It's a fight for girls to get into IT. I have had to go to the mat many times with morons trying to direct my daughter away from science and engineering. They don't even know they are doing it. Oh she doesn't like math, clearly it's hormones. WTF! Maybe it's your crappy ass teaching.
Why? it's a butchered quote, and incorrect. the paragraph:
"This is the real meaning of that mystery which appears so prominently in the lives of great sceptics, which appears with especial prominence in the life of Charles II. I mean their constant oscillation between atheism and Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism is indeed a great and fixed and formidable system, but so is atheism. Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas, more daring than the vision of a palpable day of judgment. For it is the assertion of a universal negative; for a man to say that there is no God in the universe is like saying that there are no insects in any of the stars."
He talks about Charles II and basically claims pascal wager; which has also been shown to be false..more correct: a horrible argument.
" for a man to say that there is no God in the universe is like saying that there are no insects in any of the stars." He seems to overlook the fact that I can actually find insect, document them experiment, and it can be confirmed by others.
I actual study religion for a long time; which is why I am atheist.
Yo do when your opponent has been shot down and completely proven wrong over, and over, and over again. When the opponent is rude and uses logical fallacy and "gish gallop" techniques.
Free exchange of ideas needs evidence to back them.
Atheist have been edited so much, there opponents allowed to ask a dozen questions in as many seconds and then get cut off when they start to answer. So, yes we are cautious. Frankly, I think any science debate like this should have the entire unedited recording released. Scientist and Atheist should make that part of the agreement. Funny when one wants the entire recording released, the people putting on the show usually balk, refuse, or agree but never deliver.
Of course evolution has nothing to do with atheism, so stop muddying the waters.
"don't think they have a right to dictate what kind of cars others can drive, or what weapons they can own, or what they can do with their own property." that applies to every group./ Where the line is, is the discussion.
Find 1 republican that think a 5 year old should be allowed to drive a tractor trailer. ON that says it's ok to own nukes, or that allows you to put radioactive material on your front lawn.
Like I said, the debate is where society wants to put the line.
I don't know any progressive that dictate what kind of car people should own. Many believe some type of cars should ahve a different class of license. Most of my progressive friends own hand guns, but want people to have to go through a background check. My progressive friends think you can do what ever you want on you property as long as you keep all the impact on your property.
stop letting pundits tell you there are only two sides.
Becasue it destroys science, destroys education, and removes critical thinking from the thought process.
And those kids you think your kids have an advantage over? the may become people who set policy.
Creationist thinking and logic is an attack on science and critical thinking. And that leads to a stupid backward populace.
" A) it's not my place to tell them how to raise their offspring" why not? one of the issues..everywhere is that we are under the impression that no one should teach anyone else how to raise kids.
"B) that is a daunting task I doubt anyone is capable of taking on." anyone? n. A group of people? yes.
If you are just too lazy to think about it or act on it then just say so.
In my experience, it's the quite bystander who you are really talking to. The loud ones should just be a platform yuo use to reach the silent majority.
But it's a hard question becasue it will allow some people to try and claim debates = controversy. even when their side was destroyed...again.
I have studied his 'perspective' and it doesn't hold up, at all. He uses strawman, sanitizes quotes to fit his need, uses double standards, and almost every logical fallacy in the book.
He has nothing. No evidence evolution is wrong, and no evidence of a God, much less evidence some god greated life as is.
This is a man the claims humans and dinosaurs coexisted.
Ham and AIG (pretty much synonymous) present everything in dogmatic absolutes. This over-states their case. It sounds great...at first. But when Proverbs 18:17 comes into play, the case becomes weaker because of it. Ham and AIG have a history of distorting things like sanatizing/editing quotes from people to make them appear to say something they are not. Their recent Spurgeon sermon was a great and predicted example of this. They removed his mention of millions of years and changed his reference to various stages of prior existence to "stages of creation", and didn't put his actual words in until called on it. And those that read it prior to its correction process probably never knew that they had read something that presented a false picture. AIG (and others) consistently point to things like Potassium-Argon dating of material from the Mt St Helens volcano dome as "evidence" that radiometric dating doesn't work. But that is dishonest on its face. Potassium-Argon dating is not used for recent things because there isn't enough Potassium-Argon difference to produce a reliable result and tiny amounts of material left in the equipment from prior tests can skew the results. The lab this rock was submitted to clearly stated that their equipment couldn't date rocks younger than 2 million years old. So, knowing that they'd get bad results anyway, they had it dated and then point to the bad results as validation that the science is wrong. It doesn't prove that radiometric dating is wrong. It just proves that you can set up really bad tests. But that is the kind of stuff that happens when you have inexperienced "experts" who are willing to prove their case at any cost and AIG, to this day, still use arguments like this on their web site and in their materials as "evidence". Ham presents a sanitized version of the history of his position that doesn't reflect reality. He's quick to present where "experts" (more on that later) today differ in their understanding of things to suggest that something isn't established belief, but presents the history of creationism as if his view has always been the predominant one without mentioning all the people that disagreed with it. For example, he's quick to point to George Young, an old British "Scriptural" geologist has holding to a global flood. He's said to be one of "the most geologically competent 19th century Scriptural geologists". The guy wasn't a trained geologist though. He's actually a PASTOR with 5 years of theology training that followed 4 years of "literary and philosophical studies". He wrote mostly about theology, but did write a book on "Scriptural Geology" and published 6 articles on it in magazines. But because he had the "right" opinion about the flood, he's presented as one of "the most geologically competent 19th century Scriptural geologists". What Ham/AIG doesn't tell you is "the rest of the story" that George Young believed that the geology of the day was too young to produce a true theory of the earth and that a LOT more research needed to be done before forming concrete opinions on it. You often seen Ham on both sides of an issue, depending on his point and audience. On the one hand, he writes "we need your support" books about "compromise" and justifies the need for his organization due to all the kids that leave church and how most schools teach old earth and/or evolution and so forth. That is for the fundraising though. When it comes to "look at how great we are doing", he claims that there is some growing and enthusiastic army of young folks that are standing firm on the Word of God (or rather Ham's interpretation of it) without compromise or shame. Ham uses very rhetorical and inflammatory language and presents his "ministry" as "reaching folks" with the truth of the Gospel. Yet the ministries of OEC groups are said to be "brainwashing folks" and other inflammatory things. Great Homeschool Conventions even recently banned him from future conferences due to comments h
yes, actual. I have read icr and answergenesis. They are crap. They show a clear lack of understanding of critical thinking, the scienetific method, and cherry pick data. Most of which doesn't show what they think it does.
How about you learn some critical thinking skills?
"Creationists, in my experience, would be happy to be corrected on actual, observable, testable science" no they don't. I have been dealing with those people for 30 years. I have explained where what they think is evolution is flawed. They don't car. You find a transitional fossil, they claim you theory is wrong becasue now you have 2 gaps. they don't understand that evolution makes predictions, they flat out refuse to look at the evidence critially.
Add to that there side is 'A magic guy did it' and they have no evidence at all to support it except some book of collected letters.
"...and an atheist believes there is no God, so any option that leads to a God conclusion must be false;" As an atheist, let me say this: "Wrong", and stop bring that flase assumption and ignorance of atheism. It's irrelevant to the discussion.
The fact is, evidence support modern evolution. warehouses full of it. It's been tested, made many correct predictions,. Critical thinking and the Science Method shows it to be true. It's like saying gravity isn't real becasue scientist still have questions about it.
You can't discredit nothing. They have no provable data. All they have is a lack of understanding of evolution and attacks on evolution theory. Mostly stupid attacks. Many, if not all, don't even understand that the theory makes prediction that have been born out.
SO, how do you discredit blatant attacks created in ignorance?
well then screw you. The people want community broadband, listen to them. Industry experts are going to tell you that they have the best way an d it will only work if they control it; which is BS.
and TPB isn't even very good. I hardly can find what I want. There used to be torrent where I could get thing that aren't available through other means. No longer produced Music sheets, old 70's TV shows, and so on.
".. it's a leftist talk show with skits featuring horrible acting,.." are you.. feverish? stupid? just don't know what leftist means? I don't like it, but to call it a leftist talk show is pretty ignorant, at best.
"Deaf people don't listen to the radio.." So that mean they won't be interested in reading the shows? http://www.sense.org.uk/conten...
Well what do you know, it's about taking radio shows and translating them to text.
It appears sir, YOU are the moron in this conversation.
Many people like Car Talk, about 1.4% of the US listen to them. Would it kill you not to be an ass? I mean, it's fine you don't like them, but man you sound like an asshole. Frankly, the Internet has enough of those already.
PHC always makes me thing of this quote: "You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." Jim - Blazing Saddles
Slashdot Mirror
the word you are looking for is 'misogynist'.
It's a fight for girls to get into IT. I have had to go to the mat many times with morons trying to direct my daughter away from science and engineering. They don't even know they are doing it. Oh she doesn't like math, clearly it's hormones. WTF! Maybe it's your crappy ass teaching.
open sores.
Why? it's a butchered quote, and incorrect.
the paragraph:
"This is the real meaning of that mystery which appears so prominently in the lives of great sceptics, which appears with especial prominence in the life of Charles II. I mean their constant oscillation between atheism and Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism is indeed a great and fixed and formidable system, but so is atheism. Atheism is indeed the most daring of all dogmas, more daring than the vision of a palpable day of judgment. For it is the assertion of a universal negative; for a man to say that there is no God in the universe is like saying that there are no insects in any of the stars."
Is essay is in here:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files...
He talks about Charles II and basically claims pascal wager; which has also been shown to be false..more correct: a horrible argument.
" for a man to say that there is no God in the universe is like saying that there are no insects in any of the stars."
He seems to overlook the fact that I can actually find insect, document them experiment, and it can be confirmed by others.
I actual study religion for a long time; which is why I am atheist.
Yo do when your opponent has been shot down and completely proven wrong over, and over, and over again. When the opponent is rude and uses logical fallacy and "gish gallop" techniques.
Free exchange of ideas needs evidence to back them.
Atheist have been edited so much, there opponents allowed to ask a dozen questions in as many seconds and then get cut off when they start to answer. So, yes we are cautious. Frankly, I think any science debate like this should have the entire unedited recording released. Scientist and Atheist should make that part of the agreement.
Funny when one wants the entire recording released, the people putting on the show usually balk, refuse, or agree but never deliver.
Of course evolution has nothing to do with atheism, so stop muddying the waters.
"Mainly, because I wouldn't want someone else dictating what I can teach my kids."
Just becasue you wouldn't like it doesn't mean it shouldn't be so.
On whet premise do you think parents are the best teacher for there kids?
"don't think they have a right to dictate what kind of cars others can drive, or what weapons they can own, or what they can do with their own property."
that applies to every group./
Where the line is, is the discussion.
Find 1 republican that think a 5 year old should be allowed to drive a tractor trailer. ON that says it's ok to own nukes, or that allows you to put radioactive material on your front lawn.
Like I said, the debate is where society wants to put the line.
I don't know any progressive that dictate what kind of car people should own. Many believe some type of cars should ahve a different class of license.
Most of my progressive friends own hand guns, but want people to have to go through a background check.
My progressive friends think you can do what ever you want on you property as long as you keep all the impact on your property.
stop letting pundits tell you there are only two sides.
Calm down and think.
Becasue it destroys science, destroys education, and removes critical thinking from the thought process.
And those kids you think your kids have an advantage over? the may become people who set policy.
Creationist thinking and logic is an attack on science and critical thinking. And that leads to a stupid backward populace.
" A) it's not my place to tell them how to raise their offspring"
why not? one of the issues..everywhere is that we are under the impression that no one should teach anyone else how to raise kids.
"B) that is a daunting task I doubt anyone is capable of taking on."
anyone? n. A group of people? yes.
If you are just too lazy to think about it or act on it then just say so.
In my experience, it's the quite bystander who you are really talking to. The loud ones should just be a platform yuo use to reach the silent majority.
But it's a hard question becasue it will allow some people to try and claim debates = controversy. even when their side was destroyed...again.
I have studied his 'perspective' and it doesn't hold up, at all. He uses strawman, sanitizes quotes to fit his need, uses double standards, and almost every logical fallacy in the book.
He has nothing. No evidence evolution is wrong, and no evidence of a God, much less evidence some god greated life as is.
This is a man the claims humans and dinosaurs coexisted.
facts? haha. no.
Here is a break down of Hams techniques.
Ham and AIG (pretty much synonymous) present everything in dogmatic absolutes. This over-states their case. It sounds great...at first. But when Proverbs 18:17 comes into play, the case becomes weaker because of it.
Ham and AIG have a history of distorting things like sanatizing/editing quotes from people to make them appear to say something they are not. Their recent Spurgeon sermon was a great and predicted example of this. They removed his mention of millions of years and changed his reference to various stages of prior existence to "stages of creation", and didn't put his actual words in until called on it. And those that read it prior to its correction process probably never knew that they had read something that presented a false picture.
AIG (and others) consistently point to things like Potassium-Argon dating of material from the Mt St Helens volcano dome as "evidence" that radiometric dating doesn't work. But that is dishonest on its face. Potassium-Argon dating is not used for recent things because there isn't enough Potassium-Argon difference to produce a reliable result and tiny amounts of material left in the equipment from prior tests can skew the results. The lab this rock was submitted to clearly stated that their equipment couldn't date rocks younger than 2 million years old. So, knowing that they'd get bad results anyway, they had it dated and then point to the bad results as validation that the science is wrong. It doesn't prove that radiometric dating is wrong. It just proves that you can set up really bad tests. But that is the kind of stuff that happens when you have inexperienced "experts" who are willing to prove their case at any cost and AIG, to this day, still use arguments like this on their web site and in their materials as "evidence".
Ham presents a sanitized version of the history of his position that doesn't reflect reality. He's quick to present where "experts" (more on that later) today differ in their understanding of things to suggest that something isn't established belief, but presents the history of creationism as if his view has always been the predominant one without mentioning all the people that disagreed with it. For example, he's quick to point to George Young, an old British "Scriptural" geologist has holding to a global flood. He's said to be one of "the most geologically competent 19th century Scriptural geologists". The guy wasn't a trained geologist though. He's actually a PASTOR with 5 years of theology training that followed 4 years of "literary and philosophical studies". He wrote mostly about theology, but did write a book on "Scriptural Geology" and published 6 articles on it in magazines. But because he had the "right" opinion about the flood, he's presented as one of "the most geologically competent 19th century Scriptural geologists". What Ham/AIG doesn't tell you is "the rest of the story" that George Young believed that the geology of the day was too young to produce a true theory of the earth and that a LOT more research needed to be done before forming concrete opinions on it.
You often seen Ham on both sides of an issue, depending on his point and audience. On the one hand, he writes "we need your support" books about "compromise" and justifies the need for his organization due to all the kids that leave church and how most schools teach old earth and/or evolution and so forth. That is for the fundraising though. When it comes to "look at how great we are doing", he claims that there is some growing and enthusiastic army of young folks that are standing firm on the Word of God (or rather Ham's interpretation of it) without compromise or shame.
Ham uses very rhetorical and inflammatory language and presents his "ministry" as "reaching folks" with the truth of the Gospel. Yet the ministries of OEC groups are said to be "brainwashing folks" and other inflammatory things. Great Homeschool Conventions even recently banned him from future conferences due to comments h
yes, actual. I have read icr and answergenesis. They are crap. They show a clear lack of understanding of critical thinking, the scienetific method, and cherry pick data. Most of which doesn't show what they think it does.
How about you learn some critical thinking skills?
"Creationists, in my experience, would be happy to be corrected on actual, observable, testable science"
no they don't. I have been dealing with those people for 30 years. I have explained where what they think is evolution is flawed.
They don't car. You find a transitional fossil, they claim you theory is wrong becasue now you have 2 gaps. they don't understand that evolution makes predictions, they flat out refuse to look at the evidence critially.
Add to that there side is 'A magic guy did it' and they have no evidence at all to support it except some book of collected letters.
"...and an atheist believes there is no God, so any option that leads to a God conclusion must be false;"
As an atheist, let me say this: "Wrong", and stop bring that flase assumption and ignorance of atheism. It's irrelevant to the discussion.
The fact is, evidence support modern evolution. warehouses full of it. It's been tested, made many correct predictions,.
Critical thinking and the Science Method shows it to be true.
It's like saying gravity isn't real becasue scientist still have questions about it.
You can't discredit nothing.
They have no provable data. All they have is a lack of understanding of evolution and attacks on evolution theory.
Mostly stupid attacks. Many, if not all, don't even understand that the theory makes prediction that have been born out.
SO, how do you discredit blatant attacks created in ignorance?
by smart strategy, news at 11. We will use small words.
well then, run for office.
I know, it will be [INSERT EXCUSE HERE] and besides you also have [INSERT EXCUSE HERE].
well then screw you. The people want community broadband, listen to them. Industry experts are going to tell you that they have the best way an d it will only work if they control it; which is BS.
that Steve Ballmer retiring now is not 'early'. About a decade late.
and TPB isn't even very good. I hardly can find what I want. There used to be torrent where I could get thing that aren't available through other means.
No longer produced Music sheets, old 70's TV shows, and so on.
It's not theft, please stop.
It is a violation of copyright law. i.e. infringement.
Nothing was taken from anyone. You are buying into the PR of organization that are well known for abusing the law.
Of course you do. Without the study, all you have is some belief you are correct. That goes for both sides of the discussion.
I know you have a little box you have put the RIAA and MPAA, but ultimately business will learn and adapt.
WTF is 'this generation'? Why would it apply to /.? /. is you, do you?
you don't think the only person from that generation on
".. it's a leftist talk show with skits featuring horrible acting,.."
are you.. feverish? stupid? just don't know what leftist means? I don't like it, but to call it a leftist talk show is pretty ignorant, at best.
"Deaf people don't listen to the radio.."
So that mean they won't be interested in reading the shows?
http://www.sense.org.uk/conten...
Well what do you know, it's about taking radio shows and translating them to text.
It appears sir, YOU are the moron in this conversation.
Many people like Car Talk, about 1.4% of the US listen to them.
Would it kill you not to be an ass? I mean, it's fine you don't like them, but man you sound like an asshole. Frankly, the Internet has enough of those already.
PHC always makes me thing of this quote:
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." Jim - Blazing Saddles