In America, atheists are still in the closet

Buck Crick wrote:

"Anything, no matter how improbable, given eternity, becomes inevitable."

That is a dumb statement. You are reiterating the ridiculous monkeys typing on typewriters for infinity will give rise to the complete works of Shakespeare.

Catcher1 wrote:

<quoted text>
You're right. I won't argue about this.
Other than to point out that your original post argued something utterly different: That a photograph doesn't tell us whether the photographer is ugly or cute.
You "moved the goalposts," as you guys tend to say.
Nevertheless, discussion over.
Now let's get back to the shape of the earth.

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>You're trying to rebut the argument by saying that other evidence shows that evolution is true, so Sanford must be wrong. That is a red herring fallacy.
Now you're saying that we haven't been sequencing the human genome long enough. My response is that essentially all geneticists agree that humans are inheriting at least 150 mutations per generation. You can see entropy in one generation. There is no plausible way for natural selection to get rid of that many mistakes... It's simple math. You haven't countered that claim. You can natural selection even see that many mistakes?
You claim to be a skeptic... Where's your skepticism of gradualistic improvement of DNA when observational science tells us the opposite?

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You mean his appeal to authority followed by a criticism of the same practice, right? I missed it.
I have commented on HTS's double standards at least four times already, including about a half hour ago at http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
Do the evolutionists do better on that thread than they do here?
If not, I'm skipping it.

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
I checked it out.
The first thing I saw was two liars, posting back-to-back, saying that no research has been done on intelligent design.
One was "Dude", who has been on this thread, and has been shown links to such research.
I'm not impressed.

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
I checked it out.
The first thing I saw was two liars, posting back-to-back, saying that no research has been done on intelligent design.
One was "Dude", who has been on this thread, and has been shown links to such research.
I'm not impressed.

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
Do the evolutionists do better on that thread than they do here?
If not, I'm skipping it.

Judged:

1

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
I can help you here.
The credit for the "micro-macroevolution fluff" goes to geneticists, paleontologists, and microbiologists. It started long before ID, and continues today.
"Extrapolation from micro- to macroevolutionary phenomena has been criticized
since the Modern Synthesis when geneticist Richard Goldschmidt (1940) and developmental
biologist Conrad. H. Waddington (1940) questioned how the origin of new body structures could be explained by the accumulation of changes in gene frequency without embryological and
developmental insights (Gilbert et al. 1996, 362).
In the 1970s and early 1980s, the tenet of extrapolation was further criticized by
paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould (1972, 1977), along with other biologists
(e.g., Ayala 1983, Stanley 1979), who argued that changes in gene frequencies in a population
could not provide a complete explanation of the evolution of higher taxa and the origin of novel
morphologies."
from "Defending Evo-Devo: A Response to Hoekstra and Coyne
**In Press (for 2010). Philosophy of Science, 76 (3)."
I am not aware of the religious beliefs of Coyne and Gould, but I am certain they are not members of the Discovery Institute.

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey Cletcher.
More stupid stuff going on in California...
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will080...

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:

"Infinite" and "existence" are mutually exclusive, thus your thesis is impossible.

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>The singular important feature of these arguments with atheists about intelligent design is how little they know about it.

They don't even know what the concept means. They don't know any of the science involved. They don't know the specifics of what it proposes. They don't know its relation to evolution. They don't know that it does not reject evolution.

Yet with this fatal ignorance, they feel they can opine wisely about it and summarily dismiss it as creationism and "not science". They have no clue as to whether it is science.

Not only are they woefully ignorant - they want to be ignorant. It is willful ignorance.

The reason comes down to fear and loathing. They want to know nothing about it, because it threatens their deeply-held beliefs.

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
No, I argued that words containing similar root words do not mean the same thing.
It was prompted by Aerobatty claiming "designer" is in the term "intelligent design".
My example of "photographer" and "photograph" was right on point.
To be good at the law business, Cletch, you have to be able to follow the current of logic in an argument.

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>No, it isn't .

"Intelligent Design" does not include the term "Designer".

"Design" only has 6 letters; "Designer" has 8.

That's a net difference of 2 letters.

The two terms are related, but not the same.

Similarly, this principle of language can be noticed in other words, such as "photograph" and "photographer".

If one says "beautiful photograph", it tells us nothing about whether the "photographer" is beautiful, average, or ugly.

I hope you appreciate me taking the time to explain words for you. Words are important in language. Very important.

Do you need me to explain what "important" means?

Judged:

1

1

1

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>Then why do you repeatedly put up quotations of what they say and do outside the lab?

And comment on those quotations in a dismissive and derogatory manner?

You can see how one could get the impression that you do "care", and your statements reflect something less than honesty.

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>Don't forget the foot that's in your mouth.

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
Nothing there conflicts with ID.

Hedonist wrote:

There is no perfect system, but at least science attempts to correct itself as a constant effort. CONSTANT. Science never ever assumes it has an answer that is not open to better information and correction.

You think that is a weakness. I see it as a strength.

Science is blind to religious appeal. Since every scientific discipline is worldwide, it crosses ALL cultures and socioeconomic political structures. This requires science to pursue scientific knowledge without concern for any particular religious ideology.

You think that is a weakness. I see it as a strength.

Scientific thinking is founded on skepticism and doubt. Where religion has answers that may never be questioned, science never stops questioning every answer they uncover.

You think that is a weakness. I see it as a strength.

Judged:

1

1

Catcher1 wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree with you on this one.
This isn't the time to emulate the Chinese.
Their trains rock; zoom.
But we ain't got the bucks.

Catcher1 wrote:

<quoted text>Oh Buck. Oh Buck!!!!

If one says "bautiful photograph," it tells us there's a photographer.(Who cares if the photographer is ugly?)

Similarly, if one says "intelligent design," it tells us there's a disigner.(Who cares if the designer is ugly?)

An intelligent child can follow this logic dude.

What are you on?