Almost there
Well-Known Member
- Oct 24, 2017
- 3,571
- 1,152
- 61
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I disagree. I'm looking at an apple as I type this.The problem is that you can't argue with evidence. You have none.
Hey, I"m a sucker for controversy.I'm a sucker for trolls, I guess.
Perhaps one day a creationist will materialize that does not rely on unwarranted condescension, logical fallacies, equivocation, etc.
But I doubt it.
Not really. It's just that I know (from my experience in the real world for decades) that it is a talent/skill I have. I've worked for 17 companies and get compliments on my analogies all the time. It's not a pride thing. The only time I appear prideful is when I use an excellent and clear analogy on a subject, but someone who simply does not want to accept the message of the analogy says it's a lousy analogy.And I get that you are totally enamored with your own parables (pride) - like the one above.
You might want to tell that to Michael E. Mann.Scientists are not allowed to do that.
I just reread that line. Oh man did you nail the bible belt. I see a LOT of that.I wanted to see if there was any more to it than epithets and spittle.
I disagree. I'm looking at an apple as I type this.
Just because you can't understand his work does not mean that he made any assumptions. You are letting your own biases form your opinions. Been there done that in regards to AGW.You might want to tell that to Michael E. Mann.
Your analogies may work for whatever work that you do, they do not work when it comes to the sciences.Not really. It's just that I know (from my experience in the real world for decades) that it is a talent/skill I have. I've worked for 17 companies and get compliments on my analogies all the time. It's not a pride thing. The only time I appear prideful is when I use an excellent and clear analogy on a subject, but someone who simply does not want to accept the message of the analogy says it's a lousy analogy.
If I use a bad analogy, I'll admit it.
And no, all of my analogies are not A+. Some are terrible. But that's ok, Babe Ruth struck out a lot too.
Then I am bemused and will need to reflect further on how you could reach such strange conclusions.No i meant "can". There are things science can demonstrate but when we speculate on the basis of facts we move beyond what science can demonstrate
Thank you. I'm also bemused as to why it took multiple requests to get you to provide your answer.Genus two examples of which are Canis ( dogs) and Passer (Sparrows)
Perhaps you should quit using analogies, speak directly and simply, and maybe try to avoid the hint of paternalism you spice your posts with.But I'm not trolling. I sincerely believe everything I post. However, I do notice that due to either the poor quality of my posts, or the bias of some readers, many of my posts get misinterpreted. People infer meaning that is not there.
And mine.But that is not evidence, it only supports my claim.
That is why I offered to discuss the concept of evidence with you.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And the AGW folks have been caught lying, fudging data, being proved wrong, creating models that time has proven don't remotely prove their point.Just because you can't understand his work does not mean that he made any assumptions. You are letting your own biases form your opinions. Been there done that in regards to AGW.
I think they work very well making the particular points I'm making.Your analogies may work for whatever work that you do, they do not work when it comes to the sciences.
It makes the point the best to people who can get past their biases and understand. I'm not trying to convince those that will not listen.Perhaps you should quit using analogies, speak directly and simply, and maybe try to avoid the hint of paternalism you spice your posts with.
OK. I'll try it differently. Communication style is best adjusted to the needs (biases, if you will) of your audience. If one technique does not work, adapt and try another. You seem fixed upon a single method, based upon the success you have enjoyed with that approach. Yet you note that not all has been success. Would it not make sense to try alternatives?It makes the point the best to people who can get past their biases and understand. I'm not trying to convince those that will not listen.
A poor analogy for life. Remember my claim about chimeras? They are possible with automobile parts, but not with life.I think they work very well making the particular points I'm making.
I once had a fortune 500 CIO tell me I should write a book of analogies. I thought he was joking. He wasn't. And it wasn't about what I do for a living. It's an odd knack I have.
My analogy regarding the doorhandle of the 2001 Chrysler 300M and dodge Neon is a perfect example of intelligent design that someone might try to use as proof of common ancestry.
That is a claim that I don't think that you can support. Yes, people have lied about the AGW work, but they cannot substantiate those claims.Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And the AGW folks have been caught lying, fudging data, being proved wrong, creating models that time has proven don't remotely prove their point.
Why on earth would I take them seriously? It's not bias. It's using a reasoning mind that doesn't just believe what someone says because they have a shingle or three on the wall.
Please, now you are just trolling at best. And you are demonstrating a fear of discussing the nature of evidence.And mine.
Pssst. You are not my audience.OK. I'll try it differently. Communication style is best adjusted to the needs (biases, if you will) of your audience. If one technique does not work, adapt and try another. You seem fixed upon a single method, based upon the success you have enjoyed with that approach. Yet you note that not all has been success. Would it not make sense to try alternatives?
You simply miss the point of the analogies. That's fine. I can't get through to everyone. I strive for excellence, not perfection.A poor analogy for life. Remember my claim about chimeras? They are possible with automobile parts, but not with life.
Your analogies fail when you apply them to your failed beliefs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?