AronRa's Double Standard

[lrkun]

Haven't forgot anybody. Just waiting to have the time

Well this isn't a priority. Otherwise you'd make time. Haha.

 

[AronRa]

In this respect, I have to disagree with AronRa when he states that the only way to defend creationism is with dishonesty. Because, I believe one can also defend it with general ignorance, just like Behe at the Dover Trial and ThePuppyTurtle here.

I have many times explained that creationism is divided between the deceivers and the deceived. Once anyone begins to investigate the matter enough to debate it in forums like this one, they very quickly find themselves having to make a choice, whether to remain honest, or whether to remain creationist. ThePuppyTurtle took the high road on that one, while Equestions went the other way. So what you end up with are those who know better than what they're saying and those that don't know any better than to believe it. That's why there has never been a single credible proponent of creation "science" anywhere ever, because no one has ever presented any verifiably accurate argument of evidence indicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution or any other avenue of actual science.

 

[AronRa]

AronRa clearly laid out his standard of a lie, but does he apply that to Creationist and Intelligent Design proponents as well? I'm not willing to go as far as calling him a liar, because I don't know his intent... and I have enough respect for him to give him the benefit of the doubt. However I think my video raises some compelling questions.

Check out my latest video on the matter and let me know what you think



If you need some more context here is AronRa's video "How can creationism not be dishonest" that I was responding to: http://youtu.be/XpeHrkbx9LU

His video was in response to my first video: http://youtu.be/P2aRJf3gKn0

When I first saw this, and saw the bit about the out-of-sequence quotation, I worried that there might have been a significant misrepresentation. While it is still out-of-sequence, it doesn't change the negative response to a positive one. While errors of any kind are lamentable, this seems trivial at best, since Behe's answer appears to be essentially the same in either order. However even though someone has managed to point out some stupid mistake in at least half of my videos, I assure you that each one of them bothers me. Some of the ones I listed in my errata video actually cost me sleep!

On that note, I don't know what happened between ThePuppyTurtle and the rest of this forum, but I will say that he impressed me on the Magic Sandwich when he admitted that it is dishonest to assert as fact that which is not evidently true. Of course he said that before realizing that logical fallacies, anecdotes, subjective impressions, personal conviction, and assumed conclusions do not count as evidence. But other creationists in his same position still refused to admit the point that he did, and that was a breakthrough.

Similarly, I must ask you why you think I would have or could have posted my argument dishonestly? And please think hard about that question.

As we know, faith requires an assertion of absolute conviction -even in lieu of any supportive evidence. ThePuppyTurtle admitted that this is dishonest. Will you?

One should resist 'absolute' conviction even when there is evidence, so praising the 'strength of conviction' should call the whole perspective into question too, but it is worse than that. Apologetics is a systematic defense of dogma even in spite of evidence to the contrary. Every leading creationist organization brazenly admits both their bias and their intent to reject any and all evidence allied against their pre-determined conclusion. Even though this admission is presented as if it were a virtue, isn't that part of their 'statement of faith' dishonest too?

Now think about the difference in our positions. My goal is to improve understanding -my own included. To do that, I have to concede fallability where you claim infallability. Your position is a defense of the faith wherein you proclaim knowledge of absolute truth. Do you admit that it is also dishonest whenever one pretends to know that which no one even can know?

Your peers permit that you can make up whatever you want and state it as fact without requiring anything at all to show that you're right. My peers are more likely to expose my fallacies than you are, and they would mercilessly destroy me if they caught me doing the same things your peers expect you to do. When I first started posting in Usenet and other forums of this kind, I said all sorts of stupid things which the creationists never noticed, but which scientists tore into me fore with sadistic intolerance. So why would I ever dare be dishonest in my arguments? Why would I ever want to be? Conversely, when creationists pursue this discussion in-depth, and do not resort to dishonesty, don't they invariably become theistic evolutionists?

Lastly, you accused me of making dishonest generalizations. Now is your chance to prove it. You cited my challenge to name any creationist who does not lie and has not lied in defense of creationism over evolution. You presented Behe even though you yourself do not consider him to be a creationist. He is a creationist in that he opposes evolution and proposes a miraculous explanation over evolution specifically and methodological naturalism in general. So he doesn't believe in evolution as a means of divine design; he believes in a supernatural creation instead of evolution where no overt miracles are required. He was certainly harder to pin than normal evangelists, or the other witnesses on his side of the trial, but he did still insist that science would never explain the things which he should have known that it already could and did. So my challenge still stands.

1. For the moment, let's forget all the thousands of arguments creationists use which we can all prove are not true, and present for me one argument indicative of creationism which we can verify actually is true.

2. Point out one time in the history of science when assuming supernatural explanations ever improved our understanding of anything -instead of actually impeding all progress -as has apparently always been the case.

3. Name any evolutionary scientist who lied in the act of promoting evolution against creationism.

4. Name a single creationist who did NOT lie when arguing for creationism over actual [natural] science.

I predict that if you answer all of these questions, it should become obvious why you as a creationist have every motivation to be dishonest, where I have absolutely no desire to believe -or cause others to believe- anything that likely isn't true.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I have many times explained that creationism is divided between the deceivers and the deceived. Once anyone begins to investigate the matter enough to debate it in forums like this one, they very quickly find themselves having to make a choice, whether to remain honest, or whether to remain creationist. ThePuppyTurtle took the high road on that one, while Equestions went the other way. So what you end up with are those who know better than what they're saying and those that don't know any better than to believe it. That's why there has never been a single credible proponent of creation "science" anywhere ever, because no one has ever presented any verifiably accurate argument of evidence indicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution or any other avenue of actual science.

You are right. There has never been a single credible proponent of creationism. Nevertheless, when someone is starting (e.g. ThePuppyTurtle) his or her arguments are made with the intention of not deceiving anyone. Thus, someone like ThePuppyTurtle did argue for creationism honestly, it was just that his arguments were wrong and when they were shown to be wrong, he quickly changed his mind. Just because he was not credible or his arguments were not credible does not mean he did not argue them with honesty. He did fall into the deceived camp and not the deceiver camp.

Now the real question here is if Behe was dishonest when he took the stand at Dover. Did he know about more articles or was he just blatantly ignorant of the facts. I am not sure if you showed that he was shown those articles before he took the stand (as I said before, I made my comments with only watching DiscipleTube1's latest video). However, if it cannot be shown that Behe knew his argument was incorrect from the start, it is far better to attribute his errors to stupidity and not malice. If you can show that, he knew his arguments were incorrect from before he took the stand than he is as dishonest as they come.

This hold thing seems more like splitting hairs than anything else.

Nevertheless, even if you are wrong, it would still do nothing to take away any of the evidence provided in your science videos, which seems to be the point DiscipleTube1 is trying to make. Just like if I am wrong about this, it does nothing to take away from any of the science videos or posts I have made. Mistakes can happen; we are only human after all. Being wrong in one aspect does not mean the rest of the arguments being made are wrong.

 

[kenandkids]

Now the real question here is if Behe was dishonest when he took the stand at Dover. Did he know about more articles or was he just blatantly ignorant of the facts. I am not sure if you showed that he was shown those articles before he took the stand (as I said before, I made my comments with only watching DiscipleTube1's latest video). However, if it cannot be shown that Behe knew his argument was incorrect from the start, it is far better to attribute his errors to stupidity and not malice. If you can show that, he knew his arguments were incorrect from before he took the stand than he is as dishonest as they come.

I don't see how he can be considered anything except a liar. During his education he would have been exposed to these concepts, yet he admitted that he began studying the topic in order to oppose evolution . During his "development" of his concepts people were writing reams of material about his field and contributing to his field. He then decided to speak for the field and claimed not to have read and/or known the material. At what point in this was he honest?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I don't see how he can be considered anything except a liar. During his education he would have been exposed to these concepts, yet he admitted that he began studying the topic in order to oppose evolution . During his "development" of his concepts people were writing reams of material about his field and contributing to his field. He then decided to speak for the field and claimed not to have read and/or known the material. At what point in this was he honest?

You are probably correct. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, when it is put like that, it is hard to think he could honestly sit in a courtroom and claim ignorance.

 

[DiscipleTube1]

When I first saw this, and saw the bit about the out-of-sequence quotation, I worried that there might have been a significant misrepresentation. While it is still out-of-sequence, it doesn't change the negative response to a positive one. While errors of any kind are lamentable, this seems trivial at best, since Behe's answer appears to be essentially the same in either order.

Really? I don't see that it is. If I made an error here please let me know.

However even though someone has managed to point out some stupid mistake in at least half of my videos, I assure you that each one of them bothers me. Some of the ones I listed in my errata video actually cost me sleep!

I have no wish to make you lose sleep. I really don't know what to make of you. Although I vehemently disagree with you on a great number of points, I can't help but get the impression that you really desire truth very much. I consistently conclude that you're not lying to people, at least not in a purposeful way like your own standard of a lie. My respect for you continues to grow. Yet we are at odds. And that leads me to what irks me most; the fact that I can recognize your genuine desire for truth, while still believing you lack truth ("truth" not pertaining to everything, but, if you'll allow me to make a crude generalization, the creation/evolution debate), yet you can't accept that possibility for creationist.

On that note, I don't know what happened between ThePuppyTurtle and the rest of this forum, but I will say that he impressed me on the Magic Sandwich when he admitted that it is dishonest to assert as fact that which is not evidently true. Of course he said that before realizing that logical fallacies, anecdotes, subjective impressions, personal conviction, and assumed conclusions do not count as evidence. But other creationists in his same position still refused to admit the point that he did, and that was a breakthrough.

Similarly, I must ask you why you think I would have or could have posted my argument dishonestly? And please think hard about that question.

As we know, faith requires an assertion of absolute conviction -even in lieu of any supportive evidence. ThePuppyTurtle admitted that this is dishonest. Will you?

One should resist 'absolute' conviction even when there is evidence, so praising the 'strength of conviction' should call the whole perspective into question too, but it is worse than that. Apologetics is a systematic defense of dogma even in spite of evidence to the contrary. Every leading creationist organization brazenly admits both their bias and their intent to reject any and all evidence allied against their pre-determined conclusion. Even though this admission is presented as if it were a virtue, isn't that part of their 'statement of faith' dishonest too?

Now think about the difference in our positions. My goal is to improve understanding -my own included. To do that, I have to concede fallability where you claim infallability. Your position is a defense of the faith wherein you proclaim knowledge of absolute truth. Do you admit that it is also dishonest whenever one pretends to know that which no one even can know?

Your peers permit that you can make up whatever you want and state it as fact without requiring anything at all to show that you're right. My peers are more likely to expose my fallacies than you are, and they would mercilessly destroy me if they caught me doing the same things your peers expect you to do. When I first started posting in Usenet and other forums of this kind, I said all sorts of stupid things which the creationists never noticed, but which scientists tore into me fore with sadistic intolerance. So why would I ever dare be dishonest in my arguments? Why would I ever want to be? Conversely, when creationists pursue this discussion in-depth, and do not resort to dishonesty, don't they invariably become theistic evolutionists?

Lastly, you accused me of making dishonest generalizations. Now is your chance to prove it. You cited my challenge to name any creationist who does not lie and has not lied in defense of creationism over evolution. You presented Behe even though you yourself do not consider him to be a creationist. He is a creationist in that he opposes evolution and proposes a miraculous explanation over evolution specifically and methodological naturalism in general. So he doesn't believe in evolution as a means of divine design; he believes in a supernatural creation instead of evolution where no overt miracles are required. He was certainly harder to pin than normal evangelists, or the other witnesses on his side of the trial, but he did still insist that science would never explain the things which he should have known that it already could and did. So my challenge still stands.

1. For the moment, let's forget all the thousands of arguments creationists use which we can all prove are not true, and present for me one argument indicative of creationism which we can verify actually is true.

2. Point out one time in the history of science when assuming supernatural explanations ever improved our understanding of anything -instead of actually impeding all progress -as has apparently always been the case.

3. Name any evolutionary scientist who lied in the act of promoting evolution against creationism.

4. Name a single creationist who did NOT lie when arguing for creationism over actual [natural] science.

I predict that if you answer all of these questions, it should become obvious why you as a creationist have every motivation to be dishonest, where I have absolutely no desire to believe -or cause others to believe- anything that likely isn't true.

Ok I could answer a lot of this but I think it would just distract from the real issue if I started bringing up philosophy, presuppositions, and correct definitions of words like "faith". Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying any of these are not legitimate questions (although I may disagree with the premises and conclusions). But really, lets keep it simple. How do you still come to the same conclusion that Behe had a deliberate attempt to deceive, despite the flaws in your argument that I showed? And what about the quote mines and straw-men?

 

[AronRa]

Ok I could answer a lot of this but I think it would just distract from the real issue if I started bringing up philosophy, presuppositions, and correct definitions of words like "faith". Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying any of these are not legitimate questions (although I may disagree with the premises and conclusions). But really, lets keep it simple. How do you still come to the same conclusion that Behe had a deliberate attempt to deceive, despite the flaws in your argument that I showed? And what about the quote mines and straw-men?

You didn't show any flaws in my argument, certainly not any straw-men. Behe said that science did not and could not offer any detailed, testable, explanation for the things which his group deemed irreducibly complex. Both aspects of these comments are already questionable given his education and supposed expertise on the specific topics on which he offers 'expert' testimony. What you called 'quote-mining' would only qualify as such if the extracted comment changed the answer from positive to negative, which it didn't. The answer was already negative and still negative regardless which order they asked whether he had read the articles or the books. The answer to both was the same either way; no he hadn't, yet he still proclaimed with full confidence that they did not address the issues which he said they could not, despite the fact that each of these submissions reportedly did. That's already two levels of dishonesty, but Behe kept going, moving the goal posts further and further out by adding new qualifying criteria each time his challenge had already been met. If he doubted that science could ever answer that question, then that is merely his opinion, and it only negatively reflects on his actual fluency in his field. Once he was shown a collection of documents purporting to refute him, the only honest response would be to say that he could not yet know whether they did or not. But to still assert that they could not regardless whether he had read them or not reveals the crux of dishonesty inherent in faith and which is not shared in science. In such matters, it is fair to say that creationism means refusing to admit when you're wrong.

I don't use presuppositions, although you certainly do. I can also prove that my definition of the word 'faith' is the correct one according to a consensus of every authoritative source for that term. As I just said, the answers to the questions you asked of me would have become obvious to you had you answered the questions I have already asked of you.

You want to know how I know that a continued defense of creationism can only be dishonest? Well, it is dishonest to assert as fact that which is not evidently true, yet faith requires you to do this. Worse than that, faith prohibits you from admitting when your preconceived notions are shown to be wrong, and that is dishonest too. Announcing in advance your unreasonable intent to automatically and thoughtlessly dismiss any and all evidence which might ever be presented is obviously dishonest too. So is the pretense of infallibility, either on the part of your interpretation of the ravings of bronze age savages, or your assumption of divine guidance -when that guidance always only ever leads to further division rather than the unity you should expect were it really what you believe it is. It is dishonest to pretend to 'know' that which no one even can know, yet your clergy demand exactly that from you in their sermons and websites. The mere requirement of faith is already dishonest all by itself, because it is one thing to suspect that some unsubstantiated something might be true, but it is a whole other matter to confidently affirm that it is true -when you have nothing to indicate that outside the imaginations of men making baseless assumptions without reason.

I have many times listed the facts of evolution, the many ways we can objectively prove -even to your satisfaction- that evolution is an inescapable reality both of population genetics and evident phylogeny. You ignored all of that -which is dishonest too- yet you cannot show me any way to distinguish your beliefs from the illusions of delusion. Such is the failure of all faith-based beliefs.

Tell me, how could any part of your position be honest?

You and I both know there are thousands of arguments creationists commonly use which anyone can easily prove to be false, and not one argument of evidence -supportive of your position- which you can actually show to be true. Yet I would bet that you and I both know that creationists will continue to use the same arguments even after they know they've been proven wrong.

Every time a supernatural answer has ever been proposed to account for any phenomenon, that 'explanation' has failed to explain anything, and has only stunted progress and concealed a wealth of valuable knowledge until such time as the supernatural explanations are eventually and invariably disproved. Consequently the supernatural answer has always turned out to be wrong, and can only be a useless retardant until that time.

The constant allegations against scientists supposedly perpetuating frauds -are in fact made by obvious charlatans, con-men, and other crooks like "Dr" Hovind, "Dr" Baugh, or "Professor" Ian Juby. There has never been a single credible proponent of evangelical creationism anywhere ever. While you cannot name even one professional scientist promoting fraudulent evidence aimed at creationism, neither could you name a professional creationist who does not promote frauds against evolution. They never had anything else and are forbidden to admit defeat. So what else can they do?

Knowing how all the verifiable facts -without exception- simultaneously challenge creationist claims and support an evolutionary explanation unanimously and exclusively, and knowing that absolutely all of the frauds, falsehoods, fantasies, and fallacies are on your side, and that they alone are the whole and sole foundations of your position, then how could you glance at this entirely one-sided demonstrable certainty and pretend to paint an illusion of equality? How can you force yourself to imagine that there even could be any honest controversy which could support the conclusion you were deceived into defending?

Please don't dodge this question too. It is so irritating when creationists habitually refuse to answer any simple close-ended questions only because they know their answers are indefensible. Yet that is what happens in every discussion I've ever had with people of your mindset. And you wonder how I could consider it dishonest?

 

[DiscipleTube1]

You didn't show any flaws in my argument, certainly not any straw-men.

Really!? Come on sir, really!?
Straw-man: A component of an argument and an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
1. You ridicule Behe saying he "essentially only Google searched RELEVANT TITLES"
2. I showed that Behe actually indicated at least twice that the search was done to the BODY of the articles.
How is this not a straw-man?
Also consider these:
-You attack me for making "many accusations" about evolutionist lying, and not proving it, even though I never made even one such accusation
-You claim, in the comments section of "Ida done better"; "Statistically, most "evolutionists" are Christians and most Christians are evolutionists. So your assertion is already wrong." I never said or alluded that Christians can't be evolutionist.

Behe said that science did not and could not offer any detailed, testable, explanation for the things which his group deemed irreducibly complex. Both aspects of these comments are already questionable given his education and supposed expertise on the specific topics on which he offers 'expert' testimony.

Just because he has a different view than what the status quo says is correct, doesn't make his comments "already questionable" Isn't it good to think outside of the box of the current educational paradigm? So it is questionable to dare disagree with what your education taught you? Forget independent critical thinking I guess. Conform or be questioned. Got it.

What you called 'quote-mining' would only qualify as such if the extracted comment changed the answer from positive to negative, which it didn't. The answer was already negative and still negative regardless which order they asked whether he had read the articles or the books. The answer to both was the same either way; no he hadn't, yet he still proclaimed with full confidence that they did not address the issues which he said they could not, despite the fact that each of these submissions reportedly did. That's already two levels of dishonesty, but Behe kept going, moving the goal posts further and further out by adding new qualifying criteria each time his challenge had already been met. If he doubted that science could ever answer that question, then that is merely his opinion, and it only negatively reflects on his actual fluency in his field. Once he was shown a collection of documents purporting to refute him, the only honest response would be to say that he could not yet know whether they did or not. But to still assert that they could not regardless whether he had read them or not reveals the crux of dishonesty inherent in faith and which is not shared in science. In such matters, it is fair to say that creationism means refusing to admit when you're wrong.

1. You say Behe didn't read ANY of the articles
2. I ask you how you know that.
3. You say "Because he said so" and show the extracted comment, while claiming he "never indicated that he had read ANY of them"
4. I show the rest of the quote where he does indicate he read some, and also show other areas in the testimony that indicated it even more.
How is this not a quote-mine?

So let me ask you something. If you make a claim like Behe did, saying that no scientific literature has an answer to the question of the origin of the immune system, would that person have to have personally read every single article on that topic? Have you looked through every article and paper that supports what you say is false or non-existent? Certainly not. If I then threw some of those papers you hadn't read in front of you, with no time to read them, would you say "I don't know because I haven't read them" or would you say, as Behe did, "I am UNAWARE", "QUITE SKEPTICAL" and "HIGHLY DOUBT" that they support that view, "although I haven't read them"? And would you even consider this as even relevant if it hasn't even been shown in court to contain what you have already said they didn't, except to read the titles? You even say yourself they were "purported" to contain such an explanation, which implies that you understand that it was never demonstrated in court. I mean if you put the shoe in the other foot maybe you will see the ridiculousness of it all. Somehow I doubt you will.

You put emphasis on the displaced quote to show Behe's "frantic" assertion of certainty about articles he hadn't read. Yet Behe wasn't really unjustified because it was a quote that was referring to articles he had read and the articles he hadn't read weren't even presented yet! Behe did say that they "do not" contain the answer, once, after he admits to not reading them. However, as I explain in my video, the things he says before and after this seem to contradict this and is much more consistent. Three concurring statements overriding one statement that is in contradiction, is much more reasonable then what you are arguing. But in truth the only conclusion you could make with complete certainty would be to say that Behe was inconsistent, which is a far cry from lying by your definition. I have already explained this well enough in my video yet you seem content to ignore it. Did you even watch the full video?

It is also worth noting that even if Behe ONLY said that they "do not" show what they claimed they did, it wouldn't matter (from a judicial point of view) because they weren't shown in court that they do, and even if it did contain what they claim, it still wouldn't matter (according to your standard of a lie) because you would still have to prove that Behe accepted that as truth (And he couldn't possibly, which you already pointed out), before he said they didn't. So IF the papers do contain what the prosecution said they contained, and IF Behe ONLY said they "do not", and IF this was also shown in court, you would still have to know if Behe accepted them as truth before he said they didn't, to meet your own standard of a lie. You certainly have a high standard for a lie. You obviously have no problem circumventing this when saying Behe lied in Dover. In my opinion, I would suspect however, you would expect no less from a creationist trying to show an evolutionist a liar.

I don't use presuppositions, although you certainly do. I can also prove that my definition of the word 'faith' is the correct one according to a consensus of every authoritative source for that term. As I just said, the answers to the questions you asked of me would have become obvious to you had you answered the questions I have already asked of you.

You want to know how I know that a continued defense of creationism can only be dishonest? Well, it is dishonest to assert as fact that which is not evidently true, yet faith requires you to do this. Worse than that, faith prohibits you from admitting when your preconceived notions are shown to be wrong, and that is dishonest too. Announcing in advance your unreasonable intent to automatically and thoughtlessly dismiss any and all evidence which might ever be presented is obviously dishonest too. So is the pretense of infallibility, either on the part of your interpretation of the ravings of bronze age savages, or your assumption of divine guidance -when that guidance always only ever leads to further division rather than the unity you should expect were it really what you believe it is. It is dishonest to pretend to 'know' that which no one even can know, yet your clergy demand exactly that from you in their sermons and websites. The mere requirement of faith is already dishonest all by itself, because it is one thing to suspect that some unsubstantiated something might be true, but it is a whole other matter to confidently affirm that it is true -when you have nothing to indicate that outside the imaginations of men making baseless assumptions without reason.

I have many times listed the facts of evolution, the many ways we can objectively prove -even to your satisfaction- that evolution is an inescapable reality both of population genetics and evident phylogeny. You ignored all of that -which is dishonest too- yet you cannot show me any way to distinguish your beliefs from the illusions of delusion. Such is the failure of all faith-based beliefs.

Tell me, how could any part of your position be honest?

You and I both know there are thousands of arguments creationists commonly use which anyone can easily prove to be false, and not one argument of evidence -supportive of your position- which you can actually show to be true. Yet I would bet that you and I both know that creationists will continue to use the same arguments even after they know they've been proven wrong.

Every time a supernatural answer has ever been proposed to account for any phenomenon, that 'explanation' has failed to explain anything, and has only stunted progress and concealed a wealth of valuable knowledge until such time as the supernatural explanations are eventually and invariably disproved. Consequently the supernatural answer has always turned out to be wrong, and can only be a useless retardant until that time.

The constant allegations against scientists supposedly perpetuating frauds -are in fact made by obvious charlatans, con-men, and other crooks like "Dr" Hovind, "Dr" Baugh, or "Professor" Ian Juby. There has never been a single credible proponent of evangelical creationism anywhere ever. While you cannot name even one professional scientist promoting fraudulent evidence aimed at creationism, neither could you name a professional creationist who does not promote frauds against evolution. They never had anything else and are forbidden to admit defeat. So what else can they do?

Knowing how all the verifiable facts -without exception- simultaneously challenge creationist claims and support an evolutionary explanation unanimously and exclusively, and knowing that absolutely all of the frauds, falsehoods, fantasies, and fallacies are on your side, and that they alone are the whole and sole foundations of your position, then how could you glance at this entirely one-sided demonstrable certainty and pretend to paint an illusion of equality? How can you force yourself to imagine that there even could be any honest controversy which could support the conclusion you were deceived into defending?

Please don't dodge this question too. It is so irritating when creationists habitually refuse to answer any simple close-ended questions only because they know their answers are indefensible. Yet that is what happens in every discussion I've ever had with people of your mindset. And you wonder how I could consider it dishonest?

Yes you do use presuppositions, some even that you would admit, and yes I certainly do use presuppositions. I admit my presuppositions, and that is where we diverge. But we're just talking past each other on this one, and it is just deflecting from the issue, despite that you feel otherwise. You see I want to address your specific claims about Behe and you want to prove that creationism is inherently a lie. I'm not dodging, just keeping you focused (and me as well). And wow, you make a lot of assumptions here about what I "know" and why I do things. LOL, you claim I'm playing the infallibility card, while you play the omniscient card. I'm really biting my tongue here believe me. There are a lot of things I would like to say to these things but I want to stay on topic and learn how you can possibly still think Behe's testimony shows he lied and that he knew he was lying before he said it, something you still haven't shown by your own stated standard.

This is why I don't know what to make of you. You SEEM to have a respect for the truth, yet you also seem to deny it, at least with the Behe testimony. You are fascinating for sure.

 

[Squawk]

Behe said that science did not and could not offer any detailed, testable, explanation for the things which his group deemed irreducibly complex. Both aspects of these comments are already questionable given his education and supposed expertise on the specific topics on which he offers 'expert' testimony.

Just because he has a different view than what the status quo says is correct, doesn't make his comments "already questionable" Isn't it good to think outside of the box of the current educational paradigm? So it is questionable to dare disagree with what your education taught you? Forget independent critical thinking I guess. Conform or be questioned. Got it.

If you're going to accuse Aron of making straw men it would be wise not to then offer your own. If you need them pointing out I will, at length.

 

[DiscipleTube1]

I was using sarcasm to point out the flaw in the logic. I'm pretty sure AronRa doesn't actually believe this. I don't mind getting feedback. Please go ahead. This is an open forum

 

[Squawk]

I was using sarcasm to point out the flaw in the logic. I'm pretty sure AronRa doesn't actually believe this. I don't mind getting feedback. Please go ahead. This is an open forum

The sarcasm at the end of the post (which I would personally label hubris rather than sarcasm) is of no relevence. If the straw men were intentional tell me how I differentiate that from trolling?

 

[DiscipleTube1]

:lol: Lol, ok then... well I guess that would depend on how you define trolling

 

[AronRa]

Really!? Come on sir, really!?
Straw-man: A component of an argument and an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
1. You ridicule Behe saying he "essentially only Google searched RELEVANT TITLES"
2. I showed that Behe actually indicated at least twice that the search was done to the BODY of the articles.
How is this not a straw-man?

It is not a straw-man because it doesn't meet the criteria you just provided to be a straw-man; It does not misrepresent his position. Whether he effectively 'googled' the wrong key words from the title or the body makes no difference. (I don't think I originally meant to specify either one, but if I did, it still makes no difference. How could that qualify as a straw-man? Show me where I argued against a position Behe did not actually hold?

Also consider these:
-You attack me for making "many accusations" about evolutionist lying, and not proving it, even though I never made even one such accusation

When did I say that you made "many accusations"?

-You claim, in the comments section of "Ida done better"; "Statistically, most "evolutionists" are Christians and most Christians are evolutionists. So your assertion is already wrong." I never said or alluded that Christians can't be evolutionist.

When did I say that you had?

Just because he has a different view than what the status quo says is correct, doesn't make his comments "already questionable"

It does when you're talking about matters of fact rather than mere opinion.

Isn't it good to think outside of the box of the current educational paradigm? So it is questionable to dare disagree with what your education taught you? Forget independent critical thinking I guess. Conform or be questioned. Got it.

Yes it is good to be able to think 'outside the box'. I do it all the time. That's why I reject dogmatic beliefs. But I can also color inside the lines. That's why I accept science.

1. You say Behe didn't read ANY of the articles.
2. I ask you how you know that.
3. You say "Because he said so" and show the extracted comment, while claiming he "never indicated that he had read ANY of them"
4. I show the rest of the quote where he does indicate he read some, and also show other areas in the testimony that indicated it even more.
How is this not a quote-mine?

Pay attention. Speaking of the collective works submitted -and on which he passed judgement- I don't think he or I ever said that he hadn't read ANY of them, but he did say that he hadn't read THEM. But if he had thumbed through one or two (as he may have indicated) it still doesn't justify his dismissal of the whole collection.

So let me ask you something. If you make a claim like Behe did, saying that no scientific literature has an answer to the question of the origin of the immune system, would that person have to have personally read every single article on that topic?

Yes, because he didn't allow that some of them might, he said that NONE of them did.

Have you looked through every article and paper that supports what you say is false or non-existent? Certainly not.

So far, I have never seen any article or paper which shows that my position is false. Can you show me one?

If I then threw some of those papers you hadn't read in front of you, with no time to read them, would you say "I don't know because I haven't read them"

Yes.

or would you say, as Behe did, "I am UNAWARE", "QUITE SKEPTICAL" and "HIGHLY DOUBT" that they support that view, "although I haven't read them"?

Given the 100% failure rate of creationism throughout my extensive experience arguing that topic, I would likely say that too, just playing the odds. But I would not do as Behe and insist that none contested me, because there is no way I could know that.

And would you even consider this as even relevant if it hasn't even been shown in court to contain what you have already said they didn't, except to read the titles? You even say yourself they were "purported" to contain such an explanation, which implies that you understand that it was never demonstrated in court.

Again, yes. I cannot judge what I have not read.

I mean if you put the shoe in the other foot maybe you will see the ridiculousness of it all. Somehow I doubt you will.

Wrong. I have seen the ridiculousness of all your arguments from the very beginning.

You put emphasis on the displaced quote to show Behe's "frantic" assertion of certainty about articles he hadn't read.

I don't remember ever using the word, 'frantic'.

Yet Behe wasn't really unjustified because it was a quote that was referring to articles he had read and the articles he hadn't read weren't even presented yet! Behe did say that they "do not" contain the answer, once, after he admits to not reading them.

And yet you're acting as though he didn't do that.

However, as I explain in my video, the things he says before and after this seem to contradict this and is much more consistent. Three concurring statements overriding one statement that is in contradiction, is much more reasonable then what you are arguing. But in truth the only conclusion you could make with complete certainty would be to say that Behe was inconsistent, which is a far cry from lying by your definition. I have already explained this well enough in my video yet you seem content to ignore it. Did you even watch the full video?

I am not ignoring anything. I told you in detail how his dishonesty is much more subtle than that of your garden variety professional creationists, including his cronies at the Discovery Institute. Their dishonesty is much more overt than his. I think I even said that Behe was about the best choice you could find if you wanted to show a creationist who isn't obviously lying, but then you said that he isn't even a creationist. Why then did you suggest him?

It is also worth noting that even if Behe ONLY said that they "do not" show what they claimed they did, it wouldn't matter (from a judicial point of view) because they weren't shown in court that they do, and even if it did contain what they claim, it still wouldn't matter (according to your standard of a lie) because you would still have to prove that Behe accepted that as truth (And he couldn't possibly, which you already pointed out), before he said they didn't. So IF the papers do contain what the prosecution said they contained, and IF Behe ONLY said they "do not", and IF this was also shown in court, you would still have to know if Behe accepted them as truth before he said they didn't, to meet your own standard of a lie. You certainly have a high standard for a lie. You obviously have no problem circumventing this when saying Behe lied in Dover. In my opinion, I would suspect however, you would expect no less from a creationist trying to show an evolutionist a liar.

Were I in Behe's situation, and I claimed that no exception exists to a given set of statements, and you present a book who's very title purports to listed exactly those exceptions, I won't require proof that it does or doesn't contain what it says. It is enough to know that it purports to. Whether it actually does or not would have to be argued upon further review.

Yes you do use presuppositions, some even that you would admit,

No, I don't.

and yes I certainly do use presuppositions. I admit my presuppositions, and that is where we diverge. But we're just talking past each other on this one, and it is just deflecting from the issue, despite that you feel otherwise. You see I want to address your specific claims about Behe and you want to prove that creationism is inherently a lie. I'm not dodging, just keeping you focused (and me as well). And wow, you make a lot of assumptions here about what I "know" and why I do things.

No, I don't. I'm only trying to get you to think outside your little box.

LOL, you claim I'm playing the infallibility card, while you play the omniscient card.

No, I'm not. No straw-men please.

I'm really biting my tongue here believe me. There are a lot of things I would like to say to these things but I want to stay on topic and learn how you can possibly still think Behe's testimony shows he lied and that he knew he was lying before he said it, something you still haven't shown by your own stated standard.

Yes, I think I have shown that, and that you're determined not to admit it. That's no surprise really. That's why I decided a long time ago that it is pointless to explain anything to a creationist. They'll simply ignore it. 'Goddidit' explains everything while explaining nothing, and "that doesn't prove anything" can be used to dismiss any and all evidence against you. You can safely avoid even thinking about whatever I present. So what I have to do is ask you to provide the answers yourself. Only then will the blinders of faith allow you to understand. But of course you know better than to answer the questions, because you know that your answers will be indefensible.

This is why I don't know what to make of you. You SEEM to have a respect for the truth, yet you also seem to deny it, at least with the Behe testimony. You are fascinating for sure.

I don't have to deny anything the way you do, nor would I want to. If you ask me questions, I will answer every one of them. If I ask you questions, you change the subject, make up excuses, or answer only with other questions. Shall we prove that? Here are mine again:

1. Ignoring for the moment the thousands of creationist arguments which have all been proven wrong a thousand times, yet are still being presented on YEC websites around the world anyway, can you show me one verifiably accurate argument indicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution? That is exactly what the Dover trial sought to do and couldn't. Can you?

2. Point out one time in the history of science when assuming supernatural explanations ever improved our understanding of anything -instead of actually impeding all progress -as has apparently always been the case.

3. Name any evolutionary scientist who lied in the act of promoting evolution against creationism.

4. Name a professional creationist who did NOT lie when arguing for creationism over actual [natural] science.

5. I have already listed numerous facts of evolution, ways which we can objectively prove -even to your satisfaction- that evolution is an inescapable reality both of population genetics and evident phylogeny. What can you show me that will distinquish your beliefs from the illusions of delusion?

6. Do you admit that it is dishonest to assert as fact that which is not evidently true?

7. Do you admit that it is unwise to assert absolute conviction even when there is evidence?

8. Do you admit that it is dishonest to pretend to know that which no one even can know?

9. Do you admit that it is dishonest to automatically and thoughtlessly reject evidence not yet revealed simply because it conflicts with your predetermined conclusions?

10. Do you understand that someone holding an honest position wouldn't have to -or want to- avoid questions like these?

You should also understand that your answers to these questions is key to establishing my accusations against Behe.

 

[Inferno]

I only really want to address one point.

When I first saw this, and saw the bit about the out-of-sequence quotation, I worried that there might have been a significant misrepresentation. While it is still out-of-sequence, it doesn't change the negative response to a positive one. While errors of any kind are lamentable, this seems trivial at best, since Behe's answer appears to be essentially the same in either order.

Really? I don't see that it is. If I made an error here please let me know.

I've already pointed that out in this post.

You "responded" to my post with the following:

It is true that Behe still says "they DO NOT address the question that I pose" even after he admits he hadn't read them, so I can see how you could argue that AronRa's point is the same, despite the switched quote. However, as my video explains, when asked about the veracity of the articles he says that ONCE, and admits he is "UNAWARE", "STRONGLY DOUBTS", "QUITE SKEPTICAL" on THREE different occasions. He also explains that he feels he doesn't have to go back and read every single article on the subject because the most recent should bring you up to speed on the earlier results. Remember that the charge is that Behe had a "deliberate intent to deceive". I don't know how someone could conclude that with Behe's inconsistent answers. All of this is explained in the video. So no I don't agree that posting the transcripts on the other thread hurts my case, but is the very thing that makes my case.

He did say those on the three occasions you mentioned, yet you forget what I have already shown: Behe does not want to read the articles because of his a priori conclusions and is unwilling to concede error.

In your video at 5:25, you say:

By the way, since it takes more than just seeing or hearing a title to fully know what it contains, how then could the judge know that Behe wasn't correct in saying it "wasn't sufficient evidence" or "wasn't good enough"? Now we know that Behe didn't actually say that...

Hold it! In my above post, I've shown exactly that: Behe hasn't read the articles and yet he claims that they do not address the issue. As I have shown, Behe has an a priori conclusion (namely that tToE could not account for the immune system) and is unwilling to concede error. ("A. I am not confident that the immune system arose through Darwinian processes, and so I do not think that such a study would be fruitful.")

Whether or not tToE can account for the immune system is, for the moment, completely irrelevant. I'm just trying to show you that Behe did indeed say that there wasn't enough evidence, albeit using different words.

Notice the very first answer from the court transcript I quoted: Behe is cartain that the articles don't address his question, even though he admits that he never read them. Please explain to me how that is not dishonest.

I've also shown in that post that it does not matter which answer came first, Behe's intent and Aron's conclusion still remains the same.

You are correct when you say that Behe was first talking about the eight articles and I agree with you that Aron makes it seem as though he was talking about the 58 articles, but I once again have to stress that it doesn't change the original point Aron was making.

At 8:50, you show that there is a question Aron left out, namely
Q. And the fifty-eight articles, some yes, some no?
Apparently, this is to show that Behe did read some of them. If you read his answer, he never gives an answer to the question, he simply states that you don't have to read everything. So did Behe read any of the 50 new articles? Perhaps, I won't speculate on that, but he certainly doesn't say that he did.

All in all, yadda yadda, boring stuff. I agree that Aron should be more careful and I've already alerted him to a few mistakes that I've spotted, though I'm unsure when he'll get the time to read that. I disagree with you that Aron was dishonest, as the original point still stands, as I hope to have shown.

 

[AronRa]

Remember that the charge is that Behe had a "deliberate intent to deceive".

I just realized that my earlier presentations weren't obvious enough for you. I've already shown how creationism is inherently dishonest, but I haven't proven how Behe's dishonesty includes a deliberate intent to deceive. Since this is the point you want to focus on, let me try something else which should illustrate this well enough that you'll understand.

First, remember my list of evolutionary facts:

It is a fact that evolution happens; that biodiversity and complexity do increase, that both occur naturally only by evolutionary mechanisms and according to the laws of population genetics. It is a fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups. It is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this variance both in scientific literature and in practical application. It is a fact that significant beneficial mutations do occur and are inherited by descendant groups, and that multiple independent sets of biological markers do exist which trace these lineages backwards over many generations. It is a fact that birds are a subset of dinosaurs in the same way that humans are a subset of apes, primates, eutherian mammals, and vertebrate deuterostome animals. It is a fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced to its most basal form through reverse-sequencing, and that those forms are also indicated by comparative morphology, physiology, and embryological development, as well as through chronologically correct placement of successive stages revealed in the geologic column. It is a fact that everything on earth has definite relatives either living nearby or evident in the fossil record, and that the fossil record holds hundreds of definitely transitional species even according to the strictest definition of that term. It is a fact that both microevolution and macroevolution have been directly-observed and documented dozens of times, both in the lab and in naturally-controlled conditions in the field, and that these instances have all withstood critical analysis in peer-review. It is also a fact that evolution is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support or scientific validity, and that no would-be alternate notion has ever met even one of the criteria required of a theory.

Remember, these are facts -meaning that each of these are either not in dispute or they are indisputable in that they are objectively verifiable. These are also better-documented in the scientific literature than the origins of the blood clotting cascade or the bacterial flagellum. Despite this however, creationism requires that you deny one or more of these facts no matter how demonstrably true they are. Now for the demonstration. Do you accept each of these facts? And if not, be specific as to which ones you object to, and be sure to explain why.

 

[Dean]

:lol: Lol, ok then... well I guess that would depend on how you define trolling

If you are not a troll (which, from reading this thread, I'm starting to doubt), then.... why do you want to pick fights like this? :|

 

[AronRa]

You know, I have the impression that DiscipleTube1 is not going to respond to my questions, and I suspect that -on some level- he already knows why he can't do so. If only he could admit that to himself out loud, then he would be cured of this miserable delusion.

 

[DiscipleTube1]

I will be answering your questions relating to the topic. The other questions I intend to answer at a later time. This forum has been on the back of my mind for awhile but I just can't find the time to write a proper response. I think I will have time tonight.

 

[SymmetricStrings]

This forum has been on the back of my mind for awhile but I just can't find the time to write a proper response. I think I will have time tonight.

Well, its been 3 days since the alleged "tonight", and still no sign of disciple.