Telling lies for God

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Mar 03, 2015 8:42 pm

Creationism and ID, how much of this idiocy is simple delusion, and how much is outright mendacity? The more I have read the ravings of creationists the more I am inclined to doubt that they sincerely believe everything they are claiming. I mean that some of it is so obviously and ludicrously false, and requires denial of so many facts and so much evidence that I suspect they are deliberately lying. Further, I suspect they genuinely believe that a lie to help proselytise their chosen deity is regarded as a "good lie", and therefore not really a lie at all, but just a pragmatic approach to "fighting the good fight".

A little blunt sometimes, but this punchy article raises some interesting points about theistic debates, and the ludicrous old chestnut that "all beliefs ought to be respected". I have always maintained that what should be respected is the right to believe, not the belief itself, which in any intelligent rational society must surely be judged on the merits of its claims and evidence. Here's a taster, and a link....

"The tactics used by the creationists are identical to those used by the anti-vaccination liars, which is to stand up, tell a monstrous lie which requires a detailed technical response to show the truth, and then sit down leaving the question hanging and no time for an adequate reply. There is no difference in quality between "There are no intermediary fossils" or "There is no way that an eye can evolve" and "Vaccines are made from aborted foetuses" or "Thimerosal in vaccines causes autism". The lie is there, the spectators have heard it, and the liars rely on the fact that scientists take too long to explain the truth and are too polite to shout "That's bullshit!"

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/creationdebate5.htm

How many egregiously dishonest acts, and duplicities have theists and established religions justified in this fashion throughout human history I wonder? After all, in the pursuit of truth a lie is about as useful as a snooze button on a smoke alarm.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Mar 04, 2015 9:39 am

One for Polyglide here when he's done answering all the questions he's ignored.

"Much emphasis has been placed on the lack of first-hand, eye witness accounts of evolution happening, but surely the same caveat must be placed on hearsay filtered through multiple translations. What a mess! If the King James Bible can’t be trusted to tell us about the Rising of the Sun, what can it reliably say about the Rising of the Son?"

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Mar 07, 2015 8:14 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:One for Polyglide here when he's done answering all the questions he's ignored.

"Much emphasis has been placed on the lack of first-hand, eye witness accounts of evolution happening, but surely the same caveat must be placed on hearsay filtered through multiple translations. What a mess! If the King James Bible can’t be trusted to tell us about the Rising of the Sun, what can it reliably say about the Rising of the Son?"

I wonder what kind of disingenuous deflection he might use in response to this question? Or indeed if he will ever respond with anything approaching honesty at all.

by polyglide Mon Mar 09, 2015 2:48 pm

Dr. Sheldon,
When you can get an elephant to mate with a mouse and get a Minny Mouse, then you will have proven evolution.

Good luck.

by snowyflake Mon Mar 09, 2015 6:57 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
When you can get an elephant to mate with a mouse and get a Minny Mouse, then you will have proven evolution.

Good luck.

Asking for elephant/mouse porn is just perverted, polyglide.

Why would you want to do such a thing? And the elephant would have to be female because a male elephant and female mouse is just physically impossible. And a female elephant would be constantly asking, "Is it in yet?"

by snowyflake Mon Mar 09, 2015 7:00 pm

And what kind of hybrid animal are you hoping to get out of a mouse/elephant mating? An elemouse? A Moulephant? And what evolutionary purpose would such an animal serve? You realise that each species is the size it is because of the influence of environment on it. Each succeeded because it was able to adapt to its environment.

Which is why we don't have elephants burrowing holes into our cereal boxes in our pantries.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Mar 09, 2015 7:10 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
When you can get an elephant to mate with a mouse and get a Minny Mouse, then you will have proven evolution. Good luck.

That's risible nonsense, and just reinforces what has become quite obvious to everyone that you haven't any knowledge of evolution at all. Have you nothing of any value to offer? Really man, this is utterly puerile, if you don't wish to discuss or debate in an adult fashion then don't bother. Posts like that just detract from proper debate. It's not even remotely salient to the thread topic.

by snowyflake Mon Mar 09, 2015 7:27 pm

I'm still trying to get my head around elephant-mouse sex, Doc. The mouse would always have to be on top for obvious reasons. Oral sex would be compleeeetely out of the question.

But, you know, if they loved each other, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Smile

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Mar 09, 2015 7:31 pm

snowyflake wrote:I'm still trying to get my head around elephant-mouse sex, Doc. The mouse would always have to be on top for obvious reasons. Oral sex would be compleeeetely out of the question.

But, you know, if they loved each other, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

He seems determined to make ever more ridiculous claims about what evolution requires in order to pretend it's not real. This level of delusion is nothing new of course, what's truly astonishing is the lack of any kind of depth of knowledge or nuanced subtle arguments to prop up the delusion. This is more like a finger in each ear screaming lah lah lah at the top of his voice.

by Norm Deplume Mon Mar 09, 2015 9:03 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
When you can get an elephant to mate with a mouse and get a Minny Mouse, then you will have proven evolution.
Good luck.

If you cross a cereal plant with a human you get a strawman. For an example see the quoted text above.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Mar 09, 2015 9:25 pm

Norm Deplume wrote:
polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
When you can get an elephant to mate with a mouse and get a Minny Mouse, then you will have proven evolution.
Good luck.

If you cross a cereal plant with a human you get a strawman. For an example see the quoted text above.

Ironically his ludicrous straw man polemic is no less likely than getting a snake to talk. Do you think the irony is wasted on him?

by polyglide Tue Mar 10, 2015 10:22 am

Dr. Sheldon,
Not only is reality lost on you but also humour.

As I have explained in simple terms and simple if often broken English, to suit broken minds, Darwin's theories regarding life is only based on what anyone with common sense would appreciate without any scientific evidence being necessary.

This in no way invalidates the fact that intelligence must be involved in creation for reasons I have previously specified.

If you want clarification regarding the theory of evolution and the extent to which it is relative to the creation of life,
just put against evolution on your computer and you will find null hypothesis that clarify the situation.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Mar 10, 2015 10:28 am

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
Not only is reality lost on you but also humour.

As I have explained in simple terms and simple if often broken English, to suit broken minds, Darwin's theories regarding life is only based on what anyone with common sense would appreciate without any scientific evidence being necessary.

This in no way invalidates the fact that intelligence must be involved in creation for reasons I have previously specified.

If you want clarification regarding the theory of evolution and the extent to which it is relative to the creation of life,
just put against evolution on your computer and you will find null hypothesis that clarify the situation.

The same tired old unevidenced claims. Repetition won't make them evidenced or any less laughable.

Science has validated evolution and adds to the evidence all the time. Creationism has never managed this once. Those two facts won't go away no matter how many times you make the ridiculous claim that searching the net for creationism provides this illusive evidence.

Your petty insults and now almost constant ad hominem speaks for itself.

by polyglide Tue Mar 10, 2015 11:00 am

Dr. Seldon,
If you cannot take it do not dish it out.

As for a load of nonsenense, just look at the times you repeat yourself.

Your lack of undetstanding gets even more obvious day by day.

All scientists I am aware of agree that evolution takes place, even the latest scientists can only confirm that evolution just changes matters according to circumstances.

Had all the circumstances remained the same so would all things remained the same.

I have explained the isolation theory, however, as with almost all relevant matters it just goes way over your head and the same old chestnuts come out, by the way can you explain the chestnut tree? using our old friend Darwin.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Mar 10, 2015 12:29 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Seldon,
If you cannot take it do not dish it out.

As for a load of nonsenense, just look at the times you repeat yourself.

Your lack of undetstanding gets even more obvious day by day.

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Show a post of mine indulging ad hominem since you accuse me of dishing it out. I never said repetition was wrong I merely pointed out that what you're repeating isn't evidenced and repetition won't make it so. So it's quite funny that having failed yet again to comprehend a basic sentence you choose to throw that accusation at me.

All scientists I am aware of agree that evolution takes place, even the latest scientists can only confirm that evolution just changes matters according to circumstances.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Ho hum, another unevidenced claim. You actually don't understand at all do you?

Had all the circumstances remained the same so would all things remained the same.

I have explained the isolation theory, however, as with almost all relevant matters it just goes way over your head and the same old chestnuts come out, by the way can you explain the chestnut tree? using our old friend Darwin.

Your explanations, apart from being risible nonsense are entirely unevidenced. Darwin on the other hand has been thoroughly vindicated by 150 years of scientific scrutiny.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Mar 10, 2015 2:26 pm

Polyglide wrote: All scientists I am aware of agree that evolution takes place, even the latest scientists can only confirm that evolution just changes matters according to circumstances.

Just how many scientists are you claiming to be "aware of"? How does this "awareness" manifest itself? Lastly how does this awareness enable you to make that claim which as we have seen is refuted by quite compelling evidence. Project Steve for example, or the 72 Nobel laureates who wrote a combined decleration of support for evolution. To name Just two famous examples.

You see your claim reads as if you're simply making up an obviously false claim, again, since you've offered not one shred of evidence to support it. What's odd is every time you're asked for evidence you simply pluck a new unevidenced claim out of nowhere. Odd that. ...

by polyglide Tue Mar 10, 2015 3:00 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
Grow up.

You tell me one that does not.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Mar 10, 2015 7:39 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
Grow up.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Brilliant and you're busy telling me in another thread that I am the one resorting to ad hominem. Does that post strike you as a reasonable measured intelligent response. You made a claim, I called you on it as it was frankly ridiculous, and par for the course you throw your toys right out of the pram. All you've done is highlight that your claim was plucked from thin air and you know you can't even remotely evidence it, so you start hurling insults.

You tell me one that does not.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

72 Noble prize winners endorsing a petition of support for evolution, an unprecedented occurrence. Now remind us what your evidence was for your claim? "Grow up" was all you offered in response wasn't it?

by polyglide Wed Mar 11, 2015 11:05 am

Dr, Sheldon,
What did these people win their prizes for?

As an alternative look www.scienceagainstevolution.ifo

There are just as many scientists that do not agree with what some interprit as evolution as those in favour.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:10 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
What did these people win their prizes for?

As an alternative look www.scienceagainstevolution.ifo

There are just as many scientists that do not agree with what some interprit as evolution as those in favour.

Contributions to science. Peer reviewed work of course, unlike the pseudoscience creationists dishonestly try to pass of as science. Your link didn't work so I'll try Googling it. In the mean time perhaps you can show some actual figures, with evidence for this grandiose but unevidenced claim of yours.

Don't forget that project Steve showed through research that even in the USA, where creationism amongst scientists is higher than anywhere in the developed world, less than. 001% of scientists accepted the superstition of creationism over the science of evolution.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu Mar 12, 2015 5:10 pm

polyglide wrote:As an alternative look www.scienceagainstevolution.ifo There are just as many scientists that do not agree with what some interprit as evolution as those in favour.

Managed to find this site using Google, what an utter joke. Nothing on that site has any scientific basis whatsoever. They're creationists pure and simple, and are simply preaching their religious beliefs. Your claim about the number of scientists who dispute evolution is simply a lie, and you've made no attempt to evidence it, as we can all see, and we can all see why as well. No facts, no figures, no names, no experts, no peer reviewed evidence, not one single published peer reviewed paper from what you claim is 50% of the entire scientific community, you're taking the mickey, but I'm laughing now at least. What else can any sensible person do with such idiotically absurdly false claims. Rolling Eyes

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu Mar 12, 2015 7:39 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
What did these people win their prizes for?

As an alternative look www.scienceagainstevolution.ifo

There are just as many scientists that do not agree with what some interprit as evolution as those in favour.

Tell me again how I missed an l out of the word allude with my touch screen smart phone. Rolling Eyes

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu Mar 12, 2015 7:52 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon, Not only is reality lost on you but also humour.

On the contrary, the hilarity of your mouse & elephant analogy was only surpassed by the capital N for the word not in that sentence. The humour of your posts is never lost on me, or anyone else I suspect, except you of course.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu Mar 12, 2015 8:03 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
What did these people win their prizes for?

As an alternative look www.scienceagainstevolution.ifo

There are just as many scientists that do not agree with what some interprit as evolution as those in favour.

I feel this quote, from the opening post precisely sums up that site and its contents:

"The tactics used by the creationists are identical to those used by the anti-vaccination liars, which is to stand up, tell a monstrous lie which requires a detailed technical response to show the truth, and then sit down leaving the question hanging and no time for an adequate reply. There is no difference in quality between "There are no intermediary fossils" or "There is no way that an eye can evolve" and "Vaccines are made from aborted foetuses" or "Thimerosal in vaccines causes autism". The lie is there, the spectators have heard it, and the liars rely on the fact that scientists take too long to explain the truth and are too polite to shout "That's bullshit!"

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/creationdebate5.htm

Fortunately not being a scientist myself I am more than happy to point out that Polyglide's link is indeed bullshit.

by snowyflake Thu Mar 12, 2015 9:15 pm

Yeah I had a look at that site, Doc. What an utter crock of unscientific mumbo jumbo doo doo if I ever saw any.

Polyglide needs to go to a science class. He needs to understand the scientific method and stop believing things that christian tell him because they lie through their teeth. They can't help it. They lie to themselves so lying to others is no great stretch.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu Mar 12, 2015 11:03 pm

snowyflake wrote:Polyglide needs to go to a science class. He needs to understand the scientific method and stop believing things that christian tell him because they lie through their teeth. They can't help it.

Judging from the astonishing lies he has posted on here, I'd say he was amongst the liars at least as much as he's one of the lied to, though it's clear he also lies to himself of course as this is the nature of self delusion. I'd argue that the very nature of faith is self delusion, something modern monotheistic religions have based their beliefs on as a virtue. One has only to see his astonishing post where he claimed to be "100% certain" that his version of his god exists to see how utterly closed to any doubt or critical thinking his mindset is. That's without his hilarious but dishonest attempts to redefine the dictionary word by word.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu Mar 12, 2015 11:06 pm

snowyflake wrote:Polyglide needs to go to a science class. He needs to understand the scientific method and stop believing things that christian tell him because they lie through their teeth.

He doesn't understand what is or is not scientific, he's made that abundantly clear again and again, but then that's creationism in a nutshell, a breathtaking blend of superstition and outrageous lies.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu Mar 12, 2015 11:19 pm

Post by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Wed Mar 04, 2015 10:39 am

One for Polyglide here when he's done answering all the questions he's ignored.

"Much emphasis has been placed on the lack of first-hand, eye witness accounts of evolution happening, but surely the same caveat must be placed on hearsay filtered through multiple translations. What a mess! If the King James Bible can’t be trusted to tell us about the Rising of the Sun, what can it reliably say about the Rising of the Son?"

Just to remind everyone that the post below was Polyglide's astonishing response to the question above. A pointless dismissive nonsensical piece of BS to be frank, so perhaps we can expect an honest and clear response as to why he thinks the inconsistent thinking of Christians towards scientific facts like evolution as illustrated above is acceptable to him as he's illustrated in his posts many times?

polyglide wrote:Dr. Sheldon,
When you can get an elephant to mate with a mouse and get a Minny Mouse, then you will have proven evolution. Good luck.

Good luck is perhaps the proper sentiment here as I am not holding my breath.

by polyglide Fri Mar 13, 2015 11:45 am

Dr, Sheldon,
Let us forget all the funny stuff and consider the actual facts.

I can assure you I am well aware of the Big Bang theory.

The problem is as I have said previously, what went bang.

The originator of the theory states very clearly that he nor anyone else can say what went Bang and what went before.

So even were the theory to be confirmed, [I am aware of the South Pole experiment], it would realy take us no nearer knowing the truth regarding the universe and what it involves regarding it's origin etc;

What we do know is the present situation on earth.

My main interests are, how, why and by whom.

I have stated previously how I think matters arose.

There is no chance whatsoever on all known means of accessment that things could come about by chance and random events.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 13, 2015 11:56 am

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
Let us forget all the funny stuff and consider the actual facts.

I can assure you I am well aware of the Big Bang theory.

The problem is as I have said previously, what went bang.

The originator of the theory states very clearly that he nor anyone else can say what went Bang and what went before.

So even were the theory to be confirmed, [I am aware of the South Pole experiment], it would realy take us no nearer knowing the truth regarding the universe and what it involves regarding it's origin etc;

What we do know is the present situation on earth.

My main interests are, how, why and by whom.

I have stated previously how I think matters arose.

There is no chance whatsoever on all known means of accessment that things could come about by chance and random events.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. God of the gaps. No assertion can logically be made from a lack of knowledge. Your guessing as you've been told multiple times. What's more your making guesses based on subjective assumptions.

There is not one shred of evidence for the existence of anything supernatural. What's more every time religions have made this claim for supernatural causation they've been proved wrong.

Hitchen's razor applies to your bare unevidenced claims.

by polyglide Fri Mar 13, 2015 12:00 pm

DR, Sheldon,
Darwin's theory is sound only in respect of the fact that plants and animals can slightly change when unnatural events occur.

The events cannot be claimed as natural or that which is involved would produce exactly it's own kind.

This can be proven by no one being able to produce any new species unless by selective breeding, which is a different matter.

I am realy interested in just exactly what you believe the answer is, you condemn my belief but offer no alternative.

by polyglide Fri Mar 13, 2015 12:08 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
If there was actual evidence there would be no problem.

As for there being no spirit life.

I challenge you and several who feel the same to have a few sessions calling up the spirits, not gin and whisky, the type you say do not exist.

I should not realy advise this as God aid it was inadvisable.

However, you are so sure, then try it.

Use the Quji Board.

After several sessions I gaurantee you will wish you had not.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 13, 2015 12:37 pm

polyglide wrote:DR, Sheldon,
Darwin's theory is sound only in respect of the fact that plants and animals can slightly change when unnatural events occur.

The events cannot be claimed as natural or that which is involved would produce exactly it's own kind.

This can be proven by no one being able to produce any new species unless by selective breeding, which is a different matter.

I am realy interested in just exactly what you believe the answer is, you condemn my belief but offer no alternative.

I have not condemned your creationist beliefs merely laughed at their absurdity. Your claims are nonsense, again you merely illustrate that you lack even the most basic understanding of how science operates and of evolutionary mechanism that take millions of years to enact small changes but which you laughably expect to appear instantly in front of your eyes.

You make no mention of why it's ok for you to accept the most absurd claims from the bible that defy all known natural laws yet insist you can deny the scientific fact of evolution because you weren't around for the last 4.5 billion years to see it for yourself.

This is as hilarious as it is stupid.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 13, 2015 12:39 pm

I don't indulge superstitious foolishness. If you want to delude yourself crack on. If you want evidence it then do so and when it's scientifically validated I'll accept it. Until then it's hokum superstition.

by polyglide Sat Mar 14, 2015 11:04 am

DR, Sheldon,
Then give me one instance where one animal became a entirely different animal.

Also explain the acorn and the oak tree by scientific means.

by snowyflake Sat Mar 14, 2015 12:41 pm

I sent you a link on the evolution of oak trees, polyglide. It was a simple 3 minute video explaining it. Did you bother to look at it?

Your request, "Then give me one instance where one animal became a entirely different animal" shows how you don't understand evolution in the slightest. It's a stupid question which is based on ignorance of the topic.

You would have to understand common ancestry, speciation, genetic drift, population genetics for starters to get a grip on how species evolve. Our most recent common ancestor was neither chimp nor human and one population evolved into humans and the other population evolved into chimps & bonobos. We know this is true because we share nearly of our DNA with them. Why did chimps/bonobos not develop into humans? Because they adapted to their environment and their gene pool remained relatively the same. Why did humans evolve from the common ancestor into humans? Because they adapted to their environment, and beneficial genetic mutation enhanced survivability for that population. That is a VERY basic explanation but you still won't get it because you are blinded by biblebullonia (the mental defect of believing fairy tales over hard scientific evidence).

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Mar 14, 2015 1:57 pm

polyglide wrote:DR, Sheldon,
Then give me one instance where one animal became a entirely different animal.

Also explain the acorn and the oak tree by scientific means.

Every single animal you see does precisely that, unless you can explain why the oldest fossils are all different species to the current ones? Any thoughts as to why this is the case, and almost none of those fossilised species are around now?

Your last question makes no sense, what does it even mean? I have linked umpteen seminal works in the field of evolution from the very foremost experts but you have no interest in educating yourself and would rather read hokum creationist nonsense from online creationist blogs.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Mar 15, 2015 3:06 pm

polyglide wrote:DR, Sheldon, Also explain the acorn and the oak tree by scientific means.

Can you lease explain how Jesus purportedly raised Lazarus from the dead, only using entirely scientific means?

That's a question by the way, you can see it's a question by the question mark at the end, a helpful tip I hope. Note that I didn't randomly capitalise any words after the use of a comma, another helpful tip I hope. Note that I didn't randomly place commas where they didn't belong, hopefully another helpful tip.

by polyglide Mon Mar 16, 2015 10:13 am

Dr, Sheldon,
How unfortunate your grasp of grammar is not upheld by your total lack of understanding what is written as opposed to what you think is written.

Before writing the matter to which you refer I looked at a subsject regarding aposrtaphies and there was a realy intelligent person who wrote, does all the punctuation and grammatical mistakes realy matter, it is surely the intent of one to convey to another that which is intended and if this is done successfully it matters not, how , etc;

This makes more sense to me than having all the punctuation in the correct place but involving a load of codswallop.

by polyglide Mon Mar 16, 2015 10:15 am

DR, Sheldon,
People are brought back from the clinicaly dead nearly every day of the week in hospitals etc;

by Sponsored content