|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
The vestigial hindquarters are no different. Since there is no longer a need for them to be near the spine, there is no longer a need for them to be near the spine. Let's ask him to a question that is impossible for him to answer. Not because it's impossible for a normal person to answer, but rather because no creationist is able to answer it:
What problem do you think that poses? Why do you think that that is a problem?
In 35 years of discussions with creationists (mostly online), no creationist has ever attempted to answer that simple necessary question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
And yet they think all of their questions are unanswerable. ... no creationist has ever attempted to answer that simple necessary question."Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt." -- motto of the Special Olympians
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
And yet they think all of their questions are unanswerable. Yeah, that's what their training materials' scripts tell them. And that by asking us those "unanswerable" questions they will silence us and beat us into submission. Confuses the hell out of them when we go off-script, answer their "unanswerable" questions, and then try to engage them in a discussion of their question and our answer. I love going off-script with them if for no other reason that to watch them writhe and squirm like a demon on a spit. But also to try to get them to start to think ... which sadly almost never happens. Just in case anyone is interested, here's a link to "unanswerable" questions a creationist threw at me, my answers, and his non-response: BILL MORGAN'S "UNANSWERABLE" QUESTIONS. I had devoted a section of my original web site on AOL to my 20-year email correspondence with creationist Bill Morgan, a legend in his own mind. When I reconstituted my site, I didn't link in this section because I never had the time to do it properly, but the content pages are there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Just inserting a quibble for perspective. The point I'm making is that Dredge's god and the Christian god are not one-and-the-same. Furthermore, it is very apparent that Dredge's god is indeed one of the Christian gods, but not the one he thinks it is (can you guess its name? ([voice=singing]"woo-woo, woo-woo"[/voice])).
Everybody tosses that hyper-ambiguous word, "God", around willy-nilly with everybody thinking that they are talking about the same god, when clearly the likelihood of that is virtually nil (estimated in my Probability of It Being Their Own Particular God topic to be 1 chance in 38,880,000,000 (38.88 American billions, 38.88×109), removing the admittedly extremely generous estimated factor for whether any powerful supernatural entity could exist). In addition to that, as I discussed in my Message 15 in that topic, every individual believer must create their own version of "God" out of necessity. In that case, Christianity alone has produced about 2.18 billion (2.18×109) versions of "God" Christian gods. Therefore, every time people start talking about "God", they are virtually guaranteed to not be talking about the same thing -- re-read the part in Catch 22 where Yossarian and Mrs. Scheisskopf, both atheists, have a bitter fight over the qualities of the god that they both don't believe in. In this case, Dredge thinks that you two are talking about the Catholic "God" (and you probably do too), but rather he is talking about his false and puny creationist troll-god and has misled you to do the same. So there's the ideal characterization of "God" and there are the applied characterizations which are corruptions through misinterpretations. So rather than use the horrific failings of Dredge's troll-god to condemn an idealized version of "God", let's just concentrate on him having chosen a blitheringly stupid corruption of "God" to worship -- ([voice=singing]"Pleased to meet you, can you guess his name? woo-woo, woo-woo"[/voice])). I will present a topic which states that there is no inherent conflict between evolution and Divine Creation, but rather any conflict that does arise is due to believers imposing their really stupid ideas on Creation. Elsewhere I have already drawn a distinction between "actual creationism" (actual belief that the universe is the product of Divine Creation and hence what we find cannot conflict with the Creator) and fake creationism (false belief that the universe disproves the Creator). Obviously, YEC and "creation science" and ID -- what for convenience we call "creationism" here -- qualify as fake creationism. We're both atheists, so we don't believe in systems of belief that involve gods (AKA "theism"). But general Christian doctrine posits a Supreme Being that created the universe (AKA "Nature") and is Sovereign over Nature. What we observe and study through science would be the result of that act of Creation. Since everything we study through science would be the result of that act of Creation, that means that nothing that we find in Nature can conflict with Divine Creation enacted by that ideal Supreme Being. Whatever we do find is what was put there during Creation. No conflict between God and Science -- and actually, that has been a historic attitude of believers who study science. Nor is there any inherent conflict between evolution and Creation (my lead-in statement). Evolution is simply the cumulative result of life doing what life does (survive, reproduce, rinse and repeat ad infinitum). How life got started in the first place does not matter, since once life appeared, whether through natural processes or magical poofing, it will have immediately started to evolve. And for that matter, even if life had gotten started through natural processes, and actual creationist would believe that the Creator had created those very natural processes, so yet again no conflict necessary. It's the only sane conclusion for a believer, plus it's the only conclusion that an actual creationist could arrive at -- at least as far as I can see. But many believers use their fallible interpretation of their beliefs to make declarations of how the world must be and when that doesn't work out then "Science is trying to disprove God!" For example, John Morris of the ICR: "If the earth is more than 10,000 years old, then Scripture has no meaning." In addition, we find YECs, OECs, and IDiots appealing to the God of the Gaps with their stock arguments of "we don't know how that happened, therefore goddidit". By giving their god refuge in the gaps of our knowledge, they make him frightened of our knowledge that he has to hide from it. And as our knowledge grows, those gaps shrink depriving him of his refuge. Their god is puny and powerless against Nature, whereas the god of actual creationism is Sovereign over Nature. Suggested readings from Dr. Allan H. Harvey, PhD Physics (specializing in water, hence "SteamDoc"), a practicing Christian who wrote these essays for his Sunday School:
So then Dredge's silly puny little false creationist troll-god is not the same as the ideal Christian God. For that matter, since he must serve his little troll-god through lies, deception, malfeasance, and trolling, and since that troll-god's creationist theology inherently and inevitably corrupts his followers making them evil (as Dredge himself admits -- Message 341), we can identify which Christian god his troll-god is, as per Christian Doctrine. {spool up that Rolling Stones song} ([voice=singing]"Pleased to meet you, can you guess his name? woo-woo, woo-woo"[/voice])). Five letters. First letter is "S". Last letter is "N". Middle letter is "T". The remaining two letters are both the same vowel, but since Dredge's testimony is that he only has a three-year-old mental capacity, I'll give it to him: "A".
That, according to Christian doctrine, is the name of Dredge's god. The god of all fake creationists like him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Dredge writes:
... The vestigial hindquarters are no different. Since there is no longer a need for them to be near the spine, there is no longer a need for them to be near the spine. Have you noticed that the whales' mythical "vestigial pelvis" is located nowhere near the spjne? Besides asking Dredge the obvious necessary question of why he thinks that poses any problem, we also need to ask him a couple other questions:
Of course, I'm more familiar with human anatomy, so I'd like to hear from someone familiar with the pelvic anatomy of other animals. Though the story should till be somewhat the same (except possibly for the necessity of expanding the pelvis during birthing). So with ligaments being all that hold those pelvic bones (AKA ilia) in place, strong and tight ligaments would be beneficial for land mammals and loosing or loss of those ligaments detrimental; we can easily tell which would be selected for and which against. But when the structural requirements for strong and tight ligaments are no more, then loosening or loss of those ligaments would no longer be selected against -- I'm not sure what the trade-off would be that might make retaining those ligaments detrimental. Though I have no doubt that Dredge, being willfully stupid, will learn nothing from this. He reminds me of that scene in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum where Markus Lycus, a dealer in female slaves, berates one of his eunuchs for not trying to better himself:
quote Dredge will never learn; he'll be a troll all his life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
ringo writes:
Darwinists don't like that word, do they? It makes a mockery of the bullshit they try and con people with.
Stop saying "prove".You have claimed repeatedly in this thread that "nobody can know x".
Liar.Edited by Dredge, .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
ringo writes:
Stop talking like a dunce. An description or explanation isn't knowledge until it's been proven to be correct. It's the BEST description and explanation available. And that's the only kind of knowledge we have about anything.So ToE isn't knowledge because it can't be proven to be correct. (Oh no ... I've used that word again (twice!) .. the one that craps on your fairy-tale science.)Edited by Dredge, . Edited by Dredge, . Edited by Dredge, .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
ringo writes:
More stupid lies. Many forms of science are relevant and are demonstrably proven correct ... such as the two examples you mentioned - curing diseases and landing on the moon. It's clear that you do think all science is irrelevant because you continue to talk about "proof" and you refuse to learn anything about science. ToE, on the other hand, is nothing more than a useless, irrelevant story that cannot be proven to be correct.No one ever cured or treated disease with the theory that humans evolved from fish. Edited by Dredge, . Edited by Dredge, .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Again, science doesn't prove things. It provides evidence, data, observations, around which frameworks of understanding called hypotheses and theories can be constructed.
The principle of tentativity is key. Nothing in science is known for certain. All theories are open to change in light of new evidence and/or improved insights. This is true of all fields of science, including physics, chemistry, astronomy, cosmology, geology, biology, etc. This means that currently accepted theories within biology, such as the theory of evolution, can evolve and change and even be overturned if the right combination of evidence and insight were to come to light. But for now the theory of evolution is accepted by the vast majority of scientists in the field of biology. That's the best a theory can do, become accepted. It can never be proven. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
Troll
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Madam, you are mistaken.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dredge writes:
Stop saying "proven". Science has nothing to do with proof. There is no place for the words "proof", "prove" or "proven" in this topic. Why don't you try to make your point without mentioning proof at all? Many forms of science are relevant and are demonstrably proven correct ... And all forms of science are interlinked, so you can't cherry-pick which ones are relevant and which ones are not. If evolution is wrong, then so is gravity.
Dredge writes:
Stop saying "proven". Science doesn't need to prove anything because science does not deal in proof. It deals in what works. ToE, on the other hand, is nothing more than a useless, irrelevant story that cannot be proven to be correct. And ToE works. We actually know more about ToE than we know about ToG. ToE is one of the most rigorously tested and robust theories we have.
Dredge writes:
Nonsense. How evolutionary principles improve the understanding of human health and disease No one ever cured or treated disease with the theory that humans evolved from fish. You could have Googled that yourself."Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt." -- motto of the Special Olympians
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
You're a self-admitted dunce. Where do you get off calling anybody else a dunce? You wouldn't know a dunce if one sat down beside you in church.
Stop talking like a dunce. Dregge writes:
Nonsense. Learn something.
An description or explanation isn't knowledge until it's been proven to be correct. Dredge writes:
Science doesn't deal in proof. Science deals in what works and ToE works - it corresponds with what we observe in the real world.
So ToE isn't knowledge because it can't be proven to be correct. Dredge writes:
See, there you go again calling science a fairy tale. (Oh no ... I've used that word again (twice!) .. the one that craps on your fairy-tale science And how arrogant can you get, thinking you can refute science?"Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt." -- motto of the Special Olympians
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
On the contrary, it's a perfectly good word, like "chocolate". ringo writes:
Darwinists don't like that word, do they? Stop saying "prove". What we don't like is you using it wrong. Talking about proof in science is meaningless. You might as well try to refute science by saying it doesn't have enough chocolate. And we don't like the fact that you aggressively refuse to learn anything. Ignorance is normal. Everybody is ignorant of something. Nobody can know everything. But ignorance is curable.
Willful ignorance is shameful. To ignore the knowledge that is there and to deny that it is there is almost as low as a human can sink. But your fierce ignorance is even worse. You refuse to learn even when people try to help you.
Dredge writes:
Are you aware that everything you have said here is readily available for anybody to see? ringo writes:
Liar. You have claimed repeatedly in this thread that "nobody can know x". Your own words prove that YOU are the liar - your second message in this thread:
quotex = how abiogenesis occurred QED (And that is a correct usage of the word "prove".)"Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt." -- motto of the Special Olympians
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
dwise1 writes:
That would be interesting. How DO whales give birth, if not through the pelvis? And what about other animals? Of course, I'm more familiar with human anatomy, so I'd like to hear from someone familiar with the pelvic anatomy of other animals. Though the story should till be somewhat the same (except possibly for the necessity of expanding the pelvis during birthing). I saw on TV the other day that male bearded dragons have two hemi-penises. I also learned years ago that some male marsupials have two penises and the females have a forked vagina. The world is so much more interesting when you're not Dredge."Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt." -- motto of the Special Olympians
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024