My Evolution Challenge

[Mike Elphick]

I've got a question for those not participating in my discussion with Greg. I'm sometimes too generous and give my opponents more credit than they're due. In situations like that an outside opinion is helpful. Do you think he's ignoring my points or am I arguing over his head?

My experience has been, in debates with rational people, when it seems like you're hitting a brick wall it usually means there's some form of miscommunication.

Your experience is the same as mine. Greg's posts are all negative and difficult to understand. He never posts anything positive, invariably stuff against evolution ridiculing the capacity of random mutations to make a man, using his unique style of aircraft and wooden house analogies. These are repeated, boringly, over and over again. His favourite creationist site is the very dreadful Creation Evolution Encyclopedia.

 

[kharisym]

Your experience is the same as mine. Greg's posts are all negative and difficult to understand. He never posts anything positive, invariably stuff against evolution ridiculing the capacity of random mutations to make a man, using his unique style of aircraft and wooden house analogies. These are repeated, boringly, over and over again. His favourite creationist site is the very dreadful Creation Evolution Encyclopedia.

That doesn't quite match my experience, probably partially due to the fact that I'm starting to get a bit jaded when it comes to creationists and am letting a lot of that jadedness leak into my dealings with them. I keep trying to find challenging arguments and all I find is silliness and arrogance. Of the two topics we discussed he didn't use that particular resource, rather it primarily relied on a pubmed article which I think made for quite the excellent read. (if you didn't check it out, please do! It is a spiffy paper.) I also didn't notice any aircraft and wooden house analogies, but rather a continuous repetition of bits of bumper-sticker philosophy so pathetic I let them stand as self-disproving within the greater context of the discussion. Rather, my sense of the experience was one of just generally disorganized thought processes and logical structures. Overall, I think if he were to take a class in formal logic and seriously use it for introspection he would benefit tremendously.

 

[Mike Elphick]

That doesn't quite match my experience, probably partially due to the fact that I'm starting to get a bit jaded when it comes to creationists and am letting a lot of that jadedness leak into my dealings with them. I keep trying to find challenging arguments and all I find is silliness and arrogance. Of the two topics we discussed he didn't use that particular resource, rather it primarily relied on a pubmed article which I think made for quite the excellent read. (if you didn't check it out, please do! It is a spiffy paper.) I also didn't notice any aircraft and wooden house analogies, but rather a continuous repetition of bits of bumper-sticker philosophy so pathetic I let them stand as self-disproving within the greater context of the discussion. Rather, my sense of the experience was one of just generally disorganized thought processes and logical structures. Overall, I think if he were to take a class in formal logic and seriously use it for introspection he would benefit tremendously.

You missed his 'discussion' between a creationist and a 'Darwinist':-

Darwinist: The fossil records clearly shows that random mutations turned bicycles into airplanes.

Creationist: But bicycle remains bicycles

D: What we are wondering is when airplanes diverged from cars, we assume that it was about 20 million years ago

C: But random variations in the code governing the re-production of vehicles indicate that it is sterile.

I've not been following your conversations with Greg and will read the pubmed article later. Meanwhile, do take a look at The Creation Evolution Encyclopedia .

 

[kharisym]

You missed his 'discussion' between a creationist and a 'Darwinist':-



I've not been following your conversations with Greg and will read the pubmed article later. Meanwhile, do take a look at The Creation Evolution Encyclopedia .

Hah! I forgot that.

 

[kharisym]

Greg, quick question: Do you feel you've ever lost an argument on evolution?

 

[nChrist]

There's more hard evidence on Santa Clause, so how does one lose this argument?

 

[AV1611VET]

There's more hard evidence on Santa Clause, so how does one lose this argument?

I guess if they can prove Santa Claus evolved from elves, it's downhill from there.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's obvious that you have been a creationist for a very long time, I would just like to say thay I understand why you attack evolution with such a passion, for you to concede that creationism is wrong and evolution is right would mean that you have been made a fool of for most of your life, it's a problem that I'm glad is not happening to me, my heart goes out to you.
I think the same applies to AV as well.

Thank you, vaux, for the sentiment -- but, in fact, it's the other way around:

Q: What do evolutionists call themselves?
A: Homo sapiens

Q: What does Homo sapiens mean?
A: Wise man

Q: What does the Bible say about those who profess themselves to be 'wise'?
A: Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

 

[MoonLancer]

Thank you, vaux, for the sentiment -- but, in fact, it's the other way around:

Q: What do evolutionists call themselves?
A: Homo sapiens

Q: What does Homo sapiens mean?
A: Wise man

Q: What does the Bible say about those who profess themselves to be 'wise'?
A: Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Do you think the creatures we evolved from were wiser then us?

 

[Anaximander]

Yes they do say that ignorance is bliss don't they? and for sure no one could ever accuse a creationist of being 'wise' could they? I have found that creationists make a point of pushing that fact forward as often as they can, it's as if creationists are told not to appear 'wise' to other people because I should say that 99% of them here come across as being quite dim.

In the psychology world AV's kind of denial is called accommodation v. assimilation.

 

[Greg1234]

Greg, quick question: Do you feel you've ever lost an argument on evolution?

Not going to answer that. The Darwinist comes into an argument based on what he believes is the past. That science is against religion, and chance can build a man based on that conviction. That if it is not in religious text then it is automatically correct. He is programmed to jump in unaware. And based on erroneous data input, he miscalculates.

 

[AV1611VET]

... it's as if creationists are told not to appear 'wise' to other people because I should say that 99% of them here come across as being quite dim.

Luminescence being defined as 'acceptance of evolution', I take it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you think the creatures we evolved from were wiser then us?

Why don't you ask them yourself?

Didn't they feed and clothe you and insure you got an education?

 

[Tomatoman]

Not going to answer that. The Darwinist comes into an argument based on what he believes is the past. That science is against religion, and chance can build a man based on that conviction. That if it is not in religious text then it is automatically correct. He is programmed to jump in unaware. And based on erroneous data input, he miscalculates.

There is only one sentence in the above that is true and that is 'Not going to answer that'. The rest is wrong.

By the way, I'm curious, did you have learning difficulties at school?

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you consol?

...creationists are creationists because creationism only requires them to have the least amount of smarts possible...

Any day you think you can fill my shoes and explain creationism to your educated peers here, feel free to try.

Good luck with trying to keep them confined to Genesis 1, or getting them to understand the difference between creatio ex nihilo and magic, and even the difference between a ball of seawater and dry land.

If you can keep them speaking English, and not going off speaking in tongues, you may just make some headway.

And if you ever stray and let them bring up the Fall or the Flood -- you'd better know your stuff, or they'll drown you in their brand of epistemology.

 

[Blayz]

Any day you think you can fill my shoes and explain creationism to your educated peers here, feel free to try.

Todd Wood can do it. His stuff is brill. Yours, not so much.

 

[Cabal]

Todd Wood can do it. His stuff is brill. Yours, not so much.

I agree, Todd Wood is probably one of the few creationists out there who (a) isn't a complete n00b to you because you have a different view on creation, (b) actually...thinks, and tries to at least use science and research to support his view instead of whaling on evolution, (c) isn't afraid to call other creationists on their guff.

 

[AV1611VET]

Todd Wood can do it. His stuff is brill. Yours, not so much.

This isn't about Todd Wood, whoever he is.

If I'm 'not so brilliant', let's see you do better.

 

[Tomatoman]

This isn't about Todd Wood, whoever he is.

If I'm 'not so brilliant', let's see you do better.

Is this all about pride again? Groan.

 

[AV1611VET]

I agree, Todd Wood is probably one of the few creationists out there who (a) isn't a complete n00b to you because you have a different view on creation, (b) actually...thinks, and tries to at least use science and research to support his view instead of whaling on evolution, (c) isn't afraid to call other creationists on their guff.

Bring him here then and let me tell him what I think of his science --

When I think of my brothers and sisters in Christ who embrace science over Scripture, I always think of the verse:

Luke 23:12 And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends together: for before they were at enmity between themselves.