Evolutionists and credentialism

[Tomk80]

I know he's probably your friend, but he certainly has some issues.

I know him only as a frequent poster here. I'm old fashioned about friends, it means long evenings of talk with someone, often including beer or wine. Doesn't happen through internet forums. But form his posts here, the issues seem to be yours entirely. I think his posts, while harsh, are entirely justified. You put words into his mouth and for that, deserve a (linguistic) beating.

And no, I had no idea about that private school stuff because I live in the UK, but that is not really relevent.

It is entirely relevant. It is central to your confusion and you should have asked why he mentioned those schools instead of jumping the gun.

 

[Tomk80]

Depending on the gospels does not make it historically completely useless.

Yes it does, because in that case it is just a rehash of what we already know. A copy of another source, instead of an original, independant source. A copy is useless if you have the original source handy.

[quyote]Yes, it does follow from the quote. "Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given."[/quote]
No, it doesn't. It only follows that the teaching of this "wise king" were known by Bar-Serapion at the time when he was alive.

And you still haven't named any Jewish kings who were executed by Jews and whose teachings also live on today.[/quote]
I gave one example. Learn to read.

 

[Tomk80]

I did, but just for you I'll do so again. It is post 196.

Again, post 196.

No I didn't. I implied that the teacher who taught that if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it it makes no sound is stupid, and he/she is unless she was just stating that to start a discussion, which is a distinct possibility, because, let's face it, you would have to be pretty dumb to believe that he laws of physics are suspended if humans aren't there.

I also asked whether that could have been taught at a private Christian college because they have a poor reputation for teaching science.

How does this support your point precisely? As I read it, it doesn't support your point at all, since he specifically explains why he mentioned Christian schools in connection to "dumb teachers" (namely, bad science education in general in Christian schools).

Huh? Oh I get it!!! Yeah, you're right. It's all my school's fault.

It could also be you (apologies in advance, I'm just kidding and it's a low blow, but I really can't help myself here).

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Please --- oh, please --- show me one "educated" person on here qualified to take on this old Fundamental Baptist in a discussing on the Creation. I'll eat him for breakfast.

I thnk you will find some of us rather indigestible. I suggest you create an apple ex nihilio and eat it for breakfast instead.

 

[Baggins]

I did, but just for you I'll do so again. It is post 196.



Again, post 196.

You said I contradicted myself, did I do it within that post? I can see no evidence of that. If not you will need to post the post where i contradicted what was said in post 196

This is what I posted in post 196

No I didn't. I implied that the teacher who taught that if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it it makes no sound is stupid, and he/she is unless she was just stating that to start a discussion, which is a distinct possibility, because, let's face it, you would have to be pretty dumb to believe that he laws of physics are suspended if humans aren't there.

I also asked whether that could have been taught at a private Christian college because they have a poor reputation for teaching science.

This is an explanation of my original post and in no way, that I can see, contradicts it. It is the first in a series on increasingly in depth explanations which show that my post can in no way be taken to mean that I believe all Christians are stupid.

You either misread my original post or didn't comprehend it properly. I'll say again that no one else on here appears to have read into it what you read into it, and what you did read into it in no way encapsulates my beliefs.

Just repeating that I what wrote down parses as "all Christians are stupid" when it is obvious to all that it doesn't just makes you look stupid especially when I have stated, repeatedly, that those aren't my views.

Continuous digging is not the best way to get out of an hole.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Don't you think it might be a good idea to find out a bit about it before flinging around accusations?

The majority of people on this site are American, and they know the reputation Christian Colleges have for teaching science and logical thought,

Maybe you should be more specific about what you mean by "Christian Colleges". If you are talking about places like the infamous Bob Jones U or Bryant College where Kurt Wise used to teach or Southern Baptist Theological Seminary where he teaches now OK but you will find that "Christian Colleges" such as Boston College, Notre Dame, Southern Methodist and many, many others teach a fine curricula including excellent programs of teaching and research in evolutionary biology.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Please --- oh, please --- show me one "educated" person on here qualified to take on this old Fundamental Baptist in a discussing on the Creation. I'll eat him for breakfast.

Off the top of my head and in no particular order:

Baggins
thaumaturgy
Nathan Poe
Tomk80
Frumious Bandersnatch
Chalnoth
Vene
Bombila
ChordatesLegacy
TeddyKGB
Beastt
sbvera13
Gracchus
Mark Kennedy
dad

 

[Nathan Poe]

I thnk you will find some of us rather indigestible. I suggest you create an apple ex nihilio and eat it for breakfast instead.

Washed down with a tall glass of Ego.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'll take a moron creationist over any "educated" scientick any day.

Kindred spirits on more than one level, no doubt.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I don't think even staunch atheists deny the existence of Jesus --- let alone scientists. I could be wrong, but I've yet to meet someone who swears Jesus never existed.

Because whether or not Jesus existed is a side issue -- the question is whether or not Jesus was everything the Gospels claim he was.

For comparison, people once thought the Trojan War was a complete fabrication -- until the remains of Troy were found. That doesn't mean the Gods were personally involved, or that it involved a big wooden horse.

 

[Michael1975]

Yes it does, because in that case it is just a rehash of what we already know. A copy of another source, instead of an original, independant source. A copy is useless if you have the original source handy.

You lost me. What is this original source that we have handy?

No, it doesn't. It only follows that the teaching of this "wise king" were known by Bar-Serapion at the time when he was alive.


I gave one example. Learn to read.

Um, no. You didn't. Go back and look. I see no name of any Jewish King. Learn to read.

 

[Baggins]

Maybe you should be more specific about what you mean by "Christian Colleges". If you are talking about places like the infamous Bob Jones U or Bryant College where Kurt Wise used to teach or Southern Baptist Theological Seminary where he teaches now OK but you will find that "Christian Colleges" such as Boston College, Notre Dame, Southern Methodist and many, many others teach a fine curricula including excellent programs of teaching and research in evolutionary biology.

Should I say unaccredited or fundamentalist Christian Colleges?

Most mainstream colleges and universities in the US and the UK ( and most other Western places for that matter ) are Christian in origin, I can think of only one mainstream top 50 world University from either country that isn't and that is UCL. So it is a bit of a tautology to say Christian College unless you are talking about the specifically fundamentalist ones.

I shall bear that in mind should I ever wish to poor scorn on the scientific education available in such institutions again.

I assumed that most people, other than 14 year old Britons, would get the gist of the statement

 

[Michael1975]

How does this support your point precisely?

Because it says:
1. The teacher who taught that if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it it makes no sound is stupid.
2. You would have to be pretty dumb to believe that the laws of physics are suspended if humans aren't there.

There original statement reads:
I find that hard to believe unless you went to a Christian school, had a dim teacher or both.

So if it is dumb to say that if a tree falls in a forest it makes no sound, and he says that he finds it hard to believe a teacher said it unless the teacher is from a Christian college, he's saying that teachers from Christian colleges are dumb.

However, he said he didn't think that, so that is not what he was trying to say, but the fact that you can derive this from his post means that his wording was misleading, which is my point.

It could also be you (apologies in advance, I'm just kidding and it's a low blow, but I really can't help myself here).

Forgiven. I was actually trying to say it was my fault for misreading it (hence the shifty eyes when blaming it on my school). But my point is that it wasn't 100% my fault because the wording was slightly misleading.

 

[Tomk80]

You lost me. What is this original source that we have handy?

The gospels. The Christians described by the sources you gave believed in the gospel stories. Hence, what the non-biblical sources give as evidence is just a copy of the gospel stories. Hence useless as evidence.

Um, no. You didn't. Go back and look. I see no name of any Jewish King. Learn to read.

No name, but a figure that fits the bill. The essene "righteous teacher" of the qumran writings.

As I furthermore said, it can also be a mixup of different characters. Given the many factual errors in the letter, this would not be surprising.

 

[Tomk80]

Because it says:
1. The teacher who taught that if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it it makes no sound is stupid.
2. You would have to be pretty dumb to believe that the laws of physics are suspended if humans aren't there.

There original statement reads:
I find that hard to believe unless you went to a Christian school, had a dim teacher or both.

So if it is dumb to say that if a tree falls in a forest it makes no sound, and he says that he finds it hard to believe a teacher said it unless the teacher is from a Christian college, he's saying that teachers from Christian colleges are dumb.

So nowhere did he state, or give the impression of stating that all Christians or all Christian teachers are dumb. From the start he limited that statement to teachers at Christian private schools. This has been his point the whole discussion, so how did this contradict anything he wrote elsewhere? If so, what did it contradict and where?

Furthermore, logically that statement doesn't even apply to all teachers at Christian schools. Rather, it says that you are more likely to find dumb teachers there. In no way is it as inclusive as you say it is.

However, he said he didn't think that, so that is not what he was trying to say, but the fact that you can derive this from his post means that his wording was misleading, which is my point.

What he said was that he didn't say (man, this gets confusing) was that all Christians were dumb. None of the statements you have shown so far contradict that.

Forgiven. I was actually trying to say it was my fault for misreading it (hence the shifty eyes when blaming it on my school). But my point is that it wasn't 100% my fault because the wording was slightly misleading.

 

[Michael1975]

The gospels. The Christians described by the sources you gave believed in the gospel stories. Hence, what the non-biblical sources give as evidence is just a copy of the gospel stories. Hence useless as evidence.

Wait, the gospels is what we are talking about. I asked why the gospels aren't valid evidence and you say it is because they believed in the gospels? One of us must have made a mistake somewhere.

No name, but a figure that fits the bill. The essene "righteous teacher" of the qumran writings.

As I furthermore said, it can also be a mixup of different characters. Given the many factual errors in the letter, this would not be surprising.

Now we are getting somewhere.
I typed the essene into wikipedia but I could not find the name of any Jewish Kings who were crucified by Jews in it. Perhaps you could lead me there.

 

[Baggins]

Because it says:
1. The teacher who taught that if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it it makes no sound is stupid.
2. You would have to be pretty dumb to believe that the laws of physics are suspended if humans aren't there.

That bits OK

There original statement reads:
I find that hard to believe unless you went to a Christian school, had a dim teacher or both.

That bit is OK

So if it is dumb to say that if a tree falls in a forest it makes no sound, and he says that he finds it hard to believe a teacher said it unless the teacher is from a Christian college, he's saying that teachers from Christian colleges are dumb.

And this is where logic fails you.

I said I find it hard to believe it unless the teacher is stupid ( regardless of where they teach ); the teacher is at a Christian College/school ( meaning Christian fundamentalist school ) at this point I am assuming that the teacher is intelligent enough to know that the statement is rubbish but is following the usual anti-science teachings of such schools; and the final possibility is that the teacher is not only anti-science but also stupid.

You've completely failed to understand my point, you cannot read my post logically and get what you claim to get from it. I can only assume that you are now embarrassed by your original claim but due to ego find it impossible to let it go.

My statement cannot be read that I think that all teachers at Christian colleges are stupid ( let alone all Christians full stop as you once claimed I said ) because I specifically list that as a third option, logically this means that I believe that some teachers at Christian Colleges are intelligent otherwise the third statement - "or both" - would be completely superfluous.

I think I have explained it so even a 14 year old of moderate intellect should be able to follow the logic.

However, he said he didn't think that, so that is not what he was trying to say, but the fact that you can derive this from his post means that his wording was misleading, which is my point.

No one else had trouble understanding what I was saying, just you. You are the only person who seems to think you can parse my meaning in that way.

I think it is more likely that you are mistaken than the rest of us are.

because the wording was slightly misleading.

Down to slightly misleading now, we are inching ever closer.

 

[Michael1975]

So nowhere did he state, or give the impression of stating that all Christians or all Christian teachers are dumb. From the start he limited that statement to teachers at Christian private schools. This has been his point the whole discussion, so how did this contradict anything he wrote elsewhere? If so, what did it contradict and where?

Furthermore, logically that statement doesn't even apply to all teachers at Christian schools. Rather, it says that you are more likely to find dumb teachers there. In no way is it as inclusive as you say it is.


What he said was that he didn't say (man, this gets confusing) was that all Christians were dumb. None of the statements you have shown so far contradict that.

No, he didn't say that all Christian teachers are dumb. But I could say that teachers from muslim schools (it's just an example) are dumb. That would apply to all muslim teachers, even if I didn't say all teachers. But as I said, it was my mistake for misreading it, although it's wording was slightly misreading.

 

[Michael1975]

Should I say unaccredited or fundamentalist Christian Colleges?

Most mainstream colleges and universities in the US and the UK ( and most other Western places for that matter ) are Christian in origin, I can think of only one mainstream top 50 world University from either country that isn't and that is UCL. So it is a bit of a tautology to say Christian College unless you are talking about the specifically fundamentalist ones.

I shall bear that in mind should I ever wish to poor scorn on the scientific education available in such institutions again.

I assumed that most people, other than 14 year old Britons, would get the gist of the statement

So if you assumed everyone else other than me would understand, why are you now going crazy about the fact that I didn't?

 

[Michael1975]

And this is where logic fails you.

I said I find it hard to believe it unless the teacher is stupid ( regardless of where they teach ); the teacher is at a Christian College/school ( meaning Christian fundamentalist school ) at this point I am assuming that the teacher is intelligent enough to know that the statement is rubbish but is following the usual anti-science teachings of such schools; and the final possibility is that the teacher is not only anti-science but also stupid.

You've completely failed to understand my point, you cannot read my post logically and get what you claim to get from it. I can only assume that you are now embarrassed by your original claim but due to ego find it impossible to let it go.

My statement cannot be read that I think that all teachers at Christian colleges are stupid ( let alone all Christians full stop as you once claimed I said ) because I specifically list that as a third option, logically this means that I believe that some teachers at Christian Colleges are intelligent otherwise the third statement - "or both" - would be completely superfluous.

I think I have explained it so even a 14 year old of moderate intellect should be able to follow the logic.

After reading your post, I see that there are two things you assumed, and therefore that I must have assumed too.

1. That it is a Christian Fundamentalist school - How am I supposed to know that if you just said Christian college? I didn't know this stuff about Christian Fundamentalist schools not properly teaching science until later anyway, but when I did it didn't change my view yet because your post said Christian college, not Christian fundamentalist college.

2. That I'd know that you're assuming the teacher knows the statement is wrong - You should have included that too. In fact, if you did, this would've all been avoided.

This is basically what you were saying: Christian teachers of fundamentalist schools who know the statement is false but teach it anyway because of the anti-science view they have, which was over exaggerating it anyway. But by not including that you are assuming the teacher knows the statement is false, which I did not know because firstly, I live in the UK and secondly, when I was told, because you never said fundamentalist, I still never realised what you were actually trying to say.

Down to slightly misleading now, we are inching ever closer.

It was always slightly misleading. I didn't include the slightly because I couldn't be bothered until seeing how stressed you are becoming.

And you are still not letting it go. Stop crying and grow up. It's so sad that I have to say that to a 43 year old man. Sheesh!!