|
Post by progressiveelement on Jan 29, 2018 15:16:40 GMT
Now you just seem desperate in light of what you already admitted. I have already quoted Hebrew and Muslim sources and you agreed with the basic historical fact of ancient child marriages. I then counterbalanced your Islamophobia with some more detailed historical perspective in the instance under discussion. That's all I can do, really - other than, again, remind you that I do not 'defend' anything. Any update on a prospective gay Christ? Desperate? No mate. I made it perfectly clear the first time round that it was more common in biblical times for girls to be married off at a young age. And I specifically said that from what I understand the ages ranged from 12-16 and upwards. Go and read what I originally wrote and stop misrepresenting me. You're the one acting desperate by trying to excuse 54 year old Muhammad for marrying and molesting 6 year old Aisha by equating it to biblical marriages. You're nothing but a silly time wasting brainwashed deranged leftist pedophilia apologist Islam sympathiser. You're also a classic example of why I personally believe that militant atheists, leftists, Muslims, New agers, all share the same Antichrist spirit. What about right-wingers? I'm a bit left on social issues but I tend to lean to the right on more national/warmongering matters.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 29, 2018 15:19:37 GMT
Now you just seem desperate in light of what you already admitted. I have already quoted Hebrew and Muslim sources and you agreed with the basic historical fact of ancient child marriages. I then counterbalanced your Islamophobia with some more detailed historical perspective in the instance under discussion. That's all I can do, really - other than, again, remind you that I do not 'defend' anything. Any update on a prospective gay Christ? Desperate? No mate. I made it perfectly clear the first time round that it was more common in biblical times for girls to be married off at a young age. And I specifically said that from what I understand the ages ranged from 12-16 and upwards. Go and read what I originally wrote and stop misrepresenting me. It has often been shown how your understanding can be at fault, your attention selective. For instance you didn't answer how old you thought Isaac's bride was in Gen 25:20, a similarly contentious point, but in Xianity. This while the Hebrew reference I mentioned, (decried, but I note not disproved by you), shows that the age range was not necessarily the same everywhere, even if extremes were hypothetical more than common.
I have already, patiently, explained why your Islamophobic views need historical counterbalancing and have provided the context and evidence. I also noted the difficulties of judging ancient lives in black and white terms when from an exclusively modern perspective. I am still not defending or excusing anything, so this repetition of what I am supposedly saying and doing really counts as a strawman from you, I am afraid...
... And personal insults are not an argument. If anything it just indicates that you are angry at being forced onto the defensive.
You have our opinions and are welcome to them. And is that the anti possibly-gay Christ you mean?
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 29, 2018 17:16:27 GMT
1. Your willful ignorance doesn't change the reality of relativity. 2. You can't duplicate the experiments that make semiconductor devices a reality, do you doubt them? Okay, my comments about the "orbit" of a small object near a LaGrange Point were not my usual high quality. The math, upon examination, is different. It is more like an "oscillation" perpendicular to a line from one larger object to the other. That line of course is rotating with the true orbit of the larger objects. There, that's my usual level of precision. I am fully aware that simply because I have seen no proof of relativity does not mean it doesn't exist. I never said it doesn't exist. It does however very much mean that I have seen no proof. None of that should bother you at all. I can't see the wind, but I can see what it does. Are you done now? Sure sure. It's just that you have implied that those that accept relativity are uncritical which is simply untrue.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 29, 2018 17:59:06 GMT
tpfkar Now you just seem desperate in light of what you already admitted. I have already quoted Hebrew and Muslim sources and you agreed with the basic historical fact of ancient child marriages. I then counterbalanced your Islamophobia with some more detailed historical perspective in the instance under discussion. That's all I can do, really - other than, again, remind you that I do not 'defend' anything. Any update on a prospective gay Christ? Desperate? No mate. I made it perfectly clear the first time round that it was more common in biblical times for girls to be married off at a young age. And I specifically said that from what I understand the ages ranged from 12-16 and upwards. Go and read what I originally wrote and stop misrepresenting me. You're the one acting desperate by trying to excuse 54 year old Muhammad for marrying and molesting 6 year old Aisha by equating it to biblical marriages. You're nothing but a silly time wasting brainwashed deranged leftist pedophilia apologist Islam sympathiser. You're also a classic example of why I personally believe that militant atheists, leftists, Muslims, New agers, all share the same Antichrist spirit. Harr "Antichrist spirit". Is that part of the Quaternity? What a child. ![(Apple) Grinning Face With Smiling Eyes](https://s31.postimg.org/wtnckqf7v/agrinface.png) Science proven wrong yet AGAIN. ![](https://s26.postimg.org/tek3suwt5/laugh.gif)
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 30, 2018 3:20:25 GMT
1. First, you didn't show the "how" and "where" I've put "too much faith" in science. 2. Sure, fundamentalism is silly, but I see that as more a fault of ignorant believers than The Bible, much of which was undoubtedly meant allegorically (though much of it wasn't). 3. Find me a scientific journal that published a confirmed study on psychokinesis. 4. So go ahead and explain how a global flood could've happened without leaving a single trace anywhere in the geological record. 5. I dare you to produce a single study that links any of them to cancer death rates. ... happened equally on a global level ... 1. I notice you have not challenged my claim that there is a discrepancy between cancer cure rates and cancer death rates. I assume this means you have the same data I do. I also notice you have not explained the discrepancy. Then perhaps you accept my explanation as you really ought. There's the first batch of people with too much faith in science. The second batch is the set of people who think statistically insignificant data in the cancer death rates justify today's insane health care costs. 2. Thanks, now if only more people, especially atheists, would admit that. 3. I explained that the "proof" only works with people who have firsthand information and control of the scene. Other people can readily dismiss the stories having no certainty they were not faked. The scientists involved in these investigations, being more intelligent than yours, understand there is no proof for the general masses and do not bother. I have told you I know people who believe they have proof of spiritual phenomena but refuse to claim it because they understand science well enough to know that it isn't proof to people who were not there. 4. I'll only answer this one under protest. I don't like speculating about what happened on Earth 4.5 thousand years ago, much worse 4.5 billion or whatever. It is not "science" in the same sense as repeatable physics and chemistry (I especially enjoy) even though it employs them to some extent. I think people who argue about the age of the Earth are exceptionally tedious bores, whatever their discipline or lack thereof. That's batch 3 by the way. I enjoy fiction about many unanswered questions in science, but only as the creative speculation it is, not the "science" many think it is. It would be a mistake to assume that the rate of tectonic movement is as slow as it is now. Most assumptions about the distant past are a mistake. If the rate were quite rapid in the past that would introduce the possibility of rewriting the face of the Earth a few times over. Is there a strong scientific basis for this belief? Not really, which is why I don't like speculating about it with you. 5. You betray your complete ignorance of statistical analysis with this question. Already having too many factors thrown in the mix to measure the effects of any of them, you now want to throw in other countries with even more differences in tangled interaction as if that will clear anything up. 1. You still haven't shown where or how I've put too much faith in science. All you've done is rant about how the decline of cancer death rates can't be attributed to modern medicine and thus health care costs are too high. That has as much to do with no faith in any alternatives as it does with any faith in science. You'd have to be pretty ignorant to think that your average person has a lot of faith in doctors and medicine. 2. I think more atheists would admit that if fundamentalism wasn't such a loud and obnoxious voice in society and politics. For many atheists that's perhaps the only view they consistently encounter and debate with. 3. So you have no scientific studies that have confirmed psychokinesis. I figured as much. Psychokinesis is one of those things that would be ridiculously easy to prove if it was real, so the fact that this hasn't happened is pretty much proof that it doesn't happen at all. The rest of your argument here is preposterous: a. Scientists don't publish to prove things to "the masses," they mostly publish in specialist journals that are read by other scientists in their field; that's why it's called "peer-review!" Such things only reach "the masses" when pop-science journals get a hold of it and write a story on it. b. Anyone can claim to have personal proof of anything. Again, we have the scientific method so that we don't have to bother with every personal claim of proof. If someone has real, actual proof of anything, then they should be able to prove it with the scientific method, with the aid of real scientists, who will then observe their proof, and publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. Surely you can understand that anything else would be epistemic chaos as you could have 7 billion people claiming to have personal proofs for literally any idea you could imagine. Your "personal proofs" could also be explained by a wide range of other phenomena these people didn't even consider. People are fundamentally ignorant of how their own brains work, and rarely recognize when it's playing tricks on them; yet you think most people are intelligent enough to know when they have a "spiritual proof" of something? 4. If you think a possible change in the rate of tectonic movement would be capable of wiping out all traces of a global flood, you're incredibly naive. You'd have to explain away, somehow, dozens of features that we see and don't see in nature. But, then again, the whole flood thing SHOULD be chalked up to being one of The Bible's allegories/myths (especially considering its similarity with the flood in Gilgamesh), rather than one we're taking literally. 5. In statistics it's absolutely viable to take a set of variables and analyze their differences in different countries to see if any correlation patterns emerge. EG, if fresh food is indeed responsible for cancer death rates dropping, then countries that have just as much fresh food as the US, but worse modern medical treatment, should see the same cancer death rates. Likewise, if working less explains the decrease, then in countries where they work more but have the same access to modern medical treatment, you should see worse cancer death rates. You act as if there's no way in statistics to analyze the affect of variables on the target of inquiry.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 30, 2018 11:27:57 GMT
Then I showed you an example with two church bells a mile apart where each observer at a bell hears his own bell before the bell a mile away. That situation creates the illusion that there is no omniscient point of view. Actually there is one and the bells sounded at exactly the same time in it. An observer equally distant from each bell would hear them sound at the same time although not the time in the omniscient point of view, but sometime just after. I was correct when I said any observer knowing his distance from any bell could know when it sounds in the omniscient point of view. Here you're simply positing an "omniscient point of view" without bothering to support it at all. I did not support it with regard to relativity, but I did show one way it is possible to have the illusion that there is not one, although it is just an illusion. By the way the math involved in knowing exactly when a bell rang in an omniscient point of view is same math involved in the GPS system except that the speed of light is used instead of the speed of sound. The GPS system obviously must use that math at least. Then too it might have to use other math to correct for relativity, but as I pointed out, that is entirely different math.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 30, 2018 11:36:08 GMT
Okay, my comments about the "orbit" of a small object near a LaGrange Point were not my usual high quality. The math, upon examination, is different. It is more like an "oscillation" perpendicular to a line from one larger object to the other. That line of course is rotating with the true orbit of the larger objects. There, that's my usual level of precision. I am fully aware that simply because I have seen no proof of relativity does not mean it doesn't exist. I never said it doesn't exist. It does however very much mean that I have seen no proof. None of that should bother you at all. I can't see the wind, but I can see what it does. Are you done now? Sure sure. It's just that you have implied that those that accept relativity are uncritical which is simply untrue. "Those who accept relativity" includes a lot of different people from those who choose to operate under an assumption (without forgetting it is an assumption) it exists to those with a deep and abiding faith it does exist. If the shoe fits wear it. And I'm sorry but those who claim it has been "proven" without special inside information are simply wrong.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 30, 2018 11:48:27 GMT
Sure sure. It's just that you have implied that those that accept relativity are uncritical which is simply untrue. "Those who accept relativity" includes a lot of different people from those who choose to operate under an assumption (without forgetting it is an assumption) it exists to those with a deep and abiding faith it does exist. If the shoe fits wear it. And I'm sorry but those who claim it has been "proven" without special inside information are simply wrong. Einsteinian physics has been checked, and proven, not least through mathematics and observation, by a host of researchers. It is accepted by practically all in the field - although issues and questions remain, notably its part, alongside the quantum, in any proposed General Theory of Everything. If you can disprove the current theories, perhaps you can lay aside your keenly anticipated and copyrighted appeal against the Dover trial for a while, to present an alternate science accounting for, and predicting, things better? Or would you just want to revert back to the reassurances of earlier, less counter-intuitive reasoning? Otherwise we just have someone talking out of their arlon.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 30, 2018 12:05:47 GMT
tpfkar Desperate? No mate. I made it perfectly clear the first time round that it was more common in biblical times for girls to be married off at a young age. And I specifically said that from what I understand the ages ranged from 12-16 and upwards. Go and read what I originally wrote and stop misrepresenting me. You're the one acting desperate by trying to excuse 54 year old Muhammad for marrying and molesting 6 year old Aisha by equating it to biblical marriages. You're nothing but a silly time wasting brainwashed deranged leftist pedophilia apologist Islam sympathiser. You're also a classic example of why I personally believe that militant atheists, leftists, Muslims, New agers, all share the same Antichrist spirit. Harr "Antichrist spirit". Is that part of the Quaternity? What a child. After his extended rant against Muhammad and then myself, Cody appears to have conveniently forgotten that thing about 'love the sinner not the sin', lol
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 30, 2018 12:11:20 GMT
[assorted and sundry things] You still refuse to accept the truth that it is faith. If many people could do it, that is. Obviously many people cannot. I audited a professor (attended his class without being a student) who believed that "many people" could preform extraordinary things by combining their wills. Advice you should take A person would think
One reason many internet sources are not allowed on college papers is that they have not met standards of truth. Another problem with internet sources is that amateurs attempt to join arguments without an understanding what the arguments are. Contributing to that problem is that people no longer understand how to quote/paraphrase anymore. A "link" doesn't require them to exercise their language skills. Yes, but the "emergence" must be "statistically significant." In your surveys two percent is not.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 30, 2018 12:22:15 GMT
So then: two no-answers to direct questions, one "I don't like to speculate" (something you do all the time when it suits) ending with an insult of Eva's intelligence. ... Like you never had a bad day yourself.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 30, 2018 12:25:31 GMT
One reason many internet sources are not allowed on college papers is that they have not met standards of truth. Another problem with internet sources is that amateurs attempt to join arguments without an understanding what the arguments are... I see you retain your lack of irony. What's that website of yours called again?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jan 30, 2018 12:28:59 GMT
Here you're simply positing an "omniscient point of view" without bothering to support it at all. I did not support it with regard to relativity, but I did show one way it is possible to have the illusion that there is not one, although it is just an illusion. By the way the math involved in knowing exactly when a bell rang in an omniscient point of view is same math involved in the GPS system except that the speed of light is used instead of the speed of sound. The GPS system obviously must use that math at least. Then too it might have to use other math to correct for relativity, but as I pointed out, that is entirely different math. I'm an antirealist on mathematics, so that's not going to help support the idea of an omniscient point of view.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 30, 2018 15:56:28 GMT
tpfkar Yes based on what I've researched the ages were 12-16 and higher. Not 6 year olds marrying 54 year old false prophets which is what you've been shamelessly trying to be defend and trying to justify for the past few days. How many did he drown? ![](https://s26.postimg.org/gf93ycxax/giveup.gif) Mercilessly torture because of the "sins" of others? Women shouldn't be presidents, prime ministers or chancellors.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 30, 2018 17:40:33 GMT
One reason many internet sources are not allowed on college papers is that they have not met standards of truth. Another problem with internet sources is that amateurs attempt to join arguments without an understanding what the arguments are... I see you retain your lack of irony. What's that website of yours called again? You have a point. Maybe I should change the name to What the Town Does Not Know and Does Not Want to Know
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 30, 2018 17:45:18 GMT
"Those who accept relativity" includes a lot of different people from those who choose to operate under an assumption (without forgetting it is an assumption) it exists to those with a deep and abiding faith it does exist. If the shoe fits wear it. And I'm sorry but those who claim it has been "proven" without special inside information are simply wrong. Einsteinian physics has been checked, and proven, not least through mathematics and observation, by a host of researchers...... What we have done is train the amateurs to mindlessly repeat that so that we can quickly identify them as amateurs. Thank you for identifying yourself. Proving relativity involves speeds and energies well beyond practical resources.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jan 30, 2018 17:47:03 GMT
Proving relativity involves speeds and energies well beyond practical resources. Once again firmly establishing yourself as scientifically illiterate beyond belief.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 30, 2018 22:34:26 GMT
Proving relativity involves speeds and energies well beyond practical resources. Once again firmly establishing yourself as scientifically illiterate beyond belief. Oh look! It's another member of the amateurs' club!
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 31, 2018 0:07:16 GMT
tpfkar Harr "Antichrist spirit". Is that part of the Quaternity? What a child. After his extended rant against Muhammad and then myself, Cody appears to have conveniently forgotten that thing about 'love the sinner not the sin', lol I have no respect for pedophiles like your Muhammad, nor sad little creeps who make excuses for them like you.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jan 31, 2018 0:11:57 GMT
Once again firmly establishing yourself as scientifically illiterate beyond belief. Oh look! It's another member of the amateurs' club! Are you paid to perform scientific experiments or write scientific papers?
|
|