• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are scientists any closer

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
This is the same mistake you keep making - ignoring and playing ignorant to what I say, and you want me to repeat the same mistake I made in the past, of repeating myself. No thanks.
The same thing goes to you. You can fly with Skeptic.
Pun not intended, but there it is. :)
This seems in very stark contrast to what you wrote about accepting critiques in the other thread, but if you don't want to discuss this, then I won't bother you any more.

Take care.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
This seems in very stark contrast to what you wrote about accepting critiques in the other thread, but if you don't want to discuss this, then I won't bother you any more.

Take care.
Twisting things again? :smirk: You haven't changed one bit, Fly. This has nothing to do with critique or the other thread. This has everything to do with not being selfish and sly. :smirk:
By the way, are you following me around? :smirk:
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Twisting things again? :smirk: You haven't changed one bit, Fly. This has nothing to do with critique or the other thread. This has everything to do with not being selfish and sly. :smirk:
By the way, are you following me around? :smirk:
I honestly have no idea what you think I'm "twisting" or why you think I'm being "selfish and sly". This reminds me of the other time when you accused me of being "serpent like". I'm sorry to see that you don't seem able to engage in an open friendly discussion with me. I guess you and I will never be able to do that. That's sad.

And no, I'm not following you around. I saw CT's thread on "Learning from those who critique you" in the new threads list and since I like his threads, I checked it out. In doing so I saw your posts, along with a few from other folks. That's all.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I'm more baffled by @nPeace 's notion that if you don't see something occur, then you "know nothing" about it. Makes me wonder if he's ever served on a jury.

"We the jury have concluded that since there were no eye-witnesses to the crime, we cannot know anything about it."

o_O
Yep, and how many people have been found guilty on forensic evidence alone.

Also, what is so bizarre is that some take the position that if the evidence is not 100% complete that this somehow proves God must have directly did it.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I honestly have no idea what you think I'm "twisting" or why you think I'm being "selfish and sly". This reminds me of the other time when you accused me of being "serpent like". I'm sorry to see that you don't seem able to engage in an open friendly discussion with me. I guess you and I will never be able to do that. That's sad.
You keep telling me that.
You told me the same thing before too... that you honestly don't know.
Consider me the jury that looks at the evidence, and comes to a conclusion.
Now ask yourself the questions you have asked me.
Yes. the jury is sometimes right, but they can't prove it. They could be right. They could be wrong, but they made a judgment, based on the evidence.
If you are happy with that, amd if that's the argument you stand by, then it would be strange if you have a problem with this jury. :smirk:

To remind you, just per chance you forgot, I told you, my early experience in life caused me to hate deception, and I tend to pick up on deception quite easily. So imagine if it's clear, to me, and being repeated.
You know some people tend to think, others take them for a fool, because the other person thinks of themselves are being smart... I call it sly, or cunning.

I'm no friend of that. I told you before, 'One smart died at too smart's door.' :smirk:
Friendly conversation and deceptive tactics are a bad mix... like oil and water. They don't go together.
One of the substances has to change.
Maybe the water has to become oil thinner, if the oil wants to remain oil, but for me, that's hard to do, if the oil is quite cloggy, or worst, it takes a lot of thinner, and I did try, for probably more than a dozen pages of RF space,,, and my time.

It didn't work, and I know it never will, and why.

And no, I'm not following you around. I saw CT's thread on "Learning from those who critique you" in the new threads list and since I like his threads, I checked it out. In doing so I saw your posts, along with a few from other folks. That's all.
This jury also does not buy that.
I'm sorry, maybe it's my past experience with you, and your words not being truthful.
This jury has come to the unanimous decision that you look for JWs to engage, and you have a special interest in a few particulars.
I told you all of this before you left Fly.
Jesus was a wise man on earth, and he told his followers, 'Yes, be innocent, but be wise." (Matthew 10:16) In other words, 'just because you are to befriend people, doesn't mean you are to be foolish'. ;)

Take care Fly. It's still nice to see you... and I know I won't be seeing the last of you, unless all the JWs leave. :D

Is the jury in error? Well, we can't always be right, can we? ;)
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
You keep telling me that.
You told me the same thing before too... that you honestly don't know.
Consider me the jury that looks at the evidence, and comes to a conclusion.
Now ask yourself the questions you have asked me.
Yes. the jury is sometimes right, but they can't prove it. They could be right. They could be wrong, but they made a judgment, based on the evidence.
If you are happy with that, amd if that's the argument you stand by, then it would be strange if you have a problem with this jury. :smirk:

To remind you, just per chance you forgot, I told you, my early experience in life caused me to hate deception, and I tend to pick up on deception quite easily. So imagine if it's clear, to me, and being repeated.
You know some people tend to think, others take them for a fool, because the other person thinks of themselves are being smart... I call it sly, or cunning.

I'm no friend of that. I told you before, 'One smart died at too smart's door.' :smirk:
Friendly conversation and deceptive tactics are a bad mix... like oil and water. They don't go together.
One of the substances has to change.
Maybe the water has to become oil thinner, if the oil wants to remain oil, but for me, that's hard to do, if the oil is quite cloggy, or worst, it takes a lot of thinner, and I did try, for probably more than a dozen pages of RF space,,, and my time.

It didn't work, and I know it never will, and why.


This jury also does not buy that.
I'm sorry, maybe it's my past experience with you, and your words not being truthful.
This jury has come to the unanimous decision that you look for JWs to engage, and you have a special interest in a few particulars.
I told you all of this before you left Fly.
Jesus was a wise man on earth, and he told his followers, 'Yes, be innocent, but be wise." (Matthew 10:16) In other words, 'just because you are to befriend people, doesn't mean you are to be foolish'. ;)

Take care Fly. It's still nice to see you... and I know I won't be seeing the last of you, unless all the JWs leave. :D

Is the jury in error? Well, we can't always be right, can we? ;)
So you basically think I'm just lying and deceiving you, every time I post and with everything I write.

I truly don't know what to say to that, other than.....nope....I've got nothing.....kinda speechless at the moment.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Yep, and how many people have been found guilty on forensic evidence alone.

Also, what is so bizarre is that some take the position that if the evidence is not 100% complete that this somehow proves God must have directly did it.
"Bizarre" is definitely a word that's on my mind at the moment.

It's fascinating to watch the defensive mechanisms people employ when they feel threatened.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
"Bizarre" is definitely a word that's on my mind at the moment.

It's fascinating to watch the defensive mechanisms people employ when they feel threatened.
@nPeace put me on ignore because I kept hounding him to learn what is and what is not evidence. Creationists cannot afford to learn this and most know it. They have this odd belief that it is not a lie to say "There is no evidence" if they do not understand what evidence is. They do not want to lie so the only way they can preserve their "I am not a liar" status is to refuse to learn. Oy vei!
 

Bear Wild

Well-Known Member
So you basically think I'm just lying and deceiving you, every time I post and with everything I write.

I truly don't know what to say to that, other than.....nope....I've got nothing.....kinda speechless at the moment.

He is using the creationists "tried and true" repeating false claims over and over to keep @nPeace certain that @nPeace is correct. To stop and actually consider the evidence is to place one's belief at risk. Those claiming a literal bible know that once they start to agree with the evidence and find the one flaw in literal interpretation, it all start to fall apart. What does the science of evolution, biology genetics, geology, etc really know when compared to the Bible. I can hear the argument now - they keep changing with new information. Compare that to the bible which never changes - ever- it must be right.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
@nPeace put me on ignore because I kept hounding him to learn what is and what is not evidence. Creationists cannot afford to learn this and most know it. They have this odd belief that it is not a lie to say "There is no evidence" if they do not understand what evidence is. They do not want to lie so the only way they can preserve their "I am not a liar" status is to refuse to learn. Oy vei!
Inventing specious reasons to shut down discussions is certainly a means to never have to admit you're wrong or learn anything potentially dangerous.

In this latest episode, it's pretty clear what happened. nPeace posted his view that unless scientists directly observe an event, they can't know anything about it. I illustrated how that's wrong by pointing to an obvious example where we reach firm conclusions about unobserved events all the time....jury trials. From any objective viewpoint, that completely negates nPeace's view.

So he's left with a few options. He can acknowledge the point and adjust his views accordingly, or he can try and counter what I said and defend his original view. Instead, he went with the third option, namely deflecting away from the original topic by engaging in personal attacks, declaring the conversation impossible, and walking away. That has the desired effect of shutting down an uncomfortable discussion, avoiding the original error, and demonizing the person who challenged him in the first place.

It's effective in those ways, but it has the downside of severely damaging his reputation in the group and of course closing off an opportunity to learn. But for some folks, those things are far, far down the priority list.

It's fascinating to watch.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
He is using the creationists "tried and true" repeating false claims over and over to keep @nPeace certain that @nPeace is correct. To stop and actually consider the evidence is to place one's belief at risk. Those claiming a literal bible know that once they start to agree with the evidence and find the one flaw in literal interpretation, it all start to fall apart. What does the science of evolution, biology genetics, geology, etc really know when compared to the Bible. I can hear the argument now - they keep changing with new information. Compare that to the bible which never changes - ever- it must be right.
Well that's one of the best concise characterizations of creationists I've seen in some time. Well put! :)
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
You keep telling me that.
You told me the same thing before too... that you honestly don't know.
Consider me the jury that looks at the evidence, and comes to a conclusion.
Now ask yourself the questions you have asked me.
Yes. the jury is sometimes right, but they can't prove it. They could be right. They could be wrong, but they made a judgment, based on the evidence.
If you are happy with that, amd if that's the argument you stand by, then it would be strange if you have a problem with this jury. :smirk:

To remind you, just per chance you forgot, I told you, my early experience in life caused me to hate deception, and I tend to pick up on deception quite easily. So imagine if it's clear, to me, and being repeated.
You know some people tend to think, others take them for a fool, because the other person thinks of themselves are being smart... I call it sly, or cunning.

I'm no friend of that. I told you before, 'One smart died at too smart's door.' :smirk:
Friendly conversation and deceptive tactics are a bad mix... like oil and water. They don't go together.
One of the substances has to change.
Maybe the water has to become oil thinner, if the oil wants to remain oil, but for me, that's hard to do, if the oil is quite cloggy, or worst, it takes a lot of thinner, and I did try, for probably more than a dozen pages of RF space,,, and my time.

It didn't work, and I know it never will, and why.


This jury also does not buy that.
I'm sorry, maybe it's my past experience with you, and your words not being truthful.
This jury has come to the unanimous decision that you look for JWs to engage, and you have a special interest in a few particulars.
I told you all of this before you left Fly.
Jesus was a wise man on earth, and he told his followers, 'Yes, be innocent, but be wise." (Matthew 10:16) In other words, 'just because you are to befriend people, doesn't mean you are to be foolish'. ;)

Take care Fly. It's still nice to see you... and I know I won't be seeing the last of you, unless all the JWs leave. :D

Is the jury in error? Well, we can't always be right, can we? ;)
Except that you never look at any evidence. You deny the evidence even exists. You just conclude what you want without any evidence at all. That is not a jury you are on.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Inventing specious reasons to shut down discussions is certainly a means to never have to admit you're wrong or learn anything potentially dangerous.

In this latest episode, it's pretty clear what happened. nPeace posted his view that unless scientists directly observe an event, they can't know anything about it. I illustrated how that's wrong by pointing to an obvious example where we reach firm conclusions about unobserved events all the time....jury trials. From any objective viewpoint, that completely negates nPeace's view.

So he's left with a few options. He can acknowledge the point and adjust his views accordingly, or he can try and counter what I said and defend his original view. Instead, he went with the third option, namely deflecting away from the original topic by engaging in personal attacks, declaring the conversation impossible, and walking away. That has the desired effect of shutting down an uncomfortable discussion, avoiding the original error, and demonizing the person who challenged him in the first place.

It's effective in those ways, but it has the downside of severely damaging his reputation in the group and of course closing off an opportunity to learn. But for some folks, those things are far, far down the priority list.

It's fascinating to watch.
It is not the first time I have seen this happen.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I get so much comedy on RF. :laughing:
Some of it makes me wonder though, if I am hearing right... or more accurately, reading right, and I sometimes wonder if persons who call themselves scientists, are not just making a joke of it, and just pretending, because I find it hard to believe that any credible scientist would claim that a hypothesis - an idea, is an actual truth, fact, or something we know.

I know reputable scientist take these things seriously, so it would seem strange to me if one came on a forum and make any bogus claims...
m1703.gif
...but then again, in this dishonest world, that's not very far fetched.
Could be some feel desperation, shame, feelings of emptiness, with little or no hope in the faith they put in science to give them that sense of :shrug:....not excluding those who call themselves Christians, of course.

Could be a grand plan, and they are all in it together. Hmm.
m1705.gif


Perhaps the moon formation hypotheses were all known to be true...
The idea in 2011. True
The idea in 2013. True
The idea of moon Capture. True.
The Fission idea. True. Oh. Another Darwin fellow.

Guesswork? He actually said that? :eek:
The Accretion idea. True.
The idea of a Nuclear Explosion. True.
Then along comes the Giant-Impact idea. True.

Your Honor, sir. The jury has decided. As with all the others, there are some unresolved problems - some discrepancies, but the majority has agreed to go with it. Plus we have some other ideas.. 'hem Excuse me, I mean theories - like the Merger of two planets ; Multiple impacts ; Synestia hypothesis ; Former satellites - that we suggest can correct some of those problems.

Does @Jose Fly say, "Okay. We'll go with it. After all, it's better than Goddidit. :laughing: :p ?

The jury deserves a treat.
The origin of planets is a vast, complex, and still quite mysterious subject. Despite decades of space exploration, ground-based observations, and detailed analyses of meteorites and cometary grains (the only space samples available in our laboratories), it is still not clear how the planets of the solar system formed. The discovery of extrasolar planets has added confusion to the problem, bringing to light evidence that planetary systems are very diverse, that our solar system is not a typical case and that categories of planets that do not exist in our system are common elsewhere (e.g., the super-Earth planets).

Enjoy. ;)
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
It is not the first time I have seen this happen.
Oh certainly not! In fact, it's one of the identifying characteristics of the internet creationist (shutting down discussions before they go too far).

One psychology article I read a while ago explained it as evangelical/fundamentalist Christians having very distinct and strong lines in the sand that they will absolutely refuse to cross, and as soon as a conversation, bit of information, or other material edges up to that line, the fundamentalist will do almost anything to make it all stop.....name call, throw tantrums, run to management, or most commonly, just plain run away. As we've seen, they'll even sacrifice their own credibility.

It's all in the service of their own emotional well-being and safety. Those lines in the sand are there for a reason, i.e., to protect the person behind them.
 
Top