Annoying creationists

[hammegk]

I have no faith that there is no reason why. Nor do I have faith that there is.

I've always considered you a closet dualist unwilling to take a stand.

Are you sure they think they know a lot?

Ones who politicize their views give that appearance. And as a basic answer, yes.

You appear to want every statement by a scientist to be appended with "(But oh gosh you know I might be wrong and so don't think I'm being dogmatic <hand wringing>.)"

~~ Paul

It just rankles you and most here that appending that statement provides the truth of the situation.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I've always considered you a closet dualist unwilling to take a stand.

Reciting this nonsense about "closet dualists" is one of the stupider rituals of your religion.

I just rankles you and most here that appending that statement provides the truth of the situation.

Well, that was weird.

 

[Dr Adequate]

How does admitting the code is intelligently designed count as evidence against a designer? How does that work in your worldview?

 

[joobz]

Are you sure they think they know a lot? You appear to want every statement by a scientist to be appended with "(But oh gosh you know I might be wrong and so don't think I'm being dogmatic <hand wringing>.)"

I just rankles you and most here that appending that statement provides the truth of the situation.

But the truth is that everyone who actually participates in scientific research understands that that statement in always there, unspoken.

And if we catered to the wishywashy nature of that fact, nothing gets done. Nothing is learned. So we adobt a type of advocate strategy. You must be the advocate of the theories you make, and defend them against all other researchers within your group. If they can withstand the evaluations of the immediate group, you then send it in mauscript form to the community at large. But then they must withstand the test of time. Not many theories do this. Hardly any theory does this. Only the biggies do, and these are the ones that are attacked and the ones that are used to claim scientists are dogmatic. But look at science at large and how often it's theories were wrong. Can you really call it dogmatic?

 

[hammegk]

Reciting this nonsense about "closet dualists" is one of the stupider rituals of your religion.

I realize you don't have a clue about the meaning of my statement.

Well, that was weird.

Nah, it's just you are playing checkers in a chess match.

But the truth is that everyone who actually participates in scientific research understands that that statement in always there, unspoken.

Why yes, we do.

Accounts of science in the popular press represent politics, not science; and having that pointed out gets panties in a wad here, doesn't it?

Pride, and hubris, affect scientists too. Dr. A offers a wonderful example (I give him the benefit of the doubt he actually understands some of the things he says, and rates the label 'scientist').

 

[Dr Adequate]

I realize you don't have a clue about the meaning of my statement.

Well, stop me if I'm wrong, but a "closet dualist" would be someone who's a dualist but doesn't admit it.

Nah, it's just you are playing checkers in a chess match.

Not noticeably.

Pride, and hubris, affect scientists too. Dr. A offers a wonderful example (I give him the benefit of the doubt he actually understands some of the things he says, and rates the label 'scientist').

It is neither pride nor hubris which leads me to think I know better than you.

In the face of the universe, I can feel awestruck humility with the best of 'em. In the face of your feeble arguments, I'm afraid that derision and contempt is all you're getting.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Accounts of science in the popular press represent politics, not science; and having that pointed out gets panties in a wad here, doesn't it?

Well, the accounts are certainly clouded with politics. I've said that for years, and my panties are not in a wad. That's why I don't get my science news from the popular press.

Pride, and hubris, affect scientists too.

Absolutely. The cool thing is that there are a bunch of other scientists just waiting to knock the proud and hubristic from their lofty perches. In science, you may sometimes get funding by merely going along with the status quo, but you rarely get fame that way.

~~ Paul

 

[fishbob]

Accounts of science in the popular press represent politics, not science; and having that pointed out gets panties in a wad here, doesn't it?

Considering what gets published in the popular press as somehow relevant to actual science is not very smart.

 

[hammegk]

Well, stop me if I'm wrong, but a "closet dualist" would be someone who's a dualist but doesn't admit it.

Actually I did suspect you could make that leap. Next see if you can figure some of the implications.

Not noticeably.


It is neither pride nor hubris which leads me to think I know better than you.

In the face of the universe, I can feel awestruck humility with the best of 'em.

You hide it well.

In the face of your feeble arguments, I'm afraid that derision and contempt is all you're getting.

I don't recall making any argument.

Considering what gets published in the popular press as somehow relevant to actual science is not very smart.

Yet that's all that most people will ever get, if that.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Actually I did suspect you could make that leap. Next see if you can figure some of the implications.

Er ... you're a delusional idiot who thinks that someone adhering to a widely-held philosophical viewpoint would attempt to conceal this fact?

I don't recall making any argument.

First your powers of reasoning ... then your memory ... unfortunately, it seems that your ability to type will be the last faculty you lose.

 

[hammegk]

There there little fella; don't get all upset.

 

[Dr Adequate]

You think you have my sympathy?

Think again.

 

[hammegk]

There there little fella; don't get all upset.


BTW, the delusional idiots are those adhering to a widely-held philosophical viewpoint, that being some form of interactive dualism. I hope you have the balls to be a 100% materialist/100% atheist; that position is at least a logically defensible worldview.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Your connection to reality has been lost. Try turning yourself off and then on again.

 

[hammegk]

I hope you have the balls to be a 100% materialist/100% atheist; that position is at least a logically defensible worldview.

You must have overlooked that. Too busy frothing at the mouth & telling yourself how smart you are?

 

[joobz]

Accounts of science in the popular press represent politics, not science; and having that pointed out gets panties in a wad here, doesn't it?

Maybe I'm a bit slow, but how does this relate to the thread at hand?
I thought we've been discussing the validity of evolution and the relationship of ev to that validity.

Pride, and hubris, affect scientists too. Dr. A offers a wonderful example (I give him the benefit of the doubt he actually understands some of the things he says, and rates the label 'scientist').

Except perhaps for the last series of interchanges (which have been quite amusing, thank you), I didn't think any of the posts that Dr. A had made here could be interpreted as Hubris or Prideful. And I tend to be hypersensitive to such attitudes (see, Atheism is Faith thread for verification of this).

The only arrogance that exists in this thread has been Kleinman's. His complete refusal to acknowledge error in any form is beyond my abilities to accept.

 

[fishbob]

Yet that's all that most people will ever get, if that.

Which means that 'most people' don't have informed opinions.
Which also means that majority rule on this issue is not relevant.
Which means that 'most people' should shut their pieholes.

 

[hammegk]

Which means that 'most people' should shut their pieholes.

Feel free to fight among yourselves on whose piehole should be listened to. It will turn out to be the man with the largest, meanest group of brownshirts with clubs following his charismatic ideas and receiving the rewards he metes out.

Science that one out. Maybe a simple-minded mathematical model would help?


joobz: You are correct that I'm disrupting a (valueless imo) discussion on mathematical proofs of the unprovable. I apologise.

If your continuing-I-hope presence here bears out your assumption that Dr.A, pridefulness, and hubris have no commonality, that will be your choice, too, but not one that I share.

 

[fishbob]

Feel free to fight among yourselves on whose piehole should be listened to. It will turn out to be the man with the largest, meanest group of brownshirts with clubs following his charismatic ideas and receiving the rewards he metes out.

Science that one out. Maybe a simple-minded mathematical model would help?

Still missing the point. Deliberately?

Who says something is not relevant. Brownshirts with clubs are not part of science and have no relevance. Although some of the religious fundamentalists seem to lean that way.

What is said, and how it is supported is what counts.
Even a simple mind should be able to figure this out. No fighting required.

 

[D2011]

Hahaha. By the amount of views on this topic, many have enjoyed the debate so far.

Facts here & there mixed in with a bit of "my understanding of evolution/creationism/naturalism/genome/DNA/RNA/Science/Religion is far superior than yours" has been riveting.

But this page 11 has made my day seeing the topic digress for a full page of slanging. The frustrations of neither side giving an inch boiling over...hilarious!

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate
Well, stop me if I'm wrong, but a "closet dualist" would be someone who's a dualist but doesn't admit it.
Actually I did suspect you could make that leap. Next see if you can figure some of the implications.


Quote:
Not noticeably.


It is neither pride nor hubris which leads me to think I know better than you.



Quote:
In the face of the universe, I can feel awestruck humility with the best of 'em.
You hide it well.


Quote:
In the face of your feeble arguments, I'm afraid that derision and contempt is all you're getting.
I don't recall making any argument.



Originally Posted by Fishbob
Considering what gets published in the popular press as somehow relevant to actual science is not very smart.
Yet that's all that most people will ever get, if that.

lol

Er ... you're a delusional idiot who thinks that someone adhering to a widely-held philosophical viewpoint would attempt to conceal this fact?

LOL!

First your powers of reasoning ... then your memory ... unfortunately, it seems that your ability to type will be the last faculty you lose.

Ahah!

There there little fella; don't get all upset.

Ahahah!

You think you have my sympathy?

Think again.

Ahahah.. ok stop my sides are hurting

There there little fella; don't get all upset.


BTW, the delusional idiots are those adhering to a widely-held philosophical viewpoint, that being some form of interactive dualism. I hope you have the balls to be a 100% materialist/100% atheist; that position is at least a logically defensible worldview

Ahahahha...stop it I said!...the pain from laughter getting... too much.

Your connection to reality has been lost. Try turning yourself off and then on again.

No more...lol.....must...not ....feel compelled...to read... the next...hilarious....rebuttal.

You must have overlooked that. Too busy frothing at the mouth & telling yourself how smart you are?

Damn you guys! my thigh is bruised from all the leg slapping,lol.

Except perhaps for the last series of interchanges (which have been quite amusing, thank you),

Yes, thankyou, was a refreshing digression. Now....who's gonna admit they are wrong?

D2011