|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/02/2007 : 22:08:45 [Permalink]
|
I just reread this thread. I have found that when I ask questions they tend not to be answered; only insults and requests for me to redefine my question. This is not thought (although Dave is playing chess ).
A thoughtful talk includes answers to questions asked. Skeptics; I think, would want a constant consideration of reality.
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/02/2007 : 22:10:56 [Permalink]
|
Dave, if I am the one presenting a word in my statement how can I be taking the word in the wrong context?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 22:15:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I just reread this thread. I have found that when I ask questions they tend not to be answered; only insults and requests for me to redefine my question. This is not thought (although Dave is playing chess).
A thoughtful talk includes answers to questions asked. Skeptics; I think, would want a constant consideration of reality.
|
I explained to you that your questions were too vague, wondering if you would thoughtfully ask why they were too vague. But you didn't, and now you preach about thoughtfulness in a discussion.
Asking questions is good. Rejecting the answers without comment (as you did) is rude. Rejecting the answers and then claiming that no answers were presented (as you did) is a lie. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 22:26:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave do you accept the ability of mutations to increase genetic data? |
And still you refuse to provide evidence to support your claims.
|
Question unanswered. Simple question. Ambiguous statement in response (I did not make a claim, I asked a question).
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 22:31:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave do you accept the ability of mutations to increase genetic data? |
And still you refuse to provide evidence to support your claims.
|
Question unanswered. Simple question. Ambiguous statement in response (I did not make a claim, I asked a question).
|
Dave said
Asking questions is good. Rejecting the answers without comment (as you did) is rude. Rejecting the answers and then claiming that no answers were presented (as you did) is a lie. |
Above you gave no answer for me to reject, thus your claim is shown to be invalid. How should I have responded to this non answer?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 22:44:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave, if I am the one presenting a word in my statement how can I be taking the word in the wrong context? |
"Effects," Jerome. The Fourth Amendment is not a context of your devising.Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave do you accept the ability of mutations to increase genetic data? |
And still you refuse to provide evidence to support your claims. |
Question unanswered. Simple question. Ambiguous statement in response (I did not make a claim, I asked a question). |
You made claims in your posts prior to that exchange, claims you've continued to leave unsupported.
Besides, I did answer your question once you provided a definition for "genetic data" that wasn't so vague as to be meaningless. Your denial of that fact is astounding.Dave said | Asking questions is good. Rejecting the answers without comment (as you did) is rude. Rejecting the answers and then claiming that no answers were presented (as you did) is a lie. |
Above you gave no answer for me to reject, thus your claim is shown to be invalid. How should I have responded to this non answer? |
Obviously, you have a great ability to cherry-pick from the evidence at hand and also to deny reality. How you should respond when you're so heavily encumbered with illogic and prejudice is beyond my skills to advise. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ghost_Skeptic
SFN Regular
Canada
510 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2007 : 00:00:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Changing the talk again? Why do you accept the ability of mutations to increase genetic data(very complex), at the same time discounting the ability of abiotic processes to create petrol(when we have examples of this sort of thing happening)? |
Let's see just one example of an abiotic process creating gasoline. You claim that there are examples of that "sort of thing" happening, but have provided no evidence at all of any natural, abiotic process creating hydrocarbons with between five and 12 carbon atoms (the bulk of what's in gasoline), but have only provided an example of a single-carbon molecule being abiotically created (and you even had to go off-planet to find it, despite it happening right here on Earth, too).
There is no evidence that abiotic processes have the ability to create petrol. Thus, there are no facts to be discounted. The possibility that abiotic processes might create multi-carbon hydrocarbons is a hypothesis, not a fact.
Why is it, Jerome, that you accept things as facts when you have no evidence?
|
It is a very flawed hypothesis, since any abiotic hydrocarbon formation takes place at a depth where the temperature is too high for complex hydrocarbons (oil or even condensate) to exist.
The proof comes from the drill bit - geologists looking for biotic oil have found it - the crank geologists looking for abiotic oil have found squat. |
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. / You can send a kid to college but you can't make him think." - B.B. King
History is made by stupid people - The Arrogant Worms
"The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism." - William Osler
"Religion is the natural home of the psychopath" - Pat Condell
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" - Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2007 : 05:31:19 [Permalink]
|
I just read through this thread and found it interesting (excluding Jeromes input of course), but a question comes to mind. I have assumed Jerome is a troll, but after reading this thread could Jerome actually have some mental defect? His detachment from reality and inability to have a rational discussion is astounding.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2007 : 07:55:54 [Permalink]
|
Ghost_Skeptic said: | The proof comes from the drill bit - geologists looking for biotic oil have found it - the crank geologists looking for abiotic oil have found squat |
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1130.html
"The abiogenic origin of petroleum deposits would explain some phenomena that are not currently understood, such as why petroleum deposits almost always contain biologically inert helium."
"Russian and Ukranian geologists argue that formation of oil deposits requires the high pressures only found in the deep mantle and that the hydrocarbon contents in sediments do not exhibit sufficient organic material to supply the enormous amounts of petroleum found in supergiant oil fields."
Looks like the Russian drill bits disagree.
Looks like there is discussion in science over this matter.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2007 : 08:42:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I just reread this thread. I have found that when I ask questions they tend not to be answered; only insults and requests for me to redefine my question. |
You are asked the redefine your questions because practically all of them presumes assumptions that are false. Such questions cannot be answered truthfully.
It's like the question: "Do you still beat up your wife?"
 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2007 : 13:41:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Looks like there is discussion in science over this matter. |
My searches through some university databases turn up few hits for "Abiogenic Petrolium." The Nature article cited seems to show some compelling evidence, though I'm hardly in the position to say too much. However, for what it's worth, the authors say quite clearly that "we can now rule out the presence of a globally significant abiogenic source of hydrocarbons." So if it exists, there isn't much. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2007 : 17:33:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave do you accept the ability of mutations to increase genetic data? |
And still you refuse to provide evidence to support your claims.
|
Question unanswered. Simple question. Ambiguous statement in response (I did not make a claim, I asked a question).
|
[My empasis.]
At some point, any thinking person has to ask, "Is Jerome an idiot?"
Or is he a liar, willing to delibrately move goal posts in mid-argument, without ever admitting he's retreating? Does he entirely ignore factual points made by others, when these are inconvenient to his position? Why does he continually bring up thread-worn false arguments from the talking points of groups like AiG and DI, yet deny these are his sources?
Is he paranoid, an ignoramus, a liar, or just a troll, desperately seeking attention? Or some combination of these?
Does he not know that others here realize that a statement of alleged fact can be made in the format of a weaselly question, ala Erich von Däniken?
Please note: I did not make any claims, I only asked some questions.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 07/03/2007 17:56:59 |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2007 : 18:44:23 [Permalink]
|
The constant desire to argue against some other point shows a lack of critical thinking. The inability to talk about the point raised and divine some other point which has been talked about with some other person at some other time is truly revealing.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2007 : 18:47:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
I just reread this thread. I have found that when I ask questions they tend not to be answered; only insults and requests for me to redefine my question. |
You are asked the redefine your questions because practically all of them presumes assumptions that are false. Such questions cannot be answered truthfully.
It's like the question: "Do you still beat up your wife?"
|
It can be answered truthfully.
I do not and have never beaten my wife.
It is not really that hard to answer any question truthfully; it just takes some thinking.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2007 : 18:50:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Ghost_Skeptic said: | The proof comes from the drill bit - geologists looking for biotic oil have found it - the crank geologists looking for abiotic oil have found squat |
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1130.html
"The abiogenic origin of petroleum deposits would explain some phenomena that are not currently understood, such as why petroleum deposits almost always contain biologically inert helium."
"Russian and Ukranian geologists argue that formation of oil deposits requires the high pressures only found in the deep mantle and that the hydrocarbon contents in sediments do not exhibit sufficient organic material to supply the enormous amounts of petroleum found in supergiant oil fields."
Looks like the Russian drill bits disagree.
Looks like there is discussion in science over this matter.
|
I do find it interesting that only one poster responded to these facts. The other posters made claims against my sanity, motive, honesty, and intelligence.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Man Can Almost Create Life
