Are Atheist Arrogant

page: 14
0
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



If what you were saying were true, then you could demonstrate it by putting forth a single piece of evidence that can be shown to be seen differently by a creationist and a person that accepts science.


First of all, I reject your false premise. Creationists do not "reject science". Creationists and Evolutionists hold the same degrees from the same institutions. For the remainder of our discussion let's not claim "Creationists reject science".

T-Rex Bone Marrow discovered still containing red blood cells.

Evolutionist: "Wow, it's amazing that marrow has lasted for millions of years!!!!
Creationist: "Perhaps that T-Rex bone isn't millions of years old."

(more to follow)




posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



No, that's just what people from Answers in Genesis want you to believe. The issue here is trying to get the evidence through to people, like yourself, you have been taught such ignorant things like 'it's a matter of world view'.


I disagree. The same 'evidence' your side looks at is available to all Creationists. It's not like the Evolutionists have hidden evidence not publicly available. Everyone has presuppositions, and the collection of a person's different presuppositions determines their worldview. Everything then viewed from that person is interpreted by their worldview.

(more to follow)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



Well, it's hard to argue with a guy who has been shown to lie repeatedly and attack people for using his admittedly non-copyrighted material in a fashion appropriate with the material's status, evaded taxes, and lied to many, many people about the facts of the matter.



Description of Poisoning the Well:


This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make. This is especially clear when Poisoning the Well is looked at as a form of ad Homimem in which the attack is made prior to the person even making the claim or claims. The following example clearly shows that this sort of "reasoning" is quite poor.


Poisoning the Well



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



No, they aren't fallacious. You can make a number of very valid ad hominem attacks on Mr Hovind. He masquerades as a scientist, without pointing out that he has a diploma-mill doctorate in Bible studies. His dissertation is riddled with errors, even grammatical ones. He evaded taxes and is currently imprisoned for it. His videos are poorly made (I'm sorry, but it's my field of study, I have to point it out). He claims to have taught science for years without demonstrating any knowledge of it. He put out a bogus set of videos, has been corrected on their many scientific errors repeatedly (basic, basic stuff, not 'you're a creationist therefore you're wrong stuff), and hasn't changed them.


NOT in logical debate. Logical debate is not a court of law where one's credibility is a basis for deciding truth. As stated earlier a person could be wrong on everything they had said without exception to date and their next argument would have to be accepted or discredited on it's own merits alone.

And I'd argue that Kent's history as a science teacher would more than qualify him to present lies contained in science books:

Lies in the textbooks

These lies are also included in Dr. Jonathan Wells book "Icons of Evolution" which I previously strongly recommended you read.

(more to follow)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Ok, four replies to a single post...seriously? I mean, it's difficult enough to reply without that. And I'm going to just ask you to open up a thread on this topic.

reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


No, it's not hidden. It's ignored. I mean, you're a Christian that takes the Bible as inerrant (at least that's what I gather from your posts)....which is blatantly false. I mean, the whole thing is exceedingly errant. The information that the Bible is full of errancy is out there, but Christians either ignore it or explain it away.

On the other hand, scientists have access to all the information, and conform their beliefs to the data rather than their worldview. That's what you're not getting. I asked you for a simple enough thing, show me that the example you gave (the geologic column) is a matter of worldview rather than evidence. Of course, I'd ask you to do this in another thread because this is not the topic of this thread, even though it is a far less distasteful topic than the thread itself.

reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I'm sorry, that's an outright lie. I never claimed that Kent Hovind's claims were incorrect because he's a grade-A jerk and criminal. That is independent of his claims. His claims would be incorrect if he was perfect in every way. I was just pointing out that some people might get distracted by his jerkishness.

I'm not poisoning the well, I'm pointing out that there's a point to those statements. Those points are irrelevant to the fallacious statements made by Hovind.

reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Originally posted by NOTurTypical
NOT in logical debate. Logical debate is not a court of law where one's credibility is a basis for deciding truth. As stated earlier a person could be wrong on everything they had said without exception to date and their next argument would have to be accepted or discredited on it's own merits alone.


But you miss one thing: this is the internet. I didn't say that his arguments hinge on his credibility, but he's a-



And I'd argue that Kent's history as a science teacher would more than qualify him to present lies contained in science books:


I'm not going to discuss it here because we're already insanely off-topic and I'm not going to go through the trouble of responding to a 2-3 hour long seminar (probably around 2 and a half if I remember correctly) in a thread where this is not the subject

Why? Because I've seen this video before. It's full o' lies. It'll take too long.



Lies in the textbooks


No, the lies are contained in this video. But again, I'll explain them all if you just bother to start a new thread. Hell, thanks for providing me with the link, I think I'll start off my YouTube skepticism career with a critique of that video, even though doing such is old hat.



These lies are also included in Dr. Jonathan Wells book "Icons of Evolution" which I previously strongly recommended you read.


Also full of lies. I've perused it mildly now (found an ebook version), it's full of lots and lots and lots of lies. I mean, the guy takes the cover picture as the 'ultimate icon of evolution'...that cover is the famous 'march of progress' which was designed by an artist for Time-Life in 1965 and has nothing to do with science.

It attacks Haeckal for his embryos...well, the evolutionary biologists attacked him for that one well before Wells got to it.

And lastly...why is he attacking high school textbooks? I mean, my high school textbook for chemistry had the common depiction of an atom, which is also patently incorrect. But does that falsify atomic physics? The very premise of his book is that misrepresentations occur in low level studies, though they often occur with explanation (the bio book that I had explained how Haeckal embellished his embryos and then provided photographs of the embryos) and for the sake of teaching history. The man is basing his whole argument on discrediting the wrong stuff. Rather than attacking the actual academic work he's attacking the low level education materials, the entirely wrong course of action.



(more to follow)


In a thread in O&C hopefully. Because I'm seriously done with this discussion here. As much as I enjoy it, as much as I think it is productive.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Where's the beef? Seriously, that T-Rex bone marrow? It never turned up. It miraculously vanished. I remember when there was a thread about it in O&C ages ago. The bone marrow seems to have gone the way of bigfoot carcasses, it just disappeared into thin air.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Oh crap, it was 6, not 4?!

Now, here's the crazy thing, creationist articles would be allowed to be published if they held any scientific merit. Science and Nature are open to any submission that conforms with its standards regarding academic rigor. Aside from that, ideology is not an issue.

I mean, how many articles were published on evolution when Darwin first came out with the idea? Oh, wait, there was very little academic resistance because his ideas were based in evidence, even though the lion's share of the scientific community was Christian and creationist at the time.

Hmm...and what about quantum mechanics? I mean, Einstein himself was famously opposed to it. I guess they stonewalled the papers relating to it? Oh wait, no they didn't. Hell, Einstein himself challenged the paradigm of Newtonian mechanics and didn't encounter all that much in terms of resistance.

If creationists did actual science their papers would be published.
edit on 28/12/10 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



Ok, four replies to a single post...seriously? I mean, it's difficult enough to reply without that. And I'm going to just ask you to open up a thread on this topic.


Wow, yes four..

on THIS page. Four on the previous. I had taken a short break from the computer. I asked simply for you to wait a day minimum for me to address all your posts. Is it unreasonable to get up and stretch the legs, or to do some preliminary research before replying further???

Send the link when you make your thread.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I was actually hoping you would start it, as you're quite dissatisfied with the Origins and Creationism portions of the forums. Just so you can direct it to whatever you'd like, that way I can more properly respond.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



No, it's not hidden. It's ignored. I mean, you're a Christian that takes the Bible as inerrant (at least that's what I gather from your posts)....which is blatantly false. I mean, the whole thing is exceedingly errant. The information that the Bible is full of errancy is out there, but Christians either ignore it or explain it away.


I disagree completely. Quite often skeptics will claim to have an error or contradiction, but on analysis the skeptics have failed miserably in the hermeneutics of bible interpretation. You say the information is "out there" discussing the supposed errors in the Bible, well the same Google will also show you explanations for all those same errors if you'd bother to research. Now, I will surely grant you one thing, the modern versions are VERY saturated with numerous errors and contradictions. Heck, in the NIV version you cannot learn who killed Goliath. Many serious students of the Bible are fully aware of the abundance of errors et cetra in the modern versions, that's why we call them PERversions of scripture.

The 1611 King James Bible has none.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



Demonstrate to me that your position on Hydrologic sorting has some validity, and I might be inclined to see your point, if not agree with it. Until then, it's founded in an ignorance of geology, which is frankly a really cool science. Geologists rock. (Yes, I made the corny joke).


No, first you demonstrate to me that the "Geologic Column" exists anywhere in the world other than in textbooks. From what I've seen to date the Geologic Column is a joke, especially when used to "date" fossils. You see, the age of fossils is said to be confirmed by what layer of rock they are found in, yet the layers of rock are aged by what fossils they contain.

That is circular reasoning.



edit on 29-12-2010 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



Now, here's the crazy thing, creationist articles would be allowed to be published if they held any scientific merit. Science and Nature are open to any submission that conforms with its standards regarding academic rigor. Aside from that, ideology is not an issue.


This is false. Creation articles are rejected if they do not support old-age Earth or Evolution. Secondly, Creation Scientists publish papers in the peer-reviewed "Answers Research Journal" all the time. Be careful before you claim the ARJ is not a reputable Journal. That would be the "no true Scottsman" fallacy.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
reply to post by NOTurTypical
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Take it to O&C and we'll talk in depth.

Now, in that thread you can try to provide some evidence that accepting an old earth and evolution are mandatory. I mean, if you have proper evidence to the contrary, I don't see why you can't get your paper published. And yes, ARJ is not a reputable publication. First off, it's in its infancy with only three volumes. Secondly, a lot of its of its articles aren't science. Sure, they may be related to science, but they aren't scientific inquiries.

In Volume 1 there is an article on theology, two articles on metaphysics, and an article that is solely an argument from authority based upon the words of Louise Pasteur. Volume 2 contains an opening that is basically a 'we're being persecuted like Galileo!' article, an article that starts out assuming that the Noahcian flood happened (why they didn't simply create a synoptic paper that provides all the evidence for this seeming fantasy is beyond me and oddly beyond scientific reasoning), three articles that are specifically theological in nature, and an article about fraud in paleoanthropology that is itself fraudulent.

There is an awful lot of theology in there for a scientific publication is all I'm saying.

But again, I'd really prefer to discuss this all in O&C, which is why I'm not responding to everything. It's not that I can't or don't want to. Just put this over there, where it belongs. This is seriously my last post on the issue that won't be a simple 'no' to all issues pertaining to subject matters outside this thread.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



Now, here's the crazy thing, creationist articles would be allowed to be published if they held any scientific merit. Science and Nature are open to any submission that conforms with its standards regarding academic rigor. Aside from that, ideology is not an issue.


This is false. Creation articles are rejected if they do not support old-age Earth or Evolution. Secondly, Creation Scientists publish papers in the peer-reviewed "Answers Research Journal" all the time. Be careful before you claim the ARJ is not a reputable Journal. That would be the "no true Scottsman" fallacy.



That "science" journal isn't a science journal, it's a propaganda outlet!!

Let's see how they "review" the papers, and what criteria they use...check out page 9 of their author instructions: LINK

Papers are only accepted if...

- Is the paper’s topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?
- Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?
- If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very
constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?



The editor-in-chief will not be afraid to reject a paper if it does not properly satisfy the above criteria or it
conflicts with the best interests of AiG as judged by its biblical stand and goals outlined in its statement of
faith.


If you posted this as a scientific source, I'm sorry...but this is NOT SCIENTIFIC!!! They are pushing for a certain conclusion (aka support for creationism) while not only suppressing alternative theories that are backed up by evidence, they also clearly state they won't post anything going against their BELIEF!

That is NOT science and your source is beyond laughable. If you're getting your information from this website, I'm not surprised at all if you get stuff horribly wrong. That website is like Hovind's wet dream



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Re NOTurTypical

Madnessinmysoul has much more competence on the present direction of the thread, so I can't add anything to his posts.

But from my own confrontations with you, I can see a definite pattern in your responses, which I have drawn attention to several times. You support your self-appointed 'true' doctrinal answers with 'evidence' only a fanatic would accept and use.

From your extremist perspective, this accusation of mine is ofcourse only an expression of whatever excessive rhetorics you can invent as a diversionary tactic, but my basic question is left unanswered:

"What constitutes evidence?"

I suspect, that I probably never will get an answer to this, because such an answer would bind you to some tangible basic points, you would have to refer to. And not as now flitter around in self-appointed authority with you as maker-of-rules, referee and jury all at once.

There's nothing strange or exotic about this question, any highschool student will be exposed to it, and any deeper considerations of existence must relate to it eventually. Already now it's a sign of arrogance amongst the qualified and competent to ignore it, and atheists usually respect it better than theists.

So don't panic; I'll be back.
edit on 31-12-2010 by bogomil because: spelling



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


Yes, well I wasn't saying it was the daughters fault or the fathers. I was simply saying there was incest in the book. It doesn't make sense to me anyhow the way the story goes in the Bible, it would make more sense that he raped his daughters because he himself wanted to continue their family line, not the daughters. But that's besides the point, and more along the lines of how sexist the Bible really is. I was just pointing out the reasons why the Bible itself lead me to not want to follow the Bible. Reading the Bible and attending various churches of my friends and sometimes even youth group Bible readings was, for me, only more of a conformation of my non-belief. But at least I kept/keep an open mind.






top topics



 
0
<< 11  12  13   >>

log in

join