|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 07/30/2007 : 19:53:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Unfortunataly I agree, there is alot of misinformation about evolution in most congregations as I have learned by reading here. But I do not think they are intentionally deceptive. |
You want to know what the problem is, Robb? It's that centuries ago, politicians found the devout to be easy to push around.
Here in the U.S., the anti-evolution movement has been primarily a polticial movement targeting children and publicly financed schools. The goal isn't simply to discredit evolutionary science, but to instill fundamentalist values into a large voter base, and then use that political power to bring more and more theocratic principles into the government. The core group is well-funded, and they really do wish to replace the Constitution with the Bible.
But what's been happening is that this smallish group has been, over the last four decades or so, pumping out known lies that people without scientific training cannot spot as lies. They sound correct and because they're in agreement with the Bible, that's good enough for most people. And so they repeat them.
Given that background, is there much of a difference between an intentional lie and a my-pastor-told-me-so lie? They both serve the same ends. Well, there is the difference between being an instigator and a dupe.
The real troublemakers, as I see it, are those who've been shown the truth (multiple times, perhaps), but continue to repeat the lies, without a reason for doing so. The "Good News" isn't found in Genesis, and nobody can possibly treat the Bible as entirely inerrant in the first place. The people who ignore those two facts in favor of pleasant-sounding lies, Robb, are the ones who are making a mockery of your religion, and they do so as unwitting pawns of folks who would enforce large sections of the Deuteronomic Code via police. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 00:23:45 [Permalink]
|
Robb said:
| Unfortunataly I agree, there is alot of misinformation about evolution in most congregations as I have learned by reading here. But I do not think they are intentionally deceptive. |
Robb, anyone who tells you that evolution is false, or there is no evidence for it, or any of the many things they say to discredit the ToE... is deliberately lying and being intentionally deceptive.
All that misinformation? Generated by intentional liars.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 04:35:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Guys, what did I just ask you?
Bible discussions (about it's authenticity as a historical document) in the Religions Folder, unless your discussing creation/evolution. Please?
Thanks.
edited to clarify
|
For those interested, I've opened up a thread to discuss the Jesus question as brought up by Bill Scott. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 07:06:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
If you want to know the answer to "what do they base this off of?" you need to study the Theory of Evolution the way scientists teach it. Not the way Pastors or Priests teach you. |
Unfortunataly I agree, there is alot of misinformation about evolution in most congregations as I have learned by reading here. But I do not think they are intentionally deceptive. |
On the contrary, I think they are. When have they ever asked a biologist to come to the church to teach the members of the congregation about what science teaches about evolution? Can you name anyone of the Pastors or teachers of the church calling a biologist to educate themselves about biology before they start preaching anti-evolution propaganda to their members? I think it's too naive to to think that they don't realise that their sources are more than a little biased.
During my time as a Christian, with experience from several congregations, I have never seen church leaders getting their evolution knowledge from other sources than the typical creationist sources. The worst cases have been Kent Howind, but also the Answers in Genesis crew, and similar organisations. And you know, I don't trust them to fairly represent the Theory of Evolution.
| Imagine a seeking person comes to me asking me to teach him about Christianity, Jesus, and the Bible. Would you trust [i]me to not misrepresent Christianity to him? Honestly? |
This is a very though provoking question. |
Indeed.
It was intended to be. However, you didn't answer the question.
Ok, don't worry. If I was in your position, I wouldn't. And I'm very confident that Bill scott would absolutely say I couldn't be trusted. If I'm not mistaken, he thinks that I am immoral since I'm agnostic/atheist because the only source of morality is God which I deny.
| Question is, are you willing to admit that creationists will be trying to poison the well when they teach you about evolution? |
Some are but most are not. I get the feeling that you and many here think that most religious people are intentionally deceptive. |
Yes, and that's because they rather take the word of creationist's Christian authority over scientists, or skeptics who actually studied the Theory of Evolution. Also, usually when we try to correct a misconception we get attacked or questioned, rather than the creationist patiently asking for us to explain and clarify our position. Just look at Bill scott's posts in these threads. It's as if they really don't want to know what we think and know. It's more comforting to oppose the gross caricature than the real thing. What if they loose their faith in the process of learning?
| Do you dare ask skeptics or scientists to teach you what evolution is all about and how it works? Are you open-minded enough to learn what our position really is? |
If I can find one that is not condencending toward my beliefs. |
I try to not be condescending. However, it's a two-way street. I don't like being condescended either when I'm trying to explain my position. This is also something that many creationists I've talked with does. One of the most offensive things they have done was tell me to my face "I'm going to pray for you...". It's insulting on many levels.
| Reading here has been a help to me understand evolution. Especially the thread about the fact and theory of evolution. I am grateful. |
I try to do my best. If there are things that you wonder about, just ask us and we'll try to answer. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 08:12:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Robb said:
| Unfortunataly I agree, there is alot of misinformation about evolution in most congregations as I have learned by reading here. But I do not think they are intentionally deceptive. |
Robb, anyone who tells you that evolution is false, or there is no evidence for it, or any of the many things they say to discredit the ToE... is deliberately lying and being intentionally deceptive.
All that misinformation? Generated by intentional liars.
|
I dunno…
There is a lot of misinformation out there about evolution, much of that in the form of in-house publications with the goal of debunking evolution through the use of out of context quotes taken from reputable scientist, falsehoods about the theory itself that has been corrected by scientists but ignored by groups like the ICR and the Discovery Institute, and flat out pseudo science that may sound good to the lay person but not to anyone who actually knows a thing or two about evolution. After all of that, which continues, I would be hard pressed not to call these outright lies.
That said, the lies of Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, John and Henry Morris along with Duan Gish of the ICR and the good folks at the Discovery Institute, among others, plays to an audience who's worldview is indeed threatened by naturalistic explanations that doesn't require divine intervention to work.
I must agree with Robb. Most of the people I have argued with about evolution have only heard from or read books by these liars, or from pastors who are just as easily duped by bad information. They take it at face value because their background in science and their worldview makes them perfect marks for the purveyors of misinformation.
They believe what they have heard or read and they argue it because they are, simply put, ignorant of the actual science.
It is my guess that while they are guilty of spreading the lies of liars, they themselves are most often not being “intentionally deceptive.”
The sad part is that they don't understand enough about science to know that they are being lied to. But that is a whole other subject.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 10:37:43 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse |
Guys, what did I just ask you?
Bible discussions (about it's authenticity as a historical document) in the Religions Folder, unless your discussing creation/evolution. Please?
Thanks. |
This has everything to do with creation/evolution. After making a small case on why I see design/designer in the creation I was asked on how I could make a case for who the creator was when hundreds, if not thousands, of different versions of the creator exist in the minds of man ranging from pasta monsters to old men with long beards sitting around in rocking chairs on top of clouds. I make the claim that Jesus is this creator and the resurrection is the cap stone on his claim of divinity which means that we can in fact know the creator.
| My point is that we, who think the theory of biological evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth, think the Laws of Nature is "the designer". |
Who is the Law Maker that passed the Laws of Nature?
| If you want to know the answer to "what do they base this off of?" you need to study the Theory of Evolution the way scientists teach it. Not the way Pastors or Priests teach you. |
Your in error thinking that I have learned about evolution from my pastor. Here is the thing about Pastors, they are human and therefore they error. Some may have the noblest intentions and some just may be a bad seed. The title "Pastor" by no means earns you a free pass in my book. In fact, I usually scrutinize, in more detail, what comes from those who claim this position then would from say, you. I use the Word of God to test what my pastor has to say and then I hold fast to that which is true rather then using my pastor to test the Word of God.
I don't reject macro evolution because some pastor has told me so. In a brief summarized version I have laid out why I see design in the creation. I have laid out why I believe Jesus Christ to be that creator through the historical facts of his resurrection. Christ quotes from and validates the book of Genesis throughout his earthly ministry. Therefore I accept the Genesis account for creation as who better to describe the creation process for us then the very creator himself?
Now neo-Darwinian evolution states that physical death was a part of life for millions of years before man, as we know him now, was evolved from wherever or whoever he evolved from. This diametrically opposes the Genesis account, which states that man was fully formed in his current state, and as a result of his disobedience to God death became a part of creation. The Darwinian account puts man at nothing more then an advanced animal while Genesis says that God created man as his special creation and gave him dominion over the creation. Man's fall is what fractured his relationship with his creator and only Christ's work on the cross is able to repair that fracture and bring man back into a right relationship with his creator. I see the evidence for the fall of man everyday in the newspapers and headlines. Kids being molested and the pictures running wild on the internet, governments looking out for their own best interest rather then the interest of the people, war, rape, murder, slander, etc... etc... All are rebellious actions against ones creator and evidence for the fall of man that we see in Genesis, which introduces physical death into the creation.
| Imagine a seeking person comes to me asking me to teach him about Christianity, Jesus, and the Bible. Would you trust me to not misrepresent Christianity to him? Honestly? |
Honestly, there a lot of Christians that I would not trust to represent Christ to a seeker.
| In the very same way, I do not trust Christian creationists to teach you about Evolution, since I know it is in the best interest of the creationist to misrepresent it. |
I would consider that self-evident.
| Question is, are you willing to admit that creationists will be trying to poison the well when they teach you about evolution? |
Again, and maybe I am not your typical Christian, but I have found it much more efficient at getting to the bottom of the facts by learning and teaching myself through my own research and experiences then counting on any pastor, including my home church pastor, to be my only teacher and sole source of information. Again, I will test any information given to me, even if the source is my pastor, and then I will hold onto what is true.
| Do you dare ask skeptics or scientists to teach you what evolution is all about and how it works? Are you open-minded enough to learn what our position really is? |
Well I have been hanging around this cite from time to time over the past couple of years. It is informative for me to get perspectives from many different sides even if they are not in agreement with my point of view. But if you think that I have been mis-informed then I would be more then happy to listen if you want to give me your quick summary on Macro ToE starting from the very beginning.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 11:06:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott...
Now neo-Darwinian evolution states that physical death was a part of life for millions of years before man, as we know him now, was evolved from wherever or whoever he evolved from. This diametrically opposes the Genesis account, which states that man was fully formed in his current state, and as a result of his disobedience to God death became a part of creation. The Darwinian account puts man at nothing more then an advanced animal while Genesis says that God created man as his special creation and gave him dominion over the creation. Man's fall is what fractured his relationship with his creator and only Christ's work on the cross is able to repair that fracture and bring man back into a right relationship with his creator. I see the evidence for the fall of man everyday in the newspapers and headlines. Kids being molested and the pictures running wild on the internet, governments looking out for their own best interest rather then the interest of the people, war, rape, murder, slander, etc... etc... All are rebellious actions against ones creator and evidence for the fall of man that we see in Genesis, which introduces physical death into the creation. |
So in short, you accept magical events related through mythical tales as the best explanation for the diversity of life which exists on Earth. Got it.
| Well I have been hanging around this cite from time to time over the past couple of years. It is informative for me to get perspectives from many different sides even if they are not in agreement with my point of view. But if you think that I have been mis-informed then I would be more then happy to listen if you want to give me your quick summary on Macro ToE starting from the very beginning. |
Evolution has been explained to you dozens of times and in dozens of ways, Bill. From simple summaries to complex descriptions, the process has been described. From rudimentary explanations of the theory, easily understood by grade school children, to major scientific research projects, you've had it all laid in your lap. That you should ask for any more than that only serves to support the notion that you're either one of the most willfully ignorant people who have ever crossed the threshold here at SFN, or you're just plain intellectually incapable of understanding.
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 11:23:40 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by GeeMack |
| Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah... |
*Yawn* |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 11:28:48 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by GeeMack |
| So in short, you accept magical events related through mythical tales as the best explanation for the diversity of life which exists on Earth. Got it. |
And Dr. Mab is worried about creationiats misrepresenting ToE? His complaint falls on deaf ears in light of this clown poster |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 07/31/2007 11:30:22 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 11:41:16 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by GeeMack |
| Well I have been hanging around this cite from time to time over the past couple of years. It is informative for me to get perspectives from many different sides even if they are not in agreement with my point of view. But if you think that I have been mis-informed then I would be more then happy to listen if you want to give me your quick summary on Macro ToE starting from the very beginning. |
Evolution has been explained to you dozens of times and in dozens of ways, Bill. From simple summaries to complex descriptions, the process has been described. That you should ask for any more than that only serves to support the notion that you're either one of the most willfully ignorant people who have ever crossed the threshold here at SFN, or you're just plain intellectually incapable of understanding. |
Hey g, the good doctor thought I may have recieved my ToE information from a pastor and so he was concerned that I may be misinformed. I assured him that my pastor was not the final factor in my rejection of macro ToE, but I also told the doc that if he wanted to explain ToE in his words then I would be happy to listen. If your not going to pay attention to the conversation and just chime in with your random rants then don't bother. And speaking of rants:
| From rudimentary explanations of the theory, easily understood by grade school children, |
You seem to be so proud of what you see as the ability to indoctranate school children as you have pointed this out multible times now. Bravo on your skills at manipulating an 8 year old. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 07/31/2007 11:55:00 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 07/31/2007 : 11:54:25 [Permalink]
|
Macro-evolution, is it? Okay-dokey, here's an example: Horseshoe crab
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Horseshoe crab
Conservation status
Near Threatened [1]
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Arthropoda
Subphylum: Chelicerata
Class: Merostomata[2]
Order: Xiphosura
Family: Limulidae
Genus: Limulus
Species: L. polyphemus
Binomial name
Limulus polyphemus
Linnaeus, 1758
The horseshoe crab, horsefoot, king crab, or sauce-pan (Limulus polyphemus, formerly known as Limulus cyclops, Xiphosura americana, Polyphemus occidentalis) is a chelicerate arthropod. As a result, it is more closely related to spiders, ticks, and scorpions than to true crabs. Horseshoe crabs are most commonly found in the Gulf of Mexico and along the northern Atlantic coast of North America. A main area of annual migration is the Delaware Bay, although stray individuals occasionally turn up in Europe.[3]
|
Of course, 'most all of their evolution took place during the Cambrian Explosion to about 250 million years ago. It has evolved little since because it has ever suited it's niche in it's enviroment.
Now then, because I think that the micro/macro lables on evolution are a fat, steaming pile of crap, and it's all just plain, old evolution, I'd like to ask: How many, in your opinion, Bill, 'micros' would it take to make a "macro?'
Y'know, I've asked that question many times and have yet to get a coherent answer. Suprise me, Bill.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 12:17:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
My point is that we, who think the theory of biological evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth, think the Laws of Nature is "the designer". |
Who is the Law Maker that passed the Laws of Nature? |
If Jerome wanted an example of amphiboly as a fallacy, Bill's question is exceptional. It's even better than Bill's previous questions about how many people voted for the global warming consensus. |
- 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 - 07/31/2007 : 12:50:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
My point is that we, who think the theory of biological evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth, think the Laws of Nature is "the designer". |
Who is the Law Maker that passed the Laws of Nature? |
If Jerome wanted an example of amphiboly as a fallacy, Bill's question is exceptional. It's even better than Bill's previous questions about how many people voted for the global warming consensus.
|
I could apply the same kind of "logic" to this Law Maker: Is the position an inherited one (as in "who died and made you God?"), or an elected one? In the latter case, how many votes did he get?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 12:53:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Now then, because I think that the micro/macro lables on evolution are a fat, steaming pile of crap, and it's all just plain, old evolution, I'd like to ask: How many, in your opinion, Bill, 'micros' would it take to make a "macro?'
Y'know, I've asked that question many times and have yet to get a coherent answer. Suprise me, Bill.
|
How about you surprise me first and fill me in on your requirements for events throughout history to be reported on as actual. What makes you think, or convinces you, that people and events in history actually happened? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2007 : 13:00:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
I could apply the same kind of "logic" to this Law Maker: Is the position an inherited one (as in "who died and made you God?"), or an elected one? In the latter case, how many votes did he get?
|
In reguards to the Dr. Mab post, yes it is an inherited position. If you create your own universe, complete with life and everything, then you get to create the laws that govern that universe as well. Can the created trump, or even challange, the creator? Obviously not. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 07/31/2007 13:01:53 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
www.notjustatheory.com part 2
