Telling lies for God

First topic message reminder :

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.

Stu,
This is the third time I have attempted to reply and is why I do not check my spelling etc, it gets tedious when the post just dissapears.

You do not have to see everything to know it exists.

We know Dark Matter exists we know Energy exists and we cannot see either.

An animal is a different matter.

It must be obvious even to the stupid that the refference to dinosaurs was a wind up.

Them bones, them dry bones etc;

However, when you talk about God you have to look at the matter taking into account all the relevant facts.

The first consideration being, does man think in the whole universe he is the most intelligent and the be all and end all?.

If one does then one must be deluded beyond any understanding.

If one accepts that he is not, then the only alternative being there is someone or something greater and with more powers and intelligence.

They are the only two alternatives.

Take your pick,

how do you confuse an irish gardener polyglide, give him two spades and tell him to take his pick.

Alas polyglide you will not accept anything what we mere humans say to you will you? so what is the point of trying to converse with you when all you do is come up with more and more ridiculous arguments each time.
The problem being is your religion I believe, and I do not know what your religion instills into you from the moment you join but it gets worse the longer you stay with it does it not?

Also Polyglide I do not see mermaids, unicorns, or leprechauns, but I know they do not exist.

Stu,
It is usual for anyopne who says things are stupid etc; to explain just what they mean,

Reply to the contents of the post and explain just where they are wrong.

If you can, perhaps Dr, Sheldon will help you out you appear unable to comment yourself in a reply.

One Polyglide I am not just anyopne? and please point out where I have said something is stupid ETC.

Stu,
Ridiculous arguments, two posts ago, with no reply.

Right Polyglide, slandering numerous posters by calling them stupid, also please check posting rules as you lied on that post and I am sure that is against forum rules.
I have already been picked up about my post since being back from my ban.

polyglide wrote:The only proof of a living dinosaur would be to actually see one, there are many skeletons in many cupboards etc;  

Whereas no evidence at all means it's ok to just assume that bronze age superstitions about talking snakes and deities and demons are true. Nothing inconsistent there obviously. If you think of the absolute minimum of evidence for something as requiring faith, then everything else is grades of evidence upward from there, then the highest possible point humans have created thus far would something validated by empirical science, so the existence of dinosaurs and evolution for instance.

polyglide wrote: You do not have to see everything to know it exists.

Polyglide wrote:Post Today at 2:49 pm
The only proof of a living dinosaur would be to actually see one,

Priceless.

polyglide wrote: does man think in the whole universe he is the most intelligent and the be all and end all?. If one accepts that he is not, then the only alternative being there is someone or something greater and with more powers and intelligence. They are the only two alternatives.  Take your pick,

Why are there only two alternatives? Why must be there a being with more intelligence than humans? Why must that being be a fictitious bronze age deity for which there isn't one shred of evidence? Take your time......

That is why Sheldon, man/woman are the most intellegent be all and end all in the universe, known at the moment, are we not.

stuart torr wrote:That is why Sheldon, man/woman are the most intellegent be all and end all in the universe, known at the moment, are we not.

Well we can't say with any degree of certainty, though clearly polyglide thinks he can claim anything without evidencing it. He's very wrong though as has been explained to him repeatedly.

Evidence that very crucial word Sheldon, hence that is why I put "known at the moment" in my post.

You do not have to see everything to know it exists. says polyglide

But then he says: The only proof of a living dinosaur would be to actually see one, there are many skeletons in many cupboards etc;

Seriously? You are all over the place with this (I hesitate to call it 'thinking').

You are extremely frustrating in your dogmatic, unreasonable, uneducated, irrational view of the world. If you wish to believe stupid things go crazy but stop trying to spread that stupidity to others. Please!

Polyglide wrote: If you wish to believe stupid things go crazy but stop trying to spread that stupidity to others. Please!

I'd settle for Polyglide acknowledging other people's posts and addressing them instead of just repeating the same tired old claims as if he's on a pulpit on repeat with his fingers in his ears.

Stu,
When a person is told that a scientist at the top of his branch of science makes a statement and then an unqualified person in that branch says he would not say such a thing, it makes one wonder just who that person thinks he is.

Stu,
I have to do this in two posts as I keep losing the post half way through.

In the publication I use to keep up to date with nature it has, inm todays publication the following:-

Birds of a certain colour change their colour slightly to avoid preditors and fit in better with their surroundings.

Of course they do, it's called evolution, those with the wrong colour would die out at the expense of the preditors and eventually all the birds of that species would have the same colour until circumstances changed and once again they may have to change the colour.

However, they would all still be exactly the same birds, same physical make up etc;

Now you have made statements that I do not understand science.

Then please tell me which branch you are talking about and we can soon find out who is right.

Instances please.

Polyglide you for once saying dinosaurs did not exist.

polyglide wrote:Stu,
    When a person is told that a scientist at the top of his branch of science makes a statement and then an unqualified person in that branch says he would not say such a thing, it makes one wonder just who that person thinks he is.

What are the name's of these scientists? What are their respective fields and credentials? What have they said? Who are you claiming made this statement and what was the context?

Your usual level of coherence here I'm afraid.

Polyglide wrote: Now you have made statements that I do not understand science.

Then please tell me which branch you are talking about and we can soon find out who is right.

You don't grasp even the basics of the scientific method, processes and requirements like falsification and peer review for example.

You have shown again and again that you don't grasp evolution, you've shown it here again by making a statement that if it were scientifically validated even once would falsify Darwinian evolution.

Has that happened and we all missed it?

Dear oh dear poly you're stubborn, but it won't change your claim into a fact.

Sheldon been aiming all replies to myself, and wanted to know which branch of science he did not understand,I put dinosaurs which he denied existed,as he now says he understands evolution?
WHICH HE HAS SHOWED NO SIGNS OF SO FAR.

He doesn't understand any of them. That's perfectly clear from the pseudo scientific nonsense he hoovers up from creationists and hokum paranormal en sites and then posts here as if it represents proper scientific evidence.

Seriously he has stopped responding to almost every poster who has exposed his woeful illiteracy of all things scientific.  Now he thinks he can post this claptrap unchallenged.  It's like watching a small child who thinks you can't see it because it's covered it's own eyes.  Hilarious stuff. .....

Well it certainly fits in with telling lies for god does it not Sheldon?

Polyglide wrote: However, they would all still be exactly the same birds, same physical make up etc;

Now you have made statements that I do not understand science.

Then please tell me which branch you are talking about and we can soon find out who is right.

Instances please.

You don't grasp the basics of evolution for a start. Despite having it explained repeatedly you can't grasp that microevolution and macroevolution are the exact same process just over different timescales. Whether you agree with this or not is entirely irrelevant as the evidence that supports it has been scientifically validated innumerable times. When you deny this you show that you quite clearly don't grasp the scientific process.

It's like watching a small child who thinks you can't see it because it's covered it's own eyes.

Dr Sheldon. I wouldn't normally do this, but I've noticed what a stickler you are for good grammar and punctuation etc. I'm sure you meant to post "covered its own eyes".

Ivan wrote:

It's like watching a small child who thinks you can't see it because it's covered it's own eyes.

Dr Sheldon. I wouldn't normally do this, but I've noticed what a stickler you are for good grammar and punctuation etc. I'm sure you meant to post "covered its own eyes".

 Thank you Ivan, I did. I was posting on my phone again during a lull at work and as I was rushing didn't spot the error. Unfortunately I can no longer edit the post. I assume the time limit on editing posts is to stop people disingenuously changing things in the post after it has been responded to? That's fair enough of course, but it does mean I should take extra care to proof read my posts, especially when posting from my phone.

Regarding Evolution,
The only time anything can evolve is when it exists.

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that explains where that which exists comes from or as a life form.

There is no evidence whatsoever that one life form changes completely into something else.

There is no evidence that any life form can function without every one of it's vital organs, they must all be there at the same time.

I have explained evolution, things change according to circumstances and without any intelligence being involved.

The intelligence involved is in the origin of all life.

Anyone thinking evolution explains life or the producing of a completely new species from one that already exists, be my guest.

Just explain which parts of the butterfly were missing three evolution steps backwards.

If I proffessed to know something I could explain from start to finish or backwards.

Polyglide wrote: Regarding Evolution,
The only time anything can evolve is when it exists.

There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that explains where that which exists comes from or as a life form.

That isn't regarding evolution. Evolution has nothing to do with and makes no comment on the origin of life.

Seriously polyglide the rank dishonesty of rehashing this stale red herring when it's been explained again and again is shameful. You ought to be embarrassed at such dishonesty.

Polyglide wrote: There is no evidence whatsoever that one life form changes completely into something else.

There is no evidence that any life form can function without every one of it's vital organs, they must all be there at the same time.

Both complete lies.

And again unless you can cite a Nobel prize winner who has falsified the evidence you ought to be embarrassed at such mendacity.

I will not fully reply to this one Sheldon, as I do not want to be accused of bullying, but to say that one "life form does not change into something else" completely loses me, where has he been for the last so many years that you call evolution?

Polyglide wrote: I have explained evolution,

No you haven't, nor can you as yet another breathtakingly silly display demonstrates.

stuart torr wrote:I will not fully reply to this one Sheldon, as I do not want to be accused of bullying, but to say that one "life form does not change into something else" completely loses me, where has he been for the last so many years that you call evolution?

One may say or claim anything, indeed Polyglide's posts usually do. Hitchen's razor applies to his unevidenced claims, and his denials of evolution are risible nonsense. Sad really as a few posters have tried to help him grasp the basics. He has no interest though.

polyglide wrote: Just explain which parts of the butterfly were missing three evolution steps backwards. If I proffessed to know something  I could explain from start to finish or backwards.

Polyglide wrote:There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that explains where that which exists comes from

That's untrue.

Polyglide wrote: There is no evidence whatsoever that one life form changes completely into something else.

Again untrue, evolution has provided unprecedented amount of evidence that shows just this.

Polyglide wrote: There is no evidence that any life form can function without every one of it's vital organs, they must all be there at the same time.

The next time someone has their appendix or a kidney out please try to ignore Polyglige's laughably idiotic claim.

Polyglide wrote:I have explained evolution,

You don't even understand it, let alone are able to explain it, now you're claiming scientific expertise. Evolution is itself an explanation, and it is as well evidenced as any scientific theory we have, get over it.

Polyglide wrote:Anyone thinking evolution explains producing a completely new species from one that already exists, be my guest.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution
Knock yourself out Poly.....

Polyglide wrote:Just explain which parts of the butterfly were missing three evolution steps backwards.

Not sure why I bother as you ignore it every time and then lie that it hasn't been answered but here goes.

"The process of a butterfly developing from a caterpillar is not biological evolution or even related to it. Biological evolution happens to entire populations of organisms over generations. Individual animals do not evolve during their lifetime, rather evolution "takes place" at reproduction. The process of a butterfly developing from a caterpillar is referred to as "complete metamorphosis."
After centuries of studying insects, entomologists have come up with two reasons why butterflies, and all other holometabolous insects (moths, wasps, beetles, etc) undergo complete metamorphosis, in that, ecologically, the larvae and the adults are not in direct competition with each other, and that, biologically, the larval stage can be seen as akin to a precocious embryo that has hatched from its egg before assuming an adult-like form, which is then achieved upon entering the pupal stage.
The claim assumes a race of primordial caterpillars which were able to reproduce without metamorphosis. It implies that the pupa and imago (adult) stages of the holometabolic lifecycle could not have evolved from such a species. Whilst it is difficult to imagine how selection may have targeted this change, the claim's initial assumption is flawed. The ancestor of holometabolic insects, like other insects, likely underwent an embryo stage before emerging as an ametabolic (non-metamorphic) insect. Selection pressure to reduce intra-species competition would have resulted in hemimetabolic insects which undergo embryo, nymph, and imago stages (examples include praying mantises, cockroaches, and dragonflies); allowing children and adults to occupy different ecological niches. As the nymph and imago stages became increasingly distinct from each other the insect would have been more vulnerable during the final metamorphosis, thus selection would have targeted insects capable of resisting predation which led to the evolution of the pupa stage. Thus organisms which undergo distinct embryo, larva, pupa, and imago stages evolved."

Polyglide wrote:If I proffessed to know something I could explain from start to finish or backwards.

You have professed numerous things you can't offer any proper explanation at all for, and some which you've shown you haven't the vaguest idea about like evolution and palaeontology with your dinosaur claim, then there's your claim to be an expert debater when you don't recognise even the most fundamental logical fallacies and use them repeatedly. So don't be silly man.

No replies to your post will be forthcoming Sheldon you do realise this, and please be careful that you do not get accused of bullying please, but religions of all types make posters think strange things do they not.

I was the last poster, are you going to stop sending me those messages yet?

Not to worry stu, Polyglide's posts speak for themselves as do mine in response. Now if pointing and laughing at idiotic claims is bullying or "closed minded " then that's for others to decide, but I suspect most readers and especially the moderators are simply trying to objectively offer a balanced forum experience.

That's to say they are going out of their way to be fair even if some posters never reciprocate, and I'm happy enough with that stu.


Hope you are well by the way. ....

boatlady,
If you want a real laugh just consider what the explanation for the creation of a butterfly involves according to a so called proffesed expert.

Just take an oak tree, I can tell you every step of the way from cutting the tree down to seasoning, to cutting into desired sizes and every stage involved in making a beautiful oak chair.

No one can tell me how the oak tree evolved and from what.

Did the acorn just come from thin air, or did the tree come from thin air?

It is not the obvious evolution that is of any real concern but the origin of life.

Those who accuse others of not understanding are usually the ones who cannot tell the wood from the trees, as many posts confirm.

Did the acorn just come from thin air, or did the tree come from thin air?

You're the one that believes the acorn and oak tree came out of thin air. Science shows the gradual differentiation between species over great lengths of time. That your brain refuses to accept it is not down the truth of it but down to your lack of education and knowledge about what evolution actually is.

Eruditely put Mrs S. I notice again that polyglide is citing another expert's claims but failing to name that expert or cite the claim or any research.

Why anyone thinks they can make a credible denial of something as firmly evidenced as evolution I don't know, but it is of course risible nonsense.