Misunderstanding Matt Slick on Purpose? · Another Video with Scarlett (excursus: Continuing with Bill Garthright) · And YET Another Video with Scarlett
- Bill Garthright
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl
If same ideologies continue to target me in other ways?
Look, man, your personal problems are none of my business. But I really would look into seeing a counselor about this stuff. What's the harm, after all? You seem to be hurting, and although you're blaming it on everyone else, after 54 years, maybe you should talk it over with an expert. Good luck!
You want to perpetuate Evolutionist repression in schools against Creationist pupils, you want me to not tell how it hit me
Wow, that's just sad. I'm sorry you're like that, but if you won't help yourself, I don't know what to say.
What's your mileage for "antisemitism"?
I'm refuting the idea that genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 were made for fun reading
Heh, heh. Why? No one says that they were made for "fun reading," so why would you even say something that silly?
You have two problems
No, I don't. That's because "I don't know" is always a valid answer.
I know that religious people hate "I don't know." I know that faith-based people would rather make up an answer than admit that they don't know something. But I'm not like that. And scientists aren't like that, either. If they don't know something, they just keep researching.
And just because they don't know something - assuming that you even know what you're talking about when it comes to biolinguistics, which is highly doubtful - that doesn't mean your explanation is automatically true. Even before people knew what the Sun was, it still wasn't a god driving a golden chariot across the sky.
He did all of that except reproduce physically, while walking from toddling in Bethlehem to staggering to Calvary, and beyond the grave too.
Evidence? Just one piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself?
Do you start seeing what I talk about now?
Nope. It seems to be a whole mess of nonsense all jumbled together, and I can't read your mind.
But I think we're about done here, aren't we? You don't seem to be getting to anything but increasing anger.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Bill Garthright Last one first:
"You don't seem to be getting to anything but increasing anger."
You're the one who said FY.
Apart from that, you like to pretend, with no evidence at all in my words, that:
- I am still hurting from what happened to me in high school
- no representative of same ideologies ever hurt me since and especially not up to this day
- if I feel otherwise, I need a counsellor
- if I feel Creationist pupils should not face Evolutionist teachers in majority Evolutionist classes, if they don't like it, I'm not minding my business. Or it is my duty to get over it. Or whatever. Wanting to make sure it doesn't happen again is apparently no valid motive to you.
But if a holocaust survivor feels ill about antisemitism even 77 years after freed, and targets anything that even slightly looks like antisemitism (like calling a certain type of omertà "Jewish gatekeeping"), they don't need any counselling do they? Are you a holocaust survivor? Are you even a relative of one?
I don't think you are the one who should speak about anger. After I saw your initial statements and the FY, I decided not to answer it on a day when I should rest, hence the delay.
Now to the intellectual stuff.
"No one says that they were made for "fun reading," so why would you even say something that silly?"
If I had a € for every time I saw someone call these chapters fiction and see believing them compared to belief that Spiderman is real, right now, I think I could buy both some more hours on the internet and a coffee.
"That's because "I don't know" is always a valid answer."
Not always in a discussion. Take a look at this actually fictional example:
If you don't believe the earth is a globe, how do you explain that people have travelled West from Europe to America, from America to Asia and from Asia to Europe?
I don't know, I don't need to explain that to you ...
If you pretend to be assessing proof, you are not validly engaging in blank mind exercises. Here are the two problems for your position again;
You have two problems - one is to explain how the capacity arose (and remember, genes might be necessary, but aren't an explanation for us being interested in notions for notions' sake) ...
This means someone with a mutation giving him language capacity which his parents hadn't still wouldn't learn a language to use that capacity for. So, you must explain how the capacity came to be exploited by actual language.
You could of course say "I don't know, but there are specialists who do" and the answer is, no they don't.
"assuming that you even know what you're talking about when it comes to biolinguistics,"
Biolinguistics be blown, I do know linguistics and I do know some biology relevant for linguistics.
"Even before people knew what the Sun was, it still wasn't a god driving a golden chariot across the sky."
Golden and chariot (of human size) are of course wrong ... a god driving? Do angels count as "gods"? Presumably an angel has the last 24 h driven a bit less than 1° E, along the zodiac, while God has taken a bit less than 24 h to drive the whole shebang 360° W, both zodiac and Sun.
Oh, you only accept material entities as explanatory? Or roughly equivalent ones, like energy? The problem is, that won't explain language or mind. And I mean ever. If you think "google translate" can understand two languages, I tried to translate "rivmärken" to French and got "marques de larmes" - and when I looked up the English, I saw why. "Tear marks" - like marks from tear drops, not marks in a thing that got torn. Nope, matter doesn't explain language as to its cognitive part.
But the organisational and anatomic parts are too radically different from beast to man, notably from primate to man (including Lucy to man) to get a gradual transition.
"Evidence? Just one piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself?"
So our readers can, Gospels tell Jesus:
- said He was God (existS before Abraham existeD, forgives sins on His own authority, sends as the Father sent Him ...)
- said He would rise from the dead in three days
- then died and rose from the dead in three days.
I am not saying Gospels are boring, but apostles getting killed for saying that is also an argument against this being a 1st C. AD equivalent of DC Comics.
- early AM hours of 25.V.2023
- P M Toner
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl it's cute how you think you are Smarter than a biology professor, kind of like a kid who believes in the Easter bunny
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @P M Toner When did I say I was smarter?
Do you think any claim of oneself being right and the other being wrong on a given topic is a claim of being generally and overall smarter than the other guy?
That's tantamount to saying "he's smarter, hence, believe every word he says!"
Bill Garthright was not lecturing on biology. He was defending a specific ideology.
If you took this detour, now continue to:
And YET Another Video with Scarlett
Post a Comment