Posted on 12/11/2009 8:50:14 PM PST by Phileleutherus Franciscus
The short description is over zealous self righteousness. It is the same force that tears churches apart.
Not necessarily. Most of what evos believe to be "evidence" for evolution, per se, has nothing actually to do with evolution. It requires a philosophical pre-acceptance of the evolutionary paradigm, before it becomes "apparent" that such evidence really, truly constitutes evidence.
For example, take genetics. Evos assume that the very existence of genetics is "proof" for evolution. It is not. Genetics is simply a mechanism - it makes no claims about origins. One must first accept the a priori assumption of evolution before genetic evidence qualifies as "evidence." No evolutionist has, or even can, demonstrate that macroevolution actually exists from genetic evidences, to the detriment of creationist arguments involving microevolution and so forth.
Another example would be the radiometric dating techniques relied upon to give extremely old ages for rock layers. The problem with this, conceptually, is that it relies upon assumptions about the "starting condition" of rocks (no initial daughter nuclei, impermeability to argon, etc.) that are specious at best, and at worst have actually been proven through repeatable laboratory experimentation to be false. Essentially, radiometric dating methods, in and of themselves, are just tools. Yes, radioactivity exists, yes it is for the most part constant in rate (though there is evidence which suggests this to not always be the case), but no, we cannot rely upon the spurious assumptions made by evolutionists who require these assumptions so as to make their long-age dates "work." You simply cannot assume, for instance, that in K-Ar dating there is no initial argon present, even in a newly-formed rock, since we know through observation that this is not the case. Yet, evos make this assumption because to not do so would suddenly make their zircons not 200 million years old.
Hence, evos rely upon a lot of mythology that they have built up for themselves, but which is not obvious if one does not pre-accept the underlying philosophical substrate. Simply having a large body of "evidence" means nothing if that "evidence" is all internally self-referential, but externally spurious.
“using the word *is*.”
Oh, please no....let us not discuss what the meaning of “is” is.
“I merely stated an opinion based on casual observation.”
I give up. I believe your true motive in bringing up such a meaningless, unsubstantiated point was to say “My team is smarter than your team” without actually addressing the relevant specifics.
But just like you, I have no way to substantiate that claim.
......and yet they find them......
They are like litter on the hiway. They clutter up the forum
[[The fact that a number of “evos” remain does not, in fact, provide supporting evidence for your claim that Pistolshot being zotted for clashing with the anti-evos is “a bunch of bull”.]]
Hmmm- your claim seems ot change as much as hte weather- your first clai mwas that he was banned for ‘disagreeing with ‘hard core Christians’ (and apaprently ‘hard-core Christians’ means anyone that takes God at his word, and beleives His word is exactly what He said it was, inspired by the Holy Spirit workign through man to record His words)- Now your claim has evolved into “Clashing with ‘anti-evos’? Again- there’s a big difference between ‘clashing with’ and harassing- as explained in previous post
[[Sometimes yes, sometimes no. PatrickHenry, the keeper of the Evolution Ping List, was zotted after not even having posted at ALL for a few months. Just out of the blue, “zot”.]]
I donm’t know what went on back when FR was first founded- I only know what I have witnessed over the last few years- and I’ve noticed that those hwo get zotted here now have been asked repeatedly by both posters, and mods to stop engaging in harasment- they either refuse, and keep right on, or keep on while also antagonizing and harrrasing the mods, and after repeated warnings, get exactly what they apparently wanted- banned.
[[Several other prominent “evos” were just flushed from time to time for no obvious reason, often after several days of posting nothing in any way objectionable.]]
‘No obvious reason’ eh? Gee- what an awful site FR must be- but methinks if one investigates your claim, we’ll see that they infact werenot banned for ‘no obvious reason’ at all, but rather because they were infact consistantly engaged in the type of harrassment I listed in previous post
[[And, often quite explicitly, it has been made clear that arguing for evolutionary biology or pointing out the flaws in arguments given for various kinds of “anti-evo” is, in itself, considered as “continually antagonize the owners or mods”.]]
Really? Wow- This really is an awful site- Discussing evolution is a banning offense- Golly, I wonder if al lthose who infact do post about evolution realize they are banned? By the way- Jim has explicitely stated that he isn’t sure, but thinks God may have used evolution, and that he is fascinated by science and discoveries in science- I wodner- why would he then ban anyone that posts evolution science?
[[How many examples would you like me to cite where those positions are described as being “anti-Christian”, “Marxist”, “unAmerican”, “unconservative”, and so on?]]
You won’t cite any of my posts saying anythign even remotely akin to those- and I’m confident you won’t find any posts by mods or Jim saying anythign liek that either- as for other posters saying htose htings- are you suggesting that they engage in that rhetoric unprovoked?
[[Which, coincidentally, is the same day several “pro-evo” long-time posters, including Pistolshot, got zotted? Just a coincidence, CottShop? So you say it’s “a bunch of bull” still?]]
Nope- not coincidence- Those folks were repeatedly asked to tone down hteir rhetoric and to stop engaging in harrassment- they chose to ignore the warnings- and some of htose zotted were engaged in trollish behavior- insultign Christians behind their backs with cowardly key word spamming, trying to dictate where Jim allow science articles in favor of Creation be allowed to be posted, on and on it goes- so no- it wasn’t ‘just a coincidence’- they wanted to play martrye- they got their wish- I guess if you want somethign badly enough, you’ll eventually get it by ignoring the repeated warnigns.
[[Don’t try to tell me there’s a level playing field here and the only consideration for zotting is whether someone is being a major jerk regardless of their “side”.]]
That’s exactyl what I’m telling you- there are levels of ‘jerkish behavior’ and most of those zotted have cosntantly engaged i nthe worst kind-
There’s never goign to be a ‘truce’- nor shoudl there be- even in the scientific comunity- however, there are certain levels of antagonizism which shouldn’t be tolorated, and quite frankly, a grreat many people had hoped that those who engaged in such behavior would have toned it down to a dull yell, but after years of hoping, it was very apaprent that they were not goign to- now they have a site DC wherer they can yell, snort and scream to hteir heart’s content, and claim to be the ‘poor victims of the ‘hard-core Christians’, while hteir fellow compatriots slap them on the back and comfort them-
[[That used to be true several years ago when I posted far more frequently. It’s not the case now. Some sides of the debate are more equal than others when it comes to being given slack for rude behavior or kept on a shorter leash.]]
Let’s see- I recall many threads in which Christian retorts were pulled while the evo insults were allowed to remain despite repeatedly askign hte mods to be consistant and zot both side’s posts- so nope- sorry- your claim simply isn’t true
[[Look, it’s Jim’s site and he can run it any way he wants. I’m not even complaining.]]
you’re not? Hmmmm- seems to me that’s all you’ve done- making general claims that you haven’t provided proof to support, and insinuating that everyone who gets banned was banned unfairly and for no ‘apparent reason’, which the evidence shows simply isn’t true.
[[But don’t try to tell me that what I say is “a bunch of bull” when I dare to observe the way things are.]]
I certainly will say it’s a bunch of bull when the facts wshow that things aren’t quite as you imagine them to be. Look- both sides feel slighted- always have, always will- it would be nice to have a truce- and for ‘heated dissagreements’ to be mostly respectful and conciderate- but you and I both know that will never happen, but let’s not pretend those who get zotted were zotted for ‘no apparent reason’. I agree- Christians shoudl not be generalizing that evos are ‘nazis’ ‘or ‘all atheists’, or that they all ‘hate God’, and I certainly don’t approve of anyoen doign that- but the fact is that those makign htose claims are NOT engaging in the the level of harrassment that got peopel that you named banned, nor were they actively following around certain posters in a trollish manner looking to derail al ltheir threads, and on and on it goes. Again- there’s a differecne between heated, passionate defense of one’s position, and crossing htel ine to trollish behavior, and many of htose mentioend enga\ged in such activity.
Well said, GW
“Most of what evos believe to be “evidence” for evolution, per se, has nothing actually to do with evolution. It requires a philosophical pre-acceptance of the evolutionary paradigm, before it becomes “apparent” that such evidence really, truly constitutes evidence.”
What did you just say?
“Evos assume that the very existence of genetics is “proof” for evolution.”
I don’t know how you could possibly make this claim - or if you insist on making it how you could exclude anything, including genetics as proof of just about anything.
“No evolutionist has, or even can, demonstrate that macroevolution actually exists from genetic evidences, to the detriment of creationist arguments involving microevolution and so forth.”
Nor have they tried. They’ve made observations, taken data, and openly presented conclusions, as science requires. No creationist has presented any data refuting the evolution data - so the theory stands. If you present Genesis, then you are entering a whole different arena than science.
As for the rest of your post.....the science is not nearly so tenuous as you claim. Nonetheless, it is openly presented and is subject to modification as better data comes along. Nobody has ever been able to demonstrate the mechanism by which radiometric dating is “wrong” - rather there has been much research on the error margins, but nothing substantiated that would make it completely wrong.
You assume that science would not accept such a sea change if such were to come to pass. You assume that there is such calcification in the beliefs of scientists that they would refuse to look at new findings, should they appear.
You are wrong about that, to be sure.
NOOOOOO!!!! NOT that!
I believe your true motive in bringing up such a meaningless, unsubstantiated point was to say “My team is smarter than your team” without actually addressing the relevant specifics.
No, more to counter the “My team is smarter than your team” comments that creationists regularly hear on the basis of being creationist alone. Not everyone who claims to be a creationist doesn't have any problems with what is referred to as *creation science*. For example, no way the Grand Canyon was carved out by the Flood. Fluid flow and currents and eddies don't carve with that kind of deifintion that quickly.
Evos are not inherently smarter than the rest of us simply because of their stand on the ToE.
And all the derision and accusations of not understanding science are unwarranted because there are non-evos with science degrees, especially when the criticisms come from someone who admits that they have no education or practical experience in science.
Thanks Phil...
Merry Christmas Pistolshot. I know what you speak of - FR has changed. The Soldiers are are always at hand. Take care, my friend.
Having lurked a little on these threads this appears to be a statement that can be said from both sides of this debate.
“And all the derision and accusations of not understanding science are unwarranted because there are non-evos with science degrees, especially when the criticisms come from someone who admits that they have no education or practical experience in science.”
We took a circuitous route to agreement, but apparently we have reached it.
[[I see lots and lots of different opinions every single day here. There is *never* a problem unless they are moonbattery or abusive. Period.]]
Exactly, and certain folks have outright admitted to angaging in trollish behavior, and have got what they apaprently wanted- a big fat zot- As you said- there’s nothign wrong with heated debates, even with namecalling durign hte heat of battle, and a great many such threads are actually entertaining and elightening and worth reading, and have never been a problem for either side- but there is a line that passes over into abuse- habitual and incessant abuse which needs to be dealt with because such cosntant abuse makes it uncomfortable for everyone.
[[And one of the reasons I’m here, on the single most decent public forum on the web IMO, is *exactly* because decent, conservative adults can talk about serious and silly things without the raucus,mind-numbingly crass nonsense you see on other sites.]]
Bingo- Yep- threads occassionaly get heated, silly, and even antagonistic here, however, as you correctly point out, people generally get htigns off their chest, and it;s over with in fairly short order- but on other sites, like you mention, it’;s nothign but a cosntant ongoing, midnumbingly crass nonsense that drives people away, or prevents them from posting for fear of being targetted by cosntant vitriol and nasty remarks- it’s like jumping into a pond full of pirranah’s while yo’re bleeding. FR certainly doesn’t rise to that level of mindnumbingly crass antagonism despite hte repeated claims by peopel from htose sites that do rise to that level
Try here.
Or here.
There are others, by other posters, if you look.
Cheers!
[[OH...... I think I am starting to see the light..... there is a Flame War transpiring between the Creationists on FR, versus the Darwinians who exist on some other entirely different board, and they are saying meanie things about FR?]]
Yep- Not sure ya wanna venture there- as it’s not simply ‘mean’ but quite nasty- the whoel site was set up as a grudge agaisnt FR site by folks just like hte poster of htis thread who had an ax to grind agaisnt FR and Christians. They monitor threads on FR, and then engage in a shark feedign frenzy ridiculing, maligning, and insulting certain posters from FR o nthat site cosntantly, and when one of their kind gets banned or called to the carpet here on FR- the rest of their crowd gets pinged to FR by certain posters here, and the feeding frenzy spills over to FR from their site-
Cheers!
:-)
Sure, Bubba. If that's what you got out of my post take it and run with it.
I said that much of what evos adduce as "evidence" for their construct is not, at least not to someone who doesn't accept their a priori assumptions.
Basically, if we wish to adopt the "strict" definition of science - you know, observation, leading to theories, tested by further experimentation and observation, etc. - then neither evolution nor creationism qualify. Both necessarily rely upon circumstantial evidences. Not that this necessarily disqualifies something from being scientifically approachable. After all, the only reason we think electrons exist is because of circumstantial inference. Yet, I doubt any of us here would doubt their existence.
Likewise, evolutionists utilise circumstantial evidences - fossils, "genetic archaeology," etc. - to argue for evolution. These evidences can, and have been, argued against by creationists on evidentiary grounds. Sure, evolutionists don't accept the arguments and interpretations of the data presented by creationists, but that is a philosophical, not scientific, issue.
I don’t know how you could possibly make this claim - or if you insist on making it how you could exclude anything, including genetics as proof of just about anything.
I doubt very much that anyone would entertain the notion of genetics as proof of gravity or ballistics. Go back and re-read what I said, because I don't think you got it.
Nor have they tried. They’ve made observations, taken data, and openly presented conclusions, as science requires. No creationist has presented any data refuting the evolution data - so the theory stands. If you present Genesis, then you are entering a whole different arena than science.
Well, yes they have (not even relying on Genesis!). Obviously, on philosophical grounds evos don't accept them, but so what? Your statements leads me to believe that you probably have not even made yourself passingly familiar with creationist literature, which makes me question why you think you're competent to have this discussion to begin with.
As for the rest of your post.....the science is not nearly so tenuous as you claim. Nonetheless, it is openly presented and is subject to modification as better data comes along. Nobody has ever been able to demonstrate the mechanism by which radiometric dating is “wrong” - rather there has been much research on the error margins, but nothing substantiated that would make it completely wrong.
"Openly presented," because, you know, them thar creationists just hide their stuff in secret and don't want anybody to see it so as to argue with it, despite having their own openly published journals and books, and despite openly debating evolutionists on college campuses all across the country. Sure.
Nevertheless, your response about radiometric dating shows, once again, that you share the same failure to come to grips with the arguments against as other evos do. Notice, I never called into question the "mechanism" of radiometric dating, and indeed would not. The problem is not with the "mechanism," the problem is with the operators.
Let me break it down for you quickly (since I have to skedaddle soon) - Conventional evo assumptions about, say, K-Ar dating are that when zircons or other K-bearing rocks are formed, they initially contain NO Ar interstitially. As a result, any argon present is therefore due to radioactive breakdown of K-nuclei, forming daughter Ar nuclei. Hence, then, we can use the ratio of K to Ar, knowing the half-life of the radioactive K nuclei, to determine the age of the rock.
I have no problem with the science underlying this at all.
The problem is with the assumption about initial conditions being made. Indeed, we know from experimentation, and from observation in nature that argon, in fact, can be and often is incorporated into the interstices of these rocks as the rock cools - Ar doesn't necessarily bubble out like it is assumed to. Right there, you have a flaw in your methodology, even if not in your mechanism. A flaw which, btw, will yield artificially old ages, by up to tens or hundreds of millions of years. Hence, the dates obtained by evos from this method are cast into question. Repeatability and obtaining the same ages doesn't qualify as "proof," they merely qualify as "systematic error." the samegeneral type of argument can be made about U-Pb and other types of radiometric methods. Again, the problem is not the mechanism. It isn't that I'm some sort of anti-science fanatic who rejects the existence of radioactivity. The problem is that I am criticising false assumptions and methodological sloppiness on the part of evos - people who would rather stick their fingers in their ears than consider the possibility that the methods that yield such convenient dates for them may be systematically in error due to their own faulty starting assumptions.
You assume that science would not accept such a sea change if such were to come to pass. You assume that there is such calcification in the beliefs of scientists that they would refuse to look at new findings, should they appear.
You are wrong about that, to be sure.
No, I never made nor articulated such an assumption, at least not about "science." Now, a certain subset of scientists, I would do so. Even if somebody invented a time machine, went back 6,000 years, photographed Noah riding on a brontosaurus, and presented it for authentification to a panel of photographic experts, I doubt that evolutionist scientists would accept it at all. Because of their philosophical presuppositions, which hinder then from actual scientific thought.
[[It can be *enormously* trying to try to debate, or to teach people, who don’t want to learn.
Having lurked a little on these threads this appears to be a statement that can be said from both sides of this debate]]
Precisely=- these folks weren’t simply just ‘tryign to teach’ despite their feigned innocence- they were tryign to throw out claims, and when counter claims and evidneces were presented, they took offense, and started i nwith the name calling and pot-shot insults. Their ‘teaching’ was nothing more than ‘if you dissagree, then you’re not a ‘real scientist’ (or student of science), and we’ apaprently ‘don’t udnerstand the science’ IF we happen to question the claims’ because the claism violate the science that is suppsoed to support the claims. Then htey further insult us by claiming they were ‘attacked for simply tryign to ‘teach us’ the science- Their level of insulting is a bit more sophistiocated and veiled, but it’s just as nasty and insulting- make no mistake bout that.
That was wonderfully written. I do not know pistolshot or wacka, but I’m sorry to lose them over something like this. I’m going thru something similar with the lefties in my band.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.