…and this is a 
Oh, when will we learn? Michael Shermer and Donald Prothero duked it out with a pair of Discovery Institute charlatans recently, to predictable results: the creationists cried victory afterwards. It simply doesn't matter that they had no evidence.
Anyway, a couple of things struck me as too typical in these affairs.
The creationists changed the topic the morning of the debate, from the general "Origins of life" to the "Adequacy of Neo-Darwinian natural selection and mutation to explain the origin of life", which already skews the subject. It's amazing how common it is for creationists to pull this tactic of shifting the goalposts the day of the game. It's also surprising how often we let them get away with it.
Despite their change of topic, the creationists ignored it! One guy yammered on about "information," despite not understanding it; the other made the impossibility of whale evolution the centerpiece of his argument. Whale evolution is cool, but it's a fact…and note that there were no whales around at the time of the origin of life.
As usual, our side is all about the evidence. Their side is all about rhetoric and appeals to biases. Guess which side fares best in the debate format? It's even true in their books: note that Meyer's book is subtitled, DNA and the Evidence of Intelligent Design, and he couldn't gasp out any evidence at all for their theory, which they cannot even state.
Oh, well. We're game, at least, and willing to charge into their playing field no matter how much they have to stack the odds against us. Now if only they would try to do likewise…but of course, they can't. They've got nothin'.
Comments
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
December 3, 2009 1:59 PM
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
December 3, 2009 2:05 PM
But life looks designed (if you have prejudicial assumptions), so of course they win every time.
Since the point is to change science to no longer require evidence, well, clearly they don't need evidence--no more than that everything looks designed to idiots, anyway.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
December 3, 2009 2:09 PM
No one should debate these liars orally, since they'll never do so honestly.
On paper and screen they're never honest, either, but you can nail their lying asses to their dissembling nonsense in print.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 3, 2009 2:11 PM
This is an odd one, apparently Prothero started going on about how ID wasn't science, which technically wasn't the point either. We will have to wait for the video on this one.
To be honest, I would have pulled out and told them to go fuck themselves given the fact that they
A) Changed the debate on the day before.
B) Changed the debate to a technically indefensible position since "Darwinism" (their choice, not ours) doesn't explain abiogenesis.
He should no more have debated this than tried to defend the idea that darwinism explains the big bang.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 3, 2009 2:12 PM
That sums up their science very nicely.Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
December 3, 2009 2:13 PM
By the way, PZ, here's Casey Luskin on M&K's blog:
I mention this because you brought up the fact on Coyne's blog that the liars said they'd send you a copy of Meyer's dreck, then didn't.
Clearly, they're doing their best to avoid serious critiques, and Casey's lying through his teeth, as usual.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Kevin | December 3, 2009 2:16 PM
Looks like it was a great debate - hope they get a video of it.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
December 3, 2009 2:22 PM
One is supposed to come out soon. Unfortunately, though, I think the IDiots have control of it, so I wouldn't be certain that it'll be honestly edited.
Still, how much could they alter without it being obvious? On the whole, then, it should be worth watching.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: wiley | December 3, 2009 2:25 PM
When will you learn? Never. The parasitic nature of Atheism dictates that it have something not to believe in, and without which its has no raisin date. If it ever finally defeats Christianity, some other belief-system will take over; jihadists and sharia-merchants are standing by.
Funny thing: you don't see F1 mechanics belittling ancient chariots, nor chemists berating the alchemists of yore for not knowing the intricacies of the Periodic Table, yet you do see Atheist-Evolutionists dissecting Genesis 1 and highlighting any scientific innaccuracies.
I suggest you see a shrink.
Posted by: Nomen Publicus | December 3, 2009 2:28 PM
Never argue with an idiot, because they will only bring you down to their level and beat you by experience. -- John Guerrero
For a long time I disagreed with the "no engagement" policy of some prominent atheists. Far better to try and educate than to ignore.
However, over the years creationists have demonstrated that they are incapable or unwilling to educate themselves about the world they live in. They live in ignorance while claiming access to knowledge. They are wrong but are not open to persuasion.
The time has come to disengage.
It's also time to be proactive. Those of you who can write need to make sure that non-specialist magazines always have a steady supply of pro-science articles. Weekend newspapers have acres of empty paper to fill every week. The same is true for radio and TV.
Not everybody can be a media whore but there must be people out there who can make a difference.
Posted by: Charles Minus | December 3, 2009 2:30 PM
Personally, I find these debates pointless and boring except for occasional humorous content. I'm sure that Shermer, Hitchens, Dawkins et al, have their reasons for participating in them and that they are not the least concerned with whether they "lose" any debate, as long as they get paid. And that's fine with me. The more books they sell, the better. And Hitchens is always good for a laugh. Just let's not take this whole circus too seriously.
Posted by: Big Ugly Jim | December 3, 2009 2:30 PM
I just put together a well-thought out piece detailing the evidence for intelligent design.
http://www.meddlingkids.org/2009/12/the-evidence-for-intelligent-design/
I hope you enjoy.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
December 3, 2009 2:33 PM
Funny thing: You don't see the f-tards claiming that ancient chariots are better than jet planes (ignoring the greenhouse effect, which they don't believe in), nor do we have alchemists demanding that their BS should be understood as science.
Of course the f-tards intend to attack any science dealing with the human mind or "soul," but for now they're just attacking evolution as the wedge for reintroducing religious claims as "evidence."
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
December 3, 2009 2:34 PM
I'm wondering if it's been tried.
Offer a challenge - but a very well defined one, with strict rules of debate, and demerits if those rules are violated or ethical debate norms are ignored. Violations would of course have to be very well defined, with examples so there is no confusion, and explanation as to why they are considered unethical.
The topic, a positive truth-claim about some aspect of evolution, will have to be basic, but one that offers obvious ways of being falsified. Of course one that also has clear substantive evidence in its support.
I even wonder how they would respond to such a challenge. I doubt they would go for it.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely
|
December 3, 2009 2:35 PM
Nobody attempts to enter a chariot in a Grand Prix race. Nobody lobbies for grants to research the Philosopher's Stone.
However, there sure are a lot of knuckleheads trying to get creationism into the classroom.
- and "raisin date"?
That is priceless dumbassitude!
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 3, 2009 2:39 PM
Posted by: Steve | December 3, 2009 2:40 PM
Let me see, we have a change of topic the day of the debate, we have one guy using an ill-defined term as the core of his argument and another using the argument from personal incredulity vis-a-vis the evolution of a given modern species. Where have we heard this before?
It occurs to me that it's always the same old song and dance from creationists: the argument from incredulity and the invocation of the god of the gaps in order, not to show evidence for their side, but in a vain attempt to poke holes in a well-established, evidence-based cognitive framework. I avoid the word theory because to the creationists, theory=willy-nilly guess. Speaking of, did the IDiots debating Drs. Shermer and Prothero haul out the "only a theory" bit?
Posted by: Kevin | December 3, 2009 2:45 PM
@Big Ugly Jim:
I had to keep myself from laughing too loudly. Shame on you! I'm at work.
Posted by: skeeto | December 3, 2009 2:45 PM
wiley, the problem is that the fairytale book, despite complete lack of evidence for anything in it, is still used as justification -- in place of science -- for laws and policies in US politics. This is why it keeps having to be ripped apart until that stops.
Posted by: John Marley | December 3, 2009 2:46 PM
"raisin date"
BWAHAHAHAHA!
wiley, you owe me anew keyboard
Posted by: Ewan R | December 3, 2009 2:46 PM
Wiley - I don't think the "raisin date" of atheism is to defeat christianity... but all theistic religions - do away with all religion and true, atheism becomes an empty belief system and unneccesary to profess- it is defined by the society in which we find ourselves - atheism exists as a meaningful worldview because theism is so all pervasive and so all perverting. I'd happily cease actively not believing in god if everyone who does believe in god would simply cease doing so (if the prevailing view in society was that the Earth was created by a giant strawberry called Jim I'd be an active Astrawberryist - however the drive just isn't there what with it not being a widely held belief)
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
December 3, 2009 2:46 PM
The unreasonable, unsupportable claims of religion are not to be defeated in some kind of sporting event. They are only to be dismissed, as many of them already have been throughout history.
The more the moron xtians hold-fast to their idiot claims (which is most of their claims) about reality, the more simple-minded and deluded they look.
No, atheism does not need to defeat xtianity. Xtianity is defeating itself. Atheism is just standing aside, watching it happen, pointing and laughing. But we do like to encourage that process from time to time.
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 3, 2009 2:47 PM
#16 The first 2 lines are Wiley, the rest is me and a bad blockquote tag.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 3, 2009 2:48 PM
Stupidest thing I've seen written today... and there's been a lot of stupid floating around the pharyngusphere today.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 3, 2009 2:52 PM
Next time I see chariots lining up to race Michael Schumacher and being taken seriously by a large portion of the population then we can talk.
Or better yet, not.
That was an astoundingly stupid analogy.
Posted by: Josh | December 3, 2009 2:58 PM
You don't see this happening because none of you assholes are trying to force us to teach alchemy in chemistry class as though its principles were valid chemistry.
Surely even you can grasp this distinction?
Posted by: PeteB | December 3, 2009 3:00 PM
oooohhh.., raison d'etre
wow that took me a while to figure out.
raisin date fits in nicely with his argument though
Posted by: robinsrule | December 3, 2009 3:00 PM
Heh - Atheism, the gateway drug to Islam. In reality, Secular Humanism is the way forward.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | December 3, 2009 3:01 PM
The thing that bothers me about these staged debates (both the evo/cre ones and the theist/atheist ones) is that they're usually instigated by the religious side, which means they usually contrive some way to control the agenda (either by moving the goalposts at the last minute, or handing out biassed audience-response cards with leading questions,or choice of venue, or some other way). Even when there is a pro-science or secular group nominally associated with the event, it's clear from the number and size of the signage who's really in charge.
I think our side should refuse to participate in these side-shows unless there is true bi-partisan organization.
Posted by: DaveH_of_Lundun | December 3, 2009 3:03 PM
What I noticed is that Meyer's book is on the Times Literary Supplement's Book of the Year list.
No-one takes The Times itself seriously these days, but the TLS maybe a little more so. It's a bit of a jolt to me to see an ID book nominated, for sure.
Now it strikes me that this is an area of science not philosophy and Nagel is recommending the book out of ignorance. Besides, I have never seen anything remotely resembling philosophical merit in an ID argument.
Is there anything of merit in Meyer's book *at all*, or has Nagel just gone senile?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 3, 2009 3:03 PM
I doubt it. Like his namesake, he is lying squashed under the boulder he lauched in hopes of making a point. As usual, it backfired on him.Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
December 3, 2009 3:06 PM
IMO, I really don't think it was a backfire - he's just holding the gun wrong.
Posted by: Steve | December 3, 2009 3:07 PM
Raisin date=FAIL
Posted by: James F | December 3, 2009 3:08 PM
I like a dash of good, old-fashioned mockery while supplying evidence, like this NCSE video.
Posted by: kiki | December 3, 2009 3:10 PM
I once went on a raisin date with a spokesmodel for a beer company. She was a Coors celeb.
Posted by: God (and a half) | December 3, 2009 3:16 PM
Rev BDC:
What if Michael Schumacher was on foot?
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely
|
December 3, 2009 3:16 PM
DaveH_of_Lundun:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article6940536.ece
This is a link to a letter to the TLS by Stephen Fletcher. He identifies some fundamental errors in Meyer's book. It's a nice succinct takedown.
I don't think Nagel is senile - he is probably bamboozled or ignorant or both.
Posted by: Carl | December 3, 2009 3:17 PM
A lot of atheists and skeptics won't debate creationists as a matter of policy. Dawkins famously takes this position. I don't think I quite agree with that stance, but I do think that the skeptics sometimes need to be more forceful in their refusal to put up with creationist bullshit.
As others have already said, I'd have backed out of the debate immediately after the creationists changed the subject, especially if the change framed the skeptical side as an indefensible and absurd stawman, such as the idea that mutation and natural selection are supposed to explain the origin of life.
Idiots.
Posted by: Josh | December 3, 2009 3:17 PM
Ha!
Which generally produces a more devastating result.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely
|
December 3, 2009 3:21 PM
http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/r/raisin.asp
Check out the first cartoon on the page.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
December 3, 2009 3:22 PM
Aye, and there be pirates waitin' to skewer ya lily-li'ered bunch! Aarrrr!Posted by: Personal SinR | December 3, 2009 3:24 PM
ugh....Shermer? Really? He's got some good stuff out there, but I can't stand watching him debate. He's too nice and soft on the opposing side. When someone make a logical fallacy, you rub it in their face. The last time I saw a debate with him in it, it was really disappointing.
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 3, 2009 3:26 PM
If people took alchemy seriously and tried to subvert science education by tetaching alchemy over chemistry, I'm sure you'd get chemistry professors coming down just as hard as you see biologists defending evolution. If each year different counties tried to remove all reference to gravity in textbooks and instead wanted to put in "intelligent falling", you might see physicists up in arms the same way biologists are.The problem is not beating up on a long-discredited idea. It's that the long-discredited idea is at the heart of subverting science education. People complaining about the teaching of "Darwinism", wanting a biblical alternative. Shit even in your tiny mind wiley you should be able to grasp this distinction.
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 3, 2009 3:26 PM
Wiley, shooting youself in the foot is not a cure for foot in mouth disease.
Posted by: Kevin | December 3, 2009 3:27 PM
@Josh (re: alchemy):
Alchemy is legitimate chemistry! Haven't you ever read Fullmetal Alchemist?
(note to self: you're a geek)
Posted by: Josh | December 3, 2009 3:29 PM
Kevin, I have not. I'm guessing that I should*?
*Not admitting possession of any geek characteristics
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 3, 2009 3:30 PM
He'd still win.
Posted by: Daniel | December 3, 2009 3:31 PM
I made the mistake of trying to argue with a few IDiots over at William Lane Craig's forums on whether or not ID was science. It was hopeless. One guy actually said that he thought peer review was overrated. How do you reason with someone like that? http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=3947309
Posted by: Kevin | December 3, 2009 3:33 PM
Nah, don't worry about it. It's a rather awesome Japanese comic book series about an alchemist - though in the style of Japanese comic books, it's WAY over the top.
The only real science in it is that it loves the "Law of Conservation of Mass" and also that it very accurately describes the worth of a human being (a child's pocket-money can buy the elements in the human body.)
Posted by: josef johann | December 3, 2009 3:33 PM
One would think there would be some self-awareness here. Would an academic debate between economists end with one side claiming victory rather than standing back and letting people judge for themselves?
Posted by: billygutter01 | December 3, 2009 3:38 PM
"raisin date" : the date at which a grape attains desiccation
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 3, 2009 3:41 PM
I watched the anime. Shame about the weird and rather silly ending. It was mostly awesome though.
Amusing that the first or second bad guy in it was a priest stringing people along with fake miracles...
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 3, 2009 3:42 PM
Supergenius sez: The parasitic nature of Atheism dictates that it have something not to believe in, and without which its has no raisin date. If it ever finally defeats Christianity, some other belief-system will take over; jihadists and sharia-merchants are standing by.
Dammit, I iz caught by the coyote's air tight trap. If weze atheist types are able to get rid of christianity, we would have to allow dem arab terrorists in just so weze can have a god to not believe in.
Pleaze, explain to dis sad dumbazz what a raisin date, iz.
Seriously, how long before the coyote and the lion are sharing bunk beds?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 3, 2009 3:42 PM
Science is not a popularity contest and debates do not settle scientific questions.
Posted by: Kevin | December 3, 2009 3:48 PM
@Richard Els:
The comics are a whole lot better than the anime. In fact, to the point where they're making a second anime series more in line with the comics.
Father Cornello was the first bad guy. Miracles through alchemy. It's not too far-fetched an idea, though. What can't be easily explained is often called magic or miracles.
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 3, 2009 3:55 PM
I find the comics difficult to make out, mostly being black and white and quickly drawn. Best series I've watched so far is probably hunter x hunter...or future boy conan.
Posted by: Kevin | December 3, 2009 3:59 PM
Fullmetal Alchemist is probably the best I've seen. Last Exile was amazing, too, and I'll always stop for certain other anime (Scrapped Princess, Chobits, Onegai Teacher.)
Anyway, work over, time to go home and lament over no TV and internets.
Posted by: 386sx | December 3, 2009 4:01 PM
raisin date
I've actually had that before. In cookies, and in cereal. It's really not that far fetched.
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 3, 2009 4:04 PM
Best anime for my money is Serial Experiments Lain. Like Neon Genesis Evangelion, it's a complete mindfuck but it does it without the pretence of giant mecha battles ;) Not to disparage NGE, it still is awesome.
Other awesome animes: Elfen Lied, Samurai X: Trust & Betrayal, Akira, and Death Note.
Can back Kevin's recommendations for Fullmetal Alchemist, Scrapped Princess and Onegai Teacher (haven't seen Last Exile yet) and I'll throw in Noir, Hellsing, Full Metal Panic, and Berserk.
Posted by: raven | December 3, 2009 4:11 PM
Atheism won't defeat xianity.
It doesn't have to. US Xianity is destroying itself. Between 1 and 2 million people leave the religion every year. This is a sign of mental and moral bankruptcy.
They leave, best and brightest first. In a few decades, only the sludge will be left. The dumb, the crazy, the evil. People like Wiley and the creationists. In the end they will change the name to Trollianity to better reflect their philosophy and membership.
Posted by: Shala | December 3, 2009 4:16 PM
Wow, wasn't aware anyone else here watched anime.
For those who've seen FMA, have you seen the movie?
I can also vouch for Serial Experiments Lain and Evangelion being two of the best anime ever. Lain has some of the best anti-God messages I've seen in a show.
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 3, 2009 4:21 PM
Seen 2/3rds of it, the subs were so bad that I ended up turning it off and waiting until I got a better version.Posted by: spanner | December 3, 2009 4:26 PM
There's an audio recording of the debate at AFA. I haven't listened to it so don't know if/how it's edited.
sorry i'm html challenged:
http://www.americanfreedomalliance.org/microsite/darwindebates/press.htm
Posted by: Paul | December 3, 2009 4:37 PM
Terrible. But at least it wrapped up the first anime. I just hated everything once they touched what was Beyond the Gate (uncompelling asspull), and Dante was pretty boring as a character, so the movie couldn't help but follow with the bad plot.
The second anime (Fullmetal Alchemist Brotherhood) is subbed weekly by Funimation, actually, if there's interest. It's 34 or so episodes in at this point. http://www4.funimation.com/video/?page=show&b=280Kel's recommendations are good. Berserk anime really ends on a downer though, would be better if they continued following the manga instead of cutting it off where they did.
Posted by: DaveH_of_Lundun | December 3, 2009 4:41 PM
Thanks Bruce T.
Nagel has no excuse to misunderstand the science, but I'm still intrigued as to *what* he found of merit. I googled a little, and see Jerry Coyne has blogged on this. Maybe he can get an interesting dialogue going with Nagel.
Posted by: frzz | December 3, 2009 4:47 PM
now i want some fucking raisins.
Posted by: stogoe | December 3, 2009 4:50 PM
Kiki, that was plain brilliant.
Posted by: stogoe | December 3, 2009 4:59 PM
Evangelion and Cowboy Bebop are probably two of the most overrated series ever. They're watchable, but that's about it. The anime I most enjoyed probably was Bastard! or Irresponsible Captain Tylor. I keep meaning to watch The Big O (which has been described to me as Bruce Timm's Batman:TAS with Mecha) and Fullmetal Alchemist but I keep running out of free time.
Posted by: Stephanie | December 3, 2009 5:03 PM
Ok, Here is my opinion on debating Creationists: don't do it. By doing so, you are giving them credence and the respect that their ideas are worth the time and merit to discuss. Maybe if the scientific community turned their backs on them and focused more on promoting a positive view of evolution, they will go away. Kinda of like that annoying dog at your feet begging for a scrap. Eventually, if you don't feed it, it'll go lay down.
Posted by: Absurdist | December 3, 2009 5:18 PM
John Kwok has a great negative review of Meyer's book on Amazon.
Posted by: Josh
|
December 3, 2009 5:21 PM
How much does he review the book and how much does he review himself?
Posted by: Colin Jenkins | December 3, 2009 5:35 PM
I've been watching the videos from the wonderful Origins symposium recently and kept thinking of a Hovind/Shermer debate for some reason - the humility of Shermer and the massive arrogance of Hovoid that as so often is the case is rooted in massive ignorance - of science in this case - I wanted to see what would happen if he put his 'arguments' to the guys at the frontiers of origins (in all contexts) research - I have a feeling they would invoke the "some people are not even worth ignoring" rule...
http://origins.asu.edu/symposium/video/
Posted by: Absurdist | December 3, 2009 5:36 PM
This time around he mostly reviews Meyer's book and his words are articulately barbed. He calls Meyer a "mendacious intellectual pornographer". Worth reading.
Posted by: SteveM | December 3, 2009 5:36 PM
"parasitic"?, like "not stamp collecting" needs stamp collectors to exist?
And dimwit, it is raison d'être "reason for being". I suppose you say "mercy buckets" also.
Posted by: SoreLoser | December 3, 2009 5:36 PM
Why can't a debate be setup that requires a monitary penalty for violating the agreed upon rules of the debate? Every infraction costs a sum of money that is big enough to make it hurt. And the opponent of the violater walks away with the cash no matter who "wins" the debate.
It should, at least, provide an additional source of income to those like PZ or another representative of science/reason.
Posted by: Alareth | December 3, 2009 5:45 PM
Personally I think if there must be a debate, the standard format must be abandoned. The debating parties should not have access to the audience because the ID/Creation/Religous side is there to play off audience reaction, not argue their side of the issue.
They act like cold readers and tailor their words to play on audience emotion. This is why these debates a dismal failures.
Posted by: Stephanie | December 3, 2009 5:49 PM
I want to clarify in my previous post that I do think the scientific community is promoting a positive view of evolution. The way I worded it made it seem I didn't feel this way.
Posted by: billygutter01 | December 3, 2009 6:21 PM
@SteveM #74
Mercy Buckets: the pails of water thrown on witch-fires
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
December 3, 2009 6:31 PM
That presumes they have the higher-mammal mental faculties of the domesticated canine.
Posted by: Carl | December 3, 2009 6:40 PM
Thanks for the MP3 link, Spanner. I really love Michael Shermer but I don't think he's quite as adept a debater as some other scientists and skeptics I've heard debate similar subjects. I'm looking forward to hearing this one for myself.
Posted by: charley | December 3, 2009 6:40 PM
...muffins?
We can make our own, with or without religion.
Posted by: ChrisH
|
December 3, 2009 6:46 PM
I don't like rasins. Or dates.
Am I allowed to be an atheist?
Steve at #74: Don't you mean raisin d'etre?
I'll get my coat.
Posted by: Evil Merodach | December 3, 2009 7:21 PM
You can always recognize Hooey -- beliefs based solely on ideological, religious, and/or political rationale rather than fact-- by applying these five conditions :
1) The entire world's scientific community supports a position based on many years of scientific data, yet the deniers claim they are somehow ALL wrong.
2) Scientific results are attacked with specious objections that are easily disproven, followed by ad hominem attacks on the researchers. Repeat over and over. Otherwise, arguments are primarily based on emotional content.
3) Weak objections to data and proof are presented, but NEVER are detailed, alternative theories offered in support of Hooey. The deniers' entire argument consists of simply attacking established data. Never are cogent theories presented to support the deniers' beliefs, much less published in reputable journals, or offered for peer review. Obviously, falsifiable proof will never, never be given.
4) Conspiracies involving money or political control are always blamed, yet no evidence of conspiracy is ever presented. Shadowy groups and alliances are suggested but no method of networking or control is shown to exist, even though many thousands of individuals would need to be involved in the conspiracy. Unfounded conspiracies are the last refuge of the ignorant.
5) The people arguing in favor of Hooey are not experts in the field they are arguing against.
Posted by: amphiox | December 3, 2009 7:47 PM
Atheism isn't out to "defeat" anybody or anything. Being as it is a default state of non-belief, it requires no opposing set of belief to set itself against. Neither does atheism make any ethical judgments.
Now humanism, on the other hand, does stand opposed to some of christianity and other religions, because humanism does make ethical judgments, and it has judged those activities and beliefs of those religions that it opposes to be evil.
The thing is, humanism also stands in accordance with a great deal of christianity and pretty much every other religion as well, and simply wishes that more of those who call themselves people of faith would just go and act more in accordance with how their faith actually says they are supposed to act.
Posted by: ERV
|
December 3, 2009 7:53 PM
Atheism most certainly can has raisin date, good sir!If you doubt this is possible, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS ??
???????
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 3, 2009 8:03 PM
It would be really interesting to see what Meyer has done in his new book, is there finally a hypothesis of intelligent design that explains the current body of evidence and can also make predictions of evidence yet to be seen? Who knows, maybe Meyer really has done it. The book needs a H Allen Orr book review tbh
Posted by: Sven DIMilo | December 3, 2009 8:03 PM
I am reminded of Kw*k's novel-in-progress. Pre-reviewed here.
Posted by: Sven DIMilo | December 3, 2009 8:05 PM
raisins, dates...sounds like a fruitcake.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | December 3, 2009 8:06 PM
... a couple of things struck me ...
For a 50% higher than standard value of "couple".
Oh wait - our host is an on-the-record supporter of gay marriage, hence of polymorphous perversity, so his definition of "couple" is allowed infinite elasticity - especially in Beverly Hills!
... "Adequacy of Neo-Darwinian natural selection and mutation to explain the origin of life" ...
Some people seem to have a serious confusion about this cause 'n' effect stuff. Might as well ask how your career plans explain your grandparents' births.
Posted by: Rey Fox | December 3, 2009 8:40 PM
Raisin dates are, I believe, what every Islamic martyr gets 72 of in heaven.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
December 3, 2009 8:57 PM
Hey wiley the troll, did it occur to you that the reason chemists don't have to waste their time debunking alchemy or astrophysicists astrology, is that there are no powerful church leaders, well funded political organization like the answers in genesis, professional frauds like Casey Luskin, and republican politicians, trying to present alchemy or astrology as science?
Posted by: kiki | December 3, 2009 9:14 PM
If it's manga ye be wantin', Battle Angel Alita is light years beyond anything else - the only truly 'grown-up' sci-fi manga in my opinion. Read it now before James Cameron ruins it by turning it into a movie, as he apparently intends to do.
Posted by: B.T. Murtagh | December 3, 2009 9:47 PM
Life doesn't look designed to me. There are way too many arbitrary details for them to be the result of some designer sweating them out piecemeal, and parts of living systems often perform suboptimally or even lack usefulness.
An automobile looks designed; relatively simple, with very few nonessential details, and all the examples of a particular model are for all practical purposes identical. Compare a Porsche to an oak tree, and the differences are stark.
A designed object could be made that would contain that level of random, arbitrary detail, of course, but they usually don't, and the first thing anyone would think when looking at it was that it wasn't entirely designed but included uncontrolled processes (like a Jackson Pollock painting).
Posted by: llewelly | December 3, 2009 10:14 PM
spanner | December 3, 2009 4:26 PM:
There are three recordings at that link. Which one do you refer to?
One of them - www.americanfreedomalliance.org/audio/Darwin-Audio.mp3
is mostly just David Berlinski spewing all sorts of nonsensical sophistry, lying about why Guillermo Gonzales was fired, lying about the questions he was asked in the QA after the debate (yes - he was asked a question, he ignored it and answered a different question, and when the questioner complained, he lied directly about the content of her question). He mis-represented evolution egregiously, he mis-represented atheism egregiously, and in general engaged in all sorts of dishonesty.
To make matters worse - the unfortunate who debated him seemed entirely unwilling to call Berlinski on Berlinski's dishonest horseshit, was far too polite, and in general, had naively come prepared to debate with an honest and well-meaning opponent in a fair environment. A clear example of when it is not a good idea to debate creationists. (And no, I do not believe for a moment Berlinski's claim that he is not a creationist.) After that hideous garbage, I don't wish listen to anything else from that website.
Posted by: nick bobick | December 3, 2009 10:55 PM
Llewelly, et al.
Click the "Press and Media" tab on Spanner's link and select the Nov 30 link to the left and the audio will play.
And, isn't it "raisin' debt", like what we get with US Republican administrations? And I always preferred "Mercy! B-Cups", especially when thanking a lady friend who was moderately endowed.
Posted by: Dr. P | December 3, 2009 11:06 PM
I honestly think most atheists wouldn't give two shits if any one else believed in their god as they so chose if not for the fact that you assholes seem to have nothing better to do than go out and push your worldview on everyone else and insist that the government recognize your religion disproportionately;but really,atheism is a parasite on that which does not exist? Examine the term 'parasite"....then think.....keep thinking....hint---it's not a confirmed belief that something doesn't exist, it's a lack of belief for a phenomena that has no supporting evidence....keep thinking...Posted by: occam's aftershave | December 3, 2009 11:14 PM
Would it be possible to require, as a prerequisite for any further debates, that all sides agree on a specific list of evidence that is to be considered true by both parties and only this evidence is admissible in the debate? The good guys could insist on the evidence for whale evolution and chromosomal fusion in chromosome 2 (among other stuff) as a prerequisite to the debate. It seems to me that there is just a set of required ground facts that is required to be observed by both sides or else the debate is de facto a farce.
Posted by: Mudhooks | December 4, 2009 1:14 AM
Wiley,
"raisin date"
Hmmm. I am guessing
a) some mutation of a raisin and a date (a yummy-sounding but unnatural and obviously Satanic creation)
b) some crackpot Christian version of carbon-dating
c) your attempt to be a Mr. Smarty-Pants by using a "foreign" phrase you don't even know how to spell (raison d'etre). Of course, the use of the phrase which means "reason for being" which is precisely the opposite of what you are trying to say.
Here's an idea. Spend a little time formulating what you are going to say before sitting down to spend that hour and a half to peck it out on your keyboard. Use a dictionary. Think about what you are going to say.... You'll still end up looking like a tool. Just a little less like a complete one.
Posted by: Poindexter | December 4, 2009 1:36 AM
Seriously, exist out there a real case for creationism? our planet is only 6.000 years old?
Is God realy in control of anything?
Posted by: wiley | December 4, 2009 2:39 AM
@#91
Did it occur to you that the reason chemists don't have to convince the public that atoms are real, or that physicists don't have to convince the public that gravity is real, is because atoms and gravity really are real? Its junk-science like Evolution and Climate Change that have PR problems, and it doesn't help their case that the proponents of these 2 have been caught bullfrogging (Piltdown Man, Climategate, etc).
Posted by: RPJ | December 4, 2009 2:45 AM
Of course the proper answer to this is "great, you're right, natural selection isn't adequate to explain the origin of life because they have nothing to do with each other. Next week: adequacy of Freudian psychology to explain star formation?"As I see it, this is the fundamental problem when debating with ignorance: they are allowed to frame the debate as they please. That's always a guarenteed defeat due to prejudice.
If a person argues "gays shouldn't be allowed to marry! It's a perversion!" the proper response should not be "No, it isn't a perversion. Studies x, y and z refute this claim." This begs the questions: What is a "perversion"? And why is this "perversion" significant?
The proper response should be along the lines of "The term "perversion" is a subjective, prejudiced and irrelevant term. People are what they are; an arbitrary word definition is unimportant."
The problem isn't that the goalposts are being moved. The problem is the acknowledgment that they mark a goal.
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 4, 2009 2:49 AM
No.Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
December 4, 2009 2:58 AM
I've got no doubt that if the scientifically illiterate folk who wrote your woo-book had come up with concepts as stupid to describe gravity - invisible 'lifting angels' that made birds fly, for example - morons like you would be denying the reality of that as well.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 4, 2009 3:04 AM
Its junk-science like Evolution and Climate Change that have PR problems, and it doesn't help their case that the proponents of these 2 have been caught bullfrogging (Piltdown Man, Climategate, etc).
Supergenius, if you think those two events invalidates evolution and climate change, you have no idea what you are arguing against.
Piltdown Man was one case of fraud, not systematic fraud carried out through out the system. Though it took a few decades, it was caught. That is because of the nature of scientific research, all data is open to review and revision. The skull did not fit any known humanoid and tools were finally make that could determine how the fraud was pulled off. This is not a case of how science misleads but of how it can correct itself.
As for the e-mail, that was scientists communicating with each other about data, how to get them to line up.
Your ignorance on those subjects does not invalidate those fields. The only PR problem is that their are people like you who have too much respect for their own fallacies.
Posted by: wiley | December 4, 2009 3:38 AM
..and blaming PR problems on the public won't help, neither..
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 4, 2009 3:46 AM
Supergenius, I am just as much a part of the Public as you are. I placed the blame on people like you. I blamed your willful ignorance.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
December 4, 2009 3:46 AM
Wiley's obviously given up even attempting to make valid points. Probably a sensible move on his part; he achieves just as much but expends far less time and energy.
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 4, 2009 3:55 AM
No, of course not. If 64% of the public would rather hold what they believe is true over what the science says, we just have to assume that it's the science that's wrong ;)Posted by: raven | December 4, 2009 3:58 AM
Oh gee, Wiley is stupid.
Xianity exists because of brainwashing backed up by the murder of tens of millions of people. If it was true, they wouldn't need either.
Two things will doom the religion.
1. Xianity lost the power of the gun. They can no longer torture and kill people to make them claim to believe.
Even with the stake, hangmen's noose, and assorted military weapons, only 30% of the world's population ever bought into it.
2. Wiley and other xian mental defectives. When xian became synonymous with troll, crazy, killer, dumb, obnoxious etc. no one wanted to be one anymore. Wiley is the sludge left after all the good and bright people left.
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 4, 2009 4:16 AM
-Wiley's obviously given up even attempting to make valid points. Probably a sensible move on his part-
I would ask when he has ever made a reasoned point. Piltdown man? You would have to be one supreme retard to still be spouting that these days.
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | December 4, 2009 4:19 AM
The most successful one so far as I can see what Hitchens and Fry vs the Catholics.
So, lets consider a new idea for the next time the creationists want a debate: Team a scientist with a comedian. The trouble with the two scientist model that has been used up until now is it treats the creationists like we take their views seriously, a comedian could fix that.
Also it is teaming two people with similar strengths together, while a comedian gives you the "everyman" effect in a stronger way than the creationists can achieve. You can appeal to the audience in the gut and the brain.
Not only that it would make the debates more amusing to the audience and keep their attention on the science side of the debate, giving the scientist a better shot at getting ideas across. People seem to respond better if you can keep them laughing.
Posted by: wiley | December 4, 2009 4:47 AM
@Janine
So there were people who lived & died during those decades, believing Evolution was fact, but it was based on fraud. When was the public ever hoodwinked by a chemist about a non-existent atom or molecule?Tell that to Climate Data Denier Phil Jones, who has been stood down by UAE as head of the CRU.Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
December 4, 2009 4:59 AM
If Piltdown man had been the only thing presented as evidence for evolution than you might have a point. But the evidence for evolution comes not from a single skeleton but from numerous different sources - as has been said before, even if there were no intact fossils, our understanding of DNA alone provides sufficient information to put the fact of evolution way beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 4, 2009 5:13 AM
And that says what about the science behind climate change?Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn
|
December 4, 2009 5:23 AM
Good thing there's enormously more legitimate evidence for evolution than there is fraud.
Stuff like fossils, things anyone can hold in their hands and verify the existence of, constitute evidence for evolution. Fossils are easy to fake. People with a stake in the theory's legitimacy (as well as an absolute lack of integrity) will do such to "prove" their assertations and advance themselves.
An atom or molecule either exists or it doesn't. Creating a fake one isn't possible. Chemists can't fake evidence. Of course it's never happened.
Besides, the mere existence of a thing isn't the same as the existence of an ongoing, all-encompassing biological process. Evolution is complex. The existence of a molecule is not. It's a yes or no questiong. A process like evolution requires a "how" explanation and a variety of evidence - evidence that can be faked.
Posted by: Steve Bowen | December 4, 2009 5:29 AM
What I.Diots always conveniently ignore is that the facts of evolution are also corroborated by other scientific disciplines;geology, physics, and molecular biology for starters. They lke to present evolutionary science as "just so" stories but all the evidence says that really just ain't so.Posted by: wiley | December 4, 2009 5:30 AM
Exzackerly, and I choose not to believe in "science" where the evidence can be (and has shown to be) faked.
Posted by: Felix | December 4, 2009 5:33 AM
wiley,
Piltdown man was revealed as a fraud by - and this is the kicker - dating it using new scientific methods. The very dating methods creationists deny reliability. So, by creationist standards, Piltdown Man can not be debunked as a fraud.
If you agree that Piltdown Man was a fraud, it means you accept the same dating methods that scientifically prove an old Earth and evolution.
Posted by: Steve Bowen | December 4, 2009 5:35 AM
Oh! and I really am a bit pissed about the "climategate" thing as the University of East Anglia is my Alma Mater. I don't know yet what the real damage is, I am assuming at the moment that the emails actually published have been selected for maximum confusion and that the enquiry launched today will exonerate the science.
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 4, 2009 5:39 AM
By your logic Wiley, if a fake-preacher was found guilty of a crime, that means we should tar all other preachers with the same brush. In fact we should stop religion right now because of the piltdown-preacher.
We should especially do it, if the real preachers themselves called into question the piltdown-preacher's motives and qualifications.
Posted by: Felix | December 4, 2009 5:40 AM
wiley,
to claim that all evidence for an entire discipline of science is fake requires supporting work. Have you tested all the evidence? You could if you were sincere.
Otherwise you're just engaging in mudslinging and trolling.
Do you think that the words you type into your keyboard appear on your screen by an insane streak of luck? That your every thought and intention is being transferred by magic and your keystrokes are just a gods-appeasing ritual? I don't think so. It seems you're trusting some science that might rely on completely fake evidence. Hypocrite.
Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn
|
December 4, 2009 5:40 AM
Throwing out the baby with the bath water. A single fraud doesn't illegitimise other fossils.
Evolution does not rely on evidence that can be faked anyways. Much evidence for evolution (like it's absolute corroboration with other scientific disciplines like MOLECULAR biology) can't be faked.
The fake-able evidence can be revisted and verified at all times.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
December 4, 2009 5:40 AM
Again, as I and the others here have pointed out, if you think evolution was supported only by the existence of Piltdown Man then you're even more profoundly ignorant of reality than what we've calculated based on the inane, almost fractally-wrong drivel you've posted here.
You've got to show that every other finding in every different branch of science - and there are thousands (if not more) of examples across dozens (if not more) fields - was faked in order to be able to make that claim.
What are you still doing reading my post? You'd better get to work on that list of fakes.
Posted by: SEF | December 4, 2009 6:06 AM
Re wiley #9:
Has anyone submitted that to FStDT yet? :-D
Posted by: Josh
|
December 4, 2009 6:13 AM
Okay, Wiley--let's dance.
If you think that the Theory of Evolution is "based on fraud," as you asserted in comment #112, then I have to presume that you think that the underlying data (i.e., the observations explained by the theory) are being interpreted wrong or are themselves fraudulent.
So, let's have at it.
Let's look at the data. Fossils tend to be pretty conceptually accessible to everyone, so let's start with fossils, and since we're all vertebrates here, let's start in our phylogenetic backyard.
I want an analysis of Archaeopteryx, whereby you explain to me why this taxon is not a transitional form between non-avian dinosaurs and birds. To do so, you need to look at the suite of transitional features possessed by Archaeopteryx and demonstrate that these features are not transitional. For examples, Archaeopteryx, a bird, possesses teeth. You need to explain this feature without evolution better than I can using evolution, or you need to demonstrate, or you need to demonstrate that Archaeopteryx is not a bird. This needs to be done for entire suite of transitional features possessed by Archaeopteryx.
Alternatively, you need to demonstrate that the Archaeopteryx data are fraudulent.
Can you do either of these things...?
Posted by: wiley | December 4, 2009 6:19 AM
Whatsamatta pseudo/junk-sciencies, got some data you wanna hide? Scared there's a mob of millions of wileys out there, ready to run you outta town with pitch-forks cuz they don't take kindly to folks telling them bull-frog?
Posted by: SEF | December 4, 2009 6:39 AM
Posted by: wiley | December 4, 2009 6:42 AM
Josh, I don't need to demonstrate that the Archaeopteryx/crushed-up-chicken-wings-and-lizard-skull data are fraudulent. Piltdown set a precedent and its falsification is not a guarantee of zero cover-ups in other cases of fraud.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 4, 2009 6:43 AM
The only liars and bullshitters out there are idjits like you Wiley. Idjits who have no understanding of real evidence, and how to obtain it, or interpret it. You are willfully stupid. You want to be stupid. Because other stupid people want you to be stupid. So you are stupid. You believe the pseudoscientists who lie and bullshit, not real scientists who tell the truth. All you have is a bad attitude, which we are used to. There is an inverse relationship between bad attitude and intelligence. So you are just another pointless fool.Posted by: Steve Bowen | December 4, 2009 6:48 AM
This is why debating with creationists is pointless. As far as they are concerned everything they say three times is true. Evidence can just go f**k itself.Posted by: Josh
|
December 4, 2009 6:58 AM
Exhibit A, ladies and gentlemen. Exhibit A.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
December 4, 2009 7:11 AM
'A' is for assclown.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | December 4, 2009 7:11 AM
Pet peeve: wish we would stop labeling not believing any god (as commonly described) exists as Atheism.
Atheism does not exist far as I can see! What the fuck makes not believing in something imaginary an -ism?!? Where is the official catechism of Atheism? Do we have rules? authorities we answer to? protocols and rituals?
I guess in common vernacular people who believe fat people are beautiful is Fat-ism; or that for skinny people is Skinny-ism! I mean for purposes of some talk show babble we do that shit.
But to be clinical an -ism is something that:
is a complex condition that begs a label e.g., in medicine there are -isms like Gigantism or Dysraphism,
or
is an organized school of thought that has a wide variety of aspects and has proponents that build structures and approaches formally from the base of that school of thought e.g., Sociological positivism, Communism, Catholicism, etc.
Atheism clinically does not exist!
The reason I object so strongly to labeling this simple non-belief an -ism is that such a label plays into the hands of those that have real (and deleterious) -isms that wish reason and rationality ill. Like their saying believing in the scientific evidence of evolution is "Darwin-ism" - because they know the label has political power (it's the politics of words).
We should not use the Atheism label - it is a degrading characterization of a simple reasoned personal decision (not to believe).
Posted by: Lars | December 4, 2009 7:32 AM
Wow. This wiley character is abysmally stupid.
And yes, it seems like he/she/it has chosen this himself/herserf/itself.
It's kind of telling about the state of things. Btw, have anybody here seen the 2006 movie Idiocracy? It's a comedy about the tragedy to come.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 4, 2009 7:42 AM
not all that wiley blathers:
How predictably convenient for you. So... one fossil out of hundreds of millions is shown to be fraudulent, therefor all might be? Do you apply this logic to everything? Or just the issues on which you want to bury your head in the sand and remain woefully stupid?
So... if we can demonstrate to you that any one thing... any one thing in the bible is demonstrably wrong, you will toss the whole lot of it out? Come on... I know it's just your nature to be intellectually dishonest, but surely down deep you must know you are full of shit.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 4, 2009 7:59 AM
You have a highly overinflated opinion of yourself wiley. You haven't demonstrated any intellectual capacity here worth being worried about. In fact you're pretty much a joke.
If you're so hot, go ahead and pick some current evolutionary research and prove it wrong.
Remember, show your work.
Go ahead hot stuff, show us what you've got.
Posted by: Felix | December 4, 2009 8:01 AM
wiley,
Piltdown was not covered up. It just sat there, and people argued about it, and then someone came up with a method to test it in a manner that CANNOT be faked. If anything, Piltdown set a precedent for exposing fraudulent or just plain bad claims by devising better methods. This process is called science. It didn't actually set any sort of 'precedent', as there were other cases of pseudo-scientific fraud long before and after, including fabrications by creationists who weren't satisfied that reality doesn't correspond to their stories.
To reiterate: the trick you're trying to pull (or rather the wool over your own eyes), is citing ONE inconsequential case of fraud that turned into a demonstration that the scientific method works quite well as a reason to suspect fraud in ANY and ALL cases that happen to disagree with your worldview. We all agree that you can fool nonthinkers and idiots with that rhetoric, but it's misplaced on this site where people evidently understand a lot of things you apparently do not, nor do you even care to try. Or does that just never consciously occur to you (see Dunning-Kruger effect)?
See, by your logic of distrusting anything that has ever been used dishonestly, you can't trust anything at all, including your own mind. A worldview such as you apparently hold would be a good reason to self-admit to a mental institution. But as you don't trust reason either, you'll just stumble along your life babbling until it ends.
Posted by: Knockgoats | December 4, 2009 8:04 AM
Josh, I don't need to demonstrate that the Archaeopteryx/crushed-up-chicken-wings-and-lizard-skull data are fraudulent. - wiley the lying cowardly little shit
Indeed, you can just lie about the matter, as you have done here. By the way, you lying cowardly little shit, if an 11-year-old is raped and impregnated by her father, should she be allowed an abortion?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 4, 2009 8:06 AM
Using piltdown man as an attack on the scientific method is exactly like scoring an own goal.
Congratulations wiley, you just scored for us.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 4, 2009 8:06 AM
Wiley, there is no evidence, other than the bible, that the Flud, Exodus, or Jesus existed. By your logic, you will have to drop your Xian religion, and say turn to Islam, where the Koran has a known writer.
Posted by: CunningLingus
|
December 4, 2009 8:10 AM
I forget to whom this is ascribed "a lie is a lie, even if everyone believes it .. the truth is the truth, even if no-one believes it". No idea why it sprang to mind, maybe because that wiley dickhead believes in the biggest lie of all, RELIGION.
Posted by: Knockgoats | December 4, 2009 8:11 AM
Tell that to Climate Data Denier Phil Jones, who has been stood down by UAE as head of the CRU. wiley the lying cowardly little shit
Two lies in one sentence - good going even for you! There is no evidence whatever any data has been "denied"; Jones stood aside temporarily and voluntarily, at least according to the UEA (the UAE is the United Arab Emirates, dumbfuck).
By the way, you lying cowardly little shit, if an 11-year-old is raped and impregnated by her father, should she be allowed an abortion?
Posted by: Steve Bowen | December 4, 2009 8:19 AM
UEA= University of Esoteric Abbreviations. I speak as an alumni :)
Posted by: ConcernedJoe | December 4, 2009 8:35 AM
Celtic just a point - the IDiots actually do have the mindset (erroneously) that we are like them (religious cultists) and evolution is a dogma not unlike any dogma and that if one thing is proven wrong then all is suspect thus devastating to the dogma and the premise of the cult.
It isn't so much that they cannot accept intellectually science it is that they cannot grasp (1) that people can be different from them (who hold faith above reason) and (2) that not all things fit the meta-model of a dogma.
They actually believe one thing wrong destroys the whole because that is the way dogmatists think.
But on the other hand it is impossible for them to conceive of anything wrong in their dogma (their delusion bubble) because any flaw can and will be explained away (it is meant as metaphor for instance is a standard excuse). And internal inconsistencies and inconsistencies among sects mean nothing to them because they always have an excuse that satisfies the inconsistencies or have the faith that their bubble is the truth bubble.
We on the other hand do not have ethereal excuses to use - our flaws are raw and open. And again any flaw destroys the whole in their minds. In their minds they got us.
That is one main reason I detest it when we use the words Atheism or Darwinism even casually. It confirms to them (in their minds) that we are cultists like they are. We know that ain't so but others will follow the words and not the reality to an erroneous agreement.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 4, 2009 8:41 AM
And they can't even be consistent with that.
π = 3
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
December 4, 2009 8:54 AM
Hey wiley the troll, sorry to see you've got it as ass backwards as ever. No, the reason the evolutionary theory has to be defended from thugs like you is not that is any less real than the atomic theory; the evolutionary theory has been the model on which peer reviewed studies have been based for over 100 years, just like the atomic theory. It is because evolutionary theory undercuts literal belief in the scripture and as such poses a conflict to religious organizations like the disco institute. How do you know atom are real by the way? Have you seen them with your own eyes?
Incindentally wiley, if one occasion of fraud makes the whole scientific enterprise fraudulent, why are you using the internet? It is not like communications technology has never been affected by fraud.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
December 4, 2009 9:03 AM
RBDC -
Funny... that's exactly the example I would have used... it is factually, demonstrably wrong.
Posted by: Steve in Dublin | December 4, 2009 9:07 AM
Damn. This 5-hour difference between where I live and where most of the blogs I frequent are hosted makes it difficult for me to weigh in at the 'right' time on something.
I always seem to be either too soon or too late to the party. Ah well, still fun to read all the marvelously crafted put-downs. Best one I read in a long time on another forum:
The main problem with creationists is that they believe The Flintstones is a documentary
Posted by: jimmiraybob | December 4, 2009 9:10 AM
...and he couldn't gasp out any evidence at all for their theory...
By "theory" I assume you mean their fantasy. Maybe even hypothesis. I guess at this point delusion would work too. Given their tenacity maybe even avid hobby. Of course, for the DI it's vocation.
The evangelical spirit and imagination are hard to corral.
Posted by: robinsrule | December 4, 2009 9:29 AM
Yes. You morons could get us all killed.
Posted by: Lost Left Coaster | December 4, 2009 9:45 AM
What is it with creationists and whales? I'm a layperson myself on the topic of evolution, but to me, the existence of whales, dolphins, and other marine mammals is such compelling and overwhelming evidence of evolution. Or perhaps God gave the whale flippers the same bones as you find in the forelimbs of terrestrial mammals because he has a sense of humor, or something.
Posted by: Richard Eis | December 4, 2009 9:48 AM
-Scared there's a mob of millions of wileys out there, ready to run you outta town with pitch-forks...-
And then what? You gonna smash the computers and their evil techy ways? Gonna stop taking your medicines?
Even the ID lovers know they need science. You can't live without it.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | December 4, 2009 10:10 AM
Rachel Bronwyn @ 115 - An atom or molecule either exists or it doesn't. Creating a fake one isn't possible. Chemists can't fake evidence. Of course it's never happened.
Given the penchant for seceding from material reality I wouldn't be too sure that Christian, angel directed atoms and molecules won't soon comprise a separate field of Christian chemistry that eliminates the liberal and secular biases that have been introduced since the Enlightenment. Like the notion that atoms and molecules form/act according to bland immutable force(s) of nature described by atheistic and communistical and puppy-eating Darwinists (it should be remembered that Darwinian chemistry is responsible for Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot).
Posted by: Hockey Bob | December 4, 2009 10:52 AM
Just thought I'd post this URL - I'll bet a stack of frackin' crackers that you'll like it.
http://www.theonion.com/content/magazine/three_eminent_biologists_and
(It's cut off like that, BTW.)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 4, 2009 11:46 AM
Yep fraud never happens in chemistry or physics.
Guess how they got caught? The same way the few frauds in evolution were exposed. By scientists using the scientific method to show them to be wrong. Exactly the same.
Wiley you may be the dumbest Christian wanna be smart guy we've had here in a while.
You are the epitome of why anti-science denialists are considered to be total fucking idiots.
Posted by: August Berkshire | December 4, 2009 11:57 AM
One of the most powerful debating tools is to take your opponent's premise and run with it, to see if that results in any contradictions.
Thus, by taking the premise of a god being both all-powerful and all-loving, theists run smack into the contradiction of the problem of evil.
Similarly, by taking the premise of a god being an "intelligent" designer, theists are at a loss to explain poor design - design that even we humans could have improved on if we had the power of a god and were starting from scratch.
I would like to see us use this tactic more in debates. It strikes an audience at the same emotional level that god stories do.
Yes, our opponents can still come up with some lame excuses (we live in a "fallen" world that is our fault through Adam and Eve, etc.), but it's got to plant a huge seed of doubt in the minds of anyone on the fence.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
December 4, 2009 12:00 PM
Indeed, they all might be. Skepticism regarding any positive truth claim is the default rational position (this is a demonstrable fact). However, it has been shown multiple times using multiple methods by multiple experts that the vast majority (of evolutionary fossils) are what they they are proposed to be.
This is what the dogmatists fail to understand. The methods of science are self-correcting. Over the centuries the scientific process has honed its ability to weed out false claims, misunderstanding, or inaccurate measurements. It only cares about the truth and is structured in such a way as to ensure the highest probability of determining it.
Deluded egomaniacs like wiley are welcome to challenge any truth claim made by science. They just better be prepared to issue a proportionate challenge. That means showing evidence and showing your work. Of course they know they can't do that. Too much knowledge/effort/dissonance is required. So they bluster about all puffed up and proud, only proving that arrogance and ignorance go hand-in-hand.
Wiley you are a dancing fool, except you don't know how to dance. We laugh at you and your fellow dogmatists, and consider you all as the collective village idiot.
Posted by: SteveM | December 4, 2009 12:14 PM
Re ConcernedJoe@133
Maybe if more people understood etymology they would understand that "atheism" is indeed not a philosophy in that it means a-theism, "without theism"; not atheo-ism, "philosophy of no gods" (sorry if "atheo" is not a word, just trying to shift the emphasis). The word itself says that it is not a philosophy in its own right, that it describes someone who lacks the philosophy of theism. But that ignorance of etymology is often exploited by the theists to declare atheism a philosophy instead of a lack of philosophy.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
December 4, 2009 12:32 PM
Yes, they do like to warp language and confuse meaning to buoy their irrational ideas. It's pure dishonesty and I loath it.
Regarding the frustration about the term "atheism": I agree. Just more dishonesty. Atheists are not making a positive truth claim, theists are, thereby making atheism the default rational position, just like atoothfairyism, but nobody carries that label even though most humans are (atoothfairyists). But they want to somehow confuse the matter to make our views about realty equal - which they are not.
Posted by: Steve | December 4, 2009 1:19 PM
jimmiraybob @ #153: I'm a chemist, that sort of scenario you outlined keeps me up at night.
wiley, one piece of mistaken identification does not discredit the massive amounts of other fossil evidence (some of which was contemporaneous with piltdown man, some even predate piltdown man by several decades), molecular genetic data and biogeographic distributions that support the facts of evolution and common ancestry. Similarly, the rantings of one internet troll are not going to sway any serious scientist, because you do not bring evidence to the forum. You bring emotional histrionics and appeals to an ancient book which is a collection of centuries-old herdsmen's tales and has been heavily edited in the meantime. In short, as Dr. Myers said, you got nothin'.
Too many big words for you wiley? Let me put it in terms you might understand better:
LiekOMG teh wiley is such a looser troll. He totally doesn't c teh ebidince right in front of his fays. He sez teh bibel is litural werd of G, and can't get his facts right. He needs to totally liek STFU cuz he duznt back up what he sez and science works on ebidince and even tonz of religious peepul say how science gets it right and makes our live better and junk. We sorted out that animals evolve and junk totally liek last senturee. kkthxbai.
Posted by: Anri
|
December 4, 2009 1:33 PM
wiley sez (in part):
Well, there's Luminiferous æther and Element 118.
How 'bout physics? N-rays, Fleischmann & Pons.
Drat! Now we've lost chemistry and physics, too!
Yes, Virgina, there are errors and frauds in science. There are errors and frauds in religion as well. Fortunately, sensible know which to rely on in day-to-day life. Sadly, there aren't as many sensible people as we'd like.
But we're trying.
In the meantime, wiley, please become less ignorant.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 4, 2009 1:38 PM
It's very easy to be wiley. Denying things takes no effort.
Showing why the thing you are denying is wrong actually takes work and skills.
If wiley Super Genius cares to start throwing down some work that shows where evolutionary science is wrong, I'm sure he could make a big name for himself.
I'm not going to hold my breath.
Posted by: wiley | December 4, 2009 3:07 PM
Science doesn't set out to prove something doesn't exist. I could try to prove mermaids don't exist, but if I failed, that doesn't mean they DO exist. Science (as I was taught it) involves a hypothesis, aim, method, results, conclusion. Now, it gets taught like this: Dawkins says "Evolution is a fact", and Al Gore (the failed politician, non-scientist and Green carpetbagger) tells us that, contrary to the evidence, our CO2 emissions are heating the world to hell. And anyone who doesn't accept "the Science" or show sufficient respect for the beliefs of evotards, is told not to drink water or use the internet. Let me hit you with the cluebat: you are insane! But I agree with ConcernedJoe; I don't believe in Atheists either.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 4, 2009 3:12 PM
Good grief you get dumber by the post.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 4, 2009 3:20 PM
With a million or so scientific papers directly and indirectly backing evolution, Dawkins is correct. But then, what is real evidence to a mush for brains godbot.Yep, that is what the conclusive evidence says.Ah, now we are getting to you inane and insane point. You don't like the conclusions. Ergo, you must throw a temper tantrum so that your unevidenced and unsupported beliefs are considered valid. They aren't. Evidence wins every time.Fixed that for you, the emotional two year old.See, delusional fool. Like gays, we exist, and you must either learn how to deal with us, or you will get trampled. Like your namesake, you appear to like living under a boulder.Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 4, 2009 3:28 PM
Evolution is a fact and a theory.
The Theory of Evolution is the best scientific explanation we currently have for the fact of evolution.
Prediction: Wiley will not be able to grasp this concept.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 4, 2009 3:35 PM
We don't want to even think about what Wiley can grasp, even over on the pr0n thread...
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 4, 2009 3:36 PM
Boy's honkin' for a plonkin'.
{Stupidity, Insipidity, Trolling, Slagging, etc, etc}
Posted by: Jim
|
December 4, 2009 3:38 PM
PZ Myers: "The creationists changed the topic the morning of the debate, from the general 'Origins of life' to the 'Adequacy of Neo-Darwinian natural selection and mutation to explain the origin of life', which already skews the subject."
The topic of the debate was NOT changed on the morning of the debate, as the moderator of the debate explains in the following email:
Dear Professor Prothero:
Your posting...on Panda's Thumb has been forwarded to me and frankly I am a little disappointed by it.
I wouldn't think this worthy of a man of your academic distinction and accomplishments.
So now lets get some things straight.
I had no association with Michael Shermer before I contacted him with regard to his willingness to debate the subject of evolution.
After he agreed to appear, I asked him for a reference of someone who could partner him in the debate. He mentioned your name. I readily agreed to the recommendation. I then suggested that I call you to extend the invitation personally. Michael assured me that he would call you and take care of all details. I spoke to Michael numerous times before the debate and he repeatedly assured me that he would be the interlocutor with me for all matters regarding your side of the debate.
With regard to the other side, I was only in touch with Stephen Meyer and had no contact with his debate partner, Richard Sternberg, either by phone or by email before his arrival in Los Angeles.
I do think, then, that I had very good reason to believe that Michael Shermer had informed you of the debate topic which was agreed between the principals to be "Has Evolutionary Theory Adequately Explained the Origins of Life?" This was established eight weeks prior to the debate and was negotiated in back and forth emails between myself and Michael Shermer and myself and Stephen Meyer respectively.
It was advertised as such in all our printed literature and in all our advertising and in our radio ads. The only place the debate topic did not appear was on the AFA website where the topic was deemed by our webmaster to be "not catchy enough" and so was reduced to the more accessible 'Origins of Life Debate.'
Notwithstanding this, at 8:00 am on the day of the debate, nearly twelve hours before it. according to your own words, you were finally "informed" of the debate topic. That email contained the rules for the debate and a definition of terms, designed to avoid a conflict over semantics. Strangely though, you wrote back to me immediately that everything was "fine" — only that you wished you had received my notice earlier. You did not protest the debate topic, nor did you mention that you had prepared a completely different presentation.
Yet notwithstanding our own tardiness, I can't fathom how it would have made a whit of difference to your presentation. After all, you were tasked by Michael with presenting a case for evolution, demonstrating how first life could have transformed over history into present organic life through natural selection via random mutation.
And that is the presentation I believe you made — something completely in keeping with the terms of the debate. It was Michael Shermer who assumed the task of attacking the efficacy of intelligent design, contrary to the agreed debate topic. He did this, to my great surprise, despite the fact that he had confirmed the original topic with me on the phone only a few days before and knew how it was being advertised on our website.
Even with all this known, it is astonishing to me that you would be so completely flummoxed and aggrieved by the perceived change of topic.
As an evolutionary advocate of such long standing, how difficult for you could it have been to switch gears slightly and offer a defense of a theory you are absolutely certain represents the only acceptable explanation for the origins of life? How much difference would it have made to your actual presentation?
In short, if you now have complaints that you were misinformed of the debate topic, you have simply chosen the wrong address to deliver them.
As for the timing on this debate, you should know that I accepted Michael Shermer's offer to be a time keeper and it was he who offered me views of his stop watch to determine the passage of time for each presentation.
Regarding debating procedure, I will state that it is quite normal during rebuttal for the moderator to relax the rules and allow the two sides to engage in a bit of exchange back and forth since that excites interest for the audience and often gets to the core of the differences between the two sides. You had equal time for rebuttal and were given ample opportunity to make your case and debunk the arguments of your opponents. which, according to your own assessment, you did successfully.
Your characterization of a lobby " full of creationists, religious tract pushers and Holocaust deniers" smacks of prejudice and bigotry and is completely devoid of truth. The audience was a healthy mix of both your own defenders and your critics.
As for Dr. Meyer's and Dr. Sternberg's presentations, you showed them very little courtesy or deference, snickering at their remarks while making a number of condescending statements. It fell to your debate partner to correct your rudeness.
Unlike you, your debate partner was not quite so aggrieved that he had been mistreated or that we had been in anyway dishonest.
Here, in fact, are his words to me following the debate:
Hi Avi,
Good job tonight. I thought you were the perfect moderator. Things got a little testy there for awhile, but smoothed out in the long run. The audience seems pleased with the debate from the comments I heard on both sides after.
Thanks again. Someone told me there were 350 people there tonight, so that's much better than you thought might show up, right?
Michael
Michael Shermer
Altadena, CA
The American Freedom Alliance, which is a non-partisan and non-political organization and does not belong to either the right or left wing, arranged this series of debates in good faith and at every step of the way was careful to make sure that each side had an equal opportunity to present its case.
During these five weeks we presented some individuals of real class who displayed some genuine humility and respect for their opponents and for the organization hosting them.
Sadly, you were not one of them.
Avi Davis
President
American Freedom Alliance
http://www.evolutionnews.org/
Posted by: SEF | December 4, 2009 3:40 PM
@ wiley #163:
Liar. Science as you were taught it almost certainly involved them telling you other people's results first (eg about atoms and elements and galaxies and electricity and species) and only then, probably somewhat later, expecting you to comprehend and appreciate how those people got there (and how they/we know it's "correct"). Viz.: they were starting from initial observation(s) (the all important evidence bit which you skipped over) and only then hypothesising how the observation might fit into a larger pattern and working out how to test whether or not that was right (by actively looking for more evidence, both for and against, in various rigorous ways, including testing whether or not they might somehow be fooling themselves and so on).
Science always begins with an "ooh isn't that interesting" and proceeds with a "but what would that logically mean if ..." - yet another of the stages you fail to apply to your religion.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 4, 2009 3:45 PM
Has the letter's author actually heard Meyer and Sternberg's arguments? How could one not snicker?
Yawn.
Posted by: Jim
|
December 4, 2009 3:47 PM
PZ Myers: "...our side is all about the evidence."
Or about making up the evidence....
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/donald_protheros_imaginary_evi.html#more
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 4, 2009 3:49 PM
Look like a right wing front to me...Posted by: Owlmirror | December 4, 2009 3:57 PM
Fixed.
Hypothesis: Species have evolved over time.
Aim: Demonstrate that species have evolved over time
Method: Study many organisms; study reproduction at the macro level of the somatype and at the micro level of genetics; study fossil remnants of organisms in the geological record.
Results: Offspring do differ from their parents. These differences arise from very minor genetic mutations that occur at a slow but definite rate in each reproducing individual, and these mutations slowly accumulate. We observe in the fossil record various examples of differences between parent populations and descendant populations.
Conclusion: Evolution is a theory and a fact
Fixed.
Fixed (pronoun trouble).
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
December 4, 2009 4:05 PM
Hey wiley the troll, you've had one too many again. Science does prove things. And you show us your acceptance of this premise every time you post a comment online: if methods of science didn't work you'd have no reason to; communication technology is based on physical principle of electricty and magnetism that were PROVEN by Heinrich Hertz and other in the late 19th and early 20th century. It is mighty convenient of you to take advantage of science while at the same time deny the methods and findings of science; no one said you shouldn't but it makes you a hypocrite, that's all.
Science doesn't just simply prove a premise beyond a reasonable doubt, as is the case in criminal proceedings. It goes beyond that, by setting the bar of reasonable proof in the first place. That DNA evidence is admissible in the legal system is just one example of this. And it is an amazing twists of irony that denialists like you reject what DNA evidence has to tell us about human ancestry but have no problem
with the death penalty for crimes established using exactly the same science.
Now what have you got against the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Al Gore? What does he have to with any of this?
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
December 4, 2009 4:15 PM
Hey Mr "American Freedom Alliance", I went over your screed trying to find a justification for why such a "debate" was ever necessary and found none. Why do you think is it that creationists keep trying to win the battle of public opinion while dodging the peer review process? Is this how you were told science is supposed to work?
Posted by: Jim
|
December 4, 2009 4:16 PM
Insightful Ape: "Hey wiley the troll, you've had one too many again. Science does prove things."
- "... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory." - Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953
- "If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part." -Richard Feynman (1918-1988).
- "A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration." - Bertrand Russell, Grounds of Conflict, Religion and Science, 1953.
- "It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven." - Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 4, 2009 4:21 PM
Fixed that for you. Science get to truth, which mean 99.9+ percent certain. Good enough for most people and the law. Absolutism is for mathematicians and theologians. And the latter are always false. Another lie by this Jim (we have had several).Posted by: Mudhooks | December 4, 2009 4:22 PM
Interesting that the so-called "fraud" recently "exposed" which hasn't actually been exposed as a fraud has gained the attention of all those who claim that Global Warming (which is a fact) is a "fraud". Meanwhile, the Bush Administration's out-and-out hijacking of the scientific research on climate change is completely ignored.
In THAT case, aide Philip Cooney, the Bush Administration chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality (non-scientist, and oil-industry bag-man) personally edited scientific reports changing wording and data to turn credible scientific evidence that showed climate change to be a fact into "questionable".
The anti-warming movement uses these reports to base its opinion that climate change is not happening, and relies on the reports of "scientists" who have absolutely no credibility in the scientific community (and who have been receiving money from oil companies).
There is no "uncertainty" or "controversy" in the scientific community on climate change.
It is a fact.
But, of course, those whose minds are wrapped up in biblical prophesy aren't interested in facts.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 4, 2009 4:25 PM
Your false testimony based on Jonathan Wells' lies about Hox is noted.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
December 4, 2009 4:30 PM
Hey Jim 177, why don't you start a movement to shut down the whole prison system? Because you know, forensic science cannot be used to prove anything (according to you), and so it is impossible to conclude that fingerprints, ballistics, DNA evidence, or even recorded video of a crime establish facts, right? Why should we be keeping anyone behind bars is truth can never be established in any case?
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 4, 2009 4:30 PM
Jim, your attempts at cherry picking has failed miserably. Those quotes from arguments for why the scientific method is the superior method to gather knowledge. That nothing is set in stone and that all knowledge is subject to change when better data in in.
Posted by: Bobber
|
December 4, 2009 4:35 PM
From "The American Freedom Alliance" website:
Another vomit-inducing right-wing racist nationalistic group. Go figure.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
December 4, 2009 4:35 PM
From the American Freedom Alliance website:
Incidentally, the "collapse of academic freedom" is the failure to "teach the controversy" and "teach both sides of the evolution question" in science classes.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 4, 2009 4:42 PM
Who wants to bet that's not the only kind of penetration they are worried about?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 4, 2009 4:45 PM
I think after almost 30 years of wingnut literature, most of us here can read between the lines. The AFA is a WINGNUT front, which means this Jim is a WINGNUT...
Posted by: Steve | December 4, 2009 4:50 PM
Nonpolitical and nonpartisan, you know, fair and balanced, kind of like Fox News Channel.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 4, 2009 4:55 PM
They can take away our lives! But they cannot take away out FREEEDOOOM!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 4, 2009 5:00 PM
When I see organizations like The American Freedom Alliance I typically approach them like I do those with Family in their name.
Assume that they are working directly against what the words in their title want you to think they are working for.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
December 4, 2009 5:10 PM
For sure. Also the word "Values". Last election that's all I heard about were the "Values Voters".
Just more dishonesty.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
December 4, 2009 5:18 PM
Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM #188
Does FREEEDOOOM include making jingositic movies?
Posted by: Bobber
|
December 4, 2009 5:23 PM
In the same way when I was young I could determine a dictatorial Communist country by the "People's Democratic Republic" somewhere in its official name. I mean, who are they trying to convince? Themselves?
Of course, nowadays, by the family, they mean The Family.
Posted by: Jim
|
December 4, 2009 5:26 PM
Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula: "Jim, your attempts at cherry picking has (sic) failed miserably. Those quotes from arguments for why the scientific method is the superior method to gather knowledge. That nothing is set in stone and that all knowledge is subject to change when better data in (sic) in."
Which was, of course, the point of the quotes I provided (a point you evidently failed to grasp). The scientific method can deliver explanations, but because of the problem of induction, it can't deliver ironclad proofs of those explanations. To repeat Popper's way of saying it: "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and forever the truth of a theory." If a person declares that "science does prove things" (meaning that science proves its theories "once and forever"), then that person doesn't understand science. Scientific theories become accepted because they best explain the evidence, not because they've been proven to be true. The person who declares that Darwinian evolutionary theory is true (i.e., "a fact") is speaking with a dogmatic mindset, not with a scientific mindset.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
December 4, 2009 5:31 PM
Raisin date?! Lulz!
Judging by the rest of the post, I believe it falls in the same camp as wallah (for voila), rather than murky buckets. One is ignorance, the other is a joke.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 4, 2009 5:32 PM
Here's the difference Jim. The Theory of Evolution is the best explanation we have of the fact of evolution. Nothing we have found is moving us away from that, everything is strengthening it.
There is no Theory of Intelligent Design or Creation. There is only assertions without substance and the failure of attempts to poke significant holes in Evolutionary theory.
Disagree?
What is the testable falsifiable Scientific theory of Intelligent Design.
Posted by: CJO | December 4, 2009 5:36 PM
The person who declares that Darwinian evolutionary theory is true (i.e., "a fact") is speaking with a dogmatic mindset, not with a scientific mindset.
And the person who fails to understand that Darwinian evolutionary theory is being put forward as the best explanation for the fact that evolution has occured is just stupid.
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 4, 2009 5:39 PM
To quote someone probably: "so what?"You're sitting on a computer right now, you're conceding that science works. Not that science provides absolute certainty, not that it proves, but that it works. You don't need 100% certainty, but it's downright misleading to dump on the entire enterprise that works in degrees of certainty. We can't ever be 100% certain about science because of nature of the enterprise.
The fact of the matter is that beyond the problem of induction, the inability to go from particulars to particulars inductively, ultimately you've got a good approximation of reality. If you disagree, I invite you to jump out of a window on a high story building. After all, gravity? Only a theory - and the problem of induction and all that! You can't know just because everything else has fallen that you will too. Just as you can't know that if you put water in your car instead of petrol that it won't run. Have you tried leaving meat out in the sun for a week or so before eating it? You can't be certain that it hasn't gone off...
Posted by: Jim
|
December 4, 2009 5:41 PM
Rev. BigDumbChimp: "The Theory of Evolution is the best explanation we have of the fact of evolution. Nothing we have found is moving us away from that, everything is strengthening it."
That depends, of course, on who this "we" is. Certainly true believers in The Theory of Evolution find nothing that budges them from their faith (Pharyngula helpfully exposes their dogmatism). My own view is that The Theory of Evolution is being increasingly exposed as an affront to reason by our ever-improving knowledge of biological complexity. I think the day will come when even mainstream biologists will wonder how anyone could have been so silly as to have accepted every claim made by The Theory of Evolution.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 4, 2009 5:42 PM
99.9+ percent is pretty good. Absolute, no. But then, you are an ignorant godbot, who only tries for absolute proof with an imaginary deity. Talk about a classical logic fail... Everything else is fallacy. Which you are full, as with sophistry.Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
December 4, 2009 5:49 PM
Hmmm. Parsing. Whatever.
How about this:
The Theory of Evolution is overwhelmingly supported across multiple disciplines by a staggering array of factual empirical evidence, experimentation, and reasoned logic.
It can be effectively called "true". Parsing definitions and scientific application of certainty and approximation doesn't change the fact that there is an extraordinary high level of confidence regarding the veracity of the many claims posited by the Theory of Evolution.
Posted by: Jim
|
December 4, 2009 5:50 PM
Kel: "You're sitting on a computer right now, you're conceding that science works. Not that science provides absolute certainty, not that it proves, but that it works. You don't need 100% certainty, but it's downright misleading to dump on the entire enterprise that works in degrees of certainty. We can't ever be 100% certain about science because of nature of the enterprise."
Good grief. The point never has been whether science "works," and I haven't been
"dump(ing)" on the "entire enterprise." The point (first raised here by Insightful Ape) was whether science proves its theories. It doesn't. When you say that we "can't ever be 100% certain about science," you're agreeing with me, not disagreeing with me.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 4, 2009 5:51 PM
Those who use and respect empirical based science and the scientific method.
Projection at it's very acutest definition.
Once again, I invite you or anyone else to provide us with these examples and how that something complex means that it was designed in the sense of a watch is designed. Please remember to show your work. Other wise I'll continue to view statement like that one as the desperate handwavings of a defeated zealot.
Cue dramatic music!
Well that's just dandy except every single thing is moving the other direction. So sorry.
Once day we'll wonder how people could be so gullible and deluded to believe in something called Intelligent Design.
They never even came up with a testable falsifiable working theory.
How funny.
Posted by: CJO | December 4, 2009 5:54 PM
My own view is that The Theory of Evolution is being increasingly exposed as an affront to reason by our ever-improving knowledge of biological complexity.
Fine. Give us an alternative explanation of biological complexity and we can assess what is an "affront to reason." Hint: magic is not, and can never be, an explanation of anything.
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 4, 2009 5:58 PM
In the technical sense of the word proof, I agree. But can you demonstrate that BigDumbChimp doesn't know the difference between colloquial use of the word proof and the scientific use?Right now I'm reading Supersense by Bruce Hood. And he's used the word proof several times. Do I think he doesn't know that you shouldn't use the word proof with science? No. What I think is he's writing his book for a popular audience and using words to explain it in a way that they would understand. It seems really anal to get up someone for using the word proof in a non-technical setting.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 4, 2009 6:00 PM
Jim #193.
Jim, crying out that all biologists are speaking out from a dogmatist mindset and cherry picking quotes does not prove your contention. And your crying out about biologocal complexity means nothing because that charge has been dealt with repeatedly.
And, frankly, using arguments from the political fringe marginalize you even more.
If you are able to prove that biologists are not scientists, get about to it.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
December 4, 2009 6:02 PM
How so? What precisely causes you to think that? What could be produced to show others why you think that?
Posted by: Jim
|
December 4, 2009 6:02 PM
lose_the_woo: "How about this:
The Theory of Evolution is overwhelmingly supported across multiple disciplines by a staggering array of factual empirical evidence, experimentation, and reasoned logic."
Does the theory of evolution have empirical support? Yes. Does it encounter recalcitrant or disconfirming evidence? Yes; even Darwin admitted as much. Has ToE been proven? No. Is the evidence for it "overwhelming" and "staggering"? Only to those who are eager to be overwhelmed and staggered. "Overwhelming" and "staggering" are terms used by propagandists, not by scientists.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
December 4, 2009 6:02 PM
Okay with me - even if science can only give, hypothetically, 99% 'certainty', that's still 99% more than the alternative explanations provided by religion.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 4, 2009 6:07 PM
It has, by eliminating alternative theories. Posit the alternative theory, with conclusive evidence, or shut the fuck up.No, you are wrong. Darwin, 150 years ago, is irrelevant, just like your inane opinion.Posted by: Kel, OM | December 4, 2009 6:07 PM
Can you name anything in biology that actually contradicts evolutionary theory? Not that it is yet unexplained, but that it outright contradicts evolution.Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
December 4, 2009 6:07 PM
Hey Jim the troll. I am sure the day will come that you will wonder why you posted comments on line while you were smoking crack. Until then, though, you owe me an answer. Since science cannot prove its theories, why do we have such a thing as a prison system? Shouldn't all those people whose crimes were "proven" on the strength of theories of science (which themselves were never proven according to you) go free? What are those forensic scientists doing getting paid for proving the unprovable?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 4, 2009 6:09 PM
Jim I invite you to show us what parts of the currently accepted evolutionary research considered strong evidence is wrong.
Please provide the science that disproves the research. If you claim it exists you should be able to provide it, correct?
Or will you ignore this request again?
And my request for the testable theory of ID is still out there.
Posted by: Kel, OM | December 4, 2009 6:10 PM
"We've looked at evidence from many areas - the fossil record, biogeography, embryology, vestigial structures, suboptimal design, and so on - all of that evidence showing, without a scintilla of doubt, that organisms have evolved. And it's not just small "microevolutionary" changes, either: we've seen new species form, both in real time and in the fossil record, and we've found transitional forms between major groups, such as whales and land animals. We've observed natural selection in action, and have every reason to think that it can produce complex organisms and features." - Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, p242
"Every day, hundreds of observations and experiments pour into the hopper of the scientific literature. Many of them don't have much to do with evolution - they're observations about he details of physiology, biochemistry, development, and so on - but many of them do. And every fact that has something to do with evolution confirms its truth. Every fossil that we find, every DNA molecule that we sequence, every organ system that we dissect, supports the idea that species evolved from common ancestors. Despite innumerable possible observations that could prove evolution untrue, we don't have a single one. We don't find mammals in Precambrian rocks, humans in the same layers as dinosaurs, or any other fossils out of evolutionary order. DNA sequencing supports the evolutionary relationships of species originally deduced from the fossil record. And, as natural selection predicts, we find no species with adaptations that only benefit a different species. We do find dead genes and vestigial organs, incomprehensible under the idea of special creation. Despite a million chances to be wrong, evolution always comes up right. That is as close as we can get to a scientific truth" - Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, p242-p243
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 4, 2009 6:10 PM
Jim, people do not point at what Newton had to say when it comes to gravity. The evidence has passed him by. The same goes for Darwin. Your appeal to authority is the same dogmatic approach that you accuse biologists of doing.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
December 4, 2009 6:14 PM
I'm not sure Theories fall into the category of things that need to be proven. That's because they are always revisable with new, superior information. Theories explain a culmination of factual evidence. Are you sure you understand what a Theory is?
Are you a scientist? Why do you keep eluding to some kind of scientific authority you may possess? You certainly don't think very clearly nor do you present ideas thoroughly.
Only propagandists use "staggering" and "overwhelming"? Really? That's just about the most empty wind-bag dismissal I've ever read.
By the evidence, it's becoming more evident you don't know what you're talking about and you're attempting to use deception, argument from authority, and bullying to make your points.
Tactics like those certainly do not convey a position of strength in the open exchange of ideas.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 4, 2009 6:14 PM
Nonsense. "Complexity exists, therefore evolution is false" is the fallacy of non-sequitur.
Actually, you have.
Ah, but it is a fact that it has not been disproven.
Given that evidence against it is nonexistent, the positive evidence in its favor is exactly as overwhelming as for any scientific theory you do accept.
Are there any? If so, then you're a hypocrite for bashing on evolution exclusively.
Are there none? If so, then you're a Pyrrhonic skeptic, and a hypocrite for bashing on evolution exclusively.
Posted by: CJO | December 4, 2009 6:15 PM
Does it encounter recalcitrant or disconfirming evidence? Yes; even Darwin admitted as much.
"Even" schmeven. First, what Darwin admitted or did not admit is utterly irrelevant to the modern life sciences. We've moved on. Creationists should learn to do the same.
Second, as part of that process of moving on, we've learned vastly more about life, its processes and its evolution than could have been conceived in Darwin's time. And when over the course of this journey the theory has encountered "recalcitrant or disconfirming evidence," dilligent study has shown that the theory could encompass it.* These are the sorts of findings that make theories stronger, not weaker. Even Darwin understood this.
*If you dispute this, please present the evidence you believe disconfirms the theory.
Posted by: Jim
|
December 4, 2009 6:15 PM
Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula: "Jim, crying out that all biologists are speaking out from a dogmatist mindset and cherry picking quotes does not prove your contention. And your crying out about biologocal complexity means nothing because that charge has been dealt with repeatedly.
And, frankly, using arguments from the political fringe marginalize you even more.
If you are able to prove that biologists are not scientists, get about to it."
1) I haven't been arguing that all biologists are speaking out from a dogmatist mindset.
2) The email I posted from "the political fringe" had nothing to do with arguing for or against ToE; it simply showed that PZ Myers' claim that the debate subject had been changed the morning of the debate was false.
3) I haven't been trying to prove that biologists are not scientists.
Since you're evidently determined not to understand anything I write, I don't see any point in continuing a conversation with you. In fact, I don't see any point in continuing a conversation with any of the regulars here. I'll be darned if I know why I ever drop in. Must be something I ate. Or maybe I have a subconscious taste for Nerd of Redhead's lunatic postings.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 4, 2009 6:17 PM
watch yer darn ass when that darn door swings shut
Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn
|
December 4, 2009 6:22 PM
Isn't it convenient the way you shirk questions regarding the evidence you speak of and instead emphasise the false claims and assumptions you feel are made about you.
"Overwhelming" and "staggering" are terms used by doctors and teachers and crossing guards in reference to evolution's corroboration with all other scientific disciplines and the mounting evidence within them for the theory. These terms are used aptly.
Last I checked, there was still absolutely no evidence for a second theory which complies to the scientific method that explains the origin of species.
I also haven't encountered any of this "disconfirming" evidence that will lead to the ultimate erruption and distinction of evolution. There are no bunny fossils in jurassic strata. The basic theory of evolution has never been challenged by a legitimate piece of evidence. We regularily find evidence that demonstrates evolution doesn't happen in exactly the manner we'd previously thought. No piece of evidence provided by ID toters has ever proven to not fit within the theory of evolution though. Evolution by means of natural selection has not been shaken.
Honestly, where is this cornucopia of biological evidence that evolution fails to account for? I'm guessing flagellum will be in there.
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 4, 2009 6:30 PM
1) I haven't been arguing that all biologists are speaking out from a dogmatist mindset.
Seeing that just about every biologist accepts that evolution is true and you claim that Darwinists argue from a dogmatic mindset, you are making the claim that biologists have a dogmatic mindset.
Also, Nerd Of Redhead is hardly a lunatic. He is very much a hardliner when it comes to evidence about science. And you have presented nothing but assertions and quote mines.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
December 4, 2009 6:35 PM
You see Jim, the "regulars" here see a typical pattern of discussion reveal itself time and time again with Evolution-deniers. That pattern consists of evasion, arguing from authority, shifting-goalposts, dismissals, and finally abandonment.
I just call it dishonesty. I call it that because there never really was a desire to participate in a proportionate discussion of ideas. You just wanted to beat your drum and sound sciency while doing it.
Your participation here is yet another example of a poster who denies Evolution while exhibiting very poor character and form. What a surprise.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 4, 2009 6:41 PM
I see no point you had to start the conversation, except to show your ignorance. Which you have done a good job of doing.No, I give you the bottom line on how science works. It doesn't fit your fallacies. The problem isn't with me, but rather with you. Learn some real science, and don't pretend you know something to real professionals. You will lose every time.Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
December 4, 2009 6:46 PM
August Berkshire #156,
I was under the impression that Christopher Hitchens uses that tactic often. Like when he assumes that non-creationist (or not evolution denying) Judeo-Christo-Islamic theists are right: Then for 90,000+ years of the existence of humans, God twiddled His thumbs, and only then did He decide to get in touch with His creatures, but only a small group of them wandering in the desert. Or like when Hitchens (or Richard Dawkins for that matter) says: OK, if God really was real, let's look at how we would describe Him (and they go on to characterize God as a dictatorial, homicidal maniac).Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
December 4, 2009 6:47 PM
I think swallowed works much better in that quip.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
December 4, 2009 6:50 PM
Don't go worrying about your food, Jimmy. It wasn't something you ate. It was something you snorted.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
December 4, 2009 6:51 PM
He'll be back. Odds are for it.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 4, 2009 7:01 PM
It's very simple Jim I can not for the life of me figure out why you are having a hard time understanding.
1. Please point to which currently accepted research that is considered evidence for evolution is wrong. Please follow this up by showing the science that proves the research to be incorrect. Show your work
2. Please provide scientifically backed evidence for Intelligent Design. Show you work.
3. Please provide the testable and falsifiable Theory of Intelligent Design.
These should be simple requests to fulfill for someone that said this
Where are these examples of biological complexity that demonstrate they could only arise as a result of a higher power guided design?
Jim?
Hello?
Jim?
You still here?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 4, 2009 7:15 PM
"Proven" is a term used by mathematicians, logicians, and propagandists, but not by scientists.
Science can disprove ideas, but not prove them. How would that work? By comparing them to the truth, which we don't have?
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
December 4, 2009 7:15 PM
(pssst: flagella, er, um, the eye, ...bananas?)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 4, 2009 7:19 PM
exactly
Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 4, 2009 7:36 PM
Chimpy, I fear the fact that I would not be reasonable with Jim and learn from him, as well as Nerd's lunacy drove Jim away to find people, who are more sane, to talk to.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 4, 2009 7:43 PM
DAMN YOU PHARYNGULITES!!!!
*fist shake
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
December 4, 2009 7:47 PM
The Redhead hasn't called me a raving lunatic in ages. So, maybe I'm an unraving one... :)
Posted by: Rachel Bronwyn
|
December 4, 2009 9:09 PM
I could go for a nice banana right now.
Posted by: Snoof | December 5, 2009 2:45 AM
Jim's an interesting example, too. He seemed quite capable of arguing in general, his intellect certainly wasn't in question, and yet when it came to actually defending his hypothesis, he failed utterly. Curse that devotion to actual evidence.
Wait, hang on. Has anyone done a wordcount of his posts? Someone might have been doing A Certain Homework Assignment.
Posted by: John Scanlon, FCD | December 5, 2009 5:17 AM
Concerned Joe #133,
I expect someone has already responded similarly, but you seem to misunderstand the logical structure of the word 'Atheism'.
It isn't the ism of 'Athe',
it's the a of Theism
(google 'privative alpha').
i.e. not an 'ism' at all.
Posted by: John Scanlon, FCD | December 5, 2009 5:50 AM
Wingnut Jim [purporting to be] quoting Popper,
Yah (emphasis added). However, Popper would presumably have gone on to say that in the empirical sciences we can indeed pretty reliably DISPROVE FALSE THEORIES, and we can observe FACTS [clue: evolution is also a fact] every day.
If you left those bits out, it's only because you're a liar.
Posted by: beriukay | December 5, 2009 10:34 AM
I swear, whenever they change the goalposts like that, the science-side guys should pull an xkcd and whip out their clown costumes. Maybe juggle a bit while on a unicycle. It's the only way to get your average believer to realize how ridiculous the whole spectacle really is.
Posted by: beriukay | December 5, 2009 10:36 AM
Whoops, I should have said cectic, not xkcd.
http://cectic.com/105.html
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
December 5, 2009 12:31 PM
The wingnut Jim did have a level of consistency in his claims that frauds like Luskin and Behe lack.
If you start off with the premise that evolution has not been proven as a fact despite over 100 years of peer reviewed data accumulating, it comes only naturally that science cannot prove anything, ever. Of course that statement leaves you open to dismissal and ridicule, which is why the disco institute "scholars" do not make it openly, at the expense of the consistency of their claims. Yahoos like Jim are seemingly more truthful and forthcoming about it.