I have now met a real life creationist.

[bilby]

Do you have an argument to back this up with? All I see here is a statement. Statements are not conclusions.

Which part do you (and Keith&Co and atrib) find controversial?
Mind?
Intentionality?
Creativity?

I expect it's the circularity (remove the word 'intentionally' from the claim 'It takes the creative mind of a personal Being to intentionally bring about something new.' if you don't want to make a circular argument); But it might be the fact that once you remove the circularity, the claim is simply a bald statement with no evidence or observation to support it; and which flies in the face of the fact that new things are observed to arise constantly with no apparent influence from any creative mind.

It is unarguably true that 'It takes the creative mind of a personal Being to intentionally bring about something new.', but that is of zero interest to anyone who has thought about it for a moment, because it clearly leaves open the possibility that it does NOT take the creative mind of a personal Being to bring about something new; which is a statement of the bleeding bloody obvious, and which has no relevance to creationism at all - thereby rendering your initial claim, 'All this talk about scientific advances and technology underscores the whole basis of creationism', clearly false.

In short, scientists setting their minds toward the material world could only be a compliment (backhanded or otherwise) to creationism IF they accept creationism as an a priori fact - which, if they are attempting to do science, would be a gross error.

 

[wilson]

No, faith is not an armour against evil. History teaches us that faith provides a wide open doorway for evil people to manipulate good people through.

So, how is academia going about doing the same thing?:
"B4U-ACT, a group of pro-pedophile activists and mental health professionals, is behind the August 17 conference, which will include panelists from Harvard University, the Johns Hopkins University, the University of Louisville, and the University of Illinois.

On their website B4U-ACT classifies pedophilia as simply another sexual orientation and decries the “stigma” attached to pedophilia, observing: “No one chooses to be emotionally and sexually attracted to children or adolescents. The cause is unknown; in fact, the development of attraction to adults is not understood.” The group says that it does not advocate treatment to change feelings of attraction to children or adolescents.
In the LifeNews article, Law Professor Judith Reisman talks about ‘The Academic Pedophile Lobby.’ Reisman says the DSM has already lightened their diagnosis of pedophilia to make it almost meaningless, and as a result we have now have women pedophiles as well as men." http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2011...erson-hebephiles-ephebophiles-and-pedophiles/
http://www.dnsrsearch.com/index.php...n-hebephiles-ephebophiles-and-pedophiles/&bc=

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/...p-looks-to-remove-stigma-from-pedophilia.html

http://www.scifiwright.com/2009/05/down-the-slippery-slope-to-sodom/

I'd argue that only education is a defense against evil.

OH, really?

 

[bilby]

So, how is academia going about doing the same thing?:
"B4U-ACT, a group of pro-pedophile activists and mental health professionals, is behind the August 17 conference, which will include panelists from Harvard University, the Johns Hopkins University, the University of Louisville, and the University of Illinois.

On their website B4U-ACT classifies pedophilia as simply another sexual orientation and decries the “stigma” attached to pedophilia, observing: “No one chooses to be emotionally and sexually attracted to children or adolescents. The cause is unknown; in fact, the development of attraction to adults is not understood.” The group says that it does not advocate treatment to change feelings of attraction to children or adolescents.
In the LifeNews article, Law Professor Judith Reisman talks about ‘The Academic Pedophile Lobby.’ Reisman says the DSM has already lightened their diagnosis of pedophilia to make it almost meaningless, and as a result we have now have women pedophiles as well as men." http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2011...erson-hebephiles-ephebophiles-and-pedophiles/
http://www.dnsrsearch.com/index.php...n-hebephiles-ephebophiles-and-pedophiles/&bc=

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/...p-looks-to-remove-stigma-from-pedophilia.html

I'd argue that only education is a defense against evil.

OH, really?

Well it certainly might help you to grasp the difference between mental illness and 'evil' - a failure to do so, particularly by the devoutly religious, has led to a vast amount of needless suffering.

Writing off mental illness as 'evil' pretty much guarantees that any solutions you try will be at best ineffective, and most likely counterproductive.

 

[wilson]

So, how is academia going about doing the same thing?:
"B4U-ACT, a group of pro-pedophile activists and mental health professionals, is behind the August 17 conference, which will include panelists from Harvard University, the Johns Hopkins University, the University of Louisville, and the University of Illinois.

On their website B4U-ACT classifies pedophilia as simply another sexual orientation and decries the “stigma” attached to pedophilia, observing: “No one chooses to be emotionally and sexually attracted to children or adolescents. The cause is unknown; in fact, the development of attraction to adults is not understood.” The group says that it does not advocate treatment to change feelings of attraction to children or adolescents.
In the LifeNews article, Law Professor Judith Reisman talks about ‘The Academic Pedophile Lobby.’ Reisman says the DSM has already lightened their diagnosis of pedophilia to make it almost meaningless, and as a result we have now have women pedophiles as well as men." http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2011...erson-hebephiles-ephebophiles-and-pedophiles/
http://www.dnsrsearch.com/index.php...n-hebephiles-ephebophiles-and-pedophiles/&bc=

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/...p-looks-to-remove-stigma-from-pedophilia.html


OH, really?

Well it certainly might help you to grasp the difference between mental illness and 'evil' - a failure to do so, particularly by the devoutly religious, has led to a vast amount of needless suffering.

Writing off mental illness as 'evil' pretty much guarantees that any solutions you try will be at best ineffective, and most likely counterproductive.

Solutions to what? The man was talking about evil PEOPLE. They are "mental health professionals."
Now YOU'RE saying it. Mentally ill people are teaching in your institutions of learning.
Glad I didn't say it.

DrZoidberg: I'd argue that only education is a defense against evil.

With mentally ill people teaching them, how are they going to build that defense against evil?

 

[none]

I'm guessing medication and therapy

 

[Juma]

Well it certainly might help you to grasp the difference between mental illness and 'evil' - a failure to do so, particularly by the devoutly religious, has led to a vast amount of needless suffering.

Writing off mental illness as 'evil' pretty much guarantees that any solutions you try will be at best ineffective, and most likely counterproductive.

Solutions to what? The man was talking about evil PEOPLE. They are "mental health professionals."
Now YOU'RE saying it. Mentally ill people are teaching in your institutions of learning.
Glad I didn't say it.

DrZoidberg: I'd argue that only education is a defense against evil.

With mentally ill people teaching them, how are they going to build that defense against evil?

Wait, what? Do you really say that realizing how pedophilia really works makes them evil?

 

[none]

He's mixed up more than a bowl of nuts

 

[bilby]

Solutions to what? The man was talking about evil PEOPLE. They are "mental health professionals."
Now YOU'RE saying it. Mentally ill people are teaching in your institutions of learning.
Glad I didn't say it.

DrZoidberg: I'd argue that only education is a defense against evil.

With mentally ill people teaching them, how are they going to build that defense against evil?

Wait, what? Do you really say that realizing how pedophilia really works makes them evil?

Apparently without irony, wilson appears to have made EXACTLY the type of error in his reaction to this that I predicted would happen to someone who substitutes faith for education.

So no surprise there then.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Then how come it works so well for us?
Even you are unable to break through our armor of faith, despite your best efforts. Nobody you know can do it.

But it doesn't work well for JW. JW leaves a trail of destruction and broken families in it's wake. JW is a tool of decisiveness in society. Not healing and unity, which is the whole point of religion IMHO.

The only thing faith is an armour against is wisdom.

NONE of those people you mentioned were Christians, despite their claims!
You are proving that yourself by looking at what they DID!
“. . .By their fruits you will recognize them. Never do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they? 17 Likewise, every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, nor can a rotten tree produce fine fruit. 19 Every tree not producing fine fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men.” (Matthew 7:16-20)

It was Christ who said:
“. . .“Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will.  Many will say to me in that day: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name (Christian), and expel demons in your name (Christian), and perform many powerful works in your name (Christian)?’ 23 And then I will declare to them: ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness!’” (Matthew 7:21-23)

Try to use a little imagination and imagine someone from another denomination of Christianity saying the same thing about you. Imagine what kind of arguments they would use? Would they use the exact same Biblical passages? Yes, they would. You're just projecting meaning onto this passages, which isn't there.

All members of all Christian denominations are just as good Christians. You don't get to decide who is, or who isn't a good Christian. That is up to God, and God alone. I can't believe I (an atheist who have never been a Christian) am explaining fundamental concepts of Christianity to a Christian.

"I'd argue that only education is a defense against evil."

That is nonsense!
The point is that those books were written by educated people. The Nazi movement was loaded with educated people. So was the communist movement.
The Ku Kluxers are not exactly illiterate.
Look at what's happening in academia:
https://www.thenewamerican.com/cult...imes-movement-for-pedophile-rights-marches-on

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/fears-grow-over-academic-efforts-normalize-pedophilia

http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2011...erson-hebephiles-ephebophiles-and-pedophiles/

https://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2015/09/23/is-pedophilia-next-n2055868

Even from the government:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...5007E38AAE965021FF565007E38AAE96502&FORM=VIRE
Did you say: "I'd argue that only education is a defense against evil?"
Based on what?
And, not that you know the truth, what do you say now?

No, education is no defense against evil.

We live in the age of science and it is the most peaceful age humanity has ever known.

A scientific mindset leads to dirty laundry being aired. It might not look pretty. But it is the truth. Do you or don't you think that not blowing the whistle of Catholic pedophile priests would have led to more or less children being raped?

Back in the bad old days when everybody was religious it was customary to cover up immoral acts due to the shame it caused. And then it was just let to continue. Immorality was fine as long as nobody noticed. That's what Christian "morals" lead to. Again, not just my opinion, this is backed up by actual research. Until you do research, ie science, you have no idea what is true.

I also noticed that all those articles were from the moral majority being shocked and appalled. Until you show me material from these, so called, "pedophile normalisers" I'm going to call bullshit. I think this is only going on in the heads of insane Christian Crusaders fighting windmills. The only pro-pedophilia organisation I've heard of is NAMBLA, and they're like 8 people, all absolutely nuts. They've been going strong since the 70'ies. They've had zero success anywhere. The interesting thing about NAMBLA is that they're not bad people. They're super super nice, and go out of their way to explain how much they care for and cherish boys. They're obviously misguided. You know.... like Jehovas Witnesses. Another organisation who think they're good people doing good things, when they in reality are good people who have been misled into doing bad things.

I'm sure the members of NAMBLA have faith in their cause. That way they know that they're right, just like you for your cause

 

[DrZoidberg]

Why does it take a creative mind of a personal being to bring about something new?

I said "intentionally". #intellectual_property
A Shakespearean sonnet might spontaneously write itself or evolve by random chance monkeys typing stuff.
But that's more unbelievable than deliberate creationism.

If you define the creation of something new as it being intentionally created by necessity, you've just loaded the dice. It's circular. So no cigarr for you.

What do you mean by personal being?

Look in a mirror.
Say those exact same words.
Now meditate on who exactly is asking that question

I've projected a personality onto my robot vacuum cleaner. But I've seen how it's programmed. It's dumb as bricks. It's creative. It creates all manner of beautiful patterns in my living room carpet. Everyday I look forward to what new creation it has made for me.

BTW, this is a logical fallacy of category.

No it isn't.

I guess that settles it then. Thanks for explaining it to me.

BTW, it can violate several categories of fallacies. I think this one is closer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_fallacy

Whether something is new or not depends to a large extent about other people experience of it and how we label it.

Nope. If a 'thing' happens which has never happened before, we can use the word new irrespective of whether or not there are 'observers'. I can live on a desert island and know about the ontological category - new, novel, original, with or without the existence of other inhabitants being there to concur.

If you want to talk about logical fallacies think about your own claim that a thing might not be 'new' because/if there is an absence of witnesses we don't know about who might have observed it previously. (Argument from silence)

Let's invalidate all the legal patents in the world because, you know, someone else may have invented it first.

If there's no observers there's nobody to label it. A pile of green sludge is just a pile of green sludge to me. But to a microbiologist it might be an extensive zoo of different species.

The key word here is "new" or "newness".

A good example is eyes. They may have evolved separately thousands of times. But there's only one such mutation that have survived. Was it the new one that survived, or one that was like the other ones? How can we know? We can't.

...You may want to rephrase that statement. What kind of new thing do you mean? It's not clear.

Nope. New means new.
You're quibbling.

You're the one trying to deny something that is true (ToE) and invalidate it by wordplay. I'd say that's quibbling par excellance.

ToE is one of the strongest and most well supported scientific theories we have got. You might as well argue that up is down.

 

[wilson]

Solutions to what? The man was talking about evil PEOPLE. They are "mental health professionals."
Now YOU'RE saying it. Mentally ill people are teaching in your institutions of learning.
Glad I didn't say it.

DrZoidberg: I'd argue that only education is a defense against evil.

With mentally ill people teaching them, how are they going to build that defense against evil?

Wait, what? Do you really say that realizing how pedophilia really works makes them evil?

Wait - what? Are you saying that the drive to legalize pedophilia is not evil?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Solutions to what? The man was talking about evil PEOPLE. They are "mental health professionals."
Now YOU'RE saying it. Mentally ill people are teaching in your institutions of learning.
Glad I didn't say it.

With mentally ill people teaching them, how are they going to build that defense against evil?

Wait, what? Do you really say that realizing how pedophilia really works makes them evil?

Wait - what? Are you saying that the drive to legalize pedophilia is not evil?

WHAT DRIVE TO LEGALIZE PEDOPHILIA!?! The only drive to legalise pedophilia is going on in your head.

 

[wilson]

Even from the government:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...5007E38AAE965021FF565007E38AAE96502&FORM=VIRE
Did you say: "I'd argue that only education is a defense against evil?"
Based on what?
And, now that you know the truth, what do you say now?

No, education is no defense against evil.

We live in the age of science and it is the most peaceful age humanity has ever known.

Unfortunately, the facts do not agree with you:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v24/n04/eric-hobsbawm/war-and-peace-in-the-20th-century
Is this what you're talking about?:

"The New Encyclopædia Britannica designates the first and second world wars as “the great watersheds of 20th-century geopolitical history.” It notes that “World War*I led to the fall of four great imperial dynasties .*.*.*, resulted in the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, and .*.*. laid the groundwork for World War*II.” It also tells us that the world wars were virtually “unprecedented in their slaughter, carnage, and destruction.” Guido Knopp likewise says: “Cruelty and human brutality exceeded the worst expectations. In the trenches .*.*. seeds were sown for an era in which humans were viewed as material, not as individuals.”
Or, maybe you mean this:
"Automobiles are useful and enjoyable but also deadly, as proved by the estimated quarter of a million annual deaths from traffic accidents worldwide. And cars are a major producer of pollution. The authors of 5000 Days to Save the Planet say that pollution “is now global, destroying or undermining the viability of ecosystems from pole to pole.” They explain: “We have gone beyond simply damaging ecosystems and are now disrupting the very processes that keep the Earth a fit place for higher forms of life.”(*** Extracted Document ***(AW 99 12/8 pp. 2-7)

Read and weep.

A scientific mindset leads to dirty laundry being aired. It might not look pretty. But it is the truth. Do you or don't you think that not blowing the whistle of Catholic pedophile priests would have led to more or less children being raped?

The push to legalize pedophilia will accomplish that. It does not surprise me that you see nothing wrong with that.

Back in the bad old days when everybody was religious it was customary to cover up immoral acts due to the shame it caused. And then it was just let to continue. Immorality was fine as long as nobody noticed.

Today, immorality is fine as long as nobody cares.

That's what Christian "morals" lead to. Again, not just my opinion, this is backed up by actual research. Until you do research, ie science, you have no idea what is true.

I also noticed that all those articles were from the moral majority being shocked and appalled. Until you show me material from these, so called, "pedophile normalisers" I'm going to call bullshit. I think this is only going on in the heads of insane Christian Crusaders fighting windmills. The only pro-pedophilia organisation I've heard of is NAMBLA, and they're like 8 people, all absolutely nuts. They've been going strong since the 70'ies. They've had zero success anywhere. The interesting thing about NAMBLA is that they're not bad people. They're super super nice, and go out of their way to explain how much they care for and cherish boys. They're obviously misguided.
I'm sure the members of NAMBLA have faith in their cause. That way they know that they're right, just like you for your cause

Stop trying your diversionary tactics.
This has nothing to do with NAMBLA:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...6502&FORM=VIRE
That you can sit there and defend the drive to legalize pedophilia is adequate testimony to the degradation of morality to which you subscribe.
Have a nice day.

 

[Lion IRC]

I said "intentionally". #intellectual_property
A Shakespearean sonnet might spontaneously write itself or evolve by random chance monkeys typing stuff.
But that's more unbelievable than deliberate creationism.

If you define the creation of something new as it being intentionally created by necessity, you've just loaded the dice. It's circular. So no cigarr for you.

I don't define creation as intentional.

That's why I disambiguated the types - intentional versus unintentional creation. New things might spontaneously be created by inanimate and/or unintentional prior causes.
10,000 monkeys typing random letters might accidentally create a Sonnet.

The deliberate human quest for discovery/invention/creation (and whatever it is in our psyche that motivates same) is qualitatively and distinctively different to unintended random events that merely look like 'creation'.

 

[DrZoidberg]

We live in the age of science and it is the most peaceful age humanity has ever known.

Unfortunately, the facts do not agree with you:
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v24/n04/eric-hobsbawm/war-and-peace-in-the-20th-century
Is this what you're talking about?:

"The New Encyclopædia Britannica designates the first and second world wars as “the great watersheds of 20th-century geopolitical history.” It notes that “World War*I led to the fall of four great imperial dynasties .*.*.*, resulted in the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, and .*.*. laid the groundwork for World War*II.” It also tells us that the world wars were virtually “unprecedented in their slaughter, carnage, and destruction.” Guido Knopp likewise says: “Cruelty and human brutality exceeded the worst expectations. In the trenches .*.*. seeds were sown for an era in which humans were viewed as material, not as individuals.”
Or, maybe you mean this:
"Automobiles are useful and enjoyable but also deadly, as proved by the estimated quarter of a million annual deaths from traffic accidents worldwide. And cars are a major producer of pollution. The authors of 5000 Days to Save the Planet say that pollution “is now global, destroying or undermining the viability of ecosystems from pole to pole.” They explain: “We have gone beyond simply damaging ecosystems and are now disrupting the very processes that keep the Earth a fit place for higher forms of life.”(*** Extracted Document ***(AW 99 12/8 pp. 2-7)

Read and weep.

Even counting both world wars the 20'th century is to date the most peaceful century humanity has experienced.

https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace/

https://ourworldindata.org/slides/war-and-violence/#/1

There's nothing wrong with the quote from Encyclopedia Britannica, you're just reading it wrong. You're projecting a meaning into that paragraph that does not support what you are trying to say.

Yes, the two world wars were extremely brutal. But they were friendly and cuddly compared to all preceding wars. The further back we go the worse it was (in general). The last half of the 20th century is the most peaceful period in all of human history.

I also noticed that all those articles were from the moral majority being shocked and appalled. Until you show me material from these, so called, "pedophile normalisers" I'm going to call bullshit. I think this is only going on in the heads of insane Christian Crusaders fighting windmills. The only pro-pedophilia organisation I've heard of is NAMBLA, and they're like 8 people, all absolutely nuts. They've been going strong since the 70'ies. They've had zero success anywhere. The interesting thing about NAMBLA is that they're not bad people. They're super super nice, and go out of their way to explain how much they care for and cherish boys. They're obviously misguided.
I'm sure the members of NAMBLA have faith in their cause. That way they know that they're right, just like you for your cause

Stop trying your diversionary tactics.
This has nothing to do with NAMBLA:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...6502&FORM=VIRE
That you can sit there and defend the drive to legalize pedophilia is adequate testimony to the degradation of morality to which you subscribe.
Have a nice day.

ha ha ha. So now I'm defending the non-existent drive to legalize pedophilia? I'm not defending it. I'm claiming it only exists in your head, and the morons who wrote the articles you linked to. Until you show me something credible with which to back up your claims, I'm not buying it. Equating my skepticism regarding it with a support for it is just dumb.

Nobody is trying to legalize pedophilia, and nobody* is defending it **

*This group of people includes me
*Except NAMBLA

 

[Keith&Co.]

Stop trying your diversionary tactics.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Good one!

 

[DrZoidberg]

If you define the creation of something new as it being intentionally created by necessity, you've just loaded the dice. It's circular. So no cigarr for you.

I don't define creation as intentional.

That's why I disambiguated the types - intentional versus unintentional creation. New things might spontaneously be created by inanimate and/or unintentional prior causes.
10,000 monkeys typing random letters might accidentally create a Sonnet.

The deliberate human quest for discovery/invention/creation (and whatever it is in our psyche that motivates same) is qualitatively and distinctively different to events that merely look like 'creation'.

But we're the product of evolution. Anything we do is a result of evolutionary pressures as well. How aren't what we do also the product of natural selection? You're trying to make a distinction that doesn't exist.

Shakespeare writing the complete works of Shakespeare is equivalent with 10 000 monkeys doing it. Nature through random mutation and natural selection did produce the complete works of Shakespeare once. It actually happened! With nothing but the forces of evolution.

 

[DrZoidberg]

This whole thing about Wilson's outrage over the push for pedophilia legalisations highlights what's wrong with the "moral majority". Or I should say "immoral minority". Because they're the only people who see perversity and smut everywhere. Even where there is none. If you squint hard enough everything looks like a penis or vagina.


In the gay rights movement these people were constantly appalled by, what they perceived, was the legalisations of perversity. When all it was was for consenting adults to find love in the way they wanted. Gay love hurts nobody. And it's love. What could possible be immoral about love? Gay rights wasn't primarily about sex. It was about love. Gays are hardly having more gay sex now than they did before it was legalized. But they are free to shout their love from the rooftops and be applauded for it. Only a truly wicked person can have a problem with that.

The immoral minority turned out to be mean people who got off on hurting others. They'd masked their evil in a veil of morality. There you have the true face of evil. I'll be willing to bet that it's the same thing this time around. I think that the academic papers causing all this outrage are perfectly innocent and harmless. And the only evil to be found is among the people who wrote those articles.

 

[Keith&Co.]

This whole thing about Wilson's outrage over the push for pedophilia legalisations highlights what's wrong with the "moral majority".

I just think it's funny that Wilson, who won't identify as a creationist because the creationist movement has connotations he dislikes, loves to draw all sorts of extra connotations for anyone who argues with him.
Look at how you came to be the defending spokesman for the pedophilia legalization movement.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

This whole thing about Wilson's outrage over the push for pedophilia legalisations highlights what's wrong with the "moral majority".

I just think it's funny that Wilson, who won't identify as a creationist because the creationist movement has connotations he dislikes, loves to draw all sorts of extra connotations for anyone who argues with him.
Look at how you came to be the defending spokesman for the pedophilia legalization movement.

At least Wilson's grammar is better the Syed's.