| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
20 Aug 2006 02:27:13 PM |
| Object: |
Blind Watch-Watchers or Cheese and Atheist Goats |
I posted a link to one of my recent articles on Evolution and
Intelligent Design at talk.origins forum and I received more than a
dozen answers; some complained about the length, some dismissed it
hastily, some hurled the word "fool", and several talked about "goat"
and "virgins". I wonder whether the cheese in my article prompted such
a response. Please give me advice how to kick out the atheist goat from
the debate. Please surprise me that unlike religious fanatics, atheists
could engage in decent arguments. Here is a summary of my debate at
talk.origins forum.
MY ORIGINAL POST AT TALK.ORIGINS:
The Blind Watch-Watchers or Smell the Cheese:
An Intelligent and Delicious Argument for Intelligent Design in
Evolution
http://19.org/index.php?id=14,376,0,0,1,0
Peace,
Edip Yuksel
www.19.org
SAMPLE ANSWERS I RECEIVED:
Dave: I read far enough to see that you're a clueless fool. Go
sacrifice a
goat or something.
John Wilkins: Isn't that virgins? I thought goats were for the
continued working of Windows.
Tiktaalik: Where would you get a virgin in this day and age?
Jim Lovejoy: Considering the stability of Windows, goats must also be
endangered.
Josh Hayes: Goats are in no way sufficient, but will probably be
tolerated.
Jon N: The proper sacrifice is your first-born male child. This fell
out of favor in the Old Testament, but was resurrected in the New
Testament.
MY ANSWER
I have learned that some people will always be dogmatic regardless of
their affiliation and position.
Your reaction to my arguments reflects your own pathetic state of mind
on this scientific issue. I neither sacrifice goats nor I sacrifice
scientific facts and the light of deductive and inductive reasoning. As
it seems, it is you who is sacrificing the potential to see the light
of intelligent design in evolution.
Interestingly, after you throw your goat in the middle of this
discussion, the rest of the dogmatic atheists embraced the goat as
their savior; rather than engaging in an intellectual debate on this
issue they preferred to hang on the tail and beard of your goat. As it
seems, the infamous "red-herring" has evolved to "goat" here. Wow, what
a mutation :)
Is there anyone among you who can properly rebuttal my argument without
insulting me or riding a goat? Is it what science has thought you?
Peace,
Edip
.
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Blind Watch-Watchers or Cheese and Atheist Goats |
20 Aug 2006 03:13:25 PM |
|
|
<edipyuksel@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156102032.823351.124270@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
I posted a link to one of my recent articles on Evolution and
Intelligent Design at talk.origins forum and I received more than a
dozen answers; some complained about the length, some dismissed it
hastily, some hurled the word "fool", and several talked about "goat"
and "virgins". I wonder whether the cheese in my article prompted such
a response. Please give me advice how to kick out the atheist goat from
the debate. Please surprise me that unlike religious fanatics, atheists
could engage in decent arguments. Here is a summary of my debate at
talk.origins forum.
MY ORIGINAL POST AT TALK.ORIGINS:
The Blind Watch-Watchers or Smell the Cheese:
An Intelligent and Delicious Argument for Intelligent Design in
Evolution
http://19.org/index.php?id=14,376,0,0,1,0
Peace,
Edip Yuksel
www.19.org
SAMPLE ANSWERS I RECEIVED:
Dave: I read far enough to see that you're a clueless fool. Go
sacrifice a
goat or something.
John Wilkins: Isn't that virgins? I thought goats were for the
continued working of Windows.
Tiktaalik: Where would you get a virgin in this day and age?
Jim Lovejoy: Considering the stability of Windows, goats must also be
endangered.
Josh Hayes: Goats are in no way sufficient, but will probably be
tolerated.
Jon N: The proper sacrifice is your first-born male child. This fell
out of favor in the Old Testament, but was resurrected in the New
Testament.
:) An intelligent, witty, and entertaining exchange.
Unlike your blather.
I read the first 3000 words or so of your blather and
in them you said nothing. If you have to bury your point
(assuming you had a point) in so much crap then it
seems likely it is not a good one.
--
rb
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Blind Watch-Watchers or Cheese and Atheist Goats |
20 Aug 2006 01:58:33 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1156102032.823351.124270@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
I posted a link to one of my recent articles on Evolution and
Intelligent Design at talk.origins forum and I received more than a
dozen answers; some complained about the length, some dismissed it
hastily, some hurled the word "fool", and several talked about "goat"
and "virgins". I wonder whether the cheese in my article prompted such
a response. Please give me advice how to kick out the atheist goat
from the debate. Please surprise me that unlike religious fanatics,
atheists could engage in decent arguments. Here is a summary of my
debate at talk.origins forum.
MY ORIGINAL POST AT TALK.ORIGINS:
The Blind Watch-Watchers or Smell the Cheese:
An Intelligent and Delicious Argument for Intelligent Design in
Evolution
http://19.org/index.php?id=14,376,0,0,1,0
Peace,
Edip Yuksel
www.19.org
SAMPLE ANSWERS I RECEIVED:
Dave: I read far enough to see that you're a clueless fool. Go
sacrifice a
goat or something.
John Wilkins: Isn't that virgins? I thought goats were for the
continued working of Windows.
Tiktaalik: Where would you get a virgin in this day and age?
Jim Lovejoy: Considering the stability of Windows, goats must also be
endangered.
Josh Hayes: Goats are in no way sufficient, but will probably be
tolerated.
Jon N: The proper sacrifice is your first-born male child. This fell
out of favor in the Old Testament, but was resurrected in the New
Testament.
MY ANSWER
I have learned that some people will always be dogmatic regardless of
their affiliation and position.
Your reaction to my arguments reflects your own pathetic state of mind
on this scientific issue. I neither sacrifice goats nor I sacrifice
scientific facts and the light of deductive and inductive reasoning.
As it seems, it is you who is sacrificing the potential to see the
light of intelligent design in evolution.
Interestingly, after you throw your goat in the middle of this
discussion, the rest of the dogmatic atheists embraced the goat as
their savior; rather than engaging in an intellectual debate on this
issue they preferred to hang on the tail and beard of your goat. As it
seems, the infamous "red-herring" has evolved to "goat" here. Wow,
what a mutation :)
Is there anyone among you who can properly rebuttal my argument
without insulting me or riding a goat? Is it what science has thought
you?
After you've pile up the insults in your opening remarks to your article
and here in your request for discussion, why would you expect anything
but insults in return?
Frankly, I find nothing of substance in your article that hasn't been
broken down and refuted in detail at talk.origins many times before, so
shall we just proceed right to the ad-hominems?
--
Fred Stone
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Blind Watch-Watchers or Cheese and Atheist Goats |
20 Aug 2006 02:37:30 PM |
|
|
wrote:
<snip>
As it seems, it is you who is sacrificing the potential to see the
light of intelligent design in evolution.
Does your version of intelligent design allow for predictions to be
made? If so, specify one, and I'll bother reading your original post
over at t.o. If not, it's not a scientific theory, and I'm not
particularly interested. I don't mind if you think there are gods
(whatever those may be) or space aliens directing evolution -- to each
his own -- but unless you can form a hypothesis and test it, it's
useless as far as science is concerned.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Blind Watch-Watchers or Cheese and Atheist Goats |
20 Aug 2006 02:49:08 PM |
|
|
Dear Chris:
Your demand is a fair one. If you bothered reading my article, you
would learn that may thesis have been tested countless of times:
Here is the thesis:
1. Laws or information leading to physical events precede events;
2. Events follow the laws not the other way around.
3. All events, including human life, must have been determined by the
laws of the universe emerged during the early moments of big bang.
Here is a falsifiable test:
1. Show me a single biological event that does not follow the
deterministic laws existed before the event.
2. Show me a single example that the laws dominating atoms/elements
have changed, say, since the emergence of life.
Peace,
Edip
www.19.org
Chris Johnson wrote:
edipyuk...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
As it seems, it is you who is sacrificing the potential to see the
light of intelligent design in evolution.
Does your version of intelligent design allow for predictions to be
made? If so, specify one, and I'll bother reading your original post
over at t.o. If not, it's not a scientific theory, and I'm not
particularly interested. I don't mind if you think there are gods
(whatever those may be) or space aliens directing evolution -- to each
his own -- but unless you can form a hypothesis and test it, it's
useless as far as science is concerned.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Blind Watch-Watchers or Cheese and Atheist Goats |
20 Aug 2006 03:23:22 PM |
|
|
<edipyuksel@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156103348.686872.272460@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Dear Chris:
Your demand is a fair one. If you bothered reading my article, you
would learn that may thesis have been tested countless of times:
Here is the thesis:
1. Laws or information leading to physical events precede events;
2. Events follow the laws not the other way around.
3. All events, including human life, must have been determined by the
laws of the universe emerged during the early moments of big bang.
Here is a falsifiable test:
1. Show me a single biological event that does not follow the
deterministic laws existed before the event.
What? Is this supposed to test ID or natural origin?
2. Show me a single example that the laws dominating atoms/elements
have changed, say, since the emergence of life.
Peace,
Edip
www.19.org
Top posting does not add to your credibility.
Chris Johnson wrote:
edipyuk...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
As it seems, it is you who is sacrificing the potential to see the
light of intelligent design in evolution.
Does your version of intelligent design allow for predictions to be
made? If so, specify one, and I'll bother reading your original post
over at t.o. If not, it's not a scientific theory, and I'm not
particularly interested. I don't mind if you think there are gods
(whatever those may be) or space aliens directing evolution -- to each
his own -- but unless you can form a hypothesis and test it, it's
useless as far as science is concerned.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Blind Watch-Watchers or Cheese and Atheist Goats |
20 Aug 2006 03:19:15 PM |
|
|
wrote:
3. All events, including human life, must have been determined by the
laws of the universe emerged during the early moments of big bang.
Where did you get this idea? sounds like a very grand assumption....
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Blind Watch-Watchers or Cheese and Atheist Goats |
20 Aug 2006 05:26:39 PM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1156105155.233295.301780@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
edipyuksel@gmail.com wrote:
3. All events, including human life, must have been determined by the
laws of the universe emerged during the early moments of big bang.
Where did you get this idea? sounds like a very grand assumption....
Well, if you ignore the apparent randomness of quantum events, then
obviously he gets the idea from the fact that natural laws appear to be
strict, with no room for waffling. If that's the case, then the universe is
deterministic clockwork, with all events traceable directly back to the
initial conditions of the big bang.
Personally, I hold the contention that the universe is clockwork, but not
deterministic due to the interference of quantum events. In other words the
otherwise clockwork universe accomodates the existence of random quantum
events.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Blind Watch-Watchers or Cheese and Atheist Goats |
20 Aug 2006 05:35:14 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1156105155.233295.301780@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
edipyuksel@gmail.com wrote:
3. All events, including human life, must have been determined by the
laws of the universe emerged during the early moments of big bang.
Where did you get this idea? sounds like a very grand assumption....
Well, if you ignore the apparent randomness of quantum events, then
obviously he gets the idea from the fact that natural laws appear to be
strict, with no room for waffling. If that's the case, then the universe is
deterministic clockwork, with all events traceable directly back to the
initial conditions of the big bang.
THe problem is that he seems to be taking "determined" to mean
something else...having to do with intent....but that's just a guess
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Blind Watch-Watchers or Cheese and Atheist Goats |
21 Aug 2006 02:40:48 PM |
|
|
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1156113314.885446.209430@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1156105155.233295.301780@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
edipyuksel@gmail.com wrote:
3. All events, including human life, must have been determined by the
laws of the universe emerged during the early moments of big bang.
Where did you get this idea? sounds like a very grand assumption....
Well, if you ignore the apparent randomness of quantum events, then
obviously he gets the idea from the fact that natural laws appear to be
strict, with no room for waffling. If that's the case, then the universe
is
deterministic clockwork, with all events traceable directly back to the
initial conditions of the big bang.
THe problem is that he seems to be taking "determined" to mean
something else...having to do with intent....but that's just a guess
Granted, I have no idea where he's going with his arguments. That's why I
only responded to a very narrow point. I have no idea what the hell he's
talking about beyond that. (Making finger twirling motions at my temple...)
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Blind Watch-Watchers or Cheese and Atheist Goats |
20 Aug 2006 07:40:47 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Dear Chris:
Your demand is a fair one. If you bothered reading my article, you
would learn that may thesis have been tested countless of times:
Here is the thesis:
1. Laws or information leading to physical events precede events;
2. Events follow the laws not the other way around.
3. All events, including human life, must have been determined by the
laws of the universe emerged during the early moments of big bang.
This third seems to disregard quantum mechanics, which allows for
unpredictable events.
Here is a falsifiable test:
1. Show me a single biological event that does not follow the
deterministic laws existed before the event.
2. Show me a single example that the laws dominating atoms/elements
have changed, say, since the emergence of life.
I don't see the relation to any sort of intelligence here. But as I
said, I'll have a look at your post. I hope to see the relevance of
your tests.
Peace,
Edip
www.19.org
Chris Johnson wrote:
edipyuk...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
As it seems, it is you who is sacrificing the potential to see the
light of intelligent design in evolution.
Does your version of intelligent design allow for predictions to be
made? If so, specify one, and I'll bother reading your original post
over at t.o. If not, it's not a scientific theory, and I'm not
particularly interested. I don't mind if you think there are gods
(whatever those may be) or space aliens directing evolution -- to each
his own -- but unless you can form a hypothesis and test it, it's
useless as far as science is concerned.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Blind Watch-Watchers or Cheese and Atheist Goats |
20 Aug 2006 07:27:22 PM |
|
|
On 20 Aug 2006 12:49:08 -0700, wrote:
Dear Chris:
Your demand is a fair one. If you bothered reading my article, you
would learn that may thesis have been tested countless of times:
Here is the thesis:
1. Laws or information leading to physical events precede events;
2. Events follow the laws not the other way around.
3. All events, including human life, must have been determined by the
laws of the universe emerged during the early moments of big bang.
Here is a falsifiable test:
1. Show me a single biological event that does not follow the
deterministic laws existed before the event.
2. Show me a single example that the laws dominating atoms/elements
have changed, say, since the emergence of life.
And this objectively demonstrates the existence of a designer how,
exactly?
Peace,
Edip
www.19.org
Chris Johnson wrote:
edipyuk...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
As it seems, it is you who is sacrificing the potential to see the
light of intelligent design in evolution.
Does your version of intelligent design allow for predictions to be
made? If so, specify one, and I'll bother reading your original post
over at t.o. If not, it's not a scientific theory, and I'm not
particularly interested. I don't mind if you think there are gods
(whatever those may be) or space aliens directing evolution -- to each
his own -- but unless you can form a hypothesis and test it, it's
useless as far as science is concerned.
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Blind Watch-Watchers or Cheese and Atheist Goats |
21 Aug 2006 10:24:12 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 00:27:22 GMT, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
- Refer: <relu12dm2l4v789mu5k1m6t2c3jcdm13ml@4ax.com>
On 20 Aug 2006 12:49:08 -0700, wrote:
Dear Chris:
Your demand is a fair one. If you bothered reading my article, you
would learn that may thesis have been tested countless of times:
Here is the thesis:
1. Laws or information leading to physical events precede events;
2. Events follow the laws not the other way around.
3. All events, including human life, must have been determined by the
laws of the universe emerged during the early moments of big bang.
Here is a falsifiable test:
1. Show me a single biological event that does not follow the
deterministic laws existed before the event.
2. Show me a single example that the laws dominating atoms/elements
have changed, say, since the emergence of life.
And this objectively demonstrates the existence of a designer how,
exactly?
It does no such thing, of course.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Blind Watch-Watchers or Cheese and Atheist Goats |
21 Aug 2006 10:56:31 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:54:12 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 00:27:22 GMT, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
- Refer: <relu12dm2l4v789mu5k1m6t2c3jcdm13ml@4ax.com>
On 20 Aug 2006 12:49:08 -0700, wrote:
Dear Chris:
Your demand is a fair one. If you bothered reading my article, you
would learn that may thesis have been tested countless of times:
Here is the thesis:
1. Laws or information leading to physical events precede events;
2. Events follow the laws not the other way around.
3. All events, including human life, must have been determined by the
laws of the universe emerged during the early moments of big bang.
Here is a falsifiable test:
1. Show me a single biological event that does not follow the
deterministic laws existed before the event.
2. Show me a single example that the laws dominating atoms/elements
have changed, say, since the emergence of life.
And this objectively demonstrates the existence of a designer how,
exactly?
It does no such thing, of course.
Of course. And I'll be very surprised if I get anything resembling an
answer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Blind Watch-Watchers or Cheese and Atheist Goats |
22 Aug 2006 04:47:54 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 03:56:31 GMT, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
- Refer: <3cm122ts228guo9e5m8pefqs053cs20fku@4ax.com>
On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:54:12 +0930, Michael Gray
<fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 00:27:22 GMT, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
- Refer: <relu12dm2l4v789mu5k1m6t2c3jcdm13ml@4ax.com>
On 20 Aug 2006 12:49:08 -0700, wrote:
Dear Chris:
Your demand is a fair one. If you bothered reading my article, you
would learn that may thesis have been tested countless of times:
Here is the thesis:
1. Laws or information leading to physical events precede events;
2. Events follow the laws not the other way around.
3. All events, including human life, must have been determined by the
laws of the universe emerged during the early moments of big bang.
Here is a falsifiable test:
1. Show me a single biological event that does not follow the
deterministic laws existed before the event.
2. Show me a single example that the laws dominating atoms/elements
have changed, say, since the emergence of life.
And this objectively demonstrates the existence of a designer how,
exactly?
It does no such thing, of course.
Of course. And I'll be very surprised if I get anything resembling an
answer.
At least one that is both logically consistent, as well as honest.
You may very well get an answer that is neither of those things...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andres64" |
|
| Title: Re: Blind Watch-Watchers or Cheese and Atheist Goats |
20 Aug 2006 05:15:10 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I posted a link to one of my recent articles on Evolution and
Intelligent Design
....snip...
You really think that this world appears to have been intelligently
designed? If so, you definitely aren't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Blind Watch-Watchers or Cheese and Atheist Goats |
20 Aug 2006 06:59:41 PM |
|
|
ANDRES64: You really think that this world appears to have been
intelligently designed? If so, you definitely aren't.
EDIP: Witty and cute; but has no supportive argument. Take its literary
appeal, it simply means that you disagree with me with passion. Well, I
never claimed that none will disagree with me. But, shouldn't I expect
from someone who disagrees with me to at least provide some reason for
doing so, beyond "you are stupid." Grow up Andres. Peace.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Blind Watch-Watchers or Cheese and Atheist Goats |
21 Aug 2006 06:28:16 AM |
|
|
wrote in alt.atheism
ANDRES64: You really think that this world appears to have been
intelligently designed? If so, you definitely aren't.
EDIP: Witty and cute; but has no supportive argument. Take its literary
appeal, it simply means that you disagree with me with passion. Well, I
never claimed that none will disagree with me. But, shouldn't I expect
from someone who disagrees with me to at least provide some reason for
doing so, beyond "you are stupid." Grow up Andres. Peace.
All the hurricanes and tornados and volcanoes and tsunamis which kill
people are proof of intelligent design by your god?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andres64" |
|
| Title: Re: Blind Watch-Watchers or Cheese and Atheist Goats |
21 Aug 2006 04:53:04 PM |
|
|
wrote:
ANDRES64: You really think that this world appears to have been
intelligently designed? If so, you definitely aren't.
EDIP: Witty and cute; but has no supportive argument.
Fine. Tell me what's so intelligent about the human body? Can you
name even one part that isn't prone to mal-function/disease? How about
the 'intelligence' of having us breath and eat through the same tube?
Perhaps wisdon teeth that routinely need extracted is 'intelligent'?
....snip...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Blind Watch-Watchers or Cheese and Atheist Goats |
20 Aug 2006 07:14:25 PM |
|
|
On 20 Aug 2006 16:59:41 -0700, wrote:
ANDRES64: You really think that this world appears to have been
intelligently designed? If so, you definitely aren't.
EDIP: Witty and cute; but has no supportive argument. Take its literary
appeal, it simply means that you disagree with me with passion. Well, I
never claimed that none will disagree with me. But, shouldn't I expect
from someone who disagrees with me to at least provide some reason for
doing so, beyond "you are stupid." Grow up Andres. Peace.
But that's all it is: stupid.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Blind Watch-Watchers or Cheese and Atheist Goats |
20 Aug 2006 10:16:04 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet (edipyuksel@gmail.com) made
the light shine upon us with this:
ANDRES64: You really think that this world appears to have been
intelligently designed? If so, you definitely aren't.
EDIP: Witty and cute; but has no supportive argument.
Gee, just like ID.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Member: Intensional misspellingg club.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Kutchie" |
|
| Title: Re: Blind Watch-Watchers or Cheese and Atheist Goats |
20 Aug 2006 02:50:15 PM |
|
|
wrote:
I posted a link to one of my recent articles on Evolution and
Intelligent Design at talk.origins forum and I received more than a
dozen answers; some complained about the length, some dismissed it
hastily, some hurled the word "fool", and several talked about "goat"
and "virgins". I wonder whether the cheese in my article prompted such
a response. Please give me advice how to kick out the atheist goat from
the debate. Please surprise me that unlike religious fanatics, atheists
could engage in decent arguments. Here is a summary of my debate at
talk.origins forum.
MY ORIGINAL POST AT TALK.ORIGINS:
The Blind Watch-Watchers or Smell the Cheese:
An Intelligent and Delicious Argument for Intelligent Design in
Evolution
http://19.org/index.php?id=14,376,0,0,1,0
Peace,
Edip Yuksel
www.19.org
SAMPLE ANSWERS I RECEIVED:
Dave: I read far enough to see that you're a clueless fool. Go
sacrifice a
goat or something.
John Wilkins: Isn't that virgins? I thought goats were for the
continued working of Windows.
Tiktaalik: Where would you get a virgin in this day and age?
Jim Lovejoy: Considering the stability of Windows, goats must also be
endangered.
Josh Hayes: Goats are in no way sufficient, but will probably be
tolerated.
Jon N: The proper sacrifice is your first-born male child. This fell
out of favor in the Old Testament, but was resurrected in the New
Testament.
MY ANSWER
I have learned that some people will always be dogmatic regardless of
their affiliation and position.
Your reaction to my arguments reflects your own pathetic state of mind
on this scientific issue. I neither sacrifice goats nor I sacrifice
scientific facts and the light of deductive and inductive reasoning. As
it seems, it is you who is sacrificing the potential to see the light
of intelligent design in evolution.
Interestingly, after you throw your goat in the middle of this
discussion, the rest of the dogmatic atheists embraced the goat as
their savior; rather than engaging in an intellectual debate on this
issue they preferred to hang on the tail and beard of your goat. As it
seems, the infamous "red-herring" has evolved to "goat" here. Wow, what
a mutation :)
Is there anyone among you who can properly rebuttal my argument without
insulting me or riding a goat? Is it what science has thought you?
Peace,
Edip
Equating, and attempting to reconcile, the fruits of millions of person
years of scientific investigation with the postulatings of those who
argue from their ideological predispositions is not justifiable in any
terms. It is incumbent on those who do not even understand the process
of science to admit as much, and refrain from expressing opinions about
it. If they do not, they can only expect a reaction commensurate with
their trying everybody's patience.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Blind Watch-Watchers or Cheese and Atheist Goats |
20 Aug 2006 05:30:02 PM |
|
|
JIM: Where did you get this idea? sounds like a very grand
assumption....
EDIP YUKSEL: Yes, "All events, including human life, must have been
determined by the laws of the universe emerged during the early moments
of big bang" is indeed a grand assumption, but this is what is the best
assumption we have based on evidence provided by modern astrophysics.
What is your alternative assumption?
RON BAKER: Top posting does not add to your credibility.
EDIP: Which top posting? My website? Why care about my credibility? I
care less about your credibility when I discuss a scientific or
philosophical issue; I care about what you are asserting. I would only
care about your credibility when you claim that you saw Darwin's
skeleton in your backyard.
PASTOR KUTCHIE: Equating, and attempting to reconcile, the fruits of
millions of person years of scientific investigation with the
postulatings of those who argue from their ideological predispositions
is not justifiable in any terms. It is incumbent on those who do not
even understand the process of science to admit as much, and refrain
from expressing opinions about it. If they do not, they can only
expect a reaction commensurate with their trying everybody's patience.
EDIP: Did you try to describe yourself with the above fancy words or
you wanted to describe me? Perhaps you meant the latter. Well, then I
postulate that you think that mere accusations stated in big words make
those accusations right.
FRED STONE: After you've pile up the insults in your opening remarks to
your article and here in your request for discussion, why would you
expect anything but insults in return? Frankly, I find nothing of
substance in your article that hasn't been broken down and refuted in
detail at talk.origins many times before, so shall we just proceed
right to the ad-hominems?
EDIP: Well, I did not expect the members of this forum would
necessarily follow the goat-wagon of another forum. As for your "broken
down and refuted in detail" report, can you please let us know what is
the position of my article that so you are sure that it is already
refuted?
RON BAKER: :) An intelligent, witty, and entertaining exchange.
Unlike your blather. I read the first 3000 words or so of your blather
and in them you said nothing. If you have to bury your point (assuming
you had a point) in so much crap then it seems likely it is not a good
one.
EDIP: That means you just stopped at "The Assembly Line, the Gullible
and the Blind" and you did not even see the subtitle "The Marvels of
Marbles." Obviously you spent too much time in the opening mazes and
missed the cheese in the end=EF=81=8A I should perhaps consider your feedba=
ck
and eliminate the initial gambit. Seriously, after reading 3,000 words
of that delicious argument, you should have continued finishing the
rest.
UNCLE VIC: There are no decent arguments about ID. It's nothing but a
stupid replacement for science, which is not science at all, but a
comfort warmy for all the illiterate Christstains out there who refuse
to *believe reality* because it upsets their belief systems.
EDIP: What about your own comfort zone? You do not even think of
dismissing any arguments as long as they do not affirm your atheistic
paradigm. For your information, I am not a Christian; I am a
monotheist. I know, in your dark universe you cannot see the difference
between my position and of a Christian.
CHRISTOPHER A. LEE: When we're arguing with a creationist we're arguing
with a brainwashed idiot, and this is never far from the surface. It
doesn't take much on their part to bring it out.
EDIP: You are just proving your own bigotry. In my article I defended
evolution. You and many of your ilk are conditioned to see the world in
black and white. You are just not ready to see other colors in between:
I am ORANGE =EF=81=8A (Goats cannot not eat orange, by the way. So, do not
try it).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Blind Watch-Watchers or Cheese and Atheist Goats |
20 Aug 2006 07:36:30 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1156113002.058470.169030@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
FRED STONE: After you've pile up the insults in your opening remarks
to your article and here in your request for discussion, why would you
expect anything but insults in return? Frankly, I find nothing of
substance in your article that hasn't been broken down and refuted in
detail at talk.origins many times before, so shall we just proceed
right to the ad-hominems?
EDIP: Well, I did not expect the members of this forum would
necessarily follow the goat-wagon of another forum. As for your
"broken down and refuted in detail" report, can you please let us know
what is the position of my article that so you are sure that it is
already refuted?
How about you ask me nicely? Oh wait, it's about two posts too late for
that, isn't it?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Truth is the first casualty in war - but it shouldn't be the news media
who kill it."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Blind Watch-Watchers or Cheese and Atheist Goats |
21 Aug 2006 09:29:20 AM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, poured fuel on
the fire with the following:
....
Is there anyone among you who can properly rebuttal my argument without
insulting me or riding a goat?
No need, Skippy. Rebuttal, I mean.
All you have done is present an Argument from Ignorance, which is a
fallacy. There is nothing to refute, technically speaking.
However, I anticipate your disappointment so I will make you an offer. I
will give you a fallacy in exchange. 10 points if you can correctly
identify it by name. Here it is:
1. God does not exist.
2. Therefore, God does not exist.
As a bonus, please demonstrate to me that this "argument" can be
successfully refuted. If you succeed in providing the refutation then I
will worship any deity of your choice for one week.
Good luck!
Josef
We cannot make it rain, but we can see to it that the rain falls on
prepared soil.
-- Henri Nouwen
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Blind Watch-Watchers or Cheese and Atheist Goats |
20 Aug 2006 07:28:48 PM |
|
|
On 20 Aug 2006 12:27:13 -0700, wrote:
I posted a link to one of my recent articles on Evolution and
Intelligent Design at talk.origins forum and I received more than a
dozen answers; some complained about the length, some dismissed it
hastily, some hurled the word "fool", and several talked about "goat"
and "virgins". I wonder whether the cheese in my article prompted such
a response. Please give me advice how to kick out the atheist goat from
the debate. Please surprise me that unlike religious fanatics, atheists
could engage in decent arguments. Here is a summary of my debate at
talk.origins forum.
MY ORIGINAL POST AT TALK.ORIGINS:
The Blind Watch-Watchers or Smell the Cheese:
An Intelligent and Delicious Argument for Intelligent Design in
Evolution
"Intelligent Design" is nothing more than spin-doctored creationism,
and its "leading lights" admit as much.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Blind Watch-Watchers or Cheese and Atheist Goats |
22 Aug 2006 07:08:36 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 12:27:13 -0700, edipyuksel wrote:
I posted a link to one of my recent articles on Evolution and Intelligent
Design at talk.origins forum and I received more than a dozen answers;
some complained about the length, some dismissed it hastily, some hurled
the word "fool", and several talked about "goat" and "virgins". I wonder
whether the cheese in my article prompted such a response. Please give me
advice how to kick out the atheist goat from the debate. Please surprise
me that unlike religious fanatics, atheists could engage in decent
arguments. Here is a summary of my debate at talk.origins forum.
MY ORIGINAL POST AT TALK.ORIGINS:
The Blind Watch-Watchers or Smell the Cheese: An Intelligent and Delicious
Argument for Intelligent Design in Evolution
The scientific community universally rejects "Intelligent Design" because
it does not explain anything. It is trying to explain that which is not
understood by invoking a magical being that cannot be understood. If you
are keen on believing in such a magical being, that's fine. If you are
keen on explaining things, it only creates confusion. See the difference?
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Blind Watch-Watchers or Cheese and Atheist Goats |
20 Aug 2006 03:40:05 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet (edipyuksel@gmail.com) made
the light shine upon us with this:
I posted a link to one of my recent articles on Evolution and
Intelligent Design at talk.origins forum and I received more than a
dozen answers; some complained about the length, some dismissed it
hastily, some hurled the word "fool", and several talked about "goat"
and "virgins". I wonder whether the cheese in my article prompted such
a response. Please give me advice how to kick out the atheist goat from
the debate. Please surprise me that unlike religious fanatics, atheists
could engage in decent arguments.
There are no decent arguments about ID. It's nothing but a stupid
replacement for science, which is not science at all, but a comfort warmy
for all the illiterate Christstains out there who refuse to *believe
reality* because it upsets their belief systems.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Member: Intensional misspellingg club.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Witziges Rätsel" |
|
| Title: Re: Blind Watch-Watchers or Cheese and Atheist Goats |
20 Aug 2006 04:28:10 PM |
|
|
I posted a link to one of my recent articles on Evolution and
Intelligent Design at talk.origins forum and I received more than a
dozen answers; some complained about the length, some dismissed it
hastily, some hurled the word "fool", and several talked about "goat"
and "virgins". I wonder whether the cheese in my article prompted such
a response. Please give me advice how to kick out the atheist goat from
the debate. Please surprise me that unlike religious fanatics, atheists
could engage in decent arguments.
There are no decent arguments about ID. It's nothing but a stupid
replacement for science, which is not science at all, but a comfort warmy
for all the illiterate Christstains out there who refuse to *believe
reality* because it upsets their belief systems.
Research tests Christians' assumptions; therefore, they fear it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Blind Watch-Watchers or Cheese and Atheist Goats |
20 Aug 2006 03:49:30 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 15:40:05 -0500, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com>
wrote:
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet (edipyuksel@gmail.com) made
the light shine upon us with this:
I posted a link to one of my recent articles on Evolution and
Intelligent Design at talk.origins forum and I received more than a
dozen answers; some complained about the length, some dismissed it
hastily, some hurled the word "fool", and several talked about "goat"
and "virgins". I wonder whether the cheese in my article prompted such
a response. Please give me advice how to kick out the atheist goat from
the debate. Please surprise me that unlike religious fanatics, atheists
could engage in decent arguments.
There are no decent arguments about ID. It's nothing but a stupid
replacement for science, which is not science at all, but a comfort warmy
for all the illiterate Christstains out there who refuse to *believe
reality* because it upsets their belief systems.
When you try to educate them (not argue) they start lying, both about
science and scientists in general, and the person taking the time and
trouble to explain thngs to them, accusing them of a priori bias, etc.
When we're arguing with a creationist we're arguing with a brainwashed
idiot, and this is never far from the surface. It doesn't take much on
their part to bring it out.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Blind Watch-Watchers or Cheese and Atheist Goats |
20 Aug 2006 10:45:54 PM |
|
|
edipyuksel@gmail.com:
An Intelligent and Delicious Argument for Intelligent Design
How many people do you think will want to read an article the very title of
which already makes an impossible claim?
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
My personal judgment of monotheism:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
OT:Seperating The Sheep & The Goats...
Of sheep and goats
Why do Christians attack The Goats?
HOW TO BECOME A SHITSKIN MOSLEM - this is how: ***** goats, molestchildren, wear a beekeepers outfit all the time, never shower or bath, beatyour wives, learn terrorist activities at a maddrassa, wipe your ***** withstones, sell the donkey you fucked to
Smoke dope, marry goats in California
Dead goats "the work of cults"
lol
lol
| Airline sacrifices goats to appease sky god
What If Goats Ate The Whole Quran ?
Re: Be a sheep, goats
HOW TO BECOME A SHITSKIN MUSLEM - this is how: ***** goats, molestchildren, wear a beekeepers outfit all the time, never shower or bath, beatyour wives, learn terrorist activities at a maddrassa, wipe your ***** withstones, sell the donkey you fucked to
Blind Watch-Watchers or Smile the Cheese: A Delicious Argument
Watch out Second Life: China launches virtual universe with seven million souls
OT: Watch out, Iran
|
|
|
