Whistle tips go Wooo - WOOOOO

You, as a devoutly religious person, trying to reframe my flippant attitude as dogmatism is like a child playing at being a police officer talking to a real police officer and going, "Wooooo woooooo woooooo I'm a police officer! I caught a hundred bad guys today! I'm taking you to jail!" You can't expect me to take you seriously. Every paragraph you write shows your lack of scientific understanding and unwillingness to honestly seek truth. If I saw some scientific thinking or efforts on your part to see things from my point of view, I'd gladly continue to make the extra effort, as I did for many months (was it years?). Consider I've spent most of our conversation time trying to understand your point of view, but you have never once inquired about mine. And then you accuse me of being "incurious".

Every paragraph you write to me lately is simply stringing the same three ad homs together in a different order (you are a dogmatist, you dont understand science, you dont engage with critical thinking). This is all that you ever really say to me, and when you're not saying it, you're pointing at something else to make the argument for you. Your point of view is apparently whatever scientists say is true, and that is the essential argument you are presenting; it must be true because scientists couldn't be wrong.

I have inquired about your views; we have had extensive conversations about what you believe and why you believe it. I'm interested in what you think; I'd love to actually have an actual conversation about this but you have already said you're not interested in putting any effort into it. How can it be my deficiency when you don't even understand the basics? It is an intellectual incuriousity; you see it as nonsense without even understanding what the creationist position actually is. You just dismiss it out of hand.
This is the nut of it for me with you. This illustrates your perfect failure to understand science. If you can't see why just from reading it, I don't have the skill to show you.

Yes, this looks good to the empiricist, who doesn't understand the problem of induction. There is no such thing as pure interpretation without bias. You are always bringing certain assumptions to table. What he is really saying when he says to exclude scripture is this: we reject the idea of a global catastrophe in geology, or that the features we see today could have formed quickly. They therefore interpreted all of the data through their uniformitarian assumptions and excluded that hypothesis completely. It wasn't that they had hard evidence, it was that they interpreted the evidence through the predetermined conclusion. I gave you a good example of this but you essentially ignored it.

How can we have a substantive conversation if you're not willing to put in any effort to actually understand the subject matter, either for or against? If you're content with your blind faith in whatever scientists tell you, then you're just as dogmatic as you accuse me of being.

You, as a devoutly religious person, trying to reframe my flippant attitude as dogmatism is like a child playing at being a police officer talking to a real police officer and going, "Wooooo woooooo woooooo I'm a police officer! I caught a hundred bad guys today! I'm taking you to jail!" You can't expect me to take you seriously. Every paragraph you write shows your lack of scientific understanding and unwillingness to honestly seek truth. If I saw some scientific thinking or efforts on your part to see things from my point of view, I'd gladly continue to make the extra effort, as I did for many months (was it years?). Consider I've spent most of our conversation time trying to understand your point of view, but you have never once inquired about mine. And then you accuse me of being "incurious".

As you can plainly see, Charles was scheming to deceive the church into accepting his uniformitarian theories even though he knew they contradicted scripture. He wasn't interested in a scientific investigation of the facts:

"... the physical part of Geological inquiry ought to be conducted as if the Scriptures were not in existence"

He had an agenda and his bias is plain to see.

This is the nut of it for me with you. This illustrates your perfect failure to understand science. If you can't see why just from reading it, I don't have the skill to show you.

Bring on the 1000 years of darkness!!!!

YEAH CTHULU WOOOOO

The tension and excitement sure were contagious! WOOOOO YEAHHHH !!

wooooo!!!

wooooo Russian Rednecks

*canada

fuck if I knew it, GLAD we share something in common. wooooo weiiii ooooooooo

Twice in one day. That's how much of a bitch I am! Wooooo!

*promote

Wooooo! Thx buddy.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Shine on you crazy diamond ruby!!

Gordon Brown
CCTV
Speed Cameras
Chavs
Teen pregnancy
Rain
Social Services
Fuel Prices
M.O.T's
School holidays

Hmmm, all fuck no's...

But other than that, wooooo Britain

*quality

ITS A MRIICAL PRAYS GOD PRAYS to god ...


for making an earth quake >killing 90,000+ pore people >crushing this woman and starving her for 7 days > braking her fingers > and then having her saved WOOOOO PRAYS TO GOD !


still always nice to see sum one not dead.

"Wooooo! Consumerism is teh awesome!"

After taking this video, dag went inside and set all the Safari browser home pages on the floor models to videosift.com. And thus Steve Jobs became aware of the Sift.

Wooooo. Many congrats mikesHL13. See you in the lounge.

Wooooo!

Grats bud!