Prove it and provide emperical evidence ! I know full well you never made the argument "the sky is not blue". I have explained to you earlier that this is an example "denying the obvious" which you do all the time stating "Prove it" The point is to understand that you can not prove such a thing so it is a stupid thing to ask for proof. [quote Originally Posted by Giftedone the most rediculous example was when you asked me to provide proof that you were claiming to speak for God when you claimed to speak about messages you receive from God through the Holy Spirit. [/QUOTE] When discussing Noah's Ark you claimed that you had "first person evidence" because of your conversations with the Holy Spirit. You disputed the "emperical evidence" (historical, archaeological, geological) against the story because I was not there to personally witness the event. Your claim then is "God told you that the story of Noah's ark was true". How is this not claiming to be relating a message from God ?
You made the claim that I posted an argument that "the sky is not blue". So when you prove that I made the statement that you referenced, then we will have something to discuss. Until then, you are the liar that the records of this forum show that you are. You know full well,,, yet at post $ 177 you post this: "Prove that you did not argue the sky is not blue ! and show emperical evidence for that proof." There is the evidence of your nature of telling lies.
Do you not understand where the lie is that you told? You required me to show proof of a statement which I did not make though you alleged that I did make the statement. That is a lie and a demand for proof based on your lie. You changing your story now (saying "I know full well that you did not make that statement..." )is merely a rationalization to hide your lie.
Point still rests... if those children did INDEED say something like that - that would be a sign of intelligence! Well, guess you just called incorporeal a genius!
Why Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Also, THERE IS VOODOO?!?! Good God of Zion!! So, what he was stating is like coven crap then?!?! I never would have thunk... crazy...
Would Nagasaki and Hiroshima have suffered the blasts that they suffered had it not been for the involvement of scientists using numerology in any of the conceivable ways in which numerology can be used? Sure. It has become a somewhat lucrative business in some parts of the world to include areas of the US such as New Orleans. See here: http://www.neworleansvoodoocrossroads.com/ Of course voodoo is not quite as lucrative as numerology operating under the disguise of Science. You are welcomed to call "what he was stating" whatever you like, but that calling of yours would be a matter between you and him.
Right.. but you missed the point. The point was to show you that even though both you and I know we did not have that debate, that there is no way for you to prove otherwise. The fact of the matter is that we did discuss "the sky is not blue" style of argument previously. Yes or no ?
Wrong! We did not discuss "the sky is not blue" style of argument until you brought it up in this thread.
Indeed we did ... and at length. You were touting some existential stuff as a means of avoiding a topic and I explained that you were denying the obvious. As an example I said that one can successfully debate the sky is blue by denying objective reality.
Nope, just still waiting for all the KNOW it all people on this forum to come forward with the evidence.
Exactly my point. Sheer imagination was the dictator of those numbers... no basis for the numbers in reality.
Well, don't hold back... prevent the irony meters from being totally annihilated and bring forth the evidence that the numbers came from some place other than the imagination.
That answer is too simple and down to earth for Incorporeal. He needs to make it more mysterious and inaccurate.
Not end of story. Where did the numbers for the various weight factors come from? Why the arbitrary establishment of the number 1 representing hydrogen as having 1 electron and 1 proton? What facts did they have other than a set of arbitrary weight factors and hydrogen then known to be the lightest element known? Where did the numbers come from?
On the contrary. I am not looking for simplicity. I am looking for truth. So far no-one on this forum representing the interests of science has been honest in explaining where those numbers came from. Where did the numbers come from?
By weighing the elements. Hydrogen weighed less than Oxygen, and so forth. They took a certain volume of the element and checked it on the scales. This has been explained to you already. It wasn't arbitrary. You keep trying to imply that it was, but the writings of the people who organized the first tables of elements make it very clear that they were systematically organizing these elements by weight. Later advances led to the concept of atomic weight (and the atomic number), which was at first theorized (and supported by practical chemistry), and later demonstrated conclusively through experimentation. You've got your timelines confused, and you haven't bothered to read any of the responses that have explained this process to you. Chemists knew that hydrogen was the lightest known element long before they figured out it had an atomic number of 1. Not even slightly arbitrary. They were definite measurements relative to a known quantity. They knew it was the lightest because it weighed the least. Theory, then later confirmed through experimentation.
Yes, I know you aren't looking for a simple answer. I said as much in my post. You didn't even bother to read it. I specifically said you were doing your best to make the matter more complex than the facts. No you aren't, because you keep denying the truth when people present it to you.
Have you ever done a study on how the system of weights and measures came about? You need to. Now where did the numbers of that system of weights and measures come from? Be honest.
