Re: Shiny new thread for Tony

On Sep 7, 11:53 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
T Pagano wrote:

 > On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:05:46 -0700, John Harshman > <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 >
 >> T Pagano wrote:
 >>> On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 13:43:31 -0700 (PDT), Friar Broccoli >>> <Elia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 >>>
 >>>> On Sep 6, 6:47 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
 >>>>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 17:58:35 -0700 (PDT), the following
 >>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Friar Broccoli
 >>>>> <Elia...@xxxxxxxxx>:
 >>>>>
 >>>>>> On Sep 5, 7:31 pm, Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
 >>>>>>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:47:10 -0700, the following appeared
 >>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@xxxxxxxx>:
 >>>>>>>

[snip]

1. Scripture does indeed report the occurrence of a world wide,
catastrophic flood event. It is akin to a newspaper report not a
science text. It offers no mechanisms or models. It reports
history. The Noahic Flood event did occur.

 >> How do we know that?
 >
 > 1.  That has nothing to do with the idiocy raised by the *** brothers
 > here.   Interesting issue though...start a new thread to explore it.
 > I'll weigh in.

What is this obsession with new threads?

 >>> 2.  I suggest Broccoli and Casanova consult a English language
 >>> dictionary for the difference between "history" and "science."

 >> Does the term "historical science" mean anything to you?
 >
 > 1.  Indeed it does and I'm one of the few in the forum who has used
 > the term in relation to Origins investigation.  However, this doesn't
 > save the *** brothers.
 >
 > 2.  Scripture reports history not theories, hypotheses, models or
 > mechanisms.  Your implication taken to its absurd conclusion converts
 > every newspaper which reports on a shooting star is an astronomy text.

 > 3.  Wonder boy has had that shoved up his arse before, but he never
 > quite learns from his mistakes.

Scripture, as far as I can tell, reports neither. It reports myths.
However, since you use it to determine the true history of the universe,
you are using it as a science text.

Why this obsession with having things shoved up peoples asses, by the way?

 >>> 3.  And as far as I know no one as refuted the historical report of
 >>> the Noahic Flood.

How would one refute such a report other than by showing that the
physical evidence is against it? (And, by the way, the physical
evidence is so against it.)

 >
 > 1.  Another excellent thread starter which you don't have the stomach
 > to start.
 >
 > 2.  I seriously doubt that you could produce any collection of raw
 > uninterpreted observations that conflict with the Noahic Flood.  Care
 > to try?

Care to answer the question, O King of Weasels?

 > 3.  But not buried here; start a new thread so everyone can watch you
 > stick out your chin in the boxing ring.

OK. Sure. But you need to explain why you need a new thread for every reply.

I found these:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/d32c4ddcb5da7a3b
 which includes: TP:"The written records of the Babylonian
myth date to around 2000 BC long after the Flood"
1. Again Scripture offers historical events not scientific
theories, models or mechanisms. The Noahic Flood is a benchmark
"historical" event as I point out in my quote above.

 >> How do you tell a historical event from a myth?
 >
 > I ask myself that same question every time I hear the interesting
 > secular story that a dinosaur forearm transformed into an avian wing
 > or a mesonychid transformed into a whale.

I see you haven't answered the question.

2. If Casanova and his *** brother Broccoli think the quote
above is evidence that Scripture is being used as science then
they both have a mental deficiency.

 >> Everyone but you considers it evidence, but doubtless we all have a
 >> mental deficiency.
 >
 > 1.  Do you really think this rescues the *** brothers?
 >
 > 2.  You guys are going to have to get way better than this.
 >
 > 3.  Notice that Elsberry flees when the going gets tough and Wilkins
 > is terrrified of tarnishing his reputation in any confrontation with
 > me.  Doesn't that bother you?

No, because I notice no such thing. Wilkins has you killfiled. And I can
guarantee that nobody flees from you, that the going never gets tough
with you, and that nobody is terrified of you. We all are amazed,
however, at your capacity for self-deception.

 > 4.  Forrest is the only one who has challenged me lately and even he
 > hasn't put his feet in the water.
 >
 > 5.  Above you've identified at least two very interesting thread
 > starters.  But will you have the courage of your convictions to start
 > them?  I'm betting you're way too terrified.  Pity.

Yeah, sure. For what it's worth, I'll start a new thread.

Does Pags starting innumerable threads (like whack a mole or the hydra
heads) tend to cause confusion where anyone following the discussion
between the people replying to Pags on one thread aren't aware of the
many others that have cropped up elsewhere, so eventually there's a
cognitive overload of new threads with no real points addressed by
Pags and everybody's brain crashes and burns from trying to keep up
with it all? Talk.origins has become irreducibly complex with new Pags
threads and who knows anymore what's happened during all of them.
There just aren't that many hours in a day to follow pointless thread
after pointless thread with the only substantive difference being the
t.o. regular's name highlighted in the title who has recently crashed
and burned. And now Pags is going rectal on us.

.

Loading