RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   
  Topic: The "I Believe In God" Thread, You may know him from "Panda's Thumb"...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,08:21   

[quote=IBelieveInGod,Nov. 04 2010,18:45][/quote]
Quote
No, don't you see how foolish it is to state that there are no absolutes, when it is clear that there are absolutes? Absolute Certainty?


No, it is perfectly reasonable to state there are no absolutes when one is not trying to be disingenuous by equivocating words. There is an enormous difference between an absolute - i.e., something that will never change or vary - and an agreed upon definition for convenience and convention, something that actually does in fact CHANGE OVER TIME. Indeed there are thousands of terms that we use today that do not mean the same thing they did even 100 years ago, so clearly language and words are NOT absolutes.

So once again you point is shown to be absurd.

Edit - "no" is important in first the sentence above. Changes the meaning completely...

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
IBelieveInGod



Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,08:42   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2010,07:11)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,03:45)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,20:21)
IBIG, please tell me you can't be this dense.

The discovery article says (quoting Elizabeth Pennisi)
 
Quote
But that raises a fundamental problem. Elizabeth Pennisi, in a report about evo devo for the journal Science, dated Nov. 1, 2002, stated the problem this way: "The lists [of conserved genes give] no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different."


Now, when any sane person reads this, they are led to the conclusion that there is a fundamental problem with evo-devo.

However, the Pennisi article continues with:
 
Quote

The lists gave no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different. And given the evolutionary distance between, say, a fruit fly and a shark, "there isn't really an experimental manipulation to let you get at what the genes are actually doing," says Rudolf Raff, an evolutionary developmental biologist at Indiana University, Bloomington (IUB).

The solution, say Jeffery and others, is to focus on genetically based developmental differences between closely related species, or even among individuals of the same species. This is the stuff of microevolutionists, who care most about how individuals vary naturally within a population and how environmental forces affect this variation.


It then goes on to list three examples where the solution has been applied and shown to work.

Therefore, the discovery article is wrong.

Since, they the statement that leads to the correct conclusion of the article is the one immediately following the statement quoted, then they knowingly left out part of the quote.

That is lying by omission, aka a quote-mine.

NOTE: The fact that it is a quote-mine has NOTHING to do with the correctness or incorrectness of EITHER article.

Let me give an example:

If a Daily Telegraph article says, "Doctor cures three-headed baby. 'It's a dangerous operation,' said one doctor, 'I only give if it a 5% chance of working.' However, the operation went without a hitch and the baby is doing well."

Now, if I quote that article like this, "'It's a dangerous operation,' said one doctor, 'I only give if it a 5% chance of working.'"

I made a quote-mine. I'm leaving off the part where the operation actually worked.

Is this example a quote-mine (yes or no)?

If yes, then why isn't the discovery article?

If no, then you are supporting lying.

Enough with the philosophical BS. Just answer the question yes or no.

You know you can't, that's why you won't give us a straight answer.


Here is the problem with you claim, first if it were true that Elizabeth Pennisi were quote-mined, she could have spoken out and stated the she was quoted inappropriately, which to my knowledge hasn't happened, correct me if I'm wrong. Second, the quote was not used out of context, Discovery is arguing against the grand claims of evo-devo, read the article again, they clearly stated that there were successes, but you seem to be implying that evo-devo has somehow proven evolution from common descent, and Discovery is purposefully quote-mining E. Pennisi to argue that it couldn't happen.

The quote was not to disprove that evo-devo doesn't have answers to changes that are observed, it was used to show the absurdity of the grander claims of evo-devo in regards to evolution by common descent. You are mixing the grander claims of evo-devo, with the actual small successes, i.e. spots on butterfly wings, legs in place of antennae, etc... Nothing new with evolutionists I might add, just par for the course. You are so blind that you couldn't see the truth, if it hit you in the face with a sledgehammer.

Again it is clear that Discovery is not guilty of quote-mining, and again you are arguing an absolute, which doesn't make any sense considering you don't even believe in absolutes!

Sorry dude, they are taking the claim out of context and using it to argue a point that is not made by the original article = quote-mine.

Let me ask you this: What part of "The correctness or uncorrectness of EITHER article's conclusion" don't you get"?

You STILL haven't answer the only question that matters about this point.

Why is my quote-mine of the Bible wrong and discovery's quote-mine of Science OK?

The absolutes argument is just a Red Herring and has nothing to do with you supporting the lies of the discovery institute.

Why is it OK for them to quote-mine and it's not OK for me to say, "The Bible says "There is no God" Psalms 14:1?

If you say one is OK and one is not, then you don't believe in absolutes either. If both are OK or both not OK, then you are supporting something that is lying.

Which is it IBIG? I was really hoping you would answer questions. I guess that's too much to ask of a Christian.

Yes or No IBIG, Is my quote from the Bible OK?

Yes or No IBIG, Is my quote from the Bible structurally the same as the quote from discovery?

Yes or No IBIG, then explain why...

Here is the difference:

You quoted part of Psalm 14:1 "there is no God", from the scripture that states:

Psalm 14:1 (New International Version)

1 The fool says in his heart,
  There is no God.
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
  there is no one who does good.

Clearly the intent of the scripture is the opposite of what you quoted, now to the difference.

Discovery quoted Elizabeth Pennisi in the context of the universality of the conserved genes, which is correct because that was the entire point of their argument against the grander claims of evo-devo. They did give evo-devo credit for some successes, but there argument wasn't that there were no successes at all, but that the very universality of the conserved genes couldn't have resulted in all of the diversity of life, aka evolution from common descent. So, you are wrong, if they quoted Elizabeth Pennisi, and then used it to state that there were no successes, and that there would be no successes, then it would have been a quote-mine, but that is not what they did, and that is where you are wrong. If Elizabeth Pennisi was quoted out of context then why hasn't she spoke out?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3335
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,08:52   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,08:42)
Here is the difference:

You quoted part of Psalm 14:1 "there is no God", from the scripture that states:

Psalm 14:1 (New International Version)

1 The fool says in his heart,
There is no God.
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.

Clearly the intent of the scripture is the opposite of what you quoted, now to the difference.

Discovery quoted Elizabeth Pennisi in the context of the universality of the conserved genes, which is correct because that was the entire point of their argument against the grander claims of evo-devo. They did give evo-devo credit for some successes, but there argument wasn't that there were no successes at all, but that the very universality of the conserved genes couldn't have resulted in all of the diversity of life, aka evolution from common descent. So, you are wrong, if they quoted Elizabeth Pennisi, and then used it to state that there were no successes, and that there would be no successes, then it would have been a quote-mine, but that is not what they did, and that is where you are wrong. If Elizabeth Pennisi was quoted out of context then why hasn't she spoke out?

Tell me something... what, exactly, was the conclusion from Pennisi's science paper?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 554
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,09:07   

Quote
If Elizabeth Pennisi was quoted out of context then why hasn't she spoke out?

Maybe Elizabeth Pennisi, like virtually everyone else on the planet, cares not one whit what the Dishonesty Institute is lying about at any given moment?

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
IBelieveInGod



Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,09:12   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2010,08:52)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,08:42)
Here is the difference:

You quoted part of Psalm 14:1 "there is no God", from the scripture that states:

Psalm 14:1 (New International Version)

1 The fool says in his heart,
There is no God.
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.

Clearly the intent of the scripture is the opposite of what you quoted, now to the difference.

Discovery quoted Elizabeth Pennisi in the context of the universality of the conserved genes, which is correct because that was the entire point of their argument against the grander claims of evo-devo. They did give evo-devo credit for some successes, but there argument wasn't that there were no successes at all, but that the very universality of the conserved genes couldn't have resulted in all of the diversity of life, aka evolution from common descent. So, you are wrong, if they quoted Elizabeth Pennisi, and then used it to state that there were no successes, and that there would be no successes, then it would have been a quote-mine, but that is not what they did, and that is where you are wrong. If Elizabeth Pennisi was quoted out of context then why hasn't she spoke out?

Tell me something... what, exactly, was the conclusion from Pennisi's science paper?

It doesn't matter what her conclusion was because that would only be her opinion now wouldn't it? Here is the quote again, The lists [of conserved genes give] no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different.

I think you would agree that this quote is a factual quote, now read the part in bold, because that is the important part of the quote as related to the Discovery article. This is directly related to evolution by common descent, and not changes that have actually been observed. You see evolutionists see little changes, and then make grand claims from the little changes. I know you will say evolution takes millions of years, but then you are bringing speculation back into the argument, and not real science, as it is impossible to observed what happened over a million years.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,09:15   

Quote
I know you will say evolution takes millions of years, but then you are bringing speculation back into the argument, and not real science, as it is impossible to observed what happened over a million years.


And your explanation of what happened millions of years ago is what, exactly?

--------------
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 Gaugers work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10312
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,09:18   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 05 2010,09:07)
Quote
If Elizabeth Pennisi was quoted out of context then why hasn't she spoke out?

Maybe Elizabeth Pennisi, like virtually everyone else on the planet, cares not one whit what the Dishonesty Institute is lying about at any given moment?

I've just quoted IBIG out of context somwhere else. Good luck finding it, IBIG.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
IBelieveInGod



Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,09:43   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 05 2010,09:15)
Quote
I know you will say evolution takes millions of years, but then you are bringing speculation back into the argument, and not real science, as it is impossible to observed what happened over a million years.


And your explanation of what happened millions of years ago is what, exactly?

I don't know what happen millions of years ago, it would be speculation for me to say. I do know someone who does know though, and one day I will know exactly what happened. But, for the time being nobody knows and nobody will know in this lifetime.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10312
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,09:46   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,09:43)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 05 2010,09:15)
Quote
I know you will say evolution takes millions of years, but then you are bringing speculation back into the argument, and not real science, as it is impossible to observed what happened over a million years.


And your explanation of what happened millions of years ago is what, exactly?

I don't know what happen millions of years ago, it would be speculation for me to say. I do know believe there is someone something who does know though, and one day I will know exactly what happened. But, for the time being nobody knows and nobody will know in this lifetime.

Fixed that for you

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Quack



Posts: 1788
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,10:43   

Quote
I know you will say evolution takes millions of years, but then you are bringing speculation back into the argument, and not real science, as it is impossible to observed what happened over a million years.

Disregarding for the moment what others may say about evolution, I say that the evolution from wolf to dog took place in China around something like 14.000 years ago.

Have a nice day.

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.
                                                                                               Richard Feynman

  
Quack



Posts: 1788
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,10:51   

It just struck me that a believer like you might enjoy pondering the issue raised here:

An interesting observation wrt our almighty G-O-D:

Steve Zara observes:

The words used to describe the deity seem at first sight to make sense. He (for it's almost always he) is all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing. He is the source of morality, and will punish the wicked and reward the deserving for all eternity.
However, when unpacked, these phrases have no more meaning than Lewis Caroll's Jabberwocky. An all-knowing deity has no freedom, and therefore can't be all-powerful. Like Paul Atreides in Frank Herbert's novel Dune, God would be trapped within his own prophecy. A God that is all-knowing (especially one supposedly outside of time) can't help but know his own future actions. God can do no more than gyre and gimble in the wabe, and he has no freedom to do otherwise.

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.
                                                                                               Richard Feynman

  
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,11:02   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,09:12)
You see evolutionists see little changes, and then make grand claims from the little changes. I know you will say evolution takes millions of years, but then you are bringing speculation back into the argument, and not real science, as it is impossible to observed what happened over a million years.

"You see evolutionists see little changes, and then make grand claims from the little changes."

Newton was a Creationist, was he not? He invented Calculus, did he not? He taught us that the Whole is the Sum of the Infinitesimally Small Parts, did he not?

Why don't you accept Creationist Newton's calculus?

"I know you will say evolution takes millions of years, but then you are bringing speculation back into the argument, and not real science, as it is impossible to observed what happened over a million years."

No, no, NO!

I say evolution is happening NOW - everyday, all the time. It's observable. It's a fact.

It doesn't take millions of years as you state.

But it's been happening for millions of years (according to all the evidence of the Earth).


So, even though you are Absolutely Certain you were born on such and such a date, and thus convinced Absolutes therefore exit (proving God), why should I accept your Absolute Certainty when I am not certain about your 'facts'?

Is Newton's Law of Gravity an Absolute?

Please answer to help me understand.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,11:06   

Quote
You see evolutionists see little changes, and then make grand claims from the little changes.


I guess in that world if you add up 100 cents you don't get a dollar...

--------------
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 Gaugers work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,12:06   

[quote=IBelieveInGod,Nov. 05 2010,09:43]
Quote
I don't know what happen millions of years ago, it would be speculation for me to say. I do know someone who does know though, and one day I will know exactly what happened. But, for the time being nobody knows and nobody will know in this lifetime.


You may wish to go doublecheck the definition of the word 'knowledge' when you look up 'absolute'. What you have is not knowledge in any meaningful sense: what you have is opinion, learned by rote and unsupported by any actual evidence. (It is, in fact, naught but supposition for you to speak of the En-Sof in any terms whatsoever, but I'll let you go do your homework to discover the reasons why...if you are capable of doing so.)

This has been pointed out to you before, and you've ignored it completely.

Now, about those rural spinsters murdered by your co-believers...

The MadPanda, FCD

--------------
"No matter how ridiculous the internet tough guy, a thorough mocking is more effective than a swift kick to the gentleman vegetables with a hobnailed boot" --Louis

  
Amadan



Posts: 1264
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,12:11   

The only absolute is Heat Death (Unless someone has evidence to the contrary?)

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3335
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,12:30   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,09:12)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2010,08:52)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,08:42)
Here is the difference:

You quoted part of Psalm 14:1 "there is no God", from the scripture that states:

Psalm 14:1 (New International Version)

1 The fool says in his heart,
There is no God.
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.

Clearly the intent of the scripture is the opposite of what you quoted, now to the difference.

Discovery quoted Elizabeth Pennisi in the context of the universality of the conserved genes, which is correct because that was the entire point of their argument against the grander claims of evo-devo. They did give evo-devo credit for some successes, but there argument wasn't that there were no successes at all, but that the very universality of the conserved genes couldn't have resulted in all of the diversity of life, aka evolution from common descent. So, you are wrong, if they quoted Elizabeth Pennisi, and then used it to state that there were no successes, and that there would be no successes, then it would have been a quote-mine, but that is not what they did, and that is where you are wrong. If Elizabeth Pennisi was quoted out of context then why hasn't she spoke out?

Tell me something... what, exactly, was the conclusion from Pennisi's science paper?

It doesn't matter what her conclusion was because that would only be her opinion now wouldn't it? Here is the quote again, The lists [of conserved genes give] no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different.

I think you would agree that this quote is a factual quote, now read the part in bold, because that is the important part of the quote as related to the Discovery article. This is directly related to evolution by common descent, and not changes that have actually been observed. You see evolutionists see little changes, and then make grand claims from the little changes. I know you will say evolution takes millions of years, but then you are bringing speculation back into the argument, and not real science, as it is impossible to observed what happened over a million years.

hmmm... since the entire charge of quote-mining IS BASED on the conclusion of the original article, then how can it not be relevent?

Also, how can you say what Pennisi's article even said if you haven't read it?

Absolutes or not YOU CAN'T DRAW A CONCLUSION IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE PAPER.

So, we'll just chalk this up to something else you don't know enough about to have a non-biased opinion.

ALong this same vein, you previously quoted an MIT monograph and a Campbell Reese textbook as supporting your position... have you read either?  or do you unquestioningly accept discovery?

If I could prove to you that they lied would you continue to support them?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,17:15   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,09:12)
...This is directly related to evolution by common descent, and not changes that have actually been observed. You see evolutionists see little changes, and then make grand claims from the little changes. I know you will say evolution takes millions of years, but then you are bringing speculation back into the argument, and not real science, as it is impossible to observed what happened over a million years.

So explain to us how we're supposed to believe you when you claim that God magically poofing the world into existence 10,000 years ago, using magic, with no physical evidence, is supposed to be more scientific than actual science.

Why do you constantly imply and insist that interpreting the English translation of the Bible literally is logical, sound and scientific, while simultaneously denouncing actual science and scientific investigation is useless speculation, devil worship conspiracy for genocide?

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,17:19   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2010,12:30)
...

If I could prove to you that they lied would you continue to support them?

Of course IBelieve would continue supporting and mindlessly repeating the Discovery Institute's anti-science soundbites and quotemines: that is what his handlers programmed him to do, under pain of eternal damnation.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2010,05:49   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,09:42)
Here is the difference:

You quoted part of Psalm 14:1 "there is no God", from the scripture that states:

Psalm 14:1 (New International Version)

1 The fool says in his heart,
There is no God.
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.

Clearly the intent of the scripture is the opposite of what you quoted, now to the difference.

Exactly.

Most instances of quote mining work by removing the quoted material from the context in which it originally appeared, with the result that speaker intent is lost.
Quote
Discovery quoted Elizabeth Pennisi in the context of the universality of the conserved genes, which is correct because that was the entire point of their argument against the grander claims of evo-devo.

The context that matters with respect to the correct inference of speaker intent is the context in which the original statement occurred, not the context into which the passage was later inserted by the DI.
Quote
It doesn't matter what her conclusion was because that would only be her opinion now wouldn't it?

"Her opinion" is that which she intended to convey - her intent as a speaker - and is therefore the only standard by which we can judge whether speaker intent has been lost or distorted by means of later quote-mine.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
IBelieveInGod



Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2010,07:29   

I still find it folly that you are still stuck on an alleged quote-mine that the author of, hasn't even spoke out about. I still don't believe that it is a quote-mine, and you believe that it is, so why don't you move on.

  
DSDS



Posts: 8
Joined: Oct. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2010,07:37   

If anyone is interested in seeing a list of questions that "I believe in god"  (AKA IBIBS, AKA Ibigot) refuses to answer, or a list of things that he/she has been wrong about recently, I would be more than happy to post them.  Until then, perhaps IBIBS (AKA Ibigot) can tell us, in his own words, what is wrong with the following statements:

If lying is not always wrong, it is never wrong.

If murder is not always wrong, it is never wrong.

If Newton's laws are not always right, they are never right.

If, as I strongly suspect, he is also unable to answer this question, he can be safely ignored.

Man, that would really be low.   Being dumped to the bathroom wall.  Then being segregated from decent society at After the Bar Closes.  Then being completely ignored because you couldn't even follow a train of logic, even after you had been told many times what was wrong with your reasoning.

Well, now you can see what we have been dealing with for the last six months.  A character completely incapable of looking at evidence and yet fixated on "absolutes".  The only absolute I can discern is that he absolutely refuses to read a scientific article, or to admit when he is wrong, or to answer questions like an honest human being.  That is all.

  
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2010,08:08   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,18:45)
No, don't you see how foolish it is to state that there are no absolutes, when it is clear that there are absolutes? Absolute Certainty?

You must be too busy to answer my questions to help me understand. Oh well.

I had to go to Wikipedia for insight. I looked up "Absolute (philosophy)" and the second sentence said some people equate "Absolute" with "God".

So I guess that's what you're doing.

Except your attempt at logical proof is fatally flawed.

Your example of being Absolutely Certain of your birthdate may be all the evidence you need for God, but it convinces no one else. (If there's a typographical error on your birth certificate then which God does that prove?)

Your 'logic' trick - getting at least one Panda to say there are NO absolutes, and then turning that around to prove there ARE absolutes - is decidedly not a proof that absolutes exist. I could go into great detail explaining it to you but you won't understand. You would ignore it just as you have ignored, apparently, every response to your 'non-sense' on Panda's Thumb.

In short, your 'logic' trick is simply asserting what you are trying to prove - that Absolutes exist apart from Man and therefore God must exist.

Did you learn it from Answers-in-Genesis? Have you read their "Arguments Creationists Should Not Use"? Better go back and read it again.

You said all the Pandas are irrational. Instead you have demonstrated You are the one who is irrational. (P.S. - That means "without Reason". All you have is your faith.)

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3335
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2010,08:26   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 06 2010,07:29)
I still find it folly that you are still stuck on an alleged quote-mine that the author of, hasn't even spoke out about. I still don't believe that it is a quote-mine, and you believe that it is, so why don't you move on.

yeah, yeah.  You lose and refuse to even fight the battle.  I accept that.

I know you don't think it's quote-mining.  But since you can't explain why my quote-mine of the Bible is different from discovery's quote-mine of Pennisi's article, then I'll feel free to use quote-mines against you from now on.

Alternately, we can both agree that quotes have no business in this discussion what-so-ever and not use them at all.  (Mainly because every quote you have presented is a quote-mine and you know it, because I have destroyed everyone... including the ones you stole that 'support' your view of the Bible.)

Anyway,

So tell me do you own and have you read the MIT monograph you quoted and the Reese/Campbell Biology book you quoted?

Do you trust discovery.org implicitly?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2010,09:56   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 06 2010,07:29)
I still find it folly that you are still stuck on an alleged quote-mine that the author of, hasn't even spoke out about. I still don't believe that it is a quote-mine, and you believe that it is, so why don't you move on.

So how is this supposed to prove that the Discovery Institute has never lied?

The Discovery Institute claims to be at the forefront of developing and nurturing Intelligent Design and Scientific Creationism, and yet, why have they not produced a single peer-reviewed paper?

Why did the Discovery Institute lose at the Dover trial?

  
DSDS



Posts: 8
Joined: Oct. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2010,11:05   

Well I told you he couldn't answer even the simplest question.  Here are some other questions that he has been avoiding for two months now:

1) Why do dolphins have five digits early in development if they do not have five digits as adults?

2) Why do dolphin embryos start out with the nostril on the front of the head if it is positioned on the top of the head in the adult?

3) Why do dolphin embryos have pharyngeal gill pouches if they lack gills as adults?

4) Why do dolphin embryos start to develop hind limbs if they do not have hind limbs as adults?

5) Why do horse embryos have five digits if they have only one as adults?

6) Why are there fossils intermediate between apes and humans?

7) How old is the earth? How do you know?

8) Why is there a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity with Cetacea deeply nested within Artiodactyla? (Hint: common design is not the answer).

9) Why is there a nested hierarchy of SINE insertions with Cetacea deeply nested within Artiodactyla, the exact same relationship revealed by the developmental and other genetic data? (Hint: common design is not the answer).

10) Why are human and chimp chromosomes nearly identical gene for gene and band for band, including the extra centromeric and telomeric sequences found in human chromosome two? (Hint: common design is not the answer).

11) Why is there a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity for primates with humans most closely related to chimps? Why is this pattern consistent in both nuclear and mitochondrial genes and also consistent with the fossil evidence and the chromosome banding data?

12) Why is there a nested hierarchy of SINE insertions in primates, with humans most closely related to chimps? Why is this pattern consistent with all of the other fossil, morphological, developmental and genetic data sets? (Hint: common design is not the answer).

13) Why are there intermediates between terrestrial mammals and Cetaceans in the fossil record? Why are they in exactly the order predicted by descent with modification? Why are they precisely consistent with the developmental and genetic data?

14) Was there a world wide flood less than 10,000 years ago? How do you know? Why do no real geologists, paleontologists or archaeologists agree with you?

15) Why are there intermediates in the fossil record between horse ancestors with five digits and modern horses with only one? (Hint: you cant get out of this one by redefining digit or intermediate).

16) Why is the human eye wired backwards?

17) Why must mutations for novel features be selectively advantageous from the time of their appearance? Why cant they be selectively neutral or selected for other functions?

18) Exactly how many kinds of birds did god create? How do you know?

19) Why are there intermediates between birds and reptiles in the fossil record?

20) Why is there a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity with birds nested deeply within reptiles?

21) Why do birds have scales?

22) Why does nothing that is not a bird have feathers?

Now in all honesty he did at least try to answer a couple of these.  Like the time he tried to explain why dolphin embryos have hindlimb buds by denying that they exist, while looking at a picture of them!

Just a few more questions for IBIBS (AKA Ibigot):

If you have lied before, what hope is there that you will not lie again?

If you were wrong about everything so far, can you ever be right about anything?

If you cannot answer any of these questions, will you ever be able to answer any question?

If you have refused to read a single scientific reference so far, will you ever read one?

If you will not read the scientific literature, if you will not answer questions, if you will not admit to being wrong, do you think that anyone will care what you believe?

  
phhht



Posts: 38
Joined: Oct. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2010,15:27   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,09:43)

I don't know what happen[ed] millions of years ago, it would be speculation for me to say. I do know someone who does know though, and one day I will know exactly what happened. But, for the time being nobody knows and nobody will know in this lifetime.

You don't know what happened two thousand years ago, that's certain.

--------------
Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothese-la.
-- Pierre Simon Laplace, explaining the absence of any mention of God in his work

  
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2010,15:53   

Quote (phhht @ Nov. 06 2010,16:27)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,09:43)

I don't know what happen[ed] millions of years ago, it would be speculation for me to say. I do know someone who does know though, and one day I will know exactly what happened. But, for the time being nobody knows and nobody will know in this lifetime.

You don't know what happened two thousand years ago, that's certain.

Absolutely!

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3335
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2010,16:09   

Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 06 2010,15:53)
Quote (phhht @ Nov. 06 2010,16:27)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,09:43)

I don't know what happen[ed] millions of years ago, it would be speculation for me to say. I do know someone who does know though, and one day I will know exactly what happened. But, for the time being nobody knows and nobody will know in this lifetime.

You don't know what happened two thousand years ago, that's certain.

Absolutely!

hmmm...

If science cannot be used to describe what happened in the past, then how can we know anything that has happened when we cannot see it?

Here's two questions for you...

IBIG, who actually wrote down the stories of Genesis (and any of the others for that matter)?  

How do you know your computer works?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2010,21:47   

Useless.  IBIG may even be denser than FTK.  He will never grasp anything anyone says to him.  He did put forth the argument that quote mines cannot exist if the author being quote mined doesn't acknowledge it.  His argument is this is so Because and Only Because the author didn't acknowledge it.

So, IBIG, riddle me this if you can:

Someone--let's say Louis's mom--steals a jacket of mine.  I never acknowledge this fact (perhaps because I didn't notice that it was missing).  Does this mean that Louis's mom did not, in fact, steal my jacket?

Or, that she only stole the jacket at the moment I discovered it was missing?

Or, that she only stole the jacket at the moment I discovered it was she who took it?

Continuing posting here, though; it provided amusement.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
DSDS



Posts: 8
Joined: Oct. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2010,12:20   

Just in case anyone is interested, here is a short list of things that IBIBS (AKA Ibigot) has been wrong about recently:

1) Dolphin embryos (nostirls, digits, hind limbs)

2) Horses

3) Mutations

4) Selection

5) Novel morphological features

6) Biblical prophecies

7) The antichrist

8) God killing innocent babies

9) God committing genocide

10) Primate nasal bones

11) Primate footprints

12) Polyploidy in animals

13) Menton being a liar, fraud and charlatan

14) And all that crap about information (didnt actually make any point, but still somehow managed to be wrong)

15) Neanderthals were not modern humans

16) The human eye is not irreducibly complex (and neither is anything else not man made)

17) There is no information front loaded into dogs, or anything else. (But then again, since IBIBS refuses to define the term information he never really had a chance with this one).

18) Earthworms already have photoreceptors, birds already have scales and dolphins sometimes have hind limbs (Ill be generous and combine this all into one big thing)

19) Mutations for novel features need not be selectively advantageous from the time of their appearance

20)  There are absolutes!  (Wrong again master of wrongness)

Of course IBIBS (AKA Ibigot) was also completely wrong about the quote mine he tried to get away with.  He never did admit to being wrong about that.  Funny thing, he never did admit to being wrong about any of the above things either.  Now I wonder why that is?

I can make a list of things he lied about.  I can also make a list of papers he has refused to read, including a list of the ones he claims to have read.  Of course those lists would be pretty long, so I'll wait for now.  No wonder he is reluctant to continue the "conversation".

  
  741 replies since Oct. 31 2010,16:04 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (25) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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