Summations Only

All I'm saying is that it is rational to ask for evidence that the FBI and CIA did anything before you believe it because evidence is, in principle, possible.If supernatural events can not leave evidence, then asking for evidence in order to believe they have happened is irrational.

Believing in the supernatural is irrational.I still don't see what your issue is?In the case in point, a jury trial, you are charged to set aside personal beliefs and deal solely with the evidence.

Yeah. Sometimes language sucks.But both of these ideas would still support my side...I think.If you suppose or assume that god has tampered with the evidence, what's your next step? Wouldn't it be trying to refute it?

Ok. I guess this is sort of the end.Science is rational, your worldview is irrational, and that's why some of us see a conflict.

More nonsense, sorry but it is.Yes science is rational and some of my beliefs are irrational. But my worldview is more complex than that. And so far you have still failed to show any area where my so called worldview would have any impact that might cause a conflict.

So do you agree that your own impossible-to-evidence beliefs are no more or less worthy of consideration than the impossible-to-evidence notion of which you were so disdainful that all evidence has been falsely but undetectably planted?Because I am happy to treat them with equal disdain. This is the wisest yet most inconsistent thing I think you have ever said here.

Whatever.

I'll take that as a grudging 'Yes'.Perhaps the next time you are disdainfully admonishing someone else here at EvC for their particular brand of un-evidenced and thus un-worthy-of-consideration nonsense you will reflect on your own equally worthless notions.

Then you take it incorrectly.You are free to continue to take what I say out of context, to misrepresent what I say and to use emotive language as much as you want.That has absolutely nothing to do with what I actually said or the context involved.

Oh. So your impossible-to-evidence notions are more worthy of consideration than equally impossible-to-evidence notions held by others?

HUH?By me?Well yes, my personal beliefs are worthy of my consideration.Other peoples beliefs are worthy of their consideration.Why would I care about what personal beliefs anyone else has?If they try to convince others to believe as they do, then it becomes an issue.But I have never asked you or anyone else to judge the worthiness of any of my personal beliefs or even to consider the worthiness of my beliefs.

Out of 9000 posts over an eight year period, do you think that three or four cited by Paulk are enough for evaluation? Who on this board do you think are so pristine that they would not have as many or more questionable posts as me? You have ignored my point that ideology factors in here. You didn't answer my question relative to a creationist site. I ask you again, do you think you would fare better than me as to how the membership of such a site would regard your posts?

Shall we add this to the collection of stupid posts you have made?
You ask for 3 or 4 examples and then complain that 3 or 4 examples are not enough.
That is stupid.

quote:

---

Out of 9000 posts over an eight year period, do you think that three or four cited by Paulk are enough for evaluation?

---

As Panda has already pointed out you asked for three of four examples. I've listed SIX posts so far. But yes, you've been here long enough that we know that your challenge wasn't honest...But since you want more: Message 27Attempting to answer genetic dating by repeating the nonsensical claim (a claim that even the major YEC organisations would recognise as stupid) that the Flood would disrupt all major radiometric dating methods. Despite often repeating this claim - and often being challenged on it - you have never made any serious attempt to explain how it could even be possible.For instance - fission track dating is based on counting the "scars" left by the nuclear fission of U238 in a sample of rock, with the age being based on the density of the tracks. How would a flood affect that, so as to give an older age (heat can make the rock appear younger by erasing tracks but obviously that is no help to you).But the real stupidity is in using it to try to refute a claim that is completely unaffected by the age of rocks. Even if your claim had been entirely true instead of a silly fabrication it would still be completely irrelevant.

quote:

---

Who on this board do you think are so pristine that they would not have as many or more questionable posts as me?

---

The vast majority of the membership...

quote:

---

You have ignored my point that ideology factors in here.

---

How does it factor in ? You haven't disputed a single example. And every example I've given is based on objective facts, not ideology.For instance it is an objective fact that the NOAA list used by the webpenny site was not intended for use as frequency data and is not suitable for such use. It is an objective fact that actual NOAA frequency data was cited. It was therefore objectively untrue that the webpenny list was "NOAA frequency trend data" and objectively untrue that we had no other source. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Hi Buz,Convincing you of your errors isn't possible. I don't know why anyone bothers to try anymore.But your errors and buffoonery are more than obvious to everyone else. What amazes everyone is your claims of outstanding success in the face of this dismal record.At creationist websites I stick to the evidence for what we know and don't worry myself about how well I'm doing. I certainly don't go around making bold declarations about how great I'm doing.So drop the ridiculous and wildly unjustifiable and conceited claims and just focus on the topic. Your ability to turn any thread into a discussion about you instead of the topic (this thread being yet another example) is why you're no longer allowed in the science forums.--Percy