User talk:Philip J. Rayment/Discussion with Filll 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions between Filll and me.

This second section begins by responding to some of my comments in a previous discussion, now archived in Discussion with Filll 1. The continuation of this discussion is now in Discussion with Filll 3.

Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents


Tower of babel

Why not campaign against linguistics? And the teaching of many aspects of linguistics in colleges and high schools? Grammar? Etymologies? A lot of information taught and studied in linguistics disagrees with the biblical account, after all.--Filll 03:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It is hypocritcal to be offended by evolution and not to be offended by the field of Historical linguistics.--Filll 03:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Filll, your unstated presumption is that a creationist would not bother to get involved in articles such as those. But how do you know that is the case? You would be aware that I'm not actually involved with editing any creation/evolution/ID articles at present, so my absence from the sorts of articles that you mention indicates exactly nothing about any inconsistency. And even if I was editing some creation/evolution/ID articles, I don't have infinite time to edit every possible article that I'd like to edit. But to further put the lie to your presumption, (a) creationists have discussed the area of of the origin of languages in their writings, and (b) I have in the past been involved with a couple of articles that are, like Historical linguistics outside the "mainstream" creation/evolution/ID sphere, but touching on it, specifically week and longevity claims.
Now Filll, talking of time to do things, if you have time to ask out-of-the-blue questions like this, how is your review of my answer to your challenge going? When will you be ready to acknowledge that young-Earth creationists can be successful scientists? I hope you're not trying to forget about it. :-)
Philip J. Rayment 12:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I just think that somehow the Tower of Babel does not get creationists worked up because it is viewed as a more minor issue, like the material in the bible supporting a flat earth or a stationary earth. Something that is not so exciting or is more embarassing, so they ignore it; sweep it under the rug. I have my answer to the challenge thanks. And I never denied that one could have:

  • scientists that are retired who became creationists after they retired
  • scientists in nonbiological or nonpaleontological fields who could be creationists
  • a very few scientists who are biologists or paleontologists who are professionally active and successful who are creationists

And I see where the answers come from. I have and had before I even asked, 4 websites with 4 lists already. I can cut and paste as well as you or anyone else. So I have my answer. Thanks.--Filll 12:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said, creationists have written on the area of language origins, including the Tower of Babel. Sure, they don't write and speak exactly the same amount on every area of the topic, but this area is by no means ignored, downplayed, or "swept under the rug".
For your information, the Bible does not teach a flat Earth or a stationary Earth. Even if some verses can be used out of context to suggest that, the fact of the matter is that either Christians throughout history did not believe those things (see here for example) or they believed them for reasons other than the Bible.
I will respond to your sidestepping of the challenge under that section above.
Philip J. Rayment 13:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Different kinds of creationist

(The mostly-unsigned comments on the left margin are mine which Filll copied from higher up this page user talk:Philip J. Rayment/Discussion with Filll 1 to add interspersed responses. I have altered the indenting to make responding easier)


Perhaps I was remiss in not answering your claim about different versions of creation, but it should have been clear that I was answering your point about different versions of the Bible, and your response does not address that.

Yes, there are different versions of creation, just as there are different versions of evolution (Lamarkian, Darwinian, neo-Darwinian, Punctuated Equilibrium, etc. and various versions of human evolution, such as Out of Africa vs. Multiregional). So what? If I have to cope with different evolutionary views, how is it a problem for anti-creationists to cope with different views of creation?

These are fundamentally different. Science has one current dominant theory (accepted by over 99.9% of the scientists in biology), and then a sequence of discarded theories that no longer fit the data. And then unproven hypotheses which only experts even know about. By contrast, creationism has a profusion of "myths", all of which never change, and all of which do not fit the data, and all of which proclaim only THEIR version is the right one and everyone else is a jerk, cursed, damned, deserves to be executed, etc. Including other creationists. Including other faiths. Including scientific views. VERY different situations.--Filll 03:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
It is simply not true that scientists have one current dominant theory. Sure, Lamarkianism is out of date (as are some of the "creationist" views you mentioned. But neo-Darwinian and Punctuated Equilibrium are still competing for dominance, as are Out of Africa and Multiregional on the human evolution front. You say that some evolutionary models no longer fit the data (did they ever?), but the same applies for some of the "creationist" ones you mentioned. And it is simply false to claim that creationary models do not change. They have changed. And it is simply you trying to impose your viewpoint to assert without evidence that all creationist models do not fit the data, as well as asserting without evidence that evolution is synonymous with scientific. As for claiming that the creationist view is right, isn't that exactly what you are doing with evolution; claiming that only it is right? Your abusive ad hominem claims about what creationists threaten is utter rubbish, at least when presented as something that is applicable to all creationists. Philip J. Rayment 08:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The NeoDarwinian modern synthesis is dominant in evolution at the moment. Other fine points and hypotheses are just how science works, because eventually NeoDarwinism will be overthrown. Just as its predecessors were. That is the scientific method. However, if you look at Young Earth Creationism and look at Price's work from 100 years ago, it is almost identical. Most of the arguments are identical. The only thing that is different is that there are more facts to interpret, so more interpretations have been created for the new facts. The theory is the same, because that is one of the axioms, and cannot be changed by fiat (by fatwah if you will). And at least in the US, over and over, the courts have determined that evolution is scientific and creationism is not. So do not argue with me. Argue with the US supreme court. And we can argue about what fits the data and what does not all day. Because that is one of the axioms of creationism. I and 99.84% of all professionally credentialled geologists and biologists or about 99.9% of all biologists (I have the sources if you want, or you can go to Level of support for evolution). Of course all creationists do not turn their discussions of their beliefs into fire and brimstone sermons. But a lot sure do. I am sure you have heard some of them. It might be more common in the US than in Australia; I do not know. But I have had many of them furious at me, so furious they wanted to kill me for following what I was taught in school and in my church and by my parents, and by using my own intellect to reason through the facts and come to a conclusion. That just enraged them. Pretty funny really. Not that different from the Taliban.--Filll 15:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The neodarwinian view may indeed be dominant, but that was not in question. It being dominant does not mean that there are not other views around, just as (I believe) the YEC view is dominant in creationism, but there are other views around.
I very much doubt that modern creationism and Price's ideas are nearly identical, any more than you could describe the modern neodarwinian view as nearly identical to Darwin's views. The key points may be there, but there are also many differences. Did Price talk about information theory, and mutations not producing new information? Did Price talk about white-hole cosmology, as people such as Russell Humphreys and John Hartnett do? No, these are newer ideas that have been incorporated into creationism, just as genetics post-dates Darwin but has been incorporated into his ideas. You have demonstrated (to my satisfaction) that you actually have very little idea about just what creationists believe, so I don't really think that you are in a position to judge how similar or otherwise it is to Price's ideas.
...at least in the US, over and over, the courts have determined that evolution is scientific and creationism is not. So do not argue with me.
I will argue with you on this, because I don't believe that the courts have decided that "over and over". What they have decided (wrongly, in my opinion) on several occasions is that creationism has a religious purpose, and therefore falls foul of the U.S. church/state separation requirements. With probably one exception, they have not made a determination that evolution is science and creationism is not.
I'm not sure just what you were saying about the "axioms of creationism", but one of the axioms of materialistic science is that the supernatural is not to be considered, and creationism is therefore ruled out a priori. How is that any more close-minded, or whatever you were getting at?
Philip J. Rayment 12:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

However, your list of different views is inflated somewhat. As I remarked recently elsewhere (Raspor's talk page I'm pretty sure), the word "creationist" can, strictly speaking, refer to anyone who believes that we are created. But in everyday use, "creationist" refers to a rather more limited group of people, and I reject that some of the views you list above are creationist views in this everyday sense.

Maybe in Australia. Not around here.--Filll 03:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
So in America you refer to the Pope as a creationist, do you? Philip J. Rayment 08:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Some do, some do not. To some I am the devil incarnate and an atheist. To others I am a creationist myself. It is all a matter of who is doing the definition.--Filll 15:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I said that in everyday use, "creationist" refers to a rather more limited group of people than just those that believe that we are created. I should have said that, in normal use, it refers to those who reject that we evolved. On that basis, I believe that the Pope would not be referred to as a creationist. Philip J. Rayment 12:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Young-Earth creationism certainly fits the bill.

Yes and LOTS of types of young earth creationists. Dozens and dozens.--Filll 03:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
What a vague, meaningless claim! Philip J. Rayment 08:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


Modern geocentrism is not really a separate view on creation, although I'll grant that they are creationists.

I have never met one but I know they exist.--Filll 03:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't deny that they exist. I said that it is not really a separate view on creation. Philip J. Rayment 08:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well some claim it is. For example, look at National Center for Science Education.--Filll 15:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That article does not mention geocentricism. Could you please point me to where the NCSE actually says that geocentricism is a separate view of creationism? Not that I'd take a lot of notice of them anyway. Philip J. Rayment 12:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The Omphalos hypothesis was a 19th Century proposal, and I don't believe that it has any significant support today, and is not creationist in the everyday sense.

Not in the US. I just encountered someone here the other day who tried to lecture me about it. I have met dozens of people who believe it. Some think it is a test by God. Some think it is a trick by the devil. Some think it is a pure illusion. Many varieties I suspect. Usually when someone starts shooting their mouth off in this way, I just try to excuse myself and get away. I think they are deranged and/deluded (more than most anyway).--Filll 03:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I seem to recall coming across evolutionists who believe in the inheritance of acquired characteristics (i.e. Lamarkianism). But surely we are talking here about people that have some idea what they are talking about, not the average person in the street with no more than a passing acquaintance of the subject. Philip J. Rayment 08:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there does appear to be some evidence for real Lamarkian behavior of genes in some circumstances. It has a much fancier name now of course. I have to learn that name. It only operates in a very restricted way, but surprisingly, it appears that Lamark was not totally incorrect!--Filll 15:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of that actually, and nearly mentioned it, but didn't want to complicate matters further. But that only supports what I was saying, that there are different views on evolution! Philip J. Rayment 12:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Creation Science is essentially Young-Earth creationism, and to the extent it's not, it fits under others mentioned anyway.

I would beg to differ. There is creationism by declaration/faith. And there is creationism that distorts science and pretends to be science; creation science.--Filll 03:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
More attempt to caricature creationism according to your own beliefs. I don't really understand your reference to "creationism by declaration/faith", and the rest is just an attempt to paint the opposing view as not worthy of discussion. Philip J. Rayment 08:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well creation science is a wrinkle or a wing of creationism. It gets far more involved with science than regular creationism in my opinion, so it is a bit different in my mind. For example, if I go to my regular fundamentalist church here, they will tell me to believe what they believe because it is written in the bible. They dont need "facts" from nature. If nature shows a contrary fact, then nature is wrong, or my interpretation of nature is wrong. Maybe it is even an illusion. However, the creation scientist will try to convince me that all the science books are wrong, and will have a degree (sometimes real, sometimes fake) in "science" and will then proceed to try to tell me that I do not need to take the bible's word for it alone, I can see this mountain of evidence that the creationists ideas are correct from the natural world. No faith needed. All proved from the natural world. So depending on how far down this road one wants to go to defend these ideas, one is venturing more into creation science. A related wrinkle is ID of course. They will, at least at first, not refer to the bible at all. It is all supposed to be pure science.--Filll 15:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I still believe that you have a compartmentalised and distorted view of creationism. Creation Ministries International, for example, used to be called the Creation Science Foundation, and have always been considered a significant part of what you could term the creation science movement. They promote the idea that what God says in the Bible comes first, and if nature appears to contradict this, then we have misunderstood nature. But they have also always been strong on the science, showing that the scientific evidence itself, properly understood, supports the Biblical record. In other words, YEC and creation science are essentially synonymous, not distinct versions of creationism. Philip J. Rayment 12:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Old-Earth creationism I'll grudgingly concede, although they are rare and not really thought of as creationist in everyday use.

They are not rare in the US, and were not previously. There are many types of OEC even. They all argue with each other like counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Many famous founders of creationism were and are OEC. And even on the AIG and other creationist websites, I see arguments between OEC and YEC.--Filll 03:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I've read a lot of the AiG web-site, and I don't recall any arguments between OEC and YEC, except perhaps for the occasional rebuttal to a feedback. Is that what you are referring to? Perhaps I gave the wrong impression by calling them "rare". I believe that they are relatively few in number compared to young-Earth creationists. I have never heard of an OEC arguing about angels dancing on the head of a pin—I thought that went out in the middle ages. Who are the "famous founders of creationism" who were and are OECs? Philip J. Rayment 08:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If you look in History of creationism you can see a bunch. The one I just wrote an article on, Harry Rimmer, was a variety of OEC during most of his career, believing in an old earth and two separate creations, although the 2nd creation created man and was 6000 years ago. During some of his career he might have been more of a YEC, or at least used YEC arguments. There are many more. Even William Jennings Bryan had OEC type beliefs (not necessarily in the court room however- his personal beliefs)--Filll 15:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I need to explain something here. What I understand by the term "old Earth creationism" and what the Old Earth creationism article talks about are two different things. My understanding of "old Earth creationism" is the belief that God created the world in six days millions/billions of years ago. That view is, I believe, rather rare. On the other hand, what the article is talking about is still not a distinct group, but an overall term for any view that reject evolution but accepts the uniformitarian ages. So even though you and I were talking about two different things there, I was still correct in claiming that your list was inflated, because the OECs you were talking about are not a distinct version of creationism, but were already covered by other groups on your list. Philip J. Rayment 12:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

ID people reject that they are creationists, and creationists reject that ID is creationism; it's only the critics of both that love to lump them together.

And US federal courts have ruled that they are the same. It is good enough for me. And they are just another flavor as far as I am concerned. Just another variety of teleologist.--Filll 03:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
There are similarities between creationists and ID proponents, and teleology is the similarity, but there are also similarities between ID proponents and evolutionists, and creationists and evolutionists. A particular similarity does not mean that they are all creationists. Can you point me to the cases where the US courts have equated them? Not that I accept any such court declaration, though, any more than you would accept it if a court declared creation to be scientific. Philip J. Rayment 08:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a huge amount on the Dover court decision on the internet. Look in the intelligent design article for links.--Filll 15:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that particular judge did (incorrectly) rule that they were the same. But you said courts plural, and I asked for the cases plural. You supplied me with one. What others are there? Philip J. Rayment 12:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Gap creationism" is usually referred by as "the gap theory" and is not creationism in the everyday sense, and only appears to have support among those that haven't kept up to date on the issue.

So you say. They would say the same thing about you. None of these have changed in centuries. All that happens is that they fight like madmen against each other and against science and other religions and sects. Lots of famous ones in the past. Lots of current ones in the US.--Filll 03:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Would they really say the same thing about me? Can you point me to any ongoing research into the Gap Theory by its proponents? Philip J. Rayment 08:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what would happen of course if you encountered each other. I am only going by what I read in the histories (for example, [1])and what I have seen transpire personally. I am not so deeply involved in creationism scholarship yet that I can lay my hands on some web document on it though.--Filll 15:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you can't point me to any ongoing research, so your rebuttal of me fails through lack of support. Philip J. Rayment 12:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
One variety of Gap creationism I just read about said there were two creations, one for each of the creation accounts in Genesis with millions or billions of years in between the two creations.--Filll 03:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
There are all sorts of weird ideas out there, so I suppose that this one could exist also. But there's also weird evolutionary ideas. Again, surely we need to concentrate on mainstream evolutionary theories and mainstream creationist theories. Philip J. Rayment 08:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That one was held by Rimmer who was at his time the most famous and loudest creationist in America. He would scream himself hoarse, apparently, thundering and angry at everyone else. Pretty funny. Every creationist tries to tell me his flavor of creationism is mainstream. --Filll 15:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The Gap Theory was certainly popular once, but it is no longer mainstream creationism. What people have told you about what is mainstream creationism is not the point. The point is what is reality. The six best-known creationist groups are YECs or progressive creationist (CRS, ICR, CMI, AiG, with the non-YEC one being Reasons to Believe), and most other creationist groups that I've come across are also YECs. Most of the rest of the Christian groups relating to origins are theistic evolutionists (i.e. not creationists). I therefore think that it should be easy to determine what is "mainstream" creationism, and even if you want to count progressive creationism, old ideas such as the Gap Theory don't qualify. Philip J. Rayment 12:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Day-age creationism is also not generally known by that name, and not everyday creationism.

Again very common in the US, currently and historically.--Filll 03:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, I wasn't commenting on its popularity, but on whether it is really "creationism". Philip J. Rayment 08:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well according to [2] and National Center for Science Education it is. And it sure smells like it to me.--Filll 15:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Neither article mentions it, but Old Earth creationism does, and describes it with "The Genesis account is then interpreted as an account of a progressive creation, or sometimes a summary of life's evolutionary history.". In other words, the Day-Age idea is simply a way of explaining the days of Genesis 1 as long ages, as both Progressive Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists do. It is still not a distinct form of creationism. Philip J. Rayment 12:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Progressive creationism I'll reluctantly concede also, and neo-creationism I don't know much about, but appears to not be something much different to normal creationism.

Neocreationism is very different but it is probably only in the US for legal reasons. Lots of varieties of both of these.--Filll 03:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
If it's only in the U.S. for legal reasons, that fits with what little I did gather about it, which is that it's probably just normal creationism presented in a different way. In other words, not really much different at all. Philip J. Rayment 08:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

When millions of dollars are involved, and potential jail time, it gets serious. Now I think they are just playing a game with the law. And so do you. But do not try to get them to admit it.--Filll 15:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Islamic creationism I don't know much about either, but I wonder how different it is.

Of course it is different because the Koran is not the same as the bible. And they claim it is superior for a big long list of reasons...blah blah blah. And of course if you disagree they will kill you. So they are not much different than the Christian creationists, just a bit more extreme. They insist on nonsense like a split moon etc and other unscientific crap. It is the same idea, just different crap to argue about and they believe different things.--Filll 03:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Creationists do NOT kill people, so it is ridiculous to say that they "are not much different" (assuming others do, which I'm not agreeing to). But perhaps there is more difference between Islamic creationism than Christian creationism; I'll concede that much. Philip J. Rayment 08:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In the US, creationists will often get carried away. I think the Islamist extremists just take it one step farther. I have certainly heard Christian fundamentalists advocating summary execution of those who disagree with them in the US. I am not sure that many have done it (aside from the Oklahoma City bombing, and some lynchings, and the Christian militias and abortion clinic bombings and the bombing in the park in Atlanta during the Olympics in 96 etc). So that is why the Islamic types go just a bit farther.--Filll 15:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This is pure slander. None of the incidents that you mention has anything to do with any creationist group or anybody involved with any creationist group. Even if some of the people involved did believe in creation (which has not been shown), should I dismiss evolution because Jeffrey Dahmer was an evolutionist? Philip J. Rayment 12:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The creation stories of various cultures are not what is understood by "creationism", and is just an anti-creationist attempt to muddy the waters.

Creationism to me is rejecting mindlessly scientific accounts and being in denial about evolution etc. And the different varieties depend on how they apply that and what they believe is the truth. So all other creationisms of other faiths that do this are valid; Muslim, Hindu, Jainist, Jewish, Christian, etc.--Filll 03:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, you are trying to impose your view on creationism. It is NOT "rejecting mindlessly scientific accounts" (by which I presume you meant "mindlessly rejecting scientific accounts". Creationism is a different interpretation of the evidence, and as such is just as valid as evolution. Philip J. Rayment 08:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You are free to believe it if you want. Just do not expect anyone else to believe it, or try to force them to believe it.--Filll 15:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I can expect others to believe it just as you can expect others to believe evolution. I don't try and force my beliefs onto others, and don't even propose teaching only creation to students, unlike your side who do everything they can to deprive people hearing about the evidence consistent with creation. Philip J. Rayment 12:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to include those accounts of origins, why not include the atheist one, goo-to-you evolution?

Because that is not the atheist one. That is the scientific account. Except the goo part we really do not understand and so we just are silent on that. You can fill whatever you want in at the goo stage because it is not really part of science (yet and maybe never).--Filll 03:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
It IS the atheist one. Atheists believe it, don't they? I accept that it is also accepted by non-atheists, but that doesn't change that it is the atheist origins myth. Your repeated attempt to claim the high intellectual ground by labelling it "scientific" I have rejected already. Although I guess it is not clear, I deliberately used the term "goo to you" evolution rather than "molecules to man" evolution to refer to the version that starts once life has somehow started; I wasn't intending to refer to abiogenesis, but nevertheless, it is simply not true to imply that abiogenesis has never been considered part of the evolutionary tale. Rather, it's a case of evolutionists distancing themselves from it these days because they have a harder time trying to defend it than the rest of evolution. Philip J. Rayment 08:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not a biologist or historian of science so I do not know if Darwin included abiogenesis in his theory. I doubt that he did. I do not know if abiogenesis has ever been described in some scientific text as part of evolution. I know that the 19th century efforts to undestand it by Pasteur etc ended up with a null result. Some atheists do subscribe to evolution. Some also subscribe to Raelianism etc. (As do some intelligent design supporters.) And the way science works is, it explains what it can. And the rest remains a mystery. What creationism does is produce a story to explain it all. That is another way in which creationism is different from science.--Filll 15:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not know if abiogenesis has ever been described in some scientific text as part of evolution.
Then you didn't read the link I supplied you recently. Search for "abiogenesis is not evolution" on this page.
What creationism does is produce a story to explain it all. That is another way in which creationism is different from science.
Nonsense. Evolutionary scientists are trying to "produce a story to explain it all" every bit as much as creationists, if not more so.
Philip J. Rayment 12:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's an "origins myth" also. But one that's promoted as somehow "scientific", despite it being just as much a belief system as others.

Only because it is part of science and fits the data. The rest are true by fiat and fatwah and declaration, pure pride and arrogance of some nut who decided he spoke for god.--Filll 03:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
No, only because its proponents think that it's science and fits the data. Others disagree with both of those assertions. Philip J. Rayment 08:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of professional scientists think it does, and so do the hundreds of thousands of professional peer-reviewed publications. And I agree with them. So is that a crime? So what...--Filll 15:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed it was a crime, and your argument is an appeal to popularity, nothing more. Philip J. Rayment 12:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

As for different versions of the creation story, what is different about them? The first account is an ordered chronological account, but the second isn't, so claims that the order is different is nonsense, when the second account is not describing the order! Yes, there are two accounts, but they are complimentary, not contradictory, so there's no issue there, except in the minds of sceptics who try to find differences even where they don't exist.

Philip J. Rayment 02:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Some creationists claim they do not exist. Some do not know what to say. Some say one is real and one is allegorical or poetic. Some say that one was real and the other a mistake. Some say they do not conflict. But the orders are different. No two creationists have the same answer to that puzzle. For example, as I said above, one group of creationists claim there really were two creations: God did it twice. And then there are the Adamites. Every single creationist I run into tries to convince me there are no other creationists to speak of, of any other variety. And only they are right. Over dozens of other types of creationist. All the others are STUPID. And of course they all claim this. The only thing they all agree on is that 99.99% of all scientists are stupid and evil satanists and atheists. Give me a break...How does anyone sane expect me to treat any of that crap as serious? And I do not care if you believe it. Just shut your pie hole about it and do not throw a tantrum if others do not believe what you believe. BECAUSE WHAT IS WRONG WITH LIVE AND LET LIVE? DO UNTO OTHERS? LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS AS YOURSELF? YOU FORGET ALL THAT?--Filll 03:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree—and never said otherwise—that there are various people who do consider that the two accounts are contradictory. But it is simply nonsense to claim that no two creationists have the same answer to the alleged puzzle. You repeated your claim that the orders are different, without any attempt to rebut my counterargument that the second account is not a chronological account.

I have read them both and they sure seem contradictory to me. We were even taught this in Sunday School at my Church. However, you are free to believe otherwise if it makes you feel better. Just do not expect to force others to agree with you. --Filll 15:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop with the assertions of "forcing others". Nobody, at least not the creationists, are doing any forcing here. Jesus obviously didn't think that they were contradictory, so I would suggest that your church wasn't really believing the Bible. Philip J. Rayment 12:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
You really must be close-minded or not reading properly or something to claim that "Every single creationist I run into tries to convince me there are no other creationists to speak of, of any other variety", when I have just acknowledged that there are others. I did claim that you overstated how many others, but I agreed that there were others. So for you to claim that every creationist denies that there are others is nonsense. Neither have I nor any other mainstream creationist declared the others to be stupid. Wrong, but not stupid. And how about you give me a break from the garbage you are spouting about us all agreeing that 99.99% of scientists are stupid and evil satanists and atheists. That is utter nonsense. As for throwing tantrums, I suggest that you look in a mirror, because that appears to me to be what you just did.
By the way, "live and let live" is not something from the Bible.
Philip J. Rayment 08:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well you are correct. Not all creationists believe that. But many of the ones I have encountered try to deny that there is substantial support for competing creationist schools. And there is something wrong with supporters of other creationist ideas. And where did I say that "live and let live" is from the bible? I just think it is a useful aphorism. It is something along the lines of "tolerance of all but intolerance".--Filll 15:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so many of the creationists deny that there is support for competing creationist ideas. How is that different to evolutionists denying that there is support for creationism? You seem to be making out that there is something wrong with arguing that the evidence fit's ones case, yet that is one of the attributes of science, or any debate for that matter. Okay, you didn't say that "live and let live" is from the Bible, but you were providing me with a list of things that you believed I should do, presumably on the basis that I am a Christian and should do what the Bible says, particularly given that all the others were from the Bible. Philip J. Rayment 12:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In the interests of comity, I must decline to respond to your questions. I will gladly agree that anything you assert is correct. I have no other choice. Thank you.--Filll 17:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who you think you are trying to fool. You and I both know that you have not changed your position. If you don't wish to discuss this any longer, or would like to discuss it but are unable to remain civil, you can simply say so. But to pretend that you now agree with me when you clearly don't, or that you have no choice, is not fooling anybody. Philip J. Rayment 01:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As I survey the situation, it is clear that I have no choice. One has to know when to hold, and when to fold as they say. When a person is outgunned, they have to beat a retreat. That is how it goes. It has been made eminently clear to me that I have been beaten and that I have no reasonable options. I might note that the "Flat Earth Society" and related organizations that were very active in the US (and still exist) drew all their justifications from reading the Bible. And the founder and some of the scientists working for the organization were great debaters. They managed to win a large number of public debates against eminent figures. So, that is how these things go. And you and I both know I have no chance so I best just give in now before it is too late. Because no other palatable choice exists. --Filll 01:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, your claims about the Flat Earth Society are exaggerated, probably to try and increase the similarity between it and creationism. There's no comparison. Philip J. Rayment 09:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What claims? They were active. They based their beliefs on the bible. They won many debates. I could say a lot more but I am probably not allowed. I might have to put some more information into their article here. And I am not surprised that you see no comparison. It fits the pattern I guess. I would be shocked if you did see any similarities, frankly. But whether there are similarities or not is irrelevant, since you have effectively "won". Congratulations. Isn't that what you wanted?--Filll 12:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What claims? The following claims:
  • That the Society was "very active" in the U.S. I don't dispute that they existed and were active, but very active?
  • That they drew "all" their justifications from reading the Bible. I don't dispute that they used Biblical passages to try and support their ideas, but as there is nothing in the Bible that clearly says that the Earth is flat, and most Christians throughout history have not come to that conclusion, it is unlikely that they got the idea from the Bible, let alone used it as the only justification for their idea.
  • That the organisation had a number of scientists working for it. Certainly the Wikipedia article doesn't mention scientists supporting it, nor anyone being employed by it. The reference to Johnson and his wife handling membership applications suggests that even if they were paid employees, they were probably the only ones. Also, why would they have scientists working for them when they explicitly rejected science?
  • That the founder and the alleged scientists were great debaters, and that they won debates. The article does say that the founder took part in debates, but there is no indication of how good a debater he was, nor that he won the debates.
Yes, I would like to win a debate with you on creation. But winning means convincing you of its validity in some way, and I have not done that.
Philip J. Rayment 01:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


I would not go by the Wikipedia article. I will rewrite that article with more references. And trying to "win" a debate with me is like a Catholic trying to "win" a debate with a Lutheran or a Jew or a Muslim or a Baptist or a Pentecostal. And you can force me, sure, but that does not mean much.--Filll 01:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've never had one of those debates, so I wouldn't know what trying to win one is like. But how would it be different to any other sort of debate? By the way, what is your worldview? Philip J. Rayment 10:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)



The continuation of this discussion is now at Discussion with Filll 3