Phi for All

tysanya, I'm afraid we can't approve your attachment. Can you tell us the author's name and the name of his book? It would be wrong to reprint his work here without permission.

Oooooooooh, that's good! Reminds me of a parody of Johnny Cash's I Walk the Line: I keep my pants up with a piece of twine, I keep my arms quite open all the time, I keep myself quite willing all the time. Because your mine, please pull the twine!

They should give away a free iDog with every surgery.

What is in this attachment? Are we violating the author's copyright by posting his book here?

Sweet! I take it that's a bit of profit, yes?

We're going to call this "sparphing", as in spam morphing. Trademark application is in the mail. Eventually we'll either be spam-free or we'll be laughing too hard to care.

When?

Where's button for that members list, Cap'n?

Mean hippy!

Expanding terms in a discussion is neither requested nor intellectually honest. If we're discussing Creationism, how is it relevant to bring up everything to do with the word "create"? If we were discussing Barack Obama's chances of winning the presidency would it be relevant to mention that you were once president of the chess team? Discontent amongst so many should speak to you in clarion tones. Perhaps you are... you know, wrong. Wrong. Creationism was brought up in post #5 and was mentioned twice before I first responded in post #11. Are you sure you've read from the beginning? General relativity? I wish you could be lucid long enough to reread what you just wrote. It has very little context and tells us only that you communicate poorly, and persistently. Pretty troll-like remarks there. No one understands where you're coming from, you're asked to clarify, we point out what's unclear and yet you insist your remarks are relevant. Please, if you really want to stay here, you need to communicate better. I'm not asking you to "fit in" or "be like everyone else". I'm asking you to focus on a specific topic and use your discussion talents to make yourself clear. You probaly have some great insights but we'll never know if you keep bringing up General Relativity and creating child abuse directories in a thread about a conservative Creationism site. I hope you kept the receipt.

Are you still having that bug where you can see what your current reputation is and you can see how quickly you're becoming popular, but never both at the same time?

Oh aye. It's funny how many people think dissension is controversy and therefore interesting. Discussion forums get bogged down with off-topic posts and spam links. It wastes other's time. Your censorship argument is vacuous and I have the feeling you posted the links knowing you'd get called on it eventually just so you could play the free speech card. Martyrs usually need something endearing about them to appeal to those whose pity they crave.

I like it too.

He seems sincere now.

Your rep is only visible from your frame of reference. It's like inertial reputation.

Pretty soon you'll start spreading links back here to garner credibility you don't deserve. You're not even good enough for our Pseudoscience forum. davidmabusa, the web is tired of you. Go away.

My prediction is that you will prove yourself to be inconsistent with our purpose. I base this on your horrible behavior elsewhere. I shall count the seconds until you are gone from our boards. I further predict conspiracies shall be your petard. Hoist away.

You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you? Falsifiability refers to whether or not a theory possesses the attributes of a theory. Gravity is a falsifiable theory because there is a possibility of disproving it if it doesn't behave the way it should. Your ludicrous child abuse strawman is not even a theory, but if it were, *not* finding evidence of abuse makes the theory falsifiable. How can you ever prove that God might not exist if we can't observe Him in the first place? This sounds like a desperate non sequitor. You expand nothing. You are jumping to another question to avoid answering something tougher. And it "raises" the question, not "begs" it. Begging the question is a circular argument that is considered bad logic. I have no idea where you pulled this context from, but it stinks. "Creativity", "creating" and "Creator" have as little to do with Creationism as Creationism has to do with religion. "Raising" the question. More strawmen. What does this have to do with your misunderstanding of Creationism? Absolutely wrong. Creation and Creationism are two different things. Completely. Misleading Vividness, Strawman, Appeal to Emotion. Wow, no offense but you're a preacher with very little understanding of rational discussion. If you stay here long enough and don't let your ego get in the way of learning, your obvious intelligence will help you better prepare your arguments. Right now you're all over the board. Again, no offense intended. Some of our best members started out the same (including moi). A story about creating code words and a story about creating a national registry of sex offenders are not stories of Creationism. Hand-waving, more strawmen and now it seems like you're arguing a completely different topic. Is this the right thread for you? Please tell me how you directly observe God using the scientific method. Not the works you credit Him for and not the writings of churchmen. Empirical observation of God, please. I do have a suggestion. Stay on topic and if there is something you disagree with you should point it out and discuss why you disagree with it instead of being oblique and bringing up lots of unrelated points. People often hide ignorance here by chiding people to lighten up or "don't be offended by the truth". It's a crutch and you don't need it. If you have intelligible ideas they will stand up without crutches.

I can see how my statement was too broad. The historical impact of religion on science is easy to chart. I was referring mainly to how religious ideologies are based on faith in the unobservable, something science really can't even measure. In that way religion is mostly ignored by the scientist who is waiting for evidence to back up religious claims. Without proof there is little to impact science.

Asking to be rewarded defeats the system. People should be moved to give you rep points, by good questions and good answers.

Most religions impact science very little. Gods remains unobservable so science really can't apply a process for experimentation. Little of what religion claims is of interest to science because it's not predictable, testable and repeatable. Science is content to shrug and wait skeptically for evidence. But Creationism attempts to refute what science knows with certainty approaching fact, like the age of the earth and how creatures evolve over long periods of time. Creationists claim that science is wrong because God can make things seem older than they really are. They claim that the earth was created in six 24-hour day cycles despite the fact that Hebrew uses other interpretations for their word for day. They claim the earth is much younger than science predicts. And the only proof they ever offer is a book written centuries ago by men. Creationism is not a religion. It is an attempt to repudiate science and create a false controversy with the goal of bringing Christian teachings into the public schools. It's latest disguise, Intelligent Design, has been thoroughly debunked and ruled as improper in some states. I fail to see where "that goes for atheist and theist alike in that we are all creationists" is a valid statement. I have no idea where it came from and can think of no context where it might make the slightest sense.

Thanks for the reminder. I've been lax about focusing on good posts; it's always easier to give the bad ones more of your time, unfortunately. I will endeavor to reward more often. Good post, grats on the 100 posts, have some rep, ChemSiddiqui.

Well, imo this thread went nowhere, and didn't even come close to being interesting psychologically. Lots of fingers-in-the-ears la-la-la-ing, defensive posturing and hand-waving. This happens a lot when someone has an idea they think is awe-inspiring and then presents it as a fait accompli. There is almost no room to discuss anything and with no real merits or evidence the OP is left to deride detractors and try to win any argument in order to pretend they won *this* one. Remember that scientific speculation requires good ammunition *and* an open mind. Thread closed.

As the ship of Creationism founders upon the rocks of rational thought, the desperate crew looks for any line to cling to that will justify getting on board in the first place.

Are burdens from the grave the responsibility of the living? Even if the reality is that the research was wrong. It's not a speculation if you make a statement. This is a discussion forum and it makes it difficult when a proclamation or statement is posed for discussion. Speculation, supposition, hypothesis, these are what drives discussion. What you are trying to do is more like a teacher informing students what they must learn. Please phrase your suppositions so we can discuss your thesis rather than have you tell us why we must believe.