Big money backs evolution

[pancreasman]

I find it interesting that for Magellan, this diagram:

93572-034-26C16785.jpg

is equivalent in factuality, objectivity and explanatory power to this diagram:

CAR1-500x270.jpg

[Jorge]

CAR1-500x270.jpg

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

Hmmm ... lessee ... you would be the short one on the far left - the one hiding behind the
white and purple beach ball. The others are your fellow compadres - Atheists and
Theistic Evolutionists - from here at TWeb. Uhmm ... amongst the herd I recognize Tiggy,
and there's R06, and Faid, wattsr1, ... yes, most of you are in there somewhere. Bwahahahaha

Jorge

[magellan004]

I find it interesting that for Magellan, this diagram:

93572-034-26C16785.jpg

is equivalent in factuality, objectivity and explanatory power to this diagram:

CAR1-500x270.jpg

Remember this?

The Atheist Dance
Atheist 'Your stuff doesn't comply with my Rule No. 1.'
(The Christian shows it does.)
Atheist 'But that doesn't comply my Rule No. 2.'
(The Christian shows it does.)
Atheist 'But that doesn't comply my Rule No. 3.'
(The Christian shows it does.)
Atheist 'But that doesn't comply my Rule No. 4.'
(The Christian shows it does.)
Atheist 'But that doesn't comply my Rule No. 5.'

Two people start out discussing 'objective evidence'.
The atheist is unable to distinguish Diagram 1 from Diagram 2 so what does the atheist do?
Bring in the extra rules - 'factually', 'explanatory power' JUST LIKE YOU HAVE DONE HERE!

What I find puzzling is that people who love to use big words such as 'objective evidence' cannot show what that term means when presented with any Diagram 1 and Diagram 2.

But maybe you can? Maybe you are the first person who is able to enlighten me. What makes one diagram any more 'objective ' than another diagram?
By all means use your example. What makes the piston diagram any more objective than the car diagram?

In case you need it, I'll give you a start. (This is a suggested example only.)

Let's say:
Case A - Hypothesis - 'Fungus Armstrong was a draughtsman who specialised in drawing engines.' The evidence for this is shown in the piston diagram, which makes the diagram an example of 'objective evidence'.
Case B. - Hypothesis - 'Howard the Stone Head Fitzgibbon painted psychedelic pictures'. The evidence for this is shown in his Car painting , but this is not an example of objective evidence because ... Insert reasons why Diagram 2 cannot be objective evidence

Maybe if the diagram looks 'serious' with all labels and small text it becomes objective?

Here is a separate but related question for you to worry over -Is this 'objective evidence'?
universe-4-whole-painting.jpg
It is a painting.

Magellan

[pancreasman]

Remember this?


Two people start out discussing 'objective evidence'.
The atheist is unable to distinguish Diagram 1 from Diagram 2 so what does the atheist do?
Bring in the extra rules - 'factually', 'explanatory power' JUST LIKE YOU HAVE DONE HERE!

What I find puzzling is that people who love to use big words such as 'objective evidence' cannot show what that term means when presented with any Diagram 1 and Diagram 2.

But maybe you can? Maybe you are the first person who is able to enlighten me. What makes one diagram any more 'objective ' than another diagram?
By all means use your example. What makes the piston diagram any more objective than the car diagram?

In case you need it, I'll give you a start. (This is a suggested example only.)

Let's say:
Case A - Hypothesis - 'Fungus Armstrong was a draughtsman who specialised in drawing engines.' The evidence for this is shown in the piston diagram, which makes the diagram an example of 'objective evidence'.
Case B. - Hypothesis - 'Howard the Stone Head Fitzgibbon painted psychedelic pictures'. The evidence for this is shown in his Car painting , but this is not an example of objective evidence because ... Insert reasons why Diagram 2 cannot be objective evidence

Maybe if the diagram looks 'serious' with all labels and small text it becomes objective?

Here is a separate but related question for you to worry over -Is this 'objective evidence'?
universe-4-whole-painting.jpg
It is a painting.

Magellan

Still avoiding the question:

Can a person be a Christian but NOT a YEC? Don't be afraid, Jorge has answered. Pluck up your courage and stand on your principles. What's that? You don't have any?

[magellan004]

Still avoiding the question:

Can a person be a Christian but NOT a YEC? Don't be afraid, Jorge has answered. Pluck up your courage and stand on your principles. What's that? You don't have any?

I scrolled back and I see why you are confused. You weren't following the conversation.
Here's what happened:
Magellan asks Phank what makes one explanation Ok and another explanation no good?
Lao Tzu says 'objective evidence' and gives a diagram to prove his point.
I give another diagram to refute Lao Tzu's point.
Lao Tzu add's more rules to the 'What makes one explanation better?'

You see? This is where you botched it up.

Lao Tzu could only make his rules stick if he infiniteley adds to his rules.
Hence the 'Atheist Dance'.

Get it?

You mistakenly thought - 'You seem to be equating atheism with scientifically literate understanding of evolution.' (Post 218) That is a non-sesquitroney. It does not follow from The Atheist Dance discussion. There was no reason for you to think The Atheist dance was particularly about evolution. Lao Tzu and I were discussing (for want of as better word) 'objective evidence'.

Hence your question about Christians and YEC is a figment of your imagination. If you are not interested in discussing the matter that was on the table, the issue that Lao Tzu and I were discussing, the issue that you chimed in about, then OK. Fair enough. 'Objective evidence' remains on the table as the issue - until an evolutionists makes another stupid error , which will be very shortly.

Magellan

[pancreasman]

I scrolled back and I see why you are confused. You weren't following the conversation.
Here's what happened:
Magellan asks Phank what makes one explanation Ok and another explanation no good?
Lao Tzu says 'objective evidence' and gives a diagram to prove his point.
I give another diagram to refute Lao Tzu's point.
Lao Tzu add's more rules to the 'What makes one explanation better?'

You see? This is where you botched it up.

Lao Tzu could only make his rules stick if he infiniteley adds to his rules.
Hence the 'Atheist Dance'.

Get it?

You mistakenly thought - 'You seem to be equating atheism with scientifically literate understanding of evolution.' (Post 218) That is a non-sesquitroney. It does not follow from The Atheist Dance discussion. There was no reason for you to think The Atheist dance was particularly about evolution. Lao Tzu and I were discussing (for want of as better word) 'objective evidence'.

Hence your question about Christians and YEC is a figment of your imagination. If you are not interested in discussing the matter that was on the table, the issue that Lao Tzu and I were discussing, the issue that you chimed in about, then OK. Fair enough. 'Objective evidence' remains on the table as the issue - until an evolutionists makes another stupid error , which will be very shortly.

Magellan

Ever ready to be courteous and succinct I have made this question the subject of its own thread. You could answer it there.

[pancreasman]

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

Hmmm ... lessee ... you would be the short one on the far left - the one hiding behind the
white and purple beach ball. The others are your fellow compadres - Atheists and
Theistic Evolutionists - from here at TWeb. Uhmm ... amongst the herd I recognize Tiggy,
and there's R06, and Faid, wattsr1, ... yes, most of you are in there somewhere. Bwahahahaha

Jorge

You might want to be careful leaping to the defense of your little acolyte. He's even nuttier than you.

[Jorge]

You might want to be careful leaping to the defense of your little acolyte. He's even nuttier than you.

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

"nuttier than me" ???

Coming from an Atheist like you -- a.k.a. King Walnut -- you ain't saying much. He he

Jorge

[pancreasman]

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

"nuttier than me" ???

Coming from an Atheist like you -- a.k.a. King Walnut -- you ain't saying much. He he

Jorge

Which, of course, is my point. If an atheist thinks it, it MUST be false. You guys create so much work for yourselves having to defend the indefensible simply because you are philosophically opposed to atheists ever being right about anything. If an atheist tells you it's raining out, you'll splash through the puddles denying it.

To be perfectly fair, you, Jorge, have stated you will agree with an atheist if they say something that agrees with you, like 2 + 2 really being 4. I'm sure Magellan had to check whether his Maths teacher was a Christian before he accepted that.

[Jorge]

Which, of course, is my point. If an atheist thinks it, it MUST be false.

You may say that if you wish but I would not say such a thing. Atheists are capable of thinking / expressing
a great many things that are true and I know this. I would say, however, that fundamentally (at the level
of their General Worldview, their Metaphysics) Atheists are wrong. The analogy is that of shaded glasses.
Everyone wears some glasses - this is the worldview of the person. The color of the glasses that the Atheist
has -- e.g., they see everything in 'red' -- is wrong ... Materialism is a wrong worldview. And so their general
thinking, their interpretations and their presuppositions will usually be wrong. This is what causes their wrong
conclusions -- the logic is good, but the premises are false.

You guys create so much work for yourselves having to defend the indefensible simply because you are philosophically opposed to atheists ever being right about anything. If an atheist tells you it's raining out, you'll splash through the puddles denying it.

Nope - sorry! Check out what I just wrote above.

My position regarding Atheists is far more complex / deep than the superficial simplicity you express here.

To be perfectly fair, you, Jorge, have stated you will agree with an atheist if they say something that agrees with you, like 2 + 2 really being 4. I'm sure Magellan had to check whether his Maths teacher was a Christian before he accepted that.

I don't know Magellan well enough to say one way or another. My suspicion is that you are
judging him incorrectly. If I had to guess, Magellan will be closer to my own position than to
what you think about him.

Jorge

[pancreasman]

You may say that if you wish but I would not say such a thing. Atheists are capable of thinking / expressing
a great many things that are true and I know this. I would say, however, that fundamentally (at the level
of their General Worldview, their Metaphysics) Atheists are wrong. The analogy is that of shaded glasses.
Everyone wears some glasses - this is the worldview of the person. The color of the glasses that the Atheist
has -- e.g., they see everything in 'red' -- is wrong ... Materialism is a wrong worldview. And so their general
thinking, their interpretations and their presuppositions will usually be wrong. This is what causes their wrong
conclusions -- the logic is good, but the premises are false.




Nope - sorry! Check out what I just wrote above.

My position regarding Atheists is far more complex / deep than the superficial simplicity you express here.





I don't know Magellan well enough to say one way or another. My suspicion is that you are
judging him incorrectly. If I had to guess, Magellan will be closer to my own position than to
what you think about him.

Jorge

A lucid and reasonable answer. As I said I am aware your position is more nuanced.

[phank]

A lucid and reasonable answer. As I said I am aware your position is more nuanced.

But nonetheless problematic. Granted, to a materialist Jorge sees the world through such thick god-colored glasses that what little penetrates through them is distorted beyond all recognition anyway. And to Jorge, the materialist has the world's worst case of myopia, and perversely refuses to don God Glasses to see the world in perfect focus with crystal clarity. And both of these groups regard the other as hopelessly blind.

And while there is no one-size-fits-all objective yardstick to measure either side by, I'm quite willing to enjoy all of what I perceive as the benefits of taking the god glasses off - things like science, medicine, technology. Things like a much longer, healthier, more rewarding lifespan. Things like a broader education, wider horizons. Things like "materialist" models making predictions which can be used to hone those models into more and more predictive and accurate depictions of the world.

And the premise of materialists is that evidence matters. It's this revolutionary concept which underlies the conceptual and intellectual rebooting the world has been experiencing for the last few hundred years, to everyone's great benefit - INCLUDING those who reject as non-evidence all observatons that don't penetrate the god glasses. But who of course enjoy and take full advantage of everything this "wrong" worldview showers them with.