Posts by AlanF

157

Evolutionary establishment tactics

by hooberus in

wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

AlanF

Forscher wrote:

: I think you finally figured it out Alan!!!

Indeed, and now it's painfully obvious to me that you're nothing but a troll. I will suggest to moderators that the usual action towards trolls be taken. Whatever they do, you can be sure that, from today on, I will point out that you're a troll, and many posters will simply ignore you.

: While I still hold to my contention that the folks at the Smithsonian went over the line,

You being a troll, I doubt that you hold to anything besides causing trouble. You're here to rake muck and find pleasure in causing people to spin their wheels.

: let me tell you a few things about myself that not even many folks who know me know. Since you said that my posts were the only way you have to know me. i think that is only fair ;-)

Ok. . .

: To start off with, I've mentioned elswhere that I recently finished my Bachelor's degree (better late than never). It's a Batchelor's of Science, though it's in a social science (I did make sure that I had a bit more course work in the natural sciences [Chemistry and Biology] and math than the average bear in those fields gets). I graduated cum laude, so didn't do sloppy work (and I did about 120 of the 150 hrs I have while I was in the borg).

Wow. You really took some hard course work. At least the equivalent of a degree in Physics, if not more.

: Politically, I am actually middle of the road. There is a little test making the rounds of some universities that evaluates one's political leanings. The test scores from 1-100 with 1 being thumping right-wing fundamentalist Christian and 100 being extreme left-wing communist. Both times I've taken the test I scored 66 and 60 respectively which is basically slightly left of middle.

Ok. . .

: In highschool (oh so many years ago) I was on a debate team that took a state championship,

Where? The State of Utter Stupidity?

: and if you go back and look at our little debate objectively, you'll find that you got had. In fact, you fell pretty neatly into the trap I set for you.

Actually, all you did was to successfully pretend to be a standard braindead Fundamentalist. That doesn't take much talent, but it certainly takes some stamina and a strong stomach.

: About the only thing you didn't do, that it looked like you were going, to do was to kick me off the forum.

I have no particular influence on anything of that sort.

: But I think you finally figured out what was going on.

Not until you actually stated that you're a muckraking troll. I usually assume that people are honest and straightforward about their statements, even when such statements are as braindead as those of hooberus, Shining One and a few other shining examples of Fundamentalist anti-intellectualism.

: The problem with folks at both ends of the spectrum (and you are out there on one of those ends Alan, I don't mean that insultingly)

I take that as a compliment: I'm certainly on the end of the spectrum that respects good science, as opposed to people who don't.

: is that they are too emotionally wrapped up in the rightness of their beliefs.

My "beliefs"? Almost everything I post is or can be backed up by copious source references, so you can hardly call my expressed views mere "beliefs", as if they're something akin to Flat-Earthism or Christian Fundamentalism.

: They tend to look down on those who don't share their beliefs

Let's see now: you think that Flat-Earthists ought to be respected. And you think that Fundamentalists ought to be respected. Have I got that right?

: (be honest with youself Alan and look at the tone of your posts on this forum, I think you are intelligent enough to see my point if you look at it objectively)

There's no question at all that I look down at Flat-Earthists, believers in astrology, Fundamentalists, and a variety of other demonstrably braindead people. So what?

: and they take a condescending tone that takes away from the authority of their arguments.

Only in the mind of the reader who supports the idea being trashed. I suspect that you'd have no problem laughing at amusingly derogatory comments about Flat-Earthists. But the fact that you object to similar comments about equally braindead Fundamentalists indicates that your sympathies lie with them. So you're far from the objective commentator you think you are. Condescending is in the eye of the beholder.

: Civil, rational debate carrys more authority than the put-down. You need to step back from the emotion and look at your arguments dispassionately.

I debate with any number of styles, ranging from extreme objectivity to extreme subjectivity, depending on who is debating and what they've said up to the point I post a response. When it becomes obvious, either quickly or over a period of time, that a debater is incapable of rational argument, or is unwilling to engage in it, but persists in stating a stupid point of view, I tend to drift toward the subjective and the put-downs, since objective debate is obviously no longer an option. In other words, I try not to beat a dead horse, but I also suffer fools badly, especially when such fools are arrogant.

: That is also the flaw in what the folks at the Smithsonian did.

Which claim puts you solidly in the camp of the religious Fundamentalists of whom Richard Sternberg is a part.

: Remember that Sternberg was not an employee of the Smithsonian. He was employed by the NIH. He merely had access to the collections of the Smithsonian for the research he was doing for the NIH. His editorship of the magazine was an extra-curricular deal (although whether he got any compensation for it or not, I'll admit I don't know) and the magazine's board could remove him at anytime for any reason it wanted.

I'm well aware of all this. And you're simply reinforcing my claim that Sternberg, having violated normal science ethics and common sense, is getting what he deserves.

: The letter from the investigator

A Bush political appointee. Why do you keep ignoring this extremely pertinent fact?

: pointed that out as being one of the reasons he couldn't pursue the investigation any further.

A bit more to the point: The OSC had no jurisdiction over people who had the special contractual relationship that Sternberg had with the Smithsonian. So Sternberg's going to that office can easily be argued to be yet another breach of ethics.

You want legalism? Go for it!

: Sternberg's postion on the magazine did not make him an employee of the Smithsonian, so he didn't enjoy the legal protection that you said I naively ignored. So what the Smithsonian folks did was completely unnecessary. It was done simply out of emotion and spite.

Not at all. If Sternberg's Smithsonian "employers" -- call them what you will, he worked for and with them -- had had the legal power to completely cut him off from access to the Institution and its resources, you can be sure that they would have. Apparently they did not, for contractual reasons and so forth, and so they did what they could to get rid of a demonstrably lousy worker -- one who would not hesitate to embarass them and the Smithsonian Institution and the loosely associated Proceedings journal staff.

The fact that you've completely failed to address any of these points, despite the fact that you're obviously not stupid and that I've brought them up several times now, proves that you're grossly dishonest -- a fundamental trait of a troll, who comes onto a discussion board with the sole purpose of raking muck.

: Alan, our freedoms of speech were enshrined by our founding fathers because they trusted that those who count could rationally evaluate the ideas that enter the market place of ideas and come to the right decisions.

A right fine sentiment! Unfortunately, when some 59% of the American public figures that the prophecies of Revelation will soon come to pass, it becomes a serious problem deciding just who can be trusted to make the right decisions, wouldn't you say? And when a large percentage of government officials, like John Ashcroft, are able to force their ridiculous beliefs on an entire government arm, wouldn't you say that the irrational among us have taken over?

: That is why we don't have censorship! Censorship goes hand-in-hand with intolerance and dictatorship.

You obviously have no idea of the meaning of censorship.

: If ID really is as foolish as you materialists say it is,

This is absolute proof that you're a Fundamentalist. No one else would say such a thing.

: then you have no need to suppress it.

No one is suppressing ID. On the contrary, ID proponents are going whole hog in publishing all sorts of reading material.

: Let it be heard, and let it be properly evaluated. Then if it proves lacking, it will go onto the ash-heap of history right along with seven day creationism.

That has already happened. Whether you like it or not, the general consensus of scientists who have looked intently at ID is that it is virtually free of real content. Furthermore, they know very well that it's nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt -- as its most prominent supporters freely admit -- to reintroduce conservative Christianity into the mainstream of American life. All you have to do to see that is read the material I referred to in my post on Intelligent Design: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/14/97367/1.ashx

: That, my friend, is always the best way to deal with it. Doing otherwise makes one look dogmatic and fanatical.

Since this has already been done, it's those who cling to discredited ideas who are dogmatic and fanatical.

: That is why liberals have been losing their shirts in recent elections, they come across as left-wing taliban (again, I am not trying to insult anybody here, I am just pointing out the facts).

Well this certainly gets into the realm of "the opinion page". I would rather say that the recent wins by conservatives (by slim margins, usually, and mainly in rural areas (zowie, doesn't that tell you something?)) reflects the typical braindeadness of people who go in for a soon-to-be-fulfilled Revelation, and all sorts of televangelist claptrap, and the standard assortment of extreme right-wing foolishness.

Of course, it would only take a shift in the attitudes of a few percent of the population of the U.S. -- perhaps as a result of failed agendas of its present, rather braindead leader -- to be able to say that "conservatives are losing their shirts" for whatever reason.

: You may not care that you look fanatical,

I look fanatical only to braindead Fundamentalists and their ilk. Read some supportive posts and you'll see.

: but you'd be well advised to start caring about that if nothing else.

Why? Are they going to come through their TV's at me?

: You are entitled to your opinions, please extend others the same curtisies. And treat them just as respectfully as you expect to be treated.

LOL!

I have no respect for people who believe that the earth is flat. Do you think I should?

I have no respect for people who believe that the universe was created by fiat 6,000 years ago. Do you think I should?

I have no respect for people who engage in snake charming and swallowing poison as a form of Christian worship. Do you think I should?

I have no respect for people who believe in astrology, UFOs, demonology, and host of other silly ideas. Do you think I should?

I have no respect for people who dismiss the findings of modern science as regards the fossil record. Do you think I should?

I have no respect for people who lie about their aims. Do you think I should?

I have no respect for people who claim before one audience that they believe one thing, and claim before another that they believe something quite different. Do you think I should?

Once again, Forscher, as I've said before, and in view of the fact that you've revealed yourself as a muckraking troll, I have no doubt that you won't respond substantively to anything I've written in this post, any more than you've responded substantively to any other post I've made.

I'm finally wondering, just before I hit the Submit button, if you're a true troll, or just someone silly enough to try to act like a troll.

AlanF

120

Cross or a Stake - which was it?

by KAYTEE in

we were always lead to believe, when we belonged to the jws, that jesus died on a "stake".

was this really true or did he die on a cross as all other religions appear to believe.

if it was a cross, what on earth did the jws get out of saying otherwise.

AlanF

The poster ithinkisee and I recently had a short, private exchange about "cross versus stake", and as a result I obtained a copy of a 19th-century Bible dictionary that the Watchtower Society used in the so-called Reasoning book to make some points, but actually misrepresented. This post shows the Society's gross dishonesty, and allows the reader to see scans of a slightly more recent edition of the Bible dictionary that the Society misrepresented.

The Reasoning book states:

The Greek word rendered "cross" in many modern Bible versions ("torture stake" in NW) is stauros. In classical Greek, this word meant merely an upright stake, or pale. Later it also came to be used for an execution stake having a crosspiece. The Imperial Bible-Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: "The Greek word for cross, [stauros], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. . . . Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.--Edited by P. Fairbairn (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 376.

The website at this link ( http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/7831/cross.html ) shows that the Society misrepresented what the Imperial Bible Dictionary said:

QUOTE..........MISQUOTE:
In its "Reasoning From the Scriptures" book, the Watchtower Society quotes from several sources to support their "torture stake" theory.

These publications not only seem authoritative, but also seem to support the Society's claims regarding the "torture stake" rather than the traditional cross. However, unbeknown to many, the Watchtower Society has not been honest in its quotations of its sources.
For example, one publication that the Society quotes in its "Reasoning..." book on page 89 is The Imperial Bible Dictionary. Below is the Watchtower quotation, with the words that they omitted in RED:
"The Imperial Bible Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: "The Greek word for cross, (stauros), properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling (fencing in) a piece of ground. But a modification was introduced as the dominion and usages of Rome extended themselves through Greek-speaking countries. Even amongst the Romans, the crux (from which the word cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole, and always remained the more prominent part. But from the time that it began to be used as an instrument of punishment, a traverse piece of wood was commonly added...about the period of the Gospel Age, crucifixion was usually accomplished by suspending the criminal on a cross piece of wood."

I was able to obtain a somewhat later version of the Imperial Bible Dictionary than the 1874 edition; it appears to be from about 1885, based on the date of the Introduction in Volume 1 (this is a six-volume set). It contains exactly the same text as the above-linked website indicates for the 1874 version.

I've uploaded scans of the title page and of the relevant pages under the subject "Cross":

http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/imp_bib_dict_p0.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/imp_bib_dict_p84.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/imp_bib_dict_p85.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~alanf00/images/imp_bib_dict_p86.jpg

The Reasoning book also states:

Was that the case in connection with the execution of God’s Son? It is noteworthy that the Bible also uses the word xylon to identify the device used. A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, defines this as meaning: "Wood cut and ready for use, firewood, timber, etc. . . . piece of wood, log, beam, post . . . cudgel, club . . . stake on which criminals were impaled . . . of live wood, tree." It also says "in NT, of the cross," and cites Acts 5:30 and 10:39 as examples. (Oxford, 1968, pp. 1191, 1192) However, in those verses KJ, RS, JB, and Dy translate xylon as "tree." (Compare this rendering with Galatians 3:13; Deuteronomy 21:22, 23.)

But the quotations the Society makes contain a refutation of its claims. A cross of wood is certainly "wood cut and ready for use, . . . timber, etc. . . . piece of wood, log, beam, post . . . stake on which criminals were impaled." And the definition "of live wood, tree" obviously has nothing to do with a stake or cross, so this definition is irrelevant, despite the Society's references to several Bible translations. So nothing in its quotation of Liddell and Scott refutes the notion that Jesus died on a cross.

Furthermore, the Society's quotation is, as usual, incomplete and a misrepresentation of what its source reference said. I'll start with the above quotation from the Reasoning book and fill in a few blanks from Liddell and Scott:

I. . . wood cut and ready for use, firewood, timber, etc. . . . ship-timber . . . logs cut square . . . in plural, also, the wood-market . . . II. in singular, piece of wood, log, beam, post; once in Homer, . . . spoon made of fig wood . . . of the Trojan horse, . . . : hence anything made of wood, as, 2. cudgel, club . . . an instrument of punishment, a. wooden collar, put on the neck of the prisoner, . . . or, b. stocks, in which the feet were confined, . . . d. gallows, . . . i.e, if one must be hanged, at least let it be on a noble tree, . . . in NT, of the cross, Acts 5:30, 10:39. e. stake on which criminals were impaled . . . bench, table, especially money-changer's table, . . . front bench of the Athenian theatre . . . the Hypocratic bench . . . III. of live wood, tree, . . . IV. of persons, blockhead . . . of a stubborn person, . . .

Clearly then, Liddell and Scott's Lexicon allows that either "stake" or "cross" can be a meaning for the Greek word xylon. The Watchtower Society's claims, and its misrepresentation of this source reference, are simply the usual lies.

The poster who calls himself "scholar" recently claimed that Liddell and Scott's Lexicon also verified the Society's claim about the true meaning of stauros. He actually claimed that this reference gave stauros a primary meaning of "stake". But the Lexicon does not give "stauros" a primary or secondary meaning. Rather, it lists two definitions as being of equal weight.

The first one shows these meanings:

"upright pale or stake" and "piles driven in to serve as a foundation"

The second one shows these meanings:

cross, as the instrument of crucifixion, Diodorus Siculus.2.18, Matthew 27.40, Plutarchus 2.554a; epi ton stauros apagesthai Lucianus.de Morte Peregrini 34 . . . its form was represented by the Greek letter T, Lucianus Judicium Vocalium 12.

So "scholar's" claim is a lie, and since he obviously gets his information from the Society, it further proves that JW apologists are liars.

A bit of background for the above reference: Diodorus Siculus was a Greek historian who wrote a massive history circa 40 B.C. Plutarchus (biographer and author of Plutarch's Lives) lived from 46 to at least 119 A.D. Lucianus (or Lucian of Samosata) was a popular middle eastern writer (possibly Syrian) who lived from about 125 to 180 A.D. So it's clear that, according to Liddell and Scott, writers just a little earlier and a little later than the New Testament writers used stauros with the meaning of "cross", not "upright stake".

AlanF

49

Very Bad Apologetics For Honest Seekers

by AlanF in

god had no beginning, so god did not need to be made.. .

if our local space-time universe is uncreated, then of course it is meaningless to ask who created it.

of course, everything that had a beginning had a beginner.

AlanF

Please do keep it up, Rex. You sound worse all the time, and eventually you'll just have to disappear again, out of embarassment.

AlanF

49

Very Bad Apologetics For Honest Seekers

by AlanF in

god had no beginning, so god did not need to be made.. .

if our local space-time universe is uncreated, then of course it is meaningless to ask who created it.

of course, everything that had a beginning had a beginner.

AlanF

: Poisoning the well again?

LOL@Rex! You're completely clueless. Why not, "post hoc, propter hoc"? Or "ex post facto"? They make as much sense as your comment does. What a fruit!

AlanF

157

Evolutionary establishment tactics

by hooberus in

wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

AlanF

Like I said, Forscher:

:: You go right ahead and list the points that I made and your responses to them. If you can't manage it, my point is proved.

You failed to do this; my point is proved. Most anything else is irrelevant.

:: You're pushing my patience.

: Sounds like an inplied threat to me. Care to elaborate?

Yes. Next time you turn on your TV, expect me to come through the screen and get you.

AlanF

49

Very Bad Apologetics For Honest Seekers

by AlanF in

god had no beginning, so god did not need to be made.. .

if our local space-time universe is uncreated, then of course it is meaningless to ask who created it.

of course, everything that had a beginning had a beginner.

AlanF

Shining One wrote:

: Good Day Great Brain,

And good day to you, Little Brain!

I must congratulate you on one of your few attempts to actually deal with specifics in someone's post. Hence, I will respond.

>>>The fact is that modern physicists are usually extremely careful to distinguish between what is solidly known and accepted, and what is poorly known and only partially accepted, if at all. Furthermore,

: Furthermore? That is bunk: appeal to authority. It is also assuming your own axioms.

LOL! I've rarely seen a dumber statement. "Furthermore" is a conjunction. In and of itself, it cannot be "bunk", any more than the conjunction "and" can. A simple conjunction certainly cannot be "assuming your own axioms".

It's pretty obvious, Rex, that you've accumulated a certain amount of vocabulary in your creationist readings, but like a child wielding an M-16, you really have no idea how to use it. You just kind of spray out the words like bullets.

>>>Furthermore, Geisler ignores the fact that most cosmologists today accept the notion of a "big bang" in which our present, local space-time universe originated perhaps 14 billion years ago. And so it's something of a mystery why Geisler claims that most atheists believe that this universe was just "there" forever.

: Bunk!

What's bunk? My claim that "Geisler ignores the fact that most cosmologists today accept the notion of a "big bang" in which our present, local space-time universe originated perhaps 14 billion years ago"? Or my opinion that "it's something of a mystery why Geisler claims that most atheists believe that this universe was just 'there' forever"? In good, clear writing, Rex, instead of merely saying "bunk!", which conveys no information, you need to be specific and say something like, "The notion of 'there forever' seems to be inferred by atheists since they cannot explain a reasonable ‘first cause‘, so your opinion that Geisler's claim is a mystery is bunk." Of course, even that much clearer way of putting your thought is bunk.

: Appeal to the popular.

You obviously have no idea what that means.

: "There forever" seems to be inferred by atheists since they cannot explain a reasonable ‘first cause‘.

"Seems to be"? What kind of reasoning is that? Most atheists accept the "Big Bang" theory, and have since it became popular during the 1960s. A basic tenet of this theory is that anything that went before the Bang is completely unknown. Anyone even faintly familiar with the Big Bang theory knows this. But another basic tenet -- one on which much of Geisler's argument rests and which is another way in which his arguments are self-inconsistent -- is that our local space-time universe had a beginning. And if scientists say that our universe had a beginning -- which is again a fundamental part of Geisler's argumentation -- then they cannot be saying that it was "there" forever.

I seriously doubt that you comprehend any of this.

What appears to have happened is that Geisler managed to confuse the views of pre-1960s scientists with those of post-1960s scientists. In the 1960s, the discovery of the microwave radiation that was subsequently identified as a remnant of the Big Bang caused a revolution in cosmology. It was no longer really tenable to argue, as Fred Hoyle and a few others continued to do even 20 years later, that the universe was in "steady state". But plenty of scientists and philosophers of science, such as the Bertrand Russell that Geisler seems to like to quote, accepted the "steady state" universe idea until the 1960s. Geisler's mistake should now be obvious.

>>>Sort of ok, so far, except that Geisler -- like Watchtower writers -- fails to give proper source references.

: What kind of cheap shot is this?

It's not a "cheap shot". One of the biggest complaints about Watchtower Society writings -- as you know perfectly well -- is that its writers normally fail to give any source references. This makes it difficult or impossible for anyone to check up on their quotations. There is no reason that an author cannot give full citations. Indeed, Geisler gives full citations for several other authors in his article: Robert Jastrow, David Hume and C. S. Lewis.

: You are using the ex-JW aversion to the Watchtower in order to undermine Geisler in the eyes of the board participants! Ohh, I believe that is ‘ad hominim, right? You are manipulating us here. 'Poisoning the well', I believe.

LOL! Your man Geisler has been caught with his pants down and you're squealing like a stuck pig. I love it!

>>>Observation is only as good as what has been observed up to a specific point in time, and if new things arise, observations and conclusions based upon them will change accordingly.

: "All of the evidence is not in" for much of what science has discovered, right Alan?

Of course.

: Has any scientist actually’ observed’ macro-evolution

Of course. Macro-evolution is equivalent to speciation. We know of a number of examples of fairly recent speciation. For example, when the Americas were first colonized by Europeans, a species of fruit fly that in Europe colonized only the fruit of the mulberry tree came along for the ride. Eventually it split into two separate, non-interbreeding and non-interacting species -- one that continued to colonize mulberry trees and another that colonized only apple trees. In the Hawaiian islands, in a few million years, fruit flies have diversified from one or a few founding species into more than 800 species that are found nowhere else in the world. In various large African lakes like Lake Victoria, cichlid fishes have diversified from a few founding species to many hundreds in the various lakes in a few million years.

Now, of course, I know that what you really mean is, "has any scientist actually observed macro-evolution in a laboratory?" And of course, the answer is No, because what some people term "macro-evolution" doesn't act that fast. But the fact that it's observed in the far larger laboratory of nature proves that evolution does occur. And that the distinction between "micro" and "macro" is an artificial one that in reality does not exist.

: and can any rule out intelligent design by such observations?

Of course not. By the same token, The Tooth Fairy might have caused macro-evolution. Or perhaps Allah. Or Thor.

: If not, why do they insist on the ‘facts’ of evolutionary theory alone being taught or ‘accepted‘? Axioms, axioms, axioms!

Well, since I've given you examples of macro-evolution in action, your point is pretty well deflated.

>>>Not so. Fundamentally, Christians believe there must be a God because they learned it in childhood, or for emotional reasons they accepted the Bible and the Bible says there is a God, or any number of other non-scientific reasons.

: Straw man!!!!

I'm sitting here laughing at you. You really have no idea what such terms mean, do you?

What I said is confirmed by all sorts of studies performed by sociologists of religion.

: Who was the first person to observe nature and decide it must have a designer and who taught him to believe in a ‘god‘?

Fred Smith, living in Armenia in 4026 B.C. He figured it out on his own.

: “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.“

Quoting scripture doesn't help your cause.

: It’s kind of like this, Great Brain: any cave man

So you admit their existence. That's a step in the right direction. Do you admit the existence of the recently discovered miniature Homo erectus fossils on the island of Flores in Indonesia?

: can see the INTELLIGENT DESIGN and sheer magnitude of nature, something many here have a tough thing realizing! LOL

Ah, I see. A fine example of "the argument from ignorance" in action. How then, is intelligent design manifested in engineering mistakes like having the retina of the mammalian eye inverted, such that the nerves lie on the business side of the incoming light, while the receptors lie on the opposite side such that the nerves must bundle up and dive through the retina, interfering with the incoming light and making a blind spot? That's a fine example of lousy biological engineering, and a fine example of how evolution retains structures (workable, even if non-optimum) over long periods of time. That a better solution can be found is proved by the eye of octopus and related animals: their retinal structures are built on sound engineering principles such that the nerves are behind the light receptors. How is it, then, that a Supreme Designer could manage to make the eye of a "lower creature" look like it was designed by a good designer, and the eye of his supreme creation, man, look like it was designed by evolution?

>>>They cannot possibly believe it for scientific reasons, since the existence of God cannot be proved scientifically.

: Wait a minute here; this is apologetics, i.e. reasoning that defends belief in God, did Geisler claim he was proving there is a God

Of course. That's the whole point of a book titled, Who Made God?

: or stating in scientific terms why he believes the scienctific evidence convinces him, or, many Christians?

Geisler, like virtually all Fundies, really has no use for science, except to the extent that he can bend it toward proving or otherwise supporting the religious notions he learned at his mother's knee.

>>>Furthermore, since today's science agrees that our local space-time universe (this is obviously what Geisler is talking about in his article) had a beginning, Geisler’s statement amounts to a claim that Christians believe there must be a God because of the scientific evidence.

: Straw man again and a unproven assertion!

Wrong as usual. My assertion follows inevitably from Geisler's own pronouncements and prior argumentation. Your next comments are simply pissing into the wind.

: You are getting scientific evidence that backs the presupposition of God's existence.

Is this supposed to be a coherent statement?

: He is simply arguing his point, just as you or anyone else would!

Is this supposed to be a rebuttal?

>>>But that is not only demonstrably untrue in the case of countless Christians, but Geisler and countless other Christians would strenuously object to it. So he isn't even aware that his statement --

Uh, what happened here, Rex? Had a bit too much of the bubbly?

AlanF

157

Evolutionary establishment tactics

by hooberus in

wednesday evenings (august 24th) fox news program "the oreilly factor" featured an interview life after "intelligent design" with dr. richard sternberg, editor, of the peer-reviewed journal "proceedings of the biological society of washington.

" dr. sternberg's home page discusses the recriminations he faced by certain members of the evolutionary establishment after publishing an arcticle by another person advocating the possibilty of intelligent design in the peer reviewed journal.

http://www.rsternberg.net/

AlanF

Forscher wrote:

::: I didn't say you were stupid

:: Your remarks are extremely stupid

: ????

You're pushing my patience.

: When you said that my remarks were stupid, by extension, you were saying that I was stupid.

Nope. Daunt answered that charge admirably. I will add my two cents.

People who normally display keen intelligence can sometimes make extremely stupid remarks or arguments. Since I only know you from this board, I can only comment on what you say on this board. And your overall comments -- including ignoring virtually everything I've said and retreating to dumb repetitions of things I've already disproved -- are demonstrably stupid. It may be that you have a Fundamentalist-induced blind spot and are otherwise fairly bright. Fundamentalism demonstrably induces the same kind of braindeadness that JWism does.

: And that was not the only insult you flung at me and Hooberous personally.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck . . .

: We dealt with your points.

No you didn't. You simply ignored them and repeated the claims I had disproved.

The proof is easy: You go right ahead and list the points that I made and your responses to them. If you can't manage it, my point is proved.

: And all you could do in the end was insult us for our trouble.

When someone goes to the trouble that I did in researching the facts of the matter, and finds that a few people completely ignore the facts and dumbly repeat disproved arguments, insults are called for.

: And then you lied when I called you on it as the foregoing quotes showed.

You are the liar. You have every opportunity to prove yourself right by doing as I said above, and listing the points I made and your rebuttals. But based on your performance so far, I'm certain that you won't even attempt it.

: You charged that Dr. Sternberg's actions in publishing were unethical.

No, I demonstrated it.

: We pointed out that and independent government group who investigated his actions came to the conclusion that his actions were NOT unethical.

So what? The lawyer who investigated this is a Bush-administration appointed lawyer who obviously has the same political agenda as have so many others of Bush's political appointees -- to push a right-wing, creationist agenda.

I've pointed this out several times now. You didn't have the moral or intellectual wherewithal to comment on that. Why?

On the other hand, I pointed out that Sternberg's employers -- the Smithsonian staff and the governing council of the Proceedings journal -- directly stated that his actions were unethical. This is the only judgment that counts. This is supported by the fact that many of his fellows have made the same judgment by refusing to work with him. Anyone whose fellow workers refuse to work with for moral reasons obviously has a much better handle on the situation than you, or I, or any politically motivated political appointee.

: Hooberous provided Links to that proof. You brushed that off

Nope. I demonstrated why those links contained half-truths and misrepresentations by pointing out the full truth of the matter -- something that you and hooberus have entirely ignored.

: and repeated the lies that were circulated by Dr. Sternbergs critics.

LOL! I've also pointed out that Sternberg could easily resolve this entire issue by convincing his so-called peer-reviewers to reveal themselves, and for all of them to release all their documentation on what went on between them. But it's transparently obvious why none of them want to do that. It's obvious that Sternberg conspired with Stephen Meyer and other fellow creationists to make an end run around normal editorial ethics by taking advantage of loopholes in the written rules of a tiny, obscure taxonomy journal in order to be able to say that, finally, a pro-ID article had been published in a bona fide peer-reviewed journal -- something that would not have happened if all these guys had acted according to normal professional ethics. Ethics that include the rather obvious (but usually unwritten) rule that if an article has the potential to generate controversy that might embarass or otherwise cause problems for the journal, an editor should get the approval of the full editorial staff. Of course, you and hooberus have entirely failed even to comment on these obvious considerations, much less argue about them.

: I challenged you on the ethics behind your justification for the actions of the scientists at the Smithsonian and the Think Tank of evolutionary fanatics who coordinated the smear campain against Dr. Sternberg. Instead of dealing with that challenge, you choose to insult me personally.

You're becoming as pathological a liar as that pretend-scholar JW apologist who calls himself "scholar" is. Let's examine the exchange:

::: Again, you come up with no ethical justification for the conduct of both the think-tank and the folks at the Smithsonian. You simply brush that issue off with an excuse ("well, they were right to do whatever they had to to get rid of this guy" pretty much sums up your argument) that smacks of the end justifys the means, one of the lowest of ethical justifications out there.

:: Your remarks are extremely stupid and ignore the political reality that I've explained several times now: to get a merely unethical government employee fired is virtually impossible, so other means are used. This is standard practice in government. Anyone who doesn't know how this works is naive.

First, if you take my comment that your remarks were stupid as an insult, so be it. Second, I actually demonstrated why your remarks were stupid by referring you to previous posts where I explained the political realities of getting incompetent or unethical employees fired from government positions. Of course, as usual, you ignored all that. Now, do you need me to quote again my explanations of political reality? Or can you manage to reread the thread and find them yourself?

: I think that you are the one on shaky ground here pal, not me.

Fine. You think a lot of other stupid things, too. Your problem now, no longer mine.

: As you said, people can indeed draw their conlusions.

Indeed they can, and it's pretty obvious to me that the few who have commented intelligently on this thread agree with me.

: And if you think that insulting me and Hooberous somehow makes your case strong, go for it pal. I think that you might find folks drawing conclusions about you that you won't like.

I don't care a whit about the opinions of people like you and hooberus. Both of you are now demonstrated liars, and gross hypocrites because of your one-sided presentations of matters, whereas claimed Christians are supposed to love the truth. You fail to deal with almost all the facts you're presented with, and focus on trivialities, half-truths, and disproved claims. Like I've said in other posts, you're pretty typical Fundamentalists.

AlanF

49

Very Bad Apologetics For Honest Seekers

by AlanF in

god had no beginning, so god did not need to be made.. .

if our local space-time universe is uncreated, then of course it is meaningless to ask who created it.

of course, everything that had a beginning had a beginner.

AlanF

stillajwexelder, there are many different formulations of the second law, and not being a thermodynamcist, I'm not familiar with many of the subtlties. I suggest you do your own research, which will teach you a lot more than I ever could.

As for you, O Shining One, as Dave said, it's a waste of time replying to you. You're a simple teenybopper cheerleader for your, um, oh-so-wise mentors like Norman Geisler, and you're demonstrably incapable of understanding what is written by them or us.

But wait! This is a repeat from some years ago, when you were whipped soundly and disappeared for a few years. Please do so again.

AlanF

27

2006 Special Convention only for a select group to be delegates

by juni in

jw
friends

it was announced that for the 2006 int'l convention overseas, only pioneers for at least 15 years or elders for atleast 15 years are allowed to be delegates.

has there always been restrictions on who can attend?

i can't remember as it's been so long ago.

AlanF

All JWs are equally brothers, but it appears that some are more equal than others.

AlanF

15

RANT: Desultory ramblings of a frustrated cult member

by dorayakii in

jw
friends

after almost a year of living abroad, away from my parents and away from anything even remotely watchtower related, having allowed myself to not worry about these silly little things (yet convincing my parents that i was still going); now that i've been back for about 6 weeks, i feel that i have to put on a double effort to cover over things that i've said or done, and avoid using "suspect" words or phrases like "cheers" or "good luck".

its driving me crazy at the moment, and 10 times more than it was doing before i moved out.

today, i had a mini panic attack at having told a "worldly" friend of mine "good luck".

AlanF

Unfortunately, dorayakii, the nature of the JW religion combined with your family's attitude make it pretty certain that, one way or another, you're going to take some major heat. The only way to negate it is to fully rejoin the cult, but I suspect that, like me, you'd be about to explode after a few years of taking in garbage. Probably the best way to minimize the heat is to move away again, since direct confrontation will produce immediate, destructive results for you. After some years pass, and you've gradually dropped a few hints, and refrained from being controntational, some of them may accept you. But a lot depends on the personalities of your relatives.

Either way, you're going to face some unpleasant times because of the nature of destructive cults like the JWs. Indeed, they're destructive because they put people in horrible positions. You simply have to accept that, short of disowning your mind, your family will give you a hard time. You will prevail.

AlanF