Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2019 11:07:07 GMT -5
“I guess I might have pointed out the hair but having little myself I didn't notice really notice it. It does look like it might be a hair piece. There is one source that states the photo is of "...the taxidermied corpse of the late Duane Gish, as currently posed in the ICR lobby" (*). I could not, however, find a second source to support that claim. “
Finding no “second source to support that claim” did not stop you from spreading the gossip on here though, did it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2019 11:17:54 GMT -5
Me too. It's probably another "allegory" representing all the stuff rational stuck to the wall never stopping to clean it up - maybe. It is probably somebody who has posted enormous volumes of time-sucking junk (non)science "in support of" junk ideas. Classic "Gish Galloping" is effective when used in a time-limited live debate setting. In that case there is no way for the debate opponent to challenge all of the foolish falsehoods presented by the Gish-Galloper in the allotted time. Unfortunately for would-be Gish-Gallopers on TMB, there are no time limits (aside from TMB itself shuttering), and there are TMB members who have strong science backgrounds, who possess World-Class tenacity, and who have the time to expose the foolishness. Yup - that's a very good description of the thread-long ton of stuff that rational stuck to the wall never stopping to clean it up.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Aug 9, 2019 11:36:51 GMT -5
It is probably somebody who has posted enormous volumes of time-sucking junk (non)science "in support of" junk ideas. Classic "Gish Galloping" is effective when used in a time-limited live debate setting. In that case there is no way for the debate opponent to challenge all of the foolish falsehoods presented by the Gish-Galloper in the allotted time. Unfortunately for would-be Gish-Gallopers on TMB, there are no time limits (aside from TMB itself shuttering), and there are TMB members who have strong science backgrounds, who possess World-Class tenacity, and who have the time to expose the foolishness. Yup - that's a very good description of the thread-long ton of stuff that rational stuck to the wall never stopping to clean it up. Yes, the description of the TMB member who has a strong science background, tenacity and time fits rational well. He has kept you busy long since you first declared that you were no longer going to engage with him. He has done a fine job of exposing your claims for what they are.....nonsense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2019 12:00:43 GMT -5
Yup - that's a very good description of the thread-long ton of stuff that rational stuck to the wall never stopping to clean it up. Yes, the description of the TMB member who has a strong science background, tenacity and time fits rational well. He has kept you busy long since you first declared that you were no longer going to engage with him. He has done a fine job of exposing your claims for what they are.....nonsense. Yup – keeping me wasting my time with him was very easy however – just keep on slinging stuff at the wall to see if it sticks never stopping to clean it up, then at long last propose a “conditional” apology (which is not an apology), push the “conditions” of it at great lengths, and then claim it was “not conditional” all the while holding the self-refuting baseline presupposition that there is no God while acting out the power to read minds etc. etc. etc. - and apparently accepting your worship of him.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Aug 9, 2019 12:26:06 GMT -5
Yes, the description of the TMB member who has a strong science background, tenacity and time fits rational well. He has kept you busy long since you first declared that you were no longer going to engage with him. He has done a fine job of exposing your claims for what they are.....nonsense. Yup – keeping me wasting my time with him was very easy however – just keep on slinging stuff at the wall to see if it sticks never stopping to clean it up, then at long last propose a “conditional” apology (which is not an apology), push the “conditions” of it at great lengths, and then claim it was “not conditional” all the while holding the self-refuting baseline presupposition that there is no God while acting out the power to read minds etc. etc. etc. - and apparently accepting your worship of him. Your response is silly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2019 13:09:57 GMT -5
Yup – keeping me wasting my time with him was very easy however – just keep on slinging stuff at the wall to see if it sticks never stopping to clean it up, then at long last propose a “conditional” apology (which is not an apology), push the “conditions” of it at great lengths, and then claim it was “not conditional” all the while holding the self-refuting baseline presupposition that there is no God while acting out the power to read minds etc. etc. etc. - and apparently accepting your worship of him. Your response is silly. I agree – dialogue with rational-worshippers is silly.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 9, 2019 14:18:05 GMT -5
I make a point of learning something new every day. Right now I'm reading Guy P. Harrison's book At Least Know This: Essential Science to Enhance Your Life. I don't see religion as learning anything new. In fact, the whole point behind religions seem to be making sure nothing changes and we're stuck in the past. Seems to be? Ben Shapiro has a new book out about the religious roots of the enlightenment. Reason, he argues, grows and grew from metaphysical traditions and assumptions. Yes imagination is one of the human species greatest abilities. It has contributed to many inventions and advancements. It has also contributed to a lot of what we are seeing with Islam and Christianity where these imaginations are still considered the only truth and anyone that doesn't see it that way are considered the infidel and expendable because God wants that.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 9, 2019 14:31:24 GMT -5
“Are you sure I ridiculed Gish? “ “You accused me of ridiculing Gish. I asked you where that happened. You then reply and ask me to answer the question I asked you. The ball is in your court. “ Nope. That's what the def (not I) says “satire” does though. So I would say yours is not satire because I see nothing holding anything up to ridicule in yours. So you have failed to substantiate YOUR claim that it is “satirical.” THAT "ball" was in YOUR court, so I leave it in YOUR court right where it belongs. The point is fast fading into the distance. Just let it go...
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 9, 2019 16:50:15 GMT -5
I make a point of learning something new every day. Right now I'm reading Guy P. Harrison's book At Least Know This: Essential Science to Enhance Your Life. I don't see religion as learning anything new. In fact, the whole point behind religions seem to be making sure nothing changes and we're stuck in the past. Seems to be? Ben Shapiro has a new book out about the religious roots of the enlightenment. Reason, he argues, grows and grew from metaphysical traditions and assumptions. I would have to read his whole book to determine the validity of his ideas, but I looked at a few. Some held up; others didn't.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 9, 2019 16:59:52 GMT -5
Ask a question based upon what you do believe and you will learn something new. Shouldn't your post say:
"Ask a question based upon what you KNOW to be true, -NOT believe, (you might believe the earth is a flat disc but it isn't) and then you will learn something new?"
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 9, 2019 17:33:49 GMT -5
“I guess I might have pointed out the hair but having little myself I didn't notice really notice it. It does look like it might be a hair piece. There is one source that states the photo is of "...the taxidermied corpse of the late Duane Gish, as currently posed in the ICR lobby" (*). I could not, however, find a second source to support that claim. “ Finding no “second source to support that claim” did not stop you from spreading the gossip on here though, did it. Finding no second source did prevent me from posting it without making a note of the single source and providing a link to that source. Think about the number of single source links you posted without mentioning that Lisle was the only source, had not produced a single completed paper, did not do, as he claimed, any actual research, and never sent the work to an accredited peer reviewed as he said he would. Yet you never mentioned the lack of a second source. Do you see the difference? I mentioned that the information I presented was not on solid ground. It allowed the reader to determine what they thought. You, on the other hand, never mentioned that Lisle's work was single sourced (or Robert Newton - A Rose by Any Other Name) yet you had no problem posting them. So how is it gossip?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 9, 2019 17:35:12 GMT -5
I agree – dialogue with rational-worshippers is silly. Perhaps, gratu, you have missed the meaning of the word "rational" as in Rational who is a member of this discussion board.
Definition of the term "rational"
C1 based on clear thought and reason: -a rational act/course of action -a rational argument/decision Definition of “rational” from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press)
"rational" in American English rational adjective us /ˈræʃ·ə·nəl/ showing clear thought or reason: a rational decision So, by understanding that about Rational, -as a member of this board; -we couldn't be his "worshippers."
BECAUSE! the definition of "worshipper: "
"a person who shows reverence and adoration for a deity"
So why are you, gratu, so irrational as to post such a inaccurate idea?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 9, 2019 19:29:34 GMT -5
Yes, the description of the TMB member who has a strong science background, tenacity and time fits rational well. He has kept you busy long since you first declared that you were no longer going to engage with him. He has done a fine job of exposing your claims for what they are.....nonsense. Yup – keeping me wasting my time with him was very easy however – just keep on slinging stuff at the wall to see if it sticks never stopping to clean it up, then at long last propose a “conditional” apology (which is not an apology), push the “conditions” of it at great lengths, and then claim it was “not conditional” all the while holding the self-refuting baseline presupposition that there is no God while acting out the power to read minds etc. etc. etc. - and apparently accepting your worship of him. @gratu - With the exception of the post that started this thread, all of my other posts regarding this subject have been response to your posts. I doubt you can find a single post I made that consists of just a link without comment. That is the difference between you throwing out one link after another to see what would stick while myself and others slowly followed and attempted to clean up the unsupported crap you were slinging and also to try to shine a light on reality. I am beginning to think that perhaps English is you second language so I will again try to clean up the characterization that you have made. I did not propose a “conditional” apology as you claimed. I stated that since you could not or would not provide proof that you had developed all of the ideas you presented that I would apologize if you would state that none of the ideas that you presented as part of the ASC discussion were from the Lisle video. The apology was not to be conditional. However, without proof, the condition for an apology was your word.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 9, 2019 19:46:20 GMT -5
Yup - that's a very good description of the thread-long ton of stuff that rational stuck to the wall never stopping to clean it up. Given that the vast majority of my posts were in response to your posts it is evident that the clean-up follows the initial slinging of unsupported facts. But to, once again, give you the benefit of the doubt perhaps you could post an example where I simply posted something just "to see if it would stick" as opposed to cleaning up the many messes you left.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 9, 2019 22:04:13 GMT -5
Evolution Challenge of the Fossil record. Duane Gish, PhD www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8H35GDLNuwSince no one has copied this post or commented beyond my post of it, I add this Edit - Name of Gish's presentation is:
Evolution Challenge of the Fossil record. Duane Gish, PhD
Gish's very beginning statements claims that if evolution is correct by the fossil record, there should be "millions upon millions upon billions of fossils."
Gish continues speaking about very small life forms like on-cell life forms & then two-cell life forms, -then continue further to worms etc., -all of which are soft tissue life forms which do not fossilize very well.
"Explosion of Life."*
"At 542 million years ago, the fossil record shows a rapid change in the abundance and diversity of life in the ocean. Most major animal groups appear for the first time in the fossil record as the Cambrian Explosion began. It is estimated that there was as much diversity of life in the oceans 542 million years ago as there is today."
It appeared to be an "explosion" of life because it seemed to be such only because prior to that time life forms hadn't fossilized very well so we couldn't find them.
So, indeed there are many, many forms of life that we DON'T have as evidence simply because they didn't fossilize.
Now we have better mechanisms to find them and there are the multitudes.
But Gish cleverly ignores all of this and doesn't tell his audience any of that.
* study.com/academy/lesson/the-cambrian-explosion-definition-timeline-quiz.html
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 10, 2019 1:42:05 GMT -5
Perhaps, gratu, you have missed the meaning of the word "rational" as in Rational who is a member of this discussion board.
Definition of the term "rational"
C1 based on clear thought and reason: -a rational act/course of action -a rational argument/decision Definition of “rational” from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press)
"rational" in American English rational adjective us /ˈræʃ·ə·nəl/ showing clear thought or reason: a rational decision So, by understanding that about Rational, -as a member of this board; -we couldn't be his "worshippers."
BECAUSE! the definition of "worshipper: "
"a person who shows reverence and adoration for a deity"
So why are you, gratu, so irrational as to post such a inaccurate idea?
Now, all you need to do is decide for yourself which meaning the word bears within my individual posts. Good job!
Easy, I have yet to find much rationality; (clear thought and reason) in your posts.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 10, 2019 2:20:41 GMT -5
Easy, I have yet to find much rationality; (clear thought and reason) in your posts. Well keep on trying if you please - here's a small tip - I don't have the dictionary you referred to because it is far above my pay grade. I use very common rather ordinary dictionaries fitting to my pay grade and my beliefs.
Is this dictionary within your "pay grade?"
Merriam-Webster is grade school level. We have had ours for so long it is falling apart.
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rational
rational adjective
ra·tio·nal | \ ˈrash-nəl
, ˈra-shə-nᵊl\
Definition of rational (Entry 1 of 2)
1
a
: having reason or understanding
b
: relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable
-a rational explanation
-rational behavior
Oh, -and good luck with finding a dictionary that is fitting your "beliefs."
But then again, -if such a dictionary does exist and that is what you are using, -then I can see what causes your errors.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 10, 2019 8:04:39 GMT -5
Ask a question based upon what you do believe and you will learn something new. Shouldn't your post say:
"Ask a question based upon what you KNOW to be true, -NOT believe, (you might believe the earth is a flat disc but it isn't) and then you will learn something new?" Belief permeates everything we hold to be true. Framing questions lawyer-like from what you don't believe has a limited utility.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 10, 2019 16:37:02 GMT -5
Is this dictionary within your "pay grade?"
Merriam-Webster is grade school level. We have had ours for so long it is falling apart.
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rational
rational adjective ra·tio·nal | \ ˈrash-nəl
, ˈra-shə-nᵊl\
Definition of rational (Entry 1 of 2)
1 a : having reason or understanding
b
: relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable
-a rational explanation -rational behavior
Oh, -and good luck with finding a dictionary that is fitting your "beliefs."
But then again, -if such a dictionary does exist and that is what you are using, -then I can see what causes your errors. "Oh, -and good luck with finding a dictionary that is fitting your "beliefs."
Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words studybible.info/vines/
Excerpt An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words was written by William Edwy Vine and published as a four volume set in 1940. In common usage, the title is often shortened to Vine's Expository Dictionary, or simply Vine's. It is a cross-reference from key English words in the Authorized King James Version to the has New Testament. In his preface to the book, Vine wrote, "The present volumes are produced especially for the help of those who do not study Greek, though it is hoped that those who are familiar with the original will find them useful." It provides a concise meaning of the original Greek word, often providing Bible verse references as examples. If there are several Greek words that may translate to the same English word, Vine's distinguishes the shadings of meaning and connotation that may be lost in the English translation. For example, there are a number of Greek words that may be translated by the English word love. Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vine%27s_Expository_Dictionary Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words is NOT a dictionary of "beliefs" but of "words."
We have a dictionary of "words" that are the "words" in the bible.
The Harpers Bible Dictionary
Also of course, Cruden's Complete Concordance; although the last is not a dictionary but rather lists all biblical words and where you can find the corresponding chapter & verses where they are located.
We about wore out that one as well, -I had to repair it just lately.
Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words sounds interesting in that it has original words in the Greek texts.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 10, 2019 16:42:14 GMT -5
Shouldn't your post say:
"Ask a question based upon what you KNOW to be true, -NOT believe, (you might believe the earth is a flat disc but it isn't) and then you will learn something new?" Belief permeates everything we hold to be true. Framing questions lawyer-like from what you don't believe has a limited utility. True.
"Belief" does permeate everything we hold to be true.
All the more reason to test what we "believe" to be true against what we know & can prove to be factual.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 10, 2019 19:18:40 GMT -5
Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words is NOT a dictionary of "beliefs" but of "words."
We have a dictionary of "words" that are the "words" in the bible.
The Harpers Bible Dictionary
Also of course, Cruden's Complete Concordance; although the last is not a dictionary but rather lists all biblical words and where you can find the corresponding chapter & verses where they are located.
We about wore out that one as well, -I had to repair it just lately.
Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words sounds interesting in that it has original words in the Greek texts.
"Oh, -and good luck with finding a dictionary that is fitting your "beliefs."" In light NOW that you were already aware of several Bible dictionaries, was the above quote of you earlier just a sneaky test of YOUR assumption regarding my pay grade?.(that is not a question) Thanks for the heads up on your character. So now that you are apparently newly aware of Vine's you can very easily click your mouse button on a KJV word online and study that word's original meaning - in context - good for you. NOW that means that if you cannot determine the clarity of thought and reason in my post that you took issue with using your long-handled dictionary, you just don't want to find clear thought and reason in my posts. Do your stuff, now in the open - with me blessing. gratu,
You are always posing a statement about someone, - a derogatory statement, -in the form of a question & then saying; (that is not a question). When it obviously is a question.
That's an improper use of grammar, to say the least, and just another method of your ridiculing people.
That makes it difficult to have a civil conversation.
So NO, my earlier quote was NOT a "sneaky test of YOUR (my) assumption regarding my (your) pay grade."
YOU were the one that talked about your "pay grade."
I was merely answering you in like "terms" from your own post.
I was attempting to clear up post where you said, "I use very common rather ordinary dictionaries fitting to my pay grade and my beliefs.
Dictionaries are not about propagating certain "beliefs," -they are about defining the meaning of words.
It is true that I cannot see much "clarity of thought and reason" in your your posts.
Doesn't matter whether I want to or not.
My original post was about what is rational, logical thought.
My definition of the meaning of the word "rational" came from a dictionary, -which you took issue with calling it a "long-handled dictionary".
Your problem isn't with dictionaries, - it is with the lack of what consists of rational, logical reasoning.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2019 21:25:46 GMT -5
DEBATE: Phil Donahue, Duane Gish, Evolution vs. Creation, Part 1 www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLSejnkMxDQgratu's Notes - on Part 1 Phil obviuosly accepts Watch Tower doctrines as Christian - i.e., he argued about Blood Transfusions being against God's law (J.W. teachings ALONE) as a reason he would not allow creation to be taught in public school. It bacame most clear that Phil wants his religion taught in public schools, but not creation - Phil is/was obviously a theistic evolutionist who would decide for all students that only theistic evolution be taught to the kids - the TYPICAL 'neutral' TYRANY of public school educators in our times. Duane on the other hand stated very clearly that he does not favor the Bible being taught in public schools but rather the science that supports creation ALONG with evolution - i.e., NEUTRAL education. Common sense is not very common these days. DEBATE: Phil Donahue, Duane Gish, Evolution vs. Creation, Part 2 www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCZCkaGAuDk
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 11, 2019 0:15:44 GMT -5
So, Donahue thinks that MAN is the "super, delux animal"
Wow! -doth mankind's pride know no end?
That so-called "super, delux animal" is the only animal that has inflicted the worst genocide on it own species than ay other animal.
That so-called "super, delux animal" is the only animal who has thought up the most savage way to torture it's on species as well as other species.
And Christians like to think that THEY are "humble?"
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 11, 2019 12:53:29 GMT -5
Creationism is not science. And if we depended on Creationism instead of evolution we wouldn't have all those very handy medical cures and advancements that those who claim Creationism is right, like to take advantage of. If you reject evolution you wouldn't have even thought of the medical benefits we now enjoy. Science is something that can be used in a practical way and also something we can build on to continue to have more break through that we all benefit from.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2019 16:51:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 11, 2019 17:08:34 GMT -5
Science is mankinds observation of his natural surrounding enviroment. Medical science is mankinds observation of natural benefits to health.And medical scientists include scientists who show creation from the evidence. Scienrists who support creation are there, looking at the very same evidence as scientists who supprt evolution. Creation is the scientific conclusion of the work of a supernatural Creator. Evolution is an explanation of the very same evidence that needs no supernatural Creator, but is without ANYTHING at all to start with - as illogical as nothing making something is. creation is a religion. And evolution is as much a religion as creation, but simply denies any starting point. The Big Bang HAD to have a material "singularity" or "cosmic egg" to start with, and just ignores that necessity. Creation requires NO material "singularity" or "Cosmic egg" and therefore needs NOTHING material to start the production of material things. It is the individual's choice which religion to hold. And one of ther first doctrines of Evolution is "Evolution is not a religion" -- i.e., simple ignorance (meaning to "ignore") of the obvious -- i.e., NOTHING comes out of NOTHING. The choice should be easy, but Evolutionists have been taught that first Evolution docrine that apparently shuts the minds of Evolutionists to actual scientific observation of the physical evidence. And MOST medical achievments have been made by scientists that do not believe the religion of Evolution. Nothing in human beliefs remains static being left on evidence alone - scientists who started out life as creationists have become believers of Evolution - and vice versa. The personal, individual choice of which religion you adopt is an individual choice - plain and simple. Wondered when you would return on this wonderful Sunday Afternoon from your personal, individual choice of which particular"creationist" church that you have decided is the one TRUE CHURCH of the thousands of Christian churches abounding in the world today!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2019 20:17:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 11, 2019 21:04:36 GMT -5
DEBATE: Phil Donahue, Duane Gish, Evolution vs. Creation, Part 1 www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLSejnkMxDQgratu's Notes - on Part 1 Phil obviuosly accepts Watch Tower doctrines as Christian - i.e., he argued about Blood Transfusions being against God's law (J.W. teachings ALONE) as a reason he would not allow creation to be taught in public school. It bacame most clear that Phil wants his religion taught in public schools, but not creation - Phil is/was obviously a theistic evolutionist who would decide for all students that only theistic evolution be taught to the kids - the TYPICAL 'neutral' TYRANY of public school educators in our times. Is this really the point that Phil was making? Let's look at what was sad about the transfusions: There are religions, as you must know, that think blood transfusions are against God's law. You know about that. If I believe that a blood transfusion is against God's law can I teach that in a public school? You can teach that there are people who believe that and why they believe that you don't have to force anyone to believe that. It was an example of what some theists believe and why it shouldn't be taught in schools as fact. Almost the exact opposite of what you claimed was said. Phil is not a JW. He did not want creation science to be taught in schools and this was an example why. And the point being made was that there is no science that supports creationism. As uncommon as listening to a video and getting the points made right.
|
|