Dan,

It’s been pointed out to you that you argue with insinuation so that others have to draw the inferences themselves and take a level of responsibility for your statements.

That’s very much what’s happening here. When I get more specific, and mention what you were talking about when you argued that the history side of evolution has no practical application, this is the result...

<<Macroevolution was your word, not mine.>>

That you didn’t specifically use the word doesn’t matter. You changed the goal posts by going from evolution in general, to the history side of evolution - which is more in the macroevolution realm.

My point still stands, I’m afraid.

<<...the basic ideas [of science] are not hard to grasp.>>

No, they’re not. But if you think that applying the ‘God of the Gaps’, and the ‘Argument from Incredulity’ fallacies to prove design is science, then no, you don’t understand it.

<<If someone who clearly had scientific qualifications superior to mine told me that I didn’t understand science, then I’d have to accept that, I’d cop it on the chin. However, I don’t think that person is you [David f].>>

It doesn’t matter that David f has no scientific qualifications. What does matter is that 99.9% of scientists would agree with him. Just as it doesn't matter that I have no formal scientific qualifications, what matters is that 99.9% of scientists would agree with what I’ve been telling you. After all, they are who I get my information from.

Now that I’ve pointed this out to you, I trust that you can cop it on the chin.

I hope I can also take your lack of response to all my other points as a concession that they were right. They do need closure after all. It would be most unhelpful if we were to just forget about them and have you repeat the same mistakes.

AJ,
I remember in the early days of mobile phones we used to joke about the paradox of the mobile phone. “Anyone who is so important that they need to have one shouldn’t be so easily accessible”.

It reminds me of the AJ Philips paradox. If my posts are so bad that you hold me in such contempt, why do you ALWAYS follow them up with one (often two) of your own with such urgency?

Ought I bow to your obviously superior knowledge of science, or be encouraged that someone wants to attach themselves to me closer than a groupie?

So you now say 99.9% of scientists agree with you. Wow! What an impressive number! With your superior scientific understanding, earlier you were trying to explain the ‘numbers fallacy’ to me. Can you or Davidf remind me, just how many scientists have to vote a certain way before something is considered an established fact or truth?

DSM

I would be fascinated to know your explanation for the fossil of a sea-water fish (an extremely large shark) discovered in Kansas recently. I suppose god put it there just to confuse scientists.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8530000/8530995.stm

<<< It may even have been the largest shellfish-eating animal ever to have roamed the Earth.

Dr Kenshu Shimada of DePaul university in Chicago, Illinois, US found the fossilized remains of the shark in rocks known as the Fort Hays Limestone in Kansas. >>>

Dan,

I’m making a conscious effort to not get too smart-alecky. I ask that you do the same.

<<It reminds me of the AJ Philips paradox. If my posts are so bad that you hold me in such contempt, why do you ALWAYS follow them up with one (often two) of your own with such urgency?>>

I don’t hold you in contempt. I think you use some, shall we say, less-than-honest tactics as a mechanism to maintain a belief for which there is no evidence. But that’s about it.

I respond with “such urgency” because I enjoy our discussions and because what you say is often so horribly wrong that I believe a prompt correction is important.

The reason my responses usually span over two posts, is because I need to fit your posts in mine to do line-by-line rebuttals. Line-by-line rebuttals are important when dealing with Creationists so as to not miss a single point. The reason each and every point needs to be covered is because you could disprove 99% of what a Creationist says, and they’ll still point to the 1% that went unmentioned. Such is the psychology behind the fundamentalist mindset; a mindset that I have first-hand experience with myself.

On another note, please remember that reverse psychology doesn’t work...

<<Ought I bow to your obviously superior knowledge of science, or be encouraged that someone wants to attach themselves to me closer than a groupie?>>

But if the attention you receive from me makes you feel somehow special, then that can only be a good thing. I’m here to make corrections, not to make you feel bad.

<<So you now say 99.9% of scientists agree with you. Wow! What an impressive number!>>

That it is Dan, that it is. But it’s not the percentage that matters, as I will now illustrate...

<<With your superior scientific understanding, earlier you were trying to explain the ‘numbers fallacy’ to me.>>

Ignoring your snide sarcasm, I threw in the percentage to see if you’d take the bait, and you did - hook, line and sinker.

Continued...

...Continued

This here jaw of mine ain't made of glass, it's reinforced with evidence and reason, as I will now demonstrate...

<<Can you or Davidf remind me, just how many scientists have to vote a certain way before something is considered an established fact or truth?>>

It matters not what the percentage is, Dan. What matters is that the 99.9% of scientists I refer to adhere to the scientific method. The other 0.1% abandon the scientific method for a Statement of Faith.

That 99.9% could be a mere 1% and my point would still stand; hence why numbers can be a fallacy. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to give an example.

Unfortunately though, your second shot at catching me out using a fallacy has failed as well. Who knows, it might be a case of ‘third time lucky’.

But rather than continuously dodging and weaving (as you have done here once again), we need to focus on the issues raised. By running around the place as your dodging and weaving leads us here there and everywhere, we run the risk of you repeating an already discredited (often multiple times) argument. We can’t just keep covering the same points over-and-over again. We’re going to need some retractions of the points you’re called up on but cannot support.

It’s counter-productive for you to simply pretend that something didn’t happen and move on to another point. Although I can fully appreciate that this is a mechanism you probably use to maintain your belief.

Severin,

Interesting find there. It reminds me of the Creation museum in Kentucky, which is sitting on an ancient coral reef that debunks it (http://video.rationalresponders.com/video/Creation-Museum-debunked-by-f)

Oh the irony!

Creationists try to explain fossil finds like that with the alleged Biblical flood. Just as they use the flood to explain the Grand Canyon. What’s even worse though, is that they explain the order of the fossil finds in the strata with the creature’s ability to escape rising waters.

And these people want to be taken seriously within the scientific community.

Amazing!

AJ,
I think you’ve slightly misinterpreted the goals of the creationist movement.

You say they want to be taken seriously by the scientific community. This is not their primary goal. If they were looking to find favour amongst the scientific institutions, then they would be keen to fall in line with the popular theories of the day.

Evolutionary materialism dominates thinking in regards to origins in most education systems at all levels as well as the mass media. Creationists aim to present an alternative view of God as creator, as revealed in the Scriptures and consistent with the Christian faith. This includes the real history of the world as recounted in Genesis.

Creationists believe that their position and their arguments well withstand the challenges posed by evolutionary materialists. That is why the leading creationist scientists in Australia have stated that they are not afraid to publically debate the issues with evolutionary scientists such as Richard Dawkins when he comes to Mebourne this month, and in fact invited such a challenge.

In regards to being taken seriously by the scientific community, I would estimate that creationists already are. Just look at the current aggression aimed at creationists by authors such as Dawkins and others