|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 02/23/2012 : 10:39:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
I am sure Skeptics have heard of Biblical scholars who study the scriptures, the historical Jesus (early childhood, what line did he descend from(genealogy), the gospels that are not part of the new testament, the dead sea scrolls. It is in the study of theology that you find the answers to the historical Jesus. |
Through what methods does theology generate knowledge?| The fact that you are asking me such questions and there are many like you, just proves most Skeptics have not searched for the truth in Christianity. |
Through what methods can the truth in Christianity be discovered?| 1. Scientist see Skeptics as ignorant obstructionist. This has been demonstrated in the skeptics for Climate Change. |
This argument equivocates on the term "skeptics," and is thus invalid.| Like many, skeptics prematurely judge faith and religion without investing the time to study them. |
Provide evidence for this blanket claim.| Why are there no experts on skeptics forums who can actually filter out the garbage, correct misconceptions. |
Because people like you refuse to be corrected.| Why do the public or skeptic wannabees prefer to rely on unqualified moderators for their expertise on religious or scientific matters. |
What nonsense. If anyone here relies on the moderators for expertise, they're not being properly skeptical.| A quick check of their profiles which list their qualification should correct the rationale. |
And since yours is blank, we should conclude that you have no qualifications to talk about anything. Is that how your logic works?| I am exploring other Skeptic forums so as to balance any biases. |
Yes, run away and avoid having to answer inconvenient questions. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2012 : 10:43:15 [Permalink]
|
jamalrapper:
It proves Darwin wrong again. His theory of evolution as a slow gradual progression. From the simple to the complex with humans being at the top of the chain. If you look at the evolution chart modern humans appeared only 200,000 years ago. The split between chimpanzees and our common ancestor was over 4 million years ago. Chimps evolved faster than humans. Remember chimps were introduced to computers much later and they beat university students. Not some average joe doing computers. |
More like 5.5 million years ago. And why do you think chimps aren’t as complex as humans? Or more so? This just shows once again how much you don’t understand about evolution. The fact that the chimps beat a human at a computer game doesn’t bother me at all. What it shows is that there is an area of the chimps brain, probably having to do with where it lives, that is as well developed or even more developed than a human brain. It’s very interesting. But from an evolutionary point of view, it doesn’t change a thing accept to add to our knowledge about how close we are as fellow primates.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2012 : 10:52:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
It is in the study of theology that you find the answers to the historical Jesus.
|
Try reading Bart Ehrman
The fact that you are asking me such questions and there are many like you, just proves most Skeptics have not searched for the truth in Christianity. A cursory read of the Bible is like ignoring all the new advancement in modern science to understand evolution.
|
Reads like a Christian bias, evidenced by sincere repetition.
The problem is deeper.
1. Scientist see Skeptics as ignorant obstructionist. This has been demonstrated in the skeptics for Climate Change. By circulating stolen research material and emails from CRU (Climategate) Skeptics have cast doubt on the science by misrepresenting the data, and understandably so, because they are not experts in the field.
|
Don't confused deniers with skeptics.
I provided a list of books by skeptics and noted for the benefit of the poor readers here that many of the writers/advocates were not biologist, evolutionist or theologians. Many were philosophers, science fiction writers, mentalist, paranormal pseudoscientist etc. etc..
This is why one does not go to a skeptic site to be educated on science or religion. It is the ignorant and uninitiated who search skeptic forums for opinions that support their skepticism. If it was scientific or religious material they were looking for to improve their knowledge. There are plenty of sites for science and religion, sites they can access for expert level information.
Unfortunately I am researching Skeptics and their big doubt, their reluctance to get an education in science and religion. Why are there no experts on skeptics forums who can actually filter out the garbage, correct misconceptions.
Why do the public or skeptic wannabees prefer to rely on unqualified moderators for their expertise on religious or scientific matters. A quick check of their profiles which list their qualification should correct the rationale.
So you see skeptics are neither highly regarded by scientist or religious denominations.
They need to be save from all their intangibles.
I have enough material from this site for my research. I am exploring other Skeptic forums so as to balance any biases.
|
emphasis added
balance any biases - You've got a lot of work ahead of you since you are apparently unaware of your biases as you write. Of course the problem is more likely that you are only looking to support a conclusions. A conclusion not supported by your time here.
Good luck jamalrapper when you visit those other skeptic sites. Some may not suffer fools as well as the moderators and members here do. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2012 : 12:58:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by jamalrapper
He spent his developing years studying scriptures. That is why at 12 he could debate with the holy men at the temple. |
Evidence? Please provide chapter and verse to back up that claim. I've read the New Testament and I don't recall reading Jesus being sent to any school, religious or otherwise...
Source your quotes, and provide evidence for your claims instead of insulting us.
|
I am sure Skeptics have heard of Biblical scholars who study the scriptures, the historical Jesus (early childhood, what line did he descend from(genealogy), the gospels that are not part of the new testament, the dead sea scrolls. It is in the study of theology that you find the answers to the historical Jesus. |
...blah blah blah...
All I see is a lot of bullshitting but no links to evidence that shows that you were right. I'm dismissing your claim as unsupported BS.
The fact that you are asking me such questions and there are many like you, just proves most Skeptics have not searched for the truth in Christianity. |
What do you know about Skeptics in general, and me in particular? My guess is next to nothing.
A cursory read of the Bible is like ignoring all the new advancement in modern science to understand evolution. |
I invite you to look at yourself in the mirror. I obviously lack intimate knowledge of the teachings of the Bible very much the same way you lack knowledge and understanding of modern evolutionary theory. What little you do know is what you could find to cut-and-paste from AiG and Wikipedia.
Indeed, and I'll explain below why...
1. Scientist see Skeptics as ignorant obstructionist. |
You're confusing skeptics with cynics and denialists.
This has been demonstrated in the skeptics for Climate Change. By circulating stolen research material and emails from CRU (Climategate) Skeptics have cast doubt on the science by misrepresenting the data, and understandably so, because they are not experts in the field. |
Those would be the cynics and denialists who don't like the message that scientists are giving us: That unless we do something drastic, soon, humanity's future on the planet is in jeopardy. Why are they upset? Because the implied message is that they will have to turn away from their mass-consuming comfortable way of living, and they are not prepared to make any sacrifices for someone else but themselves.
They may be a lot of things, but they are not skeptics.
| They have also affected public opinion by playing to the ignorance of the general public who do not understand complex scientific research. |
That's what cynics do. Skeptics want people to understand. James Randi used to be one of those who thought Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) was a hoax. But another skeptic, Phil Plait managed to show Randi the error of his ways, and today Randi accepts the word of experts in their actual field of expertise.
That's also why it's so hilarious to see AiG and Discovery Institute list deniers of evolution, stuffing it with names with PhDs in areas such as electrical engineering or economics and other unrelated disciplines.
In short scientist do not sympathize with skeptics and actually have a condescending attitude toward them. Especially for their lack of education and ignorance on subjects that require expertise. |
Since you're confusing skeptics with some other people, this statement is just plain wrong.
In fact, the actual Peer-review process of a science journal is a good example of skepticism's part in the scientific process.
Christians look at skeptics as the proverbial doubting Thomas. |
That's only natural. In the story, Thomas changed his mind when he was confronted with irrefutable evidence. It's the same with us: show us irrefutable evidence, and we'll change our minds.
Would like to win them over, but don't despise them. Like many, skeptics prematurely judge faith and religion without investing the time to study them. |
Again, massive generalisation showing that you make shit up, don't know many skeptics, or just didn't have a large enough sample-size.
This is why one does not go to a skeptic site to be educated on science or religion.
|
No shit Sherlock! Our goal on SFN is to teach skepticism and critical thinking. Have you even read our mission statement?"The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise."
The combined general knowledge of the members of SFN is significantly higher than the average American, and we have good information diggers here. Which means if you have a question, there's a fairly good chance we could answer it for you.
Unfortunately I am researching Skeptics and their big doubt, their reluctance to get an education in science and religion. Why are there no experts on skeptics forums who can actually filter out the garbage, correct misconceptions. |
Then you came to the wrong place in your quest to find your kind of "skeptic". It sound to me you were looking denizens of places like http://www.911truth.org/
Why do the public or skeptic wannabees prefer to rely on unqualified moderators for their expertise on religious or scientific matters. A quick check of their profiles which list their qualification should correct the rationale. |
Then you misunderstand the purpose and the job description of SFN-moderators.
Traffic police aren't qualified to compete in Formula 1-race or World Rally Championship or drive drag-racing cars, yet they direct traffic and keep order in the streets.
Please recommend Skeptic sites better than SFN so I won't have to deal with the same redundant protracted 12 step programmed responses for every new critical expression.
|
I'm sorry, but there are no better skeptics forums better than SFN. Skepticality used to come close, but they lost 99% of the forum traffic after an unfortunate series of multiple software- and server-mishaps and too much tinkering with the forum.
I suppose JREF would be the place for you. Since they have a lot more traffic than we do, it will be easier for you to find people who share your particular set of confirmation biases. Good luck and don't let the door hit your ass on the way out*.
* My personal opinion, which does not necessarily represent SFN, or its staff in general. |
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. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2012 : 13:11:05 [Permalink]
|
| moakley wrote: Try reading Bart Ehrman |
Yes I have and that is a very good point. There are many others who are equally qualified theologians who came before and after him and have totally different conclusions.
Like science, there isn't 100% agreement in every situation in theology.
I already mentioned earlier I was searching for skeptic scientist and all that came up were climate change skeptics and deniers.
Like there is difference between deniers and skeptics so is there between atheist and skeptics.
To be honest I am on several Skeptic forums and constantly looking for an intelligent one. Now not one that supports Intelligent Design...just the first part....Intelligent.
Thank you for quoting me and the well wishes. I have been received well here I have to admit.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2012 : 13:13:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Like science, there isn't 100% agreement in every situation in theology. |
There's no reason to think there should ever be agreement on anything theological.| I already mentioned earlier I was searching for skeptic scientist and all that came up were climate change skeptics and deniers. |
Your failure is due to the fact that you are relying on Google, and nothing else. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2012 : 13:21:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Originally posted by HalfMooner
Uh, being beaten in a computer game by a chimp would probably lower the self-esteem of a Creo as much as that of a "Darwinist." In fact, maybe more, as it demonstrates how close to humans chimps are.
Bad example for proving your point, jamalrapper. 
|
It proves Darwin wrong again. His theory of evolution as a slow gradual progression. From the simple to the complex with humans being at the top of the chain. |
Did Charles Darwin really write that?
But that's not important, we've had 150 years of progress since that. Contemporary evolutionary theories does not say anything like "From the simple to the complex with humans being at the top of the chain.". That's a creationist straw-man.
If you look at the evolution chart modern humans appeared only 200,000 years ago. The split between chimpanzees and our common ancestor was over 4 million years ago. Chimps evolved faster than humans. Remember chimps were introduced to computers much later and they beat university students. Not some average joe doing computers. |
These are comments from someone who clearly doesn't understand the experiment being done. Playing a game powered by a computer is very different from "doing computers".
What is being tested is the chimps ability to visually identify iconic images and marking the order of them according to a pre-trained sequence. The chimps higher performance has implications which highlights the difference between the chimp's and human's processing of what they see on the screen. |
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. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2012 : 13:25:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
It proves Darwin wrong again. His theory of evolution as a slow gradual progression. From the simple to the complex with humans being at the top of the chain. |
So now you're lying about Darwin's theory directly. Good job.| If you look at the evolution chart modern humans appeared only 200,000 years ago. The split between chimpanzees and our common ancestor was over 4 million years ago. Chimps evolved faster than humans. |
"Evolved faster?" What is that even supposed to mean?| Remember chimps were introduced to computers much later and they beat university students. Not some average joe doing computers. |
Yes, please tell us why god created chimps that are better than humans? If humans are made in god's image, does that mean a chimp could beat god at that game? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2012 : 20:50:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by jamalrapper
So you did not read the links I provide to help you understand what all those models mentioned are and how they are used in the labs and tested with computer simulations. |
You haven't demonstrated that you understand that Axe didn't run any computer simulations for the paper in question. He would have discussed the results if he had done so.| They are all mathematical models built on existing knowledge of the dynamics in each field it is applied to. |
Duh.| Making statements like model does not mean computer simulation just shows you have never been to a molecular biology/chemistry facility or seen how scientific algorithms are developed and used in computer generated analysis. |
And making that statement means you're just using big words to try to sound smart, and failing. A model is not a simulation. E=mc2 is a model. Running a computer simulation of Special Relativity based on that model is something entirely different. That you don't know this means you're just talking out your ass.| And obviously the papers I provided as links to help you were beyond your comprehension. |
No, they're obviously beyond yours, since you don't grok the difference between stochastic migration and stochastic tunneling.And you're a religious nut.| ...why should we expect more. |
We don't expect more from you.
|
I told you Axe was using computer simulation in his research. They all do.
Douglas Axe
is the director of Biologic Institute. His research uses both experiments and computer simulations to examine the functional and structural constraints on the evolution of proteins and protein systems. After a Caltech PhD he held postdoctoral and research scientist positions at the University of Cambridge, the Cambridge Medical Research Council Centre, and the Babraham Institute in Cambridge. His work has been reviewed in Nature and featured in a number of books, magazines and newspaper articles, including Life’s Solution by Simon Conway Morris, The Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe, and Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer. |
http://biologicinstitute.org/people/ |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2012 : 22:21:25 [Permalink]
|
How come no one knew chimpanzees have been showing much superior intelligence than humans in certain fields. The old theory about a monkey jumping on a typewrite and eventually producing a work of Shakespeare was a Lamarckian theory. If was later discovered chimpanzees had a better aptitude for computers and made quantum leaps after they were introduced to it. So much progress that they even started beating university students.
What is ironical here is, humans have been using computers a lot longer than chimpanzees and yet none have been able to produce a work of Shakespeare. Strange cross over. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2012 : 00:32:33 [Permalink]
|
| Now you've misrepresented Lamarck, too. Please cite when, where and how Lamarck knew about typewriters, or expressed any "theory" about monkeys, typewriters, and Shakespeare. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2012 : 04:17:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
How come no one knew chimpanzees have been showing much superior intelligence than humans in certain fields. |
Why did god make chimps better than humans?| If was later discovered chimpanzees had a better aptitude for computers and made quantum leaps after they were introduced to it. |
Quantum leaps are very, very small. You can't even get physics correct. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
jamalrapper
Sockpuppet
213 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2012 : 05:28:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by jamalrapper
How come no one knew chimpanzees have been showing much superior intelligence than humans in certain fields. |
Why did god make chimps better than humans?| If was later discovered chimpanzees had a better aptitude for computers and made quantum leaps after they were introduced to it. |
Quantum leaps are very, very small. You can't even get physics correct.
|
God did not make chimpanzees better or smarter than humans. It is like Americans. They were smart and then got all messed up and now ranks 25 in science, 17 in reading and 32 in math.
http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/slj/newsletters/newsletterbucketextrahelping2/891733-477/u.s._students_rank_32_in.csp
What is the point in providing all those sources when no one here understands them. Theistic evolution which was covered in the Ken Miller videos says god created the material world, and all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life.
You all know man Adam fell from grace. That is one explanation for the downward spiral. But then there was grace restored by Jesus. We now have a way to test who never accepted that grace. Put them to the new scientific chimpanzee benchmark.
Where Darwin went wrong was concluding human evolution put them at the top of the chain. What he forgot was his own theory of Natural Selection which is not biased towards any organisms. So it should not come as a surprise chimpanzees have slowly started edging out humans.
Since you guys are not very familiar with science. Even at the microorganism level germs are communicating, organizing and becoming more sophisticated. They are harder to kill with traditional drugs.
Are humans keeping pace with these developments. You have to look at the American experiment. The decadence of great empires which bring about their downfall.
This is all science, true science unlike Darwinism. There is purpose, meaning, predictability.
Seek and you shall find. Knock and the door will open. Peace brother!!!
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2012 : 07:00:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
Since you guys are not very familiar with science. Even at the microorganism level germs are communicating, organizing and becoming more sophisticated. They are harder to kill with traditional drugs.
|
When you introduce drugs you are changing the environment that the bacteria previously existed. Many/Most will not be able to adapt to this change in environment. Some due to some genetic difference will be fit enough to survive. That some will reproduce and pass along that genetic advantage. Until a new drug is introduce to change the environment once again. Those surviving bacteria in the current drug environment will have a selection advantage and will continue to pass along those genetic traits that gave them that selection advantage in the first place.
This is all science, true science unlike Darwinism. There is purpose, meaning, predictability.
|
No you got evolution 101 wrong. And I suspect there will soon be a better explanation than the one I attempted. One thing skeptics do like is the sharing of information. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2012 : 07:44:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jamalrapper
You all know man Adam fell from grace. |
No, that's a silly fairy tale with a magical apple and a talking snake.| That is one explanation for the downward spiral. |
Which "downward spiral" would that be, exactly?| But then there was grace restored by Jesus. |
No, he didn't exist, either.| We now have a way to test who never accepted that grace. Put them to the new scientific chimpanzee benchmark. |
Seriously? You think that saved Christians will do better at that test than the chimps?| Where Darwin went wrong was concluding human evolution put them at the top of the chain. |
You're lying about Darwin again.| What he forgot was his own theory of Natural Selection which is not biased towards any organisms. So it should not come as a surprise chimpanzees have slowly started edging out humans. |
So where is the scientific data that demonstrates this alleged trend?| This is all science, true science unlike Darwinism. There is purpose, meaning, predictability. |
Really? Please predict where and when the next new drug-resistant infection will occur. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
A disturbing trend, 'er no?
