7-2-06 -- Doonesbury on Creationism and Intelligent Design.

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
He is just pointing out a well founded postion where you presnted only a strawman.

Uh huh... so now the ATPN rules of logical debate say that arguing other than your opponent's argument (the definition of a straw man) is a "well-founded position"?

Nice one.

 

[Vic]

Oh yes, and back to refuting the history taught to you by your 1st grade teacher, Galileo was actually granted, by the church and his friend Pope Urban VIII, the opportunity to present his theories for full scientific discourse, provided he gave fair treatment to both sides of the debate. And that probably would have been the end of it, and the church likely would have accepted heliocentricism, if not for the fact that Galileo took that opportunity to make public attacks against the Pope. It was those attacks that led to his trial for heresy, and not his scientific theories. Text

 

[ruffilb]

Originally posted by: sandorski
hehe, good one.

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: Vic
Just to play the devils advocate, what point? Personally, I think Trudeau has been slipping the past few years, as this strip was a rather disingenious strawman. The idea of intelligent design does not exclude evolution. In fact, the only difference between ID and conventional evolutionary theory is the argument between an interventionist God and plain ol' random chance. As neither of those arguments are scientifically provable (or even valid), I think the whole bit is nothing but hot air from pseudoreligious morons (including those who wrongly worship science as a religion) pretending that they know the unknowable and trying to force their beliefs on the rest of us.

edit: and because I know that Harvey is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and will probably attack me in some "OMG the world will end because of the heretic" kind of way, let me be clear that I am attacking both sides of the argument.

I don't agree that ID is inclusive of evolution (evolutionary theory as stated Scientifically, sensu stricto). Science requires a distinct methodology--one that excludes apriori epistemology.

Clearly, Intelligent Design is a subset of creationism. Any claim to the contrary would be itself disingenious.

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: Vic
Oh yes, and back to refuting the history taught to you by your 1st grade teacher, Galileo was actually granted, by the church and his friend Pope Urban VIII, the opportunity to present his theories for full scientific discourse, provided he gave fair treatment to both sides of the debate. And that probably would have been the end of it, and the church likely would have accepted heliocentricism, if not for the fact that Galileo took that opportunity to make public attacks against the Pope. It was those attacks that led to his trial for heresy, and not his scientific theories. Text

Wrong again, and still you apologize for the Church and their blind devotion towards antiquated ideas. It amazes me your arrogance in assuming a "But I'm considering BOTH sides" position, trying to put yourself on some kind of moral pedastal. The Pope was wrong back then, you know it, I know it. Galileo did not and should not have had to provide both sides of the argument, since one side was so blatantly wrong it would have diluted his book. Sure, he was bold, and probably expected the house arrest and accusations of heresy, but that doesn't mean he was wrong in doing what he did.

Get down off your imaginary high horse, before you realize it isn't there and fall down.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Vic
Oh yes, and back to refuting the history taught to you by your 1st grade teacher, Galileo was actually granted, by the church and his friend Pope Urban VIII, the opportunity to present his theories for full scientific discourse, provided he gave fair treatment to both sides of the debate. And that probably would have been the end of it, and the church likely would have accepted heliocentricism, if not for the fact that Galileo took that opportunity to make public attacks against the Pope. It was those attacks that led to his trial for heresy, and not his scientific theories. Text

Wrong again, and still you apologize for the Church and their blind devotion towards antiquated ideas. It amazes me your arrogance in assuming a "But I'm considering BOTH sides" position, trying to put yourself on some kind of moral pedastal. The Pope was wrong back then, you know it, I know it. Galileo did not and should not have had to provide both sides of the argument, since one side was so blatantly wrong it would have diluted his book. Sure, he was bold, and probably expected the house arrest and accusations of heresy, but that doesn't mean he was wrong in doing what he did.

Get down off your imaginary high horse, before you realize it isn't there and fall down.

LOL! How can you call me wrong when I post a reference (even if it is wikipedia) and you do not? Nor was I trying to apologize for the church in anyway, but was replying to a comment made by another poster. As to one side being "so blatantly wrong" that everyone should have known it, that is obvious to us today, but was not 400 years ago, when Galileo's theories were actually cutting-edge science. In which case, I'd say that you are on the imaginary high horse of hindsight.

Anyway... you people are as hilarious as ever... :laugh:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: fjord

Originally posted by: Vic
Just to play the devils advocate, what point? Personally, I think Trudeau has been slipping the past few years, as this strip was a rather disingenious strawman. The idea of intelligent design does not exclude evolution. In fact, the only difference between ID and conventional evolutionary theory is the argument between an interventionist God and plain ol' random chance. As neither of those arguments are scientifically provable (or even valid), I think the whole bit is nothing but hot air from pseudoreligious morons (including those who wrongly worship science as a religion) pretending that they know the unknowable and trying to force their beliefs on the rest of us.

edit: and because I know that Harvey is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and will probably attack me in some "OMG the world will end because of the heretic" kind of way, let me be clear that I am attacking both sides of the argument.

I don't agree that ID is inclusive of evolution (evolutionary theory as stated Scientifically, sensu stricto). Science requires a distinct methodology--one that excludes apriori epistemology.

Clearly, Intelligent Design is a subset of creationism. Any claim to the contrary would be itself disingenious.

Neither ID nor random chance (abiogenesis) are inclusive of evolution. That is what I posted. Any claim to the contrary, after all the crap in this tiresome thread, would be just ridiculous.

Science supports neither religion nor anti-religion, no matter how much both those sides want the diety of science to be on their side.

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Vic
Oh yes, and back to refuting the history taught to you by your 1st grade teacher, Galileo was actually granted, by the church and his friend Pope Urban VIII, the opportunity to present his theories for full scientific discourse, provided he gave fair treatment to both sides of the debate. And that probably would have been the end of it, and the church likely would have accepted heliocentricism, if not for the fact that Galileo took that opportunity to make public attacks against the Pope. It was those attacks that led to his trial for heresy, and not his scientific theories. Text

Wrong again, and still you apologize for the Church and their blind devotion towards antiquated ideas. It amazes me your arrogance in assuming a "But I'm considering BOTH sides" position, trying to put yourself on some kind of moral pedastal. The Pope was wrong back then, you know it, I know it. Galileo did not and should not have had to provide both sides of the argument, since one side was so blatantly wrong it would have diluted his book. Sure, he was bold, and probably expected the house arrest and accusations of heresy, but that doesn't mean he was wrong in doing what he did.

Get down off your imaginary high horse, before you realize it isn't there and fall down.

LOL! How can you call me wrong when I post a reference (even if it is wikipedia) and you do not? Nor was I trying to apologize for the church in anyway, but was replying to a comment made by another poster. As to one side being "so blatantly wrong" that everyone should have known it, that is obvious to us today, but was not 400 years ago, when Galileo's theories were actually cutting-edge science. In which case, I'd say that you are on the imaginary high horse of hindsight.

Anyway... you people are as hilarious as ever... :laugh:

What are you talking about? You try and put yourself above everyone else by stating that we only have 1st-grade knowledge of things like Columbus and Galileo.

And you can be wrong in your opinion by misreading or misinterpreting your reference, or if your reference is an opinion itself. I don't need a separate reference to debate opinions.

You ARE defending the Church, or maybe you're just trying to antagonize someone's position by, again, posting an opinion that is based on misinterpretation of the facts. Pope Urban THOUGHT he was being ridiculed by Galileo, but who knows Galileo's intentions? Not you, not me. Only Galileo. That does not put Pope Urban in the right, nor does it bring out any point about the Church not antagonizing new theories that rival its own antiquated ones.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Vic
Oh yes, and back to refuting the history taught to you by your 1st grade teacher, Galileo was actually granted, by the church and his friend Pope Urban VIII, the opportunity to present his theories for full scientific discourse, provided he gave fair treatment to both sides of the debate. And that probably would have been the end of it, and the church likely would have accepted heliocentricism, if not for the fact that Galileo took that opportunity to make public attacks against the Pope. It was those attacks that led to his trial for heresy, and not his scientific theories. Text

Wrong again, and still you apologize for the Church and their blind devotion towards antiquated ideas. It amazes me your arrogance in assuming a "But I'm considering BOTH sides" position, trying to put yourself on some kind of moral pedastal. The Pope was wrong back then, you know it, I know it. Galileo did not and should not have had to provide both sides of the argument, since one side was so blatantly wrong it would have diluted his book. Sure, he was bold, and probably expected the house arrest and accusations of heresy, but that doesn't mean he was wrong in doing what he did.

Get down off your imaginary high horse, before you realize it isn't there and fall down.

LOL! How can you call me wrong when I post a reference (even if it is wikipedia) and you do not? Nor was I trying to apologize for the church in anyway, but was replying to a comment made by another poster. As to one side being "so blatantly wrong" that everyone should have known it, that is obvious to us today, but was not 400 years ago, when Galileo's theories were actually cutting-edge science. In which case, I'd say that you are on the imaginary high horse of hindsight.

Anyway... you people are as hilarious as ever... :laugh:

What are you talking about? You try and put yourself above everyone else by stating that we only have 1st-grade knowledge of things like Columbus and Galileo.

And you can be wrong in your opinion by misreading or misinterpreting your reference, or if your reference is an opinion itself. I don't need a separate reference to debate opinions.

You ARE defending the Church, or maybe you're just trying to antagonize someone's position by, again, posting an opinion that is based on misinterpretation of the facts. Pope Urban THOUGHT he was being ridiculed by Galileo, but who knows Galileo's intentions? Not you, not me. Only Galileo. That does not put Pope Urban in the right, nor does it bring out any point about the Church not antagonizing new theories that rival its own antiquated ones.

Now this, folks, is a perfect example of a red herring.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
He is just pointing out a well founded postion where you presnted only a strawman.

Uh huh... so now the ATPN rules of logical debate say that arguing other than your opponent's argument (the definition of a straw man) is a "well-founded position"?

Nice one.

This is a strawman:

Originally posted by: Vic
In fact, the only difference between ID and conventional evolutionary theory is the argument between an interventionist God and plain ol' random chance.

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Vic
Oh yes, and back to refuting the history taught to you by your 1st grade teacher, Galileo was actually granted, by the church and his friend Pope Urban VIII, the opportunity to present his theories for full scientific discourse, provided he gave fair treatment to both sides of the debate. And that probably would have been the end of it, and the church likely would have accepted heliocentricism, if not for the fact that Galileo took that opportunity to make public attacks against the Pope. It was those attacks that led to his trial for heresy, and not his scientific theories. Text

Wrong again, and still you apologize for the Church and their blind devotion towards antiquated ideas. It amazes me your arrogance in assuming a "But I'm considering BOTH sides" position, trying to put yourself on some kind of moral pedastal. The Pope was wrong back then, you know it, I know it. Galileo did not and should not have had to provide both sides of the argument, since one side was so blatantly wrong it would have diluted his book. Sure, he was bold, and probably expected the house arrest and accusations of heresy, but that doesn't mean he was wrong in doing what he did.

Get down off your imaginary high horse, before you realize it isn't there and fall down.

LOL! How can you call me wrong when I post a reference (even if it is wikipedia) and you do not? Nor was I trying to apologize for the church in anyway, but was replying to a comment made by another poster. As to one side being "so blatantly wrong" that everyone should have known it, that is obvious to us today, but was not 400 years ago, when Galileo's theories were actually cutting-edge science. In which case, I'd say that you are on the imaginary high horse of hindsight.

Anyway... you people are as hilarious as ever... :laugh:

What are you talking about? You try and put yourself above everyone else by stating that we only have 1st-grade knowledge of things like Columbus and Galileo.

And you can be wrong in your opinion by misreading or misinterpreting your reference, or if your reference is an opinion itself. I don't need a separate reference to debate opinions.

You ARE defending the Church, or maybe you're just trying to antagonize someone's position by, again, posting an opinion that is based on misinterpretation of the facts. Pope Urban THOUGHT he was being ridiculed by Galileo, but who knows Galileo's intentions? Not you, not me. Only Galileo. That does not put Pope Urban in the right, nor does it bring out any point about the Church not antagonizing new theories that rival its own antiquated ones.

Now this, folks, is a perfect example of a red herring.

Well, when you only respond to those parts of my posts, of course it is.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We need a Vic thread where his ideas are fully fleshed out so the knee jerks can get deeper into the matter before their neurons fire.

No... we need a thread in which ATPN posters can become more educated as to why false dilemma is a logical fallacy. The world is not black and white. It is not divided solely into us and them, into "my way or the highway," into Republicans and Democrats, into atheists and christian fundies, or into those who circle-jerk with dmcowen674 and those who do not. Real life is analog, not digital. Science is objective, not democratic.

"Science is objective"

You might as well have said Science is faith. :roll:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: DAGTA

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus

Originally posted by: Vic
The idea of intelligent design does not exclude evolution.

Right, because one is science & one isn't.

In fact, the only difference between ID and conventional evolutionary theory is the argument between an interventionist God and plain ol' random chance.

Not at all, please go educate yourself.

As neither of those arguments are scientifically provable (or even valid),

Wrong again, before you start with the basics of evolution, go educate yourself on the basics of science.

let me be clear that I am attacking both sides of the argument.

So because of the whims of those who believe the earth is flat, you feel the need to lump people who argue the earth is roughly spherical in with them and dismiss both as unprovable theories? Idiot.

Who believes the earth is flat?

Mostly religious folks, many of them on here and in this thread.

 

[Satchel]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We need a Vic thread where his ideas are fully fleshed out so the knee jerks can get deeper into the matter before their neurons fire.

No... we need a thread in which ATPN posters can become more educated as to why false dilemma is a logical fallacy. The world is not black and white. It is not divided solely into us and them, into "my way or the highway," into Republicans and Democrats, into atheists and christian fundies, or into those who circle-jerk with dmcowen674 and those who do not. Real life is analog, not digital. Science is objective, not democratic.

"Science is objective"

You might as well have said Science is faith. :roll:

And you might as well have said "I don't know how to read." :roll:

Objective

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
He is just pointing out a well founded postion where you presnted only a strawman.

Uh huh... so now the ATPN rules of logical debate say that arguing other than your opponent's argument (the definition of a straw man) is a "well-founded position"?

Nice one.

This is a strawman:

Originally posted by: Vic
In fact, the only difference between ID and conventional evolutionary theory is the argument between an interventionist God and plain ol' random chance.

Not in proper context, it is not:

Originally posted by: Vic
As neither of those arguments are scientifically provable (or even valid), I think the whole bit is nothing but hot air from pseudoreligious morons (including those who wrongly worship science as a religion) pretending that they know the unknowable and trying to force their beliefs on the rest of us.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Well, when you only respond to those parts of my posts, of course it is.

Then you might want to consider staying on topic and not straying at every little point you think you can make a distraction.

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Well, when you only respond to those parts of my posts, of course it is.

Then you might want to consider staying on topic and not straying at every little point you think you can make a distraction.

Excuse me? ME stay on topic? It is you who brought up the whole "you are all first graders" ridiculousness, and that's what I responded to. Your 'evolution is random chance and therefore it is also faith' idea has been debunked, and so have your straying topics of accusing people of building strawmen and using false dilemma, and you respond by telling people they're missing the point!

So tell me, what is the topic you think is at hand? You seem to be all over the place.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Aisengard

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Well, when you only respond to those parts of my posts, of course it is.

Then you might want to consider staying on topic and not straying at every little point you think you can make a distraction.

Excuse me? ME stay on topic? It is you who brought up the whole "you are all first graders" ridiculousness, and that's what I responded to. Your 'evolution is random chance and therefore it is also faith' idea has been debunked, and so have your straying topics of accusing people of building strawmen and using false dilemma, and you respond by telling people they're missing the point!

So tell me, what is the topic you think is at hand? You seem to be all over the place.

More crap from you? :roll:

Those comments were not directed at you, but at Gigantopithecus, who began by invoking the straw men of "flat earthers" and the Galileo affair. I'm sorry you can't follow along with the discussion.

Faith, I said, is believing that evolution is random chance (i.e. abiogenesis) and/or that is supports your (anti)religion of atheism. Science is decidedly nontheist.
The "topic at hand" is that misguided belief that science supports your little faith, combined with the concept that pagans (the word "paganus" is Latin for a country dweller with backward beliefs, which I think more than properly describes modern-day young earth creationists) are less deserving of basic human rights because of their uneducated beliefs. From people who claim to care about the less fortunate, I find that level of hypocrisy to be offensive in the extreme.

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: fjord

Originally posted by: Vic
Just to play the devils advocate, what point? Personally, I think Trudeau has been slipping the past few years, as this strip was a rather disingenious strawman. The idea of intelligent design does not exclude evolution. In fact, the only difference between ID and conventional evolutionary theory is the argument between an interventionist God and plain ol' random chance. As neither of those arguments are scientifically provable (or even valid), I think the whole bit is nothing but hot air from pseudoreligious morons (including those who wrongly worship science as a religion) pretending that they know the unknowable and trying to force their beliefs on the rest of us.

edit: and because I know that Harvey is not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and will probably attack me in some "OMG the world will end because of the heretic" kind of way, let me be clear that I am attacking both sides of the argument.

I don't agree that ID is inclusive of evolution (evolutionary theory as stated Scientifically, sensu stricto). Science requires a distinct methodology--one that excludes apriori epistemology.

Clearly, Intelligent Design is a subset of creationism. Any claim to the contrary would be itself disingenious.

Neither ID nor random chance (abiogenesis) are inclusive of evolution. That is what I posted. Any claim to the contrary, after all the crap in this tiresome thread, would be just ridiculous.

Science supports neither religion nor anti-religion, no matter how much both those sides want the diety of science to be on their side.

Absolutely ID has no connection with evolutionary theory. None whatsoever. I just wanted to make clear this simple statement.

On the other hand, ID clearly is a subset of Creationism. The nexus between Creationism and ID is fundamental and paramount. The invocation of a creative force or being (read: God) is pivotal to both ideas. ID is just a window-dressed version of creationism, whose aim is to try to legitimize creationism under the guise of different verbage that tries to fool some with scientific sounding mumbo jumbo.

Just like creationism, ID has failed to provide any objective evidence that would support a claim of a creative force or being. Not one single shred of evidence.

 

[Aisengard]

Originally posted by: Vic

Faith, I said, is believing that evolution is random chance (i.e. abiogenesis) and/or that is supports your (anti)religion of atheism.

Evolution is not random chance, nor does it try to explain the origin of life.

Science is decidedly nontheist.

We agree.

The "topic at hand" is that misguided belief that science supports your little faith,

And what is my little faith? That humans evolved from apes? Sorry, I wouldn't have that belief if not for strong evidence supporting that claim. Now, if you want to say I have faith that these fossils showing the progression of the human species were not placed by God or something, go right ahead, though it's a bit of a stretch. However, since I don't think that's what you're saying, what faith are you talking about?

the concept that pagans (the word "paganus" is Latin for a country dweller with backward beliefs) are less deserving of basic human rights because of their misguided beliefs. From people who claim to care about the less fortunate, I find that level of hypocrisy to be offensive in the extreme.

First of all, Trudeau is not saying that they should not get medicine. Heck, it's their choice whether or not to get treated by medicine that is based on the fact of evolution. Plenty of people make that choice all the time.

Trudueu is cleverly poking fun at theists' reliance on science to survive, despite some of their ferocious attempts to dilute science by trying to dispute evolution's certainty and include an antiquated, unverifiable (and therefore unscientific) idea into science textbooks. Hence Trudeau's inclusion of doctor hoping the patient is 'only' a Sunday creationist, and not one of these lunatics.

I think you are putting words into Gary Trudeau's mouth and treating him and his strip rather unfairly.

 

[Satchel]

Is atheism not a faith?

 

[Aisengard]

It's an anti-faith, which qualifies.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Is atheism not a faith?

Originally posted by: Satchel
It's an anti-faith, which qualifies.

Atheism is neither a faith nor an anti-faith. Parsing the word into its components, it is a, meaning without, plus theism, which is belief in the existence of a deity. If anything, it is the antithesis of a faith.

It doesn't mean that defining oneself as an atheist doesn't have faith in something. It just faith, meaning unsupported belief, is not a requirement to be an atheist. The two are totally unrelated, except as a matter of coincidence.

All of this BS arguing back and forth about it is enough to make me anti-semantic. :laugh:

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Satchel
Is atheism not a faith?

Yes it is, since they are certain of the non-existence of both God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, even though science can only show there is no postive evidence for their existence.

We agnostics are the only ones truly following the path of science

 

[Aisengard]

I always thought that if you weren't sure there is a God, or don't care, you're an agnostic. And to be an atheist, you had to have faith that there was not a God, because there's no proof there isn't. I think that to say there is no god because there is no proof is something different than being atheist.