The naughty things creationists at AiG accept.

[bhsmte]

-_- fictional computer

Oh, shucks, he sounded real to me.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Oh, shucks, he sounded real to me.

*rolls eyes* not funny, even when the slight poke at religion is noticed.

 

[pgp_protector]

What about the Hal 9000?

Hal was a bad dude!

I was thinking more of IBM's Watson.

 

[CabVet]

Ooops 1. Speciation happens

“Within the resulting kinds, then, speciation (distinct from molecules-to-man evolution) likely proceeded quite rapidly after the Flood (against the backdrop of major ecological and environmental changes). Even today, speciation can happen quickly—see Rapid Speciation (Video). ”

from:-

News to Note, December 19, 2009 - Answers in Genesis

In other words: macroevolution is a lie, unless, of course, it can be used to explain what happened after the flood.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Watson still doesn't have to process the amount of sensory information that a person does. Maybe Watson has a degree of visual and auditory processing, but I highly doubt that Watson processes touch, taste, or smell at all. Watson also has no sense of self.

 

[loveofourlord]

Ironicly creationists have far more faith in evolution them people that accept it do, the evolution that be required for their models is thousands of times more powerful then anything we experience.

 

[mzungu]

Evolution is a process. It is not a sentient being.

As for computers; Quantum computers, will open up new horizons in artificiall intelligence. The rate of progress almost guarantees that a HAL 9000 type of computer will be a reality within the next few decades. Quantum boost for artificial intelligence : Nature News & Comment

Also the more we learn how the brain works the more we will be able to mimick its function. Science is an ongoing process and the more we learn the more we will be able to achieve. This also means that we progress geometrically. We have acquired more data in one year than humans have since ancient times.

Knowledge is a tool. The more we gain the more tools we have and the quicker we will be able to do things.

 

[FredHoyle]

Evolution is a process. It is not a sentient being.

As for computers; Quantum computers, will open up new horizons in artificiall intelligence. The rate of progress almost guarantees that a HAL 9000 type of computer will be a reality within the next few decades. Quantum boost for artificial intelligence : Nature News & Comment

Also the more we learn how the brain works the more we will be able to mimick its function. Science is an ongoing process and the more we learn the more we will be able to achieve. This also means that we progress geometrically. We have acquired more data in one year than humans have since ancient times.

Knowledge is a tool. The more we gain the more tools we have and the quicker we will be able to do things.

You can almost hear the creationists asking, 'Where is my God in all of this so called progress?'

I'll answer them before they ask, your God will remain in your mind where it started and where it will end,
it won't leave your mind until you stop believing in it, if you don't stop then it will simply die when you die,
your God exists only in your imagination so when your brain dies your imagination and your God dies with you.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You can almost hear the creationists asking, 'Where is my God in all of this so called progress?'

I'll answer them before they ask, your God will remain in your mind where it started and where it will end,
it won't leave your mind until you stop believing in it, if you don't stop then it will simply die when you die,
your God exists only in your imagination so when your brain dies your imagination and your God dies with you.

Harsh my semi-antitheist acquaintance. Ideas do not die, belief or no belief. So long as someone thinks about them, the idea lives. It is the sort of immortality that people dream of, to be remembered through the ages is to never truly die.

 

[FredHoyle]

You can almost hear the creationists asking, 'Where is my God in all of this so called progress?'

I'll answer them before they ask, your God will remain in your mind where it started and where it will end,
it won't leave your mind until you stop believing in it, if you don't stop then it will simply die when you die,
your God exists only in your imagination so when your brain dies your imagination and your God dies with you.

Harsh my semi-antitheist acquaintance. Ideas do not die, belief or no belief. So long as someone thinks about them, the idea lives. It is the sort of immortality that people dream of, to be remembered through the ages is to never truly die.

Please read what I wrote again.....

First,
I am not an antitheist I am totally and completely against theism, it damages, degrades and undermines every part of every civilisation it's ever been in, if it disappeared tomorrow the world and everyone in it would be much better off.

Second,
Their personal Gods die when they die and yes ideas do die, how many worshipers of Zeus do you know?
once he was the only game in town now where is he? try listing the ideas of Gods and beliefs now long gone,
ideas last only for as long as they're needed, some last longer than others but they all die eventually..

 

[PsychoSarah]

Please read what I wrote again.....

First,
I am not an antitheist I am totally and completely against theism, it damages, degrades and undermines every part of every civilisation it's ever been in, if it disappeared tomorrow the world and everyone in it would be much better off.

Second,
Their personal Gods die when they die and yes ideas do die, how many worshipers of Zeus do you know?
once he was the only game in town now where is he? try listing the ideas of Gods and beliefs now long gone,
ideas last only for as long as they're needed, some last longer than others but they all die eventually..

I still read the Greek and Roman myths, for entertainment purposes, people still know what Zeus refers to (well, plenty of people do, anyways) so Zeus as an idea has not died.

Also, from my understanding an antitheist is someone who is completely against beliefs in gods, so the only difference I see in your statement is that you just hate religion beyond worship in gods (so spiritual worship, etc, is also offensive to you).

Sure, a personal individual perspective will die with a person, but that isn't how idea immortality works. Consistency isn't the point.

 

[FredHoyle]

(so spiritual worship, etc, is also offensive to you).

As it should be to everyone, or do you think it's OK to try and get children to believe there's a magic man in the sky?

No society encourages superstition, do you know of one that does?
What is the difference between believing in a God and believing in horoscopes?

 

[PsychoSarah]

As it should be to everyone, or do you think it's OK to teach children there's a magic man in the sky?

No society encourages superstition, do you know of one that does?
What is the difference between believing in a God and believing in horoscopes?

I don't know why it makes you so mad. Sure, sometimes religion gets in the way of progress and it is frustrating, but it isn't as though extremists represent the majority. I would say that most theists are not creationists and respect the beliefs of others, and it isn't fair to let a small number of annoying people spur hatred for something you happen to associate with them.

 

[FredHoyle]

As it should be to everyone, or do you think it's OK to try and get children to believe there's a magic man in the sky?

No society encourages superstition, do you know of one that does?
What is the difference between believing in a God and believing in horoscopes?

I don't know why it makes you so mad. Sure, sometimes religion gets in the way of progress and it is frustrating, but it isn't as though extremists represent the majority. I would say that most theists are not creationists and respect the beliefs of others, and it isn't fair to let a small number of annoying people spur hatred for something you happen to associate with them.

Where did you get I was mad? I am not on about a few nut jobs I'm talking about teaching children something we do not know is true namely that there are Gods, why would we teach anyone something we did not have good evidence to believe was true? why stop at Gods? why not teach people that every myth we can ever think up is true?

If you believe one thing you have no good evidence to believe you are open to believing anything.

Apart from religion we do not believe anything without good evidence, you name one thing that you believe that you do not have good evidence to believe?

I don't hate religions I hate the damage they do.

 

[mzungu]

I still read the Greek and Roman myths, for entertainment purposes, people still know what Zeus refers to (well, plenty of people do, anyways) so Zeus as an idea has not died.

Also, from my understanding an antitheist is someone who is completely against beliefs in gods, so the only difference I see in your statement is that you just hate religion beyond worship in gods (so spiritual worship, etc, is also offensive to you).

Sure, a personal individual perspective will die with a person, but that isn't how idea immortality works. Consistency isn't the point.

In Greece; the Olypmpian Gods are a recognised religion by the state and has many followers. They [followers] conduct marriages, and other ceremonies. Zeus is still alive and kicking!

 

[PsychoSarah]

Where did you get I was mad? I am not on about a few nut jobs I'm talking about teaching children something we do not know is true namely that there are Gods, why would we teach anyone something we did not have good evidence to believe was true? why stop at Gods? why not teach people that every myth we can ever think up is true?

If you believe one thing you have no good evidence to believe you are open to believing anything.

Apart from religion we do not believe anything without good evidence, you name one thing that you believe that you do not have good evidence to believe?

I don't hate religions I hate the damage they do.

And you can hate the damage all you like, but you can't ignore the positives either. I would say overall religion has a neutral impact on society, and like all neutral entities, it is more economic time wise just to leave them be than try to get rid of them.

 

[FredHoyle]

And you can hate the damage all you like, but you can't ignore the positives either. I would say overall religion has a neutral impact on society, and like all neutral entities, it is more economic time wise just to leave them be than try to get rid of them.

Tell me something that a religion does that can not be done without religion, just one thing.
Belief in nonsense comes at a price, it affects everything the believer thinks, it is anything but neutral.
I don't want to get rid of them I just want religions to die naturally, stop telling children lies and the religions will die.

 

[rjw]

These are not shocking to a YEC. They have been consistently affirmed by YECs for years, as your dates have shown. That this is shocking to you suggests you haven't been listening to YECs very carefully.

Well it ought to be shocking to a group of folk whose objection to the idea that speciation can go so far as to produce new taxonomic orders, classes, phyla and kingdoms, is:-

"You were not there to observe"

- while at the same time they accept that the same speciation can go so far as to produce new genera, and families, even though:-

They were not there to observe.

The illogic is mind-blowing.

You ask YECs to accept by faith the lines you have drawn? There is no evidence that random mutations (3) and gene duplication (5) paired with natural selection (2) is capable of producing novel function. All observed instances of speciation (1) and microevolution (4) have not produced this. Lawlike, mindless processes have never been shown to do this. Only intelligence is known to be capable of producing function.

Evidence for you:-

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

If you don't think the above constitutes evidence, then you need to be able to explain why. But first you need to understand the actual arguments behind the evidence.

 

[rjw]

What do you define as 'novel funtion'?

A permanent, and heritable change in the DNA which allows an organism to do something it could not do before.

 

[selfinflikted]

I would say overall religion has a neutral impact on society

I would say that in America at least, religion isn't neutral. At all. It's extremely damaging.