Challenge to Creationists: Ichneumon Wasp

[Subduction Zone]

Well, it looks like nPeace has finally shut down the conversation, while simultaneously claiming it's a lie to say he shut down the conversation.

Yup, that's just how weird this has become.


What's weird here is that you're not disputing that the Jehovah's Witnesses ban and shun members who become "evolutionists", even though earlier you claimed it was a lie.

As far as whether that sort of threat is a factor in your views on evolution, I still maintain that saying it's not is an insult to everyone's intelligence.


Ok this is just plain bizarre. I asked what you'd studied and how you accounted for scientists' agreement and apparently this is your answer to one of those questions...

Your world view seems quite narrow to me.
I suggest you broaden it. Focusing on me will not help you.

WHY ATHEISTS CHANGE THEIR MIND: 8 COMMON FACTORS
How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind
List of former atheists and agnostics
Questioning evolution is neither science denial nor the preserve of creationists
New evidence suggests many who struggle to accept aspects of evolution still exhibit trust in science overall – and that even some atheists have their doubts

over 1 in 3 of Canadian atheists, and nearly 1 in 5 UK atheists also felt human consciousness could not be explained by evolutionary processes​

I have absolutely no idea which of those questions that's supposed to be an answer to. It's so bizarre, I'm kinda at a loss for words.


Um......er......what? This is the entirety of your post....

No.
What questions? If you are referring to the one you just asked, I have not ignored it. I gave an answer.
However, if you are not satisfied, perhaps you need to get rid of the elevated view you have of yourself.​

As anyone with half a brain can see, there's no reference in there. Are you sure you're okay?


Again....just plain bizarre. I said you tried to shut down the conversation and quoted you telling me "Good bye forever". You say it's a lie and follow it up with, "you are back on my ignore list."

IOW, "It's a lie to say I'm shutting down the conversation, so I'm shutting down the conversation!"


Yep, that's what you said all right.


Um....both those posts and quotes are from you! Unless you think I'm somehow controlling you when you write posts, I have no idea how you can claim I'm twisting the words within your posts.


Yeah....wow. That's about all I can say too......wow.


I guess I can kinda see how you think of it that way. Here you are, a Jehovah's Witness who has the threat of social and emotional ruin hanging over your head if you were to ever give an inch on evolution, and has been indoctrinated with the belief that evolution is of Satan....and here I come along and start talking to you about evolution in a way that eventually you can't counter, and ask you questions that you can't answer.....

So what's a good Jehovah's Witness to do? Apparently it's imply that I'm satan and run, run, run, as fast and as far away as you can. I guess in a weird way it sorta makes sense.

I suppose that's just how it is qhen you're a Jehovah's Witness. More's the pity.

He hung in there longer than most JW's. They tend to get rather insulting and run away when it becomes obvious that they are wrong. And they tend to put the people that proved that they are wrong on ignore. In other words he came as close to admitting that you are right as possible for a JW.

 

[Jose Fly]

He hung in there longer than most JW's. They tend to get rather insulting and run away when it becomes obvious that they are wrong. And they tend to put the people that proved that they are wrong on ignore. In other words he came as close to admitting that you are right as possible for a JW.

That's true. It always tells me a lot when asking a few simple questions is all it takes to send someone into a complete tizzy.

 

[Bear Wild]

Catapilers don't feel pain, they don't suffer......therefore no "problem of evil" has to be explained.

Caterpillars do feel pain! They have a nervous system that is designed to react to painful stimuli. Do they conceptualize it the way that we do? Does it matter? They feel pain thus react to painful stimuli. Descartes thought that dogs were only machines thus it was ok to cut them open alive! My dog cries out from pain from its arthritis so it feels pain. Dogs also feel pain!. Descartes was wrong about that and you are wrong about even simple life feeling pain. We cannot get into their nervous system to feel what they feel but they do react and it is a protective neurologic pathway developed through evolution.

 

[leroy]

Caterpillars do feel pain! They have a nervous system that is designed to react to painful stimuli. Do they conceptualize it the way that we do? Does it matter? They feel pain thus react to painful stimuli. Descartes thought that dogs were only machines thus it was ok to cut them open alive! My dog cries out from pain from its arthritis so it feels pain. Dogs also feel pain!. Descartes was wrong about that and you are wrong about even simple life feeling pain. We cannot get into their nervous system to feel what they feel but they do react and it is a protective neurologic pathway developed through evolution.

Ok but feeling pain might not necesarnece imply suffering.

It has been suggested that the experience of suffering is located in the prefrontal Cortex, most animals lack a prefrontal Cortex.

 

[Bear Wild]

I don't see the specimens or examples presented as meeting the definition of transitional fossils because I don't think science has clear evidence of numerous transitional forms from the fossil record (as claimed) that provides unbiased evidence of ToE. Those who hold to ToE assert that all present and past living things must be descended from a common ancestor. So living things and their fossils are assigned places (which are re-arranged to suit, if needed) in the family tree of evolution based on the evolutionary theory or paradigm, imposing this on the all observations, interpretations, and re-constructions of every fossil fragment in light of ToE.

Much of the fossil remains are fragmentary with many of the fossils found only being fragments of bones. The hominid fossil record is very fragmented. There are human fossils and ape fossils. The idea that there is a complete fossil record including transitional forms between bird and dinosaur or ape and human is pure conjecture and at times has proven to be fraud.

If you can show me examples of clearly unambiguous transitional fossils between species, I will take a look. Nevertheless, there also remains the fact there is much more involved with a living organism and the change which the ToE implies, which could never be shown though only fossilized bones, or fragments.



That is a misleading image, as there are now thousands of hominid fossils. They are however mostly fragmentary, often consisting of single bones or isolated teeth. Complete skulls and skeletons are rare. Prominent Hominid Fossils

How to Solve Human Evolution’s Greatest Hoax | Science | Smithsonian

https://evolutionnews.org/2009/04/_why_evolution_is_false/

Below is a linked article which is an example and demonstrates the elaborate conjecture made to fit the ToE based on... a jawbone fragment.

A gaping hole in the fossil record has been plugged with the discovery of a jawbone fragment showing....
Human Missing Link - Fossil Found

Sorry but that was as seriously poor presentation in the youtube. Clearly whoever put it together has no experience in interpreting fossil record nor has a clue to the amount of information that those bones gave. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the process of fossil formation would recognize just how amazing that find was. People want to have some idea what the organism might look like so researches in the field try to do their best to create what "Lucy" might of looked like based on comparative studies. I had friends that worked in the Smithsonian Museum who did the same for dinosaurs and they would clearly state that their representation is the best they can do and know as new information comes in their design will be modified.

 

[Bear Wild]

Ok but feeling pain might not necesarnece imply suffering.

It has been suggested that the experience of suffering is located in the prefrontal Cortex, most animals lack a prefrontal Cortex.

The conceptualization of pain may be in the cerebrum but the sensation of pain is a basic neurologic aspect of vertebrates and invertebrates. Just because a caterpillar cannot vocalize suffering the way we do or explain it suffering to humans does not mean it does not feel pain. Do any animals other than humans suffer pain?

 

[SkepticThinker]

No.
What questions? If you are referring to the one you just asked, I have not ignored it. I gave an answer.
However, if you are not satisfied, perhaps you need to get rid of the elevated view you have of yourself.

And the merry-go-round continues ....

 

[SkepticThinker]

I saw no deception, no lying, by @Jose Fly. If anything it looks like it could be the other way around. By the way, he need not prove that he did not lie. The burden of proof would be upon you since you claimed that he lied. He may have been wrong, but that does not look to be the case either, but I seriously doubt if you could prove that he was lying. Second you conflate JW doctrine and Christianity. It is one Christian sect (more properly a cult) out of countless sects. They too pick and choose which parts of the Bible that they will follow as do all other Christians. Luckily no one does follow all of the Bible since that person would be a first class psychopath. Your sect chooses to believe some of the obviously false parts of the Bible and end up calling God a liar, even though they do not realize it. Literalists tend to go nuts when one points out that they are calling God a liar and they do not seem to ever have an answer for that.

I fail to see how @Jose Fly lied either. I really don't understand how the given examples constitute lies.

The sad thing I've learned from going round and round with nPeace on a number of occasions now, is that conversation often gets steered away from the actual thread topic and devolves into this nothingness we're seeing here again. It is truly frustrating.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I fail to see how @Jose Fly lied either. I really don't understand how the given examples constitute lies.

The sad thing I've learned from going round and round with nPeace on a number of occasions now, is that conversation often gets steered away from the actual thread topic and devolves into this nothingness we're seeing here again. It is truly frustrating.

With creationists the conversation usually has to crash and burn. The only way to keep themselves in denial is to keep themselves ignorant, and that means that they will do anything to avoid for the conversation to be constructive.

 

[Jose Fly]

I fail to see how @Jose Fly lied either. I really don't understand how the given examples constitute lies.

I think @ecco hit the nail on the head when he said "Perhaps you consider them lies because you sincerely believe that any criticism of JW must be a lie."

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think @ecco hit the nail on the head when he said "Perhaps you consider them lies because you sincerely believe that any criticism of JW must be a lie."

That is an excellent point. It makes sense.

 

[Jose Fly]

That is an excellent point. It makes sense.

If it's true, the only thing I can't figure out is what exactly I said that was a criticism of the Witnesses. Everything I said about them was confirmed by the Witnesses here.....that one cannot be a Witness and an "evolutionist", and that if someone tried they would be confronted and likely kicked out of the faith. One of our previous Witness members (you know....she liked posting pics of pretty things and asking "was this an accident") even said such a person would be treated like a rotten piece of fruit.

But what really seemed to set nPeace off was when I suggested that being a Witness played a role in his views on evolution. Apparently that's just unthinkable....or something. I dunno.....

 

[SkepticThinker]

If it's true, the only thing I can't figure out is what exactly I said that was a criticism of the Witnesses. Everything I said about them was confirmed by the Witnesses here.....that one cannot be a Witness and an "evolutionist", and that if someone tried they would be confronted and likely kicked out of the faith. One of our previous Witness members (you know....she liked posting pics of pretty things and asking "was this an accident") even said such a person would be treated like a rotten piece of fruit.

I don't see what the lie is either. I really don't.

We both know that poster you referred to has said those exact things on many occasions. I knew the minute that I read your posts that you were referring to that person.
The only thing I can come up with is that maybe that is not supposed to be public knowledge(?) because it kinda sorta puts Witnesses in a bad light or something?

But what really seemed to set nPeace off was when I suggested that being a Witness played a role in his views on evolution. Apparently that's just unthinkable....or something. I dunno.....

I don't know what's going on there either. It is strange. You've definitely pushed a button there.

I definitely think it's a relevant inquiry. I mean, why would anyone want to engage in debate with someone on a topic for which they know beforehand they will never budge an inch from their position because they must adhere to ancient texts? I wish people would just be straight up about it from the beginning.

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't see what the lie is either. I really don't.

We both know that poster you referred to has said those exact things on many occasions. I knew the minute that I read your posts that you were referring to that person.
The only thing I can come up with is that maybe that is not supposed to be public knowledge(?) because it kinda sorta puts Witnesses in a bad light or something?

I don't know what's going on there either. It is strange. You've definitely pushed a button there.

I definitely think it's a relevant inquiry. I mean, why would anyone want to engage in debate with someone on a topic for which they know beforehand they will never budge an inch from their position because they must adhere to ancient texts? I wish people would just be straight up about it from the beginning.

Those are all very good questions, but unfortunately the only people who can answer them completely shut down every conversation that goes down that road.

When you get time, I highly recommend this paper: https://www.counterpunch.org/2005/01/08/the-psychology-of-christian-fundamentalism/

It's helped me understand, and put into context, many of the interactions I've had with fundamentalists.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Those are all very good questions, but unfortunately the only people who can answer them completely shut down every conversation that goes down that road.

And that's what makes it so frustrating!

When you get time, I highly recommend this paper: https://www.counterpunch.org/2005/01/08/the-psychology-of-christian-fundamentalism/

It's helped me understand, and put into context, many of the interactions I've had with fundamentalists.

I'm definitely going to give it a read. Anything to shed some light on the subject is great. Thanks!

 

[ecco]

When you get time, I highly recommend this paper: https://www.counterpunch.org/2005/01/08/the-psychology-of-christian-fundamentalism/

It's quite long but I did skim through it. He hits a lot of nails on the head. It was written in 2005 and he discusses GWB and Reagan. I would love to hear what he has to say about Trump and, especially, Pence.

 

[Jose Fly]

It's quite long but I did skim through it. He hits a lot of nails on the head. It was written in 2005 and he discusses GWB and Reagan. I would love to hear what he has to say about Trump and, especially, Pence.

That would be interesting in a "If you think that's bad...." kind of way.

The main thing I took from that article was how fundamentalists have an innate need for certainty, which explains how creationists approach the scientific papers we provide them. For example, @sayak83 posted THIS PAPER about the evolution of photoreceptors. It's a good, informative paper. But as soon as I looked at the abstract, I knew it would be entirely unpersuasive to fundamentalist creationists, because it says things like, "Here we combine this knowledge in an attempt to understand why certain photoreceptors might have conferred particular selective advantages during evolution" and "We suggest that microvillar photoreceptors became predominant in most invertebrate species...".

"Might have"? "We suggest"? To a person with a deep psychological need for certainty, that sort of wording is simply unacceptable. Combine that with their tendency for black/white thinking, where you either know something 100% or you're just guessing, and you start to understand the situation. To the fundamentalist, that paper is proof positive that evolutionary scientists are just assuming and guessing their way through their work.

 

[sayak83]

That would be interesting in a "If you think that's bad...." kind of way.

The main thing I took from that article was how fundamentalists have an innate need for certainty, which explains how creationists approach the scientific papers we provide them. For example, @sayak83 posted THIS PAPER about the evolution of photoreceptors. It's a good, informative paper. But as soon as I looked at the abstract, I knew it would be entirely unpersuasive to fundamentalist creationists, because it says things like, "Here we combine this knowledge in an attempt to understand why certain photoreceptors might have conferred particular selective advantages during evolution" and "We suggest that microvillar photoreceptors became predominant in most invertebrate species...".

"Might have"? "We suggest"? To a person with a deep psychological need for certainty, that sort of wording is simply unacceptable. Combine that with their tendency for black/white thinking, where you either know something 100% or you're just guessing, and you start to understand the situation. To the fundamentalist, that paper is proof positive that evolutionary scientists are just assuming and guessing their way through their work.

True. Many examples of such people abound. But, given the sketchiness of evolution as taught in typical school level, many people may also be skeptical because they can't connect the conceptual dots. I believe conversations with such people can be constructive if we don't take an unduly disparaging stance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

True. Many examples of such people abound. But, given the sketchiness of evolution as taught in typical school level, many people may also be skeptical because they can't connect the conceptual dots. I believe conversations with such people can be constructive if we don't take an unduly disparaging stance.

It can be. And in real life such conversations do occur. But people on forums "debating" an issue often have a mind set that cannot be changed with education. They often keep themselves from learning as a defense. People that are not "my views are right no matter what" simply can't and won't learn. I try to keep an open mind, though it is hard at times. There are issues that I have changed my mind on. Climate change being the most important one, but there has been at least one highly entertaining minor one. I look at the forums as practice to deal with real people. Face to face it is much more difficult for people to deny reality.

 

[Jose Fly]

True. Many examples of such people abound. But, given the sketchiness of evolution as taught in typical school level, many people may also be skeptical because they can't connect the conceptual dots. I believe conversations with such people can be constructive if we don't take an unduly disparaging stance.

I agree. The trick is identifying the ones who are just lacking key info. In my experiences, those folks are rather rare in internet forums, especially religion-themed ones.