Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The See if You can do It Thread
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 1 of 33 (563373)
06-04-2010 3:29 PM


One might think its not hard to do, but they’d be wrong. I should’nt have to recount the evidence that your worldveiw prevents you from seeing. Go back and reread this thread where I sited expeerts that agree with me. Are you saying that are wrong two. Who should I believe; you or them? your going to have to show me a real world example of it not happening to prove it can be done.
I have a website saying it isn’t. You keep demanding explanations of the obvious, yet have supplied no evidence in this thread proving me wrong.
This is about the best I can do, and every single word feels like plagerism. Think of how hard our expert fizzacysts and jennetacysts have to work to fill a dozen posts not establishing even there most basic premisis.
Here’s the challenge. See if you can do it.
I FAIL.

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by nwr, posted 06-04-2010 3:51 PM lyx2no has replied
 Message 8 by hotjer, posted 06-04-2010 7:22 PM lyx2no has replied
 Message 9 by Modulous, posted 06-04-2010 7:40 PM lyx2no has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 2 of 33 (563376)
06-04-2010 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lyx2no
06-04-2010 3:29 PM


lyx2no writes:
Here’s the challenge. See if you can do it.
Now, if you will tell us what "it" is, maybe we will have a fighting chance.
lyx2no writes:
I FAIL.
Well, while you are talking of "fail", I will mention
  • should’nt;
  • worldveiw;
  • sited (I think you meant "cited");
  • expeerts;
  • that are wrong two;
  • your going to have to show me ... ("your" should be "you're");
  • plagerism;
  • fizzacysts;
  • jennetacysts;
  • there (should be "their");
  • premisis.
Now I am wondering how many of those were deliberate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lyx2no, posted 06-04-2010 3:29 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by lyx2no, posted 06-04-2010 4:30 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied
 Message 5 by lyx2no, posted 06-04-2010 6:59 PM nwr has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 3 of 33 (563382)
06-04-2010 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by nwr
06-04-2010 3:51 PM


You can’t just ignore the emperical evidence I’ve provided. You acuse me of cherry pickiu=ing but refuse to show me where Im not agreeing with moder scienctic thought.
y of those were
is that the best you can do, ab honomim.

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by nwr, posted 06-04-2010 3:51 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
ooh-child
Member (Idle past 343 days)
Posts: 242
Joined: 04-10-2009


(2)
Message 4 of 33 (563393)
06-04-2010 5:36 PM


Who bought lyx beer?
Did someone allow lyx in the beer thread? He's underage, y'know.

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Buzsaw, posted 06-04-2010 8:53 PM ooh-child has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 5 of 33 (563407)
06-04-2010 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by nwr
06-04-2010 3:51 PM


Double Fail
That I do explain myself is a direct failure of this threads intent. Yesterday Catholic Scientist posted this:
I dunno, man... you seem awfully defensive. A real kid would be all, like, yeahs, whatev, I don't have to prove I'm a kid to you.
And it got me thinking, Yes, I do. Have to explain myself that is. When someone asks me Why do you believe that? I find myself answering why I believe that. Not that I do believe it, or you can’t prove me wrong, or some other such; but why I believe that which I stated I believe.
At EvC Forum I daily observe the methods of valid models of argument used by most posters, and could reproduce most of them on demand. Yet, when I try to develop an argument in the style of one of our splendid natural filosofers I feel as if I’m a doing a caricature rather then trying to copy a style of argument.
For days now, the great ‘causemologist, tesla, has been repeating Follow the math of which he presents none, Don’t ignore the what science tells you" which seems to be a secret, and Then show me an edgeless vacuum. as if it were meaningful statements.
I can’t do it at all, while they seem to do it effortlessly.
Is anyone else unable to mimic the argumentary style of any of our good friends who have less then stellar debating skills?
I'd like to see everyone's best effort at producing a tesla quality* argument.
*how would you like to be the eponym for that?

"Mom! Ban Ki-moon made a non-binding resolution at me." Mohmoud Ahmadinejad

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by nwr, posted 06-04-2010 3:51 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by cavediver, posted 06-04-2010 7:05 PM lyx2no has replied
 Message 7 by nwr, posted 06-04-2010 7:13 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 6 of 33 (563408)
06-04-2010 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by lyx2no
06-04-2010 6:59 PM


Re: Double Fail
I can’t do it at all, while they seem to do it effortlessly.
It's easy, and I can make sure you can reproduce it perfectly. Now, lean over here and pass me that trepanning tool...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by lyx2no, posted 06-04-2010 6:59 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by lyx2no, posted 06-05-2010 1:36 PM cavediver has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 7 of 33 (563411)
06-04-2010 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by lyx2no
06-04-2010 6:59 PM


Re: Double Fail
lyx2no writes:
For days now, the great ‘causemologist, tesla, has been repeating Follow the math of which he presents none, Don’t ignore the what science tells you" which seems to be a secret, and Then show me an edgeless vacuum. as if it were meaningful statements.
LOL.
If you were trying to imitate the style of tesla, then that explains it completely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by lyx2no, posted 06-04-2010 6:59 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
hotjer
Member (Idle past 4544 days)
Posts: 113
From: Denmark
Joined: 04-02-2010


(1)
Message 8 of 33 (563414)
06-04-2010 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lyx2no
06-04-2010 3:29 PM


I was wondering whether you tried to see if folks could see through the mud and figure out if you were talking as a evo or creo. Kinda weird topic xD
I have never really paid much attention to Tesla, but this is my intuition to what messy-parody thoughts he might have (isn't it a bit harsh to make such a thread ?)
"Well, you need to ask the Question, not just the question but the question of the question. If you do not do that you will be a ignorant fool for the rest of your life, while raping girls and boys because you do not give a $hit about life. Do not attack God but attack yourself and your brothers since they are the scam. God was never the bad guy, but you think so, because you cannot answer the question of the question, because your glasses are filled with mud and therefore you only see disaster, which we easily can conclude is Darwinism. I use faith to prove the truth and you use unreliable objective evidence to blur the vision of us, the truth seekers of the world. Evidences are just speculations and therefore your argument is not valid. Thus shall not preach your words upon us, who truly know the truth. We have questioned our belief from the times we were conscious about our thoughts and through faith we found the answer, thus thoughts you cannot disclaim, but only question and find the truth answer. I really do not get the scientists mental barrier of the possibility of the existence of God, it is like they purposefully ignore their faith."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lyx2no, posted 06-04-2010 3:29 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by AZPaul3, posted 06-04-2010 9:15 PM hotjer has not replied
 Message 19 by lyx2no, posted 06-05-2010 1:37 PM hotjer has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 9 of 33 (563415)
06-04-2010 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lyx2no
06-04-2010 3:29 PM


How's my gibberish?
all you have to do is look around and see. this style is not just the bible! After all, how can I not reply to a post just as this? i know you know it as I do, and just as Socrates drank the poison, i accept your scorn as natural.
presuming it is easy to reason this perfectly (perfecta: the act of creating pure reason using the spirit of the Word), is speculation on your part. Speculation might lead to revelation and evidence might blind you to the truth of the matter......but I agree that a bed isn't a knitting needle and so neither is a camel evidence for macrodescent!
you are perhaps destined to be foolish, and to i cannot suffer fools for the firmament speaks his Glory! a fool has said in his heart that our fates is in the hands of randomness. but ignorance is expected of those that choose to be judge of god, you can find only forgiveness in god - not dna
my existence trumps any evidence to the opposite and my existence is only possible through god's existence. therefore, without change being when energy interacts with itself - we can see rational thinking for the betterment of mankind.
this is all you see in my writings, rational thinking based on reasoned observation of the existence of my navel. if it looks inunderstandable to you, perhaps your schitzofrenic. I am sure you believe because you know. so stop pretending to right like an atiest - and rite like you beleive.
FACT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lyx2no, posted 06-04-2010 3:29 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Coyote, posted 06-04-2010 7:48 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 20 by lyx2no, posted 06-05-2010 1:39 PM Modulous has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 10 of 33 (563417)
06-04-2010 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Modulous
06-04-2010 7:40 PM


Re: How's my gibberish?
Poe's Law states:
quote:
Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.
Details from here.
Poe's Law points out that it is hard to tell parodies of fundamentalism (or, more generally, any crackpot theory) from the real thing, since they both seem equally insane. Conversely, real fundamentalism can easily be mistaken for a parody of fundamentalism. For example, some conservatives consider noted homophobe Fred Phelps to be so over-the-top that they argue he's a "deep cover liberal" trying to discredit more mainstream homophobes.
History
Poe's Law was originally formulated by Nathan Poe in August 2005. The law emerged at the creationism versus evolution forum on the website Christianforums.com. Like most such places, it had seen a large number of creationist parody postings and these parody posts were usually followed by at least one user starting a flame war (a series of angry and offensive personal attacks) thinking it was a real post. Nathan Poe summarized this pattern in his original formulation of the law:
Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article.
The law caught on and has since slowly leaked out as an internet meme. Over time it has been reformulated to include more than just creationist parody but rather any parody of fundamentalism, whether religious, secular, or totally bonkers.
More...

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Modulous, posted 06-04-2010 7:40 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by lyx2no, posted 06-05-2010 1:40 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 11 of 33 (563428)
06-04-2010 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by ooh-child
06-04-2010 5:36 PM


Re: Who bought lyx beer?
ooh child writes:
Did someone allow lyx in the beer thread? He's underage, y'know.
Maybe he took too much fizzics or got the wrong stuff
Welcome to EvC, btw. You'll find some better stuff going on here, so don't run off. Caution: Avoid where ever lyx2no's been.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ooh-child, posted 06-04-2010 5:36 PM ooh-child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by lyx2no, posted 06-05-2010 1:41 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 27 by ooh-child, posted 06-08-2010 12:16 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 12 of 33 (563430)
06-04-2010 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by hotjer
06-04-2010 7:22 PM


The tesla Coils
Very good, hotjer, but Modulous hit it perfect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by hotjer, posted 06-04-2010 7:22 PM hotjer has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 13 of 33 (563435)
06-04-2010 9:52 PM


IamBluejay
I don't think I could do a Tesla, but I did once write this parody of IamJoseph (remember him, anyone? The guy who thought the surface of a sphere actually has a center?)
For comparison, read IamJoseph's OP from the same thread.
Sorry: I couldn't resist the opportunity for shameless self-promotion.
Edited by Bluejay, : dBCodes problems

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by hooah212002, posted 06-05-2010 12:32 AM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 16 by hotjer, posted 06-05-2010 5:45 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 14 of 33 (563455)
06-05-2010 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Blue Jay
06-04-2010 9:52 PM


Re: IamBluejay
That....was frightening.

"A still more glorious dawn awaits
Not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise
A morning filled with 400 billion suns
The rising of the milky way"
-Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Blue Jay, posted 06-04-2010 9:52 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 15 of 33 (563468)
06-05-2010 2:12 AM


How about my exposition of Even Younger Earth Creationism?

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024