^ Good thing I've taken History of Rhetoric 514 so I can understand all the "complexities" being thrown at me.

4/18/2008 2:52:25 PM

what you need to do is take Basic Understanding of Reason 101

4/18/2008 3:11:07 PM

^ And what is your discipline, Captain Logic?

4/18/2008 3:12:58 PM

your momma, individual who is beneath my contempt

4/18/2008 3:14:25 PM

^ That's what I thought. You've got nothing--as usual.

4/18/2008 3:19:03 PM

no, i just have zero respect for you or your opinions

i am not debating you because you are not worth debating with

you have proved this over and over again

you are a fool and I treat you as such

4/18/2008 3:22:49 PM

^ Blather, snort, flail!

I'M Captain Logic--YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO DEBATE!!!1 IF YOU WERE A SUPERIOR BEING LIKE ME, YOU WOULD KNOW THIS--YOU ARE BENEATH ME!!!1

STFU.

4/18/2008 3:28:53 PM

tell me why I should try to convince you of anything?

is it possible? are you reasonable?

4/18/2008 3:30:33 PM

Quote :

"I mean, I know there is a designer--what, when, who, where, why, and how that designer did all this is the giant question. And aren't these questions worth exploring?"

-- hooksaw

You said this a couple pages ago.

How do propose that scientists explore the 'what, when, who, where, why, and how' of the designer you "know" exists?

For that matter, how do you know he exists?

4/18/2008 3:38:29 PM

nastoute != mcdanger

where the hell did you get that idea

4/18/2008 3:52:05 PM

^^ How do you know God doesn't exist? And must I prove everything that I believe?

^ If he's not, he's certainly been studying at the McDouche School for Advanced Asshattery.

4/18/2008 4:04:50 PM

^How do you know multiple god's dont exist?

How do you know that Satan isn't the one true god?

how do you know that the screenplay for Stargate isn't what really happeend?

How do you know that a giant alien monster didn't take a shit on the earth to cause humans?






So.. why pick the christian god?

4/18/2008 4:26:12 PM

Quote :

"How do you know God doesn't exist? And must I prove everything that I believe? "

nobody knows if god doesn't exist. proving a negative, blah blah blah.
How do you know the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist? huh? huh? HUH?!

If i supposedly based my entire life view on something though, then personally, I would rather have some proof-positive that it exists. But hey, that's just me.

4/18/2008 4:28:31 PM

For the last fucking time

ID isn't science.

Will never be Science.

Should never even have been considered science.

And ben stein is a toolish nerd whose only memorable accomplishments were a geeky tv show and BUELLER.

End this thread.

4/18/2008 4:36:59 PM

Quote :

"^^ How do you know God doesn't exist? And must I prove everything that I believe?"

Another fine example of why you're such a worthless piece of fuck: your absolute refusal to answer questions and engage in a back and forth discussion. Instead you answer questions with questions, roll your eyes, and throw out a couple of put downs. All while you believe that people troll you because of your political beliefs.

4/18/2008 5:53:24 PM

I know there's plenty of evidence that supports the theory of evolution. Is there any, however, that actually disproves creationism?

4/18/2008 6:18:10 PM

are you serious?

4/18/2008 6:37:37 PM

it's all about interpretations mang

[Edited on April 18, 2008 at 6:42 PM. Reason : oh...and yeah...i am very serious]

4/18/2008 6:41:16 PM

then you are very bad at logic

4/18/2008 7:14:35 PM

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp

4/18/2008 7:20:14 PM

Quote :

"Is there any, however, that actually disproves creationism?"

No, and neither is there any that disproves my theory:

I went back in time and masturbated to a picture of your mom. I ejaculated into a pool of proteins and amino acids. Thus life was first formed.


Can you disprove my theory?

Didn't think so, fuckface.

Since you can't disprove my theory. It must have some validity.

4/18/2008 7:41:09 PM

well then i would ask you to provide some evidence for your claims.

which i'm guessing you aren't able to do with that clever little theory of yours you mention above.

on the other hand, creationists have been providing evidence for their theory for centuries. can it be proven? no. can it be supported? yes.

this same evidence is taken by evolutionists and interpreted to support their theories. which is why i linked that article above.

Quote :

"The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events."

4/18/2008 7:48:52 PM

^That page blows ass and doesn't prove anything.

Show me a page that does not include the Bible.

Not one that says, "here's how to argue without the bible" and then goes on to include the bible anyway.


like this gem:

Quote :

"This man certainly got the message. If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality? "

What the fuck does that even mean? I can talk in doublespeak and confuse people also.


[Edited on April 18, 2008 at 7:56 PM. Reason : ]

4/18/2008 7:55:42 PM

lawlz. apparently you missed the entire point. i would suggest reading it again.

or leaving tsb.

4/18/2008 7:57:34 PM

Please list me one scientific example in that page.

Since that page says "we're all looking at the same evidence," you would think it would show examples, cite references, or provide any empirical data to backup what the author is saying.

So, whenever you're ready.

[Edited on April 18, 2008 at 7:59 PM. Reason : ]

4/18/2008 7:58:16 PM

4/18/2008 8:01:32 PM

arguing the scientific evidence isn't the point of the article (which i still think you missed btw)

but that entire website is full of them.

here is one:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v1/i1/archaeopteryx.asp

which basically goes to support my claim that nearly any piece of evidence can be interpreted to fit any given set of presuppositions (the reasonable sets...because i'm not sure what kind of reasonable axioms you're basing your big-band-ejaculation theory on. if you would like to develop that idea further, though, feel free.)

so basically this evolution vs. creationism debate is unlikely to be resolved when reduced to a purely empiricist debate. it naturally entails a metaphysical, philosophical debate.

[Edited on April 18, 2008 at 8:12 PM. Reason : ]

4/18/2008 8:04:25 PM

Quote :

"creationists have been providing evidence for their theory for centuries. can it be proven? no."

This is also completely ridiculous.

How can it be evidence if it doesn't prove anything? That's the equivalent of your evidence being "Because I said so."

4/18/2008 8:12:08 PM

well i use "evidence" there as "A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment."

but i assume from this discussion that you take evolution to have been proven as fact beyond any shadow of a doubt (not just supported by a thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment).

so then i would ask you to prove to me evolution. and for every piece of evidence you gave me for evolution, i would be able to find a reasonable explanation from a creationist's perspective.

4/18/2008 8:20:34 PM

^^

I can spot the bullshit three sentences into that.

Quote :

"All higher kinds of plants and animals appear abruptly and without transition."

And the evidence, scientific articles, and data is where? It's very easy (and retarded) to make unfounded statements. It's also very easy to say "experts say this."

If this were a Wikipedia article, it would be deleted for weasel words.

If this were a research paper, it would get an F for fucking stupid.

4/18/2008 8:20:57 PM

^^

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

[Edited on April 18, 2008 at 8:21 PM. Reason : ]

4/18/2008 8:21:28 PM

^^excellent. there is some of your evidence for evolution. apparently you believe there are all sorts of transitional forms. well creationists disagree. they aren't transitional forms. creationists just interpret these findings as different species.

and for a while, the biggest piece of evidence for the idea of transition forms was Archaeopteryx. Well, as that article demonstrates, creationists very reasonably interpret Archaeopteryx as a species of its own.

^thanks for the link. i'll watch the entire one hundred and seventeen minutes of that at a later time. i'm at the library and need to be studying now. if you would like to give me a brief summary, then i'd read it. but if it can't be summarized and i just need to watch it, well then i'll get back to ya.

[Edited on April 18, 2008 at 8:33 PM. Reason : dang...it's longer than i thought...but it does look interesting]

4/18/2008 8:28:18 PM

that video is very good, but it's been months since I saw it. The first 70 min or so is lecture, then the rest is Q&A.
He goes through in detail about a lot of evolution misconceptions, like they "irreducible complexity" myth.

and he also goes through all the problems with the current ID education movement (which a lot of people here, even hooksaw, don't agree with). for example, the myth that ID is not just creationism, and therefore is ok to teach in public schools because it's non-religions. Go to minute 58:00-60:00 for conclusive proof that Intelligent Design is just Creationism re-branded (as if you needed any proof....).
For a simple and elegant reason why ID cannot be taught in school, or at least in science, is summed up at 65:00-67:00

4/18/2008 9:06:23 PM

Quote :

"^ [1]How do you know multiple god's dont exist? [2] How do you know that Satan isn't the one true god? [3] how do you know that the screenplay for Stargate isn't what really happeend? [4] How do you know that a giant alien monster didn't take a shit on the earth to cause humans? [5] So.. why pick the christian god?"

God

Okay, here goes:

1. I don't.

2. I don't--but I do believe that existence was created by a loving God/gods (Who knows, maybe the Hindus, for example, have it right--I've always been drawn to Ganesh and a Hindu priestess once told me she believed it was my God/god).



3. I don't--but the odds of the facts behind creation matching exactly with a fictional TV show created for the purposes of entertainment seem high.

4. I don't--it seems unlikely though

5. I didn't--and for about the hundredth time I DO NOT IDENTIFY MYSELF AS A CHRISTIAN!!!1 But the Christians may be right, too.

When I reference ID, I mean a designer of existence that was obviously intelligent. I can't speak for what others who subscribe to the broader ID movement mean--and I don't think it's monolithic.

Quote :

"Another fine example of why you're such a worthless piece of fuck: your absolute refusal to answer questions and engage in a back and forth discussion. Instead you answer questions with questions, roll your eyes, and throw out a couple of put downs. All while you believe that people troll you because of your political beliefs."

Why do you hate God(s), ATarzansanus?

BTW, could I get a roll call of how many objectors here are atheists or agnostics? It's just routine, you know--for our records.

I'll try to get my position across--yet again:

Quote :

"I haven't seen this documentary, so I can't properly critique it [I still haven't seen the whole thing]. I have no problem, however, accepting the concepts of 'Big Science' and liberal academics that take it upon themselves to decide for us all this issue or that has been settled [you know, kind of like global warming--has the scientific method been used to arrive at the consensus?]. Despite what some of you may think, I do not support teaching religious dogma in science classrooms or other inappropriate settings. My concern is more about the incessant push that God and science are mutually exclusive. In any event, I'm sure that this film will spark heated discussions here and elsewhere."

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=506830&page=1

hooksaw

And it really has, hasn't it?

[Edited on April 18, 2008 at 9:45 PM. Reason : .]

4/18/2008 9:42:35 PM

4/18/2008 9:50:26 PM

Quote :

"Why do you hate God(s), ATarzansanus? "

Insults and rolly eyes, right on cue.

Nice try, saying that I hate God(s). If only it were true. You like putting words in others' mouths, don't you?

Quote :

"My concern is more about the incessant push that God and science are mutually exclusive."

Who is saying that God and science are mutually exclusive? How does evolution exclude God?

Quote :

"I mean a designer of existence that was obviously intelligent"

Who is this designer? Where did he come from? How do you propose that scientists explore the 'what, when, who, where, why, and how' of this designer?

For that matter, how do you know he exists? Why must there be a creator?

Quote :

"BTW, could I get a roll call of how many objectors here are atheists or agnostics?"

Why? If ID is a non-religious topic, then what does it matter about others' religious beliefs?

[Edited on April 19, 2008 at 12:17 AM. Reason : ]

4/19/2008 12:10:50 AM

Quote :

"This is too flippant for me to respond to. Scientists don't know exactly how life was started specifically, lightning may or may not have been the cause (it's likely a factor though). There's on-going research in this area."

But they are fully fucking happy to say that other religions have it wrong. Makes perfect sense to me

4/19/2008 1:13:34 AM

Quote :

" But they are fully fucking happy to say that other religions have it wrong. Makes perfect sense to me"

You're either a great troll or completely clueless and bereft of anything approaching an intellect.

4/19/2008 1:24:37 AM

Quote :

"But they are fully fucking happy to say that other religions have it wrong. Makes perfect sense to me "

Ha are you kidding?

Religions (science is not a religion, FYI ) have it wrong for reasons far simpler than physics.

4/19/2008 2:20:49 AM

Ohmy, check out this website on another transitional fossil named Tiktaalik:

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

4/19/2008 11:17:54 AM

Quote :

"But they are fully fucking happy to say that other religions have it wrong. "

is that not the basis for every religion in the world? Christians think Muslims have it wrong, who think Jews have it wrong, who think Hindus have it wrong, who think Mormons have it wrong, who think Christian Scientists have it wrong, etc etc etc.

the only difference between them and non-theistic scientists is that scientists try to base their beliefs in reality

4/19/2008 11:23:26 AM

/thread

4/19/2008 11:35:56 AM

Might I recommend this episode of PBS's NOVA "Judgement Day, Evolution on Trial"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

Its focused on the "Panda Trial" in Pennsylvania...

I love it when they get to the part where they exposed the 'intelligent design' Biology 'textbook' "Of Pandas and People". Apparently it was originally intended as a creationist text and when teaching creationism was struck down by the SCOTUS in 87 they hastily went through and changed every instance of the word creation to intelligent design! They even found one instance of "cdesign propensitists", a missing link if you will in the evolution of creationism!

Damn near laughed myself out of my seat on that one I believe its around chapter 10

[Edited on April 19, 2008 at 12:05 PM. Reason : ]

4/19/2008 12:02:23 PM

^ yeah, that's in the Ken Miller video God posted too, around minute 58.
good stuff

4/19/2008 12:16:31 PM

Quote :

"Ohmy, check out this website on another transitional fossil named Tiktaalik: http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/"

very convincing to someone who already believes in evolution.

but like i said earlier...there's a reasonable creationist interpretation of the same evidence...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/tiktaalik-fishy-fish

4/20/2008 2:57:40 AM

That's not a reasonable interpretation. He repeatedly confuses (probably deliberately) evolution and extinction.

4/20/2008 8:01:36 AM

anyone who cites http://www.answersingenesis.org loses all credibility

4/20/2008 9:10:15 AM

^^no he doesn't confuse them. he distinctly and deliberately differentiates between the two.

^of course. because they're creationists!

4/20/2008 11:33:42 AM

^ umm, yeah, pretty much. Any organization called "Answers in Genesis" obviously has an agenda - i.e. look to Genesis for answers. Therefore, it skews their "research" because they are starting with the Answer/Conclusion that is found in Genesis, then simply fitting any evidence they can find to match their conclusion, and ignoring any evidence that contradicts it.

4/20/2008 11:45:12 AM

^yeah. exactly my point which i stated earlier. (although they don't ignore evidence....they rebut it, like the couple of examples i've already provided in here.)

but yes, they do start with "biases." just like every scientist (even the ones who believe in evolution). it's impossible to approach science with no bias. even if they aren't blatant biases or agendas or whatever, we all start with our own presuppositions.

from a link i provided earlier in this thread...

Quote :

"Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same. The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events."

4/20/2008 11:51:31 AM