Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Validation


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#1 Asyncritus

Asyncritus

    Chi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts

Posted 21 October 2009 - 11:13 AM

Since bro Gilmore has become so boringly repetitive on the question of qualifications once more, I wish to remind him of his own comments a while back. A degree in medicine does not meet his own strictures regarding criticising, or in his case, supporting, evolution theory.

This, by the way Flappie, is not debate about evolution, merely a citation of bro Gilmore's own words, which prohibits any further comment by him on the subject, unless he has obtained some of the following qualifications on the subject since he last wrote the following passage.

You may not recall, but I most certainly do, these remarks of his:

If you want me to believe your claims over those of eminently qualified scientists who have years of experience in the lab and in the field - and are recognised as experts by their peers, you need to demonstrate that you too are an eminent scientist. Otherwise, your arguments are simply those of a layman.

However, I want informed criticism. I don't want an argument from incredulity. I want to know that your criticism is backed by (1) a PhD in a relevant field (palaeontology, evolutionary biology) and/or (2) years of experience in the field or in the lab, with a relevant publication history to match. I don't want to see you quote secondary sources - any layman can do that. Put simply, if you don't have hard-earned qualifications and experience in a subject, it is hard to take your dismissal of its claims seriously.

http://www.thechrist.../...st&p=341293

If you want people on this forum to take your dismissal of their work seriously, you need to show (1) recognised post-grad qualifications in zoology / microbiology / evolutionary biology (2) a significant publication history in the subject you want to criticise (3) peer recognition as an expert these men are experts in their area.

However, if you have no experience in the fields you criticise, then it is hard for me to take your criticism seriously, since it is nothing more than armchair criticism from an uninformed layman, which is worthless.

http://www.thechrist.../...st&p=341293

It must be obvious that since he himself holds no such qualifications as he requires in critics of evolution, then he is merely an armchair supporter and an uninformed layman, and his opinion is worthless.

Edited by Asyncritus, 21 October 2009 - 11:18 AM.

God, be merciful to me
The Sinner

#2 Hyperion

Hyperion

    Sigma

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,249 posts

Posted 21 October 2009 - 12:10 PM

It must be obvious that since he himself holds no such qualifications as he requires in critics of evolution, then he is merely an armchair supporter and an uninformed layman, and his opinion is worthless.

He is not offering his own opinions, he is presenting the opinions of those he deems qualified. I am sure that Ken will be more than happy to listen to the counter-claims of others who have taken the time to study the issues.

The problem is that many of the refutations of evolution being made are coming from sources that clearly do not even know what the basic details of the theory.

"Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all." (1 Tim 1:15)
"Apply yourself wholly to the text; apply the text wholly to yourself" (Johann Albrecht Bengel)
Christadelphian Books Online | The Agora | Toronto West Christadelphians


#3 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 21 October 2009 - 04:23 PM

Asyncritus and Mark, please read. :(
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#4 Asyncritus

Asyncritus

    Chi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts

Posted 21 October 2009 - 06:09 PM

It must be obvious that since he himself holds no such qualifications as he requires in critics of evolution, then he is merely an armchair supporter and an uninformed layman, and his opinion is worthless.


He is not offering his own opinions, he is presenting the opinions of those he deems qualified. I am sure that Ken will be more than happy to listen to the counter-claims of others who have taken the time to study the issues.

The problem is that many of the refutations of evolution being made are coming from sources that clearly do not even know what the basic details of the theory.


The accounts I presented earlier, in the Miracles of Nature thread, now sadly defunct, are taken practically wholesale from research done by competent observers in the field. Those are facts, with which there can be no arguing. There is no room for interpretation.

He is merely presenting the opinions of others, and in collecting lists of authors, is creating a false impression of solidity of opinion. He himself is unqualified in the fields in which he is offering opinions, and is unable to criticise the papers being listed.

That is not surprising given the facts that he has no

1 PhD in any relevant field such as palaeontology or evolutionary Biology

2 No publication history to match

3 recognised post-grad qualifications in zoology / microbiology / evolutionary biology

4 No significant publication history in the subject you want to criticise

5 peer recognition as an expert

in any of the fields he is commenting on, as he demands in the opposition.

This is a not a personal attack, and I regret any annoyance caused. I am quoting his own words, applying his own criteria, and being equally stringent about the matter.

If one rule holds for him, then the same goes for me and other critics of evolution on this forum i.e. non-experts are permitted to speak. Otherwise we have a blatant example of hypocrisy - do as I say, and forget about what I've got - or not, as the case may be.

If this business of qualifications is taken to its logical conclusion, then nobody on this forum has any right or business commenting on matters theological, since we all (I think) lack a degree in theology from any recognised university.

So are we going to close our doors?

Edited by Asyncritus, 21 October 2009 - 06:27 PM.

God, be merciful to me
The Sinner

#5 Jeppo

Jeppo

    Omicron

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 456 posts

Posted 21 October 2009 - 07:02 PM

Hello Jeppo,

Communism and Capitalism are influenced by Social Darwinism.


You've gone from 'derived' to 'influenced'. They both don't make a lot of sense. I just think you are phrasing things badly. Maybe you are referring to individuals who operate within the system of capitalism? Or perhaps you meant to say that capitalism exhibits features analagous to natural selection? That would make some sense. But you could say that about any human endeavour, whether it's economic, political or even religious.

Take religions: they come into existence, they thrive, they mutate, some go extinct, the 'strong' ones survive....does this mean they are derived from or influenced by social darwinsim?

It's a daft question, don't you think?

I've just noticed you put most "rational" Christians. However, what you term rational will just be whoever accepts Evolution so that is hardly a good way of deciding who is rational and who is not.


Not quite. If you believe the bible is 100% literal truth and you are convinced it is telling you the earth can't be older than 10,000 years old, then I'd say your beliefs do have a certain rationality about them. But fundamentalists rarely have a consistent basis to their arguments. They go beyond scripture. They want science to agree with their interpretation of the bible too! The problem comes when you wander away from your bible and make truth claims about other areas of knowledge:

There is good reason to believe that humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs. Dinousaur just means terrible lizard. The only reason people think dinosaurs lived 65 mill + years ago is because of the hypothetical geologic column and from watching Jurassic Park too much (great film though). The same people who blend Evolution with Genesis are the same people who think all life descended from a single cell and a giant explosion of space, time and matter. That is the only nonsense that has to stop.


There is good reason to believe that humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs??! Does that come from the bible? The problem with these kind of statements is that it puts you in the real world contesting the evidence of palaeontology, geology etc... You need to be very careful when you engage with evidence in the real world, because scientific methodology will make a fool of you.

"There is good reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead." Hey, that's a fine comment. I'd stick to that one if I were you.
"There is good reason to believe that humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs." Now you're getting silly; don't wander off the beaten track. You'll get beaten.

Edited by Jeppo, 21 October 2009 - 07:19 PM.


#6 Jeppo

Jeppo

    Omicron

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 456 posts

Posted 21 October 2009 - 07:16 PM

:(

Ladies and gentleman: some more recent members may not be aware, and others may have forgotten, but here on BTDF there is a ban in place on arguments for/against evolution.


Jeremy, can I just make it clear that I am not interested in debating evolution vs. creationism and i'm certainly not going down that road. My comments are more about epistemology - i.e. how do we know what we know?

#7 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 21 October 2009 - 09:46 PM

He is merely presenting the opinions of others, and in collecting lists of authors, is creating a false impression of solidity of opinion. He himself is unqualified in the fields in which he is offering opinions, and is unable to criticise the papers being listed.


He is presenting an interdisciplinary scholarly consensus. His personal qualifications in the field is not relevant, because he is not appealing to himself as an authority. What he is capable of doing, as all of us are, is discerning that there is an interdisciplinary scholarly consensus. Unless he or anyone else is qualified to overturn that consensus, they have no business saying it is wrong.

I am quoting his own words, applying his own criteria, and being equally stringent about the matter.


You are quoting his words, but you are not applying his own criteria. He has already explained your misapplication of his words, so for you to repeat it immediately after his explanation is worse than mischievous.

If one rule holds for him, then the same goes for me and other critics of evolution on this forum i.e. non-experts are permitted to speak.


One rule does indeed hold for him and others. But the rule is not whether non-experts are permitted to speak, the rule is that non-experts are not qualified to challenge, on their own authority, the interdisciplinary scholarly consensus of experts.

If this business of qualifications is taken to its logical conclusion, then nobody on this forum has any right or business commenting on matters theological, since we all (I think) lack a degree in theology from any recognised university.


That's completely false. It's a non sequitur.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#8 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,770 posts

Posted 21 October 2009 - 09:56 PM

Asyncritus and Mark, please read. :(

Hmm. To which of the three of us (you, Async, me) are you suggesting that categorisation applies, and to which does it not apply? Who is the above-average one, in your view?

#9 Flappie

Flappie

    Psi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,730 posts

Posted 21 October 2009 - 10:22 PM

Asyncritus and Mark, please read. :(

Hmm. To which of the three of us (you, Async, me) are you suggesting that categorisation applies, and to which does it not apply? Who is the above-average one, in your view?



Let's just say that I see quite a bit of this:
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments

Fortigurn simply hasn't touted his incompetence (in this context) enough for it to apply to him.
"I am Flappicus!"
"The first condition of immortality is death."
Broeders in Christus

#10 Asyncritus

Asyncritus

    Chi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts

Posted 21 October 2009 - 11:13 PM

I am saddened to see that you have resorted to personal abuse again instead of providing a reasoned response to my arguments. I try not to dignify abuse with a response, but since you have made exactly the same baseless accusation in less than a month (ironic given your claim that I am boringly repetitive) I have reluctantly decided to break my silence and point out where you have gone astray.


The 'abuse' you mention is of your own making.

I have merely quoted your own demands back to you, largely without comment, and applied them to yourself, with the unfortunate consequence that they make you look somewhat ridiculous, since you yourself have no such qualifications as you require of all and sundry who oppose evolution.

The accusation is not 'baseless' - it is firmly based on your own requirements. Shall I quote them again to show that they are not 'baseless'?

However, I want informed criticism. I don't want an argument from incredulity. I want to know that your criticism is backed by (1) a PhD in a relevant field (palaeontology, evolutionary biology) and/or (2) years of experience in the field or in the lab, with a relevant publication history to match. I don't want to see you quote secondary sources - any layman can do that. Put simply, if you don't have hard-earned qualifications and experience in a subject, it is hard to take your dismissal of its claims seriously.

If you want people on this forum to take your dismissal of their work seriously, you need to show (1) recognised post-grad qualifications in zoology / microbiology / evolutionary biology (2) a significant publication history in the subject you want to criticise (3) peer recognition as an expert these men are experts in their area.

However, if you have no experience in the fields you criticise, then it is hard for me to take your criticism seriously, since it is nothing more than armchair criticism from an uninformed layman, which is worthless.


Are you willing to withdraw them so we can proceed without further ado?

Asyncritus, you seem to be oblivious of something called research. When I don't know something, I turn to the experts, read what they say and come away wiser. When Kay pointed that someone had claimed that the Oldowan tools found at the Olduvai gorge could well be crocodile gasroliths, I was intrigued. So, what I did was turn to the experts - palaeoanthropologists. It turned out that the experts are distinctly unimpressed:


But you required Kay and myself to have:

"peer recognition as an expert" (see above) else our opinion was deemed to be 'worthless' etc.

Here are you, going to 'experts' because you have no such status as you require us to have! There is a hard word for this kind of behaviour which I will not use.

You seem to object to my using and quoting experts who have brought to light those wonderful facts in the MITNW thread, and using those facts to belabour the theory of evolution. Because I am not an 'expert'.

But in my own way, I am.

I am an expert in the collection and use of anti-evolution material, having done so for some years. It is somewhat unlikely that I will receive critical acclaim from the evolutionary establishment, but 29,000 views of my thread on the Origin of Instinct on a pro-evolution forum is some indication of the respect with which my writings on the subject are held. I suppose that in academic circles, such a number of citations of my work would be quite respectable, wouldn't it?

You may have noticed that I copiously reference my posts. There is a simple reason - I am pointing out my sources, since I do not want people to think that I am simply providing my own evidence-free opinions. More to the point, I am inviting people to read these sources and point out whether (1) the sources are wrong or (2) I have misunderstood the sources. So far, no one has credibly done that. I can only assume that this means I have handled the primary literature appropriately.


You are committing a major blunder. You have, quite rightly said that no-one on this forum has credibly shown that your sources are wrong. If they did, then you would, equally rightly, question their doing so, because of their lack of qualifications in the given field.

But your blunder really consists of the fact that you yourself are in no position to support these views. You really don't know whether they are correct or not. You have no relevant qualifications either, and are unable to criticise the content of the papers you refer to. You may not be a fool, as you say, but all you can really do is swallow and then regurgitate the views of the majority.

And those views do change in the light of constantly advancing research, even in medicine. What seems like gospel today, may be adorning the garbage heaps tomorrow - especially in a field such as palaeoanthropology.

So when you ask such an absurd question as:

* What are your professional qualifications to dismiss an entire field of human knowledge?
* How many fossils have you personally examined and studied? In what journals have you published your claims?
* How many palaeontology sites have you worked at?
* What is your wet lab experience?
* How many research papers have you published?


my simple response is, What is your own answer to those very questions yourself? Let me try to answer them on your behalf, and you may, and certainly will, correct me if I'm wrong.

* What are your professional qualifications to dismiss an entire field of human knowledge?
A. None in evolutionary biology.

* How many fossils have you personally examined and studied? In what journals have you published your claims?
A. None

* How many palaeontology sites have you worked at?
A. None.

* What is your wet lab experience?
A. I presume you have some, since this is required in students of chemistry and various medicine-related subjects.

* How many research papers have you published?
A. You have published none in these fields.


I think we are about equal on these scores.

I was embarrassed to read your quoting a multiple choice question from one of your examination papers. The purpose of that, I imagine, was to browbeat the non-medical contributor to the forum, and impress the non-technically minded.

You may have succeeded, but it was a largely irrelevant exercise, because anyone with degree level education in any other scientific field could present you with similar questions to which you could not possibly know the answer. That would mean nothing, because the question before us is about evolution, and not about the technical side of medicine or another science.

So the question about qualifications is a huge smokescreen, and you have successfully shot yourself in the foot, and condemned yourself out of your own mouth by making those ridiculous demands.

Edited by Asyncritus, 22 October 2009 - 12:11 AM.

God, be merciful to me
The Sinner

#11 Asyncritus

Asyncritus

    Chi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts

Posted 21 October 2009 - 11:41 PM

He is merely presenting the opinions of others, and in collecting lists of authors, is creating a false impression of solidity of opinion. He himself is unqualified in the fields in which he is offering opinions, and is unable to criticise the papers being listed.

He is presenting an interdisciplinary scholarly consensus. His personal qualifications in the field is not relevant, because he is not appealing to himself as an authority. What he is capable of doing, as all of us are, is discerning that there is an interdisciplinary scholarly consensus. Unless he or anyone else is qualified to overturn that consensus, they have no business saying it is wrong.


Do you realise how uncommonly catholic-like you're sounding? (only the priests - the experts - should interpret the Bible!) And correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall that Einstein was a patents clerk in Berne.

He has laid down the required personal qualifications, not me. Would you like to see them again? OK, here they are again:

If you want me to believe your claims over those of eminently qualified scientists who have years of experience in the lab and in the field - and are recognised as experts by their peers, you need to demonstrate that you too are an eminent scientist. Otherwise, your arguments are simply those of a layman.

However, I want informed criticism. I don't want an argument from incredulity. I want to know that your criticism is backed by (1) a PhD in a relevant field (palaeontology, evolutionary biology) and/or (2) years of experience in the field or in the lab, with a relevant publication history to match. I don't want to see you quote secondary sources - any layman can do that. Put simply, if you don't have hard-earned qualifications and experience in a subject, it is hard to take your dismissal of its claims seriously.

http://www.thechrist.../...st&p=341293

If you want people on this forum to take your dismissal of their work seriously, you need to show (1) recognised post-grad qualifications in zoology / microbiology / evolutionary biology (2) a significant publication history in the subject you want to criticise (3) peer recognition as an expert these men are experts in their area.


Neither of you has any real response to the points I have made about this. He has, quite simply, shot himself in the foot.

In certain fields, interdisciplinary scholarly consensus is meaningless. As we have seen on another thread wrt the higher critics.

But there is an even more powerful thing than interdisciplinary scholarly consensus. It's called FACT. There are so many evolution-destroying facts, that scholarly consensus is meaningless. I have raised some of these in the MITNW thread, which see.

I am quoting his own words, applying his own criteria, and being equally stringent about the matter.

You are quoting his words, but you are not applying his own criteria. He has already explained your misapplication of his words, so for you to repeat it immediately after his explanation is worse than mischievous.


He has not explained any such thing. He is not (by his own admission) an expert in palaeoanthropology, and if the above strictures apply, should not be talking about the subject at all.

And you are merely special pleading on his behalf. With a statement of such clarity and power, it is impossible to mistake his meaning. He simply did not realise the disastrous consequences for himself. Too bad.

If one rule holds for him, then the same goes for me and other critics of evolution on this forum i.e. non-experts are permitted to speak.


One rule does indeed hold for him and others. But the rule is not whether non-experts are permitted to speak, the rule is that non-experts are not qualified to challenge, on their own authority, the interdisciplinary scholarly consensus of experts.


I have presented evidence, obtained by experts, published by competent observers, and drawn the inevitable conclusions from those facts. That evidence cannot be gainsaid or denied, and points unequivocally in one direction. The startling thing is that there are such vast quantities of that evidence, that it is difficult to choose which particular arrow to use.

If this business of qualifications is taken to its logical conclusion, then nobody on this forum has any right or business commenting on matters theological, since we all (I think) lack a degree in theology from any recognised university.

That's completely false. It's a non sequitur.


Is it? If only 'experts' are permitted to speak, then in matters theological only 'experts' should be given a voice. And if we use bro Gilmore's description of an 'expert' then I'm afraid we should all shut up and let the clergy do the talking.

That would be really too bad, wouldn't it?

Edited by Asyncritus, 21 October 2009 - 11:50 PM.

God, be merciful to me
The Sinner

#12 Flappie

Flappie

    Psi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,730 posts

Posted 22 October 2009 - 12:26 AM

Erm, Asyncritus, 29,000 views of a thread is no indication whatsoever that people respect the view presented in the opening post(s), it's certainly nothing like positive citations.
"I am Flappicus!"
"The first condition of immortality is death."
Broeders in Christus

#13 Mark Taunton

Mark Taunton

    Rho

  • Christadelphian Armoury
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,770 posts

Posted 22 October 2009 - 05:14 AM

Asyncritus and Mark, please read. :(

Hmm. To which of the three of us (you, Async, me) are you suggesting that categorisation applies, and to which does it not apply? Who is the above-average one, in your view?



Let's just say that I see quite a bit of this:
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments

Fortigurn simply hasn't touted his incompetence (in this context) enough for it to apply to him.

I'd like to see Fort's own answer to my question: he's the one that raised this!

Edited by Mark Taunton, 22 October 2009 - 05:15 AM.


#14 Asyncritus

Asyncritus

    Chi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts

Posted 22 October 2009 - 08:18 AM

Asyncritus and Mark, please read. :(

Hmm. To which of the three of us (you, Async, me) are you suggesting that categorisation applies, and to which does it not apply? Who is the above-average one, in your view?



Let's just say that I see quite a bit of this:
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments

Fortigurn simply hasn't touted his incompetence (in this context) enough for it to apply to him.

I'd like to see Fort's own answer to my question: he's the one that raised this!


I think he was trying to make a point, Mark and I'm singularly unimpressed with it. But swords can have two edges, as we all know - or should, anyway.

Just another word about this famous 'interdisciplinary scholarly consensus'.

Fortigurn has declared on another thread that he rejects the higher critical destructiveness wrt to scripture.

That there IS an 'interdisciplinary scholarly consensus' to the effect that the Bible is a hotch-potch of miscellaneous authors, editors, redactors, documents and I don't know or care what else, cannot be doubted.

He rejects this 'interdisciplinary scholarly consensus'.

He has collected vast amounts of information on various subjects. He, an untrained, inexpert, unqualified amateur, rejects their consensus. He is perfectly right to do so, and I support him and his attitude in so doing. He does so, I imagine, from first principles - God says so, therefore this is His Word.

I am very much like this about evolution. I have collected vast amounts of material on various subjects. I hold a scientific degree, but I cannot claim research background or peer recognition as an expert. I, like Fortigurn, am therefore an amateur, who rejects their 'consensus'. I am perfectly right to do so, and I do so from these first principles:

1 God says otherwise and

2 There are millions of scientifically observed and observable facts which this theory has no hope of ever explaining. In any other scientific discipline, a theory which could not account for so many facts for which it OUGHT to be able to account, would be laughed to scorn. I do laugh it to scorn, because in itself it's quite funny, and also because I mock those who have wasted their lives scrabbling for the pathetic scraps of 'supporting' evidence, apparently oblivious of the mountain of opposing facts. You know, in the spirit of '

1 Kings 18:27 About noontime Elijah began mocking them. "You’ll have to shout louder," he scoffed, "for surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or he is relieving himself. Or maybe he is away on a trip, or he is asleep and needs to be wakened!" NLT

Sooner or later that mountain will fall on top of them. It shows every sign of doing so already.

The physicists, in particular the cosmologists with their anthropic principle and the simply unbelievable details of the fine-tuning of the universe

The chemists, faced with the amazing patterns and symmetries of the periodic table of elements, and the incalculably complex details of the construction and architecture of proteins, and the impossibility of even one of them (the proteins, I mean) having arisen by chance

The biologists, unearthing such amazing details of the construction of such devices as the sonar of bats, the absolutely unique design of the rock lobster's eye (and others in the MITNW thread)

are constructing, whether they like it or not, or admit it or not, a part of that mountain which grows more threatening to the theory with every day that passes.

Denton said it so well, and others will be taking up the refrain if they haven't done so already.

""All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology - that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of the galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact.


Four centuries after the scientific revolution apparently destroyed irretrievably man's special place in the universe, banished Aristotle, and rendered teleogical speculation obsolete, the relentless stream of discovery has turned dramatically in favour of teleology and design... As I hope the evidence presented in this book has shown, science, which has for centuries been the great ally of atheism and skepticism, has become at last, in these final days of the second millennium, what Newton and many of its early advocates had so fervently wished - 'the defender of the anthropocentric faith'."

Teleology, for those who may not know, according to wiki, is:

A teleological argument, or argument from design, is an argument for the existence of God or a creator based on perceived evidence of order, purpose, design, or direction — or some combination of these — in nature. The word "teleological" is derived from the Greek word telos, meaning "end" or "purpose". Teleology is the supposition that there is purpose or directive principle in the works and processes of nature.

REFERENCE

Denton, Michael : Nature's Destiny (1998) How the laws of biology reveal purpose in the Universe p389.

Edited by Asyncritus, 22 October 2009 - 08:50 AM.

God, be merciful to me
The Sinner

#15 Asyncritus

Asyncritus

    Chi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts

Posted 22 October 2009 - 08:44 AM

Erm, Asyncritus, 29,000 views of a thread is no indication whatsoever that people respect the view presented in the opening post(s), it's certainly nothing like positive citations.


As you may not know, there are hostile and favourable citations.

I don't know which these are, but they are views nonetheless. 29,000 of them. Says something, I suggest.


Well I've just added to your number of views - don't count me as an admiring crowd - I'm just amazed that you want anyone to look at your posts on that site - especially as you profess to be a follower of Christ.


Well, tough luck Asyncritus. Can't win 'em all.

If you were contributing to that site Janice, I wonder which side you would have been on?

Care to comment?

Edited by Asyncritus, 22 October 2009 - 08:45 AM.

God, be merciful to me
The Sinner

#16 Flappie

Flappie

    Psi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,730 posts

Posted 22 October 2009 - 10:00 AM

That's a much better indication of the respect with which your writings on the subject are held than the number of views, Asyncritus.

Edited by Flappie, 22 October 2009 - 10:01 AM.

"I am Flappicus!"
"The first condition of immortality is death."
Broeders in Christus

#17 Grace

Grace

    Sigma

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,505 posts

Posted 22 October 2009 - 10:21 AM

Asyncritus I'm afraid I find your challenge aggressive and rude.
I would definitely not be on "the side" of anyone who posts this

As I said, if you can't prove your allegation, then shut up.

So prove already.


or

I know the advantages of having a million bucks - but does it happen? Like hell it does!


You made yourself the butt of derision, not by preaching the gospel of Jesus but by arrogance, rudeness and the inability to read or comprehend any of the clear answers to the multiple questions you postulated.
You have used up any goodwill or tolerance any of these people may have had for any God- believers.
It seems as if you went in deciding before hand that they were swine not worthy of your time but you would dangle a few pearls before them just so you could proclaim how you had posted on an "evolutionary site" to elevate yourself in the sight of undiscerning brethren.
Your whole attitude seems to be one intent on belittling anyone who dares to disagree with you or question your motives and I am sorry to say that of anyone, especially a brother of Christ.


Be warned, I quoted some of the pleasant things Asyncritus said on that forum in another thread and received a PM from him that I've just realised I can't quote because otherwise I'll be breaking the forum guidelines. Let's put it this way - it gave me a good old blast, and it's the first time I've ever had the pleasure of blocking anybody's PMs.

Edited by Grace, 22 October 2009 - 10:31 AM.

"Common sense and a sense of humor are the same thing, moving at different speeds. A sense of humor is just common sense, dancing."

William James

#18 Asyncritus

Asyncritus

    Chi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts

Posted 22 October 2009 - 10:50 AM

Asyncritus I'm afraid I find your challenge aggressive and rude.
I would definitely not be on "the side" of anyone who posts this

As I said, if you can't prove your allegation, then shut up.

So prove already.


or

I know the advantages of having a million bucks - but does it happen? Like hell it does!


You made yourself the butt of derision, not by preaching the gospel of Jesus but by arrogance, rudeness and the inability to read or comprehend any of the clear answers to the multiple questions you postulated.
You have used up any goodwill or tolerance any of these people may have had for any God- believers.
It seems as if you went in deciding before hand that they were swine not worthy of your time but you would dangle a few pearls before them just so you could proclaim how you had posted on an "evolutionary site" to elevate yourself in the sight of undiscerning brethren.
Your whole attitude seems to be one intent on belittling anyone who dares to disagree with you or question your motives and I am sorry to say that of anyone, especially a brother of Christ.


You have been quite selective in your 'quotations'. I concede that I had become quite irritated by the time we got round to this, so perhaps you'd like to go back and find the unbelligerent quotes and put them here to give some kind of balance?

Thanks. A one sided view of anything is always ugly, and this is no exception.
God, be merciful to me
The Sinner

#19 Asyncritus

Asyncritus

    Chi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts

Posted 22 October 2009 - 10:54 AM

Asyncritus I'm afraid I find your challenge aggressive and rude.
I would definitely not be on "the side" of anyone who posts this

As I said, if you can't prove your allegation, then shut up.

So prove already.


or

I know the advantages of having a million bucks - but does it happen? Like hell it does!


You made yourself the butt of derision, not by preaching the gospel of Jesus but by arrogance, rudeness and the inability to read or comprehend any of the clear answers to the multiple questions you postulated.
You have used up any goodwill or tolerance any of these people may have had for any God- believers.
It seems as if you went in deciding before hand that they were swine not worthy of your time but you would dangle a few pearls before them just so you could proclaim how you had posted on an "evolutionary site" to elevate yourself in the sight of undiscerning brethren.
Your whole attitude seems to be one intent on belittling anyone who dares to disagree with you or question your motives and I am sorry to say that of anyone, especially a brother of Christ.


Be warned, I quoted some of the pleasant things Asyncritus said on that forum in another thread and received a PM from him that I've just realised I can't quote because otherwise I'll be breaking the forum guidelines. Let's put it this way - it gave me a good old blast, and it's the first time I've ever had the pleasure of blocking anybody's PMs.


I was not preaching the gospel of Jesus - one cannot do that on such a forum as that.

I was then, as I am now, opposing the theory of evolution with concrete facts which cannot be explained away by any stretch of evolutionary imagination.

But let the readers judge for themselves.
God, be merciful to me
The Sinner

#20 Asyncritus

Asyncritus

    Chi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,091 posts

Posted 22 October 2009 - 10:57 AM

Asyncritus I'm afraid I find your challenge aggressive and rude.
I would definitely not be on "the side" of anyone who posts this


I am not asking you if you would be on 'my side'.

I am really asking you whether you would have joined forces with the evolutionists or not.

That would be important information to me.

Edited by Asyncritus, 22 October 2009 - 10:58 AM.

God, be merciful to me
The Sinner

#21 janice

janice

    Mu

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPip
  • 313 posts

Posted 22 October 2009 - 11:26 AM

If you were contributing to that site Janice, I wonder which side you would have been on?

Care to comment?



Asyncritus I'm afraid I find your challenge aggressive and rude.
I would definitely not be on "the side" of anyone who posts this

I am not asking you if you would be on 'my side'.



Well are you asking would I be on "your side" or not ? You seem to think it's you or everyone else on that site. Would I have " joined forces with the evolutionists"? - I would not join them with their deliberate baiting of you to get a cheap laugh or their use of your screen name as a continuing joke well after you had been banned, if that is what you are asking. I feel their behaviour was unChristian but then they weren't claiming to be Christian or God-fearers.
I hope I would avoid impaling myself on either horn as the dilemma is a false one. On the site under discussion you insisted the choice was evolution or God. By insisting on this as the choice you withhold salvation from so many. (Matthew 23:13)
The choice is God or no God.

#22 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 22 October 2009 - 02:35 PM

Asyncritus and Mark, please read. :(

Hmm. To which of the three of us (you, Async, me) are you suggesting that categorisation applies, and to which does it not apply?


It demonstrably applies to you and Asyncritus. You frequently make claims on your own authority, regarding subjects on which you are under informed and unskilled, rejecting and at times even deriding the knowledge and skill of those who are professionally informed on the subject. I just don't do this, and that isn't simply my assessment of myself, it's the independent assessment of other people. You and Asyncritus have both recognized this, objecting to the fact that I do appeal to those who are professionally skilled and informed on a given subject, rather than accepting your arguments.

Who is the above-average one, in your view?


The only above average ones in this case are those professionally informed on the subjects we have disputed. That does not include you, that does not include Asyncritus, and it most certainly does not include me.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#23 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 22 October 2009 - 02:42 PM

You are committing a major blunder. You have, quite rightly said that no-one on this forum has credibly shown that your sources are wrong. If they did, then you would, equally rightly, question their doing so, because of their lack of qualifications in the given field.

But your blunder really consists of the fact that you yourself are in no position to support these views.


No Asyncritus, the error is yours. Ken has not offered his personal opinion or authority as a support for these views. He has never done this. What he has done is presented the views and demonstrated that they are views from those who are professionally competent, and sufficiently informed on the subject to speak authoritatively. He does not claim that he is able to speak authoritatively. He certainly is right to point out that you are not able to speak authoritatively. He has explained this all to you more than once.

What you are doing is coming along to someone who has called an electrician to their house, and told them that the electrician is wrong. You claim as the basis of your authority your familiarity with domestic appliances (you've used an iron, you've used a refrigerator, you've watched a lot of TV). You assert that the professionally qualified electrician is wrong, and that you are right. The householder disagrees with you, and you ask for his qualifications in electrical engineering. But he doesn't have to have any to know that the electrician knows more than you on the subject. You are the one appealing to a double standard, because you want the householder to reject the view of one who is qualified (the electrician), in favour of the view of one who is not qualified (yourself). You claim the ignorance of the householder means he should not approve of the electrician, yet you assert your own superiority despite your own ignorance.

If you were the householder, you would very promptly show the door to anyone who claimed you shouldn't be listening to the electrician. You accept the electrician's professional view, you accept your dentist's professional view, you accept your doctor's professional view, you accept the view of a host of professionals, every day. Yet in this one instance you reject the professional view, simply because it disagrees with what you prefer to believe. This is logically incoherent.

Edited by Fortigurn, 22 October 2009 - 02:43 PM.

Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#24 Richie

Richie

    Chi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,355 posts

Posted 22 October 2009 - 02:46 PM

While I am not supporting the way Asyncritus is going about things he may be thinking in terms of 1 Corinthians 1:20.
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." - Terry Pratchett.

#25 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 22 October 2009 - 02:54 PM

While I am not supporting the way Asyncritus is going about things he may be thinking in terms of 1 Corinthians 1:20.


When he applies that to his electrician, dentist, and doctor, let me know.
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics

#26 Richie

Richie

    Chi

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,355 posts

Posted 22 October 2009 - 03:00 PM

Yes I know, but he's possibly applying it now in a religious context and so feels qualified to do that.
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life." - Terry Pratchett.

#27 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Omega

  • Christadelphian MD
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,244 posts

Posted 22 October 2009 - 03:04 PM

Yes I know, but he's possibly applying it now in a religious context and so feels qualified to do that.


Quite apart from the fact that he hasn't appealed to it, his application in this context would be completely unjustifiable for the reasons I've given. None of the men cited by Ken are commenting on religion. This is not a religious context, it is a biological context. Asyncritus tacitly acknowledges this when he appeals to biologists himself, and when he quote mines evolutionist material (or rather, copy/pastes from the dishonest quote mines of others).
Miserere mei Deus,
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam.
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
dele iniquitatem meam.

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">I am a Christadelphian. Click here to see my confession of faith.
______________________________________________________________________
‘John Wesley once received a note which said, “The Lord has told me to tell you that He doesn’t need your book-learning, your Greek, and your Hebrew.”

Wesley answered “Thank you, sir. Your letter was superfluous, however, as I already knew the Lord has no need for my ‘book-learning,’ as you put it. However—although the Lord has not directed me to say so—on my own responsibility I would like to say to you that the Lord does not need your ignorance, either.”

Osborne & Woodward, ‘Handbook for Bible study’, pp. 13-14 (1979)

______________________________________________________________________
target="_blank">Apologetics




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users