Why don't more creationists think like Todd Wood?

[tas8831]

I'll ask as I ask every evolutionist.

What evidence?..

Omitting the plagiarism and nonsense, if we ignore the fact that you are focusing on your ignorance of paleontology for the moment, why do you ignore all other evidence?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Can creation?

The 'challenges' you toss out at evolution can be equally applied to creation.
Take that away and all that is left is evidence.
And one side clearly wins on that alone.

I don't pretend to understand how God created things. However I'll bet many evolutionists pretend to understand evolution. What you fail to realize is that my level of understanding, and lack of understanding (needs clarification) is very advanced.

For example I don't understand why those in charge of cleaning up our lakes don't just cut the weeds more often. This would greatly improve the quality of our waterways.

We recently had heavy rains leading to flooding and dangerously high water in our chain of lakes. It was announced that a weed cutting operation in one of the main drainage channels was being done to improve water flow and relieve the high water levels. My question is, why wasn't this already done.

I don't understand. Get it?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I mean step-by-step description of the creation of Eve from Adam's rib/side, for example, in understandable terms. No giant leaps, all the details.

See?

Again, what is left but evidence, for which there is none for creation?

Except of course......The Creation.

 

[tas8831]

I don't pretend to understand how God created things.

Yet you have previously written that you reject evolution because you do not understand it. Are you admitting that you reject God's creation of things as well?

Or is some consistency too much to ask of a creationist?

However I'll bet many evolutionists pretend to understand evolution. What you fail to realize is that my level of understanding, and lack of understanding (needs clarification) is very advanced.

I know from experience how advanced your lack of understanding is. I have nothing to go by in terms of your 'understanding' of anything relevant to biological evolution. For in each of your forays into he subject matter, you have only shown your 'lack of understanding', from what a tissue is, to how neurons operate, to how sound is made, to basic genetics, etc.

I don't understand. Get it?

I don't get why you wrote some off-topic diversion about weeds in waterways when the subject is your ignorance of things that you nevertheless pontificate on. But I do understand why so many creationists have inflated views of their own cognitive abilities - I think it is fear, primarily.

 

[tas8831]

Except of course......The Creation.

I already mentioned that question begging fallacies are not evidence.

Allow me to show how silly your sad antics are -

I declare that "Living things are the evidence for evolution."

You ask for details.

I respond "All living things."

You ask if I am a creationist. I say no. You say "Really? Because you totally argue like one."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I already mentioned that question begging fallacies are not evidence.

Allow me to show how silly your sad antics are -

I declare that "Living things are the evidence for evolution."

You ask for details.

I respond "All living things."

You ask if I am a creationist. I say no. You say "Really? Because you totally argue like one."

Same evidence, different conclusions.

My weed cutting example was presented to clarify my lack of understanding of how so-called experts think. I have worked for the same company for over 40 years, and I still don't understand why they do things the way they do.

Is it me?

 

[Ophiolite]

Same evidence, different conclusions.

My weed cutting example was presented to clarify my lack of understanding of how so-called experts think. I have worked for the same company for over 40 years, and I still don't understand why they do things the way they do.

Is it me?

Almost certainly. I have worked for several companies and it has never taken me more than five and generally less than two to figure out why they do things the way they do.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Almost certainly. I have worked for several companies and it has never taken me more than five and generally less than two to figure out why they do things the way they do.

I don't understand = incredulous.

 

[Ophiolite]

I don't understand = incredulous.

My point exactly. Incredulous means you can scarcely believe they do it the way they do it. On the other hand I understand why they feel compelled to do it the way they do it, while you remain, shaking your head.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

My point exactly. Incredulous means you can scarcely believe they do it the way they do it. On the other hand I understand why they feel compelled to do it the way they do it, while you remain, shaking your head.

The only thing I can come up with for why they do things the way they do is............severe mental disfunction.

 

[46AND2]

The only thing I can come up with for why they do things the way they do is............severe mental disfunction.

Clearly they are doing something right to have remained relevant for 40+ years...Unless maybe you work for Sears.

 

[juvenissun]

That's why I don't understand why more creationists are honest about modern biology like Todd Wood is.

You SHOULD try to understand. You did not try.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Clearly they are doing something right to have remained relevant for 40+ years...Unless maybe you work for Sears.

Better ways of doing things are constantly replacing old methods.

 

[46AND2]

Better ways of doing things are constantly replacing old methods.

Yes, of course. So after 40 years, why are they not doing things your way?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes, of course. So after 40 years, why are they not doing things your way?

I wish I knew.

 

[tas8831]

Same evidence, different conclusions.

My weed cutting example was presented to clarify my lack of understanding of how so-called experts think. I have worked for the same company for over 40 years, and I still don't understand why they do things the way they do.

Is it me?

Yes, it is you.

Not all opinions are equally valid, I am sure you would agree. The difference between us is that I, having no real knowledge of engineering, would not be so egocentric and elitist so as to think I could produce meaningful, field-altering and earth-shaking expositions on your field despite having no background, simply because I deem myself intelligent.

For I think creationist Jerry Bergman had a point:

"A key to success is knowing what one can speak authoritatively about and knowing where one's limits of knowledge and expertise are. All of us have opinions which lie outside of our area of expertise. Most intelligent people are cognizant of this fact and therefore usually avoid pontificating on areas they know little about."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes, it is you.

Dude, lighten up.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

.

 

[TCassidy]

I usually stay out of this type of discussion as, for the most part, they are based on emotion rather than facts.

I have read several posts, from both sides, talking about "evidence." As if the evidence is the end all of the discussion. But, unfortunately for both sides, it isn't.

Illustration. The police are called to a report of a loud argument. When they arrive they find a man, bloody and dead, on the floor, and standing over him is an equally bloody but very much alive man holding a large butcher knife.

The police arrest him, the DA charges him with 2nd degree murder and the case goes to trial.

The prosecutor presents evidence that the defendant did, in fact, kill the victim.

The defense presents evidence that the defendant did not, in fact, kill the victim.

After all the evidence is presented, the trial is not over! The jury must weigh the evidence, as provided by both sides, to make a determination which narrative best explains the evidence.

In mathematics we have a concept of "proof." It can be conclusively proven that 2 + 2 = 4.

But, unfortunately, in most other things we don't have a "proof" we have only a conclusion based on our understanding of the evidence presented.

Is some evidence more reliable than other evidence? Is there more than one way to interpret the evidence? Is it possible for two people to examine the same evidence and come to different conclusions?

May I suggest that, in this discussion, none of the evidence is likely to be considered incontrovertible by the other side?

Let's post what we consider our most telling evidence and see if there may be a different way of looking at that evidence that could cause intelligent, well educated, well meaning men and women to come to a different conclusion than we have come to.

 

[AV1611VET]

Illustration.

Sounds like a Matlock episode, where an innocent man (or woman) is always caught holding the "smoking gun," but didn't do it.