I haven't seen any change in the current paradigm or any hint it will change. If I get time, I may go back through this and respond, but I am not certain I want to spend what seems a waste of my time right now.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Darwin's Illusion
- Thread starter Neuropteron
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I too pretty much ignore his long spiels. but at the end of his visit he made rather short posts. But like you there is only so much "wrong" that a person can take.
ppp
Well-Known Member
They also love to quote mine. And for some reason they tend to treat scientists as though they occupy the same niche as Jesus or Muhammad for someone who accepts evolution.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Quote mining can also be an art form. If one cannot find the source of the quote then they cannot refute it so in their mind it still stands. The trick is to find an actual quote without giving the exact source away. Some creationists are better at this than others.
So taking a page out of their book here you go:
"There is no God" the Bible.
<Gasp> On no! I even gave away my source. Good luck finding that quote mine. No Christian that quote mines ever has. My current price for the chapter and verse of that quote is currently a promise to never quote mine again.
Some of the opposition follow a structure that almost makes me wonder if there is an actual creation/design playbook out there. There is some evidence that does indicate this. The wedge document for instance. But I think it is more of a follow the leader technique without vetting what is followed. I don't think there is even an awareness to vet.
When the basis of the opposition is from believed views only, the apparent paradigm is to view the opposition in that light. As if accepting scientific conclusions is merely believing the "priests" without evidence or understanding. There doesn't seem to be any understanding of the difference between knowledge acquired through valid methods and believing something without evidence. In other words, people go with what they are familiar with even when it clearly doesn't fit.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
They seem to be following the latest dictates of sites like AiG and others. They are not that different from Sovereign Citizens and Frauditors. One can tell by listening to them that their ideas are not their own.
But then since I see the same false claims that are easily refuted time after time I can get to sound like a broken record myself. That is why I enjoy the rare original claim much more often.
So far, all I see are "there are gaps, therefore my view wins by default" and "controversies in science equal the failure of theory". Along with swamping your audience (whether intentional or not) and it pretty much looks like 95% of what I have seen before.
I can't help but have the same sense I get every time I see something like this. If those accepting science don't address every point/post, then the opposition to science wins. If they do address every post, then double down.
Chuckle, i used to use that one whenever a topix fundy fired a mined quote at me
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Part of doing it properly is having a specific verse chosen. I have one so obscure that no one has ever found it.
Works wonders.
cladking
Well-Known Member
You just continue on in your beliefs. No matter how many times it is pointed out for you that consensus and all opinion is irrelevant to reality you still believe that Peers and supporting claims within the current paradigm are reality itself. It simply doesn't matter how one arrives at the recognition of reality. Flips of a coin or pot shots at a dartboard are as good a means as any other.
All experiment shows that change in species is sudden and suggests that consciousness drives it. You need to deal with facts. The fact is Evolution has failed, it was born dead because Darwin assumed that populations were static. There is nothing left of Darwin so he'll need to be buried.
Your continual suggestion that Evolution is sound because it is attacked by creationists is illogical. How many times must you be reminded that reality bends to no opinion. Maybe God is up there bending reality to suit his supporters but maybe not, too.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Sometimes ignorance is a tremendous asset. When everyone around believes in superstition then ignorance makes it easier to see reality.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Once again, beliefs are what you have. When one can support one's beliefs they are knowledge. That is why people keep asking yo to support your claims, to see if you have knowledge or just mere belief.
And as to your last claim, citation needed. The evidence that I have posted for you in the past demonstrates that that is false. As have others. I doubt if you can find a valid source that supports you.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, and you appear to be projecting again. Just because you do not understand what others do understand does not mean that they are making the same errors that you make.
Can you support your claims with peer reviewed and not out of date sources?
Please cite at least some of all these experiment. Including peer review
cladking
Well-Known Member
Peer review is irrelevant.
Experiment shows people believe what they want to believe.
How does this factor into "survival of the fittest"?
ppp
Well-Known Member
It's relavant if you want to be taken seriously.
Perhaps for you. That is demonstrably false for others.
So no evidence of experiment then, as i thought, woo woo to satisfy the hard of thinking.
BTW, see my avatar? 100% early modern human, i.e homo sapiens, same as you and me but from 22000 years ago. Thicker skull bones, slightly more pronounced brow, 13% larger brain case, more powerful lower jaw... Evolutionary differences that have taken thousands of years.
Believe whatever woo you want. I will go with the evidence.
No it's not, it will s very relevant because it shows the experiment to be valid and repeatable. Of course your guys won't want that will they?
cladking
Well-Known Member
No. Peers don't get to decide the relevance or meaning of an experiment. Opinion always means nothing in science. If something can't be replicated or consistently replicated then it is not experiment.
Peers in many cases can only interpret experiment in terms of the existing paradigm so science changes one funeral at a time.