Author Topic: AaAaUuuuGggGGHhhHHhhh!!!!! Smart Atheist people please help haha :D  (Read 9530 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sammylama

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 793
  • Darwins +8/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Look at me and my bad self.
Re: AaAaUuuuGggGGHhhHHhhh!!!!! Smart Atheist people please help haha :D
« Reply #203 on: August 12, 2010, 10:34:18 PM »
Yes lama,

The whole transitional fossil thing is something true believers tell each other to sound sciency, the argument has no substance.

Thanks, MT.  I just wanted to know if my head was on straight without having to refer to Wiki-whatever (nothing against Wiki, BTW; I use it frequently). 
You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.
--  Carl Sagan

Offline Emergence

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 832
  • Darwins +5/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • do i look impressed?
Re: AaAaUuuuGggGGHhhHHhhh!!!!! Smart Atheist people please help haha :D
« Reply #204 on: August 13, 2010, 03:17:47 AM »
@ BS: If you want to talk to me any further, you'll have to do two things. First admit that you were wrong in saying "that the ENTIRE body of science does not agree with [my] assessment of the subject fossils." And secondly you should disclose all sources of your "additional research", because it still sounds as if you are just regurgitating the sound-bites of creations propaganda[1]. From all your posts i don't see one tiny amber of scientific understanding. If you want to re-kindle my interest in you, that has to change.

And fyi: I didn't even try to make a "complete case for demonstrating that this is UNDENIABLY a transitional fossil". It is neither my intention nor my obligation to do so. I don't care what you believe. I just find the pathology of your beliefs interesting and wanted to see if it is possible to correct at least some of your misconceptions like e.g. "when most scientists say it is a bird, that means that it can't be transitional." Obviously you are incorrigible.

What i do care for is what you claim about me. The only case i wanted to make to potential lurkers and participants in this thread is that your claim "that the ENTIRE body of science does not agree with [my] assessment of the subject fossils" is undeniably wrong. And i think i did that well enough.


Edit: Fixed some errors and added a link.
 1. For example i'd bet that you haven't had a look at articles such as "What Use Is Half a Wing in the Ecology and Evolution of Birds?" (Dial, Randell and Dial; BioScience; 2006; PDF). Two days of "additional research" are hardly enough to get a better understanding of the matter.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 06:29:35 AM by Emergence »
Change alone is eternal, perpetual, immortal.
Arthur Schopenhauer

EurekAlert - Science News / Public Library of Science / Scholarpedia

Offline Grimm

  • Professional Windmill Tilter
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 826
  • Darwins +61/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Apparently, the Dragon to be Slain
    • The Hexadecimal Number of the Beast
Re: AaAaUuuuGggGGHhhHHhhh!!!!! Smart Atheist people please help haha :D
« Reply #205 on: August 13, 2010, 08:38:17 AM »
Yes, good information, Emergence.

For any of you who are interested in getting down to the nitty-gritty of whether this creature is UNDENIABLY a transitional specimen, I’d really recommend you do some additional research as I have done. In its alleged transitional state, this creature would have most probably received a death blow from natural selection. Among other things, it would be necessary to present a half-winged specimen, explain how the wing structures, skeletal structure, lungs, etc.  evolved through “coincidental” mutations, explain warm blooded versus cold blooded, ignore the controversy surrounding the discovery of some of the fossils…before you can even come close to having a claim of UNDENIABILITY. You still would not be there. The leap from land animal to flying animal is an incredible, impossible transition to explain (at this point) short of a mere guess. Sorry, Emergence….you have not presented a complete case for demonstrating that this is UNDENIABLY a transitional fossil(s).


Thus how I got my subtitle.  *rubs bridge of nose*

BibleStudent, I'm going to start off by complimenting you - you are a thinker.  I like thinkers.  People who actually delve into ideas are often the ones that are of most benefit to the world around them.  However, you've got a couple of core mistakes here that, I think, are reparable.  Others have already pointed out the gist - like Sammyllama here:

Quote
Those of you in the know, help me out on this:  Isn't every fossil--and every living thing, for that matter--either an "endproduct" in the line of it's species (assuming that species went extinct at that point) or both an "end-result" and a transitional fossil (assuming that the line of species continued on)? 

I'm not a Bio freak or anything, but in general, is this not correct?

(Not meaning to derail the thread, but I think this pertains to the discussion.)

You have made the mistake of believing that the world divides itself into obviously neat little compartments - that scientific classification is somehow something more than a blatantly human invention.  Biology (especially!) is not neat and clean and nicely divided.  Animals don't line up by ... well, for lack of a better word, 'kinds' and get counted.  Distinctions between species are a function of scientific taxonomy - an attempt to make sense of the world - and rest assured that an anthropmorphized 'Nature' takes absolutely no notice of what we call the creatures on this planet, or how we divide them.

Even the word 'species' is a human-defined word - we are the arbiters of where species lines are drawn.  Oh, I think we've done a pretty good job of it - we, for instance, point out that Zebra (Equus burchelli) are a different species than an American Quarter Horse (Equus caballus), but I think you can see that the similarities are there.  In fact, I pick on horse evolution in particular because, oddly, it's one of those species for which we have lots and lots of transitional fossils.  (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html, if you'd like to see a briefish overview of it).  Here's a general top-down look at the horse evolutionary tree:


Why show you all of this? 

Well, you're hung up on the creationist notion that 'dogs suddenly have cats'.  That's not how evolution works - it's not that fast, and it's not that random.   

Can you accept that the domesticated cow (Bos taurus) is the product of artificial selection - that is, we humans, over tens of thousands of years, selected cows based on traits we wanted them to have?  We selected for milk production and beef flavor (and amount), size and docility - and somewhere along the way we ended up with a Jersey Shorthorn and a Texas Longhorn and an Angus, all from an original 'protocow'?  It's well-documented, and all of those cows are the same species (it's true that we haven't speciated a cow yet, mostly because humans interfere in insemination.  It's unlikely that, if we turned 'em loose in the wild, a Jersey bull would ever mate with an Angus cow.  In a few thousand years, they probably wouldn't be able to - much like a chihuahua and a Great Dane could probably never mate in the wild.)

If you can accept that humans can bring about the diversity that is represented by cows, horses, pigs, dogs - even the domesticated turkey, which cannot breed on its own (and is a separate species - the American wild turkey is Meleagris gallopavo while the domesticated descendant, as it can no longer breed with its wild cousin, is now Meleagris gallopavo gallopavo), why is it difficult to accept that similar, though natural, pressures created the diversity of life present on this planet? 

Note, too, that all of the human taxonomy of Earth's species isn't just about physical (or these days, genetic) differences.  It includes ranges, expected dates of existence, and more.  Archaeopterix isn't considered a transitional fossil just because it had feathers, but also because of the age, location, and transitional features of the find. 

You want a half-ape-half-man to show up, or a half-bird-half-crocodile 'crocoduck' - but these things are not posited, and simply don't and never have existed.  That's not how it works, and is a blatant misrepresentation by people who believe they know what they're talking about, and in truth have no idea.  Go open your mind.

Let me be blunt - if evolution were not true, then almost all of the biology from which you benefit today would not work.  There wouldn't be nylon-eating bacteria (did you know, for instance, that naturally-occurring oil-eating bacteria in the Gulf are helping to 'digest' the massive oil spill?), we couldn't mass-produce insulin, you wouldn't have most of the antibiotics available today.. the list goes on.  We also wouldn't have many of the problems that are starting to rear their heads:  superresistant bacteria, HIV-2...

Man.  There's a good example - HIV.  HIV is so mutagenic it's really sort of a 'species cloud' rather than a single species of virus.  Its replication is so error-prone that every single treatement produces resistant strains, and it requires dozens of antibodies rather than just one set (like, say, Polio - which is far more structured).  Scary, no?

BibleScholar, you can be a scholar of the bible all you like, but 'Creation Science' offers nothing.  Show me one thing creationism has proven true about this world, one useful theorem, one possible response even close to the world-changing reality of antiretroviral drugs, amoxycillin, or even the modern dessert banana, and I'll say you may have a point.  Until then, you're ignoring evidence to suit your theological stance, completely ignoring how much you personally benefit from the evolutionary science you claim is utterly false.

Want to really look at that position before you commit to its inherent hypocracy?

"But to us, there is but one god, plus or minus one."  - 1 Corinthians 8:6+/-2

-- Randall, XKCD http://xkcd.com/900/

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: AaAaUuuuGggGGHhhHHhhh!!!!! Smart Atheist people please help haha :D
« Reply #206 on: August 13, 2010, 08:54:52 AM »
Obviously you are incorrigible.

If I were sitting in Emergence’s seat, I’d probably be saying the same thing about me. I do not mean to be disrespectful and void of any consideration for the material presented.

The discussion was healthy until we got to the claims of archaeopteryx being an undeniable example of evolutionary transition. It is simply irresponsible to say such a thing…..and, quite frankly, as equally dangerous as the ‘brainwashing’ us theists are accused of when it comes to how this material is presented to our youth.

I’m sorry, but the missing pieces pertaining to the archaeopteryx makes any claim of it being an undeniable transitional fossil nothing more than a blind leap of “faith.” There are simply too many pieces to the puzzle left to be explained.

Again no disrespect intended towards Emergence. He is obviously well versed in this area. I just think he went a bit too far with claiming these fossils are an undeniable example of evolutionary transition.

You want a complete case? Sorry, no can do.

Appreciate you conceding on that point.

We are unable to dig up fossils from every frickin' generation from the first until now, so there is no way to satisfy your requirements. If we had all but one generation, you would make damned sure to questions that one generation, and proclaim it impossible to claim the connection undeniable.

That may be true for some theists but not for me. You speak of the evidence which is lacking as though it were inconsequential. I’m not talking about filling in some tiny cracks here….there are big holes that would need to be filled before archaeopteryx could be classified as absolute proof of transition. And, you’re darn right it’s this kind of proof us theists want. It’s the same kind of proof you demand to substantiate our claims pertaining to God. We’re not going to just abandon the wellspring of our being (faith) based on un-provable claims

Offline monkeymind

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2592
  • Darwins +44/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I don't understand what I know about it!
    • How To Know If You Are A Real Christian
Re: AaAaUuuuGggGGHhhHHhhh!!!!! Smart Atheist people please help haha :D
« Reply #207 on: August 13, 2010, 09:10:07 AM »
Quote
We’re not going to just abandon the wellspring of our being (faith) based on un-provable claims   

You have no provable claims to justify your faith.
Besides this shows that you still do not understand something very basic to  science -it does not claim to 'prove' anything....but gotta go for now. Good luck
Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birds
Mailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7276
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: AaAaUuuuGggGGHhhHHhhh!!!!! Smart Atheist people please help haha :D
« Reply #208 on: August 13, 2010, 09:25:41 AM »
Quote from: BibleStudent
That may be true for some theists but not for me. You speak of the evidence which is lacking as though it were inconsequential. I’m not talking about filling in some tiny cracks here….there are big holes that would need to be filled before archaeopteryx could be classified as absolute proof of transition. And, you’re darn right it’s this kind of proof us theists want. It’s the same kind of proof you demand to substantiate our claims pertaining to God. We’re not going to just abandon the wellspring of our being (faith) based on un-provable claims

Again, you are failing to clearly show that you truly understand what the ToE say's.  Here is a link to an incredibly awesome sight that provides fantastic information about the theory, and what it say's.

Berkeley Theory of Evolution

By the way, absolute proof is not a part of the theory.  In case you have trouble understanding that.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: AaAaUuuuGggGGHhhHHhhh!!!!! Smart Atheist people please help haha :D
« Reply #209 on: August 13, 2010, 09:31:35 AM »
That may be true for some theists but not for me. You speak of the evidence which is lacking as though it were inconsequential. I’m not talking about filling in some tiny cracks here….there are big holes that would need to be filled before archaeopteryx could be classified as absolute proof of transition. And, you’re darn right it’s this kind of proof us theists want. It’s the same kind of proof you demand to substantiate our claims pertaining to God. We’re not going to just abandon the wellspring of our being (faith) based on un-provable claims

BS, you claim that you are being reasonable and not "like some theists" but what are these "big holes" and what would you and creationists accept as the means to fill them? As it stands, every fossils that demonstrates transition is either ignored by creationists or pointed to, demanding the next transitional form, thus splitting hairs finer and finer, in a desperate attempt to reject the obvious.  In that fossils will likely never be found to show *every* tiny change considering how fossils are made, creationists rely on this lack of evidence to cling to their myths. Which is always hilarious since they use the same science that supports evolutionary theory every day as long as it makes them comfy, but then turn around and say "but that science is wrong" when it comes to their myths.  In light of these things,  BS, you seem just like those "some theists".  

I have researched and watched theism, and the creationist community in particular, and I love how you insist that you won't abandon the "wellspring of our being (faith)".  You'll certainly twist it and bruise it to change your tunes when science shows that you are simply wrong.  The "faithful" go from illness are God's will or "demons" to accepting microbiology and antibiotics.  They go from "God created man" to accepting "microevolution" but not "macro", a term they redefined to excuse their nonsense yet again.  We have Christians content with evolutionary theory and those who rail against it, each sure that they and they alone are the "RealTrueChristiantstm".  
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Emergence

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 832
  • Darwins +5/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • do i look impressed?
Re: AaAaUuuuGggGGHhhHHhhh!!!!! Smart Atheist people please help haha :D
« Reply #210 on: August 13, 2010, 09:46:03 AM »
Obviously you are incorrigible.

If I were sitting in Emergence’s seat, I’d probably be saying the same thing about me. I do not mean to be disrespectful and void of any consideration for the material presented.

[snip]


Please note that all BS says about me and my "irresponsible faith" in the above post is actually an act of obfuscation. As i told him i couldn't care less what he believes. He asked me whether i see Archeaoptreryx undeniably as a transitional fossil. I do. That is not irresponsible, that is my personal conviction from a close study of biology over many years now and i am not afraid to admit it. Is there a chance that i am wrong? There always is. From all i know that chance is slim.

I tried to explain that an organism can scientifically be classified as bird, and still is considered a transitional from by the scientific community. Even regardless whether it presented a direct ancestor of modern birds or not. Sibling lines to the main line of evolution are still considered transitional forms as the Wellnhofer quote illustrates.

My "incorrigible" comment only did regard that misconception: Namely that once something is defined as bird it is no longer considered transitional.

Now he calls my personal conviction - that i had to state in a very clear and unambiguous way due to his pressuring - i'd never use that exact same wording myself for the very reason we now witness here -  irresponsible, which i find hilarious. Yet he does not acknowledge that he was wrong with his assumption, namely that when a scientist calls Archeopteryx a bird he or she automatically excludes it from being a transitional form.

BS doesn't believe that any transitional forms exist, because he doesn't believe evolutionary transitions exist. Therefore he could have - instead taking the detour of faking an interest in the scientific definition of transitional form - asked me if i think natural evolution of organisms is undeniable. I - again - think it is. It is my personal conviction from years of biological study. That is what he actually finds irresponsible. Despite having so many fields and 150 years of research backing up this very conclusion. But i don't care. My comment was only on his incorrigible misconceptions about the science backing up that conclusion.

It is as if i'd say "the entire body of Christian theology stands against BS' assessment of Jesus Christ as Son of God, divinely in his nature." It would be a factually wrong statement and would show my misconceptions about Christian theology and if i would refuse to accept any correction i could truthfully be called incorrigible and probably intellectually dishonest.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 10:04:03 AM by Emergence »
Change alone is eternal, perpetual, immortal.
Arthur Schopenhauer

EurekAlert - Science News / Public Library of Science / Scholarpedia

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7276
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: AaAaUuuuGggGGHhhHHhhh!!!!! Smart Atheist people please help haha :D
« Reply #211 on: August 13, 2010, 09:53:19 AM »
I wouldn't be too concerned (and I'm sure you're not.)

BS has a long way to go before he can break through the delusional thinking he is espousing here.  I don;t care if he agrees with the ToE or not, he cannot run around acting like he knows what it is, and then challenging its central tenets until he can demonstrate that he fully understands those tenets, why they exist, and what they truly mean to scientists.

He is, in short, completely ignorant about the ToE, regardless of his religious beliefs.  Dishonesty in this discussion has been rampant.  What's really weird is some people were thinking that he was being honest?

Offline Emergence

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 832
  • Darwins +5/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • do i look impressed?
Re: AaAaUuuuGggGGHhhHHhhh!!!!! Smart Atheist people please help haha :D
« Reply #212 on: August 13, 2010, 09:59:00 AM »
What's really weird is some people were thinking that he was being honest?

Yeah, count me in that group.
Change alone is eternal, perpetual, immortal.
Arthur Schopenhauer

EurekAlert - Science News / Public Library of Science / Scholarpedia

Offline wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2443
  • Darwins +106/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: AaAaUuuuGggGGHhhHHhhh!!!!! Smart Atheist people please help haha :D
« Reply #213 on: August 13, 2010, 10:01:45 AM »
Quote from: Bibilestudent
We’re not going to just abandon the wellspring of our being (faith) based on un-provable claims

Well, who said that evolution was not compatible with the Christian faith. God could well have used evolution to produce the species so the two are quite compatible. however I would comment on a couple of things.

Your claim of god being a creator. Where is the evidence of him at all and specifically the evidence of him having created? If the evidence of the archeopteryx as part of evolution (including the DNA evidence from it) then belief in god is even more distant - distant to infinity with its lack of evidence. How do you square that?

While you are at it, you accept the bible as the word of a god you have no evidence for on the basis that there is a reference to this in a couple of the biblical books. How can you claim anything of value from so little evidence?

The trouble is that the question of evidence cuts both ways and you seem to have a  faith cut off from belief completely yet you cut yourself off from one of the best theories we have in science - the best evidenced and with the best predictive powers - on the basis of something without evidence at all. Incredible!!!  
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: AaAaUuuuGggGGHhhHHhhh!!!!! Smart Atheist people please help haha :D
« Reply #214 on: August 13, 2010, 11:35:25 AM »
He asked me whether i see Archeaoptreryx undeniably as a transitional fossil. I do. That is not irresponsible, that is my personal conviction from a close study of biology over many years now and i am not afraid to admit it. Is there a chance that i am wrong? There always is. From all i know that chance is slim.

Oh my. Nowhere in the exchange was it ever even implied that your position was your “opinion.” A very clever qualification you are now making. I won’t go so far as making an accusation of dishonesty (like others are falsely accusing me of absent any evidence), but this is a rather remarkable change in position. In fact, what is rather telling is that you pressed the issue of the scientific community  collectively agreeing with your assertion….as though you were speaking as a representative of the biological field of study who all agreed with your statements. Now this was all just your opinion ? Hmm.



Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: AaAaUuuuGggGGHhhHHhhh!!!!! Smart Atheist people please help haha :D
« Reply #215 on: August 13, 2010, 11:59:14 AM »
Well, who said that evolution was not compatible with the Christian faith. God could well have used evolution to produce the species so the two are quite compatible.

I don't disagree with that. I, for one, have not ruled out that possibility. In fact, to be honest, I tend to waffle back and forth on 'Young Earth Creationism' and many aspects of old earth evolution.


Offline sammylama

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 793
  • Darwins +8/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Look at me and my bad self.
Re: AaAaUuuuGggGGHhhHHhhh!!!!! Smart Atheist people please help haha :D
« Reply #216 on: August 13, 2010, 12:00:17 PM »
Well, who said that evolution was not compatible with the Christian faith. God could well have used evolution to produce the species so the two are quite compatible. however I would comment on a couple of things. 

The Bible (unless you're being sarcastic and I missed it).  Words used for "day" in the Creation Myth are clearly meant to mean a 24-hour period.  Christians believe that all living things were created in their "finished" form from the day of their inception.  No evolution.  Just god-made-it.  There is no room to say you're a bible-believing christian and still be open to the facts of evolution, without massaging and manipulating the "data" (Bible).

This Quote:  In an attempt to merge the Bible with the theory of evolution, progressive creationists argue for nonliteral interpretations of the word "Day" in Genesis 1, and instead hold to these descriptions as representing vast periods of time. However, the author of Genesis has described the events in details that make it clear the lengths of time involved were ordinary 24-hour periods of time. The specificity of the period of time in question is made clear and reinforced in each case with the phrase "And there was evening, and there was morning". This added notation makes it clear to all who read these passages that the author intended to convey to the reader the meaning that each day of the creation week was equivalent to a normal solar day.

From here:  http://creationwiki.org/Days_of_creation


Edit:  Another good, well-researched article on the literal interpretation intended in the bible for the word "day" in the Creation Myth: http://www.grisda.org/origins/21005.htm
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 12:07:14 PM by sammylama »
You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.
--  Carl Sagan

Offline Whateverman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1353
  • Darwins +6/-5
  • Gender: Male
    • Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers
Re: AaAaUuuuGggGGHhhHHhhh!!!!! Smart Atheist people please help haha :D
« Reply #217 on: August 13, 2010, 12:04:02 PM »
We’re not going to just abandon the wellspring of our being (faith) based on un-provable claims

This is going to be tangential because it's a pet peeve of mine:

Why appeal to "proof" as being something valuable, BibleStudent?  I can't understand why proof of a claim is important/significant when your epistemology (religious faith) rejects the need for it.  Isn't it hypocritical to request proof in some cases and not others?

EDIT: readability.  Underlining in the above quote was done by me.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2010, 12:16:10 PM by Whateverman »
- SMRT Admin

Compared to this thread, retarded midget wrestling for food stamps is the pinnacle of human morality.
-- Ambassador Pony

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: AaAaUuuuGggGGHhhHHhhh!!!!! Smart Atheist people please help haha :D
« Reply #218 on: August 13, 2010, 12:32:21 PM »
I don't disagree with that. I, for one, have not ruled out that possibility. In fact, to be honest, I tend to waffle back and forth on 'Young Earth Creationism' and many aspects of old earth evolution.
I'm very curious, why do you waffle?
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: AaAaUuuuGggGGHhhHHhhh!!!!! Smart Atheist people please help haha :D
« Reply #219 on: August 13, 2010, 12:34:49 PM »
We’re not going to just abandon the wellspring of our being (faith) based on un-provable claims

This is going to be tangential because it's a pet peeve of mine:

Why appeal to "proof" as being something valuable, BibleStudent?  I can't understand why proof of a claim is important/significant when your epistemology (religious faith) rejects the need for it.  Isn't it hypocritical to request proof in some cases and not others?

EDIT: readability.  Underlining in the above quote was done by me.

Yes, I do tend to inappropriately use the word "proof" at times. I need to get into the habit of using words that do not demand such rigidity. There are times when "proof" is necessary but, again, I do over use it. You are not the first person who has charged me with this.   

Offline Whateverman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1353
  • Darwins +6/-5
  • Gender: Male
    • Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers
Re: AaAaUuuuGggGGHhhHHhhh!!!!! Smart Atheist people please help haha :D
« Reply #220 on: August 13, 2010, 12:40:58 PM »
There are times when "proof" is necessary but, again, I do over use it.
This I can understand.  Thanks.
- SMRT Admin

Compared to this thread, retarded midget wrestling for food stamps is the pinnacle of human morality.
-- Ambassador Pony

Offline Emergence

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 832
  • Darwins +5/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • do i look impressed?
Re: AaAaUuuuGggGGHhhHHhhh!!!!! Smart Atheist people please help haha :D
« Reply #221 on: August 13, 2010, 12:41:21 PM »
Oh my. Nowhere in the exchange was it ever even implied that your position was your “opinion.” A very clever qualification you are now making. I won’t go so far as making an accusation of dishonesty (like others are falsely accusing me of absent any evidence), but this is a rather remarkable change in position. In fact, what is rather telling is that you pressed the issue of the scientific community  collectively agreeing with your assertion….as though you were speaking as a representative of the biological field of study who all agreed with your statements. Now this was all just your opinion ? Hmm.

I just reported you for misrepresenting my position.

My personal conviction is not "just opinion". It is something i am convinced of as soundly as i can be convinced of anything on basis of my personal knowledge. Since i am biologist, i share much of my personal knowledge in the field of biology with other scientists studying that field. It therefore is not astonishing that many come to the same conclusion and conviction as myself.

Proof only exists in math, if at all. I am also convinced beyond the shadow of doubt that i have undeniably three living siblings. I am convinced that this is the undeniable truth on the basis of my personal knowledge. Would you call that "just an opinion"? I am also convinced beyond the shadow of doubt that the earth is undeniably  of approximately globular shape. I am convinced of that on the basis of my personal knowledge. Would you call that "just an opinion"?

Our discussion started with the premise that the claim "Archeopteryx is a transitional form" is a known and documented fraud rejected by the scientific community. I could conclusively show that this is not the case. Your wiggling and whining doesn't change that. Nor does it make my position "just an opinion".

You, sir, are a pathetic representative of your faith, but undeniable a promising apologist.
Change alone is eternal, perpetual, immortal.
Arthur Schopenhauer

EurekAlert - Science News / Public Library of Science / Scholarpedia

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: AaAaUuuuGggGGHhhHHhhh!!!!! Smart Atheist people please help haha :D
« Reply #222 on: August 13, 2010, 12:43:01 PM »
I don't disagree with that. I, for one, have not ruled out that possibility. In fact, to be honest, I tend to waffle back and forth on 'Young Earth Creationism' and many aspects of old earth evolution.
I'm very curious, why do you waffle?

Primarily because this is not an area that I have really immersed myself in...yet. But, the limited material I have been exposed to seems to make some decent arguments for certain aspects of each belief. I think I had actually tried to argue for YEC at one time and quickly realized I was in a little over my head.

Offline Jim

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2462
  • Darwins +11/-1
  • Born Again Atheist
Re: AaAaUuuuGggGGHhhHHhhh!!!!! Smart Atheist people please help haha :D
« Reply #223 on: August 13, 2010, 12:44:57 PM »
Until shown otherwise, the existence and supposed desires of BibleStudent's "God" are just opinion.  Less than a theory.  Vapor, actually.
Survey results coming soon!

Offline sammylama

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 793
  • Darwins +8/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Look at me and my bad self.
Re: AaAaUuuuGggGGHhhHHhhh!!!!! Smart Atheist people please help haha :D
« Reply #224 on: August 13, 2010, 12:50:10 PM »
Until shown otherwise, the existence and supposed desires of BibleStudent's "God" are just opinion.  Less than a theory.  Vapor, actually.

Perhaps even, oh...I don't know...delusional?
You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.
--  Carl Sagan

Offline Jim

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2462
  • Darwins +11/-1
  • Born Again Atheist
Re: AaAaUuuuGggGGHhhHHhhh!!!!! Smart Atheist people please help haha :D
« Reply #225 on: August 13, 2010, 12:51:43 PM »
Until shown otherwise, the existence and supposed desires of BibleStudent's "God" are just opinion.  Less than a theory.  Vapor, actually.

Perhaps even, oh...I don't know...delusional?

Noooo.  Not delusional.  Irrational, or extremely misguided, perhaps.  Overly sheltered?  

Ok, extremely delusional.  You're right.  +1
Survey results coming soon!

Offline Emergence

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 832
  • Darwins +5/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • do i look impressed?
Re: AaAaUuuuGggGGHhhHHhhh!!!!! Smart Atheist people please help haha :D
« Reply #226 on: August 13, 2010, 12:51:48 PM »
And by the way, BS: I did not press "the issue of the scientific community [is]  collectively agreeing with [my] assertion" i pressed the issue that your assertion that "that the ENTIRE body of science does not agree with [my] assessment of the subject fossils" is factually wrong. I do not say every scientist agrees with me, i just say that not all scientists disagree with me (or in fact, that a majority - but not the entire body of science - agrees with me). That is an important difference to note.
Change alone is eternal, perpetual, immortal.
Arthur Schopenhauer

EurekAlert - Science News / Public Library of Science / Scholarpedia

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: AaAaUuuuGggGGHhhHHhhh!!!!! Smart Atheist people please help haha :D
« Reply #227 on: August 13, 2010, 12:55:00 PM »
I just reported you for misrepresenting my position.

My personal conviction is not "just opinion". It is something i am convinced of as soundly as i can be convinced of anything on basis of my personal knowledge. Since i am biologist, i share much of my personal knowledge in the field of biology with other scientists studying that field. It therefore is not astonishing that many come to the same conclusion and conviction as myself.

Ok, it’s your personal conviction…..that you admitted could be wrong.  Not sure how that is so different from being your opinion?? In fact one dictionary entry I found defined the word “conviction” as a belief or opinion.

 

Offline Emergence

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 832
  • Darwins +5/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • do i look impressed?
Re: AaAaUuuuGggGGHhhHHhhh!!!!! Smart Atheist people please help haha :D
« Reply #228 on: August 13, 2010, 12:59:26 PM »
All of my convictions can be wrong. They only exist in my mind  on the basis of my personal knowledge acquired through my senses and the tools i could access up to this point in time. None of my convictions are unfalsifiable. I could be wrong about everything. But i do not believe i am wrong about many things.

And - just for completeness sake - English isn't my first language, so you shouldn't weight each of my word too pedantically.
Change alone is eternal, perpetual, immortal.
Arthur Schopenhauer

EurekAlert - Science News / Public Library of Science / Scholarpedia

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: AaAaUuuuGggGGHhhHHhhh!!!!! Smart Atheist people please help haha :D
« Reply #229 on: August 13, 2010, 01:00:48 PM »
I just reported you for misrepresenting my position.

My personal conviction is not "just opinion". It is something i am convinced of as soundly as i can be convinced of anything on basis of my personal knowledge. Since i am biologist, i share much of my personal knowledge in the field of biology with other scientists studying that field. It therefore is not astonishing that many come to the same conclusion and conviction as myself.

Ok, it’s your personal conviction…..that you admitted could be wrong.  Not sure how that is so different from being your opinion?? In fact one dictionary entry I found defined the word “conviction” as a belief or opinion.

 

Merriam Webster even lists the word "opinion" as a synonym of "conviction." 

Offline Emergence

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 832
  • Darwins +5/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • do i look impressed?
Re: AaAaUuuuGggGGHhhHHhhh!!!!! Smart Atheist people please help haha :D
« Reply #230 on: August 13, 2010, 01:01:31 PM »
How would you name the strongest form of knowledge then?
Change alone is eternal, perpetual, immortal.
Arthur Schopenhauer

EurekAlert - Science News / Public Library of Science / Scholarpedia

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: AaAaUuuuGggGGHhhHHhhh!!!!! Smart Atheist people please help haha :D
« Reply #231 on: August 13, 2010, 01:11:19 PM »
How would you name the strongest form of knowledge then?

"fact" ????