Why don't creationists get it? [split from '"Varve" Terminology is Unfortunate

[Autodidact]

Febble ... Dave, please contrast this post of yours with what Dr Bertsche says above.I will do so happily, Febble.

My statement ... Given the admission by Dr. Kirk Bertsche at TWeb that results are routinely rejected if they are not close to the expected age, it seems obvious to me what's going on here, although I cannot prove it.

Which was a conclusion I drew from ... Bertsche who said ... Originally posted by afdave
So what do they typically do if a single piece of material is split into pieces and dated, and the dates are inconsistent with one another? Discard all the pieces and try another sample? Keep the one that falls close to the expected age? What?


This flags contamination somewhere in the process. What a researcher typically does is to throw out these dates and to try to identify and eliminate the contamination.I substituted the word 'routinely' for 'typically.' Seems reasonable. My entire statement seems to be a very fair representation of what he said.

Now I understand everyone's collective pain here in coming to grips with the reality of what Dr. Bertsche said, but whining about what a meany I am because I supposedly spun his statement wrong really makes you appear uninterested in the real issues at hand. I would suggest getting over it and moving ahead.

I'm interested in hearing the details of JonF's experiment proposal ... not committing to anything lest I be called a welcher by Glenn, but I'm interested at least.

I can think of only two possibilities:

1. Dave is really, really, stupid. He actually cannot read these two passages and understand that they are not at all the same, not talking about the same thing, are in fact quite different.

2. Dave is a liar and doesn't have the integrity to admit it, even when confronted by his lies.

I really can't think of any other explanations, can you?

[BWE]

Does anyone know what the singular of the term "viscera" is? Viscerum? Viscerus? Maybe it doesn't have a singular? Although people do have "a gut," as well as "guts."

offal? Head cheese? Intestine? Liver?

[Occam's Aftershave]

I can think of only two possibilities:

1. Dave is really, really, stupid. He actually cannot read these two passages and understand that they are not at all the same, not talking about the same thing, are in fact quite different.

2. Dave is a liar and doesn't have the integrity to admit it, even when confronted by his lies.

I really can't think of any other explanations, can you?
He could be both. :dunno:

[ck1]

I can think of only two possibilities:

1. Dave is really, really, stupid. He actually cannot read these two passages and understand that they are not at all the same, not talking about the same thing, are in fact quite different.

2. Dave is a liar and doesn't have the integrity to admit it, even when confronted by his lies.

I really can't think of any other explanations, can you?

1. Dave is not stupid.

2. Dave bends reality to conform to his Bible-based interpretation of reality. There is some kind of fundie-fog obscuring his thinking processes. A type of Morton's demon that rejects much of the evidence accepted by science. Also, Dave "knows" that if he convinces himself that something is correct, then it is not a lie to repeat it.

[Pappy Jack]

I can think of only two possibilities:

1. Dave is really, really, stupid. He actually cannot read these two passages and understand that they are not at all the same, not talking about the same thing, are in fact quite different.

2. Dave is a liar and doesn't have the integrity to admit it, even when confronted by his lies.

I really can't think of any other explanations, can you?
I would like to think that (1) is more likely than (2). However, as (1) is influenced by Dave's obsessive conviction that Earth and the Universe are around 6-6.5K years old and that any data that apparently contradicts this must be the result of incompetence and or fraud on the parts of the scientists and technicians involved, the demon that sits on his shoulder just won't let him understand that, to the rest of us, such persistent stupidity in the face of overwhelming evidence appears to be no better than lying.

On the other hand, if you check out Dave's blog at the infamous Truthmatters.Info, you will find at least one article (Nested Hierarchies: Failed Prediction of ToE (http://truthmatters.info/2007/11/14/nested-hierarchies-are-not-a-prediction-of-toe/)) that is almost wholly dependent on the apparently deliberate use of a particular quote from Darwin to impart an interpretation to Darwin's understanding of evolution that is at complete variance with what Darwin wrote. You and I might well regard this as a premeditated misrepresentation and thus tantamount to a lie, but I am certain that Dave would argue till he's blue in the face that this is not so - and most likely honestly believe that he is right. I'm sure that shrinks have a definition for this type of behaviour.

[Febble]

You and I might well regard this as a premeditated misrepresentation and thus tantamount to a lie, but I am certain that Dave would argue till he's blue in the face that this is not so - and most likely honestly believe that he is right. I'm sure that shrinks have a definition for this type of behaviour.

Well, I'm no shrink but from a cognitive psychologist's point of view I'd say that what you find depends to a large extent on what you are looking for. Scientists are looking for explanations. Explanations that work well - explain a lot of the data - led them to hypothesise that the earth was very old, and we now have age-of-the-the-earth hypotheses that are very precise and well supported by data, although they may not be absolutely correct.

Creationists are not looking for explanations, however. They are looking for reasons to reject Creationism. This is what convinces them that they are "honest", and in a way it is a well-motivated venture.

However, because they are convinced that Creationism is a valuable model (for reasons quite unconnected with its explanatory power) and because they suspect that materialistic models are potentially harmful (for reasons quite unconnected with their explanatory power), they want to be sure that if they are going to reject Creationism it is for overwhelmingly convincing reasons.

That means that however persuasive a scientific argument seems to be, they are going to want to check it first for holes.

And holes they will find. Because holes there always are. All scientific theories are incomplete, and some hypotheses turn out to be actually incorrect (which is why I keep linking the Asimov's essay The Relativity of Wrong (http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm), and which Dave keeps ignoring).

And if you are looking for good reasons to abandon a model that you regard as morally healthy in favour of one you suspect is not, why would you choose one that is full of holes?

Can't these scientists SEE these holes? What are they doing, espousing an flawed theory that has horrible moral implications, when Creationism is both flawless AND good for you?

Because of course Creationism IS flawless. OK, some of it doesn't make sense from a scientific point of view, but that's because scientists are only human, and we won't easily be able to figure out HOW God did it. Maybe Walter Brown didn't get it quite right. But Creationism posits an omnipotent Creator (something scientists ignore) so clearly God COULD have made the earth in any way God chose, and solved any technical problem God encountered on the way by invoking God's Infinite Creative Power.

Whereas all scientists can come up with to cover the holes and errors and puzzles in their theories is: "we don't know - we need more grant money".

You know, I've almost talked myself into this.....

Dave, do I have this about right?

[Febble]

In other words (the bit I forgot to summarise): Scientists are looking for consilience. Dave is looking for holes. We are looking at the web. Dave is looking through it.

I think that's why both sides think they are self-evidently right.

That's why the important part of the argument against Creationism is not that there aren't holes (see Asimov) but that the web is a web - as in:

Why do the curves agree?

[Ray Moscow]

In other words (the bit I forgot to summarise): Scientists are looking for consilience. Dave is looking for holes. We are looking at the web. Dave is looking through it.

I think that's why both sides think they are self-evidently right.

That's why the important part of the argument against Creationism is not that there aren't holes (see Asimov) but that the web is a web - as in:

Why do the curves agree?

To paraphrase Spencer:

Dave focuses on the supposed gaps in the evidence supporting the TOE, but he forgets that his hypothesis is supported by no evidence whatsoever.

[VoxRat]

...
Creationists are not looking for explanations, however. They are looking for reasons to reject Creationism. This is what convinces them that they are "honest", and in a way it is a well-motivated venture.

You really think so?

I don't.

I think they are looking for reasons to reject mainstream science.

[Ray Moscow]

...
Creationists are not looking for explanations, however. They are looking for reasons to reject Creationism. This is what convinces them that they are "honest", and in a way it is a well-motivated venture.

You really think so?

I don't.

I think they are looking for reasons to reject mainstream science.

And to avoid having to actually face what are, for them, very uncomfortable facts about the Bible and Christian doctrines. (That they are wrong.)

[Pappy Jack]

...
Creationists are not looking for explanations, however. They are looking for reasons to reject Creationism. This is what convinces them that they are "honest", and in a way it is a well-motivated venture.

You really think so?

I don't.

I think they are looking for reasons to reject mainstream science.
My limited experience leads me to agree with Ratty. The conscious search by Creationists seems to be for affirming data ('proof') that can be used to support their beliefs. This is beyond irony as my distant memories of Christian indoctrination resonate with belief based on faith and not on sordid demands for proof. Such demands were seen as cynical and corrosive of faith. That Creationist fundies search for a proof that they will never find to support their faith suggests in no small measure that the dominant element in that faith is doubt, which is, of course, the weakness of those of little faith.

[JonF]

...
Creationists are not looking for explanations, however. They are looking for reasons to reject Creationism. This is what convinces them that they are "honest", and in a way it is a well-motivated venture.

You really think so?

I don't.

I think they are looking for reasons to reject mainstream science.
A lot of them are looking for the imprimatur of science upon their beliefs. Science is looked upon as a powerful force in our culture, and they want that force on their side. When they run into the fact that science incontroveribly disproves many of their beliefs, they have a cognitive dissonance problem. That leads many, like Davie, to Morton's Demon and the inability to extracty obvious meaning from a couple of simple English sentences such as "[if a single piece of material is split into pieces and dated, and the dates are inconsistent with one another] this flags contamination somewhere in the process. What a researcher typically does is to throw out these dates and to try to identify and eliminate the contamination".

[Ray Moscow]

This is beyond irony as my distant memories of Christian indoctrination resonate with belief based on faith and not on sordid demands for proof. Such demands were seen as cynical and corrosive of faith. That Creationist fundies search for a proof that they will never find to support their faith suggests in no small measure that the dominant element in that faith is doubt, which is, of course, the weakness of those of little faith.

I don't know whether we naturalists have more in common with the literalists, who often want to find evidence to support their position, or those those who are allegorists or otherwise endorse NOMA and who discount evidence as having no relevance to "theological" issues.

[VoxRat]

This is beyond irony as my distant memories of Christian indoctrination resonate with belief based on faith and not on sordid demands for proof. Such demands were seen as cynical and corrosive of faith. That Creationist fundies search for a proof that they will never find to support their faith suggests in no small measure that the dominant element in that faith is doubt, which is, of course, the weakness of those of little faith.

I don't know whether we naturalists have more in common with the literalists, who often want to find evidence to support their position, or those those who are allegorists or otherwise endorse NOMA and who discount evidence as having no relevance to "theological" issues.Yes...
I recently made the same point on one of these discussion boards (I can't remember where).

I have to reluctantly agree with Phillip Johnson (gack!) when he asks: what's the point of believing in a god who doesn't actively intervene in the physical universe?

The irony of it, of course, is that Johnson and his ilk make a career of sliming "materialists". It sort of reminds me of a recent study confirming what we've always suspected about rabid homophobes (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=8772014).

[Febble]

...
Creationists are not looking for explanations, however. They are looking for reasons to reject Creationism. This is what convinces them that they are "honest", and in a way it is a well-motivated venture.

You really think so?

I don't.

I think they are looking for reasons to reject mainstream science.

Well, let me clarify: I don't think they are looking for reasons to reject mainstream science - they already have reasons to do so. I think they are checking out science to make sure that it isn't a reason to reject Creationism. That means that instead of looking for what it has to say, they are looking to see whether it has flaws.

And as soon as they find a flaw they can stop looking further - they have established that it isn't a reason to reject Creationism.

Just as, having decided to buy a particular sofa, you check out the alternatives for reasons to change your mind. But by that time you are asking yourself: "is there any reason why I should change to that sofa?" - and as soon as you find a problem ("it might show the dirt") you don't bother to check whether it is nonetheless more comfortable, because you already have one you like.

[Mike PSS]

C'mon Dave. Let's go back to square one on this discussion.
It would be great if Mike and JB could put up a page somewhere with all the data and links that have been collected ...That would be too much like work.:yuck:

[Pappy Jack]

Well, let me clarify: I don't think they are looking for reasons to reject mainstream science - they already have reasons to do so. I think they are checking out science to make sure that it isn't a reason to reject Creationism. That means that instead of looking for what it has to say, they are looking to see whether it has flaws.

And as soon as they find a flaw they can stop looking further - they have established that it isn't a reason to reject Creationism.....
So, as I was suggesting above, perhaps the Creationists' 'examination' of science is founded entirely on a fear that that science may undermine the basis for their belief in a young Earth and the literal truth of the Bible? Therefore their interest in checking out science is not primarily to find evidence for Creationism, but rather to find flaws in the evidence that undermines Creationism, thereby removing the niggling doubt that is eating away at their faith and telling them that the Universe really is billions of years old?

On the other hand, Dave is forever telling us is that his interest in science is also to find scientific evidence for the reality of Creationism. So Dave 'bats for both sides' because he wants not only to find reasons to undermine scientific evidence for an old Earth and Universe (hence his current obsessive need to 'disprove' varves), but also to establish a cod-scientific foundation for Creationist mythology (hence, for example, his championing of anything that in any way possible can be co-opted into supporting Uncle Wally's hydropants' fantasies).

[ericmurphy]

The irony of it, of course, is that Johnson and his ilk make a career of sliming "materialists". It sort of reminds me of a recent study confirming what we've always suspected about rabid homophobes (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=8772014).

Where's Guzman when you need him?

I didn't just say that.

[Febble]

Posts above JonF's split from here (http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=18966#post18966).

[Ian Nerr]

1. Dave is not stupid.

I disagree.

[Febble]

Well, let me clarify: I don't think they are looking for reasons to reject mainstream science - they already have reasons to do so. I think they are checking out science to make sure that it isn't a reason to reject Creationism. That means that instead of looking for what it has to say, they are looking to see whether it has flaws.

And as soon as they find a flaw they can stop looking further - they have established that it isn't a reason to reject Creationism.....
So, as I was suggesting above, perhaps the Creationists' 'examination' of science is founded entirely on a fear that that science may undermine the basis for their belief in a young Earth and the literal truth of the Bible? Therefore their interest in checking out science is not primarily to find evidence for Creationism, but rather to find flaws in the evidence that undermines Creationism, thereby removing the niggling doubt that is eating away at their faith and telling them that the Universe really is billions of years old?

Well, underneath, yes. I think they are trying science on for size, in the unstated hope that it doesn't fit.

On the other hand, Dave is forever telling us is that his interest in science is also to find scientific evidence for the reality of Creationism. So Dave 'bats for both sides' because he wants not only to find reasons to undermine scientific evidence for an old Earth and Universe (hence his current obsessive need to 'disprove' varves), but also to establish a cod-scientific foundation for Creationist mythology (hence, for example, his championing of anything that in any way possible can be co-opted into supporting Uncle Wally's hydropants' fantasies).

Yes, that's true.

[Constant Mews]

With regard to Dave, I have offered my opinion elsewhere that we are dealing not with general stupidity, but with a failure in several significant areas of cognition.

Note, for example, that Dave has shown an almost complete inability to understand the concepts of "falsification" and "evidence". This appears to be unrelated to his general confusion about science and the peculiar blinders that he wears in regard to uncomfortable data. He simply cannot follow some very basic logical steps towards an understanding of how the world works.

Creationism merely reinforces some serious mental problems that Dave already displays. In that respect he is uncommon among creationists. But faith, for Dave, has always been a "crutch" - a device he uses to survive in the world. In the beginning, it was a tool to ensure acceptance and approbation by his father; later it became a way to control his rather vicious temper and self-admittedly unpleasant personality. Had Dave been born in China, he would have been a rather foolish Confucionist; in Arabia, a rather foolish Muslim. There is no particular significance to Christianity to Dave - it's all just a mechanism.

That's why I pray for him every day. I note this seems to be a trend....

[Dave Hawkins]

Wow ... Constant Mews is praying for me every day ... gotta love that.

[Constant Mews]

I hope you do. For I certainly am. I count no one damned before their death; I certainly don't count you as a lost cause, though you are, so far as I can see, certainly damned for eternity given your behavior right now.

I will continue to pray for you every day. It is the least I can do. Someday, you might even find God; if you can ever manage to see him past the false idol of your ego that you keep building higher and higher.

Added in edit: and once again we see that Dave is unable to address any point of substance. I would suggest, Dave, that snarkiness does not constitute 'intellectual' discussion.

[Jobar]

I hope you do. For I certainly am. I count no one damned before their death; I certainly don't count you as a lost cause, though you are, so far as I can see, certainly damned for eternity given your behavior right now.

I will continue to pray for you every day. It is the least I can do. Someday, you might even find God; if you can ever manage to see him past the false idol of your ego that you keep building higher and higher.

Added in edit: and once again we see that Dave is unable to address any point of substance. I would suggest, Dave, that snarkiness does not constitute 'intellectual' discussion.

Ah-HA! Dave hangs out online with us atheists because we merely think he's a lying moron, while Christians think he's also looking at an eternal damnation rap!
:D