|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 03/03/2007 : 10:43:18 [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. It is only a testament to the invalidity of the claims of the ToE.
Well, new data has come to light:ID is therefore completely compatible with the idea of common-descent and the modern theory of Evolution.
- BobMort at Overwhelming Evidence Bob goes on to suggest that anyone who claims that ID is not compatible with modern evolutionary theory is just a "troll" (perhaps even a "Darwinist troll," but especially those nasty young-Earth creationists) who seeks to make ID look ridiculous. So much for smoke's credibility.  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 03/03/2007 : 11:55:00 [Permalink]
|
The "fundamentalist atheist" test is from a super-arrogant apologist named Robert Turkel/James Patrick Holding (jpholding). He debates a lot on Theology Web, and even has his own section on that forum, in the Intra-Varsity-Relations section.
I should note that one of his schtick is to really go after those who dare criticize the behaviour of the OT god...just read his site from the links or check out the "Apologetics" section of TWEB. |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
| Edited by - the_ignored on 03/03/2007 11:58:41 |
|
|
|
smoke
New Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 01:18:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
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.
That's not true. Ken Miller has yet to demonstrate how flagellum is reducable since his example contains many flaws. I can point to links to back me, I just don't remember exactly what.
quote:
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.
Let me get this straight. You say that irreducibly complex systems can evolve...The very definition of irreducible means this can't happen. We're not talking about the heart. The heart is not the hinge of ID, so I could care less if it's reducible or not.
quote:
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.
That would be the long desired theory to be proven by evolutionists. Thank you for pointing that out since it appears to all of you that I am too ignorant of what macroevolution requires. Yet, one crucial element evades this mesmerisingly enchanting moment of evolutionist triumph...observation. Show me where this has happened. Show me how this could happen given already established laws (Laws of information, 2nd law of Thermodynamics).
quote:
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.
Right, and over time my duplicate of a Mario game can change into Batman. Maybe you should provide mathematical support for the chances of this happening..oh wait that wouldn't help you since the chances of the simplest self-sufficient living thing on this earth to form itself out of nothing is 1 to 10 to the 190,000th power...whereas 1 in 10^50 and beyond is mathematically impossible. So, perhaps I should by two newspapers today, so I can throw one of them in a puddle, so the ink can magically rearrange itself into tomorrow's edition, and for that to happen I have a MUCH greater chance than your proposition, which has to happen not only once, |
He does not answer when men cry out because of the arrogance of the wicked. Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea; the Almighty pays no attention to it.
Job 35:12-13 |
|
|
|
smoke
New Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 01:23:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
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…
Buddy, buddy, buddy, you should really find out who you're debating before you jump to conclusions first. If you think I have the fear that 99% of my Christian buddies have of "being disproven" by a majority vote because I'm debating 20 people at once, or as if somebody is going to post something so mind-boggling that I'll just go in my bed for weeks saying to myself, "why did I have to go up to dem smart atheists and have my preshus wittle faith destroyed," you better go back to debating 6th graders.
There's about 3 people in here who even know what evolution is. But you can do it. Come on, most the whole world of scientists is on your side. Look up those genome charts, where we're compared to monkeys' DNA. I believe in you ;) |
He does not answer when men cry out because of the arrogance of the wicked. Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea; the Almighty pays no attention to it.
Job 35:12-13 |
|
|
|
smoke
New Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 01:24:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
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."
After reading this I believe that it's easy to become ignorant. Now that scares me. |
He does not answer when men cry out because of the arrogance of the wicked. Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea; the Almighty pays no attention to it.
Job 35:12-13 |
|
|
|
smoke
New Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 01:31:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
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.
Ok, I admit that I'm easily distracted, because I'm answering uneducated posts like these. But, the part I don't understand is why you don't even know the first thing about history and the secular history of Christianity. Perhaps, when you get out of your atheist shell, you'll understand that there's a lot more physical claims behind Judeo-Christianity than attempts (and very successful ones by the way read Job 26:8, etc has a lot of science for 900 BC) to explain the world. The Resurrection being the hinge of Judeo-Christianity.
quote:
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?
Sarfati has admitted that he does not debate on the web, quote: "This is why I do not go to the web, because of so many canards that are unwilling to learn." I know what he means, so either you are lying or he is. I'm not saying you're making it up, show me the links to back up your claims.
quote:
And we all love a good Chick tract, don't we?
I like chicks, I don't know about "chick tracts."
quote:
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.
It's a legitimate question, but the method that is used in asking them isn't. The answer is of course illogical, both yes and no, since it is an illogical question. Yes God can make a rock so powerful that He can't lift it, and No there's nothing He can't lift.
quote:
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?
Yeah, which is why you should study a little history and come back and message me.
quote:
sanctimonious scoundrels
Yeah, I should really use that for those Catholic priests who make about $5 a month from their religious services along with $800 a month for their religious job. |
He does not answer when men cry out because of the arrogance of the wicked. Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea; the Almighty pays no attention to it.
Job 35:12-13 |
| Edited by - smoke on 03/04/2007 02:45:01 |
|
|
|
smoke
New Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 01:33:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by the_ignored
[quote]Originally posted by filthy
You have? Cool! Could you tell me (in PM, if necessary) who you were on TWEB, so's I can go and check up on the relevant posts? Or could you copy and paste them to me in PM or something?
BTW...as for smoke's saying that ID has no real link to creationism, he should read the judge's decision or the transcript from the Dover trial itself. Both available at the National Center for Science Education, I believe.
Or, he could just read the Wedge document.
Sure, www.tektonics.org Start there, see where you end up. I'll be laughing when you start asking all your atheist buddies for answers. |
He does not answer when men cry out because of the arrogance of the wicked. Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea; the Almighty pays no attention to it.
Job 35:12-13 |
|
|
|
smoke
New Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 01:35:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
quote:
Although the current members of the ID movement are overwhelmingly Christian, the ideology behind ID is naturalist/supernaturalistic. Its argument is not that God created Adam and Eve on the 6th day and rested on the 7th AND that evolution is false, but simply that evolution is false.
IDists are fond of telling you that they don't think that evolution is necessarily wrong, it's just that it could not have happened by purely "materialistic" mechanisms. So, an IDist can hold the view that common descent is true; that there has only been gradual change in species over time; that there is selection, drift etc; actually anything that science has to say about evolution EXCEPT they claim that some things are too unlikely to have happened in the absense of intelligence (think Behe's irreducible complexity, or Dembski's complex specified information).
And this is, of course, why ID is scientifically vacuous. Just about ANY viewpoint can be held by an IDist just as just about ANYTHING can fall under the term ID. Real science hasn't got this kind of luxury.
So if I say that you did not go to the moon today due to:
1) Lack of record
2) Financial (I'm assuming) impossibility (not saying you're broke, just it's hard to buy a rocket nowadays at Ralph's)
3) Pure reasoning capabilities
It means that it's logically vacuous. This is an example of a vacuous argument. |
He does not answer when men cry out because of the arrogance of the wicked. Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea; the Almighty pays no attention to it.
Job 35:12-13 |
|
|
|
smoke
New Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 02:00:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
Smoke, you seem to be railing against some cartoon version of atheism you learned somewhere. If you want to argue against actual atheism, you should first learn what it is. To put it very simply, atheism is simply a lack of a belief that that a god or gods exist. This includes your god and every other god ever hypothesized. The lack of belief follows from the utter lack of credible evidence that any god exists. I don't hate or blame god because I do not believe that there is anything there to hate or blame.
Arguments against christianity are not only pointing out the lack of evidence in support of it, they also point out the flaws in the "holy book" and the "logic" the whole thing is based on. There are numerous contradictions and stories of impossible events. There is the sanctioning, even glorification, of atrocities and antisocial behavior on a scale that any reasonable person would find revolting. And there is the completely ridiculous notion that a being capable of creating the universe would micromanage and treat his creations so poorly. Top it off with the concept that the god had to come to earth in the form of his son, in order to have the crap beaten out of himself and have himself killed, all to save his creations from himself!
Ah, how I love it when somebody throws me the 1000-impossible problem pamphlet. I shoot them down like birds:
1)the "logic" the whole thing is based on
A:This is an independent answer since I know that this statement is supported by the remainder of your paragraph, but I simply want to point out that the theological nature of the Bible not only supercedes any other religious book by not contradicting itself, but it employs virtually every literary device known to man to express its concepts, which it does so in the clearest way: symbollism, metaphors (not literary, physical), theological concepts that describe the world and perfectly complement it, as you will all see if you actually read my post.
2)There are numerous contradictions and stories of impossible events.
A: As for the contradictions, please visit my site: http://geocities.com/renassault/skepticism/contra.htm
impossible events, that's a judgment call by you, unless you explain yourself.
3)There is the sanctioning, even glorification, of atrocities and antisocial behavior on a scale that any reasonable person would find revolting.
A:Yet, materialistic philosphy doesn't. This problem has been recognized since ancient times. Marcion rejected the whole Old Testament, and from what I remembered only accepted the Gospel of Luke as inspired due to the very genocides which were not only done by Israel but ordered by God. But there is more than just a simplistic reading. Why would an omnibenevolent God do this? Did you ever wonder what the Amorites and Amalekites and Canaanites did? They practiced incest, and child-rape, and all sorts of sins that you would find revolting (until your atheist buddies don't take a vote to make it "right" seeing the popular opinion is what goes now). Perhaps you should understand that it was these people's sins that killed them, who were given a second chance like Nineveh, who would have ended up killing many more people had they not been exterminated.
Sure you may ask, why wasn't Hitler killed by his sins by God to save 62 million people. This comes down to the nature of the Covenant which was made to save all people from the only death that matters - hellfire. Since God has omniscience, He probably saw that these peoples would tamper with His covenant, endangering the Messiah's First Coming. You may make the claim that the Israelites were using God as an excuse to get land, but in Genesis God destroys two cities without using Abraham's army, so this argument is a judgment call.
4)And there is the completely ridiculous notion that a being capable of creating the universe would micromanage and treat his creations so poorly.
A: This problem has been known as well, popularly termed by Leibniz as "theodicy," the pain problem is thoroughly resolved collapsing to the "why did this happen to me?" question (for a detailed analysis PM and I'll show you why). The answer Jesus gives to this question is metaphorically, "shit happens," but the Book of Job elaborates on the issue where Job, "the most upright man in all of Uz," is punished for "no reason" or so he thinks, by God. The answer to "why did this happen to me," is "so you can find the right way to God," as Job did, and as Jesus told His disciples (Luke 13:2-3).
5)Top it off with the concept that the god had to come to earth in the form of his son, in order to have the crap beaten out of himself and have himself killed, all to save his creations from himself!
A:This is why creationism is crucially important to Judeo-Christianity. Because since we all fell into this state where there is suffering and death because of Adam, Christ had to come and replace Him. God cannot do this without becoming a man, and this man had to be sinless.
quote:
It's a wonder so many people buy into this story. Of course that level of gullibility also explains why there are almost as many variations of christianity as there are christians themselves, each claiming that they have the Truth(tm) and the other guy, sadly, is wrong, and should be dispatched to an eternity of unimaginable torture. I guess it also explains scientology, homeopathy, "The Secret", Deepak Chopra, and professional wrestling.
The variations of Christianity come from the Protestant branch. The only reason they exist is because of the lack of structure and leader. The Catholics have the Pope, and the Orthodox have the Synod. If the Protestants had a representative there would still only be 3 or 4 (Lutheran, Waldensian, Anglican, etc). The Apostles knew that Christianity's doctrines would be split up, but the only ones who are Christians and claim everyone else is going to Hell are the Catholics (which shows how much you know about anything). Everyone else is either marginal-Christians, or other religions such as Islam, etc. I guess this also explains that you never read anything. |
He does not answer when men cry out because of the arrogance of the wicked. Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea; the Almighty pays no attention to it.
Job 35:12-13 |
| Edited by - smoke on 03/04/2007 02:27:25 |
|
|
|
smoke
New Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 02:03:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
quote:
Originally posted by Ghost_Skeptic
Don't the IDiots claim that all species did not descend from a common ancestors - it seems Behe does not agree with this, however did Behe not claim there were no transitional fossils for whales? or am I confusing him with Dumbski
Well, this is part of the ID problem-- they don't actually have any hypotheses. There is no predictive power. To date, ID is almost entirely made up of critiques of evolution.
Which should be a mental note to all of you that evolution is unfit for survival in the light of science. This is what I've been trying to explain when I noted the differences between ID and creationism but I guess there's no use beating a dead horse. |
He does not answer when men cry out because of the arrogance of the wicked. Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea; the Almighty pays no attention to it.
Job 35:12-13 |
|
|
|
smoke
New Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 02:04:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
But more to the point, a competing theory can't simply be a critique (however good or bad) of another one. It has to say something on its own. ID has no predictive powers and isn't testable. All it says is that some things are too complex to have come about via the mechanisms described in modern evolutionary theory. Indeed, if I understand ID correctly, the claim is that we can only say that some things have been designed. Trying to figure out who designed such things, or how they did it is impossible. (Though, through logical deduction, the only possibilities for a designer are a) some divine being, or b) an extra-dimensional being.) It's really quite worthless.
Speaking of which, I guess smoke bailed after all. Even after he asked for and received a critique of AiG, he's nowhere to be found. Figures. 
ID is a testament to the truth of creationism. One piece of accepted evolutionary evidence that should shock you all back to your monkey ancestors is mitochondrial Eve; not the date assigned to it, but the fact that she existed with respected to the evolutionary scientists. |
He does not answer when men cry out because of the arrogance of the wicked. Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea; the Almighty pays no attention to it.
Job 35:12-13 |
|
|
|
smoke
New Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 02:08:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
He's in over his head here. I think he failed to realize that we not only do our homework, but like doing it! One giveaway was when he asked me if I'd read Sarfati. Of course I have, as have many of us; if we didn't know what they were thinking, we couldn't very well argue against them, now could we?
Why do people not research this site before leaping in? 
Oh, so I guess all of you somehow are comforted by me not responding for oh golly 2 pages, thinking I was hiding in my bed, nervously awaiting all of your responses. And by the way, there are only 2 people in here who actually deserve my respones (maybe 3 with that Dude guy). It's the girl who THOROUGHLY, as I want in the future from all of you capable of composing a response like them, responded with an outlining of evolutionist hopes, and I think the site admin. The rest of the responses I got I've answered at least 20 times each in 10 different forums. |
He does not answer when men cry out because of the arrogance of the wicked. Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea; the Almighty pays no attention to it.
Job 35:12-13 |
|
|
|
smoke
New Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 02:13:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Most like Smoke probably never research the other side. They only read the propaganda that they have been fed about us and science and even the bible on websites like AIG. Armed with incomplete or absolute baloney about skeptics, they come here thinking that they have the goods on us and that we will be easy targets.
And the really sad part is they go running back for the shelter of those sites that ultimately left them unable to debate with anyone who actually knows anything about the subject they thought they were expert on. Only by insulating themselves with a propaganda wrap dished out by others of their kind do they find support for their views.
Meaning, they are not willing to learn from us or especially teach us anything, if indeed they actually have something to teach us…
Well, I didn't know I entered the "Dr.Freud, what's my personality" forum. I'm not exactly refreshing this topic every 5 min to dignify every response since I knew this is exactly what I'd get. I forgot about it, I partied, I watched my ultra-super-favorite "X-tian Channel" and today I was bored and I remembered I had some kind of discussion going on over here. For the record, I've visited AiG since our debate only to check on the evolutionist date for the earliest ice age. That's the truth, I'm a Christian, I can't lie. If I had to run for shelter from any of these responses I'll never be able to think of myself as anything even remotely close of a Christian apologist, maybe someone who goes around apologizing he started a debate he couldn't finish without running for "shelter."
quote:
Most like Smoke probably never research the other side.
I bookmark only skeptic and secularly historical websites regarding this subject. I don't even have AiG in my Favs, but I have just about every major skeptic site. My major is biology at CSUN, which is an evolutionist college.
P.S.: I hope that double-posting (or a lot more) isn't against the rules, and if it is please excuse me this time, since I can't really handle all these replies in one post. |
He does not answer when men cry out because of the arrogance of the wicked. Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea; the Almighty pays no attention to it.
Job 35:12-13 |
| Edited by - smoke on 03/04/2007 03:02:21 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 02:29:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by smoke
It means that it's logically vacuous. This is an example of a vacuous argument.
Well, straw-men are vacuous. So, yes, your argument is vacuous. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
smoke
New Member
USA
32 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2007 : 02:36:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by the_ignored
The "fundamentalist atheist" test is from a super-arrogant apologist named Robert Turkel/James Patrick Holding (jpholding). He debates a lot on Theology Web, and even has his own section on that forum, in the Intra-Varsity-Relations section.
I should note that one of his schtick is to really go after those who dare criticize the behaviour of the OT god...just read his site from the links or check out the "Apologetics" section of TWEB.
JP Holding is the scholarly equivalent (actually superior) of the likes of Peter Kirby, who's one of the few skeptics I actually have respect for (and if anyone makes a joke like "maybe he's equal to Kirby, but not Peter Kirby," grow up). There isn't a single word any of you can say to JP Holding without having your pants catch fire not only because I have yet to see somebody actually answer my critiques of evolution (Laws of Information and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics), but because of the fact that the more you know about the history regarding and surrounding Christianity, unless you can put forth as much bs as the likes of Acharya and the inventors of the Double Hypothesis/Markan priority theories, you have to either face the truth that the Judeo-Christian religion is from the one and only God, or you have to ignore it and hope you're right until you die. |
He does not answer when men cry out because of the arrogance of the wicked. Indeed, God does not listen to their empty plea; the Almighty pays no attention to it.
Job 35:12-13 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
You may be a fundamentalist atheist if...
