To the Christians here...

[Dr Adequate]

Tell me what predicitions the macro-evolutionary model of Neo-Darwnism has made.

It makes predictions about paeleontology, morphology, genetics, embryology, computer science ... where should I start? Your question is equivalent to asking "what is the evidence for evolution?"

To give one example, consider the recent discovery of Tiktaalik. The people who discovered it didn't discover it by accident. They set out to find a specific intermediate form between two other stages in the fish-amphibian transition, they knew which fossil stratum it should be in, they went and looked for it there, and that's where they found it.

 

[Tricky]

Since jeopardy is nothing but rote memorization, I am not surprised that a religious tool would do so well.

Actually, there is more than that. There is a lot of pattern recognition. Many of the questions are actually riddles you have to solve on the fly.

But don't be so dismissive of rote memorization. Though it does not always mean intelligence, I think you will find a very high degree of correlation. Think of the smartest people you know and you will often find that they have an incredible command of facts and figures.

 

[ReFLeX]

That depends what you mean by use.

By use, I mean apply to practical problems or other research.

Tell me what predicitions the macro-evolutionary model of Neo-Darwnism has made.

It predicts that all organisms will continue to evolve. Thus in 50 million years, this planet's flora and fauna will not look exactly the way they came off the ark. It predicts that we will eventually become weaklings with incredible intellectual power and sophisticated weaponry with which to attack neighbouring planets. No, wait, that was H.G. Wells' interpretation.
The important point is, there are things that could happen that would be out of line with what the model says would happen. With a tautology for a model (Whatever happens, it's God's will), no matter what Transpires there would be no reason to discard that model.

Does objective reality depend on whether or not the scientific method can be used? No.

It's a good thing I didn't argue that then. Skeptics have a problem with believing first, and working out consequences second. That's all.

Fine, I retract this application in your case.

Thank heaven, I feel so vindicated. But which of us do you know so well as to insult their self-esteem?[/quote]

Certainly none of your postings have led me to this conclusion. And if you're correct, your assertion is certainly not equally applied, or accepted, for that matter. I've seen religious believers insulted continually for years in this forum. That's what leads me to my conclusion.

Those who insult believers don't speak for all of us, so don't generalize that way. I haven't inferred anything about your motivations based on other forum Christians.

Shrug. If you think that I think I'm better, smarter, or more rational than anybody else here, you can hold that til oblivion or be corrected in the next one.

I don't follow.

 

[ReFLeX]

Since jeopardy is nothing but rote memorization, I am not surprised that a religious tool would do so well.

You see? I don't endorse this.

 

[elliotfc]

Not if you have the least bit of intellectual courage and integrity, it doesn't.

Here come the moral pronouncements...

It presents a Band-Aid to those who would pretend unblemished and complete knowledge.

Adequate knowledge.

All explanations are band-aids, covering up our failure to completely grasp and truly know objective truth.

The logical, epistemological and empirical difficulties that encumber it in my view far outweigh whatever patch job it can do wherever our knowledge is presently inadequate. I'd rather face the truth and say, "I don't know. Yet. Perhaps I never will."

I agree that personal preference has a lot to do with these questions.

Yes, which utilitarian desire is why science continues to adapt to new knowledge and thereby make forward strides, unlike the stasis and sterility inherent in uncritical belief.

And if those who possess objective truth, whoever they may be, stay static and sterile and keep their uncritical belief, they are validated by conforming to objective reality. But nevermind that, it's more important to continually change and move...in some direction. It wouldn't be forward though, would it?

You are not content with extant religious theories. Fine. You offer other theories that change over time. Fine. You think this is better than the alternative. Fine. The moral pronouncements are superfluous, unless you think all of this stuff is really really really crucial. In which case I'd ask why.

Moreover, knowledge for its own sake can be an end in itself.

It certainly has to be for many people. What else is there?

-Elliot

 

[rocketdodger]

You see? I don't endorse this.

What about my statement do you not endorse? Was it the insult to jeopardy by claiming it is nothing more than rote memorization? Or was it using the phrase "religious tool?"

I happen to think that virtually all religious people are tools, using the standard definition of the word "tool." In fact I happen to think that everyone is a tool, even myself. Some much much much more than others, though.

 

[I less than three logic]

Actually, there is more than that. There is a lot of pattern recognition. Many of the questions are actually riddles you have to solve on the fly.

But don't be so dismissive of rote memorization. Though it does not always mean intelligence, I think you will find a very high degree of correlation. Think of the smartest people you know and you will often find that they have an incredible command of facts and figures.

If we’re concerned with just pure memorization, I’d vote for Kim Peek as my favorite. (They just had an interesting show about him on the Discovery Science channel, I think it was called The Real Rainman, should be showing every few days for a month or two. ) Although, due to his autism and poor social abilities, I have my doubts that he would do well on Jeopardy, because of its format of asking the question based on the answer.

 

[ReFLeX]

What about my statement do you not endorse? Was it the insult to jeopardy by claiming it is nothing more than rote memorization? Or was it using the phrase "religious tool?"

I happen to think that virtually all religious people are tools, using the standard definition of the word "tool." In fact I happen to think that everyone is a tool, even myself. Some much much much more than others, though.

Religious tool? It's insulting, it's divisive, it's unnecessary and only a small example of more hateful believer-bashing that does go on here.
If you think everyone is a tool it's even less necessary.

 

[tkingdoll]

Religious tool? It's insulting, it's divisive, it's unnecessary and only a small example of more hateful believer-bashing that does go on here.
If you think everyone is a tool it's even less necessary.

Please provide links to the "hateful believer-bashing that does go on here".

Thank you.

 

[ReFLeX]

Please provide links to the "hateful believer-bashing that does go on here".

Thank you.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/member.php?u=7302

 

[Tricky]

If we’re concerned with just pure memorization, I’d vote for Kim Peek as my favorite. (They just had an interesting show about him on the Discovery Science channel, I think it was called The Real Rainman, should be showing every few days for a month or two. ) Although, due to his autism and poor social abilities, I have my doubts that he would do well on Jeopardy, because of its format of asking the question based on the answer.

This is probably a topic for another thread, but the question of "rote memorization" versus "memorization with recognition" is a very iffy one. Is learning a new language just rote memorization? How about spelling?

I had to Google Kim Peek, and I see that he was the autistic savant that the movie "Rain Man" was loosely based on. But even if he had no problem with the format, I would suspect that he would get everything in some categories and nothing in others. Also, remembering lists of things is not the same as remembering the interactions between the lists. For example, you might know every president and every Superbowl, but not be able to answer the question, "Who was president when Green Bay won it's first Superbowl?" Jeopardy champions have to make this kind of leap between topics all the time, plus the clues are laden with additional clues in the form of puns. To paraphrase "O Brother Where Art Thou", a Jeopardy winner should be the one with the capacity for abstract thought.

 

[tkingdoll]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/member.php?u=7302

?? How does a profile of Paulisonne demonstrate hateful believer-bashing?

 

[Anacoluthon64]

Here come the moral pronouncements...

What? Where? Here comes the usual kneejerk, I'd say.

All explanations are band-aids, covering up our failure to completely grasp and truly know objective truth.

Some, however, not only accord more closely with experience than others do, but also provide fruitful and accurate glimpses of the future, e.g. celestial mechanics vs. any number of superstitions concerning stars and planets. Moreover, I said nothing about objective truth.

And if those who possess objective truth, whoever they may be, stay static and sterile and keep their uncritical belief, they are validated by conforming to objective reality. But nevermind that, it's more important to continually change and move...in some direction. It wouldn't be forward though, would it?

Wholly inscrutable psychobabble.

You are not content with extant religious theories. Fine. You offer other theories that change over time. Fine. You think this is better than the alternative. Fine. The moral pronouncements are superfluous, unless you think all of this stuff is really really really crucial. In which case I'd ask why.

Again, what moral verdicts? Where? If, as you seem to be implying, these questions are not that important, why do you feel compelled to contest every utterance that suggests you may be mistaken?

'Luthon64

 

[Tricky]

?? How does a profile of Paulisonne demonstrate hateful believer-bashing?

I think he's referring to the sig line.

But there is some believer bashing going on here. Check out any thread with significant contributions by Kurious Kathy if you want to see some. You can argue that she deserves it because she insults non-believers, but I honestly don't think she does so intentionally. But this "you insulted me first" game will get us nowhere. We all insult each other, whether intentionally or not. It's hard to force yourself to ignore insults, but that's the only way to avoid getting sucked into the mud.

Personally, I love good insults. I'd rather give them to people I like, but I can appreciate a creative put-down even when I am the butt. (Go ahead. Say it. )

 

[tkingdoll]

I think he's referring to the sig line.

But there is some believer bashing going on here. Check out any thread with significant contributions by Kurious Kathy if you want to see some. You can argue that she deserves it because she insults non-believers, but I honestly don't think she does so intentionally. But this "you insulted me first" game will get us nowhere. We all insult each other, whether intentionally or not. It's hard to force yourself to ignore insults, but that's the only way to avoid getting sucked into the mud.

Personally, I love good insults. I'd rather give them to people I like, but I can appreciate a creative put-down even when I am the butt. (Go ahead. Say it. )

I'm not denying it happens, but I haven't seen any evidence for it, and I'd like some links. Nothing that could be described as 'hateful', certainly.

I have seen Kurious-Kathy being bashed, but that's, as you say, in response to her attitude in the first place, and not evidence for hateful insulting of Christians.

 

[ReFLeX]

?? How does a profile of Paulisonne demonstrate hateful believer-bashing?

Have you read any of the threads he started when first arriving here? He is one I know for a fact who has posted many anti-christian threads I found inflammatory.

...Meanwhile, I'm having a harder time than I thought finding outright bashing. Which is hey, a good thing, but trying to find hateful threads isn't all that fun. It is possible I remember more anger than there is, but rocketdodger's flip remark is a typical insult.

 

[ReFLeX]

Re: Muslim Rioters over cartoons

The trouble with vermin is that while they die quickly, they also breed quickly.

ETA: In fact, that whole thread.

 

[tkingdoll]

Have you read any of the threads he started when first arriving here? He is one I know for a fact who has posted many anti-christian threads I found inflammatory.

...Meanwhile, I'm having a harder time than I thought finding outright bashing. Which is hey, a good thing, but trying to find hateful threads isn't all that fun. It is possible I remember more anger than there is, but rocketdodger's flip remark is a typical insult.

Pauliesonne's a strange one - he's written off as a troll by many people here, who don't really accept his posts or opinions as being representative of good skepticism. However, I think he's someone who posts what he thinks is the accepted style of the forum, and often gets it's wrong. In other words, I think he is mean about Christianity because he thinks it's clever to be.

Regarding his sig, a quote from The Simpsons and a quote from Shermer doesn't really qualify as 'hateful' in my eyes.

Which remark of rocketdogers are you referring to?

 

[tkingdoll]

Re: Muslim Rioters over cartoons

Yes, that is certainly hateful, but is about Muslims and not Christians and so not the subject of the claim in this thread. Like I say, I don't deny that it may be true, but I think the perception may outweigh the actual facts.

 

[ReFLeX]

In other words, I think he is mean about Christianity because he thinks it's clever to be.

This may be so, and also true for other apparently teenage atheists that post insults on this board. It's still hateful.

Regarding his sig, a quote from The Simpsons and a quote from Shermer doesn't really qualify as 'hateful' in my eyes.

Yeah, I didn't even read his signature, I'd thought you'd know what I meant when I linked to his name.

Which remark of rocketdogers are you referring to?

Ken Jennings is a Mormon and therefore a religious tool.