- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,605
- 52,510
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If I read his post right, I'd say both of us.Because of me, or in spite of you?
You came here to show us that the theory of evollution [sic] is bogus. So, you convinced me. Now what?
Life is changing and adapting.
There are species living whch [sic] have not always been here, and there are species once here which are now extinct. What's your explanation for it?
you convinced me
What "truth" is that? You have not told us yet.Have I ever called anything "the theory of evolution"? No. I've not. You have not carefully read what I have written. Any time I have written the phrase, "the theory of evolution," I have surrounded it by quotation marks so as to point out that it is Darwinists who are calling their Darwinism—their nonsense and falsehood, their language game, their war against truth and logic—"the theory of evolution."
Yes, you have caused me to believe that "Darwinism" is the bunk. I want to get to the bottom line here. What do you expect to to replace it with? How do you explain the existence of the biosphere? What is your explanation for the "origin of species?"When you say someone "convinced" you of the proposition, P, what (if anything) do you mean by that? Are you saying that they caused you to believe P?
"A lot of creationists think we worship Mr Darwin"
Oh? Myself, I'm a creationist, and I rather think that Darwinists worship the word, "science". I mean, why else would they be so persistently offended when their Darwinism is called "Darwinism", by its critics, rather than called "science"?
That is only true of deductive logic. Science proceeds on the basis of inductive logic. Scientific propositions are confirmed by evidence, not "proven" in the manner you suggest.Here's a good enough true thing about conclusions that I found, in the matter of an eyeblink, on the internet: "In argumentation, a conclusion is the proposition that follows logically from the major and minor premises in a syllogism."
Which came first? gravity, or evidence of gravity?That is only true of deductive logic. Science proceeds on the basis of inductive logic. Scientific propositions are confirmed by evidence, not "proven" in the manner you suggest.
Will you also be fixing the ignorance, arrogance and indoctrination, or just the poor education which you want to pretend you got? Would it be too much to ask you to learn how to make decent coffee, too?Ya ... but you don't wanna come here no more cause wez all idjits ... an that makes me feel bad.
Was you here on sum kinda intalecshul reconnaissance feeld trip or sumthing?
If we git are graids up, will you come back?
I like how many Darwinists choose to say they "accept" this or that, eschewing the word, 'believe,' in certain contexts. Indeed, you accept what is handed out to you by those whom you mindlessly revere and call "scientists" and "science".
After handing us nonsense like this load you've just handed us, why do you Darwinists turn around and say that individuals "evolve"? Darwinists say "Fish evolved into _______." Why don't you tell us, Professor: Are fish individuals? Yes or No?
No, you did not state a wolf. Sorry, but a wolf is not something a person can state. Rather, wolf is something a person can get bitten by or can hear howling. Propositions—whether true ones or false ones—are the only things a person can state.
Once again, you have either nonsensically strung some words together or (at least equally sad) parroted some already-strung-together words from one of your professional Darwin cheerleader heroes.
BTW, whatever is not about an individual is not about a wolf, nor about a dog, since a wolf is an individual, and since a dog is an individual. And whatever is not about individuals is not about wolves, nor about dogs, since wolves are individuals, and since dogs are individuals.
You do not understand that you are not speaking about, or describing, nor explaining, nor trying to explain any process.
That is your assertion, but it isn't supported by evidence.
Oh, and BTW, no rationally-thinking person cares a whit when you say that something you don't like to hear "isn't supported by evidence." Remember, you've already demonstrated that your doctrine of the nature of evidence, and your use of the word, "evidence," is worse than useless.
So, since, according to you, by your word, "humans," you actually mean apes, here is what you have just handed us: "there is not a difference between [apes] and apes, because [apes] are a kind of ape."
LOLOL
You don't even spend half a second thinking about what you write.
IOW, since by your word, "humans," you mean apes: "I can still distinguish between [apes], chimps and other apes."
LOL
IOW, since by your word, "men," you mean apes: "can you tell me which are apes and which are [apes]...?"
By your phrase, "an extinct species," do you mean an individual animal? Yes or No? See, a fossil is the remains of an individual animal.
How about ceasing and desisting from parroting mumbo jumbo from your cue cards, or teleprompter, or your favorite back issues of Disney's NatGeo, or whomever you've been outsourcing your "thinking" from, and instead, trying to think carefully, rationally and analytically about what you read and write.
False.
But that you just wrote that is evidence that you think irrationally when it comes to the nature of evidence. It does not follow from your proposition, "A man with a history of violence is caught running away from a building where a murder has occurred," that that man is the killer. What you've just handed us is a glaring non sequitur, and no argument.
Again, your doctrine of the nature of evidence is worse than useless.
Oh, and since you say that evidence leads to false propositions, you obviously take to heart the popular slogan, "Follow the evidence wherever it may lead," since you "follow" your "evidence" and are "lead" to believe false propositions such as Darwinism's 'All animals are descended from a common ancestor'.
What (if anything) do you mean by "determine true propositions"? I know true propositions because 1) they are true, and 2) I believe them. Knowing is believing truth. How do you expect to be taken seriously when you chant words like "science" and "evidence" while demonstrating that you are at war against, and ignorant of, truth and logic?
LOL
Here, once again, you demonstrate that you've never spent so much as five minutes studying logic. Which is a really dumb (but unsurprising) lapse on your part, seeing as how you are at war against your enemies, truth and logic. By your ignorance of logic, you demonstrate that either you've never heard the maxim, "Know your enemy," or have heard it, but rejected it, and decided against practicing it.
Here's a good enough true thing about conclusions that I found, in the matter of an eyeblink, on the internet: "In argumentation, a conclusion is the proposition that follows logically from the major and minor premises in a syllogism."
Conclusions are propositions. But the Darwinist proposition to which you are referring, here, by your phrase, "common ancestry," is not a conclusion; it's not a conclusion from evidence, it's not the conclusion of any argument. It's merely a Darwinist proposition, a false proposition being asserted by Darwinists such as you.
And, by asininely telling me that the proposition that your Darwinist proposition that all animals are descended from a common ancestor "is not a proposition," you are admitting a truth I already knew: viz., that your Darwinist proposition that all animals are descended from a common ancestor is not a true proposition. Duh! Something needs to be a proposition in order to be a true proposition, that is, in order to be truth. So, you've just admitted that your Darwinist "common ancestry" proposition is not true. You're preachin' to the choir, here, boy! Your Darwinist proposition that all animals are descended from a common ancestor is a false proposition; it is not a proposition that is true, it is a proposition that is false; it is not a truth, it is a falsehood.
False.
But that you just wrote that is evidence that you think irrationally when it comes to the nature of evidence. It does not follow from your proposition, "A man with a history of violence is caught running away from a building where a murder has occurred," that that man is the killer. What you've just handed us is a glaring non sequitur, and no argument.
Again, your doctrine of the nature of evidence is worse than useless.
Oh, and since you say that evidence leads to false propositions, you obviously take to heart the popular slogan, "Follow the evidence wherever it may lead," since you "follow" your "evidence" and are "lead" to believe false propositions such as Darwinism's 'All animals are descended from a common ancestor'.
What (if anything) do you mean by "determine true propositions"? I know true propositions because 1) they are true, and 2) I believe them. Knowing is believing truth. How do you expect to be taken seriously when you chant words like "science" and "evidence" while demonstrating that you are at war against, and ignorant of, truth and logic?
LOL
Here, once again, you demonstrate that you've never spent so much as five minutes studying logic. Which is a really dumb (but unsurprising) lapse on your part, seeing as how you are at war against your enemies, truth and logic. By your ignorance of logic, you demonstrate that either you've never heard the maxim, "Know your enemy," or have heard it, but rejected it, and decided against practicing it.
Here's a good enough true thing about conclusions that I found, in the matter of an eyeblink, on the internet: "In argumentation, a conclusion is the proposition that follows logically from the major and minor premises in a syllogism."
Conclusions are propositions. But the Darwinist proposition to which you are referring, here, by your phrase, "common ancestry," is not a conclusion; it's not a conclusion from evidence, it's not the conclusion of any argument. It's merely a Darwinist proposition, a false proposition being asserted by Darwinists such as you.
And, by asininely telling me that the proposition that your Darwinist proposition that all animals are descended from a common ancestor "is not a proposition," you are admitting a truth I already knew: viz., that your Darwinist proposition that all animals are descended from a common ancestor is not a true proposition. Duh! Something needs to be a proposition in order to be a true proposition, that is, in order to be truth. So, you've just admitted that your Darwinist "common ancestry" proposition is not true. You're preachin' to the choir, here, boy! Your Darwinist proposition that all animals are descended from a common ancestor is a false proposition; it is not a proposition that is true, it is a proposition that is false; it is not a truth, it is a falsehood.
Have I ever called anything "the theory of evolution"? No. I've not. You have not carefully read what I have written. Any time I have written the phrase, "the theory of evolution," I have surrounded it by quotation marks so as to point out that it is Darwinists who are calling their Darwinism—their nonsense and falsehood, their language game, their war against truth and logic—"the theory of evolution."
Yu meen juss sos yuel grace are soyel agin.Will you also be fixing the ignorance, arrogance and indoctrination, or just the poor education which you want to pretend you got?
Then you should able to. Go ahead. Even if you don’t believe it, by your logic should should be able name it.In the meantime, any child can -- (or should be able to) -- give you the name of our "common ancestor."
Adam.Then you should able to. Go ahead. Even if you don’t believe it, by your logic should should be able name it.
CFBungle Bear from Rainbow?
Where'd Eve come from?Wrong. The biblical answer is Eve.
Gravity works at the speed of light so gravity can exist prior to it’s effect on local space time.Which came first? gravity, or evidence of gravity?
Allow me to ask again - Adam was common ancestor to humans and chimpanzees?Where'd Eve come from?
1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
What does it matter? The question had to do with common ancestry, not earliest ancestor. Eve is the mother of all living--that's what her name means.Where'd Eve come from?
1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?