Stu youre just an idiot. Maybe maxraker wont end up being as famous as hoyle, but I would counter your bet by betting that max doesnt end up being seen as much of a joke as hoyle was by the scientific community. ffs the guy has a FALLACY named after him hahaha

They don't boo nobodys....Its not likely Max will even get booed.

Don't hold your breath...

He is pretty clearly a crackpot when it came to cosmology. I am not going to tip toe around that because he was an eminent scientist. Calling somebody a crackpot doesn't mean they have to be stupid. You are not even making sense internally. The whole post is explaining the difference between you and me... and then at the end you claim there isn't much difference between atheists and the religious.

I think the Hoyle example shows a clear difference between (most) atheists and (many of) the religious. Atheists don't seem to hold on to obviously wrong ideas because it helps make a case for their views on god. Theists do. If all you are saying is that both groups can be arrogant or mean I agree with that trivial point.

Okay, let's try and untangle this a bit.

The way things work in changes in species isn't like a line where one becomes the next thing that becomes the next thing. It isn't a straight line and the "previous type" doesn't necessarily die off. Also, we are speaking of something happening all over the world, and making a timeline from what we have found.

So, the timelines are always pretty elastic. You can say: "Tetrapods appeared at this time..." But scientists know when they read that, that it is shorthand for, "The oldest example of this type of animal we have found to date is..." Paleontology doesn't give "dates of birth" to classifications of animals. Not very specific ones, anyway.

There were "salamander-like" creatures with feet and toes, who literally walked on the bottom of the seabed, that is, not air-breathers, before we find examples of primitive lunged animals. So, the feet came first for some species. But, we have now African fish who crawl out onto the mud and are able to breathe air, and they use their fins, so in mud-hoppers, the lungs are coming first.

It's not a line, it's a jumble. Australopithecines evolved from gibbon-like primates. But we still have gibbons and siamangs. However, we no longer have Australopithecines. Biological evolution is the most complex branch of science there is, IMO, and it is taught in very simplistic ways. This leads pretty much everyone into not understanding much of how it works.

Not that we understand that much, anyway.

Praix, retire from posting. This is by far the best post you have ever made. Go out on top lol

No, it doesn't. Your posts ITT demonstrate yet again you don't even have a grade school level of understanding of evolution.

Here is a good summary of the significance of the new tetrapod find written by a biology professor. This will be way over Not Ready's head, but others here may benefit:

PZ Myers on new tetrapod

I think you're twisting the case around. Hoyle's initial problem with the "big bang" was it smacked of creationism and it couldn't be true because there was no God. Up until shortly before his death Hoyle was an atheist. You are holding up the actions of an atheist and claiming that is what theists do.

I'm saying atheists and theists do the same things....pretending they do not is arrogantly hiding your head in the sand. Its silly. Calling him an "eminent scientist" when his greatest work in cosmology and then calling him a "crackpot when it comes to cosmology" doesn't help your case.

Be that as it may, I'm fairly certain this is what you wanted to say initially anyway, classic bait and switch.

However, I just stick to my initial point...what has atheism got to do with anything? This was about science and religion, and maybe about scientists and religious followers.

Not to mention that I find it weird to think there somehow is a distinction between scientist and religious follower, one can be both - just like you can be a mathematician and a glassblower. The debate should really just be about science and religion if it is going to make any sort of sense whatsoever.

plzzzzz stop humoring this. im disjointed most of you guys are responding to this thread....

What Hoyle did is similar to what theists do. The difference was that pretty much all atheists are willing to say that Hoyle is a crackpot and not looking at the evidence properly.

Do you not see the gigantic difference between how atheists universally treat Hoyle and how many theists treat Debemski?

In 1997 a bunch of atheist gave Hoyle a Crafoord Prize(a medal presented by the king of Sweden and half a million us dollars).

I would say atheist treated Hoyle pretty well. Calling him a crackpot is grasping at straws. Maybe you think he is a crack pot because the atheists didn't give him the nobel prize(a medal presented by the king of Sweden and 1.4 million U.S. dollars)

Yep. They are an open-mined bunch that's for sure. Award him for some exceptional work he did while thinking he's a crackpot in another area. Next thing you know they'll be ok with Bobby Fischer as a chess champion even if he was nuts.
Where do you see a negative in this, it seems admirable to me?

Really? They were atheists? Who was the jury and where can I read about their views on God?

The 2 previous posts do a good job of explaining why Stus "point" was nonsensical. He was rightly awarded for work that has nothing to do with the big bang. His views on the big bang were rightly rejected by scientists, theists, atheists, women, advertising executives etc. The point is that atheists had no problem doing this even if it was his distaste of theism that caused him to do this.

You say he was a crack pot when it came to cosmology but his awards were for work in cosmology. You're being dellusional if you think were talking about two different fields. Its like saying Bobby Fischer had crackpot chess skills then calling him the best chess player in the world.

His awards were given to him by scientists. Its often pointed out on this forum that the vast majority of scientist are atheist.

Max is being nonsensical and inconsistent here, not me.

A chemist can be given an award for discovering oxygen and laughed at for thinking elves make petroleum.

Jesus. His work for stellar nucleosynthesis, which has nothing to do with the big bang. Many, many great physicists have totally crackpot papers including Heisenberg, Bohr and many others. Nobody has claimed that he didn't deserve the award and nobody claimed it was for his alternative to the big bang which was clearly a crackpot theory that nobody took seriously from the 70s on. You have no idea what you are talking about (practically ever)

So before you were saying Hoyle was a crackpot and now you're just backtracking to he had one crackpot idea?

You know this whole argument came about when you made the false accusation that only theists hang on to crackpot ideas. I brought up Hoyle to prove your accusation wrong. Maybe you should just concede that you were wrong. Just admit that what you say is a problem with theists is also a problem with atheists. Surely you are smart enough to know there is no way to win this argument. Claiming Hoyle doesn't count(as an example of why you are wrong) because he was a "crackpot" is nonsensical.

At best all you can say is crackpots hold on to crackpot ideas. Perhaps you can say that theists have more crackpots under their tent(but if you do, I expect you to back that statement up).

Individual atheists do practically anything you can think of, including murder,rape etc. Deep stuff. The Hoyle example was somewhat funny because it went over your head that most atheists rejecting his argument is a good thing. And something that theists fail at ofter (re:intelligent design) It also is not even clear he was an atheist his whole life according to wiki. When it came to his bio, I assumed you knew what you were talking about which is a mistake I will never make again.

Hoyle was an atheist for most of his life. He became a theist just shortly before his death as new cosmological fact was revealed the appears to have swayed him. People can go read the wiki bio and see that you are trying to twist things to make your case.

Also, nothing went over my head. It went over your head. You claimed something exclusive to theists. I brought out Hoyle to show that you were wrong. Then as you are prone to do, you twist things to try to make your case. You were basically saying, "Yeah...this atheists is guilty of the things that only theists do but this Hoyle guy doesn't count as an atheists because he was a crackpot in cosmology but also an eminent scientist in cosmology. However we can use this atheists behaviors to show what is wrong with the behavior of theists". Just give this up Max. You've already dug yourself so deep into the fools hole you can't possibly climb out.

Can you quote where MR said this, I must have missed it.

Lol, sorry I still think my argument has went over your head. Hoyle's change to theism came atleast 20 years before his death. There was no "new cosmological fact" that appeared soon before his death. Your inability to simply read a wiki article written is rather remarkable.

Do you find it ironic that your go to example of an atheist being as ignorant as your average theist..... is in fact a theist?

hahahaha fk you beat me to it seriously lolling when i read his bio and put this together

I did a brief search of Hoyle. In 1983 he wrote in a book "I am not a Christian". Yet he eventually opposed Darwinism. He seemed to believe in some kind of higher life form, but I see no evidence he was even a theist. See this quote:

Not exactly a transcendent, omnipotent being.

But since you've read his bio maybe you have better references.