PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     A question
       DON'T Chew my head off please

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Because of abiogenesis" isn't the answer to "Why does life evolve?".

The answer is: imperfect self-replicators, differential survival rates, and energy input.

So, JSF16, that's the rebuttal of your statement that the Theory of Evolution lacked a cornerstone.

Do you agree that it's a good rebuttal?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:38 AM on March 3, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Are you saying that you can have no life without oxygen?


No abiogenesis with oxygen present breaking down the attempts of amino-acids to make proteins. Proteins cannot form in the presence of oxygen -they need protection which would not be available in any primordial soup. The former suggestion that there was no oxygen on the early earth was incorrect so we have to deal with the presence of oxygen in our imaginative scenarios of how life organized itself.

Lester - In any case right and left handed amino acids equates to death so - no life.

Wisp -
Are you dead?


No I am a collection of left handed amino-acid proteins, so I am alive. When I die, my left handed amino acids will revert to an average mix of 50:50 right and left handed amino acids. That equates to death. That is what Miller produced with his experiment.

Did your god use some other thing for life than right and left handed amino acids?


He used left handed amino-acids only.

It's as good assumption as "If i open my faucet water will come out, instead of melted chocolate."


Melted chocolate out your faucet is far more likely than life from non-living chemicals without an organizer, I'm afraid.
Remember it remains an assumption even though it is accepted as the only possibility by evolutionists.

Lester
-all based on philisophical necessity.

Wisp -
Expand this point, please. What you mean is not clear.


Evolutionists assume that physical laws and no organizer is responsible for life. They do this in order to escape the implications of there being an organizer. Their decision to accept materialism as the only possibility is a philisophical choice, not something demanded by the evidence. Either life was created or it created itself. They choose to only allow for the latter while guffawing at the former.


-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 06:27 AM on March 4, 2009 | IP
Skepticus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

WARNING THIS POST IS A BIT LONG  TOWARDS THE END
(Oh, it has a few sharp edges too)

Quote from wisp at 07:59 AM on March 2, 2009 :
They ask "Why don't we find a crocoduck?"
So if we don't, somehow that's evidence for a creating God.
If we did find it, i would call that evidence for a creating God.


You would? You don't want to be out in the full sunlight for too long wisp. Perhaps it would be evidence of a huge discrepancy with how evolution does work. Evidence of aliens visiting earth and playing at genetic engineering, or man made medaling. When something pushes me so far that I am seriously contemplating supernatural explanations, I guarantee you, I will personally book myself into a funny farm.

In any case would the crocaduck need to be a supernatural phenomenon or just presently irreconcilable with evolution? I think the latter. Even if it were miracle stuff, we surely wouldn't need say "oh yeah, so god does exist", especially any particular God, such as the Christian God. And since Creationists think that crocaducks are what is predicted by evolution, does this mean that they would renounce Christianity? I don't think so.

I've been told that some creationist claimed that the Bible said something about double helix DNA, but i have not been shown the passage (or the creationist).


Hah! That would be right. But it wouldn't be a very far fetched interpretation would it? That would be just before God writes himself in a redundancy package.

If i was Him i would call the Moon "another world" instead of "a lesser light" (specially since the Moon is no light).


Nice point wisp. It's like telling the moon and sun to stand still over specific places on the earth as in Joshuah 10:12. He doesn't seem to know much about celestial dynamics.

If such a book was found, i think i would consider converting.


Now take it easy there feller. No need for rash decisions. Why don't you put down the book and lets just talk about it Ok? eeeeasy does it... Every thing's going to be OK.

Now THAT's what God could have done to save my soul, instead of sending a nice jewish guy to die.


That cheat!! He didn't even have the decency to stay dead. Talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too. And what's so bad about being dead for a few days? A change is as good as a holiday they say. Can you see him waking up, stretching and yawning, "Wow man, that sleep was to die for" Did he have to spend his time in hell purgatory or heaven? Jeebus in heaven sees God, " er... Hi my Loa.. er... Fath.. uh.. ah.. Me."

Am i being unreasonable, God?


Harken unto me wisp I am your lord, the sun is large ball of fire (the size of a mounain even) it goes about the earth in the midst of the heavens as I comandeth. The moon is also a large ball of um... Emethaler cheese residing just above the tree tops. It's at least as big as your house. Thats huge for a cheese ball.

Here's what god should have done. Every letter in the Hebrew alphabet corresponds with a number right? If you take each letter of the Bible and turn it into it's number, then turn each number into binary, it should produce a string of 0's and 1's (ones and nones as they say). You should then be able to save this as a source code file and it should compile in say... a Java compiler to an executable web browser. That browser should be better than Firefox (a minor miracle in itself), and have one more feature.

Only in this browser can you type the IP 000.000.000.000
and it will go to the actual official web page for heaven. Once there, you can touch the screen and feel greater pleasure than sex and ice cream put together, download strange but beautiful music that has musical notes which have never been known to man and screen savers that produce indescribably beautiful shape and colours that are also impossible with known geometry and existing optical spectra.

This website should also contain a full recantation and apology for all the evil, horrendous, barbaric, cruelty and violence in the Bible, an explain that it was necessary to make that shit up, so that the browser code would work. Then it should contain an explanation for why God rewards the obsequious pretense of faith then it should explain... You get the idea.

That of course invokes a regress that is bounded only by some ultimate cause of all causes. When you think that way you must know everything before you can say you understand anything.
I've meditated long about this subject (with a little help from one of Einstein's gedanken experiments used to contradict Heisemberg's Principle of Uncertainty).

That would be the photon escaping from the box, when Einstein omits the effects of his own theory, in the action of the shutter being opened yeah? Still trying to figure how it relates.

It might be the strict truth.
But even if it was, we humans cannot live up to that truth in any way, so we should discard it for practical purposes.


Not sure you see what I am saying wisp. Rationalists and scientists must proceed from what is known. I am saying that is the only way to seek knowledge. I am also noting that a goddidit who asks you to provide an explanation of any effect by explaining it's prior cause, is being absurd, because whatever that cause is, it is also an effect and must have a cause of it's own. So now we must explain the second effect in terms of a new cause, and so on ad infinitum. If you are not entitled to just describe something as a fact, without also knowing what caused it, then you would have to chase the chain back to the most primary cause of causes. Of course you don't do that.

But isn't that exactly what creationists do?  A supernatural being simply leaves nothing unexplained. That is their starting assumption, and that explains everything. Here! I'll be the fundie and you ask me a question.
Q: [ ...insert your question here... ]
A: Well, there's this infinitely powerful supernatural being...
You see, nothing need be unanswered with magical juju powers. As long as you don't ask about contradictions or try using the question to critique the Bible (well, perhaps even then), but nevertheless any mundane fact of nature, history or whatever. The ultimate answer is God, and that their starting point of any chain of cause and effect. So you see they start with the complete explanation, a foolproof, supernatural assumption, so it's no wonder they expect you to know the cause of any established fact.

In general, the reasons which allow us to conclude that anything is true, do not rely on our knowledge of what caused it. I can infer that the earth is a spinning globe without first knowing what caused it to exist, be spheroid or spin.

So do you see what I am saying now? To a healthy rationalist mind, you may know X is true but you don't know how X came about. If instead you are expected to know the cause of X then you should also be expected to know 'the cause of', 'the cause of X'. In fact that argument must be applicable, anytime you don't know anything and everything. It is quite simply logically true, that we must be content to work from known facts (or reasonable assumptions), then proceed towards what we don't know. In a syllogism, the premises are known (or granted) before hand, and the conclusion is only known (or granted) after.

What I find annoying, is that creationists don't ever forward objections which are based on understanding. They cant possibly be using proper reasoning skills,
Well that's just not true.

I've been asked some good questions by creationists. It's just that i can't remember any of them now. xD
But i have bad memory.


Well I suppose if you include moderates with a very liberal interpretation as 'creationists', I was really talking about Biblical literalists. Also I was only talking about when they actually come forward with definite criticism (i.e. not simply questions). You don't tend to find many fundies who have any valid criticism of evolution. They come to the debate as they are trained, to derail discourse and spout the disinformation of their leaders and play bait and switch.

they cant possibly be understanding parsimony and they certainly can not be understanding the theoretical idea they are criticizing nor the mountains of incontrovertible evidence that supports it.
Yeah... I try to be polite, but if you don't believe in Evolution, i first think that you haven't been exposed to some facts... And if you have, and still don't believe it... Well i get the feeling that something in your process of reasoning is malfunctioning.


I think a person who is petrified of dying wouldn't go parachuting or car racing.A person petrified of finding out their god delusion is false, avoids reason the same way.

But i try to be humble, and think that it might happen to me as well (even now).


Man! You need your friends to keep an eye on you. Better my sister in a brothel than my brother turned into a fundie zombie.


Damn, i hate straw man! Lester10 and gluteous use it too much. It gets so tiresome...

Also probabilistic Texas sharpshooter fallacies...

And arguments ad hominem, and ipse dixit...


Yeah. Never go and learn some reasoning skills. Just turn up and make a knob of yourself.

At least they don't come here saying that Darwin recanted.


Well I don't know about here, but that is fairly common.


The (non)-thinking process is so alien to objective rationalism, that it is not possible to have a meaningful discourse and convince a creationist that some scientific idea is a fact of reality.
You can atract more flies with honey than... Than...
Damn, i'm terrible at English sayings. Well, you get it.


Yup, its vinegar. Not true by the way. Flies don't care much about honey actually but there are those little flies which are attracted to vinegar. So you do catch lots of vinegar flies with vinegar. I know it's only a metaphor, but it doesn't 'fly' much for me that way either.

They belong to a mind set that does not seek understanding. The question which started this thread would not have been a necessary with a very very basic understanding of science.
Ok, but they're right when they say that you don't have faith (about it, at least), so you don't understand it.


Are you talking about faith in (or about) the Bible/Christian God? Well it doesn't matter really does it. If faith were a legitimate concept it wouldn't lead to a multiplicity of contradictory conclusions. Faith is just a word but whereas it gives a deluded nutter, a warm fuzzy feeling it makes me see red. How does having faith help anybody to understand anything? That is just non-sequitur. you are privileging them for an empty rhetorical pretense that faith is a bastion of wisdom. It is however a bastion of ignorance and vile stupidity.

We have built a 'faith' in Evolution ...

Uh uh!! Oh no you don't. I'll have none of it.

(guided by evidence and understanding, so can hardly be called 'faith', but bear with me).

Well you get the difference then.

If you found a crocoduck, you (and i) would immediately start looking for the trick. It cannot be! Right? Just can't!!


Not because of anything to do with faith. From what I have seen, faith could help support my belief in crocoducks, hell with enough of the shit, I could be worshiping the crocoduck.
It's actually fairly straight forward. Faith leads to irrational thinking, closed-mindedness and delusion. Reason is the antithesis and promotes rational thinking, open-mindedness an sanity.

Wee keep looking for some mechanism, some sewing lines, SOMETHING!


Because our faith in evolution is driving us nuts huh?
Well it wouldn't be the first time that science faced a discrepancy. Fortunately we are allowed to shrug and say we don't know. Ummm... Not sure about that one, we'll have to do more research. In science it is OK to say I don't know. Faith abhors a mystery if it happens to be about nature. Faith will invent a supernatural god of the gaps fix up and pretend the problem has gone away.


I think that's pretty much how they feel, except that they also feel like they don't have access to the crocoduck.

Sorry, I have no idea what you mean wisp.

Imagine what WE would say if THEY found the crocoduck, and refused to show it to us, ignorant godless unbelievers.


Um.. Why would I want to imagine this. Look I think you have gone of the rails a little since bringing faith in to the picture, especially by trying to saddle atheists with it (and thats a creationist's job btw). Now you sound like you want to entertain the fallacy that creationists are somehow kept apart from good factual knowledge. I think you seriously need a rethink on both counts.

I know that's not what we do to them, but they feel like it anyway. Just stating the facts.


HUH!! Well, they are not facts. NO NO NO! If we do not do that to them, it is not a fact. If they feel like we do, then they have no reason to feel this way and it is still not a fact. If you wish for me to have empathy with them, you must do a better job of explaining why I should. They are their own worst enemy's when it comes to partaking of reliable knowledge, and I for one will not be guilted into shouldering any of their home made burden. Faith is a rod they have made for their own back.

Let's get the record straight again. If science is not a conspiracy and the peer review process is in good shape, then there is no reason to doubt that the knowledge being produced is at least as reliable as proclaimed. If they wish to learn, there is no more barrier to them than there is to anybody else. Especially now that we have the internet, there is no excuse. I have pointed out on numerous occasions to creationists that there is an abundance of self learning material, that is pitched at a lay audience. It's self serve so help yourselves. If you want to ask more specific questions, I tell them, you are welcome to direct them towards me. I am no expert, but just another science aficionado but I will help if I can, and a least point in a more fruitful direction.

I have not got the foggiest clue where this idea of knowledge Nazism is coming from. There are atheists around that will bend over backwards to help anybody who is searching for more knowledge, whether they are Christian, Muslim, Atheist or Calithumpian. I know this, because I am one of them. Knowledge does not care about your color or creed, nor do I for the purpose of  helping people to self educate. The real situation, is exactly the opposite of this scenario you (or they) are painting.

And why would you be humoring this willful ignorance as some kind of innocent perspective that creationists somehow 'feel'? You should know better and creationists frequently profess that they do. I mean they do profess they know better than the bulk of mainstream scientists when they launch contradictions of it. C'mon wisp, you know this as well as I do. Creationists are masters of playing the victim when they are actually the aggressor.  The way this thread started is an example. Play dumb and innocent, but ask a question that leads  from a preconception, and only makes sense from an anti-evolution sense.

If they want empathy for some kind of imaginary disadvantage, this is not the right way to go about getting it. On the contrary what they do is bite the hand that would happily feed them. They insult the established intelligence that provides their modern world with every conceivable convenience. Science keeps them warm dry comfortable and fed. I offer my help and time to assist them educate themselves about evolution and answer any questions if I can. They in return, Smite my good will, insult science and reason (the oracle of true knowledge) and push for societies regression into dark, primitive, antiquarian thought, and would prefer a world in which a wheelbarrow was a modern technology.

They can't simultaneously contradict and attack evolution, pretend to be humble advocates of an alternative POV which presents well reasoned alternatives to evolution, and also play the victim that doesn't have access to knowledge. I also get sick of the mode of discussion, which is merely about the discussion protocols themselves. 'He said, she said' and 'such and such was the point of the discussion not some other thing' etc etc... Creationists (again I do mean fundamentalists) take every opportunity to derail the discourse, or at least steer it away from scientific reasoning, which is not their strong card.


The thing I can't figure out is why skepticus is so hostile. If you are so sure that your interpretations are founded on the right kind of thinking than shouldn't you be trying to educate instead of criticize?
I agree. What are you trying to do, Skepticus?
What's your goal?


Well I have explained my position quite a lot already, but I do tend not to suffer fools gladly, and that goes double when they are being willful obscurantists and sophists. As I have said, there is a world of difference between being a curios open minded investigator and a treacherous saboteur of science.

Being "sure that your interpretations are founded on the right kind of thinking " is no assurance against deliberately obscurantist and sophist rhetoric. It would make more sense to say that 'if I had my facts straight I would have no fear of reasonable debate.' and that is completely correct. But what these fundies do, is not reasonable debate is it? I am beyond pretending for the sake of humoring a deviate that we are together in a mutually cooperative dialog, to learn from each other what we can and seek to reach agreement on the terms of reason.

I would like to play the game that way, but they will not. You may parry and joust with these people but don't forget they do not play by the accepted rules. Now I may choose to leave them well enough alone and go my own way, but the same may be said of them. They instead choose to find ways to start the dispute and it is invariably in a manner hostile to science. As I have said their motive is based on the belief that to prove god exists you must, discredit science, particularly evolution, so they must start

Notice I say discredit not disprove. The motive is treacherous, the logic is complete non-sequitur bollocks and the approach is hostile and offensive. They try to dress the approach up  with stupid little mind games to try to make it look like you started the whole science vs religion thing. The attitude they bring with them is a mixed bag of smug self-righteousness, condescending arrogance and pragmatism. The deceit and divisiveness are one thing, but to pretend that they can second guess the professional science establishment not just with trivial technical points, but with the catastrophic overthrow of entire current models.

If they don't know enough science to criticize it then what are they doing starting debates? The answer is that they are not criticizing in the constructive sense, they are condemning and discrediting in the sense of gutter politics and smear campaigns. They don't know much about science because they don't want to. They don't want to learn critical thinking skills and so they don't. But then they do want to come and tell you how it has been discovered that modern science has gotten everything wrong and that they know better. That is so contemptible and lowly that I cant even describe what I think of it, without risk of being reported.

We must realize that the fundamentalist movement is not just a rag tag mob of internet users who come to forums like these to kick sand in the face of science. They are a powerful political lobby and a social network that infiltrates our society in the most insidious way. Religion is a virus of the mind to me. It's a serious social problem, as it undermines free thought and reason. It is not just the voluntary absence of reason, in some individuals, whom we may only meet on the internet and whom we have no emotional investment in. These infected individuals are among us and around us, they vie for positions on school boards and attempt to actively dominate PTA. They lobby as a  movement for political influence and they infect the courts with a barrage of thinly veiled, nuisance value, litigation for God.  

It doesn't stop at the hard line creationists either. Mainstream Christianity is permeated with various shades of gray, fundamentalist contamination. Almost half of the American population profess to believe, that this universe was created less than ten thousand years ago. Now what concerns me is not the cosmological implications of that fact, but what else they believe with the same level of intellectual acumen and lack of critical thinking skills.

The power of the religious mind virus to apprehend the intelligent healthy mind and prevent it's critical faculties from functioning is astounding. As I contemplate this, it occurs to me, that there is another class of thought, besides 'things we believe', 'things we don't', and 'things we are undecided on'. The other class is 'things we haven't given much thought too'. OK we would be undecided about those also, but that would be for a reason quite apart from the marginality of our conclusions.  

In the case of the less serious Christian, I think this class of thoughts they haven't given much consideration to is much more worrying. I say this because in general, they want to take the Bible as literally as possible. There is an emotional investment even for the casual Christian, to not think it through properly, in case you find your self having to justify something in it, that doesn't make much sense. It kind of hurts the brain and causes cognitive dissonance, to have to censor the infallible word of their dearly beloved imaginary friend. And when they find a way to stitch up the holes with unparsimonious excuses, they have lost their mind that little bit more.

Religiously infected minds learn to avoid critical thinking, because it entails cognitive dissonance. Now, because there is a general lack and avoidance of critical thinking skills, it also reinforces a phony belief getting algorithm. Wishful Thinking. Religious people have an overwhelming desire to believe something, and pretend that it is true, because of the utility or value that it would represent if it were true. So much of what they say reinforces that they think this way, look at Pascals wager for instance.

Getting back to that class of thoughts that we haven't given much thought to, for the religious mind there is a vested interest in sticking everything in there and averting their eyes quickly. You can imagine three office baskets like the in, out, pending baskets on any well organized desk. You have 'Believe', 'Disbelieve' and 'Don't think about it'. We don't need a  things I am undecided on basket, not on the religious desk, because things are either believed with certainty, disbelieved with certainty, or ignored. Estimating plausibility is a critical thinking skill which leads to cognitive dissonance.

In actual fact the file marked critical thinking was put in the don't think about that basket, on the first day of business after the religious merger, and it hasn't seen the light of day since. Of course you cant devise a different filling system or even imagine different baskets, until you dig out that file and that is a catch 22 situation. The religious mind keeps too much in this basket almost everything in fact. The fundamentalist puts only one thing in the belief basket. The Bible, the Koran or what ever holly book it is. The moderate, doesn't even put that much in. They cherry pick and censor based on whim and wish,  (as apposed to rhyme or reason).  

The so called 'moderate' religious person is still a huge concern because they, do wish to believe the efficacy of the bible and they are sympathetic to fundamentalism rather than secular values, free thought etc... In important ways the mindset is the same as that of the fundamentalist. They still have a more or less complete set of religious beliefs in the 'believe' basket but the ones not included, are not put into some probability ranking system or a not sure basket, but instead they are put into the don't think about it basket, which is massive it isn't even a basket, it is all the libraries of nature and science, bar from some pretty picture books which require no thinking or believing. They may go on the shelf.

It is possible however for some Christians to develop quite an interest or even a career in nature and science, but what they do is adopt a stamp collecting attitude to it and 'aren't these facts pretty' sort of thing 'as long as they don't contest my beliefs'. The scientifically educated career Christian, may even be forced to pull out that critical thinking skills file and even use bits of the information in it. The more they do the more they must put some of the Biblical stuff in the disbelieve basket or go through cognitive dissonance and lose a bit more of their mind.

So in summary, a moderate is just a fundamentalist who has jumped to a few less conclusions and put some biblical stuff in the don't think about it basket. The danger is implicit in the fact that wishful thinking displaces reason and critical thinking. If you ask a moderate do they believe in the six day creation literally, they may say yes. If so, it will not be because of critical thinking skills that they believe this. If however they say no, then maybe they are comfortable with a liberal interpretation, but that is hardly a choice driven by ruthless logic.

Even for a so called moderate, they are prone to wishful thinking, have an aversion to critical thinking and most of what they have never given any thought to, is because of willful avoidance or at least disinterest. When they do give thought to these things they are going to be far more likely to meet wishful thinking than critical thinking.

As for my goal. How about we terra-form the dark side of the moon and Put a satellite in orbit around it with a parabolic reflector to give it a normal day. Then we send all the creationists to live there in bronze age conditions. They have an advantage over the original pioneers of bronze age society, and that is the knowledge they bring with them. Let them live in prehistoric conditions and see how they survive. That's all the technology they deserve.

Skepticus
You simply note that there is no good evidence for the existence of any sort of God.
There is no good evidence for the existence of the color red either (red things don't count).


The evidence will have to be for electromagnetic radiation, of which the evidence is abundant. Red is merely a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. The word red is an arbitrary semantic choice for the 625–740 nm. wavelengths, of electromagnetic radiation. The perception of red, will be the optical stimuli produced by the cones in the retina when red light falls upon it. I would hazard the speculation that there are already experiments, that will have detected unique electro chemical patterns in the brain when different colours are exposed to the eye.

With the above quote, wasn't I originally responding to this:

It seems as though there is a lack of evidence for  being both an atheist and an evolutionist.


That was from Dubie and what I believe he was getting at, is that the relative plausibility of both worldviews is in the same order of magnitude because he thinks they are both speculative ideas.

My response is that atheism isn't a belief which requires a positive validation by appeal to evidence. It is simply the lack of conviction that any kind of god exists. God is the kind of concept that requires positive evidence to establish plausibility. Let me try putting that another way. In order to be an atheist I would strongly suggest that evidence of absence is not required, absence of evidence will more than suffice.

Perhaps my only reason for being an atheist is because I can't bring myself to believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real.

That is very true in and of itself. But then I notice that there are Muslims and Christians and Jews and Bahias and Moonies and... on it goes. I notice that all of these people seem to get their mutually inconsistent beliefs in more or less the same manner.
Yeah... It would be nice if they joined and made a new religion, combining the good parts of all of them, adding some tolerance, and forgetting about historical facts.


Ah, that's better. Now off to the moon with the lot of you.

But honestly, wouldn't it be far better if we could all stop being silly and just outgrow this religion nonsense. I don't think I share your utopian optimism for moderation, and tolerance my friend. Anyhow, I can be a little intolerant myself. I don't apologize for being rude or abrasive, when I am being taken for an idiot. The real problem in this world is violence and the menacing ideas that give rise to it.

Censoring communication (even abuse) is a very bad idea. We really need to toughen up our visceral response to words. Thats a smarter and more policeable approach than defending peoples right to be mortally wounded by words and then scorning and censoring the speaker/writer. When you think about how offensive throwing a rock in somebody's face is, it puts calling them an f'ing moron into perspective. I know two wrongs don't make a right but adhom and name calling, are not real hurts, they are only hurtful in so far as we are cultivated to allow words to effect us and as my mother used to say, "Sticks and stones may brake your bones but names will never harm you".

People do not ask this kind of question out of honest personal curiosity. And then to demonstrate that my suspicion of a religious pretense are accurate we read this:
Well, one can't have a theory on how life  developed if one doesn't know how it began

Well, that's obvious. We all knew it when he posted the question.


Sorry wisp, I think it is  significant, that he intended it to be an underhanded stealth maneuver. He could have just come out and said "I believe evolution needs abiogenises" if he had the balls to make a positive assertion. On the other hand, he could have had the humility to admit that he hasn't got the foggiest clue whether this is even a remotely plausible but wants to know if it is possible. But "Ok,  Just want to know, how does evolution say first life arose?" is not that humble question.  

So it's kinda dishonest on two fronts 1. because he masks his preconception and 2. because he masks his naivety. Not that theres anything wrong not knowing. Presumption can be a misjudgment but when you know that you don't possess any knowledge about the subject you are criticizing, that is adding arrogance to ignorance.

I played along so he could make his point, and then i could refute it.


And I blew the whistle, because he was being an a arrogant ignorant knob. Plus, there's plenty of chance to discuss abiogenesis latter.

We do it too. I do, at least.


I don't think you do what he did. Well if you did that then I would have to be honest with you. We all post he odd rhetorical question. Is that what you mean? You don't however simultaneously pitch a strawman, to argue a fallacy, on a subject about which you know nothing, while pretending you are an expert on the cutting edge with a paradigm shifting revolution to disprove everything your opponent believes, yet somehow plead immunity to criticism because you put a question mark at the end of your ignorant statement and 'how' on the beginning.

Apart from the obvious non-sequitur does this sound like honest curiosity, or a belligerent, self righteous, cocky proclamation?
What about your very question? Or my last one? Or my last one? Or my last one?


Well I waive all of yours, if you'll waive mine, how's that?

Do I sound shrill? Well OK, but I wasn't really talking about the tone. The belligerence is a reference to the unconditional combatant attitude towards evolution. He knows it isn't an honest criticism or an honest question. what I really can't stand, it the two faced gutlessness of this approach. The self righteous and cocky bit, is the audacity to declare such conviction in the claim, when he knows he hasn't a clue. I think a person forfeits any right to be treated politely if they pull deliberate sophist tactics.

Even in a battle of words and ideas there needs to be rules of engagement. If there is deliberate deceit and underhanded treachery, then I prefer to stop discussing the subject and have a very frank talk about the methods. I hate doing this as it makes the discussion convoluted and tangential but we need to establish some protocol. Being a devious, underhanded liar, should be considered politically incorrect, never mind a bit of course language and rude name or two.

Frankly, I reserve the right to behold with contempt, anybody who doesn't seem the slightest bit interested in understanding an idea, which they are vigilantly attempting to discredit.
You certainly have that right (actually i don't believe in rights). And i never contradict myself.

Well I disagrees with everything you just said, but you certainly got the first part right.

But if I cant reserve the right I must take the liberty.

Would you say that you're interested in understanding every branch of creationism before you start attacking them?


Well firstly, I don't want to attack them at all per se. I would much rather partake in a constructive discourse toward mutual understanding and agreement. But that is hardly possible while their agenda is trained on discrediting evolution by any means possible (except for rational discourse and writing peer reviewed scientific papers)

The young earth creationism movement comprising Answers in Genesis, Creation Science Foundation and such like, do not present a body of knowledge to 'Understand' in the sense of intellectual accomplishment. All there is to understand is their motives, their underhanded tactics and the scars they have left through out history.  If the subject at hand, is how abiogenesis is (or isn't) supposed to support evolution, then I don't need to know anything about creationism or Christianity or Spaghetti monsterism.

One of the faux pas of creationism proper, is to impose on formal academic science, not by bursting into research labs and rearranging the apparatus, but by bursting into churches and public fora and declaring it self as an alternative to various academic science disciplines. Now that is just a complete utter flat out contemptible lie. Creation (so called) 'scientists', do not do scientific research and do not have peer reviewed scientific papers published.

Their investment in science, is to engage scientifically illiterate laypeople, from church communities to learn and regurgitate just a whole slew of strawmen, lies, misquotes and disinformation about mainstream science. The only part they play in science, is to proliferate public ignorance and disinformation about it to denigrate it and discourage anybody from understanding it. So to answer your question wisp, I like to think I understand what real science is and I try to defend it, but that doesn't require a specialist knowledge or understanding of creationism, save for anticipating the sleazy lowlife tactics.

It is one thing to understand an idea and criticize it intellectually from the inside, and another to dream up irrelevant, fallacious, strawmen that seek to discredit it, without any understanding of the subject whatsoever.
Yeah, that sounds like an objective way to measure dishonesty: strawmen.

Sounds like you agree in principle, but maybe yet to appreciate that these properties are the general creationist norm. I too like to give every individual the benefit of the doubt, but when they start dickin you about, well  I don't like to see people get manipulated and just have to try, to put an end to it.

Probably the best thing to do with them is saying "Brother creationist, that's a strawman. Let us burn it together! LIFE IS NOT A RANDOM PROCESS!".
They tend to put a somber disposition on, and skip the subject.

Yeah!! Sorry man, but they've got your number. They don't wanna burn their strawman (not if were talking about real fundementalsts) and they only want as much 'together' as they can getaway with to keep you dancin with them. Part of their charade, is to perpetuate this illusion that theirs is a valid scientific alternative viewpoint, and as long as people will engage with them, to an observer, it looks like mutually relevant and worthy alternatives are being debated on an equal footing. This lends credibility to creationism. So in a way, if you honor them as worthy adversaries you credit their POV.

I don't want to seem stubborn, and perhaps I shouldn't yell my point,
Cool.
but I do get so angry at the disingenuous ploys, when I am just so comfortable in my own skin that I am only trying to be honest with myself and only serving the truth, and these abhorrent little wretches come along,
That sounds worse than yelling. Closer to reportable. I won't report it, and i hope nobody does, but you're still out of order.


Does that truth you're serving, in turn, serve anyone?


The truth I am referring to, is natural factual truth. How to think and reach valid conclusions. Truth in practice, truth in principal and any sense of the word that can assist me to learn about the objective aspects of the universe and how it really is.
That definition may sound a little idealized or euphemistic and while I don't pretend to be able to do this with perfection the essence is to do your best and to strive for intellectual integrity and honesty. Given that definition I leave you to answer the question yourself. Do you think that truth (by this definition) in turn, serves anyone?  

By the same token does taking that truth and trampling it into the ground, misrepresenting it and making it out to uphold lies and intellectual dishonesty, does that serve anybody?

If that truth doesn't serve people, are you serving it out of whim?


Well, if you can't develop the next theoretical model for quantum gravity, then verbally bitch slapping some creationist nut job for slandering scientific knowledge and spreading blatant lies, is still a public service.

If it does serve people, is it reasonable for you to insult people?


Wisp, when I insult somebody, I am generally not attempting to be reasonable. It's more like an emotive response to identify my disapproval of something which I consider to be far worse. I don't tend to insult anybody I have any emotional investment in but find I have no need to suffer fools after they have discarded the faculty of reasonableness themselves.

It seems that your interpretation of 'reasonable' consists of a fair amount of politically correct politeness, diplomacy and decorum. While I very much appreciate those qualities in a person (you have more than your fare share), I do believe they can be over extended and under deserved. Meanwhile other aspects of 'reasonableness' lurk quietly on the shadows. You might notice that the word 'reasonable' consists of 'able' and 'reason', so a reasonable person should be able to be reasoned with and / or 'able to reason'. I like 'able to reason' as that also makes you able to be reasoned with. The word carries several connotations and I hope it is not too equivocal to suggest that rationality or even logic must have once been a part of the commonly held definition. In wikipedia reasonable, is redirected to reason an some etymology is explained:

The concept 'reason' is closely related to the concepts of language and logic, as reflected in the multiple meanings of the Greek word "logos", the root of logic, which translated into Latin became "ratio" and then in French "raison", from which the English word "reason" was derived.

Some of the qualities reasonable might connote:
Willingness (to oblige)
Availability (to be there)
Amicability (to cooperate)
Rationality (to reach logical conclusions)

Well, as I see it, if you throw away your rational faculties you are unable to be reasoned with and that makes a person unreasonable. Apart from that if I cant reason with a person then I can't have a reasonable debate however amicable.

I do perhaps have a little difficulty with anger/annoyance, to be quite honest, but I also have a defense stratragy and justification for my emotional responses which goes like this:

I happen to prize rationality well above many human traits many of which are subjective. but rationality is right up there with love, honesty and loyalty. Now, anybody who willfully abandons rationality, plummets on my respect meter. They are no longer reasonable and I can not hope to reach agreement with them in matters of factual discourse, as we have no common protocol.

If such a person then comes along and denigrates science the human enterprise which provides our most valuable assets of intellectual providence, I qualify that as massively disrespectful. My closest approximation to a spiritual affirmation is to treasure reason as the highest ideal of human existence. If you denigrate reason, then you have no respect for my most sacred ideal. If you have no 'respect for reason' then I have no 'reason for respect'. I then have nothing then to loose by putting somebody in their place, but generally I wait till they try to piss on my back and tell me it's raining.

The same goes with Science.

Not sure what you mean.

trying to kick sand into the face of reason. It also rubs a fair amount of salt into my wounds, when they try to pretend that they are morally superior, which they do by subtle inference (never by direct claim)...
Here's what i do: hate christianism, love the christian.


I can agree with that, on the proviso that the Christian isn't willfully denigrating science or reason and is at least attempting rational discourse (I will call that intellectual honesty). I will turn a blind eye the moral superiority. But to spit on reason is to spit in my face. Wait... actually, I think I try not to let the moral superiority thing upset me, but I think it does anyway.

They do feel morally superior (even when they don't follow the biblical precepts). When they criticize my having tried LSD and marijuana, and swinging,


OK then If you like, I'll roll some splifs and score some blotters while you and your lady get yourselves tarted up for a night of fun. we'll see you about 8:30 huh?

If you understood how evolution by natural selection works you would understand how irrelevant the question about abiogenesis is. There is no need for the question in any event.
Here's an event you have left out of the equation: If you don't understood how evolution by natural selection works.


I think I mentioned I don't excuse ignorance if it is willful and the ignorant party is challenging the subject of their willful ignorance.

But ignoring gluteous is very tempting.


I wouldn't want to debate with gluteous then would I?

I believe you and agree with you about the rest of your statements. I too have taught myself most of the things i know about (including English, which good or bad serves my communication and aids my learning).


You're pretty damn good, if English is not your first language.

I recomend Wikia Search Because it is collaborative and not biased to corporate schmoozing.
Yeah. It's very cool (at least conceptually). You can add it to your Firefox search frame here:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/9731


Yup! That's how I found it. It's not just conceptually good either my friend. The search result is excellent. G00g1e is doctored to hell for staggered results and playing favorites etc.

I feel confident that i could refute any part of it (like most of us could), but i don't want to go through the trouble of reading it, because nobody will answer me when i utter my retorts.


But mightn't you still provide food for thought to silent readers I think this is partly a spectator sport too.

I think creationists and us are not so different in some aspects.


Not surprising either, since we do share a common ancestor.


What are you asking of me? To post all the evidence for evolution?

Just google it. Fossils, taxonomi, genes, that kind of stuff.


And I also gave a whole bunch of research tips above. Hey, but please consider not using g00g1e if you don't want to support Scientology. There are better alternatives for your search:    

Wiki Search

Now there's a goal. Get creationists to come forward with valid refutations after having done a research assignment to test their assumptions or find real discrepancies. I would love to be convinced that a creationist has done some real research and understands evolution at least well enough to know whether their  discrepancy is valid.

By the way, i think i speak for all of us when i say that we don't see because we believe. More like the other way around. Our beliefs are based upon observation and understanding.


A belief is like a shadow, in fact, belief is to idea as shadow is to a tree. The creationist has a beautiful, stately, magnificent tree growing in their yard. Do they admire the tree? no they admire the shadow. It's tempting to add to that analogy, that the shadow they admire is not that of the beautiful tree, but that of a scraggly dead weed in the corner of the yard. Upholding belief as a noble motive, is the acid test of faulty thinking skills.


I'll quote Richard Dawkins, from The Selfish Gene:
[color=blue] Why are people?

Intelligent life on a planet comes of age when it first works out the reason for its own existence.
If superior creatures from space ever visit earth, the first question they will ask, in order to assess the level of our civilization, is: 'Have they discovered evolution yet?'


Living organisms had existed on earth, without ever knowing why, for over three thousand million years before the truth finally dawned on one of them.
His name was Charles Darwin.
To be fair, others had had inklings of the truth, but it was Darwin who first put together a coherent and tenable account of why we exist.

Dawkins is just brilliant. He rocks my world.

Skepticus
Pure ignorant slop and facile Bu---it.


We're grown ups here.


Good! we shouldn't have to worry about minding our language for the little ones then.

Besides, those dashes don't make the word any more or less insulting. Those dashes are clear bullshit.


Ummm you said... never mind. Trust me on this. I wasn't attempting to diminish the insult. If that were the case I would just choose gentler words. I thought It was against the rules to swear, so I was trying for the implicit swear word.

Skeptikus
So, you can't perhaps imaging the universe ultimately having it's own inbuilt logical explanation for everything
[size=1]Man, that's deep...


Really? I always thought it was quite axiomatic.

I know because i reached that conclusion after deep meditation.


And after dropping a microdot too huh?

A self explanatory universe, where every part is linked to every other part.


Well... I don't know... That sounds kind of new-ageish / Gaia. My version would only expect it to be self consistent. The laws being reducible to axiomatic premises. I have always noticed that inevitability is an important part of natural principals. We don't just discover a law that say X happens under Y and Z conditions we discover a law that say X is inevitable under Y and Z conditions.

Have you come across that concept somewhere?


Well I used to admire the professor on Gilligan's Island, who I remember as having often said "There's a logical explanation for everything Gilligan", but now I try to search for him saying it, and only find reference to him claiming a logical explanation for particular things. It's annoying. I'm sure he must have said it at least once. Anybody...???

Another place I have met with this idea (but taken way too far) is the meta-rationalist pseudo-philosophical cult of objectivism. Ever heard of Ayan Rand?  This is rationalism which oversteps philosophical skepticism and throws empiricism under the buss, its legitimacy has always been marginal and highly controversial not in the least because, aside from it's questionable stand as a valid philosophy, most of it's behavior and and norms are exceptionally cult like. Highly unrecommended. I'm giving it half a star.

I don't think you have to be an objectivist to appreciate that there aught to be a logical explanation for everything. Conceding that our models of reality may be imperfect and must be provisional and subjugated to further evidence, makes me an empiricist still. We still have to allow that there may be a difference between what is true in principle and what we can know in practice.


One of my favorite indicators of intellect though, is the  brilliant inspiring minds which despite many years of ruthless indoctrination and brainwashing from the age they first began to speak, eventually break free from religion.  Despite being sheltered from reality and spoon fed mindless dogma; being blackmailed with hell and bribed with heaven and having been trained by adults who seem to own the world and know everything, still they break out.
That's really touching.

Thank you.

I have proudly helped people reach that point.
They fare not-so-well for a while after that, but then they can start something new and self made.


How wonderful that must feel for you and you have every reason to be proud of that. I am proud of you too.



-------
This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him--2 Kg.6:28-29

Women killed, boiled and ate their own children because of a plague that God sent, or as the Bible puts it: "Behold, this evil is of the Lord."
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 07:46 AM on March 4, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No abiogenesis with oxygen present breaking down the attempts of amino-acids to make proteins. Proteins cannot form in the presence of oxygen -they need protection which would not be available in any primordial soup. The former suggestion that there was no oxygen on the early earth was incorrect so we have to deal with the presence of oxygen in our imaginative scenarios of how life organized itself.
Hahaha!

Even if there was oxygen present, i can think of the most easy protection: water.

No I am a collection of left handed amino-acid proteins, so I am alive. When I die, my left handed amino acids will revert to an average mix of 50:50 right and left handed amino acids. That equates to death. That is what Miller produced with his experiment.
Well, left handed aminoacids won the battle then.

What's the problem?

There are articles about this subject, that i didn't read because i don't consider them to be of great interest.

You find interesting only those aspects of science that confirm (in your mind, of course) your stories.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025545.200

Here you can find a very short article about why some chirality dominates.

But nevermind that, if right plus left handed aminoacids equals death, then you don't get life by combining them.

What's the problem here? That left handed ones dominated? Is THAT your problem?

Oh, are you talking about chance? What are the chances that life formed with only left handed aminoacids?

If that's the case, you gave the answer yourself. Left + right = death.

Nevertheless, there are some bacteria that use right handed aminoacids.

It has been noted that bacteria coat themselves with right-handed amino acids because the unusual structures provide a tough exterior that resists other organisms. This is what helps bacteria evade digestive enzymes Digestive enzymes

Melted chocolate out your faucet is far more likely than life from non-living chemicals without an organizer, I'm afraid.
By creationist math?
Remember it remains an assumption
Of course. And a good one.
even though it is accepted as the only possibility by evolutionists.
Evolution has little to say on the subject.

It IS an assumption, but not from the TOE. The TOE works just fine if God sparkled life from left handed aminoacids, or if the aliens planted primitive bacteria.

You get it?

Evolutionists assume that physical laws and no organizer is responsible for life.
That's no philosophical necessity. It's just far more likely than anything else.
They do this in order to escape the implications of there being an organizer.
That doesn't sound smart, if the organizer has the power to send you to Hell.

Fortunately, we're smart.

Their decision to accept materialism as the only possibility is a philisophical choice,
Wrong, wrong, wrong. I believe in Evolution with no need to be materialist. I'm not.
not something demanded by the evidence.
Evidence can lead to materialism, because evidence only deals with matter.
Either life was created or it created itself.
You have made this silly statement before. And you don't answer my questions about it.

Did all rocks create themselves, or were they created?
Did the color red create itself, or was it created?
What about snowflakes?

Man, i don't know what you're talking about.
Do you?

They choose to only allow for the latter while guffawing at the former.
Great choice.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 10:14 AM on March 4, 2009 | IP
Skepticus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 9:27 PM on March 4, 2009 :

The former suggestion that there was no oxygen on the early earth was incorrect so we have to deal with the presence of oxygen in our imaginative scenarios of how life organized itself.


Hey Lester! Have you ever heard of giving references? Who or what says that "the former suggestion that there was no oxygen on the early earth was incorrect"?

Gonna pretend that you cant find anything that refutes your claim and not bother to address the present state of the debate?


Did your god use some other thing for life than right and left handed amino acids?


He used left handed amino-acids only.


And upon the earth wherein dwelleth the swine and crepeth the beetle, shall there be amino-acids, which out of them shall be made all things in which there is breath. And of them shall thy handedness be ever lefteth, else the cursed thing shall bring shame upon thy father. - Skepticus 7:15


Evolutionists assume that physical laws and no organizer is responsible for life.


No they don't. That is what mountains of evidence demands.


They do this in order to escape the implications of there being an organizer.  


And the CIA's got your phone bugged and the pot plants keep laughing at you behind your back right?

So you're paranoid about your imaginary friend being made redundant and being sent home from work with a DCBM? Have you told your shrink about this?

So it's a conspiracy then? Scientists who don't need abiogenesis to support the process of evolution by natural selection, are reporting to the world that it is the only explanation for the origin of life, so you say, because they don't want to admit the implications that there is a designer? Is that right?

Well firstly. You have already had it explained, that Evolution does not rely on abiogenesis, even for it to be taken as an inevitable conclusion. The evolutionary process is inevitable from first principals. But anyow...

Secondly. You said "Evolutionists assume that physical laws and no organizer is responsible for life." How many time do you Goddidits need to be told. that the absence of any particular natural explanation, does not imply a supernatural explanation. We are not required by any reasonable means, to even contemplate the existence of a supernatural being, if we don't yet know what created life. Even then how do you propose to eliminate other contenders? Your God is not the only god ever conceived as a creator.

If you go to a magic show and watch a magician perform, chances are, even if he is a crappy magician, he will pull one or two tricks that you cant figure out on face value. Do you then suppose he must truly have magical powers because you cant tell how he made those events happen. Never mind that magical tricks have to have a designer, (how did i know you'd be thinking that huh? -- Spooooky ). Anyhow the point is, that magical powers don't have to exist just because we lack an explanation for something. Nor do Gods who have magical powers.

Nature often deceives us, for a while anyhow. Believing the earth was flat, was once understandable under the circumstances. If you didn't take too much notice of the curvature on the horizon etc, you wouldn't meet much contradiction of this. Then there is also the apparent illusion that the sun revolves around the earth. We know very well that is not true. We also know it wasn't a magical setup by any designer, but simply a matter of perspective. From a rotating earth the appearance is exactly the same. Nature is no stranger to illusions.

So, not finding a known natural mechanism for abiogenesis doesn't even nearly suggest a designer, and certainly not a supernatural one. The absurd irony of any designer is implicit complexity of a designer. Abiogenesis is a trifling detail, compared to trying to explain where a supernatural being came from. Don't just say he always existed (like you even know that), we can't take that on board as an assumption.

When science tries to explain something, the explanation needs to become necessary or inevitable. You need to be able to look at the situation and see that any part of it works the way it does, simply because it must. You can't pull out a magic wand at some point. wave it at the bit you cant explain and say the magic words "and that's how the rest of it happened". Magic is not an explanation, it doesn't show us how something happened in such a manner that is must be inevitable. How the bit that was done by magic actually works would still be a mystery.

To say something happened by magic, is to say the mystery is caused by mysterious powers. That doesn't explain anything. Magic is not an explanation it is a violation of causality. Even if we were to hypothetically give your God the job of creator of life, just in our imagination. I would still want to know from you: "OK how does this magic bit work?" When you say God created life, I want to know how he did it. I want the explicit details that show cause and effect relationships right down to the scale that allows me to understand that the consequence is inevitable.  

Of course, we both know you are not going to explain how God's life creating magic works. You don't know. But notice that this is precisely the same as saying "I don't know how life began" Goddidit is not an explanation, because gods magic can not be explained.

On one hand you have environmental conditions which you quibble about being a problem for abiogenisis and on the other, you have a being which is inexplicable by definition (not to mention as hypothetical as anything could be) and his bag of magic tricks which can't be explained either.
Their decision to accept materialism as the only possibility is a philisophical choice, not something demanded by the evidence.



It's not just materialism that they need to be concerned about Lester. It's the objective requirement to establish causality and logical necessity.

Either life was created or it created itself. They choose to only allow for the latter while guffawing at the former.


Let's  see if you can demonstrate natural abiogenesis is not possible in principal a priori (and not just because of practical objections). All you have for practical objections are strawmen and your rationale is appalling. It would be nice to see that you have done some research that isn't only in service of confirmation bias.

On the face of it I have noticed that the scientific enterprise is overwhelmingly motivated by a fact finding mission in general, and they can hardly deviate from that motive because their peers may easily beat them to the real facts. What doesn't stand up to the prevailing conditions and evidence is science conspiracies that would brake down faster than an amino-acid in pure oxygen.



-------
This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him--2 Kg.6:28-29

Women killed, boiled and ate their own children because of a plague that God sent, or as the Bible puts it: "Behold, this evil is of the Lord."
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 3:52 PM on March 4, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Skepticus
WARNING THIS POST IS A BIT LONG  TOWARDS THE END
(Oh, it has a few sharp edges too)
Hahahaha!

They ask "Why don't we find a crocoduck?"
So if we don't, somehow that's evidence for a creating God.
If we did find it, i would call that evidence for a creating God.
You would? You don't want to be out in the full sunlight for too long wisp.
Haha! Don't worry about my exposure to sunlight. I didn't say "proof" but "evidence".

You can't classify evidence into:
*Against creationism.
*Neutral to creationism.

If some biblical prophesy was accomplished, it would be evidence for the divine inspiration of the Bible, whether we like it or not.

Perhaps it would be evidence of a huge discrepancy with how evolution does work.
Ok. And that, in turn, would be evidence against Evolution, and evidence for creationism.

What's the fuss? Not only we won't find a crocoduck, but the evidence it would provide would fade against the rest of the evidence we see.

Evidence of aliens visiting earth and playing at genetic engineering, or man made medaling.
Not "or", but "and". And a divine creator.

When something pushes me so far that I am seriously contemplating supernatural explanations, I guarantee you, I will personally book myself into a funny farm.
The term "supernatural" is silly in itself.

If ghosts were real, then they would be natural. And our scientists would find a commercial, medicinal or military use for them.

Hum... But i guess that an intervening God would be supernatural... Because there would be no natural laws of any kind that could bound God...

But, again, an intervening God is a silly concept.

In any case would the crocaduck need to be a supernatural phenomenon or just presently irreconcilable with evolution? I think the latter.
Bingo!

Even if it were miracle stuff, we surely wouldn't need say "oh yeah, so god does exist",
Exactly. Because that would be evidence for the Spaghetti Monster as well.
And since Creationists think that crocaducks are what is predicted by evolution, does this mean that they would renounce Christianity?
No, they would clasp to the crocoduck as evidence for creation, like i've said before, and in spite of what THEY said before.

If such a book was found, i think i would consider converting.
Now take it easy there feller. No need for rash decisions. Why don't you put down the book and lets just talk about it Ok? eeeeasy does it... Every thing's going to be OK.
Hahaha!

I THINK i would CONSIDER converting. But i'd hope that such a book didn't contain silly stuff like the Bible does (an angry God that condones raping, and forbids long hair, and stuff).

Here's what god should have done. Every letter in the Hebrew alphabet corresponds with a number right? If you take each letter of the Bible and turn it into it's number, then turn each number into binary, it should produce a string of 0's and 1's (ones and nones as they say). You should then be able to save this as a source code file and it should compile in say... a Java compiler to an executable web browser. That browser should be better than Firefox (a minor miracle in itself), and have one more feature.

Only in this browser can you type the IP 000.000.000.000
and it will go to the actual official web page for heaven. Once there, you can touch the screen and feel greater pleasure than sex and ice cream put together, download strange but beautiful music that has musical notes which have never been known to man and screen savers that produce indescribably beautiful shape and colours that are also impossible with known geometry and existing optical spectra.

This website should also contain a full recantation and apology for all the evil, horrendous, barbaric, cruelty and violence in the Bible, an explain that it was necessary to make that shit up, so that the browser code would work. Then it should contain an explanation for why God rewards the obsequious pretense of faith then it should explain... You get the idea.
You'd make a great God!

THAT's what i call "evidence"!

That would be the photon escaping from the box, when Einstein omits the effects of his own theory, in the action of the shutter being opened yeah? Still trying to figure how it relates.
I'm not sure of what you mean. I mean making a pair of particles with specular spin and sending one of them far away at great speed.
The uncertainty principle says that the remaining particle has no assigned spin until you watch it (and that you give it its spin by the act of observation). If that's true, then when you watch it you automatically give its spin to the other particle, that's already far away (one light year away, let us say), so that information travels instantly, thus violating the special relativity.

It IS related, IMO, because it implies not only that those two particles are bounded by the moment when they were created as a pair, but that every particle is bounded to every other particle, by the moment of the Big Bang, or just by any other moment.

It's like no particle exists on its own. No particle can be isolated. It's a trick of our minds.

Once a particle exists, it 'knows' the exact configuration of the rest of the universe. It's a holographic Universe. Every particle contains the information about the whole (like any point in a hologram).

Knowing anything would imply knowing everything (about this universe at least).

That's how it's related.

It might be the strict truth.
But even if it was, we humans cannot live up to that truth in any way, so we should discard it for practical purposes.
Not sure you see what I am saying wisp.
I do. It's easy. It's ME who's talking complicated.

Rationalists and scientists must proceed from what is known.
I know. Wait... Do i???
I am saying that is the only way to seek knowledge.
Yes, epistemology, i know. But you don't seem to have previously considered the possibility that knowledge can't be acquired.

I am also noting that a goddidit who asks you to provide an explanation of any effect by explaining it's prior cause, is being absurd, because whatever that cause is, it is also an effect and must have a cause of it's own.
I know. Like children asking "Why?".

They think they found their ultimate answer and cause of everything. But it's so USELESS if you give Him that function...

If "Goddidit" is an explanation, why are our brains capable of asking questions?

-Why do we need to eat?
-Because that's how God wanted it.
-How do fetuses appear in its mother's womb?
-In any way God wanted it.
-Why can we ask questions?
-Because it amuses God.

In general, the reasons which allow us to conclude that anything is true, do not rely on our knowledge of what caused it. I can infer that the earth is a spinning globe without first knowing what caused it to exist, be spheroid or spin.

So do you see what I am saying now?
Yeah, man. Don't worry. I get you.

I've been asked some good questions by creationists. It's just that i can't remember any of them now. xD
But i have bad memory.
Well I suppose if you include moderates with a very liberal interpretation as 'creationists', I was really talking about Biblical literalists.
So was i.

I think dijonaise asked a couple of good questions, but i don't recall.

Also I was only talking about when they actually come forward with definite criticism (i.e. not simply questions). You don't tend to find many fundies who have any valid criticism of evolution. They come to the debate as they are trained, to derail discourse and spout the disinformation of their leaders and play bait and switch.
Haha, yeah, kind of...

But not all of them do that.

I think a person who is petrified of dying wouldn't go parachuting or car racing.A person petrified of finding out their god delusion is false, avoids reason the same way.
If i had faith, i wouldn't be afraid of that.

I have faith that i can close my fist. I won't elude a contest or competition of... say rock papers scissors, thinking that i might not be able to pull it off.

But i try to be humble, and think that it might happen to me as well (even now).
Man! You need your friends to keep an eye on you. Better my sister in a brothel than my brother turned into a fundie zombie.
When i said "happen to me as well" i meant a failure of reasoning. Not becoming a fundy.

its vinegar. Not true by the way. Flies don't care much about honey
Don't they? ^o)

but there are those little flies which are attracted to vinegar.
Drosophila melanogaster, i believe.

So you do catch lots of vinegar flies with vinegar. I know it's only a metaphor, but it doesn't 'fly' much for me that way either.
I mean that you can be nice to creationists. And perhaps some of them can recant.

How does having faith help anybody to understand anything?
Nono, they understand themselves (kind of).

What you don't understand is how are they capable of believing stuff in spite of the evidence. The answer is 'Because of their faith.' That's all i'm saying.

That is just non-sequitur. you are privileging them for an empty rhetorical pretense that faith is a bastion of wisdom.
I'm not. 'Faith' and 'chance' are concepts of ignorance. But we use the concept of 'chance' in our everyday life. But if we consider ourselves smart, we can't say 'faith'. That's silly. Specially since faith is true, and chance is not.

It is however a bastion of ignorance and vile stupidity.
It's not. Evolution gave us faith, because it has a use. To make you believe something even if you don't understand it.

You too have faith, Skepticus.

We have built a 'faith' in Evolution ...
Uh uh!! Oh no you don't. I'll have none of it.
Haha!
(guided by evidence and understanding, so can hardly be called 'faith', but bear with me).
Well you get the difference then.
I do.

If you found a crocoduck, you (and i) would immediately start looking for the trick. It cannot be! Right? Just can't!!
Not because of anything to do with faith.
I already showed you that i know the difference, and that when guided by understanding and knowledge it couldn't be called 'faith'. I asked you to bear with me, and you didn't.

You're mean.

You know what i'm saying. We'd be in denial because of our understanding, just like they're in denial because of their lack of understanding. But it was less aggressive the way i had said it before.

It's actually fairly straight forward. Faith leads to irrational thinking,
Or no thinking.
closed-mindedness
Sometimes it's good to have a closed mind. Specially when your faith is right.
and delusion.
Not necessarily. I have faith in my own existence. Am i delusional? Perhaps, but you wouldn't be able to point it out.

Reason is the antithesis and promotes rational thinking, open-mindedness an sanity.
Open mindedness? Are you sure?

Understanding narrows the possibilities. And that's a good thing actually.

I think that's pretty much how they feel, except that they also feel like they don't have access to the crocoduck.

Sorry, I have no idea what you mean wisp.
I mean that they say that they don't have access to the fossils, and they don't have the opportunity to assemble them in a way that doesn't look like evidence for Evolution.

Look I think you have gone of the rails a little since bringing faith in to the picture, especially by trying to saddle atheists with it (and thats a creationist's job btw).
I don't care. You and i have faith. Don't be in denial (that's a creationist job btw).

Now you sound like you want to entertain the fallacy that creationists are somehow kept apart from good factual knowledge.
No, man. I said that that's what they believe.
I think you seriously need a rethink on both counts.
I don't.

I know that's not what we do to them, but they feel like it anyway. Just stating the facts.
HUH!! Well, they are not facts. NO NO NO! If we do not do that to them, it is not a fact. If they feel like we do, then they have no reason to feel this way and it is still not a fact.
Man, the fact is that they feel that way. What's your problem?

If you wish for me to have empathy with them, you must do a better job of explaining why I should.
Because they're as human as you are?

Faith is a rod they have made for their own back.
You too have faith. It's a good thing to want to replace it with knowledge, but we don't have a complete knowledge on any field.

We agree on most of the things you say from here, so i won't quote them.

I have not got the foggiest clue where this idea of knowledge Nazism is coming from.
I don't mean that you want to deprive anyone from access to knowledge, just like Hitler didn't want to deprive anyone from access to blondness.

You should know better and creationists frequently profess that they do. I mean they do profess they know better than the bulk of mainstream scientists when they launch contradictions of it.
Completely true. And quite ridiculous. They trust scientists with their lives in any matters except those who contradict their book. We're right just about anything, but we're delusional about the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and Evolution.

So whimsical...

C'mon wisp, you know this as well as I do.
I do.
Creationists are masters of playing the victim when they are actually the aggressor.
Yeah, well, they don't see it that way. And you do talk aggressively.

The way this thread started is an example. Play dumb and innocent, but ask a question that leads  from a preconception, and only makes sense from an anti-evolution sense.
That's fine by me. Just a tool.

It was so obvious that you can hardly call that faking.
Why else would he ask about something he think is a lie?

I do the same when i ask them if there was any thermal vents in the garden of Eden. And i'dlike them to answer in spite of knowing what i'm doing (which is no secret).

I don't understand what gets you so upset.

They too react like you do: "They're mocking our Bible! They don't even understand it!" and bla bla bla. They too say that you have access to biblical studies and stuff.



Well I have explained my position quite a lot already, but I do tend not to suffer fools gladly,
timbrx has had his post deleted for less than that.
and that goes double when they are being willful obscurantists and sophists. As I have said, there is a world of difference between being a curios open minded investigator and a treacherous saboteur of science.
And what's your plan about it?

I would like to play the game that way, but they will not. You may parry and joust with these people but don't forget they do not play by the accepted rules.
Tends to be true, but have a little faith!

I had timbrx almost convinced (joking), and you came all insulting and ruined it.

That is so contemptible and lowly that I cant even describe what I think of it, without risk of being reported.
That usually doesn't happen to evolutionists, for some strange reason. Perhaps the reason is Evolution. The moderator acts like a selective pressure. The posts deleted are NOT random.

We must realize that the fundamentalist movement is not just a rag tag mob of internet users who come to forums like these to kick sand in the face of science. They are a powerful political lobby and a social network that infiltrates our society in the most insidious way.
Not my society. I live in Argentina. It's not completely creationist-free, but it's safe enough.
Religion is a virus of the mind to me.
Kinda true. Read about memes.
It's a serious social problem, as it undermines free thought and reason.
And makes you want to kill people from other religions. Yeah, quite dangerous.
It is not just the voluntary absence of reason, in some individuals, whom we may only meet on the internet and whom we have no emotional investment in. These infected individuals are among us and around us, they vie for positions on school boards and attempt to actively dominate PTA.
It's like a mixture of vampire and zombie movies.  

They lobby as a  movement for political influence and they infect the courts with a barrage of thinly veiled, nuisance value, litigation for God.
And i complaint about crosses in our courts!

Fortunately it doesn't mean much.

It doesn't stop at the hard line creationists either. Mainstream Christianity is permeated with various shades of gray, fundamentalist contamination. Almost half of the American population profess to believe, that this universe was created less than ten thousand years ago.
Scary. Seriously. I don't like my country very much, but half of the population being YEC...

Religiously infected minds learn to avoid critical thinking, because it entails cognitive dissonance.
The memes for God, Hell and Faith associated because they strengthen each other. Faith is celebrated and encouraged.

Mythical religions that promoted critical thinking left no traces.

They too evolve.
Probably nobody was as cunning as to come up with the concept of Hell so as to control people's minds through fear. It just appeared BECAUSE of people's fears. And when that meme associated with God, both got stronger.

Now, because there is a general lack and avoidance of critical thinking skills, it also reinforces a phony belief getting algorithm. Wishful Thinking. Religious people have an overwhelming desire to believe something, and pretend that it is true, because of the utility or value that it would represent if it were true.
Yeah. That's pretty clear when they stop discussing a point just to say "But if Evolution was true this should be the law of the jungle!".

a moderate is just a fundamentalist who has jumped to a few less conclusions and put some biblical stuff in the don't think about it basket.
I agree. I prefer fundies though.

As for my goal. How about we terra-form the dark side of the moon and Put a satellite in orbit around it with a parabolic reflector to give it a normal day. Then we send all the creationists to live there in bronze age conditions. They have an advantage over the original pioneers of bronze age society, and that is the knowledge they bring with them. Let them live in prehistoric conditions and see how they survive. That's all the technology they deserve.
But i like the Moon! The USA has most of the creationists. So perhaps USA should be creationist, and it's you who should move out? Why not?

There is no good evidence for the existence of the color red either (red things don't count).
The evidence will have to be for electromagnetic radiation, of which the evidence is abundant. Red is merely a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.
You're talking about a red thing. Doesn't count.
The word red is an arbitrary semantic choice for the 625–740 nm. wavelengths, of electromagnetic radiation.
Do wavelengths exist? You don't have evidence for that (vibrating things don't count).

The perception of red, will be the optical stimuli produced by the cones in the retina when red light falls upon it.
Then God manifests Himself as our intelligence, and as the very process of seeing something red.

My point is that God is something conceptual, and does not deal with evidence, or even existence. Just like the color red.

I would hazard the speculation that there are already experiments, that will have detected unique electro chemical patterns in the brain when different colours are exposed to the eye.
Would you say that you can't find the same about God in people's brains?

With the above quote, wasn't I originally responding to this:

It seems as though there is a lack of evidence for  being both an atheist and an evolutionist.


That was from Dubie and what I believe he was getting at, is that the relative plausibility of both worldviews is in the same order of magnitude because he thinks they are both speculative ideas.
Their nature is very different, it's true. God does not belong to the realm of facts and existence. Their mistake.

My response is that atheism isn't a belief which requires a positive validation by appeal to evidence. It is simply the lack of conviction that any kind of god exists.
Nah, that would be agnosticism.

Atheism is the conviction that God does not exist.

God is the kind of concept that requires positive evidence to establish plausibility.
My points is that it's not.

Let me give you a concept: intelligence. Are you ok with that concept? We can't talk about its existence. Doesn't make much sense.

Imagine now the concept of a higher intelligence (higher than human). Not difficult to grasp, is it?

Now conceive an intelligence (just its virtuality) so powerful that can instantly understand and classify (and name if you want) the figure made by the path that a man has made through his entire life, just as easily as we say "circle".

Hard to imagine, but easy to conceive, right?

The next step would be an infinite intelligence.

It's not in our Universe, so we can't say it exists. But i've thought about it. It's there. Might as well add knowledge and power to it, and you have God.

Some god that deals with evidence cannot be THE God.

But honestly, wouldn't it be far better if we could all stop being silly and just outgrow this religion nonsense.
Don't frown upon the human need of bonding with the infinite.

Religions are our poor way to do that.
The need to reach the infinite is one of our coolest needs.

I don't think I share your utopian optimism for moderation, and tolerance my friend. Anyhow, I can be a little intolerant myself. I don't apologize for being rude or abrasive, when I am being taken for an idiot.
I don't think anyone did that.

The real problem in this world is violence and the menacing ideas that give rise to it.
You have been violent, and you don't apologize.

Censoring communication (even abuse) is a very bad idea. We really need to toughen up our visceral response to words. Thats a smarter and more policeable approach than defending peoples right to be mortally wounded by words and then scorning and censoring the speaker/writer.
I agree. That's why i didn't report you.

Words are inert. Intentions are not.

Sometimes i do want for people to feel hurt or embarrassed, but only when it's for the best somehow.

Anyway, when you say "Ask smarter questions or shut up", it's pretty much like 'Censoring communication'.
When you think about how offensive throwing a rock in somebody's face is, it puts calling them an f'ing moron into perspective.
Then why do you censor the word "fucking"? You're not even insulting anyone now.

About the original question:
Sorry wisp, I think it is  significant, that he intended it to be an underhanded stealth maneuver.
You give it too much importance. And perhaps too much credit. Stealth?
He could have just come out and said "I believe evolution needs abiogenises" if he had the balls to make a positive assertion.
Would you have said that about Socrates?
On the other hand, he could have had the humility to admit that he hasn't got the foggiest clue whether this is even a remotely plausible but wants to know if it is possible. But "Ok,  Just want to know, how does evolution say first life arose?" is not that humble question.
Humility police? Are you qualified for that position?

I know i'm not.

So it's kinda dishonest on two fronts 1. because he masks his preconception
I'd like for him to say if he intended to mask it or not.

When i ask creationists about vegan lions, they know what i'm up to. It's ok that the know. They know i know they know.

and 2. because he masks his naivety. Not that theres anything wrong not knowing.
No, of course! Just get out of here and shut up before you do know! Right?

No discrimination, because everyone has access to the information.

It's like the Hindu 'discriminatory' assumption that only men can reach the Nirvana.

It's not discriminatory, because any woman can incarnate as a man, and then reach the Nirvana!

Beautiful!

Presumption can be a misjudgment but when you know that you don't possess any knowledge about the subject you are criticizing, that is adding arrogance to ignorance.
I understand what you say. And yes, they behave like they did read about the subject, and like they really understand it.

But their faith tells them that they're right. So they think they can pull it off. Just because they must be right.

They feel like they must be able to find flaws in our TOE. It's not possible that a theory what's fundamentally wrong can have no weak spots. So they imagine it has to do with abiogenesis, probabilistic, and stuff.

We do it too. I do, at least.
I don't think you do what he did.
I ask questions whose purpose is to make them say something before i can refute it. I ask the question with the confidence that i'll be able to refute anything they answer.
Well if you did that then I would have to be honest with you. We all post he odd rhetorical question.
The "he" word was not supposed to be there, right?

My questions are not rhetorical. Not the ones i'm talking about now.
You don't however simultaneously pitch a strawman,
No. A strawman would have been if JSF16 said "Evolution states that life sprung from no-life. That can't be true because bla bla bla bla, so Evolution is wrong."

JSF16 didn't do that. He was more cautious than that, and i appreciate it.

Go and read gluteous_maximus' posts if you want strawmen.

to argue a fallacy, on a subject about which you know nothing, while pretending you are an expert on the cutting edge with a paradigm shifting revolution to disprove everything your opponent believes,
I don't know. Their faith evolves and ramifies too quickly that most of the time i don't know what they'll answer.
yet somehow plead immunity to criticism because you put a question mark at the end of your ignorant statement and 'how' on the beginning.
'How' did Noah manage to embark 220 elephants into the ark?

I did just what you say. And it doesn't seem very wrong.

Do I sound shrill? Well OK, but I wasn't really talking about the tone. The belligerence is a reference to the unconditional combatant attitude towards evolution.
Don't you have an unconditional combatant attitude towards creationism in particular, and christianism in general? I do.
He knows it isn't an honest criticism or an honest question.
He knows. Because he believes that Evolution is false no matter what. So making an honest question about it would be quite difficult for him.
what I really can't stand, it the two faced gutlessness of this approach. The self righteous and cocky bit, is the audacity to declare such conviction in the claim, when he knows he hasn't a clue.
Not sure that he does.
I think a person forfeits any right to be treated politely if they pull deliberate sophist tactics.
And i don't believe in 'rights'.

Even in a battle of words and ideas there needs to be rules of engagement.
I'd like that.
If there is deliberate deceit and underhanded treachery, then I prefer to stop discussing the subject and have a very frank talk about the methods.
I agree, but JSF16 seems to have done just fine.
Being a devious, underhanded liar, should be considered politically incorrect, never mind a bit of course language and rude name or two.
Agreed.

Except... What's "course language"? You mean "coarse"?

Well firstly, I don't want to attack them at all per se. I would much rather partake in a constructive discourse toward mutual understanding and agreement.
The thing is that everybody would know that you want THEM to understand, and they would want YOU to understand. No middle ground.

But that is hardly possible while their agenda is trained on discrediting evolution by any means possible (except for rational discourse and writing peer reviewed scientific papers)
Indeed.

That being the case, don't you want to attack them?

Yeah, that sounds like an objective way to measure dishonesty: strawmen.
Sounds like you agree in principle, but maybe yet to appreciate that these properties are the general creationist norm.
I do realize. But not every creationist does it, even if most do.

I think timbrx doesn't do it, or at least not on purpose.

I too like to give every individual the benefit of the doubt, but when they start dickin you about, well  I don't like to see people get manipulated and just have to try, to put an end to it.
Do you try to ponder what's the most effective method?

They don't wanna burn their strawman (not if were talking about real fundementalsts)
I meant Evolution strawmen.
and they only want as much 'together' as they can getaway with to keep you dancin with them. Part of their charade, is to perpetuate this illusion that theirs is a valid scientific alternative viewpoint, and as long as people will engage with them, to an observer, it looks like mutually relevant and worthy alternatives are being debated on an equal footing.
You think?

They post, we refute them, they refuse to be refuted, we refute the refusal... It's hard to see it any other way, but yeah, i guess they do, somehow. Even when we shut them up tons of times, and they never did.

This lends credibility to creationism. So in a way, if you honor them as worthy adversaries you credit their POV.
I don't honor them as worthy adversaries when they do shit like that. Ask gluteous and Lester10.

But JSF16, dubie and timbrx are fine.

They HAVE to show at least a little dishonesty. They're dealing against reason!

But they keep it to the minimum, and try to reason themselves.

The truth I am referring to, is natural factual truth. How to think and reach valid conclusions. Truth in practice, truth in principal and any sense of the word that can assist me to learn about the objective aspects of the universe and how it really is.
That definition may sound a little idealized or euphemistic and while I don't pretend to be able to do this with perfection the essence is to do your best and to strive for intellectual integrity and honesty. Given that definition I leave you to answer the question yourself. Do you think that truth (by this definition) in turn, serves anyone?
Yes. People.

But do you care if it serves people?

I wouldn't 'serve' factual truths nobody cares about.

Perhaps your grudge is that you serve a truth that you and me care about, but they don't, and pretend they do. Is that it?

By the same token does taking that truth and trampling it into the ground, misrepresenting it and making it out to uphold lies and intellectual dishonesty, does that serve anybody?
Mmm... They feel relieved...

Wisp, when I insult somebody, I am generally not attempting to be reasonable. It's more like an emotive response to identify my disapproval of something which I consider to be far worse.
So you're not attempting to be reasonable...
I have no need to suffer fools after they have discarded the faculty of reasonableness themselves.
You claim that they're not reasonable, and that emotionally prompts you to be unreasonable... Is that correct?

It seems that your interpretation of 'reasonable' consists of a fair amount of politically correct politeness, diplomacy and decorum.
Not at all. I'm a utilitarian.

When i do something, i ask myself "What for?". THAT's reasonable.

While I very much appreciate those qualities in a person (you have more than your fare share), I do believe they can be over extended and under deserved.
'Deserving' is as empty a concept as 'rights' to me. As empty as 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution'.

It's all utilitarianism to me. I ask myself what's good, and then i ask myself how can i achieve it.

Not all the time, as you can imagine. But my actions tend to do just that.

Meanwhile other aspects of 'reasonableness' lurk quietly on the shadows. You might notice that the word 'reasonable' consists of 'able' and 'reason',
I certainly do. I think i tend to pay more attention to English words than the average native English speaker does.

Some of the qualities reasonable might connote:
Willingness (to oblige)
Availability (to be there)
Amicability (to cooperate)
Rationality (to reach logical conclusions)
To me what's reasonable is what best gets you what you want, according to what you know. Simple.

I do perhaps have a little difficulty with anger/annoyance, to be quite honest, but I also have a defense stratragy and justification for my emotional responses which goes like this:

I happen to prize rationality well above many human traits many of which are subjective.
Not above anger, seemingly.

If you place rationality any high in the scale, it seems like you should have a purpose for acting like you do, and speaking like you do. You should consider the best course of action. Right?

but rationality is right up there with love, honesty and loyalty.
And anger.
Now, anybody who willfully abandons rationality, plummets on my respect meter.
You mean, including yourself? Or are you being reasonable when insulting people? Or perhaps your behavior wasn't 'willful' but 'forced'. ^o)

It's not quite clear to me.

They are no longer reasonable and I can not hope to reach agreement with them in matters of factual discourse, as we have no common protocol.
So... If they don't hold your values as high as you do, then you don't hold them either?

My closest approximation to a spiritual affirmation is to treasure reason as the highest ideal of human existence.
That's cool. Mine is consciousness, whether it's human or not.
If you denigrate reason, then you have no respect for my most sacred ideal. If you have no 'respect for reason' then I have no 'reason for respect'.
Woah! That's smart!

Doesn't make sense (no reason, therefore no reason), but it's cool anyway.

I then have nothing then to loose by putting somebody in their place, but generally I wait till they try to piss on my back and tell me it's raining.
I didn't get the mechanism through which some random person can fuck your highest values, but your 'respect for reason' - 'reason for respect' phrase was so catchy that i don't care anymore. (Y)

Oh, when i said "The same goes with Science" i meant the same as the truth. That it's worth because it serves people.

OK then If you like, I'll roll some splifs and score some blotters while you and your lady get yourselves tarted up for a night of fun. we'll see you about 8:30 huh?
Ok, too much slang for a single phrase.

Man, English is not my native language. Have some pity on me.

I wouldn't want to debate with gluteous then would I?
If timbrx and JSF16 get you nervous, you don't want to be anywhere near gluteous.

You're pretty damn good, if English is not your first language.
Thanks. I don't even speak it (it's true, i NEVER speak English).

I feel confident that i could refute any part of it (like most of us could), but i don't want to go through the trouble of reading it, because nobody will answer me when i utter my retorts.
But mightn't you still provide food for thought to silent readers I think this is partly a spectator sport too.
How? You can't make comments in answersingenesis.com

They have learned to block comments and ratings in YouTube too.

Now there's a goal. Get creationists to come forward with valid refutations after having done a research assignment to test their assumptions or find real discrepancies. I would love to be convinced that a creationist has done some real research and understands evolution at least well enough to know whether their  discrepancy is valid.
Doesn't make much sense. It's pretty much the same as asking them to stop being creationists before asking questions.

Creationism equals misinformation.

Trust me on this. I wasn't attempting to diminish the insult. If that were the case I would just choose gentler words. I thought It was against the rules to swear, so I was trying for the implicit swear word.
It is against the rules to insult, and you don't seem to care much.

About a self consistent Universe:
Really? I always thought it was quite axiomatic.
I never thought about it that way. Well, it IS quite axiomatic to ME, but subjectively axiomatic doesn't seem to qualify as really axiomatic.

I know because i reached that conclusion after deep meditation.
And after dropping a microdot too huh?
Huh? I don't understand you.

I checked 'microdot' in my dictionary and it says "Photograph reduced to the size of a dot (usually for purposes of security)".

A self explanatory universe, where every part is linked to every other part.
Well... I don't know... That sounds kind of new-ageish / Gaia.
Fuck that! Who cares how it sounds?

The connection between all parts of the Universe is just as axiomatic to me as its self-consistency.

Einstein's gedanken experiment about the pair of particles came to show just that.

My version would only expect it to be self consistent. The laws being reducible to axiomatic premises. I have always noticed that inevitability is an important part of natural principals. We don't just discover a law that say X happens under Y and Z conditions we discover a law that say X is inevitable under Y and Z conditions.
I'm certain that there's an inevitability about the speed of light and the vibrational rate of any atom.

I used to admire the professor on Gilligan's Island, who I remember as having often said "There's a logical explanation for everything Gilligan"
That statement isn't enough to conclude self-consistency.

Can't you see it? The 'self' part is missing from the equation.

The logical explanation could be found in some element from outside our universe.

Besides self-consistency isn't logic. There's no logical reason why our Universe should be self-consistent.

Another place I have met with this idea (but taken way too far) is the meta-rationalist pseudo-philosophical cult of objectivism. Ever heard of Ayan Rand?
Nopes.
This is rationalism which oversteps philosophical skepticism and throws empiricism under the buss, its legitimacy has always been marginal and highly controversial not in the least because, aside from it's questionable stand as a valid philosophy, most of it's behavior and and norms are exceptionally cult like. Highly unrecommended. I'm giving it half a star.
Then i won't even search for it.

I don't think you have to be an objectivist to appreciate that there aught to be a logical explanation for everything.
My conclusion goes farther than that.

Conceding that our models of reality may be imperfect
Not necessarily imperfect (so your 'may' is appropriate) but forcefully partial. When (if) we have the complete picture, i don't think we'll still be humans.

How wonderful that must feel for you and you have every reason to be proud of that. I am proud of you too.
Thanks! It feels almost like saving a life. Except that this is harder.


(Edited by wisp 3/6/2009 at 12:22 PM).


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 2:41 PM on March 5, 2009 | IP
taylormarie

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[b][color=blue]Well actually we really don't know weather evolution or creationism is true or not. Evolutionists say evolution is true because of all of theses scientists that say so. Creationists say that creationism is true because of the bible and all of that mumbo-gumbo. I am more towards evolution.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 5:47 PM on March 5, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lucky for Evolution!


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 5:53 PM on March 5, 2009 | IP
dubie903

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp come on over to my house.  I'll cook us both up some creationist mumbo-gumbo.

(Edited by dubie903 3/5/2009 at 9:18 PM).


-------
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.<br>
 


Posts: 43 | Posted: 9:14 PM on March 5, 2009 | IP
timbrx

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wisp,
I really got to hand it to you. You call them like you see them. I don't agree with your overall position on creation/evolution but I admire your fair mindedness. I'd like to find a topic where we can be on the same side.
 


Posts: 226 | Posted: 9:39 PM on March 5, 2009 | IP
Skepticus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 05:41 AM on March 6, 2009 :

They ask "Why don't we find a crocoduck?"
So if we don't, somehow that's evidence for a creating God.
If we did find it, i would call that evidence for a creating God.
You would? You don't want to be out in the full sunlight for too long wisp.
Haha! Don't worry about my exposure to sunlight. I didn't say "proof" but "evidence".

You can't classify evidence into:
*Against creationism.
*Neutral to creationism.


I can't?

How about:
"Against evolution"?
"Neutral to Evolution"?

I think the Crocaduck has no relevance to either. It is not what evolution as we know it predicts ergo: Not pro-evolution and it is not what creationism predicts ergo: Not pro-creation. (and yes, it was tempting to leave that hyphen out FYI )


If some biblical prophesy was accomplished, it would be evidence for the divine inspiration of the Bible, whether we like it or not.


Did the bible have anything to say about Crocaducks?

It's my habit to use Skepticus wherever I can, but It just occurred to me that Crocaduck would make a great screen name, eh?

Perhaps it would be evidence of a huge discrepancy with how evolution does work.
Ok. And that, in turn, would be evidence against Evolution, and evidence for creationism.


I'm Sorry, wisp but that is completely false. One of the hardest things to get through the head of a goddidit, it that disproving evolution does not equal proving creationism. If evolution were falsified tomorrow then creationism would not be the tiniest bit more plausible. God, talking snakes and magical powers are all as absurd or improbable, with or without a viable explanation for the process of evolution.

What's the fuss? Not only we won't find a crocoduck, but the evidence it would provide would fade against the rest of the evidence we see.


No fuss my friend. Just a matter of principal. And totally agreed, the alternative evidence is insurmountable regardless. You're welcome to drop the subject for all I care, it's not all that interesting anyhow. Perhaps a better example of evidence contrary to evolution, if I may, is (to borrow a line from J.B.S.Haldane) rabbit fossils in the Pre-Cambrian.

Just a point that occurred to me now. You seem to be talking about crocaducks as if they would create a problem for evolution, and no doubt they would. But creationists do not posit that crocaducks do exist and therefore count as evidence against evolution. NO! the creationist claim about crocaducks, is a complaint that they should exist according to their perverse view (and complete misunderstanding) of evolution, and of course don't Again neither world view requires or predicts Crocaducks and ironically it wasn't even a creationist who raised the topic.

Evidence of aliens visiting earth and playing at genetic engineering, or man made medaling.
Not "or", but "and". And a divine creator.


Why because God has supernatural powers? Were not even talking about something which requires supernatural power. The crocoduck may be very bloody strange indeed, but would have to be some kind of biological organism, fitting into the taxonomic system somewhere. In any case if it were inexplicable within known natural laws, it would still be jumping the gun to suggest supernatural explanations. No such specimen would make the supernatural powers of any God more plausible. Even then we are only back to wondering which god (or even spaghetti monster) made this thing. If God could be the explanation, so could anything, including (and even more likely) the possibility that the crocoduck simply began existing without any cause.

If ghosts were real, then they would be natural. And our scientists would find a commercial, medicinal or military use for them.


Or perhaps us old hippies would discover that you can catch them, dry them, grind them up, and smoke them to get high.

In any case would the crocaduck need to be a supernatural phenomenon or just presently irreconcilable with evolution? I think the latter.
Bingo!


Then it isn't evidence for creation is it? Come on man!!
LOOK:

mythical creationist strawman + contradiction of evolution (if it actually existed) = evidence for nothing (other than creationist divisiveness).  Simple! No?

And since Creationists think that crocaducks are what is predicted by evolution, does this mean that they would renounce Christianity?
No, they would clasp to the crocoduck as evidence for creation, like i've said before, and in spite of what THEY said before.


Yeah but again - previously you seemed to be invoking the crocoduck as evidence against evolution and playing into their hands, and if they would try to score a win from the existence of the crocoduck, then that would be balls out hypocrisy because they have already said, that is what they think the TOE predicts. But again never mind it doesn't really matter.

I THINK i would CONSIDER converting. But i'd hope that such a book didn't contain silly stuff like the Bible does (an angry God that condones raping, and forbids long hair, and stuff).


Long hair is it? Hmmm?  Can't think of any thing better to do with your head than grow hair on it can yooou eaaargh!! Well then I think it should be taken off you. Off with his head.

Seriously though. What you are asking for is a fairytale fantasy that not only is true, but is more intelligent than it's author. A fairytale can never turn out to be more intelligent than the mind which inspired it. The universe unraveled by science, is a different tale. It can require of us however much intellect is actually required to eventually fathom it.

You'd make a great God!

THAT's what i call "evidence"!


Well, I was only pitching for the part of one of the wise men... But still God is good. 'You pestilent little heathens' and such. Can I have lightning bolts fly from my fingers and turn people to pillars of salt, make them eat their babies etc etc? YEAH!! me GOD. I like the sound of that.

That would be the photon escaping from the box, when Einstein omits the effects of his own theory, in the action of the shutter being opened yeah? Still trying to figure how it relates.
I'm not sure of what you mean. I mean making a pair of particles with specular spin and sending one of them far away at great speed.


Ah! Then we are talking about Bells inequality, and I do see how that relates. But I am still conflicted about this. Tell me wisp, do you actually get this? I mean do you get the experiment and what it proves?

It isn't just a thought experiment either. As far as I know the experiment can be done. They used photons I suppose, as their spin symmetry was the easiest to manipulate and because you can produce them so easily. Also you can detect them easily. But what I recall is that they measured the polarity of the photons at each end of the apparatus. Now I am not sure how polarity (as measured) gets to be shorthand for (or equivalent to) spin symmetry. If it is, then very well and we are on the same page, so never mind.

The uncertainty principle says that the remaining particle has no assigned spin until you watch it (and that you give it its spin by the act of observation).


What if I say "so much the worse for Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?" Perhaps I would rather that the Uncertainty Principal be my mystery or contradiction than Instantaneous action at a distance. If you buy into uncertainty, you must also buy into either non-locality or many worlds. Erguuuh! . Can't explain why myself an Sir William of Occam find this scenario to be wasteful and fanciful.

If that's true, then when you watch it you automatically give its spin to the other particle, that's already far away (one light year away, let us say), so that information travels instantly, thus violating the special relativity.


No, I don't think so. Forgive me for being a stubborn old traditionalist.  But this is only testimony that we have a discrepancy we haven't yet solved. I know that modern quantum physics accepts the in discrepancies rather casually and treats the quantum ephemera by it's own rules. I am yet to be convinced that reconciliation between the classical / Einsteinian paradigm ever occurred. Einstein himself had the same difficulty.


It IS related, IMO, because it implies not only that those two particles are bounded by the moment when they were created as a pair, but that every particle is bounded to every other particle, by the moment of the Big Bang, or just by any other moment.


You are right about the relationship, but then the scenario itself becomes quite far fetched. And that's what quantum physics is really. The choice between a selection of quite far fetched scenarios. Oh it's a lot of hard work in the discovery too, but what washes up is very hard to reconcile.

It's like no particle exists on its own. No particle can be isolated. It's a trick of our minds.

Once a particle exists, it 'knows' the exact configuration of the rest of the universe. It's a holographic Universe. Every particle contains the information about the whole (like any point in a hologram).



Yup! I get it, but still some how I doubt it. Together with the uncertainty principal it makes for a discrepancy and must wait for a new paradigm shift to clear it up.

Rationalists and scientists must proceed from what is known.
I know. Wait... Do i???
I am saying that is the only way to seek knowledge.
Yes, epistemology, i know. But you don't seem to have previously considered the possibility that knowledge can't be acquired.


Huh My computer, light bulbs and TV might be all figments of my imagination then? Now I know you are a utilitarian why should ... Never mind. What do you mean by "Can't be acquired?" Sorry man I don't understand. My bad.

I am also noting that a goddidit who asks you to provide an explanation of any effect by explaining it's prior cause, is being absurd, because whatever that cause is, it is also an effect and must have a cause of it's own.
I know. Like children asking "Why?"




Yup!  The infinite regress. No doubt you were an intelligent child and recall this game of intelligent children. I remember this game from my own childhood. And as soon as I saw my mate, Doug do it I said  to myself, Hmmm, why didn't I think of that?

They think they found their ultimate answer and cause of everything. But it's so USELESS if you give Him that function...


Yup! explaination = 0

If "Goddidit" is an explanation, why are our brains capable of asking questions?


What!!? Are you mad? you're not supposed to ask questions. Shhh!!


I think dijonaise asked a couple of good questions, but i don't recall.

But not all of them do that.


You must have a good mob here then.

I think a person who is petrified of dying wouldn't go parachuting or car racing.A person petrified of finding out their god delusion is false, avoids reason the same way.
If i had faith, i wouldn't be afraid of that.


Well even if you did have faith (I assume you mean of the Christian kind), I don't think you would be a fundamentalist.

But i try to be humble, and think that it might happen to me as well (even now).Man! You need your friends to keep an eye on you. Better my sister in a brothel than my brother turned into a fundie zombie.
When i said "happen to me as well" i meant a failure of reasoning. Not becoming a fundy.


Phew!! Thank goodness.

its vinegar. Not true by the way. Flies don't care much about honey
Don't they? ^o)

but there are those little flies which are attracted to vinegar.
Drosophila melanogaster, i believe.



Really? The Drosophila melanogaster? I always thought there were some species of vinegar flies. But that makes sense. Whatever smell it is (acetic acid I think) in vinegar, I think it is also exuded by ripening fruit. That would attract fruit flies. So I will perform a little experiment, pour a little dish of vinegar and see if we can round up some real D. melanogaster.

Well, I found a couple and they do look like the picture and description of D. melanogaster, so I think you're right wisp. I never knew those little flies people call vinegar flies were D.melanogaster. What a nice surprise.

I mean that you can be nice to creationists. And perhaps some of them can recant.


I know what you mean. I'd love to see the recanting bit. That would go nice with cheese and port.

How does having faith help anybody to understand anything?
Nono, they understand themselves (kind of).

What you don't understand is how are they capable of believing stuff in spite of the evidence.


Are you saying I should understand this, or are you paraphrasing my position?  You need to be careful when you are paraphrasing people wisp, otherwise it sometimes sounds like you are the one expressing their idea or opinion as your own. The above quoted statement, could have been written as a question. "So, what you don't understand is, how are they capable of believing stuff in spite of the evidence?" To which I reply yes, that's right. That's just a friendly tip by the way. as I have said your English skills are generally excellent.

The answer is 'Because of their faith.'

When you say the answer, you mean their answer I hope.

That's all i'm saying.

OK. So you were only saying 'what they would say' not your own opinion. I hope I got that right.

That is just non-sequitur. you are privileging them for an empty rhetorical pretense that faith is a bastion of wisdom.
I'm not. 'Faith' and 'chance' are concepts of ignorance. But we use the concept of 'chance' in our everyday life. But if we consider ourselves smart, we can't say 'faith'. That's silly. Specially since faith is true, and chance is not.


Actually I am far more confused now than before I read this. Lets go back to what was originally said:

They belong to a mind set that does not seek understanding. The question which started this thread would not have been a necessary with a very very basic understanding of science.
Ok, but they're right when they say that you don't have faith (about it, at least), so you don't understand it.



How can you say my having faith would lead to understanding it? By "it" you mean their beliefs I assume. In any event, I might argue that those beliefs can be far better understood if you don't believe them. Well I will say that.


[Skepticus referring to faith:] It is however a bastion of ignorance and vile stupidity.
It's not. Evolution gave us faith, because it has a use. To make you believe something even if you don't understand it.

You too have faith, Skepticus.


Well I do see what you are saying wisp and I think while playing devils advocate for creationism, you have gotten caught up in habit even most atheists aver. The word 'faith' is sufficiently ambiguous to accommodate quite a wide range of meaning.  When I use the word 'faith' I am specifically referring to unreasoned belief. Why? Because we already have a word to describe belief in general that word is 'belief'.

If you are referring to something I may believe despite the fact that I don't understand it, then I do not fall back on faith. Even beliefs I do understand (and therefore have great confidence in) are provisional beliefs. That is I only believe them to the extent that I have confidence that they are true. To whatever extent I lack confidence that they are true, I doubt them.

Rational thought requires us to doubt and estimate parsimony.

Faith is not probabilistic in this way. People of faith tend to jump to one conclusion or the other. Faith is also often used to refer to specific religious doctrines as in "people of the Adventist faith believe the sabbath is on Saturday". The word faith is used in a subjective context, to refer not only to things unknown to the believer, but also things which may be unknowable, even in principal or may only be conducive to forming an opinion about because of their subjective content.

Note that the more subjective contexts of the word, are the kind most frequently adopted by most religious people. By adopting a more liberal and rational context for faith. you are helping creationists with an endorsement of their most stupid and ill gotten concepts. The context you seem to be using sounds synonymous with the word 'confidence'. Ok I do have confidence in evolution, even though I still don't fully understand how it works. but the confidence I gained, was as a result of reason and parsimony. The stuff I don't know might leave room for residual doubts, but not faith.

Faith is actually a word which improperly used blurs the distinction between 'things we have good reason to believe' and those we don't. If you use it in a context synonymous with confidence, then it sounds like a justification of the idea, as it implies the confidence is well founded. A well founded thought deserves the provision of confidence and to be called a reason, as only reasoned thoughts are well founded. An unreasoned thought is unfounded and deserves to be called faith.
Well that's how I see it anyhow.

Most Christians use the word 'faith' without attempting to sneak in the implication of justification or confidence. The use it in the context of beliefs which are held without reason. What fundies try to do is equivocate they clutch the implication that faith is a surrogate for reason or the it it is reason or contains reason.  

Put it this way. reason is a process. You take this piece of information and that piece of information, you construct a syllogism that calls for a conclusion. You look at this theory and that one and compare them with the principal of parsimony. Reason is dynamic and active. Faith is nothing like this there is no process, there is no comparison of ideas. Faith is not a process but an action. A single passive stationary action.

If somebody's definition of faith, implies that it helps them lead to rational conclusions, they are being equivocal and trying to force some reason into faith by semantic manipulation.

If you found a crocoduck, you (and i) would immediately start looking for the trick. It cannot be! Right? Just can't!!
Not because of anything to do with faith.
I already showed you that i know the difference, and that when guided by understanding and knowledge it couldn't be called 'faith'. I asked you to bear with me, and you didn't.

You're mean.


Yeah! I did kinda jump in I guess. Tell you what, It's my shout then. Tequilas all round be OK? Still don't understand why you would call it faith in the first palace but never mind. No big deal.

Reason is the antithesis and promotes rational thinking, open-mindedness an sanity.
Open mindedness? Are you sure?


Well, I'm not sure, but I think I'm sure.

Understanding narrows the possibilities. And that's a good thing actually.


You are talking about the process of elimination I guess. Reason must be open minded to consider all possibilities. Also if you are willing to overturn even your favorite models of the world when better evidence comes along, you must have a very open mind.

Reason teaches us to think in terms of probability and parsimony not just blind faith or jumping to conclusions. In principal nothing is ever eliminated completely. I am still willing to revise the theory that the moon is made of cheese, if the evidence could some how become better for it.

I think that's pretty much how they feel, except that they also feel like they don't have access to the crocoduck.

Sorry, I have no idea what you mean wisp.
I mean that they say that they don't have access to the fossils, and they don't have the opportunity to assemble them in a way that doesn't look like evidence for Evolution.


Well neither do I and I wouldn't presume I was capable, even though I have a rudimentary understanding of TOE and the geological stratum, radiometric dating etc. Weren't we discussing the willingness of creationists to accept a level playing field? In any case, they have the same access to anything that anybody else does. Nobody is preventing them from going to get a degree in anthropology. If they still believe they are right, they can write pier review articles like anybody else. This is where we meet their conspiracy side.

Look I think you have gone of the rails a little since bringing faith in to the picture, especially by trying to saddle atheists with it (and thats a creationist's job btw).
I don't care. You and i have faith. Don't be in denial (that's a creationist job btw).


No denial my friend. just not giving 'faith' the credibility of   being synonymous with confidence. When you have confidence there is a reason.

If you wish for me to have empathy with them, you must do a better job of explaining why I should.
Because they're as human as you are?


Faith is a rod they have made for their own back.
You too have faith. It's a good thing to want to replace it with knowledge, but we don't have a complete knowledge on any field.


Faith is neither the absence of knowledge nor any magical confidence.

I have not got the foggiest clue where this idea of knowledge Nazism is coming from.
I don't mean that you want to deprive anyone from access to knowledge, just like Hitler didn't want to deprive anyone from access to blondness.



Then it what sense does Nazism make a good analogy?

C'mon wisp, you know this as well as I do.
I do.
Creationists are masters of playing the victim when they are actually the aggressor.
Yeah, well, they don't see it that way. And you do talk aggressively.



Aggressively defensive. The attack is not mine (ours).

The way this thread started is an example. Play dumb and innocent, but ask a question that leads  from a preconception, and only makes sense from an anti-evolution sense.
That's fine by me. Just a tool.

It was so obvious that you can hardly call that faking.
Why else would he ask about something he think is a lie?



Not my job to establish his motive nor to get on side with the arrogant offensive stance that he should be entitled or justified in considering it a lie.  My concern is why he would approach the subject with such a preconception. If he thinks it is a lie whos' fault is that? Has he done the research that a reasonable person might be expected to do to dispel this fallacy if it is not true?

I do the same when i ask them if there was any thermal vents in the garden of Eden. And i'dlike them to answer in spite of knowing what i'm doing (which is no secret).



Look wispy, I have read your stuff man, You are not doing the same thing OK? You know what you are talking about for the most part and are not baiting with a strawman, which you can't possibly have the knowledge to defend. Theres a big difference between an honest bait, an a bait and switch.  

I don't understand what gets you so upset.

Getting fundies in my undies.


They too react like you do: "They're mocking our Bible! They don't even understand it!" and bla bla bla. They too say that you have access to biblical studies and stuff.


Yup, an I do study the bible. How bout you? Most Christians don't have much of a clue what is written in the Bible. Sunday Christians, just reading bible verses their pastor quoted. Don't ask me how fundies are any better. All I can say is, on one extreme you've got  Sick depraved fantasy, which should not be given to kids and on the other you have cherry picking, wishful thinking.

Well I have explained my position quite a lot already, but I do tend not to suffer fools gladly,
timbrx has had his post deleted for less than that.
and that goes double when they are being willful obscurantists and sophists. As I have said, there is a world of difference between being a curios open minded investigator and a treacherous saboteur of science.
And what's your plan about it?


Dunno!! Got any ideas. I thought I would drink port till I'm to stupefied to care about the Goddidits. But then I wake up in the morning with a dry mouth and a headache, and realize they are still there.  

I had timbrx almost convinced (joking), and you came all insulting and ruined it.


Aw shit man!! Seriously? That's no good. I got to try to be more careful where I stick my steel capped boots. Sorry wisp

It's like a mixture of vampire and zombie movies.  


Don't forget werewolves.
If ya hear him howlin round your kitchen door, better not let him in. Litte ol' lady got muttilated late last night, werewolves of London again. Awhooo Werewolves of London...

OK, I read something on another thread now I think you need to read this post (about the faith issue) so I am leving it here I will reply to the rest of this one soon.
PS: Wispy you got taken in by equivocation.


-------
This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him--2 Kg.6:28-29

Women killed, boiled and ate their own children because of a plague that God sent, or as the Bible puts it: "Behold, this evil is of the Lord."
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 03:40 AM on March 8, 2009 | IP
waterboy

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Interesting question.. the crocoduck!

I would have thought Ornithorhyncus was a PERFECT example of a crocoduck.
BUt Im not sure whether that confirms evolution forcing the creos to admit defeat or provides perfect justification for creation since the mathematical improbability of the Platypus is so astronomically low that only God could have dreamed up such a weird beast and actually made it work. (Had to hide it in a far corner of the earth ...  ie keep it geographically isolated, of course, but never no mind that.)
So perhaps all you evolutionists should give in an and just worship the Ornithorhyncus....  
Or maybe you creos should suck eggs? (Platypus eggs naturally).


-------
Charis kai Eirene
 


Posts: 218 | Posted: 04:56 AM on March 8, 2009 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think the Crocaduck has no relevance to either. It is not what evolution as we know it predicts ergo: Not pro-evolution and it is not what creationism predicts ergo: Not pro-creation.
Creationism is a plastic hypothesis. Nobody knows what it predicts.
(and yes, it was tempting to leave that hyphen out FYI )
xD

Ok. And that, in turn, would be evidence against Evolution, and evidence for creationism.
I'm Sorry, wisp but that is completely false. One of the hardest things to get through the head of a goddidit, it that disproving evolution does not equal proving creationism.
I know what you say. I'm a part of the same effort. There are NOT two choices, but hundreds. There are NOT only two that matter, but one.

If the TOE is disproven somehow, i'd say that Yahweh and the Flying Spaghetti Monster do some level up in the top 100. That's what i meant.

But going further on, my reasoning could reach to this point:
I have a theory that all crows are black. I try to find evidence for it.

'All crows are black' implies that 'anything that's not black is not a crow'.

So i find a green leaf, and use it as evidence that all crows are black.

Perhaps that's how far 'evidence for creationism' can go. I don't know.

If evolution were falsified tomorrow then creationism would not be the tiniest bit more plausible.
I think it would be a tiny bit more plausible. Unless the actual plausibility is 0, in which case multiplying it for 1.001 (after the fall of the TOE) wouldn't help their case.

But as long as you assign Creationism any probability that's higher than 0, the fall of the TOE would increase its plausibility.

God, talking snakes and magical powers are all as absurd or improbable, with or without a viable explanation for the process of evolution.
True. But when you don't have a good explanation, the bad, absurd or improbable ones are all you have left. Arthur Conan Doyle said it and he was right.

Perhaps a better example of evidence contrary to evolution, if I may, is (to borrow a line from J.B.S.Haldane) rabbit fossils in the Pre-Cambrian.
True. And i'd call that evidence for Creationism.

Just a point that occurred to me now. You seem to be talking about crocaducks as if they would create a problem for evolution, and no doubt they would. But creationists do not posit that crocaducks do exist and therefore count as evidence against evolution.
I know.
NO! the creationist claim about crocaducks, is a complaint that they should exist according to their perverse view (and complete misunderstanding) of evolution, and of course don't
Yes but, like i've said, if a crocoduck was found they would call it evidence for creationism, no matter what they said before. Again, it's a plastic hypothesis.

Again neither world view requires or predicts Crocaducks
But the TOE requires and predicts that you don't find any species that's halfway between two separate branches. Crocodiles don't descend from ducks or vice versa.

The crocoduck may be very bloody strange indeed, but would have to be some kind of biological organism, fitting into the taxonomic system somewhere. In any case if it were inexplicable within known natural laws, it would still be jumping the gun to suggest supernatural explanations.
Nobody jumped. Well, actually creationists would jump indeed, but they always do.

I just said 'evidence'.

No such specimen would make the supernatural powers of any God more plausible.
A tiny bit more plausible, if you give it any plausibility.
Even then we are only back to wondering which god (or even spaghetti monster) made this thing. If God could be the explanation, so could anything, including (and even more likely) the possibility that the crocoduck simply began existing without any cause.
I agree, while seeing no contradiction with what i've said.

Ah! Then we are talking about Bells inequality, and I do see how that relates. But I am still conflicted about this. Tell me wisp, do you actually get this? I mean do you get the experiment and what it proves?
I don't see why not. Is it that complicated?

It isn't just a thought experiment either. As far as I know the experiment can be done.
That doesn't prevent it from being a thought experiment. Just like the train with two flashes of light. Can be done too.

They used photons I suppose, as their spin symmetry was the easiest to manipulate and because you can produce them so easily.
I don't think they ever did the experiment. We already know what would happen.

And photons don't have a spin. Their specular image is the same (i.e. a photon is its own antiparticle).

What if I say "so much the worse for Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?" Perhaps I would rather that the Uncertainty Principal be my mystery or contradiction than Instantaneous action at a distance.
The experiment doesn't show action at distance. It used the impossibility of action at distance to prove Heisemberg wrong.

I don't believe that he was 'wrong'. No more than Newton with his laws. Just incomplete.

If you buy into uncertainty, you must also buy into either non-locality or many worlds.
Buy? The other worlds are there. Just like God. But you can't touch them. That's why God inspired His prophet, M.C. Hammer.

It's like no particle exists on its own. No particle can be isolated. It's a trick of our minds.

Once a particle exists, it 'knows' the exact configuration of the rest of the universe. It's a holographic Universe. Every particle contains the information about the whole (like any point in a hologram).
Yup! I get it, but still somehow I doubt it.
If you doubt it, you don't get it (pretty much like creationists with Evolution). There's nothing to doubt. It's a model. A framework. And it's flawless.

Together with the uncertainty principal it makes for a discrepancy and must wait for a new paradigm shift to clear it up.
Yeah, ok, but the uncertainty principle will be included, in one way or another.

Huh My computer, light bulbs and TV might be all figments of my imagination then?
I know, i know. I won't defend nihilism. I didn't say that knowledge can't be acquired, but that you didn't consider that possibility. Bah, not important. Perhaps i spoke with no good plan (thinking in another language consumes RAM).

Really? The Drosophila melanogaster? I always thought there were some species of vinegar flies. But that makes sense. Whatever smell it is (acetic acid I think) in vinegar, I think it is also exuded by ripening fruit.
And vaginas.
That would attract fruit flies.
Vaginas don't, to my knowledge.
So I will perform a little experiment, pour a little dish of vinegar and see if we can round up some real D. melanogaster.

Well, I found a couple and they do look like the picture and description of D. melanogaster, so I think you're right wisp.
Haha! Cool! I never saw it, but i predicted it based on my previous knowledge. Something that creationists can only dream of.

I know what you mean. I'd love to see the recanting bit. That would go nice with cheese and port.
If you treat them too bad they think 'Something expressed in such a rude fashion can't be right'.

The above quoted statement, could have been written as a question. "So, what you don't understand is, how are they capable of believing stuff in spite of the evidence?" To which I reply yes, that's right.
Aha. It wasn't mean to be a question, but a statement.

The answer is 'Because of their faith.'
When you say the answer, you mean their answer I hope.
Huh? The answer.
-How are they capable of believing stuff in spite of the evidence?
-Because of their faith.

They have faith that the Bible is the literal word of God, and because of that they believe the myths.

How can you say my having faith would lead to understanding it?
Hum... Good question... But i didn't say that, actually.

By "it" you mean their beliefs I assume. In any event, I might argue that those beliefs can be far better understood if you don't believe them.
Hum... You're right.

But their beliefs amaze you and me. Right? So there's something we don't understand (as is the case whenever someone is amazed). But perhaps they don't get it either, and their lack of amazement proves nothing.

Well I do see what you are saying wisp and I think while playing devils advocate for creationism,
Creationism is silly. But if you find evidence against any of its enemies (like the Flying Spaghetti Monster) you make it a little tiny bit stronger. I don't advocate for creationism.

Hum... But if we can conceive the Flying Spaghetti Monster (which actually makes much more sense than Yahweh) so easily, imagine how many unspoken gods you're promoting by disproving Evolution!

Virtually infinite. Being that the case disproving Evolution really wouldn't help any particular supernatural explanation. Hum... You're right... I think...

Perhaps you're right, and you can classify evidence as against creationism and neutral to creationism. Unless you find the ark.
you have gotten caught up in habit even most atheists aver.
I didn't get that.
The word 'faith' is sufficiently ambiguous to accommodate quite a wide range of meaning.
That's true. Perhaps it's not even a useful word.

When I use the word 'faith' I am specifically referring to unreasoned belief. Why? Because we already have a word to describe belief in general that word is 'belief'.
That's what i told timbrx in another thread. But he meant "strong belief", or something like that.

If you are referring to something I may believe despite the fact that I don't understand it, then I do not fall back on faith. Even beliefs I do understand (and therefore have great confidence in) are provisional beliefs. That is I only believe them to the extent that I have confidence that they are true.
I understand.

I'd bet my life against 10 bucks that Evolution is true. I guess they could say i have faith in Evolution then. 'Strong belief' is quite usual as a definition for 'faith'.

Rational thought requires us to doubt and estimate parsimony.

Faith is not probabilistic in this way. People of faith tend to jump to one conclusion or the other.
Hum... That's true. That's a clear distinction between their faith and our 'faith'.

We may have faith, according to some definition, but we don't rely on it to make statements.

Note that the more subjective contexts of the word, are the kind most frequently adopted by most religious people. By adopting a more liberal and rational context for faith. you are helping creationists with an endorsement of their most stupid and ill gotten concepts. The context you seem to be using sounds synonymous with the word 'confidence'.
Haha! That's true!

Apparently there are better words for ANY of the possible definitions of 'faith'.
Ok I do have confidence in evolution, even though I still don't fully understand how it works. but the confidence I gained, was as a result of reason and parsimony.
Very true.
The stuff I don't know might leave room for residual doubts, but not faith.
Depending on the definition of 'faith', but i get your point and you're absolutely right.

Faith is actually a word which improperly used blurs the distinction between 'things we have good reason to believe' and those we don't.
Well put.
If you use it in a context synonymous with confidence, then it sounds like a justification of the idea, as it implies the confidence is well founded.
Yeah... Well, no. Confidence can be independent of the foundation. So whether it's well founded or not makes no difference (when we're talking of the concept of 'faith' or 'confidence').
A well founded thought deserves the provision of confidence and to be called a reason, as only reasoned thoughts are well founded. An unreasoned thought is unfounded and deserves to be called faith.
Well that's how I see it anyhow.
Yeah. The whole problem with 'faith' is the blurriness of the concept.

What fundies try to do is equivocate they clutch the implication that faith is a surrogate for reason or the it it is reason or contains reason.
Do they? I believe you're wrong. They try to bring Evolution down by saying it's our faith, so my guess is that they don't do what you say.

Put it this way. reason is a process. You take this piece of information and that piece of information, you construct a syllogism that calls for a conclusion. You look at this theory and that one and compare them with the principal of parsimony. Reason is dynamic and active. Faith is nothing like this there is no process, there is no comparison of ideas. Faith is not a process but an action. A single passive stationary action.
Interesting way to see it.

Understanding narrows the possibilities. And that's a good thing actually.
You are talking about the process of elimination I guess.
Yes.
Reason must be open minded to consider all possibilities.
I guess that would depend on your concept of 'open mindedness'. I see what you're saying, and you seem to see what i'm saying.
Also if you are willing to overturn even your favorite models of the world when better evidence comes along, you must have a very open mind.
Yes, but if your mind is too open you end up reconsidering every possibility you have eliminated in the past, which might be correct every once in a while, but gets very tiresome and not very fruitful.

Ultimately science is aided by intuition, and vice versa. My intuition gets better when i know more things about any given subject. The acquisition of knowledge is always aided by intuition. We spot most logical fallacies by intuition, and not by logic.

If your intuition tells you that you need to reconsider something you've eliminated, then go for it. Einstein did that with the concept of simultaneity.

But imagine what creationists would say if intuition played any declared part in the Theory of Evolution!!!

Nevermind if that gave us the Theory of Relativity. It's not a great threat to the Bible. Evolution is.

I mean that they say that they don't have access to the fossils, and they don't have the opportunity to assemble them in a way that doesn't look like evidence for Evolution.
Well neither do I and I wouldn't presume I was capable, even though I have a rudimentary understanding of TOE and the geological stratum, radiometric dating etc.
I know. I won't justify their feelings.

Weren't we discussing the willingness of creationists to accept a level playing field?
I didn't get that phrase.
In any case, they have the same access to anything that anybody else does.
True.
Nobody is preventing them from going to get a degree in anthropology.
Right.
If they still believe they are right, they can write pier review articles like anybody else.
Don't you get tired to be right?

Nobody prevents them from cracking rocks open and finding stuff. Or exhuming bunnies from the Pre-Cambrian. I know.

I don't mean that you want to deprive anyone from access to knowledge, just like Hitler didn't want to deprive anyone from access to blondness.
Then it what sense does Nazism make a good analogy?
You say that only those who are knowledgeable enough to make good questions should make questions. Doesn't that sound Nazi to you? Ok then, whatever.

Not my job to establish his motive nor to get on side with the arrogant offensive stance that he should be entitled or justified in considering it a lie.  My concern is why he would approach the subject with such a preconception.
I too have preconceptions about their beliefs.
If he thinks it is a lie whos' fault is that?
Theirs, i guess. Just like they guess it's my fault if i think their Bible is a lie (in spite of the fact that their Bible says that i don't see it because God has blinded me Himself).

Look wispy, I have read your stuff man, You are not doing the same thing OK? You know what you are talking about for the most part and are not baiting with a strawman,
I hate strawmen. JSF16 didn't use one.
which you can't possibly have the knowledge to defend.
I didn't get that part.
Theres a big difference between an honest bait, an a bait and switch.
Would you explain it to me?

I guess i use 'honest bait'... But i'm not sure... I mean, i set traps... I avoid strawmen and using words to confuse the discussion, but JSF16 didn't do any of those things.

They too react like you do: "They're mocking our Bible! They don't even understand it!" and bla bla bla. They too say that you have access to biblical studies and stuff.
Yup, an I do study the bible. How bout you?
So so. Kind of a waste of time i'd rather use learning japanese.
Most Christians don't have much of a clue what is written in the Bible.
So very true. I showed Matthew 5:19 to a Jehovah Witness that knocked on my door a couple of hours ago. He fought fiercely to change the subject by distracting me with other biblical passages that didn't imply that he should not have left his house without his hat.

Sunday Christians, just reading bible verses their pastor quoted. Don't ask me how fundies are any better. All I can say is, on one extreme you've got  Sick depraved fantasy, which should not be given to kids
Yeah, like condoning rape, killings, pillage, slavery, and the concept of women having their will bound to that of their men...
and on the other you have cherry picking, wishful thinking.
Totally. When i point something unpleasant in the Bible, they struggle to change the subject.

Well, not all of them. Some get really surprised. The ones that struggle to change the subject are not innocent. They already know they adore an evil god, but want to hide the fact.

The Jehovah witnesses that came today said that God doesn't lie or deceive. I pointed out that He deceived Abraham. He made Abraham believe that he had to kill his son.

-But God wanted to test his faith!
-Through deceit.
-Nono... Look at this passage: "God is very good, and wants you to be His bestest friend for everest."
-Yeah, whatever, but we were talking about Abraham.
-Yes, i was going to that.
-How?
-By making you understand God.
-I understand. He made Abraham believe something that was not true. On purpose, of course.
-No, He didn't!
-Did He make Abraham believe that he had to kill his son or not?
-But God wanted to test his faith...
-That's not an answer to my simple question. I didn't ask why. Perhaps God had good reasons. But you're not recognizing this simple fact: he deceived Abraham (for whatever good reasons).

I couldn't make him recognize it.
He said he'd come back another day. I'm not so sure. A couple of female Jehovah Witnesses came by a couple of times. They promised they'd be back with an answer to this question: "How and when did the parasites and carnivores appear on Earth?". I'm still waiting.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 4:05 PM on March 8, 2009 | IP
Skepticus

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from wisp at 07:05 AM on March 9, 2009 :
Quote from Skepticus:
What fundies try to do is equivocate they clutch the implication that faith is a surrogate for reason or the it it is reason or contains reason.

Do they? I believe you're wrong. They try to bring Evolution down by saying it's our faith, so my guess is that they don't do what you say.


Hi wisp. Just a quick one for now. I thought you might like this discussion on the same topic of the Equivocation Of 'Faith':

Cheers Skep


-------
This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him--2 Kg.6:28-29

Women killed, boiled and ate their own children because of a plague that God sent, or as the Bible puts it: "Behold, this evil is of the Lord."
 


Posts: 27 | Posted: 03:59 AM on March 9, 2009 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.