 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 8:16 pm Post subject: Hoaxes/Arrogance |
 |
|
As I unfortunately hijacked my own thread on Intelligent Design, I would like to express my refutations of two of joman's points in a new thread. I would be happy to discuss more, but I do have limitations on my time, imposed by a desire to bowl. Joman's "points" are things he seems to have asserted evolutionaries as a whole are guilty of. I would like to a: show how he is mistaken, and b: show how his fellow Christians, and indeed, even he himself, are in fact guilty of his own very accusations. I will attempt to do so in the least abrasive fashion I can.
Point One: | joman wrote: | | (5) they produce elaborate hoaxes. |
A: There is one notable hoax. Piltdown man.
It is unfortunate that it took 40 years to prove that it was, in fact, a hoax, but it was not by any means accepted wholesale even at the beginning. Many American and European scientists were critical of Piltdown man from the outset. However, the error was corrected. While preconceptions are unavoidable, they are actually less of a problem in science, as different scientists have different preconceptions. In addition, inevitably, the evidence will be examined, and the facts will come to light. Thusly, hoaxes in science do not end up affecting the rest of science, as conclusions based on them are discarded.
We have now found thousands of hominid fossils. As of 1976, 4,000 hominid individuals' fossils had been catalogued. As of 1999, there were fossils of about 150 Homo erectus individuals, 90 Australopithecus robustus, 150 Australopithecus afarensis, 500 Neanderthals, and more. To claim that they are hoaxes without having a reason other than "I don't believe them," is foolish at best, but more likely simply dishonest. It is also quite arrogant, but that is a topic for later.
B: When hoaxes are found in science, conclusions which were based on them are changed or removed entirely. This is how science works, it is self-correcting. Religion and evangelism are quite different. Creationists have many hoaxes of their own, including but not limited to the Paluxy footprints, the Castenedolo, Olmo, and Calaveras skulls, and Moab and Malachite man. What is important to note, however, is that these hoaxes are still being cited in support of creationism. Piltdown man has been all but forgotten in evolutionary biology, and the only time it's even mentioned these days is a: in textbooks, showing how science is self-correcting and adapting, and b: creationist documents attempting to cast aspersions on the theory of evolution. Christians, however, perpetuate their hoaxes, and will likely do so indefinitely.
Point Two: | joman wrote: | | (12) they use tactics like scoffing, mocking and arrogance to subdue anyone who attempts to enlighten others to the truth. |
A: Individuals do, certainly. Many Darwinians are simply tired of trying to teach people who simply refuse to learn. Some lash out. It is, however, not in an attempt to subdue, but rather a misguided attempt to show people the errors in their thinking. It is only misguided in method, but is misguided nonetheless.
B: | Quote: | | You really are slow witted aren’t you? |
| Quote: | | Unlike the irrational evolutionary minded dimwits I don’t believe in a seemingly miraculous preponderance of coincidences that culminate in a apparently well designed for life circumstance that provides inanimate matter the opprotunity to obey the selfish law of survival of the fittest. |
| Quote: | | Quote: | | the discovery of plate tectonics and the movement of continents |
This is a theory that works only in the imagination of children. |
Note, particularly in the last example, a lack of any actual evidence to back up assertions. Notice the scoffing "only in the imagination of children." Notice the mockingly arrogant tone.
What's interesting about these? Except for the quote-within-a-quote, these statements were all by joman himself, the very person who claimed evolutionaries were being "scoffing, mocking, and arrogan[t]." It would be quite easy to find more examples, both from joman and others, but extraneous to the discussion at hand.
The point is, individuals' behavior can not belie their words. To believe that it can is fallacious logic, and is similar to not voting for a president for no reason other than that someone with that president's bumper sticker cut you off in traffic. The actions of individuals, regardless of how you may perceive them, have no effect on whatever facts or "truth" they speak of.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
joman
Tiger
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 848
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 5:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Quote:
the discovery of plate tectonics and the movement of continents
This is a theory that works only in the imagination of children.
| FFT wrote: | | Note, particularly in the last example, a lack of any actual evidence to back up assertions. Notice the scoffing "only in the imagination of children." Notice the mockingly arrogant tone. |
|
My point isn't that only people involved in evolutionism are this way.
Neither you nor I can provide evidence of plate techtonics. That's why it's a theory. But, I said only children would believe it and then only with imagination. Why? Because to propose that a layer of earth miles thick can slide under another layer of earth miles thick is silly. The reason this is believed is because of evolutionary bias which like any other bias, leads to irrationality. The main bone of contention about this is that many creationists who are Bible believers think that the continents slid apart from each other "quickly" during the great Deluge of Noah's day. The evolutionary bias is that all such processes must be slow (uniformitarianism) I think that the hydroplate theory (Walter Brown) is far more reasonable a scenario concerning the movement of the continents.
If you wish to discuss this that's fine. But, here's where I'm coming from.
If we're going to debate, then let's both you and I and everyone else stay on the subject, and resist the desire to mock or ridicule; excetra. I admit to being sarcastic. On the other hand it should be admitted by many others also. I could go on and on about examples but, why should we? Anyway, I admit my fault and will try to do better. I want to debate but, for me I would like to actually talk science.
Joman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | There is one notable hoax. Piltdown man. |
Are you sure about this?
I suppose you might be right if we are talking about deliberate manufactured hoaxes. But I think I read somewhere about another, or others.
What about unintentional hoaxes? The development of a whole skeleton based on a jawbone or a femur? Would those qualify as a hoax? How many representations of 'prehistoric' man are out there that are based on nothing more than an aritist and scientists idea of what something might possibly could look like, based on a tooth or a finger or some such?
| Quote: | | A: Individuals do, certainly. Many Darwinians are simply tired of trying to teach people who simply refuse to learn. Some lash out. It is, however, not in an attempt to subdue, but rather a misguided attempt to show people the errors in their thinking. It is only misguided in method, but is misguided nonetheless. |
I disagree. On both sides of the debate it is an attempt to subdue. Lashing out, as you call it, is not and has never been an attempt to reason with the opposition. Its sole purpose is to bludgeon the opposition into accepting an untenable position - meaning that the debater is unable to reason well enough to convince the opposition. Evidence may very well abound on either side of any debate, but the debator is either unskilled, unaware, or mistaken in the interpretation of that evidence and thus resorts to bullying the opposition into acceptance of his/her position.
| Quote: | | What's interesting about these? Except for the quote-within-a-quote, these statements were all by joman himself, the very person who claimed evolutionaries were being "scoffing, mocking, and arrogan[t]." It would be quite easy to find more examples, both from joman and others, but extraneous to the discussion at hand. |
To what purpose did you write this?
Kids often point at another when in trouble and say "He did it first!" That does not excuse their behavior though and a person of intellect should understand that and also understand that resorting to the tactics of the opposition serves no purpose but to wallow in the same mud.
| Quote: | | The point is, individuals' behavior can not belie their words. |
Too true. It would serve us all well to remember that. It is common understanding in the Human Resources field that the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior. It is also true that one's true spirit, true essence, will show through their actions.
I could look at myself, as we all should as ask: How do my actions speak of the person I truly am?
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gbunty
Alley Cat
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 182
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| joman wrote: |
Neither you nor I can provide evidence of plate techtonics. That's why it's a theory. |
No, that is not why it is a theory. It is a theory because it explains the observations, provides a logical model of why we observe what we do, and predicts new observations which will confirm the theory.
No theory could exist without evidence, since the point of a theory is to explain existing evidence and predict undiscovered evidence. If there were no evidence in the first place, there would be no reason to develop a theory to explain it.
Like all theories, plate techtonics was proposed as a way to explain various observations about the earth's past and current geology. It also suggested various new observations. For example: that the introduction of placental mammals into South America would coincide with the joining of North and South America by the uplift that created the isthmus of Panama. This observation has been proven correct.
Plate techtonics also fits with observations from other scientific disciplines. For example--the island chain of Hawaii was created by the passage of the techtonic plate it is on over a "hot spot" where magma from beneath the crust tends to well up to the surface. If the plate were not moving relative to the hot spot, the result would be one large island instead of a chain of smaller islands.
Furthermore, by noting the speed and direction of the techtonic movement, one can get a close estimate of the date each island was formed.
The rock from which the islands are formed can also be dated radiometrically. This dating has nothing at all to do with techtonic movement. They are as different as dating a person's whereabouts by a) a school registration and b) a credit card purchase. One has nothing to do with the other. But both (if they are correct) will put the person in the same place on the same day.
It happens that the date of origin of various islands in the Hawaii chain is the same whether dated by techtonic movement or by radiometry. If either or both of these measurements were inaccurate, the probability of getting the same date for each island in the chain is infinitesimely small.
I would not rely on the limitations of my imagination to suggest what is and is not possible. It is always easy to say something is impossible before it is discovered that the "impossible" is what happened. Scientists resisted the notion of plate techtonics for nearly 70 years. (It was first proposed in the 1920's but not generally accepted until the 1990's) It took a lot of evidence to convince them. But when the evidence could admit of no other explanation, and proved fruitful for further investigation, they did not continue to resist it because it didn't fit with their imagination. They moved instead to following the evidence.
| Quote: | | The evolutionary bias is that all such processes must be slow (uniformitarianism) |
That is an incorrect definition of uniformitarianism.
| Quote: | I think that the hydroplate theory (Walter Brown) is far more reasonable a scenario concerning the movement of the continents.
If you wish to discuss this that's fine. But, here's where I'm coming from. |
I would be interested. I've looked at his ideas and don't see them as conforming to the evidence.
| Quote: | I want to debate but, for me I would like to actually talk science.
Joman. |
Me too. Most evo-creo debates end up as theological debates, because the disagreement is really theological. But this sidesteps the whole question of what science says and why. I think the science is just as important as the theology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gbunty
Alley Cat
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 182
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Quote: | | There is one notable hoax. Piltdown man. |
Are you sure about this?
I suppose you might be right if we are talking about deliberate manufactured hoaxes. But I think I read somewhere about another, or others. |
There is one more recent deliberate hoax. The construction of a "fossil" feathered dinosaur called Archeoraptor. This hoax was perpetrated by Chinese peasants in the area where genuine feathered dinosaurs were discovered in the late 1990s. Many peasants were involved in attempting to make "fossils" as those who discover fossils are well rewarded financially. Most are obvious fakes, but this one was good enough to fool a reporter from National Geographic which published an article on it. Two real, but partial fossils, were put together to make a whole "fossil".
The hoax was discovered when the "fossil" was examined by a paleontologist. That was the first time it was seen by a scientist rather than a reporter.
| Quote: | | What about unintentional hoaxes? The development of a whole skeleton based on a jawbone or a femur? Would those qualify as a hoax? |
No, a hoax or fraud is, by definition, intentional. That is why Nebraska man is not a hoax. It was a simple misidentification based on a superficial examination of the tooth. A closer examination revealed the truth.
The development of a whole skeleton from a single bone is not out of the question. It requires a good background in anatomy, but because of the way bones and muscles fit together, a good deal of information about the whole body can be derived from one or a few bones. This method, btw, was first developed and perfected by the great Baron Georges de Cuvier, one of the great creationist and catastrophist paleontologists of the 19th century. Cuvier affirmed that he could indeed reconstruct a whole skeleton from a single bone. And he was often right. Never accepted evolution though.
| Quote: | | Kids often point at another when in trouble and say "He did it first!" That does not excuse their behavior though and a person of intellect should understand that and also understand that resorting to the tactics of the opposition serves no purpose but to wallow in the same mud. |
I agree, but I also note the consistency on this board of reprimanding the person who responds to such tactics in kind with no reprimand given to the one who did indeed resort to such tactics first. Should not the first perpetrator also be warned? and warned just as publicly as the respondent? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I agree, but I also note the consistency on this board of reprimanding the person who responds to such tactics in kind with no reprimand given to the one who did indeed resort to such tactics first. Should not the first perpetrator also be warned? and warned just as publicly as the respondent? |
Good question. Should they be? Certainly. Is that the way the world works? Demonstrably not. Check out the NFL for example. In an altercation who, more often than not, is penalized - the person who started or the person who retaliated? What about public schools? The one who threw the first punch or the one who hit back?
I'm not saying it is fair, or the way it really should be, but alas, that is often the way the world works, we either recognize that and act and react accordingly, or we suffer the consequences quietly or whine about it to no avail.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joman
Tiger
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 848
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Gbunty,
You did not respond to what I pointed out is the obvious flaw in the theory of plate techtonics.
Do you believe one continental land mass or seafloor slides beneath another? If so, please explain how it is possible.
Joman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joman
Tiger
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 848
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
In reference to the hydroplate theory:
| Gbunty wrote: | | I would be interested. I've looked at his ideas and don't see them as conforming to the evidence. |
What nonconformance are you specifying?
Joman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
christina
Cobra
Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 456
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
FFT
You say you dont believe there is a God but sorry im not buying it I dont believe you. If you dont believe in something why are you so concerned about what you call a "myth"?
I dont believe there is a santa clause but i am not over on some x-mas web site attacking the people who do believe because it doesnt matter to me, why does something you dont believe in matter to you so much?
To me it seems like you are angry at him or maybe you believed once and you feel he let you down so now your trying to "get back" at him by simply saying I Dont Believe.
Or perhaps your hoping there is not a God for what ever reason!
Either way I think you are trying to convince yourself God is not real.
_________________
Christina |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| christina wrote: | | I dont believe there is a santa clause but i am not over on some x-mas web site attacking the people who do believe because it doesnt matter to me, why does something you dont believe in matter to you so much? |
Because there are not any websites which debate the existence of Santa Claus? If there are, please point me to them, because I would happily debate against Santa Claus as well. I am here, specifically, because I do not have the time to debate on the thousands of religion debate forums, and have instead chosen one. Please note, that while you perceive this as an attack, this is a debate. This is a bible debate forum. If your beliefs are shattered by debate, you probably shouldn't hang around on a debate forum if you want them to survive.
| christina wrote: | | To me it seems like you are angry at him or maybe you believed once and you feel he let you down so now your trying to "get back" at him by simply saying I Dont Believe. |
This is a common attack on atheists. It still has no merit. It is not possible to hate a being which does not exist. If I believed in God, but simply hated him, that would not be atheism, I would be an angry theist. (Perhaps, a miseotheist?)
It's like saying I hate unicorns, or dragons. Your argument is wholly nonsensical. I do, perhaps, hate the idea of God. I do, perhaps, hate God if he exists., but unless I believe he exists I can't actually hate him.
| christina wrote: | | Or perhaps your hoping there is not a God for what ever reason! |
I would love for there to be a loving god, a father figure to look up to. I simply can't divorce myself so far from rational thought to bring myself to believe it.
| christina wrote: | | Either way I think you are trying to convince yourself God is not real. |
That's fine, you're just wrong. I don't need any convincing that he isn't real, I need convincing that he is.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gbunty
Alley Cat
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 182
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| joman wrote: | Gbunty,
You did not respond to what I pointed out is the obvious flaw in the theory of plate techtonics.
Do you believe one continental land mass or seafloor slides beneath another? If so, please explain how it is possible.
Joman. |
I am not a geologist. I don't know how to explain the mechanism. But even without knowing the mechanism, I don't understand why you would call it a flaw.
The movements of the plates are being measured. We know the sea floor spreads. The rate and direction has been measured. The places where plates are being subducted are known. We know it is happening. We can measure the rate of subduction.
Something that is happening right before our eyes and can be measured cannot be impossible. It cannot be a flaw in the theory, since it is an observed fact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
christina
Cobra
Joined: 01 Nov 2004
Posts: 456
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: |
I would love for there to be a loving god, a father figure to look up to. I simply can't divorce myself so far from rational thought to bring myself to believe it.
|
Because you are scared to be let down by him. Alot of times in this world we are let down by people and sometimes people make themselves believe it is better to never hope in someone then to ever again be let down.
| Quote: | | That's fine, you're just wrong. I don't need any convincing that he isn't real, I need convincing that he is. |
but you have convinced yourself that he isnt how can you expect to see what you flat out deny. Close your mouth and open your heart.
_________________
Christina |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am perfectly open to God showing me evidence that he exists. If he exists, he knows perfectly well my qualifications for believing in him. That he does not act on this shows that either a: he does not exist, or b: does not want me to believe that he exists. Occam's Razor says he just doesn't exist.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7005
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | That he does not act on this shows that either a: he does not exist, or b: does not want me to believe that he exists |
.
You forgot c: That you refuse to acknowledge what He has shown you.
You are more than willing to give Him the qualifications of what you would accept in order for you to beleive, but unwilling to open your eyes enough to consider that which already may be in front of you.
Either way it is a moot point. It could very well be that it is not in His plan for you to believe.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6337
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | You forgot c: That you refuse to acknowledge what He has shown you. |
Nothing I have been "shown" speaks of God. At one point, I believed that the bombardier beetles were damning evidence against evolution. Later in life, I learned that my understanding had been a deliberate falsehood. I once believed that footprints of man had been found in step with dinosaur footprints. Later in life, I learned that this, too, was a deliberate falsehood.
By their fruits I know them.
| RevJP wrote: | | You are more than willing to give Him the qualifications of what you would accept in order for you to beleive, but unwilling to open your eyes enough to consider that which already may be in front of you. |
When the things in front of me have no rational explanation, perhaps. However, I have yet to come across anything which cannot be explained except by God.
| RevJP wrote: | | Either way it is a moot point. It could very well be that it is not in His plan for you to believe. |
Then I'm disappointed that you would choose to think of such a being as "good," or "worthy of worship."
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
