Quantcast

«

»

Jun 03 2013

Brave Sir Ken bravely ran away

Chicken!

Ken Ham is putting on a snooty snit. He was challenged to a debate, and then dismissed the highly qualified individuals who would have gone up against his team of frauds. Why, you might ask, did he consider the evolutionist debaters unworthy? Because they didn’t have Ph.D.s. Credentialism at its most blatant!

Now, we’re not saying no to a debate with the Houston Atheists Association. In fact we want one of our PhD scientists on staff to debate a PhD scientist chosen by the Houston Atheists Association. This would encourage a more fruitful exchange on the merits of creation vs. evolution, the age of the universe, etc. Answers in Genesis would seek out an impartial moderator, perhaps a local newsperson, and the debate could even be held in a university setting. Such a debate needs to be set up in a formal and professional way.

We hope that such a scientist with a doctorate would be willing to engage in a debate where both participants have time to present their sides and offer rebuttals in a respectful manner.

This is so outrageous that I’d be willing to set aside my policy of refusing to debate creationists to take these phonies on…as long as I could have as my partner the fellow they rejected. Especially since he’d be a far better debater than I am, even without a Ph.D.

That fellow is Aron Ra.

He actually wants to replace both of us. He wants to pit a professional scientist with respectable accolades against one of his own anti-science apologists wearing similar credentials. Why? To present the illusion that there is a legitimate scientific debate wherein creation is might be a seen as a reasonable option to evolution. It’s not, and there’s no debate in science about that.

Exactly. This is what they always do. It’s not about having a legitimate discussion: it’s about pretending to have parity with real scientists. They don’t deserve it.

Also, I suspect that in this case they looked at Aron’s record and realized that he’d mop the floor with the creationists, and they spurned him out of fear.

203 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    bradman1203

    After Aron’s performance against Ray Comfort and the Christian rapper (showing my age, I know, but could there be a more toxix mix?), I’m not surprised Ken Ham backed off. His ideas would be a soft target for Aron and his ‘nail them down’ technique.

    And if there’s any doubt, I fully favour Aron’s approach to slippery apologetics.

  2. 2
    Craig Shearer

    The funny thing now is that lots of Ken Ham’s supporters on his Facebook page are pleading with him to reconsider and do the debate!

  3. 3
    serena

    The laptop in my bedroom plays the full, all-in-one youtube video Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism on repeat at all times. It’s roughly three hours long. It’s possible that someone on their team might have watched some of it (or at least this is what I fantasize) and especially the parts regarding falsifying phylogeny or genetic ancestry. Those videos pretty much wipe the floor before anyone can step out on it, heh.

  4. 4
    Kees

    This is so outrageous that I’d be willing to set aside my policy of refusing to debate creationists to take these phonies on…as long as I could have as my partner the fellow they rejectedAre you being hyperbolic here or is this something you’d actually consider doing? Because I don’t think the world is ready for the righteous smackdown the two of you could deliver.

  5. 5
    Dr Marcus Hill Ph.D. (arguing from his own authority)

    Well, everyone knows that a PhD makes you automatically right in everything you say, so I guess I see his reasoning.

  6. 6
    David Marjanović

    The funny thing now is that lots of Ken Ham’s supporters on his Facebook page are pleading with him to reconsider and do the debate!

    No wonder. They have more confidence faith in his knowledge than he himself does. That’s how he wanted it. Now it’s coming back to bite him.

  7. 7
    LykeX

    This fits right in with the standard approach for creationists; it’s not about facts, it’s about appearance. It doesn’t matter if you know what you’re talking about. What matters is whether you’ve got the right set of letters after your name.

    The reason is similarly simple: If they debate on the merits, they lose. If they debate someone who knows how to deal with their dishonest bullshit, they lose. They know that. They’re not honestly mistaken, misinformed or ignorant; they’re con artists.

    And I hope that we can all set aside these ugly rumors about how Ken Ham supposedly molested a piglet in 2003. They have no basis in fact. There is no truth to the accusation that Ken Ham violated a baby pig. You can’t prove that he did any such thing. He has never been convicted of any instance of bestiality.
    I hope that’s clear.

  8. 8
    PZ Myers

    #4: I’m serious. I hate debates, I don’t consider myself particularly good at them (it really is a genuine skill), and I hate giving creationists any credibility…but if I can lend my degree with the goal of unleashing the Aron Ra on Answers in Genesis, I’d do it.

  9. 9
    rogerfirth

    Creationist debater = public masturbator

    If you encounter some goofball in the park with his bits out fapping away, you certainly don’t help him out. Why should it be any different with creationists?

  10. 10
    machintelligence

    You are too humble P. Z. In the debate with Dr. (MD) Simmons, you truly cleaned his clock.

  11. 11
    anteprepro

    Hah. Creationists saying that a Ph.D is necessary to be involved in a scientific debate? As in, your average joe can’t just skim through the Bible, read evolution’s wikipedia entry, and have an informed opinion on the subject? I’m betting that this is a case of IOKIYAC, because if non-creationists set up a debate explicitly saying it had to be Ph.D vs. Ph.D, the creationists would froth and shriek about Elitism.

  12. 12
    Glen Davidson

    Because Ken certainly wouldn’t make claims about science without his earned Ph.D in biology.

    You mean he doesn’t have one?

    Glen Davidson

  13. 13
    Mike

    I still remember the first time I saw Aron on Atheist Experience. “Who the hell is this cat?” was soon replaced by “This is creationisms worst fucking nightmare” in the span of about 10 minutes. I’m so glad he’s on our side, his voice could lead an army.

  14. 14
    erichoug

    I think PZ has it right that this really isn’t about the actual debate. Notice that they want two PHD’s preferably in a university setting with a local new person moderating.

    What this smells like is they want to be able to say: “See, Creationism isn’t a completely religious idea with no grounding in reality. It’s a purely scientific claim that college professors debate at major state universities.”

    The only thing you can do by debating with these people is give them credibility. If they wanted to debate Aaron Ra at some venue, I would suggest a local church’s multipurpose room. And for god’s sake don’t send anyone with a doctorate. .

  15. 15
    Menyambal

    We hope that such a scientist with a doctorate would be willing to engage in a debate where both participants have time to present their sides and offer rebuttals in a respectful manner.

    You mean like in scientific papers in peer-reviewed literature?

    Stage debates do not allow time for proper rebuttal.

    A debate is just like a sermon, and the preachers are better at impressing the faithful.

  16. 16
    David Marjanović

    What this smells like is they want to be able to say: “See, Creationism isn’t a completely religious idea with no grounding in reality. It’s a purely scientific claim that college professors debate at major state universities.”

    Which would be majorly hilarious. Scientists never hold debates with each other. For the reasons explained in comment 15, we’re not trained in rhetorics as part of our education.

  17. 17
    Dr Marcus Hill Ph.D. (arguing from his own authority)

    Scientists do hold debates. OK, so they’re not a spectator occasion, and occur in written form in the scientific press (and scientific blogosphere – cf “Aquatic Ape” criticism on this very blog), but there are debates. The problem for creationists is that these are the sort of debates where there are no significant limits on the length of responses or how long one can take to formulate them. When one side has all the facts and you can’t use rhetorical trickery without being called on it, that’s a losing proposition for the creationists.

  18. 18
    Kevin

    @16: That’s not to say that scientists aren’t capable of thinking on their feet and at cutting to the heart of a contentious subject in “real time”.

    I go to a lot of medical conferences and sit through a lot of oral presentations. For those who don’t; this is often the first time that data on a particular subject might be presented. I’m mainly in the pharma game, and a lot of clinical trial data on prospective new products are unveiled this way – sometimes a year or more ahead of peer review publication.

    I can count on one hand the number of times a controversial finding or an “out of whack” piece of data — even something that just flashed by as one data point in slide 6 of a 20-minute 30-slide presentation — wasn’t instantly pounced on by experts in the audience. Slicing and dicing commences instantly during the Q&A.

    You can’t get away with anything at these conferences.

    So, you might not be trained as rhetoricians, but man, you’re certainly trained at bullshit detection.

  19. 19
    David Marjanović

    You can’t get away with anything at these conferences.

    So, you might not be trained as rhetoricians, but man, you’re certainly trained at bullshit detection.

    Yes – that’s precisely why a Gish Gallop simply overwhelms us.

  20. 20
    mnb0

    @8 as confirmed by others this in general looks like an excellent idea – one debater with the rhetoric skills, one scientist with a solid bullshit detector.
    I guess Aron Ra and you would make an unbeatable team.

  21. 21
    hypatiasdaughter

    #11 anteprepro
    One can cackle in derision at the Hams, Hovinds, Baughs and Craigs getting all lofty and snooty about people’s credentials when they either have no degrees, degrees purchased from diploma mills or in fields that have nothing do with evolutionary science. (Ham has a bachelor’s degree in Applied Science, with an emphasis in Environmental Biology and a diploma in Education.)
    Or one can get really pissed that these duplicitous shitbags pillage real science for their info, while disparaging the integrity and intelligence of the working scientists who produce the results they use. I call them Paklids, after the alien race in ST:TNG who are too stupid to develop their own technology so they steal it from others, but are too stupid to know how to use it properly.

  22. 22
    playonwords

    I am reminded of my childhood

    BAD SIR BRIAN BOTANY
    by A.A.Milne

    Sir Brian had a battleaxe with great big knobs on.
    He went among the villagers and blipped them on the head.
    On Wednesday and on Saturday,
    Especially on the latter day,
    He called on all the cottages and this is what he said:

    “I am Sir Brian!” (Ting-ling!)
    “I am Sir Brian!” (Rat-tat!)
    “I am Sir Brian,
    “As bold as a lion!
    “Take that, and that, and that!”

    Sir Brian had a pair of boots with great big spurs on;.
    A fighting pair of which he was particularly fond.
    On Tuesday and on Friday,
    Just to make the street look tidy,
    He’d collect the passing villagers and kick them in the pond.

    “I am Sir Brian!” (Sper-lash!)
    “I am Sir Brian!” (Sper-losh!)
    “I am Sir Brian,
    “As bold as a Lion!
    “Is anyone else for a wash?”

    Sir Brian woke one morning and he couldn’t find his battleaxe.
    He walked into the village in his second pair of boots.
    He had gone a hundred paces
    When the street was full of faces
    And the villagers were round him with ironical salutes.

    “You are Sir Brian? My, my.
    “You are Sir Brian? Dear, dear.
    “You are Sir Brian
    “As bold as a lion?
    “Delighted to meet you here!”

    Sir Brian went a journey and he found a lot of duckweed.
    They pulled him out and dried him and they blipped him on the head.
    They took him by the breeches
    And they hurled him into ditches
    And they pushed him under waterfalls and this is what they said:

    “You are Sir Brian — don’t laugh!
    “You are Sir Brian — don’t cry!
    “You are Sir Brian
    “As bold as a lion –
    “Sir Brian the Lion, goodbye!”

    Sir Brian struggled home again and chopped up his battleaxe.
    Sir Brian took his fighting boots and threw them in the fire.
    He is quite a different person
    Now he hasn’t got his spurs on,
    And he goes about the village as B. Botany, Esquire.

    “I am Sir Brian? Oh, no!
    “I am Sir Brian? Who’s he?
    “I haven’t any title, I’m Botany;
    “Plain Mr. Botany (B.)”

  23. 23
    changerofbits

    The funny thing now is that lots of Ken Ham’s supporters on his Facebook page are pleading with him to reconsider and do the debate!

    Yea, because they’re the ones who have seen Aron rip all creationist arguments to shreds. The want to see their side defended against one of the more knowledgeable non-fudPhD folks out there, but Ham knows he can’t pull it off. I think Ham would even take a draw, but the chance that it could be a watershed against crationism/AiG scares him.

  24. 24
    theignored

    Ken Ham is blatantly lying…he’s challenged Bill Nye and Zack Kopplin to debate his “scientists” and neither as far as I know has a PhD.

    Someone who is not banned from Ham’s blog should point that out to him.

  25. 25
    theignored

    What’s more, with Zack, Ham made a complete asshole of himself when he challenged Zack:

    Would Kopplin, obviously an intelligent young man, consider a debate with one of our scientists to look at the question of whether God’s Word, starting in Genesis, is true? However, we suspect he will use the same rhetoric used by most evolutionists when responding to such an invitation, and claim creationists should not be debated because they are not “real scientists.” We could probably even draft his refusal letter for him based on what other secularists have written when they have refused to debate a creation scientist.

  26. 26
    Menyambal

    “Unprofessional”?

    Ham’s profession is threatening children with eternal fire if they don’t give him respect and money, despising all of human progress, and, insulting all of humanity.

    Should the atheists have modeled their letter after the King James Bible, maybe?

    They didn’t sign a name to it, so maybe they did just that.

  27. 27
    Sili

    Remember to bring lossa indexcards to throw away exasperatedly.

  28. 28
    supermudz

    I’ll admit, this is a new one. Typically, it’s the evolutionists deferring accusations of credentialism.

    But it’s great to see such an open standard of intellectual discourse being promoted here. No doubt you’ll encourage Dawkins and all evolutionist advocates to engage and debate with creationists and Christians regardless of credentials.

  29. 29
    supermudz

    Huh, I just heard of ‘aron ra’ recently on youtube. Guess he must be of some note in the evolutionist community.

  30. 30
    robro

    What’re the odds that Ham Bone would let his PhD creationists debate a couple of other PhD creationists? I bet he could find some at my alma mater. Then he would have the aura of academic respectability with the certainty that the outcome agrees with his premise, and he could even call it a “debate.” Of course, Christians of his ilk aren’t interested in debating anything, only proselytizing. How could they even consider that there’s a debatable point when they have the revealed word of their ineffable god in all it’s shinning perfection with the added certainty that their read of it is absolutely correct. I’ve always thought that PZ is exactly, 100% correct to eschew the travesty of debating these numbskulls because all they’re going to do, all they want to do is preach. They already have plenty of opportunities for that claptrap.

  31. 31
    theignored

    Well, it looks like Ham has done it again. You all know that he censors his facebook posts, right? I’ve posted about that before. Well, he’s done it again to someone else. Just click on the link above to see. I’ve removed the name and picture since I’ve no idea if this person would want the publicity, and without the actual post, I can’t smegging find this person on facebook for some reason, to ask permission for name and pic to be posted.

    I’ve posted the links to the before and after crops below.

    Before:
    http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d27/kvarku/Hampicking.jpg

    After:
    http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d27/kvarku/Hampicking2.jpg

  32. 32
    theignored

    supermudz
    But it’s great to see such an open standard of intellectual discourse being promoted here. No doubt you’ll encourage Dawkins and all evolutionist advocates to engage and debate with creationists and Christians regardless of credentials.
    Dawkins isn’t a debator; he’s not up on all the tricks creationists use. Aron Ra is. Would you care to debate Aron yourself?

  33. 33
    supermudz

    So, can we just get this clear:

    Are you guys for or against debates that happen only on equitable terms?

    Should Ham debate Aron Ra?

    Should Dawkins debate Craig?

    There wouldn’t be a double-standard being practised here, would there?

  34. 34
    supermudz

    @ theignored

    I don’t see why not. Depends on what the debate subject is.

  35. 35
    Hank_Says

    supertroll

    No doubt you’ll encourage Dawkins and all evolutionist advocates to engage and debate with creationists and Christians regardless of credentials.

    Why argue with ignorant charlatans? They’ll just beat you with experience.

    Also: 1) Science isn’t settled via debate; 2) there is actually no debate among people who understand evolution over whether it happened or continues to happen; any disagreements that do arise are over specific evolutionary mechanisms. Most scientists who study evolution are perfectly happy to just study evolution and add to the monumental body of evidence that supports it; the few you hear about who do respond to creationists do so because – mostly in the US – there is a concerted, decades-long campaign to cast doubt on evolution where none is warranted. This campaign frequently results in court cases – none of which the creationists have ever won. Meanwhile, the rest of the world looks at these rabid, ignorant US fundamentalists, scratches its head and says “Better you than me. What a bunch of whackaloon trolls. OK, back to the science.”

    But considering you appear to like debates, how about this: a debate between young earth creationists, old earth creationists and intelligent design creationists on the topic of the exact methods the designer/god employed to design and construct the life on Earth. Considering there is no actual data on any of that, the best debate presentation could quite reasonably be called the “winner”.

    Regardless – Ken is the one that bailed on this debate, go troll his comment threads – oh, that’s right. He doesn’t allow comments at NonsenseInGenesis. Given that, it’s not surprising he didn’t want his stooges debating AronRa, who has taken the time to actually educate himself about evolution, taxonomy and palaeontology, unlike Ham and his brood of cloistered thralls who plug their ears, shut their eyes and wish it all away.

  36. 36
    theignored

    Cool. You can go over to Aaron Ra’s site and let him know.

    As was said earlier: Dawkins is not a debater. While William Craig has been debating for decades. On the other hand Stephen Law vs. William Lane Craig has already been done.

  37. 37
    Owlmirror

    No doubt you’ll encourage Dawkins and all evolutionist advocates to engage and debate with creationists and Christians regardless of credentials.

    Meh, not really. People can debate or not, depending on how they feel about the individual involved, or about debating in general.

    It’s not like debating is going to prove that God exists, or that evolution is false. I can totally understand how reality-based thinkers might feel that a debate is a waste of time, especially against the delusional and dishonest.

  38. 38
    theignored

    Hankstar at number 35:

    But considering you appear to like debates, how about this: a debate between young earth creationists, old earth creationists and intelligent design creationists on the topic of the exact methods the designer/god employed to design and construct the life on Earth. Considering there is no actual data on any of that, the best debate presentation could quite reasonably be called the “winner”.

    Brilliant.

  39. 39
    Owlmirror

    Are you guys for or against debates that happen only on equitable terms?

    Oh, I’m for mutually equitable debates. But that usually can’t happen, since the reality-based side has to stick to the facts, while the delusional and dishonest can and do make up whatever shit they want.

    Should Ham debate Aron Ra?

    Sure, if he wants to. The reason Ham has given for not wanting to is ludicrous, since he doesn’t have a Ph.D in the applicable science (evolutionary biology) anyway, and therefore is technically as uncertified as Aron Ra, but Ham can cop out for any reason he wants.

    Should Dawkins debate Craig?

    If he wants to. The reason he’s given for not wanting to has been that Craig is a despicable person who apologises for genocide, and Dawkins doesn’t want to share a stage with such a despicable person. I haven’t heard that Craig has retracted that defense of killing men, women, and children in mass butchery — have you?

    There wouldn’t be a double-standard being practised here, would there?

    God forbid.

  40. 40
    Owlmirror

    Sorry, first line in #39 should be blockquoted.

  41. 41
    supermudz

    @ Hankstar

    1) Science isn’t settled via debate; 2) there is actually no debate among people who understand evolution over whether it happened or continues to happen

    And the people who understand evolution are the ones that believe it’s true, presumably. It’s a tedious line, man. ‘Only the ones who agree with me are right.’

    I’m from NZ. I’m pretty cool with the U.S fundies. At least they recognise the inherent absurdity of limiting scientific speculation to natural explanations of the origin of nature, when it’s a logical impossibility.

    a debate between young earth creationists, old earth creationists and intelligent design creationists on the topic of the exact methods the designer/god employed to design and construct the life on Earth.

    Sounds like fun, but there’s very little data to postulate any divine methologies. I didn’t know there was a pressing need for such a theological discussion in science, but I’m sure the Catholic Church will be glad to hear it.

    I might also note the latter are called ‘intelligent design’ advocates as I’ve explained here once before, because intelligent design does not discriminate creation or evolution to be intrinsic assumptions.

    Regardless – Ken is the one that bailed on this debate, go troll his comment threads – oh, that’s right. He doesn’t allow comments at NonsenseInGenesis.

    I didn’t read about it there, I read about it here. PZ should be pleased to note that I frequent his blog more frequently than Ham’s.

    @ theignored

    I probably will, as soon as I psych myself to lose several of my very precious hours for a debate. He sounds like a guy who’d be worth it though.

    Everyone who debates is a debater. Dawkins debates, he just chooses to debate archbishops but not Craig, except through indirect sniping. I mean, this is fine, I don’t hold Dawkin’s lack of debating skills against him, but you guys should hold an honest standard instead of pouncing on the one time when you can make an accuse other people of the crime you’re infamous for.

    This is what I’m asking, is this the criteria and does it apply to everyone?

  42. 42
    supermudz

    @ Owlmirror

    I haven’t heard that Craig has retracted that defense of killing men, women, and children in mass butchery — have you?

    No, I haven’t, and I don’t care. Does anyone actually care that Craig defends God doing what He pretty much always does? If I don’t retract a belief in the flood, will you refuse to debate me?

    Fact is, Dawkins just seized a ludicrous reason not to debate. I can bring myself to debate with abortioners, feminists, nietzsche defenders, communists and atheists of every stripe, Dawkins should be quite able to debate a man who believes that God sometimes kills a lot of people for a good reason.

  43. 43
    chigau (違う)

    What is so fucking awesome about a “debate”?
    I’d be happy to moderate a “debate”, if they let me have a taser.

  44. 44
    Hank_Says

    There wouldn’t be a double-standard being practised here, would there?

    Yes. AronRa is happy to debate anyone about evolution, from a semi-educated Christian rapper to an evangelist like Ray Comfort – or indeed Ken Ham. AronRa doesn’t care what your credentials are; he cares what your arguments are and if they suck, he will destroy you.

    On the other hand, Ken Ham knows AronRa would Hulk out and crush his evolution-denying arguments and the arguments of any creationist stooge he sent in his place. Ken has now bailed, citing Aron’s lack of proper credentials (but I think we all now that’s bullshit). Hell, like I said: Ham doesn’t even allow comments at his website – as if he’d be happy debating Aron in a live format! Aron might not have a doctorate but he has a wealth of experience shutting down creationist nonsense and a very respectable self-education on many relevant fields. And absolutely no tolerance for fundie bullshit.

    It’s not about credentials at all, it’s about your ammo and how you use it. Ham knows Aron comes loaded for bear with a big scope; Ham has nothing but a straw and a wet napkin.

  45. 45
    Owlmirror

    And the people who understand evolution are the ones that believe it’s true, presumably.

    The people who understand heloicentrism are that ones that believe that that’s true.

    It’s a tedious line, man. ‘Only the ones who agree with me are right.’

    Are you one of those silly people who thinks that in any disagreement of matters of fact that the truth must lie exactly in between?

    “Tedious”, forsooth.

    I’m from NZ. I’m pretty cool with the U.S fundies. At least they recognise the inherent absurdity of limiting scientific speculation to natural explanations of the origin of nature, when it’s a logical impossibility.

    I don’t think you know what “logical impossibility” means. Or maybe you were unclear on expressing your point; you could just be very confused.

    Sounds like fun, but there’s very little data to postulate any divine methologies.

    Have you heard of the null hypothesis?

    I mean, this is fine, I don’t hold Dawkin’s lack of debating skills against him, but you guys should hold an honest standard instead of pouncing on the one time when you can make an accuse other people of the crime you’re infamous for.

    The honest standard is that people should debate or not debate whenever they want, for whatever reason they want.

    When the reason given is silly, we can mock that silliness.

  46. 46
    supermudz

    @ Hankstar

    That’s cool. I actually don’t care about Ham. I’m asking about the standards of debate being advocated here.

    What are they, and do they apply to everyone?

    @ Owlmirror

    The people who understand heloicentrism are that ones that believe that that’s true.

    Incorrect. Heliocentrism was understood long before it was proven, and in fact the evidence suggested that it was false. it took a while before Galileo resurrected the hypothesis.

    Are you one of those silly people who thinks that in any disagreement of matters of fact that the truth must lie exactly in between?

    “Tedious”, forsooth.

    No, I’m one of the people that a debate must take place before a winner is declared.

    I don’t think you know what “logical impossibility” means. Or maybe you were unclear on expressing your point; you could just be very confused.

    Explain your confusion.

    Have you heard of the null hypothesis?

    Yes. Why do you ask?

    The honest standard is that people should debate or not debate whenever they want, for whatever reason they want.

    When the reason given is silly, we can mock that silliness.

    I’m glad you have no objection.

  47. 47
    Owlmirror

    No, I haven’t, and I don’t care.

    *shrug* You’re not Dawkins.

    Does anyone actually care that Craig defends God doing what He pretty much always does?

    Dawkins does.

    If I don’t retract a belief in the flood, will you refuse to debate me?

    Oh, I’m not Dawkins. I might or might not debate you and your delugions, depending on how I feel.

    Fact is, Dawkins just seized a ludicrous reason not to debate.

    I disagree that it’s ludicrous.

    I can bring myself to debate with abortioners, feminists, nietzsche defenders, communists and atheists of every stripe

    Well, sure, but you’re debating your moral superiors, while Dawkins refuses to debate his moral inferior.

    Dawkins should be quite able to debate a man who believes that God sometimes kills a lot of people for a good reason.

    There are no good reasons for a putative invisible person with putative supernatural superpowers (which putatively include omniscience and omnipotence) to kill anyone at all.

  48. 48
    Hank_Says

    And the people who understand evolution are the ones that believe it’s true, presumably. It’s a tedious line, man. ‘Only the ones who agree with me are right.’

    People who accept evolution do so because they understand it. The ridiculous implausibility of creationism and the complete failure of “God did it” as an explanation for anything also helps a bit.

    Tell you what’s tedious: having to constantly have this conversation. 150+ years of evidence for an ancient planet and evolution from a dozen different fields of inquiry, with more added every day, influencing everything from medicine to mining and creationists have, what exactly – denial and ignorance because they want to feel like God’s special snowflakes? Telling people with blinkers on to read a book that doesn’t contain any “thou shalts” once in while, or one that’s not written by a Discovery Institute stooge, or one that’s not written by a mathematician thinking a dodgy algorithm can “disprove Darwin”. That is fucking tedious.

  49. 49
    supermudz

    I’m not Dawkins either. Just like you are not Ham.

    Well, sure, but you’re debating your moral superiors, while Dawkins refuses to debate his moral inferior.

    Interesting assertion. Can I refuse to debate atheists on the grounds that they have no credible foundation for an objective system of morality?

    There are no good reasons for a putative invisible person with putative supernatural superpowers (which putatively include omniscience and omnipotence) to kill anyone at all.

    Prove it.

  50. 50
    supermudz

    Alternatively:

    People who accept evolution do so because they don’t understand it. The ridiculous implausibility of evolution accounting for the complexity of life, and the complete failure of “evolution did it” just-so stories as an explanation for anything also makes evolution a poor theory.

    There you go, two opposite assertions. The only way to resovle our opposing viewpoints is through debate.

    Tell you what’s tedious: having to constantly have this conversation.

    Tell me about it. I literally have to repeat myself sometimes, because people will delete my responses.

    150+ years of evidence for an ancient planet and evolution from a dozen different fields of inquiry

    Which is?

    Telling people with blinkers on to read a book that doesn’t contain any “thou shalts” once in while, or one that’s not written by a Discovery Institute stooge, or one that’s not written by a mathematician thinking a dodgy algorithm can “disprove Darwin”. That is fucking tedious.

    It should reassure you there is no need to do so here.

  51. 51
    Dhorvath, OM

    To be honest, it’s hard for me to imagine how evolution could not occur. That doesn’t make it true, but damn, it’s an easy thing to accept.
    ___

    How would anyone prove that no good reasons exist for anything? It’s up to those who think that good reasons do exist to exhibit them.
    ___

    As for objective morality, I don’t believe it exists. At least, not the way I suspect you use the terms.

  52. 52
    supermudz

    @ Dhrovath

    Well if there were no organisms, it wouldn’t. Also, if life was created and didn’t evolve. :P

    That’s the bitch of it. It’s like God, you can’t actually prove He doesn’t exist, which makes the debate a little unfair for atheists because it means they believe in something that actually can’t be proven true.

    I don’t say that to offend you guys, but that’s the way it is.

  53. 53
    Dhorvath, OM

    Nay, the point is, unless last Tuesdayism is true, I cannot abandon evolution as the natural progression of imperfect replication. Unless someone can prove that an invisible hand is correcting errors…

  54. 54
    Menyambal

    supermudz, you are trolling us to give you our standards for debate, when we’ve said several times that our standard is that debates are silly. You are asking us for our preferences in something we don’t like—”Which kind of feces do you prefer to rub into your skin, and where do you most like to rub it?”

    You are trolling.

    The gist of the article is that Ken Ham is indulging in “Credentialism” and a desire to make his debate seem lofty and scientific—both common traits of Creationists. You don’t seem to get that, or perhaps you do—you are asking questions that are a little skewed, and drifting this thread over into an accusation that we have no standards about debates, no pre-set conditions, and are therefore hypocrites.

    You are trolling.

  55. 55
    supermudz

    Did you want some arguments for God? (Anyone aware of Craig should know they exist) I made a recent post to someone about it that I’d be happy to share.

    Disease is a typical result of imperfect replication. Evolution infers improvement, not cancer and death, that’s a negative result of mutation. We’re looking for sustainable positive mutations that are selected for to create radical new body plans and biological adaptions to alien environments.

    Also, life itself, although many will consider abiogenesis a vaguely different subject.

  56. 56
    Hank_Says

    No, I’m one of the people that a debate must take place before a winner is declared.

    In this case, a debate is an entirely inappropriate method to decide upon truth (or the closest approximation to it).

    You wouldn’t want two debaters deciding whether you were guilty in a courtroom, would you? What if you were innocent but the prosecution had a much better speaker? You might’ve been a thousand miles from the crime scene but in jail for your life because some slick prosecutor snowed the jury with fancy words and engaging patter. As in a court, so too with science: look at the evidence and see what it tells you.

    The result of any debate about evolution would have no bearing whatsoever on whether evolution was true – the data would speak for itself if you had a million Dawkinses being defeated in debates by a million Hams, Craigs or whatever other shysters you could conjure up. The fact of evolution, like any scientific fact, is beyond anyone’s mere opinion or their ability to win over an audience (which, if you’ve ever been to debate, is what you do). Anyone honestly interested in evolution has the ability to find out for themselves what the current data is. As I said, evolution has 150+ years of human investigation backing it up – a simple debate with a well-practised used-god salesman like Craig isn’t going to overturn that, no matter how badly his opponent may lose the debate.

  57. 57
    supermudz

    I should say thet evolution infers positive adaptation to an environment, if you want it a little more precise.

  58. 58
    Dhorvath, OM

    No, evolution means change. You have inferred improvement due to lack of understanding.

  59. 59
    Owlmirror

    Incorrect. Heliocentrism was understood long before it was proven, and in fact the evidence suggested that it was false. it took a while before Galileo resurrected the hypothesis.

    Wrong. Heliocentrism could not possibly have been understood, because those who rejected it did not have the empirical observations, physical theory, or mathematical grounding to understand the theory in full, and what it entailed in full.

    No, I’m one of the people that a debate must take place before a winner is declared.

    The debate in the scientific literature took place long ago, and was pretty much settled. The fact that you are unfamiliar with the debate is your problem. Why don’t you familiarize yourself with it, instead of watching people argue on a stage?

    I don’t think you know what “logical impossibility” means. Or maybe you were unclear on expressing your point; you could just be very confused.

    Explain your confusion.

    Maybe you’re confused about what “nature” means.

  60. 60
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    Prove it.

    Negatives can’t be proved. Which makes the null hypothesis no deity. So you need to show the imaginary deity exists with positive and conclusive physical evidence. Typical godbot illogic at work.

  61. 61
    supermudz

    You wouldn’t want two debaters deciding whether you were guilty in a courtroom, would you?

    I believe we call them lawyers.

    If you have objections to the court systems, I’m not the person to tell.

    The result of any debate about evolution would have no bearing whatsoever on whether evolution was true

    Of course not. has nothing to do with it. The issue is whether we can believe it’s true. I believe it’s unsubstantiated by the evidence, and that this cultural movement to indoctrinate our children with it is harmful and inhibitive to free inquiry.

    Creation has thousands of years backing it up, you can’t win with appeal ‘well we’ve always believe it, so it must be true’.

  62. 62
    Dhorvath, OM

    As for the deity hypothesis, that’s been failed. Data points away from any mythological being on record, not towards.

  63. 63
    supermudz

    Negatives can’t be proved.

    1 – 1 = 0

  64. 64
    supermudz

    Actually that’s a null.

    How about 1 – 2 = -1

  65. 65
    consciousness razor

    That’s the bitch of it. It’s like God, you can’t actually prove He doesn’t exist, which makes the debate a little unfair for atheists because it means they believe in something that actually can’t be proven true.

    I don’t say that to offend you guys, but that’s the way it is.

    You shift the burden of proof. That’s the way it is.

  66. 66
    supermudz

    As for the deity hypothesis, that’s been failed. Data points away from any mythological being on record, not towards.

    We have a detailed record of His existence, we have strong philosophical and physics-based evidence in support of Him existing. That’s toward.

  67. 67
    supermudz

    You shift the burden of proof. That’s the way it is.

    If you claim there is no God, you have to prove it. Creationists were here before evolutionists, and we already had evidence to support it.

    But I’ve already said I’m happy to post a contribution for proof in favour of God. Do you want it?

  68. 68
    Dhorvath, OM

    No, you do not. You have a plethora of differing accounts of how cultures think that their deities have interacted with their pseudo-historic beginnings with not corroboration outside of the sources. As for the physics based evidence, nonsense. Physics has nothing to say in favour of deities.

  69. 69
    Dhorvath, OM

    Proof? It had best start with evidence, follow into predictions, and conclude with those predictions being conclusively upheld.

  70. 70
    consciousness razor

    Creation has thousands of years backing it up, you can’t win with appeal ‘well we’ve always believe it, so it must be true’.

    Of course not. We’ll wait thousands of years, then say “well, evolution has thousands of years backing it up.” Then we’ll contradict ourselves a few more times.

    In any case, your religious beliefs, whatever they are, haven’t been around for thousands of years. Do you assume people always had the same concept of god as you do?

  71. 71
    supermudz

    Physics has nothing to say in favour of deities.

    Deities? I said nothing about any polytheistic faiths. I’m talking about God. The big one.

    Proof? It had best start with evidence, follow into predictions, and conclude with those predictions being conclusively upheld.

    Is that a go ahead?

  72. 72
    supermudz

    Of course not. We’ll wait thousands of years, then say “well, evolution has thousands of years backing it up.” Then we’ll contradict ourselves a few more times.

    It doesn’t seem like you’re waiting for it. Already 150 years of the theory existing in force is apparently proof in of itself for you. The fact that creation has also existed for the last 150 years apparently has not occurred to you.

    In any case, your religious beliefs, whatever they are, haven’t been around for thousands of years. Do you assume people always had the same concept of god as you do?

    Christians have been around for about two thousand years, dude.

    No. Why?

  73. 73
    Owlmirror

    Can I refuse to debate atheists on the grounds that they have no credible foundation for an objective system of morality?

    You can refuse to debate anyone for any reason you want. Atheists, however, can point out that you have no credible foundation for an objective system of morality either, and neither do you actually have an objective system of morality.

    There are no good reasons for a putative invisible person with putative supernatural superpowers (which putatively include omniscience and omnipotence) to kill anyone at all.

    Prove it.

    Meh, maybe in a bit.

    That’s the bitch of it.

    Your misogyny is noted.

    It’s like God, you can’t actually prove He doesn’t exist, which makes the debate a little unfair for atheists because it means they believe in something that actually can’t be proven true.

    I guess you don’t understand the null hypothesis, despite having heard of it.

  74. 74
    supermudz

    Sorry, forgot the blockquote on paragraph 2.

  75. 75
    Dhorvath, OM

    supremudz,
    I make no distinction between your deity and that of any other faith, whether practiced now or extinct. I know that you think there is some reason to capitalize and personify a descriptive term, but I find that a flaw.

  76. 76
    consciousness razor

    If you claim there is no God, you have to prove it. Creationists were here before evolutionists, and we already had evidence to support it.

    But I’ve already said I’m happy to post a contribution for proof in favour of God. Do you want it?

    I claim every time we see intelligent beings in the world which are capable of thinking, feeling, awareness, memory, action, etc. — every time anyone has come across that kind of phenomenon in history, those beings have had brains.

    But you’re saying there’s an intelligent being without one who made the entire universe. What gives you that idea? A fairy tale you heard from your parents?

  77. 77
    supermudz

    You can refuse to debate anyone for any reason you want. Atheists, however, can point out that you have no credible foundation for an objective system of morality either, and neither do you actually have an objective system of morality.

    Sure I do. The bible. The bible’s an object.

    Your misogyny is noted.

    I’m insulted. I’m a chaunvinist, not a misogynist. I love vaginas.

    I guess you don’t understand the null hypothesis, despite having heard of it.

    Feel free to educate me.

  78. 78
    supermudz

    I make no distinction between your deity and that of any other faith, whether practiced now or extinct. I know that you think there is some reason to capitalize and personify a descriptive term, but I find that a flaw.

    That’s your prerogative. It doesn’t bother me to follow tradition in honouring the One God, Jehovah God.

    Kinda like people capitalise the ‘Church’. It’s a noun.

    I claim every time we see intelligent beings in the world which are capable of thinking, feeling, awareness, memory, action, etc. — every time anyone has come across that kind of phenomenon in history, those beings have had brains.

    So you limit your hypothesis only to what you’ve personally experienced.

    But you’re saying there’s an intelligent being without one who made the entire universe. What gives you that idea? A fairy tale you heard from your parents?

    A history book, actually. Some philosophy, too.

  79. 79
    consciousness razor

    Already 150 years of the theory existing in force is apparently proof in of itself for you.

    Nope, the number of years has nothing to do with it. It’s not about appealing to tradition, authority, popularity, etc., or whatever other projections you feel like conjuring up. You should ask what the evidence is, since you’re so evidently ignorant of it, not make up a strawman as you go along.

    And in fact, evolution is totally beside the point, when it comes to atheism. Your incredulity about how life began (or didn’t begin) or changed (or didn’t change) has fuck-all to do with whether or not there’s an intelligent creator of the entire universe.

  80. 80
    supermudz

    I claim every time we see intelligent beings in the world which are capable of thinking, feeling, awareness, memory, action, etc. — every time anyone has come across that kind of phenomenon in history, those beings have had brains.

    My bad, I misread this.

    Incorrect. God has a mind, but as far as I know he doesn’t require a corporeal brain or organic tissue to hold it in. God is recorded in Old Testament history.

  81. 81
    Dhorvath, OM

    I suspect you will find that loving vaginas is not incompatible with being a misogynist. Starting with equating a gender with a sexual organ.

  82. 82
    Owlmirror

    I believe it’s unsubstantiated by the evidence,

    Your beliefs are false. You have not examined the evidence.

    Creation has thousands of years backing it up,

    What on earth do you mean by “thousands of years backing it up”, other than the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum?

    We have a detailed record of His existence,

    Which has been falsified in enough ways to render that record moot.

    we have strong philosophical and physics-based evidence in support of Him existing.

    Logical fallacies are not evidence.

  83. 83
    supermudz

    Sounds like a difficult proposition. I would be horrified if I thought I saw massive unattached vaginas floating around on the streets.

  84. 84
    consciousness razor
    I claim every time we see intelligent beings in the world which are capable of thinking, feeling, awareness, memory, action, etc. — every time anyone has come across that kind of phenomenon in history, those beings have had brains.

    So you limit your hypothesis only to what you’ve personally experienced.

    Nope. That’s why I very explicitly mentioned fucking everyone in all of fucking history, for fuck’s sake.

  85. 85
    Dhorvath, OM

    There may be some history hidden in the Old Testament, but it’s occluded by the things that are incorrect.

  86. 86
    supermudz

    Sounds like a difficult proposition. I would be horrified if I thought I saw massive unattached vaginas floating around on the streets.

    Nope, the number of years has nothing to do with it. It’s not about appealing to tradition, authority, popularity, etc., or whatever other projections you feel like conjuring up. You should ask what the evidence is, since you’re so evidently ignorant of it, not make up a strawman as you go along.

    Then why did you bring it up? Just give me your evidence for evolution and we can go from there.

    And in fact, evolution is totally beside the point, when it comes to atheism. Your incredulity about how life began (or didn’t begin) or changed (or didn’t change) has fuck-all to do with whether or not there’s an intelligent creator of the entire universe.

    You can pick any subject you like.

  87. 87
    Dhorvath, OM

    If you would be horrified, then why would you claim that loving an organ means you love a gender? They are different.

  88. 88
    supermudz

    Why do you assume that?

    What on earth do you mean by “thousands of years backing it up”, other than the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum?

    Theological philosophy existed before even Jesus Christ. Aristotle for example, wasn’t a Christian but yet still believed in an Ultimate Deity.

    Nope. That’s why I very explicitly mentioned fucking everyone in all of fucking history, for fuck’s sake.

    Read on. I misread you. I apologise.

    There may be some history hidden in the Old Testament, but it’s occluded by the things that are incorrect.

    Which is which, and how do you discriminate? People used to believe the Hittites didn’t exist either.

  89. 89
    anteprepro

    I must note a sad though I’ve had to myself. As stupid as supermudz is, supermudz actually appears to among the most forthright and coherent of creationist trolls. Blows the txpip out of the water. That should just show what a depressingly low bar is involved here.

    I call them Paklids, after the alien race in ST:TNG who are too stupid to develop their own technology so they steal it from others, but are too stupid to know how to use it properly.

    That one is good, but I also think Goa’Uld works. The major enemy race in Stargate SG:1, they are an alien race that also steals technology from other alien races, and still aren’t that technologically advanced to show for it. They are also parasitic, resembling snakes, using other races (mostly humans) as hosts and using a slave race of humans as Red Shirts and incubators for their young (a symbiotic relationship for the incubator and the spawn). They position themselves as gods, are incredibly proud and militaristic, craving control and doing so largely through religion. The average creationists, authoritarian followers, fit the bill for Paklids. The likes of Ham, the charlatans, the Double High Authoritarian Social Dominators, are more like Goa’Uld.

  90. 90
    supermudz

    If you would be horrified, then why would you claim that loving an organ means you love a gender? They are different.

    Because loving vaginas isn’t mutually exclusive with loving women. If it’s important to you.

  91. 91
    Tethys
    an objective system of morality.

    Sure I do. The bible. The bible’s an object..

    Its an all words are interchangeable version of morality.

  92. 92
    Dhorvath, OM

    Okay, let’s start with why.

  93. 93
    supermudz

    @ anteprepro

    I’m oddly flattered. Possibly because I habitually ignore internet insults, and so I’m left with nothing but good vibes.

  94. 94
    supermudz

    Its an all words are interchangeable version of morality. </blockquote?

    Sorry, I couldn't understand that. I think you typoed the beginning.

    Okay, let’s start with why.

    Why what?

  95. 95
    Dhorvath, OM

    Sure, it’s not mutually exclusive, what is hard to escape is that you thought it important to respond to being told you hate the one by saying you love the other. You implied equivalence where it is unwarranted.

  96. 96
    consciousness razor

    Incorrect.

    You’re not correcting me. I’m aware that gods aren’t meant to have brains. That is the point. The concept of a god doesn’t fit the concept of an intelligent being.

    God has a mind, but as far as I know he doesn’t require a corporeal brain or organic tissue to hold it in.

    WTF? A brain doesn’t “hold it in,” as if it could otherwise escape. Does this mean anything in particular to you? Do you have any idea what you’re talking about?

    But anyway… you assert that a brain isn’t required for a god. At least we’re getting somewhere. Why do you think it isn’t required? Because… magic?

    God is recorded in Old Testament history.

    An obvious bunch of myths. I meant that there’s no evidence, not that no one believes the nonsense and writes down their thoughts about it. (Obviously not: I’m writing to you, after all.)

  97. 97
    supermudz

    Sheesh. Please forgive my HTML. I’m a rush-typist.

  98. 98
    Owlmirror
    Atheists, however, can point out that you have no credible foundation for an objective system of morality either, and neither do you actually have an objective system of morality.

    Sure I do. The bible. The bible’s an object.

    Ha!

    You don’t know what “objective” means either.

    And the bible cannot possibly be a credible foundation for an objective system of morality, since it contradicts itself on what is moral.

    I’m insulted. I’m a chaunvinist, not a misogynist. I love vaginas.

    Your doubling down on your misogyny is noted.

    I guess you don’t understand the null hypothesis, despite having heard of it.

    Feel free to educate me.

    The non-existence of an entity that has no effect on anything — whether God or anything else — does not need to be proven. That is exactly the null hypothesis.

    It doesn’t bother me to follow tradition in honouring the One God, Jehovah God.

    Are you a Jehovah’s Witness?

    God has a mind, but as far as I know he doesn’t require a corporeal brain or organic tissue to hold it in.

    This is a hypothesis for which there is no evidence, and can therefore be rejected.

    God is recorded in Old Testament history.

    No, he isn’t. He is fabricated in the Old Testament, which is mostly not a history, but a collection of myth and religious propaganda.

  99. 99
    anteprepro

    I’m talking about God. The big one….
    Creationists were here before evolutionists, and we already had evidence to support it….
    Christians have been around for about two thousand years, dude….
    God is recorded in Old Testament history.

    Calling it: supermudz is Stephen Colbert.

    I’m insulted. I’m a chaunvinist, not a misogynist. I love vaginas.

    Or Daniel Tosh.

  100. 100
    supermudz

    You’re not correcting me. I’m aware that gods aren’t meant to have brains. That is the point. The concept of a god doesn’t fit the concept of an intelligent being.

    Incorrect. Brains is a indication of the biological capacity for intelligence, but it does not in itself denote intelligence, nor is it considered a requirement. Otherwise, AI is doomed to fail.

    A dead person has a brain but is not intelligent. A human vegetable has a brain but is not intelligent.

    God, whatever his physical, or non-physical qualities, obviously possesses intelligence. Philosophers find this a fascinating area of discussion.

    But anyway… you assert that a brain isn’t required for a god. At least we’re getting somewhere. Why do you think it isn’t required? Because… magic?

    Because there’s no need for such an inhibitive assumption. Why do you believe it is required?

    An obvious bunch of myths. I meant that there’s no evidence, not that no one believes the nonsense and writes down their thoughts about it. (Obviously not: I’m writing to you, after all.)

    Obvious bunch of myths in which way? can I make this my argument about evolution? Spontaneous generation is disproven, after all.

  101. 101
    Dhorvath, OM

    Abiogenesis is not evolution.

  102. 102
    Amphiox

    Sure I do. The bible. The bible’s an object.

    So is every book and treatise ever written on the subject of morality, including the atheistic ones.

    By that definition, everyone has an objective morality.

  103. 103
    supermudz

    @ anteprepro

    I always go by ‘Mudz’ or ‘SuperMudz’ on the internet, but my real name is Maru. I understand that people have a habit of switch ids on the net, so I won’t hold it against you.

    Ha!

    You don’t know what “objective” means either.

    And the bible cannot possibly be a credible foundation for an objective system of morality, since it contradicts itself on what is moral.

    Point out my mistake, and the moral contradictions too if you like.

    The non-existence of an entity that has no effect on anything — whether God or anything else — does not need to be proven. That is exactly the null hypothesis.

    So you’re basically saying you just don’t want to argue about it. The non-existence of aliens in the Andromeda galaxy would have no immediate effect either.

    Are you a Jehovah’s Witness?

    Technically, no. But you can proceed on that assumption if you like. I probably share some views in common.

    This is a hypothesis for which there is no evidence, and can therefore be rejected.

    Incorrect. The bible is evidence. Eyewitness testimony is evidence.

    No, he isn’t. He is fabricated in the Old Testament, which is mostly not a history, but a collection of myth and religious propaganda.

    Your proof?

  104. 104
    Amphiox

    Creationists were here before evolutionists, and we already had evidence to support it….

    Said “evidence” has long ago been overthrown and superceded.

  105. 105
    supermudz

    Abiogenesis is not evolution.

    My mistake. Apply it to abiogenesis then.

    So is every book and treatise ever written on the subject of morality, including the atheistic ones.

    By that definition, everyone has an objective morality.

    No, only if people draw their morality from said object as a source. Like the law, for instance. That’s a guideline for some people for morality.

    Perhaps it would be better to argue about ‘absolute’ morality, though.

  106. 106
    Amphiox

    The non-existence of aliens in the Andromeda galaxy would have no immediate effect either.

    And the null hypothesis is that aliens in the Andromeda galaxy do not exist. Said null hypothesis stands until evidence for the existence of such aliens presents itself.

  107. 107
    Dhorvath, OM

    The bible is not reliable evidence. It contradicts itself, it comes from a variety of indeterminate and often disparate sources, it’s often incoherent, and it sits alone. Where is the corroboration?

  108. 108
    Amphiox

    No, only if people draw their morality from said object as a source.

    Some atheists DO draw their morality from such sources.

    Some do not.

    But some do.

  109. 109
    supermudz

    Said “evidence” has long ago been overthrown and superceded.

    Citations, please.

    And the null hypothesis is that aliens in the Andromeda galaxy do not exist. Said null hypothesis stands until evidence for the existence of such aliens presents itself.

    Which is why they have SETI. I wish them the best of luck.

    I’m fortunate in that I already have my evidence for God.

  110. 110
    consciousness razor

    Nope, the number of years has nothing to do with it. It’s not about appealing to tradition, authority, popularity, etc., or whatever other projections you feel like conjuring up. You should ask what the evidence is, since you’re so evidently ignorant of it, not make up a strawman as you go along.

    Then why did you bring it up? Just give me your evidence for evolution and we can go from there.

    I didn’t bring it up. I’m responding to you. Educate yourself about evolution. I’m not doing it for you.

    The point is, no matter what the subject is, we can do just fine without gods. It’s up to you to give evidence for a god, since you’re claiming one exists. But you haven’t done that. You’ve tried to shift it away to atheists, and shift it away from your beliefs and onto science. That doesn’t accomplish anything at all.

  111. 111
    Amphiox

    The bible is evidence. Eyewitness testimony is evidence.

    Incorrect. The bible is neither evidence nor eyewitness testimony.

  112. 112
    Owlmirror

    Theological philosophy existed before even Jesus Christ.

    Logical fallacies existed, yes, but logical fallacies are not evidence that what is philosiphised is true.

    Aristotle for example, wasn’t a Christian but yet still believed in an Ultimate Deity.

    As best I can tell, Aristotle was a pantheist.

    Do you believe that everything that exists is God?

    There may be some history hidden in the Old Testament, but it’s occluded by the things that are incorrect.

    Which is which, and how do you discriminate? People used to believe the Hittites didn’t exist either.

    You compare what’s found in archaeology, geology, cosmology, and biology with the claims made in the bible, and reject the bible when it obviously gets it wrong.

  113. 113
    supermudz

    The bible is not reliable evidence. It contradicts itself, it comes from a variety of indeterminate and often disparate sources, it’s often incoherent, and it sits alone. Where is the corroboration?

    Show me the contradictions and incoherencies, make your argument as to how these are a problem, and disproves the record of God.

    Some atheists DO draw their morality from such sources.

    Some do not.

    But some do.

    Indeed. Should I only argue with those ones?

  114. 114
    Amphiox

    Which is why they have SETI. I wish them the best of luck.

    Sorry, but SETI is not looking for aliens in the Andromeda galaxy, nor, at present, even has the technological capacity to try.

    SETI, at present, is capable only of looking for aliens within the Milky Way.

    I’m fortunate in that I already have my evidence for God.

    Incorrect. You do not have any evidence for your God.

  115. 115
    Amphiox

    Citations, please.

    The entire history of modern science is citation enough.

  116. 116
    supermudz

    Incorrect. The bible is neither evidence nor eyewitness testimony.

    The bible is evidence. It records eyewitness testimoney. Eyewitness testimoney is evidence, and occurs contemporarily.

    I didn’t bring it up. I’m responding to you. Educate yourself about evolution. I’m not doing it for you.

    The point is, no matter what the subject is, we can do just fine without gods. It’s up to you to give evidence for a god, since you’re claiming one exists. But you haven’t done that. You’ve tried to shift it away to atheists, and shift it away from your beliefs and onto science. That doesn’t accomplish anything at all.

    I never asked you if you needed a god.

    You did indeed bring up that evolution has been around for 150+ years as a theory and that that means something.

    You said you had evidence for evolution, I asked you to give it. Otherwise, null hypothesis innit it? :)

    I asked if people wanted me to give evidence, but so far no-one has been so bold as to outright invite me.

    As best I can tell, Aristotle was a pantheist.

    Do you believe that everything that exists is God?

    He was a deist. He believed in the Ultimate, not the Omni.

  117. 117
    Amphiox

    Perhaps it would be better to argue about ‘absolute’ morality, though.

    Incorrect. It would not be better to argue about “absolute” morality. Arguments about morality degenerate into nonsensicality once the term “absolute” is introduced.

  118. 118
    consciousness razor

    Brains is a indication of the biological capacity for intelligence, but it does not in itself denote intelligence, nor is it considered a requirement. Otherwise, AI is doomed to fail.

    Brains are a physical substrate. AI isn’t doomed to fail because it doesn’t require magic.

    Your god would require magic, which doesn’t exist.

  119. 119
    anteprepro

    God, whatever his physical, or non-physical qualities, obviously possesses intelligence. Philosophers find this a fascinating area of discussion.

    You claim facts without citations, clearly speaking out of your ass. Philosophers find this a fascinating area of discussion.

    A dead person has a brain but is not intelligent. A human vegetable has a brain but is not intelligent.

    Talking about how non-functioning brains don’t result in cognition in the same way that functioning brains do as if that were refutation of the idea that brains are the source of cognition. Philosophers find this a fascinating area of discussion.

    Because loving vaginas isn’t mutually exclusive with loving women. If it’s important to you.

    And yet you argued against being a misogynist in a way that suggested loving vaginas was sufficient to prove that you love women. Philosophers find this a fascinating area of discussion.

    The bible is evidence. Eyewitness testimony is evidence.

    Some creationists claim the bible is eyewitness testimony when it is really second or third hand accounts at best. Philosophers find this a fascinating area of discussion.

  120. 120
    Dhorvath, OM

    Supermudz, Should I start with Genesis? Two differing accounts, Eve and Adam crafted together, no wait, Eve was made from Adam; Noah took pairs of animals, no wait, he took seven; where to stop? It’s a mish mash of adopted stories from cultures that preceded the early Canaanite society.

  121. 121
    Amphiox

    The bible is evidence. It records eyewitness testimoney.

    Incorrect. It does not record eyewitness testimony. It only claims to. But without independent corroboration what it records is not evidence.

  122. 122
    supermudz

    The entire history of modern science is citation enough.

    Really? Engineering is evolution? Astronomy is evolution?

    How about, ‘the entire history of the world’ is citation enough for creation. I can use the same arguments you can.

    Incorrect. You do not have any evidence for your God.

    I’ll remind you again. The bible. It’s legal evidence.

  123. 123
    Amphiox

    Brains is a indication of the biological capacity for intelligence, but it does not in itself denote intelligence, nor is it considered a requirement. Otherwise, AI is doomed to fail.

    If AI succeeds, whatever its hardware substrate ends up being, it will be functionally equivalent to a brain. 50:50 odds that we will, in fact, call it a brain, or some subset of brain.

  124. 124
    supermudz

    Supermudz, Should I start with Genesis? Two differing accounts, Eve and Adam crafted together, no wait, Eve was made from Adam; Noah took pairs of animals, no wait, he took seven; where to stop? It’s a mish mash of adopted stories from cultures that preceded the early Canaanite society.

    I can clear up your confusion.

    Eve was made from Adam.

    Noah took sevens and pairs, depending if clean or unclean.

    How would that disprove God anyway, if there were two accounts about him that disagreed on details?

  125. 125
    consciousness razor
    The bible is not reliable evidence. It contradicts itself, it comes from a variety of indeterminate and often disparate sources, it’s often incoherent, and it sits alone. Where is the corroboration?

    Show me the contradictions and incoherencies, make your argument as to how these are a problem, and disproves the record of God.

    Here’s a good start.

    http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

    Note the categories like “Absurdity” “Injustice” and “Contradictions” on the right side.

  126. 126
    supermudz

    If AI succeeds, whatever its hardware substrate ends up being, it will be functionally equivalent to a brain. 50:50 odds that we will, in fact, call it a brain, or some subset of brain.

    Then call God’s functional equivalent of thinking mechanics a brain if you like. Makes no nevermind to me.

  127. 127
    supermudz

    @ consciousness razor

    So you don’t know any?

  128. 128
    Amphiox

    Really? Engineering is evolution? Astronomy is evolution?

    Who said I was talking about only evolution? I was talking about the supercedence and overthrowing of the supposed “evidence” for creationism. There is plenty within engineering and astronomy that suffices for that.

  129. 129
    Dhorvath, OM

    The bible is not legal evidence. Nor would anything spoken, written, copied, recopied, translated, and through that producing a range of current editions that often contradict each other, as well as internally suffering coherent flaws

  130. 130
    Amphiox

    Then call God’s functional equivalent of thinking mechanics a brain if you like.

    An entity requiring a functional equivalent of a thinking mechanic is definitionally not a god, but a product of nature.

  131. 131
    Dhorvath, OM

    supermudz,
    I wasn’t aiming to discredit the notion of deities, or even one specific one, but the idea that your source is reliable evidence. Your’s is not the only interpretation of the bible.

  132. 132
    supermudz

    You claim facts without citations, clearly speaking out of your ass. Philosophers find this a fascinating area of discussion.

    Talking about how non-functioning brains don’t result in cognition in the same way that functioning brains do as if that were refutation of the idea that brains are the source of cognition. Philosophers find this a fascinating area of discussion.

    And yet you argued against being a misogynist in a way that suggested loving vaginas was sufficient to prove that you love women. Philosophers find this a fascinating area of discussion.

    Some creationists claim the bible is eyewitness testimony when it is really second or third hand accounts at best. Philosophers find this a fascinating area of discussion.

    All are incorrect I’m afraid. I don’t know any philosophers, so it’s highly unlikely I’m the centre of discussion. Moreover your assertions serve no purpose, and are unsupported by the evidence.

  133. 133
    supermudz

    I wasn’t aiming to discredit the notion of deities, or even one specific one, but the idea that your source is reliable evidence. Your’s is not the only interpretation of the bible.

    Never said it was. Is this important to you? I’m not the only Christian you’re allowed to talk to.

  134. 134
    supermudz

    An entity requiring a functional equivalent of a thinking mechanic is definitionally not a god, but a product of nature.

    Why?

  135. 135
    consciousness razor

    @ consciousness razor

    So you don’t know any?

    I just linked to thousands of them, and you conclude that I don’t know any? How about you step away from godbotting this blog for a few minutes to read your silly Bible first before you tell us what it’s like.

  136. 136
    Dhorvath, OM

    Yes, you have said it was. You even said it was suitable as legal evidence. Make up your mind.

  137. 137
    anteprepro

    How would that disprove God anyway, if there were two accounts about him that disagreed on details?

    The Bible is eyewitness testimony that proves God exists in the court of law (existence claims division). But showing the Bible is unreliable totally has no effect on the evidence for God’s existence. Philosophers find this a fascinating area of discussion.

  138. 138
    supermudz

    Who said I was talking about only evolution? I was talking about the supercedence and overthrowing of the supposed “evidence” for creationism. There is plenty within engineering and astronomy that suffices for that.

    I was, and you were responding to me. There is plenty within the latter that does not support evolution, which is why you’ll find so many astronomers and engineers that don’t believe in evolution.

    The bible is not legal evidence. Nor would anything spoken, written, copied, recopied, translated, and through that producing a range of current editions that often contradict each other, as well as internally suffering coherent flaws

    It is. If this were a court case, a bible is what I’d bring.

  139. 139
    consciousness razor

    Then call God’s functional equivalent of thinking mechanics a brain if you like. Makes no nevermind to me.

    Gods have no “functional equivalent of thinking mechanics.” That’s the fucking point.

    “I don’t know or care, maybe it’s magic!” isn’t a fucking mechanism.

    Just like “I believe whatever the Bible says” isn’t fucking evidence.

  140. 140
    supermudz

    The Bible is eyewitness testimony that proves God exists in the court of law (existence claims division). But showing the Bible is unreliable totally has no effect on the evidence for God’s existence. Philosophers find this a fascinating area of discussion.

    I’m glad you agree. You have a strong grasp of logic.

  141. 141
    anteprepro

    Moreover your assertions serve no purpose, and are unsupported by the evidence.

    A creationist says the above without a hint of self-awareness. Philosophers find this a fascinating area of discussion.

  142. 142
    supermudz

    <blockquote. Gods have no “functional equivalent of thinking mechanics.” That’s the fucking point.

    “I don’t know or care, maybe it’s magic!” isn’t a fucking mechanism.

    Just like “I believe whatever the Bible says” isn’t fucking evidence.

    Really? How do you know they don’t?

    You don’t have to make up answers just for me you know, I can give my own.

  143. 143
    supermudz

    Philosophers find this a fascinating area of discussion.

    Were you aware you’re leaving this at the end of all your statements? You might want to look into it.

  144. 144
    Amphiox

    The only evidence the bible provides is evidence that belief in a particular God exists in the brains of certain human beings. Nothing more and nothing less.

  145. 145
    supermudz

    I just linked to thousands of them, and you conclude that I don’t know any? How about you step away from godbotting this blog for a few minutes to read your silly Bible first before you tell us what it’s like.

    I can link to sites too.

    http://www.haloes.com
    http://www.uncommondescent.com
    http://www.discovery.org

    But that doesn’t prove I know what’s on them. I asked you for your evidence, not if you know other people you think do.

  146. 146
    anteprepro

    It is. If this were a court case, a bible is what I’d bring.

    One can attempt to refute a counter argument by simply reasserting one’s original assertion and completely ignoring the counter argument. Philosophers find this a fascinating area of discussion.

    I’m glad you agree. You have a strong grasp of logic.

    This troll may very well be aware that it trolls. A certain profession may find that to be an interesting region for discourse.

  147. 147
    supermudz

    The only evidence the bible provides is evidence that belief in a particular God exists in the brains of certain human beings. Nothing more and nothing less.

    How do you figure?

  148. 148
    Owlmirror
    You don’t know what “objective” means either.
    And the bible cannot possibly be a credible foundation for an objective system of morality, since it contradicts itself on what is moral.

    Point out my mistake, and the moral contradictions too if you like.

    *eyeroll* Any idiot should be able to realize that “objective” cannot possibly mean “is written in an object”, because then any idiot could get a blank book, write down whatever moral rules come to mind, self-serving or no, and then claim to have “an objective system of morality”.

    Meanwhile, there’s this thing call a dictionary, which maybe even an idiot can learn to use. The OED has the definition of “objective” which is usually meant:

    That is or belongs to what is presented to consciousness, as opposed to the consciousness itself; that is the object of perception or thought, as distinct from the subject; (hence) (more widely) external to or independent of the mind.

    So you’re basically saying you just don’t want to argue about it.

    No more than you want to argue about things that you don’t have evidence for that you don’t believe in.

    Are you a Jehovah’s Witness?

    Technically, no. But you can proceed on that assumption if you like. I probably share some views in common.

    Do you “share” the view that it’s correct to write “Jehovah” even though a better transliteration into English of the Hebrew letters is YHWH, or Yaweh, if you’re going to include vowels?

    This is a hypothesis for which there is no evidence, and can therefore be rejected.

    Incorrect. The bible is evidence. Eyewitness testimony is evidence.

    Nonsense. You reject the books and eyewitness testimony of every other religion, because they are not evidence.

    No, he isn’t. He is fabricated in the Old Testament, which is mostly not a history, but a collection of myth and religious propaganda.

    Your proof?

    When the bible is investigated, it contradicts itself, and reality.

  149. 149
    Dhorvath, OM

    supermudz,
    Do you know how eyewitness testimony is diminished in a court case? Can you recognize the field day a trial lawyer would have with your holy book in an actual trial? Heresay doesn’t mean anything to you?

  150. 150
    supermudz

    One can attempt to refute a counter argument by simply reasserting one’s original assertion and completely ignoring the counter argument.

    Sounds entirely possible.

  151. 151
    consciousness razor

    Really? How do you know they don’t?

    How do you know they do?

    It’s not up to me to give evidence of gods for you, then show which gods are possible and which aren’t, how they work and how they don’t work, or generally have some kind of coherent concept of what a god is before believing in one and claiming to be reasonable about it. That’s your job, because it’s your belief. But you’re not being reasonable.

    You don’t have to make up answers just for me you know, I can give my own.

    Then do so.

  152. 152
    anteprepro

    Heresay doesn’t mean anything to you?

    Obviously heresay means everything to supermudz. They could hardly live without it.

  153. 153
    supermudz

    Do you know how eyewitness testimony is diminished in a court case? Can you recognize the field day a trial lawyer would have with your holy book in an actual trial? Heresay doesn’t mean anything to you?

    So you accept it’s admissable as evidence?

    @ Owlmirror

    Unfortunately that’s incorrect. If you read the dictionary definition closely, you will recognise that a bible is indeed an objective external reference. The fact that you can write on objects doesn’t make them non-existent.

    Do you “share” the view that it’s correct to write “Jehovah” even though a better transliteration into English of the Hebrew letters is YHWH, or Yaweh, if you’re going to include vowels?

    I’m accustomed to it. Just like I’m accustomed to usign the word ‘God’ instead of Elohim.

    Nonsense. You reject the books and eyewitness testimony of every other religion, because they are not evidence.

    When did I say that?

    When the bible is investigated, it contradicts itself, and reality.

    Proof, and relevance, please.

  154. 154
    Hank_Says

    supertroll:

    Moreover your assertions serve no purpose, and are unsupported by the evidence.

    Ironically, that more or less sums up your “thousands of years” of creationism (and simultaneously displays in graphic detail the dedicated arse-backwards nature of creationist “thought”).

    But go ahead and continue projecting your lack of data onto others. It’s quite refreshing – most of the trolls of late have been rank one-note sexists; it’s just like old times having a dedicated creationist to watch getting kicked around. So please enjoy yourself until you get bored trying to evangelise to a bunch of people who’ve seen it all before, many times, and can almost predict your next “gotcha”. Seriously, you are nothing new.

  155. 155
    Amphiox

    But that doesn’t prove I know what’s on them.

    It doesn’t matter whether you know what’s on them. The only thing that matters is what’s on them.

    I asked you for your evidence

    Evidence does not belong to any individual. Evidence simply is.

  156. 156
    consciousness razor

    Unfortunately that’s incorrect. If you read the dictionary definition closely, you will recognise that a bible is indeed an objective external reference. The fact that you can write on objects doesn’t make them non-existent.

    What a sophist. So it isn’t true that atheists “have no credible foundation for an objective system of morality,” because they can write on scraps of paper as well. Actually existing scraps of paper! Wow!! I’m glad we’ve settled that.

  157. 157
    Amphiox

    When did I say that?

    Oh. So you accept the Koran as evidence, then?

  158. 158
    supermudz

    How do you know they do?

    It’s not up to me to give evidence of gods for you, then show which gods are possible and which aren’t, how they work and how they don’t work, or generally have some kind of coherent concept of what a god is before believing in one and claiming to be reasonable about it. That’s your job, because it’s your belief. But you’re not being reasonable.

    Never asked you for any, so I don’t know why you bring it up.

    I don’t know. I have no idea what accounts for God’s intelligence. I would love to hear any theories you have.

    <blockquote? Then do so.

    Historical testimony. Eyewitness testimony. The consistency between the Christian faith and the observance of the real world. Anthropic principle, complexity of life, radio-halos, mass-extinction of life present in fossils, Cambrian explosion with sudden new life, prophecy, miracles, visions attested to and even confirmed by some contemporary science, archaeology confirmed ancient testimony, and logical inferences of physics.

    To give a brief overview.

    Okay, so I’m going to log off the netz since I’m getting tired, but I’ll check back later and see if there’s any of substance to respond to.

  159. 159
    Amphiox

    If you read the dictionary definition closely, you will recognise that a bible is indeed an objective external reference.

    Incorrect. An incorrect reading of the dictionary definition. An incorrect usage of the word “closely”. An incorrect usage of the word “objective”. An incorrect usage of the word “external”. An incorrect usage of the word “indeed”.

    An incorrect usage of the word “is”.

  160. 160
    consciousness razor

    I don’t know. I have no idea what accounts for God’s intelligence. I would love to hear any theories you have.

    Theory #1: Gods don’t exist.

  161. 161
    Amphiox

    I have no idea what accounts for God’s intelligence

    Then you cannot validly use God’s intelligence to account for other things.

    You can say the words, but it will not be valid.

  162. 162
    supermudz

    Ironically, that more or less sums up your “thousands of years” of creationism (and simultaneously displays in graphic detail the dedicated arse-backwards nature of creationist “thought”).

    Ironic, since I made that argument as an ironic rebuttal to ’150 years’ of evolution.

    What a sophist. So it isn’t true that atheists “have no credible foundation for an objective system of morality,” because they can write on scraps of paper as well. Actually existing scraps of paper! Wow!! I’m glad we’ve settled that.

    No we haven’t. Read it closer.

    Oh. So you accept the Koran as evidence, then?

    Absolutely. That’s precisely what it is.

    Okay. I’ll Be Back.

  163. 163
    supermudz

    Incorrect. An incorrect reading of the dictionary definition. An incorrect usage of the word “closely”. An incorrect usage of the word “objective”. An incorrect usage of the word “external”. An incorrect usage of the word “indeed”.

    An incorrect usage of the word “is”.

    Incorrect. :)

  164. 164
    Owlmirror

    Show me the contradictions and incoherencies, make your argument as to how these are a problem, and disproves the record of God.

    In Genesis 1, it says that God creates all animals, then man and woman simultaneously.

    In Genesis 2, it says that God creates man, then all the animals, then woman.

    This is a contradiction of sequence.

    How many contradictions do you need?

    The bible is evidence. It records eyewitness testimoney. Eyewitness testimoney is evidence, and occurs contemporarily.

    The bible is evidence that people made stuff up, and claimed to be eyewitnesses.

    You did indeed bring up that evolution has been around for 150+ years as a theory and that that means something.

    It’s been around as a science for that long. Religion is not science, and since it is based on logical fallacies, cannot be a science.

    You said you had evidence for evolution, I asked you to give it. Otherwise, null hypothesis innit it? :)

    1) Organisms reproduce
    2) Organisms have more offspring than will necessarily survive to adulthood and reproduce on their own.
    3) The offspring of organisms have heritable variation from their parents and from each other.
    4) Given that variation, and often depending on the environment, some offspring will be better able to survive and reproduce than their siblings and cousins.
    5) Genes, morphologies, and the fossil record have been investigated and demonstrate that this has been going on for hundreds of millions and billions of years, to the point where this strongly supports common descent from a group of single-celled ancestors.

    Eve was made from Adam.

    Before or after all the other animals?

    How would that disprove God anyway, if there were two accounts about him that disagreed on details?

    You’re the one claiming that it’s “legal testimony”. Legal testimony that contradicts itself is thrown out.

    Then call God’s functional equivalent of thinking mechanics a brain if you like.

    Why? You just claimed that God didn’t have a brain.

    Do you not care that you’re contradicting yourself?

  165. 165
    Dhorvath, OM

    So you accept it’s admissable as evidence?

    No, I maintain that at it’s first presentation the opposing counsel would say “objection” and the judge would say, “sustained.” One might as well submit Peter Rabbit or The Brother’s Grimm.

  166. 166
    Amphiox

    Anthropic principle

    Actually, the anthropic principle makes gods unnecessary.

    complexity of life

    Creationism offers no coherent explanation for the complexity of life whatsoever. All it can manage is to posit said complexity by fiat. It cannot explain where that complexity came from, why it is complex in the specific forms it is observed to be complex in instead of some other arbitrary form that it is not observed to be in, and it cannot predict what kinds of complexity life might produce in the future.

    Evolution can do all of that and more.

    mass-extinction of life present in fossils

    The mass-extinctionS present in fossils directly contradict the biblical narrative and constitute one of the many forms of evidence that the bible is not a valid form of evidence on that subject.

    Cambrian explosion with sudden new life

    The Cambrian explosion produced no new life, only new forms of pre-existing life, and was not sudden. It took place over a time scale of at least 20 million years. Probably longer.

    archaeology confirmed ancient testimony

    Archaeology refutes the biblical account of Jericho. It refutes the biblical account of the Exodus. It refutes the biblical account of the Roman census. It refutes the biblical description of the Hittites. It refutes the biblical account of Babel.

    It is yet another aspect of modern science that demonstrates that the bible is not evidence for anything other than belief in god in some people.

  167. 167
    Amphiox

    Incorrect. :)

    And now, apparently, an incorrect usage of the word “incorrect”.

  168. 168
    Amphiox

    Absolutely. That’s precisely what it is.

    So then was Jesus born in a manger in Bethlehem at night, or in the desert under a palm tree during the day?

  169. 169
    anteprepro

    I don’t know. I have no idea what accounts for God’s intelligence. I would love to hear any theories you have.

    He was Intelligently Designed that way.

    The consistency between the Christian faith and the observance of the real world.

    lolwut? Leaving aside evolution, the flood is completely inconsistent with geology, the lifespans given for the first generations of humans don’t make any fucking sense, the kind of miracles displayed in the Bible are NOTHING like the alleged “miracles” we see in modern times, and the same goes for the nature of interactions with demons, angels, and God himself. The Bible displays a world in which the forces of Heaven and Hell are constantly making themselves known to us wayward fools on Earth. So humans who had just recently mastered bronze get to regularly commune with a God that tells them who to kill, what to eat, what is and isn’t clean, and even occasionally had them ghost write some shit for him. And this is consistent with the real world…how?

    Anthropic principle, complexity of life, radio-halos, mass-extinction of life present in fossils, Cambrian explosion with sudden new life, prophecy, miracles, visions attested to and even confirmed by some contemporary science, archaeology confirmed ancient testimony, and logical inferences of physics.

    Texas sharpshooter fallacy, explained by evolution, doesn’t even make sense , irrelevant, millions of years is not sudden, see: horoscopes and cold readings, overhyped improbable yet natural events, why do psychics prove Jesus, citation needed, and bullshit.

    I’ll check back later and see if there’s any of substance to respond to.

    If only you would return the favor.

  170. 170
    Amphiox

    We can add “substance” to the list of terms incorrectly used, too.

  171. 171
    anteprepro

    I’m pretty sure it would be easier to list the words that mudz uses correctly. I propose “I”, “the”, “there”, “a”, and “is”.

  172. 172
    Owlmirror

    Unfortunately that’s incorrect. If you read the dictionary definition closely, you will recognise that a bible is indeed an objective external reference. The fact that you can write on objects doesn’t make them non-existent.

    It is an objective fact that you don’t know what “objective” means, and you’re too idiotic to learn.

    Nonsense. You reject the books and eyewitness testimony of every other religion, because they are not evidence.

    When did I say that?

    If you deny that you reject other religions, then you reject the first and second commandments, which means that you don’t have an objective morality from your “objective external reference”.

    When the bible is investigated, it contradicts itself, and reality.

    Proof, and relevance, please.

    Relevance?

    If the bible contradicts itself, at least one of the narratives or claims it makes must be false, and therefore can be rejected.

    If the bible contradicts reality, its reliability is weakened. The more it contradicts itself, the less reliable it is. Unreliable texts can be rejected as testimony.

    Contradictions with reality: The bible claims that the earth, and grass existed before the sun, moon, and stars, and that the sun, moon, and stars were created simultaneously. The science of cosmology contradicts this. The bible claims that birds existed before land animals. The science of palaeontology contradicts this. The bible claims that there was a global flood. The science of geology contradicts this.

    How much more do you want?

    The consistency between the Christian faith and the observance of the real world.

    There is no such thing.

    Mark 16 says, among other things, that Christians will be able to drink poison and not be harmed, and will be able to heal people by touch. Christians are no more resistant to poison than anyone else, and are no more able to heal anyone by touch than anyone else.

    Anthropic principle

    Logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance.

    complexity of life,

    Logical fallacy of arguing from ignorance

    radio-halos

    Don’t argue for anything other than radiation having been present.

    mass-extinction of life present in fossils

    Doesn’t argue for anything besides that extinction events happened.

    Cambrian explosion with sudden new life,

    Doesn’t argue for anything other than evolution as usual.

    prophecy

    Doesn’t argue for anything besides people making shit up and claiming that it was “prophesised”

    miracles

    Doesn’t argue for anything besides people making shit up (or misunderstanding a natural phenomenon) and claiming that it was a miracle.

    visions attested to and even confirmed by some contemporary science

    Bullshit.

    archaeology confirmed ancient testimony

    Bullshit. Most archaeology contradicts ancient “testimony”.

    logical inferences of physics.

    Logical fallacies, rather.

  173. 173
    Hank_Says

    Supertedious:

    Ironically, that ["Moreover your assertions serve no purpose, and are unsupported by the evidence" - supermudz] more or less sums up your “thousands of years” of creationism (and simultaneously displays in graphic detail the dedicated arse-backwards nature of creationist “thought”).

    Ironic, since I made that argument as an ironic rebuttal to ’150 years’ of evolution.

    Which might have been a valid “rebuttal”, had I been pointing to the age of the theory as confirmation of its validity (yet another point your keen intellect allowed to sail over you). However I wasn’t – the reason I mentioned the number is because that’s how long people have been amassing evidence which supports evolution – new evidence, every day, from dozens of different lines of inquiry. The study of evolution even inspired new fields of inquiry to be born, most notably genetics (barely even a notion in Darwin’s time and which confirmed his theory of descent with modification beyond his wildest dreams), which is exposing the mechanisms of evolution a little bit clearer every day.

    In the same 150 year timeframe that scientists from numerous different fields made (and continue to make) discovery after discovery which supports evolution, creationists have produced precisely nothing. Nothing but the same bald assertions of Biblical inerrancy to counter that evidence (not to mention the same old arguments from ignorance, the same old misrepresentations of evolution, the same old garbage that gets regurgitated on science blogs by creo-trolls every single day – in other words the same old crap you’re regurgitating here today). In the “thousands of years” before evolution was observed and proposed as a theory, asserting Biblical inerrancy is indeed all creationists had – and that was fine because noone knew any better. After evolution became public knowledge and the data started to pile up; the creationists’ complete lack of supporting information for their god creating everything instantly via magic became ever more noticeable and creationism’s relevance to actual science became increasingly marginalised.

    Also, in that 150 years, no piece of scientific evidence discovered has even come close to disproving or even casting significant doubt on the fact that life on Earth is the result of descent with modification occurring over a very long time (and you’d think that if such evidence did exist, it would have been found, trumpeted to the world and its discoverer buried in Nobel Prizes). Evolution happened, it’s happening, it will continue to happen – regardless of whether you believe it and regardless of any “debate” over the topic. Creationists have always been on the wrong side of this argument – it’s just that noone really knew that for sure until evolution was conceptualised, theorised and confrmed. Yet creationists still exist and still come out of the woodwork every time someone mentions evolution – it just goes to show the power and stubbornness of ideas, even if they’ve been shown to be wrong over and over.

  174. 174
    Kevin, 友好火猫 (Friendly Fire Cat)

    @Mudz:

    You claiming the Bible is evidence of God is just as good as my claiming that 西遊記 (Journey to the West) is evidence of Sun Wukong.

  175. 175
    Kevin, 友好火猫 (Friendly Fire Cat)

    @my 173:

    Actually for that matter, I’d say Sun Wukong has even better evidence since there are fewer logical inconsistencies in his book.

  176. 176
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    but I’ll check back later and see if there’s any of substance to respond to.

    I’m waiting for your say something of substance, like where to look for physical evidence for your imaginary deity, we wil fill find this. You know, something so special there can be no scientific explanation for, equivalent to an eternally burning bush. If science can explain it, it isn’t evidence for your imaginary deity. You also can’t use some book of mythology/fiction (which you haven’t shown one iota of evidence that your babble isn’t just just a book of mythology/fiction, only made evidenceless assertions that can and will be ignored to that effect) is irrelevant to evidence your imaginary deity. Let me give you a clue. Your word isn’t and never will be evidence. Third party evidence from the scientific literature is required.

  177. 177
    Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls

    Incorrect. :)

    Sorry, I won’t take your unsupported word for anything. Show me something to back this up. By the way, science is found here, in libraries at institutions of higher learning world wide. Updated daily. Unlike your babble, which is updated never. As for it being wrong, show scientific evidence for the deluge, and exodus from the library I linked to, or its equivalent. Not based on the babble, but third party evidence that ignores your babble. That’s how you show the babble is worth listening to. And if we find one error your babble makes, it is all up for review as lies and bullshit.

  178. 178
    slatham

    I would rather see a debate among teachers. I agree with folks who’ve referred to the primary scientific literature as the place where scientific debate happens. Creationism has lost in that venue. Crashed and burned. There is no point to further debating creationism there.

    Ham and others like him desire the appearance of scientific legitimacy and so ask for PhDs in a university setting, but their end goal is to have the debate enter public school science classrooms. I’m very much against that. I suspect, though, that a debate among teachers would at least be informative. They could discuss the relative merits of lesson plans — I’d really like to see someone try to defend an ID lesson plan against someone who knows the guidelines for education in the science classroom.

  179. 179
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    Who is this supermudz person and why must they insist on causing me to cover my monitor in an unappetising misture of coffee and saliva? I’m sure it’s unintentional, but still.

  180. 180
    Anri

    This was said upthread:

    Proof? It had best start with evidence, follow into predictions, and conclude with those predictions being conclusively upheld.

    Is that a go ahead?

    Oh, yes, supermudz, it most assuredly is.

    One of the things you will probably want to do right off of the bat is make certain that we’re all on the same page, god-wise. Best bet there is to site the evidence that differentiates your god from the other false gods out there.
    You could start by showing the evidence for the miracles in whatever parts of the bible you consider correct, and the evidence against the parts of the bible you consider incorrect, and the other god stories that you consider incorrect.

    That way, we won’t waste time with (for example) the wrong lineage of Jesus, or misunderstanding which group of people was present when Jesus’ tomb was opened, or if you can get striped goats with painted sticks.

    Once there, you can go on to tell us how much room the average animal had aboard the ark, and how much food was required to feed all of them, and how many hours the crew had to work to feed them, and how the wallabys walked to Australia afterwards, etc. I mean, so long as we’re discussing the undeniable realism of the bible.

    And, remember, you get all unhappy when someone posted a link to an outside source – no cut-and-paste for you, this must all be in your own words. I mean, so long as we’re discussing double standards.

    Git ‘er done!

  181. 181
    anteprepro

    Once there, you can go on to tell us how much room the average animal had aboard the ark, and how much food was required to feed all of them, and how many hours the crew had to work to feed them, and how the wallabys walked to Australia afterwards, etc. I mean, so long as we’re discussing the undeniable realism of the bible.

    I would also love to hear about the logistics of the flood water. Specifically:
    -How much water needed to fall in order to cover the highest mountains on Earth.
    -How a fucking boat managed to survive the force of such a large amount of rain falling so quickly (an amount of rain so forceful that other creationists claim it super-eroded the Grand Canyon into being and that the flood rains are entirely responsible for the current positions of fossils in the geologic columns, shaking up 200 million years worth of strata)
    -How the flood water receded (i.e. where the water went)

    I’m also fascinated with how the entire world happened to be repopulated by Noah’s family alone, 4000 years ago. I mean, it is bad enough that everybody started out as Adam and Eve’s incestuous family, but having to start all over again as a different incestuous family is an interesting tactic for your Space Ghost to use. And are we seriously supposed to believe that Noah’s family repopulated the entire fucking world over such a short period of time? We are supposed to believe that Noah’s family not only repopulate the Middle East, but somehow also managed, during this time of rapid repopulation of areas actually acknowledged by the Bible, Noah’s family also flung some family members off to repopulate Africa, sent some off to repopulate India, sent some off to repopulate China, sent some off to become Aborigines, sent enough off to become Native Americans who populate the entire fucking North and South American continents, and all conveniently appearing as soon as possible, so that it shouldn’t set off alarm bells that we have evidence that most of those cultures existed during or damn shortly after the supposed flood of 2000 BC. So how did Noah’s family do it? How did they breed, travel, and set up brand, spankin’ new civilizations so quickly?

  182. 182
    Rey Fox

    I’m most of the way through the Old Testament. I feel sorry for anyone who is impressed by that rambling load of bollocks.

  183. 183
    Dr Marcus Hill Ph.D. (arguing from his own authority)

    tell us how much room the average animal had aboard the ark,

    Enough.

    and how much food was required to feed all of them, and how many hours the crew had to work to feed them,

    Loads of food, but very little work, because magic man dun it. With magic.

    and how the wallabys walked to Australia afterwards,

    Superfast continental drift. Magic man dun it. With magic.

    I would also love to hear about the logistics of the flood water. Specifically:
    -How much water needed to fall in order to cover the highest mountains on Earth.

    Not as much as you’d think, because it was all flatter back then.

    -How a fucking boat managed to survive the force of such a large amount of rain falling so quickly (an amount of rain so forceful that other creationists claim it super-eroded the Grand Canyon into being and that the flood rains are entirely responsible for the current positions of fossils in the geologic columns, shaking up 200 million years worth of strata)

    Magic man dun it. With magic.

    -How the flood water receded (i.e. where the water went)

    Magic man dun it. With magic.

    I’m also fascinated with how the entire world happened to be repopulated by Noah’s family alone, 4000 years ago.

    Magic man dun it. With magic.

    So how did Noah’s family do it? How did they breed, travel, and set up brand, spankin’ new civilizations so quickly?

    Magic man dun it. With magic.

    Wow, this is so much easier from the other side!

  184. 184
    anteprepro

    Apply for that doctorate in theology now, Dr. Marcus. We could call you Rev. Dr. Dr. Marcus Hill!

  185. 185
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    @anteprepro #181

    More importantly, where’d the water come from in the first place? The global hydrological cycle is a closed system. Where did this extra water miraculously appear from?

    Your point about the two incestuous families raises an interesting point: don’t some people believe that Black people are the descendants of Ham? And wasn’t he the descendant of Adam and Eve? So unless Noah’s family was into miscegenation, why are there Black people? Or am I getting mixed up, and Xians had the foresight to pick one of Noah’s descendants to be the father of all Black people?

    Man, there is a lot of incest in the Bible!

  186. 186
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    No wait, Ham was Noah’s son. Ratract the second half of my above; clearly fundies aren’t quite as thick as I thought.

  187. 187
    Amphiox

    I’m pretty sure it would be easier to list the words that mudz uses correctly. I propose “I”, “the”, “there”, “a”, and “is”.

    It would appear that you and I disagree on the correctness of his use of “is”.

    DEEP RIFTS! DEEP RIFTS!!!

  188. 188
    anteprepro

    don’t some people believe that Black people are the descendants of Ham? And wasn’t he the descendant of Adam and Eve?

    Ick. Yes, Ham’s territory was associated with northern Africa. And largely the privileged white assholes who dare to speak on the topic say that black people have black skin because of the Curse of Ham. The Curse of Ham being some wacky, unspecified curse that Noah spat out against Canaan (part of Ham’s territory) while drunk because Ham saw him naked. Oh Bible.

  189. 189
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    @anteprepro

    Three very fucked up things about that:

    1- Why is Black skin a curse?
    2- Why is it Ham’s fault he saw Noah naked when Noah was the one who got so drunk that he passed out while naked?
    3- He cursed an entire race of people because of the actions of their distant anscestor? dafuq?

    Well, obviously there’s more that’s fucked up about it than that, but those are the big three in my opinion.

  190. 190
    anteprepro

    Luckily “The Curse of Ham is black skin!” isn’t canon. It’s mostly just a thing that the more flamingly racist Christians believe. But the rest of the Curse is just typical Bible nonsense. Punishing general geographic regions for petty transgressions. It’s how Yahweh gets His Rocks off.

  191. 191
    Glen Davidson

    The bible is evidence.

    Evidence of what a culture thought. Little other evidence, except for idiosyncrasies of the authors.

    It records eyewitness testimoney.

    It doesn’t even pretend to do so. It’s a holy book, you’re just supposed to accept it as faith, without your idiotic anachronisms of “testimony.”

    Eyewitness testimoney is evidence, and occurs contemporarily.

    Eyewitness testimony comes from eyewitnesses, not a book, you ignoramus.

    You said you had evidence for evolution, I asked you to give it. Otherwise, null hypothesis innit it? :)

    Your vestigial tail, the coccyx, and your somewhat modified quadrupedal skeleton. Archaeopteryx. The extremely derivative nature of life. Stuff you should know, and would if you had any kind of intellectual honesty.

    I asked if people wanted me to give evidence, but so far no-one has been so bold as to outright invite me.

    You bullshitted from the start. We’re not prone to ask for more addled nonsense from you.

    He was a deist. He believed in the Ultimate, not the Omni.

    His god thinks the highest thoughts, himself. And causes motion in the universe. It’s a “god” almost wholly unlike yours.

    Glen Davidson

  192. 192
    Amphiox

    Your vestigial tail, the coccyx, and your somewhat modified quadrupedal skeleton. Archaeopteryx. The extremely derivative nature of life.

    Your fused chromosome #2. Your pattern of LINES and SINES compared to chimpanzees in your DNA. Your pattern of retroviruses compared to chimpanzees in your DNA. The results of the Lenski experiment. Your lactase gene. London’s subway mosquitoes. MRSA. Sphingobium chlorophenolicum.

    The list just goes on and on and on and on and on.

  193. 193
    Amphiox

    But the rest of the Curse is just typical Bible nonsense. Punishing general geographic regions for petty transgressions. It’s how Yahweh gets His Rocks off.

    It’s all contemporary geopolitics from the time of the writing of the given passage, of course.

    It provides convenient justification for bigotry and/or action by the people in power against the people of the targeted geographical region.

    Insert target as needed.

  194. 194
    omnicrom

    Supermudz if you come back here you should start off by defining your religion.

    Is your god an individual entity or is he a more spiritual force of nature? Is he loving or is he wrathful and jealous? Does he live in a tent or in heaven? What makes your god different from Odin or Vishnu or Zeus or Susanoo or Osiris or Madoka or basically any other divine being who you don’t believe in ?

    Next explain why the Christian Bible is truer than any other holy book. And then explain why the morality you ascribe to Christianity is a) unique to Christianity and b) better than any other religion’s system of morality.

  195. 195
    Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened

    @Anteprepro

    I was under the impression it was official dogma, if not official canon, amongst US churches but has merely fallen out of fashion of late.

    @Amphiox

    Yeah I read something recently, I believe linked to on this blog, which suggested that the Old Testament was largely written as justification for the Israelites conquering the surrounding tribes and was added on; the original consisting of just Leviticus, Deuteronomy and other books dealing mainly with rules. Assuming that’s the case, “God cursed the Caanaanites, so let’s kill them all” would seem an obvious addition.

  196. 196
    Rey Fox

    So, what other books can we declare as evidence?

  197. 197
    David Marjanović

    Comment 180 wins the thread.

    I’ll admit, this is a new one. Typically, it’s the evolutionists deferring accusations of credentialism.

    But it’s great to see such an open standard of intellectual discourse being promoted here. No doubt you’ll encourage Dawkins and all evolutionist advocates to engage and debate with creationists and Christians regardless of credentials.

    Oh, look. Somebody wrote comment 28 without having read comment 16.

    Huh, I just heard of ‘aron ra’ recently on youtube. Guess he must be of some note in the evolutionist community.

    :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D

    I estimate that easily 2/3 of all biologists who have ever heard of him comment on this blog!

    No, evolution means change.

    No. In biology, evolution means specifically descent with heritable modification. Populations and languages can evolve (and indeed cannot help evolving), and not much else can.

    and neither do you actually have an objective system of morality.

    Sure I do. The bible. The bible’s an object.

    :-D :-D :-D

    Points for humour!

    Kinda like people capitalise the ‘Church’. It’s a noun.

    Capitalising all Nouns is a german Spellingrule, not an english one. :-) You mean “proper noun”.

    God has a mind, but as far as I know he doesn’t require a corporeal brain or organic tissue to hold it in.

    A mind isn’t a thing that you can put somewhere. It’s an activity. Mind is what the brain does.

    There may be some history hidden in the Old Testament

    Most of 2 Kings holds up pretty well – in stark contrast to 1 Kings and everything before it.

    Noah took sevens and pairs, depending if clean or unclean.

    Oh no. He took both one pair of every kind and one pair of every unclean kind, seven pairs of every clean kind at the same time. Behold the Book of Genesis:

    6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
    6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
    [...]
    6:22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

    One pair of every kind: God says it, Noah does it.

    7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.
    7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
    7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
    [...]
    7:5 And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him.

    Seven pairs of every clean kind, two of every unclean kind: God says it, Noah does it.

    7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
    7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

    Oh, wait. Now we’re suddenly back to the first version: explicitly one pair of every kind.

    Hm.

    I can link to sites too.

    [...]

    But that doesn’t prove I know what’s on them. I asked you for your evidence, not if you know other people you think do.

    Excuse me, are you afraid to click on that link!?! Go there and see for yourself if it convinces you of something! What’s important is whether something on that site is correct, not whether consciousness razor or anybody else has correctly understood it.

    Heresay

    Wheresay? Hearsay. Hear + say.

    Historical testimony. Eyewitness testimony. The consistency between the Christian faith and the observance of the real world. Anthropic principle, complexity of life, radio-halos, mass-extinction of life present in fossils, Cambrian explosion with sudden new life, prophecy, miracles, visions attested to and even confirmed by some contemporary science, archaeology confirmed ancient testimony, and logical inferences of physics.

    1) In a few cases it agrees. In most cases it disagrees wildly. 2) Notoriously unreliable. Besides, copies of copies of copies of stuff written by people who’ve been dead for centuries aren’t eyewitness testimony. 3) You must be joking. 4) The strong anthropic principle is just a restatement of religion. The weak anthropic principle is just a tautology. 5) You can’t explain the complexity, you can only posit it as given. The theory of evolution explains it. 6) Dealt with above. 7) Mass extinctions aren’t Highlanders. There’ve been several, not one of them mentioned in the Bible. Indeed, it took till the early 19th century till all scientists even accepted that anything could ever go extinct – surely God wouldn’t allow that to happen to any of his creations? 8) Neither sudden nor new. 9) Ooh. Prophecy. See below. 10) Name one. 11) Do explain. 12) Blatantly, screamingly untrue in the vast majority of cases. 13) Oh, do tell.

    9) Here’s some prophecy from the Book of Ezekiel:

    26:15 Thus saith the Lord GOD to Tyrus; Shall not the isles shake at the sound of thy fall, when the wounded cry, when the slaughter is made in the midst of thee?
    26:16 Then all the princes of the sea shall come down from their thrones, and lay away their robes, and put off their broidered garments: they shall clothe themselves with trembling; they shall sit upon the ground, and shall tremble at every moment, and be astonished at thee.
    26:17 And they shall take up a lamentation for thee, and say to thee, How art thou destroyed, that wast inhabited of seafaring men, the renowned city, which wast strong in the sea, she and her inhabitants, which cause their terror to be on all that haunt it!
    26:18 Now shall the isles tremble in the day of thy fall; yea, the isles that are in the sea shall be troubled at thy departure.
    26:19 For thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee;
    26:20 When I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living;
    26:21 I will make thee a terror, and thou shalt be no more: though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again, saith the Lord GOD.

    Do I even need to comment this?

    It refutes the biblical account of the Roman census. It refutes the biblical description of the Hittites. It refutes the biblical account of Babel.

    1) To be fair, that’s history, not archaeology. 2) No; there were lots of Hittite city-states in modern Syria after the Bronze Age and the Hittite empire ended violently. 3) What do you mean?

    the flood is completely inconsistent with geology

    In fact, there’s a paper on just how inconsistent it is (link to pdf). It’s a delightful read. I highly recommend it.

    Sun Wukong

    (China, where even monkey kings have surnames. Of course, so do the gods, so…)

    I’m also fascinated with how the entire world happened to be repopulated by Noah’s family alone, 4000 years ago. I mean, it is bad enough that everybody started out as Adam and Eve’s incestuous family, but having to start all over again as a different incestuous family is an interesting tactic for your Space Ghost to use.

    (Also, even genetics doesn’t remotely fit it.)

    No wait, Ham was Noah’s son. Ratract the second half of my above; clearly fundies aren’t quite as thick as I thought.

    Except for those who believe(d) that dark skin is the Mark of Cain. I don’t know if any of those are left, though.

    2- Why is it Ham’s fault he saw Noah naked when Noah was the one who got so drunk that he passed out while naked?

    Of course some say that “see” is a euphemism.

    But horror of horrors! That’s a departure from literalism!

    Archaeopteryx

    Ha!

    Those were the times, 20 years ago!

    Aurornis, Anchiornis, Archaeopteryx, Xiaotingia, (Rahonavis + Shenzhouraptor), and Balaur!

    Old Archie is part of a whole series of long-tailed birds now! I’ve listed them in order from least to most closely related to the short-tailed birds. And I had to omit Yandangornis because nobody knows where exactly it goes – it needs to be redescribed pretty much from scratch, the original paper is largely useless.

    The closest relatives of the birds are the troodontids. Of those, Jinfengopteryx is the sister-group to all the rest, and it looks a lot like a long-tailed bird.

    The next more distant relatives are the dromaeosaurids. Microraptor, Sinornithosaurus, Mahakala, Hesperonychus, Bambiraptor… need I go on?

    Next out is Eosinopteryx.

    Next out are the scansoriopterygids…

    Context, people. Context. :-)

  198. 198
    Eamon Knight

    I assume that “radio-halos” refers to Robert Gentry’s long-debunked claims about (alleged) polonium decay traces in certain rocks. Amply examined here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

  199. 199
    theignored

    Rey Fox on 4 June 2013 at 11:35 am (UTC -5)

    So, what other books can we declare as evidence?

    The Kama Sutra?

    Uh, what are we arguing about again?

  200. 200
    theignored

    Thumper; Atheist mate on 4 June 2013 at 10:16 am (UTC -5)

    Man, there is a lot of incest in the Bible!

    Also slavery, baby-killings, etc and those people are the ones who claim to have Absolute Morality.

    Incest didn’t used to be wrong because adam and eve and them were genetically “pure” or something.

    Slavery was accepted all throughout the bible actually; the only time is was really spoken against was when jesus said that in heaven there would be no “male nor female nor slave” or something like that. Nothing against slavery on earth itself.

    And of course, they see nothing wrong with baby-killing so long as god does it (ex. see Myer’s post about William Lane Craig)

    In short, you have different actions being accepted because of either the time it occurred or because of who ordered them.

    That is NOT “Objective morality”.

    anteprepro on 4 June 2013 at 10:43 am (UTC -5)
    When it comes to the “curse of Ham” it seems that it kind of is loosely based on the bible…even creationist leader Henry Morris went for it.

    Read on from the quoted part below onwards to see what Morris thought of that subject:

    From Morris’s The Beginning Of the World, Second Edition (1991), pp. 147-148:
    (snip) big book quote (snip)

    I guess by now supermudz is finding out just what happens in a format where one DOES have time to check up on and examine creationist claims. One gets creamed. This is why they generally prefer oral debates.

  201. 201
    Hank_Says

    Aw, mudz has bailed. Seemed like we had a live one on the line that would jink about for a bit but no. Just another hit n’ run carp.

  202. 202
    Dr Marcus Hill Ph.D. (arguing from his own authority)

    Tsk, some people really haven’t been paying attention.

    More importantly, where’d the water come from in the first place? The global hydrological cycle is a closed system. Where did this extra water miraculously appear from?

    Magic man dun it. With magic.

    Your point about the two incestuous families raises an interesting point: don’t some people believe that Black people are the descendants of Ham? And wasn’t he the descendant of Adam and Eve? So unless Noah’s family was into miscegenation, why are there Black people?

    Magic man dun it. With magic.

    Seriously, once you accept that, the rest is easy!

  203. 203
    Anri

    supermudz

    3 June 2013 at 11:56 pm (UTC -5) Link to this comment

    (blah blah bluh)

    Okay. I’ll Be Back.

    …not looking good, at this point

Comments have been disabled.