deacon_sephiroth
(315 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-01-11 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #72 |
| 93. It's a damn good try and might give one pause, but only pause |
|
Edited on Thu Dec-01-11 02:54 PM by deacon_sephiroth
Daniel Dennett was talking about William Lane Craig, but what he said applies to this and so many of the "arguments" put forth by modern apologists. Some thing are mind boggling, and counter intuitive, but you can't use your gut feelings and every day common sense on some of the findings of advanced sciences, you can't use mind bogglingness as your litmus test for fact. Irreducible Complexity is one example in biology, but you find such things, dutifully pointed out in quantum mechanics, cosmology, and plenty of places that apologists have found fun thought experiments that are very difficult to wrap your head around IF you are ignorant of the topic or field. Or for that matter you can be versed in the field and still some concepts, some facts, some math, some evidence is difficult to push past your base gut instincts, but the truth is in the science... always.
The REAL experts in the fields, the REAL knowledgeable individuals DO understand and they DO agree and they are NEVER in agreement with these pseudo-intellectual wolves in scientist's clothing out to make a buck from the holy rollers.
I'm sorry but "I don't understand this therefor it must not be true." does not work. That is not a declaration of the factual nature of the topic but a declaration from the speaker of their ignorance, OFTEN PURPOSEFUL.
Some of the people listening to the apologists and nodding their heads in agreement should be ASHAMED of themselves. Someone with a degree (which in some poster's world is instant and irrevocable credibility) tells you something you've likely never even heard of, tells you half the story, tells you it's too hard to understand and tells you that you don't understand it, then encourages you to give up, and default to make-believe because it's easy and fun and will make you feel comfortable and safe again, free from the uncertainty of thought and the difficulty of complex concepts... well fuck him/her!
How dare these people masquerade as scientists while spewing such unproductive venom into the population. How dare they preach the death of thought and progress and advocate giving up and calling it magic, who gave them degrees in the first place, how did they ever get that far with such a pathetic attitude? Disgraceful, and it makes me sick....
so sick..... so fucking sick.... that I completely go off on tangents in reply to a short comment by Silent3...
not sure that was called for, but there it is.
|
| -Intelligent Design: Atheists to the Rescue |
rug |
Nov-29-11 12:50 PM |
#0 |
-
If you're like me and terminally cynical, you'll look to what they're trying to accomplish. |
DCKit |
Nov-29-11 12:56 PM |
#1 |
-
Sorry, any article not correctly identifying Behe is dishonest. |
Warren Stupidity |
Nov-29-11 12:57 PM |
#2 |
 -
Whatever else you call him he's a professor of biochemistry with a PhD from Penn. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 01:07 PM |
#4 |
-
He is a paid wanker for the Discovery Institute. |
Warren Stupidity |
Nov-29-11 01:17 PM |
#7 |
 -
I see. He's No True Scientist. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 01:20 PM |
#8 |
-
He is a paid wanker for the Discovery Institute. |
Warren Stupidity |
Nov-29-11 01:33 PM |
#11 |
 -
Saying it twice does not add any veracity. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 01:48 PM |
#13 |
-
No it makes me wonder if you understand who the players are. |
Warren Stupidity |
Nov-29-11 01:59 PM |
#16 |
-
I know exactly who the players are. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 02:11 PM |
#17 |
-
"I'm looking at the entire issue without any dogma whatsoever." |
Warren Stupidity |
Nov-29-11 02:31 PM |
#20 |
-
There's plenty of dogma to go around. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 03:28 PM |
#23 |
-
LMAO! +1,000 |
Sal316 |
Nov-29-11 04:40 PM |
#31 |
-
"Behe...tutored Ann Coulter on science and evolution for her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism" |
beam me up scottie |
Nov-29-11 04:51 PM |
#36 |
 -
So he's not a "True Scientist"? |
Sal316 |
Nov-29-11 05:12 PM |
#38 |
-
To anti-science right wing christian conservatives, he's a whore with a degree. |
beam me up scottie |
Nov-29-11 05:25 PM |
#39 |
 -
Essentially he's like Paul Cameron |
NMMNG |
Nov-29-11 07:19 PM |
#44 |
-
ugh. |
beam me up scottie |
Nov-29-11 07:37 PM |
#45 |
-
I can see you're clueless |
skepticscott |
Nov-29-11 07:48 PM |
#46 |
-
Educate me, o wise one |
Sal316 |
Dec-01-11 08:59 AM |
#83 |
-
It's funny you play on the NTS fallacy while invoking an argument from authority. |
darkstar3 |
Dec-02-11 01:26 AM |
#94 |
 -
Keep on shufflin' PZ |
Sal316 |
Dec-02-11 05:38 PM |
#97 |
-
"But I will tell you this, I sure as heck know more about theology than they do." |
beam me up scottie |
Dec-02-11 06:06 PM |
#98 |
 -
Keep on shufflin' |
Sal316 |
Dec-03-11 10:40 AM |
#106 |
-
The Courtier's Reply was written about critics like you. |
beam me up scottie |
Dec-03-11 11:18 AM |
#107 |
-
Thanks for proving my point.. |
Sal316 |
Dec-03-11 03:07 PM |
#110 |
-
Keep digging. |
beam me up scottie |
Dec-03-11 03:12 PM |
#111 |
-
Yeah, cause I'M shufflin'. |
darkstar3 |
Dec-02-11 07:41 PM |
#99 |
-
I don't support Behe's bs. It's crap science. |
Sal316 |
Dec-03-11 10:33 AM |
#104 |
-
Really? Because your contributions all over the thread strongly suggest otherwise. |
darkstar3 |
Dec-03-11 01:17 PM |
#108 |
-
No, they don't. |
Sal316 |
Dec-03-11 03:06 PM |
#109 |
-
Oh really? |
darkstar3 |
Dec-03-11 04:33 PM |
#112 |
-
Are you a farmer? |
Sal316 |
Dec-03-11 06:49 PM |
#114 |
-
That pole you're stirring with, |
darkstar3 |
Dec-03-11 06:57 PM |
#115 |
-
I'll take that as a "no", then. |
Sal316 |
Dec-05-11 10:03 AM |
#118 |
-
Isn't that what you did in #114? |
trotsky |
Dec-05-11 10:19 AM |
#119 |
-
No, you're clueless in spite of all that. |
skepticscott |
Dec-02-11 08:08 PM |
#100 |
-
Deleted message |
Name removed |
Dec-02-11 08:29 PM |
#101 |
-
Nice. |
beam me up scottie |
Dec-02-11 08:36 PM |
#102 |
 -
He's a theologian, so presumably, he knows. n/t |
laconicsax |
Dec-04-11 08:04 PM |
#116 |
-
And Dawkins needs to know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin before debunking IDiots. |
beam me up scottie |
Dec-04-11 09:14 PM |
#117 |
-
*self delete* |
Sal316 |
Dec-03-11 10:34 AM |
#105 |
-
No, go ahead. Say what you were going to. |
laconicsax |
Dec-03-11 05:52 PM |
#113 |
-
Well, I've never heard of the guy |
rrneck |
Nov-29-11 06:16 PM |
#41 |
-
He's a paid schill for the ACSI, too. |
beam me up scottie |
Nov-29-11 05:05 PM |
#37 |
-
I don't understand why they'd HAVE to be "intentions". Why not just super-super ordinate, macro, |
patrice |
Nov-29-11 01:03 PM |
#3 |
 -
Intention can be ascribed to such things, but it isn't necessary to the phenomena themselves. |
patrice |
Nov-29-11 01:07 PM |
#5 |
-
Oh and "What Darwin Got Wrong" is a joke. |
Warren Stupidity |
Nov-29-11 01:14 PM |
#6 |
 -
It's always nice to get an objective view. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 01:22 PM |
#9 |
-
PZ Meyers is an actual reputable biologist. |
Warren Stupidity |
Nov-29-11 01:29 PM |
#10 |
-
And he's an actual biochemist. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 01:49 PM |
#14 |
-
William Demsbki is a scientist now? |
AmericaIsGreat |
Nov-29-11 01:36 PM |
#12 |
 -
Actually, a mathematician. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 01:53 PM |
#15 |
-
Right |
AmericaIsGreat |
Nov-29-11 02:22 PM |
#18 |
-
You do realize that arguments from authority are useless right? |
Humanist_Activist |
Nov-29-11 02:27 PM |
#19 |
 -
To a degree. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 03:30 PM |
#24 |
  -
Considering I didn't use either, your mention of them is inapplicable.. |
Humanist_Activist |
Nov-29-11 03:34 PM |
#25 |
   -
Of course there's "to a degrre" here. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 03:47 PM |
#27 |
  -
to a degree |
deacon_sephiroth |
Nov-29-11 04:23 PM |
#29 |
   -
Yes, get them on the line, please. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 04:42 PM |
#34 |
  -
they agree with me, and further point out that the tactics you are |
deacon_sephiroth |
Nov-30-11 03:11 AM |
#55 |
  -
I didn't say you should do anything, I pointed out facts about the ID movement and their tactics... |
Humanist_Activist |
Nov-29-11 09:12 PM |
#48 |
  -
Like post #9, yes. |
trotsky |
Nov-30-11 06:25 AM |
#56 |
 -
#57 is closer. |
rug |
Nov-30-11 05:27 PM |
#64 |
 -
Glad you admit you launched an ad hom! |
trotsky |
Nov-30-11 05:51 PM |
#65 |
 -
Not at all. |
rug |
Nov-30-11 06:00 PM |
#66 |
 -
No, you did indeed admit it. |
trotsky |
Nov-30-11 06:12 PM |
#67 |
 -
And this? |
rug |
Nov-30-11 06:22 PM |
#69 |
 -
What can I say? |
trotsky |
Nov-30-11 06:41 PM |
#71 |
 -
OOO...the Meyers shuffle! |
Sal316 |
Nov-29-11 04:41 PM |
#33 |
-
I don't understand this reference, but I find it ironic that even here, creationist cretins... |
Humanist_Activist |
Nov-29-11 09:23 PM |
#49 |
-
What it comes down to is fear and hatred of atheists, I guess. |
trotsky |
Nov-30-11 06:27 AM |
#57 |
 -
That I don't get, why discredit yourself in this way? |
Humanist_Activist |
Dec-01-11 03:05 AM |
#77 |
-
Considering I'm not a creationist... |
Sal316 |
Dec-01-11 09:00 AM |
#84 |
-
I don't believe that claim was made. |
trotsky |
Dec-01-11 11:14 AM |
#88 |
-
I didn't say you were... |
Humanist_Activist |
Dec-02-11 01:41 PM |
#96 |
-
Really? So you don't believe that the universe was created in some fashion by God? |
darkstar3 |
Dec-02-11 11:54 PM |
#103 |
-
And Dobson is a psychologist, that doesn't make HIM any less an idiot. |
Odin2005 |
Nov-29-11 09:59 PM |
#51 |
-
"What Darwin Got Wrong" was widely derided by philosophers |
muriel_volestrangler |
Nov-29-11 02:54 PM |
#21 |
-
Why are you posting creationism "theories" from right wing conservative christian "think tanks"? |
beam me up scottie |
Nov-29-11 03:25 PM |
#22 |
 -
Are you saying only sources you approve may be posted? |
rug |
Nov-29-11 03:45 PM |
#26 |
  -
I didn't say you're not allowed to post crap from the religious right. In fact I applaud your choice |
beam me up scottie |
Nov-29-11 04:20 PM |
#28 |
 -
I'll be glad to after I remove the assumptions, misstatements, snark and opinion from your post. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 04:28 PM |
#30 |
 -
I read the article before I posted. It's bullshit and doesn't merit rational discourse. |
beam me up scottie |
Nov-29-11 04:41 PM |
#32 |
 -
That explains your irrational comments. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 04:43 PM |
#35 |
 -
It's amazing is it not? |
EvolveOrConvolve |
Nov-29-11 06:26 PM |
#43 |
-
We've been told we don't deserve protection under the Constitution because we're not a true minority |
beam me up scottie |
Nov-29-11 07:55 PM |
#47 |
-
I don't think that's what gave rise to the movement |
Major Nikon |
Nov-29-11 06:10 PM |
#40 |
-
It's been a while since I read "What Darwin Got Wrong." |
Jim__ |
Nov-29-11 06:21 PM |
#42 |
 -
See #21 - philosophers destroyed their point #1 |
muriel_volestrangler |
Nov-30-11 06:32 PM |
#70 |
-
I've seen post #21. |
Jim__ |
Nov-30-11 08:30 PM |
#73 |
-
If this is your response |
skepticscott |
Nov-30-11 09:25 PM |
#74 |
-
Did you miss my citation from the book? |
Jim__ |
Nov-30-11 10:07 PM |
#75 |
-
The excerpt from the book doesn't explain anything |
muriel_volestrangler |
Dec-01-11 05:40 AM |
#78 |
-
The excerpt from the book addresses, in part, the excerpt from the review by Block and Kitcher. |
Jim__ |
Dec-01-11 07:09 AM |
#80 |
-
It implies that biologists do not take 'endogenous factors' into account |
muriel_volestrangler |
Dec-01-11 07:55 AM |
#82 |
-
No, it doesn't imply that at all. |
Jim__ |
Dec-01-11 09:10 AM |
#85 |
-
And by not limiting it to biology, they step away from Darwin |
muriel_volestrangler |
Dec-01-11 09:53 AM |
#86 |
-
Their argument is against the Theory of Natural Selection as the primary driver of evolution. |
Jim__ |
Dec-01-11 11:28 AM |
#89 |
-
Not sure this will get anywhere; you say "the authors are right", but don't give reasons |
muriel_volestrangler |
Dec-01-11 11:52 AM |
#90 |
-
I didn't say the authors are right. |
Jim__ |
Dec-01-11 02:20 PM |
#92 |
-
I read Fodor's book and it's one giant straw-man argument. |
Odin2005 |
Nov-29-11 09:56 PM |
#50 |
 -
Hey! I had the same reaction to The God Delusion. |
rug |
Nov-29-11 10:42 PM |
#52 |
-
And a non-sequitur from rug. n/t |
laconicsax |
Nov-29-11 11:52 PM |
#54 |
 -
You expected more? |
trotsky |
Nov-30-11 06:29 AM |
#58 |
 -
Sorry if I went too fast for you. |
rug |
Nov-30-11 01:24 PM |
#60 |
-
Except it's not |
edhopper |
Nov-30-11 01:59 PM |
#61 |
-
If Intelligent Design exists then there should be a blue print |
Angry Dragon |
Nov-29-11 11:45 PM |
#53 |
-
Unrec for posting right-wing garbage on DU. n/t |
trotsky |
Nov-30-11 06:30 AM |
#59 |
 -
Isn't it interesting how readily it's embraced here? |
laconicsax |
Nov-30-11 06:17 PM |
#68 |
-
Back in 2000 my fundy sister confidently predicted... |
Silent3 |
Nov-30-11 04:10 PM |
#62 |
-
Dembski's probabalistic arguments have been thoroughly debunked by |
MarkCharles |
Nov-30-11 04:24 PM |
#63 |
-
I think "irreducible complexity" is an intriguing idea... |
Silent3 |
Nov-30-11 07:52 PM |
#72 |
-
I think the problem with "irreducible complexity" is that it is an argument from ignorance... |
Humanist_Activist |
Dec-01-11 02:59 AM |
#76 |
 -
And you nailed it right there. |
trotsky |
Dec-01-11 06:05 AM |
#79 |
  -
Its particularly funny when they use the eye... |
Humanist_Activist |
Dec-02-11 01:32 PM |
#95 |
 -
Developing the idea would mean factoring ignorance out... |
Silent3 |
Dec-01-11 07:53 AM |
#81 |
-
Evolution predicts irreducibly complex systems. |
laconicsax |
Dec-01-11 11:10 AM |
#87 |
 -
True and any intelligent microbiologist would know how this works in the |
MarkCharles |
Dec-01-11 01:25 PM |
#91 |
-
It's a damn good try and might give one pause, but only pause |
deacon_sephiroth |
Dec-01-11 02:53 PM |
#93 |