Vaccine

dad4 said:
Galileo made more than one argument. And more than one argument has been made which refers to the Galileo trial.

If you invoke “the Galileo argument” without clearly stating your point, that is laziness on your part, and no one else’s.

For now, I will assume you refer to your ahistorical assertion that Galileo was some kind of unqualified outsider. An ”argument“ that was, and remains, completely detached from the historical facts.
Click to expand...

Reading comprehension. The laziness refers to him not looking or following along to the prior articles/study/video.

As to Galileo...it's old ground. I'm shorthanding here because I'm busy (which is a fair critique) but my assumption is that even he would get it.
 
Grace T. said:
I got kicked out of my second grade Catholic school religion class. We were discussing Genesis 4/5 and Adam and Eve. I raised the question that if Adam and Eve did all that begatting, how did their descendants begat all those children without brother and sister, you know, doing it. Did the Lord just create new humans after Adam and Eve? Or did they really do it amongst themselves? The nun was not amused.
Click to expand...
I have to leave for a few. I have some insight that I would love to share with you. Chew on this: Gen 5:1-2 After He created Adam & Eve and got them to eat the apple, he made mankind.
"When God created mankind, he made them in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind”[a] when they were created. Basically, I believe God made more adam and Eves after he made the first couple. Adam and Eve were made from the dirt. After God made them, he breathed into them. What did God breath into them? I say a male and female soul but that's just a guess. He breathed two souls and no gender works with me as well sine we dont really know.
 
dad4 said:
Your argument is that the virus in Japan ran out of productive mutations, but the virus in other countries did not?

What a fascinating theory. It is bat shit crazy, but fascinating.
Click to expand...
People smart enough to know better, like Grace presumably, find ways to tip-toe around blatant insanity (they are fed bs statistics to back their play, of which she trots out ad nauseam), but when it comes right down to it bat-shit crazy doesn’t necessarily always mean stupid. Although sometimes the two do coincide. I’m glad you were able to see it and call it out.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
People smart enough to know better, like Grace presumably, find ways to tip-toe around blatant insanity (they are fed bs statistics to back their play, of which she trots out ad nauseam), but when it comes right down to it bat-shit crazy doesn’t necessarily always mean stupid. Although sometimes the two do coincide. I’m glad you were able to see it and call it out.
Click to expand...
I love it that you guys are calling experts in the field bat-shit crazy and insanity. You just proved exactly what I had been beating dad4 with: you only care about experts that agree with you and agree with your priors. You aren't willing to think out of the box (even if such thinking may prove wrong) or critically, which is the opposite of what science really is. You believe in dogma, and I think here and now, you've proven it and what some of us have been saying now for a while.
 
kickingandscreaming said:
Did you ever ask yourself why a "right-wing media" even exists?
Click to expand...
Oh, I get it. This is why I made a point of clearly stating the damage done by the left wing media’s obsession with the Tuskegee experiement.

But that doesn’t mean I cut either side slack for it. In both cases, it is deliberately slanted reporting to appeal to a poorly informed base. The result is that the base ends up even more poorly informed.
 
Grace T. said:
I love it that you guys are calling experts in the field bat-shit crazy and insanity. You just proved exactly what I had been beating dad4 with: you only care about experts that agree with you and agree with your priors. You aren't willing to think out of the box (even if such thinking may prove wrong) or critically, which is the opposite of what science really is. You believe in dogma, and I think here and now, you've proven it and what some of us have been saying now for a while.
Click to expand...
You assume that we believe your summary of what this particular scientist says.

I gave up on your summaries a while ago. The simplest explanation is that the scientist is explaining something interesting, and you just got it wrong again.
 
dad4 said:
You assume that we believe your summary of what this particular scientist says.

I gave up on your summaries a while ago. The simplest explanation is that the scientist is explaining something interesting, and you just got it wrong again.
Click to expand...

Again, don't really care if you believe me or not. You are free to look it up on your own and make a critique. I've already stated I don't have the chops to evaluate what he said, and it's entirely possible the press misunderstood or exaggerating his claims

p.s. it's fun having all 3 of you to play with.
 
Grace T. said:
you can't figure that one out on your own? Whoosh! You really are going man....while you were never great you were better than this. Condolenscences....it sucks but happens to us all.

In short: you would have been on the side of the church (because it's the establishment) instead of the out of the box thinker Galileo.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?
 
Grace T. said:
Reading comprehension. The laziness refers to him not looking or following along to the prior articles/study/video.

As to Galileo...it's old ground. I'm shorthanding here because I'm busy (which is a fair critique) but my assumption is that even he would get it.
Click to expand...

I won't pretend to read your mind. If you have something to say, just say it.
 
espola said:
Didn't God create everything? Wasn't Nod part of everything?
Click to expand...
Hence, my question to the nun: Did God create other humans after Adam and Eve. She didn't like the question. It means Adam and Eve aren't as special as she makes them up She rather not have thought about it.

When we get to the perpetual virginity of Mary, it got even more fun.
 
Grace T. said:
It's not a question of reading minds (even dad 4 could follow along despite his reading comprehension issues). It's YOU can't follow along (hence the nickname for you).
Click to expand...

That's the core of your whole position -- you blast out with the ad hominems when you run out of facts.
 
espola said:
Criticizing your arguments is not an ad hominem response. Lobbing out "reading comprehension" taunts and the like is.
Click to expand...

Your first step in the Magoo two step is usually "Coocoo" or "Nonsense". That's no different than a critique of your reading comprehension, which you've repeatedly shown is an issue for you. You just made me laugh again...thank you.
 
Grace T. said:
Your first step in the Magoo two step is usually "Coocoo" or "Nonsense". That's no different than a critique of your reading comprehension, which you've repeatedly shown is an issue for you. You just made me laugh again...thank you.
Click to expand...

"Coocoo" and "nonsense" are directed at the content, not the poster. "Magoo two step" is an ad hominem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top