Tuesday, July 25, 2023

Holding up what she says on Creationists as a Mirror for Evolutionists (including herself)

Christian School Textbooks DEBUNKED 🌎
Emma Thorne, 3 June 2023

4:27 Education systems and peer reviews are certainly all part of a culture - a hidden conspiracy over and above that is not needed.

It's sufficient to tweak requirements on open debate a bit when dealing with creationists. Is that a gentleman's agreement or a conspiracy?

7:03 Someone just made the point that you were not making any claim that Christianity and Hinduism had equal evidence for the religion being true.

You just said it, they were presented to you as equally valid and as different from science (i e exit argument, exit evidence).

8:10 "cult-like" = not buying into your science cult
"conspiracy stuff" = looking into why your science cult could be wrong (and it really doesn't have to be a conspiracy behind it for it to be that).
"bad" = having a religious faith that is a dogma, a real claim about what everyone ought to believe about the world.

Unless that religious faith happens to be your science cult, then it's all right of course ...

Oh, sorry, not just "bad" but even "super dangerous"

r i g h t ...

Did your teachers say that out loud, or were they just really, really, really good at giving you hints or dots to connect in that direction?

8:36 Does the University College London hold any kind of anti-christian bias?

The article you cite is by a transwoman.

"I'm Jenna Scaramanga, a trans woman with views. I did a PhD on the experiences of students in Accelerated Christian Education and now I mostly play guitar on my other channel."


C o u l d transwomen or transmen or generally transgender have some kind of bias against Christianity?

I kind of think so.

Then we have a certain Matthew Hunt. Also University College London. Also extremely biassed against Creationism. And he made a great point of Kent Hovind's university not being accredited, but University College London wasn't either.

9:16 "when your whole school texts are the bad source"

Your point against ACE.

Our point against secular schools (on points like LGBT acceptance, evolutionism, religious relativism) is exactly the same.

So, you claim we make a conspiracy theory about secular schools, is this an admission that you are now making a conspiracy theory against ACE?

Do you have any self awareness?

11:19 So, you are encouraging people like "Tanya" to hide real identities because being homeschooled between 6 and 18 is somehow shameful?

Well, then you are actually creating social problems for homeschoolers. Far from saving them from problems, you are yourself creating them.

Along with people who feel like yourself, obviously. Is this also something you learned 12 years ago when leaving school?

11:37 "isolated in an education system that is completely false and built on conspiracy theories"

a) "isolated" = no contact with your set = no contacts?
b) "education system that is completely false" = well, exactly what we feel about the secular education system (on certain topics)
c) "and built on conspiracy theories" = like how you would characterise creationism so as to better discredit it? Or, like an education system that is completely false on the one hand must be that and and on the other hand shows it by calling your education system false, which for some reason does not equate to conspiracy theory when you do it yourself to some other education system?

12:16 Can we make an educated guess?

Tanya tried to get into University College London, which was anyway highly biassed against ACE and all it stands for?

Like, she spent time with transwoman Jenna Scaramanga over there. That's how Jenna had access to her story, right?

"she didn't have access to higher education"

Because she looked in the wrong place?

If ACE were not actually providing access to higher education in quite a lot of places, it would be quickly busted.

But their information is not based on applicants for University College London.

12:52 If she had been more attentive to creationist lessons in ACE, or if her mother or father had been, perhaps she would be both more allround in science and not have tried University College London ...?

"it's just not fair for these children"

what institutions like University College London does to them?

13:02 I have never felt Creationism scary, or a conspiracy, and the "scary conspiracies" you recall were not about Creationism.

The most stressful nonsense Tanya was put through was probably University College London both denying her access the first attempt and tearing down her faith, insofar as she had one ...

13:19 As growing up a Biblical literalist, I didn't have anxiety.

Except about getting to school, to persons in my class, to bullies. And that would have been anxiogenic whatever my beliefs.

If you say I wouldn't have had that apart from being raised a literalist, well, that means I was bullied for being a literalist, which means, the worst ordeal literalists have in the secular societies of Northern Europe is the bullying of some others. Sweden and UK both qualifying as Northern Europe compared to France.

13:38 Good question. "How do you know what to trust at all?"

First, apart from Communist régimes, I was not being in any way taught that media, schools or government were lying, I was taught they were putting out false truths by being themselves ignorant.

Second, how I know what's true at all? Well, first by being a Christian, and second by being a geek - which is what I have remained to this day.

That government, media, schools could actually be lying actively (not just among Communists of Eastern Europe, but "here") came to me later on, as I was active in debates, and found myself silenced. Teacher and paper editor acting as moderator each refusing me the next part of the argument. Cutting off my next line. Teacher by saying in front of the class "we have no time for that" and paper editor by not publishing my next letter.

13:51 Evolutionists is not a real scientific term ... in Evolution biology, or whatever. Go figure why?

It is perhaps a real term in sociology, like when describing Galileo as a Heliocentric? Or in history?

14:57 "because I am not a scientist"

Like "Tanya" who also has great faith in Evolution?

This geek is very much not satisfied with a "very, very basic explanation" of abiogenesis. This geek was just the last few days debating the impossibility of abiogenesis with a few Evolutionists in French on Quora. When two actual scientists were unable to answer my objections and one blocked me, and the other patronised me but more and more evasively, I think I am better placed than you to assess whether "Hoyle's fallacy" actually is a fallacy or not. It isn't. And he could very well have added "very basic lifeforms" to his assessment.

15:21 Yes, exactly. A Creationist, either YEC or ID, takes Hoyle's assessment of abiogenesis, adds your assessment of Hoyle's panspermia, and arrives at = abiogenesis doesn't work either way. God created.

15:39 Exactly what "demonstrated effects of evolutionary theory" does the Hoyle assessment of abiogenesis contradict?

Lactose tolerance arising from a mutation?

The thing is, before that mutation, we had cells. They were self-replicating. They had genes with ordered complexity, i e with information. Most genes didn't mutate, or the offspring would not have been viable.

None of these advantages are even remotely available for what went before abiogenesis. Supposedly on your theory.

Pretending "mutating to lactase persistence works, therefore mutating from non-life to life works" is about as silly as "linguistic evolution from Latin to French worked, therefore linguistic evolution from ape to human language worked" - in either case, it is really and truly not the same thing.

15:48 "he was not arguing for a creationist approach here"

No, but you and he between you are. He by disproving abiogenesis, you by disproving panspermia.

That his own intention was not to boost creationism doesn't mean it can't imply an argument for creationism, along with other information, like the completely correct rejection of panspermia.

Btw, panspermia just might work for an eternal steady state universe, but it can't for a universe with a start, which a universe running down automatically is, and yes, since H (hydrogen) is all the time fusing into He (Helium) in any star, and the opposite never happens, the fact that Hydrogen still exists proves the universe had a beginning.

16:22 In the textbook you cite, his argument against abiogenesis is presented as an argument against abiogenesis.

16:56 While he was making the junkyard tornado comparison, he was not actively arguing in favour of panspermia, he was actively arguing against abiogenesis.

17:58 "space itself is more of a fabric"

While you did not intend to argue that way, you certainly made my arguments for:
  • Geocentrism
  • the Firmament
plausible in ways that some people holding Newton's view of space (empty coordinates) would miss.

18:33 And for that reason, I am sorry to say, ACE is likely to miss out on Geocentrism.

19:38 "Christians believe"
"for a long time Christians believed"
"some Christians still believe"

Did it perhaps give you a lasting impression that it was objectively known "outside that bubble" and by progress after that lack of progress that X was not true?

You seem to be expressing such an impression basically all of the time.

20:05 What you call "mainstream Christianity" is in fact mainstream modern Porvoo Communion (that's a new intercommunion between Lutherans, Anglicans and Methodists, and also Moravian Brethren, the deal was made in Lutheran Finland, in a city called Borgå or Porvoo).

Of the Porvoo Communion, Anglicans / Episcopalians are the biggest part. They are 2/3 of all Protestants. Protestants are 2/3 of non-Catholic Christians (the other third being Orthodox). Non-Catholics are 1/2 of the Christians. Catholics the other 1/2.

Notice, I said "mainstream modern Porvoo Communion" - meaning that in countries with less modernity than Northern Europe (Scandinavia, Netherlands, North Germany and UK), you find Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, perhaps even Moravians, who reject this.

So, if we took all constituents of the Porvoo Communion that is 1/2 * 2/3 * 2/3 of Christians = 22 % of Christians. But many live in Africa or US and are not all that modern. Even in UK some aren't. I think CMI's Mrs Lita Sanders, formerly Miss Lita Cosner was in fact Anglican, though I could be wrong.

So, what you call "mainstream Christianity" is perhaps more like 10 % of Christians _or less _- but very vocal about them being mainstream, just because they happen to be so in Sweden and UK.

Miscalculated some, since Methodists are globally just a bit less numerous than the Anglican communion, 110 vs 80 millions, but you would still be in around 20 %.

20:08 "Most Christians don't believe in Biblical Literalism or Biblical Creationism."

The paragraph you cited actually didn't even express Biblical Literalism.

It is a view on Creation widely shared by very blatant anti-Literalists (like anti-pope Bergoglio, whom you might know as "Pope Francis"). It is a view which is widely shared by Theistic Evolutionists.

It's simply Theism as opposed to Atheism.

20:17 There is nothing real or tangible about a "scientific" education which posits that Big Bang could happen without God.

For that matter, not very scientific either to posit that God used Big Bang.

But all that paragraph was saying was "Big Bang could not happen without God" - obviously, there are other paragraphs which could involve going far beyond that, but you haven't come to them.

20:36 So, it is horrible if children are told there is the truth and then there are other people, if truth is identified as Biblical and "other people misleading" as Evolutionists ...

But you are totally OK with children being told there is truth and then there are other people, if truth is identified as Science, and "other people misleading" as Conspiracy Theorists.

20:52 "here is a religious scientist, that studies astronomy"

Like Intelligent Designer Hugh Ross? He very clearly subscribes to the paragraph you just singled out.

Or David Russell Humphreys and Mary Beth De Repentigny and ...
"Dr. Jason Lisle. He received his Ph.D. in astrophysics from the University of Colorado."

The last three are Young Earth Creationists.

21:14 That transwoman may have a PhD, but after doing this hatchet job on ACE, "she" seems to be preferring to teach guitar.

What one can expect from University College London?

22:02 "but it should not be represented as having a similar or superior evidence to scientific theories"

The UK government is no way anything like biassed in the Evolutionist views ... oh no ...! (/irony off)

22:16 Teaching that it is wrong does not equate to teaching that it is a conspiracy.

It equates to teaching that it is wrong.

22:21 "evolutionists are evil" might be a conspiracy, but you did not cite that from ACE, you are putting words into their mouths
"it's impossible" pretty much is what they said, but it does not equate to those believing this thing either being evil or being conspirators just pretending to believe it to actively mislead.

24:25 What exactly is "vaccine denial"?

If it is a belief vaccines generally don't work, that might be a conspiracy theory.

However, having recently come to side with anti-vaxxers, on finding that viruses are sometimes cultivated on aborted fetal cells (it's the case for Covid vaccines!), I don't see "vaccine denial" in this sense as any way shape or form necessary to be an anti-vaxxer.

I took my information from NYT international, Tuesday 4 Aug 2020, an article on the Russian preparations for Sputnik-V. New York Times is not a conspiracy outlet, so, I find it very safe to assume the fetal cells mentioned are not a conspiracy theory or a lie to smear vaccines.

24:48 Would you mind showing the paragraph with the "if fish evolved into frogs" argument?

But even if they did that blunder, that's perhaps 1 : 20 compared to Genie Scott's blunders about Creationist arguments.

25:04 Most Evolutionists know so little about Creation Science as the opposed theory, that they shouldn't be writing scientific textbooks.

26:29 We Creationists also believe in the concept of extended family - but in the family being that of the "created kind" - we can prove dogs and wolves are related, to each other and arguably even to foxes. We can not prove they are related to dogs, and if the Bible is true they shouldn't be. I'm still amused at AronRa presenting as last common ancestor of cats and dogs a fossil called "Miacis cognitus" which is exactly one part of a skull that is really squished together. Yeah, with that little information about it, it could be a missing link ... like other very incomplete fossils, like "Homo habilis."

27:10 Textbook authors being ignorant of researchers in their subject, in this case ACE inferior to AiG or CMI, is not unheard of. History textbooks will misrepresent the Middle Ages in ways University Historians would never dream of.

32:02 resuming your point : a false prophet would have an easier time infiltrating the small systems than the huge and global one ...
a) not what we are told about the end times - disinformation (and on at least some topics very deliberate) will one day be global (Apocalypse 13 - 19, or even start in chapter 11)
b) you are forgetting how small niche "science" was when it was infiltrated by Evolutionism and even smaller when so by Heliocentrism.

You are forgetting that science in the US in the time of the philanthropist Carnegie could come to depend in some ways on Carnegie, and that Carnegie was an Evolutionist.

Reminder of her own bias:

And Scaramanga's onesidedness:

No comments: