Can you handle the Truth?

Originally posted by queeq
I dunno... earlier Adam_Poe just wrote off a well established Egyptologist with a long body of work, just co-operating/commenting on a biblical topic. He claimed it made him unbelievable. I guess, if Poe's standards are applied, Dawkins is the ultimate example of bad science. Strange how that goes one way and not the other.
I think Dawkins has a good reputation and he's cashing in on the God Delusion.

Oh yeah, whenever you can't argue with someone's facts, you cry victim and blame them. You're so full of shit I bet your eyes are brown.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I didn't read any of that.

There is a difference between being biased about your area of research and being bent on proving something of which there is no scientific backing whatsoever.

STOP!

Hammer time.

Seriously though, if you stop right there, then this is a perfect statement and I couldn't agree more.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, scientists might love their theories, but if they are true scientists, they will give them up once they realize there is no evidence or that there is evidence to the contrary. They also surely won't make up any as some Christian "scientist" are prone to.

Wrong. Some of the truly great scientists NEVER stop. Sometimes, scientists are not vindicated until well after they are dead. It is that perseverance, which flirts with insanity, through extreme opposition and disappointing odds that separates the true pioneers from the average.

I have no knowledge of your last sentence...but it sounds like it would be accurate, imo.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wrong. Some of the truly great scientists NEVER stop. Sometimes, scientists are not vindicated until well after they are dead. It is that perseverance, which flirts with insanity, through extreme opposition and disappointing odds that separates the true pioneers from the average.

I would tend to disagree, but who did you have in mind when you came up with this?

Originally posted by inimalist
I would tend to disagree, but who did you have in mind when you came up with this?

Copernicus, Galileo, da Vinci, Einstein and to a further extent because they were ahead of their time or more insight was derived from their work AFTER their death...Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, and Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Of course, this is just off the top of my head and I am probably missing MUCH more that would better fit my point.

Einstein is a REALLY good example.

I would say Stephen Hawking but things have changed with the correctness of his work from the 70s that made him famous so he came around to a 360.

the sad thing is some retard christian revived this from a joke thread, which it will enivitably become again. its my fav off topic thread

Originally posted by Devil King
The tactic is to imply the other side claims a contrary position to your own; which in this case isn't what's happening. Science doesn't support god, but dadudemon and queeq and feceman all want to say that it does out of default because all scientists who aren't christians are trying to disprove god.

Putting words in our mouths again. All I ever argued for is that presented facts and correlations are judged on what is presented, not on what background people have. I think that is what science should do. What you try here is force some secret agenda on us, make us into some doctrinists, use your own agenda and pretend to be objective.

And if that doesn't work, you can always get rude.

Originally posted by Devil King
You're so full of shit I bet your eyes are brown.

Originally posted by queeq
Putting words in our mouths again. All I ever argued for is that presented facts and correlations are judged on what is presented, not on what background people have. I think that is what science should do. What you try here is force some secret agenda on us, make us into some doctrinists, use your own agenda and pretend to be objective.

And if that doesn't work, you can always get rude.

So, you don't agree with the egyptologist you posted about? Feceman doesn't think his examples clearly indicate some massive scientific conspiracy to dismiss god?

And you aren't saying that a person's background has no effect on their methods? Really?

Again, you do exactly what I said; you argue that I am trying to prove that science explains everything. It doesn't. It doesn't dismiss all possiblities. If I wanted to argue religion, then I can use it's own lack of logic and reason to do that; I don't need science to point out that 99% of religion makes no sense. What I AM arguing is that most of the scientists held out to validate god do so from an agenda and almost always with bad science. Too think that you're going to find a truely scientific website or book and it's going to spend very much time at all on god is the assumption you guys are making. That's why it's so hard to argue this stuff with sources on the internet, because there are far more religious websites that go on and on about science being agenda driven, than there are actual sites that deal strictly with the facts. Actual scientists usually make far less noise about god than do the religious about science.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Copernicus, Galileo, da Vinci, Einstein and to a further extent because they were ahead of their time or more insight was derived from their work AFTER their death...Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz, and Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Of course, this is just off the top of my head and I am probably missing MUCH more that would better fit my point.

Einstein is a REALLY good example.

I would say Stephen Hawking but things have changed with the correctness of his work from the 70s that made him famous so he came around to a 360.

most of the people you listed lived before real science... and I don't see what you mean by Einstein... Many of his theories were proven wrong in his lifetime....

EDIT: Don't confuse scientific acceptance with popular acceptance. Coperican astrology had many enlightened followers in it's time.

EDIT 2: Also, the nature of science is to build knowledge over time. Most people you mention were recognized in their day by the people doing similar work... I was thinking you ment there was some old guy who lived in a cave whose writings we found years after he died...

Originally posted by queeq
I dunno... earlier Adam_Poe just wrote off a well established Egyptologist with a long body of work, just co-operating/commenting on a biblical topic. He claimed it made him unbelievable.

I did not state that participating in biblical archaeology or critically analyzing the work of others in this field disqualifies one as a legitimate scientist. I stated that beginning with a conclusion and selectively interpreting evidence to support this conclusion disqualifies one as a legitimate scientist, and I continued that the work of one who contributes to such an endeavor would be undermined.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Not every body agrees with Adam_Poe on everything he writes.

Originally posted by inimalist
PoE's standards are not that of science then.

Perhaps you should withhold comment until reading my actual argument, and not the misrepresentation of my argument.

Originally posted by Devil King
[QUOTE=10267942]Originally posted by queeq
I dunno... earlier Adam_Poe just wrote off a well established Egyptologist with a long body of work, just co-operating/commenting on a biblical topic. He claimed it made him unbelievable. I guess, if Poe's standards are applied, Dawkins is the ultimate example of bad science. Strange how that goes one way and not the other.
I think Dawkins has a good reputation and he's cashing in on the God Delusion.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Perhaps you should withhold comment until reading my actual argument, and not the misrepresentation of my argument.

likely

Let's have a look at it then:

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
He contributes to a website, the purpose of which is to reconcile archaeology with The Bible, i.e. to interpret archaeological evidence to support The Bible. There is nothing objective or scientific about beginning with the conclusion that The Bible is an accurate description of the history of the world, and then selectively interpreting archaeological evidence to support this conclusion.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Aidon Dodson is not simply critically responding to the work of others; he is contribution his own work.

All I can see you saying is that just BECAUSE he happens to agree to some extent that archaeology can be reconciled with biblical narratives, you dismiss him. You claim that he's seeing a correlation between archaeology is solely inspired by a secret agenda to prove the Bible accurate. And I have no idea where you got that from, not from reading into this guy. He doesn't believe that the Bible is an ACCURATE account. But you wouldn't know this, because you prolly never read any of his stuff. You judge him on your bias, not on his arguments. That's unscientific.

The thing I was pointing out was that there are in fact well established scientists that have a very good body of work and have probven themselves, also see correlations between archaeology and the biblical narratives. Could it be maybe that these people KNOW what they are talking about instead of just being biased as you accuse them to be? Did you read all of Dodson's work to judge him like that? Because if you didn't, you do the ole 'pick and choose': "oh he published on a site I hate, so he must be a bad man."

Originally posted by Devil King
Are those from the link that didn't work?

I was addressing the first article you posted, regarding the young-earth creationsist that got his doctorate.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Yes/

Despite the fact that his work was "impeccable," secular humanist-bots like Eugenie Scott tried to forbid him from being awarded his doctorate on the same basis as your accusations: sure, he does good work now, but then he'll start to use his book-learning to twist facts and de-learn people.

Again, you are assuming their praise of him in condemnation is some how connected.

Bad scince is the point here, not religious perrogative. You want to imply an overwhemling effort based on him NOT being awarded a doctorate; but he was awarded that doctorate. What was expressed was concern over him utilizing that doctorate for unscientific purposes, which he has show a proclivity for doing. Science" is such a bad guy" that it awards it's subscribers official title, but refuses notice to those who don't apply that method in their field of research; I believe was your point. Getting the degree is not in question, what was accomplished with it (that lauding) after that is highly questionable. Again, it has little to do with their claims of religion, and everyhing to do with them making that the focal point of their efforts. (read:AGENDA) Once again, I'll state that most actual scientist spend little of their time on god, as he doesn't enter into their motivation. But you keep posting this scientist or that one as being biased, and I'm sure you'll eventually prove your point. I'm sure the next condemned scientist will hold more weight. But that's you rpoint . isn't it? that they're shunned and mocked by others in their own feild! How much more desciple-like can you really get?

God is such a non-issue with most scientist, even the true christian ones, that it has apparently inspired you to make it one. Sure, people who don't believe as you do make it an issue by defaulting to it, but that's because it's evidence that your perspective is full of shit. But that evidence wouldn't exist if you didn't hold it out to the be the lynch pin in your claims. By all means, point out the bad science involved. But you never do, because there is never bad science involved in proving the god delusion. You claim that bad science is only within the realm of those who don't subscribe to your opinion. Bad science and conspiracy is only the fortee of thos who don't subscribe to your delusion.

But, please, repost your link. I didn't ignore it becaue it was contrary, much less have you ever seen me ignore your links. I'd love to see it for myself.

Originally posted by Devil King
Once again, I'll state that most actual scientist spend little of their time on god, as he doesn't enter into their motivation. But you keep posting this scientist or that one as being biased, and I'm sure you'll eventually prove your point.

God is such a non-issue with most scientist, even the true christian ones, that it has apparently inspired you to make it one. Sure, people who don't believe as you do make it an issue by defaulting to it, but that's because it's evidence that your perspective is full of shit. But that evidence wouldn't exist if you didn't hold it out to the be the lynch pin in your claims. By all means, point out the bad science involved. But you never do, because there is never bad science involved in proving the god delusion. You claim that bad science is only within the realm of those who don't subscribe to your opinion. Bad science and conspiracy is only the fortee of thos who don't subscribe to your delusion.

But, please, repost your link. I didn't ignore it becaue it was contrary, much less have you ever seen me ignore your links. I'd love to see it for myself.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:ASP3g9rU9_IJ:www.souder.house.gov/_files/IntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf+intolerance+politicization+of+science&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

My 2 cents on the guy getting the degree:

Any number of famous scientists have believed any number of ridiculous things (I'm not calling belief in God ridiculous at this moment). Newton was an alchemist, for instance. There are people publishing books on UFOs outside of their research into astronomy, many physicists starred in the "documentary" what the bleep do we know, hell, extend it far enough and you get chomsky and dawkins who publish social commentary. What people believe and do in their spare time is unrelated to their science.

Add to that, so long as he maintains a certain level of quality, what is the danger of him, outside of the auspices of a scientist, supporting young earth creationism? For the scientific community, I feel this would be beneficial. My initial thought is that this guy will come at evolutionary sciences with a much different perspective, and so long as the methods are good, will offer new and untried interpretations that, at the very least, will start new avenues of research even if they turn out to be wrong.

The very worst I see is him becoming someone like Behe, who does highly questionable scientific work (at times, calling a spade a spade, he is somewhat reputable) yet has certainly forwarded out understanding of something like the bacterial flagellum. The amount of research into the evolution of a flagellum, imho, is directly related to it being used as a crux in intelligent design arguments.

About the Smithsonian article:

If, and this is a big if imho, the article which promoted intelligent design was of high enough quality to be published in a biological journal, I see no reason why not to. At the end of the day, the editor should have the final say about what is in his journal, but I've seen 4 or 5 article debates in journals about far less interesting things. Again, as above, the worst thing that I think can happen is that research into why the researcher may have been incorrect is started.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
...Perhaps you should withhold comment until reading my actual argument, and not the misrepresentation of my argument...

But not every body agrees with Adam_Poe on everything he writes is a true statement.

😉

Originally posted by inimalist
The very worst I see is him becoming someone like Behe, who does highly questionable scientific work (at times, calling a spade a spade, he is somewhat reputable) yet has certainly forwarded out understanding of something like the bacterial flagellum. The amount of research into the evolution of a flagellum, imho, is directly related to it being used as a crux in intelligent design arguments.

I thought that argument was already out of the window by now, except for some who need to hold on to it to preserve their fath.

Originally posted by queeq
I thought that argument was already out of the window by now, except for some who need to hold on to it to preserve their fath.

scientifically, yes, but even people on these boards will bring up the flagellum in debates. iirc it is a favorite of the like of JIA or ushomefree

Christians cannot handle the truth. If they could, there wouldn't be anymore Christians.

Originally posted by inimalist
scientifically, yes, but even people on these boards will bring up the flagellum in debates. iirc it is a favorite of the like of JIA or ushomefree

Ah, well it's debunked. That one doesn't work too wel anymore.