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

[Grumblenuts]

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

Yeah, and pigs fly!

 

[gfm7175]

...

Appeal to False Authority Fallacy. Appeal to Definition Fallacy. Dictionaries do not have authority over any word definition. They do not own any word definition.

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.

There is no such thing as a "scientific theory"; just a theory. A theory is an explanatory argument. But back to the definition... It is saying that "scientific evidence" is "evidence", which is what I said it was. Hence, there is no such thing as "scientific evidence"... It is just evidence.

Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method.

Science is NOT a "method"; it is a set of falsifiable theories.

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.

Not how science works... Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's ALL science is... It really is quite simple...

 

[Grumblenuts]

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's ALL science is... It really is quite simple...

You're a dickhead (because I say so). That's ALL you are... It really is quite simple..

 

[gfm7175]

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

Yeah, and pigs fly!

Once again, you pick out one little bit of my argumentation and ignore all the rest... You don't seem interested in civil discourse at all... Your religious fundamentalism blinds you...

 

[gfm7175]

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's ALL science is... It really is quite simple...

You're a dickhead (because I say so). That's ALL you are... It really is quite simple..

Are there any unfalsifiable theories in science?

 

[Grumblenuts]

the definition... It is saying that "scientific evidence" is "evidence", which is what I said it was. Hence, there is no such thing as "scientific evidence"... It is just evidence.

Hilarious! You really have no clue, do you. I shouldn't laugh.

 

[james bond]

just stand next to me and keep talking, so I look smart.

LMAO. You wouldn't look smart even next to deanrd talking about what he nows. It could be the mouth breathing, low brow language and moronic posts.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Once again, you pick out one little bit of my argumentation and ignore all the rest..

Which a fraud like you should already have come to expect from people. One of your obviously favorite bits of quackery is the Gish Gallop. So people who have to deal with you are forced to strip away all of your meaningless pap to get to your only, germane premise. Which,of course, is always just the same,idiotic premise, reiterated 100 different ways. Frauds like you, who are in possession of no evidence whatsoever and no compelling arguments, have to resort the these late night Shamwow seller tactics. Because, as we both know, you possess neither the logical tools nor the knowledge to directly tackle any hard earned scientific knowledge.

So, instead, you attempt to beguile and confuse and naysay. Of course,you know as well as anyone how full of shit you are. That's why you're not taking baths with toasters or jumping off your roof to see if you fall up. But hey, whether or not you fall up is 'anyone's guess', right? Haha...how embarrassing you are ...

 

[gfm7175]

Once again, you pick out one little bit of my argumentation and ignore all the rest..

Which a fraud like you should already have come to expect from people. One of your obviously favorite bits of quackery is the Gish Gallop. So people who have to deal with you are forced to strip away all of your meaningless pap to get to your only, germane premise. Which,of course, is always just the same,idiotic premise, reiterated 100 different ways. Frauds like you, who are in possession of no evidence whatsoever and no compelling arguments, have to resort the these late night Shamwow seller tactics. Because, as we both know, you possess neither the logical tools nor the knowledge to directly tackle any hard earned scientific knowledge.

So, instead, you attempt to beguile and confuse and naysay. Of course,you know as well as anyone how full of shit you are. That's why you're not taking baths with toasters or jumping off your roof to see if you fall up. But hey, whether or not you fall up is 'anyone's guess', right? Haha...how embarrassing you are ...

Post #270 still stands... You still haven't addressed it.

Until you are willing to address my counterarguments in that post, there is nowhere for our correspondence to go.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

By the way, just so everyone here realizes what kind of embarrassing fraud we are dealing with:

There is no such things as the "inversion fallacy". This fraud made it up, to try to sound smart.

Damn this place is an idiot magnet sometimes.

 

[Dick Foster]

Your confusing straight with Republican.

That's a pet peeve of mine too. It's remarkable how many supposedly literate knot heads can't get it right. A true testimate to just how piss poor the educational system in this country has become.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Your confusing straight with Republican.

That's a pet peeve of mine too. It's remarkable how many supposedly literate knot heads can't get it right. A true testimate to just how piss poor the educational system in this country has become.

Of more concern is the number of americans who reject evolution.

 

[daveman]

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...

Well said.

 

[daveman]

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".

Looky there at you, completely rejecting out of hand one possible explanation.

I'm a Christian. I can accept the idea of a Big Bang. I can accept the idea of evolution. I see no reason why God has not used both ideas.

But you? You cannot accept the idea that there could have been Someone who lit the fuse on the singularity from which the universe exploded.

But you call me closed-minded...in contradiction of reality.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Your confusing straight with Republican.

That's a pet peeve of mine too. It's remarkable how many supposedly literate knot heads can't get it right. A true testimate to just how piss poor the educational system in this country has become.

Then you neglected this one for some reason. Lol

So an education only counts if your a liberal ?

 

[daveman]

Your confusing straight with Republican.

That's a pet peeve of mine too. It's remarkable how many supposedly literate knot heads can't get it right. A true testimate to just how piss poor the educational system in this country has become.

Of more concern is the number of americans who reject evolution.

Why? What difference does it make in anyone's life?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Looky there at you, completely rejecting out of hand one possible explanation.

Not once have I done that, whiner. Might a rainbow unicorn have writen the bible and is somewhere laughing at you right now? Sure. But there is no evidence of that magical horseshit, so i will call it magical horseshit.

I'm a Christian. I can accept the idea of a Big Bang. I can accept the idea of evolution. I see no reason why God has not used both ideas.

Great, maybe you get it. When you believe magical borseshit (as you do), then you can oncoporate any idea. You canpoint at anything, from evolution to plate tectonics, and say, "god did that!". Saying so is useless in any practical sense, but it may have value to you in comforting you. Go right ahead,it affects nothing.

 

[daveman]

Looky there at you, completely rejecting out of hand one possible explanation.

Not once have I done that, whiner. Might a rainbow unicorn have writen the bible and is somewhere laughing at you right now? Sure. But there is no evidence of that magical horseshit, so i will call it magical horseshit.

Not once have you done that...really?

You've been rejecting the idea of faith in every thread about it.

Stop lying about it.

I'm a Christian. I can accept the idea of a Big Bang. I can accept the idea of evolution. I see no reason why God has not used both ideas.

Great, maybe you get it. When you believe magical borseshit (as you do), then you can oncoporate any idea. You canpoint at anything, from evolution to plate tectonics, and say, "god did that!". Saying so is useless in any practical sense, but it may have value to you in comforting you. Go right ahead,it affects nothing.

Oh, look -- there you go again, completely rejecting out of hand one possible explanation.

The thing that you refuse to accept is....we can't know what happened. Ever. We can come up with ideas about how they might have happened, but we won't ever be able to say with certainty, "This is exactly what happened." There will never be an experiment to test the theories of creating a universe that results in a universe.

It's nothing more than thought experiments. I proposed one of those earlier, and y'all shit your pants in incoherent rage.

"Not only is the universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think."
-- Werner Heisenberg

And aside from letting you feel superior for no apparent reason, what does it matter?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You've been rejecting the idea of faith in every thread about it.

That doesn't make sense. I have not rejected that faith exists. Are you high?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Your confusing straight with Republican.

That's a pet peeve of mine too. It's remarkable how many supposedly literate knot heads can't get it right. A true testimate to just how piss poor the educational system in this country has become.

Also, did you mean testament? education system?