|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 01/19/2009 : 11:13:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
Dave:
I don't have faith rant rant rant...
Millions of years blah blah blah...
24/7/365 phfffff Bill why must you lie rant rant rant...
I never said any such thing, on this thread blah blah blah
Choir:
Dave you beat him up good
Dave you rock
etc.... etc... etc....
fawn fawn fawn blah blah blah etc... etc... etc... |
Thanks for tacitly admitting that you can't actually answer any of the points raised here, Bill, thus supporting my assessment that treating you with any respect is a waste of time and effort. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2009 : 11:32:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
Dave:
I don't have faith rant rant rant...
Millions of years blah blah blah...
24/7/365 phfffff Bill why must you lie rant rant rant...
I never said any such thing, on this thread blah blah blah
Choir:
Dave you beat him up good
Dave you rock
etc.... etc... etc....
fawn fawn fawn blah blah blah etc... etc... etc... |
Thanks for tacitly admitting that you can't actually answer any of the points raised here, Bill, thus supporting my assessment that treating you with any respect is a waste of time and effort.
|
Thank you for self-demonstrating my points.
And for someone who does not patrol the playground 24/7/365 you sure do reply in a hurry.
Now let the clones chime in... |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 01/19/2009 11:53:37 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2009 : 11:58:44 [Permalink]
|
Ok, I'll do it. I'll get down into the gritty ol' nitty.  What freakin' "first cause of life and matter?" Enlighten me; I don't know.
Was it a god of some sort or another, perhaps the insane deity of the Abrahamic faiths? Quetzalcoatl, the feathered serpent? Those twin gangs of drunken rowdies rowdies worshiped & envied by by both the Greeks and Romans? Odin, mayhaps? Somebody/something else? Really, all that runs together in a sort of kaleidoscope Fantasia that's interesting, even beautiful to watch, but as meaningless as the original, Disney production. Which was great, but not definitive of anything.
I don't know nor will I ever. Nor will you. Hey, comes to that, nor will we need to know beyond the satisfaction of intellectual curiosity. Thus, the best we can do is follow the research to wherever it might lead. So far, a naturalistic explanation seems best indicated.
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2009 : 12:35:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Thank you for self-demonstrating my points. |
Your points being "blah blah blah" and "rant rant rant?"| And for someone who does not patrol the playground 24/7/365 you sure do reply in a hurry. |
That's funny when your replies were faster.| Now let the clones chime in... |
Yup, just keep on throwing the insults when you can't respond to the points being made, Bill. You further cement your reputation that way. No moral high ground for you. |
- 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
13477 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2009 : 12:54:32 [Permalink]
|
Oh come on Bill. You have waved away every bit of evidence provided to you that supports common decent. First Cause isn't even an issue when discussing biological evolution. You have been waving away every bit of evidence for common decent ever since you debated with Tommy, years ago.
For example, we have shown to you the transitionals that you say don't exist. Coming back with "it's your belief that they are transitional but it's my belief that they are not" is nothing but a rhetorical trick and a way to ignore the significance of creatures that threaten your worldview. You have built an impenetrable wall that protects you from any knowledge because admitting that those creatures exist means that you would have to reassess your literal take on Genesis.
It's never been a matter of whether your God exists or not, Bill. Not when talking about evolution. No. It's the tiny box that you have placed God in that you feel duty bound to protect that makes you a part of the disease. We have a marvelous tool called science that helps us sort out the natural world, and you readily accept all the wonders it has brought to you until it goes anywhere near your precious box. Then you shut down and turn your back on the very same method that has made so much of human progress possible. Science is a wonderful thing until it tampers with the God in Box version of your creator.
And really, that's your problem, Bill. Science says nothing about God. It just goes where it goes. And there are plenty of Christians who are cool with where it goes. Their faith is not threatened new knowledge.
Anti evolutionary creationists are protecting the smallest version of God possible. They are idolaters who place more faith in a book than in the God that allowes us to actually look at his creation. And they are prideful blasphemers because they claim to know Gods intent. As though they know the mind of God. And you are right there with them, Bill.
The irony is that your tiny version of God has probably caused more people to become atheists than we have, because of the betrayal they have felt, when they actually do gain some knowledge about the world, and figure out that they have been lied to.
I don't need Dave to tell me what to think. And we are both aware that we are not always coming from the same place. But on this we agree. You, Bill, are the disease. Not because you believe in God. But because you willfully turn your back on knowledge.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2009 : 12:59:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Plus or minus 1/4 of a billion years, now that is one he!! of a window. |
First of all, I pull that number out of my old memory on the subject. I'd think that scientists studying the subject would have a more precise etimate.
Second, every measurement has a window of precision. Considering I was talking about the existence of the phenomenon, not its timing, I fail to see the relevance of your rebuttal.
Also, you can write 'Hell' here. It's not being censored.
I must have misunderstood you. When you said:
| Yeah, but they are a secondary effect of life itself. |
I thought you were referring to evolutionary sciences.
|
Evolutionary sciences, having been designed by living beings and treating about the evolution of life, they indeed are a secondary effect of life on Earth. But no, I was talking about the presence of dioxygen in our atmosphere.
| That's what it was designed to do since the beginning. |
Yes it was designed, it didn't just so happen to be that way.
|
Huh... Yeah. Evolutionary sciences was designed.
Evolutionary theory is an explanation designed -thought of- to account for the variety of life forms. Not sure what confuses you here.
| No belief involved here, just a definition of scientific theory. |
We have seen many false scientific theories. Your belief is that this particular scientific theory is true. |
Indeed, Lamarckism comes to mind. I thought about it but decided not to include it not to make it any more confusing.
The theory of Evolution is an explanation. Along with other, scientific or not, correct or not.
But what you were arguing is that I needed a leap of faith to consider it an explanation:
| And no, Evolution theory is not a belief system, it is a scientific theory, a way to explain observed facts. |
You believe that it is a way to explain observed facts. |
| Obviously, ID is also an explanation of these facts. Except that ID, being un-falsifiable and non-naturalist, does not obey the rules of science and, as such, is not a scientific explanation. |
Agreed. But scientific explanation is not the end all be all of truth. We have seen plenty of scientific explanation through out the years that ended up being 100% false. The fact that humans are the ones who do science allows ample possibility for error and falsehoods to enter the scientific equation and resulting theory. |
Indeed, human understanding is limited and every knowledge is putative. That is the reason why Science does its best to be self-corrective (and why the use of the word: 'theory').
It is always possible that we live in the matrix, or that the world was created last Thursday along with all our memories, or that I am asleep and everybody else only exist as fragment of my imagination.
And none of these ideas can be tested or present any real usefulness past that of occupying an idle mind for the duration of a bowel movement.
| The fact that Evolution is, most probably, the correct explanation is merely an added bonus. |
It's your conclusion that it is most probably the correct answer. And even if you give that probably a 99.99% chance of being correct that still makes it your belief that it is correct, which makes it a belief system. |
Nope, not really.
It is not a belief if you decide to accept the conclusion based on observing facts and following the rules of logic.
It is commonly accepted that there is a difference between belief and knowledge.
And, again, no.
I know there has been literaly tenth of thousands studies (and I am being conservative there) that could have falsified evolution but instead strengthened it by bringing results compatible with what evolution would have predicted. |
Everything evolves, to what degree is the debate.
|
Ok... but not so long ago you said, speaking about the validity of the TOE:
| What validity? This is nothing but your belief system. |
Now, you agree that evolution (at least micro-evolution) is taking place.
Ok... That's a start. Now explain to me why small incrimental changes (continuation of microevolution along long period of time) would not generate bigger changes, macroevolution.
| On the other hand I only know of one study critical of evolution published in a peer reviewed journal. And, from what I heard, it was only published because it by-passed peer-reviewing. |
Peer-review does not equivocate truth, even if the peers are naturalists with a natural explanation for everything. |
Obviously, but peer review is the best we have to assert that an explanation conforms to the standard of rigour, sciences and logic, by having people proficient on these subjects looking over the paper before accepting it.
Also, peer review implies science and science implies naturalism, non-naturalistic science would be metaphysic.
| Right now, you are not debating. You are just pretending that the facts that are there are not there. |
What facts? |
Well, I am not sure anymore, as you are shifting the goal-posts so fast that they are now noticeably younger than their twins goal-post that stayed at rest on the other side of the field...
But, you started by stating that the theory of Evolution is nothing but a belief system.
I answered by pointing out that the TOE was not a belief but a rational explanation of the variety of life, based on observed facts and following the rules of science and that it had not yet been disproved.
You then declared that it was only an explanation if I believed it was.
At which point I answered that a line of reasoning accounting for a particular situation was an explanation for this situation. I also mentioned that it was not necessary for an explanation to be a correct explanation to be an explanation.
At which point you admitted that evolution did, in fact occur, but took your goal posts into post-modern land. At which point, I started having trouble hearing what you said, presumably because of the Doppler effect of the goal-posts moving (sorry, I am running a 'The Big Bang theory' marathon right now)... |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2009 : 13:09:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
For example, we have shown to you the transitionals that you say don't exist. Coming back with "it's your belief that they are transitional but it's my belief that they are not" is nothing but a rhetorical trick and a way to ignore the significance of creatures that threaten your worldview. |
I remember that whole exchange very well, and it was worse than that. Bill feigned interest in learning what scientists meant by the word "transitional," and we patiently showed him that it does not mean or imply a direct, "missing link" sort of ancestry. But then Bill almost instantly turned around, claiming that because Archeopteryx isn't an ancestor of any living birds, it can't be transitional, thus clearly demonstrating that his own, personal definitions for words are far more important to him than understanding the scientific concepts. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2009 : 13:11:40 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| Your points being "blah blah blah" and "rant rant rant?" |
No. My point being that you live on this website and feed off affirmation from your clones. Blah blah and rant rant were just a few theatrics for fun.
| That's funny when your replies were faster. |
You live here. It's undeniable.
| Yup, just keep on throwing the insults when you can't respond to the points being made, Bill. |
Apparently it is a common thread around here.
| You further cement your reputation that way. |
What reputation?
| No moral high ground for you. |
There is always tomorrow. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2009 : 13:27:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
No. My point being that you live on this website and feed off affirmation from your clones. |
Actually, I feed off dissent and arguments which lead to me learning something new (which is why I don't tend to respond to things I agree with). I use the energy from such feeding to power my efforts against anti-reality goons like yourself.| Blah blah and rant rant were just a few theatrics for fun. |
I see.| You live here. It's undeniable. |
It's part of my "job" here.| Yup, just keep on throwing the insults when you can't respond to the points being made, Bill. |
Apparently it is a common thread around here. |
Apparently, you're not paying attention.| You further cement your reputation that way. |
What reputation? |
As a disease.| No moral high ground for you. |
There is always tomorrow. |
Nothing will change for you tomorrow, Bill, because you think you're morally and logically correct, and unwilling to entertain the idea that you're wrong. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
River Otter
Skeptic Friend
USA
67 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2009 : 16:07:33 [Permalink]
|
Kil-<i>You have built an impenetrable wall that protects you from any knowledge because admitting that those creatures exist means that you would have to reassess your literal take on Genesis.<i/> (Please forgive me for not highlighting, I just don't know how.)
How can anyone take the contradicting Genesis stories literally?
Long stories short.
Genesis 1:25-27 Humans were created after animals.
Genesis 2:18-19 Humans were created before the other animals.
Also,
Genesis 1:27 The first man and woman were created simultaneously.
Genesis 2:18-22 The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the mans rib.
Which way is it? The only one who could answer this question is the author and there isn't one listed on my copy of the Bible, and if there was, they would be long dead. This is a huge flaw in the whole "god created everything" argument.
How do creationists account for this major contradiction?
|
I am not ashamed to confess that I am ignorant of what I do not know. -Cicero
Brother, You say there is but one way to worship and serve the Great Spirit. If there is but one religion, why do you white people differ so much about it? Why not all agree, as you can all read the book. -Sagoyewatha,(Red Jacket) - Chief and great orator of the six nations. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 01/19/2009 : 16:43:38 [Permalink]
|
Bill, I ask again, and anyone else who wants a piece of it can jump in with their version:
Ok, if natural causes were not the "first cause of life and matter," what was?
Look, Bill, me ol' deep-water Churchy, hand-waving, straw men and enough red herrings to open a fishmonger's stall, not to mention a little mild and less than interesting ad hom, won't cut it. Never has, never will. If you don't think natural causes is responsible, then it is incumbent upon you to propose an alternative and give your reasons for thinking this. Otherwise, you are just stirring up the fora for no reason and being generally dishonest.
I ain't bitching though. Me, I like a stirred up forum, but I prefer it to be fractious over over argument, not nonsense.
So, .....?
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 01/19/2009 : 16:52:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by River Otter
Kil-<i>You have built an impenetrable wall that protects you from any knowledge because admitting that those creatures exist means that you would have to reassess your literal take on Genesis.<i/> (Please forgive me for not highlighting, I just don't know how.)
How can anyone take the contradicting Genesis stories literally?
Long stories short.
Genesis 1:25-27 Humans were created after animals.
Genesis 2:18-19 Humans were created before the other animals.
Also,
Genesis 1:27 The first man and woman were created simultaneously.
Genesis 2:18-22 The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the mans rib.
Which way is it? The only one who could answer this question is the author and there isn't one listed on my copy of the Bible, and if there was, they would be long dead. This is a huge flaw in the whole "god created everything" argument.
How do creationists account for this major contradiction?
|
Heh, it's Bill, not Kil.
Ok, look up at the tool bar and you will see B, I U, S, and so forth. Click these after highlighting the word(s) and you will get Bold, Italics, Underline, and Strikthrough, respectivly.
|
"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!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 01/19/2009 17:03:47 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2009 : 16:53:00 [Permalink]
|
They actually do Otter, some time quite creatively.
For example, the first account, that of the simultaneous creation of both man and woman has been taken as being the creation of Adam and not Eve but another woman.
This woman was then identified as being Lilith, a character only mentioned once in the Bible, that later rebelled against patriarchy, committed infanticide and become a demon, supposedly, specializing in killing children. The character was probably part of the region beliefs system that pre-dated the adoption of monotheism by Israelis.
It's really interesting.
Also, for the forum tags, you should replace the <>s by s.
Put a letter in between, as you did, an i for italics, a b for bolding and so on.
And of course, in the second tag, the / goes before the letter.
For example:
Kil-[ b ] You have built an impenetrable wall that protects you from any knowledge because admitting that those creatures exist means that you would have to reassess your literal take on Genesis. [ / b ]
Produces:
You have built an impenetrable wall that protects you from any knowledge because admitting that those creatures exist means that you would have to reassess your literal take on Genesis.
Once you remove the spaces. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2009 : 19:34:47 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| Actually, I feed off dissent and arguments which lead to me learning something new (which is why I don't tend to respond to things I agree with) |
You can learn your whole life and still never know.
| I use the energy from such feeding to power my efforts against anti-reality goons like yourself. |
That and $4 will you get you a nice cup of joe from the local Starbucks.
| You live here. It's undeniable. |
It's part of my "job" here. |
Then stop calling me a liar for saying so tongue and cheek, typical semantics. Your reputation follows you.
| Yup, just keep on throwing the insults when you can't respond to the points being made, Bill. |
Apparently it is a common thread around here. |
Apparently, you're not paying attention. |
Your pathetic.
| You further cement your reputation that way. |
What reputation? |
As a disease. |
That's lame.
| Nothing will change for you tomorrow, Bill, because you think you're morally and logically correct, and unwilling to entertain the idea that you're wrong. |
Funny, I was just going to say the same thing about you.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 01/19/2009 19:57:07 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2009 : 19:44:15 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Simon |
| Now, you agree that evolution (at least micro-evolution) is taking place. |
I never disagreed.
Ok.
| Now explain to me why small incrimental changes (continuation of microevolution along long period of time) would not generate bigger changes, macroevolution. |
Maybe they make bigger changes? I just don't see the evidence that they evolved to such a degree as say a fish to a philosopher. Do you?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Really great website & reference
