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.
There is no way of knowing, and because there is no way of knowing, it is simply a educated guess, a hypothesis, and that is all it is and will be until we have a way of truly knowing.[/FONT][/COLOR]
To you personally, but not in the knowing of a species descendants.
I have already exposed you for never presenting evidence but always using fallacies to try to drive home a point. Simply accusing me of what you do is self defeating for you.
You are not able to prove any fossil had procreated and passed on anything. This is already debunked, and you still persist.
Now I get to repeat myself:
That is absurd.
I showed example of carbon dating a living snail to be 27,000 years old. I laugh, and for good reason, because I know the snails age.
Let me repeat, I know the snails age.
...Let me say that again, I know the snail's age.
Why did I say that so many times? To let you know that for something to be 'reliable', you have to be able to know if the results are accurate. In dealing with ANYTHING over the gross periods of time, there is absolutely no way of knowing it is accurate. There is no way of knowing, and because there is no way of knowing, it is simply a educated guess, a hypothesis, and that is all it is and will be until we have a way of truly knowing.
Ad hominem
Again, you fall into fallacies to defend your inability to face the environment. Skepticism is not calling into question that which you have a presupposition against, but to question everything. Sadly, you do not even research, because my Leap Second example had no video
So let me get this straight, I am incompetent... yet you have not researched anything presented, and have not yet entered the debate.
Maybe I should buy you some crayons and a coloring book so you can sit in the corner and amuse yourself?
Creationism is not even a subject that has been discussed here. Are you aware of this?
You say this without researching what is presented? I did not commit a argumentum verbosium as you did. I slowly, over days, present ed a little information at a time, so anyone wanting to discuss with me about the thread and my view could be informed, and give a counter-view if they so chose.
Again, you have not entered the debate, and already declare no knowledge is presented. Look into my eyes,, that is not very intelligent.
This is the Christian Forums, and yet you are not a Christian, but you are here to 'evangelize' your agnostic atheist skeptical naturalist approach, correct. You are 'imitating' what you have seen the church do. It is the church and evangelism that you are emulating by being here.
But what you do not have is the Holy Ghost. We evangelize not only with our head, but with our very heart and soul, our very essence. We are a people set on fire by God, and it is such a contrast to your age of en-darken-ment, that you actually win people for Christ by simply being yourself. All a Christian has to do is expose what it is you believe life came from, aka Abiogenesis, and your whole stance on "knowledge and rationalization" completely go out the window. Couple that with the obsessive use of fallacies, and people feel comfortable in knowing that you think in a tiny box, and it is impossible for you to find the answers of eternity and meaning of life. Do you really believe your only purpose is to survive and replicate?
No matter how accurately you determine the ratio of carbon-14/carbon-12 it is not suitable for dating material from marine organisms.
What's a way of "truly knowing" something?
Lets do a thought experiment here to show why direct ancestral fossils are not needed.
Lets say over millions of years
Oh, and you might want to check the rules, and think carefully before making a post like this in future.
Standing in a garage and calling yourself a car does not make you a car.
You never answered any points, because you can not. Your push for deception has been proven.
That's it.
You completely missed it.
And you give an example that questions evolution's accuracy by stating, "lets assume evolution is true." No, that is the PROBLEM that you are assuming evolution to be true.
To use a fossil as an example of something life today had descended from, then you need to prove the fossil reproduced. That is common sense, but I will say we have different approaches.
And what is constantly avoiding the responses to your points, claiming (erroneously) that no points have been made and calling that deception but deception itself?
Hypocrisy again.
Species =/= individuals.
Please, keep making more daft points like this, it's entertaining
There were no responses, just personal attacks, ad hominems.
You claim hypocrisy when you admit you never watched any of the videos presented, and you quoted the Leap Second evidence, and simply made a fallacy.
So, you leave nothing because you say nothing.
I've responded to the bulk of your points barring two videos
Making fallacies are not responses.
Except they aren't, but you've already demonstrated your ignorance of what fallacies actually are. Ad hominems... it would be quicker to list the fallacies you do understand.
But hey, ignore the points, I don't care. Just makes your position even more untenable. You want to actually garner some credibility, stop acting the hypocrite and respond. Otherwise, run along.
Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions.
Since I first posted on this thread, you have used nothing but fallacies in response to me. You are a constant fallacy.
Except I've already addressed your arguments for the most part
- Ask a Question
- Do Background Research
- Construct a Hypothesis
- Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
- Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
- Communicate Your Results
There no way of testing a hypothesis that extends over the Time of the Gaps allowance of time. The hypothesis can not be given credibility or completely disproved because it is completely hypothetical.
So, unless a person can experience what they hypothesize, they can't make reasonable assertions?
You completely missed it.
And you give an example that questions evolution's accuracy by stating, "lets assume evolution is true." No, that is the PROBLEM that you are assuming evolution to be true.
To use a fossil as an example of something life today had descended from, then you need to prove the fossil reproduced. That is common sense, but I will say we have different approaches.
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?