Double Exposure, Inc.
  • September 24, 2018, 07:12:03 AM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Give me a break!!!!  (Read 5301 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mack Ravensline

  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 791
Give me a break!!!!
« on: October 09, 2009, 02:08:05 PM »

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/10/09/obama.nobel.international.reaction/
Once again the Nobel comittee has demonstrated that if you are a progressive leader they will shower you with awards. This one is even worse than the one they gave to Al Gore for that pack of Crap he called a movie. Choosing it over a woman who saved many lives of Jews during WW2. This year they chose Barack Obama. The votes for nomination had to be in by the end of January. He had been in for 2 weeks. How much could he have possibly done by then. This pure and simple is an award given because of his Progressive stance and the fact that people liked him. At least let him earn something or do something before giving it to him. This is totally pathetic.
Logged

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Give me a break!!!!
« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2009, 11:37:48 AM »

Once again the Nobel comittee has demonstrated that if you are a progressive leader they will shower you with awards.

You've just got your skivvies in a twist 'cause two Dems got it in 2 years, right? I mean, I recognize that you use the term progressive as an epithet, similar to how liberal has become a swear word, but if you're going to slur folks, do it using appropriate labels.

This one is even worse than the one they gave to Al Gore for that pack of Crap he called a movie.

Your stance on global climate change would be more relevant if you weren't a YEC wackaloon.

The votes for nomination had to be in by the end of January. He had been in for 2 weeks. How much could he have possibly done by then.

This is one of those new bizarro world Birther scenarios? He's not a citizen because he sprang fully formed from Zeus's freshly cracked skull on inauguration day? Because he had no prior political career or exposure on the world stage?

This pure and simple is an award given because of his Progressive stance and the fact that people liked him.


Again, Obama is not particularly progressive. He is an overaccomodating centrist Democrat -- about the only kind that can secure the party nomination anymore. That he is perhaps more center than center-right, and that this is cause to call him some sort of lefty extremist, is just an example of how completely skewed the politics in the US have become.

Of course, even WORSE than being something other than an arch conservative (of course, there are only the two labels - rightwing extremists call themselves conservative centrists and everyone else liberal terrorists bent on destroying the American way of life), is being LIKED, especially being liked by Europeans. If the Europeans like you, then you must be the fucking anti-Christ or something.

At least let him earn something or do something before giving it to him. This is totally pathetic.

Apparently he got a large part of the world to stop throwing up in their mouths a little every time the US was mentioned. I know foreign relations and international diplomacy aren't things you care a huge amount about, but in a time when the last bits of our country's status as the sole world power are falling away and our ability to dictate terms to the world is finally vanishing forever, that's no small thing.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Frigemall

  • Da Pope!
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 821
  • Living on a bomb and a prayer
Re: Give me a break!!!!
« Reply #2 on: October 12, 2009, 01:06:35 PM »

You've just got your skivvies in a twist 'cause two Dems got it in 2 years, right? I mean, I recognize that you use the term progressive as an epithet, similar to how liberal has become a swear word, but if you're going to slur folks, do it using appropriate labels.
Simply using the terms he defines himself with. Liberal or Progressive, a radical who wants to fundamentally change our nation for the worst is what he truely is.
Your stance on global climate change would be more relevant if you weren't a YEC wackaloon.
Thats funny coming from you, but I will refrain from calling names.
This is one of those new bizarro world Birther scenarios? He's not a citizen because he sprang fully formed from Zeus's freshly cracked skull on inauguration day? Because he had no prior political career or exposure on the world stage?
 
Oh, so he got the stinking Peace prize for the short time he was a Senator? Or was it the time he spent voting present in the Illinois state Senate? Or maybe it was when he was a community organiser developing the many radical contacts that would propel him to the White House on shear strength of personality and an ability to read teleprompters?
Again, Obama is not particularly progressive. He is an overaccomodating centrist Democrat -- about the only kind that can secure the party nomination anymore. That he is perhaps more center than center-right, and that this is cause to call him some sort of lefty extremist, is just an example of how completely skewed the politics in the US have become.
Only a way left New Yorker would even think to call Pres. Obama a centrist. Only when his speaches carefully crafted to sound centrist is he that way. His actions have shown him to be way to the right. The country is Center-right, this is the reason that his popularity ratings are dropping fast, and Congress is at an all time low in popularity, because they are far left.
Of course, even WORSE than being something other than an arch conservative (of course, there are only the two labels - rightwing extremists call themselves conservative centrists and everyone else liberal terrorists bent on destroying the American way of life), is being LIKED, especially being liked by Europeans. If the Europeans like you, then you must be the fucking anti-Christ or something.
Oh, you mean these Europeans? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/09/international-media-reactions-obama-peace-prize/
Apparently he got a large part of the world to stop throwing up in their mouths a little every time the US was mentioned. I know foreign relations and international diplomacy aren't things you care a huge amount about, but in a time when the last bits of our country's status as the sole world power are falling away and our ability to dictate terms to the world is finally vanishing forever, that's no small thing.
First of all, they may like him but they sure don't respect him. Second, he is part of the reason our status is eroding. I would rather have the world respect us like they did Reagan, than have them think us a joke they enjoy like they did Carter. Pres. Obama is right in the same foriegn policy mold as Pres. Carter. That spell disaster through weekness.
Logged

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Give me a break!!!!
« Reply #3 on: October 12, 2009, 04:51:29 PM »

Simply using the terms he defines himself with. Liberal or Progressive, a radical who wants to fundamentally change our nation for the worst is what he truely is.

So, whatever you call yourself, you are?

Thats funny coming from you, but I will refrain from calling names.

Yeah, but my particular brand of crazy doesn't involve occasional message board recreations of Ommadon's last stand against science. Since yours does, I'll thank you to leave discussions of the global warming issue to those at least nominally within the reality based community.

Oh, so he got the stinking Peace prize for the short time he was a Senator? Or was it the time he spent voting present in the Illinois state Senate? Or maybe it was when he was a community organiser developing the many radical contacts that would propel him to the White House on shear strength of personality and an ability to read teleprompters?

Perhaps if Reagan had been better at reading the teleprompter, he would'n't've had to wait so long for his shot?

Only a way left New Yorker would even think to call Pres. Obama a centrist.

Not that I have anything against NYC, per se, but you do realized how ridiculous it is to incorrectly call me a New Yorker and then also say it like its an insult to be a New Yorker? Dude!

Only when his speaches carefully crafted to sound centrist is he that way. His actions have shown him to be way to the right. The country is Center-right, this is the reason that his popularity ratings are dropping fast, and Congress is at an all time low in popularity, because they are far left.

I'm sure you've based this conclusion on something other than your own biases and conjecture?

Oh, you mean these Europeans? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/09/international-media-reactions-obama-peace-prize/

I said he was well liked in Europe (and generally globally, but since the Nobel is a very European award, it seemed most appropriate to focus there). This is not the same as saying everyone in Europe agrees with the prize committee. I should think that distinction would go without saying. However, I will also note that there ~50 European nations, of which a small sampling of the daily newspapers from FOUR European nations does not damning continental criticism make.

First of all, they may like him but they sure don't respect him. Second, he is part of the reason our status is eroding. I would rather have the world respect us like they did Reagan, than have them think us a joke they enjoy like they did Carter. Pres. Obama is right in the same foriegn policy mold as Pres. Carter. That spell disaster through weekness.

Maybe it's because I'm such a big pansy myself, but I don't really get the whole macho-worship deal. It's GOT to be an insecurity thing, right?
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Frigemall

  • Da Pope!
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 821
  • Living on a bomb and a prayer
Re: Give me a break!!!!
« Reply #4 on: October 13, 2009, 08:51:43 AM »

So, whatever you call yourself, you are?

Yeah, but my particular brand of crazy doesn't involve occasional message board recreations of Ommadon's last stand against science. Since yours does, I'll thank you to leave discussions of the global warming issue to those at least nominally within the reality based community.

Perhaps if Reagan had been better at reading the teleprompter, he would'n't've had to wait so long for his shot?

Not that I have anything against NYC, per se, but you do realized how ridiculous it is to incorrectly call me a New Yorker and then also say it like its an insult to be a New Yorker? Dude!

I'm sure you've based this conclusion on something other than your own biases and conjecture?

I said he was well liked in Europe (and generally globally, but since the Nobel is a very European award, it seemed most appropriate to focus there). This is not the same as saying everyone in Europe agrees with the prize committee. I should think that distinction would go without saying. However, I will also note that there ~50 European nations, of which a small sampling of the daily newspapers from FOUR European nations does not damning continental criticism make.

Maybe it's because I'm such a big pansy myself, but I don't really get the whole macho-worship deal. It's GOT to be an insecurity thing, right?

   How did this become about taking shots at each other anyway? I just find it truely hard to believe that you could possibly defend this. During the primary, you even talked about his inexperience. You are not a big supporter. You can not believe he is deserving of this. It is just a shame that what was once a very prestigious award has slipped so far that it is being used as a way of rewarding people the Nobel committee likes.
   As far as Creationism is concerned, you can not dispute any facts I put forward and after reading two more books on the subject I have found even more evidence supporting it. Evolutionists are still using outdated models and fossils that have been proven false, yet you still cling to it as if it were Gospel. You are the one who does not live in reality. No wonder you believe this Global Warming myth.
Logged

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Give me a break!!!!
« Reply #5 on: October 13, 2009, 11:16:14 AM »

I just find it truely hard to believe that you could possibly defend this.

Not so much a defense of the Nobel pick, which I understand but am not really satisfied with, as a reaction against the huge outpouring of negativity over this. People win awards who I don't think should all the damn time. I don't hear you complaining about how Ghandi got cheated out of his Nobel, or for that matter Mendeleev (seriously, Ramsay but not Mendeleev? clearly still some resentment over the whole Finland thing).

You are not a big supporter. You can not believe he is deserving of this.

I'm not a big supporter. Primarily because I think he's all hat on most of my main issues, and so stuck on trying to be the one who brings lasting peace and understanding to a divided nation (despite all evidence pointing to the fact that his political opposition wouldn't know good faith it bit them) that he'd rather get nothing done at all than do it but give up on that dream.

And I don't think he was the best choice. However, I understand the rationale, as well as the most likely underlying motivations, and don't think it's as ridiculous as it's being made out to be. It's not like they gave it to Putin or something. Everyone's all "oh noes!", and I get that, because everyone does it around Oscar time, too, but it's a little ridiculous.

It is just a shame that what was once a very prestigious award has slipped so far that it is being used as a way of rewarding people the Nobel committee likes.

No, it's a shame that USian politics have soured to the point where a sitting president earning a prestigious award is considered cause for shame and prompts angry tirades. Seriously, they gave a peace prize to Arafat 15 years ago, but it was still prestigious until Gore got one? Or was Carter the Nobel sharkjump? After all, he was a Democrat too.

As far as Creationism is concerned, you can not dispute any facts I put forward and after reading two more books on the subject I have found even more evidence supporting it.

I can dispute it, and have, 'til I'm blue in the face. But you have way too much invested in this belief of yours to ever change it, as you've demonstrated.

Evolutionists are still using outdated models and fossils that have been proven false, yet you still cling to it as if it were Gospel. You are the one who does not live in reality. No wonder you believe this Global Warming myth.

Your inability to grasp, or willingness to disregard, elementary science reflects poorly on only one person - you.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Frigemall

  • Da Pope!
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 821
  • Living on a bomb and a prayer
Re: Give me a break!!!!
« Reply #6 on: October 13, 2009, 02:10:56 PM »

And I don't think he was the best choice. However, I understand the rationale, as well as the most likely underlying motivations, and don't think it's as ridiculous as it's being made out to be. It's not like they gave it to Putin or something. Everyone's all "oh noes!", and I get that, because everyone does it around Oscar time, too, but it's a little ridiculous.
He may be next year, and at least they would have a body of work to judge from.
No, it's a shame that USian politics have soured to the point where a sitting president earning a prestigious award is considered cause for shame and prompts angry tirades. Seriously, they gave a peace prize to Arafat 15 years ago, but it was still prestigious until Gore got one? Or was Carter the Nobel sharkjump? After all, he was a Democrat too.
It is hard to say exactly when they 'jumped the shark' but this is just another demonstration of it.
I can dispute it, and have, 'til I'm blue in the face. But you have way too much invested in this belief of yours to ever change it, as you've demonstrated.
Your only answer to most of what I posted was to say it is the accepted science and that there is no way to prove God so Creationism can't be a science. That is not disputing facts. You have never shown me an acceptable fossel record of links between species, you have never explained where everything came from before the Big Bang. etc. Until you can you are nto answering the pertinent facts. You put up the model of 'creating life in a lab but fail to acknowledge that those models have been refuted. I will happily revisit that arguement if you would like. You simply want to attack me and call me a loon, without properly disputing the science behind my ideas while conveniently just calling all my sources crap. It won't fly.
Your inability to grasp, or willingness to disregard, elementary science reflects poorly on only one person - you.
The only reason it is considered 'elementry science is because most Universities are Liberal in nature and just Poo-Poo any evidence that disputes their theory, calling it religion, instead of trying to dispute it along the facts.
Logged

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Give me a break!!!!
« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2009, 11:11:05 AM »

He may be next year, and at least they would have a body of work to judge from.

"...for his tireless efforts to develop a final solution to the Chechen problem..."?

Dude, say what you want about Obama, but when you start saying Putin's a better choice for the peace prize, you've clearly lost it.

It is hard to say exactly when they 'jumped the shark' but this is just another demonstration of it.

Again, w/e to your sour grapes - I get you don't like the choice. Every year people get disappointed by awards committees. People get mad when their sports team doesn't win, too, even when the team just didn't play well enough -- no potentially biased judging issues at all. I just don't find your reaction anything but disappointing and a bit off-putting.

Your only answer to most of what I posted was to say it is the accepted science

And that's all there is TOO say.

It's not the accepted science because some dudes in funny robes 1000 years ago said 'so mote it be' and the entire scientific community has been, wittingly or no, since before there even was such a thing as a scientific community, involved in a massive conspiracy to deny the existence or validity of competitive ideas regardless of their merits, as you frequently allege.

It's the accepted science because millions of curious investigators, over centuries, have done their damnedest to ferret out the secrets of the cosmos, and their combined efforts have produced the body of knowledge we may casually refer to as 'the accepted science'. Ideas don't become the 'accepted science' because demagogues pronounce it, but only after they take on all comers, proving time and again that THIS idea more accurately fits the observed evidence than THAT idea. Ideas only remain the 'accepted science' until such time as another, better idea comes along. Newton lost out to Einstein, and one day Einstein may lose out to someone else. Their ideas will remain very good ones, and their equations will continue to accurately describe and predict MOST of the possible situations to which they are applied. But the new idea will be applicable and better at MORE than either. And that's how it goes.*

If you don't get that, if you can't understand that, then there's no point in engaging with you, is there?

*- of course, scientists are people, and people get tied to their biases, beliefs, ideas, and such, and a lot of pride and ego gets tied up in being right and needing to be right, so even really bad science doesn't go quietly into the night... but eventually it's pushed aside because it just doesn't work anymore, and the evidence against it is too strong.

Quote
and that there is no way to prove God so Creationism can't be a science.

What I said was that God/Creation is inherently untestable - it can't be tested, much less proven or disproven. For those with a vested interest in believing in the unbelievable despite being otherwise fairly rational, these kind of cop outs provide a bit of solace from the cognitive dissonance they experience. The other reason I bring this up is that those who claim to scientifically prove the whole God/Creation are clearly lying.

Quote
That is not disputing facts.


Quote
You have never shown me an acceptable fossel record of links between species, you have never explained where everything came from before the Big Bang. etc.

The fossil record thing is bunkum. 

That 'science' has not produced a pat answer to how existence came into existence is... I don't know what it is, but it's no refutation of science. If I promote the idea that the universe came out of an old pickle jar opened by pixies 10000 years ago, and in a few millenia if the idea catches on, it'll be just as venerable as the mythology you hold dear.

Quote
You put up the model of 'creating life in a lab but fail to acknowledge that those models have been refuted.

Because the Miller-Urey experiment did not yield a perfectly working model of early earth conditions, abiogenesis is disproven? That's quite the leap to make. And what's missed in this is that the experiment did successfully show that abiogenesis was potentially feasible in some circumstances -- even if those circumstances were not extant in earth's history, that's not a completely insignificant result.

Quote
I will happily revisit that arguement if you would like. You simply want to attack me and call me a loon, without properly disputing the science behind my ideas while conveniently just calling all my sources crap.

It really would help if your sources weren't all crap, though.

I mean, you've set the bar ridiculously high - I have to, in my spare time and with no budget, first learn enough about the subjects and then go about deconstructing complexly wrongheaded booklength propaganda pieces put together over the course of years by people with degrees and training in rhetoric that are supported by very well financed groups. Which I'm willing to do, when I have the time to spare, because if nothing else it's interesting and useful exercise for me, but to say that, because I can't do it at the drop of a hat, what I'm saying doesn't have much merit is about as far from good faith discussion as you can get.

I call you a loon because you believe in nutty things. I mean, the few crazies who really get into FSM-worship as a non-ironic enterprise are also loons, they're just not involved in this discussion so I don't have the opportunity to say it to them. People who believe in magic, fairies, predestination (the Bohm interpretation nonwithstanding), and all manner of nonsense are likewise a bit off. Doesn't mean they can't be perfectly enjoyable, generally functional people, but they're still loonies in at least this regard.

Quote
It won't fly.The only reason it is considered 'elementry science is because most Universities are Liberal in nature and just Poo-Poo any evidence that disputes their theory, calling it religion, instead of trying to dispute it along the facts.

Okay, here's a fact -- there is nothing supernatural. All that exists, exists in nature, so by definition the supernatural does not exist. Supernatural explanations for the origin of existence therefore must be incorrect. The Genesis account of Creation is supernatural, and so cannot, taken literally, be an accurate explanation for the origins of existence. Therefore, Creation theory is wrong.

Prove that the supernatural exists, using only my definitions and to my personal satisfaction, and I'll grant you the possibility of an extant God.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Frigemall

  • Da Pope!
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 821
  • Living on a bomb and a prayer
Re: Give me a break!!!!
« Reply #8 on: October 14, 2009, 01:22:45 PM »

"...for his tireless efforts to develop a final solution to the Chechen problem..."?
Dude, say what you want about Obama, but when you start saying Putin's a better choice for the peace prize, you've clearly lost it.
I never said Putin was an acceptable candidate for the award. I did not think Arafat was an acceptable candidate either. What I did say was at least with Putin you would have a suitable body of work to judge him on.
Again, w/e to your sour grapes - I get you don't like the choice. Every year people get disappointed by awards committees. People get mad when their sports team doesn't win, too, even when the team just didn't play well enough -- no potentially biased judging issues at all. I just don't find your reaction anything but disappointing and a bit off-putting.
And that's all there is TOO say.
It really would only be sour grapes if I actually cared much about what some Swedish liberals give to people they idolize. The sports team analogy does not apply. In sports, teams play the same amount of games and may the best team win. This would be more like the Acadamy Awards. Just saying. And now the Nobel Committee has shown themselves to be about as relavent.
It's not the accepted science because some dudes in funny robes 1000 years ago said 'so mote it be' and the entire scientific community has been, wittingly or no, since before there even was such a thing as a scientific community, involved in a massive conspiracy to deny the existence or validity of competitive ideas regardless of their merits, as you frequently allege.

It's the accepted science because millions of curious investigators, over centuries, have done their damnedest to ferret out the secrets of the cosmos, and their combined efforts have produced the body of knowledge we may casually refer to as 'the accepted science'. Ideas don't become the 'accepted science' because demagogues pronounce it, but only after they take on all comers, proving time and again that THIS idea more accurately fits the observed evidence than THAT idea. Ideas only remain the 'accepted science' until such time as another, better idea comes along. Newton lost out to Einstein, and one day Einstein may lose out to someone else. Their ideas will remain very good ones, and their equations will continue to accurately describe and predict MOST of the possible situations to which they are applied. But the new idea will be applicable and better at MORE than either. And that's how it goes.*

If you don't get that, if you can't understand that, then there's no point in engaging with you, is there?
Actually it became the "accepted science" because about a hundred years ago this theory was put out there as an alternative to what was 'the accepted theory' of the time. A theory that is very hard to prove because you can not pull God out and have him explain how he did it. The theory of Evolution was new and not very well explained but had some very compelling ideas behind it. All of the early evidence seemed to point towards it nad it was an acceptable way to show that God was not needed. This apealled to alot of scientists who are at best Agnostic. They made alot of assumptions based on observation, expecting that as the sciences were better understood, they would prove out. For a while they seemed to be doing so, to the point where when we were going to school it seemed to be only a matter of time before things were proven out. The problem is that as Science advanced and we began to learn of the complexities of Genetics, Cosmology, Physics etc. and the things they expected, not only did not happen, but sometimes went exactly opposite to what they expected. Each time they were proven wrong, they tried another way to make the facts fit the theory they were so convinced had to be true. These theories have also proven to be false. The reason it is still considered accepted is because most of the evidence that points towards Intelligent Design has been found within the last 20 to 30 years. The Universities have little reason to admit they have been wrong so they do not teach it, figuring that soon they will find a way to explain it all. They continue to put out models they know are wrong and have been refuted in some very respectable scientific Journals. Soon they will have to reject it and move on to some other theory that they can fit into their beliefs.
*- of course, scientists are people, and people get tied to their biases, beliefs, ideas, and such, and a lot of pride and ego gets tied up in being right and needing to be right, so even really bad science doesn't go quietly into the night... but eventually it's pushed aside because it just doesn't work anymore, and the evidence against it is too strong.
And this is what is happening with evolution.
What I said was that God/Creation is inherently untestable - it can't be tested, much less proven or disproven. For those with a vested interest in believing in the unbelievable despite being otherwise fairly rational, these kind of cop outs provide a bit of solace from the cognitive dissonance they experience. The other reason I bring this up is that those who claim to scientifically prove the whole God/Creation are clearly lying.
No, but I can prove that there was some sort of complexity to our origins that points towards some sort of Intelligence in it's design. I can show you how unique our planet actually is contrary to previously held beliefs. All this can be done through Science. I can not show you God, only He can do that, but I can show you how science is beginning to point towards some sort of intelligence in our design. I will continue this back on the old thread.
The fossil record thing is bunkum. 
That 'science' has not produced a pat answer to how existence came into existence is... I don't know what it is, but it's no refutation of science.
No, a hundred years later and they are much further away from proving their theory than they were then.
Because the Miller-Urey experiment did not yield a perfectly working model of early earth conditions, abiogenesis is disproven? That's quite the leap to make. And what's missed in this is that the experiment did successfully show that abiogenesis was potentially feasible in some circumstances -- even if those circumstances were not extant in earth's history, that's not a completely insignificant result.
True, it has gone a long way to showing just how far fetched something like that would be in the environment that they believe existed during that time.
I mean, you've set the bar ridiculously high - I have to, in my spare time and with no budget, first learn enough about the subjects and then go about deconstructing complexly wrongheaded booklength propaganda pieces put together over the course of years by people with degrees and training in rhetoric that are supported by very well financed groups. Which I'm willing to do, when I have the time to spare, because if nothing else it's interesting and useful exercise for me, but to say that, because I can't do it at the drop of a hat, what I'm saying doesn't have much merit is about as far from good faith discussion as you can get.
That is exactly what you asked me to do, and I have taken that challenge and have spent alot of my spare time, which I also do not have alot of, to learn my side. I actually have to thank you for pushing me to do it though.
I call you a loon because you believe in nutty things. I mean, the few crazies who really get into FSM-worship as a non-ironic enterprise are also loons, they're just not involved in this discussion so I don't have the opportunity to say it to them. People who believe in magic, fairies, predestination (the Bohm interpretation nonwithstanding), and all manner of nonsense are likewise a bit off. Doesn't mean they can't be perfectly enjoyable, generally functional people, but they're still loonies in at least this regard.
No, you call me a loon because what I believe, which is not exactly a strange belief, it is held by a large number of the populace, is not what you believe. You have to think of me as loony or everything you believe will unravel. If you even doubt for a short time that there is no God, everything you believe will fall apart. So you cling rigidly to your beliefs because if you let the possibility of God get in, it will change everything. Everyone who does believe it must be a loon. I understand.
Okay, here's a fact -- there is nothing supernatural. All that exists, exists in nature, so by definition the supernatural does not exist. Supernatural explanations for the origin of existence therefore must be incorrect. The Genesis account of Creation is supernatural, and so cannot, taken literally, be an accurate explanation for the origins of existence. Therefore, Creation theory is wrong.

Prove that the supernatural exists, using only my definitions and to my personal satisfaction, and I'll grant you the possibility of an extant God.
Your definitions are so limited and in the box, that you would refuse to believe the evidence I do present. All of nature points to a God, yet you limit the scope so much that you want me to show you God fitting into th confines of his Creation. All I can show you is the evidence within creation that points towards it's creator. I just don't think that will be enough for you because your mind is closed to it however. Any who believe something that will upset your apple cart must be a loon. Trust me I understand. My faith allows me to doubt and let God prove himself to me daily. Your won't allow that.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2009, 12:03:24 PM by Frigemall »
Logged

SigmaCaine

  • Guest
Re: Give me a break!!!!
« Reply #9 on: October 14, 2009, 02:17:28 PM »

You two are like fire and water.  ;)

I think we need another word besides "liberal" to describe universities, though. While I grant that most of the student bodies are liberal (in the sense that they tend to shirk all existing structure, as young people tend to do, if only for the sake of being contrary), I wouldn't call the administration liberal. I think perhaps what you want is the word "progressive" - it's not so much a political/social thing, as a commitment to constantly asking questions and exploring new ideas and technology, as that is the point of learning. No comment on whether or not liberal applies to their financial policies, though; I can barely slog through the paperwork for my own finances, let alone a university.
Logged

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Give me a break!!!!
« Reply #10 on: October 15, 2009, 11:17:14 AM »

I never said Putin was an acceptable candidate for the award. I did not think Arafat was an acceptable candidate either. What I did say was at least with Putin you would have a suitable body of work to judge him on.

So it's like with your credit history? Better a terrible record than no record at all? Nobel Visa, it's everywhere you want to be!

Actually it became the "accepted science" because about a hundred years ago this theory was put out there as an alternative to what was 'the accepted theory' of the time. A theory that is very hard to prove because you can not pull God out and have him explain how he did it. The theory of Evolution was new and not very well explained but had some very compelling ideas behind it. All of the early evidence seemed to point towards it nad it was an acceptable way to show that God was not needed. This apealled to alot of scientists who are at best Agnostic. They made alot of assumptions based on observation, expecting that as the sciences were better understood, they would prove out. For a while they seemed to be doing so, to the point where when we were going to school it seemed to be only a matter of time before things were proven out. The problem is that as Science advanced and we began to learn of the complexities of Genetics, Cosmology, Physics etc. and the things they expected, not only did not happen, but sometimes went exactly opposite to what they expected. Each time they were proven wrong, they tried another way to make the facts fit the theory they were so convinced had to be true. These theories have also proven to be false. The reason it is still considered accepted is because most of the evidence that points towards Intelligent Design has been found within the last 20 to 30 years. The Universities have little reason to admit they have been wrong so they do not teach it, figuring that soon they will find a way to explain it all. They continue to put out models they know are wrong and have been refuted in some very respectable scientific Journals. Soon they will have to reject it and move on to some other theory that they can fit into their beliefs.And this is what is happening with evolution.No, but I can prove that there was some sort of complexity to our origins that points towards some sort of Intelligence in it's design. I can show you how unique our planet actually is contrary to previously held beliefs. All this can be done through Science.

This? All of this? Is either factually incorrect, or a mischaractization of events as they happened (save for a bit of speculation at the end).

Look, there has been debate about the accuracy or correct interpretation of scripture and church dogma in every culture that has ever had a scripture or a church dogma, there have been schisms and reformations and wars and all manner and scope of disagreements on the fundamentals of all of them. Because of where we live and who we are we're both much more familiar with Chrisitianity and it's influence on European (and related colonial) culture and the descendents of same, so that's why I use those examples, but there are parallels in all traditions.

The Church of Paul is not the Church of Benedict XVI, and sure as fuck isn't the Church of Pat Robertson. So, of course, Christianity is wrong?

Even using your framing and logic, half your argument against neo-Darwinian evolutionary theories is just nonsensical on its face, and you then you mix into that mess a bunch of bullshit promoted by statistimagicians with a political axe to grind.

Quote
No, a hundred years later and they are much further away from proving their theory than they were then.

That's the damnable thing about progressively greater understanding and knowledge - the more you know, the more you realize how much you don't know. It's fucking exhausting... but I know for me, at least, it's worth it.

Quote
True, it has gone a long way to showing just how far fetched something like that would be in the environment that they believe existed during that time.

It shows that one of the essential steps in the current understanding of abiogenesis is feasible under certain circumstances. That the specific circumstances (and thus the Miller-Urey results) may not have been the mechanism of action in the development of life on earth says... well, very little, in the end.

Quote
That is exactly what you asked me to do, and I have taken that challenge and have spent alot of my spare time, which I also do not have alot of, to learn my side. I actually have to thank you for pushing me to do it though.

Sadly, still mostly reading crap, it appears.

Quote
No, you call me a loon because what I believe, which is not exactly a strange belief, it is held by a large number of the populace, is not what you believe.

No, I call you a loon because you believe at all, and I don't, and it seems crazy to put that much effort into it. I wish you'd stop putting some kind of belief in my mouth, because the simple fact is I have none at all -- not in the way you mean it.

Quote
You have to think of me as loony or everything you believe will unravel. If you even doubt for a short time that there is no God, everything you believe will fall apart. So you cling rigidly to your beliefs because if you let the possibility of God get in, it will change everything. Everyone who does believe it must be a loon. I understand.

If you showed me proof that purple dingoes from Venus created the universe, I would be shocked. It would blow me away. But, here's the thing, if it were really true, and the evidence stood up to empirical testing? I'd say, "Wow, you're right, purple dingoes from Venus DID create the universe. That fucking blows me away, but there it is. So, that being said, how'd they do it, and how do we square what else we know with this new understanding?"

Because I have nothing invested in this other than an interest in the truth and desire to see the pernicious spread of misinformation stopped. At worst, it'd be a bit awkward to bump into Jesus in the supermarket and be all, "Wow... um, sorry about that, man, but you gotta admit the evidence was against you there." Embarassing, maybe, but just not that big a deal.

Quote
Your definitions are so limited and in the box,


This charge would be more damning if my box wasn't the entirety of existence.

Quote
that you would refuse to believe the evidence I do present. All of nature points to a God, yet you limit the scope so much that you want me to show you God fitting into the confines of his Creation. All I can show you is the evidence within creation that points towards it's creator. I just don't think that will be enough for you because your mind is closed to it however.

Your evidence is mostly to say 'hey, look, your theory is not 100% perfect and you have not yet found the answers to all questions, so it is wrong and GOD, QED'. Which is frustrating, because it misses the point entirely.

The irreducible complexity argument is a farce, as I've tried to explain previously. The sooner we have done with all this ID nonsense, the better off we'll all be, because it promotes sloppy thinking and bad psuedoscience ON TOP of promoting silly religious ideology. At least straightforward religious preaching only does the latter.

Quote
Any who believe something that will upset your apple cart must be a loon. Trust me I understand. My faith allows me to doubt and let God prove himself to me daily. Your won't allow that.

Again with the faith thing - I don't have any sort of religious faith. I'm faithless, faithfree, unfaithed. I hope that's clear, and I'd thank you to stop saying otherwise.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Give me a break!!!!
« Reply #11 on: October 15, 2009, 11:33:45 AM »

You two are like fire and water.  ;)

Because we kick up a lot of steam? ;p

I think we need another word besides "liberal" to describe universities, though.

The charge that folks are overly liberal is ancient, and it's the classic 'these kids today and their polyphonic music!' in yet another form, and it deserves just about as much attention and weight.

While I grant that most of the student bodies are liberal (in the sense that they tend to shirk all existing structure, as young people tend to do, if only for the sake of being contrary), I wouldn't call the administration liberal.

It's all relative. A school that allows women to attend is extremely liberal by some views, for instance - the administration, of course, may be rather hidebound in their views by comparison to the student body, but they are miles ahead of the folks who feel that institutions of research and higher education are themselves manifestation of grossly liberal values - after all, what need of the godfearing of such things?

Unless, of course, the charge is more specifically that they are too closely aligned with or on the page as a particular era's liberal social/political movement (whether so name or not), but those need to be addressed by era because there's just so many.

Quote
I think perhaps what you want is the word "progressive"

This is just a bit of linguistic legerdemain. He meant liberal, and his usage was correct and appropriate.

Now, the US progressive vs. liberal sociopolitical movements and related political parties certain should be appropriately differentiated when they come up, as there are distinct differences in ideology and focus, but that's not what he meant.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Frigemall

  • Da Pope!
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 821
  • Living on a bomb and a prayer
Re: Give me a break!!!!
« Reply #12 on: October 15, 2009, 12:21:50 PM »

When I speak of Liberals, I speak of those that are left of center on the political scale. Far Left would be known as Radical. On the Right side, you would have Conservative, going to Reactionary. Both lead to Fascism on their farthest tip so it could actually be known as a circle instead of a line. The Progressive movement in the US is a very seperate movement. It included many Republicans and Democrats including Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Theodore Roosevelt, The Rockafellers, etc. When I speak of Liberals I speak of those that have beliefs that put them left of center. The farther left of center determines how liberal you are. Several things define conservatism versus liberalism. If you are truely interested I will start another thread to try to explain them.

Some Universities do promote Progressivism, however Lucas was right in that I was speaking specifically of Liberalism.

As far as fire and water goes, I am not offended by most of these posts. When he calls me a name, I know he is simply using Saul Alinsky's guidelines of minimalising your opponent when you can't specifically go against the points and facts they are presenting. I would expect nothing less when arguing with a fairly entrencheched liberal. Since he pushes me to learn more about the subjects I am talking about, these post are fun for me. Insults not withstanding.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2009, 12:32:23 PM by Frigemall »
Logged

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Give me a break!!!!
« Reply #13 on: October 15, 2009, 01:12:02 PM »

As far as fire and water goes, I am not offended by most of these posts. When he calls me a name, I know he is simply using Saul Alinsky's guidelines of minimalising your opponent when you can't specifically go against the points and facts they are presenting.

Actually, I call you names because I'm uncivil and kind of a jerk. Generally speaking, I'm not calling you names to downplay your arguments, but because I think less of you because you made such bad arguments.

The specific debate tactic you reference is used by like, every person who's ever debated anyone, anywhere, ever. Despite the logical fallacy inherent, the strong emotional appeal and the fact that emotion pretty much always trumps reason do to quirks of the human brain, makes it ridiculously effective. It's sucky, and should be held in poor regard, but it's not.

As for liberal v. conservative, I think wikipedia's got it covered pretty well -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_politics
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Oni no Ted

  • Super Meeper
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 853
  • War never changes
Re: Give me a break!!!!
« Reply #14 on: October 16, 2009, 12:45:21 AM »

I think this should settle the issue, but probably won't:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/15/AR2009101502277.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Quote from: US Constitution

Article 1
Section 9

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.


Logged
Ted Mantuano
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up