report scams here at scam.com dont get scammed Scams and Scammers - Expose hypocrisy and spread respect ! Don't get ripped off! REGISTER
Go Back   scams > Scam Message Board > Science Scams
Register FAQ Register To Post Member List Promote Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #55  
Old 08-06-2009, 05:21 PM
kazza's Avatar
kazza kazza is offline
ɹǝpun uʍop
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,363
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Quote:
Originally Posted by SubJunk View Post
Really? I thought I was the only one who made bets with minuscule amounts of money like that. I remember one time I bet a Moa $10,000,000 that it could fly if it really, really tried. I thought the chances of me winning the bet were slim at best but it was only $10,000,000 so it doesn't matter. I just gave the Moa the money and then went to the mirror to admire my huuuuuuge penis. I mean, this thing is massive, in order to have sex it has to be in a large room so that I can stand far enough away from the bed to get it in. Sometimes I even have to stand in the hall or I'll break a hole through a wall.

p.s. I took it too far, didn't I... :-p
LOL




Reply With Quote

  #56  
Old 08-13-2009, 07:51 AM
BarackZero's Avatar
BarackZero BarackZero is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 724
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Quote:
Originally Posted by SubJunk View Post
///
There, I addressed them all.

You "addressed them all" through ad hominem attacks.

This is terribly anti-intellectual and anti-scientific of you.

In any court of law in the world, expert testimony is allowed. Any court of law.

Experts in their fields are people who have thoroughly researched and examined the subject in question. They know whereof they speak.

Simply dismissing them as being from a "divinity" school is as ignorant as dismissing someone who argues on behalf of evolution because he is from the "biology" department.

Everyone has biases. Your bias is an intense hatred of and hatred for anyone who claims to be Christian. In that regard, you are very much like Richard Dawkins.

Your ad hominem arguments are completely invalid.

This is elementary common sense, which you lack completely.
__________________
"As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America gave him the White House based on the same credentials." - Newt Gingrich

Reply With Quote

  #57  
Old 08-13-2009, 08:56 AM
Lord_jag's Avatar
Lord_jag Lord_jag is offline
I am God because I say I am. Prove me wrong.
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,800
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
You "addressed them all" through ad hominem attacks.

This is terribly anti-intellectual and anti-scientific of you.

In any court of law in the world, expert testimony is allowed. Any court of law.

Experts in their fields are people who have thoroughly researched and examined the subject in question. They know whereof they speak.

Simply dismissing them as being from a "divinity" school is as ignorant as dismissing someone who argues on behalf of evolution because he is from the "biology" department.

Everyone has biases. Your bias is an intense hatred of and hatred for anyone who claims to be Christian. In that regard, you are very much like Richard Dawkins.

Your ad hominem arguments are completely invalid.
I don't see any ad homenem attacks...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
This is elementary common sense, which you lack completely.
Except here and in all of your posts ad nausium!!
__________________
A real, honest, falsifiable claim made b.y Seer of dreams:(2011)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
I believe there will be a nuclear war in October of this year.
Oh Cnance.... Full of shit as always.

Reply With Quote

  #58  
Old 08-13-2009, 09:00 AM
Lord_jag's Avatar
Lord_jag Lord_jag is offline
I am God because I say I am. Prove me wrong.
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,800
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Quote:
Originally Posted by SubJunk View Post
Really? I thought I was the only one who made bets with minuscule amounts of money like that. I remember one time I bet a Moa $10,000,000 that it could fly if it really, really tried. I thought the chances of me winning the bet were slim at best but it was only $10,000,000 so it doesn't matter. I just gave the Moa the money and then went to the mirror to admire my huuuuuuge penis. I mean, this thing is massive, in order to have sex it has to be in a large room so that I can stand far enough away from the bed to get it in. Sometimes I even have to stand in the hall or I'll break a hole through a wall.

p.s. I took it too far, didn't I... :-p
Well it's a good thing you have a massive mansion with 10,000 ft broom closets as the smallest rooms and 80 ft tall ceilings too!

Of course you'll need a separate slave house for all the dozens of people it takes to pull open the doors to this place, and then you can still have enough room for your harem to live peacefull while you're running your cold fusion power plant?
__________________
A real, honest, falsifiable claim made b.y Seer of dreams:(2011)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
I believe there will be a nuclear war in October of this year.
Oh Cnance.... Full of shit as always.

Reply With Quote

  #59  
Old 08-13-2009, 01:53 PM
SubJunk's Avatar
SubJunk SubJunk is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,789
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
You "addressed them all" through ad hominem attacks.

This is terribly anti-intellectual and anti-scientific of you.

In any court of law in the world, expert testimony is allowed. Any court of law.
It's interesting you would criticise ad hominem rebuttals while mentioning courts of law. It's common practice for lawyers to question a person's character, and if a lawyer (or any adjudicator) is to question their character enough then the judge/jury/board will take their testimony much more lightly. It's how the system works, it's not just a loophole that is exploited.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
Experts in their fields are people who have thoroughly researched and examined the subject in question. They know whereof they speak.
Some of the people quoted were experts in their field, usually a field related to religious studies, not history.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
Simply dismissing them as being from a "divinity" school is as ignorant as dismissing someone who argues on behalf of evolution because he is from the "biology" department.
It's not the same thing at all, and it's interesting that you would only address the first tiny part of my large post. Are you afraid of starting a real debate where we address eachother's claims properly?

It's cool to be the professor of a Divinity school, it means they must know a great deal about their religious texts. However, it doesn't make them an historian. In court, if an expert testified as to someone's mental condition during a crime, but that person was a dentist, would you take them as seriously as a psychologist in that situation? The guy might be the best dentist in the whole world who has won several dentistry awards, but those don't make him an expert in another field, just as being an amazingly awesome professor of a Divinity school who might have the respect of the entire world doesn't make you an expert on history.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
Everyone has biases. Your bias is an intense hatred of and hatred for anyone who claims to be Christian. In that regard, you are very much like Richard Dawkins.
You have no evidence to support the claim that I hate Christians. My very best friend since we were 10, whom I see several times a week, is a Christian, as is his wife and daughter. I love him more than I love any other man in the world, there is no hate there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
Your ad hominem arguments are completely invalid.

This is elementary common sense, which you lack completely.
If you read more of my reply than just the first 5% of it you would see there is more than character rebuttal, and as I said above my ad hominem replies were only to put the people in context as people who mostly aren't historians. If you showed me a quote from a biologist about history I wouldn't regard that highly either, I'd be wondering why anyone would quote a biologist about a field he's not an expert on.

Reply With Quote

  #60  
Old 08-13-2009, 01:57 PM
SubJunk's Avatar
SubJunk SubJunk is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,789
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_jag View Post
Well it's a good thing you have a massive mansion with 10,000 ft broom closets as the smallest rooms and 80 ft tall ceilings too!

Of course you'll need a separate slave house for all the dozens of people it takes to pull open the doors to this place, and then you can still have enough room for your harem to live peacefull while you're running your cold fusion power plant?
Well that cold fusion plant certainly won't run itself now will it! XD

Reply With Quote

  #61  
Old 08-17-2009, 05:27 PM
BarackZero's Avatar
BarackZero BarackZero is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 724
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Quote:
Originally Posted by SubJunk View Post
It's interesting you would criticise ad hominem rebuttals while mentioning courts of law. It's common practice for lawyers to question a person's character, and if a lawyer (or any adjudicator) is to question their character enough then the judge/jury/board will take their testimony much more lightly. It's how the system works, it's not just a loophole that is exploited.

Very well, then. Comment on the character of these professors and scholars. Be specific. Be precise. Don't just offer up the garden variety ad hominem so popular among atheists, that Christians should be utterly ignored.

That's profoundly ignorant.


Quote:
Some of the people quoted were experts in their field, usually a field related to religious studies, not history.
You're clearly confused.
Christian scholars study, and are often expert in, ancient history, archaeology, and even medicine. Now why don't you comment on these experts in physiology who testified to the profound evidence offered up from the ancients on matters about which they could not possibly have known what is known today with such certainty.


Quote:
It's not the same thing at all, and it's interesting that you would only address the first tiny part of my large post. Are you afraid of starting a real debate where we address eachother's claims properly?
You have not begun to address these issues properly. Not even close.

I cited experts, in various fields, and you blather on by attacking them personally. That's terribly anti-intellectual and anti-scientific.
__________________
"As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America gave him the White House based on the same credentials." - Newt Gingrich

Reply With Quote

  #62  
Old 08-17-2009, 06:10 PM
LogicallyYours's Avatar
LogicallyYours LogicallyYours is offline
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,378
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

ButtCrackHero love to perpetuate the myth that anyone.....ANYONE who does not believe in the Biblical myths, HATES Christians.

I don't hate Christians....I am disguested ignorant people....I an disgusted with dishonest people...I am disgusted with intellectually dishonet people.....Christians or otherwise.

You are too intellectually dishonest to acknoweledge the supported evidence of Evolution.

You disgust me but, I don't hate you. Not yet.
__________________
"Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
-----------------------------------------------------------
"I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

Reply With Quote

  #63  
Old 08-17-2009, 06:39 PM
SubJunk's Avatar
SubJunk SubJunk is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,789
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarackZero View Post
I cited experts, in various fields, and you blather on by attacking them personally. That's terribly anti-intellectual and anti-scientific.
Those "experts" didn't present any evidence, if they had it would be possible to refute. The quotes that were presented in the book you quoted (and it's not even clear they are quotes, the author of the book may have just made them up himself) basically just said "the existence of Jesus is irrefutable". Just saying something is so doesn't make it so without evidence. I'm not saying they don't have the evidence, but they haven't presented it and I don't know any of those men, and neither do you, so I can't vouch that they tell the truth 100% of the time.



Reply With Quote

  #64  
Old 08-17-2009, 06:57 PM
Happy Medium Happy Medium is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 750
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

at the risk of getting a barrage of bullshit from both bilge pumps, some of the hasidic scholars have taken the stance that the story of creation as was supposedly told to moses by yhvh at sinai and the collected scientific view of the big bang theory and evolution are compatible and that the differences are due to language and interpretation.

they say that the order of events as described by moses is essentially the same order of events described by the scientists and that only the time frame is inconsistant.

they go on to dismiss that conflict as one of an apples and oranges variety --- that time does not flow for god the same way it does for man and that "a day unto god is like a thousand years for man".

anybody quick on the math want to see how that plays out?

please don't piss on me for the reference. the discussion has mostly been oral and the book discussed was something i read 30 years ago published by a tiny publisher for the ****** lubavitchers.

if anybody really insists they want to see it, you have to be nice and give me incentive to make the inquiries and have some patience while i wait for a response.

Reply With Quote

  #65  
Old 08-17-2009, 08:07 PM
SubJunk's Avatar
SubJunk SubJunk is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,789
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Medium View Post
they say that the order of events as described by moses is essentially the same order of events described by the scientists and that only the time frame is inconsistant.
I absolutely agree. The majority of Christians in the world accept it this way as well. So what if God said the universe was created in 7 days, when he said that he was probably just simplifying it so that people didn't get confused.
There's no reason for evolutionary theory to be incompatible with Christianity as long as you just think "God didn't mean 7 days literally, it was just a simple way of explaining it to a people who weren't scientifically advanced enough to understand a detailed explanation".

Reply With Quote

  #66  
Old 08-17-2009, 08:26 PM
Happy Medium Happy Medium is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 750
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

yeah mon. that was one of the bases of erich von daniken and brad steiger's arguments about ancient astronauts.

who is to say with any certainty that when enoch 'walked with god', elijah was taken up in a 'chariot of fire' . jesus 'rose from the dead' or that thing ezekiel described weren't all spaceships full of our real parents?

as long as i have your attention let me ask two off topic questions:

1. i thought you cleaned up all your old, dead posts. what's that monitor thing still doing there ? haven't you reviewed anything else in the past three years?

2. what's with the auto-censor starring out words like ******* (f u n d i n g) and ****** (c h a b a d) and letting profanity slide?

pm me with your answers if you would instead of screwing this thread up.

Reply With Quote

  #67  
Old 08-17-2009, 08:38 PM
SubJunk's Avatar
SubJunk SubJunk is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,789
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Medium View Post
1. i thought you cleaned up all your old, dead posts. what's that monitor thing still doing there ? haven't you reviewed anything else in the past three years?
I'm not a website reviewer, so no I haven't reviewed anything else in 3 years. It's not something I'm interested in doing. The monitor thing is there still because it's a great website.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Medium View Post
2. what's with the auto-censor starring out words like ******* (f u n d i n g) and ****** (c h a b a d) and letting profanity slide?
Such are the mysteries of this forum I'm afraid. I have nothing to do with that.

Reply With Quote

  #68  
Old 08-17-2009, 09:47 PM
Happy Medium Happy Medium is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 750
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

you do have somebody that writes code for you, yes? tweaks the program settings, no? or do you just let whatever jelsoft is downloading for vbulletin this week to do whatever it's going to do?

i've seen some wierd censors over the years --- i used to howl at the cyber patrol censor - it could even recognize phuck as being naughty, but this one takes all.

somebody just posted about a *****slist scam and *****s got starred.
C R A I G S you dumbass bot!

if this was a cyber patrol chat that would have shown as ******* bot!


Last edited by Happy Medium : 08-17-2009 at 09:50 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #69  
Old 08-17-2009, 10:25 PM
SubJunk's Avatar
SubJunk SubJunk is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,789
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Medium View Post
you do have somebody that writes code for you, yes? tweaks the program settings, no? or do you just let whatever jelsoft is downloading for vbulletin this week to do whatever it's going to do?
I'm not an admin, just a moderator. I have no access to the code or any decisions regarding it.

Reply With Quote

  #70  
Old 08-17-2009, 10:39 PM
Happy Medium Happy Medium is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 750
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

you should be a politician bro.

that answer reminds me of a line from tom lehrer: vunce de rhockets arrh up, who cares vere dey come down? dat's not my depahtment says verner von braun.

Reply With Quote

  #71  
Old 08-17-2009, 10:51 PM
SubJunk's Avatar
SubJunk SubJunk is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,789
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

Right I get the joke and analogy but none of us moderators even have any way to contact the admin of this site, literally. Some have tried for months to get a hold of him concerning some questionable things that happen here, but they've been unsuccessful.

Reply With Quote

  #72  
Old 08-18-2009, 12:12 AM
Happy Medium Happy Medium is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 750
Re: The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict

let's let this one go. the last time i went there i found something somebody didn't want the public to know about and got banned.


Reply With Quote

Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
O.J. Verdict - GUILTY on ALL 12 COUNTS Connecticut Victim Political Chat 7 10-04-2008 09:25 AM
LOL!! KOOKCINICH demands a recount franKg Political Chat 2 01-12-2008 08:49 PM
Iran demands oil pay in yen not dollars Solve et Coagula Political Chat 0 08-16-2007 05:44 AM
A Harsh, Healthy Verdict in Israel sojustask Political Chat 7 05-03-2007 12:10 AM
Bush vs. Clinton: The Economic Verdict Grim17 Political Chat 34 04-26-2007 12:17 PM

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump




This site may contain advice, opinions and statements of various information providers. Scam.com does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information provided by any information provider, any User of this Site or any other person or entity. Reliance upon any such advice, opinion, statement, or other information shall also be at the Userís own risk. Neither Scam.com nor its affiliates, nor any of their respective agents, employees, information providers or content providers, shall be liable to any User or anyone else for any inaccuracy, error, omission, interruption, deletion, defect, alteration of or use of any content herein, or for its timeliness or completeness, nor shall they be liable for any failure of performance, computer virus or communication line failure, regardless of cause, or for any damages resulting therefrom. Just because a business, person, or entity is listed on scam.com does not necessarily constitute they are scammers. This is a free open forum where people can debate the merits from the consumer's or business owner's perspective. Registration and participation is always FREE.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:27 AM.




Scam.com Is Proudly Hosted By Rackco and Protected By CloudFlare


Scams Message Board - Copyright 2004-2013 Scam.com , All Rights Reserved.