We're all Bozos on this bus
Reality-check placemarker
Posted on 12/11/2002 3:19:35 PM PST by jennyp
When you deal with creationists, all definitions are subject to drastic modifications to suit their purposes. A "Christian" is a creationist. A "conservative" is a creationist. A "patriot" is a creationist. A "good person" is a creationist. A "scientist" is a creationist. If you're not a creationist, then according to their definitions, you're none of the above-defined terms. That's why it's impossible to debate with a creationist.
Pat,
I doubt that have ever seriously debated anyone in you life. A trained debater is well prepared, persuasive, and can argue both sides of the argument. Probably the most important thing to do in debates is to control the definitions. Your main approach to arguments (not debates) is to criticize and belittle. I have yet to see anyone change his or her mind through anything you have posted here. I would guess that you main objective is to assuage whatever intellectual inferiorities you may be feeling. It is not impossible to debate creationists, that is by definition a superlative and the use of superlatives is sign of weak arguments. The truth of the matter is that you find it difficult to debate period, simply because you do not posses the skills to do so effectively.
Regards,
Boiler Plate
More than defensive. #1 postulate of Clintonism (and Marzism, Nazism and all the other phony ideologies): when the facts are against you, attack the messenger.
Because the difference between humans and chimps is a lot more than a tail and the amount of body hair that's why. Only the totally dishonest charlatan Darwin (and his followers) would make such a silly statement.
Reality-check placemarker
Sure I've heard of him, of Ernst anyway, as I think you know. "Lavishly praised?" That's stretching it a bit. Darwin was complementary, but then he was normaly gracious, and even obsequious, sometimes even toward those we know (from letters, diary's, etc) that he did not really think that highly of (e.g. Herbert Spencer, arguably the century's premier bloviator).
However I believe Darwin did in fact think well of Haeckel, certainly as a naturalist, and was pleased to have a rising and hardworking young scientist energetically introducing evolutionary theory in Germany; but I don't think Darwin gasped much, if any, of Haeckel's philosphy of nature, or of man. We know Darwin read several of Haeckels books, but he does not appear to have read anything at all by Haeckel straight through. Instead he seems to have mined Haeckel's works for facts and observations. Anyone who knows much about Darwin can easily imagine his eyes glazing over, and quickly skipping over, Haeckel's more discursive passages. In addition Darwin's German was poor: only barely servicable for dry, scientific reading.
Darwin does reference Haeckel many times in The Descent of Man as Haeckel had recently published on human anthropology. The most "lavish" praise I could find was early on, when Darwin mentions Haeckel at the end of a string other important contemporaries and predecessors:
The conclusion that man is the co-descendant with other species of some ancient, lower, and extinct form, is not in any degree new. Lamarck long ago came to this conclusion, which has lately been maintained by several eminent naturalists and philosophers; for instance, by Wallace, Huxley, Lyell, Vogt, Lubbock, Buchner, Rolle, etc. (1. As the works of the first- named authors are so well known, I need not give the titles; but as those of the latter are less well known in England, I will give them:--'Sechs Vorlesungen uber die Darwin'sche Theorie:' zweite Auflage, 1868, von Dr L. Buchner; translated into French under the title 'Conferences sur la Theorie Darwinienne,' 1869. 'Der Mensch im Lichte der Darwin'sche Lehre,' 1865, von Dr. F. Rolle. I will not attempt to give references to all the authors who have taken the same side of the question. Thus G. Canestrini has published ('Annuario della Soc. d. Nat.,' Modena, 1867, page 81) a very curious paper on rudimentary characters, as bearing on the origin of man. Another work has (1869) been published by Dr. Francesco Barrago, bearing in Italian the title of "Man, made in the image of God, was also made in the image of the ape."), and especially by Haeckel. This last naturalist, besides his great work, 'Generelle Morphologie' (1866), has recently (1868, with a second edition in 1870), published his 'Naturliche Schopfungsgeschichte,' in which he fully discusses the genealogy of man. If this work had appeared before my essay had been written, I should probably never have completed it. Almost all the conclusions at which I have arrived I find confirmed by this naturalist, whose knowledge on many points is much fuller than mine. Wherever I have added any fact or view from Prof. Haeckel's writings, I give his authority in the text; other statements I leave as they originally stood in my manuscript, occasionally giving in the foot-notes references to his works, as a confirmation of the more doubtful or interesting points.
See also the very next paragraph where Darwin credits Haeckel with picking up on bare hints in The Origin of Species, and recognizing the significance and importance of sexual selection in human evolution.
Now this is certainly complementary of Haeckel, but anyone who would describe it as "lavish" can not have read much of Darwin, or of 19th Century literature generally. So much is my humble opinion anyway.
He was the spiritual ancestor of Nazism.
In some respects I suppose: His racism, his "monistic" philosophy, and his general "Germaness" (yes, I am a borderline anti-Euro-bigot). But "the" spiritual ancestor? I'm sorry, but that's just silly hyperbole. Haeckel, for instance, never approached the incredibly vituperative antisemitism of Martin Luther, nor in any way duplicated the extensive advice Luther gave hundreds of years earlier regarding the practical aspects of persecuting and dispossessing jews.
Darwin and his minions popularized the ideas of Nazism and made the despicable actions of Hitler 'scientifically acceptable' to the populace.
LOL! What a fanatical, foaming-at-the-mouth, over the top, bald (and empty) assertion. It doesn't deserve an answer, unless you want to be more specific. Was Darwin a socialist? No. Was Darwin a nationalist? Not inordinately. Was he a racist? Maybe a mild one (more of a cultural chauvanist really) by our modern standards, but notably moderate and liberal by the standards of his own time. What "ideas of Nazism" did Darwin and his "minions" (LOL) "popularize"?
You'd be amazed at how good I am at debate and persuasion. By definition, however, I can't persuade you of anything, because we don't agree about the use of language. It is only when both sides are using a common vocabulary, and they agree upon the definition of terms, that intelligent discussion can begin. Good debaters know this. That's why I said that when one side is free to alter the meaning of words, no meaningful debate is possible. Indeed, there is no communication under such circumstances. The whole function of language is abandoned.
You seem unaware that your technique of "controlling the definitions" makes any kind of rational discourse impossible; and all that could result is two sides making speeches where neither can understand the other's meaning. That's why almost all of the evolution-creationism debates resolve nothing, because the creationists use words any way they like, and end up not hearing anything, and not communicating anything. If you define everything your way, you can "win" any debate, but such"debates" don't result in any intellectual victories; they're just hot air.
Although he didn't know it, Clinton was making a crucial point -- it really does depend on what the meaning of "is" is.
Sometimes I remember this one as, "There are no creationists; creationism is an insult. And by the way, Buzz Aldrin is a creationist."
Whatever it is/was, don't worry about me taking anything so wildly elliptical too seriously.
‘The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it’ (1 John 1:2)
"Those who had spent several years of their lives in company with Jesus, were, to say the least, profoundly... affected---by the experience. They spoke of "that which they had seen with their eyes, and touched with their hands" (V.1), and they were convinced that they had encountered God. "We proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father, and has appeared to us" (v. 2).
"The first Christians knew from the depths of their being that they had seen a new level of personal greatness, and wholeness, in Jesus. They were exhilarated by it. Their hearts were aglow with a bewildering joy at the magnitude of their good fortune."
"Something profoundly enlivening did happen to the disciples of Jesus. Far from diminishing them, it grew them into powerful personalities, who were giants among others of their time. The world took notice of them. Many times over, since, their testimony has been confirmed by others who have met Christ. Always, he lifts and enhances human life in all its parts. Have you found this too? May it be so."
Last evening I attended my eight year old nephews concert under the stars---moon Christmas concert at the mall and when they did silent night these young ladies danced the hula to this song...Hawaii is a very special place---MIRACLE!
AMAZING!
You and Pat are then by you own definition trying to use that very same technique.
Patrick, whines and complains that anyone who disagrees with him is not debating fairly. He definitions are not the reason he doen't win the debate, he simply cannot win the debate because he doesn't know what he is arguing about nor who to make persuasive arguments stating his case. This mostly because he does not posses an open enough mind to understand the opposing view. It's tough to win the battle when you don't know what you are battling against. He resorts to name-calling every time he is faced with an argument he cannot win and then cries to his Evo friends about how evil the opposition is. If he can get beyond his preconceptions and biases and thoughtfully considers the opposing view he might actually learn something new, different and possible even better.
Regards,
Boiler Plate
She could really write a speech, but she could't tell a story.
From what I have seen you seem to be pretty free with definitions yourself. The first being that all good, honest, true, scientist are by your definition solidly in the evolutionists camp. I found this to be fairly inconsistant with my experience with all the good, honest, true scientists I have known in my life. It was actually the first researches I had ever met in my life at Purdue University that posed the questions that made me doubt evolution in the first place. Prior to that I believed that essentially all scientists believed in evolution. That's what they taught us in the public schools and who was I to argue.
The second is that you somehow believe that scientists are not influenced by root of all evil, yes indeed the big M, money. This my dear friend is the absolute most fundamental part of research. Scientists are really not all whole lot better off than politicians whent it comes to influence peddling. The best known researches (note I did not say the "Best" researchers) are the ones who are the best salespersons. This has been a constant compliant of scientists for years and the source of many ideas for mad scientist films for decades. A classic example of money driving research would be scientific studies on smoking. There are stacks of them arguing both for and against the detrimental effects of cigarettes for years. In the end most of us go by our own experience and first hand knowledge. There are these same forces in the evolution debate.
I am not a believer in creationism because of religion or a born again experience. I simply do not believe evolution is possible because it simply lacks the scientific basis to convince me. The one thing I have learned from all that I have learned is simply this, we don't know a whole lot about the world we live in. Evolution simply does not add up, there are just too many contradictions that are too obvious to avoid. The greatest of these is why are there any distinct species at all. If the required rate of mutations were occuring in order to support evolution, there would be so many mutated life forms on this planet that it would be hard to even begin to make distinctions? Another good one is how did flight evolve? Vade Retro has tried to answer this, but couple of sketchy looking photos from China seem to be somewhat underwhelming.
Alright then Pat, you say you are fine debater and your powers of persusion are overwhelming. I hereby allow you to set the terms, and the definitions with one caveat. Make your case in your own words, no links or pastes. IF you are ready to give it go, then I am ready to learn.
Best wishes,
Boiler Plate
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.