Posts by WhatshallIcallmyself

99

The Greatest Intellectual Scam of All-Time: French Postmodernism

by cofty in

sbf you annoyed me enough to deserve this.. gad saad's comments on the nonsensical gibberish of jacques derrida, michel foucault, and jacques lacan.

charlatanism of the highest order.

.... the first quote from derrida starts as 2:50.

WhatshallIcallmyself

slimboyfat -

Just for clarity, why is post modernism (of any flavour) relevant in discussions about the natural sciences?

Also, will you really not affirm that the earth is not flat?

Thanks

147

in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

WhatshallIcallmyself

"DNA is a code of information passed down from parent to child. Its predictable and generally stable. This is exactly what we would expect to observe if we assume INTELLIGENCE behind creation. Again, the evidence of nature always shows us that Information begets information, consistent with the assumptions of creationism" - Saved_JW

Can you define information in this context please?

With regards the bold section of quote: Explain why you would expect this. Have you spoken to the intelligent designer and found this to be true? I am guessing not which begs the question as to how you would know what a designer would want to do.

"Evidence does not speak for itself, we all have bias and we all interpret evidence through the filters of our assumptions." - Saved_JW

This is a common creationist uttering and is designed to suggest that scientists simply interpret evidence one way of many possible ways, therefore creationist views are as valid as any other. However the reality is that scientists consider evidence in context, that context being how that evidence ties in with all the other evidence science as a whole as discovered so far. Creationists like to pick and choose what "evidence" to use to support their conclusions whereas in science a conclusion has to account for ALL current knowledge... Just look at all the creationist postings over the recent threads concerning evolution and you will see that all creation assertions or anti-evolution assertions have been from cherry picked data that was easily refuted by pointing out that very fact and supplying that person with all the information (or as much as was needed to point out the errors; see the post above for a classic example of how to deal with creationist reasoning...).

114

Evidence for a Young Earth

by Perry in

for additional information:.

WhatshallIcallmyself

Perry

How old would you say the Earth is? Perhaps if you supplied us with that information we could have a starting point for an interesting exchange of information.

114

Evidence for a Young Earth

by Perry in

for additional information:.

WhatshallIcallmyself

Perry -

Two of your most recent links for examples of "Dino tissue" in fossils are not saying what you are asserting they are. One of the links is an article from New Scientist that discusses a species of bee that has been preserved in amber (not a fossil, or a dinosaur) and the other 1 from physics.org discusses how soft tissue is sometimes fossilised in a way that preserves the original aspect of muscles etc (it is fossilised, not tissue...). What about the rest of your links?

Do you ever bother to read these links you are providing us with? If you did you might just think twice before linking us to sites that show what you are saying is wrong...

147

Challenge to Creationists

by cofty in

in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

WhatshallIcallmyself

A point about entropy. Entropy, in a simplistic term, is a measure of how distributed energy is in a specified environment/system; an increase in entropy means a more distributed and less effective energy supply. In the context of this thread we can assume the system to be the universe. With no outside influence the energy in the universe will tend towards the less organised state which means it spreads out and dissipates; entropy increases.

That, however, describes the universe as a whole and does not mean that it will spread out equally everywhere. Instead there will be localised areas where entropy decreases, our Solar System being one of them. The Sun gives out its energy which our planet receives and that decreases the entropy on Earth i.e. the energy we receive from the Sun is feeding the Earth and it's systems.

The Universe is a closed system, the Solar System is an open system. Overall, entropy increases in the Universe but decreases (at the moment) in the Solar System.

I said it was a simplistic explanation...

114

Evidence for a Young Earth

by Perry in

for additional information:.

WhatshallIcallmyself

Again, the hassle of dealing with claims made by someone who has not bothered to actually learn about the subject they are commenting on... Perry, virtually every post you make only proves you know so little about the subjects you talk about that you actually think what you post is correct and relevant to the discussion! Either that or you are a troll; it is truly hard to decide which you are.

147

Challenge to Creationists

by cofty in

in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

WhatshallIcallmyself

"Whence evil? Now, I've got another one: Why evil?" - snowbird

Evil is subjective. It is just how an individual sees a situation. It's nothing more than a descriptive observation that is born of an evolved mind. It is not a question that needs answering in this topic's context...

147

Challenge to Creationists

by cofty in

in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

WhatshallIcallmyself

"I believe God created ..." - snowbird

You can believe what you want about anything. It's when you start asserting these beliefs as reality against all rational evidence that you will find people objecting....

"But, you will never accept that, will you?" - snowbird

Of course I accept that you believe that. You seem to have ran off down a side alley instead of addressing the points I was making about how it is illogical to insist life is designed....

147

Challenge to Creationists

by cofty in

in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

WhatshallIcallmyself

"???" - snowbird

If you wish to assert something like the cell is designed, rather than the product of non-guided process you either have to bring the designer forwards to explain how it was all done (or to simply say "yeah it was me, good eh?") or demonstrate that there is no natural process that could bring it about.

For the latter you would have to know everything so as to not overlook a potential natural process. You can't just say "I can't think of an explanation therefore..." or "I can't see how it could have happened naturally..." because that is nothing more than an argument from ignorance/incredulity and as such is logically flawed.

147

Challenge to Creationists

by cofty in

in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

WhatshallIcallmyself

"What about the evidence of obvious design being presented by Vidquin?" - snowbird

How can it be obvious when you don't know how everything in the universe came to be? The position you have taken is to go from not knowing something to asserting something based on not knowing anything in the first place.

In order to state these things are designed you would need to offer evidence that these things cannot appear naturally; without divine guidance. In order to do that you need to understand everything about this universe because if you don't then there is always a chance that you have over-looked something. Don't forget, you aren't offering evidence for design here, you are instead stating that because something "looks" designed then it must be designed.

When these things are eventually explained away where will you then go to still insist this god of yours exists? Your gaps are getting smaller by the day.