PZ Myers' great opening statement in debate with creationist

Incl. intelligent design, belief in divine creation

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: PZ Myers' great opening statement in debate with creationist

#21  Postby Shrunk » Feb 22, 2015 1:29 am

Rumraket wrote:
DalecWho wrote:And quoting Nick Snow, "He was dismissive of the entire event and his position/premise from the get go was "basically this whole thing is silly"

I have to agree with PZ Myers there, the matter is totally settled within the scientific community. The fact that a bunch of religious institutions and the occasional oddball contrarian have a hard time accepting evolution doesn't mean there is an actual genuine debate to be had.


It would also appear that DalecWho is under the misapprehension that the main purpose in debating creationists is to respond to their arguments. It is not. It is, rather, to make creationists look ridiculous for the amusement of others. A bit like the function that freak shows used to perform, or the more lurid reality TV shows perform today. If Rana went on to make exactly the sort of arguments Myers predicted he would, then Rana would have performed his role admirably, and the audience would have received their share of entertainment value.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: PZ Myers' great opening statement in debate with creationist

#22  Postby DalecWho » Feb 22, 2015 1:42 am

20,000+ ! GAL.
"You have to believe in free will, you have no choice." I.B. Singer Ü
DalecWho
 
Posts: 11

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

Re: PZ Myers' great opening statement in debate with creationist

#23  Postby ADParker » Feb 22, 2015 5:21 am

DalecWho wrote:I didn't find his painting "parable" particularly clever -- in fact, I thought it was kind of dumb. What jumped out to me was that paintings don't paint themselves -– there is design and artistry involved by the painter.

Welcome to the forum DalecWho :grin:

You nicely display what the typical creationist apologist would do to such a comment; latch onto some aspect in the analogy that is not relevant to the point. It is rather about blathering on about the impossibility of getting 1,000,000 monkeys to use typewriters for very long when someone makes the analogy of randomness getting results by imagining 1,000,000 monkeys tapping away on typewriters for a million years eventually leading to one of them typing out a piece of text from the works of Shakespeare. :doh:

You also demonstrate the indoctrination of such apologetics with your immediate leap to that daft argument for design nonsense. :nono:
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
RS Donator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 5643
Age: 49
Male

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

Re: PZ Myers' great opening statement in debate with creationist

#24  Postby ADParker » Feb 22, 2015 5:26 am

DalecWho wrote:Shrunk:
I'm sorry you have a limited vocabulary.

And this looks like a typical cowardly way to avoid addressing what someone says. :nono:

It is amusing that (at least it seems so from this single comment of yours) that someone who deliberately limits their vocabulary by refusing to include certain words accuses someone who does not limit their vocabulary in that same way of having a limited vocabulary. :rofl:
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
RS Donator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 5643
Age: 49
Male

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

Re: PZ Myers' great opening statement in debate with creationist

#25  Postby Thommo » Feb 22, 2015 5:50 am

DalecWho wrote:Shrunk:
I'm sorry you have a limited vocabulary.


Ha! You must be taking the Mick.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 27175

Print view this post

Re: PZ Myers' great opening statement in debate with creationist

#26  Postby OlivierK » Feb 22, 2015 7:19 am

DalecWho wrote:And quoting Nick Snow, "He was dismissive of the entire event and his position/premise from the get go was "basically this whole thing is silly - you must prove the existence of God before any evidence for the existence of God can be considered."

You seem to have a limited ability to read for comprehension. PZ Myers (who I generally find irksome) was arguing that you must prove the existence of God before any evidence for God being the creator of the universe can be considered.

But I guess that's pretty obviously true and hard to argue against, so to make his job easier Snow just changed his argument to something ridiculous that he never said. And you failed to spot that :roll:
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 9828
Age: 54
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: PZ Myers' great opening statement in debate with creationist

#27  Postby Briton » Feb 22, 2015 12:54 pm

bert wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:And Joyce I have some questions for you : how do you know that when God is telling you to do some thing that it is not Satan in disguise and vice versa ?


I came up with the same argument about Mohammed being told the quran. How was he sure that it wasn't the devil? Did they teach you that in school in those days?

Bert
If god is a god of peace, and the devil wants to promote ware, are you sure the quran was dictated by god or the devil?


Isn't that the issue with the Satanic Verses? If they existed then Mohammed had the wool pulled over his eyes by Old Nick.
User avatar
Briton
 
Posts: 4022

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

Ads by Google


Re: PZ Myers' great opening statement in debate with creationist

#28  Postby Clive Durdle » Feb 22, 2015 1:02 pm

Just watched "the invention of lying".

Scene of a side of a bus - Pepsi advert - "now available in heaven".
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
Clive Durdle
 
Name: Clive Durdle
Posts: 4854

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

Re: PZ Myers' great opening statement in debate with creationist

#29  Postby Animavore » Feb 22, 2015 1:06 pm

Here's PZ on a radio debate.




Destroyed.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44752
Age: 42
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: PZ Myers' great opening statement in debate with creationist

#30  Postby DalecWho » Feb 22, 2015 2:04 pm

Edward Snowden was right.
"You have to believe in free will, you have no choice." I.B. Singer Ü
DalecWho
 
Posts: 11

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

Re: PZ Myers' great opening statement in debate with creationist

#31  Postby campermon » Feb 22, 2015 2:09 pm

DalecWho wrote:Edward Snowden was right.


Which Edward Snowden and what do you think he right abut?
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17437
Age: 51
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: PZ Myers' great opening statement in debate with creationist

#32  Postby Shrunk » Feb 22, 2015 2:36 pm

DalecWho wrote:Edward Snowden was right.


You posted this in the wrong thread, perhaps? :scratch:
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: PZ Myers' great opening statement in debate with creationist

#33  Postby DalecWho » Feb 22, 2015 7:19 pm

...about echo chambers.
"You have to believe in free will, you have no choice." I.B. Singer Ü
DalecWho
 
Posts: 11

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

Re: PZ Myers' great opening statement in debate with creationist

#34  Postby DalecWho » Feb 22, 2015 7:24 pm

"But my belief that miracles have happened in human history is not a mystical belief at all; I believe in them upon human evidences as I do in the discovery of America. Upon this point there is a simple logical fact that only requires to be stated and cleared up. Somehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma. The fact is quite the other way. The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them. The open, obvious, democratic thing is to believe an old apple- woman when she bears testimony to a miracle, just as you believe an old apple- woman when she bears testimony to a murder....

"If it comes to human testimony there is a choking cataract of human testimony in favor of the supernatural. If you reject it, you can only mean one of two things. You reject the peasant’s story about the ghost either because the man is a peasant or because the story is a ghost story. That is, you either deny the main principle of democracy, or you affirm the main principle of materialism— the abstract impossibility of miracle. You have a perfect right to do so; but in that case you are the dogmatist. It is we Christians who accept all actual evidence — it is you rationalists who refuse actual evidence being constrained to do so by your creed. But I am not constrained by any creed in the matter, and looking impartially into certain miracles of medieval and modern times, I have come to the conclusion that they occurred. All argument against these plain facts is always argument in a circle. If I say, 'Medieval documents attest certain miracles as much as they attest certain battles,' they answer, 'But medievals were superstitious'; if I want to know in what they were superstitious, the only ultimate answer is that they believed in the miracles. If I say, 'A peasant saw a ghost,' I am told, 'But peasants are so credulous.' If I ask, 'Why credulous?' the only answer is— that they see ghosts. Iceland is impossible because only stupid sailors have seen it; and the sailors are only stupid because they say they have seen Iceland." G.K. Chesterton

Possible source: Othodoxy Chesterton, G.K. (1908). Othodoxy.
Last edited by ADParker on Feb 22, 2015 11:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Added proper source for quote
"You have to believe in free will, you have no choice." I.B. Singer Ü
DalecWho
 
Posts: 11

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

Re: PZ Myers' great opening statement in debate with creationist

#35  Postby Shrunk » Feb 22, 2015 7:26 pm

DalecWho wrote:...about echo chambers.


....says the guy who is just regurgitating standard canards from the Creationist Playbook. :rofl:
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: PZ Myers' great opening statement in debate with creationist

#36  Postby Shrunk » Feb 22, 2015 7:35 pm

DalecWho wrote:"But my belief that miracles have happened in human history is not a mystical belief at all; I believe in them upon human evidences as I do in the discovery of America. Upon this point there is a simple logical fact that only requires to be stated and cleared up. Somehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma. The fact is quite the other way. The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them. The open, obvious, democratic thing is to believe an old apple- woman when she bears testimony to a miracle, just as you believe an old apple- woman when she bears testimony to a murder....

"If it comes to human testimony there is a choking cataract of human testimony in favor of the supernatural. If you reject it, you can only mean one of two things. You reject the peasant’s story about the ghost either because the man is a peasant or because the story is a ghost story. That is, you either deny the main principle of democracy, or you affirm the main principle of materialism— the abstract impossibility of miracle. You have a perfect right to do so; but in that case you are the dogmatist. It is we Christians who accept all actual evidence — it is you rationalists who refuse actual evidence being constrained to do so by your creed. But I am not constrained by any creed in the matter, and looking impartially into certain miracles of medieval and modern times, I have come to the conclusion that they occurred. All argument against these plain facts is always argument in a circle. If I say, 'Medieval documents attest certain miracles as much as they attest certain battles,' they answer, 'But medievals were superstitious'; if I want to know in what they were superstitious, the only ultimate answer is that they believed in the miracles. If I say, 'A peasant saw a ghost,' I am told, 'But peasants are so credulous.' If I ask, 'Why credulous?' the only answer is— that they see ghosts. Iceland is impossible because only stupid sailors have seen it; and the sailors are only stupid because they say they have seen Iceland." G.K. Chesterton


:lol:

What a buffoon this Chesterton guy is. Like you're supposed to accept all human testimony on equal footing without regards to any other evidence, such as that from science. When someone says "I flew across the ocean yesterday just by flapping my arms" we're supposed to give his claim the same credibility as when he says "I walked to the corner store yesterday."

A pity this Chesterton dude didn't live in the age of the cellphone. I'd love the hear what comedy gold he'd come up when asked to explain why this "choking cataract of human testimony" has suddenly dried up now that a vast percentage of humanity is constantly walking around with the means to document with video evidence any such "miracles."
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 56
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: PZ Myers' great opening statement in debate with creationist

#37  Postby Rumraket » Feb 22, 2015 7:36 pm

DalecWho wrote:The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them.

I have to admit that I do have a "doctrine" against miracles: A reliance on reason and evidence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Re: PZ Myers' great opening statement in debate with creationist

#38  Postby ADParker » Feb 23, 2015 12:40 am

Cite your sources properly in future (so that people can check for accuracy and context etc.). I did it for you this time. ;)


DalecWho wrote:"But my belief that miracles have happened in human history is not a mystical belief at all; I believe in them upon human evidences as I do in the discovery of America. Upon this point there is a simple logical fact that only requires to be stated and cleared up. Somehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma.

This " extraordinary idea" comes from examination of the evidence, which includes the fact that equally supported claims of the miraculous or bizarre, but not of their pre-existing religious sets of beliefs, tend to be dismissed in much the same way as a "disbeliever" would do for both such cases, those the "believer" accepts (miracles supporting their religion) and those they reject.

DalecWho wrote:The fact is quite the other way. The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them. The open, obvious, democratic thing is to believe an old apple- woman when she bears testimony to a miracle, just as you believe an old apple- woman when she bears testimony to a murder....

Being that in both cases you should believe neither, not on a mere personal account. :roll: They should of course (pending resources being available of course) be investigated, checked out for their truth value, but that is a far cry from "belief". :nono:

DalecWho wrote:"If it comes to human testimony there is a choking cataract of human testimony in favor of the supernatural.

There is likewise a "choking cataract of human testimony" for ghosts, communication with 'the other side', alien visitations and abductions, bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, witches, psychic abilities, and all kinds of ghouls, goblins and things that go bump in the night. All of which bare the hallmarks not of being real, but of the nature of human imagination. Which is why actual tangible evidence is expected, not just "personal testimony", the stories people tell.

DalecWho wrote: If you reject it, you can only mean one of two things. You reject the peasant’s story about the ghost either because the man is a peasant or because the story is a ghost story.

Note that it is Chesterton who brings in the straw man caricature of dismissing a claim due to the status of the claimant, choosing to ignore the more probable cause one would have; that a story is not reasonably sufficient to support a claim of the unusual or extraordinary (and it may be for the ordinary and usual only because there is already a lot of evidence for such things occurring). :nono:

DalecWho wrote:That is, you either deny the main principle of democracy, or you affirm the main principle of materialism— the abstract impossibility of miracle.

Democracy?! :what:
And then there's that old "materialism" chestnut. {SIgh} No Chesterton (and through him; DalecWho, who implies that he believes this idiocy) it has nothing to do with materialism, it is about the nature of the claims; how common, usual and previously examined and confirmed/supported by evidence they are. The simple fact is that "the material' is not some kind of baseless dogma but it is that which is commonly experienced and thus more plausible. All this "materialism" dogma nonsense apologetics is really all about trying to deflect from and skirt around the fact that their "immaterial/supernatural" claims do not have anywhere near the same levels of evidential support, trying to shift the burden or proof etc. :nono:

DalecWho wrote: You have a perfect right to do so; but in that case you are the dogmatist. It is we Christians who accept all actual evidence — it is you rationalists who refuse actual evidence being constrained to do so by your creed.

This is of course dishonest bullshit, but as is often the case there is a kernel of truth buried beneath the lies. Those he calls "we Christians" do indeed accept all evidence, as long as it is evidence for what they already believe of course, this is an aspect of confirmation bias, in that they accept the flimsiest bit of evidence, such as any bit of anonymous story in their cherished Biblical texts, as - to use an all too appropriate phrase - "Gospel truth". They accept the truth of a claim that supports their beliefs on even the most circumstantial and weakest snippets of evidence. While we do not.

"We" of course are not perfect, and may have our own biases, recognized or not, but that is what things like the scientific method are there for; to weed out such errors of bias (and any other errors as well). I do find it amusing that he tries to use "rationalist" as a pejorative however, could he find no better label for his opponents than those who endevour to apply reason at all times, unwittingly implying that he and his "we Christians" do not?. :lol:

DalecWho wrote:But I am not constrained by any creed in the matter, and looking impartially into certain miracles of medieval and modern times, I have come to the conclusion that they occurred.

"I have examined the evidence and concluded the claim is true" is an empty statement, one not worthy of any consideration. Show your working or shut up, I am not impressed by your assertion that you were convinced by some unspecified evidence. :roll:

DalecWho wrote:All argument against these plain facts is always argument in a circle. If I say, 'Medieval documents attest certain miracles as much as they attest certain battles,' they answer, 'But medievals were superstitious'; if I want to know in what they were superstitious, the only ultimate answer is that they believed in the miracles. If I say, 'A peasant saw a ghost,' I am told, 'But peasants are so credulous.' If I ask, 'Why credulous?' the only answer is— that they see ghosts. Iceland is impossible because only stupid sailors have seen it; and the sailors are only stupid because they say they have seen Iceland." G.K. Chesterton

Cute little straw man. It is so easy to 'win' when one makes up the arguments for one's opponent isn't it? :nono:

Although he fails to provide any examples or context we can still look at it a little more. His first example:
"If I say, 'Medieval documents attest certain miracles as much as they attest certain battles' "
Do 'we' indeed answer "'But medievals were superstitious"
No we do not. We might point out that there is actual physical evidence of those battles, beside this testimony, confirming them, while there is no such evidence for the claimed miracles. We might further point out that battles are events known to occur, while miracles are not. We might add that through various forms of scholarship it is well known that miraculous embellishments are common in certain sets of documents (times and places) etc. etc.
Chesterton of course is cherry picking. Ignoring the fact for example that "rationalists"; that is scholars and experts in such things do not accept the claims, not only of miracles, but of any claimed events (such as those vaguely referenced battles), not until what is deemed a sufficient level of supporting evidence is found to support them. The same level being required for the miraculous as the non-miraculous. And by "same" I mean an equal weighing up of all kinds of factors, not some naive assumption that an improbable event is equally' likely as an improbable one (like rolling twenty sixes in a row is just as likely as throwing a single 6 with a fair dice). :roll:
Reason Over Faith
User avatar
ADParker
RS Donator
 
Name: Andrew
Posts: 5643
Age: 49
Male

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

Re: PZ Myers' great opening statement in debate with creationist

#39  Postby Calilasseia » Feb 23, 2015 1:46 am

It's really gratifying seeing yet more creationist fail. :)
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22091
Age: 59
Male

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

Re: PZ Myers' great opening statement in debate with creationist

#40  Postby Shagz » Feb 23, 2015 2:21 am

Mr. Chesterson's long-winded bullshit is easily dismissed.

According to Chesterson, people never make shit up, and we have to believe every single thing that anyone says; otherwise, we are either prejudiced towards the teller, or prejudiced towards the story. Well, I have an invisible satyr living in my closet, Mr. Chesterson, and he gives me a hand job every night while I sleep. This must be true, because if you don't believe me, it's either because you are prejudiced towards "peasants" like myself, or you are prejudiced towards stories of satyrs in closets.
User avatar
Shagz
 
Posts: 897

United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Creationism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest