Judge rules evolution theory stickers unconstitutional

[midwinter]

Actually, LandoverBaptist.org has an internally consistent system of truth.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by dmz
--go look up 'slur' in the dictionary.


How about a satire of Musilms cutting off heads and slicing throats as mainstream? Give me a break.

Nope... Not a slur either...

Care to look up satire?

[dmz]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Nope... Not a slur either...

Care to look up satire?


Wake up and smell your own subtext. You may pass muster here with childish, feel good antics, but you took what could have been a constructive thread and turned it into a name-calling contest. As dissapointing as it is predictible. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Main Entry: cal·um·ny __ Pronunciation_Guide
Pronunciation: kal(y)mn, -i
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -es
Etymology: Middle French & Latin; Middle French calomnie, from Latin calumnia, from calvi to deceive; akin to Old English hl calumny, Old High German huolen to deceive, Old Norse hl flattery, Gothic holon to accuse falsely, Greek klein to beguile
1 : the act of uttering false charges or misrepresentations maliciously calculated to damage another's reputation <a circle of false friends spending their time in calumnies>
2 : a false charge or misrepresentation intended to blacken one's reputation : SLANDER <this publication was felt to be a calumny on the innocence of the nursery -- Ernest Jones> <there are always such calumnies about rebels -- H.F.West>
synonym see DETRACTION

Citation format for this entry:

"calumny." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (23 Jan. 2005).

[midwinter]

Hi, my name's Larry Flynt!

[hardeeharhar]

Excuse me? I don't believe I am calling anyone by name, and I don't believe I have.


sat·ire
n.
1) a. A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.

b. The branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature.


2) Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.

I think this definition fits perfectly.

Edit: Calumny doesn't work because there is a substantial element of truth in that website. This is why it offends you so, dmz...

[dmz]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Excuse me? I don't believe I am calling anyone by name, and I don't believe I have.


sat·ire
n.
1) a. A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.

b. The branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature.


2) Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.

I think this definition fits perfectly.

Edit: Calumny doesn't work because there is a substantial element of truth in that website. This is why it offends you so, dmz...

The website doesn't go any deeper than "Christians are stupid bigots". Satire actually requires thought. The link was posted as a cheap derisive slur to buttress up a general intolerance by materialists to look at any of evolution's many flaws. It has no place in this discussion. There was an attempt to argue whether evolution deserved unquestioned loyalty --- and when that conversation persisted, the bigot card got played. Absolutly shameful, apparently you are allowed to be as offensive and cultutally insensitive as you want. It doesn't make for a constructive discussion.

[midwinter]

Aren't you being bigoted about what constitutes satire?

[dmz]

(I'm done here.)

[rageous]

Jebus Christ, Landover Baptist is by the same people who do whitehouse.org.

IT'S A JOKE.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by dmz
The website doesn't go any deeper than "Christians are stupid bigots". Satire actually requires thought. The link was posted as a cheap derisive slur to buttress up a general intolerance by materialists to look at any of evolution's many flaws. It has no place in this discussion. There was an attempt to argue whether evolution deserved unquestioned loyalty --- and when that conversation persisted, the bigot card got played. Absolutly shameful.

The website doesn't say "Christians are stupid bigots." It is far better done than that -- hence the thought, and hence satire.

As for your definition of materialist, I prefer Irreligionist since materialism has a greater use for describing people obsessed with material possessions and there are plenty of religious people who are also materialist in that regard. There is no intolerance by irreligious scientist to look at the flaws of any theory. There is an intolerance by religious people (in particular Christians) to look at the flaws and failings of the genesis creation story. There should be an intolerance in those irreligious folks who need to defend evolution from specious arguments presented by Christians (over and over and over again). At some point the falsehoods and misinterpretations presented as arguments from Christians need to stop -- but they won't and people get angry about that fact.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by rageous
Jebus Christ, Landover Baptist is by the same people who do whitehouse.org. Who? These people? (http://whitehouse.org/dof/invitation.asp)

[Hassan i Sabbah]

What's playing on iPod One? (http://whitehouse.org/kids/ipod.asp)

[midwinter]

DMZ, et al:

I don't know how many of you heard this on NPR Friday, but Science Friday did a show about science and religion (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4461733). Really fascinating discussion.

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by midwinter
Aren't you being bigoted about what constitutes satire? And/or, about who creates, or points out, the satire, ie, "materialists"?

That's the thing about playing the bigotry card. In general, it seems to me there is more religious bigotry coming from Christians (esp. fundies), than there is directed towards them. I'm sure you feel the opposite way, and I'm sure we're both right and both wrong.. but to what degree? That of course is a different subject, and it's all I have to say on the topic that dmz brought into the discussion.

The link was relevant to the discussion because it specifically parodies the fundie viewpoint of science. Pushing the religious interpretation of the age of the planet and the evolution of the many millions of species of life on it, vs. the scientific interpretation, is a thought process that reasonable people, both religious and atheists, are going to find absurd, and they will parody, and argue against, anyone who is pushing it.

What's the track record of religion for explaining the physical world? At one time or another in world history, the prevailing beliefs based on the Christian Church and Bible held that:
-The earth is flat.
-The sun, moon, and stars all revolve around the earth.
-There are no planets other than earth (just sun, moon, and stars).

Remember, Copernicus and Galileo were both heretics (perhaps today they'd be bigots?) according to the Church. Their treatment wasn't exactly a model of Christian tolerance, now, was it?

[jamac]

God created evolution.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
What's the track record of religion for explaining the physical world? At one time or another in world history, the prevailing beliefs based on the Christian Church and Bible held that:
-The earth is flat.
-The sun, moon, and stars all revolve around the earth.
-There are no planets other than earth (just sun, moon, and stars).

Just to be clear, I am pretty sure that the Bible doesn't say any of those things...so these would be problems of an interpretive nature.

I won't deny that Christians of all ages have made errors in interpreting the Bible on many points. Some for their own selfish purposes...in other cases because of their interpretive techniques. These failures in and of themselves do not mean that either evolution is "right" or that creation is "wrong" (or vice versa for that matter). It means that we as humans are imperfect at interpreting and fully understanding the things that are put before us. Scientist should be aware of this fact as well (and the good ones are). The wise are skeptical and questioning...though not necessarily cynical and dis-believing of everything that cannot be "proven".

What is amazing to me is how many so-called (self-proclaimed) "intellectual", "sceintific-minded", "people of reason" fail to realize how much their lives operate on faith...not reason. It is all around us. It is not an "evil" thing or even something to be ashamed of (as those might make us all think).

Of course it does mean that we all (scientists included...because they've had some failures too) need to take a step back, take a dose of humility and not assume that we know as much as we assert.

[pierr_alex]

God is wishful thinking.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by pierr_alex
God is wishful thinking.

And, if you are right, there isn't really any purpose to life then.

;)

[pierr_alex]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
And, if you are right, there isn't really any purpose to life then.

;) No there is not !
We're just an artefact in the curse of the Univers.
We live, we think, we love, we die.
The goal is to help each others to have as much fun as possible.
That's the purpose ;-)

I would add that the idea of "God" is absurd by nature :
If we are inevitably ruled by some sort of God... Who rules God's Life.
You know : Who's first between the Egg and the Chicken ?
That's basic Logic, and God shouldn't be an exception.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by pierr_alex
No there is not !
We're just an artefact in the curse of the Univers.
We live, we think, we love, we die.
The goal is to help each others to have as much fun as possible.
That's the purpose ;-)

I would add that the idea of "God" is absurd by nature :
If we are inevitably ruled by some sort of God... Who rules God's Life.
You know : Who's first between the Egg and the Chicken ?
That's basic Logic, and God shouldn't be an exception.

:lol:

Good laugh for me to end the night. Thanks.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
And, if you are right, there isn't really any purpose to life then.

What if there isn't?

Does that mean that we shouldn't be obliged to do the best we can by others? The world can be fantastic and we're not going to see it again: surely we might as well try and experience as much of it as deeply as we can?

What if there is, only we're incapable of getting our heads round it — Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, worshippers of Ogùn and Changò, Christians, all of us / you.

What if there really isn't any purpose and religion's simply a hard-wired evolutionary survival tool? This is what I believe and I'm happy with it. I like the planet. I wish I could change it for the better but the idea that there might be no 'point' isn't going to frighten me into any temple or church other than to look at the cool things human beings do.

Chris, read some Hindu texts. Read some African hunter-gatherer myth. Go to a museum and look at some fossils and consider the possibility that the evidence of your eyes is actually correct.

[pierr_alex]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
What if there really isn't any purpose and religion's simply a hard-wired evolutionary survival tool ? This is what I believe and I'm happy with it. I couldn't say it better ;-)

[dmz]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Does that mean that we shouldn't be obliged to do the best we can by others?

I guess it could. But coming from your premise, it's not (strictly speaking) a logically teneable position.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by dmz
I guess it could. But coming from your premise, it's not (strictly speaking) a logically teneable position.
God sped up the speed of light and intentionally made the world look very ancient and I know I'm right because of revelation.

For your own sake, let's keep logic out of this.

Logic's got nothing to do with it. We're all going to die. There's no point in any of us being alive unless we decide on one. Choose whatever you want. Me, I'm into doing the best I can by others and finding stuff out. You, reading your Book, ignoring the majesty and age of the universe and talking down to gay people. Whatever. We're both going to die, neither of us are doing anything special afterwards.

It's not a question of logic. It's a more a question of good taste.

[dmz]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
God sped up the speed of light and intentionally made the world look very ancient and I know I'm right because of revelation.

For your own sake, let's keep logic out of this.

Logic's got nothing to do with it. We're all going to die. There's no point in any of us being alive unless we decide on one. Choose whatever you want. Me, I'm into doing the best I can by others and finding stuff out. You, reading your Book, ignoring the majesty and age of the universe and talking down to gay people. Whatever. We're both going to die, neither of us are doing anything special afterwards.

It's not a question of logic. It's a more a question of good taste.

That bit about talking down to gay people is really outrageous. There has been some "talking down" done on these forums but It has not come from me in any way. Also I've repeatedly stated that Startlight and KAr dating are a problem for young Earthers -- you need to be completly accurate when you reference what I've said.

But when you are permitted any technique to debunk my point........????

[Hassan i Sabbah]

The facts don't matter to you.

How do I know?

You claim with a straight face that the planet's six thousand years old and the only evidence to the contrary that concerns you is starlight and KaR dating—and they're only 'a problem'.

There's this. On top of that, there's this. Then this, which makes perfect sense because there's that. That has to be right because there's this. And this. And this. And this. And this. And this. And this. And this. And this. And this. And this. These lines of strata laid down over millennia, turned on their side, over millennia, and then cut through by water erosion over millennia to form a steep-sided gorge in the Klein Karoo of South Africa, in the Yellowstone National Park, in the Atlas Mountains, in Kashmir.

Starlight, though; that makes my position 'difficult'.

I'm allowed any technique to debunk it because your position's so funny.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
You, reading your Book, ignoring the majesty and age of the universe and talking down to gay people.

This is simply not true.

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
We're both going to die, neither of us are doing anything special afterwards.

This is your belief.

[dmz]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
The facts don't matter to you.

How do I know?

You claim with a straight face that the planet's six thousand years old and the only evidence to the contrary that concerns you is starlight and KaR dating—and they're only 'a problem'.

There's this. On top of that, there's this. Then this, which makes perfect sense because there's that. That has to be right because there's this. And this. And this. And this. And this. And this. And this. And this. And this. And this. And this. These lines of strata laid down over millennia, turned on their side, over millennia, and then cut through by water erosion over millennia to form a steep-sided gorge in the Klein Karoo of South Africa, in the Yellowstone National Park, in the Atlas Mountains, in Kashmir.

Starlight, though; that makes my position 'difficult'.

I'm allowed any technique to debunk it because your position's so funny.

This is not where I was taking this!:p

Look, you have very significant problems with you're own theories of origins. There are odd bits like radio halos in granite, and the origins of the universe's original material that are equally daunting. No one's theories of origins are immune from this. I don't agree on your strata example at all, though.

I don't have time to go into yet another 'creationists are so stupid' thread.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by dmz
Look, you have very significant problems with you're own theories of origins. There are odd bits like radio halos in granite, and the origins of the universe's original material that are equally daunting. No one's theories of origins are immune from this. I don't agree on your strata example at all, though.

You know what? Fuck 'theories of origin' and radio halos in granite. My 'strata example' is something you can see with your own eyes a bus journey from the town where you live. Take that frigging great book out the way and look at the planet you live on.

And now, to coin a patent-pending Christian-on-the-internet technique, I'm done here.

[/closes browser and goes into kitchen to make telephone calls to sane real-life friends coming over for supper later]

[shetline]

Originally posted by dmz
There are odd bits like radio halos in granite,
Polonium halos? Puhlease. As soon as one realizes that granite is permeable to radon gas the entire "look! this proves that all granite was formed almost instantaneously all at the same time" argument goes away. Weak.
and the origins of the universe's original material that are equally daunting.
Ah, yes, the vexing question so thoroughly and scientifically solved by saying "God made it all!".

Haven't you been in enough of these discussions to understand that the point of science isn't in claiming to have ALL of the answers, merely in striving to have the best answers that the available data can provide, and then honestly saying "I don't know" when you reach the limits of that?

You've certainly been in enough of these discussion to know, though you seem to willfully ignore it, that evolution and cosmology aren't the same thing. Evolution has nothing to do with where all the material in the universe came from, doesn't try to answer that, and doesn't need to answer that.

Or are you just so proud of how the "God made it all!" "theory" boldly encompasses the origin of species, biogenesis, geological history and cosmology all into one single simple, concise (scientifically worthless) Answer that continually harping on things equivalent to "evolution doesn't explain where Saturn came from" is your way of crowing over how marvelously complete your "theory" is by contrast?
I don't have time to go into yet another 'creationists are so stupid' thread.
Then don't repeat the same old tired BS if you don't want to spend that time.

[giant]

Hey, dmz. Guess what book I have in my hand.[1] (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=712368&highlight=sacred+cosmos#post712368)[2] (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=709666&highlight=sacred+cosmos#post709666)[3] (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=712757&#post712757)[4] (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=712757&highlight=interlibrary+loan#post712805)

Overall, I thought his descriptions seems fairly good, although his discussion about inflation theory has some holes and he doesn't mention string theory at all.

It seems to me that his argument is only a) that science doesn't explain the cause of the big bang and b) that science doesn't explain the apparent tuning of the universe.

And the answer to that is in shetline's post.

[dmz]

Originally posted by giant
Hey, dmz. Guess what book I have in my hand.[1] (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=712368&highlight=sacred+cosmos#post712368)[2] (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=709666&highlight=sacred+cosmos#post709666)[3] (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=712757&#post712757)[4] (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=712757&highlight=interlibrary+loan#post712805)

Overall, I thought his descriptions seems fairly good, although his discussion about inflation theory has some holes and he doesn't mention string theory at all.

It seems to me that his argument is only a) that science doesn't explain the cause of the big bang and b) that science doesn't explain the apparent tuning of the universe.

And the answer to that is in shetline's post.


Aha! I thought you had forgot!

I thought it was honest, although he seemed to run out of steam in the last half. I did skim the last half -- and the stuff about NDE and miracles was really inconclusive. I think he made a passing reference to string theory -- but you're right, he didn't cover it at all.

[dmz]

Originally posted by shetline
Haven't you been in enough of these discussions.....


pssssst: Shetline, I have to let you in on a little secret....


....hold you head as close to the monitor, so no one else can hear.....



I'm sick and tired of arguing about how "evolution solves it all by empricism" and "Creation is crap" --- both theories have holes!!! I just object to anyone who insists that they have all the emperical answers to origins in general. I think it's disnigenous and foolish to insist on this!!! Hassan i Sabbah brought up --- blame him!! So there.:p

(now leave me alone, you big meanie -- I'm already on groverat's shit list.);)

[MarcUK]

HAY GUYZ LOOK I GOTS MY POST DELETED! HURRRRRRR


- groverat

[shetline]

Originally posted by dmz (in a somewhat larger type size)
I'm sick and tired of arguing about how "evolution solves it all by empricism"
Then stop arguing against straw men like "solves it all". Evolution is the best theory based on available data for the origins of the present variety and diversity of life. It does not "solve it all", does not claim to "solve it all", and does not need to "solve it all" in order to be good science.
and "Creation is crap" --- both theories have holes!!!
1) That someone can come up with a question for which there is at present no good or complete answer is not the same thing as a "hole". Most of the so-called "holes" you come up with are bunk like polonium halos, or unanswered, but irrelevant-to-the-theory questions like "where did all the material in the universe come from?", or maybe even the occasional good question, such as, for instance, "How did the very first life arise?" which would be great to have answers for, but upon which the validity of the theory does not hinge.

Perhaps you'd like to pretend that some contested internal detail of the theory, like the exact relationship of birds to dinosaurs, or the relationship of Neanderthals to modern man -- things that have bounced around a bit and aren't completely settled -- somehow indicate that the theory of evolution as a whole must be in "shambles". Would these be some your "holes"?

2) "Holes" come in different sizes. You talk about people being disingenuous, yet I can think of little more disingenuous than pretending that creationism and evolution are somehow on equal footing just because they both "have holes". The holes in creationism, if one tries to treat it as a scientific theory and not a religious belief, are gaping, enormous chasms compared to any so-called problems with evolution.
I just object to anyone who insists that they have all the emperical answers to origins in general. I think it's disnigenous and foolish to insist on this!!!
Just like it's disingenuous acting as if these people, to whom you feel you must so strenuously object, out there, strutting about, insisting on having ALL of the empirical answers, are much more than a straw man you're railing against.

[dmz]

Originally posted by MarcUK
Closet Gay in denial.


:lol:


you caught me!:wow:

[dmz]

Originally posted by shetline
Then stop arguing against straw men like "solves it all". Evolution is the best theory based on available data for the origins of the present variety and diversity of life. It does not "solve it all", does not claim to "solve it all", and does not need to "solve it all" in order to be good science.

1) That someone can come up with a question for which there is at present no good or complete answer is not the same thing as a "hole". Most of you so-called "holes" you come up with are bunk like polonium halos, or unanswered, but irrelevant-to-the-theory questions like "where did all the material in the universe come from?", or maybe even the occasional good question, such as, for instance, "How did the very first life arise?" which would be great to have answers for, but upon which the validity of the theory does not hinge.

Perhaps you'd like to pretend that some contested internal detail of the theory, like the exact relationship of birds to dinosaurs, or the relationship of Neanderthals to modern man -- things that have bounced around a bit and aren't completely settled -- somehow indicate that the theory of evolution as a whole must be in "shambles". Would these be some your "holes"?

2) "Holes" come in different sizes. You talk about people being disingenuous, yet I can think of little more disingenuous than pretending that creationism and evolution are somehow on equal footing just because they both "have holes". The holes in creationism, if one tries to treat it as a scientific theory and not a religious belief, are gaping, enormous chasms compared to any so-called problems with evolution.

Just like it's disingenuous acting as if these people, to whom you feel you must so strenuously object, out there, strutting about, insisting on having ALL of the empirical answers, are much more than a straw man you're railing against.


Fine. Whatever.

(I respect you point, though)

[MarcUK]

Is the path to God filled with a plethora of lies shrouding the previous set of lies?

If God wrote the Bible, it would be the absolute truth in 10,000 BC, at year 1 and at year 25,000A.D. It would not contain errors, contradictions, or impossibilites. It would not contain 2000 year old laws that are not relevant to every era. It would not contain political propaganda relavent only to the era.

If God wrote the Bible, it would clearly state the truth accessable to every man and woman from a super retard to a super genius. Or does God only want the particularly smart, or dumb or gullible to understand it?

If God wrote the Bible, he would have done it on day 1. He would not have evolved it over 3500 years, changing his mind, starting over, distributing bits of it over the whole world, to be recollated by a bunch of perverts by order of a vote.

If God wrote the Bible, he would not have been outsmarted by Satan creating prior religions that contained the same stories and parables of Jesus's life, or is Satan smarter than God?

If God had written the bible, it would be equally available to every man, woman and child on Earth, or does God only want certain nationalties to be redeemed - purposely sending millions of innocents to eternal misery?

If by some strange twisted perversion, the Bible is the absolute truth, the only truth, and the whole universe around me is a sick trial simulation in which I have been abandoned with no hope of revelation of the truth, and I am still responsible for Gods sick little joke on Eve - then when my times comes, I will spit on God, fuck Jesus up the ass and gladly accept eternal damnation. This kind of God is not worthy of the love of anyone.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by MarcUK
Is the path to God filled with a plethora of lies shrouding the previous set of lies?

If God wrote the Bible, it would be the absolute truth in 10,000 BC, at year 1 and at year 25,000A.D. It would not contain errors, contradictions, or impossibilites. It would not contain 2000 year old laws that are not relevant to every era. It would not contain political propaganda relavent only to the era.

If God wrote the Bible, it would clearly state the truth accessable to every man and woman from a super retard to a super genius. Or does God only want the particularly smart, or dumb or gullible to understand it?

If God wrote the Bible, he would have done it on day 1. He would not have evolved it over 3500 years, changing his mind, starting over, distributing bits of it over the whole world, to be recollated by a bunch of perverts by order of a vote.

If God wrote the Bible, he would not have been outsmarted by Satan creating prior religions that contained the same stories and parables of Jesus's life, or is Satan smarter than God?

If God had written the bible, it would be equally available to every man, woman and child on Earth, or does God only want certain nationalties to be redeemed - purposely sending millions of innocents to eternal misery?

If by some strange twisted perversion, the Bible is the absolute truth, the only truth, and the whole universe around me is a sick trial simulation in which I have been abandoned with no hope of revelation of the truth, and I am still responsible for Gods sick little joke on Eve - then when my times comes, I will spit on God, fuck Jesus up the ass and gladly accept eternal damnation. This kind of God is not worthy of the love of anyone.

You, my friend, appear to have some pretty serious issues.

[giant]

Originally posted by dmz
Aha! I thought you had forgot!
Of course not. :)
I thought it was honest, although he seemed to run out of steam in the last half. I did skim the last half -- and the stuff about NDE and miracles was really inconclusive. I think he made a passing reference to string theory -- but you're right, he didn't cover it at all.
I only read that one chapter, but I actually thought he did a pretty good and fair job covering it all.

[giant]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You, my friend, appear to have some pretty serious issues.
Not believing that the Bible is the answer to everything is far from an 'issue,' just like being gay isn't a problem, defect or fault.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by giant
Not believing that the Bible is the answer to everything is far from an 'issue,' just like being gay isn't a problem, defect or fault.

Well...I would say the post well beyond merely "not believing." EDIT: Disbelief is certainly tolerable. I accept the fact that many do not believe in the Bible. Ironically, the Bible speaks of this itself.

I have been accused of "hatred of gays" (in another thread)...which I also sternly deny BTW...yet I defy anyone to point to a post of mine that comes anywhere in the vicinity of the virulence expressed in that post.

P.S. Of course MarcUK makes many protestations about the Bible but never seems to support them with any facts.

P.P.S. And the irony of his virulence just hit me...he tries to incite with a statement like "I will spit on God, fuck Jesus up the ass"...trying to make a supposedly acceptable homosexual act of love into one of violence and degradation. Oh the irony of it all.

[pierr_alex]

Originally posted by dmz
I'm sick and tired of arguing about how "evolution solves it all by empricism" and "Creation is crap" --- both theories have holes!!! I just object to anyone who insists that they have all the emperical answers to origins in general. I think it's disnigenous and foolish to insist on this!!! Hassan i Sabbah brought up --- blame him!! So there.
DisneyLand was built in a day.
This is creationism.

(Well; in a few weeks or month but whatever

[pierr_alex]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
quote: Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
We're both going to die, neither of us are doing anything special afterwards.
-------------------------------
This is your belief. So you will have spent all of your life expecting something that has 0.00001% chance to happen ?
(I'm atheist, but I never completely close all doors ;-)

- What are you planing to do with your eternity ?
- How many do you think you are 'upstairs' ?
- What if you have a big deception ?
- Why is it such a big deal that there's nothing after and that you'll be eaten by worms (That's a purpose: You'll become someone else's Burger ;-) ?

Funny right ?

[giant]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well...I would say the post well beyond merely "not believing."
Well...I wouldn't. If they are just fictional characters then his comment is simply raunchy, not indicative of 'pretty serious issues.'

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by pierr_alex
- What if you have a big deception ?

Then I am no worse off than you would...however if it is the other way around...well...that's a different matter now isn't it?

Originally posted by pierr_alex
- Why is it such a big deal that there's nothing after and that you'll be eaten by worms

You state it as if it is fact. What strong faith you must have.

[pierr_alex]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Then I am no worse off than you would...however if it is the other way around...well...that's a different matter now isn't it ?
Ok but, why do you want so much to live forever ? What do you expect ? Do you have some plans 'UpStairs' ?
I would be really interested to read you about that. Seriously.

You state it as if it is fact. What strong faith you must have. I have zero (ø) faith (in god).

[shetline]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Then I am no worse off than you would...however if it is the other way around...well...that's a different matter now isn't it?
AKA Pascal's Wager... not a very good argument. Lots of holes. Google it.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by shetline
AKA Pascal's Wager... not a very good argument. Lots of holes. Google it.

I know. Holes? That's not really the point. I'm not making an argument,,,but stating a fact. Don't need to.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by pierr_alex
Ok but, why do you want so much to live forever ?

See our presuppositions differ here. From mine I don't assume that I have a choice in the "life forever" piece...only where. You assume we do not live forever. One of us is right and one is wrong. But the rub is...neither of us will know until we "die".

Originally posted by pierr_alex
I have zero (ø) faith (in god).

I know that. But you have faith that there is no God.

[shetline]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I know. Holes? That's not really the point. I'm not making an argument,,,but stating a fact. Don't need to.
If you think the binary proposition of Pascal's Wager constitutes "stating a fact", the you really haven't thought about it very much. Looks like I'll have to spell it out... <sigh>.

Pascal's wager assumes that there is no possible downside risk to believing in God (God exists, big win / God doesn't exist, small loss) but that not believing in God has a large downside risk (God exists, eternal damnation / God doesn't exist, only the small gain of being right).

But what if there is a God, but God values skepticism more than faith? What if there is a God, but the lukewarm faith of making a safe bet is more damning than honest disbelief? What if there are multiple gods, and they'd be more insulted by being confused with each other than not being believed in at all? And if no God or gods exist, why isn't the intellectual honesty of living a life embracing this as a likely truth a more valued thing?

There are no "safe bet" shortcuts that really work here.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by shetline
If you think the binary proposition of Pascal's Wager constitutes "stating a fact", the you really haven't thought about it very much. Looks like I'll have to spell it out... <sigh>.

Pascal's wager assumes that there is no possible downside risk to believing in God (God exists, big win / God doesn't exist, small loss) but that not believing in God has a large downside risk (God exists, eternal damnation / God doesn't exist, only the small gain of being right).

But what if there is a God, but God values skepticism more than faith? What if there is a God, but the lukewarm faith of making a safe bet is more damning than honest disbelief? What if there are multiple gods, and they'd be more insulted by being confused with each other than not being believed in at all? And if no God or gods exist, why isn't the intellectual honesty of living a life embracing this as a likely truth a more valued thing?

There are no "safe bet" shortcuts that really work here.

Fair enough. You are correct about the spectrum of possibilities. However, in this particular case, I am not so much guilty of failing to consider or enumerate this spectrum of options, but instead failing to clearly specify (as I erroneously thought it was clear from context) that I was really only juxtaposing two specific faiths...one which says there is no afterlife and no God...the other being the traditional Christian faith (there is an afterlife, a God, faith is valued more than skeptism, luke warm faith is not highly valued at all).

So, yes, you are correct, those are (at least a subset) of the wide range of possible truths...but I wasn't really trying to argue from that position. I also wasn't trying to use this as an evangelical device...it would, admittedly, be a poor one at best.

[giant]

Originally posted by shetline
But what if there is a God, but God values skepticism more than faith? What if there is a God, but the lukewarm faith of making a safe bet is more damning than honest disbelief?
That's actually a really interesting theory. If we wanted to find out whether God valued blind faith or critical thought, one way would be to look and see which one allows us to interact in God's world more effectively. Clearly, critical thought is far more useful than blind belief, since blind belief in anything leads to stagnation and ignorance. Therefore, it seems pretty obvious that God designed the universe that rewards critical thought while punishing blind belief, thus demonstrating that God favors critical thought.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by giant
If we wanted to find out whether God valued blind faith or critical thought, one way would be to look and see which one allows us to interact in God's world more effectively. Clearly, critical thought is far more useful than blind belief, since blind belief in anything leads to stagnation and ignorance. Therefore, it seems pretty obvious that God designed the universe that rewards critical thought while punishing blind belief, thus demonstrating that God favors critical thought.

I absolutely agree with this...and I do not believe that God does call me (or anyone else) to a "blind" faith, but He does require some faith...we would call this a reasonable faith.

That said...I don't think I'd go so far as to say that He would value skepticism greater than faith...but values sincere, cosnidered, throughtful faith above cynical skepticism and/or luke warm "faith" (can faith really be "luke warm" I wonder...it seems you either have it or not...but I digress...and so does this thread. I need to get to work.)

[tonton]

I'm sorry Chris. If any faith is based solely on the unconfirmable, unobservable, uncorroborable word of the Bible, then it can never be anything except blind.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by tonton
I'm sorry Chris. If any faith is based solely on the unconfirmable, unobservable, uncorroborable word of the Bible, then it can never be anything except blind.

You are correct. The Christian faith does not fit this definition though.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
The Christian faith does not fit this definition though.

That is your belief.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
That is your belief.

Then I guess it is your belief that it does.

:rolleyes:

[Hassan i Sabbah]

I'm curious.

When young earth types are faced with news like this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4213495.stm), what do you... think?

Do you say 'studies of mitochondrial DNA decay are all out by millions of years and all those geneticists are wasting their time tracing and comparing the lineages of animals'?

Do you also say 'it is impossible that there could have been this 'Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum' thing since the planet was not here 52,000,000 years ago and all of this research in paleo-climatology has been a waste of time'?

Do you think 'this international, inter-disciplinary team of researchers are all quite misled and their science is bad science, and there is no point in them publishing their conclusions in any peer-reviewed journal because it cannot possibly be correct'?

Serious question. What do you think?

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah

Do you also say 'it is impossible that there could have been this 'Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum' thing since the planet was not here 52,000,000 years ago and all of this research in paleo-climatology has been a waste of time'?

Serious question. What do you think?

I think that's the very reason the US administration doesn't take Global warming seriously - when Scientists claim the Earth has warmed by xx degrees over the last million years, it's automatically assumed by them to be BS, because they just know the Earth was made 9am October 21st 4004BC.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Then I guess it is your belief that it does.

:rolleyes:

I cannot take you seriously any further.

[dmz]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
I'm curious.

When young earth types are faced with news like this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4213495.stm), what do you... think?

Do you say 'studies of mitochondrial DNA decay are all out by millions of years and all those geneticists are wasting their time tracing and comparing the lineages of animals'?

Do you also say 'it is impossible that there could have been this 'Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum' thing since the planet was not here 52,000,000 years ago and all of this research in paleo-climatology has been a waste of time'?

Do you think 'this international, inter-disciplinary team of researchers are all quite misled and their science is bad science, and there is no point in them publishing their conclusions in any peer-reviewed journal because it cannot possibly be correct'?

Serious question. What do you think?

caveate: I don't have any disire to discuss the age of the earth in general

I find statements that ANY DNA set could stay intact for 52,000,000 years incredible. You have enough mutation going on to morph these creatures into entirely different beings -- but somehow these creatures have been not been affected by the normal amounts of degrading that DNA experiences over time? It doesn't stand to reason statistically.

[Chris Cuilla]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
I cannot take you seriously any further.

Is that your way of saying that I am wrong?

I see that it is okay for you to say this to me, but not me to you, apparently.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Is that your way of saying that I am wrong?

I see that it is okay for you to say this to me, but not me to you, apparently.

I was responding to your rolling eyes. If you will note your comment to Hassan earlier on this page was precisely the same as what I wrote to you.

Have you noticed that you have become increasingly shrill since posting here?

[Stoo]

Originally posted by dmz
I find statements that ANY DNA set could stay intact for 52,000,000 years incredible. You have enough mutation going on to morph these creatures into entirely different beings -- but somehow these creatures have been not been affected by the normal amounts of degrading that DNA experiences over time? It doesn't stand to reason statistically.

So...very...close. :)

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally posted by dmz
I find statements that ANY DNA set could stay intact for 52,000,000 years incredible. You have enough mutation going on to morph these creatures into entirely different beings -- but somehow these creatures have been not been affected by the normal amounts of degrading that DNA experiences over time? It doesn't stand to reason statistically.
The study of mitochondrial DNA decay depends on the fact that DNA doesn't stay intact. It would be impossible to make this kind of research happen without it. Mitochondrial DNA mutates by generation and so it's useful for dating genetic differences and even speciation.

It's been very useful in the study of human history; it suggests an African origin for our species and that the San people of Southern Africa are the most genetically ancient people on Earth. It can be used to put a date on the emigration of the first people out of Africa and our progress around the planet and it can be used to date the moment our branch separated from our closest living relatives.

Now that I've cleared up your scientific misapprehension, any chance you might answer the question in detail? I note the Chris Cullia ignored it altogether.

[dmz]

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
The study of mitochondrial DNA decay depends on the fact that DNA doesn't stay intact. It would be impossible to make this kind of research happen without it. Mitochondrial DNA mutates by generation and so it's useful for dating genetic differences and even speciation.

It's been very useful in the study of human history; it suggests an African origin for our species and that the San people of Southern Africa are the most genetically ancient people on Earth. It can be used to put a date on the emigration of the first people out of Africa and our progress around the planet and it can be used to date the moment our branch separated from our closest living relatives.

Now that I've cleared up your scientific misapprehension, any chance you might answer the question in detail? I note the Chris Cullia ignored it altogether.

Hmmm, that's was just my first response. When I start hearing millions of years I think 'millions of years of replication errors -- how did they pull that off? I don't want to argue about this in general because there's too much 'blue sky' there. Apparently they have ancient DNA to look at? I think it's theorizing upon theorizing upon theorizing. On mtDNA specificaly, there are specific assumptions on the mutation rate.

Apparently we are 5,000,000 years away from the chimp(?). How do you get a rate of favorable mutations that won't kill off the chimp line? What really puzzles me is that you cannot have just one mutation, they must come in sets due to the fact that DNA information is layered in how it's uncoded, so that one bit holds the information for this, that, and the other thing -- and very different features of it's host, at that. It just sounds miraculous --- and not just once, but billions of times. Old Earth, Young Earth I just don't see you can make that work, the same random mechanism having success, producing irreducilby complex creature in many cases...Anyway, let's not do this. The previous response was just the first thing that popped in my head.

[MarcUK]

:D :D :D :lol: :no:

DMZ - exactly how much research into evolution have you done that consisted of reading and analyzing actual Scientific articles and papers, and didn't come from "the Creationists strawmans guide to refuting Evolution"?

for instance - Do you know off the top of your head. A couple of simple easy questions that anyone who has seriously looked at the theory would know.

On average, what percentage of mutations are a)harmful b)inert c)favourable ?

How many mutations exist on average in a normal human being from what the genome should be, and what is actually observed?

[dmz]

We are not going to do this, MarkUK. (at least not today -- I'm in the primate house today, and it's not my turn to hold the whip and chair)

[MarcUK]

Just as I thought,

It would have been quicker for you to give the answers than write out that sentance.

you seem to be fond of big type lately, its a bit immature but what the hell.

Dont worry folks, ignore DMZ's rubuttals on evolution, he hasn't a clue what it is anyway

But hey, some of us knew that already.....

http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/E-RealityBites.gif

and especially for you...:lol:

http://www.evolvefish.com/fish/media/E-BiteMe.gif

[MarcUK]

Originally posted by dmz
We are not going to do this, MarkUK. (at least not today -- I'm in the primate house today, and it's not my turn to hold the whip and chair)

There's another thing I've noticed with you fundies as well.

Every single one of ya seems to get my name wrong. Seeing what you want to see, no doubt.