Search This Blog

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Origins science - Darwinism, Intelligent Design and Creation Science - To the blackboard!

In the world of operational science, origins usually really is meaningless.   So not every scientist is terribly concerned about origins science.  Medical doctors do not use origins science to treat patients nor do surgeons consider it while planning an operation.   

Origins science is difficult because one cannot hop into a time machine and set it to "The Beginning" and observe what happened.   We cannot go back in time and the historical records of mankind don't go back very far.  So while logic and inductive and deductive reasoning come into play in modern science, in the world of origins science testing is limited.   We can see what is happening now.   We can test and observe the modern world.  But we are forced to make assumptions in order to do origins science and we must make hypotheses and test them against what can be observed and also run them through the scrutiny of logic and common sense and, even then, what comes out of the other end is not likely going to be provable.   

If someone tells you Darwinist evolution is proven fact they are wrong.  They may not be lying because they might believe it, but that statement is a lie and whoever has convinced them of it was lying for sure.  If someone tells you that the concept that God created is proven fact, that is also false.  You cannot actually test that statement so you cannot prove it either true or false.   

Don't believe me?  Let's go to the blackboard:

 
credit

Science as we know it now was simply one component of philosophy in the BC days.   Men would simply state a philosophy they considered workable to explain life or existence or whatever subject being discussed and if people generally agreed that it sounded workable, good enough.  This is what we call axiomatic science.  Axiomatic thinking dominated the world until we had passed 1000 AD.  The definition of axiomatic:


axiomatic [ˌæksɪəˈmætɪk], axiomatical
adj
1. relating to or resembling an axiom; self-evident
2. containing maxims; aphoristic
3. (Philosophy / Logic) (of a logical system) consisting of a set of axioms from which theorems are derived by transformation rules Compare natural deduction
axiomatically  adv
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003


Thesaurus 
Legend:  Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Adj.1.axiomatic - evident without proof or argument; "an axiomatic truth"; "we hold these truths to be self-evident"
obvious - easily perceived by the senses or grasped by the mind; "obvious errors"

2.axiomatic - containing aphorisms or maxims; "axiomatic wisdom"

3.axiomatic - of or relating to or derived from axioms; "axiomatic physics"; "the postulational method was applied to geometry"- S.S.Stevens
Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2008 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.

So if it was "self evident" to many of the Greek philosophers that all things were made of four different ingredients, so be it!  Little by little people like Archimedes found that observations and tests were useful in seeking to learn things about the world around us.   Aristotlean axiomatic science would eventually be pushed aside to the curb as methodological investigation became a scientific norm.   It was not a quick or an easy process.   As David Coppedge chronicles in THE WORLD’S GREATEST CREATION SCIENTISTS From Y1K to Y2K the process was painstaking.   For many centuries, scientists were largely either in the axiomatic or the investigative camp but, eventually, investigative science won out.   Investigative science was spelled out by Roger Bacon and the "Scientific Method" was popularized by Sir Francis Bacon.   Both of these men were Creationists.   But they were not called Creation Scientists because most folks took the concept of a created world made by God for granted.   Scientists who believed in creation were the movers and shakers of science, giants of discovery, the men who advanced the cause of learning for many centuries from the superstitious world of 1000 AD to a world which, in the 1600's and thereafter, methodological investigation had become standard scientific procedure.

Most people who we call scientists of days past by were men who had been trained to be ministers or perhaps philosophers.   Men of letters might be lawyers but there were not entire schools devoted to the study of science.  As Coppedge notes at the beginning of his online version of the aforementioned book:

"THE NEW MILLENNIUM is a unique time to look back over a thousand years and ponder how far civilization has come. The comforts, conveniences, health and prosperity available to most of us is due in large measure to the rise of modern science. Today, science is an almost exclusively secular enterprise, presented by the media and universities as the opposite of faith, and therefore intrinsically hostile to religion. But, historically speaking, this is a gross distortion! Did you know that most of the greatest scientists of history were Bible-believing Christians? This pictorial research presentation will demonstrate three surprising facts about the history of modern science (see the Introduction for explanation and definitions of terms): 

  1. Most of the greatest scientists of the past 1000 years were Christians and creationists.
  2. To these scientists, Christianity was the driving force behind their discoveries.
  3. The Christian world view gave birth and impetus to modern science."

These are facts.   We know from reading the works of men like Newton and Bacon and Maxwell that faith in a Logical Creator gave them the faith to devote their lives to studying creation, in the expectation that logical processes could be identified and understood.  Methodological investigation was based upon the concept that the world was not randomly generated and therefore processes would not be random, either.  That was then and this is now.  We now have seen science go from a world in which everyone was seeking to understand the world and the Universe and comparing ideas and concepts to one in which there are giant walls set up based on metaphysical concepts that separate people and concepts and often censor and punish those who do not line up metaphysically with the secular majority.   Freedom of investigation has not been destroyed, but it has been badly hampered.   Here is the scorecard of the battle of ideas that separates scientists and academics from each other and often from truth:

  1. Naturalistic Materialists aka Darwinists
  2. Creation Scientists aka Creationists
  3. Intelligent Design proponents aka ID


There are subgroups within the three major schools of thought, but I can assert confidently that the reason that these groups exist is primarily metaphysical in nature and not from the preponderance of evidence.  Let's see what happened and then take them in reverse order:

There have been believers in the Creator God as long as human history has been kept.  Most scientists were believers in God before the 19th Century, when men like Marx and Malthus and Darwin and Lyell and Hutton and various Huxleys, etc. caused a "disturbance in the force" so to speak.   We tend to think that Darwinism swept through the world of science during his lifetime but in fact it was not until early in the 20th Century that Darwinism became popularized along with various philosophical movements like communism/socialism/fascism and eugenics.   Both Social and physical Darwinism found dominance in the 20th Century and contributed greatly to the outbreak of two world wars, Jim Crow laws, various atrocities and genocides accomplished in the name of science or progress.   By the 1950's many of the excesses of social Darwinism were noted and rejected by society (but continued to sneak in the back door of ideas) while Naturalistic Materialistic Darwinism took over science.   It was at this point where science reached a crisis stage.  Believers in God found themselves being first shunned, then actually cast out of peer reviews and conventions and schools and technical positions.   From this dynamic situation came three easily identified schools of thought, two of them based on metaphysics before evidence.



Creationists.  

Dr. Henry Morris, the founder of the Institute for Creation Research, was a hydrologist who found that the rock layers appeared to be the result of a massive flood and soon came to be a spokesman for both Christ and Creation.   The Genesis Flood (written by Morris and John Whitcomb) was a landmark book that announced to the world that there were scientists who did not buy into Darwinism and had evidence to bring to the discussion.  Because science had been co-opted and dominated by Darwinists, Creationists were to face an uphill battle to be heard and published.   Creationists had trouble having their papers peer-reviewed for philosophical rather than scientific reasons.   Thus, Creation Science was born.  There had always been scientists who believed in God and some of them were so respected (like Werner Von Braun) that they were bulletproof and moved easily in the world of science and academics because of their well-deserved reputations.   But by 1960 a young scientist who identified himself with God would find it hard to succeed in either academia or the scientific establishment in general.  

Creation Scientists use the classic Scientific Method of Investigation to study the Universe.  They consider the Bible as part of the evidence available.   They continue to expect to find natural causes for natural processes and do not believe that God makes everything happen.  On the contrary, they look first to natural causes for every process and only resort to the supernatural where it is logical or Biblical.  Their assumption is that God created the Universe and all within it, but that the systems and processes operating in the world will almost always have natural causes and will be testable and often can be used or copied for human applications.  It used to be that most scientists were Creation Scientists but people didn't have to label themselves as such because the world of science was a level playing field.   Now Creation Scientists who believe they can afford to reveal their beliefs are joining together in organizations to provide peer review and discussion and interaction as they explore the world as scientists should.


Intelligent Designers.

In contrast to the bad press many ID scientists receive, those who are working from the basic concept of design are not necessarily Creationists or even believers in God.   There are Christians and Jews and Muslims and Agnostics and, well, frankly the idea is to check your metaphysical point of view at the door and look only at the evidence with no regard for the metaphysical consequences.  Darwin is ignored, the Bible is not considered, it is all about what can be observed in the world around us now.   Naturally, to me, if you study organisms and come to the conclusion that they are designed and if you see the same thing in the Solar System and even the Universe, you must then consider the identity of the Designer.   ID doesn't speak to this.   ID simply studies the Universe and those who agree will argue that the Universe and particularly the world of organisms display design features that cannot be explained as the result of random and undirected processes.

 Cartoon by Sidney Harris

Naturalistic Materialists

If you look at this belief system logically, you see that it is extremist.   Creationists do not say that all processes are supernatural nor do they assert that all events have supernatural causes.   They in fact say that most processes and events are the result of natural processes.  But they allow for the concept of the supernatural and when discussing origins, assert that the Supernatural God is the only logical source of life, existence, time, information and existence itself.   But Darwinists are extreme because they claim that ONLY naturalistic materialistic causes are allowed.   They have revised the scientific method and renamed it "Methodological Naturalism" which is certainly NOT what classic science used before the times of Darwinism.  Because Darwinists will not consider any supernatural forces or causes at all, they must credit random and completely undirected processes for causing the Universe and all that is in it, no matter what.   In doing so they have denied laws established by science years before like the Laws of Thermodynamics or Biogenesis for purely metaphysical reasons and not because of observed processes at all.   Some of these Darwinists are so pretentious that they label their sub-group of scientists as "Science" as if they owned the concept!  

Modern culture is completely soaked in Darwinism.  Evolution and "millions of years" are a continual boilerplate repeated ad nauseum by various scientific and pseudo-scientific organizations and cable channels.  In fact, evolution is tagged on practically every discovery made these days, no matter what the discovery actually is.   Article after article declares the wonders of evolution while not actually giving any explanation as to how evolution has anything at all to do with, for instance, the algorithms built into bees that help them navigate to flowers or the remarkable echolocation methods used by bats or even the amazing ATP engine that powers the cell.  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I can see no reason for anyone with any common sense at all to adhere to Darwinism after the amazing discovery of DNA and the revelations of both the wonders of the cell and reproduction and the nuts and bolts of photosynthesis, for instance.   As we have observed organisms for many centuries now and very carefully studied thousands of generations of bacteria and hundreds of generations of fruit flies we find that they remain what they are.  No one has ever observed classic Darwinist evolution happening.   We simply see variation within kind.  I have presented hundreds of articles and links with observable evidence for a created world based on what we can see now and the logical conclusions a normal person would reach based on those observations. 

Now that we have had several satellites visit or fly by the planets of our Solar System it is obvious that the planets are not very old.   The gas giants like Saturn and Jupiter put out more energy than they absorb from the Sun.  There are moons that are gushing volcanoes on a regular basis!  There are planets with magnetic fields that should not have them and planets with spins that cannot have happened by natural means.  Some moons have craters everywhere and some have almost no craters at all.   Every single planet in the Solar System is inexplicable by Darwinists for usually several reasons. 

Darwinists cannot explain where the Universe came from, where life or information came from, how and why mankind can think abstractly while the rest of living beings do not and innumerable other problems.   ID explains that organisms and in fact the Universe must be designed.   But only Creationists can explain Who designed everything and why God did it.   Creationists have the answers for not only what but also why.  We cannot necessarily always know how and pinpointing when is difficult, but Who is where we find many of the answers.   The only real problem Creationists have to deal with besides the matter of age questions is the dogmatism, the censorship, the blatant tyranny of thought that comes with the power that Darwinists yield by dominating the world of academia and the world of scientific grants.  This is simply wrong, obviously wrong, and frankly the reason for it must be fear.   Darwinists fear the discussion of evidence for evidence doesn't support their position.   This is what I have concluded.  So normally evidence is what I provide to the readers.

So I would love to see Darwinists drop the pretension and the air of superiority and the continual derision and just talk about the evidence.   We certainly could put down our swords and exchange ideas instead.   I for one would be delighted to do so.   For all the years I have been writing this blog I have been working like the Children of Israel had to work when rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem in the time of Nehemiah.   I have had a trowel in my hand but a sword by my side and a trumpet ready to sound when attacks come.   It is not my desire to protect myself because if it was, the blog would have moderated comments and I would weed out those I didn't like.  I am seeking to promote what I believe to be the Truth, that God created the Universe, that we can see the evidence that He did this clearly and that God desires to have a genuine relationship with His creatures, the crown of creation, mankind.   In order to do this I would like to keep the comments thread free from censorship.   Bad language will get comments deleted and, if commenters began to do it on a regular basis then I would have to moderate the blog comments.   Since I have so many responsibilities, even if 99% of posts would eventually be published, the discussion would come in fits and starts rather than in real time.

I don't check comments every hour and in fact some days go by without looking because despite the incivility of some the commenters on this blog have kept it rated PG.   No matter how much I may disagree with you, I will allow your comments to be posted freely as long as you keep it clean.  If you are rude I will call you out and as this is sometimes a fight I will not always be terribly kind to the unkind.   Until God tells me I can put the sword away it will remain by my side.  But for those who comment, frankly, the more information we exchange that does not involve personal attacks the better the comments thread will be.  It is one thing to attack ideas but when you attack people you have entirely left science behind and have moved into another realm altogether.   If you think Creationism is dumb, fine, but it is time to bring some better reasons to the table. 

I consider the Bible to be evidence and I will use it as such.  That makes me just as "dumb" as Sir Isaac Newton was or Jonathan Sarfati is (in this one area that is) and I am fine with keeping that kind of company.  I am sorry for Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov, smart and creative men who could not "grok" God.  Ironically, Robert Heinlein didn't "grok" God either although his most famous book title was a scriptural quote and the main character of that book was presented as a Messianic character.  But although I do consider the Bible to be true, I will continue to post evidence that focuses primarily on what we can observe in the real world of today rather than what we can read that was written beforehand.  That way in the end it will be the evidence that drives science.  Sometimes science lags behind evidence but I believe that it will catch up again and the 19th Century ideas will yield to the findings of 21st Century science!

156 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yawn. A rehash of oft-repeated ideas, and as usual you refuse to advance the dialogue. And you still don't seem to get the difference between methodological naturalism (which is what Bacon used and which all scientists use today) and metaphysical naturalism.

radar said...

No no no! Anonymous you do not know your history of science and you are just wrong. Bacon, a Christian, used methodological investigation without the artificial and arbitrary addition of naturalism to the mix. All scientists today use his system and some for religious purposes exclude supernatural possibilities. But you cannot impose your religious beliefs on science nor can you rip science from the hands of scientists with different worldviews from your own.

radar said...

This ignorance must end! Naturalism is a worldview, it is a religion, it is not "science." You wish to be a naturalistic materialist that is your right, but you cannot wrest the legacy of Bacon from him. Bacon was a Christian and he believed he was investigating a created world. In fact he believed he could expect logical results from a created world.

Naturalists, how is it you expect logical repeatable results from a world randomly and purposelessly in existence? If there was no logic or intention behind the created world and it just *poofed* into existence, how is it things work logically? You have to invoke magic to take the place of God. What is scientific about that?

Anonymous said...

1. "Naturalism is a worldview, it is a religion, it is not "science.""

You could describe metaphysical naturalism like that. Not methodological naturalism. An important distinction.

2. Kindly explain in your own words how you differentiate between "methodological naturalism" and "methodological investigation". It would really be helpful if you didn't try to smuggle metaphysical naturalism into such a distinction again.

You claim that methodological naturalism and methodological investigation are different.

How?

3. "All scientists today use his system and some for religious purposes exclude supernatural possibilities."

There are clear practical reasons to exclude supernatural possibilities: science can't investigate them. It is simply impossible to investigate the supernatural scientifically. It is a dead end. The Christian scientists you keep boasting about did not pursue a scientific exploration of the supernatural, nor did they propose supernatural explanations in their work.

4. "Naturalists, how is it you expect logical repeatable results from a world randomly and purposelessly in existence?"

Because that is what we very predictably observe in the world around us at all times. This doesn't require any metaphysical assumptions of the intentions of any maker/creator behind this observable phenomenon.

Is a personified deity a necessary part of explaining why a ball that is thrown up in the air falls back down in a predictable way?

5. "You have to invoke magic to take the place of God. What is scientific about that?"

There is nothing scientific about it, which is why you shouldn't invoke God, which is simply another way of bringing in so-called "magic".

But why do you think magic is needed to explain, say, gravity or the speed of light etc.?

Anonymous said...

Embriette, Lista, please take note of how Radar vacillates when it comes to the word "naturalism". He keeps trying to use one word to mean another. You can talk to him about methodological naturalism and he retorts by saying something about "naturalism", having actually substituted metaphysical naturalism, which isn't the same thing.

radar said...

I do not change the meaning of naturalism. Naturalism is a belief system which should not be imposed upon science. Every scientist has his own personal beliefs. These tend to drive him. When he finds evidence that refutes his beliefs he has two choices, to change his beliefs or press on against the evidence.

I was a believer in evolution and long years who was a believer in Darwinism and all that went with it. Even after becoming a Christian that was so, until I was challenged to study the evidence. Dr. Henry Morris was the one who sparked my curiosity. Was it possible that I was wrong?

I've found that the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of creation and that it is propaganda and marketing and censorship that keeps Darwinism going. People like Jon Woolf make authoritative claims but they are wrong claims and it is on YOU to investigate for yourself. No way can you do it simply sitting on the couch watching TV. You have to investigate for yourself.

The internet allows you to check out the creationist and ID sites so you can see what the "other side" is saying. You need to do this because in schools and on televisions and popular magazines and the vast majority of secular publications automatically put a Darwin stamp on everything they put out.

Only by reading Creation.com and AIG and Cre-Evo headlines and Discovery Institute and sites like them can you get the point of view naturalists try to bury. Only by going to ICR and Biblical Geology blog and Ian Juby and etc. can you get a balanced point of view.

Sure, you can bury your head in the sand and let the propagandists win. Up to you. It is your life, after all. But I wasn't willing to just accept the status quo, I wanted to KNOW.

Anonymous said...

But, um, you are the propagandist here, Radar. This whole site is all about "lying for jesus", for goodness sakes. And the sites you point to are purely propaganda sites promoting your own worldview. You (and the sites you reference) start with a conclusion (that the bible is true and literal) and you work your way back from there, only accepting "evidence" that fits your world view while discarding or distorting anything that might contradict it. Sounds more like propaganda than science, doesn't it? And you are motivated to do so because you feel that your eternal salvation (and that of others, I suppose), somehow rests on the idea that the bible is literal, and therefore Evolution is false, and so you defend it by any and all means possible, no matter how dishonest or hypocritical. There is no such motivation on the part of scientists. Any scientist able to pull down a ruling paradigm base on evidence and sound science would be famous and most likely wealthy because of it. You are the only one holding to bronze age understanding of science here, Radar.

The reason most of us come here, I would assume, it to ensure that "the propagandists", i.e. you and your creationist masters, don't win, or even score a single point for that matter.

Keep it up though, as I think Embriette might just be right in her assertion that christians like you just might create more atheists than atheist groups who are trying to get the word out.

-Canucklehead.

Leticia said...

A very well-written post and I sincerely believe in what the Holy Bible says.

Science has failed to prove that otherwise. It is all conjecture.

Anonymous said...

"Naturalism is a belief system which should not be imposed upon science."

Again, you're talking about metaphysical naturalism, not methodological naturalism.

Embriette, Lista, note how Radar provided yet another example of the point made above.

Anonymous said...

@Leticia,

You say,

"I sincerely believe in what the Holy Bible says."

Do you mean, like, ALL of it? Even the parts about 6 literal days of creation and a 10K year old earth? What about recommending the stoning of mouthy children, or condemning people to hell for tattooing their skin, or the stated immorality of divorce? Even those parts? Really? Even the whole condoning slavery thing and stuff demonizing homosexuals?

I think you need to read more Trek and less bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Roddenberry#Religious_views

From the article,

"...in Roddenberry's vision of Earth's future, everyone was an atheist and better for it."

-Canucklehead.

Ema Nymton said...

.

"... someone tells you Darwinist evolution is proven fact they are wrong."

About the only person saying "Darwinist evolution is proven fact" is you. You seem to do make this claim for the sake of putting up a straw man.

Well guess what? Gravity is not a 'fact', its a theory.

keep trying.

Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.

Leticia said...

Anon, yes I do believe it. Nothing is impossible for Yahweh, He is the Creator and Finisher of life. And Yahweh is a merciful God, but He is also a God of judgment.

I may be a Trekkie, but nothing will ever take the place of my Heavenly Father and His Word.

God first, everything else, comes in second place.

And are you quite sure that Roddenberry did not believe in God or had some inclination that there was a God?

Take a look at some these quotes from different episodes of TOS.

APOLLO: I could sweep you out of existence with a wave of my hand and bring you back again. I can give life or death. What else does mankind demand of its gods?

KIRK: Mankind has no need for “gods.” We find the One quite adequate.


McCOY: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
KIRK: Maybe He's not out there, Bones. Maybe He's right here. [points to his heart] Human heart.


SPOCK: It seems illogical for a sun worshipper to develop a philosophy of total brotherhood. Sun worship is usually a superstitious, primitive religion.

UHURA: I am afraid you have it all wrong, Mr. Spock, all of you. I have been monitoring some of their old-style radio waves... the Empire spokesman trying to ridicule their religion. But he couldn't. Don't you understand? It's not the sun up in the sky. It's the Son of God.

Jon Woolf said...

"And are you quite sure that Roddenberry did not believe in God or had some inclination that there was a God?"

Yes, actually. All the pieces you quoted came from Classic Star Trek, and all share two things in common:

1) somebody else wrote them

2) they were telecast in the late 1960s, when atheism was a forbidden subject on prime time television.

Gene Roddenberry's attitude toward religion in later life was exactly as Canucklehead suggested. I don't know exactly when or how or why his philosophy developed the way it did, but by the mid-1980s he was a very strong agnostic humanist. And that's visible in Star Trek: The Next Generation, the last incarnation of Trek over which he had any control.

Leticia said...

Jon, true, but he produced the show and I am sure was part of the writing of the episodes. I hate to think that he died not believing. He was brilliant.

Lista said...

You Know, Canucklehead/Anonynous 11:17 AM, I get Tired of Correcting all the Hypocrisy that I see in you. Everything that you say about Creationism is also True of Evolutionism or Darwinism. Even though you Deny it, that doesn't Change the Reality of the Hypocrisy.

I Succeeded this Time at Reading 6 Comments before I Felt Compelled to Speak.

You have many Times Lied for Evolutionism, or at Least, Repeated their Lies. You Point to Radar's Worldview and Deny that you also have one. You are the One who has been "only accepting 'evidence' that fits your Worldview while discarding or distorting anything that might contradict it." You are the One who is "Dishonest and Hypocritical". You are Motivated by an Aversion to the Idea of a God that you will have to be Accountable to.

If anyone want's to Know who you are, all they have to do is Listen to what you say about Radar and other Creationists and that is a very Good Description of who you are and who Evolutionists are. It's all Projection.

I Agree with Leticia about Science being mostly Conjecture.

Anonymous, 10:02 AM,
I really don't care rather it is Methodological or Metaphysical Naturalism that Radar is Speaking of. The Second of these has no Place in Science and the Second of these is the Exact Thing that causes the Prejudice against ID and Creationism.

Ema Nymton,
Apparently Canucklehead has Never Learned that Science Never Proves anything. It just Confirms and Confirmation is Never Proof and that is Why Leticia's Statement about Conjecture is Accurate.

Jon Woolf said...

Leticia: "Jon, true, but he produced the show and I am sure was part of the writing of the episodes."

Not that I've ever heard or read. Gene L. Coon did a lot of work on individual scripts, but Roddenberry did not.

Lista wrote: "[metaphysical naturalism] is the Exact Thing that causes the Prejudice against ID and Creationism."

None so blind ...

Creationism is rejected because creationism is wrong. And it isn't only non-believers who reject it.

"Apparently Canucklehead has Never Learned that Science Never Proves anything."

However, it can and does disprove things quite easily. The basic tenets of young-earth creationism have been disproved many times, in many different ways.

Anonymous said...

It's an easy bet that you can't back up any of these allegations.

"You have many Times Lied for Evolutionism, or at Least, Repeated their Lies."

Example please.

"You Point to Radar's Worldview and Deny that you also have one."

Link to this alleged denial please.

"You are the One who has been "only accepting 'evidence' that fits your Worldview while discarding or distorting anything that might contradict it.""

Where is the evidence FOR creation? This question has been asked many times. Logical fallacies are discarded as evidence, but not because they don't fit a specific worldview. They are discarded because they have no place in science regardless of the topic.

"You are the One who is "Dishonest and Hypocritical"."

If you can't substantiate the claims above, then this is just a hollow claim - and for someone who is as sensitive about insults like yourself, you should be a little more careful about slinging unfounded accusations around.

Anonymous said...

"You are Motivated by an Aversion to the Idea of a God that you will have to be Accountable to."

Neither I nor any atheist I've ever met (and I know quite a few) is or was motivated by this. Is it really that hard to understand that we just don't believe God exists?

Is the reason you don't believe in, say, the Greek pantheon or Thor and Odin because you don't want to be accountable to them?

Ask yourself how you feel about Jupiter and Zeus. You don't secretly think they exist and fear them, do you?

That's how atheists feel about God - we don't think he exists, ergo there's nothing there to fear or feel accountable to.

Anonymous said...

"I Agree with Leticia about Science being mostly Conjecture."

And this from someone who talks about projection. Faith is conjecture.

Science may start from conjecture, but then seeks to confirm it using observable evidence. Once something is confirmed repeatedly, it is far more than just conjecture.

"I really don't care rather it is Methodological or Metaphysical Naturalism that Radar is Speaking of."

Then you haven't been paying attention. He is attempting to use the objection against metaphysical naturalism to pry a hole into science's methodological naturalism, presumably because methodological naturalism doesn't confirm his narrow worldview.

Lista said...

Woolf,
It is Impossible to Disprove without Proving. It's Basically the Same Thing. When you Prove Something Untrue, you have Proved Something and Science does not Prove, it Only "Confirms".

Anonymous,
Actually, the Very Idea that Science Proves anything is a Lie. True Scientists Know this, so to Claim that Evolution has been Proven is a Lie.

Evolution is Based on the World View of Naturalism.

"Where is the evidence FOR creation?"

Radar has done Post after Post after Post on the Subject. There is no Need to be Repetitive if you did not Hear it the First Time. Irreducible Complexity is the most Impressive of the Examples and the Response to it that is Presented by Evolutionists is Inadequate.

"Logical fallacies are discarded as evidence, but not because they don't fit a specific worldview."

You have Discarded that which your Bias and World View has Told you to Call Logical Fallacy. The Evidence of this is in that I have Read the Same Evidence, I am a Logical Person and I have not Found the Evidence to be the Slightest bit Illogical.

"'You are the One who is 'Dishonest and Hypocritical'.' If you can't substantiate the claims above, then this is just a hollow claim."

Canucklehead's Entire Comment was a Perfect Description of what Evolutionists do all the Time (11:17 AM). Let the Readers Evaluate the Evidence for themselves. It is not Actually Necessary for me to do all of that for them.

"For someone who is as sensitive about insults like yourself."

Perhaps you should Back Up that Claim with Evidence, or what about the Evidence that any of my Accusations are "Unfounded".

"And this from someone who talks about projection. Faith is conjecture."

Exactly, and Science is Based on Faith. This is Only Projection if the One who is Projecting Claims Innocence of that which is being Projected. I have Never Once Claimed that my Science is not Based on Conjecture. All Science is Based on Conjecture and therefore also a Certain Level of Faith.

Evolutionists are the Ones who Deny this. There have Only been a Few Evolutionists Commenters on this Blog who have Admitted that Science does not Prove anything and Therefore is Conjecture.

Confirmation and Proof are not the Same Thing. Anything Short of Proof is on some Level still Conjecture.

We all have Different Levels of Faith in any Given Set of Evidence and the Evaluation of the Importance and Validity of any Given Set of Evidence is Subjective.

"He" (That is Radar) "is attempting to use the objection against metaphysical naturalism to pry a hole into science's methodological naturalism"

Ok, then maybe he Needs to Clarify the Connection between Metaphysical Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism, yet no Matter what, Metaphysical Naturalism is what Drives the Prejudice against Creationism and ID and also Skews the Subjective Evaluation of Evidence in Favor of Evolutionism.

The Only Thing that Fails to Confirm the Creationists Worldview is the Bias of the Scientists that are doing the Subjective Evaluation of the Evidence.

Anonymous said...

OMG.

Anonymous said...

Not really worth coming up with responses if everything I write gets immediately removed. Looks like I'll be waiting for Radar to return.

-Canucklehead.

Jon Woolf said...

"It is Impossible to Disprove without Proving. It's Basically the Same Thing."

[sigh]

[shaking head sadly]

You are a police officer investigating a murder. Five people have known motives to commit the crime. One of the suspects is a woman. DNA left at the scene shows the criminal was male.

From these facts, can you prove anything? Can you disprove anything?

(Hint: the first answer is no, the second answer is yes.)

Lista said...

Woolf,

[Sigh] Right Back at you.

The Answer to Both of your Questions is Yes. You can Prove the Ladies Innocence. Just because this does not Completely Solve the Crime does not Mean that it doesn't Prove anything.

In Science, quite Often "Falsifications" are just as Subjective as "Confirmations". That which is Subjective is Influenced by Bias and all Scientists have Bias. The Denial of Evolutionary Scientists of their Bias is where the Error Lies.

Webscout said...

Facepalm.

It's rare to find such an example of pure willful ignorance.

Lista, if you're that willing to dismiss just about all of science as mere conjecture, you should be aware that none of the scientific progress you routinely benefit from would actually be possible.

That's the problem with YECs. Science contradicts their desired outcome... so science has to be dismissed, not the outcome.

Webscout said...

"The Only Thing that Fails to Confirm the Creationists Worldview is the Bias of the Scientists that are doing the Subjective Evaluation of the Evidence."

As well as the consistent lack of evidence for the Earth being 6,000 years old, or a global flood having occurred 4,000 years ago, etc. etc.

Ever seen a winner complain about the referee? Me neither.

Webscout said...

"Irreducible Complexity is the most Impressive of the Examples and the Response to it that is Presented by Evolutionists is Inadequate."

Do you really feel qualified to judge the plausibility of evolutionary pathways? Unless you do, you can't authoritatively state that they are inadequate.

Webscout said...

"Ok, then maybe he Needs to Clarify the Connection between Metaphysical Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism,"

Yeah, he does, doesn't he? Hard to say if he doesn't understand it or if he finds it useful to contribute to the confusion on this subject.

"yet no Matter what, Metaphysical Naturalism [...] Skews the Subjective Evaluation of Evidence in Favor of Evolutionism."

Okay, name an alternative interpretation that lines up with the evidence for, say:

1. radiometric data

2. tree ring data

3. ice core layers

4. the identical placement of endogenous retroviruses in the DNA of humans and other primates

5. the placement of fossils in the fossil record

You seem to think (or at least are trying to get others to believe) there are two perfectly plausible alternative explanations for these things, and that people just pick and choose according to their personal beliefs/worldviews.

If that's what you think, then you've thoroughly misunderstood almost all of science.

If you find the time, read up on all the above subjects and the history of how they were examined and conclusions were drawn about them. If you're as open-minded as you've claimed, you might learn something, and that's not all bad, is it? :-)

Lista said...

Webscout,
That's Right. When Someone says something that goes against the Status Quo, or Against what is Taught as Fact in the Schools, just Considered it Willful Ignorance. What you don't Realize is that what you have been Taught is Only One Side of the Story.

It just so Happens that there are a lot a Sciences that are Considered Hard Science. The Facts in these Sciences are Better Established than that of the Softer Sciences.

Evolutionary Theory and Darwinism, as well as Geology and Archeology, are Considered Softer Sciences because they have to do with the Past and it is not Possible to Travel Back in Time and Actually Observe that which we have Theorized about. Therefore, that which can not be Observed now in the Present is Mostly Conjuncture.

Science has not Contradicted our Desired Outcome. There are at Least Two Ways to Interpret so much of the Evidence and Darwinists are only Willing to Accept the Interpretation of the Status Quo.

"Ever seen a winner complain about the referee? Me neither."

That's True and yet Neither will a Winner Complain if the Referee, in this Case the Status Quo, is Biased in their Favor.

"Do you really feel qualified to judge the plausibility of evolutionary pathways? Unless you do, you can't authoritatively state that they are inadequate."

Perhaps not, but there are People who do have the Credentials and the Authority that have Said that the Evolutionary Explanation of Irreducible Complexity is Inadequate and I have Every Right to decide who I Believe, just as does Everyone Here.

The Validity of Creationism does not Rise or Fall Based on whether or not I have the Expertize to Answer your Questions. This Issue is much Bigger then either you or I and anyway you are Falling into the Trap of Believing that if Creationism can not Explain Absolutely Everything, then this Entirely Discredits it, yet the Truth is that Darwinism can not Explain Absolutely Everything Either.

I can Respond to Number 4 and 5, though.

"4. the identical placement of endogenous retroviruses in the DNA of humans and other primates."

Commonality has Never been Evidence that Supports Comment Descent any more than it does a Common Creator.

"5. the placement of fossils in the fossil record."

There are Still Holes in the Fossil Record and all of the Missing Links have Problems that Lead to Alternate Interpretations and at Times Down Right Fraud.

"You seem to think......there are two perfectly plausible alternative explanations for these things, and that people just pick and choose according to their personal beliefs/worldviews."

Yep. That's it in a Nutshell.

"If that's what you think, then you've thoroughly misunderstood almost all of science."

What is Taught is Biased, Webscout. I Know that you do not Believe that Right Now, yet that does not Change the Reality. Stick Around and Read some more of Radar's Posts and if you have an Opened Mind, you will see the Evidence. If you want me to do some Research, then you should be Willing to do the Same. That is Research of the Other Point of View, not just that which they are Allowed to Teach you in School.

Lista said...

Canucklehead,
Is Radar Actually Out of Town or something? I Wonder how he Feels about me Responding to Unposted Stuff because of the Fact that it Usually does come into my Email Box. I was doing that on an Earlier Comment Thread and I'm not seeing any Cuss Words, so I'm not sure why you are having Trouble Posting. This Response will be a two Part One.

I'll Respond One More Time and then maybe I'll Wait for Radar to Post your Comments before I respond to any more of the Ones that have not been Posted.

Just Because you Laugh does not Mean that what you are Laughing at is not the Truth. Also, just because you Think I'm Ignorant doesn't Mean that I am. Radar doesn't Share your Opinion of me.

I'm Neither a 75 Year Old, nor a Teenager. I'm Older than Leticia, but I'm not no 75.

I Stand Very Firmly by my Statement that, "Everything that you say about Creationism is also True of Evolutionism or Darwinism."

I Mean that most Sincerely and if you do not Know what I am Talking about, then you are the One who is Ignorant.

People who Believe that Everything that goes Against their Own Point of View is either Ignorance or a Lie are Deceiving themselves, yet those who are Accused of Lying have no Choice by to Defend themselves by saying, no, it is you who are Lying.

"You admittedly don't know the first thing about the science behind evolutionary theory"

I Never Admitted any such Thing. All I have Admitted is that I haven't Read Up on it to the Extent that I should. Exaggerations are Deceptive just like Lies, Canucklehead.

I am Claiming no Authority Over anything, Only the Right to State what I have Observed and the Rest of the Readers have the Right to Examine the Evidence themselves and Decide rather or not they think I'm Right.

The Lie is that Evolutionary Theory has Answers for Everything and that Creationism has Answers for Nothing. That is a Bold Faced Lie and make no Mistake about it, there are Quite a Few Commenters who are saying Exactly that and this is Dishonest.

I Know this because I have Read the Creationists Position and Know for a Fact that the Evidence that they do have is not Absolutely Nothing. I do not have to be an Authoritative Evolutionary Expert in Order to be able to Clearly see that.

Lista said...

More for Canucklehead,
Since Darwinism is Taught in School and not Creationism and since Brainwashing is done by Presenting Only One Point of View, at the Exclusion of all others, it is therefore, by Definition, the Evolutionists, or at Least the Students, who are Brainwashed.

Creationism has Evidence too, you have just Chosen not to see it. Let the Readers decide for themselves rather or not what Radar Presents is Evidence.

People who are Uncomfortable with the Idea of God are just as Motivated by Bias as those who Desire to Preserve the Ideas in their Religion. There is Motive for Bias on Both Sides, so you are not Going to get out of that so Easily.

You are going to be Surprised to discover that I did Read a good part of your Link and in Brief, what I have to say is this. Not all of Evolutionary Theory is Incompatible with Christianity. Evolution Within Kinds in not an Incompatible Idea, yet the Idea that all Living Things have Descended from a Common Ancestor is not Compatible with the Creation of Kinds, just as the Bible Says...

"24) And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind and it was so. 25) And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind and God saw that it was good." (Genesis 1:24-25, KJV)

Also, it is not as if Students have not Observed, on their Own, the Implied Absence of God, or at the Very Least, the Lack of a Need for God in Creation in Accordance with the Evolutionary Idea.

I don't know who this Darrel Falk is, but if you ask me, he could Very Well be a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing, just as we have been Warned about.

Another Thing that I've been Thinking about, though, is the Claim that Darwinism and Modern Evolutionary Theory may not be Exactly the Same Thing and yet if Certain Parts of Darwinism has been Disproved, then that Needs to be Made more Public.

Perhaps it is this Confusion that has Caused Radar to Use the Word Darwinism, rather then Evolutionary Theory and I should Probably Start doing the Same. Yet, is it not True that Modern Evolutionary Theory Still Believes that all Life has Descended from a Common Ancestor? If so, then this is Clearly in Conflict with the Scriptures.

Also, if Modern Evolutionary Theory has no Problem with the Idea of a Creator, then why do they Oppose Intelligent Design Theory, for ID in no Way Identifies itself with any Particular Religion?

They Refuse to Describe the Nature of the Creator for that Very Reason and yet Evolutionists Reject them anyway and to say that their Research into Irreducible Complexity is not Scientific is nothing more than a Biased Opinion, if not a Bold Faced Lie.

Anonymous said...

You are completely, and clearly, clueless, Lista. And your assessment of Evolutionary theory and creationism/ID makes this fact very obvious. Maybe someone else has the energy to educate you but I don't. Rest assured though, you have been mislead by people you trust and as a result you are peddling lies, just like Radar. You believe in creationism because you want to. Bottom line. I trust evolutionary theory because that's where all the evidence points. Big difference.

Start thinking for yourself and you'll do a lot better.

-Canucklehead.

Lista said...

Canucklehead,
No One Can Believe in Evolution because you have Told them that Creationism is a Lie and that Creationists are Clueless. It is also not right for anyone to Believe in Creationism because either Radar or myself have told them that Evolutionary theory is a Lie and Evolutionists are either Deceptive or Clueless. Everyone has to do their Own Research.

I can Tell you One Thing, though, Trusting what is Taught in Secular School makes no more Sense then Trusting anyone Else. I'm Telling you, there is Bias and Prejudice going on and that is the Reason why Additional Research will be Required by all of us before we can Know what is True.

I hope Radar Returns soon so that he can Provide even more Posts with even more Evidence.

Don't you get it? You have Only Heard One Side of the Story and if I am Clueless about your Side of the Story, you are just as Clueless about mine.

Anonymous said...

Lista says,

"Everyone has to do their Own Research."

And yet you obviously haven't done any.

Are you really that dense Lista? I've only heard one side of the debate?!?! Are you aware this is a YEC blog? And that I've been visiting this site for years? Via Radar, I've seen ALL of the tired YEC arguments, and each time they are presented they are taken apart by real science. How often to you visit Talk Origins? You are the one who hasn't explored the opposing arguments, and that is clearly demonstrated in the content of your comments.

You are a brainwashed believer, Lista. You admit to holding the bible above all of science. You have no idea what you are talking about. YEC is a lie, perpetrated by a handful of people determined to protect their narrow worldview. And you are a fool for believing them.

-Canucklehead.

Lista said...

"And yet you obviously haven't done any."

You always Exaggerate, Canucklehead.

"YEC is a lie, perpetrated by a handful of people determined to protect their narrow worldview. And you are a fool for believing them."

Here's what I'll admit to. I do not Know if YEC is Correct or not. I Need to do more Research into this, as well as into the Gap Theory, also Known as "Gap Creationists", for those of you who wish to Look it Up.

ID, though, has a lot of Sound Evidence to Support Intelligent Design and this Group is not Made up Exclusively of Christians, so being Prejudice against them as a Group that Supports any One Particular Religion is a Prejudice Based on Misinformation.

I don't Know about you, but I'm Going to get off the Computer now.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Also, if Modern Evolutionary Theory has no Problem with the Idea of a Creator, then why do they Oppose Intelligent Design Theory, for ID in no Way Identifies itself with any Particular Religion?"

I can help you with this one. It's because ID is not synonymous with Creator.

It is possible for a creator to have created life initially and for life to then have evolved into different species. It may not line up with your particular religious text, but in theory this is possible.

On the other hand, ID is poor science for a simple, practical reason: it can not produce testable, falsifiable claims. It essentially presents a "god of the gaps" argument, no more: "Anything we can't explain must have been done by God." Remember how thunder and lightning used to be explained by the actions of divine beings?

Then, when an explanation for a phenomenon is found, it's no longer explained by divine causes. This is not only poor science, but poor theology as well.

(In the case of ID, its proponents look for phenomena that they claim can not be explained by evolution. Their claim that irreducible complexity (defined as a system in which the removal of any part(s) would render the system non-functional) can not be explained by evolution has been refuted both generally and in specific instances presented by ID proponents.)

Anonymous whatsit said...

"I don't Know about you, but I'm Going to get off the Computer now."

... a computer that wouldn't exist if your claims about science were true, btw. :-)

Anonymous said...

Oh and Lista, it has already been proven in US courts that ID is simply an attempt by US evangelicals to sneak christian creationism back into the class room, by removing all references to the christian god or the bible, and leaving in all the crummy "science". Understanding that you have told us that you are a slow reader, just watch this program and you'll learn all about it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

Hopefully you have time to check it out and let us know your thoughts.

-Canucklehead.

Lista said...

Whatsit,
"It is possible for a creator to have created life initially and for life to then have evolved into different species."

Yes, but it is Creationists that are Pushing for the Creation of Kinds and "My Particular Religious Text", not ID . This just Proves my Point that you do not Understand the Distinction.

"it can not produce testable, falsifiable claims."

It has done so with the Irreducible Complexity Idea. Many Evolutionists have Rejected the Results of the Experiments because of their Bias, yet their Explanations of the Results are not Adequate.

"Anything we can't explain must have been done by God."

Is that really any Different then "Anything that Creationists can't Explain Proves Evolution"?

These Arguments are becoming so Repetitious. Do we Really Need to Keep Repeating these Circular Arguments?

Ok Canucklehead,
Though, I assure you that I could Read Quite a Bit in a Couple of Hours (the Length of the Video) I also want you to Know that I am Interested in Watching this.

Just in the First Few Minutes, I have already Seen some Incorrect Statements. I wish I had the Time to Explain, but I have Limited Time this Morning. I'll Tell you what, though. I'll Try and Listen to and Watch a Little Bit of this Video each Day for Awhile and Tell you my Thoughts along the Way.

Lista said...

Whatsit,
"a computer that wouldn't exist if your claims about science were true, btw. :-)"

This Commment Shows that you do not Understand the Difference between Hard and Soft Science, as I have Explained in an Earlier Comment. Computer Technology has nothing to do with the Unobservable Things of the Past and is therefore a Hard Science.

Anonymous/Canucklehead,
"It has already been proven in US courts that ID is simply an attempt by US evangelicals to sneak christian creationism back into the class room."

Yes, I'm going to Watch the Rest of the Video, but for now I thought I would Bring it to your Attention that in Civil Law, though the Burden of Proof is Initially on the Plaintiff, Once the Plaintiff has made a "Prima Facie Case", the Burden Shifts back to the Defendant to Refute or Rebut the Evidence.

Next, in Order for the Plaintiff to Win the Cast, "the plaintiff wins if the preponderance of the evidence favors the plaintiff". In other words, the Jury only has to Believe that there is "More than a 50% Probability that the Defendant was Negligent" in Causing Injury, or in the Case of the Trial we are Discussing, Making a Decision that is not Constitutional.

The 50% Standard is Very Low in Comparison to the "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" Claim that is Required in Criminal Cases.

The Point that I'm Making is that just as the Word "Proof" is not Used in Science, only the Word "Confirm", so also, the Standard of "Proof" in Civil Cases is not that High either, yet Darwinists and Evolutionists Continue to Exaggerate their Claims Making Science appear to be much more than it is.

Now for the First Couple of Minutes of the Video and a Number of Incorrect Statements that were Made Right Away.

Comparing the Certainty of Evolution to the Certainty of a Historic Event such as the Civil War is Misleading, for they Call Scientific Theory, Theory for a Reason. Science does not "Prove". It only "Confirms" and they use this Terminology for a Reason.

Even the Statement "Between Science and Scripture" is Misleading, for ID has nothing to do with anyone's Scripture.

Next were Statement such as "Intelligent Design is a Science Stopper.", "It Makes People Stupid." and "It is a Fraud."

And Next, the Trial was Described as "The Front Lines on the War on Evolution". This is a Misleading Statement because all that those Supporting ID were Upset about was that Evolution was the Only thing being Taught, "to the Exclusion of Everything Else". Making an Attack on, Warring Against, Doing Away With or being a "Science Stopper" has never been the Intent.

Also, how can Teaching Something Else Along Side of and Therefore Introducing Additional Information Make Any One "Stupid"? Additional Information has Never Made anyone "Stupid".

These are all Nothing more than Exaggerated Over Reactions and are all Highly Unscientific Statements.

Fortunately, Once I Got Further into the Video, I Found it to be More Scientific Later On.

I Bet you Think that a lot of This is New Information to me, but I have Heard about Darwin's Finches and all that was is a within Species Example of Natural Selection, from which Darwin Jumped to all Kinds of Conclusions in Relation to all Organisms Descending from a Common Ancestor. He had Absolutely no Proof or Even Confirmation of this Idea at all. I’ve now Watched about 20 Minutes of the Video.

Anonymous said...

Lista,

What's your opinion on peer review in science?

Also: how would you explain the fact that scientists with all kind of different worldviews, be it religious or non-religious, hold the theory of evolution to be true?

Lista said...

The Answer to your First Question is that Peer Review is Biased in Favor of the Status Quo and the Answer to your Second Question is that there is Prejudice to a Point that Causes Scientists who Disagree with the Status Quo to behave and not Make too many Waves and because of this, the Statistical Numbers of those who Believe in Darwinism are Skewed.

Also, ID is not so much in Conflict with ALL of the Evolutionary Idea, only with the Idea that it is Completely Random, from Beginning to End, without the Involvement of an Intelligent Agent.

Lista said...

You Know, even the Video that Canucklehead Left a Link to Admits that "A Growing Number of Scientists Feel that the World is too Complex to have Happened at Random". Due to the Fact that this was a Video and not a Written Document, this Quote may not be Exact, yet it was Something like that.

Anonymous said...

@Lista:

"The Answer to your First Question is that Peer Review is Biased in Favor of the Status Quo and the Answer to your Second Question is that there is Prejudice to a Point that Causes Scientists who Disagree with the Status Quo to behave and not Make too many Waves"

Can you back those statemens up with any verifiable facts? Thanks in advance.

Jon Woolf said...

"[Darwin's finches] is a within Species Example of Natural Selection,"

The Galapagos finches are not all the same species. Current classification puts them into fourteen species in four genera. Darwin didn't even identify them all as finches at first. He thought many of them were other kinds of birds. Yet they're all so clearly descended from a single common ancestor that not even creationists try to claim otherwise.

"from which Darwin Jumped to all Kinds of Conclusions in Relation to all Organisms Descending from a Common Ancestor. He had Absolutely no Proof or Even Confirmation of this Idea at all."

Heh. You've never read On the Origin of Species, have you? Darwin found piles of evidence for evolution all through his voyage aboard the Beagle. And others have followed his lead and continued to build evidence. His case was so convincing that within twenty years after publication of On the Origin of Species, virtually all of biology accepted the basic concept of evolution, although they didn't always accept Darwin's explanation of variation and natural selection as the primary evolutionary process.

Jon Woolf said...

"Also, how can Teaching Something Else Along Side of and Therefore Introducing Additional Information Make Any One "Stupid"? Additional Information has Never Made anyone "Stupid"."

Being given false information and told it's true, however, is another story entirely.

ID is false information. It's also religion, which makes teaching it in a taxpayer-funded public school science classroom unconstitutional.

Jon Woolf said...

"You Know, even the Video that Canucklehead Left a Link to Admits that "A Growing Number of Scientists Feel that the World is too Complex to have Happened at Random"."

I don't think so. If you rewatch it, I think you'll find that the quote you're remembering comes from a propaganda video put out by the Discovery Institute. so it's not an 'admission,' it's a claim. Like many claims by propagandists, the phrasing is literally true but highly misleading. Suppose that last year 100 scientists believed in "intelligent design" theory. This year, 200 do. Of course the number has grown. In fact, the number of "intelligent design" supporters doubled in a single year! It must REALLY be an up-and-comer!

Except that 200 is a spit in the ocean compared to all the hundreds of thousands of scientists worldwide who accept evolutionary theory in its modern form.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"ID, though, has a lot of Sound Evidence to Support Intelligent Design"

False. At the moment it has plenty of conjecture, but no actual evidence for its contentions so far. Just because it looks "sciencey" doesn't mean you should put aside your critical thinking facilities re. their actual claims.

"and this Group is not Made up Exclusively of Christians, so being Prejudice against them as a Group that Supports any One Particular Religion is a Prejudice Based on Misinformation."

There's no need to be prejudiced against them on the basis of their religion, since their lack of evidence is surely reason enough.

Still, what percentage of ID proponents would you say are Christians or Muslims? 10 percent? 50 percent? 99 percent?

I suspect your claim is based on an exaggeration, and that just about no IDers are non-theists.

Lista said...

Oh Shoot! Now it is My Comment that Won't Publish. It was Really Long. Perhaps if I Divide it into Several Parts, it will Publish.

I Took Yesterday off from Looking at the Computer, but I see that a Bunch of the Rest of you didn't.

Anonymous,
My Typical Answer to that Question is to Mention the Movie Expelled, though I've become Aware of the Typical Evolutionists Response to that. I gave a Longer Response to the Question on an Earlier Comment Thread and I do not Feel Like Repeating myself, so I'll Tell you what. I'll Read through and Respond to some of the rest of these Comments and then Find the Earlier Conversation and Give you a Link to it.

Woolf,
"The Galapagos Finches are not all the same species. Current Classification puts them into fourteen species, in four genera. Darwin didn't even identify them all as finches at first."

Yeh. Leave it to the Evolutionists to Redefine Words and Classifications in Order to Support their Own Point of View. Thanks for Giving me yet another Example of them doing so. Why do you Think Baraminology was Created? It's because the "Current Classification" System is Biased in Favor of Evolutionism.

Darwin Needed the Help of a Bird Expert in Order to Correctly Identify the Birds as Finches. He did not, on his Own, have the Expertize in Order to do it and therefore got it Wrong "At First".

Lista said...

More for Woolf,
"Yet they're all so clearly descended from a single common ancestor that not even creationists try to claim otherwise."

That's Right, because Creationsists have Never Denied Evolution within Species and they Still don't within Kinds. Kinds is a Term within Baraminology, which I am not Going to Keep Defining Over and Over again for New Commers. Look it Up, if you don't know what I'm Talking about.

"Darwin found piles of evidence for evolution all through his voyage aboard the Beagle."

Generally the Very Best of the Evidence is what is Stressed by those who Believe in Darwin's Ideas and what has been Presented Over and Over again are the Finches. If you think you've got something Better, then Present it.

Creationists have Found Evidence as well. The Fact that those on this Comment Thread are Going to Deny that Fact is Irrelevant.

"Being given false information and told it's true, however, is another story entirely. ID is false information."

I disagree. I Think instead that what you just Said is False.

"It's also religion."

So is Evolution. Evolution is Based on the Religion of Naturalism, which is really nothing more that a Form of Atheism and it just so Happens that Atheism is the Only Religious Point of View that has been Protected from the First Amendment Restrictions.

Lista said...

Sorry about the Delay. Due to Computer Problems, I had to Shut Down, Restart, Run Norton, Take a Break, etc. Here's Part Three of my Comment.

Whatsit,
"'ID, though, has a lot of Sound Evidence to Support Intelligent Design.' False. At the moment, it has plenty of conjecture, but no actual evidence."

Nope. You are the One who has said something that is False.

I have not Put Aside my "critical thinking facilities" and I'll also Throw this Right Back at you.

"Just because it looks 'sciencey'" (That is what Evolutionists Claim) "doesn't mean you should put aside your critical thinking facilities re. their actual claims.", for that Looks "Sciencey" as well.

How Many Times do I have to Tell you that I do not Agree with you that Creationism has no Evidence and Making that Incorrect Statement to me a Million Times, or even a Billion Times, is not going to Change that Fact.

"Still, what percentage of ID proponents would you say are Christians or Muslims? 10 percent? 50 percent? 99 percent?"

I don't know the Answer to that, but it's not Relevant because all of the Scientists are Encouraged to Put their Religious Bias' Aside and Focus Only on the Evidence.

A Non-Theist, or Atheist, is going to have a Bias that Makes his Acceptance of the Hypothesis of ID Difficult to Accept, so if there are not Many in the ID Group, this isn't that Difficult to Understand.

Anonymous said...

@Lista:

Could you please back up this earlier statement of yours with verifiable facts?

"The Answer to your First Question is that Peer Review is Biased in Favor of the Status Quo and the Answer to your Second Question is that there is Prejudice to a Point that Causes Scientists who Disagree with the Status Quo to behave and not Make too many Waves"

Thanks in advance.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"A Non-Theist, or Atheist, is going to have a Bias that Makes his Acceptance of the Hypothesis of ID Difficult to Accept, so if there are not Many in the ID Group, this isn't that Difficult to Understand."

Why would that be, if ID is supposedly non-religious and does not draw any conclusions about the nature of the designer?

Regarding irreducible complexity, what exactly are the testable, falsifiable claims that you think can be made to support ID?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"How Many Times do I have to Tell you that I do not Agree with you that Creationism has no Evidence and Making that Incorrect Statement to me a Million Times, or even a Billion Times, is not going to Change that Fact."

It's not really relevant whether you agree with the statement or how stubborn you are or whatever. What matters is bringing facts and arguments and evidence to the table.

Radar posts countless articles copied wholesale from creation.com etc. that focus on arguments from incredulity, strawman arguments etc. None of these constitute evidence FOR creationism in any way, not least for the simple reason that an argument against, say, the theory of evolution is not automatically confirmation of divine creation.

I state that there is no evidence for creationism. You claim that that statement is incorrect. Fine. Then it should be quite easy for you to present evidence for creationism.

Let's see it.

Don't walk off muttering about how much Radar has shown on his blog or whatever.

Identify the evidence for creationism.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"So is Evolution. Evolution is Based on the Religion of Naturalism, which is really nothing more that a Form of Atheism"

See, this is why it's important that you identify which type of naturalism you're talking about, metaphysical or methodological. Leaving that out will only cause confusion, perhaps intentionally, perhaps not.

The theory of evolution is based on methodological naturalism and is compatible with metaphysical naturalism, but isn't based on it.

"and it just so Happens that Atheism is the Only Religious Point of View that has been Protected from the First Amendment Restrictions."

It may surprise you to learn that Christianity and other religions are also protected by the first amendment and that even the ACLU has stepped in on occasion to protect the 1st Amendment rights of Christians.

Jon Woolf said...

It may surprise you to learn that Christianity and other religions are also protected by the first amendment and that even the ACLU has stepped in on occasion to protect the 1st Amendment rights of Christians.

Yup.

It may surprise her even more to learn that the bedrock "no religion in public schools" case was filed to protect the First Amendment rights of a religious minority: the Jehovah's Witnesses. And the ACLU filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the plaintiffs in the case.

Anonymous said...

"Creationists have Found Evidence as well. The Fact that those on this Comment Thread are Going to Deny that Fact is Irrelevant."

What is more relevant, however, is that creationists can not present any actual evidence for creation.

Look at it this way, Lista. If I claimed that there were little green men living in the sewers, you'd say I was nuts. If I said I had piles and piles of evidence to support my notion, perhaps you'd think there might be something to it... but you'd certainly ask what evidence that might be.

And if I then came up with a bunch of excuses and logical fallacies and whatnot...

... what would you conclude exactly?

At the very least, you'd conclude that it looks like I don't have much of a case.

Right?

Anonymous said...

"Yeh. Leave it to the Evolutionists to Redefine Words and Classifications in Order to Support their Own Point of View. Thanks for Giving me yet another Example of them doing so."

Scientists didn't redefine words and classifications in order to support their own point of view, they created and adjusted classifications so they could be useful.

A flat classification system isn't terribly useful once more information comes to light that makes it clear that there is more complexity there - that there are various layers of grouping.

This isn't a Christian/atheist issue, by the way. Surely you know that Linnaeus was a Christian as well.

"Why do you Think Baraminology was Created?"

Because to certain Christian fundamentalists, science is fine as long as it doesn't contradict their interpretation of scripture, and the moment it does, science must be wrong, corrupt, fraudulent etc.

The Linnean classification system, especially when placed side by side with geographic distribution, the fossil record and DNA evidence, is strongly supportive of common descent, a huge stick in the eye for creationists.

Their response? Get rid of it. Start from scratch. Which is essentially what baraminology is all about: reduce everything back to a single layer, something kind of like a species.

No explanation is given for why all the other information that has been found by Linnaeus and many, many others after him should simply be discarded.

"It's because the "Current Classification" System is Biased in Favor of Evolutionism."

Just because it contradicts the idea of creationism doesn't mean it's biased against them. Bias has a specific meaning.

If the facts are consistently "biased" against something you believe in, maybe that should tell you something.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"And if I then came up with a bunch of excuses and logical fallacies and whatnot...

... what would you conclude exactly?"

Given that it's Lista we're talking about here, she might conclude that science has some kind of irrational bias against little green men living in the sewers...

Lista said...

My Words:
"A Non-Theist, or Atheist, is going to have a Bias that Makes his Acceptance of the Hypothesis of ID Difficult to Accept, so if there are not Many in the ID Group, this isn't that Difficult to Understand."

Whatsit's Words:
"Why would that be, if ID is supposedly non-religious and does not draw any conclusions about the nature of the designer?"

That is such a Very Dumb Question. It is Because Atheists Care not Only about Discussion of the Nature of a Designer, but about the Discussions about the Mere Existence of a Designer.

"Regarding irreducible complexity, what exactly are the testable, falsifiable claims that you think can be made to support ID?"

That Irreducible Complexity Exists. We have had this Discussion before as well and I Refuse to Keep Repeating myself just because you have Rejected what I have said.

"It's not really relevant whether you agree with the statement or how stubborn you are or whatever. What matters is bringing facts and arguments and evidence to the table."

When ever you Make a Blanket Statement such as what is the Evidence for Creationism, all I have to do is say that there is lots of Evidence that has been Presented by Radar on this Blog and I can say with Confidence that the Statement that there is no such Evidence is a Lie Based on the Evidence that has been Presented on this Blog.

Nothing Further is Needed in Order to Establish that the Statement that there is no such Evidence is a Statement that is not based on the Truth.

"Radar posts countless articles copied wholesale from creation.com etc. that focus on arguments from incredulity, strawman arguments etc."

I disagree. This Post from Radar Contains Evidence for the Idea that the Grand Canyon may have been Created by the Great Flood and if you are not Willing to Acknowledge that, then you are Being Highly Biased. Remember I did not Claim that it has Proved the Idea, Only that it is Evidence and yet You Continually State that this Evidence does not Exist and yet it does.

"See, this is why it's important that you identify which type of naturalism you're talking about, metaphysical or methodological. Leaving that out will only cause confusion."

Metaphysical, I suppose, yet the Real Problem is not the Adjectives, but the Noun, for what "Naturalism" means is "a view of the World which takes account only of Natural Elements and Forces". When the Possibility of the Supernatural is Excluded from the Conclusion, the Evidence can not Lead to where ever it Leads without Bias and Therefore, the Truth can not be Found. The Exclusion of the Supernatural is a Bias, Plain and Simple, and it is a Religious Bias, because the Absence of God is a Religious Point of View.

No Matter What Adjective is Placed Before this Noun, the Noun is Still Naturalism and a Theistic, whether than Atheistic Conclusion is Excluded. This is Biased on Atheistic Science.

"Even the ACLU has stepped in on occasion to protect the 1st Amendment Rights of Christians."

Whatever. That doesn't Change the Fact that the Freedom of Speech of Christians is Continually Under Attach and we are Continually in Court Defending Our Rights. This Costs us a Considerable amount of Time and Money and is a Continual Annoyance.

I Guess I should Leave some Links now, since you guys Keep Requesting Evidence. Let’s see…

Here is my Post on Baraminology and how Evolutionists have a Tendency to Change the Definitions of Words to Fit with their Own Theory

Lista said...

Anonymous,
"What is more relevant, however, is that creationists can not present any actual evidence for creation."

This is so Tiring, you Guys, for you Keep Asking Questions Over and Over and Over Again that have already been Answered and there is a Limit to how many Times I will Keep Repeating myself and I have Already Explained Why the Above Quoted Statement is Grossly Inaccurate and Yet you Keep Relentlessly Repeating this Untruth. I've Never Met a Group before that has such Very Heavy Blinders on. It's just Totally Unbelievable.

I do not Agree with your Claim, Anonymous, that Radar's Evidence is Worthless. This simply is not so.

Of Course you are Allowed to Ask for Evidence, yet Once the Evidence is Given, it is Incorrect to Keep Denying what you have been Shown.

I disagree that the Evidence Presented has been Logical Fallacies and Strawmen and for you to Keep Repeating this False Assessment is not Going to Change my Opinion on the Matter. My Opinion is that the Evidence Presented by Evolutionists is Made Up of a lot of Logical Fallacies and Strawmen. I don't know why it is that you seem to Think that the Relentless Repetition of your False Accusations Constitutes an Argument.

"At the very least, you'd conclude that it looks like I don't have much of a case. Right?"

That's Absolutely Right and that is, In Fact, my Very Conclusion.

"Scientists didn't redefine words and classifications in order to support their own point of view, they created and adjusted classifications so they could be useful."

That's Another Incorrect Statement. Please Read my Post on the Subject. The Link is at the End of my Last Comment, or if you would Rather just Copy Paste, then here it is again...

http://wwwramblingsoflista.blogspot.com/2011/06/baraminology-current-biased-biological.html

"This isn't a Christian/Atheist issue, by the way."

I Know it's not. ID is a Theist/Atheist Issue. What do you Think I have been Trying to Say, but you are Terribly Hard of Hearing. Baraminology (Created by Creationists) is a Little more Christian in it's Focus, then ID, though, because of it's Focus on Created Kinds.

"Linnaeus was a Christian as well."

Yes, but Lennaeus is not the One who has been Changing the System to Fit the Theory of Evolution, which is the Very Reason Why it is so Very "supportive of common descent". Being in Denial about the Reason Why does not Change the Facts.

"No explanation is given for why all the other information that has been found by Linnaeus and many, many others after him should simply be discarded."

The Explanation is that it has been Restructured and Redefined in Accordance with a Bias. Your Denial does not Change this Reality.

Whatsit,
"Given that it's Lista we're talking about here, she might conclude that science has some kind of irrational bias against little green men living in the sewers..."

Just because you do not Like this Conclusion, or because I am the One who is Making this Claim, that doesn't Make it Incorrect. And Making a Funny Mocking Statement about it doesn't Either.

I Wish that I didn't have to Repeat this, yet my Evidence for Bias is Right there in the Wikipedia. Here is the Quote...

"Modern biological classification has its root in the work of Carolus Linnaeus, who grouped species according to shared physical characteristics. These groupings have since been revised to IMPROVE CONSISTENCY WITH THE DARWINIAN PRINCIPLE of common descent." (Biological Classification, Wikipedia)

Forgive me, but you Guys are Really a Bunch of Blind Idiots who are not Only Biased, but also Hard of Hearing.

Jon Woolf said...

"This Post from Radar Contains Evidence for the Idea that the Grand Canyon may have been Created by the Great Flood "

Problem is, there's also evidence -- which Radar carefully did not mention -- that shows the Grand Canyon could not have been created by the Great Flood. For example, the fact that the Grand Canyon doesn't run downhill. That is the evidence that creationists need to explain -- and can't.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Forgive me, but you Guys are Really a Bunch of Blind Idiots who are not Only Biased, but also Hard of Hearing."

Ah, name-calling - always a nice way to spice up the conversation a little.

"I Know it's not. ID is a Theist/Atheist Issue."

Thank you for admitting something that so many ID proponents are so desperately trying to deny. So the nature of the designer that ID is trying to find evidence for is a divine being, correct?

Anonymous: "At the very least, you'd conclude that it looks like I don't have much of a case. Right?"

Lista: "That's Absolutely Right and that is, In Fact, my Very Conclusion."

Good. So if you now substitute YEC for the "little green men in the sewers" scenario, you should be able to see why we conclude that YEC proponents don't have much of a case.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Thank you also for attempting to provide evidence for creation, in this case the Grand Canyon. Note the weakness of this example:

1. Evidence is only presented that the Grand Canyon may be compatible with a flood. It also happens to be compatible with other scenarios, and so it's no more supportive of a global flood (YEC) than it is of other scenarios (e.g. old Earth/conventional geology).

2. It is immediately contradicted by other evidence that makes it clear the Grand Canyon is not compatible with a YEC scenario (I suspect Jon Woolf can mention more reasons why this is the case), thus rendering the example moot as evidence for creation.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Regarding irreducible complexity, what exactly are the testable, falsifiable claims that you think can be made to support ID?"

"That Irreducible Complexity Exists. We have had this Discussion before as well and I Refuse to Keep Repeating myself just because you have Rejected what I have said."

True, this discussion has been going on for a while, but I note that you occasionally use plain stubbornness as a discussion instead of taking note of responses, trying to understand them and then responding to them.

So the testable, falsifiable claim that supposedly supports ID is "Irreducible Complexity Exists"? Okay, let's say that if irreducible complexity - defined as a system in which the removal of any part(s) would render the system non-functional - exists, how does that tell us that it couldn't have evolved naturally?

You're jumping from this statement ("irreducible complexity exists") to the conclusion that it couldn't have evolved naturally, and yet evolutionary pathways for such instances have been clearly identified, even on this blog in discussions in which I seem to remember you taking part.

If irreducible complexity (again, defined as a system in which the removal of any part(s) would render the system non-functional) exists but an evolutionary explanation is at hand, then how is this in any way a confirmation of intelligent design? The whole point of bringing up irreducible complexity is to argue that it couldn't have evolved and therefore must have been designed intelligently, right?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Metaphysical, I suppose, yet the Real Problem is not the Adjectives, but the Noun, for what "Naturalism" means is "a view of the World which takes account only of Natural Elements and Forces". When the Possibility of the Supernatural is Excluded from the Conclusion, the Evidence can not Lead to where ever it Leads without Bias and Therefore, the Truth can not be Found. The Exclusion of the Supernatural is a Bias, Plain and Simple, and it is a Religious Bias, because the Absence of God is a Religious Point of View.

No Matter What Adjective is Placed Before this Noun, the Noun is Still Naturalism and a Theistic, whether than Atheistic Conclusion is Excluded. This is Biased on Atheistic Science."

Huh. "No matter what adjective is placed before this noun, the noun is still naturalism and atheistic"?

Sorry, Lista, but the English language doesn't work that way. Adjectives are actually capable of modifying the meaning of a term or phrase.

"Methodological naturalism", for example, doesn't mean "a view of the World which takes account only of Natural Elements and Forces", and it doesn't on principle exclude the possibility of the supernatural - it just can't arrive at them for logical, practical reasons. This is the case whether methodological naturalism is practiced by a Christian, a Wiccan, a non-theist, etc.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Whatever. That doesn't Change the Fact that the Freedom of Speech of Christians is Continually Under Attach and we are Continually in Court Defending Our Rights. This Costs us a Considerable amount of Time and Money and is a Continual Annoyance."

And isn't it cool that the ACLU is there to help you out?

Anonymous whatsit said...

Had a look at that AIG species article that you linked to.

www DOT answersingenesis DOT org/articles/2009/03/16/fixity-of-species

I don't really understand your complaint about changing definitions. Scientists over time used the definitions to reflect what they were observing. This indicated variation of species (the counter-argument given in the article being a rather uneducated "we don't see dogs turning into cats" argument), not fixity of species, as claimed by some Christians.

The taxonomic system is pretty good at classifying organisms based on a variety of different aspects (anatomy, DNA).

So what exactly is the complaint? That "species" no longer refers to the biblical "kind"? Well why should it? There was no nefarious motivation behind the word "species" being used in science and over time not reflecting an ancient conception of biology.

Instead, creationists have the word "baramin", which has the advantage of specifically and unambiguously referring to the biblical "created kind".

And that's where the fun begins. YECs don't know what to do with the term. They can't define it. Or perhaps they refuse to define it. It can't be like a species, because after all species are generated and the bible says you can't have new kinds. Plus they all have to fit on the Ark.

It must be fun rejecting all the data accumulated by scientists over centuries and trying to come up with a classification system that fits in with an ancient religious text instead.

Anonymous said...

"That doesn't Change the Fact that the Freedom of Speech of Christians is Continually Under Attach and we are Continually in Court Defending Our Rights. This Costs us a Considerable amount of Time and Money and is a Continual Annoyance."

It really must cause some kind of meltdown in your brain when your religious desires keep butting up against the Constitution.

Anonymous said...

"I Wish that I didn't have to Repeat this, yet my Evidence for Bias is Right there in the Wikipedia."

Why do you think that Wikipedia quote indicates bias?

Anonymous said...

"I note that you occasionally use plain stubbornness as a discussion instead of taking note of responses, trying to understand them and then responding to them."

More and more so in recent comments. I can understand Woolf's disappointment in Lista.

IAMB said...

Whatsit:

Had a look at that AIG species article that you linked to.

www DOT answersingenesis DOT org/articles/2009/03/16/fixity-of-species

I don't really understand your complaint about changing definitions. Scientists over time used the definitions to reflect what they were observing.


The really disappointing part here is that she's still waxing indignant over scientists pulling the proverbial rug out from under creationists regarding the species definition...

... Two months after someone pointed out that the definition change - according to AiG's own article - took place a couple hundred years before Darwin ever proposed evolution.

It's almost as funny as those times our intrepid host mentions that baraminologists are working on classification that takes into account "AKSHUL DNA EVIDENZ111Elebenty!!!" while carefully neglecting to notice that they're several decades late to that particular party as well (I know I mentioned it to him many months ago).

I'm tempted to give up.

IAMB said...

Also, for Lista:

You've said recently (and I paraphrase here) that since you don't have time to read through the mountains of literature regarding scientific issues, you have to judge who is right and who is wrong based on character. Yes?

Okay, so what about our host's claims that are easily fact-checked without years of study?

For instance, he's said (perhaps dozens of times in the last few years) that uniformitarianism has been abandoned. Well, it's easy to look that up (I just have to ask my other half, who just happens to be a geologist) and I think you'll find the answer to be a resounding "ummmmm, no".

Arsenic bacteria have been disproved? Nope. Guess what was in the June 3 edition of Science this year (pg. 1163)? Now, if by "disproved" you mean "some high-profile scientists have disagreed with the research" you'd have a leg to stand on, but that would be one of those "definition changes" you like to complain about.

Anyway, do a little fact-checking on the easier claims and I think you'll notice and interesting pattern here, but I suppose that's just my bias talking, right?

Lista said...

I'm Going to Put Off Responding to Whatsit right Now and Focus instead on Woolf and I also want to Say just a Few more Things about the Video that Anonymous/Canucklehead Left a Link to in his Comment at, 8:36 AM

Woolf,
I was Only Addressing the Fact that the Statement that Creationism has no Evidence at all is an Incorrect Lie. Whether or not Evolutionary Theory also has Evidence is not Relevant to that Particular Point.

In your Statement that the "Problem is, there's ALSO evidence", you Admit that there is Evidence for Creationism, therefore, Confirming my Point. You are not the Slightest bit Bothered, though, by the Lie that there is no such Evidence. The Only Honest Position is that there is Evidence on Both Sides.

Anything Short of that is Deceptive.

Also, how many Times do I have to Tell you that the Current Lack of an Explanation in no Way Proves that there isn't One. This is the Very Biggest of the Flaws in your Reasoning when you Criticize the Creationist's Position and yet you Argue from this Faulty Reasoning Relentlessly. Talk about Logical Fallacies. This here is a Very Good Example.

My Guess in Relation to the Up Hill Portion of the Grand Canyon is that Hard Rock does not Erode in the Same way as Soft Rock Does and if a Section of Up Hill Rock is Hard Enough, then it will not Erode. There is no Reason to Insult me, though, if my Guess in Incorrect. I have Never Claimed to be an Expert in Geology. I’m just saying that Up Hill does not Necessarily Prove the Absence of Water Erosion, rather Fast or Slow.

The Thing is, though, None of this is Relevant. To Claim that Creationism has no Evidence at all is just Plain a Lie. Anonymous did not Say that the Evidence was Inadequate. He said that there was None and that is Highly Deceptive.

And as to the Bias of the Biological Classification System, when those who have the Control, Stack the Cards Against the New Comers, that is not how Truth is Discovered. In Order to Discover the Truth, there Needs to be a Level Playing Field that is Fair to both Sides, but that is not what we have. And if you Want to me to Respect you enough to Learn from you, then you Need to be Honest with me. Obviously, Anonymous does not have the Ability to do so.

Anonymous/Canucklehead,
Here are a Few More Incorrect Statements from the First 40 Minutes of the Video...

The Statement "Darwin Against God" is Misleading in the Context of ID because ID does not Support any One Religion. To say that this is "About Religion, Politics and Power" is Equally Misleading, just as to Suggest that this is about "the Power to Over Throw Evolution" is Misleading and Inaccurate because that has Never been the Goal.

ID has been Accused of Being Religion in Disguise and Called the "Latest Front on the War on Evolution", which is Misleading because to do Away with the Teaching of Evolution has Never been the Intent. Likewise, the Goal has Never Been "To Re-Christianize American Society".

A Couple of other Misleading Statements are that ID was "Not Being Actively Researched by Anyone" and is "A Violation of Everything we mean and Everything we Understand as Science".

I didn't even Agree when they Said that "The Common ancestry of all Forms of Life was called in the Video, 'One of Darwin’s Great Insights'." Funny. I would have Called it One of Darwin’s Greatest Unconfirmed Assumptions.

I Know you are not going to Like what I've Said here, yet I just had to React to these Statements.

Anonymous said...

ID has been Accused of Being Religion in Disguise and Called the "Latest Front on the War on Evolution", which is Misleading because to do Away with the Teaching of Evolution has Never been the Intent. Likewise, the Goal has Never Been "To Re-Christianize American Society".

Ever heard of the Wedge Document?

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf

From the document:

Governing Goals:

- to defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural en political legacies

- to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.


More info here:

http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2008/06/28/kitzmiller-v-dover-whats-the-wedge-document/

Anonymous said...

"Ever heard of the Wedge Document?"

I was going to bring that up as well. Seeing as Lista only recently heard about the Gap Theory, I suspect the Wedge Document will be news to her as well.

Lista said...

Anonymous 1 & 2,
Actually, yes, I have Heard of the Wedge Document. I Believe that it was Mostly a Creationism Document, though, not an ID One.

Lista said...

My Longer Comment didn't Publish and I don't have Time Right Now to Try again. Unfortunately, I've Got to Go.

Anonymous said...

"I Believe that it was Mostly a Creationism Document, though, not an ID One."

And that belief would be wrong. Read the document and you will see that ID is part and parcel of the Wedge strategy.

Anonymous said...

"I was Only Addressing the Fact that the Statement that Creationism has no Evidence at all is an Incorrect Lie."

Incorrect or a lie, please pick one. I think you yourself actually commented not so long ago that it's wrong to accuse someone of lying without knowing their motivations etc. It would be great if you could practice some consistency on this point, mkay?

"In your Statement that the "Problem is, there's ALSO evidence", you Admit that there is Evidence for Creationism, therefore, Confirming my Point."

Let me break this down to you by way of an analogy: a man is suspected of having committed a murder at 21 Main Street around 9 pm. The prosecution presents evidence that the man was observed walking along Main Street earlier in the evening. The conclusion that can be drawn from this? He may have committed the murder. We can't reasonably infer more than that.

The defense then comes in with a rock-solid alibi indicating that the man was performing at a concert, on stage, from 8:30 pm until 11 pm, and so couldn't possibly have committed the murder.

Do you see how in this case there is no evidence that the man committed the murder?

It's analogous to what you're trying to do here. You have one weak argument that MAY be compatible with what you're trying to demonstrate, but it's trumped by other evidence that scuttles the weak argument.

Going back to the analogy, let's say that you, Lista, are the prosecutor. It is as if you would shoot back with: "But there is evidence that he walked along Main Street and so may have committed the murder, so you can't say there isn't any evidence that he committed the murder." Actually, we CAN say that there isn't any evidence that he committed the murder.

And we can say that there isn't any evidence for creationism.

Until you identify some, of course.

Anonymous said...

"You are not the Slightest bit Bothered, though, by the Lie that there is no such Evidence. The Only Honest Position is that there is Evidence on Both Sides."

Then kindly identify the evidence for creation. So far all you've come up with are some vague references to Radar's blog, which we already know is littered with logical fallacies and blatant misrepresentations, and a reference to the Grand Canyon (addressed earlier, and sadly short of constituting evidence).

Even if you think Radar's blog is a fount of wisdom when it comes to these issues, surely you can pick out some evidence for creationism that he's posted, no?

"Also, how many Times do I have to Tell you that the Current Lack of an Explanation in no Way Proves that there isn't One."

Try telling Radar that. He's been pulling that number for some time now, specifically re. abiogenesis by natural means. Apparently no explanation can ever be found.

In any case, if there is one theory that consistently explains a set of phenomena in a testable, falsifiable way and there is another theory that fails to do so, then one becomes an accepted scientific theory and the other one doesn't. It's as simple as that. This has nothing to do with bias and everything with being able to consistently verify testable claims that confirm the respective scientific theory.

"This is the Very Biggest of the Flaws in your Reasoning when you Criticize the Creationist's Position and yet you Argue from this Faulty Reasoning Relentlessly. Talk about Logical Fallacies. This here is a Very Good Example."

What logical fallacy do you think is being committed here? We note that creationism can't explain a set of phenomena, while certain scientific explanations (e.g. theory of evolution, modern geology) can. We don't claim that this proves that an explanation can never be found. On the contrary, we merely note that according to our best understanding of the data available today, these scientific theories best fit the evidence.

What's the logical fallacy?

"My Guess in Relation to the Up Hill Portion of the Grand Canyon is that Hard Rock does not Erode in the Same way as Soft Rock Does and if a Section of Up Hill Rock is Hard Enough, then it will not Erode. There is no Reason to Insult me, though, if my Guess in Incorrect. I have Never Claimed to be an Expert in Geology. I’m just saying that Up Hill does not Necessarily Prove the Absence of Water Erosion, rather Fast or Slow."

That doesn't add up to any explanation at all, Lista.

Jon Woolf said...

Lista: "My Guess in Relation to the Up Hill Portion of the Grand Canyon is that Hard Rock does not Erode in the Same way as Soft Rock Does and if a Section of Up Hill Rock is Hard Enough, then it will not Erode."

Your 'guess' is irrelevant. I don't think you even understood the question.

The creationist theory for the origin of the Grand Canyon is that it was formed by run-off of Flood waters - specifically, waters flowing from enormous lakes to the east and northeast. The problem is that this doesn't make any sense.

Water always - without exception - flows downhill. The Grand Canyon of the Colorado trends basically east to west. However, the Canyon cuts into the southern side of the Colorado Plateau, across the local topography, so that the North Rim is always higher than the South Rim. If you imagine where the surface of the Plateau used to be before the Canyon was cut, water starting from there should flow south, not west. Water flowing from lakes to the northeast should also have flowed south. Not westward across the flank of the Colorado Plateau.

This single observation, that the Canyon trends west and not south, demonstrates that the 'runoff' theory of how the Grand Canyon was cut is wrong. It shows that there is evidence which creationism can't explain. So creationism fails as a scientific theory.

Lista said...

You Guys are Leaving me in the Dust Again. There is Absolutely No Way I can Respond to all of you. It just can't be done with the Amount of Computer Time that I have Available to me and it doesn't help if when I Try to Post something, it will not Publish and I Give Up. No Matter how much I Shorten it, it just won't Post.

Lista said...

Anonymous & Anonymous/Whatsit,
"I note that you occasionally use plain stubbornness as a discussion instead of taking note of responses, trying to understand them and then responding to them."

I am Only One Person. I Can Only do so Much and Focus on so much at Once. I Can't Help the Fact that you Guys are Impatient. This is Part of the Reason why I decided to Include in my last Comment more of a Response to the Video that Canucklehead Left a Link to and I hope that I will Some Day Be able to Respond even more to it Later.

It Surprises me that you Guys do not even Realize how much you have been Throwing at me at Once and that your Expectations are Quite High. There are 5 of you, no Actually 6 (Two are Anonymous, not just One) and Only One of Me.

Even Radar is Away from the Computer at the Moment. Give me a Break will you Please.

Anonymous said...

"There are 5 of you, no Actually 6 (Two are Anonymous, not just One) and Only One of Me."

Yes, but since we're all a 'Bunch of Blind Idiots', taking us on all by yourself shouldn't be a problem, right?

Lista said...

She Smiles at Anonymous' Comment about the Blind Idiots.

Correcting a Long List of Incorrect Statements Takes a Considerable amount of Time and Effort, and Fills a Significant Amount of Space in Words and Paragraphs. To Simply say, I Agree, is much less Effort, but I don't Agree and Explaining Why Takes Time.

I Basically Decided to Take the Day Off from Long Comments. Perhaps I'll Feel better about this Long and Tedious Pursuit Tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

"Correcting a Long List of Incorrect Statements Takes a Considerable amount of Time and Effort, and Fills a Significant Amount of Space in Words and Paragraphs."

You don't have to tell us. It's Tedious indeed to comb through all your miscomprehensions.

But why do you complain about how many people are commenting and all that? You obviously believe that there is evidence for creationism, to the extent that you routinely decry anyone who disagrees as liars (not just mistaken, but liars).

Sooo...

Please identify what you think that evidence is.

You're just going to keep evading this, aren't you?

Anonymous said...

"It Surprises me that you Guys do not even Realize how much you have been Throwing at me at Once and that your Expectations are Quite High."

Wrong on both counts.

Lista said...

Anonymous,
"It's Tedious indeed to comb through all your miscomprehensions."

Perhaps it would be more Accurate to Call them Disagreements. That is, you Guys see it One Way and I see it another, yet to go Back and Forth and say, "This is True and this is not.", "No, this is True and this is not." or "I Understand and you do not.", "No, I Understand and you do not." is sort of Like saying, "I'm Right and your Wrong.", "No, I'm Right and your Wrong." This Sort of Dialogue Achieves nothing and Yes, it's also Tedious.

After Awhile, we Need to Learn how to Stop just Blurting these things Out that Our Opponent does not Accept as Fact and Offer Real Arguments Instead.

A Person who is Mistaken is Different that a Person who Lies and the Main Difference is in how many Times such a Person has been Corrected and shown Evidence and yet Still Continues to state the Untruth. Some of the Commenters here are Only Mistaken and some of them... Well, let's just say that I've began to Understand why Radar sometimes Calls them Liars.

Now, I may Find it Necessary to Apologize soon for the Tone I've been Using, yet Please, if you wouldn't Mind. I do Need the Chance to Catch my Breath.

"You're just going to keep evading this, aren't you?"

I have not Evaded anything. You just haven't Listened. Radar has Posted Post, after Post, after Post on the Subject. My Favorite is This One. This is the Second Time that I have Left this Link and yet are you going to Keep Telling me anyway that I am Evading the Subject, even though I have Left a Link Twice now to Radar's Evidence?

My Words: "It Surprises me that you Guys do not even Realize how much you have been Throwing at me at Once and that your Expectations are Quite High."

Anonymous' Words: "Wrong on both counts."

No. I'm Right on Both Accounts and this Comment of yours Proves it. That is this Comment Proves that you "do not even Realize...". You Only Think that I'm Wrong because your do not Realize what I have just said you do not Realize.

Lista said...

Ok. Now for a Response to some Earlier Comments.

I'm Skipping over Whatsit, because he Appears to be the Most Long Winded in the Group at this Time. So I'm Only Responding to the Parts of his Comments that the Others have Quoted and that’s all.

Anonymous, 9:02 AM,
"It really must cause some kind of meltdown in your brain when your religious desires keep butting up against the Constitution."

This Statement Only Shows your Ignorance, Anonymous, because these are not Establishment of Religion Cases. These are Freedom of Speech Cases and the Separation of Church and State Statement is not Even in the Constitution. Take the Time to Read it, Anonymous. It Talks about the Establishment of Religion, not the Presence of Religion. This is why we Win a lot of these Cases, yet even so, it is Highly Annoying and Expensive to Continually be Fighting in the Courts for our Constitutional Rights.

Anonymous, 9:09 AM
"Why do you think the Wikipedia quote indicates bias?"

All you have to do is Read what I Quoted, Anonymous, in the 1:35 PM Comment. The Part that Proves Bias is in Capital Letters and Bold. You can't Miss it; "to IMPROVE CONSISTENCY WITH THE DARWINIAN PRINCIPLE of common descent."

Anonymous, 9:11 AM,
I have Already Responded to this One, in my Statement that "I am Only One Person and I Can Only do so Much and Focus on so much at Once." and that there are 6 of you and Only One of Me, yet I Felt Like Looking at the Quote again because I am Noticing a Hypocrisy.

Whatsit's Words Quoted by Anonymous:
"I note that you occasionally use plain stubbornness as a discussion instead of taking note of responses, trying to understand them and then responding to them."

My Responses to you so Far, Anonymous, have Shown that you are Guilty of Carelessness in not "Trying to Understand" something before Responding.

My Response to your 9:02 AM Comment Reveals that you have not Taken the Time to Understand the Constitution, nor the Freedom of Speech Cases that I was Referring to and my Response to your 9:09 AM Comment Reveals even a Worse Carelessness in not Reading, Observing and "Trying to Understand" what I had Quoted from the Wikipedia that had already Answered your Question.

In both of these Comments, Anonymous, you have Shown Clear Evidence that you are Guilty of all of that which you Quoted Whatsit saying about me.

IAMB, 11:16 AM,
Whatsit's Words:
"I don't really understand your complaint about changing definitions. Scientists over time used the definitions to reflect what they were observing."

My Complaint is that they have Deliberately done so in a Biased Way, in Favor of Evolution. This is Shown in the Fixity of Species Article that you say you have Read and Even the Wikipedia has Admitted this, as I have Quoted in my Comment at 1:35 PM.

IAMB's Words,
"The really disappointing part here is that she's still waxing indignant"

Without any Non-Verbal Feed Back, IAMB, you have no Clue at all what my Emotional State is and yet what ever it might be is Irrelevant anyway.

cavalier973 said...

Bravo, Lista!

I would point out that Darwinists and Creationists don't each have a separate set of evidence; both groups look at the same evidence, but use different presuppositions to interpret the evidence.

Jon Woolf said...

Well, that's true enough, I suppose: creationists presuppose the Bible must be literally true, while scientists presuppose that reality makes sense.

Lista, you really should spend some time studying the Establishment Clause in constitutional law. It has been rightly said that Establishment Clause jurisprudence is an incoherent mess, but it's also been rightly said that much of the mess is due to foolish people who think they can use the wording of the Establishment Clause to pervert its spirit. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Any religion. Or no religion at all. The State cannot require that kids learn a specific religious position. Creationism is a specific religious position, ergo, the State cannot require that it be taught.

Lista said...

Thanks Cavalier,
And what you are saying is so True.

Woolf,
"Creationists presuppose the Bible must be literally true, while scientists presuppose that reality makes sense."

In Order for me to Agree with that I have to Rephrase it.

"Creation Scientists presuppose the Bible must be literally true and Explains Reality, while Evolutionary Scientists presuppose that 'reality' makes sense without God and that Science without God Explains Reality"

As to the the Establishment Clause, I Understand it rather well, Thank You. There are Two Issues Going on that are Being Discussed here. One is the Freedom of Speech Cases that are Going on in Order to Protect the Freedom of Speech of Christians and the Other is the Teaching of Evolution in Schools. The First of These is what I was Speaking of when I was Talking to Anonymous about the Establishment Clause in the Constitution.

As to the Second Issue, the Teaching of Atheism, or Even Naturalism, should not be Allowed in the Schools Either and that is Essentially what the Teaching of Evolution is, because it is Taught as the Result of Randomness, Apart from the Involvement of Anything that is Supernatural in Nature. This is Naturalism and Naturalism is a Religious Idea that should not be Taught in the Schools.

ID does not Push any Specific Religion. All it Proposes is the Involvement of an Intelligent Agent or Intelligent Cause. Period.

Anonymous said...

"ID does not Push any Specific Religion. All it Proposes is the Involvement of an Intelligent Agent or Intelligent Cause. Period."

You didn't really read the Wedge Document, did you? Here's the link again:

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf

From the document:


Governing Goals:

- to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

"Five Year Objectives:

Spiritual & cultural renewal: Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism; Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s); Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions; Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God"


Yes, it was written by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the Intelligent Design movement and yes, it clearly wants to push Christianity. It's there, black on white. Why do you keep denying this?

Anonymous said...

@cavalier973:

"I would point out that Darwinists and Creationists don't each have a separate set of evidence; both groups look at the same evidence, but use different presuppositions to interpret the evidence."

So what is the presupposition that has Christian, Muslim, Hindu and non-religious scientists interpret the evidence as support for the theory of evolution?

Lista said...

Anonymous, 4:27 AM,
Once again, I have already Responded to this and yet you Didn't Notice. At 4:27 PM, I said, "I Believe that it was Mostly a Creationism Document, though, not an ID One." What you have Quoted does not show the Link between ID and the Wedge Document.

Just because a Group of Creationists say that they want to Push ID as a First Step towards Other Goals does not Establish that this is a Part of the ID Movement.

There is One Man that is High Up in the Discovery Institute that was Connected to it and should not have been.

The Reason why I Keep Denying that is because this was not Initially the Intent of the Intelligent Design Movement and I don't Think that the Entire Movement should be Judged by the Mistake of One Man.

The Problem with Evolutionists is that they Find One Small Piece of Incriminating Evidence and they Grab Onto it and say, "Aha! Got ya!" and there is no Forgiveness for anything in the Non-Christian World.

I Wrote a More Complete Response to this, yet it is Still Stored in my Word Processor and I have not yet had the Chance to Deliver it to be Posted. I am Out Numbered and can Only Submit so much at Once and yet you are the Most Impatient and Demanding of all of the Commenters and just do not Seem to Get it.

Here is what is Stored in my Word Processor that was written in Response to Anonymous, 4:40 PM and was Scheduled to be Posted Sometime Today.

"Since I have not Responded to Whatsit yet, I'm Torn between doing that and Reading your Link about the Wedge Document. Don't you see the 6 to One Problem or are you Only Able to see Things from your Own Perspective while Judging those around you.

What I Remember from the Last Time this Document was Brought to my Attention is that one of the Discovery Institute Guys was Involved some how and it is my Opinion that he Made a Huge Mistake. I do not Agree with the Goals of the Wedge Document and that was not Originally the Intent of ID."


I Wrote that Yesterday, yet since then have Only had the Chance to Submit what I Submitted at 3:20 PM, 5:51 PM & then 12:17 AM this Morning. Sorry that I didn't Get to the Wedge Document as Quickly as you had Hoped.

A Three to Four Day Response Time may not be Acceptable to you, Anonymous, but I'm Afraid that I have a Life Apart from the Computer and this is the Best that I can do.

Anonymous, 5:16 AM,
"So what is the presupposition that has Christian, Muslim, Hindu and non-religious scientists interpret the evidence as support for the theory of evolution?"

Similarity, for Example, is Interpreted by Evolutionists as Evidence for Common Descent. This Very Same Similarity, though, is Interpreted by Creationists and Intelligent Design Scientists as Evidence of a Common Designer.

Lista said...

Back to Earlier Comments.

More for IAMB, 11:16 AM,
"Two months after someone pointed out that the definition change - according to AiG's own article - took place a couple hundred years before Darwin ever proposed evolution."

Time Frame has nothing to do with it. If a Definition is Biased, it is Biased. It Makes no Difference how Long of a Time Frame the Bias has been there.

This is not a Forgiveness Issue. It is a Fairness Issue and an Issue of the Discovery to Truth, which can not Happen on a less then Level Playing Field. This is nothing more than your Attempt to get the Focus off of you and Onto me, yet I'm not Angry or Resentful, only Seeking what will Produce the Best Chance of the True Discovery of what is True.

Picturing me Angry and Finding it Funny has nothing to do with Truth, Only with your Own Ego.

IAMB, 11:25 AM,
Ok, Perhaps Radar has Misspoken a Few Times. I have an Eye for Exaggeration and I don't even have to Look that One Up. You are Correct in saying that Uniformitarianism has Obviously not been Abandoned by all Scientists, for Staunch Evolutionists/Darwinists Still Believe in it.

Evolutionists are Famous for such Exaggeration, though. A Couple of my Previous Comments were just Full of Examples of the Exaggerations and Over Reactions of Evolutionists.

"I suppose that's just my bias talking, right? "

Another Possibility is the Bias of the Confirmation and Falsification System that now Favors the Status Quo. You Deny that such Exists, yet I'm Quite Certain that you're Wrong.

Anonymous, 4:40 PM,
Please Accept my Apologies if you are a Different Anonymous then the One that I was Writing to above, for I do Realize that you may not be the Same One as the Impatient One.

Anonymous, 4:47 PM,
I have Actually already Responded to the "Incorrect or Lie" Issue in One of my Previous Comments. That is on the Forth Paragraph Down of my 3:20 PM Comment. The Quote that you are Referring to...

"I was Only Addressing the Fact that the Statement that Creationism has no Evidence at all is an Incorrect Lie."

was Taken from my 1:08 PM Comment and I was Speaking to Woolf. Here is the Rest of it...

"Whether or not Evolutionary Theory also has Evidence is not Relevant to that Particular Point.

"In your Statement that the 'Problem is, there's ALSO evidence', you Admit that there is Evidence for Creationism, therefore, Confirming my Point. You are not the Slightest bit Bothered, though, by the Lie that there is no such Evidence. The Only Honest Position is that there is Evidence on Both Sides.

"Anything Short of that is Deceptive."


One of the Anonymous Commenters Keeps Saying that there is no Evidence for Creationism and I Keep Correcting him/her. I have Left a Link Twice Now to the Page on Radar's Blog that Contains Evidence and yet he/she Apparently doesn't know how to Recognize Links and Keeps Accusing me of Side Stepping even though I have not Done so.

This Anonymous may not Be Lying. It is Possible instead that he/she has just been Lied to.

To Clarify on the Lying Thing, though. I have Actually Apologized to Radar on One of the Comment Threads for getting on his Case for Calling some of the Commenters Liars, for more Recently I have Realized that he May Actually be Correct in his Accusation. If I have Accused the Anonymous that I've just Mentioned Incorrectly, then I Apologize, yet I Still Think that the Statement was Originally a Lie when it was Told to this Anonymous.

Jon Woolf said...

Lista: "The Reason why I Keep Denying that is because this was not Initially the Intent of the Intelligent Design Movement"

Lista, you're wrong. Disguising creationism as science was exactly the intent of the Intelligent Design movement. This was proven at trial in Kitzmiller v. Dover. Barbara Forrest demonstrated, using the ID Movement's own documents, that ID is nothing more than a trojan horse for creationism. In court, under oath, fully subject to defensive cross-examination. It's in the Nova episode you say you watched, and it's in the trial transcript. Denying that fact suggests quite strongly that it's you who have no respect for the truth, and not your opponents.

Anonymous said...

Kitzmiller was a hatchet job and being a trial had nothing to do with science.

The establishment clause bites Darwinism in the butt because Atheism and Naturalism are religions just like Christianity. So if creationism is invalid because it is supported by Christians then Darwinism is invalid because it is supported by atheists and naturalists. Go fish. Better yet, let's see you come up with scientific evidence instead of nonsense like Kitzmiller.

radar

Anonymous said...

Radar says,

"Atheism and Naturalism are religions"

In your dreams, maybe. In reality, nope.

-Canucklehead.

Anonymous said...

Which is why you are a knucklehead...atheisim and naturalism are metaphysical, they are worldviews. No reason they have any more business being inserted into science or prohibited from science than Christianity or Buddhism. Humanism has been recognized by the US Government as a religion and Darwinism is part and parcel to Humanism and vice-versa. The religious zealots of Humanism are getting away with establishing a national religion right under everybody's noses. I shall post accordingly.

radar

Anonymous said...

"Which is why you are a knucklehead...atheisim and naturalism are metaphysical, they are worldviews."

Metaphysical naturalism is metaphysical. Methodological naturalism isn't.

"No reason they have any more business being inserted into science or prohibited from science than Christianity or Buddhism."

Metaphysical naturalism isn't inserted into science any more than Christianity was inserted into science back in the day. Modern science operates the same regardless of the private philosophies of the scientists themselves.

Methodological naturalism works exceedingly well in science and has led us to all the advanced scientific achievements we enjoy today. Unfortunately it can't prove or disprove God - that's simply outside of its remit.

Too bad you don't see your own narrow worldview confirmed by modern science, and what a pity that instead of drawing logical conclusions from that you simply want to dismiss science.

"Humanism has been recognized by the US Government as a religion and Darwinism is part and parcel to Humanism and vice-versa.

There's more to humanism than just secular humanism. Surely you're aware that humanism started out as a Christian offshoot (Christian humanism), and that it does not necessitate atheism or anti-deism.

Having said that, you should educate yourself on what secular humanism actually is about (not your cartoon villain version of it) and then explain to us how the teaching of evolution in biology class amounts to teaching secular humanism.

"The religious zealots of Humanism are getting away with establishing a national religion right under everybody's noses."

Exactly how do you think excluding religion amounts to including religion?

It takes some chutzpah for a Christian in the US to play victim and to complain about atheists "establishing a national religion".

Ema Nymton said...

.

"It takes some chutzpah for a Christian in the US to play victim and to complain about atheists "establishing a national religion"."

For so many 'christians', it is all about being the victim; beyond being the victim, what do christians in the US have?

As stated in the first comment,
Yawn. A rehash of oft-repeated ideas,

Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.

Lista said...

The Speed at Which these Comments are Coming into this Blog is Forcing me to not be Able to Respond to Everything, for I Still have more that I Want to Say in Relation to the Earlier Comments that I May Never Get to.

And there is Probably a Lot that I could say in Response to Woolf, 7:15 PM, but all I am going to Say, for now, is that I have Only Listened to 40 Minutes of the Video. I Never Claimed to have Watched more then that.

Why have I not Watched the Entire Thing, you Ask? Because the Comments on this Blog are so Numerous that I don't have much Time to Read Links and Watch 2 Hour Videos and really Study all of what you Guys want me to Watch and Study. I'm not sure Why it is that Canucklehead/8:36 AM thought that Watching a 2 Hour Video would be Easier than Reading Evolutionary Articles for the Same Length of Time.

In Truth, Even at my Slow Reading Pace, I could Read Quite a Bit in 2 Hours. Is it really so Impossible to Imagine that I haven't been Able to Find Two Hours Worth of Computer Time to Commit to that. Yeh, it doesn't Help when I Keep Hitting Pause and Taking Notes, yet this is the Very Thing About me that Prevents the Brain Washing that Faster Readers and Less Careful Video Watchers are more Susceptible to.

Woolf, I Believe what you have Said, but Still Think that this is Only One Case, that Involves One Text Book, in One Town, that was being Pushed by One Particular School Board. And it still Needs to be Considered that the "Preponderance of Evidence" in a Civil Case is only 50%, much less then the "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" Requirement in Criminal Cases, which is another Way of Explaining why, just as Radar said, a Trial is not the Same as Science.

Hey! Welcome back, Radar (8:18 AM).

Canucklehead, 4:06 PM,
"In your dreams, maybe. In reality, nope."

That's a Very Nice and Lofty Claim, but I don't see any Evidence to Back it up.

Radar, 4:32 PM,
Though I'd Love to hear a more Detailed Explanation of the Metaphysical vs. Methodological Naturalism that Anonymous Keeps Bringing Up (1:19 PM, 12:44 PM, 6:49 PM, 10:02 AM & 4:47 AM) and then that Anonymous/Whatsit also Addressed at 4:22 PM & 1:53 AM, it is also not as if I have not Responded to the Issue in My Comments Marked 11:42 PM, 9:57 AM & 11:32 AM. A Couple of the Paragraphs from the 11:32 AM Comment are Worth Repeating.

My Words/11:32 AM: "The Real Problem is not the Adjectives, but the Noun, for what 'Naturalism' means is 'a view of the World which takes account only of Natural Elements and Forces'. When the Possibility of the Supernatural is Excluded from the Conclusion, the Evidence can not Lead to where ever it Leads without Bias and Therefore, the Truth can not be Found. The Exclusion of the Supernatural is a Bias, Plain and Simple, and it is a Religious Bias, because the Absence of God is a Religious Point of View.

"No Matter What Adjective is Placed Before this Noun, the Noun is Still Naturalism and a Theistic, whether than Atheistic Conclusion is Excluded. This is Biased on Atheistic Science."

In Response to this, Whatsit says...

"Sorry, Lista, but the English language doesn't work that way. Adjectives are actually capable of modifying the meaning of a term or phrase." (1:53 AM)

It Looks Like my Response to this is Still in my Word Processor. I'll Look that Up in a Minute.

Lista said...

Here is a Quick Response to Whatsit, 1:53 AM...

Whatsit's Words: "Sorry, Lista, but the English language doesn't work that way. Adjectives are actually capable of modifying the meaning of a term or phrase."

All the Adjective "Methodological" does is Changes the Definition "a view of the World which takes account only of Natural Elements and Forces" to "a Method which takes account only of Natural Elements and Forces". The Noun in the Definition may have Changed, but the Principle has not, so this Minor Change to the Definition of the Word Natural is Irrelevant.

Lista said...

Could it be, Whatsit and Anonymous, that you are the Ones who are Trying to Create Confusion over the Word Naturalism by making too Big a Deal Out of the Adjectives, rather then the Noun?

I Wonder why it is that Neither of you, or any other Evolutionist Commenter have ever Defined the Actual Difference. You can do so just as well as Radar, yet you Know that you do not have a Case, because the Principle behind this Word Remains the Same Regardless of the Adjective, which Changes Only the Noun in the Definition of the Word.

Anonymous said...

"I Wonder why it is that Neither of you, or any other Evolutionist Commenter have ever Defined the Actual Difference."

Lista, surely that difference has been pointed out ad nauseam by now.

Methodological naturalism refers to the methods used and does not dictate the exclusion of a supernatural conclusion - it is simply incapable of arriving at such a conclusion, since a supernatural conclusion can not be tested.

Metaphysical naturalism is the naturalism as a worldview that excludes the possibility of a supernatural conclusion on philosophical/metaphysical grounds.

Since science practices methodological naturalism, it can't arrive at a supernatural conclusion. This does not mean that scientists automatically practice metaphysical naturalism - they can just as easily be practicing theists who simply happen to be applying the scientific method.

"Could it be, Whatsit and Anonymous, that you are the Ones who are Trying to Create Confusion over the Word Naturalism by making too Big a Deal Out of the Adjectives, rather then the Noun"

That's not the case, Lista. The two terms do have different meanings, and when Radar uses the word "Naturalism" to mean sometimes one and sometimes the other term, it adds confusion. If he were to use the correct terms in each case, his statements would be less confusing, but generally also less defensible.

Anonymous said...

"The Exclusion of the Supernatural is a Bias, Plain and Simple"

In the case of methodological naturalism, on which modern science and all the fruits thereof are based, it is not a bias, but a simple practical necessity.

This isn't the first time this discussion has been broached on this blog. Ask Radar for examples in which the supernatural was used as part of any scientific explanation since the birth of modern science. He'll come up dry every time.

Anonymous said...

"I have not Evaded anything. You just haven't Listened. Radar has Posted Post, after Post, after Post on the Subject. My Favorite is This One. This is the Second Time that I have Left this Link and yet are you going to Keep Telling me anyway that I am Evading the Subject, even though I have Left a Link Twice now to Radar's Evidence?"

Lista,

it may be the second time you've left the link, but is there any plausible reason why you ignored how it was taken apart by Jon Woolf and another commenter after you first posted it? Shouldn't the fact that others have responded to it and rebutted it make it clear to you that they have in fact listened?

Simply re-posting it isn't going to make it any better evidence somehow.

Lista said...

Anonymous,
"Methodological naturalism refers to the methods used and does not dictate the exclusion of a supernatural conclusion - it is simply incapable of arriving at such a conclusion, since a supernatural conclusion can not be tested."

Huh? You Know, sometimes there are Two Explanations and Neither can be Tested. For Example, Similarity between Kinds, can be Explained as Common Decent, but there is no Way to Observe or Test this Claim. Also, Similarity between Kinds, Yes, Including DNA Similarities, can be Explained as a Common Designer, but there is no Way to Test this Claim.

Even though you are Reluctant to Admit it, both of these Claims are Based on a Worldview and Neither of them can be Observed or Tested.

Here's the Thing that Evolutionists Deny. It is not Only the Supernatural that can not be Tested. The Claim that Similarity Proves Common Descent, rather then Common Creator can not be Tested either. You can Claim all you want to that yours is the Superior Explanation, yet you can not Prove it, Science can not Prove either of these Claims. We are both in the Same Boat and yet when it comes to this Fact, Evolutionists are in Continual Denial.

The Only Reason that Methodological Naturalism is "incapable of arriving at such a conclusion" is because the Philosophy of Metaphysical Naturalism Rules it Out.

To be Completely Honest, we would have to Admit that METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM DOES NOT CONCLUDE AT ALL. It is Only a Means of Evaluating Evidence, yet the Actual Conclusions are Made by the Scientists, not by the Method and the Evolutionists that Believe in Metaphysical Naturalism Make their Conclusions Based on this Worldview, Philosophy or Actually Religion.

Your Continual Denial of this Reality does not Make it Cease to be so.

I Stick by what I said about the Adjectives not being as Relevant as you have Made them Out to be. They are Only Relevant if you are willing to Admit that the Methodological, or the Method, is not the Conclusion, but Only the Evidence and that the Conclusions are based on the Metaphysical Biases of the Scientists who have Agreed to Exclude the Supernatural.

If you have Found Radar's Style of Communication Confusing, Anonymous, then Perhaps my Style of Explaining this is will be more Clear.

"In the case of methodological naturalism, on which modern science and all the fruits thereof are based, it is not a bias, but a simple practical necessity."

Actually, this Statement is Correct, because the Methodology Only Leads to Evidence and not to Conclusions and it is in the Conclusions where the Bias Lies, not in the Evidence.

Lista said...

Ok, now for Anonymous, 8:16 PM,

I have a Pretty Strong Hunch that the Reason why you Misunderstood me is because I was Talking to the Other Anonymous. That is the Anonymous that is Highly Impatient and has been Asking the Same Ridiculous Question Over and Over again, while Accusing me of Evading a Subject that I have not been Evading. Let's Call this Impatient Anonymous, Anonymous 1 and I will Call the 8:16 PM Anonymous, Anonymous 2.

The Fact that you, Anonymous 2, are Complaining that I have Posted this Link Twice is Proof that I am not "Evading the Subject" and Refusing to Answer the Question that is Continually Repeated by Anonymous 1, or more Specifically, the Statement, "Show me the Evidence for Creationism." Since I have Posted this Link Twice now, I can not be Accused of not Providing the Evidence Requested and that was My Motive for Posting it Twice and nothing else.

So you see, Anonymous 2, this has Nothing to do with you, for I was Responding to Anonymous 1.

"is there any plausible reason why you ignored how it was taken apart by Jon Woolf and another commenter after you first posted it?"

Oh Gee! Could it Possibly be because there has been a Six to One, Out Numbered Situation Going on here and I can't Keep Up? Forgive me for not Being Super Human will ya'? Just for the Record, though, I do not Feel that the Argument has been Adequately "Taken Apart" and Rebutted. There is Evidence for Both Sides, that's all.

Again, when I Posted this Twice and Accused of not Listening or Paying Attention, I was Primarily Talking to Anonymous 1, so None of the Rest of you have any Reason to Take Offense.

Lista said...

Here is Something from my Word Processor that was Never Posted and yet Relates to what we have just been Discussing...

Anonymous, 4:47,
"Do you see how in this case there is no evidence that the man committed the murder?"

No. There is Evidence. It's just that the Counter Evidence Cancels it Out. I do not Believe this to be the Case, though, with Evolutionism and Creationism, Especially in Relation to Evolutionism and ID, or More Specifically to Irreducible Complexity.

The Thing is, though, it is Pointless to Keep Shouting, "There is no Evidence." without Presenting the Counter Evidence and this is what Anonymous has done. Furthermore, it is Actually more Accurate to say that the Evidence has been Over Ruled, then to say that there is no Evidence. Though even this Statement is Debatable, at least it is more Honest.

Anonymous, 4:52 PM,
This is no Doubt Anonymous 1 and I have Lost Count of how many Times he/she has said the Following Statement or Something Similar.

"Then kindly identify the evidence for creation."

I have Linked to a Particular Page on Radar's Blog Twice Now. The Link is in my 11:32 AM Comment and my 3:20 PM Comment. In the First, the Link is Marked by the Words "This Post from Radar" (10th Paragraph Down or 8th from the Bottom) and in the Second, it is Marked by the Words "This One" (Forth Paragraph from the Bottom).

Hopefully you Know how to Use the Find on this Page Feature of your Web Browser.

You Know what, though. I'll Make it even Easier. Here is the Link again that you can just Copy Paste...

http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2011/05/just-over-year-ago-today-i-introduced.html

Just don't go Thinking that this is the First Time that I have Left this Link on this Comment Thread, because that is not the Truth.

I guess I should Apologize for Assuming that you were Better at Recognizing Links then you are. As for the Rest of you. This Part of this Comment is for Anonymous, 4:47 and no One Else, so don’t Keep Asking me why I Keep Repeating myself.

"'Also, how many Times do I have to Tell you that the Current Lack of an Explanation in no Way Proves that there isn't One.'

"Try telling Radar that. He's been pulling that number for some time now, specifically re. abiogenesis by natural means."


We are Equal in our Lack of Evidence on the Origin of Life Issue, yet I'm not the One who has ever been Trying to Prove Superiority. Teaching Two Ideas Side by Side in School does not Require such a Claim. It is not Necessary to Prove Superiority. Equality is Enough.

Anonymous said...

"Oh Gee! Could it Possibly be because there has been a Six to One, Out Numbered Situation Going on here and I can't Keep Up? Forgive me for not Being Super Human will ya'? Just for the Record, though, I do not Feel that the Argument has been Adequately "Taken Apart" and Rebutted. There is Evidence for Both Sides, that's all.

Again, when I Posted this Twice and Accused of not Listening or Paying Attention, I was Primarily Talking to Anonymous 1, so None of the Rest of you have any Reason to Take Offense."

Way to get an attitude about it. The simple fact of the matter is that while you're accusing others of not listening to you when you first posted the link, it's clear that (1) they were listening to you, since they did respond to you, and (2) you did not listen to their responses.

Now you trot out some excuses, but you know what it's called when someone accuses others of doing something that they themselves are doing?

It's a word you swing around quite frequently...

Anonymous said...

"Do you see how in this case there is no evidence that the man committed the murder?"

"No. There is Evidence. It's just that the Counter Evidence Cancels it Out."

In both the courtcase analogy and the argument re. the Grand Canyon, the "evidence" for is merely evidence that something may be compatible with what the proponents are setting out to prove.

This makes it very weak evidence and certainly doesn't make it any evidence at all when pitting YEC against present-day geology.

"I do not Believe this to be the Case, though, with Evolutionism and Creationism, Especially in Relation to Evolutionism and ID, or More Specifically to Irreducible Complexity."

Ah, fleeing to safe vague generalizations again.

As for the Grand Canyon "evidence", which you've now posted twice, it has been trumped by counter-evidence, so we can retire this, right?

Anonymous said...

"Just don't go Thinking that this is the First Time that I have Left this Link on this Comment Thread, because that is not the Truth."

I think we're all aware that you've posted this link before. I don't see anyone claiming otherwise.

The Grand Canyon as evidence of a global flood has also been taken apart, and for some reason you're choosing not to respond to that.

"I guess I should Apologize for Assuming that you were Better at Recognizing Links then you are."

Unlike you, I also recognized the responses to the links, so you're not really in a position to be snotty about it.

"We are Equal in our Lack of Evidence on the Origin of Life Issue, yet I'm not the One who has ever been Trying to Prove Superiority."

No, that would be Radar.

"Teaching Two Ideas Side by Side in School does not Require such a Claim. It is not Necessary to Prove Superiority. Equality is Enough."

In science classes, the scientific theories that best fit the evidence should be taught - otherwise you'd be opening the door to any and all creation myths, stories of gods spewing lightning etc.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that the creationist scenario at this point in time doesn't add up to an equal scientific explanation at all. I'm confident that if you were to put aside Radar's vague and hollow claims and actually read science texts representing current understanding of evolution, geology etc., you would quickly see that it represents a cohesive set of explanations that tie in with each other as well as with observable evidence with extremely high consistency.

At the same time, creationism can't explain some very simple observable evidence at all. Take for example the sorting of fossils in the fossil record. Creationists don't even have a working hypothesis for that one. Every time you ask Radar about it, he either changes the subject or makes up an answer on the spot. There's just no "there" there.

That's not to say that maybe in a couple hundred years creationists will have such explanations, but at present they simply don't have a consistent set of explanations that can be said to be equal and that should therefore share equal time in the classroom.

Anonymous said...

As for your repeated complaints that others are impatient in their demands, I can assure you that I for one am not impatient at all - simply because I don't think you can present the goods.

The reason I ask you to identify the evidence for creationism is because you keep calling people who say there is no evidence for creationism liars - without any justification at all.

You haven't been able to identify any such evidence - and I don't blame you for that. Not only don't you know much about this subject, as you've often said yourself, but you also don't know enough about the subject to understand that there is no evidence for creationism.

So every time you insult others without any justification, you can rest assured you'll be asked to back it up - if only to point out to others that you have no basis for your remarks.

Anonymous said...

"To be Completely Honest, we would have to Admit that METHODOLOGICAL NATURALISM DOES NOT CONCLUDE AT ALL. It is Only a Means of Evaluating Evidence, yet the Actual Conclusions are Made by the Scientists, not by the Method and the Evolutionists that Believe in Metaphysical Naturalism Make their Conclusions Based on this Worldview, Philosophy or Actually Religion.

Your Continual Denial of this Reality does not Make it Cease to be so.

I Stick by what I said about the Adjectives not being as Relevant as you have Made them Out to be. They are Only Relevant if you are willing to Admit that the Methodological, or the Method, is not the Conclusion, but Only the Evidence and that the Conclusions are based on the Metaphysical Biases of the Scientists who have Agreed to Exclude the Supernatural."

Lista, it's completely pointless to have this discussion with you if you're not going to make any effort to educate yourself on the meaning of "methodological naturalism" (which is not synonymous with the method) and "metaphysical naturalism".

Please let us know when you have done so.

Lista said...

Anonymous,
A Response to Woolf's 7:25 PM Comment will be Coming
Some Time this Eventing or Tomorrow Morning. I Swear; You are so Impatient. I am Honestly and Truthfully Responding to these Comments at the Fastest Rate that I am Able to. You Demand Far more than I can Give in the Computer Time that I have Available to me. Lack of Time, though, has nothing to do with Lack of Ability and even Willingness to Respond.

"Way to get an attitude about it."

Would you Kindly Tell me another way to get you to Stop Demanding that I give Immediate Responses to Things and Accusing me of Ignoring and Evading if I do not. I'm Opened to your Suggestions on how to get you to be more Reasonable with me, yet I can't Think of anything other then what I've Expressed.

"it's clear that (1) they were listening to you, since they did respond to you."

Here is the Proof that YOU are not Listening to me...

"Again, when I Posted this Twice and Accused of not Listening or Paying Attention, I was Primarily Talking to Anonymous 1, so None of the Rest of you have any Reason to Take Offense." (1:20 PM)

And

"This Part of this Comment is for Anonymous, 4:47 and no One Else." (8:51 PM)

So why do you Keep Saying "They". This has nothing to do with "They", Only with Anonymous, 4:47. Period.

"(2) you did not listen to their responses."

Once Again, "Lack of Time has nothing to do with Lack of Ability or even Willingness to Respond.", nor does it Mean that I'm not Listening. Your Responses Prove Lack of Listening, far more than the fact that my Responses do not Come Quickly Enough to Satisfy you.

Not all Reasons are "Excuses", Anonymous. Some Reasons are Simply Reasons that can not be Avoided and you have no Right at all to Demand that I Give you the Moon.

I do not have Time to Respond now to any more then the First of your Comments. I will "Listen" to the Rest of them Later.

Anonymous said...

This post keeps disappearing, so I'll now chop it up into three smaller ones.

(1/3)

"Would you Kindly Tell me another way to get you to Stop Demanding that I give Immediate Responses to Things and Accusing me of Ignoring and Evading if I do not."

Easily solved. You see, nobody demanded that you give immediate responses to anything. That seems to be something you inferred all by yourself.

(cont'd)

Anonymous said...

(2/3)


Here's one way this conversation could go:

Lista: "People who say there is no evidence for creationism are liars."

Other commenter: "That statement can only be true if there is actual evidence for creationism. Could you please identify some?"

(Lista reads this response, understands it, and tries to find evidence - and until she finds it, she refrains from calling people who say there is no such evidence liars.)

(cont'd)

Anonymous said...

(3/3)


But instead, something like this is happening:

Lista: "People who say there is no evidence for creationism are liars."

Other commenter: "That statement can only be true if there is actual evidence for creationism. Could you please identify some?"

(pause)

Lista: "People who say there is no evidence for creationism are liars."

Other commenter: "Could you please identify this evidence?"

(repeat this step x number of times)

Lista (exasperated): "Why are you so impatient?!"

Lista said...

Hi Anonymous,
It Looks Like the Last of your Comments did not Post, yet I've been in the Habit at Times of Responding anyway to Unposted Comments as they come into my Email Box, so here's the Response.

"You see, nobody demanded that you give immediate responses to anything."

Boy do you ever Remind me of Somebody and the Person I am Thinking of is someone who Likes to Get Technical in his Definitions of Words. He would Continually Redefine Words in Order to Clear himself of Blame.

For Example, we would get into this Long and Drawn Out Argument about the Definition of the Word "Demand", yet your Next little Illustration of "one way this conversation could go". Illustrates Perfectly how and Why this "Inference", if that's what you want to call it, was Made.

"Lista: 'People who say there is no evidence for creationism are liars.'

"Other commenter: 'That statement can only be true if there is actual evidence for creationism. Could you please identify some?'"


You see, the Thing is that this Request for Evidence has been Given Several Times and just the Presence of Repetition is Taken by Most Everyone who Exists on this Planet as being Pushy. In Marriage, this is Called Nagging. Being Pushy and Being Demanding is Pretty Much the Same Thing.

Also, to Continually Ask for Evidence After it has already been Given is even more Pushy because it Implies that what has already been Given is not Good Enough. This is the Sign of someone who is Never Satisfied, no Matter how much is Offered. To Never be Satisfied is a sign of High Expectations and Trying to Earn the Approval of such a One is a Highly Demanding Quest.

The Other Sign of a Demand is the Presence of a Consequence. In this Case, the Consequence is that if the Request is not Met, then I will be Accused of Ignoring or Evading a Question. The Consequence is what makes the Request a Demand.

As a Recap, Repetition, Lack of Approval and Consequences for not Complying are what Make Requests into Demands.

Further more, it's not True that there is no Evidence and it is also not True that I have not now Personally Presented the Evidence. The Fact that you, or anyone else, Feel the that Evidence is not Adequate is Irrelevant. There is Evidence and I have Provided it, so the Conversation on rather or not there is Evidence should now be Over with.

"(Lista reads this response, understands it, and tries to find evidence - and until she finds it, she refrains from calling people who say there is no such evidence liars.)"

You have not Allowed for the Option of not Finding the Evidence because Radar has already done so. Not Allowing for the Option of not Meeting the Request Makes the Request into a Demand.

I Accused of Lying because I was Assuming that you, or whoever this Anonymous Commenter is, had already Read some of Radar's Evidence and that I was not the One who was Responsible for Finding it for this Person.

My Actual Response was not just to Accuse of Lying, but to also Tell this "Other Commenter" that Radar has Posted Evidence. You are Judging me for my Decision that it was not my Responsibility to Provide the Evidence, since Radar had already done so.

For you, or this "Other Commenter" to Continually Insist. That is "(repeat this step x number of times)" was Pushy and Demanding and that is what Lead to my Statement "Why are you so impatient?!"

Don't you see, the Option of NOT Personally Providing the Evidence, Based on the Fact that Radar had already done so, was not Allowed and therein Constitutes the "Demand".

Conclusion: Yes, Anonymous, or Other Commenter, Whoever, you ARE Pushy and Demanding.

Lista said...

Oh Wow! It Looks Like you did Figure Out a Way to Post your Comment. Chuckles. You're just as Persistent as me. Did I miss anything?

The Main Point is that the Pushy and Demanding Part of the Conversation that we are Discussing is the "(repeat this step x number of times)"

You Know, Anonymous, I was Going to Provide my Response to Woolf’s 7:25 PM Comment, this Morning, yet My Heart is sill in a Slight State of Unrest. I sort of Feel Like Apologizing, yet I am also Realizing that you are Actually the Reason for the Delay, so if I did Apologize, the Apology would be to Woolf and not to you.

It's Funny, yet since you Remind me of this One Particular Person that I Mentioned in my Previous Comment, I am Beginning to Anticipate what the Next Response from you Might be. Though I Know that you are a Different Person, I’m going to Address the Next Anticipated Argument anyway, just in case your thought Patterns are Similar to him and then you will not have to Use this Argument.

My other Friend, or Unfortunately Ex-Friend, would have said, "Yes, but everyone is Responsible for their Own Feelings, so there is no Point in you Blaming me for your Feelings of Unrest." Without Getting into a Whole Long Discussion about how we are Responsible for Our Own Feeling and also for the Feelings of those we Interact with, Perhaps I should just Explain it Like this...

A Person is Carrying a Load, just as everyone has a Load to Carry. An Inconsiderate and Uncaring Person will Walk Over to this Person and Say, "Here, you can Carry this as Well.", but a Kind Person will say instead, "Please let me Help You. Can I Carry some of that For you?" This is the Difference between a Giving and a Demanding Person.

The Giving Person will help those Around him Find Rest and the Demanding Person will Contribute to Feelings of Unrest. The Anonymous that I have been Having the Above Described Discussion with is the Second Type of Person, not the First, and the Result of that is that it will Take me Longer to get the Job done. In all Truth and Honesty, I might not Get to Woolf's Comment until the Anonymous Commenters Decide to Let this Other Subject Drop, so that we can Move On to Something else.

radar said...

Lista,

I am reminded of a Robin Trower song, Too Rolling Stoned. In that song the following phrase was repeated several times:

"The takers get the honey, the givers sing the blues."

From one of my all-time favorite albums. I could sing with James Dewar because he was a baritone and that was easy for me. Trying to keep up with Robert Plant was difficult and sometimes Freddie Mercury left me behind, no way could I sustain some of those high notes without going falsetto. Ah, memories...

Anyway, most of the Darwinist commenters are takers, perfectly happy to abuse your good nature and apparently hoping to hurt your feelings. If they can bully you away they will do it.

But Robin Trower had it wrong. The givers wind up getting back. The takers wind up getting caught. Givers are being like Jesus Christ, the ultimate giver in that He gave us existence, then gave us a way to escape our sin nature and then gives us an eternal home with Him for all eternity when this temporal palace collapses into nothing again.

God created the Universe by speaking it into existence and He could simply allow it to disappear if He wished. We have evidence that the fabric of the Universe was stretched out just like God says in the Bible (Carmelian Theory) and that particular theory doesn't require all the fudge factors Big Bang hypotheses all include.

You Darwinists need to understand that I am actually offering you a chance to save yourselves and that logic is on my side. I used to be where you are and thought like you thought. I understand where you are coming from and I know where you are going. If I make you angry or hurt your feelings but you still come to understand the truth then I have helped you even if it wasn't easy.

Francis (and Roger) Bacon did NOT use methodological naturalism and would have immediately corrected you for suggesting such a thing. You are attacking the good character of men not able now to stand and defend themselves so it falls to me to do so. A creationist Christian like Sir Francis Bacon would have NEVER accepted the tenet of naturalism in a million years. You are barking up the wrong tree there, Darwinists. Scientists who were the foundational instigators of the study of Science apart from Philosophy were almost entirely at least Theists and primarily Christians. You would not find many naturalists among them.

Lista said...

Hi Radar,
Thanks for Commenting. You are Like a Breath of Fresh Air.

I Can Think of at Least Three of the Commenters that are Commenting on this Comment Thread that are Obvious Taker, Controller, Manipulator Types. Perhaps there are more, yet Three of them have Made themselves Blatantly Obvious.

"perfectly happy to abuse your good nature and apparently hoping to hurt your feelings."

To be Honest, I have a Really Hard Time Relating to that Mentality, especially to the Whole Idea of Getting Pleasure Out of Laughing at Someone who is in Pain. I have Come Across that on the Internet Like in no Other Setting.

Jesus Gave the Ultimate Gift, which is His Life on the Cross.

Occasionally I Think that those who were not Raised in the Church, or that Messed Up Really Badly before Coming to the Lord, are more Fortunate because they Understand the Contrast between Living Life without God and Living Life with God. It's just Like how Jesus said in Luke...

"44) And He turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, 'Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest Me no water for My feet, but she hath washed My feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head. 45) Thou gavest Me no kiss, but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet. 46) My head with oil, thou didst not anoint, but this woman hath anointed My feet with ointment. 47) Wherefore, I say unto thee, 'Her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much, but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.' 48) And He said unto her, 'Thy sins are forgiven.'" (Luke 7:44-48, KJV)

You are much better Able to Witness from Experience then I am, Radar, because you have been in the World. I have been Raised in the Church and have been Surrounded by Mostly Christians for Most of my Life. Because of this, it could be said that I have Lived a Somewhat Sheltered Life.

At Least One of the Reasons Why I Find it so Hard to Relate to Finding Pleasure in another's Pain is Because I haven't Come Across it all that Much. Though there is some Level of Occasional Hypocrisy in the Church, it Pales Incredibly in Comparison to the Pure Evil that I Find in the World. Lack of Compassion on this Level is just not Present among those who Believe.

Just Think About it. If Living One's Life Primarily in the Church Results in Someone being Sheltered from the Evils of the World, then there must be a Difference Between the World and the Church, so Perhaps that, in and of itself, is a Testimony to the Goodness of God's People, as well as God's Ability to not Only Forgive, but also Purify and Sanctify His People, for the Bible also Says.

"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9, KJV)

The Fact that I have been Raised in the Church and am Well Aware of what Christian People are Like is the Very Reason why I Trust them and I am Quite Certain, Radar, that what you have said about Francis and Roger Bacon and Methodological Naturalism is just as you have said.

Lista said...

One more Quick Note for Radar and then I'll give my Promised Response to Woolf.

The Reason Why, Radar, Manipulators, Taker, Controller Types are "Perfectly Happy to Abuse your good nature and apparently hoping to hurt your feelings." is not just to Try and Bully People Away, but also to Tear Down Self-Esteem for the Sake of Control, because People who have a Weak Self-Esteem are Easier to Control. A Manipulator/Controller will Actually Consider the Tearing Down of another Person's Self-Esteem as a Conquest because this Gives them the Upper Hand.

Another Thing to Consider is that the Evolutionary Idea Gives Way to the "Survival of the Fittest" Idea and when One Views the World in this Way, there is no Real Reason for Kindness, because the Strongest are Supposed to Survive and the Weakest are Supposed to Die Out, for this is how "Natural Selection" Works and this is Why Everyone is Responsible for their Own Feelings and there is No Real Reason for Helping anyone. This is the Selfishness and, in my Opinion, Pure Evil, at the very Heart of Evolutionary Thinking.

If Evolutionary Thinking is Taken to the Full Implication of what it Means, the Application of it is Cold and Heartless and Evil at it's Core. Even the Holocaust, as well as Other Forms of Genocide, are Based on Evolutionary Thinking, for this is the Only Way to Justify Attempting to Kill and Destroy Entire Races of People who are Perceived as Weaker or Inferior in Someway than those of One's Own Group.

Destroy the Weak and Let the Strong Survive. That's "Survival of the Fittest". There is no Other Belief System that will Justify this Type of Pure Evil Better.

The Willingness to Take Advantage of and Manipulate the Weak, though, is Basically the Same Thing. If "Survival of the Fittest" is the Principle that a Person Runs his Life by, there is no Real Reason to be Helpful or Kind.

Manipulators are the Way they are, though, because they are Insecure and have a Need to be in Control, because they do not have the Ability to Trust anyone but themselves. The Idea of Trusting someone else enough to allow them to have even a small Part of the Control is Hard for them because the Idea of not Being in Control of Absolutely Everything Actually Terrifies them.

Ooh! I didn't Know I was going to get into all that. I suppose this Might Cause an Emotional Reaction. Let's Wait and see.

Lista said...

Ok. I guess I Better Write a Response to Woolf now, since Anonymous has been Insisting on it, but First a Very Quick Word for Anonymous.

Anonymous, 4:52 PM,
Actually, Anonymous, if you really want Evidence for Young Earth Creationism, then Type into the Search Engine the Words "Mount Saint Helens, Catastrophe Theory". Radar has Probably Even done some Posts on the Subject.

Woolf, 7:25 PM,
"The creationist theory for the origin of the Grand Canyon is that it was formed by run-off of Flood waters."

Actually, the Creationist Theory Includes not Only Run Off, but also the Violent Nature of the Flood itself and it also Includes the Later Melting of Glacier Waters during the Ice Age. The Glacier Melting Idea has Been Around for a Long Time. Even my Husband Remembers it from High School in the 60s.

Back to the Flood itself, though. The Violent Waters of the Flood (Not the Run Off, but the Actual Flood) could Run Up Hill because of the Massive Force of it would have the Momentum to do just that. This Explains it much Better than Natural Erosion does because as you have just said, "Water.......Flows Down Hill" and yes, this is also the Nature of General Erosion due to Rain and Streams.

"Without Exception"

Oh yeh? The Exception is the Very Thing that gives Credence to the Flood Theory, for the Only Exception I can Think of is the Tsunami and yes, the Flood Theory Includes Massive Tsunamis and as I Read you Comment and Thought about what you were Saying, the Tsunami Really does seem to be the Only Logical Explanation for such Massive Up Hill Water Erosion.

It seems to me, Woolf, that there is a Possibility that you don't Really Understand the Flood Theory.

With the Exception of the Tsunami, Water will always Flow Down Hill. Tsunamis, though, will Travel in what Ever Direction they are Moved to by the Earthquakes that Trigger them and don't Really Care if it is Down or Up Hill or Across the Flank of a Plateau.

Don't you see? Your Very Argument is Exactly Why the Natural Erosion Idea doesn't Work.

"This single observation, that the Canyon trends west and not south, demonstrates that the 'runoff' theory of how the Grand Canyon was cut is wrong. It shows that there is evidence which creationism can't explain."

You are Right that the "'Runoff' Theory" doesn't Explain this, yet Neither does the Natural Erosion Idea, so if this Makes Creationism not Science, then it also Makes the Erosion Theory not Science either.

Sorry, Woolf, that it has Taken me so Long to Get to my Response to your Comment.

Anonymous said...

"Also, to Continually Ask for Evidence After it has already been Given is even more Pushy because it Implies that what has already been Given is not Good Enough."

I'd say it's more than implied. The evidence was rebutted, meaning it isn't evidence at all, but a failed attempt. Meaning that actual evidence for creationism is still outstanding.

Anonymous said...

"
Francis (and Roger) Bacon did NOT use methodological naturalism and would have immediately corrected you for suggesting such a thing. You are attacking the good character of men not able now to stand and defend themselves so it falls to me to do so. A creationist Christian like Sir Francis Bacon would have NEVER accepted the tenet of naturalism in a million years. You are barking up the wrong tree there, Darwinists. Scientists who were the foundational instigators of the study of Science apart from Philosophy were almost entirely at least Theists and primarily Christians. You would not find many naturalists among them."

Again, you slide from methodological naturalism into metaphysical naturalism.

Are you capable of explaining the difference between methodological investigation and methodological naturalism without confusing metaphysical and methodological naturalism?

"You Darwinists need to understand that I am actually offering you a chance to save yourselves and that logic is on my side."

If logic were on your side, this would be a very different discussion. For example, a logical explanation for the sorting of fossils in the fossil record eludes YECs entirely. The current scientific consensus explains it perfectly, and YECs don't even have an inkling of a hypothesis. Logic tells us that the current scientific theories best fit the evidence, while creationist ones (being mostly non-existent on this account) do not.

Do you have a logical response to that?

Lista said...

Oh Anonmymous, 4:06 PM,
You are so Tiring.

"The evidence was rebutted, meaning it isn't evidence at all, but a failed attempt."

If Evidence that is Rebutted is not Evidence at all, then Evolution has Absolutely Zero Evidence as well for the Idea that all Life is Descended from a Common Ancestor. We all Agree that there is Evidence for Evolution, or Adaptation, within Kinds, yet that is all. Other then that, there is no Evidence. None! So I guess we are Scientifically Equal Again.

It may be your Opinion that Creationism has no Evidence that can not be Rebuffed, yet since Evolution has no Evidence for Common Decent from a Single Ancestor, that has not been Rebuffed, we are Once again in the Same Boat.

"actual evidence for creationism is still outstanding."

That Statement is Actually more Honest then Simply Stating that there is no Evidence. To not Acknowledge that Evidence has been Presented, Regardless of your Opinion of how Weak it is, at the Very Least, is Deceptive, if not an Out Right Lie.

Anonymous, 4:16 PM,
"Again, you slide from methodological naturalism into metaphysical naturalism."

Why? Just because he Used the Word "Philosophy" and Phrase "Methodological Naturalism" within the Same Paragraph? The Main Theme of the Paragraph is Methodological Naturalism. His Later Mention of "Apart from Philosophy" Fits Perfectly with that Theme.

I Understand what he is Saying Perfectly. You are the One who is Confusing.

Yawn! I Wonder if Anonymous/Whatsit is Still Around. I had Written a Response to him awhile back and yet Skipped Over it because there were too Many Comments on the Blog in Order for me to Respond to it all. Ok. Maybe some of it is Repetitious, yet I’m Going to Submit it anyway just for the Sake of Personally Reviewing it.

I Started Out in Sort of a Cute Way, as Follows…

Ok Whatsit,
Whatsit that you have to say now?

Whatsit, 1:23 AM,
"So the nature of the designer that ID is trying to find evidence for is a divine being, correct?"

Actually, they just Call Him/it an Intelligent Cause or Agent and Each Individual can Decide for Oneself what that Means. The Only Quality Assigned to Him/Her/It is Intelligence. Period. If Someone High Up in Discovery Institute Stirred Away from this, that is Unfortunate, yet this WAS the Original Intent of Intelligent Design.

"Good. So if you now substitute YEC for the 'little green men in the sewers' scenario, you should be able to see why we conclude that YEC proponents don't have much of a case."

Nope. I do not. I just Took that as a Form of Mockery.

It doesn't Matter if the Evidence is Strong or Weak, in your Opinion. If Evidence Exists, then Anonymous' Statement that it does not is Deceptive. The Subject I was Addressing was Deception, not the Proof of the Creationists Case and I Still Stick by my Statement that this is Deceptive.

Anonymous, 1:36 AM,
"it's" (That is the Evidence) "no more supportive of a global flood (YEC) than it is of other scenarios."

And Likewise, it is the Opinion of some Scientists that the Evidence is Actually no more Supportive of Other Scenarios then of the Flood Idea.

In Order for two Theories to be Taught Side by Side, One does not have to be Proved Superior to the Other, Only Adequate as a Scientific Theory.

Sorry, Anonymous, (That is the One who Accused me of Ignoring and Evading), that it Took me so Long to Respond to this, as well as to Woolf. I Remember Making a Deliberate Decision to Skip Over Whatsit because he was a little Long Winded and there were just too Many Comments to Respond to, yet the Truth is that this Response has been in my Word Processor for Quite Some Time now; Probably the Entire Time in which you were Judging me, while I was Feeling Over Whelmed.

radar said...

I am sorry to say that anyone who thinks that Darwinism has described the fossil record and it fits the hypothesis perfectly is either a constant user of LSD or entirely brainwashed or without a clue what is actually out there in the field. Those cute geological columns? They aren't there in more than maybe .004 (point four per cent) of the cases and even then the layers are uneven. Fossils are not sorted but rather artificially assigned a layer based on what they are and if they do not fit they are ignored or even renamed. You have no idea what is really out there, do you?

Anonymous said...

"If Evidence that is Rebutted is not Evidence at all, then Evolution has Absolutely Zero Evidence as well for the Idea that all Life is Descended from a Common Ancestor. We all Agree that there is Evidence for Evolution, or Adaptation, within Kinds, yet that is all. Other then that, there is no Evidence. None! So I guess we are Scientifically Equal Again."

Unfortunately this is yet another hollow claim from the YEC camp, like so many of Radar's pronouncements.

Okay then, Lista, please name the evidence for common descent and the ways in which it has been refuted. I suspect your knowledge of this subject is shamefully inadequate - there's no shame in that inadequacy by itself, only in you then claiming that such rebuttals of such evidence exist.

radar said...

My series on DNA and several articles concerning the cell being in control of reproduction have falsified the ludicrous concept of macroevolution. Facilitated Variation, Genetic Redundancy, Cellular Oversight and the concept of Meta-information as blueprint for the child completely blow away Darwinism. Irreducible complexity has also falsified Darwinism. Thousands of generations of bacteria and hundreds of generations of fruit flies tell us you can't make it happen artificially in a lab setting and observation of nature for the lifetime of scientific observation also tell us it never happens.

Macroevolution never happens. It is never observed. Abiogenesis never happens and it has been proven to be impossible. Lista, you do not have to bother to answer those who are willfully ignorant. They cannot find a source for life, for information, in fact even a source for existence apart from GOD.

Anonymous said...

"My series on DNA and several articles concerning the cell being in control of reproduction have falsified the ludicrous concept of macroevolution."

Au contraire, you've merely presented an argument from incredulity.

"Facilitated Variation, Genetic Redundancy, Cellular Oversight and the concept of Meta-information as blueprint for the child completely blow away Darwinism."

Hardly. They merely tax your comprehension of the complexity that is possible within the theory of evolution.

"Irreducible complexity has also falsified Darwinism."

How so? For the extremely small number of systems in which the removal of a part would render the system dysfunctional, plausible evolutionary pathways have been found. Not exactly a falsification, is it?

"Thousands of generations of bacteria and hundreds of generations of fruit flies tell us you can't make it happen artificially in a lab setting"

If it's the experiment that I think you're talking about, you should go back and have another look - the experiment confirmed speciation in a lab setting, completely in line with the theory of evolution.

"and observation of nature for the lifetime of scientific observation also tell us it never happens."

We've also seen it happen in nature... which contrary to your claim of course tells us it does happen.

Anonymous said...

"Macroevolution never happens. It is never observed."

Observed in abundance in the fossil record, which is where we would expect to observe it, given the time scale involved.

"Abiogenesis never happens and it has been proven to be impossible."

All that has been confirmed by the law of biogenesis is that from our present perspective complex life forms come from complex life forms.

The impossibility of simple life forms forming naturally (e.g. on a molecular level) has never been proven to be impossible. Wishful thinking on your part perhaps? If not, please provide a link to the relevant study/studies.

"Lista, you do not have to bother to answer those who are willfully ignorant."

YEC requires that certain phenomena be dutifully ignored, since YEC is incapable of explaining them. That includes the sorting of fossils in the fossil record, radiometric data, ice core layers, dendrochronology, the geographic distribution of life forms on our planet, etc.

I can't think of a clearer example of willful ignorance.

Anonymous said...

Of course Lista doesn't have to answer, nor would most of us here expect her to. She's relatively new to YEC (or at least claims to be).

You on the other hand have spent years digging into this, and you'd likewise be unable to explain the evidence for evolution (which you've shown you willfully misunderstand in myriad ways) and how you think it is refuted. Hence your constant evasions and fallacies.

Lista said...

Radar,
"Macroevolution never happens."

Actually it does, if you Define "Macroevolution" to Include Evolution between "Species" and then Redefine "Species" to Include Things within which Evolution can be Observed. If you Play with the Words Enough, you can Make anything Happen. That's Basically what the Darwinists have done and this is what all of Anonymous' Arguments are Based on.

Anonymous,
"You've merely presented an argument from incredulity."

That is Exactly what most of the Darwinist's Arguments are.

"They merely tax your comprehension of the complexity that is possible within the theory of evolution."

This Makes me Think of the Occam's Razor. That is that when all things are Equal, the Simplest Explanation Tends to be the right One. Well if One of the Answers Taxes our "Comprehension", then it is not the Simplest One now is it?

"For the extremely small number of systems" (Spoken in Relation to Irreducible Complexity)

That Statement is Misleading.

"the experiment confirmed speciation"

Since the Word Species has been Redefined, this is not Relevant.

"Observed in abundance in the fossil record."

This is not a Direct Observation of Speciation, but Simply an Observance of Evidence from which we make Inferences.

Yes, you are Right. I am New to YEC, but not to ID.

Lista said...

I am Often Tired when I come to this Blog and yet I Continue Anyway. Here is some more for Whatsit.

Whatsit, 1:43 AM
,
"And yet evolutionary pathways for such instances have been clearly identified." (Spoken in Relation to Irreducible Complexity).

That is Subject to Debate.

"The whole point of bringing up irreducible complexity is to argue that it couldn't have evolved and therefore must have been designed intelligently, right?"

Nope. The Whole Point was to Show that there is another Explanation for Life Other then Evolution. Once Again, it is not Necessary to Establish Superiority, only Equality. You are the Ones who are Convinced that you're Superior. If there are Two Explanations, then there are Two Explanations, yet the Evolutionary Explanation is not Superior, especially in Relation to Irreducible Complexity.

Whatsit, 1:53 AM
When I was Reading this One, I was wishing that Radar would Return so that he would Explain better how he Views the Difference between Metaphysical and Methodological Naturalism. I Guess I may have to read the Post that he has done on the Subject.

Meanwhile, I have Responded to Most of this Comment in my Comment at, 11:15 AM.

Whatsit, 2:02 AM,
"And isn't it cool that the ACLU is there to help you out?"

Big Chuckle! Just because you can Come Up with an Example of a Time in which they were there Fighting for the Freedom of Speech of Someone who Happened to be Religious, doesn't Change the Fact that I Know for a Fact that they are Usually either not Present or on the Side of the Opponent.

Whatsit, 2:23 AM
"a rather uneducated 'we don't see dogs turning into cats' argument"

This is just an Example to Illustrate that One Kind of Animal does not Change into another. You have Misunderstood the Point.

"So what exactly is the complaint? That 'species' no longer refers to the biblical 'kind'? Well why should it?"

Because if Biblical Kinds Exist, then a Word is Needed to Describe this Reality. The Words in the Current Classification System are a Description of Reality as Perceived by Evolutionists, yet if Reality is Actually something Different then what Fits with Evolutionary Theory, then Different Words are Needed to Fit the Reality of the Other Hypothesis.

The Current System, with the Current Words and Definitions, is Locked into the Currently Accepted Perception of "Reality", yet that Perception is Only a Theory.

"There was no nefarious motivation behind the word 'species' being used in science and over time not reflecting an ancient conception of biology."

The Following Quote is a Description of Bias. Whether the Bias was done in a Nefarious Manner or not is Irrelevant.

"Modern biological classification has its root in the work of Carolus Linnaeus, who grouped species according to shared physical characteristics. These groupings have since been revised to IMPROVE CONSISTENCY WITH THE DARWINIAN PRINCIPLE of common descent." (Biological Classification, Wikipedia)

"Instead, creationists have the word 'baramin', which has the advantage of specifically and unambiguously referring to the biblical 'created kind'."

That's Right, Because Creationists Need Words to Describe their Hypothesis, just as Evolutionists have Words that Describe theirs.

"And that's where the fun begins. YECs don't know what to do with the term. They can't define it. Or perhaps they refuse to define it."

That's not True. It is Defined rather Well in the Conservapedia and Anyone who Wants to can Look it Up.

Lista said...

I'm a Little Surprised that there has been no Response Late Last Night or This Morning, for it seems that several of you Comment in the Middle of the Night. Oh well. I'll just Keep Going with Responses Stored in my Word Processor.

I Still Feel that there is some Confusion Relating to the Comments of IAMB, for his Focus on his Perception of my Emotion in his 11:16 AM Comment Confused the Issue.

Even though I Told him in my 5:51 PM Comment that "Without any Non-Verbal Feed Back", he has "No Clue at all what my Emotional State is". Unfortunately, I Still Got Caught up in the Trap of Defending my Emotional State and in Doing so, Missed the Opportunity to more Appropriately Evaluate the Question that he was Posing, so let's Revisit it, shall we?

IAMB, 11:16 AM,
"the definition change - according to AiG's own article - took place a couple hundred years before Darwin ever proposed evolution."

When I Read this Link again...

hhtp://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/03/16/fixity-of-species

What I got out of it is that Carl Linnaeus may have made some Mistakes when he Introduced the Scientific Definition of the Word "Species", which Prior to this Time Meant "Biblical Kinds". Darwin, Inspired by the New Definition, made a Second Mistake by Concluding that there was Variation between "Species" (New Definition) and Therefore also "Kinds" (Original Definition) and then he Jumped to even a Greater Conclusion that all Life has Evolved from a Common Ancestor, even though he had Very Little Evidence to Back this Conclusion Up.

All of this was Based on Confusion Over a Changed Definition, which the Article Called a "bait-and-switch fallacy. At any Rate, it was a Logical Fallacy that was Never Corrected.

It's Too Bad that George Bentham Withdrew his Paper that was Written around the Same Time as a Famous Paper by Charles Darwin. He had Wrote in a Letter to Darwin's Son, Francis Darwin of how he had "collected a number of observations and facts illustrating what I then believed to be a fixity in species, however difficult it might be to assign their limits, and showing a tendency of abnormal forms produced by cultivation or otherwise, to withdraw within those original limits when left to themselves."

What a Tragedy that he did not have enough Confidence in his Ideas and Research to Present at that Time his Ideas and Evidence Contradicting those of Charles Darwin.

Bentham's Statement, "a fixity in species, however difficult it might be to assign their limits", Reveals the Reason Why the Definition of "Species" can be Defined Inaccurately rather Easily.

Don't you see, though? The Other Theory was there as well, even Back then. The Author just Lacked the Necessary Self-Confidence to Push it like he should have.

This Reminds me of a Verse,

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." (Romans 1:16, KJV)

radar said...

Great research, Lista!

Fixity of KINDS is what we observe in the real world. There is variation within kinds. This fooled Darwin into thinking he could find a way to explain creation in a way that removed God.

Too bad that KINDS still remain fixed and the only variation that occurs is within kind. While Darwinists scramble to reassess their DNA proclamations which are continually being falsified by new research, specifically the ENCODE project, other scientists have proven that rapid speciation is part of the design of organisms.

One thing Kirschner and Gerhart did was point out the barriers to any organism becoming another kind and they listed, I believe, 11 huge jumps organisms would have to make to evolve into what we see in the world today. But their research actually pinpointed precisely why no organism ever does vary from one KIND to another.

George Bentham discovered fixity of KIND and Edward Blyth discovered Natural Selection and defined it properly as variation within created kinds. The Hebrew is baramin. Linnaeus was seeking to define the baramin and the subgroups of variations within each baramin. That was his intention.

Darwinists misuse the classification system in order to claim macroevolution happens because of speciation. But speciation is and remains nothing but variation within kind. So as I have stated unequivocably and emphatically NO macroevolution has ever been observed.

As one of my commenters mentioned, most of you Darwinists use derision, faux laughter and claims of intellectual superiority in place of evidence when you respond to my posts. If we were on a stage in an open debate such tactic would cause the crowd to boo you and hoot you off the stage.

ENCODE is exploding the Darwinist myths of ERVs and Junk DNA and the possibility of a RNA world.

The RATE projects are debunking bad Darwinist dating methods.

Creationists and ID'ers have thrown down the gauntlet of irreducible complexity and Darwinists keep ducking the issue. There is no there there.

Explain how it is that the cell oversees reproduction and that there is meta-information that pertains to that one kind so that in the process, the mother lays the framework for the child, the meta-information insures that kind is preserved and then the feature sets contained in both DNA strings is used in producing the offspring. No cell, no DNA but no DNA no cell. This is a complete impossibility for Darwinists to explain.

So they give you fairy tales about step-by-step processes that are so statistically impossible not one Amoeba could evolve in the history of the Universe even if the Universe was 15 billion years old and every atom in existence was involved in the game. Furthermore chemical hard stops prohibit building blocks of life from forming in the wild. Darwinism is dead. Somebody shoot the zombie in the head!

Lista said...

As I have given Further Thought to the Issue of the Changing Definition of the Word "Species", I have realized that the Definition has been Confusing for Centuries.

Carl Linnaeus may have Made the First Change in the Word at a Time which Predated Charles Darwin's Work, yet even so there was some Confusion.

Darwin's First Impression of the Galapagos Finches was that they were different Species of Birds, yet when he Talked to a Bird Expert, he was Told that they are all Finches, which is Clear Evidence that the Classification System that was Recognized at the Time Led to the Conclusion that these were all One Species.

In Spite being told by an Expert that they are all Finches, even so, Darwin Continued to Conclude that all Life has Evolved from a Single Ancestor.

Later, as Woolf Pointed Out in his 2:57 AM Comment, the Finches were Classified into fourteen Species in four Genera. If you decide to Read Woolf's Comment, I Responded to it in my 11:06 AM, and the Next One Down, my 11:19 AM Comment.

Back to the Point, though, the Reason for this Change in Definition is Clear and the Bias has Basically Been Admitted by the Wikipedia in their Definition of "Biological Classification", as I have Quoted many Times. Here is is Again...

"Modern biological classification has its root in the work of Carolus Linnaeus, who grouped species according to shared physical characteristics. These groupings have since been revised to IMPROVE CONSISTENCY WITH THE DARWINIAN PRINCIPLE of common descent." (Biological Classification, Wikipedia)

Here is another Quote from IAMB, 11:16 AM…

"Scientists pulling the proverbial rug out from under creationists regarding the species definition"

I Thought that this was about Finding the Truth, not about Pulling some "proverbial rug out from under" Our Opponents. Do you Think, IAMB, that if, even for a Second, I Committed the Horrible Crime of Feeling some Emotion Over such an Action, that this Somehow Justifies this Action. Just How does Pulling the Rug Out from Under Someone Lead to Truth anyway?

And How does Laughing about such an Action or at some Imagined Emotional State of Someone have Anything at all to do with what is True and what is Not?

Do you not see how you have Made yourself out to be a Fool in this Comment? Just Like Woolf, in your Scoffing and Mocking, you too have Failed the Character Test, in which Radar has both of you Beat.

Lista said...

Hi Radar,
Thanks for the Complement. Interestingly, the Second Half of my Previous Comment was in Response to the "Faux Laughter" or Mocking of IAMB, though Woolf does it too.

Here are some Verses that Come to Mind...

"But He giveth more grace. Wherefore He saith, 'God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.'" (James 4:6, KJV)),

"Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility, for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble." (1 Peter 5:5b, KJV)

and

"Surely He scorneth the scorners, but He giveth grace unto the lowly." (Proverbs 3:34, KJV)

The Old Testament Version of the "Grace to the Humble" or "Lowly" Idea does not just Speak of Pride, but of Scorning and Mocking and I Know that there are more, I just don't have the Time to Look them all Up. Here's One more about Pride...

"For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up, and he shall be brought low." (Isaiah 2:12, KJV)

Your Comment is Excellent, Radar, and I have been on a Roll in Relation to this Redefinition of Species Thing. I hope that there are still those who have been Following this Comment Thread.

IAMB said...

Crikey, Lista, I'm trying here but you seem bound and determined to miss my points.

None - I repeat - none of this had anything at all to do with a perception of your emotional state, nor was it a personal attack on you. If you're on such a hair-trigger about perceived attacks, perhaps you should step back for a bit. I care not one bit about your emotional state, nor should you care about mine. It's irrelevant to the discussion. For the record, "waxing indignant" is a figure of speech. The reason I used it is you have constantly brought up the species definition change as if scientists pulled the rug out from under creationists regarding the species definition.

The whole point is that no one pulled any rug out from under anyone (nor would I find it funny if they did). The definition was changed by creationist scientists long before evolutionists existed, simply because a more, um, specific definition was needed than "kind" (which as far as I can tell is worthless since it represents such a broad range of classifications - for example the finches... to be one "finch kind" would put "kind" at the family level, but that would make humans, gorillas and chimps all one "kind" as well, yes?). Incidentally, I forget where this came from, but probably the most apt definition of "kind" I've seen was "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it".

Out of curiosity, how many "kinds" of bacteria would you say there are?

Also, I never once laughed at your emotional state... perceived or otherwise. "Funny" was not meant in the "ha-ha funny" sense, but you're free to believe what you want about me, I suppose. Have fun with that.

Anonymous said...

"Interestingly, the Second Half of my Previous Comment was in Response to the "Faux Laughter" or Mocking of IAMB, though Woolf does it too."

And let's not forget Lista.

Anonymous said...

"The RATE projects are debunking bad Darwinist dating methods."

Could you provide a link to this alleged debunking?

A Christian-friendly assessment of the RATE project can be found here: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-ri.htm

"The ASA does not take a position on issues when there is honest disagreement among Christians provided there is adherence to our statement of faith and to integrity in science. Accordingly, the ASA neither endorses nor opposes young-earth creationism which recognizes the possibility of a recent creation with appearance of age or which acknowledges the unresolved discrepancy between scientific data and a young-earth position. However, claims that scientific data affirm a young earth do not meet the criterion of integrity in science. Any portrayal of the RATE project as confirming scientific support for a young earth, contradicts the RATE project’s own admission of unresolved problems. The ASA can and does oppose such deception."

I'd be very interested in any plausible response you might have.

Anonymous said...

"I Bet you Think that a lot of This is New Information to me, but I have Heard about Darwin's Finches and all that was is a within Species Example of Natural Selection, from which Darwin Jumped to all Kinds of Conclusions in Relation to all Organisms Descending from a Common Ancestor. He had Absolutely no Proof or Even Confirmation of this Idea at all."

Darwin did not jump to all those conclusions from the finches alone. They just happened to be a rather easily comprehensible example of evolution in action.

The fact that you would think Darwin deduced all that from the finches alone makes it clear that, contrary to your protestations, a lot of this is actually new information to you, and that you're not terribly informed about evolution. There's no shame in that, but if you want to continue to contribute to this discussion, you would do well to read, for example, Darwin's Voyage of the Beagle and Origin of Species.

Lista said...

Perhaps I should have told you Guys Sooner. We will be Out of Town for a Few Days and the Preparation has Kept me Away from the Computer since my Last Comment on the 15th. It is now Wednesday, 8/17/11. We are Leaving Tomorrow Afternoon will be Gone until Sunday or Monday and I Won't be Taking the Lap Top.

Lista said...

Ok. Maybe One Quick Comment before I Leave Town. I can't Respond to all of it, so I just Chose a Couple of the Comments.

Anonymous, 8:34 AM,
"Darwin did not jump to all those conclusions from the finches alone. They just happened to be a rather easily comprehensible example of evolution in action."

Once again, People always Put the Best of their Evidence Out there First and if this is the Best of the Evidence and the Rest is just more of the Same, then the Rest is not Worth Looking at.

Also, I will not allow anyone to Tell me that "If I want to continue to Contribute" that there is a Condition that I Read this or that. I will Read what I Want to and also Comment when I Want to. Thank You.

Anonymous, 6:37 AM,
I do not Recall ever Mocking anyone, nor do I Recall any Laughing that I have done that has been Fake or Artificial.

Anonymous said...

"Once again, People always Put the Best of their Evidence Out there First and if this is the Best of the Evidence and the Rest is just more of the Same, then the Rest is not Worth Looking at."

Hint: the rest isn't more of the same, and there's actually quite a lot to it. But why not do some reading yourself?

"Also, I will not allow anyone to Tell me that "If I want to continue to Contribute" that there is a Condition that I Read this or that."

It didn't read like a condition to me, more like friendly advice so that you don't embarrass yourself further. If you're going to join the discussion, why not find out what you're actually discussing? Seems like common sense, don't it?

"I will Read what I Want to and also Comment when I Want to. Thank You."

Feel free to continue to embarrass yourself then.

Anonymous said...

"I do not Recall ever Mocking anyone, nor do I Recall any Laughing that I have done that has been Fake or Artificial."

Nobody's memory is perfect.

Lista said...

We had a lot of Fun on our Camping Trip and I had some time to do some Reflecting. As Odd as it Seems, it's a Little Hard to Get back into this Blogging Thing, cause so much of it just seems like Fruitless Nonsense to me.

Anonymous, 12:50 AM,
"The rest isn't more of the same, and there's actually quite a lot to it. But why not do some reading yourself?"

If the Rest is not More of the Same, then I would Know more about it already because Evolutionists, such as yourself, would be Presenting it to me. If you do not Understand what I said about People Putting the Best of their Evidence Out there First, then there is no Reason for me to Keep Repeating it.

It is not my Responsibility to Defend myself to you every Time that I Choose not to Read a Certain set of Evidence. I've already Told you that Darwin does not Impress me. If the Best of what he has to Offer does not Impress me, then there is no Reason to Read any Further. If you choose to be Impressed by that which is not Impressive, then that is up to you.

It just so Happens, Anonymous, that the Presenting of Evidence is much more Helpful, then any "Friendly Advice" that is Offered about what I should Read. I am not even the Slightest Bit Embarrassed and it doesn't matter how much I Read, you will always be Able to Find Something that I have not Read in Order to Satisfy your own Need to Believe that I do not Know what I'm Talking about.

I have not Chosen to Commit my Entire Life to the Reading and Studying of this Particular Subject and there is nothing Wrong with such a Decision. If Evolutionists are not Able to Impress me by Presenting what they Feel to be the Best of the Evidence, then it is because Convincing Evidence is simply not there.

My Words: "I do not Recall ever Mocking anyone, nor do I Recall any Laughing that I have done that has been Fake or Artificial."

Anonymous' Words: "Nobody's memory is perfect."

Apparently, yours isn't either, for you have not been Able to Give me an Example. I am Quite Certain, though, that you have Misunderstood and Misinterpreted whatever Laughter you were referring to.

Lista said...

Scanning Back through the Comments, I Come Across IAMB's Comment at 5:01 PM.

Hi IAMB,
Here are your Words that imply your Perception of my Emotion...

11:16 AM,
"The really disappointing part here is that she's still waxing indignant over scientists pulling the proverbial rug out from under creationists regarding the species definition..."

"Indignant" is an Emotion Word, is it not?

First, you Mention an Emotion and then Next, you Mention how Funny it is. You are therefore Mocking a Perceived Emotion, which is a Display of Extremely Bad Character.

What's Really Crazy is that just after doing so, you Criticize Radar's Character (11:25 AM), yet the Example that you Used was nothing more then a Possible Exaggeration and it is just as Possible that you had Misquoted him. Without an Exact Quote, I will Never Know for Sure. This Sort of Makes me Laugh and Shake my Head because to Criticize Radar's Character Right After Mocking a Perceived Emotion is such a Hypocrisy.

Even the Words "The really disappointing part here is..." Imply Insult because if what Follows this was not Meant to be Negative, then it would not Cause Disappointment.

Anyway, I Responded to you at 5:51 PM, 5:16 PM, 10:07 AM and 11:10 AM. Yet if anyone wants to Decide for themselves whether or not you were Mocking what you Perceived to be my Emotion, they can Go Back and Look at your Original Comment at 11:16 AM.

In your More Recent Comment, 5:01 PM, you said, "If you're on such a hair-trigger about perceived attacks". This Implies that you Think I am Emotionally Over Sensitive, and also Lack Perception, yet I am Quite Confident that anyone who Uses the Find on this Page Feature of their Browser and goes back and Reads your 11:16 AM Comment is Going to Come to the Same Conclusions that I did.

You Seem to Think that you Know my Emotions and Now you Perceive me as "Hair-Trigger". You have no Clue that I am as Calm as can be, while doing nothing more then Objectively Evaluating and Analyzing what I Read. It is as if you Think that there is no Such Thing as a Valid Complaint about Words that Imply Insult, yet that is Totally Absurd and to Suggest that you are not Implying Insult is, in itself, an Insult to my Intelligence.

"The definition was changed by creationist scientists long before evolutionists existed."

Nope. Biblical Kinds was the Original Definition and all you are doing now is Making Things Up to Fit with what you Desire to Believe.

You have not Really Taken the Time to Understand Baraminology, IAMB. You Judge it by your Own Flawed Classification System and you have not Really Read and Listened to my Explanation of how the Entire System has Changed According to a Bias. The Conservapedia has a Definition that is Clear and you have not Bothered to Read it.

Obviously, you Like to Define your Words in Ways that Establish your Innocence. That is Words such as "Wax Indignant" and "Funny". I'm Absolutely Positive, though, that there are Others who have Interpreted your Words in the Same way as myself and so if that is not what you Meant, then you are a Very Poor Communicator.

I Call this Manipulation Approach, Imply and then Deny. I've seen it before and am no Longer Fooled by it. There is Nothing Wrong with my Perception, IAMB. What is Wrong is the Deceptive Way in which you Communicate and if you can Persuade Someone to Doubt their Own Perception of what you are Implying, of what you are saying and of who you actually are, then you can Really Mess with them. I've seen this Approach Used in Ways that are Highly Unkind and even Cruel.

I Know that you are going to Try and Deny what I am Saying, but the Red Flag that's Out in Front of you is Huge.

Anonymous said...

You are tedious and ignorant, Lista. Worse yet, you are willfully ignorant, spending time explaining to others why you don't read what they write or recommend and then telling them that they haven't presented the best of their evidence (how would you know) - even while explaining to them that you won't read the information and evidence that they have steered you towards.

Lista said...

Hello again Anonymous, 11:36 PM,
You are Tedious and Ignorant Indeed and besides that, you do not really Listen when you Read.

"and then telling them that they haven't presented the best of their evidence."

That is not what I said. What I said is that "People always Put the Best of their Evidence Out there First and if this is the Best of the Evidence and the Rest is just more of the Same, then the Rest is not Worth Looking at."

So what I said was the Exact Opposite of what you said, which is Evidence that you have not Carefully Read and Listened to me. And you do not Seem to Realize how Learning Works.

Both Sides Present the Best of their Arguments. If One Side's Best Out Weighs the Other Side's Best, then this is the Side that Earns the Trust of the Student.

Quite Often that is the Only Thing that a Person will have Time for. To Expect that Everyone will have the Time to Become an Expert on Every Aspect of Every Subject is simply not Realistic and to Call someone who Sets Priorities that Include other Subjects in their Life besides that which you Personally Recommend "Willfully Ignorant" is a Judgment Based on Unrealistic Expectations.

Call this "Making Demands" or Simply "Prejudging" based on Unrealistic Expectations. Which ever Terminology you Choose, it doesn't really Matter, for Both are Unrealistic.

I Wonder what it would Take in order to Finish Submitting what I Still have Stored in my Word Processor.

Here is some More for Anonymous...

Anonymous, 9:35 AM
,
"In both the court case analogy and the argument re. the Grand Canyon, the ‘evidence’ for is merely evidence that something may be compatible with what the proponents are setting out to prove."

Exactly and that is all that "Evidence" is. Rather the Evidence is Strong or Weak is Irrelevant to the Point I was making that to say that there is NO Evidence is a Deceptive Lie.

"Ah, fleeing to safe vague generalizations again."

What an Odd Thing to say when I was Specifically Mentioning Irreducible Complexity.

"As for the Grand Canyon 'evidence', which you've now posted twice, it has been trumped by counter-evidence, so we can retire this, right?"

Nope, because I do not Believe that it has been Adequately "Trumped".

Anonymous, 10:02 AM,
"Unlike you, I also recognized the responses to the links, so you're not really in a position to be snotty about it."

You Know what, Anonymous, I have no Idea at All which of the Anonymous Responses are Coming from the Particular Anonymous who Keeps Saying that I am Evading the Question of Evidence for Creation, even Though I Posted a Link Twice, no Three Times, in Order to Respond to that.

That Being Said, this was the Only Anonymous that I had Accused of not Listening at the Point in the Discussion of the Above Quote and at this Point in the Conversation, this is the Anonymous that had Shown Evidence of not Listening and of either Ignoring or not Being Aware of the Link that I Posted. My Comments at that Time were Directed at him/her and should not Cause anyone else to Take Offense.

Lista said...

More for Anonymous, 10:02 AM,
"In science classes, the scientific theories that best fit the evidence should be taught - otherwise you'd be opening the door to any and all creation myths, stories of gods spewing lightning etc."

I Agree that Ideas should be Taught in Science Classes Only if they can Provide Scientific Evidence, yet Evolutionists are in Denial about this Evidence and Once Again, Intelligent Design in it's Original Form is not Pushing any Particular Religion, but Only the Evidence of "an Intelligent Cause or Agent".

You see, I Think we are Getting Confused about ID and YEC. I Mainly Support ID and do not Know for sure about YEC, yet if Evolutionists are Willing to Lie by Claiming that ID has NO Evidence and if they are Willing to Lie about that which I do Know, then how can I Know for sure that they are not also Lying in Relation to that which I have not Studied quite as Completely?

Anonymous, 10:12 AM,
"As for your repeated complaints that others are impatient in their demands, I can assure you that I for one am not impatient at all - simply because I don't think you can present the goods."

The Reason why I Think that You are Impatient in your Demands, Anonymous, is because you Judge before Allowing a Person enough Time to Take a Breath. If you would rather I call your Impatience, Prejudgment, that Works as well.

Any Small Amount of Evidence Makes the Claim that "There is NO Evidence" a Lie and it Simply is not True that NO Evidence has been Presented.

Stating that there is no Evidence that has not been Rebuffed, though even this is Debatable, is more Honest then saying that there is NO Evidence. To say that there is NO Evidence is a Deception when not Explained as I have just done in this Paragraph.

Deception is Like a Lie, Anonymous. The Only Difference between Deception and Direct Lies is that Deception is done by Using Words in Ways that Lead to False Conclusions. Such is an Indirect Lie and that is what the Statement is that there is NO Evidence, rather then just "No Evidence that has not been Rebuffed" . I guess this is another sort of "Imply and then Deny" sort of Deception. The Total Absence of Evidence is Implied, when in Reality all that is meant is that in the Speaker’s Opinion, the Evidence has been Rebuffed. Because the Lie is Indirect, rather then Direct, the Deceptive Implication can be Denied.

Anonymous, 10:15 AM,
"Lista, it's completely pointless to have this discussion with you if you're not going to make any effort to educate yourself on the meaning of 'methodological naturalism' (which is not synonymous with the method) and 'metaphysical naturalism'."

Just so that you Know that I did not just Make Up my Understanding of the Phrase "Methodological Naturalism", here is the Quote that Gave me the Connection between the Phrase "Methodological Naturalism" and "the Methods Used"...

"Methodological naturalism refers to the METHODS used and does not dictate the exclusion of a supernatural conclusion." (Anonymous, 3:37 PM)

The Emphasis Added was Mine. I'll do a More Extensive Study of the Definition of these Phrases Later.

Lista said...

Ok, Here is One Last Thing that is Still in my Word Processor that for some Reason Never Got Published until now.

Anonymous, 1:36 AM,
"You're jumping from this statement ('irreducible complexity exists') to the conclusion that it couldn't have evolved naturally."

No. When I First Brought this Subject Up, I was doing so to Establish that the Hypothesis that Irreducible Complexity Exists was Successfully Tested. The Hypothesis is that Irreducible Complexity Exists. Period. We have Confirmed a Hypothesis. This Fact Establishes ID as a Science and Makes the Statement that it isn't Science a Misrepresentation of what's True.

What you are Asking for Now is Step Two, but Step One was a Success and that will not Be Taken Away, just because you don't Happen to Like it.

The Rest of this Comment is just a Recap of what I have Written in Recent Comments.

When I Reflect on what I've been Writing in this Comment Thread, I Realize that Deceptive Manipulation can be Used in an Intellectual Way, in order to Deceive and Lead People Away from a more Honest Evaluation of Truth. I've Observed this Form of Deception in Anonymous.

What I have Observed in IAMB, however, is even Worse, for when the "Imply and then Deny" approach is Used in Relation to Implied Insults, this gets more Personal. The Goal of this Type of Manipulation is to Tare Down the Self-Esteem, First by the Implied Insult and then Second by the Denial that the Insult was Made.

The Initial Insult is just an Insult, but the Denial of the Insult is an Attack on the Person's Perception and Ability to Evaluate what is Said in a Rational Way. The Added Insult (Implied of Course) that the Person is "a hair-trigger about perceived attacks", or in Other Words, Overly Sensitive or Emotional, is an Added Insult that Adds to the Attack on the Person's Ability to Reason and Think and Accurately Perceive what is being Said.

This Form of Manipulation is Worse then just Deception. It is Actually Cruel because it Prays on the Weak Ego of the Victim and the Goal is to Actually Destroy the Self-Confidence of the Victim for the Sake of Being in Control.

To see what I Mean, all that a Person has to do is Type the Words IAMB into the "Find on this Page" Feature of their Browser and Read the Conversation between us. I'm Quite Certain that anyone who does so will be able see Quite Clearly what it is that I'm Talking about.