Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::UnReasonable Kansans thread

Posted: Sep. 22 2008,22:58

Quote (olegt @ Sep. 22 2008,22:46)

Here's a classification of creationism according to Henry Morris (formatting in the original):

Quote

Creationism can be studied and taught in any of three basic forms, as follows:

(1) Scientific creationism (no reliance on Biblical revelation, utilizing only scientific data to support and expound the creation model).
(2) Biblical creationism (no reliance on scientific data, using only the Bible to expound and defend the creation model).
(3) Scientific Biblical creationism (full reliance on Biblical revelation but also using scientific data to support and develop the creation model).

These are not contradictory systems, of course, but supplementary, each appropriate for certain applications. For example, creationists should not advocate that Biblical creationism be taught in public schools, both because of judicial restrictions against religion in such schools and also (more importantly) because teachers who do not believe the Bible should not be asked to teach the Bible. It is both legal and desirable, however, that scientific creationism be taught in public schools as a valid alternative to evolutionism.

Two quick points. First, his scheme totally undermines FtK's classification. Second, it applies, mutatis mutandis, to ID. The ID crowd is so talentless, they can't come up with anything new.

And of course there are also old-earth creation scientists.

Oleg, I've never understood your stance here. You honestly don't see the difference between creation science and ID?

Those definitions of Morris' are extremely vague. Sure you could stick ID under one of those, but it doesn't provide you with much information about the difference between ID and creation science.

You can call an IDist a creationist because they do believe that a higher power is ultimately responsible for the creation of the universe, but there are considerable differences between Intelligent Design and Creation Science.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

olegt

Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

Posted: Sep. 22 2008,23:09

I agree, FtK, you don't understand my stance. I am not saying that ID is identical to creationism. My point is that ID is creationism in disguise. There is nothing in ID arguments that has not been previously floated by creationists (esp. "scientific" ones). The only thing that's missing is a reference to God.

And even in that they were not the first: if you read early drafts of Of pandas and people, you'll find creation science instead of intelligent design. Here's the story.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

Ftk

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Sep. 22 2008,23:12

Quote (Sealawr @ Sep. 22 2008,22:54)

YEC, OEC ID

f. the kids asks:

Quote

Okay, which category do you believe Nelson falls under

I already answered:

here

Learning that Paul Nelson is YEC is as "unique" as leaning that Dolly Parton has large breasts.

I thought everybody knew that.

Yes, I read that and it appears from that and what Wes claims, Paul is a YEC. I did not know that. But, it's still not clear whether he is what I would consider a creation scientist. Has he published actual theories in regard to YEC claims? Or, is he merely a supporter of creation science and YEC.

My initial question to Wes was whether he had actually taken the time to thoroughly question a *creation scientist* about their theories. I see a lot of misunderstanding in regard to creation science. I also find it odd that absolutely no one has ever considered actually confronting creation scientists about their work.

I know all of you would consider it waaaaayyyy beneath you to do so, but you'd think that after 5 years I would have run across at least one person willing to call Brown.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Sep. 22 2008,23:13

Morris' definitions:

A. All Bible, Zero Science
B. All Science, Zero Bible

Ftk: that's really vague

If your kids read better than you, it isn't shameful to ask for help. They can help you sound out the more difficult words.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Sep. 22 2008,23:18

Ftk:

Quote

I know all of you would consider it waaaaayyyy beneath you to do so, but you'd think that after 5 years I would have run across at least one person willing to call Brown.

Um, Walt Brown won't talk to anybody. At all. Evah. Unless one agrees to talk to him under the following conditions:

1. only peanut butter sandwiches may be discussed

2. when talking about peanut butter, one may not introduce jelly unless cleared by a panel of non-partisan jurors supplied by the Jesus is Holy Bible Church

3. anyone discussing edibles with Brown must wear a hat which covers 83% of their face, including 100% of their eyes

4. one may not sit in the same room with Brown

5. any mention of Hydroplate Theory and the discussion is over, and Walt gets any uneaten sandwiches

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Ftk

Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Sep. 22 2008,23:21

Quote (olegt @ Sep. 22 2008,23:09)

I agree, FtK, you don't understand my stance. I am not saying that ID is identical to creationism. My point is that ID is creationism in disguise. There is nothing in ID arguments that has not been previously floated by creationists (esp. "scientific" ones). The only thing that's missing is a reference to God.

And even in that they were not the first: if you read early drafts of Of pandas and people, you'll find creation science instead of intelligent design. Here's the story.

ID is not creation science in disguise....it's a branch off of William Paley's ideas about design. Some of the things written by Dembski and Behe are certainly new to the design inference.

So what if the premise of the ID argument has been discussed before the Dembski/Behe crowd? Who cares? From what I understand, Darwin wasn't the first to consider molecule to man either.

My point is that there are distinct differences between a *creation scientist* and an *ID theorist*. That's simply a fact, and from the article Wes and I were refering to, those scientists views seemed to fall under creation science rather than ID arguments.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero

olegt

Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

Posted: Sep. 22 2008,23:27

Quote

My initial question to Wes was whether he had actually taken the time to thoroughly question a *creation scientist* about their theories. I see a lot of misunderstanding in regard to creation science. I also find it odd that absolutely no one has ever considered actually confronting creation scientists about their work.

I know all of you would consider it waaaaayyyy beneath you to do so, but you'd think that after 5 years I would have run across at least one person willing to call Brown.

Again, that's how science works, whatever you think of that.

Even in mainstream science, most of the published results are not exactly earth-shattering discoveries. In fact, you have to filter through a lot of mediocre and even plain wrong papers before you come across something that is worth emulating and developing further. If I contacted every physicist who did something wrong I would look like this:

http://xkcd.com/386/

So you end up filtering out BS and moving on.

Same with creationism. If these guys said something useful, someone somewhere would have picked it up. Sooner or later. But no one in the mainstream seems interested. There's enough crap within science to pay attention to crap outside of it.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

olegt

Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

Posted: Sep. 22 2008,23:31

Quote

Some of the things written by Dembski and Behe are certainly new to the design inference.

Could you give us a couple of examples?

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Sep. 22 2008,23:58

Quote (olegt @ Sep. 22 2008,23:31)

Quote

Some of the things written by Dembski and Behe are certainly new to the design inference.

Could you give us a couple of examples?

No.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

didymos

Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

Posted: Sep. 23 2008,00:07

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2008,20:16)

Sigh....serious disconnect here folks.

Well, that's certainly accurate. Maybe not in the way FTK thinks it is....

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

dnmlthr

Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

Posted: Sep. 23 2008,00:44

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 23 2008,02:11)

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2008,20:58)

Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works".

Clearance on signature items, today only!

I think I just might take you up on that!

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Sep. 23 2008,02:35

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 23 2008,04:16)

[SNIP]
Louis: I'm going to continue to consider the information Tom gave me rather than start a new conversation with you at the moment.

Oh well, you can't say I didn't at least TRY to get you involved in a serious discussion.

Do me one favour though: try to remember for next time that there's no hostility (lots of mockery perhaps, but no hostility) and that you CAN have a serious conversation with perhaps surprising people. Please also don't repeat the endlessly tiresome canards about persecution etc, they really don't apply and detract from everyone's experience.

I hope your discussion with Tom goes well and that you learn something.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Sep. 23 2008,02:58

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 22 2008,17:34)

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2008,16:56)

Try calling Walt. I've suggested this umpteenth times before. Get the word from the horse's mouth, then rip it apart if you wish.

Sigh. Don't you think that we could talk about it? Walt's not coming here.

Quote

I honestly can't answer all your questions about it any more than I can answer all your questions about the evolutionists understanding of why the Cambrian explosion isn't a serious problem for their theory.

Tell me why the Cambrian explosion is a serious problem for their theory please? On what are you basing that?

Could you perhaps point to a bit in the Wikipedia entry?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
Maybe we could follow up on that? A little research project?

Quote

I just keep asking questions and reading as much as I can and try to discern where each side is basing things off facts and where they are infering things beyond the breaking point.

Prove it. Lets explore the Cambrian explosion. Maybe we should start with the first fact and the first inference?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

Quote

The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation was the seemingly rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals around 530 million years ago, as evidenced by the fossil record.

That's the first line from the Wikipedia article. Do you have a problem with that so far?

Quote

The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation was the seemingly rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals

I guess the "problem" for evolution comes later.

Quote

around 530 million years ago, as evidenced by the fossil record.

Obviously this is the first breaking point for you FTK? As not only is a figure of 530 million years mentioned the fossil record is called upon too. After all, if you are going to talk about the evolutionists understanding of why the Cambrian explosion isn't a serious problem for their theory then perhaps you should in turn explain why the Cambrian explosions very existence is not a serious problem for the Walt Brown type young earth creationism that you won't rule out as impossible.

After all, what is the Cambrian explosion itself but a refutation of every single word in Walt's book? Both cannot be true.

FTK, you can't believe in both the Cambrian explosion and Walt's book. Which is it? The Cambrian explosion cannot be a problem for evolution if it did not happen! You can't use it in a argument and then turn around and use something else where both things cannot be true.

I guess you stopped reading at this line in the Wikipedia article FTK

Quote

The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid evolution; and what it would imply about the origin and evolution of animals. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures left in Cambrian rocks.

So FTK, what do you think caused the seemingly abrupt mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian?

Quote

I just keep asking questions and reading as much as I can and try to discern where each side is basing things off facts

Did you miss this perchance? No comment? No surprise I suppose.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Sep. 23 2008,03:05

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 23 2008,08:58)

[SNIP]
Did you miss this perchance? No comment? No surprise I suppose.

Nah, she's "investingatermerising what Tom did done said soes she can has convermasation wiv him".

Louis

--------------
Bye.

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Sep. 23 2008,04:01

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 23 2008,03:05)

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 23 2008,08:58)

[SNIP]
Did you miss this perchance? No comment? No surprise I suppose.

Nah, she's "investingatermerising what Tom did done said soes she can has convermasation wiv him".

Louis

If I was "all about the facts" as FTK claims to be then I'd jump at the chance of resolving what appears to be a contradiction in my thinking.

FTK, it's one or the other. This time you can't have it both ways.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Sep. 23 2008,05:55

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 23 2008,10:01)

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 23 2008,03:05)

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 23 2008,08:58)

[SNIP]
Did you miss this perchance? No comment? No surprise I suppose.

Nah, she's "investingatermerising what Tom did done said soes she can has convermasation wiv him".

Louis

If I was "all about the facts" as FTK claims to be then I'd jump at the chance of resolving what appears to be a contradiction in my thinking.

FTK, it's one or the other. This time you can't have it both ways.

Yes Oldman, but that supposes that FTK is sincere and/or honest about her claim to be "all about the facts".

As for having it both ways, well know FTK is fond of trying THAT old chestnut.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Sep. 23 2008,06:24

This whole diversion about "Is Paul a YEC?" and "Is creationism ID in drag?" is typical FtK tactics. Pointless, personal, trivial, and guaranteed to generate enough heat to get us all off track from the initial discussion items. I guess she and Palin have more than a few things in common...

FtK - The point is that science can work even if we don't know how everything started..

Note that this is a very specific statement. It does not mean a lot of things that you apparently think it means. It does NOT mean that scientists are ignoring the question of origins. It does NOT mean that scientists think that the question of origins is trivial, or would prefer to gloss over it. It does NOT mean that all scientists are atheists. It does NOT mean that scientists suffer from an overabundance of credulity.

It means exactly what it says. Science can work, i.e. generate progress and products, in the absence of complete information about how it all began. The fact that you "can't get past that" is not useful, not scientific, and, if adopted by scientists, it would ensure no scientific progress and no products of science.

So please feel free to stay locked in that mindset. No one here is expecting you to do anything scientific. But please cease accusing scientists of all of the things listed above. We'd like you to understand science, even if you never get into a lab or out in the field.

Think about the words. Science can work even if we don't know how everything started.

(If FtK responds, I predict that she will ignore the substantive aspects of this comment and focus on the Palin reference.)

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers

csadams

Posts: 124
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Sep. 23 2008,07:02

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 23 2008,06:24)

Science can work, i.e. generate progress and products, in the absence of complete information about how it all began.

But Alb, when a person doesn't "give a flying f*ck how science works" then that person is just not interesting in learning about science. Period.

--------------
Stand Up For REAL Science!

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Sep. 23 2008,07:06

Quote (csadams @ Sep. 23 2008,07:02)

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 23 2008,06:24)

Science can work, i.e. generate progress and products, in the absence of complete information about how it all began.

But Alb, when a person doesn't "give a flying f*ck how science works" then that person is just not interesting in learning about science. Period.

Too bad. As long as she keeps visiting here, I will keep trying to edumacate her!

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Sep. 23 2008,07:11

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 23 2008,03:33)

You might be surprised how many girls are here going under ambiguous pseudonyms.

I'm choosing to see this as a confession, Stephanie.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

JonF

Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005

Posted: Sep. 23 2008,07:36

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2008,21:28)

Quote (JonF @ Sep. 22 2008,20:08)

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2008,20:40)

Also, what type of field work has Paul done in regard to creationists theories. What theories has he personally proposed?

More than Waltie-doodles.

Hint: sitting in an armchair drooling and occasionally hacking up a humongous fetid loogie of idiocy is not field work.

Quote

Certainly he hasn't been able to publish anything in regard to creation science

ROTFLAMO!!!!one1!!elevnty-one!!

Sweeetie-poo, he's published far more than Waltie-diddles, and (incredibly) he didn't have to publish his stuff himself! He's been published in venues Waltie couldn't aspire to in a million years!

Excuse me...but since when have papers about creation science been allowed in publication? The papers he published certainly weren't written in regard to ID or creation science if they were published in mainstream journals.

That's the point. I'm curious what Wes talked to him about and what books Paul has been writing in regard to *creation science*. If you're talking ID, that's a whole different matter.

I'll go check Amazon.com.

Oh, he didn't get published in mainstream journals(that's something that no creationist can manage; the bar is far too high for them). He's published in creationist woo-books, and creationist woo-journals, and creationist woo-proceedings. You know, the places Waltie can't get published because he's too loony for the loons.

Quote

How would you know Paul's a YEC by reading that particular textbook?

You would know Paul's a YEC is you were at all familiar with the creationist "literature".

I haven't read Explore Evolution". However, it's clear from Explore Evolution (especially Lenny Flank's posts) that it could only be written by a YEC.

Hey, that reminds me: were you wrong when you wrote "Bear in mind that the geologic column was also originally devised by creationists before 1860 who believed more so in catastrophism rather uniformitarianism. The so-called "periods" and "eras" were later added to fit the evolutionary theory."?

keiths

Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Sep. 23 2008,07:37

Quote (Ftk @ Sep. 22 2008,17:22)

Moderating my blog doesn't have anything to do with Wes trying to understand where a guy like Walt is coming from by actually having a long series of respectful conversations with him.

A question for you, Ftk. In science, the originators of new ideas publish them along with evidence and supporting arguments. If the evidence is strong and the arguments make sense, others come to accept the new ideas. If the evidence is weak, or worse yet, if it contradicts or undercuts the new ideas, or if the arguments are irrational, then the new ideas will not gain acceptance. None of this involves having "a long series of respectful conversations" with the originator of a new idea to find out where he or she is "coming from."

Walt Brown just published the 8th edition of his book. After eight editions, what has he left out? If there is something crucial that is not in the book, but that would come out during "a long series of respectful conversations", then why didn't he add it to one of those eight editions?

Real scientists are able to communicate their ideas persuasively to others through their writings. Why does Walt need an additional crutch?

If his ideas are valid, why can't he make a persuasive written case for them like real scientists do?

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

JonF

Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005

Posted: Sep. 23 2008,07:38

Quote (Wolfhound @ Sep. 22 2008,22:16)

I never really paid much attention to Ftk (mostly 'cause she's been banned from the more respectable venues, methinks)

No, she just hasn't shown up at the venues many of us frequent. IIRC she's banned at KCFS, but that's about it.

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Sep. 23 2008,07:41

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 23 2008,05:55)

Yes Oldman, but that supposes that FTK is sincere and/or honest about her claim to be "all about the facts".

As for having it both ways, well know FTK is fond of trying THAT old chestnut.

Louis

Then I'm doubly confused. FTK professes to follow a religion that above almost everything else cherishes honesty. If you are made aware of something that means that something else you believe simply cannot be true (and I'm not talking about "disproving god exists", simply items such as how Walt's proposal for the formation of comets is contradicted by the physical evidence and the mathematics of orbital dynamics) then to continue to repeat that now-disproved "truth" as true would appear to me to mean that the other claim, of following a particular religion that values honesty, must now be moot.

FTK, in addition to all of the above I don't believe you can call yourself religious until you:

a) Inform your friends and family you are now Pro-Choice. Why don't you make a post on your blog also announcing it?

b) Decide which from the Cambrian explosion or Walt's hydroplate theory is more likely then the other, and then stop using in argument the one you decide against.

c) You said "You honestly don't see the difference between creation science and ID? ". You obviously do.
If they are so different, please explain how it's possible to convert a creation science text book into an ID text book by searching and replacing "ID" and "creationism" and changing little, if anything, of the rest of the text.

Wikipedia notes:

Quote

Many of the book's arguments are identical to those raised by creationists, which have been dismissed by mainstream scientists. In fact, a comparison of an early draft of Of Pandas and People to a later 1987 copy showed how in hundreds of instances the word "creationism" had been replaced by "intelligent design", and "creationist" simply replaced by "intelligent design proponent".

If ID and creationism are so different, as you claim, please explain how that is possible?

Are you denying that that "search and replace" is true?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_Pandas_and_People

If they are not substantially the same thing, how is that possible?

Until you confront the dishonesty that in my opinion you appear to be showing I suspect you'll not be getting in those pearly gates. If this life really is a rehearsal for all that as I hear so often (usually with the sick message "so this earth is ours to exploit as we want with no consequences") you'd better get on the honestly songsheet pronto luv!

Just sayin!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Sep. 23 2008,07:50

Quote (keiths @ Sep. 23 2008,07:37)

None of this involves having "a long series of respectful conversations" with the originator of a new idea to find out where he or she is "coming from."

Excellent point. It's like FTK is saying that if Einstein had written his most famous paper and posted it off for publication then tripped and broke his neck we would not have nuclear power today as we could not have "a long series of respectful conversations" with him.

FTK, lets try from another perspective.

Computer games rely on algorithms to perform many tasks. For example, casting a shadow might be more complex then you think

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ph/shadow.bib

Here are a few side by side examples

http://www.irit.fr/~Gael.Guennebaud/SoftShadowMapping_egsr06.php

Once somebody invents a more optimum way to render shadows then has previously existed then that information makes it's way out to the programming community and is taken up as required and incorporated into programs.

You don't need to talk to the original author. You don't need to consider "both sides" of the argument.

If Walt can make his case then his further involvement is irrelevant - his work would stand alone. He's had 8 editions to do that. So far, it's not happened.

Why do you suppose that is FTK? A massive conspiracy?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Sep. 23 2008,08:20

Quote

Why do you suppose that is FTK? A massive conspiracy?

Nah. She doesn't believe in conspiracies. Just in large groups of people who work to make it impossible for Walt to publish his books and also get together and have conferences reminding everyone to not publish Walt.

But not conspiracies. No sir.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Wolfhound

Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

Posted: Sep. 23 2008,08:53

Quote (JonF @ Sep. 23 2008,07:38)

Quote (Wolfhound @ Sep. 22 2008,22:16)

I never really paid much attention to Ftk (mostly 'cause she's been banned from the more respectable venues, methinks)

No, she just hasn't shown up at the venues many of us frequent. IIRC she's banned at KCFS, but that's about it.

I think PZ has tossed her in the Dungeon, too. It would be way cool if she flounced over to Talk Rational. She could have a threesome with RayRay and AfDumb. :shudder:

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Sep. 23 2008,10:26

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 23 2008,13:41)

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 23 2008,05:55)

Yes Oldman, but that supposes that FTK is sincere and/or honest about her claim to be "all about the facts".

As for having it both ways, well know FTK is fond of trying THAT old chestnut.

Louis

Then I'm doubly confused. FTK professes to follow a religion that above almost everything else cherishes honesty. If you are made aware of something that means that something else you believe simply cannot be true (and I'm not talking about "disproving god exists", simply items such as how Walt's proposal for the formation of comets is contradicted by the physical evidence and the mathematics of orbital dynamics) then to continue to repeat that now-disproved "truth" as true would appear to me to mean that the other claim, of following a particular religion that values honesty, must now be moot.

[SNIP]

Yes indeedy Oldman, it is a perplexing matter. If only there were some convenient term for such behaviour and the persons who exhibit it.

Not only that, if only there were some prominent figure in her religious mythology that specifically referred to this behaviour as something of a no-no.

Sadly neither the words or stories describing these incredibly novel concepts appear to exist.

Oh well.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

Posted: Sep. 23 2008,10:47

If Humpty-Dumpty connotes "creation scientist" to mean "Walt Brown", no, I haven't had discussions with Walt Brown. Nor do I plan to.

The comment about having discussions with creation scientists was also completely irrelevant to the point I was making (yes, I do make points): modern creationists don't believe the same stuff that the early geologists did, and don't put their religious precommitments on the line like those early geologists did. Therefore, trying to use the early geologists as part of the class of people the modern creationists represent just doesn't work. It's a bad argument.

Yes, I've had discussions with creation scientists (meaning people who have advocated "creation science"), sometimes pretty lengthy and with a beer or two. That, though, doesn't make a speck of difference to the fact that Ritland's essay shows why Ftk is making a bad argument with the "early geologists did science 140+ years ago, so stop criticizing these guys who aren't doing anything like that today and who don't even believe the same things as those guys did".

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006