AiG: Top 10 Myths About Creation

[Ansgar Seraph]

******************************************************************************

I have no problems with discussing topics, Sam. I do, however, have a HUGE problem
with discussions where my opponent isn't intellectually honest. Such discussions are
a complete waste of time plus they trouble my spirit.

Your dishonesty is proven once again in the above post where you blather things like
"Discussion of a topic seems to be anathema to you." I have made it perfectly clear
numerous times (as in the previous paragraph) that I have no problem with discussions.
In fact, I very much enjoy a good, intellectually-stimulating discussion. That's how
the mind sharpens, ideas are exchanged and tested, and other viewpoints are examined.
However, I've also made it clear what I DO have problems with. Yet, here you are again ---
parroting the same lie. Furthermore, you practice what is very common amongst those
of your clan (rogue06, O-Mudd, et al.) : misrepresentation of your opponents position.

Let's play this like a game of baseball, Jorge, taking the last 30 days or so as indicative of the whole.

1. You give me the go-ahead to start a discussion on giraffe evolution. I do and the "discussion" begins — you don't address any of the actual evidence of the claims, you merely contradict it and claim it is "presupposition". The lynch-pin of your criticism, that so many mutations had to happen in sync for the giraffe to evolve a long neck, was reversed onto you when it was noted that post-Flood giraffids would suffer the same problem — only to a much larger degree. This led to you claiming that "giraffes have always been giraffes" and us posing questions of the giraffe "kind" and what constitutes a "kind" — a definition you desperately avoided providing, even when two YEC definitions were provided from AiG and Dr. Ross. You quit that thread because you felt that you were not getting "honest answers."
2. You began a thread titled "Darwin Was Wrong" but refused to discuss in depth any of the presentations. Eventually, the videos came on-line and were outlined; until Dr. Ware's presentation, your comments were limited to accusations that the outlines were misrepresentative and selective. For Dr. Ware's presentation, your "discussion" was limited to simply re-asserting Dr. Ware's talking points and not addressing the numerous counter-arguments.
3. You recently initiated a thread about "vestigial" organs but poignantly refused to enter into a discussion about the actual content of the book you were reading or any of the organs discussed by the book. Even given specific "vestigial" systems that you could pull out of the book and summarize the YEC argument, you failed to discuss any vestigial system.

You do have a problem with discussion, Jorge. Specifically, you have your soapbox and your talking points and it's pulling teeth to get you to move beyond them — when we do manage it and you provide us material we can analyze, disseminate and discuss, we very rarely get past the follow-up set of questions. In each of the three examples I mentioned, this has been the rule of the day.

A discussion is not you "answering" questions and criticisms by proclaiming your fellow discussion partners are intellectually dishonest and then repeating some YEC talking point. Discussion is a genuine back and forth argument, where answers are provided and questions asked. You criticized the idea that giraffes could evolve a long neck, others did the work and laid out the plausibility. You claimed that all "vestigial" organs were really "fully functional", others asked about specific vestigial organs and systems that appear to either be non-functional or less-functional than the apparent ancestor organs. You claimed that "Darwin Was Wrong" and that evolutionary theory suffered fatal blows due to that wrongness, others did the work figuring out the specific claims made and either countering them with evidence from Darwin's literature or explaining how they are irrelevant to evolutionary theory, as it stands today.

You do that here by presenting a straw-man version of my position : "We all know that
your answer to the question of genetic barriers is something along the lines of "No one
has ever seen two dogs give birth to a non-dog."" You know very well that there's much
more to it than that yet this doesn't stop you from doing your thing.

It doesn't get any clearer than this, Sammy-boy.

And here we go again. How much more is there to it, Jorge? We can't get you to strictly (or approximately) define a "kind" — if you can't define that, then how could your position be anything more than what I've written? And I'm not putting words into your mouth, here —

Even if you were totally correct (you aren't), "evidence to suggest a relationship"
IN NO WAY (except by belief) tells us that a non-giraffe became a giraffe over
millions of years of macroevolutionary development. You have already believed
it and so now you accept anything that supports that belief.

And there you are again using that 'four'-letter-word, "evidence". You people use it
like dagger up your sleeve. Read my lips : just because you consider it to be
"evidence" does not mean that it actually IS evidence. There is a great deal of
"evidence" considered to be valid evidence by one group of people that other
groups do not accept. You do know of such things, right?

. . .

Your six-shooter is shooting blanks. I'm still waiting to see something, anything
that forces me to pause and say, "You know, you may have something there!".
But so far it's just been more of the same (not surprisingly) -- NADA!

So what do you do? You demand "evidence" from me! Okay, try this : in all recorded
history, giraffes have been observed as giraffes -- exactly as what we have today.
You say otherwise -- that there was once a non-giraffe that became a giraffe.

Now, I see from your response to Tiggy that you have no intention of explaining your position and thereby contrasting it with my summation — so I guess this will just have to be another time that you get off calling someone intellectually dishonest without demonstrating their dishonesty. Doesn't it bother you that such accusations, coming from you, do so little offense?

—Sam

[wattsr1]

*******************************************************************************

You haven't been "correct" since the last time your mom asked you to buy
a quart of milk at the store and you brought home the "correct" change.

Jorge

Given that the above never happened, then you are saying that I am wrong, even on this issue.

If I did a search for the words "vilification" or "vilify" posted by "Jorge", what do you think I would find Jorge?



Regards, Roland

[Jorge]

Let's play this like a game of baseball, Jorge, taking the last 30 days or so as indicative of the whole.

1. You give me the go-ahead to start a discussion on giraffe evolution. I do and the "discussion" begins — you don't address any of the actual evidence of the claims, you merely contradict it and claim it is "presupposition". The lynch-pin of your criticism, that so many mutations had to happen in sync for the giraffe to evolve a long neck, was reversed onto you when it was noted that post-Flood giraffids would suffer the same problem — only to a much larger degree. This led to you claiming that "giraffes have always been giraffes" and us posing questions of the giraffe "kind" and what constitutes a "kind" — a definition you desperately avoided providing, even when two YEC definitions were provided from AiG and Dr. Ross. You quit that thread because you felt that you were not getting "honest answers."
2. You began a thread titled "Darwin Was Wrong" but refused to discuss in depth any of the presentations. Eventually, the videos came on-line and were outlined; until Dr. Ware's presentation, your comments were limited to accusations that the outlines were misrepresentative and selective. For Dr. Ware's presentation, your "discussion" was limited to simply re-asserting Dr. Ware's talking points and not addressing the numerous counter-arguments.
3. You recently initiated a thread about "vestigial" organs but poignantly refused to enter into a discussion about the actual content of the book you were reading or any of the organs discussed by the book. Even given specific "vestigial" systems that you could pull out of the book and summarize the YEC argument, you failed to discuss any vestigial system.

You do have a problem with discussion, Jorge. Specifically, you have your soapbox and your talking points and it's pulling teeth to get you to move beyond them — when we do manage it and you provide us material we can analyze, disseminate and discuss, we very rarely get past the follow-up set of questions. In each of the three examples I mentioned, this has been the rule of the day.

A discussion is not you "answering" questions and criticisms by proclaiming your fellow discussion partners are intellectually dishonest and then repeating some YEC talking point. Discussion is a genuine back and forth argument, where answers are provided and questions asked. You criticized the idea that giraffes could evolve a long neck, others did the work and laid out the plausibility. You claimed that all "vestigial" organs were really "fully functional", others asked about specific vestigial organs and systems that appear to either be non-functional or less-functional than the apparent ancestor organs. You claimed that "Darwin Was Wrong" and that evolutionary theory suffered fatal blows due to that wrongness, others did the work figuring out the specific claims made and either countering them with evidence from Darwin's literature or explaining how they are irrelevant to evolutionary theory, as it stands today.



And here we go again. How much more is there to it, Jorge? We can't get you to strictly (or approximately) define a "kind" — if you can't define that, then how could your position be anything more than what I've written? And I'm not putting words into your mouth, here —




Now, I see from your response to Tiggy that you have no intention of explaining your position and thereby contrasting it with my summation — so I guess this will just have to be another time that you get off calling someone intellectually dishonest without demonstrating their dishonesty. Doesn't it bother you that such accusations, coming from you, do so little offense?

—Sam

*************************************************************************

[ sigh ... ]

For my own peace of mind, you win. I'll let you 'win' by introducing "evidence"
(that isn't really evidence); denying that I've answered (even when I clearly have);
and so on and so on and so on.


One day, I hope, someone will arrive here at TWeb with which I'll be able to hold
one of those discussions that you (wish to) believe I am incapable of and then
I'll see what new spin you come up with. In the meantime, go in peace.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Given that the above never happened, then you are saying that I am wrong, even on this issue.

You do understand the concept of an 'allegory', yes?

Jorge

[rogue06]

You need to stick around to watch history unfold TyR.

When Jorge attacks us, it's called "fact".

When we attack Jorge, it's called "vilification".

I kid you not.



That is, Jorge does not see it as "insult".


Hey Jorge - did I get it right above? Surely this post is correct?




Regards, Roland

I suspect he thinks you just vilified him.

[FreezBee]

********************************************************************************

I'll do so the very moment that you explain the scientific details
-- all of them -- that are necessary for a molecules-to-man event.

I will wait patiently while you provide this information.

Jorge

Appears that I wasn't exaggerating about the 1-step change from molecules to humans.

- FreezBee

[Ansgar Seraph]

*************************************************************************

[ sigh ... ]

For my own peace of mind, you win. I'll let you 'win' by introducing "evidence"
(that isn't really evidence); denying that I've answered (even when I clearly have);
and so on and so on and so on.


One day, I hope, someone will arrive here at TWeb with which I'll be able to hold
one of those discussions that you (wish to) believe I am incapable of and then
I'll see what new spin you come up with. In the meantime, go in peace.

Jorge

Sooooo . . . you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, I support my claim with your recent past behavior, you decline to present counter-evidence and hope that someday, someone who is intellectually honest will come so that you can have a good discussion.

What a disappointing habit you've developed, casting aspersions with no desire or will to support them with any evidence. Do the ends justify the means or are you just burnt out defending the cause?

—Sam

[rogue06]

************************************************************************************

FYI and as a warning, you are rapidly approaching Tiggy Status. Heck, you may already be there!

Jorge

:shades::party::speedbounce::coolthumb::dancing::beerline:

Party at my place. I'll supply the :booze:--:booze2:--:hein:--:pizza2:--:bacon2:

[TyRockwell]

*************************************************************************************

Errr ... speaking of "intelligence", let's examine your claim that I'm "attacking another poster's intelligence".

Here's what I wrote and you then quoted :

Sam, let me say this politely and gently : you have neither the background nor the
intellectual integrity to carry a conversation on this subject. The background part
may be remedied but not so the other part.


Let's now analyze that quote to find this alleged "attack on the poster's intelligence" :

Sam, let me say this politely and gently : No attack here


you have neither the background : not having the background does NOT attack the
intelligence of a person. Einstein, when alive, probably had ZERO background
in the fine art of making stained glass mosaics. So, does this "attack Einstein's
intelligence"?


nor the intellectual integrity to carry a conversation on this subject. This is regarding
the intellectual integrity of the person, NOT the intelligence.

The background part may be remedied but not so the other part. This says that
the background may be remedied [through instruction] but not so the other part
[namely, the intellectual integrity].


That's it. So I sit here wondering where the heck you came up with the claim that
I "attacked another poster's intelligence". Would you mind shedding some light here?

Jorge

Now don't nit-pick. It was a little condescending, but relax, you've defended yourself well.

[wattsr1]

You do understand the concept of an 'allegory', yes?

Jorge

Good heavens Jorge. The following is allegory?

"... because they then feel more justified in their vilifications about me personally and the YEC position. "

You posted that last year.

Here is another:

"You just cannot pass up an opportunity to vilify me, can you. "


Are you claiming that both of these are examples of you being allegorical?



Regards, Roland

[wattsr1]

I suspect he thinks you just vilified him.

I think Jorge is slipping into his "Telling not exactly truthful things for God" again.

Either that or he is not addressing the main point of my argument but rather is trying to skirt around it.



Regards, Roland

[rogue06]

Sooooo . . . you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, I support my claim with your recent past behavior, you decline to present counter-evidence and hope that someday, someone who is intellectually honest will come so that you can have a good discussion.

What a disappointing habit you've developed, casting aspersions with no desire or will to support them with any evidence. Do the ends justify the means or are you just burnt out defending the cause?

—Sam

I think Jorge behaves this way in an attempt to distract from the evidence. He wants to "martyr" himself and turn the subject into a discussion about him and his behavior so that the evidence against the YEC model is no longer being presented and examined. The problem has been that it has worked pretty well to this point.

[wattsr1]

Good heavens Jorge. The following is allegory?

"... because they then feel more justified in their vilifications about me personally and the YEC position. "

You posted that last year.

Here is another:

"You just cannot pass up an opportunity to vilify me, can you. "


Are you claiming that both of these are examples of you being allegorical?



Regards, Roland

So Jorge, just as you were using allegory with us when you wrote that we vilified you, so Gen 1 is using allegory too? No? Yes?

Or were you simply leading with your jaw again, 6 feet out in front of the rest of your body such that one cannot help but bump it.


(In fact, you are running off again, aren't you. You are not going to address this. Far safer to run away again.)


Regards, Roland

[wattsr1]

I think Jorge behaves this way in an attempt to distract from the evidence. He wants to "martyr" himself ...

That's my guess too. Jorge sees himself as a kindred spirit to the early Christians. Just as they got thrown to the lions and ripped apart, so he gets taunted by us and builds up brownie points with his god.

Can you imagine it? Jorge standing before his god, having to explain why he spent so much time avoiding his opponent's arguments, and instead put so much effort into perpetually "vilifying" (to use his word) them?

Imagine Jorge's god falling backwards when Jorge insists that all he was doing was using "allegory". I think we can all safely argue that Jorge has no idea as to whether Gen 1 is allegory or not. He doesn't even know what it is when he tells us that we vilify him.



Regards, Roland

[Ansgar Seraph]

I think Jorge behaves this way in an attempt to distract from the evidence. He wants to "martyr" himself and turn the subject into a discussion about him and his behavior so that the evidence against the YEC model is no longer being presented and examined. The problem has been that it has worked pretty well to this point.

Inasmuch as it works for the intended purpose, I agree. I think there is enough actual discussion occurring despite Jorge, though, that it becomes relatively clear that there's a lot to talk about. I imagine that Jorge's antics end up working mostly against him, as I doubt many people are going to listen to someone who won't back up serious allegations, no matter what doctrine he professes.

Ah, well. The point has probably been driven home. Time to move on to cleaning the kitchen

—Sam