a quote
All-Seeing-I
that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for
thinking as you do. Whenver you find yourself getting angry about a
difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on
examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence
warrants."
Bertrand Russell
It seems the evolutionist on T.O. get angry at opinions that differ
from theirs quite often
bpuharic
nope. compare creationism to astrology. both are equally valid
the difference is the astrologers have the good sense to keep their
ghetto mentality to themselves and not try to tell scientists how to
do our jobs, nor do they try to get their trash in public schools
if you guys stayed in your trailer parks no one would care about you.
Friar Broccoli
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
by the way...ever read his essay 'why i am not a christian'?
it mentions creationism...not very favorably
Steven L.
I don't think it's "anger" so much as exasperation.
In science, many a theory has been retracted when contrary evidence was
finally discovered.
But creationists never seem to retract anything, ever. They still drag
out the same arguments they used 50 years ago: Piltdown Man and
Haeckel's embryos and the watchmaker argument and so on. Even when some
of the better creationists have discarded some argument, this doesn't
get communicated to other creationists, who continue to use it.
Creationists just don't take "no" for an answer. You can refute their
arguments till you're blue in the face, but they'll just ignore
everything you said. And, sooner rather than later, they'll spew forth
the same arguments as if you never had refuted them before.
It can get frustrating.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
raven1
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
Nice dishonest snipping on your part. Here's what Russell actually had
to say:
"If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign
that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for
thinking as you do. If some one maintains that two and two are five,
or that Iceland is on the equator, you feel pity rather than anger,
unless you know so little of arithmetic or geography that his opinion
shakes your own contrary conviction. The most savage controversies are
those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way.
Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in
arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion.
So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of
opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination,
that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants."
You're quite entitled to your own opinions. I couldn't care less
whether you think that Iceland is on the equator, that 2+2=5, or that
evolution doesn't occur, although I will point out that you're
revealing yourself as an uneducated fool for proclaiming any of the
above. Your dishonesty is another story entirely: deliberately
distorting Russell's (or anyone else's) position is worthy of
contempt. Shame on you.
heekster
Nicely restored.
Illustrates ASI's moral and intellectual bankruptcy in a most damning
manner.
Then again, that isn't much of a challenge.
heekster
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
I got your quote right here.
"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best
he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and
not make messes in the house." -- Heinlein
Tell us again about your nonmathematical probabilities.
LMAO
Free Lunch
We get angry at people who lie about the scientific discoveries of the
past two centuries. Our anger is not because you disagree, but because
you are dishonest and then have the gall to blame God for the lies you
tell.
Free Lunch
Why am I disappointed, though not at all surprised, to find out that
Madman has lied to us again?
VoiceOfReason
I just put the irony meter and the hypocrisy meter in a room to let
them fight it out.
Baron Bodissey
It is not differing opinions that make me angry; it is the lying that
pisses me off.
Baron Bodissey
The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the
palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.
– H. L. Mencken
Eric Root
Not if the differences of opinion are matters of opinion.
All-Seeing-I
The evolutionist uses the same arguments over and over as well. The
same arguments that you say science retracts when new evidences are
found.
Your arguments always change; Therefore your arguments are always in
doubt.
Your information is always subject to revision. Sometimes that
information is forged or the truth is stretched.
At one time in America it was best to stay with the same argument that
had actual supporting evidence until a FINAL answer was discovered.
But that is not that case today with evolution and junk science.
With evolution and modern science of today we find that each and every
new day can being us a new and final answer. The mass media plays this
disinformation like a fiddle too.
Interestingly, these new final answers can vary depending on which
evolutionist is asked.
Then;
If all this were not enough, the evolutionist behaves like the school
yard bully should anyone even question evolution using the reasons i
mention above.
Yeah, You guys do a REAL good job presenting your case for evolution
to the general population. NOT.
Devils Advocaat
First you claim evolutionists use the same arguments over and over,
and then you say the evolutionist arguments always change, a fine
example of the of the adman contradicting himself.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are just too stupid to understand one follows the other.
So I will spell it out in 3rd grade language
"The evolutionist uses the same arguments over and over and when they
are revised will use the new arguments over and over too".
Boikat
This goes back to the point where you demonstrate that you do not
understand that as new disoveries are made, theories are adapted to
account for the new data, which you see as a flaw, rather than the
theory becomming more accurate. Because you cannot understand why
that is a strength of science, you use it as an excuse to dismiss
scientific theories so that you can cling to your superstitions
because "myths never change".
So, how does repeating a more accurate theory that refutes a myth that
was already falsified by the previous, slightly less accurate theory,
become a problem?
Boikat
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>
>The evolutionist uses the same arguments over and over as well. The
>same arguments that you say science retracts when new evidences are
>found.
really? science has retracted evolution?
science has retracted germ theory? atomic theory?
do tell!!
>
>Your arguments always change; Therefore your arguments are always in
>doubt.
actually science learns. that's what's got you confused. creationists
can't learn so when you see scientists ADDING to knowledge you think
it's change.
yeah, i suppose if you're hopeless, you'd think that
>
>Your information is always subject to revision. Sometimes that
>information is forged or the truth is stretched
actually it's not. if it WAS, your computer wouldn't work. that's an
example of how science works
creationism? nothing. in 2000 years. nothing.
>
>At one time in America it was best to stay with the same argument that
>had actual supporting evidence until a FINAL answer was discovered.
>But that is not that case today with evolution and junk science.
what is a 'final answer?' creationism warps language. it produces
distorted thought. this is a great example. what is this 'final
answer?'
>
>With evolution and modern science of today we find that each and every
>new day can being us a new and final answer. The mass media plays this
>disinformation like a fiddle too.
of course, creationism has a final answer
the problem is, it's wrong
it's useless and leads nowhere. but he's gonna stick with it.
>
>Interestingly, these new final answers can vary depending on which
>evolutionist is asked.
really? i haven't seen that. got any proof? because so far your post
has been nothing but generalities. in fact, that's all creationism is;
vague and meaningless generalities.
Mike Dworetsky
I understand that your scenario violates several non-proliferation treaties.
Beware.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Burkhard
>
> The evolutionist uses the same arguments over and over as well. The
> same arguments that you say science retracts when new evidences are
> found.
Rather contradicts your persistent claim that science always revises
its opinion, which you think to be a bad thing.
Of course, argments that are not refuted by evidence are reiterated,
and creationists have so far failed to find any cmpellig evidence that
woud make major revisions of the toE necessary or warranted.
> Your arguments always change; Therefore your arguments are always in
> doubt.
Just a line above,, you caimed the never change. Make up your mind
>
> Your information is always subject to revision.
All human knowledge is. Always was, always will be. Doesn't mean we
can't at any point in time decide which of two theories is a better
explanation of the available evidence
>Sometimes that
> information is forged or the truth is stretched.
>
> At one time in America it was best to stay with the same argument that
> had actual supporting evidence until a FINAL answer was discovered.
Was that in one of the prehistoric times your ancient myths talk
about? There are no final answers, never were, never will be,with the
possible exception of (parts of) mathematics
> But that is not that case today with evolution and junk science.
It was never the case. Only lying demagogues claim they have final
answers - often they found a religion. Science is always tentative,
and knows this
>
> With evolution and modern science of today we find that each and every
> new day can being us a new and final answer.
All science, not just modern science. The only people who claim to
have absolute, unchanging truth are religious folks Of course, if your
believe is free of _any_ evidence to start with, there will never be a
need to change it in the light of new discoveries. The downside to
this certainty is of course that you never learn anything and remain
stupid in perpetuity.
> disinformation like a fiddle too.
>
> Interestingly, these new final answers can vary depending on which
> evolutionist is asked.
>
You contradict yourself again There are no final answers in science,
only "best currently available answers on the basis of the available
data"
> Then;
> If all this were not enough, the evolutionist behaves like the school
> yard bully should anyone even question evolution using the reasons i
> mention above.
>
Only when no reasons or evidence for the challange are given, instead
lots of duplicitous talk, quote mines, obvious misrepresentations
of what the ToE actually says and in your case the occasional link to
a racist website.
Burkhard
So with even more simpler language: "things remain the same unless
they change" How profound
raven1
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
In the category of "The more things change, the more they remain the
same":
Ye Old One
Yes, we have all noticed just how angry you, Spincronic and the other
creationist cretins get.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Ron O
At this point it isn't anger it is frustration if anything. Where are
your honest and valid anti-evolution arguments? Why are they all
bogus? Where are the arguments that actually support your position
instead of trying to dishonestly cut down what you don't like? Years
of denial on your part can invoke a sort of anger, but it isn't the
anger that Russell is talking about. You have the kind of anger that
Russell is talking about. Just think of when you went into your manic
phases. What were you feeling when you bore false witness against the
Clergy that signed the Clergy Letter Project? Just look in the mirror
and think. How did you react when you realized what a bad fruit you
have been and are? Nothing changes with you. You never get any
better. Just reread your recent posts within the last couple of
days. What does it mean when you can write posts like that knowing
that you don't have any honest and valid arguments worth spit? Who
has the problem?
Ron Okimoto
SeppoP
It is kind of funny that these religious freaks continuously need to lie
about science in general and especially about the theory of evolution.
Even funnier is that I've never, ever met a cretinoid clown able to
describe the theory they're so desperately trying to attack with their
airheaded strawmen, and I've been around for a while. Madman is a
screaming example of one with neon lights, flowing banners and
multicolored fireworks.
Is it because their "faith" is so rotten to the core that it cannot be
sustained and propped without continuous dishonesty and outright lying?
Mere ignorance just isn't enough.
-sp
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
You creationists use an argument over and over, and when it is proven
wrong you run away for a while and then start over again with the same
false argument.
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
Free Lunch
Scientists use very few arguments. Mostly they use the evidence they
have gathered and update their theories from that.
>Your arguments always change; Therefore your arguments are always in
>doubt.
Rarely is a scientific theory completely wrong. Generally, it is
improved by added data. The most famous example of a 'wrong' theory is
Newtonian Mechanics. Sure, the underlying understanding is wrong, but
engineers can use it reliably every day in almost every field of
engineering.
>Your information is always subject to revision. Sometimes that
>information is forged or the truth is stretched.
You need to give examples rather than empty assertions.
>At one time in America it was best to stay with the same argument that
>had actual supporting evidence until a FINAL answer was discovered.
>But that is not that case today with evolution and junk science.
Science does not have final answers. That is a delusion you suffer
under.
>With evolution and modern science of today we find that each and every
>new day can being us a new and final answer. The mass media plays this
>disinformation like a fiddle too.
A new, better answer. You would be hard pressed to find any scientist
saying that their theory was the final answer to all the questions in
their area of research.
>Interestingly, these new final answers can vary depending on which
>evolutionist is asked.
No.
>Then;
>If all this were not enough, the evolutionist behaves like the school
>yard bully should anyone even question evolution using the reasons i
>mention above.
You misrepresent what scientists know, lie to us about how science is
done, mock learning and then pity yourself when people call you out on
your wicked behavior. That is your choice, but it is neither moral nor
worthy of respect.
>Yeah, You guys do a REAL good job presenting your case for evolution
>to the general population. NOT.
>
Sadly for you, your arguments never change, but they are always wrong.
R Brown
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:df3e6309-d86a-4d2d...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> "If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign
> that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for
> thinking as you do. Whenver you find yourself getting angry about a
> difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on
> examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence
> warrants."
>
>
> Bertrand Russell
>
>
> It seems the evolutionist on T.O. get angry at opinions that differ
> from theirs quite often
>
Thanks.
raven1
wrote:
Deliberately misquoting, actually. No surprise there. This was
Russell's full quote:
"If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign
that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for
thinking as you do. If some one maintains that two and two are five,
or that Iceland is on the equator, you feel pity rather than anger,
unless you know so little of arithmetic or geography that his opinion
shakes your own contrary conviction. The most savage controversies are
those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way.
Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in
arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion.
So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of
opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination,
that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants."
>You've made my day.
>Thanks.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-Seeing-I
<allse...@usa.com>:
>"If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign
>that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for
>thinking as you do. Whenver you find yourself getting angry about a
>difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on
>examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence
>warrants."
>
>
> Bertrand Russell
>
>
>It seems the evolutionist on T.O. get angry at opinions that differ
>from theirs quite often
Strange, I would have said, based on the posts of such as
yourself, Spinnie and Nashie, that it was the creationists
who exhibit this trait. Especially since it's they who
generally post opinions; those who understand science
usually post evidence or links to evidence.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Devils Advocaat
>
> So I will spell it out in 3rd grade language
>
> "The evolutionist uses the same arguments over and over and when they
> are revised will use the new arguments over and over too".
Which still manages to be contradictory, as well as a poor attempt at
moving the goalposts.
All-seeing-I
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:22:10 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-Seeing-I
>
> >"If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign
> >that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for
> >thinking as you do. Whenver you find yourself getting angry about a
> >difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on
> >examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence
> >warrants."
>
> > Bertrand Russell
>
> >It seems the evolutionist on T.O. get angry at opinions that differ
> >from theirs quite often
>
> Strange, I would have said, based on the posts of such as
> yourself, Spinnie and Nashie, that it was the creationists
> who exhibit this trait. Especially since it's they who
> generally post opinions; those who understand science
> usually post evidence or links to evidence.
> --
>
> Bob C.
You ASSume your science is right.
It could be nothing more then an opinion that is incorect.
Dan Listermann
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:546b43e8-764c-4b38...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
You ASSume your religion is right.
It is nothing more then an opinion that is incorect.
.
Friar Broccoli
> On Nov 28, 1:49 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:22:10 -0800 (PST), the following
> > appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-Seeing-I
> > <allseei...@usa.com>:
>
> > >"If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign
> > >that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for
> > >thinking as you do. Whenver you find yourself getting angry about a
> > >difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on
> > >examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence
> > >warrants."
>
> > > Bertrand Russell
>
> > >It seems the evolutionist on T.O. get angry at opinions that differ
> > >from theirs quite often
>
> > Strange, I would have said, based on the posts of such as
> > yourself, Spinnie and Nashie, that it was the creationists
> > who exhibit this trait. Especially since it's they who
> > generally post opinions; those who understand science
> > usually post evidence or links to evidence.
.
> You ASSume your science is right.
>
> It could be nothing more then an opinion that is incorect.
When we go on about evidence, we are ASSUMING that
God and nature are not lying to us. They could be, but our
situation is hopeless if they are. Picking random beliefs out
of the air is not more likely to be correct than evidence
supported beliefs.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>You ASSume your science is right.
>
>It could be nothing more then an opinion that is incorect.
science is sometimes right
creationism is ALWAYS wrong
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 28, 1:49 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>
> You ASSume your science is right.
No. Science has a history of coming up with useful solutions to problems.
It has a means of determining which ideas are most likely correct.
>
> It could be nothing more then an opinion that is incorect.
It could be, but the evidence tends to indicate otherwise.
DJT
Ye Old One
No, we constantly test that it is right.
>
>It could be nothing more then an opinion that is incorect.
Oh! But that would make it just like your religions. None of them have
stood the testing, science has.
--
Bob.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid but you're abusing the privilege.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-seeing-I
<ap...@email.com>:
>On Nov 28, 1:49 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:22:10 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-Seeing-I
>> <allseei...@usa.com>:
>>
>> >"If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign
>> >that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for
>> >thinking as you do. Whenver you find yourself getting angry about a
>> >difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on
>> >examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence
>> >warrants."
>>
>> > Bertrand Russell
>>
>> >It seems the evolutionist on T.O. get angry at opinions that differ
>> >from theirs quite often
>>
>> Strange, I would have said, based on the posts of such as
>> yourself, Spinnie and Nashie, that it was the creationists
>> who exhibit this trait. Especially since it's they who
>> generally post opinions; those who understand science
>> usually post evidence or links to evidence.
>You ASSume your science is right.
>
>It could be nothing more then an opinion that is incorect.
See the part about "evidence"? What do you suppose it might
mean? I realize it's a stretch for you, having none of your
own and simply relying on the assertions of others, many
long dead, but try Googling the word, or use a dictionary.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
[crickets...]
chibiabos
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:22:10 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> <allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> >"If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign
> >that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for
> >thinking as you do. Whenver you find yourself getting angry about a
> >difference of opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on
> >examination, that your belief is going beyond what the evidence
> >warrants."
> >
> >
> > Bertrand Russell
> >
> >
> >It seems the evolutionist on T.O. get angry at opinions that differ
> >from theirs quite often
>
> Nice dishonest snipping on your part. Here's what Russell actually had
> to say:
>
> "If an opinion contrary to your own makes you angry, that is a sign
> that you are subconsciously aware of having no good reason for
> thinking as you do. If some one maintains that two and two are five,
> or that Iceland is on the equator, you feel pity rather than anger,
> unless you know so little of arithmetic or geography that his opinion
> shakes your own contrary conviction. The most savage controversies are
> those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way.
>
> Persecution is used in theology, not in arithmetic, because in
> arithmetic there is knowledge, but in theology there is only opinion.
> So whenever you find yourself getting angry about a difference of
> opinion, be on your guard; you will probably find, on examination,
> that your belief is going beyond what the evidence warrants."
>
> You're quite entitled to your own opinions. I couldn't care less
> whether you think that Iceland is on the equator, that 2+2=5, or that
> evolution doesn't occur, although I will point out that you're
> revealing yourself as an uneducated fool for proclaiming any of the
> above. Your dishonesty is another story entirely: deliberately
> distorting Russell's (or anyone else's) position is worthy of
> contempt. Shame on you.
>
Good catch.
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor