Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Herald,

Answer me first , don't be presumptuous. You've earned no rights of "me only" inquiry.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Answer me first , don't be presumptuous. You've earned no rights of "me only" inquiry.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Answer me first , don't be presumptuous. You've earned no rights of "me only" inquiry.

Easy for you to say that to Herald, FM...but earlier when I asked you a question, you replied with other questions without ever addressing mine.

You suggested that I had been ignoring evidence you have presented right from the beginning. I have no idea of why you are saying that...and asked you.

Here it is: http://able2know.org/topic/226001-207#post-5843564

Why not stop being a hypocrite and go back and respond to my question?

If you can do either, I mean.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

To begin with, your questions should be directed to yourself. Your questions are ridiculous. Why don 't you answer them? Your guess is not an answer.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

To begin with, your questions should be directed to yourself.

No they shouldn't. They were directed to the person they should have been.

Quote:

Your questions are ridiculous.

My questions are not ridiculous. They are appropriate...and sometimes are not easy to answer...which I suspect may be the case in this particular instance.

Quote:

Why don 't you answer them?

How can I answer "What specifically about my last post do you disagree with...and why?"

Tell me, ci...how can I answer that?

Quote:

Your guess is not an answer.

What guess? Try to keep up...no matter how hard it is for someone like you.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Right...so if the question is "Do the sun, moon, planets and stars revolve around the Earth...or is the Earth a sphere spinning on its axis and the apparent motion of those bodies is an illusion?"...

...one should choose the former, because of Occam's Razor.

Parados, Occam's Razor is one of the most illogical and useless pieces of garbage ever proposed by any philosopher.

Only if you ignore the other evidence would you make such an odd decision between the 2 choices. Clearly you didn't understand much of that post for you to present a false dichotomy as your example of why you dislike Occam's razor.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
Right...so if the question is "Do the sun, moon, planets and stars revolve around the Earth...or is the Earth a sphere spinning on its axis and the apparent motion of those bodies is an illusion?"...

...one should choose the former, because of Occam's Razor.

Parados, Occam's Razor is one of the most illogical and useless pieces of garbage ever proposed by any philosopher.

Only if you ignore the other evidence would you make such an odd decision between the 2 choices.

Well, Parados...you conveniently forgot that there have been people on this planet who did not have the "other evidence" to which you refer. If they had used Occam's Razor as a guide...they would have chosen the former. And Occam's Razor would have lead them to an absolutely, totally incorrect conclusion.

You are correct, however, that once you know the answer to a problem, Occam's Razor looks great. Before you know the answer, however, it is a piece of nonsense...leading to a wrong conclusion as often as leading to a sound one.

So...since we do not know if there is a GOD or not...it is totally worthless on this issue...and should not even have been brought up in this discussion.

Quote:

Clearly you didn't understand much of that post for you to present a false dichotomy as your example of why you dislike Occam's razor.

I have no idea of what you are trying to say here...and there was no "false dichotomy" presented by me...despite you thinking there was. Be a bit more specific, if you can.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Ive answered you ad nauseum . You just fail to ignore logic and continue your silly obsession with gods and ID.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Ive answered you ad nauseum .

You have not answered the question I asked, FM. You have not replied to it in any way.

Quote:

You just fail to ignore logic…

I would hope we all “fail to ignore logic.” Why would anyone want to do that? Why do you do it so often?

Quote:

…and continue your silly obsession with gods and ID.

I am not obsessed with gods and ID any more than you are. I, like you, am participating in a thread devoted to those two items.

I am still waiting for you to answer my question. The link to the question is:

http://able2know.org/topic/226001-207#post-5843564

Give it a try, FM.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
All theories are by scientific definition claims that have been proven true by reigning scientific standards.
Where have you proved the assumptions of the Big Bang 'theory'....

Holy ****. That's what I call the mother of all non sequiturs! Laughing

Nice attempt at a dodge, maroon. You fucked up. You don't know wtf you're talking about. Man up. Own it.

Quote:

FBM wrote:
Claim X has been proven to be untrue by reigning scientific standards.
... like for example non-compliance with basic laws of fundamental sciences.

FBM wrote:
"false theory" is an oxymoron
Since when you get interested in the contradictions within the self?

Good question. You're the one who just made it up, you tell me. I'm interested in the glaring ****-up that you've just been called on. Remember that vocabulary word from our previous lesson? Let's review: Denialism.

Quote:

Denialism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In human behavior, denialism is exhibited by individuals choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid dealing with an uncomfortable truth.[1] Author Paul O'Shea remarks, "[It] is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event".[2]
In science, denialism has been defined as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial.[3] It has been proposed that the various forms of denialism have the common feature of the rejection of overwhelming evidence and the generation of a controversy through attempts to deny that a consensus exists.[4][5] A common example is Young Earth creationism and its dispute with the evolutionary theory.[6]
...

https://www.google.co.kr/#newwindow=1&safe=off&q=denialism

Herod, if only your dishonesty were replaced with acumen, you'd really be something special. Instead, you've proven over and over again that you're something "special."

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/apeshit.gif

0 Replies

Let's have a look at a small sample of how extreme god-bothering has benefitted society recently: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/toddler-dies-from-malnutrition-caused-by-radical-christian-parents-faith-based-vegan-diet/

Quote:

Toddler dies from malnutrition caused by radical Christian parents’ faith-based vegan diet

...Parents Jeromie Clark, 31, and Jennifer Clark, 34, are Seventh Day Adventists who practiced a strict vegan diet and shunned traditional medical interventions in favor of prayer...

Score one for god?

Quote:

Faith-healing parents get 10 years in prison for death of daughter

Travis and Wenona Rossiter belong to the Church of the First Born. The church rejects modern medicine, and believes that those who are sick should be prayed over and anointed with oil. The church teaches that if someone goes to a doctor for medical care, they are going against God.

In interviews with detectives, the parents said that, based on their beliefs, they wouldn’t have done anything different, claiming that doctors are for people who don’t believe strongly enough in God...

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2014/12/faith-healing-parents-get-10-years-in-prison-for-death-of-daughter/

Which juxtaposes nicely with: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2014/12/gop-lawmaker-tells-americans-to-rely-on-jesus-for-healthcare/

Quote:

GOP lawmaker tells Americans to rely on Jesus for healthcare

Faith healing madness: Republican lawmaker Gordon Klingenschmitt tells Americans “to look to the Lord” for healthcare, claiming that God will protect people from disease so long as they obey God’s commands...

The stupid, it burns. Out ******* standing god y'all got there. I think I'll just stick with being a heathen, thank you.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

As Ive said, I answered your questions many times and am tired of your thought process. You will continue with your belief in the possibility of gods and dragons and ID and this will go along whatever other **** you wanna conjer.
I wish you well but find your thinking obsessive and weirdly committal while denying that its so.
If you cannot buy the strength of evidence alone, then I have nothing more
(other than the past argument that even if left handed DNA is found all over the galaxy, I have no basis to conclude that some outsider did it . DNA is capqble of self-chirality and hydrogen bonds, covalent bonds and peptide linkages are well understood and mapped.Even the fact that T n G and A n C only connect with each other forming TG,GT, TT, GG or AC, CA CC and AA are the possibilities and R clumps with each with H bonds. we actually know how and can posit why. Everything else is a response to environmental changes in which a myriad of combintions by somatic cells send up combintions of the nucleotides nd , of which, maybe only one or several survive on an adaptee.
MAybe Im too close to the subject to understand where your evidence comes from, and I don't buy "If , then" as anything but crap. Your entire argument , to me, seems to be totally based on a simple "if...then" math argument in which you've not imposed any attempts at explanations of "heres why" (let alone plop in any real evidence other than "Suppose" or "if its possible.... then there MUST be a...".
TO ME-- That's totally wacky Frank, sorry. If it makes sense to you, I suggest you begin a journey and start with Watsons Book "DNA" nd then Fairbnks Book ""Relics of EDEN" and Darwin, and D palmers "Seven Million Years". These are approachable 4 books that reveal the fact that evolution was opportunistic and adaptive and a good beginning structural geology text an one on Plate Tectonics will show you that earth side events were random,non- cyclic, and mildly uniformitarian.
(No gods need apply).

Ive said this so many times to you that Im worrying that youre not even listening. SO HAVE A MERRY CHRISSMAS FRANK and Ill try not to bother you again.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Also Frank, Ive put you on ignore for a week or two. I don't have the patience to discuss your beliefs with you and all Ill do (nd I see you doing it with everyone ) is start being really insulting and I don't want to do that, cause, other than this topic, you are mostly engaging and interesting

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Well, Parados...you conveniently forgot that there have been people on this planet who did not have the "other evidence" to which you refer. If they had used Occam's Razor as a guide...they would have chosen the former. And Occam's Razor would have lead them to an absolutely, totally incorrect conclusion.

In your example both are incorrect so to argue one is more incorrect is silly. With known information it is always best to choose the simplest one. As you get more data you can always change which is what science does. You however are asking that we pick a choice that has no data. Which leads us back to choosing between pink elephants flying out of your butt or rainbow unicorns. I guess since we don't have any data supporting either of those we should still choose one of them. Which do you propose is correct Frank?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Put me on IGNORE for as long as you want, FM, but don't pretend it is because my arguments do not make sense or are illogical or irrelevant.

You have been arguing with people who truly do not make sense for hundreds of pages here...knowing full well there is absolutely nothing backing their comments. You like to deal with them, because you have become addicted to picking low-hanging fruit.

You do not want to acknowledge that IF there is the possibility of a GOD...there is the possibility of intelligent design...

...and the chances of the possibility of a GOD...is the same as the possibility of there being no GOD.

If you want to argue about how the move from what began on the planet to what we are now...FINE. I agree with you that science is uncovering the path that was taken.

BUT THERE IS NO WAY you can say that this path is not the design of a GOD.

Your devotion to your religion of NO GOD is causing you to make silly, illogical arguments...and you do not want to deal with a reasonable objection. You'd rather stick to picking on the low-hanging fruit.

As I suspected.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Answer me first , don't be presumptuous. You've earned no rights of "me only" inquiry.

     You are not answering anything - at least not to the questions that have been raised. You and your fellow-atheists are answering whatever you like on whatever theme you find appropriate, which in any case scenario may be everything else but 'me only inquiry'. Besides that, this is your personal favorite theory - people with that beliefs have made the mess in physics with the Big Bang 'theory', so you are supposed to fix the mess.
     My personal beliefs are that the Universe has always existed and that the Intelligence in the Universe has always existed and the verification of that is unknowable, which is not in contradiction with any laws of the fundamentals sciences. If both have always existed the questions who created what, by whom, why and when are out of subject.
     FM, there is no way to start creating anything out of something that has had no time. For the start up of the Time you will need a launching procedure, which in any case is a sequence of events, in other words you will have to start up the Time before and in order to start up the Time. This kind of circular logic could belong only to the Big Bang 'theory' and to nothing else.
     BTW according to the laws of quantum physics a replica of the Earth with replica of the Biosphere should exist 'on the other side' of the Universe as well. How can you explain that hypothesis?

3 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
Well, Parados...you conveniently forgot that there have been people on this planet who did not have the "other evidence" to which you refer. If they had used Occam's Razor as a guide...they would have chosen the former. And Occam's Razor would have lead them to an absolutely, totally incorrect conclusion.

In your example both are incorrect so to argue one is more incorrect is silly. With known information it is always best to choose the simplest one. As you get more data you can always change which is what science does. You however are asking that we pick a choice that has no data. Which leads us back to choosing between pink elephants flying out of your butt or rainbow unicorns. I guess since we don't have any data supporting either of those we should still choose one of them. Which do you propose is correct Frank?

You are boring, Parados...and petty as a kindergartener.

I am saying that IF there is the possibility of a GOD...there is the possibility of intelligent design.

If you are making the argument that there is no possibility of intelligent design...make it...and I will blow the doors off it.

But instead, you and a few of the others who prefer not to deal with reasonable arguments on the other side of the atheistic perspective...

...are playing deflection games.

So...if you are making the argument that there is no possibility of intelligent design...make it. We'll see what happens.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

My personal beliefs are that the Universe has always existed and that the Intelligence in the Universe has always existed and the verification of that is unknowable, which is not in contradiction with any laws of the fundamentals sciences.

Such a belief does contravene the existing evidence. So what is it gonna be? Believe and ignore evidence ? . OR Accept the evidence (and of course you can see it in action at Greenbank W Va) and abandon your belief?

Pick one.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

BTW according to the laws of quantum physics a replica of the Earth with replica of the Biosphere should exist 'on the other side' of the Universe as well. How can you explain that hypothesis

BTW, Quantum Physics contains many "Hypotheses" not laws. Is the concept of a multiverse even falsifiable? (Hint: starts with an N)

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

BTW according to the laws of quantum physics a replica of the Earth with replica of the Biosphere should exist 'on the other side' of the Universe as well. How can you explain that hypothesis

BTW, Quantum Physics contains many "Hypotheses" not laws. Is the concept of a multiverse even falsifiable? (Hint: starts with an N)

0 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know