In America, atheists are still in the closet

Apr 11, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Spiked

So do many other interest and identity groups. Complaint is our political lingua franca: it's what Occupiers, Tea Partiers, Wall Street titans, religious and irreligious people share.

Comments
26,241 - 26,260 of 47,724 Comments Last updated Sep 4, 2013

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27185
Jul 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Hedonist wrote:
Behe: "Under my definition, scientific theory is a proposed explanation which points to physical data and logical inferences."
National Academy of Science "Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations."
National Academy of Science "Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
But that wasn't the issue. His definition of a scientific theory was.
Hedonist wrote: "National Academy of Science "Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."

National Academy of Science, from "Science, Evolution, and Creationism"

"A theory is "a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence."

These are two different definitions of theory from your source, the NAS.

Here are some other different definitions of theory used in scientific research today:

Ken Miller's 2007 edition of the textbook "Biology"

"In science, the word theory applies to a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations."

In the April, 2008 issue of the journal Medical Hypotheses, editor-in-chief Bruce G. Charlton uses the phrase "new theory" multiple times. In this case, scientific theory means: "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact."

Archives of Suicide Research:

"Although the study has offered some support for the new theory, future research with more rigorous quantitative data needs to be conducted to further test the *theory* on a more comprehensive level." (J. Zhang, D. Lester, "Psychological Tensions Found in Suicide Notes: A Test for the Strain Theory of Suicide," Archives of Suicide Research, Vol. 12(1):67-73 (2008).) Clearly this study uses the word "theory" to describe a new idea that has not yet been fully verified nor accepted.

Current Biology Journal; "Social Evolution: The Decline and Fall of Genetic Kin Recognition," by Andy Gardner and Stuart A. West of the Institute of Evolutionary Biology, University of Edinburgh, contains a subheading which asserts:

"New theory confirms that genetic kin recognition is inherently unstable, explaining its rarity."

How could it be a "new theory", if a theory has to be "well-substantiated and tested"?

Medical Hypotheses, editor-in-chief Bruce G. Charlton:

"Theory for scientists is like water for fish: the invisible medium in which they swim."

Therefore, Michael Behe's contention, that the NAS definition of theory, and the one used by the plaintiffs at Kitzmiller, IS NOT HOW SCEINTISTS USE THE TERM IN THE OPERATION OF SCIENCE.

Behe's definition is superior:

"A proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences."

Why do you think scientists in modern research are not obligated to conform to a rigid definition of theory, that the NAS can change their mind on what a theory is, but Behe cannot use a broader definition?

Of course, you cannot answer. I can. It is because zealous Darwinists like you want to exclude ID as science semantically, and not on the merits.

I am glad I was finally able to clear this up with you.

I am sure Dr. Behe would not be interested in your apology, since he has encountered stumbling fools like you before.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27186
Jul 18, 2012
 
HugeKielbasa wrote:
Pretty much the only supportive evidence of the Big Bang theory is red shift supporting a spread apart.
Incorrect. Yet again, you do a nice impression of a fundie.

From http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests.ht...
Tests of Big Bang Cosmology

The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important observations, each of which are described in more detail on separate pages:

[1] The expansion of the universe - Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that galaxies were generally receding from us provided the first clue that the Big Bang theory might be right. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_ex...

[2] The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li - The Big Bang theory predicts that these light elements should have been fused from protons and neutrons in the first few minutes after the Big Bang. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_el...

[3] The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation - The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cm...

These three measurable signatures strongly support the notion that the universe evolved from a dense, nearly featureless hot gas, just as the Big Bang model predicts.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27187
Jul 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
Here's a recent one where you stated this.
Page 1311 of this thread :)
http://www.topix.com/forum/who/mitt-romney/TE...
See that wasn't so hard jailbird and we all had a huge laugh at your expense. You are like this guy on here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
<quoted text>
There is no such statement there.

The only post from me on page 1311 is concerning Stephen Meyer.

Again, post where I said that reincarnation is a scientifically proven fact.

Or admit you lied.

(I already know you lied)

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27188
Jul 18, 2012
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Hedonist wrote: "National Academy of Science "Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
National Academy of Science, from "Science, Evolution, and Creationism"
"A theory is "a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence."
These are two different definitions of theory from your source, the NAS.
The words changed, but the meaning stayed pretty much the same
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Here are some other different definitions of theory used in scientific research today:
Ken Miller's 2007 edition of the textbook "Biology"
"In science, the word theory applies to a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations."
Comes down to the same thing
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
In the April, 2008 issue of the journal Medical Hypotheses, editor-in-chief Bruce G. Charlton uses the phrase "new theory" multiple times. In this case, scientific theory means: "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact."
Woop de doo. Good for him. Wake me up the day we base our scientific definitons on the say-so of some editor
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Archives of Suicide Research:
*Crap about suicide*
Yawn
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Clearly this study uses the word "theory" to describe a new idea that has not yet been fully verified nor accepted.
Then it does not meet the requirements of a scientific theory.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Current Biology Journal; "Social Evolution: The Decline and Fall of Genetic Kin Recognition," by Andy Gardner and Stuart A. West of the Institute of Evolutionary Biology, University of Edinburgh, contains a subheading which asserts:
"New theory confirms that genetic kin recognition is inherently unstable, explaining its rarity."
How could it be a "new theory", if a theory has to be "well-substantiated and tested"?
'Theory' has many applications. We are interested in the scientific one.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Medical Hypotheses, editor-in-chief Bruce G. Charlton:
"Theory for scientists is like water for fish: the invisible medium in which they swim."
Good for him. Wake me up the day we base our scientific definitons on the say-so of some editor
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Therefore, Michael Behe's contention, that the NAS definition of theory, and the one used by the plaintiffs at Kitzmiller, IS NOT HOW SCEINTISTS USE THE TERM IN THE OPERATION OF SCIENCE.
Wow, the quote from the editor certainly proves that, huh?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Behe's definition is superior:
"A proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences."
Oh yeah. Like Astrology, right.?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you think scientists in modern research are not obligated to conform to a rigid definition of theory, that the NAS can change their mind on what a theory is, but Behe cannot use a broader definition?
The defintions all come down to the same thing. Behe does not subject his definition to be 'tested' or 'comprehensive'
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, you cannot answer. I can. It is because zealous Darwinists like you want to exclude ID as science semantically, and not on the merits.
The only merit ID has is that it is as valid a field of study as Astrology is.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I am glad I was finally able to clear this up with you.
Likewise
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I am sure Dr. Behe would not be interested in your apology, since he has encountered stumbling fools like you before.
Yawn

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27189
Jul 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Incorrect. Yet again, you do a nice impression of a fundie.
From http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests.ht...
Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important observations, each of which are described in more detail on separate pages:
[1] The expansion of the universe - Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that galaxies were generally receding from us provided the first clue that the Big Bang theory might be right. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_ex...
[2] The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li - The Big Bang theory predicts that these light elements should have been fused from protons and neutrons in the first few minutes after the Big Bang. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_el...
[3] The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation - The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_cm...
These three measurable signatures strongly support the notion that the universe evolved from a dense, nearly featureless hot gas, just as the Big Bang model predicts.
The trouble with the Big Bang is that it implies a creator.

So we know it cannot be real science.

Big Bang Theory is religion.

Haven't you read your own posts?

Can you only read Mexican now?

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27190
Jul 18, 2012
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't make you idiots understand basic biology.
I'm certainly not going to try to enlighten you on the evidence for reincarnation.
Wait.

I have to respond to this:

Bwahahahahahahaha!

OMG.

What's next? Evidence of the Easter bunny? Or finding out GWD was a reptile? Jellyfish trying to take over the world?

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27191
Jul 18, 2012
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Here's a recent one where you stated this.
Page 1311 of this thread :)
http://www.topix.com/forum/who/mitt-romney/TE...
See that wasn't so hard jailbird and we all had a huge laugh at your expense. You are like this guy on here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
<quoted text>
LOL!

Just responded to it, thanks!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27192
Jul 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
And you have a prior committment to god.
The Abrahamic god.
The one in the bible.
It's good you can make statements without the need for evidence.

Did you learn that from Imam IAnus?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27193
Jul 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Wait.
I have to respond to this:
Bwahahahahahahaha!
OMG.
What's next? Evidence of the Easter bunny? Or finding out GWD was a reptile? Jellyfish trying to take over the world?
You want to stick with this post, or is it another of your mistakes like the one you denied when I called you on it?

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27194
Jul 18, 2012
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such statement there.
The only post from me on page 1311 is concerning Stephen Meyer.
Again, post where I said that reincarnation is a scientifically proven fact.
Or admit you lied.
(I already know you lied)
Wow, maybe it is some sort of mass delusion, because I am pretty sure you claim that there is 'scientific evidence for reincarnation'.

Of course, that is a stupid statement, hey Buckster?

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27195
Jul 18, 2012
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
The trouble with the Big Bang is that it implies a creator.
So we know it cannot be real science.
Big Bang Theory is religion.
Haven't you read your own posts?
Can you only read Mexican now?
Wow.

'Evolution has no theoretical framework'

'Astrology is a valid scientific theory'

'Big Bang implies a creator'

Dammit Buck.

I am pretty aware of the low intellectual standards you set. I am pretty aware of how little you know of the topics you discuss. But damn... You stepped it up a notch.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27196
Jul 18, 2012
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It's good you can make statements without the need for evidence.
Did you learn that from Imam IAnus?
Your creationist underbelly has been shown. Get over it.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27197
Jul 18, 2012
 
IRYW wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes you think Brick and HK ever made it to 4th grade.........?
Much less outta it...

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27198
Jul 18, 2012
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
It's good you can make statements without the need for evidence.
Did you learn that from Imam IAnus?
I have evidence.

You provided it.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27199
Jul 18, 2012
 
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Hehehe.
The most important fossil find in the entire evolutionary theory, methinks.
Having read up on it, I ain't arguing.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27200
Jul 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>

'Theory' has many applications. We are interested in the scientific one.
That was from a biology research journal.

Your ass is handed to you.

You are reduced to wisecracks.

It's an interesting study - what Darwinists do when I prove them wrong. Imam IAnus responds by saying he lost interest. Hiding responds by changing her statements and denying she made the original one. You respond with wisecracks which you think are funny, but are not at all.

Another psychological observation. You guys on here cannot compete with the likes of Michael Behe or myself, either intellectually or scientifically. So you have to resort to non-substantive ridicule. I might read up on the science of psychology to determine what pathology makes you do that. I might be able to help you.

I am open to a substantive, relevant response to the demonstration of Behe being correct on all points at Kitzmiller.

Be aware, if it is a lie or a wisecrack, as is your habit, I will likely not respond, since I have owned you in these exchanges.

And you never thanked me for providing a valid falsification for whale lineage, which you obviously could not do.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27201
Jul 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
I have evidence.
You provided it.
If so, you keep it close to the vest.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27202
Jul 18, 2012
 
Very happy Birthday to Nelson Mandela!

In SA, we celebrate his birthday/legacy by donating 67 minutes to public service, be it working at a soup kitchen for the homeless, visiting cancer patients, or simply picking up garbage in the neighbourhood.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/ilive/2012/07/18/m...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27203
Jul 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Your creationist underbelly has been shown. Get over it.
See what I mean?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27204
Jul 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow.
'Evolution has no theoretical framework'
'Astrology is a valid scientific theory'
'Big Bang implies a creator'
Dammit Buck.
I am pretty aware of the low intellectual standards you set. I am pretty aware of how little you know of the topics you discuss. But damn... You stepped it up a notch.
See what I mean?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

15 Users are viewing the US Politics Forum right now

Search the US Politics Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min PDUPONT 1,083,050
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 10 min TurkanaBoy 113,125
Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second ... (Nov '13) 38 min Kentucky-Mitch 9,392
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 45 min Quirky 245,713
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 59 min wtf 146,969
Texas: Gay-marriage ban best for children 1 hr Henkes 14
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Rogue Scholar 05 175,066
•••
•••