Tuesday, August 16, 2022

Recall my Answers to Fr. Gregory Pine, OP?

Recall my Answers to Fr. Gregory Pine, OP? · Taken to Task for YEC, Again ...

It is back here: Fr. Gregory Pine OP attempts to talk about evolution: part 1, part 2

I got an Atheist (or other anti-Christian) intrude into our intra-Christian discussion.

I begin with a comment on Fr. Gregory's statements, which actually shows I am very well up to date, since knowing "lactose intolerance" is not an adverse mutation, but the normal state.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
7:36 "to operate with its particular nature and operation"

Just mentioning, developing new functional genes and developing new cell types does, scientifically speaking, definitely not fall within the scope of the nature and operation created biological beings show off to scientists observing them.

Mutating an already functional gene so it functions somewhat differently, yes, eumelanin producing genes have on occasions mutated to pheomelanin producing genes, but they still produce some kind of melanin. You also have albinos who simply don't produce melanin. They were not the original genome of man on this point. Or you can have a gene allowing you to produce lactase up to age ... 5? puberty? whichever it was ... mutate into one that produces lactase and forgets to shut that production off. But you don't have lactase production mutating from a total lack of lactase production. (Lactase helps you to digest lactose, in milk).

Paul Thompson
Here's a good start just to give you the education you need to make your knowledge current:

[Link withheld, may go to it later to refute it.]

And here's a good response to creationists that will help you understand why proponents of intelligent design got it wrong:

[Link withheld, may go to it later to refute it.]

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Paul Thompson Excuse me, the first video mentions what recent "advance" I seem to be unaware of?

As to the second, Rationality Rules seems perfectly fine with using Haeckel's fake drawings of embryology as proof.

Paul Thompson
@Hans-Georg Lundahl The advances made since the 19th century, because it seems like apologists are typically working off of beliefs that are grounded in 19th century (or earlier) science.

As for Haeckel's drawings here:

[Link withheld, may go to it later to refute it.]

he didn't offer it as proof.

You seem like a curious person, which is good, but a little closed-minded though. If you really want to bring your knowledge level to the point where you'll be able to let go of your prejudices and accept the theory of evolution as what it is (i.e., the best explanation for how different forms or life became what they are today), then I'd suggest enrolling in a Bachelor's degree in evolutionary biology.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Paul Thompson Haeckel may not have offered them as proof, but he made certain others would take them as such, and "Rationality Rules" has fallen into that trap.

He's the one needing to get on board with what happened since the 19th C. like Haeckel getting debunked.

@Paul Thompson "to the point where you'll be able to let go of your prejudices and accept the theory of evolution as what it is (i.e., the best explanation for how different forms or life became what they are today)"

Sounds like massive propaganda.

"then I'd suggest enrolling in a Bachelor's degree in evolutionary biology."

If that's the result you hope for, that would mean the programme is a kind of brainwashing ... I prefer a more suave confrontation with evolution believers.

Answered twice
I and II.


Paul Thompson
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Did you even watch the whole video? Stephen (aka Rationality Rules) told you basically everything you need to know to shed yourself of a long-debunked doctrine (i.e., intelligent design).

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Paul Thompson No, I definitely did not watch it, I watched the content index and found Haeckel drawings on the time stamps for embryology. I drew my conclusions about his coherence and quality of argumentation.

Paul Thompson
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Of course you didn't watch it. You know how untenable Christianity is in light of what the science community knows today.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Paul Thompson If it were knowledge, Christianity would be untenable, and thanks for admitting you are anti-Christian and outside the discussion I had with at least purported fellow Catholic Fr. Gregory Pine, OP.

However, I have confronted LOTS of other science educator's and even more debaters as to arguments offered, so it's not like I'm shying away from "new knowledge" - I am wary of your dumping tactics.

Instead of offering arguments, you let a video do the job for you, but if I want to refute it, I have to do the job myself and so on ... I have seen a rabidly anti-Catholic debater use the same tactics by copying Evangelical sites' "top 26 reasons" against point after point I was making.

That's not a discussion.


Paul Thompson
@Hans-Georg Lundahl If you think science is brainwashing, then I might as well be chatting with a Christian from the Dark Ages.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Paul Thompson I didn't speak of science, I spoke of the Bachelor's programme.

And comparing me to a Christian from "the Dark Ages" (I suppose you mean the Middle Ages or perhaps the earlier part of them), I will take that as a compliment.

Now, as to the science, confront me with arguments from your real or pretended science, but quit the stupid pretense of "educating" me, OK?

Paul Thompson
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Just look at Rationality Rules, Professor Dave, etc. and all the PBS YouTube channels if you want to get a free education. Your knowledge level truly needs to be brought up to date before it would be worthwhile arguing with you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Paul Thompson You are free to not argue with me, others have.

And no, I was not asking for an education.

If this is a promise to leave me alone, it is very welcome, and it would be even more welcome if you kept it.

But what you really seem to want is a harrassment : you get to not argue, as long as I don't agree with you, and as long as I don't take measures meant to make me do so, you are still arguing a very extended ad hominem.

No comments: