myths evolutionists believe.

[AV1611VET]

Hey Cabal, that was pretty good. You finally got a decent jab in rather than all those girlie jabs you are always using. Kudos. You might become a big boy after all. It's not going to make AV flinch, though.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

son, i are disappoint

 

[Cabal]

Here's the entire passage, so you can trample it:

I won't be trampling the passage, just your personal interpretation of it

Here are some key definitions:

Like I said, personal interpretations.

[*]creature = creation
[*]vanity = entropy
[*]bondage of corruption = entropy

Two words for entropy. Mmmkay.

[*]groaneth and travaileth = oscillation? = Brownian motion

I'm surprised there aren't intermediate steps labelled "?????" and "PROFIT" here, given the massive nonsequiturs.

 

[Cabal]

Flip.

Now I am disappoint.

Edit: i meant disapoint :'(

 

[Cabal]

It's not going to make AV flinch, though.

No, I suspect he'll just do the same thing as you did, stamp your foot and /thread out, while declaring victory and how totally not bothered he is by what we've said

Besides, I've long given up expecting AV to respond to logic - it's not his forte.

 

[AV1611VET]

Besides, I've long given up expecting AV to respond to logic - it's not his forte.

If you want to discuss logic, I'm sure there are plenty there who would love to tell you that Jesus is the Logos, personified.

I'm not one of them though, since I adhere to the KJVO mindset.

 

[Cabal]

If you want to discuss logic, I'm sure there are plenty there who would love to tell you that Jesus is the Logos, personified.

I'm not one of them though, since I adhere to the KJVO mindset.

KJVOnlyists don't bother discussing logic? That would explain a lot.

 

[Inan3]

Didn't Inan3 admit that she was lying through her teeth?

No.

 

[Inan3]

I didn't know that someone could "be" atomic physics. That's impressive. And I was unaware that people "teach" chemical warfare, outside of insurgent training camps. So, like, you teach people how to make mustard gas with household chemicals?

Setting the record straight.

I did NOT say I was "atomic physics" but rather (and if you reread it you will see) I said I was an "atomic physics AND geological" biologist. I tried to make it as bogus as possible because it was a joke. I did not WANT any one to take it for the truth. Now on the other hand, when I said I was a scientist, I looked up the word and by one of the definitions I could actually say I WAS a scientist and be truthful. The truth of the matter is that I was looking for a shocked response but I never wanted anyone to REALLY believe that I was a Scienceville scientist. I have admitted often in many threads that I don't know that much about science. That is not my forte and I have admitted that over and over.


Scientist definition:
an expert in a field of study
free-english-study.com/vocabulary/academic-vocabulary-11.ht…


An intersting article on "science definition."



Does the new definition of science measure up? | Science | guardian.co.uk

 

[Gracchus]

Setting the record straight.

I did NOT say I was "atomic physics" but rather (and if you reread it you will see) I said I was an "atomic physics AND geological" biologist. I tried to make it as bogus as possible because it was a joke.[/quote]So, it wasn't really a lie because it was an egregious lie!

I did not WANT any one to take it for the truth.

But you did say it. In all fairness, anyone with the intellgence of a gnat or better would know it was a lie. (But I would caution you to Google "Poe's Law".) You not only labeled yourself as a liar, but a poor liar at that.

Now on the other hand, when I said I was a scientist, I looked up the word and by one of the definitions I could actually say I WAS a scientist and be truthful.

Scientist definition:
an expert in a field of study
free-english-study.com/vocabulary/academic-vocabulary-11.ht…

So, you weren't really trying to deceive anyone, since you accidentally used a word that could be marginally truthful.

The truth of the matter is that I was looking for a shocked response but I never wanted anyone to REALLY believe that I was a Scienceville scientist. I have admitted often in many threads that I don't know that much about science. That is not my forte and I have admitted that over and over.

I recommend you stick to that position. I see no reason to label yourself as a fool as well as a liar, ... unless of course that is an accurate description.

So, just for future reference: In what field of study are you an expert?

An intersting article on "science definition."

Does the new definition of science measure up? | Science | guardian.co.uk

And finally an obfuscating smokescreen to cover a hasty retreat!

Okay! You were trying to be humorous. No one laughed? I did! Ha ha!

By the way, you may think you look pretty in pink, but for the convenience of the visually challenged, I rendered you in black and white.

 

[Inan3]

I did NOT say I was "atomic physics" but rather (and if you reread it you will see) I said I was an "atomic physics AND geological" biologist. I tried to make it as bogus as possible because it was a joke.

So, it wasn't really a lie because it was an egregious lie!
But you did say it. In all fairness, anyone with the intellgence of a gnat or better would know it was a lie. (But I would caution you to Google "Poe's Law".) You not only labeled yourself as a liar, but a poor liar at that.


So, you weren't really trying to deceive anyone, since you accidentally used a word that could be marginally truthful.
I recommend you stick to that position. I see no reason to label yourself as a fool as well as a liar, ... unless of course that is an accurate description.

So, just for future reference: In what field of study are you an expert?


And finally an obfuscating smokescreen to cover a hasty retreat!

Okay! You were trying to be humorous. No one laughed? I did! Ha ha!

By the way, you may think you look pretty in pink, but for the convenience of the visually challenged, I rendered you in black and white.

[/quote]


While, I will ignore alot of what I consider to be an attempt to insult me again, I will say, it is refreshing to know that at least someone laughed even if it wasn't in the manner in which I would have liked. Quite frankly, I was surprised to think that anyone could have thought I was trying to be anything other than facetious. I do find you a very serious and unhappy bunch. It appears the only enjoyment you might have is to mock and belittle and malign others and their opinions as much as you can. It seems a very narcisstic environment.

As to thinking that pink is a very pretty color, I do and I also like it in my posts. I am sure that your fellow posters will appreciate your consideration for their eyes. Though I feel it is unwarrented, I have decided that perhaps I will change to purple for the color of my font and perhaps receive a little less whining and secure a little more peaceful atmosphere. I really don't expect so, but one can hope. I really am an eternal optimist. I have decided that purple also goes with my avatar so therefore it is acceptable but I do not know how long it will go on. Pink is much more appealing to me but then life isn't "all about me", now is it? But black is just too drab (unless it is in bold) but I guess drab goes along with the environment here.

P.S. I actually did think it was an interesting little article on the definition of science...

 

[sandwiches]

Here are some key definitions:

1. creature = creation
2. vanity = maximum entropy
3. bondage of corruption = entropy
4. groaneth and travaileth = oscillation? = Brownian motion

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Setting the record straight.

I did NOT say I was "atomic physics" but rather (and if you reread it you will see) I said I was an "atomic physics AND geological" biologist. I tried to make it as bogus as possible because it was a joke. I did not WANT any one to take it for the truth. Now on the other hand, when I said I was a scientist, I looked up the word and by one of the definitions I could actually say I WAS a scientist and be truthful. The truth of the matter is that I was looking for a shocked response but I never wanted anyone to REALLY believe that I was a Scienceville scientist. I have admitted often in many threads that I don't know that much about science. That is not my forte and I have admitted that over and over.


Scientist definition:
an expert in a field of study
free-english-study.com/vocabulary/academic-vocabulary-11.ht…


An intersting article on "science definition."



Does the new definition of science measure up? | Science | guardian.co.uk

I was just pointing out how ridiculous your "joke" was (calling it such is quite a stretch, though). And yes, it's pretty clear that you have no idea what science is, does, or says.

 

[Naraoia]

Naraoia, I know that, but obviously you don't know what "I" am talking aobut.

Then perhaps you didn't make yourself clear enough.

As I have said it is the system but Scienceville is in the system for sure. They are as much a part of it as the rest of society. My gripe with you guys is that you want to pass yourselves off as a group full of integrity and no iniquity.

Do we? I won't for a second deny that there are some fairly unscrupulous people in the scientific world. I'm arguing against your generalisation that all or most of "Scienceville" is like that. That's because I happen to know a number of scientists, and as a rule they are decent people in search of knowledge and solutions to problems, not money. (Then again, I'm in academia, so who knows, industrial R&D departments may be evil to the core.)

I guess that is why it is so important that you reject God so that you can make up your own morality and pass it off as good. It is exactly like Jesus said they hate the light because their deeds are evil. You want to measure yourselves by your own measurement. That way you can say, "There's nothing wrong with us" look at all the good we do and don't ever disagree with us because if you do YOU are evil. WE are the "moral and intelligent and so much better than the rest of humanity" people. WE are the standard that all should live by. I'm not saying you are any more evil than anyone else but then I'm not saying you are any better than anyone else, either. You know the real truth you just don't want anyone else to know.

You are making insulting generalisations that you completely fail to back up. In addition, you are equating scientists with atheists. In addition to that, you are making up complete fantasies about "our" motivations. Wonderful.

I'm sorry, but you said we (in general) are evil money-grabbers or whatever. We pointed out that that doesn't reflect the normal situation in "scienceville". I think it's a perfectly appropriate reaction, and I don't see how it constitutes holding us up as paragons of morality.

Also, are you contradicting yourself within the same paragraph, or do you just have a horribly gloomy view of humanity? You first write, speaking of "us guys": "It is exactly like Jesus said they hate the light because their deeds are evil."

Then, a few sentences later: " I'm not saying you are any more evil than anyone else but then I'm not saying you are any better than anyone else, either."

What gives?

My point was only to affirm that abuse does happen.

Then why did it sound so much like complaining about Teh Generalised Evils of Teh Establishment?

And whether it is the medical profession or the pharmaceutical companies people are being affected and harmed. I don't have to put up websites to prove that there are multiple side effects with all drugs, and some very damaging. It's in the news all the time.

Unusual occurrences are a lot more newsworthy than ordinary ones. "In the news all the time" doesn't mean squat. Besides, drugs are normally used (not abused) when their benefits are deemed to outweigh the costs. You aren't told to take morphine for a throatache.

It's in real life all the time. You can continue to act like science has no part in it and they just want to help the masses but every thing comes down to the money, money, money, money. Just admit it happens and let it go from there.

No, I'm not going to let it go, because once again, you are making a very insulting generalisation. "Everything" comes down to the money, does it?

The thing is, side effects can't be avoided. They can be diminished in some cases, and that is part of the drug developers' job. The fact that they can't avoid the unavoidable hardly proves that the establishment is evil, and it proves that the scientists working at the bottom end of it are evil even less.

I certainly do not think that my little posts or yours are going to change the world. It takes much more than that. It really is no laughing matter so your flippant little smilie means nothing.

Oh, human suffering is no laughing matter, but then I wasn't laughing at that. Your spectacular citation fail was funny, OTOH.

I really can't believe so many people are actually reading Inan's posts here. I mean, that text color is just painful.

Think of it as aposematic colouration. Like wasps and poison dart frogs, the colour warns of the poison inside.

(With the difference that aposematic species tend to be pretty.)

 

[Inan3]

Then perhaps you didn't make yourself clear enough.

Perhaps I didn't.

Do we? I won't for a second deny that there are some fairly unscrupulous people in the scientific world. I'm arguing against your generalisation that all or most of "Scienceville" is like that. That's because I happen to know a number of scientists, and as a rule they are decent people in search of knowledge and solutions to problems, not money. (Then again, I'm in academia, so who knows, industrial R&D departments may be evil to the core.)

I believe it is in my struggle with pinning down how to explain where I am placing the blame that I fault in my generalizations. I actually coined the term "Scienceville" so as NOT to specifically point at one field or another or specific scientists or researchers. I have started a new thread called "Issues in Scienceville" http://www.christianforums.com/t7562240/ where I attempt to bring in articles to explain what I am talking about. Perhaps that would help rather than explaining it further here.


You are making insulting generalisations that you completely fail to back up. In addition, you are equating scientists with atheists. In addition to that, you are making up complete fantasies about "our" motivations. Wonderful.

I agree I have failed to make it clear and I am in hopes my new thread will make it clearer.

I'm sorry, but you said we (in general) are evil money-grabbers or whatever. We pointed out that that doesn't reflect the normal situation in "scienceville". I think it's a perfectly appropriate reaction, and I don't see how it constitutes holding us up as paragons of morality.

Sorry about the attitude.

Also, are you contradicting yourself within the same paragraph, or do you just have a horribly gloomy view of humanity? You first write, speaking of "us guys": "It is exactly like Jesus said they hate the light because their deeds are evil."

Then, a few sentences later: " I'm not saying you are any more evil than anyone else but then I'm not saying you are any better than anyone else, either."

What gives?

Then why did it sound so much like complaining about Teh Generalised Evils of Teh Establishment?

All I can say is check out my thread.

Unusual occurrences are a lot more newsworthy than ordinary ones. "In the news all the time" doesn't mean squat. Besides, drugs are normally used (not abused) when their benefits are deemed to outweigh the costs. You aren't told to take morphine for a throatache.

No, I'm not going to let it go, because once again, you are making a very insulting generalisation. "Everything" comes down to the money, does it?

The thing is, side effects can't be avoided. They can be diminished in some cases, and that is part of the drug developers' job. The fact that they can't avoid the unavoidable hardly proves that the establishment is evil, and it proves that the scientists working at the bottom end of it are evil even less.

Oh, human suffering is no laughing matter, but then I wasn't laughing at that. Your spectacular citation fail was funny, OTOH.

Think of it as aposematic colouration. Like wasps and poison dart frogs, the colour warns of the poison inside.

(With the difference that aposematic species tend to be pretty.)

As you can see I've gone purple.

 

[Inan3]

I was just pointing out how ridiculous your "joke" was (calling it such is quite a stretch, though). And yes, it's pretty clear that you have no idea what science is, does, or says.

Well, I'd have to scratch "have no idea" I do have an idea.

 

[Hespera]

As you can see I've gone purple.

yes and it is appreciatd. that other colour really was painful to my eyes.

cutting out the bold all caps is another style improvement that is appreciated.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Well, I'd have to scratch "have no idea" I do have an idea.

An idea that is completely at odds with the ideas of people who actually understand science and do it on a daily basis.

 

[Split Rock]

As you can see I've gone purple.

I for one appreciate you doing this.

 

[Gracchus]

As you can see I've gone purple.

That is easier on the eyes, but as you can see, I will still quote you in black and white.