09 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis "probability argument" is simply lifted word for word from Life -- How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?. That's right: you are just a shameless plagiarist of inane Watchtower publications. You keep demonstrating this sad fact over and over on these boards.
Anyone who condemns something without having made an evaluation of it himself needs his bum felt, especially if he simply takes it upon trust from dubious sources, he is a gullible man, putting faith in every word!
The science of mathematical probability offers striking proof that the Genesis creation account must have come from a source with know ...[text shortened]... in the right order without getting the facts from somewhere is not realistic, nor scientific!!!
And Christ if this isn't the most idiotic argument ever. You're sure scraping the bottom of the barrel for arguments to plagiarize. To recap: one should think the account "must have come from a source with knowledge of the events", given that the account demonstrates some remarkable insight concerning relation of said events -- such as that "a beginning" should come at the beginning; and such as that land plants should appear after land. And what exactly does conceiving of an account that largely just accords with these and other idiot-proof considerations have to do with picking numbers at random from a box? Well, nothing, of course.
The argument is particularly asinine, even for a Watchtower publication.
09 Jan 10
Originally posted by LemonJelloAh, That's the reason he couldn't answer the questions I gave about that question. He just copied and pasted without even reading it.
This "probability argument" is simply lifted word for word from Life -- How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?. That's right: you are just a shameless plagiarist of inane Watchtower publications. You keep demonstrating this sad fact over and over on these boards.
And Christ if this isn't the most idiotic argument ever. You're su ...[text shortened]... of course.
The argument is particularly asinine, even for a Watchtower publication.
Does he ever read what he writes in his postings? Or is he just re-vomiting other's words?
09 Jan 10
3 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloi am a Jehovahs witness, I am a therefore a representative of the watchtower society, what that means is that i am at liberty to use any publication of the watchtower society as i see fit, in educational work or otherwise. whether i choose to incorporate them into my posts in the spirituality forum is none of your business. whether i choose to state the source is again none of your business. if you do not like the posts then do not read them. I will continue to use any reference that i see fit that corroborates the point that i am trying to make, if you do not like it, then do not read the text. i will not for you nor any other individual name any source. if you wish to continue to assert cases of plagiarism, then be my guest it makes absolutely no difference to me. So that it penetrates the layer of your skull and does not reverberate against the side of your head, let me repeat it, i will not state for you or anyone else the source of any material unless i am asked, get over it. You may respond but as far as i am concerned you are also a person non grata.
This "probability argument" is simply lifted word for word from Life -- How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?. That's right: you are just a shameless plagiarist of inane Watchtower publications. You keep demonstrating this sad fact over and over on these boards.
And Christ if this isn't the most idiotic argument ever. You're su of course.
The argument is particularly asinine, even for a Watchtower publication.
09 Jan 10
2 edits
as far as i am concerned Wolfgang, the creative days are as follows,
1: beginning of physical universe, creation of luminaries, primitive earth etc
2:creation of expanse or atmosphere
3:emergence of large areas of land, land plants and emergence of diffused light
4:the emergence of clear visible light from the standpoint of an observer upon earth
5:creation of sea creatures, fish, amphibians, reptiles
6:creation of land based animals according to their kinds, creation of humans
if you wish to discuss any of the details , you are most welcome.
09 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is a part of your religion?
as far as i am concerned Wolfgang, the creative days are as follows,
1: beginning of physical universe, creation of luminaries, primitive earth etc
2:creation of expanse or atmosphere
3:emergence of large areas of land, land plants and emergence of diffused light
4:the emergence of clear visible light from the standpoint of an observer u ...[text shortened]... nds, creation of humans
if you wish to discuss any of the details , you are most welcome.
And you will not claim it's scientific truth?
Okay, then I don't have anything against it.
10 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieif you wish to continue to assert cases of plagiarism, then be my guest
i am a Jehovahs witness, I am a therefore a representative of the watchtower society, what that means is that i am at liberty to use any publication of the watchtower society as i see fit, in educational work or otherwise. whether i choose to incorporate them into my posts in the spirituality forum is none of your business. whether i choose to stat ...[text shortened]... get over it. You may respond but as far as i am concerned you are also a person non grata.[/b]
I may continue to do that, as appropriate. Somehow, amazingly, you still don't get it. That you use sources and references is perfectly fine per se. By all means, use whatever sources and excerpts that you think will help you make your points well. I hope that you will do so, to the extent that it lets you debate well and flourish in the forums. But, please cite the sources, as this is a basic and reasonable expectation of the community. That you willfully keep failing to cite such sources (such that there is the implicit expectation within the community that such is your own work and intellectual property, when in fact you know it is not) is called plagiarism. That you keep persisting in such plagiarism, despite all the times you have been called on it, is really unconscionable. It speaks to the subject of intellectual integrity. Unfortunately, you just seem to have none.
Beyond that, I'm not above just taking the content of your posts on their merits (regardless if they have been plagiarized or not). As I mentioned, the argument you presented is, taken on its own merits, outrageously bad.
10 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJellowe write our own literature, print our own literature, edit our own literature, pack our own literature, translate our own literature, ship our own literature, finance our own literature, post our own literature in a public forum. I am at perfect liberty to use that source as an ordained minster of Jehovah witnesses, do you understand that. i dont need your permission, nor do i need to cite the source. if you do not like that, then do not read the post, you may whinge about it until you are blue in the face i have nothing to be remorseful about. if you wish to know the source then you may ask, but i shall not be making it a practice to forward it. Do you understand that? Whinge all you like, it shall not make one bit of difference.
[b]if you wish to continue to assert cases of plagiarism, then be my guest
I may continue to do that, as appropriate. Somehow, amazingly, you still don't get it. That you use sources and references is perfectly fine per se. By all means, use whatever sources and excerpts that you think will help you make your points well. I hope that you t). As I mentioned, the argument you presented is, taken on its own merits, outrageously bad.[/b]
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
10 Jan 10
Originally posted by BadwaterMmm Kay...
The are two creation stories. They have different views of God, different creation starting materials, different views of men and women, and different sequences of creation. They can only be called the same, or aligned, or congruent, by the most irrational of thought that wishes to ignore one for the other.
10 Jan 10
Originally posted by Badwaternow Baddy you and i know there is only one, we have been through that, so let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late! all along the watchtower, princes kept the view, while all the women came and went, barefoot servants too, outside in the cold distance, a wild cat did growl, two riders were approaching, and the wind began to howl......
Mmm Kay...
10 Jan 10
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am at perfect liberty to use that source as an ordained minster of Jehovah witnesses, do you understand that
we write our own literature, print our own literature, edit our own literature, pack our own literature, translate our own literature, ship our own literature, finance our own literature, post our own literature in a public forum. I am at perfect liberty to use that source as an ordained minster of Jehovah witnesses, do you understand that. i dont ...[text shortened]... ward it. Do you understand that? Whinge all you like, it shall not make one bit of difference.
Well, gee, as an atheist I am at liberty to use that source, too. But if I copy and paste stuff out of it and post it somewhere where there is reasonable expectation that what I post represents my own work; and yet fail to cite and acknowledge the source; then that is plagiarism. Even if the motivation to represent it as your own original work is not there to an egregious level, I think we can agree it at least constitutes bad practice. Same goes for you, too. What's so hard to understand about this?
nor do i need to cite the source
Wrong. This is the part that you keep failing to understand.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
10 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMy dear Robbie, you and I know that we differ on the creation stories.
now Baddy you and i know there is only one, we have been through that, so let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late! all along the watchtower, princes kept the view, while all the women came and went, barefoot servants too, outside in the cold distance, a wild cat did growl, two riders were approaching, and the wind began to howl......
I will give you what I give no other; that is, that we agree to disagree.
10 Jan 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobielol. How can we know we dont like it if we dont read it first?
i am a Jehovahs witness, I am a therefore a representative of the watchtower society, what that means is that i am at liberty to use any publication of the watchtower society as i see fit, in educational work or otherwise. whether i choose to incorporate them into my posts in the spirituality forum is none of your business. whether i choose to stat ...[text shortened]... get over it. You may respond but as far as i am concerned you are also a person non grata.[/b]
10 Jan 10
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloi post many things and have very most excellent discussion with persons like Conrau, i simply state, i would like you to consider this article, or when i incorporate something from our literature you dont hear Conrau whinging about it, do you? or badwater, or even Rajk66 or Noobster, get over it. two greatest whingers in this regard are you and thinkofone, well you can whinge all you like.
[b]I am at perfect liberty to use that source as an ordained minster of Jehovah witnesses, do you understand that
Well, gee, as an atheist I am at liberty to use that source, too. But if I copy and paste stuff out of it and post it somewhere where there is reasonable expectation that what I post represents my own work; and yet fail to cite and ack i need to cite the source[/b]
Wrong. This is the part that you keep failing to understand.[/b]