On a Christian radio show...

[Stripe]

I think you should include the condition that Stripe does not use this smiley: in his rebuttals, and they have to be longer than three or four words.

No need.

 

[australopithecus]

Consider this a verbal warning. You've done nothing on this forum but an exude an antagonistic attitude and a complete disregard for anything coming close to honesty.

Thin ice is thin.

 

[Stripe]

[sze=200][colr=#FFFF00]Consider this a verbal warning. You've done nothing on this forum but an exude an antagonistic attitude and a complete disregard for anything coming close to honesty. Thin ice is thin.[/color][/size]

:shock:

What does a "verbal warning" do?

And can you give an example of my "dishonesty"? :?:

And does "exuding an antagonistic attitude" extend to all the hostile and rude comments directed my way by others, or is this a one way street? :roll:

Thanks.






PS. When is a door not a door? When it's ajar. :lol:

 

[Dean]

Stripe

I think you should include the condition that Stripe does not use this smiley: in his rebuttals, and they have to be longer than three or four words.

No need.

You have not presented any form of tangible evidence per se, and you have not even made any testable claims for some time now. Instead you appear to be switching tactics to puerile hip-shot retorts, and scare-smilies such as: You don't seem to appreciate the fact that it is going to be impossible to do you "position" justice, if you cannot flesh out what your stance is in a little more detail. Sadly, being such a dyed in the wool cynic, my initial instinct is telling me that the most probable reason for this rather crass lack of contribution on your part is because you know that you cannot defend your views on objective grounds, which is why you appear to have resorted to such 'techniques'.

Feel free to prove me wrong though. Now, your travails in this thread seem to have almost no discernible pattern, and you hop from one area of science to another. From Evolutionary Palaeozoology to Einsteinian physics. But now, I will make an effort at least to simplify the matter somewhat, and focus in on a central point. Perhaps you can simply address a question as postulated by AronRa on page 8 of this thread of yours.

[See in original context] (I have adjusted the format only)

[ ... ]

• It is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this variance, both in scientific literature and in practical application.
  
  
  [ ... ]
  
• It is a fact that birds are a subset of dinosaurs in the same way that humans are a subset of apes, primates, eutherian mammals, and vertebrate deuterostome animals.
  
  
• It is a fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced to its most basal form through reverse-sequencing, and that those forms are also indicated by comparative morphology, physiology, and embryological development, as well as through chronologically correct placement of successive stages revealed in the geologic column.
  
  
• It is a fact that everything on earth has definite relatives either living nearby or evident in the fossil record, and that the fossil record holds hundreds of definitely transitional species even according to the strictest definition of that term.
  
  [ ... ]
  
• It is also a fact that evolution is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support or scientific validity

,[ ... ]


What facts do you have in support of creationism?[ ... ]

The question itself is highlighted clear for all to see. What facts can you present in support of your claims???

PS: I also left in some of the core tenets of his list -- although I heavily edited it to save space -- so that you could see for yourself the facts that you are so gratuitously ignoring, and that you handily refused to address in your rebuttals to Aron's postings. If you cannot answer this question, you really shouldn't expect to be taken seriously, so please do! Once again, crucially important issues being swept under the rug. :roll:

 

[Dean]

Consider this a verbal warning. You've done nothing on this forum but an exude an antagonistic attitude and a complete disregard for anything coming close to honesty. Thin ice is thin.

[ ... ]

What does a "verbal warning" do?

And can you give an example of my "dishonesty"? :?:

And does "exuding an antagonistic attitude" extend to all the hostile and rude comments directed my way by others, or is this a one way street? [ ... ]

• 1.) You appear to be missing the point. Australopithecus , it would appear; although I obviously have no illusions of being able to read peoples minds , is simply asking you to curtail your (increasing) habit of selectively interpreting and distorting evidence, and simply retorting with imbecilic one-liners when asked to justify your (rather obscure) points.
  
  
• 2.) While you may not have actually "lied" in the sense of making a statement that you know to be false, you have displayed , repeatedly , dishonest tactics, i.e. your selective eye on evidence, continual implied assertions that all of we here are wrong, and you are right, all the while displaying a rather shocking unwillingness to present evidence, and hence show us why we're wrong. As you can see in my above post, I am beginning to feel that it is simply because you can't. Again though: feel free to prove me wrong.
  
  
• 3.) I for one have yet to insult or attack you in any way, because I, like everyone else partaking in this thread, would like you to substantiate your assertions further than what you have presented insofar, and -- yes -- provide (gasp!) tangible evidence in favour of your belief and against that of evolutionary scientists.
  • 3b.) Personally, I am of the opinion that "insult", etc. is not productive, because it's just a waste of mental energy, especially when one considers your apparent cognitive dissonance on this topic.
  • 3c.) Nevertheless, I can understand people here who hold science and evidence-based reason in high regard (as almost all of us do) being a little agitated , to say the very least , when you make bold and outrageous statements with precisely NO evidence, refuse to address compelling counter arguments, and react in a (frankly) juvenile manner when you are asked why you are doing this!

 

[Dean]

So Stripe ....

Er, any more Socratic enquiries?

 

[Stripe]

So Stripe ....

Er, any more Socratic enquiries?

Food for thought, Dean.

I think perhaps people are over-reacting, but I'm willing to engage on a more expansive level.

 

[australopithecus]

What does a "verbal warning" do?

Well, for people with brains it enables them to realise that they should stop acting in the way that first got them the warning.

And can you give an example of my "dishonesty"? :?:

Claiming there are no 'facts' for evolution then admitting you've not looked into the evidence for, ignoring peoples questions, asserting things without evidence despite being asked for it, giving hand waving dismissals for evidence and arguments that refute your own. Take your pick.

And does "exuding an antagonistic attitude" extend to all the hostile and rude comments directed my way by others, or is this a one way street?

You're like a child pulling a dogs tail then crying when it barks at them. You're borderline trolling and you don't have my sympathy. You want people to treat with respect, then earn it.

PS. When is a door not a door? When it's ajar. :lol:

:facepalm:

You wonder why you got a warning?

 

[Dean]

So Stripe ....

Er, any more Socratic enquiries?

Food for thought, Dean.

I think perhaps people are over-reacting, but I'm willing to engage on a more expansive level.

Expansive? As I've said, perhaps it would be in all of our interests (not only to members, but also to onlookers) if we stick to a single, narrow topic and avoid divarication when possible. And on that note, please at least consider my question, right?

Here it is. Again.

 

[Stripe]

Well, for people with brains it enables them to realise that they should stop acting in the way that first got them the warning.

:chuckle:

OK.

Claiming there are no 'facts' for evolution

Where did I say this?

then admitting you've not looked into the evidence for

I said the very opposite of this.

, ignoring peoples questions

Am I morally obliged to answer every question put to me?,

asserting things without evidence despite being asked for it

I have only asserted things I think are universally accepted. I do not think it necessary to provide evidence that the Earth is round.

Giving hand waving dismissals for evidence and arguments that refute your own.

I give clear responses to evidence produced that goes against what I say.

You're like a child pulling a dogs tail then crying when it barks at them. You're borderline trolling and you don't have my sympathy. You want people to treat with respect, then earn it.

If people wish to show no respect, I am not going to try and earn it. Nor am I overly concerned if they do not show respect. My question was - is it only my "attitude" that is in poor form here, or do the actual words of insult also qualify?

You wonder why you got a warning?

This is a trick question, right?

I think you're being a tad bit precious.

 

[Stripe]

Expansive? As I've said, perhaps it would be in all of our interests (not only to members, but also to onlookers) if we stick to a single, narrow topic and avoid divarication when possible.

Dang, I wish you guys would make up your minds... :mrgreen:

And on that note, please at least consider my question, right?

That's why I started my other thread. Someone else asked something similar.

 

[australopithecus]

:facepalm:

 

[Deleted member 619]

Stripe, since I am cooling my heels at the moment due to a suspension elsewhere, would you like a formal debate to see just how strong your 'arguments' are?

It isn't like I need to sharpen my teeth so much as you need to sharpen your arguments/trolling technique. Topic of your choosing, and I will be happy to defend or propose depending only on which topic you choose.

I'm bored, and it would amuse me for the next week or so to kick your bollocks into touch. Unless, of course, you think that they can't be so kicked...

It's about time I got a formal debate under my belt on this forum. whaddya say?

Sure.

What about the relativity thing?

I think Einstein's theory of relativity is a useful and accurate mathematical model, but it is not a description of physical reality.

Which one?

 

[Stripe]

Which one?

Both.

 

[sgrunterundt]

I think Einstein's theory of relativity is a useful and accurate mathematical model, but it is not a description of physical reality.

???

How can a mathematical model be useful and accurate, and yet not be a description of physical reality?

It describes reality and it describes it well, hence it is useful and accurate. To say that it is a description of physical reality is a tautology.

Is it a perfect description? No. Of course not. It does not include quantum mechanics. We are still lacking a theory of quantum gravity. We know that.

 

[Stripe]

???

How can a mathematical model be useful and accurate, and yet not be a description of physical reality?

It describes reality and it describes it well, hence it is useful and accurate. To say that it is a description of physical reality is a tautology.

Philosophically speaking, no mathematical model is a description of reality, as you hint at in the following...

Is it a perfect description? No. Of course not. It does not include quantum mechanics. We are still lacking a theory of quantum gravity. We know that.

I'm not really concerned that the model is not complete. There most likely is no model that can ever be complete. The problem I see is that the factors within relativity have come to describe actual, physical properties of the universe. And if we start the debate I can give examples of where models are accurate, yet not descriptive of reality.

 

[australopithecus]

Is you're critique going to follow that of your critique of evolution? That being you displaying your own ignorance on the subject whilst cherry picking which rebuttals to give one line answers too and which to ignore outright whilst providing zero evidence.

Lest we not forget the fact you've provided nothing in the way of evidence regarding your moon story, aside from "X looks like a hole, therefore the world in young".

 

[Stripe]

Is you're critique going to follow that of your critique of evolution? That being you displaying your own ignorance on the subject whilst cherry picking which rebuttals to give one line answers too and which to ignore outright whilst providing zero evidence.

Lest we not forget the fact you've provided nothing in the way of evidence regarding your moon story, aside from "X looks like a hole, therefore the world in young".

:lol:

You're silly.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Bye bye, World.

 

[australopithecus]

You're silly.

...and you clearly lack any semblance of either maturity or honesty.