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 (Page 1,313)

Showing posts 26,241 - 26,260 of47,734
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27176
Jul 18, 2012
 
Yes he seriously said that reincarnation is a scientific fact! After such a dullard statement like that how can anyone take anything he says remotely serious???
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
He said WHAT??

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27177
Jul 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Sigh.
No Buck.
Be honest - you know next to zero about anything related to natural science. The only topics you can discussed (poorly) is those you pilferred of Creationist sites, and try to ammend it for ID.
In reality, you simply cannot comprehend any argument we make. Your blatant lack of both the fossil record and it's implications belies you every time.
Usually I will blast you, but because my morning meeting went so well, I will give you an even more basic explanation.
Let's say we have a murder. The scene indicates our unhappy victim came home from work and was jumped by our perp (i.e. he clocked out at work and was dicovered the next morning, surprised at his front door)
Now, our initial hypothesis (police and lawyers will use the word theory here. Scientifically, this is wrong) is that he left work (let's say normal working hours until 5PM and he drives 30 min to his house) and came home at 5H30 PM and got jumped by the perp.
HOWEVER, let's say you go chat with his boss, and you hear that he felt ill and went home early, that will to a great extent, falsify your hypothesis that he came home at 5h30.
Now Buck, surrounding the Whale issue, here are facts:
- All mammals stemn from protomammals (pre-dinosaur mammals)
- Whales are mammals
Hypothesis 1: Somewhere in time did either protomammals or mammals evolve into whales. Do you agree?
Now here is another fact:
1) Fully aquatic whales only show up in the fossil record around 45 million years ago
Hypothesis 2a: Whales do not show up earlier, because they only recently evolved at that time
Hypothesis 2b: Whales do not show up earlier, because we are yet to find the older specimens.
Hypothesis 1 is pretty straight forward.
However, hypothesis 2a and 2b are the falsifications of each other. If 2a is observed, 2b is false. If 2b is accurate, 2a is false.
I simply cannot make it any more clear than this.
I understand natural sciences much better than you.

Your submitted falsification is ridiculous.

Would you like for me to supply a scientifically valid one?

OK.

Demonstrate whether the number of character state changes required for innovative structures in the marine whale from the land dwelling mammal can be achieved given the mutational resources available in the population. You can do this with population genetics modeling, then it comes down to mathematics.

OH! Guess what - it's been done!

And the whale lineage was falsified!

Wow!

Isn't science great?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27178
Jul 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
Yes he seriously said that reincarnation is a scientific fact! After such a dullard statement like that how can anyone take anything he says remotely serious???
<quoted text>
Produce the post where I said that.

Or admit you are a slobbering liar.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27179
Jul 18, 2012
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Yes he seriously said that reincarnation is a scientific fact! After such a dullard statement like that how can anyone take anything he says remotely serious???
<quoted text>
Kee-rist.

Buck is off his rocker again.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27180
Jul 18, 2012
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, ID is being utilized in cancer study.
Just thought you might wish to know.
Not intending to be combative. Please accept with kindness with which it is intended.
Thank you,
Buck B. Crick, esq.
How?

And by who?

And to what effect?

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27181
Jul 18, 2012
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand natural sciences much better than you.
Yeah. Right. I suspect you include Astrology in 'natural sciences' again?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Your submitted falsification is ridiculous.
That is the proper one, based on fossil evidence.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you like for me to supply a scientifically valid one?
OK.
You don't have an idea what science is.
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Demonstrate whether the number of character state changes required for innovative structures in the marine whale from the land dwelling mammal can be achieved given the mutational resources available in the population. You can do this with population genetics modeling, then it comes down to mathematics.
That's the problem. Your ID people just look at the evidence and say 'Damn. That IS complex. Goddidit'
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
OH! Guess what - it's been done!
Oh great. So people who believe Astrology is a valid science decides that the Whale hypothesis have been falsified. What's next? Proving that Santa Claus live in the North Pole?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
And the whale lineage was falsified!
Wow!
Lol. Your hacks do that without once mentioning a fossil find. I suppose you are stupid enough to fall for it.
So what's the ID position? Whales are fish?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't science great?
Astrology ain't science. Neither is ID.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27182
Jul 18, 2012
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Produce the post where I said that.
Or admit you are a slobbering liar.
Yeah, it's not as if you try to pass off astrology as a valid scientific theory, right?

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27183
Jul 18, 2012
 
You meant to post this under your barefoot screen name right?? It's ok it must be difficult remembering what screen name you are using for your trolling eh?
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
How would you like my size 18 boot lodged in your colon?

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27184
Jul 18, 2012
 
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...
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Produce the post where I said that.
Or admit you are a slobbering liar.

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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 26,241 - 26,260 of47,734
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••