|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 07/28/2010 : 18:09:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Originally posted by ooh_child
Originally posted by Bill scott
OK that does take some of the sting out. It still leaves 5.7 million unaccounted for. If that was funded privately as well then my point has been mooted. That was my beef from the start. If folks want to spend their own cash on a hall then they are certainly free to do so but, if this was publicly funded then that is where I start to have a problem with it.
|
Bill, it's obvious you just want to bitch for the sake of bitching, rather than actually finding out the facts before you go off on government spending. I gave you the link to finding out who funded this exhibit pages ago but you didn't even take the time to check it out. 
Why do you ignore the evidence presented to you? I tend to agree with some here who believe your faith may be quite fragile.
|
For those of you unfamiliar with Bill, he does not open links, he does not engage in honest debate, he changes the topic when you destroy his talking point. He is a professional liar for jesus. Honestly, I think he gets paid by some religitard organization to come in here and shit on the floor from time to time.
Just start a thread titled Al Gore and see how fast he jumps in saying something like "Al Gore has a private jet, therefore global warming is a lie!"
There is no point trying to engage him in a debate. The best we can do is grind up his arguments into little piles of dust, then ridicule him when he doesn't even realize he has nothing left, no evidence, no argument.
|
Dude. Do you actually think that when I respond to Bill, I'm writing my response for him?
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2010 : 18:53:21 [Permalink]
|
| Hey, Bill, if the government shouldn't be promoting philosophies, do you advocate for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and that the government has no business deciding upon the legality of abortion? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2010 : 20:05:36 [Permalink]
|
kil said:
Dude. Do you actually think that when I respond to Bill, I'm writing my response for him?
|
I'm pretty sure you are not unfamilliar with Bill.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 07/29/2010 : 03:43:40 [Permalink]
|
This whole thing is getting bogged down and the arguments get less interesting by the hour. Soon the thread will evolve into yet another round of back-biting and recriminations -- lots of fun, yes, but not very enlightening. After careful study, I think see the problem; Bill, et al. lacks ammunition. Being of a sensitive, studious, non-combative nature, and desiring nothing more than fair play, I will help.
Scientific Facts Proving Charles Darwin's
Theory of Evolution is Wrong, False, and Impossible
News You can Use
The Latest Examples in the News of Evolution Brainwashing
Hi, my name is Evolutionary Fraud from Piltdown, England.
My friends call me Ape Jaw Evan.
Click here to read about me and other media myths, frauds, and lies.
The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This web page will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is called a theory, instead of a law.
The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists. Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables. New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals. Evolutionist fail to admit that no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way. Evolution is simply pie-in-the-sky conjecture without scientific proof.
|
There. Now anyone can simply open the link, study a bit, and, loins girded with real, set-in-stone Scientific Law, give them Darwin-worshipers the debate-flogging that they so richly deserve, and is so badly overdue! 
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
welshdean
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
172 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2010 : 04:10:15 [Permalink]
|
Bill,
I'm afraid you're talking bollocks again.
1) Evolution does not attempt to explain the origins of life, not in any way shape nor form. It perfectly describes the effects of random changes within a community of life. That's it.
2) Evolution does not equate to atheism. Just as fundiementalism doesn't equate to intelligence.
3) Science has no affiliation to any of the creation myths abound through human history. Equally, no creation myth has any affiliation to science.
4) Everyone reading these boards are atheistic. The difference between you and I (and many others here) is our atheism goes just one step further than yours. We both don't believe in Thor, Odin, Vishnu or Zeus. Do we? Go on Bill, go that extra yard mate, you'll be happy you did. |
"Frazier is so ugly he should donate his face to the US Bureau of Wild Life."
"I am America. I am the part you won't recognize, but get used to me. Black, confident, cocky. My name, not yours. My religion, not yours. My goals, my own. Get used to me."
"Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on earth."
---- Muhammad Ali
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2010 : 04:22:28 [Permalink]
|
Hi welshdeanI Long time, no hear from -- welcome back!
Our Bill is still stuck in the same, old rut, I'm afraid. But we've got to give him high marks for hangin' in there. Right or wrong, he just won't let go. I admire that...
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2010 : 05:27:33 [Permalink]
|
[i]Originally posted by filthyOur Bill is still stuck in the same, old rut, I'm afraid. But we've got to give him high marks for hangin' in there. Right or wrong, he just won't let go. I admire that...
|
HA! If any theists here gets any points I'd say it's OFFC. But still... There's no comparing their styles, only their fantasies.
clueless and deluded. Happily so. SS |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2010 : 06:24:53 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by ooh_child |
| Bill, it's obvious you just want to bitch for the sake of bitching, rather than actually finding out the facts before you go off on government spending. |
Well to some degree I am sure you are correct. I was responding to the filthy post and probably should have checked up a little more then I did on the whole story before jumping in. Like who funded it? And yes with a 14 trillion dollar debt load hanging over us right now I am pretty trigger happy these days about going off on government spending.
| I gave you the link to finding out who funded this exhibit pages ago but you didn't even take the time to check it out. |
Just relax here for a minute. As you can tell by now usually when I get involved it becomes me on one side and the forum on the other. A small town Christian conservative drawing so much attention here, gosh, who would have figured? I do read every post but the limited time that I have to dedicate to the discussion does not allow me to address every post. And yes dude is right, I seldom look at links. It just takes time. Time that I don't have. But his notion that I get paid to come here did give me a good little chuckle. Thanks, dude. You never fail to entertain. As soon as filthy posted the funding information you will note that I promptly addressed it.
| Why do you ignore the evidence presented to you? |
I just explained that and why I do seldom open links.
| I tend to agree with some here who believe your faith may be quite fragile |
Well the fact is that you nothing about my faith. Stop being so pretentious. |
"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.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2010 : 06:30:03 [Permalink]
|
| So you Bill are okay with science as long as it's does not conflict with your worldview. When it does, you demote it to a mere philosophical worldview, equal to your own, no matter how much empirical evidence there is to support the science side of the equation. As though science has an ax to grind where it comes to your views, and relaxes the requirements that make a good theory a good theory. |
I never said that.
But again and again, science does not care about or promote either atheism or theism. Science can't work by putting the cart before the horse. What I mean by that is people like Ham and the folks over at the ICR have sworn to a written statement that the bible is a factual account of history and unquestionably true and therefore any science that is at odds with the exact events as told in genesis must be wrong. Bill, you have stated that there are scientists who disagree with "monkey to man" evolution (a term that they came up with for PR reasons). The problem is that those scientists stopped doing science once they signed that statement.
The moment they agreed to a statement of faith that includes only one correct conclusion to whatever science comes up with, what they agreed to is that it does matter where the evidence leads. They are simply not going to be okay with it if it conflicts with their beliefs. Their version of science does not leave the door open for the introduction of any evidence that supports evolution. When it's presented to them, they dismiss it. They are free to put their fingers in their ears and go "la la la la" every time evidence surfaces that supports evolution. Those are your scientists Bill. In other words, there is no controversy among scientists that evolution happens. The overwhelming consensus is that it does, and that consensus is so strong that evolution is also considered a fact. It's only the mechanisms that drive evolution that are considered theory, pretty much. Few theories are as well supported as evolution is. Only a small and vocal minority of scientists (who have ceased being scientists) are complaining. (Most of the signers never were scientists to begin with, but that's beside the point.) |
I have never signed any statement from Hamm or any others.
| Now, classrooms are simply not able to present the kind of detail that a museum can. So in many cities and states there are science museums where the kids can get up close and personal to exhibits that demonstrate what they have been talking about in the classroom. In the case of evolution, they can see the fossil evidence, see how the work was done, see why science has gone where it has gone and so on. Most museums, including the Smithsonian rely at least in part on donors concerned about education and subscribers and government funding to complete their mission of bringing the most current science to the masses. They play an important roll in education. In the county I live in, there are always school buses outside of the Science Center because, once again, schools can't afford the kind of exhibits that museums offer. The mistake that you Bill keep making is that this is wasted money. It's not at all wasted money if you consider education a priority. |
I have no problem with science. But you and I are not talking about science. We are talking about competing world views. Your world view that states that life arose out of some warm little pond and where the warm little pond came from we do not know but, we do know (we claim) that no divine intervention was involved. And my world view which claims a divine first cause who dwells in eternity and and as creator of the laws of creation is not bound to said laws.
You then fraudulently label your world view as science and then fraudulently label my world view as religion in a obvious attempt to keep one competing world view out of the public realm while promoting another competing world view in that same public realm. In other words sense you have now fraudulently labeled your world view "science" you claim that it can be taught using public funding in any public setting you see fit. And sense my world view has has been fraudulently labeled religion you reject the use of any public funds going towards this world view and will fight to the death to keep this competing world view from the public realm. And your fear of any other competing world view being given equal footing in the public realm is just telling of the fragile state of your faith in this world view of yours.
| I have already talked about the importance of bringing scientific literacy to our children. And I don’t care what religion you happen to subscribe to or what your belief is about creation and what dedication you have to your particular faith. Hell, how can you even argue against the consensus view if you are ignorant of why that view is the consensus view among those scientists who are actually doing the science? Yes, there are creation stories. But it isn’t the job of a science museum to present any of them. It’s their job to present the science, take it or leave it. There is nothing unfair about it. Keeping your children ignorant about why scientists have come to certain conclusions about whatever the science is, will not serve your children. |
And your belief that your world view has a stranglehold on science is laughable. Just as in the tea party case, anyone who has a competing view with Obama is a racist and anybody with a competing world view here can in no way can be a scientist or "be doing science". Or so says you.
| Bill. All of your arguments about money and fairness and evolution itself are nothing more than whining about a subject that you don’t happen to agree with. |
You have that backwards. Whether it is in politics or world views on origins, in your fragile state of belief you seek to silence, fraudulently label and complain about any other competing world view.
| There are many other exhibits at the Smithsonian, some being worked on right now, that you are not complaining about. Bottom line is you homed in on this one because this one is in conflict with your beliefs. |
Just like the rest of you post this is not true at all. I honed in on this exhibit because it was the topic of the thread. A thread that I did not start. |
"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 - 07/29/2010 : 07:04:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
I have no problem with science. But you and I are not talking about science. |
Wow, you are going to have to define "science" for us all.| We are talking about competing world views. Your world view that states that life arose out of some warm little pond... |
No, that's the scientific conclusion, not an atheistic "world view." Atheism says nothing at all about the origin of life. Atheism entails nothing, it's not a "world view."| ...and where the warm little pond came from we do not know... |
Do, too.| ...but, we do know (we claim) that no divine intervention was involved. |
Show us where in the Smithsonian exhibit it says that no divine intervention was involved.
The science says nothing about divine intervention. Specifically, if a divine intervenor can do anything it wants, then it's impossible to scientifically test such a hypothesis.| You then fraudulently label your world view as science... |
Because you call it "fraud," the above is not just a lie, it's slanderous.| ...and then fraudulently label my world view as religion... |
How is it fraudulent to call a religion a religion?| ...in a obvious attempt to keep one competing world view out of the public realm while promoting another competing world view in that same public realm. |
Persecution fantasies. Nobody is trying to keep your religious beliefs "out of the public realm." They just can't be promoted by the government. Are you incapable of promoting your beliefs without government aid? If so, it's not much of a faith.| And your fear of any other competing world view being given equal footing in the public realm... |
Please explain how your epistemology is equally reliable to that of science. If it's not as useful, then why should it be given equal footing?| ...is just telling of the fragile state of your faith in this world view of yours. |
That's sheer, unmitigated projection of your own fears, Bill.| And your belief that your world view has a stranglehold on science is laughable. |
Yes, it is, because atheism isn't a "world view" and doesn't have "a stranglehold on science" or anything else.| ...anybody with a competing world view here can in no way can be a scientist or "be doing science". Or so says you. |
Who, exactly, is saying that? Kil said the exact opposite.| Whether it is in politics or world views on origins, in your fragile state of belief you seek to silence, fraudulently label and complain about any other competing world view. |
You are dreaming. Or delusional. Take your pick, but either way, what you're saying here is the opposite of reality.| Just like the rest of you post this is not true at all. I honed in on this exhibit because it was the topic of the thread. A thread that I did not start. |
Yet you're not complaining about all the other exhibits, costing billions, total. You're just whining about $20.7 million and making up bold slanders about fraud. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2010 : 07:18:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
I have no problem with science. But you and I are not talking about science. We are talking about competing world views. Your world view that states that life arose out of some warm little pond and where the warm little pond came from we do not know but, we do know (we claim) that no divine intervention was involved. And my world view which claims a divine first cause who dwells in eternity and and as creator of the laws of creation is not bound to said laws. |
Can I just second Dave's request that you define science for us.
Would you reject something as science as long as you can say: "How do you know X? Were you there?" |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2010 : 07:56:12 [Permalink]
|
A warm, little pond. Am I ever sick of hearing about it. Bill, I don't know and neither do you. And neither did Darwin, nor does anyone else today.
But anyhow, here's the pretty much innocuous letter that started it all:
The story behind Darwin's warm little pond
Sooner or later, students of abiogenesis will encounter Darwin's 1871 letter to Joseph Hooker with his speculations on the spontaneous generation of life. He was returning some pamphlets which triggered the reaction: "I am always delighted to see a word in favour of Pangenesis, which some day, I believe, will have a resurrection." The next paragraph has his "big if" dream:
"It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, - light, heat, electricity &c. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." |
Sometimes I used to wonder; why is it that creationists grasp abiogenesis as the final straw in an argument when none of us knows exactly how it came to be. They claim that "God done it," but really, they can't prove that except by quoting Scripture, which simply won't float. That ain't anything like science; that's religion, which tends to be irrational on the topic.
Anyhow, there's the story. I suggest that you open this link; it's a very interesting read.
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2010 : 07:57:37 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| Nobody is trying to keep your religious beliefs "out of the public realm." They just can't be promoted by the government. |
As is always this simply boils down to two competing belief systems. You have those who subscribe to a divine creator as the first cause for all that exists (which in the USA the majority of those happen to be Christians) and those who subscribe to a materialistic or naturalistic first cause for all that exists. And from there trickle down all the debates, such as this one, which when broken down to it's core are just these two competing belief systems in opposition of each other once again.
But you are right and I need not get fixated on one simple museum display as I have plenty of opportunity when I am out in the public realm, or even the private realm, to share or promote my beliefs with others. Which is what I do and will continue to do. Believe me I have no great hopes that I am changing minds here on this forum but rather I join in here from time to time just because I enjoy and like to hear points and perspectives from my competing counterparts. What fun is a forum with just a bunch of like minded individuals sitting around patting each other on the back? Good day. |
"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.-
|
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2010 : 08:26:52 [Permalink]
|
As is always this simply boils down to two competing belief systems. You have those who subscribe to a divine creator as the first cause for all that exists (which in the USA the majority of those happen to be Christians) and those who subscribe to a materialistic or naturalistic first cause for all that exists. And from there trickle down all the debates, such as this one, which when broken down to it's core are just these two competing belief systems in opposition of each other once again.
|
Bill,
The big hole in your argument, which everyone here has been trying to explain to you, is that evolution is not a "belief" system. Evolution has so much physical evidence supporting it that it is foolish to not accept it. Of course every single detail has not been worked out yet (and probably never will) but that is no reason to deny it. No matter how much you try to equate it with your "belief" system it's just not going to happen. It is not the same thing. You are being dishonest with yourself. All your "belief" system has backing it up is scripture and philosophy.....No physical evidence, none, zero, zilch, nada.
|
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2010 : 08:46:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
As is always this simply boils down to two competing belief systems. You have those who subscribe to a divine creator as the first cause for all that exists (which in the USA the majority of those happen to be Christians) and those who subscribe to a materialistic or naturalistic first cause for all that exists. And from there trickle down all the debates, such as this one, which when broken down to it's core are just these two competing belief systems in opposition of each other once again. |
This ignores all the differing shades of belief. "Theistic evolution" is more widely held than your theological ideas on origins, Bill. I doubt that you'd consider people who hold such views to be "Christians," but that doesn't mean they're not religious (or, worse yet, promoting an "atheistic world view").| But you are right and I need not get fixated on one simple museum display as I have plenty of opportunity when I am out in the public realm, or even the private realm, to share or promote my beliefs with others. Which is what I do and will continue to do. |
Nobody is stopping you. Nobody is even trying to stop you. I wish you would stop, and I put forth strong counter-arguments to your nonsense, but that's hardly the same as trying to "silence" you.| Believe me I have no great hopes that I am changing minds here on this forum but rather I join in here from time to time just because I enjoy and like to hear points and perspectives from my competing counterparts. What fun is a forum with just a bunch of like minded individuals sitting around patting each other on the back? |
Right on.I suppose I'll never learn how you define "science," nor will I ever find out why you think atheism is a "world view" or how fiscal conservatism is not a philosophy. While you talk a good game about how there should be different viewpoints discussed, when it comes down to direct questions, you clam up. And that's actually the primary reason you'll never change any minds here: you fail to truly engage here. Instead, you often seem to feel free and justified in spewing insulting nonsense and then running away. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Ken Ham: not even a very good liar.
