ID/Creationism - How fast were extinctions?

[AOK Tiger]

DR A,

I don't think that Nick has ever been deliberately unfair in this thread --- he's been accidentally insulting, but that's a different thing altogether. He's OK.

I know where you are coming from here (I went through it myself at Theologyonline for a year).

Guys like Nick seem genuine “good guys” and I am sure outside of their YEC/anti evolution myopia they are. But…

Nick obviously is not stupid. He clearly is able to think somewhat critically. Therefore his refusal to understand the impossibility of something like the flood and the obviousness of an Old earth and Evolution MUST border on (if not outright be) a LIE !

If he is lying or at best prevaricating he is NOT “OK”.

I can understand “belief” and how you can hang on to it regardless of logic and proof (or even likeliness) but I cannot sanction adherence to something so ridiculous as YEC beliefs. YEC beliefs are completely debunked with the briefest exercise in research (10 minutes at talkorigins would do the trick).

Therefore anyone but a complete moron who still believes in YEC MUST be either lying to us or themselves.

This may sound harsh but ask yourself how much leeway you allow for people to have ridiculous beliefs.. if they go beyond this limit (and YEC certainly does that for me) my tolerance for them declines rapidly !

 

[Ashles]

This may sound harsh but ask yourself how much leeway you allow for people to have ridiculous beliefs.. if they go beyond this limit (and YEC certainly does that for me) my tolerance for them declines rapidly !

Ahh you have reminded me of the Help me... I am intolerant thread from a while back.

That was a fun one.

Remember Ian's great quote about psychics solving crime:

And I would like to see your evidence that they have never solved a crime.

Happy days.
We laughed more. People sang in the street.

 

[AOK Tiger]

Ashles,

You nailed me.. here I was trying to be consoling.. in truth I am an intolerant bastard.

Hehe..

Not really .. the simple fact is I have argued with some theologians who DO make sense.. but in every case they have abandoned the ridiculous mainstream religions versions of God for something that does fit with what we KNOW rather than what we WISH.

I YEARN for just one WOO or YEC that is worth the effort of arguing with.. but.. without fail they never cease to disappoint !

Although she eventually fell into the same general pattern they usually do I found someone like “Turtle” a good example of a worthy arguer.. she actually gave personal testimony, supported it in her own way and even showed signs of testing it. Even the arguments she rejected she at least understood !

 

[Dr Adequate]

Nick obviously is not stupid. He clearly is able to think somewhat critically. Therefore his refusal to understand the impossibility of something like the flood and the obviousness of an Old earth and Evolution MUST border on (if not outright be) a LIE !

If he is lying or at best prevaricating he is NOT “OK”.

But the same reasoning could be applied more generally, in which case YEC is just a Great Big Conspiracy Of Lies. You can pick the flaws out of that yourself, you're a skeptic.

But in fact I think that people like Nick have followed your reasoning very closely. Probably he has thought: "Here is a YEC pamphlet; it is written by someone obviously intelligent: therefore he is either telling the truth or deliberately lying". Nick can then cross off the Conspiracy Theory just as well as I can: if he then follows your reasoning, he can conclude that the pamphlet is telling the truth. And then he himself, in good faith, can pass on what's in the pamphlet...

The false dichotomy that you put forward --- that intelligent people (as judged by their prose) must be telling the truth or deliberately lying --- is a supporting argument for almost every sincerely held false belief. Now put it down.

 

[AOK Tiger]

Dr A,

But in fact I think that people like Nick have followed your reasoning very closely. Probably he has thought: "Here is a YEC pamphlet; it is written by someone obviously intelligent: therefore he is either telling the truth or deliberately lying". Nick can then cross off the Conspiracy Theory just as well as I can: if he then follows your reasoning, he can conclude that the pamphlet is telling the truth. And then he himself, in good faith, can pass on what's in the pamphlet...

I see your reasoning but it misses a critical point.

Corroboration.

Any one who accepts anything without corroboration is asking for trouble. Any one who accepts “fantastic” stories without corroboration is either stupid or deliberately fooling themselves.

You CANNOT corroborate anything in YEC literature outside of other YEC literature. You are lying to at least yourself if you don’t attempt to find expert scientific corroboration of your story.

Without fail there is NO substantive corroboration of any YEC claims. You would have to be a simpleton or a liar to fail to see the scientific impossibility of YEC claims.

When you corroborate by saying the old (and I paraphrase a bit here).. “The Bible is the word of God.. I know because the Bible says so”.. you are not worthy of debating the issue.

The false dichotomy that you put forward --- that intelligent people (as judged by their prose) must be telling the truth or deliberately lying --- is a supporting argument for almost every sincerely held false belief. Now put it down.

I would be astounded if these “intelligent” people who hold YEC beliefs have not had huge doubts which they constantly mentally fight against. Fighting against a doubt is just as dishonest as outright lying.

 

[Nex]

Mind if I interject, gentlemen?

Any one who accepts anything without corroboration is asking for trouble. Any one who accepts “fantastic” stories without corroboration is either stupid or deliberately fooling themselves.

Or gullible. Or too trusting. Or naive. Or following the pseudo-logic provided by their current belief system.

You CANNOT corroborate anything in YEC literature outside of other YEC literature. You are lying to at least yourself if you don’t attempt to find expert scientific corroboration of your story.

But YEC scientists ARE scientists!

Well, you and I know they're most certainly not, but there are those that do think so. They don't know to look beyond the creation "science" because to them it's the same as real science.

Without fail there is NO substantive corroboration of any YEC claims. You would have to be a simpleton or a liar to fail to see the scientific impossibility of YEC claims.

Not necessarily true, especially if one already believes in invisible ghosties or an omnimax daddy in the sky. If there's a great invisible man in the clouds who gave us all life and breath, of what else might he be capable? Why, YEC would be nothing to such a being!

When you corroborate by saying the old (and I paraphrase a bit here).. “The Bible is the word of God.. I know because the Bible says so”.. you are not worthy of debating the issue.

Well... anyone's worthy, in my opinion, of debating the issue. Just because they use circular reasoning doesn't mean they themselves are stupid or crazy or anything like that. I actually debated this (YEC) with a classmate who used this line of circular thought to defend his belief, and when I pointed out that it was circular, he dropped it. He may still believe in the Bible, but he saw why circular logic isn't a reason to believe something.
It's all one baby step at a time, don'cha know.

I would be astounded if these “intelligent” people who hold YEC beliefs have not had huge doubts which they constantly mentally fight against. Fighting against a doubt is just as dishonest as outright lying.

Here, I agree 100%. Ignoring your own doubts is kind of like ignoring your own hunger -- after a while, it'll really catch up to you.



You know, understanding the other side of the debate isn't knowing what they might say, it's knowing why they say it. Just a not-so-random thought...

 

[songstress]

Bible

I used to have a nuisance Jehovah's Witness come a-knocking at my door. When I challenged him to scientific proof, he claimed that he was a fully-trained chemist.

I never did resolve it.


Patsy.

 

[farmermike]

you know, understanding the other side of the debate isn't knowing what they might say, it's knowing why they say it. Just a not-so-random thought...

I've sometimes seen preachers hold the bible over their head and say "we are under the bible not the bible is under us.Given that ultimate authority,evidence of man as a random product of nature and not created in god's image has to be discounted.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Farmermike --- that would be a great time to point out to the preacher that as he does not have magic powers, calling something "the ultimate authority" and holding it over his head will not magically make it true.

---

AT --- the fact is that we don't check everything we read, and usually we don't need to. The YECs who write the propaganda are undoubtedly culpable, but how far should we blame the people who swallow it?

Unfortuanately, the people who swallow it then go on to write the tracts.

---

We must not suppose that creationists are factually inaccurate because they are creationists --- rather, they are creationists because they lack accurate facts, and lack the skills, the motivation, the intelligence, the degree of conscienciousness, or the time, to attain that accuracy.

When a creationist swallows creationism, it is because he has been perfectly satisfied with tales of imaginary "laws of nature", and imaginary "facts", and because he can see for himself the flaws in the imaginary "theory of evolution" that he's read about in religious tracts. It does not occur to him that if the theory of evolution is as creationists claim, this could and should be shown by reference to the writings of biologists; nor does he feel the need of a reference to a physics textbook to back up made-up laws of thermodynamics, a made-up law of cause and effect, and so forth.

If and when such a man comes to write his own book, he will perpetuate these standards in his own writing. Lacking still those qualities of mind necessary either to do, or to wish to do, research, he will not bother to check the truth or falsehood of what he's repeating any more than he did when he first accepted it.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Any one who accepts anything without corroboration is asking for trouble. Any one who accepts “fantastic” stories without corroboration is either stupid or deliberately fooling themselves.

Well, here's a fantastic story for you: the Earth is whizzing through space revolving on its axis as it goes. I take it you believe that? How much time have you spent looking for corroboration?

I think most people wouldn't be able to give you any clear arguments for a Copernican or against a Ptolamaic solar system: are they "either stupid or deliberately fooling themselves"?

I would be astounded if these “intelligent” people who hold YEC beliefs have not had huge doubts which they constantly mentally fight against. Fighting against a doubt is just as dishonest as outright lying.

They don't come across as being wracked by self-doubt. And if they've never seen any evidence which conflicts with their beliefs, and if they see lots of made-up stuff which affirms their beliefs, why should they be?

This is the role of YEC pamphlets --- they act as a sort of packing material to protect fragile illusions.

 

[Ashles]

This is the role of YEC pamphlets --- they act as a sort of packing material to protect fragile illusions.

Dr A, in case I haven't mentioned it before, you really do have a lovely turn of phrase in some of your posts.


Now a short lesson in YEC education, and why YEC believers behave like they do.
It even has pictures.

It features the ever fascinating and semi-legendary Jack Chick who, for those who don't know, is an aging cartoonist who tries to express fundemantalist Christian values through the medium of cartoons.
Extremely offensive, racist, homophobic, ignorant cartoons.
But cartoons that are (and this is important to remember) astonishingly popular.

In a nutshell, this is the kind of information presented to people who want to believe in Christian fundamentalism and it demonstrates wonderfully how seductive and sort of true sounding their 'facts' appear to be, if you don't have a scientific education, or can't be bothered to actually check facts.

(I apologise in advance to all the many posters who already know all about this awful man and his offensive cartoons).

This cartoon (or 'tract') is what some fundamentalists would believe is how evolution works (or rather doesn't work).

It demonstrates how little research they are prepared to do, how easy it is to provide misinformation and facts taken out of context, but, most importantly, how easy it is to mislead people with a confident sounding tone.

Here are some of the actual scientific facts. All I ask is that people compare the two.

If anyone after reading both comes away still believing the fundamentalist point of view... well do you think they could ever possibly be persuaded otherwise?

The linked parody of 'Big Daddy' is superb, but the link rarely seems to work.

 

[songstress]

Evolution

This also purports the view that we (i.e. 'man') is descended from monkeys when we clearly are not.

I was interested by the cartoon 'Big Daddy', in which the student informs the science master that 'since whales lost their legs, and this loss formed into muscles, it can't be as a result of evolution.' Oh yes it can! Evolution not only adds things, it takes them away according to environment and adaptation e.g. we 'lost' our tails when we began to walk upright. Even today, babies born with tails is not an unknown phenomena.

Moreover, in some cases, there is not a transgressional link between the divergence of one species to another, or within the same species. Sometimes there is a huge leap.

The other fact that was pointed out in the cartoons was the 'embyonic gills.' Gills are a vestige of our 'fishy' pasts yet grow into ear bones and form parts of the upper respiritory tract. It is how our species evolved and what it retains from our early ancestors. The student was right, but Mr Chick resolved this by linking it to religion when it should clearly have been scientific.

I cannot think of any argument that Mr Chick put forward in his arguments that cannot be explained by the science of evolution.

Patsy.

 

[drkitten]

Re: Evolution

This also purports the view that we (i.e. 'man') is descended from monkeys when we clearly are not.

Let's be fair, here. Suppose that I were to travel in time umpteen million years and find an example of a most recent common ancestor between humans and old world monkeys.

What do you think such a creature would look like? Would it have binocular vision? Would be be arboreal? Would it have scales? Would it have "hands" or paws?

If I were to donate my specimen to the London Zoo, where would the curators house it? Would it be with the pachyderms? With the giant cats? With the small invertebrates?

On the basis that anything that a zoo curator puts in the monkey house is a monkey, I'd be very inclined to call the most recent common ancestor of humans and old world monkeys a monkey.

 

[steenkh]

Re: Re: Evolution

On the basis that anything that a zoo curator puts in the monkey house is a monkey, I'd be very inclined to call the most recent common ancestor of humans and old world monkeys a monkey.

You are right, but the point is that this monkey would look differently from other monkeys. When people protest against the idea of man evolving from "monkeys", part of the image is existing monkeys developing into humans. When it is clear that we are talking monkey-like creatures that have some things in common with both monkeys and humans, a little bit of the protest will disappear.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I don't know that so many people protest this nowadays.

I would, however expect any self-respecting monkey to protest most indignantly.

 

[songstress]

Monkeys

Steenkh,

You are right. The link between humans and apes (indeed, we are a member of the primates) is a thin one, but a divergence is nevertheless there. Monkeys and man are not the same. In earlier times, there were creatures that resembled apes but were in fact hominids e.g. homo erectus, Australopithecus, etc. It was several million years before homo sapiens evolved. The apes branch of the primates evolved in their own ways. Homo erectus didn't live in trees but was a peripatetic 'traveller.'

Patsy.

 

[songstress]

Evolution

For Nick Harman -

Yes, I do believe in God, but as something akin to nature, not as a 'creator.'

No, I'm not going to elaborate, so don't ask.

Patsy.

 

[Phaycops]

Aw, darn it. Nick appears to have run away. Drat.

Sorry, I couldn't let this thread die without at least trying to resurrect it!

Any other creationists out there with questions? We're ready and willing!

 

[Dr Adequate]

I've got to admit I'm really disappointed.

 

[songstress]

Bible

I will say this - that Judeo-Christian and Islamic culture has arguably given us a wealth of great art and music. Who can fail to be roused by the chords of Handel's 'Messiah' and 'Solomon and Sheba', or the strains of Haydn's 'The Creation' or Stainer's 'Crucifixion'?

Patsy.