Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-15-2014, 11:01 AM  
KILLER_CLOWN KILLER_CLOWN is offline
Be HEALED!!!!!!!
 
KILLER_CLOWN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Fascist State
Casino cash: $11142616
"Illuminati Insider" Kevin Trudeau Sent to Prison For Exposing Them? Here's What REAL

"Illuminati Insider" Kevin Trudeau Sent to Prison For Exposing Them? Here's What REALLY Happened

Posts: 24,192
KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.KILLER_CLOWN is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2014, 09:13 AM   #31
WhiteWhale WhiteWhale is offline
Veteran
 
WhiteWhale's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Doo-Dah
Casino cash: $41865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cochise View Post
It's entirely possible that someone could be making an honest attempt to investigate a certain matter, and depending on what pieces of evidence they look at, not come to the same conclusion as me.

Isn't your statement really the one that is dogmatic?
As soon as people start laying out evidence for creationism, I'll agree with you.

One conclusion was reached via critical thinking and the scientific method. ONe was reached due to it being in a book people accept on an authoritarian basis.

No, my comments are not dogmatic. IF there was a shred of legitimate evidence for creationism, I'd hold it in different regard. The reality is that YE creationism is the result of bad math done in the 1960's and a dogmatic mindset that accepts it sans evidence.

It's like saying my belief in gravity is dogmatic. No, it's based on evidence... not something accepted on an authoritarian basis because of some club I belong to.
Posts: 4,011
WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2014, 09:19 AM   #32
Cochise Cochise is offline
MVP
 
Cochise's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Casino cash: $79953988
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteWhale View Post
As soon as people start laying out evidence for creationism, I'll agree with you.

One conclusion was reached via critical thinking and the scientific method. ONe was reached due to it being in a book people accept on an authoritarian basis.

No, my comments are not dogmatic. IF there was a shred of legitimate evidence for creationism, I'd hold it in different regard. The reality is that creationism is the result of bad math done in the 1960's and a dogmatic mindset that accepts it sans evidence.
These Young-Earth Creationism apologists will normally make their arguments without ever mentioning the Bible. That is their goal, of course, to convince people who are skeptical of the Bible that certain aspects of the universe are best or only explained by intelligence in design.
Posts: 41,032
Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2014, 09:21 AM   #33
Brainiac Brainiac is offline
Veteran
 
Brainiac's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Lenexa, KS
Casino cash: $56702
When one side says "if you show me convincing evidence I will consider it and it could change my position" and the other side says "I know this to be true and there is nothing you can say that will cause me to change my mind because my faith is what will bring me eternal reward", it's pretty clear which side is being dogmatic.

Trying to twist that in the other direction doesn't work.
Posts: 4,141
Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2014, 09:24 AM   #34
Brainiac Brainiac is offline
Veteran
 
Brainiac's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Lenexa, KS
Casino cash: $56702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cochise View Post
These Young-Earth Creationism apologists will normally make their arguments without ever mentioning the Bible. That is their goal, of course, to convince people who are skeptical of the Bible that certain aspects of the universe are best or only explained by intelligence in design.
The YEC apologists substitute Intelligent Designer for God so that they can pretend that this is about something other than their religious beliefs.
Posts: 4,141
Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2014, 09:25 AM   #35
WhiteWhale WhiteWhale is offline
Veteran
 
WhiteWhale's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Doo-Dah
Casino cash: $41865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cochise View Post
These Young-Earth Creationism apologists will normally make their arguments without ever mentioning the Bible. That is their goal, of course, to convince people who are skeptical of the Bible that certain aspects of the universe are best or only explained by intelligence in design.
No, they don't. YE creationism kinda hinges entirely on the bible. I've never seen or been in a debate with a YEC where the bible was not mentioned at least two dozen times.

That's what intelligent design is for... and intelligent design isn't young earth creationism. Intelligent design is a 'god of the gaps' position. God is in the ever receding pockets of scientific ignorance.
Posts: 4,011
WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2014, 09:28 AM   #36
Cochise Cochise is offline
MVP
 
Cochise's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Casino cash: $79953988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainiac View Post
When one side says "if you show me convincing evidence I will consider it and it could change my position" and the other side says "I know this to be true and there is nothing you can say that will cause me to change my mind because my position is general scientific consensus in the present age", it's pretty clear which side is being dogmatic.

Trying to twist that in the other direction doesn't work.
Is not the above also true?
Posts: 41,032
Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2014, 09:31 AM   #37
WhiteWhale WhiteWhale is offline
Veteran
 
WhiteWhale's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Doo-Dah
Casino cash: $41865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cochise View Post
Is not the above also true?
The consensus wasn't created by a bunch of people accepting on an authoritarian basis what was written in a book.

It was created via research, extrapolation, and verified over and over via predictions.

It's not the same thing.
Posts: 4,011
WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.WhiteWhale wants to die in a aids tree fire.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2014, 09:51 AM   #38
Cochise Cochise is offline
MVP
 
Cochise's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Casino cash: $79953988
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteWhale View Post
The consensus wasn't created by a bunch of people accepting on an authoritarian basis what was written in a book.
Isn't the difference just which books are being chosen by whom?

There are some on each side who think they are on the correct side of the debate. There are others who insist there can be no debate because there is no possibility they are wrong.

I think it's the same thing as the latter when you disregard something that could be interpreted as contradicting current scientific consensus because it contradicts current scientific consensus, and therefore should not be considered. It's begging the question.
Posts: 41,032
Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2014, 09:56 AM   #39
Trolly McTrollson Trolly McTrollson is offline
Starter
 
Trolly McTrollson's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2012
Casino cash: $12090
That's too bad. I'll miss his Doonesbury cartoons.
Posts: 226
Trolly McTrollson must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Trolly McTrollson must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Trolly McTrollson must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Trolly McTrollson must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Trolly McTrollson must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Trolly McTrollson must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Trolly McTrollson must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Trolly McTrollson must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Trolly McTrollson must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Trolly McTrollson must have mowed badgirl's lawn.Trolly McTrollson must have mowed badgirl's lawn.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2014, 10:39 AM   #40
Brainiac Brainiac is offline
Veteran
 
Brainiac's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Lenexa, KS
Casino cash: $56702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cochise View Post
Isn't the difference just which books are being chosen by whom?

There are some on each side who think they are on the correct side of the debate. There are others who insist there can be no debate because there is no possibility they are wrong.

I think it's the same thing as the latter when you disregard something that could be interpreted as contradicting current scientific consensus because it contradicts current scientific consensus, and therefore should not be considered. It's begging the question.
No, it's not.

Did you happen to watch the debate between Bill Nye "the Science Guy" and Ken Ham?

They were both asked the question "What would it take to change your position?"

Bill Nye answered with one word: "Evidence".

Ken Ham said that NOTHING could ever change his position, because his position is based upon the Bible, and everything you need to know about science can be found in the Bible.

That sums up PERFECTLY the difference between the two sides, no matter how desperate you are to twist the meaning of the word "dogmatic". Creationists formed their opinion based upon religious dogma, and nothing will ever change their minds. It's the definition of the word.

You also seem to be deliberately misunderstanding or ignoring the truly critical difference between the two camps. People who believe in evolution aren't constantly trying to pass laws to forbid the teaching of creationism in churches. People who believe in creationism ARE constantly trying to pass laws to forbid the teaching of evolution in science classes in public schools.

That's the difference.
Posts: 4,141
Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2014, 11:20 AM   #41
Cochise Cochise is offline
MVP
 
Cochise's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Casino cash: $79953988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainiac View Post
No, it's not.

Did you happen to watch the debate between Bill Nye "the Science Guy" and Ken Ham?

They were both asked the question "What would it take to change your position?"

Bill Nye answered with one word: "Evidence".

Ken Ham said that NOTHING could ever change his position, because his position is based upon the Bible, and everything you need to know about science can be found in the Bible.
Well, I didn't see the debate in question, but if that is an accurate reflection of what he said, then that's Ken Ham's position. It sounds like he falls into the second category discussed above.

Aside from that, it's easy for Nye to say "I'll accept evidence" and then later explain why he won't in practice accept any particular piece offered. It's a bit of a meaningless question.

Again, I am not a young-earth person, I'm somewhere between old and agnostic. I haven't found their arguments convincing in the past. All I am saying is let them speak in the debate. If their arguments are spurious then refute them, don't say "There is no debate on this".

Isn't the history of every great advance in science marked by skepticism with respect to the conventional wisdom of the day? Were not many great theories laughed at first, and accepted later? 100 years ago, Einstein was one of the most radical thinkers around. And I just read an article in Discover a few months ago that there are growing questions about his general theory of relativity.

I don't understand the idea that after millenia of continual discovery, all of a sudden today science is now finalized, and this has all been proven incontovertibly. Why not participate in the discussion?
Posts: 41,032
Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2014, 11:27 AM   #42
Brainiac Brainiac is offline
Veteran
 
Brainiac's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Lenexa, KS
Casino cash: $56702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cochise View Post
Well, I didn't see the debate in question, but if that is an accurate reflection of what he said, then that's Ken Ham's position. It sounds like he falls into the second category discussed above.

Aside from that, it's easy for Nye to say "I'll accept evidence" and then later explain why he won't in practice accept any particular piece offered. It's a bit of a meaningless question.

Again, I am not a young-earth person, I'm somewhere between old and agnostic. I haven't found their arguments convincing in the past. All I am saying is let them speak in the debate. If their arguments are spurious then refute them, don't say "There is no debate on this".

Isn't the history of every great advance in science marked by skepticism with respect to the conventional wisdom of the day? Were not many great theories laughed at first, and accepted later? 100 years ago, Einstein was one of the most radical thinkers around. And I just read an article in Discover a few months ago that there are growing questions about his general theory of relativity.

I don't understand the idea that after millenia of continual discovery, all of a sudden today science is now finalized, and this has all been proven incontovertibly. Why not participate in the discussion?
You're not paying attention. Nobody is saying they can't participate in the discussion. They are saying BRING US SOME EVIDENCE. The only evidence they offer is their faith in the Bible. They also like to argue from incredulity: they say "I can't figure this out, therefore God did it".

Those aren't arguments. Your insistence that they are is hard to comprehend if you are telling the truth when you say you are not a creationist.
Posts: 4,141
Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Brainiac is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2014, 11:33 AM   #43
Fish Fish is offline
Missing Dick Curl
 
Fish's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2005
Casino cash: $2119903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cochise View Post
Well, I didn't see the debate in question, but if that is an accurate reflection of what he said, then that's Ken Ham's position. It sounds like he falls into the second category discussed above.

Aside from that, it's easy for Nye to say "I'll accept evidence" and then later explain why he won't in practice accept any particular piece offered. It's a bit of a meaningless question.

Again, I am not a young-earth person, I'm somewhere between old and agnostic. I haven't found their arguments convincing in the past. All I am saying is let them speak in the debate. If their arguments are spurious then refute them, don't say "There is no debate on this".

Isn't the history of every great advance in science marked by skepticism with respect to the conventional wisdom of the day? Were not many great theories laughed at first, and accepted later? 100 years ago, Einstein was one of the most radical thinkers around. And I just read an article in Discover a few months ago that there are growing questions about his general theory of relativity.

I don't understand the idea that after millenia of continual discovery, all of a sudden today science is now finalized, and this has all been proven incontovertibly. Why not participate in the discussion?
Not sure what you mean by the first bolded part. Bill Nye never said he wouldn't in practice accept any particular piece offered. What are you talking about there?

Regarding the second bolded part... That's what has happened. For example, in the Bill Nye Ken Ham creation debate, Bill presented Ken with a tree showing a higher number of tree ring years than Ken Ham claimed the age of the Earth was. Ken Ham simply countered with the idea that perhaps God purposely faked those tree rings just to **** with scientists. If someone has the belief the that world is only 6000 years old, and won't acknowledge that a tree exists with more rings than 6000, then what are you left with? How can you use evidence to convince someone who won't accept evidence?
__________________
Posts: 25,403
Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.Fish is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2014, 11:36 AM   #44
Cochise Cochise is offline
MVP
 
Cochise's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Casino cash: $79953988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainiac View Post
You're not paying attention. Nobody is saying they can't participate in the discussion. They are saying BRING US SOME EVIDENCE. The only evidence they offer is their faith in the Bible. They also like to argue from incredulity: they say "I can't figure this out, therefore God did it".

Those aren't arguments. Your insistence that they are is hard to comprehend if you are telling the truth when you say you are not a creationist.
I didn't say I wasn't a creationist, I said I wasn't a young earth creationist.

It also sounds like Ham was not arguing from perspectives related to cosmology, geology, or the fossil record which is normally what I saw related to their arguments. Heck when I saw Hovind give that lecture, he didn't reference scripture once. He said things relating to the science that sounded plausible, but I acknowledged that I don't possess the education background to evaluate the claims he was making. (I suspected he didn't either, but anyway)

I don't follow this issue all that closely, but I don't think Ham's response to that question is generally representative of the group as a whole.
Posts: 41,032
Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.Cochise is too fat/Omaha.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2014, 11:51 AM   #45
RNR RNR is offline
Ok which door do I leave from
 
RNR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Close to the big pond~
Casino cash: $34863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cochise View Post

Heck when I saw Hovind give that lecture, he didn't reference scripture once. He said things relating to the science that sounded plausible.
I damn near spit my coffee~
__________________

"If its true that our species is alone in the universe, then Id have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little"
George Carlin~
Posts: 23,891
RNR is obviously part of the inner Circle.RNR is obviously part of the inner Circle.RNR is obviously part of the inner Circle.RNR is obviously part of the inner Circle.RNR is obviously part of the inner Circle.RNR is obviously part of the inner Circle.RNR is obviously part of the inner Circle.RNR is obviously part of the inner Circle.RNR is obviously part of the inner Circle.RNR is obviously part of the inner Circle.RNR is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.