Comment

Comment by Richard Healy on June 17, 2012 at 5:27am

Meanwhile....

In the original thread (about the antediluvian ages of the Patriarchs), the debate has picked up again when Corey Sudja, who displays a total ignorance of evolutionary theory and some particularly bigoted views about race (which BTW are being uploaded to FSTDT)

Don't get this confused with my *other* on-going conversation with Micah.

The work of counter-apologetics is never easy.



If this is a little small to read click to enlarge.

Comment by Richard Healy on June 17, 2012 at 5:08am

Debating Micah, parts 6 & 7

Comment by Loren Miller on June 16, 2012 at 6:00pm

As to "why are we here" ... sometimes, I swear, that can be the stupidest question.  People like your opponent want REASONS where there are none ... other than that we're the product of roughly 3.9 billion years of evolution.  A rogue asteroid could wipe us out in the time it takes to talk about it and the planet with us, and the rest of the universe would continue churning on as though nothing of significance had happened.

And of course, it hasn't.  They want to believe that the entirety of the universe was created for US, when we're an insignificant byproduct in an overall environment which I doubt he can conceive of [hell, I barely can!].  He wants to be special and apart and significant and noticed by his god and all that good stuff when the fact is that we're here because the initial conditions this planet was formed under made it possible for us to be here.

And of course he'll continue to delude himself with his self-assuring nonsense ... but he'll never learn a true damned thing about this reality because of his insistence on that.

Comment by Loren Miller on June 16, 2012 at 5:53pm

Of course they're not putting aside all of science, just that portion which has the opportunity to disturb their faith!  Whereupon my question would be: WHY should science be effectual in describing phenomena in every field of human experience except those which you expect your faith to explain?  Such an inconsistency would be glaring in the extreme if it were true.

The sad fact is that he has no means of corroborating his statements.  He just makes them without proof and is satisfied.  Can you imagine the reaction were he to try such a thing before a peer review committee?

[I'd honestly pay money to see THAT one!]

Comment by Richard Healy on June 16, 2012 at 4:49pm

Actually it's worse than that Loren.

He has this belligerence, which takes the form of "you don't have any facts LaLaLaLaLaLa" - to him everything is poisoned by my naturalism / darwinism / science which must be opposed.  He now continually refers to my evidence as "pseudoscience" refuses to attempt to engage with any link I put up.

The quote below came about becuase I wanted to debunk this human DNA has been degrading since the Patriarchs tomfoolery - so I sent him a link to the Science journal which identified commonalities between Homo sapien and Homo neanderthalis DNA to 99.5 %, my mistake was that the same sentence mentioning the conservation of Human DNA also mentioned the date when the common ancestry and humans and neanderthal divided 370,000 years ago.

And this is what brought him out railing against "uniformtarianism" (separately he has been on his page "debunking" argon-Argon dating.)  His denial of reality is getting worse.   He didn't even consider my point about the conservation of Human DNA. Flat out ignored it.

He did describe to me, in a moment of disarming honesty, exactly the mechanism of self-deception he employs to make this all possible, which reminds me of the Pascal's wager - just believe - and you will!   Ready?

Actually, we're not "putting aside" [ALL OF SCIENCE]  as much as making sure the brand of pseudoscience you use doesn't destroy the most basic search every man goes through - "why am I hear." [SIC]  Since modern science/evolution doesn't/can't answer this, we tackle it first. Basically we start with "Intelligent Design," replacing any and all true unknowns (like Where did the energy/light and matter come from? or How does the universe work so perfectly together? or Where did the complexities of Metabolism come from?) with => God. It really isn't hard. It's like eating ice cream. You just say/do it. Most likely we won't know the answers anyway, so sticking God into them really isn't that hard.

There you have it folks:  the idiots guide to make-believe!

Comment by Loren Miller on June 16, 2012 at 4:32pm

So far as I can tell, Richard, your last quote translates roughly as:

I know what I believe; don't confuse me with facts!

Comment by Richard Healy on June 16, 2012 at 4:23pm

Remember, I'm the narrow-minded one:


"Nice, but since any and all organisms dated in this specific magnitude are hilariously wrong, I'd say that this finding doesn't reflect the emphasis you're looking for since the finding just completely based on an Evolutionary Applied Model. #1) Any and all dates from any form of dating using uniformitarianism are at the most - laughable, #2) Any Mode, Evidence or Construction supported only by the evolutionary community is hardly enough to sway my thoughts, #3) any platform or theory based on long-ages (previously defined by uniformitarianism), is at most a theory, but truly a bizarre work of fiction."

Comment by AgeOfAtheists14 on June 16, 2012 at 3:52pm

wow they're such fools... falling for whatever flavor as long as there's some 'god' mention.. the cop out of it all. the gap filler hate builder (especially w/some beat yer kids into fear and hate the different folks)=kinda shit really not good..

surely they have no answer to this white-black collar criminal leader of theirs:
http://www.atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/so-that-s-why-kerry-mccain...

Comment by Richard Healy on June 16, 2012 at 11:03am

Micah accuses me of being 'narrow-minded' wanting evidence for my beliefs. I think we have in him the perfect demonstration of that adage - a mind so open his brain has fallen out.

I mean just when I think I understand it, he comes up with this complete alternate history that is so flagrantly false I don't know where to begin. His poor children will be raised to be fundamentalists. It's a crying shame.

As for the interloper who has ideas about humans 'forgetting' how to live for centuries at a time - who thought Jesus was a Buddhist! - "well we all go a little mad sometimes" as the philosopher Norman Bates had it, with the religious the change of state appears permanent.

Comment by Loren Miller on June 16, 2012 at 10:59am

"Satan's deception" works awfully well, and across multiple disciplines and metrics.  The guy musta been thorough when he was putting it all together, eh?

Honestly, when people are so deluded as to completely obviate the idea of the functionality of science in favor of the complete irrationality of the bible, I'd tell 'em to have fun in their rubber room and not waste any further time with them.  That's how True Believers are, and I'm not convinced there is any changing them.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page