No, but claiming something is true because an authority said it is. As is claiming something is false because you don’t respect the authority of the person who said it.
So you were wrong and I proved it. And now you're not man enough to admit it. And, since I did not claim that something was true solely because an authority said it, your verbal squirming failed.
Quote:
Good for you. Keep your strawmen to yourself and actually have an argument before replying.
And yet again false accusations of fallacies. I'm not letting you turn this into nothing more than a childish test of who tires first when yelling "Nuh-uh!", "Uh-huh!" That is an accurate characterization of what you are trying to do -- just as you did when FineWine called you on it.
Quote:
OH GOOD. You’re finally starting to do literally the only thing that matters: discuss the content. Now disprove the content, if it is wrong.
All I have to do is prove that you cited (well plagiarized actually) him as an authority when he is not one. But since you seem so enamored with his claims, I'll leave you with this one: "Marital sex tends toward the boring end. Generally, it doesn't deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does. If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one's own personal amusement, if all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get, then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist."
— Paul Cameron in an Interview with Rolling Stone, 1999
Quote:
No, but it’s obvious that you STILL do not know what an appeal to authority is. Hint: It’s not what happens when the person in question isn’t an authority on the subject.
I realize that you are still bitter about me having cited four separate sources that proved you wrong, but grow a pair and get over it.
Quote:
Quote:
Again, your continued assertions, devoid of either evidence or an articulated supporting argument from logic, are not debating.
And yet you apparently have no rebuttal to them or the content presented, apparently.
There was nothing to refute since you provided neither logic nor evidence when you wrote stupidity like "You’re joking, right? I mean, you’re legitimately just kidding here, yes?" You dealt yourself an empty hand and wanted to bluff your way out of it.
Quote:
You refuse to answer questions directly pertaining to the topics. You ignore disproof when presented.
It was you who refused to answer pertinent questions like "Why is it bad for inflation and wages to rise at a rate of 3% per year? How does that, in any way, reduce the purchasing power of the consumer?" And it was you who ignored disproof when I provided it, whether in the form of cited definitions, statistics, charts, or anything else.
Quote:
We were having a good debate.
No, we were not having a good debate. I was debating like an adult and you acting like a child throwing a temper tantrum.
Quote:
If you had questions or refutations, you should have posted them. Don’t do this.
I did, and you ignored them. For example:
Quote:
Quote:
Nope, that’s a consequence of the system itself, not the cause.
There was nothing in "the system" that forced companies to pay less to employees while increasing CEO pay by triple digit percentages.
You didn't answer or acknowledge.
I put this one in context, since you purposely removed the context to hide what had been written. And I highlighted, to show your intellectual dishonesty.
Quote:
Yep. For that one thing (and then, you know, did reply to it). But everything else I replied directly to.
Just to cite a couple of examples, replies of "You’re joking, right? I mean, you’re legitimately just kidding here, yes?" or "Nope, that’s a consequence of the system itself, not the cause," do not constitute debate.
Which is why you pulled them out of the much larger list of things that do constitute debate, cherry picking them, as it were.
So, I proved that you lied. You did not directly reply as you claimed you had.
Quote:
So WILL you answer my question regarding authority and what it is, or will you do what you claim I’m doing and just ignore it?
No, I am not going to serve as your free remedial English teacher and/or Google operator.
Quote:
If "the posts are all there," then provide complete, in-context quotes.
Quote:
It’s neither my responsibility nor my inclination to waste the energy to present to you that which you did not initially read anyway, as doing so with the expectation that you would read it this time is a fallacy.
So you lied. I did not misrepresent your position. There were no quotes you could provide. And, in a debate, it is your responsibility to provide proof for the claims you make, including claims of misrepresentation.
Quote:
Not an example. See the sentences subsequent to the one to which you replied.
Yes, it is an example and here is your complete challenge:
Quote:
Okay. Prove it. Here’s a starter list. The claim on the table is that ~3800 fiat currencies have collapsed. Show me one that didn’t. Should be pretty easy.
And I showed you one which had not collapsed, namely, the Swiss Franc. So are you claiming that the Swiss franc has collapsed? Or are you claiming that it is not a fiat currency?
Quote:
How adorable. More ad-homs, while you try to take the high road of debate!
No, that's not an ad hominem, since I did not dismiss your claim based on some irrelevant fact about you. In fact, I went on to answer it.
Quote:
I said nothing of will. Only of have. With a 100% failure rate for the concept itself throughout the entirety of human history, what do you imagine the future will hold? We cannot know the future; we can only predict based on past events. Past events give us a 100% failure rate. Going forward, and no pun intended, but where’s the smart money?
Maybe the big numbers are confusing you. If I give you ten flashlights and eight of them fail, that is not a 100% failure rate. And if I challenge you to show me one which has not failed, you're not required to only pick from the failed pile.
Quote:
Still waiting for an answer to my question. If you have none, either say you have none or just silently drop the point of discussion entirely (without any mention to its claimed conclusion–in your favor or otherwise), and we can move on.
I provided the answer twice now: The Swiss franc.
So, now you answer my question: "So I guess that your God is destined for the big scrap heap of deities and the U.S. dollar is bound to fail, right?"
Quote:
Once again, as previously stated, you don’t have a clue, as evidenced by your existing responses to the matter.
I'm really not interested in your opinion of me as you are my inferior, both in knowledge and intellect. You've proven it -- over and over.
I see no need to clutter up this forum by my trying to write pages of text on the fly when so much care and thought has been put into writing the documents to which I linked.
Peer reviewed journal, that has won many awards that ultimately confirm (not prove, mind you) the creation account, and show the technical problems inherent to evolution:
They actually have many papers on transitional forms and their problems and controversies. Rather than go in depth I'll leave that as an exercise for you. You'll find better answers in there than I could ever give in response to all your links. These articles and papers are written by Ph. D scientists (and obtained them at secular schools) in there respective fields (astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, mathematics, etc) who believe in Creation.
Only problem is Christ gave us the great commission, that is to spread the gospel to all nations. So no, I can't keep it private, and no, the Bible is not contradictory. You claim contradictions, but fail to provide in depth assertions as to where.
I have had many "jokers" "preach" this and that to me, namely from cults like jehovas witnesses or Mormons. I can agree here that these groups teach are contrary to what the bible actually teaches.
We all hang out hats on something different, including atheists. The question is though, is it the right place? Not all of them can be right, for if they were, well, that would be really weird since all religions will have some area where they will be diametrically opposed. So which one is true?
This [insert word other than civil] "rights" issue strikes at many different religions, and in the near future they will be required to do things they don't agree with. A fire chief in Georgia was fired JUST because he wrote a book that stated he was against homosexuality because it is against what the bible teaches. He had shown no discriminatory hiring practices, yet he was forced out for something he believed. This issue IS and WILL continue to step over the bounds of religious rights.
And I know on the surface it appears like some discriminatory tragedy against Christians because this guy got fired, but c'mon man! It's obvious that he set up the FD for discrimination lawsuits by making those public statements. In court if he happened to not hire a guy who then later claims he was gay and discriminated against, that guy loses big lawsuits for the FD, because his public statements weaken the trust in a figure of authority who is meant to maintain the public trust. It's a business and public policy decision. Sorry that the fact that you feel this fervent need to express your personal, private views out loud can get you in trouble. You have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean there aren't social consequences. That doesn't make it discriminatory.
Peer reviewed journal, that has won many awards that ultimately confirm (not prove, mind you) the creation account, and show the technical problems inherent to evolution:
They actually have many papers on transitional forms and their problems and controversies. Rather than go in depth I'll leave that as an exercise for you. You'll find better answers in there than I could ever give in response to all your links. These articles and papers are written by Ph. D scientists (and obtained them at secular schools) in there respective fields (astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, mathematics, etc) who believe in Creation.
The dictionary definition of "confirm" is to ?prove the ?truth of something that was previously not completely ?certain.
Others do not hold that publication in high regard, calling it pseudoscience. Nature, Scientific American, and Discover have all been highly critical of ARJ.
In an article about ARJ and related issues, one of the contributors states the journal's point of view: "'We have a particular viewpoint,' Purdom stated, referring to the ARJ. 'We start with the Bible as being true. And many other journals do not. They are going to start with human reasoning as the basis for truth.'" Given that this journal seeks to prove the truth of the Bible, starting with its truth is Circular reasoning.
How about a good, mainstream journal -- one where believing that the Bible is true is neither the premise of the publication nor a requirement to for its authors and peer reviewers?
And I know on the surface it appears like some discriminatory tragedy against Christians because this guy got fired, but c'mon man! It's obvious that he set up the FD for discrimination lawsuits by making those public statements. In court if he happened to not hire a guy who then later claims he was gay and discriminated against, that guy loses big lawsuits for the FD, because his public statements weaken the trust in a figure of authority who is meant to maintain the public trust. It's a business and public policy decision. Sorry that the fact that you feel this fervent need to express your personal, private views out loud can get you in trouble. You have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean there aren't social consequences. That doesn't make it discriminatory.
Oh so it's ok to discriminate based on religion but not on homosexuality. Got it . Glad you don't run the country.
Oh
Oh so it's ok to discriminate based on religion but not on homosexuality. Got it . Glad you don't run the country.
It's exactly like I f I was head of the FD and I said I believeGod hates black people, but I'll hire a black person if they're good enough for the job... and expected the public to trust my judgement if I later did not hire a black person. You can't **** with the public trust if you're in a public position.
It's exactly like I f I was head of the FD and I said I believeGod hates black people, but I'll hire a black person if they're good enough for the job... and expected the public to trust my judgement if I later did not hire a black person. You can't **** with the public trust if you're in a public position.
I actually disagree with that one. Closeted bigots are much worse. If he's that open about it, he's probably more likely to be reasonable where required by his job. In an elected role, it might kill any chances of reelection though.
Oh so it's ok to discriminate based on religion but not on homosexuality. Got it . Glad you don't run the country.
No, if you publish a secular book where you express a strong disapproval or animosity based on religion, gender, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc., then you're likely to lose your supervisory position -- regardless of whether you cite religion as the basis for your beliefs. Any member of that minority could cite your book in a workplace discrimination lawsuit. They could claim that they were not hired, were fired, were passed over for a promotion, were given a worse performance review, or given a lower raise, because you harbored those beliefs about them.
Suppose the FD chief had been an atheist and he published a book stating that he believed that Christians were gullible rubes destroying society. Do you think that the reaction would have been any different?
I see no need to clutter up this forum by my trying to write pages of text on the fly when so much care and thought has been put into writing the documents to which I linked.
Peer reviewed journal, that has won many awards that ultimately confirm (not prove, mind you) the creation account, and show the technical problems inherent to evolution:
They actually have many papers on transitional forms and their problems and controversies. Rather than go in depth I'll leave that as an exercise for you. You'll find better answers in there than I could ever give in response to all your links. These articles and papers are written by Ph. D scientists (and obtained them at secular schools) in there respective fields (astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, mathematics, etc) who believe in Creation.
This is an interesting case study in the perversion of science to try to support blatantly unscientific concepts. AIG certainly claim that ARG is a peer-reviewed journal, but even a cursory inspection of their website reveals some interesting admissions:
Quote: AIG
...papers in our journal will be reviewed by the best experts we have available to us through a large network of well-qualified creationist researchers, scientists, and theologians who are the best thinkers in their fields of creationist research.
Quote: AIG
ARJ will disseminate research conducted by creationist experts in theology, history, archaeology, anthropology, biology, geology, astronomy, and other disciplines of science by providing scientists, students, and supporters the results of cutting-edge research that demonstrates the validity of the young-earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of “created kinds,” and other evidences that are consistent with the biblical account of origins.
Firstly, AIG is an acknowledged advocate of literal creationism. No problem with that, however misguided, but when such an organization solicits papers with the single intent of promoting those beliefs, and then has them peer-reviewed by carefully selected believers, the result is as far from a legitimate, peer-reviewed source of research as one can get. To call this pseudo-science is to insult many pseudo-scientists. It is religious propaganda, masquerading as research, with the goal of muddying the waters and giving creationists some illusion of credibility for their beliefs.
Just to be clear, this is not how legitimate, peer-reviewed journals work. They do not set out with the goal of supporting a particular position.
Answers in Genesis owns the Creation Museum.[3] Answers in Genesis is also currently creating the Ark Encounter, a full-size replica of Noah's Ark.[4] The organization has offices in the United Kingdom and the United States. It had offices in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa, but in 2006 these seceded to form Creation Ministries International(CMI).
So, this is not an honest attempt to explore the issues, it is a self-avowed attempt to bolster creationism by peddling scientific-sounding nonsense. In my opinion it does a disservice to creationism, by exposing intellectual dishonesty, rather than just naive, wishful fantasy.
This is an interesting case study in the perversion of science to try to support blatantly unscientific concepts. AIG certainly claim that ARG is a peer-reviewed journal, but even a cursory inspection of their website reveals some interesting admissions:
Firstly, AIG is an acknowledged advocate of literal creationism. No problem with that, however misguided, but when such an organization solicits papers with the single intent of promoting those beliefs, and then has them peer-reviewed by carefully selected believers, the result is as far from a legitimate, peer-reviewed source of research as one can get. To call this pseudo-science is to insult many pseudo-scientists. It is religious propaganda, masquerading as research, with the goal of muddying the waters and giving creationists some illusion of credibility for their beliefs.
Just to be clear, this is not how legitimate, peer-reviewed journals work. They do not set out with the goal of supporting a particular position.
So, this is not an honest attempt to explore the issues, it is a self-avowed attempt to bolster creationism by peddling scientific-sounding nonsense. In my opinion it does a disservice to creationism, by exposing intellectual dishonesty, rather than just naive, wishful fantasy.
Site examples, actual articles, please, where the research is dishonest or not factual instead of a blanket statement. Do they not follow the scientific method somewhere? Please do tell, point out some fact I missed in one of their papers. They actually do a great service exposing intellectual dishonesty and starting assumptions. The dishonesty of evolutionists. The lies evolutionists don't want you to know, because their agenda is to make you believe there is no God.
They want you to believe their dogma of molecules to man evolution, which can't be proven without a doubt because it is an origins issue - it is not a repeatable, testable process.
Site examples, actual articles, please, where the research is dishonest or not factual instead of a blanket statement. Do they not follow the scientific method somewhere? Please do tell, point out some fact I missed in one of their papers. They actually do a great service exposing intellectual dishonesty and starting assumptions. The dishonesty of evolutionists. The lies evolutionists don't want you to know, because their agenda is to make you believe there is no God.
They want you to believe their dogma of molecules to man evolution, which can't be proven without a doubt because it is an origins issue - it is not a repeatable, testable process.
Chill out -- you're beginning to sound like Tallest Skil. You linked to a publication that has been widely discredited -- even by its staff's own public statements. According to Georgia Purdom, an AiG researcher, an article will not be published in ARJ if the the author's position is inconsistent with the book of Genesis. Ms. Purdom said that the peer-review process includes not only fact checking, but also 'faith checking.' Everyone working with AiG must sign a Statement of Faith with declarations ranging from "The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ," to "No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record." That's not science, or even a good imitation of it.
You criticize mainstream science journals, but I've never seen one of them that required that authors sign a document stating that "the scientific aspects" of their work "are secondary to" denying the existence of God. None of them required that authors sign a declaration stating that "No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species." And, even if there were such a journal, would you accept the articles in it as confirmation of evolution?
I actually disagree with that one. Closeted bigots are much worse. If he's that open about it, he's probably more likely to be reasonable where required by his job. In an elected role, it might kill any chances of reelection though.
I agree closeted bigots are worse, but you can't make public statements like that at all and maintain a position of authority. Companies are just not going to take on that liability of potential discrimination lawsuits.
Chill out -- you're beginning to sound like Tallest Skil. You linked to a publication that has been widely discredited -- even by its staff's own public statements. According to Georgia Purdom, an AiG researcher, an article will not be published in ARJ if the the author's position is inconsistent with the book of Genesis. Ms. Purdom said that the peer-review process includes not only fact checking, but also 'faith checking.' Everyone working with AiG must sign a Statement of Faith with declarations ranging from "The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ," to "No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record." That's not science, or even a good imitation of it.
You criticize mainstream science journals, but I've never seen one of them that required that authors sign a document stating that "the scientific aspects" of their work "are secondary to" denying the existence of God. None of them required that authors sign a declaration stating that "No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species." And, even if there were such a journal, would you accept the articles in it as confirmation of evolution?
Would a evolutionary/atheistic based organization hire a creationist? I highly doubt it.
It's a clash of world views or starting points. The articles often consider the evolutionary worldview and explain the problems it has. They know both sides, but show how creation is viable and how science confirms it. In the end, testable, repeatable science can't prove origins, either evolutionary or creationary. When concerning origins, it's all about a person bias and starting assumptions.
This is an interesting case study in the perversion of science to try to support blatantly unscientific concepts. AIG certainly claim that ARG is a peer-reviewed journal, but even a cursory inspection of their website reveals some interesting admissions:
Firstly, AIG is an acknowledged advocate of literal creationism. No problem with that, however misguided, but when such an organization solicits papers with the single intent of promoting those beliefs, and then has them peer-reviewed by carefully selected believers, the result is as far from a legitimate, peer-reviewed source of research as one can get. To call this pseudo-science is to insult many pseudo-scientists. It is religious propaganda, masquerading as research, with the goal of muddying the waters and giving creationists some illusion of credibility for their beliefs.
Just to be clear, this is not how legitimate, peer-reviewed journals work. They do not set out with the goal of supporting a particular position.
So, this is not an honest attempt to explore the issues, it is a self-avowed attempt to bolster creationism by peddling scientific-sounding nonsense. In my opinion it does a disservice to creationism, by exposing intellectual dishonesty, rather than just naive, wishful fantasy.
Site examples, actual articles, please, where the research is dishonest or not factual instead of a blanket statement. Do they not follow the scientific method somewhere? Please do tell, point out some fact I missed in one of their papers. They actually do a great service exposing intellectual dishonesty and starting assumptions. The dishonesty of evolutionists. The lies evolutionists don't want you to know, because their agenda is to make you believe there is no God.
They want you to believe their dogma of molecules to man evolution, which can't be proven without a doubt because it is an origins issue - it is not a repeatable, testable process.
There is no need to cite examples because, as I pointed out, they already declared, upfront, that they are not objective, at which point any scientific basis for the journal is immediately destroyed. I suspect that you will not understand that point at all, believing, as you apparently do, that science is no more reliable than religion - or worse in fact - a dishonest scam to discredit the Lord.
Is there any chance of getting you to understand that science does not purport to "prove" (except in the sense of the scientific meaning of "to prove" which is "to test") evolution or any other postulated explanation for past events, but instead develops hypotheses that explain observed data, are not contradicted by observed data, and are not unduly burdened by invoking unnecessary, arbitrary and unobserved complexity (such as a god, for example)? These hypotheses, if they succeed, become our working models until they fail one of the tests or are superseded by better hypotheses.
In fact I realize that there is no way to deal with this level of delusion, so at this point my responses are just "for the record" and for any other readers who are unfortunate enough still to be hanging on, probably, like me with some kind of horrified fascination, to the increasingly irrational and convoluted flow of your arguments. It's a stark reminder of the power of religious indoctrination, even in an age dominated by the obvious validity of the scientific approach to everything from understanding nature to the technology on which you are unwittingly typing your views.
Only problem is Christ gave us the great commission, that is to spread the gospel to all nations. So no, I can't keep it private, and no, the Bible is not contradictory. You claim contradictions, but fail to provide in depth assertions as to where.
I have had many "jokers" "preach" this and that to me, namely from cults like jehovas witnesses or Mormons. I can agree here that these groups teach are contrary to what the bible actually teaches.
We all hang out hats on something different, including atheists. The question is though, is it the right place? Not all of them can be right, for if they were, well, that would be really weird since all religions will have some area where they will be diametrically opposed. So which one is true?
This [insert word other than civil] "rights" issue strikes at many different religions, and in the near future they will be required to do things they don't agree with. A fire chief in Georgia was fired JUST because he wrote a book that stated he was against homosexuality because it is against what the bible teaches. He had shown no discriminatory hiring practices, yet he was forced out for something he believed. This issue IS and WILL continue to step over the bounds of religious rights.
And I know on the surface it appears like some discriminatory tragedy against Christians because this guy got fired, but c'mon man! It's obvious that he set up the FD for discrimination lawsuits by making those public statements. In court if he happened to not hire a guy who then later claims he was gay and discriminated against, that guy loses big lawsuits for the FD, because his public statements weaken the trust in a figure of authority who is meant to maintain the public trust. It's a business and public policy decision. Sorry that the fact that you feel this fervent need to express your personal, private views out loud can get you in trouble. You have the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean there aren't social consequences. That doesn't make it discriminatory.
Did he say he was against homosexuality, or homosexuals? There's a big difference.
This failed by a wide margin. Cook should stick to his day job.
Given Apple started bringing back some manufacturing to the U.S., in Texas I believe (the Mac Pro) he will and should continue to exert political pressure toward change. Even Texas will eventually begin to relinquish its redneck ways for something as profitable and patriotic as this.
This failed by a wide margin. Cook should stick to his day job.
Yes, it's tragic. But, like the fight for civil rights for blacks in the 1950s and 1960s, there's a lot of bigotry and prejudice to overcome and we need people like Tim Cook standing up for what's right -- no matter how slow it goes. So don't lose hope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExceptionHandler
Would a evolutionary/atheistic based organization hire a creationist? I highly doubt it.
Real scientific journals are not evolutionary/atheistic based. They are based in science. And they don't ask the person's religion prior to hiring them -- since it would set them up for a huge lawsuit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExceptionHandler
It's a clash of world views or starting points. The articles often consider the evolutionary worldview and explain the problems it has. They know both sides, but show how creation is viable and how science confirms it. In the end, testable, repeatable science can't prove origins, either evolutionary or creationary. When concerning origins, it's all about a person bias and starting assumptions.
ARJ confirms that creationism is viable in the same sense that North Korean television confirms that Kim Jong-un is a great leader.
All that ARJ shows is that creationism can't stand up to scientific scrutiny. If it could, then ARJ would not need bans against any "apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology [that] contradicts the Scriptural record." You don't find bans against evidence that runs counter to Darwinian evolution or the Big Bang theory in actual science journals.
When it comes to origins in actual science journals, there are no "starting assumptions" beyond our scientific knowledge. They don't hold that any book or theory contains incontrovertible truth. That's the basis of science. We reached scientific consensus on Darwinian evolution when it was shown to better fit the data and observations than other theories that preceded it. As scientific evidence grew to support it, the theory of Plate Tectonics replaced the theories that preceded it.
I spent much of my career in science. A space probe that I helped to build, test, and launch is sending back images and data from the asteroid belt. I understand science. ARJ is not science. It's an affront to science and the scientific method.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
No, but claiming something is true because an authority said it is. As is claiming something is false because you don’t respect the authority of the person who said it.
So you were wrong and I proved it. And now you're not man enough to admit it. And, since I did not claim that something was true solely because an authority said it, your verbal squirming failed.
And yet again false accusations of fallacies. I'm not letting you turn this into nothing more than a childish test of who tires first when yelling "Nuh-uh!", "Uh-huh!" That is an accurate characterization of what you are trying to do -- just as you did when FineWine called you on it.
Quote:
OH GOOD. You’re finally starting to do literally the only thing that matters: discuss the content. Now disprove the content, if it is wrong.
All I have to do is prove that you cited (well plagiarized actually) him as an authority when he is not one. But since you seem so enamored with his claims, I'll leave you with this one: "Marital sex tends toward the boring end. Generally, it doesn't deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does. If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one's own personal amusement, if all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get, then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist."
— Paul Cameron in an Interview with Rolling Stone, 1999
No, but it’s obvious that you STILL do not know what an appeal to authority is. Hint: It’s not what happens when the person in question isn’t an authority on the subject.
I realize that you are still bitter about me having cited four separate sources that proved you wrong, but grow a pair and get over it.
And yet you apparently have no rebuttal to them or the content presented, apparently.
There was nothing to refute since you provided neither logic nor evidence when you wrote stupidity like "You’re joking, right? I mean, you’re legitimately just kidding here, yes?" You dealt yourself an empty hand and wanted to bluff your way out of it.
You refuse to answer questions directly pertaining to the topics. You ignore disproof when presented.
It was you who refused to answer pertinent questions like "Why is it bad for inflation and wages to rise at a rate of 3% per year? How does that, in any way, reduce the purchasing power of the consumer?" And it was you who ignored disproof when I provided it, whether in the form of cited definitions, statistics, charts, or anything else.
No, we were not having a good debate. I was debating like an adult and you acting like a child throwing a temper tantrum.
If you had questions or refutations, you should have posted them. Don’t do this.
I did, and you ignored them. For example:
There was nothing in "the system" that forced companies to pay less to employees while increasing CEO pay by triple digit percentages.
You didn't answer or acknowledge.
I put this one in context, since you purposely removed the context to hide what had been written. And I highlighted, to show your intellectual dishonesty.
Just to cite a couple of examples, replies of "You’re joking, right? I mean, you’re legitimately just kidding here, yes?" or "Nope, that’s a consequence of the system itself, not the cause," do not constitute debate.
Which is why you pulled them out of the much larger list of things that do constitute debate, cherry picking them, as it were.
So, I proved that you lied. You did not directly reply as you claimed you had.
No, I am not going to serve as your free remedial English teacher and/or Google operator.
If "the posts are all there," then provide complete, in-context quotes.
So you lied. I did not misrepresent your position. There were no quotes you could provide. And, in a debate, it is your responsibility to provide proof for the claims you make, including claims of misrepresentation.
Not an example. See the sentences subsequent to the one to which you replied.
Yes, it is an example and here is your complete challenge:
Okay. Prove it. Here’s a starter list. The claim on the table is that ~3800 fiat currencies have collapsed. Show me one that didn’t. Should be pretty easy.
And I showed you one which had not collapsed, namely, the Swiss Franc. So are you claiming that the Swiss franc has collapsed? Or are you claiming that it is not a fiat currency?
How adorable. More ad-homs, while you try to take the high road of debate!
No, that's not an ad hominem, since I did not dismiss your claim based on some irrelevant fact about you. In fact, I went on to answer it.
Maybe the big numbers are confusing you. If I give you ten flashlights and eight of them fail, that is not a 100% failure rate. And if I challenge you to show me one which has not failed, you're not required to only pick from the failed pile.
Still waiting for an answer to my question. If you have none, either say you have none or just silently drop the point of discussion entirely (without any mention to its claimed conclusion–in your favor or otherwise), and we can move on.
I provided the answer twice now: The Swiss franc.
So, now you answer my question: "So I guess that your God is destined for the big scrap heap of deities and the U.S. dollar is bound to fail, right?"
Once again, as previously stated, you don’t have a clue, as evidenced by your existing responses to the matter.
I'm really not interested in your opinion of me as you are my inferior, both in knowledge and intellect. You've proven it -- over and over.
Peer reviewed journal, that has won many awards that ultimately confirm (not prove, mind you) the creation account, and show the technical problems inherent to evolution:
https://answersingenesis.org/answers/research-journal/about/
They actually have many papers on transitional forms and their problems and controversies. Rather than go in depth I'll leave that as an exercise for you. You'll find better answers in there than I could ever give in response to all your links. These articles and papers are written by Ph. D scientists (and obtained them at secular schools) in there respective fields (astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, mathematics, etc) who believe in Creation.
Peer reviewed journal, that has won many awards that ultimately confirm (not prove, mind you) the creation account, and show the technical problems inherent to evolution:
https://answersingenesis.org/answers/research-journal/about/
They actually have many papers on transitional forms and their problems and controversies. Rather than go in depth I'll leave that as an exercise for you. You'll find better answers in there than I could ever give in response to all your links. These articles and papers are written by Ph. D scientists (and obtained them at secular schools) in there respective fields (astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, mathematics, etc) who believe in Creation.
The dictionary definition of "confirm" is to ?prove the ?truth of something that was previously not completely ?certain.
Others do not hold that publication in high regard, calling it pseudoscience. Nature, Scientific American, and Discover have all been highly critical of ARJ.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Answers_Research_Journal
How about a good, mainstream journal -- one where believing that the Bible is true is neither the premise of the publication nor a requirement to for its authors and peer reviewers?
Oh so it's ok to discriminate based on religion but not on homosexuality. Got it . Glad you don't run the country.
It's exactly like I f I was head of the FD and I said I believeGod hates black people, but I'll hire a black person if they're good enough for the job... and expected the public to trust my judgement if I later did not hire a black person. You can't **** with the public trust if you're in a public position.
I actually disagree with that one. Closeted bigots are much worse. If he's that open about it, he's probably more likely to be reasonable where required by his job. In an elected role, it might kill any chances of reelection though.
Oh so it's ok to discriminate based on religion but not on homosexuality. Got it . Glad you don't run the country.
No, if you publish a secular book where you express a strong disapproval or animosity based on religion, gender, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc., then you're likely to lose your supervisory position -- regardless of whether you cite religion as the basis for your beliefs. Any member of that minority could cite your book in a workplace discrimination lawsuit. They could claim that they were not hired, were fired, were passed over for a promotion, were given a worse performance review, or given a lower raise, because you harbored those beliefs about them.
Suppose the FD chief had been an atheist and he published a book stating that he believed that Christians were gullible rubes destroying society. Do you think that the reaction would have been any different?
Quote:
Please provide a link to a peer-reviewed scientific paper that confirms that God created all life on Earth, including man.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
But, as you know, if you provide a "missing link" to a creationist, his response is always, "Aha! Now there are two missing links!"
http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating
http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html
I see no need to clutter up this forum by my trying to write pages of text on the fly when so much care and thought has been put into writing the documents to which I linked.
Peer reviewed journal, that has won many awards that ultimately confirm (not prove, mind you) the creation account, and show the technical problems inherent to evolution:
https://answersingenesis.org/answers/research-journal/about/
They actually have many papers on transitional forms and their problems and controversies. Rather than go in depth I'll leave that as an exercise for you. You'll find better answers in there than I could ever give in response to all your links. These articles and papers are written by Ph. D scientists (and obtained them at secular schools) in there respective fields (astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, mathematics, etc) who believe in Creation.
This is an interesting case study in the perversion of science to try to support blatantly unscientific concepts. AIG certainly claim that ARG is a peer-reviewed journal, but even a cursory inspection of their website reveals some interesting admissions:
Firstly, AIG is an acknowledged advocate of literal creationism. No problem with that, however misguided, but when such an organization solicits papers with the single intent of promoting those beliefs, and then has them peer-reviewed by carefully selected believers, the result is as far from a legitimate, peer-reviewed source of research as one can get. To call this pseudo-science is to insult many pseudo-scientists. It is religious propaganda, masquerading as research, with the goal of muddying the waters and giving creationists some illusion of credibility for their beliefs.
Just to be clear, this is not how legitimate, peer-reviewed journals work. They do not set out with the goal of supporting a particular position.
Answers in Genesis (AiG) is a non-profit, fundamentalist, Christian apologetics ministry with a particular focus on supporting young Earth creationism (YEC), rejecting the scientific consensus on common descent and on the age of the Earth. It also advocates a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative and claims the correct understanding of natural phenomena reveals its interpretation of Genesis to be scientifically accurate.[2]
Answers in Genesis owns the Creation Museum.[3] Answers in Genesis is also currently creating the Ark Encounter, a full-size replica of Noah's Ark.[4] The organization has offices in the United Kingdom and the United States. It had offices in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa, but in 2006 these seceded to form Creation Ministries International(CMI).
So, this is not an honest attempt to explore the issues, it is a self-avowed attempt to bolster creationism by peddling scientific-sounding nonsense. In my opinion it does a disservice to creationism, by exposing intellectual dishonesty, rather than just naive, wishful fantasy.
Site examples, actual articles, please, where the research is dishonest or not factual instead of a blanket statement. Do they not follow the scientific method somewhere? Please do tell, point out some fact I missed in one of their papers. They actually do a great service exposing intellectual dishonesty and starting assumptions. The dishonesty of evolutionists. The lies evolutionists don't want you to know, because their agenda is to make you believe there is no God.
They want you to believe their dogma of molecules to man evolution, which can't be proven without a doubt because it is an origins issue - it is not a repeatable, testable process.
Site examples, actual articles, please, where the research is dishonest or not factual instead of a blanket statement. Do they not follow the scientific method somewhere? Please do tell, point out some fact I missed in one of their papers. They actually do a great service exposing intellectual dishonesty and starting assumptions. The dishonesty of evolutionists. The lies evolutionists don't want you to know, because their agenda is to make you believe there is no God.
They want you to believe their dogma of molecules to man evolution, which can't be proven without a doubt because it is an origins issue - it is not a repeatable, testable process.
Chill out -- you're beginning to sound like Tallest Skil. You linked to a publication that has been widely discredited -- even by its staff's own public statements. According to Georgia Purdom, an AiG researcher, an article will not be published in ARJ if the the author's position is inconsistent with the book of Genesis. Ms. Purdom said that the peer-review process includes not only fact checking, but also 'faith checking.' Everyone working with AiG must sign a Statement of Faith with declarations ranging from "The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ," to "No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record." That's not science, or even a good imitation of it.
You criticize mainstream science journals, but I've never seen one of them that required that authors sign a document stating that "the scientific aspects" of their work "are secondary to" denying the existence of God. None of them required that authors sign a declaration stating that "No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species." And, even if there were such a journal, would you accept the articles in it as confirmation of evolution?
Would a evolutionary/atheistic based organization hire a creationist? I highly doubt it.
It's a clash of world views or starting points. The articles often consider the evolutionary worldview and explain the problems it has. They know both sides, but show how creation is viable and how science confirms it. In the end, testable, repeatable science can't prove origins, either evolutionary or creationary. When concerning origins, it's all about a person bias and starting assumptions.
There is no need to cite examples because, as I pointed out, they already declared, upfront, that they are not objective, at which point any scientific basis for the journal is immediately destroyed. I suspect that you will not understand that point at all, believing, as you apparently do, that science is no more reliable than religion - or worse in fact - a dishonest scam to discredit the Lord.
Is there any chance of getting you to understand that science does not purport to "prove" (except in the sense of the scientific meaning of "to prove" which is "to test") evolution or any other postulated explanation for past events, but instead develops hypotheses that explain observed data, are not contradicted by observed data, and are not unduly burdened by invoking unnecessary, arbitrary and unobserved complexity (such as a god, for example)? These hypotheses, if they succeed, become our working models until they fail one of the tests or are superseded by better hypotheses.
In fact I realize that there is no way to deal with this level of delusion, so at this point my responses are just "for the record" and for any other readers who are unfortunate enough still to be hanging on, probably, like me with some kind of horrified fascination, to the increasingly irrational and convoluted flow of your arguments. It's a stark reminder of the power of religious indoctrination, even in an age dominated by the obvious validity of the scientific approach to everything from understanding nature to the technology on which you are unwittingly typing your views.
Did he say he was against homosexuality, or homosexuals? There's a big difference.
This failed by a wide margin. Cook should stick to his day job.
Yes, it's tragic. But, like the fight for civil rights for blacks in the 1950s and 1960s, there's a lot of bigotry and prejudice to overcome and we need people like Tim Cook standing up for what's right -- no matter how slow it goes. So don't lose hope.
Would a evolutionary/atheistic based organization hire a creationist? I highly doubt it.
Real scientific journals are not evolutionary/atheistic based. They are based in science. And they don't ask the person's religion prior to hiring them -- since it would set them up for a huge lawsuit.
It's a clash of world views or starting points. The articles often consider the evolutionary worldview and explain the problems it has. They know both sides, but show how creation is viable and how science confirms it. In the end, testable, repeatable science can't prove origins, either evolutionary or creationary. When concerning origins, it's all about a person bias and starting assumptions.
ARJ confirms that creationism is viable in the same sense that North Korean television confirms that Kim Jong-un is a great leader.
All that ARJ shows is that creationism can't stand up to scientific scrutiny. If it could, then ARJ would not need bans against any "apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology [that] contradicts the Scriptural record." You don't find bans against evidence that runs counter to Darwinian evolution or the Big Bang theory in actual science journals.
When it comes to origins in actual science journals, there are no "starting assumptions" beyond our scientific knowledge. They don't hold that any book or theory contains incontrovertible truth. That's the basis of science. We reached scientific consensus on Darwinian evolution when it was shown to better fit the data and observations than other theories that preceded it. As scientific evidence grew to support it, the theory of Plate Tectonics replaced the theories that preceded it.
I spent much of my career in science. A space probe that I helped to build, test, and launch is sending back images and data from the asteroid belt. I understand science. ARJ is not science. It's an affront to science and the scientific method.