@Petr

[eggheadbanga]

Having recently read several books about Creationism/Intelligent Design vs Darwinism I would welcome it greatly if Petr could let us know where he personally stands on the evidently varied spectrum of views.

[Larrikin]

Having recently read several books about Creationism/Intelligent Design vs Darwinism I would welcome it greatly if Petr could let us know where he personally stands on the evidently varied spectrum of views.
Your kidding right?
I think there is about no one here who explained his position more at length than Petr in numerous threads. :deadhorse:

[eggheadbanga]

Your kidding right?
I think there is about no one here who explained his position more at length than Petr in numerous threads. :deadhorse:

Ummm... those threads tend to be unreadable spam and counter-spam from various websites. Therefore I have generally avoided them. A simple statement in his own words shouldn't put Petr out too much, I would have thought. YEC or no, would do for starters.

[Barjag]

I'll go out on a rather short limb and make an educated guess: YEC.

[eggheadbanga]

I'll go out on a rather short limb and make an educated guess: YEC.

Let him answer for himself. This is just a request for clarification, nothing more.

[Helios Panoptes]

Having recently read several books about Creationism/Intelligent Design vs Darwinism I would welcome it greatly if Petr could let us know where he personally stands on the evidently varied spectrum of views.

What are the titles of the books? I have no special reason for asking besides curiosity, btw.

[Arminius]

Ummm... those threads tend to be unreadable spam and counter-spam from various websites. Therefore I have generally avoided them. A simple statement in his own words shouldn't put Petr out too much, I would have thought. YEC or no, would do for starters.

I reiterate the statement... "You're kidding right?"

Those threads are full of article-spam because that's what Petr does. Good luck getting him to have a thread where he explains 'his' opinions in his own words.

However, I would like to see what, if anything, creationists have to say on the topic. I no doubt have heard their opinions before, but I am rather bored so it would give me something to laugh at.

[eggheadbanga]

What are the titles of the books? I have no special reason for asking besides curiosity, btw.

I'll list them to see if I can provoke Petr out of his silence. :D

Barrett Brown et al, Flock of Dodos (a satire)
Michael Shermer, Why Darwin Matters
edited collection, 'Intelligent Thought' with essays from the usual suspects
indirectly also; Chris Mooney, The Republican War on Science

They were all interesting in their own way, but there is a lot I've read on the internet that is arguably better - these were mainly for reading on the way home from a day in the archives and not wanting to think about history. :)

[Basil Fawlty]

Let him answer for himself. This is just a request for clarification, nothing more.You do know you are probably going to regret this? :D

[Hartmann von Aue]

The answer is not difficult to surmise - and Humpty-Dumpty Egg-head knows it.

His position is biblical authority.

Does that mean all interpretations are to be exactly literal?

Probably not.

[eggheadbanga]

I reiterate the statement... "You're kidding right?"

No. I guess like the many people here who don't read the Holocaust threads, I tend not to read the Evo-threads and thus have not much clarity of exactly where Petr stands. I have an impression, but that's all.

Those threads are full of article-spam because that's what Petr does. Good luck getting him to have a thread where he explains 'his' opinions in his own words.

However, I would like to see what, if anything, creationists have to say on the topic. I no doubt have heard their opinions before, but I am rather bored so it would give me something to laugh at.

:)

[eggheadbanga]

You do know you are probably going to regret this? :D

What, you mean like trying to budge your good self from your own chosen faith-based position on matters historical? :)

[Basil Fawlty]

What, you mean like trying to budge your good self from your own chosen faith-based position on matters historical? :)Look in a mirror when you say that.

[eggheadbanga]

Look in a mirror when you say that.

Unlike you, Basil, I have studied the evidence at first hand. That makes me the scientist, and you the true-believer.

[Basil Fawlty]

Unlike you, Basil, I have studied the evidence at first hand. That makes me the scientist, and you the true-believer.No, I've read the sources too. I confine those discussions to the sources I'm familair with. I also do not resort to fallacious arguments.

[Petr]

The answer is not difficult to surmise - and Humpty-Dumpty Egg-head knows it.

His position is biblical authority.

Does that mean all interpretations are to be exactly literal?

Probably not.
What he said. I personally prefer YEC but am tolerant towards more allegorical interpretations of Genesis as well, although I'm not completely open-minded in that regard either.

I have also often stated that I believe in both Scriptural and Natural Revelation, and that this is a bridge for potential co-operation between Creationists and IDers against the common enemy:

And like all ignorant critics, you completely confuse Intelligent Design (which even pagans, deists, agnostics and yes, even unprejudiced atheists can subscribe to) with creationism. ... ID is about natural, or Common Revelation - it's the level where Christians can co-operate with non-Christians. Creationism would be about Special Revelation, a specifically Christian level.

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=25804&highlight=co-operate


Petr

[eggheadbanga]

No, I've read the sources too.

You've barely scratched the surface, and you know it.


I confine those discussions to the sources I'm familair with. I also do not resort to fallacious arguments.

Still no evidence of (a) the active work necessary for the 'hoax' or (b) for the continued survival of the Jews?

Thought not.

As I said, your stance is faith-based. Show me evidence of the deliberate orchestration of the 'hoax' and the ongoing survival of the millions that you say weren't murdered. Because these are your essential main claims as a revisionist, and I've yet to see a single shred of hard evidence for either.

[Petr]

Barrett Brown et al, Flock of Dodos (a satire)
Michael Shermer, Why Darwin Matters
edited collection, 'Intelligent Thought' with essays from the usual suspects
indirectly also; Chris Mooney, The Republican War on Science
Here's some counter-material:


Whose “War” Is It, Anyway?:
Exposing Chris Mooney’s Attack on Intelligent Design
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3739

Hoax of Dodos
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/02/hoax_of_dodos_pt_1_flock_of_do.html

See also:

"If you think Intelligent Design Theory (IDT) is merely the respectable face of Christian fundamentalism, and Evolution the only sensible scientific world-view, think again...IDT has driven science for 500 years. It was responsible for the 17th century's Scientific Revolution and helped build modern histories of physics, mathematics, genetics and social science. IDT's proponents take literally the Biblical idea that humans have been created in God's image. This confident, even arrogant, view of humanity enabled the West to triumph in the modern era. Evolution, on the other hand, derives from more ancient, even pagan, ideas about our rootedness in nature and the transience of all life forms. It has been always more popular outside the West, and until Darwin few evolutionists were scientists. What happened to reverse these two movements' fortunes? Steve Fuller's brilliant revisionist history is essential reading for anyone who wants a deeper understanding of science's most vociferous debate."

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23185&highlight=fuller


Petr

[Basil Fawlty]

You've barely scratched the surface, and you know it.Not for the gassings.
As I said, your stance is faith-based. No its not. It was back in the days when I believed in it, that is, until I actually started looking at the evidence itself.

Show me evidence of the deliberate orchestration of the 'hoax' and the ongoing survival of the millions that you say weren't murdered. Because these are your essential main claims as a revisionist, and I've yet to see a single shred of hard evidence for either.No they are not. They are your blustering strawman arguments.

[eggheadbanga]

What he said. I personally prefer YEC but tolerant towards more allegorical interpretations of Genesis as well, although I'm not completely open-minded in that regard either.

I have also often stated that I believe in both Scriptural and Natural Revelation, and that this is a bridge for potential co-operation between Creationists and IDers against the common enemy:

And like all ignorant critics, you completely confuse Intelligent Design (which even pagans, deists, agnostics and yes, even unprejudiced atheists can subscribe to) with creationism. ... ID is about natural, or Common Revelation - it's the level where Christians can co-operate with non-Christians. Creationism would be about Special Revelation, a specifically Christian level.

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=25804&highlight=co-operate


Petr

Thank you, Petr. :dance2:

[Petr]

Those threads are full of article-spam because that's what Petr does. Good luck getting him to have a thread where he explains 'his' opinions in his own words.

However, I would like to see what, if anything, creationists have to say on the topic. I no doubt have heard their opinions before, but I am rather bored so it would give me something to laugh at.
You're a lazy decadent.


Petr

[delete]

Having recently read several books about Creationism/Intelligent Design vs Darwinism I would welcome it greatly if Petr could let us know where he personally stands on the evidently varied spectrum of views.

Did you read any Darwinism at all, or did you continue the holocaustian tradition of reading people who explain how everything is connected and what the orthodox view is today?

I bet the books you read on darwinism, all let you live in your delusion of the equality of intelligence between the races?

[eggheadbanga]

Not for the gassings.

:rofl:

I think not, especially not after the last month away.


No its not. It was back in the days when I believed in it, that is, until I actually started looking at the evidence itself.

Through the prism of strawmen-builders and proven falsifiers of documents? :rofl:

No they are not. They are your blustering strawman arguments.

If millions did not die, what happened to them? Where is your evidence for this?

If it is false that they died, where is your evidence for how this falsehood came to be perpetrated on the world?

Evidence for both would utterly falsify the existing account of the Holocaust. That is why they are not strawmen.

If you are honest with yourself, you know this. That is why you have always avoided these questions with dodgic.

[eggheadbanga]

Did you read any Darwinism at all, or did you continue the holocaustian tradition of reading people who explain how everything is connected and what the orthodox view is today?

I bet the books you read on darwinism, all let you live in your delusion of the equality of intelligence between the races?

delete, since I have undoubtedly read more Holocaust revisionist works than you and your entire gang of friends will ever read orthodox historians on the same subject, I think it is you who might be in need of exposure to views inimicable to your own.

As for these books, they were arguing against creationism and intelligent design. The subjects that came up for discussion were way more than 10,000 years earlier than the issue of racial differences in intelligence in the 21st Century, and mostly didn't concern humans at all.

[Basil Fawlty]

:rofl:

I think not, especially not after the last month away.What?
Through the prism of strawmen-builders and proven falsifiers of documents? :rofl: That's your metier. You are the one who believes in show trials.

It is sufficient to show that gassings did not happen. That has been done.

[Sean]

What he said. I personally prefer YEC but am tolerant towards more allegorical interpretations of Genesis as well, although I'm not completely open-minded in that regard either.

I have also often stated that I believe in both Scriptural and Natural Revelation, and that this is a bridge for potential co-operation between Creationists and IDers against the common enemy:

And like all ignorant critics, you completely confuse Intelligent Design (which even pagans, deists, agnostics and yes, even unprejudiced atheists can subscribe to) with creationism. ... ID is about natural, or Common Revelation - it's the level where Christians can co-operate with non-Christians. Creationism would be about Special Revelation, a specifically Christian level.

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=25804&highlight=co-operate


Petr

I have some questions for you too, Petr.

You say that you are willing to collaborate with IDists who may not agree with you in regard to who the designer is, but is this only so that you can get your ideology's foot into the door? Do you believe that Christians who don't believe in a literal Genesis will be saved? On what basis do you justify your assertion that the Bible must be interpreted literally--that is, after all, only one interpretation out of many.

[Petr]

You say that you are willing to collaborate with IDists who may not agree with you in regard to who the designer is, but is this only so that you can get your ideology's foot into the door?
That's a hostile way of describing it, but my model would be Apostle Paul in Athens who was willing to use the language of philosophers while spreading the good word.

Do you believe that Christians who don't believe in a literal Genesis will be saved?
Perhaps, but it sure isn't doing their faith any good. It's not easy to answer to theological questions of such vast and wide scope just like that.

On what basis do you justify your assertion that the Bible must be interpreted literally--that is, after all, only one interpretation out of many.
I suggest you study the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. Modernists are practising eisegesis when they force the Bible to say what they wish it would say, like agreeing with fashionable zeitgeist. The Bible is not some postmodern document you can twist to mean anything.


Petr

[Basil Fawlty]

That's a hostile way of describing it, but my model would be Apostle Paul in Athens who was willing to use the language of philosophers while spreading the good word.That sounds like sophistry.

[Fade the Butcher]

egghead,

I would strongly encourage you not to punch this tar baby. Do you really want to spend months of your time arguing with the likes of Answers In Genesis, Tektonics, True Origin, Uncommon Descent and so forth? Okay, I realize that you are interested in the Holocaust, so a perverse fascination with theology might appeal to you, but I would advise you to spend your time more wisely.

[delete]

delete, since I have undoubtedly read more Holocaust revisionist works than you and your entire gang of friends will ever read orthodox historians on the same subject, I think it is you who might be in need of exposure to views inimicable to your own.

There is about a billion people that know more about Islam than I, but I can still say it is an aburd religion, as it describes stuff that is physically imposible if you accept the basic of science. The same is true about the holocaust.

Germar Rudolf and Leucter have more or less gotten the same results, while the holohoaxers have refused to do any.

You are FMPOV a doctor in holocaustianity, and can be compared more to a doctor in theology than a scientist.


As for these books, they were arguing against creationism and intelligent design. The subjects that came up for discussion were way more than 10,000 years earlier than the issue of racial differences in intelligence in the 21st Century, and mostly didn't concern humans at all.

People have been living in large parts of Europe for atleast 40.000 years, and they are know proving that there were Icefree areas during the Ice age in Scandinavia, so people might even have lived there.

That the evolutionary preassure was different in Europe than in Africa is evident in how we look and how we behave, but you close your eyes to sound reasoning, so you only see that we look different.

Why should people trust you to do an informed judgement on any subject when you so blatantly disqualify mental differences as a result of evolution between the races, but try do use it paint creationst as truth denying idiots?

[Sean]

That's a hostile way of describing it, but my model would be Apostle Paul in Athens who was willing to use the language of philosophers while spreading the good word.

In other words, IDists try to appeal to people of a scientific bent by cloaking their views in scientific jargon.

Perhaps, but it sure isn't doing their faith any good. It's not easy to answer to theological questions of such vast and wide scope just like that.

It seems to me that the same could be said about your position.

I suggest you study the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. Modernists are practising eisegesis when they force the Bible to say what they wish it would say, like agreeing with fashionable zeitgeist. The Bible is not some postmodern document you can twist to mean anything.

I think that there is a non sequitur here. Just because the interpretation is not literal, it doesn't follow that there isn't one true interpretation. For instance, take Plato's Allegory of the Cave. Wouldn't you agree that there is one definite interpretation of its meaning? Why couldn't Genesis be the same?

[Petr]

In other words, IDists try to appeal to people of a scientific bent by cloaking their views in scientific jargon.
No , because I am not speaking for IDers myself. I sometimes use their material.


Petr

HP: don't flame

[Basil Fawlty]

In other words, IDists try to appeal to people of a scientific bent by cloaking their views in scientific jargon.Funny that you mention Plato because his cosmology is ID. ID is not the same thing as Creationism.

[Petr]

Funny that you mention Plato because his cosmology is ID.
Indeed:

p. 130

But there was another reason for Galen's popularity. Galen introduced into his anatomy and physiology a massive dose of teleology, which would endear him to Islamic and Christian readers. Galen was not himself a Christian, and his teleological approach had no Christian roots but was inspired by Plato's Timaeus and Aristotle's The Parts of Animals and by Stoic thought. Like Aristotle - indeed, more than Aristotle - Galen found evidence of intelligent design in the animal and human frame, and his On the Usefulness of the Parts of the Body is a litany of praise to the wisdom and providence of the Demiurge (a term and a conception obviously borrowed from Plato).

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=269629&postcount=25

[Helios Panoptes]

Funny that you mention Plato because his cosmology is ID. ID is not the same thing as Creationism.

I agree that ID is not coextensive with creationism. It is quite possible to believe in ID without being a creationist. Many historical figures have done so, including Plato whom you mention. That said, it is reasonable to ask: to what extent is the modern ID movement propelled by Biblical creationists? In the United States, to a great extent.

[eggheadbanga]

What?

Oh, just more evidence than has been discussed by the entirety of the VHO mafia put together :)

That's your metier. You are the one who believes in show trials.

You're the one who believes in a gigantic conspiracy to defraud; but have no evidence of this.

It is sufficient to show that gassings did not happen. That has been done.

That is the either-or fallacy, and as such is dissected here

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=29059

:)

[Helios Panoptes]

This thread is an oddity. The person who started it derailed his own topic at warp speed.

[eggheadbanga]

This thread is an oddity. The person who started it derailed his own topic at warp speed.

True, but the purpose was served in the end. Petr 'fessed up. Derail has been taken elsewhere.

[WFHermans]

Michael Shermer, Why Darwin Matters is "about" Creationism/Intelligent Design vs Darwinism. LOL.

Typical jewish to read only books that support the jew view.

[eggheadbanga]

Michael Shermer, Why Darwin Matters is "about" Creationism/Intelligent Design vs Darwinism. LOL.

Typical jewish to read only books that support the jew view.

:deadhorse:

One-Trick Pony Hermans rides again. Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.

[Barjag]

Michael Shermer, Why Darwin Matters is "about" Creationism/Intelligent Design vs Darwinism. LOL.

Typical jewish to read only books that support the jew view.WFHermans, are you implying that Darwinism is Jewish? I want to make sure I know where you stand in that regard.

[Basil Fawlty]

You're the one who believes in a gigantic conspiracy to defraud . . .I'm gettin rather tired of this particular trope from you, its dishonest. I dont know how many times I have disavowed "giant conspiracies" and how much time I have wasted (it would seem) setting forth my position. Give it a rest.

This stuff really does not belong in this section, show some self-discipline.

[eggheadbanga]

I'm gettin rather tired of this particular trope from you, its dishonest. I dont know how many times I have disavowed "giant conspiracies" and how much time I have wasted (it would seem) setting forth my position. Give it a rest.

You can disavow till the cows come home but sooner or later you have to allege some form of manipulation. Pretending otherwise is risible, but then your entire belief-system on this subject is risible.


This stuff really does not belong in this section, show some self-discipline.

Missed the link back to the proper section? This thread served its purpose.

[Basil Fawlty]

You can disavow till the cows come home but sooner or later you have to allege some form of manipulation."gigantic conspiracy to defraud" and "some form of manipulation" are two entirely different claims. They're not even in the same ball park.
Pretending otherwise is risible, but then your entire belief-system on this subject is risible.You weak reasoning skills married to a manifest dishonesty is contemptible.
Missed the link back to the proper section? This thread served its purpose.Perhaps, but it does not entitle you to break the rules of the forum as you please.

[WFHermans]

WFHermans, are you implying that Darwinism is Jewish? I want to make sure I know where you stand in that regard.
No, but Michael Shermer is. Jews will always take the side that is best for jews. Nowadays that is dogmatic Darwinism.

[Angler]

No, but Michael Shermer is. Jews will always take the side that is best for jews. Nowadays that is dogmatic Darwinism.
I have to disagree with that.

Which non-Jews are the biggest supporters of Jews? Christian Zionists. And the reason they fellate Jews is because of their devotion to the Bible. Of course this jibes with their rejection of modern science in favor of silly Biblical fairy-tales.

Other, more moderate Christians, particularly in the US, tend to sympathize with Jews to some degree as well because of a sense of shared heritage -- a "Judeo-Christian" heritage embodied by the Bible.

Because of these things, I think Darwinism weakens the Jews' status and position in the minds of those who believe in it. The same might be said for all philosophies that reject the Bible.

[WFHermans]

Good thinking, but let me add that zionist Darwinists will refrain from attacking the "bible-believing" "christian" zionists if that attack is bad for zionism. Never will a Michael Shermer say "creationism is nonsense, therefore the biblical jewish claim on Palestine is also nonsense".