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.

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.

Polyglide wrote: 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.

You and you alone have claimed butterflies were created. I'm not sure one can claim expertise in creationism either, it's a bit like claiming to be an expert on mermaids.

Polyglide wrote: 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.

1. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.
2. If you have no interest in evolution why keep asking about it?
3. I have offered the titles of most of the seminal works in this field, why if you really wanted to know the answers do you refuse to read them?

What puzzles me here is why you're holding back. I mean if you think these rather silly questions of yourself actually throw some real doubt onto Darwinian evolution why not get them published in a credible peer reviewed scientific journal?

Imagine falsifying evolution, you'd be more famous than Darwin and would receive the gratitude of every theist in the world. Even if the money was of no interest you could donate it to charity. I can only think of one plausible reason you've not done so and that is that your objections are absurdly risible nonsense.

Did polyglide really say that there are beings involved in myself having a fit too Sheldon? or was I reading the wrong thing?

Polyglide has no interest in evolution Sheldon yet he asks about it all the time? why so we ask ourselves? to find information? if he finds information he only ignores it does he not? is he really writing a book of information on us Sheldon?

The endless repetition of his acorn and butterfly questions are obviously some creationist propaganda he believe represent compelling evidence against the scientific fact of evolution.

Even a moments honest reflection dismantle this by asking yourself if the theory of gravity or relativity would be in doubt if some aspect of it could not be explained to Polyglide's satisfaction, let alone demanding the explanation be from unqualified posters on here who are likely not scientists themselves.

The bombast and hubris he's attached to the repetitions of these questions are entirely unjustified, and of course he has again completely ignored the scientific research I linked in answers to those questions.

Hi Stu,
There is no scientific evidence that can exlpain a 90 ton dinosaur that is 60 meters long.

If a mouse lived for ever it would, under all normal circumstances, forever be a mouse, the same applies to all animal life.

If you look at the scvientific evidence Dr, Sheldon repetatively relates to you will find that there are thousands of gaps that cannot be explained.

Under these circumstances until such times as they can be explained they are theories.

The scientists in China have just discovered a bird with feathers, only 160 million years before they previously said they were evolved.

Gravity we know exists, any sensible person realises the significance of relativity and neither have anything to do with the subject in question.

This is odd, in the other thread you're yet again claiming Darwinian evolution is a fact, but here you are minutes later denying it?

Which is it? Your claim contradicts the theory of evolution, and since your claims if properly evidenced would falsify it why hasn't this happened?

You wouldn't be making it up would you? It's creation is BS propaganda isn't it? Oh dear poly, do you think we don't know you're making up nonsense?

How do you explain the facts that evolution has never been falsified despite 150 years scientific scrutiny which only adds more and more evidence? Of course there are gaps as anyone with even the most basic unserstanding of science knows, you seem unaware that ALL scientific theories including gravity and relativity are tentative not absolutes like religious myths.

All very hilarious but these are standard creationist clichés rhetoric and straw man arguments that any sane intelligent person recognises all too easily.

No butterfly question? I'm almost disappointed.

Polyglide wrote:
Gravity we know exists, any sensible person realises the significance of relativity and neither have anything to do with the subject in question.

They're both scientific theories and are evidenced in exactly the same way evolution is. You're making a complete fool of yourself here I'm afraid.

Your mouse analogy is hilarious,  but even by creationist strawman standards it's quite possibly the dumbest I've ever read, and I had the misfortune to see that creationist idiot on YouTube claiming a banana had to made by God as it was curved especially to fit a human hand.

Mice don't live forever, nothing does, evolution is entirely predicated on this fact and the fact of genetic reproduction. So claiming a make believe immortal mouse wouldn't conform to evolution is beyond stupid.

LMAOPML etc etc

polyglide wrote:Hi Stu,
        There is no scientific evidence that can exlpain a 90 ton dinosaur that is 60 meters long.

Another tedious misrepresentation of the facts, as this claim like almost all science is not claimed as a certainty but is tentative, but certainly is evidenced, it seems you don't know the difference, hardly surprising from someone who claims to be "100% certain" of his beliefs in a bronze age myth.

"Dinosaurs show some of the most extreme variations in size of any land animal group, ranging from the tiny hummingbirds, which can weigh as little as three grams, to the extinct titanosaurs, which could weigh as much as 70 tons."

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

"Scientists will probably never be certain of the largest and smallest dinosaurs to have ever existed. This is because only a tiny percentage of animals ever fossilize, and most of these remain buried in the earth. Few of the specimens that are recovered are complete skeletons, and impressions of skin and other soft tissues are rare. Rebuilding a complete skeleton by comparing the size and morphology of bones to those of similar, better-known species is an inexact art, and reconstructing the muscles and other organs of the living animal is, at best, a process of educated guesswork.Weight estimates for dinosaurs are much more variable than length estimates, because estimating length for extinct animals is much more easily done from a skeleton than estimating weight. Estimating weight is most easily done with the laser scan skeleton technique that puts a "virtual" skin over it, but even this is only an estimate."

Polyglide wrote:If you look at the scvientific evidence Dr, Sheldon repetatively relates to you will find that there are thousands of gaps that cannot be explained.

I respond exactly to your falsehoods on the subject so if you're claiming it's repetitive (not spelled with an a) then you should stop posting lies and inaccuracies about evolution and science.

Polyglide wrote:Under these circumstances until such times as they can be explained they are theories.

There are gaps, priceless, so you're claiming all scientific facts are not facts until we become omniscient then, another gem. All scientific theories have gaps and are tentative, we can add this to the growing list of things you don't know about science. That's why a scientific theory is only really valid if it produces new avenues of research, creationism fails on this basic criteria as well. Scientific theories are not a facts, they do however explain and evidence facts.

Polyglide wrote:The scientists in China have just discovered a bird with feathers, only 160 million years before they previously said they were evolved.

So new evidence then, what do you suggest they do ignore it the way Christianity has tried to ignore or deny evidence they didn't like because it contradicted their biblical myths like a geocentric universe, and creationism in Genesis?

Polyglide wrote:They are scientific theories, exactly as evolution is, get over it as your ludicrous lies are utterly ridiculous, and no one with any knowledge of science will be fooled.

Polyglide wrote:Gravity we know exists, any sensible person realises the significance of relativity and neither have anything to do with the subject in question.

Most importantly for you they don't directly contradict any biblical myths. They're relevant because you keep lying about and misrepresenting the definition and scope of a scientific theory.

One week gravity exists,the following week it doesn't,then it exists again? does this follow an alcohol pattern Sheldon?

Stu,
The scope of any theory depends on the depth it has been subjected to.

I have nothing against anything that has been 'proven' to be so.

The only thing that concerns me is the origin of life and all the scientific theories do not offer a solution.

You could have all the knowledge of how to build a house but without the materials it would be useless.

polyglide wrote:Stu,
    The scope of any theory depends on the depth it has been subjected to.  I have nothing against anything that has been 'proven' to be so.

One source of confusion about the status of the science or theory of evolution stems from the difference between the "everyday" meaning of the word "theory" and the scientific meaning the word.

Below we list some common misconceptions about the term "theory" and describe a classroom activity that can help students rethink their understanding of this term.

Misconception 1 "Evolution is 'just a theory'".

Misconception 2 "Theories become facts when they are well supported and/or proven."

There are three important misconceptions propagated in the above statements. The first statement implies that a theory should be interpreted as just a guess or a hunch, whereas in science, the term theory is used very differently. The second statement implies that theories become facts, in some sort of linear progression. In science, theories never become facts. Rather, theories explain facts. The third misconception is that scientific research provides proof in the sense of attaining the absolute truth. Scientific knowledge is always tentative and subject to revision should new evidence come to light.

It's that size and colour because you've already been told this more than once, STOP REPEATING A LIE. Your posts have little enough credibility on here without rank duplicity.

Polyglide wrote: The only thing that concerns me is the origin of life and all the scientific theories do not offer a solution.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam, not knowing is not an excuse to believe in bronze age superstitions without any evidence to support them, and which make many claims that have been utterly refuted by proper scientific evidence. Your denials of which are as laughable as your analogies. Once we had no scientific explanation for lightning, or earthquakes, or tsunamis, or volcanic eruptions, or terrible plagues, diseases, and famines, and much more besides, and each and every time your religions claimed they were caused by supernatural deities, and each and every time those claims were groundless. I'll never stop telling you each time you use this god of the gaps polemic because it is logically fallacious.

Have you noticed Sheldon, that Polyglide posts to myself approximately 5 times this afternoon after you have answered his posts and torn them apart?

stuart torr wrote:Have you noticed Sheldon, that Polyglide posts to myself approximately 5 times this afternoon after you have answered his posts and torn them apart?

I'm not sure what he hopes to gain as this is a public discussion forum, so everyone can see he's dishonestly ignoring my posts as he has no credible answers, his choice I suppose. It's not like I'm lone here as he's done this to multiple posters on here before. This is the problem with a thought process that thinks dogmatic entrenched blind faith is a virtue, and of course that's a large clue to the answer the thread's opening question about why religions hate other and atheism.

I know mate,I will answer that one also later as I answered the 2nd main one I think,so what the hell I have every right do I not.

Well I answered it,do not know if he replies to me or you Sheldon, we will have to wait and see.

Stu,
I asked you for a reply and not Dr, Sheldon, I could write what Dr, Sheldon would say every time, he just repeats what he has said repeatedly and it does not answer any of my questions.

Dr, Sheldon repeatedly states scientific hypothesis, yet when I suggested he tries using the Ouija Board in a proper manner, ie. in a properly conducted meeting with several other people and call upon the spirits, he says he has logged on to a web site and got no reply.

Some hypothesis?.

I would be 100% certain that he would not be too pleased with the results if he tried it on several occasions, the manner a hypothesis would demand.

OK Polyglide I understand now why you asked me the questions instead of Sheldon,and I did answer regarding my parents being spiritualists did I not?

Stu,
Sorry, but I must have missed the post regarding your parents and spiritulism.

It was in answer to your first or second question to me yesterday Polyglide.

It is the last post at the moment on food for thought Polyglide.

This is a public forum so I suggest you get over it poly. As for your accusation I repeat myself it's hardly surprising since you endlessly repeat the same lies, misrepresentations, and logical fallacies that prompt me to point them out.

No surprise you don't like it though, but the truth can be a bitter pill for some.  Your spiritualist claims are laughable guff, and boatlady offered to engage with you and you ignored her as you have no real interest in discussion preferring to preach sententiously.

When challenged to evidence your claims the best you could muster was a tawdry tabloid with the worst reputation for duplicity and a vague reference to a film being made, I'm still laughing that you think this represents evidence.

I've already told you that you are the one claiming a wooden board has supernatural powers so it's for you to evidence it. Why would I indulge such idiotic delusions.

Lots of people use an ordinary tumbler with the alphabet in letters in a circle in place of the real thing,and still make you think that no-one is pushing the tumbler or moving the peice of wood Sheldon if you have an authentic board.
then say you have a message from the spirit world?

This is compelling evidence of how gullible and suggestible humans can be, and for what Einstein describes as the infinite capacity for stupidity that humans possess.

It does not in any way represent evidence for anything supernatural. If polyglide had a shred of proper evidence for his ridiculous claims he'd have produced it, instead of being reduced to trying to convince strangers in an Internet chat room to make fools of themselves with childish ghost stories that no adult ought to entertain without being embarrassed.

Probably why they also read two certain newspapers Sheldon,

Stu,
You must be very unwise not to see the stupid remarks of Dr, Sheldon regarding the Quija Board.

He constantly goes on about hypothesis etc;

When I give him a chance to carry one out, without even trying, he says it's stupid, some debater.

I will not ever call on the spirit world because the Bible condems it if used for the wrong purpose.

Dr, Sheldon has the opportunity to find out for himself. I am already aware that they exist, it is he who is in denial.

Stu,
Please get a life and consider what is actually said instead of agreeing with Dr, Sheldon all the time, have you no powers of reasoning of your own?.

Polyglide please leave me alone so that I can suffer with my cancer in peace, many thanks.

Stu,
Sorry about the illness problem, I have had first hand experience of seeing how hard it can be and I will pray for relief for yourself.

You are obviously still a youngish person and it is tragic that we have not found a cure for your problem before now.

I miss some posts and was unaware of your situation and apologise for some of my remarks.

I trust you will improve and no doubt one day we may meet either in one place or the other.

regards.

polyglide wrote:Stu,
    You must  be very unwise not to see the stupid remarks of Dr, Sheldon regarding the Quija Board. He constantly goes on about hypothesis etc; When I give him a chance to carry one out, without even trying, he says it's stupid, some debater.  

It's a shame you have constantly to resort to lies Poly, it really is, but I've made no mention of hypothesis let alone "constantly go on about them" beyond responding to your misrepresentation of the word in a scientific context.  You made an asinine and hilarious claim that a wooden board has supernatural powers, so by all means evidence your claim, properly, but I certainly won't be wasting my time with such peurile nonsense, it hardly represents an hypothesis either, and your claim is not possible to debate as you offer nothing beyond the bare claim.

Polyglide wrote:I will not ever call on the spirit world because the Bible condems it if used for the wrong purpose. Dr, Sheldon has the opportunity to find out for himself. I am already aware that they exist, it is he who is in denial.

I am not denying your claim, I'm simply dismissing it, as per Hitchen's razor, unfortunately you're a very slow learner and use multiple logical fallacies endlessly. However I'll try once again to illustrate why your claim is not possible to debate.

Hitchens's razor is an epistemological razor which asserts that the burden of proof in a debate (the onus) lies with whoever makes the (greater) claim; if this burden is not then met, the claim is unfounded and its opponents do not need to argue against it. It is named, echoing Occam's razor, for the journalist and writer Christopher Hitchens, who, in 2003, formulated it thus: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Hitchens's razor is actually a translation of the Latin proverb "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur", which has been widely used at least since the early 19th century, but Hitchens's English rendering of the phrase has made it more widely known in the 21st century. It is used, for example, to counter presuppositional apologetics.

polyglide wrote:Stu,
    Please get a life and consider what is actually said instead of agreeing with Dr, Sheldon all the time, have you no powers of reasoning of your own?.

Stu has a mind of his own all right, your apologetics are simply not very compelling.

Regarding the reason for this subject.

Telling lies for God must imply that the one asking the question believes there is a God.?????????

polyglide wrote:Regarding the reason for this subject.

Telling lies for God must imply that the one asking the question believes there is a God.?????????

No, not at all, the premise is predicated on religious beliefs being a delusion, and the person "suffering" the delusion believing it their moral duty to indoctrinate as many people as possible into their belief and that the ends justify the means. This in no way requires the existence of a deity or anything supernatural, just the belief that they exist. I also speculated about how much of this was deliberate duplicity, and how much was simple (wilful) ignorance on topics that have been validated with enough scientific evidence and scrutiny to put them beyond reasonable doubt, like evolution as an obvious example. After all creationist bias against scientific facts ONLY when those facts refute their own religions dogma speaks for itself.

"Telling lies for God"actually implies to myself,that the person telling lies is trying to get you to believe in God? as an atheist posters can tell as many lies as they wish,but it will not get me to believe in God.

stuart torr wrote:"Telling lies for God"actually implies to myself,that the person telling lies is trying to get you to believe in God? as an atheist posters can tell as many lies as they wish,but it will not get me to believe in God.

Well the question was prompted by what I consider to be outright duplicity in the face of irrefutable evidence. Theists who take their religious scriptures as literally the immutable word of an omnipotent and omniscient deity must do this, there is no other way to square demonstrably erroneous myths with rigorously tested scientific facts, such as evolution as one example.

Exactly