Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

toldailytopic "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    I'm sure you do, just not anything that contradicts a certain belief.


    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    Well, it's just as well I didn't make any then, certainly not in context of the subject.


    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    I haven't "hidden" at all. I've repeatedly provided you with links that go into depth about such dating methods only for you to say it's all debunked although, tellingly, without any accredited evidence to support it.
    You have repeatedly refused to understand science and believe that a method based exclusively on unverifiable assumptions can somehow be considered a valid scientific method.

    Your belief system overrules the facts. What a hypocrite!

    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    If you didn't care then you'd accept what science the world over has to say on the matter.
    Appeal to popularly is a fallacy. Why do insist on using fallacious arguments?

    P.S. Even your wording "what science the world over has to say" is indicative of your problem.
    All of my ancestors are human.
    Originally posted by Squeaky
    That explains why your an idiot.
    Originally posted by God's Truth
    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by User Name View Post
      Except for all the science that contradicts your political and religious beliefs.
      More false accusations. Childish and boring.
      All of my ancestors are human.
      Originally posted by Squeaky
      That explains why your an idiot.
      Originally posted by God's Truth
      Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
      Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
      (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

      1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
      (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

      Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
        More false accusations. Childish and boring.
        What's false about it? Don't you deny the science behind evolution and global warming?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by User Name View Post
          What's false about it? Don't you deny the science behind evolution and global warming?
          • I deny that all life shares a single universal common ancestor.
          • I deny that man-made factors are the root cause (or primary cause) behind variations in the global temperature of the earth.

          Real science gives me no problems at all.
          Last edited by Right Divider; November 6th, 2019, 01:46 PM. Reason: typo
          All of my ancestors are human.
          Originally posted by Squeaky
          That explains why your an idiot.
          Originally posted by God's Truth
          Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
          Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
          (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

          1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
          (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

          Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post






            You have repeatedly refused to understand science and believe that a method based exclusively on unverifiable assumptions can somehow be considered a valid scientific method.

            Your belief system overrules the facts. What a hypocrite!


            Appeal to popularly is a fallacy. Why do insist on using fallacious arguments?

            P.S. Even your wording "what science the world over has to say" is indicative of your problem.
            Um, no, I understand how the scientific method works. You're just objecting to anything that doesn't fit in with your belief system, namely the earth having to be as young as ten thousand years old. You haven't had any "facts" to debunk either the theory of evolution or the age of the universe as globally accepted in science. There's no "problem" with accepting science so it's not my problem in any shape. You've had absolutely nothing besides assertion that doesn't require being taken seriously at all. Oh, and just to remind you, the reason it's accepted globally is because of the evidence that supports it, so no fallacy there.
            Well this is fun isn't it?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
              Um, no, I understand how the scientific method works.
              Um, no. You do not. If you did, you would not believe that a method made up of nothing but assumptions can be called a scientific method.

              Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
              You're just objecting to anything that doesn't fit in with your belief system, namely the earth having to be as young as ten thousand years old.


              Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
              You haven't had any "facts" to debunk either the theory of evolution or the age of the universe as globally accepted in science.
              You never tire of fallacious argument. Appeals to popularity are NOT show science works.

              Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
              There's no "problem" with accepting science so it's not my problem in any shape. You've had absolutely nothing besides assertion that doesn't require being taken seriously at all. Oh, and just to remind you, the reason it's accepted globally is because of the evidence that supports it, so no fallacy there.
              Circular reasoning is also fallacious.

              When will you ever actually discuss the facts about dating rocks?.... My guess is never. You've just keep dancing.
              All of my ancestors are human.
              Originally posted by Squeaky
              That explains why your an idiot.
              Originally posted by God's Truth
              Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
              Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
              (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

              1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
              (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

              Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                he reminds me of this classic monty python sketch:

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                  Um, no. You do not. If you did, you would not believe that a method made up of nothing but assumptions can be called a scientific method.





                  You never tire of fallacious argument. Appeals to popularity are NOT show science works.


                  Circular reasoning is also fallacious.

                  When will you ever actually discuss the facts about dating rocks?.... My guess is never. You've just keep dancing.
                  So, essentially, any science that doesn't fit in with your belief is "wrong" and anything that opposes the global consensus on evolution/the age of the universe that ties in with it is right or at least possible?

                  Um, nope. You don't understand how the scientific method works at all. It has absolutely nothing to do with "appeals to popularity" no matter how many times you deflect with that nonsense. The reason it's accepted across the world is because of the evidence that supports such theories. If you had anything you could debunk, you haven't and that was never gonna happen anyway.

                  A dogmatic belief system that denies such is just that and there's no reason to give it credence in itself. Science deals in evidence. If a young earth is so vital to your beliefs then hey, crack on with that but science doesn't give one whit. Young earth creationism starts with a conclusion. That isn't the scientific method at all.
                  Well this is fun isn't it?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                    So, essentially, any science that doesn't fit in with your belief is "wrong" and anything that opposes the global consensus on evolution/the age of the universe that ties in with it is right or at least possible?
                    You can repeat nonsense until you're blue in the face, I don't care.

                    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                    Um, nope. You don't understand how the scientific method works at all. It has absolutely nothing to do with "appeals to popularity" no matter how many times you deflect with that nonsense. The reason it's accepted across the world is because of the evidence that supports such theories. If you had anything you could debunk, you haven't and that was never gonna happen anyway.
                    Once AGAIN, popularity proves nothing. And YET you keep repeating it over and over and over again.

                    "It's popular because it's true" is your opinion and nothing more.

                    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                    A dogmatic belief system that denies such is just that and there's no reason to give it credence in itself. Science deals in evidence. If a young earth is so vital to your beliefs then hey, crack on with that but science doesn't give one whit. Young earth creationism starts with a conclusion. That isn't the scientific method at all.
                    Still unable to discuss scientific facts. Nothing but posturing and fallacy.

                    Again I'll ask to your deaf ears... how can a method that relies completely on assumptions be considered a scientific method?
                    All of my ancestors are human.
                    Originally posted by Squeaky
                    That explains why your an idiot.
                    Originally posted by God's Truth
                    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                      You can repeat nonsense until you're blue in the face, I don't care.
                      It's hardly "nonsense". Young earth creationism starts with a conclusion, that the earth is young.

                      There's no scientific deduction going on, it's simply a dogmatic religious belief based on Genesis having to be taken as absolutely literal. So it obviously follows on from that that actual science that doesn't fit in is discarded and lo and behold, that's exactly what's happened here and on multiple threads where the subjects of evolution, the age of the earth etc crops up. People who are experts (and incidentally Christians) like Alate and Barb go into detailed length only to be met with walls of ignorance a lot of the time, not that some people don't appreciate their efforts amid the "evolutionists/Darwinists" tropes.

                      Once AGAIN, popularity proves nothing. And YET you keep repeating it over and over and over again.

                      "It's popular because it's true" is your opinion and nothing more.
                      And once again, nobody said it did so it's bemusing why you continue with this silly tactic. Of course theories don't come about in science because they're "popular", that would be at odds with the scientific method. The discovery of the DNA double helix didn't come about because it was "popular" among scientists by way of.

                      Still unable to discuss scientific facts. Nothing but posturing and fallacy.

                      Again I'll ask to your deaf ears... how can a method that relies completely on assumptions be considered a scientific method?
                      The irony is almost itself, ironic. You've had detailed links and in depth explanations of how such methods work and all you do in turn is declare "non science"! You've asserted that you can debunk them and have had absolutely nothing but...assertion, which amounts to absolutely nothing.
                      Well this is fun isn't it?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                        ... You've had detailed links and in depth explanations of how such methods work ...
                        "in depth explanations"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                          Oh, Monty Python is one of my faves! They did some classic skits and no mistake. Some of the animation was off the wall but still on satirical point as well...

                          Well this is fun isn't it?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                            You pretend not to believe God exists, yet you admit believing that prayer to God exists.
                            The cargo cult peoples make runways and control towers in the hope they will attract the planes with the cargo. In this case, the planes with the cargo don't exist, even though the wooden control towers definitely do.
                            You pretend not to believe God exists, yet you admit believing that blasphemy against God exists.
                            Well given the number of times I have been banned for blasphemy, it would be strange for me not to believe that exists, or at least it does in the heads of believers.
                            You pretend not to believe Heaven exists, yet you admit believing that avoiding Heaven exists.
                            Not really. There is such a tiny fraction of probability that the Judeo-christian heaven is real that I wouldn't call its existence a belief. We are just talking about insurance against an extremely low probability but high consequence risk.
                            Assuming that, by "qualify", you mean "be worthy"--of course, I do not hesitate to say that you, indeed, absolutely do not qualify, just as much as I, also, absolutely do not qualify, nor does anybody else qualify.
                            I have to say I find your pessimistic tone very reassuring.
                            What about you, though? Do you think you are worthy of "ending up in the Judeo-christian heaven"?
                            I wish to die finally (eventually!), in order to give my life the purpose that finality brings. The concept of heaven is a cheap parlour trick. It is not worthy of me, and I'm nothing particularly special.
                            You want to make sure you avoid that in the existence of which you pretend not to believe, eh?
                            I knew a person of your intellect would get there eventually.
                            You pretend to not believe God exists, yet you admit believing you have committed an unpardonable sin against Him?
                            How about we call it a reverse Pascal.
                            I will continue to pray for you, Stuart.
                            If you keep asking to be put through to the vengeful god then I shouldn't be in too much danger.

                            Stuart

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                              It's hardly "nonsense". Young earth creationism starts with a conclusion, that the earth is young.
                              You are blind to your own bias.

                              Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                              There's no scientific deduction going on, it's simply a dogmatic religious belief based on Genesis having to be taken as absolutely literal. So it obviously follows on from that that actual science that doesn't fit in is discarded and lo and behold, that's exactly what's happened here and on multiple threads where the subjects of evolution, the age of the earth etc crops up. People who are experts (and incidentally Christians) like Alate and Barb go into detailed length only to be met with walls of ignorance a lot of the time, not that some people don't appreciate their efforts amid the "evolutionists/Darwinists" tropes.
                              You reject sound evidence, like the word of God. But you accept fake evidence like radiometric dating.

                              Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                              And once again, nobody said it did so it's bemusing why you continue with this silly tactic. Of course theories don't come about in science because they're "popular", that would be at odds with the scientific method. The discovery of the DNA double helix didn't come about because it was "popular" among scientists by way of.
                              And yet time and again you use popularity as your way to confirm ancient dates and the bogus methods used to get them.

                              Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                              The irony is almost itself, ironic. You've had detailed links and in depth explanations of how such methods work and all you do in turn is declare "non science"! You've asserted that you can debunk them and have had absolutely nothing but...assertion, which amounts to absolutely nothing.
                              That you STILL, YOURSELF, do not understand how radiometric dating "works" is amazing. I showed you, EVEN in the article that you linked to, that every aspect of the method is based on unverifiable assumption and yet you will not see.
                              Last edited by Right Divider; November 7th, 2019, 08:14 AM. Reason: grammar
                              All of my ancestors are human.
                              Originally posted by Squeaky
                              That explains why your an idiot.
                              Originally posted by God's Truth
                              Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                              Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                              (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                              1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                              (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                              Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                                You are blind to your own bias.
                                Well, no. That's exactly what young earth creationists posit, that the earth is no older than ten thousand years old. That isn't bias on my part, it's mere observation.

                                You reject sound evidence, like the word of God. But you accept fake evidence like radiometric dating.
                                Well, again, no. I reject man made doctrine that insists on a rigidly literal reading of an account that has so much poetic and symbolic narrative to it. Of course you're going to reject anything that counters a young earth which is why you have such a hang up with so much in science. You're not in a position to call anything fake in science frankly.

                                And yet time and again you use popularity as your way to confirm ancient dates and the bogus methods used to get them.
                                Well...again, no. Popularity doesn't have anything to do with it and you're once again just showing ignorance of how the scientific method works and how such theories come into being. There's no popularity contest going on. If the evidence pointed to a young earth then science would reflect that. It doesn't. The only reason you have such an issue with it is because a young earth seems to be a crucial aspect of your faith. It doesn't need to be as there's plenty of Christians who have no disconnect with science and belief but as long as you put such emphasis on that then you'll disregard anything that contradicts it. You've dismissed Alate's detailed examples and direct answers to you as it is so be honest. You won't listen to anything will you?

                                That you STILL, YOURSELF, do not understand how radiometric dating "works" is amazing. I showed you, EVEN in the article that you linked to, that every aspect of the method is based on unverifiable assumption and yet you will not see.
                                Of course I understand it, along with associated methods, all explained in the links I provided you and else. But it doesn't say what you want to hear so you write it off regardless.
                                Well this is fun isn't it?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X