Debate with a lunatic - help would be appreciated

User avatar
Nickel
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:49 pm
About me: What can I say - I'm a talented individual
Location: Nottingham, England
Contact:

Debate with a lunatic - help would be appreciated

Post by Nickel » Tue Apr 06, 2010 1:53 pm

Sup Rationalia, hows it cracking.

I posted a comment on that dire excuse for a facebook group, "we can find 1,000,000 people who don't believe in Evolution befor June". Evidently I ruffled some feathers, because some jackass named Brian has dediced to message me because of it. I've sent him one response already, to which I have received this gem.

I'm struggling to decide if I should reply at all - evidently he's not altogether there - and I think I might be being trolled a bit, but I'm also loathe to leave this hanging. Take a look at this and let me know what you think: (Things with a > are my words, quoted by him)
I haven't said I don't accept Evolution. Indeed, it is the reason I asked. I seek plausible explanation. I do believe that science, done properly, is generally true; therefore, I accept the age of the universe at 14.6 billion years. Further, from my world-view, it expands the glory of God, properly understood.

>The presence of strong evidence supporting it, my own studying of the theory, the overall rationality of the theory, the flaws in the alternative, and occam's razor.

This is what I am looking for: what evidence? I am aware that you are a Brit; I understand that the Evolutionary Hypothesis is gospel there. So, what is the evidence?

>Macroevolution is the tipping point from which microevolutionary changes have reached a point at which the evolving species has deverged enough from its parent as to be unable to produce fertile offspring from it. The distinction, whilst understandable, is not radically different. If microevolution is real, macroevolution must be too.

As this is an unfounded and unproven statement, I would refer to it as faith. Indeed, it happens to be your axiom. What I am seeking is why it is a better axiom.

>The Miller-Urey experiment

Nick, seriously? You had me bending over with laughter when I read this! Indeed, the only thing that experiment proves is Intelligent Design! FFFFFFFUUUUU...

I realize that atheists slam into an insurmountable problem with the Origins of Life. This is not my issue. Evolution, however you would like to paint it, typically seeks to present a world-view independent of a Creator. I am aware that thinking Christians exist that accept some tenets of Evolution; I don't happen to be one, but I am open to examination of the evidence.
But with your assertion of rationality: it is not so just because you claim it. I was asking your sources, evidence, places to which you refer.

>Oh no, I know about the complexity of DNA. But you're suggesting it got that way as if by magic in a short while.

Where do you get this? I didn't say this. No, but you suggested it. I never said you said it verbatim.

My inference is that 1 Billion years is not nearly enough time to provide the genetic manipulation. Example: one part of the gene calls up, sometimes 10, other subsequent episodes interdependent of each other. This in turn adds to the genetic code, which could not function if any of the aforementioned episodes are malfunctioned. For this to develop and create the amazing variety of species we observe on Earth...statistically impossible. Occam doesn't even help here. Perhaps, multiverses? You have simply pushed off the design problem another step...

Further, how can information become MORE specific with time? Oh yeah, natural selection. Behe's theory sort of cripples that case at this point (i.e. irreducible complexity).

You haven't offered anything of substance. The burden of proof is still in your court.
Help, guys. I'm left dumbfounded at this.
Capture Jesus and take his super-powers!

User avatar
Rum
Absent Minded Processor
Posts: 37285
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..
Contact:

Re: Debate with a lunatic - help would be appreciated

Post by Rum » Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:13 pm

Tell him to fuck off. That should deal with the issues nicely. :coffee:

User avatar
Tigger
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 piccolos
Posts: 15714
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:26 pm
About me: It's not "about" me, it's exactly me.
Location: location location.

Re: Debate with a lunatic - help would be appreciated

Post by Tigger » Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:19 pm

Rum wrote:Tell him to fuck off. That should deal with the issues nicely. :coffee:
I was going to suggest that. We have this :pawiz: for such occasions.
Image
Seth wrote:Fuck that, I like opening Pandora's box and shoving my tool inside it

User avatar
Feck
.
.
Posts: 28391
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Debate with a lunatic - help would be appreciated

Post by Feck » Tue Apr 06, 2010 3:15 pm

Image



Look this is fractal it is very complicated and pretty therefore it must have been designed .
:hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog:
Give me the wine , I don't need the bread

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: Debate with a lunatic - help would be appreciated

Post by FBM » Tue Apr 06, 2010 3:20 pm

Hell, he's not even wrong. :ele:
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

User avatar
Feck
.
.
Posts: 28391
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Debate with a lunatic - help would be appreciated

Post by Feck » Tue Apr 06, 2010 3:40 pm

:hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog:
Give me the wine , I don't need the bread

User avatar
hackenslash
Fundie Baiter...errr. Fun Debater
Posts: 1380
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 5:05 am
About me: I've got a little black book with my poems in...
Location: Between the cutoff and the resonance
Contact:

Re: Debate with a lunatic - help would be appreciated

Post by hackenslash » Tue Apr 06, 2010 8:13 pm

Unidentified fuckwit wrote: I haven't said I don't accept Evolution. Indeed, it is the reason I asked. I seek plausible explanation. I do believe that science, done properly, is generally true; therefore, I accept the age of the universe at 14.6 billion years. Further, from my world-view, it expands the glory of God, properly understood.
Err, except that it doesn't have any place for god. There's bugger all for him to do.
This is what I am looking for: what evidence? I am aware that you are a Brit; I understand that the Evolutionary Hypothesis is gospel there. So, what is the evidence?
Where to begin? ERVs, shared DNA, concilience, the fossil record, observed instances of speciation both in the lab and in the wild...

Further, evolution is not a hypothesis, it's a theory, which is as good as it gets in science.
>Macroevolution is the tipping point from which microevolutionary changes have reached a point at which the evolving species has deverged enough from its parent as to be unable to produce fertile offspring from it. The distinction, whilst understandable, is not radically different. If microevolution is real, macroevolution must be too.
Be careful how you employ 'macroevolution' here. The way it's being employed is the way cretinists use it, which is incorrect. Macroevolution deals with changes in allele frequencies in populations of species, where microevolution deals with changes in allele frequencies in populations of organisms, or at species level.
As this is an unfounded and unproven statement, I would refer to it as faith. Indeed, it happens to be your axiom. What I am seeking is why it is a better axiom.
So he doesn't understand what an axiom is either. No faith is required or even relevant, as we have hard evidence from reality. Where we have hard evidence from reality, faith is superfluous. Where we don't have hard evidence from reality, faith is ridiculous. Either way, faith is useless.
>The Miller-Urey experiment

Nick, seriously? You had me bending over with laughter when I read this! Indeed, the only thing that experiment proves is Intelligent Design! FFFFFFFUUUUU...
Except that, contrary to your fuckwitted understanding of what the Miller-Urey experiment and other abiogenetic experiments actually constitute, scientists such as Miller are not trying to create life. They are investigating precisely which sets of circumstances might have given rise to life without intervention. What this involves is constructing an environment thought to mirror the conditions prevalent on the prebiotic Earth, throwing in some of the chemical also thought to be prevalent, and seeing what happens. This is not intelligent design, merely observation of the requisite conditions.

I would call this an ignorance fail, but it is such a demonstration of highly successful ignorance that it's almost worthy of an award, except that such ignorance is the stock-in-trade of fuckwitted cretinists, as experience has shown us time and again.
I realize that atheists slam into an insurmountable problem with the Origins of Life.
Nope. Atheists have no problem with the origin of life, as it has fuck all to do with atheism. Scientists also don't have any problems with the origin of life, because they'll just go where the evidence leads. What any of this has to do with evolution, though...
This is not my issue.
No, because your issue is clear. You're fucking stupid.
Evolution, however you would like to paint it, typically seeks to present a world-view independent of a Creator.
Bzzzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing. Evolution doesn't seek to do anything, because it is not an entity capable of any kind of teleology. As for the science, it doesn't seek a world-view independent of a creator, it just hasn't come across any good reason to insert a creator, because all our models work perfectly well without one. In the immortal words of Laplace, 'Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.'
I am aware that thinking Christians exist that accept some tenets of Evolution; I don't happen to be one, but I am open to examination of the evidence.
What, you're not a thinking christian? I can tell. As for being open to examination of the evidence, if that's truly the case, then why haven't you educated yourself? I doubt the sincerity of this claim.
But with your assertion of rationality: it is not so just because you claim it. I was asking your sources, evidence, places to which you refer.
What kind of sources would you like? Here's on of Cali's mega posts from RDF, with more sources than you can shake a stick at.
>Oh no, I know about the complexity of DNA. But you're suggesting it got that way as if by magic in a short while.
Sorry, but only the fuckwitted cretinists think that magic is in any way involved.
My inference is that 1 Billion years is not nearly enough time to provide the genetic manipulation.
And upon what critically robust evidence do you base this preposterous assertion?
Example: one part of the gene calls up, sometimes 10, other subsequent episodes interdependent of each other. This in turn adds to the genetic code, which could not function if any of the aforementioned episodes are malfunctioned. For this to develop and create the amazing variety of species we observe on Earth...statistically impossible.
Oh, look. Once again the 'one true sequence' and the 'serial trials' fallacies are erected in tandem.
Occam doesn't even help here.
What? What the fuck has the principle of parsimony got to do with any of the vacuous crap you've erected here?
Perhaps, multiverses?
:what:
You have simply pushed off the design problem another step...
What design? Can you demonstrate design? Do you have some means of measuring design? If you do, there are some very serious men in Stockholm who would like a word with you.
Further, how can information become MORE specific with time?
More specific/ In reference to what, exactly? The forum cat could tell you haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about here.
Oh yeah, natural selection. Behe's theory sort of cripples that case at this point (i.e. irreducible complexity).
Err, except that it doesn't. Firstly, Behe doesn't have a theory. What he has is rectally extracted blind assertions. Assertions that, moreover, have no basis in reality. Secondly, irreducible complexity is not an issue for evolution by natural selection, but a natural result of it.

Read and learn.

As for the lying fuckwit Behe, perhaps you should see what happens when you take what he says into a courtroom.

Behe getting spanked and buried in references that demonstrate he's talking shit, and getting his arse handed to him by the judge
You haven't offered anything of substance.
What, as opposed to your cretinous fucking celestial peeping-tom? Give me a fucking break.
The burden of proof is still in your court.
Proof? Court? Read up. :lol: :funny:

That should cover it.

Edit: Fixed a couple of tags and typos.
Dogma is the death of the intellect

User avatar
Tigger
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 piccolos
Posts: 15714
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 4:26 pm
About me: It's not "about" me, it's exactly me.
Location: location location.

Re: Debate with a lunatic - help would be appreciated

Post by Tigger » Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:40 pm

^ :clap:
I wish I could come up with that sort of stuff. Except if I could, it would have meant that I'd've encountered woo on a worrying scale during my life, and I think I've been fortunate to avoid it. I'll stick with appreciating reading it. :tup:
Image
Seth wrote:Fuck that, I like opening Pandora's box and shoving my tool inside it

User avatar
Feck
.
.
Posts: 28391
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Debate with a lunatic - help would be appreciated

Post by Feck » Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:47 pm

Tigger wrote:^ :clap:
I wish I could come up with that sort of stuff. Except if I could, it would have meant that I'd've encountered woo on a worrying scale during my life, and I think I've been fortunate to avoid it. I'll stick with appreciating reading it. :tup:
+1 I hope that was as much fun to write as it was to read :clap:
:hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog:
Give me the wine , I don't need the bread

User avatar
charlou
arseist
Posts: 32527
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:36 am

Re: Debate with a lunatic - help would be appreciated

Post by charlou » Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:41 pm

hack wrote:Where we have hard evidence from reality, faith is superfluous. Where we don't have hard evidence from reality, faith is ridiculous. Either way, faith is useless.
This.

What more need be said?
no fences

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: Debate with a lunatic - help would be appreciated

Post by FBM » Tue Apr 06, 2010 11:56 pm

Set him on fire.



No, wait. Don't. I remember reading somewhere that that would be wrong.
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

User avatar
Feck
.
.
Posts: 28391
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Debate with a lunatic - help would be appreciated

Post by Feck » Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:06 am

FBM wrote:Set him on fire.



No, wait. Don't. I remember reading somewhere that that would be wrong.
Not always .... there are exceptions
:hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog: :hoverdog:
Give me the wine , I don't need the bread

User avatar
Pappa
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Non-Practicing Anarchist
Posts: 56488
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:42 am
About me: I am sacrificing a turnip as I type.
Location: Le sud du Pays de Galles.
Contact:

Re: Debate with a lunatic - help would be appreciated

Post by Pappa » Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:18 am

Feck wrote:
FBM wrote:Set him on fire.



No, wait. Don't. I remember reading somewhere that that would be wrong.
Not always .... there are exceptions
Definitely exceptions.
For information on ways to help support Rationalia financially, see our funding page.


When the aliens do come, everything we once thought was cool will then make us ashamed.

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

Re: Debate with a lunatic - help would be appreciated

Post by FBM » Wed Apr 07, 2010 12:54 am

Wouldn't hear me complaining.
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

User avatar
charlou
arseist
Posts: 32527
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 2:36 am

Re: Debate with a lunatic - help would be appreciated

Post by charlou » Wed Apr 07, 2010 2:00 am

:tea:
no fences

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest