RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (356) < ... 244 245 246 247 248 [249] 250 251 252 253 254 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 4, Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2063
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2012,06:13   

The Discovery Institute's Shutterstock Green Screened "Laboratory" story has made ars Technica.  Richard B. Hoppe gets a mention.

Link

At Uncommon Descent, vjtorley hits a new low: Discussing Dr. Mohammed Noor's free on-line course, "Introduction to Genetics and Evolution", vj quotes Dr. Noor proving that Hitler believed in Intelligent Design:  
Quote
Nazi Germany also adopts:
* Nazi euthanasia program (Aktion T4) instituted to eliminate “life unworthy of life.”
– People with disabilities seen as drain on resources and killed

* BUT, contrary to claims, Hitler was not influenced by Darwin or true evolutionary theory
– No reference to Darwin in Mein Kampf

– Darwin DISAPPROVED of eugenics

– Hitler believed in Intelligent Design:
“For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape…”

Not so! says Dr. Torley.  
Quote
When I heard about this slide (from a friend of mine who took Dr. Noor’s course), my initial reaction was one of sadness and disappointment. How could such a learned scientist be so badly misinformed? Then I decided that I would turn this slide into a teachable moment. For it is clear that Professor Noor simply does not know what Intelligent Design is.

What is Intelligent Design?

Professor Noor seems to equate Intelligent Design with the belief that Nature has a Designer (or designers). On this point, he is mistaken. Intelligent Design is the search for circumstantial empirical evidence indicating that either Nature itself, or certain patterns in Nature, can be best explained scientifically as the product of an intelligent agent (or agents).

The moral: If you think God made us all, you're just a Christian.  You're only an IDiot if you think he left traces of his handiwork that you can discover for yourself.  And he quotes Dembski and Wells to prove it!

--------------
...after reviewing the arguments, I’m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODE’s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%.  --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

  
dheddle



Posts: 540
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2012,08:52   

Quote (olegt @ Dec. 18 2012,20:16)
Yo heddle! Long time, no C!

Oh there's no place like home for the holidays..

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
JohnW



Posts: 2829
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2012,12:27   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Dec. 19 2012,04:13)
Not so! says Dr. Torley.  
Quote
When I heard about this slide (from a friend of mine who took Dr. Noor’s course), my initial reaction was one of sadness and disappointment. How could such a learned scientist be so badly misinformed? Then I decided that I would turn this slide into a teachable moment. For it is clear that Professor Noor simply does not know what Intelligent Design is.

What is Intelligent Design?

Professor Noor seems to equate Intelligent Design with the belief that Nature has a Designer (or designers). On this point, he is mistaken. Intelligent Design is the search for circumstantial empirical evidence indicating that either Nature itself, or certain patterns in Nature, can be best explained scientifically as the product of an intelligent agent (or agents).

The moral: If you think God made us all, you're just a Christian.  You're only an IDiot if you think he left traces of his handiwork that you can discover for yourself.  And he quotes Dembski and Wells to prove it!

Thanks for clearing that up, Dr T.  So ID states that nature was produced by an intelligent agent, but the intelligent agent was not necessarily a designer.  Presumably this means the intelligent agent was, say, an accountant or a bus driver who did a bit of designing on the side.  Not a job, but a hobby.

On reflection, that would make some aspects of the universe easier to explain.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2012,12:57   

I think Vincent Torley is just dumb, a Ph.D. in philosophy notwithstanding.
Quote
What it demonstrates is that there was a considerable difference between the public statements Hitler made about Christianity and his own private views, which were probably anti-Christian.

The removal of anti-Christian books from lending libraries was probably done to appease the Churches and to get them on side. Hitler would have viewed this as a small price to pay, to secure their support.

The removal of anti-Darwinian works may well have been for the same reason.

However, the fact that biology textbooks all taught Darwinian evolution during the Third Reich, and that Nazi publications taught human evolution and even criticized creationism surely speaks for itself. That “trumps” the fact that Darwin-friendly books were banned from libraries. What was on the school curriculum (Darwinism) was what really mattered.


I have it on good authority that Newtonian mechanics and calculus were on the school curriculum in Nazi Germany. I wonder what Dr. Torley would make of it.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
rossum



Posts: 236
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2012,15:03   

Quote (olegt @ Dec. 19 2012,12:57)
I think Vincent Torley is just dumb, a Ph.D. in philosophy notwithstanding.
 
Quote
What it demonstrates is that there was a considerable difference between the public statements Hitler made about Christianity and his own private views, which were probably anti-Christian.

The removal of anti-Christian books from lending libraries was probably done to appease the Churches and to get them on side. Hitler would have viewed this as a small price to pay, to secure their support.

The removal of anti-Darwinian works may well have been for the same reason.

However, the fact that biology textbooks all taught Darwinian evolution during the Third Reich, and that Nazi publications taught human evolution and even criticized creationism surely speaks for itself. That “trumps” the fact that Darwin-friendly books were banned from libraries. What was on the school curriculum (Darwinism) was what really mattered.


I have it on good authority that Newtonian mechanics and calculus were on the school curriculum in Nazi Germany. I wonder what Dr. Torley would make of it.

One of the problems about not having a lab is that a stock photo of a computer won't let you access Wikipedia.  In particular, it won't let you access the List of authors banned during the Third Reich: D.

Yet another example of the high quality of research we have come to expect from ID.

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2012,15:19   

Quote
Professor Noor seems to equate Intelligent Design with the belief that Nature has a Designer (or designers). On this point, he is mistaken. Intelligent Design is the search for circumstantial empirical evidence indicating that either Nature itself, or certain patterns in Nature, can be best explained scientifically as the product of an intelligent agent (or agents).


I realize I'm not the first to be confused by this, but perhaps I'll be the first to ask if anyone can attempt a translation into something that makes sense, from a certain point of view. Any point of view.

Edited by midwifetoad on Dec. 19 2012,15:20

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2576
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2012,16:54   

Oops

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2576
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2012,17:00   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 19 2012,13:19)
   
Quote
Professor Noor seems to equate Intelligent Design with the belief that Nature has a Designer (or designers). On this point, he is mistaken. Intelligent Design is the search for circumstantial empirical evidence indicating that either Nature itself, or certain patterns in Nature, can be best explained scientifically as the product of an intelligent agent (or agents).

It can, can it.

Okay, go on then, VJ,  best explain it scientifically, already.

I hear Godot is showing up any minute now, too.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Quack



Posts: 1959
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2012,04:17   

Quote
I hear Godot is showing up any minute now, too.

OMG, so that's the ominous guy standing on the corner here?
100 PRINT "goodbye, world"

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2576
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2012,10:02   

Quote (Quack @ Dec. 20 2012,02:17)
Quote
I hear Godot is showing up any minute now, too.

OMG, so that's the ominous guy standing on the corner here?
100 PRINT "goodbye, world"

No, that's Zarquon...

The world will end at midnight. 12:30 in Nfld.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Patrick



Posts: 608
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2012,10:39   

Has anyone with a live sock wished UD a Merry Kitzmas yet?

  
stevestory



Posts: 10375
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2012,10:45   

Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 20 2012,11:02)
The world will end at midnight. 12:30 in Nfld.

North florida? Hey, I'M in North Florida. (actually living in a place where there is a ...church...where they think this town will survive armageddon.

Welsey, if things go south, it's only about 2.5 hours up here from Clearwater buddy!

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2012,14:09   

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 20 2012,10:45)
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 20 2012,11:02)
The world will end at midnight. 12:30 in Nfld.

North florida? Hey, I'M in North Florida. (actually living in a place where there is a ...church...where they think this town will survive armageddon.

Welsey, if things go south, it's only about 2.5 hours up here from Clearwater buddy!

He might be in Dallas right now.

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

  
khan



Posts: 1528
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2012,16:04   

Concerning the green screening of the pretend laboratory:

Whenever I see “creation science” posts I think of lolcats: “we haz sienses”.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Amadan



Posts: 1334
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2012,12:37   

Quote (olegt @ Dec. 19 2012,18:57)
I think Vincent Torley is just dumb, a Ph.D. in philosophy notwithstanding.
   
Quote
What it demonstrates is that there was a considerable difference between the public statements Hitler made about Christianity and his own private views, which were probably anti-Christian.

The removal of anti-Christian books from lending libraries was probably done to appease the Churches and to get them on side. Hitler would have viewed this as a small price to pay, to secure their support.

The removal of anti-Darwinian works may well have been for the same reason.

However, the fact that biology textbooks all taught Darwinian evolution during the Third Reich, and that Nazi publications taught human evolution and even criticized creationism surely speaks for itself. That “trumps” the fact that Darwin-friendly books were banned from libraries. What was on the school curriculum (Darwinism) was what really mattered.


I have it on good authority that Newtonian mechanics and calculus were on the school curriculum in Nazi Germany. I wonder what Dr. Torley would make of it.

Hilarious History FAIL by Dr.1 Torley:

Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279 (Roughly speaking: "Which bits of the library are we cooking with tonight?")
Quote
6. Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklärung eines primitiven Darwinismus und Monismus ist (Häckel).




1. Only a monoDoc? Pathetic. . .

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

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1043
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2012,10:23   

Quote
The open, obvious, democratic thing is to believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a miracle, just as you believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a murder.


G.K. Chesterton on Why Materialists, Not Theists, Are The Dogmatists

The sad thing about the Salem witch trials is, apparently, that they ended.

Glen Davidson

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

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

   
JohnW



Posts: 2829
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2012,12:23   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Dec. 27 2012,08:23)
Quote
The open, obvious, democratic thing is to believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a miracle, just as you believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a murder.


G.K. Chesterton on Why Materialists, Not Theists, Are The Dogmatists

The sad thing about the Salem witch trials is, apparently, that they ended.

Glen Davidson

This is how we know the Earth is flat, stationary, and orbited by everything else in the universe.

It's also how we know how life arose.  It looks designed to me.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Trubble



Posts: 20
Joined: May 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2012,18:20   

Arrington posted in that UD thread, re. the supposed greater value of Biblical accounts of miracles:
 
Quote
But what if hundreds of unrelated people from all walks of life reported the same miraculous event? And what if they persisted in their story while being tortured to death when all they had to do to stop the torture was to recant?

I've seen this claim many times on fundy forums such as UD. Can anyone explain what it's based on? Are they really saying that a statement in an ancient book that "hundreds of people saw this" is the same thing as independent statements from hundreds of identified individuals? Surely there must be more to it than that, otherwise the claim is clearly specious, and I can't believe educated people could make it without their pants bursting into flame.

Even more shaky is Arrington's further claim that the alleged hundreds of witnesses all ended up in Rome decades later to become martyrs to their faith. Again, he's not the first fundy to make this claim. Is there any evidence of such a connection?

Thanks.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2829
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2012,18:35   

Quote (Trubble @ Dec. 27 2012,16:20)
Arrington posted in that UD thread, re. the supposed greater value of Biblical accounts of miracles:
   
Quote
But what if hundreds of unrelated people from all walks of life reported the same miraculous event? And what if they persisted in their story while being tortured to death when all they had to do to stop the torture was to recant?

I've seen this claim many times on fundy forums such as UD. Can anyone explain what it's based on? Are they really saying that a statement in an ancient book that "hundreds of people saw this" is the same thing as independent statements from hundreds of identified individuals? Surely there must be more to it than that, otherwise the claim is clearly specious, and I can't believe educated people could make it without their pants bursting into flame.

Even more shaky is Arrington's further claim that the alleged hundreds of witnesses all ended up in Rome decades later to become martyrs to their faith. Again, he's not the first fundy to make this claim. Is there any evidence of such a connection?

Thanks.

Yes, that's exactly what he's implying - one report that "hundreds saw this" is equivalent to hundreds of reports that "I saw this".

Fun fact: Barry is a lawyer.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2063
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2012,23:41   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Dec. 27 2012,10:23)
     
Quote
The open, obvious, democratic thing is to believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a miracle, just as you believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a murder.


G.K. Chesterton on Why Materialists, Not Theists, Are The Dogmatists

The sad thing about the Salem witch trials is, apparently, that they ended.

Glen Davidson

Here's BA77's contribution to the discussion:      
Quote

8 bornagain77 December 27, 2012 at 3:56 pm
Moreover, the correct ‘top down’ structure of how our bodies are constructed certainly support “Ghosts”,,,

1.The lowest level of our bodies are the material atoms of our body.
2.The next higher level of our bodies is the energy of our bodies (biophotons).
3.The next higher level of our bodies is the quantum entanglement/information of our bodies (of which the classical information that is encoded on our DNA is found to be a subset of that quantum information).
4. The highest level of our bodies is the consciousness of our mind.
Got that?

Later in the same posting, he gives us this:    
Quote
Does DNA Have Telepathic Properties?-A Galaxy Insight – 2009
Excerpt: DNA has been found to have a bizarre ability to put itself together, even at a distance, when according to known science it shouldn’t be able to.,,, The recognition of similar sequences in DNA’s chemical subunits, occurs in a way unrecognized by science. There is no known reason why the DNA is able to combine the way it does, and from a current theoretical standpoint this feat should be chemically impossible.

He finishes up with a link to a Police video, "Spirits in the Material World".

It's all evidence on Uncommon Descent.

--------------
...after reviewing the arguments, I’m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODE’s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%.  --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10762
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 27 2012,23:50   

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 27 2012,18:35)
Quote (Trubble @ Dec. 27 2012,16:20)
Arrington posted in that UD thread, re. the supposed greater value of Biblical accounts of miracles:
   
Quote
But what if hundreds of unrelated people from all walks of life reported the same miraculous event? And what if they persisted in their story while being tortured to death when all they had to do to stop the torture was to recant?

I've seen this claim many times on fundy forums such as UD. Can anyone explain what it's based on? Are they really saying that a statement in an ancient book that "hundreds of people saw this" is the same thing as independent statements from hundreds of identified individuals? Surely there must be more to it than that, otherwise the claim is clearly specious, and I can't believe educated people could make it without their pants bursting into flame.

Even more shaky is Arrington's further claim that the alleged hundreds of witnesses all ended up in Rome decades later to become martyrs to their faith. Again, he's not the first fundy to make this claim. Is there any evidence of such a connection?

Thanks.

Yes, that's exactly what he's implying - one report that "hundreds saw this" is equivalent to hundreds of reports that "I saw this".

Fun fact: Barry is a lawyer.

OH HAI! DIS IS CEILINGCAT. I HAS TAKED OVER THIS PUTER TO TELLS YOU ELEBENTY BILLIONJILLION PEOPLES HAS ALL SEED ME AT THE SAME TIMES. THIS MUST BE TRUE BECAUSE I HAS JUST RECORDED IT HERE.

KTHANKSBAI.

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

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2012,06:39   

OK, Bazzer, materialists are dogmatists. You win ... something. Not sure what. Now show me a ghost, or a trace that cannot be explained by non-ghost processes.

The topic has coaxed the usual anti-science suspects out of the woodwork. WJM, for example, exhibits his stock-in-trade dogmatic certainty that anyone who disbelieves without proving the negative is dogmatically blind:        
Quote
It’s fairly obvious that the belief that [gods, afterlives etc] do not exist are rooted in ideological commitment and not reason or evidence-based positions.


An ideological commitment to be skeptical of that which could easily be made-up horseshit? Yeah, OK, you got me.

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2012,07:41   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Dec. 28 2012,04:39)
OK, Bazzer, materialists are dogmatists. You win ... something. Not sure what. Now show me a ghost, or a trace that cannot be explained by non-ghost processes.

The topic has coaxed the usual anti-science suspects out of the woodwork. WJM, for example, exhibits his stock-in-trade dogmatic certainty that anyone who disbelieves without proving the negative is dogmatically blind:          
Quote
It’s fairly obvious that the belief that [gods, afterlives etc] do not exist are rooted in ideological commitment and not reason or evidence-based positions.


An ideological commitment to be skeptical of that which could easily be made-up horseshit? Yeah, OK, you got me.

UD = undoubtedly deluded.


I notice that WJM said "gods".  I wonder how many he believes in? And I hate to think of what his "etc" includes.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2012,08:11   

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 28 2012,13:41)
   
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Dec. 28 2012,04:39)
OK, Bazzer, materialists are dogmatists. You win ... something. Not sure what. Now show me a ghost, or a trace that cannot be explained by non-ghost processes.

The topic has coaxed the usual anti-science suspects out of the woodwork. WJM, for example, exhibits his stock-in-trade dogmatic certainty that anyone who disbelieves without proving the negative is dogmatically blind:                
Quote
It’s fairly obvious that the belief that [gods, afterlives etc] do not exist are rooted in ideological commitment and not reason or evidence-based positions.


An ideological commitment to be skeptical of that which could easily be made-up horseshit? Yeah, OK, you got me.

UD = undoubtedly deluded.


I notice that WJM said "gods".  I wonder how many he believes in? And I hate to think of what his "etc" includes.

to be fair, the expansion in square brackets was mine. It replaced his actual text "such things", alluding to an earlier paragraph:

   
Quote
There is evidence (yes, even scientific) for the existence of god, the supernatural, and the afterlife; there is no evidence (that I’m aware of, that anyone has offered me) that those things do not exist. .  


But yeah, why not - the evidence for God is the evidence for gods. What allows him to pare it down to a singular, I don't know. If there was more than one, you would expect --------. We don't find --------, therefore God.

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2576
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2012,10:37   

It's so great that they're reinforcing the purely scientific underpinnings of the intelligent design concept. Really, though, isn't it?

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1043
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2012,10:52   

This is probably what caused Barry to use that bit from Chesterton in the first place.

It, however, prefaces its use of Chesterton's tripe with at least some sense, saying, "It’s not entirely fair to the skeptic’s case — it is easier to be fooled by the appearance of a ghost than of a murder — but he makes a good point about the way many skeptic’s weigh testimony."  Really, easier to be fooled by the appearance of a ghost?  Say the right thing, then whine about skeptics anyway, because that's what it's all about.

So it's BS, just not as bad as Barry's, since Arrington certainly left out even that prejudicial caveat.  In comments, he and others seem to recognize the difference that Chesterton seems not to notice, but it's all bluster to begin with, because why should they admit the obvious fact that they wouldn't believe the apple-woman's ghost story either?

Glen Davidson

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

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

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1043
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2012,11:03   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Dec. 28 2012,10:52)
This is probably what caused Barry to use that bit from Chesterton in the first place.

It, however, prefaces its use of Chesterton's tripe with at least some sense, saying, "It’s not entirely fair to the skeptic’s case — it is easier to be fooled by the appearance of a ghost than of a murder — but he makes a good point about the way many skeptic’s weigh testimony."  Really, easier to be fooled by the appearance of a ghost?  Say the right thing, then whine about skeptics anyway, because that's what it's all about.

So it's BS, just not as bad as Barry's, since Arrington certainly left out even that prejudicial caveat.  In comments, he and others seem to recognize the difference that Chesterton seems not to notice, but it's all bluster to begin with, because why should they admit the obvious fact that they wouldn't believe the apple-woman's ghost story either?

Glen Davidson

OK, some of them probably would believe the apple-woman's ghost story, but their heroes, like Dembski and Behe, generally wouldn't.

Barry would just bluster about and curse the skeptics.

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

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

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3992
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2012,11:05   

Hallucinations are interesting. I personally think they fall on a continuum, both in intensity and in causation. We know that drugs and mental illness are associated with hallucinations, but they can also be induced by suggestion.

I was once playing with a new tape recorder and accidentally recorded a friend opening the door and entering the room. Weeks later, having forgotten about the recording, I played it back through headphones.  Hearing the event caused me to see the person, for a second or two, as vividly as if he were there.

So I don't doubt the sanity of people who see ghosts, but   I do question their judgement.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2012,11:19   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Dec. 28 2012,06:11)
Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 28 2012,13:41)
     
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Dec. 28 2012,04:39)
OK, Bazzer, materialists are dogmatists. You win ... something. Not sure what. Now show me a ghost, or a trace that cannot be explained by non-ghost processes.

The topic has coaxed the usual anti-science suspects out of the woodwork. WJM, for example, exhibits his stock-in-trade dogmatic certainty that anyone who disbelieves without proving the negative is dogmatically blind:                  
Quote
It’s fairly obvious that the belief that [gods, afterlives etc] do not exist are rooted in ideological commitment and not reason or evidence-based positions.


An ideological commitment to be skeptical of that which could easily be made-up horseshit? Yeah, OK, you got me.

UD = undoubtedly deluded.


I notice that WJM said "gods".  I wonder how many he believes in? And I hate to think of what his "etc" includes.

to be fair, the expansion in square brackets was mine. It replaced his actual text "such things", alluding to an earlier paragraph:

     
Quote
There is evidence (yes, even scientific) for the existence of god, the supernatural, and the afterlife; there is no evidence (that I’m aware of, that anyone has offered me) that those things do not exist. .  


But yeah, why not - the evidence for God is the evidence for gods. What allows him to pare it down to a singular, I don't know. If there was more than one, you would expect --------. We don't find --------, therefore God.


Well, in that case I would ask, where is the alleged scientific evidence for the existence of god, the supernatural, the afterlife, and such things?

And yeah, what allows him to pare it down to a singular god? After all, if there is no evidence that gobs of gods do not exist, they must all exist, including the FSM!!!111!11!!


Hey wait a second, isn't yhwh alleged to be a three headed god? god, the son, and the holy GHOST?

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Robin



Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2012,11:50   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 28 2012,11:05)
Hallucinations are interesting. I personally think they fall on a continuum, both in intensity and in causation. We know that drugs and mental illness are associated with hallucinations, but they can also be induced by suggestion.

I was once playing with a new tape recorder and accidentally recorded a friend opening the door and entering the room. Weeks later, having forgotten about the recording, I played it back through headphones.  Hearing the event caused me to see the person, for a second or two, as vividly as if he were there.

So I don't doubt the sanity of people who see ghosts, but   I do question their judgement.

I will never forget a very intense hallucination (or at least what I think was an hallucination) I had in a biology class back in college.

I had been up way too late the night before and generally living a bit too much of a party life. That particular day the professor was droning on about carbon chains and I must have dozed off. The thing is, I could still hear him going on and on and the folks next to me writing feverishly. Suddenly it got kind of quiet though, so a perked up to listen to see if he was changing subjects, but I kept my eyes closed. All of a sudden I feel a large 'splat' of some kind of cold, liquidy muck fall onto my neck and shoulders and start to ooze down my collar and spread down my back. At the same time everyone in the room started laughing and I could hear the professor saying something about "that should teach a good lesson" or some such. I was furious and I sat up and opened my eyes to see who'd done the deed. But the moment I opened my eyes, everything was as it was. The professor was still droning on and everyone else in the auditorium was still scribbling away. There was no muck on my neck or shoulders or anywhere else. Very vivid, but very much imagined.

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

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

  
  10669 replies since Aug. 31 2011,21:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (356) < ... 244 245 246 247 248 [249] 250 251 252 253 254 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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