Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I can't argue that --For guys who can't handle that, we sure hang around a lot in places where we are told we are wrong... *whistles*
What I find irritating is when people put on ridiculous performances like HAPMinistries has put on for us all. HAPM starts off asking for evidence of creatures being observed to evolve from one creature into another creature. A list is provided. He then sobs that the list is too big and that he feels swamped. People then tell him to take his pick and just address one of them. He ignores this and carries on ranting that the list is too big, that everyone is using ad hominems and fallacies. It is reiterated that he can pick one from the list if he doesn't want to address all. Response: ignore this and carry on ranting about how everyone is allegedly using fallacies including trying to swamp him. You then come along and applaud him for what he has written?! LOL, that really says it all about you, AVET.
For guys who can't handle that, we sure hang around a lot in places where we are told we are wrong... *whistles*
Looks like we have another time waster in the form of HAPMinistries. Move along people, nothing to see here ...
ad hominem
Correction, I asked for 1 observed instance where a species evolved into a completely different species. Just 1. Do you know what 1 is?
And then a list gets thrown at me.
argumentum verbosium - a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.
I CLEARLY asked for 1. I know these sorts of fallacies usually work for you in the past, but not this time.
I still debunked 2 of the examples.
Sadly, you ignore this, and claim I ignored it altogether, which is completely false.
Why do you have such a hard time understanding that I did NOT ask for 'speciation'?
Because I was deliriously optimistic enough to think that you might actually know what you were talking about when it came to the claims of evolution. But you don't. Oh well, one lives and one learns.
But I asked for a complete change of species.
Which is not what evolution claims would happen, nor is it what claims is needed to produce the species of today, so you're still being utterly irrelevant, sweetcheeks.
And in defining by what I meant in 'species', I responded with a resounding assurance to one post who spelled it out what I meant. STILL people chose to ignore and used an equivocation fallacy.
It's not an equivocation fallacy, it's pointing out YOUR strawman fallacy. You don't get to redefine what evolution claims.
And now you are going to try to pass your fallacies off on AVET? lol
That's not really that difficult, to be honest, he commits enough of them.
"Often"??? It seems we have vastly different experiences...
The amount of change you are demanding in a short time is quite unlikely to happen
You, however, claim that it's just as easily reversible. That claim is still waiting for some evidence.
I love that video.
It is logical to assume that life creates life BUT the first life has to be self-existent which is not logical to assume.
Says the guy who just re-entered the thread after making his massive ignorance public.
You should have said you didn't want a list.
Let me guess, you thought you'd called our bluff, and when that turned out to be false you panicked? Aw.....
Lets play a game.
It is called "Infinite Regression".
You keep reproducing back, with finite species, you come to the conclusion, whether you use living OR non-living matter for your conclusion, what is most certain is that 'something' eternal MUST exist, otherwise, nothing would exist.
Do you understand this statement?
I've said it at least 3 times in this thread already, that nobody has directly observed one species turn into another species first hand. If they did, then it would DISPROVE evolution. Speciation occurs over a time scale that exceeds the human life spans, as far as I know.
I understand it. It just happens to be wrong.
Absolutely false. The media get things wrong. Scientists don't make tenure for gross mistakes.Hap said:Sadly, a lot of people regard these things as Law, and that is the horrible misconception, that, referring back to the original question of this thread:
'Is some of the anti science movement to be blamed on scientists?'
And ABSOLUTELY YES, because of the constant misrepresentation of information, claiming to empirically know things that is not empirically known, etc.
So do explain how the universe could exist without something eternal existing.
Do know, that I am going to apply infinite regression to what you say, and reply, "And where did that come from?"
And if you say it all just appeared one day from nothing, I will call you a creationist.
There is no point in time at which the universe did not exist.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?