Defining troll characteristic #3:

claiming ignorance of what a troll is



and you're still not very good at it

(November 20, 2016 at 2:13 pm)The Joker Wrote: What do you mean by "troll", the word troll is highly subjective in this forum.

I mean you live under a bridge and bother passersby.

I think body odor figures strongly in there as a defining characteristic too

(November 20, 2016 at 11:38 am)The Joker Wrote: If you think about it, just because most people think creationist scientists are wrong doesn't mean they are actually wrong right? How do you know they are wrong? Have you looked at what they said?

There is no such thing as creationist science. There is science. Creationists don't research ways to detect the hand of god via natural methods that can be tested and validated or falsified. To date, their efforts are focused on disproving any discoveries or theories that do not fit into the creationist narrative. Since peer review and continuing research and experimentation are an important part of science, they're just doing science. How do we know they're wrong? Well, if they have not managed to overturn or even revise any current scientific theories then it would appear that they are wrong, but that's part of science as well. You just have to keep trying until you exhaust all options or succeed in discovering something new/different.

As for what they have said, is it in the peer-reviewed literature? Or is it just specious claims on religious websites that feature statements that directly contradict any claim to scientific honesty? The thing that makes the scientific method so useful is that it provides a means of dismissing spurious claims and testing hypotheses and theories in order to either arrive at the truth or get as close as we can until we learn more. After hundreds of years of learning more, we still can't validate a single claim for the existence of a god. How long can you continue to bat .000 and still pretend that you're on to something?

(November 20, 2016 at 12:47 pm)The Joker Wrote: Thou shalt not lie-The Ninth Commandment

That's not what it says. It warns the Israelites not to "bear false witness against your neighbor." In other words, don't falsely accuse your fellow Israelite and/or do not commit perjury against him. Outside of that, they could lie to one another and they could bear false witness against non-Israelites. To take it any further than that, you would need to use reason and determine that lying is wrong and then apply that interpretation to something that god did not explicitly state. And you don't want to fuck up on the details when dealing with a maniac who can keep you alive for an eternity just so that he can make sure you suffer forever.

(November 20, 2016 at 2:28 pm)Tonus Wrote:

(November 20, 2016 at 11:38 am)The Joker Wrote: If you think about it, just because most people think creationist scientists are wrong doesn't mean they are actually wrong right? How do you know they are wrong? Have you looked at what they said?

There is no such thing as creationist science.  There is science.  Creationists don't research ways to detect the hand of god via natural methods that can be tested and validated or falsified.  To date, their efforts are focused on disproving any discoveries or theories that do not fit into the creationist narrative.  Since peer review and continuing research and experimentation are an important part of science, they're just doing science.  How do we know they're wrong?  Well, if they have not managed to overturn or even revise any current scientific theories then it would appear that they are wrong, but that's part of science as well.  You just have to keep trying until you exhaust all options or succeed in discovering something new/different.

As for what they have said, is it in the peer-reviewed literature?  Or is it just specious claims on religious websites that feature statements that directly contradict any claim to scientific honesty?  The thing that makes the scientific method so useful is that it provides a means of dismissing spurious claims and testing hypotheses and theories in order to either arrive at the truth or get as close as we can until we learn more.  After hundreds of years of learning more, we still can't validate a single claim for the existence of a god.  How long can you continue to bat .000 and still pretend that you're on to something?

It's peer-reviewed by other "Creationist" Scientists obviously it's not going to be peer-reviewed by pseudo "Evolutionist" scientists are they? Because they are in conflict. There are many evidences for God e.g the cosmological argument.

Quote:The heavens shew forth the glory of God, and the firmament declareth the work of his hands. [3] Day to day uttereth speech, and night to night sheweth knowledge. [4] There are no speeches nor languages, where their voices are not heard. [5] Their sound hath gone forth into all the earth: and their words unto the ends of the world. Psalm 18

(November 20, 2016 at 2:44 pm)The Joker Wrote: It's peer-reviewed by other "Creationist" Scientists obviously it's not going to be peer-reviewed by pseudo "Evolutionist" scientists are they? Because they are in conflict. There are many evidences for God e.g the cosmological argument.

There is no creation/evolution science. There is only science. You don't ask "creation scientists" or "evolution scientists" to peer review your work. You ask biologists, geologists, physicists... whoever works in the actual field that you are also working in. Creationists insist --with absolute certainty-- that a supreme being used magic to wish everything into existence. Not one part of that statement is scientific. The "theory of creation" cannot be tested via the scientific method. They are not submitting work to fellow scientists for peer-review; they're writing deliberately dishonest opinions and asking for a rubber stamp of approval.

Second, the cosmological argument is not evidence for god, it's a flawed attempt to demonstrate that god is necessary. The fact that theists constantly present this argument (and similar ones) shows that they know they cannot demonstrate that god is evident. Otherwise, they'd be showing us the evidence and not trying to wish god into existence via a process of elimination.

(November 19, 2016 at 11:47 am)The Joker Wrote: I appreciate your point, but I am having trouble accepting that common argument from atheists, when getting deep into the cosmological argument "It doesn't mean God did it, so I lack belief in God".

This is False dilemma, The problem I see.

If it can be proven that we didn't come here by an accident by mindless dumb products of evolution without meaning or purpose, then we obviously know God did it, But the atheist may say "BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN GOD DID IT Just because we didn't come here by an accident through chance of evolution!" Well in that case if you prefer not to use the term "God," you may simply call him/it: "The Extremely Powerful, Uncaused, Necessarily Existing, Non-Contingent, Non-Physical, Immaterial, Eternal Being Who Created the Entire Universe...And Everything In It." With a meaning and a purpose to life.

Hi Joker.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0F1fEQeWF8


You fail.

(November 20, 2016 at 1:52 pm)The Joker Wrote:

(November 20, 2016 at 1:33 pm)RozKek Wrote: -Bolded by me-

I encourage you to go and teach yourself about evolution, and please abstain from searching '10 reasons why evolution is wrong' and instead go to somewhere actually neutral and scientific. Maybe search 'A basic introduction to evolution' and actually read indepth, because your understanding of how the process of evolution works is completely and embarrassingly wrong...

However, some atheists have argued for an eternal universe and contradicting the universally accepted and observable 2nd law of thermodynamics which in turn contradicts an eternal universe, but in which case we are only left with the Biological evolution and not the Big Bang Evolution. The eternal universe argument is not actually a sensible argument according to science. The universe is running down, and something that is running down must have started at some point. The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe is running out of usable energy and if you doubt this, look in the mirror (you’re aging and running down just like everything else).

The people whom have argued for an eternal universe didn't pull it out of their ass like the god claim has been, it's a possibility among many other supported things e.g. the multiverse which you have heard of it. It's far better supported than a god, that somehow escapes cause and effect which you haven't provided an explanation for yet. There are natural reasons/explanations which can answer your questions but might not be the answer, difference is they're supported while the god hypothesis isn't supported. It's an irrational act to think that the least probable (if even possible, which hasn't been demonstrated yet) explanation is the answer. At the moment we have no answer as far as I know, but god is off the list, it's not even the last option, I don't think it should even be considered.

(November 20, 2016 at 12:47 pm)The Joker Wrote: Ken Ham didn't lie in the debate because Christians are commanded not to lie. 

Thou shalt not lie-The Ninth Commandment

I see. Not "Ken Ham didn't lie in the debate because his work in the field stands up to peer review and makes testable predictions" - just empty rhetoric about taking his word as a xtian. You must have quite the bridge collection.

(November 20, 2016 at 12:47 pm)The Joker Wrote: Bill Gates (founder and former CEO of Microsoft) recognized that the processing capabilities of DNA are “like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”Using all their intelligence and all the modern advances in science, have scientists ever created DNA or RNA in a laboratory through unguided naturalistic processes? If not, then isn’t the origin of life still an unverified assumption?

And yet Gates - who isn't a biologist - is still an atheist. Maybe there's something else going on that you either don't know about, don't care about, or are leaving out?

Shall we take a look? After all, as someone once said, we need to look at the full context, yes?

The quote you just gave was mined from Gates' book The Road Ahead - not a scientific journal - specifically chapter 9: Education: The Best Investment, in which he writes about his experiences as a high school pupil and the importance of good teachers making lessons interesting and thus memorable. The full context:

Quote:We have all had teachers who made a difference. I had a great chemistry teacher in high school who made his subject immensely interesting. Chemistry seemed enthralling compared to biology. In biology, we were dissecting frogs - just hacking them to pieces, actually - and our teacher didn't explain why. My chemistry teacher sensationalized his subject a bit and promised that it would help us understand the world. When I was in my twenties, I read James D. Watson's "Molecular Biology of the Gene" and decided my high school experience had misled me. The understanding of life is a great subject. Biological information is the most important information we can discover, because over the next several decades it will revolutionize medicine. Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created. It seems amazing to me now that one great teacher made chemistry endlessly fascinating while I found biology totally boring.

How many more red herrings are you going to throw out? The thing is, all these appeals to authority, especially misplaced authority, do absolutely nothing to bolster your case. A hotdog stuffed with sawdust won't taste any meatier, however much you cram in there. This is a perfect example of what I meant about these people lying for their cause. It's particularly egregious when the lies are so transparent and so easily exposed; it's insulting, quite frankly.

Wherever you are pulling these things from, whoever is telling them to you, they are lying to your virtual face - 9th commandment be hanged.

Question their sources.