September, 2011, Posts of the Month

When you find a post that is too good to be missed, nominate it here as one of the September, 2011, Posts of the Month (POTM).

You message subtitle should include the author's name and the topic/thread title.

Message Format:

Author: Author's Name Forum: Forum where posted Thread: Thread title Message #: Number and Link to the nominated message

Nominations should include a link to the nominated article, and a short comment on why the message deserves nomination.

Note: As always, this is not a thread for debates. Posts should be limited to nomination, seconds, congratulations, and acceptance statements by nominees.

Percy, Message 329 in The problems of big bang theory. What are they? Big Bang and Cosmology.

Excellent explanation of why it is futile to try and have a meaningful discussion with some people.

Seconded - but perhaps biased because of my recent 'ignore' of IamJoseph and Alfred Maddenstein.

I'll go along with that.

delete

Edited by 1.61803, : wrong topic

Author: Jazzns
Forum: Bible Study
Thread: Do Christians Worship Different Gods?
Message #: Message 172

Fucking bravo, Jazz. A post like this, IMO, holds FAR more weight coming from a recent de-convert than ANY long established atheist. You continue to impress with every post.

I would quote a portion, but it's all bloody remarkable.

I appreciate it very much hooah. Its fun to debate but more satisfying knowing that others recieved value as well.

My friend, if I can easily decipher IamJoseph's message while the rest of you are having difficulties with it is not surprising at all. It does not mean that I endorse his position though. I may not. Yet what he is telling you comes across loud and clear: "You lot can't eat your cake and have it still. If you want to have a universe bounded in time, a universe that started from a singularity, either the creator is implied, or you are peddling a Baron Münchhausen tale." He is saying: "I am a creationist and I admit it openly. You lot are closet creationists, I am helping you out of your closets and I expect thanks instead of the crass ingratitude you exhibit towards me here." He is telling you that he and his Bible are logically consistent where you and your consensus-nonsensus cosmology are not. You know that full well too so hate the guts of the message and scapegoat its style.
You see, I can very well understand how much you hate his message and why all you pretend to find in it are the idiosyncrasies of his personal style.
No fooling Alfred and his old Cheshire cat with all your futile pretence to science, I am afraid.

This isn't a discussion thread. It's for nominations for Post of the Month, for seconds, for congratulations, for gracious thanks, but not for discussion. If you have something you'd like to discuss with Panda then send him a PM. If you'd like to discuss it more widely then start a new thread in the Coffee House. As it happens, this topic already has a thread: Do creationists actually understand their own arguments?

--Percy

Author: Straggler
Forum: Coffee House
Thread: Scientific Knowledge
Message #: 69

Any use of the term "know" that entails absolute 100% certainty (i.e. the 1 and 7 positions on the Dawkins scale) is misplaced outside of axiomatic systems such as mathematics.

Etc.

Moose

REMEMBER - NOT A DISCUSSION TOPIC

Author: Zen Deist
Forum: Is It Science?
Thread: Studying the supernatural
Message #: 50

A small sample:

Zen Deist writes: Personally, I do not see it being possible to test any real supernatural aspects that may be in the {exist} set, because in order to properly validate (ie tested, calibrated and known(1)) to produce proper results) such a test you would need bonafide positive and negative results, which would make the whole exercise unnecessary. This means you can only logically test for the effects of supernatural presence\essence on natural systems that can be tested. Problems here are (a) the strong possibility of false negative results, and (b) results that are confused with and ascribed to natural causes. Thus we have to work from inference from indirect evidence, rather than direct observation and deduction, and thus we need to practice extreme care not to make premature conclusions, pro or con.

Nice post Zen Deist.

Thanks Chuck77,

Nice to know that some people read it ... it is long, but the only way I could see making it shorter would be to delete the parts that are responses to the previous post, and turn it into a monologue.

Enjoy.

I've just noticed this.

Thanks.

I would like to nominate GDR as poster of the month.
Polite, concise, thoughtful, determined - GDR is consistently all of these things.

Ok - sure - I frequently disagree with his opinions.
But that is irrelevant to the quality of his(?) posts.

GDR...nice work. *thumbs up*

Ditto.