Creationists on evolution forums

[Dlx2]

So, serious question for Dave.

We all know that every time you bring in a new crackpot theory, we're going to absolutely shred it. Now, there are a lot of evolution communities out there which are a lot less competent (I'm currently playing around in the Dawkins Forums, and those fools don't know jack shit...it would be a creationist's playground). Yet you keep coming to us, knowing full well that we're going to make you look like a fool, and knowing full well that you're really never going to win.

Why do you do it? Really, why? I mean, yes, we're all nice people, but why do you keep coming here? Do you like the abuse? Or are you really questioning your faith, and we provide you with the best answers?

[Faid]

So, serious question for Dave.

We all know that every time you bring in a new crackpot theory, we're going to absolutely shred it. Now, there are a lot of evolution communities out there which are a lot less competent (I'm currently playing around in the Dawkins Forums, and those fools don't know jack shit...it would be a creationist's playground). Yet you keep coming to us, knowing full well that we're going to make you look like a fool, and knowing full well that you're really never going to win.

Why do you do it? Really, why? I mean, yes, we're all nice people, but why do you keep coming here? Do you like the abuse? Or are you really questioning your faith, and we provide you with the best answers?Dave has already spent a lot of time at RD.net- in fact, that's where his "Creator God Hypothesis" crumbled from its foundations (in a trainwreck of a thread that went on for hundreds of pages), and was never heard of again.

Ever since, dave Hawkins from kids4truth, truthmatters.info and tri-city ministries has reduced his MO to posting multiple threads on different subjects, only to abandon them when getting cornered...

...Which, in turn (and after the repeated devastation of his views in IIDB, R&R and -of course- Theology Web), eventually resulted in him posting nothing but hit-and-run OPs, then bailing out almost immediately.


Sic Transit.

[Flying Buttress]

Umm...

I personally find this sort of baiting more offensive than David's theories. From what I can see, he's just putting questions out there to consider; not so much different from what dozens of other folks are doing.

[Dlx2]

Umm...

I personally find this sort of baiting more offensive than David's theories. From what I can see, he's just putting questions out there to consider; not so much different from what dozens of other folks are doing.

I'm really not trying to bait. I'm trying to understand him. I don't get where he's coming from. I really don't.

[ck1]

So, serious question for Dave.

We all know that every time you bring in a new crackpot theory, we're going to absolutely shred it. Now, there are a lot of evolution communities out there which are a lot less competent (I'm currently playing around in the Dawkins Forums, and those fools don't know jack shit...it would be a creationist's playground). Yet you keep coming to us, knowing full well that we're going to make you look like a fool, and knowing full well that you're really never going to win.

Why do you do it? Really, why? I mean, yes, we're all nice people, but why do you keep coming here? Do you like the abuse? Or are you really questioning your faith, and we provide you with the best answers?

Dave likes to discuss his ideas with authorities, or people who have some specialized knowledge. He invariably asks newcomers about their background/training.

It is possible he is looking for material for the classes he teaches at his church, or for those children's animations he produces.

I doubt that Dave would agree that his arguments have been shredded.

[Febble]

Mod note: A general principle is emerging here that people start on TR with a clean slate. I agree with Dlx2 that there is a serious and interesting discussion to be had about why creationists post on evolution forums, but I'd be grateful if people would give posters the benefit of the doubt here regarding motivation for posting.

Feel free to ask, but try not to bait, or at least not to bait on the basis of posts made at other forums. And, Dlx2, if you'd like to edit the title of the thread, I'd be grateful, or, if it's too late for you to do it, PM me an alternative, and I'll edit it.

Thanks.

Lizzie

[Oolon Colluphid]

I'm really not trying to bait. I'm trying to understand him. I don't get where he's coming from. I really don't.
*Trys on the mod hat for the second time today*

And as long as the thread focuses on that, it can stay here.

:)

[Dlx2]

Mod note: A general principle is emerging here that people start on TR with a clean slate. I agree with Dlx2 that there is a serious and interesting discussion to be had about why creationists post on evolution forums, but I'd be grateful if people would give posters the benefit of the doubt here regarding motivation for posting.

Feel free to ask, but try not to bait, or at least not to bait on the basis of posts made at other forums. And, Dlx2, if you'd like to edit the title of the thread, I'd be grateful, or, if it's too late for you to do it, PM me an alternative, and I'll edit it.

Thanks.

Lizzie

Title changed.

[Flying Buttress]

So, serious question for Dave.

We all know that every time you bring in a new crackpot theory, we're going to absolutely shred it. Now, there are a lot of evolution communities out there which are a lot less competent (I'm currently playing around in the Dawkins Forums, and those fools don't know jack shit...it would be a creationist's playground). Yet you keep coming to us, knowing full well that we're going to make you look like a fool, and knowing full well that you're really never going to win.

Why do you do it? Really, why? I mean, yes, we're all nice people, but why do you keep coming here? Do you like the abuse? Or are you really questioning your faith, and we provide you with the best answers?

I've bolded the parts which sound like trollish baiting to me. MAYBE, and I mean that in the truest sense of the word, because I don't know David or his motives, but maybe it really it's not about winning or loosing. Maybe it's about discussion for the sake of discussion.

*shrug*

[Febble]

Title changed.

Appreciated.

[damitall]

Hawkins has previously posted words to the effect that he prefers to talk to scientists, and that he wishes other creationists would get up to date with cutting edge creationist thinking (brief pause for irony-exploded brain to heal). And, let's face it - poor as it is, the show he puts up is better than that offered by most yeccies.

But that doesn't explain why he is so willing to be repeatedly slaughtered. My guess is that it's in part an ego thing - he can boast that he regularly engages with some highly knowledgeable scientists, and that he has never once had to admit he was beaten in debate. (It's the reason he dislikes ericmurphy so much - em doesn't claim to be highly educated in science, yet can trash Hawkins' arguments without drawing breath)

The fact that this "undefeated" claim is rank dishonesty won't matter to Hawkins - he is a creationist - and running away from all the questions he leaves unanswered doesn't count to such people.

He also sometimes tries to don the garb of a science journalist, and as such thinks he exposes huge scientific conspiracies (dendrochronology, anyone?)

What fascinates me most of all is the absolute refusal to learn about anything that might upset his worldview. It just beats me how any sentient being can simply reject out of hand mounds of consilient evidence simply because it disagrees with what's written in an ancient book, and plump for supporting stuff like Walt Brown's silliness.

[socle]

<snip>

What fascinates me most of all is the absolute refusal to learn about anything that might upset his worldview.
Including the very basics of the ToE, as shown by his Only Two Sexes (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=620) thread. I'd like to know how it is possible to spend so much time debating this issue and still make such fundamental errors.

[ericmurphy]

Dave likes to discuss his ideas with authorities, or people who have some specialized knowledge. He invariably asks newcomers about their background/training.

That's why Dave finds me so irritating. I have less in the way of actual credentials than even he does.

I doubt that Dave would agree that his arguments have been shredded.

He certainly would never agree publicly. But I really wonder if he is delusional enough to really think even a single one of his arguments has survived the various crucibles they've been run through. Given his hit-and-run tactics over the past few months, I think Dave has pretty much conceded that his arguments have failed.

[Pavlov's Dog]

That's why Dave finds me so irritating. I have less in the way of actual credentials than even he does.

Where is your CV?

[Notta_skeptic]

Dave might be here because ck1 and I both invited him over. Say what you will about his style of discussion and his ability to learn, but at least he's coherent, does not swear, and provides rich fodder for practicing scientists to use to teach us laypeople more about science. I have learned how to refute creationists by reading Dave's threads.

[ck1]

He certainly would never agree publicly. But I really wonder if he is delusional enough to really think even a single one of his arguments has survived the various crucibles they've been run through. Given his hit-and-run tactics over the past few months, I think Dave has pretty much conceded that his arguments have failed.

When? He even insists he "won" that Portugese argument!

Dave has only admitted error for things that he judges to be inconsequential - like hummingbird tongues and chromosome fusions.

And Dave, if you continue to limit your posting to nights and weekends, we'll have to conclude that you got yourself a JOB!;)

(PD - made me laugh!)

[JonF]

Dave has already spent a lot of time at RD.net- in fact, that's where his "Creator God Hypothesis" crumbled from its foundations (in a trainwreck of a thread that went on for hundreds of pages), and was never heard of again.

That was actually after the same happened at AtBC.

[JonF]

From what I can see, he's just putting questions out there to consider; not so much different from what dozens of other folks are doing.
Many of us have seen much, much more that you have.

A clean slate is fine with me; I know Davie well enough to know what'll ensue.

[Calilasseia]

As one of those "fools who don't know jack shit" over at RDF, I spent quite a bit of time dealing with Dave's assorted eructations. I gather my contributions were appreciated at the time by several here. Unless of course someone wishes to tell me different ...

Just to let you know.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Where is your CV?

Erm, up your arse?

Or in a googolplex of other irrelevant places.

Come on now, play the white man, PD...

[David B]

I believe that there are a number of ex fundies on the board.

I sort of tend to the view that if a reasonably intelligent person takes it as a priori that the bible is right, then they manage to find very creative ways of rationalising it, faced with evidence that contradicts it.

Creative - but in the last resort wrong, of course.

As I say, some of the people here - some of the best people here - managed to do this over periods of years or decades.

I haven't been in exactly the same position myself, but I have been in what I think is a similar one.

The experiences I had during the practise of transcendental meditation led me to think that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was enlightened, and that practising his techniques would lead me to a supra natural (am I coining a term) understanding od life, the universe and everything.

I didn't understand anything about dissociative states, and not a lot about the power of positive reinforcement in those days, though.

David B (would welcome some input to this thread from the ex fundies here)

[Febble]

Well, I think I'm convinced that Dave really is interested in "the truth". And I think he really is convinced that scientific "facts" are like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, and that because scientists can't fit them together perfectly, his own assembly of a subset of the same set of pieces is just as valid - and, what's more, corroborated by Scripture.

Because he doesn't need his model to be complete - he just needs a few disconnected facts that seem to fit it, and a few bits of evidence that some parts of the scientific assembly may not be right.

He doesn't, in other words, yet understand The Relativity of Wrong (http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm).

Have you read it yet, Dave?

[ericmurphy]

Where is your CV?

Uneducated Lout.

[ericmurphy]

When? He even insists he "won" that Portugese argument!

Certainly not in public. But actions speak louder than words, and Dave's output today is dwarfed by his output of a year ago. One is bound to wonder why.

Dave has only admitted error for things that he judges to be inconsequential - like hummingbird tongues and chromosome fusions.


Just because he hasn't admitted it to us doesn't mean he doesn't feel it in his bones.

[David B]

Uneducated Lout.

Not in my view.

In joke that you didn't get seems to me to fit the bill better.

David B

[ck1]

As one of those "fools who don't know jack shit" over at RDF, I spent quite a bit of time dealing with Dave's assorted eructations. I gather my contributions were appreciated at the time by several here. Unless of course someone wishes to tell me different ...

Just to let you know.

Oh my goodness, Cali! I learned a lot of science and other interesting stuff from you. And expanded my vocabulary as well...(eructation)....I always kept a dictionary handy...

[David B]

Oh my goodness, Cali! I learned a lot of science and other interesting stuff from you. And expanded my vocabulary as well...(eructation)....I always kept a dictionary handy...

There's a very good Firefox add-on, that Lao Tsu recently introduced me to, that renders dictionaries redundant.

[Dlx2]

As one of those "fools who don't know jack shit" over at RDF, I spent quite a bit of time dealing with Dave's assorted eructations. I gather my contributions were appreciated at the time by several here. Unless of course someone wishes to tell me different ...

Just to let you know.

I'm thinking specifically of folks like lbq and DavidMcC, who think that pulling something out of their ass and comparing it textually to Dawkins is "science."

[VoxRat]

Well, I think I'm convinced that Dave really is interested in "the truth". He has an odd davinition of "the truth", though:

... Scientists wield great power and politicians take their words and write laws based on their understandings of these words. And if politicians get the idea that humans are less special because of a supposed physical ancestry from a common ancestor with apes, then the average citizen will not be treated as well by these laws. History has proven this, BTW. Personally, I think society is best when human life is valued more highly than any other organism. And human life is valued more highly when people believe that humans were specially created by God, whether they actually were or not.(link) (http://www.rantsnraves.org/showthread.php?p=180096#post180096)

I thought this was one of the most revealing things Dave ever wrote, and it tells me he's really not interested in "the truth", as I understand what that means.

[I hesitated to bring this up, being from another discussion forum, clean slate, and all that. But Dave's posting history here is so scant, that when Febble says "Well, I think I'm convinced that Dave really is interested in "the truth", it can only be a reference to posting in other fora.]

[JonF]

There's a very good Firefox add-on, that Lao Tsu recently introduced me to, that renders dictionaries redundant.
Built-in to Opera.

[ck1]

There's a very good Firefox add-on, that Lao Tsu recently introduced me to, that renders dictionaries redundant.

Sometimes I just like to have a real book handy. In particular, the thesaurus I have from high school is much, much better than any on-line version, and it is also much better than any of the recent editions I have seen.

[David B]

Sometimes I just like to have a real book handy. In particular, the thesaurus I have from high school is much, much better than any on-line version, and it is also much better than any of the recent editions I have seen.

Yup - sometimes my Shorter Oxford dictionary is my first call.

Sometimes second call, if the on line stuff isn't helpful enough.

The internet does it quicker and/or better quite a lot of the time though.

David B

[Dave Hawkins]

So, serious question for Dave.

We all know that every time you bring in a new crackpot theory, we're going to absolutely shred it. Now, there are a lot of evolution communities out there which are a lot less competent (I'm currently playing around in the Dawkins Forums, and those fools don't know jack shit...it would be a creationist's playground). Yet you keep coming to us, knowing full well that we're going to make you look like a fool, and knowing full well that you're really never going to win.

Why do you do it? Really, why? I mean, yes, we're all nice people, but why do you keep coming here? Do you like the abuse? Or are you really questioning your faith, and we provide you with the best answers?Hi DLX2 ... I keep coming here because I like hearing from people who actually seem to know what they are talking about in various fields, like you for instance. CK1 is right. I like discussing science and religion much more with people that know what they are talking about in their respective fields and who know how to control themselves. No, I didn't get a job ... just some big projects. Probably won't hear much from me until Saturday morning. So tune in then for some more fun!

[Jobar]

But Dave, if you understand that DLx2 (and many of the others here also) "actually seem to know what they're talking about in various fields", why do you pay so little attention to what they're actually saying?

How many thousands of times have you had it pointed out to you that the demonstrable scientific evidence for evolution is totally overwhelming? How many times have you been told that the consilient and consistent result of all the honest investigations of how life on this planet came about, clearly show that evolution is factual? How many times have you quibbled about some picayune uncertainty or possible error, while ignoring the constant and neverending torrent of incredibly precise and relevant information that the scientists and professors present to you?

Even now, why do you display a sig quote that many have told you does not refute evolution in the least, and only shows that science is an ongoing process which corrects smaller and smaller errors of understanding?

Like DLx2, I really don't understand why creationists try to sell their spiels on forums like this, unless they're some sort of intellectual masochists.

[ericmurphy]

Not in my view.

In joke that you didn't get seems to me to fit the bill better.

David B

The fact that I answered the question doesn't mean I didn't get the joke (http://www.rantsnraves.org/showthread.php?t=8628).

[ericmurphy]

There's a very good Firefox add-on, that Lao Tsu recently introduced me to, that renders dictionaries redundant.
Built-in to Opera.

Built-in to OS X (system-wide).

[Febble]

[I hesitated to bring this up, being from another discussion forum, clean slate, and all that. But Dave's posting history here is so scant, that when Febble says "Well, I think I'm convinced that Dave really is interested in "the truth", it can only be a reference to posting in other fora.]

I don't think anyone expects anyone else to pretend that they don't know each other from other fora - we all bring baggage, me included. But in this Town Hall thread (http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=199) there seemed to be some kind of consensus that we should be prepared to at least "be polite" to posters we'd been in conflict with on other fora unless or until the same issues recurred here.

We will no doubt generate our own netdramas in time (we already have) but keeping imports to a minimum seems like a good idea.

[/mod hat]

I agree that that statement of Dave's was revealing. I'd be interested in his comments on it.

[damitall]

Hawkins wrote:
And human life is valued more highly when people believe that humans were specially created by God, whether they actually were or not.

It seems to me that many of the most theocratic theocracies, as well as some individual believers in them, put a pretty low value on human life. Executions for homosexuality? Murders of Arab women for wearing western clothes? 4000 brave American soldiers and countless civilians dead because (in part) Bush believed God told him to invade Iraq? The 9/11 murderers? Catholic and Protestant assassinations in Ulster

All these instigators of mayhem believe(d) or purported to believe that man was specially created by God, but use the excuse of their God's words to justify the killing. How is that valuing human life?

Societies work much better when free of tyranny, whether that be religious or secular. Religion, like other tyrannies, is all about gathering and keeping power over people; it's just more hypocritical about it

[Febble]

Hawkins wrote:


It seems to me that many of the most theocratic theocracies, as well as some individual believers in them, put a pretty low value on human life. Executions for homosexuality? Murders of Arab women for wearing western clothes? 4000 brave American soldiers and countless civilians dead because (in part) Bush believed God told him to invade Iraq? The 9/11 murderers? Catholic and Protestant assassinations in Ulster

All these instigators of mayhem believe(d) or purported to believe that man was specially created by God, but use the excuse of their God's words to justify the killing. How is that valuing human life?

Societies work much better when free of tyranny, whether that be religious or secular. Religion, like other tyrannies, is all about gathering and keeping power over people; it's just more hypocritical about it

Yeah. Thinking people have a spare life makes life cheap.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4257777,00.html

[Susannah]

David B (would welcome some input to this thread from the ex fundies here)

Ok, I'm one.

I believe that there are a number of ex fundies on the board.

I sort of tend to the view that if a reasonably intelligent person takes it as a priori that the bible is right, then they manage to find very creative ways of rationalising it, faced with evidence that contradicts it.

Creative - but in the last resort wrong, of course.

I agree. I watched my Mom go through all kinds of roundabout "reasoning" to maintain her belief system. She, like I was, was trained into it from earliest childhood, and had absorbed certain propositions without being aware of the process; these were, for her and later for me, the basics that everything else had to fit into, as solid and "true" as "the sun shines in the daytime".

I went through the same struggles, trying to reconcile what I read in the Bible with what I "knew" to be a fact; that God is good and loving and just; that the Bible has no errors of any sort (in the original documents, of course), that heaven and hell are as sure as the ground beneath our feet.

It took some doing. And the struggle eventually, after a half-century, led me here.

But in the meantime, oh, yes, I was creative! Somehow, I had even managed to reconcile free-will with the doctrine of God's omniscient foreknowledge. Don't ask me how; now I lose myself trying to map my own previous path.



As I say, some of the people here - some of the best people here - managed to do this over periods of years or decades.

I haven't been in exactly the same position myself, but I have been in what I think is a similar one.

The experiences I had during the practise of transcendental meditation led me to think that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was enlightened, and that practising his techniques would lead me to a supra natural (am I coining a term) understanding od life, the universe and everything.

I didn't understand anything about dissociative states, and not a lot about the power of positive reinforcement in those days, though.

That positive reinforcement is important. It is one reason why church leaders emphasize not only regular Sunday church attendance, but involvement in midweek services, "cell group meetings", assorted study groups, prayer circles, "outreach teams", "young marrieds fellowships" and the like. Most of the more successful churches have actvities for each night of the week (as well as some days) and encourage members to sign onto as many as their schedule will permit; the idea is that "a log in a pile in the fireplace burns brightly; pulled out, on its own, the flame flickers and dies."

It also occurs to me that a person running from one activity to the next does not have time for serious thinking, nor even for fact-checking; a benefit from the point of view of a leader more concerned with indoctrination than with truth.

[Dave Hawkins]

But Dave, if you understand that DLx2 (and many of the others here also) "actually seem to know what they're talking about in various fields", why do you pay so little attention to what they're actually saying?

How many thousands of times have you had it pointed out to you that the demonstrable scientific evidence for evolution is totally overwhelming? How many times have you been told that the consilient and consistent result of all the honest investigations of how life on this planet came about, clearly show that evolution is factual? How many times have you quibbled about some picayune uncertainty or possible error, while ignoring the constant and neverending torrent of incredibly precise and relevant information that the scientists and professors present to you?

Even now, why do you display a sig quote that many have told you does not refute evolution in the least, and only shows that science is an ongoing process which corrects smaller and smaller errors of understanding?

Like DLx2, I really don't understand why creationists try to sell their spiels on forums like this, unless they're some sort of intellectual masochists."But Dave, if you understand that DLx2 (and many of the others here also) "actually seem to know what they're talking about in various fields", why do you pay so little attention to what they're actually saying?"

Very good question. And I have a very good answer.

DLX2, Jet Black, CK1 and many others here have a very good understanding about how things work, and for this I respect them, but I question their understanding of how things came to be.

I always like to remind folks of Crick's words in this regard ... Click here and search the page for "Crick" (http://truthmatters.info/more-useful-quotes-for-creationists/)

As for my sig, it helps refute the idea that mudstone was laid over millions of years, and rather supports the idea that it was laid catastrophically over a very short time period (like a year or less). I don't claim that this quote refutes evolution per se.

[Lucretius III]

But in the meantime, oh, yes, I was creative! Somehow, I had even managed to reconcile free-will with the doctrine of God's omniscient foreknowledge. Don't ask me how; now I lose myself trying to map my own previous path.



That was one of the factors in my de-conversion the simple fact that I could not reconcile free will with an omniscient God
In fact I remember myself and two other agnostics/atheists really getting a Christian Brother, who took us for RE in our Catholic Grammar school really confused himself ,so much so his face got redder and redder and he blustered more and more .

(Interestingly after just one school year of teaching us RE this 40 odd year old Brother ,not only left the order but married an ex nun ,who was shortly pregnant,quite proud of that actually :))

[ck1]

"But Dave, if you understand that DLx2 (and many of the others here also) "actually seem to know what they're talking about in various fields", why do you pay so little attention to what they're actually saying?"

Very good question. And I have a very good answer.

DLX2, Jet Black, CK1 and many others here have a very good understanding about how things work, and for this I respect them, but I question their understanding of how things came to be.

I always like to remind folks of Crick's words in this regard ... Click here and search the page for "Crick" (http://truthmatters.info/more-useful-quotes-for-creationists/)

As for my sig, it helps refute the idea that mudstone was laid over millions of years, and rather supports the idea that it was laid catastrophically over a very short time period (like a year or less). I don't claim that this quote refutes evolution per se.


Dave's link is to his blog; this is the Crick quote for those who don't like to go there:
CRICK: EVOLUTIONARY ARGUMENTS CAN CAUSE MISTAKEN INFERENCES

Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books, 1988
pp. 138-139
Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To try to figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary arguments can usefully be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already very well understood.

I would certainly like to see this in context. After all, Crick most definitely accepted evolution and, for example, in the 1960's wrote numerous papers dealing with the evolution of the standard genetic code. The two options he described back then (stereochemistry or frozen accident) are still being considered in modern research labs.

Dave, you don't really get how useful evolution is. It comes up all the time in discussions, and helps guide what we do in the lab:

--Yesterday I was the presenter in our departmental journal club. My second slide was a phylogenetic tree; several questions afterwards focused on evolution.
--Yesterday afternoon I talked with a geneticist working with primates because I am considering some pilot experiments in this area - his comments dealt almost entirely with the evolution of the Great Apes.
--A few days ago I met with a phylogenetics expert who is analyzing one of the genes we work with to identify sites under positive selection for our mutagenesis studies. His findings will guide what we do next.

[Lucretius III]

CRICK: EVOLUTIONARY ARGUMENTS CAN CAUSE MISTAKEN INFERENCES

Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit: A Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books, 1988
pp. 138-139
Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To try to figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary arguments can usefully be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already very well understood.

Even as a nonscientist, I notice that Crick does not say impossible once in this quote, even out of context as it may be ,but rather used "difficult" and "even more difficult" .
I cannot see how him saying something is "difficult" or "even more difficult" would invalidate anything (unless of course you are a Creationist whose intellectual laziness makes them accept the easy option every time )

[Dlx2]

DLX2, Jet Black, CK1 and many others here have a very good understanding about how things work, and for this I respect them, but I question their understanding of how things came to be.

Dave, what you don't seem to get is that the 'thing' which's workings we understand is how things came to be. And you are questioning that pretty consistently. We all know what the data is, and what can and cannot produce that data. You certainly cannot have missed this fact. So, I really don't get where you get the idea that these are simply two different equally valid perspectives. I mean, you've seen me discuss matters of uncertainty ad nauseum on this forum. You know that we're all very amenable to testing alternative hypotheses where those alternative hypotheses are credible. The fact that we repeatedly demonstrate that your alternatives are not credible in the least should suggest that you ought to start giving some serious consideration towards losing the Creationism.

[Ray Moscow]

I can summarise Dave's position easily:

Creationism is good, and therefore it must be true.
Conversely, the TEO, which contradicts Creationism, is bad, and therefore it must be false.

All of his thousands of posts and blog entries are to support these two statements.

Only his tenacity comes as any surprise to me -- I encountered views like his in hundreds of people in Christian circles.

[VoxRat]

Even as a nonscientist, I notice that Crick does not say impossible once in this quote, even out of context as it may be ,but rather used "difficult" and "even more difficult" .
I cannot see how him saying something is "difficult" or "even more difficult" would invalidate anything (unless of course you are a Creationist whose intellectual laziness makes them accept the easy option every time )
Note that, in the 20 years since Crick's book, the amount of available genetic sequence information has increased by orders of magnitude. Today, this body of sequence information - all of which is entirely consistent with, indeed predicted by, the theory of evolution, and none of which is predicted by creationism - is one of the most valuable sources of hypotheses in biology.

E.g. a gene is identified in drosophila as being important in embryological development. Evolution says really important genes are likely to be conserved, in both structure and function. Therefore, biologists are motivated to find corresponding genes in humans. It works.

Creationism, on the other hand, "predicts" that God works in mysterious ways. Not so useful.

[Febble]

"But Dave, if you understand that DLx2 (and many of the others here also) "actually seem to know what they're talking about in various fields", why do you pay so little attention to what they're actually saying?"

Very good question. And I have a very good answer.

DLX2, Jet Black, CK1 and many others here have a very good understanding about how things work, and for this I respect them, but I question their understanding of how things came to be.

The study of "how things work" is the study of "how things came to be". I will agree with you that it is unlikely that scientists will be able to tell us why there is anything at all. But that has nothing to do with figuring out how varves came to be in a lake.

I always like to remind folks of Crick's words in this regard ... Click here and search the page for "Crick" (http://truthmatters.info/more-useful-quotes-for-creationists/)

Nice try. Not clicking.

As for my sig, it helps refute the idea that mudstone was laid over millions of years, and rather supports the idea that it was laid catastrophically over a very short time period (like a year or less). I don't claim that this quote refutes evolution per se.

It does no such thing.

[Theropod]

As one of those "fools who don't know jack shit" over at RDF, I spent quite a bit of time dealing with Dave's assorted eructations. I gather my contributions were appreciated at the time by several here. Unless of course someone wishes to tell me different ...

Just to let you know.

Calilasseia,

I for one did, do and look forward to more well presented points you have provided over on RDF. I say keep up the good work, and I feel this fora can only be strengthen by your presence.

RS

[Jobar]

DLX2, Jet Black, CK1 and many others here have a very good understanding about how things work, and for this I respect them, but I question their understanding of how things came to be.

Dave, what you don't seem to get is that the 'thing' which's workings we understand is how things came to be. And you are questioning that pretty consistently. We all know what the data is, and what can and cannot produce that data. You certainly cannot have missed this fact. So, I really don't get where you get the idea that these are simply two different equally valid perspectives. I mean, you've seen me discuss matters of uncertainty ad nauseum on this forum. You know that we're all very amenable to testing alternative hypotheses where those alternative hypotheses are credible. The fact that we repeatedly demonstrate that your alternatives are not credible in the least should suggest that you ought to start giving some serious consideration towards losing the Creationism.

^^This.

I think maybe we ought to expand on this matter, and Dave ought to speak more about the difference he sees between the understanding of operations and the understanding of origins.

It should be plain that trying to understand how things are now, is the best way to reach an understanding of how those things came to be.

Dave may not agree, but I've always found that the best of scientists display great intellectual humility. Given that they're trying to understand things on scales so much vaster than our own bodies and lifetimes, I think this is the only reasonable stance.

But- look at all the relevant information about life and its history, that's been gathered over many human lifetimes, by thousands of investigators, using thousands of techniques. Sure, we don't know everything about life, and how it came to be. No one claims to.

Still, to deny this great mass of data people have gathered, and the highly probable conclusions all that data points to, isn't humility. Rather the opposite! To come here and argue against the common understanding of all these scientists- who have often dedicated their whole professional lives to studying this subject, gathering new data and adding refinements to the best interpretation of it all- by anyone who hasn't studied the same data at least as deeply, is hubris- overweening pride.

And that, Dave, is supposedly the worst of the seven deadly sins, isn't it?

[Dave Hawkins]

DLX2, Jet Black, CK1 and many others here have a very good understanding about how things work, and for this I respect them, but I question their understanding of how things came to be.

Dave, what you don't seem to get is that the 'thing' which's workings we understand is how things came to be. And you are questioning that pretty consistently. We all know what the data is, and what can and cannot produce that data. You certainly cannot have missed this fact. So, I really don't get where you get the idea that these are simply two different equally valid perspectives. I mean, you've seen me discuss matters of uncertainty ad nauseum on this forum. You know that we're all very amenable to testing alternative hypotheses where those alternative hypotheses are credible. The fact that we repeatedly demonstrate that your alternatives are not credible in the least should suggest that you ought to start giving some serious consideration towards losing the Creationism.No, DLX2 ... in fact the opposite is happening. The more I post on these forums, the more I see really smart people making some really enormous errors in logic and they don't even know they're doing it. The idea that evolutionary biology is some sort of science-advancing enterprise is just one of these constantly propagated myths. It is most certainly NOT a science-advancing enterprise. It is a science-inhibiting enterprise. I feel better about Creationism/ID now than I ever have before ... thanks to the arguments of folks just like you.

[JonF]

The more I post on these forums, the more I see really smart people making some really enormous errors in logic and they don't even know they're doing it.
Such as "Keep in mind that Green River is supposedly Eocene (33-56 myo) and Suigetsu supposedly sits in a Jurassic (145-200 myo) accretionary complex. ... IOW, it's supposedly older. So if we dug deeper, we should find perhaps another couple hundred thousand varves, right?"

Can you point out the egregious error in that "logic"?

O' course, that wasn't posted by a smart poster.

[ck1]

No, DLX2 ... in fact the opposite is happening. The more I post on these forums, the more I see really smart people making some really enormous errors in logic and they don't even know they're doing it. The idea that evolutionary biology is some sort of science-advancing enterprise is just one of these constantly propagated myths. It is most certainly NOT a science-advancing enterprise. It is a science-inhibiting enterprise. I feel better about Creationism/ID now than I ever have before ... thanks to the arguments of folks just like you.
Nonsense, Dave. You have been unable to provide any practical examples of how adopting creationism would in any way advance science. On the other hand, you have been given numerous examples of how ToE advances science -- voxrat gave a nice example from his own work on a previous thread, and I gave you one from mine - how a phylogenetic analysis of the gene we work with identified sites under positive selection that we will now target for mutagenesis.

[VoxRat]

No, DLX2 ... in fact the opposite is happening. The more I post on these forums, the more I see really smart people making some really enormous errors in logic and they don't even know they're doing it.Right.
You - a fundie, totally uneducated in any of the relevant fields, to the point you've never so much as cracked an elementary textbook - can see "enormous errors in logic" of people who have spent decades studying, researching, teaching the subjects in question.

Let's stretch our imaginations here and - just for laughs - entertain the possibility that maybe all these "really smart people" might be right when they point out, repeatedly, that (a) you don't know what you're talking about, and (b) what you say on these subjects makes no sense.

The idea that evolutionary biology is some sort of science-advancing enterprise is just one of these constantly propagated myths. It is most certainly NOT a science-advancing enterprise. It is a science-inhibiting enterprise. Now, how the hell do you know that? You don't even bother to support this inane claptrap; you just assert. Over and over and over. Do I need to remind you, once again, that lots of us here are practising scientists? We have told you, repeatedly, that evolutionary biology most definitely is a "science-advancing enterprise". We've given you example after example after example. And there you sit, blandly asserting yet again that it's all just a "myth". You do that on purpose just to annoy, don't you? Because, clearly, communication doesn't seem to be the goal.

I feel better about Creationism/ID now than I ever have before ... thanks to ignoring the arguments of folks just like you.Fixed that for you.
Have you noticed the multiple, multiple reminders that multiple people have posted in just the last 24 hours that you've failed to address any of the many problems with creationism and with your critiques of actual scientists and actual science?

[Febble]

No, DLX2 ... in fact the opposite is happening. The more I post on these forums, the more I see really smart people making some really enormous errors in logic and they don't even know they're doing it. The idea that evolutionary biology is some sort of science-advancing enterprise is just one of these constantly propagated myths. It is most certainly NOT a science-advancing enterprise. It is a science-inhibiting enterprise. I feel better about Creationism/ID now than I ever have before ... thanks to the arguments of folks just like you.

So can you point out one of these really enormous errors of logic?

And can you give the criteria by which you decide whether or not an enterprise is a science-advancing one?

I'd like to hear your logical reasoning here.

[VoxRat]

No, DLX2 ... in fact the opposite is happening. The more I post on these forums, the more I see really smart people making some really enormous errors in logic and they don't even know they're doing it. The idea that evolutionary biology is some sort of science-advancing enterprise is just one of these constantly propagated myths. It is most certainly NOT a science-advancing enterprise. It is a science-inhibiting enterprise. I feel better about Creationism/ID now than I ever have before ... thanks to the arguments of folks just like you.

So can you point out one of these really enormous errors of logic?

And can you give the criteria by which you decide whether or not an enterprise is a science-advancing one?

I'd like to hear your logical reasoning here.Not gonna happen.

"enormous errors in logic..."
"constantly propagated myths..."
"most certainly NOT"
"I feel better about Creationism/ID... than ever"

Notice the subtle hints that this is all bluster and bravado?
Bluster and bravado doesn't do the pointing-out-specifics thing.
Bluster and bravado doesn't do the giving-criteria thing.
bluster and bravado doesn't do the logical reasoning thing.
Bluster and bravado just does more bluster and bravado.

[BWE]

As one of those "fools who don't know jack shit" over at RDF, I spent quite a bit of time dealing with Dave's assorted eructations. I gather my contributions were appreciated at the time by several here. Unless of course someone wishes to tell me different ...

Just to let you know.

I picked up on that one too. I am spending more time lately as one of those fools rather than one of the solid sciencers though so I probably shouldn't raise my hand too high.

[Dlx2]

Dave just passed beyond shadow of a doubt from "pitifully ignorant" to "maliciously ignorant."

I'm sorry, Dave. I can't let you do that.

[Per Ahlberg]

I'm sorry, Dave. I can't let you do that.

Dlx2 wins thread.


http://bermuda.ch/balduin/blog/hal.jpg

[Lucretius III]

No, DLX2 ... in fact the opposite is happening. The more I post on these forums, the more I see really smart people making some really enormous errors in logic and they don't even know they're doing it. The idea that evolutionary biology is some sort of science-advancing enterprise is just one of these constantly propagated myths. It is most certainly NOT a science-advancing enterprise. It is a science-inhibiting enterprise. I feel better about Creationism/ID now than I ever have before ... thanks to the arguments of folks just like you.

May I give my version of the above nonsense from Dave ?


The more I read on these forums on their websites and see them "lecturing " on TV , the more I see really stupid & gullible creationists making some really enormous errors in logic and telling out and out lies and they don't even know they're doing it or if they do they are only in it for the money . The idea that Creationism is some sort of science-advancing enterprise is just one of these constantly propagated myths. It is most certainly NOT a science-advancing enterprise. It is a science-inhibiting enterprise. I feel better about evolution now than I ever have before ... thanks to the arguments of folks just like Ken Ham,Kent Hovind the entire staff of AiG ICR etc etc etc

[Febble]

No, DLX2 ... in fact the opposite is happening. The more I post on these forums, the more I see really smart people making some really enormous errors in logic and they don't even know they're doing it. The idea that evolutionary biology is some sort of science-advancing enterprise is just one of these constantly propagated myths. It is most certainly NOT a science-advancing enterprise. It is a science-inhibiting enterprise. I feel better about Creationism/ID now than I ever have before ... thanks to the arguments of folks just like you.

May I give my version of the above nonsense from Dave ?


The more I read on these forums on their websites and see them "lecturing " on TV , the more I see really stupid & gullible creationists making some really enormous errors in logic and telling out and out lies and they don't even know they're doing it or if they do they are only in it for the money . The idea that Creationism is some sort of science-advancing enterprise is just one of these constantly propagated myths. It is most certainly NOT a science-advancing enterprise. It is a science-inhibiting enterprise. I feel better about evolution now than I ever have before ... thanks to the arguments of folks just like Ken Ham,Kent Hovind the entire staff of AiG ICR etc etc etc

Except that I don't "feel" anything about evolution at all, any more than I "feel" anything about gravity. The theory simply makes sense of the data. If another theory came along that made even better sense, I'd drop it without a qualm.

[Lucretius III]

No, DLX2 ... in fact the opposite is happening. The more I post on these forums, the more I see really smart people making some really enormous errors in logic and they don't even know they're doing it. The idea that evolutionary biology is some sort of science-advancing enterprise is just one of these constantly propagated myths. It is most certainly NOT a science-advancing enterprise. It is a science-inhibiting enterprise. I feel better about Creationism/ID now than I ever have before ... thanks to the arguments of folks just like you.

May I give my version of the above nonsense from Dave ?


The more I read on these forums on their websites and see them "lecturing " on TV , the more I see really stupid & gullible creationists making some really enormous errors in logic and telling out and out lies and they don't even know they're doing it or if they do they are only in it for the money . The idea that Creationism is some sort of science-advancing enterprise is just one of these constantly propagated myths. It is most certainly NOT a science-advancing enterprise. It is a science-inhibiting enterprise. I feel better about evolution now than I ever have before ... thanks to the arguments of folks just like Ken Ham,Kent Hovind the entire staff of AiG ICR etc etc etc

Except that I don't "feel" anything about evolution at all, any more than I "feel" anything about gravity. The theory simply makes sense of the data. If another theory came along that made even better sense, I'd drop it without a qualm.

Quite right with hindsight I should have altered the words " I feel better about evolution " to perhaps "I am more convinced that the data supports the ToE and NOT the Creation story " or something along those lines.

[Constant Mews]

No, DLX2 ... in fact the opposite is happening. The more I post on these forums, the more I see really smart people making some really enormous errors in logic and they don't even know they're doing it. The idea that evolutionary biology is some sort of science-advancing enterprise is just one of these constantly propagated myths. It is most certainly NOT a science-advancing enterprise. It is a science-inhibiting enterprise. I feel better about Creationism/ID now than I ever have before ... thanks to the arguments of folks just like you.
Nonsense, Dave. You have been unable to provide any practical examples of how adopting creationism would in any way advance science. On the other hand, you have been given numerous examples of how ToE advances science -- voxrat gave a nice example from his own work on a previous thread, and I gave you one from mine - how a phylogenetic analysis of the gene we work with identified sites under positive selection that we will now target for mutagenesis.
This is an important point. Creationist thinking has never advanced science in any way. Evolutionary thinking has. This is a fundamental truth that Dave has never been able to deal with, despite his numerous protestations otherwise.

Certainly, much science was - prior to the 20th century in general - done by creationists. But not by using creationist paradigms. No creationist paradigm has ever - except by accident - ever advanced science. I challenge Dave to demonstrate otherwise.

[ShavenYak]

It's the reason he dislikes ericmurphy so much - em doesn't claim to be highly educated in science, yet can trash Hawkins' arguments without drawing breath

I could be mistaken, but I've never really detected any dislike from Dave toward me. I'm not certain, but my formal science education is quite likely to be even less than eric's. High school physics/biology/chemistry. And I feel that I've done my fair share of shredding Dave's arguments. Maybe I just haven't been in the community long enough to get on Dave's enemies list? I'm trying to decide if I should be upset about that omission.

[Coleslaw]

Has Dave pointed out any of those really enormous errors in logic yet?

[pSimon]

But in the meantime, oh, yes, I was creative! Somehow, I had even managed to reconcile free-will with the doctrine of God's omniscient foreknowledge. Don't ask me how; now I lose myself trying to map my own previous path.



That was one of the factors in my de-conversion the simple fact that I could not reconcile free will with an omniscient God
In fact I remember myself and two other agnostics/atheists really getting a Christian Brother, who took us for RE in our Catholic Grammar school really confused himself ,so much so his face got redder and redder and he blustered more and more .

(Interestingly after just one school year of teaching us RE this 40 odd year old Brother ,not only left the order but married an ex nun ,who was shortly pregnant,quite proud of that actually :))

So does anyone actually /have/ an answer to the free-will/prescience thing?

It seems a perfect paradox to me... ?

[Febble]

But in the meantime, oh, yes, I was creative! Somehow, I had even managed to reconcile free-will with the doctrine of God's omniscient foreknowledge. Don't ask me how; now I lose myself trying to map my own previous path.



That was one of the factors in my de-conversion the simple fact that I could not reconcile free will with an omniscient God
In fact I remember myself and two other agnostics/atheists really getting a Christian Brother, who took us for RE in our Catholic Grammar school really confused himself ,so much so his face got redder and redder and he blustered more and more .

(Interestingly after just one school year of teaching us RE this 40 odd year old Brother ,not only left the order but married an ex nun ,who was shortly pregnant,quite proud of that actually :))

So does anyone actually /have/ an answer to the free-will/prescience thing?

It seems a perfect paradox to me... ?

Well, it's a paradox whether you have an omniscient God or not. In some ways God resolves the paradox (as long as you place God outside time, which seems reasonable). That was why I was a theist. But Dennett's solution works better.

[Luis Garcia]

as long as you place God outside time, which seems reasonable

I've heard this a lot, but I've never had a theist explain what it actually means.

Besides, it fails the moment such a god takes any action whatsoever in time. So it certainly doesn't let christians off.

[BWE]

as long as you place God outside time, which seems reasonable

I've heard this a lot, but I've never had a theist explain what it actually means.

Besides, it fails the moment such a god takes any action whatsoever in time. So it certainly doesn't let christians off.

Yeah but it also lets them keep a word that has a lot of value. Reverence isn't a bad thing in my book.

[Luis Garcia]

Yeah but it also lets them keep a word that has a lot of value. Reverence isn't a bad thing in my book.

It sounds sciency, too, which is always helpful.

[Febble]

as long as you place God outside time, which seems reasonable

I've heard this a lot, but I've never had a theist explain what it actually means.

Besides, it fails the moment such a god takes any action whatsoever in time. So it certainly doesn't let christians off.

Well, I've never had a physicist explain exactly what it means either. But Augustine had a good go.

[Luis Garcia]

Well, I've never had a physicist explain exactly what it means either. But Augustine had a good go.

Pseudo rep for the laugh.

If you ever come across a physicist willing to give it a go, can you let me know?

[Constant Mews]

It's merely a question of frame of reference. In God's view, time is static; the Fall and the Resurrection are simultaneous in the same fashion that the top and bottom of my computer monitor are simultaneous.

[Luis Garcia]

Except the top and bottom of your computer screen are not simultaneous. They are separated by a distance in a dimension of spacetime. But what does it mean to be outside time? How is this different from being outside up? What would that mean?

Meantime, any theistic omniscient god claim is still scuppered because gods view is irrelevant. The relevant thing is that once the knowledge pre exists the action, there is no free will. So any interventionist god still falls foul of the same problem.

[BWE]

Except the top and bottom of your computer screen are not simultaneous. They are separated by a distance in a dimension of spacetime. But what does it mean to be outside time? How is this different from being outside up? What would that mean?

Meantime, any theistic omniscient god claim is still scuppered because gods view is irrelevant. The relevant thing is that once the knowledge pre exists the action, there is no free will. So any interventionist god still falls foul of the same problem.

Details details. If theists had to work at that pathetic level of detail (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/06/evolution-and-m.html)...

[David B]

as long as you place God outside time, which seems reasonable

I've heard this a lot, but I've never had a theist explain what it actually means.

Besides, it fails the moment such a god takes any action whatsoever in time. So it certainly doesn't let christians off.

Well, I've never had a physicist explain exactly what it means either. But Augustine had a good go.

I have a vague memory that Einstein made a thought experiment of looking at time from the POV of photon.

And deciding that from the POV of the photon, there is no time.

David B (makes a late night post)

[Luis Garcia]

Details details. If theists had to work at that pathetic level of detail (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/06/evolution-and-m.html)...

That's hilarious.

[Luis Garcia]

I have a vague memory that Einstein made a thought experiment of looking at time from the POV of photon.

And deciding that from the POV of the photon, there is no time.

David B (makes a late night post)

Everything moves through spacetime at the speed of light. The closer you go to travelling through space at the speed of light, the less speed is left over for travelling through time.

So either god is a massless particle (and therefore still unable to intervene, and also making a mockery of the word "god") or the claim still fails.

Luis G (Who is hoping he won't get spanked too hard by any proper physicists for this post)

[BWE]

Details details. If theists had to work at that pathetic level of detail (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/06/evolution-and-m.html)...

That's hilarious.

I agree. One of the funnier oopses He's made.