PDA

View Full Version : "Scientific" tolerance (ha-ha) ...



Jorge
09-13-2014, 11:17 AM
I was leaving for the day when a friend sent me this 4-minute video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3AyvyxXvwM&list=UU8ILf_TgoEr3AVEcj4W8dfw


This is a presently on-going case and is just one of many hundreds of similar cases that have occurred. Note that the science that Armitage performed and published is beyond reproach and so these intellectual criminals can't and don't touch it. Instead, they focus their attack on the person's beliefs via bullying and the "legal" system. Heaven forbid that their own beliefs should be equally attacked.

Anyone with a few molecules of honesty in their body knows full well what is going on here - I've been talking about it for years here on TWeb (e.g., "EXPELLED"). But, sadly, the fact is that not even a "few molecules of honesty" are present in most folk. And it has been my experience that Evolutionists / Humanists / Atheists are the biggest perpetrators of this dishonesty. This is just another blatant example of this.

Stay tuned ... this case goes on ...

Jorge

HMS_Beagle
09-13-2014, 11:21 AM
I was leaving for the day when a friend sent me this 4-minute video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3AyvyxXvwM&list=UU8ILf_TgoEr3AVEcj4W8dfw


This is a presently on-going case and is just one of many hundreds of similar cases that have occurred. Note that the science that Armitage performed and published is beyond reproach and so these intellectual criminals can't and don't touch it. Instead, they focus their attack on the person's beliefs via bullying and the "legal" system. Heaven forbid that their own beliefs should be equally attacked.

Anyone with a few molecules of honesty in their body knows full well what is going on here - I've been talking about it for years here on TWeb (e.g., "EXPELLED"). But, sadly, the fact is that not even a "few molecules of honesty" are present in most folk. And it has been my experience that Evolutionists / Humanists / Atheists are the biggest perpetrators of this dishonesty. This is just another blatant example of this.

Stay tuned ... this case goes on ...

Jorge

You already stated a thread on Armitage's bogus "EXPELLED!" claims, remember? Armitage was a part-time employee who lost his job for misusing school resources, doing expensive tests on school equipment without permission. Like all good Fundies he has to scream religious persecution!!! to cover his own dishonesty and duplicity.

You clowns will never learn. :ahem:

klaus54
09-13-2014, 11:43 AM
It's not surprising that Jorge can't remember where he supported an outlandish claim (but knows he did somewhere) when he can't remember posting the same topic twice within a month.

Oh, and it's a topic on which he was decimated.

Ye Blacke Knight returneth!

K54

Roy
09-13-2014, 12:29 PM
Unsupported assertions as usual. No rebuttal necessary.

Roy

rogue06
09-13-2014, 01:54 PM
I was leaving for the day when a friend sent me this 4-minute video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3AyvyxXvwM&list=UU8ILf_TgoEr3AVEcj4W8dfw


This is a presently on-going case and is just one of many hundreds of similar cases that have occurred. Note that the science that Armitage performed and published is beyond reproach and so these intellectual criminals can't and don't touch it. Instead, they focus their attack on the person's beliefs via bullying and the "legal" system. Heaven forbid that their own beliefs should be equally attacked.

Anyone with a few molecules of honesty in their body knows full well what is going on here - I've been talking about it for years here on TWeb (e.g., "EXPELLED"). But, sadly, the fact is that not even a "few molecules of honesty" are present in most folk. And it has been my experience that Evolutionists / Humanists / Atheists are the biggest perpetrators of this dishonesty. This is just another blatant example of this.

Stay tuned ... this case goes on ...

Jorge
This is your second thread on this topic (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2862-Lawsuit-because-science-is-silenced) and you are essentially repeating the exact same claims again. I guess you're hoping that everyone forgot how Armitage wasn't "expelled" for his what he said he discovered since he made essentially the same claims that Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University did when she announced that her team had recovered the remains of soft tissue-like structures from the femur of a T. rex back in 2005. She wasn't "expelled" (as some YECs shrilling proclaimed) despite being a conservative Christian -- in fact she has received a good deal of funding to continue her research.

Instead he got popped for what essentially amounted to misappropriation of funds. He was a mere part-time employee who doesn't get to do his own personal research using University facilities, supplies and personnel. What's more it appears that the quality of this research was poor at best.

And let us not forget that how in your first thread on this you were revealed to be a two-faced hypocrite who readily endorsed a double standard about such things. When I pointed out how YECs jump at the chance to kick out everyone who doesn't agree with their dogma whenever they gain control[1] (including in some instances their fellow YECs who aren't doctrinally pure enough!) you defended such actions (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2862-Lawsuit-because-science-is-silenced&p=80696&viewfull=1#post80696).


Now, give me a reason for not just merging this thread with your earlier one.









1. Examples provided HERE (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2862-Lawsuit-because-science-is-silenced&p=80683&viewfull=1#post80683) as well as HERE (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2862-Lawsuit-because-science-is-silenced&p=80695&viewfull=1#post80695)

Jorge
09-13-2014, 02:51 PM
This is your second thread on this topic (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2862-Lawsuit-because-science-is-silenced) and you are essentially repeating the exact same claims again. I guess you're hoping that everyone forgot how Armitage wasn't "expelled" for his what he said he discovered since he made essentially the same claims that Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University did when she announced that her team had recovered the remains of soft tissue-like structures from the femur of a T. rex back in 2005. She wasn't "expelled" (as some YECs shrilling proclaimed) despite being a conservative Christian -- in fact she has received a good deal of funding to continue her research.

Instead he got popped for what essentially amounted to misappropriation of funds. He was a mere part-time employee who doesn't get to do his own personal research using University facilities, supplies and personnel. What's more it appears that the quality of this research was poor at best.

And let us not forget that how in your first thread on this you were revealed to be a two-faced hypocrite who readily endorsed a double standard about such things. When I pointed out how YECs jump at the chance to kick out everyone who doesn't agree with their dogma whenever they gain control[1] (including in some instances their fellow YECs who aren't doctrinally pure enough!) you defended such actions (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2862-Lawsuit-because-science-is-silenced&p=80696&viewfull=1#post80696).


Now, give me a reason for not just merging this thread with your earlier one.









1. Examples provided HERE (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2862-Lawsuit-because-science-is-silenced&p=80683&viewfull=1#post80683) as well as HERE (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?2862-Lawsuit-because-science-is-silenced&p=80695&viewfull=1#post80695)

Given that I just received this video today - and it contains direct statements (a.k.a. declaratory evidence) by Armitage and his attorney - how you people can say that I've presented this before has got to be a new LOW in dishonesty even for you people.

You demand "evidence" and when recorded testimony of the victim is provided you simply slither under a different rock. Don't you people have any shame? I mean, DON'T YOU???

Go ahead and merge this thread with the other - it makes no difference to me.
I managed to get this video out for others to see so that's good.

I do thank you (Beagle Boy, Santa Klaus also) for providing yet more hard
proof of just how vanishingly tenuous your integrity is.

Jorge

HMS_Beagle
09-13-2014, 02:55 PM
Given that I just received this video today - and it contains direct statements (a.k.a. declaratory evidence) by Armitage and his attorney - how you people can say that I've presented this before has got to be a new LOW in dishonesty even for you people.

Sorry coward but having Armitage repeat his lies on YouTube isn't evidence. If you have something substantial that shows he was fired simply for the contents of his "paper" and for no other reason then present or cluck off.

shunyadragon
09-13-2014, 02:56 PM
Same old record with a crack
;
I remember when . . . I remember when . . . I remember when . . . I remember when, ah . . . I lost my mind

"I remember when, I remember
I remember when I lost my mind
There was something so pleasant about that place
Even your emotions have an echo in so much space

And when you're out there without care
Yeah, I was out of touch
But it wasn't because I didn't know enough
I just knew too much

Does that make me crazy?
Does that make me crazy?
Does that make me crazy?"
- Pink

rogue06
09-13-2014, 03:20 PM
Sorry coward but having Armitage repeat his lies on YouTube isn't evidence. If you have something substantial that shows he was fired simply for the contents of his "paper" and for no other reason then present or cluck off.
Keep in mind that making an assertion for some YECs is the same as offering corroboration. Repeating the same claim is equivalent to providing more substantiation.

rogue06
09-13-2014, 03:23 PM
Given that I just received this video today - and it contains direct statements (a.k.a. declaratory evidence) by Armitage and his attorney - how you people can say that I've presented this before has got to be a new LOW in dishonesty even for you people.

You demand "evidence" and when recorded testimony of the victim is provided you simply slither under a different rock. Don't you people have any shame? I mean, DON'T YOU???

Go ahead and merge this thread with the other - it makes no difference to me.
I managed to get this video out for others to see so that's good.

I do thank you (Beagle Boy, Santa Klaus also) for providing yet more hard
proof of just how vanishingly tenuous your integrity is.

Jorge
You should have just added it to your previous thread. Just having him repeating his claim does not exactly qualify as anything new.

Jorge
09-16-2014, 01:06 PM
Sorry coward but having Armitage repeat his lies on YouTube isn't evidence. If you have something substantial that shows he was fired simply for the contents of his "paper" and for no other reason then present or cluck off.

Hardly surprising that you and your equally-moronic friend (R6) seem unaware that eye-witness testimony is considered to be very valuable evidence by the legal system. Now, if that testimony is discredited or shown to be perjury then that would be another matter. Until then it's considered to be 1st tier e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e.

But given that you people are totally clueless about everything
else, your reaction is quite unremarkable - in fact, it was anticipated. :shrug:

Jorge

rwatts
09-16-2014, 01:56 PM
Keep in mind that making an assertion for some YECs is the same as offering corroboration. Repeating the same claim is equivalent to providing more substantiation.
And caps-lock on is proving it.

JonF
09-16-2014, 01:59 PM
Hardly surprising that you and your equally-moronic friend (R6) seem unaware that eye-witness testimony is considered to be very valuable evidence by the legal system. Now, if that testimony is discredited or shown to be perjury then that would be another matter. Until then it's considered to be 1st tier e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e.

But given that you people are totally clueless about everything
else, your reaction is quite unremarkable - in fact, it was anticipated. :shrug:

Jorge
Eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable. Lawyers love 'em because juries do too. But when you are looking for truth eyewitnesses are way below several other forms.

This is getting formalized. In New Jersey judges must caution juries about the unreliability of eyewitnesses www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/nyregion/judges-must-warn-new-jersey-jurors-about-eyewitnesses-reliability.html?_r=0, and other cases are being heard in other states. The scientific assessment, of which Jorge is totally unaware, is unanimous.

Jorge
09-18-2014, 03:18 AM
Eyewitness testimony is extremely unreliable. Lawyers love 'em because juries do too. But when you are looking for truth eyewitnesses are way below several other forms.

This is getting formalized. In New Jersey judges must caution juries about the unreliability of eyewitnesses www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/nyregion/judges-must-warn-new-jersey-jurors-about-eyewitnesses-reliability.html?_r=0, and other cases are being heard in other states. The scientific assessment, of which Jorge is totally unaware, is unanimous.

Try letting go of your rabid prejudice (against me) and become informed, okay?

Yes, eye-witness testimony MAY be unreliable - but that is true of most other types of evidence. For example, if the eye-witness was drunk at the time or has a history of perjury or has poor eyesight and wasn't wearing glasses at the time ... then his/her testimony may be 'questionable'. But under 'proper' circumstances one solid eye-witness will trump any other type of evidence.

BTW, there was an Eye-Witness at the creation - His name is God. He is infinitely reliable and trustworthy. Yet people dismiss His account - recorded in Scripture - so as to uphold their own theories and imaginations. That's just one of the reasons why there's a Hell.

Jorge

klaus54
09-18-2014, 04:43 AM
Try letting go of your rabid prejudice (against me) and become informed, okay?

Yes, eye-witness testimony MAY be unreliable - but that is true of most other types of evidence. For example, if the eye-witness was drunk at the time or has a history of perjury or has poor eyesight and wasn't wearing glasses at the time ... then his/her testimony may be 'questionable'. But under 'proper' circumstances one solid eye-witness will trump any other type of evidence.

BTW, there was an Eye-Witness at the creation - His name is God. He is infinitely reliable and trustworthy. Yet people dismiss His account - recorded in Scripture - so as to uphold their own theories and imaginations. That's just one of the reasons why there's a Hell.

Jorge

The God as "Eye Witness" at Creation argument is puerile, circular propaganda.

Even if you consider inspiration to men writing the creation stories "eye witness", you still have the HUGE issue of the PURPOSE of the creation stories.

ASSUMING that the stories are supposed to give a view of creation that is accurate in terms of what can be observed and then using that assumption to dismiss science is clear-as-a-bell petito principii.

Were the creation stories meant to convey a scientific method concordant with knowledge of the Cosmos throughout all of human history and culture? Or was the language accommodated to knowledge of the ANE, or was it simply phenomenological, or ...

If you want them to be concordant with CLEAR observations of CREATION ITSELF you CANNOT put your brain on a shelf and IGNORE the volumes of CONSILIENT data which contradict (wildly!!!) the Jorgian YEC interpretation. And that's EXACTLY what your Genesis reading is -- an INTERPRETATION.

If you want BOTH a scientific and a theological notion of creation to be non-contradictory you have to look at both "books" of creation -- scripture and nature (creation itself!) The latter is studied by scientific method, and the conclusions blow YEC out of the water.

Stop mocking God with your YEC foolishness that makes a mockery of religious belief, get over your cult-like adherence to stories that are OBVIOUSLY not literal in the modern sense, and get over you silly misapplication of the "Though He slay me, yet I will trust Him" martyr syndrome.

K54

P.S. Boys and girls -- note the reference to Hell in the context of Jorge's Genesis interpretation.

Jor makes it clear he views YEC as a salvific issue, or at least an instance of heresy.

JonF
09-18-2014, 05:06 AM
Try letting go of your rabid prejudice (against me) and become informed, okay?

Yes, eye-witness testimony MAY be unreliable - but that is true of most other types of evidence. For example, if the eye-witness was drunk at the time or has a history of perjury or has poor eyesight and wasn't wearing glasses at the time ... then his/her testimony may be 'questionable'. But under 'proper' circumstances one solid eye-witness will trump any other type of evidence.

BTW, there was an Eye-Witness at the creation - His name is God. He is infinitely reliable and trustworthy. Yet people dismiss His account - recorded in Scripture - so as to uphold their own theories and imaginations. That's just one of the reasons why there's a Hell.

Jorge
Nope. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable. Under all circumstances. Period. Full stop. 30.

Juries tend to believe eyewitness accounts, so lawyers love them. Lawyers aren't looking for truth, they are looking to win. My statement stands supported by loads of evidence available on request; when you are looking for truth eyewitnesses are way below several other forms.

Again you make your ignorance of the subject obvious. And you obviously didn't bother to read the link.

TheLurch
09-18-2014, 07:43 AM
But under 'proper' circumstances one solid eye-witness will trump any other type of evidence.
In the US court system, DNA evidence has repeatedly trumped eyewitness testimony.

JonF
09-18-2014, 12:28 PM
In the US court system, DNA evidence has repeatedly trumped eyewitness testimony.
Yes, and more. Scientists started investigating the reliability of eyewitness testimony in the 1970s but their results didn't have much effect on the legal system until DNA evidence came into wide use in the 1990s. Now we know that eyewitness misidentification is by far *the* major cause of erroneous guilty verdicts.

Jorge
09-18-2014, 01:26 PM
The God as "Eye Witness" at Creation argument is puerile, circular propaganda.

Even if you consider inspiration to men writing the creation stories "eye witness", you still have the HUGE issue of the PURPOSE of the creation stories.

ASSUMING that the stories are supposed to give a view of creation that is accurate in terms of what can be observed and then using that assumption to dismiss science is clear-as-a-bell petito principii.

Were the creation stories meant to convey a scientific method concordant with knowledge of the Cosmos throughout all of human history and culture? Or was the language accommodated to knowledge of the ANE, or was it simply phenomenological, or ...

If you want them to be concordant with CLEAR observations of CREATION ITSELF you CANNOT put your brain on a shelf and IGNORE the volumes of CONSILIENT data which contradict (wildly!!!) the Jorgian YEC interpretation. And that's EXACTLY what your Genesis reading is -- an INTERPRETATION.

If you want BOTH a scientific and a theological notion of creation to be non-contradictory you have to look at both "books" of creation -- scripture and nature (creation itself!) The latter is studied by scientific method, and the conclusions blow YEC out of the water.

Stop mocking God with your YEC foolishness that makes a mockery of religious belief, get over your cult-like adherence to stories that are OBVIOUSLY not literal in the modern sense, and get over you silly misapplication of the "Though He slay me, yet I will trust Him" martyr syndrome.

K54

P.S. Boys and girls -- note the reference to Hell in the context of Jorge's Genesis interpretation.

Jor makes it clear he views YEC as a salvific issue, or at least an instance of heresy.

I would really appreciate it if you wouldn't present my position in any way. :glare: First, you don't know it. Second, you don't understand it. Third, even if you did, you are a distortion and misrepresentation artist. Fourth, you have an anti-biblical agenda. Fifth, your integrity is at the same level as that of a toilet seat. Sixth, you seek to promote your own 'truths', not those of God. Seventh, you are several bricks short of a full wall. Eighth, ... whew, I'm all tuckered out so I'll stop here!

Jorge

Jorge
09-18-2014, 01:28 PM
Nope. Eyewitness testimony is unreliable. Under all circumstances. Period. Full stop. 30.

Juries tend to believe eyewitness accounts, so lawyers love them. Lawyers aren't looking for truth, they are looking to win. My statement stands supported by loads of evidence available on request; when you are looking for truth eyewitnesses are way below several other forms.

Again you make your ignorance of the subject obvious. And you obviously didn't bother to read the link.

You opt to remain ignorant in everything else so why not here also. :shrug:

Go along, little birdie, go along. :lol:

Jorge

Method
09-18-2014, 02:40 PM
You opt to remain ignorant in everything else so why not here also. :shrug:

Go along, little birdie, go along. :lol:

Jorge

TheLurch has already presented the coup de grace:

"In the US court system, DNA evidence has repeatedly trumped eyewitness testimony."--TheLurch

JonF
09-18-2014, 04:07 PM
You opt to remain ignorant in everything else so why not here also. :shrug:

Go along, little birdie, go along. :lol:

Jorge
Always a pleasure having an evidence-based discussion with you.

Jorge
09-18-2014, 04:11 PM
TheLurch has already presented the coup de grace:

"In the US court system, DNA evidence has repeatedly trumped eyewitness testimony."--TheLurch

One day - not today - I will figure out what the devil is wrong with you people.

You are so rabidly obsessed with proving me "wrong" that you don't even stop to consider
if what you're pushing has anything to do with what my actual position is (or isn't).

Go suck a lemon.

Jorge

Jorge
09-18-2014, 04:11 PM
Always a pleasure having an evidence-based discussion with you.

Yeah ... same here ... now shoo ... shoo!!! :whip:

Jorge

klaus54
09-18-2014, 05:55 PM
I would really appreciate it if you wouldn't present my position in any way. :glare: First, you don't know it. Second, you don't understand it. Third, even if you did, you are a distortion and misrepresentation artist. Fourth, you have an anti-biblical agenda. Fifth, your integrity is at the same level as that of a toilet seat. Sixth, you seek to promote your own 'truths', not those of God. Seventh, you are several bricks short of a full wall. Eighth, ... whew, I'm all tuckered out so I'll stop here!

Jorge

As usual, my comments were accurate and insightful.

As usual, your rejoinders were inaccurate and incite-full.

You brought up "Hell" in the origins context.

Au contraire, your position is as clear as a polished Newtonian mirror.

And if anyone's distorting Scripture, it's you and your Know-Nothing YEC posse.

Jorgian YEC "Bible God" (to use the JordanianRiver nomenclature) interpretation is diametrically opposed to what's evident from Creation itself.

So, how's 'bout YOU stop distorting Scripture?

And to turn things round --- repeat your "I would really appreciate it if you wouldn't present my position in any way. First, you don't know it. Second, you don't understand it. Third, even if you did, you are a distortion and misrepresentation artist. " whilst staring into a mirror.

K54

klaus54
09-18-2014, 05:59 PM
Always a pleasure having an evidence-based discussion with you.



Yeah ... same here ... now shoo ... shoo!!! :whip:

Jorge

We ARE having an evidence-based discussion with Jorge -- but it's likely not the kind of evidence he wants us to learn.

K54

Duragizer
09-21-2014, 02:01 PM
Jorge reminds me of the Jehovah's Witnesses -- both waste an inordinate amount of time finding different ways to say the same things over and over and over again.