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.
Yes, please don't forget Piltdown, it was a hoax exposed by science. As for Chimpanzee fossils:Don't forget Piltdown and did you ever notice there are no Chimpanzees in the fossil record?
Riiiiight.Yes it is, and it goes by the name of "creation science".
Yup.Yes, please don't forget Piltdown, it was a hoax exposed by science.
That's correct. The scientific community has been wrong before and will be wrong again.Science can start fires, then put them out.
Yay!!!If you can seriously, spontaneously ask that question, then you are.
Yay!!!
I passed the Turing Test!
Turing set the bar pretty low, for deciding when a machine could be considered sentient, so I wouldn't get too excited about that.
Nuts!
Actually, its a pretty high bar. And some humans can't pass it. Not every entity that qualifies as a person is able to pass the turing test. And technically, the turing test would require more than a single response such as "am I a person" to be fully applied. But taking your posts as a whole, you pass.
Actually, its a pretty high bar. And some humans can't pass it. Not every entity that qualifies as a person is able to pass the turing test. And technically, the turing test would require more than a single response such as "am I a person" to be fully applied. But taking your posts as a whole, you pass.
That's when I know I have you when the inflammatory remarks is all that's left. All the lower echelon rank and file strollers demand some answer to a fallacious question. In this case it's an equivocation but it really doesn't matter since your going to ask it in circles endlessly anyway.And once again, not a single piece of scientific evidence presented to show that evolution is neither a scientific theory or a hypothesis. Just more empty rhetoric and a holier-than-thou attitude from you.
Simply put, Warden-of-the-storm ask for nothing more than scientific evidence to back your claim. You have yet to even address it, much less present credible supporting scientific evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution. I also have asked for scientific evidence that contradicts ToE, which has also gone ignored.That's when I know I have you when the inflammatory remarks is all that's left. All the lower echelon rank and file strollers demand some answer to a fallacious question. In this case it's an equivocation but it doesn't matter since your going to ask it in circles endlessly anyway.
Oh for crying out loud I didn't mean he signed up for classes. The error fabrications you guys come up with are almost as bad as the poor melodrama.If Euclid was a student of Pythagoras or Thales, that was really very clever of him, because he lived about three centuries after they did.
So you profess your own ignorance, and then carry on talking out of your posterior. You self evidently do not know what it is; you have just latched on to a use which was made of it.
Mathematics has progressed way past where it was in Newton's day. Newton wouldn't even pass a first year undergraduate exam in real variable analysis today.
Leibnitz never cooperated ith Newton, and the difference between them was a lot more than just different symbols. As I have already said, Leibnitz's approach was much closer to a present day mathematician's ideas about mathematical rigour. Newton was a typical physicist, and just so long as something seemed to work, that was good enough for him.
Relativity seems alright but String theory with its multiverse time travel warp drive is a load of convoluted conjecture.So Relativity and Quantum Theory aren't scientific. That's interesting.
What I have been talking about is the rise of inductive science from the time Francis Bacon first proposed it till Newton used exclusively inductive methods to demonstrate the theory of light. Its called the Scientific Revolution because it stood science on its head.You have been trying to tell me what calculus is, and what algebra is, so who it is who is qualified as a mathematician, and who it is that isn't, is very much to the point.
I never did that he is making demands of a straw man. What he is calling evolution is actually two things. Its a phenomenon and an all consuming a priori assumption. Now if he wants me to refute Darwinian evolution no problem but I'm not chasing hid pointless pedantic equivocation fallacy in circles for his amusement or yours. If he wants a real conversation he can get with the program and ask a real question. I say that knowing that he doesn't know anything but fallacious head trip taunts.Simply put, Warden-of-the-storm ask for nothing more than scientific evidence to back your claim. You have yet to even address it, much less present credible supporting scientific evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution. I also have asked for scientific evidence that contradicts ToE, which has also gone ignored.
The theory of evolution contains more supporting evidence than any other theory in the physical sciences. In fact, I can't think of a single physical scientific field that does not contribute evidence for ToE. Again, what scientific evidence specifically contradicts ToE?I never did that he is making demands of a straw man. What he is calling evolution is actually two things. Its a phenomenon and an all consuming a priori assumption. Now if he wants me to refute Darwinian evolution no problem but I'm not chasing hid pointless pedantic equivocation fallacy in circles for his amusement or yours. If he wants a real conversation he can get with the program and ask a real question. I say that knowing that he doesn't know anything but fallacious head trip taunts.
Have a nice day
Mark
Why this stuff is light weight and comical. I don't know what makes you think you deserve to be taken seriously but your sadly mistaken.I predict a meltdown and taking his ball and going home soon.
Define evolution.The theory of evolution contains more supporting evidence than any other theory in the physical sciences. In fact, I can't think of a single physical scientific field that does not contribute evidence for ToE. Again, what scientific evidence specifically contradicts ToE?
Oh for crying out loud I didn't mean he signed up for classes. The error fabrications you guys come up with are almost as bad as the poor melodrama.
Such a shame it looked like you might actually hang in the maybe even say something. Guess not. Those fallacies are just too irresistable
Perhaps the most important publication of the Scientific Revolution and the first practical demonstration of the inverse square in motion and you dismiss him like a dulard with an aide of superiority.
This stuff has really gotten wrapped around your ego. No matter how many times I see it it never ceases to amaze me.
Yes they did they corosponded. Now I'm sure your full of it. Before I thought it was a perspective issue but these are error fabrications plain and simple. I almost took you seriously there for a while but guess I should have known.
Relativity seems alright but String theory with its multiverse time travel warp drive is a load of convoluted conjecture.
What I have been talking about is the rise of inductive science from the time Francis Bacon first proposed it till Newton used exclusively inductive methods to demonstrate the theory of light. Its called the Scientific Revolution because it stood science on its head.
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?