| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"David Jensen" |
| Date: |
25 Nov 2003 01:06:29 PM |
| Object: |
Re: The creational view |
In alt.talk.creationism, "Roadrunner" <pegasus@privat.utfors.se> wrote
in <hrMwb.35288$mU6.120209@newsb.telia.net>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:lrl6svodv19ngpb1v13fdn3o0jdm2gf2fn@4ax.com...
In alt.talk.creationism, "Roadrunner" <pegasus@privat.utfors.se> wrote
in <DxDwb.39130$dP1.145746@newsc.telia.net>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:7fl5sv4uld520hrfasm3cpogghrcvn80cp@4ax.com...
...
Anyone can put together a model and derive the tests that need to be
done from the model. Anyone else can evaluate the model, the tests and
the results. While science is often quite expensive to do now and takes
a great deal of training to get up to speed, it is also quite
democratic
in its willingness to be shown to be wrong by those doing science.
Those who reject the scientific method, such as you, need to show us
what is wrong with the method. The fact that some investigators may
make
an error is already handled by the method. You seem to miss this.
So you believe everything what some authority tell you, would you have
lived
in the 1600's you would believe the bible blindly, wouldn't you.
No, that appears to be what you are arguing for.
Self understanding is the first of any science is it to be reliable.
That sentence has no meaning to it.
Then you don't understand my point and are not well informed about human
behaviour either. But still you query me at all points.
I understand the points you try to make.
THEY ARE WRONG.
You are too much a fool to acknowledge your errors.
For entertainment value, I don't believe there are any others who quote
Hovind and Hubbard with a straight face. I'm not persuaded that you do,
either.
If you choose to say something sensible, I'll start responding to you
again, but right now, your ignorance and falsehoods have become boring.
My failure to respond to your silly claims is not agreement with them.
.
|
|
| User: "Roadrunner" |
|
| Title: Re: The creational view |
27 Nov 2003 03:18:15 AM |
|
|
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:0h97sv8pffcqlmk3q37rblog10qkfhg5hn@4ax.com...
In alt.talk.creationism, "Roadrunner" <pegasus@privat.utfors.se> wrote
in <hrMwb.35288$mU6.120209@newsb.telia.net>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:lrl6svodv19ngpb1v13fdn3o0jdm2gf2fn@4ax.com...
In alt.talk.creationism, "Roadrunner" <pegasus@privat.utfors.se> wrote
in <DxDwb.39130$dP1.145746@newsc.telia.net>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:7fl5sv4uld520hrfasm3cpogghrcvn80cp@4ax.com...
...
Anyone can put together a model and derive the tests that need to be
done from the model. Anyone else can evaluate the model, the tests
and
the results. While science is often quite expensive to do now and
takes
a great deal of training to get up to speed, it is also quite
democratic
in its willingness to be shown to be wrong by those doing science.
Those who reject the scientific method, such as you, need to show us
what is wrong with the method. The fact that some investigators may
make
an error is already handled by the method. You seem to miss this.
So you believe everything what some authority tell you, would you have
lived
in the 1600's you would believe the bible blindly, wouldn't you.
No, that appears to be what you are arguing for.
Self understanding is the first of any science is it to be reliable.
That sentence has no meaning to it.
Then you don't understand my point and are not well informed about human
behaviour either. But still you query me at all points.
I understand the points you try to make.
THEY ARE WRONG.
You are too much a fool to acknowledge your errors.
For entertainment value, I don't believe there are any others who quote
Hovind and Hubbard with a straight face. I'm not persuaded that you do,
either.
Be assured that I do!
If you choose to say something sensible, I'll start responding to you
again, but right now, your ignorance and falsehoods have become boring.
My failure to respond to your silly claims is not agreement with them.
That would mean, convert myself to your conviction. No, thank you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Wise" |
|
| Title: Re: The creational view |
28 Nov 2003 12:35:35 PM |
|
|
If you choose to say something sensible, I'll start responding to you
again, but right now, your ignorance and falsehoods have become boring.
My failure to respond to your silly claims is not agreement with them.
That would mean, convert myself to your conviction. No, thank you.
So this appears to be an admission by Roadrunner that everything he
says is nonsense.
Sokath! His eyes open!
"Roadrunner" <pegasus@privat.utfors.se> wrote in message news:<zljxb.39570$dP1.147819@newsc.telia.net>...
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:0h97sv8pffcqlmk3q37rblog10qkfhg5hn@4ax.com...
In alt.talk.creationism, "Roadrunner" <pegasus@privat.utfors.se> wrote
in <hrMwb.35288$mU6.120209@newsb.telia.net>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:lrl6svodv19ngpb1v13fdn3o0jdm2gf2fn@4ax.com...
In alt.talk.creationism, "Roadrunner" <pegasus@privat.utfors.se> wrote
in <DxDwb.39130$dP1.145746@newsc.telia.net>:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:7fl5sv4uld520hrfasm3cpogghrcvn80cp@4ax.com...
...> > If you choose to say something sensible, I'll start responding to you
again, but right now, your ignorance and falsehoods have become boring.
My failure to respond to your silly claims is not agreement with them.
That would mean, convert myself to your conviction. No, thank you.
Anyone can put together a model and derive the tests that need to be
done from the model. Anyone else can evaluate the model, the tests
and
the results. While science is often quite expensive to do now and
takes
a great deal of training to get up to speed, it is also quite
democratic
in its willingness to be shown to be wrong by those doing science.
Those who reject the scientific method, such as you, need to show us
what is wrong with the method. The fact that some investigators may
make
an error is already handled by the method. You seem to miss this.
So you believe everything what some authority tell you, would you have
lived
in the 1600's you would believe the bible blindly, wouldn't you.
No, that appears to be what you are arguing for.
Self understanding is the first of any science is it to be reliable.
That sentence has no meaning to it.
Then you don't understand my point and are not well informed about human
behaviour either. But still you query me at all points.
I understand the points you try to make.
THEY ARE WRONG.
You are too much a fool to acknowledge your errors.
For entertainment value, I don't believe there are any others who quote
Hovind and Hubbard with a straight face. I'm not persuaded that you do,
either.
Be assured that I do!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Arne Vogel" |
|
| Title: Re: The creational view |
27 Nov 2003 04:42:07 AM |
|
|
Roadrunner wrote:
"David Jensen" <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:0h97sv8pffcqlmk3q37rblog10qkfhg5hn@4ax.com...
[snip]
For entertainment value, I don't believe there are any others who quote
Hovind and Hubbard with a straight face. I'm not persuaded that you do,
either.
Be assured that I do!
Given the innumerable falsehoods and his grotesque logic (or "logic"),
Hovind is either a serial liar, or an utter ignoramus. Or both. In any
of these cases, I would double-check his claims before quoting them, or
better, simply let it be.
If you choose to say something sensible, I'll start responding to you
again, but right now, your ignorance and falsehoods have become boring.
My failure to respond to your silly claims is not agreement with them.
That would mean, convert myself to your conviction. No, thank you.
No, you didn't even attempt to come up with sensible arguments for
*your* position. All you have offered are baseless assertions, and when
criticized, you weasel out of it with either more baseless assertions or
quite plainly red herrings. For evidence (look that word up in your
dictionary), I will quote you a few times:
Post 1:
Why would you assume I have not done that already, I've gone through all
that in fact partly geology but mostly archaeology on the field for a
number of years. I had close contact with the laboratories where our
findings were send. I have seen firsthand how ideas or interpretations
take form and how easy they are dicarded off.
Post 2:
So I am poorly educated in science as I do not blindly accept some
'scientific method'. When I have seen firsthand how subjective this actually
is, especially on areas we do not know much about, i.e. evolution.
and:
Not all will agree with, and then, I would not care less what you think.
I tell you, and you do what you want with the information.
Post 3:
It is not good to get too deeply involved with it. You get poisoned by
it. If you are IN to something, you don't look AT it anymore. And then
objectivity is long past gone.
and:
There is a line going through all this. I have basically responded on
any question brought to me in the past and given information. And still
one persist in saying that I never responded on any question nor
provided any information.
Post 4:
WHO decides what tests to do! That is not objectivity! Enough of you......
Post 5:
I've tried to get through to you, but it's useless. Who put together
that socalled predictive model, now? Who makes the decisions, right
fallible people.
Post 6:
So you believe everything what some authority tell you, would you have
lived in the 1600's you would believe the bible blindly, wouldn't you.
Self understanding is the first of any science is it to be reliable.
Post 7:
Then you don't understand my point and are not well informed about human
behaviour either. But still you query me at all points.
etc. etc. etc. you have no substantial contribution to make. You have
obviously no idea of biology, otherwise you would discuss what you see
as actual *evidence* for your position, or against evolutionary theory.
Instead, you're just blowing smoke.
So far your best argument has been (paraphrased) "Science is done by
fallible people, and it could be false."
This is a truism, but "mistakes happen" has never been a good argument
to suspend an activity, *except* maybe when the mistakes outweigh the
successes, which you didn't bother to discuss so far in the case of
evolutionary theory. Of course you are also guilty of doublethink when
you arbitrarily exclude e.g. your beloved science fiction author Mr.
Hubbard from the list of fallible persons. Or are you a heretic who
doubts Hubbard was an infallible "clear"?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
