Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Starboy · 09-08-2002, 11:36 AM

Sorry RufusAtticus. Sorry Vanderzeyden.

Starboy

RufusAtticus · 09-08-2002, 12:02 PM

Thank you, for your cooperation.

Doubting Didymus · 09-08-2002, 04:54 PM

Vander, I don't see how we can make our motives for being suspicious of you any clearer. An entire thread is devoted, not to bashing your integrity, but to an attempt to get an answer to allegetions of libel.

If you imagine youreslf in a court, the trial would proceed as follows.

Judge: "Vanderzyden, you stand accused of libel. How do you plead?"

vanderzyden enters no plea.

Judge: "Is it accurate to assume that you will not answer these allegations because they are, in fact, true?"

vanderzyden says nothing

Judge: "These are the quotes you cited, and here they are in context, can you see that the quotes are not used appropriately?"

vanderzyden says nothing

Judge: "would you agree that the use of the quotes in this manner constitutes libel?"

vanderzyden says nothing

Judge: "The floor is open to the prosecution"

Prosecutor: "your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, vanderzyden in clearly guilty of libel"

Vanderzyden: "why are you calling me a liar? what is wrong with you people?"

Starboy · 09-10-2002, 08:30 AM

Well it seems pretty obvious that Vanderzyden had a hidden agenda. It would be nice if he would be honest and just come out with it.

Starboy

Doubting Didymus · 09-10-2002, 02:49 PM

I think his agenda is clear: his main thrust is that he thinks science is biased toward atheism and should accept god as an explanation.

His evolution denial is the usual: no good mutaions, speciation impossible, phylogeny unreliable etc. What makes him so unusual is that he sticks to a single point like a rottweiler in the face of overwhelming evidence, unlike most creationists who abandon it and move on to another topic immediately.

He hasn't even admitted that the fused human chromosome looks like two chimp chromosomes end to end. This is quite absurd, similar to saying that AB does not look like an A and a B stuck together.

Starboy · 09-10-2002, 04:35 PM

Hey DD, sorry to skip out on you the other night, but it was getting late here. If Vanderzyden thinks that science is a-theistic, I would agree with him. The exclusion of supernatural explanations would automatically make it a-theistic. I think that sticks in his craw and I don�t understand why that is. Isn�t religion enough for him? Cooking is not based on a philosophy of god, is that going to be next on his list of targets?

Vanderzyden's attack on evolution illuminates his lack of knowledge of science in general. He wants to compare it to logic or mathematics and doesn't seem to understand that science gets very messy when you get down to the nitty-gritty. It is extremely hard to do good science and crucial ideas are seldom settled overnight. The process of science eventually gets down to which idea is the most powerful at explaining things. He is right, that is not proof, but as we discussed before, IMO science is not about proof or truth, but about what works. A theory that works better is a better theory that is all. Everyone tries to tell him over and over that ID is a lousy idea not because it is false, but because for the purposes of science it is useless. He either doesn�t like that answer or he doesn�t get it.

He claims to be a philosopher but I wonder about that. I wonder if he could answer a pop philosophy quiz in person? He seems to want to turn science into some sort of philosophy. I don�t think he realizes that has already been done. It was a disaster. As I have stated before, science is something completely new, unlike religion, philosophy or mathematics. For understanding our surroundings there has never been anything more successful. He would do well to figure out what science is before deciding it needs to be changed.

Starboy

Doubting Didymus · 09-10-2002, 06:27 PM

Ah, but vander thinks that science is atheistic bacause of a 'naturalistic bias'. You and I both know that it is atheistic solely because of the lack of evidence for god.

Would you agree that if there were any evidence for god, science would confirm the presence of god?

Starboy · 09-10-2002, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
<strong>Ah, but vander thinks that science is atheistic bacause of a 'naturalistic bias'. You and I both know that it is atheistic solely because of the lack of evidence for god.

Would you agree that if there were any evidence for god, science would confirm the presence of god?</strong>

That is the funny thing about all of this. How do we know we haven't. By definition everything we detect is natural. The world would be a different place today if the first scientist to detect quantum phenomena declared, "I have found god! Look the universe is supposed to be deterministic and at the atomic level it is not." We all know that is not what happened. All the physicists went to work and came up with a natural explaination. If we ever did detect god we would never know it. What ever we found would just be another strange and marvelous aspect of the universe. Science doesn't need god even if god did exist. God is irrelevant to science and science should be irrelevant to god.

Starboy

[ September 10, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-08-2002, 11:36 AM	#21
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Sorry RufusAtticus. Sorry Vanderzeyden. Starboy

09-08-2002, 12:02 PM	#22
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Thank you, for your cooperation.

09-08-2002, 04:54 PM	#23
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Vander, I don't see how we can make our motives for being suspicious of you any clearer. An entire thread is devoted, not to bashing your integrity, but to an attempt to get an answer to allegetions of libel. If you imagine youreslf in a court, the trial would proceed as follows. Judge: "Vanderzyden, you stand accused of libel. How do you plead?" vanderzyden enters no plea. Judge: "Is it accurate to assume that you will not answer these allegations because they are, in fact, true?" vanderzyden says nothing Judge: "These are the quotes you cited, and here they are in context, can you see that the quotes are not used appropriately?" vanderzyden says nothing Judge: "would you agree that the use of the quotes in this manner constitutes libel?" vanderzyden says nothing Judge: "The floor is open to the prosecution" Prosecutor: "your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, vanderzyden in clearly guilty of libel" Vanderzyden: "why are you calling me a liar? what is wrong with you people?"

09-10-2002, 08:30 AM	#24
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Well it seems pretty obvious that Vanderzyden had a hidden agenda. It would be nice if he would be honest and just come out with it. Starboy

09-10-2002, 02:49 PM	#25
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	I think his agenda is clear: his main thrust is that he thinks science is biased toward atheism and should accept god as an explanation. His evolution denial is the usual: no good mutaions, speciation impossible, phylogeny unreliable etc. What makes him so unusual is that he sticks to a single point like a rottweiler in the face of overwhelming evidence, unlike most creationists who abandon it and move on to another topic immediately. He hasn't even admitted that the fused human chromosome looks like two chimp chromosomes end to end. This is quite absurd, similar to saying that AB does not look like an A and a B stuck together.

09-10-2002, 04:35 PM	#26
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Hey DD, sorry to skip out on you the other night, but it was getting late here. If Vanderzyden thinks that science is a-theistic, I would agree with him. The exclusion of supernatural explanations would automatically make it a-theistic. I think that sticks in his craw and I don�t understand why that is. Isn�t religion enough for him? Cooking is not based on a philosophy of god, is that going to be next on his list of targets? Vanderzyden's attack on evolution illuminates his lack of knowledge of science in general. He wants to compare it to logic or mathematics and doesn't seem to understand that science gets very messy when you get down to the nitty-gritty. It is extremely hard to do good science and crucial ideas are seldom settled overnight. The process of science eventually gets down to which idea is the most powerful at explaining things. He is right, that is not proof, but as we discussed before, IMO science is not about proof or truth, but about what works. A theory that works better is a better theory that is all. Everyone tries to tell him over and over that ID is a lousy idea not because it is false, but because for the purposes of science it is useless. He either doesn�t like that answer or he doesn�t get it. He claims to be a philosopher but I wonder about that. I wonder if he could answer a pop philosophy quiz in person? He seems to want to turn science into some sort of philosophy. I don�t think he realizes that has already been done. It was a disaster. As I have stated before, science is something completely new, unlike religion, philosophy or mathematics. For understanding our surroundings there has never been anything more successful. He would do well to figure out what science is before deciding it needs to be changed. Starboy

09-10-2002, 06:27 PM	#27
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Ah, but vander thinks that science is atheistic bacause of a 'naturalistic bias'. You and I both know that it is atheistic solely because of the lack of evidence for god. Would you agree that if there were any evidence for god, science would confirm the presence of god?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.