"New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

"Backwardly wired retina an optimal structure"

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#241  Postby theropod » Jun 18, 2014 11:18 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
theropod wrote:
So I was trying to say that it’s just as obvious that Australopithecus avoided predation by fighting using hand-held foreign objects.


Yeah but I can show you the bones of dinosaurs that lived at the same time as T. rex that have bite marks. That's empirical evidence. Do you have any at all that your assertion about Australopithecus?


Was there ever any doubt that T. Rex ate meat, even before those bite marks were found? Did palaeontologists stand around scratching their heads? Gosh maybe this was an aquatic reptile. No could it have been a wood borer? Let’s hypothesise that it ate meat, Let’s call that the T.Rex Hunting hypothesis till we get “evidence”.


Um, what? My point is that there is empirical evidence to back up the head scratching by paleontologists. This is missing from your premise. Own it.

theropod wrote:
Part of the evidence is in the shape of the teeth. Tyrannosaurus had teeth for biting flesh. The australopiths didn’t.


Are you saying they lived on a vegetarian diet, as that is one huge assertion.


Australopiths had teeth that were good for biting dead things. T.Rex’s teeth were good for biting things that it intended would soon be dead.


Says you. Besides, you still seem to want to make T. rex into a pure pradator.

theropod wrote:
And they didn’t have any other obvious means to avoid predation.


Oh, like a social structure, and numbers.


If social structure and numbers were good for avoiding predation then termites would have nothing to worry about. But they have social structure, numbers and soldiers. Put your hand in a termite nest and one of those can give you a bite to remember. So injected poison can be an antipredation method but for an African mammal, if it can’t sprint or climb a tree better than a leopard or hide in obscurity, then it comes down to applying either blunt or sharp trauma to the predator. Not that different from your Nebraska dinosaurs.


My Nebraska dinosaurs? Have you ever actually read a word I've written here? Seriously, have you?

I doubt termites have much to worry about. They've been around one hell of a lot longer than humans have, and their defense systems must work or there wouldn't be such things as termites. Thanks for making my point for me.

More assertions you can't, or won't, support with anything but more assertion. Are you sure you want to limit these early hominids to a defense with sticks by a select few members of the troop? Have you never considered the possibility that they all stood their ground and may have even acted aggressively in unison when confronted by a leopard? A unified front is a daunting thing.

Where social structure and numbers come in is the troop needs to organise so the minimum number of members apply the maximum trauma with minimum effort.


So 4 members of the troop confronting a leopard with sticks is better at inflicting trauma than an entire troop? How does that work?

theropod wrote:
Would it be unreasonable to call that ideological dinning pathological? Take Piltdown Man I was citing above. Those great scientists in the oil painting were terrible palaeontologists. I watched a clip on BBC the other day, about the Piltdown “cricket bat”. An expert opined, this might have been a plant to tell the actual hoaxer “we are onto you”. But the fact is, these men weren’t onto it: they went on to trash actual paleontological evidence offered by a colonial.


And exactly what the hell as this to do with anything? Remind me, was it a fundamentalists working from doctrine that discovered the hoax, or was it a scientists working from the evidence?


What the 40-years that the Piltdown forgery went undetected shows is that paleoanthropologists like everyone else, are blinded by what they want to see. And what they want to see is culturally determined. That was well put in a review by Brian Switek of Donna Hart and Robert W Sussman's “Man the Hunted” :


Bullshit revisionism! How many paleontologist actually had a chance to examine the specimen? Were color pictures available on the net so others could compare the tooth to known early hominid teeth? It still wasn't some creotard that figured out it was a hoax. That was a trained professional. Own it.


“If there is any science that is influenced by our cultural background, expectations, and desires it is anthropology, and we must take care to make sure that what we want to be true doesn’t obscure our vision.”
http://scienceblogs.com/laelaps/2009/06/14/book-review-man-the-hunted/


Yes it was a scientist who uncovered the Piltdown forgery; a 38 year old son of Lithuanian Jewish immigrants to Johannesburg, at that time reader at Oxford. Not fundamentalists. On the other hand it is a creationist who is pointing out a pathological blindness in modern science’s view of human ancestors.


Nope, it's a creationists that has no understanding of the methodology of science making all sorts of empty assertions with not one shred of empirical evidence in support thereof. Even when actual scientists tell you where, and how, you're fucking up you insist you know you're right. When faced with empirical evidence you ignore that too in favor of your made up stories you cannot support with anything but more empty assertions.

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 68
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#242  Postby THWOTH » Jun 18, 2014 11:33 am

As is often the case, the argument appears to be essentially one against science and scientists. So it goes... So it goes.

I often wonder if those who argue against science on the internet ever stop to think about how science works, how knowledge progresses, and how the architecture of our cultural landscape develops and changes over time as a consequence of scientific endeavour.
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Posts: 37132
Age: 57

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#243  Postby kennyc » Jun 18, 2014 11:37 am

THWOTH wrote:As is often the case, the argument appears to be essentially one against science and scientists. So it goes... So it goes.

I often wonder if those who argue against science on the internet ever stop to think about how science works, how knowledge progresses, and how the architecture of our cultural landscape develops and changes over time as a direct consequence of scientific endeavour.


Often they have a pet theory that goes against the grain or has been disproven (Sheldrake) or they have beliefs which run counter to established science and they think that if they can just destroy the piece of the science/scientific method that is defeating them they will be seen as correct, genius, worthy.

Some actually do understand science and the scientific method but choose to ignore it by creating excuses to mask their nonsense.

But those (usually wannabes) that post on forums such as this are often ignorant of the full understanding of science. And even when explained they choose to ignore it.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama
User avatar
kennyc
 
Name: Kenny A. Chaffin
Posts: 8698
Male

Country: U.S.A.
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#244  Postby THWOTH » Jun 18, 2014 12:04 pm

True. Scientific endeavour is essentially a social concern, but it is so often cast -- in these types of discussions at least -- as merely the self-interested concern of scientists. Sheldrake is a fine example of the self-interested scientist, and interestingly his scientific credentials, or lack thereof, are often dragged up and examined both in favour of and against polarised positions.

A great many of those with a creationist, ideaological bent operate in the foothills of the Sherlock Holmes fallacy, thinking that if they can eliminate some nominated scientific hypothesis or theory then the whole of science fails and, therefore, what remains is their nominated alternative. The whole thing is so often a monstrously involved extemporisation on the theme of the false dichotomy, and to a great extent the alternative, non-scientific 'explanations' are built on fallacies - all the way down.

Engaging in this kind of thing seems to avoid the nitty-gritty of the creationist argument, by my lights at least, which is, why is it important to the creationist that their explanation be met with credulity and thus granted some epistemological weight or force? It is the personal investment in the idea being true and correct which drives the creationist argument, and this is invariably something drummed into them by some body or person to whom they have given authority.

Creationism, as with many ideologies, is an exercise in intellectual out-sourcing; an exercise in acceptance, and ultimately, in unchallenged, obsequious obedience.
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Posts: 37132
Age: 57

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#245  Postby Calilasseia » Jun 18, 2014 6:21 pm

What I'd like to know is how people rejecting science and the findings thereof, can do so whilst using computer technology arising from a large part of the very science they're rejecting. But then I've learned not to expect consistency from mythology fanboys, climate change denialists or anti-vaccine woo pedlars.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22246
Age: 60
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#246  Postby kennyc » Jun 18, 2014 6:24 pm

Calilasseia wrote:What I'd like to know is how people rejecting science and the findings thereof, can do so whilst using computer technology arising from a large part of the very science they're rejecting. But then I've learned not to expect consistency from mythology fanboys, climate change denialists or anti-vaccine woo pedlars.



It's the old cherry picking, pick and choose.

Use the word processor to write a diatribe against evolution or vaccination or ....
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama
User avatar
kennyc
 
Name: Kenny A. Chaffin
Posts: 8698
Male

Country: U.S.A.
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#247  Postby Jayjay4547 » Jun 19, 2014 9:34 am

theropod wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:

Was there ever any doubt that T. Rex ate meat, even before those bite marks were found? Did palaeontologists stand around scratching their heads? Gosh maybe this was an aquatic reptile. No could it have been a wood borer? Let’s hypothesise that it ate meat, Let’s call that the T.Rex Hunting hypothesis till we get “evidence”.


Um, what? My point is that there is empirical evidence to back up the head scratching by paleontologists. This is missing from your premise. Own it.


Can you offer any evidence that palaeontologists scratched their heads over whether T. rex was a predator before finding their scratch marks on bones? Here is some evidence that, before scratch marks were found, scientists had no problem appreciating that T. rex was a carnivore. It’s from H.G. Wells, Julian Huxley and G.P. Wells 1931 The science of Life 1931 p458

“The carnivorous line became larger and larger to cope with the increasing bulk of its vegetarian relatives and prey, its teeth became more formidable, its fore-arms, at first provided with vicious claws to dig into victim, later degenerating into almost useless vestiges in favour of the huge skull with its ferocious teeth. It culminated in the Tyrannosaurus, whose knee was a tall man’s height above the ground, whose head was twenty feet up in the air- formidable, if ponderous, engines of destruction.”

One could quibble about some things in that passage, but these puvblic-intellectual authors had no trouble figuring that Tyrannoaurus was a carnivore. About the only instance I can think of when scientists have had difficulty in immediately seeing the significant nature of a fossil, has been the australopiths- I mean, seeing that they were adept users of foreign objects in a fighting antipredation strategy.

theropod wrote:
Australopiths had teeth that were good for biting dead things. T.Rex’s teeth were good for biting things that it intended would soon be dead.


Says you.

I said that Australopiths were good at biting dead things, on the basis of their lacking fangs, whereby primates generally tear out chunks using their powerful fore-arms and grasping hands. I cited Fitzpatrick’s account of the method used by a dog-killing baboon. And I cited Watts et al on the damage that chimps do to other chimps, often using biting. Here is the link again, see table 2.

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/mitani/files/watts_et_al_2006.pdf
theropod wrote:
Besides, you still seem to want to make T. rex into a pure predator.


I was saying a very simple thing: that one can immediately see that T. rex was a carnivore. And I was hoping to use that as common ground for the argument that you don’t need to find fossil weapons to see that the australopiths used them defensively. But sure, if you like, the T rex was as pure a predator as one might hope to find. That station in life might well include opportunistic scavenging and cannibalism.

theropod wrote:

If social structure and numbers were good for avoiding predation then termites would have nothing to worry about. But they have social structure, numbers and soldiers. Put your hand in a termite nest and one of those can give you a bite to remember. So injected poison can be an antipredation method but for an African mammal, if it can’t sprint or climb a tree better than a leopard or hide in obscurity, then it comes down to applying either blunt or sharp trauma to the predator. Not that different from your Nebraska dinosaurs.


My Nebraska dinosaurs? Have you ever actually read a word I've written here? Seriously, have you?


I read your posts with interest and attention. By “Your Nebraska dinosaurs” I was referring to this passage from your post #234:

“Edmontosaurus annectens have been on my mind lately (mainly 'cause this is the time of year to start field ops in the northern plains). I personally know of 4 mass mortality sites where thousands of these duck billed herbivores are entombed, and have worked at two of them. In both cases it appears as if the dinosaurs...”

Great plains not Nebraska? Hokay, Sorry.
theropod wrote: I doubt termites have much to worry about. They've been around one hell of a lot longer than humans have, and their defense systems must work or there wouldn't be such things as termites. Thanks for making my point for me.

Termites are predated at least by aardvark,pangolin, ants, I guess spiders, and of course, spectacularly by birds. They are embedded in the African food web, just like the australopiths were. Of course their defence systems work, so must those of the australopiths. I don’t see how I was making your point for you.

theropod wrote: More assertions you can't, or won't, support with anything but more assertion. Are you sure you want to limit these early hominids to a defense with sticks by a select few members of the troop? Have you never considered the possibility that they all stood their ground and may have even acted aggressively in unison when confronted by a leopard? A unified front is a daunting thing.

That’s a good point. In the insect world where I cited termites you could equally cite bees, where the hive majority are all equally equipped. In the primate world, baboons seem to mob leopards as a mass, even in one report by Cheney, including a female with its infant:
http://www.ssc.ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/silk/PDF%20Files%20Pubs/Cheney%20et%20al%202004.pdf

But the males are more capable at inflicting harm. Because they are bigger and have bigger canines.

theropod wrote:
Where social structure and numbers come in is the troop needs to organise so the minimum number of members apply the maximum trauma with minimum effort.


So 4 members of the troop confronting a leopard with sticks is better at inflicting trauma than an entire troop? How does that work?


OK, if the whole troop got involved, the more effective their choice and use of sticks, the more trauma to the predators and the less damage to themselves.

theropod wrote:
What the 40-years that the Piltdown forgery went undetected shows is that paleoanthropologists like everyone else, are blinded by what they want to see. And what they want to see is culturally determined. That was well put in a review by Brian Switek of Donna Hart and Robert W Sussman's “Man the Hunted” :


Bullshit revisionism! How many paleontologist actually had a chance to examine the specimen? Were color pictures available on the net so others could compare the tooth to known early hominid teeth? It still wasn't some creotard that figured out it was a hoax. That was a trained professional. Own it.


Bullshit revisionism by who exactly? By this science blogger I quoted? You don’t have every opinion maker in your pocket. At any rate, not safely in your pocket.

theropod wrote:

Nope, it's a creationists that has no understanding of the methodology of science making all sorts of empty assertions with not one shred of empirical evidence in support thereof. Even when actual scientists tell you where, and how, you're fucking up you insist you know you're right. When faced with empirical evidence you ignore that too in favor of your made up stories you cannot support with anything but more empty assertions.

Well I do have some understanding of the methodology of science. I’ve been making quite a reasonable argument with some empirical evidence – for example, of the kind of damage other primates are capable of, using their teeth. You may be a scientist but you aren’t doing science on this forum, you are just having a discussion same as me.
User avatar
Jayjay4547
 
Name: Jonathan
Posts: 1202
Male

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#248  Postby Sendraks » Jun 19, 2014 9:52 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:Termites are predated at least by aardvark,pangolin, ants, I guess spiders, and of course, spectacularly by birds. They are embedded in the African food web, just like the australopiths were. Of course their defence systems work, so must those of the australopiths. I don’t see how I was making your point for you.


Well we know the defence systems of the termites worked, because they're still here, all over the world. Not only that, but they were here quite some time before the australopiths. So Termite defence systems are pretty solid in so far as standing the test of time.

Not so for the australopith.

Jayjay4547 wrote:OK, if the whole troop got involved, the more effective their choice and use of sticks, the more trauma to the predators and the less damage to themselves.

This makes all kinds of assumptions that australopiths were able to select suitably weighty and durable sticks for beating leopards with, given leopards are pretty durable creatures. So your expectation is that australopiths are able to select sticks that make suitable weapons, rather than pointlessly flail away with sticks that break upon contact with the Leopard and do it no significant harm.

This is a fairly sophisticated level of tool selection and use you're talking about here.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15252
Age: 105
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#249  Postby theropod » Jun 19, 2014 11:14 am

Jayjay4547 wrote:
theropod wrote:
Jayjay4547 wrote:

Was there ever any doubt that T. Rex ate meat, even before those bite marks were found? Did palaeontologists stand around scratching their heads? Gosh maybe this was an aquatic reptile. No could it have been a wood borer? Let’s hypothesise that it ate meat, Let’s call that the T.Rex Hunting hypothesis till we get “evidence”.


Um, what? My point is that there is empirical evidence to back up the head scratching by paleontologists. This is missing from your premise. Own it.


Can you offer any evidence that palaeontologists scratched their heads over whether T. rex was a predator before finding their scratch marks on bones? Here is some evidence that, before scratch marks were found, scientists had no problem appreciating that T. rex was a carnivore. It’s from H.G. Wells, Julian Huxley and G.P. Wells 1931 The science of Life 1931 p458

“The carnivorous line became larger and larger to cope with the increasing bulk of its vegetarian relatives and prey, its teeth became more formidable, its fore-arms, at first provided with vicious claws to dig into victim, later degenerating into almost useless vestiges in favour of the huge skull with its ferocious teeth. It culminated in the Tyrannosaurus, whose knee was a tall man’s height above the ground, whose head was twenty feet up in the air- formidable, if ponderous, engines of destruction.”

One could quibble about some things in that passage, but these puvblic-intellectual authors had no trouble figuring that Tyrannoaurus was a carnivore. About the only instance I can think of when scientists have had difficulty in immediately seeing the significant nature of a fossil, has been the australopiths- I mean, seeing that they were adept users of foreign objects in a fighting antipredation strategy.


So I take it you still don't have any empirical evidence to support your position. Didn't think so.

theropod wrote:
Australopiths had teeth that were good for biting dead things. T.Rex’s teeth were good for biting things that it intended would soon be dead.


Says you.


I said that Australopiths were good at biting dead things, on the basis of their lacking fangs, whereby primates generally tear out chunks using their powerful fore-arms and grasping hands. I cited Fitzpatrick’s account of the method used by a dog-killing baboon. And I cited Watts et al on the damage that chimps do to other chimps, often using biting. Here is the link again, see table 2.

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/mitani/files/watts_et_al_2006.pdf


Still the evidence you so desperately need to support this assertion is your opinion. Has a human ever bitten another to the point it was homicide?

theropod wrote:
Besides, you still seem to want to make T. rex into a pure predator.


I was saying a very simple thing: that one can immediately see that T. rex was a carnivore. And I was hoping to use that as common ground for the argument that you don’t need to find fossil weapons to see that the australopiths used them defensively. But sure, if you like, the T rex was as pure a predator as one might hope to find. That station in life might well include opportunistic scavenging and cannibalism.


Seriously? Do you even bother to read what you post? Opportunistic scavenging, by definition, removes the "pure" from predator.

Fossil weapons? What do you mean by that?

I'm saying, again, that there is hard evidence that T. rex ate meat, but the same hard evidence, of any sort, is missing from your assertion.

If social structure and numbers were good for avoiding predation then termites would have nothing to worry about. But they have social structure, numbers and soldiers. Put your hand in a termite nest and one of those can give you a bite to remember. So injected poison can be an antipredation method but for an African mammal, if it can’t sprint or climb a tree better than a leopard or hide in obscurity, then it comes down to applying either blunt or sharp trauma to the predator. Not that different from your Nebraska dinosaurs.


My Nebraska dinosaurs? Have you ever actually read a word I've written here? Seriously, have you?


I read your posts with interest and attention. By “Your Nebraska dinosaurs” I was referring to this passage from your post #234:

“Edmontosaurus annectens have been on my mind lately (mainly 'cause this is the time of year to start field ops in the northern plains). I personally know of 4 mass mortality sites where thousands of these duck billed herbivores are entombed, and have worked at two of them. In both cases it appears as if the dinosaurs...”

Great plains not Nebraska? Hokay, Sorry.


I wasn't necessarily referring to this thread. I've made plenty of posts surrounding my professional exploits in SOUTH DAKOTA, and have mentioned in this thread the Hell Creek formation which isn't found in Nebraska.

You are ignoring the possibility that these early hominids used a defensive strategy other than the one you assert.

theropod wrote: I doubt termites have much to worry about. They've been around one hell of a lot longer than humans have, and their defense systems must work or there wouldn't be such things as termites. Thanks for making my point for me.


Termites are predated at least by aardvark,pangolin, ants, I guess spiders, and of course, spectacularly by birds. They are embedded in the African food web, just like the australopiths were. Of course their defence systems work, so must those of the australopiths. I don’t see how I was making your point for you.


If the termite defense system didn't work termites would not be extant. You haven't established that your asserted means of defense in these early hominids is supported with empirical evidence.

theropod wrote: More assertions you can't, or won't, support with anything but more assertion. Are you sure you want to limit these early hominids to a defense with sticks by a select few members of the troop? Have you never considered the possibility that they all stood their ground and may have even acted aggressively in unison when confronted by a leopard? A unified front is a daunting thing.


That’s a good point. In the insect world where I cited termites you could equally cite bees, where the hive majority are all equally equipped. In the primate world, baboons seem to mob leopards as a mass, even in one report by Cheney, including a female with its infant:
http://www.ssc.ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/silk/PDF%20Files%20Pubs/Cheney%20et%20al%202004.pdf

But the males are more capable at inflicting harm. Because they are bigger and have bigger canines.


Where social structure and numbers come in is the troop needs to organise so the minimum number of members apply the maximum trauma with minimum effort.


So 4 members of the troop confronting a leopard with sticks is better at inflicting trauma than an entire troop? How does that work?


OK, if the whole troop got involved, the more effective their choice and use of sticks, the more trauma to the predators and the less damage to themselves.


Oh FFS, way to miss the point! You continually make sweeping assertions and because you have no idea what you're talking about so you just repeat the empty assertion?

:nono:

What the 40-years that the Piltdown forgery went undetected shows is that paleoanthropologists like everyone else, are blinded by what they want to see. And what they want to see is culturally determined. That was well put in a review by Brian Switek of Donna Hart and Robert W Sussman's “Man the Hunted” :


Bullshit revisionism! How many paleontologist actually had a chance to examine the specimen? Were color pictures available on the net so others could compare the tooth to known early hominid teeth? It still wasn't some creotard that figured out it was a hoax. That was a trained professional. Own it.


Bullshit revisionism by who exactly? By this science blogger I quoted? You don’t have every opinion maker in your pocket. At any rate, not safely in your pocket.


It's your silly statement that paleontologists are blinded by what they want to see, and that is culturally determined. That is a slanderous slur which you cannot support with anything other than opinion. The current peer review process limits these sorts of mistakes, and sure as hell isn't a matter of opinion.

If the paleontological community couldn't examine the specimen, as is available today, is there any wonder it took so long for a professional to rebut the claims? So, instead of owning the fact that it wasn't a creotard that uncovered the hoax is a matter of opinion? That's not an opinion. That's what happened.

theropod wrote:

Nope, it's a creationists that has no understanding of the methodology of science making all sorts of empty assertions with not one shred of empirical evidence in support thereof. Even when actual scientists tell you where, and how, you're fucking up you insist you know you're right. When faced with empirical evidence you ignore that too in favor of your made up stories you cannot support with anything but more empty assertions.


Well I do have some understanding of the methodology of science.


Then show it. Gather empirical evidence which supports your assertion. Cite the peer reviewed work of others. Stop linking to worthless fucking blogs.

I’ve been making quite a reasonable argument with some empirical evidence – for example, of the kind of damage other primates are capable of, using their teeth.


That's evidence that those other primates did, and do, use their teeth, not that those early hominids did, or did not, do so. What about this is so hard for you to grasp? It is far from reasonable to expect anyone to accept your position based on no more than your opinion, and face it, that's all you've presented. Ever.

You may be a scientist but you aren’t doing science on this forum, you are just having a discussion same as me.


To a point you are right. I'm not doing science here, but I am pointing out that your opinions, or those of some obscure blogger, are trumped, or supported, by empirical evidence.

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 68
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#250  Postby Bob@RealScienceRadio » Jun 19, 2014 7:05 pm

I wrote this post ten days ago as this thread was being locked (and so I posted it at rsr.org/willhud9 because I couldn't post it here. I'm thankful that when THWOTH reopened the thread later that day, he made this helpful comment: "I would like to remind members contributing to this discussion of the 'attack the post not the poster' principle we aspire to here. Please keep this in mind when posting." That helps a lot, but still, I thought I'd go ahead and post my reply to willhud9 as written. Thanks all.

willhud9 wrote:
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:...virtually the entire creation movement speaks with one voice in answering your question. Our answer is Genesis 3, the Fall. God created a paradise in which Adam and Even and their offspring could have lived forever. But with our rebellion against God, in His mercy, God limited the harm we can do to one another as we grow older and more selfish and bitter, by providing a contingency in the creation. If we turn against God, our bodies will no longer function forever; they will break down, and death will ensue. The fall, the groaning of creation itself, is one of the most fundamental aspects of the creation movement.


^ Is so contradictory it is hard to find out where to begin. ... Where was the mercy in the narrative? He cursed Adam and Eve and exiled them from the garden.


Death. Death was the mercy.

I added the bold emphasis above to highlight the point. The longer that human beings live openly expressing their rebellion of God, as is evident of so many, the more bitter, selfish, and hateful they will become. Consider as an example this RationalSkepticism.org forum.

I know not to ask for civility, let alone human decency and kindness, from a forum like this that celebrates men sodomizing men, women dismembering their unborn children, the euthanizing of others, and the mocking of Jesus Christ who died for them. But I can use the general mean-spirited demeanor of atheist websites as evidence of the hatefulness that can hardly be contained within those who proclaim godlessness. You probably wouldn't ask, but I'll provide you with a similar assessment from non-creationists.

The New York Times article Unnatural Science is spot on about the science and evolution sites (like PZ Myers filthy blog). The Times article generally describes (anti-creation) science blogs like from "PZ Myers [who] revels in" a "weird vindictiveness", "religion-baiting", "preoccupied with... name-calling", "incendiary rhetoric that draws bad-faith moral authority from the word 'science'.” The Times writer Virginia Heffernen asks, "Does everyone take for granted now that science sites are where... researchers... go not to interpret data... but to... jeer at... churchgoers?" And she answers that, "the most visible" of "the science bloggers..." are "charged with bigotry". Even Atheist Prof. Massimo Pigliucci of the City University of New York describes the science webs of PZ, et al., as "a culture of insults... spouting venom or nonsense" and urged these bloggers to "enroll in the nearest hubris-reducing ten-step program" and suggested that they give "the best possible interpretation of someone else’s argument before you mercilessly dismantle it," and finally, "Engage... your opponents in as civil a tone as you can muster" [which I think was THWOTH's point].

willhud9, just like here at RationalSkepticism.org, PZ Myers mocked me and my RSR friend Will calling us idiots in the title of his blog: Bob Enyart and Will Duffy, partners in idiocy. Like RS and many atheist blogs, Myers' site is filled with vulgarity and constant references to human waste and sex acts. If you think you're just an animal, you gradually lose sight of your higher virtues; then reproduction and defecation is pretty much all you got. These atheistic science sites, rather than exemplifying diversity, free speech, tolerance, instead, drip with intolerance, anger, bodily fluids, and hatred toward those who disagree.

So, to state it again willhud9, after man rebelled against God, in His mercy, God ensured that we would die, so that our hatred would be contained, and we would not forever be able to harm one another. Whoever asks God to live with Him shall, and whoever does not want to live with God forever shall not, but also, they shall not forever be able to hurt others. (That is the merciful part.)

willhud9 wrote:Where is this mercy of God limiting the harm we can do?


It is in death willhud9.

willhud9 wrote:
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:(As you may know, Darwinists themselves have struggled to account for the depth and capacity of human suffering which seems to go so far beyond what would be brought about by a mere natural selection for biological survival.)


The bolded bit is an unsubstantiated assertion.


Yes, I didn't source it. I thought that was common knowledge. I don't have time now to dig up sources. Perhaps someone here at RS can post some.

willhud9 wrote:Furthermore the Fall is not a consistent part of your worldview. It is full of holes and contradictions that only the idiom "God works in mysterious ways" can fill and when that line is given the entire worldview simply becomes "when I don't know the answer: God" which begs the question of why hold onto that ideology if logic and rationality poke so many holes into it.


willhud9, in more than 30 years of talking with skeptics and atheists, I don't recall ever answering someone's question about the fall, sin, suffering, or death, with anything like: God works in mysterious ways. To me it seems that these issues are dealt with directly in the Bible and the basic understanding of them are straightforward. Those Christians who do struggle with such questions (like Billy Graham after 9/11) are those who follow the ancient pagan Greek concept of fate and believe that all things, good and evil, including kidnappings, tortures, and rape, flow from the mind of God and were eternally decreed by Him. Those Christians, though they may be true Christians, have been influenced by the ancient Greeks, especially by Plato & Aristotle (and later by the hellenized Plotinus), to think that everything is part of an unchangeable plan. So for them, they look at a child rapist, and call it a mystery. The rest of us Christians refer to that as sin. Hatred born of indulging in selfishness that flows from a rejection of God.

It seems to me a straightforward matter that love is the answer to the problem of evil, at each of its various levels, and that love requires freedom, because love must be freely given. There are implications of this which might not be evident at first thought, but by the second or third thought, they usually do become evident. Then, you might not agree with us creationists and our understanding of the fall, but at least you would understand it.

Thanks willhud9, again, for the opportunity to discuss such monumentally important questions as suffering and freedom.

- Bob Enyart
Last edited by Bob@RealScienceRadio on Jun 19, 2014 7:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Bob@RealScienceRadio
Banned Troll
 
Name: Bob Enyart
Posts: 27

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#251  Postby Skinny Puppy » Jun 19, 2014 7:14 pm

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:I wrote this post ten days ago as this thread was being locked (and so I posted it at rsr.org/willhud9 because I couldn't post it here. I'm thankful that when THWOTH reopened the thread later that day, he made this helpful comment: "I would like to remind members contributing to this discussion of the 'attack the post not the poster' principle we aspire to here. Please keep this in mind when posting." That helps a lot, but still, I thought I'd go ahead and post my reply to willhud9 as written. Thanks all.

willhud9 wrote:
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:...virtually the entire creation movement speaks with one voice in answering your question. Our answer is Genesis 3, the Fall. God created a paradise in which Adam and Even and their offspring could have lived forever. But with our rebellion against God, in His mercy, God limited the harm we can do to one another as we grow older and more selfish and bitter, by providing a contingency in the creation. If we turn against God, our bodies will no longer function forever; they will break down, and death will ensue. The fall, the groaning of creation itself, is one of the most fundamental aspects of the creation movement.


^ Is so contradictory it is hard to find out where to begin. ... Where was the mercy in the narrative? He cursed Adam and Eve and exiled them from the garden.


Death. Death was the mercy.

I added the bold emphasis above to highlight the point. The longer that human beings live openly expressing their rebellion of God, as is evident of so many, the more bitter, selfish, and hateful they will become. Consider as an example this RationalSkepticism.org forum.

I know not to ask for civility, let alone human decency and kindness, from a forum like this that celebrates men sodomizing men, women dismembering their unborn children, the euthanizing of others, and the mocking of Jesus Christ who died for them. But I can use the general mean-spirited demeanor of atheist websites as evidence of the hatefulness that can hardly be contained within those who proclaim godlessness. You probably wouldn't ask, but I'll provide you with a similar assessment from non-creationists.

The New York Times article Unnatural Science is spot on about the science and evolution sites (like PZ Myers filthy blog). The Times article generally describes (anti-creation) science blogs like from "PZ Myers [who] revels in" a "weird vindictiveness", "religion-baiting", "preoccupied with... name-calling", "incendiary rhetoric that draws bad-faith moral authority from the word 'science'.” The Times writer Virginia Heffernen asks, "Does everyone take for granted now that science sites are where... researchers... go not to interpret data... but to... jeer at... churchgoers?" And she answers that, "the most visible" of "the science bloggers..." are "charged with bigotry". Even Atheist Prof. Massimo Pigliucci of the City University of New York describes the science webs of PZ, et al., as "a culture of insults... spouting venom or nonsense" and urged these bloggers to "enroll in the nearest hubris-reducing ten-step program" and suggested that they give "the best possible interpretation of someone else’s argument before you mercilessly dismantle it," and finally, "Engage... your opponents in as civil a tone as you can muster" [which I think was THWOTH's point].

willhud9, just like here at RationalSkepticism.org, PZ Myers mocked me and my RSR friend Will calling us idiots in the title of his blog: Bob Enyart and Will Duffy, partners in idiocy. Like RS and many atheist blogs, Myers' site is filled with vulgarity and constant references to human waste and sex acts. If you think you're just an animal, you gradually lose sight of your higher virtues; then reproduction and defecation is pretty much all you got. These atheistic science sites, rather than exemplifying diversity, free speech, tolerance, instead, drip with intolerance, anger, bodily fluids, and hatred toward those who disagree.

So, to state it again willhud9, after man rebelled against God, in His mercy, God ensured that we would die, so that our hatred would be contained, and we would not forever be able to harm one another. Whoever asks God to live with Him shall, and whoever does not want to live with God forever shall not, but also, they shall not forever be able to hurt others. (That is the merciful part.)

willhud9 wrote:Where is this mercy of God limiting the harm we can do?


It is in death willhud9.

willhud9 wrote:
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:(As you may know, Darwinists themselves have struggled to account for the depth and capacity of human suffering which seems to go so far beyond what would be brought about by a mere natural selection for biological survival.)


The bolded bit is an unsubstantiated assertion.


Yes, I didn't source it. I thought that was common knowledge. I don't have time now to dig up sources. Perhaps someone here at RS can post some.

willhud9 wrote:Furthermore the Fall is not a consistent part of your worldview. It is full of holes and contradictions that only the idiom "God works in mysterious ways" can fill and when that line is given the entire worldview simply becomes "when I don't know the answer: God" which begs the question of why hold onto that ideology if logic and rationality poke so many holes into it.


willhud9, in more than 30 years of talking with skeptics and atheists, I don't recall ever answering someone's question about the fall, sin, suffering, or death, with anything like: God works in mysterious ways. To me it seems that these issues are dealt with directly in the Bible and the basic understanding of them are straightforward. Those Christians who do struggle with such questions (like Billy Graham after 9/11) are those who follow the ancient pagan Greek concept of fate and believe that all things, good and evil, including kidnappings, tortures, and rape, flow from the mind of God and were eternally decreed by Him. Those Christians, though they may be true Christians, have been influenced by the ancient Greeks, especially by Plato & Aristotle (and later by the hellenized Roman, Plotinus), to think that everything is part of an unchangeable plan, and so for them, they look at a child rapist, and call it a mystery. The rest of us Christians refer to that as sin. Hatred born of indulging in selfishness that flows from a rejection of God.

It seems to me a straightforward matter that love is the answer to the problem of evil, at each of its various levels, and that love requires freedom, because love must be freely given. There are implications of this which might not be evident at first thought, but by the second or third thought, they usually do become evident. Then, you might not agree with us creationists and our understanding of the fall, but at least you would understand it.

Thanks willhud9, again, for the opportunity to discuss such monumentally important questions as suffering and freedom.

- Bob Enyart


Quoted for the record.
User avatar
Skinny Puppy
 
Name: Sherlock Jeffrey Puppy
Posts: 9399
Age: 39
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#252  Postby willhud9 » Jun 19, 2014 7:48 pm

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:I wrote this post ten days ago as this thread was being locked (and so I posted it at rsr.org/willhud9 because I couldn't post it here. I'm thankful that when THWOTH reopened the thread later that day, he made this helpful comment: "I would like to remind members contributing to this discussion of the 'attack the post not the poster' principle we aspire to here. Please keep this in mind when posting." That helps a lot, but still, I thought I'd go ahead and post my reply to willhud9 as written. Thanks all.

willhud9 wrote:
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:...virtually the entire creation movement speaks with one voice in answering your question. Our answer is Genesis 3, the Fall. God created a paradise in which Adam and Even and their offspring could have lived forever. But with our rebellion against God, in His mercy, God limited the harm we can do to one another as we grow older and more selfish and bitter, by providing a contingency in the creation. If we turn against God, our bodies will no longer function forever; they will break down, and death will ensue. The fall, the groaning of creation itself, is one of the most fundamental aspects of the creation movement.


^ Is so contradictory it is hard to find out where to begin. ... Where was the mercy in the narrative? He cursed Adam and Eve and exiled them from the garden.


Death. Death was the mercy.


Death was the mercy? Again that is so nonsensical it bears witnessing at the contradiction within Christianity. Jesus Christ is merciful and yet he gives eternal life. God is merciful and gives death. Why not forgive Adam and Eve and go from there?

Furthermore there is NOTHING in the narrative that suggests Adam and Eve couldn't die before hand.

I added the bold emphasis above to highlight the point. The longer that human beings live openly expressing their rebellion of God, as is evident of so many, the more bitter, selfish, and hateful they will become. Consider as an example this RationalSkepticism.org forum.


Many of the posters on this cite are some of the most joyful, charitable, and caring people I know. Of course there are exceptions and while I generally disagree with the severity many here treat those whom live in accordance with a religious worldview, that does not mean they express the personality traits you point out.

I know not to ask for civility, let alone human decency and kindness, from a forum like this that celebrates men sodomizing men, women dismembering their unborn children, the euthanizing of others, and the mocking of Jesus Christ who died for them. But I can use the general mean-spirited demeanor of atheist websites as evidence of the hatefulness that can hardly be contained within those who proclaim godlessness. You probably wouldn't ask, but I'll provide you with a similar assessment from non-creationists.


We don't celebrate gay sex, we acknowledge that people have different lifestyles and live in a non-judging way. We acknowledge the medical and societal gains to allowing women the right to abortions, we acknowledge mercy by allowing those whom are suffering terminally to have a peaceful death. What we don't tolerate is stupidity and lack of critical thinking.

The New York Times article Unnatural Science is spot on about the science and evolution sites (like PZ Myers filthy blog). The Times article generally describes (anti-creation) science blogs like from "PZ Myers [who] revels in" a "weird vindictiveness", "religion-baiting", "preoccupied with... name-calling", "incendiary rhetoric that draws bad-faith moral authority from the word 'science'.” The Times writer Virginia Heffernen asks, "Does everyone take for granted now that science sites are where... researchers... go not to interpret data... but to... jeer at... churchgoers?" And she answers that, "the most visible" of "the science bloggers..." are "charged with bigotry". Even Atheist Prof. Massimo Pigliucci of the City University of New York describes the science webs of PZ, et al., as "a culture of insults... spouting venom or nonsense" and urged these bloggers to "enroll in the nearest hubris-reducing ten-step program" and suggested that they give "the best possible interpretation of someone else’s argument before you mercilessly dismantle it," and finally, "Engage... your opponents in as civil a tone as you can muster" [which I think was THWOTH's point].

willhud9, just like here at RationalSkepticism.org, PZ Myers mocked me and my RSR friend Will calling us idiots in the title of his blog: Bob Enyart and Will Duffy, partners in idiocy. Like RS and many atheist blogs, Myers' site is filled with vulgarity and constant references to human waste and sex acts. If you think you're just an animal, you gradually lose sight of your higher virtues; then reproduction and defecation is pretty much all you got. These atheistic science sites, rather than exemplifying diversity, free speech, tolerance, instead, drip with intolerance, anger, bodily fluids, and hatred toward those who disagree.

So, to state it again willhud9, after man rebelled against God, in His mercy, God ensured that we would die, so that our hatred would be contained, and we would not forever be able to harm one another. Whoever asks God to live with Him shall, and whoever does not want to live with God forever shall not, but also, they shall not forever be able to hurt others. (That is the merciful part.)


You have missed the point. Your derail at how others have treated you is nothing short of begroaning.

Christian: "Jesus, those atheists mocked me."

Jesus: "Ya, and?"

Christian: "It's not fair and not nice."

Jesus: "I told you it would happen, why must you complain incessantly?"

Christian: "Because I have a right to be privileged in status!"

Jesus: "Then you never followed me to begin with."

Is just how I would imagine a typical conversation in heaven between a Christian whom moans about "persecution and mistreatment" and Jesus would go.


willhud9 wrote:Where is this mercy of God limiting the harm we can do?


It is in death willhud9.


So in other words, screw redemption, screw salvation, God's idea of mercy is simply death. :what:

willhud9 wrote:
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:(As you may know, Darwinists themselves have struggled to account for the depth and capacity of human suffering which seems to go so far beyond what would be brought about by a mere natural selection for biological survival.)


The bolded bit is an unsubstantiated assertion.


Yes, I didn't source it. I thought that was common knowledge. I don't have time now to dig up sources. Perhaps someone here at RS can post some.


Why? Youre the one whom made the claim. Back it up.

willhud9 wrote:Furthermore the Fall is not a consistent part of your worldview. It is full of holes and contradictions that only the idiom "God works in mysterious ways" can fill and when that line is given the entire worldview simply becomes "when I don't know the answer: God" which begs the question of why hold onto that ideology if logic and rationality poke so many holes into it.


willhud9, in more than 30 years of talking with skeptics and atheists, I don't recall ever answering someone's question about the fall, sin, suffering, or death, with anything like: God works in mysterious ways. To me it seems that these issues are dealt with directly in the Bible and the basic understanding of them are straightforward. Those Christians who do struggle with such questions (like Billy Graham after 9/11) are those who follow the ancient pagan Greek concept of fate and believe that all things, good and evil, including kidnappings, tortures, and rape, flow from the mind of God and were eternally decreed by Him. Those Christians, though they may be true Christians, have been influenced by the ancient Greeks, especially by Plato & Aristotle (and later by the hellenized Plotinus), to think that everything is part of an unchangeable plan. So for them, they look at a child rapist, and call it a mystery. The rest of us Christians refer to that as sin. Hatred born of indulging in selfishness that flows from a rejection of God.


Except when the Bible is not clear cut. Why the fall? If God is omnipotent and redeeming he could have saved Adam and Eve then and there. If God is forgiving he would have done so. But he didn't. This is what happens when you take the account of Genesis ultra-literally instead of placing it in its context of a origin story and a story alone. It explains via fable the sinful nature of man.

Furthermore, sin simply means missed mark. Does not mean hatred of indulging in selfishness that flows from a rejection of God. Christians whom have accepted God and are saved can still commit sin. They don't reject God. They just are fallible and no amount of effort will make them not fallible.

It seems to me a straightforward matter that love is the answer to the problem of evil, at each of its various levels, and that love requires freedom, because love must be freely given. There are implications of this which might not be evident at first thought, but by the second or third thought, they usually do become evident. Then, you might not agree with us creationists and our understanding of the fall, but at least you would understand it.


Love does not require freedom. I love my dogs. That does not mean I let them hurt themselves. I intervene when I see they are hurting themselves and instead of letting them die, I actually try to save them with the power I have.

Finally, I don't agree with creationists because I used to be one. Not only is it illogical, but the very Bible of which you base your pseudo-scientific nonsense does not support your assertions.

I have much respect for Christianity and biblical studies, both are passions of mine. I have spent many hours reading the Bible cover to cover. I have read history books surrounding its authorship, I have read theology books that seminary students would be required to read that laypeople would find dry. I know the Bible and Christianity fairly well. Young-earth Creationism is not a Biblical thing unless when takes the Bible to be ultra-literal. It is not.
Last edited by willhud9 on Jun 19, 2014 11:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 19373
Age: 31
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#253  Postby theropod » Jun 19, 2014 8:32 pm

Will,

I feel you're wasting your time with Bob@RealScienceRadio. Not only does he present us with a persona which does not possess sufficient knowledge of his own holy scripture to support his position, his holy scripture itself directly, and clearly, condemns a lot of his rancid statements. My favorite among these, so far, is his open disregard for the COMMANDMENT to not judge others.

In his latest post this stood apart from the rest of his diatribe:
The rest of us Christians refer to that as sin.


:rofl:

Not only is he presuming to speak for all Christianity, which is ever so laughable considering the sheer number of different denominations/sects/cults and associated doctrinal differences surrounding the same, but he is setting himself up as able to judge sin, in diametric opposition to the supposed words of Jesus himself.

I'm feeling too hot and lazy to got find my Bible, and quote it verbatim, but it goes something like this:
"Judge not lest thou be judged".

Since I am not a Christian I have arrived at my own judgment.

RS
Sleeping in the hen house doesn't make you a chicken.
User avatar
theropod
RS Donator
 
Name: Roger
Posts: 7529
Age: 68
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#254  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jun 19, 2014 10:33 pm

I see Bob is of the cult-of-death variety of Christians. :yuk:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 32
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#255  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Jun 19, 2014 10:34 pm

willhud9 wrote:
Many of the posters on this cite are some of the most h

I think something went wrong with your post here.... :?
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 31091
Age: 32
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#256  Postby Oldskeptic » Jun 19, 2014 10:54 pm

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:I wrote this post ten days ago as this thread was being locked (and so I posted it at rsr.org/willhud9 because I couldn't post it here. I'm thankful that when THWOTH reopened the thread later that day, he made this helpful comment: "I would like to remind members contributing to this discussion of the 'attack the post not the poster' principle we aspire to here. Please keep this in mind when posting." That helps a lot, but still, I thought I'd go ahead and post my reply to willhud9 as written. Thanks all.

willhud9 wrote:
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:...virtually the entire creation movement speaks with one voice in answering your question. Our answer is Genesis 3, the Fall. God created a paradise in which Adam and Even and their offspring could have lived forever. But with our rebellion against God, in His mercy, God limited the harm we can do to one another as we grow older and more selfish and bitter, by providing a contingency in the creation. If we turn against God, our bodies will no longer function forever; they will break down, and death will ensue. The fall, the groaning of creation itself, is one of the most fundamental aspects of the creation movement.


^ Is so contradictory it is hard to find out where to begin. ... Where was the mercy in the narrative? He cursed Adam and Eve and exiled them from the garden.


Death. Death was the mercy.

I added the bold emphasis above to highlight the point. The longer that human beings live openly expressing their rebellion of God, as is evident of so many, the more bitter, selfish, and hateful they will become. Consider as an example this RationalSkepticism.org forum.


Where does it say this in the Bible?

I know not to ask for civility, let alone human decency and kindness, from a forum like this that celebrates men sodomizing men, women dismembering their unborn children, the euthanizing of others, and the mocking of Jesus Christ who died for them.


Why would you expect civility, human decency, or kindness? Your views and prejudices are fairly well known, as are your dishonest tactics and misuse of statements by experts in the fields of science that you ridicule.

Where on this forum did you find the celebrating? Nowhere, it's just another of your lies. Mocking your Jesus Christ is another thing altogether. I find it difficult not to mock the way some people believe in utter nonsense. Nonsense that doesn't even agree with the precious book that they claim to know so well.

But I can use the general mean-spirited demeanor of atheist websites as evidence of the hatefulness that can hardly be contained within those who proclaim godlessness. You probably wouldn't ask, but I'll provide you with a similar assessment from non-creationists.

The New York Times article Unnatural Science is spot on about the science and evolution sites (like PZ Myers filthy blog). The Times article generally describes (anti-creation) science blogs like from "PZ Myers [who] revels in" a "weird vindictiveness", "religion-baiting", "preoccupied with... name-calling", "incendiary rhetoric that draws bad-faith moral authority from the word 'science'.” The Times writer Virginia Heffernen asks, "Does everyone take for granted now that science sites are where... researchers... go not to interpret data... but to... jeer at... churchgoers?" And she answers that, "the most visible" of "the science bloggers..." are "charged with bigotry".


Excuse me I thought you were giving assessments by non-creationists. Heffernan is by her own description a creationist. So I don't find it significant or even interesting that she holds the same opinions as people like you towards the godless bloggers.

Even Atheist Prof. Massimo Pigliucci of the City University of New York describes the science webs of PZ, et al., as "a culture of insults... spouting venom or nonsense" and urged these bloggers to "enroll in the nearest hubris-reducing ten-step program" and suggested that they give "the best possible interpretation of someone else’s argument before you mercilessly dismantle it," and finally, "Engage... your opponents in as civil a tone as you can muster" [which I think was THWOTH's point].


While you were picking cherries you missed this one: "Engage your readers and your opponents in as civil a tone as you can muster. Few people deserve to be put straight into insult mode (Hitler and Pat Robertson come to mind)." Do you think that Pigliucci would exclude you from the Pat Robertson category? I wouldn't.

willhud9, just like here at RationalSkepticism.org, PZ Myers mocked me and my RSR friend Will calling us idiots in the title of his blog: Bob Enyart and Will Duffy, partners in idiocy.


Another lie, no one here called you an idiot.

Like RS and many atheist blogs, Myers' site is filled with vulgarity and constant references to human waste and sex acts. If you think you're just an animal, you gradually lose sight of your higher virtues; then reproduction and defecation is pretty much all you got. These atheistic science sites, rather than exemplifying diversity, free speech, tolerance, instead, drip with intolerance, anger, bodily fluids, and hatred toward those who disagree.


And you really think that you've been abused here? Don't kid yourself, you're better at it than anyone around here.

So, to state it again willhud9, after man rebelled against God, in His mercy, God ensured that we would die, so that our hatred would be contained, and we would not forever be able to harm one another. Whoever asks God to live with Him shall, and whoever does not want to live with God forever shall not, but also, they shall not forever be able to hurt others. (That is the merciful part.)


First of all, you need to reread Genesis 3, and pay attention this time.
22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”


They could die before they were banished as well as after.
The rest you just made up on your own.


willhud9 wrote:Where is this mercy of God limiting the harm we can do?

It is in death willhud9.


Yep, that's what the flood was all about. Kill them all and all the animals. That'll show them how fucking merciful I am?

willhud9 wrote:
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:(As you may know, Darwinists themselves have struggled to account for the depth and capacity of human suffering which seems to go so far beyond what would be brought about by a mere natural selection for biological survival.)


No they haven't and no it doesn't. You're making shit up again.

The bolded bit is an unsubstantiated assertion.

Yes, I didn't source it. I thought that was common knowledge. I don't have time now to dig up sources. Perhaps someone here at RS can post some.


You didn't give sources because it's a lie.

willhud9 wrote:Furthermore the Fall is not a consistent part of your worldview. It is full of holes and contradictions that only the idiom "God works in mysterious ways" can fill and when that line is given the entire worldview simply becomes "when I don't know the answer: God" which begs the question of why hold onto that ideology if logic and rationality poke so many holes into it.

willhud9, in more than 30 years of talking with skeptics and atheists, I don't recall ever answering someone's question about the fall, sin, suffering, or death, with anything like: God works in mysterious ways. To me it seems that these issues are dealt with directly in the Bible and the basic understanding of them are straightforward. Those Christians who do struggle with such questions (like Billy Graham after 9/11) are those who follow the ancient pagan Greek concept of fate and believe that all things, good and evil, including kidnappings, tortures, and rape, flow from the mind of God and were eternally decreed by Him. Those Christians, though they may be true Christians, have been influenced by the ancient Greeks, especially by Plato & Aristotle (and later by the hellenized Plotinus), to think that everything is part of an unchangeable plan. So for them, they look at a child rapist, and call it a mystery. The rest of us Christians refer to that as sin. Hatred born of indulging in selfishness that flows from a rejection of God.


So all rapists reject God? Would you be including Moses, Joshua, and God himself.

It seems to me a straightforward matter that love is the answer to the problem of evil, at each of its various levels, and that love requires freedom, because love must be freely given.


Yeah yeah yeah, heard it before, and it's fucked up. God allows all this suffering because he loves us, and wants us to go to heaven.

There are implications of this which might not be evident at first thought, but by the second or third thought, they usually do become evident. Then, you might not agree with us creationists and our understanding of the fall, but at least you would understand it.


I'll never be able to understand how you could believe this nonsense.
There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher will not say it - Cicero.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Oldskeptic
 
Posts: 7395
Age: 65
Male

Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#257  Postby Calilasseia » Jun 19, 2014 11:13 pm

Let's take a look at this shall we?

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:I wrote this post ten days ago as this thread was being locked (and so I posted it at rsr.org/willhud9 because I couldn't post it here. I'm thankful that when THWOTH reopened the thread later that day, he made this helpful comment: "I would like to remind members contributing to this discussion of the 'attack the post not the poster' principle we aspire to here. Please keep this in mind when posting." That helps a lot, but still, I thought I'd go ahead and post my reply to willhud9 as written. Thanks all.


Oh this should be good ... especially as Willhud spent time in a seminary training to become a pastor ...

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:
willhud9 wrote:
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:...virtually the entire creation movement speaks with one voice in answering your question. Our answer is Genesis 3, the Fall. God created a paradise in which Adam and Even and their offspring could have lived forever. But with our rebellion against God, in His mercy, God limited the harm we can do to one another as we grow older and more selfish and bitter, by providing a contingency in the creation. If we turn against God, our bodies will no longer function forever; they will break down, and death will ensue. The fall, the groaning of creation itself, is one of the most fundamental aspects of the creation movement.


^ Is so contradictory it is hard to find out where to begin. ... Where was the mercy in the narrative? He cursed Adam and Eve and exiled them from the garden.


Death. Death was the mercy.


Right, so Magic Man effectively told the two unfortunate stool pigeons "fail to conform and die". Very merciful, I don't think.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:I added the bold emphasis above to highlight the point. The longer that human beings live openly expressing their rebellion of God, as is evident of so many, the more bitter, selfish, and hateful they will become.


Funny how most of the hatred I see comes from religious fundamentalists. Fred Phelps, anyone?

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:Consider as an example this RationalSkepticism.org forum.


Cue ad hominem attacks and strawman cariactures in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:I know not to ask for civility, let alone human decency and kindness, from a forum like this


Ah, it's the familiar modus operandi of the ideological stormtrooper for doctrine once more. Demonise all who do not conform. Where have we seen this before, boys and girls?

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:that celebrates men sodomizing men


Oh dear. Strawman caricature time. Quelle surprise.

What we actually think, as opposed to the rampant caricature thereof you've just presented above, is that gay people should be treated as fellow human beings. As opposed to the attitude frequently expressed by assorted religious fundamentalists, who regard gay people as vermin to be exterminated. Randall Terry blew the cover on that one when he openly talked about "executing" gay people. And we all know who was partial to that little practice in the past, don't we?

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:women dismembering their unborn children


Yawn.

Actually, if your mythological magic man actually exists, then your magic man is actually the biggest abortionist of them all. Courtesy of the fact that 30% of all human conceptions worldwide end in miscarriage. Including in countries where abortion is banned (e.g., El Salvador). But please, don't let facts get in the way of what is manifestly becoming a rant on your part.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:the euthanizing of others


Oh, you actually want people to die lingering, painful deaths, do you? Go and watch someone in the last throes of Huntingdon's Chorea, and see if you think letting that level of suffering persist is a good idea.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:and the mocking of Jesus Christ


Actually, what you'll find we regard as absurd here, is the idea that any magic entity exists, not just your favourite choice. But again, I suspect you won't let facts intrude upon the scratching of this particular itch of yours.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote: who died for them.


Correction ... was merely asserted to do so in the requisite mythology. Still waiting for something resembling evidence for this, though supernaturalists have a habit of thinking that yet more mythological assertions equals "evidence".

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:But I can use the general mean-spirited demeanor of atheist websites as evidence of the hatefulness that can hardly be contained within those who proclaim godlessness.


Ah, the familiar demonising of those who do not conform. Yawn.

Actually, atheists are frequently the least hateful people I encounter. Usually, the ones who are gearing up to set fire to people, are people who think their pet mythology equals fact. Oh wait, they did that for real over here in Europe for the best part of 1,000 years. Which is one reason why we tend to be a tad suspicious about self-righteous posturing of the sort we see from religious fundamentalists, who tend to possess that dangerous certainty of their own infallible rectitude leading to some very nasty acts. Such as Arthur Shelton blowing out Larry Hooper's brains with a shotgun, just because Hooper didn't treat mythology as fact. Shelton's serving 45 years for that, by the way. It's this sort of action, and the attutudes underpinning it, that has much to do with our suspicion of supernaturalists.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:You probably wouldn't ask, but I'll provide you with a similar assessment from non-creationists.


Oh this is going to be good ...

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:The New York Times article Unnatural Science is spot on about the science and evolution sites (like PZ Myers filthy blog). The Times article generally describes (anti-creation) science blogs like from "PZ Myers [who] revels in" a "weird vindictiveness", "religion-baiting", "preoccupied with... name-calling", "incendiary rhetoric that draws bad-faith moral authority from the word 'science'.” The Times writer Virginia Heffernen asks, "Does everyone take for granted now that science sites are where... researchers... go not to interpret data... but to... jeer at... churchgoers?"


Ha ha ha ha. Virginia Heffernan is a creationist. Or did you not notice that she wrote an article titled "Why I Am A Creationist" in 2013? What's more, she seems to have a pathological hatred of anyone who has written a peer reviewed paper.

Oh, and I note with interest how your "quote" is littered with ellipses, suggesting large portions of omitted text. This tends to occur frequently in creationist quote mining.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:And she answers that, "the most visible" of "the science bloggers..." are "charged with bigotry".


Ha ha ha ha ha. Given her own ideological stance here, I call pot, kettle, black.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:Even Atheist Prof. Massimo Pigliucci of the City University of New York describes the science webs of PZ, et al., as "a culture of insults... spouting venom or nonsense"


From the same source (emphases mine):

To begin with, are there positive models to look up to in this endeavor? Absolutely, and here I will name names, though the following list is grossly incomplete, both for reasons of space and because some names just happened not to come to mind at the moment I was typing these words. If you are not listed and you should be, forgive me and let’s amend the problem in the discussion thread. So here we go: Sean Carroll, Dan Dennett, Neil deGrasse Tyson, D.J. Grothe, Tim Farley, Ken Frazier (and pretty much anyone else who writes for Skeptical Inquirer, really), Ron Lindsay, Hemant Mehta, Chris Mooney, Phil Plaitt, Steve Novella (as well as the other Novellas), John Rennie, Genie Scott, Michael Shermer, Carl Zimmer, and many, many more.


Looks like he doesn't agree with you the way you think he does.

Oh, and quite a few of the names in his list of positive role models can be excoriatingly scathing when they are confronted with bad ideas. Perhaps Puglicci didn't notice this because they couched said excoriation in more florid prose.

Moving on ...

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:and urged these bloggers to "enroll in the nearest hubris-reducing ten-step program" and suggested that they give "the best possible interpretation of someone else’s argument before you mercilessly dismantle it,"


I'll let everyone else see the bits of text you omitted in the above quote mines.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:and finally, "Engage... your opponents in as civil a tone as you can muster" [which I think was THWOTH's point].


Ahem, you appear not to understand an operating principle here, or elsewhere for that matter. Which is, that in the world of science, ideas are disposable entities. And as a corollary, are a free-fire zone for whatever vitriol one may choose to deploy in the direction of those ideas regarded as bad ones. But I'm familiar with the manner in which supernaturalists regard an attack on their cherished ideas as some sort of personal affront.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:willhud9, just like here at RationalSkepticism.org, PZ Myers mocked me and my RSR friend Will calling us idiots in the title of his blog: Bob Enyart and Will Duffy, partners in idiocy. Like RS and many atheist blogs, Myers' site is filled with vulgarity and constant references to human waste and sex acts.


So you never read any of the pages he devoted to blogging on peer reviewed research? Quelle surprise.

Oh, as for "vulgarity and constant references to human waste and sex acts", try Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist. Only it seems to be quite a speciality of theirs.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:If you think you're just an animal, you gradually lose sight of your higher virtues;


As opposed to thinking you're the product of a cheap conjuring trick with some dirt?

Funny how quite a few of the organisms you dismiss as "just an animal" above, actually have much to teach us about the origins of our own capacity for such traits as ethical thinking. See the primate research of Frans de Waal for some particularly stellar examples.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:then reproduction and defecation is pretty much all you got.


Frans de Waal would only be the first to disagree with you. Indeed, developing a proper understanding of the unity of the biosphere via inheritance, far from debasing our values, enhances them, because it leads us to welcome diversity and eschew the sort of dangerous, discriminatory attitudes seen, for example, in Henry Morris's creationist screeds, where he peddles the nastily racist "Hamitic races" drivel that was used for years by the KKK to justify lynching people who weren't whiter than white.

Indeed, the mere fact that you regard any comparison with animals as inherently negative, shows how little you understand of the biosphere and its contents. Courtesy of my 35 years' vintage as a keeper of tropical fish, I'm aware of intelligent behaviour in fish species that parallels our own in quite startling ways, such as the parental care of offspring exhibited by numerous Central American Cichlid fishes. Indeed, Dr William T. Innes waxed lyrically on this very subject in a book written way back in 1936. If you bother to use the search facility here, you'll find I've quoted it in full in other posts. And, courtesy of my years spent in entomology, I'm aware of instances of parental care in insects.

But I don't suppose you'll let any of these facts spoil your little excursion into the world of polemics.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:These atheistic science sites, rather than exemplifying diversity, free speech, tolerance, instead, drip with intolerance, anger, bodily fluids, and hatred toward those who disagree.


Yawn. Try Westboro Baptist if you want those.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:So, to state it again willhud9, after man rebelled against God, in His mercy, God ensured that we would die, so that our hatred would be contained


Worked really well in Fred Phelps' case, didn't it? Not to mention Tomas de Torquemada.

But then, if you actually study that bit of mythology, you'll quickly learn it's a complete crock. Because, wait for it, one of the assertions contained therein, is that the two characters in question did not possess the capacity for ethical thought when they purportedly "rebelled". They only acquired this after they ate the magic fruit. Which makes a mockery of the entire thesis of the passage in question. Indeed, it reads more like a deliberate set-up job on the part of your magic man, letting the unknowing stool pigeons spring the prepared trap, then punishing them for falling into it.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote: and we would not forever be able to harm one another.


Oh, you mean like Tomas de Torquemada? Who took a singular delight in exterminating people who didn't conform to religious doctrine?

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:Whoever asks God to live with Him shall, and whoever does not want to live with God forever shall not, but also, they shall not forever be able to hurt others. (That is the merciful part.)


This farcical apologetic fabrication is falsified wholesale by the existence of people like Tomas de Torquemada.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:
willhud9 wrote:Where is this mercy of God limiting the harm we can do?


It is in death willhud9.


Doesn't mean that bad legacies ends with the death of those leaving them. Seems like the Phelps clan is committed wholesale to that on their own.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:
willhud9 wrote:
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:(As you may know, Darwinists themselves have struggled to account for the depth and capacity of human suffering which seems to go so far beyond what would be brought about by a mere natural selection for biological survival.)


The bolded bit is an unsubstantiated assertion.


Yes, I didn't source it. I thought that was common knowledge.


It isn't. it's a blatant fabrication. Plus, the branch of science you're looking for is cognitive neuroscience, not evolutionary biology. Plus, it's rather embarrassing, how much of that suffering has arisen from supernaturalists slaughtering rival supernaturalists.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:I don't have time now to dig up sources. Perhaps someone here at RS can post some.


Translation: I made this shit up and hope no one will notice.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:
willhud9 wrote:Furthermore the Fall is not a consistent part of your worldview. It is full of holes and contradictions that only the idiom "God works in mysterious ways" can fill and when that line is given the entire worldview simply becomes "when I don't know the answer: God" which begs the question of why hold onto that ideology if logic and rationality poke so many holes into it.


willhud9, in more than 30 years of talking with skeptics and atheists, I don't recall ever answering someone's question about the fall, sin, suffering, or death, with anything like: God works in mysterious ways.


The first two in your list being fictions in any case ...

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:To me it seems that these issues are dealt with directly in the Bible


Correction, they're asserted therein. Assertions do not equal fact.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:and the basic understanding of them are straightforward. Those Christians who do struggle with such questions (like Billy Graham after 9/11) are those who follow the ancient pagan Greek concept of fate and believe that all things, good and evil, including kidnappings, tortures, and rape, flow from the mind of God and were eternally decreed by Him.


Oh, you mean as in Isaiah 45:7?

45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.


Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:Those Christians, though they may be true Christians, have been influenced by the ancient Greeks, especially by Plato & Aristotle (and later by the hellenized Plotinus), to think that everything is part of an unchangeable plan. So for them, they look at a child rapist, and call it a mystery. The rest of us Christians refer to that as sin. Hatred born of indulging in selfishness that flows from a rejection of God.


Oh, you mean like all those Catholic priests? I don't recall them "rejecting god".

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:It seems to me a straightforward matter that love is the answer to the problem of evil, at each of its various levels, and that love requires freedom, because love must be freely given. There are implications of this which might not be evident at first thought, but by the second or third thought, they usually do become evident.


Funny how "love", in the hands of supernaturalists, usually ends up manifesting itself as "kill all who do not conform". We have the best part of 1,000 years of European history backing this up.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:Then, you might not agree with us creationists and our understanding of the fall, but at least you would understand it.


Except that it's all a grand fiction. Because, wait for it, according to the assertions of your mythology, death already existed in the Garden of Eden. Courtesy of Genesis 3:22, viz:

3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:


Which surely means that the two characters in question were not destined to live forever unless they also partook of that other bit of magic fruit. Talk about inconsistency.

You see, that's the problem with treating mythology as fact. Eventually, hard reality is going to give your doing so a hefty kick up the backside.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22246
Age: 60
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#258  Postby willhud9 » Jun 19, 2014 11:26 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
willhud9 wrote:
Many of the posters on this cite are some of the most h

I think something went wrong with your post here.... :?


Many of the posters on this cite are some of the most joyful, charitable, and caring people I know. Of course there are exceptions and while I generally disagree with the severity many here treat those whom live in accordance with a religious worldview, that does not mean they express the personality traits you point out.

Fixed it as best as I remembered. :scratch:
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 19373
Age: 31
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#259  Postby ADParker » Jun 20, 2014 12:21 am

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:
Death. Death was the mercy.

That makes no sense to me. All it does is highlight a common problem I see with most such apologetics; the apologist starts with an assumption, that some piece of text or whatever is true and moral etc. in the specific ways that fits in line with what they already believe. So you read the story and then try to interpret it to fit your prior assumptions. And this is why the 'explanations' so often fit so poorly and don't seem to come from the text at all.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:I added the bold emphasis above to highlight the point. The longer that human beings live openly expressing their rebellion of God, as is evident of so many, the more bitter, selfish, and hateful they will become. Consider as an example this RationalSkepticism.org forum.

Why join a forum if you are just going to insult it as whole like that?
All I see is an empty assertion that “ the longer that human beings live openly expressing their rebellion of God, as is evident of so many, the more bitter, selfish, and hateful they will become” which I don't see to be the case at all. I know of no evidence that non-theists (or is that all non Christians) are particularly any more or less likely to become more bitter etc. over time, than theists/Christians. I have certainly seen both extremes in both camps.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:I know not to ask for civility, let alone human decency and kindness, from a forum like this that celebrates men sodomizing men, women dismembering their unborn children, the euthanizing of others, and the mocking of Jesus Christ who died for them.

See Bob@RealScienceRadio; this is just plain silly. It reads like you are the one who is bitter and hateful (perhaps that is it; projection).
This forum doesn't “celebrate” any of those things, it is not a “fansite” kind of forum that insists on any particular things being “celebrated”. So what you seem to be complaining about is that this site doesn't overly discriminate, and denounce such things, that it doesn't enforce any bigotry etc. And you imply that this is a bad thing.

Male on male sodomy? Why not such say homosexuality? Is it because you recognize that such words make it too clear that what you are complaining about is this forums 'failure' to promote bigotry? What is it to you what two consenting adults choose to do to one another, most often as a physical expression of their love for one another? If you don't like thinking about it then don't think about it, or bring it up in discussion on your own volition.

Abortion: Nice bit of distorting wording there. There are definitive benefits to allowing people to manage their own birth control measures, abortion among them. A fair few atheists dislike abortion as well, although many still support the woman's right to choose that option, as sadly sometimes it becomes the best option. I think pretty much everyone would agree that prevention is preferable to cure (not getting pregnant in the first place), but focusing exclusively on that fails to address the many and very real situations when that is no longer one of the options.
Euthanasia: Again this forum has no stance on this issue. Personally I am all for euthanasia. But as in all cases the specific circumstances etc. have to be taken into consideration, there is a difference between assisted suicide, murder and euthanasia for a start. I think it pretty clear that there are many cases where the “quality of life” a person has slips below an acceptable level for them with no hope of ever rising back above that line, and that in those cases (as we so often do for our most beloved of pets) it is in the best interests of the “patient” to end their suffering rather than allow it to continue.

Honestly; what arguments do you have against such things that are any better than “it says they are bad in this old book!”?

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:But I can use the general mean-spirited demeanor of atheist websites as evidence of the hatefulness that can hardly be contained within those who proclaim godlessness. You probably wouldn't ask, but I'll provide you with a similar assessment from non-creationists.

What is the point of all this complaining that we are being mean?! Without context I might add. Is it just a way to avoid actual discussion of your beliefs? Because this concern trolling only makes you look rather dishonest and manipulative.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:The New York Times article Unnatural Science is spot on about the science and evolution sites (like PZ Myers filthy blog). The Times article generally describes (anti-creation) science blogs like from "PZ Myers [who] revels in" a "weird vindictiveness", "religion-baiting", "preoccupied with... name-calling", "incendiary rhetoric that draws bad-faith moral authority from the word 'science'.” The Times writer Virginia Heffernen asks, "Does everyone take for granted now that science sites are where... researchers... go not to interpret data... but to... jeer at... churchgoers?" And she answers that, "the most visible" of "the science bloggers..." are "charged with bigotry". Even Atheist Prof. Massimo Pigliucci of the City University of New York describes the science webs of PZ, et al., as "a culture of insults... spouting venom or nonsense" and urged these bloggers to "enroll in the nearest hubris-reducing ten-step program" and suggested that they give "the best possible interpretation of someone else’s argument before you mercilessly dismantle it," and finally, "Engage... your opponents in as civil a tone as you can muster" [which I think was THWOTH's point].

Okay, so the author of that article doesn't like PZ Myers blog. So what?! What does that have to do with this forum, let alone what this thread is meant to be about; which is NOT how mean and rude you think atheists are. :roll:
What is your point with this line of attack, if not to stereotype anyone that doesn't agree with you and poison the well against them, by insulting them and accusing them all of being 'big meanies', in order to dismiss them without having to discuss or defend anything you claim to be true?
It all sounds rather like that silly little poem in the Bible (the psalm so 'good' it had to be included twice) that asserts that “the fool says in his heart that there is no God” in order to poison the well by encouraging 'true believers' to dismiss whatever non-believers might say without even listening to what it is they do say, to dismiss them as fools regardless. :nono:
Personally I find that to be insulting to believers and non-believers alike.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:willhud9, just like here at RationalSkepticism.org, PZ Myers mocked me and my RSR friend Will calling us idiots in the title of his blog: Bob Enyart and Will Duffy, partners in idiocy. Like RS and many atheist blogs, Myers' site is filled with vulgarity and constant references to human waste and sex acts.

Okay. Just more of the same. Pointless well poisoning filler.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote: If you think you're just an animal, you gradually lose sight of your higher virtues; then reproduction and defecation is pretty much all you got.

I'm sorry that you don't understand what the taxonomic term animal (actually: animalia) means. You clearly don't if you think that any of that follows in any way, shape or form. :nono: (I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt there; that you weren't intentionally erecting such a ridiculous and insulting dishonest straw man.)

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:These atheistic science sites, rather than exemplifying diversity, free speech, tolerance, instead, drip with intolerance, anger, bodily fluids, and hatred toward those who disagree.

More of the same. Tiresome and pointless. If you find those things so tasteless, why are you so intent on stooping to their level with such open hostility, and stereotyping the rest of us along with them? :nono:

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:So, to state it again willhud9, after man rebelled against God, in His mercy, God ensured that we would die, so that our hatred would be contained, and we would not forever be able to harm one another.

What a ridiculous extrapolation from a story that clearly goes to no such extremes!
“Man” did not rebel against God in that story @RealScienceRadio! Don't make it sound like every human that has ever lived played any part in that fable, that is not only factually incorrect, but plain daft. Two ignorant people were manipulated (by a serpent no less) into disobeying one particular rule that God made. This thing you mark as some kind of great sin, some rebellion against God is of the same magnitude as that of a small child taking a cookie after being told not to. With the added fantasy element of there being the need to eat the fruit of a magical tree, the very object of the tale in fact, before one could even be capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong! A rather blatant fantasy element to affix a desired criteria into the story; that there is no way that those people could have known any better.

It is hard to read that story any other way than as one, in it's original pre-judiac origins, of how unreasonable and unfair to mankind the gods can be. And perhaps as the first of many such tales which insist that we be obedient out of fear of how they might overreact rather than rely on our own instincts and reasoning.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:Whoever asks God to live with Him shall, and whoever does not want to live with God forever shall not, but also, they shall not forever be able to hurt others. (That is the merciful part.)

I'm not sure you grasp what “mercy” actually means.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:
willhud9 wrote:Where is this mercy of God limiting the harm we can do?

It is in death willhud9.

A simple sound-bite of an answer that could only ever satisfy anyone that desperately wants there to be one that fits in with that world-view of yours, and makes zero effort to try to unpack what it actually means. Because right there it immediately falls apart.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:
willhud9 wrote:
Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:(As you may know, Darwinists themselves have struggled to account for the depth and capacity of human suffering which seems to go so far beyond what would be brought about by a mere natural selection for biological survival.)

The bolded bit is an unsubstantiated assertion.

Yes, I didn't source it. I thought that was common knowledge. I don't have time now to dig up sources. Perhaps someone here at RS can post some.

So you are expecting everyone else to do your work for you?!
It's not “common knowledge”, it is a common apologetic bit of nonsense. There is a huge difference.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:willhud9, in more than 30 years of talking with skeptics and atheists, I don't recall ever answering someone's question about the fall, sin, suffering, or death, with anything like: God works in mysterious ways.

Of course the 'professional' apologist wouldn't word it that way. :roll:

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote: To me it seems that these issues are dealt with directly in the Bible and the basic understanding of them are straightforward.

Apparently very little is “straightforward” in the Bible, what with all the wild extrapolation and interpretation that seems to be required all the time. It is almost as if one can't read a single sentence and take it as written, without some apologist jumping down your throat for getting it horribly wrong.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:So for them, they look at a child rapist, and call it a mystery. The rest of us Christians refer to that as sin. Hatred born of indulging in selfishness that flows from a rejection of God.

Interesting. The rest of us see it as a horrendous act on which the child is the primary victim of concern, not this imagined God being. :roll:

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote:It seems to me a straightforward matter that love is the answer to the problem of evil, at each of its various levels, and that love requires freedom, because love must be freely given.

Another nice sounding sound-bite that fails to address the problem of suffering/evil at all. It tries to conveniently brush aside the fact (in your belief system) that it is this God character that made us the way we are. That imbuing all humans with deep moral understanding and compassion would not undermine “freedom” in the slightest.

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote: There are implications of this which might not be evident at first thought, but by the second or third thought, they usually do become evident. Then, you might not agree with us creationists and our understanding of the fall, but at least you would understand it.

Ah yes the backhanded little insinuation that it is our failure to look deep enough that is at fault for your failure to convince us. Funnily enough it seems that for the most part further and deeper investigation and thought only goes to make your position seem even more untenable. Unless of course when as you have displayed here; you ONLY look with a set conclusion already in mind. :nono:

This image once again seems most appropriate:
Image
(Try to look deeper, beyond that surface bit of jesting mockery, to the underlying point.)

Bob@RealScienceRadio wrote: Thanks willhud9, again, for the opportunity to discuss such monumentally important questions as suffering and freedom

What exactly does this have to do with the thread topic of discoveries about the eye and Dawkins again?!
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
RS Donator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 5643
Age: 50
Male

Country: New Zealand
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: "New eye discovery further demolishes Dawkins"

#260  Postby halucigenia » Jun 20, 2014 6:59 am

Welcome back Bob@RealScienceRadio :mrgreen:
User avatar
halucigenia
 
Posts: 1229

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest

cron