The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Truth is the first casualty of war > Comments

Truth is the first casualty of war : Comments

By Michael Viljoen, published 29/1/2010

The Global Atheist Convention: why won't Richard Dawkins, outspoken atheist, publically debate Carl Weiland, creationist?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. Page 18
  10. 19
  11. 20
  12. All
Pericles,
I knew I could motivate you to do some homework if I tried, however minimal.

First, you look around the http://www.creation.com website and found this statement, “most branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation” and you wanted to challenge it.

We discussed the definition of a creationist [God as creator, Genesis is historical]. I offered just a sample of the names of the many pioneer scientists who followed Scriptural teaching. An historical Genesis was the standard view of the church over most of church history. This was the general atmosphere in which science grew in the West.

Then you looked around and found that Dalton died earlier than Darwin’s publications. Hardly much of a revelation. In that, he’s not even unique for the people on that list. Quite a few the others died centuries before. That’s all pretty much household knowledge.

Part of this creationist assertion’s bite is the advances that these scientists made before the rise in popularity of Darwin’s ideas, which helps show the level to which Darwin’s contribution is not particularly crucial.

Yet the concepts of different life forms arising from one another or life arising spontaneously have floated around since the Greek philosophers. Even Charles Darwin inherited some ideas about evolution from the writings of his grandfather Erasmus Darwin.

I’ve already put out the challenge for anyone who wants to do some more homework. Who amongst that list of great pioneers of science accepted Darwinian ideas (not limited only to Charles Darwin’s publications)? And remember, even if we found some exceptions to prove the rule, the original statement in question only began with the word ‘most’, so the odd exception would probably only help to confirm the accuracy of the statement.

Michael Viljoen
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 6 March 2010 11:31:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

I realise the dodging and weaving may be a good mechanism for denying to yourself the fact that you have nothing to back your beliefs or claims, but it does nothing for your credibility, I’m afraid.

<<Thanks guys. Your second guessing of my timing and movements unveils strange levels of suspicion or mistrust?>>

‘Educated guessing’ would be a more accurate term. Your tricks are becoming so well known here on OLO that I certainly wouldn’t call the levels of suspicion and mistrust “Strange”. “Justified” or “understandable” would be a much better way of putting it.

<<One reason for OLO’s existence is to promote discussion so as to lead to greater common understanding.>>

Absolutely.

This’s why the trickery, the misrepresenting of what others say and the repeating of discredited claims that you so often engage in, is frowned upon.

To your credit though, it does “lead to greater common understanding” in that it helps to reveal to the world what Creationism is all about.

<<I’ve tried to be as open as possible.>>

By arguing with insinuation so that others are forced to share some responsibility for your statements?

Not to mention the continuous dodging and weaving.

<<You ask me for detail on many things.>>

And if you need the time to respond over several days, then just say the word and I’ll give you the time to respond.

<<Yet it brings up the same question of mine that you still haven’t answered.>>

I thought I’d made it fairly clear that I don’t think they should debate. I apologise if I haven’t though.

But I don’t think you’re all that interested in my response. More that you’re trying to give the impression that I dodge and weave too, in an attempt to divert attention from your own dodging and weaving.

<<If you really want some information and interaction of opinion, then are you in agreement that the experienced campaigners (those who know more about it than you and I) from both the atheist and the creationist camps should debate it when they all come to Melbourne next week?>>

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 7 March 2010 8:01:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Continued

I don’t think any credible scientist should debate people who are on par with Flat Earthers and alleged alien abductees. All Creationists want to do is get up onto a podium and rattle off some fancy terminology that would be above the heads of most onlookers to give the false impression that there is a debate to be had.

One other point too. That the Creation “scientists” know more than me is irrelevant. Need I remind you of the ‘Statement of Faith’?

<<An historical Genesis was the standard view of the church over most of church history. This was the general atmosphere in which science grew in the West.>>

Yes, “of the Church”. A “General atmosphere” is certainly not the same as an “historical Genesis” having a direct affect on science now, is it?

How did this “general atmosphere” of an “historical Genesis” affect science?

<<Yet the concepts of different life forms arising from one another or life arising spontaneously have floated around since the Greek philosophers.>>

I liked how you threw the bit in about Greek philosophers. You are, again, trying to subtly equate evolution with philosophy and social sciences. Yet we’ve established quite firmly that evolution is not a social science.

<<Even Charles Darwin inherited some ideas about evolution from the writings of his grandfather Erasmus Darwin.>>

I also liked how you’ve tried to make it appear as though you’re revealing a ‘skeleton in the closet’ by pointing out these facts. Hardly much of a revelation. That’s all pretty much household knowledge.

Yes, the idea of evolution was around before Darwin. What Darwin did, was discover that Natural Selection was the driving force behind evolution. Before Darwin, people theorised that life changed because... it just did.

So it was largely discarded as this was about as scientific as thinking that one could demonstrate design by using fallacies such as the God of the Gaps fallacy and the Argument from incredulity.

Continued...
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 7 March 2010 8:01:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Continued

But why do you keep rattling on about Darwin? Darwin is pretty much irrelevant in today’s world now that we know so much more about evolution. With the way you carry on though, one could be forgiven for thinking that university biology students read the Origin of Species as a part of their curriculum.

<<I’ve already put out the challenge for anyone who wants to do some more homework. Who amongst that list of great pioneers of science accepted Darwinian ideas (not limited only to Charles Darwin’s publications)?>>

Well, considering my point above about evolution largely being discarded due to the unscientific idea of species just changing for no apparent reason, I do believe your challenge is irrelevant. In fact, consider your challenge defeated.

There’s that other point too that I’ve made more times than I could possibly count now:

The founders of modern science only ever relied on natural methodology and found natural explanations for things previously believed to be miraculous, and they only ever succeeded when they didn't allow their religious convictions to inhibit their inquiry.

If you’re having difficulty understanding why this renders your point about the founders of modern science irrelevant, then please, don’t be afraid to ask me to clarify. Just tell what part of this it is that you don’t understand and I’ll be more than happy to explain it. After all, one reason for OLO’s existence is to promote discussion so as to lead to greater common understanding.

On a final note, I’m still waiting for your answers on the following...

How and why did evolution need a patching and paintjob?
What is the evidence for a young Earth?
How are millions of tax dollars spent on propping up evolution?
How does one prove Creationism without resorting to god of the gaps & argument from incredulity?
Why does evolution make no sense?
And the new that has now been added to the list: How did the “general atmosphere” of an “historical Genesis” effect science?

Thanks in advance for your explanations and/or retractions.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 7 March 2010 8:01:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ,
You parrot what I say about discussion promoting understanding between people. However, your rudeness displays your lack of intent for any real discussion.

This is not just my opinion, for you know how you were chastised by several others last year for your personal hostility and lack of common courtesy.

It is clear that you hold creationists in contempt. You insult them with slurs such as ‘flat earthers’, etc. You malign them and now openly state that you are not interested in them sharing debate with other scientists.

It is clear that you are closed to what creationists have to say. Therefore, it’s apparent that I’d be wasting my time answering your challenges.

You accuse me of ‘trickery’ simply because I posted a comment a few days later than you expected.

Your rudeness knows no bounds.

Do not bother demanding or expecting any response from me in future threads. I shan’t be bothered.

Richard Dawkins, author of “The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution”, is currently visiting Australia to speak at the Global Atheist Convention. He has previously stated he has no interest in debating creationists.

But for anyone interested, an opposing view to that of the atheists will be presented in Melbourne on the same day as Dawkins’ lectures.

Sunday 14 March at Life Ministry Centre, Old Melbourne Road, Chirnside Park.

Dr Jonathan Sarfati, author of “The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution” will be giving a lecture at 4.45 pm “Evolution: no first cell, and not enough time. Belief in a cell that made itself underpins evolution/atheism, but it’s blind faith. And the ‘millions of years’ evaporate under scientific scrutiny, too.”

This will be preceded by lectures at 2.00 pm by Dr Don Batten and 3.20 pm by Dr Carl Wieland, with Question and Answer panel time (all three speakers) at 6.00 pm.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 7 March 2010 11:25:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It looks very much as though you made your point, quite perfectly, AJ Philips, in drawing this final capitulation from our friend.

>>Your rudeness knows no bounds. Do not bother demanding or expecting any response from me in future threads. I shan’t be bothered.<<

You have to admit, though, he doesn't go down without a last hurrah.

>>You malign them and now openly state that you are not interested in them sharing debate with other scientists.<<

"Other scientists" indeed.

Labelling it "science" is the young-earthist's mantra, designed to present the concepts as equally valid, merely requiring discussion. Deliberately ignoring the absence of any supportable science in the creationist's stance.

That's not to say they don't employ pseudo-scientific words and phrases. But that's only to impress the gullible.

>>It is clear that you are closed to what creationists have to say. Therefore, it’s apparent that I’d be wasting my time answering your challenges.<<

An interesting stance, given that he has carefully ignored every one of your questions to date. One suspects that the answers, if he cared to offer them, would indeed be a "waste of time".

This is interesting though.

>>Dr Jonathan Sarfati, author of “The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution” will be giving a lecture<<

Full of his usual nonsense, one suspects.

I particularly like Dr. Kevin Henke's forensic dissection of Sarfati's attempt to recruit science to his cause.

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/sarfati%27s_RE_reviewed_henke.htm

I suspect that the discussions will by themselves be adequate evidence that a "debate" between the two groups would be nothing more than free PR for their odd beliefs.

John Stear observed a while back that the young-earth creationist's tactics are to assume that if they...

"...tell a lie often enough and it becomes truth. Unfortunately this is often a successful ploy as most grassroots creationists parrot these lies as if they were really scientifically sound"

And as Dr Henke makes clear, definitively refuting the pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo that they employ involves the use of terminology with which 99% of the audience would be entirely unfamiliar.

So, until next time, Mr Viljoen, ave atque vale.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 8 March 2010 8:31:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. Page 18
  10. 19
  11. 20
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy