PDA

View Full Version : evolution/creation posts sf. GGWS and GM



Desmond
08-03-2012, 08:01 AM
That atheopathic anthropologist Eugenie Scott is just as out of her depth scientifically in this field as well. She is a leftist political activist, plain and simple.Alas for you, accepting the science of evolution does not make one an atheopath (whatever that is). Indeed the majority of Christians accept it, and for good reasons. Just you and your special young earth bunch seem to have trouble with it.

Ian Murray
08-03-2012, 08:31 AM
Alas for you, accepting the science of evolution does not make one an atheopath (whatever that is). Indeed the majority of Christians accept it, and for good reasons. Just you and your special young earth bunch seem to have trouble with it.
Glossary of terms

Atheopath – A neologism, coined by Creation Ministries International’s Jonathan Sarfati and used (as far as we can tell) by no one else, which combines the word “atheist” and the suffix “-path” (“one afflicted by a specified disorder”) to create a word meaning something like “one afflicted by atheism.” Apparently it’s intended to echo scary words like sociopath and psychopath. Perhaps we should coin the counter-term “theopath.”

http://www.americanfreethought.com/wordpress/2010/06/13/podcast-91-its-alive/

Capablanca-Fan
08-03-2012, 09:46 AM
Alas for you, accepting the science of evolution does not make one an atheopath (whatever that is).
Indeed not, as I have said myself (http://creation.com/false-claims-hugh-ross), but there is little to distinguish atheopathic and non-atheopathic evolutionists for all practical purposes involving origins.


Indeed the majority of Christians accept it, and for good reasons.
What do you care? In any case, my best-seller Refuting Compromise (http://creation.com/store_redirect.php?sku=10-2-575) shows how misguided they are. Also, your fellow atheopath Dawkins (http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/introduction.php) has nothing but contempt (http://creation.com/dawkins-on-compromising-churchians) for these compromisers trying to have a bob each way.

Desmond
08-03-2012, 09:59 AM
Indeed not, as I have said myself (http://creation.com/false-claims-hugh-ross), but there is little to distinguish atheopathic and non-atheopathic evolutionists for all practical purposes involving origins.
Little to distinguish atheists from theists when it comes to origins? Wow, what have you been smoking today?

What do you care? Pointing out yet another of your false dichotomies. One can be a theist and accept evolution, and indeed most Christians do.

In any case, my best-seller [sic] Refuting Compromise (http://creation.com/store_redirect.php?sku=10-2-575) shows how misguided they are. Also, your fellow atheopath Dawkins (http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/introduction.php) has nothing but contempt (http://creation.com/dawkins-on-compromising-churchians) for these compromisers trying to have a bob each way.Again, best-seller in what list.

I couldn't care less what Dawkins may or may not have contempt for.

Rincewind
08-03-2012, 10:54 AM
Perhaps we should coin the counter-term “theopath.”

Probably not worth it. I coined the word "pathopistisist" (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pathopistisist) for this idea but mainly because it was a challenge to say after a few beers. :)

Ian Murray
08-03-2012, 01:44 PM
Probably not worth it. I coined the word "pathopistisist" (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pathopistisist) for this idea but mainly because it was a challenge to say after a few beers. :)
Perhaps atheopathophobic could be used to describe Jono

Capablanca-Fan
11-03-2012, 05:44 PM
Little to distinguish atheists from theists when it comes to origins? Wow, what have you been smoking today?
I said for all practical purposes. I.e. what practical difference is there between evolution making things and "God using evolution"?


Pointing out yet another of your false dichotomies. One can be a theist and accept evolution, and indeed most Christians do.
And as I've amply shown, they are mistaken, but what do you care anyway?


Again, best-seller in what list.
By Australian and New Zealand standards.

Desmond
11-03-2012, 06:05 PM
I said for all practical purposes. I.e. what practical difference is there between evolution making things and "God using evolution"?If you're talking about diversity of life, then yes by definition if a theist accepts evolution then they accept it so it's the same. But you also said regarding origins which is different altogether, presumably you're talking about the origin of the universe or the origin of life or both. Both of which fall outside of the scope of the theory of evolution. If we (wrongly) paint evolution with your wide brush to include those things, then it should be obvious even to blind Freddy that theists and atheists are totally different.


And as I've amply shown, they are mistaken, but what do you care anyway?Whether you think they are mistaken is irrelevant, since I was simply showing that the belief of god is compatible with acceptance of science of evolution. Many young earthers would have us believe otherwise.


By Australian and New Zealand standards.I said in what list.

Capablanca-Fan
12-03-2012, 02:17 AM
If you're talking about diversity of life, then yes by definition if a theist accepts evolution then they accept it so it's the same. But you also said regarding origins which is different altogether, presumably you're talking about the origin of the universe or the origin of life or both. Both of which fall outside of the scope of the theory of evolution. If we (wrongly) paint evolution with your wide brush to include those things, then it should be obvious even to blind Freddy that theists and atheists are totally different.
Not just my "wide brush" but Kerkut's for example, and another one was Lawrence Lerner (http://creation.com/whos-really-pushing-bad-science-rebuttal-to-lawrence-s-lerner#Definitions):


‘What do we mean by evolution, and what is its place in the sciences? The universe is a dynamic place at every scale of space and time. Almost all science is the study of the evolution of one system or another — systems as large as the universe itself or as small as a neutrino; systems whose time scales are measured in billions of years or in attoseconds.

‘Thus, evolution is an indispensable concept across all the sciences. But biological evolution in particular has come to occupy a peculiar position in American education.’

More likely, you invent an unwarranted semantic restriction, so "evolution" covers things that no creationist dispute: that allele frequencies change over time.


Whether you think they are mistaken is irrelevant, since I was simply showing that the belief of god is compatible with acceptance of science of evolution. Many young earthers would have us believe otherwise.
Because we don't care about a generic "god", but with the true God of the Bible.


I said in what list.
Doesn't have to be in a list. Rather, the $100 total sales (mostly not through Amazon) compares favorably with other Australian-authored books described as "best-sellers", e.g. from Australia's Best-Selling Books in 2011: The Top 10 List (http://cate-allan.suite101.com/australias-best-selling-books-in-2011-a-top-10-list-a400719):


The Opal Desert by Di Morrissey – 92,000 copies sold

Di Morrissey is one of the most successful writers in Australia today.The Opal Desert was her 20th novel published in 20 years and continues her unbroken run of best-sellers.

51 Signed Copies of 2 Aussie Bestsellers: Rachael Treasure (http://cate-allan.suite101.com/australias-best-selling-books-in-2011-a-top-10-list-a400719):


Rachael Treasure is the bestselling author of Jillaroo, The Stockmen and The Rouseabout, all bestsellers in Australia selling more than 100,000 combined copies by the end of 2007.

Desmond
12-03-2012, 07:59 AM
You brought it up in the 2118Missing the point. I'm not the one who is saying that identity isn't important to the discussion. In fact I said the very opposite at the outset - i.e. the article I linked may be of interest to people who meet certain criteria. So of course I should mention identity. You're the one who is saying that it doesn't matter, so why should you.


BTW, I don't remember anyone introducing himself personally as "road runner". You'd appreciate that I don't have enough free time to follow every online nickname, especially if they change frequently.Once in 6 years is frequently? Boy, I knew you were an ultra conservative, but...

And the point is that you accused me of hiding my identity. In fact at the time of your posting, I 1) was continuing the same conversation I had started as my old nickname, Boris, 2) had the same avatar, 3) had the same signature, 4) had the same location, 5) had the same subtitle. So even without leaving the screen you were on it shouldn't have been too hard for an intelligent, observant person to work it out, if they cared to do so. So to use an analogy, no I didn't introduce myself as that but I was wearing a name badge if you cared to read it.


I don't have a leaning towards YEC. As far as my personal believes are concerned, I don't feel a need to discuss them publicly as they are not of interest to anybody and I don't want to force them on anyone who might not share.Seems my "coy" was apt.

Desmond
12-03-2012, 08:20 AM
Not just my "wide brush" but Kerkut's for example, and another one was Lawrence Lerner (http://creation.com/whos-really-pushing-bad-science-rebuttal-to-lawrence-s-lerner#Definitions):


‘What do we mean by evolution, and what is its place in the sciences? The universe is a dynamic place at every scale of space and time. Almost all science is the study of the evolution of one system or another — systems as large as the universe itself or as small as a neutrino; systems whose time scales are measured in billions of years or in attoseconds.

‘Thus, evolution is an indispensable concept across all the sciences. But biological evolution in particular has come to occupy a peculiar position in American education.’



More likely, you invent an unwarranted semantic restriction, so "evolution" covers things that no creationist dispute: that allele frequencies change over time.Really, so creationists don't dispute common ancestry, for example of humans and other apes? News to me.


Because we don't care about a generic "god", but with the true God of the Bible.And so do Catholics et al. They care about a specific God as well, yet find room to reconcile that with what is know about the natural world.


Doesn't have to be in a list. oooooh yes it does. That's what a bestseller is, for goodness sake. Line 1 definition from wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestseller):


A bestseller is a book that is identified as extremely popular by its inclusion on lists of currently top selling titles that are based on publishing industry and book trade figures and published by newspapers, magazines, or bookstore chains.


To use your example. If you had made that bestseller list, then you could say "look at me! my book made Suite101's 2011 list of Australia's bestselling books". But you didn't, so you can't. What lists have you made it on?

Desmond
12-03-2012, 06:48 PM
Not just my "wide brush" but Kerkut's for example, and another one was Lawrence Lerner (http://creation.com/whos-really-pushing-bad-science-rebuttal-to-lawrence-s-lerner#Definitions):


‘What do we mean by evolution, and what is its place in the sciences? The universe is a dynamic place at every scale of space and time. Almost all science is the study of the evolution of one system or another — systems as large as the universe itself or as small as a neutrino; systems whose time scales are measured in billions of years or in attoseconds.

‘Thus, evolution is an indispensable concept across all the sciences. But biological evolution in particular has come to occupy a peculiar position in American education.’

More likely, you invent an unwarranted semantic restriction, so "evolution" covers things that no creationist dispute: that allele frequencies change over time.Why not just take a freely available accepted definition. Like the one in the wiki article you found but didn't seem to have read (my bolding):


Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.

See here's the thing. Evolution is a theory of biology. Biology is the study of things that are alive. Not how the universe formed.

Your misconceptions make this list (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a1):


MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.

CORRECTION: Evolutionary theory does encompass ideas and evidence regarding life's origins (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but this is not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Most of evolutionary biology deals with how life changed after its origin. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.

Capablanca-Fan
13-03-2012, 07:39 AM
Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.
Again, define it that broadly, and I am an evolutionist myself. Then your ilk should stop calling me an "anti-evolutionist", and the likes of Eugenie "born-again warm-monger" Scott should stop bleating about a campaign to stop teaching of evolution in schools.


Your misconceptions make this list (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a1):

MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.
They are just wrong, as already shown, with authorities and simple practice of evolutionary books.

Rincewind
13-03-2012, 09:13 AM
They are just wrong,

Ipse dixit. As already stated numerous times the creation of life from nothing is of interest to evolution of course but not the central phenomenon that is being explained. What evolution explains is biodiversity and common ancestry of life on earth.

Ian Murray
13-03-2012, 12:41 PM
...the likes of Eugenie "born-again warm-monger" Scott should stop bleating about a campaign to stop teaching of evolution in schools.
I wonder if Jono's antipathy towards Scott has anyhting to do with her review of his book?


The AiG response to the Evolution series, and also to an article in Scientific American criticizing creationism (Rennie 2002), is Refuting Evolution 2 (Sarfati 2002). As its title suggests, the book is a sequel to Refuting Evolution (Sarfati 1999), which criticized the National Academy of Sciences' booklet Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science (NAS 1998). Sarfati contends that evolution is a theory in crisis. His favorite tactic is to identify a debate within evolutionary biology, to agree with each side's critique of the other, and then to conclude triumphantly that evolution is false. He also implies that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, always referring to Christians who reject AiG's version of creationism as “professed” Christians or people who “claim” to be Christians. And although he expresses reservations about equal time for creationism in the public schools (“Would Christians want an atheistic teacher to be forced to teach creation, and deliberately distort it?” [Sarfati 2002, p. 31]), he is insistent that the evidence against evolution—which turns out to be the usual creationist claptrap—deserves a hearing there. Refuting Evolution 2 is a crude piece of propaganda. But there are over 350,000 copies of its predecessor in print, according to AiG, so its shoddiness is no excuse for complacency on the part of the scientific community.
http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1641/0006-3568%282003%29053%5B0282%3AACAC%5D2.0.CO%3B2

Desmond
13-03-2012, 06:26 PM
Again, define it that broadly, and I am an evolutionist myself.
Really, so you don't dispute common ancestry, for example of humans and other apes?


They are just wrong, as already shown, with authorities and simple practice of evolutionary books.You've shown nothing except ignorance, and what can be achieved by quoting mining.

Capablanca-Fan
16-03-2012, 06:19 AM
Really, so creationists don't dispute common ancestry, for example of humans and other apes? News to me.
Ah, now you're changing the definition to something more realistic. I was objecting to defining it as change over time.


And so do Catholics et al. They care about a specific God as well, yet find room to reconcile that with what is know about the natural world.
By appeasing the atheopaths and going against their own tradition.


oooooh yes it does. That's what a bestseller is, for goodness sake. Line 1 definition from wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bestseller):


A bestseller is a book that is identified as extremely popular by its inclusion on lists of currently top selling titles that are based on publishing industry and book trade figures and published by newspapers, magazines, or bookstore chains.
That's Wiki's opinion. But the right definition is just what the name says! Ideally, something should go on a best-seller list because it sells better than most other books—appearing on such a list should only be ratifying something that the sales figures already show. Road Runner, or whatever he calls himself, would have us believe that the appearance on the list caused those previous sales figures.

Here is another comparison, from Andrew Bolt about anticreationist Ian Plimer in 2008 (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_the_book_you_nearly_didnt_read/):


HOW hard is it to smash through Australia’s group-think? Consider the case of Professor Ian Plimer and the book he couldn’t sell.

Well, couldn’t sell until now, because Plimer’s Heaven and Earth, debunking the great global warming scare, has become an instant best-seller.

It today gets its fourth reprint in little over a fortnight, bringing to 25,000 the number of copies now sold or ordered.

This, in a country where a best-seller is reckoned at some 8000 copies, so we’re talking about a publishing hit.



He’d already produced best-sellers such as Telling Lies for God (Random House, around 23,000 copies) and A Short History of Planet Earth (ABC Books, around 16,000 copies), which had won him the coveted Eureka Prize.

So if my books have exceeded 8k, let alone 25k, this counts as a best-seller by a common-sense comparison: i.e. a book that sells more than a "best-seller", by the logic of superlative adjectives, must also be a "best-seller".

Rincewind
16-03-2012, 08:37 AM
So if my books have exceeded 8k, let alone 25k, this counts as a best-seller by a common-sense comparison: i.e. a book that sells more than a "best-seller", by the logic of superlative adjectives, must also be a "best-seller".

Not really you have to look at other factors such as the period over which the books sells. A book which sells a large number of copies in a short period of time is a best seller one that sells the same number of many years is less impressive. Also you have to look at numbers actually sold at retail and not number sold to distributors. This is where Amazon best seller number are reasonable indicators as they score on the number sold through their online store and don't care about the number printed or in distribution.

Kevin Bonham
16-03-2012, 10:40 AM
So if my books have exceeded 8k, let alone 25k, this counts as a best-seller by a common-sense comparison: i.e. a book that sells more than a "best-seller", by the logic of superlative adjectives, must also be a "best-seller".

Bolt seems to be talking about sales of 8K in Australia specifically.

Desmond
16-03-2012, 06:19 PM
Ah, now you're changing the definition to something more realistic. I was objecting to defining it as change over time.As usual you're wrong about practically everything, and your rendition is diametrically opposed to reality. You're the one trying to paint evolution as meaning just change over time, viz. defining it to incorporate different fields such as the origin of the universe.
By appeasing the atheopaths and going against their own tradition.
Read: By reconciling their beliefs with what is known about the natural world. I guess the difference between you and them is that their beliefs are contingent on reality.
That's Wiki's opinion. But the right definition is just what the name says! Ideally, something should go on a best-seller list because it sells better than most other books—appearing on such a list should only be ratifying something that the sales figures already show. If it is an apples for apples comparison. Such as sales in a certain market segment over a specific period of time etc. Y'know, those pesky things called caveats - cast your mind back to when you were taught science, you may recall those guys standing at the front who knew what they were talking about mentioning them.

To return to your previous example on the Suite101 site - that particular best-seller list says it takes its figures from the "Nielson Book Data, Nielson Book Data 2011 Report". So if your book was listed in that report with a sales rate that puts you in the top 10, and Suite101 did not list you, then yes I'd say you have a good case that you should have been on the list. I had only a brief look on Nielson's site and couldn't find the report without signing up, so I cannot be sure, but y'know what, I'll put a buck on the line to say you don't qualify.

And if you really want to get into what should be the "right" definition of best seller, then there would be one of them and it wouldn't be yours.

Road Runner, or whatever he calls himself, would have us believe that the appearance on the list caused those previous sales figures.
Rubbish.
Here is another comparison, from Andrew Bolt about anticreationist Ian Plimer in 2008 (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_the_book_you_nearly_didnt_read/):


HOW hard is it to smash through Australia’s group-think? Consider the case of Professor Ian Plimer and the book he couldn’t sell.

Well, couldn’t sell until now, because Plimer’s Heaven and Earth, debunking the great global warming scare, has become an instant best-seller.

It today gets its fourth reprint in little over a fortnight, bringing to 25,000 the number of copies now sold or ordered.

This, in a country where a best-seller is reckoned at some 8000 copies, so we’re talking about a publishing hit.



He’d already produced best-sellers such as Telling Lies for God (Random House, around 23,000 copies) and A Short History of Planet Earth (ABC Books, around 16,000 copies), which had won him the coveted Eureka Prize.

So if my books have exceeded 8k, let alone 25k, this counts as a best-seller by a common-sense comparison: i.e. a book that sells more than a "best-seller", by the logic of superlative adjectives, must also be a "best-seller".More non apples-for-apples comparisons.

So what list are you on again? I've asked so many times and you haven't named one; I'm beginning to think you can't.

Igor_Goldenberg
20-03-2012, 09:00 PM
Once in 6 years is frequently? Boy, I knew you were an ultra conservative, but...

And the point is that you accused me of hiding my identity. In fact at the time of your posting, I 1) was continuing the same conversation I had started as my old nickname, Boris, 2) had the same avatar, 3) had the same signature, 4) had the same location, 5) had the same subtitle. So even without leaving the screen you were on it shouldn't have been too hard for an intelligent, observant person to work it out, if they cared to do so. So to use an analogy, no I didn't introduce myself as that but I was wearing a name badge if you cared to read it.
For the year or so I was visiting the site very infrequently. If my memory serves me correctly, you claimed to have me on the ignore list.
And I have a feeling that 2)-5) have changed over the last year.

Ian Murray
21-03-2012, 08:58 AM
The thinking process from "Hullo, who's road runner?" to "Ah, Boris" took me about five seconds

Desmond
21-03-2012, 09:06 AM
For the year or so I was visiting the site very infrequently. More great reasons not to accuse people of hiding. Thanks for the help.


If my memory serves me correctly, you claimed to have me on the ignore list.lol @ "claimed"

And I have a feeling that 2)-5) have changed over the last year.Not so sure about that, but in any event they do not change frequently.

Hobbes
21-03-2012, 09:07 AM
The thinking process from "Hullo, who's road runner?" to "Ah, Boris" took me about five seconds

Congratulations.

I also knew because I read the "I officially request to have my handle changed to ... " thread, so I get a pat on the back too.

But, if someone doesn't know, do you think it better to say "Oh, I was Boris but have changed my name", or "But if you're too stupid to work it out, try asking nicely and I might tell you."

Hmm.

Desmond
21-03-2012, 09:19 AM
But, if someone doesn't know, do you think it better to say "Oh, I was Boris but have changed my name", or "But if you're too stupid to work it out, try asking nicely and I might tell you."

Hmm.Not a case of "if someone doesn't know", a case of being accused of hiding. To me, before you accuse someone of hiding, you should make at least some attempt to, errr, look. It was documented in 2 threads, in addition to the points I alread made about being visible on that very page. Not rocket surgery to work it out. I mean, many people may not care one way or the other, but to someone who cares enough allege hiding and make not a shred of effort...

Adamski
21-03-2012, 09:55 PM
Not a case of "if someone doesn't know", a case of being accused of hiding. To me, before you accuse someone of hiding, you should make at least some attempt to, errr, look. It was documented in 2 threads, in addition to the points I alread made about being visible on that very page. Not rocket surgery to work it out. I mean, many people may not care one way or the other, but to someone who cares enough allege hiding and make not a shred of effort...
I like te new term "rocket surgery". Personally, I usually refer to rocket science though....

Desmond
22-03-2012, 07:28 AM
I like te new term "rocket surgery". Personally, I usually refer to rocket science though....Thanks, although I cannot take credit for it. It's an amalgam of brain surgery and rocket science.

Capablanca-Fan
23-03-2012, 02:41 PM
His associate Ray Comfort is more closely identified with the banana argument.
No idea. I know another book that did, and one of my colleagues rejected it quite sarcastically.


I think Kirk was roundly ridiculed for promoting the crocoduck argument (again with Ray Comfort).
No idea. Informed creationists don't. Looks like yet another dishonest evolutionary straw man.

Rincewind
23-03-2012, 03:21 PM
No idea. I know another book that did, and one of my colleagues rejected it quite sarcastically.

Sure I didn;t say all creationist promoted this, just Ray Comfort.


No idea. Informed creationists don't.

Informed creationists don't exist. Anyone informed couldn't possible believe creationism unless they were intellectually bankrupt.


Looks like yet another dishonest evolutionary straw man.

Nope. Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron are earnest creationist and that is seriously what they believe evolution to mean. You aren't the only guy on the planned with a screwed up view of evolution and your misinformation is not the only one going around the traps.

Adamski
23-03-2012, 03:24 PM
A little over the top RW. What happened to tolerance? (I don't regard myself as "intellectually bankrupt".)

Capablanca-Fan
23-03-2012, 03:32 PM
A little over the top RW. What happened to tolerance? (I don't regard myself as "intellectually bankrupt".)
RW is a typical atheopathic leftard in the ivory tower, with no connection to the real world.

jhughes
23-03-2012, 03:37 PM
For once, I agree with Adamski on this one, to describe someone as intellectual bankrupt because of a religious belief is absurd. Even if, for the sake of argument Evolution is true, or even obvious to those who have studied the evidence, to describe one as intellectually bankrupt because of it is absurd. People are ignorant in certain areas, and can still be intelligent nonetheless.

Rincewind
23-03-2012, 04:37 PM
A little over the top RW. What happened to tolerance? (I don't regard myself as "intellectually bankrupt".)

No I know you don't but you do disregard the results of entire scientific disciplines. All of the worlds geologists, completely wrong, in your considered view?

Adamski
23-03-2012, 10:45 PM
No I know you don't but you do disregard the results of entire scientific disciplines. All of the worlds geologists, completely wrong, in your considered view?
Tas Walker for one would be very surprised to hear that all of the world's geologsits consider a creationist worldview to be false! And he is far from alone here.

Kevin Bonham
23-03-2012, 11:42 PM
A little over the top RW. What happened to tolerance? (I don't regard myself as "intellectually bankrupt".)

Hang on, weren't you the one who complained about the modern redefinition of tolerance, writing such things as:


The "tolerance" point is worth pursuing in this debate. Western society in the last 20 years has (negatively) redefined tolerance. It used to mean I accepted that you have the right to disagree with me. Now it seems to mean that if I have issues with what you support (e.g. gay marriage) and I express them then I am intolerant. This is not true tolerance. I tolerating your views should not mean that I have to agree with them.

Now when Rincewind supposedly goes "over the top" in his condemnation of creationism, without making any comment about whether or not creationists should have the legal right to disagree, his "tolerance" is in question? Seems that he just has issues with what creationists support and is expressing them in no uncertain terms.


For once, I agree with Adamski on this one, to describe someone as intellectual bankrupt because of a religious belief is absurd. Even if, for the sake of argument Evolution is true, or even obvious to those who have studied the evidence, to describe one as intellectually bankrupt because of it is absurd. People are ignorant in certain areas, and can still be intelligent nonetheless.

The concept of intellectual bankruptcy has nothing to do with the concept of intelligence or the concept of knowledge. It doesn't mean a person is stupid; it means that a person (often one who is smart enough to know better) chooses to approach issues in a way that lacks intellectual credibility. It is close to the concept of being "intellectually dishonest".

Desmond
23-03-2012, 11:43 PM
For once, I agree with Adamski on this one, to describe someone as intellectual bankrupt because of a religious belief is absurd. Even if, for the sake of argument Evolution is true, or even obvious to those who have studied the evidence, to describe one as intellectually bankrupt because of it is absurd. People are ignorant in certain areas, and can still be intelligent nonetheless.Intelligent people can be conned. I probably wouldn't go so far as to describe the person as intellectually bankrupt, but the young Earth belief system is. Absolutely.

Kevin Bonham
23-03-2012, 11:53 PM
RW is a typical atheopathic leftard in the ivory tower, with no connection to the real world.

I'm not sure someone whose own intellectual provinces (besides chess) include supposed creationist "bestsellers", websites for preaching to the converted and the blogs of the Andrew Bolts of the world is really in much position to issue unsubstantiated slagging about the connection to reality of any academic. :lol:

Desmond
23-03-2012, 11:55 PM
No idea. I know another book that did, and one of my colleagues rejected it quite sarcastically.

No idea. Informed creationists don't. Looks like yet another dishonest evolutionary straw man.Well Adamski seemed to hold his ideas in enough esteem to mention him here. Is he informed? Perhaps you guys should get your stories straight ... then again you and Kirk both seem to have a woeful misunderstanding of evolution so perhaps you're not on such a different page after all.

Rincewind
24-03-2012, 02:19 AM
Tas Walker for one would be very surprised to hear that all of the world's geologsits consider a creationist worldview to be false! And he is far from alone here.

Tas Walkers doctoral qualification is in Mechanical Engineering, not Geology. Even if he was a expert Geologist (which he isn't) there are maybe a handful of Tas Walkers (YEC "geologists") world wide.

By comparison, there are 10,000's of conventional geologists (with PhDs actually in geology). Every reputable university in the world, certainly all those on the Times Higher Ed Supplement Top 200 universities in the world, all of them teach the conventional age of the earth. None of them teach a 10,000 year old earth. This is because the evidence is overwhelming. There is no controversy, there are no viable alternatives. To think otherwise is to ignore the evidence in favour of dogma.

Rincewind
24-03-2012, 02:42 AM
For once, I agree with Adamski on this one, to describe someone as intellectual bankrupt because of a religious belief is absurd. Even if, for the sake of argument Evolution is true, or even obvious to those who have studied the evidence, to describe one as intellectually bankrupt because of it is absurd. People are ignorant in certain areas, and can still be intelligent nonetheless.

I think Kevin has already addressed the main issue here. However I would like to add that if we as a species examine the universe and collect facts about it then we should at least acknowledge the importance of those facts and if we are going to fly in the face of those facts for the sake of scripture then we should just say, well this piece of dogma disagrees with science but I still choose to believe it.

To pretend that there is no good reason to believe the planet is ancient is disingenuous. There are very good reasons to think geology is correct and Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is demonstrably wrong on this point. If it was a matter of opinion then I guess tolerance would be called for, a bit like what goes on in ecumenical councils. Both sides have wacky ideas so there is no point one side pushing their own barrow too far. But in this debate it is science vs biblical inerrancy. If you believe the Bible is a science textbook and furthermore if you believe (unlike any science textbook) it cannot be wrong. Then you are forced to accept a lot of very bad conclusions regarding science.

I don't define an anti-YEC position as being anti-religion. Many scientists are religious and most of the world's christians accept scientific ideas like the geological column and evolution. YEC is putting itself as an alternative to science and it should therefore be judged on scientific merit, of which it has very little.

Agent Smith
24-03-2012, 09:08 AM
Informed creationists don't exist. Anyone informed couldn't possible believe creationism unless they were intellectually bankrupt.
Much as i regard religion as silly superstition, this just isn't true. People aren't logic machines. :hmm:

Rincewind
24-03-2012, 10:40 AM
Much as i regard religion as silly superstition, this just isn't true. People aren't logic machines. :hmm:

That's true but the issue is that YEC is presenting itself as an alternative to real science. Therefore it should be measured by the same criteria. The first difficulty they have is that if the word is 10,000 years old how come practically all of the world's geologists think otherwise. Tas Walker (not a geology PhD) and other members of the 2% lunatic fringe excepted, there is no controversy, the 10,000 year age is simply wrong and by many orders of magnitude.

This is not a religious issue it is a scientific one and if there is one thing science can do it is settle scientific claims.

Adamski
26-03-2012, 11:59 AM
That's true but the issue is that YEC is presenting itself as an alternative to real science. Therefore it should be measured by the same criteria. The first difficulty they have is that if the word is 10,000 years old how come practically all of the world's geologists think otherwise. Tas Walker (not a geology PhD) and other members of the 2% lunatic fringe excepted, there is no controversy, the 10,000 year age is simply wrong and by many orders of magnitude.

This is not a religious issue it is a scientific one and if there is one thing science can do it is settle scientific claims.
There are many arguments for a young earth. As Dr Don Batten said at a CMI meeting at St Stephens Anglican Church, Penrith, yesterday, which I attended, "101" in his article is just a convenient number to mean "lots". He could easily produce more. See http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evi...the _universe (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evi...the _universe)

Rincewind
26-03-2012, 01:11 PM
Didn't you mean to link to this article? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences

It explains in detail why the article by Don Batten (btw an agricultural scientist - not a geologist) in baloney.

In summary it says...


The apparent primary purpose of this text is not to refute the scientific understanding of the age of the Earth, but rather to serve as damage control for other creationists fighting with cognitive dissonance. It does so by collecting a variety of supposed uncertainties and contradictions in science that, if true, could allow one to simultaneously believe in the validity of the scientific method and the literal interpretation of Book of Genesis. In other words, this is not even an attempt for an offensive, it is a plea for mercy. Being the cold-hearted bastards we are, the RationalWiki team has prepared a devastating refutation of all 101 items on the list.

Desmond
26-03-2012, 06:01 PM
There are many arguments for a young earth.
I think the simplest thing for you to do would be to devise an objective dating method that can stand up to the scrutiny of blinded testing, and re-producable results yielding support for the 10,000 year old earth. Just do that, and submit it for publication. Shouldn't be hard if the truth is on your side and you have so many learned geologists at your disposal.

Igor_Goldenberg
27-03-2012, 09:45 AM
Congratulations.

I also knew because I read the "I officially request to have my handle changed to ... " thread, so I get a pat on the back too.

But, if someone doesn't know, do you think it better to say "Oh, I was Boris but have changed my name", or "But if you're too stupid to work it out, try asking nicely and I might tell you."

Hmm.
There were times when polity was a virtue.

Rincewind
27-03-2012, 11:09 AM
There were times when polity was a virtue.

Do you mean politeness?

Desmond
27-03-2012, 06:47 PM
There were times when polity was a virtue.
Yeah right, well as you're climbing down from your high horse and stepping into your time machine, be sure to set it to the time when people retracted claims when they were shown to be false, re: "hiding".

Adamski
27-03-2012, 09:42 PM
But all the dating methods come unstuck when dating things of known age (like in the last couple of centuries) as being millions of years old. E.g. products of volcanic eruptions.

Desmond
28-03-2012, 06:52 AM
But all the dating methods come unstuck when dating things of known age (like in the last couple of centuries) as being millions of years old. E.g. products of volcanic eruptions.I really don't see what dating lava flows <200 years old has to do with dating the earth, although if you are able to come up with a method that does both, so much the better. I'm not even saying you must use radiometric based dating; use whatever method you want. Take your time.

Adamski
28-03-2012, 12:03 PM
I really don't see what dating lava flows <200 years old has to do with dating the earth, although if you are able to come up with a method that does both, so much the better. I'm not even saying you must use radiometric based dating; use whatever method you want. Take your time.
But how can you trust dating of things of unknown age when the results are wrong for things of known age? Dr Don Batten's article cited above discusses this.

Kevin Bonham
28-03-2012, 12:25 PM
But how can you trust dating of things of unknown age when the results are wrong for things of known age? Dr Don Batten's article cited above discusses this.

All the supposed points in Dr Batten's list were addressed in the link provided by Rincewind. (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences). Furthermore I can't see where that list discussed "dating things of known age (like in the last couple of centuries) as being millions of years old. E.g. products of volcanic eruptions."

Desmond
28-03-2012, 06:07 PM
But how can you trust dating of things of unknown age when the results are wrong for things of known age? Dr Don Batten's article cited above discusses this.I don't accept the premise of your question but anyway it is irrelevant. If you don't like the established dating methods, use another one. Whenever you're ready.

Adamski
29-03-2012, 05:38 AM
All the supposed points in Dr Batten's list were addressed in the link provided by Rincewind. (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences). Furthermore I can't see where that list discussed "dating things of known age (like in the last couple of centuries) as being millions of years old. E.g. products of volcanic eruptions."
Ok. Maybe not in that particular article. But he certainly discussed this issue last Saturday and I was there.

Desmond
29-03-2012, 07:50 AM
Ok. Maybe not in that particular article. But he certainly discussed this issue last Saturday and I was there.Well given that he appears to be scoring 0/101, I might pause a moment before accepting what he said at face value.

Rincewind
29-03-2012, 08:25 AM
Ok. Maybe not in that particular article. But he certainly discussed this issue last Saturday and I was there.

Given the global scientific community overwhelmingly accepts that the earth is billions of years old due to evidence from a number of different avenues, various radio metric datings, stellar evidence, biological evidence from the fossil record and mutation rate from molecular genetics, etc. you would have to conclude that if the earth is really just 10,000 years old then some one (your god one would suppose) went to a lot of trouble to trick all of the worlds experts in these fields. That would have to be the greatest deception in the history of the world, pun intended.

Adamski
29-03-2012, 12:42 PM
We are going to have to agree to disagree on this question. If I come across good recent evidence for a young earth I will post it.

Ian Murray
29-03-2012, 07:35 PM
Maybe this (http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm) is the lava flow issue you were told about, as refuted by a geologist

ER
29-03-2012, 07:54 PM
Or that's how they do it in Salamanca, Hobart - TAS!

http://i1230.photobucket.com/albums/ee481/jak_jak1/100_9367.jpg

Rincewind
29-03-2012, 10:53 PM
We are going to have to agree to disagree on this question. If I come across good recent evidence for a young earth I will post it.

We can agree to disagree on matters of faith. However when it comes to sciences we believe things for reasons of evidence. This gets back to my point a few posts ago, if YEC was simply a faith then it would be nothing more than another religion and there has been millions of those. When it sets itself up as an alternative science then it should be judged on scientific grounds. Fair's fair.