|
Post by snow on Sept 7, 2019 13:46:32 GMT -5
I have read a lot of Hawking and I have never seen anything like what is reported above. That's because he stuck to facts, what had been proven beyond doubt. Creationists can't accept truth because it interferes with what they feel they need to believe in order to be saved. One of many reasons why I hate what religious beliefs do to people. All so they hopefully can live forever in bliss. It's sad because they are doing all this, looking extremely naive by quoting stuff that has been in error for a long time, just because an ancient book that didn't know much about anything says they have to in order to be saved.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 7, 2019 13:50:31 GMT -5
That's true. Religion is based on lies so why not tell a few more in support of the original lie when science presents facts that prove the creation story to be no better than what comes out of the bulls bum. I can’t remember what its called but I once heard about a condition or effect that arises when a person with knowledge tries to convince a person with beliefs. It happens when presenting facts does nothing to correct the others false unsubstantiated belief. As I recall the more facts offered the stronger the believer becomes in their belief system. This becomes so entrenched that the believer will take their misconceptions to the grave in many cases and never become enlightened. As I recall (and remember as I get older memory sometimes fails) it has something to do with how the believer is receiving the facts. Because the believer does not view the fact caller as a god (OMNISCIENT) there is no way in which they can accept the facts because mom and dad won’t and the workers never indicated they did either and grandpa said “if it aint in the Bible it’s all hog wash.” So friends and neighbors what it boils down to is that believers when receiving corrective data see it as a contradicting argument which to them makes it extremely more ambiguous then merely being open to receiving new information from a godly source. In almost all cases there will be a resistance to even trying to understand what is being offered. But hey it’s not the end of the world just yet. It only means one less person to help pull the plow towards a better understanding. I read that somewhere too. So you're remembering right. Facts rarely change a believer's mind. And like you state, only tend to make the believer believe more strongly what they believe fact or not. Denying facts that contradict what their particular sacred book says makes them feel like they are so virtuous and have a strong faith that they are abundantly proud of. The more they can deny the better they think they look in the eyes of their particular god. You rarely can change the beliefs of a believer that thinks this way. www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/this-article-wont-change-your-mind/519093/ Here are a few relevant paragraphs from the article. The whole article is quite interesting actually. A man with a conviction is a hard man to change,” Festinger, Henry Riecken, and Stanley Schacter wrote in When Prophecy Fails, their 1957 book about this study. “Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point … Suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before.”
This doubling down in the face of conflicting evidence is a way of reducing the discomfort of dissonance, and is part of a set of behaviors known in the psychology literature as “motivated reasoning.” Motivated reasoning is how people convince themselves or remain convinced of what they want to believe—they seek out agreeable information and learn it more easily; and they avoid, ignore, devalue, forget, or argue against information that contradicts their beliefs.
It starts at the borders of attention—what people even allow to breach their bubbles. In a 1967 study, researchers had undergrads listen to some pre-recorded speeches, with a catch—the speeches were pretty staticky. But, the participants could press a button that reduced the static for a few seconds if they wanted to get a clearer listen. Sometimes the speeches were about smoking—either linking it to cancer, or disputing that link—and sometimes it was a speech attacking Christianity. Students who smoked were very eager to tune in to the speech that suggested cigarettes might not cause cancer, whereas nonsmokers were more likely to slam on the button for the antismoking speech. Similarly, the more-frequent churchgoers were happy to let the anti-Christian speech dissolve into static while the less religious would give the button a few presses.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 7, 2019 14:00:38 GMT -5
www.conservapedia.com/PseudoscienceTopics classified as pseudoscience Acupuncture Alternative medicine The ancient astronaut theory Animal magnetism Astrology Big Bang astronomy Biodynamic agriculture Clairvoyance Cryptozoology Crystal healing Darwinism Richard Dawkins' work[8][9] (see: Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience) Dianetics Dominionism Environmentalism Evolutionary biology[10][11][12][13][14][15] Extrasensory perception Feng shui Free Energy Ghost hunting Global warming Graphology Homeopathy Hypnosis Iridology Levitation Lunar effects Lysenkoism Magnet Therapy Memetics (coincidentally originated by Richard Dawkins) Mesmerism Myers-Briggs Type Indicator PZ Myers' work[16] Naturopathy Neuro-linguistic programming Numerology Old earth geology Orgone therapy Palmistry Parapsychology Phrenology Population control Pseudoarchaeology Psychoanalysis Psychokinesis Reflexology Carl Sagan's work Scientific racism, the basis for Adolf Hitler's eugenics system Scientology Séances Self-projection as God (also known as vicarious autotheism) Transgenderism Ufology Don't forget to place religious beliefs at the very top of the list. There are a few things that shouldn't be on the list, but I think you know that don't you. You just can't admit it because it would scare you if you tried to believe facts instead of your bible.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 7, 2019 14:02:17 GMT -5
“Pseudoscience/sutio “ appears in no online dictionary. Sorry, your request remains gibberish. oh for crying out loud in a bucket: Please explain what is pseudoscience about what Carl taught his students. Well if it contradicts the bible. nuf said....
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 7, 2019 14:05:18 GMT -5
I gave you a very relevant equations that Carl used in his classroom and asked you to explain what was pseudoscience about them. But as you have no idea what you are talking about and just seem to be repeating what you copy from online. Internet browsers are both a blessing and a menace. Robert Albert Sutio: the chief proponent of the pseudoscience's of his day. Why not use your arm chair to read the Bible and leave the relevant sciences to those qualified to understand and teach them? Always assuming the other person has no aporic idea what they are speaking about. You think everyone whom responds to your dogma is ipse dixit in their ideas but the reverse is actually the reality. “aporic “ does appear in an online dictionary: “aporic Adjective (comparative more aporic, superlative most aporic) 1 Of or pertaining to aporia” www.yourdictionary.com/aporic1. Which is as clear as mud to me, and required a look up of “aporia”: “aporia a·po·ri·a 1a difficulty, as in a philosophical or literary text, caused by an indeterminacy of meaning for which no resolution seems possible 2 a condition of uncertainty or skeptical doubt resulting from this Origin of aporia L, doubt from Gr, perplexity from aporos, impassable from a-, a- (sense ) + poros, passage: see pore“ www.yourdictionary.com/aporiaWhich is about as clear as mud to me in the context of both your request and your response to your own “game.” But then I knew a lot of 2x2s who used the fanciest words they could find aimed at impressing SOMEONE – are you sure you are not suffering from a 2x2 hangover? Have fun playing your "game." by your lonesome. I think it might not be a waste of your time to increase your vocabulary instead of complaining about people who have a larger vocabulary than you. It's always good to know more and we do that by educating ourselves or letting other's educate us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2019 14:27:20 GMT -5
Concerning facts vs. faith, I remember a couple of helpful convention gems.
'Don't doubt your faith, doubt your doubts'
'If you're not swaddled in God's will, you might start thinking you have the liberty to think thoughts.'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2019 14:29:12 GMT -5
“aporic “ does appear in an online dictionary: “aporic Adjective (comparative more aporic, superlative most aporic) 1 Of or pertaining to aporia” www.yourdictionary.com/aporic1. Which is as clear as mud to me, and required a look up of “aporia”: “aporia a·po·ri·a 1a difficulty, as in a philosophical or literary text, caused by an indeterminacy of meaning for which no resolution seems possible 2 a condition of uncertainty or skeptical doubt resulting from this Origin of aporia L, doubt from Gr, perplexity from aporos, impassable from a-, a- (sense ) + poros, passage: see pore“ www.yourdictionary.com/aporiaWhich is about as clear as mud to me in the context of both your request and your response to your own “game.” But then I knew a lot of 2x2s who used the fanciest words they could find aimed at impressing SOMEONE – are you sure you are not suffering from a 2x2 hangover? Have fun playing your "game." by your lonesome. I think it might not be a waste of your time to increase your vocabulary instead of complaining about people who have a larger vocabulary than you. It's always good to know more and we do that by educating ourselves or letting other's educate us. That's a good polymorphism. 😆
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 7, 2019 14:32:27 GMT -5
Concerning facts vs. faith, I remember a couple of helpful convention gems. 'Don't doubt your faith, doubt your doubts' 'If you're not swaddled in God's will, you might start thinking you have the liberty to think thoughts.' That's exactly why religions can be so dangerous. Critical thinking, rational thinking is not an approve activity. Asking questions in the 2x2's was taboo as I found out.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 7, 2019 16:56:27 GMT -5
"Blackballing scientists if they bear legitimate non-conformist views, by excluding them from professional societies and academies, withholding their funding or denying them tenure, is anti-scientific and will retard the advancement of science." Revolutionary: Michael Behe and the Mystery of Molecular Machines www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ToSEAj2V0s Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (Michael J. Behe, PhD) www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xht_bqPrbWc Gratu, when will you realize that some of us have known about Behe and his ideas along with others in his group long before you did? They and their ideas have been presented and shown to be false long ago, -perhaps before you even encountered them. Michael J. Behe an American biochemist, author, and advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design (ID). He serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.
Behe is best known as an advocate for the validity of the argument for irreducible complexity (IC), which claims that some biochemical structures are too complex to be explained by known evolutionary mechanisms and are therefore probably the result of intelligent design.
Behe has testified in several court cases related to intelligent design, including the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that resulted in a ruling that intelligent design was not science and was religious in nature]
In 1985, he moved to Lehigh University and is currently a Professor of Biochemistry. Lehigh University exhibits a disclaimer on its website stating that the University does not endorse Behe's views on evolution:
"While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."
from wiki emphasis mine
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 8, 2019 0:44:44 GMT -5
I gave you a very relevant equations that Carl used in his classroom and asked you to explain what was pseudoscience about them. But as you have no idea what you are talking about and just seem to be repeating what you copy from online. Internet browsers are both a blessing and a menace. Robert Albert Sutio: the chief proponent of the pseudoscience's of his day. Why not use your arm chair to read the Bible and leave the relevant sciences to those qualified to understand and teach them? Always assuming the other person has no aporic idea what they are speaking about. You think everyone whom responds to your dogma is ipse dixit in their ideas but the reverse is actually the reality. “aporic “ does appear in an online dictionary: “aporic Adjective (comparative more aporic, superlative most aporic) 1 Of or pertaining to aporia” www.yourdictionary.com/aporicWhich is as clear as mud to me, and required a look up of “aporia”: “aporia a·po·ri·a 1a difficulty, as in a philosophical or literary text, caused by an indeterminacy of meaning for which no resolution seems possible 2 a condition of uncertainty or skeptical doubt resulting from this Origin of aporia L, doubt from Gr, perplexity from aporos, impassable from a-, a- (sense ) + poros, passage: see pore“ www.yourdictionary.com/aporiaWhich is about as clear as mud to me in the context of both your request and your response to your own “game.” But then I knew a lot of 2x2s who used the fanciest words they could find aimed at impressing SOMEONE – are you sure you are not suffering from a 2x2 hangover? Have fun playing your "game." by your lonesome. While you are at it, gratu; -perhaps you should also look up the word "ipse dixit."
Never mind I will do it for you.
The Roman politician Marcus Tullius Cicero coined the phrase ipse dixit, which translates from the Latin as, "he said it himself"
Ipse dixit (Latin for "he said it himself") is an assertion without proof; or a dogmatic expression of opinion.
The fallacy of defending a proposition by baldly asserting that it is "just how it is" distorts the argument by opting out of it entirely: -the claimant declares an issue to be intrinsic, and not changeable. from wiki
However, people don't have to know Latin or a lot of "fancy" words to be able make a factual statement that is understood by other people as a valid statement.
So your accusation that other people are "playing a game" only indicates just another excuse for your not really knowing what you are talking about but only quoting other people who also don't know what they are talking about!
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Sept 8, 2019 4:39:20 GMT -5
Concerning facts vs. faith, I remember a couple of helpful convention gems. 'Don't doubt your faith, doubt your doubts' 'If you're not swaddled in God's will, you might start thinking you have the liberty to think thoughts.' That's exactly why religions can be so dangerous. Critical thinking, rational thinking is not an approve activity. Asking questions in the 2x2's was taboo as I found out.
Being adherent to God's Will doesn't require a person to surrender independent thinking.. Jesus constantly answered questions and his answers weren't irrational. I always found that Workers answered questions, but some just said "I don't know". Its when someone says that your questioning demonstrates a lack of faith, is what I didn't like. Getting answers helps establish ones faith.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 8, 2019 12:09:22 GMT -5
I think it might not be a waste of your time to increase your vocabulary instead of complaining about people who have a larger vocabulary than you. It's always good to know more and we do that by educating ourselves or letting other's educate us. That's a good polymorphism. 😆 If you continue to use big words you will soon be accused of "trickery". At this point I feel the 'fun factor' should take over,
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 8, 2019 12:33:21 GMT -5
I wonder why anyone would believe anything this person claimed. One could say thsi is not a truthful account but the attached source documents make it difficult to support that claim. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_HovindAnd there is also Dinosaur Adventure Land.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 8, 2019 12:35:23 GMT -5
In the distance I can hear the hoof beats.....
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 8, 2019 12:50:51 GMT -5
Oh my god! (pun intended)
I know Ken Hovind well! He grew up near us. His mother taught my daughter in kindergarten.
Ken Hovind got his "college degree" from a mail order house.
Ken Hovind finally went to federal prison on tax evasion charges.
THAT is how his morals pan out.
He is one of the slickest guys in the business!
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 8, 2019 13:26:10 GMT -5
That's exactly why religions can be so dangerous. Critical thinking, rational thinking is not an approve activity. Asking questions in the 2x2's was taboo as I found out. Being adherent to God's Will doesn't require a person to surrender independent thinking.. Jesus constantly answered questions and his answers weren't irrational. I always found that Workers answered questions, but some just said "I don't know". Its when someone says that your questioning demonstrates a lack of faith, is what I didn't like. Getting answers helps establish ones faith.
Not all workers did say that. I respected many of the workers. But when I had some pretty serious questions about the OT the workers I asked about it told me it was my lack of faith etc. I would have taken 'I don't know' and respected that. But to be told to just have a stronger faith and quit questioning God's word, that didn't sit well with me. I quit professing and the rest as they say is history. I was definitely at a crossroad because I couldn't understand how the God of the bible, that I was told was all loving and merciful, could have commanded what he did of the Hebrews when attacking the Amelikites. I decided that having faith was not an option. It wasn't right to worship an entity that would do that. I was afraid because I still believed in that God and I still believed that if I quit professing I was going to hell, but I couldn't worship that God anymore. That's why I asked the workers about it so I could resolve it and still worship the Christian God. But they couldn't explain it and just told me I didn't have enough faith.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Sept 8, 2019 13:30:00 GMT -5
I think it might not be a waste of your time to increase your vocabulary instead of complaining about people who have a larger vocabulary than you. It's always good to know more and we do that by educating ourselves or letting other's educate us. That's a good polymorphism. 😆 Okay, I had a vague idea of what that meant, but thought I'd better look it up to make sure I was accurate. So here is the meaning for you Gratu. You're welcome. Now we both know what it means. Or at least I do, as you probably already did know of course. Polymorphism is the ability of an object to take on many forms. The most common use of polymorphism in OOP occurs when a parent class reference is used to refer to a child class object. Any Java object that can pass more than one IS-A test is considered to be polymorphic.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 8, 2019 16:42:23 GMT -5
That's exactly why religions can be so dangerous. Critical thinking, rational thinking is not an approve activity. Asking questions in the 2x2's was taboo as I found out. Being adherent to God's Will doesn't require a person to surrender independent thinking.. Jesus constantly answered questions and his answers weren't irrational. I always found that Workers answered questions, but some just said "I don't know". Its when someone says that your questioning demonstrates a lack of faith, is what I didn't like. Getting answers helps establish ones faith.
Do you call that "getting answers", or "getting justifications"? Answers aren't always truths.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Sept 8, 2019 16:43:55 GMT -5
Oh my god! (pun intended)
I know Ken Hovind well! He grow up near us. His mother taught my daughter in kindergarten.
Ken Hovind got his "college degree" from a mail order house.
Ken Hovind finally went to federal prison on tax evasion charges.
THAT is how his morals pan out.
He is one of the slickest guys in the business!
He should ask Trump for a pardon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2019 17:47:35 GMT -5
That's a good polymorphism. 😆 If you continue to use big words you will soon be accused of "trickery". At this point I feel the 'fun factor' should take over, I usually arrive at that point within 1 post of a Creationist! 😆
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2019 17:49:49 GMT -5
That's a good polymorphism. 😆 Okay, I had a vague idea of what that meant, but thought I'd better look it up to make sure I was accurate. So here is the meaning for you Gratu. You're welcome. Now we both know what it means. Or at least I do, as you probably already did know of course. Polymorphism is the ability of an object to take on many forms. The most common use of polymorphism in OOP occurs when a parent class reference is used to refer to a child class object. Any Java object that can pass more than one IS-A test is considered to be polymorphic. I was just trying to impress gratu with a big word. I was getting jealous all the good big words were being taken! 😂
|
|
|
Post by intelchips on Sept 8, 2019 18:04:43 GMT -5
Okay, I had a vague idea of what that meant, but thought I'd better look it up to make sure I was accurate. So here is the meaning for you Gratu. You're welcome. Now we both know what it means. Or at least I do, as you probably already did know of course. Polymorphism is the ability of an object to take on many forms. The most common use of polymorphism in OOP occurs when a parent class reference is used to refer to a child class object. Any Java object that can pass more than one IS-A test is considered to be polymorphic. I was just trying to impress gratu with a big word. I was getting jealous all the good big words were being taken! 😂 If A Basic Object Oriented (OOP) Framework for Neural Networks A Neural Network is an Artificial Intelligence (AI) methodology that attempts to mimic the behavior of the neurons in our brains. Then C2H5OH run rehab subroutine else terminate employ
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2019 19:46:40 GMT -5
I was just trying to impress gratu with a big word. I was getting jealous all the good big words were being taken! 😂 If A Basic Object Oriented (OOP) Framework for Neural Networks A Neural Network is an Artificial Intelligence (AI) methodology that attempts to mimic the behavior of the neurons in our brains. Then C2H5OH run rehab subroutine else terminate employ I could use a bit of that C2H5OH after reading that! To quote philosopher Jim Carry, "Libby Libby Wah! Chim Chimminy Chim Chim Charooo! Eyeeee...yah!" (Ace Ventura II)
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Sept 8, 2019 20:29:35 GMT -5
Being adherent to God's Will doesn't require a person to surrender independent thinking.. Jesus constantly answered questions and his answers weren't irrational. I always found that Workers answered questions, but some just said "I don't know". Its when someone says that your questioning demonstrates a lack of faith, is what I didn't like. Getting answers helps establish ones faith.
Not all workers did say that. I respected many of the workers. But when I had some pretty serious questions about the OT the workers I asked about it told me it was my lack of faith etc. I would have taken 'I don't know' and respected that. But to be told to just have a stronger faith and quit questioning God's word, that didn't sit well with me. I quit professing and the rest as they say is history. I was definitely at a crossroad because I couldn't understand how the God of the bible, that I was told was all loving and merciful, could have commanded what he did of the Hebrews when attacking the Amelikites. I decided that having faith was not an option. It wasn't right to worship an entity that would do that. I was afraid because I still believed in that God and I still believed that if I quit professing I was going to hell, but I couldn't worship that God anymore. That's why I asked the workers about it so I could resolve it and still worship the Christian God. But they couldn't explain it and just told me I didn't have enough faith.
"Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you were coming out of Egypt, how he met you on the way and attacked your rear ranks, all the stragglers at your rear, when you were tired and weary; and he did not fear God" (Deuteronomy 25:1-18). They attacked the Hebrews first and became God's enemies, so I call it self-defense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2019 21:41:53 GMT -5
Not all workers did say that. I respected many of the workers. But when I had some pretty serious questions about the OT the workers I asked about it told me it was my lack of faith etc. I would have taken 'I don't know' and respected that. But to be told to just have a stronger faith and quit questioning God's word, that didn't sit well with me. I quit professing and the rest as they say is history. I was definitely at a crossroad because I couldn't understand how the God of the bible, that I was told was all loving and merciful, could have commanded what he did of the Hebrews when attacking the Amelikites. I decided that having faith was not an option. It wasn't right to worship an entity that would do that. I was afraid because I still believed in that God and I still believed that if I quit professing I was going to hell, but I couldn't worship that God anymore. That's why I asked the workers about it so I could resolve it and still worship the Christian God. But they couldn't explain it and just told me I didn't have enough faith.
"Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you were coming out of Egypt, how he met you on the way and attacked your rear ranks, all the stragglers at your rear, when you were tired and weary; and he did not fear God" (Deuteronomy 25:1-18). They attacked the Hebrews first and became God's enemies, so I call it self-defense.
It's just like Jesus said - if someone hits you on your left cheek, wait for a bit, then kill them and their family. Or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 8, 2019 21:48:51 GMT -5
Not all workers did say that. I respected many of the workers. But when I had some pretty serious questions about the OT the workers I asked about it told me it was my lack of faith etc. I would have taken 'I don't know' and respected that. But to be told to just have a stronger faith and quit questioning God's word, that didn't sit well with me. I quit professing and the rest as they say is history. I was definitely at a crossroad because I couldn't understand how the God of the bible, that I was told was all loving and merciful, could have commanded what he did of the Hebrews when attacking the Amelikites. I decided that having faith was not an option. It wasn't right to worship an entity that would do that. I was afraid because I still believed in that God and I still believed that if I quit professing I was going to hell, but I couldn't worship that God anymore. That's why I asked the workers about it so I could resolve it and still worship the Christian God. But they couldn't explain it and just told me I didn't have enough faith. "Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you were coming out of Egypt, how he met you on the way and attacked your rear ranks, all the stragglers at your rear, when you were tired and weary; and he did not fear God" (Deuteronomy 25:1-18). They attacked the Hebrews first and became God's enemies, so I call it self-defense.
Some might rationalize it as "self defense" -but today we call it "genocide."
What we actually know about the "Hebrews, is that they "self-identified" themselves as god's "chosen people." Quite naturally they are going to tell only their side of the story. After all, it was they who wrote the Bible!
But they were just one group of an ancient Semitic people who were nomads wandering about in in the upper Sinai Peninsula during the ancient Near East during the late 2nd millennium BC. history.
We have only the Hebrews to tell the story of that time. There were other groups of people who were seeking to find a place the they could settle down. The Canaanites were one group.
So anything that the Bible states about them is bound to be biased against them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2019 9:40:24 GMT -5
“So your accusation that other people are "playing a game" only indicates just another excuse for your not really knowing what you are talking about but only quoting other people who also don't know what they are talking about! “ That has quotation marks and is a quotation of the words of the poster who provided the admission. But nonetheless, since my post is now completed while several have been playing the “fool” past it: this particular seminar of the group of seminars , in light of the “game” being “played” might be a good repeat on this thread. It is obvious that some non-believing posters on here who claim worker-past-influences on THEM, similarly do no not recommend that visitors to this board watch these videos – even the usual 2x2 type ad hominem is used against the presenter – that I trust the kids among the visitors will do what kids usually do with prohibitions placed upon them and take a peek at what they are being so strongly discouraged to even look at by the “game” “players.” The Kent Hovind Creation Seminar (5 of 7): The Dangers of Evolutionwww.youtube.com/watch?v=WN31FCcUlLk&list=PL6-cVj-ZRivqKeqAklhYfFFmmAdvwcnCT&index=5
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 9, 2019 10:44:25 GMT -5
“So your accusation that other people are "playing a game" only indicates just another excuse for your not really knowing what you are talking about but only quoting other people who also don't know what they are talking about! “ That has quotation marks and is a quotation of the words of the poster who provided the admission. But nonetheless, since my post is now completed while several have been playing the “fool” past it: this particular seminar of the group of seminars , in light of the “game” being “played” might be a good repeat on this thread. It is obvious that some non-believing posters on here who claim worker-past-influences on THEM, similarly do no not recommend that visitors to this board watch these videos – even the usual 2x2 type ad hominem is used against the presenter – that I trust the kids among the visitors will do what kids usually do with prohibitions placed upon them and take a peek at what they are being so strongly discouraged to even look at by the “game” “players.” The Kent Hovind Creation Seminar (5 of 7): The Dangers of Evolutionwww.youtube.com/watch?v=WN31FCcUllk&list=PL6-cVj-ZRivqKeqAklhYfFmMAdvwcnCT&index=5 I believe that the problem with the information for which you are providing links is not the presenter but the (dis)information that he is presenting. In this case, since most are not familiar with the presenter, in is not an ad hominem attack but simply informing them of his background, education, other areas of study, etc. which are additional points upon which the readers (viewers in most of the cases) can base their conclusions. And then, of course, there is the material itself. These points have been refuted so many times in the past that it simply is not worth the effort to go through them point by point since data and facts make no difference to the believers who follow blindly. As time has passed it is clear that you have little understanding of the material to which you are providing links and are simply parroting it back with all the understanding of a voice recorder. What is even more dishonest is that you claim that some of the work is the result of your own development.
|
|