crikey you type fast, I think I was writing some stuff and editing some stuff as you were rebutting me, you might want to check the sorta self-corections I might have been writing while you were wriging your reply.

There are just a few missing details that aren't immediately obvious(like my whole embarrasing "ability to select a mate" thing), and that a school will not teach because of the controversy. I think alot more people would understand if some more of those details were given rather then leaving people to fill in the gaps with their imaginations.

But yeah, the question no longer stands

Last edited by Zombie0915 on Aug-30-2005 at 22:10

How dare you all have a religious discussion without me?

___________________
aka Tits McGee
aka Chesty LaRue
aka Busty St. Claire

back to youring drinking binge you hussy.

___________________
Liverpool Champions of Europe 2005!


TA's NFL survival League winner 2006!

quote:

Originally posted by Zombie0915 If you read say, Kuhn, or Popper, or some others, science sounds alot more like a power struggle to publish each person's opinion more than it sounds like an efficient method to reveal truths about the universe.

It can be, as many academics tend to become egomanics. It is "true" as you say that this is an unfortunate event, but this is no basis to dismiss all or even some of science's findings.

quote:

Originally posted by Zombie0915 There are alot of judgement calls made in science without any real empirical reason, those judgement calls that nobody seems to acknowledge are things that dont allow me to beleive that science is unfettered truth.

I've had this discussion with many a postmodernist philosopher.

So, examples, please.

quote:

Originally posted by Zombie0915 Beleiving in solely creation requires one to beleive that we are all under the influence of some greater being that has seemingly unlimited abilities, and that everything that exists was designed by this being, making one dismiss the very noticable patterns in how living things have changed over time. One almost has to falsify the past in order to beleive that a higher being created everything the way we know it today.

But understand how neat and tidy such belief is for many people, since it absolves them of having to educate themselves, form a responsible, intellectual opinion and come to grips with the potential that this life is all there is.

Some people just don't possess the ability to, or the psychological tools to cope with, that possibility at the stage of life they're in.

-N

___________________

Join the campaign to ban political sigs in the Political Discussion / Debate forum!

Last edited by TheNobleEu on Aug-31-2005 at 16:16

quote:

Originally posted by TheNobleEu I'm quite willing to hear your arguments, please humour me by repeating them (please consider yours within the context of the documents I already posted). And feel free to use the bible at length in its original language. So you're saying you absorbed the close-to-a-dozen documents I referenced last week? To some extent, yes indeed. Of course I have. I have several colleagues that will teach a class in how the bible can't be used for anything resembling an historical source (or as anything other than a religious document) and then right afterward go to the shul. Faith doesn't = stupidty. But in some cases it raises fundamental questions about someone's competences. -N

finally, someone who is on my side.

oh man, the debates span lengths and lengths of pages and time. lets see what a search will do.

i suggest a look at this thread.

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ighlight=oxygen

thats where i put the most effort into argueing and had the most time to research and post, as did my fellow debaters over the christmas break.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: finally, someone who is on my side. oh man, the debates span lengths and lengths of pages and time. lets see what a search will do. i suggest a look at this thread. http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ighlight=oxygen thats where i put the most effort into argueing and had the most time to research and post, as did my fellow debaters over the christmas break.

You might want to re-read his post.

And why link a post in which you had no valid argument pertaining to 02 levels to begin with?

A bit confusing.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 You might want to re-read his post. And why link a post in which you had no valid argument pertaining to 02 levels to begin with? A bit confusing.

invalid according to your view on things? because u say its invalid doesnt make it invalid. why is it invalid? you already have a preconcieved view on what your going to accept as true. because you choose to relegate god to a myth, whatever i say, no matter how convincing will mean nothing to you. but, still i argue.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: invalid according to your view on things? because u say its invalid doesnt make it invalid. why is it invalid? you already have a preconcieved view on what your going to accept as true. because you choose to relegate god to a myth, whatever i say, no matter how convincing will mean nothing to you. but, still i argue.

It's invalid because you have no scientific validity behind your arguments ... not even any empirical evidence to refute Drug_Tito's rebuttal. If what you had to say was backed by any legitimate studies people might take you more seriously. Instead you attempt to use science as far as it takes you, and then you abandon it when it starts to stray from your alternative hypothesis ... if it can even be considered one.

Or do you have a scientific case for oxygen not being as toxic at higher pressures? As a diver, I can tell you that that's really quite silly.

___________________
Retro ...

Last edited by occrider on Sep-02-2005 at 13:20

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: invalid according to your view on things?

No, invalid according to a scientific standpoint to have valid evidence to support assertions. I just happen to merely share that view. I have used scientific reasoning to refute your points an endless number of times in the past, along with others.

Problem with validity?

quote:

because u say its invalid doesnt make it invalid. why is it invalid?

Logic and scientific rationale says you're quite invalid. Drug_Tito's statement is quite correct and you have posed no possible natural answer to his reply. As Occ stated, you only use science up to a point when it agrees with your statements, then discard or blatantly abuse it when it doesn't.

It's tedious and tiresome. If you want to discuss scientific reasoning, then do so. But stop abusing it now. It's not merely just an insult to me, but to every scientist who's devoted their lives to understanding the natural world around them.

If you're still not understanding me, think of it this way. Let's take an engineering company that's really good at building bridges. All of their bridges are structurally sound and very strong. They last for years on end. You come along and tell them that not only are their bridges made of Nerf, but that they've done it all wrong for years. You then try to tell them that they don't know what the hell they're doing, never thought of doing it differently, and are ignorant of looking at other possibilities of building a bridge.

So they ask you politely how else they could do it. But since you yourself have never built a bridge before, you show them some blueprints. They examine your blueprints and notice numbers and equations that do not add up in any manner - the structural integrity would fall instantly the moment a car drives over it. They build a model on a smaller scale in accordance to your numbers and show you just how unstable and invalid your calculations were, and show you just how easily the bridge collapses.

But you merely tell them it's bullshit, they're wrong and you're right. You run off telling them they are so ignorant of your views.

Now who the fuck do you think the logically-thinking man would believe here? This is your problem, along with every other creationist I have ever debated with. You search so desperately for answers that are congruent with your pre-conceived beliefs that have no scientific validity in the first place. How the fuck would you ever expect to have a scientifically valid notion hold water to a spiritual notion that can never have scientific validity in the first place?

I don't give a fuck what you believe in, Trance, nor do I want you to give a fuck what I believe in when it comes to scientific reasoning. This is not the place for belief. If you have no evidence to support your notions, it's invalid and cannot be science. Please try to understand this.

quote:

you already have a preconcieved view on what your going to accept as true.

My pre-conceived notion took many years with a wealth of evidence to support my conclusions. I would have no notion of any sort without valid evidence. You really should try and do the same some time in your life.

quote:

because you choose to relegate god to a myth, whatever i say, no matter how convincing will mean nothing to you. but, still i argue.

Argue all you want. The fact that you still argue does not entail any of your points prior to were scientifically rationale. Indeed, I think we've made a pretty obvious case otherwise over the years.

And whoever said God was a myth? I'm not an atheist. More of a deist, really. But whatever beliefs I have of the supernatural are unsupported and scientifically invalid, and I freely admit that at every given chance when someone asks me about my spirituality. To hold such beliefs in spirituality in methodological naturalistic philosophy would be erroneous indeed.

But by all means, keep trying to argue. I cannot help your shortsightedness. You still fail to grasp the simple fact that a supernatural deity of any sort cannot be tested, retested, observed, and falsified and can therefore not be held in a scientific view in any way. Until you understand this most obvious, basic point, you're still going to rant in utter silliness.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: finally, someone who is on my side.

Eheh, that doesn't really sound like he's on your side.

quote:

oh man, the debates span lengths and lengths of pages and time. lets see what a search will do. i suggest a look at this thread. http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ighlight=oxygen thats where i put the most effort into argueing and had the most time to research and post, as did my fellow debaters over the christmas break.

Yes, I suggest everybody looks at the thread and sees how you've conjured up more nonsense than an average Macguyver episode and haven't responded to any objections raised regarding those nonsenses. Now that I read it your logic looks like a Monthy Python episode.

quote:

BEDEVERE: Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch. VILLAGER #1: Are there? VILLAGER #2: Ah? VILLAGER #1: What are they? CROWD: Tell us! Tell us!... BEDEVERE: Tell me. What do you do with witches? VILLAGER #2: Burn! VILLAGER #1: Burn! CROWD: Burn! Burn them up! Burn!... BEDEVERE: And what do you burn apart from witches? VILLAGER #1: More witches! VILLAGER #3: Shh! VILLAGER #2: Wood! BEDEVERE: So, why do witches burn? [pause] VILLAGER #3: B--... 'cause they're made of... wood? BEDEVERE: Good! Heh heh. CROWD: Oh, yeah. Oh. BEDEVERE: So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood? VILLAGER #1: Build a bridge out of her. BEDEVERE: Ah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone? VILLAGER #1: Oh, yeah. RANDOM: Oh, yeah. True. Uhh... BEDEVERE: Does wood sink in water? VILLAGER #1: No. No. VILLAGER #2: No, it floats! It floats! VILLAGER #1: Throw her into the pond! CROWD: The pond! Throw her into the pond! BEDEVERE: What also floats in water? VILLAGER #1: Bread! VILLAGER #2: Apples! VILLAGER #3: Uh, very small rocks! VILLAGER #1: Cider! VILLAGER #2: Uh, gra-- gravy! VILLAGER #1: Cherries! VILLAGER #2: Mud! VILLAGER #3: Uh, churches! Churches! VILLAGER #2: Lead! Lead! ARTHUR: A duck! CROWD: Oooh. BEDEVERE: Exactly. So, logically... VILLAGER #1: If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood. BEDEVERE: And therefore? VILLAGER #2: A witch! VILLAGER #1: A witch! CROWD: A witch! A witch!... VILLAGER #4: Here is a duck. Use this duck. [quack quack quack] BEDEVERE: Very good. We shall use my largest scales. CROWD: Ohh! Ohh! Burn the witch! Burn the witch! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Ahh! Ahh...

___________________
1+1=10

Tito,

Which do you think is the most inefectual? The War on Drugs or the War on Creationism?

I stopped keeping track a long time ago, but isn't this sortie number 43 against TvD? Good luck on your next drug interdiction flight, and don't forget to say hello to your wingmen for me.

___________________
Светопресавление
your pearl casting hero