Wait, wait, stop the thread! I think it may be all based on a false premise. Can we go back to square one?

(October 2, 2014 at 8:01 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: were not talking quantum theories here, were talking about simple measurements.

The measurements say the ratio is 34/23.7 not 34/21. Do you retract your claim?

(October 2, 2014 at 9:38 pm)Surgenator Wrote:

(October 2, 2014 at 8:01 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: were not talking quantum theories here, were talking about simple measurements.

The measurements say the ratio is 34/23.7 not 34/21. Do you retract your claim?

That is not a ratio my friend...

(October 2, 2014 at 9:10 am)Huggy74 Wrote: LOL, still trying to defend his error clearly shows the bias.

I know this is from five pages back, but I have to respond: are you a goddamn child? Can you seriously not conceive of a reason someone might disagree with you, other than that they're out to get you, personally? I explained my reasons for disagreeing with you above, kindly stop pretending I haven't so you can continue to shrug off every little criticism of your inane position as some imagined bias.

Quote:Guess what? From 1953....

And as I pointed out in my post- that you conveniently ignored because really the only reason anyone would dare to disagree with the Great Huggy is that they hate him and what he believes in personally- is that a person with a functioning fucking brain would try to consider the reason why someone would object to that specific set of data. Having done that consideration, a sane person would not conclude that all data from 1953 is invalid, as that would also mean that accurate data would be invalid.

You, on the other hand, decided that thinking was for losers (or perhaps honest people, who want to get to the truth, and not just win an argument... ) and to stop looking at the data, to instead proclaim "aha! This is from 1953! It must also be wrong, because it's a bad year for sciencing!"

Quote:You do recognize the concept of contradiction, do you not?

You do recognize the concept of a willful misinterpretation, do you not?

(October 3, 2014 at 1:50 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 2, 2014 at 9:38 pm)Surgenator Wrote: The measurements say the ratio is 34/23.7 not 34/21. Do you retract your claim?

That is not a ratio my friend...

Really??

Quote:Full Definition of RATIO
1
a : the indicated quotient of two mathematical expressions

Were you homeschooled and taught math with a bible??

At this point isn't it rather obvious that Huggy isn't interested in any sort of ratnal discussion?

(October 3, 2014 at 7:26 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: At this point isn't it rather obvious that Huggy isn't interested in any sort of ratnal discussion?

Anything to avoid having to concede a point. It's pretty much standard operations for theistic apologists.

Only at this point?

(October 3, 2014 at 7:25 am)Brakeman Wrote:

(October 3, 2014 at 1:50 am)Huggy74 Wrote: That is not a ratio my friend...

Really??

Quote:Full Definition of RATIO
1
a : the indicated quotient of two mathematical expressions

Were you homeschooled and taught math with a bible??

yes REALLY!!!!!

A quotient is the result of dividing 2 numbers, 34/23.7 is not a ratio, if you had been paying attention you'd know that the 34 refers to the length of the DNA and the 23.7 the width, the ratio would be 1.434.
this is like remedial math...
BTW if I was home schooled and taught math with a Bible, what does that make you?

I will be waiting patiently for your apology.

(October 3, 2014 at 2:38 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(October 2, 2014 at 9:10 am)Huggy74 Wrote: LOL, still trying to defend his error clearly shows the bias.

I know this is from five pages back, but I have to respond: are you a goddamn child? Can you seriously not conceive of a reason someone might disagree with you, other than that they're out to get you, personally? I explained my reasons for disagreeing with you above, kindly stop pretending I haven't so you can continue to shrug off every little criticism of your inane position as some imagined bias.

But there is Bias, use the above example, Brakeman blindly agreed with Surgenator clearly because he's a fellow atheist, which is fine, but stop pretending you guys are somehow different from christian fundamentalists when you guys exhibit the same psychology. You will defend a untenable position to the death, making you nothing more than lemmings.

I'll give you another example from Mr. Oukoida who thought the secrets of the placebo effect had been discovered

(September 16, 2014 at 6:31 pm)oukoida Wrote: Going back to the start of Huggy's discussion, how the Placebo effect works is well-understood in biology. So much that it is possible to predict if you are predisposed to it. Praise dopamine and peace be upon its receptors!

My post follows...

Let's see all the people that supported his post.
Kudos given by (5): Mister Agenda, Chas, Crossless1, Tonus, Bad Wolf
Hmmm, obviously they didn't bother to read the articles, Stevie Wonder could have seen the discrepancies in his articles. But these individuals agree because the post is from a fellow atheist.

The bias is clear.

As a side note, I read every article and look at every video you guys post, I'll give you guys the benefit of the doubt and do my due diligence, I sat through a hour long video someone posted to make sure I had all the facts. Would an irrational person do this?

but reverse the situation, you guys refuse to do any research all it takes is checking google before you open you mouth, then we wont have situations like this..

Also, one thing I do pride myself on is giving a straight answer, that is to say every time I've been asked a yes or no question, I give a yes or no answer (hows that for being irrational).

examples


I've only asked a total of two yes or no questions on this board, lets see how an atheist responds..

(October 3, 2014 at 2:38 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(October 2, 2014 at 9:10 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Guess what? From 1953....

And as I pointed out in my post- that you conveniently ignored because really the only reason anyone would dare to disagree with the Great Huggy is that they hate him and what he believes in personally- is that a person with a functioning fucking brain would try to consider the reason why someone would object to that specific set of data. Having done that consideration, a sane person would not conclude that all data from 1953 is invalid, as that would also mean that accurate data would be invalid.

You, on the other hand, decided that thinking was for losers (or perhaps honest people, who want to get to the truth, and not just win an argument... ) and to stop looking at the data, to instead proclaim "aha! This is from 1953! It must also be wrong, because it's a bad year for sciencing!"

Quote:You do recognize the concept of contradiction, do you not?

You do recognize the concept of a willful misinterpretation, do you not?

Oh the irony, talk about misrepresentation..

Who said anything about ALL DATA, we were talking specifically MEASUREMENTS, Surgenator clearly asserted that there was newer data available and that the measurements from 1953 were not accurate, fine.

Upon further questioning about the methods for Measuring DNA he posts an article from 1953! Thereby contradicting himself.

You can have it one of two ways, either my measurements from 1953 were in fact correct, or he contradicted himself.

like I said, remove the rose colored glasses.

---

(October 3, 2014 at 7:32 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(October 3, 2014 at 7:26 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: At this point isn't it rather obvious that Huggy isn't interested in any sort of ratnal discussion?

Anything to avoid having to concede a point. It's pretty much standard operations for theistic apologists.

since you want to go there, here one point you never conceded....

(March 4, 2014 at 10:39 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 4, 2014 at 9:04 am)Esquilax Wrote: And I still have the passage that says they can be beaten, you unbelievable moron.

you do not have a passage that says they "CAN" be beaten, you have a passage that says what happens "IF" they are beaten.

(March 4, 2014 at 1:20 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 4, 2014 at 11:57 am)Esquilax Wrote: I have a passage saying that there is no punishment for beating them, meaning there is no law against it.

Now who's being dishonest
this was your exact quote..

(March 4, 2014 at 11:57 am)Esquilax Wrote: And I still have the passage that says they can be beaten, you unbelievable moron.

Still waiting on you to provide that scripture, or do you capitulate?

(October 3, 2014 at 11:54 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 3, 2014 at 7:25 am)Brakeman Wrote: Really??
Were you homeschooled and taught math with a bible??

yes REALLY!!!!!

A quotient is the result of dividing 2 numbers, 34/23.7 is not a ratio, if you had been paying attention you'd know that the 34 refers to the length of the DNA and the 23.7 the width, the ratio would be 1.434.
this is like remedial math...
BTW if I was home schooled and taught math with a Bible, what does that make you?

I will be waiting patiently for your apology.

You will have to wait a long time, because you are wrong.

"34/23.7" is an example of a ratio, as is "34:23.7" as is "34 to 23.7". Read a math book.