Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Options
1…1415171920…334

Comments

  • Options
    #482
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Haha, oh how the open mind shines in that post :D

    Those "putative fat globules" are the atoms you're made of, I'll have to ask
    you what "scientifcally verified FACTS" have shown phospholipid bilayers to
    not be "observed in nature today"? I believe the cells of the eyes you are
    reading this are protected by these, albeit more advanced ;)


  • Options
    #483
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    stevejazzx wrote: »
    What have I done....:eek:
    He's going to link it in his sig now isn't he, JC;s musical proof of creationism.
    It is great music though, if nothing else at least the creationists will be demonstrating good cultural taste.
    ... and we will have discovered something that we can both agree on!!


  • Options
    #484
    vibe666
    Registered Users Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭vibe666


    J C wrote: »
    Here you have an eminently qualified Scientist ... and an ordinary Dub debating ...
    no, here you have someone who isn't an ordinary anything who was given a book by his daughter 2.5 years ago and with absolutely no scientific background or any formal education on the subject of biology or evolution decides to spend 2 years looking stuff up on the net and to write a book trying to refute the life's work of thousands of eminent scientists from the last 150 years who do actually know what they're talking about.

    he just spent 5 minutes on the radio with a moderately well qualified scientist and got his ar$e handed to him in a sling.

    he's just a clown and a fame whore trying to make money off his bull$hit book.


  • Options
    #485
    vibe666
    Registered Users Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭vibe666


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Yep he read it.

    How to read a post creationist style
    i feel used.

    i think i like it. :pac:


  • Options
    #486
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    Haha, oh how the open mind shines in that post :D

    Those "putative fat globules" are the atoms you're made of, I'll have to ask
    you what "scientifcally verified FACTS" have shown phospholipid bilayers to
    not be "observed in nature today"? I believe the cells of the eyes you are
    reading this are protected by these, albeit more advanced ;)
    The key point is that the fat globules in my eyes are manufactured by my body via an Intelligently Designed process ... and they are not putative ...
    ... but the idea that fat globules arise spontaneously in the sea is evidentially challenged ... and the idea that fat globules eventually produced Man via a series of selected mistakes is also very speculative.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #487
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Hey Robin... photos?????????? :)


  • Options
    #488
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    The earth being created roughly 6000 years ago is my favourite statement
    of his based off his careful analyses of the historical record.
    It's very similar to Fomenko's New Chronology :p
    J C wrote: »
    The key point is that the fat globules in my eyes are manufctured by my body ... and they are not putative ... while the idea that fat globules arise spontaneously in the sea is evidentially challenged ... and the idea that fat globules eventually produced Man via a series of selected mistakes is certainly very speculative.

    So in other words you think it's "evidentially challenged" that Miller and
    Urey's experiments     drew up any conclusions, and you think it's "evidentially
    challenged" that the Szostak video I gave you is lying. I mean that is
    your claim. If you're right then show us why! You'll have to do
    better than "it's evidential" just because you think the sea couldn't
    produce life.


  • Options
    #489
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    vibe666 wrote: »
    no, here you have someone who isn't an ordinary anything who was given a book by his daughter 2.5 years ago and with absolutely no scientific background or any formal education on the subject of biology or evolution decides to spend 2 years looking stuff up on the net and to write a book trying to refute the life's work of thousands of eminent scientists from the last 150 years who do actually know what they're talking about.
    That's how 'breakthroughs' often happen.

    vibe666 wrote: »
    he just spent 5 minutes on the radio with a moderately well qualified scientist and got his ar$e handed to him in a sling.
    I thought that both protagonists made very good points.

    vibe666 wrote: »
    he's just a clown and a fame whore trying to make money off his bull$hit book.
    He is an ordinary Dub who can identify Baloney a mile away, when he sees it!!!!


  • Options
    #490
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    vibe666 wrote: »
    vibe666 wrote: »
    no, here you have someone who isn't an ordinary anything who was given a book by his daughter 2.5 years ago and with absolutely no scientific background or any formal education on the subject of biology or evolution decides to spend 2 years looking stuff up on the net and to write a book trying to refute the life's work of thousands of eminent scientists from the last 150 years who do actually know what they're talking about.

    he just spent 5 minutes on the radio with a moderately well qualified scientist and got his ar$e handed to him in a sling.

    he's just a clown and a fame whore trying to make money off his bull$hit book.
    i feel used.

    i think i like it. :pac:

    Heh, I like using you.


  • Options
    #491
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Dougla2 wrote: »
    i think he is gone...

    edit: no hes not

    J C go away? Hahaha

    You have so much to learn.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #492
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    This is a mutated thread that evolved by natural selection from the original BC&P thread. If you choose to believe in evolution then you have to learn to accept its consequences.
    One doesn't "choose to believe in evolution" any more than one "chooses to believe" that you'd get a shock if you stuck your finger into a live wall socket.

    The phrase "choose to believe" really doesn't apply to beliefs such as gravity, evolution, magentism etc, to which one is led by things like observation and reason. Instead, it really only applies to religious beliefs which are held by their believers to be true because -- for whatever reason -- they're simply appealing visions of what people would like things to be like.

    Hence the "choice" bit.


  • Options
    #493
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Hey Robin... photos?????????? :)
    Will have to wait until tomorrow morning when I can haul them off my phone.

    It'll be interesting to see if the videos came out. Especially the one of the time when a fight almost broke out.

    Whatever else one can say about Mr May, he does not organize dull evenings.


  • Options
    #494
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    Are we gonna get a detailed write up review of the night? :D


  • Options
    #495
    FionnMatthew
    Registered Users Posts: 644 ✭✭✭FionnMatthew


    robindch wrote: »
    One doesn't "choose to believe in evolution" any more than one "chooses to believe" that you'd get a shock if you stuck your finger into a live wall socket.

    The phrase "choose to believe" really doesn't apply to beliefs such as gravity, evolution, magentism etc, to which one is led by things like observation and reason. Instead, it really only applies to religious beliefs which are held by their believers to be true because -- for whatever reason -- they're simply appealing visions of what people would like things to be like.

    Hence the "choice" bit.
    Well, I disagree.

    I mean, insofar as holding beliefs is a matter of choosing them at all, and I don't think it should be, you can choose to believe in these things too.

    Ideally, one's epistemic conduct should be such that they do not choose their beliefs, but hold their beliefs because they are rationally compelled to hold them, or rationally persuaded to hold them.

    But I guess if you're going to choose your beliefs, you can choose not to believe in gravity.

    The difference is, that if you choose to disbelieve in gravity, it's going to be a remarkably maladaptive belief if that belief is cashed out in action. Disbelief in gravity can get you killed quite comprehensively. People who don't believe in gravity are more probable candidates for ending up as a large red stain on a pavement somewhere.

    That in itself makes belief in gravity an adaptive trait, even if there's no genetic basis for it.

    One of the reasons, I suspect, that there is some controversy over evolution, is that it's such an abstract phenomenon that people's day to day survival is largely indifferent to it.

    The epistemic principles that led us to explicit formulations of the laws of gravity are the same that were at work in the explicit statement and development of evolutionary theory. That's why the agreement between gravity theories and the world and the agreement between evolutionary theories and the world are of exactly the same sort, i.e. these theories pick out hard facts about the operation of the universe around us.

    Sadly, people are mostly stupid and lazy, and aren't willing to be consistent.


  • Options
    #496
    FionnMatthew
    Registered Users Posts: 644 ✭✭✭FionnMatthew


    But perhaps the disagreement hinges on a different sense of the word "choose."


  • Options
    #497
    Zillah
    Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    FionnMatthew wrote: »
    Well, I disagree.

    I mean, insofar as holding beliefs is a matter of choosing them at all, and I don't think it should be, you can choose to believe in these things too.

    Ideally, one's epistemic conduct should be such that they do not choose their beliefs, but hold their beliefs because they are rationally compelled to hold them, or rationally persuaded to hold them.

    But I guess if you're going to choose your beliefs, you can choose not to believe in gravity.

    The difference is, that if you choose to disbelieve in gravity, it's going to be a remarkably maladaptive belief if that belief is cashed out in action. Disbelief in gravity can get you killed quite comprehensively. People who don't believe in gravity are more probable candidates for ending up as a large red stain on a pavement somewhere.

    Can you give a real world example of choosing to believe in something? I'm trying to believe in unicorns at the moment but I'm not having much luck.


  • Options
    #498
    FionnMatthew
    Registered Users Posts: 644 ✭✭✭FionnMatthew


    Well, I guess it's not really what you were talking about, but I've been thinking a bit about this, and it always arises when I think of expert testimony and social epistemology - matters of choosing which institutions to put your trust in according to the best knowledge that you have about which ones are worthy of that trust.

    Let's say that you are a nonexpert, but cultivate an interest in a particular issue upon which there is some expert disagreement. Take the possibility of life having arisen on other planets - I suppose it boils down to positions on the probability of abiogenesis, and how those probabilities square with informed assumptions about the size of the universe, its age, etc.

    Let's say that to the best of your ability to inform yourself, the cogent arguments in favour and against the idea that there could be extraterrestrial life seem both very strong, and you are not in the position an expert might be of determining your own position on the question, nor are you in a position to absorb enough of the entire scientific discourse to such a point that you might even have an intuition on which way of thinking about it you might credibly put your money on.

    In this situation, you are being a good epistemic actor - you have your mind in the right place - you are looking to the best possible sector of your social-epistemic community for the resolution of a question you have - but the matter appears to be a difficult one. The matter of which party in the debate is the most trustworthy, for someone who is not in the debate, appears at the moment indeterminate.

    For me, I tend to withhold judgement, but I'll often catch myself, while thinking about issues relevant to the matter, thinking as if one or the other side was the most credible one. And I'll find that I'll change my mind depending on who I read. It's not a matter on which I could claim to know anything hard, although it's something I am reasonably well informed on for a layperson.

    It is a situation in which I can imagine someone, even someone rather given to being careful with their beliefs, choosing, in a sense, to believe one or the other thing.

    But perhaps I am just analysing the situation in the wrong terms. Perhaps, also, it hangs on the phenomenology of believing stuff, and whether people are doing different things when they claim to be 'believing' something. Certainly, there seems to be disagreement about what 'believing' something is - skeptics and religious people seem to be doing different things when they claim to be 'believing' something - and this often seems to come out in debates over what words like "theist" and "atheist" mean. Whether not believing something is the same as believing not-something. etc.


  • Options
    #499
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    FionnMatthew wrote: »
    Well, I disagree.

    I mean, insofar as holding beliefs is a matter of choosing them at all, and I don't think it should be, you can choose to believe in these things too.

    Ideally, one's epistemic conduct should be such that they do not choose their beliefs, but hold their beliefs because they are rationally compelled to hold them, or rationally persuaded to hold them.

    But I guess if you're going to choose your beliefs, you can choose not to believe in gravity.

    The difference is, that if you choose to disbelieve in gravity, it's going to be a remarkably maladaptive belief if that belief is cashed out in action. Disbelief in gravity can get you killed quite comprehensively. People who don't believe in gravity are more probable candidates for ending up as a large red stain on a pavement somewhere.

    That in itself makes belief in gravity an adaptive trait, even if there's no genetic basis for it.

    One of the reasons, I suspect, that there is some controversy over evolution, is that it's such an abstract phenomenon that people's day to day survival is largely indifferent to it.

    The epistemic principles that led us to explicit formulations of the laws of gravity are the same that were at work in the explicit statement and development of evolutionary theory. That's why the agreement between gravity theories and the world and the agreement between evolutionary theories and the world are of exactly the same sort, i.e. these theories pick out hard facts about the operation of the universe around us.

    Sadly, people are mostly stupid and lazy, and aren't willing to be consistent.
    Can you envisage a time where you could ever possibly think "I don't believe in gravity"? I mean, you're either convinced by the evidence/arguments or you're not, you can't just 'decide' not to believe in it, I don't think it's possible is it? :confused:


  • Options
    #500
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    vibe666 wrote: »
    .
    he just spent 5 minutes on the radio with a moderately well qualified scientist and got his ar$e handed to him in a sling.

    Anyone know what show and if it's online ?


  • Options
    #501
    amacachi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,316 ✭✭✭✭amacachi


    I'm just gonna pretend the last 80 or so posts didn't happen and post about stuff before that. :pac:

    Myers is the biggest troll going, his repeating the question of how complex things could come from simple things was typical, he has nothing to add to any conversation.

    On the thing about a lot of people not understanding evolution, in my mind it doesn't matter massively once they have a vague idea of it. The fact that it's so logical and obvious helps it. My dad was out of school in his early teens but even he knows that the strongest survive, the ones that are best at reproducing have their characteristics passed on etc. etc. It's just so bloody obvious! Hell even my 80 something year old granny in her complete ignorance of science and pretty old-type christianity can see that we're related to the apes. She still believes God put us here, perhaps in less evolved forms (I haven't gone further into a discussion with her about it :pac:).
    Obviously it would be better if everyone knew the evidence better and so on it'd be preferable, but once they know enough that'll do for me. People know that nuclear weapons work, and work well, they might mention Einstein but after that they don't know much else.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #502
    sponsoredwalk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭sponsoredwalk


    monosharp wrote: »
    Anyone know what show and if it's online ?
    http://www.phantom.ie/djs-show/phantom-dailysimon-maher.html


  • Options
    #503
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Zillah wrote: »
    J C go away? Hahaha

    You have so much to learn.
    I want to learn ... that's why I'm here!!


  • Options
    #504
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robindch wrote: »
    Will have to wait until tomorrow morning when I can haul them off my phone.

    It'll be interesting to see if the videos came out. Especially the one of the time when a fight almost broke out.

    Whatever else one can say about Mr May, he does not organize dull evenings.
    Isn't it great to be present at cultural/scientific 'breakthroughs?

    The excitement is clear in your writing!!!


  • Options
    #505
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    sponsoredwalk wrote: »
    Are we gonna get a detailed write up review of the night? :D
    More hunger for the excitement of Creationism ... I should have gone myself!!!


  • Options
    #506
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Vibe666
    i feel used.

    i think i like it.


    Malty_T

    Heh, I like using you.
    Go get a room!!!:)


  • Options
    #507
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    Do not feed the troll


  • Options
    #508
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    robindch wrote: »
    One doesn't "choose to believe in evolution" any more than one "chooses to believe" that you'd get a shock if you stuck your finger into a live wall socket.

    The phrase "choose to believe" really doesn't apply to beliefs such as gravity, evolution, magentism etc, to which one is led by things like observation and reason. Instead, it really only applies to religious beliefs which are held by their believers to be true because -- for whatever reason -- they're simply appealing visions of what people would like things to be like.

    Hence the "choice" bit.
    That's the issue ... Evolution is an evidentially and logically challenged faith. Gravity and magnetism are objective observable facts.
    Evolution is a vision of the way Materialists would like things to be.


  • Options
    #509
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    If I went into the maths forum and tried to argue that 2+2=5, eventually, I would be banned.

    Just saying...


  • Options
    #510
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    If I went into the maths forum and tried to argue that 2+2=5, eventually, I would be banned.

    Just saying...

    It does if Big Brother/God says it does.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_%2B_2_%3D_5


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #511
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    If I went into the maths forum and tried to argue that 2+2=5, eventually, I would be banned.

    Just saying...

    And then you'd start a thread in the anti-maths forum whining about how petty the maths mods are.

    Just saying ....... :pac:


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement