Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 07-20-2004, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWevcTREE

While Dr. Scott has written about 15-20 books, he is not an author.

I can only assume you meant a different word than "book" here but I'm not sure what it might have been.

Quote:

Dr. Scott, by his own admission has no time or desire to write books or publish his research.

I think it might be more accurate for him to say he chooses to spend his time otherwise but I think I understand. I would be interested in what he has "written about 15-20" of, though, if they aren't books.

Quote:

"Peer Review" is a structure for invoking ones subjective beliefs to be objective truth, thus if someone is out of favor with the crowd they are subject to peer review blackmail.

Is this your opinion or one expressed by Dr. Scott?

Is there a reason why transcripts of his teachings are not made available on his website?

Has Dr. Scott ever been confronted with sufficient evidence against a specific claim that he felt compelled to change a prior conclusion?

If not, do you consider it possible for Dr. Scott to ever reach a false conclusion?

funinspace · 07-20-2004, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWevcTREE

Pure tabloid style rant.

Every great person has their jealous mob of innuendo inventors who are infuriated with the irrefutable research, therefore, they respond with non-evidenciary personal attacks which diametrically mirror the quality of the research.
.
.

Rant? From Yahoo:

Quote:

VERB: Inflected forms: rant·ed, rant·ing, rants

INTRANSITIVE VERB: To speak or write in a angry or violent manner; rave.
TRANSITIVE VERB: To utter or express with violence or extravagance: a dictator who ranted his vitriol onto a captive audience.
NOUN: 1. Violent or extravagant speech or writing.

I read only one user ranting... :banghead:

But at least the claims of peer-authority has been deep sixed. Now if the term "research" would stop being abused.... I think your Scotty's pyramid scheme, I mean theory, was fully refuted in the other thread. So another empty claim.

Sven · 07-21-2004, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WILLOWevcTREE

Pure tabloid style rant.
Every great person has their jealous mob of innuendo inventors who are infuriated with the irrefutable research, therefore, they respond with non-evidenciary personal attacks which diametrically mirror the quality of the research.

"... they also laughed at Bozo the clown."
(I think most here are familar with this quote).

Quote:

Dr. Scott is the smartest person in the world.

You are Scott. This is IRREFUTABLE (to use your own words).

Quote:

Dr. Scott PROVES every week that ALL these translations in ALL these different languages say the exact same thing just a little differently to drill home the truth of each verse.

Wow. Even the most ardent fundies normally agree that there are some translation errors. Scotts stance seems to me far beyond "normal" self-delusion.

Sven · 07-21-2004, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

If not, do you consider it possible for Dr. Scott to ever reach a false conclusion?

How could he? Didn't you know, WILLOWevcTREE ..... eh .... Dr. Scott is the smartest person in the world! He's just as infallible as every single translation of the bible!

Vorkosigan · 07-21-2004, 02:40 AM

Methinks the good Dr. Scott has been ripped to shreds here, and we should probably return to the OP and prophecy claims. Which was:

"The power of God to forsee the reaction of little children and their ability to recognize the Messiah on sight !

A stunning prophecy fulfillment !"

It looks like this is fiction based on the Old Testament. Can you supply us with reasons to take this affair with the children as an event that actually occurred in history?

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13 · 07-21-2004, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Methinks the good Dr. Scott has been ripped to shreds here, and we should probably return to the OP and prophecy claims.

You are correct. I was distracted by the enormous zealous devotion exhibited.

Willow,

If you wish to answer my questions, feel free to send them via Private Message rather than continue to derail from the OP.

Regarding the more relevant critiques offered in this thread, I would be interested in the answers that address the specific points raised by CX here, here, here, and here.

However, I suspect that Willow considers Dr. Scott to be the only authority or source necessary for any claim.

WILLOWTREE · 07-21-2004, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Even the most ardent fundies normally agree that there are some translation errors.

I didn't say there were no errors - you have deliberately misquoted me.

Dr. Scott is not an inerrantist.

WILLOWTREE · 07-21-2004, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Has Dr. Scott ever been confronted with sufficient evidence against a specific claim that he felt compelled to change a prior conclusion?

If not, do you consider it possible for Dr. Scott to ever reach a false conclusion?

He used to stay neutral concerning evolution, knowing the claims of Genesis do not contradict nor are jeopadized by evolution. But now, he has demolished evolution for what it is: micro facts of scientific truth extrapolated out into the macro all because this God senseless generation is suffering the wrath of God.

I have NEVER discovered Dr. Scott to be wrong, mistaken, or incorrect.

He never opens his mouth until he completely masters an issue/subject.

Still, nobody in this debate can refute my source.

The personal attacks of lie and innuendo prove it.

WILLOWTREE · 07-21-2004, 11:05 AM

Quote:

"The power of God to forsee the reaction of little children and their ability to recognize the Messiah on sight !

A stunning prophecy fulfillment !"

It looks like this is fiction based on the Old Testament. Can you supply us with reasons to take this affair with the children as an event that actually occurred in history?

Vorkosigan

Thus you are assuming contrary to the intent of the text ONLY because of whatever 'a priori' bias against christianity you have.

If you do not believe Matthew, then this is done to coddle your worldview.

Whatever the Bible actually says - is all true - proven by the true scholars.

The only scholars who trash lies about the Bible all have one thing in common: They do not believe in the existence of miracles/God/Jesus's Resurrection. They have an ax to grind against the Bible and love to slander it under the color of their educational credentials.

Secular scholars deciding the veracity of scripture is equivalent to Catholic priests being trusted around young boys.

WILLOWTREE · 07-21-2004, 11:09 AM

As to the four alleged links that you think I have avoided:

To answer these again would be redundant.

Nothing CX responded with jeopardized my points/arguments.

CX ignores my specific points - nothing I can do about it.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-21-2004, 02:40 AM	#95
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Methinks the good Dr. Scott has been ripped to shreds here, and we should probably return to the OP and prophecy claims. Which was: "The power of God to forsee the reaction of little children and their ability to recognize the Messiah on sight ! A stunning prophecy fulfillment !" It looks like this is fiction based on the Old Testament. Can you supply us with reasons to take this affair with the children as an event that actually occurred in history? Vorkosigan

07-21-2004, 11:09 AM	#100
WILLOWTREE Banned Join Date: May 2004 Location: LOS ANGELES Posts: 544	As to the four alleged links that you think I have avoided: To answer these again would be redundant. Nothing CX responded with jeopardized my points/arguments. CX ignores my specific points - nothing I can do about it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.