Loopholes In Origin of Life Theories - Science vs Evolution
Want to say something off topic? Something that has nothing to do with Trek? Post it here.
posted on June 20th, 2012, 5:31 pm
Every point you made in the original post, and every subsequent post, can be refutted here.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
Believe me, I checked. If you need guidance, I'll assist you. Also, your calculations in your most recent posts are flawed. You can find out why here.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
P.S. It's obvious you copy and paste from a creationist site. How about looking up how your opposition counters your argument before throwing it out there? It's a basic debating tool.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
Believe me, I checked. If you need guidance, I'll assist you. Also, your calculations in your most recent posts are flawed. You can find out why here.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
P.S. It's obvious you copy and paste from a creationist site. How about looking up how your opposition counters your argument before throwing it out there? It's a basic debating tool.
posted on June 20th, 2012, 6:52 pm
I suspect that most people with the academic rigour to look up refutations and try and formulate counterpoints would not go about trying to spread creationist propaganda on a gaming site.
posted on June 20th, 2012, 7:03 pm
'Most' being the operative word, 9 out of 10 still leaves that last 1 unaccounted for.
posted on June 20th, 2012, 7:51 pm
Amateur:
I didn't use the poll as "proof" for or against evolution. I was just pointing out the fact that there are disagreements on whether or not evolution is a fact.
Academaniac:
The Talk.Origins claims can be checked at various websites. This page: http://creationwiki.org/Talk.Origins is a good hub for looking at how websites respond to Talk.Origins assertions. Several of the websites are evolutionist sites. You'll see that Talk.Origins misrepresents and even fabricates many of the claims that it lists.
MadHatter:
I'm not "spreading creationist propaganda." The purpose of this thread was to scientifically discuss the weaknesses for evolution, but the response has (often) been to spread EVOLUTIONIST propaganda instead of scientifically discussing the weaknesses.
I didn't use the poll as "proof" for or against evolution. I was just pointing out the fact that there are disagreements on whether or not evolution is a fact.
Academaniac:
The Talk.Origins claims can be checked at various websites. This page: http://creationwiki.org/Talk.Origins is a good hub for looking at how websites respond to Talk.Origins assertions. Several of the websites are evolutionist sites. You'll see that Talk.Origins misrepresents and even fabricates many of the claims that it lists.
MadHatter:
I'm not "spreading creationist propaganda." The purpose of this thread was to scientifically discuss the weaknesses for evolution, but the response has (often) been to spread EVOLUTIONIST propaganda instead of scientifically discussing the weaknesses.
posted on June 20th, 2012, 9:12 pm
TChapman500 wrote:MadHatter:
I'm not "spreading creationist propaganda." The purpose of this thread was to scientifically discuss the weaknesses for evolution, but the response has (often) been to spread EVOLUTIONIST propaganda instead of scientifically discussing the weaknesses.
Hilarious. Best laugh I've had in ages.
There you go again. "Discussing the weaknesses"... Most of us can not discuss the weaknesses, because we dispute that these weaknesses even exist. Your assertions are not backed up by any fact, only more assertions. Your methodology is so flawed it's practically nonexistent, and your basic premise is plainly incorrect.
You have created a discussion in which you can dismiss anyone else's opinion as "off-topic", simply because they don't match YOUR opinion. Clever, but it has no place in an open forum.
posted on June 20th, 2012, 9:30 pm
Stop using the bait-and-switch on the definitions. The weaknesses are there, but there hasn't been much of a discussion on them, just dismissals of them out of hand.
EDIT: Just lock this thread already. It's obvious nobody wants to discuss the weaknesses of evolution. Just dismissing them and falsely calling them non-science.
EDIT: Just lock this thread already. It's obvious nobody wants to discuss the weaknesses of evolution. Just dismissing them and falsely calling them non-science.
posted on June 20th, 2012, 9:56 pm
How can I make this more clear? I have stated it a dozen times already.
YOU. HAVE. NOT. PRESENTED. ANY. WEAKNESSES.
It's your OPINION that they are weaknesses, but you have provided no facts to back up that opinion. Therefore there is nothing to discuss.
It IS non-science, because those propaganda artists you are quoting blindly from have not used scientific methodology in their analysis. Therefore you CAN NOT describe this scenario as "Science vs Evolution".
Bait and switch on definitions.... Where's that come from? Are you just randomly making stuff up now? You're that desperate to discredit others that you're wildly accusing them of stuff that only exists in your own head?
And seriously, asking to have the thread locked only when YOU have had YOUR say, to try and get the last word. That is pathetic.
YOU. HAVE. NOT. PRESENTED. ANY. WEAKNESSES.
It's your OPINION that they are weaknesses, but you have provided no facts to back up that opinion. Therefore there is nothing to discuss.
It IS non-science, because those propaganda artists you are quoting blindly from have not used scientific methodology in their analysis. Therefore you CAN NOT describe this scenario as "Science vs Evolution".
Bait and switch on definitions.... Where's that come from? Are you just randomly making stuff up now? You're that desperate to discredit others that you're wildly accusing them of stuff that only exists in your own head?
And seriously, asking to have the thread locked only when YOU have had YOUR say, to try and get the last word. That is pathetic.
posted on June 21st, 2012, 12:12 am
Atlantis, you're claims are so easy to reverse it's not even funny.
These weaknesses are a fact! Our knowledge of them comes from scientific observation! There has been almost no effort to address them. Just assertions that they're not weaknesses, which have no basis in fact.
"It IS non-science, because those propaganda artists you are quoting blindly from have not used scientific methodology in their analysis." Spoken like a true evolution propagandist. This is a classic example of the blatantly false "Creation = anti-science" tactic.
"Bait and switch on definitions...." Fallacy of equivocation. Involves redefining terms mid-discussion either by swapping definitions or by making one definition of one term equivalent to another definition of another term.
"And seriously, asking to have the thread locked only when YOU have had YOUR say, to try and get the last word. That is pathetic." You obviously didn't read on (or you ignored) why I wanted it locked. Not to have the last say, but because there has been little no discussion on these weaknesses. I only know of 2 people (that have posted on this thread) who even tried to address these issues (Unleash Mayhem, and Amateur, going by what's on the thread review portion of the posting form). And you are not on the list.
These weaknesses are a fact! Our knowledge of them comes from scientific observation! There has been almost no effort to address them. Just assertions that they're not weaknesses, which have no basis in fact.
"It IS non-science, because those propaganda artists you are quoting blindly from have not used scientific methodology in their analysis." Spoken like a true evolution propagandist. This is a classic example of the blatantly false "Creation = anti-science" tactic.
"Bait and switch on definitions...." Fallacy of equivocation. Involves redefining terms mid-discussion either by swapping definitions or by making one definition of one term equivalent to another definition of another term.
"And seriously, asking to have the thread locked only when YOU have had YOUR say, to try and get the last word. That is pathetic." You obviously didn't read on (or you ignored) why I wanted it locked. Not to have the last say, but because there has been little no discussion on these weaknesses. I only know of 2 people (that have posted on this thread) who even tried to address these issues (Unleash Mayhem, and Amateur, going by what's on the thread review portion of the posting form). And you are not on the list.
posted on June 21st, 2012, 1:21 am
There is no theory of evolution, just a list of species Chuck Norris allowed to live.
Locked.
Locked.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests