16 Nov 14
Originally posted by lemon limeI will ask you again: When did I expect you to defend a strawman argument?
When my daughters were very young, they could persuade me into playing with dolls and participate in role playing games. But this does not mean I can be persuaded by grown men and women into playing with strawman dolls or pretend I'm someone they want me to be.
You have not provided evidence of that, if that is what you think you did.
Instead, you quoted C Hess and I pointing out to you what the OP says, and yourself being rude in return. Neither of us asked you to defend the OP, nor is the OP a strawman argument as you falsely claim.
I suggest you go back and read the posts in a calmer mind frame. Forget about your dolls. And then apologize for the false accusations.
17 Nov 14
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think the three of you are being ridiculous. If evolution wasn't falsifiable then you wouldn't have to deal with creationists presenting evidence contrary to (and conflicting with) so called evidence put up by evolutionists. The "logic" of your OP is so screwed up it couldn't be anything other than a strawman argument.
I will ask you again: When did I expect you to defend a strawman argument?
You have not provided evidence of that, if that is what you think you did.
Instead, you quoted C Hess and I pointing out to you what the OP says, and yourself being rude in return. Neither of us asked you to defend the OP, nor is the OP a strawman argument as you falsely claim. ...[text shortened]... s in a calmer mind frame. Forget about your dolls. And then apologize for the false accusations.
Now you could whine and moan that creationists have no evidence whereas evolutionists do, which is something I would expect to see as a response to this post... but simply making proclamations is meaningless. You could even claim that my suggesting what you might say next is a strawman argument, but then all I would have to do is to imitate you by simply stating that it isn't a strawman. I could, but I won't...
Still waiting to hear some (valid) alternate abiogenesis hypothesis, and preferably one that doesn't involve aliens or alternate universes, or men from the future going back in time to seed their own planet. Or, you could just keep on doing what you've been doing, and pull something new out of your bum and hope it flies.
...fakers
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
17 Nov 14
Originally posted by lemon limeIt really annoys the hell out of you that abiogenesis and evolution are two separate scientific endevours, doesn't it? Well, live with it. And give us one example of evidence that demonstrates evolutionary theory wrong.
I think the three of you are being ridiculous. If evolution wasn't falsifiable then you wouldn't have to deal with creationists presenting evidence contrary to (and conflicting with) so called evidence put up by evolutionists. The "logic" of your OP is so screwed up it couldn't be anything other than a strawman argument.
Now you could whine and ...[text shortened]... been doing, and pull something new out of your bum and hope it flies.
...fakers
17 Nov 14
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon limeNo, your reading comprehension just leaves much to be desired.
I think the three of you are being ridiculous.
If evolution wasn't falsifiable then you wouldn't have to deal with creationists presenting evidence contrary to (and conflicting with) so called evidence put up by evolutionists.
Well then you agree with the OP.
The "logic" of your OP is so screwed up it couldn't be anything other than a strawman argument.
But you just agreed with the OP. It seems to me that it is your 'logic' that got screwed up.
Still waiting to hear some (valid) alternate abiogenesis hypothesis,...
Are you? I thought you had refused to have that discussion. Have you changed your mind? If so, please tell me what this hypothesis is supposed to be an alternative of, and why I should come up with it in the first place.
...fakers
What exactly have I faked? I think an apology is in order.
17 Nov 14
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon limeThe only 'evidence' supporting creationism or YEC is politically motivated opinions with no science backing them up. There is a reason no papers are presented to reputable science rags, and that is they are not being submitted because they know full well their charges are baseless and have been fully refuted time and time again yet the same BS vdeo's keep appearing. The reason for that is they are political in nature and anti science. They hope that weak minded easily led people will add to their vote complex so they can bypass constitutions and make up their own rules about teaching creationism in a science class as if it were a science.
I think the three of you are being ridiculous. If evolution wasn't falsifiable then you wouldn't have to deal with creationists presenting evidence contrary to (and conflicting with) so called evidence put up by evolutionists. The "logic" of your OP is so screwed up it couldn't be anything other than a strawman argument.
Now you could whine and ...[text shortened]... been doing, and pull something new out of your bum and hope it flies.
...fakers
You know full well YEC is just religious with no science behind it, the less you think, the better they like it. Thinking people are the last people YEC's want since they know full well they are on a very weak branch that can give way at any time.
You are beating a dead horse. there is no science behind YEC. Only opinion pieces by supposedly educated people but people with an agenda, which again, is not science. You don't go into a subject trying to prove a predestined outcome. Real science goes into a subject just after the truth.
We come across a 200 million year old parakeet fossil, all bets of evolution are off. Till then, we go with the actual evidence, not some BS stories thousands of years old when they didn't even know there were outer planets in the solar system much less anything about DNA or other facts of life.
17 Nov 14
Originally posted by sonhouseYou are the dead horse. 😏
The only 'evidence' supporting creationism or YEC is politically motivated opinions with no science backing them up. There is a reason no papers are presented to reputable science rags, and that is they are not being submitted because they know full well their charges are baseless and have been fully refuted time and time again yet the same BS vdeo's keep a ...[text shortened]... here were outer planets in the solar system much less anything about DNA or other facts of life.
18 Nov 14
Originally posted by Zahlanzii don't quite understand what point you are trying to make here. if you don't like the subject and you think it is too easy for your majesty, you could always not post. or read
it's not a cheap trick. it is how a debate should be conducted, rather than what we have most of the times(a rant)
you identify the point your opponent is making:
in this case some creationists whine that evolution is not falsifiable.
you present evidence that prove evolution is in fact falsifiable and then you move on to the next lesson.
you don ...[text shortened]... ke the subject and you think it is too easy for your majesty, you could always not post. or read
Whatever my majesty may or may not be it pales next your own splendor and magnificence, your High and Mightiness. Nevertheless, your OP is self defeating.
If something is falsifiable it can be contested. Creationists contest what are purported to be facts by evolutionists and evolutionists contest what are purported to be facts by creationists. This means your OP is self defeating because you have evolutionists who claim there are creationists who claim evolution is not falsifiable, while at the same time claiming that creationism is not falsifiable. The fact is both are falsifiable, and the proof of this can be seen here and at the science forum going back through several years of arguments put forth by both sides.
You're only real hope of pulling this off (contradictory reasoning conveniently stacked in you favor) is if you can pull the wool over the eyes of creationists who might not recognize the absurdity of either claim. And the fact you would try pulling a stunt like this tells me that you yourselves are unaware of the inherent contradiction in the claims you make. So when I call you fakers I am actually being charitable... because fakers know what they are saying is not true.
I'm more inclined to believe you saw this argument somewhere (such as at Wiki) and are using it because you know you can cite a contributor based site such as Wiki as a source for validating any claim you wish to make.
Or, you could just use your own noodles and figure this out for yourselves.
18 Nov 14
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseMainstream peer reviewed scientific journals are not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus, so it is very difficult for creation scientists, who are providing claims that contradict the traditional neo-Darwinian worldview to get their research published.
The only 'evidence' supporting creationism or YEC is politically motivated opinions with no science backing them up. There is a reason no papers are presented to reputable science rags, and that is they are not being submitted because they know full well their charges are baseless and have been fully refuted time and time again yet the same BS vdeo's keep a ...[text shortened]... here were outer planets in the solar system much less anything about DNA or other facts of life.
It is for these reasons that creationist scientists generally do not bother submitting papers that directly support a creationist interpretation of the natural world. Any such papers would be dismissed as being unworthy simply on the basis that they advocate a creationist interpretation. Thus, creationist scientists have created their own peer-reviewed journals and forums, such as the Journal of Creation, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Answers Research Journal, and the International Conference on Creationism.
18 Nov 14
1 edit
Originally posted by C HessIf you are relatively new to evolution theory you are probably not annoyed that evolutionists decided to separate the two, and then claim one has nothing to do with the other. It only takes one generation for a change like that to appear acceptable.
It really annoys the hell out of you that abiogenesis and evolution are two separate scientific endevours, doesn't it? Well, live with it. And give us one example of evidence that demonstrates evolutionary theory wrong.
18 Nov 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think an apology is in order
No, your reading comprehension just leaves much to be desired.
[b]If evolution wasn't falsifiable then you wouldn't have to deal with creationists presenting evidence contrary to (and conflicting with) so called evidence put up by evolutionists.
Well then you agree with the OP.
The "logic" of your OP is so screwed up it couldn't be anything ...[text shortened]... st place.
[b]...fakers
What exactly have I faked? I think an apology is in order.[/b]
I apologize for showing you this:
18 Nov 14
Originally posted by lemon limeNo - that is not what it means.
If something is falsifiable it can be contested.
Falsifiable means that if it were false there would be a way to show
it false. (Unlike religious beliefs)
For instance. If I say I weigh 200 pounds then that is a falsifiable
statement because if I do not weigh 200 pounds you can prove it by
weighing me.
But after weighing me and seeing that I do weigh 200 pounds the
statement "I weigh 200 pounds" is still falsifiable BUT not contestable.
18 Nov 14
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59Falsifiable means that if it were false there would be a way to show
No - that is not what it means.
Falsifiable means that if it were false there would be a way to show
it false. (Unlike religious beliefs)
For instance. If I say I weigh 200 pounds then that is a falsifiable
statement because if I do not weigh 200 pounds you can prove it by
weighing me.
[b]But after weighing me and seeing that I do weigh 200 pounds the
statement "I weigh 200 pounds" is still falsifiable BUT not contestable.[/b]
it false.
Same difference.
(Unlike religious beliefs)
Contesting religious beliefs is what evolutionists do when they don't want to consider evidence shown by creationists. It's funny to watch how you shuck and jive and make fun of religion, but won't actually discuss what you are shown.
If creationists were dismissive and unwilling to do the real work of examination, then I believe evolutionists would be the first to call them out on it. So you might not be fakers due to your ignorance and unwillingness to think for yourselves, but you have shown yourselves to be shameless hypocrites.
18 Nov 14
Originally posted by wolfgang59But after weighing me and seeing that I do weigh 200 pounds the
No - that is not what it means.
Falsifiable means that if it were false there would be a way to show
it false. (Unlike religious beliefs)
For instance. If I say I weigh 200 pounds then that is a falsifiable
statement because if I do not weigh 200 pounds you can prove it by
weighing me.
[b]But after weighing me and seeing that I do weigh 200 pounds the
statement "I weigh 200 pounds" is still falsifiable BUT not contestable.[/b]
statement "I weigh 200 pounds" is still falsifiable BUT not contestable.
You scored a point in semantics here, differentiating between falsifiable and contestable. But I'll assume you understood me, and are not easily confused by spelling and punctuation errors as well as noticeable gaffs in semantics.
18 Nov 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think an apology is in order.
No, your reading comprehension just leaves much to be desired.
[b]If evolution wasn't falsifiable then you wouldn't have to deal with creationists presenting evidence contrary to (and conflicting with) so called evidence put up by evolutionists.
Well then you agree with the OP.
The "logic" of your OP is so screwed up it couldn't be anything ...[text shortened]... st place.
[b]...fakers
What exactly have I faked? I think an apology is in order.[/b]
You always say that, but you never do.