Soliton signing out!

12/25/2008 | Soliton

[Soliton]

After 10 years and many thousands of replies, I am leaving FR.

I don't really care, and I don't know why anyone else would.

I am leaving before I am banned (again). Truth doesn't seem to matter on FR. I don't know if it is donations or sympathetic opinions that do, but I have been suspended twice when I followed the rules and the people who complained to the moderators didn't, yet the moderators sided with them.

For the record, evolution is a fact and the Shroud of Turin is a fraud. I would prove it if the admin moderators would let me, but they won't. Your resident "expert", Swordmaker won't debate me because he can't.

I will work to build a forum where members have rights and truth matters.

Merry Christmas

[Coyoteman]

If you don’t want to be associated with nutcases like the reconstructionists and dominionists, be careful that you don’t advocate the same positions.

[UCANSEE2]

HI.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Here’s a present:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nop1sMvYqi8&feature=related

They say that adversity reveals character.

Reading the opening post (Soliton’s opus), he turns out to be a crybaby. WHO WOULDA GUESSED?

[UCANSEE2]

The phrase “lunch mob of religious spigots” was a comment I made back during the FLDS threads.

It was a turn of the phrase taken from someone else’s comment that we (those who seemed to post mainly around lunch) were a bunch of religious bigots.

I think the reason metmom pinged you (and all the others) was that you were a big part of the daily ‘lunch mob’.

I think she was including you out of courtesy, not aiming any remarks at you in particular.

[CottShop]

[[It’s pointless. Some here seem to be here to do nothing but agitate anymore. No doubt they’re having a good laugh over at Darwin Central at all the ‘luddites’ here in this thread. Must be nice to be so easily amused.]]

That’s what kiddies do when they know they’re beaten- they attack the messenger- oh & spout endlessly about how there’s ‘mountains of evidnece’, ‘Macroevolution is established fact’,. ‘ID is psuedo-science’ blah blah blah- It’s just childish banter that ignore the facts- let them yuck it up- it only goes to prove their willful ignorance

[CottShop]

[[You guys get offended way too easily. The damn bastard sons of ishmael and the commie heathens have committed more atrocities then anyone can count.My problem is when people forget the once tyrannical roman catholic church.]]

Hmm- Last I looked- Godless dictators were responsible for far more deaths than anyone- The Catholic Church was NOT responsible for ‘more daths than anyone’- that is an urban legend that has NO basis in reality- Approx. 10,000 deaths were committed by these Godless characters parading htemsleves around as God’s chosen which they CLEARLY were NOT- they ABUSED the Church, they ABUSED their positions, and they are NOT representative of ANY Christians- which incidently number in the 2.6 billion range- the VERY GREAT MAJORITY of whom NEVER committed ANY such attrocities- infact, it is hte Christians hwo have been murdered en mass over hte centuries, and the numbers murdered, tortured and imprisoned in just the last few decades numbers over 200 million- So tell me again just how ‘bad hte church was’ again? I love that little fairy tale!

[CottShop]

To Coyote: [[And you really believe this load of cr@p?]]

Apparently yes he does believe it- however, perhaps we should post the rantings and assinine hypothesis of the ‘hopeful monster’ scientists and pretend like Coyoteman does, that those whack-job ;scientists’ represent ALL of Macroevolution- infact, I think I’ll get hteir statements ready to post underneath Coyoteman’s rediculous posts everytime he tries to falsely dismantle ID and Creationism by posting some absurd fringe lunatic hypothesis’- Two can play at his game.

[CottShop]

Are evolutionists really scientists? You decide after reading the description of the 'end all be all' hypothesis of 'hopeful monsters'- It's quite clear that GoldSchmidt represents that majority of evolutionary scientific thought (Even htough some deny it)- and as such, the whole Evolutionary hypothesis should be htrown out of science classes altogether as nothign but a nutjob hypothesis because Goldie believes what he does. "In the 1930s, paleontologist Otto Schindewolf concluded that the missing links in the fossil record were not really missing at all, but rather were never there in the first place! Schindewolf proposed that all the major evolutionary transformations must have occurred in single large steps. He proposed, for example, that at some point in evolutionary history, a reptile laid an egg from which a bird was hatched! This bizarre notion was championed in 1940 by the geneticist Richard Goldschmidt of the University of California at Berkeley. Like Schindewolf, Goldschmidt resigned himself to the fact that true transitional forms were not found despite over a hundred years of searching for them, and that evolutionary theory would simply have to accommodate this fact.

Goldschmidt sought to advance Schindewolf's notion of evolution through single large steps by trying to imagine a plausible mechanism for it. He suggested that the answer might lie in what are known as embryological monsters, such as the occasional birth of a two-legged sheep or a two-headed turtle. Goldschmidt conceded that such monsters rarely survived very long in nature, but he hoped that over a long period of time some monsters might actually be better suited to survive and reproduce than their normal siblings. Goldschmidt named this monstrously hopeless speculation the "hopeful monster theory." Since there was not even the slightest shred of evidence to support the hopeful monster theory, it was dismissed with derision by almost all evolutionists of his time." http://ncseweb.org/creationism/analysis/hopeful-monsters There you have it folks- proof positive that that Macroevolution is nothign but a psychotic's delusionary muddled hypothesis.

[Kevmo]

If you don’t want to be associated with nutcases like the reconstructionists and dominionists, be careful that you don’t advocate the same positions.
***Does that mean it’s fair game to associate you with nutcases like the “hopeful monster” dude? How about Hitler or Stalin?

[Coyoteman]

The creationist lie that there are no transitionals is ludicrous, and quote-mined repetition won't make it any better.

You write, "It's quite clear that GoldSchmidt represents that majority of evolutionary scientific thought."

Sorry, that is absolutely false and if you did any research at all you would know better. But your research consists of quote mining from creationist websites. That is the deliberately ignorant leading the willfully blind.

For the lurkers, as you won't accept any evidence that contradicts your a priori beliefs, here is a transitional. Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the right center):

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

Source

[CE2949BB]

Scientists dragging society along. What a laugh....

Are you a Phil Hendrie fan, Metmom? :)

[FixedandDilated]

Sorry to see you go, Soliton. This place needs all the rational people it can get. :(

[CE2949BB]

#1 - Demanding that the government - and non-believers - act according to your holy book is a de facto theocracy.

Why do you object to morals?

I don't.

Many atheists on this forum like to brag about how much moral than believers they are.

"More" moral?

Well, what are they using for a standard then?

Didn't I already answer this in a different thread? Oy.

It is entirely possible to have an objective, reality-based morality. Objectivism is the strongest contender in this area.

Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand is the best introduction.

I have my disagreements with Objectivism, abortion for example, but by and large I agree.

The Golden Rule works as a principle for most situations.

#4 - Your ethical problems DO NOT dictate what a scientist can do. This is an example of theocracy. If you don't like that research, don't engage in it.

Then don't expect us to pay for it either.

Oh, I agree. I'd prefer most research to be left to universities, corporations, and individuals.

If scientists want to butcher babies in the name of progress, they can do it on their own dime.

That would be a violation of the baby's right to life.

It should not be government subsidized elitist welfare.

And by "elitist" you mean "scientist".

[CE2949BB]

Its most common form, Dominionism, represents one of the most extreme forms of Fundamentalist Christianity thought.

And you really believe this load of cr@p?

Hey, you're stealing our lines! :D

[CE2949BB]

I’d add to this that to allow no ethics or morality in science research is a scary suggestion indeed.

Oh, I agree.

Under CE’s statement that doing so is a theocracy,

What he said was: demanding the government and non-believers act in accord with your holy book is a de facto theocracy.

There's a difference.

there is nothing wrong with raising a human in a cage to see what effects a life of cage-life has on the human mind.

Like a Skinner box? ;)

In all seriousness, such an experiment would be a violation of the child's rights.

[big'ol_freeper]

Some Opuses are bigger than others.

[CE2949BB]

I would furher point out that it is not the priciple of scientific research that is objected to (by most Christians) but rather incomplete and sloppy research.

Science is self-correcting.

It is scientists who took the quick and easy way,

"Quick" and "easy" aren't words that one would normally use when talking about scientific research.

jumping to the conclusion that only embryonic cells would do,

They did?

who raised false hopes of cures.

The media is mostly to blame for that. They don't 'do' science stories well.

Time, patience and the responsible use of scientific method later showed that adult and placental cells offered much more promise.

ES cells are the most promising.

No one is married to 'em, so if something better is found... they'll go with that.

If science had incorporated even the most rudimentary vestiges of natural moral law,

Institutional review boards.

An institutional review board (IRB), also known as an independent ethics committee (IEC) or ethical review board (ERB) is a committee that has been formally designated to approve, monitor, and review biomedical and behavioral research involving humans with the aim to protect the rights and welfare of the research subjects.

Source: Wikipedia

much less the Christian perspective, then strides could have been made even faster in cellular research.

So, ah, how come the Catholic colleges aren't the world leaders in this field then?

Using ethical guidlines never prevents progress, it only protects civilization from the profane

As long as the ethical guidelines are ones you agree with, of course.

[NinoFan]

“What he said was: demanding the government and non-believers act in accord with your holy book is a de facto theocracy.”

That’s funny. I could’ve sworn that what he said was: #4 - Your ethical problems DO NOT dictate what a scientist can do. This is an example of theocracy. If you don’t like that research, don’t engage in it.

“Like a Skinner box? ;)

I had never heard of the Skinner box rumor. I intentionally came up with a hypothetical where the research really couldn’t be done In a more humane way.

“In all seriousness, such an experiment would be a violation of the child’s rights.”

Then you admit that there is a some magical line out there and your argument is significantly weakened. There is no more reason to support some notion of Randian natural rights that exist on their own than there is morality based on a Holy Book. If you take God or some arbiter that is above human thought out of the equation, then you’re left with all systems being equivalent in theory. There is nothing logically flawed about someone supporting a system where everyone gets skinned alive except those he needs to keep around to help with his continued existence. There may be practical considerations, but let’s not pretend that if our world contains nothing supernatural that it still makes sense to support some mystical concept of rights that exist out in the ether.

Believers voting their values does not a theocracy make. The church does not control the state in such a system. People by their own free will decide which church to attend and which values to select and support. People in a democracy/republic such as ours are free to change their minds at any time, convince others to change their minds,leave a certain church without fear of punishment by the state, etc. If the majority vote their own values (and let’s be clear, that’s what everyone does; our government is always oppressive to someone), then good for them.

[CE2949BB]

"Whole scientific disciplines"? Nice qualifier there.

That's not my standard, it's Coyoteman's. I asked you the same question I asked him about it (to the letter) because you were advancing the same position as him, though admittedly without the raging paranoia. Here's his list of banned disciplines from the thread I referenced earlier:

• Geology and archaeology--can't find evidence of the flood. GONE!
• Astronomy--that big bang stuff. GONE!
• Genetics--all those genetic similarities to chimps. GONE!
• Radiometric dating--can't get the ages right. GONE!
• Biology--all that evilution stuff. GONE!
• Paleontology--all those inconvenient fossils. GONE!

With the exception of radiometric dating, everything on that list is a very broad discipline, some of them (such as astronomy) so broad you couldn't get any broader. He says they'll be banned and that it's plain to see from the current positions of leaders in Christian circles. What say you?

Coyoteman's exact words were:

Just think of all the sciences that might be "ruled out" under a theocratic rule:

And I agree.

I'm sure, for example, that archaeology, astronomy, biology, genetics, geology, paleontology, and radiometric dating weren't very popular under the Taliban.

Take any holy book from The Big Three literally and you've got a helluva problem.

What scientific disciplines has the 700 club tried to eliminate?

While they haven't attempted to 'eliminate' any specific discipline, they - let's go with an example everyone can recognize - want to force Creationism (oops, "Intelligent Design") into public schools and/or restrict the teaching of evolution.

Further: I was using the 700 Club's ratings as an example of how popular the anti-science segment of the US population is.

I don't watch, so I may have missed the "call your Congressman and ban metallurgy" campaign.

You should. It's great entertainment.

Your ethical problems DO NOT dictate what a scientist can do. This is an example of theocracy. If you don't like that research, don't engage in it.

Let's see if that holds up, shall we?

Scientist A, Scientist B, Scientist C, and Scientist D are violating the rights of other people.

Scientist E... that's a harder case. Animals rights are a problem.

It is a valid point. How in the world can you claim that Galileo has no relevance to today when you just brought up stem cell research? Woo!

The objection raised to embryonic stem cell research is that it kills a human life.

Oy. Not touching that one.

Either you're arguing that an experiment that kills humans is fine or you're setting up a straw man here, claiming that Christians oppose science when no such thing is true.

Dover, man. That's all I've got to say.

[CE2949BB]

I intentionally came up with a hypothetical where the research really couldn’t be done In a more humane way.

Really? If you've got a strong stomach and some time to kill, search the web for Nazi medical experiments.

Sick, sick stuff.

“In all seriousness, such an experiment would be a violation of the child’s rights.”

Then you admit that there is a some magical line out there and your argument is significantly weakened.

I admit no such thing.

There is no more reason to support some notion of Randian natural rights that exist on their own than there is morality based on a Holy Book.

"Randian"? What is this, the National Review?

Is this like calling everyone who supports evolution a "Darwinist", thereby attempting to ignore the mountains of research and refinement that have taken place since the Origin of Species?

Anywho.

The difference is that Objectivist morality is based on reality and Christian morality (and Jewish and Islamic) is based on a 'supernatural' reality.

The church does not control the state in such a system.

We'll make sure it stays that way.

[NinoFan]

I am deeply disappointed. I expected an intelligent discussion and what I got was a kneejerk, defensive argument. Shame. To sink to your level for a moment and make it personal, I’ll just point out that Rand had the same problem when having to confront the fact that parts of her belief system were just as mystical as those she decried as mystics.

Your saying that Objectivist morality is based on reality doesn’t make it so anymore than a YEC saying the Earth is 6,000 years old is based on reality makes it so. You can’t just say rights exist, loosely base your conclusion on years of history, and call it a day. Rights are inherently abstract concepts. If nothing is supernatural, then the reality is that “natural rights’ are nothing more than mere constructions by the majority and a matter of convenience, not reality. Under such a system, you murdering someone is not morally wrong. It may cause a problem for civilization if done on a large scale, but there really is nothing wrong with you doing what you can if you can get away with it.