Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2018 14:26:29 GMT
Federal Judge Jones did say that the major defendants in Kitzmiller v. Dover deliberately lied under oath regarding the origin of funds for Creationist claptrap. Here's what the judge said: en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/5:Promoting_Religion#Page_115_of_139Creationism and ID are the same thing. The born-again Liars For Jesus have nothing but fairy tales to support their position. Their religion, Christianity, is a lie and always has been. There's nothing moral that comes from the mouths of those people. I am aware that the people in that case who were representing the ID side of the argument were unusually unqualified to do that. This is true. Largely because it's not possible to be well qualified to defend intelligent design, since intelligent design is not a hypothesis that can be rationally defended. Of course they are. No, in fact it is not. Spontaneous generation deals with the alleged spontaneous creation of complex life forms such as mice, say. Abiogenesis deals with the spontaneous creation of life forms which are as simple as it is possible for a life form to be. They are two very different things.
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jun 22, 2018 23:43:29 GMT
As wonderful as life is in many parts of the world, not all people have the same share. In fact some parts of the world are overcrowded with few resources and little development. People who live in areas where extreme poverty prevails sometimes think that merely moving to an area where there appears plenty will solve the problem. Not everyone agrees. Many believe that the areas where there is plenty have people there who are good stewards of the resources, and that their better management of resources is the reason things are going so well. They are concerned that people who cannot do well in their own country cannot do well anywhere else and will drag down the standard of living wherever they go unless they learn better stewardship first. The people in prosperous areas often believe in rules and that following them is the reason they are prosperous. ... The people whose job it is to enforce the rules will have to be mean because they don't wait for you to agree to the rules. They require that you follow them regardless of your own will in the matter. There are people whose job it is to be mean. Not everyone will consider it "mean," rather they will consider it "necessary." Closing argument for the defense from Nuremberg trials?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 23, 2018 0:20:37 GMT
Excuse me, did you just say that I did not prove the hammer was not in your toolbox? I know very well I did offer definite proof. If you're complaining it's not the highest standard of proof, you're wrong. There is no higher standard. There are people who believe anything is possible and if so that would mean nothing can ever be proved. All proof, positive or negative, or whatever else you want to call it, requires that quite many other things are not possible. That means that there is no such thing as a "positive" proof ever. You must begin with the proofs or the assumptions that certain other things could not happen. See my comments on crime scene tape. In your case it's all assumptions. You really need negative proofs yourself though, otherwise there is no "positive" proof. Can you now see what happened? People of average intelligence can see it by now. Atheists were losing the argument about intelligent design and made up new "rules" of debate to make them win since they couldn't win any other way. There really is no logic to rules about arguing from ignorance or incredulity or that nonsense about the obvious truth not being "positive." You are incapable of logic, you believe whatever you like, and mistakenly call it logic, no matter what I say. You are worse than the religious "fundamentalist" who uses religion instead of logic as an excuse for mindless copying. Straw man, that means it's your claim, not mine. The issue is not really what can happen, the issue is what does happen in ordinary circumstances. Is it possible to defy gravity? Probably not. What matters though is not whether anyone can one day defy gravity with some scientific discovery, but that gravity does happen in a very consistent manner otherwise in what we like to call "nature." Small, lifeless RNA chains do not, no matter what natural agencies assist, assemble life. That is what does happen in repeated trials year after year after year. What can happen is something else entirely as your science comic book friends are always saying. By whom? You? Have you not noticed your support here is dwindling? I'm sorry you're not a peer yourself, but that does show what the problem here is. We're waiting for a representative of your god to proclaim truth. Will the TV do? No, that's not it. The argument is about what does happen compared to what can happen. That you cannot see the difference is the problem. You have failed to make any case using what does happen and you have no idea why you should.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 25, 2018 12:43:15 GMT
FF: [Arlon misunderstands] the nature of what constitutes positive evidence as opposed to being certain of a negative. Arlon: Excuse me, did you just say that I did not prove the hammer was not in your toolbox? That is still not a positive proof. But then (as we learn during this exchange) that would be impossible anyway LOL You affirmed a negative one. In any case in the example given it is possible - though not likely of course - that a tiny hammer exists in the box, which you miss when checking. Being of the credulous type you better believe it. See how that works? Evidence for something is usually going to be stronger than attempting a negative proof Arlon. This is especially true in the case of hypothetical deities. That's why I always ask it of you instead of your Go-of-The-Gaps routine and claims from personal credulity. And am always disappointed. I am especially disappointed by your self-serving denial of the existence of positive proof which follows, just below. .. Which is logical nonsense since some things can always be proved (except to Arlon, apparently). This diversion is very interesting - but, even if you think it is now dispensed with by such peculiar logic, such special pleading still does not really divert from the continuing and quite reasonable request for positive proof of your purported deity. In short: as always, if you make a positive claim, substantiate it. And there clearly is such a thing as positive proofs. In mathematics for instance. None the less the idea that there "no such thing as a positive proof", including that for your god, is a gift and will come back to haunt you - It also stands directly in contradiction to your claim here, just recently, that apparently there is "mountains of it". LOL Yes; you are making an illogical claim that positive proofs are impossible by way of special pleading and thus jarringly contradicting your earlier statement. Good work. I seem to remember any 'loss' pertaining to creationism, er, intelligent design was prominent during the Dover trial some years back! And that still remains pretty conclusive - your own much-touted and yet strangely overdue copyrighted appeal notwithstanding... But Arlon, with your latest reply, especially with the novel claim that all positive proofs are now apparently "impossible", it is you conveniently who appears to have abandoned logic for religious convenience. But I can see why you might feel the pressing need to do so. To which the answer is the same. If a deity is deemed limitless, as the Christian god typically is, being outside of time and space & etc then general claims about God will, of necessity, reflect this nature. For instance, no one says 'God knows everything ... but only here on earth' or 'God's dominion stops at the border.' (This is not the same as saying that claims about the unknowable are ultimately meaningful, of course, as claims can be unlimited in scope but limited by knowledge.) But perhaps you can prove your point. Make a general claim about God which, by inference or not, limits His scope. (Apart from God being unable to change His own nature.) Best read a gushing thing like this first though: www.jimfeeney.org/no-limits-unlimited-God.html These Xians seem pretty sure. I hope that won't be a problem. Are you now here expressing disappointment by a lack of positive proof? Proof the like of which, only just above, you assured me was "impossible"? Surely not! LOL You have received repeated guidance from more than one on these boards, my friend. So, such typical bluster aside, you still can't offer anything? Oh that's right, such a proof would be "impossible".... As already pointed out, Arlon, something which is possible is not always likely. For the credulous of course, anything can happen, without any filter at all. As far as what does happen, it certainly never includes the magical, spontaneous creation of new life, does it? And your deity never shows up unambiguously to all?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 25, 2018 22:29:05 GMT
... That is still not a positive proof. ... You weren't paying attention. You need to know that certain other things cannot happen in order to prove anything. You assume those things cannot happen. You are not conscious of the fact that you assume. You are notoriously oblivious of quite many of your assumptions. Your blind faith in "science" is blind to the assumptions you need. Only thus are you able to believe in your positive proofs. To prove anything it is necessary to eliminate all the other possibilities. That, very interestingly, is the difference between a "theory" and a "law" in science. A theory is just one of many possible explanations. A "law" means that all the other explanations have been eliminated. Suppose the police find the murder weapon, a gun whose barrel matches the bullet that killed the victim, in the house of a suspect. Is that positive of proof of anything? Not yet. It is necessary to be certain no one else put it there. You have to prove the negative that no one else could have put it there. That's the point of crime scene tape. It can help with things like that. As explained to you many times now it reduces the scope of the proof. It is the scope that matters, not positive or negative.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 26, 2018 9:43:35 GMT
FF: [asserting a negative claim is] still not a positive proof. ... Arlon:You weren't paying attention. You need to know that certain other things cannot happen in order to prove anything. Some things can happen in one of different ways, Arlon. But I think you really know that. And in the quantum realm (although I know you don't hold with the pesky new-fangled physics of today) where very often indeterminancy is the rule, some things are never the less considered proved. In the case of a presumed deliberate supernatural, I don't assume anything, and merely ask for proof for any claims that it exists from those who do before committing to a view. That, apparently remains a problem, since you have lately told me that positive proof, at least, for your god is "impossible". Given such admitted unavailability, one can see why you hang by your credulity. It appears now, though, that you cannot even prove your god in negative fashion, since it is always 'possible' that any notion of the deliberate supernatural is a delusion - or, if a god actually exists it might possibly be a trickster deity, fooling mankind into all sorts of nonsense for its own amusement. So I guess you are stuck. See how your logic works both ways? Annoying isn't? Especially when all you always have is arguments from negative ones lol
As said before Arlon there is a big difference between what is possible and what is likely. And, as a soft atheist I keep an open mind. There is, btw, as far as I am aware no scientific view, law, theory or otherwise concerning a deliberate supernatural. And, as Dover evidenced, creationism, er, intelligent design is not science - being more akin to astrology, as eventually admitted by its proponents when on the stand.
On this same basis Arlon, by your reasoning, such murders would never be proved since it is always 'possible' that it is the fairies that really do it. Or indeed it could be the hand of god at work in mysterious ways for His own inscrutable reasons. That is, unless we can exclude the supernatural from the crime, something which is always, you say, 'possible', then no jury would be able to convict no matter how unlikely. But such a negative is not open to proof since the little magical critters can be hiding anywhere and are often invisible to mortals while, in modern times at least, God is never unambiguous. Hey, I think I see it now! lol.
And btw, in a murder case, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, not the other way around. I hope that helps. But know it won't.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 26, 2018 11:29:01 GMT
It is very important that you realize your opinions are no longer required. Responsible adults always pay attention to children even though the children are often likely to be mistaken. The information children have can lead to more responsible investigations. Sometimes they have extraordinary perspective. Sometimes however, and in your case, it becomes obvious that there is no point to the complaints. It is also important for you to realize that the very highly speculative theories on the frontiers of "science" are not science such as might be used in arguments to prove anything, thus "comic book science." Of course you are welcome to register your theories here, just as I was allowed when I was considered the mistaken child. Sometimes that can have remarkable rewards. Furthermore your opinions of what constitutes a proof or not are also no longer required. Your notions have been thoroughly examined and determined to be invalid. It is still possible, but decreasingly likely, that you can find others who "think" as you do, especially on totally free access internet discussion boards. Real life however will prove more difficult for you. The proponents of ID in that case were obviously not qualified to represent it. It even appears they were deliberately trying to defeat the truth of intelligent design. That can be corrected. I am fully aware that you won't know anything until the TV tells you. Although the scope of an investigation can quickly get get out of hand, as has been explained to you several times, there is usually only a small number of people who have any reason to commit a crime. It is not necessary to prove the millions of people in other states did not enter the crime scene, although if they did it would be much easier to prove (or disprove if they did not!). Similarly the scope of the proof of intelligent design is limited to an easily manageable level.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 26, 2018 11:46:05 GMT
FF:1) in the quantum realm ... where very often indeterminancy is the rule, some things are never the less considered proved. Arlon: It is very important that you realize your opinions are no longer required. Responsible adults always pay attention to children even though the children are often likely to be mistaken. The information children have can lead to more responsible investigations. Sometimes they have extraordinary perspective. Sometimes however, and in your case, it becomes obvious that there is no point to the complaints. It is also important for you to realize that the very highly speculative theories on the frontiers of "science" are not science such as might be used in arguments to prove anything, thus "comic book science." Of course you are welcome to register your theories here, just as I was allowed when I was considered the mistaken child. Sometimes that can have remarkable rewards. Thank you for the condescension. And for not addressing the point. As usual. See above. One of the prime professional witnesses for the accused, and whose testimony ultimately proved so unfortunately the most telling, was Behe en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe Readers here can tell how qualified a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture is compared to, say, your good self (a person who argues that positive proof is "impossible" while negative proof for anything apparently cannot be provided by way of alternative either, since all things 'possible' cannot be excluded! How is your hugely anticipated, copyrighted appeal working out? You keep forgetting to update us. Thank you again for the condescension. It must really work for you. Never the less, on your previously expressed logic, ("You need to know that certain other things cannot happen in order to prove anything"), unless something can be proved to be impossible then every other eventuality must be admitted - and so even negative proof cannot be claimed. Hence, if one cannot disprove or prove for sure the notion of fairies and their suspected role in crimes, no verdicts are, apparently, possible. Thank you for pointing this highly useful rule out. It will no doubt save the justice system a lot of time. To which the same argument applies. I hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 26, 2018 12:34:45 GMT
How is your hugely anticipated, copyrighted appeal working out? You keep forgetting to update us. It is going fine. There is still not even one person in science, education, politics or television news in real life who disagrees that Kitzmiller v, Dover will be overturned eventually, and I have met in real life, in person, several people from the higher ranks of those disciplines. You know very well that many people on the fringes of politics (Trump supporters) who have never had the opportunity to meet me or taken the time to read my numerous and complicated articles have taken a dislike to me that prevents them from doing what makes sense. Some of them would probably like to see the case overturned, but don't know how, or perhaps believe it has already been overturned, or simply have no clue whatever there was such a case. Perhaps some of them believe what their party is doing is helping me or their party to eventually overturn the case. It appears they do not realize that it won't help their party to try to fix other things first. The most and strongest opposition comes from those who do not want the case overturned because they believe very much in their own power despite their obvious ignorance of religion, science, and economics. The question of the day is whether they will fail sooner or later.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 27, 2018 9:21:17 GMT
FF: How is your hugely anticipated, copyrighted appeal working out? You keep forgetting to update us. Arlon:It is going fine. There is still not even one person in science, education, politics or television news in real life who disagrees that Kitzmiller v, Dover will be overturned eventually, and I have met in real life, in person, several people from the higher ranks of those disciplines. I see you have been affected by a touch of the hyperboles here. And no one on this board, that I have ever read, has ever shared this optimism. Now it might be that the luminaries with whom you rub shoulders are different folk. But I can only report what, over months and years, both here and on the old board has been the case. I love the smell of self importance in the morning.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 27, 2018 11:58:57 GMT
FF: How is your hugely anticipated, copyrighted appeal working out? You keep forgetting to update us. Arlon:It is going fine. There is still not even one person in science, education, politics or television news in real life who disagrees that Kitzmiller v, Dover will be overturned eventually, and I have met in real life, in person, several people from the higher ranks of those disciplines. I see you have been affected by a touch of the hyperboles here. And no one on this board, that I have ever read, has ever shared this optimism. Now it might be that the luminaries with whom you rub shoulders are different folk. But I can only report what, over months and years, both here and on the old board has been the case. I love the smell of self importance in the morning. Unlike my opponents I care more about the truth than who gets credit for it. If the disorganized and misguided masses can stumble upon and uphold the truth, that would be fine by me. If what you are doing here is to take credit away from me for my arguments and give it to whatever tribe you prefer, I really don't care as long as it is the truth taught in schools. link
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2018 13:11:24 GMT
How is your hugely anticipated, copyrighted appeal working out? You keep forgetting to update us. It is going fine. When is your court date?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 27, 2018 13:41:48 GMT
If the disorganized and misguided masses can stumble upon and uphold the truth, that would be fine by me. On behalf of the misguided masses I thank you. Unfortunately for you the idea of Intelligent Design, er, creationism, in American schools - at least taught as 'science' - was, by and large, sunk back in Dover. As for any credit owing to your arguments, I put the very idea of it all down to you.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 27, 2018 15:53:33 GMT
Way before anyone else's attempts to overturn it apparently. Time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 27, 2018 15:57:19 GMT
If the disorganized and misguided masses can stumble upon and uphold the truth, that would be fine by me. On behalf of the misguided masses I thank you. Unfortunately for you the idea of Intelligent Design, er, creationism, in American schools - at least taught as 'science' - was, by and large, sunk back in Dover. As for any credit owing to your arguments, I put the very idea of it all down to you. Believe whatever you like. That's what everyone (for the most part) else does, but me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2018 16:39:33 GMT
Way before anyone else's attempts to overturn it apparently. Time will tell. But when? What date?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 27, 2018 21:53:34 GMT
Way before anyone else's attempts to overturn it apparently. Time will tell. But when? What date? How do you like February 12? That's Abraham Lincoln's and Darwin's birthday. When is your birthday?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2018 22:33:02 GMT
How do you like February 12? Sounds good. I'll look for it in the papers to see how you do. Last Sunday.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 27, 2018 22:40:18 GMT
On behalf of the misguided masses I thank you. Unfortunately for you the idea of Intelligent Design, er, creationism, in American schools - at least taught as 'science' - was, by and large, sunk back in Dover. As for any credit owing to your arguments, I put the very idea of it all down to you. Believe whatever you like. That's what everyone (for the most part) else does, but me. Well, I believe that there is a possibility that you might be Jesus of the second coming. I am sure that suspicion has not passed you by!
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 27, 2018 23:05:10 GMT
Believe whatever you like. That's what everyone (for the most part) else does, but me. Well, I believe that there is a possibility that you might be Jesus of the second coming. I am sure that suspicion has not passed you by! I know people who have "spiritual gifts" (special abilities granted by the Holy Spirit), but I have no extraordinary powers myself. I am just a human scholar. I suspect God wants to keep it that way.
|
|