|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
 Posted - 09/30/2009 : 20:47:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jakesteele
I was wondering if the debris of the flares from the Phoenix Light's was ever retrieved and shown to the public to corroborate the Official Story of the Air Force?
Reply With Quote
|
By the way, the "Phoenix lights" which were not seen over the city of Phoenix but over South Mountain Park, located logically south of town, were video-taped by amateurs and local TV. The videos to me looked like slowly descending flares, systematically dropped at night on schedule so as to be evenly spaced and possibly dropped from helicopters.
I lived in Phoenix for many years. South Mountain Park is pretty rugged even today. There are hiking trails and horse trails but you could drop 1000 flares over those mountains and probably not find one of them among the cactus beds, boulders and jagged rocks in daylight.
And, as requested, here is the quote:
"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana." - Groucho Marx |
 |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/01/2009 : 00:55:02 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Mabuse.....
Posting to you, I said:| ... and coming to any final conclusion is premature." |
Your response was:I don't agree.
There comes a point, sooner or later, when the chase isn't worth the cost. At some point, it's reasonable to throw our hands in the air and say "enough already, this isn't productive anymore!". |
It depends what the cost is and what the possible payoff may be. For many years, the US military actively investigated and analyzed UAP reports. Their interest was predominantly driven by the premise that the UAP might possibly be examples of Soviet technology. After the end of the Cold War, this interest declined because few or no other countries were deemed capable of producing such advanced technology.
At this point, the chase was not worth the cost anymore to the Air Force. But I am certain that the Air Force has not "come to a final conclusion" as in "all UAP have been explained." In fact, numerous unexplained events appear in all the Air Force studies of UAP.
Today this still holds. No Arab or Oriental country today is considered capable of developing any aircraft close to the alleged performance of many observed UFO's. If sightings were to drastically increase and the attendant publicity rise to the level of the fifties and sixties, I have no doubt that the attention of the US military and intelligence agencies would quickly be focused on both current and past events, irrespective of the cost or time required.
As I have opined to Dave above, unless there is a significant ROI in terms of money or power (military advantage) neither Government or the private sector is liable to undertake this kind of investigation.| If we have no better explanation for the weird lights, conjuring up a hypothesis, I'd prefer to go with "space aliens flaunts their ship" rather than "Jesus made'em glow". |
Well, "Jesus made 'em glow" is about as good as many of the other explanations of the Phoenix Lights. Do you prefer dozens of homemade hot air balloons with five-minute highway flares attached to them rising to the proper altitude, assembling themselves in a giant "V" formation and then floating in formation all over the Phoenix Valley area for several hours?
Or would you rather have dozens of military flares dropped from a single airforce plane by parachutes, again assembling themselves into a formation (although they were presumably dropped sequentially while the plane was flying at several hundred miles per hour) and, after making formation, moving around for hours in formation without extinguishing?
I'm liking the Jesus hypothesis better and better!| It seems to me that such a stance presumes that these unexplained events has the evidence and data to exclude all standard explanations. |
It presumes that all the possible explanations explored in the investigation of the explained events have been tested on the UEX and have failed. | What if that mysterious event really was a military aircraft, but how much we search we still can't find any flight recorded nor any records of a radar contact? |
Then this would not be an example of an explained UAP, for even though there is a highly plausible explanation it is not verifiable.
Actually, the only hypothesis that makes much sense as an explanation for the Phoenix Lights is unidentified lighted aircraft capable of a considerable range of altitude and speed, and completely silent. Not from Saturn or Sagittarius but probably Groom Lake or a similar Air Force facility. So if this is the case, this example probably will remain unverified, and therefore unexplained. There may be others like this. They too will likely remain unverified. But this is no reason to assume that all these unexplained examples are in fact explicable by the same factors that dismissed the other cases.| so you agree that we cannot exclude reasonable and/or mundane explanations, though we can't find any evidence they caused the observation? |
Well, there is a difference between an explanation and a hypothesis. If no evidence or only faulty evidence can be found for a hypothesis,it cannot be accepted as an explanation and the event must remain unexplained.
So it is really a hell of a lot easier to say, "I can't tell you how they did it but it was either pranksters or the Air Force" and most incurious folks are happy with that. The incident of the Phoenix Lights has not been thoroughly investigated as yet, and probably will never be. If it were to be, the possibility of the lights being installed on military aircraft would certainly be considered and probably the investigation would stall right there. As to whether the better hypothesis would be alien spaceships or military aircraft, Occam's razor would effectively shred the alien hypothesis!
Although the impact on astrophysics, philosophy, and theology (to name a few) would be immense, I don't believe many governments, businesses, or ordinary citizens would be overwhelmingly affected by an announcement of an actually verified (peaceful) ALIEN VISITATION, even though most seem to think that this fantasy would be world-shaking!
"What's in it for me?" would be the position of those who believed the announcement, a great many would not believe it at all until the publicity was overwhelming; and even then, unless the AV affected their everyday lives, few would give it much thought. In a short time it would not be a very big deal to the common citizen. Depending upon the degree of communication possible with the aliens; nations and corporations would vie for technology information, religious leaders would attempt to evangelize them, but the common man, if he had much interest at all, would simply want to know how he might benefit from this latest news event!
Let me state again my personal view. Such a visitation is highly unlikely in the foreseeable future! Unexplained UAP are very likely to be events of earth bound origin or established astronomical phenomena! Little green or grey buggers are not beyond the realm of possibility, but neither are they likely!
|
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 10/01/2009 : 09:40:57 [Permalink]
|
| I actually had to explain to my kids last week (ages 9&11) that the term U.F.O. does NOT mean alien visitors. It simply means unidentified flying object, nothing more. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/01/2009 : 23:52:29 [Permalink]
|
Jake Steele.....
I am still awaiting your response to my request. I respect how you handled yourself in your exchanges with Dave, (no easy matter, he can be a teratism), and I assure you I am not on your case.
Many of the folks here wouldn't hear of any reference to UAP even if they took a ride in one. There is no evidence for that mindset. But you appear to have something of an open mind as to at least considering the possibility that it is not all swamp gas, balloons, flares, and hallucination, or else it has all been settled long ago. I assure you that is not true.
So I would still like you to put down your thoughts concerning the wiki article I linked, and convey your views on all aspects of the Phoenix Lights, or any other UAP that may have caught your attention!
I am not here to argue with or riducule you, I sincerely would like to hear your comments beyond the detail-hashing that you and Dave engaged in earlier in this thread!
I don't particularly like PM's , but if you want to, send me one!
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2009 : 08:15:23 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
To confess the whole truth, these events fascinate me, along with hundreds of other odd, curious, unexplained, mysterious, and highly suspect phenomena. The chances are high that 90+ percent of all this shit is pure, unadulterated bullshit or else extremely ordinary occurences of one kind or another.
|
There is that petard again. Need some help unhoisting yourself?
I'm sure what you meant to say is that the "chances are high that 100 percent of all this is pure, unadulterated bullshit or else extremely ordinary occurences of one kind or another."
Because if you think only 90% of it may be mundane or bullshit, that means you think 10% of it surely has some fantastic explanation. One of these days you are going to seriously hurt yourself with that petard of yours.... good thing for you it is probably a bit flaccid with age!
There is a view in Sweden that pursuing answers to puzzles which have no answer or whose answer is very difficult to discover is not worth the time or trouble. Nor is it worth any time or trouble to further question that which has been questioned and, not yielding answers, then abandoned by earlier questioners. My passion is exactly the opposite, but it has nothing to do with an appetite for bullshit. I can recognize woo as well as you, and I delight in people like Randi who make a profession of exposing professed "supernatural" events.
I guess it all depends on your temperament. I happen to be insatiably curious. I also have a surfeit of time and no need to use much of it in the pursuit of wealth, happiness, and tomorrow's beans. So practicality doesn't even count! If it did, I wouldn't spend time writing posts like this! |
I don't have any problems with curiosity. I have a problem with your flawed reasoning. Say that you were looking for an explanation for holes in your lawn. You have 1000 holes, and in 990 of them you discover an infestation of small rodents, but you don't find rodents in those last 10. Why the hell would you bother to continue looking for some alternate explanation for those 10 holes, even though they fall within the same size range as all the rest?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
jakesteele
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2009 : 08:20:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by jakesteele
Your 3rd question about kidney problem: “How is one to tell the difference between utter nonsense and good pointers?”
Do research and consult your doctor. |
But you suggested Googling.The dietary, nutrient and the herbal recommendations are very similar to one another with some variations. I’ve done plenty of research in matters like this and I was able to separate the wheat from the chaff.
|
I don't think you have, but that's not relevant to this thread.[
I've tried to be civil with you but you seem to be hardwired to be a dick. You are saying that you think I might be a liar. I'm tired of your bullshit. Don't even bother posting to me, you'll be wasting your time.
quote]Now, I have answered you question in the matter, so let’s get back to the matter at hand.
1. “how much is required before we can arrive at any conclusion?”
***As much as is humanly possible before you come to a conclusion. |
This is an unreasonable standard.
Say you work in an auto-parts store, and you get a crate of 100 Acme camshafts, and you notice that the first five you've uncrated and shelved all had 14-digit serial numbers on them. Your buddy Doug had told you that Acme puts 12-digit serial numbers on its camshafts. So you go to Acme's Web site and find a page on parts counterfeiting that says, "Acme has always used 14-digit serial numbers, and will always continue to use 14-digit serial numbers."
By any reasonable standard of evidence, the question has been asked and answered. Conclusively. By the "as much as humanly possible" standard of evidence, you would have to examine the other 95 camshafts in the crate, call Doug to find out when you can go to his shop to examine his Acme camshafts, drop in on other parts stores around the state, etc., before ever daring to conclude that Acme uses 14-digit serial numbers on its camshafts.2. . “Under what conditions and how long does it take before flare-parachute weathering makes a measurable difference?”
*****on another site someone said that the wind would have the effect of scattering them all across Hell’s half acre. To me, that makes a lot of sense and it would make finding them nigh on to impossible unless you could coordinate a grid search that encompassed many, many miles of turf. |
Yeah, I figured that much, which is why I asked a different question: how much weathering is needed before a difference can be discerned?| For my purposes’ I am satisfied with that explanation. |
But you haven't gathered as much evidence as humanly possible. Nobody has.3. “But it's obvious that you do doubt the "Official Story," because a pilot saying "I dropped flares at that time" is a perfectly reasonable explanation, no more evidence necessary. But you think that that's not enough for a "completely definitive conclusion."
****That’s your perception that I doubt. I would appreciate it if you would not twist and misconstrue what I’m saying and not put words in my mouth.
How about this? I have a few simple questions; that’s it, that’s all there is to it, nothing sinister, here. |
Doubt certainly isn't sinister. Doubt coupled with unreasonable standards of evidence is a different matter.4. “You're wrong. VFR doesn't require the filing of a flight plan...”
*****I stand corrected. The reason I assumed that is because my dad was a commercial jet pilot and one of his co-workers had a small plane we flew on fairly often. They always filed with the local towers due to safety reasons so that if we crashed they would have some idea of where we should be to start the search. |
Yeah, it's like wearing a motorcycle helmet in a state which doesn't require them. It's a good idea, but you don't have to.1. “More important still is the question you dodged. What sort of evidence would satisfy you? If you're willing to entertain the possibility that a pilot lied about dropping flares…”
******I didn’t say there wasn’t enough evidence to draw a conclusion, you straw manned me. |
You said, "I think both the debunkers and the believers should go out and do it on their own time. Neither side cannot arrive at completely definitive conclusion without having all of the evidence available." Should I have read that differently than "there isn't enough evidence to draw a conclusion?"| • What sort of evidence would satisfy me? As much as humanly possible. |
See above.| • As I stated above, the explanation from another site satisfies me. |
But why?You’ve done this three times now. You need to stop it. It’s a straw man or whatever you want to call it
1. But it's obvious that you do doubt the "Official Story
2. If you're willing to entertain the possibility that a pilot lied about dropping flares
2. unweathered burnt-out flare parachutes were planted as a part of a cover-up. |
Now you're doing it.Now, that question was answered in a civil manner and fashion on another site. I am satisfied with the answer. Now I need help on another question. Below is an overview of the events that occurred that night and I have a couple of simple, civil questions that I would appreciate as straight forward of an answer as possible. I might add that I am asking these questions on a skeptic’s site rather than on a UFO site because I know what I’ll get there.
Lights of varying descriptions were seen by thousands of people between 7:30 and 10:30 MST, in a space of about 300 miles,
1. First report came from Henderson, Nevada at 7:30 and Phoenix Lights ended approx. 10;30
2. 3 hr. time span (7:30pm – 10:30pm)
3. 300 miles distance from Henderson, Nevada to Barry Goldwater firing range.
4. astronomer sighting in Phoenix approx. 250 miles away from Henderson at 10:00pm
5. The LUU-2 has a burn time of approximately *5 minutes while suspended from a parachute
6. Flares at Henderson would have to travel hundreds and thousands of mph to get to Phoenix in 5 mins. So obviously, the first event couldn’t be flares unless the N. Guard were dropping them intermittently from Henderson to Phoenix.
*(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/luu2.htm - “LUU-2 has a burn time of approximately 5 minutes while suspended from a parachute.”)
3. Did the N. Guard start at Henderson and drop flares intermittently over the 300 mile stretch?
4. If, so, did they announce it like they announced the Phoenix?
5. If not, what explanation has been given for the first stretch of sightings that traveled approx. 250 miles and took 2 to 2 and a half hrs.? |
Light travels at 186,000 miles per second. What were the headings, azimuths, lat/long and times of the various sightings? We can plot them on a map and perhaps discover something.
[/quote] |
Sacred Cows make the tastiest hamburgers |
|
|
|
jakesteele
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2009 : 08:57:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Jakesteele.....
Look at the wiki article on the Phoenix lights. Read the associated links and references. Then give us your evaluation of the explanations -"official" - and otherwise. I, probably the only one, would be interested in your response.
|
After doing more research and gotten some good info from people on other sites I now accept the Official Story of the Phoenix incident. What I found particularly compelling was the UFOlogist, Bruce Maccabbe (sp) who is an optical physicist. He did an impressive analysis and came to the same conclusion that the flares were, indeed, over and behind the mountain range.
Phoenix was the second incident, Henderson, Nevada was the first incident. There still isn't a good explanation for it that I can find. A guy on JREF, Astrophotographer, who I respect, said something to the effect, "My 'theory' is that...and then he went into Canadian Tudtor (sp) planes flying around and possibly flying in a formation that was not allowed but they fudged." That is very weak. The first event is almost completely overshadowed by the second and as a result, so far, there hasn't been a solid explanation, at least that I can find.
One thing to keep in mind is that debunking boils down to trying to always find a plausible, mundane. Occam's Razor always gets thrown about as though it is not usually the best, but always the best. The other side of that blade is what I call Occam's Beard - the simplest explanation is not always the best. My experience with debunkers is that they go into a situation with their minds already made up that
1. it can't be, therefore it isn't.
2. Whatever is claimed is something else.
3. Absence of proof is proof of absence
4. All UFO photos are fake, even the real ones
Now, to balance that, I think a big majority of the sightings are mundanes. There is a small group that are unexplained. Of that group, I think there are a number of plausible explainations that we just can't figure out due to lack of data. However, there are some sightings I can't casually write off. I fing the reports of skilled, experienced pilots and radar people, etc., particularily compelling. Sorry, but I don't buy the Venus thing over and over again. My father was a 727-747 pilot for 30 yrs. and was never fooled by Venus or the other plausibles. Although he never saw one, he told me that any pilot 'worth his salt' and has been around is aware of most of those things, including satellites.
There's too many of those types of things to brush aside. That said, I am not saying that they are the real deal, I don't know. I start off with sightings thinking, "I'll bet there is a boring explanation." Most of the time there is. But in the Henderson, Nevada case, there, so far, is not a plausible explain given. The Canadian pilots have not come forth even though everybody and his dog knows about the two incidents.
There, that's my two cents.
|
Sacred Cows make the tastiest hamburgers |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2009 : 09:46:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by jakesteele
I've tried to be civil with you but you seem to be hardwired to be a dick. You are saying that you think I might be a liar. I'm tired of your bullshit. Don't even bother posting to me, you'll be wasting your time. |
No, I never once said, suggested or implied that you're a liar. I think you are mistakenly advocating unreasonably low standards of evidence for alt-med, and unreasonably high standards of evidence for the Phoenix Lights. If you want to call that "bullshit" and ignore me, that's your choice, of course. But it suggests that your "I'm just asking a question" defense was itself bullshit, and your "two cents" response to bngbuck confirms that to some degree. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2009 : 10:46:51 [Permalink]
|
Jakesteele.....
Thanks for your response. I must apologize for my drama queen performance attempt to bring you back to the Forum. Frequently, posters with controversial views will make an initial statement here, stir up a lot of largely adversarial interest, but never return to defend their positions.
Naturally, they are condemnned as trolls, cowards, hit and runners, flyby's, etc. There is some merit in this condemnation. By and large, this is a serious discussion group operating at a pretty high intellectual level. Although there is lockstep on some issues (I confess to some degree of goose-stepping), controversy fuels much of the commentary. Many posters put considerable thought, research, and contemplation in their answers to the initial challenge. Dave is one example of a poster that usually offers substantial refutation to poorly constructed arguments.
When an arguable, (or more likely, confutable) view is presented and well answered and then the proponent of that view fails to return to defend his assertions; scorn is the natural response. Besides, it really spoils the fun when the lions swallow the gladiator before he even pulls his sword! It is like a debate team walking off the stage and not returning when it's their time to respond to the other side!
Suffice to say I'm glad to see you return and stand up well under attack.
Cut to the chase.| After doing more research and gotten some good info from people on other sites I now accept the Official Story of the Phoenix incident. What I found particularly compelling was the UFOlogist, (sp)Bruce Maccabbe who is an optical physicist. He did an impressive analysis and came to the same conclusion that the flares were, indeed, over and behind the mountain range. |
I understand the persuasion of the "flares behind the mountain" analysis, but what is your understanding of the mechanics and logistics involved in maintaining an even and uniform spacing and "formation" arrangement with flares on parachutes either dropped sequentially from aircraft moving at several hundred miles per hour; or achieving a "formation" and lateral movement after being launched under homemade hot air balloons by one man in his back yard?
1. How could the flares maintain a V formation for several hours and maintain their altitude, when they are ostensibly free-floating under parachutes or hot air balloons?
2. Why didn't the flares extinguish after a relatively(five?) minutes burn time?
3. Why didn't they hit the the ground in a minute or two as the parachutes broke their freefall to a slower descent; or as the hot air cooled in the balloon and it's vertical ascent changed to a descent?
4. How did the vertical descent (parachutes) or vertical ascent (hot air balloons) change to slow horizontal movement lasting (according to many accounts) for several hours?
If, in fact, the flare scenario is the appropriate explanation for this event, it appears to me that the geometry, physics, and logistics of these questions must be properly addressed.
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2009 : 11:30:25 [Permalink]
|
Dude......
There is that petard again. Need some help unhoisting yourself?
|
Well, Dude, I really can only do it once. petards don't reassemble themselves!| I'm sure what you meant to say is that the "chances are high that 100 percent of all this is pure, unadulterated bullshit or else extremely ordinary occurences of one kind or another." |
Don't be too sure. You are wrong. I meant 90%!| Because if you think only 90% of it may be mundane or bullshit, that means you think 10% of it surely has some fantastic explanation. |
This is a leap of presumption unworthy of even your condition of high dudgeon.
"You think 10% of it surely has some fantastic explanation" What would that "fantastic" explanation be, "Dude? I have alluded to no fantasy of any sort. Your neurotic paranoia about the subject of UAP causes you to babble hysterically about phantasms that do not exist. Try Xanax, I'm sure it's available to you.| Say that you were looking for an explanation for holes in your lawn. You have 1000 holes, and in 990 of them you discover an infestation of small rodents, but you don't find rodents in those last 10. Why the hell would you bother to continue looking for some alternate explanation for those 10 holes, even though they fall within the same size range as all the rest? |
Say that you bet on roulette red in Vegas. Black comes up 990 times in a row. Why in the hell would you bother to continue to bet on red? Because you have a 50/50 chance of recouping some or all of your losses!
|
| Edited by - bngbuck on 10/02/2009 11:33:28 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2009 : 13:10:52 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
Creationism. In any formation of several hundred marchers there is usually a clumsy contrarian or two like Bill scott that has two left feet. Naturally in SFN's 2534 menbers (most of whom are hardly ever or very seldom heard from) there are a few devout theists, party-line Republicans, flat-earthers, and the like. But on many issues like Intelligent Design, Creationism, and the really controversial political topics that divide America and most cocktail parties, the regular Gang of Thirty-Odd (posters with high 3 digit or 4&5 digit posting numbers) are remarkably monolithic in their views on most of the subjects above.
Of course there are exceptions. But the folks that post the most also pretty much agree on many basic issues. After all, this is a SKEPTIC'S forum, isn't it?
How many of SFN's 63 anointed, addicted, hard dead, or panthea are possibly creationists? How many are very likely not? Most, I suspect. |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 10/02/2009 13:19:24 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2009 : 14:05:19 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
| Why the hell would you bother to continue looking for some alternate explanation for those 10 holes, even though they fall within the same size range as all the rest? |
Because I might find the rodentfucking Queen rodent and kill the little bitch! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2009 : 14:58:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dave.....
Creationism. In any formation of several hundred marchers there is usually a clumsy contrarian or two like Bill scott that has two left feet. Naturally in SFN's 2534 menbers (most of whom are hardly ever or very seldom heard from) there are a few devout theists, party-line Republicans, flat-earthers, and the like. But on many issues like Intelligent Design, Creationism, and the really controversial political topics that divide America and most cocktail parties, the regular Gang of Thirty-Odd (posters with high 3 digit or 4&5 digit posting numbers) are remarkably monolithic in their views on most of the subjects above.
Of course there are exceptions. But the folks that post the most also pretty much agree on many basic issues. After all, this is a SKEPTIC'S forum, isn't it?
How many of SFN's 63 anointed, addicted, hard dead, or panthea are possibly creationists? How many are very likely not? Most, I suspect. |
If that's the sort of marching in lockstep you were intending when replying to jakesteele, then the example you may as well have given is "water is wet."
But while we may all agree that creationism is a pile of garbage, we certainly don't all agree on what to do about it. And if you want to see divisions among us, just start a thread about gun control, the Iraq war, philosophical determinism or the politics of moderate theism.
And, of course, the more-important thing is that even if we were to all agree on all these things, we don't demand that visitors do, too. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2009 : 16:20:01 [Permalink]
|
Dave......
Originally posted by bngbuck| Although there is lockstep on some issues... |
Response by DaveAnswer to Dave's question
Dave's response| If that's the sort of marching in lockstep you were intending when replying to jakesteele, then the example you may as well have given is "water is wet." |
I really don't think "water is wet" would pick up the gauntlet as you threw it. I was speaking to Jakesteele about issues. The wetness of water is not an issue. Creationism certainly is an issue. There are others. I directly answered your demand to "name one"! Touché would be appropriate. I am sure you were thinking of "UAP".| But while we may all agree that creationism is a pile of garbage, we certainly don't all agree on what to do about it. |
"All" is too all-inclusive. Almost all of us would agree that what to do about it would be to eliminate it because it's a bunch of harmful bullshit!
How to accomplish that consummation devoutly to be wished is definitely debatable. The lawyer solution comes to mind.......
| And if you want to see divisions among us, just start a thread about gun control, the Iraq war, philosophical determinism or the politics of moderate theism. |
Those would be some issues I would not have mentioned in response to your challenge.| And, of course, the more-important thing is that even if we were to all agree on all these things, we don't demand that visitors do, too. |
I would hope not! The posture of a skeptic, if he tends toward evangelicism, is to persuade, not demand. As is the essence of a good debate. However, strong enough persuasion presents a demand to the thoughtful that only irrationality can refuse.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Phoenix Lights flare debris
