Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 69

Thread: As They See It

  1. Top | #11
    Member DLH's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    352
    Rep Power
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Iznomneak View Post
    I'm not clear on the intent of the original post. In your own words, could you clarify what you are trying to express or establish?
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Iznomneak View Post
    I'm not clear on the intent of the original post. In your own words, could you clarify what you are trying to express or establish?
    I too have no idea what the intent was but some of those snippets he presented must be from awfully old sources or from authors who didn't have a clue (if the full paragraph the snippet was taken from said what the snippet appears to say). Many of the fossils that are claimed to be "missing" are not. They have been found (in the fossil layer predicted by evolution) and had precisely the characteristics that researchers using evolutionary theory predicted they would have.
    What I want is pretty much what dystopian did. These are science publications I pasted from old references which, to me, are most likely as obsolete as today's science will be in the equally near future. I'm measuring them up with that standard.

  2. Top | #12
    Member DLH's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    352
    Rep Power
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by dystopian View Post
    Like the others, I see nothing but quote mining. As such, there is little reason to address all of it. Or really any of it. Nonetheless, I picked one quote at random and was unsurprised to find it to be completely wrong:

    There are no fossils known that show what the primitive ancestral insects looked like." - The Insects
    This is, of course, completely and utterly wrong.

    Here is a picture of the oldest insect fossil ever found:


    This insect is called Rhyniognatha hirsti, which emerged during the early Devonian period; 400 million years ago when the first land-based ecosystems were forming; including the first insects. So in fact we find that there ARE in fact fossils that show what the first ancestral insects looked like.

    The ease with which one can disprove a randomly selected quote from the list should provide ample reason to discount the rest. It would undoubtedly be a relatively trivial matter to refute all the other claims as well... but given that the OP is not the sort of person who responds to evidence and reason, what'd be the point?
    When was this fossil found, especially considering the age of the material in question? Also, how do you establish it's date and how much different is it from today's insects, comparatively speaking.

  3. Top | #13
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    5,371
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    18,347
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by DLH View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malintent View Post
    "There is no God" - The Bible, 1 Kings 8:23

    Mull that over... I don't even need to warm up.
    Good job. Except that in entirety it says "and he went on to say: "O Jehovah the God of Israel, there is no God like you in the heavens above or on the earth beneath, keeping the covenant and the loving-kindness toward your servants who are walking before you with all their heart,and he went on to say: “O Jehovah the God of Israel, there is no God like you in the heavens above or on the earth beneath, keeping the covenant and the loving-kindness toward your servants who are walking before you with all their heart,"
    That was exactly his point. Your idiotic list of quote mines don't mean shit because you didn't include the context. He was simply using your "argument" style. It is only fair for one nonsense snippet to be answered with a nonsense snippet. Most if not all of your snippets will mean something entirely different than the snippet appears say if read in context just as Malintent's snippet does.
    Last edited by skepticalbip; 06-20-2015 at 12:30 AM.

  4. Top | #14
    Veteran Member Ford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    'Merica
    Posts
    4,693
    Archived
    2,675
    Total Posts
    7,368
    Rep Power
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Iznomneak View Post
    I'm not clear on the intent of the original post. In your own words, could you clarify what you are trying to express or establish?

    Allow me to fill in the blanks for you.


    DLH - a member of his own unique sect - has thoroughly convinced himself that he is:

    1. An expert on the Bible.

    2. An expert on science.

    3. Smarter than any atheist.

    His purpose with this post (and all the others he's made) is to show everyone around here just how poorly educated we are by making proclamations on a number of subjects, challenging us to refute them, and then claiming victory whether his claims held up or not. He is attempting to establish that which he already believes in (his own mental superiority) and express contempt for those he feels beneath him (that'd be all of us).

    This latest one appears to be the first salvo in a series where DLH personally disproves one of the most well-established scientific theories in the world. He already firmly believes that evolution is bunk...he's out now to tell us just how stupid we are for accepting it as solid science.


    Because he's an expert, you know.

  5. Top | #15
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    5,371
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    18,347
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by DLH View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Iznomneak View Post
    I'm not clear on the intent of the original post. In your own words, could you clarify what you are trying to express or establish?
    I too have no idea what the intent was but some of those snippets he presented must be from awfully old sources or from authors who didn't have a clue (if the full paragraph the snippet was taken from said what the snippet appears to say). Many of the fossils that are claimed to be "missing" are not. They have been found (in the fossil layer predicted by evolution) and had precisely the characteristics that researchers using evolutionary theory predicted they would have.
    What I want is pretty much what dystopian did. These are science publications I pasted from old references which, to me, are most likely as obsolete as today's science will be in the equally near future. I'm measuring them up with that standard.
    If that is what you want then read some actual science papers instead of Christian apologist literature. I don't see it is worth doing the research for you then pasting links to the papers since you only ignore or discount them. But the fossils are being found because evolutionary theory predicts where to look in the fossil layers to find them. Successful prediction is a powerful test for any theory.

    I respect your right to want to remain ignorant of reality.

  6. Top | #16
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,590
    Archived
    3,946
    Total Posts
    5,536
    Rep Power
    63
    Knowledge changes with new facts. Change among some tidbits of what we know of the world does not invalidate or even weaken the overall knowledge humans attain regarding the world.

    If that still seems too "relativistic" that's tough shit because there’s nothing better. Christians (and others with the ‘gnostic’ world-despising poison in their spirituality) feel a need for something more certain that this “relativistic” knowledge that changes with the times. So they confabulate truths that are “absolute” and designate them as more certain for imagining them to be everlasting. Generally the absolute is found in ancient tomes, because since God doesn't talk to people anymore but ancients claim he talked to them, then the ancient crapola seems more "near the source".

    Which is ironic because these fabulist's absolutes cannot not be extremely flimsy, and a severe misdirection.

  7. Top | #17
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    5,371
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    18,347
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
    Knowledge changes with new facts. Change does not invalidate or even weaken the knowledge.

    There’s nothing better. Christians (and others with the ‘gnostic’ world-despising poison in their spirituality) will imagine there’s something more certain that this “relativistic” knowledge that changes with the times. They confabulate truths that are “absolute” and designate them as more certain and everlasting. Generally the absolute is in ancient tomes, because since God doesn't talk to us today (and is invisible to everyone) but ancients claim he talked to them, then the ancient shit seems more "near the source".

    Which is ironic because their absolutes are always more flimsy by far. Belief's a poor substitute, especially if it's based on ancient books, when God's direct writing is right here in the world itself.
    And that change it generally always adding to the knowledge base rather than showing the old knowledge to be flawed.

  8. Top | #18
    Member DLH's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    352
    Rep Power
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DLH View Post

    Good job. Except that in entirety it says "and he went on to say: "O Jehovah the God of Israel, there is no God like you in the heavens above or on the earth beneath, keeping the covenant and the loving-kindness toward your servants who are walking before you with all their heart,and he went on to say: “O Jehovah the God of Israel, there is no God like you in the heavens above or on the earth beneath, keeping the covenant and the loving-kindness toward your servants who are walking before you with all their heart,"
    That was exactly his point. Your idiotic list of quote mines don't mean shit because you didn't include the context. He was simply using your "argument" style. It is only fair for one nonsense snippet to be answered with a nonsense snippet. Most if not all of your snippets will mean something entirely different than the snippet appears say if read in context just as Malintent's snippet does.
    I know it was your point, and my point in return was that all I had to do was complete the quote. All you have to do is address the simple quote mines.

  9. Top | #19
    Member DLH's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    352
    Rep Power
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Ford View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Iznomneak View Post
    I'm not clear on the intent of the original post. In your own words, could you clarify what you are trying to express or establish?

    Allow me to fill in the blanks for you.


    DLH - a member of his own unique sect - has thoroughly convinced himself that he is:

    1. An expert on the Bible.

    2. An expert on science.

    3. Smarter than any atheist.

    His purpose with this post (and all the others he's made) is to show everyone around here just how poorly educated we are by making proclamations on a number of subjects, challenging us to refute them, and then claiming victory whether his claims held up or not. He is attempting to establish that which he already believes in (his own mental superiority) and express contempt for those he feels beneath him (that'd be all of us).

    This latest one appears to be the first salvo in a series where DLH personally disproves one of the most well-established scientific theories in the world. He already firmly believes that evolution is bunk...he's out now to tell us just how stupid we are for accepting it as solid science.


    Because he's an expert, you know.
    Is this what you all call projecting? It's nonsense. All of it.

    I'm no expert on the Bible. I don't trust most experts and I know children who know this stuff.

    I'm certainly no expert on science. I wouldn't know or care much if science bit me on the ass. I also have nothing against science except that it is often presented as a sort of Utopian alternative to the supernatural. Don't start shouting "peer review" etc at me, I know you don't agree with my perspective and that's fine. To each his own.

    I don't consider myself a particularly bright person, but I do often see people who think they are terribly bright as being far from it.

  10. Top | #20
    Member DLH's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    352
    Rep Power
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    If that is what you want then read some actual science papers instead of Christian apologist literature. I don't see it is worth doing the research for you then pasting links to the papers since you only ignore or discount them. But the fossils are being found because evolutionary theory predicts where to look in the fossil layers to find them. Successful prediction is a powerful test for any theory.

    I respect your right to want to remain ignorant of reality.
    Again, spoken like a true dogmatic science minded atheist. Meet the new boss, same as the old (religious) boss.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •