Telling lies for God

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

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.

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 Norm Deplume Mon Mar 16, 2015 11:30 am

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

It does not improve matters if the codswallop is encrypted in bad grammar, spelling and punctuation.

If you want to appear to be an uneducated buffoon, then ignore spelling, punctuation and grammar.

In most cases it is possible to discern the meaning, but not always. For example:

The Crazy Gang included Flanagan and Allen, Nervo and Knox, Naughton and Gold, and 'Monsewer' Eddie Gray.

The Crazy Gang included Flanagan and Allen, Nervo and Knox, Naughton and Gold and 'Monsewer' Eddie Gray.

The Crazy Gang included Flanagan and Allen Nervo and Knox Naughton and Gold and 'Monsewer' Eddie Gray.

The first indicates that there were three double acts and one solo performer.
The second is ambiguous in that it could mean the same as the first or that there were two double acts and one three man team.
The third fails to make it obvious even how many individuals there were.

As for capilization, how do you distinguish between polish and Polish?

by polyglide Mon Mar 16, 2015 11:48 am

"De gustibus non est disputandum"

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Mar 16, 2015 11:57 am

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, (some irrelevant stuff I've deleted).

Please give an entirely scientific explanation of how Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead? Since you ignored it last time.

by snowyflake Mon Mar 16, 2015 7:53 pm

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

Yes they are. However, they are not brought back from the dead when they are starting to smell and decompose.

There's all dead and then there's mostly dead. Ask Miracle Max. Smile

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Mar 16, 2015 8:33 pm

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

John 11 17
"Then when Jesus came, he found that he had lain in the grave four days already."

"Take away the stone," he said. "But, Lord," said Martha, the sister of the dead man, "by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days."

Are you seriously suggesting hospitals resuscitate patients who have started to decompose? What a truly asinine comparison. Care to try again?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Mar 27, 2015 12:56 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, 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.

"According to the Big Bang theory, the expansion of the observable universe began with the explosion of a single particle at a definite point in time. This startling idea first appeared in scientific form in 1931, in a paper by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian cosmologist and Catholic priest."

by snowyflake Fri Mar 27, 2015 9:43 pm

I think polyglide has been made to go, Doc.

by polyglide Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:23 am

Dr, Sheldon,
You are years out of date, Cern say they will prove the theory entirely wrong.

The latest thinking is not about a single particle but inflation of something that no one can explain what it was nor where it came from.

by polyglide Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:26 am

snowyflake,
No, I am still hear and have just been under the weather with a chest infection.

We have to suffer such inconveniences due to the inability of mankind to do what God said would be best for us.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Mar 28, 2015 7:18 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
You are years out of date, Cern say they will prove the theory entirely wrong.

The latest thinking is not about a single particle but inflation of something that no one can explain what it was nor where it came from.

My point here seems wasted on you yet again. I am not years out of date at all, I was in fact responding to one specific claim you made and quoting someone, with the correct date of the original text included in the quote, if you ask someone with a basic grasp of written English they can explain what quotation marks are used for.

So by your own admission the latest thinking defies explanation? How then can you justify guessing that the explanation vindicates a belief that includes magic from a bronze age deity? Try to use only peer reviewed scientific papers in your answer please as guesses and assumptions based on faith are not very compelling, and we wouldn't want you using bronze age creationism after accusing my quote of being out of date would we, as that would be too ironic.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Mar 28, 2015 7:34 pm

polyglide wrote:snowyflake, No, I am still hear and have just been under the weather with a chest infection.We have to suffer such inconveniences due to the inability of mankind to do what God said would be best for us.

Or because viruses evolve faster than our immune system. Why would a benevolent deity create diseases anyway? Why predation? I like this quote from Heller's "Catch 22"

“There's nothing mysterious about it, He's not working at all. He's playing. Or else He's forgotten all about us. That's the kind of God you people talk about, a country bumpkin, a clumsy, bungling, brainless, conceited, uncouth hayseed. Good God, how much reverence can you have for a Supreme Being who finds it necessary to include such phenomena as phlegm and tooth decay in His divine system of Creation? What in the world was running through that warped, evil, scatological mind of His when He robbed old people of the power to control their bowel movements? Why in the world did He ever create pain?”

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Mar 29, 2015 10:45 am

polyglide wrote:snowyflake, No, I am still hear and have just been under the weather with a chest infection. We have to suffer such inconveniences due to the inability of mankind to do what God said would be best for us.

Didn't you pray to be cured? Or did you go to a Doctor and get antibiotics? Are you saying your god let you catch a chest infection because of the inability of the rest of humanity to defer to your superstitious beliefs? That seems more than a little harsh and very illogical, I mean if your god is going to punish you along with everyone else then what's the point of your superstitious worshipping of him? Perhaps you've got it wrong and should be worshipping a different god? Or in a different way?

by snowyflake Sun Mar 29, 2015 11:48 am

I hope you are feeling better polyglide. You do realise that your loving god has allowed you to get a chest infection. Why would he do that? You're as faithful as Abraham and Job yet you are made to suffer by an all-loving, all-powerful god.

Or perhaps that's just how life is. We have viruses and bacteria that make us sick. Before we knew about viruses and bacteria, people thought it was god punishing them, that they had sinned, that they had poor luck or that the Fates were against them. You see how knowledge has changed our views?

by polyglide Mon Mar 30, 2015 2:25 pm

snowyflake,
People no very little about anything realy.

Scientists change their mind every day, problems not encountered previously turn up on a regular basis.

God is at the present time allowing mankind with the help of Satan to run the earth and it's inhabitants.

You cannot expect God to determine who gets ill and who is cured, all ailments can be traced to man's interference with nature in one form or another.

The only time God has brought any death is when he has either given a warning as to what would happen under certain circumstances or to save his people from violence, etc;

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Mar 30, 2015 7:05 pm

polyglide wrote:snowyflake, People no very little about anything realy.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Good grief that's hilarious, absolutely hilarious.

Scientists change their mind every day, problems not encountered previously turn up on a regular basis.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Must this be explained to you again? The scientific process is objective precisely because it doesn't rely solely on the opinions of scientists, there is a rigorous robust process that must be adhered to, and any scientist offering just subjective opinion would be given short shrift, as of course all creationist are when they try to pass their pseudo-scientific BS off as proper science. That's why creationism has never ever got a single piece of evidence peer reviewed, and never will.

God is at the present time allowing mankind with the help of Satan to run the earth and it's inhabitants.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No he's not, that's just a rationalisation to justify faith in a fiction. However lets assume it was true just for the sake of argument, that would mean such a god was not benevolent, since it was allowing suffering it could stop. Nor is there any point you trying to claim free will is the justification for two reasons:

1. Am omniscient omnipotent being would know the future before it happened thus negating any chance of free will.
2. An omnipotent deity could have kept free will and still avoided allowing suffering or evil if it wanted to, as nothing is impossible for an omnipotent being.

You cannot expect God to determine who gets ill and who is cured,
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:That is precisely what I can reasonably expect if a deity was omnipotent and benevolent. If such a being existed then suffering would not be reasonable in it's creation, let alone ubiquitous suffering.

all ailments can be traced to man's interference with nature in one form or another.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Rubbish, what utter nonsense. You keep making these asinine claims but you've been asked repeatedly to evidence them and have nothing. How about the hundreds of millions of years of predation that happened before humans had even evolved? You've yet to answer that despite me asking several times.

The only time God has brought any death is when he has either given a warning as to what would happen under certain circumstances or to save his people from violence, etc;
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Care to evidence this claim? Just what form does this warning take when a baby dies in agony from malaria, or cancer? As you've been told the bible is filled with instances of your God committing genocide simply to allow his "chosen people" to steal those people's land and enslave the women as possessions to be raped and father their children. To suggest such a being is benevolent is beyond absurd.

by snowyflake Mon Mar 30, 2015 7:37 pm

polyglide wrote:snowyflake,
People no very little about anything realy.

Scientists change their mind every day, problems not encountered previously turn up on a regular basis.

God is at the present time allowing mankind with the help of Satan to run the earth and it's inhabitants.

You cannot expect God to determine who gets ill and who is cured, all ailments can be traced to man's interference with nature in one form or another.

The only time God has brought any death is when he has either given a warning as to what would happen under certain circumstances or to save his people from violence, etc;

You may know very little about many things. I don't know much about many sciences but I certainly wouldn't be so arrogant as to suggest that experts in their respective fields 'know very little about anything really' (I've corrected the spelling). I think you need to concede that many scientists actually know quite a bit about their own area of expertise. Just because you don't know it, aren't educated enough to understand it, doesn't mean that it is not true or valid science.

As for God's ability to determine who gets ill, who is cured etc. I would expect an omnipotent deity to be able to handle any situation at any time. After all, he created a universe for pete's sakes. Surely a few measly viruses or bacteria are easily dealt with by such a being.

How come god never grows back an amputated limb? No matter how hard you pray, it just never grows back. Yet millions of people praise god for healing their colds, cancers, other deadly illnesses; they praise him for getting them a good parking spot at the supermarket or a great seat on a plane. They praise god for saving them from tsunami's, hurricane's, tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanoes....never considering that he caused them in the first place and could just as easily stopped any natural disaster from killing thousand's of people in the first place.

And yet somehow, god never replaces an amputated limb.

Your last sentence is ludicrous since you can't possibly know that.

by polyglide Tue Mar 31, 2015 1:39 pm

snowflake,
Give one example of when God caused any death or illness without firsty giving a warning.

Scientists are proven wrong on a daily basis and have to change their minds constantly.

Give me one example of that which I do not know, anyone can obtain all the information on any subject and make their own minmd up as to it's value.

There is not one scientist that can prove that God does not exist.

Thank you for not making a song and dance about the spelling I have already explained how it occurs.

There is not one scientist who can explain how the butterfly came about in stages nor anything else.

For those who do make a song and dance about spelling mistakes, give me just one example where a spelling mistake I have made in any way altered the meaning of the subject.

If you know the spelling is wrong then you know what was intended and that is all that matters.

by snowyflake Tue Mar 31, 2015 7:16 pm

polyglide: The point is that god shouldn't be killing anyone. Surely a loving, father-like, benevolent god does not need to kill his creation. It's oxymoronic.

Scientists alter their views based on new compelling evidence. Not one scientist worth his PhD has ever thrown out evolution as the answer to the diversity of species on this planet unless he was a christian creationist. And those scientists are few and more interested in their faith than in the truth. They are as deluded about god's existence as they are about evolution not being true.

There is not one believer than can prove that god does exist. Or that what they believe is true and real.

I have shown you how the butterfly came to be and its evolution. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it's not true.

You failed to acknowledge that god is incapable of replacing severed limbs. Ignoring a question is a sign of a weak argument. It's a valid question because god is credited with many miracles yet he has never replaced a severed limb. Why not? Surely an omnipotent being can grow a new limb on someone if you prayed hard enough.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:51 am

polyglide wrote:snowflake,
Give one example of when God caused any death or illness without firsty giving a warning.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:The mortality rate from childbirth has been massively high throughout human history. Only in very recent history has science through medicine reduced this appalling suffering. Are you really making an assertion so stupid as to claim those babies had been warned by your god?Or doesn't killing babies count?

Scientists are proven wrong on a daily basis and have to change their minds constantly.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Give one example for each of the last 7 days of established peer reviewed facts accepted as true by science that have been falsified. Please provide the research data the and the name of the scientists that falsified them.

Then when that lie has been exposed perhaps you can explain why in your opinion it's preferable to cling to something that the evidence disproves rather than accept it is wrong and acknowledge what the evidence shows?

Give me one example of that which I do not know, anyone can obtain all the information on any subject and make their own minmd up as to it's value.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Evolution. You have proved this repeatedly as we have all seen. Though your scientific illiteracy is also a matter of record.

There is not one scientist that can prove that God does not exist.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:There is not one scientist that can prove mermaids don't exist. Do you believe in mermaids?

Thank you for not making a song and dance about the spelling I have already explained how it occurs.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:It occurs because your spelling is execrable, and is highlighted because of the arrogant supercilious insults you have repeatedly thrown at others and their posts.

There is not one scientist who can explain how the butterfly came about in stages nor anything else.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Another lie, and one you have used before. Though it neatly provides the example of a scientific fact that you're ignorant of and incapable and or unwilling to learn about.

For those who do make a song and dance about spelling mistakes, give me just one example where a spelling mistake I have made in any way altered the meaning of the subject.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:You accused me of misspelling hominem. You suggested it should be homonym. As hilarious as it was arrogant and as arrogant as it was stupid.

If you know the spelling is wrong then you know what was intended and that is all that matters.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No, this is a palpably absurd claim.

by polyglide Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:00 am

snowyflake,
You have never given the seven stages that were prior to the butterfly becoming what it is, nor how the oak tree came from an acorn, nor which came first etc;

You have missed the whole point regarding God and illness etc;

In Matthew's account of God it explains very clearly why God cannot at this time take action regarding illness of any kind.

Satan is running the earth at this time, not God.

Not because God cannot do so but because the Devil has challenged God's powers etc;

God has given Satan a certain period of time to prove he can turn everyone against him and without God using his powers other than to protect his people when the rules are broken.

So the ills of the world are man and Satan made and God will put things right when Satan has had his time, until then we will have to suffer what Satan and his clan throw at us.

As for scientists, all any scientist has ever done is prove that God has created laws of nature without which there would be no sense nor reason.

It has just been discovered that 85% of the cosmos is dark matter, invisible and the properties of which are unknown.

So for thousnads of years scientists have been at least 85% wrong in that respect.

Evolution takes place because of changed circumstances, it does not create new species as such.

I have never denied evolution takes place but do not agree that it is by natural selection but unnatural selection.

If all things were left in their natural habitats and not in any way interfered with they would only produce their like.

You say you have explained the butterfly, then give me the 8 stages going backwards from which it evolved.

Not some scientific theory just the exact stages please.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:04 am

A cynic might be forced to conclude that the obvious reason no severed limb has ever been regrown due to a claimed miracle is because the falsity of the claim would be too easy to verify. Thus the gullible and overly credulous might not be fooled. Though in some cases I have to admit that anything might be believed.

by Norm Deplume Wed Apr 01, 2015 1:17 pm

polyglide wrote:
Give one example of when God caused any death or illness without firsty giving a warning.

According to the scriptures God gave explicit permission to kill Job's children and slaves.
In Exodus the pharoah was threatened but God 'hardened his heart' so as to have an excuse to carry out a massacre.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 01, 2015 7:57 pm

Polyglide wrote: In Matthew's account of God it explains very clearly why God cannot at this time take action regarding illness of any kind.

I thought your god was omnipotent? How can you claim there is something he "can't" do if he's omnipotent?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 01, 2015 7:59 pm

polyglide wrote:snowyflake,
You have never given the seven stages that were prior to the butterfly becoming what it is, nor how the oak tree came from an acorn, nor which came first etc;

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1228/1228-h/1228-h.htm

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 01, 2015 8:23 pm

polyglide wrote:Satan is running the earth at this time, not God.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Since your god is claimed to benevolent and Satan is not, this would have to be God's choice. So your god is choosing to allow an evil demon to terrorise the earth and create misery and suffering, that's hardly an act of benevolence.

Not because God cannot do so but because the Devil has challenged God's powers etc;
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:It's still his (god's) choice and it clearly isn't a benevolent choice he makes.

God has given Satan a certain period of time to prove he can turn everyone against him and without God using his powers other than to protect his people when the rules are broken.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:So another bet, he's creating untold suffering sentencing untold numbers of human souls to an eternity of torture, and all for a bet? Are you seriously claiming this indicates a benevolent deity?

So the ills of the world are man and Satan made
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:The whole circumstance was created by and allowed by your god though.

and God will put things right when Satan has had his time, until then we will have to suffer what Satan and his clan throw at us.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:..and what your god allows, so not benevolent at all then.

As for scientists, all any scientist has ever done is prove that God has created laws of nature without which there would be no sense nor reason.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:What a truly asinine claim, laughable nonsense even by your standards. Is this what Galileo was doing when he destroyed your religions claims that we lived in a geocentric universe by using empirical science to evidence the theories of Copernicus, and challenge the church's right to be the sole arbiter of truth? You have some truly bizarre ideas, you really do.

It has just been discovered that 85% of the cosmos is dark matter, invisible and the properties of which are unknown. So for thousnads of years scientists have been at least 85% wrong in that respect.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:eldon Cooper"]Hahahahahahahhahahahahha, what a breathtakingly stupid claim. Do you make this stuff up on the spot are you quoting some imbecilic creationist blog? Your religion believed we lived in a geocentric universe until science proved otherwise, it believed humans were created in one go from clay, and the entire universe made in 6 days, just a few thousand years ago, all claims now made laughable by empirical science. Now how likely is it that an omniscient omnipotent deity would get such facts wrong or communicate them to us, or even allow them to be communicated as his message?

Evolution takes place because of changed circumstances, it does not create new species as such.I have never denied evolution takes place but do not agree that it is by natural selection but unnatural selection. If all things were left in their natural habitats and not in any way interfered with they would only produce their like.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Hitchen's razor - out it goes.

You say you have explained the butterfly, then give me the 8 stages going backwards from which it evolved.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html

Not some scientific theory just the exact stages please.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:You'd need to grasp the basics first, and your posts show you have not the first clue.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 01, 2015 8:28 pm

polyglide wrote: God has given Satan a certain period of time to prove he can turn everyone against him and without God using his powers other than to protect his people when the rules are broken. So the ills of the world are man and Satan made and God will put things right when Satan has had his time, until then we will have to suffer what Satan and his clan throw at us.

Leaving aside the fact that you have zero evidence for this perhaps you can now address my question I've repeatedly put to you, which is if evil is man made then what about all the suffering caused by the hundreds of millions of years of dinosaur predation that occurred millions of years before humans evolved.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 01, 2015 8:36 pm

Some more answers for Polyglide on evolution:

http://www.fsteiger.com/questions.html

by polyglide Tue Apr 07, 2015 11:04 am

Dr, Sheldon,
Got the gist of the above.

It is full of, why can't this have happened, why can't the other have happened.

No explanation regarding the stages of evolution just the old silly rhetoric.

The last one I am aware of was 60 meters long and weighed 90 tons. [ a few steaks there then]

The whole situation so far as I am concerned is to what extent Satn can play a part and just what are his capabilities.

I note in the above a butterfly is mentioned and it has always been my main objection to evolution being a possibilty.

You have not given me the eight backward stages yet.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Apr 07, 2015 1:10 pm

It's your fault you don't understand evolution, not mine or science's.

Your satanic fantasies are dismissed as per all your unevidenced superstitions and as stated in Hitchen's razor.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Apr 07, 2015 1:13 pm

Are you ever going to answer any questions put to you Polyglide?

by snowyflake Tue Apr 07, 2015 6:43 pm

http://www.learnaboutbutterflies.com/Taxonomy%204.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_butterflies
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/insect-metamorphosis-evolution/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKZ_25q01AE

For polyglide. If you don't read it or see the video don't complain when we tell you what you believe is stupid, unevidenced claptrap fantasy. BTW none of these scientific papers or the video say that 'goddidit'.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Apr 07, 2015 9:07 pm

snowyflake wrote: For polyglide. If you don't read it or see the video don't complain when we tell you what you believe is stupid, unevidenced claptrap fantasy. BTW none of these scientific papers or the video say that 'goddidit'.

It's a well worn and disingenuous piece of creationist propaganda to demand specific evidence from people on the spot, then cry "aha" when it's not immediately forthcoming as if this proves the evidence does not exist. It's laughable nonsense of course, and shows either rank dishonesty or scientific illiteracy, or perhaps both.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Apr 07, 2015 9:16 pm

polyglide wrote:No explanation regarding the stages of evolution just the old silly rhetoric.

The whole situation so far as I am concerned is to what extent Satn can play a part and just what are his capabilities.

How can someone making claims involving Satanic fantasies accuse others of using rhetoric? Let alone suggest that evolution is not evidenced, and all without a hint of irony. Science has amassed mountains of evidence for evolution, all of it rigorously peer reviewed and it continues to discover more every single year. Show one single piece of scientific evidence for anything supernatural, or that evidences the existence of Satan? All you have for Satan is empty rhetoric, so your spurious claim is fairly ironic.

by snowyflake Tue Apr 07, 2015 9:18 pm

I've provided links for polyglide before and either he chose to ignore it or he missed. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and post them again. But my guess is he didn't understand it, couldn't admit that and went back to his dogmatic mantra.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Apr 07, 2015 9:43 pm

snowyflake wrote:I've provided links for polyglide before and either he chose to ignore it or he missed. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and post them again. But my guess is he didn't understand it, couldn't admit that and went back to his dogmatic mantra.

I think we both know that he has no interest in the evidence for evolution, and is only looking superficially at it using the propaganda that the creationist lobby have produced to try and convince himself that it really isn't evidenced beyond any reasonable doubt.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Apr 07, 2015 9:52 pm

snowyflake wrote:I've provided links for polyglide before and either he chose to ignore it or he missed. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and post them again. But my guess is he didn't understand it, couldn't admit that and went back to his dogmatic mantra.

Cracking story here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/18/how-to-respond-to-requests-to/

"A professor at the University of Vermont, Nicholas Gotelli, got an invitation to debate one of the clowns at the Discovery Institute. "

This part struck me as particularly apropos as I have tried repeatedly to make the same point to Polyglide, all to no avail of course.

"Academic debate on controversial topics is fine, but those topics
need to have a basis in reality. I would not invite a creationist
to a debate on campus for the same reason that I would not invite
an alchemist, a flat-earther, an astrologer, a psychic, or a
Holocaust revisionist. These ideas have no scientific support, and
that is why they have all been discarded by credible scholars.
Creationism is in the same category.

Instead of spending time on public debates, why aren't members of
your institute publishing their ideas in prominent peer-reviewed
journals such as Science, Nature, or the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences? If you want to be taken seriously by
scientists and scholars, this is where you need to publish.
Academic publishing is an intellectual free market, where ideas
that have credible empirical support are carefully and thoroughly
explored. Nothing could possibly be more exciting and electrifying
to biology than scientific disproof of evolutionary theory or
scientific proof of the existence of a god. That would be Nobel
Prize winning work, and it would be eagerly published by any of the
prominent mainstream journals."

I don't think this will ever sink in with him, as that would require the realisation that creationism is a complete fantasy with no more scientific evidence to support it than alchemy, astrology, or the legends of Hercules.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Tue Apr 07, 2015 9:59 pm

The article goes on:

"“Conspiracy” is the predictable response by Ben Stein and the
frustrated creationists. But conspiracy theories are a joke,
because science places a high premium on intellectual honesty and
on new empirical studies that overturn previously established
principles. Creationism doesn’t live up to these standards, so its
proponents are relegated to the sidelines, publishing in books,
blogs, websites, and obscure journals that don’t maintain
scientific standards.

Finally, isn't it sort of pathetic that your large, well-funded
institute must scrape around, panhandling for a seminar invitation
at a little university in northern New England? Practising
scientists receive frequent invitations to speak in science
departments around the world, often on controversial and novel
topics. If creationists actually published some legitimate science,
they would receive such invitations as well.

So, I hope you understand why I am declining your offer. I will
wait patiently to read about the work of creationists in the pages
of Nature and Science. But until it appears there, it isn't science
and doesn't merit an invitation."

It's impossible to argue with anything in that article, and it may be a little ungracious but I have an overwhelming urge to say to Polyglide "I told you so".

by polyglide Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:16 am

Dr, Sheldon, snowyflake,
I have explained previously why I do not repeat that to which I reply.

It is pointless giving numerous references regarding what you and the odd balls think, there are just as many references I can give that contradicts them.

Science is just a man's activity and only confirms the wonders God created.

The scientist who I refered to in the previous post also said that it was a POSSIBILITY, that life started by the rection between two types of water.

No doubt soda and orange flavoured.

You nor anyone else can give a series of the life of a butterfly from one stage that did not have a component part to that which did, not one butterfly could exist without every part being present at the same time.

Log on to against evolution and you will find compelling evidence to disprove all the idiotic evolution claims.

There are too many examples to list.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:41 am

polyglide wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:NB * All previous deleted as unevidenced - Hitchen's razor applies.

You nor anyone else can give a series of the life of a butterfly from one stage that did not have a component part to that which did, not one butterfly could exist without every part being present at the same time.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:A lie. No amount of repetitions of your lie will stop people going back through the posts to see that you're lying, again.

Log on to against evolution and you will find compelling evidence to disprove all the idiotic evolution claims.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:So now you're claiming evolution has been falsified again? Despite claiming you'd not done so and then reversing your position to it is a fact when I asked you to cite the peer reviewed evidence that falsifies it. Can you cite the peer reviewed publication then please, and name the scientists who've received the Nobel prize, and explain why this paradigm shifting event has been missed by the world's press, the entire scientific community, and all the major christian churches?

I'm guessing not, I'm also guessing an ignominious reversal is about to unfold. You'll never learn it seems.

What you're in fact referring to is creationist pseudo science and propaganda. If you weren't so dishonest you might have read my last series of posts showing a real scientist whose work gets into peer reviewed publications explaining this to you exactly as I have done.

NOT ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE FOR CREATIONISM HAS EVER BEEN PUBLISHED IN A PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL.

The fact you're ignorant of what that means is sad, but it doesn't alter the facts.

There are too many examples to list.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Yet you can't produce one that is peer reviewed. The Internet has inumerable claims about all manner of puerile nonsense, so creationism is hardly unique.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 08, 2015 11:45 am

It seems Polyglide's "library" is a secure facility. Or perhaps he'd neither read nor understood the post before his? The testimony of a peer reviewed scientist explaining why his claims are execrable nonsense, yet he repeated them anyway, and right after I'd posted it. Hilarious.......

by Sponsored content