Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2019 6:12 AM
18 online now:
(18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,006 Year: 5,043/19,786 Month: 1,165/873 Week: 61/460 Day: 3/58 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
171819
20
2122Next
Author Topic:   Anyone else notice this pattern?
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 749 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 286 of 318 (451234)
01-26-2008 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Hill Billy
01-26-2008 8:47 PM


Re: Just to add to what Percy said
Yes,hmm,I wonder what else science can't handle,surely not just "God" and "devil"?

Science has nothing to do with gods/devils.

There is no evidence of either. Therefore, science has no truck with em.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Hill Billy, posted 01-26-2008 8:47 PM Hill Billy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Hill Billy, posted 01-26-2008 9:35 PM molbiogirl has responded

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 749 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 287 of 318 (451238)
01-26-2008 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Hill Billy
01-26-2008 8:12 PM


Re: Hullo ,Nator,I'm over here.
Really.Hmmm.Hardly seems worth the effort.

I suggest you take a look at the handiwork of one of our infamous members, Brad McFall.

Let's see what your highly evolved reading comprehension makes of something like this Message 1.

Ok,and I'm askin for one, now.

An explanation of what? Your response makes no sense.

Please,for a one-liner to be sarcastic wouldn't it need to have some,oh,I don't know,maybe content?

I suggest you tone down the snark.

You seem to want only one thing -- to taunt Nator, goad her into an argument.

Careful what you wish for, buster.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Hill Billy, posted 01-26-2008 8:12 PM Hill Billy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Hill Billy, posted 01-26-2008 10:10 PM molbiogirl has responded

Hill Billy
Member (Idle past 3461 days)
Posts: 163
From: The hills
Joined: 01-26-2008


Message 288 of 318 (451240)
01-26-2008 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by molbiogirl
01-26-2008 9:15 PM


Re: Just to add to what Percy said
Science has nothing to do with gods/devils.
And fish have nothing to do with bicycles.
There is no evidence of either.
None you will accept.
Therefore, science has no truck with em.
Yes,I suppose science drives a Prius.


"Some people spout bullshit just to hear their own heads rattle" Grampa Frame.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by molbiogirl, posted 01-26-2008 9:15 PM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by molbiogirl, posted 01-26-2008 9:49 PM Hill Billy has responded

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 749 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 289 of 318 (451242)
01-26-2008 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Hill Billy
01-26-2008 9:35 PM


You need to take a look at the Forum Guidelines. Particularly Rule 4.

If you have anything of substance to add to our discussion, please do.

Threads are limited to 300 posts and you are wasting valuable real estate with your content free posts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Hill Billy, posted 01-26-2008 9:35 PM Hill Billy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Hill Billy, posted 01-26-2008 10:29 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

Hill Billy
Member (Idle past 3461 days)
Posts: 163
From: The hills
Joined: 01-26-2008


Message 290 of 318 (451248)
01-26-2008 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by molbiogirl
01-26-2008 9:24 PM


Huh?
Let's see what your highly evolved reading comprehension makes of something like this
I don't recall claiming to understand anything.Besides,that looks like a lot of work.
An explanation of what? Your response makes no sense.
What?Do you have issues with comprehension as well?Look,Nator was makin a big kerfuffle about her comprehension skills.If these skills don't aid in comprehending then whats the point. Is it possible that some peoples attitudes get in the way of their understanding?
I suggest you tone down the snark.
Back atcha.
You seem to want only one thing -- to taunt Nator,
I admit I'm pokin some fun at her "superior" communication skilz,but hey,the first post in this thread is posted by none other than.......drum roll....Nator.
goad her into an argument.
Na,just offering a challenge to her "superior" position,which by the way, she seems to have difficulty focusing on.
Careful what you wish for, buster.
Is this that thing where you try to act all intimidating?What's next,are you gonna do a clever internet search and tell me where I didn't go to university?


"Some people spout bullshit just to hear their own heads rattle" Grampa Frame.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by molbiogirl, posted 01-26-2008 9:24 PM molbiogirl has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by molbiogirl, posted 01-26-2008 11:33 PM Hill Billy has not yet responded

Hill Billy
Member (Idle past 3461 days)
Posts: 163
From: The hills
Joined: 01-26-2008


Message 291 of 318 (451252)
01-26-2008 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by molbiogirl
01-26-2008 9:49 PM


If you have anything of substance to add to our discussion, please do.
I suppose you are the authority on exactly what is substantive.
you are wasting valuable real estate with your content free posts.
Again with the comprehension thing.Perhaps your attitude is interfering with your understanding.Though I will admit,you do seem very sure of yourself.


"Some people spout bullshit just to hear their own heads rattle" Grampa Frame.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by molbiogirl, posted 01-26-2008 9:49 PM molbiogirl has not yet responded

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 749 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 292 of 318 (451264)
01-26-2008 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Hill Billy
01-26-2008 10:10 PM


Re: Huh?
Is this that thing where you try to act all intimidating?

Nator can take care of herself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Hill Billy, posted 01-26-2008 10:10 PM Hill Billy has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1294 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 293 of 318 (451266)
01-26-2008 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by pelican
01-26-2008 8:10 PM


Re: Not Quite
Can you prove there is no god?

Can you prove this theory E=MC2

I do not believe either can prove the other 100% wrong.

First - we can and have proven that the formula "E=MC^2" is extremely accurate. It's at the same level of certainty as the Theory of Gravity.

Second - proving that something, anything, does not exist is possible only indirectly, by proving true something that makes the existence of the entity impossible. You can no more prove there isn't a fairy sitting above your shoulder than prove there is no god...but you can prove that god exists with about the same certainty as you can prove the fairy, as well.

This is another example of Creationist tendencies: special pleading. You'll happily accept that there is no such thing as fairies, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, invisible dragons and unicorns, that trolls did not in fact take over the Earth 100 years ago, or any other fantastical figments of the imagination. But when the questions of god or Creation come up, you insist that we "cannot prove it didn't happen" or "cannot prove he doesn't exist," and claim that this means god does exist and Creation did happen.

It's also an example of equivocation based on misunderstandings. As I said, "E=MC^2" has proven to be incredibly accurate. The large number of nuclear reactors currently running in the world depend on it. You clearly don't even understand what that formula means, or how it relates to the world, and yet you make claims about it from ignorance.


When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by pelican, posted 01-26-2008 8:10 PM pelican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by pelican, posted 01-27-2008 3:07 AM Rahvin has responded

Hill Billy
Member (Idle past 3461 days)
Posts: 163
From: The hills
Joined: 01-26-2008


Message 294 of 318 (451285)
01-27-2008 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
12-28-2007 8:57 PM


And now...my rebuttal.
To this.
So, I have noticed that many of the Creationists on this board have, shall we say, less than stellar writing skills compared to the science-minded folks.

Sure, there are a few exceptions, but I would guess that well more than two thirds of the Creationists who have ever posted here simply write very poorly.

Their grammar and punctuation ranges from average to downright awful, they frequently fail to break their posts into paragraphs, and their ability to express ideas, sentence structure and word usage doesn't give one an impression of their having done very well in high school English.

On a related note, my husband frequents a message board populated by people who work in higher education. Not surprisingly, most posters there write well, and express themselves clearly and often eloquently.

Every so often a controversial subject such as Affirmative Action comes up in discussion, and he has noticed that of those people who pop up to write posts condemning it, many of them possess markedly poor writing skills.

So, why does everyone think this pattern exists?

Because I just can't bring myself to deny the trend you suggest,I'm going to expand on it.

I have observed a pattern in Evolutionists writings as well. Evolutionists seem to think that understanding grammar and spelling means understanding communication and that understanding something means understanding everything. That simply isn't true.

As evidence I offer my first day on this forum. Seems,from the responses and lack of responses to my posts, I may have made a point or two (like Taz may be educated but he can't drive worth a shit) and rattled some cages.Is it wise to reveal your weaknesses on the battlefield so to speak?Had i truly been just trying to provoke ,you gave me way more information then that which I used against you.It seems creationists are not the only ones who reveal more than they should. It was my intention to approach this in a manner that would seem to you the same way most of your posts seem to me.Inflammatory.

Readin,Writin,an rithmatik don't give you smarts,but they can sure come in handy if ya got some.Your communication skilz may not be as sharp as ya thought.Unless ya'll wanted me to know exactly how to push your buttons.

Creationists think they know God.Evolutionists think they know everything. It may be as simple as them believing that because they understand something, they understand everything.I'm not sure but it comes across the screen as a sense that they feel more valuable as people because of their education.I wonder where this type of attitude could lead.

I wonder what the good doctor would have to say.Am I feeling inferior or are they acting superior?

It seems somehow odd to me to use superior comprehension skills as an explanation for a lack of comprehension,but hey,I'm just a hillbilly.One of the great unwashed.Couldn't even find my way to high school,so I guess it don't matter much what I think.


"Some people spout bullshit just to hear their own heads rattle" Grampa Frame.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 12-28-2007 8:57 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by AdminNosy, posted 01-27-2008 2:44 AM Hill Billy has responded
 Message 301 by nator, posted 01-27-2008 8:36 AM Hill Billy has responded

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 295 of 318 (451286)
01-27-2008 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Hill Billy
01-27-2008 1:30 AM


Less Nonsense more substance
Hill Billy,

Even in the coffee house we expect you to stick to the topic at hand and not mess up the discussion.

If you aren't able to post with more content than your posts so far you will start to be suspended.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Hill Billy, posted 01-27-2008 1:30 AM Hill Billy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by pelican, posted 01-27-2008 3:54 AM AdminNosy has not yet responded
 Message 306 by Hill Billy, posted 01-27-2008 11:23 AM AdminNosy has not yet responded

pelican
Member (Idle past 3093 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 296 of 318 (451288)
01-27-2008 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Rahvin
01-26-2008 11:39 PM


Re: Not Quite
First - we can and have proven that the formula "E=MC^2" is extremely accurate. It's at the same level of certainty as the Theory of Gravity.

Second - proving that something, anything, does not exist is possible only indirectly, by proving true something that makes the existence of the entity impossible. You can no more prove there isn't a fairy sitting above your shoulder than prove there is no god...but you can prove that god exists with about the same certainty as you can prove the fairy, as well.

This is another example of Creationist tendencies: special pleading. You'll happily accept that there is no such thing as fairies, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, invisible dragons and unicorns, that trolls did not in fact take over the Earth 100 years ago, or any other fantastical figments of the imagination. But when the questions of god or Creation come up, you insist that we "cannot prove it didn't happen" or "cannot prove he doesn't exist," and claim that this means god does exist and Creation did happen.

It's also an example of equivocation based on misunderstandings. As I said, "E=MC^2" has proven to be incredibly accurate. The large number of nuclear reactors currently running in the world depend on it. You clearly don't even understand what that formula means, or how it relates to the world, and yet you make claims about it from ignorance.

Are you saying that E=MC2 has actually been tried and tested? If it has it would not be a theory.
By my reasoning that proves that you cannot back your theories with 100% certainty, even when it is a fantastic formula and mathematically coherant. It is impossible (at this moment) to test this theory M=MC2 in a physical experiment. I believe all theories fit this category of impossible to prove.

Leaving the subject matters aside for a moment, ceationists have exactly the same problem proving their theories in a physical experiment.

You believe in E=MC2 because you feel there is enough consequential evidence, as you described. Creationists also believe because of consequential evidence. Jesus is proved to have lived. He believed in god. He must be telling the truth because he was the son of god.

When the ONLY reference is one book, deemed to be inspired by god who is the father of Jesus, it makes perfect sense.

There must be many bible theories that permeate your life that you are not even aware of. How many of the 10 commandments do you obey? Whether or not you believed you were following the commandments, I think it could be easily proved that you are.

As you know for a fact that I am ignorant on the mathematical theory/formula, I give you the floor. Tell me what I don't know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Rahvin, posted 01-26-2008 11:39 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Rahvin, posted 01-27-2008 3:41 AM pelican has not yet responded
 Message 302 by nator, posted 01-27-2008 8:39 AM pelican has not yet responded

pelican
Member (Idle past 3093 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 297 of 318 (451293)
01-27-2008 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Hill Billy
01-26-2008 2:56 PM


Re: Working At Improvement
hill billy writes:

I have generally had no trouble understanding what those posters write.
Nator,as someone who has never even taken a reading comprehension exam (if I did I'm sure I failed miserably,) and as yet has had no trouble understanding Riverrat,I have a question. Wouldn't highly evolved and finely tuned comprehension skills allow one to comprehend even the most poorly written stuff?I mean whats so special about comprehending well written material? Perhaps a slightly less elevated nasal position might provide a clearer view of the screen which in turn might lead to greater comprehension.

were yi Bin holl diz thym yu maic mi wii lafin a fink yus speshal

tea he

av er peep hat 99

Edited by Heinrik, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Hill Billy, posted 01-26-2008 2:56 PM Hill Billy has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1294 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 298 of 318 (451295)
01-27-2008 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by pelican
01-27-2008 3:07 AM


Re: Not Quite
Are you saying that E=MC2 has actually been tried and tested?

YES, IT HAS! A few examples would be Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and every nuclear power plant and particle accelerator in the world! ALL of them work on this principle, and every measurement taken shows that it is extremely accurate.

If it has it would not be a theory.

Yes, it is. Yet again, Creationists using words they don't understand, even after being corrected in the same thread. This is poor writing: grammar doesn't even have to come in to it. If you don't know the definition of a word, using it only makes you look silly.

A theory in science is not just an "idea." It's a model used to describe an observed phenomenon. In this case, E=MC^2 is a formula representing the energy equivalence of matter - that is, when matter is annihilated, energy equal to its mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light is released,. This has been tested in particle accelerators using antimatter annihilation, and is the principle that causes nuclear reactions to release so much energy from such tiny amounts of matter. This means that the formula is highly accurate, but does not mean that it's not a theory.

Here's a hint: the Theory of Gravity is still a theory. Do you believe it hasn't been tested, either?

By my reasoning that proves that you cannot back your theories with 100% certainty, even when it is a fantastic formula and mathematically coherent. It is impossible (at this moment) to test this theory M=MC2 in a physical experiment. I believe all theories fit this category of impossible to prove.

Your arguments from incredulity and ignorance are irrelevant. You lack the necessary knowledge of the definition of the word theory as it applies to science, or of the most basic principles involved in your statements.

Your insistence on making such ignorant comments without doing even the most cursory research yet again proves the point of this thread.

Leaving the subject matters aside for a moment, ceationists have exactly the same problem proving their theories in a physical experiment.

Incorrect. Science deals only with that which can be physically tested. That's why things like relativity are scientific, and your nonsense is not.

You believe in E=MC2 because you feel there is enough consequential evidence, as you described.

It's been observed and measured to be accurate. That's pretty damned good evidence.

Creationists also believe because of consequential evidence. Jesus is proved to have lived. He believed in god. He must be telling the truth because he was the son of god.

The most funny thing is that you don't even see the circular logic here. Jesus believed in god, so god must exist, because Jesus is god's son so he would know.

When the ONLY reference is one book, deemed to be inspired by god who is the father of Jesus, it makes perfect sense.

Right. It makes perfect sense to someone who cannot see circular logic for what it is. The Bible is true because god wrote it. We know god wrote it because the Bible said so.

There must be many bible theories that permeate your life that you are not even aware of. How many of the 10 commandments do you obey? Whether or not you believed you were following the commandments, I think it could be easily proved that you are.

This may come as a shock to you, but Christianity, and even religion do not have a monopoly on morality. And I can think of several commandments I think are utter garbage, aside from that.

As you know for a fact that I am ignorant on the mathematical theory/formula, I give you the floor. Tell me what I don't know.

...asked the thimble to the bucket. My knowledge is dwarfed by some of the members here, but at least I do a little research before I make statements about things I can easily verify. It prevents me from putting my foot in my mouth and looking like a fool.


When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by pelican, posted 01-27-2008 3:07 AM pelican has not yet responded

pelican
Member (Idle past 3093 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 299 of 318 (451299)
01-27-2008 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by AdminNosy
01-27-2008 2:44 AM


Re: Less Nonsense more substance
Even in the coffee house we expect you to stick to the topic at hand and not mess up the discussion.

If you aren't able to post with more content than your posts so far you will start to be suspended

This is bang out of order. There have been insults flying in every direction at me on this thread and not once have you stepped in. A hill billy, who sees thing s little differently than you, tries to show the superior attitude being displayed in this thread.

From post one, It sticks out like dog's balls and the ones displaying this behaviour cannot see it.

This warning is totally uncalled for and could have been given for 70% of the posts, if you had been observing from another point of view. This would make me so angry but I understand that you don't.

Welcome Hill Billy! Thank god I'm not the only one.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by AdminNosy, posted 01-27-2008 2:44 AM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Hill Billy, posted 01-27-2008 11:48 AM pelican has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 277 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 300 of 318 (451311)
01-27-2008 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by pelican
01-26-2008 8:10 PM


Re: Not Quite
What if Creationism was 100% false?
Guess what? It is 100% false.

quote:
Can you prove there is no god?

What does the existence of god have to do with Creationism?

God could certainly exist and Creationism also be completely false, you know.

Please try to think outside your limited worldview.

Can you prove this theory E=MC2

No, but we most certainly can show that the claims of Creationism are false.

Can you not see the difference?

Of course, the claims of science and Biology are supported by a great deal of evidence from nature.

Creationism's claims are not. Period.

The only reason people believe Creationist claims is through religious convicion combined with ignorance of science.

Should we believe that the reason gravity works is because invisible, undetectable angels are pushing down upon our shoulders, simply because we cannot "prove" any of the Theories of Gravity?

How do you decide which claims are likely to be true and which are not? Are all claims about the natural world equally valid, and we just get to pick as true the ones we merely like the best?

Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Edited by nator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by pelican, posted 01-26-2008 8:10 PM pelican has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
171819
20
2122Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019