Evolution Observed

[Dan From Smithville]

I was raised very strictly atheist, and remained so for several decades, accepting Darwinism as taught in school. I visited the Chicago Field museum (of Sue the T Rex fame) many times while Raup was the curator, so I was very much interested in his controversial stance.

He passed away recently but contributed a lot to our understanding of Natural History and problems with classical Darwinism, to the point that many Darwinists now feel obliged to ad 'Neo..' to make the distinction

So quoting his very influential position is hardly some sort of 'devious strategy'! It's a shame when people have to resort to ad hominem here, there are plenty forums where people just throw insults back and forth and it's just boring. This forum has usually been a little more above that

I think most like yourself are perfectly honest intelligent people that are capable of an interesting substantive discussion without resorting to this.

There is an ignore button for the rest!

I was raised in a Christian household and went to the Baptist Church for some time before moving to the Methodist Church. The community I was raised in was very strict creationist. But I was raised by enlightened people that were not originally from the community and there were plenty of enlightened people in the community as well that taught me science and to reason on my own. I believe in God. I just don't feel compelled to worship the Bible and promote it to a position equal to God. The evidence that we have discounts a lot of what the Bible says if you are compelled to see it as inerrant and the word for word truth rather than as allegory. Since I believe in God and I accept science, my conclusion is that the Bible is not telling me a history and science lesson but an allegory about how to live according to God's wishes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am new here too Dan, I quickly learned that this is his one favorite failed argument. I tried to explain his errors to him as have many others before. It does no good. He breaks this out with every new poster. I don't think that one has fallen for it yet.

Since the evidence is against the strict creationist position, it doesn't seem at all unusual to me to find that the tools that strict creationists have at their disposal are limited and well known.

What he has is a good example of what scientists are supposed to do. Review, evaluate and challenge existing knowledge and understanding. A strict creationist wants to see this as a failure of science, not recognizing it as a strength. They may not be missing as much as I think, since they have to take it out of context to get it to float. Not all of them, but some of those that devised the quote mines originally. The rest are just blindly swallowing it without evaluating it.

I hope that people will come to understand that they can keep their beliefs while accepting what we have discovered using science. That using these tactics is unnecessary, because science isn't the threat to belief that they have been told it is.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That’s funny stuff!
And yet, I read and write scientific papers almost everyday.

You right papers almost every day? When do you find time? What is your field?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since the evidence is against the strict creationist position, it doesn't seem at all unusual to me to find that the tools that strict creationists have at their disposal are limited and well known.

What he has is a good example of what scientists are supposed to do. Review, evaluate and challenge existing knowledge and understanding. A strict creationist wants to see this as a failure of science, not recognizing it as a strength. They may not be missing as much as I think, since they have to take it out of context to get it to float. Not all of them, but some of those that devised the quote mines originally. The rest are just blindly swallowing it without evaluating it.

I hope that people will come to understand that they can keep their beliefs while accepting what we have discovered using science. That using these tactics is unnecessary, because science isn't the threat to belief that they have been told it is.

I still have respect for Christianity because it has some very good lessons in the New Testament. As an ex-Christian I resent literalists because they tend to make the religion look like a religion of ignorant science deniers. I know that not all Christians are like that, even though literalists like to try to claim that one is not a "true Christian" unless they agree with the clearly mythical parts of the Bible.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I still have respect for Christianity because it has some very good lessons in the New Testament. As an ex-Christian I resent literalists because they tend to make the religion look like a religion of ignorant science deniers. I know that not all Christians are like that, even though literalists like to try to claim that one is not a "true Christian" unless they agree with the clearly mythical parts of the Bible.

I've always gotten that from you and appreciated it.

Literalists, to me, expound a view that we should ignore our senses and rational use of our intellect to follow a belief without question. What they want is for us all to agree the emperor is wearing beautiful clothes even though he is naked.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You right papers almost every day? When do you find time? What is your field?

No, I don't 'right' papers, I "write" papers.

I stated my fields. And for the record, I don't hold any PhD's.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I still have respect for Christianity because it has some very good lessons in the New Testament. As an ex-Christian I resent literalists because they tend to make the religion look like a religion of ignorant science deniers. I know that not all Christians are like that, even though literalists like to try to claim that one is not a "true Christian" unless they agree with the clearly mythical parts of the Bible.

The 'NT' also contain accounts of miracles performed by Jesus and others, while the 'OT' have some fine lessons for us, too....even more so than the 'NT'. Why be receptive toward one, and denigrate the other?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I've always gotten that from you and appreciated it.

Literalists, to me, expound a view that we should ignore our senses and rational use of our intellect to follow a belief without question. What they want is for us all to agree the emperor is wearing beautiful clothes even though he is naked.

So you deny that, even now, there is paranormal activity occurring throughout the Earth?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You right papers almost every day? When do you find time? What is your field?

I thought I stated my fields of study in that same post, I guess I didn't....my mistake. It was a couple posts later.

My expertise lie in the fields of anthropology and archaeology.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, I don't 'right' papers, I "write" papers.

I stated my fields. And for the record, I don't hold any PhD's.

I'm sorry, I didn't know you were part of the internet police spelling unit. I made a mistake. Regrettably you are one of those that pounces on little mistakes. I appreciate the heads up.

You still haven't explained how you write these papers daily and I didn't see your claims of field either, so humor me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So you deny that, even now, there is paranormal activity occurring throughout the Earth?

I have no knowledge of actual paranormal events occurring anywhere on the earth at this time. I'm not sure what constitutes an paranormal event. Perhaps you could catch me up on the latest research. Is it simply that it looks incredible or does it have to include the absence of immediate explanation or some combination of characters that define it?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I thought I stated my fields of study in that same post, I guess I didn't....my mistake. It was a couple posts later.

My expertise lie in the fields of anthropology and archaeology.

Apparently it also includes a rather intemperate response to grammatical and spelling errors too. Sorry. I don't tend to proof my posts before posting and I'm willing to accept mistakes like that in others. It isn't something I dwell on or even bring up to others unless they are the kind that do that themselves.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, I don't 'right' papers, I "write" papers.

I stated my fields. And for the record, I don't hold any PhD's.

I'm still curious at how you find the time to write papers on a daily basis. You didn't say.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The 'NT' also contain accounts of miracles performed by Jesus and others, while the 'OT' have some fine lessons for us, too....even more so than the 'NT'. Why be receptive toward one, and denigrate the other?

The Bible has claims of miracles. Unless you have evidence that these miracles actually occurred, believing that they did is entirely a faith-based enterprise. I may believe them, but I can't demonstrate their reality to someone that isn't another believer. In truth, I can't even demonstrate it to a believer. We just share faith that they happened.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I'm still curious at how you find the time to write papers on a daily basis. You didn't say.

Did I say daily, or almost daily? Please, no strawmen.

I certainly read more than I write. Writing is mostly
correspondence.

I apologize for picking on the grammar. It does bother me at times.

Have a good day.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The Bible has claims of miracles. Unless you have evidence that these miracles actually occurred, believing that they did is entirely a faith-based enterprise. I may believe them, but I can't demonstrate their reality to someone that isn't another believer. In truth, I can't even demonstrate it to a believer. We just share faith that they happened.

You're entirely correct. Unless there is discovered evidence that directly links to the event.

I believe there is, for some of them.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Since the evidence is against the strict creationist position, it doesn't seem at all unusual to me to find that the tools that strict creationists have at their disposal are limited and well known.

What he has is a good example of what scientists are supposed to do. Review, evaluate and challenge existing knowledge and understanding. A strict creationist wants to see this as a failure of science, not recognizing it as a strength. They may not be missing as much as I think, since they have to take it out of context to get it to float. Not all of them, but some of those that devised the quote mines originally. The rest are just blindly swallowing it without evaluating it.

I hope that people will come to understand that they can keep their beliefs while accepting what we have discovered using science. That using these tactics is unnecessary, because science isn't the threat to belief that they have been told it is.

I'm curious, what is your definition of a "strict creationist"?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Did I say daily, or almost daily? Please, no strawmen.

I certainly read more than I write. Writing is mostly
correspondence.

I apologize for picking on the grammar. It does bother me at times.

Have a good day.

Save the semantic arguments. Almost daily is still a rate that is beyond what we see being accomplished by even the most prolific scientists. You are dancing around the fact that you made a hyperbolic claim that isn't really true is it. I haven't got any issues accepting that you may read a number of papers regularly, even on a daily basis. That isn't unheard of or completely unusual.

It doesn't bother me that much since it is a result of something other than lack of intelligence and often doesn't detract or reorganize the point of a particular post. What does bother me is the abuse and hair trigger use of logical fallacies when someone has been caught in what they intentionally posted. There is no straw man growing from my words. Both a daily rate and an near daily rate would be an extraordinary achievement for anyone.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You're entirely correct. Unless there is discovered evidence that directly links to the event.

I believe there is, for some of them.

I would be interested to hear about the miracles that have direct evidence supporting them. Which ones are they?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm curious, what is your definition of a "strict creationist"?

A Christian that demands a literal biblical view of creation as described in Genesis. I originally intended the use of it to separate out those that believe in God, but don't demand that Genesis is a true description of creation from those that do. Someone like me is ultimately a creationist too. Even if I accept the explanations of science about the existence of life or the diversity and relationships of life, I have to consider that I still think that God is the original source of existence.

In retrospect, I may have to amend how I use that or modify it to either exclude non-Christian creationists or find a term that includes them more properly and clearly.