21 Nov '08 10:23
21 Nov '08 10:281 editOriginally posted by robbie carrobieYou've just ignored a whole list of objections to your misrepresentation or misunderstanding of Dobzhansky and Popper. According to your logic, it would be appear, no scientific theory can be 'scientific fact' (what is a scientific fact?) because all theory is conjecture to some extent. Yet you claim the Earth is billions of years old. Such contradictions.
after all your comments people i think that we can safely assume , not that we want to base anything on assumptions, no Socrates would never have that would he beetle my friend, that you also acquiesce and are of the same mind that Darwinian evolutionairy theory cannot be subjected to the scientific model and therefore is unscientific, any objections?
21 Nov '08 10:49Originally posted by robbie carrobiehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Problems_and_issues
after all your comments people i think that we can safely assume , not that we want to base anything on assumptions, no Socrates would never have that would he beetle my friend, that you also acquiesce and are of the same mind that Darwinian evolutionairy theory cannot be subjected to the scientific model and therefore is unscientific, any objections?
21 Nov '08 10:50Originally posted by Bosse de Nagelol, most of the objections had nothing to do with evolution but rather with the biblical account of genesis, the best you guys can come up with is words like 'misrepresentation and misunderstanding', so if that's the best you got i have no other option to conclude, due to lack of supporting evidence, that the statement stands!
You've just ignored a whole list of objections to your misrepresentation or misunderstanding of Dobzhansky and Popper. According to your logic, it would be appear, no scientific theory can be 'scientific fact' (what is a scientific fact?) because all theory is conjecture to some extent. Yet you claim the Earth is billions of years old. Such contradicti ...[text shortened]... ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution
21 Nov '08 10:51Originally posted by Zahlanziyou are OUT, please you are wasting your time, i do not read your posts!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#Problems_and_issues
In the twentieth century, a hypothetico-deductive model for scientific method was formulated (for a more formal discussion, see below):
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then mo ...[text shortened]... s called affirming the consequent.
do this with evolution. tell me if you can disprove it.
21 Nov '08 10:57Originally posted by Bosse de NageRobbie, like everybody, has his unique, personal view, and that's allright.
I'll give you a "Braise Jebus" 🙂
Yes, robbiecarrobie is a politician of the spiritual, marrying YEC views with Islamophobia of the worst kind. Apart from that he seems a nice enough bloke with a good brain.
21 Nov '08 11:02Originally posted by robbie carrobie
after all your comments people i think that we can safely assume , not that we want to base anything on assumptions, no Socrates would never have that would he beetle my friend, that you also acquiesce and are of the same mind that Darwinian evolutionairy theory cannot be subjected to the scientific model and therefore is unscientific, any objections?
21 Nov '08 11:03Originally posted by robbie carrobieI showed you that your use of Popper misrepresented him by quoting his actual words, but you've repeatedly ignored that. In fact you haven't responded adequately to any of my posts. So I'll ring the bell this time: ding, ding, ding, you're, out.
lol, most of the objections had nothing to do with evolution but rather with the biblical account of genesis, the best you guys can come up with is words like 'misrepresentation and misunderstanding', so if that's the best you got i have no other option to conclude, due to lack of supporting evidence, that the statement stands!
21 Nov '08 11:05Originally posted by black beetleThe point about theories dying over time is well taken.
robbie debates using reasoning, and he does it because he wants to express his views and to hear the views of the others -and he wants to have a good time too. He does not preaching but he debates, therefore prooving that his reasoning is wrong is more than enough. And surely over here the tools required are solely aporetics, comprehension, sympathy and a cup of kindness yet.
21 Nov '08 11:05Originally posted by black beetleoh beetle, you claim that there is no virtue in your poor atheistic being, once again you have shown otherwise, oh but i were born a noble Greek rather than a Scottish peasant farmer, my claim to nobility would lay safe in the ancestral legacy of reason and logic, with the spirit of Socrates i would descend upon measly opinion and subject it to the rigors of interrogation to ascertain its true value, but alas i am but a peasant, and like the field mouse must make ready for winter, for greater forces than both are afoot and i must away with bickering prattle!
Robbie, like everybody, has his unique, personal view, and that's allright.
Popper also pointed out how important it is for the Human to become able to let the theories die due time on their own, Bosse; for, thanks to the basic operation of the spirit of the World 3, the Human is able to critisize everything and at the same time he can choose the the ...[text shortened]... ere the tools required are solely aporetics, comprehension, sympathy and a cup of kindness yet.
21 Nov '08 11:06Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo here is a non-ad hominem attack argument with real teeth and you refuse to acknowledge it, instead, sticking your thumbs in your ears and yelling, Nya Nya Nya Nya, I can't hear you.....
you are OUT, please you are wasting your time, i do not read your posts!
21 Nov '08 11:11 21 Nov '08 11:13Originally posted by Bosse de NageWrong. I play chess but I am not Kasparov. Help me boost my elo, you filthy BdN😵
The point about theories dying over time is well taken.
Your charity is commendable but I find robbiecarrobie's persistent refusal to address rebuttals of his argument annoying in the extreme. I would limit myself to one pint with him and then go to another table.
21 Nov '08 11:16Originally posted by black beetlei didn't see reason yet in his posts. he claims evolution to be pseudo-science yet he doesn't explain why. he just uses quotes that he mostly doesn't understand (or uses them incorrectly). by his own views, evolution, like creationism cannot be proven or disproved. so they are both therefore unscientific.
Robbie, like everybody, has his unique, personal view, and that's allright.
Popper also pointed out how important it is for the Human to become able to let the theories die due time on their own, Bosse; for, thanks to the basic operation of the spirit of the World 3, the Human is able to critisize everything and at the same time he can choose the the ...[text shortened]... ere the tools required are solely aporetics, comprehension, sympathy and a cup of kindness yet.
Anti evolutionists
Back to Top