Macroevolution:

[bhsmte]

Didn't you make that demand? You did break the Ninth Commandment again when you denied it.

Maybe he had his fingers crossed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Didn't you make that demand?

I've learned not to demand things from evolutionists and/or scientists.

They'll usually produce it.

If they can't produce it, they'll go as far as to rig a vote to get it.

Or they'll talk over your head.

Instead, I like to issue thought-provoking challenges, so they can ignore and ridicule them.

Someone brought up a horse or something.

Had I said SHOW ME, I'm sure I would have gotten some bologna about an Eohippus or something that looks good on paper, but nowhere else.

 

[tevans9129]

Not true at all. Creationists could just admit they cannot defend their views with logic, reasoning, verifiable evidence and cannot answer questions, as they are asked, that challenges those views.

OK, can you give a plausible answer as to why I am perfectly willing to answer all questions that I may be asked with plausible, verifiable answers and if I do not understand the question, will ask for clarification or rephrasing and will then answer the question? No excuses, such as it is malformed, it is stupid, it is not relevant, etc. but clear, straightforward answers. OTOH, I have not found one person that will reciprocate in like manner. What kind of excuse do you have for that?

 

[AirPo]

OK, can you give a plausible answer as to why I am perfectly willing to answer all questions that I may be asked with plausible, verifiable answers and if I do not understand the question, will ask for clarification or rephrasing and will then answer the question? No excuses, such as it is malformed, it is stupid, it is not relevant, etc. but clear, straightforward answers. OTOH, I have not found one person that will reciprocate in like manner. What kind of excuse do you have for that?

Do you understand that this statement is wrong?

Evolutionist say…

“All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds”

If you don't agree that it is wrong, can you provided links showing it is right?

 

[bhsmte]

Do you understand that this statement is wrong?



If you don't agree that it is wrong, can you provided links showing it is right?

Good luck.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've learned not to demand things from evolutionists and/or scientists.

They'll usually produce it.

Correct. You might just get it.

If they can't produce it, they'll go as far as to rig a vote to get it.

Oops, there he goes again.

Or they'll talk over your head.

You could always try to learn. They do not do that on purpose.

Instead, I like to issue thought-provoking challenges, so they can ignore and ridicule them.

Sorry, you don't do that either.

Someone brought up a horse or something.

Had I said SHOW ME, I'm sure I would have gotten some bologna about an Eohippus or something that looks good on paper, but nowhere else.

Not "on paper". In the bones, and in the blood. But then you have to keep up this self deception.

 

[bhsmte]

Correct. You might just get it.



Oops, there he goes again.



You could always try to learn. They do not do that on purpose.

[]quote]
Instead, I like to issue thought-provoking challenges, so they can ignore and ridicule them.

Sorry, you don't do that either.



Not "on paper". In the bones, and in the blood. But then you have to keep up this self deception.[/QUOTE]
Open minded learning is scary to some, really scary.

 

[pitabread]

All of that ruins the strawman argument. And some, really really need that strawman.

Not sure if this is an intended strawman though. I think there are legitimate differences in how creationists seem to view things (likely based on their views of their religious beliefs), compared to those who aren't.

Two things I've generally noticed is that:

A) Creationists tend to have less tolerance for uncertainty. I think this is one of the reasons for their religious beliefs, particularly beliefs viewed as immutable to change (even though history says otherwise). There needs to be this feeling of having a bedrock under one's feet.

B) Then there is a lineal thinking dependency of connected events; i.e. A is dependent on B dependent on C dependent on D and so forth. If any link in that perceived chain is broken, the whole thing is viewed to collapse. I see this all the time when Genesis literalism comes up; for some, viewing the Genesis origin story as non-literal throws the whole system of belief into doubt.

Scientific knowledge, in contrast, is quite different. There are gaps in knowledge and lineal dependencies don't exist in the same manner. Scientific knowledge is continually getting revised and updated as we learn new things about our world and universe. Nothing is permanently etched in store.

I can imagine that for a creationist, it's a very different way of thinking.

 

[bhsmte]

Not sure if this is an intended strawman though. I think there are legitimate differences in how creationists seem to view things (likely based on their views of their religious beliefs), compared to those who aren't.

Two things I've generally noticed is that:

A) Creationists tend to have less tolerance for uncertainty. I think this is one of the reasons religious beliefs, particularly beliefs viewed as immutable to change (even though history says otherwise). There needs to be this feeling of having a bedrock under one's feet.

B) Then there is a lineal thinking dependency of connected events; i.e. A is dependent on B dependent on C dependent on D and so forth. If any link in that perceived chain is broken, the whole thing is viewed to collapse. I see this all the time when Genesis literalism comes up; for some, viewing the Genesis origin story as non-literal throws the whole system of belief into doubt.

Scientific knowledge, in contrast, is quite different. There are gaps in knowledge and lineal dependencies don't exist in the same manner. Scientific knowledge is continually getting revised and updated as we learn new things about our world and universe. Nothing is permanently etched in store.

To protect a biblical creationist belief, creationist have no choice but to deny well evidenced science and create a strawman version, which brings them temporary comfort and protection.

 

[tevans9129]

OK, can you give a plausible answer as to why I am perfectly willing to answer all questions that I may be asked with plausible, verifiable answers and if I do not understand the question, will ask for clarification or rephrasing and will then answer the question? No excuses, such as it is malformed, it is stupid, it is not relevant, etc. but clear, straightforward answers. OTOH, I have not found one person that will reciprocate in like manner. What kind of excuse do you have for that?

Do you understand that this statement is wrong?

No doubt as for the answer to my question. Is that a "straw man, a deflection, a diversion, an avoidance or just an admission that you do not have the confidence in your views to answer questions that challenge them?

Or, perhaps you did not understand my question, is that it?

 

[AV1611VET]

You could always try to learn.

Learn what?

Scientists can convince the layperson that Phlogiston theory is correct.

Then they can change it to combustion theory and say that is correct.

Scientists can tell you Thalidomide is a prenatal wonder drug.

Then they can tell you it does have an unwanted side effect.

Scientists can convince you it's safe to return to your homes, that Y2K will have a devastating impact on the world, etc.

Scientists can tell you that man and dinosaurs never walked together.

Then they can tell others that a dinosaur just flew past their window.

Scientists can even convince professionals that it's party-time aboard a ticking time-bomb.

Scientists can convince a person that God shouldn't exist, Israel isn't in the Promised Land, show Jesus to be a glorified ape, Adam & Eve didn't exist, the United States prospers because of the 'luck of the draw,' not the Abrahamic Covenant.

And so on and so and so ad nauseous so on.

 

[lesliedellow]

No doubt as for the answer to my question. Is that a "straw man, a deflection, a diversion, an avoidance or just an admission that you do not have the confidence in your views to answer questions that challenge them?

Or, perhaps you did not understand my question, is that it?

"and will then answer the question? No excuses, such as it is malformed, it is stupid, it is not relevant, etc. but clear, straightforward answers"

Right, can you please tell me the name of the Southern Baptist Union's archbishop? No excuses such as it is malformed, it is stupid, it is not relevant, etc, but clear, straightforward answer.

 

[tevans9129]

can you learn to drive a car without learning how to repair one?

Absolutely, can you learn to drive a car without having a car? And even if you could learn, how can you prove that you know how without performing the act?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Learn what?

Scientists can convince the layperson that Phlogiston theory is correct.

Then they can change it to combustion theory and say that is correct.

Scientists can tell you Thalidomide is a prenatal wonder drug.

Then they can tell you it does have an unwanted side effect.

Scientists can convince you it's safe to return to your homes, that Y2K will have a devastating impact on the world, etc.

Scientists can tell you that man and dinosaurs never walked together.

Then they can tell others that a dinosaur just flew past their window.

Scientists can even convince professionals that it's party-time aboard a ticking time-bomb.

Scientists can convince a person that God shouldn't exist, Israel isn't in the Promised Land, show Jesus to be a glorified ape, Adam & Eve didn't exist, the United States prospers because of the 'luck of the draw,' not the Abrahamic Covenant.

And so on and so and so ad nauseous so on.

AV, if you learned you could not be convinced of failed theories. The problem is that you seem to know that the creationist explanation is a terribly failed one. Ignorance is your last refuge.

The strong of faith still maintain their Christian beliefs even when parts of the Bible are shown to be wrong. The weak in faith demand that their own particular interpretation of the Bible is true regardless of the evidence.

 

[AirPo]

No doubt as for the answer to my question. Is that a "straw man, a deflection, a diversion, an avoidance or just an admission that you do not have the confidence in your views to answer questions that challenge them?

Or, perhaps you did not understand my question, is that it?

Sorry, when you posted "all questions" I just assumed you meant "all questions."

 

[tevans9129]

Right, can you please tell me the name of the Southern Baptist Union's archbishop?

Absolutely...just as soon as you answer the questions that I have asked, will you do that?

 

[lesliedellow]

Absolutely...just as soon as you answer the questions that I have asked, will you do that?

I am sure you get the point, unless you are even more obtuse than I think.

 

[tevans9129]

Sorry, when you posted "all questions" I just assumed you meant "all questions."

Why do you think I did not? Did you answer any of my questions? I am perfectly willing to answer all questions that I may be asked and I admit to not being all that bright but I am not stupid which I would need to be if I did not expect others to "reciprocate in like manner" and my offer is not unilateral.

OK, can you give a plausible answer as to why I am perfectly willing to answer all questions that I may be asked with plausible, verifiable answers and if I do not understand the question, will ask for clarification or rephrasing and will then answer the question? No excuses, such as it is malformed, it is stupid, it is not relevant, etc. but clear, straightforward answers. OTOH, I have not found one person that will reciprocate in like manner. What kind of excuse do you have for that?

 

[tevans9129]

I am sure you get the point, unless you are even more obtuse than I think.

Good, but I am not sure that you do.

 

[AirPo]

Why do you think I did not? Did you answer any of my questions? I am perfectly willing to answer all questions that I may be asked and I admit to not being all that bright but I am not stupid which I would need to be if I did not expect others to "reciprocate in like manner" and my offer is not unilateral.

Obviously not true.