This way of understanding things persists even when scientific naturalists employ religious-sounding language. For example, the physicist Stephen Hawking ended his famous book A Brief History of Time with the prediction that man might one day "know the mind of God." This phrasing cause some friends of mine to form the mistaken impression that he had some attraction to theistic religion. In context Hawking was not referring to a supernatural eternal being, however, but to the possibility that scientific knowledge will eventually become complete and all-encompassing because it will have explained the movements of material particles in all circumstances.
The monopoly of science in the realm of knowledge explains why evolutionary biologists do not find it meaningful to address the question whether the Darwinian theory is true. They will gladly concede that the theory is incomplete, and that further research into the mechanisms of evolution is needed. At any given point in time, however, the reigning theory of naturalistic evolution represents the state of scientific knowledge about how we came into existence. Scientific knowledge is by definition the closest approximation of absolute truth available to us. To ask whether this knowledge is true is therefore to miss the point, and to betray a misunderstanding of "how science works."
So far I have described the metaphysical categories by which scientific naturalists have excluded the topic of God from rational discussion, and thus ensured that Darwinism's fully naturalistic creation story is effectively true by definition. There is no need to explain why atheists find this system of thought control congenial. What is a little more difficult to understand, at least at first, is the strong support Darwinism continues to receive in the Christian academic world. Attempts to investigate the credibility of the Darwinist evolution story are regarded with little enthusiasm by many leading Christian professors of science and philosophy, even at institutions which are generally regarded as conservative in theology. Given that Darwinism is inherently naturalistic and therefore antagonistic to the idea that God had anything to do with the history of life, and that it plays the central role in ensuring agnostic domination of the intellectual culture, one might have supposed that Christian intellectuals (along with religious Jews) would be eager to find its weak spots.
Instead, the prevailing view among Christian professors has been that Darwinism-or "evolution," as they tend to call it-is unbeatable, and that it can be interpreted to be consistent with Christian belief. And in fact Darwinism is unbeatable as long as one accepts the thought categories of scientific naturalism that I have been describing. The problem is that those same thought categories make Christian theism, or any other theism, absolutely untenable. If science has exclusive authority to tell us how life was created, and if science is committed to naturalism, and if science never discards a paradigm until it is presented with an acceptable naturalistic alternative, then Darwinism's position is impregnable within science. The same reasoning that makes Darwinism inevitable, however, also bans God from taking any action within the history of the Cosmos, which means that it makes theism illusory. Theistic naturalism is self-contradictory.
(*Copied Source)
Dan,
ReplyDeleteYou have managed to create a built in mechanism so that your posts cannot be easily addressed.
Your pasting of Philip E. Johnson's "works" are so loaded with distortions that it is impossible to take them sentence by sentence and refute them.
But, to take one eggregious distortions is a paragraph where he states (and you echo the sentiment) that "there is a lot of proof against evolution out there, but it won't make it into peer reviewed journals because it does not meet the prevailing paradigm."
OK, name them.
You won't and you cannot. First of all, I am an engineer and not a scientist, per se. But some engineers like me have worked very closely with very learned scientists and I can tell you that they are like vicious dogs.
If a scientist has a hypothesis and he tests it and repeats it, and it is falsifiable, It will absolutely enter the vetting process. It will then be falsified or improved on. Good science cannot be rejected. You've been watching too much Ben Stein.
Most of the claims that Johnson makes are just claims and he makes no effort to offer the evidence or any examples. This is what puts him into the crackpot category.
I could also tell lies faster than they can be refuted.
I ca state unequivicably that if a scientist comes up with a tested hypothesis, and he gives it to another scientist to test and they gain some momentum, nothing can stop the idea.
The reason you cannot see this is that you are totally uninformed of the scientific vetting process and how science is actually done.
When you claim you do, it is like if I am a lawyer at a social event and you are a teacher, but you try to pass yourself off as a lawyer, I will immediately recognize you as a fraud.
If you are serious in your investigation of these matters, you would need to look at them one step at a time. Your process is totally absurd.
If you hand be an equation that is three pages long and tell me the solution is zero, the only way I will be able to find out the truth is to go through the equation one operation at a time to come to the solution.
Johnson is absolutely guilty of using vague circumlocutions, distortions, and lies to make a seemingly cogent argument. But anyone with some training in these fields can see right through them.
Respectfully submitted,
dale
Dale,
ReplyDelete"OK, name them. You won't and you cannot. "
There are so many, they even just had a convention recently. They offered over 40 peer reviewed submissions.
Plus, I just referenced one a short while ago.
Debunked! I accept your apology.
"If a scientist has a hypothesis and he tests it and repeats it, and it is falsifiable, It will absolutely enter the vetting process."
It's your turn to prove this claim.
crackpot category = ad hominem and you sir, are losing ground by the second.
"The reason you cannot see this is that you are totally uninformed of the scientific vetting process and how science is actually done."
Prove this statement or you just issued yet another ad hominem.
"If you are serious in your investigation of these matters, you would need to look at them one step at a time"
I am! Into five parts/points with a conclusion.
"Your process is totally absurd."
So is your logic. Are we done playing nany nany boo boo?
"to find out the truth is to go through the equation one operation at a time to come to the solution."
So what is actually stopping you?
Johnson is...(insert ad hominems)
OK moving on respectfully.
Plus, I just referenced one a short while ago.
ReplyDeleteDid you? Because I remember Zilch explaining how that article was pure bunk... I also remember this statement:
I did understand the basic gist of the article but I am just not familiar enough with the subject to refute or approve of it.
Yet, despite this admission, you would have us believe that Dale is guilty of an ad hominem attack against you by saying:
The reason you cannot see this is that you are totally uninformed of the scientific vetting process and how science is actually done.
So, what? You expect us to accept your intimate familiarity of the scientific process of peer review, when you readily admit to having little, if any, experience in any of the scientific disciplines about which you routinely write.
Ad hominem? No. It was a statement of fact. If you have been sandbagging us, then it is up to you to show us, or we'll continue to correctly find you scientifically incompetent.
As to the conference, in which 40+ findings allegedly challenge evolution (Golly, gee, Wally, forty?), if you go back and re-read the responses, you'll find that those, too, were debunked, and even were they not, your 40+ vs. evolution's volumes is not even a drop in the bucket. Until you can satisfactorily explain distant starlight, strata layers, the fossil record, tectonic plate activity, etc., your problem is simple:
You have no viable alternative theory to offer.
All you have is a book written by people who burned a sheep because their women menstruated.
Tsk, tsk.
--
Stan
Oh, the
ReplyDeleteA BARAMINOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF SUBTRIBE FLAVERIINAE (ASTERACEAE: HELENIEAE) AND THE ORIGIN OF BIOLOGICAL COMPLEXITY ...
That is not a peer reviewed publication. It was published in a creationist thing. It is bullshit as a debunker of anything.
G.E.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI took a look at your "convention" post. Those conventions gather people just to play a game of misinterpretation of facts and scientific discoveries into whatever they want to believe. Starting always with presuppositions about what evolution is. An exercise of self-deception that inspires nothing. It is like when they write some stupid ranting such as "link between neanderthals and humans broken," which start by assuming that we think neanderthals are our ancestors, when we clearly do not. Debunking what we do not think is not debunking evolution, but strawmen.
Your whole rant of posts fails miserably. So much, that Dale almost repeated what I said, that this requires an almost paragraph to paragraph answer. Too many assumptions and stupidity concentrated. It is pretty much like if we do not answer any sentence we would allow you to think we agree on those, when the real problem is to find where to start.
I agree with someone else who told you it would be more productive to read what you think than go through these already debunked crap.
G.E.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteYou are good at what you do, which is creating obfuscation. You are made in the mold or Rousas Rushdooney. It only works with undereducated and credulous folks that are looking for highly charged emotional experiences.
It is a pity that you would sacrifice your penchant for organization in an attempt to defend an ancient superstitious belif system. Such a waste.
GE
ReplyDelete"That is not a peer reviewed publication. It was published in a creationist thing."
Again watch your mouth and tone. Both you and Stan are crawling under my skin with the tone.
I never said it was peer reviewed did I?
What I said was:
"there is a lot of proof against evolution out there, but it won't make it into peer reviewed journals because it does not meet the prevailing paradigm."
So, I provided a case in point, now back off.
Dale,
Maybe you should eschew obfuscation to the subject of God. Such a waste.
Dan, about the "proof against evolution" that you supposedly named, others have already shot down that stuff.
ReplyDeleteRemember? Two: in order to make the data fit a creationist mold, many assumptions must be made that are not warranted by the evidence. The postulation of an "AGE" to nudge evolution along is one example from this article: there is simply no evidence for such a structure; it is simply required to safeguard the creationist notion that complexity cannot evolve by itself.
Evolutionary theory has been able to make unsafe predictions. What about creationism?
Dan, you presented that article as an example of "proof" against evolution but yet you go on to say:
I did understand the basic gist of the article but I am just not familiar enough with the subject to refute or approve of it.?? If you can't refute or approve of it then why did you use it as an example of a "proof" against evolution? How can you even tell?
BTW, Evolution Blog is putting up a series of articles about the Creationism Conference.
reynold- just a quick thank-you for the link to the EvolutionBlog. Good, civilized discussion. Dan- check it out.
ReplyDeleteOh, and P.S. Johnson propounds his idea of what naturalism entails:
ReplyDeleteTruth as such is not a particularly important concept in naturalistic philosophy. The reason for this is that "truth" suggests an unchanging absolute, whereas scientific knowledge is a dynamic concept.
This is correct, as far as it goes. At least Johnson starts out well: whereas absolute truth, while existing by definition in such systems of formal logic as mathematics (2+2=4 is absolutely true in arithmetic), it is at best an unattainable ideal in science. In practice, all we can hope for is that our models of the world will get better and better, without ever becoming perfect or absolute.
Like life, knowledge evolves and grows into superior forms. What was knowledge in the past is not knowledge today, and the knowledge of the future will surely be far superior to what we have now.
Now he's warming to his theme, and getting a bit sloppy. Life does not necessarily evolve into "superior" forms, only into forms that enjoy differential reproductive success. This simply means forms that, for whatever reason, get more of their genes into the next generation. You might call that the evolution of "superiority", but only by a big stretch: are the males of some deep-sea fish, that have evolved into mere sacs of sperm parasitic on the females, "superior" to their predecessors, who were normal fishy fish who swam free?
Likewise, it would be nice to say that the knowledge of the future will "surely be far superior to what we have now", and the general trend is in that direction, but there are lots of setbacks, too: Lysenko comes to mind. In any case, the knowledge of the past is often still knowledge today, but simply modified or still applying to special cases: Newtonian mechanics is a good example. While it is "false" in that it was dethroned by Relativity, it is still "good enough" to send rockets to the Moon.
Only naturalism itself and the unique validity of science as the path to knowledge are absolutes. There can be no criterion for truth outside of scientific knowledge, no mind of God to which we have access.
No, no, and no. There's nothing "absolute" about depending upon science- at least as far as I'm concerned, I only trust science because it works: it has a good track record of making accurate models and predictions. And as far as the existence of a criterion for truth outside science, and access to the mind of God, I'm openminded: show me some evidence for either, and I will change my tune. But so far, it's Science 1, Religion 0, at least as far as explaining the Universe goes.
Reynold,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"BTW, Evolution Blog is putting up a series of articles about the Creationism Conference."
Yes, and it becomes totally obvious that the creationists are not doing science.
Their vain attempts at refuting valid science is comical at best and ends up as an exercise in mass delusion and cognitive dissonance, the malady that Dan suffers from.
Dan, li'l buddy, you are soooo busted.
In anticiation of what you will reply, remember this:
"Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted."
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
OK, my mistake, you said there are lots of things that do not get published into peer reviewed journals. Yet, your conference thingie had a link to a PEER reviewed paper (or so it seemed). Thus my confusion. That paper does not debunk evolution at all. Then you put this low-quality paper as example of something that would not make it into peer reviewed paper, which somebody else told you was not good at all, yet you re-cite it here like if you never heard it has no good quality whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteSo, what kind of game is this?
I cannot understand how you call this "debunking atheists" instead of something like "reassuring the credulous." Just like you copied the stuff by Johnson, somebody here could just copy from those who have shown him to be dishonest and to twist the facts.
G.E.
GE,
ReplyDelete"..That paper does not debunk evolution at all..."
Your right but my point was still made that there is plenty of "papers" out there (even if I cannot find any) that explains an alternate conclusion of data then the current evolution paradigm.
"So, what kind of game is this?
I just don't know GE. I offer a great article that helps explain a possible reason why things are askew and biased. The only thing I hear is "Johnson is a liar" and "he isn't a scientist" and a plethora of ad hominems.
Maybe now I should do a "my take" post to explain the position.
Like it or not GE you have all been debunked by this article. We all need to be honest with ourselves here. Truth is truth.
The evolution paradigm is the goal for all scientists so we fail from the get go. Instead of seeking truth wherever it leads, we have to fit the data into that paradigm, with blinders on. Otherwise no funding, like Johnson said: "it is impossible to write or evaluate a grant proposal without a generally accepted theoretical framework."
Simply...debunked.
Like it or not GE you have all been debunked by this article. We all need to be honest with ourselves here. Truth is truth.
ReplyDeleteWhat are you talking about? We have not been debunked by this charlatan. Did you read anything WE said? I gave you a response to just one paragraph, and told you I even feel lazy to answer because the whole construction is fallacious and tendentious from beginning to end.
The evolution paradigm is the goal for all scientists so we fail from the get go.
Pure lies. Evolution is not my goal at all. My work is affected by evolution in the sense that using evolutionary reasoning it gives me the best possible answers (by measures OTHER than evolutive). If I ignore evolution in my framework, then the results are poor. My work is not about proving evolution, but finding the functions of genes yet to be known. So, I use whatever I can to do this. Evolution or not.
Then, scientists can do so many things there is no reason for all of them to have evolution as a goal.
Instead of seeking truth wherever it leads, we have to fit the data into that paradigm, with blinders on.
Another unfounded argument. Why would I fit my data to evolution? I use whatever source I can to advance knowledge. I do not fit data into evolution, data fit into evolution all by itself.
Otherwise no funding, like Johnson said: "it is impossible to write or evaluate a grant proposal without a generally accepted theoretical framework."
Another unfounded claim. Funding depends on the grounds you have to make sure your work will fructify. Most grants proposals (I have reviewed lots of them), do not deal with evolution whatsoever. Only a tiny fraction of the total work is geared towards studying evolution and its processes. Fail again Dan. Unfounded claims, hasty generalizations, fallacies all over the place.
Are you truly convinced by this despite it talks about thing even the author knows nothing about?
G.E.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteI just don't know GE. I offer a great article that helps explain a possible reason why things are askew and biased. The only thing I hear is "Johnson is a liar" and "he isn't a scientist" and a plethora of ad hominems.
They'er not ad homs if they are true.
Of course if you'd actually bother to go to the sites and check out why Johnson gets ripped, maybe you'd see that the criticisms of him are valid?
Instead you just complain that Johnson's getting treated poorly.
How's about looking at the facts for yourself?
Like it or not GE you have all been debunked by this article. We all need to be honest with ourselves here. Truth is truth.
That's advice that you Dan, not GE needs to take. The other posters here shot down that article. Even you admitted that you yourself don't even really understand it!
The evolution paradigm is the goal for all scientists so we fail from the get go.
Not really. I don't see astronomers and physicists much interested in biological evolution.
Instead of seeking truth wherever it leads, we have to fit the data into that paradigm, with blinders on.
Look who's talking. We've presented links to sites like TO which have the evidence. We've shown links to people who have examined the claims of Philip Johnson and have found them to be lacking, with explanations as to why they're lacking.
All you've given is one paper that the posters here have debunked. The only ones not following the evidence where it leads, Dan, are people like you.
By the way, in "The Creationists", Ronald Numbers detailes why ICR founder Henry Morris wound up having the members take an oath where they promise to never disagree with the Genesis version before anyone can join the ICR.
Morris was upset at all the people who kept leaving YECism once they got out into the field, and found that the YEC interpretation of the facts was wrong.
Now, what was that you were complaining about with evolutionists refusing to seek the truth wherever it leads?
Maybe you should take a look at the question that I keep asking Pvblivs: Were scientists trying to protect evolution from damaging evidence even when that theory was first proposed which was at the time when creationism was the reigning paradigm.
What you, Pbvlivs, Johnson and who knows how many others fail to realize is that if the evidence was against common descent and an old earth, creationism would never have been overthrown in the first place.
Check out Ronald Number's book The Creationists and Glen Morton's website for more details of conversions from YECism.
Morton details some recent stories; Numbers details the ones that occurred decades ago, and when the paradigm first shifted.
Otherwise no funding, like Johnson said: "it is impossible to write or evaluate a grant proposal without a generally accepted theoretical framework."
What Johnson leaves out of course is the reason why there's a generally accepted theoretical framework in the first place. He also leaves out that if the paper is able to back up its claims then it will be heard.
I see GE has a better grasp of the research paper process then I do; he should, he's an actual scientist.
ReplyDeleteGE,
ReplyDeletePure lies? Why must you use that tone with people. Someone that a different viewpoint isn't a liar. Please Stop. Next paragraph you said "Another unfounded argument" now that is more acceptable and civil.
Reynold,
"They'er not ad homs if they are true."
Sure they are. Everyone here is trying to say his data is unfounded by personally attacking him. Let's, for argument sake, just say that after an epiphany that Charles Darwin himself wrote it not lets get to the points.
"All you've given is one paper that the posters here have debunked."
In my opinion, I am hearing personal attacks not refuting of the claims.
Can you provide three separate sources of the claim you made about Ronald Numbers? It is an interesting point but I just want to avoid gossip from a disgruntled employee.
"Were scientists trying to protect evolution from damaging evidence even when that theory was first proposed which was at the time when creationism was the reigning paradigm."
Of course non of us can answer this question because we just weren't there and cannot guess the motives of anyone. I would guess that once Darwin's theory was introduced it took off like a rocket before data was even collected and the paradigm was shifted again, before data.
"What you, Pbvlivs, Johnson and who knows how many others fail to realize is that if the evidence was against common descent and an old earth, creationism would never have been overthrown in the first place."
Oh I do realize this and I absolutely agree. Fortunately we are under God's plan not ours.
2 Thessalonians 2:11 comes in to play and we all have to make our best effort to get people to understand His Will.
"What Johnson leaves out of course is the reason why there's a generally accepted theoretical framework in the first place."
Please expound.
Someone that a different viewpoint isn't a liar.
ReplyDeleteYes, but someone who states a lie is a liar. remember that I answered this:
The evolution paradigm is the goal for all scientists so we fail from the get go.
This is an obvious lie, not a viewpoint. I changed after that to "unfounded argument" because I know how you change in your sensitivity to words, but that does not change what these arguments of Johnson are.
G.E.
Reynold,
ReplyDelete"They'er not ad homs if they are true."
Sure they are. Everyone here is trying to say his data is unfounded by personally attacking him. Let's, for argument sake, just say that after an epiphany that Charles Darwin himself wrote it not lets get to the points.
Please, try reading the links that deal with Johnson? They actually explain with examples where and how he's wrong. Those "errors" he makes are what spur the "ad-hom" claims about him in the first place.
Bottom line, those who've attacked Johnson have gotten to the points.
Try not to ignore them.
"All you've given is one paper that the posters here have debunked."
In my opinion, I am hearing personal attacks not refuting of the claims.
You are obviously not taking any time to actually read anything we post then.
Besides, didn't you yourself admit that I did understand the basic gist of the article but I am just not familiar enough with the subject to refute or approve of it.
Dan, if you can't understand the claims of the article enough to refute or accept them, how can you even tell if they're being refuted or not?
Can you provide three separate sources of the claim you made about Ronald Numbers? It is an interesting point but I just want to avoid gossip from a disgruntled employee.
I never made any claim about Ronald Numbers. I only referred you to his book. You can read his book, check out the references and see if his claims about the early YECists going to evolution and an old earth are true.
"Were scientists trying to protect evolution from damaging evidence even when that theory was first proposed which was at the time when creationism was the reigning paradigm."
Of course none of us can answer this question because we just weren't there and cannot guess the motives of anyone. I would guess that once Darwin's theory was introduced it took off like a rocket before data was even collected and the paradigm was shifted again, before data.
Please expound.
"What you, Pbvlivs, Johnson and who knows how many others fail to realize is that if the evidence was against common descent and an old earth, creationism would never have been overthrown in the first place."
Oh I do realize this and I absolutely agree.
No, you don't. If you agree like you just said you did, you wouldn't have made the statement you just did about:
I would guess that once Darwin's theory was introduced it took off like a rocket before data was even collected and the paradigm was shifted again, before data.
Scientists accepted YECism until they got out in the field and found evidence to the contrary. That evidence was better explained by common descent and and old earth, with no global flood.
Fortunately we are under God's plan not ours.
2 Thessalonians 2:11 comes in to play and we all have to make our best effort to get people to understand His Will.
Yeah, some plan. Make it look like the natural world is in conflict with his own book so that many people will come to disregard Genesis and lead many people astray.
Doesn't that make god a liar of some sort? Isn't that "plan" really counterproductive to his goal of getting as many people into heaven as possible?
"What Johnson leaves out of course is the reason why there's a generally accepted theoretical framework in the first place."
Please expound.
We've tried; I have linked to evolution education sites, Sites like TalkOrigins and Understanding Evolution.
Basically, there's a lot of evidence backing up the theory of biological evolution.
What's so hard to understand?
Reynold,
ReplyDelete"That evidence was better explained by common descent and and old earth, with no global flood."
"Better explained" sure, if that is your presupposition. You know full well not everyone holds that belief in the scientific community. Because it fits the Darwinian paradigm of no God, anyone showing the contrary was put away as a "crack pot."
I mentioned this before but take the Big Bang for instance. What happened to Newton's very first Law of Motion called the law of inertia? Things at rest stay at rest unless acted upon by what? Come on you believe in science right? Things at rest stay at rest unless acted upon an outside force. Parts of Big Bang point to a Creator and yet it is discounted Why? Because again it doesn't fit the current paradigm of the community. You have to discount the laws of physics to believe in No God? That is science?
"Isn't that "plan" really counterproductive to his goal of getting as many people into heaven as possible?"
Who said that was His goal? I expounded on that point HERE. We are chosen for His reasons. Otherwise the path to destruction would be narrow and the path to Salvation would be wide. We are already guilty and deserve His wrath, he is just picking a few for His glory. We made that choice (to be evil or not), not God.
"Basically, there's a lot of evidence backing up the theory of biological evolution."
The data is interpreted into a presupposition, that much we can agree.
"We've tried; I have linked to evolution education sites"
Now your ad hominem is that I am not educated enough as to what evolution is? Forget that. Evolution within a species we don't have anything to argue about. And Macro is NOT just an extension of micro. There is very little questionable evidence of that. There should be billions of examples and verifiable evidence. Finding a tooth screaming to the world that the missing link is found is laughable. You all are claiming there is a diagram of a huge Phylogenetic tree with all sorts of branches but all the data shows a diagram if grass with blades shooting strait up from the ground. Prove to us all, once and for all, we are wrong, don't try to squeeze the data to fit the model. Otherwise concede and move aside for the Creation Model and bow to His authority.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteThis is not an ad hominem: You are not educated enough as to what the evidence for evolution is. Clear?
How would I know? Well, I see your posts, and they point to you not knowing about the evidence. The evidence is not forced to fit evolution, it fits by itself. I repeat: Do you or not read what we say? To me it seems like you just see the parts you want to see, especially if you can label them as "ad hominem."
You ask for proof, and when an good argument is presented you seem to miss it.
So, prove me wrong now. Prove that you do know about the evidence, the many sources, instead of citing that "tooth" mentioned by Kirk and Ray. That is not knowledge of evolution, that is knowledge of what the liars (yes, they are willful liars) say about evolution. If that constitutes your knowledge of the subject, you are way behind most of the ones who are trying to answer your diatribe.
You do this all the time Dan. You argue angrily like the strength of your sentences would make these lies any more true. You swish the arguments that have been made by the likes of Ray or AiG as if they were true. You do the same with this sac of lies by Johnson, you do the same with Bible verses, and then you expect us to believe that you know evolution? Not possible.
Just like you cannot prove anything unless we are listening, we cannot prove anything unless you are listening and at least trying to follow the evidences wherever they lead. I have followed those links on "papers offering a different interpretation" and found them lacking. I have told you to not use arguments you do not understand because you risk being ridiculed. Yet ...
G.E.
GE,
ReplyDelete"I have told you to not use arguments you do not understand because you risk being ridiculed. Yet ..."
Fine, but why the ridicule? That is just evidence of one insecurity. You know like kids teasing the weird kid with the braces. It shows mountains of your character. You are not free from fault. BTW I do listen and try to grasp the gist of the conversation. Belittling anyone is mean, and by no means, no way to have a civil conversation.
IF you have ever lied once in your life then you sir are a liar also so stop pointing fingers when you hold the same trait they do. You are equal to Kirk and Ray and Leonard and myself and you do NOT stand above us by any stretch of your imagination.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI have a strong commitment to be honest, and I keep myself within it. I do not lie to convince anybody, I do not abuse the trust of others in me. When I am not sure about something I say so, or else, I go study and then give my opinion. Thus, I stand way above Kirk and Ray and Leonard (and Ham and Behe). I cannot say above you because I think your are sincere despite your changes of mood and your forgetfulness of what you say from one post to the next. Otherwise I would have stopped posting here long ago. (I post at Ray's because I think I do protect others from his willful lies.) I cannot stop calling them what they are Dan. I will not. This is part of my honesty, and I will stand for the consequences. First my honesty than shutting up against my conviction that abusing people's trust is wrong. Since I see the abuse, I have to call them for what they truly are.
So, more to our discussion. You said:
I mentioned this before but take the Big Bang for instance. What happened to Newton's very first Law of Motion called the law of inertia? Things at rest stay at rest unless acted upon by what? Come on you believe in science right? Things at rest stay at rest unless acted upon an outside force. Parts of Big Bang point to a Creator and yet it is discounted Why? Because again it doesn't fit the current paradigm of the community. You have to discount the laws of physics to believe in No God? That is science?
So, first, I know very little about the Big Bang. I know how they came to the idea, but not how they propose it happened (and I repeat, Big bang is independent of evolution; if the universe originated in a different way, or not at all, evolution would still stand). However, if you have high pressure inside a container, that high pressure will "act upon" the container and the container, and its contents, can exploit. Such could be how the physicist explain the Big Bang. I do not know details. The thing is this: If you have this problem with the Big Bang:
1. Have you checked to see if they offer any explanation about what caused the "explosion"?
2. Have you checked if the laws of motion are really violated in the proposition?
For instance, the very simplified version I have read state that gravity could concentrate matter into a single thingie, and that at some point pressure builds up until a Big Bang can happen (which fits my example). It makes sense, but, again, I do not know a lot about it. Yet, I cannot claim to debunk it unless I truly understood it, right? Since I am not prepared to get a degree in advanced physics, I leave it alone.
Evolution does not require that much. But it does require you to study. Debunking it would require you to know the true arguments of evolution, and accept that if you accept parts of it (as with the fox/wolf problem), you have to accept the consequences of what you accept. Otherwise it becomes hypocritical.
About the ridiculing. Well, I have tried not to do that with you. But, if you post something you do not understand, how do you expect to understand what we answer about it? How can we answer if we do not know what is your level of understanding? How can you claim that we have been debunked if you do not understand neither the arguments, nor how they fail, nor our answers? I know you are trusting this Johnson guy because you think he would not lie to you on something this important. Yet, he does. This is exactly why I call him a liar. You are an example of what exasperates me about these guys. Your almost innocent posting of their lies thinking you have something marvelous that will debunk us all, once and for all.
Clear? Did I manage not to insult you? If I did insult you it was not intentional.
G.E.
Dan +†+ said...
ReplyDeleteReynold,
"That evidence was better explained by common descent and and old earth, with no global flood."
"Better explained" sure, if that is your presupposition.
Uh, Dan...you do know that the particular people who changed their minds were people who used to be young earth creationists right?
That was the reason I posted the link to Glen Morton's site and to Number's book in the first place!
Here, let me try again:
What you, Pbvlivs, Johnson and who knows how many others fail to realize is that if the evidence was against common descent and an old earth, creationism would never have been overthrown in the first place.
Check out Ronald Number's book The Creationists and Glen Morton's website for more details of conversions from YECism.
To show you that it was people with the creationist presupposition who changed their mind because of the evidence.
In other words, these were people who had the BIBLICAL PRESUPPOSITION, Dan, not the evolutionary one.
You know full well not everyone holds that belief in the scientific community. Because it fits the Darwinian paradigm of no God, anyone showing the contrary was put away as a "crack pot."
If you'd have bothered to even read my post, you'd have seen that I was talking about YECs who gave it up after looking at the evidence, and thus the "presupposition" charge you just made is totally off base.
I mentioned this before but take the Big Bang for instance. What happened to Newton's very first Law of Motion called the law of inertia? Things at rest stay at rest unless acted upon by what? Come on you believe in science right?
I also believe in reading comprehension.
If you're going to get sarcastic, be very sure that you haven't totally missed the point of a post I just made.
Things at rest stay at rest unless acted upon an outside force. Parts of Big Bang point to a Creator and yet it is discounted Why?
Was the singularity for the Big Bang moving anywhere? That, and doesn't the big bang go againt the Genesis view?
Because again it doesn't fit the current paradigm of the community. You have to discount the laws of physics to believe in No God? That is science?
What do you really know of the big bang? Try reading about it on The Bad Astronomer site. The search engine sucks, but at least I've found something. Note when he talks about WMAP.
"Isn't that "plan" really counterproductive to his goal of getting as many people into heaven as possible?"
Who said that was his goal? I expounded on that point HERE. We are chosen for his reasons.
Doesn't the bible itself say that he doesn't want anyone to perish, but all to have everlasting life?
The fact that there are verses where he says otherwise just indicates normal human contradictions to me.
But this particular topic isn't supposed to be about the bible, anyway.
From your post:
How holy is God? So holy that he must send out of his presence, everlastingly, anyone who is not fit. Why of all this? That he might make known the riches of his glory, that is, he did all of this in order that he might gather into heaven a redeemed humanity who would forever glorify him for all that he is. (paraphrased from Todd Friel and Dr. John MacArthur)
Problem: If god doesn't want anyone who is not "fit", then we'd all be in hell, since your holy book says that none of us are fit. What's there for him to screen out in the first place? No one is fit.
Otherwise the path to destruction would be narrow and the path to Salvation would be wide. We are already guilty and deserve his wrath, he is just picking a few for his glory.
Glory, or vanity? Can you explain the difference here?
It doesn't sound like this character has the interests of the human race in mind at all. What about all the verses that imply that god "loves" us?
If all this is just for "his glory" I'm kind of hard-pressed to see where any love is, except for his own ego.
"Basically, there's a lot of evidence backing up the theory of biological evolution."
The data is interpreted into a presupposition, that much we can agree.
Wrong, Dan. Remember...I've given you the book and the sites that show that it was young earth creationists who, after looking at the evidence, wound up changing their mind.
Did I not tell you to go and look at what I had posted?
What do you then do? You completely ignore what I said, then go rabbiting off on some charge that if you'd just taken the time to read my post you would have seen was false.
"We've tried; I have linked to evolution education sites"
Now your ad hominem is that I am not educated enough as to what evolution is? Forget that.
You're not even bothering to fully check out what I say in one lousy post. If you can't even take the time to do that, then I don't know what I can do.
As I said before: it's not ad-homenem if it's true. Quit whinging about it and actually do some reading for a change.
Evolution within a species we don't have anything to argue about. And Macro is NOT just an extension of micro. There is very little questionable evidence of that. There should be billions of examples and verifiable evidence.
If you'd bother to read instead of setting up strawmen...well, if you or anyone ever changes your mind you can check out the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ or the Understanding Evolution site.
Finding a tooth screaming to the world that the missing link is found is laughable.
And another strawman of yours. The one time I know of when it was a tooth was when some guy found it, and the media ran around talking about it.
Read up on the real story of Nebraska Man.
You all are claiming there is a diagram of a huge Phylogenetic tree with all sorts of branches but all the data shows a diagram if grass with blades shooting strait up from the ground.
Maybe you should do some reading
You can start off from the part that says I) "Misrepresentation of Knight et al.’s composite phylogeny of genetic codes".
Prove to us all, once and for all, we are wrong, don't try to squeeze the data to fit the model.
I've been trying to prove it, but you don't seem to do very well in reading our posts.
Again, remember: The Glen Morton site and Number's book show that it was creationists who gave up on that idea and embraced evolution and an old earth. They most assuredly do not "squeeze the data".
Otherwise concede and move aside for the Creation Model and bow to His authority.
Why don't you come up with a "Creation Model" first? Guess what? The guys at that Creation Conference couldn't seem to do it very well.
While you're at it, try "proving" that "he" exists before trying to tell us to bow to anyone, ok?
Reynold,
ReplyDeleteThanks for all those links. They are quite helpful.
G.E.
This is becoming more hilarious by the minute.
ReplyDeleteDan's MO is so obvious. He makes a statement and then GE or Reynold present a complete and utterly definitive refutation of the statement and summarize by saying it is a lie, which it is.
So Dan, in order to avoid admitting the truth runs around in circles, "Ad Hom!, Ad Hom, Ad Hom!!!!!!!!!," of course, while never even attempting to respond to the comment.
I hope he doesn't think he's fooling anybody with that sophomoric tactic.
Wow.
ReplyDeleteAnyone using the Big Bang as an example of scientists disregarding evidence simply doesn't know what he's talking about.
A Roman Catholic Priest came up with Big Bang cosmology in the 1920s. It was dismissed then by many physicists because it smelled pecurliarly like someone trying to drag religion into science. Einstein himself rejected it, at least partly on those grounds.
But in the 1960s, when the evidence for the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation was found, everyone still alive changed his/her tune. It was a slam-dunk case, proof positive in favor of the Big Bang theory.
But even today, there exist a few hold-outs for a "steady state" universe with no "bang." They are generally considered to be crackpots because the evidence in favor of Big Bang cosmology is too strong to reject, and does nothing but get stronger the more we look at it.
(By the way, Newton's laws of motion wouldn't apply to the Big Bang itself, since its name and the idea it was a big "explosion" are simply metaphors - and actually the name was picked to ridicule the idea, but it stuck. The universe isn't expanding "into" anything. Its expansion isn't "motion" per se. Newton's laws don't apply.)
However, whether the Big Bang implies anything about some deity or other would, of course, depend upon your prior beliefs. Someone who believes in a god that poofed the universe into existence will, of course, see Big Bang cosmology as a verification of that god's creation. On the other hand, someone who believes in a perpetual universe with human beings around for trillions of years and forever reincarnating will see Big Bang cosmology as a heresy. And believers in Last-Thursdayism think it's all a pointless crock.
In reality, the physics says nothing about any god(s). The evidence is what it is, and right now, we have no ability to say what caused the Big Bang itself. Scientists, of course, are looking for an answer, but because "God did it" ends all possibility of doing science, they won't be looking at that scenario. The hypotheses they're working on now all depend upon something else existing "before" the Big Bang, but there's also no telling if any god(s) caused that previous state-of-being.
If an all-powerful god exists, then science is worthless, and the very idea that Big Bang cosmology is evidence for god would be ludicrous. In other words, it's a self-defeating argument because an omnipotent god utterly destroys the scientific meaning of the word "evidence." Such a being could make the universe look however it wanted to, and so whether there was a Big Bang or not, both would be "evidence" of god's creation, which undermines one of the primary notions behind doing science in the first place.
In still other words, if you make the claim that you have evidence of god, you negate all of science and so have "evidence" of nothing.
Hi all. Reynold asks:
ReplyDeleteWere scientists trying to protect evolution from damaging evidence even when that theory was first proposed which was at the time when creationism was the reigning paradigm.
Dan answers:
Of course non of us can answer this question because we just weren't there and cannot guess the motives of anyone. I would guess that once Darwin's theory was introduced it took off like a rocket before data was even collected and the paradigm was shifted again, before data.
Dan- while it's true that we can only guess at motives, the history of Darwin's work and its reception is fairly well documented, and I can tell you this: while his theory did not "take off like a rocket", it was fairly quickly accepted by most scientists, because it was supported by the evidence. Please do read On the Origin of Species, available online here, among other places, and tell me that Darwin was working "before data was collected". True, he didn't have as much corroboratory evidence as we do now, but he had quite a lot, and worked like a dog to get it- for instance, he studied barnacles for eight years, to make sure that he understood systematic biology well enough to make his claims.
Hey zilch,
ReplyDeleteIf you have not seen this web site, please take a look. I still prefer the feeling of a book in my hands, but that is an "age related disease" :-)
There is an compilation into a single book of the most important works of Darwin edited by Jim Watson. There are other compilations, and I bet they will have a "200 birthday" edition. We will see.
I will have my students discussing chapters of the origin to celebrate and to make sure they understand evolution well. If anything, these arguing with creationists has shown me that there is way too much misinformation about this theory, and thus, I have to make sure my students do understand it well.
G.E.
GE- thanks for the link. I'd been looking unsuccessfully for Darwin's complete autobiography (without the omissions Emma made before publication), and there it is!
ReplyDeleteAnd Watson's book looks like a useful compilation too. I've been making an Amazon list (I want I am a Strange Loop by Douglas Hofstadter, for instance) and I'll add that to it. I just have to sell a violin or two first.
Another compilation that might interest you is the Norton Critical Edition: Darwin. It not only features quotes from Darwin's works, but also has a lot of historical and modern reactions to Darwin, and helps place him in history.
I, too, prefer real books to cyberbooks. But I've found it handy to download stuff onto my Palm so I can read it in the streetcar. I currently have the Origin, the Beagle, Zoonomia by Erasmus Darwin (he had some wild ideas, and came breathtakingly close to scooping his grandson), Natural Theology by William Paley (famous for his "watchmaker" metaphor for God, and much better reasoned than most creationist stuff nowadays), not to mention three Bibles (KJV, Luther, and Tyndale), and of course a bunch of other stuff, all downloaded for free from the internet. I just wish the print was a bit bigger...
I'm glad to hear there are teachers who consider the theory of evolution important, and are not afraid of teaching it. I too am wondering how best to celebrate next Feb. 12, Darwin's and Lincoln's 200th birthday. A big party, at the very least.
zilch!
ReplyDeleteI wonder if I should be surprised!
I am a Strange Loop by Douglas Hofstadter
In my list too. I have the godel escher bach (read it about 20 years ago!) and mathemagical themes (about six years ago) by this guy.
Did you read a short history of nearly everything? Bill Bryson. I found a few mistakes, but it does an excellent read of science for the public. For a more advanced thing, I enjoyed Margulis and Sagan's "What is Life." A bit harder to follow, but captivating.
That Norton critical edition seems nice. Shit, one more for my big pile.
G.E.
Yay! Science books!
ReplyDeleteI'll confess to not being as well read as you guys (I usually prefer good fiction novels to reality) but a few I can recommend are Carl Zimmers "Evolution, Triumph of an idea" (an excellent summary of many parts of entire theory) and Michael Behe's "Darwins Black Box" (one of Intelligent Designs premier works, and all the more interesting when you read it with easy access to TalkOrigins Index to creationist claims).
I'd also recommend the entire Science of Discworld series, which seamlessly combines well written scientific commentary with a good novelette from Terry Pratchett: one of the best fiction writers ever. The combination of humour and science is absolutely brilliant.
GE, and anyone else interested: I like everything I've read so far by Hofstadter. Especially interesting, and moving, is Le Ton Beau de Marot: In Praise of the Music of Language. He starts with a short poem by the French Renaissance poet Marot, which he translates, and asks many others to translate, in many different languages and styles. He uses that as a jumping point for all kinds of riffs about the nature of language, and poetry, and emotions, and branches off in all kinds of unexpected directions. A masterwork.
ReplyDeleteYes, I have read Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything. I agree- it's very entertaining and educational. I haven't read Margulis and Sagan's book yet, but it's on my ever-lengthening list. Lynn Margulis is a personal hero of mine for her brilliant deduction that the eukaryotic cell is the result of an ancient symbiosis.
Quasar: I've heard good things about Zimmer. I haven't read the whole of Behe's Darwin's Black Box, but I suppose I should (sigh). After Behe admitted at Dover that astrology was a science, by his definition, it's hard to take him seriously.
I've also heard recommendations of The Science of Discworld. I must admit, I like Terry Pratchett better in small doses than whole books: some of his one-liners are hilarious ("He was the sort of person who stood on mountaintops during thunderstorms in wet copper armour shouting "All the Gods are bastards.") My personal favorite authors of science-fiction/fantasy are Ursula LeGuin (Always Coming Home) and Greg Bear (Queen of Angels), but I like lots of others, too.
As long as we're making recommendations, I would also mention Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel, a convincing explanation for the cultural and technological hegemony of Europe/America and the white race: it is based largely on accidents of geography. Also Diamond's Collapse, a very sobering look at societies that have failed and disappeared, with obvious implications for the direction we all are heading.
Gandhi once said “Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever.” This is a fine sentiment, but can lead to a big bill for books, as you say.
"the physicist Stephen Hawking ended his famous book A Brief History of Time with the prediction that man might one day "know the mind of God." This phrasing cause some friends of mine to form the mistaken impression that he had some attraction to theistic religion. In context Hawking was not referring to a supernatural eternal being, however, but to the possibility that scientific knowledge will eventually become complete and all-encompassing because it will have explained the movements of material particles in all circumstances."
ReplyDeleteThis appears to be your assertion, rather than a statement of fact. Can you please provide some reference to Hawking actually suggesting this himself?
Whateverman,
ReplyDelete"Can you please provide some reference to Hawking actually suggesting this himself?"
I am sorry I don't have the book A Brief History of Time to point out what pages. Library maybe?
I own that book. I've read it 4 times (only half of which I made it every chapter).
ReplyDeleteNOWHERE does it suggest that Hawking's statement about understanding the mind of God could be interpretted as understanding the minutiae of quantum mechanics (and its intersection with Einstein's relativity).
This is your assertion, not Hawking's.
"If we find the answer to that, (why it is that we and the universe exist), it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." Stephen Hawking
ReplyDelete"however, but to the possibility that scientific knowledge will eventually become complete and all-encompassing because it will have explained the movements of material particles in all circumstances." Johnson
"NOWHERE does it suggest that Hawking's statement about understanding the mind of God could be [interpreted] as understanding the minutiae of quantum mechanics (and its intersection with Einstein's relativity)." Whatever
I think Johnson explained it well. He is saying instead of talking about God he is saying we would know a tremendous amount. At least that is what I take from the two.
"have explained the movements of material particles in all circumstances."
Is this not a goal of science and mankind?
"Dan's response was {much snippage} Is this not a goal of science and mankind?
ReplyDeleteYou just proved that Hawking never suggested (despite your assertion otherwise) that knowing the mind of God meant only understanding of the physical universe.
That is YOUR interpretation.
To be sure, science seeks to understand the physical world. If that quest leads to incontrovertible proof of the existence of God, then science is going to happily proclaim it as such.
Science only seeks to prove the provable. If the idea is not provable, then without value judgement science stops being interested in it.
Whateverman,
ReplyDeleteExcuse my snippage
"Science only seeks to prove the provable. If the idea is not provable, then without value judgement science stops being interested in it."
Remember that all science has to point to solving for the paradigm otherwise they are just "stamp collectors" as the article suggests. There is no benefit financially or scientifically to entertain a Creator.
Scientific bigotry?
Dan,
ReplyDeleteRemember that all science has to point to solving for the paradigm otherwise they are just "stamp collectors" as the article suggests. There is no benefit financially or scientifically to entertain a Creator.
I really cannot believe that you still think these concoctions by Johnson do anything but twist the scientific world into a conspiracy against YOUR God, not just any God.
So,
1. Which "creator" do you want science to entertain?
2. Should science then reject any evidence that points away from such a God, no matter how conclusive?
3. If your God, should then science also ignore any results that contradict the Bible no matter how conclusive or convincing?
4. Should science then twist results as much as possible to conform to your particular religion?
Well, just an example. In another blog, I think it was Ray's, one of the Christians complained that scientists changed the age of the earth from 450,000 to ... gave several numbers ... arrived at the current ~4.5 billion years. The numbers in between were smaller than 4.5 billion.
Do you know why the scientists incremented the years slowly at the beginning? Well, because the true results contradicted the Bible! They did not want to contradict it, so they gave the smallest possible numbers. Only after the barrier was broken because the church (whichever it was, I do not give a damn) accepted the results, and later by divorcing science from the preconceived bias of religion could science start reporting the true results with no biases at all (let alone the purpose to debunking gods).
Paradigms do help channeling scientific work, but science does not work with the intention of complying with paradigms. If results show the paradigms to be wrong they get "debunked." Science cannot be held hostage of any paradigms, let alone be held hostage of any religions. That would be idiotic and contradictory. Science is about understanding and learning, not about reassuring anybody's beliefs. This is not a bias with the purpose of debunking God, it is a necessity for knowledge to truly advance, no matter where the results point. The scientific endeavor is about not having any bias Dan. It is hard. But it is the only way to truly advance knowledge.
G.E.
Wow Dan,
ReplyDeleteEvery time I read the stuff you have posted I cannot believe the level of imbecility and cynicism disguised as a "conspiracy theory" that this johnson provided the world with. I still feel lazy about the whole thing, but maybe I will try to categorize the different tricks of this liar and explain to you in how many ways it fails as anything but an attempt to reassure the believers that they are right to think science is dominated by enemies of God.
G.E.
OK Dan,
ReplyDeleteSince you will not read anyway:
Dale said:
OK, name them. You won't and you cannot.
You answered:
There are so many, they even just had a convention recently. They offered over 40 peer reviewed submissions.
Plus, I just referenced one a short while ago.
Debunked! I accept your apology.
Then I told you these pieces of crap do not debunk evolution, and you said:
Your right but my point was still made that there is plenty of "papers" out there (even if I cannot find any) that explains an alternate conclusion of data then the current evolution paradigm.
How on earth does your inability to find evidence show anything? Who should apologize here? Who was "debunked"?
G.E.
So you noticed the post here and erased it. Thanks for proving my point that you willfully ignore what we say. Before erasing my latest post in this thread you could have not visited it and ignored the posts, or not visited and be unaware of them. Now you are "without excuse."
ReplyDeleteG.E.
GE,
ReplyDeleteNice try but you failed.
You are "trying" to test my nerves that is all, noticed I said trying.
You posted the very same comment twice, one on another post and I only deleted the duplicate so please acknowledge that as a man. If you do not apologize I will place you on my rebuked list. Last warning to come clean.
No Dan,
ReplyDeleteI did not fail. I did want to know if you were looking at the other threads or just the conclusions one.
Well, I correct myself, I did fail. I expected that you would see my point (finally), if I told you plainly what is really pissing about you, then you would try and pay attention and try and improve your reading before answering. But of course no. How wrong I was.
Dan, you decided to do a blog called "debunking atheists." Obviously, you will be visited by atheists wondering of you would have some arguments to show. You cannot deny that such a title for your blog would attract atheists to come and see.
Then, you know well about that image of fundamentalist Christians as ignorant, undereducated, and stupid folk clinging to superstitions (yep, I know not all Christians are such things). Yet, instead of developing your thinking and critical skills before coming into the debate, what you do? You re-post lots of stuff you do not even understand properly. Then, you do not make the slightest effort to understand the answers.
Do you really think you are making an example for Christianity? Even if you claim that such is not your purpose, once you come public, and state that you are debunking atheists, you are representing more than you might be willing to. So, what are you going to do? Put a disclaimer saying "I am not an example of the intelligence of Christians" in the banner?
Come on!
Do whatever Dan. I am not testing your nerves. I truly thought you would ban me when I posted the angry comment (truly angry, also angry with myself because I gave you the benefit of the doubt, now I think you are just as dishonest, or worse, than Ray, because at least Ray is willfully dishonest, you are dishonest at a different level, ignorantly dishonest? willfully ignorantly dishonest? I do not know)
So, I thought you would ban me immediately, but that, maybe, you would come to your senses and start reading what the other participants tell you.
Your move Dan. I am not apologizing. You did ignore everything we said. If you did so because of your lack of understanding, then you should have been honest about that. You are not. Thus, nothing I should be sorry about. I even think I was too kind.
If you ban me, then good bye.
G.E.
get_education,
ReplyDeleteI think, as you have eluded to, that you wanted to be banned as some martyred sacrifice for your atheistic friends. I couldn't be sure because I cannot judge your motives but that is what I observed. You just kept pushing the boundaries after many warnings. You refused to repent of your accusations, accusing me of deleting your comments, when I only removed a duplicate. The abrasive vulgar language that you probably consider vernacular is just too offensive for my taste. I feel it would be best, for others to have civilized conversations, that maybe you should just find others to converse with. Take care and I wish you well.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo Dan,
ReplyDeleteYou misunderstand again. I did not accuse you of erasing my posts:
I hereby accept that Dan erased a duplicate. He in no way tried to hide what I said whatsoever.
What I said is that now I know (because you erased the duplicate) that you could have seen ALL the posts in this thread. Thus, your answers in the conclusions thread are without excuse. More so since the points we made here were also made in the conclusions thread.
Also:
I hereby concede that my language was not nice whatsoever, that such was the result of being angry with Dan because he did not pay any attention to our answers (or did not appear to), and that if he bans me, I understand his motives (my lack of respect for him). Even if my lack of respect is the result of his display of little if any willingness to understand them (or my interpretation as such).
I cannot represent any kind of martyr, since such would be ridiculous. I knew Dan's sensitivity to language and accept whatever banning Dan has the complete right to do. His blog, his rules.
This in no way represents an apology. I meant every word, and I stand by them. I am just clearing up that I was not accusing Dan of erasing my posts for no reason.
Good bye.
G.E.