Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Coffee House Musings on Creationist Topic Proposals
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1216 of 1429 (903224)
12-06-2022 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1209 by xongsmith
12-06-2022 11:20 AM


Re: UCD evidence
wrongsmith writes:
My old friend in college ...
I find it very very difficult to believe that you ever had a friend and that you ever went to college.
Are you lying?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1209 by xongsmith, posted 12-06-2022 11:20 AM xongsmith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 1217 of 1429 (903225)
12-06-2022 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1214 by Dredge
12-06-2022 12:20 PM


Re: UCD evidence
Dredge writes:
No need to be a UCD-believing Darwinoid to think of using cow and pig insulin in humans.
That's like saying there was no "need" for the right brothers to fly into the wind at Kitty Hawk. Maybe not but that's what happened. And the first to fly WASN'T a creationist trying to fly with the wind behind him.
Dredge writes:
All one needs is a big of common sense ...
Which creationists don't have. A little common sense would tell you that you're related to your cousins because you all have the same grandfather. There is no way to be related without a common ancestor.
Dredge writes:
... as in "Golly gee whiz, since humans are mammals, maybe insulin from other mammals - such as cows and pigs - will work in humans. Let's try it." A pretty basic idea, really.
It is pretty basic. So answer the question that I keep asking you: Why did no creationist ever think of it before Darwin was even born?

Come all of you cowboys all over this land,
I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command:
To hold a six shooter, and never to run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns.
-- Woody Guthrie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1214 by Dredge, posted 12-06-2022 12:20 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(3)
Message 1218 of 1429 (903226)
12-06-2022 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1214 by Dredge
12-06-2022 12:20 PM


Re: UCD evidence
Dredge writes:
as in "Golly gee whiz, since humans are mammals, maybe insulin from other mammals - such as cows and pigs - will work in humans. Let's try it." A pretty basic idea, really.
You lack the common sense to understand why there is no reason for a mammal group to even exist if separate creation is true. There is absolutely no reason why a nested hierarchy should exist within creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1214 by Dredge, posted 12-06-2022 12:20 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1220 by Dredge, posted 12-06-2022 11:59 PM Taq has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 1219 of 1429 (903236)
12-06-2022 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1163 by ringo
11-26-2022 11:44 AM


Re: UCD evidence
DWise1 writes:
Having to reinvent the wheel every time you need to use one is utterly stupid.
For Dredge's benefit (though he probably won't understand it): We assume that the wheel we already invented will still work.
The only reason to revisit the wheel would be to make a significant modification to the design or else to correct some inherent problem with the original design.
For example, why revisit the geocentric model all the time? But Kepler had to because the Copernican heliocentric model was flawed and was far less accurate than the Ptolemaic geocentric model which had had the benefit of centuries of continual tweaking and improvements through the adding of ever more epicycles. Kepler found that the flaw in the Copernican system was the assumption of circular orbits, which he corrected in his First Law of Planetary Motion: "The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci."
The only other reason to reinvent the wheel would be to teach it to schoolchildren. Which is not the purpose of any scientific papers, especially in medical science.
Maybe if Dredge had ever left his mother's basement and gone out to learn how to work for a living, he would know better, but he will never learn nor even try to improve himself. To repeat to him the words of Marcus Lycus that I've shared with him before:
quote:
But you'll never learn, you'll be a eunuch all your life.
 

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1163 by ringo, posted 11-26-2022 11:44 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1370 by Dredge, posted 12-21-2022 11:17 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1220 of 1429 (903237)
12-06-2022 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1218 by Taq
12-06-2022 12:41 PM


Re: UCD evidence
Taq writes:
You lack the common sense to understand why there is no reason for a mammal group to even exist if separate creation is true.
What is "separate creation" and when did I claim it's true?
Do you think I take the Genesis account of creation literally?
There is absolutely no reason why a nested hierarchy should exist within creationism.
... an atheist claiming to know that God had no reason to create a nested hierarchy. Fascinating.
You seem to have a very narrow view of creationism, which has many different interpretations. So God created nested hierarchies ... not a problem for this creationist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1218 by Taq, posted 12-06-2022 12:41 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1250 by ringo, posted 12-08-2022 10:46 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1221 of 1429 (903238)
12-07-2022 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1105 by Taq
11-17-2022 6:15 PM


Re: UCD evidence
Taq writes:
Animals models are used because of UCD.
Show me a scientific paper that says animal models are used because of UCD.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1105 by Taq, posted 11-17-2022 6:15 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1234 by Taq, posted 12-07-2022 10:45 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1222 of 1429 (903239)
12-07-2022 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1107 by xongsmith
11-18-2022 1:08 PM


Re: UCD evidence
wrongsmith writes:
Now stating that using animal models doesn't require accepting the theory of UCD is like stating that using animal models doesn't require examining their DNA.
????????

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1107 by xongsmith, posted 11-18-2022 1:08 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1226 by xongsmith, posted 12-07-2022 12:59 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1223 of 1429 (903240)
12-07-2022 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1120 by ringo
11-21-2022 11:24 AM


Re: UCD evidence
Dredge writes:
Why do you need to believe that all life shares a common ancestor to examine and compare the DNA of humans and other animals?
ringoat writes:
Why don't science deniers like creationists and flat-earthers produce any scientific breakthroughs? It seems that accepting the science HELPS.
You didn't answer my question.
ringoat writes:
Why don't science deniers like creationists and flat-earthers produce any scientific breakthroughs?
The greatest scientist in history - Isaac Newton - was a creationist. LOL!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1120 by ringo, posted 11-21-2022 11:24 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1227 by dwise1, posted 12-07-2022 1:11 AM Dredge has replied
 Message 1230 by Theodoric, posted 12-07-2022 9:10 AM Dredge has not replied
 Message 1251 by ringo, posted 12-08-2022 10:52 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1224 of 1429 (903241)
12-07-2022 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1123 by Taq
11-22-2022 10:43 AM


Re: UCD evidence
Dredge writes:
Why do you need to believe that all life shares a common ancestor to examine and compare the DNA of humans and other animals?
Taq writes:
A perfect example of why creationism is a science stopper. All Dredge thinks one should do is just measure stuff.
Explain it? OH NOOOOO, CAN'T DO THAT!!! Apply the scientific method? ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!
Your comment, although entertaining, didn't answer my question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1123 by Taq, posted 11-22-2022 10:43 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1233 by Taq, posted 12-07-2022 10:42 AM Dredge has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 1225 of 1429 (903242)
12-07-2022 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1205 by Phat
12-06-2022 9:59 AM


Re: Darwinist Propaganda
Darwin has been dead since 1882. Many other names have been associated with evolutionary theory since then. So why do critics of evolution always refer to the study as Darwinism?
The simple answer is that they have no idea what they are talking about. They see words without knowing what those words mean, but rather they have been told that those words are bad. And their empty minds have been filled with bullshit lies. Does anyone here doubt that Dredge and other creationists have come up with their "gotcha questions" all on their own? Of course not. They got that nonsense from creationist sources.
 
But this raises another issue with creationists. They believe that everybody else thinks and operates like they do, when that is clearly not the case.
  • Their only form of "education" is indoctrination whose purpose is to dictate to the students what they are supposed to believe and to force them into compliance. As a result, they cannot even begin to understand actual education whose goal is that the students understand the ideas without requiring belief in those ideas.
    An example that I have often given is that in 1981 the United States Air Force Communications Command Leadership School taught us marxism, socialism, and communism. The purpose of that instruction was not to turn us into Commies, but rather for us to know our enemies.
  • Since everything that they do involves worship, they think that everybody worships something. As a result, they make ridiculous claims that we worship certain things.
  • They think that science is a faith-based system. Absolutely ridiculous, but since they have no understanding of what science is nor how it works and is practiced, they only fool themselves and make it even more impossible to have any kind of discussion with them.
  • The main point that I want to raise is that they think that science works like their religion: solely through appeal to authority.
    Their religions are based on Revelation which some Authority gave to them in its entirety, completely whole and perfect. From that point on, that Revelation may degrade over time, but in its original form it is perfect! BTW, a few fundamentalist Christians arguing for the infallibility of Scripture will include the proviso: "in its original form." The main distinguishing feature here is such revelations will decay and degrade over time; there's no such thing as learning more, but rather of losing parts of it. And if any part of the revelation is wrong, then that can never be determined nor can it be corrected.
    In contrast, science has someone making a discovery which is usually not complete and parts of which might not be correct. From that point on, that idea enters into an iterative process of testing and refinement, learning ever more while correcting any part that is not correct. That scientific process results in increasing knowledge along with mistakes being corrected.
    Especially creationists try to apply their revelation-based model to science. For example, candle2's attacks on radiocarbon dating includes chastising its discoverer, Dr. Willard Libby, for not having complete and perfect knowledge of all the problems the method might encounter. That's not how science works, nor does it present a problem for science since we can still discover those problems and figure out how to deal with those problems. Something that is not possible in his religion's revelation-based system.
    Another consequence of creationists' confusion on this point leads them to focus their attacks on the founder of a science. As you point out, evolutionary theory has developed considerably over the years and is now much more than original Darwinism. And yet creationists will take every opportunity they can to attack Darwin himself in any way they can find. That is because if you can discredit the Giver of a Revelation, then you also discredit that Revelation -- that is exactly how their own religion works.
    That also opens up the problem how to evaluate a work for how authoritative it is. For religionists, the authority of Scripture (eg, the Bible) rest solely on its authorship: this book was written by this authority, therefore it is authoritative. Remove that authorship (ie, show that it was actually written by somebody else) and that work loses all authority -- its entire worth is based solely on the identity of its author.
    For scientists and mathematicians, the authority of a work like Euclid's Geometry is whether it works. Even if Euclid's Geometry turns out to have not been written by Euclid but rather by somebody else, it is still valuable because it still works.
    In The Age of Reason, Part 2, Thomas Paine presented that idea:
    quote:
    But, before I proceed to this examination, I will show wherein the Bible differs from all other ancient writings with respect to the nature of the evidence necessary to establish its authenticity; and this is the more proper to be done, because the advocates of the Bible, in their answers to the former part of the Age of Reason, undertake to say, and they put some stress thereon, that the authenticity of the Bible is as well established as that of any other ancient book; as if our belief of the one could become any rule for our belief of the other.
    I know, however, but of one ancient book that authoritatively challenges universal consent and belief, and that is Euclid's Elements of Geometry; and the reason is, because it is a book of self-evident demonstration, entirely independent of its author, and of everything relating to time, place, and circumstance. The matters contained in that book would have the same authority they now have, had they been written by any other person, or had the work been anonymous, or had the author never been known; for the identical certainty of who was the author, makes no part of our belief of the matters contained in the book. But it is quite otherwise with respect to the books ascribed to Moses, to Joshua, to Samuel, etc.; those are books of testimony, and they testify of things naturally incredible; and therefore, the whole of our belief as to the authenticity of those books rests, in the first place, upon the certainty that they were written by Moses, Joshua, and Samuel; secondly upon the credit we give to their testimony. We may believe the first, that is, we may believe the certainty of the authorship, and yet not the testimony; in the same manner that we may believe that a certain person gave evidence upon a case and yet not believe the evidence that he gave. But if it should be found that the books ascribed to Moses, Joshua, and Samuel, were not written by Moses, Joshua, and Samuel, every part of the authority and authenticity of those books is gone at once; for there can be no such thing as forged or invented testimony; neither can there be anonymous testimony, more especially as to things naturally incredible, such as that of talking with God face to face, or that of the sun and moon standing still at the command of a man. The greatest part of the other ancient books are works of genius; of which kind are those ascribed to Homer, to Plato, to Aristotle, to Demosthenes, to Cicero, etc. Here, again, the author is not essential in the credit we give to any of those works, for, as works of genius, they would have the same merit they have now, were they anonymous. Nobody believes the Trojan story, as related by Homer, to be true- for it is the poet only that is admired, and the merit of the poet will remain, though the story be fabulous. But if we disbelieve the matters related by the Bible authors, (Moses for instance), as we disbelieve the things related by Homer, there remains nothing of Moses in our estimation, but an impostor. As to the ancient historians, from Herodotus to Tacitus, we credit them as far as they relate things probable and credible, and no farther; for if we do, we must believe the two miracles which Tacitus relates were performed by Vespasian, that of curing a lame man and a blind man, in just the same manner as the same things are told of Jesus Christ by his historians. We must also believe the miracle cited by Josephus, that of the sea of Pamphilia opening to let Alexander and his army pass, as is related of the Red Sea in Exodus. These miracles are quite as well authenticated as the Bible miracles, and yet we do not believe them; consequently the degree of evidence necessary to establish our belief of things naturally incredible, whether in the Bible or elsewhere, is far greater than that which obtains our belief to natural and probable things; and therefore the advocates for the Bible have no claim to our belief of the Bible, because that we believe things stated in other ancient writings; since we believe the things stated in these writings no further than they are probable and credible, or because they are self-evident, like Euclid; or admire them because they are elegant, like Homer; or approve of them because they are sedate, like Plato or judicious, like Aristotle.
 
Or we can just return to the basic observation that creationists don't know what they are talking about. And they refuse to learn anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1205 by Phat, posted 12-06-2022 9:59 AM Phat has not replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 1226 of 1429 (903243)
12-07-2022 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1222 by Dredge
12-07-2022 12:10 AM


Re: UCD evidence
Looks like the poor fool is baffled...
Dredgings:
xongsmith writes:
Now stating that using animal models doesn't require accepting the theory of UCD is like stating that using animal models doesn't require examining their DNA.
????????
Yes, you don't have the brainpower to even understand this simple statement.
Yet you have conceded that closeness in DNA is valuable in medical research.
DNA is the evidence of a UCD system:
For to have another completely different lifeform seperately come up with
the same complex RNA-DNA system inherited by every descendant lifeform
KNOWN SO FAR on earth it would be mathematically so unlikely, less than all
the organic molecules in our solar system suddenly breaking apart at once.
I'm not gonna hold my breath for that.

"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside."
Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned!
Enjoy every sandwich!

- xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1222 by Dredge, posted 12-07-2022 12:10 AM Dredge has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(3)
Message 1227 of 1429 (903244)
12-07-2022 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1223 by Dredge
12-07-2022 12:31 AM


Re: UCD evidence
The greatest scientist in history - Isaac Newton - was a creationist. LOL!!
A creationist in the modern context is an anti-science idiot. You are lying by dithering with the meanings of words.
That does not describe Isaac Newton, but he could be deemed a "creationist" within the context of his own time and culture since he did believe in God the Creator. And he did do science by doing science instead of mixing in the supernatural. BTW, Newton was also a numerologist and may have also dabbled in astrology (Kepler most certainly did practice astrology).
Many scientists, including highly effective opponents to creationism (ie, to your anti-science idiocy), also believe in God the Creator and hence could be deemed "creationists" in the same sense as Isaac Newton was, but most definitely not in the sense of being an anti-science idiot. And those scientists who believe in God the Creator do serious science by doing science without mixing religion into it.
There are also professional creationists who have valid doctorates in a science and who have done actual scientific research and published actual scientific papers. The name Snelling comes to mind. However, when they do science they keep their anti-science idiotic creationist out of it and only do creationism when writing for creationists (ie, anti-science idiots).
What a complete fucking idiot you are! Yet again you have absolutely no idea what you are babbling about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1223 by Dredge, posted 12-07-2022 12:31 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1228 by Dredge, posted 12-07-2022 8:28 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1228 of 1429 (903245)
12-07-2022 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 1227 by dwise1
12-07-2022 1:11 AM


Re: UCD evidence
dwise1 writes:
You are lying by dithering with the meanings of words.
I didn't know that, so thank you for informing me that I was lying.
Kepler most certainly did practice astrology
It's amazing that someone as intelligent and scientific as Kepler would see fit to believe in a superstition such as astrology.
But then again, should anyone be surprised? I mean, most scientists today see fit to believe in the superstition of Darwinism. This superstition includes the hilarious belief that humans and potatoes, for example, evolved from the same organism. I kid you not ... that's what Darwinoids actually believe!!
It turns out that scientists - despite their intelligence, knowledge and devotion to methodological naturalism - can be just as stupidly superstitious as anyone else. The human mind is certainly a curious thing.
your anti-science idiocy
I didn't know that I'm "anti-science".
What a complete fucking idiot you are! 
I know that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1227 by dwise1, posted 12-07-2022 1:11 AM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1238 by Phat, posted 12-07-2022 1:18 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1229 of 1429 (903246)
12-07-2022 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1212 by Dredge
12-06-2022 12:03 PM


Re: Darwinist Propaganda
Dredge writes:
Not everyone who accepts that life on earth has evolved accepts that neo-Darwinism offers a satisfactory explanation for that evolution.

In other words, not all evolutionists are Darwinoids (aka Darwinists).
Does this mean that you accept that some "Evolutionists" are intelligent? Or is there another motive for the acerbic wit being exchanged in this topic?
By the way, I gave dwise1 a Post Of The Month in his response to you. You have to admit that he has a point.

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (1894).
When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--Percy
Nor are Democrats the best party or the only one we should have. -Phat,2022 addressing The Peanut Gallery.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1212 by Dredge, posted 12-06-2022 12:03 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1371 by Dredge, posted 12-21-2022 11:27 AM Phat has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 1230 of 1429 (903248)
12-07-2022 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1223 by Dredge
12-07-2022 12:31 AM


Re: UCD evidence
Pythagoras didn't believe in Jesus.

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1223 by Dredge, posted 12-07-2022 12:31 AM Dredge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1231 by Phat, posted 12-07-2022 9:20 AM Theodoric has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024