Forge Post -- Camping Out

[Soundsurfr]

A scientific fact cannot be disproven or it would not be a fact.

Facts can be disproven, and very often are. Proven facts are something else.

The FACT however is that not all said today in scientific circles is a fact. That's the same for any field.

No disagreement. You're still beating the straw man. As I believe we agreed previously, some disciplines operate in the realm of provable/disprovable facts, others do not. Yet some operators within those latter disciplines behave as if they do.<-------- (My point, again, in italics for those who may have some difficulty identifying the point of an argument.)

Right. So then you are poking fun at me for forwarding a position that you know I believe to be nonsense. Help me understand why I'm the one who is supposed to be embarrassed.

That you were forced to such lengths to defend absurdity is revealing enough.

Wiggle away, my good man.

Nope. The account of Elisha contains no mention of the bears having supersonic speed as there is no need.

Is the rule of thumb I cited valid or not?

The account of the virgin birth does specifically state that that is the cause of her pregnancy.
I don't believe in adding miracles when one isn't claimed and one isn't needed.

So you don't consider the alleged virginal conception of Mary to be a supernatural event?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Facts can be disproven, and very often are. Proven facts are something else.

If they can be disproven, then they are not facts. Note that in their time, these ideas were not seen as theories. They were seen as facts. It's a great cop-out you have. Any time majority opinion is wrong, well that wasn't a fact. That was a theory.

No disagreement. You're still beating the straw man. As I believe we agreed previously, some disciplines operate in the realm of provable/disprovable facts, others do not. Yet some operators within those latter disciplines behave as if they do.<-------- (My point, again, in italics for those who may have some difficulty identifying the point of an argument.)

And provable or disprovable in what way? If you mean scientifically, then it's a category fallacy. Are you saying that if it can't be proven scientifically, then it does not count as knowledge? If so, then can that be proven scientifically? If so, do so. If not, then you can have no knowledge that we have no knowledge.

Wiggle away, my good man.

Do you really do this projection that often?

Is the rule of thumb I cited valid or not?

Generally, I have no problem with what Ockham says. Why give a miracle in the text when the text gives no warrant of it?

So you don't consider the alleged virginal conception of Mary to be a supernatural event?

I consider it miraculous. Supernatural is a term I prefer to not use. If you wish to use it, then give the criteria for something being supernatural.

[Soundsurfr]

I love grammar Nazi's that think picking on minor grammar and spelling errors are arguments, in some circles.

Getting the singular/plural verb form wrong twice in one post is not an example of a minor grammatical error. How low do they have to set the bar around here for you to get through it?

Hummm, sounds like a laymen's understanding of science and the history of science to me.

Better watch it, Pixie. You're out of your league on this topic. At least Holding has the good sense to hide behind a rock when the subject of science comes up.

Second, no you are wrong, engineers are not 100% sure just how electrify flows though wires and I know this because unlike you, I went to school and took electrical theory and can tell you, nope, they are not 100% sure just how it works because it's far more complex and far more in depth, then most people know.

Pixie, I have a bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering, have authored papers on the subject, I have design patents on electrical products and work as a consultant on electronic and electrical engineering projects. Once again, your foot is way up in your mouth and you're going to choke on it if you don't pull it out soon. The article you cited only talks about how confusing the directional conventions can be when applying them to materials with different properties. There is no disagreement among scientists as to which way electricity actually flows. It would suit you well to steer the topic back to imaginary gods and angels and demons - subjects you clearly know much more about than science and electricity.

The fact you ask such a stupid question, tells me about your intelligence. Camping and JPH both make falsifiable claims, you dolt, the difference is that JPH goes to experts and looks up his facts before he speaks and Camping doesn't.

Yeah, like he did down in my signature line. He's just SO good at looking things up.


Thanks, as always, for the laughs.

[jpholding]

Yeah, like he did down in my signature line. He's just SO good at looking things up.

That I am, moron. And your evidence disputing that Jesus' disciples could indeed afford such things is -- ?

"Duh" doesn't count as a source, by the way.

[Soundsurfr]

That I am, moron. And your evidence disputing that Jesus' disciples could indeed afford such things is -- ?

"Duh" doesn't count as a source, by the way.

Let me ask you this. Who do you suppose COULD have afforded a clarinet player back in Jesus' time?

[lilpixieofterror]

Getting the singular/plural verb form wrong twice in one post is not an example of a minor grammatical error. How low do they have to set the bar around here for you to get through it?

Self esteem hurting that bad?

Better watch it, Pixie. You're out of your league on this topic. At least Holding has the good sense to hide behind a rock when the subject of science comes up.

Too bad you haven't answered my point at all. Again though, when in doubt, puff up your chest and pretend you are right, yep, that's the way to do it!

Pixie, I have a bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering, have authored papers on the subject, I have design patents on electrical products and work as a consultant on electronic and electrical engineering projects. Once again, your foot is way up in your mouth and you're going to choke on it if you don't pull it out soon. The article you cited only talks about how confusing the directional conventions can be when applying them to materials with different properties. There is no disagreement among scientists as to which way electricity actually flows. It would suit you well to steer the topic back to imaginary gods and angels and demons - subjects you clearly know much more about than science and electricity.

Notice how sound bite doesn't present anything to prove I'm wrong, he says, "Oh yeah, I have a degree in Electrical Engineering, so there!" as though that proves that scientist have not disagreed about the nature of how electircal energy flows though wires. Anyway, good job ignoring my point and simply trying to puff up your chest and sound smart. You tried to make it sound as though a disagreement among Christians proved all of Christianity as wrong. I guess disagreements only work if you disagree with the subject matter. After all, you're the one trying to claim that disagreements among Christians, is some sort of argument, so I took your logic and applied it and now you seem to be simply throwing out insults without addressing my point. Typical fundy atheist, can't deal with what I said so he tries to puff up his chest as though he's a big boy. Actually, I doubt you understand as much about science or electricity as you think you do because if you are as good of a debater as you are an engineer, I mostly likely have fixed many of your engineering mistakes (and there's plenty of engineering flaws in modern electronics).

Yeah, like he did down in my signature line. He's just SO good at looking things up.

Then perhaps you could prove him wrong instead of simply whining and crying? You know, you could show that I was wrong about what I said, but I have discovered that I was correct, scientist did disagree and do disagree on a number of things. A point which you haven't actually refuted, but rather simply threw out ad hominems and didn't deal with (just what I expect, from you).

Thanks, as always, for the laughs.

Yep, you sure give us hours of entertainment with your stupidity. Keep it up soundbite.

[lilpixieofterror]

That I am, moron. And your evidence disputing that Jesus' disciples could indeed afford such things is -- ?

"Duh" doesn't count as a source, by the way.

Do note how he avoided my argument and simply picked on spelling/grammar errors and ignored my point (because I am correct, scientist have debated about how electrical energy flows though wires). Perhaps I was expect too much from him because he would have to admit that his argument was flawed so rather then deal with it, simply rant about spelling/grammar errors and call me stupid, without dealing with my argument?

[jpholding]

Let me ask you this. Who do you suppose COULD have afforded a clarinet player back in Jesus' time?

COUGH -- dodging my request for backup, are you? Trying to buy time to hide the embarrassment?

Let me cover the likeliest blunder on your part.

Show of hands -- who here, unlike Surfy, gets that references to a "clarinet" (and in the main article, a "trombone") are meant to be HUMOROUS?

Odds are 99 out of 100 that's what he had in mind; odds are also 99 in 100 he'll deny it. But that's good. We'll use that to force him to answer my question firs:

What's your evidence that they COULD have afforded it -- contrary to all the scholarly sources on ancient music I consulted?

[Hamster]

I, too, thought the clarinet thing was serious, on account of I'm an android designed and programmed by scientists on the far end of the autism spectrum

[Sparko]

Ward-quiz1667outcome10.jpg
Jesus didn't need a clarinet. He had an iPod.

[Soundsurfr]

What's your evidence that they COULD have afforded it -- contrary to all the scholarly sources on ancient music I consulted?

I concede. You are right. I have no evidence that they could have afforded a clarinet player, or an electric guitarist, or a recording studio to do backup vocals. The statement itself is ridiculous. However, just about any of the more common ancient Jewish instruments, which were generally of the chordophone, aerophone, or idiophone variety, can be made easily with wood, skins, sticks, reeds or clay. And they can sound pretty darn good. What’s your evidence that in Jesus’ day, “Most musical instruments were hand-crafted and very expensive, painstakingly hand-crafted by master artisans who didn't come cheap”?

And when will you answer the question on how to identify an expert in your particular field, which you are obviously finding impossible to detail for us without excluding yourself?

[Hamster]

I concede. You are right. I have no evidence that they could have afforded a clarinet player, or an electric guitarist, or a recording studio to do backup vocals

[jpholding]

[QUOTE=SoundlyBeatenSurfr;3251793] And they can sound pretty darn good. What’s your evidence that in Jesus’ day, “Most musical instruments were hand-crafted and very expensive, painstakingly hand-crafted by master artisans who didn't come cheap”?[/FONT]

The sources I referred to indicated this. Feel free to argue with them. And explain why we should accept your word as an amateur hack over theirs as credible historical scholars.

can be made easily with wood, skins, sticks, reeds or clay. And they can sound pretty darn good.

Good enough for WHAT, moron? Get a clue: 1) Heavy emphasis on honor. 2) Amateur hour = not honorable, best suited for ignorant shepherds out in the field. 3) = "darn good," "easily made" isn't good enough for a sacred occasion. Since you're not too bright, I'll put it this way: If you got paid to play at, say, a memorial service, would you show up with something made of skin, sticks, etc. and then tell the mourners it was "pretty darn good"? Are you really that stupid and insensitive?

And when will you answer the question on how to identify an expert in your particular field, which you are obviously finding impossible to detail for us without excluding yourself?

Like I said, just ask a retarded monkey -- they'll be glad to help you.

[rogue06]

Open Sesame (thread re-opened)

[Sparko]

Well, it's October 21. The world is still here.