The creationist mind at work

Cognitive dissonance, FTW

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

The creationist mind at work

#1  Postby Shrunk » May 18, 2017 4:23 pm

I'm having a discussion with a creationist on Stephen C. Meyer's Facebook page over whether the nested hierarchy found in biological taxonomy is evidence of common descent. He provided the following analogy (apparently quoted from an uncited source) as part of his argument:

Here is yet another illustration by someone who really understands nested hierarchy using something that aren't even as related as the electronic gadget I have repeatedly used. Learn from it and demystify your mind about nested hierarchy of a thing:

"Let us, for instance , assign all of the petroleum -burning machines into a kingdom . Of this , the gasoline- burning ones form a subkingdom . The rubber - wheeled vehicles form a phylum . Of this , conventional automobiles are a class . Each type of car ( 2 - door hatchback , 4 - door hatchback , 2 - door sunroof , etc . ) forms a family. Finally, the manufacturer ’s designations make up the genus ( e. g . Toyota ) and species ( e. g . Toyota Tercel ) . Using selected mechanical components , a nested hierarchy can also be inferred from the structures of wheeled vehicles , whether expressed as a character matrix or cladogram."


I pointed out that this was not a nested hierarchy, because the "genus" Toyota contains members from multiple families.

He responded with this gem (emphasis added):

No, it is not a nested hierarchy, as u have already explained. All Toyotas do not fit within the "Family" of, say, 2 door hatchbacks


Lol - Lol - Lol

Is that what nested hierarchy means to you? Don't be funny.

I thought you said you understood taxonomy or nested hierarchy? All Toyotas cannot possibly fit within the family of 2 door hatchbacks. No one expects it to.

"2 door hatchbacks" is a sub family for crying out loud. This is basic thing, man. Whenever you see a taxon being divided based on certain other characteristics, in biology, we mean such taxon is sub grouped, and in this case, each of "2-door -", "4-door -" hatchbacks is a sub family.

Now you cannot logically cherrypick one sub family and expect to fit all Toyotas into it. Are you for real?

What's expected is that each of the sub families is contained in the bigger taxon, and that the lower taxa in turn are contained in each of the sub families, and they are.

It's high time you revisited basic taxonomy.


:point:
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 26010
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The creationist mind at work

#2  Postby Rumraket » May 19, 2017 6:54 am

I like how he "progressed" to try to argue that you can make a nested hierarchy with a single object. Uhm, wat? How would you "sort it" by number of shared characteristics? For fucks sake, these people are morons.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 12615
Age: 37
Male

Denmark (dk)
 
Birthday
Print view this post

Re: The creationist mind at work

#3  Postby Wortfish » Oct 27, 2017 2:19 am

When creationists do put forward the scientific case for their beliefs, rather than simply make assertions, their work is denounced as unacceptable:

The explicit functional link indicates that the biomechanical characteristic of tendinous connective architecture between muscles and articulations is the proper design by the Creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0146193

Retraction

Following publication, readers raised concerns about language in the article that makes references to a 'Creator', and about the overall rationale and findings of the study.

Upon receiving these concerns, the PLOS ONE editors have carried out an evaluation of the manuscript and the pre-publication process, and they sought further advice on the work from experts in the editorial board. This evaluation confirmed concerns with the scientific rationale, presentation and language, which were not adequately addressed during peer review.

Consequently, the PLOS ONE editors consider that the work cannot be relied upon and retract this publication.


So, it is OK to say Evolution did it, Mother Nature did it....but to claim the Creator did it is a no no. This is despite the fact that a "Creator" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence for the United States. :scratch:
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 524

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The creationist mind at work

#4  Postby Cito di Pense » Oct 27, 2017 5:12 am

Wortfish wrote:When creationists do put forward the scientific case for their beliefs, rather than simply make assertions, their work is denounced as unacceptable:


So, what are your criteria for accepting or rejecting 'work'? My guess is that you think that if it looks to you like a lot of work, it was a lot of work. Fingerpainting on the walls with your own shit looks like a lot of work, too, if you spend enough time at it.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 24730
Age: 6
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: The creationist mind at work

#5  Postby aban57 » Oct 27, 2017 7:47 am

Wortfish wrote:
So, it is OK to say Evolution did it, Mother Nature did it....but to claim the Creator did it is a no no. This is despite the fact that a "Creator" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence for the United States. :scratch:


What does this have to do with anything ? You can find millions of references to Santa Claus, doesn't make it real. A paper trying to explain a natural process invoking a fictional character can't be taken seriously, no matter which character is used.
User avatar
aban57
 
Name: Cédric
Posts: 4183
Age: 38

Country: France
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: The creationist mind at work

#6  Postby DavidMcC » Oct 27, 2017 9:27 am

Wortfish wrote:...
So, it is OK to say Evolution did it, Mother Nature did it....but to claim the Creator did it is a no no. This is despite the fact that a "Creator" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence for the United States. :scratch:

All that shows is that Thomas Jefferson et al. was religious. Actually, most Americans are religious, and the statements of their political leaders have tended to reflect that, unfortunately.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14464
Age: 64
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The creationist mind at work

#7  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Oct 27, 2017 11:15 am

DavidMcC wrote:
Wortfish wrote:...
So, it is OK to say Evolution did it, Mother Nature did it....but to claim the Creator did it is a no no. This is despite the fact that a "Creator" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence for the United States. :scratch:

All that shows is that Thomas Jefferson et al. was religious. Actually, most Americans are religious, and the statements of their political leaders have tended to reflect that, unfortunately.

Not to mention that multiple signatories of the Declaration explicitely stated the US is not a Christian nation.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27243
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The creationist mind at work

#8  Postby Shrunk » Oct 27, 2017 12:51 pm

Wortfish wrote:When creationists do put forward the scientific case for their beliefs, rather than simply make assertions, their work is denounced as unacceptable:

The explicit functional link indicates that the biomechanical characteristic of tendinous connective architecture between muscles and articulations is the proper design by the Creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way.


Except that is just another example of simply making an assertion.

Wortfish wrote:So, it is OK to say Evolution did it, Mother Nature did it....but to claim the Creator did it is a no no.


Can you quote one of these scientific papers that say "Mother Nature did it"? Somehow I've never come across one of them.


This is despite the fact that a "Creator" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence for the United States. :scratch:


Which is relevant because... Why, exactly? :scratch:
Last edited by Shrunk on Oct 27, 2017 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 26010
Age: 52
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The creationist mind at work

#9  Postby DavidMcC » Oct 27, 2017 1:03 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Wortfish wrote:...
So, it is OK to say Evolution did it, Mother Nature did it....but to claim the Creator did it is a no no. This is despite the fact that a "Creator" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence for the United States. :scratch:

All that shows is that Thomas Jefferson et al. was religious. Actually, most Americans are religious, and the statements of their political leaders have tended to reflect that, unfortunately.

Not to mention that multiple signatories of the Declaration explicitely stated the US is not a Christian nation.

It soon became one, though.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14464
Age: 64
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The creationist mind at work

#10  Postby Calilasseia » Oct 27, 2017 6:49 pm

Wortfish wrote:When creationists do put forward the scientific case for their beliefs


There isn't one. This is another well-known creationist lie. What actually happens, is that creationists play apologetics with science.

Wortfish wrote:rather than simply make assertions, their work is denounced as unacceptable:


No, what happens is that the manifest errors and misrepresentations arising from creationist apologetics are exposed.

Wortfish wrote:
The explicit functional link indicates that the biomechanical characteristic of tendinous connective architecture between muscles and articulations is the proper design by the Creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0146193

Retraction

Following publication, readers raised concerns about language in the article that makes references to a 'Creator', and about the overall rationale and findings of the study.

Upon receiving these concerns, the PLOS ONE editors have carried out an evaluation of the manuscript and the pre-publication process, and they sought further advice on the work from experts in the editorial board. This evaluation confirmed concerns with the scientific rationale, presentation and language, which were not adequately addressed during peer review.

Consequently, the PLOS ONE editors consider that the work cannot be relied upon and retract this publication.


So the fact that science is in the business of demystifying observed phenomena, was a memo you missed? A memo that is particularly apposite in reference to this line in the paper in question:

Hand coordination should indicate the mystery of the Creator’s invention.


Quite simply, this constitutes an assertion that has no place in a proper scientific paper.

Wortfish wrote:So, it is OK to say Evolution did it


Actually, you'll find that properly constructed scientific papers cover appropriate mechanisms in detail, which was famously derided by Dembski as "pathetic level of detail", whilst he failed to approach within orders of magnitude of the same level of detail himself in his own apologetics masquerading as scientific discourse?

Wortfish wrote:Mother Nature did it


Never seen a claim of this sort in any proper scientific paper.

Wortfish wrote:....but to claim the Creator did it is a no no.


The existence of a "creator" is an unsupported assertion, hence it does not belong in a scientific paper until that assertion is converted into a proper, evidentially supported postulate. If that day happens, the requisite work will be a guaranteed candidate for a Nobel Prize. The fact that said Nobel Prize has yet to be forthcoming, should be telling you something important.

Wortfish wrote:This is despite the fact that a "Creator" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence for the United States. :scratch:


Who fucking cares about this? The Declaration of Independence isn't a scientific document, and was furthermore written in an era when supernaturalism still exerted undue control over discourse - an era before science had rendered mythological assertions irrelevant with respect to vast classes of entities and phenomena. If citing this document is the best you can do, it's a measure of your apologetic desperation.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 21093
Age: 55
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The creationist mind at work

#11  Postby Calilasseia » Oct 27, 2017 6:55 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Wortfish wrote:...
So, it is OK to say Evolution did it, Mother Nature did it....but to claim the Creator did it is a no no. This is despite the fact that a "Creator" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence for the United States. :scratch:


All that shows is that Thomas Jefferson et al. was religious. Actually, most Americans are religious, and the statements of their political leaders have tended to reflect that, unfortunately.


Not to mention that multiple signatories of the Declaration explicitely stated the US is not a Christian nation.


It soon became one, though.


Correction - it became a nation populated by uppity, entitlement-riddled Christians, who set about trying to piss all over the Establishment Clause at every opportunity. The whole "Christian nation" fabrication is a piece of duplicitous apologetics arising from that scheming.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 21093
Age: 55
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The creationist mind at work

#12  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Oct 27, 2017 9:50 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Wortfish wrote:...
So, it is OK to say Evolution did it, Mother Nature did it....but to claim the Creator did it is a no no. This is despite the fact that a "Creator" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence for the United States. :scratch:

All that shows is that Thomas Jefferson et al. was religious. Actually, most Americans are religious, and the statements of their political leaders have tended to reflect that, unfortunately.

Not to mention that multiple signatories of the Declaration explicitely stated the US is not a Christian nation.

It soon became one, though.

True, but irrelevant with regards to WFs original point and my response to it.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27243
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The creationist mind at work

#13  Postby DavidMcC » Oct 28, 2017 11:16 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
All that shows is that Thomas Jefferson et al. was religious. Actually, most Americans are religious, and the statements of their political leaders have tended to reflect that, unfortunately.

Not to mention that multiple signatories of the Declaration explicitely stated the US is not a Christian nation.

It soon became one, though.

True, but irrelevant with regards to WFs original point and my response to it.

Of course it's relevant. If you disagree, pleae explain.
I noted a possible/likely linguistic issue in your post of "not to mention", which, in the English of the English, implies a agreement, with a reinforcing addition, yet you seem to have used the phrase to imply disagreement. If so, what is the disagreement about? :scratch:
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14464
Age: 64
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The creationist mind at work

#14  Postby Fallible » Oct 28, 2017 11:17 am

Please no.
John Grant wrote:They say 'let go, let go, let go, you must learn to let go'.
If I hear that fucking phrase again, this baby's gonna blow
Into a million itsy bitsy tiny pieces, don't you know,
Just like my favourite scene in Scanners .
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 44181
Age: 44
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The creationist mind at work

#15  Postby DavidMcC » Oct 28, 2017 11:56 am

Fallible wrote:Please no.

That is for TE and I to decide, Fallible. You don't have to take any notice, if you'd rather not.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14464
Age: 64
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The creationist mind at work

#16  Postby theropod » Oct 28, 2017 5:14 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Fallible wrote:Please no.

That is for TE and I to decide, Fallible. You don't have to take any notice, if you'd rather not.


:crazy:

Which applies to you as well, but apparently you would rather attempt to silence anyone tired of the trite shit you specialize in posting.

RS
17 years off-grid and counting.

Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 6975
Age: 63
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The creationist mind at work

#17  Postby Sendraks » Oct 28, 2017 6:38 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
I noted a possible/likely linguistic issue in your post of "not to mention", which, in the English of the English, implies a agreement, with a reinforcing addition, yet you seem to have used the phrase to imply disagreement. If so, what is the disagreement about? :scratch:


*sigh*

No, Thomas did not use "not to mention" to imply disagreement. Thomas was making the point that in spite of Jefferson et al being religious, the declaration explicit stated that the US became a christian nation.

Your observation that it became one, whilst correct, is irrelevant to to the word "creator" appearing in the wording of the Declaration.

You savvy?
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 13742
Age: 101
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: The creationist mind at work

#18  Postby Blackadder » Oct 28, 2017 7:08 pm

I was quite enjoying the sight of Cali tearing Wortfish a new arsehole before the de-rail. Can we please have some more of that?
That credulity should be gross in proportion to the ignorance of the mind that it enslaves, is in strict consistency with the principle of human nature. - Percy Bysshe Shelley
User avatar
Blackadder
RS Donator
 
Posts: 3300
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The creationist mind at work

#19  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Oct 28, 2017 7:10 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Not to mention that multiple signatories of the Declaration explicitely stated the US is not a Christian nation.

It soon became one, though.

True, but irrelevant with regards to WFs original point and my response to it.

Of course it's relevant.

It's not. WF's and my post were about the constitution, not about what America eventually became.
WF insinuated that the constitution establishes a Christian nation.
He then presented a quote-mine of Jefferson to support that claim.
You correctly pointed out Jefferson's statement only demonstrates d/theism, not Christianity.
To which I added that many of the prominent signatories explicitely stated the US was not founded as a Christian nation.

DavidMcC wrote:
I noted a possible/likely linguistic issue in your post of "not to mention", which, in the English of the English, implies a agreement, with a reinforcing addition, yet you seem to have used the phrase to imply disagreement. If so, what is the disagreement about? :scratch:

It's not. It's a misunderstanding on your part.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27243
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: The creationist mind at work

#20  Postby Wortfish » Oct 29, 2017 12:18 am

aban57 wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
So, it is OK to say Evolution did it, Mother Nature did it....but to claim the Creator did it is a no no. This is despite the fact that a "Creator" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence for the United States. :scratch:


What does this have to do with anything ? You can find millions of references to Santa Claus, doesn't make it real. A paper trying to explain a natural process invoking a fictional character can't be taken seriously, no matter which character is used.


Darwin himself referred to the "Creator" in the Origin of Species:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.


So, by that token, Darwin would have his scientific contributions withdrawn. This is madness.
User avatar
Wortfish
 
Posts: 524

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Next

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest