Many Believe....Many Don't.

[PoliticalChic]

I said you were dismissed.

Notice when she isn't plagiarising how her posts are just bumpersticker length. If not reposting someone else's blog no one'd read a thing she says.

I never plagiarize, you lying sack of offal.

I link, source and document.

You are so slimy you could be used as axle grease.

 

[G.T.]

Science is the antithesis of faith. It doesn't take a genius to recognize that you're conflating "science" with "unproven hypothesis" which is simply a construct within science. Science is a process, it is not a "belief."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Science is the antithesis of faith. It doesn't take a genius to recognize that you're conflating "science" with "unproven hypothesis" which is simply a construct within science. Science is a process, it is not a "belief."

Did I mention that you are a moron?


One would have imagined that by the time you complete elementary school...what? next year? the year after?.....someone might have mentioned that a step in the scientific method is 'hypothesis'?


BTW, you're a moron.

1. Proposing to show how something might emerge from nothing, [physicist Victor Stenger] introduces “another universe [that] existed prior to ours that tunneled through . . . to become our universe. Critics will argue that we have no way of observing such an earlier universe, and so this is not very scientific.” This is true. Critics will do just that. Before they do, they will certainly observe that Stenger has completely misunderstood the terms of the problem that he has set himself, and that far from showing how some-thing can arise from nothing, he has shown only that something might arise from some-thing else. David Berlinski

Bulletin: morons have advanced a petition demanding that I not associate your name with theirs.

 

[G.T.]

Faith in an unproven theory =/= faith in science, overall, as a process.

Science is a process, it requires no faith.

I understand you're a retard, but even YOU should be able to figure out that you're conflating two things and concluding that both magically become "belief."

Have a little kid explain it to you.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

1. "I don't have a position on it."
In general, I take the view that there is as much reason to believe as there is in much of what is called 'science' today.”

Science has nothing to do with faith. You either know or you don't. If one believes in the BBT, or AGW, or the theories of evolution then one is thinking incorrectly. These are theories, not beliefs. Science deals with facts, data, information, comes up with hypotheses, models, and theories none of which require faith. Unless you know that the theory, etc. is absolutely, verifiably true you are exercising faith. That's a personal behavior and not a part of Science.

Both are largely based on faith.”

Explained above.

I don't attack....denigrate....based on your view, but have found that you do, those with my view.”

Really? Let's just wait a minute and see.

As you have no doubt found, I can back up everything I post, and do so without reference to the bible or my faith.”

You use quotes to back up you claim. You make appeals to authority. These are not real arguments. Show data. Show your work. Quotes from writers are not convincing arguments.

I mean this in the kindest way,...your fear of taking a position on the sourced of what is now the universe is spineless.”

Here it is: Denigration. But you don't do that, right?

More importantly, how exactly is it cowardice not to make a decision about something no one knows anything about? Why do I need to take a position? There is insufficient knowledge about the source of the Universe. I am not convinced the theists or atheists have made a compelling case for their respective sides. Therefore I remain unmoved. How is cowardice in any way relevant to that?

Let me bold a statement as well: "This heretical statement clashes with common sense,..."”

Common sense is not perfect. Agreed.

2. The reason why absurdities are accepted by science is the desire to attack religion.”

Are you a mind reader cause if not, that's a hell of an assumption. Link, please. And please don't back your statement up with quotes from a few scientists. Show me hard data.

Otherwise folks like you,who have bought the nonsense wholesale, would pronounce it absurd.”

What nonsense have I bought wholesale?

And prominent scientists have admitted exactly that:

a. Eugenie C. Scott is a physical anthropologist, and executive director of the National Center for Science Education, Inc: “If scientists do not oppose anti-evolutionism,it will reach more people with the mistaken idea that evolution is scientifically weak.” Scott’s understanding of “opposition” had nothing to do with reasoned discussion. It had nothing to do with reason at all. Discussing the issue was out of the question.

Her advice to her colleagues was considerably more to the point: “Avoid debates.” Everyone had better shut up, clearly a tactic appropriated from Liberalism, secularism.

b. “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”

Yep, some more quotes that despite your best efforts aren't anti-religious but are anti-anti-Science.

Admit it, PC, you only approve of Science until it conflicts with your belief system. Then its a conspiracy of "evolutionists", "darwinists", "marxists", "socialists", "materialists", and "liberals" who somehow, around the world, control all scientists, control all governmental and non-profit funding, are editors of every peer-review journal, the heads of every science department of every non-Christian school, who act as gate keepers to ensure that only science that confirms that religion does not adequately explain reality is released for public consumption.

To believe THAT requires some serious faith.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "I don't have a position on it."
In general, I take the view that there is as much reason to believe as there is in much of what is called 'science' today.”

Science has nothing to do with faith. You either know or you don't. If one believes in the BBT, or AGW, or the theories of evolution then one is thinking incorrectly. These are theories, not beliefs. Science deals with facts, data, information, comes up with hypotheses, models, and theories none of which require faith. Unless you know that the theory, etc. is absolutely, verifiably true you are exercising faith. That's a personal behavior and not a part of Science.

Both are largely based on faith.”

Explained above.

I don't attack....denigrate....based on your view, but have found that you do, those with my view.”

Really? Let's just wait a minute and see.

As you have no doubt found, I can back up everything I post, and do so without reference to the bible or my faith.”

You use quotes to back up you claim. You make appeals to authority. These are not real arguments. Show data. Show your work. Quotes from writers are not convincing arguments.

I mean this in the kindest way,...your fear of taking a position on the sourced of what is now the universe is spineless.”

Here it is: Denigration. But you don't do that, right?

More importantly, how exactly is it cowardice not to make a decision about something no one knows anything about? Why do I need to take a position? There is insufficient knowledge about the source of the Universe. I am not convinced the theists or atheists have made a compelling case for their respective sides. Therefore I remain unmoved. How is cowardice in any way relevant to that?

Let me bold a statement as well: "This heretical statement clashes with common sense,..."”

Common sense is not perfect. Agreed.

2. The reason why absurdities are accepted by science is the desire to attack religion.”

Are you a mind reader cause if not, that's a hell of an assumption. Link, please. And please don't back your statement up with quotes from a few scientists. Show me hard data.

Otherwise folks like you,who have bought the nonsense wholesale, would pronounce it absurd.”

What nonsense have I bought wholesale?

And prominent scientists have admitted exactly that:

a. Eugenie C. Scott is a physical anthropologist, and executive director of the National Center for Science Education, Inc: “If scientists do not oppose anti-evolutionism,it will reach more people with the mistaken idea that evolution is scientifically weak.” Scott’s understanding of “opposition” had nothing to do with reasoned discussion. It had nothing to do with reason at all. Discussing the issue was out of the question.

Her advice to her colleagues was considerably more to the point: “Avoid debates.” Everyone had better shut up, clearly a tactic appropriated from Liberalism, secularism.

b. “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs,” the geneticist Richard Lewontin remarked equably in The New York Review of Books, “in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories.” We are to put up with science’s unsubstantiated just-so stories because, Lewontin explains, “we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door!”

Yep, some more quotes that despite your best efforts aren't anti-religious but are anti-anti-Science.

Admit it, PC, you only approve of Science until it conflicts with your belief system. Then its a conspiracy of "evolutionists", "darwinists", "marxists", "socialists", "materialists", and "liberals" who somehow, around the world, control all scientists, control all governmental and non-profit funding, are editors of every peer-review journal, the heads of every science department of every non-Christian school, who act as gate keepers to ensure that only science that confirms that religion does not adequately explain reality is released for public consumption.

To believe THAT requires some serious faith.

Consider the possibility that I simply see further than you do.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Concession accepted.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Concession accepted.

I thought English was your primary language...but based your absurd post, I now believe that you have no primary language.

Having proven you wrong in several posts, your post is beyond childish....and certainly is not satisfactory or face-saving in any way.

 

[SmedlyButler]

Just get on your knees and ask forgiveness for being so stupid and selfish. Then get up and check your weapon for availability and mechanical readiness.

There are particular posts that reflect the closed mindedness instilled in the secular, Liberal devotees.

The weakest ones will never overcome same.

Your post, of course, is a typical example.

Reality check, just because you don't agree with him doesn't make him a liberal. He's as far from being liberal as night from day.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

/Thread

 

[PoliticalChic]

Just get on your knees and ask forgiveness for being so stupid and selfish. Then get up and check your weapon for availability and mechanical readiness.

There are particular posts that reflect the closed mindedness instilled in the secular, Liberal devotees.

The weakest ones will never overcome same.

Your post, of course, is a typical example.

Reality check, just because you don't agree with him doesn't make him a liberal. He's as far from being liberal as night from day.

In that case I've simply identified a characteristic he has in common with the group mentioned.

 

[G.T.]

Pc: gets owned several times over, declares victory.


Like a child.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Pc: gets owned several times over, declares victory.


Like a child.

I have always felt that the art of conversation is best served when all parties have at least some vague idea of what they are talking about....you seem to have been left out of the loop.

 

[G.T.]

False assertion, and actually: projection.

 

[PoliticalChic]

False assertion, and actually: projection.

Feelings hurt?

If I've said anything that you find insulting, please believe me.

 

[G.T.]

Hey if you need help finding your binky, sorry no dice toddler. Grow out of it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hey if you need help finding your binky, sorry no dice toddler. Grow out of it.

Your writing is of the level of a three year old.
As is your comprehension.

Deep down, you must know that.

 

[G.T.]

Your writing shares a similar significance as the green goblin shares with dental hygiene.

Ahhhhhhh, wait no, my bad.





Its not YOUR writing.