posted
swbarnes, I think you're being unfair with Ron. His original mistake was purely a matter of terminology, and he accepted the corrections he received. To claim that he was deliberately lying about the number of proteins expressed by the human genome is to assume that he can distinguish between a DNA base and a protein, that he knows how many books a gigabyte is, that he knows what an order of magnitude is, that he can intuit the difference between the number of bits in a sequence and the number of possible sequences with a given number of bits: namely, you are assuming too much.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike: swbarnes, I think you're being unfair with Ron. His original mistake was purely a matter of terminology,
No, it's not. The vast majority of life doesn't have a billion bases in their genome, either. Even humans, whicn I bet Ron thinks of as the epitomy of Creation, only have about three billion. Ron knows this, because I have told him, and pointed him to references which show this.
And to mix up proteins and bases is not just a mistake in terminology. Middle schoolers should know the difference, which means that grown-ups claiming to understand the science better than the world-wide comunity of experts must understand it too if they expect to be taken seriously. If he mistyped, he should say "Oops, I mistyped, I do know middle school science", and should trust that the contents of his other posts supports him.
quote:and he accepted the corrections he received.
Has he accepted the correction about his assessment of the number of proteins or bases in most of the genomes on the earth? How many times has he claimed that genomes contain "libraries" of alternate characteristics, and utrerly failed to demonstrate the existance of this library when asked?
quote:To claim that he was deliberately lying about the number of proteins expressed by the human genome is to assume that he can distinguish between a DNA base and a protein,
I expect that adults understand the words they use. You are telling me that I should not extend this basic courtesy to Ron. That I should not assume that he possesses a middle school education.
Well, I'll start acting that way when Ron tells me, and not before. For all I know, he does have some kind of link to a crackpot paper telling him that there are a billion different proteins in humans. If I ask him for his evidence, and he tells it to me, then we are all on the same page. If I assume that he doesn't mean what he says, and I substitute what I think he thinks, and wanted to say, that's a recipe for gross misunderstanding.
I believe it is the responbility of every poster, especially those making factual claims that they know are going to be disputed, to be prepared to back up their claims with links to evidence. And nearly every claim Ron makes about science falls in that category. If he can't stand the heat, he should stay out of the kitchen. If Ron is going to make quantitative statements, he needs to have his numbers and sources at the ready.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raventhief: Your most recent post seems to indicate that both sides have the burden of proof, but the atheist side has found its proof while the theists have not. Does that accurately sum up your thoughts?
Not exactly. The only atheists who have anything to prove are the ones who say they know there is no god. Very few atheists, if pressed, will actually go that far. Even Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens don't go that far.
Now, evolutionists do have a burden of proof. The claim is that all modern forms of life developed gradually from earlier forms of life, stretching back billions of years. That is, as you say, an extraordinary claim. But we have been gathering evidence for it since the days of Charles Darwin, and every single bit of evidence gathered supports the claim, and not one scrap of evidence has ever contradicted it. There are vast mountains of evidence supporting evolution, to the point where it is as "proven" as anything in science ever gets. It is as proven as the theory of gravity and the germ theory of disease and the sex theory of reproduction.
But that's evolution, not atheism. There are quite a lot of theists who understand and accept evolution. Even the Catholic Church officially accepts evolution. So, Creationists aside, there isn't a conflict there.
But those who say there is a loving, caring, all-knowing, all-powerful God behind all this, who watches over His creation and guides its development, who cares what you eat, what you wear, which days you work and which days you rest, whom you go to bed with and in what way, well, they have quite a lot of explaining left to do. None of the evidence they have presented over the millennia has stood up to scrutiny. It takes faith to believe it, because the evidence, if not exactly against it, does not in any way support it, either. That fact by itself is evidence enough for the atheist position that there is no reason to believe it. It is those who want us to believe it who have the burden of proof, and good luck to them.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: And to mix up proteins and bases is not just a mistake in terminology.
You're right, it goes beyond a simple mistake in terminology; it's a more fundamental lack of understanding than that. I was oversimplifying things. However, to claim such a lack of understanding is an outright lie seems to me to be a stretch.
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: I expect that adults understand the words they use. You are telling me that I should not extend this basic courtesy to Ron. That I should not assume that he possesses a middle school education.
Well, I'll start acting that way when Ron tells me, and not before.
Let me ask you a question then: do you expect him to fess up? To say "You know, you're right, I don't understand any math or science at or beyond the middle school level, so please take that into account when I misuse big words or demonstrate a misunderstanding of the scientific method or complex theoretical ideas." Given your assessment of the likelihood of this happening, how much sense does it make to spend effort rebutting his arguments as though he understood the issues? Especially with the apparent (to me) vehemence and frustration you tend to fall into.
Then again, here we are falling into the trap of discussing another poster in the third person, which is, as was pointed out recently in Papa's thread, not a very good sign. Ron, I apologize, and feel free to jump in at any time.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike: Let me ask you a question then: do you expect him to fess up?
I expect an honest person to fess up. I conclude from the evidence of previous posts that Ron will not do so, though I am open to having this hypothesis falsified by new evidence.
quote:Given your assessment of the likelihood of this happening, how much sense does it make to spend effort rebutting his arguments as though he understood the issues?
I don't intend to convince him at all. I don't think it's possible. Frankly, he's not presenting the argments that actually convinced him, so utterly demolishing these arguments won't change his mind. He believes for religious reasons, and reason can't touch them if the believer doesn't allow it. I hope to convince those who aren't familiar with the evidence that while Ron might speak as if he is in posession of all the facts, he's woefully ignorant of them, and that in fact, it only takes a proficient person moments to pull up the evidence that proves he has no idea what he is talking about.
More importantly, I don't think that repeating falsified claims is a behavior that should pass unnoticed. It should be objected to, and not feebly.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe I've said that. In fact, I said it in the excerpt you quoted. "It is those who want us to believe it who have the burden of proof," which is exactly what I meant to say. If you don't care if I believe it, you don't need to prove anything. But if you want me to believe it too, that's when you have a lot of explaining to do.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The implication was that "those who say there is a loving, caring, all-knowing, all-powerful God behind all this, who watches over His creation and guides its development, who cares what you eat, what you wear, which days you work and which days you rest, whom you go to bed with and in what way" = "those who want us to believe".
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In a debate, yes, those who make that assertion have the burden of proof. And around here, conversations often do turn into debates. I don't mind who believes in it, I really don't. In an ordinary day-to-day situation, I don't go around talking about it. I have a fairly good idea who among my friends believes it, though not a complete idea, and I don't have the slightest idea who among my coworkers believes it. It's not a subject that I bring up. And if someone happens to mention that they believe, I don't stand there and argue with them about it, either.
But if the current conversation is a debate about the issue, as it is here, then I am not out of line in saying that if you're going to assert that it is true, then you have the burden of proof. I'm not saying you are obligated to supply proof just because you believe it. If you want me to believe it, that's when I'll challenge you. If you don't care if I believe, then I don't care about challenging you.
I'm only discussing things like burden of proof in this thread because that's sort of what this thread is about. I know it's hard to predict what my behavior will be because I've been inactive on this board for a couple of years, and I was a lot less vocal about belief back then. So you may be worried that I'm going to pull a KoM and drop into every thread where God is even mentioned just to be snide or make challenges. I can't assure you that I won't, because you'd have no reason to believe me, but just watch and see what I do. I think you'll find that I don't bother about it most of the time. I don't have contempt for the faithful and I don't go around looking for theists to challenge. But that doesn't excuse any theists who may want to challenge me from the burden of proof that is inherent on those who are making a positive assertion.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: More importantly, I don't think that repeating falsified claims is a behavior that should pass unnoticed. It should be objected to, and not feebly.
Well if that's your battle, then good luck, but I suspect your efforts would be spent more effectively elsewhere.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
You know this is maybe the one great benefit to stardestroyer.net, Ron would have gotten himself banned after about 5 posts for repeating the same arguments without proof. (As it is a banable offense to not back up your arguments)
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: You know this is maybe the one great benefit to stardestroyer.net, Ron would have gotten himself banned after about 5 posts for repeating the same arguments without proof. (As it is a banable offense to not back up your arguments)
I cannot fathom how this rule would be enforced. Whose job is it to determine whether an argument contains proof? The only fair way is using rigid, truly mathematical standards devised by the ancient Greeks, measuring nothing but logos, which would greatly diminish interest if such a standard were placed.
While it is a desirable ideal to argue relying on logic, reason, and facts, failing to do so shouldn't prompt punitive action. Rather, someone should just come out and point out the logical fallacy. If someone cares enough about rational discussions as to ban those who don't contribute rigid enough arguments, then that same person should be motivated enough to point out anything wrong with what someone is saying. Banning people for arguing with no support is counterproductive: de facto definitions of "proof" or "evidence" are shaky enough to be twisted into biased judgments, despite the fact that the actual denotations of "proof" and "evidence" are quite solid. The mediator to decide what constitutes evidence could, in theory, use an objective standard for sound arguments, but I am willing to wager that the temptation to fall back on intuition is too strong for this practice to be useful.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
swbarnes2--why are you ducking the real point I was making, that the information density of the human genome is so immensely great, it makes Intelligent Design the only possible explanation for the existence of life and the universe, and that evolution is impossible to anyone willing to be truly reasonable about it? Which you apparently do not wish to be. You appear to be too in love with being insulting for its own sake. Let me give you a clue: Such does NOT make you look smarter than the target of your venom.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:the information density of the human genome is so immensely great, it makes Intelligent Design the only possible explanation for the existence of life and the universe, and that evolution is impossible to anyone willing to be truly reasonable about it?
Some points: 1) The information density of the human genome is not as high as you think it is. 2) We do not know how informationally dense something has to be before it is impossible for that thing to arise without conscious intervention. To claim otherwise is to beg the question. 3) I think you would need to define "truly reasonable" in a way unrecognizable to anyone posting at Hatrack for this to be remotely true.
You complain that Barnes hasn't "addressed" these issues of yours. I would argue that he and others have not only addressed but demolished point #1. Point #2 does not particularly need to be addressed, as there is no actual science behind it. And Point #3, in the same way, is merely a statement of opinion -- which people are clearly entitled to disagree with without feeling compelled to rebut.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron - I've noticed that you very often make statements like "it makes Intelligent Design the only possible explanation for the existence of life and the universe, and that evolution is impossible to anyone willing to be truly reasonable about it". You state these things like their obvious facts, and seem to think that you need NEVER provide any actual arguments to back them us since they're "obvious".
They may be obvious to one who believes exactly what you believe already but to the rest of us they are patently not obvious. In fact, to many of us it's obvious that you are just plain wrong.
So you really do need to either start backing up your statements *somehow* or you need to realize that the only people here who will ever believe you already do and the rest of us are just annoyed by your insistence on posting ridiculous statements over and over and over again like you are actually the one who is right.
The bottom line: I reject your above quoted statement completely (just like you have rejected so many others). Now it's your turn - everyone you have said this to has provided backup info to their position - it's your turn to do the same. Convince me that ID is the only possible explanation... I'll listen to any argument you want to make provided it has some facts behind it. Give me links to things to read, give me reasoning. PLEASE!
It's put-up or shut-up time, I think!
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The complexity of the universe, especially of the genomes of living creatures, could not happen by chance through any kind of natural processes. This is self-evident to any reasonable person. It is only disputed by those determined to hold on to their belief in evolution against any contrary arguments or evidence, no matter what. The burden of proof is not on me, it is on my belligerent attackers, to prove that the complexity of the universe and of the genomes of living creatures could arise by chance. How can anyone possibly be so blind to the obvious, that complexity of design on this level can only be produced by Intelligence?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because we have astonishingly good models, supported by extensive experiments, of ways it could have happened otherwise.
Also, you seem to neglect the possibility that some outside force could set up a complicated system that would lead everything to work. After all, aren't you of a religion that ascribes omnipotence to God? Who are you to reject the possibility that he set up a complicated universe that could proceed without his intervention? That view isn't even in conflict with any scientific theory (since it isn't a question science is capable of investigating).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wouldn't it be rather more productive to address the fact that Ron makes no new arguments, but merely re-asserts his old assertions? There comes a point when discussion is no longer productive and you just have to acknowledge that someone is dishonest.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Ron, you have two basic options here.
One, your argument makes so much sense that it's impossible to disagree with it without some ulterior and likely nefarious motive. Or two, your argument is actually not nearly as persuasive as you're claiming it is, and those disagreeing with you aren't necessarily brainwashed idiots just by virtue of disagreeing.
Being such a big believer as you are in original sin and the fall of man, well, it's frankly a very prideful thing to believe that people disagreeing with your statements are by definition so staggeringly blind to the obvious.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The complexity of the universe, especially of the genomes of living creatures, could not happen by chance through any kind of natural processes.
Dawkins goes to great lengths in The God Delusion to explain that evolutionists don't believe this either (particularly, your use of the word "chance").
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, in fact, I do not. I have never been guilty of merely repeating assertions as a form of argument; nor of dishonestly presenting assertions of fact which others have effectively demolished (multiple times) as though they were new evidence; nor of ignoring arguments I cannot respond to.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you think others do, right? That's certainly been the impression I get anyways, my bigger point being: if no one's listening, why keep shouting? And here you seemed to agree. Anyways, I didn't mean to derail, though I have to agree with you in this case, I don't really see this going anywhere productive.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The complexity of the universe, especially of the genomes of living creatures, could not happen by chance through any kind of natural processes. This is self-evident to any reasonable person. It is only disputed by those determined to hold on to their belief in evolution against any contrary arguments or evidence, no matter what. The burden of proof is not on me, it is on my belligerent attackers, to prove that the complexity of the universe and of the genomes of living creatures could arise by chance. How can anyone possibly be so blind to the obvious, that complexity of design on this level can only be produced by Intelligence?
I also might add, here is CreationWiki's own response to the claim that "Design is self-evident. You just need to open your eyes and see it.":
"This is pathetic. The source is from Talk Origins' feedback section and from someone who is clearly not coming from a scientific perspective. Just putting this on the list is scraping the bottom of the barrel."
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The complexity of the universe, especially of the genomes of living creatures, could not happen by chance through any kind of natural processes. This is self-evident to any reasonable person. It is only disputed by those determined to hold on to their belief in evolution against any contrary arguments or evidence, no matter what. The burden of proof is not on me, it is on my belligerent attackers, to prove that the complexity of the universe and of the genomes of living creatures could arise by chance. How can anyone possibly be so blind to the obvious, that complexity of design on this level can only be produced by Intelligence?
Ron, if it's so blindly obvious why do people who accept or believe in evolution so vastly out number those who do not?
The number of people who reject Evolution outright once shown the evidence these days is pretty small.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just stop arguing with him. You will never change his mind, ever. His bible is all the answer he needs. The man believes the universe is less than 10,000 years old, you cannot argue with someone who believes that.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: But you think others do, right? That's certainly been the impression I get anyways, my bigger point being: if no one's listening, why keep shouting? And here you seemed to agree. Anyways, I didn't mean to derail, though I have to agree with you in this case, I don't really see this going anywhere productive.
Hobbes
Well, there's such a thing as a difference of degree. Ron's dishonesty is utterly blatant and shameless. Most others here at least pay lip service to wanting actual discussion.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
King of Men, funny you should mention shamelessness, when no one has ever demolished any of my arguments as you claim, only disagreed with them and resorted to personal attacks. You are the one who lies repeatedly and ascribes to me the dishonesty which you are the one guilty of.
Swine are worse than trolls. Perhaps you are the swine Jesus spoke of, who are enraged when someone feeds them pearls. You can't help yourself. Your sinful nature, which you freely indulge rather than resist, makes you Satan's puppet, and he fills you with hateful rage, so all you can think of is finding ways to express this. This is why you cannot post anything without being insulting. You have let yourself slip too far under Satan's power. Good, decent, honorable, and honest people do not speak the way you do.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM can be harsh, but I don't recall him calling anyone swine. You might want to think about disparaging personal attacks in the same post that you make personal attacks.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... You have let yourself slip too far under Satan's power. Good, decent, honorable, and honest people do not speak the way you do.
quote:Perhaps you are the swine Jesus spoke of, who are enraged when someone feeds them pearls.
To be fair, were I a pig, I'd be annoyed if someone fed me pearls.
But yes, Ron, your arguments have been demolished. That you don't recognize this -- that you simply don't know enough about science to understand that this is the case -- is no one's fault but yours.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: King of Men, funny you should mention shamelessness, when no one has ever demolished any of my arguments as you claim, only disagreed with them and resorted to personal attacks. You are the one who lies repeatedly and ascribes to me the dishonesty which you are the one guilty of.
Swine are worse than trolls. Perhaps you are the swine Jesus spoke of, who are enraged when someone feeds them pearls. You can't help yourself. Your sinful nature, which you freely indulge rather than resist, makes you Satan's puppet, and he fills you with hateful rage, so all you can think of is finding ways to express this. This is why you cannot post anything without being insulting. You have let yourself slip too far under Satan's power. Good, decent, honorable, and honest people do not speak the way you do.
Rolf has asked me to act as his friend in this matter, and inform you, firstly, that he will accept no communication from such as you; and secondly, that if you wish to prove yourself a man of honour, the time for words has passed. I await a suggestion from you, or your friends, as to where and when this might be settled.
Words can no longer settle this only action.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: King of Men, funny you should mention shamelessness, when no one has ever demolished any of my arguments as you claim, only disagreed with them and resorted to personal attacks. You are the one who lies repeatedly and ascribes to me the dishonesty which you are the one guilty of.
You have not made any arguments, only contentions. Stating something is not an argument. You need to back up a statement with evidence or logic (preferably both), something you have consistently failed to do.
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps you are the swine Jesus spoke of, who are enraged when someone feeds them pearls.
To be fair, were I a pig, I'd be annoyed if someone fed me pearls.
Of course, the pigs in Jesus's story weren't angry. They just didn't value the pearls. Matthew 7:6
Ron is just flat out wrong, again. Really, it took seconds to get the original quote and determine that.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I recall, pigs only get really annoyed it you try to teach them to sing - or whistle - or engineering.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... You have let yourself slip too far under Satan's power. Good, decent, honorable, and honest people do not speak the way you do.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Swine are worse than trolls. Perhaps you are the swine Jesus spoke of, who are enraged when someone feeds them pearls. You can't help yourself. Your sinful nature, which you freely indulge rather than resist, makes you Satan's puppet, and he fills you with hateful rage, so all you can think of is finding ways to express this. This is why you cannot post anything without being insulting. You have let yourself slip too far under Satan's power. Good, decent, honorable, and honest people do not speak the way you do.
Not too long after the stop the personal attacks missive, here we have Ron Lambert dead seriously calling somebody "Satan's puppet."
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... You have let yourself slip too far under Satan's power. Good, decent, honorable, and honest people do not speak the way you do.
I must be missing something in that screen shot...
"Irony Overwhelming" is a mementic mutation of "power overwhelming" which was a catchphrase of the archon protoss units from starcraft and also a cheat code.
IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, I'm trying to decide whether Ron would be offended and stop watching or whether he'd miss the fact that it was a parody.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
