If Darwin recanted on his deathbed, so what? I really want to know how
it's relevant.
People tend to judge others by themselves. Creationists tend to assume that
Darwin is some sort of secular Jesus, and that a recantation by Darwin would
be the equivalent of Jesus going "Hey! I was mixed up. I'm not really God,
and the book of Genesis is a load of superstitious mumbo-jumbo."
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Oh, I know that. I was just hoping a Creationist could tell me what
they think this little bit of mythology is supposed to achieve.
I'm more concerned about what would have happened had Superman been found
in Nazi Germany instead of Smallville.
Mark
Hmmmm. You know, if the infant Kal-El had been found by a family of
German Jews in 1920, Nazi Germany might have come to a very sudden and
drastically different ending.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
"Mmm! Power lines and paint chips! My childhood ROCKS!" -- Fighter,
8-bit Theatre
"Objection, irrelevant."
"It goes to credibility, your honor."
"Sustained. And I order the bailiff to beat you senseless with a mop
handle."
-----------------------------------
mike
The Mud and Mayhem Society
> Oh, I know that. I was just hoping a Creationist could tell me
> what they think this little bit of mythology is supposed to
> achieve.
>
Point scoring.
--
Phil Roberts | Without me its just aweso. | http://www.flatnet.net/
Calling athiesm a religion is like calling a vacuum
"just another type of gas" - Me
Personally, I know that he didn't; I also know that if he did, it
wouldn't do anything to invalidate his theories.
What I'm interested in are the Creationists who believe that
a) Darwin "recanted" on his death bed; and
b) that this is somehow important.
If you believe those two things, I would like to know why.
Richard S. Crawford wrote:
It may have some slight relevance. Evolutionists make the same sort of
statements about creationists. The major case I can think of is Michael
Denton, whose first book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, is widely
touted by creationists. In his second book, Nature's Destiny, he
explicitly adopts an evolutionary perspective. There are three camps on
whether this is a "recantation". Most evolutionists think it is. Larry
Moran thinks the first book is just badly written. And most creationists
ignore the existence of the second book.
But a standard response when creationists bring up Denton's first book
in defense of creationism is to say that Denton "recanted" in his second
book. Is that a legitimate argument? I think it might be, depending on
how it was used. Better would be to argue about the reasons for and
circumstances of that recantation. And better still would be to argue
the point itself. But recantation does have the advantage of being a
convenient shorthand: if the person who originally said it doesn't
believe it, we must suppose that he then thought his original arguments
were invalid. He may have been wrong about that, but who is more
familiar with his arguments than he was?
Karl Popper's attack on natural selection comes to mind as a second
example. It's certainly easier to say "Popper recanted" than to follow
his prose either before or after his change of mind.
How would Darwin know what the result of his recanting on his deathbed would
be? After all, presumably he would have died shortly after.
Mark
Can you tell me why you are interested in those Creationists?
>
> a) Darwin "recanted" on his death bed; and
> b) that this is somehow important.
>
> If you believe those two things, I would like to know why.
>
Darwin's main contribution was the concept of natural selection, and since I
do not accept that this as a mechanism of evolution, let alone the main
driving mechanism, I don't think what Darwin said is particularly important
at all. If Darwin changed his mind and felt the same way on his deathbed, he
would be another creationist reference to that.
However, it seems to me that the story is more related to Darwin's religious
rather than scientific beliefs.
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>> On 2004-06-17, Richard S. Crawford
>> <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Perhaps some Creationist can answer this question for me:
>>>
>>>If Darwin recanted on his deathbed, so what? I really want to know how
>>>it's relevant.
>>
>> I'm more concerned about what would have happened had Superman been
>> found in Nazi Germany instead of Smallville.
>
> Hmmmm. You know, if the infant Kal-El had been found by a family of
> German Jews in 1920, Nazi Germany might have come to a very sudden and
> drastically different ending.
At the very least, Nazi "supermen" would have had black hair, not
blonde....
--
Finding a scientific theory of creation is a bit like parsing /dev/null.
--Daniel Harper
(change terra to earth for email)
An old man, having lived an ungodly existence, finds himself on his deathbed
and is almost surprised that his next-life exit strategy still seems viable to
him: merely mouth out professions of faith and belief in Christ and the old man
will save himself and garner a place in Heaven, will escape a certain Hell.
But, as a man really does pass through circumstances and various events in life
(at times of illness or accident or violence, coming very close to dying),
realizations overtake him. Things that had seemed so cut and dry when he was a
youth, now are known to the old man to NOT be the case, at all. And, as the old
man sinks on his deathbed, perhaps even mustering the energy and arrogance to
mouth an insincere profession of faith to Christ, it is surely a certainty to
that old man (and to Christ) that the words issuing from his mouth are utterly
hollow. On his deathbed, all the necessary repentance and belief and new
willingness to love and trust Christ is not to be found in the dying man. As he
passes from this life to the next, he knows what fate shall overtake him, and
only at the endgame did he realize that his clever plan was another life long
self-deception.
Little does it matter then whether the conniver, the racist, the serial
plagiarist, the blasphemer recanted or not.
> Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>> On 2004-06-17, Richard S. Crawford
>> <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Perhaps some Creationist can answer this question for me:
>>>
>>>If Darwin recanted on his deathbed, so what? I really want to know
>>>how it's relevant.
>>
>> I'm more concerned about what would have happened had Superman been
>> found in Nazi Germany instead of Smallville.
>
> Hmmmm. You know, if the infant Kal-El had been found by a family
> of
> German Jews in 1920, Nazi Germany might have come to a very sudden and
> drastically different ending.
That reminds me, I recently saw a comic on sale with the premise
that Kal-El landed in the Soviet Union.
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
"...To deny that basic concepts of historical method with respect to
evolution is worse than just denying science; it is denying simple
common sense. Down that road lies only solipsism or schizophrenia,
neither of which can be used for examination of the outside world."
- Daniel Harper
MurphyInOhio wrote:
Sorry, but who were you talking about there? You're a smug fellow, I'll
give you that. Question: is it really Christian to show such glee at the
prospect of another human being suffering an eternity of torture?
In that case, Murphy, you are in *deep* trouble!
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
---
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
I have a hard time understanding how Hateful Smurf can keep such a huge
reservoir of hatred and vileness in his heart, and still so smugly call
himself a Christian.
Most legitimate creationists do not believe that Darwin recanted on
his deathbed. I for one, will go on record as saying I do not know.
JM
We're not talking about you smurfy. The question was "did *Darwin* recant?
Not "will smurfy recant"?
"John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:40D1E44D...@pacbell.net...
>
>
> Richard S. Crawford wrote:
>
> > Perhaps some Creationist can answer this question for me:
> >
> > If Darwin recanted on his deathbed, so what? I really want to know how
> > it's relevant.
>
>
> It may have some slight relevance. Evolutionists make the same sort of
> statements about creationists. The major case I can think of is Michael
> Denton, whose first book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, is widely
> touted by creationists. In his second book, Nature's Destiny, he
> explicitly adopts an evolutionary perspective. There are three camps on
> whether this is a "recantation". Most evolutionists think it is. Larry
> Moran thinks the first book is just badly written. And most creationists
> ignore the existence of the second book.
>
> But a standard response when creationists bring up Denton's first book
> in defense of creationism is to say that Denton "recanted" in his second
> book. Is that a legitimate argument? I think it might be, depending on
> how it was used. Better would be to argue about the reasons for and
> circumstances of that recantation. And better still would be to argue
> the point itself. But recantation does have the advantage of being a
> convenient shorthand: if the person who originally said it doesn't
> believe it, we must suppose that he then thought his original arguments
> were invalid. He may have been wrong about that, but who is more
> familiar with his arguments than he was?
>
The two "recantations" differ significantly, in that Darwin's was evidenced
only by the hearsay testimony of a very dubious witness, whose claims differ
from the opinions of all of Darwin's closest relatives, while Denton's was
published in a book that contradicted his earlier writings.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove "pants" spamblock to send e-mail)
You haven't been reading Murphy's posts, then.
Hmm. I see your point. It is just like when Christ recanted on the
cross, when he realized that God had "forsaken" him.
John Stockwell | jo...@dix.Mines.EDU
Mike Dworetsky wrote:
The question was not "did Darwin recant?", which from excellent evidence
should be answered "no". The question was "why should we care?" or
"would it be in any way a legitimate argument if it were true?". And
those are the questions I attempted to answer.
Glenn wrote:
Hateful I may be, but at least I'm not wishing eternal torment on
anyone. Do you disagree that Murphy, in the post above, seems positively
gleeful at the prospect of hell for people he doesn't like?
I can't speak for Richard, but the reason I am interested in "those
creationists" is because the creationists who agree that the supposed
"recantation" is irrelevant to the theory rarely if ever challenge
them on it. Can we say "big tent?"
Glenn wrote:
You show uncharacteristic rudeness here. Why? I don't recall you ever
calling me names before.
We disagree on this point. I think it's obvious. The whole tone of the
piece is "He deserves it, the bastard. Where's your natural selection
now? Nyah!"
I'd just love to know how one distinguishes a legitimate creationist from an
illegitimate one.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Is that worse than what you said about Murphy above? I use insults
to shock people into thinking. Perhaps it is a bad habit, but who are
you to admonish me?
>
> We disagree on this point. I think it's obvious. The whole tone of the
> piece is "He deserves it, the bastard. Where's your natural selection
> now? Nyah!"
>
Talk about quote-mining!!!!
There was no tone of which you speak. Murphy correctly identifies
a possible scenario, apparently one that he feels is likely concerning
Darwin.
Then you too suffer from that great affliction of the fundamentalist
creationist, the inability to read for comprehension.
Of course he did! What thread are you reading anyway???
Glenn wrote:
It certainly is if what I said about Murphy is true. I wasn't trying to
insult him, I was making an observation about him. One that appears to
have affected you deeply for reasons I don't yet know.
> I use insults
> to shock people into thinking. Perhaps it is a bad habit, but who are
> you to admonish me?
Who are you to shock people into thinking?
>>We disagree on this point. I think it's obvious. The whole tone of the
>>piece is "He deserves it, the bastard. Where's your natural selection
>>now? Nyah!"
>>
>>
> Talk about quote-mining!!!!
>
> There was no tone of which you speak. Murphy correctly identifies
> a possible scenario, apparently one that he feels is likely concerning
> Darwin.
OK. But I think you are tone-deaf.
As an aside, I find the entire concept of hell theologically bizarre.
And it also raises a nice White Queen issue. Frequently, YECs reject OEC
because, they say, it requires millions of years of unnecessary
suffering on the part of animals, and a benevolent God wouldn't do that.
Yet these same people think that most humans who ever lived will spend
the rest of eternity in constant torment.
If indeed I believed in the existence of hell, I would be torn between
worshipping God in order to avoid the infinite torture, or making
whatever futile gesture I could to protest the monster who designed such
a system. Then again, that probably doesn't work. I would have to
convince myself of God's benevolence. It's true that people under such
stress show themselves capable of great acts of self-deception, but I
wonder if it would go deep enough. I suspect I would be doomed whatever
I did.
But I am curious about how anyone manages to justify these beliefs to
himself. Could I shock you into thinking about that for a moment?
What do you think is the main mechanism of evolution?
Andy
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:42:36 +0000, Richard Clayton wrote:
>
> > Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> >> On 2004-06-17, Richard S. Crawford
> >> <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Perhaps some Creationist can answer this question for me:
> >>>
> >>>If Darwin recanted on his deathbed, so what? I really want to know how
> >>>it's relevant.
> >>
> >> I'm more concerned about what would have happened had Superman been
> >> found in Nazi Germany instead of Smallville.
> >
> > Hmmmm. You know, if the infant Kal-El had been found by a family of
> > German Jews in 1920, Nazi Germany might have come to a very sudden and
> > drastically different ending.
>
> At the very least, Nazi "supermen" would have had black hair, not
> blonde....
Blue-black, to us purists.
--
Dr John Wilkins
john...@wilkins.id.au http://wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
> Perhaps some Creationist can answer this question for me:
>
> If Darwin recanted on his deathbed, so what? I really want to know how
> it's relevant.
Clearly it calls into question the original canting.
Yes, they are two different things Glenn. You didn't address the one which
was in the original question.
Mark
There are no legitimate creationists.
Mark
>
> JM
>
Then perhaps you would like to tell us what *you* believe is the main
driving mechanism for evolution.
EROS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"do you think maybe, just maybe that the peppered moth situation was
due to the fact that the moths with the darker coloration were more
apt to survive since they were camoflaged on the darker tree trunks
and the brighter colored moths didn't have a chance of surviving since
they stuck out like sore thumbs, hmmmmm????? that's not evolution,
that's called luck!!!! Lol" --Yankee In Texas (Talk.Origins,
2003-10-11)
We already know about the adventures of Übermensch (oder was das
"Übermann"?) courtesy of the Not-Quite-Ready-for-Prime-Time Players,
with Dan Ackroyd playing Kal-El and John Belushi as Jor-El.
Not only is it not relevant, but it is also sheer fabrication.
Google on "Lady Hope" (with the quotation marks).
Or else go straight to the Archive:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hope.html
> > > >>Perhaps some Creationist can answer this question for me:
> > > >>
> > > >>If Darwin recanted on his deathbed, so what? I really want to know how
> > > >>it's relevant.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > You'd need to ask Darwin that, anything else would be speculation.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Personally, I know that he didn't; I also know that if he did, it
> > > wouldn't do anything to invalidate his theories....
*
The subject of Darwin's so-called recantation on his death bed seems
to crop up every so often like sunspots, locusts, and high-rise
developers.
This information, which has been posted here on several occasions
before should settle the issue (but I doubt it):
***
CHARLES ROBERT DARWIN, the great evolutionist, whose fame is as wide
as civilization, was born at Shrewsbury in 1809. Intended for a
clergyman, he became a naturalist; and although his bump of
reverence was said to be large enough for ten priests, he passed by
gentle stages into the most extreme skepticism. From the age of
forty he was, to use his own words, a complete disbeliever in
Christianity.
[...]
Robert Lewins, M.D., knew Darwin personally, and had discussed this
question [the soul] with him. Darwin was much less reticent to
Lewins than he had shown himself in a letter to Haeckel. In answer
to a direct question "as to the bearing of his researches on the
existence of an anima, or soul in man, he distinctly stated that, in
his opinion, a vital or spiritual principle, apart from inherent
somatic (bodily) energy, had no more locus standi in the human than
in the other races of the animal kingdom."
Yet the Church buried him in Westminster Abbey "...in the sure and
certain hope of a glorious resurrection."
Darwin died on April 19, 1882, in the plenitude of his fame, having
outlived the opposition of ignorance and bigotry, and witnessed the
triumph of his ideas. His last moments are described by his eldest
son Francis: -- "No special change occurred during the beginning of
April, but on Saturday 15th he was seized with giddiness while
sitting at dinner in the evening, and fainted in an attempt to reach
his sofa. On the 17th he was again better, and in my temporary
absence recorded for me the progress of an experiment in which I was
engaged. During the night of April 18th, about a quarter to twelve,
he had a severe attack and passed into a faint, from which he was
brought back to consciousness with great difficulty. He seemed to
recognize the approach of death, and said "I am not the least afraid
to die." All the next morning he suffered from terrible nausea and
faintness, and hardly rallied before the end came."
No one in his senses would have supposed that he was "afraid to
die," yet it is well to have the words recorded by the son who was
present.
In the second edition of "Infidel Deathbeds" this notice ended with
the words: "Pious ingenuity will be unable to traduce the deathbed
of Charles Darwin." But "pious ingenuity" is not easily slain. Sir
Francis Darwin as recently as January, 1916, had to refute a lying
story about his father's agonizing deathbed, and the story cropped
up again, with embellishments, in The Churchman's Magazine for
March, 1925.
earle
*
We should have a betting pool on when the next claim that "Darwin
recanted on his death bed" will show up.
ej
*
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
Marriage records and dates of birth can at least give some
idea of their legitimacy. :)
[snip]
>Darwin's main contribution was the concept of natural selection, and since I
>do not accept that this as a mechanism of evolution, let alone the main
>driving mechanism, I don't think what Darwin said is particularly important
>at all.
I would like a clarification. You do think selection occurs, don't
you? If so, what do you mean by "evolution" here such that selection
is not a mechanism?
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do in order to understand.
So, you are admitting that creationists are not interested in the truth,
then?
Klaus
> Daniel Harper <daniel...@terralink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:42:36 +0000, Richard Clayton wrote:
>>
>> > Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>> >> On 2004-06-17, Richard S. Crawford
>> >> <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Perhaps some Creationist can answer this question for me:
>> >>>
>> >>>If Darwin recanted on his deathbed, so what? I really want to know
>> >>>how it's relevant.
>> >>
>> >> I'm more concerned about what would have happened had Superman been
>> >> found in Nazi Germany instead of Smallville.
>> >
>> > Hmmmm. You know, if the infant Kal-El had been found by a family
>> > of
>> > German Jews in 1920, Nazi Germany might have come to a very sudden and
>> > drastically different ending.
>>
>> At the very least, Nazi "supermen" would have had black hair, not
>> blonde....
>
> Blue-black, to us purists.
Sorry. I've read some of the old comic books, and seen some of the old
newsreel-era Superman cartoons, but to me Superman is now and always will
be Christopher Reeve. All the rest of you are heretics. ;->
--
Finding a scientific theory of creation is a bit like parsing /dev/null.
--Daniel Harper
(change terra to earth for email)
*
Your lack of acceptance of natural selection might have some
influence on the thinking people of the world, but I rather doubt
it. Your lack of acceptance is but a fart in a whirlwind. Less
than that, actually.
When you phrase your belief this way, you show an arrogance, that
combined with your lack of knowledge, serves to cancel any effect of
whatever you had in mind to preach. "I don't accept evolution, I
don't accept gravity" -- "I don't accept that the Lakers lost the
finals" -- "I don't accept that God is a fictitious imaginary being"
-- "I don't accept that Christianity is a bloody mish-mash of lies
and pseudo-history" -- you get the idea.
Nobody really gives a shit what you accept. You are an ignorant
turd in the punchbowl of life.
earle
Hmmm? Now just where did that get cutnpasted from??
Harry K
> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 23:44:00 +0000, John Wilkins wrote:
>
> > Daniel Harper <daniel...@terralink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:42:36 +0000, Richard Clayton wrote:
> >>
> >> > Mark VandeWettering wrote:
> >> >> On 2004-06-17, Richard S. Crawford
> >> >> <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>Perhaps some Creationist can answer this question for me:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>If Darwin recanted on his deathbed, so what? I really want to know
> >> >>>how it's relevant.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm more concerned about what would have happened had Superman been
> >> >> found in Nazi Germany instead of Smallville.
> >> >
> >> > Hmmmm. You know, if the infant Kal-El had been found by a family
> >> > of
> >> > German Jews in 1920, Nazi Germany might have come to a very sudden and
> >> > drastically different ending.
> >>
> >> At the very least, Nazi "supermen" would have had black hair, not
> >> blonde....
> >
> > Blue-black, to us purists.
>
> Sorry. I've read some of the old comic books, and seen some of the old
> newsreel-era Superman cartoons, but to me Superman is now and always will
> be Christopher Reeve. All the rest of you are heretics. ;->
George Reeves, surely. Or that Alan guy from the 40s...
An old man, on his death bed, having lived a life of fear and
dishonesty, realizes that his lifelong attempt to deceive himself
never did succeed. He could blame others for his state, as he had
always done, but they would just look at him with that combination of
pity and contempt that he knew so well.
>
> But, as a man really does pass through circumstances and various events in life
> (at times of illness or accident or violence, coming very close to dying),
> realizations overtake him. Things that had seemed so cut and dry when he was a
> youth, now are known to the old man to NOT be the case, at all.
At his ease, throughout life, the dark thoughts would come to haunt
him - the realization that the strategy which worked with his parents
and some of his grade school teachers never did work on anyone once he
reached adulthood. If indeed, he could be said to have ever reached
adulthood. He almost laughed at himself; but he was too angry. And out
of habit, he would never admit that he was himself the source of his
woes, but living his last hours he found a startling clarity had
filled him. There was noone else to be angry at.
> And, as the old
> man sinks on his deathbed, perhaps even mustering the energy and arrogance to
> mouth an insincere profession of faith to Christ, it is surely a certainty to
> that old man (and to Christ) that the words issuing from his mouth are utterly
> hollow.
The faith which he claimed all his life had never *been faith, but
only a desperate clinging to a simple myth he hoped would let him live
forever. He still didn't know if those smug atheists were right, but
the accusations of scientists who claimed to be Christian and who
condemned him - him! - still echoed in his mind, years later.
> On his deathbed, all the necessary repentance and belief and new
> willingness to love and trust Christ is not to be found in the dying man. As he
> passes from this life to the next, he knows what fate shall overtake him, and
> only at the endgame did he realize that his clever plan was another life long
> self-deception.
>
Breathing his last, he realized that he did not know what awaited him;
he suspected it was the end of everything (for him), and realized that
now that it didn't matter, he never had the courage to admit that he
didn't know.
By struggling fiercely against the light of knowledge, he had hoped to
convince himself that he was smart, that he was good, that he would
live forever. But he saw clearly at last (even as the room grew dark)
that he had never seen himself for what he was. A clown, a buffoon, a
savage fighting against the hard working, the honest, the Christian
who showed love, the child who merely wanted to play, and those who
labored their whole lives to learn and teach, while never claiming a
high status for themselves.
> Little does it matter then whether the conniver, the racist, the serial
> plagiarist, the blasphemer recanted or not.
Indeed. Even as he stopped breathing and the darkness closed in, he
sought someone else to blame, and reached one last time for the
sanctity of darkness.
Kermit
Exactly. After someone is dead, it matters none at all to them...
Rodjk #613
Too Funny!
> > Little does it matter then whether the conniver, the racist, the serial
> > plagiarist, the blasphemer recanted or not.
>
> Exactly. After someone is dead, it matters none at all to them...
I spent around 14.5 billion years not being alive. I suspect not being
alive again will be exactly as painless.
But it was *quality* time.
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
---
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
Not considering the same about what Murphy said?
>I wasn't trying to
> insult him, I was making an observation about him. One that appears to
> have affected you deeply for reasons I don't yet know.
>
It only appears that way in your imagination. Just like the "glee" thing.
> > I use insults
> > to shock people into thinking. Perhaps it is a bad habit, but who are
> > you to admonish me?
>
>
> Who are you to shock people into thinking?
I can do what I wish, the same as you.
Who are you to ask me who I am to shock people into thinking?
>
> >>We disagree on this point. I think it's obvious. The whole tone of the
> >>piece is "He deserves it, the bastard. Where's your natural selection
> >>now? Nyah!"
> >>
> >>
> > Talk about quote-mining!!!!
> >
> > There was no tone of which you speak. Murphy correctly identifies
> > a possible scenario, apparently one that he feels is likely concerning
> > Darwin.
>
>
> OK. But I think you are tone-deaf.
Your imagination runs wild with you this often?
>
> As an aside, I find the entire concept of hell theologically bizarre.
> And it also raises a nice White Queen issue. Frequently, YECs reject OEC
> because, they say, it requires millions of years of unnecessary
> suffering on the part of animals, and a benevolent God wouldn't do that.
> Yet these same people think that most humans who ever lived will spend
> the rest of eternity in constant torment.
You must realize that your concept of hell may not be the same as other's.
>
> If indeed I believed in the existence of hell, I would be torn between
> worshipping God in order to avoid the infinite torture, or making
> whatever futile gesture I could to protest the monster who designed such
> a system. Then again, that probably doesn't work. I would have to
> convince myself of God's benevolence. It's true that people under such
> stress show themselves capable of great acts of self-deception, but I
> wonder if it would go deep enough. I suspect I would be doomed whatever
> I did.
>
> But I am curious about how anyone manages to justify these beliefs to
> himself. Could I shock you into thinking about that for a moment?
>
About your interpretation of other's beliefs? Probably not for long.
Are you honestly telling us that if you hear someone state a claim
that you know to be false, you don't feel obliged to at leat *try* to
correct them? Seriously, this is independent of your (or my, or
anybody's) opinions on the validity of evolution; it goes to the heart
of the question of intellectual integrity. Would you really rather
have someone agree with you, even though the _reason_ they agree with
you is based on their holding a notion that you *know* is mistaken?
That is, do you feel that agreeing with your position (on this or any
other matter) is more important than factual accuracy?
If you prefer cola brand X, and someone said "I also like cola X
because the president of the cola Y company blew up the Chrysler
building!" Would you, or would you not inform the individual that the
Chrysler building was still standing? What if you were both standing
on the observation deck of the building in question? Do you *really*
intend to say that it is not relevant to point out to your colleages
when they are wrong? Would you rather have the support of fools than
be corrected by knowledgable people? If so, why? I'm asking this
question in all seriousness, and not trying to psychoanalyse or
belittle your position, but I really do think it's important for me to
at least *understand* your position, and the claim you made above is
difficult for me to understand. Please clarify. Thank you.
> Daniel Harper <daniel...@terralink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 23:44:00 +0000, John Wilkins wrote:
>>
>> > Daniel Harper <daniel...@terralink.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:42:36 +0000, Richard Clayton wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>> >> >> On 2004-06-17, Richard S. Crawford
>> >> >> <rscrawf...@mossREMOVEWATERFOWLroot.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>Perhaps some Creationist can answer this question for me:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>If Darwin recanted on his deathbed, so what? I really want to
>> >> >>>know how it's relevant.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm more concerned about what would have happened had Superman
>> >> >> been found in Nazi Germany instead of Smallville.
>> >> >
>> >> > Hmmmm. You know, if the infant Kal-El had been found by a
>> >> > family of
>> >> > German Jews in 1920, Nazi Germany might have come to a very sudden
>> >> > and drastically different ending.
>> >>
>> >> At the very least, Nazi "supermen" would have had black hair, not
>> >> blonde....
>> >
>> > Blue-black, to us purists.
>>
>> Sorry. I've read some of the old comic books, and seen some of the old
>> newsreel-era Superman cartoons, but to me Superman is now and always
>> will be Christopher Reeve. All the rest of you are heretics. ;->
>
> George Reeves, surely. Or that Alan guy from the 40s...
I think that when a new Superman movie gets off the ground, Keanu should
get the job, if only for the naming convention. ;->
I admit wondering whether you are an idiot.
No, Floyd.
>Seriously, this is independent of your (or my, or
> anybody's) opinions on the validity of evolution; it goes to the heart
> of the question of intellectual integrity. Would you really rather
> have someone agree with you, even though the _reason_ they agree with
> you is based on their holding a notion that you *know* is mistaken?
> That is, do you feel that agreeing with your position (on this or any
> other matter) is more important than factual accuracy?
Opinions are like a******s, Floyd. Everyone has one. Your's here seems
to be that "false claim" equals "other's opinions".
>
> If you prefer cola brand X, and someone said "I also like cola X
> because the president of the cola Y company blew up the Chrysler
> building!" Would you, or would you not inform the individual that the
> Chrysler building was still standing?
Try a better analogy.
>What if you were both standing
> on the observation deck of the building in question? Do you *really*
> intend to say that it is not relevant to point out to your colleages
> when they are wrong? Would you rather have the support of fools than
> be corrected by knowledgable people? If so, why? I'm asking this
> question in all seriousness, and not trying to psychoanalyse or
> belittle your position, but I really do think it's important for me to
> at least *understand* your position, and the claim you made above is
> difficult for me to understand. Please clarify. Thank you.
>
Here's mine:
"You'd need to ask Darwin that, anything else would be speculation."
Here's an evolutionist:
"Personally, I know that he didn't; I also know that if he did, it
wouldn't do anything to invalidate his theories."
Now it's my turn to ask a question. Who should you be talking to?
In the same sense that my computer "spent 14 billion years living on Venus".
LOL
>I suspect not being
>alive again will be exactly as painless.
>John
Just as a child might "reason" that: everything is relative and there surely
won't be any consequences for his behavior.
Earl is 40 or 50 years behind the curve. Biographers have acknowledged for
years now that earlier family biography material on CRDarwin was sanitized and
unreliable. "Sir Francis Darwin...refuting a lying story" was he? LOL.
As you apparently believe, considering your behavior.
Glenn wrote:
I have no idea what that meant.
>>I wasn't trying to
>>insult him, I was making an observation about him. One that appears to
>>have affected you deeply for reasons I don't yet know.
>>
>>
> It only appears that way in your imagination. Just like the "glee" thing.
>
>
>>>I use insults
>>>to shock people into thinking. Perhaps it is a bad habit, but who are
>>>you to admonish me?
>>>
>>
>>Who are you to shock people into thinking?
>>
>
> I can do what I wish, the same as you.
> Who are you to ask me who I am to shock people into thinking?
Hey, you started the "who are you" stuff.
>>>>We disagree on this point. I think it's obvious. The whole tone of the
>>>>piece is "He deserves it, the bastard. Where's your natural selection
>>>>now? Nyah!"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Talk about quote-mining!!!!
>>>
>>>There was no tone of which you speak. Murphy correctly identifies
>>>a possible scenario, apparently one that he feels is likely concerning
>>>Darwin.
>>>
>>
>>OK. But I think you are tone-deaf.
>>
>
> Your imagination runs wild with you this often?
>
>>As an aside, I find the entire concept of hell theologically bizarre.
>>And it also raises a nice White Queen issue. Frequently, YECs reject OEC
>>because, they say, it requires millions of years of unnecessary
>>suffering on the part of animals, and a benevolent God wouldn't do that.
>>Yet these same people think that most humans who ever lived will spend
>>the rest of eternity in constant torment.
>
> You must realize that your concept of hell may not be the same as other's.
Non-responsive as usual. I don't know why you bother posting. What
concept of hell would there be that invalidates my point? Is there such
a concept that's consistent with Murphy's post?
>>If indeed I believed in the existence of hell, I would be torn between
>>worshipping God in order to avoid the infinite torture, or making
>>whatever futile gesture I could to protest the monster who designed such
>>a system. Then again, that probably doesn't work. I would have to
>>convince myself of God's benevolence. It's true that people under such
>>stress show themselves capable of great acts of self-deception, but I
>>wonder if it would go deep enough. I suspect I would be doomed whatever
>>I did.
>>
>>But I am curious about how anyone manages to justify these beliefs to
>>himself. Could I shock you into thinking about that for a moment?
>>
>>
> About your interpretation of other's beliefs? Probably not for long.
Apparently not.
There is a variation on the "unnecesary suffering" complaint.
It doesn't involve a denial of the reality of the suffering, but
it is a complaint against the idea of *natural*selection* as a
*creative* force. That is, that "Darwinism" depends upon the death
of certain living things for the appearance of new kinds; and this
would mean that the design of nature has death as a necessary part.
It is thus an argument against *theistic*evolution*, the idea that
"God uses evolution as His method for creation".
---Tom S.
"...no one has the right, even with the assumption of personal creation, to
consider investigation into mechanistic processes inadmissable. That would be
contrary to human nature and an attack on the mind."
Rudolf Virchow, Uber die mechanisische Auffassung des Lebens (1858)
Could someone explain to me how "everything is relative" has any
conceivable connection with "there ... won't be any consequences".
Even if I believed that everything is relative -- for example,
that morality is relative -- I could still see that there would
be consequences for my choices. So, even if I believed that
everything is relative, and even if (moreover) I believed that
consequences are the only reason for morality, I could still
believe that there was someone much more (that is, relatively)
powerful than me, who would punish me horribly for doing things
contrary to the way that he wanted (that is, relative to his
desires); and I would therefore toe the line. Even if I believed
that fear of punishment is a basis for morality. (That is, even
if I believed what we hear from some preachers.)
>
>"Matt Silberstein" <mat...@ix.netcom.nos> wrote in message
>news:r0n4d0thdr3i83uth...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 18:55:49 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
>> <glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >Darwin's main contribution was the concept of natural selection, and
>since I
>> >do not accept that this as a mechanism of evolution, let alone the main
>> >driving mechanism, I don't think what Darwin said is particularly
>important
>> >at all.
>>
>> I would like a clarification. You do think selection occurs, don't
>> you? If so, what do you mean by "evolution" here such that selection
>> is not a mechanism?
>>
>Selection is a fairy tale. What survives, survives.
Do you think that there is ever a difference based on inherited
characteristics? If not, how come you object to drift? How can you not
have selection and not have drift?
>"Glenn" <glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> wrote in message news:<glennsheldon-gyvAc.115$UG5.1...@news.uswest.net>...
>You think survival is random, then?
He thinks it is random with respect to inherited characteristics.
Except, of course, that he does not because he rejects drift.
And fitness has nothing to do with it?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
He will respond that "fitness" is only determinable after the fact.
The key point is that Glen think that genetic differences have no
affect on which organisms reproduce and which don't. I find that an
astounding notion, but it is the only meaning I can get from his post.
Not to mention, he's already played the part, in the second and third Matrix movies.
-- Kizhé
Glenn wrote:
> "John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:40D227DA...@pacbell.net...
[etc.]
[snip]
>>>I use insults
>>>to shock people into thinking. Perhaps it is a bad habit, but who are
>>>you to admonish me?
>>>
>>
>>Who are you to shock people into thinking?
>>
>
> I can do what I wish, the same as you.
> Who are you to ask me who I am to shock people into thinking?
The more I think on it, the more Glenn is an obvious analogy to natural
selection. Natural selection never remembers the past, never considers
the future. It works only in the moment, like Glenn does here. He
considers only what he can say in response to the last thing he saw.
Whether it contradicts anything he said before is something he doesn't
consider, just as natural selection never "thinks" about whether it's
reversing its direction.
That's actually one of the best reasons for thinking that natural
selection is indeed the process most responsible for the history of
life, because that history also seems to have this property of looking
only at the moment, having no long-term goals. It's not that there
aren't other conceivable mechanisms with this property, but it does rule
out a great many potential mechanisms.
Blasphemy!! Pinnochio would not make a good superman!
"Superman, Lex Luthor has kidnapped Lois Lane!"
"......whoa"
I don't believe you. Did you consider if what Murphy said was true...
>
> >>I wasn't trying to
> >>insult him, I was making an observation about him. One that appears to
> >>have affected you deeply for reasons I don't yet know.
> >>
> >>
> > It only appears that way in your imagination. Just like the "glee"
thing.
> >
> >
> >>>I use insults
> >>>to shock people into thinking. Perhaps it is a bad habit, but who are
> >>>you to admonish me?
> >>>
> >>
> >>Who are you to shock people into thinking?
> >>
> >
> > I can do what I wish, the same as you.
> > Who are you to ask me who I am to shock people into thinking?
>
>
> Hey, you started the "who are you" stuff.
That is not true.
>
> >>>>We disagree on this point. I think it's obvious. The whole tone of the
> >>>>piece is "He deserves it, the bastard. Where's your natural selection
> >>>>now? Nyah!"
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Talk about quote-mining!!!!
> >>>
> >>>There was no tone of which you speak. Murphy correctly identifies
> >>>a possible scenario, apparently one that he feels is likely concerning
> >>>Darwin.
> >>>
> >>
> >>OK. But I think you are tone-deaf.
> >>
> >
> > Your imagination runs wild with you this often?
> >
> >>As an aside, I find the entire concept of hell theologically bizarre.
> >>And it also raises a nice White Queen issue. Frequently, YECs reject OEC
> >>because, they say, it requires millions of years of unnecessary
> >>suffering on the part of animals, and a benevolent God wouldn't do that.
> >>Yet these same people think that most humans who ever lived will spend
> >>the rest of eternity in constant torment.
> >
> > You must realize that your concept of hell may not be the same as
other's.
>
>
> Non-responsive as usual. I don't know why you bother posting. What
> concept of hell would there be that invalidates my point? Is there such
> a concept that's consistent with Murphy's post?
My response was not "non-responsive", evolutionist.
>
> >>If indeed I believed in the existence of hell, I would be torn between
> >>worshipping God in order to avoid the infinite torture, or making
> >>whatever futile gesture I could to protest the monster who designed such
> >>a system. Then again, that probably doesn't work. I would have to
> >>convince myself of God's benevolence. It's true that people under such
> >>stress show themselves capable of great acts of self-deception, but I
> >>wonder if it would go deep enough. I suspect I would be doomed whatever
> >>I did.
> >>
> >>But I am curious about how anyone manages to justify these beliefs to
> >>himself. Could I shock you into thinking about that for a moment?
> >>
> >>
> > About your interpretation of other's beliefs? Probably not for long.
>
>
> Apparently not.
>
Learn from it if you can.
That may be your problem. Your faith leads you to any conclusion
in support of evolution.
>the more Glenn is an obvious analogy to natural
> selection. Natural selection never remembers the past, never considers
> the future. It works only in the moment, like Glenn does here. He
> considers only what he can say in response to the last thing he saw.
> Whether it contradicts anything he said before is something he doesn't
> consider, just as natural selection never "thinks" about whether it's
> reversing its direction.
>
> That's actually one of the best reasons for thinking that natural
> selection is indeed the process most responsible for the history of
> life, because that history also seems to have this property of looking
> only at the moment, having no long-term goals. It's not that there
> aren't other conceivable mechanisms with this property, but it does rule
> out a great many potential mechanisms.
>
Thanks, John. Had I not responded to your little rant about "who am I", you
could have also used that as an example of one of Hershey's "alternatives".
Ok, so what did you mean above, when you wrote "I fail to see why it
should be so relevant as to cause creationists to correct other
creationists concerning their opinions on this matter." Correct me if
I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you are saying that
correcting someone when you know they are wrong is not important. To
me, that sounds like intellectual laziness and an abdication of
responsibility, if our goal is to determine the actual facts.
>
> >Seriously, this is independent of your (or my, or
> > anybody's) opinions on the validity of evolution; it goes to the heart
> > of the question of intellectual integrity. Would you really rather
> > have someone agree with you, even though the _reason_ they agree with
> > you is based on their holding a notion that you *know* is mistaken?
> > That is, do you feel that agreeing with your position (on this or any
> > other matter) is more important than factual accuracy?
>
> Opinions are like a******s, Floyd. Everyone has one. Your's here seems
> to be that "false claim" equals "other's opinions".
No, the recantation story is quite clearly false. People who were
present at Darwin's death bed (e.g. his daughter Henrietta) say it did
not happen, and Lady Hope, the main original claimant, was not
present, and so could not have known. I agree that eyewitness
testimony is not always reliable, but the claims of people who *were*
present to observe the event should be taken more seriously than the
claims of people who were not present. Opinion doesn't enter into the
matter. Lady Hope's story is quite clearly inaccurate, and numerous
creationist sources, as well as historians of science, have explicitly
stated that the claim is false. This is not a matter of opinion, it
is a matter of historical facts. The facts say Lady Hope's account is
inaccurate in most details, and in particular that Darwin did not
"recant" his earlier work.
> >
> > If you prefer cola brand X, and someone said "I also like cola X
> > because the president of the cola Y company blew up the Chrysler
> > building!" Would you, or would you not inform the individual that the
> > Chrysler building was still standing?
>
> Try a better analogy.
Ok, if someone says to you "I became a cerationist because I heard
that even Darwin abandoned his ideas on his death bed" would you, or
would you not inform them that this particular rumor is not factual?
>
> >What if you were both standing
> > on the observation deck of the building in question? Do you *really*
> > intend to say that it is not relevant to point out to your colleages
> > when they are wrong? Would you rather have the support of fools than
> > be corrected by knowledgable people? If so, why? I'm asking this
> > question in all seriousness, and not trying to psychoanalyse or
> > belittle your position, but I really do think it's important for me to
> > at least *understand* your position, and the claim you made above is
> > difficult for me to understand. Please clarify. Thank you.
> >
> Here's mine:
> "You'd need to ask Darwin that, anything else would be speculation."
Darwin has died. People *have* asked both Francis Darwin and
Henrietta Darwin Litchfield, both of whom were at Down House in the
final months of Darwin's life, and both have stated unequivocally that
the story is not true. The person who made the claim, Elizabeth
Cotton, Lady Hope of Carriden, appears to have visited Darwin in late
September of 1881, *before* Darwin was bed-ridden, but to have not
returned subsequently. She was, in other words, *not present* at his
death bed, so any claims that she makes on the matter must have
arrived to her second-hand from people who *were* there, or must be
fabrications. The people who were present say that no such thing
happened, therefore Lady Hope's story is a fabrication, because the
only sources from whom she *could have* recieved accurate information
did not give her any.
>
> Here's an evolutionist:
> "Personally, I know that he didn't; I also know that if he did, it
> wouldn't do anything to invalidate his theories."
Both are correct. He did not recant, *and* if he did, it would not
invalidate his theory. Galilleo was forced to submit to church
authority and state that the earth was fixed and did not orbit the
sun. His statement had no bearing on the orbit of the earth. By the
same toke, even if Darwin had "recanted," that statement would have no
bearing on the validity of evolution by natural selection.
Now, if you would please answer my question; why is it not important,
in your opinion, to correct creationists when they make a false claim?
Glenn wrote:
> "John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:40D2CC20...@pacbell.net...
[snip]
>>>>>Is that worse than what you said about Murphy above?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>It certainly is if what I said about Murphy is true.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Not considering the same about what Murphy said?
>>>
>>
>>I have no idea what that meant.
>
> I don't believe you. Did you consider if what Murphy said was true...
If what he said was true, it doesn't change the point of what I said
about it. It may even make it worse. The only thing mitigating his glee
at the sufferings of others is that I don't think they actually are
suffering.
>>>>I wasn't trying to
>>>>insult him, I was making an observation about him. One that appears to
>>>>have affected you deeply for reasons I don't yet know.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>It only appears that way in your imagination. Just like the "glee"
>>>
> thing.
>
>>>
>>>>>I use insults
>>>>>to shock people into thinking. Perhaps it is a bad habit, but who are
>>>>>you to admonish me?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Who are you to shock people into thinking?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I can do what I wish, the same as you.
>>>Who are you to ask me who I am to shock people into thinking?
>>>
>>
>>Hey, you started the "who are you" stuff.
>>
>
> That is not true.
Does the fact that you can look it up in this very post make no
impression on you? It's just 5 comments up from here.
>>>>>>We disagree on this point. I think it's obvious. The whole tone of the
>>>>>>piece is "He deserves it, the bastard. Where's your natural selection
>>>>>>now? Nyah!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Talk about quote-mining!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>There was no tone of which you speak. Murphy correctly identifies
>>>>>a possible scenario, apparently one that he feels is likely concerning
>>>>>Darwin.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>OK. But I think you are tone-deaf.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Your imagination runs wild with you this often?
>>>
>>>
>>>>As an aside, I find the entire concept of hell theologically bizarre.
>>>>And it also raises a nice White Queen issue. Frequently, YECs reject OEC
>>>>because, they say, it requires millions of years of unnecessary
>>>>suffering on the part of animals, and a benevolent God wouldn't do that.
>>>>Yet these same people think that most humans who ever lived will spend
>>>>the rest of eternity in constant torment.
>>>>
>>>You must realize that your concept of hell may not be the same as
>>>
> other's.
>
>>
>>Non-responsive as usual. I don't know why you bother posting. What
>>concept of hell would there be that invalidates my point? Is there such
>>a concept that's consistent with Murphy's post?
>>
>
> My response was not "non-responsive", evolutionist.
Is that a more or less severe insult than "jerk-off"? And I see you
respond to my complaint about non-responsiveness with another
non-responsive comment. To whit, after two attempts, you have yet to
clarify what concept of hell you are talking about.
>>>>If indeed I believed in the existence of hell, I would be torn between
>>>>worshipping God in order to avoid the infinite torture, or making
>>>>whatever futile gesture I could to protest the monster who designed such
>>>>a system. Then again, that probably doesn't work. I would have to
>>>>convince myself of God's benevolence. It's true that people under such
>>>>stress show themselves capable of great acts of self-deception, but I
>>>>wonder if it would go deep enough. I suspect I would be doomed whatever
>>>>I did.
>>>>
>>>>But I am curious about how anyone manages to justify these beliefs to
>>>>himself. Could I shock you into thinking about that for a moment?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>About your interpretation of other's beliefs? Probably not for long.
>>>
>>
>>Apparently not.
>>
>>
> Learn from it if you can.
Oh, I learned from it long ago, but for some reason I keep on talking to
you. Triumph of hope over experience? Penance for sins? Innate
perversity? Perhaps some of each.
Yeah, actually I was of the opinion that a new Superman movie would
probably just look silly, until I saw the end of _Reloaded_ (still haven't
see _Revolutions_) and was convinced that if they could make Keanu look
cool flying like Superman, then a decent Superman movie was probably
possible, at least in theory.
You'd think so, wouldn't you? Until you hear they plan on having Superman
know kung-fu, and that Lex Luthor is secretly a Kryptonian.
> MurphyInOhio wrote:
>
> >>I spent around 14.5 billion years not being alive.
> >>John
> >
> >
> > In the same sense that my computer "spent 14 billion years living on Venus".
*
I only wish it were still there.
earle
*
--
__
__/\_\
/\_\/_/
\/_/\_\ earle
\/_/ jones
> murphy...@wmconnect.com (MurphyInOhio) wrote in message
> news:<murphy-20040617171...@mb-m05.wmconnect.com>...
> > >If Darwin recanted on his deathbed, so what? I really want to know how
> > >it's relevant.
*
Smurf, I hope you realize that you are going to burn in hell for
your judgments, which are the right of God alone.
To give you some idea of your future:
"In Christian literature," writes William Crockett, "we find
blasphemers hanging by their tongues. Adulterous women who plaited
their hair to entice men dangle over boiling mire by their neck or
hair. Slanderers chew their tongues, hot irons burn their eyes.
Other evildoers suffer in equally picturesque ways. Murderers are
cast into pits filled with venomous reptiles, and worms fill their
bodies. Women who had abortions sit neck deep in the excretions of
the damned. Those who chatted idly during church stand in a pool of
burning sulphur and pitch. Idolaters are driven up cliffs by demons
where they plunge to the rocks below, only to be driven up again.
Those who turned their back on God are turned and baked slowly in
the fires of hell."
--From "The Metaphorical View," -- Four Views of Hell
William Crockett (Grand Rapids, 1992), pp. 46-47.
"The more cautious approach of Luther and Calvin did not deter
later prominent preachers and theologians from portraying hell as a
sea of fire, in which the wicked burn throughout eternity. Renowned
eighteenth-century American theologian Jonathan Edwards pictured
hell as a raging furnace of liquid fire that fills both the body and
the soul of the wicked: "The body will be full of torment as full
as it can hold, and every part of it shall be full of torment. They
shall be in extreme pain, every joint of them, every nerve shall be
full of inexpressible torment. They shall be tormented even to
their fingersı ends. The whole body shall be full of the wrath of
God. Their hearts and bowels and their heads, their eyes and their
tongues, their hands and their feet will be filled with the
fierceness of Godıs wrath. This is taught us in many Scriptures..."
--Jonathan Edwards, in John Gerstner
on Heaven and Hell (Grand Rapids, 1980), p. 56
As you know, scientists correct each other other all the time. Their
disagreements on the details of evolution are great, and they hide
none of it. If the evidence allowed them to disagree on common descent
or the age of life, they'd do that too in a heartbeat. But that
doesn't stop pseudoscientific anti-evolutionists from making two false
claims:
1. That many scientists dispute common descent or the age of life (a
claim based on a deliberate misrepresentation on their actual
disagreements).
2. That most scientists defend evolution because of peer pressure (the
most absurd anti-evolution claim of all, since the first scientist to
come up with a better theory is guaranteed a Nobel Prize).
But even some of those like you who are under the pseudoscience big
tent have begun to admit that their "best alternative" to evolution is
pretty close to evolution itself. Michael Behe, for one has admitted
that science is correct on the age of life and common descent (and
presumably most of evolution, though he seems to object to the *word*
more than anything). And YECs and OECs who imply acceptance of
"independent abiogenesis" rarely if ever challenge him directly. The
disagreements in science pale in comparison to the fatal ones in
pseudoscience.
That's why they call it a big tent. And no, we're not in one here.
> > > >
> > > > a) Darwin "recanted" on his death bed; and
> > > > b) that this is somehow important.
> > > >
> > > > If you believe those two things, I would like to know why.
> > > >
> > > Darwin's main contribution was the concept of natural selection, and
> since I
> > > do not accept that this as a mechanism of evolution, let alone the main
> > > driving mechanism, I don't think what Darwin said is particularly
> important
> > > at all. If Darwin changed his mind and felt the same way on his
> deathbed, he
> > > would be another creationist reference to that.
> > > However, it seems to me that the story is more related to Darwin's
> religious
> > > rather than scientific beliefs.
> >
> "Klaus Hellnick" <khellni...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:p%sAc.1455$1L2....@fe1.texas.rr.com...
[...]
> > So, you are admitting that creationists are not interested in the truth,
> > then?
>
> I admit wondering whether you are an idiot.
*
Glenn, you'd better stop judging others. That is the domain of God.
You will burn in hell.
earle
*
From what I understand, that script has since been <ahem> revised.
Dang J.J. Abrams.
--
Yeah, I heard that too. I have all my extremities crossed that they forget
all about that nonsense and concentrate on making a good movie. But with
McG directing (of Charlie's Angels fame), I'm doubting it.
No, I don't "know" that, and I am certain you do not either.
>But that
> doesn't stop pseudoscientific anti-evolutionists from making two false
> claims:
>
> 1. That many scientists dispute common descent or the age of life (a
> claim based on a deliberate misrepresentation on their actual
> disagreements).
>
> 2. That most scientists defend evolution because of peer pressure (the
> most absurd anti-evolution claim of all, since the first scientist to
> come up with a better theory is guaranteed a Nobel Prize).
I don't "know" that either, and I am certain you do not either.
>
> But even some of those like you who are under the pseudoscience big
> tent have begun to admit that their "best alternative" to evolution is
> pretty close to evolution itself.
Like me? You are wrong again. There is no need for an alternative
to question the scientific validity of theory or "fact".
>Michael Behe, for one has admitted
> that science is correct on the age of life and common descent (and
> presumably most of evolution, though he seems to object to the *word*
> more than anything). And YECs and OECs who imply acceptance of
> "independent abiogenesis" rarely if ever challenge him directly. The
> disagreements in science pale in comparison to the fatal ones in
> pseudoscience.
>
> That's why they call it a big tent. And no, we're not in one here.
>
"They"? References please.
My guess is that McG will produce a sanitized, perfectly inoffensive piece
of pop-entertainment with Superman at the center. It'll be fun and cheesy,
and will make a ton of money. Which is fine, if that's what you're looking
for. <shrug>
Personally, I don't see how anyone could serously expect to improve on the
Donner version. Near-perfect execution on the first film, and the first
sequel was pretty dang decent, as well.
--
Why? What do you think Murphy meant by his post?
Andy
> Perhaps some Creationist can answer this question for me:
>
> If Darwin recanted on his deathbed, so what? I really want to know how
> it's relevant.
>
>
Well, if he was genuinely sorry for any wrongdoing he may have done, and was
right with the Lord in his heart, he may have gone to heaven. Either way, I
can't imagine him throwing his scientific theories out the window. Unless he at
the last instant thought of an even more elegant naturalistic explanation...
(snip)
>
> Little does it matter then whether the conniver, the racist, the serial
> plagiarist, the blasphemer recanted or not.
>
Does this mean you're doomed? Even if you snap out of it and ask forgiveness?
Start reading the Beatitudes right now, before it's too late.
Then you are certainly wrong. Here are dozens of potential falsifiers:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Each is a guarenteed Nobel Prize. So far, no takers. What we do have
instead are scientists who are quoted out of context:
>
> >But that
> > doesn't stop pseudoscientific anti-evolutionists from making two false
> > claims:
> >
> > 1. That many scientists dispute common descent or the age of life (a
> > claim based on a deliberate misrepresentation on their actual
> > disagreements).
> >
> > 2. That most scientists defend evolution because of peer pressure (the
> > most absurd anti-evolution claim of all, since the first scientist to
> > come up with a better theory is guaranteed a Nobel Prize).
>
> I don't "know" that either, and I am certain you do not either.
See above.
> >
> > But even some of those like you who are under the pseudoscience big
> > tent have begun to admit that their "best alternative" to evolution is
> > pretty close to evolution itself.
>
> Like me? You are wrong again. There is no need for an alternative
> to question the scientific validity of theory or "fact".
But unfortunately for you alternatives have been stated as hypotheses
- (methodologically) naturalistic ones at that. And since there is no
significant effort on the part of pseudoscientific anti-evolutionists
to "critically analyze" any of *them*, one must conclude either that
(1) they know that those alternatives have all failed, or (2) they are
just "going postmodern."
I won't even bother looking, as I am sure you do not have information
evidencing that scientists hide none of it, or that no scientist would
disagree
in a heartbeat if they doubted common descent.
>
> Each is a guarenteed Nobel Prize.
No one is "guaranteed" a Nobel Prize.
>So far, no takers. What we do have
> instead are scientists who are quoted out of context:
What the hell are you talking about?
>
> http://tinyurl.com/u7fd
> >
> > >But that
> > > doesn't stop pseudoscientific anti-evolutionists from making two false
> > > claims:
> > >
> > > 1. That many scientists dispute common descent or the age of life (a
> > > claim based on a deliberate misrepresentation on their actual
> > > disagreements).
> > >
> > > 2. That most scientists defend evolution because of peer pressure (the
> > > most absurd anti-evolution claim of all, since the first scientist to
> > > come up with a better theory is guaranteed a Nobel Prize).
> >
> > I don't "know" that either, and I am certain you do not either.
>
> See above.
You see above.
> > >
> > > But even some of those like you who are under the pseudoscience big
> > > tent have begun to admit that their "best alternative" to evolution is
> > > pretty close to evolution itself.
> >
> > Like me? You are wrong again. There is no need for an alternative
> > to question the scientific validity of theory or "fact".
>
> But unfortunately for you alternatives have been stated as hypotheses
> - (methodologically) naturalistic ones at that. And since there is no
> significant effort on the part of pseudoscientific anti-evolutionists
> to "critically analyze" any of *them*, one must conclude either that
> (1) they know that those alternatives have all failed, or (2) they are
> just "going postmodern."
>
I think you've gone off your rocker.
(snip)
> > > > As you know, scientists correct each other other all the time. Their
> > > > disagreements on the details of evolution are great, and they hide
> > > > none of it. If the evidence allowed them to disagree on common descent
> > > > or the age of life, they'd do that too in a heartbeat.
> > >
> > > No, I don't "know" that, and I am certain you do not either.
> >
> > Then you are certainly wrong. Here are dozens of potential falsifiers:
> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
>
> I won't even bother looking,
That speaks volumes.
> as I am sure you do not have information
> evidencing that scientists hide none of it,
Do some scientists hide something sometimes? Most likely. But in the
long run they have no incentive to do so, and plenty of incentive,
both positive and negative (if they don't come clean, one of their
competitors will) to not hide anything. For there to be a problem with
common descent, evolution or even just Darwinian evolution (the only
real claim of many anti-evolutionists), then virtually every scientist
would have to be hiding virtually everything. And most intelligent
*anti-evolutionists* will tell you that that is not the case. Their
story, when their not contradicting it by quoting-out-of-context, is
that scientists merely *interpret* the evidence incorrectly. And their
target audience of mostly nonscientists usually doesn't know that that
is just semantic nonsense.
> or that no scientist would
> disagree
> in a heartbeat if they doubted common descent.
I'm a scientist (not a biologist), but I'd love it if the evidence
favored independent abiogenesis (IOW not common descent). Especially
if it meant that I wasn't biologically related to H. sapiens
terrorists.
> >
> > Each is a guarenteed Nobel Prize.
>
> No one is "guaranteed" a Nobel Prize.
Is "has an excellent shot at it" better?
>
> >So far, no takers. What we do have
> > instead are scientists who are quoted out of context:
>
> What the hell are you talking about?
I guess you won't read that article either.
IYO has Michael Behe gone off his rocker too? (see the next paragraph)
> > >
> > > >Michael Behe, for one has admitted
> > > > that science is correct on the age of life and common descent (and
> > > > presumably most of evolution, though he seems to object to the *word*
> > > > more than anything). And YECs and OECs who imply acceptance of
> > > > "independent abiogenesis" rarely if ever challenge him directly. The
> > > > disagreements in science pale in comparison to the fatal ones in
> > > > pseudoscience.
> > > >
> > > > That's why they call it a big tent. And no, we're not in one here.
> > > >
> "They"? References please.
http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus_online/show_article.asp?2671
(snip)
No, THAT *certainly* speaks volumes.
snip