Today’s Teabagger News: Only 41% of Texans know humans did not live with dinosaurs

[Cancel 2016.2]

...life may actually begin BEFORE conception, and we just don't know it yet!

Wow... imagine that.... Ditzie wrong again.

Just because you paint yourself in a corner does not mean that you have to compound your ignorance with further stupidity.

Life cannot begin prior to conception. It is the combination of the egg and sperm cells that provide the genetic make up of the unique life.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yo, my Bush-loving, Iraq war-supporting, climate science-denying, NeoCon Nincompoop…..get off the Sarah Palin facebook page, and think, man. Try to read and comprehend. Move your lips while your read, if you must:

The poll question DIDN’T ask if science had proven beyond all possible tiny shred of doubt, and with 150% absolute bullet-proof certainty, that every single Dino went extinct 65 million years ago. .


The poll asked people what they believed; i.e., what their conclusion was…. A belief or conclusion that is based on either the preponderance of evidence, or on their best professional/personal judgment….i.e., people were asked if they AGREED OR DISAGREED that humans and Dinos lived and frolicked together.

A vast number of teabagging Texans professed the belief, aka, they came to the conclusion, that humans and Dinos coexisted.

You, and some other wingnuts find it entirely rational for someone to arrive at a conclusion that Dinos and people frolicked together.......This is teabagging buffoonery. But, don’t let me stop you Mr. 1/3. This is gold….comedy gold, I tell you!

Wow... what a delusional nitwit! I don't really know what Bush, Iraq, Sarah Palin, and the Global Warming FRAUD has to do with this debate, but apparently it has everything to do with your warped and wrong-headed perception of things.

I don't see anything on the page with the question about "frolicking" with dinosaurs, can you point out where the Texans indicated that? I see a question about whether man existed at the time of the dinosaur, and 41% said no, 30% said yes, and 30% said they weren't sure. In my opinion, the correct answer has to be, not sure. If you have some evidence to prove either of the other two answers, I would love to see it, so far you've not presented a thing. Is that coming anytime soon, or are we just supposed to accept your profound wisdom as evidence of empirical proof?

 

[Onceler]

Wow... imagine that.... Ditzie wrong again.

Just because you paint yourself in a corner does not mean that you have to compound your ignorance with further stupidity.

Life cannot begin prior to conception. It is the combination of the egg and sperm cells that provide the genetic make up of the unique life.

Yes, much like a detailed plan for a house.

But, of course, a blueprint is not a house.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Wow... imagine that.... Ditzie wrong again.

Just because you paint yourself in a corner does not mean that you have to compound your ignorance with further stupidity.

Life cannot begin prior to conception. It is the combination of the egg and sperm cells that provide the genetic make up of the unique life.

Apparently Damo needs to make a [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] code for the retarded people who can't read the context. Sorry you took me seriously, I certainly do know that life begins at point of conception, and thanks for clarifying my point on that. Seems some of your nitwit pinhead butt buddies don't believe that.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yes, much like a detailed plan for a house.

But, of course, a blueprint is not a house.

No, for a blueprint to become a house, it requires materials and labor. What else does a fetus require to become a human life? Nothing!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Only under a ridiculous speciesest definition of personhood.

But we know that the thing that makes us identify with another living thing and call it a "person" is not the fact that it has human DNA, but the fact that it exists on some cognitive level. You're just playing logical trickery to muddle this fact.

wrong.... you are attempting to equate the defined 'human being' with the subjective 'personhood/person' etc.... One is defined by science. The other is subjective and does not have any concrete definition.... which is why we have the debate with regards to the LEGALITY of abortions and why no one debates the SCIENCE. The Science is concrete.

 

[Onceler]

No, for a blueprint to become a house, it requires materials and labor. What else does a fetus require to become a human life? Nothing!

That's theoretical, and tentative. It is not fact.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Yo, my Bush-loving, Iraq war-supporting, climate science-denying, NeoCon Nincompoop…..get off the Sarah Palin facebook page, and think, man. Try to read and comprehend. Move your lips while your read, if you must:

The poll question DIDN’T ask if science had proven beyond all possible tiny shred of doubt, and with 150% absolute bullet-proof certainty, that every single Dino went extinct 65 million years ago. .


The poll asked people what they believed; i.e., what their conclusion was…. A belief or conclusion that is based on either the preponderance of evidence, or on their best professional/personal judgment….i.e., people were asked if they AGREED OR DISAGREED that humans and Dinos lived and frolicked together.

A vast number of teabagging Texans professed the belief, aka, they came to the conclusion, that humans and Dinos coexisted.

You, and some other wingnuts find it entirely rational for someone to arrive at a conclusion that Dinos and people frolicked together.......This is teabagging buffoonery. But, don’t let me stop you Mr. 1/3. This is gold….comedy gold, I tell you!

Does anyone have the heart to tell poor little Cypress about the hi-jacking of science by the global warming fear mongers? Should we point out yet again how they misled the public with their fear mongering? Should we point out yet again how the power grab by the politicians hijacked the science behind the studies? How the suppression of opposing views, the demand that a 'consensus' had been reached and that the 'debate was over', how the data was unassailable.... only to find out....

1) No significant warming for 15 years (from the mouth of one of the leading fear mongers)

2) NO conclusion on whether the medieval warming period was warmer than now due to lack of data.

3) IPCC pushed propaganda and proclaimed it was 'science'... now we find one error after another.

Why? What could be the motivation that the flat earth global warming fear mongers have for doing so? Could it be the power the government agencies would then have over the corporate world and the citizens? Could it be the potential for BILLIONS more in funding that the 'scientists' would get? Nah... that couldn't be it.

Just ask Cypress.... he will STILL tell you it is a settled debate... he will still try to equate those who question the AGW theory with Holocaust denialists... because that makes them sound 'evilzzz'. He will now also try to pretend that only right wing blogs are reporting on the errors or quoting Jones. He will still pretend that there is no doubt. He will still mock the idiots who proclaim that the current east coast snow storms are proof that AGW is wrong, while at the same time ignoring all the idiots that have used severe weather incidents as proof of AGW.

But yeah Cypress.... the liberal side has NEVER hijacked Science.

 

[Timshel]

What do you mean, what? Am I supposed to re-type it because you didn't hear it or something? Go read it again, idiot! Jeesh! What my ass!

I have read it enough. It is incoherent gibberish.

WHAT FUCKING PROOF? You have PROOF that man was not here when the dinosaurs were? Let's see the PROOF!!! Dumbass!

We have proof supporting when dinosaurs disappeared and man appeared.

I am not the one who has drawn a conclusion, that is YOU! I have argued that we mustn't draw a conclusion on this! Are you following the conversation at all?

I guessed this dodge with "or arguing that those conclusions are just as likely." You are pretending that the belief that man and dinos coexisted is just as reasonable as the prevailing opinion, when it clearly is not.

Why mustn't we draw conclusions? We draw conclusions on plenty of other scientific theories.

No, there were several other microbiologists studying it, but it was Pasteur who was credited for advancing the Germ Theory, as well as a host of other related things. This isn't a myopic debate on what Pasteur did or didn't do, it was presented to illustrate how profoundly stupid it is to believe you know everything, when in fact, you really know very little.

He brought about the consensus on it, yes. Others offered proof for the theory and also against spontaneous generation before him. Even long before him.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

LOL. You actually think this nonsense is reasonable? I was going to let you slide on it.

You want us to believe that all humans hid/died in caves and volcanoes and were so scared shitless of dinos that they did not come out for 60 million years. You can not be serious.

I guess you missed the part where I said I wasn't saying that was the case. I will say again, I don't know and you don't know, and anything we have to say on the matter is speculation. I don't give a flying fuck what you believe or don't believe, to be honest. You want ME to believe that something is a fact that isn't proven and can't be proven. All I have said is, I can't do that... but because I said that, you want to ridicule me. Go for it! Show people what a closed-minded intolerant asshole you are! I'm all for that!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

That's theoretical, and tentative. It is not fact.

I know you enjoy taunting ditzie almost as much as I do... but I do find it odd you don't call out Cypress for the same level of bullshit.... he desperately clings to his kool aid induced beliefs despite the evidence coming out against his position and yet you say so little?

Be a bi-partisan taunter... it is much more fun.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I have read it enough. It is incoherent gibberish.

We have proof supporting when dinosaurs disappeared and man appeared.

I guessed this dodge with "or arguing that those conclusions are just as likely." You are pretending that the belief that man and dinos coexisted is just as reasonable as the prevailing opinion, when it clearly is not.

Why mustn't we draw conclusions? We draw conclusions on plenty of other scientific theories.

He brought about the consensus on it, yes. Others offered proof for the theory and also against spontaneous generation before him. Even long before him.

I always thought you were one of the more intelligent of the pinhead species, but I am going to have to reevaluate my evidence.

Apparently you have some kind of mental disorder which prevents you from understanding the difference between "evidence" and "proof" ...If something is PROVEN it is a FACT, it needs no further evidence, it is proven! Evidence is something presented to support an idea or theory, it is NOT PROOF! These are two completely different words with differing meanings, but you seem to want to interchange them as if they mean the same thing. I suppose, in your simple-minded world, that must be the case, but it doesn't comport with logic.

 

[Timshel]

I guess you missed the part where I said I wasn't saying that was the case. I will say again, I don't know and you don't know, and anything we have to say on the matter is speculation.

There is a clear difference between a plausible scenario and your batshit-crazy nonsense.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

There is a clear difference between a plausible scenario and your batshit-crazy nonsense.

And there is a difference between a plausible scenario and a fact of life too!

 

[Timshel]

I always thought you were one of the more intelligent of the pinhead species, but I am going to have to reevaluate my evidence.

Apparently you have some kind of mental disorder which prevents you from understanding the difference between "evidence" and "proof" ...If something is PROVEN it is a FACT, it needs no further evidence, it is proven! Evidence is something presented to support an idea or theory, it is NOT PROOF! These are two completely different words with differing meanings, but you seem to want to interchange them as if they mean the same thing. I suppose, in your simple-minded world, that must be the case, but it doesn't comport with logic.

There is nothing wrong with my use of the word.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proof

Based on your confusion there is no such thing as fact and therefore no use for the word proof.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

That's theoretical, and tentative. It is not fact.

o'rly...what else does a fetus require to become a human being then? too funny, you don't know the link between proof and fact, yet, you claim this is theoratical and tentative all the while insulting those who believe or even aren't sure whether man and dinosaurs roamed the earth when that conclusion is also theoretical and tentative....

i love your intellectually dishonest stances onceler, i think you try to hard to look smart and ultimately trip yourself up

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

There is nothing wrong with my use of the word.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/proof

Based on your confusion there is no such thing as fact and therefore no use for the word proof.

Well it depends on which word (proof or evidence) and how you are using them, but you seemed to be using then interchangeably as if they mean the same thing. Perhaps that is why you are taking exception with my neutral position on this particular issue. Because I don't view your limited evidence as "proof" of something, you want to ridicule me.

There is a such thing as FACT, and scientific evidence can often lead us to conclude facts, but sometimes it doesn't. This depends mostly on whether or not we can observe and test the hypothesis. We can't really test this one, because you and I don't own a time machine, and we can't go back to the days of the dinosaur, so we can't "prove" anything, all we can do is speculate based on what little evidence we have available.

As I said, if you want to speculate that man didn't exist at the time of the dinosaur, I don't have a problem with that, in fact I am kind of inclined to believe that is probably the case, but that isn't how this argument is being presented at all. Once you've distorted the meaning of "evidence" to make it mean "proof", then we have a situation where you are arguing a theory is a fact, and that isn't correct or honest.

 

[Timshel]

And there is a difference between a plausible scenario and a fact of life too!

Do you understand why in courts the burden of PROOF must be beyond a REASONABLE doubt?

Of course, there are possible alternatives. It does not make it reasonable to believe those alternatives and it does not mean one can not form conclusions based upon the evidence.

Your notions would have science amount to "your guess is as good as mine."

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

That's theoretical, and tentative. It is not fact.

No, it's not a theory that sperm and egg combine to form human life, that is what happens in biological experiment after biological experiment since we've been studying it. In fact, the living organism produced has never been anything other than human. Because of this test and observation, we can conclude it as a fact, and not a theory.

You should really shut up before you embarrass yourself further!

 

[Timshel]

Well it depends on which word (proof or evidence) and how you are using them, but you seemed to be using then interchangeably as if they mean the same thing. Perhaps that is why you are taking exception with my neutral position on this particular issue. Because I don't view your limited evidence as "proof" of something, you want to ridicule me.

There is nothing wrong with using proof and evidence interchangeably. Proof connotes something a little stronger than evidence and typically means that the weight of evidence is sufficient to form a conclusion.

There is a such thing as FACT, and scientific evidence can often lead us to conclude facts, but sometimes it doesn't.

Can you name some of these facts?