|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Noahs ark is a physical impossibility | |||||||||||||||||||||
Zephan Inactive Member |
Au contraire.
I wasn't speaking to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Zephan Inactive Member |
quote: So why don't you define "evidence" for us counselor. I didn't realize there was only one kind, although most evolutionists believe this to be true. And once you give us an acceptable definition (you won't because it is way over your head), provide some guidelines as to how we should qualify the evidence. Or don't bother as this is probably way too difficult for you. But if you do, I suggest you begin with defining "circumstantial" evidence. This might be a good place to start given the fact that you've built your entire belief in evolution solely on circumstantial evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: LOL.... I like that! ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Zephan writes: So why don't you define "evidence" for us counselor. I didn't realize there was only one kind, although most evolutionists believe this to be true. Aren't you afraid that posts like this will reveal your true identity? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
FYI
Zephan is actually Ten-sai, aka Back in Black. --------------------EvC Forum Administrator
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Percy,
quote: It was this snippet that made me realise I'd heard this line before. Apparently we must provide scientific peer reviewed papers to show that something isn't linked to something else (ie prove a negative) when no one suggests that they are anyway. Methinks the burden of proof is the other way around, or if it isn't, I want scientific peer reviewed articles that show that apples aren't oranges. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
More faces than the church clock.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Gzus Inactive Member |
quote: Why the Answer is simple! For fun! Ever played lemmings?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4753 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
Working hypothesis: A cosmos that repeatedly manifests cursed-events and redemptive-events.) You judge!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4753 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
"...Then as if that were not enough, you make references to several other 'supernatural' ark-like statements used by creationists as if in an attempt to prove your ark-presuppositions by boring the reader to death with yet more irrefutable and purely circumstantial random statements. Indeed, all you have achieved is to inform the reader that there is no reason why he or she should believe anything that you have to say on the ark question whatsoever. "
--Your harsh absolute rebuttal betrays your error, a common problem with all debators (myself foremost) who oppose themselves. Honest scientists, especially evolutionary biologists, are more apt to see flaws of YEC logic in a less perturbed manner. Their criticisms are to the point, without unnecessary metaphysical bashings, rhetorical jumbo, etc. --There are numerous rifts in the current ToE including global catastrophistic event(s). Most Evo-scientists call them "unexpainable" at present. Try agreeing with certain points and disagreeing with others, to various degrees. Absolute determinations, dogmatic assertions, 100% rebukes, etc., are no more than blind biases, wouldn't you agree? No? Sometimes? Maybe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Philip Member (Idle past 4753 days) Posts: 656 From: Albertville, AL, USA Joined: |
Supernatural event regarding the flood.
AS you alluded: creation science events are sought by the thread-author... While no expert in this area I meagerly cite: 100-years of building the ark by antidilluvians and a more gentle behavioral disposition of higher life-forms at the time may be hypothesized. Please pardon my ineptness here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Zephan, everyone is speaking to everyone here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Funny, you use the legal term, "counselor", while in a scientific discussion. Why do you do that, Ten-Sai?
quote: No, most evolutionists understand that there is MORE than one definition of evidence. Scientific evidence is that which we can detect with our five senses, and the observations of this evidence must be repeatable.
quote: Ad Hominem.
quote: Um, this is not a term that is used when speaking of scientific evidence, so it is irrelevant.
quote: No, I haven't. The scientific evidence for evolution has been, and is, directly observed and also inferred.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Like what?quote: In reality, I prefer to speak for myself. I would like to see some actual evidence for a 10,000 year old creation and subsequent destruction by the Hebrew triabl deity. Repeated assertions do not count. Special pleading does not count. Bible verses do not count. Lying for Jesus does not count.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1906 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote:Why don;t you address the issues brought up to you before instead of pretending that they were not?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024