Another Video with Scarlett

Misunderstanding Matt Slick on Purpose? · Another Video with Scarlett (excursus: Continuing with Bill Garthright) · And YET Another Video with Scarlett

Obnoxious and Tedious Questions for Atheists
Scarlett, 7 Nov. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLdek_y_TsA

1:47 I can mention me seeing Matt Slick debating online, orally - it is not appetising ... have you tried making blog posts to answer the questions?

4:14 I think most of what you state about debates is about real time oral ones.

4:45 you can have source material cited in written debates - I don't cite automatically for every statement, but am willing to provide for statements challenged on that account

5:16 I think you are somewhat disingenious.
Science, nothing to do with Atheism? Atheism qua Atheism is "the negative answer to one question" - right? But Atheists do have an observed tendency to act as a group, which requires positive beliefs, this typically is Science (and elevating it to the ultimate test of truth, that is to a religion).

7:53 "We should live our lives believing in things for which there is evidence, not starting with beliefs until we prove them wrong ..."

Is this the case with all beliefs?

For instance, someone considered the belief that Coelocanths survived as evidenced by fishermen off South Africa finding one.

They saw it, touched it, perhaps poked further to see and touch more.

I think this presupposes

• sight and touch are conveying truths one should believe
• objects do not change totally so that poking before further investigation would be "changing the topic" but for instance a fish they brought up remained the same fish, even if poked.

And I think these are two things that we presuppose, believe till proven wrong.

I'd go further - we believe each instance of them till it's proven wrong.

At some points we do question what we are really seeing, but that only happens if we have knowledge also obtained from senses that seems to trump this.

A magic trick or the flatness of the horizon we observe from ground level are things we are right to consider as illusions, but that is because they are proven wrong by something else. Not because there "is no evidence" we should normally believe our eyes.

Scarlett

I think you fundamentally misunderstand evidence. Senses can provide some evidence. But your senses can deceive you. So if you see something, you have a piece of evidence. Depending on what you see, that might be enough, but it might be that there is contradictory evidence. Evidence needs to be weighed.

But if you see something, you are not "believing something for which there is no evidence." You have evidence. You could still be wrong.

We can also gather evidence for things we cannot hear, see or feel through instruments that can detect things we can't.

But you don't start by saying "I believe in fairies. Just because. I have never seen or heard them, but I just believe. Prove me wrong."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Scarlett "but it might be that there is contradictory evidence."

My point is, the contradictory evidence is needed before I get sceptical about the evidence from the senses.

"We can also gather evidence for things we cannot hear, see or feel through instruments that can detect things we can't."

And by making conclusions from our hearing, seeing, feeling or reasoning.

"But you don't start by saying "I believe in fairies. Just because. I have never seen or heard them, but I just believe. Prove me wrong.""

Who would not be actually strawmanned by such a resumé of his position?

Scarlett

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Slick literally says he starts by believing in god

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Scarlett Yes.

But he doesn't say he uses this to get evidence full circle.

Believing in God is an excellent way of explaining the universe we live in - including the human universe - and doing that is an excellent opportunity to get the facts that prove God, because no other explanation remotely fits.

Btw, I am not speaking on behalf of all the positions of Slick, I was just the other day arguing against his view on justification.

Here the dialogue begins with someone else:

Nidemos

Matt Slick was an apologist I liked when I was young and easily swayed by whatever I needed to calm my doubts. Now, I find it insufferable.

Bill Garthright

I find that very admirable. I was raised Christian - nominally, at least - but I don't remember ever believing it. But those of you who did believe it, yet you were willing to change your very worldview when you found it lacking? That's impressive. Seriously. I have all sorts of admiration for people like you.

Mar

@Bill Garthright I was a western Godless and Souless like a Robot like you, but then I realized that it was stupid, as long there is a creation there must be a creator and have the idea that once I am death I will be nothing it doesn't not le me live well. What about you?

Bill Garthright

@Mar
as long there is a creation there must be a creator

Sure, I suppose. So, please demonstrate that the universe is a "creation," then? Do you have one piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself, that the universe is a "creation"? Just one?

That still wouldn't get you to your god, of course, but it would get you somewhere, at least. I mean, assuming you have anything but wishful-thinking backing that up (which I strongly doubt).

it doesn't not le me live well. What about you?

I live very well, enjoying the limited time I've got left and the people I care about. But that's not the point.

Again, that's not what matters to me when it comes to questions about reality. The truth matters to me. You're telling me that you really, really want your religious beliefs to be true. Yes, I understand that. But that's not an argument that they are true. That's just an argument for wishful-thinking.

Indeed, I believe that's called an "argument from consequences," which is a known logical fallacy. I know you want what you were probably taught to believe as a baby to be true. You probably wanted Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny to be real, too, didn't you? But that didn't make them real, no matter how much you wished really hard.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Nidemos on the topic of a question by Bill Garthright, as I was mainly (as to time spent) raised without direct statements of Christianity being true and with lots of statements of Evolution being true up to the age of nine or a few months earlier (when ma had a chance of raising me without interference from other family members, finally!) - what made you change your mind, and did Evolution have sth to do with it?

Bill Garthright

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
He didn't mention evolution, did he? Or are you just wondering if learning more science did have anything to do with his deconversion?

I'm always amazed when theists think that evolution has something to do with atheism. (No, I'm not saying that you're a theist, since I have no idea what you believe.) Evolution is science, not religion. Lots of Christians are rational enough and educated enough to accept evolution. Heck, there are plenty of biologists who are Christian.

Of course, I've heard some atheists comment about how that affected their conversion just because they belonged to one of those silly Christian sects which reject established biology (and geology, and lots of other science). And when they learned better,... well, that was a crack in the dogma they'd been taught from infancy.

But obviously, no atheist has to accept evolution. It would be foolish if they didn't accept the worldwide scientific consensus, but it doesn't affect not believing unsupported god claims - not in the slightest.

PS. I am a bit surprised that you were learning evolutionary biology before the age of nine! Wow! You must have been a prodigy. Were you in an accelerated grade school or something? Then again, maybe you live somewhere with stricter educational standards than I do! That's very possible. Still, that seems remarkably young.

The basic idea isn't that difficult, of course. But I know I had a problem with it in grade school - 5th grade, maybe? - because it seemed so unfair. I was a natural Lamarckian. Heh, heh. I was troubled by the idea that trying hard wouldn't change anything. If you weren't lucky enough to be born with advantageous genes, you couldn't pass them on to your descendants. (No, that had nothing to do with me being an atheist. As far as I can remember, I was already an atheist by then.)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Bill Garthright "He didn't mention evolution, did he?"

No. It was a wild guess on my part. Or perhaps not so wild.

"I'm always amazed when theists think that evolution has something to do with atheism."

So, not only can one be not atheist and still accepting evolution, but also one can be not evolution believing and still an atheist? That's what "evolution has nothing to do with atheism" rationally means.

"Evolution is science, not religion."

OK, and "science is not religion" and "science trumps religion" are two things you also need not subscribe to to be an atheist?

"Lots of Christians are rational enough and educated enough to accept evolution."

OK, and "accepting evolution is rationality" is not something you have to subscribe to as an atheist? How many atheists do you know who do not subscribe to it?

"because they belonged to one of those silly Christian sects which reject established biology (and geology, and lots of other science)."

I actually rejected what you call "established science" without adhering specifically to one of these "silly sects" - my mother was a Church hopper.

"And when they learned better,..."

To me, discarding evolution was learning better.

"that was a crack in the dogma they'd been taught from infancy."

Evolution was what I had most often been taught from infancy.

"But obviously, no atheist has to accept evolution."

On the definition "atheism is the negative answer to one particular question" right ... but there is such a thing as an atheist community.

"It would be foolish if they didn't accept the worldwide scientific consensus,"

We Catholics have a history of thinking it folly (and in some cases stated as individuals being foolish) to not accept the worldwide and total consensus of bishops.

So, you are showing scientists replacing bishops. To me that marks you as a religion.

"but it doesn't affect not believing unsupported god claims - not in the slightest."

What if evolution belief undermines otherwise good support for "god claims"?

"PS. I am a bit surprised that you were learning evolutionary biology before the age of nine!"

I didn't claim I was learning evolutionary biology. I do claim I was buying this narrative:

• life began with abiogenesis
• mutations led to multicellular life
• to vertebrate life, first cartagil.. whatever, like sharks, then with real bone tissue
• and that they led to some of the fish surviving in swamps, for short but longer and longer periods of breathing air
• which, by mutations, turned into amphibians
• which, by mutations, turned into reptiles
• some of which, by mutations, turned into non-reptilian groups birds and mammals
• of which the latter group, by mutations, gave rise to primates with bigger relative brain size
• some of which in the past gave rise to australopithecus, homo erectus, homo heidelbergensis, neanderthals and cro-magnon, which are we;
• I also bought the narrative of neanderthals speaking less well than Tarzan and only Homo Sapiens reaching the necessary language capacity to use coherent language.

I didn't get this into depth of what the biology involved, my ma as a med student knew far more of biology than I - and she was the creationist. In a mainly evolution believing family.

"But I know I had a problem with it in grade school - 5th grade, maybe? - because it seemed so unfair. I was a natural Lamarckian."

That's the part of the biology. I had no real distinction between Lamarckian or Darwinian. I did however believe the narrative.

Bill Garthright

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
So, not only can one be not atheist and still accepting evolution, but also one can be not evolution believing and still an atheist?

Yes, exactly.

OK, and "science is not religion" and "science trumps religion" are two things you also need not subscribe to to be an atheist?

To be an atheist, all you need is to not believe in a god or gods. That's it. You can believe anything else - literally anything else - and still be an atheist as long as you don't believe in a god or gods. It's a very narrow label.

What if evolution belief undermines otherwise good support for "god claims"?

What if monkeys fly out of your butt? Then you'd have butt monkeys, of course. But it's not something anyone should expect. So, when monkeys fly out of your butt, then I'll take it seriously.

Get my point? If you've actually got good evidence backing up "god claims," then how about an example? Just one, please. Just one piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself.

Otherwise, it's kind of like butt monkeys, isn't it? Why even bother to speculate?

life began with abiogenesis

Wow, I'm still impressed! Only eight years old, and you were already learning about abiogenesis? I wouldn't even have know what the word meant when I was in grade school!

Of course, abiogenesis isn't part of evolution. But still, that's impressive. So, what then? Did you go on to get your PhD in biology? Where? What kind of education did you get in biology after you were eight or nine years old?

she was the creationist

I suppose she was raised Christian, too? I'm not sure why a med student would be an expert in evolutionary biology, but it's not at all surprising that someone taught to believe in Christianity as a child would continue believing it as an adult.

Indeed, that's pretty much the standard pattern of religious belief worldwide. There's a reason why 83% of Italians are Christian, while 90% of Egyptians are Muslim and 80% of Indians are Hindu.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Bill Garthright " You can believe anything else - literally anything else - and still be an atheist as long as you don't believe in a god or gods."

You seem to define Atheist very tactically, so as to avoid acknowledging there is an Atheist Community which is in fact Evolutionist.

"But it's not something anyone should expect."

Speak for yourself. It's not something you would expect, but it is pretty heavily something I would expect.

"Just one, please."

I was actually inviting Nidemos to give his example of what changed for him when ... whatever happened to him.

"Only eight years old, and you were already learning about abiogenesis? I wouldn't even have know what the word meant when I was in grade school!"

I didn't know the word. I did get a description of it.

"Did you go on to get your PhD in biology?"

You are still basically pretending that access to the Evolution Narrative depends on advanced studies in biology. It doesn't. It's handed out to children. There are books about dinosaurs that are read to 3 year olds.

I don't pretend I knew much on how abiogenesis was assumed to work (and I didn't know the word either), I am just saying this is the narrative I heard : "life is molecules and once upon a time the right environment had the right molecules come together" - that very much is part of the popular Evolution Narrative, even if it is not part of the department Evolutionary Biology.

"What kind of education did you get in biology after you were eight or nine years old?"

Nothing very advanced, but as ma was involved in medicine, I did get an overview over Mendel's laws, and I did get to look in a borrowed book where random input in certain processes leading to regular results was presented as one solution on how order came into DNA.

"I suppose she was raised Christian, too?"

Not by her parents. She was pretty actively chosing this granny and that uncle over her parents when it came to her position. And her granny and uncle weren't around when I was small, her evolution believing parents were.

"I'm not sure why a med student would be an expert in evolutionary biology,"

I am sure why a med student would know quite a lot of biology. And I am sure why I know that knowing biology is not an obstacle to disbelieving evolution.

@Bill Garthright Revisiting this one:

"But it's not something anyone should expect."

I expect two kinds of basic ways to apostasy involving evolution.

1) you are raised a fundy, and you learn of evolution only by its adherents, or you learn new arguments for it that your fundy parents hadn't prepared you for;
2) you are raised an evolution believing semi-Christian, and are shocked to find the fundy positions YEC and Geocentrism actually are historic Christianity.

As Nidemos was a Matt Slick fan, the former is what I would expect.

There is a third one, but it's less basic.

You learn good arguments against evolution, and then when you get up in certain societies at high school or college, you get ashamed of them, you face a ridicule you hadn't counted on.

Bill Garthright

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
there is an Atheist Community which is in fact Evolutionist.

As far as I can tell, atheists tend to accept modern biological science, yes. We also tend to accept a round Earth, the heliocentric model of our solar system, the theory of gravity, and the germ theory of disease. But none of those have anything to do with atheism. It's just a matter of accepting reality as modern science has discovered it to be, that's all.

You don't have to accept science in order to not believe in gods, just like you don't have to accept science in order to not believe in magic leprechauns. None of that is required in order to be an atheist. It's just that atheists don't have a religious reason to reject established science, that's all. We don't have a motive to reject reality, like you do.

It's handed out to children. There are books about dinosaurs that are read to 3 year olds.

That's right. Why not? We also teach children that the Earth is round. We teach children that the Earth revolves around the Sun, even though it looks like we're standing still and the Sun is moving across the sky. We teach children about gravity. We teach children about germs.

We teach children established science - not experimental science, not hypotheses, but firmly established science backed by decades, if not centuries, of research. There is no scientific dispute about the fact of evolution, that germs cause diseases, that the Earth revolves around the Sun, etc. So that's why we teach those things to children.

Of course, we don't teach the details, but just the absolute basics at the appropriate level for their age. And we don't teach cutting-edge science as fact. We don't teach speculative hypotheses. We just teach the general idea of well-established science, that's all. We just try to prepare them to understand the very basics of scientific discovery, just like we teach everything else to children.

I can't help it if your religious beliefs are so loony that you won't accept well-established science. And you can teach your own children any batshit crazy thing you want. But - in public schools in America, at least - we don't teach religious beliefs in science class.

After all, which would they teach? They couldn't just teach your creation myth, because you've got no more evidence behind your fairy tales than any other creation myth in the history of the world. Besides, that's not science, anyway.

I don't pretend I knew much on how abiogenesis was assumed to work

Yeah, that's obvious. You don't seem to know anything about this stuff. The fact is, abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, necessarily. I mean, you can believe that a god made the first life on Earth and still accept evolution. Evolution does not rule out magic! You can believe your beloved fairy tales and still accept reality to that extent. Lots of Christians do it.

knowing biology is not an obstacle to disbelieving evolution.

So what? Nothing seems to be an obstacle for faith-based people believing whatever the hell they want to be true. But there's a reason why evolution is the foundation of modern biology, the worldwide scientific consensus of the experts (and also backed by every other scientific discipline which has independent verification of tangential aspects of the theory). Nothing but wishful-thinking contradicts the fact of evolution.

In biology, there's no more dispute about the fact of evolution than there is about the approximately 4.6 billion year age of the Earth in geology, that germs cause diseases in medicine, or that the Earth revolves around the Sun in astronomy. These things are the worldwide scientific consensus for a reason. So of course we teach children about these things.

Meanwhile, even many of your fellow Christians think that creationists are full of shit. Of course, Christians can't even agree with each other about much of anything, let alone with the other faith-based people in the world, even when you're all supposedly following the same magic book supposedly provided to you by the same supposedly all-knowing deity, huh?

That's because you're faith-based, not evidence-based. Faith-based people often don't give a crap what the evidence indicates. (Just look at Trump supporters in America, still claiming a rigged election without one shred of evidence backing that up.) They just want to believe what they want to believe. That's why you guys can't even agree with each other.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
You learn good arguments against evolution

There are none. There are lies that creationists pass around, of course. Typically, they hear something from another creationist and just accept it without even bothering to check if it's true or where it came from. And, of course, they're not the experts in biology, anyway.

So of course you face ridicule from more scientific minded peers. You'd face the same ridicule if you believed that storks bring babies. You'd face the same ridicule if you believed that the Moon was made of green cheese. You'd face the same ridicule if you believed that the Earth was only 6,000 years old. So what?

Some beliefs are ridiculous. You guys often act like you're being persecuted when people laugh at the silly things you believe. Sorry, but stop believing silly things, then. Silly creationist nonsense is not required in order to be a theist.

You can be a Christian, you can believe that your god made everything, you can believe in magic - none of that is a problem. It's just when you tack on silly beliefs which we've long ago discovered are complete bullshit, that's when people laugh at you.

PS. The funniest thing about "you learn good arguments against evolution" is something you've never even considered, I suspect, but that's all I ever hear from creationists. It's always just a desperate attempt to attack evolution.

But why? Even if you could disprove evolution - which you can't, of course, but even if you could - that would do absolutely nothing to demonstrate that creationism is true. Even if you could disprove evolution - and win your Nobel Prize and become the most famous scientist in history, with your pick of prestigious positions - all that would get you is "I don't know."

In order to demonstrate that creationism is true, you need to provide evidence of that. But the loony tunes at the 'Discovery Institute' don't even try to do that. As far as I can tell, none of you do. You just keep attacking evolution - to absolutely no result in science, because you have nothing - seeming to think that's all you need.

If you can just disprove evolution, then your beloved magical explanation must be true, huh? But that's not how it works. If you have nothing but wishful-thinking backing up your own beliefs, then it doesn't matter if you disprove evolution. (Indeed, if you can disprove evolution, I urge you to do it. Every scientist would cheer you on, too, if you actually had something. Of course, they're going to be as skeptical as if you claimed you could prove that the Moon was made of green cheese.)

But it's not going to make creationism true - and it's not going to magically make your god real - no matter what you do, as long as you don't have good evidence backing up your actual beliefs. Even if someone else is wrong about something, that doesn't make you right. :)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Bill Garthright "There are lies that creationists pass around, of course."

Nice to know if an Atheist can disbelieve Evolution, he basically has to disbelieve Creationism.

"And, of course, they're not the experts in biology, anyway."

PZMyers is? I tried to discuss his view on how chromosome numbers multiply. He was left with no answer and blocked the comments under the post.

From further below:

"Every scientist would cheer you on, too, if you actually had something."

When was the last time P Z Myers posted on chromosome numbers? He does count as biologist and scientist, right?

Back to order.

"You'd face the same ridicule if you believed that the Earth was only 6,000 years old."

I'd say 7200 - 7500 years. Plus some decades.

"Some beliefs are ridiculous."

Some ages are not really meant to face ridicule. Especially not for singles. Like high school age.

"You guys often act like you're being persecuted when people laugh at the silly things you believe."

When you laugh at someone in high school, consistently, without giving him a break, that is persecution. Now that I'm 54, laugh if you want.

"Even if you could disprove evolution - which you can't, of course, but even if you could - that would do absolutely nothing to demonstrate that creationism is true."

I do certain things to disprove evolution - like refer to impossibility of new cell types arising by evolution, a process never observed in what some call micro-evolution, or to refer to impossibility of increase in regular chromosome numbers in mammals. I do other things to demonstrate creationism, like refer to certain genealogies, and incidentally also give my take on dating methods (carbon 14 is my speciality).

"If you can just disprove evolution, then your beloved magical explanation must be true, huh?"

A non-magical, as you would put it, explanation can make no sense of human language (and I don't mean language diversity, polygenesis or very many tens of thousands of years since monogenesis would be options, but human language as opposed to bestial communications.

"If you have nothing but wishful-thinking backing up your own beliefs, then it doesn't matter if you disprove evolution."

I see you have a big hole in your knowledge about what our arsenal really is. Your statement might very well reflect your own wishful thinking.

@Bill Garthright "As far as I can tell, atheists tend to accept modern biological science, yes. We also tend to accept a round Earth, the heliocentric model of our solar system, the theory of gravity, and the germ theory of disease."

Apart from round earth, what is not contestable?

Germ theory of disease? Actually, you have metabolic diseases, and you have infections from bigger parasites than germs.

"It's just a matter of accepting reality as modern science has discovered it to be, that's all."

What would be your fav. proof of Heliocentrism and of Evolution that doesn't appeal to Atheism, even if only "Methodological Atheism" within the "Scientific Method"?

"It's just that atheists don't have a religious reason to reject established science, that's all. We don't have a motive to reject reality, like you do."

Geocentrism is what we see. As far as I am concerned, you accept Heliocentrism and reject reality for the religious motive or Atheism.

"That's right. Why not?"

I wasn't arguing you shouldn't. My point was, that was what I grew up in, prior to a few months before nine.

"There is no scientific dispute about the fact of evolution, that germs cause diseases, that the Earth revolves around the Sun, etc."

The Atheist community takes the authority of the Scientific community, a bit like the Catholic community takes the authority of the College of Bishops.

"Of course, we don't teach the details, but just the absolute basics at the appropriate level for their age."

I think I had access to more details than you would think age appropriate. Probably sth to do with educational trends in the 70's.

"I can't help it if your religious beliefs are so loony that you won't accept well-established science."

I can't help if your scientific beliefs are so loony that you won't accept well-established Catholic theology.

"They couldn't just teach your creation myth, because you've got no more evidence behind your fairy tales than any other creation myth in the history of the world."

There maybe is, like genealogies between Adam and Noah, between Noah and Abraham are better than most of the rival accounts would provide. Or like the Ark of the Bible is better suited than other vessels described, to get over a world wide Flood during a year, with beasts of every kind.

"Besides, that's not science, anyway."

What if origins questions aren't science in the first place?

"You don't seem to know anything about this stuff. The fact is, abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, necessarily. I mean, you can believe that a god made the first life on Earth and still accept evolution."

However, practically nobody accepts abiogenesis without also accepting there came an evolution after it. Unless you count abiogenesis in myths like Gaia and Ouranos coming from chaos.

"But there's a reason why evolution is the foundation of modern biology,"

It's given as a framework, the explanation appealed to, but give me exactly one hard fact that couldn't do without the evolutionary narrative.

"the worldwide scientific consensus of the experts (and also backed by every other scientific discipline which has independent verification of tangential aspects of the theory)."

Definitely not by linguistics. Linguistics definitely does not back up primates communicating one way (we can observe in the zoo) and then human language developing from that.

"In biology, there's no more dispute about the fact of evolution than there is about the approximately 4.6 billion year age of the Earth in geology, that germs cause diseases in medicine, or that the Earth revolves around the Sun in astronomy."

You live in very closed communities, then. That germs cause some of the diseases, concomitant with other things affecting how much one can be harmed by germs, is the one shred of fact in your "four Gospels of science"

"These things are the worldwide scientific consensus for a reason."

Worldwide scientific consensus means nothing, unless you are willing to give actual reasons rather than appeal to the worldwide consensus. For evolution or against Biblical version of creationism, your pick (by the way, for chronology, I'm on the LXX crew, not the Masoretic one).

"even many of your fellow Christians think that creationists are full of shit."

I think every Catholic priest who molested a child since the forties up to the nineties would be on that crew. Plus every Catholic priest who now lives in a faithful relation with some other guy.

"Of course, Christians can't even agree with each other about much of anything, let alone with the other faith-based people in the world, even when you're all supposedly following the same magic book supposedly provided to you by the same supposedly all-knowing deity, huh?"

Apart from most Catholics recently falling into Evolution and many within those became child molestors (not relatively many, still a very small percentage, but many in total numbers), Catholics are, and were even before that, the group assembling c. half of all Christians (not sure about stats from 40's, could have been less than half, but still the largest).

"That's because you're faith-based, not evidence-based."

So you say because you are faithbased on what you believe about "the faithbased" ... the Atheist community is sufficiently religious to have its own demonisations of specific other religions.

Oh, by the way, there were some photos of stolen ballot boxes.

Bill Garthright

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nice to know if an Atheist can disbelieve Evolution, he basically has to disbelieve Creationism.

No, that's not true, either. Didn't you even bother to read what I said? Atheists don't believe in a god or gods (by definition). You can believe anything - literally anything - and still be an atheist as long as you don't believe in a god or gods.

So, obviously, if your idea of "Creationism" doesn't require a god, then an atheist could believe it. I don't know why any rational person would, but that's still possible. If an atheist does start to believe in a god, then they're no longer an atheist. That's all.

I could believe in a god if theists had something other than wishful-thinking backing up their beliefs. If I did, I'd no longer be an atheist, but that's nothing important. It's just a label.

PZMyers is?

Huh? What does PZ Myers have to do with any of this? But yes, he's a biologist. That doesn't mean he has to waste time with every troll on the internet, of course. But that's entirely up to him and has nothing to do with me.

I'd say 7200 - 7500 years.

I don't care. Why would I? You can believe that it's 5 minutes old, if you want. Either way, I don't know why I'd take you seriously.

Some ages are not really meant to face ridicule. Especially not for singles. Like high school age.

Hey, I feel for you, dude. Really. But good luck getting through high school if ridicule upsets you! Kids can be unkind.

However, it gets better. Seriously. Just hang in there. Get through high school and you'll never have to worry about it again - or even think about it. And college is much, much better. Good luck to you!

Now that I'm 54

I thought you were still in high school. What are you even talking about, then? Did you fill your kids' heads with complete nonsense, and now their peers are laughing at them? Hey, I'm sorry about that. But that's what happens in high school even when you haven't been taught idiocy by your parents.

Just tell them what I said above. High school isn't your life. And it does get better. Once you leave high school, none of that matters even slightly to you. But then, at your age, you should know that, huh? College was much better, right?

I do certain things to disprove evolution

Heh, heh. Right. I'm sure you do. And I'm sure your fellow creationists - who are just as ignorant as you are about biology - just lap that up, huh?

I do other things to demonstrate creationism, like refer to certain genealogies, and incidentally also give my take on dating methods (carbon 14 is my speciality).

Heh, heh. Right. Genealogies and dating methods? <LOL> OK, I'll bite. Let's hear one piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself, that creationism is true. And you'd better define "creationism" first, so I know exactly what you're claiming.

A non-magical, as you would put it, explanation can make no sense of human language (and I don't mean language diversity, polygenesis or very many tens of thousands of years since monogenesis would be options, but human language as opposed to bestial communications.

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. "Human language as opposed to bestial communications"? That's complete nonsense as far as I can tell. And "I don't know" doesn't mean "magic," anyway, so what difference does it make?

But that's OK. Just present one piece of good evidence backing up your creationist claims.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Apart from round earth, what is not contestable?

Why "apart" from round Earth? Why is that a step too far towards crazy town for you?

The Atheist community takes the authority of the Scientific community, a bit like the Catholic community takes the authority of the College of Bishops.

Heh, heh. Yeah, you said that before. It's hilarious, but you'd better say something worth my time if you expect me to waste any of my time on it. I mean, I've got lots of time, but there are still limits! <LOL>

There maybe is

You're going to have to do better than that! Again, how about one piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself, that your god is real, rather than just imaginary, that he created life on Earth, or... any of your religious claims. (Please specify which claim you're trying to demonstrate is true.)

However, practically nobody accepts abiogenesis without also accepting there came an evolution after it.

I have no idea what you're talking about. As I understand it, there is no worldwide scientific consensus when it comes to abiogenesis, not like there is for evolution. There are lots of scientists studying abiogenesis, and they have some plausible hypotheses about how life could have started naturally, but there simply isn't enough evidence to determine which, if any, of those hypotheses is actually true.

And science, unlike religion, requires evidence. We all - theist and atheist alike - agree that life exists now, but it didn't always exist, right? But no one knows exactly how. Theists typically imagine that it was magic from whatever god they were taught to believe as a child. Scientists studying this stuff suspect a natural explanation - and, again, they have a variety of more-or-less plausible ideas of how it could have happened - but so far, no one knows.

And we may never know, because that was billions of years ago, and early life wouldn't have fossilized. We might just be stuck with "I don't know." That's very different from evolution, which is backed by an abundance of evidence from many different fields of science. (That's why it's such a hard row to hoe for creationists.)

Linguistics definitely does not back up primates communicating one way (we can observe in the zoo) and then human language developing from that.

As far as I can tell, that's not true. It's not even slightly true, is it? Indeed, there is a whole field of biolinguistics studying this stuff. But I know nothing about linguistics - even less than I know about biology - so you'll have to argue with someone else about that. Let me know when the worldwide scientific consensus backs you up, though. <LOL>

I think every Catholic priest who molested a child since the forties up to the nineties

And every Baptist, too? But then, you religious nuts are always eager to start fighting each other again, just as soon as you deal with us pesky atheists, huh? :)

there were some photos of stolen ballot boxes.

<LOL> That's hilarious! You really are the gift that keeps on giving, aren't you? But I'm starting to lose interest in your vague claims. Is this what happened with PZ Myers? He has a lot less patience than I do, I think. Then again, he gets a lot more comments and email!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Bill Garthright "No, that's not true, either. Didn't you even bother to read what I said? Atheists"

This refers to your very tactical definition of Atheism that is totally independent of the actual Atheist community.

"That doesn't mean he has to waste time with every troll on the internet, of course."

I pointed out a weakness in his scenario. Is that trolling?

"Either way, I don't know why I'd take you seriously."

If you don't, why do you waste swathes of text on me?

"Hey, I feel for you, dude. Really. But good luck getting through high school if ridicule upsets you! Kids can be unkind."
"I thought you were still in high school. What are you even talking about, then?"

My 9th to 12th grade ruined in manners that I have not forgotten.

"Did you fill your kids' heads with complete nonsense, and now their peers are laughing at them?"

And when ridicule back then didn't help from their pov, others have gone to extremes well beyond ridicule. I'm unmarried and childless.

"College was much better, right?"

Repressive measures were not so much peer ridicule. But they weren't absent.

"And I'm sure your fellow creationists - who are just as ignorant as you are about biology - just lap that up, huh?"

Apart from certain atheist mythologies called "evolutionary biology" neither I nor they are ignorant of biology.

And for some reason, the Protestant Creationists I see some of have quite a lot of Jewish Gatekeeping (not necessarily Jewish, but like Jewish gatekeeping in style - preferring omertà over open condemnations) against my Catholic and Creationist material.

"Let's hear one piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself, that creationism is true."

Creationism here defined or rather further specified as young earth creationism with a timeline taken from Roman Martyrology for Dec. 25 specifying Christ as born in year so and so after event so and so (Creation, Flood, Birth of Abraham ...)

Genealogies are too boring to make up for fun.

Those in Genesis 5 and 11 tie Abraham to 3000 + years after creation of the first man. And in Genesis 12 or 13, he visits Egypt, in Genesis 14 he is contemporary to the evacuation of chalcolithic En-Geddi.

Most of human past (apart a few under lava, sorry, volcanic rock, which could have excessive argon from quick cooling of the lava in the flood) is carbon dated. I propose the levels have radically risen since the Flood. 1.628 pmC in 2957 BC (year of the Flood) to 100 pmC reached (with subsequent wobbles) by 1179 BC (fall of Troy).

""Human language as opposed to bestial communications"? That's complete nonsense as far as I can tell."

All human languages and no bestial communication systems (including dolphins and whales) have these characteristics:

• normal communication form in three levels, since level of phrase or sentence (giving complete sense) is subdivided into level of morphemes (you need one, can have more than one morpheme in a word, and a more than one morpheme can in some languages constitute a normal sentence), this second level of morphemes, each giving incomplete sense ("wolf" tells us "who or what" but not what the wolf is doing), is further subdivided into phonemes, each being devoid of sense, and only serving to contrast sense ("wolf" subdivides into four phonemes [w u L f] and each on its own means nothing)
• infinite productivity of phrases or sentences, through for instance infinite creativity in morphemes and infinite recursivity in subclauses
• morphemes have notional meaning that serve no practical end (in themselves or in most contexts) but answer to curiosity
• ability to communicate about the locally or temporally absent (past or future or elsewhere) as well as about the logically absent (negatives and hypotheticals).

This is a very clearcut opposition of communication systems.

"And "I don't know" doesn't mean "magic," anyway, so what difference does it make?"

I know that not does mean something else - and what you call "magic" is one clear option : God giving man language. Developing human language from bestial communications according to the theory of evolution very much isn't an option.

@Bill Garthright "Why is that a step too far towards crazy town for you?"

Because it's not about crazy town. And round earth is about history / geography, not just science.

"Again, how about one piece of good evidence"

Did in the other answer.

"As I understand it, there is no worldwide scientific consensus when it comes to abiogenesis, not like there is for evolution. There are lots of scientists studying abiogenesis, and they have some plausible hypotheses about how life could have started naturally, but there simply isn't enough evidence to determine which, if any, of those hypotheses is actually true."

But exactly all of them who think there is a solution on such lines are accepting evolution happened after that.

"And science, unlike religion, requires evidence. We all - theist and atheist alike - agree that life exists now, but it didn't always exist, right?"

Not exactly. We Theists say life always existed and exists in God. Biological life is just a finite participation of it, and on Creationist lines one that was deliberately created rather than just emanating.

And actually, you betrayed yourself as belonging to an Atheist community that doesn't correspond to your tactical definition of Atheism. Democritus, Epicure and Lucrece all believe in an eternal steady state universe, with Geocentrism functioning since masses outside Earth were in a kind of whirlpool dynamic.

"As far as I can tell, that's not true. It's not even slightly true, is it?"

What's not true about it?

"Indeed, there is a whole field of biolinguistics studying this stuff."

With as consistent failures of coming up with solutions as Abiogenesis.

"But I know nothing about linguistics - even less than I know about biology - so you'll have to argue with someone else about that."

Not knowing linguistics is typical of Evolution believers. A k a Atheists - or as semi-Christians syncretising with the main atheist belief.

"Let me know when the worldwide scientific consensus backs you up, though."

The "worldwide scientific consensus" on the matter is as fruitless as that on abiogenesis, and highly irrelevant to linguistics.

"And every Baptist, too?"

They have other issues with Christian Orthodoxy than Evolution belief, even when, correctly, they are Young Earth Creationists.

"Is this what happened with PZ Myers?"

Don't think so. My comments get disguised as to name and appear with "By 938MeV (not verified)" instead here:

pharyngula Basics: How can chromosome numbers change?
By pharyngula on April 21, 2008.
https://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/21/basics-how-can-chromosome-numb

When he locks the thread, many have brought the discussion beyond my last one.

Bill Garthright

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
My 9th to 12th grade ruined in manners that I have not forgotten.

Really? And you're 54? Man, you need to let it go. Perhaps you should try some counseling?

Repressive measures were not so much peer ridicule. But they weren't absent.

I don't know what you mean by "repressive measures," but more than 30 years later, you need to get over it, don't you think? Again, counseling might help.

quite a lot of Jewish Gatekeeping (not necessarily Jewish, but like Jewish gatekeeping in style

I have no idea what you're talking about, but note that any antisemitism will end my participation in this discussion immediately. I have no patience for bigotry.

Genealogies are too boring to make up for fun.

Huh? What are you talking about?

All human languages and no bestial communication systems (including dolphins and whales) have these characteristics

Even if that happens to be true (and I don't know enough about it to even guess about that), so what? Human beings have a greater capacity for language than other animals, yes. So what?

Developing human language from bestial communications according to the theory of evolution very much isn't an option.

Yes, it is. Indeed, it's the worldwide scientific consensus.

So, not even one piece of good evidence, then? Well, that's why I can't take this stuff seriously. After all, claims are easy. That's why every religion makes claims.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Again, how about one piece of good evidence"
Did in the other answer.

Where? Not that I saw.

We Theists say life always existed and exists in God.

So, your god is a biological being, then? He eats and shits, breathes, changes over time, grows, reproduces? It seems to me that you're just ignoring the characteristics of life in order to claim that life always existed.

you betrayed yourself as belonging to an Atheist community that doesn't correspond to your tactical definition of Atheism.

Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. Unfortunately, you haven't made any sense for awhile now, which makes it hard to hold a conversation with you.

Democritus, Epicure and Lucrece all believe in an eternal steady state universe, with Geocentrism functioning since masses outside Earth were in a kind of whirlpool dynamic.

And what does any of that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Not knowing linguistics is typical of Evolution believers.

Heh, heh. Well, unlike you, I don't pretend to know what I don't.

But anyway, why not skip the rest of this nonsense and just reply with one piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself, that any of your religious claims are actually true?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Bill Garthright "And you're 54? Man, you need to let it go."

If same ideologies continue to target me in other ways?

"Perhaps you should try some counseling?"

That's one of the targetting methods ...

"I don't know what you mean by "repressive measures," but more than 30 years later, you need to get over it, don't you think?"

Who says everything from your side just took [place] thirty years ago?

"Again, counseling might help."

Like you are doing it now. You want to perpetuate Evolutionist repression in schools against Creationist pupils, you want me to not tell how it hit me, and the perfect way is to stamp me as one needing counselling rather than a platform.

"but note that any antisemitism will end my participation in this discussion immediately."

What's your mileage for "antisemitism"? You are cavalier about a man claiming to have been the butt of persecution, but if he considers one specific group as if not the sole or numerically main perpetrators, at least typical in style for them, you get orrery about that.

"Huh? What are you talking about?"

I'm refuting the idea that genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 were made for fun reading, without regard for fact. Your remaining options are fraud (sth which needs a likely motive, fraudster and dupe, remember these are positive claims requiring positive evidence).

"Human beings have a greater capacity for language than other animals, yes. So what?"

It is not "greater" capacity, it is capacity for sth the other animals haven't.

You have two problems - one is to explain how the capacity arose (and remember, genes might be necessary, but aren't an explanation for us being interested in notions for notions' sake), how it became a prevalent feature and how it was useful before it was used for language. Every man is born with language capacity (very few victims of genetic disorders excepted), but in order to have language, any language, you need to start learning one before the age of two. No, I don't mean you can learn no languages after that. But you have to learn the first one first, and the only time to do that is before the age of two. This means someone with a mutation giving him language capacity which his parents hadn't still wouldn't learn a language to use that capacity for. So, you must explain how the capacity came to be exploited by actual language.

"Indeed, it's the worldwide scientific consensus."

That doesn't make it a valid option.

I suppose you don't consider Geocentrism a valid option (though you should), and on that view the world wide consensus of astronomers in Kepler's day against him would have been a proof against Heliocentrism.

"So, not even one piece of good evidence, then?"

Who says you are a competent judge?

"After all, claims are easy. That's why every religion makes claims."

So does yours - like about men evolving language while evolving from beasts without language.

"So, your god is a biological being, then? He eats and shits, breathes, changes over time, grows, reproduces? It seems to me that you're just ignoring the characteristics of life in order to claim that life always existed."

No, I am not ignoring them. I am saying life is not limited to biological life and biological life is just a finite participation in God's life.

By the way, He did all of that except reproduce physically, while walking from toddling in Bethlehem to staggering to Calvary, and beyond the grave too. But He was eternally alive before that happened.

"Again, I have no idea what you're talking about."

Tactic pretence. While some of the things you say are idiotic, they aren't as idiotic as to make me believe that you are an idiot incapable of English.

"And what does any of that have to do with the price of tea in China?"

You pretended Theists and Atheists are agreed life at some point began.

This ignores these very famous ancient Atheists. And this in turn stamps your Atheism as being of another community than theirs. Do you start seeing what I talk about now?

"Well, unlike you, I don't pretend to know what I don't."

With linguistics, I am not doing such a pretence. Even if you'd prefer to imagine it.

Excursus:
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Continuing with Bill Garthright
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2022/11/continuing-with-bill-garthright.html