In America, atheists are still in the closet

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>
How could ID be falsified? You're starting to convince me.

LOL,the blind leading the blind.
Credulity reigns supreme in the minds of the religiously indoctrinated.

Atheist Silurist wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL,the blind leading the blind.
Credulity reigns supreme in the minds of the religiously indoctrinated.

Not like the credulity of an atheist who thinks a microbe can be bred into a blue whale.

Buck Crick wrote:

Can't help yourself, huh?

Can't help you either, apparently.

Buck Crick wrote:

Well, it will turn out bad for you again.

I think you mean "badly", but okay. I don't expect a change in your perception or your reasoning abilities.

Buck Crick wrote:

First, you know next to nothing about ID.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_desi...

I really wonder how much you know about it.

Buck Crick wrote:

It applies the scientific method, and their research is valid science.

Sorry Buck, using the scientific method, they would have concluded long ago that ID was a dead end.

Buck Crick wrote:

You're just repeating the simpleton's version of it you read on internet sites for atheist pukes like yourself, or if not atheist, what ever type of puke you are.

Why should I have to re-criticize the square wheel? The work is already done, and it's done well. I haven't the ability to improve on the criticisms of ID.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/creati...

I'm just trying to introduce you to planet Earth.

Buck Crick wrote:

A hoax can be science - I meant exactly what I said.

A hoax can be passed off as science. Is this another semantic argument, or do you really think that as long as you don't get caught, you can mislabel things and change their very nature?

Buck Crick wrote:

Kettlewell's Peppered Moth hoax is an example. It was peer-reviewed science, and enshrined in science textbooks.
The reason it was a hoax is not that it wasn't science. It was. It showed natural selection in a population.
The reason it was a hoax is that he faked some of his data.

Sounds like someone made an ethical error. Ooooops. Was he reprimanded? I wouldn't call his work a hoax, just bad science, due to a personal error in judgement. His work may have been sound, I don't know. Fabricating data is surely not "science". Educate me. Did he fabricate data to demonstrate that something happens that doesn't, or to demonstrate that something happens, that actually does happen, and he just spilled coffee on the data? What's the dealio?

Buck Crick wrote:

But it was science, and almost universally accepted by scientists.
In fact, I think it is fair to conclude that the "vast majority of scientists" you claim think ID is a hoax, DID NOT think Kettlewells moths were a hoax.

What reason would they have had to doubt his integrity? I'm not familiar with it myself. Sounds like his mistake was made public though, right? People are aware of it, right? No religious holdouts on the Peppered Moth data, right?

Buck Crick wrote:

Science is no good if done by consensus agreement. It has to be done by observation and evidence.

Consensus comes from following the scientific method rigorously.

Buck Crick wrote:

But you wouldn't know. We can take this as far as you would like to take it, and you will have your ass handed to you with each post.
It's up to you.

More reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Lmfao awesome!! I sense much win in this post :)

Catcher1 wrote:

<quoted text>
But you do remember the time an aide walked into the oval office to tell W that four Brazilian soldiers were killed in Iraq the previous day.
Bush was despondent, put his head down on the desk and began to sob. The aide, considering that the president was overreacting to the news, asked him what was the matter.
W asked, "How many is in a brazillion?"

That's not what the Discovery Instituite says they say the Christian deity is the designer. Behe confirms.

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
Intelligent design hypothesis does not involve God, or any element of the supernatural.

Google Romney the Liar

You hate having a black man in charge of the country don't you? Oh well we will all have a good chuckle counting the votes. Mormon mitt has no chance.

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
He would probably prefer to wait and count the votes, if it's all the same to you.
If people re-elect Bobo, then they deserve him. I'm for people getting what they deserve.

Skombolis wrote:

<quoted text>
There can't be a God because paid magic performers weren't using real magic?
Just out of curiosity what does 3-ball monte disprove?
If WWF Wrestling is fake does that mean all wrestling matches across the country are staged?
The only thing this story proves is street magicians don't use real magic. And that people lied about having magical powers that they attributed to the spiritual realm because it tends to sell more tickets than the claim "I'm tricking you". And spirituality is a little bit more than card tricks.
You had one valid point which was..
"2000 years ago you might have been saying that lightning, in all it's mysterious glory, was proof for god simply because science could not explain it at the time."
...with all due respect you should have stopped there. That story was beyond a reach as far as having any practical comparative value.

Do you know how to read? I was *not at all* claiming that because spiritualists were debunked that religion was therefore false. It was an example of just how far the type of thinking inspired by religion can warp someone's mind. Doyle had to concoct some absolutely ridiculous explanation as to why his pal was able to debunk so many so called spiritualists - similar to how a religious person is able to state straight into overwhelming evidence against their position and deny it without blinking an eye.

Khatru wrote:

<
1. My response to barefoot's first post on this thread.

And maybe someday someone with think that you were clever.

Certainly- as many times as you repeat it, you have an opinion of yourself no one else shares.

Of course, I only have to point to your more recent assertion as your most typical: you running your big mouth and me directly challenging you.

And you running away as fast as your fat fairy legs will carry you, KowKow.

Buck buck buck buck-ALLL!

NightSerf wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow. A well written, first rate post that presented information I haven't seen previously in this forum. Kudos!!!

TY.

ARGUING with IDIOTS wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't run into many people that have studied Pythagoras.
He was a Governor for a short time, but I regress.
Please continue...

Can I say that it is clear from how you worded this post that you actually did not recognize that theorem and that you had to google it to get any information on it.

You "don't run into many people" that have studied pythagoras? That theorem is only one of the most well known in the world, and you brush him off as if his time as a governer means anything - because you looked him up on wiki and picked that little nugget of info out of the entire article. It's be like if I asked you to tell me what e=mc^2 meant - and you came back and said "I don't know many people who have studied einstein, but he worked as a patent clerk for a little while." Completely misses the point, right?

Also, the word you were looking for was digress.

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
I do believe you have misread tim's post and have not understood what he was saying. The above is NOT the intended message as far as I can tell.
What tim seems to be saying is that Doyle had to go through certain mental gymnastics to maintain his belief in magic and the supernatural, those gymnastics included deny reality and even destroying a friendship in order to continue belief.
And tim is pointing out that HTS is performing the same gymnastics to deny the theory of evolution to maintain his belief in his god. HTS has convinced himself that denial of ToE is necessary in order to retain that belief and therefore engages in all sorts of fallacies to deny ToE.

Thank you. At first I thought maybe I didn't make my point clear enough, but it seems that is only the case with the duller ones of the bunch.

Khatru wrote:

<quoted text>
Lol
barefoot was just doing what he loves to do and that's start an argument by labouring a ridiculous point that he knows will engender a response from people.
The guy's a troll and I'm minded of two things:
1. My response to barefoot's first post on this thread.
<quoted text>
2. The best way to beat a troll is not to respond to its screams and wails. I've been remiss in not following this particular rule of thumb, so it's time for me to correct that now.
Sure, it's ok to laugh at him and point out his many inadequacies -that's fine. Not responding to his posts will make him madder as he'll realise his aim of keeping the argument going has been thwarted.
No doubt we'll see more screaming and wailing but that's because he's lost. Then we can watch him try and argue with someone else. Kind of like the way he tried it with you by saying something as ludicrous like "Tennis isn't a sport".
barefoot loses, he always does.

LOL: Kowkow is doing what she likes to do best: beat dead horses, including this dead horse, let all go back and replay everything, so let's see how I responded:

(quote)
Funny how you have to interject your personal and irrelevant opinions merely because I beat you down into a babbling puddle of ooze re: anything you have had to say re: religion in American.

Particularly when- when given something I have actually said- have instead opted to change what I have said, and pass it off as a quote made by me.

Religion in America: an option and a right.
Religion in the UK: a state function, officially.

If you aren't clear on this, check our respective constitutions and...

Oh... that's right... you don't have one.

(end quote)

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
That proves one thing - fake mediums exist.
Nothing else. It says nothing about God, which is where you began.
Oh,...and the Randi Prize,...it's a hoax. It does not exist.
James Randi is a proven liar and charlatan. The verdict is in.

Another person who completely misses the point. I am not trying to say or claim anything about god. If you would have read my post instead of knee jerking into defense mode, you might, emphasis on the might, have realized that.

I'm making a point about how much spirituality/religion, and the brain's hardwired predilection for holding on to beliefs against all reason can warp someone's thinking. The brain is *designed* to maintain and defend a belief once it has been assimilated into our world view. It is very hard to change a belief, that's the point I'm trying to get across. Read it again and you may understand it. It's really not too complicated.

timn17 wrote:

<quoted text>Can I say that it is clear from how you worded this post that you actually did not recognize that theorem and that you had to google it to get any information on it.
You "don't run into many people" that have studied pythagoras? That theorem is only one of the most well known in the world, and you brush him off as if his time as a governer means anything - because you looked him up on wiki and picked that little nugget of info out of the entire article. It's be like if I asked you to tell me what e=mc^2 meant - and you came back and said "I don't know many people who have studied einstein, but he worked as a patent clerk for a little while." Completely misses the point, right?
Also, the word you were looking for was digress.

LOL.

...I also ate a large quantity of paste, but I regress...

Khatru wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes indeed - he's certainly that.

And indeed: you are certainly known for your tonsil massages.

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
If that was the focus, you should have indicated "creationism", rather than "the other option".
You conveyed the impression that you think there is one option ("the"). You probably did, and are now just lying about it.
You are making a mistake by arguing with me, Small Fry.
Just ask Barefoot.

What else is there with this debate? Are you trying to tell me that there are other possibilities being explored in here other than abiogenisis vs creation?

Of all the people in this forum, I care the least for your opinion, so I really couldn't care less whether you think I'm lying or not. This debate is about creationism vs abiogenisis, there's no point in me bring up other possibilities when that would only serve to clutter the debate.

Also, I'm terrified, just so you know. I made such a big mistake! Oh my!

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
Not even close.
Come back in a few years, snot nose.

I'm pretty sure that that is what the theory boils down to, and if you deny it it's just another ham handed attempt to make it look like science. How is it not "we can't explain some of these parts/systems, so goddidit/irreducible complexity." What else is there? Are dinosaurs somehow involved? I hope so! I care enough to look up the details on ID as I care to look up the details on bigfoot.

Bucky, again, I need to reiterate that I do not care what you think about my age. I'd rather be relatively young, with my life in front of me, than a bitter, washed up has been who gets off trying to impress people with his "machismo" on topix. Again, football season ended 25 years ago, bucky.

Khatru wrote:

2. The best way to beat a troll is not to respond to its screams and wails.

As a troll, you have lead the way in screams and kicks and rants, KowKow.

Lovely advice you give- I am sure we all have noticed how you ignore my comments every day you post- every single day.

Funny how you are best at ignoring when I challenge you directly- when you make a post and I ask you to back it up.

To wager.

And you run away as fast as your fat fairy legs can carry you- as if you were a British paratrooper being chased by the German army.

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
FYI, when posting is this brisk, I can't read them all.

I would be surprised to see you read any of them, since it seems you have a speech prepared and the speech aint a response but a hook you can hang them on.