Creationism - what have we learned?

pH

Scofflaw wrote:

Actually, the thread does a good job (in my opinion) of showing how ridiculous the Creationist 'case' is, and JC is a major player in that.

I think quite the opposite.

Just take J C's latest "Rhinos are a kind of 'devolved' Triceratops" claim.

This actually takes us on a very interesting journey of discovery - how many people understand the synapomorphies of dinosaurs and could intelligently explain why the claim is ridiculous?

While many of us have a knee-jerk or gut reaction "He's wrong", how many of us actually understand why - on all the points he's raised? That's why the thread is so fascinating, and why you can learn so much from it, everything from physics, astronomy, geology, maths, statistics, biology etc. etc.

There is so much to be learned from that thread, both from posters knowledgeable in certain areas (such as yourself) and from using his claims as a starting point to find out the truth for oneself.

Son Goku

JimiTime wrote:

which is really what I'm saying. All this 'I post there to out JC's lies' or 'So that a new reader can see it for what it is', is nonsense IMO. I don't believe people post there out of concern for others, in case they're taken in by JC etc. If that was the case, they would have let that thread die long ago.

What's the real reason we do it then? You aren't leading up to the "because we know the truth in our hearts" response are you?
I learned good deal of geology from Scofflaw's posts, interesting sociological stuff from robindch's posts, e.t.c. In truth I post because I love explaining things and I enjoy how random JC can be. (He's actually a nice old soul at root I guess, he's just funny.) There's a lot of humour in the thread.

Overall definitely worth the time.

As for what I've learned:
1. Certain people have the ability to reboot from start. After acquiring new information, the will purposefully forget it and repeat some slogan. I don't know how many times I've explained the Big Bang and a week later get "how could nothing explode!".
2. People think the ridiculous or the unimaginable don't actually occur. If something sounds over complicated or bizarre, then that thing is wrong.

Galvasean

pH wrote:

I think quite the opposite.

Just take J C's latest "Rhinos are a kind of 'devolved' Triceratops" claim.

This actually takes us on a very interesting journey of discovery - how many people understand the synapomorphies of dinosaurs and could intelligently explain why the claim is ridiculous?

*Raises hand*
I showed pictures and everything

JimiTime

Son Goku wrote:

What's the real reason we do it then?

I think you enjoy showing what you know, and JC gives you the opportunity to take the high ground. As I said, I don't think its as some have said, because of concern for people getting mislead by JC's 'lies'. IMO. Its obvious you enjoy it. Then you see posts about JC being an idiot etc, and thats disingenuous IMO. If that is truly the feeling, then one would not be replying. You are basically saying he is a 5 year old, and then proceeding to argue your points with him. You either proceed in debate with him and accept that you enjoy it, or you call him an idiot and cease correspondance. Thats the way I see it anyway.

You aren't leading up to the "because we know the truth in our hearts" response are you?

Ehhh, no.

I learned good deal of geology from Scofflaw's posts,

Good reason to post there so.

In truth I post because I love explaining things and I enjoy how random JC can be. (He's actually a nice old soul at root I guess, he's just funny.)

thats really what I'm saying. You like showing people the things you have learned, and you basically laugh at JC. If one really thought he was an idiot, you would not be frustrated etc, because you would expect nothing more from an idiot.

There's a lot of humour in the thread.

indeed, the funniest bit for me is that some who call JC an idiot, give a massively long reply to his posts? I always laugh at that. Sometimes I really think, 'who's the idiot'. Or is it that they don't believe he is an idiot, they just resort to name calling in frustration?

And for the record. I have learned I'm not a creationist. i always assumed that a creationist was someone who believed in creation, which I do. That thread showed me that it is something alot more!

Sangre

'Never argue with an idiot, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience'

That thread is 6000 posts of people arguing at JC not with him. Every 2 weeks he'll come up with a claim, it will be de-bunked and he'll drop it then suddenly he'll use it again 2 weeks later. I remember he did it to myself on the point of 'legally' being a scientist. After explaining what he was saying was a nonsense he seems to have accepted this however he used the claim again 2 weeks later to add weight to his arguement. When challenging him on what we discussed he replied that we had agreed in his favour. Wtf?

Another classic is his 'muck to man' claim.

stevejazzx

The Atheist wrote:

stevejazzx, that's too much of a damning generalisation for my liking. Whatever about the creationism thread, here isn't the place for rants about a whole forum and it's members, even if you feel you can't take your arguments over to Christianity.
Remember the charter if you would.

Sorry about that...I was going to delete it and and rephrase but after a couple of re-reads and being completely honest with myself, everything I described i.e. withdrawing from difficult arguments, the attempt to turn the forum into a chrsitian only forum and the incredible lack of knowledge regrading their own religon (I highlighted that there were exceptions) everything was true, 100% true and each point could be backed up with countless examples.
I will however endeavour to express my indifference more diplomatically henceforth....

JimiTime

stevejazzx wrote:

the attempt to turn the forum into a chrsitian only forum

wen did that happen?

pinksoir

Many people read that thread without actually posting. It is good to see two sides of the debate in action as this allows the reader to make up their own mind about the topic.

If you would care to take a quick gander over at the conspiracy theory thread you would see that much the same process goes on there. One person argues for the truth of a conspiracy giving what they consider to be supporting evidence, and then another person, usually someone who has some knowledge of the science behind what is being discussed, will put forward their explanation, more often than not debunking the conspiracy.

Now, while I don't post in that forum either, I still read it for much the same reason I read the thread on Creationism. And after all, creationism is much the same as any conspiracy theory; it is argued for by people who

a) don't (even attempt to ) understand modern science, and
b) want something to support their belief system so badly that they will simply overlook or dismiss anything that doesn't fit in

Yes, I have learned that creationism is the greatest conspiracy theory of them all.

Tar.Aldarion

A while ago, not too long, it was in the feedback forum wasn't it?

JimiTime

Sangre wrote:

'Never argue with an idiot, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience'

Always liked that quote.

That thread is 6000 posts of people arguing at JC not with him.

Hmmm. Not sure if thats not just a play on words.

Every 2 weeks he'll come up with a claim, it will be de-bunked and he'll drop it then suddenly he'll use it again 2 weeks later.

OK, but surely if that happens, and its brought to his attention, then he does it again, and it is brought to his attention again. the next time he does it, should he not just be ignored?Example:

'The world is flat because a and b.'

'No its not, because your a and b are not correct and here is why, and further more here is how we know its round.'.
A week on:

'The world is flat because of a and b.'

'Sorry, maybe u missed the reply last time but here it goes again.'

1 week later.

'the world is flat because a and b'

'Tea anyone'

I remember he did it to myself on the point of 'legally' being a scientist. After explaining what he was saying was a nonsense he seems to have accepted this however he used the claim again 2 weeks later to add weight to his arguement. When challenging him on what we discussed he replied that we had agreed in his favour. Wtf?

so why bother? most here seem to be learning from each other, I.E. Son Goku learning from Scoflaw etc.

Another classic is his 'muck to man' claim.

I agree, its a bit of a buzz phrase. But its something i would associate with inanimation to life, which is something that i would argue also. I always took the phrase Muc to man an meaning Inanimate object to life. Which must have occurred from an evolution point of view no? Or is that term just an oversimplification? I might take that over to the dreaded thread:D

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote:

I think you enjoy showing what you know, and JC gives you the opportunity to take the high ground. As I said, I don't think its as some have said, because of concern for people getting mislead by JC's 'lies'. IMO. Its obvious you enjoy it. Then you see posts about JC being an idiot etc, and thats disingenuous IMO. If that is truly the feeling, then one would not be replying. You are basically saying he is a 5 year old, and then proceeding to argue your points with him. You either proceed in debate with him and accept that you enjoy it, or you call him an idiot and cease correspondance. Thats the way I see it anyway.

thats really what I'm saying. You like showing people the things you have learned, and you basically laugh at JC. If one really thought he was an idiot, you would not be frustrated etc, because you would expect nothing more from an idiot.

indeed, the funniest bit for me is that some who call JC an idiot, give a massively long reply to his posts? I always laugh at that. Sometimes I really think, 'who's the idiot'. Or is it that they don't believe he is an idiot, they just resort to name calling in frustration?

Well, there's elements of scratching post/punch bag, of course, but there is also the intellectual challenge. Many of the questions JC poses are those that occur to many non-scientists, and to students approaching science for the first time.

The questions themselves, then, are worth answering, although anyone could ask them. What makes JC an idiot is that he thinks his extremely silly make-believes are the answers, and that he is cunningly asking us because he reckons we don't.

When you answer questions by offering proven knowledge, this is called 'teaching'. The guy who keeps interrupting with nonsense from the back of the class is what's called an 'idiot', even if he was the person who asked the question - indeed, perhaps particularly if he was, and more so if he thinks he's being clever by doing so.

Interestingly, there are a lot of examples of such students in Jack Chick's tracts, but there the 'evilutionist' is invariably dumbfounded or furious. I think JC may see himself as the hero of such a comic strip.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion

JimiTime wrote:

I agree, its a bit of a buzz phrase. But its something i would associate with inanimation to life, which is something that i would argue also. I always took the phrase Muc to man an meaning Inanimate object to life. Which must have occurred from an evolution point of view no? Or is that term just an oversimplification? I might take that over to the dreaded thread:D

It's not like a rock suddenly turned into a rabbit, maybe we should take this to the other thread for a detailed explanation. There is not that much difference between us and a plant, and in teh future a computer(:)) and we are just electrochemical machines.
It is only mysterious when people think that life is some sort of special spark like a soul being put in something.
Read this for a basic start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

5uspect

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

It's not like a rock suddenly turned into a rabbit, maybe we should take this to the other thread for a detailed explanation. There is not that much difference between us and a plant, and in teh future a computer(:)) and we are just electrochemical machines.
It is only mysterious when people think that life is some sort of special spark like a soul being put in something.

Biological computers could be the next big thing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/358822.stm
Especially since us engineers can't be bothered to pull the finger out and cool existing silicon chips properly.

Ekancone

You should NEVER debate with a creationist. It gives them an air of credibility. Dawkins knows this as do most sane evolutionary biologists. Just leave them rot in ignorance.

Tar.Aldarion

Careful not to create something that will become the dominant species on the planet!

Crucifix

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Careful not to create something that will become the dominant species on the planet!

Are you talking about biocomputers or creationists?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

indeed, the funniest bit for me is that some who call JC an idiot, give a massively long reply to his posts? I always laugh at that.

The reason to call JC an idiot is to provoke a response when you have cornered him in a mistake, lie or logic trap.

If you don't he just won't reply to you and ignore your posts until you eventually give up pointing out that he was wrong/lying.

But if you add in the odd insult he seems compelled to reply, but he is still stuck replying to something he doesn't understand and just makes a fool out of his argument. Thus you actually get some what of an acknowledgment that he was talking nonsense to begin with.

Other wise JC would just switch off any time he encounters an argument against Creationism he doesn't understand or cannot counter, which happened for a large chunk of the first hundred pages or so.

At least that's why I do it.

So while it may seem like a sign of frustration it is actually a useful tactic to get him to actually face questions.

Though I'm sure a couple of times it was said in genuine frustration

Son Goku

JimiTime wrote:

I think you enjoy showing what you know, and JC gives you the opportunity to take the high ground.

What? I think we all like talking a bit of science, not demonstrating how much we know in an attempt to show off.
Is that what you are saying, that we like showing off how much we know? I could have read you wrong, but I'm not clear on what you're saying.

Besides, why do you post about how pointless it is for us to post there. Is that not doubly pointless? We post because we like it, why do you care?

JimiTime

Son Goku wrote:

What? I think we all like talking a bit of science, not demonstrating how much we know in an attempt to show off.
Is that what you are saying, that we like showing off how much we know? I could have read you wrong, but I'm not clear on what you're saying.

I would not be certain on such a thing, but I would suspect it from some posters. Could be way off the mark, but i certainly don't believe its done for the benefit and concern of others. i think wat you have said is the best explaination, you enjoy it and you like sharing your knowledge.

Besides, why do you post about how pointless it is for us to post there.

i didn't say that. I challenged the idea that it was somehow a crusade for the good of the people. I think your explaination that you enjoy it, is a more hnest assesment of why you post there. TBH, its not even posting there. its the arguing with JC that I'm talking about. And I'm not even saing if its futile or not. I'm more saying, if you reall think he's an idiot, then why bother rebutting hm again and again and again etc.

We post because we like it,

and thats gr8, but i think you got the wrong end of the stick. i hope the above clears that up.

why do you care?

I'm just a caring kind a guy:D

UU

I know a lot of people bash Richard Dawkins but I think he argues very well. I know he is very outspoken but that is what we need. Why should religion be handled carefully and treated with uttermost respect? Dawkins made this point clearly. I liked his book The God Delusion. It was very interesting and he explained his position well.

Well to answer the question, from what I have learnt about Creationism and Intelligent Design, these positions are extremelly weak and highly flawed. It poses many questions, who designed the designer? And God would have to be very very complex to create something as complex as existence and all. It all leads to an infinite regress. I think Evolution by Natural Selection is the only real alternative. It provides a logical and rational way of explaining life. although much is still unknown about the world, universe and the many life-forms, science is there to discover, explore, uncover. A universe that was designed would be a very different one.

Just my views!!!

Hivemind187

UU wrote:

I know a lot of people bash Richard Dawkins but I think he argues very well. I know he is very outspoken but that is what we need. Why should religion be handled carefully and treated with uttermost respect? Dawkins made this point clearly. I liked his book The God Delusion. It was very interesting and he explained his position well.

Well to answer the question, from what I have learnt about Creationism and Intelligent Design, these positions are extremelly weak and highly flawed. It poses many questions, who designed the designer? And God would have to be very very complex to create something as complex as existence and all. It all leads to an infinite regress. I think Evolution by Natural Selection is the only real alternative. It provides a logical and rational way of explaining life. although much is still unknown about the world, universe and the many life-forms, science is there to discover, explore, uncover. A universe that was designed would be a very different one.

Just my views!!!

They only bash because they either dont understand or are pushing a contrary agenda.

5uspect

Well Dawkins is pretty poor at debating. We've seen that many times. He gets easily flustered by the nonsense thrown at him. That said when he puts pen to paper the results are usually very good.

Hivemind187

5uspect wrote:

Well Dawkins is pretty poor at debating. We've seen that many times. He gets easily flustered by the nonsense thrown at him. That said when he puts pen to paper the results are usually very good.

There is a difference between being flustered (which suggests that he is confused and can't think of an answer) and confused by the illogic and irrational reproaches which are offered to him.

Admitedly though, I prefer to hear him lecture and read his writing than see him in debates.

5uspect

Hivemind187 wrote:

There is a difference between being flustered (which suggests that he is confused and can't think of an answer) and confused by the illogic and irrational reproaches which are offered to him.

Admitedly though, I prefer to hear him lecture and read his writing than see him in debates.

Thats what I mean. You see in the Late Late Show interview where his use of Clark's third law is questioned and the audience completely misunderstand it and it seems like a cheap score for Gerard Casey. Dawkins just gets flustered rather than properly rebuke Casey.

Hivemind187

5uspect wrote:

Thats what I mean. You see in the Late Late Show interview where his use of Clark's third law is questioned and the audience completely misunderstand it and it seems like a cheap score for Gerard Casey. Dawkins just gets flustered rather than properly rebuke Casey.

Trouble is that you cant rebuke something that is utterly crackers - worse still when everyone in the room believes it.

I've had the experience myself during live debates where a point is made that is culturally accepted as truth but is completely nuts - if you try and argue it people snigger and the general tone is that you are barking.

However, I understand what you are saying. That was an awkward moment.

UU

I think it may also may I add, be the general publics understanding of Evolution and Natural Selection. I mean, I have approached normal non even very religious people who seem to think we came from apes, which of course is untrue as both homo sapiens and other apes evolved from a common ancestor.

I am glad to say though that I have not met too many people who would be ridiculous enough to believe in Adam and Eve, the Earth created in 6 days 6000 years ago. But as for the Late Late Show, I dislike that show anyway. I find it to have a very conservative and at times almost rude and bigot audience (especially the time the lesbian couple with a child were on and there were comments like - Those two women should not have the right to raise a child). I can understand Dawkins becoming fustrated on that show. In fairness a lot of the people there had no clue about Evolution and were against him because he was expressing his opinion against religion. Why shouldnt he have the right to speak out? The thing that annoys me is the way religion is always treated with uttermost respect and handled with kids gloves...

Ok, enough of my rant!!!

Galvasean

5uspect wrote:

Thats what I mean. You see in the Late Late Show interview where his use of Clark's third law is questioned and the audience completely misunderstand it and it seems like a cheap score for Gerard Casey. Dawkins just gets flustered rather than properly rebuke Casey.

The phrase 'Too smart for the room' comes to mind.

5uspect

Not smart enough perhaps!

Ekancone

Naaa

Hivemind187

I learned another thing.

Dont raise any questions that are difficult for them to answer without Wicknight and Robindch around for back up

... they get cranky.