Whats in a word?

Message boards : Politics : Whats in a word?

Author	Message
soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6231 Credit: 27,492,370 RAC: 11,567	Message 1273498 - Posted: 20 Aug 2012, 20:46:28 UTC
	Just how many threads does your mythical sky-man require? Just asking, because you are just pasting someone elses garbage, with nothing to add. If you have something to say, why not say it instead? ____________ Janice
	ID: 1273498 ·

betreger Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 1059 Credit: 1,996,220 RAC: 2,597	Message 1273522 - Posted: 20 Aug 2012, 21:50:29 UTC - in response to Message 1273498.
	Soft, ID is just showing us that he has faith backed up by no empirical data. ____________
	ID: 1273522 ·

Bathybius & Eozoon Nummulosphere Bound Send message Joined: 16 Jun 02 Posts: 1293 Credit: 2,383,710 RAC: 5,197	Message 1273575 - Posted: 21 Aug 2012, 2:10:49 UTC
	no empirical data The Great Scientific Words and Phrases of The Scientific Socialist/DEMLibs. 6.8 BILLION People rooted and follow A Religion, versus a couple hundred million Scientifically Word Spouting Non-Believers. Rolling. Science and Technology is Pervasive and will continue to be so, but The Great Majority of World Peoples, however Heavily Weighed Down by such, will continue to Live In The Bronze Age In Spirit. Care to guess The Century of The Great Switch? 30th, 5Oth, 2043? Rolling. Never Broheim. Never. When Earthlings Land on Other Planets, they may have passed The Psyche Exams showing they are 100% Science Guys/Gals, but they will be Carrying Along With Them GOD/Religion Of Some Sort when Their Boots Hit The Ground and their Mental Sigh Of Relief And Prayers Answered will Ring Back To Their Earthly Mother Lands. TheHeatIsSweetFourthAngel ____________
	ID: 1273575 ·

skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 8940 Credit: 36,326,913 RAC: 53,076	Message 1274023 - Posted: 22 Aug 2012, 17:11:16 UTC - in response to Message 1273997. Last modified: 22 Aug 2012, 17:12:26 UTC
	muddled pseudo science goboldie goop. that article(not the one being quoted) is written by someone attempting to speak as an authority on cellular mitosis. what they sound like is a person barely aware of the technology or the processes involved. Much like a person that knows how to drive a car explaining how the suspension works on a Cadillac. ____________ Proud member of TSWB. End terrorism by building a school
	ID: 1274023 ·

skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 8940 Credit: 36,326,913 RAC: 53,076	Message 1274088 - Posted: 22 Aug 2012, 19:11:31 UTC - in response to Message 1274068.
	Our Mythical Sky-God requires an open mind. Of which you have not. The paper was clear and to the point. Where as the Neodarwinianism mechanisms as was not explained by Drew Berry and not offered nor does it appear they will offer an explaination. No actually science requires an openmind. Faith requires one to ignore other possibilities and rely on faith the explain all. Faith tends to explain things poorly though getting you to admit is unlikely ____________ Proud member of TSWB. End terrorism by building a school
	ID: 1274088 ·

skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 8940 Credit: 36,326,913 RAC: 53,076	Message 1274405 - Posted: 23 Aug 2012, 14:26:25 UTC - in response to Message 1274143. Last modified: 23 Aug 2012, 14:31:16 UTC
	proof? what proof? as in facts or Faith? Faith as you may not know is hardly ladden with facts. As a member of the scientific community I find this a reprehensible misrepresentation of facts. Putting words in a scientists words or inferring something from what they said is foolish. Scientist deal with data, facts, logic, and duh science. Nothing that you've given represents that. ____________ Proud member of TSWB. End terrorism by building a school
	ID: 1274405 ·

skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 8940 Credit: 36,326,913 RAC: 53,076	Message 1274466 - Posted: 23 Aug 2012, 17:22:12 UTC - in response to Message 1274463.
	lol really? Show me the data. let me examine your evidence. Being a Catholic and Scientist I draw a line in the sand. I leave science to Scientists and Religion to religious folks. Need I remind you that we've already discussed and confirmed that ID is Creationism. Creationism is a religious idea and not science. Your arguement is moot. ____________ Proud member of TSWB. End terrorism by building a school
	ID: 1274466 ·

Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 8870 Credit: 1,224,356 RAC: 1,894	Message 1274479 - Posted: 23 Aug 2012, 17:44:24 UTC - in response to Message 1272940.
	Whats in a word? Letters. Syllables. Ideas. What more proof do you need? Please, do try to keep up.
	ID: 1274479 ·

Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 9 Apr 02 Posts: 11987 Credit: 17,818,188 RAC: 57,759	Message 1274592 - Posted: 23 Aug 2012, 21:51:45 UTC - in response to Message 1274587.
	Just like looking for mushrooms in the woods I guarantee you that you will not ever find a one if you are not looking for them. Same goes for Design, gotta look. When you eliminate the possibility you're sure as hell not looking. The possibility is rejected due to a lack of supporting evidence. So what you're saying is, you can only "find" it if you're willing to make a faithful (a belief that is not based on proof) conclusion. That is why Intelligent Design should never be taught in science classrooms. Science only teaches the observable that is backed by the physical evidence.
	ID: 1274592 ·

rob smith Volunteer moderator Send message Joined: 7 Mar 03 Posts: 5411 Credit: 20,136,659 RAC: 122,398	Message 1275014 - Posted: 24 Aug 2012, 20:43:53 UTC
	Just like looking for mushrooms in the woods I guarantee you that you will not ever find a one if you are not looking for them. Same goes for Design, gotta look. When you eliminate the possibility you're sure as hell not looking. A very naive assertion - when I was doing a lot of running (long distance cross country, often through wooded areas) I used to find plenty of fungi with my feet, hands, body, face - particularly when I tripped on a part buried root - and I certainly wasn't looking for them. ____________ Bob Smith Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society) Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?
	ID: 1275014 ·

Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 9 Apr 02 Posts: 11987 Credit: 17,818,188 RAC: 57,759	Message 1275023 - Posted: 24 Aug 2012, 20:58:48 UTC - in response to Message 1275008. Last modified: 24 Aug 2012, 20:59:44 UTC
	I do not believe in chance. Nor can anyone get out of that argument. Actually, we can and we have. Several times in several of your other threads. Chance perfectly explains everything around us, regardless if you believe in it or not. The given enough time, or the argument of multi-verses does not hold water. The universe was given time, and life popped up before the given time for life to pop up, us. And no one can show me nor prove that there is another verse. Yet you want to tell us that your Creator lives in another Universe. Yet here we are in this verse and life popped up way before the statistical math tells us it should have. If your not looking you're not even looking for supporting evidence. Or, I'll get the argument rejecting both the argument and it's supporting evidence. Heck, just ask Los Vagas about long odds and they would agree with the supporting evidence about the odds of a chance happenning of life, they would drop it all on it not happenning--and win. They would call such a thing a 'sure bet.' You still seem to lack an understanding of the odds argument. The fact that the probability is above zero means that it is entirely possible to have existence by mere chance. Even in Las Vegas, you still have a chance to win [non-zero odds]. The odds might be stacked against you, as it seems to be for the existence of life, but until we have a better representative sample (our sample size is exactly one), we can't truly figure the odds of life forming. The tactic you both use is easily identified and defeated. I'm still waiting for the 'defeated' part.
	ID: 1275023 ·

betreger Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 1059 Credit: 1,996,220 RAC: 2,597	Message 1275028 - Posted: 24 Aug 2012, 21:14:21 UTC - in response to Message 1275008.
	...and short quoting me out of full context will not disprove what I have said. I do not believe in chance. Nor can anyone get out of that argument. The given enough time, or the argument of multi-verses does not hold water. The universe was given time, and life popped up before the given time for life to pop up, us. And no one can show me nor prove that there is another verse. Yet here we are in this verse and life popped up way before the statistical math tells us it should have. If your not looking you're not even looking for supporting evidence. Or, I'll get the argument rejecting both the argument and it's supporting evidence. Heck, just ask Los Vagas about long odds and they would agree with the supporting evidence about the odds of a chance happenning of life, they would drop it all on it not happenning--and win. They would call such a thing a 'sure bet.' The tactic you both use is easily identified and defeated. ID, your understanding of statistics is faulty. Even if something only has it chance in a million and it occurs you are asserting it did not happen. Long shots do happen. ____________
	ID: 1275028 ·

Sarge Send message Joined: 25 Aug 99 Posts: 8870 Credit: 1,224,356 RAC: 1,894	Message 1275056 - Posted: 24 Aug 2012, 22:06:36 UTC - in response to Message 1275014.
	Just like looking for mushrooms in the woods I guarantee you that you will not ever find a one if you are not looking for them. Same goes for Design, gotta look. When you eliminate the possibility you're sure as hell not looking. A very naive assertion - when I was doing a lot of running (long distance cross country, often through wooded areas) I used to find plenty of fungi with my feet, hands, body, face - particularly when I tripped on a part buried root - and I certainly wasn't looking for them. Good point!
	ID: 1275056 ·

1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Whats in a word?