No, it's the fallacy of imputing to me the acceptance of the whole when all I affirmed was the small part actually referred to, having no knowledge of the site of my own. This is very sleazy debate form.
If you'd stop saying things without thinking you wouldn't be constantly engaged in attempts to convince people you didn't say what you very clearly said. It's still right there in Message 57.
Wouldn't it be easier to just go back and edit your old messages instead of trying to convince people that words have completely different meanings when you use them?
ABE: Yes it would be nice if I anticipated all the ways what I say can be used against me but that would mean I'd never write anything here because you'll all invent something if you can't find something to turn against me.
Nothing has to be invented because your words speak for themselves. If you didn't so often say ill-considered things you wouldn't so often have to invent spurious reinterpretations.
Can it be agreed now that the Jesus is Lord website is, to say the least, a bit batty?
What I said was said perfectly innocently within a specific context and this is just typical of EvC to invent an excuse to ridicule a creationist rather than EVER give the benefit of the doubt.
As Modulous notes, you were attempting to cast an insult by implying that to be called a loon by EvC is a badge of honor indicative of great perspicacity. The only problem is that the person you chose as your example really is a bit of a loon, to put it mildly.
The self-serving ex post facto rationalizations that you have to constantly engage in always ring false. Why not put your effort into keeping your foot out of your mouth in the first place?
I watched the first seven minutes. Megan Fox's continually repeated question, "How do they know?" is a good one. The displays present what we know, not how we know it, and wanting to know how they know it is a good thing.
But in Megan Fox's hands the question becomes inane because she fires it at literally everything. For her the question is rhetorical because she assumes these are things impossible to know and that there are no answers. Her question should be reflected back at her: "How do you know that we don't know and that these are things impossible to know?"
Were Megan Fox to ask her question of actual scientists instead of the text on inanimate displays she'd find there are ready answers. Not that she'd accept them, but she could no longer claim that scientists are just making it up.
This is wonderfully stated, and we see it here all the time:
David Dunning writes:
If you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent...The skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is.
But what we often see in creationist behavior is a sort of forced or unconsciously imposed incompetence. Most creationists seem perfectly competent at figuring out most things, but when it comes to things that challenge their religious beliefs they suddenly adopt a different set of analytical rules where evidence or consecutions are weighted by how well they lead to conclusions consistent with their beliefs.
And experience here reveals that we behave the same way when we believe something very strongly, e.g., discussions on guns and economics.
Fascinating mix of fact and fiction. She knew that fossils are mineralized bone, and she knew that paleontologists often have to extract fossils from a matrix, but after that she launched into stuff that she just made up. Sort of similar to apologetics.
Shouldn't she let Ken Ham know that the dinosaurs displayed in his museum:
House Passes Bill that Prohibits Expert Scientific Advice to the EPA
In other news, the President today announced additional immigration reforms revoking the citizenship of House Republicans and ordering their deportation from Washington.
Just as boiling maple sap concentrates it to produce syrup, boiling water concentrates whatever else is dissolved or suspended in it. Boiling down water will do the same, gradually concentrating whatever else was in the water, even if you do it by boiling away 1% of the water, letting it cool, then boiling away another 1% of the water, then letting it cool again, etc. Here in NE iron and manganese are very common groundwater contaminants - if you boil down a pot of unfiltered well water by around 50% it will actually become cloudy with contaminants.
Repeated boiling would seem unlikely to produce different chemicals than a single boiling, but the real world is a complicated place, and the list of possible contaminants across the country huge, and the potential interactions between various contaminants even huger, so it also seems unlikely that all water everywhere would be safe to boil repeatedly.
My own opinion: Reboiling water is probably without risk in most circumstances, but unless you're using distilled water you're going to increase the concentrations of contaminants which will probably affect taste, so why do it?
I'd still much rather sit next to any homosexual than him. In fact, I'd rather not sit where he sat until someone has done a through clean and wipe. (Message 306)
I don't think Jar intended his comment the way you're taking it. I think he meant it to be interpreted in the context of Kevin Swanson's rant about gays, see Message 292. I think he's saying that Kevin Swanson is worse than his worst comments about gays.
Apparently creationists are actually atheistic evolutionists:
quote:Any so-called Christian or religious person who supports or believes that the Flat Earth is a globe is an evolutionist. You're pretty much an atheist masquerading as a so-called believer.
Re: Dries Dippenaar, Pretoria, skryf: Die All Blacks en die Internasionale Rugbyraad se b
AZPaul3 writes:
(real football - not that fakey football the rest of the world plays where you run up and down the field for 90 mins. trying to not score and, for the most part, succeeding).
You forgot the part where they roll around on the ground grabbing their ankles for minutes at a time.
Not that American football is perfect. You hardly see a incomplete pass anymore without the receiver begging the refs for an interference call - throw unsportsmanlike conduct calls at 'em, that'll put an end to it. And it shouldn't be part of the game that a team can advance the ball 40 yards with an interference call on a desperation pass. And quarterbacks should wear skirts. And the "illegal block in the back" call on punt and kickoff returns should be mandatory, since it happens on almost every play anyway.
™ Version 4.2
