Joined: Jan. 2011
|Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,08:49)|
|Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,06:26)|
|Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 24 2011,22:56)|
|Quote (Kris @ Jan. 25 2011,00:43)|
|Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 24 2011,12:20)|
|Hey Kris, just out of curiosity, are you aware that there are several predictions that arise out of String Theory and that there is at least one recorded observation that could be indicative of a cosmic string?|
Predictions? Could be indicative..? Show me a String.
There 'could' be a creator and/or designer, and many people would swear that they've observed evidence or proof of such. Is that enough to convince you? It doesn't convince me, and neither do a lot of claims in science.
Okay, if you don't find a lot of claims in science convincing, what else have you got that's worth the time and trouble of using to figure out the world around you?
I'd go further and note that "a lot of claims" is a bit vague. Which bodies of theory do you find unconvincing, please? Be specific. More importantly, are you familiar with the evidence underlying those theories, or are you going off of the (very poor quality) media coverage of them instead?
The MadPanda, FCD
Hmm, I wonder if there's one of those fancy schmancy, high falootin' Latin terms for what's going on in your sentence below? Hey, I know, it's argumentum bullshitum!
"Okay, if you don't find a lot of claims in science convincing, what else have you got that's worth the time and trouble of using to figure out the world around you?"
You assume that since I said there are a lot of claims in science that I don't find convincing, I must think that all science is useless and should be dispensed with, and that I must think there's a better way of figuring out the world. That's quite a leap you mistakenly took there.
Earlier, you accused me of not being polite, implying that my comments to you in relation to civility were somehow improper. You have also repeatedly asked for a civil, serious discussion.
"Hypocrite" is not a strong enough word for you,you pathetic bottom-feeding half-witted miserable excuse for a cancer-ridden dog's pizzle.
You need to fucking read for fucking comprehension, you semiliterate jerkass. I asked you to present examples, specifically, of the bodies of theory that you claim not to find convincing, which is not only pertinent to your little boy claims about science, but respectful of the seriousness with which an actual human being would have meant such a query.
Instead, you respond with abuse, sarcasm, bullshit, and more dodging.
"Lying hypocritical scumwad" is not strong enough for you.
You make Biggy look rational. Now go fuck yourself anally with a dead porcupine and take your dumbass little crybaby fucktard bullshit somewhere else.
I'm done. This muppet's a waste of effort.
The MadPanda, FCD
How polite of you.
Oh, and I didn't say "bodies of theory". I said claims. So much for your reading comprehension. That's one of the biggest problems you all have. You misinterpret much of what I say and you read things into what I've said that I never actually said or implied. Hmm, why do you do that? Well, because of your biased, preconceived belief that anyone who questions you, disagrees with you, points out your hypocrisy and dishonesty or other flaws, or doesn't eagerly join your gang, is the enemy.
The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions. Plato