RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

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



Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,18:07   

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Nov. 04 2010,18:05)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,17:58)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Nov. 04 2010,17:47)
Their culpability in this matter has already been established, if you were honestly paying attention.  Why do you continue making bald excuses for dishonest scholarship?

Your question about absolutes has also been answered, repeatedly and at length, by people who understand the entire matter far better than you do.  There is a fundamental (hah!) error in your reasoning, which has also been pointed out to you.  (There is an even deeper problem with your question, but you are left to puzzle that out for yourself, if you are capable of doing so.)

Are you incapable of paying attention, or does your paycheck depend on your not acknowledging the facts in these matters?

The MadPanda, FCD

Blah Blah Blah....everybody understands everything better then me...I've already heard that many times on PT:)

You are the ones that are arguing as though there are absolutes, yet you don't even accept that such absolutes even exist:) Sorry, but it is irrational for you to argue anything, because if absolutes don't exist, then nothing could be said to be right, and nothing could be said to be wrong.

Quote
everybody understands everything better then me...I've already heard that many times on PT


And you'd better be prepared to hear it many, many times here as well, unless you present plenty of evidence that you actually do pay attention to and understand the answers you get.

Have you put your brain to work on the flaw in your question about absolutes, yet?  Or gotten ahold of anything by Kant?  You have some remedial reading ahead of you if you want to be taken seriously.

The MadPanda, FCD

Are there any square circles?:)

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,18:12   

Quote
Are there any square circles?:)


Do you know why the answer to this question is what it is?  

Do you understand why this is not an intelligent question to ask?

Are you going to engage in any conversation here with the intellectual honesty your entire discourse from the Bathroom Wall lacked?


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

  
IBelieveInGod



Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,18:21   

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Nov. 04 2010,18:12)
Quote
Are there any square circles?:)


Do you know why the answer to this question is what it is?  

Do you understand why this is not an intelligent question to ask?

Are you going to engage in any conversation here with the intellectual honesty your entire discourse from the Bathroom Wall lacked?


The MadPanda, FCD

I'm asking to see if you believe in absolutes or not. If there were no such thing as a square circle, then that would be an example of one absolute now wouldn't it.

Now let me ask you this, is the earth really a cube?

  
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,18:25   

Quote (mplavcan @ Nov. 03 2010,21:05)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Nov. 03 2010,13:28)
Our special friend, the topic of this thread, has often brought to mind a painting I saw in Beijing.  It showed Confucius and a goose looking at each other--the philosopher had a weary expression of disdain on his face, and the bird looked as puzzled as any other goose.  Our guide explained that this was an illustration for a maxim that may be freely translated as 'not every student can be taught'.

The MadPanda, FCD

I have a colleague who worked in China and once showed a slide in a talk. It was a picture of a young woman kneeling and holding up a large silver platter behind a bull. Manure (BS) was streaming from the bull onto the platter. Pretty much sums up the average creationist.

Once, while working in India, I watched a bejeweled and coiffured local woman in a beautiful sari hurriedly place both her hands under the raised tail of a hunched water buffalo to catch the hot steaming manure issuing forth before it hit the ground!

She immediately slung her prize onto the low tin roof of her home where it would dry in the sun and be fuel for cooking tomorrow's meal.

It happened too fast for a photograph. Sorry I didn't get one. Still, it burned an indelible image in my mind that will last forever.

You gotta do what you gotta do to survive.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,18:27   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,18:02)
If there are no absolute right or wrong, or true or false, then how would lying even be possible?

What's the difference between "wrong" and "absolute wrong"?

--------------
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

  
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,18:34   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,18:07)
Are there any square circles?:)

More importantly, are You a square circle?

(You said you were absolutely certain of your birthdate because you have a birth certificate. How does absolute certainty of some arbitrary fact prove God? Don't you see the difference? Don't you see how foolish equating absolute certainty with Absolutes is?)

  
IBelieveInGod



Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,18:45   

Quote (prong_hunter @ Nov. 04 2010,18:34)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,18:07)
Are there any square circles?:)

More importantly, are You a square circle?

(You said you were absolutely certain of your birthdate because you have a birth certificate. How does absolute certainty of some arbitrary fact prove God? Don't you see the difference? Don't you see how foolish equating absolute certainty with Absolutes is?)

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?

  
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,18:49   

The more I read on Panda's Bathroom Wall the more amazed I become. Look at this post from someone named Dave Luckett:

 
Quote
Alas, no special vocabulary - nothing Shakespearian - is required to describe Biggy. He’s far too ordinary.

Byers, the McGonagall of creationism, is frequently amusing. One can place bets about how often and with what violence he will shoot himself in the foot. FL’s towering hubris is awesome in a way, like finding Everest in the Ozarks, except that Everest is actually based on something. JAD, that walking bubble of ego, preens and prattles like a Little Miss World contestant. Even the rectal rhapodies of that bloke whose name I forget - you know the one, the poor lost soul who’s so deeply in the closet that he’s dropping off the far edge of the map of Narnia - can at least be said to be honestly, truly, howling-at-the-moon, pissing-on-the-floor, rolling-eyed, frothing-mouthed, barking insane.

Biggy, by contrast, is merely a pain. Not a grand, heroic, life-threatening pain. Not even a twinge, which has a certain acuity to it. No, he’s a dull, low-grade ache. His only unusual quality is his persistence.

Screwtape, that experienced devil, was right to tell his junior tempter nephew that there was no necessity to go for the great sins. The best road to Hell, said he, is the ordinary, the routine, the banal. And Biggy is certainly that. His logic-deafness, his invincible ignorance, his rampant Dunning-Kruger - they’re all so ordinary as to be dull as ditchwater.

But the joke is this: there is no Hell. There is only Biggy and those like him. Or is that a contradiction in terms?

  
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,19:02   

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're loosing me.

When you say you are certain of your birthdate because you have a birth certificate, I can accept that 'fact' just as our Government accepts it for the purpose of a Social Security number or a driver's license.

But when you say you are Absolutely Certain of your birthdate because of your birth certificate I say, 'okay', but I know that mistakes in recording can and have been made.  Your birth certificate may have a mistake.  You may be Absolutely Certain of your birthdate but I am not.

So, are you saying, that because you are Absolutely Certain that means God must exist? But because I have doubts about the absolute correctness of your birth certificate your certainty has no meaning for me.  Your Certainty doesn't prove God exists to me.

  
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,19:39   

Quote
I'm asking to see if you believe in absolutes or not. If there were no such thing as a square circle, then that would be an example of one absolute now wouldn't it.

Now let me ask you this, is the earth really a cube?


Obviously, your answers to my three questions are 'no', 'no', and 'no'.

Go look up the word 'absolute' in a dictionary.  I'll wait.  There you will note, if you are paying attention to the details, that there are several different meanings of the adjective in question, all of which you are conflating.  (There is an application of the word as a noun, but it's a touch tautological.)

You are also conflating two different meanings of 'believe' in the process.

You're playing sophomoric semantic games while pretending to be clever.  Unfortunately for you, Alcibiades, we know this particular shtick.

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3304
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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

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

   
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,20:51   

What's especially precious is his constant use of a smiley emoticon after what he feels is a real hum-dinger of an atheist-stumping point.  Kinda' like the kid in school who ate paste, shoved crayons up his nose, and giggled at his own knock-knock jokes before he even got to the answer to the "who's there" query.

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3304
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,21:09   

IBIG, if you (or anyone else for that matter) is interested in the pre-biotic world then, ** you might like to attend this FREE workshop put on by NASA.

NASA Workshop Without Walls




** Provided you are willing to learn.

--------------
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. 04 2010,21:34   

It seems odd that IBelieve would attempt to prove the existence of absolutes, and by proxy, prove that his (mis)interpretation of the Bible is 1110% correct and has to be worshiped as God immediately, by asking deliberately stupid and illogical questions.

It also seems odd that IBelieve wants us to obey him when he claims that God, via a literal interpretation of the English translation of the Bible, is the absolute source of all morality, even though that would mean murdering children, and taking underaged girls as sex slaves is morally good.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3304
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,21:41   

Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 04 2010,21:34)
It seems odd that IBelieve would attempt to prove the existence of absolutes, and by proxy, prove that his (mis)interpretation of the Bible is 1110% correct and has to be worshiped as God immediately, by asking deliberately stupid and illogical questions.

It also seems odd that IBelieve wants us to obey him when he claims that God, via a literal interpretation of the English translation of the Bible, is the absolute source of all morality, even though that would mean murdering children, and taking underaged girls as sex slaves is morally good.

Very true.  What's interesting is that there has been no discussion of the ten commandments in his 'absolute morality' crap.

What's even funnier, is that if the Bible is 1100% correct and literal, then Jesus cannot be the messiah, which means the Jews were right all along... funnier and funnier.

He's also missed two avenues of attack on the discovery article quote-mine.  He just doesn't have the knowledge or critical thinking ability to see 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. 04 2010,21:58   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,21:41)
Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 04 2010,21:34)
It seems odd that IBelieve would attempt to prove the existence of absolutes, and by proxy, prove that his (mis)interpretation of the Bible is 1110% correct and has to be worshiped as God immediately, by asking deliberately stupid and illogical questions.

It also seems odd that IBelieve wants us to obey him when he claims that God, via a literal interpretation of the English translation of the Bible, is the absolute source of all morality, even though that would mean murdering children, and taking underaged girls as sex slaves is morally good.

Very true.  What's interesting is that there has been no discussion of the ten commandments in his 'absolute morality' crap.

What's even funnier, is that if the Bible is 1100% correct and literal, then Jesus cannot be the messiah, which means the Jews were right all along... funnier and funnier.

He's also missed two avenues of attack on the discovery article quote-mine.  He just doesn't have the knowledge or critical thinking ability to see them.

I wonder if the reason why he isn't mentioning the 10 Commandments because even he realizes that his demanding that we forsake science and logic in order to worship his misinterpretation of the Bible, thereby massaging his ego, would entail the breaking of no less than 3 Commandments (i.e., bearing false witness, taking God in vain, and worshiping something other than God).

Plus, wasn't IBelieve's argument concerning the parts of the Bible saying that Jesus wasn't the Messiah was that a) those were some of the parts of the Bible that were up for interpretation, and that b) we weren't given permission to interpret the Bible?

Or am I confusing that with when IBelieve said that the Bible magically stated that a "prophetic year" was magically 360 days instead of 365(.257) because he said so?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3304
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,22:03   

Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 04 2010,21:58)
[quote=OgreMkV,Nov. 04 2010,21:41]
I wonder if the reason why he isn't mentioning the 10 Commandments because even he realizes that his demanding that we forsake science and logic in order to worship his misinterpretation of the Bible, thereby massaging his ego, would entail the breaking of no less than 3 Commandments (i.e., bearing false witness, taking God in vain, and worshiping something other than God).

Plus, wasn't IBelieve's argument concerning the parts of the Bible saying that Jesus wasn't the Messiah was that a) those were some of the parts of the Bible that were up for interpretation, and that b) we weren't given permission to interpret the Bible?

Or am I confusing that with when IBelieve said that the Bible magically stated that a "prophetic year" was magically 360 days instead of 365(.257) because he said so?

Exactly.

He's (ahem) not being very forthright.  He chastises me for saying that the Bible is not inerrant.  Then he turns around and says it's open to interpretation.

Arguably, "open to interpretation" does not equal "errors", but you'd think that The Word Of God would at least not be vague.

Just think, thousands of CHRISTIANS have been killing each other over interpretations of The Bible.

And he says we're nuts...

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

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

   
MadPanda, FCD



Posts: 267
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,22:15   

[quote=OgreMkV,Nov. 04 2010,22:03][/quote]
Quote
Arguably, "open to interpretation" does not equal "errors", but you'd think that The Word Of God would at least not be vague.

Just think, thousands of CHRISTIANS have been killing each other over interpretations of The Bible.

And he says we're nuts...


That's it exactly, Blackadder!  Why, it's not only plainly obvious that there is no questioning scripture, it's equally plain and obvious that only some bits are truly infallible and without error...while others are equally and plainly meant to be taken as merely colorful stories.

All the spilled blood over the centuries is merely misguided squabbling about which bits are which and whose interpretation is the right one.  Merely an unfortunate set of details.  When in fact, the truth is so plain and obvious!  Plainly.  And Obviously.  No True Believer would ever do anything so misguided as to kill anyone over a simple misinterpretation unless of course it were to be divinely ordered...

Plain and obvious.  Can't argue with that, now, can we?

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

  
didymos



Posts: 1825
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2010,23:36   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,16:07)
Are there any square circles?:)

Do you even know what that refers to?

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
IBelieveInGod



Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: 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!

  
IBelieveInGod



Posts: 68
Joined: Nov. 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,03:49   

Quote (didymos @ Nov. 04 2010,23:36)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,16:07)
Are there any square circles?:)

Do you even know what that refers to?

Is it over your head?

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,04:00   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,03:45)
You are mixing the grander claims of evo-devo

What's your explanation then?

--------------
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

  
didymos



Posts: 1825
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,04:04   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,01:49)
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 04 2010,23:36)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,16:07)
Are there any square circles?:)

Do you even know what that refers to?

Is it over your head?

Just answer the question, jackass.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,04:45   

Deary me. Did one of these invitees actually turn up?

You know what that means? I WAS WRONG! Bugger. That means I really need to have that accumulator on the 3:30 at Kempton Park come good or it's back to the docks.

Crikey, they could strike a chap from the club books if this continues.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
prong_hunter



Posts: 45
Joined: May 2010

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,06:24   

When you said, "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've lost me.  Please help me understand what you are trying to say.

When you say you are certain of your birthdate because you have a birth certificate, I can accept that 'fact' just as our Government accepts it for the purpose of a Social Security number or a driver's license.

But when you say you are Absolutely Certain of your birthdate because of your birth certificate I say, 'okay', but I know that mistakes in recording can and have been made.  Your birth certificate may have a mistake.  You may be Absolutely Certain of your birthdate but I am not.

So, are you saying, that because you are Absolutely Certain that means God must exist? But I have doubts about the absolute correctness of your birth certificate so your certainty has no meaning for me.  Your Certainty may prove God exists to you but it does nothing for me.

I'm not Absolutely, absolutely certain of anything - not to that degree.  I can only say that something seems very certain, or highly probably.  I may use the word 'absolute' from time to time, but it is just hyperbole.

Is Newton's Law of Gravity an Absolute?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3304
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: 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...

--------------
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 2010,07:37   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,03:45)
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!

If the Discovery Institute is not guilty of quote-mining, then why is it that they were arguing that evolutionary development disproves evolution, even though this conclusion contradicts both the original statement, AND reality?

That, and tell us how this is supposed to prove that God and the Bible are the absolute source of absolute morality.

  
Stanton



Posts: 266
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,07:41   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,03:49)
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 04 2010,23:36)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,16:07)
Are there any square circles?:)

Do you even know what that refers to?

Is it over your head?

Please explain to us why asking us about the existence or non-existence of square circles is supposed to demonstrate that the Discovery Institute has magically never lied, that your own literal interpretation of the English translation of the Bible is supposed to be the absolute source of God's absolute morality, and please explain to us how this is supposed to disprove Evolution, while proving that God magically poofed the world into existence 10,000 years ago using magic.

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,08:10   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,18:02)

Quote
How could someone lie if there is no absolute right or wrong, or true or false? Lying is to knowingly state something that is wrong or false. If there are no absolute right or wrong, or true or false, then how would lying even be possible?


Is your IQ like...1?

Whether there are absolutes of morality (e.g., "Right" and "Wrong") has ZERO to do with whether there are other opposites, such as "left" or "right", "hot" or "cold", "up" or "down", and "true" or "false".

That you either don't understand this or are intentionally equivocating demonstrates that your "Christian" position is worthless.

Lying (as you so easily demonstrate) is quite independent of one's views on morality. Clearly you don't think lying is "bad", but that doesn't stop you from stating falsehoods intentionally.

So, once again the proof is presented that you don't know what you are babbling about. Thanks for once again demonstrating what your particular brand of "Christianity" is really all about  - nonsense and dishonesty. Nice...

--------------
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

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2010,08:16   

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,18:07)

Quote
Are there any square circles?:)


Not if one wishes to actually use language to communicate there aren't. But of course I suppose in your world, there's no difference between a man-made, culturally agreed upon definition to facilitate accurate understanding and an absolute. Such a shame...but then it explains why your posts tend to be rather incoherent.

--------------
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

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

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


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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