MY Darwin Challenge.

[AV1611VET]

You are a scientist, I am an addictions psychologist. The hallmark of addictions is denial and what I see over and over among creationists is denial of evolution. Makes one think that creationism is an addiction.

Wow.

Hooked on Jesus!

Halleujah and amen!

 

[Frank Robert]

Wow.

Hooked on Jesus!

Halleujah and amen!

Many people are and I don't believe it is a negative. I help out a pantry for the poor at a local Catholic church. The volunteers there are the most loving people I know.

 

[AV1611VET]

Many people are and I don't believe it is a negative. I help out a pantry for the poor at a local Catholic church. The volunteers there are the most loving people I know.

Are any of them creationists?

And if they are, are you willing to offer them psychological counseling pro bono?

And in your opinion, wouldn't it be nice if every literal six-day creationist sought counseling?

Then your practice would flourish, wouldn't it?

 

[Frank Robert]

Are any of them creationists?

And if they are, are you willing to offer them psychological counseling pro bono?

And in your opinion, wouldn't it be nice if every literal six-day creationist sought counseling?

Then your practice would flourish, wouldn't it?

A few are creationists. The Catholic church does not take an official stand on how to believe in the bible.

I am organizing two stress reduction groups using the relaxation response. One for family members of drug/abuse and a second for St Vincent DePaul ministries' volunteers. I am hoping to get collaboration with a local Catholic University. I searched the literature and found only one study of the Relaxation Response for co-dependents.

Here a one page pdf on the Relaxation Response.

And a 9 min video where Dr. Benson demonstrates the technique which is amazingly simple.

 

[AV1611VET]

A few are creationists.

Are you familiar with Martin and Deidre Bobgan?

 

[Astrid]

Thats great. He seems like he was a decent guy in addition to being a terrific scientist.

Didnt he also gift us with PCB?

 

[durangodawood]

Didnt he also gift us with PCB?

The group of chemicals?

 

[Frank Robert]

Are you familiar with Martin and Deidre Bobgan?

I am not familiar with the Bobgan's. When I looked them up, well I will not pass judgement, but there are good, bad and toxic professionals in all professions. Most psychologists, social workers and psychiatrists that I know do their best to help their patients. It is often difficult to find the right match.

What I am going to relay is a true story. I believe that practicing mental health should have a control therapist, i.e. a supervisor. When I was in grad school I was lucky to live near Ms. Colman-Nelson who agreed to be my control. Ms. Nelson most famous book was "Roles and Paradigms in Psychotherapy." Now the story. I heard from another therapist that Ms. Nelson cured a patient of cancer by making hamburgers for her at their sessions. I was already familiar with Dr. Milton Ericson and his "Uncommon Therapy" and what he called "metaphors." Back to the story. When I first stated with Ms. Nelson I asked her if her paradigms were similar to Ericson's metaphors and she said yes. I then asked her about her "hamburger cure." She told me that it was true and that the reason for the hamburgers was that previous therapy only exasperated the cancer and the patient needed "mothering." If you are following me -- the hamburgers became the paradigm/metaphor which helped the patient beat the cancer.

After Ms. Nelson's husband passed away she moved to Kenya where taught at the University there and also hooked up with shamans to teach them psychotherapy but according to her she learned more from them than they from her. (Her husband was anthropologist and had spent much time in Keyna. Before she died, Ms. Nelson also wrote several books on evil. Unfortunately, the books are too expensive for my budget.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am not familiar with the Bobgan's. When I looked them up, well I will not pass judgement, but there are good, bad and toxic professionals in all professions. Most psychologists, social workers and psychiatrists that I know do their best to help their patients. It is often difficult to find the right match.

How would you score a person who:

1. Sees Christian symbols on a Rorschach test.
2. Looks forward to dying.
3. Often talks to someone that can't be seen, even when he's driving.
4. Claims we're all being watched.
5. Believes someone is out to get us all.
6. Believes someone is coming to take a lot of us away soon.
7. Gets excited at reports of a rise of earthquakes, storms, pestilences, etc.
   
8. Looks forward to the end of the earth.

 

[Mountainmike]

Please. Please. Please.
Slow Down. Read what others write. Stop Shouting. Respond to what they write instead. Thats why we got off on the wrong foot.

Read your post 47.

See that YOU quoted my statement of Darwin who defined the criteria which would invalidate his theory. So indeed you mentioned that!

Then nothing you said after that related the part of my post you quoted.
See why I am confused? A list of non sequiturs and tangents followed viewed in the context of that quote.

What is it you were objecting to in the part of my quote you quoted? Were you contesting that Darwin said it, or that Darwin meant it, or that Darwin was wrong, or that I am wrong to quote Darwin?
I am still unaware. What was the basis of your challenge to the first post of mine you replied.??

Did you simply quote the wrong part of the post to make the point you did?
Did you mean to quote a different part of my earlier post?

You clearly have a "thing" about creationists, and it IS seemingly obsessive!
But that is not a response to the post you contested that sent things off the rails. Go back and read 47

BTW.. "scientist" is not an antonym for "creationist"
"creationist" is not an antonym for "evolutionist!.
They are false dichotomies.
Your reaction to it all also begs the question as to whether you understand the philosophical basis of science. What is it? What can it tell us and what can it not?

Again I do not recall mentioning a falsification criteria. My posts in support of the ToE has been the consilience of multiple scientific fields. You appear to disagree but you simply dismiss the consilience w/o any reasoning.

Your ignoring the consilience is YOUR failure.

You have failed to support one iota of creationism, not even with a cut and paste.

What science have you presented. Zero testable hypotheses, nata evidence, only denial, especially of the consilience of evidence for evolution.


When you don't have the facts you need to make things up.

Both evolution and creationism can coexist with the understanding that one is a minority religious belief and the other is science. Talking about failures, for a scientist you fail to note the difference between religion belief and evolution. What creationists get wrong is their belief that creationism is an alternative to evolution.

You are a scientist, I am an addictions psychologist. The hallmark of addictions is denial and what I see over and over among creationists is denial of evolution. Makes one think that creationism is an addiction.

 

[Frank Robert]

Please. Please. Please.
Slow Down. Read what others write. Stop Shouting. Respond to what they write instead. Thats why we got off on the wrong foot.

Read your post 47.

See that YOU quoted my statement of Darwin who defined the criteria which would invalidate his theory. So indeed you mentioned that!

Then nothing you said after that related the part of my post you quoted.
See why I am confused? A list of non sequiturs and tangents followed viewed in the context of that quote.

What is it you were objecting to in the part of my quote you quoted? Were you contesting that Darwin said it, or that Darwin meant it, or that Darwin was wrong, or that I am wrong to quote Darwin?
I am still unaware. What was the basis of your challenge to the first post of mine you replied.??

Did you simply quote the wrong part of the post to make the point you did?
Did you mean to quote a different part of my earlier post?

You clearly have a "thing" about creationists, and it IS seemingly obsessive!
But that is not a response to the post you contested that sent things off the rails. Go back and read 47

BTW.. "scientist" is not an antonym for "creationist"
"creationist" is not an antonym for "evolutionist!.
They are false dichotomies.
Your reaction to it all also begs the question as to whether you understand the philosophical basis of science. What is it? What can it tell us and what can it not?

You are excellent at projection.

Perhaps when you produce a bit of evidence for your claims instead of loads of negativity we can converse. I don't hold my breathe.

 

[Frank Robert]

Wow.

Hooked on Jesus!

Halleujah and amen!

I like how you reframed meaning.

 

[Astrid]

The group of chemicals?

Polychlorinated biphenol

 

[Astrid]

Please. Please. Please.
Slow Down. Read what others write. Stop Shouting. Respond to what they write instead. Thats why we got off on the wrong foot.

Read your post 47.

See that YOU quoted my statement of Darwin who defined the criteria which would invalidate his theory. So indeed you mentioned that!

Then nothing you said after that related the part of my post you quoted.
See why I am confused? A list of non sequiturs and tangents followed viewed in the context of that quote.

What is it you were objecting to in the part of my quote you quoted? Were you contesting that Darwin said it, or that Darwin meant it, or that Darwin was wrong, or that I am wrong to quote Darwin?
I am still unaware. What was the basis of your challenge to the first post of mine you replied.??

Did you simply quote the wrong part of the post to make the point you did?
Did you mean to quote a different part of my earlier post?

You clearly have a "thing" about creationists, and it IS seemingly obsessive!
But that is not a response to the post you contested that sent things off the rails. Go back and read 47

BTW.. "scientist" is not an antonym for "creationist"
"creationist" is not an antonym for "evolutionist!.
They are false dichotomies.
Your reaction to it all also begs the question as to whether you understand the philosophical basis of science. What is it? What can it tell us and what can it not?

It is impossible to be a yec scientist
and maintain intellectual integrity.

How different from scientist need yec be
to achieve dichotomy?

 

[durangodawood]

Polycorinated biohenol

Charles Darwin gave us polychlorinated biphenyls?

Not that Im aware of. What do you know of this?

 

[AV1611VET]

It is impossible to be a yec scientist and maintain intellectual integrity.

Can a person be a YEC musician and maintain intellectual integrity? cab driver? professional bowler? pool player? cartographer? airline pilot?

 

[durangodawood]

Can a person be a YEC musician and maintain intellectual integrity? cab driver? professional bowler? pool player? cartographer? airline pilot?

There's nothing in music professionally that throws up intellectual challenges to YEC. I know from experience.

Not sure about bowling tho.

 

[Frank Robert]

Can a person be a YEC musician and maintain intellectual integrity? cab driver? professional bowler? pool player? cartographer? airline pilot?

Yes because the scientific process is not needed for the above.

YEC/creationism is not science for the simple reason it fails to follow the basic scientific process which involves:

making an observation
forming a hypothesis
making a prediction
conducting an experiment and
analyzing the results.
​

Calling or labeling something science that does not follow the scientific process is dishonest. I have commented many times that the difference between creationism and evolution is one is based on a religious belief and the other on scientific evidence.

The Trial of Kitzmiller v. Dover The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.

​

 

[AV1611VET]

YEC/creationism is not science ...

I agree with this 100%.

There is not one iota of science involved in creationism, which was a series of one miracle after another, over a period of six days, that raised the level of mass/energy in the universe from zero to what it is today.

I've always maintained that "creation science" is a contradiction in terms.

... for the simple reason it fails to follow the basic scientific process ...

Exactly.

Science can take a hike.

Calling or labeling something science that does not follow the scientific process is dishonest.

Again I totally agree; and I'm glad that Wedge Document was exposed for what it was: a dishonest attempt to slip science into the Creation Week.

I have commented many times that the difference between creationism and evolution is one is based on a religious belief and the other on scientific evidence.

Creationism does not belong in science class.

Creationism belongs in history class.

 

[Frank Robert]

I agree with this 100%.

There is not one iota of science involved in creationism, which was a series of one miracle after another, over a period of six days, that raised the level of mass/energy in the universe from zero to what it is today.

I've always maintained that "creation science" is a contradiction in terms.Exactly.

Science can take a hike.Again I totally agree; and I'm glad that Wedge Document was exposed for what it was: a dishonest attempt to slip science into the Creation Week.Creationism does not belong in science class.

This is why I respect you.

Creationism belongs in history class.

You may be on to something. Religion is part of US heritage and a survey of the role that religions have played and that the separation of religion and state protects all religions.