tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post1754362597976574805..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: How not to stage an atheist debate, part 2Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-37749952703915728802009-05-05T10:42:00.000-05:002009-05-05T10:42:00.000-05:00"It is not clear how Ross iolates a,b,d,g.
And I p..."It is not clear how Ross iolates a,b,d,g.<br />And I pointed out before that philosophers of science have no consensus about c and f.<br />e is ridiculous."<br /><br />For those playing at home F is naturalistic evidence<br /><br />yes...Mr. Freetinkler is asserting that scientists are honestly arguing whether you need real evidence or supernatural evidence is valid.<br /><br />fail. Really there's no point in arugeing any of your other points. Like I said. you don't get science. In fact, really you don't seem to like it at all. You're upset that we have a system for determing reality based on reality and it doesn't mesh with your world view. Since you lack the mental balls to either a) scientifically argue your point b) concede you were wrong, you just want to invalidate the process.<br /><br />Now that you have been addressed I will no longer respond to your posts. This is different than you, who when posed with a querry they can'r respond such as my response to your claim of TAG supremeness, just ignores it and instead tries to take quote mining pot shots. Therefore, I'm declaring you a moron now that this line of conversation is at an end, (i like to see things through) and won't start another. You can say that I'm doing the "declare yourself the winner" tactic creationists use in debates when they wear down people with nonsense (in fact I'm fairly sure you will) and fine, believe that. You clearly will just believe whatever you want. I'll leave it to everyone else to judge. If someone else says I did that I'll apologize. Till then I shun you to outer darkness.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15677092968714424939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-9118467403254633062009-05-05T09:44:00.000-05:002009-05-05T09:44:00.000-05:00"Things do NOT look designed."
Dawkins would disag..."Things do NOT look designed."<br />Dawkins would disagree (Regrettably I have not read the bilind watchmaker but this is from the God delusion.<br />p157<br />"1 One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect, over the<br />centuries, has been to explain how the complex, improbable<br />appearance of design in the universe arises....<br />4 The most ingenious and powerful crane so far discovered is<br />Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Darwin and his<br />successors have shown how living creatures, with their<br />spectacular statistical improbability and appearance of design,<br />have evolved by slow, gradual degrees"<br />It is clear tat he conceded to creationists that things looks designed even though Darwin shows they evolved.<br />"a) burden of proof<br />b) deductive reasoning<br />c) falsifiability<br />d) the difference between causality and corillation.<br />e) Conservation of energy and mass<br />f) naturalistic evidence<br />g) the process of the 3 experimental steps"<br />It is not clear how Ross iolates a,b,d,g.<br />And I pointed out before that philosophers of science have no consensus about c and f.<br />e is ridiculous. Are you saying that a scientist can't make any changes to conservation of energy is we observe energy not being conserved? It is a law that is up to proof or disproof.Besisdes it is not clear how Ross violates it either.MrFreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778096949945818236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-57461633862763633262009-05-05T04:41:00.000-05:002009-05-05T04:41:00.000-05:00Ing, the tragedy is that he might actually have re...Ing, the tragedy is that he might actually have read a few - but the wall of denial is so thick and is being so consistently reinforced that little if anything penetrates.Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-55831820056150659002009-05-04T21:53:00.000-05:002009-05-04T21:53:00.000-05:00@ Cipher
Mr. Freetinkler's inability to grasp bas...@ Cipher<br /><br />Mr. Freetinkler's inability to grasp basic science like that is why I laugh when he claims to have read science books.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15677092968714424939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-13861559981068916442009-05-04T05:01:00.000-05:002009-05-04T05:01:00.000-05:00"What principle of science does Ross not accept?"
...<I>"What principle of science does Ross not accept?"<br /><br />a) burden of proof<br />b) deductive reasoning<br />c) falsifiability<br />d) the difference between causality and corillation.<br />e) Conservation of energy and mass<br />f) naturalistic evidence<br />g) the process of the 3 experimental steps </I>To which I would add that Hugh Ross, like Kurt Wise, Marcus Ross and others of their kind, begin from the position that the Bible is inerrant, is to be understood literally and is a reliable guide to history and cosmology. They refuse to go where the evidence takes them; they look at only that "evidence" that supports their a priori conclusions. <br /><br />It's really a fundamentally dishonest approach. If you truly believe the Bible to be a reliable guide to the natural world, there's no need to seek out "evidence" to support it.<br /><br />And, of course, everyone who disagrees burns for all of eternity. Utterly despicable.Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-85257382377244532642009-05-03T20:25:00.000-05:002009-05-03T20:25:00.000-05:00Do you at least agree that Dawkins' concession to ...Do you at least agree that Dawkins' concession to the creationists is true ie that things really do "look designed"<br /><br />Again you miss the point on what quote mining is because his whole point is to show WHY IT DOESN'T FUCKING WORK THAT WAY. Seriously, Kassim replied, explained WHY it was quote mining and said that, you heard only what you wanted to and let everything else go bu-bye.<br /><br />I don't know how anyone can fail harder save for punching themselves in the face and castrating themselves in a freak pogostick accident.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15677092968714424939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-31333316649007852102009-05-03T20:12:00.000-05:002009-05-03T20:12:00.000-05:00@Kazim
Do you at least agree that Dawkins' concess...@Kazim<br />Do you at least agree that Dawkins' concession to the creationists is true ie that things really do "look designed"<br /><br />AGAIN this is my evidence that you do NOT have a grasp of evolution. Things do NOT look designed. We have not found a turtle with a CD player for a shell. Natural things LOOK like natural things, designed things look like designed things. Despite their homologous functions and forms a Camera is significantly DIFFERENT from an eye. An eye is made of proteins, adipose, and formed in matrices of tissues, films and fluid filled chemicals. A camera is inorganic instead of microbial mechanisms uses simple mechanical tools, switches, levers, pulleys etc. The function is similar but the innate design is VERY VERY different. <br /><br />The fact that natural things are definitively different from designed objects are why computer animation and robotics runs into the phenomena known as the "uncanny valley" It is HARD for designed things to imitate natural things. <br /><br />Again if everything natural LOOKS designed...how DO you know that watches do not occur in nature? It is exactly the same as a squirrel? If both are designed, PROVE that watches do not occur naturally. <br /><br />"What principle of science does Ross not accept?"<br /><br />a) burden of proof<br />b) deductive reasoning<br />c) falsifiability<br />d) the difference between causality and corillation. <br />e) Conservation of energy and mass<br />f) naturalistic evidence <br />g) the process of the 3 experimental stepsInghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15677092968714424939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-27503878925864576912009-05-03T13:16:00.000-05:002009-05-03T13:16:00.000-05:00@Kazim
Do you at least agree that Dawkins' conces...@Kazim <br />Do you at least agree that Dawkins' concession to the creationists is true ie that things really do "look designed"MrFreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778096949945818236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-29465293720553898142009-05-03T13:05:00.000-05:002009-05-03T13:05:00.000-05:00"No, based upon their unwillingness or inability t..."No, based upon their unwillingness or inability to accept the basic principles of science."<br />What principle of science does Ross not accept?MrFreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778096949945818236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-50743830580995385772009-05-02T09:35:00.000-05:002009-05-02T09:35:00.000-05:00Oh I found a video of Ross' opening on youtube. Ap...<I>Oh I found a video of Ross' opening on youtube. Apparently it was not supposed to be a debate</I>.<br /><br />If that's the case, then they apparently lied to CFI who cosponsored the event. <A HREF="http://www.centerforinquiry.net/austin/events/debate_was_darwin_wrong_with_michael_shermer/" REL="nofollow">CFI billed it as a debate.</A><I>And he quoted Dawkins as saying that there was a strong appearance of design. How that can be miscontrued as quotemining is beond me. Everyone knows Dawkins is a strong Darwinist and naturalist</I>.<br /><br />Quote mining is quote mining. It doesn't matter if you think your audience has a reasonable expectation of being familiar with the subject's actual views. An honest researcher does not quote a passage by someone as if it were agreement or concession without explicitly noting that the subject goes on to make the opposite conclusion.<br /><br />There is a common writing form in academic papers, of which I have written quite a few (computer science related). You attempt to anticipate objections to your work, and then you respond to those objections in advance. So typically you'll see the final sections of papers filled with paragraphs that say things like "It could certainly be said that X. However, due to the following reasons, it appears that 'not X' is the case." Any person who tries to bolster his argument by quoting the first sentence and omitting the second is conning the audience on purpose.<br /><br />This is exactly the kind of thing that would be shredded in the ordinary peer review process. And yet creationists still think they have so few published papers because there's a conspiracy to get them, even though they do that sort of thing constantly.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-29823806671215736802009-05-02T04:21:00.000-05:002009-05-02T04:21:00.000-05:00So you would have someone take away someone's degr...<I>So you would have someone take away someone's degree based on their religion?</I>No, based upon their unwillingness or inability to accept the basic principles of science.<br /><br />You want to subordinate evidence to faith? Fine - become a theologian, not a scientist.Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-39326924617656059042009-05-02T00:56:00.000-05:002009-05-02T00:56:00.000-05:00these posts about the debate are awesome. it reall...these posts about the debate are awesome. it really just confirms for me that believers are unable (and unwilling) to accept the possibility of anything else. i mean, why else would they bring science into their argument? since the bible didn't provide anything else but a bunch of stories they had to go to something else to explain the phenomenon. which i find quite ironic, considering they need only faith to believe in god and nothing else. why would they need science anyway if they're 100% convinced some dude clapped his hands and >POOF< the universe? i guess we have made SOME progress in the minds of believers, because their "good book" isn't good enough to explain their own faith, leading them to seek answers from other sources: science. we have them shaking in their boots!<br /><br />even if the christian side was dominant in the debate, it just shows they have more to prove.<br /><br />i stop by the blog once in a while and am always pleased with the content. keep up the good work, everyone.HollyBerryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17393159274810967794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-83146498551007276702009-05-02T00:09:00.000-05:002009-05-02T00:09:00.000-05:00Oh I found a video of Ross' opening on youtube. Ap...Oh I found a video of Ross' opening on youtube. Apparently it was not supposed to be a debate. Ross was supposed to present the evidence for his creation model and his predictions and the skeptic on the panel would present a critical analysis of he model he presented.<br />And he quoted Dawkins as saying that there was a strong appearance of design. How that can be miscontrued as quotemining is beond me. Everyone knows Dawkins is a strong Darwinist and naturalist.<br />The point was that even he admits that things "look designed".<br />That was not quote-mining.<br />And I'm sure if he had quoted someone like Behe who does believe in design ,you would poison the well and say Behe is not credible.MrFreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778096949945818236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-45376675622373937052009-05-01T22:53:00.000-05:002009-05-01T22:53:00.000-05:00"I've said it before and I'll say it again - secul..."I've said it before and I'll say it again - secular universities have absolutely no business handing out PhD's in science to Christian fundamentalists. And if they earn the degrees legitimately, and lose their minds afterward - the degrees should be rescinded."<br />So you would have someone take away someone's degree based on their religion?MrFreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778096949945818236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-77351879640632408002009-05-01T19:41:00.000-05:002009-05-01T19:41:00.000-05:00Can a scientist not cite evidence from other scien...<I>Can a scientist not cite evidence from other scientists? </I>Sure, a scientist can - but Ross isn't a scientist. He's a Christian apologist who fooled a secular university into giving him a science degree.<br /><br />I've said it before and I'll say it again - secular universities have absolutely no business handing out PhD's in science to Christian fundamentalists. And if they earn the degrees legitimately, and lose their minds afterward - the degrees should be rescinded.Jeff Eygeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11967707883565162538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-86895443606358199842009-05-01T08:31:00.000-05:002009-05-01T08:31:00.000-05:00MrFreeThinker wrote:
Of course if he had quoted on...MrFreeThinker wrote:<br /><I>Of course if he had quoted one of those scientists you would just say he was quoting other biased fundamentalists.</I>Glad to see you acknowledge that the creationist is really limited to only two tactics: a) to lie with quotes taken out of context, implying that they say the opposite of what the quotee was actually saying, or b) to cite dubious sources who really do support your side.<br /><br />Yes, we'll complain about either.Curt Cameronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08048312089881459521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-9036477134953115632009-04-30T21:11:00.000-05:002009-04-30T21:11:00.000-05:00For example the aether theory is science. However ...For example the aether theory is science. However this theory has been disproven. It is still scientific, just false. The Bohmian theory of quantum mechanics has not been proven. However it is still a scientific theory. We just do not know if it is true yet."<br /><br />And Creationism is neither science AND its been disproven. ID is creationism...we have the evidence we have the internal memos. It's fruit from the poisoned tree.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15677092968714424939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-61872345296814075492009-04-30T15:45:00.000-05:002009-04-30T15:45:00.000-05:00@Akusai
I was not talking about whether ID is true...@Akusai<br />I was not talking about whether ID is true but whether ID is science.Some people in other threads were claiming ID is not scientific.<br /><br />For example the aether theory is science. However this theory has been disproven. It is still scientific, just false. The Bohmian theory of quantum mechanics has not been proven. However it is still a scientific theory. We just do not know if it is true yet.MrFreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778096949945818236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-52471182233597341682009-04-30T15:26:00.000-05:002009-04-30T15:26:00.000-05:00Many other atheists think ID is validNice bait-and...<B>Many other atheists think ID is valid</B>Nice bait-and-switch, cockcheese. Saying that ID asks a scientific question is not the same as saying it is valid. The question "Is there a unicorn in my underpants?" poses a scientifically testable query; that does not mean that I should go tell people about my "valid" theory of the Jockey Shorts Unicorn.<br /><br />Again, a swing and a miss from a grade-A dipshit.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06661441668625677468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-75014371065845395792009-04-30T14:40:00.000-05:002009-04-30T14:40:00.000-05:00Russell,
Thanks for this post, and for your conti...Russell,<br /><br />Thanks for this post, and for your continued insight into these kinds of debates; I've tried to distill down some of this advice <A HREF="http://evaluatingchristianity.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/more-advice-on-atheist-theist-debates/" REL="nofollow">over at EC</A>.Andrew T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07562402977211994270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-11580067439573582212009-04-30T14:31:00.000-05:002009-04-30T14:31:00.000-05:00First of all I'm not an atheist and never claimed ...First of all I'm not an atheist and never claimed to be.\<br />I think the jury is still out as to whether ID is true but I think it is a valid scientific theory.<br />(Many other atheists think ID is valid .Off the top of my head I can think of Victor Stenger who thinks ID is science, but bad science. Similarly in the God Delusion Dawkins said it was undoubted a scientific question as to whether we were created by an intelligent being. Dr. Mortron , a philosopher of science also agrees)MrFreeThinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12778096949945818236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-39878301053049343652009-04-30T12:02:00.000-05:002009-04-30T12:02:00.000-05:00As an aside, is it just me, or is MrFreeThinker's ...As an aside, is it just me, or is MrFreeThinker's name shockingly ironic? It's like Christians legislating against gays and calling it love."<br /><br />FreeThinker's name is like that because he started out trying the "now I'm an atheist to...just like you...really....but I think intelligent design is valid"<br /><br />Because he's a ballless little newt who was too spineless to represent his real stance at first and was under the misconception that we'd be more likely to agree with him if he was part of our "religion".<br /><br />"Aaaaaand now that Mr. Freethinker has arrived I am going to unsubscribe as I can only imagine that the discussion will descend into pedantic, apologistic "gotcha" arguments from Mr. Freethinker."<br /><br />Awwww don't leave the blog I enjoy your comments.... also it is insanely EASY to ignore Mr. Freethumper. He never brings up any valid points or any original points. He's like a fruit fly buzzing around...annoying but circumstantial.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15677092968714424939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-43311503030643788502009-04-30T12:00:00.000-05:002009-04-30T12:00:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15677092968714424939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-78014275956642392502009-04-30T11:33:00.000-05:002009-04-30T11:33:00.000-05:00Aaaaaand now that Mr. Freethinker has arrived I am...Aaaaaand now that Mr. Freethinker has arrived I am going to unsubscribe as I can only imagine that the discussion will descend into pedantic, apologistic "gotcha" arguments from Mr. Freethinker.Sparrowhawkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16520765821903563677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-73866820738111079632009-04-30T08:55:00.000-05:002009-04-30T08:55:00.000-05:00"SEE THIS IS WHY I can't stand debates! It's like ..."SEE THIS IS WHY I can't stand debates! It's like a race where the fastest person doesn't win...the medal goes to whoever tied their shoes the best."<br /><br />Hah, great simile, I'm going to use that one in the future, if you don't mind.<br /><br />As an aside, is it just me, or is MrFreeThinker's name shockingly ironic? It's like Christians legislating against gays and calling it love.Archaneushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03996511005864112902noreply@blogger.com