descent with modification and the formation of new species. The theor(y/ies) of evolution explain how evolution works. One creationist strategy to disprove the fact of evolution is by attacking aspects of the theory of evolution. That strategy is invalid and doomed to failure, since just because our explanations of something are wrong doesn't keep that something from still existing and still working -- "Reality doesn't care what we think or believe." When we thought that there were two different kinds of electricity, that didn't stop lightening from striking ... any more than finally realizing that neither Zeus nor Thor nor a petulant יהוה (as in "The Finger of God") was the cause of lightening ever caused it to stop striking. The only goal of such an approach would be to deceive the public. The purpose of science education is to teach students the current ideas in science in order for them to understand those ideas. Evolution is one of those current ideas in science (indeed, it's considered the cornerstone of biology) and therefore should be taught. Unlike religious indoctrination, education does not require the student to believe in the subject matter (eg, the USAF would teach its NCOs about socialism and communism ("know your enemy") but obviously the intention of that education was never to turn us into Commies). Should creationist kids be taught evolution? Yes, most definitely and parents who want their children to grow up fighting against evolution should demand that they be taught evolution! Only be learning what evolution actually is can those children ever stand a chance of succeeding against evolution (yet again, "know your enemy and know yourself"). If instead all they ever learn is creationist disinformation, then it would be like sending your army into battle with blanks; as a former creationist wrote:
quote: Is that kind of devastating failure and defeat what you would want for your kids? That's what you're setting them up for when you keep them from learning what evolution actually is.
... , when It takes much more faith to believe in evolution than it does in creation. It takes no more faith to accept and understand evolution than to accept and understand gravity, aerodynamics, osmosis, electricity, computer logic, or the four-cycle internal combustion engine. These are all natural phenomena which are observable or are based on phenomena which are observable, measurable, testable, etc. With an abundance of evicence, faith is not necessary.
Creation, OTOH, is based on the supernatural, which is not in the least bit observable, measurable, testable, nor can its very existence ever be determined. With a total lack of evidence, faith is all you have to go on. Therefore, faith is not in the least necessary to accept evolution, but it is completely and utterly crucial for accepting creation. Your problem is that you have no clue what evolution is, let alone how it works. That is because creationist lies have grossly misinformed and even malinformed you about evolution. Those creationist lies have you believing bizarre things about evolution that defy all logic and reality itself. Those creationist lies create strawman caricatures labeled as "evolution" but which bear no resemblance to actual evolution and which creationists can make a big show of destroying (which is exactly why strawmen were created in the first place). So the current question for you is: What do you think evolution is? And why do you hate it so much? Clearly, there is no inherent conflict between evolution and Divine Creation, yet you seem to believe that there is. Why would you believe such a thing? Edited by dwise1, : "you're setting up your kids for failure" & "why do you hate evolution so much?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
First of all, I do have cataracts, and the left eye is scheduled to be operated on a week from today. The right eye is Two week from the left. OK, I'm a retired Navy Chief and I worked for my father, a general contractor, for 8 years in high school and college, plus I studied the Seabee 1&C course. That means that I am familiar with planning (which factors in lead time and down time). Your two surgeries should put you out of action for about four weeks. Tied into that will be getting fitted for reading glasses, which probably shouldn't start until your left eye has recovered sufficiently. That should make it under two months before you can rejoin us, starting a week from now. I would hope that you would at least extend us the common courtesy of keeping us informed of your progress.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
You utterly stupid fucking idiot! We have explained it to you over and over and over again and you have deliberately refused to learn the truth. We know that you are aware of our need to repeatedly try to get through to you because you have complained about it. Well, asshole, I'm posting that yet again at the end of this message. But first I'll present the basic facts of what evolution does actually say.
Instead of the stupid creationist bullshit lies about evolution that you keep regurgitating mindlessly (your only operating mode, apparently), THIS IS WHAT EVOLUTION ACTUALLY SAYS:
What is wrong with you that you refuse to understand those simple facts? Is it because your head is so firmly wedged so deeply up your ass? Please pull your head out and at least try to learn something.
So here it is yet again, this time from Message 1, the last time I had to repeat the same thing yet again. This time pull your head out of your ass and read it, you utterly stupid fucking idiot. dwise1 writes: So here it is yet again, but this time with the ASCII art diagrams left out so that you cannot again use your stupid lame excuse for committing deliberate ignorance:
dwise1 writes: It is observable science (since recorded history) that
Yes, that is exactly what science says, because that is how life operating in reality does work. That is also why evolution, which is based on how life operates in reality, says the same thing!an animal will have offsprings of the same kind. The same goes for humans. Human mothers will always have human babies. You seem to be trying to misrepresent evolution as saying something entirely different. What false words are you trying to put into evolution's mouth? Please be as specific as you can be. That would include your explanation of why you are coming to the false conclusions that you appear to be pretending to reach.
Professors cannot give an observable example where one animal evolved (macro) into an entirely different kind of animal. Of course, because that is not how life works. Nor is that what evolution teaches! Why are you misrepresenting what evolution teaches? Because if you told the truth then your anti-evolution position would fall apart? So you end up having to support your position with no other way than one falsehood after another. I know that you have been told the term, "nested hierarchies", but apparently you do not understand what that means. It's also called "clades" or monophyly -- the graphics there are much better than I could create via ASCII art. Basically, offspring will always be in the same clade as their parents, what in your muddled terminology caricature would be a "kind" (BTW, "Kind" is the German word for "child", as in Kindergarten). They will never ever jump into a different clade. Yes, closely related clades may be able to still interbreed with varying degrees of success, but only if they are in the same next-higher clade. Remember that a child will be very highly similar to its parents, yet slightly different. Over many generations, those differences between the n-th kid and the ancestor n generations ago will accumulate. Isolated populations of a species can, through the lack of remixing into a common gene pool, become noticeably different from each other, thus having become two different species. Both new species can go on to form newer species, but all of them will still be a part of that original clade. You will complain that that is only micro-evolution, but that is also how macro works. Except you do not understand macro, but rather you undoubtedly have a massive wrong idea about it. And also apparently about how speciation happens, which does not happen in a single generation (as your "argument" implies) but rather over many generations. Dr. Eugenie Scott recently gave a presentation: "What People Get Wrong--And Sometimes Right--About Evolution." I have posted it in Message 111 preceded by a message in which I presented my notes on it just immediately before finally finding the video. Part of creationists' misunderstanding of evolution is that they are caught in the millennia-old idea of The Great Chain of Being, AKA "The Ladder of Life", in which species progress up the chain (or ladder) from more primitive to more advanced until they reach our position at the top. Thus, according to that absolutely wrong model, evolving involves jumping up the chain (or ladder) to become something completely different. Absolutely wrong and that's why you don't understand anything. We have so often seen that kind of misunderstanding leading to creationist "proofs against evolution" by pointing out that we do not see dogs giving birth to kittens. Absolute rubbish that only a creationist would be ignorant enough to say. Rather, Darwin's idea was a branching tree or bush, which is the right idea. An ancestral species splits into two or more daughter species which then go on to branch out even further. Every single branching is still on the same earlier branch, there's no jumping over to another branch like you would jump from one link in a chain (or rung on a ladder) to another. No dogs giving birth to kittens is possible, yet it can lead to dogs being ancestral to later species of "doggish" (definitely related to dogs, yet different).
. . . In essence, that is how nested hierarchies work. Descendant species are in the same clades as their ancestors, but not those of their cousins. So, dogs and cats are in two very different clades, so dogs cannot have kittens. However, they, along with bears, are in a same clade because they all share a common ancestor, a carnivore. That carnivorous ancestor was also placental (carrying its fetus longer thanks to having a placenta as opposed to what marsupials need to do). Not only that, but it was also ( ... wait for it, wait for it ... ) a mammal! Going further back through the cladistic levels, it was also an amniota (egg bearing), and a tetrapod (basic body plan including four limbs), and a chordate (AKA vertebrate), as well as being a member of Animalia. I'm sure you've been fed that BS argument against Peppered Moths: "BUT THEY'RE STILL MOTHS!" Are you starting to see the error in that non-argument? Of course they're still moths! And even though speciation did not occur in that study, when they do eventually speciate their daughter species will still be moths, just a different kind of moth! Please learn something about evolution so that you can oppose it with truthful arguments that actually address actual problems with it, not with false claims based on abject ignorance. You've been trying ignorance for about a century now and it still does not work! You might consider trying a different approach, like actually learning what evolution actually is. You keep lying about that too; eg in your recent Message 43. We've explained it to you so many times that you have no excuse for your ignorance. What is it about your religion and your god that requires you to go to extremes to maintain your ignorance and to avoid learning anything? Edited by dwise1, : Removed the size tag so that candle2 can't complain about that too
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
He ignores everything we try to explain to him, so I gave him something that he cannot ignore.
But we both know that he'll ignore it anyway. Because his brain is almost completely rotted out by all the lies that his faith depends on. Which means that his religion, being wicked (because it produces wicked fruit) needs to be cut down and thrown into the fire as per the Matthew 7:20 Test ("by their fruits you will know them!"). He demands that we show him all the empirical evidence for evolution, but we know full well that he will refuse to even look at it. He will instead dismiss and ignore it and will even complain mightily that our listing of all the evidence for evolution is too long and whine that he cannot read it on his tiny unreadable phone. The hypocrite! A few years ago I started to work out a psychological profile for creationists. Basically, all their claims are based on lies, but as mindless sheeple followers couched away in their covens bubble of circle jerks within circle jerks they never get exposed to reality and the truth -- that seems to be about the mental level that wickless candle is stuck at. But then they start to sally forth to do battle with their fake bogeyman that they grossly misname, "Evolution" (AKA "Evilution", which has nothing whatsoever to do with actual evolution). Like the mob members in the Boxer Rebellion ("55 Days in Peking") who were given magical shirts that would protect them from the "foreign devils'" bullets, they learn the hard way the bitter truth about their creationist lies, mainly that they're not as bullet-proof as they had been brainwashed to think. Most of them return to the comfort of their circle jerks within circle jerks, but some keep trying to fight back. And they have to deal with the simple fact that anyone who is the least bit knowledgeable will shoot them down in flames. So they have to be dishonest and they became more and more dishonest the more that they butt their heads against the truth of reality. One interesting observation I've made is that young-earth creationist activists will twist themselves into 3-D projections of 4-D pretzels (like hypercubes) in order to avoid discussing any YEC claims. I was engaged in a 20-year correspondence with one YEC who proclaims himself to be a YEC, but in all that time he not only never once made any YEC claim but refused to do so despite my repeated requests that we discuss some. They know full well that their claims are nothing but crap. So the higher creationists progress, the more dishonest they become because gross dishonesty is the only thing they have going for them. It would be nice and constructive to be able to discuss these things with creationists, but they absolutely refuse to. We cannot even get a creationist to tell us what he thinks evolution is, how he thinks that it works, and why he thinks that he has to fight against evolution. So all we are left with is constructing models of creationist psychology based entirely on observation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Why don't creationists understand that? Why do they tell you nonsense about thermodynamics? To put it simply, they're been "trained" with stupid lies that professional creationists have created out of sheer ignorance. In the foreword to his book on dating methods, The Age of the Earth, G. Brent Dalrymple, research geologist at the United States Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA, tells the story of when leading ICR creationists Drs. Henry Morris (PhD Hydraulic Engineering) and Duane Gish (PhD Biochemistry) came to USGS Menlo Park in 1975 to give an evening seminar on their case for creationism to several hundred USGS scientists. Their presentation sparked a lot of discussion, most of which consisted of scientists who did understand the science trying to explain to Morris & Gish what thermodynamics really is and to help correct Morris & Gish's gross misunderstanding of the subject. Morris & Gish did learn from that encounter, but it was the wrong lesson: after that ICR creationists knew better than to ever discuss anything with actual scientists. Obviously, since actual scientists understand the science then they can see through creationist bullshit lies immediately. wickless_candle presents himself as a mindless creationist drone, little more than a bot. Or a troll. All he "knows" about thermodynamics is the gross misunderstanding and misrepresentation that he has been spoon fed by his creationist masters who themselves have been exposed as not understanding thermodynamics. Interestingly, if wickless wants to try to "disprove" evolution with the standard BS creationist claim that evolution somehow violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, then life itself would also violate that same law and hence be impossible. And yet, as George Takei/Sulu told Howard Wolowitz: "And yet, here I am!" Everything that evolution does derives directly from life doing what life does, so if evolution were to violate thermodynamics then so would life itself and hence life could not exist. And yet it does. Hmm. Similarly, if the creationist misunderstanding of thermodynamics were true, then nothing work, including any physical, chemical, or mechanical process. Nothing. And yet all those things do work in spite of creationist mandates. What can we conclude from that state of affairs? Only that creationism is a huge crock of rancid BS.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Remember that it is NOT just evolution. They are willfully clueless about Christianity, about how Bibles were created, about what Jesus is quoted as telling folk to do and not do and even about who is supposed to be saying stuff in the stories. It seems like more than a decade ago that one of our regular members (still extant, I believe) described the problems that had been created for fundamentalist Christianity by its sudden massive growth with the Jesus Freak Movement (circa 1970), hippies burned out from drugs suddenly getting "hooked on Jesus" (an iconic bumper sticker of that time was of an ΙΧΘΥΣ fish with a fish hook on a fish line in its mouth). As our member described it, fundamentalists tended to form their own enclosed communities, keep to their own and having as little as possible to do with normals. Their own churches, their own small towns (when they could), their own neighborhoods (when they could), their own schools and colleges, etc. And, as I understand it, very little proselytizing (since that would require them to deal with outsiders). But the main thing was their approach to the Bible. They studied it all their lives, as thoroughly as they could. Now suddenly all these burned out hippies and others started streaming into their churches, none of whom had received the level of Bible education as the established members had. That presented a huge problem for those churches, especially since they required belief in what the Bible said. How can you hold people to that who didn't know what the Bible said? So they had to resort to stop-gap measures, basically giving these newcomers a crash course in the Bible. Pick a few key Bible passages and tell them how they must interpret those passages. In doing so, those churches took the entire Bible and condensed it down, boiling it down to a barely recognizable sludge to be choked down like Marmite. Most of the newcomers received that initial indoctrination, decided that they had learned it all, and continued on fat, dumb, and happy. Those who did go on regular Bible study did so under the close supervision of the church restricting them to only certain passages and requiring only certain interpretations. So then cluelessness of the Bible and of Christianity (outside of their own very narrow sect) is baked into the religion. At least that's how I remember it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Rather, what the hippies did -- or at least contribute to greatly -- was the rapid growth of those churches and the proliferation (I think) of megachurches.
And their mindset was certainly aligned to any anti-science/anti-reality sentiments that were already present in those churches. Regarding young-earth creationist claims, those come from a very long history of creationism in the Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) church, though I doubt that many creationists would want to admit that. For example, Henry Morris' flood geology was lifted almost completely from the early 20th century writings of SDA creationist George McCready Price. When "creation science" was created in the late 70's, almost instantaneously books appeared full of YEC claims which many of us consider "classic" claims that have always been around. I believe that most, if not almost all, of those claims were adopted from SDAist creationists. The effect hippies flooding into those fundie churches was similar to what I've heard of the effects of air conditioning on national politics. Within the past decade there was science series from an Oregon PBS station which examined common everyday things (eg, timekeepng, GPS, air conditioning). It was the episode on time keeping where the scientists at NIST and USNO in charge of the atomic clocks for UTC were referred to as "The Time Lords." In the show on A/C, the host stated that by making living in the South more tolerable and less of a "no way!" impediment to moving there for work, A/C allowed those states to increase greatly in population thus giving them more power through more representation in Congress. And as a result, the Red politics of those states got more power regardless of how blue those newcomers may be (they're all concentrated in major cities so they tend to be outvoted by the countryside). At least that's what that show said, even though it makes sense. And that seems to describe how the hippies made fundamentalism more powerful. Edited by dwise1, : ABE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Tanyptery, my point is that it does not take tens or hundreds of millions of years to create either diamonds or oil. Under lab conditions that don't exist in nature, but under natural conditions it still takes time. So what really is your point?
You say that there might be 20,000,000 or more species of insects. Well, I would say that this favors a creationist's point of view. As I have already stated, no human has everywitnessed macro-evolution. Yet, you want us to believe that this has (including all intermediate steps) happened more than 100,000,000 times in the insect kingdom alone. Uh, excuse but you creationists not only believe in "macro-evolution, but you also believe in insanely fast macro-evolution that would have resulted in those 20,000,000 or more species of insect coming into existence within a few hundred years. And that's not to mention the thousands of species of other animals and plants and how you creationists adamantly insist they had evolved almost instantaneously after your "basic created kinds" departed the Ark. Did you hear about the frog who became a prince? Ah yes! The Bullfrog Affair! That time that Dr. Duane Gish of the ICR, one of the Founding Fathers of the "Creation Science" deliberate deception, deliberately lied on national TV and then tried to cover it up. Hmm. Creationists constantly lying out their asses. Anybody else notice a pattern there? That page also covers creationist lies about inter-species protein comparisons. That was popular around 1980, but those creationist claims very quickly proved so disastrously bad that even Kent Hovind, arguably the worst creationist ever, no longer uses it. But Walter Brown did continue to use his deliberate lie of cytochrome c comparisons showing the rattlesnake's closest relative to be humans (but not that humans' closest relative are rattlesnakes -- the need to state that claim with such precision proves that it's a deliberate lie). Since wickless will refuse to learn something, this is for us normals. Excerpts from The Bullfrog Affair which tells the story:
quote: So Gish's lie was based on a JOKE about that bullfrog sample having been taken from a rare enchanted prince? The Bullfrog Affair was the first big case of creationist dishonesty and deliberate lying that I encountered, having just then started studying "creation science". And the pattern of creationist lies that it revealed just continues to build over the subsequent decades. I tried to watch that PBS program when it aired, but cable TV service on base was poor, such that the channel carrying PBS would routinely go down in the evening. Fortunately it came back on at the end of the program so I was able to order a transcript. That show also included what had just happened in a Livermore, Calif, elementary school when one of the teachers started a "two-model approach" class. For one thing, instead of adhering to the actual goal of science education (ie, that the students be familiar with the current ideas of science with no requirement to believe in those ideas, each lesson in the creationist materials would end exhorting the students to decide between their "unnamed Creator (nudge nudge wink wink)" and "the atheistic evolution model" (which Dr. Henry Morris himself admitted is extremely theistic since it "includes most of the world's religions, ancient and modern."). As a result of this class, some of the students, pushed to make a decision that should have never been forced onto them, decided to become atheists.
quote: Forcing elementary grade students to become atheists! Way to go, creationists! Edited by dwise1, : Hanging a lantern on the Enchanted Prince part of Gish's lie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
Since your pseudo-science lies have failed so miserably, now you have fled to the last resort of pseudo-religion. Typical creationist reaction.
Satan could not stomp out true Christianity, so he started a counterfeit religion. Yes, which is called "creation science." Ironic ... oh, yeah, you so-called "true Christians" also don't understand irony. If you knew anything at all about Christian doctrine, you should know that "God" is not to be served through lies and deception. So then which Christian deity do you serve through your creationist lies and deception? You just brought up his name. The Lord of Lies, the Prince of Darkness, the Deceiver, Diabolos (διάβολος), Satan. That is the god you serve through your creationist lies. You are such a fucking idiot!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Well, I would hope to cause dis-ease in creationists in order to motivate them to try something they had never tried before, to think!
Autocorrupt is a bane on phone users. I have had to give up on sending a text and send an email from my computer instead because autocorrupt absolutely refused to let me type the correct word. I've had to install otherwise unnecessary keyboards on my phone just to keep autocorrupt from screwing up every single word in a foreign language text. With just the standard English keyboard you can type in any language the uses the Latin alphabet, including all accented and special characters, but autocorrupt still uses English. So for example when typing a German message I would have to use the German keyboard to place autocorrupt into German mode, otherwise it would have all been ganz ausgefickt. On top of all then, when autocorrupt is acting normally it will almost randomly insert "corrections" after only a few letters thus forcing me to delete that and try again; it's a total pain having to basically type a single message three times or more. I can never understand how anyone could ever choose to use nothing but a phone for everything. Is such a massive case of masochism even possible?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Wickless, why are you dumping all this religion stuff into a science forum, especially when it has absolutely nothing to do with any discussion of science and especially with any discussion of evolution?
You keep forgetting that there is no inherent conflict between science and religion, and there is no inherent conflict between evolution and Divine Creation! The only way that any conflict between science and religion can arise is if one side deliberately creates a conflict; eg, as religionists do when they attack science with a flimsy Putin-esque "justification" of "wanting to defend themselves from us poses a danger to us" (also used by GQP culture-war weenies). And the only way that evolution can be claimed to conflict with Divine Creation is if "creationists" hold very silly ideas about creation (eg, "no physical processes allowed!") and contrary-to-reality ideas about science (including lies about what evolution is and how it works).
Evolution has nothing to do with religion. So why do you keep dragging religion in where it clearly does not belong? ABE:If you truly and honestly think that there is a conflict between evolution and Divine Creation (AKA "between evolution and God"), then explain yourself! Make an actual case for that and present it! And support it and defend it! NOTE: Enlarged font not being used in anger, but rather just to get past your own selective blindness. Edited by dwise1, : ABE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
I know what P-E is, and how long it has been around. There was no need for me to go into it in great detail. You understand what I was saying. You also said the same about radiocarbon dating (Message 482), but it turned out that you don't even know jack-shit about radiocarbon dating. It is obvious that you also don't even know jack-shit about punctuated equilibrium. For that matter, in every single subject that has been discussed here, your knowledge in each of the subjects has proven to be less that jack-shit deep. Far worse than you knowing nothing is your sad condition of having been grossly disinformed by your creationist handlers. You are like the victims of FOX News who have been found to know far less about current events than jpeople who ignore the news altogether. When you end up knowing far less than the people who literally know nothing, then you've got yourself a very serious problem!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7
|
One of the distinguishing characteristics of creationists is their intense dishonesty. However, I did once meet one honest creationist. That was on CompuServe, maybe in the early 90's.
Unlike all the other creationists, Merle actually tried to engage in discussion. When someone asked him a question, he would answer it (instead of the dishonest crap that all other creationists, and most definitely wickless_candle here, will pull in order to avoid any discussion). If he didn't know the answer, he would research it and return to post the results of his research. He suffered the fate of all honest creationists: the scales fell from his eyes, he could see what a crock creationism is, and he left creationism behind. That process took him only one year. Here is what he wrote about that experience of the scales falling from his eyes when he found the university library stacks of paleontology journals detailing the vast wealth of transitional fossils that we have:
quote: That page of Merle's site is archived at https://www.oocities.org/questioningpage/Evolve2.html where you can read the rest of that part of his story. The only way that wickless and his fellow benighted creationists can claim that there is no evidence is by deliberately refusing to look at it. BTW, here is the part from that page that I had edited out before (ie, this fills in the ellipses in the quote above): quote: Part of the links page of my web site (http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/links.html) is linking to other sites, usually of ex-creationists. One such was D. Jon Scott, a student activist for "creation science"; as I summarize on my page: quote: In his "What is the Inspiration for the Genesis Panthesis Website?" he describes the experience of his deconversion process which describes as "being born again, again". The following is the entire text from that page just copy-and-pasted; for the original formatting and links you will have to visit that page yourself through the link I provided:
[quote]The first roots of Genesis Panthesis lie in late 1997 with a web site entitled the Talk.Science Archive. Talk.Science was originally created in order to present rebuttals to mainstream scientific thinking from a young-Earth creationist perspective, and mainly targeted the Talk.Origins Archive.Talk.Science was my own creation, and was graciously hosted by MyTownNet.Com (the company has since been bought out and no longer exists) at the URL [http://www.talkscience.mytownnet.com]. It received a healthy portion of both creationist and evolutionist readers, who avidly submitted feedback which I was happy to respond to on the web. For a very long time I was content to explain away the mounds of evidence supporting evolutionary biology as well as mainstream geology and cosmology. Particularly the fossil record - which I feel I can safely say that I was much more well-versed in than the majority of prominent creationists (Gish et. al.), was rather easy for me to dispute in my deluded creationist mind. After a while, I became very aware of the dishonest tactics used by creationists such as Gish and Morris, and developed a growing contempt for the majority of my fellow creationists/Christians. Though I was determined to help give creationism scientific respectability and aid in restoring the good name of the Christian religion. I kept updating the archive and working on it straight through 1998, the year in which Caudipteryx zouii and Protarchaeopteryx robusta - two creatures which scientists described as obviously non-avian dinosaurs (which means they weren't birds), but which had feathers! I simply emphasized their avian qualities and either explained away or dismissed as unimportant their reptilian characteristics, and went on happily spreading the myth of creationism. Yes - I had the evidence, the information, and the knowledge of how evolutionary biology works - yet I did not have the intellectual integrity to admit to the truthfulness of evolutionary theory and kept denying that this incredibly intricate law and set of 'trends' in nature could possibly have any validity. Then, in september of 1999, the bomb dropped. I picked up my issue of the National Geographic and saw what else on a page advertising an upcoming issue; but Sinornithosaurus millenii! It had long steak-knife-shaped teeth like a T. rex, a long, muscular tail, hyper-extendable "switchblade" claws on the hind legs like Velociraptor mongoliensis, a narrow snout that looked almost like a bill, a bird-like pubic structure, and worst of all - feathers! I simply stared at the page for a few moments, muttered "oh shit!" to myself a few times, and got up to check the N.G.News web site. This wasn't just some artistic depiction of what a reptile/bird might look like - and it was no hoax. It was a small dromaeosaurid ("raptor") with killing claws, razor-sharp teeth, and a pair of wing-like arms complete with plumage. My heart sank, and my gut churned. This was it - the one proof of evolution I had always asked for but never thought would come to light. In my mind, I was betting that even if evolution were true, the chances of finding such a beautiful example of transition would be slim enough to be dismissed as impossible. And yet here it was - proof. I stepped outside to compose myself, and stood there looking at the world around me. Weeks later, I began making plans to dismantle to the Talk.Science Archive, all the while researching the Christian religion. I soon came to the conclusion that since much of the first ten or twelve chapters of genesis had been plagiarized from Chaldean fairy tales and mythos, the truthfulness of the Bible must be strictly spiritual rather than spiritual and historical. It wasn't very long before I began to realize that since the 'historical' sections of the Bible, particularly those stolen from Chaldean mythos, were intended to influence spiritual truth - that the early Israelites must have simply been making up their own "spiritual truths", trying to make the fairy tales of their Hebrew (Chaldean) ancestors match up. I was faced with the realization that the Bible could not even be taken as spiritually true...it was/is nothing more than a book of myths and fables from a time and place in which people had no scientific knowledge, and made up these stories to explain what was going on around them (though the people making up these fables probably thought that they were coming to revelations given by their God[s]). Then that day in 1999 came back to me. I remembered standing outside on my porch, looking at the natural world of which I had always known myself to be an integral part - albeit created as such. On that day, however, I began to look at the world in a new light. I looked at the trees, thinking about how they worked. Photosynthesis, receiving energy from the sun, these creatures had limbs which branched out in every direction, tipped with leaves made green with chlorophyl, drawing energy from the sunlight which they captured. As they fed on the radiant light, blocking the light from the ground below, I began to think of how they might exist without God. A tiny bacterium absorbs energy from both heat and chemicals. Plants are exposed to heat, feed on chemicals, and have chemicals that allow them to feed on heat more efficiently - on a much larger scale than primitive bacterial cell strands. I thought, perhaps, that since some algae is bacterial and other is plant-life, that some bacteria might have used chlorophyl to extract nutrients from the sun. Also, perhaps from this algae, primitive coats of slime would evolve and dwell on rocks near river beds. In a few million years, you'd have moss growing on moist soil. Millions of years could come and go, and plants which harness the power of the sun and extract more nutrients from the matter around them (whether it be water or dirt) would spread more abundantly and prosper over their contemporaries. I looked at the trees again. They were large, tightly-packed groups of cells, which over millions of years grew larger and larger, growing green leaves which act as solar panels. They were cell-colonies trying to survive in an environment where new oportunities are as ample as the number of possible combinations of DNA. So here they were, beautiful, and majestic, and sitting there because of the opportunistic nature of living cells - not because God put them there. They were green because they had Chlorophyl to absorb sunlight - not because God thought that humans would think it an attractive color. I looked down at my own hands, studying my finger prints. I pondered the reason God might have given them to me. I recalled to myself that only primates have finger prints, and that they used the blunt part of their fingers - rather than claws, to grip limbs and branches. They have traction-treds on their fingers and toes. This is probably why all primates also have flat nails. But then why do humans have finger prints? For indentification? We've only had finger print identification for the past hundred years or so. Even if the world were only six thousand years old, that's less than a thirtieth of a percent of the time since humans were first created. Why give us this feature, why design such intricate patterns, if God knew it would be an absurdly short amount of time between the first use of finger print identification and the creation of DNA fingerprinting, which is much more accurate? And what how would this be any different from believing that the bridge of the nose were created for sunglasses, or the opposable thumb designed so that our hand could fit into gloves? The only way these hands of mine made sense, with the gripping fingers, the traction-tredded finger tips, the flat nails, was if my distant ancestors - and the ancestors of all humans - were creatures who used their front limbs for climbing. And why such low body hair? Wouldn't it be more effecient to not have body hair at all? We use resources to grow this hair which appearently serves no purpose. If we evolved from hairy creatures, it would make sense that we evolved to use our resources more effeciently and wasted less of our reserves on this useless feature. That way, the hair wouldn't have to be completely absent, since the industrial age - when we could produce many of our own resources from previousely unavailable sources - occured at a time which vary well might have been before we had the chance to evolve a completely bald body. Of course it must have been a bit more complex than that, but I had a feeling I was pretty much on-track with this line of reasoning. I looked down at my hands again, and studied them for a few moments longer... "This is it..." I spoke to myself softly, "Welcome to the real world."[/quote] I'll close with the story of Charles, a co-worker decades ago and the first creationist I could discuss any of this with. I've mentioned him before and that we attended a debate together between Drs. H. Morris & Gish versus Awbrey & Thwaites. That was where Charles, who had already learned of Gish's lies about the bombadier beetle, was dismayed to see every vendor table there selling books for children about "Bomby" (ie, books based on lies -- oddly, there was no vendor table selling millstones for those buying those books for their children). As we were leaving at the end of the debate, Charles was in shock. He kept muttering: "We have mountains of evidence for creation that would have blown those evolutionists away. Why didn't [Gish & Morris] use it? We have mountains of evidence for creation that would have blown those evolutionists away. Why didn't they use it?" Science has the evidence, whereas creationism has none. Therefore the creationist lie becomes, "We have mountains of evidence for creation!", while lying that science has none. A complete reversal of reality.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024