Ever heard of conservapedia.com?

[CDarwin]

Most religions impact science very little.

 

Ooh, I don't know if I would say that. The world view of the Western religions, which envisions a linear universe with beginning and end in which progressive change is possible which was created by a rational God whose Creation can be rationally understood, could certainly be argued to have had an impact on the Western conception of science. But perhaps I stray into forbidden territory.

 

Everything else you said is spot on.

[seven8s]

Ecoli

How can they claim that evolution is unfalsifiable, and yet accept creationism, which relies on it's unfalsifiablity to be understood. People are so aggravating.

 

How can people know that child abuse exists, know where it exists, which knowledge relies upon it’s unfalsifiability, remain silent and be understood?

 

Is silence golden? Is silence approval, frustration, or ignorance? Who’s next?

 

Phi For All

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.

 

Which begs the question, if they are desperate, why are they desperate and if they are looking for any line to cling to that will justify their choice, will they settle for a lie, or silence, what’s right or wrong, yada, yada?

 

I am just expanding your thought. ‘The better to see you with, my dear?’

 

 

Cap’n Refsmmat

Ah, so you're using "creationist" in a completely different sense. One that still doesn't make any sense.

 

No, I am not.

 

I am using creationism in the context of knowledge, which would include it’s helpful and harmful effects. Perhaps I am begging the question, have we evolved in our evolutionary process the ability to choose? And, have we evolved to the point in our evolutionary process where we are able to solve problems?

 

Creationism is the process of creating, which begs the question, ‘who’ and ‘what’ is the creator? How, why, when, where?

 

Reality exists. Have the courage to look in the tearful eyes of one of those children, if only in your minds eye, that or wait until he appears in court one day and says, **** ***, which is interpreted:

 

‘In my mothers womb you created me’.

 

Cap’n Refsmmat

Ah, so you're using "creationist" in a completely different sense. One that still doesn't make any sense.

 

Correct! Which one of the examples (links) that I have provided continues to make no sense?

 

 

 

 

YDOAPS

So, I was correct.

No, I am.

 

Perhaps you can spend the other ½ of your day attempting to figure it out, which begs the question, have you evolved in your evolutionary process to recognize injustice?

 

That or you can pull out the same card that the USA Supreme Court uses when they refuse to hear what they don’t want to hear. Choice, correct? The American way?

 

The Catholics did it in the 1990's when the sexual abuse of their children first came to surface. Their refusal to hear bit them in the ass.

 

Phi

Gods remains unobservable

 

Wrong.

 

Now you know my pet peeve. Having said that, after reading your post, I don’t know whether to get my waders out or nose clip, maybe you have a suggestion.

 

Ah, don’t be too offended................I am not trying to be offensive..........well maybe that is not true. I am a Patriots fan, but I gotta be honest, I am hoping the NY Giants will win this years Super Bowl, though I hear they are the underdog. How about you?

 

Oh, and Phi, if you know any Germans, even one, who can pull a miracle out of his/her hat, tell em we could use one, in fact more then one. As a matter of fact, tell em I have a few suggestions. You have heard the story about the woman when told about receiving, went and got all her pots, correct?

 

I know there is someone who likes songs, so lets give him one from the Animals, or Santa Esmerelda, I’m just a soul who’s intentions are good, Oh Lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood..................

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrOfBRblGec&feature=related

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jzhQTHBKgQ&feature=related

 

just adding a little humor fella’s......................

[Phi for All]

Ooh, I don't know if I would say that. The world view of the Western religions, which envisions a linear universe with beginning and end in which progressive change is possible which was created by a rational God whose Creation can be rationally understood, could certainly be argued to have had an impact on the Western conception of science. But perhaps I stray into forbidden territory.

 

Everything else you said is spot on.

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.

[ecoli]

How can people know that child abuse exists, know where it exists, which knowledge relies upon it’s unfalsifiability, remain silent and be understood?

 

Is silence golden? Is silence approval, frustration, or ignorance? Who’s next?

Well that's nice, because 'child abuse' isn't a scientific discipline.

Except I guess for the psychologists who study it.

 

But keep in mind that, it is possible to observe child abuse, but inherently impossible to observe God. Not observing something is not the same thing as being unable to observe something. That's why scientific principles must have the potential to be falsified, based on new observations. There is no potential way to prove that God does not exist, and therefore the existence of a creator cannot be tested: ie, it's not science!

 

Wrong.

Ok then, smart guy... what does God look like, if he's directly observable.

 

Now you know my pet peeve. Having said that, after reading your post, I don’t know whether to get my waders out or nose clip, maybe you have a suggestion.

 

Ah, don’t be too offended................I am not trying to be offensive..........well maybe that is not true. I am a Patriots fan, but I gotta be honest, I am hoping the NY Giants will win this years Super Bowl, though I hear they are the underdog. How about you?

 

Oh, and Phi, if you know any Germans, even one, who can pull a miracle out of his/her hat, tell em we could use one, in fact more then one. As a matter of fact, tell em I have a few suggestions. You have heard the story about the woman when told about receiving, went and got all her pots, correct?

 

I know there is someone who likes songs, so lets give him one from the Animals, or Santa Esmerelda, I’m just a soul who’s intentions are good, Oh Lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood..................

 

uhh... what the hell are going on about?

 

What does any of this have to do with anything?

[Phi for All]

How can people know that child abuse exists, know where it exists, which knowledge relies upon it’s unfalsifiability, remain silent and be understood?

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?

Is silence golden? Is silence approval, frustration, or ignorance? Who’s next?

This sounds like a desperate non sequitor.

Which begs the question, if they are desperate, why are they desperate and if they are looking for any line to cling to that will justify their choice, will they settle for a lie, or silence, what’s right or wrong, yada, yada?

 

I am just expanding your thought. ‘The better to see you with, my dear?’

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.

No, I am not.

 

I am using creationism in the context of knowledge, which would include it’s helpful and harmful effects.

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.

Perhaps I am begging the question,

"Raising" the question.

have we evolved in our evolutionary process the ability to choose? And, have we evolved to the point in our evolutionary process where we are able to solve problems?

More strawmen. What does this have to do with your misunderstanding of Creationism?

Creationism is the process of creating, which begs the question, ‘who’ and ‘what’ is the creator? How, why, when, where?

Absolutely wrong. Creation and Creationism are two different things. Completely.

Reality exists. Have the courage to look in the tearful eyes of one of those children, if only in your minds eye, that or wait until he appears in court one day and says, **** ***, which is interpreted:

 

‘In my mothers womb you created me’.

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).

Correct! Which one of the examples (links) that I have provided continues to make no sense?

A story about creating code words and a story about creating a national registry of sex offenders are not stories of Creationism.

No, I am.

 

Perhaps you can spend the other ½ of your day attempting to figure it out, which begs the question, have you evolved in your evolutionary process to recognize injustice?

 

That or you can pull out the same card that the USA Supreme Court uses when they refuse to hear what they don’t want to hear. Choice, correct? The American way?

 

The Catholics did it in the 1990's when the sexual abuse of their children first came to surface. Their refusal to hear bit them in the ass.

Hand-waving, more strawmen and now it seems like you're arguing a completely different topic. Is this the right thread for you?

Wrong.

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.

Now you know my pet peeve. Having said that, after reading your post, I don’t know whether to get my waders out or nose clip, maybe you have a suggestion.

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.

Ah, don’t be too offended................I am not trying to be offensive..........well maybe that is not true. I am a Patriots fan, but I gotta be honest, I am hoping the NY Giants will win this years Super Bowl, though I hear they are the underdog. How about you?

 

Oh, and Phi, if you know any Germans, even one, who can pull a miracle out of his/her hat, tell em we could use one, in fact more then one. As a matter of fact, tell em I have a few suggestions. You have heard the story about the woman when told about receiving, went and got all her pots, correct?

 

I know there is someone who likes songs, so lets give him one from the Animals, or Santa Esmerelda, I’m just a soul who’s intentions are good, Oh Lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood..................

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrOfBRblGec&feature=related

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jzhQTHBKgQ&feature=related

 

just adding a little humor fella’s......................

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.

[seven8s]

Phi For All

The thread began with conservapedia, and it’s biased perspective. You brought up creationism, without clarification, others danced around their bias and or the issue. I added my perspective, then was asked to clarify the term, and did so with examples (evidence/undeniable proof) of creationism.

 

You opened the door Phi, don’t blame me for walking in. Did you just expect me to sit back and not do as told, (well ignoring sisyphus lol)? I had a legitimate right to answer the question. As well there is an old adage that lawyers use, never ask a question that you don’t know the answer too’. Do you know why they live by that rule? Discovery. They may not like what they discover, but do we ever get to the truth if we fear discovery? Do we go to the grave deaf, dumb and blind? Is that good science?

 

I played fair and square. When reason fails to prevail it courts emotion. Deal with it.

 

 

and for your listening pleasure..............enjoy.

 

url removed

[Pangloss]

Communicating badly and then acting smug when you are misunderstood is not cleverness.

 

Anyway, where I might agree a LITTLE with some conservatives here is that Wikipedia probably has a little more liberal influence than conservative influence, due mainly to the wider acceptance of high-tech amongst the younger generation, which trends left. But I don't think this is really a problem, because the great thing about the Wikipedia is that bias tends to stand out and be corrected by others. That's part of the genius of the idea.

[seven8s]

Acting smug? Interesting. Calling people names is what, using crutches?

[ydoaPs]

No, I am not.

 

I am using creationism in the context of knowledge, which would include it’s helpful and harmful effects. Perhaps I am begging the question, have we evolved in our evolutionary process the ability to choose? And, have we evolved to the point in our evolutionary process where we are able to solve problems?

 

Creationism is the process of creating, which begs the question, ‘who’ and ‘what’ is the creator? How, why, when, where?

 

Reality exists. Have the courage to look in the tearful eyes of one of those children, if only in your minds eye, that or wait until he appears in court one day and says, **** ***, which is interpreted:

 

‘In my mothers womb you created me’.

 

 

 

Correct! Which one of the examples (links) that I have provided continues to make no sense?

So, equivocation....just like I said. If I were to reply to a comment about homosexuality and say that all men(both heterosexual and homosexual) are attracted to each other, would you consider it equivocation or not? What if when asked to elaborate, I began talking about gravity?

 

Acting smug? Interesting. Calling people names is what, using crutches?

Stating that you were acting smug is not calling you names; it is an observation of your behaviour.

[PhDP]

The U.S. are much more conservative than the rest of the industrialized world, it's actually normal to see Americans complaining about a liberal bias.

 

And of course, wikipedia must be biased somehow, I'm just not sure it's worst than any other encyclopedia.

[ecoli]

The U.S. are much more conservative than the rest of the industrialized world, it's actually normal to see Americans complaining about a liberal bias.

 

And of course, wikipedia must be biased somehow, I'm just not sure it's worst than any other encyclopedia.

 

True... I actually think there are some valid points on conservapedia's "flaws of wikipedia" page. It's amusing that they claim to have less flaws, however.

[CDarwin]

Anyway, where I might agree a LITTLE with some conservatives here is that Wikipedia probably has a little more liberal influence than conservative influence, due mainly to the wider acceptance of high-tech amongst the younger generation, which trends left. But I don't think this is really a problem, because the great thing about the Wikipedia is that bias tends to stand out and be corrected by others. That's part of the genius of the idea.

 

I don't know that you can even say that, because Wikipedia is edited by a lot of people that exist completely outside of the American political dichotomy. Wikipedia might tend to support some liberal causes (say, like, Global Warming) because of the truth of them more than proactive liberal manipulation. As we know, reality has a known liberal bias.

 

The U.S. are much more conservative than the rest of the industrialized world, it's actually normal to see Americans complaining about a liberal bias.

 

I love the example of CNN. In the US it gets blasted for being "anti-American," while CNN International is in a distant second to the BBC around the world because of its perceived "pro-American" bias.

[Pangloss]

I don't know that you can even say that, because Wikipedia is edited by a lot of people that exist completely outside of the American political dichotomy.

 

Right, but each issue has a localized political spin to it. I think what happens most of the time is like what you said with global warming -- the truth rises to the top, which is then interpretted through the readers localized political bias and/or personal desires, and then seen as "liberal" or "conservative" or whatnot.

 

In a larger sense this is what gets us into trouble all the time, this notion that an observation of reality can constitute a political bias. I don't think typical citizens are really to blame for this (not that anyone was really suggesting such), they're just responding to the rhetoric of ideologues and partisans in a way that has become comfortable and familiar.

 

 

Wikipedia might tend to support some liberal causes (say, like, Global Warming) because of the truth of them more than proactive liberal manipulation.

 

That's part of it, yes, but there's also partisanship amongst users on Wikipedia. How could there not be? They're human beings. And we know this to be the case, because Wiki has responded to it. The vandalism cases that forced Wiki to start locking pages have often (clearly) been ideological in nature (e.g. George Bush, Karl Rove, etc). And that surely ties in with the general leftward trend amongst tech-savvy teens, who also trend "vandal", for lack of a better term.

 

Perhaps the conservatives are forgetting (or not noticing) that "liberal" pages are vandalized too. But I think it might be interesting to do an analysis of the list of protected pages (see here) and see how many of them are "liberal" and how many are "conservative", at least in terms of general perceptions.

 

Of course in many cases it would be difficult to objectively determine this, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are far more conservative-oriented pages under protection than liberal-oriented pages. For example, George Bush is locked, but Nancy Pelosi is not. Danny Glover is not. Rush Limbaugh is locked, but Al Franken is not. But Barack Obama is locked (I think all the candidates are). It's clearly not a universal trend or a vast left-wing conspiracy. (grin)

[seven8s]

Ecoli

Well that's nice, because 'child abuse' isn't a scientific discipline.

Except I guess for the psychologists who study it.

 

Scientific discipline? Where did that come from? What does one have to do with the other? I thought that it was an issue of the law though you can correct me if I am wrong. As well I thought that it was a social issue of great importance, perhaps for others it is not. For me it is.

 

But keep in mind that, it is possible to observe child abuse, but inherently impossible to observe God.

 

Again, what does one have to do with the other? Think before you answer that one. Let me ask you this

 

Is it inherently impossible to do something about child abuse or is not doing something about child abuse a choice? If a sky daddy doesn't drop out of the sky and do something about it, who does? The abuser?

 

Not observing something is not the same thing as being unable to observe something. That's why scientific principles must have the potential to be falsified, based on new observations. There is no potential way to prove that God does not exist, and therefore the existence of a creator cannot be tested: ie, it's not science!

 

Um, we weren’t talking about science. Read post 31.

 

But since you brought the subject forward, have you looked at a dictionary of late?

 

creator >noun 1 a person or thing that creates. 2 (the Creator)

 

God

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=God&searchmode=none

Good

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=good

 

Ok then, smart guy... what does God look like, if he's directly observable.

 

Try gal.

 

He? When it comes to the word God/Good everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I would encourage you in yours, no matter that opinion, unless and until it infringes on mine. And having said that, I do have a knowledge of the term and refuse to be smeared with the atheist and/or theist opinion of God.

 

uhh... what the hell are going on about?

 

God only knows.................

 

What does any of this have to do with anything?

 

It’s a matter of trust? And if that doesn’t work try post # 31

 

YDOAPS

So, equivocation....just like I said. If I were to reply to a comment about homosexuality and say that all men(both heterosexual and homosexual) are attracted to each other, would you consider it equivocation or not? What if when asked to elaborate, I began talking about gravity?

 

Tst, tst. No, I would not consider it equivocation, why should I? I would ask you to reconsider the word ‘all’. Then I might ask you, hmm, do you think it is possible that heterosexual and homosexual men (and women) can be attracted to each other? And if so for what purpose? Perhaps they simply have something in common, perhaps they have reached a stage in their development that fear, bias and prejudice is set aside and recognize that attraction between human beings is not necessarily sexual in nature. If you changed the subject I might think, would probably think, that you were uncomfortable with the subject.

 

I do think that you are attempting to avoid post 31, but if you want to talk about gravity, I am all ears, though I will have a lot of questions. And who knows maybe you will answer them?

 

Stating that you were acting smug is not calling you names; it is an observation of your behaviour.

 

My mistake, I wasn’t referring to myself, nor was I inferring that he was calling me names. If the truth be told I can be smug. Defense mechanism, or simply pleased with myself? I have seen ‘irritatingly pleased with oneself’ on this board, other then myself. At least I admitted it. Can you? Defense mechanism, oh well, everyone has one. What’s yours?

 

Let me ask you this, if you are not pleased with me does your opinion have to have value to anyone other then yourself? Does it have to have value to me?

[ecoli]

Scientific discipline? Where did that come from? What does one have to do with the other? I thought that it was an issue of the law though you can correct me if I am wrong. As well I thought that it was a social issue of great importance, perhaps for others it is not. For me it is.

evolution vs. creationism is a scientific debate,

pedophilia is a social one. You're the one who made the comparison, not me. So don't try that one with me.

 

 

Is it inherently impossible to do something about child abuse or is not doing something about child abuse a choice? If a sky daddy doesn't drop out of the sky and do something about it, who does? The abuser?

And you accuse me of making irrelevant posts?

 

Um, we weren’t talking about science. Read post 31.

 

We were talking about science... then you start pointless semantic arguments and talking about pedophilia. You're not contributing anything constructive to this discussion... does that make you feel satisfied?

 

Scientific discipline? Where did that come from? What does one have to do with the other? I thought that it was an issue of the law though you can correct me if I am wrong. As well I thought that it was a social issue of great importance, perhaps for others it is not. For me it is.

 

 

 

Again, what does one have to do with the other? Think before you answer that one. Let me ask you this

 

Is it inherently impossible to do something about child abuse or is not doing something about child abuse a choice? If a sky daddy doesn't drop out of the sky and do something about it, who does? The abuser?

 

 

 

Um, we weren’t talking about science. Read post 31.

 

But since you brought the subject forward, have you looked at a dictionary of late?

 

creator >noun 1 a person or thing that creates. 2 (the Creator)

 

God

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=God&searchmode=none

Good

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=good

 

 

 

Try gal.

oops sorry. Most people here are male. It's a bad habit.

 

 

He? When it comes to the word God/Good everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I would encourage you in yours, no matter that opinion, unless and until it infringes on mine. And having said that, I do have a knowledge of the term and refuse to be smeared with the atheist and/or theist opinion of God.

My point exactly... you can't observe God... cannot be explained by science.

 

Are we even having the same conversation? and if so, when did you change it?

[seven8s]

evolution vs. creationism is a scientific debate,

pedophilia is a social one. You're the one who made the comparison, not me. So don't try that one with me.

 

 

You have a preconceived notion of what creationism is, therefore, we are not having the same conversation. I would also suggest that your opinion is not only preconceived, but is not necessarily based on reason, nor rational thought, except in a conversation with those theists/atheists/scientists who hijack the word to an exclusive definition confined to religion, specifically fundamentalist religious beliefs.

 

 

 

My point exactly... you can't observe God... cannot be explained by science.

 

Correction, you can’t.

 

Are we even having the same conversation? and if so, when did you change it?

 

I never changed the conversation. Read post 31. You all opened the door and I obliged, walked in. It is called opportunity. Now you know.

 

I will oblige myself of another opportunity, and finally change the conversation, ending my contirbution to the thread, bye.

[ecoli]

You have a preconceived notion of what creationism is, therefore, we are not having the same conversation. I would also suggest that your opinion is not only preconceived, but is not necessarily based on reason, nor rational thought, except in a conversation with those theists/atheists/scientists who hijack the word to an exclusive definition confined to religion, specifically fundamentalist religious beliefs.

In other words... you purposefully distorting the conversation, so nobody has any idea what you're talking about?

 

Why would you do that?

 

Correction, you can’t.

correction... nobody can.

 

 

I never changed the conversation. Read post 31. You all opened the door and I obliged, walked in. It is called opportunity. Now you know.

we were talking about one type of Creationism... you decided to talk about something else. It's called not being relevant to the conversation at hand.

 

I will oblige myself of another opportunity, and finally change the conversation, ending my contirbution to the thread, bye.

 

That's lucky... now this thread doesn't have to be closed.

[seven8s]

Ecoli

we were talking about one type of Creationism... you decided to talk about something else. It's called not being relevant to the conversation at hand.

 

Wrong (ORIGIN Old Norse, 'awry, unjust'.). I expanded the term creation. I added to the conversation at hand as requested by participants of the thread. It really is that simple.

 

I am not sure what part about this that you, or anyone else for that matter does not understand, unless of course the purpose for the discontent amongst so many is that I expand/expound further, that they might.

 

Again, here is the original post containing the word creationism:

 

Phi For All

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.

 

It’s all relative or none of it is, as someone once told me; general relativity in a nut shell. I believe that there are those wonderful scientists who must look at some of their colleagues and shudder. Why? Because they know, and I admire them for that knowing, and admire the example/precedent being set.

 

I expanded the thought. I threw you a line that you might not drown in the sea of superstition and disbelief, fear, immorality, and ignorance. And to boot, (pun intended) I gave a revelation to go with that new beginning. You do understand that a revelation goes with a new beginning, correct? Or are you intent on repeating? Perhaps we can talk about mediaeval conceptions of time, how they are related to creationism, how those ideas both hurt and help mankind, and all the metaphors and yada yada that goes with those times (linear, spherical, folding/unfolding, back and forth, up and down), and how they are related to ours.

 

If so it is going to be a long thread son, perhaps you might what to start reading up.................

 

seven8s

I will oblige myself of another opportunity, and finally change the conversation, ending my contirbution to the thread, bye.

 

Ecoli

That's lucky... now this thread doesn't have to be closed.

 

I gifted you with the experience of God, there for:

 

Good/God it was my intention to shake God/Good out of that tree. Now that we have wrested, let it rest?

 

Any one else care to get in on the act?

[Reaper]

Has anyone noticed that seven8s hasn't actually talked about science in his short time on this site in general? Look at his profile.

 

 

Now, about conservapedia...... (e.g. Let's get back on topic so that this thread isn't locked.

 

 

True... I actually think there are some valid points on conservapedia's "flaws of wikipedia" page. It's amusing that they claim to have less flaws, however.

 

 

Really? I honestly didn't think there was any bias at all in wikipedia (well, as much as possible...).

 

The one great thing about wikipedia is that the fact that anyone can edit it almost guarantees that it won't be biased in any significant way (though there are plenty of people who wll try no doubt).

 

 

When I first stumbled into conservapedia, it was so biased and very stereotypical, that I thought it probably was a joke. But it wasn't, which disturbes me a little because some of these people really do believe all the crap they write on the site. The fact that it is taken so seriously over there is what makes it so funny and hysterical

[Phi for All]

Wrong (ORIGIN Old Norse, 'awry, unjust'.). I expanded the term creation. I added to the conversation at hand as requested by participants of the thread. It really is that simple.

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?

I am not sure what part about this that you, or anyone else for that matter does not understand, unless of course the purpose for the discontent amongst so many is that I expand/expound further, that they might.

Discontent amongst so many should speak to you in clarion tones. Perhaps you are... you know, wrong.

Again, here is the original post containing the word creationism:

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?

It’s all relative or none of it is, as someone once told me; general relativity in a nut shell. I believe that there are those wonderful scientists who must look at some of their colleagues and shudder. Why? Because they know, and I admire them for that knowing, and admire the example/precedent being set.

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.

 

I expanded the thought. I threw you a line that you might not drown in the sea of superstition and disbelief, fear, immorality, and ignorance. And to boot, (pun intended) I gave a revelation to go with that new beginning. You do understand that a revelation goes with a new beginning, correct? Or are you intent on repeating? Perhaps we can talk about mediaeval conceptions of time, how they are related to creationism, how those ideas both hurt and help mankind, and all the metaphors and yada yada that goes with those times (linear, spherical, folding/unfolding, back and forth, up and down), and how they are related to ours.

 

If so it is going to be a long thread son, perhaps you might what to start reading up.................

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 gifted you with the experience of God,

I hope you kept the receipt.

[seven8s]

Phi

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?

 

Sour grapes! Quit whining, you lost. If they didn’t ask I couldn’t answer. If you hadn’t opened the door, I couldn’t enter.

 

seven8s

I am not sure what part about this that you, or anyone else for that matter does not understand, unless of course the purpose for the discontent amongst so many is that I expand/expound further, that they might.

 

Phi

Discontent amongst so many should speak to you in clarion tones. Perhaps you are... you know, wrong.

 

Maybe you are jealous? I don't know. I don't like thinking that way and so........pass.

 

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?

 

Small skirmish. No big deal. These are to be expected.

 

I read from the beginning. It is my mistake in regards to when the word creationism first appeared. That I expanded upon the word, was at your invitation, and participants of the boards request.

 

Reread post 31, and comprehend why we have established governing principles/practices that guide and determine just such disputes as ours.

 

seven8s

It’s all relative or none of it is, as someone once told me; general relativity in a nut shell. I believe that there are those wonderful scientists who must look at some of their colleagues and shudder. Why? Because they know, and I admire them for that knowing, and admire the example/precedent being set.

 

Phi For All

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.

 

Some of their colleagues could be their self or others. Read my post in scientists vs normal people. In order to determine what is a scientist vs a normal person, one must determine what is normal. Why? Because scientists are people, as in person, and if they are people they are either normal or abnormal, therefore what is normal? When we understand who we are we understand what is our potential/purpose, and from there the knowledge that we have the potential to create. When we understand what we have the potential to create we have some options, options enable mankind, individuals to some semblance of choice no matter how minute or large. From there we rise into our inheritance as creators, determinism. There remains no one else to blame or credit, and we just are (though I am not sure about this last part because it begs a question).

 

ah, a thought sparks, balanced. Take greed and generosity. When I know that greed and generosity exists, and exists in normal people, I am able to not just look at others and make judgements, I am able to look at myself and make judgements. Am I normal? When I know that selfishness and selflessness exist, and that they exist in normal people I am able to look at myself and others and make judgements. Hopefully I am making, or at the least now able to make judgements that benefit not just society, but myself, or visa versa. If society at large has a right to survive, and thrive, do I?

 

Iow’s phi, when this Lord God comes calling and asks, ‘where were you when I.........

 

I can look him in the eye and say, I was there. And when I demand of him to know, where were you when I...............

 

I know that he can say, so was I. I to I. Each and everyone of us are there, which begs the question, where?

 

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.

 

Phi, I have developed a whole theory on your name calling, it is very enlightening.

 

And so you want what Phi, to be spoon fed? Unfortunately the word creationism is a very large word, as such, and just as unfortunately you have a very small mouth. Having said that, if you are willing to suspend prejudice against the word, from your traditional evaluation of the word, perhaps the better to hear me with................

 

Please, if you really want to stay here, you need to communicate better.

 

Where are we at? I am sitting at home typing on a key board, surfing the net. I happened upon SFN, I can happen somewhere else.

 

Therefore:

 

Is that a threat or a promise? Clarify, you do know what that means, correct? You are a moderator Phi, choose. That or come up with another option. Right here, right now, this moment, choose.

 

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.

 

 

As to the alleged studies cited in post #4;

 

 

The average person does not know how to read an abstract, let alone an anecdotal study. In fact they do not even know what the difference is.

 

The very first need when determining the validity of any abstract or anecdotal study is to find the bias. That bias can be found in the scientist(s) who preformed the study, and/or the individuals or institutions who market the study.

 

The bias can be in the method, but then I do tend to believe that this bias is a reflection of the researcher/scientist, whether inadvertently (Freudian slip), or cunningly.

 

Iow’s, the scientists who studied/tested a new pharmaceutical may or may not lie, but the company that marked the new pharmaceutical did/will/might/didn’t. One can always hide things and drug manufacturers have been caught with their hand in that cookie jar.

 

I am sure there is a lot of arguments from ignorance on the site. We all have them.

 

seven8s

I gifted you with the experience of God,

 

Phi For All

I hope you kept the receipt.

 

I am sure you do.

[ecoli]

Really? I honestly didn't think there was any bias at all in wikipedia (well, as much as possible...).

I don't see much bias either, but there's always has to be something, right?

 

I mean, conservapedia subscribes to an agenda, and is very very biased. But that doesn't mean they've never said anything that is true.

 

Keeping in mind, though, the 'bias in wikipedia' page isn't accurate, because points that they have made are often exaggerated or are corrected.

[insane_alien]

indeed, and i'm failing to see how subscribing to a total conservative bias conciously is any better than a slight liberal trend.

 

surely the goal should be zero bias which wikipedia comes very very close to. or at least as close as a group of humans is likely to get.

[Pangloss]

I think we have a new official troll to sic iNow on.

 

I don't know why people come here to talk and never listen. Seems counter to the purpose of "discussion". And yet we see time and time again people who come in here and immediately start setting everyone straight on some issue or another. No sense of community, no sense of communication, no interest in common ground, just "shut up and listen".

 

Invariably they're set-upon by long-time members who are more annoyed with the newcomer's rush to judgement than with anything they're actually saying, and then they wonder aloud why they've been set upon and insist that it's the community's fault, not theirs.

[seven8s]

Does he like marvin Gaye?