Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[CapnFungi]

As I say, you are a breeze to answer but it still takes up too much time of real life. It has been fun and I hope I have helped you in some small way. No hard feelings.



sounds like a cop out! don't quit so soon Dave, after all, you are right aren't you? LoL

 

[Corky the Cat]

D the Atheist said:

(See above post by drbrumly as a fine example of rhetorical nonsense)

"Here here," from the gallery!

When will these people learn that free thinkers are immune to such nonsensical voodoo?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by ex_fundy
Is that gonna affect me negatively too? I mean, I said the sinners prayer, was baptized, santified, redeemed by the blood, will I still get into heaven?

I don't know.

Or is salavation based on "right doctrine" and since I no longer hold it, I'm out in the cold?

Do you believe Christ died for your sins?

At what age?

Thirty -- about three years ago.

After acquiring what level of science training?

Formally, only what I learned in high school. I'm mostly self-taught. I'm not claiming to be a scientist, although I do have an understanding of science.

You really should read up on your logical fallacies.

I'm aware of the logical fallacies.

It's not an appeal to authority fallacy when you are referring to someone that is "really" an authority.

Who determines whether or not someone is 'really' an authority?

Bob is hardly an authority on the use of probability.

I never said he was. I just said he obviously knows his math better than Zeno did, as the model he presented wasn't mathematically flawed. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for Dave.

One more non-answer. Jack, if you are ignorant of Islam then admit it. If not, tell everyone why you rejected it.

I reject it because it's obviously false, which I've already said. Why have you rejected it? For much the same reasons, I'd imagine.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by D the Atheist
Jack dear fellow,

I really have been answering you just to show others how easy (Unbelievably easy) that process can be accomplished.

What answers have you given?

You are little different from many fundamentalists I have come across in life and maybe one day you will look back on your writings and see the dubious methods you employ.

I'm not the one employing dubious methods here. You've tried to use the old bait and switch in virtually every post you've made in this thread. Of course, I realize that you probably took it as some sort of challenge when I told you that I wasn't going to be fooled by that.

You duck and weave and select that which you wish to answer and highlight that which is unimportant and give the general uniformed reader the idea that you are valiantly defending a god’s word and science all in one.

The reader can go back and read the original post I'm referring to and see for themselves what I've decided not to address. In just about every case, it's either an insult that I chose not to reply to, or it's irrelevant given my answer to the question.

Many brainwashed people are unaware of the principle that any argument, no matter how good, can be met with a counter argument, if psychology instead of credible reasoning is employed.

That doesn't mean the counter arguments are valid.

That is one of the wonders of scientific method. It gets rid of the trash.

And one of these days it'll get rid of evolution, which is scientifically unsupported. Of course, some people will still continue to believe in it, because they haven't seen the logical alternative.

And it is the real reason the Creation Science movement (Evolutionary Denial as it is better described) publishes nought in reputable scientific journals.

The real reason creationist articles aren't published in 'reputable' scientific journals is because these journals refuse to publish them. They don't want the embarassment of being shown to be wrong.

By the way. You say I am calling to authority when I praise scientific method.

Here you're trying to pull the old bait and switch again. That's not what I said.

If you really understood scientific method, as apparently you do not, you would never have said that.

Why haven't you included my quote? I haven't said anything against the scientific method, and you know it.

There is no better way to discover the workings of nature that comes anywhere near it.

I'll agree with that. You've tried to set up a strawman.

I will comment on the ridiculous statement that I do not understand General Relativity as well as yourself because of the problem for the Creation Science Movement in that the stars (And that is most of them) are at a greater than 6 or 7 thousand light years distance. Light travels at the speed of light (Duh!) from any given standpoint in the known Universe. General Relativity, as the word implies is used in reference to this fact concerning bodies/particles in motion, especially when influenced by gravity.

It also has to do with time. Different clocks run at different rates in different parts of the universe. Are you aware of that?

Most of the stars in the Universe are many thousands up to billions of light years away. Mainstream science, using scientific method is in complete agreement about this point.

And I'm not disagreeing with it.

In fact, the latest calculation makes the furtherest star/galaxy/proto-galaxy at around 12 billion light years. That is 12 billion earth years the light has been travelling to get to Earth

From the point of reference of those stars. You might want to check out Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe by D. Russell Humphreys.

which makes the beginning of its journey many billions of years before our own Sun kicked into ignition.

This is the only part of your statement that I'm denying.

Anyway, I have shown you are just an intellectual puppy and I hope others take note.

You've shown nothing of the sort.

You will carry on and on thinking that you must be right no-matter what the evidence is in opposition.

I haven't seen any yet.

You have made this your life plan and have staked everything on it.

I'm staking everything on the belief that Jesus Christ died for my sins, although I will continue to fight the false teachings of evolution until my dying day.

Sorry, but the all important evidence states very strongly that you have picked the wrong horse.

What evidence would that be?

You have only one life and that is here and now and I suggest you live it with that in mind.

Frankly, I don't care for your suggestion, as I have something else in mind.

Instead of promoting division in humanity by heroic support of your particular religion you may one day find that we are all in the same boat heading for total annihilation.

Jesus said He came to bring division. He was right.

 

[Heino]

Originally posted by ex_fundy
OEJ tends to make those sort of comments.

So they say!

 

[Heino]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I didn't say no evidence -- I said no empirical evidence. And there isn't any.

The comparison of the genes of different species, and the identification of similar sequences within them is not empirical? A great deal has been learned from the study and comparison of genes, and it makes a lot of sense when you understand the evolutionary model. For example, why would the sequences of monkeys and apes be so similar to humans, if there was not a genetic link?

Perhaps the greatest evidence is the fossil record, with especially the human ancestors. I have read a lot of literature where creationists have attempted to claim that "australopithicines were just chimps", I believe the man's name was Zimmer or Zimmermann. He never examined the bones, or even looked at photographs of them. All he did was read about Leaky's find, and make a pronouncement, based on nothing. When you see the bones yourself, it is obvious that the australopithicus was not a chimp. It was too human-like. Yet, creationists still quote Zimmer (Zimmermann?) as though he performed a throurough analysis.

Yes, I probably did say that, but we're not talking about empirical evidence here. We're simply talking about data that's interpreted as evidence.

Yes. Empirical is what you can see and what you can experiment on. I deal with it every day. Much empirical evidence is secondary or inferred. I do not need to observe a house fire in progress to conclude that a house burned down. The smoked remainder of a house provides an inference as to how it got that way. When fire marshalls investigate housefires, they do not get a chance to see what started the fire, but can determine the cause by looking for other clues that infer it.

In my job, I do not see mutations happen, nor do I see cells dividing. I infer these things by observing the after-effects of the tests I run. When a cell-culture is larger than it's previous recorded observation, it is inferred that it growed. When a specific mutation follows a specific gene-splice, and can be repeated, it is inferred that the specific splice caused the specific mutation, even though we do not directly observe every single cell in the process of forming.

Empirical evidence does not have to be directly observed happening, in other words. We do not have to observe homo erectus mutating generation by generation to see that it was related to us. It's skeletal structure is evidence of it's closeness.

Why not? You can't decode a genome without believing in evolution?

Sure we can. I do not ponder evolutionary theory on a daily basis (well, not before I was invited to this forum). What I meaned to say was that the evolution model more accurately describes and predicts what I see every day in the lab. What I have learned about my profession, and about science in general, makes far more sense. In other words, evolution seems to describe the reality that we see, and rather well, since it is a good predictor.

Does the creation model accurately describe reality, and does it predict genetic observations?

We don't have to discard or ignore any of it, for one thing. All the data fits into the big picture under the creation model (I'm using the term 'model' broadly here, as you appear to be doing, since there are a variety of creation and evoution models).

I am only aware of one evolutionary model. It is the basis for the science of genetics -- that genes are passed down, that mutations cause changes in genes, and that generations of mutation and passing down of genes results in greater genetic drift within a population. There have been many additions and changes in the overall evolution model -- the model has been built up over many years, as new discoveries and experimentation revealed new facts.

I am very much aware of many creation models. Each religion has it's own, and within Christianity (I was born and raised a Lutherin), each sect seems to have a different version. I am not aware of creation models that have been useful to any field of science, however. I am also aware that things predicted by some Christian creation models, have not proven true.

 

[Heino]

Ooops! I am sorry. during a network slow-down, I must have clicked the button too many times while being impatient! Please delete the multiple copies of my last post! I was unable to.

 

[Heino]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ark Capacity

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ark Capacity

Originally posted by ex_fundy
You don't need to be afraid. As one who's already been freed from the mind prison of fundamentalism I can assure you it's a big beautiful world out here.

You said it!

One of the comments that troubles me the most is when the fundamentalists, as you say, tell us that evolution takes away from the beauty and awe of "God's work". This is ridiculous to say, because I see great beauty and awe in nature, with or without a God. Evolution does not destroy the beauty of nature, and it does not detract from it's ability to make you feel small.

Why don't you simply show me one of your YE creationist sites with some construction drawings for an ark that shows the location of the animal pens and the food storage lockers (with dimensions of course)? That would at least give me something to work with. That should be an easy project for any modern YE architectural Engineer to produce.

I think we are beating the dead horse here. The feasability of Noah's ark is a trivial issue. Unless Jack is bases his entire argument on the feasability of the measurement of the Biblical ark, we are arguing trivia.

 

[Heino]

Originally posted by ex_fundy
You live in the famous "Bible Belt" of the "Christian Nation" (according to most Fundamentalists) known as the United States of America. Our coinage says "In God We Trust", there are Christian churches on every other corner of most towns, the Christian book/television/music industry is monumental, the non-Christian music industry (e.g. country) frequently makes reference to God, 46% of Americans claim a "born again" experience, another 40% have some association with a branch of Christianity, you probably were love bombed by some Christians at an early age, etc., etc.

Well explained. I also find it hard to swallow, when someone tells me how "America has strayed from God..." America is simply the most religious Christian nation I have been to, outside of Brazil and the Phillipines, where people still nail themselves to crosses to celebrate the death of Jesus on the cross. It is extraordinary devotion, indeed.

America is a very religious country. Christian symbols, biblical references, and religious language are heard everywhere, even in places where we usually do not expect religious people to be dominant. I am amazed how Catholics can hang on to their faith in the midst of the sexual abuse scandals. I am amazed at how people hanged on to their faith when Jim and Tammy Baker fell. Most importantly, I am amazed at how people still reguard Jerry Falwell in high reguard after he insulted poor Twinky-winky

America is more religious now than ever before in history. This is good on many levels, but like everything good, there is a dark side. A Phenomenon like what Martin Luther condemned the Catholic Church for, is happening in American protestant groups. Luther condemned the selling of indulgences, but I think that many churches in America today are doing just that when they sell records, videos, trinkets, books, and other things. Many protestant sects are commercializing the faith, and that is a bad thing.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Heino
The comparison of the genes of different species, and the identification of similar sequences within them is not empirical?

Nope.

A great deal has been learned from the study and comparison of genes, and it makes a lot of sense when you understand the evolutionary model. For example, why would the sequences of monkeys and apes be so similar to humans, if there was not a genetic link?

Because their bodies perform similar functions to ours. It makes sense that their genes would be similar, yet substantially different.

Perhaps the greatest evidence is the fossil record, with especially the human ancestors.

Oh please. Everytime they find something new, they rewrite the whole thing.

I have read a lot of literature where creationists have attempted to claim that "australopithicines were just chimps", I believe the man's name was Zimmer or Zimmermann. He never examined the bones, or even looked at photographs of them. All he did was read about Leaky's find, and make a pronouncement, based on nothing.

Where did you hear this?

When you see the bones yourself, it is obvious that the australopithicus was not a chimp.

I've seen the bones. It looks like an ape to me.

It was too human-like.

It's no more human-like than any other ape.

Yes. Empirical is what you can see and what you can experiment on. I deal with it every day. Much empirical evidence is secondary or inferred.

Then it's not empirical.

Empirical evidence does not have to be directly observed happening, in other words.

It might not have to be observed, but it does have to be observable.

Sure we can. I do not ponder evolutionary theory on a daily basis (well, not before I was invited to this forum). What I meaned to say was that the evolution model more accurately describes and predicts what I see every day in the lab.

The creation model can do the same thing.

Does the creation model accurately describe reality, and does it predict genetic observations?

Of course.

I am only aware of one evolutionary model.

Really? So I guess you don't see (or even know) the difference between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium?

It is the basis for the science of genetics -- that genes are passed down, that mutations cause changes in genes, and that generations of mutation and passing down of genes results in greater genetic drift within a population.

Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, was a creationist.

I am very much aware of many creation models. Each religion has it's own, and within Christianity (I was born and raised a Lutherin), each sect seems to have a different version.

Really? I wasn't aware that any particular model belonged to any particular sect. What exactly does the Lutheran model say?

I am not aware of creation models that have been useful to any field of science, however. I am also aware that things predicted by some Christian creation models, have not proven true.

Are you aware of any that have been proven false?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Heino
Ooops! I am sorry. during a network slow-down, I must have clicked the button too many times while being impatient! Please delete the multiple copies of my last post! I was unable to.

Done.

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack Do you believe Christ died for your sins?

What if I say "yes", but Jesus was only a man and not deity. Is that sufficient correct doctrine to get in? Or is there a longer list of "right" doctrines that one must mentally agree with (regardless of their lifes actions)?

Thirty -- about three years ago.

And now you have absolute certitude that your interpretation of Genesis 6-9 is correct and Christians (some recognized Hebrew scholars) that disagree with you are wrong?

Who determines whether or not someone is 'really' an authority?

Having a degree (preferrably advanced) in the field of question helps. Actually working in the field of question helps. Being recognized by others working in the field as knowledgeable helps.

I reject it because it's obviously false, which I've already said. Why have you rejected it? For much the same reasons, I'd imagine.

I reject Islam for the same reasons that I reject fundamentlist Christianity (i.e. realization that is was formulated by primitive superstitious people and that it evolved over time according to the influences of the politically powerful).

 

[Stratnerd]

The creation model can do the same thing.

From a functional standpoint there is no creationist model simply because we don't know, a priori, how God might go about poofing this and that into existence. If you use what we see today then you'll only come up with circular arguments and there's no way to test these things since God is apparently done creating.

From a historical standpoint there are creationists models; these hypothesize organisms to be relatively recent, a huge flood reducing all terrestrial organisms to a handful, a single point of origin after the flood, and a creation of a kind.

Of course, all of this talk is pointless. Creationists don't do science and can't do science for the primary reason that any amount of falsification will not lead to a change in their paradigm which is taken as unaltering unchanging Truth.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I've never denied science, and you know it. In fact, I use scientific evidence in my arguments.

Sorry, but that is one thing you most certainly do NOT do. Just what do you think "scientific" evidence means?

Hint: it most certainly is NOT desperately sifting through the available observations for scraps that can be interpreted as somehow supporting your preconceived notions.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
As long as you're dealing with numbers, no matter how small or how large, the difference is always going to be finite.

Not to encourage the further drift of this thread into meaningless areas (of course, it's too late to stop it from going there already), but even a "zero probability" does not mean that the event in question is impossible.

The classic example is a circle with a line tangent to it at a point selected at random. What are the odds that the line will contact the circle at any given point? Since the number of points in a circle are infinite, the probability of the line falling on any particular one of them is 1/(infinity), which is zero. And yet the line MUST contact ONE of them if it is tangent.

 

[ex_fundy]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack You might want to check out Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe by D. Russell Humphreys.

This has already been discredited by none other than another Christian creationist
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/unravelling.shtml?main

How many Astrophysicists have supported Dr. Humphreys work? Have his ideas ever faced the scrutiny of a peer reviewed journal? Certainly such a landmark breakthrough would cause a stir in the secular astrophysics community, has this occurred?

I'd imagine that you believe it simply because it agrees with your worldview, not because you have compared it's scientific merits to other theories.

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
We were discussing mathematical models. Bob Enyart is certainly qualified to present one.

I'm sorry, but exactly how is Bob Enyart "qualified to present" a mathematical model? By virtue of having formerly been involved with computer programming to some degree? Nonsense - as has already been noted by others, there are many "computer programmers" who have at best a layman's grasp of mathematics, if that. If all that is required to be "qualified to present a mathmematical model" is professional programming experience, then I'm at least as qualified as Enyart is - and I will tell you right now that EVERY mathematical argument he has presented so far is absolute nonsense.

And since I AM just as qualified an expert in this field as Enyart, I will have to assume that you will immediately accept this statement as being completely correct. I'm certainly glad I could clear that one up for you...

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by drbrumley
There is no such thing as an atheist because no human being knows everything and has all knowledge as we've seen above. Neither can any person be everywhere at the same time. For a person to be able to confidently say, "There is no God," he'd have to know EVERYTHING that existed EVERYWHERE--and no human being fits that bill. There is no atheist. At the very BEST a person can say, "I'm agnostic" although this is not true either...

As was pointed out earlier, this is a very old and well-known flawed argument. You can substitute "Vishnu", "Zeus", "Jupiter" or even "Santa Claus" for "God" in the above, and the logical form remains the same - in short, this form of argument could be used (if it were valid) to "prove" that there's no such thing as disbelief in ANYTHING. But since THAT would then lead to a requirement that we believe in contradictory things (e.g., you cannot disbelieve in God, AND you cannot disbelieve in Vishnu, therefore you have be a believer in both), the argument is clearly flawed.

Why do people keep posting such nonsense, believing it to be either novel or conclusive?

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

Formally, only what I learned in high school. I'm mostly self-taught. I'm not claiming to be a scientist, although I do have an understanding of science.

Then please, if you will, answer the following very simple question:

What is "science"?

 

[bmyers]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
The real reason creationist articles aren't published in 'reputable' scientific journals is because these journals refuse to publish them. They don't want the embarassment of being shown to be wrong.

Reputable journals publish articles which challenge the "established" model of thought all the time - so apparently this is not the reason that "creationist" articles are not published. I submit that a more likely reason is that these articles simply fail to meet the test of being scientific in nature. Assuming you know what "scientific" means, can you provide evidence to the contrary?

It also has to do with time. Different clocks run at different rates in different parts of the universe. Are you aware of that?

I'm curious - which "different parts of the universe" have you been to, such that you have observed this? Or - if neither you nor anyone else HAS observed it, then why do you believe it to be true?