Creationism vs Imax

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
How can I refute your argument? You have NO argument, just pure hyperbole.

Begone with thee.

Not to nit-pick or anything, but what I said isn't a hyperbole. It's a hypothetical situation, which are often used in thought exercises to determine just course of action in a given situation.

Hyperbole - extravagant exaggeration


Your proposition: wife's sex tape being shown on an IMAX screen.



Hmmm....geee....whereever did I get a crazy idea that your statement was hyperbole.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa

While I agree that some level of restraint on content is advisable in such venues as broadcast TV, I am adamantly opposed to censoring those venues that require paid admission or at least require some consious effort on a person's part to be exposed to the material.

The FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS regularly try to ban books, movies, art, etc. that they don't like.

Since I do not recognize their authority over what I can see or read, I am opposed to their actions. It has absolutely zip to do with religion from my perspective, and everything to do with it from theirs.

I could not care less what someone's religious beliefs are so long as they don't try to run my life.
It only stands to reason that if there is a recognizable group that does this frequently, then I will call that same group out frequently. That they are religeous has no bearing on it whatsoever. I fail to see how my stand marks me as intolorant or bigoted.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
And the free market has little to do with what the FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS effect is when they want something banned. They tend to make themselves such a pain in the ass that no one wants to deal with them. They drive off other patrons with their DEROGATORY remarks and slogans.They try to intimidate people. And please, don't try to deny it. I've seen many such demonstrations (some in person, many videos) and read too many accounts, so I know it is true. The last one I saw in person was against Planned Parenhood. They were discusting jerks (not my first choice of descriptive terms either, but I'm trying to be PC for you).

The free market is EXACTLY why this whole issue has arisen. The IMAX fears a loss of revenue if they show the movie due to boycott by fundamentalists - this is why they are not showing the movie, correct? You continue with your sweeping generalizations, trying to make all fundamentalists out to be some sort of petty criminals or thugs. I guess I can't try to deny it, since you said I can't...? The point is that it's obvious you have a deep-seated hatred (or at least a very strong distaste) for a very large portion of the population because the actions of a few individuals. This isn't very surprising, since you obviously vehemently disagree with their religious persuasion. I don't agree with them either, but I do respect their right to peaceably assemble and try to use their market power to have things go the way they see fit.

While I agree that some level of restraint on content is advisable in such venues as broadcast TV, I am adamantly opposed to censoring those venues that require paid admission or at least require some consious effort on a person's part to be exposed to the material.

The FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS regularly try to ban books, movies, art, etc. that they don't like. Since I do not recognize their authority over what I can see or read, I am opposed to their actions. It has absolutely zip to do with religion from my perspective, and everything to do with it from theirs. I could not care less what someone's religious beliefs are so long as they don't try to run my life. It only stands to reason that if there is a recognizable group that does this frequently, then I will call that same group out frequently. That they are religeous has no bearing on it whatsoever. I fail to see how my stand marks me as intolorant or bigoted.

I'd like to see one example of where a fundamentalist Christian caused you to not be able to read a book that you wanted to read, see a painting you wanted to see. If so, what was their methodology that disallowed you from doing so? Do you really think fundamentalist Christians are the only group that boycotts things in an attempt to have their views made known? Are they the only group that pickets? You make it sound like they are.

Originally posted by: conjur
Hyperbole - extravagant exaggeration

Your proposition: wife's sex tape being shown on an IMAX screen.

Hmmm....geee....whereever did I get a crazy idea that your statement was hyperbole.

Are you ever going to add anything, or just troll around? Maybe you can point out what exactly I was exaggerating?

 

[piasabird]

I have varying views on what some people call evolution. It has been shown that if two animals mate the offspring that is most equiped to survive in a given environment tend to make the next generation so it might be better termed as survival of the fittest. All this really means is the best characteristics seem to promote survivability at a given point in time. However, if a species becomes too adapted to their environment and something changes drastically they usually dont evolve; they just become extinct. Humans have bread animals for specific characteristics, but I would not call that evolution either. A horse is still a horse.

Evolution as a scientific theory has some basic flaws. If one species evolved from something else then where did the first species of animal or animals or organisms come from. Complex life forms like birds and monkeys, humans, and even worms can just happen by accident. Without DNA existing it is hard to understand how life can just happen. Look at how many tries it took just to try to get a sheep to clone. It took years of advanced scientific research.

As far as creationism is concerned if we can conceive manipulating DNA to make better plants or possibly better animals, how come God cant just be some all-knowing scientist who created the animals through gene research and manipulation? Is that so far fetched an idea?

 

[Wag]

Originally posted by: yllus
Was Jesus against really wide aspect ratios or something?

IMAX is 4:3.😉

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I have varying views on what some people call evolution. It has been shown that if two animals mate the offspring that is most equiped to survive in a given environment tend to make the next generation so it might be better termed as survival of the fittest. All this really means is the best characteristics seem to promote survivability at a given point in time. However, if a species becomes too adapted to their environment and something changes drastically they usually dont evolve; they just become extinct. Humans have bread animals for specific characteristics, but I would not call that evolution either. A horse is still a horse.

Evolution as a scientific theory has some basic flaws. If one species evolved from something else then where did the first species of animal or animals or organisms come from. Complex life forms like birds and monkeys, humans, and even worms can just happen by accident. Without DNA existing it is hard to understand how life can just happen. Look at how many tries it took just to try to get a sheep to clone. It took years of advanced scientific research.

As far as creationism is concerned if we can conceive manipulating DNA to make better plants or possibly better animals, how come God cant just be some all-knowing scientist who created the animals through gene research and manipulation? Is that so far fetched an idea?

I'm not sure you understand evolution. Try the wikipedia article.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Hyperbole - extravagant exaggeration

Your proposition: wife's sex tape being shown on an IMAX screen.

Hmmm....geee....whereever did I get a crazy idea that your statement was hyperbole.

Are you ever going to add anything, or just troll around? Maybe you can point out what exactly I was exaggerating?

There...I bolded it for you.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: piasabird
I have varying views on what some people call evolution. It has been shown that if two animals mate the offspring that is most equiped to survive in a given environment tend to make the next generation so it might be better termed as survival of the fittest. All this really means is the best characteristics seem to promote survivability at a given point in time. However, if a species becomes too adapted to their environment and something changes drastically they usually dont evolve; they just become extinct. Humans have bread animals for specific characteristics, but I would not call that evolution either. A horse is still a horse.

Evolution as a scientific theory has some basic flaws. If one species evolved from something else then where did the first species of animal or animals or organisms come from. Complex life forms like birds and monkeys, humans, and even worms can just happen by accident. Without DNA existing it is hard to understand how life can just happen. Look at how many tries it took just to try to get a sheep to clone. It took years of advanced scientific research.

As far as creationism is concerned if we can conceive manipulating DNA to make better plants or possibly better animals, how come God cant just be some all-knowing scientist who created the animals through gene research and manipulation? Is that so far fetched an idea?

Yes, it is quite an absurd idea in my opinion, because I have to assume this highly complex God just happened to explain how highly complex animals happened. What a waste of an extra step. I have to assume some supernatural entity exists to evolve things? Why not just say they evolved and leave out the mumbo jumbo. It is absurd to imagine a supernatural being that self creates but not think that life can evolve directly from non-life. If you find something absurd go with the least absurd. Why assume magic where a natural explanation serves. Be economical.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
So it's ok for the fundies to screw it up for everybody?

Pretty sure the theater owners are the ones not showing the movie. Why don't you go protest them not showing it if you care so much?

IMAX "owners" are often publicly funded organizations. You have a lot options in places like SF, Chicago, NYC . . . but many of the venues in southern cities are "science" museums, etc that were constructed (and often run) using taxpayer dollars.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Hyperbole - extravagant exaggeration

Your proposition: wife's sex tape being shown on an IMAX screen.

Hmmm....geee....whereever did I get a crazy idea that your statement was hyperbole.

Are you ever going to add anything, or just troll around? Maybe you can point out what exactly I was exaggerating?

There...I bolded it for you.

OK, obviously I'm retarded and you're going to have to be more clear. How is what I said an exaggeration? Bear in mind that exaggeration =
1 : to enlarge beyond bounds or the truth : OVERSTATE <a friend exaggerates a man's virtues -- Joseph Addison>
2 : to enlarge or increase especially beyond the normal : OVEREMPHASIZE

Still can't add anything to the discussion? Add or ban.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yes, it is quite an absurd idea in my opinion, because I have to assume this highly complex God just happened to explain how highly complex animals happened. What a waste of an extra step. I have to assume some supernatural entity exists to evolve things? Why not just say they evolved and leave out the mumbo jumbo. It is absurd to imagine a supernatural being that self creates but not think that life can evolve directly from non-life. If you find something absurd go with the least absurd. Why assume magic where a natural explanation serves. Be economical.

Is there a natural explanation for the beginning of life? I haven't heard one yet that has been verified in the least. I do know, however, that there are at least 100 labs around the world working to create life using various mechanisms. Amazing that something that could happen accidentally in nature is thus far impossible for mankind to reproduce with all his vaunted knowledge.

 

[Moonbeam]

I question whether religious belief should not be held to the highest standards of bigotry persecution and ridicule because or the supreme damage religious stupidity of the fundamentalist kind is doing to our society. Those imbeciles want me and my children to suffer from the same mental impairment they suffer and are doing everything in their power to extend their stupidity in to law and regulations we will all suffer under. Should not such evil be crushed by whatever means are at hand? Suffer not fools among us and all that? Ignorance is a disease and disease should be cured. It is time perhaps for religious nonsense to be forced into extinction for the good of all men, no?

Should parents be allowed to delude their children and teach them lies? Should not every sane individual be aware of the supreme danger to thought that is represented by religion, or should people be free to think any stupid old thing they want even if it leads to the backwardness of the human race?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
CycloWizard

So fundie is now a derogatory term? Must have missed the announcement. I thought the derogatory terms were Jesus freaks and fundamentalist nut cases and such. Is the politically correct term fundamentalist Christian? Any others that are acceptable? In all fairness, I demand to be called a non-believer rather than atheist then since some people seem to use it as a demeaning term. Anyway, it occurs to me that this is just too silly to persue any further.

And if there is a secret sex video of my wife, I'll go watch it. It must have been from days long gone (she's an old lady now and sex drive is at a low ebb). It will be fun to reminisce. I don't find sex and nudity repulsive anyway.

And the free market has little to do with what the FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS effect is when they want something banned. They tend to make themselves such a pain in the ass that no one wants to deal with them. They drive off other patrons with their DEROGATORY remarks and slogans.They try to intimidate people. And please, don't try to deny it. I've seen many such demonstrations (some in person, many videos) and read too many accounts, so I know it is true. The last one I saw in person was against Planned Parenhood. They were discusting jerks (not my first choice of descriptive terms either, but I'm trying to be PC for you).


Hippys protested the war in Viet Nam while I was in uniform. Even though I disagreed with them at the time, I was never upset at a peaceful protest. I would have been very pissed though if they would have tried to get a movie banned.

While I agree that some level of restraint on content is advisable in such venues as broadcast TV, I am adamantly opposed to censoring those venues that require paid admission or at least require some consious effort on a person's part to be exposed to the material.

The FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS regularly try to ban books, movies, art, etc. that they don't like. Since I do not recognize their authority over what I can see or read, I am opposed to their actions. It has absolutely zip to do with religion from my perspective, and everything to do with it from theirs. I could not care less what someone's religious beliefs are so long as they don't try to run my life. It only stands to reason that if there is a recognizable group that does this frequently, then I will call that same group out frequently. That they are religeous has no bearing on it whatsoever. I fail to see how my stand marks me as intolorant or bigoted.

My problem here and whenever religion is brought up is a little word you use. Little but significant.

Counterexample.

The Atheists are out to close churches and ban the practice of religion.

True? Of course. Read some of the posts here and in OT.

Wait, something wrong here? Well I bet we can find some atheists who's goal is to do just. Ahh, that little word I alluded to. Some.

If you had said "some" (and meant it) fundamentalists are doing this, then I would not take exception.

I hate to break it to you, but there are a lot more fundamentalists who go to these films and enjoy them than would go and protest it. Like atheists, fundamentalists are not all the same. Fundamental Christianity means following certain things, summed up nicely here:

The Apostle's Creed:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell. [See Calvin]

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

No evolution, no anti science. A statement of faith.

Now some people who call themselves fundamentalist believe in a literal interpretation of the bible. A literal 7 day Creation. A great many do not. To them it isn't about what mechanism was used to cause the world around us, rather marvel that it was done at all. I know many Christians who believe in the Creed who are thrilled at all the diversity, and aren't afraid of evolution. What has that to do with Salvation?

Whether you agree with their interpretation of their religion or not doesn't really matter. What is important is that the vast majority of them are not foaming at the mouth trying to drive a stake into your heart and you ought to understand that.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
So it's ok for the fundies to screw it up for everybody?

Pretty sure the theater owners are the ones not showing the movie. Why don't you go protest them not showing it if you care so much?

IMAX "owners" are often publicly funded organizations. You have a lot options in places like SF, Chicago, NYC . . . but many of the venues in southern cities are "science" museums, etc that were constructed (and often run) using taxpayer dollars.

That trend has been reversing over that last several years as the major distributors, Warner Brothers most notably, are releasing first run product in IMAX format.

I suspect we will be seeing even more IMAX screens built by the large exhibitors in the next few years, even though it isn't really a great idea to move the industry in this way right now.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: piasabird
I have varying views on what some people call evolution. It has been shown that if two animals mate the offspring that is most equiped to survive in a given environment tend to make the next generation so it might be better termed as survival of the fittest. All this really means is the best characteristics seem to promote survivability at a given point in time. However, if a species becomes too adapted to their environment and something changes drastically they usually dont evolve; they just become extinct. Humans have bread animals for specific characteristics, but I would not call that evolution either. A horse is still a horse.

Evolution as a scientific theory has some basic flaws. If one species evolved from something else then where did the first species of animal or animals or organisms come from. Complex life forms like birds and monkeys, humans, and even worms can just happen by accident. Without DNA existing it is hard to understand how life can just happen. Look at how many tries it took just to try to get a sheep to clone. It took years of advanced scientific research.

As far as creationism is concerned if we can conceive manipulating DNA to make better plants or possibly better animals, how come God cant just be some all-knowing scientist who created the animals through gene research and manipulation? Is that so far fetched an idea?

Yes, it is quite an absurd idea in my opinion, because I have to assume this highly complex God just happened to explain how highly complex animals happened. What a waste of an extra step. I have to assume some supernatural entity exists to evolve things? Why not just say they evolved and leave out the mumbo jumbo. It is absurd to imagine a supernatural being that self creates but not think that life can evolve directly from non-life. If you find something absurd go with the least absurd. Why assume magic where a natural explanation serves. Be economical.

Moonbeam,

You are a difficult person to figure. Sometimes, you write things which are completely clear and cogent, such as this last post. At other times, you write stuff right out of a metaphysical kaleidescope.

Do you have an evil twin that is using your AT account?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Is there a natural explanation for the beginning of life? I haven't heard one yet that has been verified in the least. I do know, however, that there are at least 100 labs around the world working to create life using various mechanisms. Amazing that something that could happen accidentally in nature is thus far impossible for mankind to reproduce with all his vaunted knowledge.

I've made earlier posts about the so-called logic of this argument. But they bear repeating:

Your basic principle appears to be that if concerted effort over a certain period of time proves futile, it "proves" that the assumption upon which effort is predicated must be false.

So, you argue, failed attempts over a period of several decades to produce life in the laboratory "prove" that the assumption "Life can be created from non-life using the basic components and conditions that existed on the primordial Earth" is false.

Similarly, opponents of stem cell research argue that stem cells must be a useless technology because during 13 years of stem cell research no disease has been cured by the technology.

The whole concept of "science is hard" seems to have escaped you.

If the absurdity of your argument isn't clear to you, let me re-post in personalized (just for you), paraphrased form what I wrote earlier:

You' have waited in futility for 2000 years for the second coming of Christ. By your logic, the whole "Christ as Messiah" thing is therefore proven to be a bunch of crock.

You agree of course, right?

And if you don't, what kind of unprincipled hypocrite does that make you out to be?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I question whether religious belief should not be held to the highest standards of bigotry persecution and ridicule because or the supreme damage religious stupidity of the fundamentalist kind is doing to our society. Those imbeciles want me and my children to suffer from the same mental impairment they suffer and are doing everything in their power to extend their stupidity in to law and regulations we will all suffer under. Should not such evil be crushed by whatever means are at hand? Suffer not fools among us and all that? Ignorance is a disease and disease should be cured. It is time perhaps for religious nonsense to be forced into extinction for the good of all men, no?

Should parents be allowed to delude their children and teach them lies? Should not every sane individual be aware of the supreme danger to thought that is represented by religion, or should people be free to think any stupid old thing they want even if it leads to the backwardness of the human race?

I question why you generalize the media's portrayal of fundamentalists to all fundamentalists. I question why you insist on childish name-calling to defame them as a group. I question why religion in general appears to offend you so greatly that you call for its legal banning. I question how you propose that we snuff out ignorance when the very scientific theory that you're putting forth as fact has quite a few holes in it as it is. What theory would you teach them instead? I question why you feel the need to interject your own beliefs in the upbringing of my child.

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Whether you agree with their interpretation of their religion or not doesn't really matter. What is important is that the vast majority of them are not foaming at the mouth trying to drive a stake into your heart and you ought to understand that.

:beer:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Hyperbole - extravagant exaggeration

Your proposition: wife's sex tape being shown on an IMAX screen.

Hmmm....geee....whereever did I get a crazy idea that your statement was hyperbole.

Are you ever going to add anything, or just troll around? Maybe you can point out what exactly I was exaggerating?

There...I bolded it for you.

OK, obviously I'm retarded and you're going to have to be more clear. How is what I said an exaggeration? Bear in mind that exaggeration =
1 : to enlarge beyond bounds or the truth : OVERSTATE <a friend exaggerates a man's virtues -- Joseph Addison>
2 : to enlarge or increase especially beyond the normal : OVEREMPHASIZE

Still can't add anything to the discussion? Add or ban.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yes, it is quite an absurd idea in my opinion, because I have to assume this highly complex God just happened to explain how highly complex animals happened. What a waste of an extra step. I have to assume some supernatural entity exists to evolve things? Why not just say they evolved and leave out the mumbo jumbo. It is absurd to imagine a supernatural being that self creates but not think that life can evolve directly from non-life. If you find something absurd go with the least absurd. Why assume magic where a natural explanation serves. Be economical.

Is there a natural explanation for the beginning of life? I haven't heard one yet that has been verified in the least. I do know, however, that there are at least 100 labs around the world working to create life using various mechanisms. Amazing that something that could happen accidentally in nature is thus far impossible for mankind to reproduce with all his vaunted knowledge.

There is nothing at all amazing here. What you cannot conceive, what no human mind can wrap itself around is the immense amount of time and the quadrillions of chemical events that could happen accidentally in that immense and unimaginably long amount of time. There is nothing vaunted about human knowledge in this area. Nature has had time to perform billions of times more experiments than humanity ever will. You are simply an egotist. You think because you cannot imagine how life could begin that a magician had to do it. That is an absurd way to think. There is the fact of life here in front of your face and the 14 billion year old universe. In 14 billion years nothing could be more obvious than that life did evolve. No greater mystery than that natural miracle is required except as a need for self flattery. Your invention of an imaginary being is a failure of imagination.

 

[jackschmittusa]

CycloWizard

The free market is EXACTLY why this whole issue has arisen. The IMAX fears a loss of revenue if they show the movie due to boycott by fundamentalists - this is why they are not showing the movie, correct? You continue with your sweeping generalizations, trying to make all fundamentalists out to be some sort of petty criminals or thugs. I guess I can't try to deny it, since you said I can't...? The point is that it's obvious you have a deep-seated hatred (or at least a very strong distaste) for a very large portion of the population because the actions of a few individuals. This isn't very surprising, since you obviously vehemently disagree with their religious persuasion. I don't agree with them either, but I do respect their right to peaceably assemble and try to use their market power to have things go the way they see fit.

Since i can't seem to find a label for the people we are talking about that you like, perhaps you could suggest one?

How can I make it clear that I'm not talking about anybody's beliefs? I'm talking about their actions.

I have never personally seen a demonstration by [ please insert acceptable term] that I would call peacable". I've personally seen a lot of screaming, fingerpointing, name calling, etc..

I don't think they have any right "to have things go the way they see fit" if it involves censorship. Would you condone efforts to re-instate slavery? Ban inter-racial marraige? If it is such a small number of people as you insist, why should they dictate to the larger number?

And it is not just the loss of revenue from them not attending, but from those that they drive off by their antics, not only from the movie, but the museum itself.

And by-the-way, I doubt that I hate anybody. I even know a couple of FUNDAMENTALIST CHRISTIANS, and while I may roll my eyes sometimes (they often find a way to sprinkle in a little of their beliefs) , I never tell them they are wrong and we can actually get along in a social setting.

And yes, [ insert acceptable term ] have tried to ban many art exibits and books from public libraries. (If you argue that the book can still be bought, then why bother to have public libraries at all?) Whether they have been successful or not is immaterial. The act of trying to do so is worthy of condemnation, and when they have failed, it is because of people like me who objected. When people defend their rights and freedoms, they are defending yours too.

I'm a believer in "live and let live". Let the sucess or failure of books, movies, art, rest on their own merits, not on the dictates of a few.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: shira
I've made earlier posts about the so-called logic of this argument. But they bear repeating:

Your basic principle appears to be that if concerted effort over a certain period of time proves futile, it "proves" that the assumption upon which effort is predicated must be false.

So, you argue, failed attempts over a period of several decades to produce life in the laboratory "prove" that the assumption "Life can be created from non-life using the basic components and conditions that existed on the primordial Earth" is false.

Similarly, opponents of stem cell research argue that stem cells must be a useless technology because during 13 years of stem cell research no disease has been cured by the technology.

I'm asserting no such thing. I'm merely pointing out one possible explanation for peoples' views. Your strawman argument regarding stem cells is just that - a straw man. People don't oppose embryonic stem cell research because it hasn't yielded any results. People oppose it because of the ethical considerations - consuming human life to possibly increase the 'quality of life' of others is an inherently unethical venture. You insist on bringing this issue into every thread, particularly where it doesn't belong. Why don't you start a different thread on the issue with your own thoughts?

The whole concept of "science is hard" seems to have escaped you.

If the absurdity of your argument isn't clear to you, let me re-post in personalized (just for you), paraphrased form what I wrote earlier:

You' have waited in futility for 2000 years for the second coming of Christ. By your logic, the whole "Christ as Messiah" thing is therefore proven to be a bunch of crock.

You agree of course, right?

And if you don't, what kind of unprincipled hypocrite does that make you out to be?

You're going to tell me 'science is hard'? What are your credentials? I'd wager I have a good deal more scientific expertise than yourself, unless you already carry a PhD in science or engineering. You can feel free to construct all the strawmen around me that you want - it's no skin off my back. You can also feel free to call me names until you're blue in the face - it just demonstrates who you really are.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Hmmmm.... Maybe we should just list our "credentials" in our sigs. Then we could settle all of the issues with simple argumentum ad vericumdium.

 

[Moonbeam]

CW: "I question why you generalize the media's portrayal of fundamentalists to all fundamentalists."

M: Generalizations exist because they generalize a situation. I am talking about this general type.

CW: "I question why you insist on childish name-calling to defame them as a group."

M: I clearly stated all my points as questions. I am asking why I should not do so since it is they who are are actually the childish. Why should I not try to destroy them by any means I can since their ignorance is such a threat?

CW: "I question why religion in general appears to offend you so greatly that you call for its legal banning."

M: I said why. And it is not a matter of offending me. It is the danger such ignorance has on society. We could still be burning witches

CW: "I question how you propose that we snuff out ignorance when the very scientific theory that you're putting forth as fact has quite a few holes in it as it is. What theory would you teach them instead?"

M: Science is not rigid, like fundamentalism, and is self correcting. I propose teaching people to think without the use of magical explanation and to not know what is not known.

CW: "I question why you feel the need to interject your own beliefs in the upbringing of my child."

M: I do not think the mentally ill who need to control what their children think should be allowed to brainwash children. Children raised to think do not later buy into fundamentalist garbage and that is why the garbage collectors and preservers, the fundamentalist church, are at war with the world. Truth will destroy their lecherous tithe. These parasites require ignorant people for their flock so they can flock them.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: cquark
Impossible or extremely improbable hypotheticals are more often used as impossible experiments in an attempt to invalidate moral principles that work well in the world of actual events, instead of being used to determine just courses of action in the real world.

Remembering our discussion of your communications problem on another thread, let me offer you some advice. If I look through your hyperbole, it seems to me that you may be attempting to point out a conflict between anti-censorship and privacy; however, your absurd hypothetical isn't an effective means of doing so and it's clearly getting in the way of communicating your thoughts to your audience if that's your goal.

You mean the thread you stopped responding to when I pointed out the ridiculousness of your position? The same thread where it was pretty clearly demonstrated that my point was clear all along but you were ignoring it because you couldn't refute it? I believe this is the thread you're referring to.

Cyclo, making a post after someone else stops reading AT P&N for the night doesn't mean that you've made an argument that the other person has no response to. No reasonable person would call making several posts in the last 24 hours having "stopped responding," though it's clear you have more time for AT than do I. Don't worry; I'll try to find some time before I leave for my conference to respond.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Hyperbole - extravagant exaggeration

Your proposition: wife's sex tape being shown on an IMAX screen.

Hmmm....geee....whereever did I get a crazy idea that your statement was hyperbole.

Are you ever going to add anything, or just troll around? Maybe you can point out what exactly I was exaggerating?

There...I bolded it for you.

OK, obviously I'm retarded

You said it.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: shira
I've made earlier posts about the so-called logic of this argument. But they bear repeating:

Your basic principle appears to be that if concerted effort over a certain period of time proves futile, it "proves" that the assumption upon which effort is predicated must be false.

So, you argue, failed attempts over a period of several decades to produce life in the laboratory "prove" that the assumption "Life can be created from non-life using the basic components and conditions that existed on the primordial Earth" is false.

Similarly, opponents of stem cell research argue that stem cells must be a useless technology because during 13 years of stem cell research no disease has been cured by the technology.

I'm asserting no such thing. I'm merely pointing out one possible explanation for peoples' views. Your strawman argument regarding stem cells is just that - a straw man. People don't oppose embryonic stem cell research because it hasn't yielded any results. People oppose it because of the ethical considerations - consuming human life to possibly increase the 'quality of life' of others is an inherently unethical venture. You insist on bringing this issue into every thread, particularly where it doesn't belong. Why don't you start a different thread on the issue with your own thoughts?

"One possible explanation"? I see, you were making a good faith effort to expand the scope of the conversation. How generous. Especially considering how such a "contribution" could broaden the scope of almost any discussion:

Q: Why do bodies orbit other bodies in their observed paths?

Answer #1: A force called "gravitation" exists, and its value is GmM/R**2. Also, a mass reacts to a force by accelerating, in accordance with the equation F=ma.

Answer #2: God is controlliing, moment by moment, the motions of every mass in the universe. And He makes sure that the motions consistently mimic those predicted by the equations cited. Thus, science has erroneously concluded from the motion of masses that there is a force called "gravitation". In fact, there are no forces whatsoever, except the hand of God.

This is almost laughable. Your "explanation" ("Amazing that something that could happen accidentally in nature is thus far impossible for mankind to reproduce with all his vaunted knowledge.") was in fact intended to discredit "life from nothing", but you got caught with your pants down for making such a lame argument.

The whole concept of "science is hard" seems to have escaped you.

If the absurdity of your argument isn't clear to you, let me re-post in personalized (just for you), paraphrased form what I wrote earlier:

You' have waited in futility for 2000 years for the second coming of Christ. By your logic, the whole "Christ as Messiah" thing is therefore proven to be a bunch of crock.

You agree of course, right?

And if you don't, what kind of unprincipled hypocrite does that make you out to be?

You're going to tell me 'science is hard'? What are your credentials? I'd wager I have a good deal more scientific expertise than yourself, unless you already carry a PhD in science or engineering. You can feel free to construct all the strawmen around me that you want - it's no skin off my back. You can also feel free to call me names until you're blue in the face - it just demonstrates who you really are.

Yes, I'm going to tell you science is hard.

Research to develop a commercial fusion reactor has been ongoing since at least the mid 1960's, with no end date in sight. You, apparently, would conclude that such a pursuit is impossible (if not, you would at least offer "It's impossible" as "one possible explanation", right?) I conclude, "science is hard."

Interesting that you didn't acknowedge that "Christ as messiah is a bunch of crock" is "one possible explanation", since drawing that conclusion would completely parallel your argument (and your newly explained "motive") for offering that explanation in the "life from nothing" discussion.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Hmmmm.... Maybe we should just list our "credentials" in our sigs. Then we could settle all of the issues with simple argumentum ad vericumdium.

Originally posted by: conjur
You said it.

Wow, I don't think I've ever met twin trolls before. Maybe I should dig through all your posts, pick out individual words, and mix and match them into a sentence that says "I eat feces" because that would be the mature thing to do.

Originally posted by: shira
...

Please, quote where I said it's impossible. Good luck. I'm guessing you won't find it unless you go thread-shopping and quote me out of context like the two trolls above you.

Still waiting for you to add anything to the thread, Conjur the Great. Add or ban.