Anti-Government, but don't touch my Medicare
POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Friday, May 7, 2010 16:50
VIEWED: 8545
PAGE 11 of 16
CTS, I sidestep the whole argument, cause all of it is so much useless nitpick to me, whether or not we have a greater impact is still neither reason nor excuse to operate in a pollutive, wasteful manner.
So for me, it's two principles.
1. Do not trash your living space.
2. Waste not, want not.
Really, it all comes down to that, and the rest is just nitpickin.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I believe in creationism. I also believe in evolution.
Hey, hey! That's one hell of a fence sit.
The rest I can kind of see how you might believe all those things at once..
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Right on. And that's how Rappy, and others, deflect the topic without replying. You forgot to add that exactly the same method works to turn the topic from one thing onto something completely different, which it does just as well from what I see.
hostility is an automatic reaction, a way to defend a belief in the face of evidence against it. When argument fails, belligerence and defensiveness saves the day.
Wow, this started out one way and ended up another. Wild how that happens! (And that wasn't a reference to the above remark.)
As to believing in evolution AND creationism, isn't that what 'Intelligent Design' is all about? The concept that "God" created the world, then let it go to see what happened?
If I believed in a god, I might be tempted to feel the same, but for ME, there's been enough scientific evidence to put me firmly on the side of science and evolution, in that matter.
"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I didn't present my speculations as fact or science. Why should my musings about possible economic motivations have any scientific rigor in them?
Um.... Because questioning the scientific rigor of the studies makes "scientific rigor" kind of THE central issue? Because you saw fit to offer a lecture on the scientific method, thus setting yourself up as something of an expert? Because you're interested in forming ideas based on real, provable, reality? Or maybe because, as you said yourself...
"Lower quality evidence = less confidence. A LOT of lower quality evidence = still less confidence."
...and you'd like people to have some confidence in the ideas you present?
Quote:
Now, be nice and stop calling me a hypocrite. Or I won't buy Ruddiman's book. :P
Stop being hypocritical or there's really no point. :p
Cause let's review: You came out and claimed that scientists are using methods that "do not meet scientific rigor" and that therefore "it is correct to point the shortcomings out." Apparently you meant that it is correct for you point out the shortcomings of other people's methods, but it is not correct for me to call out the shortcomings of your methods.
Hypocrisy?
You say: "Less confidence does not mean the hypothesis is dismissed. It just means I am much more open to the possibility that it may be wrong. The lower quality the evidence is, the more I am unwilling to commit to any conclusions until I see better, harder evidence." And yet if I want better, harder evidence from you because I am open to the possibility that you may be wrong, I'm not "playing nice".
Hypocrisy?
You say: "My reasons for outcry over cap and trade is very different from my outcry over global warming. The first outcry is over cost to businesses and society, and the second outcry is over intellectual exaggeration if not outright fraud."
You flat-out call a body of scientific work "fraud" without showing any of that hard evidence you demand from the scientists involved.
Hypocrisy?
Name-calling?
Get as affronted as you like, I never said that YOU were guilty of fraud. Perhaps you thought you were name-calling into the void with no one to hear you, but not so. You threw that word into the face of every scientist out here. I have been trying to respond to your accusation with a reasonable discussion of the science. Are you capable of doing the same?
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mal4Prez...
Stop being so raciss.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yup. Even if I know nothing about a subject, I can figure out how deep someone else's knowledge is. I just keep asking: "but why?" until they get mad.
Originally posted by Niki2:Quote:Right on. And that's how Rappy, and others, deflect the topic without replying. You forgot to add that exactly the same method works to turn the topic from one thing onto something completely different, which it does just as well from what I see.
hostility is an automatic reaction, a way to defend a belief in the face of evidence against it. When argument fails, belligerence and defensiveness saves the day.
It does make me some un-friends sometimes. Plenty of examples of that on this board.
I don't try to be mean, but if other people are going to raise the "hostility" shield and batter themselves on it, that's no reason for me to run and hide. I don't think folks like Antimason and Causal (and my mom!) are aware of what they do. It's just automatic. But I think it's different with Rappy. He knows exactly what he's doing; he just likes to mess with people.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Mal4Prez...
Stop being so raciss.
According to you, Wulfboy, the mere act of you saying that proves that you have nothing else.
Is that true? Can you confirm that for us? Do you really have nothing to offer?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
As to believing in evolution AND creationism, isn't that what 'Intelligent Design' is all about? The concept that "God" created the world, then let it go to see what happened?
It's a stupid concept to start with. These are the same people who claim that this "god" person is all-knowing and all-powerful. Why would a being who KNOWS how it's all going to turn out need to start something and let it go to see how it all turns out?
Does not compute. But that's the problem with this idiotic "god" person - nothing but a bundle of asinine and contradictions, wrapped in hypocrisy, hyperbole, and hypotheticals.
Mike
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
I don't think folks like Antimason and Causal (and my mom!) are aware of what they do. It's just automatic. But I think it's different with Rappy. He knows exactly what he's doing; he just likes to mess with people.
And some of us like to mess right back. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
As to believing in evolution AND creationism, isn't that what 'Intelligent Design' is all about? The concept that "God" created the world, then let it go to see what happened?
No, intelligent design is the theory that a supernatural being took an active hand in the design of all life.
There are a lot of people who believe that a supernatural being created the life spark of the universe and then let it go on it's course. They would still believe in evolution and a lot of Christians hold that belief.
Creationism is the belief that the world began around 6,000 years ago, created by a supernatural being known as God, basically the way that it is laid out in Genesis.
So to believe in creationism and evolution simultansously would be pretty difficult.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME