How is this hard for you?
Not at all.
I'm fully aware of all the crap you keep bringing up.
So why did you lie about what I said?
Since you knew that stuff, and came to a different conclusion, I realized this argument could never be productive.
That's an irrational conclusion. Perhaps you engage in arguments only to convince people to agree with your conclusions; I do not.
You try to bait me into "proving" that Moses could not have written Genesis.
Bullshit. You made an irrational claim you cannot back up. I simply challenged you to back it up, and instead of admitting you can't, you lied about me and pretended that I could not be reasoned with.
I could give you the 10 standard points on that from the Age of Reason
Except, of course, that Paine proved nothing. I didn't ask for points or arguments, I asked for PROOF, that you said you had. But you don't.
You would say that it was initially written by him
I would say it COULD have been, and that you cannot PROVE otherwise. Which is true. So why not just admit your error?
how can you claim the book is 99% pure
I never did. What I said -- I won't trouble you to look up my comment -- was, "All serious scholars agree that the New Testament, in its current form that we have today, is better than 99 percent pure." As you well know, I hope, Genesis is not in the New Testament.
Here's the thing there, it won't get us anywhere.
If you want to remain ignorant, then yes, you'll never get anywhere. I am giving you facts you don't understand, which I've already pointed out and backed up, and which you dishonestly referred to as saying 'simply "false."'
The only thing keeping us from "getting anywhere" is your dishonesty.
Yes, I'm familiar with Frederic Kenyon
Not well enough to recognize that he was a scientist and historian first. You dishonestly dismiss his work as that of a "biblical scholar," and pretend that he reached his conclusion first. How petty of you, especially when on THIS subject -- the purity of the New Testament -- it is the ANTI-Christians who are the ones who are left out in the cold of the mainstream views. They are the ones, such as the Jesus Seminar members, who explicitly gather to drum up evidence against the Bible (using the most extraordinarily weak methodology imaginable), putting their bias front and center.
Again: you can play these fallacious games of questioning motives, but what matters is what was said, and what backs it up. You cannot argue against the evidence, so you lie about what I said and ignore what the scholars say because of perceived "bias."
I realize the Bible is not science
But analysis of it IS science, to a large degree, and much of that science argues against your claims. Again: you attack motives instead of sticking to the facts. It's dishonest.
And Yes, I'm also familiar with a the handful of Christ references you dug up, well like 3 of them anyways, and all of them are of disputed Authenticity particularly the one from Jospehus Flavius
You're lying. The one from Josephus is the ONLY one with disputed authenticity, and MOST scholars today believe that the original Josephus work DID mention Jesus, but just using different language. As I already said, and as you -- true to your form -- ignored.
The but fact is, we both have the facts
Except that none of mine has been rebutted, and all of yours have been rebutted. And so you dishonestly pretend that the discussion itself is fruitless, when you find that your arguments are falling down.
there's not going to be any chance of some shocking new revelation that's going to change my mind or yours
No serious person has discussions like this in order to change minds.
You're right, I'm running away from this argument. Not because I'm going to lose
... but because you cannot back up your claims.
I mean come on: you cannot even admit the OBVIOUS fact that you were full of shit when you said it could be proven that Moses didn't write Genesis. You cannot even recognize that I already responded to your point about Josephus, because it hurts your argument to acknowledge it.
What's weird is that you keep coming back to prove you aren't, all the while digging your hole deeper, and deeper.
The work of AGW scientists does not follow the scientific method.
Um...yes they do?
In a micro sense, yes. But in the sense of drawing conclusions about global warming, no, they do not.
Do you even know what the scientific method is?
Yes. Let's go through it, since you're not understanding.
This last one is where we run into problems. We really don't have them. We cannot falsify the claims in any serious sense. Most egregiously, we cannot test (on a macro scale) what happens if we take away, or significantly diminish, manmade CO2. We're just guessing.
Instead of actually testing the hypotheses -- which, admittedly, is hard, if not impossible -- we substitute a lack of imagination for actual experimentation. We say, "well, our data and correct predictions mostly, up to around 80-90 percent, fit our hypotheses. Therefore the hypotheses must be correct."
But that is not how the scientific method works. If you don't experiment properly, you could be missing something you haven't accounted for. You could be looking at correlation, rather than causation
We just don't know, and as long as scientists cannot admit that fact, they are ignoring a primary component of the scientific method.
It's not a crime against science to be incapable of demonstrating through experimentation. It is a crime against science, however, to pretend that you can reach conclusions without having done that demonstration.
You know Lomborg was dishonest? Based on what?
How about TFA?
The article contained no evidence that Lomborg was dishonest, so
Why even read Friel's work? Sounds like Sharon Begley already did that for us.
So if ONE PERSON asserts that something someone else says is true, we should therefore believe it? That makes no sense.
Whether you believe Lomborg, Friel, Begley, or even Albert Einstein, you're always relying on someone's authority, rather than doing your own research.
First, you're conflating two different things: authority, and relying on research. I can rely on someone's RESEARCH without relying on their AUTHORITY. So, say, if East Anglia does some research, I can demand to SEE the research (even if they say they want to illegally resist this request), and rely on that research, without trusting what they have to SAY about their research. That's how science works.
Second, no real research was presented in the article. It's all very high-level and undetailed. This is my point: we have people, without giving any REASON why from any actual EVIDENCE, saying Lomborg was dishonest.
I never checked for myself that F=m*a, nor that E=mc^2.
I did. In the case of F=ma, I repeated experiments that demonstrated it. In the case of E=mc^2, I checked it not by repeating experiments, but by looking at the results and proving it to myself, because, frankly, I was a bit skeptical.
And while many people think I am sometimes silly for questioning such established formulas, the people who -- like me -- love science never begrudge my search.
But enough people did that I'm inclined to believe them.
You have that right. But in science, we demand evidence. None was provided.
Friel discovered that some of Lomborg's facts aren't supported at all by his cited sources, and sometimes even completely contradicted
He CLAIMED he discovered this, yes. And I asked for evidence that he's correct. That is how science works.
Of course it's possible that both Friel and Begley are lying
Or it's possible they are both just WRONG. Why jump to "lying"? And further, of course, it's possible that Friel is lying, and Begley is merely wrong.
for the time being, I'm inclined to believe them
Based on what?
You do realize, too, that we actual have HARD PROOF that global warming "scientists" were dishonest in their research, research that the IPCC relied on for its conclusions
Do you realise that the IPCC report that contained those recently exposed mistakes was from a non-scientific "news" workgroup from the IPCC?
No, I am referring to the rampant dishonesty by East Anglia (which I referenced earlier in this comment).
Yes, it's very sloppy, but it's sloppy journalism rather than dishonest science.
I hope you're not trying to blame the journalists, rather -- or more -- than the IPCC, for the Himalayan error. I am not claiming dishonesty, as I just said, but clearly, and unequivocally, this is extremely sloppy science, much more than sloppy journalism. To rely on mere unsubstantiated journalist accounts for scientific claims is about the worst kind of science you can do (other than actual dishonesty).
Even if Lomborg was dishonest -- and you have no evidence of that
How do we not have evidence of that?
How DO you? None has been provided, and in your whole post, you didn't reference any such evidence. And out of the dozens of responses to me, no one else has, either.
That's fairly telling.
Shrug. None of the video had anything to do with what I said. The video is about fraud, which is something I said nothing about (except to say that I said nothing about it). My claim is regarding the fact that they covered up their research: refused to release it, conspired to defy legal requests to release it, threatened to destroy the research rather than release it.
The video is unrelated to what I said.
He did not actually specify that his entry was in response to a journal entry.
You're right. And yet, when I searched the journals for "railgunner," there it was!
I will take that to mean that the journal entry search tool works better for you than it does for me.
Nope. This older search works quite well, actually. I don't use it much, but it's there. Or you can go to the home page, hit "recent," and then type "railgunner journal" in the search box.
I could have left off "journal," of course, but I figured I'd look there first, to get a better chance of higher-value results. If it failed to turn it up, I would have removed "journal" or replaced it with "comment."
Now you know! And now you can more effectively stalk RailGunner!
Either way I do agree that my journal entry mentioned him by name.
I hope so. You would worry me if you denied it.
I also assert that there are earlier posts regarding our friend railgunner/naqamel from others that support my earlier statement of the one-user/two-names state
I really couldn't care less.
While currently you are not accusing me of stalking, you are also not not accusing me of it.
Yes, well, again, I couldn't care less if you are or aren't. I just saw something you said, and thought it odd and wrong, so I said so.
There's only two ways to get your views into policy, generally. One is to be in the majority. The other is to form coalitions with other minorities.
Of course, since we disagree so much, we form coalitions regardless: the only question is whether they are internal or external to the party.
Frankly, I prefer it when they are internal to the party, for many reasons, which are beside the point here. I say this stuff just to point out that wanting a "big tent" party, as I do, doesn't mean you let just anyone represent you.
I think that most Americans believe in the standard Republican principles, and even if we disagree on specifics, and even if we believe in those principles to varying degrees, we can still agree far more than not against the Democrats. The problem here is not that the GOP is a big tent, it's that the GOP nominated someone who is outside of that big tent.
The big tent mentality is only to lock in the two entrenched parties and lock out all others, and denies people choices.
Not at all. I believe in the big tent, I work with the Republican Party and want to strengthen it; at the same time, I fight for allowing equal access to third-party and independent candidates, and I was glad to see the Republican Party get kicked in the teeth in NY.
I know those two sides probably don't make sense to you in your framework, but blame the framework.
What choice do I have if there's only Democrat and Democrat-lite parties?
The same choice the Republican voters chose in NY: voting for someone else.
the GOP needs to decide if they're going to be a party of the new center(-Left), or of the Right
It's never decided that before. It's been a coalition of the center and the right for more than 100 years, back when Taft and Roosevelt were duking it out. (And while the country is moving left in its policies, the electorate is still right of center, which is a huge reason why we see tea parties, and massive unrest toward Congress, and -- most telling -- why every major politician who isn't in a completely safe Democrat district promises to not increase taxes on any but "the super rich.")
Same thing with the Democrats.
If the moderates want to start their own party, fine. It's a free country (for now), and I support their right to do it 100 percent. It'd be interesting to watch the coalitions form. But I think you'd be even more dissatisfied in the long run with the results, as the moderates would still be screwing things up, but this time, they would have more power to do it than before.
And let's face it, as you said, as the nation's policies move left, the moderates go along with it, as they revere the center, wherever it happens to be. So a moderate party would more often align with the Dems than the GOP, probably, on the most heated issues of the day.
i am totally serial
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law. -- Roy Santoro