RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (167) < ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... >   
  Topic: AFDave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis 2< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2006,17:04   

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,20:25)
 
Quote
Microbial genomes, however, are characterized by extensive intraspecific variation, in that different strains or types within the same species can vary by as much as 20% in gene content
Great.  And a far cry from 64% ... and that's overall.  Now how about their Cytochrome C, which is what Denton was comparing.

Dave, read the quote. Did you notice where it says "intraspecific." You do know what "intraspecific" means, don't you? Given the "half a lousy percent" you derided about the difference between humans and chimps, which aren't even in the same genus, you'd think that 20% figure would give you pause.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2006,17:20   

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,21:54)
You guys aren't going to get off that easy.  I have a hard time believing that Denton made a "bone-headed mistake."  And we have ONLY been discussing bacteria.  Denton's claim covers many other organisms in addition to bacteria.

But it is that easy, Dave. Denton (and you) both seem to believe that conventional evolutionary theory posits that different eukaryotes should be more or less closely related to prokaryotes depending on how long ago they diverged from prokaryotes. This is, in fact, a boneheaded mistake, because all eukaryotes diverged from prokaryotes at the same time. Therefore, conventional evolutionary theory posits that all eukaryotes should be equally distantly related to prokaryotes. This is what your chart (within the margins of error inherent in using a coding DNA sequence like that for cytochrome) actually shows.

You'll note that when you're talking about eukaryotes, all organisms are not equally related to each other. If your "hypothesis" about special creation were true, we would have no reason to expect any pattern at all in cytochrome c (they should either all be the same, or they should all be different), because the protein is highly conserved. The Theobald paper I cited to you five months ago discusses all this in great detail, but I'm not surprised you're not familiar with it, because there's no way you ever read that paper.

This pattern of differing distances among various eukaryotes, but all the same distances between all eukaryotes and all prokaryotes, is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts, and you still haven't shown otherwise. This pattern is definitely not remotely surprising to anyone who knows anything about evolutionary theory. Which is why you find it surprising, Dave.

So—yet another question Dave can't answer: how are you going to go about showing that it's not true that all eukaryotes diverged from prokaryotes at the same time?

One other point, Dave: by comparison to the prokaryotic world, eukaryotes are a minor offshoot. So saying you're talking about only bacteria is like saying you're talking about only the irrational numbers.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2006,17:32   

Mike PSS
Quote
SHAME k.e SHAME

OK one of rare ad hominems.....snicker

alright then AFD's ancestors weren't weasles...

....ack ack cognitive disonance...mind imploding

nup can't take that back he must have at least 99.9% common DNA with a weasle....

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2006,17:52   

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,21:54)
You guys aren't going to get off that easy.  I have a hard time believing that Denton made a "bone-headed mistake."  And we have ONLY been discussing bacteria.  Denton's claim covers many other organisms in addition to bacteria.

Uh huh. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Way back when, you had a "hard time believing" Wieland (a medical doctor, no less!;) could make a "bone-headed mistake" regarding chromosomal fusion. But back then, you at least checked the claim and accepted the weight of evidence that a credentialed writer just simply got it wrong. (By the way, I see that artcle is still posted in its entirety, glaring mistakes and all. Didn't have any luck pointing that out to AIG, eh?) Anyhow, Deadman referenced one example of the resounding "what the fuck?!" from the scientific community regarding Denton's gaffe.

So you can accept the opinion of thousands of scientists working in the field. And that of tens of thousands of high school and undergraduate students of biology who would know enough to see Denton's mistake. And that of hundreds of thousands of educated lay people who could point out the same. And that of millions of papers and books on evolutionary theory. Or you can keep having a hard time believing that Denton is off the mark here, and choose instead to believe that the rest of the world is.

What were you saying about comfortable oblivion, Dave?

(Cue the references to Copernicus and Galileo from someone with a scientific background that would be considered poor among grade-schoolers.)

  
edmund



Posts: 37
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2006,18:40   

from incorygible:  
Quote
So you can accept the opinion of thousands of scientists working in the field. And that of tens of thousands of high school and undergraduate students of biology who would know enough to see Denton's mistake. And that of hundreds of thousands of educated lay people who could point out the same. And that of millions of papers and books on evolutionary theory. Or you can keep having a hard time believing that Denton is off the mark here, and choose instead to believe that the rest of the world is.

For that matter, Denton himself no longer seems to believe that he was on the mark. At least as I understand it, he's embraced mainstream evolutionary theory.

As for the statement that we're "only discussing bacteria", you'll find the same nested hierarchical pattern no matter which organisms you look at, and (within limits) no matter which gene you examine. That nested pattern is the signature of descent from a common ancestor, and the same pattern seems to appear no matter which critters you choose.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2006,21:35   

Wow, you miss a few days and the little monkey boy gets even weirder.

Quote
Comfortable oblivion:

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.

Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Get it now?


So precious.

Dave, I didn't believe in christians until I went to college. That's a fact. I was shocked. I thought of like, the middle ages and such when I thought of christians. I figured that people just wanted the company of the church.

So... This is getting good. Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes. Um, I might point out some obvious stuff but it will be better when Dave figures it out for himself.

Dave- you lost the portuguese thing.


Man, I just gotta do it again...
Quote
Comfortable oblivion:

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.

Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Get it now?


Go get 'em jEsus boy. Give 'em he!!.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2006,21:40   

Hey Dave, what do ya guess the genomic difference between, say, Influenza and Strep might be?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2006,21:58   

so why is it that Denton is right and everybody else is wrong? Is it because you *agree* with his claims?
After all, he claims to be a scientist, as do ALL the other people who do research, who happen to contradict you/him.

So, what's different about Denton to all the others? To me, it appears as if you are doing exactly what you claim everybody else is doing - closing your eyes to the actual evidence because of what you *believe*. Is that not the case? You claim that rocks are *chosen* before they are dated and this makes dating invalid. Are you not doing the same by picking and choosing who you believe because of their conclusion?
If I only ever dated rocks under 6000 years old then of course they'd say earth<6000 years old! So what?!

When does the earth become 6001 years old Dave? If you can *prove* it's 6000, presumably your error margin is less then a year? So WHAT DATE DOES THE EARTH BECOME 6001 years old Dave?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Ross_UK



Posts: 2
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2006,23:28   

Oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit,

Ah, the old Goon Show joke:

How old is that dinosaur skeleton?
200 million and two years old.
How do you know?
Well, it was 200 million years old when I started working here two years ago...

Of course this leads to my new hypothesis that AFDave is Eccles (a spectacularly stupid character from the Goon Show - a British Radio Comedy of the 50s) and as my first piece of 'evidence' I offer the following exchange from "The Mysterious Punch Up the Conker":

Bluebottle: What time is it Eccles?
Eccles: Err, just a minute. I've got it written down on a piece of paper. A nice man wrote the time down for me this morning.
Bluebottle: Ooooh, then why do you carry it around with you Eccles?
Eccles: Welll, um, if a anybody asks me the time, I can show it to dem.
Bluebottle: Wait a minute Eccles, my good man.
Eccles: What is it fellow?
Bluebottle: It's writted on this bit of paper, what is eight o'clock, is writted.
Eccles: I know that my good fellow. That's right, um, when I asked the fella to write it down, it was eight o'clock.
Bluebottle: Well then. Supposing when somebody asks you the time, it isn't eight o'clock?
Eccles: Well den, I don't show it to 'em.
Bluebottle: Well how do you know when it's eight o'clock?
Eccles: I've got it written down on a piece of paper.

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2006,02:21   

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,21:25)
Mike--  Once again, my statement is that Deep Timers cannot prove that whole rock isochron diagrams are not merely mixing diagrams because all COULD be.  There is no way to tell for sure.  Your turn.

AFDave,
This was your ORIGINAL claim BEFORE I posted my summary that REFUTED this claim.  Therefore you have to READ AND REVIEW my summary and address the points made in the summary.  Otherwise, my refutation of your claim is valid and you admit that your "mixing" argument is wrong.  That's how it works.

Now, I have a choice.  
EITHER I can create a detailed and cross-referenced post pointing to your past messages with proper time stamps that show the following chronological sequence
  • AFDave makes the above claim.
  • JonF and Mike PSS point out the inconsistencies of that claim and reference numerous sources.
  • AFDave holds his head in his hands and says "too much information" and asks for an "executive summary".
  • Mike PSS agrees to that under the condition that we start with the mixing claim first before we even talk about time.
  • Mike PSS posts his summary that refutes the "mixing" claim mentioned above.
  • AFDave repeats his original claim over and over and over.
  • Many people point out that AFDave has not addressed the information in the summary.


OR, I can create a detailed and cross-referenced post that shows AFDave arguing with many other posters about the following point:
Dalrymple rebutted Arndts and Overns paper about Isochrons with five points.  Arndts and Overn replied to Dalrymples rebuttal point for point.  Since Dalrymple didn't respond to the counter-points then Arndts and Overn (and AFDave) claimed victory about the point.
Does that situation seem eerily similar to what is going on above, but just in reverse?

AFDave, just read my summary that refutes your ORIGINAL claim you so graciously repeated above and respond to it.

Mike PSS

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2006,02:28   

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,21:50)
   
Quote
I patiently explained to you how the laws of physics and chemistry show that the meteorites mentioned could not have been the result of mixing.
And I patiently showed you in detail how you are wrong ... complete with pictures.

AFDave,
You have yet to post a proper rebuttal to the meteorite graph.  The only """"data"""" (extra scare quotes around that word in this context) you posted is below.  And we all know how that turned out.

  
TangoJuliett



Posts: 12
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2006,02:31   

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,17:37)
Comfortable oblivion:

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.

Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Get it now?

Don't ya just love it when the loonies play the violence/fear card?  Yeah, I get it Davey-dumbell.  You will note that his petty little impotent wanker god never does anything NOW.  The threats of violence and retribution are always after death, which is, very conveniently, not verifyable.  However, this tactic is very good at generating fear and uncertainty in susceptible people.  And, of course, people who are in a perpetual state of fear and uncertainty tend to be more compliant and easier to control.... and fleece.  It's a very common tactic used to control behavior throughout history.  The xtian implementation has got to be one of the best hooks ever invented, but it's also a truly psychotic demonstration of love.  Try pulling it on your significant other, "I love you dearly my darling, but if you fail to return my love I'll arrange for you to burn in ####."  That kind of 'loving' sentiment can land you in jail.

I would rather not exist in a universe controlled the petty narcissistic and dictatorial bastard that you happen to call god, Davey-poo.  So please, do me a favor and get your beloved impotent sky-daddy SOB to take action NOW!!!  Thanks.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2006,02:42   

dont forget the financial scandal rocking Dave's church at the moment, boy do they love their $$$. big part of the old religion it seems - no money, no entrance into heaven.

And darker things have been hinted at too......

You know, i'd pay for somebody to stand outside Davie's church and hand out flyers to people with a tinyurl to this discussion. Or radio ads in his town or whatever. Davie's told us that everybody he knows already is aware of his great victory's so there's no big deal in making sure. Paypal ok? :) I'm sure somebody on craiglist would help out for $$!

The odd thing is that nobody's ever signed in and given Davie his support. You'd expect that if his fundy buddies really did know about this "discussion" they've be over here leaving us "Jebus did it and you are all going to h@ll" posts (and then leaving without further ado).


But they are not. So Davie Lies again it seems. Where's all your support Davie? It does not exist, much like your Evil Jebus who's going to make us all bow down to him.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
afdave



Posts: 1621
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2006,04:31   

Oldman...
Quote
The odd thing is that nobody's ever signed in and given Davie his support. You'd expect that if his fundy buddies really did know about this "discussion" they've be over here leaving us "Jebus did it and you are all going to h@ll" posts (and then leaving without further ado).


But they are not. So Davie Lies again it seems.
Interesting ... more Darwinist Truth Search methods on display.  Mark that one down with the Darwinist Truth Searches about my career, my dad, my church ... and of course ... Origins.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2006,04:51   

Dave,
Don't get distracted by the culture warriors.  I'm offerring you real science.  Objective science.  Hard science.  Nothing political.  Just the facts type of science.

But the science I'm offerring has nothing to do with Darwinism or Darwinist Truth Searching.  Just physics and chemistry and math and geology and geography and cosmology.  You know, those areas of science that came before Darwin.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2006,04:54   

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,10:31)
Oldman...
Quote
The odd thing is that nobody's ever signed in and given Davie his support. You'd expect that if his fundy buddies really did know about this "discussion" they've be over here leaving us "Jebus did it and you are all going to h@ll" posts (and then leaving without further ado).


But they are not. So Davie Lies again it seems.
Interesting ... more Darwinist Truth Search methods on display.  Mark that one down with the Darwinist Truth Searches about my career, my dad, my church ... and of course ... Origins.

I know you didn't really mean that, Dave.  I mean, you wouldn't want to conflate "darwinists" with "thumbers" now, would you?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2006,05:18   

Ross_UK : With that classic illustration  of circular reasoning...

Quote
Bluebottle: What time is it Eccles?....
Eccles: Err, just a minute. I've got it written down on a piece of paper. A nice man wrote the time down for me this morning.
Bluebottle: Ooooh, then why do you carry it around with you Eccles?
Eccles: Welll, um, if a anybody asks me the time, I can show it to dem.
Bluebottle: Wait a minute Eccles, my good man.
Eccles: What is it fellow?
Bluebottle: It's writted on this bit of paper, what is eight o'clock, is writted.
Eccles: I know that my good fellow. That's right, um, when I asked the fella to write it down, it was eight o'clock.
Bluebottle: Well then. Supposing when somebody asks you the time, it isn't eight o'clock?
Eccles: Well den, I don't show it to 'em.
Bluebottle: Well how do you know when it's eight o'clock?
Eccles: I've got it written down on a piece of paper.


Did you know Spike Milligan understood evolution?

"Legs are hereditary and run in most families."
Spike Milligan




Thanks Deadman_932 for the following info
Quote
K.E :The following page has the best "guesstimates" and information I've seen so far in my limited browsing on bacterial diversity and numbers of species. Basically, they say this: "the smallest drop of temperate seawater or a grain of agricultural soil will also yield myriad 16S rRNA sequences that are new to science"
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/16/10234
THAT paper basically says we have no models to determine the actual diversity and it cites an older paper that says " the entire bacterial diversity of the sea may be unlikely to exceed 2 x 10^6, while a ton of soil could contain 4 x 10^6 different taxa. These are preliminary estimates that may change as we gain a greater understanding of the nature of prokaryotic species abundance curves." http://www.pnas.org/cgi....psecsha




So AFD since you accept that science says that all life on earth started as simple cellular life can your creation science explain why there is such abundant diversity of bacteria without using the Theory of Evolution ?

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2006,05:20   

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,09:31)
Oldman...
Quote
The odd thing is that nobody's ever signed in and given Davie his support. You'd expect that if his fundy buddies really did know about this "discussion" they've be over here leaving us "Jebus did it and you are all going to h@ll" posts (and then leaving without further ado).


But they are not. So Davie Lies again it seems.
Interesting ... more Darwinist Truth Search methods on display.  Mark that one down with the Darwinist Truth Searches about my career, my dad, my church ... and of course ... Origins.

yeah, whatever. Show us your science then Davey.

When will the earth be 6001 years old?

And as far as "Darwinist truth search methods go"

1: Dave says all his buddies know about this particular thread
2: nobody has ever come into this thread to give Davie their support.
3: We know fundies love to say " you are all going to ####" unless you believe *a really quite specific set of beliefs*
4: Nobody has ever done this, to my knowledge

Therefore, Davie has never told any of his fundie buddies about this thread. A reasonable conclusion from the available evidence if you ask me. It's not science, but i bet i'm right!

Davie, it's quite obvous that you want to talk about anything other then the facts, so i'll bow out now and leave you to discuss the actual *science* behind your claims with the others.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2006,05:32   

Quote
Interesting ... more Darwinist Truth Search methods on display.  Mark that one down with the Darwinist Truth Searches about my career, my dad, my church ... and of course ... Origins.


So you figured it out .....you clever boy...when I said

Quote
....nup can't take that back he must have at least 99.9% common DNA with a weasle....


Yes AFD that weasle had two legs.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2006,05:36   

Quote (afdave @ Oct. 03 2006,09:31)
Oldman...
Quote
The odd thing is that nobody's ever signed in and given Davie his support. You'd expect that if his fundy buddies really did know about this "discussion" they've be over here leaving us "Jebus did it and you are all going to h@ll" posts (and then leaving without further ado).


But they are not. So Davie Lies again it seems.
Interesting ... more Darwinist Truth Search methods on display.  Mark that one down with the Darwinist Truth Searches about my career, my dad, my church ... and of course ... Origins.

Hypothesis: Dave has advertised the intellectual whupping he's laying on us Darwinists in this forum among his family, friends and fellow church-goers.

Prediction from Hypothesis: His family, friends and fellow church-goers would have a detectable presence on this board.

Method: Examine all posts in Dave's threads for supportive comments made by Dave's family, friends and fellow church-goers.

Results: No such supportive comments exist.

Conclusion: The prediction of a detectable presence of Dave's cheerleaders fails, and the hypothesis is refuted.

Hypothesis for Future Research: Dave is lying.

Now, one could argue how appropriate the prediction, method, results and conclusion are. But Dave's talking about methods. Dave, there's a name for the above method, and it ain't the "Darwinist Truth Search" method. In fact, it's the defining method of a certain body of knowledge from which you claim to accept "90%" of findings, and further claim to be a largely Christian/Creationist innovation.

Maybe you haven't figured it out yet. Here are a few more examples of it in action in relation to your Creator God Hypothesis. (Most interestingly, NONE of these examples -- nor anything remotely similar in methodology -- were provided by you.)

Hypothesis: Humans and apes (the latter including modern chimpanzees and gorillas) were created as separate "kinds".

Predictions from Hypothesis: (1) Humans will form a phylogenetic out-group to an in-group containing chimpanzees and gorillas. (2) The genetic distance between humans and chimpanzees or humans and gorillas will exceed the genetic distance between chimpanzees and gorillas.

Methods: (1) Examine sequence data for hundreds of loci and develop the relevant phylogenetic dendrograms. (2) Examine sequence data across the genomes of each species and measure overall genetic distance.

Results (see the first few pages of this thread for a recap): (1) The ((CH)G) phylogeny is by far the most prevalent and parsimonious, and matches very well with hypothesized times of divergence obtained through other methods. (2) The genetic distance between humans and gorillas and between chimpanzees and gorillas is far greater than (nearly double) that between chimpanzees and gorillas.

Conclusion: Both indpendent predictions fail, and the hypothesis is refuted.

Hypothesis for Future Research: Humans are an in-group to the African apes, descended from a common ancestor.



Prediction: The geographic region known as Tyre has been barren and uninhabitable for at least two thousand years in fulfillment of Biblical prophecy.

Prediction from Hypothesis: There will be no evidence of human habitation in the region of Tyre at any time during the past two milennia.

Methods: Examine current and historical data on human habitation in the region of Tyre. First and easiest, take a quick peak at Google Earth.

Results: Tyre is currently inhabited by many thousands of of humans.

Conclusion: The prediction fails, and the hypothesis is refuted.

Hypotheses for Future Research: Biblical prophecies are not always fulfilled as stated, ergo the Bible is not inerrant.


Dave, do you really want us to relabel this method (nameless here for ever more) the "Darwinist Truth Search" Method? Would that make you happy? Would it change its history of effectiveness?

Do you deny the method, Dave? If not, could you please present an example, outlined in simple fashion like above, where you have applied it appropriately and effectively anywhere in your five months of inane rambling on this board?

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2006,05:38   

I have a "feeling" that Dave is full of crap.  Does that count as positive supernatural evidence?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Diogenes



Posts: 80
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2006,05:44   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 03 2006,02:58)
[snip]
When does the earth become 6001 years old Dave? If you can *prove* it's 6000, presumably your error margin is less then a year? So WHAT DATE DOES THE EARTH BECOME 6001 years old Dave?

The earth was created on October 23, 4004 B.C.E.  That means we're just about to complete year 6010.  "6000 years old" is an approximation.

--------------
:)

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2006,05:47   

Quote
Comfortable oblivion:

Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.

Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

Get it now?


Um, no.

Glenn Morton is a devout Christian but he doesn't believe in a Young Earth anymore. Is he going to he11?

Also, please tell me where in the Bible Jesus said one goes to he11 for believing in evolution or failing to think the Earth is 6,000 years old. Is it, as Homer Simpson once said, "somewhere in the back"?

Moreover, remember that you are quite incapable of showing us why your Christian beliefs are any more true than any other religious beliefs, or no religious beliefs. Except for GoP and RO'B, everyone else here understands that, so the 'you're all going to he11' arguments aren't really going to work here.

If all you're here to do is to convert people, don't pretend to do science. Not that it really matters to ME, but it makes Christians look very stupid, and I know some very nice, intelligent moderate Christians who are extremely irritated by your kind of behavior.

Get it now?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2006,05:56   

Quote (Diogenes @ Oct. 03 2006,10:44)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 03 2006,02:58)
[snip]
When does the earth become 6001 years old Dave? If you can *prove* it's 6000, presumably your error margin is less then a year? So WHAT DATE DOES THE EARTH BECOME 6001 years old Dave?

The earth was created on October 23, 4004 B.C.E.  That means we're just about to complete year 6010.  "6000 years old" is an approximation.

Then why don't fundamentalists celebrate 'Earth Day' every October 23rd?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2006,06:11   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 03 2006,10:56)
Then why don't fundamentalists celebrate 'Earth Day' every October 23rd?

They've got their heads in other places and on other matters.

(Where's that illustration of this that Steve posted way back when?)

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2006,06:14   

Quote
Russell-- Just a guess, but my guess is that you want to believe that Evolution is true and that Genesis 1 & 2 are merely nice, religious myths.  How close did I get?
Not very.

Do I believe that massive objects attract other massive objects - a phenomenon known as "gravity" - because I want to believe it? Or because I find the evidence pretty persuasive?

Do I believe "Evolution is true", or that the development of life was an extremely complex and almost unimaginably long process, and that the description of it by mainstream science is considerably more accurate and informative than deductions tortured out of ancient religious documents?

Now, when I go to school board meetings, believe it or not, no actually elected members are rushing to embrace the YEC position. They understand that to actually endorse, out loud, the nonsense you endorse would be to political suicide. No, what they're trying to do is to what politicians do: have it both ways.  They're trying to straddle the gulf between reality and religious fundamentalism with the imaginary bridge called "intelligent design". They're trying to say "sure, we support science, and technology, and medicine, all the cool toys and drugs and all, but there's this complicated dodge - way too complicated for me to explain right now (heck, I barely understand it myself! - but these distinguished gentlemen from the Discovery Institute assure me it's legit) - whereby up can simultaneously be down, negative is actually positive, and saying otherwise is the rankest form of viewpoint discrimination".

What would I like to believe? That's kind of a foreign concept to me. I want my perceptions and understanding of the universe to be as accurate and complete as possible, and not to be clouded by unwarranted assumptions, wishful thinking, and superstition. I suppose if I could arrange my "fantasy reality", I might entertain notions of being immortal, of getting having loved ones who have died resurrected and we could hang out indefinitely together enjoying good food and good times... oh, and can I keep my cat?  I might want an all-knowing Big Daddy in the Sky to intervene at key moments to save me and my fellow Homo sapiens from our short-sightedness, and to assure me that even though I am appalled at some of my own deviations from my idea of proper conduct over the years, that all is forgiven, no need to worry about it.

I might like to believe there's no need to challenge ignorance and backwardness, because knowledge and understanding, being inherently more powerful, will always prevail with or without my input.

What I actually believe is that a new round of Dark Ages is entirely possible, and it's advent would look a whole lot like this morning's newspaper.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Diogenes



Posts: 80
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2006,06:24   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 03 2006,10:56)
Quote (Diogenes @ Oct. 03 2006,10:44)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 03 2006,02:58)
[snip]
When does the earth become 6001 years old Dave? If you can *prove* it's 6000, presumably your error margin is less then a year? So WHAT DATE DOES THE EARTH BECOME 6001 years old Dave?

The earth was created on October 23, 4004 B.C.E.  That means we're just about to complete year 6010.  "6000 years old" is an approximation.

Then why don't fundamentalists celebrate 'Earth Day' every October 23rd?

Maybe they are using Lightfoots chronology which places it on Sept. 12th (or October 22 or October 25) 3929 B.C.E. or Scaliger's Jan. 1, 4713 BC, or mabye one of the hundreds of other such dates.

--------------
:)

  
Mike PSS



Posts: 428
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2006,06:29   

Quote (Russell @ Oct. 03 2006,12:14)
[snip]  I might want an all-knowing Big Daddy [snip]

Did someone mention Big Daddy?

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2006,06:33   

Quote (Russell @ Oct. 03 2006,12:14)
What I actually believe is that a new round of Dark Ages is entirely possible, and it's advent would look a whole lot like this morning's newspaper.

A former physics professor of mine believes it's not just possible, it's likely. He argues that most of human history has been ruled by religious and tribal affiliations, that humans revert to that in times of crisis, and that some crisis in the future would pop our effervescent bubble of secularism and peace.

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2006,06:56   

-Someone's always got to bring up big daddy.-

(quote): Russell
     
Quote
...I want my perceptions and understanding of the universe to be as accurate and complete as possible, and not to be clouded by unwarranted assumptions, wishful thinking, and superstition.


Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back

1 : The path from an unwarranted assumption to a foregone conclusion

2 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith rather than reason and evidence <Religion is one of the few things people will kill and die for without considering the risks and benefits beforehand.>

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
  4989 replies since Sep. 22 2006,12:37 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (167) < ... 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]