Are Creationists actually coming around?

shadron · 29th April 2012, 01:37 PM

Potholer54 has just released a very interesting video in which he explains that several of the leading creationists who accept "micro-evolution" seem to be accepting the mechanisms of evolution as real, and the problems with ring species are overcoming the last wails of heresy flung at science; all that appears to remain is name semantics and the question of how long it took:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

(As a side, it's also humorous. The phallic symbology is worth it alone.)

Now, I'm well aware that for a long time these people have been pelted with the "evolutionist" assertion that if they accept micro-evolution, them they've also embraced macro-evolution, for they are the same thing. I've wondered before where the real doctrinal cleft remained, aside from ascribing the policy to God rather than physics, but thought it was just beyond my simplistic thinking.

While I think Potholer makes a case here, how is it that Hovind et al., all the way up to the baramin-meister TC Wood, still justify trying to kill evolutionary theory rather than just seeking to explore/tweak it, as many scientists do (without, of course, the same idea of evidence in their method)?

Roadtoad · 29th April 2012, 01:43 PM

I don't think they're coming around at all. If anything, this represents an attempt to negotiate with fact, something that shouldn't be attempted.

It's like the knuckledragger who bleats on and on about various conspiracies, and when cornered that he's spewing stupidity, tries to say, "Well, we can agree on this, can't we?"

That's going to depend on what "this" is, and how it would affect the argument. I find in many of those situations, agreement with "this" will simply fuel the knuckledragger into finding another bizarre conspiracy to lay claim to.

Marduk · 29th April 2012, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by shadron

While I think Potholer makes a case here, how is it that Hovind et al., all the way up to the baramin-meister TC Wood, still justify trying to kill evolutionary theory rather than just seeking to explore/tweak it, as many scientists do (without, of course, the same idea of evidence in their method)?

Those people are funda"goddidit"mentalists
all bets are off

EHocking · 29th April 2012, 02:25 PM

Creationists are going to accept evolution with the same grace and sincerity as two boys told to shake hands after being caught fighting in the playground.

shadron · 29th April 2012, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Roadtoad

I don't think they're coming around at all. If anything, this represents an attempt to negotiate with fact, something that shouldn't be attempted.

It's like the knuckledragger who bleats on and on about various conspiracies, and when cornered that he's spewing stupidity, tries to say, "Well, we can agree on this, can't we?"

That's going to depend on what "this" is, and how it would affect the argument. I find in many of those situations, agreement with "this" will simply fuel the knuckledragger into finding another bizarre conspiracy to lay claim to.

Oh, I agree there will always be some who cling to the argument not because evolution is flawed, but rather because it is evil, something which evidence cannot refute.

The question for the rest is, though, where is the beef?

shadron · 29th April 2012, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by EHocking

Creationists are going to accept evolution with the same grace and sincerity as two boys told to shake hands after being caught fighting in the playground.

That's a damned site better than Richard Owen's acceptance of Darwin, or Einstein's acceptance of Bohr.

HansMustermann · 29th April 2012, 05:54 PM

I don't think accepting "micro-evolution" is something new, nor something they ever had much choice about.

Deviations within a species are something that has even happened within one's lifetime. Nobody can argue that, say, this is an ISO-standard cat and this is an ISO-standard dog, they never changed at all since Noah let them off the ark. You have races like the Scottish Fold which appeared in the 1960's, and some even newer. Plus, there are genetic mutations like polydactil cats (some even with opposable thumbs, so they may not need us to open the tuna can for much longer

). Or the Munchkin which incidentally is also an example of the previous point: a race that's so new, that even for some teenagers it happened within their lifetime. Or the tiny Persian cats resulted from a mutation that happened in 1995. In fact, we even know the name of the cat that had that mutation and gave it to its offspring.

They simply can't say that mutations don't exist, because someone can just pull up one of those teacup-sized cats and go: "Mutation!" (With apologies to Lewis Black's fossil joke.)

Similarly it's not hard to see selection at work, especially when humans are involved. E.g., white squirrels becoming the dominant breed in a city just because people find them cute and feed them. E.g., a mutation that produces elephants without tusks, previously was selected against, but is now becoming gradually more common, for the obvious reason.

So they have to acknowledge that, but come up with some "yes, BUT" thing that still denies evolution. Micro-evolution vs macro-evolution is just the most basic form of that. (Incidentally, also the most stupid. As the wisecrack goes, it's like saying that you can pick your nose for ten seconds, but it's flat out impossible to pick your nose for ten minutes.)

C_Felix · 29th April 2012, 07:28 PM

Keep in mind, the lay-creationist, those who don't try to expand their knowledge, will keep thinking "Darwin can't explain how life began," even though Darwin never attempted to explain how life began.

So, "they" aren't going to be coming around since most of your average church going folk don't know the difference between evolution and/or (a)biogensis, or even care to know the difference, since they have been told, "Evolution can't explain how life began" (Even though we know Darwin never tried and they don't care enough to find that out...etc...)

jasonpatterson · 29th April 2012, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

I don't think accepting "micro-evolution" is something new, nor something they ever had much choice about.

This video wasn't about "micro-evolution" though, it was about prominent creationists openly acknowledging that speciation can and does occur. They're admitting that "macro-evolution" occurs. It was an excellent video, not that he doesn't normally set the bar high for quality skeptical videos.

Dinwar · 29th April 2012, 08:19 PM

The issue is that there are two types of Creationists: the liars and frauds who run the show, such as Kent Hovand and Kevin Ham, and the dupes who never bother to learn the facts anyway. There's going to be a hard core of both that will simply never accept that they're wrong--the former because they'd have to give up their cooshy rackets, and the latter because they simply don't care if they're right or not.

EHocking · 30th April 2012, 04:47 AM

And denialists, such as religious believers that know the argument for evolution is out there, but refuse to even discuss the subject.

quarky · 1st May 2012, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by EHocking

Creationists are going to accept evolution with the same grace and sincerity as two boys told to shake hands after being caught fighting in the playground.

ugh.

Why did you have to remind me of the insincerity of my apologies?
That was some seriously awkward stuff.

EHocking · 1st May 2012, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by quarky

ugh.

Why did you have to remind me of the insincerity of my apologies?
That was some seriously awkward stuff.

You want awkward?

Try being the first boy caught by the head teacher playfighting with his best friend the day after the head teacher had stated that the next boys he finds fighting in the schoolyard will get the strap.

Now imagine the awkwardness of that head teacher being your own father...

AvalonXQ · 1st May 2012, 02:14 PM

I haven't watched the Youtube video; is this just about bariminology?

Because that has been a position of more sophisticated creationists for a while now.

quarky · 1st May 2012, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by EHocking

You want awkward?

Try being the first boy caught by the head teacher playfighting with his best friend the day after the head teacher had stated that the next boys he finds fighting in the schoolyard will get the strap.

Now imagine the awkwardness of that head teacher being your own father...

Isn't there a Steven King novel of that theme?

I caught the strap a few, but not through me da, at least, not at school.
I'm surprised you're vaguely coherent.

EHocking · 1st May 2012, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by quarky

Isn't there a Steven King novel of that theme?

I caught the strap a few, but not through me da, at least, not at school.
I'm surprised you're vaguely coherent.

It gets worse.

For one year, our entire family was at the same school.
Dad as head teacher, Mum as librarian, my older brother and both younger sister.

Oh, and this was a suburban school of some 600 pupils, not a small country town place.

I used to be a decent runner in those days, but in later years they could catch me. So I learned the hard way on how to throw (and take) a punch...

quarky · 1st May 2012, 03:41 PM

Ehocking, that's some juicy stuff.
But suddenly I feel the eyes of science.

Maybe unload more in community?

Dinwar · 1st May 2012, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I haven't watched the Youtube video; is this just about bariminology?

Because that has been a position of more sophisticated creationists for a while now.

The last truly intellectually sophisticated creationist died well over 200 years ago (given actuarial statistics and the publication of Lyelle's Principles of Geology). Briminology is a cheap trick to attempt to reconcile what creationists call "microevolution" with Biblical literalism. Linnaeus did it first, did it better, and did it FAR more honestly (please see my first post in this thread before you jump down my throat; I've no doubt many creationists are honestly mistaken, but the people coming up with the garbage they spew cannot help but know they're being dishonest).

That's the part Creationists don't like to admit: THEIR OWN MEMBERS disproved them CENTURIES ago. Linnaeus was a Creationist. He wasn't making an evolutionary theory, but a list of kinds. And he was one of the steps towards proving evolution.

shadron · 1st May 2012, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I haven't watched the Youtube video; is this just about bariminology?

Because that has been a position of more sophisticated creationists for a while now.

No, not directly. It's about Hovind and Ham making definitions which would seem to make their creationism compatible with basic evolutionary theory, excepting the terms used and the time scale.

Farsight · 1st May 2012, 04:30 PM

IMHO creationists are coming round to evolution because there's a silver bullet. It goes something like this:

"What kind of God is yours who created man with all his venal bestial flaws but no opportunity to evolve and improve and better himself, then roasts him in Hell for it?"

quarky · 1st May 2012, 04:45 PM

God has godamned good reasons for roasting people in hell.

Like a cookout or something.

shadron · 1st May 2012, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by Farsight

IMHO creationists are coming round to evolution because there's a silver bullet. It goes something like this:

"What kind of God is yours who created man with all his venal bestial flaws but no opportunity to evolve and improve and better himself, then roasts him in Hell for it?"

And how is that going to work? Wait another 10,000 years for the new, improved model? And what of us poor evolutionarily-deprived? And for that they'll give up biblical literalism?

Roadtoad · 2nd May 2012, 01:25 PM

Cthulhu would be making with the BBQ.

God makes with the potatoe salad.

(Intentional. Just for you, D. Quayle.)

Good Lt · 2nd May 2012, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by Farsight

IMHO creationists are coming round to evolution because there's a silver bullet. It goes something like this:

"What kind of God is yours who created man with all his venal bestial flaws but no opportunity to evolve and improve and better himself, then roasts him in Hell for it?"

A loving God!

What do I win?

Roadtoad · 2nd May 2012, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by Good Lt

A loving God!

What do I win?

Well first prize was a week in Philadelphia.

Second prize was two weeks in Philadelphia...

Good Lt · 2nd May 2012, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by Roadtoad

Well first prize was a week in Philadelphia.

Second prize was two weeks in Philadelphia...

Heh.

quarky · 2nd May 2012, 03:34 PM

At least it ain't Camden.

Farsight · 2nd May 2012, 11:40 PM

Originally Posted by Good Lt

A loving God!

What do I win?

Two weeks in Hell. But it's kinda fun. Bring your own pitchfork.

Wowbagger · 3rd May 2012, 06:52 AM

Goes back to what I've been saying for a while:

Evolution is powerful enough to change the course of Creationism. But, Creationism has never been able to change the course of Evolution.

The whole history of Creationism is one redefinition after another, each of which has to keep up with discoveries made through Evolution-based thinking.

CapelDodger · 4th May 2012, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Good Lt

A loving God!

If it loves cruel tricks. I'm not breaking any theological ground with that observation.

Quote:

What do I win?

The love's not about you. Get over it and make your own winnings

.

CapelDodger · 4th May 2012, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

Evolution is powerful enough to change the course of Creationism. But, Creationism has never been able to change the course of Evolution.

Nice observation. Invokes an image of some armoured creature powering through the mud quite oblivious of the angry shrimp-like assailants he's disturbing.

29th April 2012, 02:25 PM	#4
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	Creationists are going to accept evolution with the same grace and sincerity as two boys told to shake hands after being caught fighting in the playground.
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite Forum Birdwatching Webpage

29th April 2012, 05:54 PM	#7
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,848	I don't think accepting "micro-evolution" is something new, nor something they ever had much choice about. Deviations within a species are something that has even happened within one's lifetime. Nobody can argue that, say, this is an ISO-standard cat and this is an ISO-standard dog, they never changed at all since Noah let them off the ark. You have races like the Scottish Fold which appeared in the 1960's, and some even newer. Plus, there are genetic mutations like polydactil cats (some even with opposable thumbs, so they may not need us to open the tuna can for much longer). Or the Munchkin which incidentally is also an example of the previous point: a race that's so new, that even for some teenagers it happened within their lifetime. Or the tiny Persian cats resulted from a mutation that happened in 1995. In fact, we even know the name of the cat that had that mutation and gave it to its offspring. They simply can't say that mutations don't exist, because someone can just pull up one of those teacup-sized cats and go: "Mutation!" (With apologies to Lewis Black's fossil joke.) Similarly it's not hard to see selection at work, especially when humans are involved. E.g., white squirrels becoming the dominant breed in a city just because people find them cute and feed them. E.g., a mutation that produces elephants without tusks, previously was selected against, but is now becoming gradually more common, for the obvious reason. So they have to acknowledge that, but come up with some "yes, BUT" thing that still denies evolution. Micro-evolution vs macro-evolution is just the most basic form of that. (Incidentally, also the most stupid. As the wisecrack goes, it's like saying that you can pick your nose for ten seconds, but it's flat out impossible to pick your nose for ten minutes.)

29th April 2012, 07:28 PM	#8
C_Felix Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Right outside Raleigh, NC Posts: 1,041	Keep in mind, the lay-creationist, those who don't try to expand their knowledge, will keep thinking "Darwin can't explain how life began," even though Darwin never attempted to explain how life began. So, "they" aren't going to be coming around since most of your average church going folk don't know the difference between evolution and/or (a)biogensis, or even care to know the difference, since they have been told, "Evolution can't explain how life began" (Even though we know Darwin never tried and they don't care enough to find that out...etc...)
	__________________ No, his mind is not for rent To any god or government. Always hopeful, yet discontent, He knows changes aren't permanent, But change is.

29th April 2012, 07:55 PM	#9
jasonpatterson Philanthropic Misanthrope Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Space, The Final Frontier Posts: 2,183	Originally Posted by HansMustermann I don't think accepting "micro-evolution" is something new, nor something they ever had much choice about. This video wasn't about "micro-evolution" though, it was about prominent creationists openly acknowledging that speciation can and does occur. They're admitting that "macro-evolution" occurs. It was an excellent video, not that he doesn't normally set the bar high for quality skeptical videos.
	__________________ Sandra's seen a leprechaun, Eddie touched a troll, Laurie danced with witches once, Charlie found some goblins' gold. Donald heard a mermaid sing, Susie spied an elf, But all the magic I have known I've had to make myself. - Shel Silverstein

29th April 2012, 08:19 PM	#10
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,960	The issue is that there are two types of Creationists: the liars and frauds who run the show, such as Kent Hovand and Kevin Ham, and the dupes who never bother to learn the facts anyway. There's going to be a hard core of both that will simply never accept that they're wrong--the former because they'd have to give up their cooshy rackets, and the latter because they simply don't care if they're right or not.
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,960	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

29th April 2012, 01:43 PM	#2
Roadtoad Bufo Caminus Inedibilis Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Gone. Posts: 15,738	I don't think they're coming around at all. If anything, this represents an attempt to negotiate with fact, something that shouldn't be attempted. It's like the knuckledragger who bleats on and on about various conspiracies, and when cornered that he's spewing stupidity, tries to say, "Well, we can agree on this, can't we?" That's going to depend on what "this" is, and how it would affect the argument. I find in many of those situations, agreement with "this" will simply fuel the knuckledragger into finding another bizarre conspiracy to lay claim to.

29th April 2012, 01:44 PM	#3
Marduk Banned Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Newbury, Berkshire Posts: 10,242	Originally Posted by shadron While I think Potholer makes a case here, how is it that Hovind et al., all the way up to the baramin-meister TC Wood, still justify trying to kill evolutionary theory rather than just seeking to explore/tweak it, as many scientists do (without, of course, the same idea of evidence in their method)? Those people are funda"goddidit"mentalists all bets are off

29th April 2012, 03:01 PM	#5
shadron Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 5,719	Originally Posted by Roadtoad I don't think they're coming around at all. If anything, this represents an attempt to negotiate with fact, something that shouldn't be attempted. It's like the knuckledragger who bleats on and on about various conspiracies, and when cornered that he's spewing stupidity, tries to say, "Well, we can agree on this, can't we?" That's going to depend on what "this" is, and how it would affect the argument. I find in many of those situations, agreement with "this" will simply fuel the knuckledragger into finding another bizarre conspiracy to lay claim to. Oh, I agree there will always be some who cling to the argument not because evolution is flawed, but rather because it is evil, something which evidence cannot refute. The question for the rest is, though, where is the beef?

29th April 2012, 03:04 PM	#6
shadron Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 5,719	Originally Posted by EHocking Creationists are going to accept evolution with the same grace and sincerity as two boys told to shake hands after being caught fighting in the playground. That's a damned site better than Richard Owen's acceptance of Darwin, or Einstein's acceptance of Bohr.

30th April 2012, 04:47 AM	#11
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	And denialists, such as religious believers that know the argument for evolution is out there, but refuse to even discuss the subject.
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite Forum Birdwatching Webpage

1st May 2012, 01:01 PM	#12
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	Originally Posted by EHocking Creationists are going to accept evolution with the same grace and sincerity as two boys told to shake hands after being caught fighting in the playground. ugh. Why did you have to remind me of the insincerity of my apologies? That was some seriously awkward stuff.
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

1st May 2012, 02:11 PM	#13
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	Originally Posted by quarky ugh. Why did you have to remind me of the insincerity of my apologies? That was some seriously awkward stuff. You want awkward? Try being the first boy caught by the head teacher playfighting with his best friend the day after the head teacher had stated that the next boys he finds fighting in the schoolyard will get the strap. Now imagine the awkwardness of that head teacher being your own father...
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite Forum Birdwatching Webpage

1st May 2012, 02:14 PM	#14
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853	I haven't watched the Youtube video; is this just about bariminology? Because that has been a position of more sophisticated creationists for a while now.
AvalonXQ Guest Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 11,853

1st May 2012, 02:29 PM	#15
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	Originally Posted by EHocking You want awkward? Try being the first boy caught by the head teacher playfighting with his best friend the day after the head teacher had stated that the next boys he finds fighting in the schoolyard will get the strap. Now imagine the awkwardness of that head teacher being your own father... Isn't there a Steven King novel of that theme? I caught the strap a few, but not through me da, at least, not at school. I'm surprised you're vaguely coherent.
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

1st May 2012, 03:11 PM	#16
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	Originally Posted by quarky Isn't there a Steven King novel of that theme? I caught the strap a few, but not through me da, at least, not at school. I'm surprised you're vaguely coherent. It gets worse. For one year, our entire family was at the same school. Dad as head teacher, Mum as librarian, my older brother and both younger sister. Oh, and this was a suburban school of some 600 pupils, not a small country town place. I used to be a decent runner in those days, but in later years they could catch me. So I learned the hard way on how to throw (and take) a punch...
EHocking Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 4,410	__________________ "A closed mouth gathers no feet" "Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett "It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite Forum Birdwatching Webpage

1st May 2012, 03:41 PM	#17
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	Ehocking, that's some juicy stuff. But suddenly I feel the eyes of science. Maybe unload more in community?
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

1st May 2012, 04:09 PM	#18
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,960	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ I haven't watched the Youtube video; is this just about bariminology? Because that has been a position of more sophisticated creationists for a while now. The last truly intellectually sophisticated creationist died well over 200 years ago (given actuarial statistics and the publication of Lyelle's Principles of Geology). Briminology is a cheap trick to attempt to reconcile what creationists call "microevolution" with Biblical literalism. Linnaeus did it first, did it better, and did it FAR more honestly (please see my first post in this thread before you jump down my throat; I've no doubt many creationists are honestly mistaken, but the people coming up with the garbage they spew cannot help but know they're being dishonest). That's the part Creationists don't like to admit: THEIR OWN MEMBERS disproved them CENTURIES ago. Linnaeus was a Creationist. He wasn't making an evolutionary theory, but a list of kinds. And he was one of the steps towards proving evolution.
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,960	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

1st May 2012, 04:14 PM	#19
shadron Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 5,719	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ I haven't watched the Youtube video; is this just about bariminology? Because that has been a position of more sophisticated creationists for a while now. No, not directly. It's about Hovind and Ham making definitions which would seem to make their creationism compatible with basic evolutionary theory, excepting the terms used and the time scale.

1st May 2012, 04:30 PM	#20
Farsight Suspended Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Poole, UK Posts: 1,956	IMHO creationists are coming round to evolution because there's a silver bullet. It goes something like this: "What kind of God is yours who created man with all his venal bestial flaws but no opportunity to evolve and improve and better himself, then roasts him in Hell for it?"

1st May 2012, 04:45 PM	#21
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	God has godamned good reasons for roasting people in hell. Like a cookout or something.
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

1st May 2012, 07:21 PM	#22
shadron Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 5,719	Originally Posted by Farsight IMHO creationists are coming round to evolution because there's a silver bullet. It goes something like this: "What kind of God is yours who created man with all his venal bestial flaws but no opportunity to evolve and improve and better himself, then roasts him in Hell for it?" And how is that going to work? Wait another 10,000 years for the new, improved model? And what of us poor evolutionarily-deprived? And for that they'll give up biblical literalism?

2nd May 2012, 01:25 PM	#23
Roadtoad Bufo Caminus Inedibilis Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Gone. Posts: 15,738	Cthulhu would be making with the BBQ. God makes with the potatoe salad. (Intentional. Just for you, D. Quayle.)

2nd May 2012, 01:45 PM	#24
Good Lt Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Satellite of Love Posts: 1,487	Originally Posted by Farsight IMHO creationists are coming round to evolution because there's a silver bullet. It goes something like this: "What kind of God is yours who created man with all his venal bestial flaws but no opportunity to evolve and improve and better himself, then roasts him in Hell for it?" A loving God! What do I win?
	__________________ Sorrowful and great is the artist's destiny. - Liszt Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful. - Ian Faith

2nd May 2012, 01:55 PM	#25
Roadtoad Bufo Caminus Inedibilis Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Gone. Posts: 15,738	Originally Posted by Good Lt A loving God! What do I win? Well first prize was a week in Philadelphia. Second prize was two weeks in Philadelphia...

2nd May 2012, 02:02 PM	#26
Good Lt Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Satellite of Love Posts: 1,487	Originally Posted by Roadtoad Well first prize was a week in Philadelphia. Second prize was two weeks in Philadelphia... Heh.
	__________________ Sorrowful and great is the artist's destiny. - Liszt Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful. - Ian Faith

2nd May 2012, 03:34 PM	#27
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454	At least it ain't Camden.
quarky Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 20,454

2nd May 2012, 11:40 PM	#28
Farsight Suspended Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Poole, UK Posts: 1,956	Originally Posted by Good Lt A loving God! What do I win? Two weeks in Hell. But it's kinda fun. Bring your own pitchfork.

3rd May 2012, 06:52 AM	#29
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 13,532	Goes back to what I've been saying for a while: Evolution is powerful enough to change the course of Creationism. But, Creationism has never been able to change the course of Evolution. The whole history of Creationism is one redefinition after another, each of which has to keep up with discoveries made through Evolution-based thinking.
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where *you* could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!

4th May 2012, 03:58 PM	#30
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 16,744	Originally Posted by Good Lt A loving God! If it loves cruel tricks. I'm not breaking any theological ground with that observation. Quote: What do I win? The love's not about you. Get over it and make your own winnings .
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150

4th May 2012, 04:07 PM	#31
CapelDodger Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Cardiff, South Wales Posts: 16,744	Originally Posted by Wowbagger Evolution is powerful enough to change the course of Creationism. But, Creationism has never been able to change the course of Evolution. Nice observation. Invokes an image of some armoured creature powering through the mud quite oblivious of the angry shrimp-like assailants he's disturbing.
	__________________ It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898) God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150