Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie

[omega2xx]

If you are offended by rhetorical techniques that seek to highlight the inanity of an argument pehaps you should offer better arguments. If you are unable to recognise appropriately used hyperbole, perhaps you should take an appropriate English course.

I shall overlook your accusation of dishonesty on this occassion.

Mutation.

If I actually believed you would make a serious study of the evidence I would be happy to do so. Given that such evidence is available in a host of textbooks, popular science books, research journals and online sites, you have had extensive opportunities to expose yourself to it.

I will give you this promise. If you assure me that you will examine the evidence I provide in an open minded fashion then I shall open a thread wherein that evidence is presented and debated. My intention would be to deal with one category of evidence from one "science subject" at a time. Let me know which of my listed topics you would wish me to begin with, along with your commitment to an open minded study of the material. For your convenience, here were the topics:

• anatomy
  
• embryology
  
• genetics
• palaeontology
• microbiology
• botany
• zoology
• cladistics
• biochemistry

No verifiable evidence, no discussion.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

No verifiable evidence, no discussion.

And there we have the YEC. Screw up your eyes and try to pretend that your word-view has not been blasted into a snowstorm of little fragments of wrong.

 

[Ophiolite]

No verifiable evidence, no discussion.

I have offered to present evidence. You have decided in advance that the evidence is not verifiable. And this does not strike you as close minded? Arrogant? Dishonest? Rude even? I guess not.

As your participate in the various services and Christian acts of the Christmas period I ask you to reflect on the opportunity you have just rejected and on the negative impression it creates of you and indirectly of Christianity. The offer remains open into the New Year, but please don't take too long to accept - I'm not getting any younger.

 

[omega2xx]

I have offered to present evidence. You have decided in advance that the evidence is not verifiable. And this does not strike you as close minded? Arrogant? Dishonest? Rude even? I guess not.

As your participate in the various services and Christian acts of the Christmas period I ask you to reflect on the opportunity you have just rejected and on the negative impression it creates of you and indirectly of Christianity. The offer remains open into the New Year, but please don't take too long to accept - I'm not getting any younger.

Get serious, no conservative Christian will be taken serious by non-Christians. No one who rejects evolution will be taken serious by those who accept it.

Don't offer to present evidence. do the Nike thing---just do it.

 

[omega2xx]

And there we have the YEC. Screw up your eyes and try to pretend that your word-view has not been blasted into a snowstorm of little fragments of wrong.

Evidently you have your wires crossed. I am not a YEC. The age of the earth will not change proved science.

 

[Ophiolite]

Get serious, no conservative Christian will be taken serious by non-Christians.

I am not a Christian and I take you very seriously. I consider the views of conservative Christians in regard to evolution to be a serious danger to those individuals, to the integrity of Christianity, to the well-being of Western civilisation and to health of humanity in toto. It's difficult (thought not impossible) to get much more serious than that.

. No one who rejects evolution will be taken serious by those who accept it.

See my previous observation. You must be taken seriously.

Don't offer to present evidence. do the Nike thing---just do it.

If I had devoted twelve hours a day for my entire adult life (let's call it half a century) to reading the evidence for evolution I would have been unable to complete what is available. This is why I asked you to narrow down the field a little.

However, if you are saying that, under no circumstances would you change your view of evolution then there is no more to be said. I will not waste my time presenting evidence that you have decided in advance you will ignore. However, if you will approach that evidence with a genuinely open mind and if you will help us narrow the field by identifying a subject area, or a topic, or a question, then I shall invest the time. If you are serious then you will move this dialogue to the next phase and we can both learn something.

 

[omega2xx]

I am not a Christian and I take you very seriously. I consider the views of conservative Christians in regard to evolution to be a serious danger to those individuals, to the integrity of Christianity, to the well-being of Western civilisation and to health of humanity in toto. It's difficult (thought not impossible) to get much more serious than that.

See my previous observation. You must be taken seriously.

If I had devoted twelve hours a day for my entire adult life (let's call it half a century) to reading the evidence for evolution I would have been unable to complete what is available. This is why I asked you to narrow down the field a little.

However, if you are saying that, under no circumstances would you change your view of evolution then there is no more to be said. I will not waste my time presenting evidence that you have decided in advance you will ignore. However, if you will approach that evidence with a genuinely open mind and if you will help us narrow the field by identifying a subject area, or a topic, or a question, then I shall invest the time. If you are serious then you will move this dialogue to the next phase and we can both learn something.

I am glad you take me seriously. I am serious. I was on your side of the fence until I was converted(at age 45) and started looking at the other side of the coin. I have looked at what evolution offers as evidence for over 30 years. They have never offered any that can be verified.

Here are their 3 main offerings: natural selection(which they can't prove), mutations, which they don't understand, and small changes over many years, which they can't demonstrate and time does not change proven genetic truths

Things that have been taught since childhood are difficult to overcome. When both sides of the argument are not presented, the students lose. One is not properly educated without hearing all other explanations.

 

[Ophiolite]

I am glad you take me seriously. I am serious. I was on your side of the fence until I was converted(at age 45) and started looking at the other side of the coin.

Your implication is that I am not well acquainted with the other side of the coin. I was raised as a Christian and my childhood and adolescent commitment to Christian values and interest in Christian theology led family to suspect that I might go into the ministry. I have maintained an interest in Christianity as part of my general interest in philosphy and sociology. I have studied, in depth, the anti-evolutionary arguments via popular books, sermons, relevant internet sites and discussions on forums such as this. I know the other side of the coin. I continue to examine it and am open to any new facets it might reveal.

I have looked at what evolution offers as evidence for over 30 years. They have never offered any that can be verified.

Apparently the word crap is not one of the words that are forbidden on the forum (though I have suggested to staff that is should be). So, basically, what you just said is crap.
However, since you are blind to the evidence, for whatever reason, there is no point in providing you with further evidence. Sadly, your mind is made up and you will continue to deny the obvious and corrupt the faith you adhere to. Since such behaviour disgusts me it is best if we not interact further. I shall place you on Ignore. Thank you for your responses and your honesty.

 

[mark kennedy]

Your implication is that I am not well acquainted with the other side of the coin. I was raised as a Christian and my childhood and adolescent commitment to Christian values and interest in Christian theology led family to suspect that I might go into the ministry. I have maintained an interest in Christianity as part of my general interest in philosphy and sociology. I have studied, in depth, the anti-evolutionary arguments via popular books, sermons, relevant internet sites and discussions on forums such as this. I know the other side of the coin. I continue to examine it and am open to any new facets it might reveal.

Apparently the word crap is not one of the words that are forbidden on the forum (though I have suggested to staff that is should be). So, basically, what you just said is crap.
However, since you are blind to the evidence, for whatever reason, there is no point in providing you with further evidence. Sadly, your mind is made up and you will continue to deny the obvious and corrupt the faith you adhere to. Since such behaviour disgusts me it is best if we not interact further. I shall place you on Ignore. Thank you for your responses and your honesty.

Creation is a vital doctrine that that stands up pretty well against Darwinian evolution. This would not have gotten so contentious had creationists not been trying to introduce creationism to the public schools. After the Dover case things simmered down, I personally have enjoyed learning about genetics and the fossil evidence.

 

[omega2xx]

Your implication is that I am not well acquainted with the other side of the coin. I was raised as a Christian and my childhood and adolescent commitment to Christian values and interest in Christian theology led family to suspect that I might go into the ministry. I have maintained an interest in Christianity as part of my general interest in philosphy and sociology. I have studied, in depth, the anti-evolutionary arguments via popular books, sermons, relevant internet sites and discussions on forums such as this. I know the other side of the coin. I continue to examine it and am open to any new facets it might reveal.

Apparently the word crap is not one of the words that are forbidden on the forum (though I have suggested to staff that is should be). So, basically, what you just said is crap.
However, since you are blind to the evidence, for whatever reason, there is no point in providing you with further evidence. Sadly, your mind is made up and you will continue to deny the obvious and corrupt the faith you adhere to. Since such behaviour disgusts me it is best if we not interact further. I shall place you on Ignore. Thank you for your responses and your honesty.

You are no qualified to say what I believe is crap. That is insulting and self-serving.

You are blind to what scientific evidence is. When one finds the truth it would be idiotic to change your mind. For something to be obvious there must be some verifiable evidence. Evolution has none. Since you can't produce any evidence for what you have put your faith in, you run away. It is amusing that you think believing in creation corrupts my faith. It show that no only do you not understand science, you don't understand the the basic doctrines of Christianity.

Have a very + day.

 

[Jimmy D]

You are no qualified to say what I believe is crap.

What do you believe exactly, you have said that you're not a YEC, and you don't accept evolution. What is your explanation for the diversity of life on Earth? Are your views influenced by a literal reading of the bible? Do you believe in a worldwide flood several thousand years ago? A flat Earth?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You are no qualified to say what I believe is crap. That is insulting and self-serving.

Nobody said what you believe is crap.

You are blind to what scientific evidence is. When one finds the truth it would be idiotic to change your mind. For something to be obvious there must be some verifiable evidence. Evolution has none.

At this stage you know very well this is an outright lie. It's not becoming and makes you look foolish. Or should that be idiotic?

 

[dmmesdale]

I have offered to present evidence.

Definition. General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE), which was defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’

1)How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected?

2) And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs)? That being, for each and every sexually reproducing creature? It presupposes sexual reproduction came from asexual reproduction. They developed the complementary organs at the same time for all creatures via physics and chemistry alone?

3) ‘’Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” Dawkins.

If living things look designed and for a purpose, how do they know they were not designed and for a purpose?

‘’The stereotype of a fully rational and objective 'scientific method,' with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology. "In the Mind of the Beholder" Natural History February 1994 p.14

You have decided in advance that the evidence is not verifiable.

Life from nonlife is not empirically verifiable. Neither is common ancestor. Neither is sexual reproduction from asexual reproduction.

And this does not strike you as close minded? Arrogant? Dishonest? Rude even? I guess not.

You are entitled to your opinions, not your facts.

National Socialism is applied Biology. Rudolf Hess.
Quote

Evolution is driven by competition, and competition brings extinction. Darwin notes, matter-of-factly in the Descent, that one tribe extinguishing another is the very engine of human evolution. In his words, “extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, race with race,” allowing the victorious tribe or race to pass on their superior endowments.

National Socialism is applied Darwinism.

 

[bhsmte]

What do you believe exactly, you have said that you're not a YEC, and you don't accept evolution. What is your explanation for the diversity of life on Earth? Are your views influenced by a literal reading of the bible? Do you believe in a worldwide flood several thousand years ago? A flat Earth?

Highly doubt, you get a straight answer.

 

[omega2xx]

Nobody said what you believe is crap.
At this stage you know very well this is an outright lie. It's not becoming and makes you look foolish. Or should that be idiotic?

The ones who look foolish and idiotic are those who present opinions as evidence.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The ones who look foolish and idiotic are those who present opinions as evidence.

You have only presented opinions, never evidence. How do you think you look?

 

[omega2xx]

What do you believe exactly, you have said that you're not a YEC, and you don't accept evolution. What is your explanation for the diversity of life on Earth? Are your views influenced by a literal reading of the bible? Do you believe in a worldwide flood several thousand years ago? A flat Earth?

If you can disprove what I believe, then it is crap. Until you do, saying what I believe is crap, is the crap.

My explanation of the diversity of life is explained in Gen 1:20-27. "After their kind" is seen and repeated thousands of times every day and can't be falsified. No one has ever seen a species become a different species. Until you can provide the verifiable, scientific evidence that makes it possible, the TOE is crap.

You have no explanation for the origin of life let alone for the diversity of life. You do not know what the first life form was and what it evolved into. The TOE starts with an unexplainable guess and has continued guessing for 100+ years.

I am not a literalist. All of the Bible is not literal, but it is all true unless you can prove, scientifically of course, it is not.

The Bible says there was a global flood. It does not say the earth is flat. Those who say the Bible says that and that Christians believe it, are Biblically ignorant and ignorant of Christianity.

 

[omega2xx]

You have only presented opinions, never evidence. How do you think you look?

Here is some evidence. Let 2 dogs mate and they will have a dog, NEVER anything else. Plant some corn and in about 90 day not only will you have corn, you will have the exact same variety you planted.

Those scientific truths are repeatable and observable and they an't be falsified. Now present you evidence, scientific of course, for anything the fundie disciples of "Darwin preach.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Here is some evidence. Let 2 dogs mate and they will have a dog, NEVER anything else. Plant some corn and in about 90 day not only will you have corn, you will have the exact same variety you planted.

Those scientific truths are repeatable and observable and they an't be falsified. Now present you evidence, scientific of course, for anything the fundie disciples of "Darwin preach.

You have just presented some yourself (if we ignore the word "exact"), but you don't understand why, do you?

 

[Speedwell]

Here is some evidence. Let 2 dogs mate and they will have a dog, NEVER anything else. Plant some corn and in about 90 day not only will you have corn, you will have the exact same variety you planted.

Congratulations! You have just stated an important principle of the theory of evolution *and* pointed out an area where the Bible and science agree.