Your group: "This arrived here over trillions [sic] of years of natural processes. The lessor art works were not able to survive, here you have the survival of the Van Gogh -- appearing before us in all its intricate detail by mere chance [sic].
My Group: "It's a nice painting. Must have had a painter."
Other than the time frame being off by four or five orders of magnitude, and that nobody believes that complex life-forms arose by mere chance (and Rob has already been called on this lie), a scientist might say something similar... but only if we had actually observed:
- paintings reproduce
- new paintings having similar traits to their parent paintings
- a physical mechanism by which these similarities had been communicated from parent to offspring
- evidence that paintings had been around for at least some hundreds of millions — if not billions — of years
- gradual changes in these hundred million year old paintings being correlated with age (and resemblance to modern paintings inversely correlated with age)
I hope Rob is not quite so casual about insulting his parishioners' intelligence as he is about insulting my readers' intelligence.
Update: I prefer to reserve for myself the privilege of abusing my commenters. One of the reasons I blog instead of posting on message boards is because I find the swarm of condemnation that follows comments as mendacious and egregiously stupid as Rob's to be mostly boring and counterproductive.
If you have a substantive comment to make, please make it, and if you spot lies and bullshit that I've missed you most definitely may call it lies and bullshit (with substantiation, please). (And of course it's none of my business what anyone writes on their own blog.) But let's hold back on gratuitous abuse in comments here, however well-deserved. I can handle this guy with one hemisphere tied behind my cerebellum.
Besides, Rob is a sensitive soul, and he sees conspiracies and "group think" whenever two people agree with each other (unless, of course, they agree with him).
Do you understand the difference between a lie and an illustration?
ReplyDeleteI mean, your constant misuse of the word indicates that you do not. I've never even heard children throw the word around as much as you do.
Alas, I'm wasting my breathe with this (oh, wait, I better clarify. By 'breathe' I am implementing an age old practice of substituting one word for the literal one (time), however, on the likely chance that you will again call me a 'liar, liar, pants on fire.' I really mean "time")
Larry, a lot of people like simple stories to illustrate points. Good teachers teach (attempt to take complicated issues and put them on a lower shelf for everyone) they don't showcase all the big words they know in the hopes that someone will get lost in the mumbo jumbo -- it's called "Argument By Prestigious Jargon."
Also, the constant use of argument by emotive language is tiresome. Swaying emotions is not really your best bet as an atheist -- we haven't even begun to explore the false use of reason by the no-god group.
Your repeated use of the motive based fallacy, argumentum ad hominem is also wearisome. I noticed you love to bring in "supposed fallacies of others but can't write a post without falling into half a dozen fallacious arguments yourself.
"Theistard" nice. I'm pretty sure Webster's hasn't picked up on your ginormous (they have recently added ginormous though) condescension of people who believe in God. Nor will they likely accept your anticipated comeback that you're only referring to me. Five minutes on your blog reveals this bias is for all who choose to cling to commonsense.
ReplyDeleteDrum Role please...dadalut...dadalut
ReplyDeleteThe number one bogus debate tactic the Bum uses is...
Pious Fraud:
a fraud done to accomplish some good end, on the theory that the end justifies the means.
Only you have a new twist on this, you lie about people lying.
LOL
You post statements that are actually false-to-fact, or you post "illustrations" that lead people by the nose to false-to-fact conclusions.
ReplyDeleteI really don't know what to call that except lying.
Good teachers teach (attempt to take complicated issues and put them on a lower shelf for everyone)
I pride myself that my readers don't need to have complicated issues put on a "lower shelf". I cannot, of course, speak for your parishioners.
In any event, you are most explicitly not invited here to teach. If I've (implicitly) invited you are here at all, it's to persuade. And for that you'll need actual arguments, not oversimplified and erroneous bullshit.
I noticed you love to bring in "supposed fallacies of others but can't write a post without falling into half a dozen fallacious arguments yourself.
An assertion such as this typically requires substantiation: A description of the false statement(s), why they are false and how I have used fallacious arguments to conclude the false statements.
For example, calling you a liar and a theistard is not by itself an ad hominem fallacy. It is merely an insult. An ad hominem fallacy would draw false conclusions about your position from negative characterizations of your personality. For example:
Not a fallacy: "Rob has made false-to-fact statements, therefore he is a liar."
Ad hominem fallacy: "Rob is a liar, therefore his statements are false-to-fact."
Hi Rob,
ReplyDeleteI suggest you re-read the exchanges you have had with Larry from the beginning.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Larry was aware that you painting analogy was just that - an anaology. The lie he is calling you on is your continued mis-representation of evolution theory claims. IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT CHANCE!!!
I am beginning to wonder if you are deliberately mis-interpreting evolution theory just to get piss people off. This has been explained to you often now. It is not merely a function of chance. You talk about wearisome, try correcting Theists on the same mis-interpretation a thousand times and see how you feel. If you are not actually lying and deliberately building straw men to burn at the stake, you really need to do some study before posting on this again. - just a suggestion.
No gentlemen, no lies -- just statements you don't like. And you've argued points but proved nothing. And lied constantly while doing so. I just don't jump up and down pointing out every instance b/c this is a forum where people are "supposedly" debating and working through arguments, not going, "LIAR! I'M TELLING!"
ReplyDeleteFor that matter I have not proved God either -- haven't even attempted to. He needs no proving. I said from the beginning that "He who comes to God must believe He exists" and that, "without faith it is impossible to please God." (Hebrews) You don't have the faith because that same faith is a gift from God.
You can ask for it, but that's not likely to happen while you're expending all your energies trying desperately to disprove God. Whose existence does not hang vicariously on whether or not you (or anyone else for that matter) believes in Him. No one believed the world was round 500 years ago but the world didn't flatten out as a result.
And Celtic Chimp? You can try your theories on whether there was at one point something verses nothing, but that's the fallacy of circular reasoning. At some point you are going to get to "nothing" and then there is a real problem b/c evolutionists currently mixing all kinds of chemicals under all kinds of circumstances still have to wrestle with that very fist lack of any chemical or circumstance called nothing.
One last thing kids...Most small children grow out of the, "liar, liar, pants on fire" stage of life. You all are only halfway there in losing the pants.
Guess that means you've been caught with your pants down.
Rob: Is there an argument in there?
ReplyDeleteIt's my blog, and my rules. And here are the rules:
ReplyDeleteYou've had your say: we understand your opinion of science, evolutionary theory, and my character. It should be noted that ingratiating myself with conservative evangelical Christians is not right at the top of my priority list.
If you have an argument on a substantive topic that does not misrepresent or misstate established facts, it'll get published as a comment, and, at my discretion but only if you so choose, I'll reproduce the substantive portion of the comment without additional emendation on the front page of the blog.
Comments without substantive argumentation, or comments containing any misrepresentation of facts, will be rejected without comment.
Note that evolutionary theories are indeed not facts but scientific theories, although the content of the theories is factual (i.e. it is a fact that the theory says what it says) and the truth of the theories rest on a considerable body of fact.
I'll tolerate some extraneous content, but if I feel the extraneous content is excessive, I won't publish the comment. If I do publish the content, I will ignore any non-substantive content.
These rules are not, in my opinion, unreasonable or overly restrictive. You may have a different opinion. You are, of course, under no obligation whatsoever to comment here, and if you choose not to, no one will miss you in the least.
FYI: Quotations must be sourced, and the sense of the quotation in its original context must be preserved.
ReplyDeletemicroevolution vs, macroevolution
ReplyDeleteMacroevolution: Its Definition, Philosophy and History
Barriers to Evolution
The scientific and creationist definitions of "macroevolution"
Documentation of Macroevolution
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
The Quote Mine Project: Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines is always interesting.
Rob,
ReplyDeleteI would also like to provide some reading for you.
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/
http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/
P.S. I've offered no opinion on your character, and even if I did it's just an opinion. You might be a fine upstanding citizen. I've just pointed out that you incorrectly impute motives often when you write.
ReplyDeleteBut, as you say, 'your blog, your rules.'
Alas, I'm wasting my breathe...
ReplyDeleteClearly you don't believe that. Otherwise you wouldn't rise to the bait.
Just saying: Motes, planks, et cetera.
And lied constantly while doing so.
ReplyDeletePlease, either on your own blog or, if Larry is open to it (which I would be surprised if he were not), enumerate these.
I most definitely do want to know if I have made any false-to-fact statement, whether or not it is alleged to be intentional or negligent.
ReplyDeleteOf course, any allegation of falsity should be substantiated.
ReplyDeleteRob,
ReplyDeleteI think you were on the verge of a tantrum there.
Anyway, you plop out this something from nothing argument like it is QED.
You can try your theories on whether there was at one point something verses nothing, but that's the fallacy of circular reasoning.
Who told you there was ever a time when there was nothing?
Even if there was once nothing, you think God solves that problem?
Rob,
ReplyDeleteI think you were on the verge of a tantrum there.
Anyway, you plop out this something from nothing argument like it is QED.
You can try your theories on whether there was at one point something verses nothing, but that's the fallacy of circular reasoning.
Who told you there was ever a time when there was nothing?
Even if there was once nothing, you think God solves that problem?