The fine-tuning argument is very powerful. Many brave atheists were defeated. R.I.P.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-10-2016, 12:38 AM
RE: The fine-tuning argument is very powerful. Many brave atheists were defeated. R.I.P.
(22-10-2016 12:19 AM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  
(21-10-2016 11:46 PM)theBorg Wrote:  1) Why not, if (e.g., cigarette) corporation is paying? Isn't the True God announced dead? Sadcryface
2) Money. Yes
3) To get more money. Yes

Big GrinBig GrinBig Grin

So the tobacco companies are paying scientists to falsify their work and hide evidence of god? For what reason?

1) Who would burn us in eternal fire?

2) I am not pointing a finger to anybody. Money. To get more money. Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2016, 12:50 AM (This post was last modified: 22-10-2016 12:53 AM by Dark Wanderer.)
RE: The fine-tuning argument is very powerful. Many brave atheists were defeated. R.I.P.
(22-10-2016 12:38 AM)theBorg Wrote:  
(22-10-2016 12:19 AM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  So the tobacco companies are paying scientists to falsify their work and hide evidence of god? For what reason?

1) Who would burn us in eternal fire?

2) I am not pointing a finger to anybody. Money. To get more money. Yes

Seems to me that the scientists, who you believe have absolute knowledge of god, would make a lot more money if they published papers that proved his existence instead of taking the tobacco companies hush money. Did they inform them of god's existence first and then agree to the deal? Do you have evidence of scientists' bank accounts getting these vast amounts of hush money? It also strikes me odd that they have this absolute truth, yet disobey god and relinquish the gifts of infinite heaven for finite monetary rewards. Not to mention burning in hell for eternity, which they know will happen after the evil scientists and tobacco executives die. Seems rather short sighted for people wio are intelligent enough to discover that god exists and then form a vast conspiracy to hide it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Wanderer's post
22-10-2016, 01:22 AM
RE: The fine-tuning argument is very powerful. Many brave atheists were defeated. R.I.P.
(21-10-2016 11:27 PM)theBorg Wrote:  
(21-10-2016 05:28 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  ................
A study of a representative sample of humans from the worldwide population using whole genome analysis and excluding the D-loop yields an age for matrilineal MRCA (Mitochondrial Eve) of 150,000 to 200,000 years
.............

Suppose a top Scientist, and his colleagues, just hate the Verity, just hate the Truth.
Then they simply will be dishonest. There are known examples of dishonesty in the Top Science and in the Darwinian Schools.

I see no reply from the original author. Why? Was he fired?

What do you mean, "they simply will be dishonest"?

The author of the paper that warned of a 6500 year result (if using his particular method, which was later found to be inadequate compared to whole-genome sequencing) never at any point claimed it meant that the last matrilineal common ancestor lived 6500 years ago.

What he was pointing out was that according to his limited-range study (which was all one could do back in the late 90s... remember, the Human Genome Project only concluded in 1999, and took huge amounts of resources and money to complete because it was so difficult), his results showed that a particular section of the mtDNA could mutate very quickly in certain regions and under certain conditions. He was prompting other scientists to look for more information, since his findings did not match other facts we knew about genetics.

In other words, he was wrong, he knew it, and he wanted to know why. Later research turned up better methods.

So the original scientist never claimed what you say. He asked others to find better methods of looking at his data. And they did so.

The only dishonest people here are the Creationists who saw a 6000-year-old number and jumped on it-- they decided to misquote and misrepresent what the scientist was actually saying, in order to advance their agenda.

Science has no agenda except to put ideas out there and to prove them right or wrong through competitive and collaborative subsequent research.

When you claim that a scientist would be fired for publishing something that goes against what other scientists have said, you are lying. So long as he does good work and backs up his claims with reproducible methods (that others can test, per the entire basis of the Scientific Method), he can publish anything he wants-- even something that goes totally against what everyone else thinks at the time.

That was true for Hubble and Lemaître (both Christians, by the way), when they posited their ideas about what would come to be called the Big Bang. Others thought their ideas were ridiculous-- no less a personage than Albert Einstein was among those who openly opposed the notion of the Big Bang. Yet they were not fired and were proved right by experiments. That is how science works.

Einstein was also openly critical of the idea of Quantum Mechanics, leading him to his oft-quoted (but wrongly applied) line, "I cannot believe that God would play dice with the universe".

The things you say about science and scientists are slanderous and evil. I can no longer believe that your lies are accidental. Therefore they must be intentional.

I have become convinced that you are evil because your religion has perverted your mind into a cesspool that exists for no other purpose than protecting that religion, no matter how much you must lie, twist, and ignore in order to sustain it.

Lying For Jesus™ is still lying.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
22-10-2016, 01:38 AM (This post was last modified: 22-10-2016 01:42 AM by theBorg.)
RE: The fine-tuning argument is very powerful. Many brave atheists were defeated. R.I.P.
(22-10-2016 01:22 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  ........
In other words, he was wrong, he knew it, and he wanted to know why. Later research turned up better methods.

So the original scientist never claimed what you say. He asked others to find better methods of looking at his data. And they did so.
.........

I see. I am not the enemy of True Science. But did this story destroy the dogma? Let us see. Of course, originally the Adam and Eve were perfect, without the mutations. But soon after creation, the pair has committed the ORIGINAL SIN. This can instantly and greatly mess up their genes. Correct? Yes, it is. Is known to me, what even such "small" sin as the fu**-words do mutate the genes. What is why, I have following signature:
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2016, 02:11 AM
RE: The fine-tuning argument is very powerful. Many brave atheists were defeated. R.I.P.
(22-10-2016 01:22 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  ..............
When you claim that a scientist would be fired for publishing something that goes against what other scientists have said, you are lying. So long as he does good work and backs up his claims with reproducible methods (that others can test, per the entire basis of the Scientific Method), he can publish anything he wants-- even something that goes totally against what everyone else thinks at the time.
............



Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2016, 03:02 AM
RE: The fine-tuning argument is very powerful. Many brave atheists were defeated. R.I.P.
(22-10-2016 01:38 AM)theBorg Wrote:  
(22-10-2016 01:22 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  ........
In other words, he was wrong, he knew it, and he wanted to know why. Later research turned up better methods.

So the original scientist never claimed what you say. He asked others to find better methods of looking at his data. And they did so.
.........

I see. I am not the enemy of True Science. But did this story destroy the dogma? Let us see. Of course, originally the Adam and Eve were perfect, without the mutations. But soon after creation, the pair has committed the ORIGINAL SIN. This can instantly and greatly mess up their genes. Correct? Yes, it is. Is known to me, what even such "small" sin as the fu**-words do mutate the genes. What is why, I have following signature:

Yes, you are an enemy of true science.

There is no such thing as a person "without the mutations", there is no such thing as perfect DNA, and no way in which "sin" (whatever that is, in terms of genetics) can interact with your DNA, unless "sin" is made up of radiation.

So how "it is known to" you is beyond me. That is why I say you are messed up in the head. You are only repeating (badly) the crap that is spewed by the Discovery Institute (formerly the Institute for Creation Research) and debunked by every reputable scientist on the planet, Christian or otherwise.

Stephen Meyers, the guy whose movie you referenced, was not shut out for any of the reasons mentioned in that movie, but because his ideas had no merit, and actual experts in the field could see right through his bullshit. To wit:

Stephen Meyer’s first demonstration of these biases was his atrociously incompetent book Signature in the Cell (2009, HarperOne), which was universally lambasted by molecular biologists as an amateurish effort by someone with no firsthand training or research experience in molecular biology. (Meyer’s Ph.D. is in history of science, and his undergrad degree is in geophysics, which give him absolutely no background to talk about molecular evolution).

Undaunted by this debacle, Meyer now blunders into another field in which he has no research experience or advanced training: my own profession, paleontology. I can now report that he’s just as incompetent in my field as he was in molecular biology. Almost every page of this book is riddled by errors of fact or interpretation that could only result from someone writing in a subject way over his head, abetted by the creationist tendency to pluck facts out of context and get their meaning completely backwards.

But as one of the few people in the entire creationist movement who has actually taken a few geology classes (but apparently no paleontology classes), he is their “expert” in this area, and is happy to mislead the creationist audience that knows no science at all with his slick but completely false understanding of the subject.


(Bold emphasis, as usual, my own.)

http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/08/28/st...n-follies/

Do you understand, now? He isn't even "in the field" he claims to be shut out of. He is an amateur with a PhD in an entirely different field, and is making his living by fooling people into thinking he's a revolutionary who just can't get recognized.

So I point you again to what I already wrote: if you have a good idea, even one that is outside the mainstream of thought or which seems to turn the old ideas on their head, all you have to do is demonstrate it. Yes, people may grumble at you (as Einstein did at Quantum Mechanics and the Big Bang) but it is hard to argue with a well-proved, reproducible methodology that leads to new conclusions.

Meyer has none of that. He is a charlatan, selling lies, and to hear you hold him up as an example of a corrupt global scientific community is both outrageous and pathetic. I have already pointed out to you that his most vocal critics are Christians who are also (real) biochemists, a point you continue to ignore, which is why I call you twisted and evil in your intent.

You would do anything to defend your dogmas, even when reality is staring you in the face. Even when your fellow Christians (who really are experts in the field of biochem/genetics) tell you that these men are full of shit, you continue to quote them... because you are incapable of being honest.

Lying for Jesus™ is still lying!

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
22-10-2016, 03:11 AM (This post was last modified: 22-10-2016 03:17 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: The fine-tuning argument is very powerful. Many brave atheists were defeated. R.I.P.
Also, see why the Ben Stein movie you cited to was lambasted, as well. It is full of lies, such as the guy who claims he was fired because he published a pro-ID article:

Expelled then trots out some of the people whom it claims have been persecuted by the Darwinist establishment. First among them is Richard Sternberg, former editor of the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, who published an article on ID by Stephen C. Meyer of the Discovery Institute. Sternberg tells Stein that he subsequently lost his editorship, his old position at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History and his original office. Looking a bit smug in his self-martyrdom, Sternberg also reports that a colleague compared him with an "intellectual terrorist."

What most viewers of Expelled may not realize—because the film doesn't even hint at it—is that Sternberg's case is not quite what it sounds. Biologists criticized Sternberg's choice to publish the paper not only because it supported ID but also because Sternberg approved it by himself rather than sending it out for independent expert review. He didn't lose his editorship; he published the paper in what was already scheduled to be his last issue as editor. He didn't lose his job at the Smithsonian; his appointment there as an unpaid research associate had a limited term, and when it was over he was given a new one. His office move was scheduled before the paper ever appeared.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...hn-rennie/

Liars quoting liars.

Lying for Jesus™ is still lying, dude.



Edit to Add: Michael Shermer does a pretty good job breaking down the astounding level of dishonesty in that movie. My personal favorite part:

I saw Ben Stein's antievolution documentary film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, opens with the actor, game show host and speechwriter for Richard Nixon addressing a packed audience of adoring students at Pepperdine University, apparently falling for the same trap I did.

Actually they didn't. The biology professors at Pepperdine assure me that their mostly Christian students fully accept the theory of evolution. So who were these people embracing Stein's screed against science? Extras. According to Lee Kats, associate provost for research and chair of natural science at Pepperdine, "the production company paid for the use of the facility just as all other companies do that film on our campus" but that "the company was nervous that they would not have enough people in the audience so they brought in extras. Members of the audience had to sign in and a staff member reports that no more than two to three Pepperdine students were in attendance. Mr. Stein's lecture on that topic was not an event sponsored by the university." And this is one of the least dishonest parts of the film.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...l-shermer/

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
22-10-2016, 03:21 AM (This post was last modified: 22-10-2016 03:26 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: The fine-tuning argument is very powerful. Many brave atheists were defeated. R.I.P.
If that's all too complex for you, just check out the results of volunteer work by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), who looked into every claim in that film and cataloged every lie, from the misrepresentations of science to the martyrdom claims made therein:

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

Edit: Their coverage of Sternberg's claims of being martyred and suppressed is even more damning.

http://www.expelledexposed.com/the-truth/sternberg

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
22-10-2016, 03:33 AM
RE: The fine-tuning argument is very powerful. Many brave atheists were defeated. R.I.P.
(22-10-2016 03:02 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Lying for Jesus™ is still lying!

I hate to debunk the True Faith. It is your "job". You have confused the "hate to debunk the True Faith" with the sinful lying.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2016, 04:10 AM
RE: The fine-tuning argument is very powerful. Many brave atheists were defeated. R.I.P.
(22-10-2016 03:33 AM)theBorg Wrote:  
(22-10-2016 03:02 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Lying for Jesus™ is still lying!

I hate to debunk the True Faith. It is your "job". You have confused the "hate to debunk the True Faith" with the sinful lying.

Get a room you and the yelling man.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: