My debate with an educated Mormon fanatic.

[Cainkane1]

QuoteReply Re: Answer the question, don't change the subject

Cain, I have been observing you for the last year. That is about how long you have been a born-again “atheist/agnostic. From what you have shared in this forum, you cannot decide which. Why, it wasn’t more than a year ago you were a Methodist Theistic Evolutionist or something ambivalent of the sort, as you supposed. Now look at you. With absolutely no additional schooling, training or study, with no greater mind now than you possessed then, and in less than a year after, you hold yourself out boldly as if you’re accomplished and intricately attuned in expert in Darwinian Evolutionary DNA Quantum biology and Mechanics. How is that?

I've been an atheist in denial. Theistic evolution was my last attempt at some form of spirituality before I came to realise that religion and faith just wasn't working for me and it never had nor will it ever. I apologise to the forum. I was living a lie. I don't hold myself out boldly as a biologist or evolutionist. I merely quote the experts the vast majority of which are staunch evolutionists. The evolution of life via random selection makes sense to me. The guy in the sky blowing on a pile of dust doesn't. Sorry thats just me.

For some unknown reason, you believe that by your reading and viewing predisposed and inclined websites and videos, bearing such titles as “God Is for Suckers,” “God Is Imaginary” and “God Is Pretend,” you are in the absolute know on this subject. Suddenly your neo-atheist prophets have names like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennett. Get the picture?

Yes I get the picture. Like minded people seek out and socialise with other people with similar opinions. Actually the videos I watch show more respect that what the imaginary titles of your videos indicate. The atheists in your example usually show a great deal of respect in their interactions with believers. I do. During their debates with believers they generally speaking endure more verbal abuse than they give out.

Cain. I charged you of being an low-end non-scientist. You speak absolutely about evolution and its ramifications to the exclusion of other beliefs and faiths You appear to think that by identifying yourself with popular atheists, such gives you unquestionable authority and makes you appear just a little smarter and more “informed.” But the reality is that you have not demonstrated any masterful grasp on what proponents or the antithetical antagonists are arguing. You seem to believe that if a person does not absolutely accept Evolution as the explanation of biological life then they must certainly repudiate it. I think this demonstrates that you really have no clue what opposing scientists are talking about.

Ok guilty as charged although I believe I was honest and upfront with my admissions that I have no formal scientific training. I do feel that by listening to and quoting scientists that I have the right to form my own opinions and that the science of evolution offers a better explanation for the developement of life than any theological explanation ever could. I've listened to the opposing scientists discuss and argue their various theories and I believe the evolutionists won the argument. Its a free country you know.

From what I have observed, all you can say in this matter is that you heard someone and you believe it. That’s fair. But it’s also fair to observe that you don’t really know science or what the scientists are arguing about yourself. So it too is fair to ask how you can be an authority, a “trier of facts” as to the absoluteness of the sum existence. How can you be as sure of yourself as you manifestly boast here? This is a valid question and cannot be shrugged off. Answer it.

I hate to answer a question with a question but how can you be so sure of your own conclusions? You listen to people and I listen to people. Comming to different conclusions is part of the human condition. I never said I was an authority. I merely quote authorities just like you do. I feel I have as much right to be sure of my opinions as you have to be sure of yours. Boasting is out of character for me. You are misinterpreting my character and my motives. My motive is to stimulate conversation and debate and I feel that I have succeeded beyond my wildest expectations.

How is it that you can interpret critical scientific commentary with absolute conclusions?

How is it that you can come to your theological conclusions? Do you use prayer and meditation? To me thats useless. I discuss what I've read seen and heard. So do you.

You ask, “What difference does it make whether I'm a scientist or not?

Cain it makes a world of difference, especially when you’re parroting amounts only to hearsay. You post here are not your testimony, but rather they are the testimonies of other’s. And you are accepting theirs on faith, since you do not really know for yourself, especially as absolute as you pretend.

Hell sleuth you do the same thing. You quote Joseph Smith, Jesus, moses etc. You accept them on faith. Why condemn me for quoting scientists who are evolutionists or a fellow atheist? I accept nothing on faith alone. I'm the anthisis of faith. I spurn faith. The people I quote have experiemented and have come to their conclusions based on sound scientific principals through much hard work and trial and error.

I gave you a few points to argue with, Cain, in my last post. As usual, you declined and refused to address the questions responsively. Instead, you changed the subject.

No sleuth I haven't been doing that. You're upset because we have a profound unresolvable disagreement. Many of your questions are questions that I have answered but not to your satisfaction. Do I really have to respond to a personal insult? I've been calm cool and collected in my responses to your inquires and if they are not to your satisfaction one has to ask themselves whose fault is that?

I can back up what I've been saying with videos, websites and the like.

[RandFan]

I was a bit confused as to who was who at first but I've worked that out. :)

You did an admirable job. I'm impressed. Religion is a parisite and is a tough nut to crack. Belief is a complex dynamic. Very difficult to break.

Have you seen the video "The God Concept"?

DXImzT2XtBM

[Cainkane1]

No but if you're interested in adding to this ringing saga here is his website. http://pub29.bravenet.com/forum/static/show.php?usernum=2422243645&frmid=68&msgid=1028390&cp=1&cmd=show

[bokonon]

Cainkane1, I'm also a low-end non-scientist, but that never prevented anyone from being able to think critically. Sometimes I think the true scientists become so specialized that they can't see the forest for the trees, and sometimes my layman's understanding is simply incorrect and I (gasp) say something that's incorrect.

Guess what -- I'll bet every real scientist who's doing real science has also at some point said something that's incorrect.

Thoughtful critical thinkers (and thoughtful theists) don't claim certainty. We do the best we can with the facts we can glean and the mental machinery we have available to analyze those facts.

It looks to me like you're doing a good job of holding your own here, and it looks like you're having a good conversation.

[Cainkane1]

My fellow debater is a highly educated engineer with degrees from very well thought of Universities. He has a vast vocabulary and a great intellect. I still won the debate. I defeated him with common sense and logic and a tiny amount of science.

Hopefully He won't hold it against me. We've been friends for over ten years.

[Cainkane1]

I was a bit confused as to who was who at first but I've worked that out. :)

You did an admirable job. I'm impressed. Religion is a parisite and is a tough nut to crack. Belief is a complex dynamic. Very difficult to break.

Have you seen the video "The God Concept"?

DXImzT2XtBM
Thank you.

[ponderingturtle]

My fellow debater is a highly educated engineer with degrees from very well thought of Universities.

That does not prevent people from not being idiots. They are just credentialed idiots.

[AkuManiMani]

My fellow debater is a highly educated engineer with degrees from very well thought of Universities. He has a vast vocabulary and a great intellect. I still won the debate. I defeated him with common sense and logic and a tiny amount of science.

Hopefully He won't hold it against me. We've been friends for over ten years.

IMO, if your opponent is wrong they can't win a debate no matter how smart they are :)

[Cainkane1]

IMO, if your opponent is wrong they can't win a debate no matter how smart they are :)
They can using double talk. At least they can in mixed company.

[Cainkane1]

You seem to be a little thin on evolution doubting protagonists Cain. And you being a mediocre scientist or student at best, I figured I’d lend you a hand and give you some balance. Since I know you are not a scientist or a student of science, I thought I’d first ask how you tend to know so absolutely perfectly when there are conflicting theories and opinions on interpreting scientific data? Just answer that directly and spare me the jive.

First, there’s Norman Macbeth's, “Darwin Retried.” He offers a logical case which he constructed against Darwinian evolution. (Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason (Boston: Gambit, 1971).

Then there is Michael Denton's “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,” He offers a lengthy analysis ranging from molecular biology to paleontology, that "the problems with evolutionary theory are too severe and too intractable to offer any hope of resolution in terms of the orthodox Darwinian framework."

Also we have Phillip Johnson, a prominent law professor at the University of California at Berkeley. He subjected the theory of evolution to calm but withering criticism in his “Darwin on Trial” and followed it up with his important book “Reason in the Balance.”(Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991); Phillip E. Johnson, Reason in the Balance: The Case against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995).

Then we have David Berlinski, a mathematician and philosopher who has taught in both the United States and France, who wrote a fascinating piece on "The Deniable Darwin.” Commentary (David Berlinski, "The Deniable Darwin," Commentary 101/6 (June 1996): 19-29.)

Let’s not forget Michael Behe, who teaches biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. He too published a book. It’s entitled “Darwin's Black Box” In it, he contends that the astonishing complexity of the cell, which we have only begun to appreciate in recent decades, is impossible to explain on the basis of the gradualistic changes assumed by evolutionary theory. (Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Free Press, 1996).

There is also Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales. They wrote, “Why Scientists Accept Evolution” (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1966). It is partisan polemic, but it does present evidence on a number of prominent early evolutionists, suggesting that their rejection of religion prepared the way for their acceptance of evolution, rather than the other way around.

Finally, there is Hugh Ross. He wrote “The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God, 2nd ed., expanded (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1993).

You never cite these guys Cain and how you personally have disproved them. You seem to be a little thin on evolution doubting protagonists Cain. And you being a mediocre scientist or student at best, I figured I’d lend you a hand and give you some balance. Since I know you are not a scientist or a student of science, I thought I’d first ask how you tend to know so absolutely perfectly when there are conflicting theories and opinions on interpreting scientific data? Just answer that directly and spare me the jive.

First, there’s Norman Macbeth's, “Darwin Retried.” He offers a logical case which he constructed against Darwinian evolution. (Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason (Boston: Gambit, 1971).

Then there is Michael Denton's “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,” He offers a lengthy analysis ranging from molecular biology to paleontology, that "the problems with evolutionary theory are too severe and too intractable to offer any hope of resolution in terms of the orthodox Darwinian framework."

Also we have Phillip Johnson, a prominent law professor at the University of California at Berkeley. He subjected the theory of evolution to calm but withering criticism in his “Darwin on Trial” and followed it up with his important book “Reason in the Balance.”(Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991); Phillip E. Johnson, Reason in the Balance: The Case against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995).

Then we have David Berlinski, a mathematician and philosopher who has taught in both the United States and France, who wrote a fascinating piece on "The Deniable Darwin.” Commentary (David Berlinski, "The Deniable Darwin," Commentary 101/6 (June 1996): 19-29.)

Let’s not forget Michael Behe, who teaches biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. He too published a book. It’s entitled “Darwin's Black Box” In it, he contends that the astonishing complexity of the cell, which we have only begun to appreciate in recent decades, is impossible to explain on the basis of the gradualistic changes assumed by evolutionary theory. (Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Free Press, 1996).

There is also Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales. They wrote, “Why Scientists Accept Evolution” (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1966). It is partisan polemic, but it does present evidence on a number of prominent early evolutionists, suggesting that their rejection of religion prepared the way for their acceptance of evolution, rather than the other way around.

Finally, there is Hugh Ross. He wrote “The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God, 2nd ed., expanded (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1993).

You never cite these guys Cain and how you personally have disproved them.

Now give yourself some wiggle room. Cain. Show me how you have not excercised personal preference.

[Cainkane1]

You seem to be a little thin on evolution doubting protagonists Cain. And you being a mediocre scientist or student at best, I figured I’d lend you a hand and give you some balance. Since I know you are not a scientist or a student of science, I thought I’d first ask how you tend to know so absolutely perfectly when there are conflicting theories and opinions on interpreting scientific data? Just answer that directly and spare me the jive.

First, there’s Norman Macbeth's, “Darwin Retried.” He offers a logical case which he constructed against Darwinian evolution. (Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason (Boston: Gambit, 1971).

Then there is Michael Denton's “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,” He offers a lengthy analysis ranging from molecular biology to paleontology, that "the problems with evolutionary theory are too severe and too intractable to offer any hope of resolution in terms of the orthodox Darwinian framework."

Also we have Phillip Johnson, a prominent law professor at the University of California at Berkeley. He subjected the theory of evolution to calm but withering criticism in his “Darwin on Trial” and followed it up with his important book “Reason in the Balance.”(Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991); Phillip E. Johnson, Reason in the Balance: The Case against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995).

Then we have David Berlinski, a mathematician and philosopher who has taught in both the United States and France, who wrote a fascinating piece on "The Deniable Darwin.” Commentary (David Berlinski, "The Deniable Darwin," Commentary 101/6 (June 1996): 19-29.)

Let’s not forget Michael Behe, who teaches biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. He too published a book. It’s entitled “Darwin's Black Box” In it, he contends that the astonishing complexity of the cell, which we have only begun to appreciate in recent decades, is impossible to explain on the basis of the gradualistic changes assumed by evolutionary theory. (Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Free Press, 1996).

There is also Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales. They wrote, “Why Scientists Accept Evolution” (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1966). It is partisan polemic, but it does present evidence on a number of prominent early evolutionists, suggesting that their rejection of religion prepared the way for their acceptance of evolution, rather than the other way around.

Finally, there is Hugh Ross. He wrote “The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God, 2nd ed., expanded (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1993).

You never cite these guys Cain and how you personally have disproved them. You seem to be a little thin on evolution doubting protagonists Cain. And you being a mediocre scientist or student at best, I figured I’d lend you a hand and give you some balance. Since I know you are not a scientist or a student of science, I thought I’d first ask how you tend to know so absolutely perfectly when there are conflicting theories and opinions on interpreting scientific data? Just answer that directly and spare me the jive.

First, there’s Norman Macbeth's, “Darwin Retried.” He offers a logical case which he constructed against Darwinian evolution. (Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason (Boston: Gambit, 1971).

Then there is Michael Denton's “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,” He offers a lengthy analysis ranging from molecular biology to paleontology, that "the problems with evolutionary theory are too severe and too intractable to offer any hope of resolution in terms of the orthodox Darwinian framework."

Also we have Phillip Johnson, a prominent law professor at the University of California at Berkeley. He subjected the theory of evolution to calm but withering criticism in his “Darwin on Trial” and followed it up with his important book “Reason in the Balance.”(Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1991); Phillip E. Johnson, Reason in the Balance: The Case against Naturalism in Science, Law and Education (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1995).

Then we have David Berlinski, a mathematician and philosopher who has taught in both the United States and France, who wrote a fascinating piece on "The Deniable Darwin.” Commentary (David Berlinski, "The Deniable Darwin," Commentary 101/6 (June 1996): 19-29.)

Let’s not forget Michael Behe, who teaches biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. He too published a book. It’s entitled “Darwin's Black Box” In it, he contends that the astonishing complexity of the cell, which we have only begun to appreciate in recent decades, is impossible to explain on the basis of the gradualistic changes assumed by evolutionary theory. (Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Free Press, 1996).

There is also Robert T. Clark and James D. Bales. They wrote, “Why Scientists Accept Evolution” (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1966). It is partisan polemic, but it does present evidence on a number of prominent early evolutionists, suggesting that their rejection of religion prepared the way for their acceptance of evolution, rather than the other way around.

Finally, there is Hugh Ross. He wrote “The Creator and the Cosmos: How the Greatest Scientific Discoveries of the Century Reveal God, 2nd ed., expanded (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1993).

You never cite these guys Cain and how you personally have disproved them.

Now give yourself some wiggle room. Cain. Show me how you have not excercised personal preference.
Now give yourself some wiggle room. Cain.

You seem to be a little thin on evolution doubting protagonists Cain. And you being a mediocre scientist or student at best, I figured I’d lend you a hand and give you some balance. Since I know you are not a scientist or a student of science, I thought I’d first ask how you tend to know so absolutely perfectly when there are conflicting theories and opinions on interpreting scientific data? Just answer that directly and spare me the jive.

What difference does it make whether I'm a scientist or not? Does one have to have a degree from divinity school to be a believer? While I'm not a scientist I often go to science sites and watch videos that completely support evolution and squelches all pseudo scientific arguments against it.

Everyone of these authors are IDers and while I have not read their works other more qualified scientists have and they have been completely discredited. I personally don't have to do the discrediting because other and more wiser professionals have done the work for me already.

Attempts to discredit the process of natural selection via mutations is discredited because its actually observable when you study microbes. These creatures evolve so rapidly you can actually see it.

I wish I had saved a video but unfortunantly I didn't. The video concerns a lizard that was not native to an island off the coast of Italy. The lizard had been accidentally introduced to the island and in less than a century it had developed a new and complex set of organs that helped it survive in its environment. This proves evolution.

You can place all the stumbling blocks on the road to evolution you want to but the road still goes in the same direction and it ends up in the same place. Evolution, its what happened, get over it.

[Cainkane1]

I was a bit confused as to who was who at first but I've worked that out. :)

You did an admirable job. I'm impressed. Religion is a parisite and is a tough nut to crack. Belief is a complex dynamic. Very difficult to break.

Have you seen the video "The God Concept"?

DXImzT2XtBM
Incidentally I'll watch the video when I get home.

[Gate2501]

The manner in which he ends thoughts or sentences with "Cain." shows that he feels as if he is talking to a 2nd grader. Educating you. Appealing constantly to his own education, and offering little else of substance other than "look what this other guy wrote".

It's classic.

[Cainkane1]

The manner in which he ends thoughts or sentences with "Cain." shows that he feels as if he is talking to a 2nd grader. Educating you. Appealing constantly to his own education, and offering little else of substance other than "look what this other guy wrote".

It's classic.
Thats because he thinks he knows everything. Read on. He's pissed.



QuoteReply Re: Now go enjoy your absurd life. .

n all this you don’t seem to understand one thing: I know precisely what I am talking about. I am one of those who asked and received. I don’t need Carl Sagan or Richard Dawkins or a scientific experiment to inform me of what I know. I received what I know directly from the Spirit of God. And, that you do not understand that is not my problem, but your loss. Nor does your lack of understanding discredit what I know. And certainly your ignorant amateur pseudo-science parroting does not discredit me or it. You will find out soon enough for yourself. So don't pride your ignorant self with a false accusation that I threatened you.

Define absurd.

Hmmm are you saying that your conclusions based on faith, prayer and meditation are right when other theists who do the same thing and have different conclusions, religions and ideas are wrong and you are right? Really the only thing I don't understand is why you get so worked up when someone has a different opinion than yours. It happens all the time. It seems to me that youd be used to it by now.

I thought I'd point out some things you have criticized and yet have no idea what you are criticizing.

1. God
2. Eternalism
3. Creation
4. The Plan of Salvation
5. Death
6. Apostasy
7. Restoration
8. Immortality
9. Life Eternal
10. ****ation
11. Perdition

Whats to understand? Those are theistic concepts and I spurn theism. I could discuss them one at a time but I think I'll pass by blanket condemning them all out of hand.

So you see, with your complete ignorance of these things I am annoyed at your belly-hoo about how you know science is real and God is not. Good grief, at least exhaust the straight facts before you begin distorting them and parading how smart and together you think are.

Well science offers evidence while religion does not. I distort no facts and just because you say I do doesn't make it true. What exactly did I distort this time?

You don’t even understand what you are denying. You are blaming God for you lack of spiritual and intellectual understanding. You don’t even understand the question. And furthermore, while Science itself does not affirmatively prescribe to the above listed realities, each item listed no less contains elements of evidentiary plausibility in scientific observations; not because they need it, but because truth is truth and truth does not deny truth. For example science won’t say that life is eternal, but it will prescribe the First Law of Thermodynamics which says energy (mater) cannot be destroyed; and that applies to thinking matter as well as matter that thinking matter acts upon.

Maybe you lack understanding of my position. I don't believe in the supernatural. I don't believe those so called realities are real but just the result of intense self brain washing and wishful thinking. Truth may be truth but if you go talking about the spirits you may not be speaking the truth and to me you aren't. That law of thermodynamics may be true but when the configuration of energy and matter become disarticulated then the thing that existed whether its a cinder block or a human being does cease to exist being what it was. Just because you have a corpse in a box in a grave existing doesn't mean the person exists. Death is annilation at least to me.

No sleuth I understand a great deal. we just fail to agree.

[MattC]

Were I you, I would challenge this presumption that he does not believe in the supernatural. If God is indeed natural, as he implies, surely it would not be too difficult for him to justify this conclusion in a testable manner.

~ Matt

[Whiplash]

That does not prevent people from not being idiots. They are just credentialed idiots.


I think that is a very unfair comment, and taking it way too far the other way (possibly based out of bias or resentment regarding the beliefs they hold). It's understandable that you disagree with peoples beliefs, but to treat them as simpletons because of it is really going way too far. Many people are born into these long, traditional beliefs. It's not anywhere near to easy as some of you continually make it out to be. Maybe you were raised in Atheist families and surrounded by people who ridiculed it as you grew up. It's alot different for those who have been subjected to it intently, and have family members who use guilt on them, large family traditions.. It's just not that easy for some to break from that.

I think too many people let their personal issues with religion cause them to be more unreasonable than is warranted. There is no reason to call people idiots and be so intolerant. The average relgious person is not Fred Phelps or Jimmy Swaggart or whoever you may think they are.

[ponderingturtle]

I think that is a very unfair comment, and taking it way too far the other way (possibly based out of bias or resentment regarding the beliefs they hold). It's understandable that you disagree with peoples beliefs, but to treat them as simpletons because of it is really going way too far. Many people are born into these long, traditional beliefs. It's not anywhere near to easy as some of you continually make it out to be. Maybe you were raised in Atheist families and surrounded by people who ridiculed it as you grew up. It's alot different for those who have been subjected to it intently, and have family members who use guilt on them, large family traditions.. It's just not that easy for some to break from that.

I think too many people let their personal issues with religion cause them to be more unreasonable than is warranted. There is no reason to call people idiots and be so intolerant. The average relgious person is not Fred Phelps or Jimmy Swaggart or whoever you may think they are.

Credentialed idiots come in all shapes and sized. Having credentials is not a all that good an indication of their ability. Treating degrees and advanced degrees as some kind of indicator on ability is going to get you into trouble.

[dlorde]

Were I you, I would challenge this presumption that he does not believe in the supernatural. If God is indeed natural, as he implies, surely it would not be too difficult for him to justify this conclusion in a testable manner.I think you may have confused an atheist paragraph with a theistic paragraph - it's not easy to tell when they're not distinguished in any way.

Cainkane1 - when you post these dialogues, can you label the quotes appropriately, or colour them, or make one set quoted (using quote tags) ?

[Xulld]

That does not prevent people from not being idiots. They are just credentialed idiots.
Absolutely correct.

This statement in no way discriminates against religion. It simply states the common understanding that education may not be an indicator of knowledge and or intelligence.

Seems simple to me, Whiplash I would avoid adding bias that is clearly not there . . .

[Cainkane1]

I was a bit confused as to who was who at first but I've worked that out. :)

You did an admirable job. I'm impressed. Religion is a parisite and is a tough nut to crack. Belief is a complex dynamic. Very difficult to break.

Have you seen the video "The God Concept"?

DXImzT2XtBM
I posted the video on sleuths webpage. I can't wait to see his reaction.

[ponderingturtle]

Absolutely correct.

This statement in no way discriminates against religion. It simply states the common understanding that education may not be an indicator of knowledge and or intelligence.

Seems simple to me, Whiplash I would avoid adding bias that is clearly not there . . .

Also credentialed idiots might be good in their own field. But we have an engineer who cites someone who wants to redefine science so that astrology is good science? That guy is an idiot.

[linusrichard]

He has a vast vocabulary and a great intellect.
Weird that he doesn't demonstrate either in these exchanges. Hiding his light under a bushel?
I still won the debate. I defeated him with common sense and logic and a tiny amount of science.

When you're right, you're right. Nothing fancy required.



A thought - if you post more of these exchanges, maybe you could put one person's words in bold, and the others plain, or maybe one red and one blue, or something like that? Just a suggestion.

[Cainkane1]

Weird that he doesn't demonstrate either in these exchanges. Hiding his light under a bushel?


When you're right, you're right. Nothing fancy required.



A thought - if you post more of these exchanges, maybe you could put one person's words in bold, and the others plain, or maybe one red and one blue, or something like that? Just a suggestion.
Good idea but I don't know how to do that.

[pgwenthold]

Good idea but I don't know how to do that.

Umm, for the stuff that you say, just add in something like

ME:

at the beginning. Then for his comments, add

HIM:

at the beginning.

No one is asking for anything sophisticated, but I concur that some organization would make it a lot easier to read.

[linusrichard]

Good idea but I don't know how to do that.

If you do [ b ]text[ / b ], but without the spaces, it shows up like text.

Or if you do [ color = red ]text[ / color ] [ color = blue ]text[ / color ], but without the spaces, it shows up like text text.

I think that would be easier than ME: and HIM:, but that would work too.

[realpaladin]

Use hilite!

Just select a text and press the yellow button

[Cainkane1]

Use hilite!

Just select a text and press the yellow button
Thanks

[scimystic]

Hello Canekane1,

Interesting exchange with sluth, but I think that you were way too kind to him. If you might be interested in a more 'take no prisoners' approach to theist debating then please check out my post of a few hours ago on the 'What Claim do Theists Actually Make' thread.

I'd also note agreement with dlorde's request for color or highlight marking to make your debates easier to follow.

Best regards,

Keith

[Vic Vega]

This guy is an arrogant ass. I would never let a friend speak to me that way.

[Skeptic Ginger]

....How is it that you can interpret critical scientific commentary with absolute conclusions? ...

[snip]

...Cain it makes a world of difference, especially when you’re parroting amounts only to hearsay. You post here are not your testimony, but rather they are the testimonies of other’s. And you are accepting theirs on faith, since you do not really know for yourself, especially as absolute as you pretend. ...Your answers were fine. I would add the one thing this guy is leaving out. Science is successful. We know it is the best way to get at the truth because it is successful.

Science saves lives, believers credit the gods.

[dogjones]

Absolutely correct.

This statement in no way discriminates against religion. It simply states the common understanding that education may not be an indicator of knowledge and or intelligence.

Seems simple to me, Whiplash I would avoid adding bias that is clearly not there . . .

You are missing the point here. The statement could have been framed as "credentials do not make you right all the time". Instead it was "they are just credentialled idiots."

Surely you can see a difference here? Whiplash is absolutely right. Calling people idiots is a dumb and reactionary way to debate. And being reactionary is certainly an indicator of "bias or resentment regarding the beliefs [your opponents] hold".

[ponderingturtle]

You are missing the point here. The statement could have been framed as "credentials do not make you right all the time". Instead it was "they are just credentialled idiots."

But credentials do not prevent people from being idiots. Most people do idiotic things very often, myself included. This person got caught being an idiot.

[realpaladin]

You are missing the point here. The statement could have been framed as "credentials do not make you right all the time". Instead it was "they are just credentialled idiots."

Surely you can see a difference here? Whiplash is absolutely right. Calling people idiots is a dumb and reactionary way to debate. And being reactionary is certainly an indicator of "bias or resentment regarding the beliefs [your opponents] hold".

But people are people and so you can not expect them to be totally unbiased at all.

Or we could start out with a line of Lemma's and then continue all our discussions in a formal 'logic' language.

And where's the fun in that?

[shuttlt]

You don’t even understand what you are denying. You are blaming God for you lack of spiritual and intellectual understanding. You don’t even understand the question. And furthermore, while Science itself does not affirmatively prescribe to the above listed realities, each item listed no less contains elements of evidentiary plausibility in scientific observations; not because they need it, but because truth is truth and truth does not deny truth. For example science won’t say that life is eternal, but it will prescribe the First Law of Thermodynamics which says energy (mater) cannot be destroyed; and that applies to thinking matter as well as matter that thinking matter acts upon.

Does he know something about thermodynamics that I don't, or has he skipped a step in his reasoning here? Is he assuming that the 'soul' is made from matter/energy and therefore somehow covered by the first law of thermodynamics? Even if it existed and was matter/energy, it wouldn't be covered, surely? Castles are definately made of matter, but sooner or later they collapse into their component parts and no more castle. Does he mean that once you die your soul disintegrates into dust and energy as well? Presumably not.

He argues like a homeopath.

[shuttlt]

These arguments piss me off.

1. Take a bunch of science that clearly applies only within a specific domain.
2. Apply science to your pet theory ignoring the fact that you are now applying said science outside of it's proper domain. Abuse definitions where necessary making use of synonyms and wooly definitions to hide the joins.
3. Success your pet theory is now supported by science.

Newtons third law states that for every force their is an equal and opposite reaction. Love is often descibed as the most powerful force in the universe and hate is the opposite of love. Therefore Newton tells us that all relationships are doomed to failure because love on one side is inevitably met by hate on the other.

[dogjones]

But credentials do not prevent people from being idiots. Most people do idiotic things very often, myself included. This person got caught being an idiot.

Aha! If one IS an idiot, then they will always behave idiotically. But if one behaves idiotically, one isn't necessarily an idiot.

I actually wouldn't say the guy was behaving idiotically. He was being a smug, self righteous, ignorant w@nker.

[Aepervius]

First Law of Thermodynamics which says energy (mater) cannot be destroyed; and that applies to thinking matter as well as matter that thinking matter acts upon.

The first law is an application of the CoE, not the reverse. So it is true that since this is an pllication of CoE it also says by definition that energy cannot be created or destroyed. But it does say nothing more. If he is trying to apply that to "thought" "soul" or whatever, he is in for a rude awakening.

Furthermore define "thinking matter". There is no such things. There are highly organized structure functionning a complex massively parallel computational way on multiple level of transmission of data , the brain, but none of the atom are "thinking matter", and I am not a biologist but I vaguely remember that each parts get replaced/repaired over our life so that what you started with is not what you end with (as matter).

I also saw that he is using a favorite tactic of believer : citing a lot of source which purporte that science proves "God Exists" and requiring falsification/proof they are wrong for every single of the source. Knowing that all those I read had similar bad argument as shuttit 3 points summarized, I can only laugh.

[ponderingturtle]

Aha! If one IS an idiot, then they will always behave idiotically. But if one behaves idiotically, one isn't necessarily an idiot.


See this is were I disagree. I define an idiot as someone who behaved idioticly. No one is always an idiot.

[Doc Daneeka]

He argues like a homeopath.

Not really. A properly homeopathic argument would just be silence, wouldn't it?

I suppose he'd have to bounce around ten times in each direction, though.

[ImaginalDisc]

My fellow debater is a highly educated engineer with degrees from very well thought of Universities. He has a vast vocabulary and a great intellect. I still won the debate. I defeated him with common sense and logic and a tiny amount of science.

Hopefully He won't hold it against me. We've been friends for over ten years.

Why would an engineer mock your credentials in a debate about Evolution?

A) It's rude and a non-sequitor.

B) His degree is not in biology, genetics, or another field that directly works with evolution, its implications, and the evidence for it; his credentials are irrelevant.

C) Show me a credentialed and well respected geneticist or biologist who has evidence that evolution is false, please. That would rock.