Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

It would seem that there are pre-Big Bang models that use known laws of physics

You can't seem to decide if the word 'ignorant' is value-neutral or not.

Here: http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3296941#3296941

you admit that the terms 'uninformed' and 'ignorant' may be used synonomously [sic].

One thing for sure, an accusation of 'intending to mislead' is NOT 'value-neutral' , and that is the statement you are running away from.

Setanta wrote:

(real life)..... thinks he is dealing with an either/or situation, and that if he can cast doubt on any scientific explanation of anything, then he has "proven" his imaginary friend superstition.

You're not too good at mind reading, because I've never said, implied, nor thought this.

Setanta wrote:

Oh, and let me point out, as i so often do to a response of deafening silence, that you continue to fail to provide proof for creationism. Arguing with WOD about speculations certainly constitutes no proof for creationism.

I think that showing the universe could not have had a 'natural' origin goes a long way toward showing it had a 'supernatural' origin.

btw your description of 'other-than-natural' vs. 'supernatural' is an attempt at a distinction without a difference

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:

(real life)..... thinks he is dealing with an either/or situation, and that if he can cast doubt on any scientific explanation of anything, then he has "proven" his imaginary friend superstition.

You're not too good at mind reading, because I've never said, implied, nor thought this.

Liar . . .

[url=http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3213789#3213789][b]In his post #3213789, on page 169 of this thread, real life[/b][/url] wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Oh, and let me point out, as i so often do to a response of deafening silence, that you continue to fail to provide proof for creationism. Arguing with WOD about speculations certainly constitutes no proof for creationism.

I think that showing the universe could not have had a 'natural' origin goes a long way toward showing it had a 'supernatural' origin.

btw your description of 'other-than-natural' vs. 'supernatural' is an attempt at a distinction without a difference

Moron.

real life wrote:

You can't seem to decide if the word 'ignorant' is value-neutral or not.

No, i have pointed out consistently that the use of ignorant in the locution "ignorant masses" is being employed by you to attempt to paint Parados in elitist hues.

Quote:

Here: http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3296941#3296941

you admit that the terms 'uninformed' and 'ignorant' may be used synonomously [sic].

No, i carefully make a distinction between the use of uniformed, and the use of ignorant in the locution "ignorant masses." That two words are synonymous does not mean that each have the same value. If i murdered you, i would have killed you. Kill and murder do not have the same value, especially as murder is a powerfully evocative word. The word uninformed does not necessarily have any pejorative value--you took the synonym ignorant, and used it to replace uninformed, and then put it into the locution, "ignorant masses," in an attempt to make Parados sound elitist and condescending. This was a deliberate distortion on your part, especially as the remark by Parados does not state, imply or speculate upon how many people may be uniformed on this topic.

I for one, quickly get sick of the stupid word games you play.

Quote:

One thing for sure, an accusation of 'intending to mislead' is NOT 'value-neutral' , and that is the statement you are running away from.

Your style of peddling lies depends upon you running away, and depends upon you twisting what you write, and what others write. I made clear that changing uninformed to ignorant masses was the specific part of Parados' remark, which you quoted without reference to yourself, which was a value neutral term changed by you into a term with which you hoped to disparage his remark. It was only when you got caught out in your attempt to lie, in your attempt to cast a slur at Parados, that you began to whine about "intending to mislead." That does not matter, however, in any part of my argument, which has always referred to you having changed "uniformed" (value neutral) to "ignorant masses" (condescending and disparaging).

Liar.

parados wrote:

As I said earlier real life, your distinction without a difference makes your God unnatural just as it is contended about homosexuality. Since homosexuality is a sin because it is "unnatural" that would make your God unnatural and therefore sinful.

Substiting "unnatural" for "supernatural" leads to all kinds of confusion for the reader. Your refusal to admit it shows how silly your argument is. It's fun when you use the words the way you want to real life. It just isn't very honest.

Setanta's attempt to avoid the use of 'supernatural' in favor of 'unnatural', or 'non-natural' or 'other than natural' makes NO difference in tipping the argument in his favor because science deals only with the natural.

Maybe if you had read the whole post, you would've understood the context.

Setanta was not referring to homosexuality.

He was grasping for a substitute word so that he didn't have to admit that 'supernatural' was the correct term to describe what was being discussed.

And it wasn't homosexuality.

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:

(real life)..... thinks he is dealing with an either/or situation, and that if he can cast doubt on any scientific explanation of anything, then he has "proven" his imaginary friend superstition.

You're not too good at mind reading, because I've never said, implied, nor thought this.

Liar . . .

[url=http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3213789#3213789][b]In his post #3213789, on page 169 of this thread, real life[/b][/url] wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Oh, and let me point out, as i so often do to a response of deafening silence, that you continue to fail to provide proof for creationism. Arguing with WOD about speculations certainly constitutes no proof for creationism.

I think that showing the universe could not have had a 'natural' origin goes a long way toward showing it had a 'supernatural' origin.

btw your description of 'other-than-natural' vs. 'supernatural' is an attempt at a distinction without a difference

Moron.

Where did I state or imply that anything I had just said proved the existence of God?

What I said was that the BB relies on a 'supernatural' origin because a 'singularity' is proposed that is not subject to the physical laws of the universe, and further, there is NO evidence that such a 'singularity' has ever actually existed.

Since I am not a BB proponent, I obviously was NOT referring to myself or my position.

In other words, the standard of proof demanded of creationists should also be applied to BB (but it never is).

But please, continue with the ad homs to emphasize the feebleness of your arguments.

I've not denied that parados' remark is elitist.

real life wrote:

parados wrote:

As I said earlier real life, your distinction without a difference makes your God unnatural just as it is contended about homosexuality. Since homosexuality is a sin because it is "unnatural" that would make your God unnatural and therefore sinful.

Substiting "unnatural" for "supernatural" leads to all kinds of confusion for the reader. Your refusal to admit it shows how silly your argument is. It's fun when you use the words the way you want to real life. It just isn't very honest.

Setanta's attempt to avoid the use of 'supernatural' in favor of 'unnatural', or 'non-natural' or 'other than natural' makes NO difference in tipping the argument in his favor because science deals only with the natural.

Maybe if you had read the whole post, you would've understood the context.

Setanta was not referring to homosexuality.

He was grasping for a substitute word so that he didn't have to admit that 'supernatural' was the correct term to describe what was being discussed.

And it wasn't homosexuality.

I see. So you are saying homosexuality is natural then. OK..

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:

(real life)..... thinks he is dealing with an either/or situation, and that if he can cast doubt on any scientific explanation of anything, then he has "proven" his imaginary friend superstition.

You're not too good at mind reading, because I've never said, implied, nor thought this.

Liar . . .

[url=http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3213789#3213789][b]In his post #3213789, on page 169 of this thread, real life[/b][/url] wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Oh, and let me point out, as i so often do to a response of deafening silence, that you continue to fail to provide proof for creationism. Arguing with WOD about speculations certainly constitutes no proof for creationism.

I think that showing the universe could not have had a 'natural' origin goes a long way toward showing it had a 'supernatural' origin.

btw your description of 'other-than-natural' vs. 'supernatural' is an attempt at a distinction without a difference

Moron.

Where did I state or imply that anything I had just said proved the existence of God?

What I said was that the BB relies on a 'supernatural' origin because a 'singularity' is proposed that is not subject to the physical laws of the universe, and further, there is NO evidence that such a 'singularity' has ever actually existed.

Since I am not a BB proponent, I obviously was NOT referring to myself or my position.

In other words, the standard of proof demanded of creationists should also be applied to BB (but it never is).

But please, continue with the ad homs to emphasize the feebleness of your arguments.

Set - For the time you took to find such a perfect rebuttal, thank you. It's a shame RL can't eat humble pie. Maybe churches should pass it around instead of wafers.

RL - If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, tastes like a duck, but calls itself a chicken, it's a LIAR. If the duck thinks it's fooling anyone, it's a MORON.

T
K
O

If you don't get remedial reading help here, get it somewhere.

real life wrote:

If you don't get remedial reading help here, get it somewhere.

How patronizing of you real life.

You can't answer using your own standards for "natural" and "supernatural"? Is homosexuality "supernatural?" It is a distinction without a difference, isn't it? I am sure you said that.

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

If you don't get remedial reading help here, get it somewhere.

How patronizing of you real life.

You can't answer using your own standards for "natural" and "supernatural"? Is homosexuality "supernatural?" It is a distinction without a difference, isn't it? I am sure you said that.

Set's attempt at substituting one of the terms 'unnatural' or 'non-natural' or 'other than natural' for the term 'supernatural' would make no difference. True.

Because once he admits it's not 'natural', then it's not science.

He wasn't referring to homosexuality, parados.

As badly as you are wanting to discuss it, it is not what was being discussed.

Perhaps someone in one of the other forums will discuss homosexuality with you to gratify your interest.

So, tell us real life. Are there any uninformed people? You didn't answer.

Based on your last statement to me, I think we can all see what you really think but you can't say anything because you have boxed yourself into a corner, haven't you?

real life wrote:

parados wrote:

real life wrote:

If you don't get remedial reading help here, get it somewhere.

How patronizing of you real life.

You can't answer using your own standards for "natural" and "supernatural"? Is homosexuality "supernatural?" It is a distinction without a difference, isn't it? I am sure you said that.

Set's attempt at substituting one of the terms 'unnatural' or 'non-natural' or 'other than natural' for the term 'supernatural' would make no difference. True.

Because once he admits it's not 'natural', then it's not science.

He wasn't referring to homosexuality, parados.

As badly as you are wanting to discuss it, it is not what was being discussed.

Perhaps someone in one of the other forums will discuss homosexuality with you to gratify your interest.

Ah yes, the distinction without a difference. You really should make such statements if you are later going to pretend they had no meaning real life. There is nothing about the definition of the word "natural" that requires it only apply to science. Are you now denying the dictionary definitions? Oh, you don't do that, do you? I am curious as to which definition of "natural" you think would require it to not be science. Could you enlighten those of us you consider "uniformed"?

parados wrote:

So, tell us real life. Are there any uninformed people? You didn't answer.

Based on your last statement to me, I think we can all see what you really think but you can't say anything because you have boxed yourself into a corner, haven't you?

Your statement was an elitist statement, parados.

Not because you used the word 'uninformed', but because you presumed to put yourself in the place of one who defends the uninformed from the wily, sneaky , mean folks who secretly plot to deceive them. But you, their champion, were there to prevail ! Bravo you !

Just like Set, you want to focus on one word instead of your whole statement.

If you think your shoddy tactics aren't hopelessly transparent, then you are quite uninformed.

The problem real life is in your intent. You intend to mislead the uninformed. Your intent is to not be clear in your language. Your intent is to attack science with nothing in your quiver but unintelligent babble.

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:

(real life)..... thinks he is dealing with an either/or situation, and that if he can cast doubt on any scientific explanation of anything, then he has "proven" his imaginary friend superstition.

You're not too good at mind reading, because I've never said, implied, nor thought this.

Liar . . .

[url=http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3213789#3213789][b]In his post #3213789, on page 169 of this thread, real life[/b][/url] wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Oh, and let me point out, as i so often do to a response of deafening silence, that you continue to fail to provide proof for creationism. Arguing with WOD about speculations certainly constitutes no proof for creationism.

I think that showing the universe could not have had a 'natural' origin goes a long way toward showing it had a 'supernatural' origin.

btw your description of 'other-than-natural' vs. 'supernatural' is an attempt at a distinction without a difference

Moron.

Where did I state or imply that anything I had just said proved the existence of God?

What I said was that the BB relies on a 'supernatural' origin because a 'singularity' is proposed that is not subject to the physical laws of the universe, and further, there is NO evidence that such a 'singularity' has ever actually existed.

Since I am not a BB proponent, I obviously was NOT referring to myself or my position.

In other words, the standard of proof demanded of creationists should also be applied to BB (but it never is).

But please, continue with the ad homs to emphasize the feebleness of your arguments.

Set - For the time you took to find such a perfect rebuttal, thank you. It's a shame RL can't eat humble pie. Maybe churches should pass it around instead of wafers.

RL - If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, tastes like a duck, but calls itself a chicken, it's a LIAR. If the duck thinks it's fooling anyone, it's a MORON.

T
K
O

Deist,

can you tell me why you think my reference to BB was a reference to myself?

read the context (something Set routinely ignores) and see what was actually being discussed.

---I think you are trying to say 'you really should NOT make such statements.......'

---Never said the word 'natural' only applied to science.

is all about a distinction without a difference.

If it ain't 'natural', it ain't science, right?

---and btw the word is 'uninformed' not 'uniformed' (unless you are doing a Village People impersonation to go with your recent curiosity about such things)

real life wrote:

parados wrote:

So, tell us real life. Are there any uninformed people? You didn't answer.

Based on your last statement to me, I think we can all see what you really think but you can't say anything because you have boxed yourself into a corner, haven't you?

Your statement was an elitist statement, parados.

Not because you used the word 'uninformed', but because you presumed to put yourself in the place of one who defends the uninformed from the wily, sneaky , mean folks who secretly plot to deceive them. But you, their champion, were there to prevail ! Bravo you !

Just like Set, you want to focus on one word instead of your whole statement.

If you think your shoddy tactics aren't hopelessly transparent, then you are quite uninformed.

I had? You mean you aren't out there helping the uninformed? Oh, that's too bad. Not surprising really. It appears you are proving my statement to be true.

Let me post my entire statement for you again..

parados wrote:

The problem real life is in your intent. You intend to mislead the uninformed. Your intent is to not be clear in your language. Your intent is to attack science with nothing in your quiver but unintelligent babble.

Now, since my statement was innaccurate could you define "natural" and give us the dictionary definition you were using that requires anything not natural to not be science? Clear language real life. Clarify what you mean by natural with the dictionary definition if my statement is incorrect.

Who is being elitist? The person asking for the definition or the one refusing to provide it?