Gift to Rhology

Im irritated with Rhology. Same comments/questions on multiple threads = rage.

However, in return for standing up for me last Friday, Im making an open thread just for Rho and his crew, and people who would like to ‘debate’ with them.

However I am asking in return that you all stop posting O/T comments on other threads. The point is to keep the discussion here.

Next person to post the word ‘Genesis’ in a thread other that this one will be asked to post tits or gtfo.

UPDATE:

February 23, 2009, 10:15 PM
Next person to post the word ‘Genesis’ in a thread other that this one will be asked to post tits or gtfo.

February 24, 2009, 9:51 AM
Rhology– Thank you LanceR.
Your answer #2 – 2. Why does Genesis 1 refer to “Elohim”, which is plural, and Genesis 2 refer to “El”, which is singular? Do we have two creation stories?

Because God is a Trinitarian God. The “Let us make man…” and such plural imperatives in Genesis 1 are examples of intra-Trinitarian communication.
Yes, we have 2 creation stories, see the link I gave you before. One is broader, the other has a narrower focus. 2 stories, one set of events.

TITS Rho. Post them.

Comments

  1. #1 Rhology
    February 27, 2009

    Last comment before the weekend. Don’t know if I’ll get back here before Monday.
    Jason F – I assumed you were a materialistic naturalist, based on your comments. If I assume wrong, tell me. That’s what I asked you to do. So, what do you believe?

    And if you’re wondering about why to engage in these, I hold no illusions that any of you will see the poverty of your argumentation either. I’m in it, as you should probably be, for the lurkers.

  2. #2 Jason F.
    February 27, 2009

    Prometheus,

    Excellent point! Rhology claims to be conducting an “internal critique of naturalism”, but when confronted with inconvenient information he immediately jumps out of naturalism and says “God did that”.

    Not much of an “internal critique”, is it?

  3. #3 Jason F.
    February 27, 2009

    Rhology,

    What specific comments made you assume I was a “materialistic naturalist”?

    And once again, you continue to avoid my point: If you don’t feel empirical data can overturn “the acct in Genesis”, why do you even care (or pretend to) about the data at all? Aren’t you just wasting everyone’s time by demanding empirical support for evolution? After all, in the end you’ll simply deny it all because you believe Genesis trumps all empirical data.

    And no, I have no interest in “lurkers”.

  4. #4 ERV
    February 27, 2009

    Pro Tip: There are no lurkers at ERV. My readership is composed of 5 people who check for new posts/comments 1000 times a day, respectively.

  5. #5 Science Avenger
    February 27, 2009

    JasonF: I hold no illusions about Rhology, or anyone with his viewpoint, changing their minds due to evidence. As one poster keeps reminding Rhology, he’s made it clear God said it, he believes it, and that settles it.

    My target audience is, well, the audience, any lurker out there who hasn’t seen Rhology’s tired arguments before. I’m showing them how contentless these attacks on nonabsolute morality are, so they shan’t be taken in by them, and I know from experience in old-fashioned public debates that this indeed does occur.

  6. #6 386sx
    February 27, 2009

    Rhology said: This is not a statement that makes much sense. My contention is that absolute morals are impossible without a God, yes, but I haven’t made that my argument. Rather, I argue that, IF naturalism is true, someone like SciAveng doesn’t have any justification for saying anyone else SHOULD do sthg, no matter what that might be, from taking care of one’s children to not murdering all atheists’ children. It’s an argumentum ad absurdum.

    If Science Avenger said that the justification for saying somebody should do something is “Just because Science Avenger says so”, then that ain’t much better than what your god says: “I’m god, you should do something just because I say so.” Except I don’t see Science Avenger, uhhhhhhh, drowning people and killing babies and punishing people in hell if Science Avenger doesn’t like it.

    If there were a god who dictated “absolute morals” to people, they would only be “absolute” in a dictatorial sense, as in… god has the “absolute” last word in it just because he says so. You still would have no way of knowing if god is just making up crap to boss people around for no good reason.

    You keep saying “god says this, and god says that”, but really it is other people who are saying those things. Nobody is hearing god say anything. They’re only hearing what other people say god is saying. You’re doing that to make your case look a lot stronger that what it really is.

    And what makes you think that if “Naturalism” is true, then nobody would have “any justification” for something? Just because they don’t have your justification, it doesn’t mean that they don’t have any justification. Once again you’re exaggerating to make your case look a lot stronger than what it really is.

    And even if you were right about nobody having any “justifications”, it doesn’t mean that there is a god up there somewhere handing out morals to people. At best, it only means that maybe there should be one. “Is” is a lot different from “ought”.

  7. #7 Science Avenger
    February 27, 2009

    Rhology said: I engage in internal critiques of the inability of naturalism as a worldview to account for moral statements that SHOULD pertain to or prescribe actions to anyone else and to the idea that moral statements are qualitatively different from a statement like “I like ice cream”.

    Yes, I’ve looked at your site and these critiques are completely without merit. They deal with fantasy versions of how people handle moral issues instead of how they actually handle them. Your ice cream statement is a shining example of that. Moral statements are qualitatively different because they deal with our deepest held values, instincts, and desires, and often carry the threat of costly reactions from others, whereas questions about ice cream preferences do not.

    That you think this is in the slightest bit a challenging argument, or something that somehow none of the millions of people in the world realized, shows just how shallow your efforts on this subject are. It also might reveal problems of your own concerning morality (similar to the way so many gay fundamentalists become rabid homophobes). Your arguments remind me a lot of CS Lewis, who also tied himself into rhetorical knots avoiding the obvious in his “moral law” arguments in Mere Christianity. Instinct, value, desire, and awareness of potential future repercussions from our actions are enough to explain the bulk of human behavior (the remainder we refer to as “psychologically impaired”). With regard to your absolute morality, with apologies to LaPlace, we have no need of that hypothesis. If you do, mores the pity.

    That’s why it’s useful to actually read what debate opponents write. I’m willing to engage this topic with you, but not strawmen.

    You owe me a new irony meter. Look, if you need your god belief to prevent you from putting babies into woodchippers, I’m glad you’ve got it. Just don’t expect the rest of us to feel compelled to spend a ton of time explaining to you why we don’t.

  8. #8 Jason F.
    February 27, 2009

    ScienceAvenger,

    Perhaps my issue is that I’ve never really bought the “argumentum ad lurkonam”…the lurkers argument. Maybe if one day I encountered someone who said “I used to be a creationist, but then I started reading through the comments section on this blog and I changed my mind”, I would think differently.

  9. #9 Tommykey
    February 27, 2009

    Moral statements are qualitatively different because they deal with our deepest held values, instincts, and desires, and often carry the threat of costly reactions from others, whereas questions about ice cream preferences do not.

    Unless you wanted to take the argument to its absurdity, that if 99.99% of humanity no longer liked chocolate ice cream, and that the last person on Earth who liked chocolate ice cream would be unfairly deprived because no one wanted to make it anymore.

    Look, if you need your god belief to prevent you from putting babies into woodchippers, I’m glad you’ve got it.

    SA, the really funny part is that he believes that Jeffrey Dahmer is in heaven if Dahmer truly converted before getting murdered in prison. Presumably, any of Dahmer’s victims who were not Christians are in hell. And he tells us that under atheism nothing matters? Sounds like the opposite to me. You can murder, rape and steal all you want, so long as you genuinely repent before you die. Jesus Christ: The Ultimate Get Out of Jail Free Card!

    The other irony is that he likes to describe our morality as “me-centered” (admittedly, I didn’t see him write it here, but he has written it elsewhere), and yet we keep grounding our morality in how our actions effect others as well as ourselves, whereas his position is “I’m a sinner too, but I’m forgiven and I’m saved.” Me-centered morality indeed.

    But like you wrote above, if that is what he needs to keep him from going on a crystal meth fueled crime spree in some neighborhood in Oklahoma, then more power to him.

  10. #10 Doc Bill
    February 27, 2009

    Rho,

    You asked for an experiment to be conducted and you laid out the conditions.

    I responded with a real world experiment that has been performed that met all of your criteria. The lizards adapted to the new environment and changed physically.

    I realize you didn’t expect anyone to meet your challenge, but there you have it.

    Surprise!

    So, Rho, what’s it going to be?

    1. Wow, this science stuff is pretty cool after all. I want to learn more.

    2. They’re still just lizards. They didn’t turn into snakes or birds. (No, they didn’t. That would be an example of creationism, not evolution.)

    3. I’m going to ignore you.

  11. #11 LanceR, JSG
    February 27, 2009

    Pro Tip: There are no lurkers at ERV. My readership is composed of 5 people who check for new posts/comments 1000 times a day, respectively.

    Hey! I resemble that remark!

  12. #12 King of Ferrets
    February 27, 2009

    Hah, took you this long to go “meh” Prometheus?

  13. #13 Science Avenger
    February 28, 2009

    JasonF,

    I don’t think of it as an immediate wow-I-never-thought-of-that-before conversion (or deconversion if you like), but more of a Johnny Appleseed approach: toss seeds of knowledge, and give them time to grow.

    I can’t help commenting on this from Rhology that illiustrates how removed from reality he is more than anything else he’s said:

    A laboratory injects intelligence into the equation. No lab.

    This statement is so nonsensical, so obviously wacked, I suppose that’s why no one bothered with it. But seriously, how can one hope to have an intelligent discussion with someone who would utter such rubbish.

  14. #14 minimalist
    February 28, 2009

    No, we did deal with it before in an earlier thread, but he wasn’t able to defend/explain it in any way. So in other words it went like pretty much any other effort to try to drum something into his skull.

  15. #15 Dustin
    February 28, 2009

    A laboratory injects intelligence into the equation. No lab.

    When will you militant reductionists accept that chemical reactions are caused not by materialistic processes, but are guided by His Noodly Appendage? Chemical experiments are designed by intelligence, so of course covalent bonds are the result of an intelligent agency.

  16. #16 386sx
    February 28, 2009

    “A laboratory injects intelligence into the equation. No lab.”

    This statement is so nonsensical, so obviously wacked, I suppose that’s why no one bothered with it. But seriously, how can one hope to have an intelligent discussion with someone who would utter such rubbish.

    I don’t think it’s all that nonsensical. (You can tell he has to type fast to keep up with all these people.) Obviously he got that whole “laboratory injects intelligence into the equation” bit from some IDioligist somewhere.

    You can see the “magical thinking” effect going on there though. If something’s in a lab… then that automatically means intelligence was injected into it. Like it somehow catches the “intelligence lab” cootie bugs or something.

    Evolutionist: “Okay here’s some stuff that didn’t evolve in the ‘lab’.”

    Creationist: “But… were you there?????”

  17. #17 JanieBelle
    February 28, 2009

    Pro Tip: There are no lurkers at ERV. My readership is composed of 5 people who check for new posts/comments 1000 times a day, respectively.

    Six.

  18. #18 Lou FCD
    February 28, 2009
    Pro Tip: There are no lurkers at ERV. My readership is composed of 5 people who check for new posts/comments 1000 times a day, respectively.

    Six.

    Depends on how you count.

  19. #19 Eric Saveau
    February 28, 2009

    TommyKey wrote-

    The other irony is that he likes to describe our morality as “me-centered” (admittedly, I didn’t see him write it here, but he has written it elsewhere), and yet we keep grounding our morality in how our actions effect others as well as ourselves, whereas his position is “I’m a sinner too, but I’m forgiven and I’m saved.” Me-centered morality indeed.

    I’ve always found that particular moral construct to be one of the creepiest things about the True Believers, especially since they are able to employ it to justify so very many reprehensible things.

  20. #20 Jason F.
    March 1, 2009

    ScienceAvenger,

    But seriously, how can one hope to have an intelligent discussion with someone who would utter such rubbish

    That’s exactly the question I’ve been asking.

  21. #21 Soren
    March 2, 2009

    Hmm perhaps you should reconsider your request ERV?
    Tits or money!

  22. #22 Prometheus
    March 2, 2009

    KoF observed:

    “Hah, took you this long to go “meh” Prometheus?”

    “Nah, You just have to run him to failure so that you don’t get quote mined and used as an example of holy rectitude when he is trying to inject poison into some kid’s head.”

    also

    “Pro Tip: There are no lurkers at ERV. My readership is composed of 5 people who check for new posts/comments 1000 times a day, respectively.”

    I am trying to F5 Smith into a jewel encrusted Genome Sequencer.

  23. #23 Bronze Dog
    March 2, 2009

    Catching up on the thread. One of the things I found funny was Rho’s comment about the distribution of similarities also being predicted by ID. Well, what doesn’t ID predict? It can explain anything, so it tells us less about the future than the idea it’s all random chance.

  24. #24 Steverino
    March 2, 2009

    Rhology said:

    “The communication of an infallible, omniscient, timeless, truthful being is the most potent evidence there could possibly be….:

    This is his proof of God. His arguments do not arise from proof but raher lack of proof and the uncanny ability to dismiss evidence to the contrary. See when you know the answer you dont’ have to do the work….I guess.

    Enought said.

  25. #25 Steverino
    March 2, 2009

    “On naturalism or some similar worldview, nothing popped into everything, and was organised by no one so that some impersonal “process” is responsible for there being order instead of total chaos in the universe. Atoms coalesced into molecules, into larger clumps of matter. Rocks became amino acids became proteins became unicellular organisms became bananas, platypuses, humans.”

    Really….where is your proof that this didn’t happen? The data or evidence that proves this did not take place?

    ID or Creaton is not an explanation, but rather an excuse for not wanting to learn how it all happened or just a wish to be ignorant.

    Rho, why isn’t that you don’t apply your intellectual dishonesty other areas of study like Gravity, Germ Theory….all good with those theories?

  26. #26 Genesis1
    March 2, 2009

    Genesis 1

    In the beginning God created Dates. And the date was Monday, July 4, 4004 B.C.. And God said, let there be light; and there was light. And when there was Light, God saw the Date, that it was Monday, and he got down to work; for verily, he had a Big Job to do.

    And God made pottery shards and Silurian mollusks and pre-Cambrian limestone strata; and flints and Jurassic Mastodon tusks and Picanthopus erectus skulls and Cretaceous placentals made he; and those cave paintings at Lasceaux. And that was that, for the first Work Day.

    And God saw that he had made many wondrous things, but that he had not wherein to put it all. And God said, Let the heavens be divided from the earth; and let us bury all of these Things which we have made in the earth; but not too deep. And God buried all the Things which he had made, and that was that. And the morning and the evening and the overtime were Tuesday.

    And God said, Let there be water; and let the dry land appear; and that was that. And God called the dry land Real Estate; and the water called he the Sea. And in the land and beneath it put he crude oil, grades one through six; and natural gas put he thereunder, and prehistoric carboniferous forests yielding anthracite and other ligneous matter; and all these called he Resources; and he made them Abundant. And likewise all that was in the sea, even unto two hundred miles from the dry land, called he resources; all that was therein, like manganese nodules, for instance. And the morning unto the evening had been a long day; which he called Wednesday.

    And God said, Let the earth bring forth abundantly every moving creature I can think of, with or without backbones, with or without wings or feet, or fins or claws, vestigial limbs and all, right now; and let each one be of a separate species. For lo, I can make whatsoever I like, whensoever I like. And the earth brought forth abundantly all creatures, great and small, with and without backbones, with and without wings and feet and fins and claws, vestigial limbs and all, from bugs to brontosauruses. But God blessed them all, saying, Be fruitful and multiply and Evolve Not.

    And God looked upon the species he hath made, and saw that the earth was exceedingly crowded, and he said unto them, Let each species compete for what it needed; for Healthy Competition is My Law. And the species competeth amongst themselves, the cattle and the creeping things; and some madeth it and some didn’t; and the dogs ate the dinosaurs and God was pleased. And God took the bones from the dinosaurs, and caused them to appear might. old; and cast he them about the land and the sea. And he took every tiny creature that had not madeth it, and caused them to become fossils; and cast he them about likewise. And just to put matters beyond the valley of the shadow of a doubt God created carbon dating. And this is the origin of species. And in the Evening of the day which was Thursday, God saw that he had put in another good day’s work.

    And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, which is resembleth us not in any ways, but are short and ill-formed and hairy. And God added, Let man have dominion over the monkeys and the fowl of the air and every species, endangered or otherwise. So God created Man in His own image; tall and well-formed and pale of hue created He him, and nothing at all like the monkey.

    And God said, Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of the earth. But ye shalt not smoketh it, lest it giveth you ideas. And to every beast of the earth and every fowl of the air I have given also every green herb, and to them it shall be for meat. But they shall be for you. And the Lord God your Host suggesteth that the flesh of cattle goeth well with that of the fin and the claw; thus shall Surf be wedded unto Turf.

    And God saw everything he had made, and he saw that it was very good; and God said, It just goes to show Me what the private sector can accomplish. With a lot of fool regulations this could have taken billions of years. And the evening of the fifth day, which had been the roughest day yet, God said, Thank me it’s Friday. And God made the weekend.

    (stolen from a random site on the internets, where it was cited as copied without permission; source unknown)

  27. #27 Steverino
    March 2, 2009

    Of course, what Rhology conveniently doesn’t address is his proof for the huge active conspiracy that would have to be taking place in the government, private industry, universities across the world…to keep the “truth” about the theory of evolution quiet.

  28. #28 Sean McCorkle
    March 2, 2009

    Genesis1: that is so very cool that I could not let it go unattributed. First hit on a google search for the first 2 sentences yields http://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/creation.pdf with a copyright claim at the end (1995). Bravo to all involved.

  29. #29 ERV
    March 2, 2009

    I like this version bestest:
    Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez An da Urfs, but he did not eated dem.

    Da Urfs no had shapez An haded dark face, An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz.

    At start, no has lyte. An Ceiling Cat sayz, i can haz lite? An lite wuz. An Ceiling Cat sawed teh lite, to seez stuffs, An splitted teh lite from dark but taht wuz ok cuz kittehs can see in teh dark An not tripz over nethin. An Ceiling Cat sayed light Day An dark no Day. It were FURST!!!1

    An Ceiling Cat sayed, im in ur waterz makin a ceiling. But he no yet make a ur. An he maded a hole in teh Ceiling. An Ceiling Cat doed teh skiez with waterz down An waterz up. It happen.8 An Ceiling Cat sayed, i can has teh firmmint wich iz funny bibel naim 4 ceiling, so wuz teh twoth day.

    An Ceiling Cat gotted all teh waterz in ur base, An Ceiling Cat hadz dry placez cuz kittehs DO NOT WANT get wet. An Ceiling Cat called no waterz urth and waters oshun. Iz good.

    An Ceiling Cat sayed, DO WANT grass! so tehr wuz seedz An stufs, An fruitzors An vegbatels. An a Corm. It happen. An Ceiling Cat sawed that weedz ish good, so, letz there be weedz. An so teh threeth day jazzhands.

    An Ceiling Cat sayed, i can has lightz in the skiez for splittin day An no day. It happen, lights everwear, like christmass, srsly. An Ceiling Cat doeth two grate lightz, teh most big for day, teh other for no day. An Ceiling Cat screw tehm on skiez, with big nails An stuff, to lite teh Urfs. An tehy rulez day An night. Ceiling Cat sawed. Iz good. An so teh furth day w00t.

    An Ceiling Cat sayed, waterz bring me phishes, An burds, so kittehs can eat dem. But Ceiling Cat no eated dem. An Ceiling Cat maed big fishies An see monstrs, which wuz like big cows, except they no mood, An other stuffs dat mooves, An Ceiling Cat sawed iz good. An Ceiling Cat sed O hai, make bebehs kthx. An dont worry i wont watch u secksy, i not that kynd uf kitteh. An so teh…fith day. Ceiling Cat taek a wile 2 cawnt.

    An Ceiling Cat sayed, i can has MOAR living stuff, mooes, An creepie tings, An otehr aminals. It happen so tehre. An Ceiling Cat doed moar living stuff, mooes, An creepies, An otehr animuls, An did not eated tehm.

    An Ceiling Cat sayed, letz us do peeps like uz, becuz we ish teh qte, An let min p0wnz0r becuz tehy has can openers.

    So Ceiling Cat createded teh peeps taht waz like him, can has can openers he maed tehm, min An womin wuz maeded, but he did not eated tehm.

    An Ceiling Cat sed them O hai maek bebehs kthx, An p0wn teh waterz, no waterz An teh firmmint, An evry stufs.

    An Ceiling Cat sayed, Beholdt, the Urfs, I has it, An I has not eated it. For evry createded stufs tehre are the fuudz, to the burdies, teh creepiez, An teh mooes, so tehre. It happen. Iz good.

    An Ceiling Cat sayed, Beholdt, teh good enouf for releaze as version 0.8a. kthxbai.

  30. #30 Sean McCorkle
    March 2, 2009

    I wasn’t even going to mention the LOLbible cause thats taking it up to a whole nuther level! My personal favorite is Genesis 3:12

    An teh man said, teh woman u gave me saw teh tree An told ’bout it to me. At first I was liek “Noes!” but then, I was layk NOM NOM NOM. srsly.

  31. #31 Cubist
    March 3, 2009

    That “Book of Dates” thingie came from the 1983 book NOT THE BIBLE, by Oral McJorrity (real authors: Tony Hendra and Sean Kelly — ISBN 0345302494). It’s currently out of print, but some sections of said book, including this Genesis parody, can be found online here.

  32. #32 386sx
    March 3, 2009

    The communication of an infallible, omniscient, timeless, truthful being is the most potent evidence there could possibly be.

    So, we already have the most potent evidence there could ever be. There could never be any potenter evidence than the evidence that we already have. Ohhhhhhh kkaayyyyyy…

  33. #33 Rhology
    March 3, 2009

    #200 – Prometheus accused me of not properly conducting an internal critique of naturalism. All of his quotes are of me actually expressing my own position, when I was asked to. The problem is that I was not labeling where I was doing what. So from now on I’ll separate the comments into two sections, though it seems that the thread is winding down.

    Internal critique of naturalism section:

    #191 – Jason F,
    Aren’t you just wasting everyone’s time by demanding empirical support for evolution?

    Why not just provide some?

    #192 – neil,
    Only with what a designer mimicking common descent would predict.

    This is a concession that a Designer hypothesis matches the data just as well as Darwinism. Thank you.

    Pseudogenes are genetic sequences that were once functional genes, we know this by comparison to still functioning versions of the gene.

    No, you don’t KNOW that at all. You ASSUME it b/c pseudogenes LOOK LIKE they were once functional genes. Don’t assume what you need to prove.

    Other mammals have the functioning gene (guinea pigs don’t but the mutation is in a different place to ours).
    Common ancestry explains this,

    So does a Designer hypothesis. I thought you were supposed to be proving evolution over and against ID here!

    we have our designer placing deliberate misleading evidence for common ancestry, are we really going to spend time on that one?

    If you’re concerned with what the truth is, yes. If you’re not, if you just want to know what you prefer to think, then have fun in your little dollhouse.

    Serious answer I don’t believe I have a fundamental one

    So you can’t provide evidence that evidence is a good way to discover truth? That your brain produces true thoughts?
    You may not ever have thought of these things, but I’d encourage you to do so. Empiricism is not tenable.

    #195 – Eric Saveau,
    Decades of research, libraries of data, and mountains of physical evidence all leading to and supportive of evolution via natural selection

    Like what? Give me some evidence!
    Don’t beg the question like you do when you cite genetic structures that show that we came from a common ancestor. Don’t assume it, SHOW IT.
    Don’t assume that you know that the fossils you have in your possession were even probably in lineage. You don’t know they reproduced. You don’t know they are in the same lineage. You ASSUME it. I want you to SHOW IT.
    Don’t tell me that experiments designed and performed by intelligent agents is evidence of UNguided processes. SHOW the natural processes in occurrences.
    Bring forth your mountains of evidence. Why haven’t you done so yet? I’ve asked many times already.

    #196 – Tommykey,
    Once you have an objective

    You mean, once you pick one out of your butt and make it your big assumption. Wowee. WHY choose that one? Why not another one?
    Why not choose mass murder = morally commendable as your chosen objective? Give me a reason beyond “that would be really mean”.

    #199 – Doc Bill,
    single species of lizard was introduced

    Intelligent manipulation. Try again.

    the lizards prevailed and their morphology changed to a more stubby lizard with shorter legs

    Wow!!!!!
    Doc Bill, I’m not aware of anyone who argues that lizards can’t evolve into lizards. Maybe you know someone who does argue that, but it’s not me.
    Seriously, is this kind of obvious DUH the best you guys can do out of your “mountains of evidence”?

    #206 – 386sx,

    And what makes you think that if “Naturalism” is true, then nobody would have “any justification” for something?

    Argue for it, then. Pick anything and then justify it, and I’ll question you.

    At best, it only means that maybe there should be one. “Is” is a lot different from “ought”.

    I agree with this, and I’m glad to see at least SOMEone follows my point. I’ve been saying this ever since I got here.

    #207 – Science Avenger,
    Moral statements are qualitatively different because they deal with our deepest held values, instincts, and desires, and often carry the threat of costly reactions from others, whereas questions about ice cream preferences do not.

    Prove that moral statements SHOULD BE TAKEN differently than questions of ice cream preference.
    If it affects our quality of life,
    1) So what?
    2) Define “quality” in a non-question-begging way.

    Your arguments remind me a lot of CS Lewis, who also tied himself into rhetorical knots avoiding the obvious in his “moral law” arguments in Mere Christianity.

    Fortunately I’m not using his arguments. Try again.

    With regard to your absolute morality, with apologies to LaPlace, we have no need of that hypothesis.

    I didn’t say they were necessary. This is part of my internal critique of naturalism – if no God, then no objective morals. So all claims of “that is morally reprehensible”, such as the killing grounds of Cambodia, the frequent occurrence of gangs of Baptists beating up gays en masse, putting babies into woodchippers, and Joe Citizen raping and murdering your children, are empty. They mean the same as “I like ice cream” and carry the same weight – no weight.
    (That’s a joke about gangs of Baptists, BTW.)

    #209 – Tommykey,

    would be unfairly deprived because no one wanted to make it anymore.

    Begs the question by using “unfairly” w/o arguing for the concept of “fair” on naturalism.
    Seriously y’all, why is this so hard for you?

    the really funny part is that he believes that Jeffrey Dahmer is in heaven if Dahmer truly converted before getting murdered in prison.

    And why is that a problem on naturalism? It is just as morally commendable as feeding 10,000 children per day for free – not commendable at all, nor condemnable. It just IS. And you obviously can’t live that way, b/c here you are making all these moral claims. You’re acting like a Christian in your moralising.

    yet we keep grounding our morality in how our actions effect others as well as ourselves

    You mean, how YOU THINK they will affect others, and by begging the question of good effects and bad effects.

    #213 – SA,
    Mock, or answer the question, either way.

    #216 – 386sx,
    Evolutionist: “Okay here’s some stuff that didn’t evolve in the ‘lab’.”

    Quite – prove it evolved from a different kind of animal. If you cite fossils, answer Gee’s arguments in _In Search of Deep Time_.
    If you cite genetics, prove how you KNOW that they evolved and weren’t designed that way.

    #225 – Steverino,
    You want me to prove that nothing DIDN’T, uncaused, pop into everything?
    I’m not even going to bother taking up that “challenge” – it is its own refutation. Have fun arguing that one.
    But of course that’s your positive assertion – prove it did. Provide ONE, JUST ONE example of nothing, uncaused, becoming something.

    #227 – Not necessarily a conspiracy. Just answer the questions, please. The argument from authority isn’t very strong, you know.

    ————————-
    Me defending Christianity section, in which I presuppose Christianity’s truth and defend its internal consistency:

    #190 – Jason F,
    Rhology has already made it abundantly clear that empirical arguments will never convince him.

    Not until you either admit that you can’t provide evidence that evidence should be listened to, or you give a non-circular argument to that effect.

    #191
    you still haven’t explained why you assigned me the label of “materialistic naturalism”.

    Leave it alone. I was apparently wrong – tell me what your position is and we’ll move on.

    why do you even care (or pretend to) about the data at all?

    I care about certain types of data, to show you that your position is not all it’s cracked up to be, to show the internal inconsistencies in it.

    #193 – LanceR,
    The Jesus Seminar uniformly rejects a priori supernatural events and causes; there is no reason to give such bias any credence, absent an argument to that effect.

    #194 – Lee,

    Please let me know why anyone should accept a Gnostic Gospel as part of the New Testament when a good portion of the NT books were written in specific response to Gnosticism.
    And the NT Gospels are much better dated to before 100 AD.

    But when your circularly-consistent

    Better than internally INconsistent like your worldview.

    denies the validity of the beliefs of anyone who doesn’t believe exactly as you do,

    What a dumb thing to say. You deny the validity of MY beliefs. Waaaa! Let’s stick to the issues.

    #196 – Tommykey,

    How do I know it wasn’t just something Moses made up?

    Lots of reasons – a human wouldn’t make the Torah up, for one thing.
    And if it’s not from God, then we don’t know anything, b/c naturalism can’t ground reason or intelligibility.
    God is certainly competent to ensure that human weaknesses don’t get in the way of His revelation.

    I read your CSI Team analogy and I do not find it helpful.

    Well, that was presupposing Christianity’s truth. Try it sometime and see how the universe looks then.
    *IF* God was there and said how it went down, why should anyone believe the CSI team? Just grant the former for the sake of argument and answer the question.

    The account contains nothing specific that matches up with the universe as we see it.

    Once again begging the issue against the infallible eyewitness. He knows way better than you. Why should I believe you over Him?

    there is nothing predictive in the Creation account

    Sure there is.
    Not that that matters in the question of whether it is true.

    And the same holds true for you.

    Fool – I don’t assume my autonomous reason is neutral and objective and sufficiently broad to understand the evidence as it exists in reality. You’re not even thinking now, but you just want to return insult for perceived insult. That’s not an argument.
    My (and all humans’) reason is subservient to God, b/c He’s far smarter and can see more.

    there is the evidence that does exist in reality:

    There is no evidence outside of God’s evidence. See the above naturalism section. You’re sitting in God’s lap and reaching up to slap Him. I’m sure He’s really impressed.

    Once you have an objective

    God is the only foundational standard for morality. We don’t choose an objective, He is the standard. I’m not arguing from absolute morals; I’m arguing that God exists, therefore absolute morals. If no God, therefore no absolute morals.

    #197 – Lee,
    He is arguing that the mechanisms upon which we have built our civilization and knowledge of the world – observation and verification against reality,iterated to deal with errors – are irretrievably wrong

    Wrong and wrong. Rather, Christianity posits a world in which natural processes ARE generally reliable and in constant operation, virtually all the time.
    There is no reason to think such on naturalism, actually.
    But when one THINKS he has evidence to disprove God, Who makes evidence and the possibility of interpreting it correctly possible, he needs to go back and rethink, b/c he is wrong. that’s what has happened to you.

    #203 – Jason F,
    I have no interest in “lurkers”.

    I do. Y’all are welcome to talk to me at my blog anytime.

    #206, 386sx,
    You still would have no way of knowing if god is just making up crap to boss people around for no good reason.

    Here is what I mean when I say that.

    #215, Dustin,
    When will you militant reductionists accept that chemical reactions are caused not by materialistic processes, but are guided by His Noodly Appendage?

    Is that really your position?
    How precisely do you refute naturalism, Dustin, since you posit a FSM God? And how do you know anything about FSM?

    #223 – Bronze Dog,
    One of the things I found funny was Rho’s comment about the distribution of similarities also being predicted by ID. Well, what doesn’t ID predict? It can explain anything, so it tells us less about the future than the idea it’s all random chance.

    I thought we were concerned about what is TRUE, not about what fits your preconceived notions. Live and learn.

    #232 – 386sx,
    So, we already have the most potent evidence there could ever be. There could never be any potenter evidence than the evidence that we already have.

    Please explain how the testimony and findings of a CSI team studying a crime scene 10 years later would be preferable to the testimony of an infallible and wholly truthful eyewitness. Remember in which section I put this!

  34. #34 Steverino
    March 3, 2009

    Rho,

    Dismissing something based on personal belief without is not evidence. You refuse to accept the mounds of evidence that supports Evolution because it would mean that your belief system is flawed.

    You remind me of that little Christian turd on YouTube, Sean/VenomFangX, who refuses to acknowledge science on the terms that science uses because it debunks his flawed logic.

    You both have so much in common.

    Even is Evolution were untrue, you would still have to provide positive proof of your God. Which you cannot.

    You’re done.

  35. #35 neil
    March 3, 2009

    ‘Only with what a designer mimicking common descent would predict.

    This is a concession that a Designer hypothesis matches the data just as well as Darwinism. Thank you.’

    No no and thrice no. Not a Designer hypothesis, a very specific designer thingie (hypothesis should be testable). That being a designer mimicking common descent, that defiantly doesn’t tie up with the Christian God who I seem to recall rather frowns upon dishonesty. The whole trickster god idea is a non-starter for science as it can not be tested, it’s also very silly.

    ‘Pseudogenes are genetic sequences that were once functional genes, we know this by comparison to still functioning versions of the gene.

    No, you don’t KNOW that at all. You ASSUME it b/c pseudogenes LOOK LIKE they were once functional genes. Don’t assume what you need to prove.’

    All this does is ‘prove’ that you know fuck all about genetics. (Yes I swore but this roundabout is getting ridiculous)

    ‘Other mammals have the functioning gene (guinea pigs don’t but the mutation is in a different place to ours).
    Common ancestry explains this,

    So does a Designer hypothesis. I thought you were supposed to be proving evolution over and against ID here!’

    No, once again only a very specific (and silly) design pseudohypothesis does.
    I’ve already accepted that a big supernatural hoax could be an explanation, e.g the Flying Spaghetti Monster with his noodly appendages, is that what you are really arguing for?
    This is just daft.

    ‘we have our designer placing deliberate misleading evidence for common ancestry, are we really going to spend time on that one?

    If you’re concerned with what the truth is, yes. If you’re not, if you just want to know what you prefer to think, then have fun in your little dollhouse.’

    But that is really special.

    ‘Serious answer I don’t believe I have a fundamental one

    So you can’t provide evidence that evidence is a good way to discover truth? That your brain produces true thoughts?
    You may not ever have thought of these things, but I’d encourage you to do so. Empiricism is not tenable.’

    By Jove I see the light, empiricism is only tenable for real stuff. We need faith when it comes to the non-existent.

    Look gezza, I’m sure you’re a lovely bloke and all that, love your misses, good with the kiddies etc but you really are swimming in a pond to deep.

    I’ve tried repeatedly to give you some good hard science type stuff here, all you’ve done is try to be clever with the weasel words and indulge in multiple bouts of pseudo philosophical mental masturbation.

  36. #36 Tyler DiPietro
    March 3, 2009

    Rhology continuously fails to recognize the difference between prediction and mere compatibility. Concocting an explanation that is compatible with observable data, ad hoc, is trivially easy. His unknown designer could easily be replaced with an unknown magic unicorn, without any loss of explanatory power (since it has none to begin with).

    Evolution is different. It provides a mechanistic reduction from which certain falsifiable predictions follow, all of which are confirmed by the empirical evidence.

    Rhology is likely far too stupid to recognize his errors, as demonstrated by these persistent failures despite being corrected repeatedly by me and others.

  37. #37 Steverino
    March 3, 2009

    “God is the only foundational standard for morality. We don’t choose an objective, He is the standard. I’m not arguing from absolute morals; I’m arguing that God exists, therefore absolute morals. If no God, therefore no absolute morals.”

    Really???…So, all the civilzations prior to Christianity were without morals???

    You really want to try to make that case????

  38. #38 Steverino
    March 3, 2009

    question was asked:

    “we have our designer placing deliberate misleading evidence for common ancestry, are we really going to spend time on that one?”

    Rho replied:

    “If you’re concerned with what the truth is, yes. If you’re not, if you just want to know what you prefer to think, then have fun in your little dollhouse.”

    So, it is your position that God has intentionally mislead those in science, For what reason? When all these people wish to learn the truth, God misleads them?

  39. #39 ERV
    March 3, 2009

    Steverino– So, it is your position that God has intentionally mislead those in science, For what reason? When all these people wish to learn the truth, God misleads them?

    For the lulz.

    God is a /b/tard.

    Newfags cant Trinity.

  40. #40 mds
    March 3, 2009

    Really???…So, all the civilzations prior to Christianity were without morals???

    Oh, they might have had morals, but they weren’t ABSOLUTE MORALSTM. You know, like “no shellfish”, or “be sure to knock up your brother’s widow”.

  41. #41 minimalist
    March 3, 2009

    “hay guyz, check out my internal critique of naturalism :immediately appeals to the supernatural:”

  42. #42 Science Avenger
    March 3, 2009

    Rhology said: Prove that moral statements SHOULD BE TAKEN differently than questions of ice cream preference. If it affects our quality of life, 1) So what? 2) Define “quality” in a non-question-begging way.

    I don’t need to prove any of that, that’s what you can’t get through your thick skull. The moment I deny the objective absoluteness of morality that you desperately wish to assume, the burdon of such proofs is lifted from me. Your argument has no substance.

    Rho: Fortunately I’m not using [CS Lewis’] arguments. Try again.

    Actually you are in a very fundamental way. You are demanding objective proofs in an area where they do not apply, and challenging empirical behavior on the basis of lightweight philosophy.

    Rho: I didn’t say [absolute morals] were necessary. This is part of my internal critique of naturalism – if no God, then no objective morals. So all claims of “that is morally reprehensible”, such as the killing grounds of Cambodia, the frequent occurrence of gangs of Baptists beating up gays en masse, putting babies into woodchippers, and Joe Citizen raping and murdering your children, are empty. They mean the same as “I like ice cream” and carry the same weight – no weight.

    But they in fact do carry more weight, as the reality of human beavior demonstrates on a daily bsis. You may see morality as an absolute-or-nothing deal, but most of humanity does not. You may not care about your quality of life, but most of humanity does. You can deny reality because it does not conform to your presuppositions, but don’t expect your arguments to have any prsuasive power with anyone who rejects those presuppositions.

  43. #43 386sx
    March 3, 2009

    Please explain how the testimony and findings of a CSI team studying a crime scene 10 years later would be preferable to the testimony of an infallible and wholly truthful eyewitness. Remember in which section I put this!

    Rhology, you can’t possibly think that there can’t be better evidence for God than what there is now. I don’t know why you’re saying that. I don’t know if you’re kidding with people or what. I don’t know what CSI has to do with that either. Shrug!

  44. #44 Lee
    March 4, 2009

    Rhology is a lying fucktard. He is too intelligent to be anything else.

    This is a concession that a Designer hypothesis matches the data just as well as Darwinism. Thank you.

    Other mammals have the functioning gene (guinea pigs don’t but the mutation is in a different place to ours).
    Common ancestry explains this,

    So does a Designer hypothesis. I thought you were supposed to be proving evolution over and against ID here!

    See, Rhology is picking and choosing, quote mining, to find sentences that he can answer with the answer he wants to give. What hs is ignoring is the fact that “a designer hypothesis’ matches ANY CONCEIVABLE DATA equally well, and this has been said to him. Instead of responding adequately to that challenge, he picks quotes which allow him to sidestep it – and he is way too smart for that to be accident. “a designer hypothesis’ is consistent with nested hierarchy – and it is consistent with a complete absence of nested hierarchy. And that means that presence or absence of nested hierarchy – or of any other conceivable piece of data – does not and can not inform the idea of ‘a designer hypothesis’ in any way. “a designer hypothesis’ is impervious to data. And that means that “a designer hypothesis’ is pure faith. Which is why it does not belong in the science classroom.

    And thank you, Rhology, for conceding that most of the new Testament was written in an attempt to deny the validity of accounts of the actions and words of Jesus with which Paul did not agree.

    Not that Jesus was messiah anyway. “Meshioch will come only when he is no longer needed. He will come the day after he arrives.”

  45. #45 Tommykey
    March 4, 2009

    You’re acting like a Christian in your moralising.

    No, I’m acting like a humanist, Rho. I suggest you try it sometime. Free your mind from the mental prison of Biblical literalist. But like I wrote above, your morality, such as it is, is an extremely selfish and hyperindividualistic morality centered on “saving” yourself by serving a god that does not even exist.

    Morality is a human construct. There is no force external to humanity to tell us what is right or wrong. That’s the real deal. Now, in the absence of your sky daddy, figure out how you can live with the rest of us in a state of mutual respect and coexistence. Like I wrote above, it’s not only possible, IT’S EASY.

  46. #46 Rhology
    March 4, 2009

    Hi all,

    Section in which I perform an internal critique of naturalism:

    #234 – Steverino,
    Bring fwd a bit of evidence, plz. What is the piece you consider the strongest? I’ll critique it so you can see whether it’s my belief that leads me to reject or whether it’s analysis.

    #235 – neil,
    That being a designer mimicking common descent, that defiantly doesn’t tie up with the Christian God who I seem to recall rather frowns upon dishonesty.

    I didn’t say “the Christian God”. I said “a Designer”. You keep weaseling out of this b/c you have no answer. It’s rather pathetic to watch you thrash around like this, to be honest.
    Stop guessing at the ethical attributes and motivations of the hypothetical designer and show me some friggin evidence that a designer hypothesis can’t account for that evolution can.

    I’ve already accepted that a big supernatural hoax could be an explanation, or FSM

    Which is a concession. Thank you. Step 1 is complete – ID is at least as plausible as Darwinian evolution. Now comes the part where we ascertain the identity of the Designer.

    The rest of your comment is more thrashing about. You are fairly lost here, but that’s OK. I’m not here to convince you but rather to make y’all look foolish, and it’s working out quite well.

    #236 – Tyler and #244 Lee (having copycatted),
    His unknown designer could easily be replaced with an unknown magic unicorn

    Yes. One would think that if evolution were so obvious and had all these mountains of evidence, this would not be the case.
    You guys are conceding tons of ground here and seem not to realise it.

    It provides a mechanistic reduction from which certain falsifiable predictions follow, all of which are confirmed by the empirical evidence.

    And so could a Designer hypothesis. Next?

    #241 – minimalist,

    Now that I’m dividing my comments into 2 sections, please quote me from the naturalism section appealing to the supernatural.

    #242 – SA,
    You may see morality as an absolute-or-nothing deal, but most of humanity does not.

    I didn’t say *I* see it that way, since this is part of the naturalism internal critique. I’m just pointing out the consequences of the naturalistic worldview on moral statements. There is no possibility of objective moral statements and therefore no way to say “chopping up babies in woodchippers is wrong”. One would have to say “it’s icky TO ME but it’s not icky to you, and neither carries any weight.”

    You may not care about your quality of life, but most of humanity does.

    Begging the question, since you can’t define “quality” in any objective way. You just can’t keep your hand out of the cookie jar!

    #244 – Lee,
    he picks quotes which allow him to sidestep it – and he is way too smart for that to be accident.

    Then point out where and how I have improperly quoted. Anytime.

    #245 – Tommykey,
    Morality is a human construct.

    Then I can construct it differently, can’t I? I’m a human.
    I hereby state and assert that it is morally commendable to wipe Tommykey’s entire family from existence forthwith.
    Now, is that valid or not? If not, why not? If you disagree with my morality here stated, please explain how yours is superior to mine. If you appeal to greater numbers of people, please explain how that is relevant, how might does indeed make right. Thanks.

    —————————————–
    Section in which I presuppose and defend Christianity:

    #234 – Steverino,
    you would still have to provide positive proof of your God.

    Right after you provide proof for your worldview. Why not present an argument? What is your position and how do you know it’s right?

    #237, So, all the civilzations prior to Christianity were without morals???

    Didn’t say that. Go back, read it again. Might even try reading the article about morals I linked to.

    #238, When all these people wish to learn the truth, God misleads them

    1) God has already revealed the truth in His revelation. Looking for an alternative b/c you don’t like the God answer is not commendable.
    2 Thessalonians 2 speaks about this
    8Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming;

    9that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders,
    10and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.
    11For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false,
    12in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.

    I suggest repentance, personally. So does God.

    2) Do you have some overarching objective moral standard that would allow you to determine whether such deluding influence is morally wrong? You sound like you think it’s bad of God to do that, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
    If not, then OK, it’s not bad. If so, then what is it and how do you know it?

    #240 – mds,
    You know, like “no shellfish”, or “be sure to knock up your brother’s widow”.

    1) It’s “marry your brother’s widow”, for one thing. Such a freakish devaluation of the blessing of children you exhibit!
    2) Do you have some overarching objective moral standard that would allow you to determine whether such deluding influence is morally wrong? You sound like you think it’s bad of God to do that, but I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
    If not, then OK, it’s not bad. If so, then what is it and how do you know it?

    #244 – Lee,
    And thank you, Rhology, for conceding that most of the new Testament was written in an attempt to deny the validity of accounts of the actions and words of Jesus with which Paul did not agree.

    When did I say anythg of the kind? A direct quote will suffice, thanks.

  47. #47 Lee
    March 4, 2009

    Rhology:
    “What a dumb thing to say. You deny the validity of MY beliefs. Waaaa! Let’s stick to the issues.”

    No, Sir, I do not. Your faith beliefs are yours. I’ve already said I have no problem with that. Please have the Christian honesty and grace to not lie about my position.

    I am denying that there is any rational way to distinguish between conflicting faith beliefs. This is faith belief – the premises of faith belief systems are accepted without evidence. You believe your premises, on faith. My premises differ,I arrive at different set of faith beliefs – and there is no way to rationally or logically distinguish between the truth of your faith beliefs and mine.

    You would insert your faith beliefs into public policy – as in, a requirement in our public schools to teach as observable fact in the world a conclusion you arrive at from your faith premises. THAT is what I oppose, Sir, because THAT is a denial of my right to have my beliefs.

  48. #48 Science Avenger
    March 4, 2009

    Rhology said:I’m just pointing out the consequences of the naturalistic worldview on moral statements. There is no possibility of objective moral statements…

    True.

    …and therefore no way to say “chopping up babies in woodchippers is wrong”.

    False, empirically and demonstrably. People say it all the time, and it gets results.

    One would have to say “it’s icky TO ME but it’s not icky to you”…

    False. We are mot limited to saying “it is icky”. We also can appeal to our common humanity, our instincts, values and desires.

    …and neither carries any weight.

    False, empirically and demonstrably. It carries considerable weight, since it is the way people generally conduct their affairs.

    Once again, you are denying objective, observable reality on the basis of idle theorizing as if humans were some sort of rhetorical construct. Humans are real, their behavior can be observed, and it doesn’t bear the slightest resemblence to your mental masterbations.

    Begging the question, since you can’t define “quality” in any objective way.

    And again, since I reject the notion of absolute, provable morals, I don’t have to define quality objectively. The subjective version humans all over the world use is sufficient.

  49. #49 Science Avenger
    March 4, 2009

    Rhology said: Doc Bill, I’m not aware of anyone who argues that lizards can’t evolve into lizards. Maybe you know someone who does argue that, but it’s not me.

    There is no one arguing that creationists can’t apply the same term to different species either. The argument was that this one species evolved to become two, which was the point of your challenge. What you choose to call them is completely irrelevant.

  50. #50 neil
    March 4, 2009

    Which is a concession. Thank you. Step 1 is complete – ID is at least as plausible as Darwinian evolution. Now comes the part where we ascertain the identity of the Designer.’

    Careful old chap your walking on very thin ice now 9th commandment wise.

    At no point have I said ID is as plausible as Darwinian evolution, and you know it.

    Firstly the only concession I have given is that a very specific form of designer i.e one that has made it look exactly like common descent etc could be an ‘explanation’ however I’ve made it very clear how unplausible I find such a suggestion.
    Secondly I have not been referring to ‘Darwinian evolution’ I am aware of the last 150 years you know, I would have thought it was clear I’m referring to the modern synthesis.
    It is clear I have stated this explanation (ToE) as much more plausible.

    Frankly this whole ‘trickster god’ or ‘evolution mimicking designer’ buisness is an utter red herring and you know it, the reasons why are plainly stated by many posters above.

    The only reason I’m thrashing around pathetically is as I didn’t really want to get rude, although it’s started to creep in.
    I was really trying to show some respect for you as a fellow human being, looks like that was a waste of time too.

    So lets be clear.

    Every single bit of information I know about biology from years of study shows me clearly that common ancestry is true and that the ToE (modern synthesis not just Darwin) is the best available explanation for this fact.
    There is nothing I have ever come across in biology that needs any ‘designer’ explanation.
    The notion that some supernatural designer could have done it but made it look exactly like they didn’t is such a stupid idea it is only worthy of ridicule and contempt.

    I hope that makes it clear what I am conceding, so lets not see any ‘false witnessing’.

    I didn’t start this as game, I am fascinated by biology and made a genuine attempt a communicating some of the reality of it as you seemed to lack much of an understanding of biology.
    You have made no attempt to interact with the actual facts, you have played word games and tried to score points. That makes you a twat.
    Harsh but I feel fair.

  51. #51 Tyler DiPietro
    March 4, 2009

    “Yes. One would think that if evolution were so obvious and had all these mountains of evidence, this would not be the case.”

    You are obviously too stupid to recognize the point I made, as what I said applies to any scientific theory, not just evolution. Once again, it’s trivial to make any conjecture fit any data, ad hoc. Non-mechanistic magic can be made compatible with observations justifying quantum mechanics, too.

    “And so could a Designer hypothesis.”

    You obviously do not have a clue what any of the terms I used actually mean, your ignorance beggars description.

  52. #52 minimalist
    March 4, 2009

    Now that I’m dividing my comments into 2 sections, please quote me from the naturalism section appealing to the supernatural.

    Why, that would be this part of #233:

    #192 – neil,
    Only with what a designer mimicking common descent would predict.

    This is a concession that a Designer hypothesis matches the data just as well as Darwinism. Thank you.

    Your designer “hypothesis” is 100% supernatural. You proceed from supernatural premises, to wit:

    They are all designed. God created the entire universe.

    …and, of course, your belief that a collection of Bronze Age folk tales — self-contradictory, lacking correspondence to objective reality in many crucial areas, serially (badly) translated, jumbled and interfered with by any number of hands for political purposes — is the infallible work of an omniscient, omnipotent Gawd.

    You have been completely unable to give a naturalistic, mechanistic model for your designer “hypothesis”. You have been challenged repeatedly; and repeatedly, you have sniveled, whined, weaseled, and most importantly, failed to come up with anything other than “POOF! magic”.

    Your repeated attempts to whimper that “the designer could be naturalistic!” is just a figleaf. You don’t believe that. And nobody here buys it because we all see your presuppositions; we all know exactly what you are saying.

    What you are engaging in is exactly the sort of thing I mocked when you first toddled in here, which is the image of creationist wearing a paper bag with two crude eyeholes punched in, and the words “NOT A KREASHUNIST” scrawled underneath. Of course, given the ultra-authoritarian tradition in which you were brought up, if a religious leader claims something it’s obviously true! No questions allowed.

    Those of us who accord a certain level of importance to evidence and, importantly, know what words mean, see it otherwise.

  53. #53 Albatrossity
    March 4, 2009

    Rho issues a challenge: show me some friggin evidence that a designer hypothesis can’t account for that evolution can.

    Sure. What kind of designer would come up with the design for the recurrent laryngeal nerve of the giraffe?

    Presumably your designer is super intelligent. Presumably you can determine which designs are His because they are so much more elegant than those of a human engineer. If those presumptions are incorrect, tell me how you can detect His designs otherwise. If those presumptions are correct, tell me the rationale behind the ridiculous “design” of the giraffe’s recurrent laryngeal nerve.

    Evolutionary theory and developmental biology give us an excellent explanation for this poor design. I won’t bother to explain that to you, because your ability to understand basic biology has been shown to be minimal. Besides, you have the Google; you can look it up for yourself.

    What’s your explanation for that pathetic design?

  54. #54 Steverino
    March 4, 2009

    Rho,

    There is plenty of evidence that support TOE, however, as you lack the intellectual honesty, due to your biased, you will be unable to give a unbiased answer.

    Tell using the Bible as your basis for all information, why is Jerm Theory Okey Dokey with you?

    Oh, and nice side step, everyone keeps asking you for proof of God..and you cannot supply it.

    Again, even if TOE were untrue, you still have to proof God.

    And, you are unable.

  55. #55 Steverino
    March 4, 2009

    Rho,

    Oh, Ape/Human Chromosome is pretty compelling evidence of common ancestry.

    The “no one was there to witness it” defense is an intellectual cop-out plus, neither ID or Creation has an explanation supported by any type of evidence to explain the differences, similarites or the fused chromosome.

  56. #56 neil
    March 6, 2009

    Rho’

    Watch the following.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0zSCpsOSSw

    I don’t expect you to agree but it nicely sums up what I and I feel many others here think/believe.

    Know you enemy.

  57. #57 Rhology
    March 7, 2009

    Hi all,

    This thread has been quite fun and illuminating, so I thank you all for your participation and engagement. I have a 2-day-old son now and am going to take a break for about a week.
    This thread is kind of winding down anyway, and quite nicely, I might add. Please, continue to direct people here as you’ve already done in more than one place, as I think your utter failure to answer virtually all of my arguments serves my position quite nicely. And don’t forget (especially you, minimalist) which section you’re replying to, if you reply.

  58. #58 LanceR, JSG
    March 7, 2009

    Quoth the Rhology:

    your utter failure to answer virtually all of my arguments

    Anyone want a slightly broken used irony meter?

  59. #59 Albatrossity
    March 7, 2009

    Rho prevaricated: your utter failure to answer virtually all of my arguments serves my position quite nicely.

    The view must be interesting from “your position”… Apparently you missed #253 above, where your question about evidence was answered directly, per usual. Ignore it if you must, but the evidence will not go away.

    Perhaps by the time your son is old enough to wonder why you lied to him all those years, you will begin to comprehend the meaning of “evidence”.

  60. #60 Lee
    March 7, 2009

    Rhology, congratulations and mazel tov on your son!!! “I have a 2-day-old son now” Did your wife contribute?

    Sleep whenever you can, son.

    Not so much congratulations, though, on your honesty. But we knew that.

  61. #61 Dances with MILFs
    March 7, 2009

    Rhology wrote (#233):

    “a human wouldn’t make the Torah up”

    Right, because humans have never been known to write things.

    I think a lot of the reason people have wasted so much time with an obvious lost cause is that Rhology–despite being batshit crazy, hypocritical in the extreme, and just plain incompetent in all the ways one expects of a victim of fundamentalism–demonstrates clear intelligence. People who are intelligent yet say unbelievably stupid things, and do it proudly and with utter confidence, cause observers a certain amount of intellectual anguish, because they think they’ve *got* to be kidding, or at least that the possibility exists. Rhology is merely the lost cause he appears to be.

    ERV, a dubious congrats to you for attracting maybe the most egregious creationist troll I’ve yet to see on Science Blogs or anywhere else. And I don’t know whether you’re creeped out or honored that a scan of his blog reveals that he dedicates a sizable amount of his worthless verbiage to mentioning you.

    Ideally his wife would give birth every week, so he would refrain from embarrassing himself on the Web any longer. Hell, we can always pray for miracles.

    Now I just want the two hours I spent scrolling though this insane bullshit, agog at every step that someone would willing bend over for a massive and drawn-out rhetorical cornholing, back.

  62. #62 Tyler DiPietro
    March 8, 2009

    “Please, continue to direct people here as you’ve already done in more than one place, as I think your utter failure to answer virtually all of my arguments serves my position quite nicely.”

    Well, what can I say? Some people are just delusional.

    Congratulations on the son, btw. Hopefully the ignorance you will inevitably impose upon him will not damage him permanently.

  63. #63 minimalist
    March 8, 2009

    Good luck with the baby, Rho. Infants have a notoriously poor grasp of object permanence and other higher cognitive functions, so you’ll actually be able to fool him with the “I’m doing this, but saying I’m not doing it” shell game… for a little while, anyway.

    More your speed, eh?

  64. #64 Science Avenger
    March 8, 2009

    I guess referring to the actual world instead of the one Rhology carries around in his head qualifies as refusing to answer his arguments…to him. Everyone else, not so much. But by all means Rhology, keep asserting that atheists cannot do what anyone can plainly see that they do in fact do. It can only help.

  65. #65 Tommykey
    March 8, 2009

    “a human wouldn’t make the Torah up”

    Right, because humans have never been known to write things.

    Dances, as I keep telling him, the Creation account in Genesis reads just as exactly as we would expect it to from the perspective of a Bronze Age man who had no inkling that the Earth revolved around the sun and rotated on its axis, and that the stars in the sky were also suns like our own that have planets of their own orbiting them.

    Then again, Rhology is right. No human (singular) would make the Torah up. It was the product of humans (plural).

    *IF* God was there and said how it went down, why should anyone believe the CSI team? Just grant the former for the sake of argument and answer the question.

    Well, *IF* God was there and said how it went down, I would expect something at least half as long and detailed as Darwin’s Origin of the Species. Again, to reiterate, get the details right. State specifically that the Earth orbits the sun and that it rotates on its axis. Mention that planets orbit the stars we see in the night sky. Again, for something that is supposed to be a revelation from the supreme being that created it all, you set the bar pretty low.

    Again, if the view of the cosmos described in Genesis is about what we would expect from the perspective of a Bronze Age man rather than an immensely powerful and intelligent being that created a virtually infinite universe, then I see no reason to presuppose your Infallible witness. All I see is one or more fallible Bronze Age men taking their best guess. If the CSI team’s evidence does not confirm their flawed perspective, then I’m going with the CSI team’s findings, with the caveat that future discoveries might shed new light on the story.

  66. #66 Ian Musgrave
    March 10, 2009

    G’Day folks. I’ve put up an extended post on Occam’s razor and heliocentric theories, which should put William Wallaces comment in a new ahem, perspective.

  67. #67 Rhology
    March 16, 2009

    Howdy all,

    So my wife had our son and I took a week off, just in time to catch a cold or something that knocked me out from Wed night until Sat night. I was considering leaving this thread alone, but it’s not all that old, so why not?
    As customarily, please pay close attention to the two sections.
    Section in which I perform an internal critique of naturalism:

    #247, Lee,
    I am denying that there is any rational way to distinguish between conflicting faith beliefs

    This is stupid talk, sorry. You yourself have faith in all kinds of things, such as naturalism. Surely you don’t think that there is no way to distinguish between naturalism and Christianity.
    If you deny the premise, how about providing a little evidence for naturalism? It’s only the 15th time I’ve asked, in this thread.

    You would insert your faith beliefs into public policy

    Um, yes, b/c I have a right to ask the gov’t to respect my wishes.
    And you yourself have faith in naturalism and would insert it into public policy, in negation of my own position. Don’t be such a hypocrite about this.

    #248 – SA,

    I said: …and therefore no way to say “chopping up babies in woodchippers is wrong”.
    You said: False, empirically and demonstrably. People say it all the time, and it gets results.

    Hahaha. Snake oil “gets results” too, b/c it convinces people to buy it.
    Since it’s not objectively wrong by your own admission, it looks like you could say that it is wrong, but I could say that it is not wrong… where does that leave us? Where is the standard of comparison?

    We also can appeal to our common humanity, our instincts, values and desires.

    1) I say those are useless. How do you know I’m wrong to discount them?
    2) It begs the question to appeal to any common humanity to support an idea of morality that one human or one set of humans advances over and against an idea that another human or set of humans advances that is different, since each can appeal to “common humanity” and such.
    You have nothing. Your only way out here is to admit that there is nothing in naturalism that can support moral statements other than “I like it” and “I don’t like it”.

    since it is the way people generally conduct their affairs.

    Again, begging the question.

    Humans are real, their behavior can be observed

    Yep, and their behavior doesn’t always agree with your standards of morality. Why arbitrarily make what YOU want the standard of comparison? After all, humans are real, their behavior can be observed, you know.

    #249- SA,

    The argument was that this one species evolved to become two, which was the point of your challenge.

    OK, maybe DocBill was responding to someone else. That doesn’t respond to my challenge, no.

    #250, neil-

    At no point have I said ID is as plausible as Darwinian evolution

    You’re apparently not very good at ascertaining what is good and necessary consequence of text. You clearly conceded that very thing. Self-deception isn’t worth much coin.

    You have made no attempt to interact with the actual facts, you have played word games and tried to score points.

    I won’t even try to conceal how much this hurts, neil.

    #251, Tyler DiPietro,

    it’s trivial to make any conjecture fit any data, ad hoc.

    Like Darwin did? ID was the prevailing idea back before him, you know?

    Non-mechanistic magic can be made compatible with observations justifying quantum mechanics, too

    I’ve been over that. Feel free to answer my challenges about karma and about the worldview surrounding magic.

    #252, minimalist-

    Your designer “hypothesis” is 100% supernatural. You proceed from supernatural premises, to wit:

    Don’t be so dense. You quoted me from the “internal critique of naturalism section”.
    And this wouldn’t be much of a naturalistic critique if I incorporated supernatural. I’m just saying the data fits a naturalistic Designer better than natsel. You apparently have no response. Thanks for playing.

    Your repeated attempts to whimper that “the designer could be naturalistic!” is just a figleaf. You don’t believe that.

    1) I doubt anyone would accept that as the only response from a Christian to the Flying Spaghetti Monster challenge – “You don’t believe that.” Come now, but YOU’RE supposed to get out of jail free just b/c you’re on the evilution side? Please.
    2) Dick Dawk himself and Francis Crick think panspermia are possible, and that’s naturalistic, so there you go.
    3) No, I don’t believe it, but I am limiting myself to those options in this section. It’s called a “thought experiment.” Maybe you’ve heard of that before.

    #253, Albatrossity,

    What kind of designer would come up with the design for the recurrent laryngeal nerve of the giraffe?

    A powerful one, but maybe who didn’t want to create everything totally perfect, and maybe one whose reasons you don’t know.
    That’s pretty pitiful, seriously. Your best response is “Well, ***I*** wouldn’t do it that way!!!” Who cares how YOU would have done it?
    Now, your evidence that the facts fit your hypothesis better than mine?

    Evolutionary theory and developmental biology give us an excellent explanation for this poor design.

    Actually, they give you no explanation for “design” at all. Poor as it may be, it still works, at least some of the time.
    And the ID hypothesis matches these types of facts just as well – no one is claiming the Designer wanted to create Utopia.

    #255 – Steverino,
    Ape/Human Chromosome is pretty compelling evidence of common ancestry.

    Why? Give specific reasons.

    ————————-
    Section in which I presuppose and defend Christianity:

    #252, minimalist-

    the image of creationist wearing a paper bag with two crude eyeholes punched in

    I have been clear from the beginning that I am a creationist. That doesn’t mean I can’t show you where you’re wrong in critiquing ID.

    #254 – Steverino,
    Tell using the Bible as your basis for all information, why is Jerm Theory Okey Dokey with you?

    I don’t even know what “Jerm” theory is.
    Neither does Talkorigins. Try again.

    you still have to proof God.

    No, I don’t.
    But just for fun, I welcome your interaction on this brief presentation.
    Or this one.

    #265, Tommykey,

    the Creation account in Genesis reads just as exactly as we would expect it to from the perspective of a Bronze Age man

    Bronze Age man also thought that it hurt when he stubbed his toe on a rock. You don’t think it’s untrue b/c of that, do you?
    This is silly and untrue, actually, but even if it were true, it simply speaks not at all of the truth of the record. It’s modern bias and ethnocentristic, really. How about some arguments?

    the Earth revolved around the sun and rotated on its axis

    Tommy now believes he can read minds of dead people. Shouldn’t you guys excommunicate him from your church for that heresy?

    Well, *IF* God was there and said how it went down, I would expect something at least half as long and detailed as Darwin’s Origin of the Species.

    Who cares what YOU would expect? Give me an argument to that effect. Why precisely is what was said totally insufficient for the purposes it set out to accomplish? Be specific.

  68. #68 LanceR, JSG
    March 16, 2009

    It lives! Aaaaahhhhh! It’s come to eat your brains! Run away!!

  69. #69 Tyler DiPietro
    March 16, 2009

    “Now, your evidence that the facts fit your hypothesis better than mine?”

    Okay Rhology, here is the opportunity of a lifetime: explain, in clear terms, what exactly this “hypothesis” of your’s is.

  70. #70 Tommykey
    March 16, 2009

    Bronze Age man also thought that it hurt when he stubbed his toe on a rock. You don’t think it’s untrue b/c of that, do you?

    Now that was really stupid, Rhology. Bronze Age man didn’t think it hurt, it DID hurt. There’s no comparison between a response to pain and one’s limited understanding of the cosmos because he lacked a telescope.

    Tommy now believes he can read minds of dead people.Who cares what YOU would expect?

    Well, you asked.

    Why precisely is what was said totally insufficient for the purposes it set out to accomplish? Be specific.

    I was specific. You chose not to address it. But here we go again:

    State specifically that the Earth orbits the sun and that it rotates on its axis. Mention that planets orbit the stars we see in the night sky. Again, for something that is supposed to be a revelation from the supreme being that created it all, you set the bar pretty low.

  71. #71 Lee
    March 16, 2009

    More of the same solipsistic tripe.

    Rhology argues that there is no difference between beliefs for which there is no evidence, and things seen and observed, because you have to have a belief that there is such a thing as existence. See, its all belief. Therefore, G_d – but only G_d as Rhology understands it to be.

    Pure rancid fermenting bullcrap.

    Enough. Apologetics – and Rhology – are too fundamentally dishonest for me to take any more of it.

  72. #72 Dustin
    March 17, 2009

    Assholes! This is why you always use acid or fire on the troll. They regenerate. GAWD YOU GUISE ARE LIEK TEH WORST PARTY EVAR!

  73. #73 zilch
    March 17, 2009

    Lurker here. Very entertaining thread. Sorry, Rho: if your God can’t come up with better evidence for His Own existence than mimicking godless evolution, down to the giraffe’s recurrent laryngeal nerve and pseudogenes, then He is a bungler or a trickster and not worthy of worship. I’ll stick with materialism, which does not explain everything, but explains quite a bit. But thanks for the dance.

  74. #74 Albatrossity
    March 17, 2009

    Rho, suffering from sleeplessness, wanks on re the recurrent laryngeal nerve of the giraffe.

    What kind of designer would come up with the design for the recurrent laryngeal nerve of the giraffe?

    A powerful one, but maybe who didn’t want to create everything totally perfect, and maybe one whose reasons you don’t know.
    That’s pretty pitiful, seriously. Your best response is “Well, ***I*** wouldn’t do it that way!!!” Who cares how YOU would have done it? Now, your evidence that the facts fit your hypothesis better than mine?

    Hilarious! So if your designer can do things for reasons that we don’t know, and if his designs can be so mysterious that they resemble the workings of an addled kindergartner, what attributes can you define that will allow any of us to detect his designs?

    Here’s a clue-by-four. If both good design and bad design are considered to be evidence of your designer, your notions can’t be discussed by rational people seeking useful explanations. But we knew that already, didn’t we?

    As for the evidence that evolutionary theory explains this anatomy, as I mentioned in my original comment, it’s quite solid, but you have proven that you are incapable of understanding it. It involves vertebrate developmental biology, and I really don’t have time to teach you. But I can suggest a good book to help you learn on those upcoming sleepless nights. Come back and ask again when you can write a coherent paragraph, in your own words, about the timing relationship between cranial nerve migration and cardiovascular development.

  75. #75 minimalist
    March 17, 2009

    Here’s a clue-by-four. If both good design and bad design are considered to be evidence of your designer, your notions can’t be discussed by rational people seeking useful explanations. But we knew that already, didn’t we?

    Rho thinks everything in the natural universe is designed. His reasons aren’t any deeper or more descriptive than “it looks that way to me, okay!?” and “the Bible tells me so.” So, not only is “design” completely useless as a description — lacking any point of comparison with something that might be un-designed, plus the fact that Rho will contort himself to view any and every scenario as a result of “design”, see the giraffe example above –but if everything natural was “designed” then by definition that requires a supernatural designer. Which is why I keep hammering him about his pathetic attempts to arbitrarily designate his magical designer to be off-limits when arguing for design, because he is entirely arguing from supernaturalistic premises and his argument loses what little “support” it has without them.

    There’s a naturalistic way to argue for a designer — Mike Behe has tried — but Rho has proudly declared his ignorance of such arguments, leaving him without a leg to stand on.

  76. #76 Stu
    March 17, 2009

    Bronze Age man also thought that it hurt when he stubbed his toe on a rock. You don’t think it’s untrue b/c of that, do you?

    I’ll take Pathetic Analogies for $1,200, Alex.

    Seriously, this is the level this clown operates at? I was about to hit the archives, but now I won’t bother. I don’t need that kind of blood pressure rise in the morning.

  77. #77 Tommykey
    March 17, 2009

    Rho thinks everything in the natural universe is designed. His reasons aren’t any deeper or more descriptive than “it looks that way to me, okay!?” and “the Bible tells me so.”

    He really has no choice, Minimalist. His entire edifice of belief would come crashing down if he admitted that not everything in the Bible should be interpreted literally. “Well, if Noah’s Ark didn’t really happen, then that must mean that Jesus was not born from a virgin and rose from the dead. I might as well put my newborn son in the microwave oven now.”

  78. #78 Dances with MILFs
    March 20, 2009

    “how about providing a little evidence for naturalism?”

    What the fuck is “naturalism”? A label for the assumption that the world operates without gods, correct? In that case, since there’s no evidence for gods, there’s nothing to defend. It’s on the godders of the world to show just what’s wrong with refusing to accept god-claims in the absence of sound reason.

    Here’s a demand parallel to Rhology’s:

    On one side you’ve got people who believe that waving dildos with magnets attached to them around can cure disease. They’re sure of it, but they have no evidence. The medical community at large shrugs these numbfucks off and proceeds to seek science-based solutions to illness.

    But the Dildomaggers are a persistent lot, and they come to label the so-called “philosophy” mainstream docs “undiddlism.” This is so they can turn around and demand proof of “undiddlism,” and then, when people dismiss this as trivially silly, accuse them of ducking a legitimate question.

    How fucking stupid is this guy? I’ve never seen a more ignorant and brainwashed person enjoy wasting hours and hours sticking his bare pimply ass in the air just so that his intellectual betters can continue savagely smashing toilet plungers into it. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

  79. #79 Rhology
    March 30, 2009

    Albatrossity insisted I return, so OK, I’m back. I would have expected a little bit of actually substantive interaction from him given his insistence, but alas, I’ve been disappointed.
    Bottom line – this is my last post here unless someone provides some evidence for naturalism. Put up or shut up.

    As customarily, please pay close attention to the two sections.
    –Section in which I perform an internal critique of naturalism:–

    #270, Tommykey,
    Bronze Age man didn’t think it hurt, it DID hurt.

    No, he THOUGHT it hurt. If his brain was deceiving him, he didn’t perceive it.

    #271 – Lee
    You didn’t offer any argumentation. Too bad for you.

    #274, Albatrossity,
    what attributes can you define that will allow any of us to detect his designs?

    He designs. He is intelligent, powerful, creative, at least partly communicative, among other things. You’re not paying very close attention.

    If both good design and bad design are considered to be evidence of your designer,

    Haha – walking right into cannonfire. Look at what you said again:
    If both good design and bad design are considered to be evidence of your designer,

    So, you’re asking me if design is to be considered evidence of a designer? Hmm, let me think about that one…

    #277, Tommykey,
    I might as well put my newborn son in the microwave oven now.”

    Please describe why that would be wrong to do if naturalism is true. Be specific about the standard of comparison you use to determine right and wrong.

    #278 – Dances,
    What is naturalism?

    The belief that all is natural, and there is no room for supernatural.
    What are you even doing here if you don’t know that? Seriously.

    In that case, since there’s no evidence for gods, there’s nothing to defend.

    I’d sure like some evidence for naturalism. Got any?

    On one side you’ve got people who believe that waving dildos with magnets attached to them around can cure disease. They’re sure of it, but they have no evidence.

    Kind of like those who claim naturalism is true. They’re sure of it, but they have no evidence. Where is your evidence?

    ————————-
    –Section in which I presuppose and defend Christianity:–

    #270, Tommykey,
    I asked:Why precisely is what was said totally insufficient for the purposes it set out to accomplish? Be specific.
    Tommy said:
    State specifically that the Earth orbits the sun, etc…

    Ah ha, you fell headlong into my trap. That was not the intention it set out to achieve. You are biblically illiterate. Not saying that means you’re worthless, but you have little to add in a conversation on this topic.

    #273, zilch
    if your God can’t come up with better evidence for His Own existence than mimicking godless evolution, down to the giraffe’s recurrent laryngeal nerve and pseudogenes, then He is a bungler or a trickster and not worthy of worship.

    I don’t grant that He did a lot of mimicking. Rather, you INTERPRET, wrongly, the facts as they are and then call it godless evolution.
    And on what basis do you say that He is unworthy of worship? Give me a standard of comparison by which you judge “worthy of worship” and “unworthy of worship”.

    #275 – minimalist,
    His reasons aren’t any deeper or more descriptive than “it looks that way to me, okay!?” and “the Bible tells me so.

    Keep on believing that if it helps your ulcer.

    but if everything natural was “designed” then by definition that requires a supernatural designer

    True. But remember what section I put that answer in! In critiquing naturalism (1st section), I restrict myself to showing ToE’s insufficiency and am mum on the identity of the ID.

    #277, Tommykey,
    if he admitted that not everything in the Bible should be interpreted literally.

    You are truly clueless. It’s really disappointing to hear you make such a facile error when we’ve interacted numerous times.
    Here is the actual answer.

  80. #80 LanceR, JSG
    March 30, 2009

    Going for the coveted “Double Dingbat” award for simultaneously beating a long-dead horse *AND* completely misrepresenting everyone’s arguments, it’s RHOLOGY!

    Round of applause, everyone! Then run!

  81. #81 Tommykey
    March 30, 2009

    #270, Tommykey,
    Bronze Age man didn’t think it hurt, it DID hurt.

    No, he THOUGHT it hurt. If his brain was deceiving him, he didn’t perceive it.

    So if I press a hot iron on your face while you are sleeping, you won’t feel a thing, because you can’t be deceived into thinking it hurts if you’re unconscious, right?

    #277, Tommykey,
    I might as well put my newborn son in the microwave oven now.”

    Please describe why that would be wrong to do if naturalism is true. Be specific about the standard of comparison you use to determine right and wrong.

    Well, first off, they taste so much better if you deep fry them instead. :-P

    Seriously, I’m not sure exactly what you personally mean by naturalism. If I missed your definition somewhere, I apologize, but ask that you please restate briefly.

    As for the standard I personally use, it is a universal standard. All people have the right to live their lives without having physical and mental pain or injury inflicted on them. All you have to do is accept that principle, and cooking infants in the microwave or stealing purses from old ladies is unacceptable behavior. If you tolerate it, then it is like a cancer that metastasizes through the body.

    So, if you lost faith in Jesus tomorrow, would YOU cook your infant son in a microwave?

    #270, Tommykey,
    I asked:Why precisely is what was said totally insufficient for the purposes it set out to accomplish? Be specific.
    Tommy said:
    State specifically that the Earth orbits the sun, etc…

    Ah ha, you fell headlong into my trap. That was not the intention it set out to achieve. You are biblically illiterate. Not saying that means you’re worthless, but you have little to add in a conversation on this topic.

    What trap, Admiral Akbar? You asked me why I personally do not accept the Genesis account of creation and I have repeatedly told you why. I wasn’t debating you, I was explaining MY reasons for disbelief. And all you have to offer is some crappy analogy about an infallible witness versus a CSI team. If the evidence uncovered by the CSI team does not match the claims of this alleged infallible witness, then I have to seriously doubt the infallibility of the witness. If you want to believe it, that is your choice, but it is not binding on me.

    #277, Tommykey,
    if he admitted that not everything in the Bible should be interpreted literally.

    You are truly clueless. It’s really disappointing to hear you make such a facile error when we’ve interacted numerous times.

    No, you’re the clueless one my friend, as you took the sentence out of context. Here is what I wrote immediately after the sentence you quoted above:

    Well, if Noah’s Ark didn’t really happen, then that must mean that Jesus was not born from a virgin and rose from the dead.

    Please do forgive me if I am mistaken, but you do believe that the Genesis account of creation is literally true, right? You do believe that a snake spoke to Eve, correct? You do believe the story of Noah’s Ark, yes? The Tower of Babel? Jonah and the Whale? (or big fish?).

    My point obviously was that you can’t allow yourself to view these stories as allegories rather than literal, historical events, otherwise your edifice of belief would come crashing down. Of course I didn’t mean to imply that you believed that Jesus literally gave Peter physical keys to the gates of heaven, silly boy. People can and do believe in the divinity of Christ without believing the Noah’s Ark story.

    Now go give yourself 20 lashes with a wet noodle.

  82. #82 minimalist
    March 30, 2009

    Surely there also must be some sort of Broken Record/Demented Parrot award for going in the tiniest circles ever. It’s like he thinks if he waits long enough after everyone makes their response, nobody will notice when he just repeats exactly what you were responding to in the first place.

    And then, of course, he had to go and outdo himself with this bit of GOTO 10 tautology:

    “How do you detect your designer?”
    “He designs.”

    Brilliant.

  83. #83 minimalist
    March 30, 2009

    Holy shit, I just realized something:

    what attributes can you define that will allow any of us to detect his designs?

    He designs. He is intelligent, powerful, creative, at least partly communicative, among other things. You’re not paying very close attention.

    Hey, Idesign! I’m also intelligent, powerful, creative, and at least partially communicative!

    Oh my god, you guys… I MUST BE GOD.

  84. #84 the bullcooker
    March 31, 2009

    No, he THOUGHT it hurt. If his brain was deceiving him, he didn’t perceive it.

    Now try and explain the difference between thinking that something hurts, and something actually hurting.

  85. #85 the bullcooker
    March 31, 2009

    What’s really frightening about Rhology is that clearly within his peer group he’s perceived as being at the top of his game as far as apologetics is concerned. They probably think he’s a witty guy to boot – more proof that this subset of Christians is more deluded than we can ever begin to understand.

  86. #86 Albatrossity
    March 31, 2009

    Rho tautologizes when asked about attributes that would allow us to detect his designer: He designs. He is intelligent, powerful, creative, at least partly communicative, among other things. You’re not paying very close attention.

    I’m pretty sure that I have already figured out that an attribute of a designer is that “he designs”. Do you have anything less circular in your argument pile? Like something that would make his designs different from other designers? A trademark, perhaps?

    Then, when I pointed out that it is difficult to define anything when contradictory attributes (both good design and bad design) are considered to be evidence for the same thing, Rho whiffed: So, you’re asking me if design is to be considered evidence of a designer? Hmm, let me think about that one…

    Don’t strain anything while you’re thinking, OK? Just let me know how two DIFFERENT AND CONTRADICTORY parameters can be considered to be evidence of the same thing.

    If you need an analogy to lubricate your synapse for this thinking process, it would be like saying that the Mona Lisa and a crayon drawing a chimp are obviously products of the same artist. In case you hadn’t noticed, “good” and “bad” are antonyms, not synonyms.

  87. #87 Jay
    April 16, 2009

    Rhology has just appeared at my blog, and this thread popped up in my search when I was trying to find out what he’s all about. I’m not sure whether to be flattered or frightened that he’s found me…

  88. #88 ERV
    April 16, 2009

    Jay– The prize for getting a Rho-comment is a bottle of Equate brand aspirin! It should be arriving in the mail shortly! lol.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.