[Ratmagiclady]

Let's look again, shall we, Rupert? You said:

Originally posted by Rupert Quote
I don't know about you, and the world you live in, but in my world I have no need to manufacture threats. I see disasters and tragedy at every turn, and every horizon has a dark cloud hanging somewhere in the mix.
Manufacturing things seems more in your line of thinking......things like "missing links" out of lizards a damn cat drug up.......
Regards

So *I* said:

I think what 'seems' to you is by your own description not a very realistic place. Frankly, Rupert, I think you infest it with your own idea of demons, and that's why you see 'darkness and threats' everywhere.

No one said this world of wonders was entirely *safe.* If it was, there'd indeed be no need for anything or anyone to evolve. Trying to force it to be static and then blaming 'devils' when that isn't reality is just further removing yourself from any ability to cope.

Willful ignorance of this sort *creates* disasters.

Gives fear and blindness way too much power over you, and scapegoating others for this state of affairs may *feel* a little powerful, but it's never enough, is it?

You read this as:

So now old Rupert creates earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, tornadoes, plagues, droughts, mass bombings, wars, and disease....you better be a little more respectful Ratlady, I'm a damn dangerous guy!

I said 'of this sort.' Don't be so vain.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you I'm just not sure what you are getting at.

I'm trying to explain (to myself as well) why some issues that seem rather minor compared to others are however gaining prominence without top religious figures intervening to put things into perspective. Sometimes we see top religious figures championing such issues, othertimes they abstain from comment, but it is very rare for them to condemn an issue as being irrelevant to the faith and a distraction from more important issues. I think the existence of "issues" is important because they are divisive - they enable the followers to think in terms of "us" and "them" and that increases their commitment to the "us" group.

I now realized there is a word for this: polarization. An important effect of polarization is that it forces people to take sides and it thus makes moderation practically impossible. Eliminating moderation could itself be a goal of such tactics.

[wildman]

I now realized there is a word for this: polarization. An important effect of polarization is that it forces people to take sides and it thus makes moderation practically impossible. Eliminating moderation could itself be a goal of such tactics.

In business it's called "product differentiation".

[Rupert]

In business it's called "product differentiation".

Hey, I'm just checking back to see if anyone ever took a class on Googling and found that "Missing Lizard Link"? Does finding out it is just a lizard, drug up by the cat, make it fall under that "Product Differentiation" thingy......like when it is a missing link...then isn't? Just wondering.....I never was a big cat fan, they can stir up a lot of trouble and then they just go off and leave the mess for someone else to clean up. I bet the cat knew it was just a damn lizard all along......that's one thing about cats, they are plenty smart......apparently smarter than some scientists.
Best Regards

[wildman]

Hey, I'm just checking back to see if anyone ever took a class on Googling and found that "Missing Lizard Link"?

A link to your "missing lizard" is your responsibility not mine. You made the assertion.

[Ratmagiclady]

A link to your "missing lizard" is your responsibility not mine. You made the assertion.

Still, if you're 'missing' one, Rupert, check under your cerebellum.

[Rupert]

Still, if you're 'missing' one, Rupert, check under your cerebellum.

Nope, nothing there Ratlady....any more suggestions? I'm just drawing a blank.....
Regards!

[Ratmagiclady]

Nope, nothing there Ratlady....any more suggestions? I'm just drawing a blank.....
Regards!

Well, that's actually pretty serious, Rupert.


Raise your left hand.

OK.... If you can do that, look again.

[Rupert]

Golly Gee! I found the Evolution thread, and just in time to celebrate the finding of one of our ancestors, "Ardi"! Actually, I think they already popped the cork on those Champagne bottles.....just maybe a little too soon....again! Not being a highly intelligent Scientist, could someone of higher intelligence tell me if finding Lizards and such, then discovering....tha they are just lizards not "Missing Links" is a common practice among the "Elite" of the evolutionary field.....Or is it just a whole lot of wishful thinking and an excuse to pop a few corks.....and bash a few Christians? Just wondering?
Questions raised about 'Ardi' as man's ancestor - Yahoo! News

Best Regards!

[Nesster]

A physical anthropologist's life is not so glamorous: a lot of sweaty yet careful digging with spoons and little artist brushes, getting bit by bugs, living in out-of-the-way places, and then back to University for some head scratching and writing... all for not that much pay... hoping for that big discovery that lets you write a book more than 340 people buy or read, and maybe gets you tenure... And meanwhile there's people saying everything you've done in your professional life is a lie, or at best false evidence put there by God. ...so finding excuses to pop corks is natural.

The discussion seems to be going: it's your great grandma! No, it's not, it looks too much like great-grandma's second cousin, it must be her great grandma! And that's because nobody yet has raised the possibility that it's the spinster sister (i.e. a part of the family gone extinct).

And then they are discussing how many trees were on her lawn and therefore how much mowing vs. pruning her hubby had to do.

[Rupert]

A physical anthropologist's life is not so glamorous: a lot of sweaty yet careful digging with spoons and little artist brushes, getting bit by bugs, living in out-of-the-way places, and then back to University for some head scratching and writing... all for not that much pay... hoping for that big discovery that lets you write a book more than 340 people buy or read, and maybe gets you tenure... And meanwhile there's people saying everything you've done in your professional life is a lie, or at best false evidence put there by God. ...so finding excuses to pop corks is natural.

The discussion seems to be going: it's your great grandma! No, it's not, it looks too much like great-grandma's second cousin, it must be her great grandma! And that's because nobody yet has raised the possibility that it's the spinster sister (i.e. a part of the family gone extinct).

And then they are discussing how many trees were on her lawn and therefore how much mowing vs. pruning her hubby had to do.

I'm just stirring up trouble, I'll admit, but I am appreciative it is not another Lizard! Mr Kitty laughed so hard at that one for weeks, and cracked so many ribs I could barely afford the Vet bills.....
Best Regards!

[JeyesFluid]

That is we explain something that is very difficult to explain by postulating the existence of something else that is impossible to explain.
How does this explain anything?

Dear Wildman,

As a creationist I'm not too sure that the summary that you gave is a 100% accurate.

It isn't at all a matter of us postulating a God, because we're unable or unwilling to explain things, the old 'God-of-the-gaps' idea as it's often referred to, we're saying that the universe doesn't seem to have the mechanism to bring about its own existence and therefore a Creator must exist.

Suppose somebody showed me a photo of a pig floating in the sky, I'm going to conclude that either someone has thrown the poor pig up in the air or that the photo has been doctored. In other words I'm concluding a non-natural cause for what I see. Why? It's not because flying pigs are difficult to explain, it's because pigs don't have a mechanism for flight. Since the pig doesn't possess within itself the means for flight, I'm positing another cause.

Likewise, I look at the universe and I posit a Creator, because I don't see that the material universe can explain its own existence.

[Rupert]

And that's how the logical conclusion (of not participating in loaded arguments) is ignored. This must be theological. I think I'm getting the hang of it. If it doesn't make any sense, then it makes sense. Uhm, no, I still don't get it.



Let us know when Dr. Jonathan Sarfati gets this "scientific" evidence published elsewhere than on creation.com - for example, in an actual scientific peer-reviewed journal. Because, you see, science is not about some guy publishing a paper on the site of agenda-driven hard-lined theologic fanatics. Look at what papers Dr. Sarfati did get published - none have anything to do with debunking evolution - it's not like his actual scientific contributions are being ignored - this is just not one of them.

You are assuming here that you might get a serious answer...but I doubt it. While I have been ridiculed for my "Lizard Bashing" and now the new revelation of another "Missing Link" gone bad.....if you try to get an answer as to where it all came from, these serious minded scholars are most likely to explain it as "Sh*t Happens". Seems they are most serious when they think they have a "Missing Link" , and not so much when they have no answers.......Just my observation, yours may vary.
Best Regards!

[JeyesFluid]

Hi Laurentiu Cristofor,

Unfortunately the peer review process has become an excuse for rejecting anything with a hint of creationism out of hand. This is why you'll find creationists publishing only evo-friendly or evo-neutral papers in mainstream journals.

Creationists like Dr. Sarfati then publish to peer-reviewed scientific journals like Journal of Creation, but I guess you'd say it's not an 'actual peer-reviewed journal'. So you've got a "Heads, I win. Tails, you lose situation".

This ofcourse is entirely circular:

Creationism doesn't get peer reviewed, because it isn't *real* science.
Creationism isn't *real* science, because it isn't peer reviewed.

[Rupert]

Hi Laurentiu Cristofor,

Unfortunately the peer review process has become an excuse for rejecting anything with a hint of creationism out of hand. This is why you'll find creationists publishing only evo-friendly or evo-neutral papers in mainstream journals.

Creationists like Dr. Sarfati then publish to peer-reviewed scientific journals like Journal of Creation, but I guess you'd say it's not an 'actual peer-reviewed journal'. So you've got a "Heads, I win. Tails, you lose situation".

This ofcourse is entirely circular:

Creationism doesn't get peer reviewed, because it isn't *real* science.
Creationism isn't *real* science, because it isn't peer reviewed.

Well, "Real Science" apparently requires a "Missing Link", and since Creationists are not likely to find one, and too honest and intelligent to fabricate a "Lizard Link", it is doubtful they will ever receive any serious respect. They also lack a strong desire for popping Champagne corks and throwing big parties every time Rover digs up a bone in the back yard.....another shortfall on their part.
Best Regards!