Wow, people new more about evolution in 1925 than Republicans do today!

[gfm7175]

Yes, it is. We cannot go back in time to see what actually happened...

Nor do we need to, because this is a deterministic universe with no magic. So no, your idea is nutball.

Goodness, so many atheists are closed-minded -- and you act like it's a superior mindset.

Yes, many atheists are closed-minded... you are correct.

This is due to their religious fundamentalism in their atheism (yes, atheism IS a religion). All a religion is is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it. Atheism makes the initial circular argument that god(s) do not exist. All atheist argumentation is based on that initial circular argument. Likewise with Christianity, all Christian argumentation is based on the initial circular argument that Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is. It all comes back to the initial circular argument... That's how religion works. Many people fail to recognize this, and instead act like religion and theism are synonymous terms... While theism is a part of what religion is, religion goes well beyond theism...

 

[Blues Man]

National Film Preservation Foundation: Fifty Million Years Ago (1925)



The earth is 50 million years old?

And took thousands of years to cool down?

Hilarious!

And the dinosaurs are terribly funny. Of course it was known what some of them looked like, they had bones.

But they didn't have computer technology so they couldn't figure out that T Rex and others balanced on their hind legs, not stood upright like people.

And the one dinosaur scratching itself with it's front legs was very cartoony.

But still, they got the form right, they knew the dinosaurs was from millions of years ago and they knew the both cooled down and heated up.

A far cry from the earth being thousands of years old and people being shimmered into being from dirt.

What this shows is how the "theory" of evolution keeps.......well......evolving. It's not settled science. It's continuing exploration.

In Arizona, teaching creationism is supported by 4 of 5 Republicans who want to oversee education

Evolution wording removed from draft of Arizona school science standards

More proof Republicans will never stop with their ignorance. They only way to stop them is to defeat them at the ballot box. And for the good of the country, they MUST be defeated. Can you imagine the country if Republicans got their way and taught their ignorance to American children?

Wow, people new more about evolution in 1925 than Republicans do today!


Wow even in 1925 people knew how to spell better than you do today

 

[Grumblenuts]

we weren't there to observe its creation (IF it was even created)...

How old is your shirt? You weren't there to witness its creation (IF it was even created)...

 

[gfm7175]

we weren't there to observe its creation (IF it was even created)...

How old is your shirt? You weren't there to witness its creation (IF it was even created)...

I have no idea how old my shirt is... The manufacturer would know, though...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You are assuming it is a large mass of dark matter that is producing the effects.

For the purpose of studying it. Again, I am not claiming anything with 100% certainty, nor are scientists. In fact, they are quite busy not only trying to detect dark matter, but also to rule it out and to find another, different explanation for the observations. One is a modfied theory of gravity. What do ypu know about that? Less than nothing,of course. Until some YEC fool mentions it in a blog that you later plagiaraize without any understanding.

You are welcome to to present your alternative explanation. I think you will find that explaining things is harder than being a naysayer who doesn't understand any of it. Your naysaying is worthless and ignorant.

You have no understanding of any of these ideas; you present no alternative explanation to the hypotheses you shit on without any understanding of them; you present no evidence or valid argument; you bring not single idea to the table that makes any useful predictions or is testable in any way. You dont even know what posted images show, until you are spoonfed an explanation of them; you make completely baseless claims as to what scientists are and arent doing, and then have to be corrected like a child making up stories.

 

[deanrd]

Well, this guy is clearly unable or unwilling to share his insight. Maybe another evolution denier can answer:

How do animals adapt?

How many times does it take for something to sink into your skull?

I DID NOT SAY ANIMALS ADAPT. I SAID, that YOU people are MISTAKING adaptation for evolution. I don't give a rats ass about either, but I can find countless new references pertaining to your evolution theory where now you people are calling it ADAPTATION. THAT is my point. Let it sink in.

Adaptation over generations. Some call at evolution.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, many atheists are closed-minded...

On the contrary,it's you religious dogmatists who are much more closed minded. Evidence based thinkers are always willing and compelled to change their minds, in light of new evidence. You magical dogmatists claim to have the answers and refuse to consider any evidence that might contradict your strident religious dogma.

Thus the religious goobers in this thread dismissing mountains of mutually supportive evidence and the scientific theories the evidence renders true. Thus your embarrassingly stupid arguments that boil down to the moronic idea, "Nothing is 100% certain (*except your favorite magical fetishes), therefore every idea and explanation is equally valid."

Of course, except for any idea that contradicts whatever magical horseshit happens to be the subject of your fetishes at the time. Just so we are clear on your silly "rules".

 

[Grumblenuts]

we weren't there to observe its creation (IF it was even created)...

How old is your shirt? You weren't there to witness its creation (IF it was even created)...

I have no idea how old my shirt is... The manufacturer would know, though...

Not if it spontaneously generated like a fire. Yet the Fire Marshall can still find out how old that fire was well after the fact. Go figure?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Atheism makes the initial circular argument that god(s) do not exist.

Wrong. We assert nothing requiring "belief." We assert disbelief alone due to lack of supporting scientific evidence. We reject all supernatural belief systems rooted in faith and belligerent ignorance.

To be clear: Atheism is {...} a lack of belief in gods. {...}
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Disbelief.

 

[gfm7175]

On the contrary,it's you religious dogmatists who are much more closed minded.

Inversion Fallacy. YOU are the one being the religious dogmatist... Remember, Atheism IS a religion too... Religion is not limited to theism. Religion is an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it. I've found that to be the best way to define what a religion is and how it logically works. You're too caught up in your fundamentalism to realize this, or to even comprehend my argument and form a proper response to it...

Evidence based thinkers

Not as special of a thing as you think it is... Evidence is merely "any statement which supports an argument"... Evidence is all around you...

are always willing and compelled to change their minds, in light of new evidence.

I've presented you with new evidence, yet you are not willing nor compelled to change your mind... hmmmmmm...

You magical dogmatists

There is nothing magical about me.

claim to have the answers

Nope. In terms of my Christian faith, I am merely expressing my beliefs. They may or may not be correct.

and refuse to consider any evidence that might contradict your strident religious dogma.

Evidence is not a proof, Fort... Religion cannot be proven nor disproven...

Thus the religious goobers

Be careful with your Insults... Not only are they logical fallacies, but this one in particular is also aimed at yourself. Humans are INHERENTLY religious animals (as I have defined religion above). See to it...

in this thread dismissing mountains of mutually supportive evidence

Supporting evidence is NOT a proof, Fort...

and the scientific theories

There is nothing "scientific" about evolution. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. The Theory of Evolution is NOT falsifiable. Science has no theories about past unobserved events. Evolution is a religion, just like Christianity is, just like Atheism is...

the evidence

There is no "the evidence"; just evidence...

renders true.

Evidence is NOT a proof, Fort... It can't render anything "true"...

Thus your embarrassingly stupid arguments

Calling arguments "stupid" without providing any counterarguments to them is what is known as the Argument of the Stone Fallacy.

that boil down to the moronic idea, "Nothing is 100% certain

Is THAT 100% certain??!! That type of statement is self-refuting, so no, I would never suggest that nothing is 100% certain. There ARE things that are 100% certain. One such example is a logical or mathematical proof. Logic and Mathematics are closed functional systems; they operate under a specific set of rules (foundational axioms). Proofs are an extension of those axioms. They are 100% certain to be true.

(*except your favorite magical fetishes),

I have never claimed that the Christian God is 100% certain. I believe that he exists, however.

therefore every idea and explanation is equally valid."

Nope, never claimed such a thing. I would claim the opposite, actually, as there are logically valid and invalid arguments.

Of course, except for any idea that contradicts whatever magical horseshit happens to be the subject of your fetishes at the time. Just so we are clear on your silly "rules".

Incorrect. You really don't understand my argumentation, do you? My position holds Atheism, Evolution, etc. to all be logically valid theories. While I generally do believe in Evolution (albeit a weaker faith), I do not believe in Atheism.

 

[james bond]

Interesting links there, James. Thanks. So much time and energy wasted on that stupid lambda fudge factor.

Einstein's ToR predicts the the universe can expand. He added the cosmological constant to allow for an universe in equilibrium or steady state. This is what was observed with the weak telescopes of his time. However, Edwin Hubble had the advantage of a more powerful telescope.

"Einstein heard about these results, and in the early 1930s, he traveled to California and met with Hubble. At the Mount Wilson Observatory he saw the massive data set on distant galaxies that had led to “Hubble’s law” describing the expansion of the universe and got angry at himself: had he not forced his equations to stay static with that cosmological-constant invention of his, he could have theoretically predicted Hubble’s findings!

That would have been worth a second Nobel Prize for him (he deserved a few more, anyway)—in the same way, for example, that the CERN scientists’ 2012 experimental discovery of the Higgs boson recently won Peter Higgs the Nobel in 2013. In disgust, Einstein exclaimed after his Mount Wilson visit: “If there is no quasi-static world, then away with the cosmological term!” and never considered the cosmological constant again. Or so we thought until recently."

Little did we and he know (since he died) that his lambda would return in the form of dark energy.

"Dark Energy: Lambda Returns
When a genius such as Einstein makes a mistake, it tends to be a “good mistake.” (I am indebted to the mathematician Goro Shimura for this expression.) It can’t simply go away—there is too much thought that has gone into it. So, like a phoenix, Einstein’s cosmological constant made a remarkable comeback, very unexpectedly, in 1998.

That year, two groups of astronomers made an announcement that rocked the world of science. The “Supernova Cosmology Project,” based in California and headed by Saul Perlmutter, and the “High-Z SN Search” group at Harvard-Smithsonian and Australia, announced their results of the shifts of distant galaxies leading to a conclusion that nobody had expected: The universe, rather than slowing its expansion since the Big Bang, is actually accelerating its expansion!

And it turns out that the best theoretical way to explain the accelerating universe is to revive Einstein’s discarded lambda. The cosmological constant (acting differently from how it was designed, as a force stopping the expansion) is the best explanation we have for the mysterious “dark energy” seen to permeate space and push the universe ever outward at an accelerating rate. To most physicists today, lambda, cosmological constant, and dark energy are closely synonymous. But unfortunately Einstein was not there to witness the reversal of his “greatest blunder,” having died in 1955.

And it has been widely assumed that he died without ever reconsidering the cosmological constant. Until now."

This is what Fort Fun Indiana and I are arguing about. The Big Bang believers think this dark energy will increase the spacetime expansion forever while Einstein believed it could also cause a collapse. In an universe that is able to expand, we see that it is but the dark energy could cause a collapse, as well.

"In a closed geometry, the universe was born and will someday recollapse on itself. In an open geometry, it was born and will expand forever, and the same happens in a flat (Euclidean) geometry. Based on modern theories supported by satellite observations of the microwave background radiation in space, space-time is nearly perfectly Euclidean, meaning that the universe was born in a Big Bang and will expand forever, becoming less dense with time. Eventually, matter may decay into few kinds of elementary particles and photons, the distances among them growing to infinity."

The article also mentions the speeds of light and large masses which Einstein was never able to figure out. He was working on these things up to the day he died. We still do not understand gravity, speed of light and the missing mass even though the evolutionists think it's dark matter.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

YOU are the one being the religious dogmatist...

A baseless, deaperate claim, unsupported by a single example or sheed of argument. As such, you discredit yourself and no direct response is required . just stand next to me and keep talking, so I look smart.

 

[gfm7175]

Wrong. We assert nothing requiring "belief."

Is that your belief?

We assert disbelief alone

Is that your belief?

due to lack of supporting scientific evidence.

[1] This is an Argument From Ignorance Fallacy. Remember, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

[2] Evidence is NOT a proof.

[3] There is no such thing as "scientific" evidence; just evidence. The meaning of the word doesn't change for science. Evidence means "any statement which supports an argument". There is evidence all around you...

We reject all supernatural belief systems

Define "supernatural".

rooted in faith and belligerent ignorance.

Your Atheism is also rooted in faith, you know... Faith is a synonymous term with circular reasoning. Accepting something on a circular reasoning basis is accepting something on a faith basis...

The only one being ignorant here is you, as your above-mentioned Argument From Ignorance Fallacy showed...

To be clear: Atheism is {...} a lack of belief in gods. {...}

Is that your belief?

Are you catching on to the issue with your reasoning that I am pointing out??

If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Oh wow, I've never heard that cliche of a mantra before... Atheism is a religion for the reasons I have laid out...

Disbelief.

Is that your belief?

Do you see why this reasoning fails??

 

[gfm7175]

YOU are the one being the religious dogmatist...

A baseless, deaperate claim, unsupported by a single example or sheed of argument. As such, you discredit yourself and no direct response is required . just stand next to me and keep talking, so I look smart.

See my post #270, from which you picked out one specific quote of mine and left the rest of my argumentation out of it and unresponded to... I supported my reasoning within that post, but you chose to ignore it.

I'm attempting to have a philosophical discussion with you, but you seem uninterested due to your religious fundamentalism...

 

[Grumblenuts]

Atheism makes the initial circular argument that god(s) do not exist.

One last time. WRONG. Atheists can speak. Atheism cannot. I assert only that I lack belief in anything supernatural ("gods"). In other words, I self-identify as an atheist. A straightforward statement of fact. Not an argument. Not "reasoning." Therefore not "circular" by definition.

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving";[1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[2]

Not "trying to" do anything but be clear about what I will not believe.

Inversion Fallacy.

Yes, very good. That's what you and your ilk are guilty of time and again:

Denying the antecedent, sometimes also called inverse error or fallacy of the inverse, is a formal fallacy of inferring the inverse from the original statement. It is committed by reasoning in the form:[1]
If P, then Q.
Therefore, if not P, then not Q.
which may also be phrased as
therefore, not-P implies not-Q)[1]
Arguments of this form are invalid. Informally, this means that arguments of this form do not give good reason to establish their conclusions, even if their premises are true.

If an -ism, then must be a religion.
Therefore, if not a religion, then not Atheism.
If you supply no evidence, then I don't need to either (claim or none).
Therefore, if you supply evidence (of no gods) , only then do I need to (supply evidence to support my positive assertion that there are or may be gods.)

You fail to comprehend because you just try to bully your way through. Simply repeating your godlike assertions and tossing around fallacy names without even trying to fit their logic pieces together will never help you.

 

[Dick Foster]

National Film Preservation Foundation: Fifty Million Years Ago (1925)



The earth is 50 million years old?

And took thousands of years to cool down?

Hilarious!

And the dinosaurs are terribly funny. Of course it was known what some of them looked like, they had bones.

But they didn't have computer technology so they couldn't figure out that T Rex and others balanced on their hind legs, not stood upright like people.

And the one dinosaur scratching itself with it's front legs was very cartoony.

But still, they got the form right, they knew the dinosaurs was from millions of years ago and they knew the both cooled down and heated up.

A far cry from the earth being thousands of years old and people being shimmered into being from dirt.

What this shows is how the "theory" of evolution keeps.......well......evolving. It's not settled science. It's continuing exploration.

In Arizona, teaching creationism is supported by 4 of 5 Republicans who want to oversee education

Evolution wording removed from draft of Arizona school science standards

More proof Republicans will never stop with their ignorance. They only way to stop them is to defeat them at the ballot box. And for the good of the country, they MUST be defeated. Can you imagine the country if Republicans got their way and taught their ignorance to American children?

I just love your title for this tread shitforbrains. People new? Let's face it, you're no brainiac.

 

[Grumblenuts]

There is no such thing as "scientific" evidence; just evidence.

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

You're welcome.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I supported my reasoning within that post, but you chose to ignore it.

Excuse you. I responded directly with the difference between explanations and ideas built on evidence and ignorant guesses and belief without evidence. You, of course, being beholden to your idiot's narrative that any and all guesses are equal (thus not doing anything to validate your own magical horseshit, but merely an embarrassing attempt to drag all knowledge down into the ignorant miuck where your faith based horseshit resides),ignored this obvious and important difference between evidence based knowledge and faith based belief.

Because, of course, you are a fraud.

 

[gfm7175]

One last time. WRONG.

Nope, my assertion is correct.

Atheists can speak. Atheism cannot.

Semantic quibbling noted. I can say "atheists say..." instead of "atheism says..." if that makes you happier...

I assert only that I lack belief in anything supernatural ("gods").

Is that your belief?

In other words, I self-identify as an atheist. A straightforward statement of fact.

Yup.

Not an argument.

You being an atheist is not an argument. Atheism itself IS an argument, though. It argues that god(s) do not exist.

Not "reasoning." Therefore not "circular" by definition.

Yes, it is reasoning. It also happens to be circular reasoning.

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving";[1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[2]

This definition is half correct. It is correct that circular reasoning is reasoning which concludes with its initial predicate. It is incorrect by claiming that it is a logical fallacy (acting as if it is always a fallacy). It CAN be a logical fallacy IF and ONLY IF one attempts to prove that reasoning. Circular reasoning, in and of itself, is not a fallacy. Attempting to prove circular reasoning IS a fallacy, though.

Denying the antecedent, sometimes also called inverse error or fallacy of the inverse, is a formal fallacy of inferring the inverse from the original statement. It is committed by reasoning in the form:[1]
If P, then Q.
Therefore, if not P, then not Q.
which may also be phrased as
therefore, not-P implies not-Q)[1]
Arguments of this form are invalid. Informally, this means that arguments of this form do not give good reason to establish their conclusions, even if their premises are true.

That's not what an Inversion Fallacy is. That would be the Denying the Antecedent Fallacy. An Inversion Fallacy, rather, is the fallacy of projection... It stems from the contextomy fallacy, as one is attempting to assign context A to person B instead of leaving it on person A.

If an -ism, then must be a religion.

Not my argument at all. Strawman Fallacy.

Therefore, if not a religion, then not Atheism.

Atheism IS a religion. I have described why already.

If you supply no evidence, then I don't need to either (claim or none).

Not my argument at all. Strawman Fallacy.

Therefore, if you supply evidence (of no gods) , only then do I need to (supply evidence to support my positive assertion that there are or may be gods.)

I'm not asking you to supply any evidence, and I don't have to provide you any evidence either. Christianity can only be accepted/rejected on a faith basis.

You fail to comprehend because you just try to bully your way through.

I'm not bullying; I am attempting rational discourse...

Simply repeating your godlike assertions

You make argument A, I make counterargument A... Since you keep responding with argument A, I keep responding with counterargument A... See how that works? In order to break the cycle, you need to respond to counterargument A with your own counterargument A (instead of reverting back to argument A).

and tossing around fallacy names without even trying to fit their logic pieces together will never help you.

I'm only calling out the fallacies that I catch you committing (and I don't even always note every single fallacy out loud). Stop committing fallacies and I will stop calling them out.

 

[gfm7175]

Excuse you. I responded directly with the difference between explanations and ideas built on evidence and ignorant guesses and belief without evidence.

Yes, that was your original argument. I then made a counterargument in post #270 directly related to evidence (and how it isn't as special as you think it is, and tried to help you understand what various words actually mean and how they relate to logic and forming arguments), of which you ignored, and you just reverted back to your original argument. I'm still waiting for you to address my points in post #270...

You, of course, being beholden to your idiot's narrative that any and all guesses are equal

Insult Fallacy. Strawman Fallacy. Argument By Repetition Fallacy.

I have never made such an argument; in fact, I argued the opposite. You didn't pay attention to my argumentation, due to your anger-fueled atheist fundamentalism. Why are you so angry?

(thus not doing anything to validate your own magical horseshit,

Again, why are you so angry? I don't have to validate my faith to you. In fact, your attempt to force me into committing the Argument From Ignorance Fallacy is a fallacy in and of itself, called the Attempted Force of a Negative Proof Fallacy.

but merely an embarrassing attempt to drag all knowledge down into the ignorant miuck where your faith based horseshit resides),

Why are you so angry? The only ignorant one here is you. I'm trying to increase your knowledge, but you keep refusing due to your religious fundamentalism...

ignored this obvious and important difference between evidence based knowledge
and faith based belief.

What "difference" am I ignoring?

Because, of course, you are a fraud.

How so?