NEW YORK - Remember Ida, the fossil discovery announced last May with its own book and TV documentary? A publicity blitz called it "the link" that would reveal the earliest evolutionary roots of monkeys, apes and humans.

Experts protested that Ida wasn't even a close relative. And now a new analysis supports their reaction.

In fact, Ida is as far removed from the monkey-ape-human ancestry as a primate could be, says Erik Seiffert of Stony Brook University in New York.

So, who told you this, priests or scientists? And what of Ardi?

I'll believe these alleged family trees when they produce DNA evidence, satansbeard. Until then, it all seems like a myth to me.
For the record, I believe in some kind of evolution, just not the Darwinian model. They keep pushing square pegs into round holes trying to keep Darwin's natural selection thesis alive. I bet they discover a different mechanism of change in the long run.
Until that happens, I get a kick out of how many times they are wrong!

Darwin's natural selection thesis alive

Well at least its called a thesis,Eve from Adam's rib,well that be the truth

Well, bruceaz, my Church allows me to believe the Genesis story is figurative if I want. It demands only that I view the human soul as created by and in the image and likeness of God. Catholics are not fundamentalists or literalists.
But what if God did do it from the rib? Hmmm? I don't deny a deity would have that power.

They are always putting out frauds in support of evolution.

The photos of the chimp to the human is fraudulent.

The photo of the white moth that changed magically to it's surroundings was a fake.

There are others...

Genesis story is figurative

that's cool,is the story of Noah figurative,or Abraham,or Moses,or David,or Jesus.
Well the THEORY of evolution is tested all the time by scientist.That's the difference

that's cool,is the story of Noah figurative,or Abraham,or Moses,or David,or Jesus.
Well the THEORY of evolution is tested all the time by scientist.That's the difference

#7 | Posted by bruceaz at 2009-10-21 11:26 PM

Like Piltdown Man decades ago, the recent claim of "ida" being the alleged missing link turns out to have as much veracity as global warming. Once again, science clings only to the "facts" and rejects "mythology." Yeah, right.

POSTED BY DIABLO AT 10:15 PM | 8 COMMENTS | PERMALINK | COMMENT ON THIS ENTRY

Once again Diablow reveals his complete misunderstanding of the structure and purpose of science.

A new discovery isnt handed down by angels on high.
It is not Infalible word of God.
It is a concept that must stand the test of examination by everyone else in the field.

This isnt a Failure of Sicence it is the confirmation of the process.

Theory that has been disproved is removed and the hunt for the reality of the situation continues.

"This is a rigorous analysis based on many features," said Eric Sargis, an anthropology professor at Yale. He said he'd found the argument of the Darwinius researchers unconvincing, so the new result came as no surprise

That the scientists who made the discovery decided they wanted their 15 min of fame connected to this is their decision. it is still the responsibility of the rest of the Anthropological researchers around the world to verify or disprove their ideas.

That is what has happened.

Interesting that you're joining in on that

or die,I'm not joining in on anything.I'm saying scientists don't swear by anything,they go by what can be observed and is subject to change.

Anyway what's your point?

The other effect of this is any further research by the individuals who advanced this theory and ran it up the flag pole of hype before it had been throughly peer reviewed will only find themselves to blame for their inability to find further funding or having their ideas taken seriously.

Now there I say with joy and pride: the stories of Abraham, David, Moses and Jesus are very, very true. I believe the Noah story too, although I think the flood was probably regional.
I especially love the Gospel of John where Jesus says and repeats if we do not eat His flesh and drink His blood we can not enter the kingdom of heaven. The "full gospel" types seem to ignore that one.

Okay, Valisk. But again I say, like Piltdown Man, fraud is fraud. You would not cut a phrenologist the same slack.

Once again, science clings only to the "facts" and rejects "mythology." Yeah, right.

My God you're an idiot.

Experts protested that Ida wasn't even a close relative. And now a new analysis supports their reaction.

THE VERY STORY YOU POST CONTRADICTS YOUR RIDICULOUS ANTI-SCIENCE BULLSHIT FROM THE GET GO.

In this day and age, Diablo still thinks Natural Selection is just a theory.

How do you have a serious discussion with someone like that? He must be a rightwinger.

"In this day and age, Diablo still thinks Natural Selection is just a theory."

moder8, it is still called the "theory of evolution" no matter how much you might believe it. And, had you bothered to read my post, I believe there is some sort of evolution, just not the theoretical natural selection process Darwin posited. There is no doubt in the fossil record that changes have been more cataclysmic than slow and subtle.
But how does one have a serious discussion with someone who thinks "theory" means "doctrine?" At least I admit my articles of faith.

Theories are analytical tools for understanding, explaining, and making predictions about a given subject matter.

What does doctrine mean

But how does one have a serious discussion with someone who thinks "theory" means "doctrine?"

Indeed. One cannot have a serious discussion with someone who swallows whole articles of doctrine on faith, and then claims that scientific evidence is for the deluded, godless, and damned.

"Doctrine" means a truth revealed by faith and often (not always) unproveable, bruce.
And betel: when did I post scientific evidence is for the deluded, godless and damned? Get a life.

In this day and age, Diablo still thinks Natural Selection is just a theory.

#15 | Posted by moder8

Natural Selection is a theory and one that I have happened to believe in since I was a wee lad despite abnormalities like you moderhate. Unlike the theory that public defenders are competent lawyers which is obviously a fairy tale.

Unlike the theory that public defenders are competent lawyers which is obviously a fairy tale.

Yep,until you need one.
I used to believe that the jails were full of people that had public defenders,but the circumstances around me(not me)I've seen some outstanding public defenders.

Knowing you gimme,you may need one someday

Well Bruce I've had occasions where I supposedly needed lawyers but after the 1st two episodes where I ended up representing myself to get a better outcome never again.

Better a motivated fool for a client than have a lethargic moronic public defender.

I've had occasions where I supposedly needed lawyers but after the 1st two episodes where I ended up representing myself to get a better outcome never again.

I never had an experience like that,but I did have one that the judge gave me less than my paid lawyer was asking for.

I like judges,they make sure you know your rights,They'll ask you ten times to make sure

Well no wonder it is extinct, part of the lemur family which the female is dominant. It couldn't survive...LOL!

The photo of the white moth that changed magically to it's surroundings was a fake.

See that's the problem with folks believing in invisible Sky Wizards. Once you start believing in one unbelievable thing there's really no stopping ya, is there?

* quick google *

The very story you post contradicts your ridiculous anti-science bullshit from the get go.

Exactly. The fact that scientists are casting doubt on a theory put forward about this fossil is an example of how science works, not a rejection of it. Experts have been casting doubt on the Ida findings since they were announced.

Typical. Science disproves a hypothesis and somehow it gets twisted into an anti-Science argument. That's an alternative reality.

Do righties enjoy shooting themselves in the foot? They seem so passionate about it. Not that they aren't quite good at it. It just seems so self defeating.

A shift in classification hardly represents fraud.
From great ape to lesser.

They jumped the gun for sure, but is still remarkable addition to the catalogue. Another piece to the puzzle. Still on the overall "tree" as well.

Properly placed, for now.

The count still stands at 7.

"A shift in classification hardly constitutes fraud..."

Agreed. But it does tend to cut the bottom out of one or two anti-religous arguments I've seen here. You know who you are.

But what if God did do it from the rib? Hmmm? I don't deny a deity would have that power.
......#5 | Posted by Diablo

.....but what if the Rib Fairy did it instead of God ?......

But what if God did do it from the rib? Hmmm? I don't deny a deity would have that power.
......#5 | Posted by Diablo

I dunno, it seems God should be more efficient than that.

And less messy.

But it does tend to cut the bottom out of one or two anti-religous arguments I've seen here.
#29 | Posted by Zed

....no it doesn't.....religion is still just utter bullshit, promulgated to control the simple-minded......

Lucy was proven to be a fraud, but they still use her in all their comparisons.

......read the latest information here.......

....don't let the forces of darkness, ignorance and superstition cloud your mind........

.....unless of course you prefer your thinking to be dark, ignorant and superstitious......

The most important lesson learned from this is of course how much we do not know.

A lesson libtards always seem to miss.

Religion is based on faith.
Evolution is based on theory.

Only one of the above allows for the inclusion of the other - take a guess which one that is.

The world has believers in each and has believers in both. Only libtards and fundies cannot appreciate both.

Diablo, you are quite the catechist btw. The uniformed catholic bashers on this site run rampant with their constant inclusion of Catholics with the fundies and really know very little of the way Catholics are now taught to study the bible and the history of Catholicism. Oh well.

Religion is based on faith.
Evolution is based on theory.
......36 | Posted by ELCIDCE90

.....religion is based on ignorance.......

......evolution is a scientic theory based on observable evidence.......

.......Christianity also opposed the theory that the earth moved around the sun, until it became too obviously ignorant to maintain the position......

......as science gathers more and more evidence about evolution, the creationist position has now become the same as when the church defended the sun-around-the-earth theory........

......but go ahead......keep up your defence of ignorance.....it seems to be who you are.......

.....religion is based on ignorance.......

#37 | Posted by skizziks

Sorta like the modern-day Democrat party huh

It's a wonder that more Democrats aren't fundies then

Some Democrats are fundies: "Obama said it. I believe it. That settles it."

Sorta like the modern-day Democrat party huh

It's a wonder that more Democrats aren't fundies then

.......#38 | Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch

.......that's because fundamentalism requires a greater degree of ignorance.......

"Well the THEORY of evolution is tested all the time by scientist.That's the difference"

No it isn't. It would take millions of years to do such a test. LOL.

The idea that random mutations are solely responsible for evolution has alot of problems with it.

And I'm not a creationist either. People who are unwilling to consider that there is more to evolution that we currently know are also fundies.

If God is all powerful and can do anything, could God create the Earth in a day and make it millions of years old?

Could God create fossils of dinosaurs and never had let them live?

Could God create fossils of man and ape, to any age desired, and establish the links of evolution without time having ever passed to do it?

Did you know that of the wonders of the ancient world, some can't be proven to have ever existed. The only proof is the written word that they existed. There is no scientific proof regarding some of the so-called wonders existing.

This is no surprise about Ida. It was obvious at the time and scientific denials were posted within a day or two of the study.

.......that's because fundamentalism requires a greater degree of ignorance.......

#40 | Posted by skizziks

It would also require Democrats have the ability to read.

Eveolution is a fact---not a theory. The Theory part of evolution is mechanisms as to HOW it works.

When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution.

.......that's because fundamentalism requires a greater degree of ignorance.......

... in both fundie religionists and fundie atheists, who also think they have cornered the market on, "the truth"....

.... and who would do well and suffer less embarrassment for themselves were they to take to heart atheist David Sloane Wilson's excellent advise in his article, Atheism as a Stealth Religion.

I think what we see in this thread, both from the theists and the non, or lesser theists is the inability to look at what the other side is really saying, really meaning and really indicating.

Both parties continue to look at life with their blue and red color glasses on, making a 3-D illusion of their 2 dimensional observations.

Both like to read into it.

Firts of all, many believers do not do their due diligence when observing scientific finds. They automatically take that it is against God, and then fight it, making themselves look like morons in the process. Look, scientists make mistakes, theists make mistakes too. Shut up, they were wrong, they admitted it and changed the categorization, don't berate the subject.

Non and lesser theists however, they like to make up funny little over simplified sayings of what the theists are saying. This in itself is creating an illusion in their mind that the argument on the other side is too simple and therefore stupid, and also presenting an untruth to those who they are speaking to by propigating a false simplification of the case.

I.E. fairy, sky daddy, magic... It sounds cute and ridiculous, however it is a false oversimplification of terms and argument meant to distract from the deeper and true meaning and intention of the argument.

Also the tendency to lump right with and republican and all other labels into the equation in order to attempt to lower credibility so that the actual arguments are never heard, learned, or viewed in the first place.

It is a pretty sad state of affairs. For the most part, both groups are highly delussioned morons who play partisan one liner games hoping that their name-calling with re-enforce their personal ill informed understanding.

Holy fuck, Diablo has gone off the deep end once again.

Researchers examined the Ida fossil and determined that it should be placed in a primate lineage that diverged from tarsiers, monkeys, apes, and humans tens of millions of years ago. How is that a "fraud"? That's science.

Only a raging idiot would think that this finding undermines the theory of evolution.

"excellent advise(sic)"

*headdesk*

"Most scientists I know don't care enough about religion to call themselves atheists."
~Steve Weinberg

Zat,

Being an athiest or a theist has nothing to do with religion.

You and Steve seem to be jumping the gun a little bit, making your presupposition very evident.

Just because there is a God it does not merit that any religions system is true.

Theism does not equate to religion.

I.E. fairy, sky daddy, magic... It sounds cute and ridiculous, however it is a false oversimplification of terms and argument meant to distract from the deeper and true meaning and intention of the argument.

What is the "deeper meaning" of the argument?

Some people believe, based on no evidence whatsoever, that life was created in a developed form by a deity or deities. No one will ever prove them wrong, but they will never grow in their knowledge.

Some people prefer theories that are consistent with observations and can be built upon. Instead of comparing the unverifiable claims of every religion's creation myth, why not look for real evidence of what happened on the early earth. Personally, I prefer this approach.

There's not much "deeper" than this. Unless you believe (again without evidence) in a given religion's claims of exclusive truth, there's no reason to entertain ridiculous and unproductive creation myths. I doubt anyone here believes that space, time, matter, and life were created by the dreams of Aboriginal gods and goddesses. Quite a few people here do believe that a Middle-Eastern deity created the universe and life by speaking it into being. You can ignore one silly myth and eat up another because you are are beholden to one interpretation of one religion.

Actually when I am looking back on the potential creation of the universe I am looking from outside my religious perspective.

I allow the possibility that there was a creater (which anyone who has integrity of serching for the answer should)

I also allow for the possibility that there is not a creator.

I also hold to the position that if the Resurrection did not happen, then Christianity cannot continue to exist. Faith cannot continue blindly, becasue the reason for the faith is in the resurrection and the facts that precede the potential resurrection of Christ.

The Resurrection is the argument that would validate the Biblical perspective more clearly over the other systems.

I do not mind looking into the origins of people, the earth, the solar system, the galaxy, or the universe. I think it is important. Even if there is a being who created it, even it it turns out the be the Biblical God, the scripture indicates that the starts communicate the glory of God. If you do not study the stars or learn about the stars, how they function, how they came about, in what manner they might have been created (if there is a creator) or formed.

This is all still important information.

Non theists tend to think that "Christianity" calls for scientific ignorance. This cannot be farther from the truth, however some people are lazy and do not like to look into it and search it
out.

The explanation does not end with "God did it" we are continually to search out the hows and whys of what he did (in the event that 1. There is a creative, and personal being which started everything 2. "Christianity" is the one system.

If it becomes no longer a possibility that there was a creative being, or no longer a possibility that the Resurrection could be an explanation, then I will have to honestly, and resonably concede that I was wrong.

However at this point, those are options and still reasonable options, as we do not know how things came about. The current studies tend to lend to a start of the universe. Therefore all possible starts are applicable.

In terms of the resurrection, many arguments have been presented as to why it could not be a resurrection and rather somethign else, but those arguments are not satisfactory to remove the possibility of the resurrection. The resurrection is one of the more logical deductions, even though more unlikely because it is a "miraculous" event.

However, Science is not omnipotent and not everything can be evaluated by science. It cannot command and dictate all things, nor can it explain all things. Science must make presuppositions as well.

Religion is based on faith. Evolution is based on theory. Only one of the above allows for the inclusion of the other - take a guess which one that is.

You messed up a little, cid. Not surprising.

Religion is faith based on myth.
Evolution is a theory based on facts.
Facts carry a hell of a lot more weight than random stories. Religion and evolution are most certainly compatible so long as believers are willing to acknowledge facts. Religious loons choose to remain ignorant so they can avoid challenging their faith with contradictory information.

The uniformed catholic bashers on this site run rampant with their constant inclusion of Catholics with the fundies and really know very little of the way Catholics are now taught to study the bible and the history of Catholicism. Oh well.

Yes, you're Catholic and fundamentalism is a protestant thing. Don't pat yourself on the back yet - your sect is not immune to the stupidity that afflicts other religious groups.

I'll repeat what I said earlier: "Diablo, Bill Donahue, and hardline Catholics are are indistinguishable from protestant fundies unless you get them talking about specifics of dogma. Their ideologies are founded on delusion and irrational hatred. Whatever their sect of choice may be, these people are blithering idiots who twist reason and reality to sustain their delusions of Christian supremacy." A 'fundie' can be any distasteful religious fanatic who shows the same degree of superstition, zealotry, bigotry, and willful ignorance. Plenty of Catholics falls in that category.

The debate is closed. There is a consensus.

I believe the Noah story too, although I think the flood was probably regional.

Not according to the Bible.

You sir, are a heretic.

I allow the possibility that there was a creater (which anyone who has integrity of serching for the answer should) ... I also allow for the possibility that there is not a creator.

But you know that there is a creator despite a lack of evidence. How?

If it becomes no longer a possibility that there was a creative being, or no longer a possibility that the Resurrection could be an explanation, then I will have to honestly, and resonably concede that I was wrong.

You obviously won't be sweating over that possibility. Religions are generally quite safe from scientific criticism because they are steeped in the supernatural and offer no opportunities to test their claims. When you step away from using facts as evidence, you won't have any success in "proving" anything, but you are also free to make any claim you want without the threat of being disproven.

In terms of the resurrection, many arguments have been presented as to why it could not be a resurrection and rather somethign else, but those arguments are not satisfactory to remove the possibility of the resurrection.

The "resurrection" probably didn't happen. The only evidence of it comes from the Bible, and true resurrection is a medical impossibility. The Bible is not an objective source, either. It was compiled centuries later by Christians who had a vested interest in portraying Jesus as having supernatural abilities. That doesn't mean that the words of the bible aren't "good enough" to convince some people. Just not me.

However, Science is not omnipotent and not everything can be evaluated by science. It cannot command and dictate all things, nor can it explain all things. Science must make presuppositions as well.

Not everything can currently be evaluated by science. As human knowledge progresses, more questions can be answered by scientific approaches. If you confine God to the gaps in human knowledge, those gaps will inexorably shrink as human knowledge grows. A "god of the gaps" is no god at all.

Science makes presuppositions? Sure. Is that a problem? No. If you want to claim that you can know something without relying on physical evidence to support that knowledge, show me a piece of knowledge that is not supported by fact. Show me how you can verify the accuracy of this "knowledge" without physical evidence.

I am at work right now, but I have five instances in which Science is unable to evaluate things that we take as facts to one degree or another.

When I return home I will reply to this instance. Would you like me to reply here, or somewhere else?

I will also address your other claims in more detail. I know I cannot prove what you desire, but nothing comes down to complete proof not even science. Facts lead us to the deduction. There is instance of uncertainty in all things, including facts.

I will go in greater depth later. Thank you for responding with somethig more than

"- Stupid theists are simple minded."

Northguy,

The Biblical text is not confined within the rigid understanding of a Global flood.

The flood must be universal (meaning all people) in terms of scripture, not global.

Also, anyone who claims that the scripture says the Ark rested on Mount Ararat is a fool. At most it says the mountains of Ararat. That could be the smallest, not one of the largest. Also, the word dictated there is also used to describe hills later.

The Hebrew langauge brings about clarification on how it can be a regional or local, yet universal flood. This must also be taken in account with other claims the scripture makes about water covering the whole earth again, and things with what the global flood pushers claim to have happened.

Religion is faith based on myth.
Evolution is a theory based on facts.

53 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-10-22 11:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

Your as bad as the fundies zombie when you make sophomoric statements such as this. Your hatred and jealousy shine bright when you interject libtard atheist talking points into the discussion.

I have 2000 years of evidence, how many years of evidence do you have to support the theory of evolution? 2000 years of scrutiny. How many years has evolution been scrutinized?

The weak minded attack the beliefs of others out of spite and jealousy. Now pat yourself on the back for being a good libtard and carry on.

and who would do well and suffer less embarrassment for themselves
.......#46 | Posted by Cork

....I'm not embarrassed.....deists are gullible ignoramuses......because I don't believe their bullshit, I should be ashamed ?.....I'd be more embarrassed if I was simple enough to get sucked in by that nonsense.......

......one is either an atheist or NOT an atheist....

.....there is no "fundamental atheist" or "lite atheist"....it's an all or nothing.......

......religions however have dogmas and scriptures....which can be adhered to partially or fundamentally.......

.......you keep making this mistake Corky.....its as if your faith depended on it.......

.......but repeating it won't make it so.......

....another sad spectacle is when deists try to say that athiesm is just another religion.......

.....they insult atheists with their own deist failings.......

......as Zombie said, atheism is a religion, if not collecting stamps is a hobby........

.....and yes.....gullibility only applies when someone believes something that there is no evidence for.......

Skizz, can you verify whether this is your
reality based neural persona or your fantasy neural persona being espoused here?

If this is the fantasy neural persona, you are still having an issue of Corky talking about his fantasy fantasy theos?

Skizz, can you verify
#63 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

.......why ?.....don't you accept things on faith ?......

Not blind faith. You need an object of faith. There needs to be a reason to have faith in that objective thing that you are having faith in.

You are confusing what faith is.

And what exactly would I be taking on faith in this context where I asked you to verify which situation is true?

You don't like your fantasy past coming back and biting you in your fantasy present? I guess you never should have fantasy stated them in the first place.

As much as my Cuz Skiz could learn from his fellow atheist David Wilson about the reality of atheism today, and the fundamentalist nature of it's proponents like Skiz, he would prefer to think of himself as some kind of genius (roflmao!) though he has yet to debunk any of what Wilson says.

He reminds me more of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson each day.

Not blind faith.

.......it's the only kind there is.......

You are confusing what faith is.

.......not at all........faith=ignorance....
...

You don't like your fantasy past coming back and biting you in your fantasy present? I guess you never should have fantasy stated them in the first place.....#65 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

.......your kids must be real fucked up......that is if you can get laid with a personality disorder like yours.......

As much as my Cuz Skiz could learn from his fellow atheist David Wilson about the reality of atheism today, ......
#66 | Posted by Corky

.....what is there to learn about nothing ?......

.....two people who don't collect stamps should talk about the hobby of not collecting stamps.??.....

.....atheists gain nothing in terms of atheism, by discussing it with each other, because there is nothing to discuss.........

.....do you really not get that, or are you just faking it ?........

If you were half as bright as you think you are, Skitzo, you WOULD be a genius.

Unfortunately, however....

"That brings us back to atheism. The discerning liberal (or any intellectual) would be a fool to assume that atheism stands for pure reason, just because it doesn't invoke the gods. We need to give atheism a good hard look to see if it is functioning as a stealth religion. Fortunately, basic design principles enable us to do just that.

The real world is full of messy trade-offs. When behaviors are evaluated for their effects on self and others, for example, some are good for both (++), or bad for both (--), but many are good for some and bad for others (+- or -+). Any belief system that accurately represents the real world will include examples of all four possibilities. The main purpose of a religion or a stealth religion, however, is not to describe the real world but to motivate a given suite of behaviors. One way to do this is by creating a stylized world without tradeoffs, in which the prescribed behaviors are portrayed as good, good, good for everyone and the prohibited behaviors are portrayed as bad, bad, bad for everyone. Behaviors with mixed effects are absent from the stylized world because they do not clearly tell the believer what to do.

Using this simple method, it is easy to show that fundamentalist religions portray a world without trade-offs, very unlike the real world, which propel the believer along a single path toward glory and away from ruin. Unfortunately, at least some version of atheism fare no better.

As exhibit A, consider Ayn Rand, the new atheist of her day who claimed that her philosophy of Objectivism was based entirely on reason and science. She corrected people who called her an individualist by saying that she was a rationalist. Nevertheless, her philosophy portrays a world without tradeoffs, just like religious fundamentalism. The two belief systems motivate different suites of behavior, of course, but in both cases they stuff the believer, like a human cannonball, into an ideological cannon to be shot in the direction of glory and away from ruin.

The Ayn Rand movement was just like religious fundamentalism in other respects. Rand was treated as an infallible oracle--the very opposite of reasoned discourse--and members of the movement spent their time casting out false premises as if they were so many demons. A lifelong smoker, Rand was nevertheless astonished when she contracted lung cancer. How could she get cancer when she had no false premises? She was no more rational about the nature of disease than evangelical Christians lining up to be healed. Even today, Rand's novels sell many thousands of copies a year and the Ayn Rand Institute attempts to lure new members with the following appealing invitation: "Those who have read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged know that the sunlit universe Ayn Rand depicts in her novels is unlike the world that they see around them. How can one achieve the clarity of vision and joyous existence that her fictional heroes achieve?"

How about the new atheism of our day? I wish I could report otherwise, but it has all the hallmarks of a stealth religion, including a polarized belief system that represents everything as good, good, good or bad, bad, bad ("how religion poisons everything"), the unquestioned authority of its leaders, and even the portrayal of bad ideas as like demons (parasitic memes) that need to be cast out ("breaking the spell").

excerpt

www.huffingtonpost.com/david-
sloan-wilson/atheism-as-a-
stealth-reli_b_76901.html

Okay, corky...

What if you don't judge atheists by Ayn Rand and I won't judge Christians by the author of the Left Behind series?

Nw flag for ZH

Agreed, Z. As long as they don't act like fundies, then decry fundamentalism.

The entire article is much more explanatory of his logic, btw.

What we have with Skiz, with whom I agree on most political points, is someone who thinks he is brighter than anyone who believes differently than him about religion.

Which is, unfortunately for him, is most obviously not the case.

"As exhibit A, consider Ayn Rand,"

Well, let's not. That crazy loon represents non-theism even less than Fred Phelps represents Christianity.

atheism of our day? I wish I could report otherwise, but it has all the hallmarks of a stealth religion......70 | Posted by Corky

......so you've found one guy who wrote a book....
....that says being atheist is a type of religion......

.......why did he write that book ?......because he is a deist who wants to descredit atheism.....

......how does he discredit atheism ? by accusing it of being what he is......

.....and what does Corky do ??....Corky believes him.......

......do you why you believe him Corky ?....because that's what Corky does...he believes........well atheists do NOT believe......we don't accept his description of us......and he repeats the ultimate insult that a deist can think of "you too are a believer".......

.....stop quoting that quack Corky.....you are making yourself look silly.....no...not silly.....gullible....yes.....
gullible.....but perhaps you can't help yourself.....after all, that's what believers are by definition.....gullible......

Skiz, is someone who thinks he is brighter than anyone who believes differently than him about religion.
.......#73 | Posted by Corky

.......more ad hominem attacks......there's that Christian streak shining through......

-because he is a deist who wants to descredit(sic) atheism

No, Lucy. He's an atheist, just not a self-absorbed, self-congratulatory, self-deluded narcissistic fundie atheist like you.

But, had you read the article, you would know that.

Talk about looking silly....

The article was interesting, corky. That style of scapegoating and absolutism can be found in a subset of practically any group - atheists included. You already know that since you've been butting heads with Skizziks for awhile.

The guy is right, though. That style of thinking is everywhere, especially in politics.

Yeppers.

I'm just glad that you and I are above all that.... ;^)

Don't necessarily think that skizziks believes his stances here.

Remember, this is his Neural fantasy persona.

This is only Skizziks fantasy world, although then that means he could not come up with a better persona even in his fantasy. Unbelievable, but this is a fantasy world so who cares!!!! Nonsense all over the place.

Just remember corky, your fantasy God can't exist in a fantasy neural persona comment board because your fantasy is dictated by skizzs fantasy. He is the fantasy authority.

Fantastic!

He's just not a self-absorbed, self-congratulatory, self-deluded narcissistic fundie atheist like you.
#77 | Posted by Corky

......I love it when you talk dirty........

your fantasy God can't exist in a fantasy neural persona comment board because your fantasy is dictated by skizzs fantasy. He is the fantasy authority.
Fantastic!
.........#80 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

......fuck me......

.....I've taken over the world, and I wasn't even trying.......

... ".....I've taken over the world, and I wasn't even trying......."

#82 | Posted by skizziks at 2009-10-22 03:29 PM | Reply | Flag

Correction, the fantasy world.

Lucy was proven to be a fraud, but they still use her in all their comparisons.

#33 | Posted by nanc

No one bothered to call Bullshit on this?

fine...I will...BULLSHIT NANC.

You never give up do you? Why do Christians (and republicans) always have to LIE to try and trick people into believing them?

Please elaborate on this supposed fraud. Any links? Let me guess...they will ALL be creationist websites.

Donner, can you prove that they "always" lie to try and trick people into believe them?

I don't think you can prove that. From your literal reading of everything, scripture, science etc, I imagine you can prove that both Christians and Republicans "always" like to try and trick people into believing them.

You just lied to try and trick people into believing you.

Does that make you a christian or a republican?

Correction, the fantasy world.

#83 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

.....from the guy who believes in god......

Why do Christians (and republicans) always have to LIE to try and trick people into believing them?
.......#84 | Posted by donnerboy

.....same reason they believe in god.....

....they can't handle the truth........

Why does this site attract xtian morons?

Why does this site attract xtian morons?

#89 | Posted by jackass

......what other kinds are there ?........

Good point Skizziks

.....from the guy who believes in god......

#87 | Posted by skizziks at 2009-10-22 03:45 PM | Reply | Flag: Ironic

Why do Christians (and republicans) always have to LIE to try and trick people into believing them?
.......#84 | Posted by donnerboy

.....same reason they believe in god.....

....they can't handle the truth........

#88 | Posted by skizziks at 2009-10-22 03:47 PM | Reply | Flag: More ironic

It is rather comical that the same person who stated that they are here because this is a "fantasy" and they are living out their "fantasy neural persona" and yet expects great standards of other (only conclusion available) fantasy goers if they do not line up with his fantasy.

Then he claims that they are the ones that can't handle the truth.

Skizz, if we can't handle the truth, why are you participating in a "fantasy neural persona" world so much?

Skizz, if we can't handle the truth, why are you participating in a "fantasy neural persona" world so much?
......#92 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

......because it is true that we are participating in a world of fantasy personas........

......I can handle that truth.....as well as the truth of a world without god.......

.......can you ?.......

......what other kinds are there ?........

agnostic/atheistic morons are plentiful here as well.

morons are plentiful here as well.
......#94 | Posted by eberly

....the king has arrived.......

Ah crud, looks like Skizzy has given up his fantasy neural persona crown.

He is no long King where he comes to escape the harships of the physical reality most others live in.

This looks like a pretty crappy fantasy. No facts can be found, even by himself, no crown, and no truth.

Oh yes, and the innability to quote full quotes properly.

For humans, the value of having an appendix seems to be negligible and, given the prevalence of appendicitis, having an appendix can even be dangerous. This gut attachment has long been thought to be a remnant of the time when hominids ate a high proportion of plant matter that needed fermentation before digestion. More recently, the appendix has been proposed to play a role in the immune-mediated maintenance of symbiotic bacteria in the gut. On the basis of comparative anatomical and phylogenetic approaches, Smith et al. now contend that the appendix is a specialized organ for harboring symbiotic bacteria essential for health. Diarrhea was a common hazard during hominid evolution. Because the opening to the appendix is constricted, it may escape colonization by bacterial pathogens. Bacterial symbiont reconstitution after diarrhea can be achieved rapidly from the populations harbored in the appendix. Thus, far from being useless, positive selection may well have acted to maintain the appendix.

J. Evol. Biol. 22, 1984 (2009).

Donner, can you prove that they "always" lie to try and trick people into believe them?

#85 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

Well you have me dead to rights finally ExpsR

Yup I sure done it now. I have given away the conspiracy we have going to destroy religion with lies.

I forgot to say "Always Seem" to lie so yup you got me there bible thumper!

Fact is NANC lied. I have heard the LIE before and it is an ongoing theme amongst Christians. They have their "talking points". This is one of them.

You see they (you) think if they can sow the seeds of doubt that perhaps one or two facts of evolution is not correct and that will bring down the whole house of Science.

But you see we HAVE no strategy other than seeking the truth. There are no organizations that are spending millions to protect the truth.

YOU, on the other hand, belong to a group that is spending MILLIONS each year to try and undermine the Truth. .

See the difference? Probably not.

It is called the Wedge strategy. Heard of it?

The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document, which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "defeat [scientific] materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" and to "affirm the reality of God." Its goal is to "renew" American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values.

The wedge metaphor, attributed to Phillip E. Johnson, is that of a metal wedge splitting a log and represents using an aggressive public relations program to create an opening for the supernatural in the public's understanding of science

The strategy was originally brought to the public's attention when the Wedge Document was leaked on the Web. The Wedge strategy forms the governing basis of a wide range of Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns.

It does not confuse me. I did not consider it a fraud. I never said it was a fraud. I have no problem with it.

You assume too much. Just because I claim to be a follower of Christ does not mean that I will automatically assume that this is a fraud.

Have there been fakes? Yes there have been fakes.

Do "christians" tend to think most things are fakes? Yes, and that is unfortunate.

Am I one of those "christians"? No I am not.

Am I convinced fully of evolution yet? Yes I know that things evolve.

Am I convinced of evolution in the scale of the Theory of evolution and the theories on Macro evolution? No, because there are different avenues inside the theory. There are competing groups inside the concept of evolution. If they are not yet sure of what is going on, I don't have all their information, so I cannot be sure.

I just happen to believe that evolution was not on as grand a scale as it has been lifted up to be. Ardi changed the outlook of what the evolution of ape and man looks like when they found that. The theory is still developing. It might end up on a smaller scale than it is now.

I do not belong to this group that you claim.
I loathe the discovery institute thank you.
I never claimed it was a fraud. It was false in concern of being what they claimed (subjective fraud) but it was not a fraud in the objective sense that it was a human manufactured fossil or an intentionally falsified fossil in terms of nature, age, meaning and function with regard to what it truly was.

"Facts carry a lot more weight than random stories..."

On another thread, there's a story about false memories implanted into fruit flies.

"They can't handle truth...."

Interestingly, science isn't about truth. As has been stated ad nauseum, it's about facts. Now, some people confuse the two. Pity.

As has been stated ad nauseum, it's about facts.

It's about examining facts to arrive at truth.

You simply have no desire to acknowledge any facts that do not conform to your preconceived notion of "truth".

What is it that you hope to bring to this discussion?

Interestingly, science isn't about truth. As has been stated ad nauseum, it's about facts. Now, some people confuse the two. Pity.

Posted by Zed at 2009-10-22 07:36 PM | Reply

Horse shit.

Observation.
Hypothesis.
Experiment.
Repeat.

"Horseshit...."

So, if science finds the truth, that is to say THE truth, how does that affect that old accepting findings tentatively in hopes of future better information through active investigation thing?

I mean, if you have THE truth, there's no place further for science to go. Just print it in a leather bound book and highlight Dr. Weinberg's words in red letters.

I mean, if you have THE truth, there's no place further for science to go.

If you understood what science is, you would know this to be untrue, zed.

Science tries to disprove things. If we as society think we know everything there is to know, science still will be looking for that black swan

Things that cannot be scientifically proven, but we are all rational to accept

1. Logical and Mathamatical truths. Science presupposes logic and math, so to try to prove them would be arguing in a circle.

2. Metaphysical truths, like there are other minds other than my own, or that the external world is real, or that the past was not created five minutes ago with an appearance of age are rational beliefs that cannot be scientifically proven

3. Ethical beliefs about statements of value are not accessable by the scientific method. You cannot show by science whether the Nazi scientists in the camps did anything evil as opposed to the scientists here in western democracies

4. Asthetic judgements cannot be accessed by the scientific method because the beautiful like the good, cannot be scientifically proven

5. Science cannot be justified by the scientific method, science is permeated with unprovable assumptions like: the special theory of relativity.

The whole theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one way direction between any two points, but that strictly cannot be proven, we have to assume that in order to hold to the theory of relativity.

None of these can be scientifically proven and yet are accepted by almost every person if not every person, as rational beliefs.
Science is not about facts as you can see.

"Science tries to disprove things. If we as society think we know everything there is to know, science still will be looking for that black swan"

Zed likes to put down atheists and agnostics because we allegedly have a weak grasp on science, and he likes to pull out "philosophy of science" as a supposed trump-card.

So, this will be the third time I'll have posted a summary of Karl Popper's philosophy of science, which, in a nutshell, advances as the criterion for GOOD science that which produces potentially falsifiable hypotheses:

Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false. Popper's account of the logical asymmetry between verification and falsifiability lies at the heart of his philosophy of science. It also inspired him to take falsifiability as his criterion of demarcation between what is and is not genuinely scientific: a theory should be considered scientific if and only if it is falsifiable.

Z: I'm about 1/3 through The Lucifer Principle that you recommended. Great book. I see a lot of exactly what they are talking about her on the DR. LOL

Thanks for the recommendation. It is very well written and informative.

Thanks, Goatman, I'm always eager to recommend a good book. Glad you've been enjoying it.

Check out Howard Bloom's website at howardbloom.net for supplementary documents and more if you're interested.

I'm super busy with papers and applying to grad school, but I've got "Guns, Germs & Steel" waiting for me on my bookshelf. From everything about it I've read, it looks like an excellent book! Looking forward to a little more luxury reading time, during which I can properly "digest" it!

"Theists also love to denigrate atheists and agnostics by accusing them of being somehow fervently "religious"; however, the above criterion accurately defines the brightline between science and "faith": science is fluid and our current knowledge is ALWAYS amenable to new research, whereas religious documents are static, unchanging, and unaccommodating.

Furthermore, "faith" demands of the "faithful" an unquestioning adherence to dogma which, by definition, cannot be falsified or disproven."

Zara,
I would not agree with these assertions.
1. Scientific understanding can be incorrect. Just because scientific understandings or previously "proven" "facts" later end up being incorrect does not mean they are no good altogether. You can have incorrect conclusions on correct scientific finidings.

Science is unchaning in that it has absolutes that restrict it from changing. The subjective understanding of science changes, however the objective truth of science does not change but simply remains yet to be discovered. When it is discovered or learned, or correctly interpreted then it has subjectively changed, but not objectively changed.

Science is subjective in terms of the present known information, but objective in that whatever is true is true, whether we have knowledge of it or not.

2. As in theology and theological studies, one can have an incorrect understanding of the text, doctrine or object of faith, and yet the text, doctrine and object of faith can still be objectively true. It is the subjective understanding of the text, doctrine or object of faith that can change, and make the process fluid much like science, in order to reach the objective truth of the text, doctrine or object of faith.

Faith does not call for unquestioning adherence to dogma as many like to claim. At least Biblical faith does not apply this way.

a. the scripture talks of testing the spirits to know of whether they are of God. This would indicate that one is not to have faith in any spirit, but rather some objectively true spirit(s) which can be observed or reasoned based on the testing

b. Christ is the object of faith, has been since the O.T. still is in the N.T. The Christ or Meschiac is the annointed of God who was to "crush the head of the serpent" from Genesis, or triumph over the evils committed by walking away from God.

In Christ one must dwell on the resurrection. Our faith in Christ is lost if the resurrection is not true. This is an evaluatable situation, in which faith is not blind, but must be specifically alloted.

1. In order to have faith in Christ He must be resurrected
2. In order to have faith that he was resurrected he must have first had life, flesh, blood (and any other attributes of what makes up physical man)
3. In order to have faith that he was resurrected he had to die a literal death as a man (cease breathing, end physical bodily function)
4. In order to have faith in the resurrection, the tomb in which he was buried must be empty, as the resurrection had to be physical in nature, just as his death.
5. In order to be resurrected he had to be seen alive, after being verifiably dead, in physical form, with the true event of an unoccupied tomb which he was previously in.

It is not based on absolute nothing. If those were not true, he could not resurrect and therefore we could not put faith in Christ, and therefore would have no purpose, no faith and no relationship with God.

In that situation faith is dependant on certain things taking place, certain factual events must be present. If not, no amount of blind faith will have effect in objective terms.

Faith cannot exist without some reason for faith.
Similar to trust, one must have a reason to trust someone. Anyone who trusts someone has some aspect of faith in their lives.

Every time science finds itself at a claim, there must be trust of the person doing the experiment, trust in the integrity of the experiment (as not everyone can see how it was done or the scrupels (sic) of the person conducting the experiment in private) one must trust the regularity of the results as being accurate, and ultimately one must trust that these finding merit a trust that upon infinitum experimentation these will hold true (more in terms of constants, which we tend to place via assumptions)

I think they both deal with some of the same circumstances. It is when the details come to decision time that makes the difference in the situation.

I would claim that both the purpose of science (and the true findings of science) as well as the scripture, doctrine and objects of faith are objective in that they don't ever change and cannot be manipulated

I would also claim that they are subjective in terms that they can be misunderstood in terms of 1. interpretation 2. reasoning from the proven attributes 3. the aspect of trust and uncertanty.

If we get them wrong, the problem lies on us (and the subjective understanding) rather than the objective constants of those things that are true whether we believe them, understand them, or know them at all or not.

I started this thread to let you see an "evolution" fraud. I did not mean to call evolution as a whole a fraud.
Just trying to make that clear. The "enlightened" never let my light shine through.

I think they both deal with some of the same circumstances.

No quite the same.

Independent labs may be able to duplicate an experiment. But so far, rising from the dead or any of other of Jesus' miracles have ever been reproduced.

Big difference.

In order to have faith x5

Who needs faith in a real world that can be proven?

Trust incorporates some aspect of faith in that person or thing.

Also, are you disputing that those are not indicators that faith is not simple ignorance of the need for reasons to hold a certain belief?

The resurrection is the difficult part for those who do not take it as a happening.

Is it possible? I not it is at least less likely, but it is possible. That is the only aspect that cannot be observed or conceived (easily) from other sources or information.

Do you trust anyone?

Also, it cannot be proven, it can certainly be well suggested, but cannot be objectively proven.

Don't create false understanding of terms.

or are you speaking of proven subjectively?

"Independent labs may be able to duplicate an experiment. But so far, rising from the dead or any of other of Jesus' miracles have ever been reproduced."

Thank you, goatman. I am glad you finally recognize the Catholic Mass and transubstantiation are articles of FAITH. We never demanded more from you and appreciate the amount of useless effort you have exerted on our behalf.

Trust incorporates some aspect of faith in that person or thing.

I never trust (from a scientific standpoint) any single person or thing.

However, when an experiment can be duplicated independently by different sources I am less skeptical.

I am glad you finally recognize the Catholic Mass and transubstantiation are articles of FAITH.

I got severely whacked by a nun when I was 6 YO studying for my first communion for questioning that faith. She told us how the bread turned into Jesus' body. Having seen human tissue under a microscope in my grandfather's doctor's office, I aksed her, "If I look at the host under a microscope I would see human cells?"

That's when I got whacked and warned not be blaspheme again.

Though it took me a few more years until I made the final break, I think this moment is what started my declining belief in the church and all its BS.

Faith tells you it's Jesus in that little round wafer. A microscope verifies.

"4. In order to have faith in the resurrection, the tomb in which he was buried must be empty, as the resurrection had to be physical in nature, just as his death.
5. In order to be resurrected he had to be seen alive, after being verifiably dead, in physical form, with the true event of an unoccupied tomb which he was previously in."

re: #4, that's like saying the lack of evidence is akin to evidence. Does a lack of any verifiable evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Universe as we know it mean that F.S.M. created all that we know? A lack of evidence is not evidence; that simply doesn't pass the muster for science. The fact that there is no decomposed corpse in the supposed burial place of Jesus does NOT qualify for evidence that he has been resurrected.

re: #5: this assertion relies on anecdotal evidence, which is easily distorted from year to year, let alone across millennia. IIRC, Penn & Teller used the analogy of the recipe for Elvis' favorite fried chicken: only a few decades removed from the objective source of this information, recipes varied wildly; the details are not necessary.

The point being, even less than a century after Elvis has died, it's difficult - if not impossible - to confirm the specifics of something as insignificant (and theoretically objective) as the man's favored fried chicken recipe - let alone some holy doctrine. Extrapolate that across a couple millennia, and one understands my point.

The "faith" has been so distorted - for reasons political (Constantine; Council of Nicea), religious, etc., - across the ages, that literal belief in any translation is folly.

Do you trust anyone?

Only myself, and even that isn't 100%

Goatman and zara: again thanks for ....well, I can't explain how you help my view. Thanks!

That's OK, Dee-Dee.

I just demonstrated how your superstitions of your ilk can be readily explained. It's OK if you don't have a ready rejoinder; I wouldn't expect any more from the "faithful"...

"...how the superstitions of your ilk..."

Oh, goatman? Articles of FAITH mean we do not pretend to PROVE them to those who can not understand dictionary definitions of words like "faith."
So why do sophists like you pretend we have declared a "scientific" proof of transubstantiation (i.e. microscope)? We never did such a thing. You try to make it seem as if we had.....QED you lie.

zara? I am not a fundamentalist. Nice try on that link.

So why do sophists like you pretend we have declared a "scientific" proof of transubstantiation (i.e. microscope)?

???

I never stated such a thing. Where did you get that idea? QED, you, not I, lie.

"Articles of FAITH mean we do not pretend to PROVE them to those who can not understand dictionary definitions of words like "faith."

It still does not seem like you interacted with my post.

Science is both objective and subjective, and can change subjectively, but is unchanged objectively

Religion or the Bible is the same way. unchanining objectively, but chaning subjectively.

Zara,

You cannot use the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a creator of everything we see, because if the universe was created, that would mean that it had a beginning. If the universe had a beginning, it would have to begin from something that is not consisting of time, space, or matter.

Since the flying spaghetti monster is :
1. a physical object of spaghetti and two meatballs, it is therefore matter, and cannot be the creative force
2. Since the FSM is matter, it will take up space, and therefore space will exist, and thus would not be the creative force.

The Flying spaghetti monster is akin to a parlor trick, a cute little saying, lacking substance (besides an illogical useless noodly mess).

Well, work in the morning, 3 short hours away. I am leaving for the night.

Try to interract with my original post as to the similarities of science and faith and also the misunderstanding of faith by the "intellectually superior." (self proclaimed on their part as a group (subjective not objective)

Have fun building strawmen.

Or noodle men for that matter.

Anyway, Hol(e)yMan, Diablo, I hate to cut short our philosophical clashings, but I've got to be up at a decent hour this AM.

All that you've (weakly) refuted is the circular logic image of the Buy-Bull...I'll check in later this AM to see if you've addressed any of the arguments Goatman or myself have made in opposition to that of "faith"...

"I never stated such a thing. Where did you get that idea? QED, you, not I, lie."

Goatman: your statement about the host under a microscope. Don't run away! You made that post to make it seem as if my religion made a scientific claim the host could be human cells under a microscope. We never made that claim. Don't be a liar. You did that. Make it clear to all you lied.

Goat's post:

"I got severely whacked by a nun when I was 6 YO studying for my first communion for questioning that faith. She told us how the bread turned into Jesus' body. Having seen human tissue under a microscope in my grandfather's doctor's office, I aksed her, "If I look at the host under a microscope I would see human cells?"

Goatman? Are you full of it or are you able to be honest? I never claimed the host would be visible human cells under a microscope so why do you pretend (i.e. lie) I have?

The Gospel of John, contra fundies, supports my view!

"scientific" proof of transubstantiation

THere's this great scene in V for Vendetta.

Perv, pedophile priest is about to rape a young girl when V comes in.

Askes the priest if he believe in transubstantiation.

Priest replies "yes"

V then makes him eat a communion wafer laced with cyanide.

The wafer, of course, does not transform into the "body of Christ", it remains poison and kills him.

Good stuff.

Transubstantiation is a retarded concept.

Makes Catholicism seem like Cannibalism.

"Zed likes to put down atheists and agnostics because we allegedly have a weak grasp of science..."

Not atheists and agnostics, ZARATHUSTRA. Just mostly you.

"That's like saying lack of evidence is evidence..."

That's exactly right---It's lack of evidence there is evidence. I swear, son--What school do you attend?

That's exactly right---It's lack of evidence there is evidence. I swear, son--What school do you attend?
#139 | Posted by Zed

Answer: the Zed School for Christians.

So, a single disconfirmation is "logically decisive" in science? Is that so? You wouldn't want to replicate the discomfirmation?

Cold fusion comes to mind. Some experiments demonstrated the effect, later experiments didn't demonstrate the effect, still later experiments demonstrated the effect.

So, it looks like it's two out of three for cold fusion. What percentage of hits versus misses before science opens the box and checks the status of the cat?

Hello, RAY. With your superior reasoning abilities, it should fall to you to lecture ZARATHUSTRA. You can join in now, if you like.

I started this thread to let you see an "evolution" fraud. I did not mean to call evolution as a whole a fraud.
Just trying to make that clear. The "enlightened" never let my light shine through.
#114 | Posted by Diablo

The way I understand it, it was an error not a fraud. An error that was quickly corrected. And if the archaeologists intended fraud, they were quickly exposed. That's the way science works.

Meanwhile the 2,000 year fraud of insisting nothing is something has to die a slow death because its adherents can't distinguish reality from imaginary.

"Has to die a slow death...."

Youy should qualify that. You mean a very, very, very slow death. Super-slow. Hyper-slow.

I may not be able to distinguish the real from imaginary, but I can tell when ZARATHUSTRA screws up on methodology. That, at the least, is interesting.

Zed - I can't see anything to lecture Zarathustra about?

I'm not going to waste a lot of time trying to change anybody's mind. I'll check in once in a while.

Aren't you the one that told me the science of archeology has no bearing on your beliefs about religion, RAY? That the truth needs no confirmation, it just is? Yep, that be you.

"I'm not going to waste a lot of time trying to change anyone's mind...."

Now, that's funny.

Youy should qualify that. You mean a very, very, very slow death. Super-slow. Hyper-slow.

I would say since the Enlightenment. Use whatever adjective you wish.

"I would say since the Enlightenment..."

There are two billion Christians, RAY. I don't know what else to say about your theory Christianity is dying. Maybe on your block.

I've said this many times. The concept of God is imaginary. One cannot make a valid argument that nothing is something. Archeology can tell us what people in the past believed, but not whether those beliefs were true.

There are two billion Christians, RAY. I don't know what else to say about your theory Christianity is dying. Maybe on your block.

Christian beliefs today are a mile wide and an inch deep. On the whole, Christians accept the faith more as a tradition, then as a deeply felt conviction. They don't think much about it. Conviction is weakening with each generation.

Ray, true "christianity" is based on the resurrection

There are certain aspects that must be true to have faith in the resurrection. If you do not hold to these aspects, you are not a "christian" and you do not have faith.

Would you like them listed here?

Faith is not blind following or blind decision making. It is based on necessary events, happenings, and situations, that if not there, faith would not be meritted or capable of any objective at all.

"Convictionb is weakening with each generation...."

If you say so, RAY. Should I take Dawkins' and Flew's conversions to deism over the last year as evidence conviction of atheism is weakening? Obviously, despite writing many books, their lack of faith in God wasn't deeply felt.

Look. I stated my case. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you two.

"I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you...."

Now, that's also funny.

Ray does not like to interact after he is presented with facts that he would be called foolish for dismissing.

At least he runs away well.

Ray likes to present arguments from authority, and then when presented to him he balks and blabs about how they cannot simply be coneived because many people believe them.

He dismissed very diverse evidence from diverse belief systems as faulty over 3 websites which fit his disposition and his disposition only.

Then he claims that he does not work on faith, but rather fact, although the facts are dictated by the historical and textual criticism by authorities of both theistic and not theistic background alike.

He prefers to believe, whithout merit (what he calls faith) 3 websites that make claims outside of provable hypotheses.

Until that happens, I get a kick out of how many times they are wrong!

#3 | Posted by Diablo at 2009-10-21 11:02 PM | Reply

good thread and post.
I believe the same sort of thing. I guess. havent read much about it but I Do know that many libs here get all uppity and sanctimonious just when you MENTION that evolution may not have been proven yet

you know...a little like global warming perhaps.

and didnt many here when IDA was first brought up tell us that this meant they were right and we were wrong

so how many posters have recounted that so far

never mind...I dont need to see to know

Articles of FAITH mean we do not pretend to PROVE them

So quit using your "articles of faith" as justification for further stupidity. You can't "prove" them, by your own admission, so these bits of faith are worthless as evidence.

"good thread and post.
I believe the same sort of thing. I guess. havent read much about it but I Do know that many libs here get all uppity and sanctimonious just when you MENTION that evolution may not have been proven yet"

What do you mean evolution hasn't been proven? Microevolution is seen everyday. Macroevolution is evident throughout fossil record. The church has accepted evolution as fact, but it's followers are late to the message table.

You mean the idea within evolution that humans evolved from an ape/chimp like creature? Which most evidence indicates is the path that was taken.

LM

Faith is not blind following or blind decision making.

If it is not blind, then what is is? Faith permits a decision regarding the accuracy of a statement in the absence of any pertinent information. That is the embodiment of blindness.

What do you mean evolution hasn't been proven?

They're fools in denial...

"If you say so, RAY. Should I take Dawkins' and Flew's conversions to deism over the last year as evidence conviction of atheism is weakening? Obviously, despite writing many books, their lack of faith in God wasn't deeply felt"

Talk about putting words into someones mouth.
By being open minded and saying nothing is impossible, Dawkins is now a deist?

How about you read teh whole article that you like to clip from, you will get to this part,

"True, he was not saying he was now a deist; on the contrary, he still didn't believe in such a purposeful founding intelligence, and he was certainly still saying that belief in the personal God of the Bible was just like believing in fairies"

I recommend finishing the article before you get all giddy about one sentence.

LM

ExpsRedemption is trolling.

Ray likes to present arguments from authority, and then when presented to him he balks and blabs about how they cannot simply be coneived because many people believe them.

I keep saying reason is my authority. It is ExpR who is arguing from human authority. That's a classic textbook logic 101 fallacy.

He dismissed very diverse evidence from diverse belief systems as faulty over 3 websites which fit his disposition and his disposition only.

That's an argument by popular opinion. It fails reason 101.

Then he claims that he does not work on faith, but rather fact, although the facts are dictated by the historical and textual criticism by authorities of both theistic and not theistic background alike.

Doesn't know the difference between reality based facts and fact of opinion.

He prefers to believe, whithout merit (what he calls faith) 3 websites that make claims outside of provable hypotheses.
#157 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

I'll lay odds that he never looked at named websites. If he did, they scared him.

I'll state my case one last time. If this troll thinks me can make me the issue, he is wasting his time and my time.
Reality is to be understood. It cannot be conceived by imagination.
The case for the existence of a deity is founded on the false argument that nothing is something.
Argument by official authority and argument by popular opinion is no argument at all.

Ok buddy.

Sounds good.

Basically
What ray says is fact = fact
What those who have studied for years from many perspectives suggest are fact = lies.

Interesting. What is 100% proven in this reality in which you live Ray?

Reason in itself is not scientifically explainable. It is assumed that what we take as reasonable is reasonable, based on our Subjective existence and experience.

Reason is also not objective.

Does science not depend on trust of the accuracy of the subjective information gathered in terms to predict the objective truth behind that data?

You like to redefine faith into ignorance so that it does not appear as though science acts on faith.

Faith is trust, science also uses trust. I have stated the similarities between science and faith in Post # 112 and # 113.

Interact with that if you want to show something Ray.

Also, I have been to the mentioned websites and many like them before.

They are nothing special outside of "reasoned" bias.

#165 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2009-10-23 12:48 PM | Reply | Flag: has no fucking clue how science works

"Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong."
Richard Feynman

#165 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2009-10-23 12:48 PM | Reply | Flag: Has no clue how reason and science work.

The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible. - Bertrand Russell

But what if God did do it from the rib? Hmmm? I don't deny a deity would have that power.
......#5 | Posted by Diablo

.....but what if the Rib Fairy did it instead of God ?......

#30 | Posted by skizziks at 2009-10-22 08:12 AM | Reply | Flag

That would explain the 'theory' that one day bacteria decided to move out of the water, start breathing and talking. The next thing you know we have NBA basketball...

The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible. - Bertrand Russell

#168 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-23 12:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

APPLY THIS QUOTE TO FAIRY TALE THAT GOVMT RUN HEALTH CARE WILL LOWER COST

APPLY THIS TO FAIRY TALE THAT RAISING TAXES RESULTS IN ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES AND GROWS AN ECONOMY

#170 | Posted by slicksterWilly at 2009-10-23 01:14 PM | Reply | Flag: Thinks if he shouts it won't sound so stooopid

"APPLY THIS TO FAIRY TALE THAT RAISING TAXES RESULTS IN ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES AND GROWS AN ECONOMY"

Because we all know that shrub's tax breaks were so good on the economy!! lil willy!!

LM

In Australia, "mongrel" epithet generally refers to an ill-bred man; a man of poor manners or morals.

the "ill-bred" would explain why LM thinks raising taxes will help grow the ecomony. Too stupid to look at history.

Ray, true "christianity" is based on the resurrection

There are certain aspects that must be true to have faith in the resurrection.

Faith is not blind following or blind decision making. It is based on necessary events, happenings, and situations, that if not there, faith would not be meritted or capable of any objective at all.
#152 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

ummm do you even think about what you are saying?

Christianity is based on the resurrection...

Faith is not a blind following....

There is no logic to this at all.

I am sorry (no, I am not!)I couldn't possibly accept the resurrection of a being who has claimed to be a God as actually significant at all even it did occur (which there is NO evidence of)!

If He is God...then...It was just a nice parlor trick to impress the gullible humans who cannot raise themselves from the dead....so ummm big deal!

Hmmmm....An Alien ZombieGod that can raise himself from the dead then go into hiding for thousands of years and then watch how his experiment is going from some remote dimension... hmmm nice trick but should we be worshiping this Guy?

I Do know that many libs here get all uppity and sanctimonious just when you MENTION that evolution may not have been proven yet"

I really love how the "Church People" get all uppity when we call them out on their Myth of Creationism.

(ummm do you even think about what you are saying?)

should have not been in italics...

"In Australia, "mongrel" epithet generally refers to an ill-bred man; a man of poor manners or morals."

If I were an aussie I might give a shit how they define words but I am AMERICAN. Tell Ruppert he should look at a dictionary and see how the rest of the world defines it. Better yet I will post it for him......

1 : an individual resulting from the interbreeding of diverse breeds or strains; especially : one of unknown ancestry
2 : a cross between types of persons or things

See dueling banjos scene from Deliverance to learn all you need to about pure blood breeding.

I am "ill-bred" and too stupid to look at history, so then why did BUSH's tax cuts fail so miserably? Please answer lil willy, your wisdom should be entertaining here!!

LM

#5 | POSTED BY DIABLO
"my Church allows me to believe the Genesis story is figurative if I want. "

Diablo, you're SUPPOSED to see it as figurative. It IS figurative. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about.

If someone wants to see it as literal, well, okay, that's their choice, but it's not MEANT to be seen as a literal account of creation.

I'm still trying to figure out how some people see divine creation and evolution as mutually exclusive. That's not merely stupidity, it's worse. It's willful stupidity.

#47 | Posted by expsredemption

Welcome to the DR...

expsredemption--I see you met Ray...

---

Christian beliefs today are a mile wide and an inch deep. On the whole, Christians accept the faith more as a tradition, then as a deeply felt conviction. They don't think much about it. Conviction is weakening with each generation.

#151 | Posted by Ray

---
Ray--

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Is this your superb intellect or observation or polling the internet that guides you to this comment??

Then we will have to agree to disagree, Murph.

"I recognize you finish the entire article before getting giddy about one sentence...."

I'm not sure why you'd want to defend Dr. Dawkins in his what, after all, are juvenile attempts to walk both sides of the fence on the question of God.

Dawkins is a professed atheist mean enough to travel to Lourdes to mock sick people and the families of the sick.

So when he states "there is a strong case to be made for a deistic God" I just have wonder what the Hell he is about and what exactly he thinks he is doing.

You interpret this fellow as open to possibilities. I interpret him as a fuzzy-thinking hypocrite. I'm the one closer to the truth.

I'm still trying to figure out how some people see divine creation and evolution as mutually exclusive. That's not merely stupidity, it's worse. It's willful stupidity.
#178 | Posted by TheTom

So for 150 years it was willful stupidity to accept evolution. Now it's willful stupidity to deny it. Oh well. I guess Christians decided that if you can't beat them, join them. All that remains for them is to fit billions of years of evolution into 6,000 years.

Again, Ray fails to see the fallacy he commits by not understanding the differnce between the objective and the subjective.

Subjectively someone could be incorrect about creation and evolution being exclusive or not (I don't necessarily hold to this view of non exlusivity)

Objective creation and evolution can be intertwined and yet it is simply subjectively incorrect on part of "christians" or any other faith that has potential to claim creation over evolution.

This is not so much different than science getting something incorrect (albeit subjectively) and the finding out they were wrong and adjusting later and saying "ummm... we weren't wrong, we were just cotinuing to search and test.. yeah, thats it... looking for truth.

The fact that they come to ultimately is always objectively true, but subjectively they tend to be wrong initially in science.

However for some reason when it comes to creation, "christianity" or religion, God forbid (pun intended) if they make a human mistake and get it wrong subjectively, all the while the facts still remain true in the objective.

Science and faith/religion are much the same in these areas. Many hate that fact and refuse to believe that they need to trust in something, i.e. have faith in something to come to their conclusions.

Oh yeah, I thought you were not going to argue with Zed and I Ray, I thought you were leaving? Just can't get enough huh? I thought you werent going to try to change our minds, or anyone elses.

All the while Zat uses what he is decrying, via quotes, to somehow justify his cry.

This thread is still going? I started it in full expectation it would be quashed.
If a scientist makes a fraudulent claim like the above one about the "missing link", then other scientists say they saved us from it. QED: science is truth.
If a single Christian anywhere at any time molests a child or tortures a heretic, it does not matter how many other Christians condemn that. The left-kooks see all Christians as being that way. QED religion is untruth.
The left-wing kooks are merely Klan bigots. Marxists were obvious, but left wingers are too cowardly to admit they are Marxists these days!

"You interpret this fellow as open to possibilities. I interpret him as a fuzzy-thinking hypocrite. I'm the one closer to the truth."

No sir, you said he converted to deism, which is a lie. Like the other thread out here says, own up to it!

P.S. When someone usually claims a victory, they just lost.......

LM

This is the truth.

Subjectively - there is victory
Objectively - We won't know until we find the object.