Printable Version of Topic
-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: The "I Believe In God" Thread started by didymos
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 31 2010,16:04
At the request of OgreMkV, I do hereby create this thread for IBIG. So....yeah.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 31 2010,16:39
Well, let's see where we are now.
My current discussion with IBIG is in regards to the quote-mine featured on PT here: < Dembski vs. Evo-Devo >
IBIG maintains that this is a correct representation of the discovery article author's conclusion.
I maintain that it is (and remains since 2005) a quote-mine because it does not accurately represent the author of the original article. If effect, it lies about what Elizabeth Pennisi said in her Science article.
Furthermore, I quote Psalms where it says, "There is no God." as an example of a quote-mine that is exactly the same as the discovery article.
Both quotes are taken out of context and result in a misrepresentation of the intent of the original author.
IBIG maintains that the discovery quote is legitimate, but my quote is a lie and that I'm a liar.
So, IBIG, please explain why my quote-mine of the Bible is wrong, while the discovery article quote-mine is OK.
Over to you.
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 31 2010,16:51
A little IBIG background:
OK, I knew this guy was....prolific, but...WOW. He got permanently exiled to PT's Bathroom Wall on < February 8, 2010 >, at which time it had filled 24 pages. The exile announcement started off page 25. It's now on page 425! Four-Hundred and Twenty Five! All 400 pages largely to his "credit" as Prime Instigator, and that still doesn't include the posts that got BWed before the perma-exile, which go back to page 23. I have no clue how many comments he actually managed to slip onto normal threads. Damn. I said "Damn."
Posted by: Wolfhound on Oct. 31 2010,16:56
Yes, he has...stamina...
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 31 2010,18:45
The word "absolute" is an adjective, not a noun. As such, to have meaning the type of object being modified by it has to be specified, and consistent.
Henry
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 31 2010,18:54
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 31 2010,16:45) | The word "absolute" is an adjective, not a noun. As such, to have meaning the type of object being modified by it has to be specified, and consistent.
Henry ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, actually, it is a noun. It can also be an adverb (fairly rare, that). It's simply used most commonly as an adjective.
Posted by: mplavcan on Oct. 31 2010,20:15
He has stamina, and yet he STILL hasn't answered a single question. But I know enough people who think like he does to make the whole thread an illustration of why creationism persists.
Posted by: Flint on Oct. 31 2010,20:34
---------------------QUOTE------------------- It is extremely contradictory to make any claims that I, or anyone else is wrong about anything, because most if not all of you don’t accept that absolutes exist. You would also have to accept that there is no right or wrong answer or position about anything. I’m sorry but your worldview is irrational. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I think it was Isaac Asimov who wrote that primitive people thought the earth was flat. They were wrong. Later, people thought the earth was spherical. They were also wrong, but MUCH closer. There are degrees of wrong. A worldview that holds that every claim must be absolutely right or absolutely wrong is inherently unable to distinguish the difference between a flat earth (wrong) and a spherical earth (wrong).
The scientific enterprise, considered altogether, is a method of approximating an understanding of reality, more and more accurately all the time. BUT one of the presumptions of science is that "perfectly, completely right" simply cannot exist. ALL scientific theories can be improved in some way, in principle.
So while there may be "no right or wrong answer or position about anything", there IS a vast gulf between unbelieveably stupidly wrong despite all available evidence, and "as close as we can get considering all currently available evidence." Claiming these are the same is one of those positions that is stupidly wrong, not even close.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 31 2010,20:36
Quote (mplavcan @ Oct. 31 2010,20:15) | He has stamina, and yet he STILL hasn't answered a single question. But I know enough people who think like he does to make the whole thread an illustration of why creationism persists. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I agree. It's a fascinating subject.
They twist things so much and learn just enough to make uninformed statements.
Posted by: Badger3k on Oct. 31 2010,20:59
You guys weren't kidding. Wow. At least, from what I've read or skimmed so far, he hasn't started posting YouTube videos.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 31 2010,21:20
Quote (Badger3k @ Oct. 31 2010,20:59) | You guys weren't kidding. Wow. At least, from what I've read or skimmed so far, he hasn't started posting YouTube videos. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You mean recently?
That was his favorite tactic. He'd disappear for two or three days when we really had him nailed to a tree (as it were), then reappear, post a totally unrelated youtube link and ask "So what about this?"
At which point, half of the group would fisk the hell out of the video, while the other half kept asking him about the previous discussion topic.
Posted by: mplavcan on Oct. 31 2010,21:46
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2010,21:20) | Quote (Badger3k @ Oct. 31 2010,20:59) | You guys weren't kidding. Wow. At least, from what I've read or skimmed so far, he hasn't started posting YouTube videos. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You mean recently?
That was his favorite tactic. He'd disappear for two or three days when we really had him nailed to a tree (as it were), then reappear, post a totally unrelated youtube link and ask "So what about this?"
At which point, half of the group would fisk the hell out of the video, while the other half kept asking him about the previous discussion topic. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I doubt he will join this discussion. Assuming that he isn't a troll, and is sincere, then this forum is not public enough for him. He acts like a street preacher, and if he is real, probably thinks that he is witnessing and will turn souls to Christ. He is not interested in debate or truth -- only casting doubt and spreading the Gospel. Notice how every 20 pages or so he would revert to quoting scriptures?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 31 2010,21:55
Quote (mplavcan @ Oct. 31 2010,21:46) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2010,21:20) | Quote (Badger3k @ Oct. 31 2010,20:59) | You guys weren't kidding. Wow. At least, from what I've read or skimmed so far, he hasn't started posting YouTube videos. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You mean recently?
That was his favorite tactic. He'd disappear for two or three days when we really had him nailed to a tree (as it were), then reappear, post a totally unrelated youtube link and ask "So what about this?"
At which point, half of the group would fisk the hell out of the video, while the other half kept asking him about the previous discussion topic. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I doubt he will join this discussion. Assuming that he isn't a troll, and is sincere, then this forum is not public enough for him. He acts like a street preacher, and if he is real, probably thinks that he is witnessing and will turn souls to Christ. He is not interested in debate or truth -- only casting doubt and spreading the Gospel. Notice how every 20 pages or so he would revert to quoting scriptures? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If so, then he is the WORST witness for any religion I've ever heard of in my life.
Posted by: prong_hunter on Oct. 31 2010,22:30
IBIG said on Panda's Thumb, Sept. 4 2010: "Many here state that logic is a convention or a construct of man, so now let me ask these two questions:" "Is big bang a convention or construct of man?" "Is evolution a convention or construct of man? "
"I knew when I asked the questions about logic, that those here would state that logic was a convention or construct of man, which is what I really wanted to hear. I gave you all many opportunities to state otherwise, but to no avail. Now that you have stated that logic is a convention and construct of man, you must admit that big bang and evolution are a convention of man."
"Logic is absolute and not a construct of man, because before man gave a name to the law of non-contradiction it still existed. "
"It did not need a system to define it for it to have existed, the law of non-contradiction is absolute."
"'I am a man, and I am not a man' is this logical? would there be a lie somewhere in that statement, yet if we used fuzzy logic it would be valid, because it would not be completely wrong, at least 50% of the statement is correct."
"God’s logic will always lead to the truth!"
And on Sept. 7: "I’ve not finished with logic yet, just wait and see!!! Be prepared!!!"
Are you ready for some fun?
IBIG will teach you his "God's logic".
Posted by: Badger3k on Oct. 31 2010,23:48
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2010,21:20) | Quote (Badger3k @ Oct. 31 2010,20:59) | You guys weren't kidding. Wow. At least, from what I've read or skimmed so far, he hasn't started posting YouTube videos. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You mean recently?
That was his favorite tactic. He'd disappear for two or three days when we really had him nailed to a tree (as it were), then reappear, post a totally unrelated youtube link and ask "So what about this?"
At which point, half of the group would fisk the hell out of the video, while the other half kept asking him about the previous discussion topic. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ok - I didn't want to try to read 240-odd pages. I was thinking of bornagain7...something (damn memory, stuck on Fallout:New Vegas now and can't remember his number 777?) - you know who I mean, I am sure. Coincidence, or just commonalities surfacing, do you think?
Posted by: Badger3k on Oct. 31 2010,23:56
Quote (prong_hunter @ Oct. 31 2010,22:30) | IBIG said on Panda's Thumb, Sept. 4 2010: "Many here state that logic is a convention or a construct of man, so now let me ask these two questions:" "Is big bang a convention or construct of man?" "Is evolution a convention or construct of man? "
"I knew when I asked the questions about logic, that those here would state that logic was a convention or construct of man, which is what I really wanted to hear. I gave you all many opportunities to state otherwise, but to no avail. Now that you have stated that logic is a convention and construct of man, you must admit that big bang and evolution are a convention of man."
"Logic is absolute and not a construct of man, because before man gave a name to the law of non-contradiction it still existed. "
"It did not need a system to define it for it to have existed, the law of non-contradiction is absolute."
"'I am a man, and I am not a man' is this logical? would there be a lie somewhere in that statement, yet if we used fuzzy logic it would be valid, because it would not be completely wrong, at least 50% of the statement is correct."
"God’s logic will always lead to the truth!"
And on Sept. 7: "I’ve not finished with logic yet, just wait and see!!! Be prepared!!!"
Are you ready for some fun?
IBIG will teach you his "God's logic". ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Not the "logic" argument! There has to be an apologetics bingo somewhere (nothing on the first two pages of a google search, maybe further in?). I can never understand how people can mix the descriptions we make about something (such as codifying the "laws of logic", so to speak, with the reality of such a thing. There are logical absolutes that are a property of reality (as we have come to understand it). These seem to be part of what is - there isn't any need to explain them, as far as I can tell. But some people want explanations.
I can't figure out why some people, who want absolutes, believe that the things they want as unchanging are at the whim of their god. "Logic comes from God" - who, by the way, can change it any time he feels like, which is ok, since he has all the power and gets to say what is what, what is just, and what the heck we have to do to stay on his good side or be tortured forever...
Whackadoodles
Posted by: prong_hunter on Nov. 01 2010,06:06
Well, he really showed them on Panda's Thumb. Here's what IBIG said Oct. 31st 2010: "No you are wrong, All along I have not just questioned whether there are moral absolutes, but I have also questions whether there are absolutes of any kind. It was said that there were no absolutes, which I clearly demonstrated was absurd, because if that were true then you could not state that there are no absolutes. If one is to state that there are no absolutes, then one would be making an absolute statement that there are no absolutes. So, evidently here you all only think there is one form of absolute, and that is that there is no absolutes:)" "Go back and read my previous posts, because I clearly demonstrated that there are mathematic absolutes, and there clearly are moral absolutes also, I answered that. You again like to twist the truth to agree with you naturalistic view that there are no absolutes, but that is irrational. You are irrational!"
How can any one argue against 'logic' like that?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 01 2010,07:01
Quote (prong_hunter @ Nov. 01 2010,06:06) | Well, he really showed them on Panda's Thumb. Here's what IBIG said Oct. 31st 2010: "No you are wrong, All along I have not just questioned whether there are moral absolutes, but I have also questions whether there are absolutes of any kind. It was said that there were no absolutes, which I clearly demonstrated was absurd, because if that were true then you could not state that there are no absolutes. If one is to state that there are no absolutes, then one would be making an absolute statement that there are no absolutes. So, evidently here you all only think there is one form of absolute, and that is that there is no absolutes:)" "Go back and read my previous posts, because I clearly demonstrated that there are mathematic absolutes, and there clearly are moral absolutes also, I answered that. You again like to twist the truth to agree with you naturalistic view that there are no absolutes, but that is irrational. You are irrational!"
How can any one argue against 'logic' like that? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I once tried to argue with logic like that... then I gave up and married her. She keeps the logic to a minimum though.
Arguing with IBIG is like arguing with a two-day old tuna sandwich. You can scream all you want, it's still gonna stink.
I'll post my list of unanswered (mostly) questions in a bit.
Posted by: fusilier on Nov. 01 2010,07:59
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 01 2010,08:01) | [quote=prong_hunter,Nov. 01 2010,06:06]{snip}
Arguing with IBIG is like arguing with a two-day old tuna sandwich. You can scream all you want, it's still gonna stink.
I'll post my list of unanswered (mostly) questions in a bit. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
May I nominate that for a Quip of the Week, if not POTW?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 01 2010,08:34
OK, my questions for IBIG... which I'm sure he'll get to as soon as he registers.
Do organisms produce more offspring than can possibly survive? What is life? (define, not examples) Are those books previously mentioned true historical fact? Why did you not discuss the echidna? Why do you refuse an honest offer to learn about all the things you don’t understand? Why did you steal works from other authors and not give them credit? How long is the shortest RNA strand that acts as a functional catalyst for biochemical reactions? What is an opsin and why does it demolish your claim of no common descent? Do you own and have you read the MIT book you linked to? Do you own and have you read the Reese, Campbell Biology 5th Edition? Why won’t you answer these questions? Even if you disprove evolution, how does that help whatever your hypothesis? Why do pro-science sites allow you to babble on, while pro-creationist sites do not allow any scientists to comment? Do you really think your comments here are original in anyway? can you explain why I might think sympatric speciation is an example of evolution without mutation Who wrote the Gospel According to John? Why won’t you show that Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies of the messiah? What evidence would convince you that common ancestry is correct. Which group, AiG or the DI, is lying and why aren’t you taking them to task for “lying for Jesus”?” What mechanism activates front-loaded genetics? What, exactly, is the problem with mutation rates (include sources for your information)? Do you believe in the flood of the Bible? Do you take all the anti-biotics like the doctor tells you to? (From DS)Why do dolphins have five digits early in development if they do not have five digits as adults? (From DS) 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? (From DS) Why do dolphin embryos have pharyngeal gill pouches if they lack gills as adults? (From DS) Why do dolphin embryos start to develop hind limbs if they do not have hind limbs as adults? (From DS) Why do horse embryos have five digits if they have only one as adults? (From DS) Why are there fossils intermediate between apes and humans? (From DS) How old is the earth? How do you know? (From DS) Why is there a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity with Cetacea deeply nested within Artiodactyla? (Hint: common design is not the answer). (From DS) Why is there a nested hierarch 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). (From DS) 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). (From DS) 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?
IBIG’s Answers* I freely admit that IBIG has (kinda) answered some of these, but I think it's best we start over (it was only 2 questions) and then we can move forward.
Selected Quotes from IBIG that he should be held to
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The evidence is not the prophecy of the old testament, but the precise fulfillment of that prophecy, these were not little vague prophecies. This is evidence that God did what He said that he would do. Evidence that He does exist!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
my emphasis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I’ll answer one now, but you are trying to change the subject. It isn’t okay to lie for Jesus! It is never okay to lie!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 01 2010,09:47
[quote=fusilier,Nov. 01 2010,06:59] Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 01 2010,08:01) | Quote (prong_hunter @ Nov. 01 2010,06:06) | {snip}
Arguing with IBIG is like arguing with a two-day old tuna sandwich. You can scream all you want, it's still gonna stink.
I'll post my list of unanswered (mostly) questions in a bit. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
May I nominate that for a Quip of the Week, if not POTW? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Absolutely!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 01 2010,17:55
Prediction verified. He declared victory (more or less) and obviously feels that he has hit nerve with us. One wonders what that nerve actually is, since he's the one that kept changing topics.
Posted by: prong_hunter on Nov. 01 2010,17:58
The record on Panda's Thumb is very interesting.
IBIG claims he is well-versed in God's logic.
He said this, "Let me ask everyone here, do you believe in the law of cause and effect?", June 25th in the PT thread ICR Hits A Snag.
When confronted with the fact that there is no "Law of Cause and Effect" in science, he simply ignores it and goes on in his unwavering, unshakable certainty.
When shown the error in his use of the response "there are no Absolutes" to prove there are absolutes, and thus God exits (they have to come from somewhere, right?), he simply ignores all appeals to formal logic - he knows better, don't confuse him with the facts.
The fact is that he cannot comprehend genuine scientific or logical arguments. He's like a Taliban.
I can't imagine arguing with a Taliban, except that it must be like arguing with IBIG.
I will close with a few more choice quotes from Sept. 6th: "The point of my little exercise on logic, is to demonstrate that logic will not work unless all facts are absolutely true," 9-6-10 BW282
"Logic is correct thinking, and the purpose of using logic is to find the truth, ..." 9-6-10 BW282
”… it is illogical to attempt to apply logic to see if God exists …” 9-6-10 BW282 (Holy Cow! Is this good, or what?)
Posted by: paragwinn on Nov. 01 2010,19:00
Quote (prong_hunter @ Oct. 31 2010,22:30) | IBIG said on Panda's Thumb, Sept. 4 2010: <snip>
And on Sept. 7: "I’ve not finished with logic yet, just wait and see!!! Be prepared!!!"
<snip> ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: mplavcan on Nov. 01 2010,19:06
Looks like IBIG has declared victory. Now, if we all stay veeeeerrrrryyyy still, maybe it will go away.
Posted by: mplavcan on Nov. 01 2010,19:25
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 01 2010,17:55) | Prediction verified. He declared victory (more or less) and obviously feels that he has hit nerve with us. One wonders what that nerve actually is, since he's the one that kept changing topics. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Whatever. He stands as a testimonial that there are people out there who are so calcified in their thinking that no evidence, no argument, no data, no documentation, not even written proof of their own illogic and hypocrisy, will convince them that they are wrong.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 01 2010,21:24
Quote (mplavcan @ Nov. 01 2010,19:25) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 01 2010,17:55) | Prediction verified. He declared victory (more or less) and obviously feels that he has hit nerve with us. One wonders what that nerve actually is, since he's the one that kept changing topics. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Whatever. He stands as a testimonial that there are people out there who are so calcified in their thinking that no evidence, no argument, no data, no documentation, not even written proof of their own illogic and hypocrisy, will convince them that they are wrong. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You aren't kidding.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 02 2010,11:40
hmm... IBIG is declaring victory and ignoring any requests to come here.
Who was it that said, he's looking for an audience?
Of course, he doesn't want an audience of his fellow Christians since they will see what a lying hypocrite that he is.
To sum up: IBIG doesn't believe in the bible, nor he doesn't believe in science... yet he uses the trappings and tools of both to feed his own needy ego.
It's kind of sad really. Ah well, I tried.
Posted by: prong_hunter on Nov. 02 2010,11:43
Quote (mplavcan @ Nov. 01 2010,19:25) | Whatever. He stands as a testimonial that there are people out there who are so calcified in their thinking that no evidence, no argument, no data, no documentation, not even written proof of their own illogic and hypocrisy, will convince them that they are wrong. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
He stands for everything that was overcome by the Enlightenment.
He stands for everything that is wrong with religion.
He stands for everything that our Founding Fathers stopped cold when they mandated our Government favor no Religion. (Isn't it funny, our Democracy isn't founded on Christian Principles of religion as the far-right revisionists insist, but upon the clear mandate of separation of Church and State. The Fathers knew exactly what happens when theocrats take over government.)
He has never accepted one argument on Panda's Thumb. He has never been 'wrong'. He says he has never lied, even when shown documentation of such.
In short, IBIG stands for intolerance, intransigence, inflexibility and his brand of theocracy ("to Hell with all the rest").
That's why it's important to stand up to him.
Thanks for your efforts.
Posted by: prong_hunter on Nov. 03 2010,06:12
I think IBIG may have resurfaced, with an alternate personality, named 'faith4flippers' on PT under the thread with the photo of the pelican.
He's goading Stanton, and making references to DS's dolphin arguments. Anyone know how to contact them?
IBIG's not one to declare victory as he has, and fade quietly into the night.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Nov. 03 2010,08:29
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Whatever. He stands as a testimonial that there are people out there who are so calcified in their thinking that no evidence, no argument, no data, no documentation, not even written proof of their own illogic and hypocrisy, will convince them that they are wrong. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And, thus, you describe FL, FTK, Behe, Dembski, Wells, Nelson, Meyer and so on.
Behe had to be taken to the mat publicly by grad student (never mess with her!) Abbie Smith before he would admit he "overlooked" data on Vpu in his book Edge of Whatever.
At least Kevin XI admitted he lied about Sternberg getting fired by the Smithsonian when he didn't even work for the Smithsonian.
Rather than engage in discussion, creationists run away, The Flounce, when backed into a corner. How many times have we seen that around here, a thousand? That's why it's so maddening. These are not reasonable people.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 03 2010,13:28
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Rather than engage in discussion, creationists run away, The Flounce, when backed into a corner. How many times have we seen that around here, a thousand? That's why it's so maddening. These are not reasonable people. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Alas, yes. When we defeat them in detail, they move the goalposts. When we defeat them on the merits, they dodge the issue. And when we finally throw up our hands in exasperation, they claim that we cannot answer their poorly formed and incoherent objections...
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
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 03 2010,13:57
Is he still babbling on at PT... even in his 'new guise'?
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 03 2010,14:07
He's not posting at the moment. Confirmation or refutation may have to wait a few hours.
Although I can think of another reason why he might not be coming here! The rules of this board do rule out some of his favorite tricks.
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 03 2010,14:18
Like he's interested in following 'rules'...
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 03 2010,14:21
Almost certainly the truth.
One wonders what he'll attempt next.
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 03 2010,16:02
Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to move the goalposts we go...
Posted by: prong_hunter on Nov. 03 2010,18:34
Matt Young answered on PT, when asked, "Do you have the ability to see if Flipper is another incarnation of IBelieveInGod?"
"Different e-mail address, different IP address, for whatever that is worth."
Thanks Matt.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 03 2010,18:44
Quote (prong_hunter @ Nov. 03 2010,18:34) | Matt Young answered on PT, when asked, "Do you have the ability to see if Flipper is another incarnation of IBelieveInGod?"
"Different e-mail address, different IP address, for whatever that is worth."
Thanks Matt. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Be that as it may, the tone and general attitude appear to be quite similar, so we could expect a similar pleasant experience trying to deal with this individual.
We'll need to run more tests. Igor! Fetch me my lightning-proof suit and warm up The Machine!
:p
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 03 2010,18:49
Keep trying to redirect here.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 03 2010,19:06
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2010,18:49) | Keep trying to redirect here. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Done! Although I see you beat me to it.
I would like to think I was sufficiently polite about it...
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 03 2010,19:09
Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Nov. 03 2010,19:06) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2010,18:49) | Keep trying to redirect here. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Done! Although I see you beat me to it. ???
I would like to think I was sufficiently polite about it...
The MadPanda, FCD ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's a question of "will s/he be polite enough to come here" or will they continue to flood the PT Wall even after multiple requests to move the discussion elsewhere.
Time will tell.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 03 2010,19:25
Alas, yes.
And now I have an old childhood memory stuck in my mind's eye: Les Lye, from You Can't Do That On Television, clutching his head and asking "where does the school board find them, and why do they send them here" in response to the kids' antics.
At the time, I thought that was pretty funny. But then, at that time, all the jokes in Zorro the Gay Blade went whirring cheerfully way over my head.
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: mplavcan on Nov. 03 2010,19:34
Quote (prong_hunter @ Nov. 03 2010,06:12) | I think IBIG may have resurfaced, with an alternate personality, named 'faith4flippers' on PT under the thread with the photo of the pelican.
He's goading Stanton, and making references to DS's dolphin arguments. Anyone know how to contact them?
IBIG's not one to declare victory as he has, and fade quietly into the night. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
This one does not sound like IBIG. But who knows?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 03 2010,19:43
Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Nov. 03 2010,19:25) | Alas, yes.
And now I have an old childhood memory stuck in my mind's eye: Les Lye, from You Can't Do That On Television, clutching his head and asking "where does the school board find them, and why do they send them here" in response to the kids' antics.
At the time, I thought that was pretty funny. But then, at that time, all the jokes in Zorro the Gay Blade went whirring cheerfully way over my head.
The MadPanda, FCD ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I had the biggest crush on Moose.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 03 2010,19:58
You, too? :D
The ep where poor Moose got stuck behind nothing but a cue card at the very end because they'd bottomed out the wardrobe budget was particularly interesting.
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 03 2010,20:32
Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Nov. 03 2010,19:58) | You, too? :D
The ep where poor Moose got stuck behind nothing but a cue card at the very end because they'd bottomed out the wardrobe budget was particularly interesting.
The MadPanda, FCD ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sorry for the derail... heh
< You Can't Do That on TeleVision >
Posted by: mplavcan on 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 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Nov. 04 2010,17:16
Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 04 2010,17:18
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,17:16) | Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OK, IBIG, was the discovery article telling the truth about what E. Pennisi said?
Please explain why my quote-mine of the Bible is wrong, while the discovery article quote-mine is OK.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 04 2010,17:37
Biggy finally found us. Ogre, I owe you twenty spacebucks for lunch, gas, and tolls.
Quoting scripture apropos of nothing does not a valid point make, nor does it render an argument solid on the merits. Quite the opposite.
Get back to us after you've read and understood at least two of the Gnostic Gospels and either the Analects of Confucius or the Tao Te Ching. Then we'll talk.
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Nov. 04 2010,17:42
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,17:18) | Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,17:16) | Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OK, IBIG, was the discovery article telling the truth about what E. Pennisi said?
Please explain why my quote-mine of the Bible is wrong, while the discovery article quote-mine is OK. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Has E. Pennisi ever stated that it was a quote-mine by Discovery.org? Clearly she could defend herself right?
I've already stated that it wasn't a quote-mine, clearly Discovery.org was arguing about the universality of these genes, and how it invalidated the grand claims for them. I don't see any quote-mine or dishonesty on the part of Discovery.org, but like I said earlier what does it matter to someone who doesn't believe in moral absolutes like yourself? You are arguing like you believe in moral absolutes, yet you claim that there are no such absolutes, you can't have it both ways:)
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 04 2010,17:45
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,17:42) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,17:18) | Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,17:16) | Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OK, IBIG, was the discovery article telling the truth about what E. Pennisi said?
Please explain why my quote-mine of the Bible is wrong, while the discovery article quote-mine is OK. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Has E. Pennisi ever stated that it was a quote-mine by Discovery.org? Clearly she could defend herself right?
I've already stated that it wasn't a quote-mine, clearly Discovery.org was arguing about the universality of these genes, and how it invalidated the grand claims for them. I don't see any quote-mine or dishonesty on the part of Discovery.org, but like I said earlier what does it matter to someone who doesn't believe in moral absolutes like yourself? You are arguing like you believe in moral absolutes, yet you claim that there are no such absolutes, you can't have it both ways:) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The morality or lack thereof doesn't matter.
Either discovery is lying or they are not. Which is it?
I have shown, upwards of 5 times, that the discovery article leads the reader to a false conclusion. That is lying.
Why is that different from my bible quote, "There is no God" Psalms (something or other)?
Right now, I don't care about morality (except yours), what we need to know is why is one quote-mine OK and one it not OK?
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on 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
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Nov. 04 2010,17:49
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,17:45) | Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,17:42) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,17:18) | Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,17:16) | Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OK, IBIG, was the discovery article telling the truth about what E. Pennisi said?
Please explain why my quote-mine of the Bible is wrong, while the discovery article quote-mine is OK. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Has E. Pennisi ever stated that it was a quote-mine by Discovery.org? Clearly she could defend herself right?
I've already stated that it wasn't a quote-mine, clearly Discovery.org was arguing about the universality of these genes, and how it invalidated the grand claims for them. I don't see any quote-mine or dishonesty on the part of Discovery.org, but like I said earlier what does it matter to someone who doesn't believe in moral absolutes like yourself? You are arguing like you believe in moral absolutes, yet you claim that there are no such absolutes, you can't have it both ways:) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The morality or lack thereof doesn't matter.
Either discovery is lying or they are not. Which is it?
I have shown, upwards of 5 times, that the discovery article leads the reader to a false conclusion. That is lying.
Why is that different from my bible quote, "There is no God" Psalms (something or other)?
Right now, I don't care about morality (except yours), what we need to know is why is one quote-mine OK and one it not OK? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It does not lead to a false conclusion. It is your claim that it leads to a false conclusion. Why do you think it leads to a false conclusion, give specifics?
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 04 2010,17:55
---------------------QUOTE------------------- It does not lead to a false conclusion. It is your claim that it leads to a false conclusion. Why do you think it leads to a false conclusion, give specifics? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Already been done. Repeatedly. But you weren't paying attention the first five times.
Why do you ask such silly questions if you aren't going to hold still for the answers?
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on 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 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Nov. 04 2010,18:02
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,17:45) | Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,17:42) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,17:18) | Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,17:16) | Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OK, IBIG, was the discovery article telling the truth about what E. Pennisi said?
Please explain why my quote-mine of the Bible is wrong, while the discovery article quote-mine is OK. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Has E. Pennisi ever stated that it was a quote-mine by Discovery.org? Clearly she could defend herself right?
I've already stated that it wasn't a quote-mine, clearly Discovery.org was arguing about the universality of these genes, and how it invalidated the grand claims for them. I don't see any quote-mine or dishonesty on the part of Discovery.org, but like I said earlier what does it matter to someone who doesn't believe in moral absolutes like yourself? You are arguing like you believe in moral absolutes, yet you claim that there are no such absolutes, you can't have it both ways:) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The morality or lack thereof doesn't matter.
Either discovery is lying or they are not. Which is it?
I have shown, upwards of 5 times, that the discovery article leads the reader to a false conclusion. That is lying.
Why is that different from my bible quote, "There is no God" Psalms (something or other)?
Right now, I don't care about morality (except yours), what we need to know is why is one quote-mine OK and one it not OK? ---------------------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?
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on 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 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- everybody understands everything better then me...I've already heard that many times on PT ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 04 2010,18:06
Accursed quote failure! This system shall take some time to become second nature...
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on 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 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- everybody understands everything better then me...I've already heard that many times on PT ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are there any square circles?:)
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 04 2010,18:12
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Are there any square circles?:) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Nov. 04 2010,18:21
Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Nov. 04 2010,18:12) |
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Are there any square circles?:) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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 ---------------------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?
Posted by: prong_hunter on 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 ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What's the difference between "wrong" and "absolute wrong"?
Posted by: prong_hunter on Nov. 04 2010,18:34
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,18:07) | Are there any square circles?:) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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?)
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on 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?:) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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?) ---------------------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?
Posted by: prong_hunter on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Posted by: prong_hunter on 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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
Posted by: OgreMkV on 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." ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Wolfhound on 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.
Posted by: OgreMkV on 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.
Posted by: Stanton on 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.
Posted by: OgreMkV on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Stanton on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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?
Posted by: OgreMkV on 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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...
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on 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... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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
Posted by: didymos on Nov. 04 2010,23:36
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,16:07) | Are there any square circles?:) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you even know what that refers to?
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on 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." ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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!
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Nov. 05 2010,03:49
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 04 2010,23:36) | Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,16:07) | Are there any square circles?:) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you even know what that refers to? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is it over your head?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 05 2010,04:00
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,03:45) | You are mixing the grander claims of evo-devo ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What's your explanation then?
Posted by: didymos on 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?:) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you even know what that refers to? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is it over your head? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Just answer the question, jackass.
Posted by: Louis on 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
Posted by: prong_hunter on 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?
Posted by: OgreMkV on 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." ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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...
Posted by: Stanton on 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! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Stanton on 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?:) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Do you even know what that refers to? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is it over your head? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 05 2010,08:10
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,18:02) | ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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...
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 05 2010,08:16
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,18:07) | ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
---------------------QUOTE------------------- Are there any square circles?:) ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: Robin on 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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...
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on 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." ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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! ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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... ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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?
Posted by: OgreMkV on 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tell me something... what, exactly, was the conclusion from Pennisi's science paper?
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Nov. 05 2010,09:07
---------------------QUOTE------------------- If Elizabeth Pennisi was quoted out of context then why hasn't she spoke out? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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?
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tell me something... what, exactly, was the conclusion from Pennisi's science paper? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on 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. ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And your explanation of what happened millions of years ago is what, exactly?
Posted by: Richardthughes on 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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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? ---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've just quoted IBIG out of context somwhere else. Good luck finding it, IBIG.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Nov. 05 2010,09:43
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|