|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
21st February 2013, 08:03 PM | #4921 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
Yes, He had to kill his son(Which is also him) so that he could forgive us for breaking rules that he arbitrarily set. But he won't forgive us if we don't acknowledge how awesome he was for doing that.
if you honestly think that's a good moral premise, than you really have nothing to offer. |
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser |
|
21st February 2013, 08:26 PM | #4922 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
What I find intriguing is the comparison between the pro-evolution websites, which go out of their way to distinguish between facts and what we simply don't know yet, versus the religious creationist websites, which are perfectly happy to twist the facts, set up strawman arguments, deceive, and outright lie. Yet it is the latter who claim that their morals come from God...
|
21st February 2013, 08:48 PM | #4923 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
|
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
21st February 2013, 08:49 PM | #4924 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
|
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
21st February 2013, 09:06 PM | #4925 |
Dark Lord of the JREF
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere Else
Posts: 5,805
|
|
__________________
"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head." |
|
21st February 2013, 09:41 PM | #4926 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
Contentious apologetics, full of special pleading...and extra points for using an extra-biblical source to "explain" the bible against its clear meaning.
What is your definition of "species"? When do you intend to address your dishonest quote-mining of Dr. Sagan's words? Do you think dishonesty is not really dishonest, if you are addressing the godless? |
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
21st February 2013, 09:44 PM | #4927 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
...as has been pointed out to you, repeatedly, it is dishonest of you to pretend that the question has not been answered, just because you did not like the answers you got.
You really should have titled the thread, "I intend to preach against whatever reason you offer not to be in thrall to my superstitions..." |
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
22nd February 2013, 01:18 AM | #4928 |
Scholar
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 58
|
Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence ?
|
22nd February 2013, 03:29 AM | #4929 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
22nd February 2013, 03:31 AM | #4930 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
22nd February 2013, 03:51 AM | #4931 |
Scholar
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 58
|
Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence ?
|
22nd February 2013, 04:00 AM | #4932 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
Rhetoric.
There isn't actual evidentiary arguments against evolution. By their very nature, antievolutionists play catch up. They must learn first the discoveries of real scientists and then come up With some way to shove god into a new gap. Have you had any luck with epigenticsor reverse transcriptase? Or Do you want to ignorantly repeat the "no new information" argument? |
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser |
|
22nd February 2013, 04:12 AM | #4933 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
No, he won't forgive you because :
John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. |
22nd February 2013, 04:23 AM | #4934 |
Scholar
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 58
|
Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence ?
|
22nd February 2013, 04:23 AM | #4935 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,626
|
|
22nd February 2013, 04:30 AM | #4936 |
Schrödinger's cat
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 16,140
|
|
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett |
|
22nd February 2013, 04:34 AM | #4937 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
From the link:
Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new basic kind. Total misunderstanding of evolution. The only ones claiming that species should be popping out all over are liars for Jesus. |
22nd February 2013, 04:40 AM | #4938 |
Scholar
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 58
|
Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence ?
|
22nd February 2013, 04:58 AM | #4939 |
Daydreamer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
|
That is complete nonsense.
The Institute of Creation Research DOES NOT present evidential arguments. It presents lies and propaganda. What I find extra funny is their attempt at making this argument seem more credible by having it presented by someone with a Ph.D. Naturally, anyone reading it is going to assume that it was written by someone with a Ph.D. in biology, or possibly some other field related to evolution. But a quick look at Wikipedia reveals that his Ph.D. is in hydraulic engineering. In short, he's a civil engineer, not a biologist. He's no more an authority on the subject than a random person off the street. You may as well be linking to an article written by an accountant or plumber. Why should we base our understanding of biology on the word of an engineer who co-wrote a book arguing that the seven-day creation and global flood were literally true[1], and seems to have believed that the craters of the moon were caused by a cosmic battle between the forces of Satan and the armies of the archangel Michael[2]? All this points to a catastrophic failure in critical thinking on his part. But even ignoring the author's past, that page can still be shown to be full of complete nonsense on it's own merit. The claim that evolution is not happening now, and the claim that there are no transitional fossils, these are demonstrably false. 1. Morris was co-author of the book The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications 2. This argument was presented in his book The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth. |
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim |
|
22nd February 2013, 05:03 AM | #4940 |
Daydreamer
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
|
But you have to admire the timeless silliness of his strawman argument: For example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no “dats” or “cogs.” Oooooh. Now I want a pet dat. Quick, summon a genetic engineer! ETA: I assume that this argument was the predecessor of the crocoduck nonsense. |
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim |
|
22nd February 2013, 05:03 AM | #4941 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
|
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser |
|
22nd February 2013, 05:12 AM | #4942 |
Tergiversator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,998
|
That is Evidence that supports my point,
"By their very nature, antievolutionists play catch up. They must learn first the discoveries of real scientists and then come up With some way to shove god into a new gap." That site is 14 years old in its references. And it's arguments are not evidentiary based, but mere assertions. They present no new findings that refute evolutionary theory. Why is that? Why don't antievolutionists do any actual research? If their position was one based on reality, they should be able to devise tons of experiments or research to support their Points. But there is none. Why is that? Have you Had any luck on epigenetics? Or reverse transcriptase? Shall we talk more on your "no new information" claim, or are you ignoring this out of embarrassment? |
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC. "Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser |
|
22nd February 2013, 06:33 AM | #4943 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
|
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
22nd February 2013, 06:39 AM | #4944 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
LOL.
GIBHOR, why can't your god regrow an amputated limb? When is the exact moment that a baby turns into an old person? Why do some animals NOT kill humans? Why do some humans kill humans? Is it moral to kill your daughter for having premarital sex? Is it moral to kill your neightbor for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Do you think that your dishonesty in not answering is a moral choice? |
22nd February 2013, 06:41 AM | #4945 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
22nd February 2013, 06:59 AM | #4946 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
What has your mis-statement that ToE is a "failed hypothesis" have to do with why you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence?
(There is also a certain entertainment to be found in seeing you, who claim that you do not need to read "naturalistic sources" to "understand them better", accuse anyone of "ignoring" sources, or calling sources "biased"...) You do not understand ToE enough to even be said to be "ignoring" it. There are several ways ToE could be modified, altered, improved; methodological naturalism allows for learning; for improving hypotheses. Do you want to demonstrate ToE to be based on a mistaken premise? Claiming that you do not "believe" that reality happened will not do it, nor will championing your brand of superstition against all the other 'gods' out there. Why not dedicate your career to finding one genuinely out-of-sequence fossil? Bring us a pre-cambrian rabbit. Not only that, even IF (I do understand how risky it is to address you in hypotheticals) ToE were disproved tomorrow, your 'god' (the one you have to defend by explaining away what you say your bible says you say she/he/houscat says) is not the "other choice". Do consider abandoning your false dichotomy. Also, do consider addressing your patently dishonest and misleading quote mining of Dr. Sagan's words. And, do consider answering the question about "species". |
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
22nd February 2013, 07:01 AM | #4947 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
|
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
22nd February 2013, 07:32 AM | #4948 |
Dental Floss Tycoon
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
|
What an appallingly evil being this god of yours is. How pathetically insecure it is to demand that we love it under threat of destruction. When humans behave this way we call them monsters, madmen, megalomaniacs, tyrants. It would permit someone who spent his entire adult life abducting, raping and murdering children to enter into paradise with it as long as he repented and praised this god before the moment of his death. Yet someone who spent his entire life focussing all his energy and resources on the rescue and care of poor orphans in a third world country, but died a Buddhist, would be sentenced to eternal damnation for failing to kiss god's ass during his cosmologically instantaneous human existence, because, to your god, this is the real evil.
The very notion that an infinite, omnipotent being would require the constant praise and reassurance of finite little creatures such as ourselves is preposterous. The idea that we could cause it any measure of offense or injury is asinine. A bacterium could no more affront the black hole at the center of our galaxy than we could hurt the feelings of an infinite being. Your god is the provincial invention of humans attempting to make of the universe something that they can understand, anticipate and influence. It is a familiar, anthropomorphic construct of people who arrogantly assumed that they held a very high place of importance in the hierarchy of the universe. And thus, they created a god no better than themselves. |
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone. |
|
22nd February 2013, 09:06 AM | #4949 |
The Infinitely Prolonged
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,612
|
If evolution is a failed hypothesis, then how come it:
Saved the kakapo from the brink of extinction: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib.../060401_kakapo Helped us help the cheetahs prosper: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...070701_cheetah Helped us understand the avian flu: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...051115_birdflu Allowed us to find where SARS came from: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...060101_batsars Is helping us understand and combat super-weeds: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...1015_superweed Just to name a few examples. If evolution is failure, what accounts for all of these success stories that utilize Evolutionary theory? |
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!! |
|
22nd February 2013, 09:14 AM | #4950 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
|
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
22nd February 2013, 09:15 AM | #4951 |
Dark Lord of the JREF
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere Else
Posts: 5,805
|
GIBHOR thinks that the theory of evolution isn't true, because it doesn't say 'therefore god exists'. Like the creationist sites he parrots without understanding, he has his conclusion (god created everything) and then desperately tries to find evidence to suit It, discarding anything that doesn't fit.
|
__________________
"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head." |
|
22nd February 2013, 10:43 AM | #4952 |
The Infinitely Prolonged
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,612
|
I would welcome some! But, there are a few rules (which I outline better in other places, but here is a summary):
1. It must be non-trivial. (something that could not easily have been found by other theories) 2. The Creator must be an essential part of it. (You can't claim creation wins simply by showing where evolution does not work. The Creator, itself, must be shown to be what is working.) 3. Of course, all the standard rules of quality evidence apply: Empirically verifiable, by independent parties, etc. 4. You can't simply redefine aspects of evolutionary theory into Creationist verbiage, and expect to win, either. (That's what Spetner does with convergent evolution. That's what "Front Loading" does with Evo/Devo.) If GIBHOR thinks evolution is a failure, he must account for its success stories. That is all. |
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!! |
|
22nd February 2013, 10:47 AM | #4953 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,303
|
Cos I like getting naked.
ETA: Oh! Didn't see the "L" in the question. ETFA: Damn this is a long thread |
__________________
It's great being ideologically flexible. |
|
22nd February 2013, 11:24 AM | #4954 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,265
|
To add to this a point I made earlier never actually adressed by GIBHOR.
Evolutionary theory suggested common ancestors among species. And thus that certain things would be conserved. The fact that we can use Drosophila Melanogaster (fruit flies) as a model organism to determine how embryonic development works therefore makes perfect sense. And the more experiments are done the clearer it is that indeed it IS possible to extrapolate from fruitflies to humans and get consistent results, but ONLY by taking into account the evolutionary distance between the two organisms. And this gives contrete predictable results. No matter how creationists try to twist and turn the data, the fact remains that fruitfly experiments CAN and HAVE been used to examine things that happen in humans. Therefore there must be some relation. Where in the bible does it say: "Thou shalt study fruitflies for I have created their development genes in my image as well, sort of"? |
22nd February 2013, 12:57 PM | #4955 |
The Infinitely Prolonged
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,612
|
I can add more:
The easy out would be to invoke the "Common Creator"! However, this counter-argument is only an assertion. It is not useful in the productivity of science, because we have no way of knowing which parts are supposed to be "more common" to study and "less common", and to what varying degrees. Evolutionary theory gives us those details! We CAN reliably estimate to what degree biological systems are "common" between a fly and a human. We do this by estimating what the common ancestor might have been like between them. (It was not a fly nor a human. I am guessing some form of worm, but others might know more than I do.) So, Evolution, "correct" or not is much more powerful and useful than creationist alternatives. |
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!! |
|
22nd February 2013, 01:09 PM | #4956 |
Dark Lord of the JREF
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere Else
Posts: 5,805
|
One of the other issues that people like GIBHOR don't realize, is that attacking The Theory of Evolution is fine. Poke holes in it! Challenge it! That's great! That's Science!
The Theory may change, and new evidence comes to light. But all the links that GIBHOR posts are attacks against Evolution. How it can't be true. How it's not true! Even if that were the case, and Evolution was disproved tomorrow, it doesn't make creationism true! Why is that? Because there's no evidence for creationism, or for a supernatural being that created everything. You cannot simply disprove Evolution. You must also show evidence for it's replacement, and Evolution has been shown to be very useful. |
__________________
"The truth is out there. But the lies are inside your head." |
|
22nd February 2013, 01:17 PM | #4957 |
Springy Goddess
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,513
|
|
__________________
Reality is a theory, not a hypothesis. |
|
22nd February 2013, 04:20 PM | #4958 |
Scholar
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 58
|
Why do you believe naturalism to be the best explanation for our existence ?
|
22nd February 2013, 06:33 PM | #4959 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
It's technically 2 threads combined. GIBHOR tried to do the exact same thing a number of months ago, failed utterly, and eventually gave up. More recently, apparently having learned nothing about the actual trustworthiness of the creationist arguments that he's relying on, he tried to raise the exact same question in a supposedly new thread, mistakenly believing that he had actually learned anything of value from the empty rhetoric and propaganda of more creationist arguments. Most of his basis, initially, was again on just one of the assumptions of the cosmological argument, namely, that something cannot come from nothing, with a couple minor alterations from before. He specifically specified a lack of potentialities, for example, after QM was shown to more than address reasons why that assumption was flawed, last time. He seemed not to realize, in his attempt, that he was excluding the answer he wanted to be accepted as the case, as well. Either way, GIBHOR's simply and repeatedly shown that he's let confirmation bias rule his evaluation of arguments, again, and that he's completely accepted the demonstrably and deeply flawed arguments that he's presented. To be clear, the flaws tend to be logical, philosophical, and scientific, with the first two being as good as invariable and the third coming into play with most attempts to invoke science or things testable with science, like beard growth, apparently. It, of course, gets worse when his arguments are validly refuted, often in numerous ways, (though, very admittedly, there have been invalid attempts at refutation mixed in for some arguments, more frequently as some people let their disgust as the dishonesty with which GIBHOR's approached the discussion continues,) and GIBHOR continues to try to reuse them, usually without even acknowledging the valid refutations, as if they had any more credibility under those circumstances, and misuse them, even if they did happen to have any validity for what they could actually relevantly criticize.
|
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
22nd February 2013, 07:29 PM | #4960 |
Muse
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 561
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|