|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2007 : 10:30:33 [Permalink]
|
BTW, is it just me, or haven't we been seeing "Smoke's" avatar on the postings of several "new members" recently? I wonder if one guy's trolling here under different user names.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
 |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 02/27/2007 : 10:45:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
BTW, is it just me, or haven't we been seeing "Smoke's" avatar on the postings of several "new members" recently? I wonder if one guy's trolling here under different user names.
I think there are only a limited number of "default" avatars from which to chose and given how cool Agent Smith is, well, it's not hard to imagine it being picked by more than one SFN member. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2007 : 10:51:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
BTW, is it just me, or haven't we been seeing "Smoke's" avatar on the postings of several "new members" recently? I wonder if one guy's trolling here under different user names.
I think there are only a limited number of "default" avatars from which to chose and given how cool Agent Smith is, well, it's not hard to imagine it being picked by more than one SFN member.
My impression is all these were recent new members, and I seem to recall a common theme of flakiness and hit-and-run tactics.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2007 : 11:01:24 [Permalink]
|
I honestly thought that I had seen smoke post before, so I am with you Mooner. I think that either we are right and there is an inordinant amount of new one hit wonders after us Neo-atheist (noob-atheist  ), or we are both experiencing the same delusional confirmation bias. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2007 : 12:13:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
I honestly thought that I had seen smoke post before, so I am with you Mooner. I think that either we are right and there is an inordinant amount of new one hit wonders after us Neo-atheist (noob-atheist ), or we are both experiencing the same delusional confirmation bias.
I don't think so. Smoke feels sort of familiar to me as well. Dunno if it's here or somewhere else that I've run across him. If indeed, I have.....
At this point, it seems moot as he apparently has abandoned the effort.
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2007 : 18:06:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by smoke
...
You can make the existence of pink unicorns the center-piece of a philosophical critique.
...
That would be an invisible pink unicorn. There's a world of a difference.
 |
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. |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 02/27/2007 : 19:11:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
When you watch a punt returner run a 93 yard touchdown, you marvel at what evolution has done for the human race. But when someone gets cancer, you blame God for it.
Wait, I'm blaming god? But I thought I believed there was no god to blame?
quote:
You say that there is no God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, yet your claim that there is no God also rests on blind faith.
I'm so confused!
|
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
|
|
|
|
smoke
New Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2007 : 20:30:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
I wonder if smoke considers this some kind of smack down against the atheist noobs on this site. See latest news in his bio.
Oh-- thanks for pointing that out, moak. Moreover, note that one of his favorite links is "Answers in Genesis"-- great for a laugh, but little else.
But you're right-- his "smack down" is laughable. Worse, is seems smoke is not likely to come back to discuss his "parody" with us "noobs." 
Alright, alright, you caught me red-handed. And to whoever thought I was an atheist, then you're the one who is clueless. I was trying to disprove you guys by your own tactics - clueless insults based on no knowledge of anything. Seeing how I got the laugh I needed, I wasn't going to respond to this until I saw this message. Well, since all of you think that answersingenesis is a "laugh" just because you've been able to delude your little heads into thinking you somehow disproved them with your overqualified credentials, why don't some of you actually present some arguments (and don't attack my website, that thing is so far from being anything of an apologetic as this forum will be a legitimate attack on Christianity, or any other religions for that matter). I'll answer all your attacks...noobs |
He does not answer when men cry out because of the arrogance of the wicked. Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea; the Almighty pays no attention to it.
Job 35:12-13 |
|
|
|
smoke
New Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2007 : 20:33:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
I honestly thought that I had seen smoke post before, so I am with you Mooner. I think that either we are right and there is an inordinant amount of new one hit wonders after us Neo-atheist (noob-atheist ), or we are both experiencing the same delusional confirmation bias.
Well, we may not have solved the Judeo-Christian debate, but we certainly now know how conspiracy theories came about. |
He does not answer when men cry out because of the arrogance of the wicked. Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea; the Almighty pays no attention to it.
Job 35:12-13 |
|
|
|
smoke
New Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2007 : 20:44:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Hovind never endorsed ID as proposed by the Discovery Institute. He is a YEC, one a bit crazier and less honest than most, and certainly does not represent mainstream evangelical thought. Indeed, he has been and remains an embarrassment even to his fellows. I've always thought of him as something of an amusment. As for "scholarly thinking," to be sure, there are some like Jonathan Wells, a legitmate PhD holder and Moonie, who does only selected science, and not much of that. And Jonathan Sarfati PhD, who hasn't published in any journal of his field in decades, although he is not hesitant to write about everything else. And Michael Behe was thourghly refuted at Dover. These do not represent mainstream scientific thought, even though Behe has tenure.
Perhaps you should:
1.Explain how Behe was "refuted" at Dover (just because we lost a case in the legal system...wow that's science). Furthermore, just for the record, intelligent design has absolutely no connection to creationism save for the unacceptance of evolution. It is only a testament to the invalidity of the claims of the ToE.
2.Tell me if you've read any of Sarfati's stuff
3.Say how you believe Wells to be anything other than a biased "legitimate" PhD holder, when he only quotes others, in particular Peter Kirby, and even I, who has done about 1 year of apologetics, have seen the million and a half holes in every webpage he has on that joke of a website he's trying to present as a "case against Christianity." I have better arguments against Christianity than him stuffed down my pants. Maybe you shouldn't have quoted the "hardest" atheist first so that maybe you could wear me out a bit so I can go away or something.
Give me any link to any article found on any anti-Christian website regarding the historical basis for Christianity, and I'll give you a detailed rebuttal within a week or less, which I will send to the author and give you his/her response. |
He does not answer when men cry out because of the arrogance of the wicked. Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea; the Almighty pays no attention to it.
Job 35:12-13 |
| Edited by - smoke on 02/28/2007 20:50:53 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2007 : 21:06:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by smoke
1.Explain how Behe was "refuted" at Dover (just because we lost a case in the legal system...wow that's science).
Read the cross-examination where Behe admits that for ID to be science, then science must include astrology.quote:
Furthermore, just for the record, intelligent design has absolutely no connection to creationism save for the unacceptance of evolution. It is only a testament to the invalidity of the claims of the ToE.
Thank you for admitting that ID is scientifically vacuous, but you're wrong about ID's connections to creationism. After all, ID is nothing more than the logos of John the Baptist rewritten in terms of information theory. Or so Dembski says. And of course, ID's intellectual founder 200 years ago was himself a Christian apologist. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
smoke
New Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2007 : 21:50:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Read the cross-examination where Behe admits that for ID to be science, then science must include astrology.
[quote=http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178]
Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of “theory” was so broad it would also include astrology.
Rothschild suggested that Behe's definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe's definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS's definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.
We know astrology is major bs, but it would be a theory nonetheless. I'm sure some fancy lawyer got him to say that. That case never had a chance to be won by ID proponents.
He also stated that there was no support for ID published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. This alone stands out as a testament to the bias of the 99%+ scientific community regarding this issue, since an issue that covers a broad range of subjects such as this is Impossible not to have support, regardless of whether it is true or false. This shows that either Behe has not read every single peer-reviewed scientific journal, or anything regarding evolution that doesn't mention 1 gazillion years won't be accepted by the "unbiased and holy" scientific community that's never wrong by their own standards regarding what's science when it starts to concern evolution (which by now has become the majority of subjects except possibly for physics and chemistry).
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Thank you for admitting that ID is scientifically vacuous, but you're wrong about ID's connections to creationism. After all, ID is nothing more than the logos of John the Baptist rewritten in terms of information theory. Or so Dembski says. And of course, ID's intellectual founder 200 years ago was himself a Christian apologist.
[/quote]
Although the current members of the ID movement are overwhelmingly Christian, the ideology behind ID is naturalist/supernaturalistic. Its argument is not that God created Adam and Eve on the 6th day and rested on the 7th AND that evolution is false, but simply that evolution is false. |
He does not answer when men cry out because of the arrogance of the wicked. Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea; the Almighty pays no attention to it.
Job 35:12-13 |
| Edited by - smoke on 02/28/2007 21:57:40 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2007 : 22:03:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by smoke
We know astrology is major bs, but it would be a theory nonetheless.
No it would not, noob. Perhaps you need to put forth your definition of a scientific theory for entertainment value.
quote:
He also stated that there was no support for ID published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. This alone stands out as a testament to the bias of the 99%+ scientific community regarding this issue, ...
Hmmm, I wonder how many other quack ideas this could be applied to? What about rumpology? Or Ramtha? 
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 02/28/2007 22:25:14 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2007 : 22:04:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by smoke
He stated that there was no support for ID published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
No, he said quite a lot more than that.quote:
This alone stands out as a testament to the bias of the 99%+ scientific community regarding this issue, since an issue that covers a broad range of subjects such as this is Impossible not to have support, regardless of whether it is true or false. This shows that either Behe has not read every single peer-reviewed scientific journal, or anything regarding evolution that doesn't mention 1 gazillion years won't be accepted by the "unbiased and holy" scientific community that's never wrong by their own standards regarding what's science when it starts to concern evolution (which by now has become the majority of subjects except possibly for physics and chemistry).
Nothing but worthless conspiracy theory there. The lack of ID publications in peer-reviewed journals "proves" the conspiracy exists, just like the lack of data on UFOs "proves" that the government is covering up ET's visits. There's no refuting such fantasies, because there is no logic to them.quote:
Although the current members of the ID movement are overwhelmingly Christian, the ideology behind ID is naturalist/supernaturalistic. Its argument is not that God created Adam and Eve on the 6th day and rested on the 7th AND that evolution is false, but simply that evolution is false.
You're simply redefining "creationism" to refer only to Biblical literalism, when it's never meant that-and-only-that. Old-Earth creationists are still creationists. IDists are creationists because they believe that life on Earth was designed and created by some "greater" intelligence. Just let them talk long enough, and they'll almost all tell you that the "designer" is the Christian God.
Because - and this is important - you're not being honest when you suggest that ID is nothing more than the claim that evolution is false. ID is the claim that evolution is false because there allegedly exists evidence that life was purposefully created, and not "an accident" (which is, of course, a gross misrepresentation of evolutionary theory).
If ID were nothing more than criticisms of evolution, then it wouldn't be called "Intelligent Design." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2007 : 22:11:40 [Permalink]
|
Wow, smoke, you really screwed up your editing of your post, and after I'd already begun to reply to it. Let me reply to some of your additions:quote:
We know astrology is major bs, but it would be a theory nonetheless.
It's an already-refuted hypothesis, and was never a theory.quote:
I'm sure some fancy lawyer got him to say that.
With the help of the scientists on the defense team, sure. They knew the weaknesses in Behe's arguments, and how to refute them on the stand.quote:
That case never had a chance to be won by ID proponents.
Of course not, because ID is a religious movement (and all you need to do is let its proponents talk long enough, and that will become clear), while the defense's argument was that ID is not religious. The defense was in denial of reality, that's why they lost in Dover. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
You may be a fundamentalist atheist if...
