Thomas Eshuis wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

theropod wrote:...ALL of the scientific evidence? This is not possible for any one human being to accomplish.
...

Now you are taking a leaf out of the literalist book (viz a viz the use of "all".

EDIT: Oh, no! You'll probably go nuts again, because I dared to criticise your wording - again!

You're taking the comment out of context. The ALL isn't the point of the post.

Either way it's an inane semantic point followed by a personalised edit.

Assuming the "it" was my post, then I think it is you who misunderstood. It was certainly NOT merely a semantic issue! It was theropod being literalist.

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
Now you are taking a leaf out of the literalist book (viz a viz the use of "all".

EDIT: Oh, no! You'll probably go nuts again, because I dared to criticise your wording - again!

You're taking the comment out of context. The ALL isn't the point of the post.

Either way it's an inane semantic point followed by a personalised edit.

Assuming the "it" was my post, then I think it is you who misunderstood. It was certainly NOT merely a semantic issue! It was theropod being literalist.

This is like Lisa's mother saying: "Johnny doesn't drink!"

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
Now you are taking a leaf out of the literalist book (viz a viz the use of "all".

EDIT: Oh, no! You'll probably go nuts again, because I dared to criticise your wording - again!

You're taking the comment out of context. The ALL isn't the point of the post.

Either way it's an inane semantic point followed by a personalised edit.

Assuming the "it" was my post, then I think it is you who misunderstood. It was certainly NOT merely a semantic issue! It was theropod being literalist.

I would think when soneone writes the word "all" unqualified in a sentence, they mean "all." Otherwise they would gphave written something like "almost all" or "virtually all" or "all the most significant." Of course when you're an ID proponent, nuance in writing and clarity of ideas aren't a primary pursuit.

felltoearth wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

felltoearth wrote:
You're taking the comment out of context. The ALL isn't the point of the post.

Either way it's an inane semantic point followed by a personalised edit.

Assuming the "it" was my post, then I think it is you who misunderstood. It was certainly NOT merely a semantic issue! It was theropod being literalist.

I would think when soneone writes the word "all" unqualified in a sentence, they mean "all." Otherwise they would gphave written something like "almost all" or "virtually all" or "all the most significant." Of course when you're an ID proponent, nuance in writing and clarity of ideas aren't a primary pursuit.

Well, funnily enough, I think all means all too! (In fact, that was my point.) So why this: "The ALL isn't the point of the post"??
And, Oh, dear! Have we sunk back into innuendos? AGAIN!!

DavidMcC wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Either way it's an inane semantic point followed by a personalised edit.

Assuming the "it" was my post, then I think it is you who misunderstood. It was certainly NOT merely a semantic issue! It was theropod being literalist.

I would think when soneone writes the word "all" unqualified in a sentence, they mean "all." Otherwise they would gphave written something like "almost all" or "virtually all" or "all the most significant." Of course when you're an ID proponent, nuance in writing and clarity of ideas aren't a primary pursuit.

Well, funnily enough, I think all means all too! (In fact, that was my point.) So why this: "The ALL isn't the point of the post"??
And, Oh, dear! Have we sunk back into innuendos? AGAIN!!

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2606846

TE pretty much sums up my thoughts on all this.

felltoearth wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:
Assuming the "it" was my post, then I think it is you who misunderstood. It was certainly NOT merely a semantic issue! It was theropod being literalist.

I would think when soneone writes the word "all" unqualified in a sentence, they mean "all." Otherwise they would gphave written something like "almost all" or "virtually all" or "all the most significant." Of course when you're an ID proponent, nuance in writing and clarity of ideas aren't a primary pursuit.

Well, funnily enough, I think all means all too! (In fact, that was my point.) So why this: "The ALL isn't the point of the post"??
And, Oh, dear! Have we sunk back into innuendos? AGAIN!!

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2606846

TE pretty much sums up my thoughts on all this.

In that case, you need to think a bit more.

Furthermore, TE has done his usual trick of pervberting what started as a perfectly good thread, and turned into a pointless row about nothing.

DavidMcC wrote:Furthermore, TE has done his usual trick of pervberting what started as a perfectly good thread, and turned into a pointless row about nothing.

Truly fucking delusional. You started this derail with you inane semantic quibling David. That was you, not me. I merely pointed out that your post was arguing an anal point and contained an inflammatory edit.

DavidMcC wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

I would think when soneone writes the word "all" unqualified in a sentence, they mean "all." Otherwise they would gphave written something like "almost all" or "virtually all" or "all the most significant." Of course when you're an ID proponent, nuance in writing and clarity of ideas aren't a primary pursuit.

Well, funnily enough, I think all means all too! (In fact, that was my point.) So why this: "The ALL isn't the point of the post"??
And, Oh, dear! Have we sunk back into innuendos? AGAIN!!

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2606846

TE pretty much sums up my thoughts on all this.

In that case, you need to think a bit more.

I've entertained this subject deserving of less than a thought, more than I should have.

DavidMcC wrote:

theropod wrote:...ALL of the scientific evidence? This is not possible for any one human being to accomplish.
...

Now you are taking a leaf out of the literalist book (viz a viz the use of "all".

EDIT: Oh, no! You'll probably go nuts again, because I dared to criticise your wording - again!

I don’t give a fuck about your criticism, David. It’s obvious you are just trolling again. It’s your thing. I get it. In lieu of making a point you do this. Yawn.

RS

theropod wrote:

Wortfish wrote:

laklak wrote:We're sho' nuff Renaissance peeps 'round these parts.

I find it interesting that when some dude decides to become religious (or has a cerebral event or whatever causes it) it's major news in Creationist circles, but when hundreds of thousands of people abandon religion it isn't.

I suspect very few formerly religious people lost their faith by examining all of the scientific evidence.

ALL of the scientific evidence? This is not possible for any one human being to accomplish. For this formerly ordained minister in a fundamentalist sect of Christianity all it took was being exposed to the facts surrounding the fossil record. I went to a nearby university to my own which had a really good section of their library devoted to the geology of my state. When I learned how to to apply critical examination to the support for deep time and the force of evolution acting across the entire biosphere I became convinced that the allegorical language of the Bible is a weak attempt to conjure up a way imagined to escape mortality. It is at the root of all faith. When we became aware that we are mortal creatures it was only a matter of time until someone came up with religious myths that provide a “get-out-of-jail-free” card if rules are followed. One of the rules is to never question the religion.

The entomologist of the OP, curiously, agrees with you and with the scientific consensus in the area where he is an expert, that dragonflies evolved in deep time. Quoting again from his website here (I quoted this earlier in post #52, though as far as I can tell the quote's now been deleted on his website, along with any mention of the bacterial flagellum. The only vaguely scientific reasons against evolutionary theory currently mentioned on his website, as far as I can tell, are 'the "waiting time problem" and discontinuities in the fossil record', neither of which strikes me as especially forceful.):

Günter Bechly wrote:I see neither any scientific nor theological reasons to dispute the conventional dating of the age of the universe and Earth, or the conventional explanations for the origin of the geological column and the fossil record.

It's the evolution of the bacterial flagellum, where he's not an expert, which seems to have given him the excuse he wanted for creationist belief. The "waiting time problem" seems to be a variant on a standard Intelligent Design attempt to show that evolution needed far longer than available to happen, it uses mathematics with questionable assumptions in an area in which, again, Dr Bechly is not an expert. Another variant of the same argument is debunked here. It's anybody's guess how a respected paleontologist comes to cite discontinuities in the fossil record as evidence against evolution. Günter Bechly's website appears to be under construction, he may come up with more scientific evidence later.

His spiritual journey (on his website here) doesn't seem to have involved much in the way of examining scientific evidence, but rather a general search for something that would allow for the existence of objective morality and a special place for human reason:

Günter Bechly wrote:I came to realize fundamental philosophical problems concerning time, causality, and the effectiveness of mathematics, as well as the hard problem of consciousness, the problem to explain intentionality and reason, as well as objective morality. This led to a spiritual journey over about 15 years in search for a coherent world view involving temporary commitments to very different views like mathematical monism (Max Tegmark), pantheistic neopaganism, non-dualism (Advaita Vedanta) and neoperennial integral thought (Ken Wilber), Whiteheadian panentheistic process thought, Nietzschean flux, quantum mysticism with monistic idealism (Amit Goswami), Neoplatonism with objective idealism (John Leslie), deism, and finally a generic philosophical / classical theism. After some time of denominational confusion (I thoroughly evaluated the pro and con arguments for Christianity, esp. Roman Catholic and Reformed theology, as well as Biblical exegesis and history) I settled for Roman Catholic Christianity with Aristotelian-Thomist hylemorphism as metaphysics.

theropod wrote:

DavidMcC wrote:

theropod wrote:...ALL of the scientific evidence? This is not possible for any one human being to accomplish.
...

Now you are taking a leaf out of the literalist book (viz a viz the use of "all".

EDIT: Oh, no! You'll probably go nuts again, because I dared to criticise your wording - again!

I don’t give a fuck about your criticism, David. It’s obvious you are just trolling again. It’s your thing. I get it. In lieu of making a point you do this. Yawn.

RS

Funnily enough, I don't give a damn about yours, either. I don't troll, I point out idiotic mistakes, even when they're by the BIG I AM.

Whatever happened to the bad entomologist?? Thanks to certain people troliing, we've forgotten all about him.

DavidMcC wrote:Whatever happened to the bad entomologist?? Thanks to certain people troliing, we've forgotten all about him.

The thread went off the rails right around here:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... l#p2606834

Since the thread has been well and truly subverted, I might as well point out that posters should at least attempt to stay be on topic, and not deliberately steer that topic to whatever they damned well please.

EDIT: I can't think of a single post in which TE actually addressed the OP, in any thread that I have seen.

DavidMcC wrote:TE you would do well to remember that posters should at least attempt to stay be on topic, and not deliberately steer that topic to whatever they damned well please.

Please read what you wrote very carefully.

Fellto, ironically, you are one of the problem posters, that force off topic rows into threads.

DavidMcC wrote:Since the thread has been well and truly subverted, I might as well point out that posters should at least attempt to stay be on topic, and not deliberately steer that topic to whatever they damned well please.

EDIT: I can't think of a single post in which TE actually addressed the OP, in any thread that I have seen.

Your fantasies are your problem David, not mine or anyone else's.

There is no point in continuing with this thread if all you are going to post is malign drivel. You aim is appears to be to wind me up, ine the hope that I might break the FUA, and thus possibly have to "leave the room". When did you last post about the actual OP in any thread? No, don't bother answering that, because I might not bother reading it.