Our (Atheistic?) friend Alex B said to me:
"DAN, you and your ilk are no better than any other conspiracy theorists - you make ludicrous, evidence free assertions, and claim that those who disagree are trying to 'silence' you, whilst making ridiculous threats *against* those [who] point out how bonkers your claims are.
It's truly pathetic, and makes your religion look extremely foolish."
My response was:
Alex,
>>It's truly pathetic, and makes your religion look extremely foolish.
Wait a minute. Let's just say that you are right and I am doing ALL those things that you claim. You end it with this? A fallacious argument called a hasty generalization? Even if I did those things, you attempt to throw out the baby (Jesus?) with the bathwater as a comfort to deny Christ. That sir makes you an Antichrist not a non-theist or an Atheist.
To quote Gary, "This is like condemning the whole USA for what some soldiers did in VietNam."
"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." ~ 1 John 2:22
"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." ~1 John 4:3
"Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time." ~1 John 2:18
You see, This is a perfect example that this is the goal for some Atheists. They want to find reasons to justify denying God. They use excuses all the time here. These are NOT reasons why you do not follow Christ, being in utter contempt towards his followers. It doesn't matter what kind of person I am, be it a liar, murderer, or pure evil what you have is gripes and complaints, and nothing more.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us." ~1 John 2:19
Not impressed. A guy named Walter Veith, a Seventh Day Adventist, has a much more interesting conspiracy theory. The Catholic Church, Islam, and pretty much every major religion, and even the world bank, CIA, freemasonry, Illuminati, and many others are all part of a grand conspiracy to take over the world. Even atheists have our own part in the conspiracy but a minor one compared to the central role of the Pope. Man, if you want to sell people on conspiracy theory, you've got to THINK BIG!
ReplyDeleteI see no difference between conspiracy theorists and extreme religious people in general:
ReplyDelete- they manipulate evidence in the behalf of what they believe in;
- they completely ignore any evidence/fact that contradicts their beliefs;
- logic and reason don’t work on them;
- they try to shut you up when they are faced with facts;
- some of them think the entire world is out to get them, specially those who don’t agree with their beliefs.
Dan, in order to deny some god and the divine/messianic nature of Jesus we have to believe in a god and to believe Jesus is the messiah. Atheists don't believe in any deity (ies) and we sure don't believe Jesus was the messiah/god in human form.
So we are not denying your god/Jesus.
You know you've lost it when you have to resort to quoting Gary to back up your point. ;-)
ReplyDeleteDAN, how is this dubbing me the Antichrist and crying that you don't think your creationist views are like a conspiracy theorists insanity meant to make me think otherwise?
ReplyDeleteI'll ask you some questions -
Do you think that 'Creation Scientists' are being silenced?
Do you think that, despite the overwhelming and conclusive evidence to the contrary, the Earth was created in accordance with the Genesis account?
Did you, or did you not (whether joking or not) threaten to report Michelle to the Brazilian authorities for 'slandering' Christians?
Do you think your paranoid, illinformed ramblings reflect well on mainstream Christianity?
Face it, you, Stormbringer/Piltdown Superman, and all the other Creationists, presuppositionalists, anti-evolutionists etc are exactly the same as those Loose Change guys and their bending of facts and reality to fit their paranoid world view.
You shout loudly, and as a result *you're* the only Christians a lot of us encounter....which, unfortunately, makes the whole religion look foolish.
As for 'deny'[ing] Christ....you have to believe something existed in the first place before you can deny it. As not one single theist has succeeded in supplying any convincing evidence or argument in the entire of the last 2000 years, I don't think I can make the leap of faith that would be required to then deny that belief.
DAN, btw, the fact that people like you and Stormy and Sye T, and all the others of your ilk resemble conspiracy theorists ISN'T my reason for not believing. It wouldn't make any different to the non-existence of your god if you were all suddenly reasonable, sane, individuals. YHWH wouldn't spring into existence if Fred Phelps suddenly stopped being a total ass, and Jesus wouldn't magically become the messiah if all the Paedophile priests in the world stopped touching kids.
ReplyDeleteIt would make NO DIFFERENCE. Your claims would still be bogus, your belief misguided (and in the case of Creation versus evolution, demonstrably wrong), and all the presuppositional arguments on earth would still be entirely circular.
I'm an atheist because there is zero evidence that gods of any kind exist, and plenty to suggest they don't. The douchebag/insane qualities of Jesus' followers makes no difference to this fact.
I've publicly humiliated Alexandra several times, and he refuses to learn basic logic. His comments here prove my remarks about him right, and your comments about him right here are proved correct. Did you hear him make a fool of himself on "Faith and Reason" with Matt Slick of CARM? He preached disproved Lamarckism, and did not even know what it is.
ReplyDeleteBeating your head against a pointed stick is more productive than talking to him, he is stupidified by hate and rage.
Alex,
ReplyDelete>>Do you think that 'Creation Scientists' are being silenced?
Mocked maybe, but not silenced. Not these days. The data is CERTAINLY silenced. If its positive data that confirms some point of evolution the data is published. IF the data falsifies evolution, its labeled as 'inconclusive; and quietly brushed under the rug. We see this all the time when they are DEPENDENT on funding from the government for grants and such. They are pressured to provide the data that is desired, and test for that only. A movie I just saw called "Fat Head" had the very same thing happen and was evidenced and revealed, it was not necessarily about evolution though, as its a movie about nutrition. The lobbyist that push their agenda's for their industry wind up being the people handing out the grants for the government. My point is that it certainly happens. To deny it would be intellectual dishonesty.
>>Do you think that, despite the overwhelming and conclusive evidence to the contrary, the Earth was created in accordance with the Genesis account?
Yes. Metaphysical truths cannot be scientifically evidenced. Like the universe was created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age, but we're all rational to accept otherwise.
>>>>Did you, or did you not (whether joking or not) threaten to report Michelle to the Brazilian authorities for 'slandering' Christians?
Yes, I said it in jest to tease their laws and her hypocrisy for slandering me while its against her laws in her country.
>>Do you think your paranoid, illinformed ramblings reflect well on mainstream Christianity?
First, Is it absolutely true that I am paranoid, ill informed, and rambling? Or is it your opinion? If the latter, how do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?
Second, No I believe there are a large number of people that believe in God and are YECs like me. And third, is this a popularity contest? I certainly can turn the same question on you but do not care to argue fallaciously. The point is it doesn't matter what other THINK is true, what matters is truth. Period. Argumentum ad populum.
Face it, if you are wrong then you are the paranoid one who will be forced to examine their worldview as a lie. Psst, Satan is the father of lies, you know, your master.
>>You shout loudly, and as a result *you're* the only Christians a lot of us encounter....which, unfortunately, makes the whole religion look foolish.
Again, no matter how screwed up one guy, like me, is does NOT matter to the religion as a whole. Even if there were thousands of Ted Haggards, and thousands of pedophiles, like the Roman catholic priests, it DOES NOT affect the followers of Christ. They're still soundly saved Christians that follows are Creator. BTW, do you think that Christ came for the Rich, powerful, and popular of this world? Nope, he came for me and I am grateful. Being a YEC will never affect my salvation, even if I am wrong, but your denial of Christ certainly will. Please repent.
God revealed that everyone KNOWS who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing Atheist's contempt toward God.
Questions for you,
Can things be absolute? Is there such a thing as absolute truth?
How do you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, and on what basis you proceeds with the assumption that they WILL hold?
How about a few quotes,
ReplyDelete"[I]f we are products of mechanistic and impersonal natural forces in a closed system, then our thoughts and rules of reasoning are also parts of that system. Any check against false conclusions would still be a part of the system which produced the false conclusions." ~Henry W. Middle | March 1st, 2010 | The Foundation of Logic in the Nature of God
"If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our thought processes are mere accidents—the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts—i.e. of Materialism and Astronomy—are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give a correct account of all the other accidents. It is like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.” ~ Lewis CS (1970) God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, Wm. B. Eerdmans, Cambridge, 52–53.
Alex,
ReplyDelete>>I'm an atheist because there is zero evidence that gods of any kind exist, and plenty to suggest they don't. The douchebag/insane qualities of Jesus' followers makes no difference to this fact.
THat is just it, are you certain there is zero evidence? its your claim back that up. Otherwise, you MUST admit, to be intellectually honest, that its possible there is.
Case in point. Assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging. There is evidence, its just evidence that you will never accept.
Which brings us back to that PAST POST.
D.A.N., there is zero evidence. Think otherwise? Provide some.
ReplyDeleteLooking at the rest of your reply, I think I pegged you absolutely right - you're a conspiracy nut, obsessed with Jesus instead of UFOs, but a nut non-the-less
Finally, don't try and pull your presup circular crap from me, it doesn't wash.
Stormy, you've repeatedly made a fool of yourself here, at my blog, and everywhere else. Time and time again you prove you don't even appear to know what logic is....you're an abject failure as a human being.
If you're so confident of your views Stormy, why don't you activate the comments on your Piltdown Superman copy/paste blog?
BTW Stormy, when are you going to ring the Atheist Experience? It must really sting that, having dared atheists to ring Slick, I did just that, and bettered him several times (seriously, even you admitted he dropped the ball several times on both calls).
ReplyDeleteBob, I've read the way you've spoken to people in the comments on this blog - arrogantly, pridefully, mockingly (all the things you've accused other of, you projection is astounding), yet you haven't the courage to do the very thing you mock and crow at others for not doing.
If you want people to call Matt Slick (who's nowhere near the challenge Stormy thinks he is) the you have to lead by example, and prove you have the courage to call the Atheist Experience. Until you do you'll have zero credibility.
One last thing, Bob, I've blogged about you...and you don't come off well.
ReplyDeletehttp://anatheistviewpoint.blogspot.com/2011/07/motivated-fucktard.html - you're welcome to reply, unlike you I allow comments.
D.A.N,
ReplyDeleteAssuming the bible is evidence for god because you believe in god (and considers the bible to be the word of god) is question begging and also circular reasoning.
DAN loves circular reasoning, he seemingly bases his entire life on it.
ReplyDeleteAlex B,
ReplyDeleteAnd then he points the finger at us and accuses us of question begging...ironic, isn't?
@Dan: Do you want me to put here the link of that famous song by Alanis Morrissete just like you did in one of answers towards me? ;)
Only just noticed this -
ReplyDelete"Did you hear him make a fool of himself on "Faith and Reason" with Matt Slick of CARM? He preached disproved Lamarckism, and did not even know what it is."
Er....I think, if you listen to the audio, I actually explained that Lamarckism (glad to see you finally learned how to spell that btw) WASN'T how evolution worked, but that societies who didn't rape, kill, or steal would attract those who were inclined that way, and that morality could possibly become hard coded that way.
Yeah, if you listen you'll hear me explain how the giraffe's neck evolved, and it doesn't involve Lamarckism.
See? This is the kind of thing you do, Bob, you distort, lie and crow, seems to be something you've learned from D.A.N. though...
D.A.N,
ReplyDeleteLet me tell how things work in the science field: for a hypothesis to be proved correct or not it’s necessary serious experiments, studies and researches. If – after all that is done and re-done – that hypotheses is proved incorrect or considered inconclusive, it’s put aside for awhile until new evidence or hypotheses appears.
The reason why creationism is not published and completely ignored by the scientific community because there’s no evidence whatsoever to proves creationism to be a valid theory. And – it’s more than clear the scientific facts we have today proves creationism to be wrong.
Creationists believe earth has 6.000 – 10.000 years old when in fact 4,5 billion years old (demonstrated by scientific facts). Creationists also believe dinosaurs and humans coexisted where there’s plenty of evidence that proves this argument to be wrong. Creationists also believe there are the remains of Noah’s Ark were found in Mount Ararat, Turkey when there are plenty of evidences that prove that is in fact a geological formation; the Grand Canyon was formed in 5 minutes during the Big Flood, the list of absurdities goes on...
Creationism is based on a book written thousands of years by a pre-scientific tribe living in the middle of the desert; creationists think the bible is an accurate book for scientific facts. That’s the only “evidence” they have to prove creationism to be correct and they do exactly what conspiracy theorists do: manipulate evidence to fit their agenda and ignores every single fact that proves their beliefs to be wrong.
Science itself doesn’t have an “agenda”. Science is based on facts. Creationism is based on myths. Creationists have an agenda. Serious scientists dismiss creationism because there’s no reliable evidence to prove this myth to be true and there are plenty of reliable and tangible evidences that prove your bible to be wrong when is about the origin of the universe and the formation of planet Earth and the origin/evolution of life in our planet. Period.
If there are scientists and science professors who believe creationism - and also Intelligent Design - are scientific facts, they are an embarrassment to their profession.
>> Independent of being a joke or not, if you can sue me for slandering christians, I can sue Datena’s ass for slandering atheists on national TV by saying atheists are responsible for violent crimes in Brazil. Why not? Or – for you – the crime of slander is only valid when atheists show the moral corruption of your religion/some of your christian peers (with evidence to back it up, I might add)?
Muchelle,
ReplyDelete>>considers the bible to be the word of god
I don't. Actually the Word of God is Jesus Christ, John 1:1,14.
>>Let me tell how things work in the science field: for a hypothesis to be proved correct or not it’s necessary serious experiments, studies and researches.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZT!! You don't see the BIAS right in your statements. That is why you're wrong over and over again. We need to bear in mind that anyone who claims science "proves" anything as "true" (like evolution) misunderstands the basic tenets of the scientific method.
>>Science itself doesn’t have an “agenda”.
It certainly DOES if its trying to PROVE anything, evolution or anything else. To help your critical thinking skills, in a syllogism try to assume the opposite of what we are trying to prove and go from there.
D.A.N,
ReplyDelete>> I don't. Actually the Word of God is Jesus Christ.
But since JC is god in human form, so…
>>.It’s you who don’t see the bias in your statements. It’s people like you who are trying to push creationism/ID to be taught in public schools along with evolution.
If you want top teach that baloney to your children in your homeschooling, it’s your right and your problem. But it’s not right to teach that myth in science class. Creationism is supposed to be taught in RE as mythological version of creation according to the bible.
If creationism is going be taught along with evolution, so why not teach alchemy along with chemistry; astrology along with astronomy; homeopathy in chemistry classes; tarot reading, psychic powers, communication with spirits, kirlian photograph, ufology, etc, as extra-curricular classes?
D.A.N., you're an ass
ReplyDeleteMichelle,
ReplyDeleteRed herring. Please try again
">>Science itself doesn’t have an 'agenda'.
ReplyDeleteIt certainly DOES if its trying to PROVE anything"
Why are we now going into space? Well, why did we trouble to look past the next mountain? Our prime obligation to ourselves is to make the unknown known. -Gene Roddenberry
You're right Dan, science does have an agenda, to learn more about how the world works and use that knowledge to improve our lives. Is there a problem with that?
Alex,
ReplyDelete>>D.A.N., you're an ass
You see? We can come to an agreement on common grounds. :7p
D.A.N,
ReplyDelete>> 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
Ok, using all those 4 steps of scientific method, prove to me and to everyone else here creationism is a scientific fact and not a myth.
Max,
ReplyDelete>>Is there a problem with that?
If it starts with false assumptions to begin with? Plenty.
D.A.N
ReplyDelete>>If it starts with false assumptions to begin with? Plenty.
What, a bit like -
1. For Logic to exist, the Christian god exists
2. Logic exists
3. Therefore the Christian god exists
?
That starts with a faulty premise, so I guess it's exactly the same!
Michelle,
ReplyDeleteWhat does that have to do with "Atheists are the Antichrist"? Otherwise its what's called a Red Herring. You're notorious for it. In the past I would appease, today I am not so generous.
Again you ask for "proof" of things, YET, depend on scientific method. I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview, but rather I urge you to repent of it.
Alex,
ReplyDeleteThe Christian God exists syllogism.
Step 1 ~A: (Assume the opposite of what we are trying to prove): The Christian God does not exist.
Step 2 (~A--> B): If God does not exist, then there is no intelligible experience since God is the precondition of intelligibility
Step 3 (~B): There is intelligible experience (Contradiction!)
Step 4 (~ ~A): It is not the case that God does not exist (Modus Tollens on 2 and 3)
Step 5 (A): --> God does exist (Law of negation.)
D.A.N., so am I right in thinking that your ONLY evidence for the existence of your god is based on some circular reasoning you picked up from Sye TB?
ReplyDeleteAt least you acknowledge that there's no actual evidence.
"Step 2 (~A--> B): If God does not exist, then there is no intelligible experience since God is the precondition of intelligibility"
ReplyDeleteFaulty point, as you have no proof to back up that assertion.
You're actually unable to see this is circular reasoning, aren't you?
D.A.N,
ReplyDeleteCreationism/ID are not scientific facts. Since homeopathy, tarot reading, psychic powers, communication with the spirits, kirlian photograph, ufology have been disproved by science they should be taught in public schools also, considering some students believe in that shit.
>> In order for me to believe in something, it has to have tangible and verifiable evidence. Since you mentioned the 4 steps of scientific method I asked a simple task (maybe not so simple) to prove – using those 4 steps used in the scientific method – to prove creationism is a fact and not a myth like you claim. So, would you accept this challenge or not? Are you just going to dodge my request by screaming “Red Herring”? Prove creationism to be true, so you can shut the mouth of every single atheist.
>> In the past I would appease, today I am not so generous (…)I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview, but rather I urge you to repent of it..
Yes, sure…you saying today you are not so generous and urging me to repent already makes fear you and tremble all over…I won’t be able to sleep tonight…poor me… (being sarcastic). Please Dan, give me a break, would you?
D.A.N,
ReplyDelete>> What does that have to do with "Atheists are the Antichrist"?
Nothing, but since you posted a link about scientific method and we were talking about creationismI thought it would be interesting ask you to prove to all of us here creationism is a fact and not a myth by using the 4 steps of scientific method.
By - as you asked me right away what one thing has to do with the other - probably means one thing: you are dodging the issue; you are trying to divert my attention to something else. I answered you.
Now, are you going to prove creationism is a fact by using the scientific method or not?
I think we can infer from his sudden silence on the topic that D.A.N. hasn't a clue.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how many people D.A.N. has encouraged to take the step from agnosticism to atheism via his ridiculous posts.
Alex,
ReplyDelete>>You're actually unable to see this is circular reasoning, aren't you?
Never said it wasn’t circular, just that it is not viciously circular, as your view is. Intellectual honesty would force you to admit that God could reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain. You, on the other hand, have no avenue to certainty.
Michelle,
ReplyDelete>>Now, are you going to prove creationism is a fact by using the scientific method or not?
First, science does not say things like "proven false," that would mean it has an agenda, like you. Science simply states falsified.
Also, D’Souza once said "Science is an attempt to understand the natural world in a natural way. Science then in that sense is restricted to natural explanations for natural phenomena. If a natural explanation is inadequate then science stops."
You're not getting this science thingy, are you?
D.A.N. by your own reckoning you can't trust the 'revelation' that you claim (after Sye came along with his rubbish) to have had. Your argument undermines the very thing you're trying to prove with it.
ReplyDeleteD'Souza was wrong, but I don't think you'll even understand why.
You reasoning is entirely circular, it proves nothing. Here, try this on for size
1. 100 foot tall lazer knights are needed for logic to exist
2. logic exists
3. therefore 100 foot tall lazer knights exist.
See? That's how convincing your argument is to us. For you to believe that the TAG provides evidence for a god you have to first believe in that god....which invalidates the use of the TAG.
Why are you unable to see how thoroughly unconvincing this presup bullshit is?
Anyway, back to the question at hand - supply us with evidence, using the scientific method, that Creationism is right.
ReplyDeleteD.A.N,
ReplyDeleteYou have an agenda, D.A.N. The only thing science does is to understand how the world works obtaining tangible evidence through scientific studies and experiments. Science doesn't have "a liberal agenda" or any other for that matter.
You are the one who doesn't get science, D.A.N.
I know science can’t prove or disprove some supernatural causation to things since is limited to the natural world and his phenomenons. I asked you to prove through scientific method if creationism is a fact; not if some god or other supernatural phenomenon gave origin to everything.
If you really believe Earth's age is to 6.000-10.000 years instead of 4,5 billion years you can verify that using geochronology, where you going to analyze fossils, rocks and sediments to determine their age through the principals of physics in radioactivity which provides with precision the age of those fossils, segments and rocks.
If you believe humans and dinosaurs coexisted, you can look for evidence using paleontology and archeology to prove your belief to be true.
If you believe the geological formation in the Mount Ararat that resembles a boat is indeed Noah’s Ark remains, you can go there and take a sample for further analyses that proves without a shadow of doubt that formation is petrified wood and not simply a geological formation; you can ask the Turkey’s government to grant you permission to dig it up in order to find something that proves that formation was indeed a boat who carried thousands of animals and some people, etc.
This is going to prove there’s a supernatural causation for all this? No. But if Earth has indeed 6.000-10.000 years old; if humans and dinosaurs really coexisted, if the geological formation in Mount Ararat is indeed Noah’s Ark remains, those scientific methods are going to prove that to be true; therefore is going to prove your bible is scientifically accurate.
Now, would you do it or you're going to dodge this task? It's a simple yes/no question and answer me why in case of a negative answer.
D.A.N,
ReplyDeleteMaybe I’m wrong, but I have the impression you think science has an agenda and that agenda is to disprove the bible/creationism wrong and to disprove the existence of your god.
Scientists – when doing a scientific experiment – don’t think: “We’re going to do everything in our power to prove creationism wrong and to prove gods don’t exist, specially the christian one”.
What happened is people discovered using scientific method how some things originated and it happens that contradicts the myth of creation mentioned in the bible.
When Darwin came with the Theory of Evolution, he didn’t do this with the sole purpose to disprove the bible. He had no “agenda”. He only wanted to find out how species evolved and his findings didn’t share with the mythology of creation mentioned in the bible.
Creationists – on the other hand – have an agenda. They do everything in their power trying to bend science to fit in their “arguments” by changing scientific facts, making up stuff that never existed and taking that for a unquestionable truth (like coming up with this Intelligent Design bullcrap which is nothing more than creationism wearing a lab coat as a Halloween costume and also Ray Comfort showing the “The Atheist’s Worst Nightmare ” with a banana).
3ooks like D.A.N. has fled again
ReplyDeleteAlex,
ReplyDeleteNo just have a busy life with homeschooling 5 kids and all. If you mean Michelle then yes, she has jumped that shark long ago. Don't look, is she still there? :7)
>>Anyway, back to the question at hand - supply us with evidence, using the scientific method, that Creationism is right.
Well I did quote D'Souza. You came back with:
>>D'Souza was wrong, but I don't think you'll even understand why.
Maybe I don't. I would inject "Secular Science is an attempt..."
Maybe you can explain your thoughts though, if that does not suffice.
D.A.N,
ReplyDeleteYes, I'm still here. So, what's your answer? Are you going to prove creationism (not the existence of some supernatural/divine creator because that's not what I asked) using scientific method or you're just going to dodge...again?
Michelle,
ReplyDelete>>Are you going to prove creationism (not the existence of some supernatural/divine creator because that's not what I asked) using scientific method or you're just going to dodge...again?
Proving something according to what I believe is pointless as you will interpret it according to what you believe. Does my proof have to comport with absolute laws of logic according to what YOU believe? If so, how do you account for those laws according to YOUR worldview?
D.A.N
ReplyDelete>> Proving something according to what I believe is pointless as you will interpret it according to what you believe. Does my proof have to comport with absolute laws of logic according to what YOU believe?
I'm not dishonest like you, Dan. If you analyze creationism using the scientific method and through this scientific method you prove to creationism is correct, I'll believe you. All I ask you is to use a very good science lab, hire more impartial possible scientists, document every single step, don't manipulate the tests and the results in order to fit your belief and - of course - sent the results to me (whatever they might be) so I can verify them.
So?
D.A.N., I actually feel sorry for your children, being taught by someone as deeply deluded as yourself.
ReplyDeleteWe certainly are also doing our part to continue that Alex. :7)
ReplyDeleteD.A.N,
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you're doing your part at teaching your children how to turn into delusional, alarmist, misinformed conspiracy theorists. Congratulations!
Dan
ReplyDeleteThe data is CERTAINLY silenced. If its positive data that confirms some point of evolution the data is published. IF the data falsifies evolution, its labeled as 'inconclusive; and quietly brushed under the rug.
Evidence? Examples? That is pure bullshit, Dan...Generlly, the "date" that "creation bullshit science"uses, is taken by those people from the published works of legitimate scientists and is then cherry-picked, used when it's out of date or outright lied about in order to make evolution look weaker then it really is.
If "creation science" were actually swept under the rug as you claim, then places like the Index of Creationist Claims wouldn't exist. Neither would places like the Panda's Thumb where creationist books and some articles are sometimes reviewed, flaws and all.
Examples: horse evolution, Godless, and her again here etc.
The point is this: Public examination of the claims of creationists is the opposite of silencing them, or their "data".
D.A.N. and his little fan, Stormbringer, both regularly claim that Creation 'science' is 'silenced' despite it being completely untrue.
ReplyDeleteFor people who claim to follow some kind of 'truth', they sure do tell a lot of lies.
Alex,
ReplyDelete>>For people who claim to follow some kind of 'truth', they sure do tell a lot of lies.
Its possible that I have been lied to but I believe in the evidence and data presented. Besides who would doubt Ben Stein, et al?
I tell you what, show me evidence that Ben Stein's sole purpose is to deceive people then you may have a case for that ONE piece of evidence. Then, and only then, we can move on to the rest of the data. Until then stop the "tell a lot of lies" lie. :7p
>>Besides who would doubt Ben Stein, et al?
ReplyDeleteIs this a joke? Ben Stein? The actor who was paid to from the lie-fest 'Expelled'?
OK, here you go - Ben Stein said the following in Newsweek
"There are a number of scientists and academics who've been fired, denied tenure, lost tenure or lost grants because they even suggested the possibility of intelligent design. The most egregious is Richard Sternberg at the Smithsonian, the editor of a magazine that published a peer-reviewed paper about ID. He lost his job."
The Smithsonian responded with an open letter to Newsweek -
"Sternberg has never been employed by the Smithsonian Institution. Since January 2004, he has been an unpaid research associate in the departments of invertebrate and vertebrate zoology at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History. Dr. Sternberg continues to enjoy full access to research facilities at the museum. Moreover, Stein's assertion that Sternberg was removed from a Smithsonian publication is not true. The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington is an independent journal and is not affiliated with the Smithsonian."
As Ben Stein has been caught out lying here (and many other times), I'll ask you - who would BELIEVE Ben Stein et al?
I'll reiterate -
ReplyDelete"Stein's assertion that Sternberg was removed from a Smithsonian publication IS NOT TRUE." Open letter from the Smithsonian to Newsweek (my emphasis)
More on Ben Stein and the makers of 'Expelled' telling lies -
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know
....and some more!
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/evolution
As I have now shown, without any shadow of doubt, that Ben Stein lies, D.A.N. has to concede that his side does indeed harbour liars.
Some more evidence of the dishonesty of Ben Stein and the makers of 'Expelled'
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ben-steins-expelled-review-michael-shermer
Alex,
ReplyDeleteDid you get your fill of that Red Herring? Good.
Now, Atheists Are The Antichrist.
And much the same as a big redneck would beat up a gay man, because he is gay himself. As he is "attacking" the inner him. I think the "rally" against Stein means there is some truth to the claims. I certainly see the pressure to show evidence to the desired outlook to the GRANT givers. Have you seen "Fat Head"? If no go and do. Its merely my second introduction to this subject. The numbers are endless.
Red herring?? You brought Stein up!! And now you're trying to avoid the fact that I responded to your question with EVIDENCE that contradicted your view!
ReplyDeleteAnswer my points about Ben Stein being a demonstrable liar. He has been shown repeatedly to have been dishonest....do I have to quote the letter from the Smithsonian again?
"And much the same as a big redneck would beat up a gay man, because he is gay himself. "
Your top fan, Stormbringer, regularly attacks homosexuals online....does that mean he's secretly gay?
Not got a response D.A.N.? I'm keen to hear what you have to say about Ben Stein being a proven liar....
ReplyDeleteHave you run away?
ReplyDeleteAlex,
ReplyDelete>>Answer my points about Ben Stein being a demonstrable liar.
Before we address that you have made some assumptions of your point that you will have to defend before the claim is even valid. Like Razi Zacharias said that I highlight in one of my posts, you have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for. That is your presupposition of the claim, is it not? Otherwise, the claim self destructs.
>>do I have to quote the letter from the Smithsonian again?
Is this the same Smithsonian that displays evolution, in their exhibits, as pure fact? Sorry I try to stay away from such blatant dogma.
>>Your top fan, Stormbringer, regularly attacks homosexuals online....does that mean he's secretly gay?
I witness to gay people all the time. If Storm was beating up, punching gays then you might have a case. If you are witnessing to someone gay then you are doing the right thing in trying to pull them from that fire.
I will repeat the post for dramatic purposes:
"It doesn't matter what kind of person I am, be it a liar, murderer, or pure evil what you have is gripes and complaints, and nothing more."
FOR FUCKSAKE!
ReplyDeleteCan't you answer a simple question you dishonest eel?
You said that Stein wasn't dishonest, I PROVED to you that he was - now you're trying to use your presup BULLSHIT to get out of answering.
Evolution IS a fact - it has been proven many many times, and your repeated lie that it hasn't doesn't alter a damned thing.
D.A.N., I'm starting to think your are pathologically incapable of honesty.
>>Can't you answer a simple question you dishonest eel?
ReplyDeleteNot until you STOP borrowing from my worldview to inject something your worldview cannot account for. You know, if we are to have an honest conversation that is. I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview, but rather I urge you to repent of it.
>>Evolution IS a fact - it has been proven many many times, and your repeated lie that it hasn't doesn't alter a damned thing.
We need to bear in mind that anyone who claims science "proves" anything as "true" (like evolution) misunderstands the basic tenets of the scientific method.
>>D.A.N., I'm starting to think your are pathologically incapable of honesty.
Its not as it seems. I am not avoiding anything. Work with me here. You have invoked a moral law, or standard, in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for. Please explain.
D.A.N., answer a fucking question without bringing up the TAG bullshit. If you need to have the origins of morality explained to you, I suggest you google it - http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=evolutionary+origins+of+morality&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a
ReplyDeleteBen Stein is a proven liar - do you deny that?
As for evolution, are you denying that evolution by means of natural selection has been observed in the lab?
D.A.N., you're a duplicitous, dishonest cunt and bullshitter. Other Christians should be fucking embarrassed by your antics.
That's one of the dodges that Dan does, Alex: He claims that anytime we catch him lying that we're "borrowing" from HIS (the xian) worldview.
ReplyDeleteNever mind that many cultures on earth (greek, roman, , aboriginal, etc) didn't care for lying too much, he pretends that it's only xianity that didn't like it, then says that "our worldview" has no basis for accounting for it. Never mind that people here have tried explaining it to him before...as you have done in your last reply just above!
I notice that Dan has avoided answering several of my questions, so I'll restate them here -
ReplyDeleteBen Stein is a proven liar - do you deny that?
Do you deny that evolution by means of natural selection has been observed in the lab?
and one I've asked in several places -
What is your god - what species, where does it live, does it have genitals (as we are apparently made in its image), why does it look like something that evolved on Earth?
Alex,
ReplyDelete>>Ben Stein is a proven liar - do you deny that?
Has Ben lied ever? I have no clue. The chances are great that he has. Is it your claim that its been proven he is a liar on the subject of scientists being shunned, or even fired, for believing something OTHER then secular paradigm? Hardly, if that is the claim.
>>Do you deny that evolution by means of natural selection has been observed in the lab?
Yes. I deny the data as being evolutionary. We have the same data, the data INTERPRETATION is when it goes awry.
>>What is your god - what species,
A formless personal being. That is all I know for now.
>>where does it live,
Somewhere beautiful, so I hear. Exact location? I have no clue
>>does it have genitals (as we are apparently made in its image),
Was too embarrassed to look or ask permission to.
>>why does it look like something that evolved on Earth?
Because of YOUR presuppositions. Because of agenda's and please people paying for grants. Compromises of Data. Look we both have rescuing devices. You will interpret the data that comports with your worldview. Like the post says, its not possible to have evidence for creationism. That all of these things must be reinterpreted so they are regimented, or will conform to, will comport with that man's naturalism, or atheism.
So you admit that you don't know what you believe in, that there's no evidence to support creationism, and that you don't understand evolution. Have I missed anything?
ReplyDeleteWeirdly, despite my supplying of evidence proving it, you're unwilling to admit that Ben Stein lies about creationists being frozen out of science.
You're a dead loss, Dan.
Alex,
ReplyDelete>>You're a dead loss, Dan.
It does get frustrating, I can relate because unbelievers are dead in their sin. You see, I have been trying to show you the truth so that you can repent, but I was wrong, you will not be able to see the truth UNTIL you repent. Huge difference.
Repentance comes BEFORE knowledge of truth, not after: 2 Timothy 2:24-26
So much for the claim of the bible being the basis for "logic", unless you consider circular reasoning to be logical!
ReplyDeleteDan:
ReplyDeleteAs I pointed out in the other post, you defeated yourself.
Alex,
ReplyDelete>>Weirdly, despite my supplying of evidence proving it, you're unwilling to admit that Ben Stein lies about creationists being frozen out of science.
Yea, it MUST be my imagination. *pshaw
Stop trying to avoid answering - is Ben Stein a proven liar or not?
ReplyDeleteYes, dan...it must be. Did you actually READ that article you linked to? Let me ask you: Where does it say that creationists are actually being blocked out of science as opposed to some atheists in science being pissed off at creationists?
ReplyDeleteCrap, it looks like you, like Ben Stein himself, need a few remedial courses.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Expelled:_Leader's_Guide#Ignoring_the_Facts
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed#The_poor_oppressed_IDiots
Also see: "Expelled Exposed". Dan won't, but maybe everyone else will learn something about how "oppressed" those ID people really are(n't).
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>>Also see: "Expelled Exposed".
You mean this? Yea, we know all about it. :7)