Darwin's "Downfall"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-09-2016, 09:53 AM
RE: Darwin's "Downfall"?
(19-09-2016 09:46 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(19-09-2016 09:40 AM)SkepticalDaniel Wrote:  Very well put. Also, as I stated previously, why does this guy even care if he believes everything is predestined by his God?

Because he has no choice?
Cool

Exactly! All he is is just a mindless love-doll for his God, and in that regard, I feel sorry for him.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SkepticalDaniel's post
19-09-2016, 10:05 AM
RE: Darwin's "Downfall"?
As soon as I saw the image of Hitler I turned off. Whenever theists bring him up I know they've got a shaky argument not worth listening to.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like SYZ's post
19-09-2016, 10:21 AM
RE: Darwin's "Downfall"?
Whenever a creatard starts quote-mining then I know its time to stop listening. the trouble for some of them is that they don't even realise they're quote mining as the're blindly repeating another creatard's quote-mine.

A creatard I encountered chose to adopt the tactic of quote-mining to suggest there was doubt about evolutionary theory amongst prominent scientists such as Dawkins etc.

Initially I was charitable and suggested that he revisit his quotations to provide the text he chose to exclude and the context of what was being said by the individuals concerned, but he chose not to and when I helpfully provided this to him he claimed I (rather than he) was being dishonest........... Hmmmm that was a strange one. I know these muppets are quite happy to "lie for Jesus" but to accuse someone else who exposes that blatant lie as dishonest is pretty screwed up!

One of his quote-mining attempts was so poor that it is also referenced as a commonly quote-mined example in Wikipedia. Not clever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_...of_context

Famously, it started with the quote in On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, where Darwin says: "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradation..." (He goes on to explain why it's not as absurd as it sounds at first glance.)

What amazes me is not that they do this, or that their followers copy and paste the misquoted sections without verifying for themselves that this is what the scientist is really trying to say, but the fact that when they're shown that they quoted the guy out of context to make him seem to say the opposite of what was actually said, they don't stop and go, "Wow, that was really dishonest, even if I did it accidentally. I'm sorry, guys!"

Nope, they immediately do it again with a new quote, and every single time, they keep thinking, "Aha! Gotcha!"

Amazing, and sad, and dumb.

The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike
Excreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Silly Deity's post
19-09-2016, 10:27 AM
RE: Darwin's "Downfall"?
(19-09-2016 09:46 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(19-09-2016 09:40 AM)SkepticalDaniel Wrote:  Very well put. Also, as I stated previously, why does this guy even care if he believes everything is predestined by his God?

Because he has no choice?
Cool

[Image: ISeeWhat.jpg]

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
19-09-2016, 10:29 AM
RE: Darwin's "Downfall"?
(19-09-2016 07:35 AM)SkepticalDaniel Wrote:  I don't know, some of these arguments seem like the typical PRATT arguments used by creationists. However, there were some arguments that he made about the flood which I thought might be interesting.

Would you mind describing the arguments you think might be interesting? Consider

I really don't think there are any. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
19-09-2016, 11:28 AM
RE: Darwin's "Downfall"?
(19-09-2016 10:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-09-2016 07:35 AM)SkepticalDaniel Wrote:  I don't know, some of these arguments seem like the typical PRATT arguments used by creationists. However, there were some arguments that he made about the flood which I thought might be interesting.

Would you mind describing the arguments you think might be interesting? Consider

I really don't think there are any. Drinking Beverage

It was the part where he tried to disregard Radiometric dating by pointing out times where it was wrong, as well as his argument for the flood, I think he mentioned something about the hydroplate theory, in which water erupted from the "fountains of the deep" (Genesis 7:11), some have even tried to bolster this argument by saying that there's a massive body of water below the Earth's crust which was discovered in 2014.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2016, 11:40 AM
RE: Darwin's "Downfall"?
(19-09-2016 11:28 AM)SkepticalDaniel Wrote:  
(19-09-2016 10:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  Would you mind describing the arguments you think might be interesting? Consider

I really don't think there are any. Drinking Beverage

It was the part where he tried to disregard Radiometric dating by pointing out times where it was wrong, as well as his argument for the flood, I think he mentioned something about the hydroplate theory, in which water erupted from the "fountains of the deep" (Genesis 7:11), some have even tried to bolster this argument by saying that there's a massive body of water below the Earth's crust which was discovered in 2014.

Those are not good arguments.
"Hydroplate theory" is not a scientific theory.
There is no massive body of water below the Earth's crust, there is water trapped in minerals.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
19-09-2016, 11:48 AM
RE: Darwin's "Downfall"?
(19-09-2016 11:28 AM)SkepticalDaniel Wrote:  
(19-09-2016 10:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  Would you mind describing the arguments you think might be interesting? Consider

I really don't think there are any. Drinking Beverage

It was the part where he tried to disregard Radiometric dating by pointing out times where it was wrong, as well as his argument for the flood, I think he mentioned something about the hydroplate theory, in which water erupted from the "fountains of the deep" (Genesis 7:11), some have even tried to bolster this argument by saying that there's a massive body of water below the Earth's crust which was discovered in 2014.

Radiometric readings can be wrong because some of the material in a sample is from a different date. The people who don't have imaginary friends will check several samples and reject any that are wildly out of line with the others. (If the believer says 'Ah ha! So they do acknowledge it can be wrong!' just reply that anomalies are excluded in any study.)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Gawdzilla's post
19-09-2016, 03:14 PM
RE: Darwin's "Downfall"?
Checking the BS on the geochron at the 1:08 mark:

- "Darwinists" whatever the fuck those are, don't date rocks. Geologists date rocks.

- Generalizes radiometric dating "assumptions".

- Abuses dating methods on modern rocks. K-Ar can't date anything under ~1 Ma so if you try the numbers you get will be gibberish.

- Has no clue what an isochron actually is.

- Clearly has no clue whatsoever how radiometric dating works. Different radiometric systems are supposed to yield different ages. They have different closure temperatures.

OK, I'm out. This useless dolt is just reading from the usual cretinist script.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
19-09-2016, 03:50 PM
RE: Darwin's "Downfall"?
(19-09-2016 08:35 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(19-09-2016 08:16 AM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  3.We are no doubt were animals but we sure as hell have gone down a very different path them other animals

I'm not entirely sure that's true, even. We're much more like our simian cousins than we'd like to admit. Check out the book Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors: A Search for Who We Are by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan. It was eye-opening, to me.

Cool i'll look into it

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes OrdoSkeptica's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: