|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Have you noticed that the whales' mythical "vestigial pelvis" is located nowhere near the spjne? Only in the bullshit fantasy-world of Darwinism does a pelvis disconnected from a spine make "sense". LOL!! They're singing your song again:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
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: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
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: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
How DO whales give birth, if not through the pelvis? And what about other animals? Well, we humans (the distaff side, of course) have to do it through the pelvis because of the necessities of our skeletal structure due to our terrestrial locomotion. IOW, because we need a full pelvic girdle to be able to stand and walk, the birth canal must be routed through the pelvis. I'm sure that the same holds for other viviparous terrestrial tetrapods -- it's not a concern for oviparous terrestrial tetrapods since they are just laying eggs though the egg chute would still be going through the pelvis. Whales no longer need the full pelvic girdle, which is why the ilia are vestigial. While the birth canal no longer needs to go through the pelvis (which basically is no longer there), I so no reason to assume that it would not still be located in roughly the same relationship with the vestigial pelvic bones as our women's are with their pelvises.
The world is so much more interesting when you're not Dredge. I fully agree. One of my arguments against the Pascal's Wager claim that believing doesn't cost you anything was (from my page, After-Life Insurance):
quote To be forced by a religion to turn my brain off and refuse to learn anything would be ... a living death. From the Pirkei Avot:
quote So then Dredge is truly one of the Walking Dead.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
Well, for that matter: No one ever cured or treated disease with Dredge's god.
The big difference is that the Theory of Evolution does indeed help us in furthering medical knowledge, while no god ever has. Instead, gods have proven to be a great hinderance in the advancement of medicine. Of course, that begs the question of which god it is that Dredge thinks he serves. And whether that is the same god as his actions would actually serve. HINT: no, it is not, obviously. Edited by dwise1, : added "in the advancement of "
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
They're singing your song yet again:
Pull your head out of your ass. You will be amazed how much that will change your perspective. Oh and yet again, DO PLEASE TELL US WHICH GOD YOU THINK YOU ARE SERVING with your lies, willful stupidity, and trolling?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
No it isn't. ToE is a set of explanations for how evolution MIGHT work. OBTW, Evolution does happen. That is a solid undeniable fact! (undeniable to those who deal in reality, not delusional willfully stupid idiot trolls living in a dystopian fantasy spun out of their own derangement) The following is for the edification of those who do not share your decrepit delusion, since you are far too mentally incompetent to understand anything.
NOTE TO VISITORS and other lurkers
The Theory of Evolution (ToE) offers explanations of how evolution works. Evolution is a fact, so it must work in some manner. The ToE tries to explain the manner in which evolution works. If the current theories of evolution (the ToE is more of a bundle of explanations for the various parts of the fact of evolution) fail to explain evolution, then we must develop a theory which does explain evolution. Therefore, one must be able to offer, or at the very least suggest, an alternative explanation for the fact of evolution. One might not like the theory of evolution, but the fact that evolution does still happen nonetheless means that it still must be explained. So what scientific alternative do you have to offer? Absolutely none whatsoever, obviously.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Now they're playing your other song:
BTW, this message is the very first time that you have ever used the term "principles of evolution" -- this forum does have a search function or haven't you noticed? If you have an actual cogent case to make, then make it. In as much detail as possible and with as many well reasoned arguments that you can make for your case. But you have not only failed to do so, you refuse to do so. The choice is yours. And don't start whining that that is too hard because your mental capacity is less than that of a three-year-old. Turn the computer off and go tell your mommy that you had made a big mess. Then she can give you a bottle and lay you down for a nap.Edited by dwise1, : slight typo correction: "go tell" instead of "to tell"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Do you know the difference between "evolution" and ToE? Yes, I do know that difference. So do all the rest of us. Rather, you keep showing us that you do not know. So then, do you know the difference between "evolution" and ToE? Do you even know what evolution is and what the Theory of Evolution is? We certainly have been trying to explain it to you so many times, but to no effect. So why don't you explain to us what evolution is, what the Theory of Evolution is, and what the difference between them is? What's holding you back? And if by "ToE" you mean something completely different from the Theory of Evolution, then you must explain that to us too. Nothing's holding you back. What are you waiting for?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Very skimpy and sketchy. Kind of in the right direction, but you're still not saying anything. Frankly, if that is all that you "know" about either evolution or evolutionary theory, then it's no wonder you have no clue what you are talking about.
Please expand and expound on your "answers". Include the question of speciation and how that works. And there is a helluva lot about evolutionary theory that you are leaving out. Some of your past statements indicate that you might believe that evolution requires some kind of unknown external causational force (eg, paraphrasing "what causes the bones of the middle ear to move?"). Is that the case? Why would you think that? Why would the natural process of evolution (AKA "life doing what life always does") be insufficient? Also, there's a helluva lot more going on in evolution that you're leaving out. Go through the life cycle of the generations of a population. What is going on there? We have gone through that evolution (naval terminology) ourselves so we understand that process fairly well. Obviously, you never have, so it's high time that you get off your duff, turn to, and make up for lost time.
As for the theory of evolution, there are different versions. So if you are aware of different versions, that means that you can list them and describe each one. And that you hopefully understand each one well enough to discuss its pros and cons, to the best of your ability. Also bear in mind that the overall Theory of Evolution is itself a bundle of theories each dealing with a subtopic within the study of evolution. Just picking a single one of those theories out of that bundle and misrepresenting it as being the entirety of evolutionary theory, which is precisely what you have just done, is an act of either extreme dishonesty or extreme stupidity. Or both, which I suspect in your case. Instead, try honesty this once in your deluded life. For shits and grins if for no other reason. A visit to ontogeny might be helpful, since embryonic development is where changes get expressed (forget how fast and loose Star Trek and X-Men play with DNA expression). If you think that any part of that has problems, then explain. Be as specific as needed. And provide valid arguments or complaints, not the same old stupid bullshit you've been posting so far.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
Knock off the grab-ass! You have work to do!
Hmm, now this is interesting:
... (the theory that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor via the mechanism of natural selection acting on mutations)⁶ ... A footnote reference! Where did that come from? What source did you steal that from? Copying and pasting from somewhere else and falsely using it as your own? Does creationist evil know no bounds?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
The fact remains that no one can prove that they know what process produced the changes evident in the fossil record, and therefore no one can claim to know how evolution works. Stop repeating your stupid lies and answer the question!:
DWise1 writes: Do you know the difference between "evolution" and ToE? Yes, I do know that difference. So do all the rest of us. Rather, you keep showing us that you do not know. So then, do you know the difference between "evolution" and ToE? Do you even know what evolution is and what the Theory of Evolution is? We certainly have been trying to explain it to you so many times, but to no effect. So why don't you explain to us what evolution is, what the Theory of Evolution is, and what the difference between them is? What's holding you back? And if by "ToE" you mean something completely different from the Theory of Evolution, then you must explain that to us too. Nothing's holding you back. What are you waiting for? All you did in Message 589 was to vaguely allude to Natural Selection as if NS were the whole of evolution instead of just being one small part! Rather it is NS interacting with the rest of what life naturally does which constitutes evolution. Tell the whole story! Refusing to do so, especially when you know better, constitutes deliberate lying! How could anyone ever serve the God of Truth with nothing but lies? Also (from my reply, Message 591, to your failed attempt to fake knowing what you're talking about):
DWise1 writes: Sledge writes: As for the theory of evolution, there are different versions. So if you are aware of different versions, that means that you can list them and describe each one. And that you hopefully understand each one well enough to discuss its pros and cons, to the best of your ability. Also bear in mind that the overall Theory of Evolution is itself a bundle of theories each dealing with a subtopic within the study of evolution. Just picking a single one of those theories out of that bundle and misrepresenting it as being the entirety of evolutionary theory, which is precisely what you have just done, is an act of either extreme dishonesty or extreme stupidity. Or both, which I suspect in your case. Instead, try honesty this once in your deluded life. For shits and grins if for no other reason. A visit to ontogeny might be helpful, since embryonic development is where changes get expressed (forget how fast and loose Star Trek and X-Men play with DNA expression). If you think that any part of that has problems, then explain. Be as specific as needed. And provide valid arguments or complaints, not the same old stupid bullshit you've been posting so far. You know what you need to do, SO DO IT! If you truly know what you are talking about, as you keep falsely claiming you do (LIAR!), then PROVE IT! Stop being a stupid troll who witnesses of his stupid troll god (who is not to be confused with any actual Christian version of "God").
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5930 Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
Empirically (as constrasted with your "hypothetically"), many YEC were refusing to use the COVID19 vaccine, and were instead recommending horse dewormer medication. And those "worms" they saw in the diarrhea that dewormer caused was actually the shredded lining of their intestines. Within the past few years there was a cartoon. A creationist is at the doctor's office with a life-threatening disease and the doctor wants him to choose between two cures: "This one was invented by a scientist using all our scientific knowledge including evolution. And this one was invented by a creationist using only the Bible." Guess which one the creationist would end up choosing.
{ABE:
AZPaul3 just posted that cartoon immediately below in Message 617. It was from Doonesbury, which I have not seen for decades. I'm quite certain that I had seen this particular one elsewhere on this forum and was remembering it from there.
} Thank you!
Similarly, when a scientist who is also a creationist does scientific work (yes, strange as it may seem, it has been known to happen), he never makes any use of his creationist beliefs but rather he sticks to the science, even using the established old ages in geology. Similarly, when a creationist petroleum geologist looks for a new oil field, he never uses his creationist beliefs but rather uses standard old-earth non-Flood geology, complete with the geological column and index fossils. Why? Because it works! In contrast, attempts at finding oil through creationist means have failed miserably. I seem to recall the company's name was Zion Oil & Gas. Based in the USA and founded by YECs, it sought to use the Bible to find oil in the Middle East, especially around Israel. They didn't find any oil (or maybe just once out of sheer luck), while other oil companies exploring the area were successful using standard geological practices. They made most of their money getting American creationists to invest in them. Rather similar to the swindlers who sold people "prime Florida real estate" that was nothing but swampland -- I guess that is what they mean by "traditional American values". The bottom line is that science works incredibly well, while creationism always fails miserably. Gee, kind of looks like a pattern there.Edited by dwise1, : ABE
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024