The Psychology Behind the evolution argument.
Steve Muscat
Aron-Ra
Steve Muscat <stevo...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:3b75...@news.iprimus.com.au...
There's a lot of talk here about psychology. How about the psychology of
someone who posts a link and runs away?
What are you afraid of?
I'll tell you what. I'll prove this document wrong. Every statement in it,
one at a time. And not just to my satisfaction, but yours as well.
Are you game? Or am I too "intimidating"?
Aron-Ra
ScottF
Damn, what's your real name? In a.r.c.r-c your name was first "exchanged",
then "Ed", and now here "Steve Muscat". Who are you going to morph into
next?
Scott
Seppo Pietikäinen
>http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/weekly/psychology.htm
>
>here you go evolutionists.
>
>
Now, how come I'm not surprised by the site; the last [alleged]
"prominent creationist
scientist" among the list died in 1945 (Fleming) [I *really* doubt that
he was the kind of creationist
as the creatoids would like to pretend].
Many (almost half of them) lived and were active before Darwin (the
funniest case in my
mind is calling upon the ghost of Maxwell to play a part in creatoids'
charade).
Well, it doesn't surprise me a bit to see that the defense of
creationism has been left with
the normal bunch of dishonest charlatans and ignorant religious cultists
as we see today.
Seppo P.
Seppo Pietikäinen
>http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/weekly/psychology.htm
>
>here you go evolutionists.
>
>
Another thing, this crappy site points you to this:
<http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/creation_facts.htm>
You might want to have a look at this!
The very *first* sentence on that site is an outright lie, and it
doesn't get any better on the way down!
Regards,
Seppo P.
Mark VandeWettering
> http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/weekly/psychology.htm
>
> here you go evolutionists.
The problem with the argument presented is that creation science
cannot be accurately construed as "thinking" outside the box. It
is a merely a knee jerk rejection of what is inside the box, without
having opened it.
Mark
--
/* __ __ __ ____ __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*| \/ |\ \ / /\ \ / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V / \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_| |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}
Jon Fleming
<stevo...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/weekly/psychology.htm
>
>here you go evolutionists.
>
I find it incredible how much the creationists project their world
view and tactics onto others.
...
(change nospam to group to email)
TomS
stated..."
Wow. There sure is a lot of, er, dubious information there.
First of all, I like the idea that all the planets being in the
same plane shows X, combined with the idea that Pluto *not* being
in the same plane also shows X. That is a nice instance of
creationist logic.
I don't know where they got the idea that Pluto crosses *two*
other planets' orbits. I suppose that it's OK to say that Pluto's
orbit crosses Neptune's orbit, but why that has anything to do
with Pluto's orbit being outside the plane, I don't know. I
presume that the authors didn't know that there are asteroids
which follow Jupiter's orbit, the so-called "Trojan" asteroids
which are located in the "Lagrange points" with respect to
Jupiter.
It is true that all of the major planets except for Pluto are
close to the same plane. However, not only Pluto, but also a lot
of the comets are far outside that plane. And comets don't usually
throw the whole Solar Systems into collapse.
Moreover, currently popular ideas about the early Solar System
do have a lot of collisions between the planets. For example, that
the Moon was formed out of a collision between a Mars-sized object
and the Earth. I heard this argument about order in the Solar
System when I was just a lad (not in all of its glory as in this
instance, no reference to Pluto being, er, shall we say, "the
exception which proves the rule"?) and I didn't find it convincing
then.
Tom S.
Dave
http://www.exchangedlife.com/frames.htm
It's amazing how stupid the expressed viewpoints are.
Dick C.
> http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/weekly/psychology.htm
>
> here you go evolutionists.
the argument on the site holds true if one changes all instances
of the word evolution to creation. As it stands it is a total
lie.
This is just another example of how creationists project their failings
and tactics upon their opponents. Unable to form a coherent argument
they attempt to denigrate the opposition by projecting the very worst
of what they do upon others.
--
Dick #1349
People think that libraries are safe places, but they're not,
they have ideas.
email: dic...@uswest.net
Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/
Aron-Ra
Dick C. <foo.d...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:Xns90FAC2B6164C...@207.225.159.6...
> "Steve Muscat" <stevo...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in
> <3b75...@news.iprimus.com.au>:
>
> > http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/weekly/psychology.htm
> >
> > here you go evolutionists.
>
> the argument on the site holds true if one changes all instances
> of the word evolution to creation. As it stands it is a total
> lie.
> This is just another example of how creationists project their failings
> and tactics upon their opponents. Unable to form a coherent argument
> they attempt to denigrate the opposition by projecting the very worst
> of what they do upon others.
Dontch love that bit about "Evolutionists cannot argue facts, so they argue
from emotion"?
Wouldn't it be great if there were some legal medium whereby we could force
silly slanderers like this to prove thier deceitful bullshit in something
like a panel of judges? Then of course publish the debate results
nationwide with the media hyped up long in advance just to prove that we
would've released it either way.
Unfortunately, we don't even have such control over what their pretending is
educational TV in the US these days.
Aron-Ra
Steve Muscat
Aron-Ra <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bTcd7.2342$ZM2.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> Steve Muscat <stevo...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3b75...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> > http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/weekly/psychology.htm
> >
> > here you go evolutionists.
>
> There's a lot of talk here about psychology. How about the psychology of
> someone who posts a link and runs away?
>
> What are you afraid of?
>
> I'll tell you what. I'll prove this document wrong.
Ok...go for it.
Every statement in it,
Please do.
> one at a time.
OK, shut up and just do it.
And not just to my satisfaction, but yours as well.
lalala.......Im waiting...............
H,R.Gruemm
None of the scientists in the list "believed" in quantum
electrodynamics. Hence quantum electrodynamics is wrong.
Spot the flaw.
HRG.
P.S. The argument "Kepler did not believe in evolution" is an insult
to the intelligence of the audience.
tui...@earthlink.net
"TomS" <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:9l3vf...@drn.newsguy.com...
> "On 11 Aug 2001 13:15:37 -0400, in article <3B756813...@hp.com>,
Seppo
> stated..."
> >
> >Steve Muscat wrote:
> >
> >>http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/weekly/psychology.htm
> >>
> >>here you go evolutionists.
> >>
> >>
> >Another thing, this crappy site points you to this:
> >
> ><http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/creation_facts.htm>
> >
> >You might want to have a look at this!
> >The very *first* sentence on that site is an outright lie, and it
> >doesn't get any better on the way down!
>
> Wow. There sure is a lot of, er, dubious information there.
>
> First of all, I like the idea that all the planets being in the
> same plane shows X, combined with the idea that Pluto *not* being
> in the same plane also shows X. That is a nice instance of
> creationist logic.
I think that even the simple mistake of substituting the word "universe" for
the phrase "solar system" indicates how well thought out this page is.
Dick C.
"Aron-Ra" <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<GLnd7.3618$ZM2.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>:
Several years ago I was listening to a talk show on a Xtian station,
it was hosted by a minister from a local fundamentalist church. He
started out one day stating that he thought that politicians and
media people should be forced to tell the truth, then he went on
and on about how that would make things be. I was laughing my ass
off at the idea of him having to tell the truth.
>
>Aron-Ra
Dick C.
"Aron-Ra" <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<GLnd7.3618$ZM2.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>:
>
Several years ago I was listening to a talk show on a Xtian station,
it was hosted by a minister from a local fundamentalist church. He
started out one day stating that he thought that politicians and
media people should be forced to tell the truth, then he went on
and on about how that would make things be. I was laughing my ass
off at the idea of him having to tell the truth.
>
>Aron-Ra
>
>
--
Aron-Ra
>
> Ok...go for it.
>
>
> Every statement in it,
>
>
> Please do.
>
>
>
> > one at a time.
>
>
> OK, shut up and just do it.
>
>
> And not just to my satisfaction, but yours as well.
>
>
> lalala.......Im waiting...............
Alrighty then. Here goes round one. Take one. The prosecution's case:
1. "One important thing that we should be aware of is the intimidation that
precedes the evolution debate".
None nessisary. When I began debating these issues, I was only 8 years old.
And I was respectfully seeking wisdom from the elders in my family. I asked
questions, where I expected honest answers. And I presented thoughts that I
expected to be discussed in an intelligent manner befitting a mentor,
particularly a beloved mentor. But where this one topic was concerned, that
was not possible. My own mother, grandmother, uncle, father, or whomever
would immediately fly into fits of sometimes violent rage, rather than
explain reasons why I should or should not believe some example statement.
The intimidation precedes the debate. And sadly, it will remain dispite all
attempts to neutralize it.
Logically, the above claimant's statement is incorrect because no
intimidation is required by anyone on either side. However, anyone in a
weak or uninformed or passionate, desperate position will doubtless be quite
intimidated. And that is why creationists are so moved to this paranoid
reactionary stance. Not only that, but they're actually afraid of *any*
point the opposition might make, not because they might be a little
embarassed, but because they see this as the eternal competition with evil
coming to a head.
William Jennings Bryan expressed this same sentiment in his debate several
times. To him and most other creationists, the whole topic is a matter of
the highest concern. Read the transcripts of the case. They reflect that
Bryan was more intimidating in his passion than he was intimidated by the
meager conduct of his opposition. Bryan had the support of virtually the
entire community cheering him on in a period of history when evidence for
evolution was sparce at best. And yet, he was desperately afraid that the
defense might make even a single point for their side, not in any
consideration of human legality, but for what he considered a much more
"titanic" issue of immortality and divine judgement.
But whether evolution occurs or how it occurs has nothing whatsoever to do
with the damnation of the immortal soul and so there is no way that an
"evolutionist" could be so disturbed by the outcome of such a discussion.
Creationists are automatically intimidated because they haven't a leg to
stand on and they consider it a crucial issue. It needen't be treated that
way, but they're religious about it. So they can't help it. And from
personal experience, (which is now well documented in the Google/Deja
archives) there is in fact no way to dispell that stance.
========================
2. "The strength behind the argument for evolution is based solely on
intimidation and creating shame in the minds of those who oppose it".
The strength behind any argument against a religious perspective is no more
than the fact that a religious perspective is a weakness in and of itself.
Without objectivity, rationale cannot exist. And faith is not merely
believing in something without evidence. It is often blind obstinance in
spite of evidence to the contrary. This kind of faith is unhealthy and
breeds deceipt. If you have an opinion, and you believe in that even though
you haven't anything but a suspicion, that is fine. That would be a
"healthy" faith. If your faith is given to fits of paranoia, causing you to
shut out the universe that is thrust before you, then you are at a
disadvantage emotionally and strategically.
But the weakness of evolution's opponants should not be considered to be
among evolution's strengths, for it is among the strongest of all scientific
theorums. It has not only passed every critical analysis, with only minor
modifications nessisary over the last seventeen decades worldwide, but it is
further either directly supported or allowed for by every other field of
scientific study without exception. Biblical creationism is supported
solely by a single highly questionable document and by nothing else. Other
creationist concepts are similarly limited and all of course conflict with
science as well as each other and even themselves, as few of them can even
agree on the state of the dinosaurs relevant to "the flood".
In this forum, I have heard creationists say:
a) They died in the pre-Adamic generations that came before the garden of
Eden.
b) The dinosaurs drowned in the flood.
c) They died immediately after the flood, (for reason given)
d) They were brought aboard as babies.
e) They were brought aboard as eggs.
f) They were stored aboard, (along with all other animals) as frozen
embryos.
g) They never died out and are still hiding in the dark corners of the
world.
h) They died everywhere else except Peru, where they became the personal
pets of the Incas.
i) They weren't natural animals, they were Satanic monsters.
j) They never existed and were all made out of dental plaster.
k) They never existed and were all made out of chicken bones.
Evolutionists, (all evolutionists whether encumbered by relgion or not) say
that the dinosaurs died out a long long time before the flood. And that
they're only surviving relatives are birds. And that just happens to be
what all the available evidence suggests.
Thus creationism is infinitely weak and evolution is comparatively quite
strong even compared to other fields of study. There is no required intent
to shame the underdog. But the extremely unbalanced conditions and highly
escalated import of the topic will often do exactly that.
On the other hand, all creationism needs is a little bit of actual factual
evidence and they might really really have something.
=======================
3. "What evolution lacks in facts, they more than make up for in psychology
and manipulation".
All of the above are implications which can be misinterpreted. Not only
that, but it is the first in a list of attempts to project creationist's
faults onto others. This attempt is in itself a work in psychology.
Correction: . "What creationism lacks in facts, they more than make up for
in psychology and manipulation". (including passion pleas, Pascal's wager,
threats of damnation, etc)
Claim # 3 is a mischaracterization meaning to imply that evolution has a
substantial dearth of factual support, which is wholly and completely a
desperate lie. It is a deliberate lie because a great deal of evidenciary
support in favor of human evolution is well known to everyone; (much of the
mental and physical resemblance to the apes for example, not to mention all
of the no longer "missing" links that keep turning up), but many
creationists will still ignore even that along with many other points of
common knowlege and say that "Absolutely no such evidence exists".
Usually at this point, I would drop about 50 to 70 links to indevidual items
of evidence which can be easily proven to exist. But I'll spare you that
for the moment.
Similarly, basic psychology and even "manipulation" are required at some
minute level just to communicate in English. But there is no significant
requirement of either whether discussing science, politics, sports, weather,
or bicycle repair, except where relgious belief becomes threatened and the
subject becomes irrational and defensive again.
As for the "facts" lacking on either side, why don't you drum up even one in
favor of creationism that can stand up to at least some scrutiny. If you
have something legitimate in your favor at all, it will be considered as
seriously as it can be. I for one would love to believe in my immortal soul
again. But if it is just another idle fib, I'll state as much.
You already have a vague idea of the profound wealth of indevidual items I
could present, so I will be fair and list only one small one for this
example: My emu.
What's yours?
====================
4. "When an evolutionist enters into an argument where creation and
evolution are in conflict, they frequently preceded the debate by laying the
groundwork by defining the parameters in which you are allowed to think".
Absolute bullshit. The only parameters at all are those of reasonable
communication. For example, you cannot disprove a negative. This has
nothing to do with what you are allowed to think. Now matter what you
think, it remains impossible to disprove a negative. I defy you to define
this errant claim further. I further defy you to exemplify it.
What this [no doubt] refers to, is the tactic of litigation that
creationists must use as opposed to investigation. I can play litigater
too. So I have no problem with whatever passion plea you want to present.
But just 'cuz you believe it, don't make it so. Or is that what point 4
refers to?
===============
5. "You are allowed to think freely as long as you think inside the
evolutionary box. This box is defined on the premise that evolutionary
origins must be true and our current state is from that evolutionary
origin".
I insist that you qualify this claim. Give me an example that defines
specific thoughts that would not be allowed and why. Then I would like an
example of them as they have been used / denied. I demand that you
illustrate the parameters of this box and present an example of its use.
===============
6. "Thinking is encouraged as long as it does not take you outside of this
box. The box is defined by two supposed facts: our evolutionary origin and
our current evolutionary state".
If you can demonstrate that we are not apes, by all means do so. While
you're at it, why don't you show how we are not primates, mammals,
tetrapods, chordates, etc. If you cannot do that, then I *still* won't
require you to assume we are. I'll just demonstrate it to while your
fantazising that you're made of pixie-dust or whatever you want to be.
I've heard creationists claim that we were:
a) half-bred angels (seriously, and right here on T.O.!)
b) spiritually unique, luminous beings, where all other life were mere
biological machines
c) unrelated to all other life where all other life evolved
d) unrelated to all other life and that all other life was unrelated as well
e) the ancestors of the apes, who de-evolved from us.
I can entertain any of these notions objectively, but none of these explain
why were constructed as apes. We don't have to be tetrapods. We don't have
to have sex or chew food. Neither do we need to produce milk or use our fat
and hair to keep warm. And I take these as pretty strong hints that we are
mammals. Were we unrelated to all other life on this planet, I would expect
to find some aspect of our being that did not match every other thing that
creepeth.
I mean, if your son were born with black skin, (and both you and your wife
are pure-bred white-folk) I would bet you wouldn't insist that to be any act
of special creation, no matter what your beloved said. And I doubt you
would accept any book of magic spells offered in her defense.
================
7. "If these two facts were true, then evolution would have a valid
argument. The true debate is whether these two 'facts' are facts. It is
taken by faith that these two must be true".
Evolution could be flawed in some way we don't yet know. We certainly don't
know everything about it yet. But evolution still has thousands of valid
arguments. Clades, taxonomy, breakthroughs in bioengineering and DNA. ad
nauseum. And we are still apes, just as we are mammals, animals, etc.
Remember, Ecclesiastes says that we are but beasts.
===========
8. "Therefore, everything else must agree with these two true statements.
Creation challenges these two statements. These are founded purely on faith
and cannot be defended scientifically, therefore, evolution defenders turn
to psychology - whether they realize it or not".
a) Biblically literal Creationists challenge these, along with a great many
other things. Creation challenges none of them.
b) All scientific Theory and practice must be subjected to peer review and
must be tested under scrutiny. Both of which are the antithesis of faith.
c) They can be defended both scientifically and theologically. Creationism
has only one of those options. I can / have / do defend evolution from
purely scientific perspective as well as from a logical perspective. I was
once a theistic ID type (sigh) and then I had a sound and profound
theological argument for evolution as well.
d) Psychology? No. I don't think I've ever used that one. There was never
a need.
================
8. "The psychology of the argument is a two-step process. One, intimidate
critics; two, establish claims to authority".
In the context of my challenge of your integrity and my accusation of
willful deceipt on the part of this claimant, I will freely intimidate at
will. But then, this is a matter of honor, not academics.
Were this to be a debate of origins, (as I'm sure there will be) my stance
would be completely different. In that case, I am an under-educated
high-school drop-out with no collegiate degrees whatsoever. I reserve the
right to cite any research, document, or quotation from any person
regardless of authority, whether they are real or imagined. (just like you)
But only when I can explain why the words have bearing. Hence, if Albert
Einstein or Fred Flinstone have said something relevant, I may cite it. But
obviously not to draw on the authority of their name or credentials, unless
directly relevant.
Hows that?
===============
9. "Most of the critics of evolution are Bible believing Christians".
I actually think you'll find more critics of evolution in the Muslim
nations. Then again the Hindu have their own creation myth as well and
there are an awful lot of them. In either case, the above statement should
not be interpreted to imply that most Bible-believing Christians are
creationists. Such is a predominantly American phenomenon and only then
applies to about half the total US Christian population. Elsewhere in the
Christian world, creationism is regarded as heresy by the majority of
Christians in those countries, while the vast majority of the tens of
millions of Muslims across the world are devout creationists, (many of whom
will even deny that dinosaurs ever existed).
===============
10. "Evolution arguments are presented with the knowledge that Christian
scrutiny will follow".
All scientific arguments are presented with the knowlege that scrutiny will
follow, not just from Christians, but from Jews, Muslims, Buddhists,
agnostics, and atheists. Any number of which may support or contend any
facet of evolutionary Theory with evidence to back up their claims. That is
what scientific peer-review is all about. The way to test a belief is not
to believe it blindly, but to challenge others to prove you wrong.
However, claim 10 was an attempted psychology ploy meant to characterize
Christianity as united in their opposition to evolution, even though the
creationists in that group serve as an Amercan minority, with virtually no
presence elsewhere in Christendom.
=============
11. "Because of this, evolutionists will almost always attempt to silence
critics by discrediting the Bible, discrediting creation as non-science, and
to discredit anyone who believes in either.
a) There is no "attempt" nessisary. To demonstrate that creationism is a
non-science has about the same failure rate as falling down. There is not a
single aspect of science to which creationism adheres. And I defy you to
support it as such.
b) To do science, one must scrutinize and review all claims made. And not
just for a limited time. All scientific hypothesis are subject to review
and refute at any time for all eternity. Look at Newton. His concept and
theory of gravity was eventually refuted. But it was a whole long time
after he died. It was also refuted only by being replaced by a better
Theory. The one that was eventually provided by Albert Einstein answered or
accounted for all available evidence where Newton's did not. There are
those even now who hope to overthrow even Einstein's gravity in favor of an
even more accurate understanding. That is, after all, the goal and purpose
of science.
c) Whether either Newton or Einstein adhered to any specific religious
belief is both in dispute and immaterial. Neither one credited magic
spirits with holding everything down. So they both remained scientists and
realized the atomic age.
Remember: The theory of gravity is "just a theory".
And Atomic Theory has "never been proven".
================
12. "Here is one example of attempting to make Bible believes ashamed of
their held belief of the truth of scripture".
Frank Zindler: "The people who transmitted the books of the Bible were, of
course, not very honest people. They had an axe to grind. And so we see that
the later the manuscripts, the more harmonious they become. But the earliest
manuscripts show great contradiction".
Zindler's claim is partially true. At least in that part of it can be
verified, and that is the reference to great contradiction. There is
certainly no doubt there when considering the Old Testament. I mean, did
Angels have dominion over the pre-Adamic world or not? If there was no
pre-Adamic world beyond a week in age, then how else can that be defined
other than a contradiction? Scores of these contradictions exist through
out the Old Testament, many more than in the New Testament, where there is
some degree of relative consistency. At least God isn't the eternal
formless spirit one minute and doing a sweaty Thursday night Smack-down and
grappling with Jacob the next.
As for the comment about honesty on the part of the authors of the Bible.
Well, that's his opinion and its a difficult one to prove. But we have good
reason to suspect that some of them might have been.
Not that either opinion matters. What matters is the baseless allegation
that employed that quote, again psychologically attempting to deceive the
reader. Their is no desire to produce shame in the believer. Nor is should
I be ashamed to hear some of the darker sides of American history dispite my
patriotism. I would rather know an ugly truth and be able to use it, than
believe in a beautiful lie with no value.
And remember also: The truth will set you free. But first, it will make
you angry.
=====================
13. "This is a typical type of argument. Frank stated a fact without facts.
In the debate I copied this from, he offered no sources to back his claim
and the Bible defender did not challenge this claim".
Show me the thread, when it was posted and from what group it came.
The claimant didn't provide any access to his data, he could have pulled
this quote out of his ass. Or there could well have been many replies to
it. Maybe a few embarassing ones.
But I think this claimant is attempting to state a fact without facts while
practicing hypocrisy. And if this sort of person says there was no
challenger, is that like when he says there are no transitional species?
====================
14. "There is a wealth of information that supports the reliability of
scripture".
I doubt it. But I'm waiting.
====================
15. "Critics of the Bible base their arguments on assumptions and those
assumptions are stated as fact".
Supporters of the Bible base their arguments on assumptions and those
assumptions are stated as fact.
Scientists hypothesize and theorize. And Critics of the Bible, (if they are
scientists) will admit to uncertainty and state their hypothesis with the
preface "I believe...I suspect...I think...or Maybe..." Zealotous religious
folk will not enter into a debate prefacing their beliefs with such neutral
pacificity or objectivity. They are absolutely unprepared to learn where
they are mistaken because they believe that to see their error is to be
decieved and damned to Hell. Passive objectivity is no longer possible.
And the man behind the podium can blindly speculate anything he wants to
before his 50,000 sycophants. And even though he has not a clue in the
world what the Hell he's talking about, he had better have an assertive tone
of certainty or no one will believe him.
And the reason that one man addresses so very many in that way is to drown
out or intimidate the one boy with a brain who might dare to ask "How do you
know that?"
===================
16. "For example, when Peter Jennings aired his documentary on 'The Search
for Jesus', he only used liberal scholars that are known to openly denied
the scriptures".
Yet I'll bet that you will not be able to provide any written reference to
those criticisms. Rememeber that the claim was that *every* one of these
critics denied the scriptures. I saw that show and I know that wasn't the
case. But I can't prove a negative, so you'll have to cough up each of
their alleged denials. Remember also that at least two of these scholars
were clergymen and thus not "liberals" in the manner implied in this claim.
More "psychology". And more easily demonstrable deceipt.
=============================
17. "They argued that the apostles were not reliable witnesses and Jesus
didn't rise from the dead but was eaten by dogs".
a) Except that they closed the show with at least two of their "scholars"
insisting that the apostles must have witnessed a miraculous event, such as
a resurrection, because they were said to have written about it. Just one
of their experts toward the close of their interviews disproved both of the
claims above with a single sentence.
(if anyone mentioned dogs, I must have been up getting some tea at that
moment).
b) The apostles would have been reliable witnesses had they actually written
anything. But heresay is not acceptible. Moses would have been considered
reliable too, but then he obviously didn't write Deuteronomy, now did he?
===================
18. "They offered no evidence to support this contradiction of scripture
and they did not even acknowledge (much less attempt to refute) the evidence
that supports the resurrection".
a) They did offer evidence in the form of other documents written by other
historians of the day. It was circumstantial evidence, but evidence
none-the-less that none of these other noted authorities living in that area
at that time remembered any of the events surrounding this enigmatic
crucifixion. And something like a bunch of zombies doing a Michael
Jackson-style Night-of-the-living dead dance in the streets of Judeah is
pretty hard to miss. Even the laziest of chroniclers should have / would
have remember the hours of global darkness at mid-day, but none have. The
only reference for that comes from books that were written at least a
half-a-century to three centuries later and obviously not by eyewitnesses,
but ghost writers claiming to be apostles. (Just like with Deuteronomy).
19. "This evidence comes from both biblical and non-biblical sources".
While I'm waiting for what I'm sure will never come, since it was not yet
provided,
allow me to quote a line from:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/jesus.html.
When you add up all of the following facts, the case for the existence of
Jesus as an historical person becomes rather remote:
1) there are no proven, legitimate references to the existence of Jesus in
any contemporary source outside of the New Testament (which is really not a
contemporary source, as it was written from 30 to 70 years after Jesus
supposedly died),
2) There is no evidence that the town of Nazareth, from which Jesus' mother
supposedly came, ever existed at the time he was supposedly living there,
3) the existence of Jesus is not necessary to explain the origin or growth
of Christianity (were the Hindu gods real'?),
4) the New Testament accounts do not provide a real "biography" for Jesus
until you look at the Gospels. The earlier Pauline epistles imply only that
he was a god, and
5) the biblical accounts of the trial and death of Jesus are logically
self-contradictory and legally impossible. Jesus could not have been
executed under either Roman or Jewish law for what he did. Whatever you call
what he did, it was not a capital offense under either system. Rather, it
looks like someone is trying to make Old Testament prophecies of the death
of the Messiah come true by fabricating a scenario which simply doesn't make
sense legally.
Not that any of that has squat to do with evolution vs creationism.
==================
20. "The eyewitnesses were not reliable and should not be believed, but
liberal scholars who openly grind their axes and state their preconceived
belief that no miracles are true or reliable are reliable".
State your preconceived belief that no leprechauns are true.
State your preconceived belief that no elves are true.
State your preconceived belief that no mermaids are true.
State their preconceived belief that no chupacabra are true.
State your preconceived belief that no UFOs are true.
Laugh tho ye will. But you can't prove that there are *No* invisible pink
elephants living in the remote places where no one ever goes.
Now
State your preconceived belief that Allah isn't true.
State your preconceived belief that Krishna isn't true.
State your preconceived belief that Buddha isn't true.
State your preconceived belief that Odin isn't true.
State your preconceived belief that Amen-Ra isn't true.
State your preconceived belief that Santa Clause isn't true.
It all sounds kind of silly doesn't it? Once you see through the
creationist's psychological ploys, then everything they say sounds a bit
silly.
===================
21. Something is wrong with this picture. Eyewitnesses are unreliable
because they are 2,000 years ago, but men who are 2,000 years later and saw
nothing are reliable?
That's just the point. There were no eyewitness accounts. Even if you take
Tacitus at his word, his claim of "a group of persons already hated by the
people for their crimes" was written some 70 years or so after this Christus
was killed.
Mind you, Tacitus failed to mention any zombies either.
=====================
22. "What evidence is ever presented that gives credibility to the early
church altering scriptures because they have an axe to grind?"
I don't know of any evidence that scriptures were ever altered specifically
to grind an axe. Several of them were *originally* written "with an axe to
grind", (Isaiah for example) And some of the words attributed to Jesus have
suspicious parallels in the writings of others to come before and after
Jesus' life, but still before his apostles were written. But the strongest
indication is that not that the scriptures were changed, but that they were
written incorrectly the first time. If they were not changed, then there is
no other reason that they conflict the way they do other than to have been
incorrect from the get-go.
That of course, is just an opinion. And one subject to change of course, in
light of new data.
===================
23. "Only the testimonies of men in the 21st century who do have an axe to
grind".
Again with this axe. Why should anyone trying to investigate the truth with
an open analytical mind have a specific grudge in order to be objective? No
one in that program expressed any grudge against Biblical content. They
were taking opinions from Catholic priests for Christ's sake, (literrally)
That was just another unsupported passion plea meant to incite outrage in
religious readers. And it *still* hasn't a smidge to do with creationism vs
evolution.
==================
24. "It is the enemies of scripture that establish themselves as the
authority that supposedly disproves the Bible".
So here again, Catholic priests and other Christians are cited as "enemies
of scripture".
They are the authorities after all. But I was also a Christian until I read
the Bible. And the scripture became an enemy of mine.
=====================
25. "It is not a coincidence that almost every essay or argument presented
to disprove creation focuses on attacking scripture and highlighting the
failure of men who claim to be Christians and seldom addresses any of the
real evidence that supports scripture. This is a favorite tactic against
creation".
No. It isn't a coincidence. That's true. Although the statement is true,
it is only because the claimant didn't phrase it correctly. He meant to
imply there being some sort of underhanded tactic involved in objective
criticism of the Bible. But what he is seeing is the outrage of persons
reading that book seeking the wisdom and spiritual fulfillment that was
advertised, and instead finding out that God creates evil and awards his
followers with children to be used as sex toys. (and myria other horrible
atrocities by God's command).
But if one is to evaluate the accuracy of any ancient text, one must test it
against itself. Does it withstand critical evaluation? No. But that would
be the scientific approach. And it is the only objective approach one can
take. Having faith that something is true to start with is no way to
determine if it really is.
One should also expect some kind of posative aspect
As for the real evidence that supports scripture, I'm game to hear it, if
you have any.
====================
26. "If you discredit the Bible then the Genesis account by default becomes
unreliable".
Actually, it is Genesis that injures the rest of the Bible. Most people
would have little to no problem with the entirety of the Pentateuch were it
not for the first couple of chapters of that one book.
=================
27. "Since they cannot find evidence, they establish themselves as
authoritative and their speculation is counted as evidence".
Now he is again describing creationists exclusively. I myself can and have
presented volumes of evidence in this forum, which neither you nor the
original author of this stupid flame would care to address. And rather than
intimidate you, I'd like to show you up. To challenge you to address each
of my points of evidence and poke and prod at you until you take up my
challenge and actually do so. Creationists adamantly and consistently
ignore or dismiss out-of-hand that which they do not want to see. And
that's what this twerp did when he alleged that evolutionists could not come
up with evidence. What about the dozens of transitional species I've listed
here so many times so far? He discards them all without aknowlegement. The
same with all the observances of macro-evolution yet observed. Genetic
evidence, fossil evidence, taxonomy, inheritable traits, etc. etc.
Creationists have only a single compilation of fairy-tales that doesn't even
stand up to the lunged fish in my aquarium, (who can stand up, by the way).
Scientists cannot acheive conclusive proof in any field, for that would
negate the drive for further study. So there goes the issue of authority.
And all their speculation can be and must be tested. Men of faith cannot
subject themselves to scrutiny because they cannot question their faith.
Faith then is a useless obsticle against discovery. An ignorance
preservative.
================
28. "When pitted fact against fact, evolution can't stand up against
creation".
How many times have we observed evolution? How many times have we
documented these observances under controlled conditions, in the labratory,
or under natural environmental isolation in the wild? I know of at least 30
that have been recorded here and on the News and nature programs from
abroad.
Now how many times has any living thing been observed in magical
conjuration?
When pitted fact against...well creation, the entire sum total wealth of
human understanding in every field combined with absolutely all observable,
testable, verifiable data utterly obliterates the notion of an invisible
imperceptible recluse who uses magic words instead.
29. Therefore, the facts are bypassed for an easier target. A straw man is
built and then pulverized.
I don't need to do that at all. Creationists really do believe in an
invisible recluse who used magic words. They really do believe that the
first man and woman were animated clay golems. I don't even need to make
anything up about that notion. It really is just as silly as it sounds.
And it actually gets worse when they try to put it in their own words,
especially when they're trying to rationalize their way out of having to
explain the actual facts presented.
But by all means, if you think you have some relevant facts to support your
case, you damn sure better slam them down now. These have been illuded to
several times so far, but not one has been listed yet.
=========================
30. "The easiest way to attack creation is to define it in terms that you
can attack".
You mean like: "You soulless automatons think men came from monkeys?" or
"Evil-utionists think that a frog will turn into a prince if you give it
enough time?" How about, "Life created itself"? Oh, here's a good one. My
favorite in fact. "A watermelon missed being a cloud by 2%"
But there is no quesion in the creationist's mind that God created himself,
or that women can be turned into salt, donkeys can talk, and so can snakes
(when they have legs), spiders used to eat berries, angels exist, and blood
rituals with sactificial birds can cure leprosy or rid your house of black
mold.
========================
These are the first thirty ridiculous claims. Dispelling Creationist lies
is a tough job because they are the most accomplished deceivers in history.
I'm going to take a break now and post the next batch tomorow.
Aron-Ra
Freedom Warrior
<<http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/weekly/psychology.htm
here you go evolutionists.>>
evolutionist are weird and unusual in your own way instead of referring
us to a link to someone's document that chances are, they could be
wrong?
Honestly, if you don't want to argue or have an discussion here at
talk origins, then why are you here?
Visit My Webpage:
http://www.geocities.com/freedomwarrior5000
Adam Marczyk
news:3b75...@news.iprimus.com.au...
Did you write that page? No? Well, let's make a deal. If the people who did
write it want to come to t.o. and have a debate, I'll be perfectly willing
to debate them anytime they want. Similarly, if you want to have a debate,
then make your own case. Not only am I not going to waste time refuting the
hundreds of apologetics pages you can doubtlessly quote one by one, I'm not
going to waste time arguing with someone who can't even come up with an
argument of his own. If you have to let other people make your case for you,
odds are you won't understand any rebuttals either, which would make the
whole exercise pointless.
--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
Aron-Ra
Anyway, here are the next thirty lies exposed.
31. Instead of rebutting the facts creation science presents, it is easier
to just call it religion and put it into an 'unscientific' category and then
ignore it.
Here are some quotes to illustrate this point:
Anthony J. M. Garret: "This debate is too often conducted as a scientific
debate, which it is not. It is a theological debate".
George H. Smith: "Faith is intellectually dishonest, and should be rejected
by every person of integrity".
a) It may be easier to discard the presented evidence. But it is always
much more fun to explain it to them.
b) Note that no "facts" are described, or even illuded to in Mr. Garret's.
Go back over the entire document and you won't find a single fact mentioned
yet.
c) Mr. Smith's quote is right on the money. Dead-on-balls accurate. But
it isn't even related to the allegation made in this 31st attempted lie.
Smith's quote is an invitation to investigate evidence. It is exactly the
opposite of what the claimant meant to imply. It was included not for its
actual meaning, but the perceived emotional response. Its more of that
stupid hypocritical creationist psychology again.
==================
32. "By faith, Smith means faith in the Bible".
No. By faith, Smith means the opposite of objectivity. It is not possible
to investigate evidence if you have already allowed your pre-conceived
concepts to blind you to it. In other words, you will never seek the truth
if you can't admit that you don't already know it.
==================
33. "Faith in evolution is acceptable".
No. Faith in any supposed scientific investigation is inexcuseable. And
we'll never even investigate the truth if we think we know it already. And
just because we're convinced we know the truth, we may not, or we may not
know enough of it. That is why it is absolutely nessisary that we allow
others to challenge our current beliefs and force us to prove them. Even if
we fail, if our notions are disproven, that loss will come at a greater
reward because we will know something more than we did when we were
complacent in our hypothesis.
==================
34. "Instead of answering the objections, evolutionists will just label it
as a theological debate and then sweep it under the rug by attacking their
concept of faith instead of the facts".
And still no facts are presented. Only faith. Is that all this guy has?
Is that what he means by thinking out of the box?
Scientists want to test their hypothesis because they want to *know* and be
able to use that knowlege. This claimant wants to speculate wildly with no
evidence at all. Which is fine in and of itself for its own merit. But he
wants to assert his baseless assumptions upon other people. And it is those
baseless assumptions that he is calling "facts".
Now I'm beginning to see what he means by being told how to think. He
thinks idle fantasy equates to evidence and he thinks science is based on
the same foundations as religion. That being the blind untested and
unchallenged acceptance of any fool thing your authorities tell you.
Sorry buddy. You're hopeful fantasies are not testable facts. And I didn't
make up the rules about how to think. You don't want to think at all. You
just wanna believe. But faith in something and knowlege of it are not the
same things.
===================
35. "There is a clear attempt at making creation believers feel
intimidating by classifying their faith as unscientific or intellectual
dishonesty".
It is. But it is his faith that makes the creationist feel intimidating.
It certainly isn't his opposition. 8^).
And if faith actually counted as scientific evidence, then police detectives
could just walk into any courtroom and passionate assert "who dunnit"
without ever having to cross the tape at the crime scene. In either case,
the concept of faith being treated as evidence is ludicrous. No wonder this
guy never actually listed or even implied any real evidence.
=======================
36. "We should be aware of this strategy. The purpose behind it is to
eliminate critical thinking by putting Christians on the defensive".
The purpose behind it is to inspire critical thinking. Faith is *not*
critical thinking. I didn't decide that. Look it up in your
Funk&Wagnall's. So you can't blame scientists for any intimidation ploy.
At least not until heresay and unsupported opinion become admissible
evidence to a conviction in criminal court.
It used to be that way at one time in this country, at the insistance of one
of our the foremost religious leaders, namely Cotton Matther.
======================
37. "When statements like these are issued, the focus is shifted away from
the issue of the facts and put on theology which can be used to create
smokescreens".
The above statement *is* a smokescreen. Correctly phrased, faith is not
evidence and never was and cannot be. The issue attempts to shift the focus
away from the fact that the creationist has no facts in defense of his
position, other than his own passionate desperation to preserve his myth.
======================
38. It is important not to allow your mind to be sidetracked into the box
they are shaping.
Translation: Don't ever actually evaluate the evidence itself. Limit
yourself to threats, misquotes, mistatements, and passion pleas.
=======================
39. "Instead, we should cut through the red tape and put our focus on the
actual argument for evolution or against creation. If we are sidetracked, we
are less likely to point out the flaws in the evolution logic".
Out of context, as this statement is when seperated from the rest of these
alleged points, it becomes correct. And I for one insist on hearing these
supposed flaws in the evolution logic. In fact, I'd actually like to hear
what you think the evolution logic is.
======================
40. "Discredit anyone who believes in either. When the facts are obscured
by the way evolutionists define the creation foundation, then they can
attack the straw man they have created".
What straw man? Nevermind. I wouldn't want to be accused of side-tracking
you, or obscuring the facts.
What were those facts again?
=======================
41. If the Bible is a lie and creation is based on that lie, then the next
logical step is to label anyone who believes in either as backwoods or
archaic.
It is not a logical step. But it is a logical conclusion. The logical step
would be to explain and illustrate exactly why the Bible is a lie, or
exactly what aspects of creationism is incorrect.
===========================
42. William Edelen is a good example of this type of set-up and knock-down
logic:
"I have often asked - When are Jews and Christians going to grow up, evolve
spiritually, and let go of the archaic and primitive biblical concepts of
'God'?"
a) Because all concepts of God are archaic and primitive. I would also
like to add: improbable, illogical, and completely unsubstantiated.
"Anyone who believes today in the year 2000 that the bible is 'reliable' and
'infallible,' without error or contradiction, is approaching insanity."
b) No. They are not approaching anything. They done already arrived and
unpacked their belongings.
"They live in the 21st Century, parroting back a third century biblical
mentality as though nothing had been learned, thought, or discovered in the
last 1800 years."
c) OK, whatever strategy these quotes were meant to illustrate, it looks as
if the claimant should have actually read and contemplated them. These are
meant to inspire critical thinking by telling these cretins flat-out what is
needed to make a convincing argument. In short, it is meant in exactly the
opposite vein that this posters imagines.
==========================
43. We as Christians should not be bothered by such statements. The
psychology behind this is to put us on our heels.
The first statement is absolutely correct. But there is no psychology
involved. No intimidation. No posturing. Just trying to incite cognative
reason for the very first time. This has to be done or there can be no
discussion at all. Just one person asserting his opinion and pretending its
been proven without the slightest reason presented as to why.
===========================
44. "If we are busy defending ourselves, we can't be critically thinking
about the real issue at hand. If we are intimidated, we won't speak out".
This statement is completely correct. But it again doesn't mean what it was
meant to. So ignore this stupid fuck. Stop defending yourself. Don't
allow yourself to be sidetracked away from the evidence. And by all means,
no matter what, think critically!
============================
45. "A cowering Christian is the goal of this intimidation".
The goal is both to teach and to learn. And you might be surprised to hear
this, but another goal is to get the creationist's perspective and input.
It is never a good idea to assume you know everything you need to know.
Many Christians accept evolution. And no one is expected to cower. But as
I've said before, creationists and thier misplaced faith have put themselves
into a combative posture that prevents critical analysis. They haven't the
slightest interest in learning anything. Even when they suspect their
wrong, they won't listen. They would rather plug their ears and block it
all out. This is their choice, their stance, and their "psychology". And
it cannot be projected onto the scientists, atheists, or Christian theistic
evolutionists debating them.
===============================
46. "Critical thinking is an enemy of evolution".
Critical thinking is an enemy of Creationism. And faith is the antithesis
of critical thought.
If your opinion differs, prove it. I believe I've already proven mine.
================================
47. Often a debater will use reverse psychology. He will put himself on the
defense to make criticism of evolution seem irrational. Here is an example
from Mark I. Vuletic. He says that Christians say:
"Evolution teaches that there are no such things as souls, that the Bible is
fraudulent, and that God does not exist. These charges, even if they were
true, have nothing to do with the scientific validity of evolution. Such
accusations reveal the true religious motivations of the creationists, and
their eagerness to confuse scientific issues by the inappropriate discussion
of metaphysics when a religious audience is around."
Mark nobly defends evolution from the attacks of a straw man.
This is not psychology. This is a simple statement of fact. Vuletic is not
setting up a strawman. He is exposing one. Specifically, he is exposing
the one that Jabriol himself posted to this very forum. Jabs is a
creationist, is he not?
============================
48. "In his hypothetical defense, he has manipulated the listener into
thinking that Christians are trying to force theology into science".
Jabs made this claim on at least two occasions that I was able to find in a
moment at the archives. Each of the evolutionists responding to "Columbine
High School...Evolution at its peak? or ... " on 4/23/99 sternly corrected
him, dispelling the strawman. But he posted the exact same bullshit again
six months later on "Do not read this - Filthy Child-Molesters!" (10/18/99)
And his second attempted strawman was anhialated again.
Then of course there was crit/helpu and Taichi, both of whom were so
religion-demented that they were incapable of answering any question with
anything but jibberish. pooua saw himself as some sort of Christian soldier
in "Dinosaurs and the art of creationist bullshit", and insisted that the
only reason anyone believed in evolution was in an attempt to deny God.
That is religion, isn't it? dpwozney and Newbie both insisted that no
dinosaurs had ever existed. And that the only reason to fake their
skeletons was in some sort of stupid attemp to "deny God". All of these
examples are of creationists making the very claim that Vuletic said they
did.
No strawman. And lie # 48 is disproven. Moving on.
==============================
49. "Do Christians really say creation is true because evolution teaches we
don't have souls, the Bible is false and all the other accusations of
Vuletic? This is not even part of the debate".
Which is exactly what Voletic said:
"These charges, even if they were true, have nothing to do with the
scientific validity of evolution".
And yet another attempt to misrepresent the evolutionist is exposed. Lie #
49 is disproven. moving on.
===============================
50. "In reality, evolutionists are usually the ones who enter the Bible
into the argument".
In each case noted above, as with literally countless others, it has been
the creationist insisting that the Bible be involved. And I must
differentiate between Christians and creationists here. Many Christians are
evolutionists. And have seen no need to evoke the Bible until after some
creationist grossly misinterprets it.
=================================
51. "It is true that Christian's believe that all things point to our
Creator, but that does not pit Christianity against science".
That's what many a Christian theistic evolutionist has said. The difference
between them and the creationist is that the former actually understands
that statement and acts on it.
===============================
52. "In fact, the whole argument is that creation should be attributed to
our God and not the god of evolution".
Contrary to the point he himself has made so often, this twit:
a) posted no evidence in support of creation, nor in defamation of
evolution
b) called upon religion without warrant.
c) Assumed that the whole of creation [the universe] should be attributed
to an unknown entity without any supportive evidence at all.
d) Setup a strawman in the form of "the god of evolution".
This last flippant idiocy isn't mere ignorance or stupidity. This is an
out-and-out deliberate lie, as he knows full well that there is no god of
the study of evolving organisms. But there are a good many Christians who
worship Jesus *and* study evolution completely unaware of any conflicting
gods before Christ.
=================================
53. As we will see later, evolution does have a god and it is clearly
defined by the leading evolutionist.
a) This guy is losing IQ points as he speaks. There is no god of
evolution. He knows it. You know it. Everyone knows it.
b) Neither is there, (nor was there ever) any "leading evolutionist" in the
hierarchal context implied here. Neither has there ever been a leading
Heliocentrist, Gravitist, Atomist, nor for any other field of scientific
study.
c) And who is this alleged leader? Ah. He says we'll see later. I await
that revelation with baited breath!
================================
54. "We as Christians do believe we are created by special design and we
are created for a purpose".
a) That special design is a plaigerism. The apes had it first.
b) Whatever that purpose was, if God exists and intends some purpose for
you, it wouldn't be to ridicule him and drive away rational people from the
fold.
=================================
55. "It is true that the teachings of evolution, if followed to their
logical conclusions do teach that we have no purpose other than what we can
do for ourselves".
Not ourselves. Our offspring. Face it. The only immortality you stand to
have is in the legacy you leave your kids. If you don't matter to them,
you'll disappear forever. All except for your unnamed genes.
==================================
56. "However, this is not what is at the heart of the debate. The debate is
over truth".
No. This debate was supposed to be over evidence. And this poster is
clearly unqualified to discuss truth.
==================================
57. Does true science point to evolution and away from creation?
Regardless of the worldview behind the debate, the ultimate purpose is
truth.
Spoken like a truly rational critical thinker. What a hypocritical heritic.
And yes. Science does point to evolution and away from creation. We are
apes, not mud-men. We are made of seawater, not "dust". And science cannot
ever point to magic words as a source of origin.
Now if you could show *how* this mythic man-o-magic used those words, what
those words were, and how they work, then we'll talk.
====================================
58. "If evolution is true, then let it be proven".
Twenty-nine instances of observed and documented Macro-evolutionary events.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Watching it happen is about as proven as it gets.
Got any spontaneous generations? Any new organisms that have appeared as a
result of conjuration?
=====================================
59. "Defending evolution by shielding it from criticism is not evidence and
is not truth".
Neither is it science, which mandates continuous critical analysis in peer
review ad infinitum. Evolution has never ever been in any danger from any
other theorum. Hence, it has never needed "shielding".
=====================================
60. "If you listen closely you will notice that evolution debaters claim
their authority based on their belief in evolution".
If you were listening, you would have heard me base my authority on volumes
of uncontested evidence continuously compiled in every related field in
every country of the world consistently since long before Darwin came along.
================================
I don't think I can put these all together on one post. And I don't think
I've ever seen a more dishonest document in my life. Nothing in it is
correct.
How typical of creationist work.
Aron-Ra
Aron-Ra
going to do anything with it until Muscat speaks up.
61. "They use circular reasoning to establish this claim to authority.
Those who reason inside the box are intellectually elite and those outside
the box are intellectually dishonest".
(sigh) Creationists use circular reasoning to establish their claim to
authority. "The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible". "God is
true because he wrote the Bible" "The Bible is true because God wrote it".
Creationists are intellectually bankrupt as well as dishonest.
And where's that evidence?
======================
62. "They boldly assert that they are the only freethinkers while at the
same time refusing to allow thinking that does not fall into the standard of
the day".
I demand an example. And a definition of what this loser thinks he's
talking about. I don't mean to be so irritatable, but this clown can't be
this stupid. He has to know that he has already lied intentionally at least
62 times in this one post.
======================
63. "Anyone or any idea that falls outside of evolution is belittled".
That's science. Its called peer-review. Its designed to weed-out truth
from faith. Get used to it.
This statement translates into an extreme frustration that his sermons must
be questioned and evidence given for each assertion. He's frustrated
because lies are all he has.
=====================
64. "Once an evolutionist establishes that they are within the box, they
use that box as a stage to proclaim their own authority".
Once again, I demand a definition of this "box" and an example of its use.
But notice that he has yet to provide any explanation behind any of his
conclusions? Nor has he provided any evidence at all pro or con.
And who is this evolutionist spiritual leader? Who is evolution's god?
====================
65. "It is ironic that Christians are scorned for standing on the
foundation of scripture while critics stand on the foundationless box of
evolution".
Now that statement is ironic!
Foundation in scripture:
An ancient myth of unknown authorship that borrows fables and dogmas from
other unrelated pagan pantheons, one that makes only a few scientific
claims, but absolutely all of them are dead wrong, impossible, or unhealthy
in the extreme. And that makes a hand-ful of predictions, nearly all of
which have never yet come to pass in all the mellenia since their were
written. Only a couple have happened. But they were eventually inevitable
and still took thousands of years to finally roll those snake-eyes. And no
congregation of indevidual believers can agree on what it says.
"Foundationless" evolution:
Dozens of observed macro-evolution events, hundreds of transitional species,
millions of cryptozoological fossils, 98.4% genetic accuracy, 4.5 billion
year-old planet, 15,000,000,000 year-old universe, 75,000+ species of
pre-flood MEGA fauna, one-dozen or so no longer "missing" links, 300+
man-made breeds of dogs, one half-dozen apes that can speak in human sign
language, several biotechnology companies making bio-engineered
made-to-order organisms, a hand ful of auto-replicative cels made vibrant in
the lab, artificial life in the form of nannites, and 142 years of
consistently building cache of evidence, much of which was accurately
predicted way back in 1859.
Foundationless?
======================
66. "What an evolutionist or atheist lacks in their foundation is more than
made up for by bold assertions".
Strike that. Reverse it. --Willie Wonka
Apparently, we're not done with irony.
What a creationist lacks in their foundation is more than made up for by
bold assertions, much like the one above.
As for the lack of foundation, see creationist lie # 65.
And where's that evidence in favor of creationism? Who is the leader of
evolution(ism)? Who is their god?
======================
67. Consider this quote from George H. Smith:
"And just in case there are a few religionists in the audience, I invite you
to stay around and experience for an afternoon what it feels like to be part
of an intellectual elite."
George Smith is obviously a pompass ass.
He's right. But he's way too concepted about it.
====================
68. "Take note of the psychology behind this statement. It is clearly meant
to intimidate by labeling non-atheist as falling short of their
self-proclaimed standard of elite thinking".
But the psychology here is to antagonize creationists into doing something
unpredictable and actually reviewing the evidence intellectually, and
dispell any overtly implied prejudice. Did it work? I don't know. This
fool didn't give any further information about when or where this
conversation took place.
=====================
69. "There is no quicker way to silence critics than to make them feel
inferior".
Does that work for you? Insult me and I'm going to come back and prove you
wrong. I guess analytical and dogmatic minds differ in more ways than even
I suspected.
=====================
70. "You see this strategy in every area of life - religion, science,
politics, business, etc".
If creationists feel inferior in every day life, they should take the hint
and figure out why that is.
=====================
71. "With intimidation, you don't have to prove your case".
It amazes me that creationists still believe that. Yet they keep repeating
that ploy over and over again, rehashing the laws of physics and
probabilities in an attempt to make them out to mean something more than
they do, just to sound intimidating. And yet, they consistently have thier
asses handed to them every single time.
====================
72. "You only have to make your opponent feel threatened and ashamed to
stand on their position".
Yet calling us "baby-killers", "evil-ootionists", and "hate-mongers" has
still never worked. Neither has the threat of eternal damnation ever worked
against any evolutionist, not even a Christian one.
Yet another irony where the creationist attempted to project their faults
onto others.
Yet another lie exposed. Moving on.
====================
73. "Just because someone boldly asserts something does not make it true".
Now the irony meter just blew up!
Wasn't this guy insisting that we allow opinions of faith to be admissible
as evidence?
===================
74. "By nature, we tend to believe those who speak with an heir of
authority".
......until you've been to church a few times.
================
75. "David Koresh led dozens of people to their death by convincing them of
his authority".
My point exactly.
================
76. "Hitler manipulated an entire country to kill on his behalf by
establishing his authority in their minds".
"Today, I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the
Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the
work of the Lord."
- Adolf Hitler
=================
77. "Countless false religions and groups of people have been led astray by
people who have no foundation but used psychology to manipulate people into
following their ideas".
All religions in fact, except this one:
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it - even if I
have said it - unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common
sense."
- Buddha
That's sort of like what I told my kids about religion when I was an
agnostic pantheist. "Everyone is wrong", I told them, "Even me."
I've adopted many spiritual theologies in my life, starting with
Christianity. But now I am an atheist and (as always) still an
evolutionist. As such, I have no god(s), no creed, no dogma, no religion of
any kind, and absolutely not a scrap of faith.
================
78. "Evolution and atheism use this same technique".
I repeat: Atheism has no god(s), no creed, no dogma, no religious beliefs
of any kind, and absolutely not a scrap of faith.
Evolution is the study of biological generations. As such, it cannot use
any religious technique at all.
And lie # 78 is exposed. Moving on.
===============
79. "They have established an intimidation zone with education and
government that prevents critics from speaking out and research from
presenting contradictory evidence".
Then how did that whole "dinosaurs did / did not beget birds" argument get
started?
Let me answer that regarding the dino/bird debate along with literally
dozens of other heated scientific debates of opposing viewpoints that I have
seen over the years; Statement # 79 is a lie.
Moving on.
===============
80. "Any research that undermines evolution is labeled as religion and can
then be attacked as the government supporting religion".
There is no evidence that undermines evolution. Religious creationists just
wish there was.
================
81. A good example of this was the research of Robert Gentry. His discovery
of polonium haloes in granite stone landed him outside of the box of
evolution.
I would say well outside that box indeed. Evolution is a facet of biology,
not geology.
=======================
82. "Because his findings left only one conclusion - the evolution model
was wrong -"
No. Not in the slightest. Whatever Gentry thought he had found, whether
they were Po-210 haloes or Radon - 222, (which can produce a halo that is
indestinguishable from Polonium) it still wouldn't relate to evolution.
Evolution is a study of generations of living organisms. Geology is the
study of rocks. Paleontology is the closest these two come to one another.
And Dr.Gentry is no biologist. Niether is a paleontologist. Neither is he
an astronomer, (even though he has written papers in that field as well) In
fact, he's not even a geologist. His doctorate is in nuclear physics.
=======================
83. "he was rejected by the scientific community".
Hardly. His reputation has been injured by his close association with
creationists. And he has made himself contraversial, (or should I say
adversarial) in that regard. He could continue to work in the scientific
community as his work to date is respected. But he has embarked on a
religious mission, as his own website indicates.
He was not rejected by the scientific community.
He left it.
But I have read statements from others posting their examinations in the
mainstream, who've said that of all of the supposed "Creation" scientists
out there, Gentry was the only one among them who was any good. And its too
bad too. Had he not lost his objectivity, and booked himself in exclusively
creationist circles and only for their cause, he wouldn't have lost his
credability. But then, he wouldn't have become famous either.
====================
84. "His work did not mention God, religion or creation",
The title of his book is "Fingerprints of Creation". He has booked lectures
and interviews on exclusively creationist telecasts, and has begun marketing
videos for sale, where he preaches for "The Young Age of the Earth"
movement.
Lie # 84 exposed and moving on.
====================
85. "but the only logical conclusion was creation",
Again, false, as described in the link below in a detailed examination by
amateur geologist, John Brawley, working with J.K. Dickens, (a long time
associate of Gentry's) and a scientist in the electron lab of the Oak Ridge
National Laboratories in Tennessee, where Gentry used to work. Both men are
respectful of Gentry's work, but have strong evidence for an entirely
different conclusion.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos.html
As would be the case in true science, neither Brawley's, nor Dicken's
theological position is mentioned, nor should their personal spiritual
beliefs be at issue in their evaluation of evidence.
But I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of them were Christian anyway.
=====================
86. "therefore he was labeled as promoting religion and his grant was
revoked".
He left the scientific community behind to become the only nuclear physicist
to ever promote Young-Earth Creationism. And his credentials in his field
have him booked for interviews on religious radio stations and other
creationist venues as well as his video sales to the relgious community.
=====================
87. "When evolution can't explain contradictory evidence, intimidation is
the only solution".
When creationism can't explain contradictory evidence, the threat of
damnation is the only solution. As I've pointed out before, the creationist
is usually already intimidated before the discussion even begins.
And there is no contradictory evidence.
And science is all about contraversial evidence anyway.
And all evidence must be explained. The most primary tenet of science is
that all evidence must be evaluated and then all attempted explanations must
be tested in peer review.
And so, to demonstrate that, why don't you slap down some pro-creationist
evidence for me to review. I'm sure I don't scare you too much. And I was
Christian once myself, then an occultist, and then a theistic evolutionist,
and even a pantheist, all for years at a stretch. I've only recently
resigned to atheism. So I'm certainly used to allowing new evidence to
shape my perspective.
"We fear science. And for good reason. It has a kind of secret language and
a methodology which is very ungiving, which is saying that it's not what
makes you feel good, it's what's true that matters".
--Ann Druyan
=======================
88. "Once they convince the listener that they are authoritative and that
the evolutionary position is the only position of authority, they then
present evolution as truth".
Only a creationist would present something unknowable, (such as what God
wants of modern businessmen) as assert that as absolute truth, (say
halleluah) and then present something as certain as gravity, or atomic
Theory and claim them to be false. (both of which, I have seen done by them
in this very forum as well)
But no evolutionist should ever present evolution as "truth" in its deeper
sense. It is a fact. That much is certain. But it is not "truth". Truth
implies a complete depth of understanding, even at an almost spiritual
level. Evolution is just a biological process and incapable of such moral
overtones.
====================
89. "It is true, not based on the facts, but based on the authority that
they have established in the minds of others".
No. Evolution has always been true, whether anyone believed that or not.
Unlike a religious notion, which dissipates instantly the moment you begin
to question your faith, evolution has and will pass all critical tests known
to date. Doubt it all you like. It doesn't require faith. It proves
itself.
====================
90. "When you surrender to them the authority they demand, they can then
guide you through the facts they want you to see and away from the facts
they don't want you to see".
Now this is really the last straw! Mr. Muscat, since this creep will never
get around to the point, and since you have chosen to use this deceitful
bastard to represent your views, I offer a choice.
1. Deny that this looney speaks for you, and apologize for accepting my
challenge in the first place.
2. Defend this bullshit with actual evidence, (as has been promised so many
times).
I'll send the next batch after I've got some indication that you're actually
reading these things. You are supposed to be contesting me you know.
Aron-Ra
Dunno
On 14 Aug 2001, Aron-Ra wrote:
> Here's the next batch. The one after this should be amusing. But I'm not
> going to do anything with it until Muscat speaks up.
>
[snip]
Damn. That took some effort to read. I think a thank you is
appropriate. Thank you. I also nominate the two parter
for POTM. Message ID's are below.
<Jl4e7.8888$ZM2.8...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
<Os4e7.8613$Kl2.8...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
Can't wait to see Muscat's reply.
.
Fourier
I totally agree. Evolution science only thinks inside their box. They
ignore all unscientific nonsense and stay inside their scientific
mindset. (this is btw the same 'box' that has brought you TVs,
telephones and cars) They make a fool of every person who thinks
outside the box, or in other words anyone who talks unjustified and
unproven nonsense or is incapable of using logic and common sense.
They intimidate that person, laugh with him and exile them out of the
scientific community. This is justified, because else the public might
get the impression that there is actually a 'debate' about whether
evolution is true. Ofcourse there isn't. There is only debate about
exactly *how* it works. It also makes sure that people new to the area
of science learn that unscientific nonsense isn't tolerated and that
they should use logic and produce tangible evidence for their claims.
This saves a lot of time and greatly increases the efficiency of
research. Good point.
Fourier
J Forbes
I second.
I don't expect a Muscat reply.
Jim
Ronald Okimoto
Aron-Ra wrote:
> Here's the next batch. The one after this should be amusing. But I'm not
> going to do anything with it until Muscat speaks up.
>
> 61. "They use circular reasoning to establish this claim to authority.
> Those who reason inside the box are intellectually elite and those outside
> the box are intellectually dishonest".
>
Snip:
When do you think that Steve Muscat will respond like he promised?
Ron Okimoto