"To show that an argument is invalid or unsound is not to show that the conclusion of the argument is false.... All the proofs of God’s existence may fail, but it still may be the case that God exists." (Outspoken Atheist-Kai Nielsen)
"Atheist’s denial of God’s existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist’s claim; the atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God’s existence." (Paul Copan)
bit.ly/presumptuousness
Most people who say they are atheists dont say god(s) couldnt exist, just that they dont believe they exist.
ReplyDelete"...the atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God’s existence."
I would counter that the Christian must therefor give plausible reasons for rejecting all the other gods.
You see Dan, you hold the same opinion as an atheist, in regard to other peoples gods. We just include all the gods in the list.
Oranges,
ReplyDelete>>I would counter that the Christian must therefor give plausible reasons for rejecting all the other gods.
I am perfectly fine with explaining my reasoning as to the rejections of worshiped things other then God Himself. Let's start with the first and second commandments...
>>You see Dan, you hold the same opinion as an atheist, in regard to other peoples gods. We just include all the gods in the list.
Not so my friend. I certainly believe that there are other gods-idols, like money. Atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no God. You certainly worship man, or self, the self is your god. Let's all be honest here, you reject Yahweh/Yahshua.
Nielsen seems to be more intellectually honest than many of the atheists that frequent this site. Those will reject anything, no matter what evidence is offered.
ReplyDeleteStormbringer said...
ReplyDeleteNielsen seems to be more intellectually honest than many of the atheists that frequent this site. Those will reject anything, no matter what evidence is offered.
-----------------------------
You have brought in this riposte style of rhetoric that we have seen come and go in the past, just as you will scamper off with your vestigial tail between your legs once you see your style had no effect on empirical thinking.
You have not once offered a scintilla of "evidence" to back up your irrational beliefs.
In case I have missed something, please restate this evidence that you claim.
What repeatable and falsifiable test would you suggest as evidence for a supernatural being?
Even Dan stands on faith and tradition, along with some presupp gimicks.
(No offense to you, Dan, we go back a ways, and we have both had to come to grips with some of our cherished beliefs.)
Why, Frog E-lad? So you can set us up for more ridicule in your little "we are so smart" club?
ReplyDeleteBesides, this is a different topic. Also, it's Weblog comments, and I am not going to offer a doctoral dissertation. Especially after you and your kind have shown your true colors.
Froggie,
ReplyDelete>> just as you will scamper off with your vestigial tail between your legs once you see your style had no effect on empirical thinking.
Speaking of true color, vestigial tail? Really? You believe the Coccyx tailbone have to do with a vestigial tail? The coccygeal vertebrae are very vital for going to the bathroom dude. Don't believe me, try removing it. Look it up!
You are feeding into Stormbringer's claim that you IGNORE THE EVIDENCE and insert presuppositions instead. Dangerous outcome ensues.
>>You have not once offered a scintilla of "evidence" to back up your irrational beliefs.
Can you, for the so called vestigial tail?
Dan,
ReplyDelete"You certainly worship man, or self, the self is your god. Let's all be honest here, you reject Yahweh/Yahshua."
No, I don't worship anyone or anything. I no more worship man, or self, or money than you do. In addition, I dont worship any gods, yours or anyone elses. Dan, thats the only difference. Other than that, I have roughly the same moral code as you, the same capacity for love, anger, compassion as you.
To be frank Dan, I find the idea of worshipping anyone/anything as horrific as you do .... I just include gods as being as unworthy of worship as anything else.
Whatever you give the priority place in your life is your object of worship. In the case of atheists, it's "self". Atheists would make good Satanists, because Satanism (in the LaVey version) does not officially believe that Satan is an actual being, and it's all about me, me, me. Come to think of it, atheists are already Satanists. The "church" is in need of your donations, better hurry.
ReplyDeleteOranges,
ReplyDelete>>No, I don't worship anyone or anything.
O'rly? The point is that you indeed worship something. You show devotion to the cause to show there is no God. That in itself is worship.
Worship literally means "worth-ship". Giving worth to something. Are you claiming that you don't give worth to anything? Really? Dishonest much? You certainly idolize Darwin, Dawkins, and secular scientists.
Stormbringer,
ReplyDeleteI'm sure in real life you're a smashing fella. Really.
Shame we're not seeing it in your posts.
"O'rly? The point is that you indeed worship something. You show devotion to the cause to show there is no God. That in itself is worship."
ReplyDeleteBy posting on your blog, I show devotion to a cause? No, I think your overestimate your own importance Dan, lol. I have opinions on many things, and discuss many things with many people, in many places. You cant be claiming I worship all of those "causes" or topics? Do I worship groceries when I discuss them with my local store owner?
"Worship literally means "worth-ship". Giving worth to something. Are you claiming that you don't give worth to anything? Really? Dishonest much?"
You are redefining the word so it helps your argument. No, the common definition of the word relates to religion specifically, but otherwise it means "Ardent devotion; adoration" normally related to a sacred object or idol.
So categorically no, I dont worship anyone or anything. I dont bow to anyone, I dont subjugate myself to anything, I am not devoted to any idols. I don't presume to tell you what you think or feel, please afford me the same courtesy Dan.
"You certainly idolize Darwin, Dawkins, and secular scientists."
No, I really don't. Darwin? He produced a revolutionary theory, certainly, but I feel no different about him than Albert Einstein or Sir Isaac Newton. I dont worship any of them. Dawkins? I respect him as a scientist and writer, on a personal level I think he's abrasive and not my cup of tea. Hardly worship material. Secular scientists? The phrase doesnt mean anything, scientists are scientists, and I don't worship any of them either.
Speaking of true color, vestigial tail? Really? You believe the Coccyx tailbone have to do with a vestigial tail? The coccygeal vertebrae are very vital for going to the bathroom dude. Don't believe me, try removing it. Look it up!
ReplyDeleteIf you insist, Dan.
Removal of the Coccyx is a surgical procedure known as a Coccygectomy, that can be performed for patients suffering tailbone pain. It requires that three muscles be re-attached to the pelvic floor, and excluding potential surgical complications it is without any long-term disadvantages.
And yes, the Coccyx vertebrae are the remnants of a vestigial tail: when atavistic tails form in humans they include these vertebrae, unfused: (C1, C2 and C3 in this x-ray image of an atavistic tail)
It appears that image link did not work. Here, I'll try again: http://www.rathinker.co.kr/creationism/comdesc/images/tail.jpg
ReplyDeleteQuasar,
ReplyDeleteCoccygectomy? D'oh!
OK fine, but the muscles still have to be reattached to perform the task the Coccyx once served. That merely reinforces my point here, thanks. Also, that does not give evidence to the claim of it being a tail at one point in some evolutionary past. Any evidence of that?
OK fine, but the muscles still have to be reattached to perform the task the Coccyx once served.
ReplyDeleteI beg to differ: the coccyx isn't serving a purpose, the muscles are. They need to be attached to something, but it really doesn't matter what.
As for evidence that it really is the remnanats of a tail, compare this diagram of the coccyx to this X-ray of an atavistic tail.
Note that the coccyx is a series of distinct "lumps", fused together into a single bone. Note that in an actual human tail, those three lumps become unfused vertebrae: an extension of the spine beyond the pelvis, not at all dissimilar to the tail of most other mammals.
Of course, I realise that you can just cry "Common Designer" at this point, but that's a handwave explanation. Sure it's possible (in the sense that anything's 'possible'), but it's a major break from the scientific method and it doesn't explain how or why humans have what looks very suspiciously like the remnants of a tail, whereas common anecestry ties everything up rather neatly.
Darnit, my links never work!
ReplyDeleteDiagram of Coccyx
X-ray of tail
Dan said:
ReplyDelete"The coccygeal vertebrae are very vital for going to the bathroom dude. Don't believe me, try removing it. Look it up!"
A classic Kent Hovind line from Dan there. Fortunately, being an honest person, Quasar did look it up and, furthermore, linked to evidence that you can indeed remove the coccyx.
Dan said:
"Coccygectomy? D'oh!
OK fine..."
LOL,
Dan, why don't you follow your own advice and LOOK THINGS UP!!!. And repeating what is said by other Creationists does not constitute 'looking things up'. It simply constitutes parroting the words of someone else who has clearly not 'looked things up'.
This is what I love about this blog. All the debunking that goes on...
Quasar,
ReplyDelete>>They need to be attached to something, but it really doesn't matter what.
That is being in complete denial now. That is like saying the jawbone is not needed as long as the jaw muscles are attached to "something" Dude, you are way way smarter then this. What happened?
>>it doesn't explain how or why humans have what looks very suspiciously like the remnants of a tail,
Dude, you are way way smarter then this. What happened? It looks like a tail so it must be one? Really? That is certainly a break from the scientific method itself. Remember the old saying cart before the horse? Well that is what your evolutionary paradigm mindset (presuppositions) is/are doing. Thanks for showing evidence of presumptuousness right here.
Bacteria flagellum look like a designed motor also. So you accept that theory also? Inconsistent much?
rhiggs,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the blatant quote mine dude.
Dan
ReplyDeleteWhy is it that whenever you're caught you "dude"everything up?
Just askin'
Oh, sorry dude,
ReplyDeleteIn case you couldn't scroll up and see for yourself, Dan actually said:
"Coccygectomy? D'oh!
OK fine, but the muscles still have to be reattached to perform the task the Coccyx once served. That merely reinforces my point here, thanks. Also, that does not give evidence to the claim of it being a tail at one point in some evolutionary past. Any evidence of that?"
Makes no difference since people without a coccyx can still defecate, dude. The muscles need to be reattached, but the muscles aren't the coccyx, dude. Any number of bone shapes and structures could support the muscles, so the coccyx doesn't need to be there in it's particular shape, as proved by the reattachment procedure, dude. You're debunked with or without your full quote, dude.
Dan,
ReplyDelete"Speaking of true color, vestigial tail? Really? You believe the Coccyx tailbone have to do with a vestigial tail? The coccygeal vertebrae are very vital for going to the bathroom dude. Don't believe me, try removing it. Look it up!"
Yes indeed, look it up Dan.
"....the true atavistic tail of humans results from incomplete regression of the most distal end of the normal embryonic tail found in the developing human fetus (see Figure 2.4.1 and the discussion below on the development of the normal human embryonic tail; Belzberg et al. 1991; Dao and Netsky 1984; Grange et al. 2001; Keith 1921). Though formally a malformation, the true human tail is usually benign in nature (Dubrow et al. 1988; Spiegelmann et al. 1985). The true human tail is characterized by a complex arrangement of adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of longitudinally arranged striated muscle in the core, blood vessels, nerve fibres, nerve ganglion cells, and specialized pressure sensing nerve organs (Vater-Pacini corpuscles). It is covered by normal skin, replete with hair follicles, sweat glands, and sebaceous glands (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988; Spiegelmann et al. 1985). True human tails range in length from about one inch to over 5 inches long (on a newborn baby), and they can move via voluntary striped muscle contractions in response to various emotional states (Baruchin et al. 1983; Dao and Netsky 1984; Harrison 1901; Keith 1921; Lundberg et al. 1962). "
Atavisms
Oranges et al,
ReplyDeleteThat is absolutely laughable. That link to that failed website also said that:
"On October 28, 2006, Japanese fishermen captured a four-finned dolphin off the coast of western Japan, and donated the whale to the Taiji Whaling Museum where it is currently being studied. This bottlenose dolphin has an extra set of hindlimbs, two well-formed palm-sized flippers that move and flap like the normal fore-flippers (see Figure 2.2.2). As with other atavistic structures, these limbs are likely the result of a rare mutation that allows an underlying, yet cryptic, developmental pathway to become reactivated. These limbs are prima facie evidence of the dolphin's four-limbed ancestry, as predicted from the common ancestry of dolphins and other land-dwelling mammals."
Bwahahahahahha and crying at the same time. Its sad because people, like you, buy this garbage just because "some website said so" and funny because they have no clue as to the purpose of the hind fins or pelvic bones.
The fins, much like the Whale's pelvic bones, are very often mistaken for vestigial legs. The pelvis of normal mammals it is not attached to the vertebral column. This bone in the whale, serves as an anchorage for the male reproductive organs. The fins are to aid in reproduction in violent waters and choppy seas such as off the coast of Japan. Notice the location of the fin in relation to the reproduction organs?
So with presuppositions flying they are trying to shove ALL the evidence into this very tiny evolutionary box and they get it wrong almost every time, and sadly the data just overflows out of that tiny box and spills on to the lab floor and gets washed away.
Oranges linked to Talk Origins, which on the first screenshot alone had 10-15 references to actual peer-reviewed research (and about 100 in total for the page).
ReplyDeleteDan linked to a picture of two dolphins getting jiggy with it, and a picture of the northwest pacific.
Which is more convincing? It's a tough one to call.....
hahaha touché Rhiggs, well played.
ReplyDeleteWell that is all we have to go on since the Atheists will not let us Creationists play with the data. So take your "convincing" peer-review ball and go home if you wish. We will get our own ball.
Besides no matter what link I will show you, you would say that is a creationist website and not admissible as evidence. You know the game, and so do we.
Here lets try it. Do you accept the data now that it has references?
No, because that article you linked to doesn't cite peer-reviewed research, it just cites 3 books, all of which were written 20+ years ago. Anyone can write a book. That's not convincing at all.
ReplyDeletePlus, why can't creationists get the data. No-one is stopping them. Are creationists banned from fishing in Japan now? Get Ben Stein on it, quick!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDan:
ReplyDeleteSome people are born with tails (unless you somehow think it is a massive hoax.) Now, these tails are not large. But they do serve to confirm that the structure in question is a tailbone.
And it may, indeed, be the case that there is a god. But it is not evident. I can safely say that your god doesn't exist, because (if he did) he would show himself.
Rhiggs:
The term "peer review" sounds more impressive than it really is. It is more conducive to reinforcing existing dogma than to shatterring it. If (as I believe to be the case) evolution is an untestable proposition and the reviewers are predisposed to believe it true, papers that declare it true are likely to pass review and researchers trying to show it false are likely to be denied funding.
Edited for misplaced paragraphs.
Pvblivs,
ReplyDelete"The term "peer review" sounds more impressive than it really is. It is more conducive to reinforcing existing dogma than to shatterring it. If (as I believe to be the case) evolution is an untestable proposition and the reviewers are predisposed to believe it true, papers that declare it true are likely to pass review and researchers trying to show it false are likely to be denied funding."
First, I understand your opinion on this, but as someone who works in this sector, I can tell you that you're wrong. The peer-review process routinely improves the scientific quality of papers. There is no dogma filter that papers must pass through, only a robust scientific quality filter. Can peer-reviewers be blamed for recommending the rejection of papers that don't reference the last 20 years of research, such as the one Dan linked to above? If a paper challenges what you call 'dogma', and the scientific quality is high, then it actually has a better than average chance of being published.
Second, the term 'peer-review' doesn't only relate to the selection process for publication, but to the reaction to a published paper by the scientific community. If a paper of poor scientific quality somehow gets through, it is quickly noticed by the community and commentaries are published outlining it's flaws. Depending on the severity of the criticisms, the result can be a retraction.
Finally, your last line doesn't make sense:
"...researchers trying to show it false are likely to be denied funding"
How so?
If you try and show something you call 'dogmatic' to be false you will be denied funding? You are mixing up two things here, publication of papers and application for funding. You can submit papers for publication whether you have funding or not. And you can be denied funding on application regardless of how many publications you have.
It comes down to scientific quality again. Both processes independently assess the science on display and the novelty (indeed, something that challenges dogma would score high on novelty). If it passes the scientific quality test, it has a good chance of being published or of being granted funding.
In fact, there are many online journals now, such as the PLOS journals, which only assess the scientific quality of submitted papers, not the actual content. You can submit a paper on anything you want, regardless of whether it for or against current thinking, and as long as your methodology is sound, it will be published.
Rhiggs:
ReplyDeleteUnfunded or underfunded research can easily be dismissed as low-quality. Serious research requires funding. Now, I will grant that the scientific journals do not provide the funding themselves. However, I find it rather difficult to believe that government funding (for example) would not be affected by experts saying that the applicants didn't know what they were talking about because they didn't believe evolution.
I have seen many admonitions not even to read alleged research because it was funded by creationist sources. (Not that such research has yet proved to be impressive.) I have never come across (or been directed to) any research that could identify a possible result as evidence against large-scale evoltuion in advance. It looks like a dogma filter. Now, appearances can be deceiving. Maybe there is some esoteric information that invalidates my observations. But scientists and reviewers are human. They have no special immunity to dogma.
At one point (I forget how long ago now) I pondered the question of what it would look like if the scientific community was supporting a sacred belief. I didn't even have any possible examples in mind, just "what would it look like?" But I found two matches, evolution and string "theory." (And the supposition that humans are causing global warming is suspicious.)
"Asantaist’s denial of Santa’s existence needs just as much substantiation as does the Santaist’s claim; the asantaist must give plausible reasons for rejecting Santa’s existence." (Paul Copan)
ReplyDeleteFixed.
At one point (I forget how long ago now) I pondered the question of what it would look like if the scientific community was supporting a sacred belief. I didn't even have any possible examples in mind, just "what would it look like?" But I found two matches, evolution and string "theory."
You're forgetting you rejected plate tectonics too, Pvblivs, as being not falsifiable because no one was alive to witness Gondwanaland. You might want to send the bad news to Nature.
(And the supposition that humans are causing global warming is suspicious.)
Right. It's just a massive coincidence that temps are rising at the very time in history that we are pumping gigatons of CO2, a known greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. No one wants to believe in AGW because it would require making uncomfortable decisions.
Zilch is living up to his name. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, global warming is real and it's all the fault of humans. That is insanely stupid! Volcanoes pump out CO2, so you'd better cap them. And do you want humans to stop breathing, too? Of course, if the (absolute lie) greenhouse gas of CO2 was stopped, there would be a problem for plants. You know, the green things that give off oxygen because they (gasp) take in CO2?
ReplyDeleteAtheists rail at Christians for believing in God, whom we cannot see, yet they insist in believing in propaganda like global warming. Hoo ha! No wonder I can't respect your lot.
Stormbringer,
ReplyDeleteI can only assume you don't understand what you are talking about. The alternative is you are being dishonest.
Scientists do know full well that there are natural sources of "greenhouse" gases. Are you seriously suggesting they don't?
The question is are we adding to such gases, and thereby affecting the climate adversely? And should we stop? Serious and worthy questions for scientists to ask.
If my (I hope reasonable) point is too difficult, feel free to just insult me as well.
You're mixing apples and, well, you know.
ReplyDeleteMy reply was to the comment, not to scientists in general. Those people that are calling CO2 a "greenhouse gas" are promoting a political agenda, and are disingenuous.
Actually, no, you caught me. I'm lying as well as stupid. Wow, annoying and agonizingly arrogant atheists. Keep up with the transparent digs and the baiting, and I just might start using the letter B for insults, and then possibly C.
Stormbringer,
ReplyDelete"Those people that are calling CO2 a "greenhouse gas" are promoting a political agenda, and are disingenuous."
It is a greenhouse gas. You can call it something else, if you want, but the effect will still be the same. We know what such gases do to the temperature, and this is perfectly natural. But are we making it worse, thats the question. You might argue the answers some politicians gove are political, but the question isn't.
"Greenhouse gases are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect.[1] The main greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone."
One atheist says to the other, "I'm sick of your 'unholier than thou' attitude!"
ReplyDeleteRhiggs,
ReplyDelete>> If a paper of poor scientific quality somehow gets through, it is quickly noticed by the community and commentaries are published outlining it's flaws. Depending on the severity of the criticisms, the result can be a retraction...If it passes the scientific quality test, it has a good chance of being published or of being granted funding.
"The peer review system does not always detect fraud, plagiarism, poor quality or gross error and there is editorial reluctance to correct errors or to publish criticisms of sacred cows or 'controversial' or nonconformist views of skeptics and dissident minorities." (http://bit.ly/3gUcsN)
The reason why peer reviews are flawed is that there is money tied to them as Rhiggs just claimed. See the flaw now? No one wants to be the one that bankrupts their fellow scientists. They kinda get mad at such things. We don't want to anger those mad secular scientists now do we? Yes we do. So the dogma of the Atheist's false claims continue.
Oranges,
ReplyDeleteStorm said, "Those people that are calling CO2 a "greenhouse gas" are promoting a political agenda, and are disingenuous."
>>It is a greenhouse gas...But are we making it worse, thats the question.
Yea, Oranges condones and promotes mass extinction of people to stop them from exhaling, so we can save the planet? Population control is a must, right Oranges? We have to save the elite, right?
Thought I'd check back and see if Stormbringer had a well thought out, reasoned response to my (in my opinion) sensible and civil post.
ReplyDeleteOne atheist says to the other, "I'm sick of your 'unholier than thou' attitude!"
Oh well.
Sorry, Tangerine, I'm not interested in wasting time and effort, having arrogant, antagonist atheists telling me that everything I say, do or even *am* is wrong. I can't take you seriously.
ReplyDeleteWow. You disappoint me Dan. I point out a simple fact, the definition of a "greenhouse" gas which is not a political word. And you claim I "condones and promotes mass extinction of people to stop them from exhaling, so we can save the planet?"
ReplyDeleteWhere did I say that Dan? All I have done is say a) greenhouse gases are naturally occuring (I'm sure you must agree) and b) it's a valid question to ask if we are increasing those gases, to our own detriment?
Population control? Elites? I think youve got me confused with someone else Dan.
The best possible debunking of atheists and their preposterous presuppositions can be found in the following video http://xrl.in/g2b
ReplyDeleteStormbringer.
ReplyDelete"Sorry, Tangerine, I'm not interested in wasting time and effort, having arrogant, antagonist atheists telling me that everything I say, do or even *am* is wrong. I can't take you seriously."
Please point out where I said any of the above?
It's obvious you're not interested in courteous & civil conversation, indeed. How ironic you call me antagonistic. The last thing you want is to discuss any topic, much better to just insult people.
Hey Dan, are you feeling entirely comfortable with the, um, "contribution" Stormbringer is making to your once relatively civil blog?
ReplyDeleteI wonder.
Doing the victim card already, Tangeloes? Where did I say YOU? Not that you have been a joy in other postings, but I spoke in generalities.
ReplyDeleteAnd "once civil blog"? Yeah, I know the tactics you're employing. Anyway, I saw the profanity (of which I have reluctantly refrained), character attacks and other manipulations by atheists *before* I jumped in here. Frankly, the way you lot act, I'm surprised that Dan allows comments at all.
He has a ministry that he wants to perform. I don't, and I'm calling them as I see them.
You are a troll Stormbringer, one who starts by questioning facts but when someone responds you turn to personal insults.
ReplyDeleteI'm hardly a mate of Dan's, but he tries to have debates with people. You goad them, insult them, then run away insisting it's all beneath you.
A troll.
And what's with the namecalling? Very mature. Are you ten?
ReplyDeleteZilch:
ReplyDelete"Right. It's just a massive coincidence that temps are rising at the very time in history that we are pumping gigatons of CO2 ... into the atmosphere."
Historically, the global climate has been in a state of perpetual change. That would be with or without human activity. Under the assumption that the events are independent (the famed null hypothesis) the coincidence has about a 50 percent chance of occurring. Well, perhaps all regions of the planet (not just an average of the regions) are warming? Nope, some are warming, others are cooling. The politically-minded like to talk about "climate change" to stave off the objections of the various places getting colder.
You want debate when you deliberately take words out of context? Like I would have a chance at a rational discussion with you. Nope. My fuse has grown very short because of the atheist trolls that you seem to be unaware of, or unwilling to admit that they exist. How about policing your own a bit and calling them on their crassness?
ReplyDeleteI don't know if you're one of the trolls that's been hitting my Weblog or other areas, but the nature of the atheistic beast is clearly evident. Boy, does it irritate them when their personal attacks are deleted before they hit the comments section.
When I've attempted discussions, I get the equivalent of, "Yeah, but you Christians are doo doo heads and Intelligent Design is not science because we said so!"
When I say that I've had bad experiences with atheists, you play two cards. First, the personal victim card like you did. Second, atheists will want proof or say that I'm lying about my experiences. OK, in 1974 in Mr. Sherman's Elective English class, Scott the atheist was screaming, "All Christians should be burned at the stake!" Also, he made an active choice of will (while we were still friends), that he would hate me from a certain moment on.
Naturally, I'm lying, I can't give better documentation for my experience there, or the rest of them through the years.
You've pulled some tricks, the others here (and other places I've been) pull tricks... When things go downhill, I call atheists on their nonsense. Then they go crying to other atheists in forums like "We are so friggin' smart because we disbelieve", misquote, ridicule, etc.
And you think you deserve a reasoned debate? In a comments section?
You seem to have all sorts of issues with all sorts of people Stormbringer.
ReplyDeleteI assure you none of them are me. Our only conversation has been here. And I have asked you - quite deliberately - pertinent questions about the topic at hand, and I just reveived insults.
So you can lump me in with whatever group you think I belong to if you must, but you just come across as a troll when you dismiss people in that way, rather than actually respond to the specific words they use.
Naturally dodging my comments about what YOU have, playing the victim "poor me, you have issues" game.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, atheist trolls have even given me grief for withdrawing from other discussions. Can't win with your lot. I'd really have problems if the opinions of atheists were even worth a point of view.
Stormbringer:
ReplyDelete"When I've attempted discussions, I get the equivalent of, 'Yeah, but you [c]hristians are doo doo heads and [i]ntelligent [d]esign is not science because we said so!'"
Intelligent design is not science because it makes no testable predictions.
"How about policing your own a bit and calling them on their crassness?"
I have seen trolls from all stripes. Do you police christian trolls? (I'm guessing no; it would be an exercise in futility.) It would be just as futile for an atheist to try to police atheist trolls. All they share is a belief that there are no gods.
I was interested in the discussion about greenhouse gases, and your assertion (or so it seemed) that because CO2 was naturally occurring we couldnt be adding to it with adverse consequences.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to discuss if we should be trying to prevent CO2 emissions or not, I would be interested to hear your opinion. If you just want to throw insults, knock yourself out.
Pvb,
ReplyDelete>>Intelligent design is not science because it makes no testable predictions.
ID studies pattern in nature that are best explained as the results of intelligence. Many special or specific sciences already study such patterns and draw design inferences. Examples include forensic science and archaeology. It is scientifically legitimate to recognize the work of an intelligent agent, even if that agent is unknown, as it often the case in archaeology.
Oranges,
ReplyDelete>>Wow. You disappoint me Dan. I point out a simple fact, the definition of a "greenhouse" gas which is not a political word. And you claim I "condones and promotes mass extinction of people to stop them from exhaling, so we can save the planet?"
I know what you meant but what you said is like the government banning salt when our tongues are designed to taste, *cough, salt.
Do you want the governments to charge for exhaling to help "reduce" co2? Do you want to ban consumption of vegetables since the plants absorb co2? Or do you wish to have populations controls to reduce co2?
Do you understand that co2 is very beneficial to the environment to indeed "greenhouse?" Without Co2 there would be no plants. I don't know about you but the greenhouses here in California looks pretty healthy to me. I can't stand it in them since its too humid and hot but the plants thrive on it. :7p
New slogan:
"Help save the planet, increase co2 to save the plants and forests."
No, Dan, science is about making predictions and testing them. If I have a watch, it is a true claim that someone made it. But it is not a scientific claim.
ReplyDeleteDoes "Stormbringer" remind anyone else of someone who posted under the name "Daniel"? Or is it just me?
ReplyDeleteDan,
ReplyDeletecome on. Of course I realise that CO2 is important, naturally occurring, and noone is suggesting otherwise. Noone, least of all scientists.
That does not mean we should not care if we are adding more CO2 into the atmosphere. We have to be responsible. If we are, by our actions, damaging the planet, shouldnt we try and do something about it?
Yes Pvb, I had the same thought.
ReplyDelete... although I don't think he is.
ReplyDeleteNo Pvblivs, Stormbringer is nothing like Dani'El, IMHO (if that's who you were thinking of). Dan's latest fanboy is one of the nastier internet trolls I've encountered, regardless of religion.
ReplyDeleteHistorically, the global climate has been in a state of perpetual change. That would be with or without human activity.
ReplyDeleteSo far, so good, Pvblivs.
Under the assumption that the events are independent (the famed null hypothesis) the coincidence has about a 50 percent chance of occurring.
Where did you get that number? We've just had the hottest decade worldwide since they started taking measurements, and possibly the hottest since well before the last ice age. The amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere has risen considerably in the last two hundred years, most dramatically in the last fifty years. I don't see how you get a fifty percent chance for this warming just happening to coincide with the recent high levels of greenhouse gasses.
Well, perhaps all regions of the planet (not just an average of the regions) are warming? Nope, some are warming, others are cooling.
"Just an average" warming is what "global warming" means. The fact is, the Earth is getting warmer overall, even if it is cooling locally. Local cooling does not mean that global warming is not occurring.
The politically-minded like to talk about "climate change" to stave off the objections of the various places getting colder.
What objections? Right now, it's unseasonably cold and rainy here in Vienna (possibly influenced by Eyjafjallajokull). But that doesn't mean that the Earth as a whole is not warming. Better indications of global trends are such indicators as rising ocean temperatures worldwide, the disappearance of glaciers (which I have seen myself), and rising sea levels.
And as far as being "politically minded" goes: yes, politics, and of course religion and various other factors such as wishful thinking, can influence what one perceives to be the way things are in the world. And while there probably are people who believe in global warming (so-called "warm-mongers", which I must admit is funny) because it is a liberal position, on the whole, the influences are mostly in the other direction: there's a lot of money and inertia involved in not doing anything about global warming, and not a whole lot to be made (at least not quick and dirty) by doing something about it.
Notwithstanding the popular idea that Al Gore invented AGW to line his pockets, the big money is all on the other side: oil companies, car companies, and big industry in general, would all see cuts in their profits if they were forced to reduce emissions.
Unfortunately, it's also hard to get John Doe to do anything about it too, because it would mean lifestyle changes: less driving, less consumption of fruit and vegetables from overseas, less buying of junk from China that breaks and gets thrown out within a couple months...
I, too, would much rather believe that global warming is a myth. But unfortunately, it is all too real.
Stormbringer: why all the rancor? Sure, there are atheists who call names, make fun of theists, and some atheists really are breathtakingly stupid. Same goes for Christians and any other group of people you care to name. But if you jump into a discussion with both guns blazing, what kind of reception do you expect?
I can easily believe you've had bad experiences with atheists. But just as with any other stereotype, if you want to have a respectful relationship with people, you have to go beyond stereotypes and deal with them one person at a time. I'm willing to treat you with respect if you do the same for me. And if you are ever in Vienna, or the SF Bay Area in the summer, lunch is on me. Drop me a line- my email address is in my Blogger profile.
cheers from cool Austria, zilch.
Zilch:
ReplyDelete"Where did you get that number?"
Half the time, the planet should be in a warming stage and half the time it should be in a cooling stage. If the human activity is an independent event it will act as a random data point. That it occurs during a warming stage has about an even chance.
"The fact is, the Earth is getting warmer overall, even if it is cooling locally."
Yes it is. But that is pretty much what we would expect if the warming is a natural phenomenon.
"I, too, would much rather believe that global warming is a myth. But unfortunately, it is all too real."
The warming is a given. Whether it is man-made or not is not.
"and possibly the hottest since well before the last ice age."
If you have global temperature measurements for the last 5,000 years, I'd like to see them. Given that we are in a warming trend, and that geological cycles run over rather long times, the most recent decade being the warmest in a more limited time frame is not very surprising. But data from the last 5,000 years could establish a trend.
Oh, and that industy has a financial incentive to maintain the status quo comes as no surprise to me either. That doesn't preclude the possibility that the belief that temperatures are human-caused was a desired conclusion for some groups and that they picked whatever data seemed to support it.
I am reminded of a product (in a fictional story) called "Reason."
"Well, it was kind of a back-to-front program. It's funny how many of the best ideas are just an old idea back-to-front. You see there have already been several programs written that help you arrive at decisions by properly ordering and analyzing all the relevant facts so that they then point naturally to the right decision. The drawback with these is that the decision which all the properly ordered and analyzed facts point to is not necessarily the one you want."
"Well, Gordon's great insight was to design a program which allowed you to specify in advance what decision you wanted it to reach and only then to give it all the facts. The program's task, which it was able to accomplish with consummate ease, was simply to construct a plausible series of logical-sounding steps to connect the premises with the conclusion"
Oranges,
ReplyDelete>>If we are, by our actions, damaging the planet, shouldnt we try and do something about it?
Like tax people for having a child because they use up (x) amount of resources? Absolutely not!!
Be careful of what you ask for, that situation sounds like a nightmare and a violation of our rights has humans.
Dan,
ReplyDelete"Like tax people for having a child because they use up (x) amount of resources? Absolutely not!!"
I asked shouldnt we try and do something about it. It's a reasonable question.
I didnt ask should we do the most idiotic things anyone can think of. You are being disingnuous if you think the real attempts to fight climate change involve population control or "charging to exhale". They generally involve trying to make it profitable for companies to switch to less polluting energy sources, etc.
Not that you have been a joy in other postings, but I spoke in generalities.
ReplyDeleteYes you do speak in generalities. And lies; such as when you talk about presenting evidence. All you do is whine and I know the reason. You hate your life. You have nothing to live for. You have the personality of a rancid fart.
I also give you three thumbs down for your posting false statements using other peoples names, then wiping them from your site.
You’re a real piece of a work Mr. False Christian. Even the Christians over at Ray’s are starting to call you false. They most likely think you’re Satan’s little bitch. They’d be right about the last half. You really are a little bitch.
And "once civil blog"? Yeah, I know the tactics you're employing. Anyway, I saw the profanity (of which I have reluctantly refrained), character attacks and other manipulations by atheists *before* I jumped in here. Frankly, the way you lot act, I'm surprised that Dan allows comments at all.
What about your tactics bob? What about making up posts? What about lying? What about running from every single argument sent your way? What about the “troll” paranoia? What about your refusal to give any evidence and then the constant whining about atheists not accepting it? What about the projection of your hatred, bigotry and general insanity on all you oppose?
He has a ministry that he wants to perform. I don't, and I'm calling them as I see them.
That’s because you’re a False Christian. If Satan were real, you would be blowing him regularly.
Drizzle-master Bob whined, lied, cursed and projected….
ReplyDeleteYou want debate when you deliberately take words out of context? Like I would have a chance at a rational discussion with you.
Okay bitch, I mean bob. No I meant bitch. Please provide a few examples where you are taken out of context. You are correct. You cannot have a rational discussion with anyone because you are one of the most irrational little bitches on the planet. Besides... No one wants to have a discussion with you. No one likes you. But the funniest part is, you loathe yourself more than anything else.
Nope. My fuse has grown very short because of the atheist trolls that you seem to be unaware of, or unwilling to admit that they exist.
That’s because they only exist in your mind. The only trolls on your shitty little ghost blog are the one’s you create. The one’s whose identities you steal and post under to make it look like anyone is paying attention to you. And bob… You don’t have a fuse. You’re a perpetual explosion of nonsense.
How about policing your own a bit and calling them on their crassness?
And why don’t you pull your pin head out of your ass for one minute bob? I realize that it fits up there like a glove, but no one’s going to take you seriously until you permanently separate the two. You’ll also get the added benefit of non pestiferous breath which might help you with the ladies. At least until you speak…
I don't know if you're one of the trolls that's been hitting my Weblog or other areas, but the nature of the atheistic beast is clearly evident. Boy, does it irritate them when their personal attacks are deleted before they hit the comments section.
“The nature of the atheist beast?” Oh bob, you really are funny without trying. Everything is a personal attack to you. How many atheists have even visited your shitty little ghost blog aside from me? I know you’re going to delete everything you disagree with and make stuff up in an effort not to look like a total loser. But you can only do that on your site and no one goes there anyway. You also don’t have to enable “team members only” commenting, since you have no team members. What a pathetic little bitch.
You also routinely delete your own comments. Like the one where you threatened to come into PA to kick some butts. Like to see you try you little crybaby…
More on the little girl known as bob...
ReplyDeleteWhen I've attempted discussions, I get the equivalent of, "Yeah, but you Christians are doo doo heads and Intelligent Design is not science because we said so!"
Please point us to the posts where this allegedly happened. And please, you’ve never attempted any discussions that I’m aware of.
When I say that I've had bad experiences with atheists, you play two cards. First, the personal victim card like you did.
Even though I’ve personally been a victim of your identity theft fetish, I don’t hold it against you. It just makes you even more pathetic.
Second, atheists will want proof or say that I'm lying about my experiences.
Although I ask you for proof, I don’t expect to get it. You are a known serial liar, as brother Dimensio would say.
OK, in 1974 in Mr. Sherman's Elective English class, Scott the atheist was screaming, "All Christians should be burned at the stake!" Also, he made an active choice of will (while we were still friends), that he would hate me from a certain moment on.
What country did you go to school in bob the bitch? I’m a year older than your sorry ass and if anyone had screamed anything out loud, let alone “All Christians should be burned at the stake,” they would have been beaten and then expelled. So yeah... You’re a lying little bitch. And a false Christian. And maybe Scott was put off by your amorous advances? You are so far removed from reality you really should be taken off the streets, neutered and placed in a nice little kennel.
Naturally, I'm lying, I can't give better documentation for my experience there, or the rest of them through the years.
Okay… A bit of honesty at last. Good for you bob. You admit that you’re a liar. Now you can ask forgiveness off all those you’ve wronged.
You've pulled some tricks, the others here (and other places I've been) pull tricks... When things go downhill, I call atheists on their nonsense. Then they go crying to other atheists in forums like "We are so friggin' smart because we disbelieve", misquote, ridicule, etc.
If you hate wearesmrt.com so much, why do you lurk there constantly? The only thing that goes downhill is your popularity. It started at zero and declines every time you open your mouth. Speaking of misquoting. You don’t even bother. You just make stuff up and post it under someone’s name. You have the ethics of an illegal organ marketer.
Stormy, if you believe we've mischaracterized your position over at SMRT, you're more than welcome to register and comment on it. Heck, you're encouraged to do so.
ReplyDeleteUnlike you, we wont change the text you write or block your comments. Unlike you, we strive to live up to the standards we claim to value. Some of us may use profanity, some of us may insult you - but none of us are going to exhibit the kind of projection you so eloquently display.
If you value fairness, courage and the avoidance of pettiness, come discuss it. You're not going to though, Bob, because you are exactly the opposite of what you value.
Dan said:
ReplyDelete"The reason why peer reviews are flawed is that there is money tied to them as Rhiggs just claimed."
Eh, I made no such claim Dan.....and you accuse me of quote-mining!
Look, the peer-review process admittedly isn't perfect, but it's the best system we have to maintain scientific quality. Submitted work is assessed by experts in a given field, with severe repercussions for any unethical behaviour.
Can anyone propose a better system?
Even the creationist 'journal' you linked to a few posts ago copies the model of peer-review, so by your own standards you should be skeptical of what they publish too Dan.
Wem and Storm,
ReplyDelete>>Stormy, if you believe we've mischaracterized your position over at SMRT, you're more than welcome to register and comment on it. Heck, you're encouraged to do so.
Yea, don't expect to see anyone debunked over at S.M.R.T. (Some, More, Ridiculous, Thoughts). Just a sewing circle of atheists, and non believers, complaining and griping about us Christians.
Oranges,
ReplyDelete>>I didnt ask should we do the most idiotic things anyone can think of. You are being disingnuous if you think the real attempts to fight climate change involve population control or "charging to exhale". They generally involve trying to make it profitable for companies to switch to less polluting energy sources, etc.
Do you even understand what crap and tax (cap and trade) is all about? Do you really want to give that much authority, to in a sense relinquish control, to the government? Scary times we live in. Anyone that believes in the Constitution should be outraged!
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government."
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."
"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."
"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto"
All from Thomas Jefferson
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin