The plank in the materialist's eye

npetreley · Jun 5, 2002

Originally posted by Satoshi

Stop trying to evade the issue. You weren't talking about the difference of examining current shapes and examining past processes, you were talking about how consensus among scientists means that this consensus is unfounded.

Huh? You were the one who turned it into an example of measuring the shape of something in the present vs. speculation about how something worked in the past. I just pointed out how your rebuttal made no sense.

(Your tree example is also an apples-to-oranges example, by the way.)

Satoshi · Jun 5, 2002

Originally posted by npetreley
Huh? You were the one who turned it into an example of measuring the shape of something in the present vs. speculation about how something worked in the past. I just pointed out how your rebuttal made no sense.

Please read this exchange again. I didn't say that measuring the shape of something is the same as testing a theory that deals with past events. It was an illustration of how foolish it is to think that if every scientist agrees about some theory, that means that this theory is not being vigorously tested. You then evaded the issue by saying that Earth-measuring and evoution-testing is not the same thing.

npetreley · Jun 5, 2002

Originally posted by Satoshi

Please read this exchange again. I didn't say that measuring the shape of something is the same as testing a theory that deals with past events. It was an illustration of how foolish it is to think that if every scientist agrees about some theory, that means that this theory is not being vigorously tested. You then evaded the issue by saying that Earth-measuring and evoution-testing is not the same thing.

I see - pointing out the enormous flaw in your argument is avoiding the issue.

Satoshi · Jun 5, 2002

Originally posted by npetreley
I see - pointing out the enormous flaw in your argument is avoiding the issue.

You see, I pointed out the enormous flaw in your argument (#58). You then evaded the issue by talking about an entirely unrelated issue and with a cheeky, but ultimately futile, insult (#59). In post #61, you again attempt to evade. And now (#63) you continue to avoid your error. Now might be a good time to spare yourself and take up another thread where another evolutionist can practice with you.

chickenman · Jun 5, 2002

Mr Peterly you are nitpicking, and evolution is a process that is still occuring so it can be observed now. I also love the fact that you list the names of scientists who lived before the theory of evolution was even proposed. What exactly was the point of that?

DonaldW112 · Jun 5, 2002

Originally posted by npetreley

Funny, most people cite that as an example that we're more civilized, not that we've learned anything from science. Even then, as C. S. Lewis pointed out in Mere Christianity, the difference between then and now is that we don't believe in witchcraft, not that we're more civilized.

And we don't believe in witchcraft any more because .... drum roll please ... it was disproven by science. More exactly it was shown to be unreproducible under controlled conditions. It could still be true mind you, but since science disproved it, using the the scientific method, most people (although not all) now believe any "witchcraft" was simple tricks and illusions not supernatural. Now this is different than the creation story how????

randman · Jun 5, 2002

Mr Donald, um, maybe you are just unaware, but basically many people do beleive in witchcraft today. It is a very strong and large movement, including Wicca, New Age, Hindu stuff, channeling, tarot cards, readings, voodoo, astrology, etc,...Astrology is particularly big in Manhattan.

I am not practicing withcraft by the way, but I think it is important for you folks to realize that spiritualism and spiritual forms of traditional religion are on the rise, and enjoying unprecedented popularity world-wide.

LiveFreeOrDie · Jun 5, 2002

Originally posted by randman
I am not practicing withcraft by the way, but I think it is important for you folks to realize that spiritualism and spiritual forms of traditional religion are on the rise, and enjoying unprecedented popularity world-wide.

So what? Is the truth determined by a popularity contest?

randman · Jun 5, 2002

Um, my post was in response to the idea that society does not beleive in witchcraft today, which isn't true as there has been a huge resuregence of belief in witchcraft the past 30 years. Maybe you should bother reading the thread before commenting.

It is ironic, but secularism, secular humanism, tends to result in spiritualism, which is spiritualistic humanism.

Jerry Smith · Jun 5, 2002

I guess that plank in the materialist eye turned out to be just a little bit of baloney. Why am I not suprised?

npetreley · Jun 5, 2002

Originally posted by DonaldW112

And we don't believe in witchcraft any more because .... drum roll please ... it was disproven by science. More exactly it was shown to be unreproducible under controlled conditions. It could still be true mind you, but since science disproved it, using the the scientific method, most people (although not all) now believe any "witchcraft" was simple tricks and illusions not supernatural. Now this is different than the creation story how????

Really? My opinion of witchcraft aside, can you show me the studies that disprove witchcraft?

npetreley · Jun 5, 2002

Originally posted by chickenman
Mr Peterly you are nitpicking, and evolution is a process that is still occuring so it can be observed now.

First of all, it's "Petreley." Second of all, I'm not nitpicking at all. What you call evolution encompasses a broad range of phenomena, some of which can be verified today, some of which are nothing but imaginary presuppositions about how things happened. The latter is what creationists disagree with, such as the idea that man could evolve from the most primitive form of life. No matter how confident YOU may be about the latter, it is still something that we cannot observe or prove.

I also love the fact that you list the names of scientists who lived before the theory of evolution was even proposed. What exactly was the point of that?

Not all of them lived before evolution was proposed. And the point was to list scientists who believe(d) in creation that have no affiliation with ICR, a list which includes, by the way, the person who formulated the scientific method.

Jerry Smith · Jun 5, 2002

Originally posted by npetreley
What you call evolution encompasses a broad range of phenomena, some of which can be verified today, some of which are nothing but imaginary presuppositions about how things happened.

I thought, since you could not back up your assertions of "imaginary presuppositions" & such you had decided to quit making them. For the record folks, we've been through this. It has been explained to Nick exactly how macro-evolution and common descent by evolution have been verified in modern times even though the events involved are geologically slow and mostly in the past. He has been asked to show which of the evidence for common descent was based on "imagination" or "fantasy", and a special thread (I will not link or bump this time) was set up for him to piont out what makes that evidence imaginary, wrongly interpreted, or anything else. He has avoided to do so completely, and backs up his assertion only with a quote from a scientists who makes strong statements about the necessity for materialist methodology. Having finished discussing this issue in this very thread - and having shown no reasons to abandon the materialist methodology apart from just sheer perversion, Nick has started making his accusations again. Nick.. Your thread is waiting.

The latter is what creationists disagree with, such as the idea that man could evolve from the most primitive form of life. No matter how confident YOU may be about the latter, it is still something that we cannot observe or prove.

It has been "proven" - that is evidenced beyond reasonable doubt. To continue to entertain doubts is your perogative. To pretend your doubts have any scientific weight is pure bluster.

Not all of them lived before evolution was proposed. And the point was to list scientists who believe(d) in creation that have no affiliation with ICR, a list which includes, by the way, the person who formulated the scientific method.

Now, how many of them believe(d) that creation was a good scientific model - and how many of them believe(d) that evolution isn't? I think that information would be very much germaine to the discussion.

randman · Jun 5, 2002

Jerry, that is exactly the kind of overstatement that has caused half of the population to reject e volution. You guys speak of all this proof, and when a creationist actually points out the data, the people are appalled and feel lied to.
I certainly felt lied to when the so-called proof in the fossil record did not actually document evolution happening, but simply consisted of different extinct species in different strata.
The fact that many species never change at all, and that the so-called evolutionary hcanges tend to be within a range so that geologically speaking, species in the fossil record do not actually appear to evolve at all, and the fact there is no proof of species to species evolution into the kind of marco-evolution that evolves a creature into wholly something else, is not shown in the fossil record, for me, this was all it took.
I feltlied to by the evolutionist establishment, and the more I looked into the data, the less I believed in it.

Jerry Smith · Jun 5, 2002

Originally posted by randman
Jerry, that is exactly the kind of overstatement that has caused half of the population to reject e volution. You guys speak of all this proof, and when a creationist actually points out the data, the people are appalled and feel lied to.
I certainly felt lied to when the so-called proof in the fossil record did not actually document evolution happening, but simply consisted of different extinct species in different strata.
The fact that many species never change at all, and that the so-called evolutionary hcanges tend to be within a range so that geologically speaking, species in the fossil record do not actually appear to evolve at all, and the fact there is no proof of species to species evolution into the kind of marco-evolution that evolves a creature into wholly something else, is not shown in the fossil record, for me, this was all it took.
I feltlied to by the evolutionist establishment, and the more I looked into the data, the less I believed in it.

Are you saying you would like to pinch hit for Nick and back up his allegations for him?

Jerry Smith · Jun 5, 2002

Have you ever really, really looked at the evidence for evolution, Randman? I don't think you have. I believe you when you say that you used to "believe" in evolution, but I don't think that you were well-educated in it then - and you haven't given any indication in your posts that you understand it that well now, or are familiar with the evidence. Have you ever read, point by point, the "29 evidences" page at TalkOrigins? Did you read Ashby Camp's attempt to confuse the issues in his rebuttal? Did you read Dr. Theobald's reply to Camp's efforts? Have you taken college level classes in evolutionary biology? Are you really aware of the real evidence? Not just the fossil record, but all of it?

If it is lies and dishonesty that you dislike in science advocates, then please just check up on Duane Gish, Jonathan Wells, and Kent Hovind - you'll be back on our side in no time!! I'd rather you come around because of the evidence, though, really.

randman · Jun 5, 2002

"Have you ever read, point by point, the "29 evidences" page at TalkOrigins? Did you read Ashby Camp's attempt to confuse the issues in his rebuttal? Did you read Dr. Theobald's reply to Camp's efforts?"

Yep. TalkOrigins in my mind is a garbage site, and this opinion was largely formed from reading the above cited articles. I do think evolutionists have some strong evidence presented elsewhere in a more reasonable manner. I consider Talkorigns just propoganda, and to be a terrible site.

"Have you taken college level classes in evolutionary biology?"

No.

"Are you really aware of the real evidence? Not just the fossil record, but all of it?"

Well, I have read a lot of crap, forgive my use of the word, at Talkorigins and links from the Infidel site, and studied High School biology and made an A, but no, I am not a scientist. Took geology in college by the way, not as a major.

Jerry Smith · Jun 5, 2002

Originally posted by randman
"Have you ever read, point by point, the "29 evidences" page at TalkOrigins? Did you read Ashby Camp's attempt to confuse the issues in his rebuttal? Did you read Dr. Theobald's reply to Camp's efforts?"

Yep. TalkOrigins in my mind is a garbage site, and this opinion was largely formed from reading the above cited articles.

Exactly what about these particular articles led you to this conclusion?

randman · Jun 5, 2002

Camp's rebuttal I thought was quite good. When I have the time, we can get into it, but one thing about evolutionistys in general and Talkorigins in particular that makes me write them off. TalkOrigins published a larger portion of the quotes creationists use on the fossil record, and what was amazing and very strange is the context fully agreed with the point the creationists were making, but TalkOrigins acted like they did not since the people being quoted were obviously evolutionists. The idea was to pretend that creationists were acting like these men were also creationists, which was wholly untrue. The whole purpose in quoting these men is to show where evolutionists themselves admit to certain weaknesses in the fossil record.
The creationists even stated these men were evolutionists in the quotes, but it was if blinders were on the evolutionists at TalkOrigins, and for the most part, those that have quoted it to me.
The only other time I have seen such a phenomenon is with cults, or when groups become cultish, and this along with some other things has led me to think a large portion of ardent evolutionists are kind of a cult.

Not to be offensive, but this is my honest appraisal of the situation.

Jerry Smith · Jun 5, 2002

I think that is bunk. Creationist quote-mining is, more often than not, intended to give false impressions about how the scientists that are quoted view the fossil record with respect to evolution. Rarely are they trying to portray the scientist as a creationist (though I bet some of them would, and do, when they think they can get away with it). But all this is tangential to the issue... I really meant - what did you find SUBSTANTIVELY wrong with 29 Evidences? Did you read Dr. Theobald's reply to Camp's critique? What was wrong with it?

The quote-mining page is a separate FAQ and has more to do with addressing creationist obfuscation than it does to do with the evidence for evolution...

The plank in the materialist's eye

pumpkin sailor

Active Member

pumpkin sailor

Active Member

evil unamerican

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Science Officer

Well-Known Member

Fish out of water

pumpkin sailor

pumpkin sailor

Fish out of water

Well-Known Member

Fish out of water

Fish out of water

Well-Known Member

Fish out of water

Well-Known Member

Fish out of water

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency