Peanut Gallery

That's because you don't want to have people remarking upon your remarkable ability to ascribe a motive to every-last-man-jack who mis-uses science on fairy stories. I like the idea. It gives me the opportunity to apply my ability to ascribe motives to people one at a time.Edited by lyx2no, : Add link

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

I'd rather have people say it behind my back so as not to waste my time with such foolishness. But it wasn't foolishness, now, was it? No. It actually made the point that you had ascribed a belittling motive as to why people did a thing. A completely unsupported, and unsupportable, insulting accusation to everyone who doesn't suffer fairy stories lightly. But you'd prefer to ignore that to comment instead upon having folks write stuff to your face. You want I should come over to your place with my black board? Let me see: I have shown a capacity to make a point while jesting. You have shown a capacity to exhaust pabulum while indignant. I'm not worried yet.But I 'd also like to make note that you again, as per Rahvin in Message 14, "claim eventual victory in such a way witho[ut] actually having shown that you have any connection to 'truth'?"

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

How does one reconcile these two quotes?

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

Your position was neutral then? Is it your position that unless a preventive act ensues, judgment and condemnation have not preceded? What a very odd definition. You'll note that I've made a judgment about your definition without preventing it. I think it's wrong to use idiosyncratic definitions of common words. Was that not a condemnation of your action? I'd think so.

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

I just want to toss in my support for Subbie in the Points for a Creator thread. Pick any one of Subbie's posts at random and it's a good bet it will be informational, thoughtful and an interesting read. Obversely, alaninnont has done next to nothing to support his end of the debate, and has certainly not live up to the dream of atheists everywhere to present evidence contrary to their beliefs. He's ignored questions directly asked of him preferring to change the subject at every turn, responded with 25 word or less, off-the-cuff macninery and regarded being asked for sources and evidence as detrimental to moving the discussion I thought it was a debate forward.Now subbie is having to contend with alaninnont's contemptuous retorts.Alaninnont, you have not earned a gram of your arrogance.

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

Traste over on the Transition from Chemistry to Biology thread is rippin' some dude named lyx20 up. There haven't been such burns since the last atmospheric nuclear weapons test occurred in China on 16 October 1980. My mum was in the first grade. Where does this guy get it? Bet he gets all the chicks.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

Try getting creationists to play the "what if?" game. What if tomorrow life was found on Mars: would that?" They can't admit these kinds of questions. One almost always gets back something a long the line of "That's not going to happen so why entertain it?"Science types do it for fun. Take an evolutionist's most cherished belief; say, "It's not possible for a God to exist, I can't hear YOU, NA-NA NA-NA NA-NA." And ask him, "What if God were directing Evolution?" What happens? He starts spewing out the types of things he would expect to see and not see.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

I thought the degree to which I prejudiced the case against science would be recognized as hyperbole. Even in the worst case scenario, a genuinely, curious mind recognizes the question more then the attack upon the world view.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

The new tag says I didn't respond, but I did. It just got lost in the move. I had also modified my post 81 a might to say "I just realized that the second sentence could be interpreted to apply to the instant case rather than the general case: it is meant to apply to the general case.My reply to post 83 was "I really like the Peanut Gallery. we've got to make more use of it."I wasn't going to bother putting them up again, but I can't have the Board saying Oni got the last word in.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

Agreed entirely. I was speaking from the point of view of a certain brand of creationist of whom several names come to mind. I don't hold that science has anything to do with atheism. I, for one, hope to give you cause to use it often. Yes God forbid...

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

YesOr the moderators forbid...

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

Yea, well you smell bad.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

Hi RAZDThe only thing I need to know about this non-empirical evidence is if you've ever used it as an excuse to beat rats with sticks.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

I was thinking this one is going to be fun. I know nothing about the subject and I haven't a clue as to whether you or he is unwilling to concede when wrong. I lean in your favor because of SO's insistence that new information can't be produced by mutations clearly wrong but I may be wrong. I encourage you to keep going for the sake of the lurkers. Well, me.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

I want to get my front row seat for SO v cavediver in Misconceptions of Relativity. I understands more physics than SO.Edited by lyx2no, : Typo.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.