7
   

Do *ANY* creationists understand evolution?

 
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 07:53 am
@solipsister,
solipsister wrote:
cut to the chase and disprove god

I never attempted to disprove god, nor would I. Disproving god has nothing to do with what we've been discussing.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 07:56 am
Creationists and IDers always want to change the subject. Then, when nobody chooses to follow, they accuse people of ducking the questions.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 08:01 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
Creationists and IDers always want to change the subject. Then, when nobody chooses to follow, they accuse people of ducking the questions.

They also tend to recite simple platitudes and specious quips in a kind of self-righteous "gotcha" which (unknown to them) completely misses the mark.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 08:20 am
@rosborne979,
IMHO, solipsister is a more verbally equipped version of spendi. She is merely tweaking our beards.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 09:23 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
IMHO, solipsister is a more verbally equipped version of spendi. She is merely tweaking our beards.

I assumed her moniker was an admission of her basic position:
Quote:
Solipsism is the philosophical idea that "My mind is the only thing that I know exists." Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist. In the history of philosophy, solipsism has served as a skeptical hypothesis.

and as such, at least makes her consistent.
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 09:29 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

farmerman wrote:
IMHO, solipsister is a more verbally equipped version of spendi. She is merely tweaking our beards.

I assumed her moniker was an admission of her basic position:
Quote:
Solipsism is the philosophical idea that "My mind is the only thing that I know exists." Solipsism is an epistemological or ontological position that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist. In the history of philosophy, solipsism has served as a skeptical hypothesis.

and as such, at least makes her consistent.
Many psychologists believe that infants have solipsism syndrome, caring only for themselves, but grow out of it as they learn to experience empathy.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 09:40 am
@rosborne979,
But the idea of a any god is not even a skeptical hypothesis. It's certainly not a theory as it has zero facts to back it up other than the delusion that it guided the hand of the writers of the Bible in writing down what would appear to the masses as fact. Nearly everyone has been lured by the sentimental fantasy of the Bible and in the more thoughtful by the art and architecture than the word. One can still appreciate the inspiration of a Gothic cathedral, a work of music and a beautifully executed painting or sculpture without continuing to believe in the Bible's concept of Yahweh. It's unnecessary to disprove something outside of a hypothesis or theory.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 09:41 am
@dyslexia,
Some do not grow out of it and end up as sociopaths, some of those still able to pray for themselves but for nothing else.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 09:45 am
@Lightwizard,
LW said One can still appreciate the inspiration of a Gothic cathedral, a work of music and a beautifully executed painting or sculpture without continuing to believe in the Bible's concept of Yahweh, I suppose so if one ignores the labor of those that did those constructions.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 10:31 am
@dyslexia,
The labor is a integral part of the inspiration -- to pick up the brush, the chisel or the pencil and created a work everyone would be able to view or hear. It's the ultimate sensuality. Abstract art brought it into it's basic elements in the consciousness and sub-consciousness of the intelligent human brain. Art has never come out of nothingness. The Bible is a work of fantasy fiction based on a scarce patchwork accounting of history and/or myth, but little or no science. Science has proven all but conclusively that much of the mythological phenomena accounted for in the Bible is just natural history. The stenographers interpreted it all as metaphysical.

Of course, past the pencil part, the labor of the construction a piece of architecture is the most formidable including the foreman who is following the architects' plans. In music, it's the musicians, and the conductor if required, who complete the labor. It's the art marketing which hopefully allows the painter or sculptor to make a living from the work. It's the museum staff that runs the building where the art is given a noble venue for exhibitions. It's the height of a labor of love which seems to me transcends anything in the Bible.

0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 10:44 am
A Creationut or IDiot's method of learning about evolution:

Study without desire spoils the memory, and it retains nothing that it takes in.
- Leonardo da Vinci
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 11:06 am
The main weapon used against evolution is the promotion of controversy. It is a very poor weapon. The "false model" approach is that by disproving evolution, or at least trying to prevent it from being accepted, that creationism/ID remain valid ideas and/or the default truth.

There is not one iota of evidence to support creationism/ID. What exists in plenty is some comparative nonsense about evolution. Evolutionary theory does not have to disprove a god or gods, only that speciation is natural and the mechanism which drives it only requires natural factors.

Creationism however cannot exist without an alternative theory to attack.

T
K
O
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 11:33 am
@Diest TKO,
Oh, and how loud they shout wounded as if science is cumulatively attacking religion. Darwin feared what his book would mean to his religion which was Christianity but never really divulged exactly how he reconciled it within himself. He knew truth was stranger than fiction.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 12:45 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
Is this your cute way of avoiding and evading the justification of what you said?

You told AnswerMan that what he posted was not true when he stated it was. I simply asked you what was not true.

You can follow the thread as well as I can Intrepid. Answerman was referencing the links he posted and said that it was ALL true. I said it's not. Do you think the information he posted is all true?


Not all. But, some.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 12:48 pm
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

I'm beginning to doubt that green M & M's are sexual stimulants.


The green has evolved into the blue ones.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 01:11 pm
@Intrepid,
The original colors were red, yellow, green, brown, orange and violet. Apparently back in 1949 tan had a better PR agent than it does today, because it knocked violet out of the line up. Tan managed to hang onto its place in the spectrum until 1995, when it was replaced by blue.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 01:12 pm
@Lightwizard,
regressive gene?
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2009 01:18 pm
@Intrepid,
It's evolution -- the sweet-toothed customer's natural selection. BTW, green is the third most popular M&M according to their site. When blue was first introduced, the flavor was Windex.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 07:17 am
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
Is this your cute way of avoiding and evading the justification of what you said?

You told AnswerMan that what he posted was not true when he stated it was. I simply asked you what was not true.

You can follow the thread as well as I can Intrepid. Answerman was referencing the links he posted and said that it was ALL true. I said it's not. Do you think the information he posted is all true?


Not all. But, some.

Oh good. So you agree with my original statement.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2009 10:29 am
@Diest TKO,
Quote:
The "false model" approach is that by disproving evolution, or at least trying to prevent it from being accepted, that creationism/ID remain valid ideas and/or the default truth.


This is precisely the method that the member "real life" constantly used. His apparent rhetorical method (he would never directly discuss the implications of his attempts to discredit science) was to cast sufficient doubt on scientific descriptions of the world to imply that the only alternative would be his poofistic explanation of the origin of the cosmos, and all which exists within it. One major problem with this is that it is as probable that the flying spaghetti monster is responsible for the cosmos as it is that his imaginary friend is, if one once abandons reason and buys into the validity of such a method.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.15 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 07:13:54