Dawkins 1 - Creationists 0

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Sure they do, you just refuse to admit it.
False.

You are limiting human writing quite a bit. There is almost as much said in what is missing as what is there. When you choose specific words, you are saying much more than what those words say.
So your claim is now that there AREN'T words that say what you claim they say.

Thanks for conceding the point.

I return you to jill falling down the hill after Jack. Did she bust her head open like Jack did? There are no words saying she did not, but since there are words saying Jack did and nothing saying Jill did as well, we can rightfully say Jill did not break her head. Nowhere does it say such, but we know it is true nonetheless due to the absense of including Jill in the head breaking.
That is the most totured abuse of logic I've ever seen. No wonder you're such an idiot.

Homer's Iliad doesn't say that Abraham Lincoln was President, therefore Abraham Lincoln wasn't President.

Fuck's sake, that's a new level of stupid. Congrats.





To a limited extent I can, limited only by vocabulary. I have troubles when the nikkud are missing, and usually try to find versions with them. My siddur uses nikkud, and it is a huge help. The above is missing the nikkud, would it help you if I posted a version with them added?
It doesn't matter, it wouldn't help your argument.




Why did you rant and rave for the actual words if you could not read them? Seems pretty foolish to foam at the mouth for something you cannot understand.
I didn't say that I couldn't read them.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
All you have to do is become civil and the discussion can continue. Until then, why should I waste my time on someone who acts like you?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
False.


So your claim is now that there AREN'T words that say what you claim they say.

Thanks for conceding the point.

Nope, you simply cannot comprehend the fact that language has many levels of meaning.


Homer's Iliad doesn't say that Abraham Lincoln was President, therefore Abraham Lincoln wasn't President.

Fuck's sake, that's a new level of stupid. Congrats.

We do agree here, you have taken your arguments to a new level of stupid.


I didn't say that I couldn't read them.

You implied it, with the words you used. This is a perfect example of what I have been attempting to get you to understand. I bet you did not even know what a nikkud was until you did a web search for the word.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
Nope, you simply cannot comprehend the fact that language has many levels of meaning.
You are invited to show where any "multiple levels of meaning" show that words exist in the text that say what you claim that they say. To date, you have been unable.

We do agree here, you have taken your arguments to a new level of stupid.
Oh, that's just stupendous. The "I know you are, but what am I" rebuttal. Did you think that one up all on your own, sport, or did you hear it on the playground at recess?


You implied it, with the words you used.
Which words?
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,940
542
126
All you have to do is become civil and the discussion can continue.
I told you I would stop pointing out that you are a disingenuous prick when you stop being a disingenuous prick.

It's your move, prick.

Until then, why should I waste my time on someone who acts like you?
If you thought you actually could win this fight, you wouldn't be so quick to pussy out.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
I suppose intelligence is relative. Personally I don't see that he's a superior mind compared to many of those he dislikes. His attitude towards those who do not view things as he does is that they are "quislings to science". Think that's an exaggeration? That's how he referred to Martin Rees, who is an atheist and overshadows Dawkins in scientific accomplishments. I tend to see Rees side of things because he can understand what is applicable to science and what is not as well as when to point out the difference. He also seems to know when to keep quiet. Dawkins does not educate, uplift or encourage. He pontificates. He's a hellfire and brimstone personality that thinks damnation is avoided by accepting Him as Your Personal Scientific Savior. If that's not his intention he has a lot of people fooled.



Well that's a good question that I have no scientific interest in. Philosophically? Sure, but then again I don't have the need to proselytize and conflate science and considerations of God. I would wager that he would believe me a disbeliever or an inferior because I accept the difference between that which can be understood in principle and that which cannot. The realization that not all is amenable to examination by any one method is a sign of intellectual and emotional maturity. Neither Rees nor myself would ever accept Creationism as valid and certainly not acceptable as a valid scientific theory. The difference is that we don't feel compelled to beat people over the head with the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. Knowledge itself is rewarding and we needn't elevate ourselves in our eyes insisting that others be our clones. The world is too wondrous and varied for those constraints, which eludes our dear Dawkins.

Whether or not his scientific views are correct isn't much of an issue for me. It's that he's a such a bankrupt human being who has no tolerance for ideas outside his own.

I guess it is all a matter of whether you think religion is a positive or negative influence on humankind. Dawkins tends to highlight silly things like abstinence only education, holy wars, and anti-evolution groups.
 

CrackRabbit

Lifer
Mar 30, 2001
16,642
62
91
Nah, I have actually read much of the Quran...how about you, read any of it? To know about a religon, one must actually read the holy book of that religion. The Quran is a hard read, due to the way it is written, and some day I will finish all of it.

Have you ever read the entire Tanakh? The entire Brit Chadashah (New Covenant, often translated as Testament)?

Reading different religions texts has nothing to do with the argument in this thread.
As a note, I have not read any of the ones you have listed. I will also likely never read them as I have no use for what they say. They are as useful in my life as the collected myths of the ancient Greeks, Romans, Mayans, Sumerians, Chinese, Japanese, Celts, Norse, Native American Tribes and Egyptians.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
You are an idiot....

Wait, you are the one who did not know the crown mentioned in the Jack and Jill story is his head and you claim I am the idiot? :D


As an aside, it also stood for the Royal Crown...but you can look up the rest of the info on your own.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
Wait, you are the one who did not know the crown mentioned in the Jack and Jill story is his head and you claim I am the idiot? :D


As an aside, it also stood for the Royal Crown...but you can look up the rest of the info on your own.

So you call someones head a crown... give me a break troll.

Someone is seriously a fucking idiot if they were to believe this.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
How do you test that carbon dating is accurate back 4 billion years? We'd have to create a test which would prove the tests are accurate. We can't, and will never be able to. We assume the scale is linear, when we have no way to know for sure.

Here is what wiki says:

Carbon-14 has a relatively short half-life of 5730 years.

How do we know it is 5730 years? How did they determine this?

So in effect your point is:

"It doesn't make sense to me that science can accurately determine a half-life as long as 5730 years. My common sense tells me that in order to come up with a half-life that long scientists would need to wait 5730 years and then measure how much of the substance remained."

Or to put this another way,

"I'm ignorant about science. Therefore, what I don't understand cannot be true."

Are you even willing to acknowledge that such reasoning is highly irrational? I would venture to guess that you don't understand the vast bulk of scientific knowledge. But since most of this knowledge doesn't challenge your belief system, you have no problem accepting that it's true.

And yet, the measurement of a radioactive substance's half-life - even an extraordinary-long half life - is extremely simple, and can be accomplished in a very short period of time.

The "key" to the calculation is that even a very small mass of a substance contains vast numbers of atoms. For example, 1 gram of Carbon14 contains 4.3 x 10**22 atoms. Thus, over the half-life of the substance, half of those atoms will decay. Or to put this another way, one atom of Carbon14 is a "coin" that has a 50-50 chance of coming up heads (= decaying) over the course of the half-life. And more generally, the odds that an atom of Carbon14 will decay over a period of time, t, is:

1 - (1/2)**(t/H)

where H is the half-life of the material. Even for a very long half-life (for example, 1 billion years), we would expect 13.6 MILLION decays per second from a sample containing 4.3 x 10**22 atoms. Thus, by measuring the number of decays from a known sample in a known period of time, we can compute what the value of H is in the above equation. And this measurement is repeated many times during different experiments to achieve extremely high confidence in the accuracy of the result.

We don't even have to capture all of the decays. Since decay products will (on a random basis) be emitted in random directions, if we count the emissions in a fraction of the solid angle surrounding the sample, we can accurately extrapolate to the count over the entire solid-angle (4-pi steradians) surrounding the sample.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
another dead end thread..................

The ultimate problem - in my opinion - is that those who think ID deserves to be discussed alongside Evolution in science classes just don't understand what the word "science" means. They don't get the scientific process. They don't understand the concept of "falsifiability." They are simply unable (or unwilling) to grasp the concept that scientific "truth" never means certainty. And they continually "argue from ignorance" by insisting that if there are holes in a theoretical framework, that "proves" that the supernatural must be the true explanation.

And to the extent that people are more committed to propping up their belief systems than educating themselves, there will always be a sizable fraction of the population whose intellects reside in the dark ages.
 

LiuKangBakinPie

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
3,903
0
0
The ultimate problem - in my opinion - is that those who think ID deserves to be discussed alongside Evolution in science classes just don't understand what the word "science" means. They don't get the scientific process. They don't understand the concept of "falsifiability." They are simply unable (or unwilling) to grasp the concept that scientific "truth" never means certainty. And they continually "argue from ignorance" by insisting that if there are holes in a theoretical framework, that "proves" that the supernatural must be the true explanation.

And to the extent that people are more committed to propping up their belief systems than educating themselves, there will always be a sizable fraction of the population whose intellects reside in the dark ages.

We had a bible class till up to the 2nd year of high school but it wasn't like a subject. It was like Physical Ed. That's where we learned about the bible.

In biology and Science we learned about evolution and those sort of things. The two didn't mix and I was surprised that there is place where people try to mix the two up. It's like using the Writings of Nostradamus in the history class
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
The nursery rhyme doesn't say Jill broke her crown, therefore we can say she did not break her crown.

The nursery rhyme doesn't say the crown was his head, therefore we can say that the crown was not his head.

Way to think that one all the way thru, genius.

True, but it's the context of the language of when it was written. I'm not defneding the douche of cyber on his strange logic elsewhere. But this nursery rhyme was written when crown was typically used more to denote the head. Also in rhymes, words are typically picked to rhyme with other words in the stanza. "Jack fell down and broke his head" doesn't exactly rhyme.

But trying to get extra meaning out of a meaningless children's rhyme is the epitome of stupid. It's meant as a silly limerick to entertain young children. Not to extrapolate some hidden meaning that contains some special secret. Only doped up potheads would think otherwise in my experience.


As for trying to derive logic of a written passage for what is NOT written is equally stupid. Again something only potheads, paranoids, and schizos would try that.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I will say it agian you call someones head a crown... give me a break troll.


Come back and use English, oh wait you won't as you are just trolling and have ZERO to add to anything. You will now be ignored.

The story about Jack and Jill IS in English. Do you really know nothing about it?
 
Last edited:

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
True, but it's the context of the language of when it was written. I'm not defneding the awesomesauce of cyber on his powerful logic elsewhere. But this nursery rhyme was written when crown was typically used more to denote the head. Also in rhymes, words are typically picked to rhyme with other words in the stanza. "Jack fell down and broke his head" doesn't exactly rhyme.

But trying to get extra meaning out of a meaningless children's rhyme is the epitome of stupid. It's meant as a silly limerick to entertain young children. Not to extrapolate some hidden meaning that contains some special secret. Only doped up potheads would think otherwise in my experience.

Actually, nursery rhymes were often used to tell other bits of info. Ring around the Rosies is not actually about kids playing, Rock a bye baby is not actually a song invented to get kids to sleep faster. On and on.


As for trying to derive logic of a written passage for what is NOT written is equally stupid. Again something only potheads, paranoids, and schizos would try that.

Untrue. If you ask your only child if they broke the lamp and that child just look at you and says nothing, what do you think it means?
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
The story about Jack and Jill IS an English story. Do you really know nothing about it?

Old English. Well older English that is. The point also being it is a story meant to be a rhyme, not an explanatory expose'. There is a difference when you are writing a document as an explanation for a particular subject, versus writing fiction where you may try to put in extra hidden meanings for various plot devices. Not everything is written like Conrad's Heart of Darkness where the author is trying to put in many literary allusions and allegories and other plot devices like foreshadowing and red herrings for the sake of keeping the reader on their toes.

When you are writing out a technical or explanatory document then those writings are done in the most simplistic of manner possible for the targeted audience.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
The nursery rhyme doesn't say Jill broke her crown, therefore we can say she did not break her crown.

The nursery rhyme doesn't say the crown was his head, therefore we can say that the crown was not his head.

Way to think that one all the way thru, genius.

The crown is the top of your head. It is the meaning of the word.