An Agnostic Manifesto

[FIND]

OOOH I just giggle like a school girl every time I read one of your enraged posts from when you realize that you stuck your foot in your mouth by talking about things you don't know. But, the quality of your insults have sunken in this last post. Really, I expected something a bit more offensive. You could have at least told me that I was going to burn in hell for my beliefs or something. Shag has some pretty good ones. You could have pulled a Bill O'Reilly and called me morally and intellectually bankrupt if you wanted.

Your red herring has nothing to do with what I posted. You don't represent all sugar beet planters. I was referring to a specific series of incidents that happened since the 1800s and clearly not you. Your anecdotal evidence does not disprove my statement, nor does it disprove that what I said happened. It's just a red herring. In fact, your comment actually makes my point for me.

False. Your statement was that due to the genetics of the sugar beet, the sugar content could not be increased further by selective breeding. I stated that it could by myself and any other grower in the world. Then you said that I don't represent growers and that my crop must be a magical exception to your rule or something of that nature. Honestly, I don't really understand what you are saying here..... But yeah. As I said, your original statement was:

Plant breeders increased the sugar content in sugar beets from 6% to 17% over a period of 75 years. But there the improvement stopped, and further selection did not increase the sugar content. Why? Because all of the genes for sugar production had been gathered into a single variety and no further increase was possible.

My response was that sugar content could easily be increased beyond that point, and that there was a reason we stopped increasing sugar content through selective breeding. The variety of sugar beet we are growing today has been used for a LONG time. Granted, I am not speaking about genetically modified sugar beets or some of the other varieties of sugar beats, such as the new round-up ready sugar beets that they are trying to sell and whatnot.

Because it's junk science, just like Global Warming. You don't give Creationists any more credibility, so you definitely shouldn't take it personally.

Global warming is not junk science. The earth has naturally gone through periods of global warming and cooling since it formed. How much of an effect greenhouse gases created by humans has on global warming has is up for debate, but, global warming is no myth.

Straw man and appeal to ridicule. I'm not ignoring science, just not lending any credibility to false 'facts' presented by biased shysters whose government funding depends on them coming up with 'evidence' that perpetuates their false beliefs. In fact, I emphasized keeping the discussion to a scientific level. But if you want to discuss speculation such as interrelations between opposed-thumbed apes and non-opposed-thumbed apes, I can bring Biblical evidence into the discussion as well, right? As far as you implying that I'm a conspiracy theorist, I can PROVE that they made this stuff up. There are literally dozens of examples.

Very well, prove they made this stuff up.

Let me ask you this - given the fact that Global Warming has been shown to be a hoax and that the data used to build Al Gore's hockey stick has now been discredited as having been falsified by 'scientists,' what do you think is more likely - that that is the only time that's ever happened and that all scientists are inherently good and moral and honest, or that some scientists are corruptible and human and probably value their money more than accuracy?

Now you are operating under the assumption that global warming has been PROVEN to be a hoax. Then you once again assume the infallibility of the church and bible, which has been PROVEN to have been changed how many thousands of times over the years and was written by men to begin with. Prove to me the bible is true.

They have a lot of $$$$ to lose if they're wrong. As far as the reasoning behind it, I suggest you study up on humanism. There is a clear disadvantage to unbelievers if the existence of a real, just God is shown to be true. After all, if God really exists, (and you don't really know for sure that he does) He might actually hold you accountable for how you live your life. That is problematic for, oh, I don't know, EVERYBODY. And if there is a God, and the Bible is true, then evolution is FALSE. The Bible and evolution are NOT compatible. In fact, Theistic Evolution and Darwinian evolution are NOT compatible. So, which view of evolution do you believe?

There is a lot of $$$$ to be lost if people realize just how full of crap the church is.

You're just ranting now. If you want to discuss this from a scientific standpoint, pick a topic and discuss it. Right now you're just making wild stabs. You have to pick your poison and stake out a position rather than just throwing stuff against the wall to see if I can answer it.

To sum up your post:

1. Anecdotal evidence
2. Red herring
3. Appeal to ridicule
4. Straw man
5. Changing the subject

Isn't this just the pot calling the kettle black. When have I changed the subject? What anecdotal evidence? What red herring? What straw man? If you are going to accuse me of something, I suggest you do it with more than just claiming I have done these things without any way to back up these claims. The appeal to ridicule, I will admit bordering on that... but as for the rest...

Let me know when you're ready to discuss science without the condescension and mockery. As far as I'm concerned, that's insulting. If you can't be civil, then don't address my posts. I wasn't addressing you anyway. So, are you stalking me now?

The entirety of your post is denying and mischaracterizing my response to yours. I do not care who you were addressing. You posted information that was inaccurate. If you do not want to be corrected when you are wrong, do not post. Especially on things you do not know about.

 

[FIND]

Things I have learned from this forum:

1: If someone states something that they have discussed in the past, no matter how wrong it is, it is FACT.

2: If someone states something they have discussed in the past and are using it to support their statements, even if it is wrong, you cannot respond to it.

3: If Foss is wrong, he gets REALLY angry, then spews insults.

4: All of science is wrong because a fictional book says so.

5: The King James Version of the Bible is an accurate translation of every religious story in history, and every book of the bible has been safely preserved for the past 10,000 years until King James ordered an accurate translation of the bible to put his name on. After that, all of those documents, and all records and memories of those documents disappeared, until Foss came.

6: Nothing existed in the universe before the pyramids were built, except god, the garden of Eden, and some people who lived to be over 900 years old.

7: Evolution is a lie and an attempt to grab government money. The years that people studied these types of sciences prior to government grants were a grand conspiracy in preparation for this gubment money grab.

8: If you are Obama, you work in the government under Obama and do not fight him, you ever agree with something he says, or if you don't blame him for all the evils of the world, you are evil and probably the root of all the problems in the world.

9: If you disagree with Foss, or point out that he is wrong, he will write a long rage inspired post calling you names and saying you are angry and not interested in reality or science.

10: Thou shalt not believe in anything other than Foss's personal God and his personal Bible.

 

[foxpaws]

Really, fox, even for you, that's a pretty weak argument. You're confusing history with law - and misquoting me. I never said 'overwrote' - if you're going to quote me incorrectly, you don't deserve to be treated with respect. A piece of advice - if you want to refer to something I said, find it and quote it. Don't just take wild stabs at it.

You're confusing Old Testament law, given specifically and solely to the Jews, with New Testament teaching, which did away with OT law.

So, yes you did state just 'law', sorry, and of course only certain laws - because the 12 commandments is still OK by you...

And the NT 'did away' with the OT laws - not just overwrite them - OK, subtle difference, but I'll give you that.

So, the history in the Bible should stand - verbatim - line, verse and chapter? Old and New alike?

And fox - are you going to respond to the rest of my post that I addressed to you? I believe I asked you if you want to play dueling position papers, and it looks like you do.

No I don't - Foss, I rarely do the dueling source thing - it isn't very productive. You are arguing for your 'beliefs' - burn in hell if you don't believe in creationism. I have nothing to say to that - beliefs are personal and usually not 'arguable'. My belief says that God won't judge me whether I believe in an old biblical fairy tale, or if I believe in current scientific thought, it really isn't that important to Him.

I was just trying to show you that it is indeed 'mutations' in DNA that Darwin and most evolutionists use as one of the cornerstones in explaining evolution. And that mutations aren't degrading the DNA, just changing it. I haven't taken a side, or claimed I believe that random mutation/natural selection is correct or that ID is correct. I will say that I am cautious when it comes to the tale told in the Bible as being correct.

As far as the sugar beet thing - you stated

Plant breeders increased the sugar content in sugar beets from 6% to 17% over a period of 75 years. But there the improvement stopped, and further selection did not increase the sugar content. Why? Because all of the genes for sugar production had been gathered into a single variety and no further increase was possible.

However, you can increase the percentage of sugar in the beet over the 17% - it just then becomes a study in futility - the beets become weaker, smaller, more prone to rot in storage and less viable as a cash crop.

You can genetically change many things beyond their usefulness point - do cows with 6 legs really have a purpose? We can reproduce that now, we have the science and the genes to do so - but why would you? We can create hogs that have hind quarters so huge they can't move. You increase the product you can sell per hog - but, having them rot alive because they can't move isn't going to help your bottom line (or theirs ). You can have beets with much more sugar per beet - but if they are small, weak and rot easily - why do it? You find the maximum yield with the least problems.

 

[foxpaws]

Are you contesting the notion that the scientific community is dominated by Atheists?

I would just like to see some numbers on it Shag - I haven't ever really come across this idea - that scientists are for the most part atheists. I know quite a few - and they aren't... but that is just personal observation. I would like to see any 'real' data you might have on that - like a non biased poll or something.

 

[shagdrum]

I would just like to see some numbers on it Shag - I haven't ever really come across this idea - that scientists are for the most part atheists. I know quite a few - and they aren't... but that is just personal observation. I would like to see any 'real' data you might have on that - like a non biased poll or something.

I am rather surprised you haven't come across this idea before. Were you not around when that 'Expelled" thread was going on?

Here is a pretty good study.

 

[FIND]

You can genetically change many things beyond their usefulness point - do cows with 6 legs really have a purpose? We can reproduce that now, we have the science and the genes to do so - but why would you? We can create hogs that have hind quarters so huge they can't move. You increase the product you can sell per hog - but, having them rot alive because they can't move isn't going to help your bottom line (or theirs ). You can have beets with much more sugar per beet - but if they are small, weak and rot easily - why do it? You find the maximum yield with the least problems.

You cannot argue the superiority of the 6-assed monkey

Through improvements like this, genetic engineering will truly change the world for the better.

 

[foxpaws]

You cannot argue the superiority of the 6-assed monkey

Through improvements like this, genetic engineering will truly change the world for the better.

Well, I guess if you are an ass man...

 

[foxpaws]

I am rather surprised you haven't come across this idea before. Were you not around when that 'Expelled" thread was going on?

Here is a pretty good study.

Apparently not here during 'Expelled'

Rather an old and simple study - but interesting... However I will say I will temper anything by Witham, and I was hoping you had something more along the lines of Gallup or Rassmussen - because I couldn't find anything like that - the Nature paper you side was just that - a paper... just like my examples below are 'papers', and not polls.

Here is another... A bit more current, and certainly has different results than the one you linked.

And how about studies (one and another of many) that link higher intelligence with lack of faith... that could explain the scientist thing - they are just part of a large group of non-believers - those with high IQs. Elite scientists (as your study calls them) even higher IQ, less belief in God. Extremely intelligent financial wizards - less belief in God.

I think there is a good argument out there that it isn't just scientists that have a higher percentage of 'non belief' or 'cautioned belief', it is anyone with a high IQ.

However, you may have gone into that in the Expelled thread -

 

[fossten]

OOOH I just giggle like a school girl every time I read one of your enraged posts from when you realize that you stuck your foot in your mouth by talking about things you don't know. But, the quality of your insults have sunken in this last post. Really, I expected something a bit more offensive. You could have at least told me that I was going to burn in hell for my beliefs or something. Shag has some pretty good ones. You could have pulled a Bill O'Reilly and called me morally and intellectually bankrupt if you wanted.

If anything I said insulted you, then you are waaaaaay too sensitive to be arguing on an internet forum. I suggest Kleenex, in copious amounts. I certainly am not moved by your whining.

 

[fossten]

No I don't - Foss, I rarely do the dueling source thing - it isn't very productive. You are arguing for your 'beliefs' - burn in hell if you don't believe in creationism. I have nothing to say to that - beliefs are personal and usually not 'arguable'. My belief says that God won't judge me whether I believe in an old biblical fairy tale, or if I believe in current scientific thought, it really isn't that important to Him.

Obtuse, I see. You're mischaracterizing my arguments again. I have argued science and again you try to reduce it to an argument of religion. Apparently you have no scientific arguments to make, so your only recourse is to splatter the thread with red herrings. You FAIL.

 

[fossten]

Things I have learned from this forum:

1: If someone states something that they have discussed in the past, no matter how wrong it is, it is FACT.

Total, fabricated straw man.

2: If someone states something they have discussed in the past and are using it to support their statements, even if it is wrong, you cannot respond to it.

Again, complete straw man.

3: If Foss is wrong, he gets REALLY angry, then spews insults.

Show me where I insulted you in this thread. I'll wait... Oh, did the rolleyes smilie cause you to burst into tears?

4: All of science is wrong because a fictional book says so.

Proof by assertion and straw man. I never said any such thing. Your sarcasm is rather sophomoric and your construction is lousy. Heck, you can't even get your metaphors right.

5: The King James Version of the Bible is an accurate translation of every religious story in history, and every book of the bible has been safely preserved for the past 10,000 years until King James ordered an accurate translation of the bible to put his name on. After that, all of those documents, and all records and memories of those documents disappeared, until Foss came.

Yaaawwwwnnn.

6: Nothing existed in the universe before the pyramids were built, except god, the garden of Eden, and some people who lived to be over 900 years old.

Yawn again.

7: Evolution is a lie and an attempt to grab government money. The years that people studied these types of sciences prior to government grants were a grand conspiracy in preparation for this gubment money grab.

Evolution is a lie. That's the only true thing you've said in your post.

8: If you are Obama, you work in the government under Obama and do not fight him, you ever agree with something he says, or if you don't blame him for all the evils of the world, you are evil and probably the root of all the problems in the world.

Off topic. You did not see that in this thread. Nice try.

9: If you disagree with Foss, or point out that he is wrong, he will write a long rage inspired post calling you names and saying you are angry and not interested in reality or science.

Again, where did I do this in this thread.

10: Though shalt not believe in anything other than Foss's personal God and his personal Bible.

Straw man. I never said that.

You're just overflowing with fail today. Looks like the person who is angry is you. You asked me, in the other thread, not to call names or insult you. I have not done so. So in your own fit of rage, you either continue ranting about something that happened before this, or you are lying. I guess you still have hard feelings. Amazing how butt-hurt somebody can get from an internet forum. Either way, you have no class whatsoever. So much for the moral high ground.

It's instructive how you single me out by name but refer to anyone else as 'someone.' Seems you have a particular obsession with me. I'd be flattered, but I don't have the time to waste on such immature exploits.

So, you are leaving?

 

[FIND]

Foss, you seem rather concerned about my posts. Did I hurt your feelings? Why don't you ask god to fix it for you?

I thought you were going to quit this forum because the moderators won't side with you when you throw a temper tantrum.

 

[fossten]

Foss, you seem rather concerned about my posts. Did I hurt your feelings? Why don't you ask god to fix it for you?

I thought you were going to quit this forum because the moderators won't side with you when you throw a temper tantrum.

Really, you're still talking to me? I thought you were never going to speak to me again after I obliquely said something that you didn't like.

Not that interested in your posts except when I have to correct the myriad falsehoods you spew.

Interesting that you can't address somebody's points directly - you have to use sarcasm and cowardly vagueness to make your point. You really think your lame screeds really bother me? I've been around far longer than you and I'll be here when you leave. But hey, if it makes you feel good to hide behind a moderator's skirts, more power to ya. I guess you feel that it's okay to demand civility from somebody else, while ignoring it yourself. Hypocrite.

 

[shagdrum]

Things I have learned from this forum:

It is rather telling that you only focus on the negative, then exaggerate and blatantly distort it to write off opposing views.

If all you look for in a debate is a reason to dismiss certain viewpoints and certain people, you will never fail to find that reason.

 

[FIND]

Really, you're still talking to me? I thought you were never going to speak to me again after I obliquely said something that you didn't like.

No. I very clearly said that I would respond in kind if you wanted to post like an immature child or keep with the stupid insults or ridiculous accusations.

Interesting that you can't address somebody's points directly - you have to use sarcasm and cowardly vagueness to make your point.

But.... they are so absurd.

Why don't you try and address the things I said earlier instead of running scared from them then making ridiculous accusations. I just figured I would meet your Alinsky tactics with the same amount of stupidity as you have been demonstrating.

Hey, by the way, you might want to learn what forum and thread mean.

Now, go ask God to punish me for being an infidel or whatever you bible thumpers do. Or you could keep posting, I am having a great night and I would LOVE to keep laughing.

 

[FIND]

It is rather telling that you only focus on the negative, then exaggerate and blatantly distort it to write off opposing views.

If all you look for in a debate is a reason to dismiss certain viewpoints and certain people, you will never fail to find that reason.

oh god.

It was a joke. Grow up.

Besides, that stuff isn't THAT far from the truth.

Also, I could call this post of yours the pot calling the kettle black, as you engage in the very same behavior.

 

[shagdrum]

Besides, that stuff isn't THAT far from the truth.

Actually it is very far from the truth. But, again, if you are only looking for an excuse to dismiss a certain view and/or a certain person, you would probably miss that.

The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it.
-George Bernard Shaw

 

[fossten]

No. I very clearly said that I would respond in kind if you wanted to post like an immature child or keep with the stupid insults or ridiculous accusations.

How about you produce the post where I shot first then. You clearly can't control yourself and you clearly want to fight. You strolled in here from day 1 like a bull in a china shop throwing your weight around like some Billy Badass, assuming all kinds of things about everybody, but the mask came off like a shot the first time you got a little butt-hurt.

But.... they are so absurd.

And yet you've been repeatedly unable to substantiate how they are absurd - you've only managed to inject mountains of logical flaws and flame bait into this forum since you arrived. I have yet to see a friendly, normal, calm post from you where you're not either sneering at somebody or playing the victim.

Why don't you try and address the things I said earlier instead of running scared from them then making ridiculous accusations. I just figured I would meet your Alinsky tactics with the same amount of stupidity as you have been demonstrating.

Right back at ya. You've not answered a point directly since you arrived.

Hey, by the way, you might want to learn what forum and thread mean.

Yawn. This is your best shot? You can't think up anything higher than 5th grade level?

Now, go ask God to punish me for being an infidel or whatever you bible thumpers do. Or you could keep posting, I am having a great night and I would LOVE to keep laughing.

And once again you demonstrate your bigoted disdain and sneering contempt for people of faith. It's funny how you lefties always whine about tolerance, but when you encounter a professing Christian, you do nothing but bash and smear. I've been here for years, and I have yet to meet a liberal who can't help but descend into the depths of his own idiocy and lose control - and you're no different. Foxpaws manages to veil her contempt some of the time, but you demonstrate as much finesse as a cross-eyed elephant on a lopsided skateboard.

Your 'infidel' comment is as stupid as it gets. You are clearly dropping all pretense of trying to be clever, and are just trying out all the hot button words you can think of in an attempt to flame bait. It's lame.

Anyway, I've had enough fun for one night. I'm sure you'll have some more stupid things to say to me tomorrow.

 

[FIND]

Actually it is very far from the truth. But, again, if you are only looking for an excuse to dismiss a certain view and/or a certain person, you would probably miss that.

The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it.
-George Bernard Shaw

Alright, show me in there what you believe that is so far from the truth, and I will link you to a post or ten for each one.

 

[shagdrum]

Alright, show me in there what you believe that is so far from the truth, and I will link you to a post or ten for each one.

You are going to prove that what you said is not a straw man? Ok, here ya go.

1: If someone states something that they have discussed in the past, no matter how wrong it is, it is FACT.

2: If someone states something they have discussed in the past and are using it to support their statements, even if it is wrong, you cannot respond to it.

4: All of science is wrong because a fictional book says so.

6: Nothing existed in the universe before the pyramids were built, except god, the garden of Eden, and some people who lived to be over 900 years old.

7: Evolution is a lie and an attempt to grab government money. The years that people studied these types of sciences prior to government grants were a grand conspiracy in preparation for this gubment money grab.

8: If you are Obama, you work in the government under Obama and do not fight him, you ever agree with something he says, or if you don't blame him for all the evils of the world, you are evil and probably the root of all the problems in the world.​

Now, how are these not blatant hyperbole and straw men that grossly misrepresent what has been said here. You have all the resource you need in this forum according to the statement you preface your list with, "Things I have learned from this forum".

If you were simply trying to be facetious and lighten the mood, smilies might help convey that. Because it simply looks like a snarky, childish temper tantrum aimed at dismissing people and viewpoints without those smilies.

 

[FIND]

How about you produce the post where I shot first then.

Your red herring has nothing to do with what I posted. You don't represent all sugar beet planters. ...... It's just a red herring. Straw man and appeal to ridicule. ....... But if you want to discuss speculation such as interrelations between opposed-thumbed apes and non-opposed-thumbed apes, ......You're just ranting now...... To sum up your post:

1. Anecdotal evidence
2. Red herring
3. Appeal to ridicule
4. Straw man
5. Changing the subject

Let me know when you're ready to discuss science without the condescension and mockery. As far as I'm concerned, that's insulting. If you can't be civil, then don't address my posts. I wasn't addressing you anyway. So, are you stalking me now?

You clearly can't control yourself and you clearly want to fight. You strolled in here from day 1 like a bull in a china shop throwing your weight around like some Billy Badass, assuming all kinds of things about everybody, but the mask came off like a shot the first time you got a little butt-hurt.

Ok, point this out, and provide justification, not just baseless claims.

And yet you've been repeatedly unable to substantiate how they are absurd - you've only managed to inject mountains of logical flaws and flame bait into this forum since you arrived.

Once again, try pointing them out and justifying your baseless claims,

Right back at ya. You've not answered a point directly since you arrived.
Yawn. This is your best shot? You can't think up anything higher than 5th grade level?

Oh? Show me where I haven't. And provide justification for your baseless claims.

And once again you demonstrate your bigoted disdain and sneering contempt for people of faith.

Just responding in kind.

It's funny how you lefties always whine about tolerance, but when you encounter a professing Christian, you do nothing but bash and smear.

I'm not a liberal. I don't advocate tolerance. And I only bash and smear your religious views. Tell me who else I bash.

I've been here for years, and I have yet to meet a liberal who can't help but descend into the depths of his own idiocy and lose control - and you're no different. Foxpaws manages to veil her contempt some of the time, but you demonstrate as much finesse as a cross-eyed elephant on a lopsided skateboard.

No way. People display contempt for you? SHOCK!!

Your 'infidel' comment is as stupid as it gets. You are clearly dropping all pretense of trying to be clever, and are just trying out all the hot button words you can think of in an attempt to flame bait. It's lame.

Responding in kind.

Anyway, I've had enough fun for one night. I'm sure you'll have some more stupid things to say to me tomorrow.

God you are butthurt.

 

[04SCTLS]

we're entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts

 

[FIND]

You are going to prove that what you said is not a straw man? Ok, here ya go.
1: If someone states something that they have discussed in the past, no matter how wrong it is, it is FACT.

As to the evolution thing, most of us on this forum are tired of that discussion; it has been discussed ad nausseum on here and tends to get quickly get exceedingly contentious. If you are going to focus on that, please familiarize yourself with what has come before on this forum and please don't make us retread old ground in that area.

I am simply expecting you to show consideration and decency to everyone else in not making us rehash things because you are too lazy to do some research. Unfortunately civility and decency don't seem to be your strong suits. However, excessive pride is something else entirely...

Would you like me to go into some older threads too? You seem to have this tendency to suggest that I need to go back and search the old posts and threads in this forum before I can respond to new idiocy.
​

2: If someone states something they have discussed in the past and are using it to support their statements, even if it is wrong, you cannot respond to it.

See Above^^
​

4: All of science is wrong because a fictional book says so.

This obviously is an exaggeration of Foss's posts where he states that evolution is false along with his posts saying the bible is 100% true and he has done extensive research to verify this.

oh, and then zingers like this.

Because it's junk science, just like Global Warming.

Did you really need this one explained? Honestly, I think you are just trying to be difficult here.
​

6: Nothing existed in the universe before the pyramids were built, except god, the garden of Eden, and some people who lived to be over 900 years old.

Did you forget Foss is advocating creationism? Do you want me to pull up the posts for this one and the previous, or are you just posting this to be difficult??
​

7: Evolution is a lie and an attempt to grab government money. The years that people studied these types of sciences prior to government grants were a grand conspiracy in preparation for this gubment money grab.

The scientific community is not "pure as the wind driven snow". They are just as prone to corruption and abuse as any other institution. A big reason for this is the fact that the vast majority of funding comes through the government. Therefore the incentive structure inherently encourages sensationalism. This also lends to political interests corrupting the scientific community.

MORE...

ignoring science[/B], just not lending any credibility to false 'facts' presented by biased shysters whose government funding depends on them coming up with 'evidence' that perpetuates their false beliefs. In fact, I emphasized keeping the discussion to a scientific level. But if you want to discuss speculation such as interrelations between opposed-thumbed apes and non-opposed-thumbed apes, I can bring Biblical evidence into the discussion as well, right? As far as you implying that I'm a conspiracy theorist, I can PROVE that they made this stuff up. There are literally dozens of examples.

Let me ask you this - given the fact that Global Warming has been shown to be a hoax and that the data used to build Al Gore's hockey stick has now been discredited as having been falsified by 'scientists,' what do you think is more likely - that that is the only time that's ever happened and that all scientists are inherently good and moral and honest, or that some scientists are corruptible and human and probably value their money more than accuracy?

They have a lot of $$$$ to lose if they're wrong. As far as the reasoning behind it, I suggest you study up on humanism. There is a clear disadvantage to unbelievers if the existence of a real, just God is shown to be true. After all, if God really exists, (and you don't really know for sure that he does) He might actually hold you accountable for how you live your life. That is problematic for, oh, I don't know, EVERYBODY. And if there is a God, and the Bible is true, then evolution is FALSE. The Bible and evolution are NOT compatible. In fact, Theistic Evolution and Darwinian evolution are NOT compatible.

Need more? You and Foss have stated in no uncertain terms that you believe scientists are creating evolution hoaxes and global warming hoaxes just to get government research funds.
​

8: If you are Obama, you work in the government under Obama and do not fight him, you ever agree with something he says, or if you don't blame him for all the evils of the world, you are evil and probably the root of all the problems in the world.[/INDENT]

I'm tired of quoting, and there is a lot in these threads so:

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=66562
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=66555
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=66306
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=66428
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=65961

Is 5 examples enough, or do you want more? Every time I state anything in those threads to the effect of calm down, this is just hysteria, or what does this have to do with Obama, I get crucified.
​

Now, how are these not blatant hyperbole and straw men that grossly misrepresent what has been said here. You have all the resource you need in this forum according to the statement you preface your list with, "Things I have learned from this forum".

There you go, although you will probably deny it or come up with some kind of clever wordy justification.
​

If you were simply trying to be facetious and lighten the mood, smilies might help convey that. Because it simply looks like a snarky, childish temper tantrum aimed at dismissing people and viewpoints without those smilies.

I wouldn't call it a childish temper tantrum. Foss's remarks are more an example of that. I would just call my post being a douchebag. But next time I'll use smilies.​

 

[shagdrum]

FIND, not a single post you cited, in any way, logically justifies your claims. In order to prove your point, what you cite needs to logically support your assertion. At best some of those posts can be seen to confirm the statement in question if you already assume it to be true, but that would be circular reasoning.

If those posts are the basis for your statements, then you have no logical basis. In fact, your "proof" tends to confirms that you are engaging in distortion to write off certain people and dismiss certain views, that you are not interested in an honest discussion but in simply asserting your position and writing off all opposing views.

 

[FIND]

FIND, not a single post you cited, in any way, logically justifies your statement. In order to prove your point, what you cite needs to logically support your assertion. At best some of those posts can be seen to confirm your statement if you already assume it to be true, but that would be circular reasoning.

If those posts are the basis for your statements, then you have no logical basis. In fact, your "proof" tends to confirms that you are engaging in distortion to write off certain people and dismiss certain views, that you are not interested in an honest discussion but in simply asserting your position and writing off all opposing views.

Then why don't you show me how they do not instead of just throwing out allegations.

Put up or shut up.

You guys like to throw out a lot of allegations and cite logical fallacies, but I have NOT ONCE seen you justify your allegations. You just rant and when a person states anything in opposition to your allegations, you accuse them of misrepresenting you or not understanding what you have written.

Besides, I said "that stuff isn't THAT far from the truth" and I told you it was a joke, so it should be assumed that my statements were slight exaggerations that I had made in my effort to be facetious.