Denial of evolution III

[Saquist]

You have posted several versions, mutually incoherent and in total essentially gibberish, but all agreeing on the relevant point here in this thread:

If you say so.

Post 787,


You started this, evolution is not "atheistic", nor is lack of belief in creationism.

I started this by....answering your question or who ever questions that wanted me to commit a factual fallacy just for the sake of atheistic views? You may disagree but the fallacy of thought evident in the opposing question was inherently anti religious. Suspicion leads me to the premise that the questioner was motivated by atheistic agenda. You have to use literalism properly and you must use it in context. Otherwise you risk going off topic. I did not challenge you. You challenged me. It was your choice to pursue it.
And you continue to pursue it. This is your hunt not mine.

So than your saying you would not evoke creationism base on biblical interpretation?

No. I won't evoke creationism because it doesn't fit with scientific fact. The original language used in Genesis continually uses words that may allow for a scientific interpretation, minus the the standard assumptions both religious and atheist tend to incur that fit their different views.

Oh snap the bible has metaphors in it?

"Excellent," cried he.
"Elementary," said I.

If you were in fact objective than you would have no problem playing with when its metaphorical and when its literal to achieve results that are within logic and evidence.

I did not understand your grammatical sentence choices.
Please restructure or elaborate.

So then we are back to square one, I repeatedly laid down arguments to how evolution is not a chief tenant of atheism and you refuse to even listen let alone counter argue.

Your counter arguments created their own opposition. There was nothing for me to counter because I never actually said anything named in your accusations. I have yet determine any validity. Thus far your accusations have no literal validity beyond your own assumptions. I'm just curiously playing along...mildly interested...but skeptical that you will actually succeed in cornering your prey.

Again its neither reliant or a component of atheism, and if your saying their associated well so is wine to liberals, but association is irrelevant, it does not make one a categorical item of another: Liberals tend to drink wine, that does not mean wine is liberalistic!

I'm fairly certain I never said "reliant".
I'm fairly certain I didn't create an evolution, atheist syllogism.

Again no evidence from you, I will just assume your wrong until you show me how evolution answers those questions.

You want evidence....for metaphysics...
That's...most...amusing!

So?

So, its serious...You did have that epiphany didn't you?

 

[Billy T]

... The original language used in Genesis continually uses words that may allow for a scientific interpretation,...

I would like to hear the scientific interpretation explaining what is meant by: "Eve was made from Adam's rib."

 

[ElectricFetus]

You may disagree but the fallacy of thought evident in the opposing question was inherently anti religious.

Do explain what fallacy of thought and what about it was anti-religious?

Suspicion leads me to the premise that the questioner was motivated by atheistic agenda.

The questioner could be worshiper of Cthulhu for it matters, what ever agenda the questioner has is irrelevant.

You have to use literalism properly and you must use it in context. Otherwise you risk going off topic. I did not challenge you. You challenged me.

You start making accusations and then say it my fault for noticing, riiigggghhhtt.

It was your choice to pursue it.
And you continue to pursue it. This is your hunt not mine.

Its was your mistake, not mine, the fact I keep pointing it out may make be stubborn but it does not make me wrong or even off-topic, this is very on topic and your implying an "atheistic agenda" by your own admission and that evolution and atheism are one in the same somehow and in a convoluted set of statement you have been conflating the two in order to make fallacious arguments against evolution.

No. I won't evoke creationism because it doesn't fit with scientific fact. The original language used in Genesis continually uses words that may allow for a scientific interpretation, minus the the standard assumptions both religious and atheist tend to incur that fit their different views.

yeah, wasn't that what I was saying?

"Excellent," cried he.
"Elementary," said I.

yes but you refuse to go the next step and acknowledge the freedom of choice in what is metaphorical and what is literal.

Your counter arguments created their own opposition. There was nothing for me to counter because I never actually said anything named in your accusations. I have yet determine any validity. Thus far your accusations have no literal validity beyond your own assumptions. I'm just curiously playing along...mildly interested...but skeptical that you will actually succeed in cornering your prey.

In an internet debate there is never a winner, one can always doge the questions and wiggle out of any defeat. So there is no pray to catch. Here a better analogy:

Another analogy would be a race between retards in the Special Olympics where the opponents get stuck in a loop that goes nowhere, slapping at a each other uncoordinately while moaning unintelligible insults and throwing their excrement at each other.

Now you have called evolution (or the refutation of creationism) atheistic, by your own admission in an assumption of an "atheistic agenda" I have stated how and why it is not atheistic yet you refused to acknowledged said arguments by being intentionally vague and dodging the questions and then turning the assumption argument around on me, truly a retarded racing champion.

I'm fairly certain I never said "reliant".
I'm fairly certain I didn't create an evolution, atheist syllogism.

If its not reliant than its irrelevant, if they are associated its still irrelevant and more so one can't be derived from the other, if neither of these is what you meant then you need to correct what you said.

You want evidence....for metaphysics...
That's...most...amusing!

The evidence I was asking for was not physical, but metaphysical: I was asking for the answers you claimed could be derived from evolution, these metaphysical answer are the evidence (weather right or wrong) that need to be stated in order for you to prove your argument (that such answers could be derived from evolution) you refuse to state them so I'll just assume you don't actually know, ergo your argument has not bases.

So, its serious...You did have that epiphany didn't you?

No please do tell me how the exponential growth of the internet makes it serious? Will the world implode in 2015 from the mass of all the servers? The sheer amount of porn and inane smut on the internet is proof of how serious the internet is, that for example something of real social, cultural or scientific meaning to come into existence on a forum like this is astronomically unlikely.

 

[Saquist]

I would like to hear the scientific interpretation explaining what is meant by: "Eve was made from Adam's rib."

So would I!

Do explain what fallacy of thought and what about it was anti-religious?

To what end? His fallacy was self apparent.
, the deduction was not logical, the apparent syllogism was false. The only reason why anyone would make that fallacy (that I can think of) is prejudice.

The questioner could be worshiper of Cthulhu for it matters, what ever agenda the questioner has is irrelevant.

I do not agree.

You start making accusations and then say it my fault for noticing, riiigggghhhtt.

I don't mind you challenging my assertions. But the blame for the tangent is still yours. It's your fault for pursuing it away from the topic.

Its was your mistake, not mine, the fact I keep pointing it out may make be stubborn but it does not make me wrong or even off-topic, this is very on topic and your implying an "atheistic agenda" by your own admission and that evolution and atheism are one in the same somehow and in a convoluted set of statement you have been conflating the two in order to make fallacious arguments against evolution.

You're the one said that this topic of evolution and atheist was irrelevant to creationism. So you decided this was off topic, not me. I don't mind you stubbornly pursing it. If you think that this current topic was such an affront that it had to be hunted down to the grizzly end, I can understand the desire to correct my perceptions if you view them wrong.

yeah, wasn't that what I was saying?

Partly but my agreement to the statement is already a matter of record on this thread, this is just repetition for your sake.

yes but you refuse to go the next step and acknowledge the freedom of choice in what is metaphorical and what is literal.

I have refused to indulge in the freedom.

In an internet debate there is never a winner, one can always doge the questions and wiggle out of any defeat. So there is no pray to catch. Here a better analogy:

Pictures are worth a thousand words aren't they? But I disagree. I will let you win this debate in a heart beat. I have no interest in winning. I am here because I have an interest in other points of view. I continue this exchange because I find your perceptions close enough to my own to be deemed laudable, I am learning about you and your beliefs in the opposite perspective and that helps objectivity. In other words I find you interesting.

Now you have called evolution (or the refutation of creationism)...

I never made that assertion.

I have stated how and why it is not atheistic

Correction, you've stated why it's not co-depended or reliant.
"is" implies equivalence and I clearly never said anything of the kind...

yet you refused to acknowledged said arguments by being intentionally vague and dodging the questions and then turning the assumption argument around on me, truly a retarded racing champion.

I understand. You think that I have an obligation to acknowledge...all...of your accusations and assumptions as truth. I do not. Since I never made the claim atheism relies on evolution then I don't have to defend the claim...logically speaking of course.

If its not reliant than its irrelevant,

That's potentional another false syllogism. Why is it irrelevant to the reason the original questioner made the fallacy? What am I supposed to say when you make these potentially false assertions. What would you like me say?

if they are associated its still irrelevant and more so one can't be derived from the other,

But, I already told you "Evolution is a prominent fixture of atheism, is that more clear?", in direct reply to your quote just above. You didn't answer my question. I've passively noted you have what I interpret as situational acerbity for the indubitable. The absence of cynicism suggest my explanation either wasn't as apparent as I believed it should be or it was not accepted as a direct reply, in which case I could lay it out in a more simply.

The evidence I was asking for was not physical, but metaphysical: I was asking for the answers you claimed could be derived from evolution, these metaphysical answer are the evidence (weather right or wrong) that need to be stated in order for you to prove your argument (that such answers could be derived from evolution) you refuse to state them so I'll just assume you don't actually know...

Are you then asserting my opinion as knowledge?
Are you actually demanding...evidence that my opinion exist?

No please do tell me how the exponential growth of the internet makes it serious?

Am I going to be blamed for your tangent again?

 

[ElectricFetus]

To what end? His fallacy was self apparent.
, the deduction was not logical, the apparent syllogism was false. The only reason why anyone would make that fallacy (that I can think of) is prejudice.

What fallacy, state it, don't refer to it with a wave of the hand you could be talking about smoked fish for all I know.

I do not agree.

Than explain way: way do you think the messenger is important?

I don't mind you challenging my assertions. But the blame for the tangent is still yours. It's your fault for pursuing it away from the topic.

Again your the one that call it atheistic, and its not away for the topic, it quite relevant.

You're the one said that this topic of evolution and atheist was irrelevant to creationism. So you decided this was off topic, not me. I don't mind you stubbornly pursing it.

yet your brought atheism into the topic, you clearly think it does have some value, you stated above that you believe the messenger is of value.

If you think that this current topic was such an affront that it had to be hunted down to the grizzly end, I can understand the desire to correct my perceptions if you view them wrong.

No I just like to drool and clap my hands while running like all the rest.

I have refused to indulge in the freedom.

Than where is your objectivity?

Pictures are worth a thousand words aren't they? But I disagree. I will let you win this debate in a heart beat. I have no interest in winning. I am here because I have an interest in other points of view. I continue this exchange because I find your perceptions close enough to my own to be deemed laudable, I am learning about you and your beliefs in the opposite perspective and that helps objectivity. In other words I find you interesting.

and I enjoy having shit chucked in my face.

I never made that assertion. Correction, you've stated why it's not co-depended or reliant. "is" implies equivalence and I clearly never said anything of the kind...

no, its not clear, or I would known what your saying, so you have chosen the final answer to my argument: you must state what you said again, clearly this time: what did you call atheistic, how is it atheistic?

I understand. You think that I have an obligation to acknowledge...all...of your accusations and assumptions as truth. I do not.

Obligation to acknowledge, what are you smoking? You can believe what ever you want for all I give a dam! This is an internet debate no one cares what you believe all we care is to argue.

That's potentional another false syllogism.

Thank you Captain Obvious. All syllogism are potentiality false, their potentially true as well, before you valid or invalid the premise and conclusion its potentially either.

Why is it irrelevant to the reason the original questioner made the fallacy?

What fallacy?

It is the argument that is being judged, it does not matter who stated the argument or why, it could have been Hitler or a six year old girl with cute bows in her hair, it does not change if that argument is true, false, logical or fallacious.

What am I supposed to say when you make these potentially false assertions. What would you like me say?

Your suppose to state if you believe they are false, not potentially, and why you believe that. If you can't determine if its false or not, or do not care or can't even make sense of it then simple don't replay to that specific assertion, that is what I do.

But, I already told you "Evolution is a prominent fixture of atheism, is that more clear?", in direct reply to your quote just above.

And I have state over and over again how its not, but of course this all now depends on what you mean by "fixture", just like "chief tenant". Are you saying evolution induces atheism, I've refuted this, are you saying evolution is a component of atheism, I've refuted that, are you saying they are associated, that would be irrelevant: nose picking could be a "fixture" of atheism as well, does that mean nose picking is atheistic? The assumption might be that atheism is wrong, it vary well might be, but that has no relevance on evolution.

You didn't answer my question. I've passively noted you have what I interpret as situational acerbity for the indubitable. The absence of cynicism suggest my explanation either wasn't as apparent as I believed it should be or it was not accepted as a direct reply, in which case I could lay it out in a more simply.

and that would be... ?

Are you then asserting my opinion as knowledge? Are you actually demanding...evidence that my opinion exist?

neither, I'm trying to determine the validity of your argument, and without a premise that supported I can't tell and will in this case assume invalidity.

Am I going to be blamed for your tangent again?

Does it matter? Rules 25 and 26 of the internet: "Relation to the original topic decreases with every single post." and "Any topic can be turned into something totally unrelated." If someone cares then we can split it off to a new thread, and if you don't want to go off-topic then don't reply to off-topic assertions or don't make assertions that go off-topic.

 

[iceaura]

You have posted several versions, mutually incoherent and in total essentially gibberish, but all agreeing on the relevant point here in this thread:
”
If you say so.

You seem to have forgotten about your earlier post. Allow me to refresh your memory:

What exactly is my criteria for science, proof and etc, iceaura?
- - - -
Originally Posted by Saquist
Judicial and Scientific Rules

PROOF is observable reproducible Facts.
EVIDENCE in it's broadest meaning is anything which can support a claim.
SUPPORT defines speculation based on evidence.
CONJECTURE is baseless speculation

No Theory Based on another Theory can be considered properly supported.

Thus, you do not consider the spherical earth theory to be properly supported. That was the only point. You were making an exception for the spherical earth theory, for some reason, and more consistency in argument is necessary for fruitful discussion.

evidence is against scientists neutrality when it comes to evolution.

There's no conflict involved, to be neutral in.

 

[Saquist]

Obligation to acknowledge, what are you smoking? You can believe what ever you want for all I give a dam! This is an internet debate no one cares what you believe all we care is to argue.

Then I declare yourself...victorious. Good day, sir.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Then I declare yourself...victorious. Good day, sir.

No, NO, Don't leave me!

 

[Saquist]

You seem to have forgotten about your earlier post. Allow me to refresh your memory:

What led you to that conclusion?

Thus, you do not consider the spherical earth theory to be properly supported. That was the only point. You were making an exception for the spherical earth theory, for some reason, and more consistency in argument is necessary for fruitful discussion.
There's no conflict involved, to be neutral in.

I am have a great difficulty understanding what exactly you want or where you see the conflict.

 

[iceaura]

I am have a great difficulty understanding what exactly you want or where you see the conflict.

You propose different standards for acceptance of different theories - in this case, you accept the spherical earth theory but reject the evolution of living forms theory, by requiring that the evolution of forms theory meet more stringent standards.

Why?

 

[Saquist]

You propose different standards for acceptance of different theories - in this case, you accept the spherical earth theory but reject the evolution of living forms theory, by requiring that the evolution of forms theory meet more stringent standards.

Why?

Oh you think Spherical Earth is a theory?
That's very interesting.

No, NO, Don't leave me!

 

[ElectricFetus]

Oh you think Spherical Earth is a theory?

Yes it is a theory. In fact its actually an incorrect one: satellite mapping shows the earth is slightly pear shaped.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes it is a theory. In fact its actually an incorrect one: satellite mapping shows the earth is slightly pear shaped.

Let's be precise (and uninformative) the Earth is a geoid.

 

[iceaura]

Oh you think Spherical Earth is a theory?

Yep. It was developed to explain various patterns in the observed data, checked out through hypothesis and research confirmation (the "scientific method") and is now fairly well accepted generally - although, as Ophiolite reminds us, it is not actually so (as the French discovered, to their discomfort, when establishing the length of the meter).

That's very interesting.

Nope. It's basic, simple, ordinary, boring, and taken for granted in this kind of discussion.

Now, if you have time to actually address a question, several remain in your inbox above.

 

[Saquist]

Yep. It was developed to explain various patterns in the observed data, checked out through hypothesis and research confirmation (the "scientific method") and is now fairly well accepted generally - although, as Ophiolite reminds us, it is not actually so (as the French discovered, to their discomfort, when establishing the length of the meter).
Nope. It's basic, simple, ordinary, boring, and taken for granted in this kind of discussion.

Now, if you have time to actually address a question, several remain in your inbox above.

What questions?
I still don't know what you want.
You've accused me of some awful disparity and I haven't seen the charges explicitly laid out. What you must understand is that I am not going to ...guess.... by waving about in the dark about what has your panties riding up.

 

[spidergoat]

Oh you think Spherical Earth is a theory?
That's very interesting.

It is a theory.

 

[Saquist]

It is a theory.

yep. no doubt about it.

 

[spidergoat]

But it's also true.

 

[sifreak21]

As per the first two Denial of Evolution threads (here and here), this third instalment is also a quarantine area for threads that regurgipost all the usual creationist/evolution denialism stuff, such as:

-- scientists know that evolution is wrong, but are hiding that fact in order to retain their power;
-- evolution is just a theory;
-- Darwin recanted on his deathbed;
-- no one has seen a bacterium evolve into a fish;
-- there are no transitional fossils;
-- speciation has never been seen;
-- okay, speciation has been seen, but the creation of new Genuses has not;

....and everything else which is summarily smacked down by everyone who passed high school biology.

what are the worthless spurs on pythons used for then?

 

[arfa brane]

what are the worthless spurs on pythons used for then?

They're kept by pythons as a reminder of their once wealthy status. Sort of a bling thing, but not with the full monty python (a curious creature indeed).

I thought everyone knew that python joke...?