Maybe I'm missing something about this particular Creationist's arguement..

by Abaddon 69 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  funkyderek

  Now we are down from 99.8% all the way to 94-95%. A lot of Darwinists now look very foolish.

  Yeah, it's a real nail in the coffin. Jeezus, Jerry, did you even read what you posted?
• 

  Abaddon

  Wonderful Jerry, now you have free time to post red herrings (you've proved nothing by your last post and imply you have), maybe you will grace us with actually responding to the numerous issues you have failed to address in the post My response to Gerhard Besier that you started. If you remember, you said you felt it was unfair that evolutionists had a bad reputation for lying, etc., and then when I gave you loads of examples where this was clearly a deserved reputation, you were suddenly too busy.
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  Wonderful Jerry, now you have free time to post red herrings (you've proved nothing by your last post and imply you have)

  Red herring?? The claim that humans and some primates are genetically almost identical now seems to be totally wrong. Genetically, huge differences exist and more are being discovered all the time. Hardly a red herring. No one ever thought that we would see the gaps now seen.

  Maybe you will grace us with actually responding to the numerous issues you have failed to address in the post My response to Gerhard Besier that you started.

  I am working on it.

  If you remember, you said you felt it was unfair that evolutionists had a bad reputation for lying, etc., and then when I gave you loads of examples where this was clearly a deserved reputation, you were suddenly too busy

  Can you give one documented example of a mainline graduate degreed creationist that has been proven to have lied, using the legal definition of lying? And I am not talking about claims make by talk origins (this group has little credibility with me. They exist to slam those in any way possible that they disagree with. Have they ever published anything favorable about a single creationist? They have not that I could find) Remember about 90% of Americans are creationists of some type. Are you saying these 90% are all liars but the 5 to 10% atheists are the only honest people around?? Your examples of lies are hardly anything close but more like you disagree with what they claim to be true. This is hardly a lie but, at best, a disagreement.
• 

  Abaddon

  Jerry, you said;

  Now we are down from 99.8% all the way to 94-95%. A lot of Darwinists now look very foolish.

  This does nothing to disprove the standard model of evolution.

  This does nothing to disprove that chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor a few million years ago.

  I doubt you can give me one example of a peer-reviewed article where the previous high figure was specified as any other than an interim figure that was the best approximation we had until full sequences were available, and a more accurate figure was determinable.

  Thus your statement “A lot of Darwinists now look very foolish” is not bourne out by those nasty inconvenient facts, and is a red herring. If someone was not informed of the issues they might indeed believe that this was some major set-back to evolutionary science, when no such thing has happened. Please see the last paragraph of this post about how dictionaries define creating "a false or misleading impression".

  I have been, am and will await a proper response to the issues I mentioned.

  Can you give one documented example of a mainline graduate degreed creationist that has been proven to have lied, using the legal definition of lying? And I am not talking about claims make by talk origins (this group has little credibility with me. They exist to slam those in any way possible that they disagree with. …)

  Well, I think some of the people you describe as “mainline graduate degreed (sic) creationists” are actually fairly comprehensively debunked on Talk Origins, amongst other websites.

  Rather than address the issues they are debunked on, you dismiss Talk Origins for ideological reasons. I see no sign of you objecting to Creationist sites that “… exist to slam those in any way possible that they disagree with”. That is a double standard Jerry, please deal with the issues rather than avoiding them. Do you realise you are now implying that only “mainline graduate degreed (sic) creationists” are reliable?

  Why not provide a list of this super-set of Creationists; I don’t like to venture any opinions on who this elite might be as I fear your definition might shift again (as it seems to have shifted from the initial “it’s unfair that many Creationists have a bad reputation”, to the current “it’s unfair that mainline graduate degreed (sic) creationists have a bad reputation”.

  ( … Have they ever published anything favorable about a single creationist? They have not that I could find)

  Jerry, it is the theories and the facts that matter. Not the paradigm or ideology that the person putting forth that theory holds.

  Remember about 90% of Americans are creationists of some type. Are you saying these 90% are all liars but the 5 to 10% atheists are the only honest people around??

  Very polite! Rather than making a straw man attack, you ask me if I hold the opinion you want to make a straw man attack on. No, I don’t think that. Pity that whilst you sort-of avoid the straw man argument, you make a red herring; since when does the number of people holding an opinion count towards the validity of opinion? People used to think it was a good idea to burn witches!

  On the same logic, if you were to change the group from “Americans” to “graduates in the biological sciences” (i.e. those who know the most about the subject and are thus qualified to form a considered opinion), then Creationism would be completely discredited, as the vast majority of biological science graduates agree with the standard model of evolution, even if they are deists.

  Your examples of lies are hardly anything close but more like you disagree with what they claim to be true. This is hardly a lie but, at best, a disagreement

  According to Mirriam Webster ‘lie’ means;

  1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
  2 : to create a false or misleading impression

  Now, I feel in some cases that poor science shown in examples such as those I gave is sooooo conveniently supportive of the ideology it seeks to defend there may be intent to deceive. THAT is an opinion, I can’t be in the mind of the person doing it, and people can believe almost anything if they want to badly enough, so it might not even be a conscious intent to deceive.

  But the second definition does not require intent, and I have given good examples of where false or misleading impressions are given. Thus, by dictionary definitions, unless you can rebut my examples, I will have proved that Creationists do lie.

  Whether it is through incompetence, self-delusion or intent is immaterial as regards the accuracy of the information presented.
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  Jerry, you said;

  Now we are down from 99.8% all the way to 94-95%. A lot of Darwinists now look very foolish.

  This does nothing to disprove the standard model of evolution.

  I never said that it disproves it, but it sure creates problems for it.

  This does nothing to disprove that chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor a few million years ago.

  This difference is a whopping 150 million base pairs, a huge difference by any standard and creates a gap that is very difficult to bridge.

  I doubt you can give me one example of a peer-reviewed article where the previous high figure was specified as any other than an interim figure that was the best approximation we had until full sequences were available, and a more accurate figure was determinable .

  It was "common knowledge" in the literature and rarely stated in the qualifying terms that you used above. I will look for some articles today at the medical school.
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  On the same logic, if you were to change the group from “Americans” to “graduates in the biological sciences” (i.e. those who know the most about the subject and are thus qualified to form a considered opinion), then Creationism would be completely discredited, as the vast majority of biological science graduates agree with the standard model of evolution, even if they are deists.

  Not really. Most of the biology teachers around here that I have talked to about the issue tell me that they are creationists, and all of the full time biology professors at my college are in this camp, as are many other faculty there. In the world, it is estimated that about 100,000 professional biologists are creationists of some type. I personally know several hundred, all with Ph.Ds in the sciences, and many more working on their Ph.D. This, in spite of the fact that in this country at least it is unlikely that an out of the closet creationist will get tenure (I know of only one that has). Many are denied degrees and awards (see my book The Criterion).
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  According to Mirriam Webster ‘lie’ means;

  2 : to create a false or misleading impression

  By this definition, many Darwinists are clearly liars but we rarely use this inflammatory term. The Darwinists are usually the ones that use fighting words such as this.
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  Well, I think some of the people you describe as “mainline graduate degreed (sic) creationists” are actually fairly comprehensively debunked on Talk Origins, amongst other websites.

  I strongly disagree. I have read much of this material and it has only strengthened my conclusions (and in fact is a major source of the reasons for my conclusions) . Aside from the endless name calling, their case breaks down when examined carefully. A true believer will not be convinced no matter what the evidence. You love to use sic when one makes a mistake don't you. You used it, something like 3 time in your response. I should do the same when you make a mistake but I do not respond in that way.
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  Jerry, it is the theories and the facts that matter. Not the paradigm or ideology that the person putting forth that theory holds

  It sure would be nice if this was true but it is, in fact, very far from true as any history of science text brings out. Ideology is critical even in science (and often especially in science).

  Why doesn't talk origins publish anything on the other side? Nothing!
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  the vast majority of biological science graduates agree with the standard model of evolution, even if they are deists .

  The fact is, in this country students, by law, are exposed only to one side (in this country any attempt to present the other side will result in termination if it becomes widely known, as has been well documented in the literature). Criticism of Darwinism is not officially allowed. So we would expect that they would buy into the party line. The amazing thing is that so many students graduate with biology degrees and do not buy into the party line All I was exposed to in college was Darwinism in biology after biology class (I have completed probably over 45 classes in the field or closely related areas, so this is not a narrow survey)