I agree with the others. yer ignornt, and an ass

Also, where are my Palin quotes?

Give me quotes of Palin being crazy.

Contribute something useful to the discussion first. Or do your own homework. Google is your friend.

Wow, great comeback. Asked to back up something, says to do it yourself.

Then you don't understand them if you find it hard to understand why thousand millions believe it. So shut up until you get smart.

That getting smart idea. You might want to try it yourself. Your claim is a non sequitur.

And there you go again, you're the archangel, and the Republicans are poor black sheep somehow irrationally lured in by Satan's daemons. Hail atheism.

You know atheists don't believe in Satan or daemons either, right?

Get off your high horse. Your most powerful argument here are that rightists are baboons. You're not open-minded one bit.

... said the one trying to tell the other to "Get off your high horse." Hypocrisy doesn't suit you well.

That getting smart idea. You might want to try it yourself. Your claim is a non sequitur.

If you want to bring up logic fallacies, you're using fire-against-fire (and also, not even speaking English, come on. Speak English or Latin, but not in between.). And all you can say is essentially "you're dumb", where as you said yourself that you didn't read much into it and can't understand the appeal - you clearly need to read up on this stuff.

I don't like communism, nor socialism. I don't like left, nor authoritarianism. But I understand why folk like it. It's not amazingly hard - right is economic freedom, left is basically (kind of) free things, authoritarianism is safety, anarchism is freedom.

And there you go again, you're the archangel, and the Republicans are poor black sheep somehow irrationally lured in by Satan's daemons. Hail atheism.

You know atheists don't believe in Satan or daemons either, right?

Like Smedley said earlier, you're just as smug as the Christian fundamentalists. Primarily, I'm interested in shining a big bright light on their ideas, their beliefs, how they think, how they behave, and how ridiculous it all is. And Christian fundamentalist says

Primarily, I'm interested in shining a big bright light on their ideas, their beliefs, how they think, how they behave, and how ridiculous their "scientific discoveries" all are.

You're just as faithful and bigoted. You say that you think you could be wrong - clearly you don't - then accept that the other opinions may be right.

... said the one trying to tell the other to "Get off your high horse." Hypocrisy doesn't suit you well.

Said by Archangel Gavril here As I've said before in previous threads, I'm not primarily interested in changing the minds of whoever I'm responding to. I *am* interested in that, tangentially, but not primarily. Primarily, I'm interested in shining a big bright light on their ideas, their beliefs, how they think, how they behave, and how ridiculous it all is., showing Muhammad the ways of Islam.

Find me one bit in this talk in which I say something like - I am making sure that the wrong stupid folk like you are getting taught the right ways, and turn the world a page better. Hypocrisy doesn't suit me well, that's why I rarely use it.

Edited 2/17/2016 05:18:20

it's still fricken crazy to say that the Republican party is more diverse than the Democratic party.

Several different arguments debunking that subjective assumption have already been posted on this thread. Take a moment to consider, even the possibility, that you could be the crazy one in this equation.

Done. Now you try.

and those who are against you will just become more hostile in response to the arrogance.

More power to them. It makes my job easier, that's for sure. ;-)

And what is your job exactly? Ticking people off? This is borderline on a troll confession.

It's kinda like trolling, but it's actually more like anti-trolling. In anti-trolling, you let the trolls expose themselves as trolls, without getting caught up in the trolling yourself. In this kind of exchange, I let people who make crazy claims expose their claims as crazy, without getting caught up in the craziness myself.

Reacting with 'hostility' and claims of 'arrogance' to someone who merely criticizes someone's claims as crazy is not really a good way to bolster those claims as not crazy. In fact, it kinda works the other way around. A *better* way to respond would be to counter the criticism with a good rebuttal, preferably with facts and evidence to support it, but sometimes just a good counter-argument suffices.

As a final note. The only one making unfounded arguments here is you. 90% of your posts consist of calling people crazy with only your own subjective viewpoint to back it, if even that.

I think the only one I've called crazy in this thread is Sarah Palin. (Could be wrong; I may have called some of the other "Sarah Palin" types crazy as well. I'm not bothered by the possibility; they are public figures after all.) I haven't called anyone participating in this thread crazy, though. If you think I have, I would appreciate you actually *quoting* me on that. I've called claims crazy, I've probably called some behaviour crazy, but I've not called any *people* here crazy.

So yeah, trying to argue that I'm the only one making unfounded arguments with an unfounded argument kinda backfires, if you ask me.

He just gave you the real numbers. Right in front of your face. See? This is what we're talking about. You preach to us endlessly about facts,evidence,etc. Yet whenever we provide you with said things you ALWAYS deny them. Any fact that counters your viewpoint you ignore outright.

I don't think you know how to measure diversity either, based on your response. That's my point there, and you're missing it.

All your talk of intellectual honesty is just hypocrisy. You don't care about the truth, you care about your own viewpoint.

When you can demonstrate that you've got a good grasp of intellectual honesty yourself (hint, your second sentence there violates it already), then maybe I'll start taking your critique of my own intellectual honesty seriously. Here's a quick intro: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty

it's still fricken crazy to say that the Republican party is more diverse than the Democratic party.

Several different arguments debunking that subjective assumption have already been posted on this thread. Take a moment to consider, even the possibility, that you could be the crazy one in this equation.

Done. Now you try.

That's it? All you have to say against that is, nah, I'm Archangel Gavril, God didn't make me crazy, despite all evidence otherwise. You should start an imamate with this bigotry.

It's kinda like trolling, but it's actually more like anti-trolling. In anti-trolling, you let the trolls expose themselves as trolls, without getting caught up in the trolling yourself. In this kind of exchange, I let people who make crazy claims expose their claims as crazy, without getting caught up in the craziness myself.

Yeah, since you definitely aren't crazy. You're just divinely right.

Reacting with 'hostility' and claims of 'arrogance' to someone who merely criticizes someone's claims as crazy is not really a good way to bolster those claims as not crazy.

No, calling someone else's outlook mostly unfounded-ly crazy is definitely worse than the reply that you are being hostile and arrogant. I mean, you're just bluntly refusing to accept that you could be wrong about anything here, and thinking that you're the one who has the divine answers here, and lights up us black sheep. And whether you intend it or not, that's pretty hostile.

In fact, it kinda works the other way around. A *better* way to respond would be to counter the criticism with a good rebuttal, preferably with facts and evidence to support it, but sometimes just a good counter-argument suffices.

Mate...you're the one making the ungrounded claim...don't try to teach your illness on. If insults like "crazy" are on, then expect some back - "hostile" and "arrogant" are pretty light, I'd say mentally insane, needs help right away?

I think the only one I've called crazy in this thread is Sarah Palin. (Could be wrong; I may have called some of the other "Sarah Palin" types crazy as well. I'm not bothered by the possibility; they are public figures after all.) I haven't called anyone participating in this thread crazy, though. If you think I have, I would appreciate you actually *quoting* me on that. I've called claims crazy, I've probably called some behaviour crazy, but I've not called any *people* here crazy.

You're calling the ideology that folk believe in crazy - a flaw of the antique Greek logic system is that it doesn't have a logic fallacy for this, insulting the opposing argument. I won't call you crazy, though, I'll just call all your brain's thoughts crazy. You are not crazy, no, it's just all your brain's thoughts are.

So yeah, trying to argue that I'm the only one making unfounded arguments with an unfounded argument kinda backfires, if you ask me.

Fire-against-fire, and no it doesn't - if you need evidence, see you saying that you didn't even read much into this, and that you are going to "guide us".

I don't think you know how to measure diversity either, based on your response. That's my point there, and you're missing it.

Well, it's just pretty much division by the population...what else do you want (already talked about your "qualifications")?

When you can demonstrate that you've got a good grasp of intellectual honesty yourself (hint, your second sentence there violates it already), then maybe I'll start taking your critique of my own intellectual honesty seriously. Here's a quick intro: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty

The second sentence may have been misphrased. You think your viewpoint must be the truth*, despite you saying otherwise, you're clearly confident though you haven't read much at all. That's just irrational bigotry, again. All intellectual frankness is thrown out the window here - you're basically unfoundedly calling other arguments "crazy", refusing to talk about some arguments against you, and refusing to believe that you could be wrong. Smedley's first comment hits it well: "Wct and people like him are why I hate the Democratic Party more than the Republicans. How you bastards got more smug than religous fundamentalists is beyond me." I will often defend outlooks that are different than mine, mainly since dogmatists like you do their thing.

The most freedom (not counting the anarchy kind)? The best movie industry? The best tech/pharma industry?
Again this is very debatable, your military points and economy points ( although china is catching up) are valid but the rest is subjective

Evolution is not fact either, it is a theory and you can believe as you wish.
Theory in science means something which has been thoroughly tested over and over again and has overwhelmingly been shown right by experiments. Gravity is a theory, go jump off a cliff and see if its true

Evolution is a theory and not a law
in science a law is how something happens, like how much time it takes for a ball to hit the ground if thrown at a certain speed and angle
and a theory is why it happens, thus it cant become a law

Wow, Jai, you're skating on thin ice there. Didn't you say earlier you weren't a creationist? (Maybe I'm misremembering.) You realize that line is just creationist pap, eh?

1) I'm not a creationist (probably closer to deism).

Okay, that's what I thought. Glad I didn't misremember.

2) So just want to clarify...are you saying that evolution is a law or do you accept that the scientific community still calls it a theory?

Remember this whole you-answer-my-questions-and-I'll-answer-yours thing we talked about? It only works if it's a two-way street.

I'm going to answer your questions here, but I'm expecting a good-faith reply to answer my second question there, as you've just dodged it.

First, my answer: The term 'evolution' is not, to my knowledge, considered a scientific law. It is considered, contrary to your false dichotomy, both a theory and a fact by the scientific community. Please read at least this quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory carefully, although the whole article would be well worth your time to read:

Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts.[1]

Each of the words "evolution," "fact" and "theory" has several meanings in different contexts. Evolution means change over time, as in stellar evolution. In biology it refers to observed changes in organisms, to their descent from a common ancestor, and at a technical level to a change in gene frequency over time; it can also refer to explanatory theories (such as Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection) which explain the mechanisms of evolution. To a scientist, fact can describe a repeatable observation that all can agree on; it can refer to something that is so well established that nobody in a community disagrees with it; and it can also refer to the truth or falsity of a proposition. To the public, theory can mean an opinion or conjecture (e.g., "it's only a theory"), but among scientists it has a much stronger connotation of "well-substantiated explanation." With this number of choices, people can often talk past each other, and meanings become the subject of linguistic analysis.

Evidence for evolution continues to be accumulated and tested. The scientific literature includes statements by evolutionary biologists and philosophers of science demonstrating some of the different perspectives on evolution as fact and theory.

---

Moving on...

Evolution is a theory by scientific standards for theory formulation, because it is still being adjusted in accordance with new testable hypotheses and experimental results.

I've found that it is useful to use some standard terminology here to avoid all confusion about 'theory' and 'fact'.

When I want to talk about the 'fact' of evolution, I often refer to it along the lines of 'the fact that organisms evolve', by which I mean the technical definition of 'a change in gene frequency over time' within a population of organisms. This is indisputably a fact. You can measure it and everything. If you take Biology in university/college, you might even be able to do actual measurements yourself, with some fruit flies.

When I want to talk about the 'theory' of evolution, I always accompany it with the key phrase 'natural selection', as in, 'the theory of evolution by natural selection'. This is because the actual *hypothesis* that Darwin is famous for is that the *fact* of evolution in nature (as opposed to in human domestication/breeding of plants and animals) is *explained* by the proposed process of *natural selection*. In other words, gene frequencies in populations of organisms change over time [the fact part] *because* some genes render the organisms they inhabit better suited to the environments those organisms find themselves in, conferring a *natural* (rather than artificial) selective reproductive advantage to the organism, and hence increasing the proportion of those genes in future generations [the theory part].

There are probably at least a couple scientific laws associated with the theory of evolution by natural selection, but the only one I ever remember the name of is the Law of Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy%E2%80%93Weinberg_law). It's a fascinating law, but has very little to do with the tricky terminology over 'theory' and 'fact'. 'Law' in science doesn't mean either 'fact' or 'theory', it refers more to a *mathematical* law, you see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

---

Now I'll requote my second question to you. I hope you'll answer it; otherwise it's likely I'll quickly lose interest in answering your questions in return. Here it is:

You realize that line is just creationist pap, eh?

And by "that line", I'm referring to what you wrote, here:

Second, if you want to know a real fact - Evolution is a theory and not a law (even if it is well evidenced).

For context, this is a good video describing why I call 'that line' creationist pap: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIm2H0ksawg

Your phrasing used 'law' instead of 'fact' as most creationists would phrase it, but the essential issue is that it still perpetuates confusion over the word 'theory' as used in a scientific context. As the video so aptly describes, I don't see people writing "Gravity is only a theory" or "Atoms are only a theory". Why do you think that is? It's because it's creationist pap, and they (creationists) only have a problem with evolution, not gravity, nor atomic theory, nor any other scientific theory they (creationists) routinely take for granted.

Edited 2/17/2016 07:41:07

Wow, great comeback. Asked to back up something, says to do it yourself.

Get me quotes of Dan Quayle saying something stupid.

Dude. She smears herself every time she speaks. All the press had to do was put her interviews on air. Sarah Palin has nobody to blame but herself for her reputation (well, possibly the McCain campaign holds *some* responsibility for putting her in the public eye in the first place).

The press repeats every foolish statement she made 1000 times to promote its narrative that she is stupid. When Obama makes a similar mistake, the press either ignores it or tries to find something positive about it. Maybe it was just a joke.

Hillary Clinton has said that wars are worse for women than men because they lose their husbands, sons and fathers. That is the stupidest thing I've heard in my entire life. Worse than what Palin has ever said. Hillary has silenced women who tried to come forth accusing Bill Clinton of rape. There is more than enough material to label Hillary a crazy bitch, a token candidate who only has a shot because of her popular husband, and what not. But *for some reason* the media is unwilling to talk about that. I wonder why.

He doesn't even pass the global warming or evolution/creationism litmus tests. Anyone that out of touch with reality is not competent to be president of the most powerful country on the planet. Sorry, that's just facts. Crazy is as crazy believes.

That might make Carson controversial, but it certainly doesn't nullify his great accomplishments and make him a token candidate. Once again, you progressives see a minority candidate of great accomplishment and you try to silence him because he doesn't agree with you. You are doing a great disservice to all minorities.

If you want to talk about nut job views, the whole Democratic party believes in the Patriarchy that is everywhere oppressing women. Both Hillary and Bernie support Black Lives Matter, the KKK for black people.

That's it? All you have to say against that is, nah, I'm Archangel Gavril, God didn't make me crazy, despite all evidence otherwise. You should start an imamate with this bigotry.

blah blah blah... missing the point ...ad hom left and right

Xapy, your replies are getting less and less coherent. I see little point in replying to you except just to point that out. If you want a serious reply, reply seriously.

The press repeats every foolish statement she made 1000 times

Really dude, I assure you, just once is enough.

Really dude, I assure you, just once is enough.

Not for progressive press, no. Dude.

If you want to talk about nut job views, the whole Democratic party believes in the Patriarchy that is everywhere oppressing women.

I agree the Patriarchy is a nut job view. I disagree that the whole Democratic party believes in it. You might be right if you had said 'majority' instead, though I'm not sure of that. But I guarantee you there are going to be plenty of people who reject the notion of The Patriarchy(tm).

I agree the Patriarchy is a nut job view. I disagree that the whole Democratic party believes in it. You might be right if you had said 'majority' instead, though I'm not sure of that. But I guarantee you there are going to be plenty of people who reject the notion of The Patriarchy(tm).

So we agree that most of the Democratic party, and Hillary and Bernie in particular, hold nut job views. Which makes them unelectable if your Carson reasoning is taken into account.

Do you also agree that BLM is a nut job movement, or do you think those nut jobs are legit?

Not for progressive press, no. Dude.

I mean that it only takes one view of Palin's interviews to see her for what she is. Here, I'll dig one up for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZVh_u5RyiU