Creationists: what prevents you from accepting ToE?

[metis]

The problem is rampant dishonesty amongst evolutionists, as my story shows of how the evolutionists at talk.origins dealt with the issue of darwinism and nazism. I don't think you understand at all how emotions are required for seeking the truth. People make decisions, it's then on you to make opinion on their emotions, and on your own emotions. You do not have this emotional depth to make opinions, because you simply disregard it. You act like you can find the truth, just by measuring, and then what happens is, your neglected emotional basis degenerates to bland prejudices, and these prejudices point to facts that suit the prejudices.

I think the above garbage more than speaks for itself, so I need not say much more. I studied the Holocaust here in the States, in Poland, and in Israel, plus I taught anthropology, the latter of which deals with human evolution. Your assessment of both is naive and counter to any educated mind.

 

[McBell]

The problem is rampant dishonesty amongst evolutionists, as my story shows of how the evolutionists at talk.origins dealt with the issue of darwinism and nazism. I don't think you understand at all how emotions are required for seeking the truth. People make decisions, it's then on you to make opinion on their emotions, and on your own emotions. You do not have this emotional depth to make opinions, because you simply disregard it. You act like you can find the truth, just by measuring, and then what happens is, your neglected emotional basis degenerates to bland prejudices, and these prejudices point to facts that suit the prejudices.

you do not back peddle very well.

 

[Sapiens]

The problem is rampant dishonesty amongst evolutionists, as my story shows of how the evolutionists at talk.origins dealt with the issue of darwinism and nazism. I don't think you understand at all how emotions are required for seeking the truth. People make decisions, it's then on you to make opinion on their emotions, and on your own emotions. You do not have this emotional depth to make opinions, because you simply disregard it. You act like you can find the truth, just by measuring, and then what happens is, your neglected emotional basis degenerates to bland prejudices, and these prejudices point to facts that suit the prejudices.

Your story was crap, I showed that it was crap and yet you persist in retelling it. That is dishonest.

If the science acumen that you show here is the same as what you display at work, and you're still employed, you must be serving as a rather low level technician doing routine menial tasks.

 

[R34L1TY]

The term Evolutionist is bollox. Evolution is a fact, the theory to explain it is open to conversation but you need factual evidence to participate..

 

[Sapiens]

Oh who cares? This was a secondary issue of one point. My standards are very very similar to what determines scholastic excellence because I happen to watch who have excellent credentials granted by academic institutions. Lets stop obsessing on an issue that has nothing to do with evolution.

Primary, secondary, tertiary, who cares? You are still wrong, wrong, wrong. Your standards clearly do not meet what I am used to, and mine are nothing out of the ordinary, just what is to be expected of an honors graduate of a first tier academic institution and someone who misspent his graduate work and employment at a "top ten" graduate research institute.

The fact that no Hebrew calendar considers the pre Adam days of creation to be Earth centric 24 hour periods is a fact and fact that has more to do with long geological periods presented in Genesis than any other claim I can possibly think of. I have no idea how any fact could be a greater piece of evidence for my claim.

What does this have to do with reality?

Let me point out something I have learned after decades of theistic debate. You can make what you wish out of them but their existence is beyond contention.

Nothing that I've seen from you is beyond contention,

1. In General non-theists will obsess about every particular of a statement regardless of it's importance or relevance. IMO it is the result of thinking if you were to let the slightest bit of daylight in the whole house of cards crumbles, but feel free to draw your own and convenient explanation.

Gee, I've seen it as quite the opposite, Non-theists are willing to grant great latitude and it is only when theists start trying to dismember, say, evolution, based on clear clap-trap that has been asked and answered repeatedly that non-theists respond in kind with question like "where is heaven?" You don't know? But Mary, or Jesus, or Ralph arose in the flesh, so give me the coordinates of a body. Habeas corpus!

2. In General an educated theist is the one who is interested in debate in general and the one who will grant anything that can be to spend time on the core issues.

Most non-theists that I know can't be bothered with debates of this sort. They see them as a waste of time at best and mistaken elevation of sheer foolishness (e.g., theism) to the same plane as science at worst. In my case it comes from a view of the world as an ordered place that the theists, by and large, leave messes in.

Let me throw in a recent conclusion for you to consider.
I have recently been testing an observation I have made. If you look at laymen titles for debates. Like if you look at lists of UTUBE debate videos. Only non-theists add in the conclusion to the title. A theist says White versus Ehrman for example, the atheist commonly says Ehrman embarrasses White. The theists says Craig versus Krauss, the atheist says the stupid Craig gets humiliated by the brilliant Krauss, etc.

If that is in fact done, and I don't recognize it (but then I get most of my information from scientific publications and not layman's youtube videos), well then I suspect that it is done to get a rise out of those such as you. I'm sure the non-theists who play such games are heartened by your response.

Another is that constant cry made by atheists that theists shy away from debate but instead Christians are who sponsor most professional debates. Only a weak position requires color commentary. Take it for what it's worth.

I've never heard or observed that beyond the general feeling that debating with theists raises them and thus lowers the non-theist right out of the gate. That was what Bill Nye took a lot of flack for.

I am using this post to annunciate several generalities I happen to have noticed are virulent of late.
This one is about the convenience of evidence as judged by a non theist. It is similar to the tendencies of Muslims in general. Any historical account convenient to a non-theist appears to be perfectly reliable to them and only those that are convenient to the theist are unreliable. These are just things or patterns you notice after years of being obsessed by debate.

That's just a matter of picking the low hanging fruit ... why take what you are given for free?

1. The only dishonesty here is the claim of dishonesty. To claim a person lied requires access to motivation that you do not have.

I agree, and I charge you with lying because you choose to ignore strong evidence that contradicts claims that you make.

2. Only if you know first my claim was wrong (and you do not even attempt to show that it is), then second you have to show that it was known to be wrong by me and then stated as fact anyway (this you can't know). So the claim to lying is it's self a lie.

There is no need to attempt to show anything. You made the claim, you have the burden, you failed to make your case and you have, in the past, been told ... so you should know better.

3. I even anticipated this well known tactic of trying to subdivide a theory from the relevant reality it represents. The ToE without abiogenesis is no threat nor relevant to a theistic debate, only with creation from nothing, cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, and abiogenesis, plus countless other necessities is it relative to or a threat to theism. I have no interest in the boundaries of a super elastic theory that is stretched or contracted based on convenience. I care about the actual reality is supposedly represents as it is relevant to theism.

See, even now you wallow in your lie.

This brings up another trend I have noticed. When no actual defense is required but the person will never admit it I get non-stop demands for evidence without a desire to accept any when given. You asked for evidence that the doctrine exists in Christianity for evolution with limits. The verses I supplied state exactly that. I conclude the demand for evidence was insincere and you either do not understand what you asked or are simply moving the goal posts without justification.

No, why would care if there were verses? Verses demonstate nothing and prove even less. What I am asking for are facts, data, supporting arguments, not fairy tale verses ... there a dime a dozen on any corner.

You asked for evidence of a doctrine. I gave the verses that are the clear and simple foundations of the doctrine. If that is not evidence there is no such thing and the word has no meaning.

No, the word has meaning is is the verse that is meaningless.

Kind of but that is not all they suggest by a long shot. The tree is a model that posits a single ancestor to everything, the forest is a model that has several ancestors to everything. The how is genetic mutation but those models go way way beyond that.

There is no where in modern science a "forest" model.

I think otherwise and your only confirming my suspicion that constant requests for evidence and the denial of what is given is a smoke screen.

The only smoke screen is your trying to hide behind verses when you are asked for evidence.

There are far more gaps where science is crammed without justification. Materialism of the gaps is just as unjustified as a God of the gaps argument would have been if I had made one.

Now you are reduced to inventing meaninless terms ... what on Earth is "materialism of the gaps?" the very concept is an oxymoron at best.

Do you have a relevant argument at all on the issue? So far you have only been having a debate about having a debate. You have not made one relevant scientific claim (right or wrong) yet.

Sure, here's a scientific claim: a monkey is your uncle, so to speak.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Your story was crap, I showed that it was crap and yet you persist in retelling it. That is dishonest.

If the science acumen that you show here is the same as what you display at work, and you're still employed, you must be serving as a rather low level technician doing routine menial tasks.

You only copy pasted the entry from the indext to creationist claims that I was talking about. That proves nothing.

Sapiens is just another example of the rampant dishonesty amongst evolutionists.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You never told me what particular aspect of my post was dishonest. What did I get wrong about the Holocaust?

It's not neccessarily that you got anything wrong, it is that you dismissed what the truth is of the link between Darwinism and Nazism beforehand, without any investigation whatsoever. You are very blatantly arguing towards what is convenient for you, your prejudice to safeguard to reputation of evolution theory, in disregard of the truth about the holocaust.

You compare evolution theory to gravity theory. Well gravity theory is not phrased in emotive terms of differential reproductive "success", organisms "struggling for" survival, mutations that give an "advantage". Evolution theory looks like an ideology on the face of it, because of all the emotive terms in the theory.

You know all that. It is entirely frustrating to converse with people who are entirely prejudiced. Bulldogs, fighters, for evolution, and totally without any emotional basis of honesty for the issues involved.

You and I know, that is all what you will do. That is all what any evolutionist will do. They will all just fight for evolution theory, in total disregard of the truth.

As my story showed, the evolutionist asserts there is nothing in the historybooks about Darwinism, quotes the titles, says that he has reviewed the content of them for the issue of Darwinism and Nazism. I go to the library and read those historybooks, and Darwinism is acknowledged as having a massive influence in those books. There is just never any end to the dishonesty, it is a torrent of it, because, evolutionists simply pay no attention to their emotional basis.

 

[metis]

It's not neccessarily that you got anything wrong, it is that you dismissed what the truth is of the link between Darwinism and Nazism beforehand, without any investigation whatsoever. You are very blatantly arguing towards what is convenient for you, your prejudice to safeguard to reputation of evolution theory, in disregard of the truth about the holocaust.

You compare evolution theory to gravity theory. Well gravity theory is not phrased in emotive terms of differential reproductive "success", organisms "struggling for" survival, mutations that give an "advantage". Evolution theory looks like an ideology on the face of it, because of all the emotive terms in the theory.

You know all that. It is entirely frustrating to converse with people who are entirely prejudiced. Bulldogs, fighters, for evolution, and totally without any emotional basis of honesty for the issues involved.

You and I know, that is all what you will do. That is all what any evolutionist will do. They will all just fight for evolution theory, in total disregard of the truth.

As my story showed, the evolutionist asserts there is nothing in the historybooks about Darwinism, quotes the titles, says that he has reviewed the content of them for the issue of Darwinism and Nazism. I go to the library and read those historybooks, and Darwinism is acknowledged as having a massive influence in those books. There is just never any end to the dishonesty, it is a torrent of it, because, evolutionists simply pay no attention to their emotional basis.

The above is patently absurd, and you have the unmitigated gal to accuse "evolutionists" of being "emotional" and "prejudiced" and "dishonest".

Evolutionary theory is in no way an "ideology" since it is based on using the scientific method exclusively. The Holocaust was a historical event perpetrated by a government that felt that certain ethnic groups were "not true Germans", so the "solution" in dealing with them was to use genocide.

Therefore, trying to use the ToE as somehow causing the Holocaust is terribly shallow even though there were some within the Third Reich, including some scientists, attempted to justify their actions on the basis of science.

Therefore, it was neither science nor the ToE that led to the Holocaust but the perversion of both by those with a political agenda.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Evolutionary theory is in no way an "ideology" since it is based on using the scientific method exclusively

Like Piltdown man?

 

[metis]

Like Piltdown man?

Piltdown was not a problem with the ToE as it was a problem of a single man being dishonest. BTW, the hoax of Piltdown was discovered by an anthropologist, Loren Eisely, and this scandal brought some changes as to how we now deal with fossils as they must be made available to other scientists for observation and testing, which was not the case with the fake Piltdown skull.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Piltdown was not a problem with the ToE as it was a problem of a single man being dishonest. BTW, the hoax of Piltdown was discovered by an anthropologist, Loren Eisely, and this scandal brought some changes as to how we now deal with fossils as they must be made available to other scientists for observation and testing, which was not the case with the fake Piltdown skull.

a single man being dishonest, and lots of evolutionists willing to be go along without too much scrutiny, because of ideology, the eagerness to find what they were looking for. The scientific net catches the fish it was designed to catch and everything else is hense 'unscientific', as Eddington put it, That's always part of the equation isn't it?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The above is patently absurd, and you have the unmitigated gal to accuse "evolutionists" of being "emotional" and "prejudiced" and "dishonest".

Evolutionary theory is in no way an "ideology" since it is based on using the scientific method exclusively. The Holocaust was a historical event perpetrated by a government that felt that certain ethnic groups were "not true Germans", so the "solution" in dealing with them was to use genocide.

Therefore, trying to use the ToE as somehow causing the Holocaust is terribly shallow even though there were some within the Third Reich, including some scientists, attempted to justify their actions on the basis of science.

Therefore, it was neither science nor the ToE that led to the Holocaust but the perversion of both by those with a political agenda.

How is that even remotely honest? That is simply dismissing the issue, without any investigation whatsoever, and then pontificating that everybody who says differently is wrong.

It is just a fact that evolution theory uses emotive terms.

Who doesn't agree with me that Metis is completely prejudiced? That he will just fight tooth and nail for evolution in total disregard of the truth of the link between darwinism and nazism.

 

[Parsimony]

It's not neccessarily that you got anything wrong, it is that you dismissed what the truth is of the link between Darwinism and Nazism beforehand, without any investigation whatsoever. You are very blatantly arguing towards what is convenient for you, your prejudice to safeguard to reputation of evolution theory, in disregard of the truth about the holocaust.

You're making a lot of assumptions about me. I never said that there was no link between Darwinism and Nazism. I don't know if Hitler got his ideas from Darwin or not. I don't know much about the history of Nazi ideology. Let's say that you are correct and Nazism did get inspiration from Darwinism. Okay. Now what?

You compare evolution theory to gravity theory. Well gravity theory is not phrased in emotive terms of differential reproductive "success", organisms "struggling for" survival, mutations that give an "advantage". Evolution theory looks like an ideology on the face of it, because of all the emotive terms in the theory.

Evolution is a natural process, not an ideology. You do realize that those terms apply as much to micro-evolution as they do to macro-evolution. Are you denying that micro-evolution is an observable phenomenon? Even most creationists accept it.

You know all that. It is entirely frustrating to converse with people who are entirely prejudiced. Bulldogs, fighters, for evolution, and totally without any emotional basis of honesty for the issues involved.

Please show where I have been prejudiced.

You and I know, that is all what you will do. That is all what any evolutionist will do. They will all just fight for evolution theory, in total disregard of the truth.

Accepting evolution is what happened when I searched for the truth of the matter. If a more compelling theory were to be presented, I would accept that instead.

As my story showed, the evolutionist asserts there is nothing in the historybooks about Darwinism, quotes the titles, says that he has reviewed the content of them for the issue of Darwinism and Nazism. I go to the library and read those historybooks, and Darwinism is acknowledged as having a massive influence in those books. There is just never any end to the dishonesty, it is a torrent of it, because, evolutionists simply pay no attention to their emotional basis.

Like I said, so what if it did have an influence on them? What does that have to do with whether populations of living things actually evolve over time or not?

 

[viole]

How is that even remotely honest? That is simply dismissing the issue, without any investigation whatsoever, and then pontificating that everybody who says differently is wrong.

It is just a fact that evolution theory uses emotive terms.

Who doesn't agree with me that Metis is completely prejudiced? That he will just fight tooth and nail for evolution in total disregard of the truth of the link between darwinism and nazism.

Let's assume that it is true. The nazi were inspired by Darwin.

How does that invalidate the objectivity of evolution by natural selection?

If it does, why the fact that some terrorists invoke Allah does not invalidate Islam?

Ciao

- viole

 

[metis]

a single man being dishonest, and lots of evolutionists willing to be go along without too much scrutiny, because of ideology, the eagerness to find what they were looking for. The scientific net catches the fish it was designed to catch and everything else is hense 'unscientific', as Eddington put it, That's always part of the equation isn't it?

That's simply not true. What had happened is the Dawson had kept the skull in a bell-jar and wouldn't let anyone take it out to inspect it by saying it was too precious to handle. After Dawson died, his widow allowed Eisely to inspect it, and he quickly determined it was a fake the minute he scratched the surface and saw white bone. Many anthropologists had strong reservations about Piltdown even before Eisely found out about it simply because it didn't fit into a known sequence.

Secondly, you should know that when this scandal occurred, the fact that the state of the art was in the process of evolving safeguards. All branches of science has evolved newer safeguards mean to make certain such events don'gt happen again.

Therefore, it had nothing to do with "ideology" but a lot to do with fraudulent behavior prior to adequate safeguards being in place. If you are going to "convict" science on the basis of that fraudulent action, then you would have to convict every single branch of science and every single religious branch on the same basis as well.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What had happened is the Dawson had kept the skull in a bell-jar and wouldn't let anyone take it out to inspect it by saying it was too precious to handle.

Henry Fairfield Osborn, President of the American Museum of Natural History, examined the Piltdown and Sheffield Park finds and declared that the jaw and skull belonged together "without question"

[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact (Mark Twain)

 

[gsa]

Indeed, you are completely ignorant about how any choosing works, you have demonstrated that.

What you have described is not "choosing," though; people have repeatedly tried to correct your misunderstanding of reality, yet you persist in reading choice into events that involve no known conscious actor. When people speak of "direction" or "trajectory" with respect to evolution, it is simply shorthand to describe how events actually unfolded, not to suggest that they were directed or designed with some end point in mind.

 

[metis]

How is that even remotely honest? That is simply dismissing the issue, without any investigation whatsoever, and then pontificating that everybody who says differently is wrong.

You have no cue what you're talking about, and I previously posted my studies on both. So, you are just being as dishonest as the day is long.

Who doesn't agree with me that Metis is completely prejudiced?

I never said nor implied that, so again you're being totally dishonest.

Sorry, but it impossible to discuss much of anything when you use the kind of tactics that you are. If you are not willing to study and try to be honest, there's not much chance anyone can trust what you say.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You're making a lot of assumptions about me. I never said that there was no link between Darwinism and Nazism. I don't know if Hitler got his ideas from Darwin or not. I don't know much about the history of Nazi ideology. Let's say that you are correct and Nazism did get inspiration from Darwinism. Okay. Now what?

Then nothing, just as when there was no link between darwinism and nazism, then also nothing. After you honestly investigated it, then you have the truth of it.

Please show where I have been prejudiced.

You know that evolution theory is phrased emotively (you are an organism in a struggle for survival, and this struggle results in differential reproductive success) , by professional biologists, not just laypeople. You knew it, and you ignored it. You downplayed it by suggesting evolution theory is just like gravity theory, which is not phrased emotively. That is arguing towards prejudice.

 

[Sapiens]

You only copy pasted the entry from the index to creationist claims that I was talking about. That proves nothing.

Sapiens is just another example of the rampant dishonesty amongst evolutionists.

All the information required to debunk what you are advocating is contained in that cut and paste, the proof is in the reading ... did you bother? Did you respond to the answers? Of course you did not, because at root level you are dishonest and are more concerned with trying to make your losing case than you are with understanding the reality of the universe around you.