Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #585250 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-17 00:33 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-06-21 14:06 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 103 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-17 00:33 -0700
Re: FAITH Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-06-17 11:47 +0000
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-17 08:14 -0400
Re: FAITH Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-17 05:23 -0700
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-17 08:33 -0400
Re: FAITH Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-17 05:41 -0700
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-17 09:04 -0400
Re: FAITH bilgat@m.nu - 2016-06-17 10:36 -0500
Re: FAITH Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-17 18:26 -0700
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-17 23:17 -0400
Re: FAITH Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-17 20:42 -0700
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-17 23:47 -0400
Re: FAITH Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-17 20:58 -0700
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-18 08:30 -0400
Re: FAITH Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-18 06:23 -0700
Re: FAITH Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 06:33 -0700
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-18 09:48 -0400
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-18 12:17 -0700
Re: FAITH Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-18 15:01 -0700
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-18 20:08 -0400
Re: FAITH Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-06-18 18:21 -0600
Re: FAITH James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 17:30 -0700
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-18 20:38 -0400
Re: FAITH Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-06-18 21:11 -0600
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-19 03:03 -0400
Re: FAITH James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-19 07:42 -0700
Re: FAITH Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-18 20:16 -0700
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-19 03:06 -0400
Re: FAITH Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-19 00:53 -0700
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-19 03:57 -0400
Re: FAITH Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-18 20:16 -0700
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-18 20:24 -0700
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-18 23:14 -0700
Re: FAITH Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-06-19 08:37 +0100
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-19 03:11 -0400
Re: FAITH Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-19 00:57 -0700
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-19 04:03 -0400
Re: FAITH Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-18 20:15 -0700
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-19 03:25 -0400
Re: FAITH Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-19 00:58 -0700
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-19 04:05 -0400
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-18 23:05 -0700
Re: FAITH Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-17 13:54 -0500
Re: FAITH Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-06-17 19:46 +0000
Re: FAITH bilgat@m.nu - 2016-06-17 10:34 -0500
Re: FAITH Mike Duffy <mqduffy001@bell.net> - 2016-06-17 23:28 -0400
Re: FAITH bilgat@m.nu - 2016-06-17 10:33 -0500
Re: FAITH duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-06-17 17:41 -0500
Re: FAITH Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-06-18 02:03 +0000
Re: FAITH duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2016-06-18 11:10 -0500
Re: FAITH Ted&Alice <sam.m.tedesco@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 02:54 +0000
Re: FAITH djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2016-06-18 03:12 +0000
Re: FAITH Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 09:34 -0700
Re: FAITH pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-06-18 12:45 -0700
Re: FAITH James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 17:13 -0700
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-18 12:51 -0700
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-20 07:14 -0700
Re: FAITH Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-06-20 19:51 +0000
Re: FAITH Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-06-20 21:59 +0100
Re: FAITH Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-06-21 00:55 +0000
Re: FAITH Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-20 20:26 -0500
Re: FAITH Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-06-21 08:08 +0100
Re: FAITH Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-06-21 11:01 +0000
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-20 17:53 -0700
Re: FAITH Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-06-21 08:05 +0100
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-22 00:51 -0700
Re: FAITH Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-06-22 10:56 +0100
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-22 23:52 -0700
Re: FAITH Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-06-23 14:33 +0100
Re: FAITH Virgil <VIRGIL@VIRGIL.com> - 2016-06-23 11:22 -0600
Re: FAITH Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-06-24 00:19 +0000
Re: FAITH Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-06-24 00:24 +0000
Re: FAITH WangoTango <Asgard24@mindspring.com> - 2016-06-21 14:10 -0400
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-21 15:09 -0700
Re: FAITH Mitchell Holman <noemail@comcast.net> - 2016-06-21 20:57 -0500
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-21 19:21 -0700
Re: FAITH Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-06-22 08:09 +0100
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-22 01:07 -0700
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-22 23:44 -0700
Re: FAITH Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-06-23 11:24 -0600
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-23 22:54 -0700
Re: FAITH Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-06-24 09:07 -0600
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-24 11:14 -0700
Re: FAITH Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-06-24 12:51 -0600
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-24 13:38 -0700
Re: FAITH Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-06-24 16:45 -0600
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-24 16:44 -0700
Re: FAITH Wisely Non-Theist <aaa@bbb.ccc> - 2016-06-24 18:03 -0600
Re: FAITH "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-06-24 10:28 -0700
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-20 11:09 -0700
Re: FAITH Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-06-20 19:55 +0000
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-20 18:16 -0700
Re: FAITH Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-06-21 11:04 +0000
Re: FAITH Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-21 05:10 -0700
Re: FAITH Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-06-21 22:00 -0400
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-22 00:56 -0700
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-22 00:54 -0700
Re: FAITH Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-06-22 10:58 +0100
Re: FAITH Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-06-22 12:29 +0000
Re: FAITH The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-06-22 23:55 -0700
Re: FAITH Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> - 2016-06-23 14:16 +0100
Re: FAITH little brother <andronicus451@gmail.com> - 2016-06-21 04:17 -0700
Re: FAITH WangoTango <Asgard24@mindspring.com> - 2016-06-21 14:06 -0400
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-19 04:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <bgkcmblndclve9rfl1d13ja0aaoqovpf0d@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #585653 |
On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 00:58:53 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >In article <6ehcmb9picdfgrsqssl05ptf147h3lv6nf@4ax.com>, > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 20:15:02 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> >> >In article <crnbmb9eldnjtid012bts7bgvb6biorfta@4ax.com>, >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 15:01:40 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> >> >> >> >In article <edjambls903qn3lefph0tcgg9qmnc1t6kg@4ax.com>, >> >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 06:23:19 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <22eambddcqj1lmhrl33dj4hltj9cjef5sh@4ax.com>, >> >> >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 20:58:19 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <mvg9mblh6am7abrcqf1tf77h7p8p0p4vb2@4ax.com>, >> >> >> >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 20:42:20 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <70f9mb17ob4o2n51j7rkutlhrq4c53hkq3@4ax.com>, >> >> >> >> >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 18:26:17 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <16t7mb1ce8o3c938ske7lchbsket5og8rl@4ax.com>, >> >> >> >> >> >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:41:24 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article <ccr7mb5l74dv2f295oh28l7lg0on1iq324@4ax.com>, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:23:07 -0700, Jeanne Douglas >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >In article >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ><77q7mb5dlj4lg60vgb84g3at41j6l863eq@4ax.com>, >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:47:44 +0000 (UTC), Smiler >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Science doesn't need faith, it has ....evidence. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Why would one look for evidence if they didn't have >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> faith >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> that >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> evidence might be found? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Who says they have any such faith? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Who says they don't? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Do you look for your keys on the roof if you lost them >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> basement? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Without faith that the results might be better in one >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> place >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> than >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> another, why not pick a spot at random to start the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> search? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >Because the evidence you already have points you in the >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >direction >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >you >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >try. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> What evidence? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> If you had evidence, you would have the keys. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> How do you know a raccoon hasn't carried the keys from your >> >> >> >> >> >> >> basement >> >> >> >> >> >> >> to your neighbor's roof? >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >Wow, you're really desperate, aren't you? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The weakness of your position >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >What "weakness"? >> >> >> >> >> >\ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It was illustrated in the parts of the post you snipped. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Why did you snip the parts you didn't like? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> If you don't know where the keys are, you don't know that a >> >> >> >> >> raccoon >> >> >> >> >> didn't run off with them. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >What is your obsession with raccoons? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> What is your obsession with trying to deflect? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You are desperate to reset the conversation to a point where you can >> >> >> >> take some new approach aren't you? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You got pwnd in the argument as it unfolded and now you are trying >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> run away with attempts to to make light of irrelevant minutia. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Here is where you started running in earnest (after the warmup with >> >> >> >> at >> >> >> >> least one previous wannabe-deflecting question): >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> :On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:04:28 -0400, Wally W. wrote: >> >> >> >> :>On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:41:24 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> >> >> >> :>>In article <ccr7mb5l74dv2f295oh28l7lg0on1iq324@4ax.com>, >> >> >> >> :>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> :>>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:23:07 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> >> >> >> :>>> Do you look for your keys on the roof if you lost them in the >> >> >> >> :>>> basement? >> >> >> >> :>>> Without faith that the results might be better in one place >> >> >> >> :>>> than >> >> >> >> :>>> another, why not pick a spot at random to start the search? >> >> >> >> :>>Because the evidence you already have points you in the direction >> >> >> >> :>>you >> >> >> >> :>>try. >> >> >> >> :>What evidence? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You didn't answer that question. Why not? Maybe because it was a >> >> >> >> bullshit claim. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> If your faith in your reconstruction of events from your fallible >> >> >> >> memory points you to searching in the basement, what is your >> >> >> >> "evidence" that the keys are still there? >> >> >> > >> >> >> >Finding them there. >> >> >> >> >> >> Now you're time traveling. And you called me desperate for mentioning >> >> >> a raccoon. >> >> >> >> >> >> Taking things a step at a time for those among us who are the slow, >> >> >> and in chronological order for those without a time machine: >> >> >> >> >> >> 1. You lost your keys (for the exceptionally slow among us, that means >> >> >> you don't know where they are -- in the present). >> >> >> 2. Why would you look for your keys in the basement without faith that >> >> >> you might find them there? >> >> > >> >> >Because I didn't find them anywhere else I looked. >> >> >> >> So you looked other places first. >> >> >> >> What happened to your "evidence" here when I asked about where to >> >> *start* the search? >> > >> >What the fuck are you talking about? You start the search where you >> >remember being with the keys, then you move on to places you don't; >> >remember but make sense, then on to crazy places. >> >> If that isn't taking action based on **faith** in your fallible memory >> of where you might have left your keys, then what is it? > >What faith? > >You're playing stupid word games. Bored. You're pwnd.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 23:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57663626.1477@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #585553 |
Jeanne Douglas wrote: > > In article <2614689e-20ad-4277-88e4-2af7e7c9e22d@googlegroups.com>, > Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 3:01:48 PM UTC-7, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > > > In article <edjambls903qn3lefph0tcgg9qmnc1t6kg@4ax.com>, > > > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 06:23:19 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > > > > > > > > >In article <22eambddcqj1lmhrl33dj4hltj9cjef5sh@4ax.com>, > > > > > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 20:58:19 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> >In article <mvg9mblh6am7abrcqf1tf77h7p8p0p4vb2@4ax.com>, > > > > >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 20:42:20 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> >In article <70f9mb17ob4o2n51j7rkutlhrq4c53hkq3@4ax.com>, > > > > >> >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 18:26:17 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >In article <16t7mb1ce8o3c938ske7lchbsket5og8rl@4ax.com>, > > > > >> >> >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:41:24 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> >In article <ccr7mb5l74dv2f295oh28l7lg0on1iq324@4ax.com>, > > > > >> >> >> >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:23:07 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > > > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> >> >In article <77q7mb5dlj4lg60vgb84g3at41j6l863eq@4ax.com>, > > > > >> >> >> >> >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > > > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:47:44 +0000 (UTC), Smiler wrote: > > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >Science doesn't need faith, it has ....evidence. > > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Why would one look for evidence if they didn't have > > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> faith > > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> that > > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> evidence might be found? > > > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> >> >> >Who says they have any such faith? > > > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> >> Who says they don't? > > > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> >> Do you look for your keys on the roof if you lost them in > > > > >> >> >> >> >> the > > > > >> >> >> >> >> basement? > > > > >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> >> Without faith that the results might be better in one > > > > >> >> >> >> >> place > > > > >> >> >> >> >> than > > > > >> >> >> >> >> another, why not pick a spot at random to start the > > > > >> >> >> >> >> search? > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> >> >Because the evidence you already have points you in the > > > > >> >> >> >> >direction > > > > >> >> >> >> >you > > > > >> >> >> >> >try. > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> What evidence? > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> If you had evidence, you would have the keys. > > > > >> >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> >> How do you know a raccoon hasn't carried the keys from your > > > > >> >> >> >> basement > > > > >> >> >> >> to your neighbor's roof? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> >Wow, you're really desperate, aren't you? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> The weakness of your position > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> >What "weakness"? > > > > >> >> >\ > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> It was illustrated in the parts of the post you snipped. > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> Why did you snip the parts you didn't like? > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> If you don't know where the keys are, you don't know that a raccoon > > > > >> >> didn't run off with them. > > > > >> > > > > > >> >What is your obsession with raccoons? > > > > >> > > > > >> What is your obsession with trying to deflect? > > > > >> > > > > >> You are desperate to reset the conversation to a point where you can > > > > >> take some new approach aren't you? > > > > >> > > > > >> You got pwnd in the argument as it unfolded and now you are trying to > > > > >> run away with attempts to to make light of irrelevant minutia. > > > > >> > > > > >> Here is where you started running in earnest (after the warmup with at > > > > >> least one previous wannabe-deflecting question): > > > > >> > > > > >> :On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:04:28 -0400, Wally W. wrote: > > > > >> :>On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:41:24 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > > > > >> :>>In article <ccr7mb5l74dv2f295oh28l7lg0on1iq324@4ax.com>, > > > > >> :>> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > > > > >> :>>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:23:07 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > > > > >> :>>> Do you look for your keys on the roof if you lost them in the > > > > >> :>>> basement? > > > > >> :>>> Without faith that the results might be better in one place than > > > > >> :>>> another, why not pick a spot at random to start the search? > > > > >> :>>Because the evidence you already have points you in the direction > > > > >> :>>you > > > > >> :>>try. > > > > >> :>What evidence? > > > > >> > > > > >> You didn't answer that question. Why not? Maybe because it was a > > > > >> bullshit claim. > > > > >> > > > > >> If your faith in your reconstruction of events from your fallible > > > > >> memory points you to searching in the basement, what is your > > > > >> "evidence" that the keys are still there? > > > > > > > > > >Finding them there. > > > > > > > > Now you're time traveling. And you called me desperate for mentioning > > > > a raccoon. > > > > > > > > Taking things a step at a time for those among us who are the slow, > > > > and in chronological order for those without a time machine: > > > > > > > > 1. You lost your keys (for the exceptionally slow among us, that means > > > > you don't know where they are -- in the present). > > > > 2. Why would you look for your keys in the basement without faith that > > > > you might find them there? > > > > > > Because I didn't find them anywhere else I looked. > > > > > > > > > > Again, for the slow among those of us who experience time moving in > > > > only one direction, you haven't found them yet -- they are still lost > > > > as you decide where to start looking for them. > > > > > > You start with the most likely places and then you move to the unlikely > > > places. > > > > > > Why have you turned this basic activity into insanity? > > > > > > > Because he's bat shit crazy. In a category all his own. > > That's true. This keys, roofs, and raccoon thing is way too weird, even > for our regular trolls. > > Does anyone know what he was trying to prove? That women don't know what they are talking about. Every guy knows that... we just...pretend.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 13:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kqh8mb1acbd7n965ku6m63q6ocu5askghk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #585271 |
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:41:24 -0700, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >In article <ccr7mb5l74dv2f295oh28l7lg0on1iq324@4ax.com>, > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:23:07 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> >> >In article <77q7mb5dlj4lg60vgb84g3at41j6l863eq@4ax.com>, >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:47:44 +0000 (UTC), Smiler wrote: >> >> >> >> >Science doesn't need faith, it has ....evidence. >> >> >> >> Why would one look for evidence if they didn't have faith that >> >> evidence might be found? >> > >> >Who says they have any such faith? >> >> Who says they don't? >> >> Do you look for your keys on the roof if you lost them in the >> basement? >> >> Without faith that the results might be better in one place than >> another, why not pick a spot at random to start the search? > >Because the evidence you already have points you in the direction you >try. Whoooosh....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 19:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nk1k23$1a1n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #585271 |
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:41:24 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > In article <ccr7mb5l74dv2f295oh28l7lg0on1iq324@4ax.com>, > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:23:07 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: >> >> >In article <77q7mb5dlj4lg60vgb84g3at41j6l863eq@4ax.com>, >> > Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:47:44 +0000 (UTC), Smiler wrote: >> >> >> >> >Science doesn't need faith, it has ....evidence. >> >> >> >> Why would one look for evidence if they didn't have faith that >> >> evidence might be found? >> > >> >Who says they have any such faith? >> >> Who says they don't? >> >> Do you look for your keys on the roof if you lost them in the basement? >> >> Without faith that the results might be better in one place than >> another, why not pick a spot at random to start the search? > > Because the evidence you already have points you in the direction you > try. It's a "Where's Wally" ["Where's Waldo" in the US] puzzle. -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bilgat@m.nu |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 10:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <d368mbl3ob0ilufs312aib0jolpr50ul1r@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #585270 |
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:33:05 -0400, Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 05:23:07 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote: > >>In article <77q7mb5dlj4lg60vgb84g3at41j6l863eq@4ax.com>, >> Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:47:44 +0000 (UTC), Smiler wrote: >>> >>> >Science doesn't need faith, it has ....evidence. >>> >>> Why would one look for evidence if they didn't have faith that >>> evidence might be found? >> >>Who says they have any such faith? > >Who says they don't? > >Do you look for your keys on the roof if you lost them in the >basement? > >Without faith that the results might be better in one place than >another, why not pick a spot at random to start the search? as I was saying retarded...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Duffy <mqduffy001@bell.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 23:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1ky1k5ajgsl1u.1ar95q1347zuj$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #585270 |
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:33:05 -0400, Wally W. wrote: > Do you look for your keys on the roof Co-incidentally enough, I did once find the key to a house on its roof. I was doing a roofing job on the house that had belonged to my grandfather. The strange thing is that it was a fairly steep roof, (~45°) and I'm surprised that the key had not been moved off by by snow & windblown debris. It was probably there for several decades. It was an old-style (sometimes incorrectly called 'skeleton' key), and it fit the front door. I still carry the key with me at all times, although I eventually sold the house and the new owner tore it down. (That's a long story not really interesting to anyone else.) -- http://mduffy.x10host.com/index.htm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bilgat@m.nu |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 10:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <f168mbpuc8adfd7qi77qati7ooln0i1c5h@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #585267 |
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:14:04 -0400, Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote: >On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:47:44 +0000 (UTC), Smiler wrote: > >>Science doesn't need faith, it has ....evidence. > >Why would one look for evidence if they didn't have faith that >evidence might be found? we can all have faith that you are intelligent, however until you prove it you are still retarded
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-17 17:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <c4v8mb1mbpeqk64066ci75fp6a81mehq6j@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #585265 |
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:47:44 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 00:33:26 -0700, The Starmaker wrote: > >> Faith >> >> faith >> >> >> noun: faith >> >> 1. >> complete trust or confidence in someone or something. >> >> >> https://www.google.com/#q=define+faith >> >> >> >> Like for example... >> >> Science has faith that there is water on Mars. > >Nope. No faith needed when there is evidence. At one time, it was faith only. Not the evidence solidifies the faith. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 02:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nk2a5d$5cj$8@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #585341 |
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 17:41:55 -0500, duke wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:47:44 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: > >>On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 00:33:26 -0700, The Starmaker wrote: >> >>> Faith >>> >>> faith >>> >>> noun: faith >>> >>> 1. >>> complete trust or confidence in someone or something. >>> >>> https://www.google.com/#q=define+faith >>> >>> Like for example... >>> >>> Science has faith that there is water on Mars. >> >>Nope. No faith needed when there is evidence. > > At one time, it was faith only. Not the evidence solidifies the faith. Was that supposed to be English? > the dukester, American-American > > ***** > "Mass hysteria is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI ***** -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 11:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <risambd1s9qvpqa9vum07fnp2n2bhjiloe@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #585367 |
On Sat, 18 Jun 2016 02:03:25 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 17:41:55 -0500, duke wrote: > >> On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:47:44 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 00:33:26 -0700, The Starmaker wrote: >>> >>>> Faith >>>> >>>> faith >>>> >>>> noun: faith >>>> >>>> 1. >>>> complete trust or confidence in someone or something. >>>> >>>> https://www.google.com/#q=define+faith >>>> >>>> Like for example... >>>> >>>> Science has faith that there is water on Mars. >>> >>>Nope. No faith needed when there is evidence. >> >> At one time, it was faith only. Not the evidence solidifies the faith. > >Was that supposed to be English? Yes, now. the dukester, American-American ***** "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." Pope Paul VI *****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ted&Alice <sam.m.tedesco@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 02:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <VJ29z.2035$gr1.1061@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #585250 |
The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > Faith > > faith > > > noun: faith > > 1. > complete trust or confidence in someone or something. > > > https://www.google.com/#q=define+faith > > > > Like for example... > > Science has faith that there is water on Mars. > > Science have a complete trust, they are confident there is water on Mars. > They just have to keep the faith, and keep looking. > > > Science has faith that there is Life on other planets somewhere in the universe. > > > Science doesn't need evidence, they have ....Faith. > > > Deep in the heart of all science is faith...science is based on faith. > > > Religion too is based on faith. > > > Faith in God? Sounds ...reasonable. We have evidence rather than faith, e.g. you've just provided us ample evidence that you're an idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 03:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o8y695.1MC6@kithrup.com> |
| In reply to | #585376 |
In article <VJ29z.2035$gr1.1061@fx10.iad>, Ted&Alice <sam.m.tedesco@gmail.com> wrote: >The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> Faith >> >> faith >> >> >> noun: faith >> >> 1. >> complete trust or confidence in someone or something. >> >> >> https://www.google.com/#q=define+faith >> >> >> >> Like for example... >> >> Science has faith that there is water on Mars. >> >> Science have a complete trust, they are confident there is water on Mars. >> They just have to keep the faith, and keep looking. >> >> >> Science has faith that there is Life on other planets somewhere in the >universe. >> >> >> Science doesn't need evidence, they have ....Faith. >> >> >> Deep in the heart of all science is faith...science is based on faith. >> >> >> Religion too is based on faith. >> >> >> Faith in God? Sounds ...reasonable. > >We have evidence rather than faith, e.g. you've just provided us ample >evidence that you're an idiot. well, be fair; sometimes we have hypotheses, which on the presentation of evidence sometimes have to be discarded. -- Dorothy J. Heydt Vallejo, California djheydt at gmail dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Claudius Denk <claudiusdenk@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 09:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6f31e0fc-58fc-4bd2-a3e3-bbddd6cd7d31@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585250 |
On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 12:32:00 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > Faith > > faith > > > noun: faith > > 1. > complete trust or confidence in someone or something. > > > https://www.google.com/#q=define+faith > > > > Like for example... > > Science has faith that there is water on Mars. > > Science have a complete trust, they are confident there is water on Mars. > They just have to keep the faith, and keep looking. > > > Science has faith that there is Life on other planets somewhere in the universe. > > > Science doesn't need evidence, they have ....Faith. > > > Deep in the heart of all science is faith...science is based on faith. > > > Religion too is based on faith. > > > Faith in God? Sounds ...reasonable. Often faith is involved with the basic assumptions of a science. As McGinn is pointing out much of meteorology is based on faith. For example, in meteorology's storm theory faith is involved with the supposition that storms are powered by convection of lighter moist air breaking through a barrier or "cap" of dry air above, thus explaining the source of the power of storms and why storms are wet. In reality warm, moist air is lighter than the cool dry air above and it's impossible for dry air to form a "cap" or barrier. So the notion that storms are caused by convection persists based on faith, not based on anything reasonable or measurable. In reality the energy of storms is delivered by vortices connected to jet streams as tributaries. This is why storms are associated with low pressure and not by high pressure than is predicted associated with the faith-based idiocy that storms are caused by convection. Does this look like convection to you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfVXdtg5HJA CD
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 12:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <42b6782b-374f-4b71-a4d3-a0f867bf202e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585471 |
On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 9:34:35 AM UTC-7, Claudius Denk (AKA Jim McGinn) wrote: > In reality warm, moist air is lighter than the cool dry air... Well, Jim, that's exactly what everyone has been telling you all along, which you have been denying for a long time now. Why have you changed your mind?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 17:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9b548a5e-78e1-4fc2-be0d-5004e9936763@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #585526 |
On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 12:45:25 PM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 9:34:35 AM UTC-7, Claudius Denk (AKA Jim McGinn) wrote: > > > In reality warm, moist air is lighter than the cool dry air... > > Well, Jim, that's exactly what everyone has been telling you all along, which you have been denying for a long time now. Why have you changed your mind? You know what I mean.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-18 12:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5765A652.2D31@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #585250 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Faith > > faith > > noun: faith > > 1. > complete trust or confidence in someone or something. > > https://www.google.com/#q=define+faith > > Like for example... > > Science has faith that there is water on Mars. > > Science have a complete trust, they are confident there is water on Mars. > They just have to keep the faith, and keep looking. > > Science has faith that there is Life on other planets somewhere in the universe. > > Science doesn't need evidence, they have ....Faith. > > Deep in the heart of all science is faith...science is based on faith. > > Religion too is based on faith. > > Faith in God? Sounds ...reasonable. The science fiction people have Faith that aliens exist on other planets...otherwise how could they come up with all those stupid books? Certaintly not based on any evidence... And what about that stupid girl spending fifty years listening for flying saucers at S.E.T.I? You have to have ...Faith. Atheist have faith that there is no God...certaintly not based on evidence that they have. Based on faith, and faith alone. The heart of Atheism is faith.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-20 07:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5767FA52.2C4@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #585250 |
Then you have the strangest lot of them all...The Aheists People. They believe or claim there is no God, but they have no evidence to back them up that no Gos exist. Yet they seem confident they are right without any evidence, so they must have FAITH there is no God. So you have the religious people who believe in God, but have no evidence. You have the 'science guys' don't want to mention God because they have no evidence either way. And you have the atheist who claim there is no God, but feel they don't need evidence to prove it. The atheist are certaintly the craziest of the bunch. They remind me of that movie "The Treasure of Sierra Madre"... "Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges. " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ "I don't have to show you any stinking badges." The Atheist People The Starmaker wrote: > > Faith > > faith > > noun: faith > > 1. > complete trust or confidence in someone or something. > > https://www.google.com/#q=define+faith >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-20 19:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nk9hgq$264$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #585823 |
On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 07:14:42 -0700, The Starmaker wrote: > Then you have the strangest lot of them all...The Aheists People. Thank goodness I'm not an Aheists, whatever one of those is. -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Les Hellawell <les@shant.tell> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-20 21:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k7mgmbt5dmho17o8ndmch7gu3dfajovls6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #585862 |
On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 19:51:54 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> wrote: >On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 07:14:42 -0700, The Starmaker wrote: > >> Then you have the strangest lot of them all...The Aheists People. > >Thank goodness I'm not an Aheists, whatever one of those is. Somebody who does not rob banks or expensive jewelly shops? Les Hellawell Greeting from YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County Martin Luther wrote: "Faith must trample underfoot all sense, reason and understanding Which means that if Luther practised what he preached nothing he ever said made any sense
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-21 00:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nka39f$qto$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #585874 |
On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 21:59:57 +0100, Les Hellawell wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 19:51:54 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smiler@jo.king> > wrote: > >>On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 07:14:42 -0700, The Starmaker wrote: >> >>> Then you have the strangest lot of them all...The Aheists People. >> >>Thank goodness I'm not an Aheists, whatever one of those is. > > Somebody who does not rob banks or expensive jewelly shops? Shhhh! Cough! Hatton Garden Safe Deposit. Cough! -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web