Re: How to Become a Christian, Version 1.01

From: Bob (this one) (Bob_at_nospam.com)
Date: 11/02/04 

Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 12:29:38 -0500

Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

> Bob (this one) wrote:
>
>>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>
>>>Bob (this one) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Bob (this one)" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Andrew B. Chung wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Simply consider the following decision tree:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>First, learn what a decision tree is.
>>>>>
>>>>>That is what the following is.
>>>>
>>>>Looks like your education about this is equal to your "skill" with
>>>>Everest research, nutrition, geological information, caloric usage and
>>>>biblical interpretation. A "decision tree" with only two options is
>>>>not a tree.
>>>
>>>Actually, it is the simplest tree.
>>
>>Actually, it's a downscale version of Pascal's Wager, distorted to
>>glorify your madness. And, while it does involve decision, it's not a
>>tree. It's merely a binary, and based as it is on your wacky vision of
>>Christianity, is essentially a null set given the utter lack of
>>support you offer for it.
>
> It remains a simple decision tree.

It seems that you're unable to read what actual scholars and
scientists consider them to be. No news. Here's a quick overview that
should help a normal person understand. I hold out no such hope for
you. <http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_04.htm> They even
show a picture of one to help you grasp what would normally be an easy
idea for someone able to read. Note that a tree has branches. Your
simpleton binary doesn't. No nodes, no secondary alternates, no
provable premises. No weights, no variables.

It's either-or. No tree. Dichotomy. More like a couple of weeds
struggling to exist than a tree.

>>But that notwithstanding, it would be illustrative for you to expound
>>on that evidence you say exists for a global flood. A citation would
>>be good. Or some online reference for everyone to become as convinced
>>as you. Or is this another of your "discernments" about "truth" that
>>has no support?
>
> If you review *all* my posts via Google, you will find the answer that
> you claim to seek.

<LOL> Sure. The first refuge of the faker. "I already said that and
it's up to you to go find it." You grow more demented and drunken in
your own hubris ever day. <LOLOL> Review *all* your posts...

Translation from Chunglish to English. "There is no proof. I may or
may not have cited some other wacko fundie crank who offers the same
sort of hysterical nonsense I do. And I don't want to have to endure
any sort of actual science that would utterly refute it. Again."

>>>But then again, most have started to realize that you seem to hate
>>>simple things.
>>
>>I don't hate anything.
>
> What you claim is discordant with how you act.

<LOL> It's Dr. Cognitive Dissonance himself.

What you judge proves you to be a liar. No news. And for you to claim
that you love people while obviously setting out to denigrate,
belittle and try to injure them gives the further lie to your
fraudulent pious actions.

>>I dismiss *simplistic* things and *simpletons*
>>and lo and behold... you fall into both categories with your pious
>>mouthings and your efforts to reduce the complexities of life to
>>aphorisms and slippery evasions.
>
> Don't you hate MU?

I laugh at MU. How can anyone hate a floppy-shoed clown who flounces
and struts to no avail? It's like hating Goofy or Barney Fife? Equally
fictional characters. MU_shroom deserves nothing so strong as hate.

> MU is a *two*-letter word :-)

MU gets suffixes so it spells out the entire truth. Like MU_x. Or MU_sty.

Bob

Relevant Pages