Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Exposing the evolution theory. Part 2
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 748 of 1104 (909218)
03-29-2023 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 747 by Kleinman
03-29-2023 4:05 PM


Since it seems that you understand a little bit of probability theory, why don't you teach biologists about the "at least one" rule and the multiplication rule of probabilities?
I have. You are the one who refuses to learn.
And just what the fuck does your "reply" have to do with anything that I had written there?
Are replies yet another thing that you refuse to understand?
Stupid troll!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 747 by Kleinman, posted 03-29-2023 4:05 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 752 by Kleinman, posted 03-29-2023 5:58 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 854 of 1104 (909484)
04-04-2023 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 849 by Dredge
04-04-2023 11:46 AM


Re: problems with detecting design
As I recall, Dredge kept abusing his edit privileges so they were suspended. That is why his Edit button does not work.
Rather than resubmitting entire posts again (thus wasting even more bandwidth), do not submit a post until you have reviewed it. That is what the Preview button is for, as I have advised you previously.
One can always tell a creationist. One just cannot tell him anything.
A better alternative would be to write your posts in your favorite text editor, verify that you have corrected any typos, and then copy-and-paste it into the edit box. Basic computer skill that everybody knows ... except for creationists, I guess. You can always tell a creationist, ... .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 849 by Dredge, posted 04-04-2023 11:46 AM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 868 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2023 1:25 AM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 869 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2023 1:28 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 879 of 1104 (909530)
04-05-2023 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 872 by Tangle
04-05-2023 3:19 AM


No, not that one, that's observationally wrong, an error of logic and a rather stupid and un-Christian remark.
Uh, yeah it's "un-Christian". Christian B. Anfinsen was a Jew. An Orthodox Jew for that matter. Judaism is too good of a religion to be sullied by Christian BS.
Though he wasn't always a Jew:
quote:
Anfinsen had three children with his first wife, Florence Kenenger, to whom he was married from 1941 to 1978. In 1979, he married Libby Shulman Ely, with whom he had 4 stepchildren, and converted to Orthodox Judaism. However, Anfinsen wrote in 1987 that "my feelings about religion still very strongly reflect a fifty-year period of orthodox agnosticism."
...
Anfinsen converted to Judaism and was Jewish since.
So he converted to Judaism in 1979 at the age of sixty-three for one of the most common reasons for converting to Judaism: marriage.
Before that, he was an "orthodox agnostic." I do not know what he meant by that, but he is cited from eight (8) years after his conversion as saying that his religious feelings were still strongly influenced by his "fifty-year period of orthodox agnosticism." That would indicate that his conversion did not involve any radical change in his beliefs, which remained strongly agnostic.
Wikipedia describes agnosticism as:
quote:
Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. Another definition provided is the view that "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist."
. . .
Types
Strong agnosticism (also called "hard", "closed", "strict", or "permanent agnosticism")
The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."
Weak agnosticism (also called "soft", "open", "empirical", "hopeful" or "temporal agnosticism")
The view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable; therefore, one will withhold judgment until evidence, if any, becomes available. A weak agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day, if there is evidence, we can find something out."
Apathetic agnosticism
The view that no amount of debate can prove or disprove the existence of one or more deities, and if one or more deities exist, they do not appear to be concerned about the fate of humans. Therefore, their existence has little to no impact on personal human affairs and should be of little interest. An apathetic agnostic would say, "I don't know whether any deity exists or not, and I don't care if any deity exists or not."

Myself, I'm a militant agnostic ("I don't know ... and neither do YOU!") That would appear to fall under "strong agnosticism", which I would assume is what Anfinsen's "orthodox agnosticism" falls under.
Also, the more complete Anfinsen quote that I've found is:
quote:
I think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.
This brings us to the fundamental problem of quoting an expert in one field making unqualified statements (AKA "his own personal opinion") in an entirely different field in which he enjoys no expertise. A well-known example would be Fred Hoyle, famed and esteemed astronomer (and coiner of the term, "Big Bang", in order to denigrate that idea) and creator of that creationist favorite, the probability of a tornado in a junkyard spontaneously constructing a 747. Reading his book's section on that tornado, I found that he did have any clue how either evolution or abiogenesis works/would have worked, choosing to invoke single-step selection, the idea (and probability math model) of an entire complex structure (eg, a 747) assembling out of pure random chance (eg, a tornado going through a junkyard). Despite being an expert in astronomy, he was very ignorant of biology, so while his opinion in most aspects of astronomy might carry some weight, his opinions about some aspects of biology were just plain crap and carry no weight.
Same with Anfinsen. His expertise was in biochemistry (earned him a Nobel Prize), but that does make him any kind of expert in religion. His personal religious opinion was just as valid as anyone else's, which is to say near-zero validity.
 
ABE:
Only an idiot would put too much, if any, stock in a random quote of an expert expressing an opinion that is completely outside of his field of expertise.
But such an idiot is Dredge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 872 by Tangle, posted 04-05-2023 3:19 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 883 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2023 6:12 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 884 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2023 6:19 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 887 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2023 6:24 PM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 889 of 1104 (909552)
04-05-2023 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 887 by Dredge
04-05-2023 6:24 PM


As we all can clearly see, it's a scum-sucking bottom feeder.
Besides, you are clearly the one committing the idiocy I describe in Message 879, so you are clearly identified.
You willfully stupid idiot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 887 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2023 6:24 PM Dredge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 891 by Dredge, posted 04-05-2023 7:21 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 906 of 1104 (909619)
04-06-2023 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 904 by Kleinman
04-06-2023 6:56 PM


Re: problems with detecting design
Confirming his diagnosis of you for the 1890'th time. Refer Message 903.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 904 by Kleinman, posted 04-06-2023 6:56 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 910 by Kleinman, posted 04-08-2023 8:39 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 961 of 1104 (910500)
04-25-2023 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 648 by Kleinman
03-27-2023 3:27 PM


Re: problems with detecting design
Even the concept of atheism is irrational. It implies the knowledge of everything in the universe.
Wow! Is there anything that you are not completely wrong about? Or are you just projecting your own deficiencies onto others?
Instead, it is theism that claims to have complete and perfect knowledge, whereas atheism is just saying "No, you don't have complete and perfect knowledge, especially about the supernatural." You also believe (and depend on entirely) in human infallibility, while we reject such a ridiculous belief.
Rather and clearly, it is the concept of theism that is irrational, because it implies complete and perfect knowledge of the supernatural which has been passed down perfectly and without error for many generations over millennia (ie, human infallibility), all of which is completely beyond human capability.
Theists claim to have complete and perfect knowledge about the supernatural and want to sell us their bill of goods. Atheists just refuse to buy that pig in a poke.
Seeing through a swindle and not falling for it is quite rational.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 648 by Kleinman, posted 03-27-2023 3:27 PM Kleinman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 962 by Kleinman, posted 04-26-2023 4:38 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 964 by sensei, posted 10-02-2023 12:54 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1018 of 1104 (913021)
10-08-2023 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1015 by Percy
10-08-2023 9:48 AM


Re: problems with detecting design
OK, black or white.
We have to choose between the complete and utter bullshit utterances of "sensei" (disregarding what complete and utter fools would ever choose him as any kind of teacher) and reality.
Sorry, dude, but reality wins.
But really, why is that idiot still around?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1015 by Percy, posted 10-08-2023 9:48 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1019 by AZPaul3, posted 10-08-2023 10:08 PM dwise1 has replied
 Message 1021 by sensei, posted 10-09-2023 2:35 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 1020 of 1104 (913023)
10-08-2023 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1019 by AZPaul3
10-08-2023 10:08 PM


Re: problems with detecting design
Nah.
A palm reader or other diviner does have a definite skill of reading the mark.
"sensei" doesn't even have that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1019 by AZPaul3, posted 10-08-2023 10:08 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024