RE: Atheism vs. God's Existence
May 19, 2016 at 11:11 pm
(This post was last modified: May 19, 2016 at 11:27 pm by TheRocketSurgeon.)
Step One: Make an unfounded assertion of "facts" that are simply not in evidence, or better yet, garble your scientific definitions so you can chop down that strawman you've built by using those new "facts" you just invented.
(For instance, "Mutation and natural selection has not been shown to be sufficient to account for the complexity of living systems.")
Oh? Since mutation literally means any change in the sequence of the DNA during copying, what other mechanism of change in the DNA do you think we're overlooking, to drive the evolution which we observe happening over time? Is it magic? Oh, I hope it's magic!
Do you mean point mutations cannot account for the rapid changes we see? Well, that's quite true, and is usually the source of the quote-mining where you say "See? Professor McGenius says it's not enough!" Except you ignore that other mechanisms are proposed immediately afterward (and they turn out to not be magic, much to my chagrin, every time) to explain what is actually driving the rapid changes, such as homeotic developmental "instructions" in particular gene sets, in which small DNA changes result in huge phenotype shifts.
Step Two: Quote-mine small, out-of-context snippets from prominent scientists, then distort what they're saying so you can make it seem like your side is bravely and brilliantly pointing out the "flaws" in the scientific method (which you claim to be practicing) and models.
When the proper context of the quotes is tiresomely tracked down by the skeptics to whom you present this bullshit, and the actual information presented to you, you just deny the new information is valid, or you simply pretend you didn't say it, didn't make the mistake, and move on to the next quote mine, which leads to...
Step Three: Machine-gun lots of large, complicated-to-answer questions at your opponents. If they bother to track down and demonstrate your interpretations of that information are either in ignorance or simply full of crap, just move quickly on to the next "gotcha" question, thinking that THIS one will be the one that brings down that dastardly, godless evil-lushun. If they don't want to take the time to find the information you're asking for, don't want to give the equivalent of a semester-long course on genetics to answer it, and ask why you don't just look it up yourself, then you DECLARE VICTORY!, as if their fatigue at your slanted approach means it's really the right answer, after all.
Step Four: Pat yourself on the back for all the extra effort you went through, being ridiculed for thinking that there's a magical explanation anywhere we don't have 100% of the answers (and, based on your past appearances here, even in some places where we do have the actual, non-magical answers), and trying to bring "Tha Laht of da Lawrd" to a gawdless, heathen science-world with no magic in it.
Step Five: Be sure to reassure yourself, preferably in a mirror for extra effect, that even though you're out of touch with 99.9999% of the biologists in your field, worldwide, it's really your tiny little group of rebels and their belief in magic that are the True Scientists™... even if, as Michael Behe admitted on the stand, you're all using a definition of science that would include Astrology and Fortune Telling within its sweep.
GTFOH with that.
(For instance, "Mutation and natural selection has not been shown to be sufficient to account for the complexity of living systems.")
Oh? Since mutation literally means any change in the sequence of the DNA during copying, what other mechanism of change in the DNA do you think we're overlooking, to drive the evolution which we observe happening over time? Is it magic? Oh, I hope it's magic!
Do you mean point mutations cannot account for the rapid changes we see? Well, that's quite true, and is usually the source of the quote-mining where you say "See? Professor McGenius says it's not enough!" Except you ignore that other mechanisms are proposed immediately afterward (and they turn out to not be magic, much to my chagrin, every time) to explain what is actually driving the rapid changes, such as homeotic developmental "instructions" in particular gene sets, in which small DNA changes result in huge phenotype shifts.
Step Two: Quote-mine small, out-of-context snippets from prominent scientists, then distort what they're saying so you can make it seem like your side is bravely and brilliantly pointing out the "flaws" in the scientific method (which you claim to be practicing) and models.
When the proper context of the quotes is tiresomely tracked down by the skeptics to whom you present this bullshit, and the actual information presented to you, you just deny the new information is valid, or you simply pretend you didn't say it, didn't make the mistake, and move on to the next quote mine, which leads to...
Step Three: Machine-gun lots of large, complicated-to-answer questions at your opponents. If they bother to track down and demonstrate your interpretations of that information are either in ignorance or simply full of crap, just move quickly on to the next "gotcha" question, thinking that THIS one will be the one that brings down that dastardly, godless evil-lushun. If they don't want to take the time to find the information you're asking for, don't want to give the equivalent of a semester-long course on genetics to answer it, and ask why you don't just look it up yourself, then you DECLARE VICTORY!, as if their fatigue at your slanted approach means it's really the right answer, after all.
Step Four: Pat yourself on the back for all the extra effort you went through, being ridiculed for thinking that there's a magical explanation anywhere we don't have 100% of the answers (and, based on your past appearances here, even in some places where we do have the actual, non-magical answers), and trying to bring "Tha Laht of da Lawrd" to a gawdless, heathen science-world with no magic in it.
Step Five: Be sure to reassure yourself, preferably in a mirror for extra effect, that even though you're out of touch with 99.9999% of the biologists in your field, worldwide, it's really your tiny little group of rebels and their belief in magic that are the True Scientists™... even if, as Michael Behe admitted on the stand, you're all using a definition of science that would include Astrology and Fortune Telling within its sweep.
GTFOH with that.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
