|
Post by Matt on May 6, 2011 6:35:11 GMT
psh
|
|
|
Post by BAM CROMBIE'D on May 6, 2011 14:39:39 GMT
Um, you two just proved my point... i no get I didn't expect you to. Snark aside, you obviously believe that creationism is unfalsifiable and disproven, which is a traditional hallmark of evolutionists. Unfortunately, it's also completely nonsensical, since it can't be disproved if it's unfalsifiable, and it can't be unfalsifiable if it's disproved. You can have one of them or neither, but you can't have both. On a further note, evolution itself is unfalsifiable since in the grand scheme of things, it's not scientific; it's a materialistic explanation. Now you'll no doubt trot the standard canard about it being "change over time" out (which amounts to little more than simple equivocation), but the fact remains that the totality of the theory is based on logical extrapolation, since, after all, we weren't around to witness most of the events. Now, if your lot actually presented the theory in this manner (i.e. similar to that of creationism) then I wouldn't have any problems with you, but you don't, so I'm gonna keep coming down like a sack of bricks every time one of you fails to mention this critical distinction. So, your statements are wrong when taken together or separately, purely from a logical perspective. Hence, failing at logic. Now, given that dear Puglin almost certainly wasn't aware of the fact that your statements were contradictory when viewed together. Hence, failing at logic. So, you both fail at logic and in actuality served to further prove my point with your replies, a fact which I find both fitting and ironic. And oh look, I barely had to use any biology whatosever. I doubt it'll get through, though, so hurp.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on May 6, 2011 16:18:50 GMT
i love the word snark
|
|
MERRY CROMBMAS!
Marmadyke
In my special places.
2%
whoever thought of l?estosterone is a genius, its a brilliant name
Posts: 496
|
Post by MERRY CROMBMAS! on May 6, 2011 16:48:59 GMT
Snark aside, you obviously believe that creationism is unfalsifiable and disproven, which is a traditional hallmark of evolutionists. Unfortunately, it's also completely nonsensical, since it can't be disproved if it's unfalsifiable, and it can't be unfalsifiable if it's disproved. You can have one of them or neither, but you can't have both. Arguing semantics in the face of defeat. On a further note, evolution itself is unfalsifiable since in the grand scheme of things, it's not scientific; it's a materialistic explanation. Now you'll no doubt trot the standard canard about it being "change over time" out (which amounts to little more than simple equivocation), but the fact remains that the totality of the theory is based on logical extrapolation, since, after all, we weren't around to witness most of the events. Now, if your lot actually presented the theory in this manner (i.e. similar to that of creationism) then I wouldn't have any problems with you, but you don't, so I'm gonna keep coming down like a sack of bricks every time one of you fails to mention this critical distinction Evolution is in no way unfalsifiable. And it's scientific. It has actual scientific back-up for it, unlike creationism. How would you explain radio-carbon dating? Scientists, people who are actually good in their area and know what they're talking about (don't take this the wrong way, you were the one to say you suck at biology. How can you then be in a position to proclaim my theory fundamentally wrong?), are firm believers in evolution. Scientific experiments have proven the theory over and over again. Which scientific experiment has ever proven creationism? Yeah, I couldn't think of any either. Based on scientific evidence, your theory is wrong, or at least as unlikely as a space object the size of Earth or above colliding with Earth during the Andromeda/Milky Way merger. Now, let's go back to your claim of evolution being unfalsifiable. It is. Everything with scientific background can be disproven. Some day, some scientist could come in and say "oh wait, we did something wrong. That amino acid couldn't have formed this way. Here: *evidence*. BAM: The theory is definitely wrong. Logical extrapolation backed up with valid scientific experiments. Now, I'd like to hear the core of your theory. It's hard to argue like this. I can only raise points related to my theory or your attempts at debunking it.
|
|
|
Post by BAM CROMBIE'D on May 6, 2011 18:46:06 GMT
Arguing semantics in the face of defeat. So demonstrating that you're violating the LNC is "semantics" and this means I'm defeated? I mean, c'mon; don't make this easier than it already is. Hell, you can't even keep your story straight for an entire post: I'm wrong but I'm right. Go figure. Just say you were under the influence. Irrelevant; I'm not YEC. Because logic isn't biology. Hurp. S'pose you can plead Alzeihmer's now. Yes, and they're stupid and dishonest too, appeals to authority notwithstanding. I have no idea what you should plead now. Remind me which version of evolution you're talking about. Who cares? The people who claim creationism is scientific are as bad as you lot. Hey, don't be like that. Sure, Kuhn hit you over the head with a cricket bat (twice), but you can plead "posting while concussed" now! I only claim that God created everything and that, however He did it, He didn't use evolution as described by evolutionists. Anyway, I'll give you one more go at redeeming yourself and then I won't bother to speak to you on this subject again, since you don't appear to be tall enough for this ride.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on May 7, 2011 4:51:49 GMT
ahm no creationist but just saying something has evidence isnt really a valid argument creationism could have evidence too an whooz to say god didnt make things change just cuz mut doesnt think that evolutionists are correct doesnt mean something with a similar idea is false
(keep in mind im an evolutionist xp)
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on May 7, 2011 8:11:58 GMT
Okay, I just read Mut's post and haven't bothered to read the rest of what you two ladies are bickering about yet. Will do as soon as I post this. I just wanted to say.
No, we weren't around to witness most of evolution. Were you around to witness Genesis?
But we WERE around to witness some evolution. For instance, there's a certain species of moth right there in England. The peppered moth. It was mottled white. Then the industrial era rolled around and suddenly this white/grey moth was trying to camouflage on soot-black buildings. Thus, it got predated on by sparrows etc. So the moth evolved. It is now black. Natural (well, not quite natural, but anyway) selection leading into evolution.
We also can physically watch viruses evolve. Sorry, how is this unprovable?
@matt: You're suggesting a compromise... But neither party is willing to accept that compromise. Myself included, merely because I don't believe in God. And no, I can't be fucked quantifying that remark, it's just something I feel is true, and is just as valid as any religious person believing in a higher power.
Actually, tell me, Mut, how old do you believe the Earth is? Genuinely curious-- I have a borderline-genius friend studying astrophysics who believes the Earth is 4000 years old.
He's too nice for me to argue with =/.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on May 7, 2011 8:16:03 GMT
WHY CANT WE ALL JUST GET ALONG
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on May 7, 2011 8:18:02 GMT
BECAUSE I LIKE ARGUING WITH MUT. AND YELLING AT RELIGIOUS PEOPLE.
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on May 7, 2011 8:35:08 GMT
I'll also say Mut gets really upset arguing about this, apparently. Upset enough to yell insults. Which is not good practice for debate. I'm just saying. It's not a particularly good way to disprove your opponent.
Also that kind of agitation raises questions about just how firmly you believe in your own argument.
**P.S. Don't bother responding to this particular post; I ain't being snarky, just making observations.
|
|
MERRY CROMBMAS!
Marmadyke
In my special places.
2%
whoever thought of l?estosterone is a genius, its a brilliant name
Posts: 496
|
Post by MERRY CROMBMAS! on May 7, 2011 10:21:25 GMT
AND YELLING AT RELIGIOUS PEOPLE. I'm actually religious. But not in a dogmatic way.
|
|
MERRY CROMBMAS!
Marmadyke
In my special places.
2%
whoever thought of l?estosterone is a genius, its a brilliant name
Posts: 496
|
Post by MERRY CROMBMAS! on May 7, 2011 10:23:45 GMT
I... Uhh... Well, ... Fuck. I'm only able to deal with YECs. Not a monstrosity like this. You win, Sir.
|
|
|
Post by Sawslig Steve. And William. on May 7, 2011 10:30:49 GMT
And that's why I yell at you =D.
P.S. What just happened?
|
|
MERRY CROMBMAS!
Marmadyke
In my special places.
2%
whoever thought of l?estosterone is a genius, its a brilliant name
Posts: 496
|
Post by MERRY CROMBMAS! on May 7, 2011 11:55:48 GMT
I thought he was like YEC. And YECs are easy to deal with. This, on the other hand, is a completely different bean. I've seen countless anti-evolutionists (most of them are YECs) get their asses kicked by evolutionists, including our byamarro here. But not these of Mut's kind.
I know a person that can shoot him down in less than 3 posts, but it would be messy and bloody.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on May 7, 2011 12:13:36 GMT
... byamarro isnt a creationist
|
|