hack, you make the same point as I did, but much more clearly; an excellent example of trial and error.

Atheistoclast wrote:

DaveD wrote:
This post of yours is moronic, even by your standards. It's beyond Poe.
What part of trial and error don't you understand?

What part of a failed test do you not understand?

Trial and error is the worst possible engineering method in the design of something like a rocket or any other craft.

It is a completely dumbass approach that is costly and time-consuming.

Evidently, none of you people are experienced in even basic engineering...which is probably why you accept Darwinian evolutionism so readily.

So after you've built something, you never test it to make sure it works?

Atheistoclast wrote:

Varangian wrote:

Atheistoclast wrote:Engineers try and eliminate failure to ensure that accidents like Challenger NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN. They don't just try out a number of designs and see which works best.

An example of trial and error.

Sheesh, are you really that thick, or are you just testing us?

Oh, please. Failed tests are not the equivalent of design by trial and error!

Will the real engineers, please stand up, please stand up.

"...Will the real engineers, please stand up,..."

Well greetings everyone. Looks like that request includes me - econ41 BE, ASTC, FIE(Aust), CPEng plus a string of less relevant bits of alphabet soup.

OK, so I'm standing as I type this. (It's a bit awkward and my old back will start to play up if I hold the posture for long.) The rest of you can still sit down I suppose?

Now why am I standing here whilst the rest of you can sit???

Seems like Atheistoclast is putting forward a lot of nonsense and people are responding. Part of the nonsense is engineering but it looks to me as if all the other folks, scientist or not, and whatever field they represent, are managing without any need for specific engineering input. And I expect that Atheistoclast can make silly statements about engineering as easily as he can about any other topic. And he can make silly claims that I am wrong as easily as he can for the rest of you.

So the real question(s) must be about why we tolerate such idiotic stuff. And why folks bother to respond. It can hardly qualify as fun answering such drivel.

However I suppose it is a good excuse for putting stuff here for the benefit of "lurkers". Some of those may be religious minded persons looking for truth and it could help them. The "material" Atheistoclast posts certainly would do nothing to assist the creationist cause.

So I think I'll watch.



Eric C

PS As for "Failed tests are not the equivalent of design by trial and error!" - well it depends on how you define "Failed tests..." dunnit? And by some definitions "Failed tests.." are part of, not the equivalent of, "...design by trial and error!" ...

Edit: Missed one important word.

Blitzkrebs wrote:...So after you've built something, you never test it to make sure it works?

Engineering folklore has it that, when the Romans built a new bridge, they stood the engineer under the bridge whilst they passed the test load over the bridge.

econ41 wrote:

Blitzkrebs wrote:...So after you've built something, you never test it to make sure it works?

Engineering folklore has it that, when the Romans built a new bridge, they stood the engineer under the bridge whilst they passed the test load over the bridge.

hotshoe wrote:

econ41 wrote:

Blitzkrebs wrote:...So after you've built something, you never test it to make sure it works?

Engineering folklore has it that, when the Romans built a new bridge, they stood the engineer under the bridge whilst they passed the test load over the bridge.

Motivation 101.

Atheistoclast, like many creationists before him, such as William Paley, confuses and conflates categories. This is why something natural that appears designed must have a designer, irrespective of it's source. Human artifacts are of course, specifically and deliberately designed by a species that evolved that extended phenotype. Evolved species are 'designed" by Natural selection without deliberation or forethought. NS is akin to a natural filter.

We see the same failure of logic with the creationist's "concept" [probably too grand a word] of kind, which they refuse to define, and yet show resistance to the species concept, or to refuse to acknowledge that species [or other taxa] are dynamic.

This creationist approach is not only inconsistent [and incoherent], but motivated by a wish that nature be as they describe, rather than to accept nature as it is. Their level of certainty about the world [which is absolute] is in inverse proportion to the evidence in support of it, and riddled with inconsistencies and denials of reality. Such cognitive dissonance is emotionally driven by a god-wish, where faith is regarded as more virtuous than reason or evidence. Hence the need to show deliberate design in nature where there is no evidence that such manner of design exists, and assert a designer-god, who again, lacks credible evidence.

Thus they are hostile to true science, which is methodological naturalism, combined with the destructive testing and critical peer review, thus helping to eliminate bias regarding evidence and so on.

So they impose a double standard. They accept sloppy procedures in their own "methodology" but insist on impossible procedures or standards of evidence in science. [Which are already very high anyway]. Further, the cautious and limited claims of science are questioned to an irrational degree, while their own rigid and absolutist dogmas are claimed as facts.

Genesis 6:13 wrote:
So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

This is why Flood debates always end in tears for atheists.
The story begins with God saying what He is going to do.
You cannot "debate" what God is and is not capable of doing.
For an atheist to attempt this it is like a boxer leading with their chin.

On the contrary. Since your preposterous fucking magic man doesn't exist, we can say with certainty that he can do exactly fuck all. Flood debates never end in tears for atheists, because the evidence says that your flood was a fucking fantasy.

Lion IRC wrote:

Genesis 6:13 wrote:
So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

This is why Flood debates always end in tears for atheists.
The story begins with God saying what He is going to do.
You cannot "debate" what God is and is not capable of doing.
For an atheist to attempt this it is like a boxer leading with their chin.

This is preaching, non-responsive, and trolling to boot. reported.

Lion IRC wrote:

Genesis 6:13 wrote:
So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

This is why Flood debates always end in tears for atheists.
The story begins with God saying what He is going to do.
You cannot "debate" what God is and is not capable of doing.
For an atheist to attempt this it is like a boxer leading with their chin.

Flood debates don't end in tears. They end in blood, caused by us hitting our heads against the wall, in ongoing frustration, as we continually try to find another way to make the blindingly obvious accessible to the willfully stupid, and fail.

xrayzed wrote:Flood debates don't end in tears. They end in blood, caused by us hitting our heads against the wall, in ongoing frustration, as we continually try to find another way to make the blindingly obvious accessible to the willfully stupid, and fail.

Eminently quotable. Should be seen gracing somebody's signature, methinks.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Atheistoclast, like many creationists before him, such as William Paley, confuses and conflates categories.

But at least Paley was still a brilliant prose writer who at least tried to address potential criticisms of his conclusions.

Lion IRC wrote:

Genesis 6:13 wrote:
So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

This is why Flood debates.....

....This isn't a "debate" - there is only one side putting serious discussion forward.

Lion IRC wrote:always end in tears for atheists....

..."always" seems a bit universal

Lion IRC wrote:The story begins with God saying what He is going to do.

....wrong on the basis of your evidence. The evidence you rely on is that Genesis records "...So God said to Noah..." Setting aside the base premises as to the existence of either "God" or "Noah" the evidence is only to the effect that certain things are stated in Genesis. It is only of hearsay status to support that "God" actually said it.

Lion IRC wrote:You cannot "debate" what God is and is not capable of doing.

Obviously wrong because we are here debating and you are joining in the debate despite the low standard of your contribution.
Do you mean such debate is logically not possible? OR is it somehow "forbidden"?
Why does the restriction only apply to those in the set of "you"? If the "you" includes you (mmmm ) then why are you here debating in defiance of the forbidding? Then since "we" ain't tied by your alleged barriers to such discussion emanating from a fantasy person....etc etc

Lion IRC wrote:For an atheist to attempt this it is like a boxer leading with their chin.

So an atheist is allegedly somehow vulnerable but you are not?

And, so far I haven't seen your side land any punches on the allegedly protruding chin...

hackenslash wrote:On the contrary. Since your preposterous fucking magic man doesn't exist, we can say with certainty that he can do exactly fuck all. Flood debates never end in tears for atheists, because the evidence says that your flood was a fucking fantasy.

That is a different argument.
You dont need to waste pages and pages arguing the fine details of MRCA or shipbuilding or plate tectonics and theists dont need to EITHER. You lose because the Noahs Ark account INCLUDES the assistance of a divine Being and what you are trying to do now is have the debate with God airbrushed out. In fact your entire case rests on the claim BY YOU that God does not exist. Its a non sequitur and you know it. This thread would have some traction for you if it was titled....

Ordinary Guy Expects Unusually Heavy Downpour
- Tries to Build Really Big Boat and Fill it With Animals All By Himself

You lose.

Sorry!

Don't talk crap. If your argument includes the intervention of a fucking sky-daddy, then you need to establish the existence of this ludicrous entity before you can even get to the flud actually happening (which it didn't, by the way, as ALL the evidence demonstrates beautifully). You don't just lose, you haven't got a fucking fight, and you know it.

Not remotely fucking sorry.

Lion IRC wrote:

hackenslash wrote:On the contrary. Since your preposterous fucking magic man doesn't exist, we can say with certainty that he can do exactly fuck all. Flood debates never end in tears for atheists, because the evidence says that your flood was a fucking fantasy.

That is a different argument.
You dont need to waste pages and pages arguing the fine details of MRCA or shipbuilding or plate tectonics and theists dont need to EITHER. You lose because the Noahs Ark account INCLUDES the assistance of a divine Being and what you are trying to do now is have the debate with God airbrushed out. In fact your entire case rests on the claim BY YOU that God does not exist. Its a non sequitur and you know it. This thread would have some traction for you if it was titled....

Ordinary Guy Expects Unusually Heavy Downpour
- Tries to Build Really Big Boat and Fill it With Animals All By Himself

You lose.

Sorry!

Such hubris, with so little justification!
No evidence for any gods, no evidence that Noah existed either. Plenty of evidence that no such flood as described in the bible occurred, or could occur.
What do you have to offer, apart from preaching/

Lion IRC wrote:

Genesis 6:13 wrote:
So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

This is why Flood debates always end in tears for atheists.
The story begins with God saying what He is going to do.
You cannot "debate" what God is and is not capable of doing.
For an atheist to attempt this it is like a boxer leading with their chin.

Yet, amazingly, people like the Chinese never even noticed that they were entirely killed off by a global flood.

There is not one, single indication (i.e. evidence) that a global flood ever occurred. It's that simple.

So, if you want to say that it was done magically, and hidden magically, go ahead because that is all that you've got...magical explanations.

hackenslash wrote:On the contrary. Since your preposterous fucking magic man doesn't exist, we can say with certainty that he can do exactly fuck all. Flood debates never end in tears for atheists, because the evidence says that your flood was a fucking fantasy.

I don't know about that.

I've had tears of laughter after seeing some of the tortuous attempts to explain the Flood.

Lion's got it kinda right.

1. It is impossible to debate the power of God.
2. However,we are in fact debating his power right now.
3. Ergo, the genocidal maniac in the Bible whom Lion turns to for comfort cannot be God.

How does that feel, Lion? The little syllogism above just ass-raped your precious beliefs with the kind of ruthlessness that makes the victim envy Kenneth Pinyan.