Nick Seldon - A Quotation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-07-2015, 01:00 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(24-07-2015 03:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-07-2015 10:18 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  We're not dancing, we're discussing news of import for eternity.

I bring novel ideas to the discussion often, as I synthesize new thoughts often in response to TTA claims and attacks. That's one of the reasons I'm here, to learn. You all help endlessly to make my witness and apologetics stronger and stronger, and I thank you. It's working on my converts! I happened to witness to 15 people last week and 6 so far this week--and none of them put up the ridiculous roadblocks TTA "offers"--but I was ready if they had done so!

Again, you restate your bias by saying "silly, non-scientific sites" when my point was how often you refuse to even look at the evidence I proffer.

When the discussion is about scientific facts, then non-scientific sites are pointless, even worthless.

You have not offered any evidence. You apparently don't understand what evidence is.

Quote:You make it sound in your post like you dismissed all such sites months or even years ago, which is sad, since often I'm showing you the latest Creationist and other ideas and from tenured faculty and researchers, and you'd think you'd at least freshen your "game" as well. But no, you even refuse to look at sites and citations I offered from non-Christians, too. When you decide to stop learning new things and just run your old "routines"?

The creationist arguments haven't changed, they have no new ideas - just repackaging of the same tired bullshit.

Quote:What are we to say when before the Judge? "God, I just didn't look at the evidence because I didn't want to... because I was afraid where it would lead... I had too much invested in my standing as a leading comedian and logic fallacy dilettante at TTA..."

Not good, Chas, not good at all.

What is not good is your delusion and credulity, your misunderstanding of what science is, and your unwarranted arrogance.

The misunderstanding here is what a scientific website is or can be. I referenced a great many sites where you can read what Ph.D's have to offer. While I know many atheists who can be fair and balanced, you choose instead to demonize your opponents--and then insist that only non-born again and other non-fundamentalist religious or skeptical scientists are unbiased.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-07-2015, 01:27 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
Being a Ph.D. isn't always a case for sensible claims and wiser knowledge... Is it specifically a Ph.D. who is discussing the topic their doctorate is based on? Factors like that matter. I don't know where you posted but there is witnessable flaws in that which are a appeals to false authorities fallacies. There are from places like answersingenesis ,which I don't know if you used, that had that case. They also happen to have others with doctorates from non-credited universities which don't really amount to a expert of sensible level of acceptance.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-07-2015, 07:56 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(28-07-2015 01:27 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Being a Ph.D. isn't always a case for sensible claims and wiser knowledge... Is it specifically a Ph.D. who is discussing the topic their doctorate is based on? Factors like that matter. I don't know where you posted but there is witnessable flaws in that which are a appeals to false authorities fallacies. There are from places like answersingenesis ,which I don't know if you used, that had that case. They also happen to have others with doctorates from non-credited universities which don't really amount to a expert of sensible level of acceptance.

I understand your point, I do. I really get it. You have, say, a tenured biologist who starts getting a serious hobby around cosmology and physics and is less than fully qualified to comment.

But I've learned a lot from lay people. And sometimes a lay person can poke holes in a theory or bring up profound thoughts. In the early 1970's only 15% (?) of Americans went to college, let alone sought doctorates. And most people in this world don't get beyond high school.

We can use lay person concepts to acquire love and wisdom. We can use inductive, deductive and even symbolic logic to find some starting places for our discussion:

1) The Laws of Excluded Middle and Noncontradiction establish some starting points for absolute truth.

2) Inductive and deductive logic build a case that truth may be known, appreciated, comprehended.

3) Atheists tend to be rock solid, non-superstitious people who live with their feet on the ground. We don't have to waste time with relative garbage but can accept 1) and 2) above fairly quickly.

Now we can move on to is there evidence for God, evidence that the universe hasn't existed indefinitely but has a beginning, evidence that anthropomorphic conditions for life on Earth are designed, etc. ...

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2015, 08:17 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(28-07-2015 01:00 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(24-07-2015 03:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  When the discussion is about scientific facts, then non-scientific sites are pointless, even worthless.

You have not offered any evidence. You apparently don't understand what evidence is.


The creationist arguments haven't changed, they have no new ideas - just repackaging of the same tired bullshit.


What is not good is your delusion and credulity, your misunderstanding of what science is, and your unwarranted arrogance.

The misunderstanding here is what a scientific website is or can be. I referenced a great many sites where you can read what Ph.D's have to offer. While I know many atheists who can be fair and balanced, you choose instead to demonize your opponents--and then insist that only non-born again and other non-fundamentalist religious or skeptical scientists are unbiased.

Someone having a PhD does make them a scientist - following the scientific method does.

If you consider that my pointing out that these are pseudo-scientific sites is "demonization", you are mistaken. You appear to not be able to differentiate science from pseudo-science.

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
30-07-2015, 08:20 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(29-07-2015 07:56 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Now we can move on to is there evidence for God, evidence that the universe hasn't existed indefinitely but has a beginning,

Show us your evidence.

Quote:evidence that anthropomorphic conditions for life on Earth are designed, etc. ...

Silly argument that puts the cart before the horse. You have to assume that humans are meant to be here for that argument to even make sense.

That is a pre-suppositional fallacy of the first order.

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
30-07-2015, 10:00 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(30-07-2015 08:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-07-2015 01:00 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The misunderstanding here is what a scientific website is or can be. I referenced a great many sites where you can read what Ph.D's have to offer. While I know many atheists who can be fair and balanced, you choose instead to demonize your opponents--and then insist that only non-born again and other non-fundamentalist religious or skeptical scientists are unbiased.

Someone having a PhD does make them a scientist - following the scientific method does.

If you consider that my pointing out that these are pseudo-scientific sites is "demonization", you are mistaken. You appear to not be able to differentiate science from pseudo-science.

Here's an interesting approach to the subject. What do you think?

Biologists must be specialized, and have to rely on other researchers to fill gaps in evolutionary theory, etc. for geologists in formations... sometimes it's healthy for say, a physicist to look at biology.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2015, 10:03 AM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(30-07-2015 08:20 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-07-2015 07:56 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Now we can move on to is there evidence for God, evidence that the universe hasn't existed indefinitely but has a beginning,

Show us your evidence.

Quote:evidence that anthropomorphic conditions for life on Earth are designed, etc. ...

Silly argument that puts the cart before the horse. You have to assume that humans are meant to be here for that argument to even make sense.

That is a pre-suppositional fallacy of the first order.

Sorry. You want evidence that the universe began in the finite, not infinite, past? It is impossible, being today, for their to have been an "infinite" number of past times. It is impossible, given the laws of entropy, for there to have been an infinite number of big bangs. Each "explosion" would drain the amount of energy that is allowable under the laws of conservation of energy and entropy of energy. Do you disagree?

And yes, it would be presupposition idiocy of the "highest" order to say humans are meant to be here--or any life--except for the fact that there are numerous markers of intentional design and messaging within all life.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-07-2015, 04:42 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(30-07-2015 10:00 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(30-07-2015 08:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  Someone having a PhD does make them a scientist - following the scientific method does.

If you consider that my pointing out that these are pseudo-scientific sites is "demonization", you are mistaken. You appear to not be able to differentiate science from pseudo-science.

Here's an interesting approach to the subject. What do you think?

Biologists must be specialized, and have to rely on other researchers to fill gaps in evolutionary theory, etc. for geologists in formations... sometimes it's healthy for say, a physicist to look at biology.

Once again you either didn't understand the post or are dishonestly deflecting.

Your response has nothing to do with what I wrote.

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
30-07-2015, 04:44 PM
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(30-07-2015 10:03 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(30-07-2015 08:20 AM)Chas Wrote:  Show us your evidence.


Silly argument that puts the cart before the horse. You have to assume that humans are meant to be here for that argument to even make sense.

That is a pre-suppositional fallacy of the first order.

Sorry. You want evidence that the universe began in the finite, not infinite, past? It is impossible, being today, for their to have been an "infinite" number of past times. It is impossible, given the laws of entropy, for there to have been an infinite number of big bangs. Each "explosion" would drain the amount of energy that is allowable under the laws of conservation of energy and entropy of energy. Do you disagree?

That has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Quote:And yes, it would be presupposition idiocy of the "highest" order to say humans are meant to be here--or any life--except for the fact that there are numerous markers of intentional design and messaging within all life.

No, there aren't. If you find any you will get a Nobel Prize.

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
30-07-2015, 04:53 PM (This post was last modified: 30-07-2015 04:56 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Nick Seldon - A Quotation
(29-07-2015 07:56 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  1) The Laws of Excluded Middle and Noncontradiction establish some starting points for absolute truth.

Silly boy, there is nothing sacred or absolute about the law of the excluded middle. Computer scientists and logic programmers reject the law of the excluded middle in favor of negation as failure every day. That you think the law of the excluded middle is some absolute truth reveals that, despite your continued ignorant pontifications, you got no fucking clue what truth even means.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: