Re: What Creationist (a topic about Sean Pitman)?
- From: Ray Martinez <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:31:38 -0700 (PDT)
On Apr 23, 4:00 am, "richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 22, 9:39 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 22, 1:21 am, "richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
<richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 22, 12:36 am, Robert Camp <robertlc...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 21, 1:21 pm, wf3h <w...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Apr 21, 4:10 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A Creationist is a person who accepts biological production to be the
direct result of the power of invisible Creator (= God-did-it). The
concepts of "supernatural" or "Intelligence" or "Mind" (large case "I"
and "M" intentional) are perfectly synonymous with invisible Creator,
God or Designer. The point is: the concept of "creation" means
biological existence is directly caused by Divine power operating in
reality (Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition).
In both excerpts Sean renounces the Divine concept. Both excerpts, if
we didn't know, could have been written by Mark Isaak, Dana Tweedy, or
any well known pro-evolution fanatic that posts here at Talk Origins.
With all this now said: Why is Sean viewed as a Creationist or IDist?
Ray
this is part of the problem with creationism: its meaning is in the
eye of the believer.
sean is a creationist; he's also a liar. he's straightforward in his
paranoia about science, as well as his contention that his 'designer'
isn't 'god', when he's here on TO, but it IS god on his website.
You know, it seems like such a waste that I have to stand up here and
defend Sean. It's easy to post responsible criticism of somebody, all
you have to do is stifle the instinct to try for a rhetorical TKO by
doing things like calling them liars.
Based upon my experience, Sean is misguided, deluded, even arrogant at
times. But I don't recall him lying about his belief in the identity
of the designer. I think he's been open, here as well as elsewhere,
that he believes it's the God of Christianity. When Sean refuses to
identify the designer as God, he's restricting the conversation to
naturalism in the hopes of producing a legitimate scientific theory
that explains biological complexity.
We allow theistic scientists this kind of latitude all the time.
Sean's wrong, and wrong-headed in my opinion, but "liar" seems quite a
bit over-the-top.
I don't think its over the top at all.
He has lied about all sorts of things on this forum.
Here are just a few of them:
1) He can carry out complex statistical analyses in your head.
Some people can.
Who?
2) He can carry out statistics without a numerical dataset.
3) He has a methodology which can detect "non-deliberate" action in
objects
4) He knows what the outcome of that methodology is without having to
apply it (a trick which would make the lives of every scientist on
the
planet much easier if it could be demonstrated)
5) Organisms can be fossilised by "very rapid flash crystalisation in
a supersaturated environment"
This is true.
Ray, I'm very familiar with the scientific literature on taphonomy. I
have contributed in a small way to that literature.
I have never come across the term "very rapid flash crystalisation in
a supersaturated environment" as part of any process of fossilisation
in the scientific literature, or indeed anywhere other than Sean's web
site. As Sean has plainly carried out no research in this field of
science, published no findings and based on the evidence from his web
site and his contributions to this forum knows little about taphonomy,
I fail to see how this can be anything other than a falsehood.
"Very rapid flash crystalisation" means a catastrophe has taken place
"in a supersaturated environment" which means an ideal taphonomic
environment (= wet or water-based).
If you think that such a phenomenon does occur, I suggest that you
post a link to a citation. If you can't - and let's face it, you can't
- why are you bothering to support Sean in such a blatant falsehood?
6) "Most fossils show clear evidence of rapid burial or other forms
of
relatively rapid or even catastrophic preservation" (what the hell
*is* "catastrophic preservation", by the way?)
This is also true. The fact that you do not understand catastrophic
preservation is not surprising since you are a closed-minded
uniformitarianist.
So, please explain to me what "catastrophic preservation" actually is,.....
Catastrophic preservation means that a catastrophe has preserved a
biomass as it appeared moments before its unexpected death.
....or point me at some sources in the scientific literature which propose
such a concept. As I said, I am very familiar with the scientific
literature on this subject, certainly much more so that either you or
Sean.
If you think that such a phenomenon does occur, I suggest that you
post a link to a citation. If you can't - and let's face it, you can't
- why are you bothering to support Sean in such a blatant falsehood?
7) "The fossil evidence clearly supports a catastrophic
interpretation
for much of the geologic column".
This is also true.
So explain the formation of thousands of meters thickness of
limestones such as chalk.
8) "Most ichthyosaur fossils show evidence of rapid burial, such as
those found clustered together at places like the
Berlin-Ichthyosaur State Park in Nevada."
9) The adaptive landscape of evolutionary theory consists of a series
of isolated islands.
10) Evolution "stalls out" at a level arbitrarily set by Sean Pitman.
11) Human designers commonly produce nested hierarchies
12) Geologists don't have an explanation for concentrations of
fossils of carnivores.
13) "mainstream scientists believe that all the main forms (or phyla)
of animal life, save perhaps one, that exist in the world today were
all present in the Cambrian "
14) "ancient channels of major rivers .. have not been found" in the
Morrison Formation.
15) That "uniformitarianism" means that geologists thought that *all*
sedimentary deposits were laid down gradually over millions of years.
Only recently have said geologists been forced to abandon.
No, it's very clear if you read the works of Lyell that he referred to
catastrophic events. The frontispiece of "Principles of Geology"
includes an engraving of the Temple of Seraphis as evidence for rapid
sea level changes connected with volcanic eruptions at nearby Mount
Vesuvius. Uniformitarianism means that the *processes* we observe in
the present are those which created the geological record of the past.
I agree that uniformitarianism means the present is the key to the
past. But your paragraph above seems to contradict, accepting
uniformitarianism to not be in conflict with catastrophism.
Fact: uniformitarianism and catastrophism are two different and
conflicting explanatory concepts.
Ray
SNIP....
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: What Creationist (a topic about Sean Pitman)?
- From: Rolf
- Re: What Creationist (a topic about Sean Pitman)?
- From: richardalanforrest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: What Creationist (a topic about Sean Pitman)?
- From: Dana Tweedy
- Re: What Creationist (a topic about Sean Pitman)?
- Prev by Date: Re: Those Racist Jews
- Next by Date: Re: Roman Catholics
- Previous by thread: Re: What Creationist (a topic about Sean Pitman)?
- Next by thread: Re: What Creationist (a topic about Sean Pitman)?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
