Creationism: Is it New? Are creationists by default dishonest& ignorant in basic science?

[Subduction Zone]

I stay with my opinion: Genesis or even the Bible as a whole is not mythical.
I don't think that what I should say is that I do not understand what I wrote.

The ad hominem remark consisted in questioning that I am not afraid of learning. I do know what ad hominems are, I think.

Genesis is demonstrably mythical. Again, this is why I know that you do not understand the basics of science and that is not an ad hominem. That is an observation based upon the posts that you wrote. An ad hominem is an attack against a person.. That is not an attack against you. And it definitely is not an ad hominem fallacy. An ad hominem fallacy is on the order of:

"You are wrong because you are ugly."

The person in question may in fact be ugly, but that has nothing to do with whether that person is wrong or not. An ad hominem fallacy is an attack that tries to disprove based on a topic outside of the discussion.

I did not and do not claim that God magically made the Earth the same as it was before, as I know the Bible does not really say that.

Then why did God lie by putting a false history in the Earth? You can't have it both ways. The Earth has a clear history that does not include a flood.

As I assume we live on earth #2 according to 2 Peter 3:5,6... I have no idea how I would test if there was a flood on the previous earth. But I don't need to, I think. I stay with my opinion: the onus is all on you since you came up with the claim that Genesis was, in fact, all mythological.

And that is actually a reinterpretation by taking verses out of context. There is an equivocation fallacy in there too. You are making quite a few unsupported assumptions based on your interpretation of those verses. It puts a huge burden of proof upon you to demonstrate that the author (almost certainly not Peter by the way). meant what you claim that it does.

The following part of this post is addressing the many repetitions within your post:
Please stop going round in circles with me.

I answered this. Go back to #271, last paragraph.


I answered your question whether I am interested in learning, yes or no. Go back to #274.

There aren't any errors on my side here, I think.

No, neither I nor my argument is in effect saying that God is a liar when he hid what he did.
I think than one can support the Genesis stories without calling God a liar and an incompetent bumbler.
I don't think my refutation was a poor argument.
I don't think any of my arguments indicates a lack of education.

I think I do understand the basics of science.
I think it is not clear that I lack this understanding.

This all is answering the many repetitions you've made. It's rude from your side to resort to making this many repetitions, I think.

No, it is rude to repeat errors without learning from them. Again, this is why I keep offering to go over the basics. As to your answer to population, also known as genetic, bottlenecks, your answer is incorrect You said this:

"Population bottleneck is a sharp decrease in population followed by an increase of it, as I see it.
As I said, I don't think it is a problem for those who believe the Genesis story. I don't think it is a myth."


This is only partially right, and it does not even touch why the lack of a universal population bottleneck is a huge problem for flood believers. All species would show a population bottleneck dating to the Flood if it happened. We do not see that. This is why I asked you when the God magic ended and you did not answer. Even if God somehow restored the world with a false history (which would be a lie by God), the decimated animal population would have a very very low genetic diversity. In fact such a low genetic diversity would mean probable extinction for almost all species.

It takes time for genetic diversity to grow. A lot of time. About ten thousand years ago cheetahs went through a massive bottleneck. There were as few as six or seven breeding individuals. That means there would be a few older and even more too young to breed. Let's say a population of 20. Not even the ridiculously small numbers of the Ark myth. As a result almost any two cheetahs have less genetic diversity between them than you have with your brothers or sisters. In fact organs can be transplanted between them without genetic matching. Cheetahs alone tell us that there was no Flood of Noah.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/160201_cheetahs

All land life would have a similar bottleneck and it is not to be seen. The fact that one does not have to worry about waking up in a bathtub full of ice in a seedy hotel room missing a kidney is evidence against the Ark myth.

 

[thomas t]

Again, God did not lie even if history you think is "false" in case of Genesis being proven. Again, the wine of Cana shows that God sometimes wants some changes in subtances which leads to facts implying a history that did not happen. You can't have a wine that indicates an age of 5 minutes, for instance. I told you so often in answering your repetitions. Again and again and again.

it is rude to repeat errors without learning from them.

I don't do this.
And I stay with my opinion: repeating your statements over and over again is rude.

The Earth has a clear history that does not include a flood.

the wine in Cana didn't have a history of being 5 minutes old either. Again, this analogy shows that there can be third reasons for substances to look oder than they actually are. No lies involved here.
But I told you so often, already... see above!

Please don't go around in circles with me every single time!
An no: Genesis is no myth and not demonstrably so, I think. We had this.


I think I answered the question concerning the population bottleneck right. Nature says: A population bottleneck is an event that drastically reduces the size of a population. see population bottleneck | Learn Science at Scitable
This is what I said more or less I think.

All species would show a population bottleneck dating to the Flood if it happened.

Ah, now I see what you were getting at. Thanks for clarifying. I had no idea what you were pointing at.

But God could have rapidly created or recreated animals after the flood. That's what I assume. So - the absence of (simultaneous) bottlenecks in all animal life cannot debunk the flood, I think. It rather points to God rapidly creating or recreating animal life.

I did not try a reinterpretation of scripture by taking verses out of context.

No equivocation fallacy in there.

I did not make quite a few unsupported assumptions based on my interpretation of those verses. I merely took the content as plainly stated in the text.

Again, this is why I know that you do not understand the basics of science and that is not an ad hominem.

Here you are repeating yourself again! How rude. I do understand the basics of science, I think. This was discussing the person (ad hominem) as opposed to remaining on the subject level.

If you question that I am not afraid of learning, it's a disparaging remark on the personal level (ad hominem attack), as I see it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, God did not lie even if history you think is "false" in case of Genesis being proven. Again, the wine of Cana shows that God sometimes wants some changes in subtances which leads to facts implying a history that did not happen. You can't have a wine that indicates an age of 5 minutes, for instance. I told you so often in answering your repetitions. Again and again and again.

I don't do this.
And I stay with my opinion: repeating your statements over and over again is rude.

I am sorry but you do. And to call it an "opinion" is extremely rude. I have offered to go over the basics of science with you multiple times so that you would not repeat those errors. So far you have only run away from such offers.

the wine in Cana didn't have a history of being 5 minutes old either. Again, this analogy shows that thre can be third reasons for substances to look oder than they actually are. No lies involved here.
But I told you so often, already... see above!

Right, because that appears to be a myth too. Even if true it does not apply. Try again.

Please don't go around in circles with me every single time!
An no: Genesis is no myth and not demonstrably so, I think. We had this.

You can deny it all that you want. You will still be wrong. Until you learn the basics of science you will be doomed to repeat your errors. The "going around in circles" is not my fault.




I think I answered the question concerning the population bottleneck right. Nature says: A population bottleneck is an event that drastically reduces the size of a population. see population bottleneck | Learn Science at Scitable
This is what I said more or less I think.
[/quote]

No, your site says that you are wrong. In fact it supports my claim. You ignored the most important part of the article:

"The population bottleneck produces a decrease in the gene pool of the population because many alleles, or gene variants, that were present in the original population are lost. Due to the event, the remaining population has a very low level of genetic diversity, which means that the population as a whole has few genetic characteristics."

Creationists have no answer to the problem of population bottlenecks. The Flood predicts a universal one stronger than that of the cheetahs. We do not see it. Therefore no Flood.

Ah, now I see what you were getting at. Thanks for clarifying. I had no idea what you were pointing at.

But God could have rapidly created or recreated animals after the flood. That's what I assume. So - the absence of (simultaneous) bottlenecks in all animal life cannot debunk the flood, I think. It rather points to God rapidly creating or recreating animal life.

Now you see your error and merely flap your hands again. That is not an explanation. That is not a refutation. It is merely calling God a liar again.

I did not try a reinterpretation of scripture by taking verses out of context.

No equivocation fallacy in there.

I did not make quite a few unsupported assumptions based on my interpretation of those verses. I merely took the content as plainly stated in the text.

Sorry, you did. You need to try harder.

Here you are repeating yourself again! How rude. I do understand the basics of science, I think. This was discussing the person (ad hominem) as opposed to remaining on the subject level.

If you question that I am not afraid of learning, it's a disparaging remark on the personal level (ad hominem attack), as I see it.

That is because you ignore corrections that you have no answer for. That is rude.

Once again you can avoid quite a bit of this if you take a few minutes to learn what is and what is not evidence. You clearly do not understand what is and what is not evidence and appear to be keeping yourself purposefully ignorant.

So let's forget about your inability to properly support any of your claims at this time. If we are going to get anywhere we need to go over the basics first.

 

[thomas t]

God recreating animals after the flood turns him into a liar? That's an unsupported claim... it's presumption - once again.

No, my site did not say I was wrong. It merely used another wording for bottleneck than I did.

Creationists have no answer to the problem of population bottlenecks. The Flood predicts a universal one stronger than that of the cheetahs. We do not see it. Therefore no Flood.

I just provided the refutation in my last post.
It wrote: "But God could have rapidly created or recreated animals after the flood. That's what I assume. So - the absence of (simultaneous) bottlenecks in all animal life cannot debunk the flood, I think. It rather points to God rapidly creating or recreating animal life."

I have to repeat myself, because I answer to the many repetitions in your posts. Could you please stop reiterating yourself again and again? Thanks.

Now to the repetitions in datail of what you already stated.

I don't flap my hands. I wasn't wrong. I did provide a valid refutation of your claims.

The miracle of Jesus turning water into wine is a very good example od God creating something that looked ilder than it was - for third reasons it was so.

That's different from ignoring "corrections".

I do know already what is and what is not evidence. I think I do know the basics of science.

I stay with my opinion:
I did not try a reinterpretation of scripture by taking verses out of context.

No equivocation fallacy in there.

I did not make quite a few unsupported assumptions based on my interpretation of those verses. I merely took the content as plainly stated in the text.

I did support all of my claims. I don't have any inability to do so.
Please do not feel invited to explain basics here. Don't pretend to be my teacher here.

I think wasting my time posting repetitions is really rude from your side.
Bring something new to the table or stop it, please.
Please do not offer again to explain me the basics of science.

Actually, I wasn't rude in pointing out that you are being rude here, I think. It is allowed to say if you think someone was really rude, I think.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God recreating animals after the flood turns him into a liar? That's an unsupported claim... it's presumption - once again.

No, my site did not say I was wrong. It merely used another wording for bottleneck than I did.


I just provided the refutation in my last post.
It wrote: "But God could have rapidly created or recreated animals after the flood. That's what I assume. So - the absence of (simultaneous) bottlenecks in all animal life cannot debunk the flood, I think. It rather points to God rapidly creating or recreating animal life."

I have to repeat myself, because I answer to the many repetitions in your posts. Could you please stop reiterating yourself again and again? Thanks.

Now to the repetitions in datail of what you already stated.

I don't flap my hands. I wasn't wrong. I did provide a valid refutation of your claims.

The miracle of Jesus turning water into wine is a very good example od God creating something that looked ilder than it was - for third reasons it was so.

That's different from ignoring "corrections".

I do know already what is and what is not evidence. I think I do know the basics of science.

I stay with my opinion:
I did not try a reinterpretation of scripture by taking verses out of context.

No equivocation fallacy in there.

I did not make quite a few unsupported assumptions based on my interpretation of those verses. I merely took the content as plainly stated in the text.

I did support all of my claims. I don't have any inability to do so.
Please do not feel invited to explain basics here. Don't pretend to be my teacher here.

I think wasting my time posting repetitions is really rude from your side.
Bring something new to the table or stop it, please.
Please do not offer again to explain me the basics of science.

Actually, I wasn't rude in pointing out that you are being rude here, I think. It is allowed to point out real rude behavior, I think.

Denying the obvious changes nothing.

Once again, let's go over the basics of science. You will learn as a result and become a better debater. You will learn how to actually support your ideas instead of endlessly flapping your arms and claiming God magic.

 

[thomas t]

Denying the obvious changes nothing.

didn't do this.
Again, I supported my ideas well, I think.

 

[Subduction Zone]

didn't do this.
Again, I supported my ideas well, I think.

But you haven't. And you will not even begin to try to learn. Earlier you said that you were not afraid to try. Your actions refute your claims. Once again, let's go over the basics of science. And eventually logic as well. Until you learn a bit more you will never be able to see your errors. It is only through maintaining ignorance that you can pretend to have made a valid argument.

If you actually do understand the concept of evidence our discussion will take very little time. Why run away?

 

[thomas t]

But you haven't.

Are you going to waste my time again?
I'm sure I have refuted all of your claims.

And you will not even begin to try to learn.

this is an ad hominem remark, if you mean it in a generalized sense.

And no, my actions do not refute my claims.
I'm not making errors here. I'm not maintaining ignorance in a sense that I'm merely pretending to have made a valid argument.

Look I don't run away from evidence, I think. I say I understood the concept.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you going to waste my time again?
I'm sure I have refuted all of your claims.


this is an ad hominem remark, if you mean it in a generalized sense.

And no, my actions do not refute my claims.
I'm not making errors here. I'm not maintaining ignorance in a sense that I'm merely pretending to have made a valid argument.

Look I don't run away from evidence, I think. I say I understood the concept.

Please, stop projecting. Since you do not understand the basics of evidence or logic you are in no position to make such a claim. And let's say that you actually do understand the concepts of evidence and logic, Our discussion would be very short. We would spend much less time on it than you have on running away from the discussion.

And when you claim that you are not afraid to learn and then run away from a learning experience you refute your own claim.

 

[thomas t]

I'm not projecting here.

Since you do not understand the basics of evidence or logic

This is an attack. Please don't get personal. It is not true what you're saying.

I don't run away from the discussion on the subject level. Nevertheless I hate the ongoing repetitions of what you've already stated so often.
I was in a position to make my claims every single time. In general I don't run away from learning experiences. But here, I don't want you to be my teacher. You can support your assumtions, that's just fine. But don't pretend to be or become my teacher, please.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hmm. You observed three quarters of the global population? Well, that's amazing.

I observed every creationist I have ever conversed with and / or ever heard speak.

I'ld say that it is a very representative sample. All types of people are included. From your average homeschooled Joe all the way to phd-types giving lectures and apologists / "professional debaters".

Case in point: it's been YEARS since I've heard an original argument that I hadn't heard before already.

So yeah, I gather I have a pretty good idea.

As I said, you are most welcome to point me to a creationist that is both honest and not ignorant of the sciences involved.

But you won't, will you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nah. I didnt. So that's just a lie. Thanks though.

Off course you did.
Why else would you bring them up in the context that you did?

Clearly it is what you were implying.

But the fact is that Newton is remembered for his non-religious work in physics. Not for his ramblings in alchemy, nore for his religious beliefs.

If anything, he is remembered in spite of those.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I didnt ask you but good to know that you are answering for someone else and committing the anecdotal fallacy. Great.

You can easily prove me wrong.

Show me a creationist who isn't ignorant of the sciences involved AND who is also honest about those sciences.

So, can you?

If you want, I can give you a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong list of creationists who are either ignorant or dishonest about the sciences involved.

Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Adnan Oktar (aka Harun Yahya), Ray "bananaman" Comfort, Michael Behe, plenty of folks on this very forum, and many many many more.

In fact, creationists have made it rather easy themselves... there's enough "lists" floating around of "creation scientists". Like this website right here: Dissent from Darwin – There is a scientific dissent from Darwinism and it deserves to be heard.

A whole list, filled with either exposed ignoramuses or exposed just plain liars.

So, who do you have?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As long as anybody can separate metaphysics from methodological naturalism, they can claim science all that they like. And as long as they don't claim, that science can do this: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12 they can claim science all that they like.

I'm not seeing how this relates to the post you are replying to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Okay, anyone who claims privileged positive metaphysics are either ignorant, dishonest or mental. That includes some non-religious humans.
That is the end game of that.

I like pie. Do you like pie? I do.



What? sorry, I though we were playing a game of who can make the most random post.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not seeing how this relates to the post you are replying to.

You can't see it. You can only understand it.
A scientist claiming God is not science. A scientist claiming metaphysical naturalism is not science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I like pie. Do you like pie? I do.



What? sorry, I though we were playing a game of who can make the most random post.

A person claiming God is the above. A person claiming metaphysical naturalism is the above.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not projecting here.

This is an attack. Please don't get personal. It is not true what you're saying.

I don't run away from the discussion on the subject level. Nevertheless I hate the ongoing repetitions of what you've already stated so often.
I was in a position to make my claims every single time. In general I don't run away from learning experiences. But here, I don't want you to be my teacher. You can support your assumtions, that's just fine. But don't pretend to be or become my teacher, please.

No, it is an observation based upon your posts. I even provided links to explain what is and what is not evidence and you demonstrated no sign of understanding them. In fact it is the opposite of an attack since I offered to help you to learn.

Your claim of "assumtions" on the other hand is a personal attack.

 

[firedragon]

You can easily prove me wrong.

You can easily prove me wrong.

Show me a creationist who isn't ignorant of the sciences involved AND who is also honest about those sciences.

So, can you?

If you want, I can give you a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong list of creationists who are either ignorant or dishonest about the sciences involved.

Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Adnan Oktar (aka Harun Yahya), Ray "bananaman" Comfort, Michael Behe, plenty of folks on this very forum, and many many many more.

In fact, creationists have made it rather easy themselves... there's enough "lists" floating around of "creation scientists". Like this website right here: Dissent from Darwin – There is a scientific dissent from Darwinism and it deserves to be heard.

A whole list, filled with either exposed ignoramuses or exposed just plain liars.

So, who do you have?

Excellent. You have given ppl like Kent Hovind who was a fake Phd granted by a fake university situated in a house with three rooms. He is no creationist, he is an anti evolution, pseudo scholar. Super going quoting famous evangelists like that off the TV. Quite shallow.

Ill give you a creationist. Ibn Khaldun. Do some research on him.

 

[firedragon]

Off course you did.
Why else would you bring them up in the context that you did?

Clearly it is what you were implying.

But the fact is that Newton is remembered for his non-religious work in physics. Not for his ramblings in alchemy, nore for his religious beliefs.

If anything, he is remembered in spite of those.

No.