Marxist Mask Off on Two Items (If Not More)

Some Seek Fault with the Theology of Prayer · Marxist Mask Off on Two Items (If Not More)

One of the Wildest Things I've Ever Heard a Creationist Say (And Why it Matters)
Creation Myths | 16.IV.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNqHHXa4uOo

Your view on us communicating better now is obviously moot.

But you have at least confirmed that the cultural shift exists.

If you match one sentence 1750 to one sentence 2025, you may see some gain in clarity and much gain in brevity. But if you translate one sentence 1750 and make sure to say all the same things, in your chronolect, you will pretty certainly find more sentences, less connection between them, more repetition, so, not just less clarity, but also less brevity.

I happen to agree with you it's not a loss in brain power. It could be a loss in average brain power of the average reader, simply because more are reading. It could be an effect of watching TV, as I heard in the mid 90's, from a colleague, when I was teaching, or it could be, my view, a lowering of standards of what you teach, in order to adapt to lack of interest in more and more compulsory students with less and less hope the subjects will be mostly relevant to their life after school. So, it's not a loss of total brain power, I agree, but it's not a gain in communication skills either.

11:13 Did I get you right?

Someone who believes God is constantly intervening is, according to you, ipso facto, not doing science?

St. Albert, a good optics and biology researcher, Nicolas Steno (I nearly said St. I believe he was a saint when Catholic missionary in the North), a good anatomist and founder of Geology and also a certain Mersenne, founder of acoustics, were not doing science?

I think YOU let the mask off here.

Namely, you are making science less of a method and more of a doctrine. You are making it a materialistic statement on metaphysics. In other words, from a Christian perspective, you have to be wrong to actually do what you call science.

11:57 "if there is ongoing divine intervention today, we can't possibly scientifically evaluate anything"

Did I hear you correctly? You said this sentence? It was not some stray memory from a very anonymous youtube channel just answering a comment of mine? It was you, active content creator "Creation Myths"?

I think I heard you correctly and only missed "in the world today" instead of my "today" ...

With such a simplistic attitude of dismissal, you are not very likely to understand your opponents, and you are on top of that highly biassed. It's not a conspiracy theory to state you just showed a bias that prevents you from straightforward evaluation of Creationism based on just evidence and logic. Marxist extra-rules of logic based on hyperbole like this, that doesn't qualify as logic and also isn't simply part of the evidence. It's bias, and the only conspiracy needed to explain your bias is a culture having a tendency to perpetuate itself.

On your own admission, you were not trained to read old books, and that means, you were cut off from the books that could have corrected you.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@NinjaMonkeyPrime

"Did I hear you correctly? You said this sentence?" It's amazing you lack the ability to understand how testing works so profoundly. If something supernatural is interfering, we can't evaluate anything because we cannot test the supernatural.

"With such a simplistic attitude of dismissal, you are not very likely to understand your opponents, and you are on top of that highly biassed" It isn't bias to state something established in science since the 17th century and accepted by even the honest creationists.

"It's not a conspiracy theory to state you just showed a bias that prevents you from straightforward evaluation of Creationism based on just evidence and logic" He's stating one of the basic assumptions in science that is accepted by everyone who understands how science works.

"Marxist extra-rules of logic based on hyperbole like this, that doesn't qualify as logic and also isn't simply part of the evidence" Please stop using words you don't understand as slurs.

"It's bias, and the only conspiracy needed to explain your bias is a culture having a tendency to perpetuate itself" It's how science works. Anyone who took a grade school class in science knows this. This is accepted by theists as well.

"On your own admission, you were not trained to read old books, and that means, you were cut off from the books that could have corrected you" This is gibberish. If scripture could be proven with testing we would not have all the different versions of religion. Faith isn't evidence and science cannot test the supernatural.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime "If something supernatural is interfering, we can't evaluate anything because we cannot test the supernatural."

False.

Doctors in Lourdes are testing actual healing and absence of natural explanations on a regular basis.

You can also test absence of "natural" (i e evolutionist or mechanistic) explanations for the hard problem of consciousness, objectivity of morals, origin of human language.

"It isn't bias to state something established in science since the 17th century"

Yes, it's anti-medieval bias, besides, you misrepresent what has actually been established in science since the 17th C.

"that is accepted by everyone who understands how science works."

Meaning Geneticist Nathaniel Jeanson doesn't? Come on, how did he earn his degrees!

Or is "how science works" just your dog whistle for your specific world view?

"Please stop using words you don't understand as slurs."

Are you looking into the mirror? It's a very apt response to you!

"It's how science works."

On some institutions.

"Anyone who took a grade school class in science knows this."

Grade school as in primary school?

Yes, in the former East Block.

"This is gibberish."

To an illiterate like you, no doubt ...

"If scripture could be proven with testing we would not have all the different versions of religion."

I wasn't referring to Scripture, I was referring to scholasticism ... and partly C. S. Lewis, Miracles.

Plus your implication is false. When passions are involved that push for disbelief, testing doesn't help. Whether rightly or wrongly, you say the exact same thing about Climate Sceptics.

"Faith isn't evidence and science cannot test the supernatural."

Faith and the Supernatural are not coextensive.

Faith involves at a minimum that God not just exists, but rewards those who seek Him. Philosophy can only test the former, He exists.

So, correct philosophy can test the supernatural, and a science methodology that a priori excludes it risks doing fake science.

Please be precise about this: since the 17th C. it's a convention that science ignores the supernatural, considering that (conventionally) the domain of philosophy and theology. It's not a basis that science excludes the supernatural. That's more like Bertrand Russell, who, whether you know it or not, didn't live in the 17th C.

hedgehog3180

@hedgehog3180

Do you not know what “supernatural” means?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ [hedgehog3180] Supernatural means divine, angelic or spiritual.

This being so, it means sth which regularly interacts with material and biological nature anyway.

I think this answers your question. AND what you meant by it.

12:00 "because anything could be manipulated"

Well, I'd certainly agree that planetary orbits could be manipulated by angels and daily rotation by God almighty, I personally think they are manipulated. Just as much as a pingpongball is manipulated by the players, so it doesn't continue until it reaches the goal of its ballistic trajectory.

But why would that stop you from scientific evaluation? You are obviously fine with lots of manipulated data, as long as your are doing the manipulation, it's known as arranged experiments.

12:32 You are very much preaching to the choir.

I think you are very wrong if you believe every geneticist except Creationists share your badly reasoned concern against any possibility of the supernatural. Yes, lots and lots have certainly gone through that kind of brainwashing, but not all.

Talking to people who don't share your extreme bias is not equivalent to preaching to the choir.

12:45 The statement "God intervenes" is clearly not something a Creationist hides.

It's not relevant on every subject, but the Creationist who thinks he has to hide it has no respect of mine.

And, by the way, I don't think "natural" selection exists. It's properly providential selection. Psalm 103. Verse 21. The young lions roaring after their prey, and seeking their meat from God.

Not "from circumstances" but "from God" ....

Nootman

@nootman4771

Does this mean you don't believe that there are substantial accumulated changes resulting from natural selection or that there literally is no such thing as differential reproductive success caused by varying fitness? Because the former is at least a coherent idea while the latter simply denies that any organism can be more or less successful at reproducing which is pretty clearly untrue.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@nootman4771 I'm saying success is determined ultimately by God's providence, not simply as a resultant of fitness.

God would often, but not always, priorise fitness.

hedgehog3180

@hglundahl Can you point to an example where God didn't prioritise fitness?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hedgehog3180 Probably ancestors of Goliath of Gath, for instance.

13:26 "if you're going to describe it to someone who's not already in the club, it's going to sound crazy"

More like, it's going to sound crazy to someone as deep as you in the Marxist club. In 1917 your specific bias didn't flourish sole on the field, it got boosted by ex-Orthodox Russia in the following decades, it got boosted by Carnegie back around then, it had been boosted a little earlier in Prussia, thanks to Kant and Feuderbach, leading up to Marx ... since then the Carnegie influence has coincided with the Soviet influence, into one culture of Materialism.

It also existed in Swedish and English schools when I was in high school. And some American ones. I spent one year on International Baccalaurate of Geneva, preparatory year.

Your bias is the one I have spent years to get socially away from, since I'm a Thomist.

13:35 You are very out of touch with Christian lingo if you take "influenced by demons" as literal demonic possession.

There is a clear difference between being influenced by a culture that worships the demon Apollo of Delphi and being an actual Pythia while possessed by that demon.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

"There is a clear difference between being influenced by a culture that worships the demon Apollo of Delphi and being an actual Pythia while possessed by that demon" LOL! I don't know why I'm shocked but it amazes me how arrogant and blind people like you can be. Do you not see the hypocrisy in your "no true Scotsman" fallacy? If Christian lingo were consistent there wouldn't be so many different flavors of it out there. Your interpretation is not the "true" interpretation.

hedgehog3180

Apollo is a demon??

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hedgehog3180 Well, certainly not a good angel.

And giving the calculating skill in ensnaring Laios and Oedipus or later on Croesus into self fulfilling prophecies, a bit like the witches of Macbeth, except those could be fictional, added after the actual story took place, I wouldn't say the Pythia just suffered unguided hallucinations either or deliriums or whatever. At least on occasion, some force guided her trances, and given the results, it did not come from God.

Also, St. John calls Apollon the king of the bottomless pit, since Apollyon is one of the names that Homer (in a non-Pythian context) gives Apollo. In other words, the same demon as Abaddon.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ [NinjaMonkeyPrime] I don't think there is a true Scotsman fallacy on my part, I think "Creation Myths" has seriously misunderstood what "influenced by demons" need imply.

Being possessed by Delphic or Cumean Apollo is literally being possessed by a demon.

Believing Apollo is our best available guide to the truth as being influenced by that demon in a much more indirect fashion, but it is still bad.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hedgehog3180 Take a look at Acts 16:16 too ... the more celebrated Pythias and Sibyls in Delphi or Cumae aren't different. My Latin assistant professor when reading Aeneid VI spoke of the description of the Sibyl of Cumae being exactly like believers but also exorcists see mediums in a voodoo seance.

13:40 No, we don't have to hide "these aspects" insofar as you got some of them right ....

13:55 For decades, including the one when Obama got voted into office, the nonsense YOU believe has been imposed on tons of people.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

"For decades, including the one when Obama got voted into office, the nonsense YOU believe has been imposed on tons of people" By nonsense would that be evolution and the age of the Earth?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime As obligatory teaching in public schools while disfavouring private schools and homeschooling, that's part of it.

But on top of that, pro-abortion, gay marriage, things Mr. "Creation Myths" clearly believes, since he's calling out Trump policies.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@hglundahl You seem to think that the government should have a role in private education and home schooling? You're really not coherent anymore.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ [NinjaMonkeyPrime] I'm sorry, I didn't say the US government was under Obama just staying out, I said it was disfavouring.

You know, more restrictive conditions and all that.

And yes, some privat education in the US is publically sponsored under certain conditions, and disfavouring would have included making those more rstrictive as well. I think if there is any lack of coherence, it's on your own side.

Or your actual coherence is a desparate search for incoherences with me ... not very coherent as a mode of debate, though.

14:13 Abortion statistics show a danger to actual people posed by YOUR beliefs.

"Abortion should be rare, legal and safe" (some said) ... it inherently isn't safe, and when it was legal, it didn't stay rare very long.

14:13 Abortion statistics ....

NinjaMonkeyPrime

All medical procedures aren't safe. Complication exist for every procedure. You're actually trying to make this about safety when it's all about what you find socially acceptable?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime I certainly find murder socially inacceptable.

I also think, for a baby to die through abortion isn't a complication, but an intended result.

It's also demographically suicidal, as nation after nation with pension problems is finding out, and Putin nearly lost to Navalny due to this, what a boon for Vlad that Covid 19 and the Special Operation came around ...

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@hglundahl And murder has nothing to do with genetics or evolution either. You're getting even more unhinged by trying to bring morality into a discussion about genetics.

It's pretty disgusting that in a discussion about genetics, you tried to twist it into his "beliefs". Do you think biology teachers are also pro gun control? How about same sex marriage? Do they also "believe" in discrimination?

This is borderline bigotry for zero reason except you're angry.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime You seem to have missed the video I'm answering ...?

The last five minutes are a political rant.

The video I commented on is simply NOT simply a science video, it's a full blown, many sided attack on Creationism and Creationists and I respond in kind.

Obviously there could be a biology teacher who is Atheist, Evolutionist and at the same time Anti-Abortion and National Rifle Association. But that guy is simply not the man who made the video.

OK, I may have exaggerated, it may have been just three minutes of a political rant, but still ...

"How about same sex marriage?"

Yeah, quantitively in itself less anti-natalist than abortion, but symbolically quite a lot more ...

In other words, a perfect recipe for depleting pension funds while augmenting the number of people dependent on them, because they have no children and most of them no fortune.

hedgehog3180

@hglundahl So do you want to abolish the death penalty?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hedgehog3180 Unlike abortion, the death penalty typically isn't meant to target absolutely innocent people.

Also, most peoples on death row have already had a chance to allow their genes to contribute to future people working and future people keeping an older generation company.

I don't want to abolish it at all costs or in all contexts, but it has been abused.

14:52 No, the "basic things" you describe as disproving Creationism are ignoring the Founder Effect.

But thanks for the admission, what you believe about the science doesn't actually matter ... you are all politics.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

You think he's ignoring a factor in population genetics, while talking about population genetics? That's like the climate denial argument that scientists never factor in the distance to the sun when projecting climate change. I'm guessing your other comments are going to be equally dishonest and childish.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@NinjaMonkeyPrime "while talking about population genetics?"

The founder effect and rapid outbreeding actually are factors that have to do with population genetics.

Sorry to burst your bubble about knowing that like everything else better than me, just because the guy I disagree with is an accredited expert.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@hglundahl You missed the point. You're trying to say that when discussing population genetics, he's ignoring a factor of population genetics, without any evidence or reason to make that claim. It's just like claiming climate change research doesn't factor in the distance to the sun. It's baseless, childish, insulting, and irrelevant.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ [NinjaMonkeyPrime] My reason is, I'm familiar with the population genetics problems and I'm familiar with the Creationist response.

If he doesn't ignore outbreeding, I'd like him to prove it ...

He is misusing his own expertise in order to make a dishonest point against Creationism.

You are the one who missed a point.

NinjaMonkeyPrime

@hglundahl No, you made the accusation, so you need to prove your claim. Obviously you can't because there's nothing to your accusation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ [NinjaMonkeyPrime] The proof is this.

When population genetics is alleged as reason why the several ethnic types or if you like race types couldn't all come after the Flood, Creationists answer Founder Effect.

When population genetics is alleged why a man like him pretends humanity couldn't have survived the inbreeding, Creationists answer rapid outbreeding.

Now, your objection isn't in fact all that coherent if you actually watched the video, since I was answering an accusation by "Creation Myths" (I think his name is Dan sth) and so simply saying he had to prove his accusation against Creationism.

But I'm somehow not surprised at you judging my comment as if you had no clue as to what was in the video ....