Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii)

[Kylie]

That I'm neither anti-education, nor anti-science.

In my experience, you are both whenever it suits your position.

See Post 91.

That wasn't your post.

 

[AV1611VET]

In my experience, you are both whenever it suits your position.

Can you give me an example?

 

[Kylie]

Can you give me an example?

I've lost count of how many times you've decided science was wrong just for disagreeing with your predetermined conclusions.

If you can't show the flaw in the science, then you can't claim it is wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've lost count of how many times you've decided science was wrong just for disagreeing with your predetermined conclusions.

If you can't show the flaw in the science, then you can't claim it is wrong.

That is a LONG WAY from anti-education and anti-science.

I'd say for every science factoid I claim is wrong, I will claim two others are right.

Deep time? WRONG

Photosynthesis? RIGHT

Thin Layer Chromatography? RIGHT

 

[sjastro]

That is a LONG WAY from anti-education and anti-science.

I'd say for every science factoid I claim is wrong, I will claim two others are right.

Deep time? WRONG

Photosynthesis? RIGHT

Thin Layer Chromatography? RIGHT

Oh great one what ya think of the use of a helium atmosphere in XRFs to find low atomic number elements?

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh great one what ya think of the use of a helium atmosphere in XRFs to find low atomic number elements?

I'd say if you want to find low atomic number elements, then look on the Periodic Table of the Elements.

You'll find a bunch of them.

 

[sjastro]

I'd say if you want to find low atomic number elements, then look on the Periodic Table of the Elements.

You'll find a bunch of them.

You don't even have the vaguest comprehension of the nature of the question and your response is total utter rubbish.
Rather than admitting you don't understand which opens up the opportunity of learning something you concoct this nonsense because you think it is a face saving exercise.
It serves to prove the point you are both anti-science and anti-education and your hostility to both is a reflection of your dislike of individuals who understand things you don't.

You never give credit to scientists when they improve the quality of your life because it's a gift from God, when things go wrong God is never responsible and it's all the scientists fault.

 

[AV1611VET]

It serves to prove the point you are both anti-science and anti-education ...

These false accusations show an attitude problem on your part.

 

[Kylie]

That is a LONG WAY from anti-education and anti-science.

I'd say for every science factoid I claim is wrong, I will claim two others are right.

Deep time? WRONG

Photosynthesis? RIGHT

Thin Layer Chromatography? RIGHT

That's not the point.

Science is not a list of facts. Science is a process.

If you claim that the process doesn't work because you don't like the results you are getting, then you are anti-science.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not the point.

Science is not a list of facts. Science is a process.

If you claim that the process doesn't work because you don't like the results you are getting, then you are anti-science.

Well ... I've given you my heuristics and my beliefs and the Source of my beliefs.

I have also denied being anti-science and anti-education.

If you want to claim otherwise, then knock yourself out.

It most certainly won't be the first time I've been misjudged.

 

[Kylie]

Well ... I've given you my heuristics and my beliefs and the Source of my beliefs.

I have also denied being anti-science and anti-education.

If you want to claim otherwise, then knock yourself out.

It most certainly won't be the first time I've been misjudged.

It's not a misjudgement.

If you disagree with the science, then show where the science is in error.

If the only reason you claim the science is wrong is because it disagrees with something that you've decided must be true, then that's not you finding fault with science. That's a rejection of something simply because you don't want to believe it. It's not a valid way to determine what is true and what is not.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you want to claim otherwise, then knock yourself out.

If the only reason you claim the science is wrong is because it disagrees with something that you've decided must be true, then that's not you finding fault with science. That's a rejection of something simply because you don't want to believe it. It's not a valid way to determine what is true and what is not.

Are you knocked out now?

 

[Kylie]

Are you knocked out now?

Pointing out the logical fallacies you used is just tedious, AV, not a knock out. Especially tedious considering that I've had to explain it to you several times before.

 

[AV1611VET]

Pointing out the logical fallacies you used is just tedious, AV, not a knock out. Especially tedious considering that I've had to explain it to you several times before.

If by pointing out those logical fallacies, it leads you to the conclusion that I'm anti-science and anti-education, then you rang your own bell and knocked yourself out, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Kylie]

If by pointing out those logical fallacies, it leads you to the conclusion that I'm anti-science and anti-education, then you rang your own bell and knocked yourself out, as far as I'm concerned.

Say what you will, I see quite a few other people who agree with me.

 

[sjastro]

These false accusations show an attitude problem on your part.

Seriously you deny attacking attacking scientists and smart educated people?

Exhibit (1) Attack on scientists.

AV1611VET said,
Scientists are crooks when they need to be, and history bears that out.
They'll lie, cheat, ignore, and manipulate data to get their desired result, if the price is right.

Exhibit (2) Attack on smart educated people.

AV1611VET said,
Anyway, God embedded "Easter eggs" into His creation -- (my favorite example is oil) -- to be found later on by men and women that He empowered with special knowledge.

"Gifted people" -- so to speak.
But over time, people started using their God-given talents against Him, rather than to glorify His creation.
They started playing games of connect-the-dots with His creation, Arab-phoning specific words in the Bible to their standards, and moving the decimal place as necessary to force-fit their ideas into a comprehensive and coherent story of history.
They are constantly updating their theories to conform to new discoveries and, in the meantime, produce junk science every month and propagate it to the public via such rags as Scientific American and Popular Science, which makes them look like they're doing actual work.

 

[AV1611VET]

Seriously you deny attacking attacking scientists and smart educated people?

Nice try, Astro.

Neither of those warrant an accusation of anti-science and anti-education.

Not all people are crooks, and even if I think most are, that doesn't mean I think all are.

Do you think ALL politicians are crooked?

If so, are you anti-politics?

In addition, can you think MOST politicians are crooked, while at the same time hold the belief that God gifts us politicians, but many misuse their power?

 

[sjastro]

Nice try, Astro.

Neither of those warrant an accusation of anti-science and anti-education.

Not all people are crooks, and even if I think most are, that doesn't mean I think all are.

Do you think ALL politicians are crooked?

If so, are you anti-politics?

In addition, can you think MOST politicians are crooked, while at the same time hold the belief that God gifts us politicians, but many misuse their power?

The typical whataboutism argument.
This is not about my opinions of politicians.

Do I need to remind you of publicly accusing me of being a crook and doubling down on the accusation.
Here is a reminder.

• Jul 11, 2021

Now AV according to your impeccable logic that makes me a 'crook'; explain why my reasoning constitutes crooked behaviour.

Guilt by association.

If I am crook on the basis of guilt by association even though I had no involvement with Pluto scientists voting for the demotion of Pluto, it means there are no exceptions to your hostility towards scientists as the guilt by association argument applies to anyone whose work disagrees with your narratives.

 

[AV1611VET]

If I am crook on the basis of guilt by association even though I had no involvement with Pluto scientists voting for the demotion of Pluto, it means there are no exceptions to your hostility towards scientists as the guilt by association argument applies to anyone whose work disagrees with your narratives.

Simple question:

Do I think you're a crook?

YES or NO

I say NO.

What say you?

... it means there are no exceptions to your hostility towards scientists as the guilt by association argument applies to anyone whose work disagrees with your narratives.

It has to disagree with my narratives first, doesn't it?

Does photosynthesis disagree with my narratives? YES or NO

Does gravity disagree with my narratives? YES or NO

I think you've got a serious attitude problem with me, and it's clouding your thinking.

 

[sjastro]

Simple question:

Do I think you're a crook?

YES or NO

I say NO.

What say you?

I've given you my answer and this is nothing more than a pathetic attempt at obfuscation.
The subsequent moderator action also answers your question.

It has to disagree with my narratives first, doesn't it?

Does photosynthesis disagree with my narratives? YES or NO

Does gravity disagree with my narratives? YES or NO

Clearly you don't understand the meaning of the narrative; in this case where science can take a hike if it doesn't conform to the Bible along with the scientists and educated people whom you label as crooks amongst other things.

Since you bring up issue with gravity why did you not accept one of the reasons for demoting Pluto, the orbit clearing criteria, instead of reaching the idiotic conclusion the vote was rigged.

I think you've got a serious attitude problem with me, and it's clouding your thinking.

This is the second time you have accused me of having an attitude problem.
Unlike you I take responsibility for my posts and don't deny having made them if raised by posters, nor do I resort to the unsavory behaviour of calling posters crooks if they don't conform to my POV.
It's obvious which one of us has the attitude problem.