Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > UnReasonable Kansans thread

Pages: (341) < ... 206 207 208 209 210 [211] 212 213 214 215 216 ... >

bystander Posts: 301 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2008,17:12    Question 5 is interesting given ERV and others revealing that Behe didn't even do a basic google search for his latest book.

Annyday Posts: 583 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2008,17:44    Rich? FtK is demanding you buy and read The Irrational Atheist, 'cause you haven't got an informed opinion of the neo-Atheist writers as is. I have to say, in spite of the blog FtK linked that rambles about the book being a point by point refutation of the New Atheist writers without getting into specifics of how, I am skeptical. Specifically, the version of theodicy Rasmussen mentions in his review, which is basically an argument regarding free will, is both tired and badly stated. Also, it parses the definition of "omniscent" stupidly- essentially saying that an omniscient being can choose to not know things, which is a contradiction of terms. As soon as you decide not to know something, you have ceased to be omniscient. You become, instead, potentially omniscient, but not actually so. It's very simple. Since that particular bit of argumentation evidently passes for fresh and new among those pimping the book, I don't have high hopes. Further, Rasmussen's annoyingly whiny and wrong in and of himself, but I shouldn't nitpick. -------------- "ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

Annyday Posts: 583 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2008,18:14    BONUS: On going to recheck, I find Vox Day has been trolling the comments at the review I mentioned. He's being what I might charitably call a pedantic douchebag. I remain low on hope that his arguments are any good. Don't take my word for it, though. Check it out. -------------- "ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2008,21:02    Quote (Annyday @ Jan. 28 2008,18:44) Rich? FtK is demanding you buy and read The Irrational Atheist, 'cause you haven't got an informed opinion of the neo-Atheist writers as is. I have to say, in spite of the blog FtK linked that rambles about the book being a point by point refutation of the New Atheist writers without getting into specifics of how, I am skeptical. Specifically, the version of theodicy Rasmussen mentions in his review, which is basically an argument regarding free will, is both tired and badly stated. Also, it parses the definition of "omniscent" stupidly- essentially saying that an omniscient being can choose to not know things, which is a contradiction of terms. As soon as you decide not to know something, you have ceased to be omniscient. You become, instead, potentially omniscient, but not actually so. It's very simple. Since that particular bit of argumentation evidently passes for fresh and new among those pimping the book, I don't have high hopes. Further, Rasmussen's annoyingly whiny and wrong in and of himself, but I shouldn't nitpick. Wouldn't an omniscient being that is choosing not to know things have to know those things in order to know not to know them? -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2008,22:45    Quote (Annyday @ Jan. 28 2008,16:44) Rich? FtK is demanding you buy and read The Irrational Atheist, 'cause you haven't got an informed opinion of the neo-Atheist writers as is. I have to say, in spite of the blog FtK linked that rambles about the book being a point by point refutation of the New Atheist writers without getting into specifics of how, I am skeptical. Specifically, the version of theodicy Rasmussen mentions in his review, which is basically an argument regarding free will, is both tired and badly stated. Also, it parses the definition of "omniscent" stupidly- essentially saying that an omniscient being can choose to not know things, which is a contradiction of terms. As soon as you decide not to know something, you have ceased to be omniscient. You become, instead, potentially omniscient, but not actually so. It's very simple. Since that particular bit of argumentation evidently passes for fresh and new among those pimping the book, I don't have high hopes. Further, Rasmussen's annoyingly whiny and wrong in and of himself, but I shouldn't nitpick. Ah, Vox Day, the fellow Minnesotan and Southern Baptist former cyberpunk band member and apocalyptic game designer whose father is in prison awaiting trial. Yeah, I'm sure he's real accurate about atheists. The trial of Robert Beale is scheduled to begin March 3, 2008 in Federal court in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Docket entry 273 (Jan. 2, 2008), United States v. Robert B. Beale, just in case you're interested. *yawn* -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2008,22:48    My favorite bit of the omniscience discussion there is the example used to explain how omniscient beings can be non-omniscient. It goes something like this:  a computer programmer... Okay, too easy; he actually goes on, but the rest is just as you might have guessed.  A computer programmer is omniscient with regard to his program.  That's just silly, as it would require a non-omniscient human being to be able to instantaneously know the value of all randomly generated strings in his program at all times. It's amazing to see all the different types of woo that people will shell out money for. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2008,22:57    Quote (blipey @ Jan. 28 2008,21:48) My favorite bit of the omniscience discussion there is the example used to explain how omniscient beings can be non-omniscient. It goes something like this:  a computer programmer... Okay, too easy; he actually goes on, but the rest is just as you might have guessed.  A computer programmer is omniscient with regard to his program.  That's just silly, as it would require a non-omniscient human being to be able to instantaneously know the value of all randomly generated strings in his program at all times. It's amazing to see all the different types of woo that people will shell out money for. I don't believe any creator of anything is omniscient with regard to what s/he creates. Once you create it, it has a "life" of its own in how others react to it. But anyway, in case Vox Day or anyone thinks they know us Minnesotans, atheist or not: Dun-dun-dun! Republican, too. Funny, that. It should be interesting. -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Annyday Posts: 583 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2008,00:46    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 28 2008,21:02)   Quote (Annyday @ Jan. 28 2008,18:44) Rich? FtK is demanding you buy and read The Irrational Atheist, 'cause you haven't got an informed opinion of the neo-Atheist writers as is. I have to say, in spite of the blog FtK linked that rambles about the book being a point by point refutation of the New Atheist writers without getting into specifics of how, I am skeptical. Specifically, the version of theodicy Rasmussen mentions in his review, which is basically an argument regarding free will, is both tired and badly stated. Also, it parses the definition of "omniscent" stupidly- essentially saying that an omniscient being can choose to not know things, which is a contradiction of terms. As soon as you decide not to know something, you have ceased to be omniscient. You become, instead, potentially omniscient, but not actually so. It's very simple. Since that particular bit of argumentation evidently passes for fresh and new among those pimping the book, I don't have high hopes. Further, Rasmussen's annoyingly whiny and wrong in and of himself, but I shouldn't nitpick. Wouldn't an omniscient being that is choosing not to know things have to know those things in order to know not to know them? He'd have to first know them, since he was once omniscient, and then willfully un-know them, at which point (I know, this assumes time, but hey) he ceases to be omniscient. If you twist the logic enough, it might absolve him of responsibility for the world. Much like closing your eyes before you pull a trigger, or just shooting blind, could be said to do the same. I mean, if he was once even a little omniscient, he knew exactly - as in, precisely, to the atom - the damage he would do upon suspending his omniscience. It would be kind of like a theological version of Memento, if you think about it. Look, it makes more sense than "God knows everything but also doesn't, because knowing everything is boring". Technically you can also have a logically consistent God who isn't truly omniscient at any point ("definitely didn't see that coming"), or a God who's omniscient but not omnipotent ("I did my best!"), or a God who's a bit of a jerk by our standards, usually for entirely 'mysterious' reasons or for our own good (my personal favorite). It's just that Vox's version tortures the word "omniscient" too much. That's the real problem here. Please, think of the word. -------------- "ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

Annyday Posts: 583 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2008,02:06    Oh, I figured out how Vox netted the positive blog review from an atheist. He used his WorldNetDaily libertarian/conservative clout. That also explains why the reviewer had a long, whiny preamble about being a bunch of things, including his political affiliation, before an atheist. I guess he showed the jerks who had the audacity to be politically atheistic, whoever the hell they were. Vox has also got an interview up on WND that's too bad to be funny right now. I think the part about Dawkins wanting to be a scientist-king gave away Vox's Coulteresque strategy of ignoring reality completely. You can say a lot of negative things legitimately about Dawkins. His writing style gives me killer headaches, his understanding of psychology is shallow, and his philosophical points are muddled, for starters. Scientist-kings, though, by analogue of Plato's uberfascist philosopher-kings? No. Come on. -------------- "ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2008,04:03    Since I haven't read the book I can't say what it contains. If it's the usual Vox Dayisms it will be hilariously whacky and mostly missing the point, containing occasional nuggets of something sensible and his standard twisty crap, but like I said, I haven't read it, I might be surprised. Also, one doesn't have to pay for it. Vox Day is offering the PDF for free download on his website next week (IIRC). I'm not sure I want to download it because I don't want to add to the hype Vox Day is trying to generate to serve his desire for self aggrandisation, however, I can't criticise it or enjoy it or be persuaded by it or tear it to shreds without actually going ahead and reading it. I'm damned sure I prefer adding one click to Vox Day's clickometer to forking out cash that actually will end up in Vox's pocket. If it's a significant book containing significant arguments then I hope it does well (and that Dawkins, Dennett, Harris et al will learn from it/rebut it/read it etc). If it ain't, then I hope it don't! Fair enough? Louis -------------- Bye.

Annyday Posts: 583 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2008,04:52    Normally it takes weeks or months to get free ebooks, and it's mildly difficult and illegal. I think Vox deserves a hat tip for saving everyone who thinks his book is worth perusing but not buying some trouble. I still think it'll suck, though. In fairness, I believe he's smart enough and a good enough writer to cannibalize the internecine fights of the past few years in atheism for material. It might be a decent compendium, in that respect. I just doubt he'll have any originality, if indications do not lie. -------------- "ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 29 2008,07:05    Annyday are you saying that Teh Fall Falled God?  That's wild.  That should be exported directly to the head of a fundie and I think I know which one. I once heard someone say that you can get out of this triune trap if you are prepared to deny one of the following:  omniscience, omnipotence, omniprosence.  Any one will leverage you to retain the other two. PTET how-dy.  I personally thought myself that the argument regarding did jesus pleasure himself was the strongest. 1:  If Jesus took himself in hand, was he really sinless?  We know that it's bad to punch the monk, Onan told us so.  Less clear is the ramifications for not getting it on the ground...  perhaps the legalists let us know.  FtK? 2:  If Jesus NEVER took himself in hand, was he really human?  Are you trying to tell me he was a virgin his entire life and God too and did not ever jerk off? Something ain't right here.  Seems like if you want fully human and fully god, it comes down to you being allowed to jerk off sinlessly, since any other situation would either deny that Jesus was God (therefore acting not as his agent but as his direct will) or that Jesus was not really human (robot Jesus would not have the same value as the sacrifice as His Only Begotten Son, Born of A Virgin (Who Under Some Definitions Of The Word, Was Raped By The Holy Spirit Without Consent, Only A Brief Memo). FtK how does your congregation handle this Eurythrotic Dilemma?  It seems like fertile ground for deep theological schismismus. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2008,16:37    Get ready for your For The kids goodness! FtK is upset the Simmons / PZ debate went badly. She wants some Luskining, post haste: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-167586   Quote 13 FtK 01/31/2008 5:22 pm Just a suggestion… What you guys might want to consider doing is address any of debate topics discussed that might have been perceived as being “won” by PZ. I think that is something that might be helpful to lurkers who may have listened to the debate and are curious about what additional information Simmons could have brought to the table. My goodness. Of course, if PZ was truthful, how would one address these debate topics, one wonders? What do you think FtK? Do PZ's lies need rebutting? http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-167591   Quote 15 FtK 01/31/2008 5:28 pm *of [the] debate…typo queen.* BTW, I’ve not listened to the debate yet…probably will. But, after reading this thread, it appears that I can look forward to becoming phyically ill afterward. Don't let the facts, or even not being there stop you from passing judgement. ODIOUS. Edit? Yes! -------------- "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

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 31 2008,17:49    perhaps she meant 'psychically' ill. either way she can't spell.   FtK you are dumb. Did JEsus whack off or not? -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,07:29    FTK Writes:       Quote FtK 01/31/2008 5:22 pm Just a suggestion… What you guys might want to consider doing is address any of debate topics discussed that might have been perceived as being “won” by PZ. I think that is something that might be helpful to lurkers who may have listened to the debate and are curious about what additional information Simmons could have brought to the table. FTK, do you think that is likely to happen now that the entire thread has been uncreated? FTK, don't you find it ironic that the only person to ever delete any of your posts here is yourself, and yet at UD they'll delete it for you wholesale? And you wonder why people say that ID can't deal with the hard facts of reality. If you can pretend it don't exist, why, it's stopped existing. Well, apart from here where there is a copy of the entire thread. FTK, do you still think that darwinists are censoring ID ideas? As it appears to me that nobody is preventing ID'ers presenting their IDeas apart from other ID'ers! Why delete the thread? Why not deal with the points raised? It's the intellectual equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and going "nah nah nah, can't hear you". Mind, as ID has no actual "science" it's to be expected I suppose. Is deleting the thread helpful to the "lurkers" then? Or not? And FTK, nobody perceived that PZ "won". They perceived that he won. No qualifiers needed. He won, Simmons lost. He didn't "lose" he lost. At least you have the honestly to admit that PZ won the debate, "won" or otherwise. Still, in your tiny little world, PZ both "won" and "lost" at the same time right? I mean science might change next week and find that he in fact "lost" right? Same evidence, different interpretations right? hahahaha. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

J-Dog Posts: 4402 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,09:34    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 31 2008,17:49) perhaps she meant 'psychically' ill. either way she can't spell.   FtK you are dumb. Did JEsus whack off or not? Erasmus: FTK came to me in a vision last night and asked me to send this to you: You are soooo mean.  Almost as mean as Louis.  You are going to rot in hell, because Jesus never wacked off.  Jesus is Lord, so when ever he felt the urge, he just worked his Godly Magic and beatches were all over that Mr. Jesus Thang.  He could get BJ's like whenever he wanted.   Don't you remember that smile on his face in the Last Supper picture that someone took?  His wasn't the ONLY "last supper", if you know what I mean.  Rumor has it that Mary Mags was down there finishing up a Jesus Dog. Any way, FTK says "And that's why the Big J never wacked off". Praise Jesus, Amen. XOXO -------------- Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10 Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08 UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,13:30    In a new post at UnreasonableKansans, FtK links to some bozo who tells us how to "falsify intelligent design".   Quote Demonstrate that living organisms can arise from non-living matter via purely non-telic processes. Provide the scientific data which shows the transformations required can be accounted for by accumulating mutations. Here is an easy one- tell me the specific methodology used to determine that the universe and life arose via non-telic processes. Do those and not only will you shut me up but you would also receive a Nobel Prize! And you will have falsified ID. Per usual, these fail to impress. But since commenting on her blog fails in lots of other ways, let's take a whack at them here. 1 - Even if you could "demonstrate that living organisms can arise from non-living matter via purely non-telic processes", it would not falsify ID. All that ID says is that we can detect design in nature. In its strictest form, there is no teleology; it merely stipulates that an unknown designer, acting at an unknown time, and using unknown materials and processes, designed something, and that we can find the designer's fingerprints if we look hard enough. So if you can generate living organisms from non-living matter, all you have done is replicate the ability of the designer to design life. How does that falsify ID? If you demonstrate that this happened in nature, it still does not mean that the designer didn't design all the stuff we see around us; it just means that there might be more than one way to get living organisms. In other words, this would also not falsify ID; some IDiot could (and would) still claim that the original premise of ID (unknown designer, unknown time, unknown materials and processes) designed at least some of the life we see. 2 - "Provide the scientific data which shows the transformations required can be accounted for by accumulating mutations." Pretty vague ("required" for what?), but again not a falsification of the stated premise of ID. As in the example above, this would, at best, demonstrate that there is more than one way to get to where we are. It would still be possible for the IDiots to argue, as above, that their vague notion of design still was operative. 3 - Finally, "tell me the specific methodology used to determine that the universe and life arose via non-telic processes", fails for the same reasons. Teleology is NOT part of the basic premise of ID; in order to understand the purpose of the designer you would actually have to be thinking about characteristics of the designer. And that is an automatic no-no for ID. So proving "non-telic" origins is not a disproof of ID; it would be a disproof of Christian creation myths, however. That latter descriptor actually applies to number 1 as well. These are NOT disproofs of ID, but disproofs of creationism. But we all know that ID is not the same as creationism... So, FtK, feel free to pass those criticisms along to Joe G on his blog. Or send him the link here, and we'll see if he is willing to play at a venue not controlled by bullies and blowhards. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 01 2008,13:38    "Falsify." They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means. Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Feb. 01 2008,13:39 -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,00:36    Oh, she links to Joe Gallien's blog.  He's a crazy man.  He has a thread dedicated to him here at AtBC--been inactive for a while, because he's actually too crazy to follow for more than a week or so at a time.  At that point, anyone mining the JoeG Crazy has to detox for a month. Joe's 4, or so, points (which he repeats endlessly): 1.  A complete misunderstanding of nested hierarchies.  He is of he opinion that a paternal family tree is not an example of a nested hierarchy. 2.  The belief that the word supernatural does not mean some thing that is beyond nature 3.  That he has bested numerous scientists in one on one debate, in their area of expertise no less. 4.  That the EF and CSI have been rigorously calculated and used in literally hundreds of instances, by dozens of people.  He, of course, fails to provide any links or citations when asked about this point. I'm pretty sure Ftk think he's a genius.  He might be, he is a refrigerator repair man. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,01:18    I see she's just started reading that book she recomended. "It's a really good book! (I Hope)" -------------- "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

Annyday Posts: 583 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,06:09    Oh man. I'm reading Vox's book. I am considering doing a shot every time he says "churlish", "snake-oil salesman" or similar for nothing but rhetorical effect. If current trends continue, I'd be fucked in half within fifteen pages. -------------- "ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,07:57    Quote (Annyday @ Feb. 02 2008,06:09) If current trends continue, I'd be fucked in half within fifteen pages. ROTFLMAO.... -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,08:25    O FTK, did he or didn't he? My salvation depends on it. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,08:34    FtK: Do you actually read anything on JoeG's bog?  Or do you link to it merely because he supports the good guys? -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,08:37    Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 02 2008,01:18) I see she's just started reading that book she recomended. "It's a really good book! (I Hope)" Considering her stance on Behe being able to evaluate work that he's never read (Doesn't have to read it to know that it's wrong.), this makes perfect sense. And since Vox is on the correct side, she won't even be disappointed.  If she reads it and doesn't really like it, or can't quite make it through, or finds it a little dull or unconvincing?  No problem! By the end of the book (or wherever she puts it down), she'll have convinced herself that it's the best book ever. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Annyday Posts: 583 Joined: Nov. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,09:40    I have to ask, has FtK read any neo-atheism? Seeing as the entirety of The Irrational Atheist seems to be an often point-for-point commentary on a small cluster of books, I have to wonder if it makes any sense to someone who hasn't read them. For instance, I haven't read Harris and am unlikely ever to, and the segments on Harris are unmitigatedly irrelevant, bordering on indecipherable, to me. Basically, it reads like a pedantic copy editor wrote all of this in a bad mood while referring directly to a few cutouts from "new atheist" books. I find myself repeatedly wondering what, precisely, Vox is getting at. "Scattershot" might be a good adjective for it. "Chewbacca defense" is another. -------------- "ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,09:49    And yet, Ftk will undoubtedly endorse this book again (you know, a second endorsement after actually skimming a couple of chapters) in a week or two.  There will be something about Vox really sticking it to those mean atheists.  My favorite part will be the multitude of links to those atheists being refuted offered up with no commentary.  Still, it'll be quite a nicely written review considering almost none of the subject matter will have been read and comprehended. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

Ftk Posts: 2239 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,09:55    Dude, the whole book is about taking down the Unholy Trinity...so yeah, if you're unfamiliar with their books perhaps you might have trouble following along.  Though I have no idea why.  He explains their views quiet thoroughly. I've read Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation...actually own that one (yeah, I put money in the pocket of Harris...ugh). I've read most of The God Delusion on my trips to Barnes and Noble.  Unfortunately, I can spend hours in that store.   I don't think I've read any of Dennett's books, though I've certainly read a lot about them. Haven't read God is Not Great yet, but I paged through it last week at Barnes and Nobel when I was reading "Your Inner Fish".   Honestly, when I read Harris's book, I giggled throughout.  I knew someone would beat that boy over the head with a Bible...he's clueless.  He's under the delusion that those who read his book are going to close it before they finish in fear that they will lose their faith.   News flash for the 'ol boy...that might possibly be true if the reader had nothing other than a junvenile Sunday School knowledge of scripture.  But, anyone who's spent any length of time in adult Bible study and apologetics would merely brush him aside as having nothing other than a grudge against religion in general.  He's certainly not a threat to the faith. -------------- "Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

Steverino Posts: 411 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,10:10    Any one who has spent that much time in Bible study, has shit for brains. -------------- - Born right the first time. - Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers. - It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 02 2008,10:16    Quote (Ftk @ Feb. 02 2008,09:55) But, anyone who's spent any length of time in adult Bible study and apologetics would merely brush him aside as having nothing other than a grudge against religion in general.  He's certainly not a threat to the faith. As it's been proven that facts are also not a threat to you, that's perhaps not surprising to hear. Interesting how you say "the" faith. Like there is a single one. Perhaps not a threat to your faith. Nothing that does not fall from the lips of Behe et al is not even worth purchasing? Reading a book at the bookstore? Weird. Of the people you link to at your site FTK, would it affect you at all if one of them turned out to be running a long-standing hoax? Would you perhaps then stop and question some of the stuff you promote (Walt?). -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Pages: (341) < ... 206 207 208 209 210 [211] 212 213 214 215 216 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard