Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: Question about evolution & Etc.

Expand Messages
  • Temlakos
    ... You re the one engaging in argument by assertion. You and many, many others on this list and off it repeatedly make far too much of what you call
    Message 1 of 70 , Apr 30, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Susan Cogan wrote:
      > said in the face of repeated examples to the contrary. This is
      > argument by assertion. Just keep saying it over and over. It's a
      > problem with the authoritarianism of creationism. Your say-so should
      > be enough. More than enough.
      >
      You're the one engaging in argument by assertion. You and many, many
      others on this list and off it repeatedly make far too much of what you
      call "transitional forms." On CreationWiki, in case anyone's interested,
      we have a whole repertoire of responses to every claim that
      TalkOrigins.org cares to make about transitional forms.
      > please point to a single scientific discovery by a YEC'er. Something
      > the equivalent of the eradication small-pox would do nicely.
      >
      The eradication of smallpox, /if/ that has been accomplished, was
      accomplished by public policymakers. But I'll give you a discovery
      that's directly relevant to the origins debate. In 1984, D. Russell
      Humphreys developed a model to explain the formation of planetary
      magnetic fields, based on the statements in Genesis 1 to the effect that
      the original constituent substance of all of creation was /water/, much
      of which later transmuted into other elements either during the Great
      Expansion (Day Four) or in the Divine interventions that gave us the dry
      land on earth, the plants, and the animals. From this assumption, and
      from another assumption (that God made each planet with all the water
      molecules lined up in the same direction), he predicted magnetic moments
      for all the planets (plus Pluto, which would not suffer its demotion for
      another twenty-two years) at the time of creation. He then showed that
      the data we had on magnetic moments in the then-present day were
      entirely consistent with his model.

      And then he did something that many of you on this list say that
      creationists never do: he made definite predictions of what Voyager 2
      would determine to be the magnetic moments of Uranus and Neptune, and
      what a future mission might determine the magnetic moment of Pluto to be.

      Here is the reference to Humphreys' original article:

      <http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html>

      And the full citation:

      Humphreys, D. R. "The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields." ''Creation
      Research Society Quarterly'' 21(3), December 1984.

      Less than two years after the December 1984 publication of the above
      article, Voyager 2 flew by Uranus. And it found a magnetic field having
      a magnetic moment well within the range that Humphreys predicted.

      Three years later, Voyager 2 flew by Neptune. And in measuring Neptune's
      magnetic moment, it /also/ found a magnetic moment well within the range
      that Humphreys predicted.

      In 2015, New Horizons will fly by Pluto. Then we can see whether
      Humphreys pulled a hat trick.
      >
      >
      > they are creationist house organs and are not scientific journals.
      > Authors must swear they will not contradict the Bible no matter what
      > the evidence shows. That's not science. That's your basic
      > authoritarian religion.
      >
      By "they," you mean CRSQ and J. Creation. Well, now, do you deny that
      /Scientific American/ and /Science/ are /naturalistic/ house organs, and
      that authors must all but swear (or at least affirm) that they will not
      contradict Darwin, Lyell, Hubble, and so on, no matter what the evidence
      shows, if they expect to get published? That probably explains why the
      models published in those organs so often have been lacking in
      predictive value.
      >> Humans are not found because instead of being fossilized, they were
      >> decomposed. One possible mechanism is simple heat. "The fountains of the
      >> great deep" were sequestered deposits of water that broke out through a
      >> rupture in the earth's crust. That rupture persists today as the
      >> Mid-Oceanic Ridge system. The water would have been scalding hot in
      >> addition to rushing incredibly fast.
      >>
      >
      > so it would have wiped out everything else including humans. We are
      > supposed to believe that humans dug up every single skeleton,
      > dismantled and carried to higher ground every single house and hut,
      > found every single tool they had ever used and burdened down with all
      > of that ran faster than the fleetest two-legged human-sized dinosaur.
      > Dinosaurs came in all sizes, did you know that? There were little
      > ones the size of dogs and cats. An ordinary cat can outrun a human,
      > how could a human outrun a dinosaur?
      >
      You must be talking about /Compsognathus/ in that last example. In any
      event, part of "outrunning" is knowing when and where to run. I recall
      that /Tyrannosaurus rex/ had a brain the size of a pea. Not very smart.
      The compys wouldn't have been much smarter.

      You forgot my suggestion that the world population might not have been
      very great--and with only sixteen hundred years of history, /and/ the
      tremendous longevity of the human species at the time, not many graves
      would have been involved. Houses? Huts? Do you believe that any of these
      would have survived a 1.5 to 2.0 kilometer wall of water?
      > Also oak trees are always found in more recent strata (flowering
      > plants evolved long after the first plants). did the oak trees also
      > run to higher ground as the flood water rose? I would have loved to
      > watch that.
      >
      Trees are in fact found /across/ strata--or didn't you read that
      example? If Lyell was right about "millions of years of erosive
      deposition," then how would he explain that?
      > Henry Morris made up the "ran to high ground" fairy tale out of whole
      > cloth. You have such outrageously high standards of proof for
      > evolution but you don't even care if your own explanations make sense
      > in the crudest way.
      >
      /Argumentum ad hominem/. In any event, you seem to think that the Bible
      was also a made-up story, so why should Henry Morris or I expect you to
      show any respect for anything we say? Jesus did say, after all, that as
      badly as people hated Him, they'd hate us worse. With that last, you
      provided yet another instructive example.
      >
      >>>
      >> And naturalism doesn't? Come now, don't you know that those who
      >> "determine" radiometric dates routinely throw out dates that don't agree
      >> with their preconceived notions? That might explain why I have not read
      >> one single explanation that comes close to being satisfactory of why
      >> Steven A. Austin was able to obtain ages reaching into the millions of
      >> years for igneous rock that was only ten years old.
      >>
      >
      > Austin ran a highly dishonest test intended only to fool people like
      > you.
      (Yawn) You still haven't explained how Austin could have gotten the
      results he got from ten-year-old lava.
      > You are satisfied with a ludicrous story like "they ran to
      > higher ground" but you are unsatisfied with the detailed explanations
      > of why Austin's "tests" were dishonest? And you think we should take
      > your word for anything?
      >
      If anything is ludicrous, it's what has been offered in "explanation" of
      Austin's findings. The best gas of them all was, "the mass spec was dirty."
      > layers are sometimes laid down rapidly. This was explained in the
      > 19th century. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
      > and I don't believe for a second that you haven't seen the explanation already.
      >
      >
      Trouble is, that "explanation" violates Lyell's basic principle. Now
      which of us is conveniently setting aside basic principle when it suits?

      See

      <http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Polystrate_fossils_indicate_massive_sudden_deposition_(Talk.Origins)>

      for details. In case that link doesn't work or anyone doesn't have time,
      let me quote:

      > Polystrate fossils are a problem for uniformitarian geology because
      > they often go through layers of different types of rock, and even coal
      > seams. There are even a number of cases where they go through two or
      > more coal seams. Without the polystrate fossils uniformitarian geology
      > would say that many of the layers these they go through took millions
      > of years to be laid down.

      Precisely.

      To D. R. Lindberg, I haven't forgotten you, either. You say that dating
      is evidence against creationism. It might be, were it reliable. But I
      have shown repeatedly that dating is /not/ reliable, for three reasons:

      1. Investigators routinely throw out dates that don't fit the profile.

      2. Some dating methods rely on circular definitions.

      3. Other methods have had their underlying models exploded.

      But then you ventured to say:

      > The main issue separating our points of view is
      > that evolution is part of science and creationism is not. Let's see
      > some evidence contradicting that statement!

      Now if you mean "alteration in any given species over any number of
      generations," you're right. But that doesn't mean that creationism isn't
      part of science.

      But I suspect that what you /really/ mean when you say "evolution" is
      /naturalism/, otherwise known as "goo-to-you" or "molecules to man" or
      simply by the Three Pillars of uniformitarianism, abiogenesis, and
      common descent from one ancestor. And I deny that any of /those/ are
      part of science. Charles Lyell browbeat his fellow geologists with a
      proposition that simply cannot stand up to critical analysis today. No
      one has demonstrated abiogenesis--and Louis Pasteur would be shocked
      that anyone was trying to revive that old chestnut, after he put paid to
      it, building as he did on the work of Francisco Redi and Anton van
      Leeuwenhoek. And "common descent from one ancestor"? That's why so many
      people are making so much of forms that they assert to be "transitional."

      On the other hand: some of you here have repeatedly asked for a real
      discovery that a creationist made, using creationist models. In this
      message I have given you one. That ought to show that creationism is as
      much a part of science as is Newtonian or Einsteinian physics.

      Temlakos
    • Clare Wilson Parr
      ... If your OriginsTalk posts were in fact advocac[ies] for reason and science, the posts would manifest reason and science, not the unreflective emoting,
      Message 70 of 70 , Jul 27, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        On 7/16/2008, Susan Brassfield Cogan wrote:

        >no, its an advocacy for reason and science. If you think that is
        >advocacy for atheism that means you have abandoned both reason and
        >science.

        If your OriginsTalk posts were in fact "advocac[ies] for reason
        and science," the posts would manifest reason and science, not
        the unreflective emoting, trivialization, misrepresentation,
        deliberate and deceptive under- and overstatement, facile
        political sloganeering, etc., that _substitute_ for rational,
        reasoned debate.

        >no, secularism isn't atheism. Would that it were!

        Rational, reasoned debate demands that a person's "advocacy" be
        _consistent_, not convenient. A visit to and a quick search of
        the OriginsTalk archive will return the numerous posts you have
        written that feature adamant assertions that secularism and
        atheism are synonymous. Now, suddenly, you eat your own words
        and regurgitate the very contention your opponents have made
        and you've denied - a "tactic" that pollutes a good many of
        your OT posts.

        > >>I haven't bothered to comment about that on this list because it is
        > >>so wildly, totally off-topic. My comment is that PZ Myers and the
        > >>Catholic League have booth acted like hysterical jerks. A college kid
        > >>got death threats because he stole a cracker. That pissed off Myers
        > >>(and me). But Myers threatened to desecrate a consecrated host in
        > >>retaliation. That is, indeed, childish and over the top. He hasn't
        > >>actually done it, you understand, he has threatened that he might do
        > >>it. He's still getting daily death threats from the followers of
        > >>Gentle Jesus Meek and Mild.

        The assertion that "a college kid got death threats because he
        stole a cracker" is not rational, reasonable, or scientific.
        The truth is that the "college kid" who "stole a cracker" has
        claimed that he was on the receiving end of "death threats,"
        but there's not a jot of _evidence_ to substantiate the claim.

        Myers is so consumed by irrational, unreasonable hatred, anger,
        resentment, etc., that he imagined that a window of
        opportunity had opened a crack to rationalize dumping his
        bigoted broadside.

        >as it happens one person already lost their job over it:
        >http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/the_cost_of_delusional_derange.php

        The person who "already lost her job over it" didn't threaten
        a soul, and her husband, who did threaten Myers, wrote:

        "You have two choices my f***ed up friend, first you can quit
        your job for the good of the children. Or you can get your
        brains beat in."

        Meanwhile, PZ Myers has threatened, for instance:

        "Our only problem is that we aren't martial enough, or vigorous
        enough, or loud enough, or angry enough. The only appropriate
        responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much
        butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some
        teachers, many schoolboard members, and vast numbers of sleazy
        far-right politicians."

        and

        "I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It's time
        for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass
        knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and
        idiots. If you don't care enough for the truth to fight for
        it, then get out of the way.

        "[D]on't even suggest that we're being too partisan. I am on the
        side of reason and human rights, and my only failing is that I'm
        not partisan enough."
        ---------------------

        It's typical that Myers, who has been insulting and threatening
        those with whom he disagrees for years, hollers like a stuck
        pig when he's given just a taste of his own medicine.

        >Apparently a lot of Christians out there think sending PZ to hell
        >would be doing God's work.

        Apparently not.

        > >>This posts has a nice summation of what is currently known about
        > >>abiogenesis:
        > http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/what-critics-of.html
        >
        > >In sum, Mr. Matzke /specifically takes methodological naturalists to
        > >task/ for attempting to dissociate abiogenesis from biological
        > >evolution.
        >
        >He has convinced me to change my debate tactic.

        _Temlakos_, not Matzke, "has convinced you to change [your]
        debate tactic."

        >I can be convinced with good argument

        You can "be convinced with good argument" to change your debate
        tactic, period - a fact to which your archived OriginsTalk
        posts are incontrovertible testimony.

        > >>for an eternal being two thousand years isn't even an eyeblink. If
        > >>God exists then the universe has no reliable order. You can't even
        > >>trust your own mind and, of course, reason has no place in such a
        > >>universe. Of what use is reason if the rules of reality can change on
        > >>a dime?
        >
        > >Is that what you're really afraid of? For those of you reading this: if
        > >this is your stumblingblock to the faith, that if God exists, then you
        > >can't be sure that the next chair you sit in will hold you up, then by
        > >all means stop worrying about that. God always does things in an orderly
        > >fashion.
        >
        >in that case why bother believing in God? The UNIVERSE always does
        >things in an orderly fashion. If it didn't, it wouldn't exist.

        First, the assertion that "if God exists then the universe has
        no reliable order" is neither rational nor reasonable.

        At every moment of the day man "breaks nature's laws," yet you
        don't fret that because _man_ "breaks nature's laws" the
        universe is disorderly / chaotic. God's action relative to its
        bearing on natural forces / laws is analogous to the action of
        human agents.

        Secondly, the assertion that "if God exists ... you can't even
        trust your own mind" is irrational and unreasonable, not least
        because you adamantly insist that [1] man is mindless and [2]
        human reason is a product of and serves natural selection. If
        human reason were a product of and servant to natural
        selection, then human reason would be merely another of natural
        selection's cunning illusory tricks. Darwinians cannot
        rationally and reasonably appeal to the power and
        trustworthiness of reason their ideology has destroyed.

        Christians know the laws of nature and man's mental capacity to
        fathom those laws and through them, gain greater and deeper
        understanding of His creation, are God's handiwork - and have
        been making rational, reasonable arguments to that effect for
        centuries, arguments that you have never made even a token
        attempt to answer.

        Thirdly, the response to the observation that "God always does
        things in an orderly fashion," is a breathtaking example of
        the intellectual consequences of ideological blindness.

        That "the UNIVERSE" always does things in an orderly fashion" is
        an EFFECT that's plainly not disputed. What's disputed is the
        CAUSE of the rational, intelligible orderliness that the
        universe we inhabit manifests. Many people, the great unwashed
        and scientists alike, attribute the _cause_ of the rational,
        intelligible orderliness of the universe we inhabit to GOD.

        >I don't want the Noah story to be true because it represents the
        >deepest blackest evil and I don't want to think human beings are
        >capable of that.

        I don't want it to be true that some Americans demand blind
        obedience to euphemistic "personal freedoms" such as
        abortion on demand and desiccating those human beings they
        deem "unworthy of living," because those so-called
        "personal freedoms" represent the deepest, blackest evil
        and I don't want to think human beings are capable of that.

        >But I know they are. The Holocaust was a repeat of the Noah story.
        >Humanity sacrificed to blind obedience.

        The Holocaust is, as Jim Goff has rationally and reasonably
        observed, a consequence of blind obedience to the false
        Darwinian concept of man. Humanity sacrificed to blind
        obedience.

        >And in the act of giving up your autonomy you have to exercise your
        >autonomy. Not only that, you must continue to exercise your autonomy
        >to keep giving it up. It's not a one-time event. It's a
        >minute-to-minute choice.

        Yes, "giving up your autonomy" is an act of will - a deliberate,
        intentional - autonomous - decision, not "blind obedience."

        >there are NO answers that would satisfy you because obedience is
        >primary, not reality. For me reality is primary. That's why I don't
        >like the idea of some whimsical deity stirring the pot.

        If _reality_, not ideology, is "primary," then rational, reasonable
        argument, not ad hominem / straw man fallacies, is demanded.

        >when people come into an emergency room, if they were shoved in a
        >treatment bay and surrounded by people praying for them, they would
        >sue that hospital into a hole in the ground. They want bloodwork,
        >MRIs, X-rays, DRUGS! They don't want some mumbling priest or
        >gibbering preacher.

        Very often, the first person an emergency room patient demands to
        see is "some mumbling priest or gibbering preacher."

        >In your fantasies. Human beings are born with empathy. It's a
        >survival skill for our species.

        So much for "reason and science."
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.