Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

From the Non-Sequitur Show

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
 [ 39 posts ] 
From the Non-Sequitur Show
Author Message
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 280Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: From the Non-Sequitur Show

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
AronRa wrote:I don't understand why every creationist always wants it to be a private conversation.

Because other members of this forum always bring it up as an option. Honestly, if no one pointed out that that was an option, they would never be able to use it as an excuse.


Sorry AronRa ... :oops:
This is what I get for trying to be nice...

But even so, I also told him that he can ignore other comments and only respond to Aron.
And if we get him the private thread that he wants, he wouldn't have an excuse anymore.

Gnug215
Please, make the private thread. He explicitly stated that he wants it.
If he doesn't show up, it can be deleted afterwards (I would think).
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Tue Sep 18, 2018 8:03 am
Gnug215ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2688Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:31 pm

Post Re: From the Non-Sequitur Show

New exclusive debate thread has been set up here:

http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/view ... 51&t=16198
- Gnug215

YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gnug215


The horse is a ferocious predator.
Thu Sep 20, 2018 5:49 am
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 280Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: From the Non-Sequitur Show

cgingerwentz

Hey, there is a thread for you and Aron. You can respond now.....Well, you already could to begin with, but now you got what you wanted.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Fri Sep 21, 2018 9:25 am
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 565Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: From the Non-Sequitur Show

Well, it's been a week since the private thread was created and roughly two weeks since this was supposed to begin. Looks like we've got yet another creationist who buggered off right at the very beginning. Just imagine what it must be like to believe in a lie so much that you're afraid of finding out what's true.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:34 pm
CollecemallPosts: 396Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 1:53 am

Post Re: From the Non-Sequitur Show

I got around to watching the "debate" and the after show. What a waste of 4.5 hours. There was 25 mins of good stuff in that 5 hr block and it was when Dr. Mays gave his initial opening. The after show getting hijacked by Christian didn't do the show or him any favors really. I think the kid is likable enough but I hope he'll see this and take one piece of advice. Go read something besides creationist propaganda. It's painful to watch someone so wrong be so insistent. I was never a staunch defender of the nonsense but i was in a similar boat. I grew up in YEC country and I was an adult before I decided the truth was important and I read more than the Lee Strobel's and Nathaniel Jeanson's of the world. The one consistent thing they do is lie. Either by omission, overtly, or misleading you. And none of them care what's true. From WLC to AIG they all say it pretty clearly. When your starting point is "What I believe can't be wrong" there is no other option.
"Every man is a creature of the age in which he lives, and few are able to raise themselves above the ideas of their time."
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” ~~Voltaire
Thu Sep 27, 2018 7:19 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2627Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: From the Non-Sequitur Show

cgingerwentz wrote:Nesslig20,

Can you show me how I can turn this forum into something private between Mr. Ra and I? I would feel more comfortable engaging in a dialogue if it was just him and me.



I believe it's called 'email'.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Sep 29, 2018 4:59 am
RhedUser avatarPosts: 264Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: From the Non-Sequitur Show

he_who_is_nobody wrote:As I keep pointing out, creationists accept evolution (descent with modification), they just reject deep time and universal common descent. This creationists even goes a step further then most by actually using the word (to bad he put it in scare-quotes). Most of the time, creationists will accept evolution while wanting to call it something else (i.e. adaptation).



The Creation Model does change with time. And so does the Evolution model.
When evolution is in the newspaper, it should be in the funnies
Sun Sep 30, 2018 3:56 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3499Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: From the Non-Sequitur Show

Rhed wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:As I keep pointing out, creationists accept evolution (descent with modification), they just reject deep time and universal common descent. This creationists even goes a step further then most by actually using the word (to bad he put it in scare-quotes). Most of the time, creationists will accept evolution while wanting to call it something else (i.e. adaptation).



The Creation Model does change with time. And so does the Evolution model.


Honestly, I am still waiting for you to present a Creation Model.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Sep 30, 2018 4:16 am
YIM WWW
RhedUser avatarPosts: 264Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: From the Non-Sequitur Show

Rhed wrote:[The Creation Model does change with time. And so does the Evolution model.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:Honestly, I am still waiting for you to present a Creation Model.


Yes, and I suppose you are more interested in the biological part in the Creation Model. I thought I answered this a couple years ago, but my mind cannot go back that far. And I sure don't feel like searching for it.

Good talking to you! Glad you responded. This is a good idea though, and will respond soon.
When evolution is in the newspaper, it should be in the funnies
Sun Sep 30, 2018 4:27 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3499Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: From the Non-Sequitur Show

Rhed wrote:
Rhed wrote:[The Creation Model does change with time. And so does the Evolution model.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:Honestly, I am still waiting for you to present a Creation Model.


Yes, and I suppose you are more interested in the biological part in the Creation Model. I thought I answered this a couple years ago, but my mind cannot go back that far. And I sure don't feel like searching for it.

Good talking to you! Glad you responded. This is a good idea though, and will respond soon.


You never provided one, biological or otherwise, and I feel that this is not going to change now.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Sep 30, 2018 4:53 am
YIM WWW
SparhafocPosts: 2627Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: From the Non-Sequitur Show

Rhed wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:As I keep pointing out, creationists accept evolution (descent with modification), they just reject deep time and universal common descent. This creationists even goes a step further then most by actually using the word (to bad he put it in scare-quotes). Most of the time, creationists will accept evolution while wanting to call it something else (i.e. adaptation).



The Creation Model does change with time. And so does the Evolution model.



There's no such thing as 'the Creation Model'.

Creation is an archaic belief system formulated by our ancient forebears in the near perfect absence of knowledge regarding the formation of the universe.

It's not a model, because a model is a scientific term and belief doesn't employ science:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling

A scientific model seeks to represent empirical objects, phenomena, and physical processes in a logical and objective way. All models are in simulacra, that is, simplified reflections of reality that, despite being approximations, can be extremely useful.[4] Building and disputing models is fundamental to the scientific enterprise. Complete and true representation may be impossible, but scientific debate often concerns which is the better model for a given task, e.g., which is the more accurate climate model for seasonal forecasting.[5]

Attempts to formalize the principles of the empirical sciences use an interpretation to model reality, in the same way logicians axiomatize the principles of logic. The aim of these attempts is to construct a formal system that will not produce theoretical consequences that are contrary to what is found in reality. Predictions or other statements drawn from such a formal system mirror or map the real world only insofar as these scientific models are true.[6][7]

For the scientist, a model is also a way in which the human thought processes can be amplified.[8] For instance, models that are rendered in software allow scientists to leverage computational power to simulate, visualize, manipulate and gain intuition about the entity, phenomenon, or process being represented. Such computer models are in silico. Other types of scientific models are in vivo (living models, such as laboratory rats) and in vitro (in glassware, such as tissue culture).[9]



However, when we're talking about evolutionary biology, there is no such thing as an 'evolutionary model' either. The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is not formulated as a model - it is a proper theory, straddling numerous disciplines, with reams of supporting evidence; it's a whole system of consistent findings - not a simplification for communication purposes. We use the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis to make OTHER models (e.g. in software engineering, AI, and robotics) because its principles are so well established and evidenced that it is, for all intents and purposes, objective fact.


There are absolutely zero similarities between the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis and the handed-down metamagical make-believe of a divine entity zapping shit into existence.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Sep 30, 2018 6:25 am
RhedUser avatarPosts: 264Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: From the Non-Sequitur Show

he_who_is_nobody wrote:You never provided one, biological or otherwise, and I feel that this is not going to change now.


I found these links to get you started:
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-s ... mily-tree/
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-s ... somatidae/
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-s ... -squamata/

And of course I was right, you as usual refuse to read them. I did post these to you on Sun Jan 03, 2016 . Your response was a "facepalm". The reason was because the source came from Answers Research Journal, which is a Creation journal. :o

I guess I didn't go into much detail because this is the type of response I'll get. I.e. "but Rhed, this is from a Creation website describing their model, you need to go to a "scientific" website".

It's this very logic I will run into time and time again.
When evolution is in the newspaper, it should be in the funnies
Sun Sep 30, 2018 9:48 am
SparhafocPosts: 2627Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: From the Non-Sequitur Show

Rhed wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:You never provided one, biological or otherwise, and I feel that this is not going to change now.


I found these links to get you started:
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-s ... mily-tree/
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-s ... somatidae/
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-s ... -squamata/



Baraminology is an actual joke.

As in, no one takes it seriously, not even Creationists.


Rhed wrote:And of course I was right, you as usual refuse to read them. I did post these to you on Sun Jan 03, 2016 . Your response was a "facepalm". The reason was because the source came from Answers Research Journal, which is a Creation journal. :o


1) I trust you realize that people can already be more than well informed about the vapid dogma robotically cited by Creationist dupes of propaganda outlets?

2) The notion of a 'Creation Journal' is a total joke. Answers in Genesis is an extremist Christian propaganda website and has fuck all legitimacy to anyone who isn't a Christian fundamentalist, and even the majority of those have never heard of baraminology and wouldn't believe it if they did.

You might as well have cited the Beano, or any other cartoon comic book.

Finally, what you cited is not a model of anything.


Rhed wrote:I guess I didn't go into much detail because this is the type of response I'll get. I.e. "but Rhed, this is from a Creation website describing their model, you need to go to a "scientific" website".

It's this very logic I will run into time and time again.



Yup, exactly. You'll keep running into logic regardless of whether you refuse to engage with it. Logic doesn't care about your feelies.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:11 am
SparhafocPosts: 2627Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: From the Non-Sequitur Show

Abstract

How are all life forms connected? Are they linked by one giant family tree, a web, or a forest of family trees?



And there's me thinking that AiG dropped the 'Creationist Orchard' meme 2 decades ago! :lol:
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:21 am
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 280Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: From the Non-Sequitur Show

Sparhafoc wrote:Baraminology is an actual joke.

As in, no one takes it seriously, not even Creationists.


And this is what happens when it is taken seriously:
P. SENTER wrote:Creationist literature claims that sufficient gaps in morphological continuity exist to classify dinosaurs into several distinct baramins (‘created kinds’). Here, I apply the baraminological method called taxon correlation to test for morphological continuity within and between dinosaurian taxa. The results show enough morphological continuity within Dinosauria to consider most dinosaurs genetically related, even by this creationist standard. A continuous morphological spectrum unites the basal members of Saurischia, Theropoda, Sauropodomorpha, Ornithischia, Thyreophora, Marginocephalia, and Ornithopoda with Nodosauridae and Pachycephalosauria and with the basal ornithodirans Silesaurus and Marasuchus. Morphological gaps in the known fossil record separate only seven groups from the rest of Dinosauria. Those groups are Therizinosauroidea + Oviraptorosauria + Paraves, Tazoudasaurus + Eusauropoda, Ankylosauridae, Stegosauria, Neoceratopsia, basal Hadrosauriformes and Hadrosauridae. Each of these seven groups exhibits within‐group morphological continuity, indicating common descent for all the group’s members, even according to this creationist standard.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Sun Sep 30, 2018 2:33 pm
RhedUser avatarPosts: 264Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: From the Non-Sequitur Show

Sparhafoc wrote:
Baraminology is an actual joke.


It's only a joke to you because it doesn't agree with the Evolution Model. Since you are smart person and a quest for truth you can at least read those links I posted. The best way to debate is to know your opponent's position. I had to this when debating flat-earthers. It was painful but I spent a good two weeks learning that view.
When evolution is in the newspaper, it should be in the funnies
Sun Sep 30, 2018 3:04 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2627Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: From the Non-Sequitur Show

:lol:

Well remembered! I completely forgot that existed!

Damned if it does work, damned if it doesn't. :) Ahh Creationism, you never fail to present comical outcomes.

Of course, the chattering flock don't care - they're patiently waiting to be tossed ideologically approved scraps to swallow.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Sep 30, 2018 3:06 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2627Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: From the Non-Sequitur Show

Rhed wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:
Baraminology is an actual joke.


It's only a joke to you because it doesn't agree with the Evolution Model.


No.

Let me put something quite bluntly here: you do not tell me what I think.

It's basic fucking common courtesy and is fundamental to ANY exchange on a discussion board to let other people tell you their reasons for holding a position.

I will tell you what I think and lend you the same respect.

Among the reasons why Baraminology is a joke is that various Creationist authors have employed it and *drum roll* arrived at different and contradictory conclusions. :lol:

Great 'science' you got there! Of course, it's just religious faith masquerading as science, so it's only to be expected.


Rhed wrote:Since you are smart person and a quest for truth you can at least read those links I posted.


Jet-lag forces me to disagree. Right at this moment, I would struggle to think my way out of a wet paper bag.

However, I read those links and they are chock full of errors. Really, the first is awful. Just to list the problems in abstract would take a couple of hours. It's full of elementary errors and complete fabrications that Creationists (being religious believers without any specialist knowledge or education) uncritically swallow, but which would result in failure even at undergraduate, so egregious they are.

Let's take a really easy one that doesn't even depend on scientific knowledge:

1) All essential genes and essential non-coding DNA elements of an organism are indispensible for its survival.


Read it a couple of times.

See the problem?

All essential X and essential Y are indispensable for survival.

It's just a tautology. It doesn't even amount to being a serious rendition of anything scientific. The word 'essential' means 'absolutely necessary', so in the context of a biological organism, something 'absolutely necessary' is intrinsically involved with its survival already, so what has the guy actually really said here? The answer is: nothing. But unskilled people are fooled, and that's really the motivation: keep the idiot flock confident they're being led by those more intelligent than them.



Rhed wrote: The best way to debate is to know your opponent's position.


Agreed.

However, a couple of notes. First, this is not a debate. Secondly, my academic background resulted in me being sought out by Creationists who wanted to prove me wrong (and tell me how evil I am) - I would never have gone looking for religious beliefs to criticize in the first instance if it weren't for obnoxious little lazy idiots tossing bullshit in front of me. As it stands, I've now got 2 decades of experience of Creationism and Creationist tactics, so I would hazard a guess I know more than all but a few people here about the Creationist position. Unless you've dedicated a significant portion of your professional life to these subjects, I would be fairly confident in saying I know your position (not meaning yours on an individual level, but in terms of 'Creationists') better than you do.


Rhed wrote: I had to this when debating flat-earthers. It was painful but I spent a good two weeks learning that view.


Yes, but with no disrespect to your good self intended, I bet what you know about biological evolution wouldn't even get you on an access course for university to study Biology.

Herein lies the difference. To buff up on Flat-Earth or Creationism is the work of a lazy afternoon. To become well versed in biological evolution is the work of a considerable part of an academic and professional life-time. I studied evolution at a post-graduate level, yet there are entire disciplines within it I have barely even scraped the surface of, and the gods only know how much evidence I am ignorant of. Tens of thousands of papers are published yearly supporting the evolutionary account.

There's no equality there.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Sep 30, 2018 3:22 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3499Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: From the Non-Sequitur Show

Rhed wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:You never provided one, biological or otherwise, and I feel that this is not going to change now.


I found these links to get you started:
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-s ... mily-tree/
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-s ... somatidae/
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-s ... -squamata/


That was already dealt with.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Using creation science to demonstrate evolution: application of a creationist method for visualizing gaps in the fossil record to a phylogenetic study of coelurosaurian dinosaurs by P. Senter, Using creation science to demonstrate evolution 2: morphological continuity within Dinosauria by P. Senter, and Using creation science to demonstrate evolution? Senter’s strategy revisited by T. C. Wood have debunked the idea that kinds are immutable. Using the creationists own method (baraminology) all kinds tested blended into each other.


Re-posting debunked arguments does not make them stronger, it only makes you look unwilling to accept corrections.

Rhed wrote:And of course I was right, you as usual refuse to read them. I did post these to you on Sun Jan 03, 2016 . Your response was a "facepalm". The reason was because the source came from Answers Research Journal, which is a Creation journal. :o


Amazing how you cannot provide the link, must be because I responded with more than just a face-palm. Again, that cartoon sums up Answers Research Journal nicely.

Rhed wrote:I guess I didn't go into much detail because this is the type of response I'll get. I.e. "but Rhed, this is from a Creation website describing their model, you need to go to a "scientific" website".


We are talking about science after all. Why do creationists get so upset that they cannot use their propaganda in place of science?

Rhed wrote:It's this very logic I will run into time and time again.


Right, the logic of wanting you to provide science instead of propaganda? Who would have thunk it?
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Sun Sep 30, 2018 3:38 pm
YIM WWW
Previous
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
 [ 39 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests
cron