|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..8~9~10~11~12..14~15~16 [Next] | ||||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts 
|
Quote:
On 2008-09-28 14:14, magicman226 wrote: You said you had not heard of a hoax, I showed you just one. I am telling you to do research beore you jump and believe things.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
For those who can't comfortably bridge the rational/scientific with the story popularity side of religion/politics- here's an analogy for the story minded:
Look carefully at some zip file archives on your pc with wordpad or a similar editor. If you see the same thing at the start of the file...I hope we can agree that each archive was put there for some purpose by an intelligent creature. And I hope we can agree that each archive shares common descent and design with other archives and we can thank Bill Gates and Philip Katz for that. BTW - has anyone carefully checked the DNA from the fragments of the piltdown man item?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
magicman226 Loyal user San Antonio, Texas 234 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-09-28 18:13, Dannydoyle wrote: Alright, and I looked at it, and I researched. "The hoax was devised to create belief in human evolution This claim is often made by creationists. It is highly unlikely. We do not know for certain who the hoaxer(s) was and hence cannot speak with certainty about the motive for the hoax. However the motive almost certainly was not to convince people that men evolved from apes. To be accepted the hoax had to convince the scientific community that the find was genuine. The hoax was not needed, however, to convince the scientific community that men had evolved from apes. It already was the consensus in the scientific community at the time that man had evolved from a pre-human ape ancestor, the line of argument being two-fold, (a) the anatomical evidence and (b) the existence of pre-human fossils (Neanderthal Man, Heidelberg Man, et al). The effect of the hoax was to supply support for a particular theory about the course of human evolution, i.e., that large brains appeared early. Support for this theory may possibly have been part of the motive." http://home.tiac.net/~cri_a/piltdown/piltdown.html#devised The Piltdown Man was a terrible hoax and embarrassed the paleontology community. However, it was not forged in order to prove human evolution as a whole, but merely if anything certain aspects of it. It holds no basis as a claim against the theory. |
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts
|
You Claim in one sentence we can not speak for certain who the hoaxers were, and therefore what their motives were.
THEN in a fantastic 180 degree turn you say "However it was NOT (emphasis mine for ironic purposes) forged in order to prove human evolution as a whole, but merly if anything certain aspects of it". Come on now buddy you MUST see how this is a contradiction right? PLEASE oh please tell me you are at least chuckling to yourself for writing this. A tip on research. A very smart man once wrote that "it is tough to discover the truth, when you know ahead of time what that truth is supposed to be". (I may have one or 2 words out of place, but that is the idea) MEANING that when you already have an idea of what you are supposed to find, all the evidence you find, will point you to that conclusion, and it will disprove other theories for you. This is a trap many cops fall into. With SO much of the evolutionary evidence not presant, tough to find, tough to make, this trap is particularly dangerous. Now even at your age you have been indoctrinated into this way of thinking of evolution as a fact, as opposed to a "nondisprovable theory". I am not telling you science is bad, I am not saying evolution is necessarily bad, but the arguements you make, and the contradictions you use are NOT science. They are hardly a fair representation of the theory anyhow. Also incidently as a side note, CONCENSUS IS NOT SCIENCE. For a long time "science" told us the earth was the center of the universe. It told us things that have been later discovered to be wrong, but concensus told you different. So "scientific concensus" does in no way make anything true. It may very well be a representation of what those men think. I am in no way saying it makes them wrong about everything, but you can NOT make claims like "concensus makes things right". It is not science.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Tom Bartlett Special user Our southern border could use 763 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-09-28 20:11, magicman226 wrote: This is a typical response of the pseudo intellectuals, which can not come to grips with the thought of an afterlife, and there being consequences for their choices.
Our friends don't have to agree with me about everything and some that I hold very dear don't have to agree about anything, except where we are going to meet them for dinner.
|
|||||||||
|
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts
|
Quote:
This is a typical response of the pseudo intellectuals, which can not come to grips with the thought of an afterlife, and there being consequences for their choices. I often wonder something along similar lines about religious leaders (of various faiths) who misrepresent what scientists say, misstate what the theory of evolution says (what it claims and what it does not claim), and so forth. Are they truly that ignorant of what they are railing against? Or are they intentionally and willfully misrepresenting these things with no thought given to the consequences of their actions?
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
|
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-09-26 19:44, Chessmann wrote: The last line was an ironic comment relating to outlandish claims that several people made previously in this thread. I assumed people would recognize it as such.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27300 Posts
|
Balducci - I'm still astonished at the implicit claim that there's only one intelligent designer acting as opposed to an indeterminate number. If one considers an indeterminate number of designers acting it occurs that there is no measurable difference between the effects of a random number of designers acting on a thing and pure random accident since one cannot know the intent or aesthetics of the designers and so... the conflict goes away.
On the other side - some people want just one designer yet won't also state that preference as being a personal and entirely sentimental issue - which would put the matter into the realm of "matters of taste" which again puts the matter beyond dispute. I Get the feeling that some folks still want to be both right and correct while remaining irresponsible and unaccountable. Okay, someone's Freudian slip is showing. Let's say it's mine - and you can go on as you were.  Jon's up way too late tonight - gnite folks.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
magicman226 Loyal user San Antonio, Texas 234 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-09-28 20:57, Dannydoyle wrote: Ok, I had never heard of the hoax. I looked it up. I read a couple different articles on it. It was indeed a major hoax, but that has no effect on the current knowledge of human evolution. Remember, this hoax was from quite a while ago and wasn't exposed until 1953. Our knowledge of biology and paleontology has progressed quite a bit since then. That hoax does not change the firm grounding evolution has. It really is not much of a case against the evolution as a whole, but merely some jerk not doing his job. Evolution is not "nondisprovable". It is completely falsifiable. That's what makes it scientific as opposed to ID. I was skeptical about this Piltdown Man before I researched it. That's what was a catalyst for me even bothering to look it up. Don't turn that into a crime, especially when the research shows that it's a silly argument against the theory. No, consensus is not science. However, the well proven theories are usually held as pretty truthful by the majority of a scientific consensus. Either way, I never said nonsenses is science. If you thought I said that, I must have worded something wrong, and I apologize. |
|||||||||
|
magicman226 Loyal user San Antonio, Texas 234 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-09-28 21:25, Tom Bartlett wrote: Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it sounded like you implied all people who do not believe in an afterlife are not intellectuals. |
|||||||||
|
kcg5 Inner circle who wants four fried chickens and a coke 1868 Posts
|
[quote]On 2008-09-28 23:00, magicman226 wrote:
Quote:
and by extension, is "ID" scientific?
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!!!!!
"History will be kind to me, as I intend to write it"- Sir Winston Churchill |
|||||||||
Josh Riel Inner circle of hell 1995 Posts
|
I think religion, and atheism, are just the same old methods of making life make sense that mankind have been using since the beginning of history. Some rulers would kill their families and servants to give their own life's/deaths meaning. Some people have to believe in god, some simply cannot... for the same reason.
There, you are all wrong. One day you will look back at this and realize how foolish you have been.
Magic is doing improbable things with odd items that, under normal circumstances, would be unnessecary and quite often undesirable.
|
|||||||||
|
abc Inner circle South African in Taiwan 1081 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-09-28 23:05, magicman226 wrote: No, I think it should be seen as an annoyed response to those who seem to believe that those who may believe in a god or afterlife or who quesiton the merits of evolution are somehow not as smart as those who blondly belive in evolution when it is clear that we do not have all the facts and details yet. Evolution has been proven "beyond reasonable doubt". Should I post the figure of how many people have spent time in prison or worse got executed because the legal system coudn't be 100% but it was proven "beyond reasonable doubt"? As humans we have not even had an in depth look at our nearets planet and we are discussing the origin of the universe. We are all pretty stupid and it is highly unlikely that our 3 dimensional system would be able to predict anything useful anout a universe we know very little about. But why accept that? We are all stupid and I am perfectly willing to accept the fact that I am probably the most stupid of all but I don't really care. All I know is that there are too many things we don't know and therefor can not be certain or at least as certain as some claim to be. |
|||||||||
MR2Guy Regular user Nashville 179 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-09-29 00:05, Josh Riel wrote: What same old mathods does religion and atheism have in common to make life make sense? Quote:
Some rulers would kill their families and servants to give their own life's/deaths meaning. Some people have to believe in god, some simply cannot... for the same reason. What same reason are you referring to?
Question every rule.
There are no absolutes. |
|||||||||
|
Tom Bartlett Special user Our southern border could use 763 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-09-28 23:05, magicman226 wrote: No I did not imply that all people who do not believe in an afterlife are not intellectuals only those that respond like you have.
Our friends don't have to agree with me about everything and some that I hold very dear don't have to agree about anything, except where we are going to meet them for dinner.
|
|||||||||
|
MR2Guy Regular user Nashville 179 Posts
|
Tom
How do you know by macicman's responses that he cannot come to grips with the thought of an afterlife, and there being consequences for their choices?
Question every rule.
There are no absolutes. |
|||||||||
|
magicman226 Loyal user San Antonio, Texas 234 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-09-29 01:28, Tom Bartlett wrote: How so? I don't see how my responses make me a "pseudo-intellectual". Please enlighten me. |
|||||||||
|
Tom Bartlett Special user Our southern border could use 763 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-09-29 02:24, MR2Guy wrote: I ascertained it from reading all of his post. Remember this whole tread is about the question: What are the nonbelievers afraid of?
Our friends don't have to agree with me about everything and some that I hold very dear don't have to agree about anything, except where we are going to meet them for dinner.
|
|||||||||
|
Tom Bartlett Special user Our southern border could use 763 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-09-29 08:19, magicman226 wrote: Because you are uninformed about much of the evidence which has been debunked by modern scientific methods such as DNA and choose to ignore it.
Our friends don't have to agree with me about everything and some that I hold very dear don't have to agree about anything, except where we are going to meet them for dinner.
|
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21245 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2008-09-29 08:19, magicman226 wrote: I was beaten to the punch LOL. But in a less harsh tone than Tom used, you don't quite have all the evidence. You only seem to bother to research your own opinion or spout what you are told in class from one source. Not knowing about the "hoax" of Piltdown man means you have done a very small if any amount of research into your ideas and CONVICTIONS. This is sad. To beleive something so vehemently and not really do much research sounds a lot more like religion than science does it not? All this tends to point to being a "pseudo intellectiual" on your part. (though you probably spell 10x better than myself) The point is research, research, research. (at least I read that somewhere) You have your mind made up and nobody is going to change that no matter WHAT happens. This also is not science. Like I said the tendency is to fit all evidence into that box, rather than looking at the evidence and finding a box it fits into naturally.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Ben Stein interviewed on BNN (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..8~9~10~11~12..14~15~16 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Sep 28, 2008 10:13 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.1 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|