|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/28/2007 : 22:22:31 [Permalink]
|
What cranks like smoke never seem to get is that even if ID isn't 100% identical to old earth creationism, it still has it's roots there. It sprang directly from the creationist movement. And although they've gone to great pains to "secularize" ID, it's still clearly a religious notion, even if one doesn't necessarily need to be a christian to find it appealing. That alone makes it unlawful to teach in public schools.
However, as the judge found in Dover, not only is ID religious in nature, but nothing about it is remotely scientific, and so doesn't belong within 100 yards of a science classroom.
Smoke, you don't have the first clue about these issues, and you're in WAY over your head here. Your pathetic arguments may go over big at bible camp, but here you're the only noob around.
|
"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 |
 |
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
 Posted - 02/28/2007 : 22:48:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by smoke
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.
What are you even talking about? |
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.] |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 00:47:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by smoke
Furthermore, just for the record, intelligent design has absolutely no connection to creationism save for the unacceptance of evolution.
As the Dover trial showed, that statement is false, it is a lie. The connection has been proved. In court. End of storyquote:
2.Tell me if you've read any of Sarfati's stuff
Whoooa!!!
That´s dr Sarfati !!!
He will be very upset if you forget that.
Yes I have read a lot of dr Sarfatis stuff, including when he, despite intense moderator protection, got his butt kicked on Theology Web. Present any of his claims here if you dare.
As filthy wrote dr. Sarfati has not published much with in his field (super conductor chemistry) but he writes much about other stuff. There would be nothing wrong with this of course, unless he tried to use his irrelevant PhD as an argument for being right.
Again, give us your favorite claim of his if you dare! |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 02:11:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by smoke
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
Though you claimed to be one, don't delude yourself: Nobody thought you were an atheist. You transparently lied when you called yourself an atheist. First words of your OP: "I've selected these for my fellow atheists..." Rather than us thinking you were one, we caught on immediately that you were a liar. But you have apparently forgotten your lie already. You are one confused puppy.
Calling us noobs is just silly. Noob means new on a forum. You are, most of us aren't. Nothing wrong with being a noob, but it's really funny you don't know what one is, noob.
Why don't you take your medications and come back when your sentences are working? This doesn't parse at all:
"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)."
Huh?
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 02:19:30 [Permalink]
|
smoke said:
quote:
And to whoever thought I was an atheist, then you're the one who is clueless.
Yeah, giving you the benefit of the doubt based on the actual content of your post renders me "clueless". Guess I should have stuck with my initial impression of you as a deluded fundie with a chip on your shoulder.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 02:20:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by smoke
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.
No, what you saw was the opposite of a conspiracy theory: Noticing that what appears to be a bunch of people spouting similar rubbish is actually only the work of one poor fundy nutcase, posing as different users, and lying about himself. Conspiracy theories tend to maximize a perceived problem, but noting that one troll is pretending to be several persons minimizes it to its proper insignificance.
Conspiracies require more that a lone lunatic.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 03/01/2007 02:22:16 |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 03:05:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by smoke
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.
I have not made any detailed study of the claims in this essay, so please be my guest.
The Bible And Christianity - The Historical Origins, An essay by Scott Bidstrup.
|
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 03/01/2007 : 04:00:18 [Permalink]
|
I'm afraid I don't understand this: quote:
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.
The historical basis for Christianity is all very ordinary: an ancient people trying to explain their world and existence through supernatural beliefs, just like they all did. From thence came the NT, which evolved into what the faith is today -- a primary fund-raider, and a sanctuary for sanctimonious scoundrels.
I have indeed read Sarfati. In fact, I've had some conversations with him when he was active at Theology Web. He finally went ad hom on me one time too many, and I got banned for handing it back. No sense o' humor, those folks. I've also read Wieland, Ham, Baugh, Hovind (chuckle), Dobson, Perkins, and a fair number of the other better known YECs. So what?
And we all love a good Chick tract, don't we?
If I may be permitted a little quote-mining: quote:
You think questions like, "Can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?" and, "Can God will Himself out of existence?" are perfect examples of how to disprove God's omnipotence and ultimately how to disprove God. When someone proves to you the false logic behind the questions (i.e. pitting God's omnipotence against itself), you desperately try to defend the questions, but then give up and go to a different Christian site to ask them.
I agree. These sorts of questions are the sophomoric drivel one hears when adolescents try to discuss it.
Deities, by their very nature, cannot be disproved any more than they can be proven. Neither I nor you can come up with definitive evidence for or against the existence of God, Allah, Vishnu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, nor any of the myriad others worshiped throughout history. So why bother?
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 05:59:06 [Permalink]
|
| After reading smoke's replies I am left with a single impression. "Believing must be easy. It sure allows smoke to remain completely unencumbered by the facts." |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 06:33:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by smoke
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
Hi, Smoke. Let me first apologize for thinking that you were a hit-and-run poster here at SFN. I'm happy you came back to 'check in' on this thread.
I assume that you would agree that your initial post was a parody, and that the caricature of atheists as presented is just that, no? (That is, I hope you don't really think that atheists "think that the primary aim of an omnibenevolent God is for people to have FUN," right?)
In any case, you asked (or rather, taunted us) if, instead of "laughing" at AiG, we could "present some arguments"-- presumably against the positions presented at the site. I must say-- that's a rather difficult task. Difficult not because AiG makes a particularly compelling case for any of its positions, but rather because there's so much there to critique. After all, when you take that the Bible is literally true, you are challenging any number of academic and scientific disciplines!
For instance, in a recent "Feedback" piece, a reader asks how one reconciles the 'secularist' chronology of ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia with the literalist (and AiG) view that the earth was created ca. 6000 years ago. According to their chart, the 'Tower of Babel' incident happened in ca. 2250 BC. Their evidence for this is on the one hand the reconking of Ussher, and on the other hand the credo "trust man or trust God." Contra this, established Mesopotamian chronology makes it clear that multiple languages were being spoken in Mesopotamia (and Egypt!) many years before the supposed Babel event. The only way to dispute that is to "trust God" and assume that somehow, the secular Mesopotamianists and Egyptologists are wrong and the Bible is right. I'd say that whatever my "overqualified credentials" are, this sort of reasoning is, in fact, laughable. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 03/01/2007 06:35:31 |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 07:51:25 [Permalink]
|
Smoke a belated welcome to SFN. I too assumed that your first post was simply a hit and run.
It seems that with the name calling (noob) and such you are trying to pick a fight, that's fine but it might be more interesting if you held a more civil discussion on the subject. Cuneiformist's last post I found interesting (I had not considered that timing) and would be interested in your response.
I am not a fundemental athiest according to your list. I guess I am sort of a nonpracticing athiest. I see no compelling evidence for the existence of a god so I don't beleive he/she/it exists, but I don't give it alot of thought anymore.
I do think it is fun to have these discussions though so I hope you'll consider continuing.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 09:22:53 [Permalink]
|
As requested by Smoke: Refuting Michael Behe – geez, could anything be easier?
Behe hasn't come up with anything new since his book “Darwin's Black Box” (published in 1996) and even as the book was being first published, examples in the book of “irreducible complexity” had been discovered in reduced forms, showing Behe hadn't even done thorough research before blasting his nonsense from rooftops.
Before I go on, let me make it clear that I understand Behe's ideas. (I've read his book and heard him speak at OSU in 2000.) What Behe actually claims is that biochemistry reveals that the first cell must have had an intelligent designer, and he bases his hypothesis on irreducible complexity. This refers to systems that are composed of several interacting parts that serve a single function. If removing any one of the parts would cause the function to cease, then the system is irreducibly complex. The idea is that such systems could not have evolved because the chances are too slim that all the parts of the system would randomly evolve at the same time.
However, irreducibly complex systems can evolve at other levels and do. A popular example is the heart. Behe does not deny this. So it cannot just be irreducibly complex systems that require intelligent design. Instead, Behe says it is a matter of scale, and his evidence deals specifically with biochemical systems.
Geneticist H. J. Muller predicted irreducible complexity at Behe's biochemical scale in terms of evolution in the early part of the 20th century. Muller explained that over time, genes, which would initially improve a function, would eventually become necessary to that function. After this process, the result would be an irreducibly complex system just as Behe describes.
Probably the most frequent criticism of Behe's hypothesis is that he deals poorly with the problem of duplicate genes. Several genes in certain systems that code for different parts are so similar they are considered to have earlier been one gene that was duplicated. Geneticists have actually studied gene duplication. Over time these unnecessary copies can potentially change just enough to take on another function, and DNA sequencing has revealed that it can take very little change for this to occur.
Behe admits that often genes look extremely similar but refuses to consider that they are duplicates, slightly modified over time. He claims the similarities are due to common descent from the intelligently designed primordial cell. (So notice here that Behe does not argue against the theory of evolution or against common decent – which makes me wonder why so many creationists treat him like their Golden Boy.)
Another criticism of Behe's book is that he didn't do proper research. David Ussery, an associate research professor at the Technical University of Denmark, cites numerous false statements from Behe's book. For instance, Behe claimed that there existed only two scientific articles that outlined models for the evolution of the cilium in specific mechanical terms. Ussery did a quick PubMed search and found 107 such articles. Behe claimed that no scientist had published a model to account for the gradual evolution of flagella. Ussery found 125 such articles.
But even if his examples of irreducibly complex had been credible, irreducible complexity is not a falsifiable hypothesis, much less a scientific theory. In order for a hypothesis or theory to be scientific it must be falsifiable (able to be proven wrong). Thus, Behe's claims are, in addition to being weak, not scientific.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 09:28:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by smoke
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178quote:
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.
Why not just look at the transcripts, and see for yourself who "suggested" what to whom:Q In any event, in your expert report, and in your testimony over the last two days, you used a looser definition of "theory," correct?
A I think I used a broader definition, which is more reflective of how the word is actually used in the scientific community.
Q But the way you define scientific theory, you said it's just based on your own experience; it's not a dictionary definition, it's not one issued by a scientific organization.
A It is based on my experience of how the word is used in the scientific community.
Q And as you said, your definition is a lot broader than the NAS definition?
A That's right, intentionally broader to encompass the way that the word is used in the scientific community.
Q Sweeps in a lot more propositions.
A It recognizes that the word is used a lot more broadly than the National Academy of Sciences defined it.
Q In fact, your definition of scientific theory is synonymous with hypothesis, correct?
A Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy's definition. But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.
Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?
A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.
Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes.
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?
A That is correct.
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to expl |
- 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 - 03/01/2007 : 09:29:16 [Permalink]
|
Now the question is, is Smoke willing to address the questions posed to him or will he run for the cover of his favorite website. I note that we will not ban him just because he holds a different view, which is a regular practice at AIG… Can he stand up to an actual debate?
He came here with the idea that we would be easy targets. He came here with the idea that we haven't heard this all before and would be blown away by his arguments. He came to mock us.
So, will he have the balls to take us on? I doubt it. Here is hoping that I am wrong about that…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/01/2007 : 09:37:51 [Permalink]
|
Smoke wrote: quote:
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.
So you come in here misrepresenting yourself, throwing out a bunch of stereotypes that distort atheism in general and also lump all atheists into one ugly group. You have basically demanded to be treated as a hostile witness. You've also shut down any avenues that might lead to meaningful understanding between yourself and the other members here. In other words, you are a dick who has come here for a fight.
I've seen lists similar to the one initially posted here. I think I know how this comes about. There are many standard atheist arguments (such as the problem of evil), just as there are many standard Christian apologetics (such as Pascal's Wager). Some of these arguments are better than others, but also, all of them are better understood by certain people. I've read things posted by angry atheists (who are either being intellectually lazy or are just not that smart to begin with) and they often distort or misstate some of the standard arguments. Heck, I've done it myself on occasion (misrepresenting a logical fallacy). Philosophy and science are big subjects with many difficult-to-comprehend and often subtle ideas.
We (both atheists and believers) are being lazy assholes when we merely make fun of the others' ideas instead of intelligently addressing them in a civilized manner. That said, often people within a common social group find comfort and emotional release in mocking others. I know I do from time to time. But when we take those mocking jokes to the other side and present them as either insults or an argument for a debate, we only succeed in spreading resentment, hatred, and misinformation. This is what you have done, Smoke. Now ask yourself, was that your goal?
(Edited for clarity.)
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/01/2007 09:41:22 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
You may be a fundamentalist atheist if...
