Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Max White]

See above I did not just say that.

So much inuendo, so little ways to express laughter.

[Shambling Zombie]

The People can see Russia from their house? Interesting... 

[Max White]

I wonder what god looks like...

[CoughDrop]

It does coincide with the US presidential elections. Other than Sarah Palin winning, I can't see any likely cause.

The hell is up with her anyway? She is dumb as mud, so why does she have any popularity?

I don't know, I just want to kill myself when I see all the dumb-ass politicians in the positions that they're in. I've pretty much given up all hope for the US... Want to move to Poland, I've heard that's a great place to live nowadays.

[Sergius]

I wonder what god looks like...

[Bauglir]

Riiiight. Well, looks like everything's wrapped up nicely.

EDIT: Unlocked. Replaced one paragraph in the OP. You can talk about things like Evolution vs Creationism, if you'd like, but keep it civil and try to avoid going too far into related tangents. For more detailed instructions, read the paragraph following the now-struck-through paragraph in the OP.

[Euld]

Ok here was the discussion in the "Things that made you go 'WTF?' today" thread.  My post,

Is there some sort of detailed list that explains how fossils couldn't have come from the Flood?  That's something that bugs me to this day, how so many people say it's pretty obvious that the Flood didn't create those fossils, but never give the reasons why it couldn't...   The History Channel did this often >_o

Not sure if a detailed list is possible; there's just too many of them, heh. It became evident even long ago, without the scientific analysis processes and tools.
Even pre-enlightenment era:

"If the Deluge had carried the shells for distances of three and four hundred miles from the sea it would have carried them mixed with various other natural objects all heaped up together; but even at such distances from the sea we see the oysters all together and also the shellfish and the cuttlefish and all the other shells which congregate together, found all together dead; and the solitary shells are found apart from one another as we see them every day on the sea-shores.
And we find oysters together in very large families, among which some may be seen with their shells still joined together, indicating that they were left there by the sea and that they were still living when the strait of Gibraltar was cut through. In the mountains of Parma and Piacenza multitudes of shells and corals with holes may be seen still sticking to the rocks...."

The most obvious reason is arrangement. If it was one big event in which everything died, it would be more or less one big mess of things with no particular arrangement; rabbits, velociraptors, and trilobites corpses all clumped together. But instead, we see the very distinct evolutionary history which appears very different, with the clear progression of organisms going deeper in the rock.

There's radiometric dating which, again, is altered by the YEC alternate science (or more specifically, they believe nuclear decay rates have dramatically decreased over time). Radiometric dating backs up the arrangements of progression previously seen, as well as showing a vast difference in time scales.

The formation of the quantity of fossil fuels we have also takes much longer than the asserted time. This particular one is either countered with more bad YEC alternate science or explained as 'God put it there as a natural resource for us.' The 'God dunnit' excuse is much more common here than the fossils example, as fossil fuels do have a practical use, whereas with fossils you're stuck precariously close to being between your pure deity trying to trick you or your devil who only has the power to corrupt actually creating things.

I'm sure there are dozens, if not hundreds, of others, but those are some of the most obvious examples.

As for the alternate YEC version of science, that originates from this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy     (summary)
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Wedge_document    (original document)
It's pretty insidious. Their goals, from the horse's mouth are:
"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"
Or in summary, they are setting out with aims no less than the utter destruction of science followed by replacing it with far-right Christian doctrine.

That pretty much answered my question

[Farmerbob]

  I still find it mildly offensive that you have a definition of agnostic that lumps them in with atheist loonies.  Of course, since the religious has spent several hundred years lumping all nonbelievers together, and the atheists try all they can to gather everyone that's not religious under their umbrella, it's not suprising that most people don't have a clue why agnostics aren't atheists in any way, shape, or form.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Farmerbob, we had this whole argument before, back when the thread was open last.

For 60 pages.

[Bauglir]

Goddammit, fine, I'll lock it again. I'll open it again come MondaySaturday afternoon, but seriously, the issue of this particular terminology is settled as far as I'm concerned, and that hasn't changed since the thread was last open. It's not about implying some sort of association fallacy, it's about having some words we can agree to use so that we can be precise when it's necessary. The "loonies" you refer to do, indeed, exist in a separate category as Strong Atheists, which does not include Agnosticism, and quite frankly it's obnoxious to refer to the entire group of people as lunatics.

EDIT: Changed the re-open time. Locking for 3 days without explicit warning is maybe overkill, but seriously, I am not going to tolerate this derail happening again, and if the thread has to die for that to happen then we weren't really going to handle this thread being open anyway.

[Bauglir]

Significant rules additions. The quote is being edited into the OP. The quote is not in red because it would look ridiculous, but it's as official as anything else.

Okay, I'm stealing some conflict-handling rules.

If the rules in this OP are violated, or I decide a conversation has become too serious a derail, I'll first post a warning. In the case of derails, I'll try to post two; one an unofficial "hey, guys, let's bring this to a close, okay", the second an official "We're not going to be talking about this anymore" message. Only the official warning will use red text.

If the problem continues, I will then lock the thread for 3 days. I will explicitly state that this is the case in the warning.

If, after the thread is opened, the problem still persists, I will repeat locks until it either stops or I get tired of opening the thread. If there's a specific person I believe is responsible, I will instead simply report the poster in question and post a warning telling people not to respond; any responses will result in a lock for 3 days, with no warnings. I recommend you use the ignore functionality if you have to (we have that, right?). If moderator action of any kind is taken, you're not to discuss it in this thread - we're not a thread for celebrating or lamenting bans or mutes. Violation of this rule will result in lock for 3 days, with no warnings.

When a derail occurs, I'll add it to the second post and note it as such. Posters are not to bring up the topic again without first PMing me - if you can convince me that you have a rational argument that's new to the discussion, which you think we can discuss civilly, then you can make the actual post. I'm sorry to make this necessary. I'll follow the same procedure for derails above (starting with an informal warning, then an official one, then moving on to locks) if an old derail crops up again; I understand that new posters won't be familiar with the thread's history with these topics, so I don't want to be too draconian about it.

Finally, a specific note. Because of the problems that initially prompted me to add this whole new set of rules, I'm already in the third stage of dealing with a particular derail. That means that anybody posting about whether or not agnosticism is a subset of atheism, regardless of their position, warrants a thread lock. FarmerBob, specifically, warrants a report to the moderators if he makes a post about it, but no lock unless people respond to him. I would appreciate it if you did not.

[Farmerbob]

Bauglir I fail to understand how you can threaten me when all I'm doing is giving the real definition of words, and standing up for my own beliefs.  My beliefs, which I understand far better than you do.

By (apparently) intentionally not using the correct meaning of agnostic and atheist, despite having it pointed out clearly and obviously multiple times both in this thread and in PM's that agnosticism is only considered a subset of atheism by atheists or religious people with some sort of agenda (or by the uneducated), you bring into doubt your ability to act as a impartial moderator in any discussion about religion.

Sorry, I call it as I see it.  The English language and hundreds of years of language use agrees with me, a bunch of fruity ivory tower thinkers agree with you.

[Il Palazzo]

Farmerbob, if you have a problem with the rules Bauglir is trying to maintain in his own thread, feel free to discuss the finer points of your disagreement with him via personal messaging system. I'm sure he'll indulge you. Posting your objections here inspite of the extremally visible calls not to do so anymore comes off quite clearly as egoistic and attention-starved.

Re: the topic at hand:

Is there some sort of detailed list that explains how fossils couldn't have come from the Flood?  That's something that bugs me to this day, how so many people say it's pretty obvious that the Flood didn't create those fossils, but never give the reasons why it couldn't...   The History Channel did this often >_o

Looking at this short conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Mackay(a young Earth creationist), one can come to a conclusion that it would be imperative to assume that things worked differently in the past than they do now, for all the data regarding geological strata and radioactive dating to conform with the young Earth belief.

[Bauglir]

Ugh. You're insisting that your definitions are the only acceptable ones and that any ideas allowed for by alternate terminology but not by yours must not exist (there's a PM conversation here, btw, so there's some context is missing). Standing up for your beliefs is admirable. Standing up for what you demand other people believe is not, and this is what you are doing when you insist that all atheists believe that there are no deities.

Let me be clear. You do not get to bring up an old argument, tell people who identify as atheists what they believe, call them loonies for it, argue that certain beliefs (which I happen to hold, by the way) are a sham aimed at misleading agnostics into siding with your stereotype of atheists, insist you're above the bickering, and then claim that your beliefs are being trod on and that your taking offense is why the conversation needs to change.

That's my final word. Drop it. You're not reported for this, nor am I locking the thread, because you didn't actually argue about the definitions directly and I'm trying to be understanding. But consider this avenue off-limits, as well.

Edit: In fact, when I say it's my final word, it extends beyond this thread. I won't continue to indulge this, even over PM. At least not today. Your PMs have failed to contain anything we didn't go over the last time this came up, and I'm tired of this. Maybe I'll read and reply later, but I promise nothing. My patience is exhausted.

[Farmerbob]

Farmerbob, if you have a problem with the rules Bauglir is trying to maintain in his own thread, feel free to discuss the finer points of your disagreement with him via personal messaging system. I'm sure he'll indulge you. Posting your objections here inspite of the extremally visible calls not to do so anymore comes off quite clearly as egoistic and attention-starved.

Already been tried, and after I repeatedly proved without any possible doubt that he is incorrect,  he gives up trying to make me drink the Atheist coolaid, and instead threatens me with moderation.

Sorry if this irritates people, but It always irritates me when people try to lump me in with a bunch of loonies that believe things they can't prove. Atheists.