Elektable
- Thread starter lukep
- Start date
No scientist would (or should) ever claim that he knows he is 100% right.
What we have is a model that is much more likely than all other models based on the evidence available. It can, and has be proven on insects for example.
Unless you want to argue that micro evolution does not prove macro evolution. But I don't think you would argue like that because it would sound a lot like Keynesian-ism applied to biology.
If you can name a few points where you disagree with evolution I see if I can find some proof for you.
You don't have a point my friend.
You claim that not believing in something before it was discovered is the same as not believing in it after it has been widely accepted in the scientific community and everywhere else.
I repeat, you don't have a point.
C'mon, Nick.
If you are going to assault someone's leadership ability based on how quickly they change their beliefs to conform with whatever new ideas are currently trending through the mass-consciousness, you may as well assault them for not originating the ideas themselves.
So we can't know anything for certain?
Not my point, but it makes my point...
A better model than bad ones isn't necessarily the right one.
Keynes didn't understand micro-econ at all. He was a Malthusian.
I don't disagree. I don't know.
I can poke a ton of holes into evolution. I've already done a thread where some well meaning people quoted theories from the NYT and other obvious [sic] authorities to me.
I don't particularly care. My life doesn't change if evolution is true or false. My goals and plans won't change either. They never depended on a particular creation myth (evolution or theism) in their formation or execution.
I just find it funny how delusional people are that they will vehemently argue for things (on other side) that they cannot prove. This profound ignorance is why we can't have nice things. The world would be a better place if people accepted that there are things beyond human understanding now, and perhaps, forever.
Bacteria, fruit flies, plants, dogs, cats...
Evolution has been proven over and over everywhere.
It would be fascinating to see your thought process right now, Guerilla. You literally are deluding yourself (please refer to my earlier definition) and it would be very interesting to see your brain in action.
Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica - CNET News
Experts rate Wikipedia’s accuracy higher than non-experts | Ars Technica
And of course
Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A. You were arguing that scientific theories are just as "shaky" as the religious dogma.
B. I said you're full of shit. I gave supporting evidence why even hypotheses (which are observable) are more credible than the bible. Nothing in religious texts that aren't directly observable are worth a damn because they cannot produce anything. PERIOD.
What is the evidence for evolution?
https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
I literally cannot post the stuff here because it is too long. Keep arguing this line and your ass is mine.
Actually, you're wrong. I said and I directly quote:
Is this supposed to scare me or even be an argument? Considering how many citations I've left in the quotation, I would say it's a "wikipedia + 10 other sources" citation. You on the other hand are talking out of your ass, NOT actually debating the merits of the presented defintions.
I seriously doubt you have a good understanding of logical fallacies if you would even consider that. And for the record:
Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica - CNET News
Experts rate Wikipedia’s accuracy higher than non-experts | Ars Technica
And of course
Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My pleasure, I live to bring joy and humor.
Did you LITERALLY miss the part where the title of the page is "the scientific method" lol? To help you group your thoughts together, let me assist:
A. You were arguing that scientific theories are just as "shaky" as the religious dogma.
B. I said you're full of shit. I gave supporting evidence why even hypotheses (which are observable) are more credible than the bible. Nothing in religious texts that aren't directly observable are worth a damn because they cannot produce anything. PERIOD.
Early Theories of Evolution: Evidence of Evolution
What is the evidence for evolution?
https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
I literally cannot post the stuff here because it is too long. Keep arguing this line and your ass is mine.
Yes, you're correct. It is completely unrelated.
Can't say that anymore can you? In fact I know without a doubt that you did not read the earlier quotes from my last two replies. Safe to say you'll remain deluded.
Another ad homien attack without addressing the debate's issues.
Actually, you're wrong. I said and I directly quote:
Did you not read then used a strawman attack to try and disprove "my" assertions? You can't get away with that
Read above. I have sourced everything I said. Oh and if you need more I got that too. And before you post another weak reply, try and cite a few sources. If I have to listen to this shit at least make it entertaining or a challenge.
Evolution is accurate enough to make predictions useful for agriculture and other areas. This makes it extremely useful and by not believing in it you are essentially limiting yourself. Of course you can believe whatever you want.
Thanks Nicky, I had never heard of this Google before.
No comment on how you voted for Obama and he believes in Creationism?
Here is a tip. Religion, true or false, is a monolithic social force, and no one gets elected to any very high office unless they claim to believe in God.
When you disqualify Ron Paul, you may as well disqualify everyone running. In the two party system there are no atheists running for President.
So when a black man mates with a white woman and produces offspring, that's evolution?
On the one hand, you say scientists can't know anything 100%, and then on the other hand, you claim it is proven (fact) over and again.
Which is it?
If evolution were disproved beyond a shadow of a doubt tomorrow afternoon, would that make every Darwinian evolutionist more or less of a loon than the people who believe in creationism right now?
why did I get into this thread? I need to block WF for a month now to make up for wasting this time.
No, I'm not. Nothing you ever say will convince me that paying taxes, abiding by a few laws and having common sense = slavery.
Cute how you're shy to touch my Magnum Opus because I served your ass cold.
Come visit me. We don't have black people here. You will be a hit with the local ladies.
My only weapons in argument are logic. If something can be proven to be true, I would be an idiot not to believe it. However, very little about evolution passes the truth test. Atheists however fanatically believe otherwise, just as some theists fanatically believe God created the earth.
To someone like me, atheism and theism are just competing ideologies. Neither has a monopoly on science, the truth or goodness. Heck, almost all of the killing in the last 200 years has been done by secular atheists.
Argument from authority?I seriously doubt you have a good understanding of logical fallacies if you would even consider that. And for the record:
Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica - CNET News
Experts rate Wikipedia’s accuracy higher than non-experts | Ars Technica
And of course
Reliability of Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Argumentum ad populum?
Wikipedia is either right or wrong. The truth isn't subject to opinion.
To white women, amirite?
Did I say scientific theories, or evolutionary theory? I don't remember. I am really fond of the idea of gravity. And water being wet.
I am not gay bro. No matter how cute you are.
It's not an ad hominem. You should learn what logical fallacies are before trying to apply the idea in a debate.
An ad hominem would be me saying you're wrong because you're stupid. Or because you're black. Or because you like to sell your ass on the street corner.
What I am saying is that you don't have any facts to back up your position, and that is why your position in debate lacks merit, because IT LACKS MERIT. It's axiomatic.
It wasn't a strawman. I used your definition. I don't understand the controversy.
Just prove evolution bro. We can argue definitions all day. You still haven't shown one factual proof for evolution, have you?
C'mon now, it can't be that hard. Apparently it's accessible to people in Grade 8.