|
|
|
Patrick Hennessey
New Member
USA
33 Posts |
 Posted - 11/11/2005 : 17:09:52
|
I have, thus far established my opinions on various matters here on sfn, the cesspool of logical thought. however many adjectives may be applied to me (gullible, wishful thinker, optimist, ignorant of science, "believer"), i would like to clarify one thing: I am capable of seeing through a facade of weak evidence as easily as the rest of you.
When fox broadcasted the moon hoax "documentary", I walked away thinking "hmm, interesting. seems plausible. i dont like our government, and this would fit nicely in with that paradigm, along with the ufo coverup." but i didnt stop there. i found a wonderful website called badastronomy.com, among countless others. researching the topic, i found that every single point of purported evidence can be easily and logically countermeasured. one by one, the evidence against the case became insurmountable.
we went to the bleeping moon, end of story.
whats my point? that those who would label me as a gullible person incapable of discerning truth from fiction had better take a second look. theres plenty of fringe science i dont put stock in, and plenty of conspiracy theories that are as full of holes as JFK.
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2005 : 17:25:08 [Permalink]
|
Okay, Patrick, you allow yourself to wallow in ignorance in certain subjects on which you also, hypocritically, speak with confidence. I'm not sure that that's better than being thought of as gullible.
I mean, obviously, you're capable of discriminating between good information and bad. Why not make the attempt regarding (for example) evolution, instead of spewing the creationists' political talking points as if they were facts?
The fact that you can think critically, but refuse to do so in some situations, is orders of magnitude worse than just being ignorant. Ignorance can be fixed. Willful ignorance often cannot. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2005 : 17:52:40 [Permalink]
|
Really Dave, in a nutshell I suspect that Patrick doubts that the physical principles we know are sufficient to explain life as we know it. (I like his truth sense, way to go Patrick!) 'Believing' that current evolutionary theory is sufficient to explain the phenomenon of life existence and progression to human could well be the epitomy of willful ignorance. Ignorance of what, I'll let you guys decide ;)
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2005 : 18:04:56 [Permalink]
|
How life was started is still open for debate. That life evolved from single celled life living 3,8 billion years ago to what it is today is not.
Edited to add:
Well, you can bitch about it, but that doesn't change the fact that the science is well founded. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 11/11/2005 18:06:35 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2005 : 18:13:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Really Dave, in a nutshell I suspect that Patrick doubts that the physical principles we know are sufficient to explain life as we know it. (I like his truth sense, way to go Patrick!)
Let's see.
--He has all his facts wrong.
--He doesn't begin to understand what it is he's actually arguing against.
--He just "knows" that he's right.
Of course you would identify with such a mindset.
quote:
'Believing' that current evolutionary theory is sufficient to explain the phenomenon of life existence...
Which no one claims it does.
quote:
...and progression to human could well be the epitomy of willful ignorance.
Let's see if I can follow your thinking here now. Not doubting a theory that perfectly explains the available evidence is ignorant, as opposed to willfully refusing to accept the theory on the grounds that your spidy senses are tingling and they're telling you something you read in a book which claims to be written by mystical aliens must somehow be involved.
Righhhhhhht.quote:
Ignorance of what, I'll let you guys decide ;)
If anything, we may be willfully ignorant of the depths of stupidity to which our fellow men are truly capable of descending. I know that I often cannot possibly believe the ridiculous things some people regard with great reverence. Thankfully, you're around to provide a living reminder that such people do exist.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/11/2005 21:04:53 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2005 : 18:14:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Really Dave, in a nutshell I suspect that Patrick doubts that the physical principles we know are sufficient to explain life as we know it.
Where is there any evidence for that? I mean, where is there evidence that Patrick thinks that way? It sure wasn't present in that other thread, in which he could have been paraphrasing from Answers in Genesis.quote:
'Believing' that current evolutionary theory is sufficient to explain the phenomenon of life existence and progression to human could well be the epitomy of willful ignorance.
Which is why I said, in Patrick's evolution thread, that we don't need any more "believers" in evolution. I don't "believe in" evolution any more than I "believe in" gravity. Of course, creationists who attempt to pass off evolution as a religion need to spread such nonsense around, and get people to have faith in it.quote:
Ignorance of what, I'll let you guys decide ;)
Well, you're the one leveling the charge. Why not explain it? The best I can think of is that I'm ignorant of markie's fantasy universe, but I'm pretty sure you'll tell me that that's wrong. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2005 : 19:27:31 [Permalink]
|
On the one hand, HH states that "no one claims" that "current evolutionary theory is sufficient to explain the phenomenon of life existence", and yet in the same post HH infers that current evolutionary theory is "a theory that perfectly explains the available evidence." Now there's a tension for ya. And Dave, I'm not talking about belief that evolution has occured, but rather the belief that there is nothing behind it but strictly natural, blind mechanism. Willfull ignorance of what? For my last hint, it is not ignorance of any given philosophical or theological paradigm, no. ;)
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2005 : 19:31:53 [Permalink]
|
Great jumpin', jinglin' Jesus!!!
More moon hoax! Multiple b will swoon with rapture and howl like a banshee, all at the same time....
Just a side note on the topic: Phil Platt, the Bad Astronmer, is a member here and many of us visit his excellent site regularly.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2005 : 19:37:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
On the one hand, HH states that "no one claims" that "current evolutionary theory is sufficient to explain the phenomenon of life existence", and yet in the same post HH infers that current evolutionary theory is "a theory that perfectly explains the available evidence." Now there's a tension for ya.
What tension? Since I went to the effort to break your comment into two sections, the "all available evidence" obviously refers specifically to life's "progression to human[s]." What evidence do you have that would throw the current evolutionary model into question on this point? Or are you just blowing smoke again, markie?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2005 : 19:53:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
On the one hand, HH states that "no one claims" that "current evolutionary theory is sufficient to explain the phenomenon of life existence", and yet in the same post HH infers that current evolutionary theory is "a theory that perfectly explains the available evidence." Now there's a tension for ya.
Yes, a tension between those who think that evolutionary theory should explain "life's existence" and reality.quote:
And Dave, I'm not talking about belief that evolution has occured, but rather the belief that there is nothing behind it but strictly natural, blind mechanism.
Well, since you agree that evolution is due at least in part to "strictly natural, blind mechanism," you're arguing for that, plus something else. Since I have no evidence of that something else, there's no reason for me to believe in it.
You're trying to paint this as if I (and/or others) insist that there cannot be any "something else" on top of the natural mechanisms. But that's not the case. There just isn't any evidence for anything "extra." The ball is still in your court to produce positive evidence of the "something else" you think is there.quote:
Willfull ignorance of what? For my last hint, it is not ignorance of any given philosophical or theological paradigm, no. ;)
Oh, good: no more hints. Now you'll just blurt out the answer and stop being coy. I'm waiting. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2005 : 20:20:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Willfull ignorance of what? For my last hint, it is not ignorance of any given philosophical or theological paradigm, no. ;)
It's willful ignorance of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, right, markie? |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2005 : 20:59:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Great jumpin', jinglin' Jesus!!!
More moon hoax! Multiple b will swoon with rapture and howl like a banshee, all at the same time....
Just a side note on the topic: Phil Platt, the Bad Astronmer, is a member here and many of us visit his excellent site regularly.
Remember filthy, many of us came over here to use SFN as a bitch board about the moon hoaxers at BAs site. Then we sort of became semi-permanent residents here, at least I did. |
...no one has ever found a 4.5 billion year old stone artifact (at the right geological stratum) with the words "Made by God."
No Sense of Obligation by Matt Young
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying and vile!"
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.
They (Women Marines) don't have a nickname, and they don't need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere, at a Marine Post. They inherit the traditions of the Marines. They are Marines.
LtGen Thomas Holcomb, USMC
Commandant of the Marine Corps, 1943
|
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2005 : 21:35:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Patrick Hennessey
...I am capable of seeing through a facade of weak evidence...
I know you are, you're just "selectively skeptical"... when it counts, you're skeptical. When the stakes are petty, you choose to use a different toolbox. If you were diagnosed with cancer, the stakes would be high- and you'd choose scientific scrutiny, possibly electing to go with conventional medical opinions that you should be cut, poisoned, and burned (maybe as opposed to being fed vitamins, herbs, and taught to meditate) because that would offer real hope- not mere fantasy or delusionally wishful thinking- and you know it. But when the stakes are petty- as in some pragmatically meaningless matters such as God and UFOs, you throw critical thinking out the window, probably because it's more fun, and in those instances, you can get away with it. |
Ron White |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2005 : 01:14:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Hennessey
I am capable of seeing through a facade of weak evidence as easily as the rest of you.
Then why did you, without any research, decide that almost all of the scientists of the world are dead wrong on evolution?
Why did you claim that there are no transitional fossils?
Almost all creationist claims are covered here (with references):
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
(You can make a quick site search on www.badastronomy.com to see the Bad Astronomers views on ID and creationism.)
If you have any questions on evolution there are plenty of people on this forum that are willing and able to answer or direct you to answers. |
|
|
|
Patrick Hennessey
New Member
USA
33 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2005 : 15:45:05 [Permalink]
|
"I don't "believe in" evolution any more than I "believe in" gravity."
You do believe in gravity. You just don't understand what causes it. You do believe in evolution, but you don't actually know for certain the exact mechanism by which creatures evolve. Evolution is a fact. The mechanism behind it is the part I am suggesting is not as clear cut as it could be. |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2005 : 16:25:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Hennessey
"I don't "believe in" evolution any more than I "believe in" gravity."
You do believe in gravity. You just don't understand what causes it. You do believe in evolution, but you don't actually know for certain the exact mechanism by which creatures evolve. Evolution is a fact. The mechanism behind it is the part I am suggesting is not as clear cut as it could be.
Indeed, it isn't. Science predicts refinement in time. That's the beauty of it.
Then again, as Socrates once said, "all I know is that I know nothing." |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
