[_ Old Earth _] "Atheist Darwinism" is a ridiculous phrase

[Jayls5]

This is mainly for BobRyan, since he either missed it or ignored it. He uses the phrase extensively, and after numerous requests not to use it (because it's stupid) he has not.


Sorry, darwinism has NOTHING to do with any sort of origin myth. It has NOTHING to do with abiogenesis.

If you want to argue against abiogenesis, then do it. Just don't go on rants about "atheist" darwinism that has nothing to do with any myth what-so-ever. I could very well be an atheist and a darwinist, and I could have NO opinion on how life was started due to lack of evidence. It would make more sense to call the people you want to argue against simple "abiogenesis supporters." That's the position that actually has a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Neither atheism nor darwinism necessarily has any sort of explanation for the origin of life, and that's why i'm getting so annoyed with your constant use of the phrase. It's not applicable.

I'm an atheist and I believe in a general notion of evolution, yet I have absolutely no position on the origin of life. If you want to be intellectually honest, direct your argument towards people who actually have a position on the origin of life!

 

[John]

This is the way i seeit.

I am a christian, not catholic, baptists, jew etc
i am simply under the same "umbrella" as the rest of them.

Abiogenics, Evolution, Ateistim etc its all under the same umbrella. so its talked about as if they were the same thing, just like Cristian, Catholic, judism etc etc.

 

[jmm9683]

This is the way i seeit.

I am a christian, not catholic, baptists, jew etc
i am simply under the same "umbrella" as the rest of them.

Abiogenics, Evolution, Ateistim etc its all under the same umbrella. so its talked about as if they were the same thing, just like Cristian, Catholic, judism etc etc.

It's only under the same umbrella to fundies...

 

[Jayls5]

This is the way i seeit.

I am a christian, not catholic, baptists, jew etc
i am simply under the same "umbrella" as the rest of them.

Abiogenics, Evolution, Ateistim etc its all under the same umbrella. so its talked about as if they were the same thing, just like Cristian, Catholic, judism etc etc.

The whole point is this: By analogy, you might find some ridiculous notions of a sect of a religion, but that's stupid to assert that it disproves anything about the whole of the religion.

I am single-handedly an example of someone who does not fit into his notion of "atheist darwinism" yet he continues to assert it.

This is why I tell him to be more specific in his terminology. It's annoying as hell.

 

[Barbarian]

I think most evangelicals know there is no connection between science and atheism. Indeed, the greatest advances of modern science, including evolution, were made by Christians. Not everything, of course, and much of the foundation was by non-Christians, but the fact remains that the rise of science coincides with the rise of Christian Europe.

To a few fundamentalists, it's "us against anything else." And that's where they get such ideas.

 

[BobRyan]

Substantive issues first posted here --

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31978&p=375534#p375534

Still waiting for a response "of substance" to match.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I am single-handedly an example of someone who does not fit into his notion of "atheist darwinism" yet he continues to assert it.

This is why I tell him to be more specific in his terminology. It's annoying as hell.

As the link above shows -- I never claim that all who devoutedly believe in atheist darwinism are themselves atheists. I agree whole heartedly that many Christians who blindly follow the atheist darwinist leadership into some "distinctively" atheist attacks on ID evolutionsts are in fact doing so "unwittingly" without meaning to expose their compromise with atheist darwinism to the point of taking on "distinctively atheist" arguments.

see the link for details.

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

Substantive issues first posted here --

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31978&p=375534#p375534

Still waiting for a response "of substance" to match.

Bob

That post more belongs into my older thread, "God did it," the end of human inquiry?

I don't see how your statements are really backed up. This is one major claim with not very much substance backing it up:

"My argument is not that the Christians are themselves atheists who are devotedly following the atheist darwinists as they attack the Romans 1 principle and attack both Christians and non-Christian in the ID evolutionist group -- the argument is that they have "unwittingly" follwed their atheist darwinist leaders INTO a distinctively atheist course of action in their attacks upon others."

You mostly make vague assertions here. I don't even know what the last sentence really means; it's that vague.

You don't really specify which part of Romans 1 you're referring to, but I imagine it's the one about creation and those "professing themselves to be wise" becoming fools. This is immediately followed by a reference to false idols (worshiping a creature more than the creator). I really think this was an effort to elaborate a bit on the second commandment and not much more.

It's a pretty wild assertion to say that Christians are "attacking" Romans 1 by having one perspective about the creation of the world and not taking genesis literally. By having a different opinion and arguing for it, I fail to see why this is an "attack" on others. Arguably, there is more attacking going on against evolutionists by the Christian crowd supporting ID.

I still don't see how this has much to do with the purpose of this thread, that "Atheist Darwinism" is a phrase whose arguments are generally inapplicable to.... well.... atheists who believe in evolution. The phrase doesn't involve anything with abiogenesis, a creation story, or anything of the sort. Assuming an atheist evolutionist DOES believe in any of the above, it's because he's ALSO a supporter of naturalistic abiogenesis. Now, instead of being intellectually honest and merely arguing against "abiogenesis supporters," BobRyan and others continue use the inapplicable phrase: "Atheist Darwinism"

 

[Jayls5]

I am single-handedly an example of someone who does not fit into his notion of "atheist darwinism" yet he continues to assert it.

This is why I tell him to be more specific in his terminology. It's annoying as hell.

As the link above shows -- I never claim that all who devoutedly believe in atheist darwinism are themselves atheists. I agree whole heartedly that many Christians who blindly follow the atheist darwinist leadership into some "distinctively" atheist attacks on ID evolutionsts are in fact doing so "unwittingly" without meaning to expose their compromise with atheist darwinism to the point of taking on "distinctively atheist" arguments.

see the link for details.

Bob

You completely missed the point. Even if they were atheists, it doesn't say anything about abiogenesis, a naturalistic creation story, or anything you essentially argue about when using the phrase. It is not applicable, simply put. If you want to argue against conceptions of abiogenesis, don't call them "Atheist Darwinists."

 

[BobRyan]

As I said -- "see the link for details" simply skipping over the points raised and selectively re-spinning one of them on this thread -- does not "a substantive argument make". However I understand that it might be your preferred method.

 

[Jayls5]

As I said -- "see the link for details" simply skipping over the points raised and selectively re-spinning one of them on this thread -- does not "a substantive argument make". However I understand that it might be your preferred method.

Re-spinning?

I bolded one sentence from your last (short) post, and I illustrated why you were missing the point. I don't know if you noticed, but I made one huge post trying to decipher the vagueness of your so-called response in this thread. You then ignore my response, and then you accuse me of "skipping over the points." Uhh, it seems mildly hypocritical to call someone out on skipping over points while doing it yourself for the last two I've made in this thread.

You might want to go back and double check that your accusation makes much sense, given the fact that I've made more of an effort than you in this thread.

 

[BobRyan]

That link has 3 posts detailing your solution and the problems with it.

 

[Jayls5]

That link has 3 posts detailing your solution and the problems with it.

I just reread it all over again, and I realized what you are doing:

Instead of talking to me here, you keep responding to my posts in your own thread while partially quoting me so nobody has much of an idea of what is going on in either thread. You keep linking your responses here so anyone who would want to read a linear discussion has to flip flop back and forth between the two threads. Nice job there.

If it's really that important that you respond to MY THREAD in YOUR THREAD (a thread I have never posted in), we can migrate the entire conversation there if you find it so necessary.

I'll respond sometime soon once I figure out what is going on with this mess of a discussion you inadvertently created.

 

[BobRyan]

Hey I told you about that thread and started it long before this one. My choice was to duplicate that thread here -- or link to it. I chose to link to it. The fact that you simply did not notice -- though I provided the link here for all to read -- is not my problem but you are welcome to respond to the arguments listed in detail.

 

[Jayls5]

Hey I told you about that thread and started it long before this one. My choice was to duplicate that thread here -- or link to it. I chose to link to it. The fact that you simply did not notice -- though I provided the link here for all to read -- is not my problem but you are welcome to respond to the arguments listed in detail.

Long before this one? A whopping 12 minutes eh?

Not only that, I was the one who actually explicitly said I would be making the thread first. The only thing remotely close to saying you would start it before me was your quote, "I see a thread title coming up" which has nothing to do with who makes it. Once I made the thread, I pretty much stopped reading the one where our discussion shouldn't have continued.

I'm already pretty much getting character attacked in your thread as you don't quote my entire posts from this one... you may as well be honest about how this got started.

 

[BobRyan]

Long before this one? A whopping 12 minutes eh?

Ok -- "before" but not "long before" for some reason I though yours was an "afternoon post".

Not only that, I was the one who actually explicitly said I would be making the thread first. The only thing remotely close to saying you would start it before me was your quote, "I see a thread title coming up"

Yep - that is me seeing me start the thread. :smt039

good of you to notice.

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

Long before this one? A whopping 12 minutes eh?

Ok -- "before" but not "long before" for some reason I though yours was an "afternoon post".

Not only that, I was the one who actually explicitly said I would be making the thread first. The only thing remotely close to saying you would start it before me was your quote, "I see a thread title coming up" (There is something missing here)

Yep - that is me seeing me start the thread. :smt039

good of you to notice.

Bob

Ok, I respectfully request that you at least quote the entire sentence of my posts, if not the paragraph your referring to. You purposefully took out the rest of the sentence and totally changed the purpose of my sentence. If this a practice you are going to pursue in future dialogs, I'm not going to have much of an interest in being civil with you.

 

[Barbarian]

Criticizing a creationist for quote mining is like punishing a rooster for crowing at the sunrise. He might stop it for a while, but you'll never break him of it.

 

[BobRyan]

While these games may serve your purpose on this thread - why not simply go to the link - read the points listed - and respond substantively.

As you already pointed out -- I stated that "I see a thread coming up" dedicated to Atheist Darwinism and I stated that you would have an entire thread to then make your case. Period.

Now we have this one started AFTER mine -- and as i already pointed out the choice was to either repeat all the posts on my detailing the points behind the term "atheist darwinism" (points that I doubt you would ever raise on this thread and points that you have not raised to this point on this thread) -- so why not simply end the games here - go to the link and respond?

This is actually very easy -- just click on the link -- read -- and type.

From "page 1" on this thread -- post #6 -- my first post here...

Bob said
Substantive issues first posted here --

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=31978&p=375534#p375534

Still waiting for a response "of substance" to match.

Indeed -- still waiting.

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

Your patronizing tone is starting to piss me off, Bob.

You didn't even address the fact that you're flagrantly cutting my posts apart and changing their meaning by omission. It is not a "game" to point this practice out. That's exposing an intentional misleading and aversion to respond to what I'm actually saying.

Like I said in the other thread that we were agreeing on, make a thread. Lay out your argument in simple terms. Allow me to address one argument at a time before you spam it with further information. This is a completely reasonable request in order to keep the discussion organized and cohesive.