Search results

I appreciate the defense.

Actually, it was right on point -- demonstrates that you routinely argue from ignorance -- which is what I asserted.

Well, I've never worked with Tony Bennett. But, I've worked with Cold Blood and Tower of Power -- both from the Bay Area. So, like I said, argument from ignorance is where you live.

Like I said, this is where you live.

I'll say we do. This is where you live.

I didn't say that the universe isn't designed. I said there's no evidence of design.

I seek diversion from a really boring job. I enjoy a good argument. I do seek answers, but I filter all information through the screen of verifiability. That's it. No mystery -- no magic.

Responses below... Quote from Ether64: "But, you also don't accept the ruler's existence because even if you could locate it, by definition, you still could never measure its end points." Doesn't this same analogy apply to a basic line? As I recall, mathematics teaches that a line is...

The universe may "appear designed," but that appearance is illusory, which is why Susskind's book is entitled "the ILLUSION of Intelligent Design." If the "appearance" of design is an illusion, then there is no "evidence" of design, because an illusion is not real. Just like this face...

Thanks. The reason why I produced the peer-reviewed article is to demonstrate that there is an ongoing search among classical astrophysicists for the remaining pieces of the puzzle, without necessarily resorting to M-theory or some other as-yet untestible hypothesis. Actually, Hawking has stated...

Your last sentence concludes something which is not supported by anything else in your essay. Do you have any scientific proof that rejection of God requires the belief in a multiverse? There are other theories of cosmology which do not require a multiverse to explain the cosmological...

It's merely your opinion that I reject God, and that my use of the term "if" is somehow a concession to God's existence. As the rest of your conclusions follow from these two incorrect assumptions, your conclusions about me are wrong. So, let me repeat my position: I neither believe nor...

Short vacation. ~12 hours. I asked you a direct question, which you didn't answer. If you had answered the question, we could have proceeded from there. Instead, you play endless games, because you don't know what you're talking about on this subject. If you doubt my conclusion, then I...

There's no point in my having a discussion with someone who apparently believes he's a philosopher who's been dead for over 2,000 years.

Responses below: Quote from jem: You want math buy the books the articles cite. Response: Show me your math. If you can't, you're a coward. ---- You want truth deal with this. I have shown you that the cofounder of string theory and a nobel prize winner state that confirmation...

I can't find a single one of your last 10 posts in this thread that doesn't reek from ad hominems and/or sarcasm clearly intended to provoke a flame war. I'm just calling the kettle black. There's nothing ad hominem in stating the obvious.

PS. As usual, Z has quickly diverted the topic to something irrelevant, so that he can prevail in the argument, rather than having to deal with the substance of the thread. Congratulations -- no one can waste other people's time quite like you, Z.

I recognize that the NAS study found that polygraphs weren't very good. But, that study did not do independent testing to my knowledge -- it only examined the results of third party studies to determine their scientific rigor. Judges routinely require polygraph exams from persons on...

I can attach a polygraph to almost any witness and scientifically verify his/her motive in about 10 minutes. It's just not admissible in court without consent of all parties.

Pathetic definition, but I'll use it until you move the goalpost. The court considers motive principally for the purpose of finding that a person had the intent to do an act/omission, which is an element in creating legal liability. Motive is considered, based on what an objectively...