Posted on 04/17/2008 4:07:06 PM PDT by Aristotelian
Quite persistant in proving my point, aren’t you?
Funny, though...
I’ll infer that you’re trying to prove some point that anything that can’t be tested with the scientific method of observation, forming an hypothesis, then proving that hypothesis through experiments that repeatedly show the conclusion,
must be “faith based” and therefore completely dismissable,
your faith based religion of macro-evolution falls right into that concept, because macro-evolution can’t be repeatedly proven through experimentation. Not even once.
Quite persistant in proving my point, arent you?You finally said it! Here's why you're ignorant of the scientific method(and why I've been waiting for you to make a fool of yourself the whole time). The scientific method only requires *lack of a counterexample* when testing a hypothesis. If scientists held your shall we say "interesting" views on the scientific method, plenty of sciences, especially theoretical Physics would fall completely apart.Funny, though... Ill infer that youre trying to prove some point that anything that cant be tested with the scientific method of observation, forming an hypothesis, then proving that hypothesis through experiments that repeatedly show the conclusion,
must be faith based and therefore completely dismissable,
your faith based religion of macro-evolution falls right into that concept, because macro-evolution cant be repeatedly proven through experimentation. Not even once.
Remember Luminiferous aether?
Still proving Ben Stein`s point I see. Let`s review just how ridiculous you look:
YOU: I’m just pointing out that the previous moron...
ME: The line from Bozell`s column: One theorizes that life began somehow on the backs of crystals. Another states electric sparks from a lightning storm created organic matter (out of nothing). Another declares that life was brought to Earth by aliens
YOU: So you agree that they were talking about amino acids not proteins? ...I dont see any proteins in your quote, just organic matter. So you admit your were lying?
Your irrational comments make us morons look positively sapient.
Now since I`ve dispatched your previous nothings with aplumb, let`s move on to your jejune theory.
Natural selection process being random trial and error, without direction, cannot be 100% neutral.
Where are all the failed mutated fossils?
So Stein tricks them by not revealing the name of the documentary?
One must ask the question.
Do the scientist need to know the objective of a documentary so they can adjust the truth?
It appears that TRUTH as these guys see it depends upon who is asking the question. It also appears to me the referenced article and the overall whining of it support Stein’s position that many in science will do anything to stop dissenting views.
Your irrational comments make us morons look positively sapient.aplumb? LOL.... I've been trying to ignore your spelling errors("junoir" or whatever it was) but that was pretty funny.Now since I`ve dispatched your previous nothings with aplumb, let`s move on to your jejune theory.
Natural selection process being random trial and error, without direction, cannot be 100% neutral. Where are all the failed mutated fossils?
Speaking of which, how long are you going to keep dissembling? I notice that you've conveniently forgotten your initial blather about "proteins". Are you hoping I won't notice?
I`ve noticed you enjoy the word notice.Also noticed when an opponent begins to flounder they will attempt to grab any lifeline possible to save themselves, spellcheck being the first refuge of an intellectual scoundrel.
I`m willing to embarrass you once more and explain why the first protein could not invent itself but I`ll let your own idiosyncratic thoughts do the work and continue to move forward to disassemble your OoS theory you cling to like an AGW scientist clings to a tree.
ME: The line from Bozell`s column: One theorizes that life began somehow on the backs of crystals. Another states electric sparks from a lightning storm created organic matter (out of nothing). Another declares that life was brought to Earth by aliens
YOU: So you agree that they were talking about amino acids not proteins? ...I dont see any proteins in your quote, just organic matter. So you admit your were lying?
LOL
Your drivelings are as usual,at once, both priceless and worthless.
Natural selection process being random trial and error, without direction, cannot be 100% neutral.Where are all the failed mutated fossils?
Perhaps it will send a message to Hollywood.
Can't wait to see it. Ben's a rip.
Just thinking...
So who created them?
Just thinking...
Read the Bible.
Just thinking...
wow... didn’t know it would give you such a thrill. Hope you didn’t have to change your pants over it.
it is amazing... you base all that arrogance on a lack of counterexample to a theory that has no demonstrable examples.
I have to thank you, however, for providing some insight into why atheists are so emotionally invested in evolution. It’s the only “counterexample” that you can try to point to to justify your unwillingness to believe in a Creator.
Thanks again - have a nice day. And clean up that spot on your pants.
You cannot seem to answer any of the VERY SIMPLE questions I put to you about where you think emerging species come from, or what exact narrative you think the fossil record supports.
Are you being deliberately evasive or do you really have no knowledge or opinion on these issues.
Where did the hoofed and winged mammals come from? Where did the dinosaurs come from?
The evidence of their emergence from earlier species may not be complete enough or gradual enough for your satisfaction; but they do show that these species did not exist before a certain time. Where do you suppose they came from?
Do you think either the genetic record or the fossil record supports their emergence all at the same time and the same place? Perhaps some few thousand years ago?
What would a "partially formed emerging species" look like?
The argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy is committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proven false, or that it is false because it has not been proven true.
Someone earlier was trying to state that the scientific method states that a hypothesis (evolution) is true since a counter-example wasn’t provided. I didn’t think that sounded logical, so I found some proof in the study of logical fallacies.
This is argumentum ad ignorantiam - argument from ignorance.
The fact that you are looking for horribly mutated fossils shows just how uninformed and unthoughtout your approach to the subject is.
Answer any of my questions yet?
No.
Where do you suppose these fossils come from?
Is your assumption that they all came about at the same time?
Do you actually think that the fossil record supports THAT preposterous notion?
Please feel free to display your ignorance of genetics as well. I can't wait to hear how all the genomic data that indicates common ancestry is all a huge blow to the theory of Evolution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.