Oolon Colluphid

It's what makes it worth being here (and about all that keeps us sane in the face of the cretinist dross .)

Cheers, Oolon

Jack the Bodiless

OK, I'll deal with the falsehood of the Noachian Flood on the other thread if Calvaryson feels like backing up his assertions.

Meanwhile, from the debate thread:
This seems to be a common creationist ploy when dealing with uncomfortable facts: give them an "ism" label, then pretend they're part of a controversial "philosophy" which the creationist is under no obligation to accept.

Is it universally applied, though? For instance, it is an unfortunate fact that guns kill people. However, if a creationist is also an NRA apologist, he can call this "bulletism" (the philosophy that bullets are harmful to humans) and choose to ignore it because he doesn't share that philosophy. He can back it up by claiming that he has never observed bulletism (assuming he hasn't), and that "micro-bulletism" (damage to inanimate targets) does not imply "macro-bulletism" (damage to human beings).

The struggle for existence is a brute fact of life. It can plainly be observed (hence the phrase "nature red in tooth and claw"), and cannot be denied by anyone who wishes to be considered sane. It is not an "ism", not a philosophy: it simply IS. Similarly, I have seen creationists object to evolution itself because they don't like the "philosophy" of "survival of the fittest": evolution simply IS, regardless of personal preference.

Oolon Colluphid

Sorry that this is off-topic, but on the principle that Calvaryson might return to the scene of his most recent crime against science...

Calvaryson: Thank you for returning. Care to address any of the points raised in response to your post in <a href="http://ii-f.ws/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=001471&p=3" target="_blank">this thread</a>? Surely it’s polite to do so, before stirring up something else? Or are you merely a troll?

TTFN, Oolon

MrDarwin

Yes, I found the exchange between Scigirl and Douglas quite fascinating because Scigirl keeps pointing out things that are not interpretations, are not philosophies, are not theories, but are basic observations about the natural world, followed by the most logical interpretations of the data using the scientific method, and Douglas keeps denying them as "metaphysical naturalism". For example, this exchange:

Scigirl: Fact 1: All species have such great potential fertility that their population size would increase exponentially if all individuals that are born reproduced successfully. Fact 2: Most populations are normally stable in size, except for seasonal fluctuations. Fact 3: Natural resources are limited. Inference 1 (from these three facts): Production of more individuals than the environment can support leads to a struggle for existence among individuals of a population, with only a fraction of offspring surviving each generation.

Douglas: "Inference 1" assumes that there is no God, or that He is not involved in His Creation. As such, I cannot agree to it, unless I assume, for the sake of argument, "metaphysical naturalism".

Here Douglas is denying the rather uncontroversial and common-sense observation that all organisms produce more offspring than can possibly survive. For example, a clam will produce millions of gametes in the course of its lifetime, and of these, millions will produce clam larvae. Of these millions of larvae, on average only one will survive to reproduce; more, and the population will grow, eventually exhausting their environment's resources; fewer, and the population will shrink, eventually to extinction. There's no way around this; it's basic arithmetic.

Scigirl: The text then states two more facts: One, that there is variation within populations between individuals, and two, some of this variation is heritable. The inference from these two facts is that those individuals who inherit more fit characteristics are more likely to survive and breed than the individuals who do not receive those same characteristics.

Douglas: This inference also assumes a "metaphysical naturalism" position. Again, I could not agree to it unless I assume, for the sake of argument, "metaphysical naturalism".

Again, Douglas is denying the basic observations and the most logical extrapolations from these observations by labeling them as a "philosophy".

Scigirl: It seems obvious to me that a struggle for survival is guaranteed if organisms attempt to produce offspring in excess.

Douglas: That would only be obvious if one assumed "metaphysical naturalism". If one assumed God exists, and is involved in His Creation, it would not be "obvious", nor even necessarily likely.

Again, Scigirl is making a very logical and scientific conclusion based on observations of evidence; by denying that we can ever come to logical conclusions based on observations of the real world, Douglas is essentially denying that science can ever answer any questions at all. One has to wonder how it is that scientists accomplish anything at all. Finally, this exchange I found rather chilling:

Scigirl: Much of human suffering can be explained by over-population. Homelessness and famine for sure would not be as much of a problem if we did not breed as much, true?

Douglas: Not true. I don't believe there is any "over-population" problem.

This last exchange illustrates what I consider one of the prime dangers of creationism: not just the denial that we can learn by observing the natural world, but the very real danger that this denial will ultimately bring great harm to our species, to our environment, and to the millions of other species with which we share it.

wonderbread

With the way that Mr. Bender has been focusing on this point, it leads one to wonder if Mr. Bender believes that species goes extinct. Why wasn't god looking out for the dinosuars? Why did God let the mammoth die off? Why are animals like cheetas, pandas and rhinos on the brink of extinction? I'm sorry but the "God looks after all his creatures" arguement does not hold in the real world.

Blinn

We've not heard from Douglas for several days - I wonder if he's thrown in the towel?

faded_Glory

I have contacted him via email to ask about his next post.

Stay tuned!

fG

Quetzal

Douglas

Hopefully I won’t have to insult you to get your attention this time. I’d appreciate a clarification on some of your points in the debate. Your statements are a bit confusing to those of us attempting to follow your argument (or at least to me).

1. In your most recent post on the formal debate, you mentioned numerous times that science is using “faulty inferences” on which to base their findings. You have yet to provide any evidence for this claim. It would be extremely useful if you could provide one or more examples of a “faulty inference”. Otherwise, these errors would seem to exist only in your own mind.

2. You have made the related assertion that researcher bias over the last 150 years has prejudiced scientists to accept evolution over the biblical fairy tale. Please provide at least one example where bias is evidenced in any of the research into any aspect of evolution.

3. I’m going to quote this entire paragraph from your post, simply because there are so many fallacies in it that addressing it in a general sense would be difficult. Your first part here is abject appeal to authority – beyond the fact that you haven’t actually mentioned by name any of these scientists. It is not evidence that evolution is overturned. For the rest, if you would like a refutation of “irreducible complexity” (or “irredeemable confusion” as I like to term it), or a simplified explanation of the so-called “Cambrian Explosion”, I would be absolutely delighted to provide it – especially since they are beyond the scope of the debate and you have said repeatedly that you don’t have a scientific background. I don’t want you to feel overwhelmed.

As to “information theory” and the “time factor” which supposedly refutes evolution, you’re going to have to provide a more clear explanation of what that entails before I can even understand what your quibble is all about. In other words, I don’t know to what you are referring.

4. In your following paragraph, you made a wonderful and incomprehensible assertion about the existence “of a dinosaur fossil which "spanned" several "million" years of the geological record”. What in the world are you talking about? Please provide a reference because I, for one, have never heard of this. Excuse my ignorance.

5. “Also, have you never heard of "Intelligent Design"?” I have, and although it is completely irrelevant to the formal discussion, I would be happy to discuss it with you. There is, in fact, little difference between creationism and ID – in spite of the ID’ists desire to separate the two (i.e., creationism is a faith, ID is a science ROTFLMAO).

6. Another full quote: There’s a whole thread here devoted to the global flood. Please feel free to look at my posts there and refute any portion of them. Remember, I’m not arguing “ark logistics”, but rather the utter lack of evidence for any flood at all – you neglected to respond to that post, if I remember correctly.

Which ecosystems are better explained by a “young” Earth? (Careful, you’re on my turf now.)

You need to define what the heck you’re talking about babbling about “information”. Your statement appears meaningless. Are you talking about genetic information?

7. You really get off on this “beneficial mutation” kick. Guess what, the Drosophila weren’t trying to show any “benefit”, just how mutation could generate new species – which it did. You seem to be really wrapped around the axle on the misconception that “evolution = benefit”. It doesn’t. In fact, it can even have negative consequences. That doesn’t change the fact that it occurs. The flies certainly had “novel” features, and actually new species (same genus – I guess they were still the same “kind” by your definition). Since we’re not dealing with a “wild” population, it’s difficult to see what “benefit” was derived. A fair selection were lethal mutations – just what is predicted by evolution.

8. “Just what are those pictures supposed to show, anyway? Similarity? In what way are they "clear examples" of "clear transitional forms"” Scigirl’s right, your lack of scientific understanding really does hinder your understanding of the evidence she’s presented. Suggest you look at SingleDad’s explanation of transitional forms on the “Transitional Forms – useless as evidence” thread in this forum. The skulls she presented show change in “kind” over time, based on the geologic strata in which they were found.

I’m not even going to get in to the whole “sin” thing, since that argument requires accepting your fairy tale as a valid premise.

Eagerly anticipating your revelatory responses. Please deign to enlighten me on the eight points I mentioned.

Merry Christmas.

notto

Although this article has been discussed in this forum before, I thought I would reintroduce it here.

<a href="http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_4.html" target="_blank">Sadly, an Honest Creationist</a>
by Richard Dawkins

Kurt Wise is a contributor to In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation.

Excerpt from the article

All the more interesting, then, to read his personal testimony in In Six Days. It is actually quite moving, in a pathetic kind of way. He begins with his childhood ambition. Where other boys wanted to be astronauts or firemen, the young Kurt touchingly dreamed of getting a Ph.D. from Harvard and teaching science at a major university. He achieved the first part of his goal, but became increasingly uneasy as his scientific learning conflicted with his religious faith. When he could bear the strain no longer, he clinched the matter with a Bible and a pair of scissors. He went right through from Genesis 1 to Revelations 22, literally cutting out every verse that would have to go if the scientific worldview were true. At the end of this exercise, there was so little left of his Bible that

. . . try as I might, and even with the benefit of intact margins throughout the pages of Scripture, I found it impossible to pick up the Bible without it being rent in two. I had to make a decision between evolution and Scripture. Either the Scripture was true and evolution was wrong or evolution was true and I must toss out the Bible. . . . It was there that night that I accepted the Word of God and rejected all that would ever counter it, including evolution. With that, in great sorrow, I tossed into the fire all my dreams and hopes in science.

See what I mean about pathetic? Most revealing of all is Wise’s concluding paragraph:

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand.


[ December 24, 2001: Message edited by: notto ]</p>

Blinn

Someone refresh my memory... Which character in the Saturday Night Live skits used to do the "quotation marks" with his fingers? Was that Matt Foley (Chris Farley) the "Motivational Speaker" or the "administrative assistant" character that Dana Carvey did? Sorry this is a bit of topic, but reading Douglas's post "reminded" me of that.