Author Topic: Does Sean D Pittman make valid points for intelligent design? 1hr 8 mins (Read 8513 times)

Damian79 · « **on:** March 17, 2010, 12:14:41 AM »

http://www.viddler.com/explore/Seanpit/videos/4/

I like this guy, he is a creationist but he doesnt make up shit and lie.

Mandark · « **Reply #1 on:** March 17, 2010, 12:20:02 AM »

Without clicking on the link, FUCKING NO.

Ichirou · « **Reply #2 on:** March 17, 2010, 12:21:15 AM »

Going to watch this. Nothing wrong with making sure that so-called evolutionary "science" passes rigorous questioning.

Sean D Pittman

Damian79 · « **Reply #3 on:** March 17, 2010, 12:23:58 AM »

Quote from: Mandark on March 17, 2010, 12:20:02 AM

Without clicking on the link, FUCKING NO.

You know what he says already?

CajoleJuice · « **Reply #4 on:** March 17, 2010, 12:24:39 AM »

Quote from: Mandark on March 17, 2010, 12:20:02 AM

Without clicking on the link, FUCKING NO.

gonna have to agree with this

Ichirou · « **Reply #5 on:** March 17, 2010, 12:25:27 AM »

Quote from: Damian79 on March 17, 2010, 12:23:58 AM

Quote from: Mandark on March 17, 2010, 12:20:02 AM
Without clicking on the link, FUCKING NO.

You know what he says already?

A shame that Darwinists are so closed-minded...can't accept their beloved evolutionary THEORY might be completely off-base.

Diunx · « **Reply #6 on:** March 17, 2010, 12:29:50 AM »

Quote from: Damian79 on March 17, 2010, 12:14:41 AM

he is a creationist but he doesnt make up shit and lie.

You can't have one without the other.

Ichirou · « **Reply #7 on:** March 17, 2010, 12:30:32 AM »

Damian79 · « **Reply #8 on:** March 17, 2010, 12:33:11 AM »

Quote from: Ichirou on March 17, 2010, 12:25:27 AM

A shame that Darwinists are so closed-minded...can't accept their beloved evolutionary THEORY might be completely off-base.

Essentially that is what makes the difference between a religion and a science, science has the possibility of being falsifiable and a new theory developed, if you dont allow that it makes it into a religion. That is why I love science. If you thought lets say "the theory of gravity" is wrong you can test it to see if it works.

Quote from: Diunx on March 17, 2010, 12:29:50 AM

Quote from: Damian79 on March 17, 2010, 12:14:41 AM
he is a creationist but he doesnt make up shit and lie.

You can't have one without the other.

I thought so too since so many do, but this guy seems legit.

Ichirou · « **Reply #9 on:** March 17, 2010, 12:39:03 AM »

Quote from: Damian79 on March 17, 2010, 12:33:11 AM

Quote from: Ichirou on March 17, 2010, 12:25:27 AM
A shame that Darwinists are so closed-minded...can't accept their beloved evolutionary THEORY might be completely off-base.

Essentially that is what makes the difference between a religion and a science, science has the possibility of being falsifiable and a new theory developed, if you dont allow that it makes it into a religion. That is why I love science. If you thought lets say "the theory of gravity" is wrong you can test it to see if it works.

Blasphemer.

Great Rumbler · « **Reply #10 on:** March 17, 2010, 12:40:17 AM »

Quote from: Ichirou on March 17, 2010, 12:25:27 AM

Quote from: Damian79 on March 17, 2010, 12:23:58 AM
Quote from: Mandark on March 17, 2010, 12:20:02 AM
Without clicking on the link, FUCKING NO.

You know what he says already?

A shame that Darwinists are so closed-minded...can't accept their beloved evolutionary THEORY might be completely off-base.

Did Ichi's account get hacked by Phoenix Dark?

Mandark · « **Reply #11 on:** March 17, 2010, 12:46:15 AM »

Quote from: Damian79 on March 17, 2010, 12:33:11 AM

this guy seems legit.

Does he propose a falsifiable theory of creationism?

If no, why should we give a shit?

If yes, pull the other one.

Damian79 · « **Reply #12 on:** March 17, 2010, 12:53:37 AM »

Craetionism by default is falsifiable i.e. that the world is 6000 years old. SAme way that the theory of evolution is falsifiable ie that the world is millions(billions?) of years old.

Mandark · « **Reply #13 on:** March 17, 2010, 01:25:26 AM »

I Googled the slideshow that goes along with this talk.

Assuming it's representative of his speech, then there's no reason for anyone to waste their time listening to it. It's the standard set of ID talking points. Behe! Dembski! Irreducible Complexity!

I recognize the cliches cause I did my laps on the hamster wheel that is internet debate on evolution. It helped me learn how to organize my thoughts, but it also taught me that unless a person is still in the early, squishy-brained phase of their life, then odds are vanishingly small that they can be swayed by reason on topics like this.

At a certain age, treating ID as credible is a sign that someone very much wants ID to be credible, and that any discussion on the matter will be pointless chin-stroking.

If the 79 at the end of your handle refers to your birth year, and you don't already understand the dishonesty of the Watchmaker metaphor, then there's really no point having it explained to you.

Damian79 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 17, 2010, 01:31:12 AM »

Quote from: dcharlie on March 17, 2010, 01:12:08 AM

i've not watched it all but the whole ideas fall down the second you DEMAND that that something has to have a creator, but THEN exclude God!

i am watching now, so far - lot of "wookie defense" being employed! "BU BU HUMANS MADE COMPUTERS!!!!" :/

okay, stopped watchin, started skipping through - what are the odds of evolution? science theories are never 100% certain! Dawkings! Some other guy who earned money from books - probably some science scam, etc etc.

I think you missed his point there, he was arguing that while humans made computers that computers arent less interestign in their workings. Did you miss the part about kenneth miller? Anyway this guy hasnt writtent a book yet.

Quote from: Mandark on March 17, 2010, 01:25:26 AM

I Googled the slideshow that goes along with this talk.

Assuming it's representative of his speech, then there's no reason for anyone to waste their time listening to it. It's the standard set of ID talking points. Behe! Dembski! Irreducible Complexity!

I recognize the cliches cause I did my laps on the hamster wheel that is internet debate on evolution. It helped me learn how to organize my thoughts, but it also taught me that unless a person is still in the early, squishy-brained phase of their life, then odds are vanishingly small that they can be swayed by reason on topics like this.

At a certain age, treating ID as credible is a sign that someone very much wants ID to be credible, and that any discussion on the matter will be pointless chin-stroking.

If the 79 at the end of your handle refers to your birth year, and you don't already understand the dishonesty of the Watchmaker metaphor, then there's really no point having it explained to you.

He also talks about how Kenneth miller seems to have destroyed behe and such.

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #15 on:** March 17, 2010, 01:32:28 AM »

Mandark, regardless of his age you'd be wasting your time on Damian. He's "proud" of being a weeabootastic japafag.

Damian79 · « **Reply #16 on:** March 17, 2010, 01:37:13 AM »

What is the watchmaker metaphor?

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #17 on:** March 17, 2010, 01:42:11 AM »

the watchmaker metaphor suggests that anything of sufficient complexity had to have a creator. of course, it complete fails to acknowledge that the very idea of "complexity" is a human psychological construct -- to the universe, a rock is no different to a human is no different to a watch is no different to a galaxy. the idea of "complexity" only matters to us and our distinguished mentally-challenged sense of awe

Damian79 · « **Reply #18 on:** March 17, 2010, 01:45:00 AM »

Quote from: Professor Prole on March 17, 2010, 01:42:11 AM

the watchmaker metaphor suggests that anything of sufficient complexity had to have a creator. of course, it complete fails to acknowledge that the very idea of "complexity" is a human psychological construct -- to the universe, a rock is no different to a human is no different to a watch is no different to a galaxy. the idea of "complexity" only matters to us and our distinguished mentally-challenged sense of awe

I have never seen this argument. Explain to me the bolded part please.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #19 on:** March 17, 2010, 01:45:52 AM »

it's all just matter and energy in a specific random configuration, dude. to the nameless span of material existence, absent all human attempts to force their metaphors on the universe that surrounds them, a person is the same thing as a rock: a bunch of particles that exist in a specific configuration occupyng a specific place at a specific moment in time

if you think that sucks, kill yourself

if not,

Damian79 · « **Reply #20 on:** March 17, 2010, 01:50:42 AM »

Quote from: Professor Prole on March 17, 2010, 01:45:52 AM

it's all just matter and energy in a specific random configuration, dude. to the nameless void that surrounds us, absent all human attempts to force their metaphors on the universe that surrounds them, a person is the same thing as a rock: a bunch of particles that exist in a specific configuration occupyng a specific place at a specific moment in time

Doesnt that imply there is no need for evolution, abiogenesis, big bang etc. etc.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #21 on:** March 17, 2010, 01:51:13 AM »

also, all creationists make shit up and lie. that's what religion is. making shit up and lying isn't always awful; human society thrives on many, many necessary lies

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #22 on:** March 17, 2010, 01:51:40 AM »

Quote from: Damian79 on March 17, 2010, 01:50:42 AM

Quote from: Professor Prole on March 17, 2010, 01:45:52 AM
it's all just matter and energy in a specific random configuration, dude. to the nameless void that surrounds us, absent all human attempts to force their metaphors on the universe that surrounds them, a person is the same thing as a rock: a bunch of particles that exist in a specific configuration occupyng a specific place at a specific moment in time

Doesnt that imply there is no need for evolution, abiogenesis, big bang etc. etc.

of course there's no NEED for it. what NEEDS it? doesn't mean it hasn't happened or isn't happening, of course

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #23 on:** March 17, 2010, 01:53:01 AM »

i will say that zen buddhism at least has the defense of contemplating what *is*, not what *was* or what *should be*

Mandark · « **Reply #24 on:** March 17, 2010, 01:55:09 AM »

ITT Prole proves me right.

Damian79 · « **Reply #25 on:** March 17, 2010, 01:55:48 AM »

Quote from: Professor Prole on March 17, 2010, 01:51:40 AM

of course there's no NEED for it. what NEEDS it? doesn't mean it hasn't happened or isn't happening, of course

So you are sayibng that the universe just is as it is. Just exists the way it is without any reason or order?

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #26 on:** March 17, 2010, 01:57:43 AM »

i am saying experience the universe as you know it to be, not what you want it to be

you are the one who wants it to be reasoned and ordered. just because you want it to be so does not make it so any more than an atheist wanting it to be pure chaos might make it so. of course, the atheist has the benefit of working from the simplest set of assumptions, so chances are he's setting himself for less disappointment, or at least less gullibility to ID frauds on the interwubs

Mandark · « **Reply #27 on:** March 17, 2010, 02:01:17 AM »

Quote from: Damian79 on March 17, 2010, 01:55:48 AM

Quote from: Professor Prole on March 17, 2010, 01:51:40 AM
of course there's no NEED for it. what NEEDS it? doesn't mean it hasn't happened or isn't happening, of course

So you are sayibng that the universe just is as it is. Just exists the way it is without any reason or order?

Yearning for a higher purpose is human and not a bad thing. But don't let it make you believe utter bullshit about physical phenomena, especially the stuff which has been sussed out by people who put in the hours to study it rigorously and honestly. It's disrespectful to them, and to the greater ideal of human intellect and discovery.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #28 on:** March 17, 2010, 02:04:07 AM »

really. let science get to the Compleat Epistemology Of All Thangs in its own due time. sorry you're so impatient, but imposing your view of what proper "order and reason" is on the universe and existence isn't gonna somehow make you ultimately correct. these things are hard! people are dumb! it's gonna take YEARS

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #29 on:** March 17, 2010, 02:04:24 AM »

Quote from: The Business on March 17, 2010, 02:01:51 AM

prole is smert

i also enjoyed avatar

Damian79 · « **Reply #30 on:** March 17, 2010, 02:13:46 AM »

This makes no sense to me. It is like saying that 1 centimetre is no difference to a metre to the universe.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #31 on:** March 17, 2010, 02:15:20 AM »

it isn't. a "metre" is a human notion

Damian79 · « **Reply #32 on:** March 17, 2010, 02:18:51 AM »

@_@ I dont think i can ever understand that concept.

Dickie Dee · « **Reply #33 on:** March 17, 2010, 02:19:15 AM »

Quote from: Damian79 on March 17, 2010, 02:13:46 AM

This makes no sense to me. It is like saying that 1 centimetre is no difference to a metre to the universe.

i have a feeling that even if you quoted what this was in response to, it'd still be a non-sequitur

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #34 on:** March 17, 2010, 02:19:43 AM »

yet you profess to understand the illogical gibberish spewed by one sean d pittman

Diunx · « **Reply #35 on:** March 17, 2010, 02:20:57 AM »

Quote from: Damian79 on March 17, 2010, 02:18:51 AM

@_@ I dont think i can ever understand that concept.

Really? I consider myself a very stupid person and I can perfectly understand Prole's point.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #36 on:** March 17, 2010, 02:21:58 AM »

smh @ the OP

Fresh Prince · « **Reply #37 on:** March 17, 2010, 02:32:41 AM »

prole

brawndolicious · « **Reply #38 on:** March 17, 2010, 03:03:25 AM »

Quote from: Damian79 on March 17, 2010, 02:18:51 AM

@_@ I dont think i can ever understand that concept.

matter itself cannot be defined. we can say what we observe but we know (after trial & error) that our assumptions are often incorrect. Even in this century, we constantly discover new things about the way that the universe works. You shouldn't assume anything is not a theory. This is why it is impossible to prove God as it is also impossible to disprove it.

Ichirou · « **Reply #39 on:** March 17, 2010, 03:42:14 AM »

Prole won't be going to Heaven.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #40 on:** March 17, 2010, 03:44:14 AM »

He'll go to an afterlife where he's forced to be a Nintendo tester for all eternity, constantly playing games 10-12 years behind the times.

Ichirou · « **Reply #41 on:** March 17, 2010, 03:55:25 AM »

No, the only game he'll be able to play is Nintendogs.

muckhole · « **Reply #42 on:** March 17, 2010, 03:57:58 AM »

While eating protein bars.

Ichirou · « **Reply #43 on:** March 17, 2010, 03:58:35 AM »

And sitting on the floor.

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #44 on:** March 17, 2010, 04:23:49 AM »

With Dean Koontz audiobooks playing 24/7

Brehvolution · « **Reply #45 on:** March 17, 2010, 10:39:50 AM »

Did god put the dinosaurs there to test your faith?

Did evolution put dinosaurs there to test your gullibility?

BlueTsunami · « **Reply #46 on:** March 17, 2010, 10:48:54 AM »

God is up there in heaven with celestial sized crotchet hooks, knitting the fabric of our reality. String theory explained

Tristam · « **Reply #47 on:** March 17, 2010, 10:53:34 AM »

Quote from: Damian79 on March 17, 2010, 02:18:51 AM

@_@ I dont think i can ever understand that concept.

A bit from a free web-based statistics textbook may help you better understand what Prole is saying:

Quote from: statistics textbook

When measurement involves simply counting out the number of a set of items or events according to the series of cardinal numbers—one, two, three, four, etc.—the scale of measurement is spoken of as an absolute scale. All other commonly recognized measurement scales are relative in the sense that they are designed to measure not the absolute number of items or events but rather the magnitude of some particular attribute—length, width, weight, temperature, velocity, electrical potential, etc.—relative to the units of some particular scale that has been designed, or has evolved, for taking the measure of that attribute.

http://faculty.vassar.edu/lowry/webtext.html

Quote from: BlueTsunami on March 17, 2010, 10:48:54 AM

God is up there in heaven with celestial sized crotchet hooks, knitting the fabric of our reality. String theory explained

Human Snorenado · « **Reply #48 on:** March 17, 2010, 11:10:41 AM »

Quote from: Zero Hero on March 17, 2010, 10:39:50 AM

Did god put the dinosaurs there to test your faith?

Did evolution put dinosaurs there to test your gullibility?

Disposable White Guy · « **Reply #49 on:** March 17, 2010, 11:21:35 AM »

Quote from: BlueTsunami on March 17, 2010, 10:48:54 AM

God is up there in heaven with celestial sized crotchet hooks, knitting the fabric of our reality. String theory explained

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #50 on:** March 17, 2010, 06:14:35 PM »

People make up this shit because they don't want to believe that when we die there is nothing waiting for us except maggots that eat our decomposing flesh. I do admit that the fantasy of some kind of beautiful afterlife where you can reconnect with loved ones that have past and live in peace for all eternity does sound a lot more appealing.

Eric P · « **Reply #51 on:** March 17, 2010, 06:18:44 PM »

you don't know my family

put me down for "maggots" plz

etiolate · « **Reply #52 on:** March 17, 2010, 06:20:33 PM »

I always saw no afterlife and no judgement as far more relieving than a merit based afterlife.

Mupepe · « **Reply #53 on:** March 17, 2010, 06:22:26 PM »

I agree with etiolate. Let me fucking go and be done. Anyone who believes that God will create some beautiful afterlife where we're all perfectly happy is fucked. Did these assholes not read the bible? That's not how this God fucking works. Chances are it's filled with another fucking book and a bunch of other dilemmas and tasks and temptations all for who knows what.

The Fake Shemp · « **Reply #54 on:** March 17, 2010, 06:33:12 PM »

In this thread, Generation X'ers become atheists because of overwhelming desire to believe that their extended family (or immediate family!) will hopefully stay dead and never be heard from again.

Mupepe · « **Reply #55 on:** March 17, 2010, 06:36:16 PM »

I fucking hope so. Although I believe they'll end up in hell before I do so it's okay.

Smooth Groove · « **Reply #56 on:** March 17, 2010, 06:38:14 PM »

Hey, Prole, can I trade you some dollar bills for hundreds? In the grand scheme of life, they're basically worth the same.

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #57 on:** March 17, 2010, 06:47:32 PM »

that would assume that *i* don't value my life and well-being, which i do -- i am perfectly fine anthropomorphizing myself, on account of being human and all

unless you are assuming that the universe begins and ends with me

spoiler (click to show/hide)

it does, fags

[close]

BlueTsunami · « **Reply #58 on:** March 17, 2010, 06:59:14 PM »

We all know in our heart of hearts that the afterlife is exactly like A Dream May Come. Painterly vistas, Robin Williams and family members who have already passed on disguised as Cuba Gooding

Van Cruncheon · « **Reply #59 on:** March 17, 2010, 07:46:36 PM »

what dreams may come was originally penned by richard matheson

Teh Moar You Know(tm)

News:

Author Topic: Does Sean D Pittman make valid points for intelligent design? 1hr 8 mins (Read 8513 times)