(June 26, 2014 at 12:08 am)Esquilax Wrote: Oh wow, the guy who'll post the refuted-a-thousand-times eye quote mine from Darwin will also quote mine others! Who would have thought?

What's the bet he does the same thing Rev used to do, and just ignore his blatant dishonesty?

I looked in vain through that enormous wall of words for him to quote and respond to the part I've bolded. Didn't happen.

Get caught throwing out lies and bullshit? The apologist rule book says just keep slinging more and faster. Keep your opponent busy.

(July 7, 2014 at 12:25 pm)Harris Wrote:

(June 17, 2014 at 5:28 pm)pocaracas Wrote: And, with your very first sentence, you show just how deep your ignorance runs.
I told you to go learn about evolution.
You refuse to do so and, instead, provide us with your version of what "evolution" means. Thank you, but that's not what the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection states as "evolution".
Either you go learn about it, or remain in your own delusional world.... but don't mix them, as they're clearly not compatible.

Please check my new post “Is Evolution a science or a faith?”
https://atheistforums.org/thread-27193.html

I told you to go learn about evolution.
Even after reading your special thread on evolution science, I come to the conclusion you don't understand it, that is... if you did take the time to learn anything about it.
Esquilax already provided you with tons of material, now go google and try to keep away from stupid creatard sources - you'll be deceived every single time you look in them.

Harris, seriously...

The problem here is that you don't actually know what evolution is, what mainstream science accepts as evolution, and so you're making up your own definition (aided in no small part, I imagine, by creationist frauds and hacks) and then expecting everyone else to play by your fantasy definition, and that since your made up nonsense can't happen- and would, by the way, disprove evolution if it were true- then evolution as it actually is defined can't happen.

But nobody here is required to use your imaginary strawman of evolution. There's no rule stating we have to play by Harris-rules in this debate. With that in mind, I'm prepared to stop all this and declare victory for evolution, until such time as you actually bother to get off your ass and look at what real scientists say evolution is. I'd suggest starting here. Begin with "Evolution 101," since you obviously need it, but there's a page on evidence there too.

Other than that, I'm kinda done playing this game with you. Your response back to me was nothing more than another load of assertions that, if I were to take them seriously, would require me to accept that you, a layman with no qualifications, knows more about biology than trained biologists working in the field today, and that's not a leap I'm willing to take for you. You even posted Ben Stein's nonsense Expelled film, which even a cursory search of wikipedia will demonstrate is full of deception and outright lies, built into every level of that tract's writing, production and marketing.

You arguments aren't even that, your sources are either out of date or outright liars, and your concept of evolution is so flawed you might as well be talking about something else. Correct this, or I see no purpose in continuing this bizarre game of yours, beyond giving your anemic position an unearned sense of legitimacy.

You want to play at science, then you have to know what science says.

(July 7, 2014 at 5:10 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(July 7, 2014 at 12:25 pm)Harris Wrote: Please check my new post “Is Evolution a science or a faith?”
https://atheistforums.org/thread-27193.html

I told you to go learn about evolution.
Even after reading your special thread on evolution science, I come to the conclusion you don't understand it, that is... if you did take the time to learn anything about it.
Esquilax already provided you with tons of material, now go google and try to keep away from stupid creatard sources - you'll be deceived every single time you look in them.

+1

If you don't want to believe in evolution, that's fine. But if you want to debate evolutionists, it's much better to debate what they actually think than what you need them to have thought for your arguments to work.

"Intelligence out of nothing?" What an ignorant idea.

(July 8, 2014 at 4:45 am)Esquilax Wrote: Harris, seriously...

The problem here is that you don't actually know what evolution is, what mainstream science accepts as evolution, and so you're making up your own definition (aided in no small part, I imagine, by creationist frauds and hacks) and then expecting everyone else to play by your fantasy definition, and that since your made up nonsense can't happen- and would, by the way, disprove evolution if it were true- then evolution as it actually is defined can't happen.

But nobody here is required to use your imaginary strawman of evolution. There's no rule stating we have to play by Harris-rules in this debate. With that in mind, I'm prepared to stop all this and declare victory for evolution, until such time as you actually bother to get off your ass and look at what real scientists say evolution is. I'd suggest starting here. Begin with "Evolution 101," since you obviously need it, but there's a page on evidence there too.

Other than that, I'm kinda done playing this game with you. Your response back to me was nothing more than another load of assertions that, if I were to take them seriously, would require me to accept that you, a layman with no qualifications, knows more about biology than trained biologists working in the field today, and that's not a leap I'm willing to take for you. You even posted Ben Stein's nonsense Expelled film, which even a cursory search of wikipedia will demonstrate is full of deception and outright lies, built into every level of that tract's writing, production and marketing.

You arguments aren't even that, your sources are either out of date or outright liars, and your concept of evolution is so flawed you might as well be talking about something else. Correct this, or I see no purpose in continuing this bizarre game of yours, beyond giving your anemic position an unearned sense of legitimacy.

You want to play at science, then you have to know what science says.

You and many others, like you, think I am “IGNORANT,” “ILLITERATE,” “ETC.,” but what you say about Thomas Nagel who is an atheist and not a proponent of intelligent design (ID).

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

I hope you do not take him as “IGNORANT,” and as “ILLITERATE,” as you think I am. Now see what he is writing.

“I would like to defend the untutored reaction of incredulity to the reductionist neo-Darwinian account of the origin and evolution of life. It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection. We are expected to abandon this naïve response, not in favor of a fully worked out physical/chemical explanation but in favor of an alternative that is really a schema for explanation, supported by some examples. What is lacking, to my knowledge, is a credible argument that the story has a non-negligible probability of being true. There are two questions. First, given what is known about the chemical basis of biology and genetics, what is the likelihood that self-reproducing life forms should have come into existence spontaneously on the early earth, solely through the operation of the laws of physics and chemistry? The second question is about the sources of variation in the evolutionary process that was set in motion once life began: In the available geological time since the first life forms appeared on earth, what is the likelihood that, as a result of physical accident, a sequence of viable genetic mutations should have occurred that was sufficient to permit natural selection to produce the organisms that actually exist?” …

Since the questions concern highly specific events over a long historical period in the distant past, the available evidence is very indirect, and general assumptions have to play an important part. My skepticism is not based on religious belief, or on a belief in any definite alternative. It is just a belief that the available scientific evidence, in spite of the consensus of scientific opinion, does not in this matter rationally require us to subordinate the incredulity of common sense. That is especially true with regard to the origin of life.

MIND AND COSMOS:
Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False
Introduction
Thomas Nagel

---

(July 8, 2014 at 7:59 am)bennyboy Wrote: (Today 06:10)pocaracas Wrote:
(Today 01:25)Harris Wrote: Please check my new post “Is Evolution a science or a faith?”
https://atheistforums.org/thread-27193.html

I told you to go learn about evolution.
Even after reading your special thread on evolution science, I come to the conclusion you don't understand it, that is... if you did take the time to learn anything about it.
Esquilax already provided you with tons of material, now go google and try to keep away from stupid creatard sources - you'll be deceived every single time you look in them.
+1

If you don't want to believe in evolution, that's fine. But if you want to debate evolutionists, it's much better to debate what they actually think than what you need them to have thought for your arguments to work.

I am not trying to impose my ideas over any person’s thoughts. If I am saying that Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism have grave flaws then I am giving solid evidence for that. I know exactly what Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism is and based on my knowledge I am arguing that Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism are not science rather they are FAITH and system of BELIF in Atheism.

While responding to Esquilax I made a quotation from the introduction of Nagel’s book “Mind and Cosmos”. In the conclusion of the same book, Nagel writes.

“I have argued patiently against the prevailing form of naturalism, a reductive materialism that purports to capture life and mind through its neo-Darwinian extension. But to go back to my introductory remarks, I find this view antecedently unbelievable—a heroic triumph of ideological theory over common sense. The empirical evidence can be interpreted to accommodate different comprehensive theories, but in this case the cost in conceptual and probabilistic contortions is prohibitive. I would be willing to bet that the present right-thinking consensus will come to seem laughable in a generation or two—though of course it may be replaced by a new consensus that is just as invalid. The human will to believe is inexhaustible.”

MIND AND COSMOS:
Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False
Thomas Nagel

---

(July 7, 2014 at 1:20 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I agree with the first sentence. The second seems to be unsupported by any substantial argument or evidence.

If you agree that there is no “Nothingness” rather there is “Something” then that’s it. That “Something,” for me, is God because Universe and everything in it show obvious signs of intelligence.

“And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colours. Verily, in that are indeed signs for men of sound knowledge.”
Ar Ruum (30)
-Verse 22-
Quran

“And in the earth are neighbouring tracts, and gardens of vines, and green crops (fields etc.), and date-palms, growing out two or three from a single stem root, or otherwise (one stem root for every palm ), watered with the same water, yet some of them We make more excellent than others to eat. Verily, in these things, there are Ayat (proofs, evidences, lessons, signs) for the people who understand.”
Ar Ra'd (13)
-Verse 4-
Quran

“And He shows you (always) His Signs: then which of the Signs of Allah will ye deny?”
Al Mu'min (40)
-Verse 81-
Quran

“Nay, here are Signs self-evident in the hearts of those endowed with knowledge: and none but the unjust reject Our Signs.”
Al 'Ankabuut (29)
-Verse 49-
Quran

Dawkins also believe in intelligent design with the difference he cop out the word God from his explanation. responding to a question:

“What do you think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics, or in evolution?”

He said, “Well, it could come about in the following way: it could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved by probably some kind of Darwinian means to a very, very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto, perhaps, this planet. Now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of our chemistry, molecular biology, you might find a SIGNATURE OF SOME SORT OF DESIGNER, AND THAT DESIGNER COULD WELL BE A HIGHER INTELLIGENCE FROM ELSEWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable, process. It could not have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.”

If you have some other explanation for the concept of “Something” that is not “Nothingness” then let me know about that.

(July 7, 2014 at 1:20 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: You should stop posting quotes you don't understand. This is a quote mine. The part where you left off, without even looking, is just before de Duve goes on to explain how evolution accounts for the lack of randomness. That's how predictable this quote-mine lie is. The man is not a creationist, you are misrepresenting his position. Again. Dr. de Duve has a habit of offering the creationist explanation before demolishing it, which makes him trivially easy to quote mine. It's not hard to quote mine, just deceitful.

But perhaps I'm being unfair. I am willing to lay down a thousand dollars of my own money, payable to the charity of your choice, which I will show official acknowledgement of my contribution for, that de Duve goes on to say how evolution accounts for the phenomenenon described in what you've chosen to quote. If you agree to do the same if you are shown to have quote-mined de Duve, it will certainly be worthwile for me to order another de Duve book from Amazon if necessary, presuming the proof isn't available on the internet. .

I have quoted many statements of Darwin and Dawkins. Do you think I am trying to prove these men as creationists? If I am quoting statements of De Duve that is only to show that no one, whether theist or atheist, deny or ignore Hard-core Facts of science.

Both of the quotes from De Duve show an obvious Fact that life on earth did not appear and evolve as a matter of Random Chance. This Fact utterly negates Darwinian Theory of Evolution in which life started and evolved as a matter of Unguided Chance. From this point onward, every justification to the Theory of Evolution should contain the elements of “Ifs” and “Suppose,” as without such elements no present day model can have logical meaning.

For your information, De Duve firmly believe in the existence of God.

---

(July 7, 2014 at 5:10 pm)pocaracas Wrote: And, with your very first sentence, you show just how deep your ignorance runs.
I told you to go learn about evolution.
You refuse to do so and, instead, provide us with your version of what "evolution" means. Thank you, but that's not what the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection states as "evolution".
Either you go learn about it, or remain in your own delusional world.... but don't mix them, as they're clearly not compatible.

Please check my new post “Is Evolution a science or a faith?”
https://atheistforums.org/thread-27193.html

I told you to go learn about evolution.
Even after reading your special thread on evolution science, I come to the conclusion you don't understand it, that is... if you did take the time to learn anything about it.
Esquilax already provided you with tons of material, now go google and try to keep away from stupid creatard sources - you'll be deceived every single time you look in them.

Sorry! I cannot agree to take absurd as scientific fact.

“Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vison, no foresight, and no sight at all.”
Page 5
The Blind Watchmaker
Richard Dawkins.

---

(July 7, 2014 at 12:41 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Harris.
You post is far too long and rambling for me to pick it all to pieces but I shall address a couple of your more obvious inaccuracies.

Evolution IS a scientific fact, that is what theory means in science

Evolution is not random, it is a known and rather well understood process were pressures on an individual can impact on its ability to survive and/or reproduce which dictates what will and wont pass on its genes.

You really need to learn some more and not close your mind to facts, the truth is far more fascinating than the bronze age myths you believe.

“Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vison, no foresight, and no sight at all.”
Page 5
The Blind Watchmaker
Richard Dawkins.

I do not see anything in the above statement that has any scientific worth in it. Further, I do not see any consistency of ideas that makes this statement viable to support any process to be sequential and not a Random Chance.

How many threads are you taking a shit in?

(July 7, 2014 at 12:32 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'm guessing that you didn't crib this info from anyone with even the most basic understanding of evolution. Who told you this?

To say that an unknown, unseen, and unplanned series of “simple, cumulative steps” which lead to a complex end is not random chance is nonsensical.
Without a design or purpose, natural selection is still a random process, regardless of any statements to the contrary. It can only be considered an “incredible stroke of luck” for evolution to reach any destination, especially one as lofty as the human being.

(July 7, 2014 at 12:32 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Its not an assertion. Evolution is only a Postulate, An Assumption that has nothing to do with conventional science. Did you ever ponder why it is a THEORY not a SCIENTIFIC FACT in modern scientific world?
Evolution and the theory of evolution are not the same things. In the same way that a bird is not the thought or name. Basic stuff. Evolution is an observation. Theory attempts to explain that observation. Evolution is, in fact, a fact. The theory is, and will likely remain, a theory - a working, falsifiable explanation for a set of facts. You take issue, and that's okay - it's even encouraged. Now get to falsifying. I'll lend you my shovel - because that's all you're going to require for a definitive rebuttal of the current model.

Clear that all up for you?

If you think Theory of Evolution is a scientific FACT then you have to show evidence for spontaneous generation of organized matter out of nothingness. You also need to give evidence for the matter becoming a living organism and evolve into a complex life form. Of course, all of this would need to happen without prior planning or the assistance of anyone or anything, either in the natural or supernatural realm.

Not this evolution conversation again......

(July 26, 2014 at 11:59 am)Harris Wrote: You and many others, like you, think I am “IGNORANT,” “ILLITERATE,” “ETC.,” but what you say about Thomas Nagel who is an atheist and not a proponent of intelligent design (ID).

I'd say that I don't care. Nagel makes the same mistakes you do in the quote you left here, and I don't give a flying fuck whether he's an atheist, a spaceman, or god himself, he's still demonstrably wrong. He commits the same argument from ignorance that you do, when he states that the improbability of something means it's impossible. He conflates evolution and abiogenesis, just as you do. He's wrong, and I'm prepared to say that on this topic, atheist or no, he's just as ignorant as you are.

"Hey look, here's an atheist who agrees with me!" isn't an argument. In fact, it's an argument from authority fallacy.

Besides, all this skips over the actual issue here, the one that I addressed in my post, which is that you, Harris, have literally no idea what evolution is, and that if you wanted to discuss evolution you should fix that.

Because right now, it's kinda like if I came to you and asked to discuss your particular religion, right? Only a few minutes into my rebuttal of it, it becomes really clear that what I'm actually talking about is Star Trek, and saying that your religion can't be true because transporters don't exist. And then you tell me that I'm talking about Star Trek and not your religion, but I just ignore you and keep telling you about Star Trek.

Would you take me seriously, in that discussion? Would you even consider it a conversation about your religion at all?

That's what it's like, talking to you about evolution.