Re: Alien Genetic Manipulation of Man

On Nov 20, 11:49 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 18, 4:42 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@xxxxxxx> wrote:





On Nov 18, 11:07 am, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Nov 17, 7:47 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Kermit wrote:
On Nov 17, 1:03 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Caranx latus wrote:
On Nov 17, 12:56 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYI9qC56mGs

Yet another interpretation of the evidence.

Wow.

Wow.

You're k00kier than I thought.

He's not even slightly crazy. It's all a big joke. Every time the
usual gaggle of respondents (including me occasionally) bites on one
of his absurdities he hugs himself with glee. This proves daily (to
him) that he is smarter than all these well educated people.

David

You are claiming that he is a loki-troll hybrid. One who has posted
multiple thousands of time in the space of a month. You are proposing
that he is less healthy than what he pretends to be.

Not crazy - warped.  I would say he has the time because he is retired.
Probably from a profession where formal education is not required but a fine
line in bull is an asset, such as advertising.  "Adman" is not nominative
determinism but a self label.

This is persuasive, but hardly sufficient. I was raised by biblical
literalists, and he fits the bill. He is the "lone wolf" type of
Creationist - we get a high percentage of them here - who has his own
ideas about things, like the Sons of God being aliens. But his
empirical nihilism, his fitting everything into the Procrustean bed of
US evangelical literalist Creationism, claiming humility
simultaneously with claiming to be an infallible voice of God - these
are the adults I knew on the tent revival circuit in the American
South fifty years ago.

A Loki would not be so prolific, I think. Trolls can be true
believers; in fact, I think that's the normal state for our anti-
science visitors here.

I don't deny the possibility, but I prefer the simpler solution - that
he is exactly what he seems to be.

Religious fanaticism is a *very successful meme.

No doubt about it but he doesn't fit the pattern in my view.

Kermit

Compared to the religious fanatics we have here he lacks the emotional
commitment to his material.  He uses all the tricks in the book to avoid
engagement where, due to his spotty understanding of the subject matter, he
would get obviously trounced.  He will respond to accusations that he is
ignorant. However when his commitment is questioned he never responds. Also
when one of his more silly "Christian" gambits is ridiculed he never shows
any sign of affront, annoyance or even pity on the heathen that the true
fanatic will exhibit.  He doesn't take his own stuff seriously.  He is
playing a role not living it.

He's more playful than most, sure. He's not nearly as grumpy or rude
as Ray, Spinny, or Nashton. After calling everybody here incompetent
and dishonest, he's normally polite. But don't mistake that for a lack
of commitment. He thinks that if he is wrong, he may not go that that
Great Church Picnic in the Sky. Psychologically, he's fighting for his
life, which is why we will never be able to talk sense into him.

Also, he's spent some years weaving these fantasies, and he as an
emotional investment in them.
Don't know how to confirm it to your satisfaction, though. Like you, I
am depending largely on intuition. And unlike Madman, we know how
reliable *that is.

Kermit. Have you gone crazy?

What's with this "intuition" crap. That is UNscientific.ain't it?

oooo, THAT is right.

Evolutionist Double Standard # 312 says:

We can have intuition but creationist can't.

No. When we have a belief that something is true, but have no reliable
way of verifying it, we point that out (or else someone else would, to
our embarrassment). Did you see that I was confirming that if someone
else's analysis of a personality over information derived from usenet
posts differed from mine, we had no reliable way of confirming who was
wrong? (Possibly both.)

Beliefs that X is true has various levels of confidence, depending on
the available supporting evidence (including lack of refuting
evidence). It also helps to have a cheerful acknowledgement of one's
own fallibility. I am not the only one to notice that for
Creationists, their avowed certainty correlates strongly with their
absolute lack of supporting evidence.

You can have weakly supported beliefs. but it is utterly unpersuasive
to make extraordinary claims, offer absolutely no verifiable data to
support those claims, then expect people to embrace them. A number of
scientists are theists, but they don't typically expect to convert
other scientists simply by offering personal anecdotes of emotional
fulfillment, aesthetic completion, or whatever their reasons are. They
*especially do not use ancient myths as evidence that the world around
them is a lie. Scientists, and science amateurs like myself, do not
believe the world is chaotic or an illusion.

I never said that all beliefs must be scientific and strongly
supported by evidence. Most people here do not say that. But if you
want me to believe you have the Ear of God®, you'll have to give me
something other than earnestly repeating it. I monitored group therapy
sessions which included Jesus *and Satan, or so they said. Why should
I be impressed by a mere prophet?

Kermit- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You constantly take the position of sitting back, (with your arms
folded I'm sure), and saying "Convince me". Then you set the bar so
high that no one could ever convince you; So, you sit back smugly in
your comfort zone as if you have won some kind of a victory with
semantics.

Well. You have not.

If history has shown mankind anything K, it has shown mankind that
many things are not always as they seem to be.

What you may perceive as rock solid evidence may just be as fleeting
as the wind. And what you dismiss as fleeting as the wind may just be
where the truth lies.

It is unnatural to demand everything meet your specific scientific
criteria to be the truth. Quite the contrary; I suggest to you that
one can never discover truth being that inflexible.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Alien Genetic Manipulation of Man
    ... the available supporting evidence (including lack of refuting ... absolute lack of supporting evidence. ... other scientists simply by offering personal anecdotes of emotional ... One thing on which we all agree - the truth never comes from you. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Alien Genetic Manipulation of Man
    ... US evangelical literalist Creationism, claiming humility ... the available supporting evidence (including lack of refuting ... absolute lack of supporting evidence. ... other scientists simply by offering personal anecdotes of emotional ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Mr Dawkins new book?
    ... >nothing to look at and masses of evidence to the contrary. ... There need be no conflict between the truth of science and the truth of Christianity. ... was created can only be true in ways that no religion ever considered ... Many scientists are also theists, ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: A new post for evolution vs creation
    ... I am seeking the truth and it will not do to speculate the ... That is what science, every science, does: collect the available evidence, develop a theory tah explains the evidence, test and modify the theory if better explanations or more data comes along ... Ro 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God ... scientists accept those theories that are better supported by the evidence than their competitor theories. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Wading into the deep end of the pool
    ... of the universe is a kind of dogma that can't be ... accept that neither one can claim absolute control of truth. ... should any of them be sprung on the basis of DNA evidence? ... points from individual samples of matter accessible to scientists here ...
    (talk.origins)