resplendent illumination
Offline
Katherine1
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:07:07 +0000
[Ikoshama]
The big bang took a few billion years to make galaxies and such?
Lord Setar
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:08:54 +0000
Dodge Beast
Hello, Setar.
Darned if I didn’t fall for it, but when I first presented my original comment, I had specified that I didn’t wish to be drawn into a debate regarding evolution.
Then why are you in ED?
However, I have to admit that I had slipped into “debate mode” (and you’re welcome to disagree as to the veracity of my debate skills; it still doesn’t change the fact that my initial statement still stands regarding your friend’s ‘version’ of Mr. Hovind’s statement was in fact, misconstrued if not outright false.).
Whether or not you or any of your friends agrees with me, I am indifferent.
That's fine. I don't really care myself.
Dodge Beast
To succumb to debate, I have left meself open for contradiction in that I am questioning your right to believe as you wish, and I don’t feel I have that right. You (and your other chum) have, however, overlooked my intent and chose to openly refute my right to believe as I wish, and completely ignored my peaceful intent.
No, you're whining because you've been refuted throughly and you don't like having your worldview shattered in the face of evidence. You can believe what you want, just please, don't go stating that something is science without providing some evidence to back it.
Dodge Beast
In truth, you have only lent substance to the fact that most of your ilk aren’t interested in peaceful intent, as it serves your purpose much better to aggregate and berate others who believe differently than you.
Our problem is not that you believe what you believe.
One of our problems is that you are attempting to state that something is science without showing how it is science. Another is how you are attempting to utilize guilt by association and appeal to consequences in an attempt to take a moral high ground when there is none to be taken. A third is your sheer misconceptions and misinterpretation with regards to evolution, abiogenesis, the Big Bang, and many other things.
Dodge Beast
I have stated, that folks who consider themselves to be classed as “freethinkers” and “open-minded” are most often anything but. You are welcome to continue seeing anyone who doesn’t agree with you completely as inferior, I know this suits your liking and helps you to feel as though you are the one who is the more “accepting”, and thus, you are the one who has the open mind. After all, your lot seems to believe that everything is alright, as long as it doesn’t require you to accept that some people are old-fashioned in their belief, as I am certain you’d view it. Again, in this, you are welcome.
No, you're deluding yourself and attempting to grasp at straws to support your own worldview, making ad hominem attacks against us in your mind in an attempt to discredit us and give yourself an out to ignore the points we've raised against you. Being open-minded does not mean accepting everything without question - that's being stupid. I for one would be more than happy to see some evidence of Creationism, and I'm simply asking you for it and questioning you about it, as well as getting annoyed at your awful Micheal Moore impression.
Dodge Beast
Originally, when I saw the response offered by Setar, I almost fell back into debate, assembling articles, and gearing for the possibility that another would soon join the “fray” there are, after all, how many of you in your group..? I do not wish to consume my day in babysitting a post to defend a comment I had made…I really have more engaging things to do.
Then I considered what I had originally stated; that I am not interested in a long-winded debate. You see, I may not agree with you, but I do believe you have the right to feel and believe as you do.
Then I considered what I had originally stated; that I am not interested in a long-winded debate. You see, I may not agree with you, but I do believe you have the right to feel and believe as you do.
I restate: if you do not wish to debate, please feel free to post in another forum.
Dodge Beast
Like it or don’t, I also possess the same rights as you. You won’t be likely to change my belief, and I really don’t care if I change yours…after all, that’s not what I am here to do. You, on the other hand, have your motivations, I am certain…and you are unconstrained to keep them.
I will have you know that if you were attempting to insult me, you have succeeded. Of course, you probably have nothing other than your delusions about me. Obviously because I'm questioning and challenging your points, I can't be in support of free speech or free opinion. You're just a thoughtcriminal to me. That's it. Yeah.
Dodge Beast
Again, I am indifferent. Thank you for your time.
Given how you're making claims with little basis other than whining about how we've been challenging your points, I doubt that you're indifferent. If you were indifferent, you wouldn't be whining about how your precious worldview has been shattered.
Dodge Beast
-
100 -
100 -
50
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 04:42:42 +0000
Once again, I stand firm; I am content to believe as I wish, and there really isn't anything you or the rest of these can do to change that.
You are delusioned if you think you have "shattered my worldview". You have not.
You are welcome to call me all the names and make all the allusions you wish. I have said that which I came here to say, and if you don't like it, you can ignore me.
You have the facts you believe in, and I have mine; it makes no difference to me to hear some kid call me a liar...I don't really regard your opinion as having any real weight, in terms of my self-image.
The simple (and obvious) fact is, your friend has claimed Mr. Hovind has said something he hadn't said. That has nothing to do with why you believe in evolution, or why I choose not to believe that my origins are an accident.
The only whine I have anything to do with, is that which I determine suitable in serving dinner.
So in the meantime, you can continue to write endless pages all you desire; any response I have remaining (should I so deign) will be to this effect. You cannot change my belief. Accept that, or ignore me. I genuinely could care less. I said what I had to, and this is what remains.
You are delusioned if you think you have "shattered my worldview". You have not.
You are welcome to call me all the names and make all the allusions you wish. I have said that which I came here to say, and if you don't like it, you can ignore me.
You have the facts you believe in, and I have mine; it makes no difference to me to hear some kid call me a liar...I don't really regard your opinion as having any real weight, in terms of my self-image.
The simple (and obvious) fact is, your friend has claimed Mr. Hovind has said something he hadn't said. That has nothing to do with why you believe in evolution, or why I choose not to believe that my origins are an accident.
The only whine I have anything to do with, is that which I determine suitable in serving dinner.
So in the meantime, you can continue to write endless pages all you desire; any response I have remaining (should I so deign) will be to this effect. You cannot change my belief. Accept that, or ignore me. I genuinely could care less. I said what I had to, and this is what remains.
vipr230
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 04:51:23 +0000
Dodge Beast
Once again, I stand firm; I am content to believe as I wish, and there really isn't anything you or the rest of these can do to change that.
You are delusioned if you think you have "shattered my worldview". You have not.
You are welcome to call me all the names and make all the allusions you wish. I have said that which I came here to say, and if you don't like it, you can ignore me.
You have the facts you believe in, and I have mine; it makes no difference to me to hear some kid call me a liar...I don't really regard your opinion as having any real weight, in terms of my self-image.
The simple (and obvious) fact is, your friend has claimed Mr. Hovind has said something he hadn't said. That has nothing to do with why you believe in evolution, or why I choose not to believe that my origins are an accident.
The only whine I have anything to do with, is that which I determine suitable in serving dinner.
So in the meantime, you can continue to write endless pages all you desire; any response I have remaining (should I so deign) will be to this effect. You cannot change my belief. Accept that, or ignore me. I genuinely could care less. I said what I had to, and this is what remains.
You are delusioned if you think you have "shattered my worldview". You have not.
You are welcome to call me all the names and make all the allusions you wish. I have said that which I came here to say, and if you don't like it, you can ignore me.
You have the facts you believe in, and I have mine; it makes no difference to me to hear some kid call me a liar...I don't really regard your opinion as having any real weight, in terms of my self-image.
The simple (and obvious) fact is, your friend has claimed Mr. Hovind has said something he hadn't said. That has nothing to do with why you believe in evolution, or why I choose not to believe that my origins are an accident.
The only whine I have anything to do with, is that which I determine suitable in serving dinner.
So in the meantime, you can continue to write endless pages all you desire; any response I have remaining (should I so deign) will be to this effect. You cannot change my belief. Accept that, or ignore me. I genuinely could care less. I said what I had to, and this is what remains.
Quit being a liar. You have yet to provide a single fact. Everything you have provided with regard to "flaws in evolution" has been met with paper after paper after paper after paper after paper after paper. And you should NOT lie about what evolution is, because evolution has no goal, and says nothing about origins of life itself, it does NOT say anything is an accident. It can't. Claiming that is LYING about the nature of evolution. Believe whatever the ******** you want, but don't go claiming you have facts OR evidence, you have blind, unchangeable faith, no amount of evidence can dissuade you.
So again, you can believe whatever you want, you can believe the moon is really just a small sun, but that does NOT mean you can go claiming you actually have the evidence to support this, nor does it mean you have any facts to back your claim up. Quit lying about what you believe or what we accept. We've shown in copious details what backs up evolution, you have yet to show ANYTHING that backs up creationism. Again, believe what you want, but don't claim any validity unless you can support it.
Lord Setar
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 05:07:32 +0000
Dodge Beast
Once again, I stand firm; I am content to believe as I wish, and there really isn't anything you or the rest of these can do to change that.
You are delusioned if you think you have "shattered my worldview". You have not.
You are delusioned if you think you have "shattered my worldview". You have not.
Get a day job, you're not Seinfeld.
Dodge Beast
You are welcome to call me all the names and make all the allusions you wish. I have said that which I came here to say, and if you don't like it, you can ignore me.
Or you can go post your tripe somewhere other than ED.
Dodge Beast
You have the facts you believe in, and I have mine; it makes no difference to me to hear some kid call me a liar...I don't really regard your opinion as having any real weight, in terms of my self-image.
First off, how the hell does one believe in a fact?
Second, what do you have? You haven't provided us with anything, which is our biggest problem. Show us what you have. I'm more than interested in seeing what you have, and I want you to provide some evidence. Quit teasing my curiosity. Please?
Dodge Beast
The simple (and obvious) fact is, your friend has claimed Mr. Hovind has said something he hadn't said. That has nothing to do with why you believe in evolution, or why I choose not to believe that my origins are an accident.
And this is relevant to all the claims you made about evolution...how? And how is this relevant to your claim that creationism is science?
Dodge Beast
The only whine I have anything to do with, is that which I determine suitable in serving dinner.
Iron may not taste good, but irony is delicious.
Dodge Beast
So in the meantime, you can continue to write endless pages all you desire; any response I have remaining (should I so deign) will be to this effect. You cannot change my belief. Accept that, or ignore me. I genuinely could care less. I said what I had to, and this is what remains.
We. Are. Not. Trying. To. Change. Your. Belief. What do I need to do, put it in giant, bolded, underlined, italicized, flashing red 128-point font for you to get that point?
You have claimed that Creationism is a science (and don't lie, you outright stated "Creation Science" a couple posts back). Back up this claim. Provide some evidence for creationism. That will get a major problem out of the way.
Oh, by the way, flaws with evolution are not evidence for creation - to say such is to use the fallacy of bifurcation and create a false dichotomy. What we want is evidence for Abrahamic Creation. You know, creationism as according to the Torah and Bible. The one you are supporting.
vipr230
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 05:19:49 +0000
By the way, I should mention why we actually care. Why creationists are so insulting. They're entitled to believe what they want, but it's when they speak out and promote ignorance that's insulting. Take for a moment our perfect posterboy Dodge here. We have provided him link after link after link from peer-reviewed scientific journals. These are research papers. People spend months, years working on little tiny aspects of evolutionary biology. This is their work, they seek to learn for a living. They don't just randomly come up with ideas and write them down, no, they bother to put their ideas to the test, they LEARN. Creationists like dodge go around saying "I choose to believe in creationism" giving the impression that "it's just a choice". Or he's not ignorant for ignoring the evidence because it's all personal preference. This is a slap in the face to people who actually want to understand the universe. This is saying "yeah, all your research, it's wrong because I believe its wrong though I have not a single piece to discredit it". They tout that! They promote that view! Dodge here refuses to provide ANY evidence supporting his worldview, his beliefs, and utterly IGNORES evidence we post, LIES about evolution, and yet still we are supposed to respect him going around spewing ignorance? I'm not saying he's not entitled to believe what he wants, but I'll be damned if we should respect people who look at the research evolutionary biologists provide, and ignore it without understanding ANY of it. Ignore it and believe it's wrong just because they don't like it or because they constructed a straw man of what it means.
To anyone who is taken in by his seeming innocence, understand that in rejecting and ignoring contradictory evidence, he is calling science flat out wrong, insulting the scientific method, insulting the biologists who bother to spend months or years collecting data for just ONE of those papers, and doing so trying to promote that it's all a matter of belief.
Let me make this clear. It is a matter of not belief, but rather blind, unchanging, faith, versus evidence. Creationism is an insult to our collective intelligence. They have a right to believe whatever crap they want, but we'll be damned if we're going to let them promote such views, respect such views, or allow them to twist and distort the nature of the evidence we have.
Dodge wonders why we're angry, why we're snide, why we're cruel, why we insult their intelligence. Maybe because he can read over 70, 80, 90, 100, 200, 1000 peer reviewed scientific papers on evolutionary biology and go "meh, it's my belief, and I believe it's all wrong".
To anyone who is taken in by his seeming innocence, understand that in rejecting and ignoring contradictory evidence, he is calling science flat out wrong, insulting the scientific method, insulting the biologists who bother to spend months or years collecting data for just ONE of those papers, and doing so trying to promote that it's all a matter of belief.
Let me make this clear. It is a matter of not belief, but rather blind, unchanging, faith, versus evidence. Creationism is an insult to our collective intelligence. They have a right to believe whatever crap they want, but we'll be damned if we're going to let them promote such views, respect such views, or allow them to twist and distort the nature of the evidence we have.
Dodge wonders why we're angry, why we're snide, why we're cruel, why we insult their intelligence. Maybe because he can read over 70, 80, 90, 100, 200, 1000 peer reviewed scientific papers on evolutionary biology and go "meh, it's my belief, and I believe it's all wrong".
Lord Setar
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 05:40:35 +0000
What I find nice is that he started really whining after you posted all those links to peer-reviewed journals, vipr - hell, after I even simply posted TalkOrigins a few times. That's when he broke out all the whining about how we're trying to suppress him and we think that he has no right to believe what he wants.
Seriously, Dodge? Can you just read the evidence in vipr's post? You claimed that we aren't open-minded or free-thinking, yet you haven't said anything in response to what vipr posted. In doing this, you are showing us that you are a complete hypocrite, as if you were open-minded you'd have read the evidence vipr posted.
Seriously, Dodge? Can you just read the evidence in vipr's post? You claimed that we aren't open-minded or free-thinking, yet you haven't said anything in response to what vipr posted. In doing this, you are showing us that you are a complete hypocrite, as if you were open-minded you'd have read the evidence vipr posted.
Redem
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 05:45:31 +0000
Dodge Beast
Once again, I stand firm; I am content to believe as I wish, and there really isn't anything you or the rest of these can do to change that.
You can believe what you like, but reality isn't an opinion. And most of what you have claimed as fact so far is wrong.
You can choose to ignore that, breaking your own religious rules, and repeat those same lies distortions and misrepresentations, or you can learn from it.
Jaaten Syric
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:40:53 +0000
Dodge Beast
The simple (and obvious) fact is, your friend has claimed Mr. Hovind has said something he hadn't said.
I don't know of the specific quote Voija was referencing, but given his stance on things like the 'real' reason for the government not liking the serial child rapist turned kidnapper, tax evader, and murderer David Koresh was because 'he was a gun collector', I don't think it too far out of the question. Granted, this is the same man who claimed his illegally owned, unregistered firearms 'belonged to his church'.
Quote:
That has nothing to do with why you believe in evolution, or why I choose not to believe that my origins are an accident.
Oh but it does. With that single sentence you've demonstrated, yet again, your fundamental ignorance of what evolution actually states.
Dodge Beast
-
100
-
100
-
50
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 10:15:02 +0000
Replies from the forum on Entropy and the Big Bang
You can believe it to be a lie because it doesn’t agree with your view. I really do not care. Stop assuming your opinion matters to me.
I don’t provide anything because I am not here to debate evolutionism. For the umpteenth time. And you’ll hear it again and again throughout this writ, as well.
Do you see a trend emerging, with your scientific mind?
The same tired links to the same sites (provided by the omnipresent nasal, banal atheists so littered about Gaia) that I have read portions of, but it still hasn’t changed how I feel my belief is grounded. After all, I can point you to the Creationist alternative to that site, here , but then I’ll just hear how all the dedicated folks who have invested their time are “liars” by your standards. I am aware of the secular standard for hypocrisy. It works well for you.
Lest I forget, those aren’t the only reasons I have an issue with the broad application of evolution; they were just a couple I came up with off the top of my head. But again, I am not here to debate evolution with you.
After all, according to a singular, long-winded bellyache about how I’m such a bad guy because my belief (and apparent “refusal to accept”) all the hard and longsuffering work of these poor schmoes who tirelessly invest hours, days, months, years of their lives researching and poring over data to provide us ungrateful masses with their hard won efforts is met with a slap in the face by “perfect poster-boys” like meself.
(Never mind the fact that some of these “poor schmoes” live a life many long for, because there’s always room for a few “extras” in all those grants they’re getting, in addition to awards and bonuses…and a salary. But if a minister (of any congregation) or if Ken Ham or Kent Hovind were to have a really nice car, or fancy home, well…they must be fleecing the flock! Members of our government haven’t paid taxes in YEARS, but mysteriously, they aren’t in jail…but let Mr. Hovind try to claim his ministry as a Church that isn’t 501 {c} 3 and he’s gonna smoke a corn-cob in jail for it. ) And if it isn’t “whining’ when you do it, it isn’t whining when I do it. But moving on…
You assume a great deal about how I feel in regard to data that is available to me. But that’s fine; so far, you all have went to some lengths to prove to me how “open minded” you are and how “stubborn” I’m being, so you can go on believing what you think you might know about me. It’s a mutual thing, just so you know.
After all, how can one defend oneself, when their opponent refuses to accept the credibility of their sources? It’s win-win, as the odds are heavily stacked in your favour, so it’s easy for the usual pedantic, eye-rolling pomposity and snide diatribe offered in forums like these. It is this attitude that normally leaves me shaking my head and chuckling over how some can point at others, unaware that three of the five digits on their hand are turned back to themselves.
Evolution is the cumulative genetic changes in a population from generation to generation. I never refuted that this type of evolution on no account happens (microevolution). I am not the one who insists “evolution means we came from monkeys”. Just so you know I am familiar, and have stated no less, despite the fact that you continuously allege otherwise.
Then if it wasn’t an accident that means there was a guiding purpose. Purpose denotes intelligence, and intelligence implies a Creator. This is what I believe to be true. Aside from that, if evolution isn’t about the origin of life, perhaps you should look at the title to Charlie’s book: “Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or, Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”
If it was not an ordered, intended and guided purpose, it was an incident by pure circumstance; a fluke, an accident.
But I digress; I am not here to quarrel the particulars of one principle to the next.
I never made this claim. I never made ANY claim, as to “how” I could disprove any possibility of evolution. I simply stated that I believe in Creation. You and the rest of your bunch took your own liberty.
Speaking of subterfuge.
I invite you to do the same, then. You see, the same thing that you and your contemporaries are complaining to me—“Why are you here?” and “Why bother posting here?” is just as well applied in my favour; I wasn’t even talking to any of you, but you surely had to leap at the chance to challenge what motivates my belief.
How can I be lying about my belief…or lie on what the troupe of you are inclined to accept? (That’s called a “rhetorical question”, by the way.) That statement is both awkward, and has the faint hollow drone of a tautology.
Hmmm…maybe, because I didn’t say I would, personally? You think that might be it? I mean, how many times have I said that I’m not here to debate you on evolution? It might surprise you, that I don’t argue the repair of my vehicle with my mechanic, either, even if I have helped rebuild a trans or two and an engine.
I can say my reasons are valid TO ME, just like you could say you’re a particularly wonderful person because of reasons that matter TO YOU. I can choose to either agree or disagree. The difference is the fact that I can choose to disagree with you without turning it into an ugly affair.
Other than that, I wasn’t here to “claim validity” to anything, other than the fact that your buddy directly misquoted Mr. Hovind.
“Lord Setar”
“What I find nice is that he started really whining after you posted all those links to peer-reviewed journals, vipr - hell, after I even simply posted TalkOrigins a few times.”
Well, you can go ahead and think that’s “whining”, but I call it backing up my intent, or keeping my word. I almost did fall for it, though! The fact that you misconstrued my objective and I have to repeatedly explain it is not a flaw on my behalf. I don’t see whining…I see me not falling for your bull baiting…. and it appears that none of you are getting it.
Personally, I think that if you all want this thread to sit on top, just bump it like everyone else, as opposed to keeping me in a holding pattern.
I never said you were trying to suppress me, personally nor had I said you were deliberately preventing me from a right to a particular belief.
The closet thing in any of my previous?
This:
And I’m not wrong.
I think it’s interesting that you interpret something and try to make it as though I had said specifically that.
Well, for one, I really don’t care if you think I am a hypocrite; in order for your opinion to actually matter, I’d have to respect you. This isn’t something I just give away…it has to be earned. I can speak respectfully, I can respect the rights of another as any common and decent person would, but I do not have to respect you personally. I am aware this works both ways, and I truly am indifferent.
Regarding TalkOrigins, everyone posts from that same site, so it’s really nothing new. And being open-minded has nothing to do with swallowing the dogma of another. (Argumentum ad populum: “Most scientists believe in X, therefore X must be true.”)
Incidentally, having an open mind has much more to do with simply accepting everything everyone does as being okay or that others believe differently; it has a lot more to do with the fact that even if they don’t believe as you do, they are no less deserving of common courtesy and the value associated with it. I have demonstrated a degree of urbanity, whereas it has not been returned (and really, I am not at all surprised). This isn’t contradiction if this is truly a “debate”-inclined forum, it is just part of the civility of debate.
Even as a Christian, I don’t “fault” someone being gay, or if they choose to worship another god or even Satan…I don’t agree with their inclination, but I can still respect the rights of the person who makes that selection. (And no, if by some fluke I’m talking to a gay person or a Satan worshipper, for goodness’ sake, I’m not looking to debate these either.) I don’t hate difference…but if someone is going to expect others to play by a construct of rules, then that person should demonstrate the standard he expects others (even who it is apparent he seems to view as lesser) to abide.
You know, I’ll bet you think you are terribly clever, comparing me to the likes of Michael Moore or Seinfeld…truth is, I’ve never really seen either’s work to any length….unless you count a couple episodes as a course study. Frankly, I don’t find Seinfeld very funny (it would appear you have a greater portion in common with these than I do). Aside from that, I don’t need some teeny-bopper from high school telling me how to cope with daily function in life…why don’t you wait until your bills aren’t paid by Mumsy and Daddums, and you’ve got a few years of independent living under your belt in the adult realm before you can cast dispersions on how others live their lives. It’s clear you watch far too much telly.
Last I checked, posts aren’t sequestered specifically for the likes of you and yours. This is my first post here, as I have been reading many of the subjects here for a while now. If you don’t want to hear my “tripe”, then perhaps it is you who need not respond to me?
I wouldn’t say that’s your ‘biggest’ problem. Absorbing the glaringly simple fact that you’re trying to somehow convince me that I came in here with the intent to challenge your belief in evolution seems to be second in line to it, though.
Once again, you can beg all you like for me to rise to this challenge; I’m sure you’re well in your comfort zone, especially since I openly admitted that I hadn’t done extensive study. I am not here to challenge your worldview, but to state TO YOUR FRIEND that his dishonest misquote in regard to what Mr. Hovind said is in direct conflict with the very rules he expects everyone else to adhere to.
I can see why public school takes so long; it appears that it takes more than a decade to get information to stick with some, apparently.
Oddly, I don’t believe I came in here stating anything other than my own lack of belief in evolution (that is, applied over the scope every single aspect of science), and expressing a few motivational reasons. Again, however, I digress.
As if I owe you an explanation. That’s the funny thing in all this. You claim I am missing a point, but I’m not having any trouble seeing what is going on; you’re trying to get me to quarrel with you on evolution, knowing that I had already admitted it’s likely I don’t have the study invested in it that you have, so I’m an easy target for a game of proverbial “fist”. Sorry, boys…I’m not here to stroke your e-gos. It seems you’re all enjoying each other’s company for that purpose.
I’m sure it would be, if it truly applied here. (Even lesser, what does wine have to do with iron?) Please tell me you didn’t waste an inordinate amount of time spoiling on that dismal pun.
I guess I’ll get it when you do.
By calling what I choose to believe a lie, and by making posts trying to “shatter” the beliefs [much of what one’s worldview is based on] of another person (which you obviously cannot, and it does appear to frustrate you), what then, is you ambition other than to change another person’s belief? What is the purpose of creating whole threads dedicated to trashing why others believe as they do, if not for the purpose of making oneself feel superior by picking apart the education of another? If you are convinced, get out of your comfort zone and challenge someone equally studied/educated to you. (Another trend…?)
The greater majority of folks that people Gaia are already sold on your canon.
I had said this from the start, and I will continue to reverberate it: I did not come here to challenge your belief or knowledge in or of evolution. I admitted that I don’t have the vested level of study that would grant me better qualifications to do so. It was your choice to jump on a subject that had absolutely ZERO to do with why I posted here, pointing out your friend’s dishonesty.
Do I need to put that in bold, underlined, neon script for your viewing ease?
“You have claimed that Creationism is a science (and don't lie, you outright stated "Creation Science" a couple posts back). Back up this claim. Provide some evidence for creationism. That will get a major problem out of the way.”
Last time I checked, I don’t believe it was against the law to use those words together, was it? Are you the thought police? I’ve said it several times, and will again, I am certain.
What makes you think that those who study science and connect it with Creation have invested any less time? You can cry how people you don’t like have “stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something because they could, but didn’t bother to wonder whether or not they should” to achieve a view you don’t like, it doesn’t change the fact that they have invested time and effort into their pursuits.
Add to that, I’m willing to bet, that they’ve dedicated more to it in years than you’ve been able to go potty all by yourself.
Then I suppose the inverse could hold true in terms of that which you feel is lacking in Creation Science (oh, I’ve said it again! Get the pitchforks and torches!). I believe what I choose.
Got tired of saying “red herring”, did we? Was "strawman" too obvious?
What’s funny is how you toss out all these terms from a book on “logic” to make yourself feel all superior, and commit innumerable instances of ad hominem yourself. I know I lol’d, to coin the vernacular.
(“Fallacy of bifurcation”? 0__o -__- 0__o… x___O Okay…)
“I don't know of the specific quote Voija was referencing, but given his stance on things like the 'real' reason for the government not liking the serial child rapist turned kidnapper, tax evader, and murderer David Koresh was because...”
Well, since the post was directed to someone who was not you, perhaps you should have considered looking into it, before your decided to join the rest of the puppies barking at me from the porch (I believe this is what I have been accused of, yeah?). If you all seem so keen on a real debate, why don’t you seek it outside the comfort zone of a place like Gaia (where the greater majority think in agreement with you, and the likelihood of real challenges are less prevalent)? (I’ve said this to your other chum, as well. We already know the opinion of the OP’s [the one I actually was addressing] interpretation of the average Gaian’s math skills.)
Like I said…preaching to the choir, and telling them they sing off key.
After all, isn’t it the unanimous claim here, that I’m ignoring the plethora of links provided by others, and this somehow makes me a hypocrite? I have looked through the links…however, I didn’t come here to debate what all of you accept as true, but to point out an error made by your friend, who claims he disdains intellectual dishonesty, then commits it. Double standards aren’t any fairer for your lot than they would be for mine.
Incidentally, I think you have the wrong name; I am not defending David Koresh. Mr. Hovind doesn’t stand accused as a militant, or a child molester or murderer.
Furthermore, attacking someone’s character instead of addressing him or her personally on what you may disagree with in his or her view of things doesn’t grant you a correct by default condition.
In the meantime, feel free to bump your own posts.
vipr230
“Quit being a liar.”
You can believe it to be a lie because it doesn’t agree with your view. I really do not care. Stop assuming your opinion matters to me.
vipr230
“You have yet to provide a single fact.”
I don’t provide anything because I am not here to debate evolutionism. For the umpteenth time. And you’ll hear it again and again throughout this writ, as well.
Do you see a trend emerging, with your scientific mind?
vipr230
“Everything you have provided with regard to "flaws in evolution" has been met with paper after paper after paper after paper after paper after paper.”
The same tired links to the same sites (provided by the omnipresent nasal, banal atheists so littered about Gaia) that I have read portions of, but it still hasn’t changed how I feel my belief is grounded. After all, I can point you to the Creationist alternative to that site, here , but then I’ll just hear how all the dedicated folks who have invested their time are “liars” by your standards. I am aware of the secular standard for hypocrisy. It works well for you.
Lest I forget, those aren’t the only reasons I have an issue with the broad application of evolution; they were just a couple I came up with off the top of my head. But again, I am not here to debate evolution with you.
After all, according to a singular, long-winded bellyache about how I’m such a bad guy because my belief (and apparent “refusal to accept”) all the hard and longsuffering work of these poor schmoes who tirelessly invest hours, days, months, years of their lives researching and poring over data to provide us ungrateful masses with their hard won efforts is met with a slap in the face by “perfect poster-boys” like meself.
(Never mind the fact that some of these “poor schmoes” live a life many long for, because there’s always room for a few “extras” in all those grants they’re getting, in addition to awards and bonuses…and a salary. But if a minister (of any congregation) or if Ken Ham or Kent Hovind were to have a really nice car, or fancy home, well…they must be fleecing the flock! Members of our government haven’t paid taxes in YEARS, but mysteriously, they aren’t in jail…but let Mr. Hovind try to claim his ministry as a Church that isn’t 501 {c} 3 and he’s gonna smoke a corn-cob in jail for it. ) And if it isn’t “whining’ when you do it, it isn’t whining when I do it. But moving on…
You assume a great deal about how I feel in regard to data that is available to me. But that’s fine; so far, you all have went to some lengths to prove to me how “open minded” you are and how “stubborn” I’m being, so you can go on believing what you think you might know about me. It’s a mutual thing, just so you know.
After all, how can one defend oneself, when their opponent refuses to accept the credibility of their sources? It’s win-win, as the odds are heavily stacked in your favour, so it’s easy for the usual pedantic, eye-rolling pomposity and snide diatribe offered in forums like these. It is this attitude that normally leaves me shaking my head and chuckling over how some can point at others, unaware that three of the five digits on their hand are turned back to themselves.
vipr230
“And you should NOT lie about what evolution is, because evolution has no goal, and says nothing about origins of life itself, it does NOT say anything is an accident.”
Evolution is the cumulative genetic changes in a population from generation to generation. I never refuted that this type of evolution on no account happens (microevolution). I am not the one who insists “evolution means we came from monkeys”. Just so you know I am familiar, and have stated no less, despite the fact that you continuously allege otherwise.
Then if it wasn’t an accident that means there was a guiding purpose. Purpose denotes intelligence, and intelligence implies a Creator. This is what I believe to be true. Aside from that, if evolution isn’t about the origin of life, perhaps you should look at the title to Charlie’s book: “Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or, Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”
If it was not an ordered, intended and guided purpose, it was an incident by pure circumstance; a fluke, an accident.
But I digress; I am not here to quarrel the particulars of one principle to the next.
vipr230
“So again, you can believe whatever you want, you can believe the moon is really just a small sun, but that does NOT mean you can go claiming you actually have the evidence to support this, nor does it mean you have any facts to back your claim up.”
I never made this claim. I never made ANY claim, as to “how” I could disprove any possibility of evolution. I simply stated that I believe in Creation. You and the rest of your bunch took your own liberty.
Speaking of subterfuge.
vipr230
“Quit lying about what you believe or what we accept.”
I invite you to do the same, then. You see, the same thing that you and your contemporaries are complaining to me—“Why are you here?” and “Why bother posting here?” is just as well applied in my favour; I wasn’t even talking to any of you, but you surely had to leap at the chance to challenge what motivates my belief.
How can I be lying about my belief…or lie on what the troupe of you are inclined to accept? (That’s called a “rhetorical question”, by the way.) That statement is both awkward, and has the faint hollow drone of a tautology.
vipr230
“We've shown in copious details what backs up evolution, you have yet to show ANYTHING that backs up creationism.”
Hmmm…maybe, because I didn’t say I would, personally? You think that might be it? I mean, how many times have I said that I’m not here to debate you on evolution? It might surprise you, that I don’t argue the repair of my vehicle with my mechanic, either, even if I have helped rebuild a trans or two and an engine.
”vipr”
“Again, believe what you want, but don't claim any validity unless you can support it.”
I can say my reasons are valid TO ME, just like you could say you’re a particularly wonderful person because of reasons that matter TO YOU. I can choose to either agree or disagree. The difference is the fact that I can choose to disagree with you without turning it into an ugly affair.
Other than that, I wasn’t here to “claim validity” to anything, other than the fact that your buddy directly misquoted Mr. Hovind.
“Lord Setar”
“What I find nice is that he started really whining after you posted all those links to peer-reviewed journals, vipr - hell, after I even simply posted TalkOrigins a few times.”
Well, you can go ahead and think that’s “whining”, but I call it backing up my intent, or keeping my word. I almost did fall for it, though! The fact that you misconstrued my objective and I have to repeatedly explain it is not a flaw on my behalf. I don’t see whining…I see me not falling for your bull baiting…. and it appears that none of you are getting it.
Personally, I think that if you all want this thread to sit on top, just bump it like everyone else, as opposed to keeping me in a holding pattern.
“Lord Setar”
“That's when he broke out all the whining about how we're trying to suppress him and we think that he has no right to believe what he wants.”
I never said you were trying to suppress me, personally nor had I said you were deliberately preventing me from a right to a particular belief.
The closet thing in any of my previous?
This:
”Dodge Beast”
“In truth, you have only lent substance to the fact that most of your ilk aren’t interested in peaceful intent, as it serves your purpose much better to aggregate and berate others who believe differently than you.”
And I’m not wrong.
I think it’s interesting that you interpret something and try to make it as though I had said specifically that.
“Lord Setar”
”Seriously, Dodge? Can you just read the evidence in vipr's post? You claimed that we aren't open-minded or free-thinking, yet you haven't said anything in response to what vipr posted. In doing this, you are showing us that you are a complete hypocrite, as if you were open-minded you'd have read the evidence vipr posted.”
Well, for one, I really don’t care if you think I am a hypocrite; in order for your opinion to actually matter, I’d have to respect you. This isn’t something I just give away…it has to be earned. I can speak respectfully, I can respect the rights of another as any common and decent person would, but I do not have to respect you personally. I am aware this works both ways, and I truly am indifferent.
Regarding TalkOrigins, everyone posts from that same site, so it’s really nothing new. And being open-minded has nothing to do with swallowing the dogma of another. (Argumentum ad populum: “Most scientists believe in X, therefore X must be true.”)
Incidentally, having an open mind has much more to do with simply accepting everything everyone does as being okay or that others believe differently; it has a lot more to do with the fact that even if they don’t believe as you do, they are no less deserving of common courtesy and the value associated with it. I have demonstrated a degree of urbanity, whereas it has not been returned (and really, I am not at all surprised). This isn’t contradiction if this is truly a “debate”-inclined forum, it is just part of the civility of debate.
Even as a Christian, I don’t “fault” someone being gay, or if they choose to worship another god or even Satan…I don’t agree with their inclination, but I can still respect the rights of the person who makes that selection. (And no, if by some fluke I’m talking to a gay person or a Satan worshipper, for goodness’ sake, I’m not looking to debate these either.) I don’t hate difference…but if someone is going to expect others to play by a construct of rules, then that person should demonstrate the standard he expects others (even who it is apparent he seems to view as lesser) to abide.
Lord Setar
“Get a day job, you're not Seinfeld.”
You know, I’ll bet you think you are terribly clever, comparing me to the likes of Michael Moore or Seinfeld…truth is, I’ve never really seen either’s work to any length….unless you count a couple episodes as a course study. Frankly, I don’t find Seinfeld very funny (it would appear you have a greater portion in common with these than I do). Aside from that, I don’t need some teeny-bopper from high school telling me how to cope with daily function in life…why don’t you wait until your bills aren’t paid by Mumsy and Daddums, and you’ve got a few years of independent living under your belt in the adult realm before you can cast dispersions on how others live their lives. It’s clear you watch far too much telly.
”Lord Setar”
“Or you can go post your tripe somewhere other than ED.”
Last I checked, posts aren’t sequestered specifically for the likes of you and yours. This is my first post here, as I have been reading many of the subjects here for a while now. If you don’t want to hear my “tripe”, then perhaps it is you who need not respond to me?
”Lord Setar”
“Second, what do you have? You haven't provided us with anything, which is our biggest problem.”
I wouldn’t say that’s your ‘biggest’ problem. Absorbing the glaringly simple fact that you’re trying to somehow convince me that I came in here with the intent to challenge your belief in evolution seems to be second in line to it, though.
Once again, you can beg all you like for me to rise to this challenge; I’m sure you’re well in your comfort zone, especially since I openly admitted that I hadn’t done extensive study. I am not here to challenge your worldview, but to state TO YOUR FRIEND that his dishonest misquote in regard to what Mr. Hovind said is in direct conflict with the very rules he expects everyone else to adhere to.
I can see why public school takes so long; it appears that it takes more than a decade to get information to stick with some, apparently.
”Lord Setar”
“And this is relevant to all the claims you made about evolution...how? And how is this relevant to your claim that creationism is science?”
Oddly, I don’t believe I came in here stating anything other than my own lack of belief in evolution (that is, applied over the scope every single aspect of science), and expressing a few motivational reasons. Again, however, I digress.
As if I owe you an explanation. That’s the funny thing in all this. You claim I am missing a point, but I’m not having any trouble seeing what is going on; you’re trying to get me to quarrel with you on evolution, knowing that I had already admitted it’s likely I don’t have the study invested in it that you have, so I’m an easy target for a game of proverbial “fist”. Sorry, boys…I’m not here to stroke your e-gos. It seems you’re all enjoying each other’s company for that purpose.
”Lord Setar”
“Iron may not taste good, but irony is delicious.”
I’m sure it would be, if it truly applied here. (Even lesser, what does wine have to do with iron?) Please tell me you didn’t waste an inordinate amount of time spoiling on that dismal pun.
”Lord Setar”
“We. Are. Not. Trying. To. Change. Your. Belief. What do I need to do, put it in giant, bolded, underlined, italicized, flashing red 128-point font for you to get that point?”
I guess I’ll get it when you do.
By calling what I choose to believe a lie, and by making posts trying to “shatter” the beliefs [much of what one’s worldview is based on] of another person (which you obviously cannot, and it does appear to frustrate you), what then, is you ambition other than to change another person’s belief? What is the purpose of creating whole threads dedicated to trashing why others believe as they do, if not for the purpose of making oneself feel superior by picking apart the education of another? If you are convinced, get out of your comfort zone and challenge someone equally studied/educated to you. (Another trend…?)
The greater majority of folks that people Gaia are already sold on your canon.
I had said this from the start, and I will continue to reverberate it: I did not come here to challenge your belief or knowledge in or of evolution. I admitted that I don’t have the vested level of study that would grant me better qualifications to do so. It was your choice to jump on a subject that had absolutely ZERO to do with why I posted here, pointing out your friend’s dishonesty.
Do I need to put that in bold, underlined, neon script for your viewing ease?
“You have claimed that Creationism is a science (and don't lie, you outright stated "Creation Science" a couple posts back). Back up this claim. Provide some evidence for creationism. That will get a major problem out of the way.”
Last time I checked, I don’t believe it was against the law to use those words together, was it? Are you the thought police? I’ve said it several times, and will again, I am certain.
What makes you think that those who study science and connect it with Creation have invested any less time? You can cry how people you don’t like have “stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something because they could, but didn’t bother to wonder whether or not they should” to achieve a view you don’t like, it doesn’t change the fact that they have invested time and effort into their pursuits.
Add to that, I’m willing to bet, that they’ve dedicated more to it in years than you’ve been able to go potty all by yourself.
”Lord Setar”
“Oh, by the way, flaws with evolution are not evidence for creation - to say such is to use the fallacy of bifurcation and create a false dichotomy.”
Then I suppose the inverse could hold true in terms of that which you feel is lacking in Creation Science (oh, I’ve said it again! Get the pitchforks and torches!). I believe what I choose.
Got tired of saying “red herring”, did we? Was "strawman" too obvious?
What’s funny is how you toss out all these terms from a book on “logic” to make yourself feel all superior, and commit innumerable instances of ad hominem yourself. I know I lol’d, to coin the vernacular.
(“Fallacy of bifurcation”? 0__o -__- 0__o… x___O Okay…)
“Jaaten Syric”
“I don't know of the specific quote Voija was referencing, but given his stance on things like the 'real' reason for the government not liking the serial child rapist turned kidnapper, tax evader, and murderer David Koresh was because...”
Well, since the post was directed to someone who was not you, perhaps you should have considered looking into it, before your decided to join the rest of the puppies barking at me from the porch (I believe this is what I have been accused of, yeah?). If you all seem so keen on a real debate, why don’t you seek it outside the comfort zone of a place like Gaia (where the greater majority think in agreement with you, and the likelihood of real challenges are less prevalent)? (I’ve said this to your other chum, as well. We already know the opinion of the OP’s [the one I actually was addressing] interpretation of the average Gaian’s math skills.)
Like I said…preaching to the choir, and telling them they sing off key.
After all, isn’t it the unanimous claim here, that I’m ignoring the plethora of links provided by others, and this somehow makes me a hypocrite? I have looked through the links…however, I didn’t come here to debate what all of you accept as true, but to point out an error made by your friend, who claims he disdains intellectual dishonesty, then commits it. Double standards aren’t any fairer for your lot than they would be for mine.
Incidentally, I think you have the wrong name; I am not defending David Koresh. Mr. Hovind doesn’t stand accused as a militant, or a child molester or murderer.
Furthermore, attacking someone’s character instead of addressing him or her personally on what you may disagree with in his or her view of things doesn’t grant you a correct by default condition.
In the meantime, feel free to bump your own posts.
Gertroob
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 11:22:43 +0000
I would say entropy is a pretentious word, but that would make me really ******** pretentious.
Lord Setar
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 11:49:31 +0000
Dodge Beast
“Lord Setar”
“What I find nice is that he started really whining after you posted all those links to peer-reviewed journals, vipr - hell, after I even simply posted TalkOrigins a few times.”
Well, you can go ahead and think that’s “whining”, but I call it backing up my intent, or keeping my word. I almost did fall for it, though! The fact that you misconstrued my objective and I have to repeatedly explain it is not a flaw on my behalf. I don’t see whining…I see me not falling for your bull baiting…. and it appears that none of you are getting it.
Baiting? I'm asking you for evidence. Evidence which you have not provided. You're piquing my curiosity and doing nothing else, and I don't see why you seem to be trying to delude yourself into thinking that I don't want to learn. If you have evidence for creation, by all means, show it! I for one would be more than happy to see it.
Dodge Beast
Personally, I think that if you all want this thread to sit on top, just bump it like everyone else, as opposed to keeping me in a holding pattern.
You do know that the ED is for debate, and ignoring opposing points is extremely bad form in debate, right?
Dodge Beast
“Lord Setar”
“That's when he broke out all the whining about how we're trying to suppress him and we think that he has no right to believe what he wants.”
I never said you were trying to suppress me, personally nor had I said you were deliberately preventing me from a right to a particular belief.
The closet thing in any of my previous?
This:
”Dodge Beast”
“In truth, you have only lent substance to the fact that most of your ilk aren’t interested in peaceful intent, as it serves your purpose much better to aggregate and berate others who believe differently than you.”
And I’m not wrong.
I think it’s interesting that you interpret something and try to make it as though I had said specifically that.
Guess what you're implying when you say we just want to berate you for believing differently than us.
Go on. That implication has a bigger smell than the red herring your whining is.
Dodge Beast
“Lord Setar”
”Seriously, Dodge? Can you just read the evidence in vipr's post? You claimed that we aren't open-minded or free-thinking, yet you haven't said anything in response to what vipr posted. In doing this, you are showing us that you are a complete hypocrite, as if you were open-minded you'd have read the evidence vipr posted.”
Well, for one, I really don’t care if you think I am a hypocrite; in order for your opinion to actually matter, I’d have to respect you. This isn’t something I just give away…it has to be earned. I can speak respectfully, I can respect the rights of another as any common and decent person would, but I do not have to respect you personally. I am aware this works both ways, and I truly am indifferent.
In other words, more self-promotion and delusion. You're still being hypocritical.
Dodge Beast
Regarding TalkOrigins, everyone posts from that same site, so it’s really nothing new.
Pointless whining. The amount of times a source is cited does not invalidate the source in any way.
Dodge Beast
And being open-minded has nothing to do with swallowing the dogma of another. (Argumentum ad populum: “Most scientists believe in X, therefore X must be true.”)
And you further show your lack of understanding of how the scientific community works. If you want most scientists to agree with you, you have to get them to agree with you. They have to see your evidence, duplicate your results by following your procedure, review your papers, you have to answer any questions they may raise, et cetera, et cetera. Science is not dogma. It has never been dogma. It will never be dogma. Anything at any time may be overturned, and do you want to know what the quickest path to a Nobel Prize right now would be? Here's a hint: the answer sits right in front of your face.
Dodge Beast
Incidentally, having an open mind has much more to do with simply accepting everything everyone does as being okay or that others believe differently; it has a lot more to do with the fact that even if they don’t believe as you do, they are no less deserving of common courtesy and the value associated with it. I have demonstrated a degree of urbanity, whereas it has not been returned (and really, I am not at all surprised). This isn’t contradiction if this is truly a “debate”-inclined forum, it is just part of the civility of debate.
Even as a Christian, I don’t “fault” someone being gay, or if they choose to worship another god or even Satan…I don’t agree with their inclination, but I can still respect the rights of the person who makes that selection. (And no, if by some fluke I’m talking to a gay person or a Satan worshipper, for goodness’ sake, I’m not looking to debate these either.) I don’t hate difference…but if someone is going to expect others to play by a construct of rules, then that person should demonstrate the standard he expects others (even who it is apparent he seems to view as lesser) to abide.
Even as a Christian, I don’t “fault” someone being gay, or if they choose to worship another god or even Satan…I don’t agree with their inclination, but I can still respect the rights of the person who makes that selection. (And no, if by some fluke I’m talking to a gay person or a Satan worshipper, for goodness’ sake, I’m not looking to debate these either.) I don’t hate difference…but if someone is going to expect others to play by a construct of rules, then that person should demonstrate the standard he expects others (even who it is apparent he seems to view as lesser) to abide.
This is quite ironic coming from you. We have responded to your requests for evidence - you have not done so, hiding behind your cloth shield of "I don't wish to debate!" when that attitude does not belong here, and I for one have told you multiple times that if you don't want to debate, you can leave.
Dodge Beast
Lord Setar
“Get a day job, you're not Seinfeld.”
You know, I’ll bet you think you are terribly clever, comparing me to the likes of Michael Moore or Seinfeld…truth is, I’ve never really seen either’s work to any length….unless you count a couple episodes as a course study.
Well, the Moore part was mainly based on how you were spouting blatant conspiracy theories in your post. "These big universities are funded by rich people!" Oh gee, that is definitely not worthy of Moore.
The Seinfeld part was simply saying that you're not funny, so please stop deluding yourself and spouting off tripe.
Dodge Beast
Aside from that, I don’t need some teeny-bopper from high school telling me how to cope with daily function in life…why don’t you wait until your bills aren’t paid by Mumsy and Daddums, and you’ve got a few years of independent living under your belt in the adult realm before you can cast dispersions on how others live their lives. It’s clear you watch far too much telly.
Argumentum ad hominem - baseless ageism. Now please excuse me while I laugh at the extreme verbal irony you have presented after all you spouted about debate courtesy crap.
Dodge Beast
”Lord Setar”
“Or you can go post your tripe somewhere other than ED.”
Last I checked, posts aren’t sequestered specifically for the likes of you and yours. This is my first post here, as I have been reading many of the subjects here for a while now. If you don’t want to hear my “tripe”, then perhaps it is you who need not respond to me?
Guess what - you're the one going on about how you don't want to debate. If you don't want to debate, get out of ED.
Dodge Beast
”Lord Setar”
“Second, what do you have? You haven't provided us with anything, which is our biggest problem.”
I wouldn’t say that’s your ‘biggest’ problem. Absorbing the glaringly simple fact that you’re trying to somehow convince me that I came in here with the intent to challenge your belief in evolution seems to be second in line to it, though.
No, you're just making a ton of claims and not providing evidence even when we have provided evidence to support our side at your request.
Dodge Beast
Once again, you can beg all you like for me to rise to this challenge; I’m sure you’re well in your comfort zone, especially since I openly admitted that I hadn’t done extensive study. I am not here to challenge your worldview, but to state TO YOUR FRIEND that his dishonest misquote in regard to what Mr. Hovind said is in direct conflict with the very rules he expects everyone else to adhere to.
And you then proceeded to make claims about creationism. Most specifically, the titling of "Creation Science" which is a glaringly obvious implication that creationism is science, ergo, it has evidence backing it. Go have your red herring stuffed and mounted for all I care.
Dodge Beast
I can see why public school takes so long; it appears that it takes more than a decade to get information to stick with some, apparently.
Red herrings don't help information stick at all.
Dodge Beast
”Lord Setar”
“And this is relevant to all the claims you made about evolution...how? And how is this relevant to your claim that creationism is science?”
Oddly, I don’t believe I came in here stating anything other than my own lack of belief in evolution (that is, applied over the scope every single aspect of science), and expressing a few motivational reasons. Again, however, I digress.
As if I owe you an explanation. That’s the funny thing in all this. You claim I am missing a point, but I’m not having any trouble seeing what is going on; you’re trying to get me to quarrel with you on evolution, knowing that I had already admitted it’s likely I don’t have the study invested in it that you have, so I’m an easy target for a game of proverbial “fist”. Sorry, boys…I’m not here to stroke your e-gos. It seems you’re all enjoying each other’s company for that purpose.
You outright stated that Creationism is science. You cannot un-ring a bell - the statement has been quoted and there is nothing you can do to go back and change the statement you have made. If you even try, we will call you on your dishonesty.
Dodge Beast
”Lord Setar”
“Iron may not taste good, but irony is delicious.”
I’m sure it would be, if it truly applied here. (Even lesser, what does wine have to do with iron?) Please tell me you didn’t waste an inordinate amount of time spoiling on that dismal pun.
Oh, it does. You're still deluded, though.
Dodge Beast
”Lord Setar”
“We. Are. Not. Trying. To. Change. Your. Belief. What do I need to do, put it in giant, bolded, underlined, italicized, flashing red 128-point font for you to get that point?”
I guess I’ll get it when you do.
By calling what I choose to believe a lie, and by making posts trying to “shatter” the beliefs [much of what one’s worldview is based on] of another person (which you obviously cannot, and it does appear to frustrate you), what then, is you ambition other than to change another person’s belief? What is the purpose of creating whole threads dedicated to trashing why others believe as they do, if not for the purpose of making oneself feel superior by picking apart the education of another? If you are convinced, get out of your comfort zone and challenge someone equally studied/educated to you. (Another trend…?)
Again, you outright claimed that Creationism is science, and you made other claims about evolution. In keeping with the rules of ED, we have posted refutations. Rather than respond to the evidence we provided at your request, you have decided to hide behind an intent that shows why you should not be in the ED, while utilizing red herrings to attempt to draw attention away from your claims.
Dodge Beast
The greater majority of folks that people Gaia are already sold on your canon.
Something is making me wonder if you have even taken one science class. There is no "canon" or "dogma" in science, how many times must this be restated?
Dodge Beast
I had said this from the start, and I will continue to reverberate it: I did not come here to challenge your belief or knowledge in or of evolution. I admitted that I don’t have the vested level of study that would grant me better qualifications to do so. It was your choice to jump on a subject that had absolutely ZERO to do with why I posted here, pointing out your friend’s dishonesty.
Do I need to put that in bold, underlined, neon script for your viewing ease?
Do I need to put that in bold, underlined, neon script for your viewing ease?
Can the ******** red herring. Now.
Dodge Beast
“You have claimed that Creationism is a science (and don't lie, you outright stated "Creation Science" a couple posts back). Back up this claim. Provide some evidence for creationism. That will get a major problem out of the way.”
Last time I checked, I don’t believe it was against the law to use those words together, was it? Are you the thought police? I’ve said it several times, and will again, I am certain.
Last time I checked, I don’t believe it was against the law to use those words together, was it? Are you the thought police? I’ve said it several times, and will again, I am certain.
And every time you say it, you are making a claim - a claim that creationism is science. Guess what. Every time you make that claim, you will be asked to substantiate it. You should either be damn ready to substantiate the claim, or perhaps you should stop making the claim.
Dodge Beast
What makes you think that those who study science and connect it with Creation have invested any less time? You can cry how people you don’t like have “stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something because they could, but didn’t bother to wonder whether or not they should” to achieve a view you don’t like, it doesn’t change the fact that they have invested time and effort into their pursuits.
Add to that, I’m willing to bet, that they’ve dedicated more to it in years than you’ve been able to go potty all by yourself.
Add to that, I’m willing to bet, that they’ve dedicated more to it in years than you’ve been able to go potty all by yourself.
So why haven't you shown us anything? Why do you not substantiate your claim? Vipr alone has provided a large amount of evidence for evolution. If these people have dedicated so much time to creationism, why do you not have a shred of evidence to stand against what has been provided? If you have no evidence, where the hell can you make the claim that creationism is science?
Dodge Beast
”Lord Setar”
“Oh, by the way, flaws with evolution are not evidence for creation - to say such is to use the fallacy of bifurcation and create a false dichotomy.”
Then I suppose the inverse could hold true in terms of that which you feel is lacking in Creation Science (oh, I’ve said it again! Get the pitchforks and torches!). I believe what I choose.
Red herring again. Vipr's actually posted evidence for evolution, you know.
Dodge Beast
Got tired of saying “red herring”, did we? Was "strawman" too obvious?
What’s funny is how you toss out all these terms from a book on “logic” to make yourself feel all superior, and commit innumerable instances of ad hominem yourself. I know I lol’d, to coin the vernacular.
(“Fallacy of bifurcation”? 0__o -__- 0__o… x___O Okay…)
What’s funny is how you toss out all these terms from a book on “logic” to make yourself feel all superior, and commit innumerable instances of ad hominem yourself. I know I lol’d, to coin the vernacular.
(“Fallacy of bifurcation”? 0__o -__- 0__o… x___O Okay…)
Another claim. Care to substantiate it? Do remember that ad hominem is "You are wrong because you are X" - comments and remarks are not ad hominem. Nor are valid arguments worded in a manner that may piss you off.
vipr230
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 12:29:39 +0000
Dodge Beast
Replies from the forum on Entropy and the Big Bang
You can believe it to be a lie because it doesn’t agree with your view. I really do not care. Stop assuming your opinion matters to me.
vipr230
“Quit being a liar.”
You can believe it to be a lie because it doesn’t agree with your view. I really do not care. Stop assuming your opinion matters to me.
Considering you claim to have "facts", yet constantly show otherwise, yes, you really aren't helping your case that you're not a liar. Maybe you really have them, but asserting you have them without providing them really does only make it seem like you're a liar. So, until you learn to back yourself up, calling you a liar is a rather fair, honest, and in fact legitimate statment.
Dodge Beast
vipr230
“You have yet to provide a single fact.”
I don’t provide anything because I am not here to debate evolutionism. For the umpteenth time. And you’ll hear it again and again throughout this writ, as well.
Do you see a trend emerging, with your scientific mind?
So then why the hell are you in the ED? And for that matter why aren't you willing to debate it? Presenting of evidence, true debate is a rather useful intellectual exercise. You keep claiming that we're being mean and all, but again, considering you have NOT provided any evidence, we have no reason to consider anything you say to be even remotely legitimate. We on the other hand HAVE provided evidence.
Dodge Beast
vipr230
“Everything you have provided with regard to "flaws in evolution" has been met with paper after paper after paper after paper after paper after paper.”
The same tired links to the same sites (provided by the omnipresent nasal, banal atheists so littered about Gaia) that I have read portions of, but it still hasn’t changed how I feel my belief is grounded. After all, I can point you to the Creationist alternative to that site, here , but then I’ll just hear how all the dedicated folks who have invested their time are “liars” by your standards. I am aware of the secular standard for hypocrisy. It works well for you.
Excuse me? Ok, so let me get this straight, you are admitting that you never read anything I posted. Right? Just checking, because while setar provided talkorigins, only ONE of my sites were talk origin. The rest of the 70, 80 or so links I provided were all peer reviewed scientific journal papers. In other words, THEY WERE ALL STAND ALONE PAPERS! THEY WEREN'T A SINGLE SITE AT ALL!!!!!!
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0168159106001080
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118618225/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://web.missouri.edu/~gearyd/GearyHuffman.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/89/16/7320.abstract
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/citation/14/2/133
http://www.springerlink.com/content/llauvvpfhwukhg9l/
http://jb.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/186/5/1518
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0002929707640968
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11961552
This is a small selection of what I posed in my reply, notice something? These are journal articles, these are NOT just a single tired old site, these are all individual papers regarding specific aspects of evolution.
Now, regarding "true origins"
Let us look at just a single site on the front page.
http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp
(First I'd like to point out the obvious irony they have using the quote “No matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems we find no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles.” to explain "the respect of scientists for the second law" when talking about how it invalidates evolution)
Now, notice what they do on this site. To say "second law invalidates evolution" they need the definition "order cannot come from disorder" as well as ignoring that the earth is not a closed system. Both of these aren't true, when strictly referring to thermodynamics entropy is NOT a measure of the "disorder" of a system but rather roughly a measurement of the most probable state. In general, a disordered system is more likely than a ordered system, so thus a disorder system would in general have a higher entropy. Likewise, the second law states that the total entropy of a closed system not in equilibrium will approach a maximum value.
But what does the site say?
true origins
On the other hand, the second law tells us what can and cannot take place in terms of the relationships and transformations between matter, energy, and work, and their respective properties, as well as those of information and complexity, saying
Every system, left to its own devices, always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability (for work), ultimately becoming totally random and unavailable for work.
...or...
The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease.
(Entropy is a measure of (1) the amount of energy unavailable for work within a system or process, and/or (2) the probability of distribution or randomness [disorder] within a system.)
To help ensure an adequate understanding of what the second law means, consider the following, also from Isaac Asimov:
“Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself -- and that is what the second law is all about.”
[Smithsonian Institute Journal, June 1970, p. 6]
They falsely attribute entropy to the probability of "disorder" and randomness. If, for instance, with regard to liquid crystals the more disorder there is the less positions are available in the system meaning that the entropy decreases as disorder increases. (See Onsager hard-rod model)
So, we know they're not concerned with the proper scientific understanding already. They say tends from order to disorder, when we already know this is dishonest. Likewise, it's inaccurate to say "the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease" when it's the total entropy, but I'm going to let that slide.
Now, given this, what does the site do?
true origins
Evolutionist theory faces a problem in the second law, since the law is plainly understood to indicate (as does empirical observation) that things tend towards disorder, simplicity, randomness, and disorganization, while the theory insists that precisely the opposite has been taking place since the universe began (assuming it had a beginning).
Beginning with the “Big Bang” and the self-formation and expansion of space and matter, the evolutionist scenario declares that every structure, system, and relationship—down to every atom, molecule, and beyond—is the result of a loosely-defined, spontaneous self-assembly process of increasing organization and complexity, and a direct contradiction (i.e., theorized violation) of the second law.
They lie, simple as that. The second law makes it clear that it's the total entropy of a closed system, the definition they gave above makes that clear, and it is NOT order from disorder but rather the total available states of a system. They twist this definition to ignore A) the sun, and B) Try to relate thermodynamics to that which is not a thermodynamic problem.
See, lets take the big bang, the very fact that the universe was expanding means there was some way for the universe to expand. Dark energy anyone? Or negative pressure gradient for inflation? Given this, a standard thermochem understanding of thermodynamics would explain how a process that decreases entropy is still spontaneous. The universe was cooling down, in cooling down, a process like atoms forming, which is of course a decrease in entropy, was a spontaneous reaction. Much like putting water in your freezer.
On top of that, they try to relate the big bang to evolution, a flat out lie! God could have made the first cells but evolutionary biology STILL HOLDS! In fact, Einstein proposed originally a static universe, he called it his biggest failure but either way even in a static universe, EVOLUTION STILL HOLDS! We don't need the big bang for evolution, this site is AGAIN being dishonest.
I could continue to go line by line but put simply, the site doesn't care about posting peer reviewed journal articles (You know reference sections should be standard) and lies about the basics of science. If they can't get the second law of thermodynamics right, then you're asserting this site is comperable to talk origins which is an acceptable source in biology courses and is even listed on google scholar? Either way, don't lie, I provided you PEER REVIEWED PAPERS, not just talk origins.
Dodge Beast
Lest I forget, those aren’t the only reasons I have an issue with the broad application of evolution; they were just a couple I came up with off the top of my head. But again, I am not here to debate evolution with you.
Right, because you don't want to actually have to confront evidence, you like pretending that your world view is legitimate and go around saying to others "hey it's all just belief" by utterly lying your a** off.
Dodge Beast
After all, according to a singular, long-winded bellyache about how I’m such a bad guy because my belief (and apparent “refusal to accept”) all the hard and longsuffering work of these poor schmoes who tirelessly invest hours, days, months, years of their lives researching and poring over data to provide us ungrateful masses with their hard won efforts is met with a slap in the face by “perfect poster-boys” like meself.
You didn't just refuse to accept, you simply refused to read it. I at least have gone through true origins, ICR, Dr. Dino, and AiG before. But, I also read the damn peer reviewed scientific papers that are the ACTUAL research. I provided you with those, you claimed I provided "the same sites", so clearly you've utterly failed to read them. I highly doubt you could comb all of the ED and find even 5 of my papers I provided in any other threads. I didn't say you just refused to accept, you utterly IGNORED it. And it wasn't even talk origins, it wasn't a site specifically there to debunk creationist claims, they were just plain research. You ignored research, data, your site, "true origins", is a compilation of creationist claims, it is not the actual data or research.
For that matter, nor is talk origins, it's an archive of research, the papers that I provided however, ARE the evidence.
Dodge Beast
(Never mind the fact that some of these “poor schmoes” live a life many long for, because there’s always room for a few “extras” in all those grants they’re getting, in addition to awards and bonuses…and a salary.
Is this a joke? Researchers get rather little cash from the government, you're best bet if you want to be a scientist is work for an actual company. People at places like Fermilab or Jefferson lab, TRIUMF, etc, all aren't being paid that much and suffer from way too little grant money to go around and fund rather expensive projects.
You don't go into pure science because you want to get rich. In fact that's the argument I'm having with my parents now, they want me to make money, I'm more concerned right now with just doing research.
Dodge Beast
But if a minister (of any congregation) or if Ken Ham or Kent Hovind were to have a really nice car, or fancy home, well…they must be fleecing the flock! Members of our government haven’t paid taxes in YEARS, but mysteriously, they aren’t in jail…but let Mr. Hovind try to claim his ministry as a Church that isn’t 501 {c} 3 and he’s gonna smoke a corn-cob in jail for it.
Pardon me, but you're making wild claims here, you should probably back up the "members of our government haven't paid taxes in years". And considering Hovind owed 500k in 2 years time, he was probably making a lot more than most of even our politicians. The president himself doesn't 500k in government salary, and that's just what Hovind owed in taxes. And correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure Hovind owed 10 fancy houses.
I hope you also weren't implying that research scientists are anything like hovind. I'd be rather happy to make just the amount of money he owed in taxes.
Dodge Beast
And if it isn’t “whining’ when you do it, it isn’t whining when I do it. But moving on…
It's whining because you're complaining and still refusing to back up anything you say.
Dodge Beast
You assume a great deal about how I feel in regard to data that is available to me. But that’s fine; so far, you all have went to some lengths to prove to me how “open minded” you are and how “stubborn” I’m being, so you can go on believing what you think you might know about me. It’s a mutual thing, just so you know.
you
Once again, I stand firm; I am content to believe as I wish, and there really isn't anything you or the rest of these can do to change that.
You didn't make it too hard to prove that. But, really, what makes you think we're at all the same? We've made it clear we only care about the evidence, you've made it clear you refuse to provide ANY. Likewise, as you just stated above, you've made it clear no amount of evidence can dissuade you. Ergo, how is it that it can be mutual when we're open to evidence, while you are not? I mean, go ahead, provide some journal articles supporting your point of view. Provide some contradictions to evolution. We ask you. Last time you tried, I gave you 5-10 papers filling in each "problem" you brought up.
Dodge Beast
After all, how can one defend oneself, when their opponent refuses to accept the credibility of their sources?
See, if you provide scientific papers, you know, peer reviewed published ones, I'll have a hard time arguing the credibility. I'm not sure how you can argue the credibility of stuff like this
http://www.pnas.org/content/91/11/5163.abstract
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v275/n5682/abs/275744a0.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/253/5027/1503
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118940956/abstract
http://www.pnas.org/content/86/16/6196.abstract
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jjg/67/3/67_187/_article
http://www.pnas.org/content/76/4/1967.abstract
Unless you just plain haven't read them. But those papers go into rather nice detail what they were trying to do, what the predictions were, how they went about doing it, what the results were, and how they interpreted the data. If you provide anything like that, we won't argue the credibility. We'd argue the conclusion, but only after reading the papers. If we find no flaws, and in fact find that the results are replicated, we will have no choice but to concede because you have provided evidence.
You can defend yourself by providing evidence, it's simple as that. We've already done so. Want some more from us?
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=550058
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m3cykdktd4bkmgmb/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t2586122040m02q5/
Dodge Beast
It’s win-win, as the odds are heavily stacked in your favour, so it’s easy for the usual pedantic, eye-rolling pomposity and snide diatribe offered in forums like these. It is this attitude that normally leaves me shaking my head and chuckling over how some can point at others, unaware that three of the five digits on their hand are turned back to themselves.
The odds being stacked in our favor would just mean the empirical evidence supports us... if the empirical evidence supported you, then it'd be in your favor. But, then we'd support your view as well. Isn't that weird? If the evidence was supporting your pov, we'd switch over, but the evidence isn't, you're admitting that here, and yet you still continue to assert that the evidence is wrong?
How does this "the feeling is mutual" with regards to close minded thing work with you anyway? Are you so dense to not realize that we don't care about evolution if it isn't supported? Do you really believe we want to believe in evolution rather than believe what the evidence supports?
Dodge Beast
vipr230
“And you should NOT lie about what evolution is, because evolution has no goal, and says nothing about origins of life itself, it does NOT say anything is an accident.”
Evolution is the cumulative genetic changes in a population from generation to generation. I never refuted that this type of evolution on no account happens (microevolution). I am not the one who insists “evolution means we came from monkeys”. Just so you know I am familiar, and have stated no less, despite the fact that you continuously allege otherwise.
That's great and all, but you asserted that evolution is "everything is accident", what does this have to do with what I said? Oh, and let me quote you on what you said "macroevolution" was.
you
I can agree that animals can show change over time (variation within a kind of creature), but that change doesn’t make a lizard turn into a bird, a bird change into a dog, or a frog change into a prince.
You don't seem to understand evolution at all. You seem to believe we insist, well, lizard into bird, or bird into dog. I posted a rather lengthy response to this one quote.
Dodge Beast
Then if it wasn’t an accident that means there was a guiding purpose. Purpose denotes intelligence, and intelligence implies a Creator. This is what I believe to be true. Aside from that, if evolution isn’t about the origin of life, perhaps you should look at the title to Charlie’s book: “Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or, Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”
*facepalm* Origin of Species, that would imply that it explains the diversity of life. Again, I went over horizontal gene transfer with you, evolution did not kick in until after eukaroytes began to emerge.
Likewise, evolution doesn't strictly state there is a purpose, but there is most certainly no accident either. But, if you want, you can take the theistic evolutionist approach and say evolution is just god's way of setting up natural laws and guiding the evolutionary process. Under this, you get to keep your god, AND follow the evidence. That's why every time you equated evolution to atheism, you were making a false dichotomy.
Dodge Beast
If it was not an ordered, intended and guided purpose, it was an incident by pure circumstance; a fluke, an accident.
Or, maybe, just maybe, there's no purpose and thus nothing can be an accident because nothing could be right either. Evolution makes no claims to this, if you want, claim your god makes evolution happen, but either way, evolution is valid. And there's no distinction between "micro" and "macro" beyond the species level either.
Dodge Beast
But I digress; I am not here to quarrel the particulars of one principle to the next.
Because you might realize that evolution is consistent with your god, have to get rid of your false dichotomy, and realize that you should listen to evidence?
Dodge Beast
vipr230
“So again, you can believe whatever you want, you can believe the moon is really just a small sun, but that does NOT mean you can go claiming you actually have the evidence to support this, nor does it mean you have any facts to back your claim up.”
I never made this claim. I never made ANY claim, as to “how” I could disprove any possibility of evolution. I simply stated that I believe in Creation. You and the rest of your bunch took your own liberty.
You know what's coming next don't you?
you
You have the facts you believe in, and I have mine
Yeahhhh, see, problem is, this is claiming you have facts, that implies evidence, you clearly don't have any. If you do, provide it, but I'm saying you should NOT go around claiming you have evidence unless you can back that claim up. You're the one arguing AGAINST the facts. Those are your own words, you were the one to claim you have some facts, we didn't take the liberty. They... are...your...own...words.
Dodge Beast
Speaking of subterfuge.
I invite you to do the same, then. You see, the same thing that you and your contemporaries are complaining to me—“Why are you here?” and “Why bother posting here?” is just as well applied in my favour; I wasn’t even talking to any of you, but you surely had to leap at the chance to challenge what motivates my belief.
vipr230
“Quit lying about what you believe or what we accept.”
I invite you to do the same, then. You see, the same thing that you and your contemporaries are complaining to me—“Why are you here?” and “Why bother posting here?” is just as well applied in my favour; I wasn’t even talking to any of you, but you surely had to leap at the chance to challenge what motivates my belief.
Because this is a forum where you're expected to be able to substantiate what you say and considering it's public, you should expect people to challenge that which you cannot substantiate.
You don't have to talk to us, when you claim you have facts, when you go pretending it's just a matter of opinion, you should expect us to take offense to that when you refuse to provide any support. And, considering you say "the odds are stacked in our favor", apparently you can't provide evidence.
Dodge Beast
How can I be lying about my belief…or lie on what the troupe of you are inclined to accept? (That’s called a “rhetorical question”, by the way.) That statement is both awkward, and has the faint hollow drone of a tautology.
I don't care if it's rhetorical, it's got an easy answer.
Notice, you state the odds are stacked in our favor. You also state you have facts. You cannot support yourself then, but still assert you have facts. Somewhere here there is a contradiction with your beliefs. You also asserted that evolution by definition was purposeless, this assumes your god cannot create a world to abide by natural laws, this would be contradictory to the all powerful creator of your beliefs.
And regarding what evolution is, well, your whole "lizard to bird" thing makes that rather clear.
Dodge Beast
vipr230
“We've shown in copious details what backs up evolution, you have yet to show ANYTHING that backs up creationism.”
Hmmm…maybe, because I didn’t say I would, personally? You think that might be it? I mean, how many times have I said that I’m not here to debate you on evolution? It might surprise you, that I don’t argue the repair of my vehicle with my mechanic, either, even if I have helped rebuild a trans or two and an engine.
Then you assert knowledge of the subject? Then how the hell do you keep claiming evolution is based on accidents, or that evolution=abiogenesis, or that evolution=horizontal gene transfer?
But, if you can't support yourself, then keep quiet and never spew your bile to the world. Your assertion that it is just a matter of belief and you actually have facts is an outright lie if you can't support it.
Dodge Beast
”vipr”
“Again, believe what you want, but don't claim any validity unless you can support it.”
I can say my reasons are valid TO ME, just like you could say you’re a particularly wonderful person because of reasons that matter TO YOU. I can choose to either agree or disagree. The difference is the fact that I can choose to disagree with you without turning it into an ugly affair.
One can argue subjective matters like that, but when arguing the nature of the universe, that which has empirical evidence to verify positions, it doesn't matter what we consider valid reasons, it only matters what the evidence supports. We cannot go claiming validity if the evidence does not support our beliefs. We can say we have beliefs, but if the evidence doesn't support it, we admit the evidence doesn't support it, we go admitting that we have an invalid position, and we do not claim validity. It's NOT a choice, it's NOT a matter of opinion, it is a matter of accepting or denying evidence. You choose to deny evidence, I choose to accept it, but VALIDITY is on the side of the evidence. You cannot claim to have "facts" if the "facts" don't support you. You claimed, and I quoted you, to have them. Clearly, you do not.
Dodge Beast
Other than that, I wasn’t here to “claim validity” to anything, other than the fact that your buddy directly misquoted Mr. Hovind.
Oh, but you still did, and I quoted you on it. In fact, you did just above too, by asserting that it's simply a choice, you assert both choices are valid, but considering one goes against the evidence, only one is valid because it is supported. Yours is not supported, if you claim it's supported, you're again claiming validity that you do not have.
Dodge Beast
“Lord Setar”
“What I find nice is that he started really whining after you posted all those links to peer-reviewed journals, vipr - hell, after I even simply posted TalkOrigins a few times.”
“What I find nice is that he started really whining after you posted all those links to peer-reviewed journals, vipr - hell, after I even simply posted TalkOrigins a few times.”
Well, you can go ahead and think that’s “whining”, but I call it backing up my intent, or keeping my word. I almost did fall for it, though! The fact that you misconstrued my objective and I have to repeatedly explain it is not a flaw on my behalf. I don’t see whining…I see me not falling for your bull baiting…. and it appears that none of you are getting it.
I don't get it, all we are asking for is EVIDENCE. Is it REALLY so bad to back up your arguments? Is it really better to attack us and go saying "it's just a choice"! Rather than back up your beliefs?
What is wrong with "falling for it"? By "falling for it" you substantiate your beliefs and provide evidence to an audience that CARES about evidence. You don't seem to, but we do, and because you claim "facts" and claim a valid position, we want to see this evidence if it exists. The only real reason I can think of for you considering it bad to "fall for it" is if you honestly admit you don't have any evidence. If you don't want to admit not having evidence, but if you "fall for it", you will.
Dodge Beast
“Lord Setar”
“That's when he broke out all the whining about how we're trying to suppress him and we think that he has no right to believe what he wants.”
I never said you were trying to suppress me, personally nor had I said you were deliberately preventing me from a right to a particular belief.
The closet thing in any of my previous?
This:
”Dodge Beast”
“In truth, you have only lent substance to the fact that most of your ilk aren’t interested in peaceful intent, as it serves your purpose much better to aggregate and berate others who believe differently than you.”
And I’m not wrong.
I think it’s interesting that you interpret something and try to make it as though I had said specifically that.
I can't find a quote where you did claim we're trying to suppress you, however you are wrong. We would be quite civil if you engage in proper intellectual honesty by supporting your position. I've argued with others regarding classification of taxonomy before without "berating" others because they were arguments where each side was providing articles to support their position. If you back up your position, it becomes a proper discourse, if you keep making claims of validity and ignoring evidence when it's provided, while refusing to provide your own evidence, then of course we're going to berate you. You're refusing to follow basic decency in intellectual discourse.
Dodge Beast
“Lord Setar”
”Seriously, Dodge? Can you just read the evidence in vipr's post? You claimed that we aren't open-minded or free-thinking, yet you haven't said anything in response to what vipr posted. In doing this, you are showing us that you are a complete hypocrite, as if you were open-minded you'd have read the evidence vipr posted.”
Well, for one, I really don’t care if you think I am a hypocrite; in order for your opinion to actually matter, I’d have to respect you. This isn’t something I just give away…it has to be earned. I can speak respectfully, I can respect the rights of another as any common and decent person would, but I do not have to respect you personally. I am aware this works both ways, and I truly am indifferent.
Regarding TalkOrigins, everyone posts from that same site, so it’s really nothing new. And being open-minded has nothing to do with swallowing the dogma of another. (Argumentum ad populum: “Most scientists believe in X, therefore X must be true.”)
Again, this proves you didn't read it. 1, ONE of my links of over 70+ was from Talk Origins.
Being open minded means you actually READ THE EVIDENCE rather than believe "oh, it's all talk origins" when just 1 of over 70 fricken articles was talk origins!
And it's not an argument ad populum, it's "this is evidence". "this is more evidence". "This is still more evidence". "Here's some more". It's mostly just "here, these are the peer reviewed papers showing evidence".
Dodge Beast
Incidentally, having an open mind has much more to do with simply accepting everything everyone does as being okay or that others believe differently; it has a lot more to do with the fact that even if they don’t believe as you do, they are no less deserving of common courtesy and the value associated with it. I have demonstrated a degree of urbanity, whereas it has not been returned (and really, I am not at all surprised). This isn’t contradiction if this is truly a “debate”-inclined forum, it is just part of the civility of debate.
They are deserving of common courtesy if they are willing to support themselves. If they are not, then they should be met with scorn because they make claims that they are unwilling to substantiate, make claims contrary to the evidence, and claim validity when they have none. Like I said, we keep asking for evidence, you provide none, if you did, we would be civil. We have no need to respect you if you always meet us with "I am not going to support myself or my claims that contradict the evidence"
Dodge Beast
Even as a Christian, I don’t “fault” someone being gay, or if they choose to worship another god or even Satan…I don’t agree with their inclination, but I can still respect the rights of the person who makes that selection. (And no, if by some fluke I’m talking to a gay person or a Satan worshipper, for goodness’ sake, I’m not looking to debate these either.) I don’t hate difference…but if someone is going to expect others to play by a construct of rules, then that person should demonstrate the standard he expects others (even who it is apparent he seems to view as lesser) to abide.
The rules would state that each side needs to present a case and evidence, you are the one to have broken that, that is why you are met with scorn. Support yourself, provide the papers, provide the evidence, and we actually might treat you with some kind of kindness. Funny that.
Dodge Beast
”Lord Setar”
“Or you can go post your tripe somewhere other than ED.”
Last I checked, posts aren’t sequestered specifically for the likes of you and yours. This is my first post here, as I have been reading many of the subjects here for a while now. If you don’t want to hear my “tripe”, then perhaps it is you who need not respond to me?
Or, maybe you should just learn to substantiate yourself and then we can have proper discussions rather than you ignoring evidence (and not even looking at it, hoenstly, "all from talk origins!??!).
Dodge Beast
”Lord Setar”
“Second, what do you have? You haven't provided us with anything, which is our biggest problem.”
I wouldn’t say that’s your ‘biggest’ problem. Absorbing the glaringly simple fact that you’re trying to somehow convince me that I came in here with the intent to challenge your belief in evolution seems to be second in line to it, though.
I don't believe you're here to challenge our belief on evolution, it's rather that you came in here believing your position to be valid, and asserting that both positions are valid, likewise, asserting it is a simple "choice". We "choose to believe in evolution", you "choose to believe in creation". This is dishonest, this is what we find fault in. We're well aware you're content with us believing in evolution, however we're not content with you claiming both are valid positions. You can believe whatever you want, but asserting it's just a simple choice or that you have facts is our fault unless you support yourself.
Dodge Beast
As if I owe you an explanation. That’s the funny thing in all this. You claim I am missing a point, but I’m not having any trouble seeing what is going on; you’re trying to get me to quarrel with you on evolution, knowing that I had already admitted it’s likely I don’t have the study invested in it that you have, so I’m an easy target for a game of proverbial “fist”. Sorry, boys…I’m not here to stroke your e-gos. It seems you’re all enjoying each other’s company for that purpose.
NO! We don't want a quarrel, we want EVIDENCE. We want SUPPORT! Your claims both are valid is where the quarrel lies, your claims it's a choice is where the quarrel lies, WE WANT YOU TO SUBSTANTIATE YOURSELF! THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR!
If you provide evidence, then we're content! It's THIS that we have the problem with, this "I don't want to support myself!" This utter disregard for evidence that is where we have fault. If you actually provided it, we wouldn't be so hostile!
Dodge Beast
”Lord Setar”
“We. Are. Not. Trying. To. Change. Your. Belief. What do I need to do, put it in giant, bolded, underlined, italicized, flashing red 128-point font for you to get that point?”
I guess I’ll get it when you do.
By calling what I choose to believe a lie, and by making posts trying to “shatter” the beliefs [much of what one’s worldview is based on] of another person (which you obviously cannot, and it does appear to frustrate you), what then, is you ambition other than to change another person’s belief? What is the purpose of creating whole threads dedicated to trashing why others believe as they do, if not for the purpose of making oneself feel superior by picking apart the education of another? If you are convinced, get out of your comfort zone and challenge someone equally studied/educated to you. (Another trend…?)
Our goal is to either have you substantiate your beliefs, or if you can't then quit claiming validity to them, quit asserting you have "facts" and thus quitting the promotion of ignorance. Understand that you may choose to believe whatever you want, but that it isn't a simple choice when it comes to what the evidence supports. That is what we want. We want to quell the spread of ignorance. People like who who assert you have facts, and refuse to provide any, while claiming its a choice of what people want to believe, are a bane to society. We don't want to change your beliefs, we want to get it so you stop claiming that which you do not have.
Dodge Beast
The greater majority of folks that people Gaia are already sold on your canon.
See, this is the problem, you're making it out like evolution is a belief when it is that which is supported by evidence. You may believe what you wish, but we want you to stop making comments like this.
Dodge Beast
I had said this from the start, and I will continue to reverberate it: I did not come here to challenge your belief or knowledge in or of evolution. I admitted that I don’t have the vested level of study that would grant me better qualifications to do so. It was your choice to jump on a subject that had absolutely ZERO to do with why I posted here, pointing out your friend’s dishonesty.
THEN STOP SAYING YOU HAVE FACTS! DONT SAY EVOLUTION IS ANYTHING BUT HIGHLY BACKED SCIENCE! Believe what you wish, but stop promoting ignorance of evolution. If you don't want to support yourself, DONT CLAIM ANYTHING! Don't claim evolution is "canon" when contradictory evidence will overthrow it! Nothing is canon in the sciences! Don't claim it is! Don't claim you have facts! Don't claim it's a simple choice! Admit you chose to reject evidence and have none of your own, it doesn't mean you can't believe it, it just means you admit no evidence!
Dodge Beast
Dodge Beast
Do I need to put that in bold, underlined, neon script for your viewing ease?
Not really. You need to learn however what we want.
Dodge Beast
Setar
You have claimed that Creationism is a science (and don't lie, you outright stated "Creation Science" a couple posts back). Back up this claim. Provide some evidence for creationism. That will get a major problem out of the way.”
Last time I checked, I don’t believe it was against the law to use those words together, was it? Are you the thought police? I’ve said it several times, and will again, I am certain.
It's not a science though, claiming it is a science means you claim it has validity, meaning you're claiming more than you should. Back to our problem. If you can't support it, don't claim it.
Dodge Beast
What makes you think that those who study science and connect it with Creation have invested any less time?
The fact that we've yet to see any scientific evidence for creationism. And unlike you browsing through our papers, we've gone through your sites. And yes, it's papers verses sites because none of your sites have creationist papers. None have peer reviewed scientific papers that support their pov... with one exception, the radioactive halos, that was debunked long ago though.
Dodge Beast
You can cry how people you don’t like have “stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something because they could, but didn’t bother to wonder whether or not they should” to achieve a view you don’t like, it doesn’t change the fact that they have invested time and effort into their pursuits.
Except they haven't, if they had, you'd have an easier time providing evidence for your world view. I didn't have much trouble providing data for mine. You're claiming validity to a creationist position here, you've yet to substantiate that. We are not trying to change your beliefs, we are trying to get you to stop claiming validity when you do not have it!
Dodge Beast
”Lord Setar”
“Oh, by the way, flaws with evolution are not evidence for creation - to say such is to use the fallacy of bifurcation and create a false dichotomy.”
Then I suppose the inverse could hold true in terms of that which you feel is lacking in Creation Science (oh, I’ve said it again! Get the pitchforks and torches!). I believe what I choose.
EXCEPT YOU HAVE FAILED TO SHOW VALIDITY TO "CREATION SCIENCE"!!! You are claiming it's a choice, you are claiming that the two are roughly equal, I provided you with evidence for evolution, you have YET to provide any for creationism. You're claiming validity here for your position, claiming it is as valid as evolution, THIS IS OUR PROBLEM!!!!
You can believe whatever you want but STOP CLAIMING IT IS VALID UNLESS YOU CAN SUPPORT YOURSELF!!!
Dodge Beast
What’s funny is how you toss out all these terms from a book on “logic” to make yourself feel all superior, and commit innumerable instances of ad hominem yourself. I know I lol’d, to coin the vernacular.
(“Fallacy of bifurcation”? 0__o -__- 0__o… x___O Okay…)
(“Fallacy of bifurcation”? 0__o -__- 0__o… x___O Okay…)
I'd like to see where we say "you're a creationist thus you're wrong". We say "you're a creationist and you have failed to substantiate your point, thus you are wrong", but that's not an ad hominem. Likewise, we have insulted you over and over, called you a liar and an idiot, but insults are not ad hominem. "You are an idiot and thus you are wrong" however would be.
Dodge Beast
“Jaaten Syric”
“I don't know of the specific quote Voija was referencing, but given his stance on things like the 'real' reason for the government not liking the serial child rapist turned kidnapper, tax evader, and murderer David Koresh was because...”
Well, since the post was directed to someone who was not you, perhaps you should have considered looking into it, before your decided to join the rest of the puppies barking at me from the porch (I believe this is what I have been accused of, yeah?). If you all seem so keen on a real debate, why don’t you seek it outside the comfort zone of a place like Gaia (where the greater majority think in agreement with you, and the likelihood of real challenges are less prevalent)? (I’ve said this to your other chum, as well. We already know the opinion of the OP’s [the one I actually was addressing] interpretation of the average Gaian’s math skills.)
Like I said…preaching to the choir, and telling them they sing off key.
After all, isn’t it the unanimous claim here, that I’m ignoring the plethora of links provided by others, and this somehow makes me a hypocrite? I have looked through the links…however, I didn’t come here to debate what all of you accept as true, but to point out an error made by your friend, who claims he disdains intellectual dishonesty, then commits it. Double standards aren’t any fairer for your lot than they would be for mine.
Incidentally, I think you have the wrong name; I am not defending David Koresh. Mr. Hovind doesn’t stand accused as a militant, or a child molester or murderer.
Furthermore, attacking someone’s character instead of addressing him or her personally on what you may disagree with in his or her view of things doesn’t grant you a correct by default condition.
In the meantime, feel free to bump your own posts.
Uhh, no, Jaaten was referring to Hovind's stance on Koresh. That isn't an attack on hovind's character to invalidate his views, that is stating that hovind's support of Koresh, a convicted child molester, is indicative of the possibility for Voija's original quote to be indicitive of Hovind's true feelings towards children. It's simply showing that the line might not be as out of context as you assert.
VoijaRisa
Offline
- Quote
- Report Post
- Posted: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 17:14:32 +0000
Dodge Beast
Could I trouble you to show me where he specifically says "God gives me the power not to kill my own children"?
Dodge Beast
I know what he had said. It was more to the tune of "Grandchildren are God's reward for not killing your own kids when you wanted to/thought about it." (paraphrased a little more accurately).
Dodge Beast
Basically, to that effect, and he meant it in humour purely.
Dodge Beast
How much more of that can be said of you, taking something like this and doing the very thing you revile Behe and Dembski for: deliberately misquoting and completely falsifying that which was said by another.
Dodge Beast
Your vitriol towards those of us who choose to believe in Creation is evident in the mocking, condescending manner in which you respond ("Want a cookie?" When someone simply stated their belief, and made no ill comment to you.)
Dodge Beast
Truthfully, the derision in which you speak of anyone who believes counter to you really isn't necessary in furthering your ideas; a person can be civil in debate, no matter their passions.
Dodge Beast
I thought "logical fallacies" were considered counterintuitive...you know, like ad hominem attacks.
