Reasons to be thankful to God

Originally posted by C Hess
Uuuuuh, no.

no doubt

Originally posted by Pudgenik
Just look at the interaction of plants. How did the banana tree know to have fruit, where other plants in the same area have seeds, nuts etc. How did the banana tree know to make the exterior of the fruit to be unedible, and the interior edible.

😵

Oh, man, I'm such a sucker! You're all trolls, aren't you? Damn, can't believe I
fell for that.

Good one. Good one.

😉


Oh, I got one. Have you noticed how the banana is shaped perfectly for
humans? It's shaped perfectly for the hand. It's surface is coarse so it doesn't
slip. It has an opener. It fits the mouth perfectly. It's like it was made
specifically for humans.

🙂

Originally posted by googlefudge
One, I did not say refute, I said I pointed out somewhere you made a mistake and
explained why it was a mistake.

Two. I did not re-frame the topic, I picked out a particular point you made which
was incorrect and corrected that. The topic it was used in was irrelevant to that.

Three. There was nothing wrong with any of my analogies, I had only ...[text shortened]... that there is one.

This making chess a pretty much perfect analogy for what I am describing.

One, I did not say refute, I said I pointed out somewhere you made a mistake and explained why it was a mistake.

re·fute [ri-fyoot]
verb (used with object), re·fut·ed, re·fut·ing.
1. to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge.
2. to prove (a person) to be in error.

Oops.

Two. I did not re-frame the topic, I picked out a particular point you made which was incorrect and corrected that.
By bringing your bizarre analogy of 'a single best possible next move' you left the topic to pursue something undetermined.
Even if we are to take what follows as a broadening of the analogy, i.e., no single move is best, rather we are merely trying to 'sculpt' our way closer to the truth, even this doesn't agree with your whole muddled motif.
If (in the latter example) we are discarding things unlike the truth, applying that same idea back to the 'single best possible next move' infers that any of the ones not chosen were not good moves--- while they were in view, they were supposedly all viable.
As stated, bizarre.

All that is needed to refute a hypothesis is to demonstrate that the hypothesis is inconsistent with known facts. Or that it is logically invalid, or... insert other failings here.
Oh, I see.
So, in order to refute a hypothesis, you have to replace it with known facts.
Go figure.
Can't imagine how I got that wrong.
With that standard in play, what are the "known facts" which (in your mind) would replace the Genesis narrative?

Just as in my analogy of chess, you can prove that a move that lands you in checkmate next turn is a very bad one. Without knowing what the best possible move is, or even that there is one.
Maybe the beginner loves the excitement of hearing "Checkmate!" no matter who gets to yell it.

Chess has winners (good) and losers (bad), presumably.
If a person is truly a beginner, they're not going to know how to avoid losing in all situations, or even if their next move does nothing but forestall the inevitable.

With the parameters and explanations you offered, a truly horrid analogy.

Originally posted by C Hess
😵

Oh, man, I'm such a sucker! You're all trolls, aren't you? Damn, can't believe I
fell for that.

Good one. Good one.

😉


Oh, I got one. Have you noticed how the banana is shaped perfectly for
humans? It's shaped perfectly for the hand. It's surface is coarse so it doesn't
slip. It has an opener. It fits the mouth perfectly. It's like it was made
specifically for humans.

🙂

Sorry my truckdriver brain is in the ------. Wife's comment, dirty old man! 🙂

Originally posted by googlefudge
Now this is an excellent example of a muddled analogy that doesn't make the
point it was intended to.

The analogy was just as bad as when you used it to make whatever point you were trying to make.

However, the theory of evolution is still stupid and will always be stupid because it is not science, but nothing more than a stupid opinion.

Originally posted by RJHinds
However, the theory of evolution is still stupid and will always be stupid because it is not science, but nothing more than a stupid opinion.

Of course it's not.

Te-hee.

It's actually kinda funny, now that I know you're not serious. 🙂

Though you might want to renew your material a little. Can you do the "I don't believe in
gravity"-crazy? That would be awesome, if you could pull it off. 😀

Originally posted by C Hess
Of course it's not.

Te-hee.

It's actually kinda funny, now that I know you're not serious. 🙂

Though you might want to renew your material a little. Can you do the "I don't believe in
gravity"-crazy? That would be awesome, if you could pull it off. 😀

That's too difficult, especially since Jesus believed in gravity.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That's too difficult, especially since Jesus believed in gravity.

I don't know. I think, perhaps you could do something with jesus walking on water? He
clearly didn't believe in gravity then.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]One, I did not say refute, I said I pointed out somewhere you made a mistake and explained why it was a mistake.

re·fute [ri-fyoot]
verb (used with object), re·fut·ed, re·fut·ing.
1. to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge.
2. to prove (a person) to be in error.

Oops.

Two. I did not re-frame the topic, ...[text shortened]... all the inevitable.

With the parameters and explanations you offered, a truly horrid analogy.

re·fute [ri-fyoot]
verb (used with object), re·fut·ed, re·fut·ing.
1. to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge.
2. to prove (a person) to be in error.

Yes. Well done. Refuting requires PROVING something is wrong.
I wasn't being that rigorous, and thus didn't use the word or meaning.
So, point to me... again.

By bringing your bizarre analogy of 'a single best possible next move' you left the topic to pursue something undetermined.
Even if we are to take what follows as a broadening of the analogy, i.e., no single move is best, rather we are merely trying to 'sculpt' our way closer to the truth, even this doesn't agree with your whole muddled motif.
If (in the latter example) we are discarding things unlike the truth, applying that same idea back to the 'single best possible next move' infers that any of the ones not chosen were not good moves--- while they were in view, they were supposedly all viable.
As stated, bizarre.

You are very confused, probably because English is evidently not your first language.
I used several DIFFERENT analogies to make the point.
Applying the analogies to each other or mixing them together to make one giant mess
is not standard or sensible practice.
Each analogy is highlighting an aspect of my original point and are not applicable to
each other.

Oh, I see.
So, in order to refute a hypothesis, you have to replace it with known facts.
Go figure.
Can't imagine how I got that wrong.
With that standard in play, what are the "known facts" which (in your mind) would replace the Genesis narrative?

You are continuing with your inability to understand basic English... or logic... or anything really.

A hypothesis is a proposed EXPLANATION of a set of facts and/or observations.

Thus to demonstrate a hypothesis to be wrong you merely need to show that that hypothesis
is inconsistent with known facts and/or observations. Or is internally/logically inconsistent... ect.

Maybe the beginner loves the excitement of hearing "Checkmate!" no matter who gets to yell it.

Chess has winners (good) and losers (bad), presumably.
If a person is truly a beginner, they're not going to know how to avoid losing in all situations, or even if their next move does nothing but forestall the inevitable.

With the parameters and explanations you offered, a truly horrid analogy.

Again, no it was an excellent analogy. You are just being intentionally stupid.
There seems to be little I can do about that.

A beginner would still be expected to know that going into checkmate is the primary way you loose
a game of chess.

They may not SPOT that a move will allow their opponent to checkmate them next turn.

But any normal person would still know that a move that allows your opponent to checkmate you
next turn is a bad one that should be avoided if it is at all possible.

However you are loosing the point.

It is possible to identify that a chess move is definitive bad [ie wrong] without having any clue as
to what the best [correct] move is.

Similarly it is possible to identify that a hypothesis is wrong without knowing what the
correct explanation is.

In fact it's not just possible, it's the ONLY way it ever happens [in science as opposed to mathematics].

We NEVER know what the right answer is. We only ever approximate to it, with an ever increasing
degree of accuracy.

Science progresses by ruling out what is wrong. Not by knowing what is right.
What is left by ruling out that which is false, is an increasingly accurate approximation of what is right.


So despite your idiotic diversions, the point you made that I originally brought up as being incorrect
is still incorrect. I haven't 'Refuted' your point because I haven't gone to the trouble of providing
absolutely air tight logical PROOF that you are wrong...

Basically you are wrong on all counts, and are simply thrashing around because your ego is too fragile to
admit that you were wrong.

Originally posted by C Hess
I don't know. I think, perhaps you could do something with jesus walking on water? He
clearly didn't believe in gravity then.

That just proves Jesus believed gravity could be overcome. We know that to be true because we sent men to the moon.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That just proves Jesus believed gravity could be overcome. We know that to be true because we sent men to the moon.

So, jesus had rockets for shoes? I'm beginning to like this guy. 😀