Customer Discussions > Science forum

The fallacy of Darwinism and the evil associated


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 2726-2750 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 9:07:39 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 12, 2012 9:10:12 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 9:08:50 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 9:09:50 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 9:52:40 AM PDT
D: 1) Archeology can be used to disprove the flood since there are no ancient sites covered by world wide, oceanic sedimentary deposits.

BPL: That's geology.

D: 2) Archeology/physical anthropology has shown that humans do not trace their roots back to Adam and Eve, or Noah and his progeny.

BPL: Really? How have they shown that? For about the eighth time, can you cite a specific study?

D: 3) Archeology has not disproved (since that can't happen) some events, but there is certainly no corroborating evidence for the Exodus, the Red Sea crossing (wherever it took place), the ten plagues of Egypt, or Sodom and Gomorrah. There are probably more, but I am not a biblical archeologist.

BPL: Ah. "Archeology has not disproved (since that can't happen) some events." My point. Thank you.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 9:55:07 AM PDT
D: you are the one that asserts that there is a god

BPL: I never, at any time, asserted that there was empirical proof for God, the way you asserted there was archaeological disproof of Bible events.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 9:56:59 AM PDT
D: Then how exactly to you determine what is true?

BPL: Formal logic. And math. Not science, which is inductive, rather than deductive.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 11:03:13 AM PDT
Re BPL, above: "Not science, which is inductive..." Major blunder here. In science, inductive reasoning is one handy device (among others, such as "what if ...") for developing theses, which may be promoted to hypotheses (if there is some means of demonstrating that the thesis is correct -- or, more importantly, demonstrating that it isn't), and then to scientific theories, if said means (when applied) does in fact show that the thesis is correct. Aside from this, inductive reasoning is not used in science as it cannot actually prove anything. Science requires the use of DEDUCTIVE logic, to determine from a thesis what testable conclusions may be drawn from it, and also to determine from possibly relevant evidence whether or not the thesis is actually supported.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 11:04:07 AM PDT
Deckard says:
Barton Paul Levenson said:

BPL: I never, at any time, asserted that there was empirical proof for God

Ah. Then there is no evidence for a god. My point. Thank you.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 11:11:21 AM PDT
Deckard says:
Barton Paul Levenson said:
D: Then how exactly to you determine what is true?
BPL: Formal logic. And math. Not science, which is inductive, rather than deductive.

How useful.

Well, I need to go now and make some plans for tomorrow, since I think that the sun is going to come up again. I guess that you'll have to wait and see.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 11:53:20 AM PDT
Bill M. says:
And-The-Horse's-Behind said:

>>you cant [sic] prove a negative

Euclid did it at least 2300 years ago when he proved there is no highest prime number:
http://primes.utm.edu/notes/proofs/infinite/euclids.html
I find it hard to believe that somebody who hinted at having a degree in mathematics would have never run into a proof of non-existence like this.

>>you cant [sic] morph to a new species ever

Of course, those who've done even a minimal amount of reading of the topic already know that evolution proposes any sort of species "morphing". If anything, seeing an individual organism morph to a new species would be a good argument AGAINST evolution.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 11:56:54 AM PDT
Bill M. says:
"i am intellectually honest"
- andthehorseirodeinontoo?

"You confused factual evidence with truth."
- Mohamed F. El-Hewie

I'd like to nominate these as the two best Amazon troll quotes of the year.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 1:20:58 PM PDT
Re Bill M., above: Seconded!

Posted on Jul 12, 2012 1:23:37 PM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Motion carries, meeting adjourned.

See you all next year in Atlantic City.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 1:33:21 PM PDT
noman says:
RE: "Bill M. says:
"i am intellectually honest"
- andthehorseirodeinontoo?

"You confused factual evidence with truth."
- Mohamed F. El-Hewie"

**Darn it...I just had that Irony Meter replaced. The question in my mind would be:

1) Are they (any creationist/IDer) consciously aware they are fabricating their own reality or is it unconscious?
2) Are they *unable* to recognize the dichotomy of their position and if so it it a physical difference in the brain, a matter of environment or a combination? IMO it's a combination...a predisposition toward fixed positions, reinforced by association with liked minded people combined w/ constant *vocalization* to reinforced their world view and at the same time block any contrary views.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 2:07:06 PM PDT
Actually scientists use both inductive and deductive methods.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 4:32:06 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 12, 2012 4:32:19 PM PDT
Don't forget that Richard Kepler claimed that I ought to have had MFEH as my research collaborator rather than my Spanish colleagues, as he was clearly better-informed and more impartial. That should go right up there with the troll quotes.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 6:12:28 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 6:17:16 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 8:44:19 PM PDT
barbW says:
good point

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 8:55:51 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jul 14, 2012 4:45:12 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 9:28:36 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 9:37:54 PM PDT
And many of those people who you term "evolutionists" would agree with you. Next---

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 9:49:36 PM PDT
Re O'Neill, 7-12 2:07 PM: Please see my post of 11:03 AM today, where I address this issue in detail.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 12, 2012 10:09:44 PM PDT
And just how does the one word "goedel" [sic] apply here? (Hint: It doesn't.) This is the second time you have pulled this stupid stunt without any explanation.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 13, 2012 4:28:35 AM PDT
Mohamed: Second you use passive tense to describe things done in your daily life. (I just had that Irony Meter replaced.)

Your English is very good, Mohamed, but not quite good enough to pass comment on others' English I'm afraid. I had my house decorated the other day, I'll have you know. :-)
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  112
Total posts:  4096
Initial post:  May 17, 2012
Latest post:  Sep 30, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions