>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
(Not Really A) Dr. Phil is a pompous asshole.
Thanks a lot, Oprah.

He's not a Dr?? Well what the fuck is he then?


A charlatan.

He does have a PHd--so technically he can claim the Dr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_McGraw
His dissertation was titled: "Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Psychological Intervention".
Quack! North Texas University must be so proud.

From the wiki:
"In 1983, McGraw and his father joined Thelma Box, a successful Texas businesswoman, in presenting "Pathways" seminars, "an experience-based training which allows individuals to achieve and create their own results."
Quack Quack!!

Charlatan.

"Nicole "Hoopz" Alexander (born 1983) is an American reality TV show contestant best known for winning the VH1 reality television shows Flavor of Love and I Love Money."

Oh brother.

1. You're still using your subjective experience to prove Premise Two.

It's all subjective experience; again, if you want to claim that subjective determinations cannot lead to objective truths, then you can throw out any claim of an objective world and we can drown in relativism. Care to take another stab at it?

2. In the other threads you quoted one Wikipedia page at me without even reading the other one (Check the second paragraph of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical to see the difference). You ignore the fact that empiricism as a philosophy is an unscientific world view on its face due to its unverifiable claims of where information can and cannot come from.

What? What do you think empiricism is based on?

Definition of EMPIRICAL
1: originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4: of or relating to empiricism

It's clear now you have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, empiricism is a philosophy, and yes, it was one of my major points that you cannot verify empiricism without engaging in tautologies. You're just proving my point here. Yet, you show complete ignorance here as empiricism is a major foundation for the scientific method. The fact that I would have to prove this to you says it all..

http://davies-linguistics.byu.edu/elang273/notes/empirical.htm

"Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation."

I also guess you missed this:

"The standard positivist view of empirically acquired information has been that observation, experience, and experiment serve as neutral arbiters between competing theories. However, since the 1960s, Thomas Kuhn [2] has promoted the concept that these methods are influenced by prior beliefs and experiences. Consequently it cannot be expected that two scientists when observing, experiencing, or experimenting on the same event will make the same theory-neutral observations. The role of observation as a theory-neutral arbiter may not be possible. Theory-dependence of observation means that, even if there were agreed methods of inference and interpretation, scientists may still disagree on the nature of empirical data."

Meaning, the interpretation of data is philosophical.

3. You quoted people who haven't even graduated university at me???

The OP said he had not yet graduated, it doesn't mean all the participants have not. Did you even read it?

4. You equate spectators at a football game who are there to support their team with scientists collecting data (Scientists at that match would have been making a record of each foul), and on and on with analogies that all demonstrate a sad lack of understanding of how science works, or, in one case, modelling it somewhat accurately, but presenting it as if bias was something scientists didn't openly acknowledge, and didn't have processes to mitigate impact. If religion ever acknowledged its bias, it would cease to exist instantly, because its bias is the entire religion. At the very least, this makes science more mature and credible in the objective world.

Nothing you said here refutes any of the data provided, but is rather just you stating your opinion that it is wrong without backing it up. You also pass off the (now admitted) bias as being mitigated without explaining how. And then you create a false dichotomy by constrasting science and religion, and then attacking religion as "biased" and saying science is superior. If anything it just shows your religious devotion to science and your faith in the secular humanist worldview. Religion and science aren't in a competition, and science has no data on the existence of God. You may believe certain "discoveries" disprove things in the bible, but that is a different conversation. On the essential question, does God exist, science is deaf dumb and blind.

5. You go on with your, "There is plenty of evidence which suggests that God created the universe" spiel which is always countered with "Religion just catalogues things we cannot explain nor ever prove and ascribe them to a deity, knowing (hoping, hoping, please!!!) it will never be possible to disprove them, and all the while ignoring former claims for God that have been shown not to be God, but a newly understood and measurable force.

There are many lines of evidence which show it is reasonable to conclude that the Universe has an intelligent causation. There is evidence from logic, from morality, from design, from biology and cosmology, personal experience, culture, etc. It is not just appealing to some gaps, because special creation, as in the example of DNA, is a superior explanation to random chance. You're also going on about mechanisms which doesn't rule out Agency. You seem very overconfident and this is unwarrented, because there isn't much positive evidence on your side.

6. You are still conflating your "God" (I'm going to start calling him "Yahweh" to prevent this in the future) with any old god. The Big Bang Theory, which you alternately endorse and claim is bunk, could point to a creator, but by no means a god with any of the properties of Yahweh, except the singular property of the ability to create the universe as we know it.

Since time, space, matter and energy began at the big bang, the cause of the Universe would be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, unimaginably powerful and transcendent. You can also make a case for a personal God from these conclusions. Before you go on about how no one says the Universe was created from nothing:

In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness, the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billion years ago.

HBJ General Science 1983 Page 362

the universe burst into something from absolutely nothing - zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. How is that possible? Ask Alan Guth. His theory of inflation helps explain everything.

discover April 2002

7. You quote scientists' opinions on religious issues like I think they're infallible prophets or something. Science doesn't work that way. Only religion does.

You seem to believe everything they say when their statements agree with your preconceived notions of reality. How about these statements?

innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ..why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geologoy assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin
Origin of the Species

Well we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ..ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwins time.

By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information.

David M. Raup Chicago Field Museum of Natural History
F.M.O.N.H.B v.50 p.35

8. There's nothing we are "interpreting differently". You are interpreting everything as "Yahweh did it", and I'm not interpreting anything: There observably is CMBR, and it points to a Big Bang billions of years ago. That is all. You leap from this "suggestion" to "therefore it was Yahweh a few thousand years ago".

You're interpreting the evidence as pointing to random chance, I am interpreting it as being the result of intelligent causation.

And actually, without the hypothetical inflation, the smoothness of the CMBR contradicts the predictions of the theory. The CMBR should also all be moving away from the big bang but it is actually going in different directions.

9. I would never scoff at infallibility in anything that can be tested. I scoff only at claims of infallibility where by definition there is no possibility of failure only because there lacks any measure of success, just like every piece of dogma in the Bible, except for the ones that have been proven false, like the shape of the Earth, the orbit of the planets, and so on. Every scientific hypothesis has a measure of success or failure, and when one is disproven, that hypothesis is discarded, except to keep a record of how it was proven false.

Yet billions of people have tested the claims of Jesus and found them to be true. You believe because you fooled yourself with an elaborate delusion that any claim that disagrees with your naturalistic worldview is also an elaborate delusion that people have fallen into. I'm sorry but this does not follow. You're also wrong about your interpretation of the bible; it never claimed the Earth is flat or anything else you are suggesting.

10. I like your story of the scientist who climbs to find a bunch of theologians who have been sitting on a mountain of ignorance for centuries. Apt image. And I don't get the intent anyway. It suggests both that science could one day arrive at total knowledge (doubtful), and that religion has ever produced a shred of useful knowledge (it hasn't).

This is the problem with atheists, is that they are incapable of seeing the other side of the issue. Are you honestly this close-minded that you can't see the implications that Gods existence has for our knowledge? Or are you so pathological in your beliefs that you can't even allow for it hypothetically?

If God has revealed Himself, then obviously this is the most important piece of knowledge there is, and it is only through that revelation that we could understand anything about the world. It is only through that lens that any piece of information could be interpreted, or the truth of it sussed out. So, anyone having that knowledge, would instantly be at the top of the mountain of knowledge. The scientist only reached the top when he became aware of Gods existence by observing the obvious design in the Universe.

In short, I'm through talking about anything logical with you, or attempting to prove anything. You really, really do not understand the essential (or useless) elements of a logical discussion of proof. If you knew them, I would enjoy this debate. If you acknowledged this weakness and were keen to learn them, I would enjoy showing you how they work -- you seem keen. But neither seems the case. [edit -- This may be due to the fact that you're connected to both the objective world and the God world, and you're having trouble only using input from the one stream and not the other, like using input you received from your right eye, but not your left, as our memories are not stored that way. Either way, it is a weakness.]

Your arrogance knows no bounds. You've made it clear from your confusion about empiricism that you really don't know what you're talking about, and you tried to use that as a platform to condescend to me the entire reply. This isn't a logical discussion, this is an exposition of your obvious prejudice. You have no basis for judging my intelligence or capabilities..it's clear that your trite analysis is founded upon a bloated ego and nothing else.

When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom. Proverbs 11:2

>> ^messenger

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
For example on point 1. He says median hourly wages stagnated and dropped from 1980 to 1992. To prove his point he ... (wait for it) ... draws a picture that sort of resembles a coffee cup. As is expected, what he does (like most Prog-Libs) is cherry-pick a very specific, isolated, limited factoid and apply it in entirely the wrong way. Median hourly wages? Really RR? That's how you are measuring whether 'trickle down economics' works or not? Please 'prove' to me how that makes sense and I'll go further. I'll rely on a more holistic picture than that - thanks - such as the census...
http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p23-196.pdf
Notice that 1983 to 1989 (3 years after the election) was up across the board - went DOWN after Bush got in office (and his tax hikes I may add).
I could go on, but there's no point to it.


Looking at your census data, median household income in 1979 was $34,666 and in 1993 it was $33,660 (in the face of more women joining the workforce), which exactly matches what Reich said about wages dropping between 1980 and 1992. So thanks for providing proof that RR is correct with your holistic picture. BTW, your sentence "Notice that 1983 to 1989 (3 years after the election) was up across the board - went DOWN after Bush got in office" doesn't even make sense.

Like I said, PROVE it

Sure.

Step 1: Take RR's "crap I pulled out my hinder" arguments
Step 2: Say the exact opposite.

Boom. There. I've given you as much "proof" as RR did in his stupid 164 second waste of time.

For example on point 1. He says median hourly wages stagnated and dropped from 1980 to 1992. To prove his point he ... (wait for it) ... draws a picture that sort of resembles a coffee cup. As is expected, what he does (like most Prog-Libs) is cherry-pick a very specific, isolated, limited factoid and apply it in entirely the wrong way. Median hourly wages? Really RR? That's how you are measuring whether 'trickle down economics' works or not? Please 'prove' to me how that makes sense and I'll go further. I'll rely on a more holistic picture than that - thanks - such as the census...

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p23-196.pdf

Notice that 1983 to 1989 (3 years after the election) was up across the board - went DOWN after Bush got in office (and his tax hikes I may add).

I could go on, but there's no point to it. Prog-Libs have a mantra they stick to in the face of all facts and evidence, and all it takes is a bearded moron reinforcing the dumb ideas they believe to convince them they have 'proof'. All RR ever does is barf up typical left wing talking points. Nothing new here. He pukes up the same bologna, opinion based interpretation of the world every time he opens his piehole.

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by Sarzy.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/1983-Apple-Keynote-The-1984-Ad-Introduction

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Grimm. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

>> ^dag:

Nice. I do fire-up the Apple II emulator every once in a while. Mainly to hear the sound of the disk drives. A sweet, sweet sound.>> ^ant:
>> ^dag:
^I am known for luscious lips - and not just swollen from sucking off Steve Jobs.

Like Angelina Jolie's?
http://zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/about/toys.html has my cool stuff.



Emulator makes disk noises?!??!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Nice. I do fire-up the Apple II emulator every once in a while. Mainly to hear the sound of the disk drives. A sweet, sweet sound.>> ^ant:

>> ^dag:
^I am known for luscious lips - and not just swollen from sucking off Steve Jobs.

Like Angelina Jolie's?
http://zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/about/toys.html has my cool stuff.

>> ^dag:

^I am known for luscious lips - and not just swollen from sucking off Steve Jobs.


Like Angelina Jolie's?

http://zimage.com/~ant/antfarm/about/toys.html has my cool stuff.

>> ^dag:

I am honestly really, really sad. I feel a bit silly because I've never been sad at a famous person's death before. I can't scoff at Michael Jackson mourners. I think I have to link to this again: http://blog.videosift.com/dag/Apple-Fanboy-Since-1983



The feeling is mutual.

>> ^dag:

Agreed. So great. promote>> ^deathcow:
this is awesome !!!



Hellz yeah!


Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Agreed. So great. *promote>> ^deathcow:

this is awesome !!!