Noah's Ark found?

[Radrook]

The sentence "Too many corroborations have proven to be hasty collusion" is nonsensical. Either your word-choice or your grammar or both are ill-chosen and confusing. Please clarify what you mean before I can reply.

Hasty conclusions based on insufficient evidence. Tagging things as evidence based on wishful thinking or preconceived notions. Totally ignoring viable explanations due to unconscious self-serving selective blindness or aversion to being disproved or ostracized by peers. Inconsistency in the application of criteria. These are some things which can mar scientific investigation. You invoke peer review. OK. But peer review sometimes takes decades to uncover collusion and fraud. In fact, peers themselves are sometimes dupe by fraud for long periods of time before they realize they've been hoodwinked.

Scientific Misconduct
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct

Blind faith? I'm advocating the validity of the scientific method, not of individual scientists. Our current understanding of abiogenesis, as I've outlined upthread, is based on solid science -- which means the conclusions and methodology have been peer-reviewed, error-analyzed and verified by a worldwide, independent community of experts in each of the related fields.

I'm not in disagreement with the scientific method. I only disagree with the demand that I have 100% certain in current theories. Wouldn't that require me to believe that such ideas are permanent? After all, if indeed such ideas are in full harmony with reality and reality never changes-then the ideas should never change. So requiring me to have 100% certainty in current ideas sinmply because they are the current ideas certainty is to demand that I practice fallacious reasoning.

Statistics of Scientific Fraud
http://www.orc.ru/~yur77/statfr.htm

Can you remind me what your point was?

As I explained previously and as I explain above.

Climate Change Fraud
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/b...orruption-included-ignoring-facts-and-science

Your quoted statement, above, is false; among scientists, trust and credibility are earned through intellectual honesty -- a position which sometimes includes admitting one's mistakes. Please explain in what way my opposition to your absurd claim constitutes a "misunderstanding".

I think you misunderstood my claim. I am simply saying that mistakes are made, respected theories once accepted as almost irrefutable are ultimately replaced by theories which are more useful and more in line with perceived realities. Dogmatic statements are retracted. And people who once were speaking of such claims as indisputable fact have to retract. That being the case, the logical thing is to withhold judgement and use words such as "likely" or phrases like "it seems as or appears to..."as qualifiers.

Evolution Fraud
http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html

And once again, my "unwavering trust" lies with the scientific method, not with contemporary claims or individual scientists. This is a key subtlety that you seem, in your ongoing and unfortunate "dingbatness", to miss entirely.

Before we continue I would like for you to stop the name calling. It tends to provoke me into a name-calling contest which I am not willing to waste my time engaging in. As I said-if indeed that is your opinion of me, then please don't waste your time. You are entitled to your impressive trust in the scientific method. My opinion shouldn't be that much of an issue.

Fraud In Science
http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/92prom.html

 

[Complexity]

Someone as constantly venomous can not be a happy person. I really have no desire to contribute to or compound your self-loathing. Between your childhood and your father, that's enough.

Venomous?

I am fairly happy most of the time, and particularly so these days. Things are working out for the most part.

My childhood and my father were no great hardship.

What I remember of my childhood, which is little, is that I was a fairly self-contained, socially awkward kid that loved to read and imagine and think about things. Pretty good kidhood, when you come down to it.

Self-loathing? Not.

In other words, your baseless pop psychology notwithstanding, I actually feel sorry for you and you don't know how to handle that.

 

[154]

Ok, thanks. Anything else or, unless this is just so entertaining for you, can you finally yet keep your word and ignore me?
I'll return the favor. Promise.

But if not, how about this? Why don't you put your scientific beanie on and you also try to tell me when and how exactly the non-living organic became alive?

 

[Complexity]

My opinion shouldn't be that much of an issue.

Trust me, it isn't worth a moment's consideration, a sparrow's fart, the teensiest bit of disdain.

I said in a recent post that I feel sorry for 154. The same does not apply to you. You may stew in your own juices.

 

[Complexity]

Ok, thanks. Anything else or, unless this is just so entertaining for you, can you finally yet keep your word and ignore me? I'll return the favor. Promise.

As I have explained (and explained and explained), I will respond to posts of yours when whimsy moves me to so or as a cautionary tale for posterity. I'll ignore you when you bore me, post mostly in red, or post in the sports forum. This is all I promised you - quit lying to make it more than it is.

Also, I don't give a damn whether you ignore me or not.

 

[Belz...]

And for all of that great length of impressive obfuscation in verbosity above, where exactly did the non-living organic become alive?

Your incredulity aside, there is no defined cut-off point at which point non-alive becomes alive, just as with liquids becoming solid: it's a progression. Life pretty much started with self-replicating proteins.

 

[Meadmaker]

Again, where exactly did the non-living organic become alive?

This is such an interesting question. It reveals a way of thought.

For most of mankind's history, we assumed that there was a significant and very distinct difference between "alive" and "not alive".

The most important place where this was important was distinguishing between the living and the dead. After all, one could look at a human body when it was alive, and the same body a moment later when it was dead, and see no superficial differences, and yet clearly there was a huge difference. They concluded, reasonably enough with the technology available to them, that the difference was a non-material "spirit" or "soul" that caused the inanimate to be animate. When the sould departed, the flesh was no longer alive.

Now, we think a little bit differently, having observed that the transformation from life to death is not always quite so stark and dramatic as in a typical case.

Likewise, on a microscopic level, there are structures that defy easy categorization. Are viruses alive? Some of them only perform some of the functions we associate or say are necessary for life. Some are so simple that they can form crystals. Yet.....they reproduce, at least, with help.

The dividing line between life and non-life, like so many other distinctions, may not be as stark as we had always assumed.

 

[Meadmaker]

In this thread, I've tried out a couple of lines of argument that were new to me, and I want to discuss briefly those arguments and typical arguments used in debating with creationists and literalists.

The most common arguments used against creationism fall into a couple of categories. First, there's the "You're stupid." argument, in which no information is exchanged but insults are passed around. Emotionally satisfying, but not very effective. The much more common argument is, "The overwhelming scientific evidence says you are wrong." This is usually followed by a deluge (pun intended) of scientific information that shows they are wrong.

That line of argument has the virtue of being correct, but scientists are often frustrated that it doesn't work as well as they would like. This shows up a great deal when discussing whether or not to participate in such events as "creation vs. evolution" forums, in which a scientist debates a preacher for two hours in an auditorium or high school gymnasium, and is frustrated that his audience still doesn't agree with him at the end of the night. (He, or his supporters, often fall back onto the first category of argument at that point.)

The problem with the scientific facts deluge argument is that the audience doesn't have the background to understand a lot of it. Besides, they are sure that only some scientists say those things. So, they are left with an image of the mean old scientific establishment pushing their Satanic views, but somewhere the brave Christian scientists continue to search for the truth, despite persecution. That's codswallop, of course, but it's hard to get past it.

I've tried two different lines. The first is the "listen to the rocks" argument. Pointing out that the rocks are made by God, and that their story is therefore a story that comes from God, it directs the believer toward a place where he otherwise might not go. There is no way that this argument can possibly have an immediate effect. There's no way to learn how to hear the story of the rocks, or that of the heavens that tell the glory of God, during the debate, but I think it might open up some minds in the long run.

The second, specifically for the flood debate, is the "it takes a miracle" argument. This could easily be confused with the scientific facts approach, insisting that it was impossible to keep the animals alive. However, although that's part of the argument in this case, the more important part is to say that it could be done, but only with miraculous assistance. This attacks the belief system directly, by noting that if such miracles are necessary, then the premise of the story of the Bible is false. In that story, the boat itself is the miracle, and the warning to get on the boat before the rains came. It puts the believer in the awkward position of having to insist that God is not doing miracles.

I can't claim to have converted anyone with either argument, but I can take some satisfaction from the fact that there has been almost zero response to either one. That's usually a sign that the other side has no response. (And yes, Radrook, I understand you did post some article links, but I notice you didn't carry on and answer any of the followup questions.)

That's enough for now, but I would like to discuess with fellow skeptics what works and what doesn't work when debating flood believers and/or young earth creationists. It's one thing to be right, which in this case is easy, but what actually works?

 

[Marduk]

Yeah... tell me after you can handle spelling and grammar.

Or, EinsteinMarduk, you tell me, in posts 1127 and 1128, where exactly did the non-living organic become alive?
Impress me and demonstrate with your intellect instead of constant insults.

Vortigern already told you
I already told you
did you forget how to read
all you have is an attack on my 5am grammar and nothing else, you lose schizophrenic God botherer
now will you take your meds or not ?

Why don't you put your scientific beanie on and you also try to tell me when and how exactly the non-living organic became alive?

The stupid it buuurns
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176154

 

[dafydd]

Why does religion rot the brain? Is it possible to be religious and rational at the same time?

 

[Marduk]

Why does religion rot the brain? Is it possible to be religious and rational at the same time?

No, thats the whole problem. As regards biblical literalists (fundies) religion is full of people who think that theyre righteous but who are in fact mentally ill, and the church isn't in any hurry to help them.

Every person of faith.........
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/belmarduk/hancock.jpg
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a178/belmarduk/hancock2.jpg
in this thread displays character traits often associated with mental disorders, if they weren't hiding behind religion theyd all be in the nuthouse

 

[Marcus]

Changing of mind weakens trust and credibility whether it be secular or religious.

This one is a real gem. I can't even find the words to express how wrong this is, it certainly goes right along with your Faith though.

 

[Complexity]

This one is a real gem. I can't even find the words to express how wrong this is, it certainly goes right along with your Faith though.

I agree. I found myself going back to this statement several times last night, but wasn't sure what in the world to say.

For now, reading it makes me imagine how he might look when saying it.

I see him, nose in the air, serenely looking down at us, as he might when saying, "The higher, the fewer."

 

[Marduk]

I agree. I found myself going back to this statement several times last night, but wasn't sure what in the world to say.

For now, reading it makes me imagine how he might look when saying it.

I see him, nose in the air, serenely looking down at us, as he might when saying, "The higher, the fewer."

based on that I think Radrook should run for the Republican nomination

 

[154]

EinsteinMarduk, you tell me, in posts 1127 and 1128, where exactly did the non-living organic become alive?

 

[RoboTimbo]

EinsteinMarduk, you tell me, in posts 1127 and 1128, where exactly did the non-living organic become alive?

Do you understand that you missed every relevant post in between those and your last post?

 

[Marcus]

In this thread, I've tried out a couple of lines of argument that were new to me, and I want to discuss briefly those arguments and typical arguments used in debating with creationists and literalists.....

Those are some excellent points. A believer with sufficient Faith can simply close his ears, of course, but that type of argument could have an influence on those still open to reason. It's always hard to resist variations on the "you're such an idiot" argument, but I'm sure an approach like this would be more productive.

 

[mutile]

Changing of mind weakens trust and credibility whether it be secular or religious.

Without changing of mind all learning and thought is impossible.

 

[Marduk]

EinsteinMarduk, you tell me, in posts 1127 and 1128, where exactly did the non-living organic become alive?

another petty insult. I am way better looking than Einstein and I get more chicks, besides which any fool knows that if youre going to sarcastically ascribe intelligence to a babylonian name you should call them Atrahasis


but to answer your question for what, the third time, are you that intellectually redundant that you don't know that Lipid vesicles and nucleotide polymers are forms of life.

Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have signaling and self-sustaining processes (biology) from those that do not

I'll simplify that for you as I know your intellect isn't good enough to understand it (you missed it three times already)
Anything that can self replicate is technically alive

got it now ?

or would you like me to get a five year old to put it into words of one syllable for you ?


btw, you do realise that everytime youve asked that question you have confirmed to everyone here that you are incapable of the most basic comprehension, did you think you were being clever ?

mentally bright; having sharp or quick intelligence; able

i.e. someone other than you

 

[154]

Marduk, when and where did the non-living become living?