Historical Evidence

[v***@gmail.com]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method
Indirect witnesses[edit]
Garraghan says that most information comes from "indirect witnesses," people who were not present on the scene but heard of the events from someone else.[7] Gottschalk says that a historian may sometimes use hearsay evidence when no primary texts are available. He writes, "In cases where he uses secondary witnesses...he asks: (1) On whose primary testimony does the secondary witness base his statements? (2) Did the secondary witness accurately report the primary testimony as a whole? (3) If not, in what details did he accurately report the primary testimony? Satisfactory answers to the second and third questions may provide the historian with the whole or the gist of the primary testimony upon which the secondary witness may be his only means of knowledge. In such cases the secondary source is the historian's 'original' source, in the sense of being the 'origin' of his knowledge. Insofar as this 'original' source is an accurate report of primary testimony, he tests its credibility as he would that of the primary testimony itself." Gottschalk adds, "Thus hearsay evidence would not be discarded by the historian, as it would be by a law court merely because it is hearsay.


Therefore, historians do not require contemporary witnesses to an event to accept it as fact. Thus, the amount of time elapsed between the event and a witness report is not relevant.

[Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right]

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method
Indirect witnesses[edit]
Garraghan says that most information comes from "indirect witnesses," people who were not present on the scene but heard of the events from someone else.[7] Gottschalk says that a historian may sometimes use hearsay evidence when no primary texts are available. He writes, "In cases where he uses secondary witnesses...he asks: (1) On whose primary testimony does the secondary witness base his statements? (2) Did the secondary witness accurately report the primary testimony as a whole? (3) If not, in what details did he accurately report the primary testimony? Satisfactory answers to the second and third questions may provide the historian with the whole or the gist of the primary testimony upon which the secondary witness may be his only means of knowledge. In such cases the secondary source is the historian's 'original' source, in the sense of being the 'origin' of his knowledge. Insofar as this 'original' source is an accurate report of primary testimony, he tests its credibility as he would that of the primary testimony itself." Gottschalk adds, "Thus hearsay evidence would not be discarded by the historian, as it would be by a law court merely because it is hearsay.
Therefore, historians do not require contemporary witnesses to an event to accept it as fact. Thus, the amount of time elapsed between the event and a witness report is not relevant.

Why you keep posting the same thing over and over again?

[Cloud Hobbit]

He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence. He knows he can't win and it drives him nuts.

Either that or he's just another asshole troll.

[Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right]

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?




He knows he can't win and it drives him nuts.

Post by Cloud Hobbit
Either that or he's just another asshole troll.

[Yap Honghor]

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

What fucking evidence you have???

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right
He knows he can't win and it drives him nuts.

Post by Cloud Hobbit
Either that or he's just another asshole troll.

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

[Kurt Nicklas]

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

[Ted]

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

[Kevrob]

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

Tandy/Bruno reposting: and water is wet at room temperature.

See:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/bruno$20indirect$20testimony%7Csort:date/alt.atheism/keZpPaijjiE/2nb6KKip4eQJ

..among others.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/bruno$20indirect$20testimony%7Csort:date

No need to rehearse it. It's a PRaTT.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Point_refuted_a_thousand_times

Kevin R

[Kurt Nicklas]

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.

Poor lil you.

[Ted]

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

[Kurt Nicklas]

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.

I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a really, really simple question:

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

[Ted]

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

[Kurt Nicklas]

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.

Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?

Can you do that? Nah, you can't.

Atheists are such craven cowards.

Poor lil you.

[Ted]

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

[Kurt Nicklas]

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about how you hate religion.

So I'll repeat my very, very simple question:

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

[Ted]

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about how you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.

If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about how you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

As Richard Dawkins said...

"Science works, bitches"

Which is good enough for everybody but solipsists.

[Kurt Nicklas]

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about how you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

As Richard Dawkins said...
"Science works, bitches"

Which is the atheist equivalent of yelling 'Jesus saves!'.

As I've always said, so much atheist rhetoric embodies the qualities of those religious fanatics they spend so much time hating.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
Which is good enough for everybody but solipsists.

Science works. Oh, yes it does! http://thebulletin.org/clock/2017

[Ted]

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about how
you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

As Richard Dawkins said...
"Science works, bitches"
Which is good enough for everybody but solipsists.

That's it in a nutshell. It works. The Russell essay is worth a read. I
could understand it, so I know you will. He called it "The Problem of
Induction", IIRC (which I may not).

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by Ted

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about how
you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

As Richard Dawkins said...
"Science works, bitches"
Which is good enough for everybody but solipsists.

That's it in a nutshell. It works. The Russell essay is worth a read. I
could understand it, so I know you will. He called it "The Problem of
Induction", IIRC (which I may not).

You couple the inductive conclusion with Popperian falsifiability.

The inductive conclusion stands until it is falsified by showing that
it is wrong.

Two kids in the schoolyard...

"My Dad just bought a Lamborghini"

"No he didn't, prove it"

Which of the following two responses "works"?

1. "Prove he didn't"

2. "Come round after school. He's proud of it and he'll even take you
round the block in it"

[Ted]

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Ted

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about how
you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

As Richard Dawkins said...
"Science works, bitches"
Which is good enough for everybody but solipsists.

That's it in a nutshell. It works. The Russell essay is worth a read. I
could understand it, so I know you will. He called it "The Problem of
Induction", IIRC (which I may not).

You couple the inductive conclusion with Popperian falsifiability.
The inductive conclusion stands until it is falsified by showing that
it is wrong.
Two kids in the schoolyard...
"My Dad just bought a Lamborghini"
"No he didn't, prove it"
Which of the following two responses "works"?
1. "Prove he didn't"
2. "Come round after school. He's proud of it and he'll even take you
round the block in it"

Thanks for the explanation, Christopher. I'm trying to sort out the
inductive method vs the conclusion in your example, but I'm too dumb to do
so.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by Ted

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Ted

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about how
you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

As Richard Dawkins said...
"Science works, bitches"
Which is good enough for everybody but solipsists.

That's it in a nutshell. It works. The Russell essay is worth a read. I
could understand it, so I know you will. He called it "The Problem of
Induction", IIRC (which I may not).

You couple the inductive conclusion with Popperian falsifiability.
The inductive conclusion stands until it is falsified by showing that
it is wrong.
Two kids in the schoolyard...
"My Dad just bought a Lamborghini"
"No he didn't, prove it"
Which of the following two responses "works"?
1. "Prove he didn't"
2. "Come round after school. He's proud of it and he'll even take you
round the block in it"

Thanks for the explanation, Christopher. I'm trying to sort out the
inductive method vs the conclusion in your example, but I'm too dumb to do
so.

If the kid who said "Prove he didn't" had claimed other supercars and
it were known that his father hadn't had them, the inductive
conclusion would have been that he hadn't bought a Lamborghini,
either.

Rather like all the theists who have claimed evidence but never
provided any.

Falsifiable defaults become inductive conclusions every time somebody
cops out of backing them up.

If the father were known to have an average income, the conclusion
would have been deductive.

But whether it is the default, deductive or inductive, the big point
is that it is falsifiable - all the claimant has to do, is provide the
absent evidence.

A friend actually had a Lamborghini - he had the Silicon Valley dream
work out, when he set up a small company which expanded, and he sold
it to one of the big boys. The first thing he did after that, was buy
his Lamborghini. But there was no way he was going to use it for
commuting on 101.

[Ted]

On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 16:21:30 -0500, Christopher A. Lee

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Ted

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Ted

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about how
you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

As Richard Dawkins said...
"Science works, bitches"
Which is good enough for everybody but solipsists.

That's it in a nutshell. It works. The Russell essay is worth a read. I
could understand it, so I know you will. He called it "The Problem of
Induction", IIRC (which I may not).

You couple the inductive conclusion with Popperian falsifiability.
The inductive conclusion stands until it is falsified by showing that
it is wrong.
Two kids in the schoolyard...
"My Dad just bought a Lamborghini"
"No he didn't, prove it"
Which of the following two responses "works"?
1. "Prove he didn't"
2. "Come round after school. He's proud of it and he'll even take you
round the block in it"

Thanks for the explanation, Christopher. I'm trying to sort out the
inductive method vs the conclusion in your example, but I'm too dumb to do
so.

If the kid who said "Prove he didn't" had claimed other supercars and
it were known that his father hadn't had them, the inductive
conclusion would have been that he hadn't bought a Lamborghini,
either.
Rather like all the theists who have claimed evidence but never
provided any.
Falsifiable defaults become inductive conclusions every time somebody
cops out of backing them up.
If the father were known to have an average income, the conclusion
would have been deductive.
But whether it is the default, deductive or inductive, the big point
is that it is falsifiable - all the claimant has to do, is provide the
absent evidence.
A friend actually had a Lamborghini - he had the Silicon Valley dream
work out, when he set up a small company which expanded, and he sold
it to one of the big boys. The first thing he did after that, was buy
his Lamborghini. But there was no way he was going to use it for
commuting on 101.

Ah, thanks for explaining, Christopher. :)

[Kurt Nicklas]

Post by Ted

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about how
you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

As Richard Dawkins said...
"Science works, bitches"
Which is good enough for everybody but solipsists.

That's it in a nutshell. It works. The Russell essay is worth a read. I
could understand it, so I know you will. He called it "The Problem of
Induction", IIRC (which I may not).

Christopher throws around the word 'solipsism' whenever he's asked to prove that the unverified assumptions that lie at the philosophical bedrock of science are anything but FAITH.

Fact is, science makes LOTS of assumptions as the basis of it's work that have nothing to do with solipsism.

Science works? Yeah, and it creates things like Zyklon B and nuclear weapons - a small fraction of which is enough to destroy life on earth.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/31392/title/Opinion--The-Dark-Side-of-Science/

Of course, Christopher is too much of an intellectual coward to directly exchange posts with me. Always has been, always will be.

By the way, religion works too. Pass that on to Christopher. It'll make the top of his head fly off.

[v***@gmail.com]

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about how you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

As Richard Dawkins said...
"Science works, bitches"
Which is good enough for everybody but solipsists.

Dawkins is a proven chronic liar.

[Ted]

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about
how you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

As Richard Dawkins said...
"Science works, bitches"
Which is good enough for everybody but solipsists.

Dawkins is a proven chronic liar.

Dawkins is one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century. He pioneered
a revolution in evolutionary biology. And he's second only to Darwin.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by Ted

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about
how you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

As Richard Dawkins said...
"Science works, bitches"
Which is good enough for everybody but solipsists.

Dawkins is a proven chronic liar.

Dawkins is one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century. He pioneered
a revolution in evolutionary biology. And he's second only to Darwin.

Which is why they hate him.

And he only goes after creationists and fundamentalists, because they
impugned his integrity in a professsion where everybody has to be
honest(*), after he wrote popular books on evolutionary biology.

(*) apart from shills working for the tobacco companies, but they
won't ever get research jobs after their lies about smoking not
causeing cancer.

[Ted]

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Ted

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell
you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about
how you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

As Richard Dawkins said...
"Science works, bitches"
Which is good enough for everybody but solipsists.

Dawkins is a proven chronic liar.

Dawkins is one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century. He pioneered
a revolution in evolutionary biology. And he's second only to Darwin.

Which is why they hate him.

That seems likely. They hate truth.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
And he only goes after creationists and fundamentalists, because they
impugned his integrity in a professsion where everybody has to be
honest(*), after he wrote popular books on evolutionary biology.

Thanks for the background info.

Post by Christopher A. Lee
(*) apart from shills working for the tobacco companies, but they
won't ever get research jobs after their lies about smoking not
causeing cancer.

That's good to know.

[Kurt Nicklas]

Post by Ted

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about
how you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

As Richard Dawkins said...
"Science works, bitches"
Which is good enough for everybody but solipsists.

Dawkins is a proven chronic liar.

Dawkins is one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century. He pioneered
a revolution in evolutionary biology. And he's second only to Darwin.

Dawkins is a great coward and a publicity-hungry demagogue.

[v***@gmail.com]

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about
how you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

As Richard Dawkins said...
"Science works, bitches"
Which is good enough for everybody but solipsists.

Dawkins is a proven chronic liar.

Dawkins is one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century. He pioneered
a revolution in evolutionary biology. And he's second only to Darwin.

Dawkins is a great coward and a publicity-hungry demagogue.

Did you see my review of his book "The God Delusion?" I found numerous lies.
It's in the AA archives.

[Yap Honghor]

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about
how you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

As Richard Dawkins said...
"Science works, bitches"
Which is good enough for everybody but solipsists.

Dawkins is a proven chronic liar.

Dawkins is one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century. He pioneered
a revolution in evolutionary biology. And he's second only to Darwin.

Dawkins is a great coward and a publicity-hungry demagogue.

Did you see my review of his book "The God Delusion?" I found numerous lies.
It's in the AA archives.

Mad stupid person will never list the so-called lies, merely saying there are lies, without substantiating.

[A***@yahoo.com]

Post by Yap Honghor

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about
how you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

As Richard Dawkins said...
"Science works, bitches"
Which is good enough for everybody but solipsists.

Dawkins is a proven chronic liar.

Dawkins is one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century. He pioneered
a revolution in evolutionary biology. And he's second only to Darwin.

Dawkins is a great coward and a publicity-hungry demagogue.

Did you see my review of his book "The God Delusion?" I found numerous lies.
It's in the AA archives.

Mad stupid person will never list the so-called lies, merely saying there are lies, without substantiating.

Why do you want that? You believe in talking donkey brains.

[Yap Honghor]

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by Yap Honghor

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about
how you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

As Richard Dawkins said...
"Science works, bitches"
Which is good enough for everybody but solipsists.

Dawkins is a proven chronic liar.

Dawkins is one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century. He pioneered
a revolution in evolutionary biology. And he's second only to Darwin.

Dawkins is a great coward and a publicity-hungry demagogue.

Did you see my review of his book "The God Delusion?" I found numerous lies.
It's in the AA archives.

Mad stupid person will never list the so-called lies, merely saying there are lies, without substantiating.

Why do you want that? You believe in talking donkey brains.

Ya, and this message from a donkey shows you just took his words, even if they were lies.

[John Locke]

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about how you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

As Richard Dawkins said...
"Science works, bitches"
Which is good enough for everybody but solipsists.

Dawkins is a proven chronic liar.

..heh, heh....according to you Mad Arty, everyone that doesn't agree
with your ostentatiously convoluted rhetoric is a liar.

[Ted]

Post by John Locke

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about
how you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

As Richard Dawkins said...
"Science works, bitches"
Which is good enough for everybody but solipsists.

Dawkins is a proven chronic liar.

..heh, heh....according to you Mad Arty, everyone that doesn't agree
with your ostentatiously convoluted rhetoric is a liar.

LOL. True.

[v***@gmail.com]

Post by John Locke

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about how you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

As Richard Dawkins said...
"Science works, bitches"
Which is good enough for everybody but solipsists.

Dawkins is a proven chronic liar.

..heh, heh....according to you Mad Arty, everyone that doesn't agree
with your ostentatiously convoluted rhetoric is a liar.

I always provide evidence to support my accusations, something a babbling idiot like you cannot grasp.

[Yap Honghor]

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by John Locke

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about how you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

As Richard Dawkins said...
"Science works, bitches"
Which is good enough for everybody but solipsists.

Dawkins is a proven chronic liar.

..heh, heh....according to you Mad Arty, everyone that doesn't agree
with your ostentatiously convoluted rhetoric is a liar.

I always provide evidence to support my accusations, something a babbling idiot like you cannot grasp.

Such as your above mere statement without anything?????

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by John Locke

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about how you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

As Richard Dawkins said...
"Science works, bitches"
Which is good enough for everybody but solipsists.

Dawkins is a proven chronic liar.

..heh, heh....according to you Mad Arty, everyone that doesn't agree
with your ostentatiously convoluted rhetoric is a liar.

I always provide evidence to support my accusations,

Talk about lies.

Post by v***@gmail.com
something a babbling idiot like you cannot grasp.

[v***@gmail.com]

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by John Locke

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about how you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

As Richard Dawkins said...
"Science works, bitches"
Which is good enough for everybody but solipsists.

Dawkins is a proven chronic liar.

..heh, heh....according to you Mad Arty, everyone that doesn't agree
with your ostentatiously convoluted rhetoric is a liar.

I always provide evidence to support my accusations,

Talk about lies.

Show us where I did not.

[Yap Honghor]

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about how you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

As Richard Dawkins said...
"Science works, bitches"
Which is good enough for everybody but solipsists.

Dawkins is a proven chronic liar.

You believe the words from a theist liar carries weight, how???

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about how you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

As Richard Dawkins said...
"Science works, bitches"
Which is good enough for everybody but solipsists.

Dawkins is a proven chronic liar.

List a few of his alleged lies.

[Cloud Hobbit]

Dawkins is not you Arty Joe.

[Kurt Nicklas]

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about how you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.

Red herring # 1.

Post by Ted
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

Red herring # 2.

My question did not challenge the "scientific method" or propose that religion tries to be a replacement for science. My question was very simple but you still can't bring yourself to deal with it.

Oh, wait! You admitted you're dumber than dirt.

Never mind....

[Ted]

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about how
you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.

Red herring # 1.

Post by Ted
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

Red herring # 2.
My question did not challenge the "scientific method" or propose that
religion tries to be a replacement for science. My question was very
simple but you still can't bring yourself to deal with it.
Oh, wait! You admitted you're dumber than dirt.

How did I misunderstand your question?

[Kurt Nicklas]

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about how
you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.

Red herring # 1.

Post by Ted
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

Red herring # 2.
My question did not challenge the "scientific method" or propose that
religion tries to be a replacement for science. My question was very
simple but you still can't bring yourself to deal with it.
Oh, wait! You admitted you're dumber than dirt.

How did I misunderstand your question?

LOL My point is that you did NOT misunderstand my question.

Look just above. You understood perfectly what I was asking and chose to pitch one red herring after another into the bleak, murky sewer that is alt.atheism rather than answer my simple question with a simple answer.

Maybe your simple answer is "No" and that was much to frightening for you to utter.

[Ted]

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about how
you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.

Red herring # 1.

Post by Ted
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

Red herring # 2.
My question did not challenge the "scientific method" or propose that
religion tries to be a replacement for science. My question was very
simple but you still can't bring yourself to deal with it.
Oh, wait! You admitted you're dumber than dirt.

How did I misunderstand your question?

LOL My point is that you did NOT misunderstand my question.
Look just above. You understood perfectly what I was asking and chose to
pitch one red herring after another into the bleak, murky sewer that is
alt.atheism rather than answer my simple question with a simple answer.

My initial response included the simple answer to your question. You're the
one who demanded we drag this out.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Maybe your simple answer is "No" and that was much to frightening for you to utter.

It wasn't a yes/no question.

[Kurt Nicklas]

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about how
you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.

Red herring # 1.

Post by Ted
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

Red herring # 2.
My question did not challenge the "scientific method" or propose that
religion tries to be a replacement for science. My question was very
simple but you still can't bring yourself to deal with it.
Oh, wait! You admitted you're dumber than dirt.

How did I misunderstand your question?

LOL My point is that you did NOT misunderstand my question.
Look just above. You understood perfectly what I was asking and chose to
pitch one red herring after another into the bleak, murky sewer that is
alt.atheism rather than answer my simple question with a simple answer.

My initial response included the simple answer to your question. You're the
one who demanded we drag this out.

This was your first response. No answer to my question, Ted.

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted
Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.

No answer to you, personally having direct evidence.

Are you really so fearful of answering my simple question?

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Maybe your simple answer is "No" and that was much to frightening for you to utter.

It wasn't a yes/no question.

Maybe the simple answer is "No, I have no direct evidence to confirm what science tells me."

[Ted]

On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 08:45:52 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about how
you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.

Red herring # 1.

Post by Ted
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

Red herring # 2.
My question did not challenge the "scientific method" or propose that
religion tries to be a replacement for science. My question was very
simple but you still can't bring yourself to deal with it.
Oh, wait! You admitted you're dumber than dirt.

How did I misunderstand your question?

LOL My point is that you did NOT misunderstand my question.
Look just above. You understood perfectly what I was asking and chose to
pitch one red herring after another into the bleak, murky sewer that is
alt.atheism rather than answer my simple question with a simple answer.

My initial response included the simple answer to your question. You're the
one who demanded we drag this out.

This was your first response. No answer to my question, Ted.

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted
Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.

That's the answer, unless you disagree with the scientific method
itself.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
No answer to you, personally having direct evidence.
Are you really so fearful of answering my simple question?

You imagine that I am, Kurt.

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Maybe your simple answer is "No" and that was much to frightening for you to utter.

It wasn't a yes/no question.

Maybe the simple answer is "No, I have no direct evidence to confirm what science tells me."

No, the answer was what I already gave you.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by Ted
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 08:45:52 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about how
you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.

Red herring # 1.

Post by Ted
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

Red herring # 2.
My question did not challenge the "scientific method" or propose that
religion tries to be a replacement for science. My question was very
simple but you still can't bring yourself to deal with it.
Oh, wait! You admitted you're dumber than dirt.

How did I misunderstand your question?

LOL My point is that you did NOT misunderstand my question.
Look just above. You understood perfectly what I was asking and chose to
pitch one red herring after another into the bleak, murky sewer that is
alt.atheism rather than answer my simple question with a simple answer.

My initial response included the simple answer to your question. You're the
one who demanded we drag this out.

This was your first response. No answer to my question, Ted.

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted
Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.

That's the answer, unless you disagree with the scientific method
itself.

They do, because what it comes up with, falsifies their deluded
fantasies .

[Ted]

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Ted
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 08:45:52 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human
Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell
you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the answer. I'd
foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense. Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or not scientists
are liars or "religious journals" or any of the other rosie red herrings
you must be compelled to blabber about to avoid my really, really simple
question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an answer to a
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so." (Well, not religion, but
science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really
simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have received
to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked smirks about how
you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.

Red herring # 1.

Post by Ted
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a philosophical
issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell, for example, felt that
there's no intellectually satisfying justification for it.

Red herring # 2.
My question did not challenge the "scientific method" or propose that
religion tries to be a replacement for science. My question was very
simple but you still can't bring yourself to deal with it.
Oh, wait! You admitted you're dumber than dirt.

How did I misunderstand your question?

LOL My point is that you did NOT misunderstand my question.
Look just above. You understood perfectly what I was asking and chose to
pitch one red herring after another into the bleak, murky sewer that is
alt.atheism rather than answer my simple question with a simple answer.

My initial response included the simple answer to your question. You're the
one who demanded we drag this out.

This was your first response. No answer to my question, Ted.

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted
Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions and
welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science may tell
you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or you can do your
own measurements and get a different result.

That's the answer, unless you disagree with the scientific method
itself.

They do, because what it comes up with, falsifies their deluded
fantasies .

Oh, so that's what his point is? Figures.

[Smiler]

Post by Ted
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 08:45:52 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 4:48:33 AM UTC-4, Jeanne

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 7:18:39 PM UTC-4,

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think
it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue
what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything
that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science
fuckers. They make shit up and never let anybody know
where or how to verify it. That's why religion is so much
more reliable. Religion publishes journals explaining
their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky
bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my
question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the
answer. I'd foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense.
Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or
not scientists are liars or "religious journals" or any of
the other rosie red herrings you must be compelled to
blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that
science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so
that anybody who wants to verify their findings can do so."
(Well, not religion, but science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really
simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have
received to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked
smirks about how you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that
science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions
and welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science
may tell you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or
you can do your own measurements and get a different result.

Red herring # 1.

Post by Ted
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a
philosophical issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell,
for example, felt that there's no intellectually satisfying
justification for it.

Red herring # 2.
My question did not challenge the "scientific method" or propose
that religion tries to be a replacement for science. My question
was very simple but you still can't bring yourself to deal with
it.
Oh, wait! You admitted you're dumber than dirt.

How did I misunderstand your question?

LOL My point is that you did NOT misunderstand my question.
Look just above. You understood perfectly what I was asking and
chose to pitch one red herring after another into the bleak, murky
sewer that is alt.atheism rather than answer my simple question with
a simple answer.

My initial response included the simple answer to your question.
You're the one who demanded we drag this out.

This was your first response. No answer to my question, Ted.

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted
Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions
and welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science
may tell you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or
you can do your own measurements and get a different result.

That's the answer, unless you disagree with the scientific method
itself.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
No answer to you, personally having direct evidence.
Are you really so fearful of answering my simple question?

You imagine that I am, Kurt.

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Maybe your simple answer is "No" and that was much to frightening for you to utter.

It wasn't a yes/no question.

Maybe the simple answer is "No, I have no direct evidence to confirm
what science tells me."

No, the answer was what I already gave you.

Kurt must have been 'home skooled'. He's never done a scientific
experiment in his whole life.

[Ted]

Post by Smiler

Post by Ted
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 08:45:52 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 4:48:33 AM UTC-4, Jeanne

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 7:18:39 PM UTC-4,

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think
it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue
what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything
that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science
fuckers. They make shit up and never let anybody know
where or how to verify it. That's why religion is so much
more reliable. Religion publishes journals explaining
their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky
bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my
question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the
answer. I'd foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense.
Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or
not scientists are liars or "religious journals" or any of
the other rosie red herrings you must be compelled to
blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that
science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so
that anybody who wants to verify their findings can do so."
(Well, not religion, but science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really
simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have
received to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked
smirks about how you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that
science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions
and welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science
may tell you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or
you can do your own measurements and get a different result.

Red herring # 1.

Post by Ted
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a
philosophical issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell,
for example, felt that there's no intellectually satisfying
justification for it.

Red herring # 2.
My question did not challenge the "scientific method" or propose
that religion tries to be a replacement for science. My question
was very simple but you still can't bring yourself to deal with
it.
Oh, wait! You admitted you're dumber than dirt.

How did I misunderstand your question?

LOL My point is that you did NOT misunderstand my question.
Look just above. You understood perfectly what I was asking and
chose to pitch one red herring after another into the bleak, murky
sewer that is alt.atheism rather than answer my simple question with
a simple answer.

My initial response included the simple answer to your question.
You're the one who demanded we drag this out.

This was your first response. No answer to my question, Ted.

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted
Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions
and welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science
may tell you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or
you can do your own measurements and get a different result.

That's the answer, unless you disagree with the scientific method
itself.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
No answer to you, personally having direct evidence.
Are you really so fearful of answering my simple question?

You imagine that I am, Kurt.

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Maybe your simple answer is "No" and that was much to frightening for you to utter.

It wasn't a yes/no question.

Maybe the simple answer is "No, I have no direct evidence to confirm
what science tells me."

No, the answer was what I already gave you.

Kurt must have been 'home skooled'. He's never done a scientific
experiment in his whole life.

He insists on believing something ridiculous. If he'd just open any
scientific journal, he'd see what I mean. Apparently he thinks there's some
entity called "science" that tells people shit they have no way of
confirming and so must simply accept on faith.

[TheRealMccoy]

Post by Ted

Post by Smiler

Post by Ted
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 08:45:52 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 12:57:47 PM UTC-4, Ted

Post by Ted

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 4:48:33 AM UTC-4, Jeanne

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 7:18:39 PM UTC-4,

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think
it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue
what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything
that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science
fuckers. They make shit up and never let anybody know
where or how to verify it. That's why religion is so much
more reliable. Religion publishes journals explaining
their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky
bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my
question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the
answer. I'd foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense.
Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or
not scientists are liars or "religious journals" or any of
the other rosie red herrings you must be compelled to
blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that
science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so
that anybody who wants to verify their findings can do so."
(Well, not religion, but science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really
simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have
received to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked
smirks about how you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that
science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions
and welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science
may tell you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or
you can do your own measurements and get a different result.

Red herring # 1.

Post by Ted
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a
philosophical issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell,
for example, felt that there's no intellectually satisfying
justification for it.

Red herring # 2.
My question did not challenge the "scientific method" or propose
that religion tries to be a replacement for science. My question
was very simple but you still can't bring yourself to deal with
it.
Oh, wait! You admitted you're dumber than dirt.

How did I misunderstand your question?

LOL My point is that you did NOT misunderstand my question.
Look just above. You understood perfectly what I was asking and
chose to pitch one red herring after another into the bleak, murky
sewer that is alt.atheism rather than answer my simple question with
a simple answer.

My initial response included the simple answer to your question.
You're the one who demanded we drag this out.

This was your first response. No answer to my question, Ted.

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted
Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions
and welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science
may tell you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or
you can do your own measurements and get a different result.

That's the answer, unless you disagree with the scientific method
itself.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
No answer to you, personally having direct evidence.
Are you really so fearful of answering my simple question?

You imagine that I am, Kurt.

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Maybe your simple answer is "No" and that was much to frightening
for you to utter.

It wasn't a yes/no question.

Maybe the simple answer is "No, I have no direct evidence to confirm
what science tells me."

No, the answer was what I already gave you.

Kurt must have been 'home skooled'. He's never done a scientific
experiment in his whole life.

Like this:

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/543880092476398613/

Post by Ted
He insists on believing something ridiculous. If he'd just open any
scientific journal, he'd see what I mean. Apparently he thinks there's some
entity called "science" that tells people shit they have no way of
confirming and so must simply accept on faith.

[Ted]

Post by TheRealMccoy

Post by Smiler

Post by Ted
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 08:45:52 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 12:57:47 PM UTC-4, Ted

Post by Ted

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 4:48:33 AM UTC-4, Jeanne

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 7:18:39 PM UTC-4,

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think
it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue
what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything
that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science
fuckers. They make shit up and never let anybody know
where or how to verify it. That's why religion is so much
more reliable. Religion publishes journals explaining
their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky
bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my
question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the
answer. I'd foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense.
Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or
not scientists are liars or "religious journals" or any of
the other rosie red herrings you must be compelled to
blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that
science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so
that anybody who wants to verify their findings can do so."
(Well, not religion, but science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really
simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have
received to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked
smirks about how you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that
science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions
and welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science
may tell you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or
you can do your own measurements and get a different result.

Red herring # 1.

Post by Ted
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a
philosophical issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell,
for example, felt that there's no intellectually satisfying
justification for it.

Red herring # 2.
My question did not challenge the "scientific method" or propose
that religion tries to be a replacement for science. My question
was very simple but you still can't bring yourself to deal with
it.
Oh, wait! You admitted you're dumber than dirt.

How did I misunderstand your question?

LOL My point is that you did NOT misunderstand my question.
Look just above. You understood perfectly what I was asking and
chose to pitch one red herring after another into the bleak, murky
sewer that is alt.atheism rather than answer my simple question with
a simple answer.

My initial response included the simple answer to your question.
You're the one who demanded we drag this out.

This was your first response. No answer to my question, Ted.

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted
Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions
and welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science
may tell you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or
you can do your own measurements and get a different result.

That's the answer, unless you disagree with the scientific method
itself.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
No answer to you, personally having direct evidence.
Are you really so fearful of answering my simple question?

You imagine that I am, Kurt.

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Maybe your simple answer is "No" and that was much to frightening
for you to utter.

It wasn't a yes/no question.

Maybe the simple answer is "No, I have no direct evidence to confirm
what science tells me."

No, the answer was what I already gave you.

Kurt must have been 'home skooled'. He's never done a scientific
experiment in his whole life.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/543880092476398613/

I never click on your links, Michael. If you want me to understand your
post, you'll have to type it.

[Yap Honghor]

Post by Smiler

Post by Ted
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 08:45:52 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 12:57:47 PM UTC-4, Ted

Post by Ted

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 4:48:33 AM UTC-4, Jeanne

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 7:18:39 PM UTC-4,

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think
it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue
what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything
that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science
fuckers. They make shit up and never let anybody know
where or how to verify it. That's why religion is so much
more reliable. Religion publishes journals explaining
their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky
bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my
question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the
answer. I'd foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense.
Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or
not scientists are liars or "religious journals" or any of
the other rosie red herrings you must be compelled to
blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that
science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so
that anybody who wants to verify their findings can do so."
(Well, not religion, but science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really
simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have
received to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked
smirks about how you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that
science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions
and welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science
may tell you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or
you can do your own measurements and get a different result.

Red herring # 1.

Post by Ted
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a
philosophical issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell,
for example, felt that there's no intellectually satisfying
justification for it.

Red herring # 2.
My question did not challenge the "scientific method" or propose
that religion tries to be a replacement for science. My question
was very simple but you still can't bring yourself to deal with
it.
Oh, wait! You admitted you're dumber than dirt.

How did I misunderstand your question?

LOL My point is that you did NOT misunderstand my question.
Look just above. You understood perfectly what I was asking and
chose to pitch one red herring after another into the bleak, murky
sewer that is alt.atheism rather than answer my simple question with
a simple answer.

My initial response included the simple answer to your question.
You're the one who demanded we drag this out.

This was your first response. No answer to my question, Ted.

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted
Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions
and welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science
may tell you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or
you can do your own measurements and get a different result.

That's the answer, unless you disagree with the scientific method
itself.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
No answer to you, personally having direct evidence.
Are you really so fearful of answering my simple question?

You imagine that I am, Kurt.

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Maybe your simple answer is "No" and that was much to frightening
for you to utter.

It wasn't a yes/no question.

Maybe the simple answer is "No, I have no direct evidence to confirm
what science tells me."

No, the answer was what I already gave you.

Kurt must have been 'home skooled'. He's never done a scientific
experiment in his whole life.

Most theists are not scientifically educated and many such as Assroid and Mad Joe, as well as Cunt here, are more likely to be home schooled. They always show low level of understanding....

Post by Smiler
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believer

[v***@gmail.com]

Post by Yap Honghor

Post by Smiler

Post by Ted
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 08:45:52 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 12:57:47 PM UTC-4, Ted

Post by Ted

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 4:48:33 AM UTC-4, Jeanne

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 7:18:39 PM UTC-4,

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think
it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue
what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything
that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science
fuckers. They make shit up and never let anybody know
where or how to verify it. That's why religion is so much
more reliable. Religion publishes journals explaining
their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky
bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my
question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the
answer. I'd foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense.
Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or
not scientists are liars or "religious journals" or any of
the other rosie red herrings you must be compelled to
blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that
science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so
that anybody who wants to verify their findings can do so."
(Well, not religion, but science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really
simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have
received to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked
smirks about how you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that
science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions
and welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science
may tell you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or
you can do your own measurements and get a different result.

Red herring # 1.

Post by Ted
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a
philosophical issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell,
for example, felt that there's no intellectually satisfying
justification for it.

Red herring # 2.
My question did not challenge the "scientific method" or propose
that religion tries to be a replacement for science. My question
was very simple but you still can't bring yourself to deal with
it.
Oh, wait! You admitted you're dumber than dirt.

How did I misunderstand your question?

LOL My point is that you did NOT misunderstand my question.
Look just above. You understood perfectly what I was asking and
chose to pitch one red herring after another into the bleak, murky
sewer that is alt.atheism rather than answer my simple question with
a simple answer.

My initial response included the simple answer to your question.
You're the one who demanded we drag this out.

This was your first response. No answer to my question, Ted.

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted
Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions
and welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science
may tell you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or
you can do your own measurements and get a different result.

That's the answer, unless you disagree with the scientific method
itself.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
No answer to you, personally having direct evidence.
Are you really so fearful of answering my simple question?

You imagine that I am, Kurt.

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Maybe your simple answer is "No" and that was much to frightening
for you to utter.

It wasn't a yes/no question.

Maybe the simple answer is "No, I have no direct evidence to confirm
what science tells me."

No, the answer was what I already gave you.

Kurt must have been 'home skooled'. He's never done a scientific
experiment in his whole life.

Most theists are not scientifically educated and many such as Assroid and Mad Joe, as well as Cunt here, are more likely to be home schooled. They always show low level of understanding....

ROTFL! I noticed you were unable to answer any of my science quiz questions.
You didn't learn science at home or anywhere else, you ignorant babbling piece of shit.

[Tim]

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Yap Honghor

Post by Smiler

Post by Ted
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 08:45:52 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 12:57:47 PM UTC-4, Ted

Post by Ted

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 4:48:33 AM UTC-4, Jeanne

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 7:18:39 PM UTC-4,

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think
it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue
what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything
that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science
fuckers. They make shit up and never let anybody know
where or how to verify it. That's why religion is so much
more reliable. Religion publishes journals explaining
their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky
bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my
question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the
answer. I'd foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense.
Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or
not scientists are liars or "religious journals" or any of
the other rosie red herrings you must be compelled to
blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that
science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so
that anybody who wants to verify their findings can do so."
(Well, not religion, but science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really
simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have
received to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked
smirks about how you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that
science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions
and welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science
may tell you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or
you can do your own measurements and get a different result.

Red herring # 1.

Post by Ted
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a
philosophical issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell,
for example, felt that there's no intellectually satisfying
justification for it.

Red herring # 2.
My question did not challenge the "scientific method" or propose
that religion tries to be a replacement for science. My question
was very simple but you still can't bring yourself to deal with
it.
Oh, wait! You admitted you're dumber than dirt.

How did I misunderstand your question?

LOL My point is that you did NOT misunderstand my question.
Look just above. You understood perfectly what I was asking and
chose to pitch one red herring after another into the bleak, murky
sewer that is alt.atheism rather than answer my simple question with
a simple answer.

My initial response included the simple answer to your question.
You're the one who demanded we drag this out.

This was your first response. No answer to my question, Ted.

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted
Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions
and welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science
may tell you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or
you can do your own measurements and get a different result.

That's the answer, unless you disagree with the scientific method
itself.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
No answer to you, personally having direct evidence.
Are you really so fearful of answering my simple question?

You imagine that I am, Kurt.

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Maybe your simple answer is "No" and that was much to frightening
for you to utter.

It wasn't a yes/no question.

Maybe the simple answer is "No, I have no direct evidence to confirm
what science tells me."

No, the answer was what I already gave you.

Kurt must have been 'home skooled'. He's never done a scientific
experiment in his whole life.

Most theists are not scientifically educated and many such as Assroid and Mad Joe, as well as Cunt here, are more likely to be home schooled. They always show low level of understanding....

ROTFL! I noticed you were unable to answer any of my science quiz questions.
You didn't learn science at home or anywhere else, you ignorant babbling piece of shit.

You couldn't even figure out how many questions you asked, you dough brain.

[Yap Honghor]

Post by v***@gmail.com

Post by Yap Honghor

Post by Smiler

Post by Ted
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 08:45:52 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 12:57:47 PM UTC-4, Ted

Post by Ted

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 4:48:33 AM UTC-4, Jeanne

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 7:18:39 PM UTC-4,

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think
it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue
what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything
that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science
fuckers. They make shit up and never let anybody know
where or how to verify it. That's why religion is so much
more reliable. Religion publishes journals explaining
their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky
bastards.

All those bytes and not a single attempt at answering my
question.
Poor lil you.

I did answer you, Kurt, you just didn't understand the
answer. I'd foolishly assumed you were a bit less dense.
Poor lil me. :)

Where did I mention anything about religion or whether or
not scientists are liars or "religious journals" or any of
the other rosie red herrings you must be compelled to
blabber about to avoid my really, really simple question.
I did understand what you wrote and I'm still waiting for an
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that
science may tell you?
You're not afraid to take me on, are you?

"Religion publishes journals explaining their methods, so
that anybody who wants to verify their findings can do so."
(Well, not religion, but science.)

You were the one who brought up religion, not I.
Still can't bring yourself to deal with my really, really
simple question, can you?
Can you do that? Nah, you can't.
Atheists are such craven cowards.
Poor lil you.

I answered your question, moron. Twice. And I'm not an atheist.

No, you followed up my question about DIRECT evidence you have
received to confirm what science tells you with some half-baked
smirks about how you hate religion.
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that
science may tell you?

Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions
and welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science
may tell you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or
you can do your own measurements and get a different result.

Red herring # 1.

Post by Ted
If your problem is with the scientific method itself, it's a
philosophical issue that's been discussed for centuries. Russell,
for example, felt that there's no intellectually satisfying
justification for it.

Red herring # 2.
My question did not challenge the "scientific method" or propose
that religion tries to be a replacement for science. My question
was very simple but you still can't bring yourself to deal with
it.
Oh, wait! You admitted you're dumber than dirt.

How did I misunderstand your question?

LOL My point is that you did NOT misunderstand my question.
Look just above. You understood perfectly what I was asking and
chose to pitch one red herring after another into the bleak, murky
sewer that is alt.atheism rather than answer my simple question with
a simple answer.

My initial response included the simple answer to your question.
You're the one who demanded we drag this out.

This was your first response. No answer to my question, Ted.

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted
Scientific journal articles detail their methods and conclusions
and welcome disagreement. If you disagree with something "science
may tell you", you can review their methods and find the flaw, or
you can do your own measurements and get a different result.

That's the answer, unless you disagree with the scientific method
itself.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
No answer to you, personally having direct evidence.
Are you really so fearful of answering my simple question?

You imagine that I am, Kurt.

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Maybe your simple answer is "No" and that was much to frightening
for you to utter.

It wasn't a yes/no question.

Maybe the simple answer is "No, I have no direct evidence to confirm
what science tells me."

No, the answer was what I already gave you.

Kurt must have been 'home skooled'. He's never done a scientific
experiment in his whole life.

Most theists are not scientifically educated and many such as Assroid and Mad Joe, as well as Cunt here, are more likely to be home schooled. They always show low level of understanding....

ROTFL! I noticed you were unable to answer any of my science quiz questions.

Not unable, rather I prefer not to play your game.

Post by v***@gmail.com
You didn't learn science at home or anywhere else, you ignorant babbling piece of shit.

If that is true, I would have been believing in a pixie or a loon like you!!!

[Marvin Sebourn]

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I know that geology majors, at the start of their last semester must swear to never reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that observable earth-wide stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of a world-wide flood about 6000 years ago, and that we must support without reservation the common false claims supporting evolution put forth, especially in the realms of paleontology and biogeography.

Marvin

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com

[Kurt Nicklas]

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I know that geology majors, at the start of their last semester must swear to never reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that observable earth-wide stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of a world-wide flood about 6000 years ago, and that we must support without reservation the common false claims supporting evolution put forth, especially in the realms of paleontology and biogeography.

More bytes designed to distract from the fact that all science is hearsay.

Poor lil boys.

[Yap Honghor]

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I know that geology majors, at the start of their last semester must swear to never reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that observable earth-wide stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of a world-wide flood about 6000 years ago, and that we must support without reservation the common false claims supporting evolution put forth, especially in the realms of paleontology and biogeography.

More bytes designed to distract from the fact that all science is hearsay.

Cunt, if you hold that reason, try refraining from using your computer which is the product of science....you poor lil troll.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Poor lil boys.

[Kurt Nicklas]

Post by Yap Honghor

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I know that geology majors, at the start of their last semester must swear to never reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that observable earth-wide stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of a world-wide flood about 6000 years ago, and that we must support without reservation the common false claims supporting evolution put forth, especially in the realms of paleontology and biogeography.

More bytes designed to distract from the fact that all science is hearsay.

Cunt, if you hold that reason, try refraining from using your computer which is the product of science....you poor lil troll.

If I'm a troll your first duty is to refrain from responding to me.

Please!

[Yap Honghor]

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Yap Honghor

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I know that geology majors, at the start of their last semester must swear to never reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that observable earth-wide stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of a world-wide flood about 6000 years ago, and that we must support without reservation the common false claims supporting evolution put forth, especially in the realms of paleontology and biogeography.

More bytes designed to distract from the fact that all science is hearsay.

Cunt, if you hold that reason, try refraining from using your computer which is the product of science....you poor lil troll.

If I'm a troll your first duty is to refrain from responding to me.
Please!

I am trying to send messages to every one hereto demonstrate how a troll is devoid of substance or sense in his post.

[Ted]

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I know that
geology majors, at the start of their last semester must swear to never
reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that observable earth-wide
stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of a world-wide flood about
6000 years ago, and that we must support without reservation the common
false claims supporting evolution put forth, especially in the realms of
paleontology and biogeography.
Marvin
Marvin Sebourn

Well thanks for confirming that, Marvin. I had heard that geologists are
among the most dishonest. They have a very old geology book that's
obviously erroneous in multiple places, and yet they insist on faith,
without a scrap of evidence, that every word in it is 100% true.

[Kurt Nicklas]

Post by Ted

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I know that
geology majors, at the start of their last semester must swear to never
reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that observable earth-wide
stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of a world-wide flood about
6000 years ago, and that we must support without reservation the common
false claims supporting evolution put forth, especially in the realms of
paleontology and biogeography.
Marvin
Marvin Sebourn

Well thanks for confirming that, Marvin. I had heard that geologists are
among the most dishonest. They have a very old geology book that's
obviously erroneous in multiple places, and yet they insist on faith,
without a scrap of evidence, that every word in it is 100% true.

You two boys are quite the comedians. Yes, you are.

Pity you can't bring your collective selves to seriously deal with the meaning of objective evidence, proof, belief and the unproveable assumptions underlying science.

Yes, it's a real shame.

If you can dig yourself out of the stinking mess of red herring you've been piling up you could try acting like adults.

Or is that too much to expect?

[Marvin Sebourn]

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I know that
geology majors, at the start of their last semester must swear to never
reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that observable earth-wide
stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of a world-wide flood about
6000 years ago, and that we must support without reservation the common
false claims supporting evolution put forth, especially in the realms of
paleontology and biogeography.
Marvin
Marvin Sebourn

Well thanks for confirming that, Marvin. I had heard that geologists are
among the most dishonest. They have a very old geology book that's
obviously erroneous in multiple places, and yet they insist on faith,
without a scrap of evidence, that every word in it is 100% true.

You two boys are quite the comedians. Yes, you are.
Pity you can't bring your collective selves to seriously deal with the meaning of objective evidence, proof, belief and the unproveable assumptions underlying science.
Yes, it's a real shame.
If you can dig yourself out of the stinking mess of red herring you've been piling up you could try acting like adults.
Or is that too much to expect?

Ted, Atlatl Axolotl, Don, h7, Smiler, Jeanne, Don, Malte, Cloud, Mitchell, John L., Ed, hloe, Malcolm and I, a host of others here were recently given remaindered "books", left-overs from a book promotion--not one sold. The cover is garishly titled, but all the interior pages are clean and unmarked. We can use them as journals. The book is titled "The Wit and Wisdom of Kurt Nicklas". Subtitled "The Ramblings of a Sad Troll". On Amazon.

Be sure and don't buy "The Nonsense of Andrew". It's a ----->very long book with ------>no empty pages. Small margins. Font size about 4.

Reconsidering--either book may be better suited to one-time bathroom use.

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com

[Kurt Nicklas]

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I know that
geology majors, at the start of their last semester must swear to never
reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that observable earth-wide
stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of a world-wide flood about
6000 years ago, and that we must support without reservation the common
false claims supporting evolution put forth, especially in the realms of
paleontology and biogeography.
Marvin
Marvin Sebourn

Well thanks for confirming that, Marvin. I had heard that geologists are
among the most dishonest. They have a very old geology book that's
obviously erroneous in multiple places, and yet they insist on faith,
without a scrap of evidence, that every word in it is 100% true.

You two boys are quite the comedians. Yes, you are.
Pity you can't bring your collective selves to seriously deal with the meaning of objective evidence, proof, belief and the unproveable assumptions underlying science.
Yes, it's a real shame.
If you can dig yourself out of the stinking mess of red herring you've been piling up you could try acting like adults.
Or is that too much to expect?

Ted, Atlatl Axolotl, Don, h7, Smiler, Jeanne, Don, Malte, Cloud, Mitchell, John L., Ed, hloe, Malcolm and I, a host of others here were recently given remaindered "books", left-overs from a book promotion--not one sold. The cover is garishly titled, but all the interior pages are clean and unmarked. We can use them as journals. The book is titled "The Wit and Wisdom of Kurt Nicklas". Subtitled "The Ramblings of a Sad Troll". On Amazon.
Be sure and don't buy "The Nonsense of Andrew". It's a ----->very long book with ------>no empty pages. Small margins. Font size about 4.
Reconsidering--either book may be better suited to one-time bathroom use.

I call your weak attempt at humor and red herring distribution for what it is and suddenly the subject of the simple question I asked disappears under layers of sophomoric dissimulation.

You're not even good at being a coward, chum. I laugh in your general direction.

[Ted]

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I know that
geology majors, at the start of their last semester must swear to never
reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that observable earth-wide
stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of a world-wide flood about
6000 years ago, and that we must support without reservation the common
false claims supporting evolution put forth, especially in the realms of
paleontology and biogeography.
Marvin
Marvin Sebourn

Well thanks for confirming that, Marvin. I had heard that geologists are
among the most dishonest. They have a very old geology book that's
obviously erroneous in multiple places, and yet they insist on faith,
without a scrap of evidence, that every word in it is 100% true.

You two boys are quite the comedians. Yes, you are.
Pity you can't bring your collective selves to seriously deal with the
meaning of objective evidence, proof, belief and the unproveable
assumptions underlying science.
Yes, it's a real shame.
If you can dig yourself out of the stinking mess of red herring you've
been piling up you could try acting like adults.
Or is that too much to expect?

Ted, Atlatl Axolotl, Don, h7, Smiler, Jeanne, Don, Malte, Cloud,
Mitchell, John L., Ed, hloe, Malcolm and I, a host of others here were
recently given remaindered "books", left-overs from a book promotion--not
one sold. The cover is garishly titled, but all the interior pages are
clean and unmarked. We can use them as journals. The book is titled "The
Wit and Wisdom of Kurt Nicklas". Subtitled "The Ramblings of a Sad Troll". On Amazon.
Be sure and don't buy "The Nonsense of Andrew". It's a ----->very long
book with ------>no empty pages. Small margins. Font size about 4.
Reconsidering--either book may be better suited to one-time bathroom use.
Marvin Sebourn

LOL! :)

[Jeanne Douglas]

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 4:48:33 AM UTC-4, Jeanne Douglas wr=

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Hu=

man Right

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 7:18:39 PM UTC-4, Cloud Hobbit w=
=20
=20
=20

He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evide=

nce.=20

=20
=20
=20
=20
I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

=20
=20
=20
Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what eviden=

ce is.

=20
What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science m=

ay tell you?

=20

=20
Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They =

make

shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's=

why

religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

=20
Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I know =

that

geology majors, at the start of their last semester must swear to nev=

er

reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that observable earth-wid=

e

stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of a world-wide flood about
6000 years ago, and that we must support without reservation the comm=

on

false claims supporting evolution put forth, especially in the realms=

of

paleontology and biogeography.=20
=20
Marvin
=20
Marvin Sebourn

=20
Well thanks for confirming that, Marvin. I had heard that geologists ar=

e

among the most dishonest. They have a very old geology book that's
obviously erroneous in multiple places, and yet they insist on faith,
without a scrap of evidence, that every word in it is 100% true.

=20
You two boys are quite the comedians. Yes, you are.=20
=20
Pity you can't bring your collective selves to seriously deal with the me=

aning of objective evidence, proof, belief and the unproveable assumptions =
underlying science.

=20
Yes, it's a real shame.
=20
If you can dig yourself out of the stinking mess of red herring you've be=

en piling up you could try acting like adults.

=20
Or is that too much to expect?

Ted, Atlatl Axolotl, Don, h7, Smiler, Jeanne, Don, Malte, Cloud, Mitchell, =
John L., Ed, hloe, Malcolm and I, a host of others here were recently given=
remaindered "books", left-overs from a book promotion--not one sold. The c=
over is garishly titled, but all the interior pages are clean and unmarked.=
We can use them as journals. The book is titled "The Wit and Wisdom of Kur=
t Nicklas". Subtitled "The Ramblings of a Sad Troll". On Amazon.=20
Be sure and don't buy "The Nonsense of Andrew". It's a ----->very long book=
with ------>no empty pages. Small margins. Font size about 4.=20
Reconsidering--either book may be better suited to one-time bathroom use.

LOL.

[Smiler]

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science
may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers.
They make shit up and never let anybody know where or how to
verify it. That's why religion is so much more reliable. Religion
publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so. Not scientists, though,
the sneaky bastards.

Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I
know that geology majors, at the start of their last semester must
swear to never reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that
observable earth-wide stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of
a world-wide flood about 6000 years ago, and that we must support
without reservation the common false claims supporting evolution
put forth, especially in the realms of paleontology and
biogeography.
Marvin

Well thanks for confirming that, Marvin. I had heard that geologists
are among the most dishonest. They have a very old geology book
that's obviously erroneous in multiple places, and yet they insist on
faith, without a scrap of evidence, that every word in it is 100%
true.

You two boys are quite the comedians. Yes, you are.
Pity you can't bring your collective selves to seriously deal with the
meaning of objective evidence, proof, belief and the unproveable
assumptions underlying science.
Yes, it's a real shame.
If you can dig yourself out of the stinking mess of red herring you've
been piling up you could try acting like adults.
Or is that too much to expect?

Ted, Atlatl Axolotl, Don, h7, Smiler, Jeanne, Don, Malte, Cloud,
Mitchell, John L., Ed, hloe, Malcolm and I, a host of others here were
recently given remaindered "books", left-overs from a book
promotion--not one sold. The cover is garishly titled, but all the
interior pages are clean and unmarked. We can use them as journals. The
book is titled "The Wit and Wisdom of Kurt Nicklas". Subtitled "The
Ramblings of a Sad Troll". On Amazon.
Be sure and don't buy "The Nonsense of Andrew". It's a ----->very long
book with ------>no empty pages. Small margins. Font size about 4.
Reconsidering--either book may be better suited to one-time bathroom use.

Thanks for those "books", Marvin.
The paper is too course for bathroom use but ideal for origami, so I
donated it to the local mental institution so that the inmates may
entertain themselves. A fitting use for the contents of that book.

[Kurt Nicklas]

Post by Smiler

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 7:18:39 PM UTC-4, Cloud Hobbit

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS
evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what
evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science
may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers.
They make shit up and never let anybody know where or how to
verify it. That's why religion is so much more reliable. Religion
publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so. Not scientists, though,
the sneaky bastards.

Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I
know that geology majors, at the start of their last semester must
swear to never reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that
observable earth-wide stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of
a world-wide flood about 6000 years ago, and that we must support
without reservation the common false claims supporting evolution
put forth, especially in the realms of paleontology and
biogeography.
Marvin

Well thanks for confirming that, Marvin. I had heard that geologists
are among the most dishonest. They have a very old geology book
that's obviously erroneous in multiple places, and yet they insist on
faith, without a scrap of evidence, that every word in it is 100%
true.

You two boys are quite the comedians. Yes, you are.
Pity you can't bring your collective selves to seriously deal with the
meaning of objective evidence, proof, belief and the unproveable
assumptions underlying science.
Yes, it's a real shame.
If you can dig yourself out of the stinking mess of red herring you've
been piling up you could try acting like adults.
Or is that too much to expect?

Ted, Atlatl Axolotl, Don, h7, Smiler, Jeanne, Don, Malte, Cloud,
Mitchell, John L., Ed, hloe, Malcolm and I, a host of others here were
recently given remaindered "books", left-overs from a book
promotion--not one sold. The cover is garishly titled, but all the
interior pages are clean and unmarked. We can use them as journals. The
book is titled "The Wit and Wisdom of Kurt Nicklas". Subtitled "The
Ramblings of a Sad Troll". On Amazon.
Be sure and don't buy "The Nonsense of Andrew". It's a ----->very long
book with ------>no empty pages. Small margins. Font size about 4.
Reconsidering--either book may be better suited to one-time bathroom use.

Thanks for those "books", Marvin.

Thanks for these quotes, "Smiler":

"You are a paedophile. I don't know it to be false (how can I?) so it's
not a lie, merely a disagreement."
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 7/22/17

"As you haven't denied that you're a paedophile, I can only assume that you
are one. "
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 8/4/17

"Merely your blind denial, child murdering paedophile"
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 7/23/17

"No it isn't, lying paedophile. "
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 7/23/17

"That's just your blind denial, paedophile."
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 7/25/17

"You are still a child murdering paedophile. "
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 7/30/17

"Only according to your insane delusions, child murdering paedophile."
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 7/31/17

"That would be you, child murdering paedophile. "
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 8/03/17

"You know that you're a child murdering paedophile. "
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 8/03/17

"Still just your sorry excuse for being a paedophile. "
--- "Smiler", alt.atheism, 7/28/17

[Ted]

Post by Smiler

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers.
They make shit up and never let anybody know where or how to
verify it. That's why religion is so much more reliable. Religion
publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so. Not scientists, though,
the sneaky bastards.

Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I
know that geology majors, at the start of their last semester must
swear to never reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that
observable earth-wide stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of
a world-wide flood about 6000 years ago, and that we must support
without reservation the common false claims supporting evolution
put forth, especially in the realms of paleontology and
biogeography.
Marvin

Well thanks for confirming that, Marvin. I had heard that geologists
are among the most dishonest. They have a very old geology book
that's obviously erroneous in multiple places, and yet they insist on
faith, without a scrap of evidence, that every word in it is 100%
true.

You two boys are quite the comedians. Yes, you are.
Pity you can't bring your collective selves to seriously deal with the
meaning of objective evidence, proof, belief and the unproveable
assumptions underlying science.
Yes, it's a real shame.
If you can dig yourself out of the stinking mess of red herring you've
been piling up you could try acting like adults.
Or is that too much to expect?

Ted, Atlatl Axolotl, Don, h7, Smiler, Jeanne, Don, Malte, Cloud,
Mitchell, John L., Ed, hloe, Malcolm and I, a host of others here were
recently given remaindered "books", left-overs from a book
promotion--not one sold. The cover is garishly titled, but all the
interior pages are clean and unmarked. We can use them as journals. The
book is titled "The Wit and Wisdom of Kurt Nicklas". Subtitled "The
Ramblings of a Sad Troll". On Amazon.
Be sure and don't buy "The Nonsense of Andrew". It's a ----->very long
book with ------>no empty pages. Small margins. Font size about 4.
Reconsidering--either book may be better suited to one-time bathroom use.

Thanks for those "books", Marvin.
The paper is too course for bathroom use but ideal for origami, so I
donated it to the local mental institution so that the inmates may
entertain themselves. A fitting use for the contents of that book.

LOL! :)

[Marvin Sebourn]

Post by Smiler

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 7:18:39 PM UTC-4, Cloud Hobbit

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS
evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what
evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science
may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers.
They make shit up and never let anybody know where or how to
verify it. That's why religion is so much more reliable. Religion
publishes journals explaining their methods, so that anybody who
wants to verify their findings can do so. Not scientists, though,
the sneaky bastards.

Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I
know that geology majors, at the start of their last semester must
swear to never reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that
observable earth-wide stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of
a world-wide flood about 6000 years ago, and that we must support
without reservation the common false claims supporting evolution
put forth, especially in the realms of paleontology and
biogeography.
Marvin

Well thanks for confirming that, Marvin. I had heard that geologists
are among the most dishonest. They have a very old geology book
that's obviously erroneous in multiple places, and yet they insist on
faith, without a scrap of evidence, that every word in it is 100%
true.

You two boys are quite the comedians. Yes, you are.
Pity you can't bring your collective selves to seriously deal with the
meaning of objective evidence, proof, belief and the unproveable
assumptions underlying science.
Yes, it's a real shame.
If you can dig yourself out of the stinking mess of red herring you've
been piling up you could try acting like adults.
Or is that too much to expect?

Ted, Atlatl Axolotl, Don, h7, Smiler, Jeanne, Don, Malte, Cloud,
Mitchell, John L., Ed, hloe, Malcolm and I, a host of others here were
recently given remaindered "books", left-overs from a book
promotion--not one sold. The cover is garishly titled, but all the
interior pages are clean and unmarked. We can use them as journals. The
book is titled "The Wit and Wisdom of Kurt Nicklas". Subtitled "The
Ramblings of a Sad Troll". On Amazon.
Be sure and don't buy "The Nonsense of Andrew". It's a ----->very long
book with ------>no empty pages. Small margins. Font size about 4.
Reconsidering--either book may be better suited to one-time bathroom use.

Thanks for those "books", Marvin.
The paper is too course for bathroom use but ideal for origami, so I
donated it to the local mental institution so that the inmates may
entertain themselves. A fitting use for the contents of that book.
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Thanks, Smiler, missed this post earlier. Your use seems appropriate and thoughtful!

Marvin

Marvin Sebourn
***@aol.com

[Tim]

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I know that
geology majors, at the start of their last semester must swear to never
reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that observable earth-wide
stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of a world-wide flood about
6000 years ago, and that we must support without reservation the common
false claims supporting evolution put forth, especially in the realms of
paleontology and biogeography.
Marvin
Marvin Sebourn

Well thanks for confirming that, Marvin. I had heard that geologists are
among the most dishonest. They have a very old geology book that's
obviously erroneous in multiple places, and yet they insist on faith,
without a scrap of evidence, that every word in it is 100% true.

You two boys are quite the comedians. Yes, you are.
Pity you can't bring your collective selves to seriously deal with the meaning of objective evidence, proof, belief and the unproveable assumptions underlying science.

Shame that you keep making this accusation that science is befuddled by assumptions, but keep failing to say what assumptions.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Yes, it's a real shame.
If you can dig yourself out of the stinking mess of red herring you've been piling up you could try acting like adults.
Or is that too much to expect?

Well kunt, what are these assumptions that science relies on?

<crickets>

[%]

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I know that
geology majors, at the start of their last semester must swear to never
reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that observable earth-wide
stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of a world-wide flood about
6000 years ago, and that we must support without reservation the common
false claims supporting evolution put forth, especially in the realms of
paleontology and biogeography.
Marvin
Marvin Sebourn

Well thanks for confirming that, Marvin. I had heard that geologists are
among the most dishonest. They have a very old geology book that's
obviously erroneous in multiple places, and yet they insist on faith,
without a scrap of evidence, that every word in it is 100% true.

You two boys are quite the comedians. Yes, you are.
Pity you can't bring your collective selves to seriously deal with the meaning of objective evidence, proof, belief and the unproveable assumptions underlying science.

Shame that you keep making this accusation that science is befuddled by assumptions, but keep failing to say what assumptions.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Yes, it's a real shame.
If you can dig yourself out of the stinking mess of red herring you've been piling up you could try acting like adults.
Or is that too much to expect?

Well kunt, what are these assumptions that science relies on?
<crickets>

ignored

[Tim]

Post by %

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I know that
geology majors, at the start of their last semester must swear to never
reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that observable earth-wide
stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of a world-wide flood about
6000 years ago, and that we must support without reservation the common
false claims supporting evolution put forth, especially in the realms of
paleontology and biogeography.
Marvin
Marvin Sebourn

Well thanks for confirming that, Marvin. I had heard that geologists are
among the most dishonest. They have a very old geology book that's
obviously erroneous in multiple places, and yet they insist on faith,
without a scrap of evidence, that every word in it is 100% true.

You two boys are quite the comedians. Yes, you are.
Pity you can't bring your collective selves to seriously deal with the meaning of objective evidence, proof, belief and the unproveable assumptions underlying science.

Shame that you keep making this accusation that science is befuddled by assumptions, but keep failing to say what assumptions.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Yes, it's a real shame.
If you can dig yourself out of the stinking mess of red herring you've been piling up you could try acting like adults.
Or is that too much to expect?

Well kunt, what are these assumptions that science relies on?
<crickets>

ignored

Non sequitur.

[Kurt Nicklas]

Post by Tim

Post by %

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I know that
geology majors, at the start of their last semester must swear to never
reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that observable earth-wide
stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of a world-wide flood about
6000 years ago, and that we must support without reservation the common
false claims supporting evolution put forth, especially in the realms of
paleontology and biogeography.
Marvin
Marvin Sebourn

Well thanks for confirming that, Marvin. I had heard that geologists are
among the most dishonest. They have a very old geology book that's
obviously erroneous in multiple places, and yet they insist on faith,
without a scrap of evidence, that every word in it is 100% true.

You two boys are quite the comedians. Yes, you are.
Pity you can't bring your collective selves to seriously deal with the meaning of objective evidence, proof, belief and the unproveable assumptions underlying science.

Shame that you keep making this accusation that science is befuddled by assumptions, but keep failing to say what assumptions.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Yes, it's a real shame.
If you can dig yourself out of the stinking mess of red herring you've been piling up you could try acting like adults.
Or is that too much to expect?

Well kunt, what are these assumptions that science relies on?
<crickets>

ignored

Non sequitur.

Don't use Latin if you don't know the meaning, Dimmy.

Wow, you are sooooo stooooopid.

[Tim]

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by %

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I know that
geology majors, at the start of their last semester must swear to never
reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that observable earth-wide
stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of a world-wide flood about
6000 years ago, and that we must support without reservation the common
false claims supporting evolution put forth, especially in the realms of
paleontology and biogeography.
Marvin
Marvin Sebourn

Well thanks for confirming that, Marvin. I had heard that geologists are
among the most dishonest. They have a very old geology book that's
obviously erroneous in multiple places, and yet they insist on faith,
without a scrap of evidence, that every word in it is 100% true.

You two boys are quite the comedians. Yes, you are.
Pity you can't bring your collective selves to seriously deal with the meaning of objective evidence, proof, belief and the unproveable assumptions underlying science.

Shame that you keep making this accusation that science is befuddled by assumptions, but keep failing to say what assumptions.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Yes, it's a real shame.
If you can dig yourself out of the stinking mess of red herring you've been piling up you could try acting like adults.
Or is that too much to expect?

Well kunt, what are these assumptions that science relies on?
<crickets>

ignored

Non sequitur.

Don't use Latin if you don't know the meaning, Dimmy.
Wow, you are sooooo stooooopid.

LOL, % responded to me and said "ignored". That, you dumb cunt, is a non sequitur, since what he said does not follow from the fact he responded.

So no kunt, I'm not "sooooo stooooopid", but you obviously are.

Did you figure out what a priori means yet? Of course you didn't, you dumb kunt.

[Kurt Nicklas]

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by %

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I know that
geology majors, at the start of their last semester must swear to never
reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that observable earth-wide
stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of a world-wide flood about
6000 years ago, and that we must support without reservation the common
false claims supporting evolution put forth, especially in the realms of
paleontology and biogeography.
Marvin
Marvin Sebourn

Well thanks for confirming that, Marvin. I had heard that geologists are
among the most dishonest. They have a very old geology book that's
obviously erroneous in multiple places, and yet they insist on faith,
without a scrap of evidence, that every word in it is 100% true.

You two boys are quite the comedians. Yes, you are.
Pity you can't bring your collective selves to seriously deal with the meaning of objective evidence, proof, belief and the unproveable assumptions underlying science.

Shame that you keep making this accusation that science is befuddled by assumptions, but keep failing to say what assumptions.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Yes, it's a real shame.
If you can dig yourself out of the stinking mess of red herring you've been piling up you could try acting like adults.
Or is that too much to expect?

Well kunt, what are these assumptions that science relies on?
<crickets>

ignored

Non sequitur.

Don't use Latin if you don't know the meaning, Dimmy.
Wow, you are sooooo stooooopid.

LOL, % responded to me and said "ignored". That, you dumb cunt, is a non sequitur, since what he said does not follow from the fact he responded.

LOL the content was ignored but not the post, Dimmy.

How stooopid can you get??

[Tim]

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by %

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I know that
geology majors, at the start of their last semester must swear to never
reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that observable earth-wide
stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of a world-wide flood about
6000 years ago, and that we must support without reservation the common
false claims supporting evolution put forth, especially in the realms of
paleontology and biogeography.
Marvin
Marvin Sebourn

Well thanks for confirming that, Marvin. I had heard that geologists are
among the most dishonest. They have a very old geology book that's
obviously erroneous in multiple places, and yet they insist on faith,
without a scrap of evidence, that every word in it is 100% true.

You two boys are quite the comedians. Yes, you are.
Pity you can't bring your collective selves to seriously deal with the meaning of objective evidence, proof, belief and the unproveable assumptions underlying science.

Shame that you keep making this accusation that science is befuddled by assumptions, but keep failing to say what assumptions.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Yes, it's a real shame.
If you can dig yourself out of the stinking mess of red herring you've been piling up you could try acting like adults.
Or is that too much to expect?

Well kunt, what are these assumptions that science relies on?
<crickets>

ignored

Non sequitur.

Don't use Latin if you don't know the meaning, Dimmy.
Wow, you are sooooo stooooopid.

LOL, % responded to me and said "ignored". That, you dumb cunt, is a non sequitur, since what he said does not follow from the fact he responded.

LOL the content was ignored but not the post, Dimmy.

You always ignore the content, silly kunt.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
How stooopid can you get??

Unlike you, I can read the content. So how stupid are you kunt?

[Kurt Nicklas]

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I know that
geology majors, at the start of their last semester must swear to never
reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that observable earth-wide
stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of a world-wide flood about
6000 years ago, and that we must support without reservation the common
false claims supporting evolution put forth, especially in the realms of
paleontology and biogeography.
Marvin
Marvin Sebourn

Well thanks for confirming that, Marvin. I had heard that geologists are
among the most dishonest. They have a very old geology book that's
obviously erroneous in multiple places, and yet they insist on faith,
without a scrap of evidence, that every word in it is 100% true.

You two boys are quite the comedians. Yes, you are.
Pity you can't bring your collective selves to seriously deal with the meaning of objective evidence, proof, belief and the unproveable assumptions underlying science.

Shame that you keep making this accusation that science is befuddled by assumptions, but keep failing to say what assumptions.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Yes, it's a real shame.
If you can dig yourself out of the stinking mess of red herring you've been piling up you could try acting like adults.
Or is that too much to expect?

Well kunt, what are these assumptions that science relies on?
<crickets>

Poor Dim. So much effort. So little outcome.

Start with these...assuming you know how to click on a link.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

[Tim]

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I know that
geology majors, at the start of their last semester must swear to never
reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that observable earth-wide
stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of a world-wide flood about
6000 years ago, and that we must support without reservation the common
false claims supporting evolution put forth, especially in the realms of
paleontology and biogeography.
Marvin
Marvin Sebourn

Well thanks for confirming that, Marvin. I had heard that geologists are
among the most dishonest. They have a very old geology book that's
obviously erroneous in multiple places, and yet they insist on faith,
without a scrap of evidence, that every word in it is 100% true.

You two boys are quite the comedians. Yes, you are.
Pity you can't bring your collective selves to seriously deal with the meaning of objective evidence, proof, belief and the unproveable assumptions underlying science.

Shame that you keep making this accusation that science is befuddled by assumptions, but keep failing to say what assumptions.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Yes, it's a real shame.
If you can dig yourself out of the stinking mess of red herring you've been piling up you could try acting like adults.
Or is that too much to expect?

Well kunt, what are these assumptions that science relies on?
<crickets>

Poor Dim. So much effort. So little outcome.
Start with these...assuming you know how to click on a link.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

Silly kunt, you claimed they were a priori assumptions. But they aren't. Now stop being a coward and either explain how they are a priori or shut your fool mouth.

[Kurt Nicklas]

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I know that
geology majors, at the start of their last semester must swear to never
reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that observable earth-wide
stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of a world-wide flood about
6000 years ago, and that we must support without reservation the common
false claims supporting evolution put forth, especially in the realms of
paleontology and biogeography.
Marvin
Marvin Sebourn

Well thanks for confirming that, Marvin. I had heard that geologists are
among the most dishonest. They have a very old geology book that's
obviously erroneous in multiple places, and yet they insist on faith,
without a scrap of evidence, that every word in it is 100% true.

You two boys are quite the comedians. Yes, you are.
Pity you can't bring your collective selves to seriously deal with the meaning of objective evidence, proof, belief and the unproveable assumptions underlying science.

Shame that you keep making this accusation that science is befuddled by assumptions, but keep failing to say what assumptions.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Yes, it's a real shame.
If you can dig yourself out of the stinking mess of red herring you've been piling up you could try acting like adults.
Or is that too much to expect?

Well kunt, what are these assumptions that science relies on?
<crickets>

Poor Dim. So much effort. So little outcome.
Start with these...assuming you know how to click on a link.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

Silly kunt, you claimed they were a priori assumptions. But they aren't. Now stop being a coward and either explain how they are a priori or shut your fool mouth.

Poor Dimmy. Can't even understand the meaning of the words a priori.

Probably too stooooopid to even use a dictionary...

Here's the meaning, Dim. But I'm afraid you'll first need to learn how to click on the link. Can you do that, Dimmy? Are all Canucks as stoooopid as you?

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_APriori.html

[Tim]

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I know that
geology majors, at the start of their last semester must swear to never
reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that observable earth-wide
stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of a world-wide flood about
6000 years ago, and that we must support without reservation the common
false claims supporting evolution put forth, especially in the realms of
paleontology and biogeography.
Marvin
Marvin Sebourn

Well thanks for confirming that, Marvin. I had heard that geologists are
among the most dishonest. They have a very old geology book that's
obviously erroneous in multiple places, and yet they insist on faith,
without a scrap of evidence, that every word in it is 100% true.

You two boys are quite the comedians. Yes, you are.
Pity you can't bring your collective selves to seriously deal with the meaning of objective evidence, proof, belief and the unproveable assumptions underlying science.

Shame that you keep making this accusation that science is befuddled by assumptions, but keep failing to say what assumptions.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Yes, it's a real shame.
If you can dig yourself out of the stinking mess of red herring you've been piling up you could try acting like adults.
Or is that too much to expect?

Well kunt, what are these assumptions that science relies on?
<crickets>

Poor Dim. So much effort. So little outcome.
Start with these...assuming you know how to click on a link.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

Silly kunt, you claimed they were a priori assumptions. But they aren't. Now stop being a coward and either explain how they are a priori or shut your fool mouth.

Poor Dimmy. Can't even understand the meaning of the words a priori.

Wrong kunt. You claimed the assumptions of science are a priori. Explain how they are so.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Probably too stooooopid to even use a dictionary...
Here's the meaning, Dim. But I'm afraid you'll first need to learn how to click on the link. Can you do that, Dimmy? Are all Canucks as stoooopid as you?
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_APriori.html

We're smart enough to know that you're too much of a coward to admit that the assumptions you referred to are not a priori. But you aren't smart enough to see that and you'll never admit to it if you ever figure it out, stupid kunt.

[Kurt Nicklas]

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I know that
geology majors, at the start of their last semester must swear to never
reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that observable earth-wide
stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of a world-wide flood about
6000 years ago, and that we must support without reservation the common
false claims supporting evolution put forth, especially in the realms of
paleontology and biogeography.
Marvin
Marvin Sebourn

Well thanks for confirming that, Marvin. I had heard that geologists are
among the most dishonest. They have a very old geology book that's
obviously erroneous in multiple places, and yet they insist on faith,
without a scrap of evidence, that every word in it is 100% true.

You two boys are quite the comedians. Yes, you are.
Pity you can't bring your collective selves to seriously deal with the meaning of objective evidence, proof, belief and the unproveable assumptions underlying science.

Shame that you keep making this accusation that science is befuddled by assumptions, but keep failing to say what assumptions.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Yes, it's a real shame.
If you can dig yourself out of the stinking mess of red herring you've been piling up you could try acting like adults.
Or is that too much to expect?

Well kunt, what are these assumptions that science relies on?
<crickets>

Poor Dim. So much effort. So little outcome.
Start with these...assuming you know how to click on a link.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

Silly kunt, you claimed they were a priori assumptions. But they aren't. Now stop being a coward and either explain how they are a priori or shut your fool mouth.

1. Look up what 'a priori' means in Latin, silly girl.
2. Deny that science has assumptions that must be taken on faith for science to function.

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Poor Dimmy. Can't even understand the meaning of the words a priori.

Wrong kunt. You claimed the assumptions of science are a priori. Explain how they are so.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Probably too stooooopid to even use a dictionary...
Here's the meaning, Dim. But I'm afraid you'll first need to learn how to click on the link. Can you do that, Dimmy? Are all Canucks as stoooopid as you?
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_APriori.html

We're smart enough to know that you're too much of a coward to admit that the assumptions you referred to are not a priori. But you aren't smart enough to see that and you'll never admit to it if you ever figure it out, stupid kunt.

Click on the links I've provided yet, Dimmy? No? Why not?

[Tim]

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I know that
geology majors, at the start of their last semester must swear to never
reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that observable earth-wide
stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of a world-wide flood about
6000 years ago, and that we must support without reservation the common
false claims supporting evolution put forth, especially in the realms of
paleontology and biogeography.
Marvin
Marvin Sebourn

Well thanks for confirming that, Marvin. I had heard that geologists are
among the most dishonest. They have a very old geology book that's
obviously erroneous in multiple places, and yet they insist on faith,
without a scrap of evidence, that every word in it is 100% true.

You two boys are quite the comedians. Yes, you are.
Pity you can't bring your collective selves to seriously deal with the meaning of objective evidence, proof, belief and the unproveable assumptions underlying science.

Shame that you keep making this accusation that science is befuddled by assumptions, but keep failing to say what assumptions.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Yes, it's a real shame.
If you can dig yourself out of the stinking mess of red herring you've been piling up you could try acting like adults.
Or is that too much to expect?

Well kunt, what are these assumptions that science relies on?
<crickets>

Poor Dim. So much effort. So little outcome.
Start with these...assuming you know how to click on a link.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

Silly kunt, you claimed they were a priori assumptions. But they aren't. Now stop being a coward and either explain how they are a priori or shut your fool mouth.

1. Look up what 'a priori' means in Latin, silly girl.

I don't need to, but you do.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
2. Deny that science has assumptions that must be taken on faith for science to function.

I deny that the assumptions you cited are a priori.

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Poor Dimmy. Can't even understand the meaning of the words a priori.

Wrong kunt. You claimed the assumptions of science are a priori. Explain how they are so.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Probably too stooooopid to even use a dictionary...
Here's the meaning, Dim. But I'm afraid you'll first need to learn how to click on the link. Can you do that, Dimmy? Are all Canucks as stoooopid as you?
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_APriori.html

We're smart enough to know that you're too much of a coward to admit that the assumptions you referred to are not a priori. But you aren't smart enough to see that and you'll never admit to it if you ever figure it out, stupid kunt.

Click on the links I've provided yet, Dimmy? No? Why not?

Yes I have. Note that it says nothing about assumptions:

A Priori is a philosophical term that is used in several different ways. The term is suppose to mean knowledge that is gained through deduction, and not through empirical evidence...The problem, though, is that the word is used to describe something entirely different. It is used to describe knowledge that exists without reference to reality.

So now you get to explain how those assumptions you cited were not arrived at "through empirical evidence." and how scientists managed to conjure them up "without reference to reality."

You still don't get it do you, you stupid kunt.

[Kurt Nicklas]

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I know that
geology majors, at the start of their last semester must swear to never
reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that observable earth-wide
stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of a world-wide flood about
6000 years ago, and that we must support without reservation the common
false claims supporting evolution put forth, especially in the realms of
paleontology and biogeography.
Marvin
Marvin Sebourn

Well thanks for confirming that, Marvin. I had heard that geologists are
among the most dishonest. They have a very old geology book that's
obviously erroneous in multiple places, and yet they insist on faith,
without a scrap of evidence, that every word in it is 100% true.

You two boys are quite the comedians. Yes, you are.
Pity you can't bring your collective selves to seriously deal with the meaning of objective evidence, proof, belief and the unproveable assumptions underlying science.

Shame that you keep making this accusation that science is befuddled by assumptions, but keep failing to say what assumptions.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Yes, it's a real shame.
If you can dig yourself out of the stinking mess of red herring you've been piling up you could try acting like adults.
Or is that too much to expect?

Well kunt, what are these assumptions that science relies on?
<crickets>

Poor Dim. So much effort. So little outcome.
Start with these...assuming you know how to click on a link.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

Silly kunt, you claimed they were a priori assumptions. But they aren't. Now stop being a coward and either explain how they are a priori or shut your fool mouth.

1. Look up what 'a priori' means in Latin, silly girl.

I don't need to, but you do.

LOL Yes you do, Dimmy.

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas
2. Deny that science has assumptions that must be taken on faith for science to function.

I deny that the assumptions you cited are a priori.

Then you're a fool.

But we knew that long ago.

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Poor Dimmy. Can't even understand the meaning of the words a priori.

Wrong kunt. You claimed the assumptions of science are a priori. Explain how they are so.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Probably too stooooopid to even use a dictionary...
Here's the meaning, Dim. But I'm afraid you'll first need to learn how to click on the link. Can you do that, Dimmy? Are all Canucks as stoooopid as you?
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_APriori.html

We're smart enough to know that you're too much of a coward to admit that the assumptions you referred to are not a priori. But you aren't smart enough to see that and you'll never admit to it if you ever figure it out, stupid kunt.

Click on the links I've provided yet, Dimmy? No? Why not?

LOL Read it again, moron. Heck, the link itself contains the word 'assumptions' so that should give you a clue!

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

Post by Tim
A Priori is a philosophical term that is used in several different ways. The term is suppose to mean knowledge that is gained through deduction, and not through empirical evidence...The problem, though, is that the word is used to describe something entirely different. It is used to describe knowledge that exists without reference to reality.
So now you get to explain how those assumptions you cited were not arrived at "through empirical evidence." and how scientists managed to conjure them up "without reference to reality."

The fact that the are assumptions that form the basis of science and the scientific method and are not, by themselves, capable of being empirically proven makes them a priori, Dimwit. No conjuring necessary, therefore.

If you weren't such a Dimwit, you'd understand that science operates on FAITH in the truth of those assumptions.

But then you're too stoooopid to understand, obviously.

[Tim]

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I know that
geology majors, at the start of their last semester must swear to never
reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that observable earth-wide
stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of a world-wide flood about
6000 years ago, and that we must support without reservation the common
false claims supporting evolution put forth, especially in the realms of
paleontology and biogeography.
Marvin
Marvin Sebourn

Well thanks for confirming that, Marvin. I had heard that geologists are
among the most dishonest. They have a very old geology book that's
obviously erroneous in multiple places, and yet they insist on faith,
without a scrap of evidence, that every word in it is 100% true.

You two boys are quite the comedians. Yes, you are.
Pity you can't bring your collective selves to seriously deal with the meaning of objective evidence, proof, belief and the unproveable assumptions underlying science.

Shame that you keep making this accusation that science is befuddled by assumptions, but keep failing to say what assumptions.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Yes, it's a real shame.
If you can dig yourself out of the stinking mess of red herring you've been piling up you could try acting like adults.
Or is that too much to expect?

Well kunt, what are these assumptions that science relies on?
<crickets>

Poor Dim. So much effort. So little outcome.
Start with these...assuming you know how to click on a link.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

Silly kunt, you claimed they were a priori assumptions. But they aren't. Now stop being a coward and either explain how they are a priori or shut your fool mouth.

1. Look up what 'a priori' means in Latin, silly girl.

I don't need to, but you do.

LOL Yes you do, Dimmy.

No kunt, I don't.

Your link to a priori describes it as "a philosophical term that is used in several different ways. The term is suppose to mean knowledge [see that kunt] that is gained through deduction, and not through empirical evidence...The problem, though, is that the word is used to describe something entirely different. It is used to describe knowledge that exists without reference to reality."

No mention of assumption is there, kunt. Also note that a priori knowledge exists "without reference to reality." The assumptions in the other link do refer to reality.

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas
2. Deny that science has assumptions that must be taken on faith for science to function.

I deny that the assumptions you cited are a priori.

Then you're a fool.

No kunt, you simply haven't grasped the fact that the assumptions mentioned in the other link are not a priori. They are derived from given experience.

"There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us."

That is derived from reality and not "without reference to reality." See kunt? The above assumption simply can not be a priori since it is derived from experience. It is a posteriori.

a pos·te·ri·o·ri
ˌä ˌpästērēˈôrē,ˌā ˌpästērēˈôrī/Submit

adjective
1.
relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge that proceeds from observations or experiences to the deduction of probable causes.

adverb
1.
in a way based on reasoning from known facts or past events rather than by making assumptions or predictions.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
But we knew that long ago.

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Poor Dimmy. Can't even understand the meaning of the words a priori.

Wrong kunt. You claimed the assumptions of science are a priori. Explain how they are so.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Probably too stooooopid to even use a dictionary...
Here's the meaning, Dim. But I'm afraid you'll first need to learn how to click on the link. Can you do that, Dimmy? Are all Canucks as stoooopid as you?
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_APriori.html

We're smart enough to know that you're too much of a coward to admit that the assumptions you referred to are not a priori. But you aren't smart enough to see that and you'll never admit to it if you ever figure it out, stupid kunt.

Click on the links I've provided yet, Dimmy? No? Why not?

LOL Read it again, moron. Heck, the link itself contains the word > >'assumptions' so that should give you a clue!

Wrong link, dumb kunt.

You can't just sew them together.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

Post by Tim
A Priori is a philosophical term that is used in several different ways. The term is suppose to mean knowledge that is gained through deduction, and not through empirical evidence...The problem, though, is that the word is used to describe something entirely different. It is used to describe knowledge that exists without reference to reality.
So now you get to explain how those assumptions you cited were not arrived at "through empirical evidence." and how scientists managed to conjure them up "without reference to reality."

The fact that the are assumptions that form the basis of science and the >scientific method and are not, by themselves, capable of being empirically >proven makes them a priori, Dimwit.

You're an idiot. They are proven empirically. They were derived from empirical observation.

Here are the assumptions:

There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us.
Evidence from the natural world can be used to learn about those causes.
There is consistency in the causes that operate in the natural world.

Which ones were derived "without reference to reality."?

Post by Kurt Nicklas
No conjuring necessary, therefore.

Because they are given by experience and not ""without reference to reality." And are thereby not a priori.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
If you weren't such a Dimwit, you'd understand that science operates on > > FAITH in the truth of those assumptions.

Wrong again. Faith is to assume without evidence. All the assumptions mentioned in the link are based on evidence found in reality.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
But then you're too stoooopid to understand, obviously.

Wrong again kunt. You're just too much of a coward to admit that you're wrong and you're too eager to try and put theistic mumbo jumbo on par with science.

[Kurt Nicklas]

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I know that
geology majors, at the start of their last semester must swear to never
reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that observable earth-wide
stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of a world-wide flood about
6000 years ago, and that we must support without reservation the common
false claims supporting evolution put forth, especially in the realms of
paleontology and biogeography.
Marvin
Marvin Sebourn

Well thanks for confirming that, Marvin. I had heard that geologists are
among the most dishonest. They have a very old geology book that's
obviously erroneous in multiple places, and yet they insist on faith,
without a scrap of evidence, that every word in it is 100% true.

You two boys are quite the comedians. Yes, you are.
Pity you can't bring your collective selves to seriously deal with the meaning of objective evidence, proof, belief and the unproveable assumptions underlying science.

Shame that you keep making this accusation that science is befuddled by assumptions, but keep failing to say what assumptions.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Yes, it's a real shame.
If you can dig yourself out of the stinking mess of red herring you've been piling up you could try acting like adults.
Or is that too much to expect?

Well kunt, what are these assumptions that science relies on?
<crickets>

Poor Dim. So much effort. So little outcome.
Start with these...assuming you know how to click on a link.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

Silly kunt, you claimed they were a priori assumptions. But they aren't. Now stop being a coward and either explain how they are a priori or shut your fool mouth.

1. Look up what 'a priori' means in Latin, silly girl.

I don't need to, but you do.

LOL Yes you do, Dimmy.

No kunt, I don't.
Your link to a priori describes it as "a philosophical term that is used in several different ways. The term is suppose to mean knowledge [see that kunt] that is gained through deduction, and not through empirical evidence...The problem, though, is that the word is used to describe something entirely different. It is used to describe knowledge that exists without reference to reality."
No mention of assumption is there, kunt. Also note that a priori knowledge exists "without reference to reality." The assumptions in the other link do refer to reality.

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas
2. Deny that science has assumptions that must be taken on faith for science to function.

I deny that the assumptions you cited are a priori.

Then you're a fool.

No kunt, you simply haven't grasped the fact that the assumptions mentioned in the other link are not a priori. They are derived from given experience.
"There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us."
That is derived from reality and not "without reference to reality." See kunt? The above assumption simply can not be a priori since it is derived from experience. It is a posteriori.
a pos·te·ri·o·ri
ˌä ˌpästērēˈôrē,ˌā ˌpästērēˈôrī/Submit
adjective
1.
relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge that proceeds from observations or experiences to the deduction of probable causes.
adverb
1.
in a way based on reasoning from known facts or past events rather than by making assumptions or predictions.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
But we knew that long ago.

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Poor Dimmy. Can't even understand the meaning of the words a priori.

Wrong kunt. You claimed the assumptions of science are a priori. Explain how they are so.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Probably too stooooopid to even use a dictionary...
Here's the meaning, Dim. But I'm afraid you'll first need to learn how to click on the link. Can you do that, Dimmy? Are all Canucks as stoooopid as you?
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_APriori.html

We're smart enough to know that you're too much of a coward to admit that the assumptions you referred to are not a priori. But you aren't smart enough to see that and you'll never admit to it if you ever figure it out, stupid kunt.

Click on the links I've provided yet, Dimmy? No? Why not?

LOL Read it again, moron. Heck, the link itself contains the word > >'assumptions' so that should give you a clue!

Wrong link, dumb kunt.

Nope.

Post by Tim
You can't just sew them together.

When they're related I can, DimWit.

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

Post by Tim
A Priori is a philosophical term that is used in several different ways. The term is suppose to mean knowledge that is gained through deduction, and not through empirical evidence...The problem, though, is that the word is used to describe something entirely different. It is used to describe knowledge that exists without reference to reality.
So now you get to explain how those assumptions you cited were not arrived at "through empirical evidence." and how scientists managed to conjure them up "without reference to reality."

The fact that the are assumptions that form the basis of science and the >scientific method and are not, by themselves, capable of being empirically >proven makes them a priori, Dimwit.

You're an idiot. They are proven empirically. They were derived from empirical observation.

No, it's YOU who's the idiot. You can't begin to prove something "empirically" unless you first make the assumption that the universe is perceivable and that our sense give accurate data about the world.

Post by Tim
There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us.
Evidence from the natural world can be used to learn about those causes.
There is consistency in the causes that operate in the natural world.
Which ones were derived "without reference to reality."?

All of them, in the sense that are assumptions and not provable, DimWit.

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas
No conjuring necessary, therefore.

Because they are given by experience and not ""without reference to reality." And are thereby not a priori.

Stupid, Dimwit. You can't prove ANYTHING by experience unless you FIRST - a priori - make the assumption that sense data gives a true and consistent picture of the universe.

Without that assumption, you can't prove anything "by experience".

And before you try to say it...no, you can't prove sense impressions are true by using sense impressions.

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas
If you weren't such a Dimwit, you'd understand that science operates on > > FAITH in the truth of those assumptions.

Wrong again. Faith is to assume without evidence. All the assumptions mentioned in the link are based on evidence found in reality.

Nonsense. See above, Dimmy.

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas
But then you're too stoooopid to understand, obviously.

Wrong again kunt. You're just too much of a coward to admit that you're wrong and you're too eager to try and put theistic mumbo jumbo on par with science.

Science is your God, Dim. It's your FAITH. You can't go ANYWHERE with it unless you believe in things that, in the final analysis, you cannot prove.

It's okay, Dimmy. I don't expect you to understand.....

[Ted]

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Ted

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

On 04 Oct 2017 04:31 PM ,Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell
you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I know that
geology majors, at the start of their last semester must swear to never
reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that observable earth-wide
stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of a world-wide flood about
6000 years ago, and that we must support without reservation the common
false claims supporting evolution put forth, especially in the realms of
paleontology and biogeography.
Marvin
Marvin Sebourn

Well thanks for confirming that, Marvin. I had heard that geologists are
among the most dishonest. They have a very old geology book that's
obviously erroneous in multiple places, and yet they insist on faith,
without a scrap of evidence, that every word in it is 100% true.

You two boys are quite the comedians. Yes, you are.
Pity you can't bring your collective selves to seriously deal
with the meaning of objective evidence, proof, belief and the unproveable
assumptions underlying science.

Shame that you keep making this accusation that science is befuddled by
assumptions, but keep failing to say what assumptions.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Yes, it's a real shame.
If you can dig yourself out of the stinking mess of red herring you've been
piling up you could try acting like adults.
Or is that too much to expect?

Well kunt, what are these assumptions that science relies on?
<crickets>

Poor Dim. So much effort. So little outcome.
Start with these...assuming you know how to click on a link.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

Silly kunt, you claimed they were a priori assumptions. But they
aren't. Now stop being a coward and either explain how they are a
priori or shut your fool mouth.

1. Look up what 'a priori' means in Latin, silly girl.

I don't need to, but you do.

LOL Yes you do, Dimmy.

No kunt, I don't.
Your link to a priori describes it as "a philosophical term that is used
in several different ways. The term is suppose to mean knowledge [see
that kunt] that is gained through deduction, and not through empirical
evidence...The problem, though, is that the word is used to describe
something entirely different. It is used to describe knowledge that
exists without reference to reality."
No mention of assumption is there, kunt. Also note that a priori
knowledge exists "without reference to reality." The assumptions in the
other link do refer to reality.

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas
2. Deny that science has assumptions that must be taken on faith for
science to function.

I deny that the assumptions you cited are a priori.

Then you're a fool.

No kunt, you simply haven't grasped the fact that the assumptions
mentioned in the other link are not a priori. They are derived from given experience.
"There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us."
That is derived from reality and not "without reference to reality." See
kunt? The above assumption simply can not be a priori since it is
derived from experience. It is a posteriori.
a pos·te·ri·o·ri
ˌä ˌpästērēˈôrē,ˌā ˌpästērēˈôrī/Submit
adjective
1.
relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge that proceeds from
observations or experiences to the deduction of probable causes.
adverb
1.
in a way based on reasoning from known facts or past events rather than
by making assumptions or predictions.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
But we knew that long ago.

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Poor Dimmy. Can't even understand the meaning of the words a priori.

Wrong kunt. You claimed the assumptions of science are a priori.
Explain how they are so.

Post by Kurt Nicklas
Probably too stooooopid to even use a dictionary...
Here's the meaning, Dim. But I'm afraid you'll first need to learn
how to click on the link. Can you do that, Dimmy? Are all Canucks
as stoooopid as you?
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_APriori.html

We're smart enough to know that you're too much of a coward to admit
that the assumptions you referred to are not a priori. But you
aren't smart enough to see that and you'll never admit to it if you
ever figure it out, stupid kunt.

Click on the links I've provided yet, Dimmy? No? Why not?

LOL Read it again, moron. Heck, the link itself contains the word >

Post by Tim
'assumptions' so that should give you a clue!

Wrong link, dumb kunt.

Nope.

Post by Tim
You can't just sew them together.

When they're related I can, DimWit.

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions

Post by Tim
A Priori is a philosophical term that is used in several different
ways. The term is suppose to mean knowledge that is gained through
deduction, and not through empirical evidence...The problem, though,
is that the word is used to describe something entirely different. It
is used to describe knowledge that exists without reference to reality.
So now you get to explain how those assumptions you cited were not
arrived at "through empirical evidence." and how scientists managed to
conjure them up "without reference to reality."

The fact that the are assumptions that form the basis of science and
the >scientific method and are not, by themselves, capable of being
empirically >proven makes them a priori, Dimwit.

You're an idiot. They are proven empirically. They were derived from
empirical observation.

No, it's YOU who's the idiot. You can't begin to prove something
"empirically" unless you first make the assumption that the universe is
perceivable and that our sense give accurate data about the world.

Post by Tim
There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us.
Evidence from the natural world can be used to learn about those causes.
There is consistency in the causes that operate in the natural world.
Which ones were derived "without reference to reality."?

All of them, in the sense that are assumptions and not provable, DimWit.

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas
No conjuring necessary, therefore.

Because they are given by experience and not ""without reference to
reality." And are thereby not a priori.

Stupid, Dimwit. You can't prove ANYTHING by experience unless you FIRST -
a priori - make the assumption that sense data gives a true and
consistent picture of the universe.
Without that assumption, you can't prove anything "by experience".
And before you try to say it...no, you can't prove sense impressions are
true by using sense impressions.

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas
If you weren't such a Dimwit, you'd understand that science operates on

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas
FAITH in the truth of those assumptions.

Wrong again. Faith is to assume without evidence. All the assumptions
mentioned in the link are based on evidence found in reality.

Nonsense. See above, Dimmy.

Post by Tim

Post by Kurt Nicklas
But then you're too stoooopid to understand, obviously.

Wrong again kunt. You're just too much of a coward to admit that you're
wrong and you're too eager to try and put theistic mumbo jumbo on par with science.

Science is your God, Dim. It's your FAITH. You can't go ANYWHERE with it
unless you believe in things that, in the final analysis, you cannot prove.
It's okay, Dimmy. I don't expect you to understand.....

You might enjoy reading Russell's essay on the problem of induction, Kurt.
You'll likely derive reinforcement from it for your thesis that science is
groundless.

[duke]

Post by Marvin Sebourn

Post by Ted

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Good point, Kurt. You can't trust those lying science fuckers. They make
shit up and never let anybody know where or how to verify it. That's why
religion is so much more reliable. Religion publishes journals
explaining their methods, so that anybody who wants to verify their
findings can do so. Not scientists, though, the sneaky bastards.

Good stuff and certainly correct, Ted. By personal experience I know that geology majors, at the start of their last semester

must swear to never reveal that radiometric dating cannot work, that observable
earth-wide stratigraphy clearly shows the occurrence of a world-wide flood about
6000 years ago, and that we must support without reservation the common false
claims supporting evolution put forth, especially in the realms of paleontology
and biogeography.

You sure sucked teddie the fairy in on that one.


the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Tim]

Post by Kurt Nicklas

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by Cloud Hobbit
He keeps posting it in hopes that someone will think it IS evidence.

I already knows it is evidence, what's your problem?

Now we know that neither of you has the slightest clue what evidence is.

What direct evidence do you have to confirm anything that science may tell you?

Repeatable experiments, silly kunt.

[hypatiab7]

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method
Indirect witnesses[edit]
Garraghan says that most information comes from "indirect witnesses," people who were not present on the scene but heard of the events from someone else.[7] Gottschalk says that a historian may sometimes use hearsay evidence when no primary texts are available. He writes, "In cases where he uses secondary witnesses...he asks: (1) On whose primary testimony does the secondary witness base his statements? (2) Did the secondary witness accurately report the primary testimony as a whole? (3) If not, in what details did he accurately report the primary testimony? Satisfactory answers to the second and third questions may provide the historian with the whole or the gist of the primary testimony upon which the secondary witness may be his only means of knowledge. In such cases the secondary source is the historian's 'original' source, in the sense of being the 'origin' of his knowledge. Insofar as this 'original' source is an accurate report of primary testimony, he tests its credibility as he would that of the primary testimony itself." Gottschalk adds, "Thus hearsay evidence would not be discarded by the historian, as it would be by a law court merely because it is hearsay.
Therefore, historians do not require contemporary witnesses to an event to accept it as fact. Thus, the amount of time elapsed between the event and a witness report is not relevant.

Why you keep posting the same thing over and over again?

Like you, he forgets things very quickly.

[Your Founding Fathers Erred]

Post by hypatiab7

Post by Slaveholders Can Tell Me Nothing About Human Right

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method
Indirect witnesses[edit]
Garraghan says that most information comes from "indirect witnesses," people who were not present on the scene but heard of the events from someone else.[7] Gottschalk says that a historian may sometimes use hearsay evidence when no primary texts are available. He writes, "In cases where he uses secondary witnesses...he asks: (1) On whose primary testimony does the secondary witness base his statements? (2) Did the secondary witness accurately report the primary testimony as a whole? (3) If not, in what details did he accurately report the primary testimony? Satisfactory answers to the second and third questions may provide the historian with the whole or the gist of the primary testimony upon which the secondary witness may be his only means of knowledge. In such cases the secondary source is the historian's 'original' source, in the sense of being the 'origin' of his knowledge. Insofar as this 'original' source is an accurate report of primary testimony, he tests its credibility as he would that of the primary testimony itself." Gottschalk adds, "Thus hearsay evidence would not be discarded by the historian, as it would be by a law court merely because it is hearsay.
Therefore, historians do not require contemporary witnesses to an event to accept it as fact. Thus, the amount of time elapsed between the event and a witness report is not relevant.

Why you keep posting the same thing over and over again?

Like you, he forgets things very quickly.

Why he didn't forget your butt?

[Yap Honghor]

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method
Indirect witnesses[edit]
Garraghan says that most information comes from "indirect witnesses," people who were not present on the scene but heard of the events from someone else.[7] Gottschalk says that a historian may sometimes use hearsay evidence when no primary texts are available. He writes, "In cases where he uses secondary witnesses...he asks: (1) On whose primary testimony does the secondary witness base his statements? (2) Did the secondary witness accurately report the primary testimony as a whole? (3) If not, in what details did he accurately report the primary testimony? Satisfactory answers to the second and third questions may provide the historian with the whole or the gist of the primary testimony upon which the secondary witness may be his only means of knowledge. In such cases the secondary source is the historian's 'original' source, in the sense of being the 'origin' of his knowledge. Insofar as this 'original' source is an accurate report of primary testimony, he tests its credibility as he would that of the primary testimony itself." Gottschalk adds, "Thus hearsay evidence would not be discarded by the historian, as it would be by a law court merely because it is hearsay.
Therefore, historians do not require contemporary witnesses to an event to accept it as fact. Thus, the amount of time elapsed between the event and a witness report is not relevant.

Yap: "Mad Joe is seriously mad!"
Viva: "He is mad?"
Andrew: "Ya, he is unstable!"
Assroid: "Well, I think he is OK!"

Look at the above, a serious mad person can be OK as the mentally unstable to being OK!

[Kurt Nicklas]

Post by Yap Honghor

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method
Indirect witnesses[edit]
Garraghan says that most information comes from "indirect witnesses," people who were not present on the scene but heard of the events from someone else.[7] Gottschalk says that a historian may sometimes use hearsay evidence when no primary texts are available. He writes, "In cases where he uses secondary witnesses...he asks: (1) On whose primary testimony does the secondary witness base his statements? (2) Did the secondary witness accurately report the primary testimony as a whole? (3) If not, in what details did he accurately report the primary testimony? Satisfactory answers to the second and third questions may provide the historian with the whole or the gist of the primary testimony upon which the secondary witness may be his only means of knowledge. In such cases the secondary source is the historian's 'original' source, in the sense of being the 'origin' of his knowledge. Insofar as this 'original' source is an accurate report of primary testimony, he tests its credibility as he would that of the primary testimony itself." Gottschalk adds, "Thus hearsay evidence would not be discarded by the historian, as it would be by a law court merely because it is hearsay.
Therefore, historians do not require contemporary witnesses to an event to accept it as fact. Thus, the amount of time elapsed between the event and a witness report is not relevant.

Yap: "Mad Joe is seriously mad!"
Viva: "He is mad?"
Andrew: "Ya, he is unstable!"
Assroid: "Well, I think he is OK!"
Look at the above, a serious mad person can be OK as the mentally unstable to being OK!

That sentence makes no sense.

Typical for you, Yappy.

[John Locke]

Post by v***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method
Garraghan says that most information comes from "indirect witnesses," people who were not present
on the scene but heard of the events from someone else...

..yep, hearsay aka gossip...the most unreliable source of information
on the planet.

[Davej]

[...]

There are plenty of historical accounts that are known to be false
because they are impossible.

[v***@gmail.com]

Post by Davej

[...]

There are plenty of historical accounts that are known to be false
because they are impossible.

Examples?????