Before "giving you the link" in a non-linking way, here's whiff of sanity:
It turns out Bonhoeffer was not the only remarkable person in his family. Karl and Paula Bonhoeffer—Bonhoeffer’s parents—brought eight children into the world in the span of a decade. Dietrich was born on February 4, 1906, minutes before his twin sister, Sabine. He was the family’s fourth son and sixth child.
Many of his siblings would go on to do remarkable things, but one of the first things that jumped out at me in the book is the powerful character of Bonhoeffer’s mother, whom one cousin called “the soul and spirit of the house.” A devout woman, she had a deep-seated (and impressive) distrust of the German public school system, refusing to allow her children to attend them at a young age.
Credits to The Take (by Jon Miltimore)
Now, back to the specific evolutionist.
Not Linking
Visit the URL at your own risk, with the effort it takes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjIHv2zjQkg
Here are a few comments adressed at content in the video. Some may feel random unless you go to it.
0:46 In the year of the Flood, an erectus race man at Tautavel came to lie c. 80 km away from some dinos exhibited in Aude. I'm supposing the dinos in Aude are on average from around Aude.
Maybe I should write them and ask.
Anyway, wouldn't you try to keep 80 km away from nearest dino, if they were around and no longer all of them herbivores?
From your description:
"a discussion that feels like it belongs in the medieval period"
Yay! I love the scholastics.
Though, in all fairness, I think you are less rational and more preachy than they, stating this at 11:15. I'm not presuming the rest will be utterly different.
And at 38:24, it's very clear, it's bad preaching for modernity ....
4:17 How do the three named things relate in your view?
To some, Nazism is a subset of Fascism, which is a subset of Totalitarianism. I disagree.
I would say, Nazism is one place where Fascism and Totalitarianism overlap, both of them having parts of them outside that overlap.
Another place where they overlap would be Ripubblica di Salò - less Totalitarian and more Fascist than Nazism, but still, both are both.
And places where they don't overlap are Austria 33 - 38, which was not Totalitarian, or Russia 1917 to 1990 (at least) which wasn't Fascist.
Dictatorship is yet another category which need have nothing to do with the other.
A dictator is simply an opportunistic monarch. A monarch become such by opportunity.
5:14 "dismisses the science on every major subject"
Tell me again what Creationist was dismissing Ohm's law or any other part of electromagnetism?
Or who claimed that Hydrogen has three valencies and Nitrogen only one?
What young earth creationist is belittling the law of Biogenesis?
How many of them have attacked bacteriology?
Or are your "major subjects" simply such which you'd use to dismiss the Bible, like giving cats and dogs a common ancestor? Like dispersing flood sediments over billionennia?
5:23 "they treat the Bible as if it were a science textbook"
Not the least. We typically believe each of below trumps science textbooks:
- theology (including the Bible)
- metaphysics (which must be compatible with the Bible)
- history (of which most Bible chapters are samples, at least a good half).
- Magnus Kesselmark
- Ok, prove the bible! Prove that the hairy space monkey created the universe! Go ahead, we are waiting.
And while we are still at it, who wrote the bible before the humans were created, and how come the bible in places are made up of older scripts from other civilizations older than whatever the YEC lunatics believe? And where did the odd figures (years) come from? How could there be light before the Sun was created and how come idiots cannot grasp that the bible isn’t a science textbook, - it is the description of the base of religious belief, not a description how our Universe came to be almost 15 billions years ago.
I have listened to so many creationists that I have definitely lost my christian faith as they are lying and lying is a grave sin.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Magnus Kesselmark "I have listened to so many creationists that I have definitely lost my christian faith as they are lying and lying is a grave sin."
Especially lying about the faith - did you have any acceptance of YEC before this kind of confrontation, or did you apostasise over finding your own position wasn't historical Christianity?
"Ok, prove the bible!"
That's a bit like "prove history" - unlike "prove the Conquest of most of Gaul by Caesar" it is too unspecific.
But the most general answer for either "prove the bible" or "prover history" it is "testimony" - how the general principle applies to more specific matters is a more specific question.
"Prove that the hairy space monkey created the universe!"
No idea why you would call God "the hairy space monkey" but that the universe is created by a mind is among other things apparent from the fact that minds couldn't have emerged in a universe starting with only energy and matter.
"And while we are still at it, who wrote the bible before the humans were created,"
For the record, I think I already stated it. The Bible before the humans were created is most of chapter 1 and very little of chapter 2 (most of chapter 2 is a close up on the creation of man, especially as in relation to God and a two-sexed creature with marriage and procreation consciously taken on), that was revealed to Moses. And the Israelites had sufficient reason to trust him. Or the God who spoke to Him from the burning bush. The remainder is written after the creation of man.
"and how come the bible in places are made up of older scripts from other civilizations older than whatever the YEC lunatics believe?"
Could you be more specific? I think you got something a bit wrong, one is not a lunatic for not figuring out what it is you got wrong.
"And where did the odd figures (years) come from?"
Genealogies are pretty easy things to record.
"How could there be light before the Sun was created"
Because the God who created both still hasn't tied light exclusively to the sun.
"and how come idiots cannot grasp that the bible isn’t a science textbook,"
How come some nincompoops cannot grasp that science text books don't trump history? Including but not limited to the Bible.
"it is the description of the base of religious belief, not a description how our Universe came to be almost 15 billions years ago."
Religious beliefs are beliefs about the universe and us. If you believe the universe came to be 13.8 or even 15 billion years ago, and man evolved from non-human creatures without language, that's a religious belief, it's just not a very convincing description to those of us who don't share it.
- Lorna James
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl like how sad is it that someone replys to themselves
[With "replys" one can be pretty certain "Lorna James" is not a native English speaker. It is true that 3rd p. sg. present tense is "infinitive + s" in a sense, but what "replys" misses is, that the basic is "replie" while the spelling "reply" follows another rule "non final ie is spelled as y"]
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Lorna James Like it is possible that Magnus Kesselmark's comment became invisible?
6:18 "scientific answers"
earth, 4.5 billion years, based on assumption certain meteorites started out with all uranium and no lead, and now have half lead and half uranium, plus assuming 4.5 billion years are an exactly and accurately known halflife
universe 13.8 billion years, based on assumption that big bang happened, cosmic expansion exists and has measurable speed and we know how far out it has gone ...
Were you calling these assumptions science?
7:19 "and that Adam and Eve were real people"
Trent, Session V, on original sin, all three canons presume Adam was one real and individual man.
A Catholic who isn't creationist at least to this degree has ceased to be a Catholic - like the "Assumptionist" Sébastien Antoni. (Assumptionists according to the rule of the congregation are required to be Catholic or presumed to be Catholic).
Try to go through some possible scenarios of combining this with millions and billions of years and especially taking carbon dates of human skeleta at face value .... can you come up with one that's not offensive to pious ears? I can't. I think one of them was giving certain priests bad ideas. It made God a child mistreater (not that they would have stated it that way) of Adam and it was, through developmental psychology, all for his own good ...
I do not know of any case of child molesting or teen molesting priests in the fairly big wave who were not acting after this kind of compromise (Adam having non-human ancestry) was beginning to make way among Catholic clergy.
7:43 Why do you prefer "teach" over "indoctrinate" as to what you do?
Why do you prefer "indoctrinate" over "teach" as to what creationists do?
In fact, the word "indoctrinate" has a fairly innocuous primary meaning. It means to put learning into someone, learning being in Latin "doctrina" and into being in Latin "in" ...
I get it that you and the creationist teacher from the 2013 article are teaching or indoctrinating different things, different doctrines. I do not get why this necessitates a diversity of verbs.
11:53 I'll refer you to their (CMI's) answer on that topic:
https://creation.com/t-rex-cats-attack-defence
[previous comment was deleted]
13:20 Your answer admits that sharp teeth do not necessitate carnivorism, which is all that the creationist paradigm needs.
The appeal to the "evolutionist answer" is simply preachy ... it's not calculated to explain anything to a student who's creationist, just to dismiss him and sorry, but as you are a high school teacher, I feel sorry for your pupils.
And viewers who think I put no link to the creationist answer to your challenge.
No, I don't think there is a global cabal among scientists to lie about their own findings. Including in darwin-related subjects.
But I do see a kind of global cabal to hide the fact that we have made some findings on our side.
- Lorna James
- Yes little children are capable of making a good arguement
Which findings do you mean the ones you made up
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Lorna James For your first comment, I don't know what it even answers.
Dara may have been able to make good arguments when he was a little child, he seems to have lost some of that.
I meant the link to a page by creation dot com about claws and teeth in what's now carnivores.
I found it was deleted when I tried to add a comment below it.
15:05 To quote from the article you deleted the link to:
"So when it comes to cats, they were designed to run, climb, and jump, and therefore needed sharp claws to help with such activities (for instance climbing trees, digging, grooming). Clearly, they had these abilities pre-Fall, although they were not needed for survival, rather for His creatures’ fully functional existence, so that God would be glorified."
15:23 Isn't it heart-rending (I have no earphones, can just see you move the mouth) to contemplate creationists not agreeing with you and not listening to your preaching?
- Moon Woman Studios
- Links are always automatically deleted. I don't think Dara is even aware of your existence at this point, this video is a year old, YouTubers never check comments on a video after a day of its release. I think some humility would benefit you.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Moon Woman Studios Automatic deletion or deletion by choice, the choice was anyway Dara's (if that's his name) to not put automatic deletion of links in.
Obviously, the magic sceptic was able to post a link to his own patreon ... therefore the allegation can't be universally true.
- Moon Woman Studios
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl I don't think you know how YouTube works. Patreon is separate from YouTube.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Moon Woman Studios A very precise reason why it would be impossible for him to link to patreon in a youtube comment if what you just said were universally true.
[one can add, adding a link to wiki functioned well]
- Lorna James
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl yeah nice projection when you say atheist preah their pal
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Lorna James Does "preach" to you simply mean "make a theistic statement"?
To me the difference between "preach" and "teach" is, the latter is about facts, whether true or false, and the former is about exhortation.
Dara is exhorting to disdain for creationists all of the time, basically.
- Lorna James
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl the latter is about facts then good to see you accept evolution and abiogenesis as fact and to learn the difference between fiction and reality
And cats are not created to glorify god
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Lorna James What you qualify as facts and what you qualify as non-facts (here wrongly labelled as "fiction") depends on your world view.
I said "facts whether true and false" - abiogenesis is a false fact, but it's not a fiction, because it's not presented as entertainment, but as an explanation to be seriously entertained.
16:54 There is no allegation of the carnivore animals "living in sin" it is about their carnivorousness being a tare, a malformation, in a sinful world.
A person with trisomy 21 is not living in sin, but got certain disabilities due to Adam's sin (by the way, if the person with trisomy 21 is not baptised, he is living in sin, namely original sin - but it's still not a personal sin, and getting rid of the sin by baptism will not cure the trisomy).
19:24 With your claims for objectivity, it is ridiculous how you strawman the creationist view on carnivores ....
20:20 "sinfully use their canines"
Again .... if I were going to make strawman awards for 2023, you'd already be a candidate.
When it comes to literary criticism, one does not usually confide book reviews to people who are so allergical to a style to review a book from that style.
But somehow you feel you have to make a review of creationism, and strawmannish it is - hay ho!
21:38 The argument given previously to prove that animals were carnivorous from the start, against the creationist scenario.
11:48, (quoting from subtitles visible and previously so) "they are left with a problem : there are animals that have canines which you and I"
No, I don't think they are strawmanning that actual argument.
When you make it, you are momentarily oblivious to gorillas, pandas and so on ...
You are not in a position to speak of strawmen after that "sinfully use their canines" ...
22:05 You are revealing multiple layers of dishonest teaching (if that is what you meant by "indoctrination") in your class room by your use of straw men ....
on the theological position, and your setting up the evolutionary one as correct
23:03 "more than just a story-book, more than just a religious text"
The claim shocking you and being restated like that shows appalling ignorance on your part of what a religious text actually is ....
23:10 No, we very simply do not agree that "history of the universe" is a matter of science or that "History Book of the Universe" is a synonym for science text book.
We do not ascribe that lofty ambitions to normal and well done science. Would you describe a chemistry textbook or an electronics textbook as "History Book of the Universe"?
Obviously not. How come the one part of science that fascinates you most is the story telling some do?
23:38 Let's test the giraffe.
"Fully grown giraffes stand 4.3–5.7 m (14.1–18.7 ft) tall, with males taller than females"
What does the Bible say of the height of the Ark?
The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits: the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.
A cubit is 17 to 24 inches. Let's assume 17 inches, or 18, it is easier to count ...
30 * 18 / 12 = 45 feet high ... the lower value of a full grown giraffe would fit within one floor, out of three, even the higher value if floors were of unequal height and we do not even know that the giraffe couple on the Ark was fullgrown.
The "bathtub ark" may or may not be edifying as fun, the guys on CMI are "against it" as certainly as Groucho Marx, but is useless to realistically depict the ark.
Can I cite my source, or is a link automatically deleted?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giraffe
24:18 For the sauropod kind (brachio, diplo, bronto, whatever, one may no longer be a valid taxon), the answer is probably, as with the giraffe : we do not know if the sauropod couple on the ark was fullgrown.
24:40 Have you checked out actual dino sizes with palaeontologists before putting it down to rhetorical needs of creationism?
- Lorna James
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl creationism is utterly false
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Lorna James nice projection
- Lorna James
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl no it's not projection it's just the truth like seriously dude you legitimately believe in the story of Noah's ark
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Lorna James yes, that is legitimate
what is utterly false about that?
- dancingnature
- @hans We know Noah’s Flood is false because 1 the earth isn’t a molten ball and 2 there’s no genetic bottleneck in all animals 3 some dinosaurs took active care of their babies and 8 humans wouldn’t be able to substitute that level of care for more than a few. Anyone who has ever tried to save a helpless baby bird knows how hard that is to do.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @dancingnature 1) I'm answering the heat problem elsewhere.
2) Geneticists can detect relations, but less and less accurately at a distance. They can detect bottlenecks, but only by comparing to populations with less inbreeding.
3) A dino baby is not needed for most dino kinds, a dino "teen" will do.
24:59 Second strawman of the creationist position.
"of every species"
Heard of baraminology?
25:56 There is at least "a shred" of evidence.
For land vertabrates, we don't find multiple fossil layers on top of each other.
For Grand Canyon, for Paris Basin, for drill holes, you do, but that's marine biota.
26:48 I am also very convinced world war two happened, but we don't know it by reconstruction of the scientific type.
We know it by basically testimonial records from people who were there.
27:14 No, we weren't there when God created the universe.
But God was and could tell Moses on Mount Sinai.
Angels were and could show it to Moses on Mount Sinai.
For Flood, and Exodus - no we weren't there, but as for ww-ii - we know it by basically testimonial records from people who were there.
- Magnus Kesselmark
- Evidence?! Were you there on mt Sinai?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Magnus Kesselmark No, but Moses was.
And Moses was surrounded by people who knew he wasn't just another delirious guy, because they had recently walked over the bottom of the Red Sea when he held out his staff.
And those people validated Moses' record of the Exodus, otherwise they wouldn't have believed him.
I think I already said: For Flood, and Exodus - no we weren't there, but as for ww-ii - we know it by basically testimonial records from people who were there.
- Magnus Kesselmark
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl And signed witness repåorts from these people?! Dion't see them anywhere. There should be references to them, at least in my Swedish bible ... but no! A nice story, but factual ... allow me to at least smile a little.
@Hans-Georg Lundahl You weren't there and no evidence ... maybe the bhelievers of this nonsense should stop spreading the nazi propaganda from the bible and shut the f*** up.
Many countries have a religious freedom, which for me means - FREEDOM FROM RELIGION.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Magnus Kesselmark It's propaganda against the Bible that is likely to please Mr. Rosenberg or Himmler.
Have you decided between a carreere as Sturmbannführer and one as Soviet Politruk? Or are you finding a place between them "lagom" for you?
@Magnus Kesselmark Signed witness reports is for forensic witness, or witness in casualty reports, not the way historic witness is transmitted.
Ha det så trefligt!
28:47 "we have all sorts of dating methods, that date things beyond human existence"
But they cannot be historically calibrated beyond human existence.
- Lorna James
- No they can and stop spamming comments
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Lorna James Did you note the words "historically calibrated"?
Historically means by history, and history is recorded by human record.
What I said is a truism, even to a moderately sane evolutionist.
Why is Dara spamming his entire video full of garbage, if he objects to comments on each item as spam, because the comments get many?
And why is he hiding behind you?
- dancingnature
- Radiodating can be “ historically calibrated “ but geologists also look at how the layers form. Some form very slowly . Thick limestone layers can show unicellular organisms evolving over time . Creationists are just deliberately ignorant of actual science
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @dancingnature Some forming very slowly is untestable. We can't make a two million year long test.
The fact that they could equally form very quickly is testable, and has been tested.
As for Grand Canyon and similar showing different organisms at different heights, that could be when one layer of flood sediment from direction A was superseded by another layer of flood sediment from direction B.
No ignorance here, you are the ones ignorant of creationist solutions to your problem. And no, I am not saying your set of scientists are deliberately lying about what they think that they find, but some of them and even more science communicators (science journalists, science teachers in high school) very much are hiding what we can hold up in answer.
@dancingnature By the way, radio carbon dating can certainly be historically calibrated, and I am giving it an alternative calibration based on Biblical history, divergence some 3000 or 3000 + years ago.
29:49 If someone's manipulated beyond belief to believe in things that are just asinine, it's your fan base.
34:30 or little before.
"to indoctrinate pupils in a particular world view"
So, what are you doing when you indoctrinate yours in the Evolutionist one?
- Lorna James
- Umm buddy whose trying to teach little children that the earth is 6000 years old and that dinosaurs live with humans together
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Lorna James yeah, who'se trying to teach little children that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and we only got a chance to evolve because dinosaurs were doomed.
- Lorna James
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl umm people who are qualify and not delusion religious zealots
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Lorna James whoever is qualified, or not, in either case it is about a particular world view
plus, your vision of who's qualified and who's delusional is a product of your particular world view, which has obviously nastier parts than just Evolutionism.
- Lorna James
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl so you don't see it when you push your delusional worldview on people that the earth and the universe are 6000 years old and that a talking snake was responsible for the downfall of mankind and also let me get this out of the way evolution is not a worldview it's a scientific theory that explains the orgins of species you can't from a worldview from that like you people are demonstrable wrong and also my veiw of who is qualified and is not qualified had nothing to do with my worldview but if it's your worldview I could see how that works
@Hans-Georg Lundahl and also evolutionism is not a word please stop saying it you sound retarded saying it
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Lorna James "so you don't see it when you push your delusional worldview"
W a i t:
1) you are gliding from "particular worldview" which was Dara's expression, to "delusional worldview" which is something else
2) I'm not the one saying teachers should not teach particular worldviews. They usually SHOULD teach the particular worldview of the parents of their pupils.
Dara's the one who's saying "particular worldviews" should not be taught. I am the one calling this out as hypocrisy. Because 4.5 billion years is not a generally accepted fact, as in uncontested fact, like 2 + 2 = 4, no culture present or past known to have dissented, it is very much a particular worldview.
"on people that the earth and the universe are 6000 years old and that a talking snake was responsible for the downfall of mankind and also let me get this out of the way evolution is not a worldview it's a scientific theory"
There are scientific theories that are very marginal to worldviews. But the fact of sth being a scientific theory does not preclude it being a worldview.
"that explains the orgins of species you can't from a worldview from that like you people are demonstrable wrong"
Is this supposed to be English or have you used google translate? If the latter, I'd like to see the alternative translations for worldview in your language.
Either way "demonstrably wrong" comes from your getting a particular worldview taught you in class.
"and also my veiw of who is qualified and is not qualified had nothing to do with my worldview"
Oh please! You have a worldview in which it is up to science to explain the world, in which it is up to majority of scientists in each discipline to make their contribution for that discipline, in which significant debate happens via Nature Magazine or National Geographic at worst, and in which competence is to be on board with all of this.
The only and I mean really only rationale you could possibly have for calling Creationists "incompetent" is that they have another world view.
You also have a worldview in which all of this somehow doesn't count as "a worldview" and in which schools are to be run by the state and curricula be made strictly for all future citizen's on the sole basis of scientific or other academic (in that order) competence. That worldview, by the way, is called Communism.
"but if it's your worldview I could see how that works"
Nice try to sound understanding .... nice try. I don't need that, you're the one who needs subterfuges.
"and also evolutionism is not a word"
It is now. Even of OED online hasn't got it, it's because they are behind the latest news from the debate.
"please stop saying it you sound retarded saying it"
Gaslighting is even on OED, the list of new words for 2004.
- Tim Smith
- I think you misunderstand what science is. Science is observing, theorising, and then trying your hardest to break your theory before someone else does. It works, it's given us everything you take for granted from the ball point pen to the jumbo jet and everything in between and beyond. If you dismiss evolution then you must also dismiss your car, your computer, your house! They are all here because of science and if you believe that science falls down on one thing, be it radio carbon dating or DNA sequencing, then ALL of science falls down with it - because it is all derived in the same way. Observe, theorise, try to break it! It's is so simple, fundamental and unquestionable that I challenge you to find fault with it. What have creationists got? A dusty old book written by men who clearly had no special knowledge or insight that wouldn't be expected of men from between around 4000 to 2000 years ago. The bible doesn't claim to be the word of god and it clearly isn't. If you want evidence that there is no Christian god, I give you exhibit A, the bible!
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Tim Smith It's somewhat annoying that, when I respond to each argument as if it were an argument, some people dismiss everything I actually said except one main point, and try to hold a speech against it, as if they were first to argue with actual arguments. Tim Smith, feel pointed at.
"I think you misunderstand what science is."
Na.
"Science is observing, theorising,"
Correct so far.
"and then trying your hardest to break your theory before someone else does."
Evolutionists are extremely lazy on that part.
"It works, it's given us everything you take for granted from the ball point pen to the jumbo jet and everything in between and beyond."
Astro-sciences work when it comes to calculating the length of the year, ergo horoscopes work?
It's a very fair parallel.
Evolution is just even less testable than horoscopes, and Dawkins doesn't get to take credit for the ball point pen.
John J. Loud was a lawyer, not a scientist.
László Bíró was a journalist, not a scientist.
Marcel Louis Michel Antoine Bich, baron Bich was son of an ingeneer and himself a businessmen, not a scientist.
"If you dismiss evolution then you must also dismiss your car, your computer, your house!"
If you dismiss your horoscope, you must also dismiss your watch and your calendar.
"They are all here because of science"
Na. More like because of manufacture, improved by marginal knowledge of sciences - these not involving evolution.
Just as the parts of astro-sciences that are useful for calendars and clocks don't involve reading your character from your horoscope or tomorrows news from today's horoscope.
"and if you believe that science falls down on one thing, be it radio carbon dating or DNA sequencing, then ALL of science falls down with it - because it is all derived in the same way."
Except it isn't.
DNA sequencing as far as I am concerned doesn't directly fail. It sometimes fails to correctly project pedigrees, but it doesn't fail to sequence the DNA.
Radiocarbon fails to something, namely take into account an initial carbon built up, the main part of which was from the Flood to the Fall of Troy, from 1.625 to 100 pmC in 17 - 1800 years.
"Observe, theorise, try to break it!"
It's at least as rational to try to break the other's theory and him trying to break yours.
"It's is so simple, fundamental and unquestionable that I challenge you to find fault with it."
Well, the fault with trying to break the own theory is that some get very much slack from colleagues when being lazy on that part, while others get no slack at all while being very diligent. Not even credit for their diligence in fact.
But as a creationist, I have actually tried to break my own theory and been obliged to modify it. My initial values were 3 - 4 pmC at Flood, reaching 100 pmC at Nebuchadnezzar's taking of Jerusalem. That doesn't work, for more than one reason.
"What have creationists got? A dusty old book written by men who clearly had no special knowledge or insight"
... and who were somehow preserved from inserting any error that can be detected beyond reasonable doubt by men who do have it. I put that preservation down to God.
"that wouldn't be expected of men from between around 4000 to 2000 years ago."
That's uneven between the two and even uneven at one at least of the dates.
Some of the people 2000 years ago, very many of those 4000 years ago, believed that earth was a flat disc. When Oden came to Uppsala, he taught his dupes that the tree Yggdrasil had three platforms. Smallest, uppermost, Asgard, inhabited by gods and heros of war and love. Middle, Midgard, inhabited by men. Lowest divided into Hel in the shadow of Midgard, and into Utgard, extending beyond the rim of Midgard, where sun shines some on giants who live there. And he probably came around in the time of Caesar or sth.
If there was no special protection, and given that Israelites were culturally close to flat earth Egyptians and flat earth Babylonians, how come the Bible contains no flat earth statement?
"The bible doesn't claim to be the word of god and it clearly isn't. If you want evidence that there is no Christian god, I give you exhibit A, the bible!"
The Bible is claimed to be God's word by the Church. If you want evidence there is the Christian God, I give you exhibits E as Ecclesia and B as Biblia.
- Tim Smith
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl I was only trying to address one point. You asked why we are against indoctrinating children with creationism but are ok with indoctrinating them with science. I was attempting (and apparently failing) to explain why I don't believe they are the same. Science is arrived at through extreme rigour (despite your protestations that it isn't, and can even be lazily accepted without due process you think. I re-iterate that you don't understand science!). Religion is myth and superstition with no basis in fact.
I will just ask you to consider your statement that you believe evolutionary scientists have been lazy and just accepted Darwins research. Do you really believe that? It is an absurd position to hold and really does show that you don't understand. How do you think Darwins theories became accepted? Do you imagine his fellow biologists sitting in a club somewhere and perusing his book. One of them says, 'I like this, shall we call it the new consensus and retire for lunch?'
I would suggest you read up on his struggle to get it accepted by the scientific establishment of the time, his religious family and friends, and the church in general (Darwin was religious in case you hadn't realised). Gradually, everyone (the church included (except, apparently, a few bible literalist)) saw that his research and results were sound and explained all of the observations better that any previous theory and it became the mainstream consensus. If you think that all of Darwins contemporaries and every biologist since have been lazily 'just going along with it' then you are deluded. Since Darwin (and Wallace who came to the same conclusions independently), there have been thousands of would be Darwins who have spent entire careers trying to make their mark on the discipline. Do you honestly think that every man Jack (and Jill) of them have been too lazy to point out any flaws in the theory and make their name? No, of course not. If there were any flaws in Evolutionary theory, they would have been pounced on by the next guy. This is what I meant by step three, try to destroy your theory before someone else does. If you haven't done a good job and haven't checked and double checked before you publish, you open yourself up to embarrassment and ridicule.
If you absorb this and realise how silly the notion of the lazy scientist is, then perhaps you are on the way to understanding science.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Tim Smith "You asked why we are against indoctrinating children with creationism but are ok with indoctrinating them with science"
My actual words were not about science, but about the Evolutionist world view.
I think I have made it clear why they are not the same.
"I will just ask you to consider your statement that you believe evolutionary scientists have been lazy and just accepted Darwins research."
On some issues, like evolution of the eye, yes.
But that was not even my statement. None of them is remotely diligent in trying to destroy their own research from a creationist standpoint.
"Do you honestly think that every man Jack (and Jill) of them have been too lazy to point out any flaws in the theory and make their name?"
Not what I said. They have had plenty of time to point out minor flaws, and do their own research superseding Darwin's. They may even have some moderate diligence in trying to see how their own research could be destroyed from rival Neo-Darwinist or other Evolutionist standpoints. But they are very lazy in trying to find out the flaws a creationist would point out.
"If there were any flaws in Evolutionary theory, they would have been pounced on by the next guy."
They are pounced on by the next Creationist guy and the next Creationist guy is overlooked as presumed to be "biassed by his religion" - which is exactly what the Evolutionist is too. PLUS the Evolutionist is less aware of the opponent's arguments.
@Tim Smith Two points I missed.
How Darwin got accepted back then is not exclusively by being the best scientist, because the scientific community back then (or a relevant part of it) was living in a society very hostile to the faith. Already Lyell was a Broad Church Anglican, meaning he was more than willing to sacrifice the Bible to Enlightenment. But how his main point is accepted since then is another matter. You get drilled in what opposition Darwin had to face, but you use that as a smokescreen to hide from yourselves and the public the creationist opposition you are facing. Which is what I was talking about.
And what you get taught about religion and about the Church in Darwin's day (which in Anglican and Presbyterian communities was already apostasising from remnants of Christianity) also contributes to shield you from the debate.
And a third point, which I didn't miss, but which you missed that I didn't miss, science is about investigating Ohm's law, not about presuming mutations would somehow add up to new genes with new functions, or that gradual changes in monkey communications could add up to the totally different structure called human language. I never said children shouldn't be taught science. But that is not a world view. Evolutionism is.
34:49 If the NS party is legal in the US, it stands to reason they would have the right to have a private school.
In many parts of Europe the problem is solved - if you like to put it that way - insofar as NS parties are illegal and therefore private NS schools would be as illegal as Fagin's academy in a Dickens novel.
Now, in the US, unlike the former Soviet Union, it is legal for an adult to state disbelief in millions and billions of years .... meaning it should also be legal to teach it to children.
35:36 To knowlingly teach children non-truths is not moral.
But we have different views on what are truths on such matters, right?
Let me ask a question back - is it moral to deny one set of opinions to do their best according to their lights to teach children truths?
While condoning the other set of opinions? Based exclusively on "is it true" - I am aware my Church has excluded certain teachings for being not just false but also leading to Hell.
Would you speak of child abuse only in school or would you pry into people's homes also?
Because, some Commie minded people over here are doing so. It is essentially a kind of slave hunt, and one that has helped in more ways than one, to ruin my life since 40 years back, when I was 14. The one supposed to be "protected" from abuse or neglect or whatever ... abuse is what I got instead of homeschooling at my mother's hand.
36:02 Your suggestion is tantamount to a form of slave hunt.
36:16 No one has failed in life by being creationist, as far as I know.
LOTS have failed by being creationist in environments that you make toxic to us.
36:23 If you were taught by a teacher that two plus two equal five, you'd quickly find out your teacher can be wrong.
Because you'd figure out two plus two equal four.
So no, the "analogy" is useless.
36:44 "cooperate with human beings and carry out your duties as a worker in whatever business"
Has it occurred to you that in a business, it is useful to be able to count?
For precisely the business as business?
In most businesses it is useless for the business to have an opinion about origins. But in some, it's as useful to be creationist on the Ark encounter as it is useful to be Evolutionist to teach at your school.
37:02 And believing evolution is not integral to functioning correctly.
37:23 The precise reason why certain Jesuit educators called certain educational moves "indoctrinatio" is, there is a difference between training a skill and transmitting a doctrine.
You tell children numbers begin with "one" and continue upward? That's a doctrine.
You tell children numbers are on a line extending both above and below zero? That's a doctrine.
You teach them to do sums correctly? That's transmitting a skill.
You teach them to read the Bible for answers? That's a doctrine.
You teach them to read Nature for answers? That's a doctrine.
You teach them to read? That's transmitting a skill.
The transmission of doctrines is in fact inevitable, at least as an extra- or paracurricular result of being at school.
One might as well do it consciously and with conscious for instance concerns about equality. Like between a creationist and an evolutionist parent.
But it is not indispensable in the sense of all children needing to learn the right doctrine from start to have any kind of decent life, especially in a secular view of decent.
You are comparing raisins to oranges.
38:12 Oh, you are doing this whole thing as a stunt for Pfizer .... nice to know ....
And for medicine and psychiatry remaining superpowers in society ... nice to know ....
In other words, you are comparing not taking a jab to not knowing to do math ....
No comments:
Post a Comment