RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (666) < ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... >   
  Topic: The Bathroom Wall, A PT tradition< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Torbjörn Larsson

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,17:21   

"And if you cannot see the difference between the silly “evidence” for some of the claims cited above and the virtual identical testimony (as much as over 90 percent), both oral and written, of millions of people who have been taking this testimony super seriously, a people whose contribution to the world’s reservior of knowledge, including science, has far exceeeded their numbers by a factor of many thousand,"

Archeological evidence is considered solid within its discipline. No scientific discipline considers anecdotal evidence as a usable ground for knowledge.

Testimonies means nothing if they are in conflict with scientific claims, and remains doubtful otherwise. Even courts prefer physical evidence over authenticated documentary or witness evidence. I think unauthenticated documentary evidence like bibles are simply thrown out; I could be wrong however.

Carol Clouser

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,17:21   

Lenny,

Changigng the subject, if you don't mind, here are some questions for you.

My tomato patch is yielding fewer and fewer tomatoes. What does it need? Nitrogen?

I have been finding dead creatures (chipmonks, mice, etc.) beside my man-made pond, here in NJ. At first I thought they were drowning but now I see dead birds of a variety of species. Any thoughts? The water has been changed but that did not make a difference.

And don't tell me to pray.

Carol Clouser

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,17:21   

Torbjorn,

There is no archeological evidence here of any significance. Instead there is very weak circumstantial evidence of murky significance. Documentary and testimonial evidence are very much accepted in courts, depending on their reliability, something that is the hands of the jury or judge.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,17:21   

<quote>My tomato patch is yielding fewer and fewer tomatoes. What does it need? Nitrogen?</quote>

Beats me.  The only gardening I ever did was some, uh, hydroponics back in college.

I'd guess that the simplest solution would be to move the patch somewhere else to fresh soil.  That's what people did for thousand of years before the chemical companies successfully addicted everyone to their poisons.


<quote>I have been finding dead creatures (chipmonks, mice, etc.) beside my man-made pond, here in NJ. At first I thought they were drowning but now I see dead birds of a variety of species. Any thoughts? The water has been changed but that did not make a difference.</quote>


Well, of course I'd suspect a toxin.  What didja use for a liner?  What about the runoff -- any potential toxics there?


<quote>And don’t tell me to pray.</quote>


Why not -- afraid it won't work?

Sir_Toejam

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,17:21   

<quote>Talk about projection, eh, Ms. Clouser?</quote>

*bing*

winner! winner!

David B. Benson

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,17:21   

"historians ... 3000 years ago" Another misunderstanding by Carol Clauser. Again quoting from Amelie Kuhrt, this time pp 9--10:

... it remains the case that the beginning of the 'Bronze Age' in the Near East c. 3000 approximately coincides with the establishment of fully urban, relatively stable, developed societies not only in Mesopotamia and Egypt, but also, during the third millennium, in the Levant, Iran, Central Asia, the Indus Valley and Anatolia ... with related developments in the Arab-Persian Gulf. The appearance of writing in some regions at this time is particularly important for the historian. The most sustained and continuous scribal developments occur in Egypt and southern Mesopotamia, although it is now clear that forms of notation on clay were already in use during the fourth millennium in an area stretching from north Syria to eastern Iran ... in other words it becomes increasingly possible to identify the actors and begin to discern what the characteristic traits of different regions are in a way that bald descriptions of archaeological levels and artefacts do not allow.

Corkscrew

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,17:21   

<quote>Your ignorance of the Bible is even greater than Lenny’s. There is no story in the Bible involving Elijah and snakes vs. the prophets of Baal.</quote>

I do apologise, I think I managed to conflate a couple of stories and their participants. That'll teach me to rely on memory :-/

<quote>And if you cannot see the difference between the silly “evidence” for some of the claims cited above and the virtual identical testimony (as much as over 90 percent), both oral and written, of millions of people who have been taking this testimony super seriously, a people whose contribution to the world’s reservior of knowledge, including science, has far exceeeded their numbers by a factor of many thousand, and who by all rational calculations should long ago have been eliminated multiple times with all those other ancient civilizations for which you have “evidence” who no longer exist, but miraculously have survived to continue their testimony, then I cannot halp you.</quote>

If we're talking about the Egyptian references to the Jews, I'd note that, at the time, those references would presumably have been taken seriously by more people than took the Jewish Torah seriously. The fact that the Egyptians got mostly wiped out and the Jews prospered by comparison does not in and of itself affect the historical truth of their claims.

Your arguments seem to be:

1) Jews all believe roughly the same thing. This is easily explained by the fact that they all have the same Torah.

2) Jews take their Holy Book very seriously. But so does every other religion in the world.

3) Jews have contributed a lot to science. This is apparently true, at least in my own field of mathematics. I'm not sure how it follows that their religious beliefs are accurate, though. It'd be interesting to know at what stage good education became a strong trend in Jewish groups.

4) The Jews should have been wiped out given all the damage they've accumulated, but haven't. I'm not quite sure how nearly being wiped out supports the existence of the Jewish God, but it's irrelevant anyway - being good at surviving doesn't necessarily mean your religious beliefs are true.

David B. Benson

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,17:21   

Corkscrew, at no period of history did the Egyptians ever get 'mostly wiped out'. Despite being conquered several times, despite famines, despite plagues ...

Go back to your mathematics!

Corkscrew

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,17:21   

<quote>Corkscrew, at no period of history did the Egyptians ever get ‘mostly wiped out’. Despite being conquered several times, despite famines, despite plagues …

Go back to your mathematics!</quote>

Probably wise, although I was speaking of the civilisation not the nationality. I think. It kinda made more sense when I wrote it :(

David B. Benson

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,17:21   

Egyptian civilization: Dramatic change when Egypt became a Roman province. Clear evidence of decline at that time. Dramatic  change when Islamized. Both before and after that I don't know enough to say, except that the ancient Egyptians clearly did not care for various of their foreign rulers, several of the times that occurred...

Carol Clouser

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,17:21   

Lenny,

Thanks for responding. But you haven't resolved the mysteries. I use no poisons or products of chemical companies of any kind. I run an all natural operation and the groundhogs, rabbits and red foxes are flourishing and having offspring on my property. I guess I will have to put on my scientist hat again and do the hard work myself.


Corkscrew,

(1) It is well known that rulers in the olden days could easily eliminate any palace or priestly scribes and their writings that displeased them. This also means that the scribes wrote with that fact on their plates. Unless a point is corroborated from multiple and diverse sources, it is just not reliable.

(2) My point about Jews was to highlight the fact that these are by no means village idiots offering their testimony.

(3) I must disagree with you on the comparison to the seriousness of other religious beliefs. The Greek and Roman conquerers would readily confirm that. Tiny Judea gave the Romans much more trouble than all the conquered peoples in their entire empire combined. I do not even see Christians today capable of refraining just from pork, prohibited by the Bible they accept, just one of a multitude of restrictions Jews abide by every day. The entire history of Christianity is based on finding excuses for not living the restricted and disciplined life demanded by the holy book they themselves accept as such. I do see seacrifice in Islam, unfortunately it is misdirected toward evil.

(4) After 2000 years of handwritten Hebrew Bibles from generation to generation, under the most trying and challenging of conditions, the Dead Sea Scrolls (talk about evidence!) confirmed that they were all almost perfectly identical to what they had two thousand years earlier. No more than a handful of letters out of 300,000 diverged and these were not meaningful differences. I don't know about you, but I am impressed. There is no reason to assume that an even older document that may be found tomorrow would go against this trend.

(5) I am well aware that none of this constitutes "proof" of divine inspiration. It does make it highly unlikely however that some character foisted an original document full of lies on these intelligent, stubborn people at some point and got them all to believe, not just that it was true, but that they had heard all these things from their fathers, and their fathers and mothers told them that they had heard these things from their fathers, and so on, going back to all their fathers and mothers all of whom themselves participated in the exodus and the other events of the Bible. Unlike Christianity and Islam where the foundational experienes, as described by their own testimonial documents and stories, occured to individuals out of sight of the multitudes.

(6) None of this constitutes science. But science is not the only path to the truth. You and we all live our lives that way too. You base actions on facts derived via methods that are anything but scientific. Many an accused has been sentenced to death, and correctly so, on the basis of testimonial evidence.

(7) None of this is the basis of my interest in the Bible. You will probably not be able to relate to this, but I will mention it anyway. After studying and analyzing the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud and the multiude of other commentaries, enough material to fill huge libraries, I can tell you that I am most impressed by the wisdom, beauty and unsurpassed ethical standards that I find therein.

(8) I am not here to preach. I don't care what you believe. I am just engaging in debate and discussion. Neither I nor any Jewish organization that I am aware of is actively pushing to inject ID into any public classroom.

And this post has gotten to be much too long for me.

David B. Benson

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,17:21   

Once more Carol Clauser demonstrates she does not know history: Tiny Judea was not as difficult as (1) Germany (that is, the Rhineland), (2) Iberia, (3) along the Danube, just to mention three difficult places. Tiny Judea did not even get its own legion, while Britain usually had three just for itself.

Torbjörn Larsson

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,17:21   

Carol,
"There is no archeological evidence here of any significance. Instead there is very weak circumstantial evidence of murky significance."

Comment #100680 by Moses refers to solid evidence. You can ask him for references.

"Documentary and testimonial evidence are very much accepted in courts, depending on their reliability, something that is the hands of the jury or judge."

Please read my comment before trying to answer. This is tangential to what I said.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,17:21   

<quote>Thanks for responding. But you haven’t resolved the mysteries.</quote>

No surprise, is it, given that I am roughly 1,000 miles away and have never seen the place.


<quote>I guess I will have to put on my scientist hat again and do the hard work myself.</quote>

I'd try that "prayer" thingie first.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,17:21   

<quote>But science is not the only path to the truth.</quote>

I don't recall anyone saying it was.  (shrug)

But it is, of course, the only path to SCIENCE.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,17:21   

Carol, thanks for (once again, and again, and again) offering to share your religious opinions.

Why, again, should anyone give a flying fig about them . . . . ?

Carol Clouser

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2006,17:22   

David B. Bensen,

Why don't you go to Massada, where I stood recently, and see for yourself the outlines left behind by three Roman Legions in just that area. Then read Josephus, who provides an eyewitness account, and all scholars accept his writings as reliable, then tell us how easy Judea was. Besides how can you compare Judea, the size of New Jersey, to Germany or Iberia, about hundred times the land area and population. Judea was actually almost lost by the Romans a few times, who suffered enormous casualties there, and had to retake the province over and over again.

Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2006,05:46   

Well I guess it's true, PT can be censorious. Carol writes this ignorant twaddle:

Quote
Dembski needs to learn to express himself more precisely and in a more nuanced manner. Upon reflection he probably would agree that prejudices and bigots is not what he wanted to say. Instead, a better term, one that could quite accurately be applied to all too many scientists, particularly biologists, is hubris. Some scientists tend to forget that science proves very little, that it is in the business of formulating working hypotheses that can and repreatedly have been overturned by the next discovery, and that it is based on unprovable axioms just as is almost any other human endeavor. A little more humility and perspective is in order in this regard.


She gets intelligent replies, and Reed Cartwright sends the intelligent posts to the Bathroom Wall, leaving Carol's BS on PT. I guess his meaningless "mad-libber" post was just too important to be cluttered up with anything meaningful. I am not impressed with the man at all.

Carol, of course, can hardly write anything that doesn't expose her bigotry, ethnic, religious, anti-science, whichever one you choose. I don't suppose much more than that observation is needed to respond to the latest round of her illiterate mumblings.

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
tango

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,18:02   

To Kevin Padian, Wesley Elsberry, and the rest of the PT Board:


I would like to begin by saying that what Bill Dembski has done was embarrasingly reckless for someone who is a mouthpiece for the ID movement. This is something he has conceded and a point which is no longer at issue. With that said, may I inquire why the same standard is not held for the likes of PZ Myers, an active contributor here on the PT? So there is not mistake, Myers is completely correct in defending science against creationist lunes. Evolution is a fact as solid as any. But I am confused why Myers, being a well-qualified scientist, made similarly baseless accusations against agnostic DI fellow David Berlinski, saying:



"Berlinski's latest book is a defense of astrology.

Berlinski's latest book is a defense of astrology.

Berlinski, who finds evolution unbelievable, has written a book that is a defense of astrology.

Somebody please pick me up. Help me up off the floor. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. It's 2005, I'm in one of the wealthiest, most technologically advanced countries on the planet, and I have to defend my discipline from the criticisms of an astrologer." (http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/repeating_myself_because_i_can_hardly_believe_it/)



Myers, of couse, did not read Berlinski's book, but thought it fit to smear his credibility since he didn't support the fact of evolution.

Myers did make a half-hearted retraction, saying:

"I guess I will retract my accusation that he's an astrologer. I think. It's a bit difficult to parse, since he hedges his disavowal with that peculiar "in the sense" clause, but OK, Berlinski seems to agree that astrology is bunk." http://pharyngula.org/index....P0


But Myers still refers to Berlinski as

..."a professional pompous ass and semi-supporter of astrology."
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....y_t.php


Berlinski has himself said that the very idea of defending astrology is absurd and has told Myers that  he is not an astrologer and that his book is in no way an endorsement of astrology. (In fact, in his "On the Origins of the Mind" piece he compares evolutionary psychology to ancient astrology, noting they are both bunk.) It seems Myers does not conform to the standard the likes of Bill Dembski sets.


Why on earth is this? Why is there a need to smear when in fact the science itself is on the side of evolution? Of course students who are raised to reject evolution by their ignorant parents are scared, and they have a right to be with the threat of baseless accusations being leveled at them by the likes of PZ Myers. Myers is not reaching these children, he is pushing them away. His approach is irresponsible and reckless. I do recall reading on Pharyngula about a state science fair presentation by a young man arguing against the natural formation of proteins by old and tired improbability arguments. This kid was pretty much embarrassed on his very popular weblog. And he was (if I recall) no older than 15. He should not have been criticized publicly. Rather the creationists who promote the idea from which doubtless the kid found his argument should have been criticized on a scientific basis.

There is a better way to handle creationists than the way PZ does. There is nothing wrong with PZ's fierce criticism. There is something wrong with smearing, character-assasination, and embarrassing kids.

Glen Davidson

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,18:02   

<quote>There is a better way to handle creationists than the way PZ does. There is nothing wrong with PZ’s fierce criticism. There is something wrong with smearing, character-assasination, and embarrassing kids.</quote>

Yes, but he doesn't do it in his blogs here, or at least not much.  I've drifted away from Pharyngula (perhaps some of my last posts there were deliberately hindered there, I'm not sure), not bothering to register since that was required.  Why?  Mostly because of what you say, and because he seems not to care in the slightest that he knows so little about religion, or politics for that matter, before declaiming on it as if he were an expert.  Isn't it sauce for the gander for him to speak less about, in particular, religion, if he believes that those with little science knowledge ought to speak less on science matters?

I think it's especially ironic that he uses Nietzsche quotes to fault theism, when Nietzsche probably was as much opposed to atheistic righteous types like PZ as much as he was opposed to Xians.  Can we say, "quote-mining" (I don't care that his quotes come from someone else's selections)?

I doubt that much more of a response/nonresponse is really necessary or called for.  His blogs on Pharyngula are his, as is proper, while he typically posts competent science on this blog.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

steve s

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,18:02   

erroneously saying...

<quote>Berlinski’s latest book is a defense of astrology.</quote>

...is a bit different than calling someone a bigot, juxtaposing his photo with Archie Bunker's, posting a cartoon showing the person as a Klan member, retracting that, and then continuing to allow one of your boys to call him a bigot.

Wesley R. Elsberry

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,18:02   

Hmmm. I don't recall "Berlinski" being topical in this thread. Nor are the situations even vaguely analogous.

Is there some reason why "tango"/"idon'treallycare" should be excused from Rule 6 moderation?

tango

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,18:02   

Mr. Elsberry:

PZ Myers accusations were not at all as bad as Dembski's. I did not mean to contend that it was. Rather the point was that smearing was involved in both cases, and that in both matters could have been handled in a better way. My apologies if it was irrelevant to the discussion. I did not mean to convey any impression that Myers is a bigot or any such accusation.

I will humbly exit the discussion now.

sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,18:04   

Quote
Berlinski has himself said that the very idea of defending astrology is absurd


except when he's on the stand in a legal proceeding...

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,18:13   

That was Behe.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,18:23   

of course.

I should be ashamed for getting those two confused.

I'm going to go write a big long letter of apology to both of them right now.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 16 2006,22:23   

I should think so, too Sir T.

And after you've finished them, what about answering Dr. Elsberry's question? I'm sure he has given up on a response from you by now!

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,10:29   

oh my, i was gone for a while and didn't even realize somebody had bothered to respond to that post.

It had been up for a quite a while.

thanks for the head's up.

  
Hunter



Posts: 6
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,15:13   

After being hit on 2 fronts, I was left slumped against the bathroom wall.
dho'gaza hit me full in the face with the "Davetard" offensive : I have Googled "Marty Luther antisem"  and got 653k hits - I must be right _I was left stunned.
 Before I had a chance to read anything, Arden stuck me with the "larry farfarfarfman "Wiki pedia "" defence.
I thought I'll hit back and googled "arden racist" and got 54K hit. What did it mean? absolutely nothing. Ardens a nice guy.

Before I slide into the urinal at the bathroom wall I would like to clear up a couple of points based on Mr O 'Gaza s statement:
Even although you did not post a link to the relevent thread at UD as I hoped, I evetnually found it. Bizzare!
(The post-not you)

I kind of "half see" where you are coming from, but I still think your 2nd paragraph is a sweeping generalization of Europe pre- Darwin.
European Racism against blacks: Pre 1900, the vast majority of europeans had never seen a black person and so had no feelings towards them at all. 1800s, the English were racist against the French, the poles were racist against the  russians, the germans and italians didnt exist and the french wre racist against everybody else. Relations between N; Africa, the Middle East and "Western" Europe had been going on for centuries.

No one had time for racism against the africans.
And please do not be dumb enough to bring up the african slave trade as an example of racism.

Post AD 0, all christians were anti- semetic. After all they nailed jesus to a cross. The Jews were the fall guys all through Europea
After reading the excellent Wiki post about ML, I see that he was for a lot of his life very sympathetic towards the jews. Something in his later years semms to have turned him bitter.






I take issue with you on various points -- sort of.

  
Hunter



Posts: 6
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,15:21   

aaargh
ther are far to many buttons on this keyboard

Ive lost track of my post I punched enter too soon.

Summary

Since 0ad

  
  19967 replies since Jan. 17 2006,08:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (666) < ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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