Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 2:00 AM
42 online now:
Dredge, dwise1, PaulK (3 members, 39 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,539 Year: 3,576/19,786 Month: 571/1,087 Week: 161/212 Day: 3/25 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
192021
22
2324Next
Author Topic:   Well this is awkward... Used to be a YEC
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 316 of 358 (647963)
01-12-2012 10:28 AM


Summary Statement
Hi all, as things are nearing an end, I am finishing my participation with a summary.

Message 1: over a year ago I registered on this forum, a fundamentalist christian young-earth creationist. I started participating in a topic all ready to "prove to some evil evolutionists that creationism was right!" and got utterly destroyed. I was so embarrassed I left the forum and didn't come back. Some time later, thanks in part to seeing what an idiot I was, I am now actually an atheist who accepts the theory of evolution. Should be interesting debating from this new perspective.

This is not the first time I have seen this kind of transformation on this forum, and to be frank, this is one of the reasons I like to participate. Another is that I have learned a lot from debate on other threads - debate with all viewpoints.

The biggest problem that people of faith have, is when their beliefs come into conflict with the hard evidence of reality. Confirmation bias gives way to cognitive dissonance, and cognitive dissonance is resolved by changing ones belief/s. Neither are conducive to an open mind investigation into the ultimate questions of "life, the universe, and everything" (Douglas Adams).

Richard Dawkins has said "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)" (from Ignorance is No Crime), and he goes on to discuss these in detail and concludes:

quote:
I don't withdraw a word of my initial statement. But I do now think it may have been incomplete. There is perhaps a fifth category, which may belong under "insane" but which can be more sympathetically characterized by a word like tormented, bullied, or brainwashed. Sincere people who are not ignorant, not stupid, and not wicked can be cruelly torn, almost in two, between the massive evidence of science on the one hand, and their understanding of what their holy book tells them on the other.

I would label this last condition deluded, and note that there are two essential categories

quote:
de•lu•sion -noun
1.
    a. The act or process of deluding.
    b. The state of being deluded.
2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
3. Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.
(American Heritage Dictionary 2009)

First, Delusion(1b,2), like ignorance, is curable: evidence that the earth is very old can cure one of the false belief in a young earth.(1)

Second, Delusion(3), like insanity, may not be curable, certainly it is not easily cured. Holding on to the belief that the earth is young in spite of the mountains of evidence that show the earth to be very old is this kind of delusion.

Delusion is a non-rational state on the borderline between rational and irrational.

Delusion(1a) is wicked, whether consciously engaged in (ie lying) or unconsciously engaged in (passing on false information to others without verification). When creationist sites engage in passing on information that has been shown to be false they are engaging in this kind of delusion.

It is also noteworthy that these categorizations for denial of the evidence of reality can be extended to other branches of scientific knowledge.

One thing that saddens me is when an ardent theist discards their delusional beliefs, and goes to the other extreme to become an ardent atheist. This may be a psychological reaction as well, like the people that give up smoking becoming the most ardent anti-smokers.

For me, the logical position is agnostic, and this is for the simple reason that there is insufficient evidence pro or con to reach a valid conclusion from evidence. Any other position is either belief or assumption. I came to be an agnostic\deist from being an atheist, when I realized that it was not supported by the evidence.

When it comes to ultimate questions of "life, the universe, and everything" (Douglas Adams), science is adept at determining how things happen, but it is not adept at answering questions like "why is there life in the universe?" This question asks if there is a purpose to life, and that is a discussion better left to philosophy and religion - pursued with an open mind, but not devoid of skepticism.

Next we come to the question of "intelligent design" - the hypothesis that evidence of a causal agent for the creation of "life, the universe, and everything" can be detected.

The major problem I have with ID as it is pursued today is that the proponents are confirmed theists first (Christian, etc) and IDists second(2). The hypothesis is not pursued with an open mind when the proponents are committed to creationist beliefs: ID Creationism is a branch of creationism (as is YEC and OEC), and it suffers from the same problems that creationism suffers from.

A secondary problem with ID is that the hypothesis is not testable nor falsifiable, and thus it cannot be considered a scientific hypothesis.

If ID were pursued with an open, yet skeptical, mind, unencumbered by any preconceptions, then it would be deism. Deism can be defined as the belief that god/s created the universe as it is. This too is not testable nor falsifiable, and thus it cannot be considered a scientific hypothesis.

Deism is not a branch of science, it is a philosophy and a rather undefined\informal faith. Deism uses science to further understanding of "life, the universe, and everything" ... just as physics uses math to understand physical properties. Physics is not a part of math, deism is not a part of science.

Enjoy.

(1) - See Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for some of the evidence that shows the earth is older than YEC beliefs, or to pursue further discussion on this topic.

(2) - See Is ID properly pursued? for greater detail of my thoughts on ID, or to pursue further discussion on this topic.

Edited by Zen Deist, : footnotes

Edited by Zen Deist, : clrty


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7673
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 317 of 358 (647979)
01-12-2012 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by Dawn Bertot
01-12-2012 12:36 AM


Summary
There are a few things that I will directly address as part of my summary.

You either did not understand what i said or you are purposely ignoring it. falsifiability if it is to be understood as a hard fast rule, must have application to any and everything. It can be easily demonstrated that is not necessary for everything.

As many of us have pointed out, scientific theories must be falsifiable. This is known as the null hypothesis. In Dawn's case, the null hypothesis is law, order, and purpose coming about through unintelligent causes. Dawn must be able to describe experimental results that could potentially produce observations consistent with the null hypothesis. Dawn is incapable or refuses to describe these experiments. This is why ID is not scientific. This is why LOP is not evidence of intelligent design.

It gets even better . . .

In this instance it is not necessary to falsify something that is always true

Well, I guess science would be a lot easier if you got to declare your model as true to avoid the scientific method. However, I think this one sentence wraps things up nicely. This one sentence reveals that ID in no uncertain terms. ID is a dogmatic belief, one that is held to be true without ever testing it or challenging it.

Now our (all of ours) investigation, needs to have a conclusion. we cant just stop with the process or model and suggest that a conclusion of the eixstence of things is not necessary

Another example of ID not doing science. Once you have observations the next thing you need is a testable hypothesis and a null hypothesis. This is followed by the development of experiments that can test both the hypothesis and null hypothesis. Dawn doesn't do that. Dawn skips right to the conclusion. That is not how science works. We don't NEED a conclusion. Science doesn't NEED a conclusion. There are many things in science for which the only answer is "I don't know". What science does need is testable hypotheses.

Speaking from experience, the most difficult part of science is experiments. It is the elegance of your experiments that separates the great scientists from the shlubs. Anyone can come up with an idea (i.e. hypothesis). Anyone can declare by fiat that something is true as Dawn has done. What separates the scientist from the guy shouting on the corner is experimentation. What separates the great experiments from the poor experiments is the way in which they EQUALLY test the hypothesis and null hypothesis.

Since it is clear that no real objections or arguments can be raised against either sides Process or tenative conlcusions from those processes and neither absolute conclusion can be be determined or be determined to be false.

The only logical course of action in such an investigation, by basically the same persons, is to present both positions simply because both are science and cannot be demonstrated to be otherwise

This is baloney. The only logical course is to construct experiments that will test both ideas. Scientists have done this with evolution. They have tested it from one side to the other. The theory has passed this testing.

What about ID? As Dawn has illustrated so well, ID is untestable. Whenever we ask Dawn for experiments to test ID it is met with insults, as if we are asking for something so stupid that only someone with 3 frontal lobotomies would even think of asking for these experiments. Dawn is so deeply entrenched into a dogmatic system of belief that the very thought of questioning the conclusion is met with hostility.

At the end of the day, all we need is Dawn's statements that ID can not be tested or falsified. That is enough to demonstrate that ID is not science, and that LOP is not evidence of ID.

So why do I say that LOP is not evidence of ID. Quite simple. ID is not falsifiable. In order for something to be evidence it has to be risky. There has to be a chance that your hypothesis is false, and the experiment has to be capable of producing that falsifiable evidence. For example, a forensic scientist would not cite the mere presence of DNA at the crime scene as an indication of guilt. Instead, the forensic scientist has to amplify specific sections of the DNA and compare it to the defendant's DNA. There is a chance that the two will not match. There is a risk involved. If LOP is going to be cited as evidence of ID then Dawn has to describe experiments where LOP could be shown to come about by natural processes. Until that experiment is described and run then Dawn can not cite LOP as evidence for ID.

Only a fool would suggest that basically the same persons, conducting the same type of valid investigations, coming to demonstratable tenative conlcusions, each claiming they are not conducting science

No one is investigating ID. No one is constructing falsifiable ID hypotheses and testing them through experimentation. You, yourself, deny that anything like this can be done. Hence, no investigation. It is indoctrination. Period.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-12-2012 12:36 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-13-2012 1:14 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 318 of 358 (647986)
01-12-2012 1:08 PM


Summary
It's always good to see someone who "used to be a YEC" or "used to be a Creationist" or "Used to support Intelligent Design" but has learned that all of those are simply fantasies built on misrepresentations and unfortunately, all too often just plain lies.

What I do hate is that such an awakening also often leads to a person abandoning Christianity once they realize that what they were indoctrinated into under the label "Christianity" is as false as YEC or Creationism or ID.

That is a shame (although I admit is is far better to abandon the Christianity being marketed than to try to maintain it) since not all of Christianity is part of the Christian Cult of *********.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Rahvin, posted 01-12-2012 2:22 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5585
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


(2)
Message 319 of 358 (647991)
01-12-2012 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by Dawn Bertot
01-12-2012 12:51 AM


Re: Rock drops on foot
Dawn Bertot writes:
Wow, I just cant see how anyone can drift from the original point of the argument so quickly.

Oh, the irony!

Just compare anything that Dawn Bertot has posted in this thread with the OP (Message 1) that set what was supposed to be the topic for the thread.


Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-12-2012 12:51 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1263 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(1)
Message 320 of 358 (647994)
01-12-2012 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 318 by jar
01-12-2012 1:08 PM


Re: Summary
It's always good to see someone who "used to be a YEC" or "used to be a Creationist" or "Used to support Intelligent Design" but has learned that all of those are simply fantasies built on misrepresentations and unfortunately, all too often just plain lies.

What I do hate is that such an awakening also often leads to a person abandoning Christianity once they realize that what they were indoctrinated into under the label "Christianity" is as false as YEC or Creationism or ID.

That is a shame (although I admit is is far better to abandon the Christianity being marketed than to try to maintain it) since not all of Christianity is part of the Christian Cult of *********.

Not all Christianity falls for the same illogic and irrationality to the same degree as what you term the "Christian Cult of Ignorance," but Christianity is still at its core a faith-based set of beliefs. The rationalist "awakening" that tends to drive people away from fundamentalism is most often an examination of evidence...and there is no flavor of Christianity (or Judaism, or Islam, or Hindu, or Scientology, or Pastafarianism) that can stand under honest scrutiny when evidence rather than bare assertion and apologetics is required to justify belief.

I'm sure there are many people who convert from the worst offending denominations to more moderate Christian beliefs, abandoning disbelief in evolution, abandoning condemnation of homosexuality, etc. You just wouldn't be as likely to hear about such conversions, at least on a web debate forum like this one.

I would imagine that the reason is simply that a conversion from one Christian denomination to another is not as significant a change in one's worldview as a deconversion to atheism. I had relatively fundamentalist views when I was younger (6-day Creation, Flood, all of that), and moderated my Christian beliefs over time. I thought little of it other than that I no longer got on as well with my grandfather and others who retained zealous faith in the beliefs I had abandoned. When I eventually deconverted to atheism, however, I felt a significant change. It was like moving to a different apartment in the same city in the US vs moving to Japan.


“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.”
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by jar, posted 01-12-2012 1:08 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 321 of 358 (648058)
01-13-2012 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by Taq
01-12-2012 12:25 PM


Re: Summary
A pop up message here at the site indicated that summations could begin after 350 posts, so I will continue

As many of us have pointed out, scientific theories must be falsifiable. This is known as the null hypothesis. In Dawn's case, the null hypothesis is law, order, and purpose coming about through unintelligent causes. Dawn must be able to describe experimental results that could potentially produce observations consistent with the null hypothesis. Dawn is incapable or refuses to describe these experiments. This is why ID is not scientific. This is why LOP is not evidence of intelligent design.

My simplistic friend, as I have pointed out to many times to mention now, you cannot falsify the ToE, because the ToE, needs to have, like all investigations need to have, that are complete and accurate, a conclusion. You can only ask me to falsify ID, if you are willing to falsify the conclusion of Soley Natrual Causes

The ToE of evolution cannot demonstrate its conclusion, so how can it, my simplistic friend, be falsifiable. You are really not that simplistic are you, please tell me you are just avoiding it or playing the dumb card

You cant stop in the middle of the investigative process, like the ToE does and say we dont need a conclusion. Examining the natural world and its limited parameters, does not complete the investigation. Once it is realized, that even the ToE cannot demonstrate its conclusion

If you think the ToE, which MUST include an answer for its existence to begin with, can be falsified, then my simplistic friend, simply present it

Well, I guess science would be a lot easier if you got to declare your model as true to avoid the scientific method. However, I think this one sentence wraps things up nicely. This one sentence reveals that ID in no uncertain terms. ID is a dogmatic belief, one that is held to be true without ever testing it or challenging it.

Even falsifiabilty were necessary in all cases, the ToE could not pass its own test. Heck the ToE cant even pass the test of what constitues an investigation, so how will it pass your falsifiability test.

Please demonstrate how the conclusion of the ToE, which is Soley Natural Causes, can be falsified. Your so blantantly dishonest you cant even go by your own rules, then insist everyone else must. I believe that is called bening a Hypocrite

Another example of ID not doing science. Once you have observations the next thing you need is a testable hypothesis and a null hypothesis. This is followed by the development of experiments that can test both the hypothesis and null hypothesis. Dawn doesn't do that. Dawn skips right to the conclusion. That is not how science works. We don't NEED a conclusion. Science doesn't NEED a conclusion. There are many things in science for which the only answer is "I don't know". What science does need is testable hypotheses.

And here is where you get even more disgustingly dishonest and unobjective. Only an idiot conducting an investigation with all the specifications that you require, like that mentioned above, would then conclude to every ones amazement and with the same breath insist, that a conclusion is not necessary.

But it does extricate you from demonstrating how the conclusion of the ToE, which is Soley Natural Causes, doesnt need to be falsified, while you require ID to be falsified. see any inconsistencey there?

This not only makes you inaccurate, unobjective, but a dishonest, so-called scientist. You cant even go by your own rules

Imagine a scene and a crime scene investigation and the fella says, Well everybody we examined the scene, gathered all the data accurately, since we dont need a conclusion, lets everybody head home

Speaking from experience, the most difficult part of science is experiments.

As i have just demonstrated you only conduct incomplete dishonest experiments, then call them investigations and science

It is the elegance of your experiments that separates the great scientists from the shlubs. Anyone can come up with an idea (i.e. hypothesis). Anyone can declare by fiat that something is true as Dawn has done. What separates the scientist from the guy shouting on the corner is experimentation. What separates the great experiments from the poor experiments is the way in which they EQUALLY test the hypothesis and null hypothesis.

Really, lets see you test the null hypothesis of the conclusion, of all of the data the ToE has gathered, which formulates it ultimately conlcusion of Soley Natural Causes Remember now we cant just declare a conclusion is not necessary, unless we want to look completely unobjective. Your not unobjective are you Taq?

This is baloney. The only logical course is to construct experiments that will test both ideas. Scientists have done this with evolution. They have tested it from one side to the other. The theory has passed this testing.

You wouldnt know what an honest complete experiment was if it were following you

What about ID? As Dawn has illustrated so well, ID is untestable. Whenever we ask Dawn for experiments to test ID it is met with insults, as if we are asking for something so stupid that only someone with 3 frontal lobotomies would even think of asking for these experiments. Dawn is so deeply entrenched into a dogmatic system of belief that the very thought of questioning the conclusion is met with hostility.
At the end of the day, all we need is Dawn's statements that ID can not be tested or falsified. That is enough to demonstrate that ID is not science, and that LOP is not evidence of ID.

I see misrepresentation is also a part of your lying and unobjective approach to science. Of course, neither the ToE or ID can be testable if we are going to be complete and objective about what an investigation includes, which would involve its conclusions

If I employ accurate tactics, then certainly the ToLO&P is testable. Like a Tyro, you keep comparing my conclusion (ID) with your process (The ToE). You do understand that the conclusion of the ToE is not its Process, correct? Its not only the immediate and tenative data gathered, with no consideration for its origin, correct? The conclusion of the ToE, is that things are here by Soley Natural Causes. Lets see you do an experiment and then a falsifiability test on that

When you cannot, then it should be obvious to even the simplest of minds, that either your method cannot be science, because it cannot follow its own principles, or the falsifiabilty principle was not meant to applied where things are absolutely true and dont require such a non-sensical approach

So why do I say that LOP is not evidence of ID. Quite simple. ID is not falsifiable.

I promise you are going to get this after a while. Pay close attention Albert E. If the ToLO&P is not evidence of ID, because ID, not falsifiable, then the ToE, is not evidence of Soley Natural Causes, because SNC is not falsifiable.

So, this invalidates your process of the ToE as science, because it cannot pass your own test. Do you see my simple friend how you are requiring of me, something you do not require of yourself. You are assuming that the conclusion of Soley natural Causes, is falsifiable, therefore the process of the ToE, is therefore science, because its intermidiate tenets are falsifiable

How can anybody that claims to be a scientist like yourself, make such a simple mistake. Your not working on anything presently that requires detailed attention are you? Whew, I hope not

First you need to demonstrate that the conclusion of SNC is falsifiable, then you can throw dung around on the ONLY other logical explanation as to the existence of things.

This is going to be quite difficult since you cant even pass your own tests. Is the smoke starting to clear, is the bulb starting to brighten?

There is a risk involved. If LOP is going to be cited as evidence of ID then Dawn has to describe experiments where LOP could be shown to come about by natural processes. Until that experiment is described and run then Dawn can not cite LOP as evidence for ID.

Of course he can, my simple friend. Your argument implies and assumes that the ToE, its hypothesis and its tenative conclusions can demonstrate the conclusion of Soley Natural Causes. Of course it cant. that is it cant be falsified

If the the ToE, cannot be falsified against its conclusion of Soley Natural Causes, then it is silly to suggest that ID must pass some non-sensical test, that has been not been demonstrated by the same persons claiming what evidence and science is or is not

Demonstrating Natural Selection and change or even mutation is not the same as falsifying the ToE. Becuase the ToE, is only its process. You need to, as you requireof me, to falsify its conclusion of Soley Natrual Causes

Secondly, you havent demonstrated why if something is true, like LOP, why if it can be demonstratable as predictable and accurate, it is therefore not falsifiable

Of curse it could have come about about by natural causes. But that would only be testing falsifiabiity to its process, that is incomplete

So we are left with only our conclusions, neither of which is falsifiable. So are you going to give up the ToE as science, because its conclusion is not falsifiable or are you going to give up the falsifiabilty principle. let me know when you decide?

All we are left with is the only two possible explanation for the existence of things, both of which follow scientific methodologies, both gather accurate, although tenative data. Both have assertable conclusions

And i say the court, is there any reason why one should be considered as religion, I have compared the process then demonstrated that is not accurate, to refer it as religion.

The proposition I have set out, as you can see is irrefutable and irresistible in its conclusion. But you are free to demonstrate otherwise, if you think you can

No one is investigating ID. No one is constructing falsifiable ID hypotheses and testing them through experimentation. You, yourself, deny that anything like this can be done. Hence, no investigation. It is indoctrination. Period.

When you ignore simple mistakes that you are making by comparing my conclusions with your process, then dont apply your own rules (falsifiabilty) to your conclusions, then it is easy for you to make an inaccurate statement as that above. I promise you will get how reason works after awhile
Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Taq, posted 01-12-2012 12:25 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by Tangle, posted 01-13-2012 3:14 AM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 325 by Larni, posted 01-13-2012 4:15 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3309
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(4)
Message 322 of 358 (648059)
01-13-2012 2:14 AM


Summary
The OP played out the scenario that I have been warning against for decades, ever since the end of the 1980's when I read Robert Schadewald's report on the 1986 International Conference on Creationism, where former YEC geologist had given his presentation in which he had found through actual examination of actual geological facts (rock-hard geological facts that he and other creationist geologists had to face and work with daily) that the rock-hard geological facts did not at all support creationist geology (AKA "Flood Geology"). In the question-and-answer session, the entire geology department of the Institute for Creation Research (all three of them) immediately attacked him. In response:
quote:
[Glenn R. Morton, practicing petroleum geologist and staunch creationist, asked John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR)], "How old is the earth?" "If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning." Morton then said that he had hired several graduates of Christian Heritage College [which formerly housed the ICR], and that all of them suffered severe crises of faith. They were utterly unprepared to face the geological facts every petroleum geologist deals with on a daily basis.

It was that incident that had first alerted me to the problem that "creation science" creates for its followers. That problem is greatly exasperated by creationism's teaching that the truth of Christianity depends on the truth of "creation science" and that if "creation science" is not true, then Christianity is not true and the only alternative is atheism.

Of course, "creation science" is a demonstrably false theology -- not the idea of divine creation itself, but rather that pack of lies and deceptions that is "creation science". But does Christianity really depend on that pack of lies and deceptions? Sure, "creation science" says that it does, but if they lied to you about everything else, what makes you think that you need to believe them about this too?

That is the problem I saw with the OP, the inherent assumption that the realization that the creationists had been lying to him all along necessitated becoming an atheist. Of course, becoming an atheist is the right choice -- it most certainly was for me nearly 50 years ago -- , but that choice really should be made for the right reasons. Becoming an atheist just because that is what your church had told you you must do is perhaps not the best reason. Especially since they had also taught you so many pernicious lies about atheism -- eg, in Paul, when life-long fundamentalist Ruth Buggs finally learns some of the truth and that everything she had been taught was false, she immediately wants eagerly to sin and curse and fornicate, etc; when you have been taught all your life that atheists do certain evil things, then when you find yourself forced to become an atheist then you would immediately want to play out those tortured fantasies, those false scripts you had been fed for so many years, if not our entire life. Indeed, one local creationist activist claims to have been an atheist, whereas in truth he had only been pretending to himself that he was an atheist so that he could give vent to his adolescent hormones and seek to sin guilt-free -- his own admission that he had prayed to God every night, something that no actual atheist would have done, reveals that he was only deluding himself.

And, of course, Dawn moved in and spewed his bullshit all over the place, hijacking the thread away from its topic. So sadly typical.


    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6672
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 323 of 358 (648064)
01-13-2012 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 321 by Dawn Bertot
01-13-2012 1:14 AM


Re: Summary
Sadly Dawn, what you have written is incomprehensible.

I suppose it must make some kind of sense to you but if you want to make any progress with the world outside your head, your going to have to engage with it.


Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-13-2012 1:14 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 331 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-13-2012 8:45 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 324 of 358 (648070)
01-13-2012 3:47 AM


summary
Once you truly question evolution (for instance) you will see no one can answer it's many flaws.

Some don't question it the way it should be questioned and end up believing it.

To the author I say give The Bible and Creationism another try and truly question evolution.

ABE: Thought we were in summation mode. My bad.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by dwise1, posted 01-13-2012 4:24 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 327 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-13-2012 6:27 AM Chuck77 has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3975
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 325 of 358 (648073)
01-13-2012 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 321 by Dawn Bertot
01-13-2012 1:14 AM


Re: Summary
Dawn, you do know that for a hypothesis to be falsifiable there must be some possible evidence that would rule the hypothesis out, don't you?

So for ToE: finding a rabit in strata dated as Carboniferous.

It seems you are using the word falsification in a different way. When you say ToE cannot be falsified, what exactly do you think you mean?

Edited by Larni, : shhh!


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-13-2012 1:14 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by Dawn Bertot, posted 01-13-2012 8:40 AM Larni has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3309
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.6


(3)
Message 326 of 358 (648074)
01-13-2012 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 324 by Chuck77
01-13-2012 3:47 AM


Re: summary
Once you truly question evolution (for instance) you will see no one can answer it's many flaws.

Huh? What flaws, exactly? Do you mean the "questions" that the Question Evolution movement poses? As we all know already too well, those "questions" are pure nonsense. How is that "truly question[ing] evolution"? Such complete and utter nonsensical "questions" do not, in fact, question anything at all.

Some don't question it the way it should be questioned and end up believing it.

And just exactly how do you propose that it should be questioned? And is that the way that it actually should be questioned?

To the author I say give The Bible and Creationism another try and truly question evolution.

Err? Just exactly who is this mysterious "the author" of whom you speak?

And just what exactly do you mean by "giv[ing] The Bible and Creationism another try"? The Bible says many varied things ... it was directly because of reading what the Bible actually said that I became an atheist in the first place, more than four decades ago. And just exactly what is it that Creationism has to say that needs to be given another try? What Creationism has been saying for the past four to five decades is exactly what most of us are condemning as demonstrable and damnable lies and deception.

As for questioning evolution, I do agree with that. I also agree with questioning creationism, and republicanism, and being a democrat, and everything else. A catch-phrase of my religion, Unitarian-Universalism, is "To Question is the Answer." And that is most definitely true. By questioning what you believe, you are not "questioning God", but rather you are questioning your own personal fallible human misunderstanding of what you need to believe.

And, yes, I have indeed questioned evolution. When I read Richard Dawkins' third chapter of his "The Blind Watchmaker", I quite simply could not believe his WEASEL program. So I wrote my own, based solely on his description (obviously, from the speed, his was a BASIC program, since it had to run through their lunch time). Even when I could see how rapidly it converged on a solution, I still could not believe it, so I performed an analysis of the mathematics that were involved. As a result, I could see, unequivocably, that an evolutionary solution is much less likely to fail than a random one would be. http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/monkey.html

To Question is the Answer. Are you ready to actually Question?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Chuck77, posted 01-13-2012 3:47 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 327 of 358 (648089)
01-13-2012 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 324 by Chuck77
01-13-2012 3:47 AM


Re: summary
Once you truly question evolution (for instance) you will see no one can answer it's many flaws.

Some don't question it the way it should be questioned and end up believing it.

And apparently to judge from your example "the way it should be questioned" involves not knowing either what biologists think or why they think it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Chuck77, posted 01-13-2012 3:47 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by Chuck77, posted 01-13-2012 6:51 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 328 of 358 (648092)
01-13-2012 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 327 by Dr Adequate
01-13-2012 6:27 AM


Re: summary
I know what Behe thinks. Thanks tho Doc!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-13-2012 6:27 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-13-2012 7:15 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(2)
Message 329 of 358 (648095)
01-13-2012 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 328 by Chuck77
01-13-2012 6:51 AM


Re: summary
I know what Behe thinks.

But do you know why he thinks you're descended from monkeys?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by Chuck77, posted 01-13-2012 6:51 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member (Idle past 349 days)
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 330 of 358 (648105)
01-13-2012 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by Larni
01-13-2012 4:15 AM


Re: Summary
Dawn, you do know that for a hypothesis to be falsifiable there must be some possible evidence that would rule the hypothesis out, don't you?
So for ToE: finding a rabit in strata dated as Carboniferous.

It seems you are using the word falsification in a different way. When you say ToE cannot be falsified, what exactly do you think you mean?

Larni. Immediate conclusions as the example you provided are not what the totallity of the ToE is. It like any valid investigation, has to have a conclusion concerning all of its tenets and conclusions

The main tenet of the ToE is that things are here by Soley Natural Causes. It should be obvious that that aspect of the ToE cannot be falsified

You cant just claim that certain aspects of the ToE are what constitute the ToE.

Example Taq has charged that the process of LOP is not testable becuase the ID is not falisifiable

If this is true, then it should be obvious to even the simplest of minds, that the ToE in its totallity is not science either, because its conclusion is not falsifiable

So then he is confronted with an awful situation, as I have pointed out

Dawn Bertot

Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by Larni, posted 01-13-2012 4:15 AM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by Larni, posted 01-13-2012 8:58 AM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 333 by Coyote, posted 01-13-2012 11:19 AM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 335 by bluegenes, posted 01-14-2012 12:12 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
192021
22
2324Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019