The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Irreducibly complex refers to the fact that their correct functioning state could not have arisen by increments, as evolution requires. Most of the parts are needed at once for any sort of function to be done. Some missing parts - the cones, for example - impedes the operation. Others mean no sight at all. For evolution to be true, every part would have to have a value for it to be selected. 99 non-functioning parts can't hang around waiting for the necessary 1 that is needed for them all to be a functioning unit.

As has already been explained to you, that isn't how evolution works. Evolution does not work by adding whole new parts to systems, and traits can hang around doing nothing until a new function is found for them by a shifting environment.

But more to the point irreducibly complex is more an issue of lack of human understand than anything in nature. Every example so far given by Creationists for things that are supposed to be irreducibly complex have been shown not to be by just studying them a bit longer than the Creationists are prepared to do.

Sam Vimes

Wicknight wrote: »

As has already been explained to you, that isn't how evolution works.

As is mostly the case when talking to creationists. To quote Zillah on the A&A forum today, "I think it's quite telling that everyone who disagrees with evolution is unable to correctly explain the theory of evolution".

DaveMaC

Irreducible stupidity.
Oh my blood pressure! Over a thousand pages of back and forth between the rational and the willfully ignorant.
Really, there is nothing to be gained by having a discussion with these people. They do not use the same organ of thought. Beyond establishing their shameful ignorance there is nothing of value here.
Please dont waste your efforts on arguing with these fools, your time and talents would be much better spent on educating the young before these twisted religious zombies contaminate more people with their dark-age thinking.

prinz

DaveMaC wrote: »

Really, there is nothing to be gained by having a discussion with these people. They do not use the same organ of thought. Beyond establishing their shameful ignorance there is nothing of value here.
Please dont waste your efforts on arguing with these fools, your time and talents would be much better spent on educating the young before these twisted religious zombies contaminate more people with their dark-age thinking.

Have you ever read Mein Kampf? It's uncanny. :rolleyes:

Soul Winner

DaveMaC wrote: »

...your time and talents would be much better spent on educating the young before these twisted religious zombies contaminate more people with their dark-age thinking.

Yeah, and while you're at it, make sure to teach them the difference between these two words won't ya? There's a good lad.

Tolerance:

A fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry

Intolerance

Lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.

marco_polo

prinz wrote: »

Have you ever read Mein Kampf? It's uncanny. :rolleyes:

While I would not agree with the tone of the post. Unless ignoring people he didn't agree with was a large part of Hitlers war strategy, then the analogy is hardly apt.

wolfsbane

Sam Vimes said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Irreducibly complex refers to the fact that their correct functioning state could not have arisen by increments, as evolution requires. Most of the parts are needed at once for any sort of function to be done. Some missing parts - the cones, for example - impedes the operation. Others mean no sight at all. For evolution to be true, every part would have to have a value for it to be selected. 99 non-functioning parts can't hang around waiting for the necessary 1 that is needed for them all to be a functioning unit.
The part in bold is not true. Having value is a big help but animals are full of various inefficiencies that, while detrimental to their operation, are not bad enough to get them killed in their given environment. A giraffe does great in Africa where there are high trees but put it in the desert where there are only small bushes and it'll die fairly lively.

I thought natural selection eliminates giraffes in deserts over time? Selection pressure that is supposed to have enabled macroevolution led to long necks, but the animal could have survived as a species without that evolution - is that what you are saying? If not, then would you care to give an example where NS does work?

Also, all you've done is define irreducible complexity, you haven't proven that it's the case. The first "eye" was most likely a single nerve ending that was sensitive to light and this nerve ending gradually became more complex through mutations and natural selection

I'm only giving my non-technical understanding, so better show you a scientific explanation:
Irreducible complexity: some candid admissions by evolutionists
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/admissions.asp

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Vestigial eyes are just that - eyes that degenerated. Loss of information, not proof of non-functioning eyes having evolved toward sight.
That's only one of my examples. What about all the other variations that are all at varying levels of complexity and all suited to their own particular environments. The four-eyed fish is particularly amazing imo.

IC does not mean the eye of a mouse and the eye of a man are the same. It means both incorporate IC mechanisms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
So these scientists were working with the real possibility in their minds that evolution might not be true? That a mature recent creation might be the reality?

Care to show that in their writings?
When testing evolution, these scientists are absolutely working with the real possibility that it might not be true. If they weren't they wouldn't be doing their jobs properly. It's just that over the last 150 years the evidence has become completely insurmountable just like the evidence that the universe is 14 billion years old has become insurmountable. They can work on the contrary idea but they would have to throw out the entirety of human knowledge to date in order to accept it as true.

Thank you. In theory they can doubt, but in reality they can't: It's just that over the last 150 years the evidence has become completely insurmountable...They can work on the contrary idea but

If you look at my example with the fish and you can understand why, if through a mutation a sighted fish gave birth to blind offspring on the surface they would die but if the same fish gave birth to the same offspring in the cave they would not die but would survive and flourish, you will understand how nature "knows" which variations are good for the given environment and you will understand evolution.

I understand that shows natural selection tolerating a loss of function, where that function is no longer needed. I don't see any increase in complexity.

For scientists to seriously consider that evolution does not exist, they would have to pretend that these fish do not exist because they represent compelling evidence that evolution is true

No they don't. See above.

wolfsbane

DaveMaC wrote: »

Irreducible stupidity.
Oh my blood pressure! Over a thousand pages of back and forth between the rational and the willfully ignorant.
Really, there is nothing to be gained by having a discussion with these people. They do not use the same organ of thought. Beyond establishing their shameful ignorance there is nothing of value here.
Please dont waste your efforts on arguing with these fools, your time and talents would be much better spent on educating the young before these twisted religious zombies contaminate more people with their dark-age thinking.

I recognise the symptoms. Substitute atheist for religious and it has been put to me several times that it is pointless debating with atheists/agnostics/evolutionists.

Yes, there comes a time when it is wasteful to engage in further debate - when the opponent has heard the argument often enough but is manifestly not interested in Truth. The apostle Paul faced that in his engagement with the Jews:
Acts 19:8 And he went into the synagogue and spoke boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading concerning the things of the kingdom of God. 9 But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude, he departed from them and withdrew the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus. 10 And this continued for two years, so that all who dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.

But I'm persuaded there are still some unbelievers in this thread willing to think on the Biblical case about origins, and I'm happy to continue with them. If others want to disengage, that's up to them.

If it was an atheist forum, I would withdraw and ask those interested to follow to continue the debate - but as it's a Christian forum, it's those who wish to disengage on this thread who have to leave it.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm only giving my non-technical understanding, so better show you a scientific explanation:
Irreducible complexity: some candid admissions by evolutionists
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/admissions.asp

I'm assuming you didn't read that article.

Leaving aside that there is not a scientific explanation in the entire article, the piece admits that its examples are not irreducibly complex but dismisses this as unimportant because the functions proposed are only "speculative"

Which is the whole point. For something to be irreducibly complex it has to be shown that it is impossible that it can be reduced and maintain functionality. If someone can hypothetically reduce something and still show function then it isn't irreducibly complex. It doesn't matter if this example is "speculative" at all. If it is possible it is possible.

More AiG dribble :rolleyes:

wolfsbane wrote: »

I understand that shows natural selection tolerating a loss of function, where that function is no longer needed. I don't see any increase in complexity.

Look at water mammals. Water mammals share leg structure with land mammals, and have bits "left over" from when their ancestors walked on land.

But the legs have evolved a different function, that being to propel in the water. These left over bits don't provide function but the structure itself does.

If this function was designed it would make no sense to have a design that looks like a best fit of a land mammals legs.

It is like contrasting a human and a fish. A human may tie his legs together in a uni-fin when snorkling to get better movement in the water. But he has to do this because he is a land animal, not designed for water. Evolution had similar problems and adapted as best it could land legs for function in the water.

Like so many examples in nature it would be rather stupid to design this from the start, just as it would be stupid if you were designing a finned robot for the water you would start with two separate sticks and then strap them together to make one fin like humans do when they jump in the water.

Sam Vimes

wolfsbane wrote: »

I thought natural selection eliminates giraffes in deserts over time? Selection pressure that is supposed to have enabled macroevolution led to long necks, but the animal could have survived as a species without that evolution - is that what you are saying? If not, then would you care to give an example where NS does work?

If the giraffe hadn't developed a long neck to allow it to reach trees that other animals couldn't, they would have had to develop some other trait that allowed them to survive. Natural selection doesn't always work, that's why animals go extinct.

As for an example where NS does work, I can give you dozens of example in every animal that is alive today. Each of them has developed adaptations that have allowed them to survive such as the giraffe's long neck, the black rings around a cheetah's eye that absorb sunlight allowing it to see as it hunts in the African sun, the white lines under a lion's eye that reflect the low light into their eye, allowing them to see better as they hunt at night, etc etc etc.

Btw, it's not just natural selection that allowed the giraffe to develop long necks, it's genetic mutations coupled with natural selection

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm only giving my non-technical understanding, so better show you a scientific explanation:
Irreducible complexity: some candid admissions by evolutionists
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/admissions.asp

Firstly, I find the idea of a scientific explanation in AIG to be an oxymoron.

Now, I stopped reading when I got as far as the words "Biochemist Michael J. Behe". I'm just going to copy and paste what I posted about him on this thread before to JC:

I'm sure you know that there was an attempt to have intelligent design accepted as science and taught in classrooms in America. I'd like to quote the judge from the trial responding to the attempt to proclaim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system and no work had been done to show otherwise:

In fact, on cross examination, professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was 'not good enough.'

He was then forced to admit that he had not read most of those fifty-eight peer reviewed papers. The judge then summed up by saying:

Thankfully there are scientists who do search for answers to the question of the origin of the immune system...It's our defense against debilitating and fatal diseases. The scientists who wrote those books toil in obscurity, without book royalties or speaking engagements. Their efforts help us to combat and cure serious medical conditions. By contrast, professor Behe and the entire intelligent design movement are doing nothing to advance scientific or medical knowledge and are telling the future generations of scientists, don't bother.

The judge also described a proclamation that the bacterial flagellar motor was irreducibly complex to be a move of "breathtaking inanity" when it was shown very easily to be wrong.

Intelligent design was kicked out of the American court system in spectacular fashion and judged not to be science. Intelligent design is not science and the vast majority of christians in the world would agree with that statement

There might have been more "admissions" by evolutionists on that page but I can confidently say that one of the following is true about the quotes:

1. They are fake
2. They are taken out of context
3. They were made by people such as Behe who, despite calling themselves evolutionists, do not understand the theory of evolution.

wolfsbane wrote: »

IC does not mean the eye of a mouse and the eye of a man are the same. It means both incorporate IC mechanisms.

You said the eye is irreducibly complex so I pointed to many examples of eyes that are less complex than our own. Therefore, it is possible to have a fully functioning eye that is less complex than our own, therefore the complexity is reducible. Also, you've just restated what IC means again, I linked you to a page explaining how the eye evolved from a few nerve endings to a cavity with nerve endings allowing directional sensitivity to a pinhole that allowed better directional sensitivity and limited imaging to a closed chamber with a transparent humor to having a cornea and a lens to having iris and separate cornea. So prove it wrong please.

Btw, I'd prefer if you linked to a peer reviewed scientific article to prove it rather than a creationist website.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Thank you. In theory they can doubt, but in reality they can't: It's just that over the last 150 years the evidence has become completely insurmountable...They can work on the contrary idea but

They are unwilling to accept a mature recent creation as truth now because there is no evidence to suggest it just like they accept evolution now because there is a lot of evidence to suggest it. The difference between creationists and scientists is that if the evidence started to suggest a mature recent creation, they would throw out their text books and show unending gratitude to the person that furthered their knowledge of the universe. Scientists go where the evidence tells them to go.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I understand that shows natural selection tolerating a loss of function, where that function is no longer needed. I don't see any increase in complexity.

Here's an increase in complexity for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

The E. coli long-term evolution experiment (LTEE) is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially nearly identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since February 24, 1988.[1]

Since the experiment's inception, Lenski and his colleagues have reported a wide array of genetic changes; some evolutionary adaptations have occurred in all 12 populations, while others have only appeared in one or a few populations. One particularly striking adaption was the evolution of a strain of E. coli that was able to grow on citric acid in the growth media.
...
The population designated Ara-3 (center) is more turbid because that population evolved to use the citrate present in the growth medium.

In the early years of the experiment, there were several common evolutionary developments shared by the populations. The mean fitness of each population, as measured against the ancestor strain, increased—rapidly at first, but leveling off after close to 20,000 generations (at which point they grew about 70% faster than the ancestor strain). All populations evolved larger cell volumes and lower maximum population densities, and all became specialized for living on glucose (with declines in fitness relative to the ancestor strain when grown in dissimilar nutrients). 4 of the 12 populations developed defects in their ability to repair DNA, greatly increasing the rate of additional mutations in those strains. Although the bacteria in each population are thought to have generated hundreds of millions of mutations over the first 20,000 generations, Lenski has estimated that only 10 to 20 beneficial mutations achieved fixation in each population, with less than 100 total point mutations (including neutral mutations) reaching fixation in each population.[2]

In 2008, Lenski and his collaborators reported on a particularly important adaptation that occurred in one of the twelve populations: the bacteria evolved the ability to utilize citrate as a source of energy. Wild type E. coli cannot transport citrate across the cell membrane to the cell interior (where it could be incorporated into the citric acid cycle) when oxygen is present. The consequent lack of growth on citrate under oxic conditions is considered a defining characteristic of the species that has been a valuable means of differentiating E. coli from pathogenic Salmonella. Around generation 33,127, the experimenters noticed a dramatically expanded population-size in one of the samples; they found that there were clones in this population that could grow on the citrate included in the growth medium to permit iron acquisition. Examination of samples of the population frozen at earlier time points led to the discovery that a citrate-using variant had evolved in the population at some point between generations 31,000 and 31,500. They used a number of genetic markers unique to this population to exclude the possibility that the citrate-using E. coli were contaminants. They also found that the ability to use citrate could spontaneously re-evolve in populations of genetically pure clones isolated from earlier time points in the population's history. Such re-evolution of citrate utilization was never observed in clones isolated from before generation 20,000. Even in those clones that were able to re-evolve citrate utilization, the function showed a rate of occurrence on the order of once per trillion cells. The authors interpret these results as indicating that the evolution of citrate utilization in this one population depended on an earlier, perhaps non-adaptive "potentiating" mutation that had the effect of increasing the rate of mutation to citrate utilization to an accessible level (with the data they present further suggesting that citrate utilization required at least two mutations subsequent to this "potentiating" mutation). More generally the authors suggest that these results indicate (following the argument of Stephen Jay Gould) "that historical contingency can have a profound and lasting impact" on the course of evolution.[4]

Another adaption that occurred in all these bacteria was an increase in cell size and in many cultures, a more rounded cell shape.[5] This change was partly the result of a mutation that changed the expression of a gene for a penicillin binding protein, which allowed the mutant bacteria to out-compete ancestral bacteria under the conditions in the long-term evolution experiment. However, although this mutation increased fitness under these conditions, it also increased the bacteria's sensitivity to osmotic stress and decreased their ability to survive long periods in stationary phase cultures, so the phenotype of this adaption depends on the environment of the cells.[5]

And another example:
http://pleion.blogspot.com/2008/11/watching-multicellularity-evolve-before.html

Chlorella vulgaris is an asexual, unicellular green alga. It has been observed in the laboratory to maintain unicellularity for thousands of generations. Boraas and his collaborators (1998) kept Chlorella for two decades in this way. Then they decided to add a predator, Ochromonas vallescia, also a unicellular organism. It has a flagellum (a tail with which it can swim about), and it eats Chlorella. This is bad news for the Chlorella population, which thus experiences a shift in selective pressure. While it was previously adapted to maximize growth by uptake of nutrients, with Ochromonas around it is suddenly more advantageous to have some sort of defense, even if that should come at a cost of the rate at which it can reproduce.

While we could imagine other mechanisms of defense, size is an obvious choice. Very soon (about 10 days) after the introduction of the flagellate predator, Chlorella colonies started to form. These initially consisted of aggregates of tens to hundreds on Chlorella cells, adhering to each other. Their sheer size prevented the predator from eating them, and thus the multicellular Chlorella was fitter than the unicellular ones, and as a result the unicellular Chlorella all but disappeared. Multicellularity had evolved right before the lucky scientists' eyes.

That's right, multicellularity had evolved right before the lucky scientists' eyes. :eek:

marco_polo

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's right, multicellularity had evolved right before the lucky scientists' eyes. :eek:

Oh Yeah? Well if multicellular organisms evolved from single celled
organisms, then why are there still single celled organisms around?

Sam Vimes

marco_polo wrote: »

Oh Yeah? Well if multicellular organisms evolved from single celled
organisms, then why are there still single celled organisms around?

I know you're taking the piss but to pre-empt anyone who asks that question, the chlorella vulgaris survived perfectly well as single-celled organisms so there was no selective pressure to force the "multi-celled" mutations to take over. Being multi-cellular reduced their ability to reproduce so under normal circumstances the single-celled ones dominated.

It wasn't until they were trapped in there with a predator that being multi-cellular became a significant advantage, resulting in the single-celled ones dying out to be replaced with the ones who had the "multi-celled" genes. So instead of fast reproduction being "selected", being harder to eat was "selected" because the environment changed

Simples

prinz

marco_polo wrote: »

While I would not agree with the tone of the post. Unless ignoring people he didn't agree with was a large part of Hitlers war strategy, then the analogy is hardly apt.

Obviously you have never read Mein Kampf. If you had you would see the analogy is more than apt, as the post is almost word for word taken from different pages of the book. By the by, Mein Kampf was written long before the war so I don't know what Hitler's war strategy has to do with it.

marco_polo

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I know you're taking the piss but to pre-empt anyone who asks that question, the chlorella vulgaris survived perfectly well as single-celled organisms so there was no selective pressure to force the "multi-celled" mutations to take over. Being multi-cellular reduced their ability to reproduce so under normal circumstances the single-celled ones dominated.

It wasn't until they were trapped in there with a predator that being multi-cellular became a significant advantage, resulting in the single-celled ones dying out to be replaced with the ones who had the "multi-celled" genes. So instead of fast reproduction being "selected", being harder to eat was "selected" because the environment changed

Simples

In fact it does give an illuminating answer to the other classic of 'Why are there no two celled organisms?'

prinz wrote: »

Obviously you have never read Mein Kampf. If you had you would see the analogy is more than apt, as the post is almost word for word taken from different pages of the book. By the by, Mein Kampf was written long before the war so I don't know what Hitler's war strategy has to do with it.

While i understand how the post may have offended, There are innumerous other ways of critising the post without a lazy Nazi reference. Sorry but it is a pet hate of mine.

prinz

marco_polo wrote: »

While i understand how the post may have offended, There are innumerous other ways of critising the post without a lazy Nazi reference. Sorry but it is a pet hate of mine.

Trust me it didn't offend. I wouldn't waste any time criticising or responding to mindless rubbish like that. I do quite enjoy someone purporting to be rational, intelligent and tolerant quoting Hitler almost verbatim. A pet hate of mine is people commenting on my posts and being wildly off base. Analogy hardly apt was it? How did you figure that out, having not read the book I was referring to? I'd call that lazy.

marco_polo

prinz wrote: »

Trust me it didn't offend. I wouldn't waste any time criticising or responding to mindless rubbish like that. I do quite enjoy someone purporting to be rational, intelligent and tolerant quoting Hitler almost verbatim. A pet hate of mine is people commenting on my posts and being wildly off base. Analogy hardly apt was it? How did you figure that out, having not read the book I was referring to? I'd call that lazy.

Why not post up the passages you are refering to so, and we can some text comparisions and see if he has been cogging then. I have no intention of ever reading Mein Kampf to be honest.

Sam Vimes

marco_polo wrote: »

Why not post up the passages you are refering to so, and we can some text comparisions and see if he has been cogging then. I have no intention of ever reading Mein Kampf to be honest.

I don't think the passages are relevant because the two are not the same thing. Hitler was saying it about a race of people who share nothing but their genetics. If he says something like "Jews are covetous", that is a prejudiced statement because he is lumping the entire race into one category.

On the other hand, Dave is talking about a group of people who all share the same idea. They have willingly put themselves into the category of people who believe this idea so talking about them all as a group is valid.

You may not agree with his assessment of lumping all creationists into the "ignorant" category but it's not the same thing as lumping all Jews into the "covetous" category. It's more like lumping all members of the KKK into the "racist" category because they joined a racist organisation.

I'm sure if he was talking about www.stormfront.org we would all agree with the assessment:

They do not use the same organ of thought. Beyond establishing their shameful ignorance there is nothing of value here.
Please dont waste your efforts on arguing with these fools, your time and talents would be much better spent on educating the young before these twisted religious racist zombies contaminate more people with their dark-age thinking.

prinz

marco_polo wrote: »

I have no intention of ever reading Mein Kampf to be honest.

Perhaps then you'd keep your opinions on whether or not it was an 'apt' analogy and my laziness in comparing same to yourself, when you have no basis on which to make those assumptions. Pet hate of mine. As it is I have neither the inclination or the time to start looking for passages online.

Morbert

prinz wrote: »

Perhaps then you'd keep your opinions on whether or not it was an 'apt' analogy and my laziness in comparing same to yourself, when you have no basis on which to make those assumptions. Pet hate of mine. As it is I have neither the inclination or the time to start looking for passages online.

Your analogy was entirely inappropriate for obvious reasons. It was also a little childish.

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't think the passages are relevant because the two are not the same thing. Hitler was saying it about a race of people who share nothing but their genetics. If he says something like "Jews are covetous", that is a prejudiced statement because he is lumping the entire race into one category.
On the other hand, Dave is talking about a group of people who all share the same idea. They have willingly put themselves into the category of people who believe this idea so talking about them all as a group is valid.

As it is I wasn't basis this on who he was talking about, more the language used.

Mein Kampf was not just a tirade against the Jews, democrats for example also got it. You could say democrats share an idea willingly..
Also the post in question related to "twisted religious zombies", I doubt it was restricted to Creationists. Of which I am not one as it happens.

Also the treatment of Jews as a race is inconclusive. A sephardi Jew from North Africa, and an Ashkenazi Jew from the Ukraine have nothing in common except a shared religion and identity. They are not racially of the same group. Much the same as a Christian from Ireland and Christian from Nigeria for example.

prinz

Morbert wrote: »

Your analogy was entirely inappropriate for obvious reasons. It was also a little childish.

I didn't make an anology. I was comparing language and style. Someone else assumed I was making an analogy. I suppose you have lots of reasons as to why you would consider it inappropriate and childish?

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

As it is I wasn't basis this on who he was talking about, more the language used.

Mein Kampf was not just a tirade against the Jews, democrats for example also got it. You could say democrats share an idea willingly..

If he talked about his hatred of democrats then that's not Hitleresque either in the way people automatically think of Hitler. Such confusion is why Godwin arguments should be avoided in debates. People think of Hitler as the racist killer of Jews and homosexuals, not as someone who hated democrats. People all over the world hate all kinds of different ideologies, eg many people hate communism but that doesn't mean they are like Hitler. Hitler also had a moustache but you don't accuse mousetached people of being like Hitler. Godwin arguments are a way to make a point emotively without necessarily saying anything.

prinz wrote: »

Also the post in question related to "twisted religious zombies", I doubt it was resticted to Creationists. Of which I am not one as it happens.

I don't know who he was referring to. Dave, were you referring to creationists or all religious people?

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

I didn't make an anology. I was comparing language and style. Someone else assumed I was making an analogy.

Definition of analogy: Drawing a comparison in order to show a similarity in some respect

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Definition of analogy: Drawing a comparison in order to show a similarity in some respect

Thanks Sam, like I pointed out above language used and style. Not the focus of the arguments. Which seems to have been the basis for my been described as lazy and inappropriate. If anyone has read Mein Kampf then you'd see the lanuage is near identical to that used in the book, regardless of who the victims of it are. Could be one legged clowns.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

Thanks Sam, like I pointed out above language used and style. Not the focus of the arguments. Which seems to have been the basis for my been described as lazy and inappropriate. If anyone has read Mein Kampf then you'd see the lanuage is near identical to that used in the book, regardless of who the victims of it are. Could be one legged clowns.

Right, so you're saying that the language and style used is similar to Hitler's, so you're drawing an analogy to Hitler.

If I said this:

They do not use the same organ of thought. Beyond establishing their shameful ignorance there is nothing of value here.
Please dont waste your efforts on arguing with these fools, your time and talents would be much better spent on educating the young before these twisted racist zombies contaminate more people with their dark-age thinking.

about members of the Ku Klux Klan would you feel the need to compare the language and style used to Hitler, or would you agree with me?

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Right, so you're saying that the language and style used is similar to Hitler's, so you're drawing an analogy to Hitler.

Yes. Like I said quite an apt analogy. Not the anaolgy I was being accused of drawing however. Unless someone who has not read Mein Kampf can contradict my comparison of the language and style.... based on what exactly hmmm. Even if one was to draw an analogy between the Jews (for example) and the Christians, who IMO were the target of Dave's vitriol, then it would still be largely apt. Anyway pointless since I admitted I was making an analogy...... but not the one people were assuming I was making.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If I said this about members of the Ku Klux Klan would you feel the need to compare the language and style used to Hitler, or would you agree with me?

Yes I would. That would be even more ironic don't you think. Did you just make an analogy between Creationists and the KKK? I would agree with you in the case of the KKK, but I usually feel it's better not to sink to their level in argument.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

Yes. Like I said quite an apt analogy. Not the anaolgy I was being accused of drawing however. Unless someone who has not read Mein Kampf can contradict my comparison of the language and style.... based on what exactly hmmm. Even if one was to draw an analogy between the Jews (for example) and the Christians, who IMO were the target of Dave's vitriol, then it would still be largely apt. Anyway pointless since I admitted I was making an analogy...... but not the one people were assuming I was making.

I still don't understand what you are saying. Yes, Dave used similar words to Hitler but lots of people use words like that who are not Hitler and never murdered anyone. What is your point?

prinz wrote: »

Yes I would. That would be even more ironic don't you think. Did you just make an analogy between Creationists and the KKK? I would agree with you in the case of the KKK, but I usually feel it's better not to sink to their level in argument.

I wasn't drawing an analogy between creationists and the KKK, I was drawing an analogy between Dave's statement and a similar one made about the KKK.

And I think it was quite a good analogy because earlier you said

"If anyone has read Mein Kampf then you'd see the lanuage is near identical to that used in the book, regardless of who the victims of it are. Could be one legged clowns."

So what exactly is your point? You agree with the statement when made about the KKK but you feel the need to mention that Hitler used similar words when the statement is made about creationists so obviously the victims of the language do matter. Unless you're like Hitler? Why is Hitler even relevant? They both used similar language that you agree with under certain circumstances. So what?

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I still don't understand what you are saying. Yes, Dave used similar words to Hitler but lots of people use words like that who are not Hitler and never murdered anyone. What is your point?

My point was how someone would deride others as mindless zombies, incapable of rational thought etc would echo Herr Hitler so closely. I wasn't making any Creationist v. anyone point. Just highlighting the irony of the situation.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So what exactly is your point? You agree with the statement when made about the KKK but you feel the need to mention that Hitler used similar words when the statement is made about creationists so obviously the victims of the language do matter. Unless you're like Hitler? Why is Hitler even relevant? They both used similar language that you agree with under certain circumstances. So what?

Like I said even if it was about the KKK I would still draw attention to the fact.:rolleyes:. Maybe I would agree maybe I wouldn't. But I would still draw attention to it. Again like I said it would be even more ironic to verbally attack the KKK in a manner reminiscent of Hitler. All DaveMaC's post did was highlight one type of mug slagging off another type of mug.... for being a mug. Pot..Kettle and Black spring to mind.

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You agree with the statement when made about the KKK but you feel the need to mention that Hitler used similar words when the statement is made about creationists so obviously the victims of the language do matter.

This thread isn't about KKK. So if you wish to post similar remarks about the KKK on a different thread, I'll be the first to highlight the language used, and the irony inherent in it. Grabbing at straws tbh.

Morbert

prinz, Hitler committed genocide.

What point were you making when you compared the language of a Boards member to someone who committed genocide.