"what I learned debating trolls" Science article:

Originally posted by josephw
What a tangled web we weave...

I think you're wrong. I think we can tell lies upon lies, but not lies about lies.

Then you are just not very inventive, a terrible liar, or lying.

Originally posted by josephw
What a tangled web we weave...

I think you're wrong. I think we can tell lies upon lies, but not lies about lies.

I think this misconception may explain why so many theists seem to think lying about evolution is OK. They actually think they are not lying!

Originally posted by DeepThought
I read the article, most of the tricks listed are a little dull and are just the kind of informal fallacies one gets in all debates. The interesting one was the question about whether science is a religion. There are a lot of features that they have in common:

A Priesthood - where religions have priests of some form or other science has professors a ...[text shortened]... eory is wrong in a practical way. If a religion is wrong then it does not matter in this world.

"...that science can provide results that do not require prior belief."

The belief is that the meaning drawn from some of these "results"
actually mean what people say. Getting the numbers right, doesn't mean
we know why.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
"...that science can provide results that do not require prior belief."

The belief is that the meaning drawn from some of these "results"
actually mean what people say. Getting the numbers right, doesn't mean
we know why.
Kelly

There are many areas in science where we can figure out the operation but not the why.

I think that is because we are not god's, but humans who have yet to figure it all out.

But calling science out on that is like getting ticked off at a 3rd grade kid for not being able to help you with your differential calculus.

Why can't you just hold of on the judgemental department till we know a bit more down the road.

Of course we won't live long enough in our ephemeral lives but a couple hundred years from now, we ARE going to know the why of a lot of things that perplex us today.

All you have to do is follow such sites as phys.org which puts out the newest research results in many different disciplines and you see science expanding at an ever increasing rate.

Of course, YEC's may HATE that particular development, thinking the more we know the closer to Satan we get or some such rot, I would not put it past YEC's to think like that.

I think they are deeply afraid of what science IS learning.

Originally posted by sonhouse
There are many areas in science where we can figure out the operation but not the why.

I think that is because we are not god's, but humans who have yet to figure it all out.

But calling science out on that is like getting ticked off at a 3rd grade kid for not being able to help you with your differential calculus.

Why can't you just hold of on t ...[text shortened]... t past YEC's to think like that.

I think they are deeply afraid of what science IS learning.

YECs do not HATE science and the increase in knowledge, because the Holy Bible predicts that until the time of the end travel to and fro will be made easier and there will be an increase in knowledge. We just want the the increase in science knowledge to be true.

But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

(Daniel 12:4 KJV)

Originally posted by RJHinds
YECs do not HATE science and the increase in knowledge, because the Holy Bible predicts that until the time of the end travel to and fro will be made easier and there will be an increase in knowledge. We just want the the increase in science knowledge to be true.

But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

(Daniel 12:4 KJV)

And you, of course, want to be the judge as to what is true and what is not, no matter WHAT science has figured out. The world is 6000 years old, PERIOD. END OF STUDY.

I am exceedingly glad you are not the Czar of science.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"...that science can provide results that do not require prior belief."

The belief is that the meaning drawn from some of these "results"
actually mean what people say. Getting the numbers right, doesn't mean
we know why.
Kelly

There's a problem with what you are saying. You have two levels of theory. The first level is a theory that generates some numbers which are then interpreted in terms of some second level of the theory. That isn't what happens. All the meaning is in one level of theory. Predictions are made from that theory which can be compared with experiment. No further interpretation is required.

The alternative route is for investigative experiments to investigate phenomena where there is no theory. There the numbers we get out require interpretation, but this is model building. Once the model has been constructed a sceptic is at no disadvantage in testing the model.

A good theory should make predictions which are comparable with nature. My belief in the theory is not required for the testing of the theory. However, what people have said in the past in other threads in this forum is that God only reveals himself to those who already believe. So we have a knowledge system where prior belief is required for verification. This is the difference between religion and science.

Originally posted by RJHinds
YECs do not HATE science and the increase in knowledge, because the Holy Bible predicts that until the time of the end travel to and fro will be made easier and there will be an increase in knowledge. We just want the the increase in science knowledge to be true.

But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

(Daniel 12:4 KJV)

You are DEFINITELY afraid of people getting too much knowledge, like how, in the future, perhaps we figure out how to turn minerals and water into a bacteria never before seen on Earth, or taking genes from a frog and turning that into a lizard, now breaking the theological rule of only a god can turn a kind into a different kind.

I can't help feeling you would be grinding your jaws at the announcement of either development in evolutionary genetics.

I am sure you would be saying 'there are things mankind is never supposed to know' or some such.

You HATE the idea of mankind approaching godhood, lifting ourselves up by our own bootstraps, it will of course HAVE to happen that way since your god you claim to love so much is a non-interventionist deity. It NEVER interferes with human actions at least in the last 2000 years, you can see that in the millions of deaths that happened in the 20th century and I don't EVEN want to hear, 'those despots, Stalin and Pol Pot, etc., were all atheists so that doesn't count."

Regardless of the theology or non theology of the leaders, millions of people died in century 20 and your filthy god did NOTHING.

So we will lift ourselves up by our bootstraps or die by our own hand, not god comes to our aid.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You are DEFINITELY afraid of people getting too much knowledge, like how, in the future, perhaps we figure out how to turn minerals and water into a bacteria never before seen on Earth, or taking genes from a frog and turning that into a lizard, now breaking the theological rule of only a god can turn a kind into a different kind.

I can't help feeling yo ...[text shortened]... So we will lift ourselves up by our bootstraps or die by our own hand, not god comes to our aid.

But you are talking about Intelligent Design, not Evolution.

Originally posted by RJHinds
But you are talking about Intelligent Design, not Evolution.

Nice deflection but you are not addressing the core issue I am bringing up.

Is that going to be the YEC stance if and when we ever DO take a frog egg and turn it into a lizard?

Well, yes, that just shows intelligent design works. That's going to be the new goalpost?

I think it frightens you out of your shoes if you ever thought humans could have REAL god like powers, power of life and death. Now we just have the power of death, Bang you're dead, but we can't go wiggle finger and that dead person comes back to life, and you fear the day humans might be able to do just that. The devil just took over humankind, you probably would say.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The point is that it doesn't matter a fig if the religion is true or not to the effect it has in this world, assuming a non-interventionist god or no god. That it has an effect on how people live their lives is undeniable, but that doesn't tell us if it is true or not. Note that I specified prior belief - a true religion with a somewhat interventionist ...[text shortened]... All one has to do is some maths and to track a satellite, belief in the theory is not required.

It matters to the individual believers. Maybe since you're not one, you can't see that. But yes, it does matter. All believers also believe their religion to be "true", so whether it's true or not doesn't even enter into it. Religion does have an effect.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Nice deflection but you are not addressing the core issue I am bringing up.

Is that going to be the YEC stance if and when we ever DO take a frog egg and turn it into a lizard?

Well, yes, that just shows intelligent design works. That's going to be the new goalpost?

I think it frightens you out of your shoes if you ever thought humans could have R ...[text shortened]... umans might be able to do just that. The devil just took over humankind, you probably would say.

Having the power of life or death, as you say, without even making consideration for the soul, is a dangerous thing. We may eventually be able to create life, but we still will fall far short of being as gods. But that won't stop megalomaniacal man from announcing that he is now as God.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
All squares are circles.

The statement above is true.

There. I just told a lie about a lie. QED

No. You told a lie upon a lie.

Surely you can see that!

Originally posted by twhitehead
Then you are just not very inventive, a terrible liar, or lying.

No. You are helplessly addicted to your own definitions of the terms.

Originally posted by josephw
No. You are helplessly addicted to your own definitions of the terms.

Thats better than your habit of making up definitions to avoid admitting that you got it wrong. Just admit you didn't think it through and have done with it. The longer you go on denying it, the more ridiculous you look, and the more you are going to have to lie about your previous lies.