"what I learned debating trolls" Science article:

Originally posted by Suzianne
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.

Yes, but this misses the point I was trying to make. My original point was that the only real difference between science and religion is that scientific theories do not require the belief of a scientist to be testable. A religious "theory" does, in the sense that without believing in God one is guaranteed a negative result to the question of whether God exists - the only way of getting a positive result is to start believing. The fact that religions are social movements and have effects in this world as such isn't really relevant to my argument. It's the testability of the "theory" that God exists which I'm talking about.

Originally posted by twhitehead
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.

Originally posted by josephw
If evolution is a lie, then how can one tell lies about it?

The above was in reply to sonhouse's OP. Then you said, out of context btw; "You didn't know that you can tell lies about lies? Do you ever think before you post?"

To which I replied directly; "I think you're wrong. I think we can tell lies upon lies, but not lies about lies."

To which you replied; "Then you are just not very inventive, a terrible liar, or lying."

But apparently that wasn't enough so you added the following statement;

"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!"

Then I replied to your previous post saying; "No. You are helplessly addicted to your own definitions of the terms."

Now, twhitehead, you have gone over the top. It's not enough to just obfuscate the thought progression of the topic by stating that lies can be told about lies, completely overlooking what I said in reply to sonhouse, but you feel the need to insult me personally with the diatribe to which I am now replying, calling me a liar and ridiculous.

Did you happen to see BigDoggProblem's reply to my statement that "I think we can tell lies upon lies, but not lies about lies.?"

He said; "All squares are circles.

The statement above is true.

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

To which I said; "No. You told a lie upon a lie. Surely you can see that!"

Consider this;

Evolution is a lie.

The statement above is true.

There, I just told a lie about a lie.

Or;

Evolution is true.

The above statement is a lie.

There, I just told a lie about a lie.

Then invert the whole process;

Evolution is true.

The above statement is true

There, I just told a lie about a lie.

It gets even better;

Evolution is a lie.

The above statement is a lie.

There, I just told a lie about a lie.

Lies about lies, to lies, of lies, for lies? What?

The whole matter is a deception. One can lie about the truth. That's what lies are for after all. One can tell the truth about a lie. That's what the truth is for.

But lying serves no purpose except to be used for deception about the truth. And then the lies begin to pile up, one upon another, until the one doing the lying begins to believe the lie, then the truth is swallowed up by the lie.

One can tell the truth about a lie, or a lie about the truth, and even the truth about the truth, but lying is just lying.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Yes, but this misses the point I was trying to make. My original point was that the only real difference between science and religion is that scientific theories do not require the belief of a scientist to be testable. A religious "theory" does, in the sense that without believing in God one is guaranteed a negative result to the question of whether Go ...[text shortened]... t to my argument. It's the testability of the "theory" that God exists which I'm talking about.

What you say is not completely true. Both evolution and creation have been tested and negative results have been obtained for evolution and positive results have been returned for creation. Also radiometic dating methods have been tested with negative results. Biblical historical dating has been tested with positive results.

Originally posted by RJHinds
What you say is not completely true. Both evolution and creation have been tested and negative results have been obtained for evolution and positive results have been returned for creation. Also radiometic dating methods have been tested with negative results. Biblical historical dating has been tested with positive results.

Your claim that "radiometric dating methods have been tested with negative results" is nonsense. It would be true to say that there are instances where the results of such methods have been misinterpreted, but identification of such misinterpretations actually enhances the usefulness of the methods. That's how science works. Unfortunately however it is not possible to identify misinterpretation of scripture. Hence you can advocate extermination of adherents to religions other than yours and still feel that you are following Christ's teachings. You nutter.

Originally posted by josephw
The whole matter is a deception. One can lie about the truth. That's what lies are for after all. One can tell the truth about a lie. That's what the truth is for.

But lying serves no purpose except to be used for deception about the truth. And then the lies begin to pile up, one upon another, until the one doing the lying begins to believe the lie, then ...[text shortened]... ut a lie, or a lie about the truth, and even the truth about the truth, but lying is just lying.

One can also make false claims about the true - just as your false claim that evolution is a lie. I suspect that you know that it is a false claim, in which case you are lying - but I obviously cannot know that unless you tell us.
Do you honestly believe that evolution is a lie? A lie told by whom? Or can something be a lie even without intent to deceive by an entity?
Or are you, as I suspect, using non-standard definitions of words to try and get out of the mess you have got yourself into?

Originally posted by josephw
Originally posted by josephw
If evolution is a lie, then how can one tell lies about it?

The above was in reply to sonhouse's OP. Then you said, out of context btw; "You didn't know that you can tell lies about lies? Do you ever think before you post?"

To which I replied directly; "I think you're wrong. I think we can tell lies upon lies, but not lie ...[text shortened]... ut a lie, or a lie about the truth, and even the truth about the truth, but lying is just lying.

"Evolution is true.

The above statement is true

There, I just told a lie about a lie."

No, you are just playing games since you KNOW evolution is a lie to you and other theist since it somehow flies against the bible and god knows, you can't have that, since you KNOW the bible is literally true, which is another lie.

Originally posted by RJHinds
What you say is not completely true. Both evolution and creation have been tested and negative results have been obtained for evolution and positive results have been returned for creation. Also radiometic dating methods have been tested with negative results. Biblical historical dating has been tested with positive results.

You've missed my point RJ. The verifiability of radiometric dating methods or evolutionary theory does not depend on our belief in them. Whether they are correct or not is irrelevant to my argument.

Originally posted by DeepThought
You've missed my point RJ. The verifiability of radiometric dating methods or evolutionary theory does not depend on our belief in them. Whether they are correct or not is irrelevant to my argument.

But of course they ARE correct, within limits, windows of error getting smaller and smaller so more and more confidence in the dating.

Originally posted by twhitehead
One can also make false claims about the true - just as your false claim that evolution is a lie. I suspect that you know that it is a false claim, in which case you are lying - but I obviously cannot know that unless you tell us.
Do you honestly believe that evolution is a lie? A lie told by whom? Or can something be a lie even without intent to deceive ...[text shortened]... ing non-standard definitions of words to try and get out of the mess you have got yourself into?

"One can also make false claims about the true..-"

Of course.

"-..just as your false claim that evolution is a lie."

False claim? To you it is. Not everyone agrees with you. I don't, but so what! Life goes on.

"I suspect that you know that it is a false claim, in which case you are lying - but I obviously cannot know that unless you tell us."

Don't be suspicious. I do not "know that it is a false claim". Hypothetically, if I'm wrong it's because I was ignorant and not because I was lying.

What's this hang up with lying you are on about anyway? I don't lie. Not willingly. Not knowingly. Can you find a post in which I had accused someone of lying? I don't believe anyone here is lying. Lying is just too immature to be tolerated in this forum in my opinion.

I'd rather hear you say I'm stupid or a moron, than to be thought of as a liar. Nothing worse than a liar except maybe a murderer. Essentially they're the same thing.

"Do you honestly believe that evolution is a lie?"

One of the worst.

"A lie told by whom?"

When you phrase it that way it is difficult to explain. If you believe that evolution is a viable explanation of how life is, and you teach it to others, while it may be a false teaching, I would not apply the term "liar" to you personally. It's insulting and counter productive.

"Or can something be a lie even without intent to deceive by an entity?"

I would think so.

"Or are you, as I suspect, using non-standard definitions of words to try and get out of the mess you have got yourself into?"

LOL Could be! But no, I'm confident that I have a sincere desire to speak the truth as best I am able. Of course, no one has a perfect argument, but I'm working on it!

It's regrettable that you should think I would stoop to lying or manipulate words to deceive or misrepresent what is being discussed. Frankly, I feel that it is you that is misunderstanding me because you're not really addressing the idea or concept expressed, but are instead generating arguments that lead the discussion down rabbit trails away from the topic.

The idea that you would lie never entered my mind.

Originally posted by sonhouse
But of course they ARE correct, within limits, windows of error getting smaller and smaller so more and more confidence in the dating.

Yeah, but I needed to keep my point simple and preferably monosyllablic...

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"One can also make false claims about the true..-"

Of course.

"-..just as your false claim that evolution is a lie."

False claim? To you it is. Not everyone agrees with you. I don't, but so what! Life goes on.

"I suspect that you know that it is a false claim, in which case you are lying - but I obviously cannot know that unle ...[text shortened]... on down rabbit trails away from the topic.

The idea that you would lie never entered my mind.

I have a hard time believing any intelligent person can actually believe that it is true that some mysterious force called "Evolution" came into existence somehow and by chance over billions of years living things came into existence and some of these living things became humans.

Even in the fairy tale of the princess kissing a frog that turned to a prince required some action from intelligence (the princess). But no intelligence is allowed in Evolution.

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have a hard time believing any intelligent person can actually believe that it is true that some mysterious force called "Evolution" came into existence somehow and by chance over billions of years living things came into existence and some of these living things became humans.

Even in the fairy tale of the princess kissing a frog that turned to a princ ...[text shortened]... s). But no intelligence is allowed in Evolution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE

Well, for one thing, it has little to do with intelligence I think. After all, just how intelligent are we? By what standard? Given the dimensional size and scope of creation and the potentially infinite amount of knowledge yet undiscovered, I'd say we are but wee tiny creatures by comparison.

The other thing is the violence. I can understand why predatory beasts kill to survive, but man kills for greed and hate. And it seems that the more "intelligent" the man the more sophisticated are his methods for destruction.

On the one hand there are but few that seek to use what intelligence man has developed for advancement and peace. On the other hand there are far too many that use the wheel and club to conquer and dominate. It permeates man's entire history.

There seems to be a balance kept that prevents man from all but complete annihilation. One would, or should be able to see that throughout man's history good always triumphs over evil, but at a greater cost the greater the destructive power of man's intelligence.

But what does all that have to do with evolution? Everything.

I think it has always been man's dream to create utopia. Evolution provides a catalyst for reason by which man can explain his purpose and destiny without the aid of an outside entity or god. After all, no matter how hard man tries he can't "see" a creator anywhere. So man is left alone to go his own way.

And there he goes. Man generates his own reason for being. He develops his own "intelligence" which he uses for himself primarily, while his neighbor languishes in poverty and despair. It's depressing the thoughts about what we are that come from the evolutionary ideology. We, according to evolution, are just animals, we have no soul, and when we die there is nothing afterward but silence.

Just how intelligent is that?

Originally posted by josephw
Well, for one thing, it has little to do with intelligence I think. After all, just how intelligent are we? By what standard? Given the dimensional size and scope of creation and the potentially infinite amount of knowledge yet undiscovered, I'd say we are but wee tiny creatures by comparison.

The other thing is the violence. I can understand why predator ...[text shortened]... o soul, and when we die there is nothing afterward but silence.

Just how intelligent is that?

It has to do with devolution because of the fall of man, not evolution. Maybe I should say Devil-lution.

Originally posted by josephw
... and the potentially infinite amount of knowledge yet undiscovered,

You believe that knowledge is not finite?

Isn't that contrary to an omniscient god?

You better rethink what you think.

Originally posted by josephw
We, according to evolution, are just animals, we have no soul, and when we die there is nothing afterward but silence.

Just how intelligent is that?

We, according to evolution, are just animals

Evolution makes no such claims.

we have no soul

Evolution makes no such claims.

and when we die there is nothing afterward but silence.

Evolution makes no such claims.

Just how intelligent is that?

Well, since you ask, not very intelligent at all. But perhaps if you did some basic reading up on evolution, you wouldn't keep making these elementary mistakes.