|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
 Posted - 07/07/2004 : 23:40:26
|
Hi y'all,
On one of the threads on www.christianforums.com I encountered a poster who calls himself 'tkster'. He is building a website called the skeptic times which is aimed at the 'true' skeptics. Since the poster does not consider internet sources reliable (not even NASA.gov or the site from University of California) I am very curious what this will be. Or not? Some topics from the site under construction:
'Creation vs. Evolution: tons and tons of information proving gradualistic evolution is dead.'
'The Bible Answers: answers to the critics of the Bible; proof that there are NO errors, NO contradictions, and that the Bible is the only book to have YET to be refuted.'
'The Million Dollar Offer: a money offer to those who believe in evolution, all about it!'
I will get one of the articles which is going to be on the site soon (if all goes well), and have subscribed to the newsletter on his site. I might post a review when it comes online (if I think about it then that is).
edited to fix bad OP
|
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
Edited by - tomk80 on 07/08/2004 00:35:26
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2004 : 23:51:03 [Permalink]
|
Well I don't know more than what the website says, but I have strong suspicions that this is not about skepticism at all. Seems like a website promoting christianity. Is it some sort of new trend that fundamentalists are describing themselves as skeptics or that they have that kind of thinking? It's serious if it's so, because it will probably fool many people, just like many are fooled by pseudoscience because they use science-sounding words. I guess god is ok with his supporters lying for him. But then again if he existed, lies wouldn't be necessary.
"#The Bible Answers: answers to the critics of the Bible; proof that there are NO errors, NO contradictions, and that the Bible is the only book to have YET to be refuted."
I wonder how he's going to do that. |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
 |
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2004 : 00:38:59 [Permalink]
|
| I think it's disconcerting. I also think it is not entirely honest, but that is of course reasoned from my point of view. Reasoned from their point of view I am not skeptic at all and only mimicking what scientists (who are of course atheistic and (because of that) dishonest) say. We'll see what the site brings. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2004 : 18:17:11 [Permalink]
|
| Based on the claims on the referenced website, I am highly skeptical of tk's chances of applying actual skepticism to anything. Maybe its just me, but it sure seems like he's made up his mind before he started. I'd wager that he's as likely to be a skeptic as Paris Hilton is to be in MENSA. I could be wrong, though... |
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
|
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 07/11/2004 : 18:10:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Well I don't know more than what the website says, but I have strong suspicions that this is not about skepticism at all. Seems like a website promoting christianity.
They are going to be "skeptical" about "skeptics", of course. Poor little souls. One can be skeptical about anything. This does not mean that one is correct in one's skepticism. The word "Skeptic" means, according to "The American Heritage Dictionary": "One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions." That could mean "skeptics," as we think of them, or "skeptics," as religious people see themselves. It is really disingenuous. Poor little souls -- to fool themselves in such a silly way.
ljbrs |
"Innumerable suns exist; innumerable earths revolve about these suns in a manner similar to the way the seven planets revolve around our sun. Living beings inhabit these worlds."
Giordano Bruno
(Burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church Inquisition in 1600) |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2004 : 13:54:47 [Permalink]
|
Just as a side note. It is now officially on line. He even has got a million dollar offer for those proving evolution. I don't believe the writer has the money but of course (how surprising), his standards can never be met for reasons that are obvious. For your amuzement I'll post it here:
quote:
You might have read this at first and not believed your eyes. But I will reassure you that your eyes are not fooling you. I do offer a million dollars for empirical proof for the theory of Evolution but in order to receive the money however, you must prove all of the following emprically:
1. Everything in the universe was made out of nothing without the hand of a supernatural being.
2. Non living material can evolve into living material (ie: Spontaneous Generation)
3. One kind of animal can evolve into another kind of animal. An example would be a cat can evolve into a dog or vice versa (keep in mind, "kind" is not the same as species).
4. The earth is billions of years old without any assumptions. Remember all dating methods use unformitarianism as a built in assumption. If you even think about using this, you will be laughed at. Assumptions are nothing but beliefs, and beliefs are not empirical but rather faith.
You must prove all of these empirically happened by blind chance. If you set up an experiment to prove these, that will be discounted as that is intelligent design, not chance. If you think this is too difficult of a challenge, I apologize if you were mistaken: I am not giving out the million dollars, if you want to earn it, you will have to do a million dollars worth of work.
If you submit evidence it will be viewed by a team of scientists and five skeptics. They will analyze your evidence and if found any assumptions, beliefs, or anything else beyond empirical it will be disqualified.
The following four listed are what are currently being taught in textbooks for junior high, high school, and college levels. My offer is proof that all of the above are nothing but religious beliefs that should be eliminated from any school system. These are only beliefs and it is fine if one wants to accept them, but not acceptable to be taught.
OR
Refute the argument of Design without any design. Basically, you must argue against the Argument of Design without anything that has been designed. If you submit an argument, your argument has been designed; any language you use, is designed; an email, that's been designed; a phone call, your phone was designed; a paper with words, that's been designed. Now you might think, "if I don't argue, I win." The problem is that is not acceptable, you must argue against the argument of Design without anything that has been designed and prove that Design did not make this world.
Like the other, this too is impossible, as there is no argument against design without being a hypocrite
Talk about understanding evolution theory (don't know whether to laugh or cry) |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/16/2004 : 20:48:40 [Permalink]
|
tkster wrote on his website:quote:
They will analyze your evidence and if found any assumptions...
Yeah, I made the silly assumption that the judges would understand what the bunch of papers I submitted1 was for. No million bucks for me.
This person is taking lessons from Kent Hovind in "How to Offer a Prize that Cannot Possibly be Collected," as a part of his "Dirty Underhanded Tricks" seminar rotation.
1 Not really. Just playing it up for laughs.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2004 : 17:38:31 [Permalink]
|
In my opinion, anybody can call himself/herself a skeptic about anything or anyone, even if the self-designated skeptic's ideas are full of baloney. The term "skeptical" is not a measure of "truth" or "falsity" of a proposition but simply reflects the position of the person labeling himself/herself as a skeptic concerning that proposigion in question.
Ideas can be full of baloney, but in the confused mind(s) of the self-designated skeptic/skeptics, they can be truth incarnate.
ljbrs |
"Innumerable suns exist; innumerable earths revolve about these suns in a manner similar to the way the seven planets revolve around our sun. Living beings inhabit these worlds."
Giordano Bruno
(Burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic Church Inquisition in 1600) |
| Edited by - ljbrs on 07/17/2004 17:40:43 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2004 : 18:34:02 [Permalink]
|
Yeah, Dave called it. The guy is Hovind Lite and he knows slightly less about evolution than I do about quantum physics. I know nothing about quantum physics except how to spell it, and I'm not too sure about that.
Worth pursuing for amusment perhaps, but otherwise just more cyber-noise.
 |
"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! 
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 08:46:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80
Hi y'all,
On one of the threads on www.christianforums.com I encountered a poster who calls himself 'tkster'. He is building a website called the skeptic times which is aimed at the 'true' skeptics.
I've visited this site a few times and remain unimpressed. In fact, it seems that being a skeptic is only tangental to the function of the site and newsletter. It's obvious that this is some teen-ager/college kid with little else to do.
His newsletter is a bunch of crap-- neither humorous or informative-- and his defense of Christianity is weak. On one of his active links called What Atheists Don't Want You To Know, he argues that:
A) miracles do happen. His evidence for this comes from the usual cancer-cured-despite-dire-diagnoses line of reasoning-- not entirely convincing;
B) Moses did part the Red Sea. His evidence for this is a bunch of unfounded claims that he's obviously never bothered to look at. Refutations are dismissed because "atheists must deny this as this would definitely be a miracle and a major blow that the Bible is in fact infallible." Right;
C) Some bit about how atheists "win" if they get Christians to belive in evolution. Whatever that means;
D) That there really is design in the unverse, as noted in Romans 1. Uh, huh?
It's clear that the guy has trouble writing in a thoughtful, logical manner, and instead presents incoherent and jumbled arguments that don't hold up or are sometimes irrelevant to the original idea.
Oh well. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 07/20/2004 : 11:53:00 [Permalink]
|
I think the worst thing he said was:
"In order to argue against the Argument of Design one would have to design an argument, making them a hypocritical fool."
It really makes me wonder if he even knows what Argument of Design actually says.
Edit: I also sent a couple emails on his "Prove Evolution" page. I think in the last one, I asked him to prove gravity by showing it exists everywhere in the universe, which is just like his first point:
"1. Everything in the universe was made out of nothing without the hand of a supernatural being."
and I offered him something around $1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. As to my knowlege, he has not done it yet (as he has not responded to my email). |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
| Edited by - Ricky on 07/20/2004 11:56:06 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2004 : 06:02:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
I think the worst thing he said was:
"In order to argue against the Argument of Design one would have to design an argument, making them a hypocritical fool."
It really makes me wonder if he even knows what Argument of Design actually says.
Edit: I also sent a couple emails on his "Prove Evolution" page. I think in the last one, I asked him to prove gravity by showing it exists everywhere in the universe, which is just like his first point:
"1. Everything in the universe was made out of nothing without the hand of a supernatural being."
and I offered him something around $1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. As to my knowlege, he has not done it yet (as he has not responded to my email).
Ricky, were you banned from the skeptictimes forum (I know I was before I could make even one post, so much for discussion )? |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 09/07/2004 06:03:01 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2004 : 14:33:22 [Permalink]
|
After I registered I looked around in the id vs evolution forum for a moment. A day later I couldn't log in again and got the message that my password was deactivated. I asked for clarification but never got any answer.
After this I changed usernames to Tommy. I made two posts, trying to keep to the strict 'forum rules'. However, my useraccount was again deactivated a day later without any explanation. I checked the forum to day and was the 'moron' who was banned. I didn't bother checking other posts.
[rant]
The level of the forum, IMO, is at a level of reasoning where Verlch would feel at home, although the tone is supposedly 'friendly'. In that sense that they won't actually call you a moron in your face if you are discussing. But whatever. Their idiotic ramblings form a bright shining sign in favor of atheism. Let them be, I'd say.
[/rant] |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 09/09/2004 : 05:12:17 [Permalink]
|
| How could you register on skeptictimes in the first place? I tried to do it, but all I get is a page that tells me my birthday info is required. Very well then, but maybe it would make things easier to, oh I don't know, actually have fields for that information...? |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
