Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

[ecco]

You actually surprised me when you responded to the first one, which was nearly three times longer than this one. Although you probably only bothered with the first few lines.

Gish Gallops are a way of lying. That is what you did.

One need look no further than nPeace' posts #532, 658 & 752 to see he is clearly trying to master the art of the Gish Gallop. But, to me, more interesting than nPeaces' posting, is the origin of the term itself.

Most people would be embarrassed to have such a tactic associated with their name. Duane Gish probably saw it as an honor. Creationist Fundies love this debating tactic, so it probably is an honor.

 

[metis]

If you mean spending years in educational pursuits so that we can earn lots of money to finance a materialistic lifestyle in this corrupt world, then perhaps many of us would choose the simple forms of employment without the big stress that goes along with a big paycheck. We would rather live a simpler life so as to have more time for the important things in life. Like spiritual pursuits.

Well, first of all thanks for verifying the excuse for being less educated, as if that's somehow a plus.

I certainly am not a believe in "ignorance is bliss", but you are showing us on a regular basis that you believe it is. Matter of fact, studying theology without looking at the whole picture in some objective detail can all too easily lead to false beliefs.

Jesus foretold that very situation....did you know that? (Matthew 10:34-36) The Catholic Church also has the right to excommunicate those who fail to live up to the teachings of their Leader (who is that BTW, Jesus Christ or the Pope?)

Excommunication is very rare in the modern Catholic Church at least, but you can't have it both ways, namely complaining about wrongdoings within the Church but then saying the Church shouldn't do anything substantial about them. Unlike you and other JWs, we don't act like the "Stepford Wives", blindly following whatever your masters tell you to believe and do.

It seems as if you would need to excommunicate the whole church, since they do not teach much of anything that Jesus did.

Now you are again lying. As I posted yesterday on another thread, here's what the mass covers:

Introductory Rites

• Entrance
• Greeting
• Penitential Act
• Glory to God
• Collect

Liturgy of the Word

• First Reading
• Responsorial Psalm
• Second Reading (on Sundays and solemnities)
• Gospel Acclamation
• Gospel
• Homily
• Profession of Faith (on Sundays, solemnities, and special occasions)
• Universal Prayer

Liturgy of the Eucharist

• Presentation of the Gifts and Preparation of the Altar
• Prayer over the Offerings
• Eucharistic Prayer
  • Preface
  • Holy, Holy, Holy
  • First half of prayer, including Consecration
  • Mystery of Faith
  • Second half of prayer, ending with Doxology
• The Lord's Prayer
• Sign of Peace
• Lamb of God
• Communion
• Prayer after Communion

Concluding Rites

• Optional announcements
• Greeting and Blessing
• Dismissal

Since you seem to be against the above, one must conclude that you therefore must be an "anti-Christ" since each mass must follow the outline above, plus the homily (sermon) must be based on the scriptures, as are so many of the prayers. It appears you "kingdom hall" services never quite get around to teaching the gospel since you say they don't teach the above.

LOL....and of course your neighbors are representative of our whole brotherhood....

If you stopped slapping yourself in the head and actually did some studying, you probably would understand the gospel and Church history much more. Oh, that's right-- you don't believe in studying. Whatta shame.

I used my neighbors as an example which takes place within the JW's on a regular basis and, unlike you, I actually have done some studying up on what your denomination does whereas you certainly have not much of a clue what takes place within the Catholic Church as a by-product of you admit that you don't believe in studying, especially any other religious group other than yours.

Yep, it's clear you do believe "ignorance is bliss", but it also appears that you believe "dishonesty is bliss" as well. For you to repeatedly "bear false witness" against the Church and to violate Jesus' teaching of "judge ye not", that indicates that you simply don't consistently believe in what the Bible says, only what your masters tell you to believe-- just like a well-disciplined "Stepford Wife".

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

they also discourage scholarly pursuits as being "too worldly"

They have contempt for the world, and so make worldly a derogatory word. Likewise with flesh. Apparently, flesh is evil, too, as in the desires of the flesh. That is no doubt because they are in a big hurry to leave both - our world and their bodies.

I've lived next to two JW families for over 40 years now, and with one of them, the wife finally "had it" and left the JW's which then led to divorce

Good for her for maintaining enough critical thinking skill after 40 years of indoctrination to be able to see that her religion was false and to be able to tunnel out of it. I had the same experience, and am grateful that I maintained the ability to tunnel out. We see posters on RF that cannot do that, so successfully have they defeated their ability to learn from evidence.

You sound just like my uncle, who is going on to my sister (who is a nurse) and I about how the medical field is out to get us and are hiding cures from us to make more money and blah, blah. When my uncle got prostate cancer, he went to a "naturopath" who put him on some regimen of diluted peroxide and B17 shots. You should have seen all the crap he had lined up on his kitchen counter. There was also some kind of mistletoe pill and blueberry pill (why not just eat blueberries?) in the mix. Anyway, he did this for months on end, spending heaps of money, and all the while his tumour was growing bigger. The naturopath actually told him that the tumour would get bigger before it would begin to shrink! So after months and months of this with his tumour continuing to grow, he decided to see an oncologist instead. The doctor ordered immediate surgery to have the tumour removed and he also underwent some brief chemotherapy. My uncle had that surgery, took a few months to recover and his cancer is now in remission. Had he stuck with the "naturopath" he'd probably be dead by now. The bizarre thing is that he'll still go on about the evils of the medical community today, even after it saved his life.

Your uncle was fortunate that he was able to tunnel out of his faith-based confirmation bias against scientific medicine long enough to benefit from it. And this story illustrates the danger of people irresponsibly teaching one another falsehoods about the medical profession.

But hey - natural selection works to cull out those holding lethal ideas just as surely and readily as it removes those with lethal mutations. That's why they hand out Darwin Awards.

If the orthodox medical system was curing people instead of just filling them up with pills and at the same time filling up their bank accounts with cash, you may have an argument.

There it is again. It's not enough that she avoids scientific medicine herself, but she intends to drag others with her.

The Jehovah's Witnesses are being taught that close-mindedness is a virtue

Yes they are, but it's called faith, not closed-mindedness. They say that faith - holding the course in the face of conflicting evidence - is a virtue.

I think the quotes above illustrate that nicely in the case of all creationists and Bible literalists. They are taught that when they hear their minds objecting to the unreasonableness of a proposition, that that is Satan trying to lead them into the briars, and to stop listening - change the conversation in one's head, and if necessary, get a dose of apologetics that mitigates the cognitive dissonance previously experienced. Closed-mindedness is praised as godly thought, and going off to university a danger.

Of course, this is the root of all of this anti-intellectualism. Faith is challenged by education, and is the basis for the home schooling movement in Christianity. This person talks about the public schools the same way some people talk about scientific medicine, indicating an intense antipathy and contempt for the world of critical thinking:

• "While the public school system continues to degenerate into a drug-stupid, sex-oriented, illiterate morass of misfit, Marxist clones, the homeschool movement is producing intelligent, clear-thinking, confident citizens ready to stand in the middle of cascading corruption and declare their allegiance to God and family." Jumping Ship (Part 1) - No Greater Joy Ministries

We can see clearly that you are being led by the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses but you call it being led by Jesus.

Apparently, Jesus needs a ventriloquist these days. How else do we account for so many disparate denominations all claiming to be rooted in the same holy book?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you mean spending years in educational pursuits so that we can earn lots of money to finance a materialistic lifestyle in this corrupt world, then perhaps many of us would choose the simple forms of employment

No. That's what the uneducated think an education is for - to get a better job. The value is to learn how to think critically, and to amass a useful data base of facts and values. With that background, one is prepared to navigate the world more effectively, and to have a greater experience living within one's head. For example, an understanding of what stars are, their distances, and their life cycles deeply enriches the experience of gazing up at the night sky. The following is an excerpt from an Internet video from an anonymous source that illustrates how an education makes a difference apart from income:

"When I looked at the galaxy that night, I knew the faintest twinkle of starlight was a real connection between my comprehending eye along a narrow beam of light to the surface of another sun. The photons my eyes detect (the light I see, the energy with which my nerves interact) came from that star. I thought I could never touch it, yet something from it crosses the void and touches me. I might never have known. My eyes saw only a tiny point of light, but my mind saw so much more.

"If God exists, God made this [photo of a galaxy]. Look at it. Face it. Accept it. Adjust to it, because this is ... how God works. God would probably want you to look at it. To learn about it. To try to understand it. But if you can’t look — if you won’t even try to understand — what does that say about your religion?"

[snip]

"To even partially comprehend the scale of a single galaxy is to almost disappear. And when you remember all the other galaxies, you shrink 100 billion times smaller still. But then you remember what you are. The same facts that made you feel so insignificant also tell you how you got here. It’s like you become more real, or maybe the universe becomes more real. You suddenly fit. You suddenly belong. You do not have to bow down. You do not have to look away. In such moments, all you have to do is remember to keep breathing."

[snip]

"The body of a newborn baby is as old as the cosmos. The form is new and unique, but the materials are 13.7 billion years old, processed by nuclear fusion in stars, fashioned by electromagnetism. Cold words for amazing processes. And that baby was you. Is you. You’re amazing. Not only alive, but with a mind ... When I compare what scientific knowledge has done for me and what religion tried to do to me, I sometimes literally shiver."

That's what an education can do. It sets one on a path to continue learning throughout life, long after graduation. Most of the history and all of the philosophy I have learned came in my thirties. Most of what I know about evolution and geology came after graduation. Virtually everything I know about climate science and greenhouse gases came in the last decade.

An education is a gift that keeps on giving for a lifetime. Too bad that some people are indoctrinated to believe that education is a bad thing. And yes, proper academic-style education is radically different from indoctrination. Your evolution professor doesn't care if you believe the theory, just that you can answer test questions about it. He teaches by offering evidence and informing the class how it is currently understood, unlike Sunday school, where repetition, not evidence or critical thought, is how information is imparted, and what you believe is very much of interest to your propagandist. Expect to be chastised for thinking independently rather than uncritically imbibing the dogma.

The last time I posted this, you ignored it. This is a deeply anti-intellectual position:

• [A]ll too often, our young people have met with spiritual disaster, especially after leaving home and living on a university campus. So parents and children, you need to have a goal and you need to have a plan. If you’re missing either one, Satan will provide it for you. Young people, ask yourself: Why am I considering additional education? Is it because I’m pursuing a specific skill or trade to support my service to Jehovah? Or have I been pressured by the system into believing that higher education will somehow make me a more respected person or lead me to a better life?" - Tony Morris of the Jehovah’s Witnesses Governing Body, from "The Jehovah's Witnesses Told Them Not to Get a College Degree; Now, They're Struggling" The Jehovah’s Witnesses Told Them Not to Get a College Degree; Now, They’re Struggling

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

its impressive when you can hold a conversation that lay people can't understand

It's unimpressive when one communicates with people more knowledgeable on a subject than himself, and screws up the facts while failing to understand what is told to you

Using scientific terminology is a way to dazzle ordinary people with science

Failing to understand it or using it incorrectly is a way to instantly disqualify yourself from being taken seriously by those comfortable with the language of science.

What do you think of this? Is there any validity to it in your estimation? :

• "A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." - Bertrand Arthur William Russell

science has no real proof for what they believe either

And here it is again. This is what I mean by a bubble. This is what is meant by closed-mindedness. No matter how many times you have it explained why this is an irrelevant point, you just can't incorporate that idea into your data base. This is among the kinds of things that undermine you and your message. Why should a person who can't learn even basic scientific truths be taken seriously when discussing science?

It's not just your mistakes and lack of education that is the problem. Those things could be remedied if it weren't for the way you think - how you decide what is true about the world. If you don't use reason applied to evidence to do that, but prefer to believe by faith, critical thinkers can't use your ideas for anything. There is only one path to useful knowledge about reality, and that is by consulting it. The only measure of the correctness of an idea is its capacity to inform decisions under the expectation of desirable consequences.

If that's not how you decide what is the case about reality, then your ideas will be as sterile as creationism, and of no value or interest to those who require a reason to believe.

We see this world like the Titanic.....many people think it's 'unsinkable'....but we are about to hit the iceberg and nothing will keep this ship afloat.

There's that nihilism and pessimism again. What ray of sunshine you and your religion are.

Speaking of sunshine, there is some justification for assuming that man will cook his world. Faith based thinking (climate science denial in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence) is the problem there as well. No evidence can pierce that bubble, that faith-based confirmation bias that filters out the reports of more extreme weather events occurring more frequently, receding glaciers and melting ice caps, record high temperatures, rising sea levels. None of that matters at all or gets through to the faith-based thinker.

This is how faith-based thought can be dangerous. Or witness the American president and his extremely poor thinking. When recently asked about the findings of an American report that confirmed that unchecked greenhouse gas emissions would lead to devastating changes that would wreak havoc on the American economy and damage the health of the American people, his response was that he didn't believe it.

So, yeah, if the Titanic sinks due to climate change, thank the faith-based thinkers. Of course, it won't be due to an iceberg this time, as they probably won't exist by then.

Lack of response to all of the inconvenient truths has come to be expected.

Agreed.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A Christian spouse does not get a divorce from their mate because they want to stop being a JW.

It was probably the former Jehovah's Witness that wanted the divorce.

No wonder Gould and Eldridge came up with punctuated equilibrium, since gradualism failed to explain what was observed.

That's good science. The theory should at all times account for all of the available and relevant evidence, but in the simplest way possible (Occam's principle of parsimony). Before it was known that evolution sometimes proceeds rapidly and at other times more slowly, there was no need for the concept of punctuated equilibrium, and so it was not included. New data led to modification of the hypothesis to account for that data.

And that same principle of parsimony is why deities appear in no scientific theories. They're not needed. They inject a huge amount of unnecessary complexity while add nothing to the usefulness of the theory. Show us some irreducible complexity, and we'll have a reason to add an intelligent designer to the theory.

No one can ever quote from anyone, now?

What is recommended is that when you quote, you not remove context that shows that the author intended the opposite of what the words appear to mean without that context, as when the Bible says that, "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God" is clipped down to, the Bible says "There is no God." Also, it is important to identify that it is a quote, usually by using quotation marks, and to identify its source when possible.

Finally, your quote should not be your entire post, but used in support of a point you are making.

being judged by someone like you and others who manifest such closed-minded biases, is not too worrisome.

Actually, religious-type faith is the very definition of closed-mindedness. If open-mindedness is the willingness to consider arguments and evidence dispassionately and impartially with the willingness to be convinced by a compelling case, then closed mindedness is its opposite. The sine qua non of both closed-mindedness and faith-based thought is the unwillingness to be moved by evidence.

Consider these words from a prominent Christian apologist considered an intellectual by some:

• "The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit. In such a situation, I should regard that as simply a result of the contingent circumstances that I'm in, and that if I were to pursue this with due diligence and with time, I would discover that the evidence, if in fact I could get the correct picture, would support exactly what the witness of the Holy Spirit tells me. So I think that's very important to get the relationship between faith and reason right..." - William Lane Craig

What is he telling us? He's telling us that nothing he sees or that reason concludes can shake him from his faith-based belief in scripture.His mind is closed.

Here is another examples:

• The moderator in the debate between science educator Bill Nye and Christian creationist Ken Ham on creationism as a viable scientific field of study asked, "What would change your minds?" Nye answered, "Evidence." Ham answered, "Nothing. I'm a Christian. Elsewhere, Ham stated, 'By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

That mind is closed for business. It's impenetrable.

Actually, it's an epidemic among faith-based thinkers

• “If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

• “When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data. The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1-11 is actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronological problems thereby entailed.” –American young Earth creationist and co-founder of the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research Henry M. Morris

• “As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate” – creationist Kurt Wise

This is what open-mindedness sounds like:

• "We're not two sides of the same coin, and you don't get to put your unreason up on the same shelf with my reason. Your stuff has to go over there, on the shelf with Zeus and Thor and the Kraken, with the stuff that is not evidence-based, stuff that religious people never change their mind about, no matter what happens ... I'm open to anything for which there's evidence. Show me a god, and I will believe in him. If Jesus Christ comes down from the sky during the halftime show of this Sunday's Super Bowl and turns all the nachos into loaves and fishes, well, I'll think ... "Oh, look at that. I was wrong. There he is. My bad. Praise the Lord." - Bill Maher

 

[metis]

A Christian spouse does not get a divorce from their mate because they want to stop being a JW.

I did not say nor imply that it was mandatory that they divorce, only that it did lead to divorce. She realized that she was being misled by the JW leadership, and she also realized that this was such a problem between her and her husband that this would hjot work out well. the reason why I know quite a bit about this with them is because she was confiding in my wife what was going on because she needed to talk to someone. My wife, otoh, did not tell her what she should do as that was not her role.

If the guilty party shows no remorse for breaking their bond -- and for breaking Jehovah's law, I might add -- the guilty one will be disfellowshipped (a person is disfellowshipped, not for what they do, but for their attitude about doing it.)

Since when is differences of opinion "breaking Jehovah's law"? And if there's the confidence that your teachers are teaching that which is clearly right, why don't they want you to visit another denomination's church, including even for funerals, or read any of their literature?

 

[savagewind]

That is no doubt because they are in a big hurry to leave both - our world and their bodies.

I would delete that if I was you. LOL

 

[savagewind]

......if you don't want a sermon of sorts.

 

[Audie]

I would delete that if I was you. LOL

"were"

 

[savagewind]

Yes they are, but it's called faith, not closed-mindedness. They say that faith - holding the course in the face of conflicting evidence - is a virtue.

But, faith in the enemy deity, I'm afraid. They believe that Satan has the power to take people away from Jehovah so they are being told to close their minds to anything but what the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses says. I see that they have faith in the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses and in Satan. But, maybe they do not understand what Joshua 24:19 means. Exodus 34:14

 

[savagewind]

"were"

OK. That was a debate I lost. But, thank you. (I could hear in my head "were", but where would the fun in that be?)

 

[savagewind]

And, an extra post.

 

[tas8831]

What is it with some of you and your inability to admit even the smallest, most insignificant error?

I may have mentioned this on here - years ago, on another forum, there was the usual creationist expert on all things that would routinely get hammered on errors, fibs, and the sort of thing you just caught this fellow doing. Like most such creationists, he declared his own superior intellectual abilities, and dismissed all exposures of his ignorance/dishonesty. About 3 years of him getting exposed, he decided to make a grand exit, and declared that all those times we had exposed his errors, showed him to be a fool, etc., he knew the truth all the time, but he made those errors to make us correct him, and in doing so, we somehow made ourselves look bad.... Such is the creationist mindset.

 

[ecco]

In that same time archaelogists, and biblical scholars have determined that most of the stuff in the Bible is false. We now know Exodus never happened

The opposite is actually true....the more archeologists uncover, the more Biblical events are verified.

Regarding the Exodus....Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
But that really doesn’t apply, because there is evidence....one piece is there was a Pharaoh named Jacob-Baal who ruled in the 17th or 16th cent., bce.

FYI, Jacob is a Hebrew name. (A Pharaoh having a Hebrew name?)

Hockey, when will you ever learn that I do take the time to follow links and do research when someone tries to throw BS into the discussion. You stated "Assertions w/o references are just words with no meaning" and then made an assertion w/o references. That's very hypocritical.

I found one very brief mention of your Jacob-Pharaoh on a very biased bible apologist site:
https://www.bible-history.com/links...People+-+Ancient+Egypt&subcat_name=Jacob-Baal

I found anopther on:

Yaqub-Har - Wikipedia
Popular speculation
In Exodus Decoded filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici suggested that Yaqub-Har was the Patriarch Jacob, on the basis of a signet ring found in the Hyksos capital Avaris that read "Yakov/Yakub" (from Yaqub-her), similar to the Hebrew name of the Biblical patriarch Jacob (Ya'aqov). Jacobovici ignores the fact that Yaqub-Har is a well-attested pharaoh of the Second Intermediate Period; and Yakov and variants are common Semitic (not just Hebrew) names from the period. Furthermore, Jacobovici provides absolutely no explanation as to why Josephwould have a signet ring with the name of his father Jacob, and not his own, which is a modern-day equivalent of signing legal contracts with a signature of one's father.[9]​

So, the evidence for your assertion is the speculation of a Jewish filmmaker and a brief mention on a Biblical apologist website. That's really sad.

Other evidences:

“Is there any archeological evidence of the events that led up to the Exodus and/or IsraEl’s escape through a parted Red Sea? Yes, however it is simply ignored by secular historians.

For example, notice how a plague-like destruction is described as coming upon Egypt on a fragmented stela that is located on the third pylon of the Karnak temple (see ‘The Tempest Stele of Ahmose I‘). It is interesting that this stela has been dated to around the death of Ahmose I, who may well be the pharaoh of the Exodus). If you read it, you can clearly see that this appears to be a description of one of the plagues that God sent upon Egypt before Israel’s departure as it was explained from the viewpoint of the hard-hearted ruler of that country.

What is the opinion of secular ‘scholars?’ Note the added comment after the translation of the stele, as is found on the site, The Tempest Stele of Ahmose I:
‘This text, like so many others, is grist for the busy mills of Bible apologists, in this case of those attempting to find proof for the Biblical plagues and the Exodus. The incongruities of their arguments do not seem to bother them, but it might be better for them to accept that (to this date at least) no archaeological proof has been found yet for anything written about in the Bible pertaining to the Bronze Age, save possibly the mere existence of the people of Israel.’

So, note: According to this explanation, the evidence can’t be accepted due to a lack of evidence… and the fact that there is an IsraEl and that they have written records, doesn’t count. Can this statement be considered truly objective? Although history and archeology are virtually FILLED with proofs of the Exodus, secular critics continue to claim that they don’t exist!

Consider for example, the fact that Egypt’s historical records tell of a people called the Hyksos, who are obviously the IsraElites, since they lived in Egypt during the same period, and they were identified as such by no less than the noted ancient Jewish historian Flavius Josephus in his famous work, ‘Antiquities of the Jews.’ And in fact, modern Egyptian records show that all the Pharaohs of the Sixteenth Egyptian Dynasty were Hyksos (Hebrews)! No proof? How about ignored proof?

There is an article by Jonathan Gray, titled ‘In Search Of Pharaoh’s Lost Army,’ which offers interesting (supposed) archeological evidence and conclusions concerning the Exodus. We suggest that you examine this document cautiously, since we are aware of the fact that Bible archeology (like secular archeology) is often inaccurate and untrustworthy.”

http://www.2001translation.com/Authenticity.htm#_5

As further "evidence" you post a lengthy cut and paste from another apologist site:

http://www.2001translation.com/Authenticity.htm#_5

The Bible’s Internal Proofs
of its Authentic History​

You have no actual scholarship attesting to the factualness of the exodus. Because there is none. There is no evidence of a million people making their way across the desert. None. No evidence of a million people suddenly appearing in Canaan. None.

 

[tas8831]

The huge chasm that gives humans the ability to create all civilizations with laws and order, and to compose music and art, and to care for the aged with compassion and sentimentality, etc., etc....

...but primates just scratch their butts.

That gap.

Can YOU compose music and art?

You will want to claim that god-magic created that gap. But where is the god signal in the biology?

 

[tas8831]

If the quote falsely represents the author's meaning of a certain fact, then it is wrong to do so...but prove it.

I did:

Putting the JW Stand on Evolution in Perspective

You've dutifully ignored it as far as I can tell.

 

[Audie]

I may have mentioned this on here - years ago, on another forum, there was the usual creationist expert on all things that would routinely get hammered on errors, fibs, and the sort of thing you just caught this fellow doing. Like most such creationists, he declared his own superior intellectual abilities, and dismissed all exposures of his ignorance/dishonesty. About 3 years of him getting exposed, he decided to make a grand exit, and declared that all those times we had exposed his errors, showed him to be a fool, etc., he knew the truth all the time, but he made those errors to make us correct him, and in doing so, we somehow made ourselves look bad.... Such is the creationist mindset.

What moniker did he use for his appellation?

I think I saw him do the same basic thing elsewhere.

As for admission of the tiniest error, think pinhole in balloon.

 

[ecco]

Lol. Adam was also naming the animals, (In Hebrew, that takes time because it requires observation — names have meaning) and Adam ‘continued’ being alone.

You are saying that God stretched out a day out so that Adam could name all the animals. This is something that an adult human being really believes?

• Adam: God, please, I can't possibly name all these animals before the sun goes down - there's just too many of them.
• God: Don't worry son, I'll keep the sun up there as long as you need - even if it takes a thousand years or longer.

And as I’ve said and posted before, there are other evidences that the Days weren’t literal.

When you use the term "evidence" you mean "Nonsensical Hockey Cowboy speculation".

 

[tas8831]

So, you think these Precambrian organisms are "obvious" precursors?

What was that sound?

I know I know!

GOAL POSTS BEING MOVED.

So precious...

I guess they gotta be, to support your pov. Lol.

No wonder Gould and Eldridge came up with punctuated equilibrium, since gradualism failed to explain what was observed.

So you've not read G&E's paper, I see, and have relied solely on the quotes from Hairbrain Yoyo and other YEC frauds.

But hey - at least no plagiarized quotes in this post!