Ebola Nurse Leaves The Building

[Seth]

I'm under no obligation to provide anything to you since it is not I who has made an assertion regarding the accuracy of the Bible as a historical record, either pro or con.

You obviously don't understand the concepts of proving negatives. Not surprising as you have almost zero understanding of science and evidence.

Oh but I do, which is exactly my point. I made no assertion that the Bible was or was not an accurate historical record. I was challenging the assertion that the Bible is NOT a valid historical record. This is not "proving negatives" it's demanding substantive evidence for a positive assertion of the falsity of the Bible's claims made by your side of the debate. This burden of proof can be met by providing critically robust scientific evidence that the historical events and claims of the bible are factually false. Can you prove, for example, that God did not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt? Can you prove that Moses did not part the Red Sea? Can you prove that a plague of locusts was not sent upon Pharaoh by God? Can you prove that any of the events set forth in either the Old Testament or the New Testament did not occur?

No? I didn't think so.

That's because you are asking people to prove a negative! You really are clueless about this stuff

No, I'm expecting those who make positive claims about the falsity of the Bible as a historical record to provide critically robust evidence proving their claim. It's hardly my concern that the assertions they make are fundamentally flawed because they are unprovable. All that means is that idiots shouldn't talk about things they don't understand, like logic, reason and the scientific method. Besides, I'm not asking anyone to prove a negative, I'm expecting them to provide critically robust scientific evidence that the events mentioned in the Bible did not happen, which is the claim being made. How they go about proving their assertion is not my problem, nor is the impossibility of doing so. If you can't substantiate your claim, then your claim can be rejected by rational persons, which is the case here.

Therefore, any claim by you or anyone else asserting that the Bible is not an accurate historical record is nothing more than specious opining having nothing to do with science or fact and may therefore be summarily dismissed as unreasoning and illogical expressions of bigotry.

Well you can do that, despite all the inductive evidence pointing to it being a load of bullshit. But when you ask someone to "prove" it, you are asking them to prove a negative. Regardless of what the other person originally claimed, this shows that you don't understand logic (not that we needed any more proof).

If I ask you to prove that an atomic bomb was not set off in Christchurch would you have any difficulty refuting that claim? If I asked you to prove that Ronald Reagan did not assassinate Abraham Lincoln, would you have difficulty doing so? If I asked you to prove that the sun does not revolve around the earth, could you refute that claim? If I asked you to prove that no dinosaurs existed on earth 65 million years ago, could you scientifically prove that my assertion was wrong?

The problem with your illogic is in assuming that difficulty in the task of proving something did not happen turns it into "proving a negative." It doesn't. It just means that you should be careful about making declarations that some event that is claimed to have occurred in the deep past did not in fact occur when you have no evidence whatsoever to substantiate this claim.

But the point I'm making is that to meet the standards of scientific review that you yourself and every other Atheist here demands of theistic claims your claims must also be critically scrutinized using that same criteria and just as thoroughly rejected and vilified when YOU commit the same logical and rational errors that you accuse theists of committing.

You can't definitively find evidence of absences, particularly in the supernatural bollocks realm that is the bible. This is basic logic. Atheists understand this. Religionists like you apparently don't, for some reason.

You're not being asked to provide evidence of absence, you're being asked to provide evidence that a specific event did not occur, which is completely different. If I say "I believe that Barack Obama launched a nuclear missile that destroyed London yesterday" it should be child's play even for you to prove that this event did not occur simply by presenting a photo of London taken today. So, to prove that Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed and that Lot's wife was not turned into a pillar of salt, all you have to do is determine the location of Sodom and Gomorrah, carefully and scientifically examine that location and show that a) there was no city at that location; b) there was a city but there is no evidence that it was destroyed as described; c) there are no salt pillars in close enough proximity to the location to meet the described requirements of Lot's wife looking back at the destruction and being turned into a pillar of salt.

Now, there are plenty of obstacles to your completing this research, but the inherent difficulty of proving your claim has no bearing on whether or not you're being asked to prove a negative. You mistakenly think that your skepticism about the event constitutes an a priori assumption that the claim you make is true. That's not how it works in the scientific method. If I say "Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God and Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt for looking back" then the burden of proof is on me to substantiate that claim. But I have not made any such claim at all, ever. All I've done is challenge your positive assertions of the falsity of the Bible as a historical reference by challenging you to substantiate your claim of falsity with critically robust scientific evidence.

However, if YOU say "There was no Sodom and Gomorrah, and even if there was God didn't destroy it, and Lot's wife was not turned into a pillar of salt by God for looking back" then the burden of proof is upon you to prove your positive assertions, regardless of whether you have stated them as a negative proposition in a lame attempt to prevail in the argument by shifting the burden of proof inappropriately.

That's logic and reason, laddie, not the crap you spew when your reason fails you.

[Seth]

See above. I'm amazed that you were under the impression that ANYONE has power or authority to determine anything.
Would you care to explain who or what you mean by that?

Nothing, really. I'm merely reminding you of your insignificance and worthlessness as a rational debater and the utter lack of probity of your opinions. It's a public service I like to perform from time to time.

You are trolling obviously. Otherwise you wouldn't be making such stupid posts.

Aaaaannd.....Strike! Fish on!

But just to humour you, I'll make the obvious reply, which is that it's the post that's supposed to stand on it's own, and the identity or standing of the poster should have zero importance. This is why your posts of ''who are you to pronounce on this or that?'' are so silly.
I give an opinion, and give my reasoning. That's what you should be arguing with, if you had any brains.

Or do you blindly believe people who you respect, and discard any argument from people you normally disagree with? That would put you among the dumbest of the dumb.

If you ever make a telling argument, I'll be happy to learn from it and give credit for it.
But I'm not going to hold my breath.

Man, a real whopper. A bottom-feeder perhaps, but still it took the bait hook, line and sinker. Now, on to filleting and broiling...

[pErvinalia]

I'm under no obligation to provide anything to you since it is not I who has made an assertion regarding the accuracy of the Bible as a historical record, either pro or con.

You obviously don't understand the concepts of proving negatives. Not surprising as you have almost zero understanding of science and evidence.

Oh but I do, which is exactly my point. I made no assertion that the Bible was or was not an accurate historical record. I was challenging the assertion that the Bible is NOT a valid historical record. This is not "proving negatives" it's demanding substantive evidence for a positive assertion of the falsity of the Bible's claims made by your side of the debate. This burden of proof can be met by providing critically robust scientific evidence that the historical events and claims of the bible are factually false. Can you prove, for example, that God did not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt? Can you prove that Moses did not part the Red Sea? Can you prove that a plague of locusts was not sent upon Pharaoh by God? Can you prove that any of the events set forth in either the Old Testament or the New Testament did not occur?

No? I didn't think so.

That's because you are asking people to prove a negative! You really are clueless about this stuff

No, I'm expecting those who make positive claims about the falsity of the Bible as a historical record to provide critically robust evidence proving their claim.

How are they going to prove that god doesn't talk to believers inside their confused heads, genius?

It's hardly my concern that the assertions they make are fundamentally flawed because they are unprovable. All that means is that idiots shouldn't talk about things they don't understand, like logic, reason and the scientific method. Besides, I'm not asking anyone to prove a negative, I'm expecting them to provide critically robust scientific evidence that the events mentioned in the Bible did not happen, which is the claim being made. How they go about proving their assertion is not my problem, nor is the impossibility of doing so. If you can't substantiate your claim, then your claim can be rejected by rational persons, which is the case here.

The problem is that you've already said you won't accept it. You'll pass it of as one (or more??) mistakes in a largely accurate document. How many of the contradictions and outright falsehoods does someone have to show you for you to accept it? Or will it inevitably be a case that you won't accept physical examples and will fall back on asking people to prove that god isn't an invisible ESP curtain twitcher (i.e. prove an unprovable negative)? Well here's a start:

10348604_898325300178957_8424638822006761059_n.jpg (55.71 KiB) Viewed 2199 times

Therefore, any claim by you or anyone else asserting that the Bible is not an accurate historical record is nothing more than specious opining having nothing to do with science or fact and may therefore be summarily dismissed as unreasoning and illogical expressions of bigotry.

Well you can do that, despite all the inductive evidence pointing to it being a load of bullshit. But when you ask someone to "prove" it, you are asking them to prove a negative. Regardless of what the other person originally claimed, this shows that you don't understand logic (not that we needed any more proof).

If I ask you to prove that an atomic bomb was not set off in Christchurch would you have any difficulty refuting that claim? If I asked you to prove that Ronald Reagan did not assassinate Abraham Lincoln, would you have difficulty doing so? If I asked you to prove that the sun does not revolve around the earth, could you refute that claim? If I asked you to prove that no dinosaurs existed on earth 65 million years ago, could you scientifically prove that my assertion was wrong?

All of those things leave physical evidence. God and lunatics "talking" to each other doesn't leave evidence that they happened.

The problem with your illogic is in assuming that difficulty in the task of proving something did not happen turns it into "proving a negative." It doesn't. It just means that you should be careful about making declarations that some event that is claimed to have occurred in the deep past did not in fact occur when you have no evidence whatsoever to substantiate this claim.

The problem is your inability to understand what scientific evidence is. Without it, then the bible has no claim to authenticity. It's just a novel that people can believe or not. Invariably, as you well know, whether people believe in it or not is strongly correlated with whatever their parents and peers told them when they were growing up.

Now, there are plenty of obstacles to your completing this research, but the inherent difficulty of proving your claim has no bearing on whether or not you're being asked to prove a negative. You mistakenly think that your skepticism about the event constitutes an a priori assumption that the claim you make is true. That's not how it works in the scientific method.

Please don't talk about the scientific method, Seth. You know nothing about it. The scientific method requires scientifically designed experiments or observations to form a hypothesis. The scientific method inherently invalidates subjective non-scientific accounts like the bible. You really shouldn't talk about science to scientists, Seth. You absolutely have no idea what you are talking about.

If I say "Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God and Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt for looking back" then the burden of proof is on me to substantiate that claim. But I have not made any such claim at all, ever. All I've done is challenge your positive assertions of the falsity of the Bible as a historical reference by challenging you to substantiate your claim of falsity with critically robust scientific evidence.

The scientific method specifically invalidates any accounts that aren't backed up with scientific evidence, until the point they are. The scientific DEFAULT position is that the bible is nonsense until scientific evidence is presented in favour of it. You really fucked up by bringing the scientific method into this. You really should stick to stuff you know, like selfish political ideologies.

[mistermack]

See above. I'm amazed that you were under the impression that ANYONE has power or authority to determine anything.
Would you care to explain who or what you mean by that?

Nothing, really. I'm merely reminding you of your insignificance and worthlessness as a rational debater and the utter lack of probity of your opinions. It's a public service I like to perform from time to time.

You are trolling obviously. Otherwise you wouldn't be making such stupid posts.

Aaaaannd.....Strike! Fish on!

But just to humour you, I'll make the obvious reply, which is that it's the post that's supposed to stand on it's own, and the identity or standing of the poster should have zero importance. This is why your posts of ''who are you to pronounce on this or that?'' are so silly.
I give an opinion, and give my reasoning. That's what you should be arguing with, if you had any brains.

Or do you blindly believe people who you respect, and discard any argument from people you normally disagree with? That would put you among the dumbest of the dumb.

If you ever make a telling argument, I'll be happy to learn from it and give credit for it.
But I'm not going to hold my breath.

Man, a real whopper. A bottom-feeder perhaps, but still it took the bait hook, line and sinker. Now, on to filleting and broiling...

Good.
You are admitting that your posts are deliberately stupid then.

I knew even a troll couldn't be that brainless. And to give you full credit, when you decide to be deliberately stupid, you REALLY go for it.
Well done.

[mistermack]

Can one really prove anything via induction, or must we limit ourselves to the domain of practical purposes and warrantless assumptions that the future will be like the past?

I don't think you can. Even in Maths. We all accept that one plus one always equals two.
But what if one plus one equalled three, just for a micro-second ?

I have this theory that that's what caused the big bang. Originally, there were two bits of energy plasma, existing quite happily for squillions of years. Then suddenly, just for one micro-second, one and one made three.

And bang, away it all went. One more Nobel Prize please, to add to my collection.

[piscator]

I'm under no obligation to provide anything to you since it is not I who has made an assertion regarding the accuracy of the Bible as a historical record, either pro or con.

You obviously don't understand the concepts of proving negatives. Not surprising as you have almost zero understanding of science and evidence.

Oh but I do, which is exactly my point. I made no assertion that the Bible was or was not an accurate historical record. I was challenging the assertion that the Bible is NOT a valid historical record. This is not "proving negatives" it's demanding substantive evidence for a positive assertion of the falsity of the Bible's claims made by your side of the debate. This burden of proof can be met by providing critically robust scientific evidence that the historical events and claims of the bible are factually false. Can you prove, for example, that God did not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah and turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt? Can you prove that Moses did not part the Red Sea? Can you prove that a plague of locusts was not sent upon Pharaoh by God? Can you prove that any of the events set forth in either the Old Testament or the New Testament did not occur?

No? I didn't think so.

That's because you are asking people to prove a negative! You really are clueless about this stuff

No, I'm expecting those who make positive claims about the falsity of the Bible as a historical record to provide critically robust evidence proving their claim. It's hardly my concern that the assertions they make are fundamentally flawed because they are unprovable. All that means is that idiots shouldn't talk about things they don't understand, like logic, reason and the scientific method. Besides, I'm not asking anyone to prove a negative, I'm expecting them to provide critically robust scientific evidence that the events mentioned in the Bible did not happen, which is the claim being made. How they go about proving their assertion is not my problem, nor is the impossibility of doing so. If you can't substantiate your claim, then your claim can be rejected by rational persons, which is the case here.

Therefore, any claim by you or anyone else asserting that the Bible is not an accurate historical record is nothing more than specious opining having nothing to do with science or fact and may therefore be summarily dismissed as unreasoning and illogical expressions of bigotry.

Well you can do that, despite all the inductive evidence pointing to it being a load of bullshit. But when you ask someone to "prove" it, you are asking them to prove a negative. Regardless of what the other person originally claimed, this shows that you don't understand logic (not that we needed any more proof).

If I ask you to prove that an atomic bomb was not set off in Christchurch would you have any difficulty refuting that claim? If I asked you to prove that Ronald Reagan did not assassinate Abraham Lincoln, would you have difficulty doing so? If I asked you to prove that the sun does not revolve around the earth, could you refute that claim? If I asked you to prove that no dinosaurs existed on earth 65 million years ago, could you scientifically prove that my assertion was wrong?

The problem with your illogic is in assuming that difficulty in the task of proving something did not happen turns it into "proving a negative." It doesn't. It just means that you should be careful about making declarations that some event that is claimed to have occurred in the deep past did not in fact occur when you have no evidence whatsoever to substantiate this claim.

But the point I'm making is that to meet the standards of scientific review that you yourself and every other Atheist here demands of theistic claims your claims must also be critically scrutinized using that same criteria and just as thoroughly rejected and vilified when YOU commit the same logical and rational errors that you accuse theists of committing.

You can't definitively find evidence of absences, particularly in the supernatural bollocks realm that is the bible. This is basic logic. Atheists understand this. Religionists like you apparently don't, for some reason.

You're not being asked to provide evidence of absence, you're being asked to provide evidence that a specific event did not occur, which is completely different. If I say "I believe that Barack Obama launched a nuclear missile that destroyed London yesterday" it should be child's play even for you to prove that this event did not occur simply by presenting a photo of London taken today. So, to prove that Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed and that Lot's wife was not turned into a pillar of salt, all you have to do is determine the location of Sodom and Gomorrah, carefully and scientifically examine that location and show that a) there was no city at that location; b) there was a city but there is no evidence that it was destroyed as described; c) there are no salt pillars in close enough proximity to the location to meet the described requirements of Lot's wife looking back at the destruction and being turned into a pillar of salt.

Now, there are plenty of obstacles to your completing this research, but the inherent difficulty of proving your claim has no bearing on whether or not you're being asked to prove a negative. You mistakenly think that your skepticism about the event constitutes an a priori assumption that the claim you make is true. That's not how it works in the scientific method. If I say "Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God and Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt for looking back" then the burden of proof is on me to substantiate that claim. But I have not made any such claim at all, ever. All I've done is challenge your positive assertions of the falsity of the Bible as a historical reference by challenging you to substantiate your claim of falsity with critically robust scientific evidence.

However, if YOU say "There was no Sodom and Gomorrah, and even if there was God didn't destroy it, and Lot's wife was not turned into a pillar of salt by God for looking back" then the burden of proof is upon you to prove your positive assertions, regardless of whether you have stated them as a negative proposition in a lame attempt to prevail in the argument by shifting the burden of proof inappropriately.

That's logic and reason, laddie, not the crap you spew when your reason fails you.

I asked you where and when did the LORD pass on His first instructions to Moses and Aaron for quarantining the lepers and drippy dingalings He planned to make among the Chosen, and you post this silly shit?

Admit it: Your mama used to slap you pretty hard, didn't she?

[Seth]

You are admitting that your posts are deliberately stupid then.

No, but I'll admit you are...

[Seth]

I asked you where and when did the LORD pass on His first instructions to Moses and Aaron for quarantining the lepers and drippy dingalings He planned to make among the Chosen, and you post this silly shit?

Admit it: Your mama used to slap you pretty hard, didn't she?

Well there's your problem right there, Sparky, I wasn't talking to you so sit down and shut up and let your betters talk, you might learn something.

[Seth]

How are they going to prove that god doesn't talk to believers inside their confused heads, genius?

Not my problem. If they don't have a way of detecting such events that's a deficiency in their intellectual capabilities, not any sort of evidence that the phenomenon is not or has not occurred. The fact that Newton couldn't examine an electron didn't make electron non-existent or supernatural. So, "they" should probably refrain from drawing conclusions and making positive assertions about God talking to believers in their heads unless and until they have a way to prove it doesn't happen. We're back to that basic scientific principle regarding drawing conclusions based on the absence of evidence: It's a stupid thing to do and any actual scientist, and most schoolchildren, know that when they don't know something, they should say "I don't know" rather than making continuing fools of themselves by making faith-based proclamations about things they don't understand.

It's hardly my concern that the assertions they make are fundamentally flawed because they are unprovable. All that means is that idiots shouldn't talk about things they don't understand, like logic, reason and the scientific method. Besides, I'm not asking anyone to prove a negative, I'm expecting them to provide critically robust scientific evidence that the events mentioned in the Bible did not happen, which is the claim being made. How they go about proving their assertion is not my problem, nor is the impossibility of doing so. If you can't substantiate your claim, then your claim can be rejected by rational persons, which is the case here.

The problem is that you've already said you won't accept it.

Where did I say that, exactly?

You'll pass it of as one (or more??) mistakes in a largely accurate document.

It's a conundrum, isn't it? However, if and when you present critically robust scientific evidence disproving any particular event in the Bible, I'll be happy to review it and decide if your conclusions are sound and therefore scientifically valid. Until then you're just blowing it out your ass.

How many of the contradictions and outright falsehoods does someone have to show you for you to accept it?

All you have to show is critically robust scientific evidence for each individual item you claim is contradictory or false and I'll accept it.

Or will it inevitably be a case that you won't accept physical examples and will fall back on asking people to prove that god isn't an invisible ESP curtain twitcher (i.e. prove an unprovable negative)? Well here's a start:

10348604_898325300178957_8424638822006761059_n.jpg

Maybe Judas bought a field with the money, went there, hanged himself and fell to the ground and burst open when his rotting corpse separated at the neck and the descriptions are a little off in the details but correct in main. And perhaps the Bible isn't the "infallible word of God" at all. After all, just because someone says it is doesn't mean it is, nor does it mean that an error found in it somehow proves that God either is not infallible or does not exist. This is obviously because someone believing that the Bible is the inerrant infallible word of God is may be making a mistake in believing that. Then again, perhaps not.

Neither conclusion has any bearing on whether or not you can prove that the Bible is not a valid historical record in spite of any errors or mistakes it might contain.

Therefore, any claim by you or anyone else asserting that the Bible is not an accurate historical record is nothing more than specious opining having nothing to do with science or fact and may therefore be summarily dismissed as unreasoning and illogical expressions of bigotry.

Well you can do that, despite all the inductive evidence pointing to it being a load of bullshit. But when you ask someone to "prove" it, you are asking them to prove a negative. Regardless of what the other person originally claimed, this shows that you don't understand logic (not that we needed any more proof).

If I ask you to prove that an atomic bomb was not set off in Christchurch would you have any difficulty refuting that claim? If I asked you to prove that Ronald Reagan did not assassinate Abraham Lincoln, would you have difficulty doing so? If I asked you to prove that the sun does not revolve around the earth, could you refute that claim? If I asked you to prove that no dinosaurs existed on earth 65 million years ago, could you scientifically prove that my assertion was wrong?

All of those things leave physical evidence. God and lunatics "talking" to each other doesn't leave evidence that they happened.

If I hypothetically whisper in your ear "you're a fuckwit," is there any evidence left that can prove I did nor did not say it two to five thousand years after the fact? Just because you were not present to observe a particular phenomenon, especially an ephemeral phenomenon such as a conversation between two individuals, much less a conversation between God and some individual, doesn't mean that the conversation did not take place. It only means that you weren't privy to the ephemeral event and therefore can draw no conclusion one way or the other about the veracity of a claim that the conversation occurred.

The problem with your illogic is in assuming that difficulty in the task of proving something did not happen turns it into "proving a negative." It doesn't. It just means that you should be careful about making declarations that some event that is claimed to have occurred in the deep past did not in fact occur when you have no evidence whatsoever to substantiate this claim.

The problem is your inability to understand what scientific evidence is. Without it, then the bible has no claim to authenticity. It's just a novel that people can believe or not.

Your opinion is noted. Then again nobody's expecting you to believe the Bible. However, when you maintain that it is false, the burden of proving it false lies with you, not those who believe it is true.

Invariably, as you well know, whether people believe in it or not is strongly correlated with whatever their parents and peers told them when they were growing up.

Or perhaps God touches them in subtle ways to affirm what they were told by their parents is true. You don't know, and until you can disprove that hypothesis all you can rationally say about the entire subject is "I don't know."

Now, there are plenty of obstacles to your completing this research, but the inherent difficulty of proving your claim has no bearing on whether or not you're being asked to prove a negative. You mistakenly think that your skepticism about the event constitutes an a priori assumption that the claim you make is true. That's not how it works in the scientific method.

Please don't talk about the scientific method, Seth. You know nothing about it.

I know quite a bit more about it than you do.

The scientific method requires scientifically designed experiments or observations to form a hypothesis.

Why yes, yes it does. So where is your scientifically designed experiment or observation upon which you formed the hypothesis that God does not exist? Details please.

The scientific method inherently invalidates subjective non-scientific accounts like the bible.

No it doesn't. In fact, science has confirmed any number of claims in the bible through archeological research. That science has not confirmed every claim in the Bible doesn't mean that every claim in the bible is false. In fact if science had confirmed NONE of the information found in the Bible, that would still not provide one scintilla of evidence to support a conclusion that the Bible contains false claims.

You really shouldn't talk about science to scientists, Seth. You absolutely have no idea what you are talking about.

Oh, but I do, as we see above. It's you that doesn't understand science or reason or logic.

If I say "Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God and Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt for looking back" then the burden of proof is on me to substantiate that claim. But I have not made any such claim at all, ever. All I've done is challenge your positive assertions of the falsity of the Bible as a historical reference by challenging you to substantiate your claim of falsity with critically robust scientific evidence.

The scientific method specifically invalidates any accounts that aren't backed up with scientific evidence, until the point they are.

No it doesn't. You're claiming here that every one of the various cosmological hypotheses and theories about the nature and origin of the universe are "specifically invalidated" merely because they are hypotheses and theories that are not "backed up with scientific evidence."

The scientific method says only one thing about unsupported assertions of scientific fact: "I don't know." Or, more properly, "without critically robust scientific evidence to evaluate it is impossible to draw any rational scientific conclusion whatsoever about the truth or veracity of any specific claim in the Bible."

Science does not "invalidate" anything merely because it's not "backed up with scientific evidence," science withholds judgment and conclusions until such evidence is produced and evaluated.

The scientific DEFAULT position is that the bible is nonsense until scientific evidence is presented in favour of it. You really fucked up by bringing the scientific method into this. You really should stick to stuff you know, like selfish political ideologies.

No, that is your flawed interpretation of "the scientific DEFAULT position." Actual scientists know that all they can say is "I don't know" and await further information and data.

[piscator]

Did anyone just read that shit? Or did you all scroll right past it to this post?

[mistermack]

Did anyone just read that shit? Or did you all scroll right past it to this post?

Scrolled.
Of course.

[Hermit]

Did anyone just read that shit? Or did you all scroll right past it to this post?

Reading Seth's posts is like listening to cracked records. Over 14,000 of them. I often skim in case he says something he hasn't said before. He rarely does. So the skimming speed increases until it gets to the point of rapidly tapping the page down button until the screen clears up again. The above posts were a five-tapper.

Obviously I'm not ignoring him altogether. That would be cruel. He thrives on attention. He needs it in order to indulge in self praise, (well nobody praises him, so he'll just have to do it himself, doesn't he?) and to continue to fulminate against the stupidity and inferiority of everybody else.

[Seth]

Did anyone just read that shit? Or did you all scroll right past it to this post?

Idiots always scroll past things they are incapable of understanding, much less intelligently responding to.

[Seth]

Did anyone just read that shit? Or did you all scroll right past it to this post?

Reading Seth's posts is like listening to cracked records. Over 14,000 of them. I often skim in case he says something he hasn't said before. He rarely does.

And what makes you think you (and most everyone else here) isn't guilty of exactly the same boring repetition of lefist canards, fallacies and mindless drivel? You get from me what you get because you keep right on down the narrow crack you lefties call minds no matter what. You're all blindered ideologues who are unwilling and incapable of stepping out of that crevice and considering opinions outside your myopic dogma. You're all the very essence of Atheist religious zealots that constitute the polar opposite of the theist religious zealots you revile with utterly boring frequency.

You want new responses, say something new.

[Tero]

Did anyone just read that shit? Or did you all scroll right past it to this post?

Scrolled.
Of course.

I scrolled your scroll.