PROOF OF GOD

From Message 90: "Saying Dr. Scott is laughable is only said because you know the exact opposite is true."Example of Dr. Scott's humor: "You ever imagine the Pope sittin on a toilet? That's right! Take the present Pope and sit him on a toilet. Ya see, popes don't sit on toilets. Angels come and delicately take 'those things' away."For more yuk-yuks from Dr. Gene Scott >> Access forbidden!Whatta peach!

Yeah that doctorate in Philosophy of Education is pretty intimidating.

Nice link. I thought this Dr. Gene Scott quote was relevant and on topic:

quote:

---

The problem is that some people go overboard and read more into the Pyramid than the Pyramid allows.

---

Huh. Whaddya know?

From the Palo Alto Weekly News:"I was at a friend's house, who just so happens to have a huge satellite dish on his roof, and I was perusing the dial for the Playboy Channel, Spice, or any other sex channel I could find. Imagine my delight as a camera zoomed in on a well-endowed blonde in a sheer, low-cut, skin-tight top and short skirt! She announced in a sexy, breathy voice, 'You're watching Dr. Scott's program which is already in progress.' I nearly fell out of my chair ..."Dr. Scott always had a way with words and his mouth wasn't failing him this night either, 'I'm just saving the fundamentalists from having to switch back and forth between my channel and the Playboy Channel!'"The above is taken from the following article >> http://www.geocities.com/paweakly/page3.html

quote:

---

ABSHALOM: "Dr. Scott always had a way with words and his mouth wasn't failing him this night either, 'I'm just saving the fundamentalists from having to switch back and forth between my channel and the Playboy Channel!'"

---

When Dr.Scott bought satellite time they told him the only slot open was between two sex broadcasts. (Playboy and Spice)He bought the time slot.The title of this post is deliberately misleading as Abshalom is on a warpath against me for saying he was "honestly ignorant" in things pertaining to the Pyramid.This particular post shows how the 'peace'(ful) Abshalom is really an innuendo smear artist out for some ridiculous revenge.I wish you would cut and paste more quotes about the fundies, a religious movement that has carried on a hate campaign against Dr. Scott all for smoking a cigar. I guess by this standard G.Campbell Morgan and the pipe smoking C.S. Lewis are also somehow damned to hell.

I think you're wrong there. While sex may well play a part in helping Scottie reap his millions, in my opinion his big draw is far more his potty humor. He appeals to juvenile minds, those that are attracked to poopy pants jokes. He reminds me of a Howard Stern without sophistication, more a Benny Hill then a Red Skelton, a Jerry Falwell as opposed to a Billy Graham, a Three Stooges rather than Laurel and Hardy.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

I think

---

This is your problem - you can't think.Where is any refutation against the scholarship of Dr.Scott ?The smear continues and every honest person knows why - pure hate because you cannot refute his claims/research.Jar and his fundie mob of scientism.Jar, I think you are a college drop out, about 22 or 23 years old at best is this true ?

WILLOWTREE By refutation do you mean show that the scholarship is not worth anything as far as giving him an advantage over,say, a PHD on physics or chemistry.In the areas of physics and biology he would be hopelessly lost as we can see by a outline of his philosophy of education course.Philosophy of EducationDegree Offered: PhDIt is expected that the philosopher of education trained at Stanford will be able to1. analyze and clarify concepts and chains of reasoning used by teachers, researchers, administrators,
and policymakers;
2. assess arguments and clarify the rhetoric of educational debates;
3. identify implicit assumptions in such arguments or statements;
4. enter into productive exchange with researchers or policymakers in at least one branch of social or
human science;
5. place educational issues, and issues arising from the social sciences, into a broader philosophical
and sociocultural context.Graduates of this SSE subconcentration traditionally become college or university professors of the philosophy of education in departments or schools of education. However, a few graduates have secured joint or courtesy appointments in a school of education and a department of philosophy because of the intensive training in the minor field of general philosophy (many students take a master's degree in philosophy or philosophy of science).It is a certainty that he has a generalized overview of areas of social sciences and would be unable to argue in areas of the "hard sciences". This leads me to asking if we can continue discussion of the "sacred inch" we were engaging in earlier. I will endevour to keep in contact but I am in the middle of a move and I am working 7 days a week for probably the rest of summer so please bear with any delays.Talk at you later.

The only reason I won't call you a liar, despite the manifest falsehood of your claims is the evidence of your delusional state.Sad to say, to anyone in the real world "some crank says so" is not "irrefutable proof" - or even evidence.

quote:

---

to anyone in the real world "some crank says so" is not "irrefutable proof" - or even evidence.

---

Finally, the truth comes out.Paulk is arbitrarily concluding that anyone who makes the claims I have made and their sources are "cranks" (despite the evidence) which proves a closed mind parading under the disguise of an open one.Paulk defines "crank" as anyone who disagrees with his scientism worldview.This is reverse scientific fundementalism: refusal to objectively consider any evidence that claims to refute tenets contained in your worldview.Paulk just brands everyone a crank, from Velikovsky to Capt to Dr. Scott without ever once demonstrating what makes them a crank.This criteria for "crankdom" is anyone who produces contrary evidence to things you have already spoken up for. A crank is anyone who does not kiss the established scientific communities ass via blind validation of their sacred cows. Paulk's cranks is any creationist because God does not exist.Paulk so perfectly demonstrates the wrath of God sense removal of Romans 1.

CRANK:Every quantum mechanic scientist.Every theory of the last million years has been dashed upon the rocks in favor of the latest.These cranks self admittedly will always have the word "theory" in their theories, which means they have no evidence, but a defiance toward God to eliminate Him no matter what.

This post demonstrates a plain ol' sense removal.

Or perhaps it shows a humble approach to their work, realising that they are imperfect, and that with more evidence better theories can be raised to explain problems with the old ones.It shows people with an attitude that has furthered science since almost the dawn of civilization, finding better and better ways to do things in order to explain everything, and make life much better for all.It means people that are willing to admit that they are wrong at times, and then gladly accept that fact. If a better idea comes about then you defend your theory until it is defeated, you then accept this, and move on.What it does not mean is that these people are refusing to listen to other peoples opinions, evidence, views, theories and beliefs. Unlike yourself.Unseul

---

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....Do unto others before they do unto you.

"Theory" does not mean no evidence. "Hypothesis", in some cases, but not "theory". I haven't heard about the "Theory to Eliminate God No Matter What," could you provide a reference?

Let me simply point out - again - that all this is because Willowtree cannot produce evidence.Willowtree is dismissing my points without argument or evidence.There is no truth in what he says. And I hope that he seeks psychiatric help soon because he is obviously incapable of dealing with reality.