Re: coaster: The giant in Jack and the Bean Stock said fee fye fo fum.

On Feb 28, 9:44 am, "derdag" <der...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 28, 7:36 am, "coaster" <coaster...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Feb 27, 11:36 pm, derdagi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Feb 28, 12:26 am, "coaster" <coaster...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 27, 11:03 pm, derdagi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Feb 27, 11:49 pm, "coaster" <coaster...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 27, 9:22 pm, "derdag" <der...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

It wasn't trollese and you know it.

What did I ask you to do before I would discuss anything with you?

As for the Hawking Paradox and dark energy, your universe isn't
logical, might be flat, possibly happened in a single point if we
allow enough imagination. The known universe is based on different
physics, though, and must be "allowed," along with a lot of
assumptions, to make abiogenesis your starting point for the rest of
it.

Equivocate unknown with unknowable; Check.

The boomerang evidence shows features of islands of creation. The
black holes are points of destruction. The Hawking Paradox allowed
for points of disappearing information. The boomerang showed points
of creation. Watch the Big Bang fall apart. None of the best
theoretical physicists and cosmologists will even be suprised. They
say as much.

Predict the eminent destruction of keystone tenants of physical
science; Check

The big boys don't have any faith in their explanations. Only the
believers are left, as we do know enough to see that our scientific
explanations aren't working.

Use 'faith' as a dirty word to imply that it takes more faith to
believe in naturalistic causes than supernatural ones thus distracting
less educated readers from the fact that empiricism is the root cause
for our belief in things like the Big Bang; Check and double check.

derdag

See? You're just a dirty troll.

Promise what I asked in the other thread and I will be happy to
address your concerns on the merits of the science. But I doubt that
you will because you're too caught up fooling everyone into believing
that you're actually serious.

First, offer me up the problem with addressing the science as I
understand it.

Certainly. The problem is that you invent controversy in order to
provoke, intentionally contradict yourself by simultaneously
sanctioning and outlawing empiricism in order to provoke, make false
associations in order to provoke, cough up the occasional admittance
of guilt to get someone to let down their guard in order to provoke.

So there you go. That's your problem with addressing the science as
you understand it. You never actually address the science. Your aim
is strictly to provoke.

Now promise.

We have different interpretations of what it shows.
Otherwise, we see the same evidence. It isn't as if I don't see the
same information that you see. We just offer different ways of
weighing it and have differences on what is conclusive or upon how
many special 'givens' we're going to allow in determining what is
proven, hypothesized or plausible. I'm probably not a real troll if
you think trolls are dishonest in their motives and scientific
reasoning. On occasion, I'll throw something in, strictly, to play
around as if I might be a troll, just to jerk your chain. you know..
The average pimple faced nitwit sitting at the puter jerking his joint
can't come up with derdagianism and handle themselves in here, and you
know it.

You seem to believe that I'm provokable.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Actually, I assume that you must have posted this theoretical
"promise" that I'm supposed to promise. I'm trusting your word on
that. But, I don't know where it is and we can't be agreeing on it if
I haven't seen it. If the first part of it is that I have to denounce
a Christian Diety, as part of my ID, offer a method to test for it and
promise that I'm mesmerized by slippery nipples, etc. its a pretty
good bet that some of it won't be agreeable. Post a link and I'll
check it out.

Your link, sir.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/80d7c79...Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Put aside the troll and promise to refrain from injecting fear,
uncertainty and doubt into the discussion and I will gladly debate
the
science with you on its merits.

No fear. No doubt? No uncertainty?

F.U.D.; the troll bible.

Fear: the injection of catastrophism with respect to long held
theories without a qualifying argument.

Uncertainty: the use of ambiguity to anesthetize respondents to the
vacuousness of a non-argument.

Doubt: the blatant application of arguments from incredulity to
blanket scientific explanation with perceived holes.

Hiesenberg assured that we must
allow uncertainty.

Application of uncertain by means of false association. The allusion
to Heisenberg is out of context.

Doubts are the search for variables to possibly
isolate againse in a test, and doubts are important in the search for
an alternative plausibility.

Is this a breakthrough? This is probably the most reasonable thing
I've ever heard you say, and I would normally agree completely. But
we're talking about two different forms of 'doubt' and you know it.
The troll often misplaces the context of the discussion.

Are you willing to refrain from asking
readers to enter into the area beyond knowledge, or the knowledge/
belief boundry? Is that the area of agreement and discussion??

Fear by inquest. The troll designs his post to persuade the
respondent into questioning his own line of reasoning. Like all forms
of persuasion, the design is necessarily antagonistic. This wouldn't
necessarily be a bad thing if only it were backed up by a substantial
and factual argument.

.