Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 68
  1. #31
    CC Grandmaster Adamski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Penrith, NSW
    Posts
    8,660

    True - unintentional

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    He certainly did and hence that is why I commented on self-editing of the Wiki autobiography page.

    I noticed Adamski did contradict himself between the thread title and first post.
    RW you are right in the second point here - I put the wrong first date on the thread title and could not find a way to edit it. As you are a Mod, could you change the thread title to say 23 instead of 24 Aug? Ta! Much appreciated, my fellow Ambassador. (Refer Gunners' HADDBBA awards thread.)
    Last edited by Adamski; 15-08-2008 at 08:23 AM.
    God exists. Short and to the point.

    Secretary of, and regularly arbiter at, Rooty Hill RSL Chess Club. See www.rootyhillchessclub.org.

    Psephological insight. "Controversial will only lose you votes. Courageous will lose you the election." Sir Humphrey Appleby on Yes Minister.

    Favorite movie line: Girl friend Cathy to Jack Ryan in "Sum of all Fears". "What kind of emergency does an historian have?".

  2. #32
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    That is a falsehood.
    Not at all according to non-creationist information scientist Hubert Yockey.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Unlike the truth of your own assumption in the existence of your own god and the inerrancy of scripture.
    Which provides an excellent foundation for science.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Gee, thanks for the careful rebuttal. I was wrong, you have been doing your homework.
    Yep, e.g. Origin of life and the homochirality problem: is magnetochiral dichroism the solution? (2000).

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    It's called competing hypotheses and is how science works. If you were a scientist and not a biblical literalist you would already know that.
    I am a scientist and you are not; I am a biblical originalist which entails literalism only where the author intended it (e.g. in Genesis).

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    You mean it was reviewed by someone who also believed that

    By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.
    A senior lecturer in chemistry at a secular uni and another Ph.D. chemist working in industry would be able to spot chemical errors.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Sounds like a good basis for a scholarly journal... NOT.
    You have no problem with dogmatic misotheists being peer reviewers of evolutionary papers.
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 15-08-2008 at 09:45 AM.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  3. #33
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,531
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronD
    You people wouldn't understand the concept of being polite and pleasent. Should be ashamed
    Rincewind is usually pretty weak when it comes to argumentative discussion and often resolves to a personal attack. Well known fact, I don't think anyone pays attention anymore.
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

  4. #34
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Axiom
    having been on the receiving end of a debate with a creationist , i am keen to see the 'definitive' argument on the subject which leaves the creationist with a puzzling , self reflective ,paradigm shifting experience.
    The debate between creationists and their antagonists (I don't call them darwinists or evolusionist as intelligent design does not necessary reject either) is interesting and important. They can actually safely agree on about 90% without contradicting each other.
    Unfortunately, I found attack on creationist often (not always, of course) to be a thin veil for hatred of religion.
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

  5. #35
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    The debate between creationists and their antagonists (I don't call them darwinists or evolusionist as intelligent design does not necessary reject either)
    My new book By Design: Evidence for nature’s Intelligent Designer—the God of the Bible rejects both (but accepts mutation, natural selection and speciation).

    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    is interesting and important. They can actually safely agree on about 90% without contradicting each other.
    Certainly when it comes to operational science. Despite the claims of antagonists, creationists accept physics, chemistry, genetics, natural selection ... We might dispute stories about what happened in the past, and sometimes what might happen in the future (e.g. global warm-mongering).

    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    Unfortunately, I found attack on creationist often (not always, of course) to be a thin veil for hatred of religion.
    True in the cases of RW, Dawkins ...
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  6. #36
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,531
    I'd say evolution theory (especially selfish gene theory) explains about 99% of human behaviour patterns.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    True in the cases of RW, Dawkins ...
    Isn't Dawkins a scientists?
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

  7. #37
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Spiny Norman
    Jeepers RW, you're acting like one of Pavlov's dogs ... if you want to have a go at Jono, I suggest you go start your own thread and argue the case there, instead of hijacking Adamski's thread. You've not said anything particularly new (i.e. nothing you haven't already waffled on about in the Does God Exist or one of the creation threads). Get over yourself already.
    Your comments are noted, Spiny, however I deny the claim that I hijacked Adamski's thread.

    What I did in post #2 was to offer an independent source of information on the speaker which is very much on topic considering the thread was advertising Jono's talks on the pseudoscience of creationism. Adamski seemed happy for people to read it (in fact he challenged them to do so).

    Following that was come comments on one particular article from this other site. Particular the salient point that Jono has no qualification in biological sciences although he writes as if he does. He made some comments about the chemical side of his argument and I pointed out that his material is a decade out of date and not widely read by scientists due to his policy of avoiding scientific review.

    Now none of this is probably relevant if Mr Sarfati was giving the talk "Creation: a Key to the Gospel". I roughly follow where Jono and other literalists are coming from here on theological grounds (although I reach a different conclusion). However when the speaker is advertised as "Dr Sarfati" and he is speaking on "Design, Deluge & Dilemma" it is sounding more like someone passing themselves off as something they are not and the scientific qualifications and experience of the speaker are completely relevant. Especially considering the original post contained a link to the COTW site which makes much of Jono's scant scientific credentials.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  8. #38
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Another view which does not support you initial claim anyway. There is no chemists creed that they have all signed saying chemical evolution is a fact.

    Yes people are searching for a scientific explanation for the natural world because say "oh, God did that" is not scientific or the reasons already discussed many times.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    That is plain rubbish. When your creed states...

    The scientific aspects of creation ... are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel

    The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. ... Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.

    By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.


    You have already worked out the winner and all you do is present a one sided case which props up your religious position.

    Well that is only 8 years old, well done. I note that the flavour is the same. "Scientist have more than one plausible explanation for the homochirality, they can't all be right, therefore the answer is God."

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    I am a scientist and you are not; I am a biblical originalist which entails literalism only where the author intended it (e.g. in Genesis).
    You aren't a scientist's bootlaces. Whenever you claim that I am not a scientist I ask you to define the term. This remains one of the many unanswered questions I've put to you.

    Define your usage of scientist or stop making the vacuous assertion that I am not one. I agree that I am not a chemist. However, even as a non-chemist I find it amusing that I have more publications is chemistry journals than you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    A senior lecturer in chemistry at a secular uni and another Ph.D. chemist working in industry would be able to spot chemical errors.
    True if they weren't already convinced that

    By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    You have no problem with dogmatic misotheists being peer reviewers of evolutionary papers.
    The broad scientific community is made up of many different sorts of scientists. I think most (or at least half) are theists. However their beliefs on matters of religion do not play a large part in their professional life. Because they are scientists, not preachers.

    You on the other hand...
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  9. #39
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    Rincewind is usually pretty weak when it comes to argumentative discussion and often resolves to a personal attack. Well known fact, I don't think anyone pays attention anymore.
    Coming from you Igor, I actually take this as a compliment.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  10. #40
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Following that was come comments on one particular article from this other site. Particular the salient point that Jono has no qualification in biological sciences although he writes as if he does.
    So? RW's hero Dawko delves into history and theology in which he has no qualifications. But unlike me in my writings, he makes gross errors in these.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    He made some comments about the chemical side of his argument and I pointed out that his material is a decade out of date and not widely read by scientists due to his policy of avoiding scientific review.
    It had scientific review by Ph.D. chemists, and many of the problems ARE acknowledged by the more honest chemical evolutionists (like Robert Shapiro). And the problems I raise are well known principles of chemistry, not that I would expect a mathematician like RW to know that since he knows little about real chemistry as opposed to some mathematical modelling. Unfortunately a lot of propaganda pieces about chemical evolution avoid interaction with real chemists. Meanwhile, we are still waiting for the new evidence that supposedly overturns the conclusions in my chemical evolution papers (and my new book has updates addressing the latest claims).

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Now none of this is probably relevant if Mr Sarfati was giving the talk "Creation: a Key to the Gospel". I roughly follow where Jono and other literalists are coming from here on theological grounds (although I reach a different conclusion). However when the speaker is advertised as "Dr Sarfati" and he is speaking on "Design, Deluge & Dilemma" it is sounding more like someone passing themselves off as something they are not and the scientific qualifications and experience of the speaker are completely relevant. Especially considering the original post contained a link to the COTW site which makes much of Jono's scant scientific credentials.
    RW the mathematician and non-scientist must know something the rest of us don't—that I was somehow stripped of my earned doctorate in science.
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 15-08-2008 at 11:01 AM.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  11. #41
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    I'd say evolution theory (especially selfish gene theory) explains about 99% of human behaviour patterns.
    Self-interestedness may well explain much human behaviour. So to judge a policy's effectiveness, it is far more important to understand the incentives rather than the goals, as per Hayek, Friedman and Sowell. But the selfish gene idea has many critics even among evolutionists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    Isn't Dawkins a scientists?
    Not by RW's definition (if he were honest), given that he hasn't set foot in a science lab in decades, and mainly writes misotheistic propaganda that lacks peer review.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  12. #42
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    So?
    It is relevant when you are talking on matters related directly to biological sciences.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    It had scientific review by Ph.D. chemists, and many of the problems ARE acknowledged by the more honest chemical evolutionists (like Robert Shapiro). And the problems I raise are well known principles of chemistry, not that I would expect a mathematician like RW to know that since he knows little about real chemistry as opposed to some mathematical modelling. Unfortunately a lot of propaganda pieces about chemical evolution avoid interaction with real chemists. Meanwhile, we are still waiting for the new evidence that supposedly overturns the conclusions in my chemical evolution papers (and my new book has updates addressing the latest claims).
    More straw man attacks. The very fact that there are competing hypotheses for homochirality is evidence enough for all scientists that we currently don't the have a reasonably certain answer. Science is like that. You keep working at a problem until you get the right answer. You don't believe the first thing you read. "In the beginning..."

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    RW the mathematician and non-scientist must know something the rest of us don't—that I was somehow stripped of my earned doctorate in science.
    More usage of that term scientist without any definition... You know the rules, put up (your definition) or shut up.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  13. #43
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    12,348
    Quote Originally Posted by Spiny Norman
    Jeepers RW, you're acting like one of Pavlov's dogs ...
    funny.

    I think the very fact that Jono is an author with a wide readership curcle suggests that his writings have a lot of social impact. As far as "scientific value" of his writings is concerned - I am amazed how we can discuss somebody's contribution to the body of knowledge even though we are not industry experts and/or academics in that particular field of research.

    In any case, this thread was supposed to be about chess!
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  14. #44
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron
    In any case, this thread was supposed to be about chess!
    In that case the Non-Chess forum was a funny place to post it!
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  15. #45
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    244
    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
    Rincewind is usually pretty weak when it comes to argumentative discussion and often resolves to a personal attack. Well known fact, I don't think anyone pays attention anymore.
    Speak for yourself. I get out the popcorn each time

    Let's change this country for the better by changing hearts and minds towards Pastafarianism.
    荒らしにエサを与えないで下さい。

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •