|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 03/04/2007 : 11:39:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bibleland
Hi Dave good to see you again. Parody? Perhaps. I've come to appreciate the kind of special perspective you folks give to the debate and specifically to what we are doing. The more different input I get the better what we do becomes. Imagine if Ken Ham were asking?
You see the difference between our organization and his is that he is focusing on the christian audience, we are focusing on the secular. Reread the mission statement and let me know if you see a difference.
Oh-- you are trying to focus on a secular (presumably skeptical?) audience? Because if that's the case, you have some work to do. In your statement, you say you're going to focus on (among other things) "the existence of giant humans, ancient technology." But these are instant flags that will tell any skeptic that your site is a woo-woo site. Giant humans? Naaaa. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 12:21:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bibleland
Hi Dave good to see you again. Parody? Perhaps. I've come to appreciate the kind of special perspective you folks give to the debate and specifically to what we are doing. The more different input I get the better what we do becomes.
Well, that was my point. Despite the input you've gotten from us, I haven't seen any actual changes that might be based upon that input. I just see more of the same wild claims? What do giant people, chupacabra, "ancient technology, the search for Noah's Ark, anomalous fossils and out of place artifacts" have to do with "the origins question" at all? The scientific answer is "nothing at all." Even if, for example, a historical Noah's Ark were discovered and verified, it would only support one more out of the thousands of stories in the Bible, not the independent myths of the first few chapters of Genesis.quote:
Imagine if Ken Ham were asking?
It appears to me is that the result would be the same.quote:
You see the difference between our organization and his is that he is focusing on the christian audience, we are focusing on the secular. Reread the mission statement and let me know if you see a difference.
Superficially there is a difference. Ken Ham tells everyone outright that he intends to prove creationism correct. You, on the other hand, tell everyone that your intent is to shed light on an "age-old question," but your choices of subject matter don't actually touch on that question at all, and so I'm left thinking that you're doing nothing more than Ham is doing: proselytizing. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 14:12:01 [Permalink]
|
If you are speaking of the two most reasonable alternatives, I think you just covered them, Ricky. But people are far too inventive to be limited by reason. There are the willfully ignorant, the "recreationally credulous," who simply believe in anything that takes their fancy.
Then there's Orwell's doublethink: quote:
The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth
I think most of the IDers are guilty of practicing combinations of doublethink and Hitler's Big Lie:quote:
is primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it. - OSS report page 51
Then there is the pious fraud, an ancient profession. These people deliberately lie for the sake of their god.
Another Orwellian concept is crimestop, the practice of clearing one's mind of forbidden thinking. (Ham recently commanded his followers to do this concerning the Jesus' Bones claims.):quote:
The mind should develop a blind spot whenever a dangerous thought presented itself. The process should be automatic, instinctive. Crimestop, they called it in Newspeak.
He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with propositions -- 'the Party says the earth is flat', 'the party says that ice is heavier than water' -- and trained himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them.
And of course, there are probably nearly as many variations and combinations as there are credulous and dishonest people. It's often so hard to tell which variety of bunkum we are being fed, because we cannot easily see the myth-teller's motivations. And doubtless many of them aren't certain of their own motivations.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/04/2007 14:30:49 |
|
|
|
Bibleland
Skeptic Friend
USA
51 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 18:26:20 [Permalink]
|
Well I missjudged those who have expressed themselves. I originally pointed to the mission statement for input. I would think that when each piece of evidence is presented and that evolution and creation are both expressed side by side with that fossil or artifact you'd all be tickled. Perhaps I'm the only one impressed with the new method of presenting. I believe when secualr people are exposed to the two competing philosophies, they will be impressed and willing to loook, think, consider and conclude. Some will conclude. Many may just enjoy the displays. Sorry if the site does not exactly convey this. However it's a realitivly new development.
So my question is what do you think of placing side by side the two theories next to a fossil in an open and objective setting? Like this: Imagine in the display a T-Rex fossil. A place card on the left side would read: Evolution-This 14 foot Reptile lived during the Jurassic period till a metor wipped these and other dinosaur approx. 75mya. On the right side: Creation-This 14 foot giant reptile was destroyed by the Genesis flood 4500 years ago.
The guest then can evaluate both options as they study the fossil and decide for themselves if its apes,aliens or adam. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 19:05:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bibleland
So my question is what do you think of placing side by side the two theories next to a fossil in an open and objective setting? Like this: Imagine in the display a T-Rex fossil. A place card on the left side would read: Evolution-This 14 foot Reptile lived during the Jurassic period till a metor wipped these and other dinosaur approx. 75mya. On the right side: Creation-This 14 foot giant reptile was destroyed by the Genesis flood 4500 years ago.
The guest then can evaluate both options as they study the fossil and decide for themselves if its apes,aliens or adam.
But this seems sort of silly, no? You could also put a third place card reading: Samism-This 14 foot giant reptile was made out of household products by a guy named Sam.
Without anything besides the display and place cards, no one is going to be swayed in any particular direction. How is a person going to be able to decide? How would you decide your own scenario, Bibleland? |
|
|
|
Bibleland
Skeptic Friend
USA
51 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 19:26:06 [Permalink]
|
| The same way anyone does. One doesn't need to measure C-14 to come to a right conclusion, do they. You know my wife is taking anatomy and physiology. And I roll my eyes everytime she explains something like ATP and the process of how a cell converts glucose to a form of energy the cell can use. You begin to multiply that process by all the complex combinations of processes just in the human body alone, not even going beyond that (sky, moon, stars, earth) and then you start asking where did we come from? They say ID is not science, that its arguements are weak? Poor? Look around SFN, Life screams Creator. And it's deafening. Now before I get a dozen of you to swoop down and begin to pick apart my bones I do need to remind you all that this is a Creation and Evolution forum, not a Evolution let's kill all the creationists who come here forum. Be kind. I just see this different than you. To you this IS not life or death as it is to me. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 19:42:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bibleland
The same way anyone does. One doesn't need to measure C-14 to come to a right conclusion, do they.
Well, in this case radiometric 14C won't really work, since the dinosaur is too old. But that's obviously not the point. You suggested that it would somehow be of value to have a T-Rex in a room with two signs. One would describe it in terms of modern evolutionary theory, and the other in standard creationist terms. According to you, the visitor could then "decide" which was right. But a lone T-Rex fossile on its own and out of context does nothing to sway a person one way or the other! It's fairly useless in that regard.
quote:
They say ID is not science, that its arguements are weak? Poor? Look around SFN, Life screams Creator. And it's deafening. Now before I get a dozen of you to swoop down and begin to pick apart my bones I do need to remind you all that this is a Creation and Evolution forum, not a Evolution let's kill all the creationists who come here forum. Be kind. I just see this different than you. To you this IS not life or death as it is to me.
But ID isn't science! How does one test the ID theory? Hell, what is the ID theory? What "arguments" does it make that are so compelling?
And I hope, Biblelands, that others will follow my lead in this thread and respect your wishes for some civility. If we can all "be kind" then we can have a fun discussion. I'm not holding my breath that a person with the name Biblelands is actually going to see the compelling evidence for evolution, but there's always hope! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 20:13:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bibleland
So my question is what do you think of placing side by side the two theories next to a fossil in an open and objective setting? Like this: Imagine in the display a T-Rex fossil. A place card on the left side would read: Evolution-This 14 foot Reptile lived during the Jurassic period till a metor wipped these and other dinosaur approx. 75mya. On the right side: Creation-This 14 foot giant reptile was destroyed by the Genesis flood 4500 years ago.
The guest then can evaluate both options as they study the fossil and decide for themselves if its apes,aliens or adam.
SUch a presentation implies that the evidence for both "options" is equally rigorous. But on the one side, the whole of the evidence is a single book written almost 2,000 years ago. On the other side is reams and reams of scientific data, experiments and theory, resting upon uncounted millions of man-hours of work and study, beginning with the God-fearing Christian geologists of 200 years ago. To present the two options equally is to present them unfairly, John.
Next post:quote:
The same way anyone does. One doesn't need to measure C-14 to come to a right conclusion, do they. You know my wife is taking anatomy and physiology. And I roll my eyes everytime she explains something like ATP and the process of how a cell converts glucose to a form of energy the cell can use. You begin to multiply that process by all the complex combinations of processes just in the human body alone, not even going beyond that (sky, moon, stars, earth) and then you start asking where did we come from? They say ID is not science, that its arguements are weak? Poor? Look around SFN, Life screams Creator. And it's deafening. Now before I get a dozen of you to swoop down and begin to pick apart my bones I do need to remind you all that this is a Creation and Evolution forum, not a Evolution let's kill all the creationists who come here forum. Be kind. I just see this different than you. To you this IS not life or death as it is to me.
This is the Creation slash evolution folder on a skeptic's website, John, not the "be kind to creationists because to them, this is a life-and-death issue folder." And you've received a variety of responses from people, from polite and inquiring all the way to hostile, which you should have expected since you've had experience with us before. It's a little late to play the persecution card.
But beyond that, to you, life may scream "creator," but skepticism is all about checking to see if what seems "obvious" is actually true. After all, it's "obvious" that the Earth doesn't move and that the Sun goes around it. So what may be "obvious" is sometimes wrong. We - and I'm including you, John - cannot in good conscious make an argument that even comes close to implying that because something seems obvious it is therefore true. There are too many examples where what's obvious is false.
And you make a plea to complexity, as well, but that argument simply assumes its conclusion. Worse than that, the ID creationists state that all things known to be designed have been designed by "an intelligence," but that commits a sin of ommission. All things known to have been designed have been designed by human intelligence, so taking the argument to its logical end would mean that we must conclude that the Intelligent Designer is also human. A position I believe you would find disagreeable, no?
If this question is so important to you, then you're going to have to face up to the fact that the conclusion you want to be true is going to be found in your faith, and not in science. If you're going to be honest with yourself and others - and for your sake, I hope you follow that Commandment - you'll need to give up the pretense that the giant humans, chupacabra and other things you're working on answer the "origins question." They don't touch on it at all, and that's true whether you believe the Bible or not.
If you want to proselytize the secular and save your own soul from damnation, then re-read the New Testament and realize that Jesus never told anyone that the way to Heaven is to prove the Old Testament correct. The Good News is not an answer to the question, "Is it Apes, Aliens or Adam?" If you have faith that Jesus died for your sins, then you don't need to find Noah's Ark.
If you need such "proof," then it seems that your soul is in jeopardy due to a lack of faith, and finding more proof isn't going to help. Sharing your discoveries as a way of gaining converts will simply endanger more souls, John, because with "proof" of God, nodoby will need faith. Despite what you may feel, you're taking the wide and easy route, John, and so you're trying to get people to follow you down the wrong path to salvation.
Jesus tells you specifically to ignore the "old Jewish fables," anyway. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 20:40:08 [Permalink]
|
John, please understand that what you see as hostility here may be in part caused by your lying to us up front, with stuff like that "chupacabra" cat photo, falsely labeled as being "infrared." (And I'm not even faulting you on the misidentification of the animal, just on the dishonest statement of fact concerning the photo being infrared.)
Frankly, that one item by itself makes you look like someone who is manufacturing myths, rather than just being himself swept up by them. Personally, it seems to me that you are intent upon perpetrating pious frauds. And that is giving you the benefit of the doubt, by assuming you at least had "higher motives" for the dishonesty.
You mentioned at first that you wanted to run your stuff by a forum that has "teeth." You got it. If that's hostility, then you should be careful what you ask for. Don't whine now and say, "Not teeth that sharp!" Hell, John, I've seen skeptics here tear bigger cloacas in one another. You have had relatively mild treatment.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 00:13:18 [Permalink]
|
bibleland said:
quote:
Look around SFN, Life screams Creator. And it's deafening.
This is what we call confirmation bias. You believe that life was created, you see some stuff you can't understand, and to you that lack of understanding reaffirms your previous belief.
What you are doing is being willfully ignorant.
As for your dual placards idea... that would be fine if you listed the actual evidence to support each claim. But you can't do that, because the evidence page on the creation placard would be blank in every instance.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Bibleland
Skeptic Friend
USA
51 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 04:47:42 [Permalink]
|
| Well I guess you are right. I wanted "teeth" and I got them. Thank you all for sharing please keep going if you like I'll keep monitoring and now back to my lab. |
|
|
|
Bibleland
Skeptic Friend
USA
51 Posts |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 05:45:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bibleland
PS Here is one more reason I'm so impressed in a Creator.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxSLw1LMvgk#4KWJBnw1YX0
Yeah, John Liebler did a great job creating that computer animation.
In any case, that you threw this out as some sort of proof of a creator suggests that you really aren't interesting in hearing our point of view. Dave put forward a thoughtful post about some of your assumptions and yet you clearly haven't bothered to consider any of them, or even to respond in any meaningful way.
So what's your point in even venturing here, Bibleland? You don't care what we have to say, and your best arguments for creation and design are your own personal incredulity.
(And BTW, I bet your wife rolls her eyes when you marvel at 'giant' humans, 'ancient technology' and 'intelligent design') |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/05/2007 : 10:41:47 [Permalink]
|
Thank you for the link, John. Frankly, I only partially understood one or two events in that wonderful computer animation. That's because I'm largely ignorant of the details discovered by by the science of molecular biology.
I can certainly understand how you would be awed by the amazing processes shown, John. I was, too. But just as you see God there, I see a wonderful complexity of chemical interactions, "invented" and refined by trial and error over billions of years of intense competition.
The awe I experience is just as deep, at least as valid, just as much a matter of "life and death" (as you put it earlier) as what you feel, John. In my case, it makes me want to understand the processes better. I'm determined to get some good books on the subject. I hope that you did more than pray when you first saw that animation, John. I hope you asked your wife to explain what was going on, and I hope you thanked her and biological science, including evolution, for that knowledge.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/05/2007 11:37:10 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The Lost World Museum update
