Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
svigil777

Please Check Out My Book

Recommended Posts

Hello to all of you in this forum,

The first thing I want to do is to plug my online book [deleted -disallowed]

 

Here’s the abstract we used.

 

In his new online book, Scott Vigil delves into the minds of two public speakers on Intelligent Design as he challenges them to defend their theory and to address the evidence for Evolution.

 

One of the first things I did when I had completed the book was send it to my friends who are my most vociferous critics (those who still talk to me). I asked them to show me any place where I am factually incorrect in any of my statements. Anyone here who can help me do that is welcome to provide me feedback here or to my email.

I read the rules section for this site. One of the rules was not to complain about the rules. So, I won't do that. One of the first things I saw that was interesting, however, was the admonition to not become an Evo-Babble Percher. A whole page was dedicated to that. It seemed a little prejudicial to gear this toward the non-creationists and not have a similar page geared toward the creationist.

 

Early in the page on Evo-Babble Perchers was a warning to those "trained" on the Talk.Origins page. So, I had to jump over there to see what those folks were about. And I immediately went to their rules.

 

Now I went to church for over twenty-five years. Church folks don't want to be around mean people cause they are demon possessed and so they stay away from them. So, I understand why your site edits "people". I get that. The special section in Talk.Origins for the creationists doesn't threaten to kick them off the page. Guidance there was geared more toward helping these people to not be flamed by the nasty individuals on the site (chuckling). I got flamed once for advertising a job on a news group that said not to do that. I understand, you don't want to get flamed! :^)

 

Another rule I saw was no "Elephant Hurling". Now, when I was corresponding with Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute in Seattle, I knew there was something wrong with him pushing reams of uninteresting references at me. But I didn't have a name for it. Now I do. I did include his hurling elephants in my book, as I wanted to faithfully represent our conversation. But, I didn't appreciate it. So yeah, that's a good one. Probably many of the rules in the Evo-babble Percher page can be applied to everyone. So, I recommend those that apply equally be placed in the general rules section. I would also add a list of the logical fallacies or at least a good link to the rules. 'not as rules per se, but certainly as an acknowledgement of general argumentative techniques that are commonly recognized to result in misleading or skewed results. This looked pretty good. ('nice little editer you have on this site, btw.)

On registration, this site pushed me into a box where I had to say, "I am an atheist and I am not affiliated". 'not to complain, but I don't define myself as an atheist. I kinda' like Sam Harris' take that we not be defined by what we don't believe. Otherwise, we all have to go around saying we are atheists toward the tooth fairy, hob gobblins, Zeus, Thor and Athena. I prefer to define myself as a rationalist, an empericist, a scientist, a naturalist or something along those lines. We've embraced the term, "non-practicing Jew". To a large degree, I'm a "non-practicing Christian". I went to church off and on as a child, was born again and then later recommited and baptized. I went to church for twenty-five years as an adult and raised two children as Christians. So, the stamp the registration process has placed on me is unfair and inadequate. It seems that to lose one's belief is to simultaneously become ostracized by the church. It's like quitting Amway. You lose most of your friends in a heartbeat. Who wants to be with a loser who couldn't make it in Amway? The fact is, I still thank God for my sweetheart, the beautiful day and for our meal. It just so happens I no longer believe anyone is on the other end to receive my thanks. I'm with Daniel Dennet. I WISH there was someone to thank :^)

I recall in a counseling session at my church with my wife and my daughter, I think it was my daughter who complained, "He's always bringing up evolution!" And the church counselor mocks me... right in front of my wife and my daughter... "Oh, so you think you came from monkeys?" I wish I had thought of this answer. "Let's do a thought experiment. Take Scott to one of those old Dutch windmills where they grind up wheat. Let's grind up Scott instead. What are we going to get? We're going to grit and slime. That's where I came from. I came from the slime."

Many of us if the truth be told, are arrogant. We want to believe that somebody made the universe just for us, that we are immortal and that we are magic. I have come to accept none of those things. As more and more discoveries are made, and our universe becomes bigger and bigger, (oops, it looks like there are an infinite number of universes now that the Higgs Bozon has been discovered), I just keep getting smaller and smaller and less significant. So, I'll be like the bird in the tree. I won't worry. I'll dance my Tango and still have joy. And if I came from the slime, then that's pretty good slime!

If any of you are interested, click here for Pics.

YTThumb.png

Truth to you all,

Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In before this gets locked for hawking merchandise! :P Before that happens though, I would ask, you went to a church that taught that "mean people were demon possessed"? I'd say that's a terrible mischaracterization. Those whom are "mean" are just mean. It's our human nature. If this is where you begin, I'm quite sure I don't want to read your book as I can only imagine what other false premises you start from. Sorry ,no thanks. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am personally not interested in his book, still less in that tango dance he posted. I've written three books but never once mentioned them by name on this website nor ever will.

 

We don't come here to tango we come here to discuss creation vs evolution. When he gets on that subject we are ready to talk.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personal book promotion is against the rules, so I deleted your link.

 

Curious - Do you feel you were mocked before or after you said "I came from slime."? Pleasantries aside, welcome aboard!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully this doesn't look like a purch. I'm just trying to respond to comments.

 

FaithfulCenturion, Calypsis4 and Elephant were all concerned about my link to my book. I wasn’t aware that plugging my book as part of my introduction was against the rules. I just looked and I don’t see such a rule. I thought I was following item #2 in the Guidelines,

 

You should provide proper references when quoting an article or website.

 

As a note, I wasn’t advertising. The link does not ask for remuneration or donation of any kind. Viewing/reading the book is free.

 

FaithfulCenturion took exception to my statement,

 

Church folks don't want to be around mean people cause they are demon possessed and so they stay away from them.

 

Well, I never saw FaithfulCenturion in any of my churches. But Fred understands what I meant. In his warning letter he writes,

 

…many are probably unaware of the demonic influence on them.

 

My sweetheart agrees that churches see most all things in terms associated with these supernatural entities. The fact is, the major nouns associated with any church are God, Holy Spirit, Son as part of a supernatural trinity, angels, Satan, demons and souls. Note, however, the modern science establishment has distanced itself from these nouns since no scientific evidence supports their existence. This talk with Noam Chomsky and others demonstrates this.

 

FaithfulCenturion asked if I was mocked before or after I said, “I came from slime.” But he misread the statement.

 

I was wishing I had said something to the church counselor using the word slime. It’s an aesthetic burned into us over decades in church that we don’t want to be associated with slime, and I wanted to trigger that gut reaction.

 

My sweetheart is a theist, God bless her soul. When I shared some video on Tiktaalik, that presented the fish as a descendant of ours, she recoiled in this same knee jerk way (“Yuck!”) Ha! Sure, we want to think we’re immortal and that the god of the universe knows every hair on our head. To go from that to saying that “Grand Pappy was a fish” and “Great Grandma was an amoeba.” Wow, ‘too much for about anyone to take! But if it is true (and I think it is, give or take), then it would be sad that we would actually speak so disrespectful of our forebears. I don’t think that’s demonic.

 

One last thing... Elephant... Thank-you for the welcome. :^)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding FaithfulCenturion’s insignias, I have a few comments. They weren’t something I’d expect to see from a Christian. In my experience, Christians are warm and welcoming people… in general. The “Rewards of the Atheist” drawing is simply an opinion. It has no basis in fact and was not supported by any rational argument. So, it can be dismissed.

 

The Bill Nye drawing was cute. Maybe Faithful Centurion thought my Tango was a red herring. So, perhaps he felt some justification in passing on that characture. The reference was in my introduction. Tango is part of my life and that of my theist partner. So, I felt it appropriate to show me and Toni to potential friends. ‘nothing says we can’t be friends. In addition, I was providing an answer to those who might say, “Without God, life has no meaning.” That certainly may be true. But it doesn’t mean we can’t reflect and then invent our own meaning. Nothing says we have to jump off a bridge once we find we’re not immortal. The good news is nobody’s going to burn us and torture us if we don’t see it His way, woo hoo! :^)

 

I did meet Nye once at the Seattle Center in the food court. He was having lunch by himself. My kids had enjoyed his science show in the late 80s, early 90s. So, I went up and said hello. He was kinda’ rude, so I decided I didn’t like him anymore. The only reason I watched him in the debate with Ken Ham was because a Tango buddy helped him prepare for the debate. Ham was lots more fun and humorous. Although Nye is interesting and animated while reading from a script in front of a camera with friendly people around him, he was painfully out of place at the creation museum. His defense of evolution and offense on Ham’s non-scientific approach, regarding evolution was not too bad. However, Ham kept saying his source of truth was the bible. At that point, I would have either called “Off Topic” or “Game Over”. Or, I would have asked Ham to back up the veracity of the bible.

I would have asked Ham to explain who Caan married ("How do you know? Were you there?) or how they got so many species on the ark or why there is no evidence of the Jews in captivity in Egypt or their flight. I would have asked what evidence there is that Kings David and Solomon were great kings or why so little is made in the bible of King Omri when there is an abundance of archaeological evidence that he had palaces and fortifications. In short, I would have attacked Ham’s source of truth.
So, that’s where I think Bill Nye really fell down in the debate. He failed to capitalize on Ham's weakness.

 

I’d love to talk about a Ham supporter who recently told me that two Christians are not allowed to fly a commercial airliner due to the coming rapture… (chuckling) but that would be more appropriate for other sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would have asked Ham to explain who Caan married ("How do you know? Were you there?) or how they got so many species on the ark or why there is no evidence of the Jews in captivity in Egypt or their flight. I would have asked what evidence there is that Kings David and Solomon were great kings or why so little is made in the bible of King Omri when there is an abundance of archaeological evidence that he had palaces and fortifications. In short, I would have attacked Ham’s source of truth. So, that’s where I think Bill Nye really fell down in the debate. He failed to capitalize on Ham's weakness.

 

 

This one paragraph shows you are new to this debate or have never listened to the solid answers to the objections you've raised. Ken Ham has long said that the most common question he gets, from both Christian and atheist, is where did Can get his wife. Just do a simple google and you'll have your answer. The 2nd most asked question by skeptics from my experience is the 2nd one you raised. Its what is commonly referred to as a "strawman" argument. You can also do a simple google and you'll have your answer. Regarding evidence of the Jews in Egypt, we find as much evidence as would be expected for something that long ago. But we do find evidence, despite your claim to the contrary (for example, see some of the work done by Manfred Bietak). Just because we've found a little more, literally "little more" on King Omri doesn't mean King David & Solomon didn't exist. For more on the veracity of archeology, see my sister site bibleevidences.com.

 

Fred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cain’s Wife:

Regarding Cain’s wife, at your urging, I did a quick google and found, the following, rather incoherent argument on Josh McDowell’s web site.

 

I don’t know if that is an argument that you would agree with or not. However, there are several that could be discussed on biological terms, rather than religious terms.

Assuming incest is permissible and people took a pass on Leviticus 20:11, there is no physical evidence independent of scriptures cited to support the following arguments.

  • People lived for 900 years
  • Gene pools became corrupted due to the fall.
  • Genetics of the time would allow siblings to marry without passing on genetic diseases. See link.

 

It’s a logically inconsistent argument.

 

Noah’s Ark:

Regarding species, there are 350,000 species of beetles alone from all over the world. Forget the elephants and the Hippos. I don’t see how Noah even got all the beetles on board. In addition, current genetic diversity cannot be explained if all species funneled down to a single base pair.

 

Evidence found for David:

We know David existed due to the Mesha Stele. Per Israel Finkelstein, he was a chieftain, not a great king.
svis.com/Personal/pics/Archaeology/Biblical/MeshaStele24.45.jpg

Source: Documentary, The Bible Unearthed, based on the book, The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidence for King Omri:

The existence of fortifications and a palace associated with King Omri is surprising since the King is given such diminutive stature in the old testament.

http://svis.com/Personal/pics/Archaeology/Biblical/OmrisSebastia41.17.jpg

http://svis.com/Personal/pics/Archaeology/Biblical/OmriPalaceDescription42.10.jpg (Note the quality of the masonry in the background.)

http://svis.com/Personal/pics/Archaeology/Biblical/OmriPalace43.03.jpg

http://svis.com/Personal/pics/Archaeology/Biblical/OmriPalace42.50.jpg (Note the size of the stones.)

http://svis.com/Personal/pics/Archaeology/Biblical/OmriPalace42.48.jpg

http://svis.com/Personal/pics/Archaeology/Biblical/OmriPalace42.06.jpg

http://svis.com/Personal/pics/Archaeology/Biblical/OmriPalace42.00.jpg

Source: Documentary, The Bible Unearthed, based on the book, The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

 

Another great source for this information is the documentary, The Bible’s Buried Secrets by Francesca Stavrakopoulou. In America, another similar short series was done with the same name and presented on PBS.

 

Evidence of Jews Held in Egypt:

Regarding evidence of the Jews held captive, we have lots of it from when they were held in Babylon. However, you’re going to have to provide some evidence for the captivity in Egypt, Fred. Finkelstein, Silberman and Stavrakopoulou all say it didn’t happen.

 

As a reminder, I present this information in response to Ken Ham’s using the bible to support his evolutionary views and Bill Nye’s failure to take him down on this when he had the chance. In defense of Nye, however, he just isn’t a biblical scholar. He’s a scientist.

I predict using the bible as evidence against evolution is going to be about as successful as when it was used to enforce views on the flat earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Fred, I realize it’s against the rules to debate meaning of words on this forum. As someone who has studied John Searle’s Philosophy of Language class, this is problematic for me. In Searle’s class, we learn “words have meaning”. If we can’t agree on a meaning, then we really cannot have a common framework for discussion. It seems trivial; you try to get agreement with a group of Christians on the word, “religious”. They often won’t agree on the dictionary definition.

You charged me with using a “Straw Man”. So, your rule not withstanding, let’s define the term.

A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument.[1] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

 

Now if you would Fred, please explain how it is that I set up a “Straw Man” argument by my following quotation.

I would have asked Ham to explain … how they got so many species on the ark…

To my knowledge, Noah’s ark is explained at least twice in the OT. There’s no “straw man”. It’s a real argument presented by the Torah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a reminder, I present this information in response to Ken Ham’s using the bible to support his evolutionary views and Bill Nye’s failure to take him down on this when he had the chance. In defense of Nye, however, he just isn’t a biblical scholar. He’s a scientist.

 

I predict using the bible as evidence against evolution is going to be about as successful as when it was used to enforce views on the flat earth.

One thing YEC seldom seem to realize is that if the flood took place, you would need evolution thousands of times faster than what mainstream science proposes to get the modern diversity of life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed.

One thing I would like to engage somebody on is a bit of discussion as to what would be involved in actually creating an ark. The reason for this is smart people are saying that we should send people off to another planet in order to reduce the likelihood of extinction due to a killer asteroid or some other cataclysmic event.

 

I don't know the right place to discuss this on this site. Maybe it's the wrong place. But I'm sure there are more than a few people who have thought about the mechanics of ferrying a bunch of animals around in tight quarters.

There are a few obvious considerations right off the bat. Are we going to only save homosapiens? If so, are we going to only save whites? Or will we also send out Asians and blacks and a bunch of other representative flavors of us? A fun thing to think about is that we'll just end up with a jumbled up bunch of humans soon. Interbreeding will remove uniqueness.

Are we also going to save kitty cats and puppies? How many poodles do we need to save in order to have a viable poodle on the other end. I know the answer isn't two. Any breeder can tell you that you cannot interbreed without defects.

Will we save the beetle? According to google, there are 350,000 species of beetles on earth that we know of. Who knows how many more we will discover? If we need to save 100 males and females, to save a single species, then we have to have a whopping 70 million specimens to save all the beetles alone!

Here's another problem. What eats beetles? According to my quick and dirty search, rats and bats. So, if we save some rats and some bats, how many more beetles do we need to bring along so that we don't cause an extinction event on the new planet?

Now, multiply this problem out to all the different species you want to put on your celestial Ark, and you have a whopper of a logistics problem! This problem would be so monumental, we would probably have to make some hard choices. And be careful, if you don't bring all the keystone species necessary for the new world, then you might as well forget about the whole thing. You will have an environmental collapse. When will we ever have the necessary understanding of biology to do this? I would answer, "Maybe never!"

I'm not an expert, so that doesn't mean anything. A good test case is the biosphere. That experiment was a disaster because the curing concrete sucked up a bunch of oxygen, and people were exposed to hazardously low amounts of O2 for a while before they pumped more in. You can't do that in space!

Anyone who wants to sharpen up their apologetics skills might hazard a stab at this engineering problem to sharpen your skills. If we do not do this, one day the catastrophe will come. That is what our astrophysicists are telling us.

So, please help, ark scientists!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome, svigil777.

The mere hint of the TalkOrigins page may cause some trauma, from my experience.

You wrote: "So, I'll be like the bird in the tree. I won't worry. I'll dance my Tango and still have joy. And if I came from the slime, then that's pretty good slime!"

Well, unlike some others who may harbor resentment about their books' lack of attention, I will look at anyone's book as a window into that person's beliefs and I find any attempt to lighten the gloom on this forum--as in the Tango video--as harmless and, possibly, beneficial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad somebody appreciates levity around here. Thanks for the laugh :^)

My email is Scott@svis.com. I'd be glad to provide you a reference to my book. I hope people read it and show me any holes in my thinking. And maybe they'll plug some of theirs at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms