Infinite monkey theorem vs first life

[46AND2]

I still think you're wrong, did you not hear me the first time? But beyond that, is this all that's left here, badgering someone about something so petty it makes no difference one way or another because the point has been made? And all so one can try to see themselves right on at least something in this thread?

Not doing this with you, no siree Bob..

Oh, trust me, this has a point. It's not my fault you made a terribad analogy, and certainly not my fault you can't own up to it.

Why can't you answer the question? Are not both possibilities still possible after the observation of the missing money? VERY simple question. You complained about us not accepting your "simple" argument, yet you are straight avoiding an even simpler question.

 

[pitabread]

Nailed it.

Not a difficult prediction, sadly. :/

 

[Lobster Johnson]

Though i do understand why arguing something so petty might be important to you, I'm not going to do it.

Tell you what go ahead and milk that for all it's worth, I really do understand the need however, you only posting part of the post was enough for me to call it a misquote. It's much like posting part of a story, and the result being as good as a lie, but technically it's not.

Are you on drugs or something? Do you maybe need to be on drugs?

I didn't only post part of it, I posted the entire thing. All of it. The whole thing. Then I posted it again because you didn't see it the first time, somehow. Then I high-lighted and addressed the problematic parts of it, namely the claims about there needing to be billions of fossils if evolution is true, which is a topic you seem to have abandoned altogether. To argue about being misquoted when you have repeatedly been quoted in your entirety.

 

[46AND2]

badgering someone about something so petty it makes no difference one way or another because the point has been made?

The point HASN'T been made. That is the point of my responses. Additionally, even if we took your analogy at face value, and agreed that the money being gone is evidence it was taken, it refutes your argument about "transitional" fossils!

Your claim about the fossils is that they were never there. Not taken away. Never there.

So....IF we were to agree that the money being gone is evidence that it was taken, and then use that analogy with the fossils, it would be evidence that the fossils were "taken away"...by decomposition.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I've decided some help is definitely needed here so....

And for those who insist upon dwelling on some petty argument for reasons I already mentioned, please allow me show you where, even in a debate such as this, on a comment so simple and easy to understand it still seems you are unable to win your debate..

Your money not being in the safe is not evidence, in and of itself, that it was taken, nor that it was never there. Both possibilities still exist.

No, the second possibility doesn't exist that is unless you got someone else's analogy mixed up with mine....I'll show you why.

Do you agree that your money being absent from the safe COULD mean EITHER someone took it, OR it was not placed there in the first place?

As I told you already, I do not agree. I made it very clear the money was there in the first place.

My money is not in the safe where I left it (is not there)

Do you now understand I left it there, and what that means? It means it was there. If you have questions still just ask.

So, since this is starting to show a spark of entertainment value for myself and the readers, tell me how the money was not there in the first place when in my scenario, the one we are speaking of, it was there because that's "where I left it".

 

[46AND2]

I've decided some help is definitely needed here so....

And for those who insist upon dwelling on some petty argument for reasons I already mentioned, please allow me show you where, even in a debate such as this, on a comment so simple and easy to understand it still seems you are unable to win your debate..



No, the second possibility doesn't exist that is unless you got someone else's analogy mixed up with mine....I'll show you why.



As I told you already, I do not agree. I made it very clear the money was there in the first place.



Do you now understand I left it there, and what that means? It means it was there. If you have questions still just ask.

So, since this is starting to show a spark of entertainment value for myself and the readers, tell me how the money was not there in the first place when in my scenario, the one we are speaking of, it was there because that's "where I left it".

Fine.

How does it relate to the fossils? You originally said they were never there....now, with your analogy, you are saying they WERE there.

No matter how you slice it, it was a super bad analogy. Frankly, I was surprised you even said it. I was focused on the idea that you were claiming it was evidence of being taken...which lines up nicely with our position that the bones were taken by decomposition.

 

[Speedwell]

So, since this is starting to show a spark of entertainment value for myself and the readers, tell me how the money was not there in the first place when in my scenario, the one we are speaking of, it was there because that's "where I left it".

That is where your analogy breaks down. Nobody is asserting that the unfound fossils will support evolution. Nobody knows whether they will or not--because they have not been found and examined. All that is being claimed is that the fossils found so far do support evolution.

 

[pitabread]

No matter how you slice it, it was a super bad analogy.

It does serve as a nice example as to why argument-via-analogy is usually not a good idea.

 

[46AND2]

It does serve as a nice example as to why argument-via-analogy is usually not a good idea.

and argument-via-BAD-analogy is an even worse idea.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Are you on drugs or something? Do you maybe need to be on drugs?

What could I have possibly been thinking! lol.

On drugs because you answered a question directed at someone else and that someone else only posted part of it? On drugs because I misspoke and for a very good reason? Don't you think that's being a bit paranoid? You are still at it and using such an understandable mistake for your needs? That speaks volumes.

the post you replied to:

So which is it?
Not every creature fossilizes; a few fossilize and some of those few are still in the ground?
Or
There should be more fossils if evolution s true?

 

[Speedwell]

What could I have possibly been thinking! lol.

On drugs because you answered a question directed at someone else and that someone else only posted part of it? On drugs because I misspoke and for a very good reason? Don't you think that's being a bit paranoid? You are still at it and using such an understandable mistake for your needs? That speaks volumes.

the post you replied to:

The problem with your long-winded attempt a deflection is that I wasn't quoting you, so there was no misquote to begin with.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The point HASN'T been made. That is the point of my responses. Additionally, even if we took your analogy at face value, and agreed that the money being gone is evidence it was taken, it refutes your argument about "transitional" fossils!

Your claim about the fossils is that they were never there. Not taken away. Never there.

So....IF we were to agree that the money being gone is evidence that it was taken, and then use that analogy with the fossils, it would be evidence that the fossils were "taken away"...by decomposition.

You don't actually expect me to try to have a serious debate with you after that last false accusation and how you went on about it...do you?

Will wonders never cease.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The problem with your long-winded attempt a deflection is that I wasn't quoting you, so there was no misquote to begin with.

I went into that part and it will show I'm fine with using the term here. You'll have to find the post.

 

[46AND2]

You don't actually expect me to try to have a serious debate with you after that last false accusation and how you went on about it...do you?

Will wonders never cease.

As usual, theatrics to pretty up the pig of avoidance.

I wouldn't have had to go on about it if you just responded to the question in the first place. We could have finally got to my overall point much quicker without your silly games.

 

[Speedwell]

I went into that part and it will show I'm fine with using the term here. You'll have to find the post.

What post? I wasn't quoting any of your posts, just summarizing what appeared to me to be the theme of several of your posts. If my summary was incorrect, just say so.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The problem with your long-winded attempt a deflection is that I wasn't quoting you, so there was no misquote to begin with.

And what exactly did I deflect? I though the comment was factual, and dude, you ain't seen long winded...you need to catch me when I have the time.

 

[pitabread]

We could have finally got to my overall point much quicker without your silly games.

Had that been the case, I'd have suspected someone had stolen Kenny's account.

 

[46AND2]

You don't actually expect me to try to have a serious debate with you after that last false accusation and how you went on about it...do you?

Will wonders never cease.

You also said:

If you have questions still just ask.

Were you being disingenuous?

 

[Kenny'sID]

As usual, theatrics to pretty up the pig of avoidance.

I wouldn't have had to go on about it if you just responded to the question in the first place. We could have finally got to my overall point much quicker without your silly games.

MY silly games? I'm sorry but it's starting to appear you are only angry because you were wrong..that's not something I can help so please don't take it out on me. But to avoid such problems in the future, I would suggest you read things more carefully before you do this to yourself again.

I did respond, now could you please answer the request in the last paragraph of post 265? You know, the one you "avoided" and have been trying to pretty up ever since by attempting to make me the problem here?

Do you now understand how you were wrong and why? Again, if not, I'll be happy to answer any questions.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You also said:

Were you being disingenuous?

Two different debates, and I was serious about you asking questions on the "your not reading before you jumped" debate. Go back and read carefully and I'm sure you will see it my way.