Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 226 of 1725 (539138)
12-13-2009 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by DevilsAdvocate
12-13-2009 7:34 AM


Re: Shedding light on non-existant light:
This is a logical fallacy, appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio litteraly 'argument from silence'). The burden of proof lies with the one attempting to prove the existence of something (whether it be God or anything else) not the other way around.
This is kind of a funny point. Their is no burden of proof on anyone. It is not an issue of someone else needing to convince you. it is for you to convince or not convince yourself.
The belief is entirely internal, not external. There is not going to be empirical evidence. If the evidence was empirical, it wouldn't be a spirit, it would be a man or a dog. That is why it is called faith, and not observation. The belief is entirely internal, not external.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-13-2009 7:34 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by hooah212002, posted 12-13-2009 9:39 AM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 229 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-31-2009 4:29 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 227 of 1725 (539139)
12-13-2009 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Bolder-dash
12-13-2009 9:37 AM


Re: Shedding light on non-existant light:
Then you have absolutely no problem admitting no one has ever spoken to or seen god?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-13-2009 9:37 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 228 of 1725 (539908)
12-20-2009 2:47 PM


Ignorance is bliss
In Message 103 of the species/kind thread, Mr. Jack shows ICANT just how ignorant he is on the subject.
ICANT actually, in a way, is defending evolution.
ICANT writes:
We do have a 60 million year record of forams with the last 500,000 years like a book with no missing pages. During that 500,000 years there were 330 new species of Forams created. But low and behold they were still forams.
Mr. Jack writes:
Do you know what forams are, ICANT?
Foraminifera isn't a species, not a genus, not a family, or an order or even a frickin' class. Forminifera is a phylum. A phylum! Saying there's no change because they're still forams is like saying a snake, a hamster, a bird, a whale, a sea cucumber, an eel and a frog haven't changed from their common ancestor because they're all still chordates.
Well done Mr. Jack.
- Oni

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3102 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 229 of 1725 (541119)
12-31-2009 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Bolder-dash
12-13-2009 9:37 AM


Re: Shedding light on non-existant light:
Bolder-Brain writes:
Me writes:
This is a logical fallacy, appeal to ignorance (argumentum ex silentio litteraly 'argument from silence'). The burden of proof lies with the one attempting to prove the existence of something (whether it be God or anything else) not the other way around.
This is kind of a funny point. Their is no burden of proof on anyone. It is not an issue of someone else needing to convince you. it is for you to convince or not convince yourself.
This is a debate site. I am not here to 'convince' myself of anything. I am here to learn from others that provide supporting evidence and rational and to express my own knowledge and experiences with others.
If you claim that I have to provide evidence to show that God does not exist I am going to wave to the bullshit flag like I did above. Your attempt to weasel out of this is ridiculously stupid.
The belief is entirely internal, not external.
What the heck does this mean? Internal/external to what?
There is not going to be empirical evidence.
Than we are at an impass. Because basically you are saying God exists but you have no way of showing that he exists and I have no way of determing that he exists. I will stick this belief in the closet of past believed fairy tales with my former beliefs in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Abominable Snowman (actually I am more inclined that he existed than your god) and Linus' Great Pumpkin.
If the evidence was empirical, it wouldn't be a spirit, it would be a man or a dog.
Show me the 'spirit' exists. And while you are at it. Define what this 'spirit' is in scientific terms.
That is why it is called faith, and not observation.
I have this holy water I would like to sell you. Just have faith and send me $50 and this holy water will heal all your diseases and illnesses and give you miraculous wealth.
What!?! You don't have faith in me or my holy water?!? You are going to hell!!
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-13-2009 9:37 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 230 of 1725 (541317)
01-02-2010 1:58 PM


Comments on What exactly is ID?
I wish I could participate over at What exactly is ID?, but I'm moderating, so here are a couple comments about Message 479 from traderdrew.
traderdrew writes:
What evidence do you have that the first living cell contained DNA?
If you can think of a more simple model for protein replication starting from something else other than DNA them I am sure science would love to hear about it. I don't see them parading the old theory on origin of life from the Russian scientist Aleksandr Oparin. I think the Stanley-Miller experiment has gone out of favor also.
Traderdrew is apparently unaware of research into RNA as a DNA predecessor as well as other possibilities, and just as unaware of the status within the scientific community of ideas growing out of the work of scientists like Oparin and Miller.
traderdrew writes:
Science believes but, has not proven, the minimal complexity for the most simple of cells would have at least 250 to 400 genes.
This is an inaccurate paraphrase from Stephen C. Meyer's book Signature in the Cell (Stephen C. Meyer is vice president and senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture):
Stephen C. Meyer writes:
Based on minimal-complexity experiments, some scientists speculate (but have not demonstrated) that a simple one-celled organism might have been able to survive with as few as 250-400 genes.
--Percy

CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 311
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


(1)
Message 231 of 1725 (541407)
01-03-2010 10:11 AM


My applause to Percy and several of the forum members for their much needed interactions with Viv Pope. His presence seems to be (to me) only so much masquerading. I for one appreciate your efforts on the so many fronts he is propping up at once. I respect far too greatly the science and scientists that have gotten us to where we are today, than to have their work tarnished by someone I can only, so far, view as a pretender with visions of grandeur. Bravo, for a job well done.

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 232 of 1725 (541463)
01-03-2010 7:02 PM


IBLIS.......
Don't feed the troll (OLEGDEI) in "What does 'The Gospel' mean to you - in 200 words or less" thread. I'm half tempted to report this guy.

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people
-Carl Sagan
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-Carl Sagan

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Iblis, posted 01-03-2010 7:10 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Iblis
Member (Idle past 3896 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 233 of 1725 (541467)
01-03-2010 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by hooah212002
01-03-2010 7:02 PM


Re: IBLIS.......
Go ahead, I'm done with him. Though iano may still want to probe for a serious response.
It just baffles me that some brain-damaged types get as stick-in-the-butt about their anti-religion as the faith-ridden are. Just another brand of fundie in my book. Maybe someone should send an email to a few of the prominents on his membership list and see if they know how their names are being spammed round?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by hooah212002, posted 01-03-2010 7:02 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2010 8:45 PM Iblis has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 234 of 1725 (541479)
01-03-2010 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Iblis
01-03-2010 7:10 PM


Re: IBLIS.......
Just when I was getting bored. Some people just beg for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Iblis, posted 01-03-2010 7:10 PM Iblis has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 235 of 1725 (542770)
01-12-2010 1:56 PM


Kibitzing in the What exactly is ID? thread
Since I'm moderating over at the What exactly is ID? thread I'll kibitz a little over here in the Peanut Gallery. I think someone should apply this argument there.
Smooth operator claims that both beneficial and deleterious mutations increase genetic entropy. I'll assume this is correct and then present an example whereby a contradiction is reached, thereby proving Smooth Operator's claim incorrect.
Assume a simple point mutation (beneficial or deleterious, makes no difference). The genetic entropy of the organism increases.
Now assume another simple point mutation that reverses the first. The genetic entropy of the organism again increases. The genome is now identical to what it was originally, but it has greater genetic entropy. Obviously this is impossible, so Smooth Operator's claim that any mutation increases genetic entropy is incorrect.
--Percy

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 236 of 1725 (572563)
08-06-2010 3:07 PM


RAZD and Bluegenes - Peanut Gallery
I couldn't resist.
Is anyone else as intrigued by this one as me?
Will RAZ ever acknowledge the difference between falsifiable evidence based theories and statements of absolute logical certitude?

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-06-2010 3:35 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 238 by nwr, posted 08-06-2010 4:19 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 239 by Stile, posted 08-06-2010 4:19 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 240 by onifre, posted 08-06-2010 4:51 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 248 by Dr Jack, posted 08-09-2010 9:51 AM Straggler has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 237 of 1725 (572569)
08-06-2010 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Straggler
08-06-2010 3:07 PM


Re: RAZD and Bluegenes - Peanut Gallery
Is anyone else as intrigued by this one as me?
To be honest I haven't been paying attention. That debate is a beaten and dead horse.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2010 3:07 PM Straggler has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 238 of 1725 (572578)
08-06-2010 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Straggler
08-06-2010 3:07 PM


Re: RAZD and Bluegenes - Peanut Gallery
Straggler writes:
Is anyone else as intrigued by this one as me?
Probably not, though I have been following the debate.
Thus far, I would say that it is lopsided, with bluegenes clearly ahead.
I'm still wondering why RAZD even started this debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2010 3:07 PM Straggler has not replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 239 of 1725 (572580)
08-06-2010 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Straggler
08-06-2010 3:07 PM


Re: RAZD and Bluegenes - Peanut Gallery
I think it's interesting.
I think bluegenes has explained things in a very good, very concise, very... "See Spot Run"... kind of way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2010 3:07 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by purpledawn, posted 08-07-2010 6:43 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 240 of 1725 (572585)
08-06-2010 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Straggler
08-06-2010 3:07 PM


Re: RAZD and Bluegenes - Peanut Gallery
Dude I was gonna send you a message that you were probably dying to get involved! Lol
I love Blue's argument in this debate. I liked it before in the other threads on this topic. His logic is spot-on.
I'm waiting for RAZD's giant banners and flashing light displays when his argument fails and he has to resort to glamourous attractions to keep us interested.
I still can't see how one can have a debate about an answer to a question that is completely meaningless. But I'll keep tuning in.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2010 3:07 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Blue Jay, posted 08-07-2010 11:13 AM onifre has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024