The Latest Volley

(This originally appeared on Sirius Knott’s blog, and is his reply to this post of mine. He had put it somewhere where few were likely to see it, and has generously agreed to let me repost it here, in its unedited entirety. Enjoy! I’ll most likely put my own reply in the comment section.

Copyright, etc. for this belongs to Sirius Knott, obviously.)

 

Forknowledge has responded to this post in his usual half-cocked way. A good portion of the reply seems to consist of large chunks of quotes from me. These quoted portions account for the entirety of the intelligence in his article!

In his reply, he notes that I charged him with a form of argumentum ad antiquitum when he argued that uniformitarianism pre-dates Darwin’s theory and therefore modern geology cannot be based on evolutionary presuppositions. This was a careless dodge. Darwin incorporated Lyellian uniformitarianism into his theory [he stole pretty much all of the ideas in Origins]. Modern geology has not bothered to refute Darwin as his theory [which incorporated uniformitarianism] explained how [without being too specific as to the mechanism] the fossil record and stratum could be accounted for by modren processes. Modern geology is based not simply on uniformitarianism BUT ALSO evolutionary assumptions. Again, since the former has been incorporated into the latter, it is completely accurate to say that modern geology is NOW based on evolutionary presuppositions, even though geology prior to Darwin may have [and this doubted since evolution is an idea that was around since the Greeks, though not in its Darwinian form obviously] only accepted uniformitarianism and not evolutionism. In fact, I believe I can re-phrase my objection to state that modern geology is NOW based on neo-Darwinian presuppositions, though geology prior to Darwin were based only upon uniformitarianism and some proto-Darwinian evolutionary presuppositions. To bawlderize forknowledge, early geology may have influenced evolutionary theory and not the other way round, in today’s world it is evolutionary theory that influenced modern geology and not the other way round! Ah, sweet accuracy.

I’ll not comment much on his response to my clarification of neo-Catastrophism, except to say that I had forgotten that there is a group of Noachim Catastrophists who now try to identify themselves as neo-catastrophists in much the way modern darwinists insist that they are neo-Darwinists. Both theories are much more sophisticated than their predecessors, especially since we all have to account for a growing body of data. I’ve cautioned Noachim catatrophists against using the neo prefix since it’s already in use by secular catastrophists and might cause confusion, which it apparently has.

I’ve already commented on forknowledge’s demonstrable ignorance on Flood Geology and Creationism in general. It seems one so opposed to a theory ought to at least know what it is he disagrees with! I suggested in the above response that he read a book he unaccountably referenced, The Genesis Flood. He responded, “I’m told to read The Genesis Flood, which I don’t intend on doing.” For someone who’s supposed to be “for knowledge,” he seems stubbornly and willfully ignorant of his oppositions actual claims! One can only presume that rather than attacking real Creationism and Catastrophism that he is defending Darwin against the onslaught of an awful straw man Creationism/Catastrophism composited from baseless caricatures on antiCreationist sites! Dare we take this simpleton seriously?

Next, he shrugs at my warning that a majority of scientists can be wrong and then goes on to critique my comments concerning the fossil record. This is only appropriate as he was originally responding to Darwin’s Dyke: What the Fossil Record Actually Shows.

His major objection concerns fossil sorting. He believes what they’ve told him to believe, that the strata represent geological ages, like a good little Darbot. He objects to one of the creationist theories I’ve read regarding how this might occur, a part of which involves tidal waves. In all honesty, I was sloppy and presented an incomplete picture of the processes involved, so creationally-illiterate fo’nawlij cannot be blamed that he didn’t pick up on that. I intend to relate the processes involved in laying down the fossil stratum in a future post, but perhaps the following will alleviate his concerns that I’m just tilting at windmills:

In an article entitled The Fossil Record: Becoming More Random All the Time, John Woodmorappe comments:

“Creationists, including myself, have provided a variety of alternative explanations for fossil succession. These include such mechanisms as the sorting of organisms during the Flood, differential escape of organisms during the same, ecological zonation of life-forms in the antediluvian world (such that different life-forms in different strata reflect the serial burial of ecological life-zones during the Flood), and TABs (Tectonically-Associated Biological Provinces—wherein different life forms occur in successive horizons of rock as a reflection of successive crustal downwarp of different life-bearing biogeographic communities).

All of these mechanisms do away with the notion that horizons of fossils demand successive passages of time during which the organisms lived. In other words, they allow for there to have been only one set of mutually-contemporaneous living things on a young earth, instead of a repetitive replacement of living things over vast periods of time. Most of the earth’s sedimentary record is viewed as being deposited by the Noachian Deluge, and not over successive depositional events in analogues of modern sedimentary environments on an evolving earth.”

In other words, there are possible answers and creation scientists and flood geologists are hard at work testing their hypotheses.

His next objection is simply darling. He invokes parsimony to explain to me why we shouldn’t use one big event to explain a phenomenon instead of myriad smaller events. He really needs to look up the meaning of that word, for parsimony doesn’t not merely indicate that science should choose whichever explanation which will least support the Creationist position. Noachim Flood is only unnecesary as an explanation if it did not occur. Unfortunately for fo’nawlij there is a good deal of independent evidence for a global flood in the form of flood legends which are prevalent word-wide. I bring up flood legends because he mentions them later in his response. Of course, he displays his trademark amazing LACK of the slightest grasp of Creationism when he objects [and I am NOT making this up! He actually printed it on his own site! Ha!]:

“Knott mentions flood legends briefly, in reply to which I’d like to ask him how cultures that were supposedly wiped out by the flood managed to make stories about it afterwards.”

Ha! We don’t posit that drowned cultures wrote down flood legends post-mortem. How could Creationism have survived this long if we ever claimed something so obviously contradictory? No, we claim that all the world was destroyed by a global flood, save Noah and his family. Afterwards, humanity thrived again but remained localized for the largest part, though God had commanded them to disperse. At Babel, God divided mankind into different languages and dispersed them. Each of these people groups came to form the historical cultures. Some of these cultures forgot God. Others remembered the Flood, though the story had become distorted over time. Incidentally, there are also legends worldwide that speak of man having once spoke one language. Some even mention that God or a god divided the languages. Darwinism accounts for neither trend of universal legends.

Predictably, after his invocation of parsimony, he seques into a diatribe about how a belief in God destroys science, nevermind that the majority of science’s founders were deists and theists who believed God had created the world and had given them reason in order for them to discover how the world worked and thereby learn more about the power and nature of God. Here is another fellow that simply paints the stained-glass window black and then rails that it lets in no hue or light. To illustrate his point that saying “Goddidit” destroys scientific inquiry, he gives three example questions that might, with the flip of a coin, be answered with “darwindidit” or “chancedidit.” [Here, it seems, he has learned nothing from Eric Kemp’s excellent essay The Basic Fine-Tuning Argument for God’s Existence.]

He presumes upon reason when he states that “there is no way to test the God hypothesis,” forgetting conveiniently that things we cannot observe or prove directly, like quantum particles, may be infered from the data. I DEFY this worm to read my essay There Is No Science But Naturalism and Darwin is it’s Prophet! and refute my statements regarding science if in fact God does exist. Then again, he’d probably do just as poor a job of comprehending and responding to that as he has here. Ah well. The assumption of naturalism is inherently flawed.

His arguments for excluding God from consideration also invoke the unbelievably lame “But which god is it?” canard. Just because he has never seriously considered the question of which God is most credible does not mean that there is not a means to make this distinction. How many times must we hear that there are so many gods, so they must all be fake dodge. The existence of multiple possibilities does not invalidate any of them from being potentially true, else the entire scientific enterprise may as well be given up. We CAN narrow down the search if we are but willing to apply ourselves to the problem.

He then pretends as if he has come to his conclusions by reason, which he has yet to evidence the slightest grasp of, instead of admitting that he simply swallowed the Just-So Story of Darwinism hook, line and sinker and is now chained to his mythology and is stupid enough to believe that it really happened because he’s faithful enough not to dig too deep or honestly and truly examine the alternatives and just trust Good King Darwin at his word. [Sound familiar, fo’nawlij?] This suckling Darbot cannot accuse me in kind because I once rejected Creationism for Darwinism, but returned to Creationism a decade later after I re-examined both metaphysical theories!

I bring this up because he tries to dodge my comments about the presumptions behind radiometric dating by saying that I’m cheating, that I’m adding a “Goddidit” fudge factor. Note how he attempts to move the goalpost; rather than addressing the evidence I’ve presented, he accuses me of religious fervor.

At this point he ends his farce of an argument, his unimaginatively named reply to a reply, by trying to retreat behind radiometric dating, presuming that his “God versus science” canard has refuted my arguments. I’ve already dealt with the science versus faith dodge in The Faith of Richard Dawkins. He also tries to more fully engage the faith versus reason/science straw man by noting my “religious preoccupation.” Note that I admit my presuppositional biases, while he tries to pretend as if he hasn’t any! I could easily argue that he has never strayed from the myth of Darwin!

I find his lack of research and inability to grasp the art of argument amusing, but I do hope that this is a new trend amongst Darwin’s defenders!!

-Sirius Knott

15 Responses to The Latest Volley

  1. penguinfactory says:

    Hey Sirius, long time no see! Are you up for a debate on a website where you can’t delete your opponent’s comments when they get too difficult to answer?

    “I find his lack of research and inability to grasp the art of argument amusing, but I do hope that this is a new trend amongst Darwin’s defenders!!”

    When you say “lack of research” here, do you mean it in the sense of someone posting an argument ad verbatim from another website without doing diddly to verify it first? Twice? And severaly mis-quoting the argument the second time? Is that the kind of thing we’re talking about here?

  2. Sirius says:

    I feel just silly replying to a sock puppet.

    Here goes…

    Penguin, I’m not interested in a flame war – especially not with someone’s sock puppet or “brother” or however else forknowledge would like to put it. MY time is simply more valuable than that.

    I AM interested in setting the record straight:

    You’ve made an accusation that I didn’t check my facts. I can only presume you are refering to the following exchange when we were discussing the horse fossil series:

    Sirius: [From Darwin’s Dyke: What the Fossil Record Actually Shows] Hyracotherium fossils have been found in surface strata alonside two modern horses, Equus nevadensis and equus occidentalis.

    Sock Puppet: [Comment in response] “Even if hyracotherium fossils were found alongside one-towed horses, this proves nothing because evolution allows for ancestor species to co-exist with descendant species. However, this claim has never actually been substantiated. One H.Rimmer first made the claim in 1935, but the earliest known descriptions of Equus Navadensis make no mention of hyracotherium fossils found alongside it, and neither do any known scientific papers since then. Occidntalis seems to actually be the same animal as navadensis, discovered and named twice.”

    Sirius: [Comment in response] “The earliest descriptions of Equus Nevadensis make no mention of hyracotherium fossils found alongside them… On further investigation, I could not find any independent confirmation of Rimmer’s claim. As you point out, the point makes little difference for it could not falsify Darwinism.”

    Sock Puppet: [From the argumentatively named What Mr. Knott Wouldn’t Reply To] “In your next comment you very gracefully conceded a point. I don’t want to seem like I’m insulting you now, but in using this argument without researching it beforehand you displayed exactly the kind of absence of independent thought that you’ve so often criticised others for- and unfortunately, as I’m going to show below, you did it more than once. I’d encourage you to look over some of the other points you’ve raised, and ask yourself how much you really looked into them before accepting them as valid.”

    What’s reeeeeeally funny is how you latched onto this like you latched onto the generalization of a kind [or baramin] as being a family or sub-family.

    I did not concede this point. I simply noted that I could not verify it independently. This does not mean that it is actually false, though it does cast doubt upon it. You have this rather juvenile habit – even for a sock puppet – of overstating your case.

    In any case, I have adjusted my opinions about the horse fossil series based on new evidence: See the following link for more: http://siriusknotts.wordpress.com/2008/09/24/baraminology-creationists-re-examine-the-horse-series/

    You have also made the accusation that I could not win a debate if I could not edit my opponent’s comments. I should like to qualify that I could in fact win an INTELLIGENTLY REASONED debate without editing anything, but the sheer hubris and insult you and likeminded trolls, darbots and sockpuppetry heap upon the name of reason forces me to make an ethical decision: namely, dare I subject my readership to such bad rubbish? Sure, you may actually have a valid point or two buried in these rhetorical dungheaps you chuck our way, but why should we have to sort through so much crap to glean that possibility?

    Goodnite, sock puppet. I’ll be over on my site if you need a dose of reality.

    –Sirius Knott

  3. forknowledge says:

    PF isn’t a sockpuppet. Our writing styles are even different – I would have thought that would be obvious.

    To bawlderize forknowledge, early geology may have influenced evolutionary theory and not the other way round, in today’s world it is evolutionary theory that influenced modern geology and not the other way round! Ah, sweet accuracy.

    Sure, you could put it that way. It would be more correct to say that they influence each other, though – evolution draws upon (and explains) evidence in many diverse fields of science, but it is not some sort of nexus point that all other science now originates from.

    For someone who’s supposed to be “for knowledge,” he seems stubbornly and willfully ignorant of his oppositions actual claims! One can only presume that rather than attacking real Creationism and Catastrophism that he is defending Darwin against the onslaught of an awful straw man Creationism/Catastrophism composited from baseless caricatures on antiCreationist sites! Dare we take this simpleton seriously?

    Well, I’m in a bit of a tight situation. If someone was to drop a copy of The Genesis Flood on my doorstep for free, then sure, I’d read it. But I’m not going to pay for it, and I find it unlikely that my university’s library stocks a copy. (I just checked; it doesn’t.) So no, I won’t be reading it. All the worse for my intellectual development, I’m sure.

    In other words, there are possible answers and creation scientists and flood geologists are hard at work testing their hypotheses.

    My anticipation is palpable. Please, let me know the moment these hypotheses are published, and I shall race to find a copy of the journal they appear in. (I’m serious! I have free access to scientific journals, so money isn’t an issue.)

    With regard to parsimony, I was right initially: the most parsimonious explanation is the accepted geological model, not Flood Geology. The latter requires massive assumptions that are not only not supported by the evidence, but which very frequently contradict that evidence. Despite what you seem to think, flood legends are not scientific evidence for the Biblical flood, any more than frequent legends about the sun being related to a deity serve as scientific evidence that our nearest star is, in fact, a god.

    Speaking of flood legends, you’ve sort of shot yourself in the foot here. You mentioned briefly before that they should serve as evidence of the flood (a dubious claim, but I’ll let it slide), but it was in response to me pointing out that we can trace the history of various civilizations back through thousands of years (ancient Persia and its proto-forms have a scattered history that goes back, I think, 8,000 years – supposedly before the Universe was created), which makes it sort of difficult to believe that they were wiped out. What you’re now suggesting is that those civilizations and societies were indeed wiped out, before being essentially restarted by Noah’s descendents years laters.

    Where is the archaeological evidence for any of this? I would have thought that every civilization on Earth being totally destroyed at once would be rather obvious, even going far back enough that the historical evidence is patchy anyway.

    Predictably, after his invocation of parsimony, he seques into a diatribe about how a belief in God destroys science, nevermind that the majority of science’s founders were deists and theists who believed God had created the world and had given them reason in order for them to discover how the world worked and thereby learn more about the power and nature of God. Here is another fellow that simply paints the stained-glass window black and then rails that it lets in no hue or light. To illustrate his point that saying “Goddidit” destroys scientific inquiry, he gives three example questions that might, with the flip of a coin, be answered with “darwindidit” or “chancedidit.” [Here, it seems, he has learned nothing from Eric Kemp’s excellent essay The Basic Fine-Tuning Argument for God’s Existence.]

    So…you can tell me why those three examples are not easily explainable by invoking god? (How you got the idea that Darwinian evolution or ‘chance’ could explain temperature variation around the sun I can’t fathom…) Because you haven’t actually described why I was wrong here. You just said I was…and then left it at that.

    I DEFY this worm to read my essay There Is No Science But Naturalism and Darwin is it’s Prophet! and refute my statements regarding science if in fact God does exist.

    Here’s where things get a bit creepy. (I’ve read the essay; it’s not that great, but I might reply to it at some point.) I noticed when you were arguing with PF that you grew increasingly venemous and downright erratic as it became obvious that he was kicking your ass. It seems to be something of a pattern with you. Assuming that all of this bravado isn’t just some cheap intimidation tactic (in which case you may as well give up, because that crap doesn’t work on me), I have to question whether doing this is actually healthy for you. Do you behave like this in real life?

    The ‘many gods’ issue: not only is there a problem of the variety of religions on Earth, but there’s the very real possibility that if a god exists, it has never revealed itself to us. Unless you can suggest a scientific method to determine which god or god-like entity kick-started life on Earth (for example), I don’t see a way out of this problem.

    Radiometric dating (and I’m getting bored, so I’ll keep this short): you haven’t addressed the central problem of invoking the supernatural. It doesn’t matter if radioactive decay rates can be altered in the lab unless you’re also claiming that God’s actions are bound by the laws of physics. If it had been found that decay rates were impossible to change by any scientific means, what’s to stop you saying ‘Well, God can do it.’ Tectonic plates do not appear capable of moving fast enough to explain some aspects of flood geology – well, so what? You’ve already assumed the presence and actions of an omnipotent (or nearly omnipotent) deity; if he wanted those plates to move faster, what’s to stop him?

    I actually did address the evidence you provided by pointing out that the conditions under which decay rates can be changed are not what you would find in nature. Pressure, chemical enviorment, etc. do not change decay rates. You’ve also brought up these ‘assumptions’ again (the daughter isotope thing, I’m guessing), yet I’ve already explained why that isn’t valid (isochron dating methods). But you seem to have taken the invalidity of radiometric dating as one of your funamental(ist) beliefs, so I guess none of that is going to make it into your walled garden.

    I could easily argue that he has never strayed from the myth of Darwin!

    Actually, when I first came across Creationism I didn’t know all that much about evolution (nor had I ever thought too much about it). I researched both quite a bit, and at first believed that Creationists were making some very good points. Then I found out that they weren’t. You’ve claimed to have once ‘been a Darwinist’ (while you were going to a school that taught Darwinian maths, apparently), yet your scientific ignorance makes it hard to beleive that you ever learned all that much about it. Given your religious fundamentalism, it’s not difficult to see why you became a Creationist and why you keep making the same scientific errors over and over again.

    fo’nawlij

    I just got that now. It’s cute.

  4. DTE says:

    ^^ Also a sockpuppet.

  5. forknowledge says:

    Sockpuppets everywhere!

  6. Penguin_Factory says:

    Joy of Joys! Sirius Knott has graced us with his presence.

    Firstly, I’m not a sock puppet- did it ever occur to you that two people living in the same house will share an IP address?

    “I did not concede this point. I simply noted that I could not verify it independently. ”

    In a debate, if you make a point and fail utterly to substantiate it, you lose. You admitted that you had no evidence for your claims and failed to offer anything else to back them up- therefore, you conceded.

    The reason I’m latching on to this is because the blatent hypocrisy of someone who berates others for lack of independant thought and then copies arguments ad verbatim from creationist websites without even bothering to fact check them first. I mean for God’s sake, it took all of five minutes to find out that your argument was bogus. Surely someone with your level of supposed research skills (because you do that, remember?) should have done the same long ago.

    The more I see of you, the more it becomes clear that you have very little understanding of the tripe you’re regurgitating. For example, take the latest article on Baraminology. Do you understand the mathematics behind the analysis you presented? How much do you know about taxonomy and cladistics, territory that this new “science” is enroaching on? Do you know anything at all about these subjects, or are you just accepting anything that comes out of the creationist camp at face value?

  7. Sirius says:

    Sock puppet,

    Your point is fallacious. You’re making an argumentum ad logicum.

    As for your final “point,” I’ve warned real folks about this tactic before, so I guess I’ll give one up for the sock puppets:

    “Real science never has to resort to credentialism. If someone with no credentials raises a legitimate question, it is not an answer to point out how uneducated or unqualified the questioner is. In fact, it is pretty much an admission that you don’t have an answer, so you want the question to go away.” –Orson Scott Card

    You’ll note that I haven’t demanded that you be an expert in macroevolution [apparently including every field involved!] in order to qualify as a vaild member of this discussion. I haven’t even required that you be a real person!

    But to pose the question back at you: Do you know anything at all about these subjects, or do you just accept anything that comes out of the Church of Darwin’s camp at face value? It seems a fairer question when I ask it, since you and the hand that controls you have both demonstrated a laughable lack of knowledge and an admitted willful ignorance when it comes to what Creationists actually believe, even though you claim you’re all about refuting Creationism. Shouldn’t you actually know what we really believe if you hope to have a chance of refuting us? Or are you content to hack away at straw men you thatched together from dreck you gleaned from antiCreationist sites?

    You guys make this soooo easy!

    –Sirius Knott

    PS C’mon. You KNOW you’re tempted to delete this and pretend you never received it. You KNOW you’re dying to edit it. Give in to your despairing outrage. Come to the Dark Side. It is unavoidable!

  8. forknowledge says:

    PS C’mon. You KNOW you’re tempted to delete this and pretend you never received it. You KNOW you’re dying to edit it. Give in to your despairing outrage. Come to the Dark Side. It is unavoidable!

    PF and I both have administrative abilities, so I’ll field this one.

    ‘Despairing outrage’ is an odd phrase to use because, to be frank, it’s what your edit-fests tend to reek of. Actually, no, I’m not tempted to do anything of the sort. Why would I be? Are you so deluded that you actually think you’ve hit this blog with some sort of devastating blow? PF was not demanding that you show him your credentials (what Scott Card was talking about), only that you’re able to demonstrate some sort of knowledge of the various fields you reject. Instead you’ve consistently done exactly the opposite – you know next to nothing. That much is painfully clear to anyone who’s been following this charade of a debate from the beginning. The point that PF is homing in on is your blatant hypocrisy and lack of the same skills that you so readily insult others for (supposedly) lacking.

    I don’t care if you continue to comment here. Your internet tough-guy routine doesn’t frighten me, your arguments are laughable and your value as a point of demonstration is rapidly waning as you become more and more erratic. If you keep up like this, you will very soon have nothing of value to contribute here (or anywhere else), but feel free to continue posting comments anyway. Unlike you, I don’t edit people who like to blather at me.

  9. Lottie says:

    Mr. Knott once accused me of being Mike’s sock puppet and he didn’t even have an IP to compare as I have never commented on his blog.

    Besides his many other endearing qualities, he also seems to be slightly paranoid.

    PS C’mon. You KNOW you’re tempted to delete this and pretend you never received it. You KNOW you’re dying to edit it.

    I don’t know why the admins here would want to delete or edit your posts when showcasing them is far more beneficial to their cause.

  10. Sirius says:

    Lottie,

    I truly have no idea what you’re talking about, but I’m happy in the apparent fact that you don’t either! And what makes you think that you’re not a sock puppet, just because you happen to be his wife? Or may Oops! is YOUR sock puppet! The oatmeal thickens!

    forknowledge [and his sibling sock puppetry],

    I full well realize that you are still likely quite unaware of any devastating blow I may have dealt your site. After all, you seem quite oblivious to everything else [reason itself being high on that list].

    It can only be truly stated that I know next to nothing if the context is that I know you [you or the sock puppet. either way].

    The “point,” if one can accurately describe such a dull thing as such, that your sock puppet [and now you] attempted is still an argumentum ad logicum. Allow me to elucidate. That’s when you presume that you have defeated your opponent [or his argument] because you have found one point of his argument wanting, when any number of his other points of argument still stand. If you’re a chess player, it means you took a pawn or perhaps even my queen or even managed to put me in check and, as a result, are now triumphantly crowing your victory. Yet the board has yet to be played out and no one has yet acheived a checkmate. Which makes you look…. well, rediculous. Any effect you might have achieved in making your point has been deflated by your sophomoric overstatement. [Trust me, I am an expert in overstatement. Except I do it well.]

    The truly funny part [and I have ceased to mock at this point. no, really] is that I don’t actually take myself that seriously. [Granted, I take myself more seriously than I take, say, Lottie or you or your sock puppets]. Chesterton said it well: “Angels can fly because they can take themselves lightly. Satan fell by the force of gravity.”

    In any case, I do have to ask: Why is is so noteworthy when I make ONE occasional mistake? Is it because you make so many.

    –Sirius Knott

  11. forknowledge says:

    In any case, I do have to ask: Why is is so noteworthy when I make ONE occasional mistake? Is it because you make so many.

    One mistake? The list grows every time you attempt to talk about science; you passed the ‘one mistake’ mark weeks ago.

    I’m glad to see that you’ve dropped the tough guy routine. It was, as you would say, ‘rediculous’. Do some more reading and you might get people to take you as seriously as you pretended to be taking yourself before this.

  12. Viggy says:

    OK, so I will ask the question since you will not (and still haven’t) answered Sirius.

    What do you know about creationism? What have you studied about creationism?

    It really doesn’t seem that you study Creationism at all. On the other hand, Sirius, Eric, and myself will read books and have classes that educate us on Evolution and the evidence (really lack of) that it has.

    Also, what have you really read up on Evolution?

    It seems that you are somewhat knowledgeable (in percentage of maybe 19%), but it seems like you are more filled with hot air, imagination, and thoughts rather than facts and actual knowledge about it. Many of your posts seem more like angry tirades and complaining if anything.

  13. forknowledge says:

    As I’ve said already, I was actually introduced to a lot of evolutionary theory through Creationism, since I began to read up on it first. That eventually lead me ‘down the rabbit hole’, so to speak, and I’ve been debating with Creationists ever since. Could you point out a specific example of me not understanding Creationism? Because I’ve based everything I said either on Creationist sources (AiG and the like) or on arguments that Creationists have attempted to use against me.

    It really doesn’t seem that you study Creationism at all. On the other hand, Sirius, Eric, and myself will read books and have classes that educate us on Evolution and the evidence (really lack of) that it has.

    Wait, Sirius attends actual classes on Creationism?

    You say that you’ve received formal education about evolution, yet in another post you’ve demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about what a transitional form is – and I do mean complete lack of understanding. Is that the kind of thing you’re being taught?

    Also, what have you really read up on Evolution?

    Everything I can get my hands on that’s understandable to a lay-person like myself. (I don’t study science at third-level.)

    It seems that you are somewhat knowledgeable (in percentage of maybe 19%), but it seems like you are more filled with hot air, imagination, and thoughts rather than facts and actual knowledge about it. Many of your posts seem more like angry tirades and complaining if anything.

    Unless that mistake about transitional forms was a momentary slip, I really don’t think you’re in a position to quantify someone’s level of knowledge on the subject in such an exact percentage.

  14. penguinfactory says:

    Bit of a late reply to this one, but I’ve been busy getting an education, so here goes anyway.

    “You’ll note that I haven’t demanded that you be an expert in macroevolution [apparently including every field involved!] in order to qualify as a vaild member of this discussion.”

    I never said I want you to be an expert, just that I expect you to understand the viewpoints you’re endorsing.

    “But to pose the question back at you: Do you know anything at all about these subjects?”

    I’m currently studying science at Dublin City University, with a view to getting into Genetics. So, yes.

    I notice you never denied my charge, but merely attempted to insinuate that I was doing the same thing. Which is very telling.

    As to me not knowing what you believe, all of my comments have been indirect repsonse to what you’ve actually said. Maybe you’re talking about Forknowledge’s more general blog posts. He might not be addressing your specific beliefs in these posts (nor does he claim to much of the time), but all of the views he attacks are ones that are held by creationists.

  15. regionale-auskunft.com

    Hey very cool blog!! Guy .. Excellent .. Amazing ..
    I will bookmark your blog and take the feeds additionally?
    I am satisfied to seek out a lot of useful info here within the publish, we need develop extra techniques in this regard, thank you for sharing.
    . . . . .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: