A fascinating video on the vacuity of Macro Evolution for

[createdtoworship]

Which in turn invited my response to your response, spiraling into this discussion involving me trying to prod you into supporting an article you linked and you doing everything in your power to avoid doing so.

I mean, really, this whole thing could have been avoided if you'd admitted it's a crap article from the get-go.

we don't support peer reviews, none of us are qualified to support peer reviews, they support us.

 

[createdtoworship]

But you have no evidence. You do not even understand the concept.

So forget conflicting authorities, that is miles beyond your pay grade.

all I was saying was that your comment was an appeal to authority. and it was. Can we move on?

 

[Subduction Zone]

all I was saying was that your comment was an appeal to authority. and it was. Can we move on?

Nope, I guess that we can add the fact you do not understand that not only does the meaning of words change over the years, so does the meaning and usage of terms.

 

[pitabread]

you got it, specified complexity, mentioned a few times, even once is evidence of it existing.

An assertion is not evidence.

we don't support peer reviews, none of us are qualified to support peer reviews, they support us.

This statement makes no sense.

 

[bhsmte]

An assertion is not evidence.

If that is all one has though, I guess they have to roll with it.

 

[pitabread]

If that is all one has though, I guess they have to roll with it.

I suppose so. It's disappointing though. If I was an ID supporter, I'd be demanding higher standards.

 

[bhsmte]

I suppose so. It's disappointing though. If I was an ID supporter, I'd be demanding higher standards.

To me, I almost see ID supporters as more desperate than those who tout biblical creationism.

 

[AV1611VET]

Even in their own terms, YECs are not known for their philosophical astuteness.

Do they need it when arguing against evolution?

 

[bhsmte]

Do they need it when arguing against evolution?

Depends if credibility is desired.

 

[createdtoworship]

Nope, I guess that we can add the fact you do not understand that not only does the meaning of words change over the years, so does the meaning and usage of terms.

you do not have authority to redefine vocabulary when defeated in debate.

 

[createdtoworship]

An assertion is not evidence.



This statement makes no sense.

Try rereading it slower this time

 

[Subduction Zone]

you do not have authority to redefine vocabulary when defeated in debate.

It is a good thing that you were the one that lost then.

By the way, have you kept your word yet?

 

[createdtoworship]

An assertion is not evidence.



This statement makes no sense.

So then you must take each occasion of specifies complexity in the peer review and prove it false, but even then, you are not a PhD scientist, so really you cannot refute a word I say .

 

[pitabread]

Try rereading it slower this time

I'm not responsible for your inability to clearly communicate.

At any rate, since you obviously have no inclination to discuss the articles you link, we're done here. Better luck next time.

 

[createdtoworship]

It is a good thing that you were the one that lost then.

By the way, have you kept your word yet?

are you my judge? I though only God can judge others. for in what manner ye judge others, by that manner shall ye also be judged.

 

[Obliquinaut]

So then you must take each occasion of specifies complexity in the peer review and prove it false

Hi! I just stumbled in here without a lot of background on what is being discussed, but this phrase caught my attention: it is never the job of anyone to prove a negative. It is, in fact, the job of those proving a positive claim to support that claim.

Usually the null hypothesis is "there is no...X..." and testing against that.

Now, granted, it may be an interesting exercise to find cases where a given claim is clearly false, but I am unaware of cases where someone must go through literature and prove every instance of a particular case false.

, but even then, you are not a PhD scientist, so really you cannot refute a word I say .

Does one need to be a PhD scientist to refute your claims? What is your PhD in? Just curious in the event that one day I am your interlocutor.

 

[createdtoworship]

Bye

I'm not responsible for your inability to clearly communicate.

At any rate, since you obviously have no inclination to discuss the articles you link, we're done here. Better luck next time.

bye bye

 

[createdtoworship]

Hi! I just stumbled in here without a lot of background on what is being discussed, but this phrase caught my attention: it is never the job of anyone to prove a negative. It is, in fact, the job of those proving a positive claim to support that claim.

Usually the null hypothesis is "there is no...X..." and testing against that.

Now, granted, it may be an interesting exercise to find cases where a given claim is clearly false, but I am unaware of cases where someone must go through literature and prove every instance of a particular case false.



Does one need to be a PhD scientist to refute your claims? What is your PhD in? Just curious in the event that one day I am your interlocutor.

Not proving it negative and not proving a negative, simply just responding to the peer review I already posted, which none can refute. design found in feathers

 

[Obliquinaut]

Not proving it negative and not proving a negative, simply just responding to the peer review I already posted, which none can refute. design found in feathers

Intelligent Design is such a philosophically fraught concept.

 

[createdtoworship]

I'm not responsible for your inability to clearly communicate.

At any rate, since you obviously have no inclination to discuss the articles you link, we're done here. Better luck next time.

Bye bye, but anytime you are willing to actually post on topic and debate evolution, I will be here.