Fixed earth theory

[Ophiolite]

I know look at you here, making an idiot of yourself! What the hell is a fucking fundamentalist? But a theist who sets the standards! TWAT!

Bereft of logic, lacking an education, short on intellect: you are a great advert for science and the scientific method! Your knee jerk, dogmatic, thought free pronouncements provide sustenance to the fundemntalists and raise hostility amongst thinking theists through their trite, formulaic, myopic character.
Why not return to the debate when you have grown up a little.

 

[Godless]

Yaws politely! did you say something? or are you just talking out of your ass?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAs6TDLuKgQ

 

[Ophiolite]

Returning to the topic in hand, I refer to extracts from Godless's opening post.

Yes fokes (sic) there's no telling how far theist go on with their pseudo science crap.

Ignoring the multiplicity of spelling and syntactic errors, let us focus on your logic. (Or lack of it.)
The theist you are ridiculing (and well does he deserve it) makes absolutely no claim that I can see to be offering scientific justifications for his assertions. Quite the reverese: he condemns science for distorting what he believes to be the truth.
Therefore, it pointless, irrelevant, and simply wrong to characterise his pronouncements as pseudo science crap. (Crap, yes. I'll give you that.) Pseudo science purports to be scientific. He does not.
So, at the first hurdle your post fails and falls. You might as well accuse him of wife beating, or being a closet Dallas Cowboys fan. Neither accusation, nor that of pseudo science, would bear any meaningful relationship to his claims.

This is what theist claim to believe, their pseudo science proves it, beyond a shadow of a doubt! see for yourself!

Yet again an illogical statement, betraying an inability to comprehend even the simpler aspects of formal logic.

Let's have a short lesson.

Albert is an octagenarian.
Albert can ride a bicycle.
Therefore all octagenarians can ride bicycles.

True, or false, or undefined?
Hopefully even you can see that this is undefined. It may be that all octagenarians can ride bicycles, but the fact that one of them can is not proof that they all can.

Yet you employ exactly this logic by ascribing the mental state, stupidity and general ignorance of a single theist, to all theists.

Your argument is flawed from the outset. As a consequence it weakens, then destroys the position you have adopted. Your inability to present your position positively is as weak as that of the specific theist you have singled out.

It is your incompetence in this matter that I am objecting to.

 

[Godless]

Deleted

Ignoring the multiplicity of spelling and syntactic errors

Does picking on my spelling and lack of grammar boost your ego? I'm glad to be of service for your low self esteem.

The theist you are ridiculing (and well does he deserve it) makes absolutely no claim that I can see to be offering scientific justifications for his assertions.

http://www.fixedearth.com/HB 179 PART II ATT.EVIDENCE.htm
http://www.fixedearth.com/HB 179 PART III ADDENDUM.htm

What the hell you call above? his scientific evidence is the bible! duh!

Yet again an illogical statement, betraying an inability to comprehend even the simpler aspects of formal logic.

Yet again the Deleted agnostic trying to discredit someone which he has no clue of who he is!

Pseudo science purports to be scientific. He does not.

Meaning of Pseudo:

In common parlance, it is used to mark something as false, fraudulent, or pretending to be something it is not in fact, as in pseudoscience or pseudophilosophy. Wiki

Can we agree what he/she presented is "Pseudo" science? Then you really need to look again at the meaning of Pseudoscience!

is any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method.[1] Wiki

What part of "Purports" to be scientific do you see there?

Yet you employ exactly this logic by ascribing the mental state, stupidity and general ignorance of a single theist, to all theists.

Given that his evidence is the bible, and postulating the number of people who deem the bible inerrant and infallible what he presents can acquire many to believe his assertions, thus it's not far from the fantasy that a sky daddy is watching over us!

Your argument is flawed from the outset. As a consequence it weakens, then destroys the position you have adopted. Your inability to present your position positively is as weak as that of the specific theist you have singled out.

Does this boost your ego? What a boy continue, if you must Deleted!

It is your incompetence in this matter that I am objecting to.

Man take some Prozac it may help boost that low self esteem!

 

[Ophiolite]

Does picking on my spelling and lack of grammar boost your ego? I'm glad to be of service for your low self esteem.

You have made several references to my low self esteem. It makes me wonder if you are making use of a mirror.

Science is about precision. If we are expressing scientific concepts in words and not in mathematical symbols, it behoves us to be precise, accurate, unambiguous and clear. Failure meet such standards is a true failure: we fail ourselves, our readers and our message.
Perhaps you are comfortable with such an approach. I am not and will continue to criticise sloppy writing wherever I find it. Sloppy writing is often associated with sloppy thinking. That certainly seems to be the case in your own posts.

Regrettably the rest of your post deteriorated into an ambiguous concatenation of rants, contradictory statements, and irrelevant remarks.

What is it that so scares you about bona fide theism that you feel the need to focus only on extremists?

 

[Godless]

You have made several references to my low self esteem. It makes me wonder if you are making use of a mirror.

Thanks to "psychology for idiots" I've read through you, I've only exposed it.

Perhaps you are comfortable with such an approach. I am not and will continue to criticise sloppy writing wherever I find it. Sloppy writing is often associated with sloppy thinking. That certainly seems to be the case in your own posts.

Funny how someone who is so much into precision misspells the word "criticize!"


Is this include sloppy thinking in your part!

Or are you now going to tell me it's just a typo?

Regrettably the rest of your post deteriorated into an ambiguous concatenation of rants, contradictory statements, and irrelevant remarks.

Since I'm not a match to your intellectual prowess you shouldn't have even bother replying to my post then!

 

[Ophiolite]

I find it interesting that while I have assiduously and explicitly criticised your style (and implicitly your agenda), you have generally resorted to criticising me on a personal level. You know, if I valued your opinion I would almost be offended.

Funny how someone who is so much into precision misspells the word "criticize!"
Is this include sloppy thinking in your part!
Or are you now going to tell me it's just a typo?

Oh, dear me! I speak English. I read English. I write English. I understand American, but in general I do not use it, except when I am in the US. The correct way to spell criticise in English is exactly as I have spelt it. I have no objection to you using the American form: it is an acceptable atlernative, but please do not criticise me for employing a correct form of the word.

 

[Godless]

I find it interesting that while I have assiduously and explicitly criticised your style (and implicitly your agenda), you have generally resorted to criticising me on a personal level.

Oh! really?

So what do we call this?

Bereft of logic, lacking an education, short on intellect

Like I mentioned before offi, If i'm no match for your intellectual prowess why even bother with me? Is it not just to boost your ego?

 

[SkinWalker]

This is obviously going no where fast.