Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

[razzelflabben]

Neither of us knows for sure. I think he probably did, but was likely so different from the image painted of him as to have him rejected by the very organizations established in his name.
The character of Shakyamuni Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, probably was based on a real person, but was again doubtless very different than the legends written about him. In fact, I would would guess that if Jesus and Siddhartha both read some of the myths written about them, they wouldn't even realize who those tails were talking about.
He was the most likely by far, but we still don't really know. We can't even be sure if his biographer existed, or Salman the Persian, the first non-arab Muslim who was supposedly directed to Muhammad by none other than Jesus in the flesh. Throughout the history of journalism, people tend to embellish stories of their most popular characters until the real details are lost in a cloud of myth. Since there's no evidence in any of these cases, we'll never know what the real story is with any of them.
No degree. If you can't measure it somehow, you can't prove its really there. To believe in something which is both known to be impossible according to every natural law, and which can neither be quantified nor qualified in any way, and more than that, but to take that blind speculation and assert it as if it were confident knowledge and easily verified, -that requres faith because there's not a shred of evidence anywhere near it. Its also likely not to be true at all no matter how loudly one proclaims to "know" their "absolute truth". After all, lots of religions claim to know what no one even can know, and they all declare the certainty of their convictions even though they can't all be true at the same time. Religion and logic don't know each other.
Nor was it ever involved in the first place.
If it affects whether it can be viewed at all, then it doesn't count as evidence, because evidence has to be objectively demonstrable some way.

I really don't get what you are saying, according to the historians I have talked to, they all agree these people did exist. To the accuracy issue, history is revisionary, so that doesn't really give you much to go on in an arguement.

You should really should have a dictionary with you so that we have some common ground. Because words like evidence, proof, lie, truth, religion, rationalism, and faith all seem to mean something very different in your mind.

Only to the extent that you don't want to understand my position.

I know you won't realize this, but you just disproved your own claim, and revealed that there is no proof in religion after all.
Impossible.
And probably are. Again you've just shown there is no proof in religion.
No ma'am, as always you're wrong. You said faith was defined as being totally dependant on evidence,

now come on, I know you can read better than that, or at least I can type better than that. What I said is that evidence is not included or excluded from faith. FAith does not require it nor exclude it, it is independent of evidence. Get it straight if you want to present yourself as a man of honor.

and now imply that faith is rational too.

Never happened. FAith is not governed by what is logical or what is not, it is independant of evidence and logic, faith can exist in or out of logic and evidence. I don't see anyway to be any clearer.

But every definition available anywhere screams the very opposite. Faith is not dependant on evidence at all and is considered by rationalists to be irrational because of that.

As I said and pointed out to you many times, it is not void of evidence, it is independant of logic and evidence.

Not one segment of any of that supports anything you've said, and all of it stands against you.

Except that what you claim I have said is a gross misrepresentation.

The definition says it is NOT based on evidence and is independant of it. That's means, whether possible or not, faith considers evidence irrelevant, which it does, and I can show you where other creationists on this board have admitted that.

Doesn't matter who admitted it, it is what I have been telling you, it doesn't mean squat if you base your beliefs on evidence or not, faith is independant of any of that, it is neither included or omitted

You're still not making any sense.
This is an example of a lie. Because here you deny ever saying that, but anyone here can just scroll back to post # 616 of this thread, and see for themselves that you really said that. And given the fact that I cut-and-paste this from your own post, it isn't possible that you didn't know you said or that you simply forgot about it. You know you said it, but you say you didn't. That's a lie.

Now I reread it and studied it and see where I said that faith is not affected by whether or not evidence exists which is consistant with what the definitions say, so how then is it a lie? It is consistant with what I have been saying, consistant with the definitions, and it is a lie? How? I must not understand what a lie is if this is one.

I already did. Every definition disproves your belief of what that definition is.
Evidence is irrelevant to faith, it simply doesn't matter to faith at all.

Exactly what I have been saying, so if you claim you have no faith because you believe the evidence, you lack understanding of what faith is because faith doesn't care if you follow evidence or not, faith is independant of evidence. Deal with it

I've already given you several, but of course you won't admit anything that doesn't suit you.

I have learned to own what is mine and so far all I see is misrepresentations and you wanting me to own those misrepresentations, that means, they are not mine to own.

Since I never lied and never painted myself into anything, then all I need do is realize that I'm dealing with someone who does lie, and does so deliberately, and who will not be reasoned with under any circumstances. Thus, already having proven my point to everyone else reading this, I am free to leave this conversation on top. Do not expect me to ever read anything you ever post again.

That is your burden but let me ask you this, if you are misrepresented, why should you admit to being wrong? You and I are not so far off agreement as you let on us to be, but you can't see that because you insist that no matter what I say I will be wrong. Case in point, faith is independant of evidence now that can only be interpreted one way that I know of, that faith doesn't specify if you hold to evidence or not. For you to say I claim otherwise is a total misrepresentation and is not mine to hold. If you want to talk about communication flaws, yep I have had some, we all have, but if I agree that I am wrong as to faith, then in essence you are asking me to say you are wrong as well. Where does that get us? Either we are both right or we are both wrong. The problem is that you don't want to apply our agreed understanding to your own beliefs, consistancy demand that you do and whether you will admit it or not, I am about consistancy.

 

[razzelflabben]

She didn't quote the whole statement. In a previous comment in the very same post, I gave a definition of a lie, and she said I had done exactly that many times. If you doubt whether she accused me of lying more explicitly than that, review the links and bolded red words I quoted from her here. If you still think she never accused me of that, then cast your vote in the poll the other way. But so far, everyone agrees with me. You will too when you see the rest of her accusations.

In what world is saying that your posts fit the definitions you provided, the same as calling you a lier? Thanks, just want to understand how that all fits your defition

 

[razzelflabben]

You said you had to understand the evidence for commen ancestry or you wouldnt think it was possible. But anything is possible, including any religious idea. I dont have to agree theres evidence for it to know its "possible". Wether its "probable" is another question completely.

uh ur, your wrong, there are some impossibles, like for example knowing another man's heart. and by the way it is a rich laugh hearing an evolutionist talk about probables. Thanks, I needed that. [qupte]

Oh really, great responce Razzel. Really great.


The reason why I insisted in precise wording from you was because whenever you talked about some scientific idea you always showed you had a confused and muddled version of it. Because "evolution" can mean different things to some people it become necessary for you to specify what you were talking about. That was the only reason we did that, as usualy it isnt necessary. Even most Creationsts arent as pedantic and semantical as you are.[/quote] Your "correction" didn't change my post or the meaning therof at all, so what actually was the correction then? If I say 1+1=2 and you say no, you are wrong because 1 means a unit with only one item in it so therefore 1+1=2, what have you corrected?

I never said I know you better than you know yourself. I think this is another example of you claiming I said something I did not and you knowing full well you cant back up.

actually what you said is that I am a creationist I just won't admit to it.. I shorthanded it to you asserting to know me better than I know myself. Sorry, sounds hauntingly similar to the likes of me

But ignoring thatl; Imagine you are a teacher trying to explain fractions to a child, and it keeps saying that 2+2=5. You keep saying that this wrong and it doesnt understand. So you say you have to go back and explain how addition works, and it acts all insulted after you do, the child says of course it understands all that and then proceedes to tell you that 4+4=9.

except that I told you 2+2=4 and 4+4=8, you just didn't hear me over the din of your own idealism of who I am and what I believe. Where do I get that accusation? From things like the above deiscussion on my personal beliefs on evolution and creation.

Right now you are acting like that child that cant add, the child that keeps getting things wrong and when his teacher tells him he doesnt understand tells his teacher thathe doesnt know him better than he knows himself! That wouldnt make sence then and it doesnt make sence now.

In other words, if you really do understand the science you have been talking about you do not show it! But this is all we have to go on. So if you understand the subjects you speak of really, we have no way of knowing that and no way to read your mind.


But you've said people have lied, but that they arent liars. You've said poeple have told lies, but that you arent going to call them liars.

I have claimed that people have misrepresented and spoken things that were not truth.

But if you've determined someone has lied that makes them a liar, becuse a lie is a willfull distortion of the truth meant to decieve. But if they never meant to decieve, if they never meant to tell a falsehood, this is not a lie and they cannot be called a liar.

I am stunned. I say, we can't know a man's heart therefore cannot call a man a lier and you disagee with me so that you can come back and say that a man isn't a lier unless we know his intent. Mind boggling simply mind boggling.

So you cant go around saying someone lied, or has told lies and say you arent going to call them a liar. You already have!

I have stated that things were misrepresented that statements have been false, and the like but never called someone a liers soo the problem here is that a false statement can also be clasified as a lie, but that doesn't mean the purson intentially lied, thus making them to be a lier. There are two burdens of proof in the definition given, one foreknowledge, the second the reason for the lie[/quote]


But just like I told you before, the mainstream scientific conclusion IS that commen ancestry is the only viable scientific conclusion. If you dont agree with that, you obviously dont agree with the mainstream scientific conclusion. [/quote] Right, but that doesn't mean I disagree with common ancestry or that I disagree with the evidence of said. What it means is that I have a problem with the claim that only one viable conclusion exists. Totally different from what you are claiming.

Look at it this way, what if I said, I believe evolution to be fact, but I also beleive that there are other possibles. What then, would you still say I am wrong, that I have a problem with commoon ancestry? Remember, that I am saying here in this example that I agree with common ancestry. And do be careful with your answer.

Why does that matter? I figured you'd have worked that by now seeing as how no mainstream scientific source supports the positions you've been taking. Do you have anything to show that the mainstream scientific opinion is of anything but idea that commen ancestry is the only viable scientific conclusion? Its been the mainstream scientifc opinion for decades now. Dont you follow the news? You do know Intelligent Design ISNT mainstream right? That cant be what you are referring to can it?

Oh, so I can only believe what I am told to believe? When did this happen, what happened to indepednant thought?

Yes, that would make sence if you didnt contradict yourself so often.

You say you have no problem with the evidence for commen ancestry and you say you have no problem with the mainstream scientific opinion about commen ancestry, which in that case by the way both of us should agree. But then you say you dont agree its the only viable scientifc conclusion and that the evidence could be shown to support another viable scientific conclusion. This contradicts both previous statements!

Not at all, what it says is that the evidence is not conclusive, or in other words, we don't really know. Go figure fits my ideas of origins, is consistant with what I say, and is logical. Wow, I really am stupid aren't I?

What inconsisteny? I said you have a problem with the mainstream scientific opinion in this matter, and then you say you dont. So I show you you do, becuase the mainstream scientific opinion is not the same as yours, and you accuse me of ommiting that the first time round as well as continuing to say you dont have a probelm with the mainstream scientific opinion! And you call me inconsistent?

Depends on what you mean by this and the first couple times I read it, I saw, common ancestry, it wasnt until you clarified your post that I understood it differently. Hum, communication?!?

No I didnt leave anything out, and this is once again another jab at my honesty you know you arent going to back up.

Read the conversation back. You questioned my last statement that the mainstream scientific opinion is that commen ancestry is the only viable conclusion, on "common evidence". So what are you saying there? That common evidence" shows that this isnt the mainstream scientific view? Or that the "common evidence" shows common ancestry isnt the only viable scientific conclusion? Either way it makes no sence as a responce.

as with all cases of communication errors, there is a difference between what you think you are saying and what others hear you say. This appears to be a simple communication error, fixed and responded to.

I love it!

1. You tell me that I "admitted" to you that I tell lies to prove my points.

2. You refuse to show me where I said that.

3. You say that you arent calling me a liar just that you said I lied.

4. You just now said that I still am "admitting "to you that I tell lies to prove my points, and you say you forgiven me for it! How nice!..

5. ..Especially since you still havent ever shown me where I ever said that!

I did and you refuse to accept it. That is your to own

Its no win for you becuase you refuse to back up your allegation that I admitted that I tell lies to prove my points, and you know I never said any such thing and thats why you cant do it even though I've repeatedly asked you to. Do you accuse people of things in real life this way too?


Have you looked at the other discussions? Do evolutionists have the same trouble with other Creationists that they have with you? Even the really nutty ones make themselves crystal clear compared to you. Or do you consider yourself so special we all treat you differently?



When did anyone say commen ancestry is the only "possible" conclusion?

Cant you see the difference between these two statements?

1. Commen ancestry is the only viable conclusion.

2. Commen ancestry is the only possible conclusion.


What boggles my mind is that you've actually replaced the word "viable" we've been using to describe the conclusion of commen ancestry and replaced it with "possible". This makes what we've said completely different. You know you've turned our position into a strawman dont you? You know a strawman is a misrepresentation dont you? This is the kind of problems I was talking about. And once more its out of your bizzare ever changing personal definitions of words.

You know what, it sounds from this post that you do totally understand what I am saying but you are purposely misrepresenting my view to make your point. Remind me again what that is called. Just for old times sake, what is it called when a person knows the truth but purposely misrepresents that truth to make a point?

You agree to this? You just told me you didnt have a problem with the evidence for commen ancestry.

How can we understand what you believe when you apparently cant make up your mind?


Thats right, you dont. You talk in endless circles trying to make people think you already understand everything. Thats not really discussing evidence.


What evidence? The only time I rememeber you showing you might have understood something is after someone has spent ages explaining something to you, you insisting you already understood it, then going ahead trying to make an argument about the same topic and show you still didnt get it.


Since you dont understand our "side", no I dont believe you could. If you accepted evolution yet still had the same fundamental misunderstandings as you show, you'd still have to be corrected constantly and likely do a lot more harm than good debating Creationists.


No dear I dont. Everything you write is of course pure eloquence


You keep saying that, and you keep failing to back yourself up.

Keep dreaming

 

[razzelflabben]

I called you a Creationist becuase you were using all of the Creationist arguments. When you said you werent a Creationist, I said that based on what you were saying you sounded like one. You always miss that part dont you?

Uh no, you were misrepresenting my arguements to be creationist. In fact, I haven't heard any creationist arguements that fit mine.

So you do only object to the word "liars". Correct? Because it certianly does help to show that some people make statements they know are false before they said them. It shows how credible the sources are for Creationists. What Aron asked you to do was show something comparable for Evolution sources. Thats the reason for it.

Why? Why ask me to do this when I have freely admitted that I don't know or care if either side lies because I am interested in the evidence not the name calling. To what purpose then would there be in asking me to compare evolution and creation sources?

I had a private discussion with an evolutionist here on the forum, during that discussion, we were talking about a piece of evidence that I started out saying, and this had already at this time been a repeat, stated that this evidence was in my opinion the strongest evolutionary evidence. I was then asked to defend it from a creationist standpoint. I said, I don't know, I believe it is evidence for evolution. The person went on to insist that I defend it from a creationist standpoint after I repeatedly said I found it to be evidence for evolution. I said okay, let's play, I would guess that a creationist might say that..... to which I was told see, you sound just like creationist, not able to understand the evidence at all. If you understood the evidence you would know that it is evidence for evolution.

This is the same sort of thing, I say, out of my beleif, find someone else to help you out and aron insists that I tackle the issue so that he can accuss me falsely. Get over yourselves.

Not a misrepresentation. You are still working off the assumption that the child HAS shown a working understanding of the basics. Im saying you are like the child that refuses to accept it doesnt understand. That it refuses to accept that 2+2 doesnt equal 5, and refuses to accept that geometry does make sence. But it will never understand geometry until it does, but it never will if it already believes it understands it all.

Read the exchange again please. I didnt say you were vague and unclear in this case, I just thought it didnt make sence to ask that question.

I asked you how you can expect to understand the reasons why the US could still be there if you have no idea what the history is between the two countries?

You asked me why you need to know the history between the two countries in order to know why the US is still in Irac.

Guess what? We are still there because the war is still going on. Doesn't take a genius

My answer is that while you will probably never know the exact reasons, you can get a much better idea and grasp on the situation if you understand the history behind the conflict.

So in other words, complex reasoning will be based on basic reasoning. If you dont have a good enough grasp of the basics you wont have any chance of really understanding anything more complex.

Honestly can you not figure out why I make these analogies? They arent just some random offtopic subject because I get bored.

Earlier in this post I said that since you think the evidence could support another viable scientific conclusion, this would be evidence against common ancestry. You agreed to that. But if you did agree to that this would mean by definition you have a problem with the evidence for common ancestry. How can it be clear if you constantly contradict yourself!

Okay, let's learn to count shall we, evidence for evolution isn't the same thing as evidence against evolution. They are two different things, both work hand in hand, but they are not the same thing at all.

1. If you believe the evidence could be shown to support another viable scientific conclusion, it would be evidence against common ancestry...

And you also say you have no problem with the mainstream scientific conclusion on common ancestry.

But the mainstream scientific conclusion IS that common ancestry is the only viable scientific conclusion.

See 1. Since you believe the evidence could support another scientific conclusion you must have a problem with the evidence for common ancestry.

Therefore, you contradict yourself.


I came into this discussion primarily becuase you implied to Aron that I lied to you. I didnt like being accused of dishonesty, so thats why i replied.

But according to you... "you are the one who admitted you were the one spreading lies to prove a point, "

I used no names or specific post references, if you aren't admitting to lieing, why or better how did you deduce you would have been part of this discussion? I made no indications that would have keyed you to the fact that I was talking about you specifically.

So stop playing these games Razzel. If someone said that about you, what would you think they meant? If someone said that about someone you know, what would you think they meant?

If it was mine to own, I would have thought they were talking about me, if I was innocent, I would have thoght they were talking about someone else. Clear conscience I guess.

You made that up about me and you know I never said any such thing, and you know full well you cant back any of it up. This claim of yours can only be called dishonest, becuase I never said or implied it in any way whatsoever. Theres literally no way you could have gleaned that out of my posts.

Ed

Keep dreaming

 

[razzelflabben]

You didnt accuse Aron of lying even though you said stuff like this?

You really should stop with your lies...your statement was a lie....


A lie is an willfull intent to decieve, and/or tell a falsehood while already knowing its not true. Calling someone a liar is just describing someone that lies. If you say someone lied it is saying someone has told a lie in the past. And since you said Aron lied many many many times, you are of course by definition also calling him a liar.

put it in context ed, always in context. That is the fun part of using percise wording, context will always save you.

 

[Tomk80]

And so aron saying in one post that he has met evolutionist that we unscrupulous then denying that evolutionists what?
Has the burden of proof been met?

What? That didn't make any grammatical sense, neither did it make sense as an answer to my post.

Well I remember typing it, so I don't know what happened betwen my typing it and you reading it, but I appologize for any unisunderstanding.

I've read back and couldn't find you typing it until fairly late in our discussion. So maybe what happened is not between you typing and me reading, but between you typing and you remembering?

agreed.

 

[Edx]

uh ur, your wrong, there are some impossibles, like for example knowing another man's heart.

No, you're wrong. It is "possible" to "know a mans heart", for example psychic powers could still exist in the realm of "possibility". And we already have lie dectectors, in the realm of possibilty we could get even better technology to determine this.

Likewise, I can accept God is a "possibilty", while at the same time not have to agree that theres any reason or evidence at all to believe in one.

and by the way it is a rich laugh hearing an evolutionist talk about probables. Thanks, I needed that.

Oh please do enlighten me as to the joke.

The reason why I insisted in precise wording from you was because whenever you talked about some scientific idea you always showed you had a confused and muddled version of it. Because "evolution" can mean different things to some people it become necessary for you to specify what you were talking about. That was the only reason we did that, as usualy it isnt necessary. Even most Creationsts arent as pedantic and semantical as you are.

Your "correction" didn't change my post or the meaning therof at all, so what actually was the correction then?

Not this post, Razzel. Im refering to the time we were discussing this, remember? The times you were talking to Aron about? Im telling you why I (we) were requiring you to be specific.

If I say 1+1=2 and you say no, you are wrong because 1 means a unit with only one item in it so therefore 1+1=2, what have you corrected?

You know sometimes you would say something comparable to this. And then we'd all breath a sigh of relief and think "finially shes understood!" Then you'd pick up where you left off showing you still have no idea how to add 2+2 together.

I never said I know you better than you know yourself. I think this is another example of you claiming I said something I did not and you knowing full well you cant back up.

actually what you said is that I am a creationist I just won't admit to it..

I also said that from everything Ive read from you I believe you to be a Creationist because you had have given me absoluely no reason to think you arent. If you arent, fine. But why should I believe you? I certianly have no reason to.

But then again, I said that back then. I dont think I'd say that now considering everything Ive read from you now. Maybe you are a Creationist, maybe you arent. Now I think you just argue for the hell of it, and maybe you'd also behave this way with Creationists if you felt like it, and that whatever you are you are certianly the most difficult person Ive ever come accross and try and confuse people on purpose in order to be as obtuse as possible. So , is that better?

except that I told you 2+2=4 and 4+4=8, you just didn't hear me over the din of your own idealism of who I am and what I believe. Where do I get that accusation?

Well okay, how about I give a couple of examples of what Im refering to then. Unlike you, Im not just going to claim something and then not even try and support it. Now both of these were all taken from your debate with Aron.

1. Saying universal commen descent is "only a theory", and rhetorically asking when its going to stop being considered a "theory", is not a correct understanding of what a scientific theory is.

2. You said "Science deals with abosolutes which is why theory is not fact" . WHich of course is totally incorrect. Science doesnt deal in absolutes at all. This is a very good example of a deep misunderstanding of how science works.

(I should point out that in responce to Arons correction of this point, you just said you knew all of that already, despite the fact that you evidently did not. )

I have claimed that people have misrepresented and spoken things that were not truth. I am stunned. I say, we can't know a man's heart therefore cannot call a man a lier and you disagee with me so that you can come back and say that a man isn't a lier unless we know his intent. Mind boggling simply mind boggling.

Yes, you cant tell a lie unless you know it was not true when you said it. And while you can repeat someone elses lie, its still their lie and not yours until you discover its not true and continue to tell it.

And you did say to people that they have told lies, that they have lied but that you are not calling them a liar. Well thats too bad Razzel, by definition if you are identifying something someone said as a "lie", this makes them a "liar" by default", and that means they "lied".

I have stated that things were misrepresented that statements have been false, and the like but never called someone a liers soo the problem here is that a false statement can also be clasified as a lie,

No it cant. It can only be identified as a lie if that person aleaady knew what they said was false before they said it.

but that doesn't mean the purson intentially lied,

If someone didnt know the statement or information they imparted about or to someone else was untrue or incorrect, this cannot be called a lie by the very definition of what a lie is.

But just like I told you before, the mainstream scientific conclusion IS that commen ancestry is the only viable scientific conclusion. If you dont agree with that, you obviously dont agree with the mainstream scientific conclusion.

] Right, but that doesn't mean I disagree with common ancestry or that I disagree with the evidence of said. What it means is that I have a problem with the claim that only one viable conclusion exists. Totally different from what you are claiming.

We've been over this and over this. If you believe the evidence can be shown to to support another viable scientific conclusion that isnt common ancestry, then this is evidence against common ancestry. And therefore I am right and you 1. have a problem with the evidence for common ancestry and 2. you have a problem with the mainstream scientific conclusion of common ancestry.

Look at it this way, what if I said, I believe evolution to be fact, but I also beleive that there are other possibles.

Then I would say I agree with you. But that does not make any of them probable or viable possibilites.

Isnt any of this starting to make sence yet?

What then, would you still say I am wrong, that I have a problem with commoon ancestry?

Only if you said the same things as you've said here. I've told you why you evidently do have a problem with commen ancestry. See above.

Why does that matter? I figured you'd have worked that by now seeing as how no mainstream scientific source supports the positions you've been taking. Do you have anything to show that the mainstream scientific opinion is of anything but idea that commen ancestry is the only viable scientific conclusion? Its been the mainstream scientifc opinion for decades now. Dont you follow the news? You do know Intelligent Design ISNT mainstream right? That cant be what you are referring to can it?

Oh, so I can only believe what I am told to believe? When did this happen, what happened to indepednant thought?

Somehow you have again managed to distort what Im saying beyond recognition. Nowhere did I tell you or imply that you should just believe what you are told.

Please follow the logic. You said you agree with the mainstream scientific conclusion on common ancestry. All I am doing is showing you that you evidently DO NOT agree with it.

Please tell me that you can see the difference between what I actually said and your whacky interpretation of it.

You say you have no problem with the evidence for commen ancestry and you say you have no problem with the mainstream scientific opinion about commen ancestry, which in that case by the way both of us should agree. But then you say you dont agree its the only viable scientifc conclusion and that the evidence could be shown to support another viable scientific conclusion. This contradicts both previous statements!

Not at all, what it says is that the evidence is not conclusive, or in other words, we don't really know.

This is ridiculous. How did it NOT contradict the statements?

1. You cannot agree with the mainstream scientific conclusion if you believe that common decent is not the only viable scientific conclusion.

2. You cannot say you have no problems with the evidence for common ancestry if you believe there is evidence that could lead to a different conclusion, since this would be evidence against common ancestry.

What inconsisteny? I said you have a problem with the mainstream scientific opinion in this matter, and then you say you dont. So I show you you do, becuase the mainstream scientific opinion is not the same as yours, and you accuse me of ommiting that the first time round as well as continuing to say you dont have a probelm with the mainstream scientific opinion! And you call me inconsistent?

Depends on what you mean by this and the first couple times I read it, I saw, common ancestry, it wasnt until you clarified your post that I understood it differently. Hum, communication?!?

Okay... so what are you saying was the problem here then? I'd sure love to know. What did you think I meant? Its not my fault you didnt read what I wrote properly.

No I didnt leave anything out, and this is once again another jab at my honesty you know you arent going to back up.

Read the conversation back. You questioned my last statement that the mainstream scientific opinion is that commen ancestry is the only viable conclusion, on "common evidence". So what are you saying there? That common evidence" shows that this isnt the mainstream scientific view? Or that the "common evidence" shows common ancestry isnt the only viable scientific conclusion? Either way it makes no sence as a responce

.

as with all cases of communication errors, there is a difference between what you think you are saying and what others hear you say. This appears to be a simple communication error, fixed and responded to.

Right well this is kind of refreshing. Though I cant imagine what you think I was saying before. But what matters more is you apologise for implying dishonesty on my part in this. Could you manage that?

1. You tell me that I "admitted" to you that I tell lies to prove my points.

2. You refuse to show me where I said that.

3. You say that you arent calling me a liar just that you said I lied.

4. You just now said that I still am "admitting "to you that I tell lies to prove my points, and you say you forgiven me for it! How nice!..

5. ..Especially since you still havent ever shown me where I ever said that!

I did and you refuse to accept it. That is your to own

No, you never showed me where I said this. Every post to you Ive asked you to prove this allegation. Now I know I never said this in any sence whatsoever, so I know its not true. But you had a chance to prove it, and you didnt. If you had anything you'd have said it by now.

You cant say someone admitted they lie to prove their points, and then pretend that just because they replied to what they thought was an accusation of dishonesty towards them is the same thing as saying just that. Its also probably the most disingenuous thing Ive ever seen from you.

Its no win for you becuase you refuse to back up your allegation that I admitted that I tell lies to prove my points, and you know I never said any such thing and thats why you cant do it even though I've repeatedly asked you to. Do you accuse people of things in real life this way too?

Have you looked at the other discussions? Do evolutionists have the same trouble with other Creationists that they have with you? Even the really nutty ones make themselves crystal clear compared to you. Or do you consider yourself so special we all treat you differently?

When did anyone say commen ancestry is the only "possible" conclusion?

Cant you see the difference between these two statements?

1. Commen ancestry is the only viable conclusion.

2. Commen ancestry is the only possible conclusion.

What boggles my mind is that you've actually replaced the word "viable" we've been using to describe the conclusion of commen ancestry and replaced it with "possible". This makes what we've said completely different. You know you've turned our position into a strawman dont you? You know a strawman is a misrepresentation dont you? This is the kind of problems I was talking about. And once more its out of your bizzare ever changing personal definitions of words.

You know what, it sounds from this post that you do totally understand what I am saying but you are purposely misrepresenting my view to make your point.

I like how you just claim this yet dont respond to any of my points here. I quote everything you skipped in order to show that, even if it wastes my word limit.

What suddenly makes you think I understand you? Ive been saying the exact same thing this whole discussion. And what makes you think I am misrepresenting you? I know you arent going to substantiate this, just as you never do every other time Ive asked you to substantiate your accusations. But im asking anyway to put it on record.

Now, you changed the word "viable" to "possible" in the last few posts, why? You seem to be using the word as meaning the exact same thing. Now do you or do you not see the difference between these two statements?

1. Common ancestry is the only viable conclusion.

2. Common ancestry is the only possible conclusion.

 

[Edx]

Remind me again what that is called. Just for old times sake, what is it called when a person knows the truth but purposely misrepresents that truth to make a point?

Its called a lie, Razzel. And since I just showed you misrepresenting our position by substituting the word viable for "possible", in order to argue against that (very different) statement we never said, means you lied. Doesnt it? Or did you honestly not realise that you did that?

Keep dreaming

To keep the word count down I cant quote everything you skipped here, but it was at least a 1/4 of my post. But this is just lazyness Razzel. If you dont have anything to say, you might as well just skip it completely.

I called you a Creationist becuase you were using all of the Creationist arguments. When you said you werent a Creationist, I said that based on what you were saying you sounded like one. You always miss that part dont you?

Uh no, you were misrepresenting my arguements to be creationist. In fact, I haven't heard any creationist arguements that fit mine. Why?

Oh really? What arguments arent Creationist ones? Intelligent Design people are still Creationsits, and they too deny they are Creationsits despite the Discovery Institute using a text book that was originally a Creationist text book with all the words "creator" changed to "designer".

So you do only object to the word "liars". Correct? Because it certianly does help to show that some people make statements they know are false before they said them. It shows how credible the sources are for Creationists. What Aron asked you to do was show something comparable for Evolution sources. Thats the reason for it.

Why ask me to do this when I have freely admitted that I don't know or care if either side lies because I am interested in the evidence not the name calling. To what purpose then would there be in asking me to compare evolution and creation sources?

You dont care that Creationists have no credible sources. You dont care that its possible to demonstrate they make statements they already know to be false, and you dont care that you have nothing comparable for Evolution.

I had a private discussion with an evolutionist here on the forum, during that discussion, we were talking about a piece of evidence that I started out saying, and this had already at this time been a repeat, stated that this evidence was in my opinion the strongest evolutionary evidence. I was then asked to defend it from a creationist standpoint. I said, I don't know, I believe it is evidence for evolution.

The person went on to insist that I defend it from a creationist standpoint after I repeatedly said I found it to be evidence for evolution.

I said okay, let's play, I would guess that a creationist might say that..... to which I was told see, you sound just like creationist, not able to understand the evidence at all. If you understood the evidence you would know that it is evidence for evolution.

Well knowing how you misunderstand people so very very easily, I have no way of knowing what this mysterious person really said or if your impression of the discussion is actually accurate. In fact I would bet money on this not being the way the discussion really happened, because you have misunderstood me several times even in the last couple of posts so mind bogglingly tragically that I think it may go against the laws of the universe or something if it actually turned out that you got it right this time. But why do you believe they were asking you to do this?

This is the same sort of thing, I say, out of my beleif, find someone else to help you out and aron insists that I tackle the issue so that he can accuss me falsely. Get over yourselves.

Ive read this 5 times but I cant make this comment makes any sence to me, and unless you want me to make a guess as to what you could mean then you are going to have to explain it.

Read the exchange again please. I didnt say you were vague and unclear in this case, I just thought it didnt make sence to ask that question.

I asked you how you can expect to understand the reasons why the US could still be there if you have no idea what the history is between the two countries?

You asked me why you need to know the history between the two countries in order to know why the US is still in Irac.

Guess what? We are still there because the war is still going on. Doesn't take a genius

It also doesnt take any intellect at all. THIS is your understanding of why we are still in Irac? Are you kidding me?! Can you honestly not see how incredibly ignorent this sounds? This isnt knowledge of the reason why we are still in Irac. This is like saying Im right because Im right. Or, the reason we're going to war is beucase we are in a war. Thats not understanding thats as circular as reasoning can come. A child could come up with this without knowing anything.

In order to have any understanding about these current events you have to understand the history around the countries involved in the conflict. I cant believe you are denying this!

Earlier in this post I said that since you think the evidence could support another viable scientific conclusion, this would be evidence against common ancestry. You agreed to that. But if you did agree to that this would mean by definition you have a problem with the evidence for common ancestry. How can it be clear if you constantly contradict yourself!

Okay, let's learn to count shall we, evidence for evolution isn't the same thing as evidence against evolution. They are two different things, both work hand in hand, but they are not the same thing at all.

This is another unclear comment you need to explain.

I came into this discussion primarily becuase you implied to Aron that I lied to you. I didnt like being accused of dishonesty, so thats why i replied.

But according to you... "you are the one who admitted you were the one spreading lies to prove a point, "

I used no names or specific post references, if you aren't admitting to lieing, why or better how did you deduce you would have been part of this discussion? I made no indications that would have keyed you to the fact that I was talking about you specifically.

You didnt need to say my name. You implied it very clearly.

You to Aron: "The first time I recall conversing with you, it wasn't totally your fault, you were given poor information about what I believed,(another list of lies from evolutionist)

So you tell me exactly, right now, what else were you refering to if not me?

But the other issue is that this doesnt make any difference. Even if you werent refering to me, I thought you did. How is me getting getting upset with you for saying I lied to Aron the same thing as "admitting" that I tell lies to prove my points?

Either way you had no right to claim what you did. I did not admit I tell lies to prove my points. You know that thats why you cannot back it up.

 

[Edx]

You didnt accuse Aron of lying even though you said stuff like this?

You really should stop with your lies...your statement was a lie....


A lie is an willfull intent to decieve, and/or tell a falsehood while already knowing its not true. Calling someone a liar is just describing someone that lies. If you say someone lied it is saying someone has told a lie in the past. And since you said Aron lied many many many times, you are of course by definition also calling him a liar.

put it in context ed, always in context. That is the fun part of using percise wording, context will always save you.

I did put in in context. You said Aron lied, then in the next breath you say you arent calling him a liar. You cant have it both ways. Either Aron was dishonest or he didnt lie.

 

[razzelflabben]

I've read back and couldn't find you typing it until fairly late in our discussion. So maybe what happened is not between you typing and me reading, but between you typing and you remembering?

Could be, or I could have accidently erased it after I typed it or my kids could have erased it, any of the above makes it a simple communication error, easily corrected.

 

[razzelflabben]

No, you're wrong. It is "possible" to "know a mans heart", for example psychic powers could still exist in the realm of "possibility". And we already have lie dectectors, in the realm of possibilty we could get even better technology to determine this.

and neither of these has ever been proven to be wrong? The times they are wrong, do in fact make it impossible to know a man's heart. Note the word know, not guess at. Now technically you are right, technically down the road we might be able to develop a flawless way to know a man's heart, but, at the moment, it is impossible, because both psychics and lie detectors can and are wrong.

Likewise, I can accept God is a "possibilty", while at the same time not have to agree that theres any reason or evidence at all to believe in one.

Doesn't matter what you think. You can think the earth is flat, but it doesn't change all the evidence that does exist that says the earth is "round"

Oh please do enlighten me as to the joke.

If you don't understand the irony of this, I don't know how to help you, some people are just slow at getting ironic jokes.

Not this post, Razzel. Im refering to the time we were discussing this, remember? The times you were talking to Aron about? Im telling you why I (we) were requiring you to be specific.



You know sometimes you would say something comparable to this. And then we'd all breath a sigh of relief and think "finially shes understood!" Then you'd pick up where you left off showing you still have no idea how to add 2+2 together.


I also said that from everything Ive read from you I believe you to be a Creationist because you had have given me absoluely no reason to think you arent. If you arent, fine. But why should I believe you? I certianly have no reason to.

I would correct you here, but with my grandmothers funeral is this week and we have a show on Sat. I don't have time to weed through all the nonsense you have spewed to find the post where you said that I was a creationist just wouldn't admit to it. And, by now, I guess I am coming to the point of realization that you will never see things for what they are, only what you percieve them to be, and so correcting you and showing you your own words would be a complete waste of time, evidence seems to mean nothing to you.

But then again, I said that back then. I dont think I'd say that now considering everything Ive read from you now. Maybe you are a Creationist, maybe you arent. Now I think you just argue for the hell of it, and maybe you'd also behave this way with Creationists if you felt like it, and that whatever you are you are certianly the most difficult person Ive ever come accross and try and confuse people on purpose in order to be as obtuse as possible. So , is that better?

A lot more nonsense, but at least you finnal understand that I would take as harsh a stand with creationists that refused to look at the actual evidence and weigh it fairly. That is at least a baby step for you, I am truely excited that after all this time you have dropped your illusions long enough to understand that when I tell you I would have equal problems with creationist it means just what I said.

Well okay, how about I give a couple of examples of what Im refering to then. Unlike you, Im not just going to claim something and then not even try and support it. Now both of these were all taken from your debate with Aron.

1. Saying universal commen descent is "only a theory", and rhetorically asking when its going to stop being considered a "theory", is not a correct understanding of what a scientific theory is.

2. You said "Science deals with abosolutes which is why theory is not fact" . WHich of course is totally incorrect. Science doesnt deal in absolutes at all. This is a very good example of a deep misunderstanding of how science works.

(I should point out that in responce to Arons correction of this point, you just said you knew all of that already, despite the fact that you evidently did not. )

Again you take it out of context, you know all the qualifiers that would show an understanding, all the things you ignore so that you can make your point. Nice work

Yes, you cant tell a lie unless you know it was not true when you said it. And while you can repeat someone elses lie, its still their lie and not yours until you discover its not true and continue to tell it.

Right, in one post you show understanding of my position and then you turn around and misrepresent that to suit your own illusion of who I am. What do we call that? I keep forgetting (sarcasm) why don't you share that term with the class so we all know what you are?

And you did say to people that they have told lies, that they have lied but that you are not calling them a liar. Well thats too bad Razzel, by definition if you are identifying something someone said as a "lie", this makes them a "liar" by default", and that means they "lied".

Now be very careful young one, boards like this one where arguement happens out of emotional responses of personal beliefs and faiths can if we allow them to, teach us much about human nature. From much of the education I have gleaned from said, I have learned that people overreact to accussations of lies, and even hints of such, thus ignoring the point being made in exchange for the emotional response to said. For this reason, I choose my words very carefully, such as, the above, where I said, some of what has been said could be interpreted as lies, note the different wording than what you have claimed? Small words can and do have tramendous meaning which is why communications often break down. Because in the heat of emotions, words are overlooked easily which by the way is why I rarely speak of my own personally beliefs and faith, bcause it aids in removing personal emotion allowing for factual debate. To bad I'm one of the few who do, much more communication would happen if more people removed emotion and replaced it with facts.

.


No it cant. It can only be identified as a lie if that person aleaady knew what they said was false before they said it.

You mean like indicating that you really do understand what another is saying and then misrepresent them moments later to show that you have superior knowledge to them? Is that what you mean here?

If someone didnt know the statement or information they imparted about or to someone else was untrue or incorrect, this cannot be called a lie by the very definition of what a lie is.

It is so refreshing to see you begin to understand what I have been saying all along, I knew my communication skills were not so lacking that you couldn't figure it out if you really tried to.

We've been over this and over this. If you believe the evidence can be shown to to support another viable scientific conclusion that isnt common ancestry, then this is evidence against common ancestry. And therefore I am right and you 1. have a problem with the evidence for common ancestry

as we have talked about many times, this is only true if the evidence is conclusive, if the evidence is not conclusive to falsify evolution (anything but for this discussion, evolution) then what we have is an additional possibility, not only one viable conclusion. it is about possibles not about elimination if the evidence is not conclusive to falsify. Now I have tried this two different ways here alone, but I am sure I am not being clear, so you tell me I am wrong, then come back in a couple of posts and say the same thing and accuss me of not understanding and we should be right on schedule

and 2. you have a problem with the mainstream scientific conclusion of common ancestry.

No, I have no problem what so ever with the mainstream scientific conclusion of common ancestry, I have a problem with mainstreams scientific conclusion that common ancestry is the only viable conclusion. Two different ideas going on here, one the mainstream conclusion from the evidence of what happened, and two the mainstream conclusion of that conclusion is the only viable possible.

.



Then I would say I agree with you. But that does not make any of them probable or viable possibilites.

So after all this time, we agree that there are other possibles, what we disagree with is that they are viable, I guess then that what we agreed to discuss should have been what we discussed, if the evidence makes it a viable possibility.

Isnt any of this starting to make sence yet?

Is any of this starting to make sense yet? You can't even hope to adequately represent another persons beliefs and ideas if you don't understand them or accept them as the other persons views in the first place.

Only if you said the same things as you've said here. I've told you why you evidently do have a problem with commen ancestry. See above.

Oh boy, we are to the part of our program where I didn't say what I said.

Somehow you have again managed to distort what Im saying beyond recognition. Nowhere did I tell you or imply that you should just believe what you are told.

You certainly suggested I should believe mainstream science because it is manistream science. Deal with it

Please follow the logic. You said you agree with the mainstream scientific conclusion on common ancestry.

Please follow the logic here, I agree with the mainstread scientifc conclusion that common ancestry is a viable conclusion.

All I am doing is showing you that you evidently DO NOT agree with it.

all I am doing is explaining to you this isn't the problem I have, the problem I have is the conclusion that common ancestry is the only viable conclusion. Two different conclusons one I have no problem with, one I do. You need to understand there are two different conclusions, 1. common ancestry is a viable conclusion and 2. common ancestry is the only viable conclusion. I have no problem with 1 above, I have a problem with 2 above. Now if I have no problem with 1 and I do have a problem with 2, and we agree to discuss what I have a problem with, then why would we have reason pray tell to discuss what I agree with? To what end young missy would we discuss what I agree with when what we agree to discuss is the evidence that makes 2 invalid?

Please tell me that you can see the difference between what I actually said and your whacky interpretation of it.

Your comment was that I have a problem with the mainstream scientific conclusion of common ancestry. Now, this can be interpreted as 1. the mainstream scientific conclusion of common ancestry (as I interpreted by the way it was written by someone interested in percise communication) or 2. the complete coverall, general conclusion that not only UCA is viable but is the only viable. Of which I didn't interpret because as you have insisted that science is percise, you did not specify until later that you were including both. Remember, little words can have huge meanings as does context.

This is ridiculous. How did it NOT contradict the statements?

1. You cannot agree with the mainstream scientific conclusion if you believe that common decent is not the only viable scientific conclusion.

2. You cannot say you have no problems with the evidence for common ancestry if you believe there is evidence that could lead to a different conclusion, since this would be evidence against common ancestry.[/quopte] Well, if I follow your question, it has to do with falsification of the theory, which I don't believe it does, only allows for other possibles.

Okay... so what are you saying was the problem here then? I'd sure love to know. What did you think I meant? Its not my fault you didnt read what I wrote properly.

covered, of which I am sure it isn't clear and we will go on for pages and days about me not being clear, but it has indeed been covered.

Right well this is kind of refreshing. Though I cant imagine what you think I was saying before. But what matters more is you apologise for implying dishonesty on my part in this. Could you manage that?

In fact, I have stated many many many times over that I give you the benefit of the doubt, blaming it on communication errors and not on lieing, but you insist on an appology. What is it you want an appolology for?

snipped for space

What suddenly makes you think I understand you? Ive been saying the exact same thing this whole discussion. And what makes you think I am misrepresenting you? I know you arent going to substantiate this, just as you never do every other time Ive asked you to substantiate your accusations. But im asking anyway to put it on record.

I would except that it has been done repeatedly, and ignored by you. In what way is it beneficial to ask soemone to defend their statements and then ignore what they show you so that you can say that they never showed it? It is to no advantage and is you MO and so I choose to ignore you when you make these accusations.

Now, you changed the word "viable" to "possible" in the last few posts, why? You seem to be using the word as meaning the exact same thing. Now do you or do you not see the difference between these two statements?

1. Common ancestry is the only viable conclusion.

2. Common ancestry is the only possible conclusion.

For eons now, I have used the word viable and you didn't understand it's meaning and so I try to reword it in terms that a young child could understand, and all of a sudden you understood the word viable and have a problem with me not understanding the difference between viable and possible. Get over yourself. That is just plain wrong and unfair %&$^%# on your part. This arguement is low even for you.

 

[razzelflabben]

Its called a lie, Razzel. And since I just showed you misrepresenting our position by substituting the word viable for "possible", in order to argue against that (very different) statement we never said, means you lied. Doesnt it? Or did you honestly not realise that you did that?

see above post and by the way, we are talking about you. So, does that mean that you admit to lieing, you just said that what you did was a lie? Interesting!

To keep the word count down I cant quote everything you skipped here, but it was at least a 1/4 of my post. But this is just lazyness Razzel. If you dont have anything to say, you might as well just skip it completely.

I skip and ignore anything that has sufficiently and clearly been covered multiple times and you still refuse to accept the evidence thereof. Get over it

Oh really? What arguments arent Creationist ones? Intelligent Design people are still Creationsits, and they too deny they are Creationsits despite the Discovery Institute using a text book that was originally a Creationist text book with all the words "creator" changed to "designer".

Correction, in that my arguements that question evolution are not arguements for evolution, then by your definition they would be creationist arguements by default. Your statement indicated that you think there are only two sides to the issue, there are only two sides, evolutionist and creationist. The problem is, that in the real world, there are other possibles and in the real world, the arguements I make are not the creationist canned arguements. Get over it.

You dont care that Creationists have no credible sources. You dont care that its possible to demonstrate they make statements they already know to be false, and you dont care that you have nothing comparable for Evolution.

I don't give a rats hairy what the creationist say, I care about the evidence that science has and how that evidence draws us to logical conclusions that are fair and unbiased. YOu can do all the name calling for both of us and in the end, I will still ask you to discuss the evidence, because it is the evidnce I care about.

Well knowing how you misunderstand people so very very easily, I have no way of knowing what this mysterious person really said or if your impression of the discussion is actually accurate. In fact I would bet money on this not being the way the discussion really happened, because you have misunderstood me several times even in the last couple of posts so mind bogglingly tragically that I think it may go against the laws of the universe or something if it actually turned out that you got it right this time. But why do you believe they were asking you to do this?

I would have banked on this idealism from you, you have had me labeled from before we first talked and still do. When you refuse to listen to someone or consider what they say to be truth, they can never be right or accurate or anything but what you have already labeled them which is sentimented by others on the forum. You further evidenced my theory about communication failures here on this board, thanks, my case is ever growing stronger.

I am not sure why the person insisted, my guess is for the same reason you insist that I say things I don't, because he previous to our discussion assumed me to be other than I am.

Ive read this 5 times but I cant make this comment makes any sence to me, and unless you want me to make a guess as to what you could mean then you are going to have to explain it.

fair enough, let's apply it to the discussion here about lieing. I say to aron, my personal belief prevents me from calling people liers, that my personal belief asks for evidence not name calling, thus I don't want to discuss it for this reason and Instead of accepting the comment, which is based out of my personal beliefs, I am "prodded" (I use that term loosly here in that I find it rude to ignore someone when they ask me directly to comment on something, having a great deal of difficulty ignoring cases of obvious "difficult people making difficult claims that are false") Anyway, if aron or anyone else here had cared about my personal beliefs and convictions, the whole discussion would have been dropped right there, but it wasn't which is not only rude and a misrepresentation of who I am but shows a total lack of respect for me as a person and my right to my own ideals and beliefs. Forcing someone else to fit your "profile" of who you think they are is common here on this board and disrespectful and rude. to put it politely.

It also doesnt take any intellect at all. THIS is your understanding of why we are still in Irac? Are you kidding me?! Can you honestly not see how incredibly ignorent this sounds? This isnt knowledge of the reason why we are still in Irac. This is like saying Im right because Im right. Or, the reason we're going to war is beucase we are in a war. Thats not understanding thats as circular as reasoning can come. A child could come up with this without knowing anything.

Not at all, we are still in Iraq because there is still fighting and the government is not strong enough to stand on it's own yet. That doesn't require a history lesson to answer, it is simple, the war isn't over yet. There is still fighting going on and the new government isn't yet ready to fight on their own. Nothing circluar going on, just a simple answer to a simple question. Now if later it is discovered that more history is needed then we go into it, but the question did not require a history lesson at this time.

In order to have any understanding about these current events you have to understand the history around the countries involved in the conflict. I cant believe you are denying this!

I don't have to know the history to know why my brother in law is deployed to Iraq, all I have to know is that the war isnt over.

This is another unclear comment you need to explain.

It's about falsification but I am sure your academic advancment can't comprehend that sometimes evidence is not conlusive falsification or support for a theory. Understanding like this is only for us lower life forms you know, "creationists" (word of clarity before going on. When I do argue out of emotion like here, my husband asks me if that is an emotional response or one based on the evidence. What I will say to you is yes, this is the impression I get when reading your posts about creationists, that they are indeed a lower life form. If it isn't how you feel, then you need to consider how your words can come accross.)

You didnt need to say my name. You implied it very clearly.

You to Aron: "The first time I recall conversing with you, it wasn't totally your fault, you were given poor information about what I believed,(another list of lies from evolutionist)

I see no name, no topic, no time frame as to general dates not first, in fact I don't think it would be possible for you to know when the first time I conversed with aron really was. So what we have is nothing to imply a specific that would be identifyable to the general public and your admited claim that it is about you. Yep, sounds like, smells like, looks like, a guilty conscience to me.

So you tell me exactly, right now, what else were you refering to if not me?

Doesn't matter what or who I was referring to what matters is that there was nothing in the post to suggest it was you or that discussion on common ancestry.

But the other issue is that this doesnt make any difference. Even if you werent refering to me, I thought you did. How is me getting getting upset with you for saying I lied to Aron the same thing as "admitting" that I tell lies to prove my points?

I didn't accuss you, I accussed evolutionist for misrepresenting me after ampule time to understand what I was saying. Looks to me like you accussed yourself dear one.

Either way you had no right to claim what you did. I did not admit I tell lies to prove my points. You know that thats why you cannot back it up.

If you bring yourself into a discussion about evolutionists that purposely misrepresent others opinions, saying, 'she is talking about me', when in fact there is nothing in the post that would identify you, then you are admitting to doing so or else dear one, you would have assummed I was talking about others.

 

[Edx]

No, you're wrong. It is "possible" to "know a mans heart", for example psychic powers could still exist in the realm of "possibility". And we already have lie dectectors, in the realm of possibilty we could get even better technology to determine this.

and neither of these has ever been proven to be wrong? The times they are wrong, do in fact make it impossible to know a man's heart. Note the word know, not guess at. Now technically you are right, technically down the road we might be able to develop a flawless way to know a man's heart, but, at the moment, it is impossible, because both psychics and lie detectors can and are wrong.


Doesn't matter what you think. You can think the earth is flat, but it doesn't change all the evidence that does exist that says the earth is "round"

It really does amaze me you dont understand what "possible" means.

ALL things are possible. We could all be in a Zen dream by some magnificent god-like entity. We could all be in the Matrix, (and just like in the movie be blissfully unware). We could have such an unbelievably skewed perception that we literally cannot possibily understand how the universe really works, and everything we think we know could be totally wrong. The aliens from the Alien films could be real. The Invsible Pink Unicorn could exist or a tea pot could be floating around the solar system. ALL these things and an infinite number of other things are possible.

But why? Because we can never have absolute knowledge. We can never know anything with absolute certitute. We can only ever say that based on all the evidence, and assuming we arent all in a Zen dream or in the Matrix, that when I drop this ball its probably going to fall. Even if we drop it a million times, its still distantly "possible" the ball will fly up in the air.

This is why we have the word probable. Where everything is possible, not everything is probable. Its not probable that I will continue to roll a die over and over again and keep getting the same result. Its not probable that I will win the lottery, and its certianly not probable that I will continue to win it over and over again. Its not probable that we all live in the Matrix. Its not probable that if I dropped a ball that on this occasion it would fly up in the air instead of falling. Its not probable that a tea pot is busy orbiting Saturn.

All the gods people have believed in are also possible. The Hindu Gods, the Christian God, the Muslim god, the Norse Gods, the Babylonian gods, the Egyption Gods and any other religious belief you can think of. We cant prove anything 100%, not even your own existence. So because of this every single conceivable thing we can imagine is "possible", becuase we cannot have absolute knowledge we cannot discount the POSSIBILITY of being absolutely wrong about everything we thought we understood. Something can always be lurking somewhere in the shadows of possibility, and thats why all things are possible.

But not everything is probable or viable. Thats what the word viable is closest to meaning. Probable, not possible.

If you don't understand the irony of this, I don't know how to help you, some people are just slow at getting ironic jokes.

Its only funny if you believe probablities are some kind of problem for evolution. Since you wont explain I guess this just another implied Creationist argument you apparently believe in.

I would correct you here, but with my grandmothers funeral is this week and we have a show on Sat. I don't have time to weed through all the nonsense you have spewed to find the post where you said that I was a creationist just wouldn't admit to it. And, by now, I guess I am coming to the point of realization that you will never see things for what they are, only what you percieve them to be, and so correcting you and showing you your own words would be a complete waste of time, evidence seems to mean nothing to you.

(Emphasis above mine) For all your apparent frothing at the mouth at what you claim is my inability to read context, you apparently dont bother or even care enough to do it yourself. I do remember saying exactly what you say I said. But I also refer you to my last post. I believe you are, or as I say I believed, this based on what you wrote. I had no reason to believe otherwise, you just kept saying you werent. But thats par of the course for you, contradicting yourself. All I was saying is that I believed you to be was a Creationist that just would not admit it for whatever reason. If you arent, fine. But you've still actually given me no reason to think so. All you have given me since that time is more reasons to believe that while you may not hold a strong opinion either way, you do just like to be difficult becuase you get off on it for some reason.

Well okay, how about I give a couple of examples of what Im refering to then. Unlike you, Im not just going to claim something and then not even try and support it. Now both of these were all taken from your debate with Aron.

1. Saying universal commen descent is "only a theory", and rhetorically asking when its going to stop being considered a "theory", is not a correct understanding of what a scientific theory is.

2. You said "Science deals with abosolutes which is why theory is not fact" . WHich of course is totally incorrect. Science doesnt deal in absolutes at all. This is a very good example of a deep misunderstanding of how science works.

(I should point out that in responce to Arons correction of this point, you just said you knew all of that already, despite the fact that you evidently did not. )

Again you take it out of context, you know all the qualifiers that would show an understanding, all the things you ignore so that you can make your point. Nice work

Prove it. What qualifiers? What understanding? Its getting really boring you constantly bashing my honesty while literally never even once backing yourself up.

Yes, you cant tell a lie unless you know it was not true when you said it. And while you can repeat someone elses lie, its still their lie and not yours until you discover its not true and continue to tell it.

Right, in one post you show understanding of my position and then you turn around and misrepresent that to suit your own illusion of who I am. What do we call that?

Prove it. Show where I showed I understood your position, then show the part where I supposedly misrepresented you. Either put up or shut up.

And you did say to people that they have told lies, that they have lied but that you are not calling them a liar. Well thats too bad Razzel, by definition if you are identifying something someone said as a "lie", this makes them a "liar" by default", and that means they "lied".

Now be very careful young one, ... I have learned that people overreact to accussations of lies, and even hints of such, .... For this reason, I choose my words very carefully, such as, the above, where I said, some of what has been said could be interpreted as lies, note the different wording than what you have claimed?

But you did not just say that, thats the point.

You said Aron told lies, over and over again. You cant say someone lied but that you arent calling them a liar. You are by definition saying they are dishonest by saying that. If Aron isnt dishonest then what he said isnt a lie or could ever be identified as a lie.

So was Aron dishonest or not? If you say he was, then he is a liar by definition. If he wasnt, then you cant say he told a lie. So, which is it?

To bad I'm one of the few who do, much more communication would happen if more people removed emotion and replaced it with facts.

What a joke. Look around, no one has this trouble with anyone else but you. No one. Not even with other Creationists, not even the really loony ones. Its all you Razzel. You are the author of confusion.

You mean like indicating that you really do understand what another is saying and then misrepresent them moments later to show that you have superior knowledge to them? Is that what you mean here?

Prove it. Show where I showed I understood your position, then show the part where I supposedly misrepresented you. Either put up or shut up.

If someone didnt know the statement or information they imparted about or to someone else was untrue or incorrect, this cannot be called a lie by the very definition of what a lie is.

It is so refreshing to see you begin to understand what I have been saying all along, I knew my communication skills were not so lacking that you couldn't figure it out if you really tried to.

How strange, since this is exactly what we have literally all been saying in numerous different ways over and over again. Yet you say this is us "beginning" to understand? I'd say this is rather a projection of your own thoughts.

And you need to read what I wrote again. If you agree this is what a lie is, then you must be by definition calling Aron a liar. You cant say you say he has lied and that he has told lies but that you arent calling him a liar - if he has told lies and if he has lied - he is a liar by definition. You cant get around that.

We've been over this and over this. If you believe the evidence can be shown to to support another viable scientific conclusion that isnt common ancestry, then this is evidence against common ancestry. And therefore I am right and you 1. have a problem with the evidence for common ancestry

as we have talked about many times, this is only true if the evidence is conclusive,

No it isnt. By definition if there is evidence pointing to another conclusion other than commen ancestry this is evidence against common ancestry. So since you believe this evidence exists it means you have a problem with the evidence for common ancestry.

If you believe Steady State theory of the universe is another viable scientific conclusion to the Big Bang, then you have a problem with some of the evidence for the Big Bang, by definition.

If you believe Steady State theory of the universe is another viable scientific conclusion to the Big Bang you also dont agree with the mainstream scientific opinion on the matter, since the mainstream scientific opinion is that Steady State theory is not a viable theory anymore and all the evidence we have points to the Big Bang as the only viable conclusion .

Its the same here!

if the evidence is not conclusive to falsify evolution (anything but for this discussion, evolution) then what we have is an additional possibility, not only one viable conclusion. it is about possibles not about elimination if the evidence is not conclusive to falsify

A "viable scientific conclusion" is not at all the same thing at all as whats a "possible" conclusion, like I said at the start.

Its got nothing to do with "falsification". See above. You have by definition a problem with the evidence for common ancestry and you evidently dont agree with the mainstream scientific conclusion on the matter.

Now I have tried this two different ways here alone, but I am sure I am not being clear, so you tell me I am wrong, then come back in a couple of posts and say the same thing and accuss me of not understanding and we should be right on schedule

No you are being clear here, and you dont understand. For some reason it appears you really, really dont want to say you have a problem with the evidence and you really, really dont want to say that you have a problem with the mainstream scientific conclusion. But you do by definition, and theres no getting around it.

No, I have no problem what so ever with the mainstream scientific conclusion of common ancestry, I have a problem with mainstreams scientific conclusion that common ancestry is the only viable conclusion.

This is hilarious. You actually managed to contradict yourself conpletely in just this once sentence alone.

First you say you have no problem with it "what so ever," then you say you have a problem with it.

I couldnt have written a better example of a contradiction if I tried. The mainstream scientific conclusion IS that common ancestry is the only viable scientific conclusion. Either you agree with that or you dont, and as you might say, deal with it.

Two different ideas going on here, one the mainstream conclusion from the evidence of what happened, and two the mainstream conclusion of that conclusion is the only viable possible.

See above. There is only one mainstream scientific conclusion about commen ancestry. Either you accept that or you dont, and you've said many times and indeed once again just said it again in this post that you dont accept it.

 

[Edx]

Then I would say I agree with you. But that does not make any of them probable or viable possibilites.

So after all this time, we agree that there are other possibles, what we disagree with is that they are viable, I guess then that what we agreed to discuss should have been what we discussed, if the evidence makes it a viable possibility.

Why again do you write "after all this time"? It truly baffles me when you react this way to my posts as if Ive just now suddenly said something different. Ive always said exactly the same things.

Ive always agreed that all things are possible. Evolution may not be correct, its possible. Intelligent design may be correct, its possible. YEC may be correct, its possible. But that doesnt make any of these statments probable or viable.

And that last part you have backwards.The evidence doesnt make something possible, it makes it more probable and viable. Now if you had wanted to discuss that you should have said so instead of being so unbelievebly confused and contradictory. How is anyone supposed to understand you if you can even manage to contradict yourself in one sentence as you did above. If anyone misunderstood you only have yourself to blame for that.

Is any of this starting to make sense yet? You can't even hope to adequately represent another persons beliefs and ideas if you don't understand them or accept them as the other persons views in the first place.

Yes and it seems to be with you that its practically impossible to "adequately represent your beliefs and ideas".

Only if you said the same things as you've said here. I've told you why you evidently do have a problem with commen ancestry. See above.

Oh boy, we are to the part of our program where I didn't say what I said.

And once more you need to go read what I actually wrote. Just try it. Read the actual words. I was saying that even though you said you didnt have a problem with it, you evidently did. I said you evidently had a problem with commen ancestry based on what you were telling me. I didnt say you never said what you said.

You certainly suggested I should believe mainstream science because it is manistream science. Deal with it

Prove it. Show me where I said that. The exact part. Put up or shut up.

Please follow the logic here, I agree with the mainstread scientifc conclusion that common ancestry is a viable conclusion.

I noticed you substituted "the only" for "a" above. That wasnt very smart, didnt you think I'd notice?

all I am doing is explaining to you this isn't the problem I have, the problem I have is the conclusion that common ancestry is the only viable conclusion.

Too bad that is what the mainstream scientific opinion is.

Two different conclusons one I have no problem with, one I do. You need to understand there are two different conclusions, 1. common ancestry is a viable conclusion and 2. common ancestry is the only viable conclusion.

Yes, I am aware of your point. I have been aware of it for several replies. You dont need to clarify it any further. But the point you seem to keep apparently missing is that the mainstream scientific view does not accomodate your view that common ancestry is only "a" viable conclusion. And therefore, you do not agree with it.

To what end young missy would we discuss what I agree with when what we agree to discuss is the evidence that makes 2 invalid?

You havent even stated what that other conclusion is, and that is something that could have been addressed with Aron but you didnt. If you really want to talk about that, you start a new thread. All Im showing here is 1. You contradict yourself and no one can practically describe your position adequately. 2. That you evidently do have a problem with the evidence for common ancestry and you do not agree with the mainstream scientific opinion on this matter, no matter how much you also claim differently.

Your comment was that I have a problem with the mainstream scientific conclusion of common ancestry. Now, this can be interpreted as 1. the mainstream scientific conclusion of common ancestry (as I interpreted by the way it was written by someone interested in percise communication) or 2. the complete coverall, general conclusion that not only UCA is viable but is the only viable. Of which I didn't interpret because as you have insisted that science is percise, you did not specify until later that you were including both. Remember, little words can have huge meanings as does context.

You cant weasel out of this with your pedantic arguments. The mainstream scientific view of common ancestry is that commen ancestry is the only viable conclusion.

In fact, I have stated many many many times over that I give you the benefit of the doubt, blaming it on communication errors and not on lieing, but you insist on an appology. What is it you want an appolology for?

Hmm well I dont know, how about constantly implying that I omit things on purpose "which is commen" you say with me? How about literally saying that I am misrepresenting you yet never backing it up? How about saying I ignore things for the purpose of misrepresenting you, but never ever show where? How about implying I am somehow intellectually incapable with all the petty snide remarks? All this really is "commen" with you Razzel, maybe you dont even realise how insulting you are.

I would except that it has been done repeatedly, and ignored by you. In what way is it beneficial to ask soemone to defend their statements and then ignore what they show you so that you can say that they never showed it? It is to no advantage and is you MO and so I choose to ignore you when you make these accusations.

No you never once showed I misrepresnted you. You always claimed it but you never once said how I was misrepresenting you. So like the other times you have impled dishonesty on my part in this post Im going to have to ask you to prove it. Show the part where I supposedly misrepresented you. Either put up or shut up.

For eons now, I have used the word viable and you didn't understand it's meaning and so I try to reword it in terms that a young child could understand, and all of a sudden you understood the word viable

Absolute nonsence, and once again another example of a cheap snide remark about how Im too unintelligent to understand you. So prove it. Show me where I didnt understand what viable meant. I have been saying exactly the same things throughout this argument and throughout this post you have been claiming I am changing what Im saying. So prove it or shut up.

and have a problem with me not understanding the difference between viable and possible.Get over yourself. That is just plain wrong and unfair %&$^%# on your part. This arguement is low even for you.

I disagreed with you but not becuse I didnt understand the word. When you changed it to "possible" I had to say that everything was possible, but viable means something very different. How is it a low argument to point out the fact that knowingly or unknowningly you started using a strawman of our position?

see above post and by the way, we are talking about you. So, does that mean that you admit to lieing, you just said that what you did was a lie? Interesting!

I said whats you described would be a lie if I did what you described. Do you know what the word disingenuous actually means?

I skip and ignore anything that has sufficiently and clearly been covered multiple times and you still refuse to accept the evidence thereof.

You really must not bother to read my posts.

Oh really? What arguments arent Creationist ones? Intelligent Design people are still Creationsits, and they too deny they are Creationsits despite the Discovery Institute using a text book that was originally a Creationist text book with all the words "creator" changed to "designer".

Your statement indicated that you think there are only two sides to the issue, there are only two sides, evolutionist and creationist.

I never said that. Im asking you what arguments you have said that havent been Creationist ones before. I'll be surpised if you come up with something new, thats the point.

Get over it.

You really should stop saying stuff like this, since you say it all the time it just makes you look like an ass that cant think of anything more intelligent to say.

I don't give a rats hairy what the creationist say, I care about the evidence that science has and how that evidence draws us to logical conclusions that are fair and unbiased.

Except you said that evolution has the same uncredible dishonest sources that Aron was claiming Creationists have. . Aron asked you to show that, and thats what started this. It doesnt matter if you arent a Creationist.

I would have banked on this idealism from you, you have had me labeled from before we first talked and still do.

Go back and read what I wrote. I'll summerise for you, I know you probably wont bother to read either. I just said that based on everything Ive seen from you for you to have actually got this understanding correct would be vastly improbable to me. See the bolded section above. Thats the part you always miss. My beliefs arent based on faith, and while I do believe things about you they are all tenative and subject to change if I have reason to. Ive just been given no reason to change them.

You know you accuse everyone left right and center to misrepresenting you, and you never back it up. And then you go ahead and do just what you claim is being done to you. I dont even know what to say about that, and you are probably too proud to even acknowledge to yourself that you have ever done this even by mistake.

I am not sure why the person insisted, my guess is for the same reason you insist that I say things I don't,

Should I even bother asking you to prove this? You already have a lot of other work to to.

fair enough, let's apply it to the discussion here about lieing. I say to aron, my personal belief prevents me from calling people liers, that my personal belief asks for evidence not name calling, thus I don't want to discuss it for this reason and Instead of accepting the comment, which is based out of my personal beliefs, I am "prodded"

Right thats enough to quote from you. The reason you were "prodded" is literally because you claimed you had knowledge of dishonesty of various people, and of Aron himself, in the same way as he was claiming from the Creationsits in question. Thats why he prodded you. Now you seem to have some weird definiton of lying where you can say people lie but not call them liars at the same time. But the reason he "prodded" you is becuase you more than strongly implied he was dishonest, and he wanted you to prove it. Because most of the world thinks a lie is dishonesty, so when you said he lied, he assumed you were calling him dishonest.

Not at all, we are still in Iraq because there is still fighting and the government is not strong enough......Nothing circluar going on, just a simple answer to a simple question. Now if later it is discovered that more history is needed then we go into it, but the question did not require a history lesson at this time.

Thats the point. You are trying to understand a very complex subject based on complex reasoning which you dont have and dont understand.

I don't have to know the history to know why my brother in law is deployed to Iraq, all I have to know is that the war isnt over. I

But that isnt a comparable question. Knowing a detailed history of the war will be able to answer far more detailed questions than this Like you get a far clearer picture of why the key figures in this conflict actually behaved the way they did. You arent ever going to know that if you dont learn about it.

What I will say to you is yes, this is the impression I get when reading your posts about creationists, that they are indeed a lower life form.

This just shows how warped your percpective is. There is a Creationist on this board called OnceDecieved. I can talk to her very easily and shes really very pleasent. We dont agree about a lot of things, but she is probably one of the easiest Creationists Ive ever talked to. I dont consider her a lower life form. But you think you're special, so everyone always treats you differently, I know.

I see no name, no topic, no time frame as to general dates not first, in fact I don't think it would be possible for you to know when the first time I conversed with aron really was.

I believe this is just your way of not acknowledging the fact that you meant me when you said it. And you still dont give any indication what else you could have been talking about. Presumably becuase you cant think up any other reason you could have said it just now. But still like I said, it doesnt matter anyway.

If you bring yourself into a discussion about evolutionists that purposely misrepresent others opinions, saying, 'she is talking about me', when in fact there is nothing in the post that would identify you, then you are admitting to doing so or else dear one, you would have assummed I was talking about others.

This is such nonsence. If I truly honestly believed you were accusing me of dishonesty, Razzel, am I not allowed to challenge you on that? What in your mind make you think this is an admission of dishonesty? You sure have some ridicuously stupidly illiogical reasoning going on here, and I have no idea how you think this makes sence in your head.

 

[razzelflabben]

It really does amaze me you dont understand what "possible" means.

ALL things are possible. We could all be in a Zen dream by some magnificent god-like entity. We could all be in the Matrix, (and just like in the movie be blissfully unware). We could have such an unbelievably skewed perception that we literally cannot possibily understand how the universe really works, and everything we think we know could be totally wrong. The aliens from the Alien films could be real. The Invsible Pink Unicorn could exist or a tea pot could be floating around the solar system. ALL these things and an infinite number of other things are possible.

But why? Because we can never have absolute knowledge. We can never know anything with absolute certitute. We can only ever say that based on all the evidence, and assuming we arent all in a Zen dream or in the Matrix, that when I drop this ball its probably going to fall. Even if we drop it a million times, its still distantly "possible" the ball will fly up in the air.

This is why we have the word probable. Where everything is possible, not everything is probable. Its not probable that I will continue to roll a die over and over again and keep getting the same result. Its not probable that I will win the lottery, and its certianly not probable that I will continue to win it over and over again. Its not probable that we all live in the Matrix. Its not probable that if I dropped a ball that on this occasion it would fly up in the air instead of falling. Its not probable that a tea pot is busy orbiting Saturn.

All the gods people have believed in are also possible. The Hindu Gods, the Christian God, the Muslim god, the Norse Gods, the Babylonian gods, the Egyption Gods and any other religious belief you can think of. We cant prove anything 100%, not even your own existence. So because of this every single conceivable thing we can imagine is "possible", becuase we cannot have absolute knowledge we cannot discount the POSSIBILITY of being absolutely wrong about everything we thought we understood. Something can always be lurking somewhere in the shadows of possibility, and thats why all things are possible.

But not everything is probable or viable. Thats what the word viable is closest to meaning. Probable, not possible.

a very long dialog not even remotely on topic and you can't figure out why I ignore so much of your posts?

Its only funny if you believe probablities are some kind of problem for evolution. Since you wont explain I guess this just another implied Creationist argument you apparently believe in.

Probabilities are not a problem for evolution it is a problem for specific evolution.

(Emphasis above mine) For all your apparent frothing at the mouth at what you claim is my inability to read context, you apparently dont bother or even care enough to do it yourself. I do remember saying exactly what you say I said. But I also refer you to my last post. I believe you are, or as I say I believed, this based on what you wrote. I had no reason to believe otherwise, you just kept saying you werent.

So appologize and move on

But thats par of the course for you, contradicting yourself. All I was saying is that I believed you to be was a Creationist that just would not admit it for whatever reason. If you arent, fine. But you've still actually given me no reason to think so. All you have given me since that time is more reasons to believe that while you may not hold a strong opinion either way, you do just like to be difficult becuase you get off on it for some reason.

Actaully, I "get off" on people actually hearing what I say, instead of making things up as they go like you do about what I believe and say. Miscommunication is one thing, refusing to accept what I say as truth without cause to question it's honesty is quite another.

Prove it. What qualifiers? What understanding? Its getting really boring you constantly bashing my honesty while literally never even once backing yourself up.



Prove it. Show where I showed I understood your position, then show the part where I supposedly misrepresented you. Either put up or shut up.




But you did not just say that, thats the point.

You said Aron told lies, over and over again. You cant say someone lied but that you arent calling them a liar. You are by definition saying they are dishonest by saying that. If Aron isnt dishonest then what he said isnt a lie or could ever be identified as a lie.

actually I said that his criteria for determining a lier caught him and labels him a lier and he should refrain from such if he is the honorable man he claims to be. Much different when put in context now isn't it?

So was Aron dishonest or not? If you say he was, then he is a liar by definition. If he wasnt, then you cant say he told a lie. So, which is it?

Okay let's try this yet again. I personnaly don't think Aron intents to Lie (lie being defined as a false statement) however, by the criteria in which he determines who does and who does not lie, then yes, he would be included in the list.

Note be careful how you read and interpret this because I have written it with perciseness for meaning and not for you to read any old way you want.

What a joke. Look around, no one has this trouble with anyone else but you. No one. Not even with other Creationists, not even the really loony ones. Its all you Razzel. You are the author of confusion.



Prove it. Show where I showed I understood your position, then show the part where I supposedly misrepresented you. Either put up or shut up.



How strange, since this is exactly what we have literally all been saying in numerous different ways over and over again. Yet you say this is us "beginning" to understand? I'd say this is rather a projection of your own thoughts.

And you need to read what I wrote again. If you agree this is what a lie is, then you must be by definition calling Aron a liar. You cant say you say he has lied and that he has told lies but that you arent calling him a liar - if he has told lies and if he has lied - he is a liar by definition. You cant get around that.


No it isnt. By definition if there is evidence pointing to another conclusion other than commen ancestry this is evidence against common ancestry. So since you believe this evidence exists it means you have a problem with the evidence for common ancestry.

If you believe Steady State theory of the universe is another viable scientific conclusion to the Big Bang, then you have a problem with some of the evidence for the Big Bang, by definition.

If you believe Steady State theory of the universe is another viable scientific conclusion to the Big Bang you also dont agree with the mainstream scientific opinion on the matter, since the mainstream scientific opinion is that Inflation theory is not a viable theory anymore and all the evidence we have points to the Big Bang as the only viable conclusion .

Its the same here!


A "viable scientific conclusion" is not at all the same thing at all as whats a "possible" conclusion, like I said at the start.

precept upon precept young one, when you are so out of touch with what is being said that you don't understand the difference between a viable conclusion and the only viable conclusiion, we have to start back with 1+1=2 what is possible is that equsion. When you figure out what is possible, we can move on to probable, but baby steps work best when such misrepresentation occurs. be patient, we will get to the probable issue and then from there, you can make sense out of viable.

Its got nothing to do with "falsification". See above. You have by definition a problem with the evidence for common ancestry and you evidently dont agree with the mainstream scientific conclusion on the matter.

covered sickeningly well aready

No you are being clear here, and you dont understand. For some reason it appears you really, really dont want to say you have a problem with the evidence and you really, really dont want to say that you have a problem with the mainstream scientific conclusion. But you do by definition, and theres no getting around it.



This is hilarious. You actually managed contradicted yourself conpletely in just this once sentence alone.

First you say you have no problem with it "what so ever," then you say you have a problem with it.

I couldnt have written a better example of a contradiction if I tried. The mainstream scientific conclusion IS that common ancestry is the only viable scientific conclusion. Either you agree with that or you dont, and as you might say, deal with it.

As I already said, there are two different mainstream scientific conclsuions and they are not the same thing at all, go back to 1+1 AND FIGURE THAT OUT AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO THIS MEATIER STUFF WHEN YOU FIGURE IT OUT.

See above. There is only one mainstream scientific conclusion about commen ancestry. Either you accept that or you dont, and you've said many times and indeed once again just said it again in this post that you dont accept it.

Ed, try it this way, every time science reviews evidence, they must ask two questions, what conclusion do we have based on the evidence. What logical conclusion can we draw that fits the evidence we have? The second question science must ask is, is this the only logical conclusion we can draw? Now as to the first question science asks the evidence for our origins, I agree with science, no problem. as to the second question, I got a problem. It is this evidence that we agreed to discuss and you still refuse to discuss it or admit that I am saying something other than what you want me to say.

I know that if I give you the same old canned creationist arguements you are more comfortable, because you know how to answer those things, but that isn't who I am and no amount of your attempts to recreate me will change who I am and what I actually believe and am saying. So get over it.

 

[Tomk80]

I am curious Razzel, which, according to you is the other mainstream conclusion. From all the scientific literature I have as of yet looked at concerning single common ancestry, single common ancestry for all organisms living on earth is indeed the only viable conclusion according to the scientific mainstream. Which other mainstream conclusion exists that I am apparantly not aware of?

 

[Edx]

a very long dialog not even remotely on topic and you can't figure out why I ignore so much of your posts?

Right so we havent been arguing over what the word possible means the last few posts at all. And you didnt just use the word possible as probable, or as a synonym for viable. No, of course not.

Probabilities are not a problem for evolution it is a problem for specific evolution.

This is meaningless. Care to explain or is this another case where you arent going to bother?

So appologize and move on

Why? I still dont know you arent a Creationist, and youve still given me no reason to think you arent. All i said was that you are a lot more difficult than I imagined at the time, so maybe you might not have a strong opinion either way and you just get off on being difficult because it makes you feel superior or something. Whatever the case, you are still the most difficult person Ive ever come accross, ever. That much i can say for certian.

And you appear to find it easy to hold two contradictory ideas in your head. Like you can lie without being a liar, or you can agree completely with mainstream science, while also disagreeing with it at the same time. And so no, I dont find it too hard to imagine that you could display all tenents of a Creationist but at the same time not consider yourself one in the same way.

Actaully, I "get off" on people actually hearing what I say, instead of making things up as they go like you do about what I believe and say.

Once again. Prove it. Im really sick of you claiming Im dishonest yet never backing it up. Its really really boring.

You ignored every other challenge to do this and if you are true to form you'll ignore this too, and you'll continue to do it.

actually I said that his criteria for determining a lier caught him and labels him a lier and he should refrain from such if he is the honorable man he claims to be.

So you are calling him dishonest. Thats the point. Thats what a lie is. So while you may use a different definition of lie to the rest of the world, surely you understand what dishonesty is, correct? You said he was dishonest, and thats what he was challenging you to prove.

Much different when put in context now isn't it?

Of course it isnt. You object to the word "liar", but the relevant point is people dont like being called dishonest, and thats what a lie is.

Okay let's try this yet again. I personnaly don't think Aron intents to Lie (lie being defined as a false statement)

Thats not a lie I keep telling you the reason why and you evidently keep ignoring it.

Whats crazy is that you only just agreed with me in the last post what a lie was. A lie is making a false statement while knowing it was false before they said it. Otherwise its not a lie. A lie is dishonest. You cant be dishonest if you made false statement without knowing it was false.

however, by the criteria in which he determines who does and who does not lie, then yes, he would be included in the list.

His criteria is the same criteria you agreed upon in the last post to me. So you ARE calling him a liar since you ARE calling him dishonest.

when you are so out of touch with what is being said that you don't understand the difference between a viable conclusion and the only viable conclusiion, we have to start back with 1+1=2 what is possible is that equsion.

Oh looki, another attack on my intelligence.

As I already explained in the big section you skipped, your opinion that there is another viable scientific conclusion is not the mainstream scientific position so you cannot by definition agree with it. It also means by definition you have a problem with the evidence for common ancestry. And you literaly ignored everything I said, in order to create a strawman. You are getting worse.

When you figure out what is possible, we can move on to probable, but baby steps work best when such misrepresentation occurs.

Oh really? I thought according to you discussing whats "possible" is "not even remotely on topic". You sure suddenly changed your mind. And now after I just talked at length about what possible means and you telling me its not on topic as your reason to ignore it all, you go ahead insult my intelligence further by saying I dont understand it and that I really have to. Whats the point discussing anything with you? You really dont even care what people say at all.

covered sickeningly well aready

You mean ignored sickeningly by you.

As I already said, there are two different mainstream scientific conclsuions and they are not the same thing at all,

Except there isnt two mainstream scientific conclusions. There is only one. That is common ancestry.

go back to 1+1 AND FIGURE THAT OUT AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO THIS MEATIER STUFF WHEN YOU FIGURE IT OUT.

More attacks

The second question science must ask is, is this the only logical conclusion we can draw? Now as to the first question science asks the evidence for our origins, I agree with science, no problem. as to the second question, I got a problem.

Science has been studying evolution theory (including commen ancestry) ever since Darwin, its one of the most well supported fields in science today. It didnt just become the only viable scientific theory overnight as you imply it did. This has been going on for over a century. Just what conclusion do you think is viable scientifically other than common ancestry? What have scientists been missing all these years?

It is this evidence that we agreed to discuss and you still refuse to discuss it

No I dont, Im just not going to do so on this thread in this discussion. YOU had the chance to discuss it when YOU had the chance with Aron. YOU had the chance to discuss it in all your other arguments with anyone else. If YOU want to talk about now get your facts straight, gather your thoughts together in a way that people will be able to understand you, ditch the petty adhominims and snide remarks and start a new thread.

If you do that you'll get a better reaction and reception. But I know you wont do this because this doesnt get you what you want. Becuase I think you love it when people argue the way Im doing with you and Im not going to indulge that sick perversion of yours for much longer.

or admit that I am saying something other than what you want me to say

Show me where Ive ever done that. You cant and you wont, just like every other time you've accused me of some dishonesty.

I know that if I give you the same old canned creationist arguements you are more comfortable, because you know how to answer those things, but that isn't who I am and no amount of your attempts to recreate me will change who I am and what I actually believe and am saying. So get over it.

No, get it right Razzel, ALL you've given us is Creationist arguments. If by chance I missed one that isnt I'd be interested in seeing it, and I'd gladly conceed that point. But I doubt it especially as Ive asked you to show me this several times and each time, just like everything else that requires you to back up your assertions, all you do is make excuses about why you cant.

 

[Baggins]

I'd leave it Edx, I think she just enjoys winding people up, I went through these sort of games trying to prove to her that her ideas about geology were rediculous, Consideringlily took over, now there's someone with real patience, but Razzle is congenitally unable to admit any error what so ever, so arguing with her serves no purpose, other than to hasten any coronary problems you are due.

 

[Edx]

I'd leave it Edx, I think she just enjoys winding people up, I went through these sort of games trying to prove to her that her ideas about geology were rediculous, Consideringlily took over, now there's someone with real patience, but Razzle is congenitally unable to admit any error what so ever, so arguing with her serves no purpose, other than to hasten any coronary problems you are due.

Oh I've long been aware she isnt able to accept any error. I think though the only reason I keep replying is because Im intrigued how long it will be before I've personally had enough of her.

Ed

 

[razzelflabben]

Why again do you write "after all this time"? It truly baffles me when you react this way to my posts as if Ive just now suddenly said something different. Ive always said exactly the same things.

Ive always agreed that all things are possible. Evolution may not be correct, its possible. Intelligent design may be correct, its possible. YEC may be correct, its possible. But that doesnt make any of these statments probable or viable.

And that last part you have backwards.The evidence doesnt make something possible, it makes it more probable and viable. Now if you had wanted to discuss that you should have said so instead of being so unbelievebly confused and contradictory. How is anyone supposed to understand you if you can even manage to contradict yourself in one sentence as you did above. If anyone misunderstood you only have yourself to blame for that.

Baby steps ed, you need to know what 1+1 is before we can move on. Don't get deffensive and try to jump the gun, we first must teach you what possible is. We need to make sure you understand possibles first and it doesn't seem like you do. What is possible is based not only on removing absolutioes, in other words possible isn't a religious idea of all things are possible therefore there is nothing we can know, that idealism would remove science from value, instead, what is possible is based on the evidnce found. So if I find evidnece that suggests the earth is flat, then it is possible the earth is flat, probability comes later, learn to count first then we can talk about probability.

Yes and it seems to be with you that its practically impossible to "adequately represent your beliefs and ideas".

It's totally possible and simple but first you have to know what they are, and you don't because you don't want to or else you would have asked and listened.

And once more you need to go read what I actually wrote. Just try it. Read the actual words. I was saying that even though you said you didnt have a problem with it, you evidently did. I said you evidently had a problem with commen ancestry based on what you were telling me. I didnt say you never said what you said.

And I told you that I have no problem with common ancestry, In fact, I have told evolutionists many times, that I believe this evidence or that supports common ancestry, only to be told that I sound like or am a creationist but refuse to admit it. So you have been told part of what I believe and still refuse to accept it, interesting isn't it? You are a fasinateing look at an emotional arguer.

Prove it. Show me where I said that. The exact part. Put up or shut up.



I noticed you substituted "the only" for "a" above. That wasnt very smart, didnt you think I'd notice?

It's what I have been saying all along. What do you think I have been saying? I agree, common ancestry is a viable conclusion of the evidence. I don't agree that common ancestry is the only viable conclusion of the evidence. Percise wording for percise meaning.

Too bad that is what the mainstream scientific opinion is.



Yes, I am aware of your point. I have been aware of it for several replies. You dont need to clarify it any further. But the point you seem to keep apparently missing is that the mainstream scientific view does not accomodate your view that common ancestry is only "a" viable conclusion. And therefore, you do not agree with it.

I'll address this further in a later post to Tom

You havent even stated what that other conclusion is, and that is something that could have been addressed with Aron but you didnt. If you really want to talk about that, you start a new thread. All Im showing here is 1. You contradict yourself and no one can practically describe your position adequately. 2. That you evidently do have a problem with the evidence for common ancestry

NO

and you do not agree with the mainstream scientific opinion on this matter,

Right

no matter how much you also claim differently.

you don't seem to be following the communication error here, common with you but frustrating none the less.

You cant weasel out of this with your pedantic arguments. The mainstream scientific view of common ancestry is that commen ancestry is the only viable conclusion.

I have seen the communication error, accepted it, tried my best to clarify for you what happened and how we are now on the same page but you refuse all that, why?

Hmm well I dont know, how about constantly implying that I omit things on purpose "which is commen" you say with me? How about literally saying that I am misrepresenting you yet never backing it up? How about saying I ignore things for the purpose of misrepresenting you, but never ever show where? How about implying I am somehow intellectually incapable with all the petty snide remarks? All this really is "commen" with you Razzel, maybe you dont even realise how insulting you are.



No you never once showed I misrepresnted you. You always claimed it but you never once said how I was misrepresenting you. So like the other times you have impled dishonesty on my part in this post Im going to have to ask you to prove it. Show the part where I supposedly misrepresented you. Either put up or shut up.



Absolute nonsence, and once again another example of a cheap snide remark about how Im too unintelligent to understand you. So prove it. Show me where I didnt understand what viable meant. I have been saying exactly the same things throughout this argument and throughout this post you have been claiming I am changing what Im saying. So prove it or shut up.



I disagreed with you but not becuse I didnt understand the word. When you changed it to "possible" I had to say that everything was possible, but viable means something very different. How is it a low argument to point out the fact that knowingly or unknowningly you started using a strawman of our position?



I said whats you described would be a lie if I did what you described. Do you know what the word disingenuous actually means?



You really must not bother to read my posts.


I never said that. Im asking you what arguments you have said that havent been Creationist ones before. I'll be surpised if you come up with something new, thats the point.

Start with the statement that there is evidence for common ancestry, I haven't heard that one from a creationist yet, Show the evidence for this is indeed a creationist arguement, and I'll buy your arguement.

You really should stop saying stuff like this, since you say it all the time it just makes you look like an ass that cant think of anything more intelligent to say.



Except you said that evolution has the same uncredible dishonest sources that Aron was claiming Creationists have. .

No sir I did not, I said that the claim has been made that evolutionists are as uncredible. In other words, both sides make the same claims I prefer to look at the evidence and ignore all the name calling. How many times now have I said this?

Aron asked you to show that, and thats what started this. It doesnt matter if you arent a Creationist.

Again, no sir, aron asked me to show an evolutionist that told lies, not a creationist that claimed that evolutionist lie. which as stated above was my actual claim. Remember percise words for percise meaning.

Go back and read what I wrote. I'll summerise for you, I know you probably wont bother to read either. I just said that based on everything Ive seen from you for you to have actually got this understanding correct would be vastly improbable to me. See the bolded section above. Thats the part you always miss. My beliefs arent based on faith, and while I do believe things about you they are all tenative and subject to change if I have reason to. Ive just been given no reason to change them.

You know you accuse everyone left right and center to misrepresenting you, and you never back it up. And then you go ahead and do just what you claim is being done to you. I dont even know what to say about that, and you are probably too proud to even acknowledge to yourself that you have ever done this even by mistake.



Should I even bother asking you to prove this? You already have a lot of other work to to.



Right thats enough to quote from you. The reason you were "prodded" is literally because you claimed you had knowledge of dishonesty of various people, and of Aron himself,

No sir, I claimed that a discussion of another man's integrety would not be a wise discussion to have.

in the same way as he was claiming from the Creationsits in question. Thats why he prodded you. Now you seem to have some weird definiton of lying where you can say people lie but not call them liars at the same time.

My definition for lieing requires the persons intent be known, we can't do that so we can't know if a man is a lier or simply misstated something that was false, (lie)

But the reason he "prodded" you is becuase you more than strongly implied he was dishonest,

no sir I strongly implied and directly stated that he didn't want to get into a discussion about another man's integrety. In fact,I further stated directly that when we judge another, we are judged by the same criteria which is why I refrain from that judgement and didn't want to discuss it. Nothing was said, intended, or suggested about his integrety or honestly, only his criteria for judgeing others. Which was consistant with my posts.

and he wanted you to prove it. Because most of the world thinks a lie is dishonesty, so when you said he lied, he assumed you were calling him dishonest.

He wanted me to prove that he was a lier, and so I showed him by his criteria for determining such, remember criteria and criteria for judging others are the same thing, that he also was by his criteria a lier. I proved what I claimed and that is the entire burden of proof that I am to bear, anything else is, his or yours or whoevers to bear. Deal with it.

Thats the point. You are trying to understand a very complex subject based on complex reasoning which you dont have and dont understand.

First time I recall ever being accussed of not understanding logic and how it works. Oh, it is complex reasoning you are having a problem with not logic, how do they differ in your eyes?

But that isnt a comparable question. Knowing a detailed history of the war will be able to answer far more detailed questions than this Like you get a far clearer picture of why the key figures in this conflict actually behaved the way they did. You arent ever going to know that if you dont learn about it.

If I understand why the war happened but I don't understand why our troops are still in Iraq, then history will not help to address the issue, in fact, when communication is applied to the discussion, what usually happens with a scenario like your is that the person asking why we are still in Iraq gets bored and tunes out and never learns why the war isn't over yet, because the question is never answered. IOW's if you don't know the question, all the knowledge in the world on the topic won't help to communicate between the two people the answer.

This just shows how warped your percpective is. There is a Creationist on this board called OnceDecieved. I can talk to her very easily and shes really very pleasent. We dont agree about a lot of things, but she is probably one of the easiest Creationists Ive ever talked to. I dont consider her a lower life form. But you think you're special, so everyone always treats you differently, I know.



I believe this is just your way of not acknowledging the fact that you meant me when you said it. And you still dont give any indication what else you could have been talking about. Presumably becuase you cant think up any other reason you could have said it just now. But still like I said, it doesnt matter anyway.



This is such nonsence. If I truly honestly believed you were accusing me of dishonesty, Razzel, am I not allowed to challenge you on that? What in your mind make you think this is an admission of dishonesty? You sure have some ridicuously stupidly illiogical reasoning going on here, and I have no idea how you think this makes sence in your head.

In order for you to have reason to believe that I accused you of dishonesy, you would have to show some hint that I was referring to you You haven't provided that, instead you have provided a vague comment that could have referred to anyone and then said, soo you accussed me of lieing. That ed is the definition of nonsense. DEal with it.