Lubricating theists out of Anti-evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-01-2014, 11:19 PM
Re: RE: Lubricating theists out of Anti-evolution
(30-01-2014 11:12 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(30-01-2014 10:59 PM)Phil Hill Wrote:  That's why I said honest about his beliefs not about his education. He was honest enough to tell his professor (Stephen J. Gould) about his beliefs but I imagine Gould just rolled his eyes.

EDIT: As far as him seeing the evidence for evolution and staying a YEC, no I wouldn't call it being intellectually honest nor would I consider him a scientist (since he ignores the scientific method) but I will say he compartmentalizes his beliefs extremely well.

OK , and can I safely assume that the "Yes" that I bolded in your post and asked about above is a typo that was meant to denote "YEC"? I am not being cheeky, and I know you are posting from a phone (first thing I do with a phone is turn fucking autocorrect the FUCK OFF). Just trying to clarify.

THx, and Cheers. Thumbsup

I'm waiting to Autocorrect really fuck up. Generally it only screws up the first time or two that I use an unfamiliar word. Then again I generally swipe my words so sometimes I just have fat fingers.

Using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 11:38 PM
RE: Lubricating theists out of Anti-evolution
(30-01-2014 11:19 PM)Phil Hill Wrote:  
(30-01-2014 11:12 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  OK , and can I safely assume that the "Yes" that I bolded in your post and asked about above is a typo that was meant to denote "YEC"? I am not being cheeky, and I know you are posting from a phone (first thing I do with a phone is turn fucking autocorrect the FUCK OFF). Just trying to clarify.

THx, and Cheers. Thumbsup

I'm waiting to Autocorrect really fuck up. Generally it only screws up the first time or two that I use an unfamiliar word. Then again I generally swipe my words so sometimes I just have fat fingers.
I got sick of that autocorrect bullshit after one or two sentences. Really. TO me it's not worth it when I can re-read what I wrote and fix fat-finger flaws just as easy.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2014, 12:04 AM
RE: Lubricating theists out of Anti-evolution
My note2 phone just suggests corrections , it don't fuck with what I'm typing, so I can miss speelll if I feel like it.
Minute I pickup an iphone I want to hurl it.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2014, 12:08 AM
Re: RE: Lubricating theists out of Anti-evolution
(31-01-2014 12:04 AM)sporehux Wrote:  My note2 phone just suggests corrections , it don't fuck with what I'm typing, so I can miss speelll if I feel like it.
Minute I pickup an iphone I want to hurl it.

Hmm, wonder if i could do that. I'm using SwiftKey keyboard on my S2 (stop laughing).

Using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2014, 12:17 AM
RE: Lubricating theists out of Anti-evolution
........dbl post

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2014, 07:54 AM
RE: Lubricating theists out of Anti-evolution
(30-01-2014 10:54 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(30-01-2014 10:51 PM)Phil Hill Wrote:  Kurt Wise is the only honest creationist. He has a PhD in paleontology but admits he is a Yes because of the bible not because there is any evidence.

YEC...?


I can see where you might call him "honest" for admitting that his faith rests only on the "word of the babble", yes-- but I just can't see that position as being intellectually honest. Your thoughts?

It's "honest" in that he's honest about his intentions and his beliefs. It's even intellectually honest, in that he admits the (arbitrary, non-falsifiable) criteria he's using and is internally consistent. It's also stupid in that you could come to literally any non-falsifiable conclusion once you set your bar that low. So, there's that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2014, 08:04 AM
RE: Lubricating theists out of Anti-evolution
YEp, its hard to admire a fool just because he admits he is.
[Image: 2104-honest-bum.jpg]

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2014, 08:08 AM
Re: RE: Lubricating theists out of Anti-evolution
(31-01-2014 08:04 AM)sporehux Wrote:  YEp, its hard to admire a fool just because he admits he is.
[Image: 2104-honest-bum.jpg]

Geez, you guys really need to start reading better, who the hell said admire?

Using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2014, 08:16 AM (This post was last modified: 31-01-2014 08:20 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: Lubricating theists out of Anti-evolution
I think before any information transfer can occur you need to deal with the basic religious biases that
1. Evolution = Atheism, and
2. Atheism = evil
3. Ergo, Evolution is evil
With that as the backdrop you can't communicate.

So the first step in dealing with rejection of evolution is usually going to be finding someone they know and respect and whose beliefs they broadly share who already accepts evolution. Those two people can have a conversation.

Theists who are not stuck with the evolution=evil backdrop can be convinced by reason though. This is something of a two stage project:
1. Understanding and acceptance of evolution and natural selection in principle, eg wolves to dogs. Things they can classify as "microevolution".
2. Asking that age old question: "What is the list of created kinds?". For every pair of "kinds" we can find a species that doesn't quite fit into either kind bucket and seems to be the ancestor of both. That's why we think there is a single origin of life on earth, after all.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2014, 08:27 AM
RE: Lubricating theists out of Anti-evolution
(30-01-2014 09:11 PM)sporehux Wrote:  So now he believes evolution is true (as I've defined it), just not apelike to man evolution, that's work in progress, at least evolution is no longer a rejected term.
I don't think he believes in Macroevolution though.

Dreams/Hallucinations/delusions are not evidence
Wishful thinking is not evidence
Disproved statements&Illogical conclusions are not evidence
Logical fallacies&Unsubstantiated claims are not evidence
Vague prophecies is not evidence
Data that requires a certain belief is not evidence
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: