Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9101 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: sensei
Upcoming Birthdays: AlexCaledin
Post Volume: Total: 904,087 Year: 968/14,231 Month: 968/1,514 Week: 1/234 Day: 1/36 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5554
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


(3)
Message 14 of 1408 (891974)
02-18-2022 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tanypteryx
02-18-2022 2:42 PM


Overall I agree with your assessment, but I always hold out the hope that a dialogue could be established. I'm the model of the happy pessimist: 99% of the time I have the satisfaction of being right and then on rare occasions I'm pleasantly surprised.
A perennial problem with creationists is that they have no idea what they're talking about. That's not a bug, but rather a feature. Creationism has been constructed to get everything wrong, the better to fool everybody with. Because their goal and purpose is not to seek truth, but rather to convince (I recently heard again Martin Luther's infamous quote in which he approved of lying in order to gain converts, a form of the ends justifying the means, which the Radical Religious Right of the 80's identified as "secular humanism").
That means that even when they learn the truth, they will stick with their lies solely because those lies sound more convincing. Refer again to my page-still-under-construction, Fundamental Differences Between Scientists and Creationists, which compares those differences starting with scientists seeking truth and creationists seeking to convince and discusses how that manifests into the two very different endeavors. We see that at work in the GQP where they spout their "alternative facts" even when they are fully aware that they're lying, but they stick with their lies in order to convince their followers.
The basic problem stemming from their misunderstanding/misrepresentation of evolution is that it leads them to many false conclusions. Indeed, most creationist claims make absolutely no sense in light of what evolution actually is, which is why I keep trying to find a creationist who will tell us what he means by "evolution". EWolf is the most recent attempt, but I have no doubt that he will not return let alone answer my questions in Message 2042 which include:
DWise1 writes:
  1. There is no inherent conflict between Divine Creation and evolution (nor any other science for that matter); the only conflicts that arise are due to foolish and contrary-to-fact ideas about Creation and even more foolish and contrary-to-reality ideas about evolution.
    All your assertions indicate that you believe that there is some kind of inherent conflict between Creation and evolution. Why would you believe such a thing? What are the reasons for your belief in that? What are the actual points of conflict that you perceive and why do you see them as conflicts? Provide some kind of reasoned argument, not more baseless bald assertions, please.
  2. What do you think evolution is? Or how it works? Until we know the answers to those questions, none of your conclusions about evolution can make any sense.
    Seriously, what are your unstated assumptions about evolution. For decades, we keep hearing the same nonsensical assertions about and "disproofs" of "evolution" but never ever any basis for those assertions. So yet again, what are you talking about?
  3. That brings us back around to that primary question of just exactly what is this "evolution mindset" you keep blathering about and what is it based on? That is yet another bald assertion that is nothing but nonsense since we do not know what your assumptions are and hence we cannot know what you are talking about.
  4. What do you think the consequences are of evolution being true? Why do you think that? (again, a reasoned argument, please, not just more baseless bald assertions) Of course, in order to answer that we would need to establish what you think evolution is.
  5. I don't think we were able to establish whether you are a young-earth creationist. If you are, then what would the consequences be of the earth actually being billons of years old? Again, why do you think those must be the consequences?
  6. Bonus Question: Since all theology is created by Man, if error is found in one's theology, then what does that mean about God? And what should one do about that error which has been found?
Another example not found on this forum is a "the chicken or the egg" travesty:
quote:
Q: Which came first? The Chicken or The Egg?
A: It wasn’t a chicken or an egg…it was two chickens! A male and a female. Sexual reproduction requires a male and a female. The first male chicken needed to have 100% functional male stuff and the first female chicken needed 100% functional female stuff. They need to be at the same place at the same time. They can’t wait for millions of years for the opposite sex to evolve. They need a muscular, circulatory, respiratory, skeletal system and many others as well. Before the chickens can make an egg, they need an environment with the right temperature, the right food, the right amount of oxygen the right amount of gravity etc. The answer to the chicken and the egg is someone with incredible intelligence instantly designed an adult male and an adult female at the same time, at the same place, and the place had the right temperature, gravity, food etc. The Garden of Eden story answers the chicken and the egg question.
Implicit in that travesty are fundamental misunderstandings of how speciation would work. Trying to piece those together (with absolutely no input from creationists outside of that text):
  • "It wasn’t a chicken or an egg…it was two chickens! A male and a female. Sexual reproduction requires a male and a female. The first male chicken needed to have 100% functional male stuff and the first female chicken needed 100% functional female stuff. They need to be at the same place at the same time. They can’t wait for millions of years for the opposite sex to evolve"
    So that begs the question of how chickens evolved (actually, they were bred through domestication, but the natural process was still fundamentally the same). The creationist misconception appears to be that one "kind" suddenly gives birth to another and different "kind" all at once. I am confident that that's how that creationist was thinking about this because he would not only repeatedly play the card of "a dog giving birth to a kitten" or "why don't we see apes in the zoo giving birth to ape-men?", but he would also repeatedly misstate punctuated equilibria as "One day a snake laid an egg and a bird hatched out." None of which has anything at all to do with evolution!
    Here's a more accurate account of the evolution of the chicken. People captured several red junglefowl and domesticated them. Domestication involved generations of selective breeding. In experiments in Russia with wild silver foxes, it took less than 10 generations to domesticate them into lap dogs. So with the proto-chickens, you started with a flock that was 0% chicken and over generations that flock slowly became more and more chicken-like until you arrived at a flock that was 99% chicken. And then out of that flock of 99% chickens we get an individual yard bird that was 100% chicken.
    Where would that chicken find a mate? From within its flock, of course! There was no need to "wait a million years" for that chick to show up, because a whole flock of prospects was already right there right then! A 100% chicken could still mate with a 99% chicken, duh? For that matter, 100% chickens can still mate with 100% red junglefowl (indeed, the chicken gene pool has leaked so heavily into the red junglefowl gene pool that it is virtually impossible to even find a 100% red junglefowl anymore). In addition, we hear so much creationist blather about "basic created kinds" include the ability of closely related species to interbreed that even they are saying that this "where oh where would he ever find a mate?" "dilemma" just simply does not exist. Until they find that inconvenient, of course.
    And where would those mates have gotten their "jiggly bits" from? (actually, chickens don't have jiggly bits; that seems to be much more of a mammal thing) The same place that we got ours, from our parents! But that discussion is in the next list item.
  • "They need a muscular, circulatory, respiratory, skeletal system and many others as well."
    Yeah, and where did they get those from? Uh, from their parents, you think? The craven stupidity of these creationists can be just too painful to watch.
  • "Before the chickens can make an egg, they need an environment with the right temperature, the right food, the right amount of oxygen the right amount of gravity etc."
    Already existed. And if those conditions went away, then even the pre-existing species would not be able to produce eggs, so none of that pertains to a new species. That "concern" is just BS.
  • "The answer to the chicken and the egg is someone with incredible intelligence instantly designed an adult male and an adult female at the same time, at the same place, and the place had the right temperature, gravity, food etc."
    No. They evolved (albeit within the confines of domestication by humans). No need to invent some deus ex machina bullshit to explain away something that happens naturally.
BTW, there's a 2014 Christian film, A Matter of Faith, with Harry Anderson (of the sit-com, Night Court) playing a secular college biology professor pushing evolution with the chicken-or-the-egg question. Nothing more was covered in his class, just that one question. Like the "God is Not Dead" movie which grossly mischaracterized how philosophy would be taught in a college, it gives us the impression that none of those filmmakers ever attended a single day of college in their collective lives. This film even included a scene with a creation/evolution debate which never once touched on either subject. Don't worry; it left Netflix years ago.
 
Not really done on this topic, but my Tequila intake is starting to catch up with me.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-18-2022 7:34 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5554
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 16 of 1408 (891977)
02-18-2022 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tanypteryx
02-18-2022 2:42 PM


OK, so what's with this inability to talk about sex? Jesus H!!! (follow that link to learn something about Christograms, or ignore it and remain eternally ignorant) We know that you're a bunch of fucking prudes, but you're making it completely ludicrous.*
Has nobody else ever had to try to struggle through high school biology? Really? Just plant sex alone completely blows the mind. Hadn't creationists even ever learned that much? Really? No wonder they're such complete idiots!

 
FOOTNOTE *
My friend got many of her ideas for travel from Rick Steves on PBS -- I watch his shows in her memory and to reconstruct her plans for our travels.
One show is a behind the scenes of how they produce their content. In one Italian art shot, he talks about having to be careful to not show too much "flesh". My friend immediately laughed out loud. "He's talking about penises! We are going to see so many penises!!!!" Of course, I interpreted that as her comment on our culture's general and stupid prudishness.
BTW, at the Galleria dell'Accademia in Florence, I pointed out to her that David is not circumcised whereupon she went over to use her phone's camera telephoto feature to get a better view. I wanted to kid her about having tricked her into taking a "dick pic", but knew better than to press it. The next day we went through the Uffizi and in my casual survey every single Old Testament subject was not circumcised. All their penis sizes seemed rather small, which some Wikipedia source said was an artistic decision or whatever. Not that I'm trying to brag or whatever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-18-2022 2:42 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5554
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 17 of 1408 (891981)
02-19-2022 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tanypteryx
02-18-2022 2:42 PM


Plant Sex!!!
Delve into the weirdest part of high school biology (c. 1967): The Sex Lives of Plants.
How did the life cycle of that particular fern go? The plant grew from a seed. That plant produces spores, not seeds, which produce the second kind of ferns. When then go on to produce that first kind of plant.
Uh, excuse me, but WHAT???????????
And don't even get me started on plant gender! As simple as that should be, I still cannot wrap my head around it! I mean, just look at a flower! Both male and female apparati present and accounted for! How could one flower serve both genered purposes? After more than half a century of thinking far too much, I still cannot understand it!
OK. Forget the birds and the bees, because they know nothing about procreation. Rather, the plants know. And the animals followed, the only thing they know how.
We people reproduce only in one fashion (no need to get graphic here). But plants are not so limited as we are.
Consider the strawberry. Strawberry seeds, OK. But that's the least of it.
Strawberries send out runners. Tendrils that reach out and stick themselves into the ground to create an entirely new plant. Two ways to reproduce!
Flatworms (and a number of other worms to my rather limited knowledge) have all kinds of very kinky sexual wiles.
Split a flatworm in half and you get two flatworms. In the 1960's (as I'd been told within the SCUBA community) the starfish were eating the stalks of kelp, so we should get rid of the starfish. So divers would go down and gather up all the starfish they could, chop them up into pieces, and dump them overboard. The problem was (as per what the SCUBA community had taught me) that each chunk of starfish just grew another starfish, so those divers were just spreading the plague, so to speak.
But doesn't that flatworm have other ways to reproduce? And that's the name of the game, so to speak. How do you procreate? In several ways Pick one.
Tequila Time stall.
Sexy time. How you gonna reproduce? Any which way you can,. man.
We see all these various species with multiple means to reproduce . Duh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-18-2022 2:42 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by jar, posted 02-19-2022 8:32 AM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5554
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 19 of 1408 (891983)
02-19-2022 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by jar
02-19-2022 8:32 AM


Re: Plant Sex!!!
The bottom line is that all this sexual reproduction stuff got invented and worked out a long long time ago and while other forms of reproduction were still in use. The "dilemmas" presented by creationists are not only ridiculous but they also fall completely apart with in the light of high school biology.
Didn't this BS-SUCKER guy ever take high school biology? He didn't come up with his "gem" challenge all by himself, but rather it was taught to him. Is he in a Christian school (or home school) that's ensuring that he will never be exposed to biology? Is he just yet another fool whose homework assignment is to post from a list of nonsense on an "evolutionist" forum? We've had a few of those pop up over the years.
 
We mammals have our X and Y sex chromosomes, but those gender changers (eg, fish, reptiles, birds) have a different genetic setup (ZW sex-determination system).
And that different setup seems to be the basis for their parthenogenesis, "virgin births." Basically, if there are no males around, the females of some species can lay fertile eggs that they produce themselves (ie, the fatal flaw in Jurassic Park's fail-safe of only spawning female dinosaurs -- "Nature will find a way."). The thing is that the offspring produced by means of virgin birth are clones of the mother and hence are female. On my "Jesus H. Christ": Why "H"? page, I muse about Jesus' gender. Shouldn't he have been a "Jessica"? After all, she had to have been genetically identical to his mother and therefore female. That is how virgin births work, after all.
Though I haven't seen any discussion of how the ability to change gender during incubation would play with parthenogenesis. Such that even though all her offspring are clones of her, some of them could change to male before hatching. Though that would still present a serious genetic bottleneck.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by jar, posted 02-19-2022 8:32 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by xongsmith, posted 02-19-2022 1:03 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5554
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 24 of 1408 (892003)
02-19-2022 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by AZPaul3
02-19-2022 9:23 PM


Re: Hi BSCUTTER21
I messaged him about seven hours ago to let him know that we're discussing his post in this topic. I also expressed my hope that he could finally do what no other creationist has done: describe what he thinks evolution is and how it works. And I confirmed to him that his claim is one of the worst, but we can help him learn what its mistakes are.
But I have to agree with Tanypteryx that it's not looking promising. He appears to be a typical low-level creationist committing yet another run-by fruiting (as Mrs. Doubtfire would put it). Basically a troll who just wanted to raise a ruckus.
But if he does return and agree to participate, then that would be good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by AZPaul3, posted 02-19-2022 9:23 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5554
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


(3)
Message 34 of 1408 (892130)
02-26-2022 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Jzyehoshua
02-25-2022 9:01 PM


Re: Male & Female
Since evolution is biological, it would help to have some knowledge of biology, even if only at a high school biology level.
DISCLAIMER: Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) led to the striking down of the anti-evolution "monkey laws" and basing the barring of teaching evolution on religious reasons. That led to the creation of "creation science" as a legalistic deception deliberately designed to deceive the courts and the public (their standard basic lie: "We oppose evolution for purely scientific reasons. Religion has nothing to do with it."). That "creation science" deception (AKA the game of "Hiding the Bible") was exposed as being religious in nature in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), at which point the anti-evolution movement shifted to a new deception, "Intelligent Design", their new game of "Hide the Creationism."
I'm referring to my own high school biology class experience in 1967. That was a few years before the genesis of the "creation science" deception. Creationist efforts tend to concentrate on attacking biology class, so I do not know what the current state of high school biology class is. Perhaps we should instead recommend at least a community college level biology class.
 
If by asexual you mean rare cases of virgin births which could be viewed as vindicating the Bible rather than disproving it.
Please do follow vimesey's advice in Message 31 and read up on what asexual reproduction is (same Wikipedia link as his).
Basically (not to replace you following that link), asexual reproduction groups together all the natural forms of reproduction that are not sexual.
Sexual reproduction involves the fusion of gametes (AKA "germ cells") provided by individuals of different genders (though some cases (eg, certain worms) individuals can be of both genders). Gametes are produced by meiosis which produces incomplete cells; eg, in mammals the ovum is almost complete except that it contains only half of the chromosomes in its nucleus and the sperm is a polar body, basically just a nucleus with half the chromosomes). By fusing with each other the gametes become a zygote which then grows into an embryo and fetus.
Again, asexual reproduction is basically other forms of reproduction which are not sexual, of which there are many. The most commonly known form is cell fission which uses mitosis to make a duplicate of all the chromosomes in the nucleus and then pull both copies to opposite sides as the cell splits in half to form two cells. That is how unicellular micro-organisms reproduce.
Fission is also how our own body cells reproduce; hence sexual reproduction only entails the formation of the zygote, after which it's all asexual reproduction through fission. However, keep this from getting too messy (a notable characteristic of biology which is squishy, wet, messy, and very complicated), we normally use the asexual/sexual dichotomy to describe how one generation of organisms produces offspring (and not how those offspring then develop).
We should also note that that asexual/sexual dichotomy is by no means pure. We cannot divide all organisms into separate sexual and asexual pigeonholes, because many species use both -- refer to the Alternation between sexual and asexual reproduction section in that link to asexual reproduction. Reproduction is not cleanly delineated into black and white, but rather there are a great many gray cats in the dark. Even just plant reproduction will blow your mind! That will also put the kibosh on your strictly biblical classification of basic created kinds, especially in your attempt to classify all plants -- many plants will not fit in your biblical pigeonholes so you will need a much bigger pigeonhole labeled, "None of the above." Read up on it.
One of the forms of asexual reproduction is parthenogenesis, AKA "virgin birth." Basically, it hijacks sexual reproduction by enabling a female to produce a fertile ovum instead of the usual infertile ovum produced by meiosis. We observe it occurring naturally in some worms, insects, crustaceans, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and birds. It does not occur naturally in mammals but it has been induced in the lab, eg with mice. Something like it has been induced in the lab with human cells.
Since you would want to seize upon parthenogenesis to help explain away Jesus' Virgin Birth, that would present you with a problem. You see, the fertile ovum that the female produces and which thus becomes a zygote contains only the mother's genome, which means that the offspring thus created is a clone of the mother. That would include her gender, though in some species the gender of the offspring can change depending on the conditions under which it incubates (eg, alligator gender being affected by the temperature of the eggs). In the case of all the mammals in these experiments, all the offspring are female.
So using parthenogenesis to explain away Jesus' Virgin Birth would necessitate that she had been a clone of Mother Mary, therefore a woman. Let's call her Jessica. Strange that the New Testament had covered up that fact.
So parthenogenesis does not vindicate the Bible, but rather creates huge problems for your theology of a kind you had never seen before. Be careful what you ask for, because you just might receive it.
 
... vindicating the Bible rather than disproving it.
What the hell are you talking about?
Whatever is the Bible supposed to have to do with any of this, outside of your clutching at parthenogenesis under the illusion that it provides support to your theology? We're talking biology here, not theology!
And why do you think any of this is an attempt to disprove the Bible? What are you basing that on? Obviously you are proceeding from a set of assumptions which are very mistaken, judging by the very strange conclusions you (plural, since this is so typical of almost all the creationists I've encountered since the mid-1980's). But neither you nor any other creationist I've encountered will tell us what those assumptions are, let alone be willing to discuss them.
So what are your unspoken assumptions that led to your statement quoted immediately above?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Jzyehoshua, posted 02-25-2022 9:01 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5554
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 37 of 1408 (892209)
03-02-2022 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Jzyehoshua
02-25-2022 9:01 PM


Re: Jessica H Christ!
I did a little research on Jzyehoshua and have noticed a pattern which appears to be playing out yet again. Part of the reason for that was that he had been gone for so long and hadn't posted much when he was here that I couldn't remember him.
He was last here in 2012, nearly a full decade ago. Before that he posted in 2010 before disappearing for two years. The pattern that I saw was that he would post one or two messages in a topic and then disappear from that topic in order to avoid having to engage in discussion. And it appears that he's still playing that same game, so I very much doubt that he will ever revisit this topic to reply to us. For that matter, he might have just disappeared for another decade.
This time around, though, he has created a wiki which has one page on creationism (though it does link to other of his pages):
Why I disagree with evolution, explained:
https://biblestrength.net/wiki/Creationism
It's primarily a collection of PRATTs (including that real stinker, human population growth), though he did put a lot of work into collecting them and does present them better than almost all other creationists such that the stench of the lies is not as immediately apparent.
And of course, even though his here-stated purpose (see qs box above) is to oppose evolution and he uses the word "evolution" in various forms 253 times on his creationism page, he never once addresses evolution!. The closest he ever gets is to present the standard "dichotomy" between "microevolution and macroevolution". For example:
quote:
Microevolution is in essence compatible with Genesis 1, since Genesis 1 repeatedly states that God created core categories of life which brought forth after their kinds (Heb. miyn) or species. A Young Earth Creationist believes there were core categories of life which adapted to their environments to become the varieties of life we see today. Thus, Natural Selection, adaptation, and speciation are all perfectly acceptable concepts to the Creationist, who believes life has evolved within God-created categories rather than between from a common ancestor.
Macroevolution is the theory Darwin proposed in On the Origin of Species, namely that "each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species."[7] Evolutionists infer from Microevolution, Natural Selection, and speciation, that all life came from a common ancestor. Thus Macroevolution is the theory that life evolves BETWEEN core categories of life (e.g. dogs/canines, cats/felines, horses/equines) rather than WITHIN those categories.
So he appears to be invoking that tired old lie of evolution requiring that dogs give birth to kittens even though evolution does not make any claim anywhere close to that, but if that were ever to happen then that would disprove evolution and almost all of biology.
In this, he is so sadly typical of creationists: despite
Similarly, he tries to "disprove" radiometric dating methods without making the glaring mistakes of other creationists. For example, for radiocarbon dating he not only doesn't bring up the issue of trace amounts of C14 being found in coal and diamonds, but he even does mention non-atmospheric sources of C14 (only atmospheric C14 has anything to do with radiocarbon dating methods). But then a decade or so back on this forum, he was trying to argue for the decay rates changing by citing instances for the production rates changing -- not the same thing, not even close to the same thing! I cannot tell whether he has realized that yet, a decade later.
As for his use of the human population growth claim (refer to my 1991 CompuServe article, THE BUNNY BLUNDER or What's Up, Doc Morris?), he puts in a lot of effort to arrive at a "reasonable" growth rate, but he still plugs that rate into a the wrong math model, a pure-birth model! Creationist human population growth claims, including Jzyehoshua's, all rely on ignoring the simple fact of any environment's ability to support a population of a given size (accounted for by the logistic model of population growth -- if a given region cannot support more than 100 people, then even after a million years of population growth we could not expect to find more than 100 people there, whereas creationists would expect (and have stated so very explicity) living humans living there stacked hundreds of feet deep (creationists have even claimed that if the earth were old then the solar system would be filled with people out to the orbit of Pluto -- no, that could never be the case because they would have all died long before that point! Idiots!).
Jessica H. Christ! What is wrong with these people?
 

 
BTW, have you ever wondered why "H"? After seeing the initials "JHC" deliberately decorating the walls of a chapel in Cádiz, Spain, I decided to research that question. It appears to be all about the religious artform, the Christogram, constructed out of letters from the Greek, ΙΗΣΟΥΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ . Refer to my page, "Jesus H. Christ": Why "H"?.
Edited by dwise1, : Corrected spelling of Cádiz. EmPHAsis on the wrong sylLAble.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Jzyehoshua, posted 02-25-2022 9:01 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Taq, posted 03-03-2022 3:08 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5554
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 43 of 1408 (892571)
03-10-2022 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Theodoric
03-10-2022 1:06 PM


Re: Finally, we are going get the real deal
I also toldd my wife, an MD, that everything she learned is wrong. Her degree and all training is worthless.
Someone who had gone to medical school described his first lecture. They were informed that half of what they were about to learn in medical school was wrong. Their task was to figure out which half is wrong and which half is right.
Guess that's why, while most people practice until they get it right, MDs have to always practice because they can never get it right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Theodoric, posted 03-10-2022 1:06 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by ringo, posted 03-12-2022 11:52 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5554
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 44 of 1408 (892572)
03-10-2022 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by jar
03-10-2022 3:10 PM


Re: Finally, we are going get the real deal
Says he on the title page:
quote:
SUBMITTED FOR PEER REVIEW
(from March 7 - 10, 2022)
As a usual ideal process in science, I sent and submitted this science article in three major science journals, but they rejected me. I think they will never allow my article to be published, because of strict professional competition to get a Nobel Prize and to ink his/her own name forever after falsifying and replacing the Theory of Evolution (ToE). I had to stop submitting this article anywhere and directly open this to the public right away, ASAP. To avoid this article to be stolen without my knowledge and to avoid this article to be distorted, I am publishing it now, here in Zenodo. Please, copy the pdf and republish this anywhere possible. Let the whole world know the truth.
DISCLAIMER: the direct copy-and-paste of that text from PDF to text was garbled, especially in the second part in which fragments of the text was reduplicated to ever increasing degrees. As a result, I had to edit it in order to match the original. Since I am not a creationist, I made my best good-faith effort to truthfully present what he had actually written, so I apologize in advance for any inadvertent copy errors.
Oh, we will let the whole world know the truth! But he will not like it!
Part of his task that we demanded of him was that he also submit his "science article" to ID publications and report the response. He does not indicate whether he had done that. I would suggest that the probability of his having avoided doing so rapidly approaches 100%.
We would also want to see what he was told in those rejection letters. I would definitely want to see where they had told him that they wanted to eliminate him as competition in getting their Nobel Prizes.
For that matter, did he even receive any rejection letters? He is stating that he had submitted his "article" and received those rejections over a four day period from 07 to 10 March 2022. That wouldn't even be enough time to mail his submission and their rejections, let alone give them any time to review his submission. I think that he just has not received any response yet and is dishonestly misrepresenting that as official rejections.
We predicted that his entire charade is pure theater in which he set himself up for getting rejected just so that he could make his typical dishonest creationist claims of scientific prejudice against ID and that there's a scientific conspiracy to silence creationist voices. Like Lisa Kudrow's "Trump's Press Secretary" character in Netflix' Death to 2020 who insists that "conservative voices are being silenced", a claim that he has made several times on Fox News and in a number of books that she's written:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 03-10-2022 3:10 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Taq, posted 03-10-2022 5:01 PM dwise1 has replied
 Message 46 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-10-2022 5:12 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5554
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 48 of 1408 (892577)
03-10-2022 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Taq
03-10-2022 5:01 PM


Re: Finally, we are going get the real deal
It's as if he took his used toilet paper over to the Louvre and expected them to hang it on the wall next to the Rembrandts. Hilarious.
It reminds me of Kent Hovind's "doctorate dissertation" which starts:
quote:
[voice=hick]"Hello, my name is Kent Hovind. I am a creation/science evangelist. I live in Pensacola, Florida. I have been a high school science teacher since 1976. I've been very active in the creation/evolution controversy for quite some time."[/voice]
Even though this "article" is surprisingly better organized than the others (so MrID was listening to my suggestions after all; color me very surprised), he still uses everything he writes in order to boast of his being such a preternatural genius and everybody who doesn't bow down and worship his infinitely superior brain as brainless idiots. This is no exception.
He even starts this "work" with an "analogy" in which he equates anyone who accepts evolution as flat-earthers -- please note that 1859 was when Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin published their seminal works on evolution and how the flat-earther book was entitled “On the Origin of Flat Earth by Means of Area Selection” as a direct spoof of the title of Darwin's book. On the face of it, the only purpose of that "analogy" is to ridicule the position that he opposes -- though by using the search function in Adobe Reader he does refer back to it much later to try to build a way to refute evolution. Still, I feel that its primary purpose is that of ridicule given that it's the first thing he presents and then he doesn't use it until after half-way through the document -- very poor writing.
With all the praise that he heaps upon himself, he's a far greater (er ... biglier) megalomaniac than even Trump or Kent Hovind that he makes Trump look absolutely humble.
I wonder if he has ever read a peer reviewed article before. What would he put in his Methods section?
Oh, that's the simple part:
quote:
Well ... First you wave your right hand this way. Then you wave your left hand this other way. Then you wave them both very frantically. ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Taq, posted 03-10-2022 5:01 PM Taq has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5554
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 52 of 1408 (892586)
03-10-2022 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Tanypteryx
03-10-2022 7:09 PM


Re: Holy Crap!
If anything it demonstrates that he has no idea what biological evolution is or what the Theory of Evolution is.
It appears that their inability to even begin to understand science misleads them into thinking that everything is magick. And everybody knows that the key to magick is having the right incantations, which is why he thinks that just using different words makes his "new" magick more powerful.
A magic trick requires a Magician. Therefore, their answer to everything is "Mandrake did it!"

"Magic is as magic does. Id est, nothing but deceiving the audience!"
Edited by dwise1, : removed extraneous line break

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-10-2022 7:09 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5554
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


(2)
Message 57 of 1408 (892603)
03-10-2022 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Tanypteryx
03-10-2022 12:58 PM


Re: Finally, we are going get the real deal
Still hasn't said which journal published the article.
Vanity Press published it. IOW, self-published yet again, like in the 1972 song, naturally.
More importantly, which journals did he send it to? And by far much more important that that is whether any of those journals were ID publications which should be sympathetic to his position to start with (and yet still rejected his "article"). The icing on the cake would be for him to share the actual text of the rejection slips (which I doubt that he ever actually obtained, given that the entire submission/rejection evolution lasted for only four days -- 07 - 10 March 2022 -- as per his own reporting).
MrID writes:
(Part 1) Realistically, what is really the Theory of Evolution (ToE)?
Part 1 should demonstrate whether MrID knows what he's talking about.
That's the first part that I will read, since infamously no creationist has ever been able to demonstrate that he has any clue at all of how evolution works (nor how anything else works). I could only skim it briefly so far since I'm busy with other things (eg, I'm currently in the middle of an OLLI class).
What I've picked up so far from that first scan is that he equates evolution with change and then creates a dichotomy between guided and unguided change. And then it gets even more weird.
I found the beginning of his abstract to be oddly telling:
quote:
From the time of Bishop Samuel Wilberforce on 1860 AD to 2022 AD , many scientists had tried to falsify the Theory of Evolution (ToE) or Biological Evolution, but all of them had failed.
So from the very beginning he tells us that he doesn't understand how science works and especially not how falsification works. He claims that he's some genius civil engineer, so much of a genius that Japan recognized it, had him schooled in the Philippines, and then brought him to work for them in Japan. He never tested any of his designs in order to see whether it actually works? If we are ever in Japan, I would hope that they would tell us which bridges he had designed so that we can stay well away from them. Or his tunnels, etc.
Just for his (and lurkers') edification, one never proves a theory correct. Rather, we repeatedly try to disprove a theory and the theories that survive that ordeal are deemed to be keepers -- though even then we continue to try to disprove them. There is no such thing as a theory that gets protection from testing, just as in engineering there must be no such thing as a design that we protect from testing. Indeed, the Mark 14 Torpedo was such a case of breaking that basic engineering rule in that the testing that would have exposed its many problems wasn't conducted during its design because they were so expensive to manufacture. As a result, those many problems first showed up in combat and for the first two years of the war our torpedo kills were far too rare to be effective. We paid for that mistake many times.
Therefore, the failure of so many scientists to falsify the Theory of Evolution is testimony to the strength of the theory. That is a good thing, not a failing of science. If MrID knew anything about science, he would have realized that.
Towards the end of Part 4, he attacks abiogenesis and Big Bang Theory among other things things that likewise have nothing to do with evolution. Further evidence that he does not understand anything about evolution.
And Part 5 is just plain bizarre. To start with, he obtains two different probability ranges: one for evolution ranging from 0 to 1 (1 being dead certainty) and the other for his pipe dream ranging from 1.5 to 3. 3? Three times more certain than dead certainty? Since when did mathematics allow for such a thing? Instead of writing this crap in order to earn a Nobel Prize, he should just invent a perpetual motion machine and get one for Physics -- if he can violate mathematics so freely a perpetual motion machine should be easy.
And he goes on for page after page about "displaced parts". Graphically, he seems to be saying that evolution should result in ... looking at it, make a paper doll, cut off all the arms and legs and head (and maybe even cut the limbs in half) and then randomly reassemble it. Kind of looks like the results of a really bad transporter accident. No idea what the hell he's thinking!
Truly he is not even wrong because nothing that he says has any bearing on reality. It would make just as much sense and be just as productive if he would try to argue for situations where Thor's hammer, Mjölnir, could be lifted by one who is not worthy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-10-2022 12:58 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5554
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 61 of 1408 (892654)
03-11-2022 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by xongsmith
03-11-2022 12:45 PM


Re: Tangle's sig
It's Ukrainian. Russian does not have that letter, "ї".
On the news, I've seen vehicles with paper signs on them. The first one I saw said "люди" ("people"), so I wrongly assumed that it was to tell evacuees that it was a personnel transport van. But then after a report of a family shot upon in their car I saw a private vehicle with a big paper sign saying "дети" ("children"). On my phone's translate app I verified that that was a strictly Russian word (the Ukrainian word, "дітей", is very similar but distrinctly different -- BTW, "люди" is written the same in both Russian and Ukrainian). That's when I realized that the signs were meant specifically to tell Russian soldiers that children and civilians are in the car so please don't shoot. Unfortunately, the literacy rate in Russia must not be as high as we'd been led to believe.
Edited by dwise1, : slight tweeks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by xongsmith, posted 03-11-2022 12:45 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5554
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 70 of 1408 (892727)
03-12-2022 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Tanypteryx
03-12-2022 3:51 PM


... , but how the heck did he even come up with this gibberish?
Because generating meaningless technobabble is de rigueur for ID! All they have to work with are grand-sounding words that nobody can understand while employ the deception that you do know -- kind of an "Emperor's New Clothes" scenario.
On my Palm Pilot I had an app which generated business management/HR buzzwords, all of them complete nonsense though some of them sounded rather good. Just with that buzzword generator you could publish an entire series of popular management books (eg, "I'm OK, Wassamatta U?"). I have a sci-fi project that I started decades ago based on a gaming magazine article for a Doctor Who RPG referee to come up with technobabble beyond the old standard, "Reverse the polarity of the neutron flow!" I also have a program based on an Omni article with a flowchart for generate any scifi B movie. George Orwell described a similar machine in 1984 which generated porn for the proles -- have sets of characters, plot devices, settings, etc, and just throw them together at random.
At least this attempt doesn't seem to be lifted whole from his document, unlike the previous "summary". At least I didn't find key phrases in search (a common use of Google by professors to expose plagiarizing students).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-12-2022 3:51 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5554
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


(2)
Message 74 of 1408 (892733)
03-12-2022 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Tanypteryx
03-11-2022 2:26 PM


Message 3 The newest attempt to summarize the falsification.
. . .
I especially like the part where anything with a connection to Darwin must be discarded and replaced.
So instead of just simply summarizing, MrID chose to plagiarize his own work. While that may seem to be an oxymoron, that is basically what he had done. All he did was to copy a paragraph from his document (page 16 in Adobe Acrobat -- why am I not surprised that MrID couldn't even number the pages in his own document; it's a very simple setting in most word processors). And that copied paragraph doesn't even begin to serve the purpose of summarizing -- unless MrID can explain to us why he thinks that it does, which he will of course never do.
As evidence that he will never ever respond to our questions and critiques, we have both his consistent history on this forum and the final paragraph of his "article":
quote:
I had already put up. I think I am right and correct. Please, check if my explanations are correct by falsifying my basis, the discoveries from the new Intelligent Design , and my explanations. If you agree, please, let the whole world know and help the world. If you dis agree, please, write the rebuttal in any science journals or books. Let me know so that I could check my errors too.
So in order for him to even begin to consider responding, we would have to publish peer-reviewed articles in science journals or write books on "my rebuttal to MrID's nonsense." Realistically, who would ever write such an article about ... well, almost literally nothing? Maybe NCSE Reports would carry an article of "there's this blithering idiot ID-iot who self-publishes complete nonsense, so here's an example of the dreck that's out there". MrID is assuming delusions of grandeur not unlike creationist Walter Brown who offered to debate with anyone but only if they hold a PhD in the appropriate field, which he used as his excuse for ducking out on debates he knew he would lose.
 
And now he has posted Message 5 in which he gets very slightly closer (at least this one doesn't appear to be a copy-and-paste like his Message 3. But the bat-guano dressing on his word salad still does not pass muster.
Edited by dwise1, : completed what Walter Brown accomplished by his ploy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Tanypteryx, posted 03-11-2022 2:26 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023