Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1672 of 1725 (633029)
09-12-2011 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1659 by bluegenes
09-11-2011 11:09 AM


Re: Lesson for children and slow adults and bluegenes
bluegenes writes:
Currently, it is a very strong theory that the chimps are our closest living relatives.
It understand.
Someone could make the suggestion that there could be a branch species which diverged from our lineage since the chimps that is still surviving deep in some forest somewhere; perhaps Erectus or another earlier hominid. Hypothetically, that's not impossible.
I follow.
However, the suggestion (or a stronger claim by someone that they firmly believed or knew such a species to be extant) would not in itself weaken the "chimp" theory in any way.
I follow.
It would be necessary to find good supporting evidence of the existence of such a creature to weaken the theory, and it would be necessary to actually establish its existence to falsify the "chimp" theory.
Im with you.
RAZD has been making "suggestions" that would contradict my theory.
I think RAZD is waiting for the Theory to be supported just as the chimp theory is supported. With evidence.
You have claimed to know of the existence of a specific supernatural being (rather like someone claiming to know that the mysterious hominids in the example above exist).
Yes, me and you are in the same boat, I get that. RAZD is the one thinking logically, not you or me.
What neither of you can do is establish your alternative "hypotheses" or claims with good empirical evidence.
You mispoke. What you mean to say is this:
What neither you or me can do is establish our alternative "hypotheses" or claims with good empirical evidence
There, I corrected it for you
RAZD has been making "suggestions" that would contradict my theory.
As far as I can tell, RAZD is waiting for you to present your theory:
bluegenes writes:
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".
This is a high level of confidence theory. The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, just as adult rabbits are the only known source of baby rabbits.
It is falsified by the demonstration of the existence of just one supernatural being beyond all reasonable doubt.
It is not falsified by unsupported assertions like "a supernatural being can exist".
If anyone does not agree that this is a strong theory, I'd be happy to participate in a one on one debate on the subject, and support the theory with plenty of evidence.
-Bold mine-
bluegenes writes:
I can't find any supportive empirical evidence for them either. Neither can any other participant on this thread.
The question here bluegenes, is not wheather anyone on this thread can find any emperical evidence for SN beings including RAZD (which he in fact never claimed he could).
The question is can you find any to disprove that SN beings in fact do not exist?
Are you aware of even your own comments? See above.
What I'm pointing out here is that contradicting claims can be made against any scientific laws and theories.
I follow.
They are of no use as a basis for criticizing a theory or law unless they have proper empirical support.
Yes, of course I agree with you, but what does this have to do with your claim?
bluegenes writes:
Human invention remains the only source of the ideas and descriptions that we have in our heads of supernatural beings knowable to all of us and known to science. While that remains the case, I have a very strong theory
I follow, as well as all other rational thinking people, mainly RAZD, who is simply waiting anxiously for you to do this.
bluegenes writes:
and support the theory with plenty of evidence.
When are you going to attempt to do this? You havn't and therfore lost the debate. Why it is still going on is strickly for entertainment value. As far as victory goes, RAZD had supported his poistion in maintaining that you cannot support yours. If you could, the debate would have been over your very first post.
bluegenes writes:
The very fact that both you and RAZD have made numerous posts expressing strong personal desires to criticize the theory, but have completely failed to offer any empirical evidence of the existence of SBs outside human minds makes my point for me.
As far as I know, you and I so far, have failed to offer any empirical evidence of the existance or non existance of SN beings.
The difference being, im not asking RAZD for a great debate where I will in fact:
support the theory with plenty of evidence
You are the one on the stand. Not me, and certainly not RAZD. You are misrepresenting his position because you know you lost and putting the burden off of you and on to him which he does not deserve.
RAZD is simply waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting...eternity infinity...
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1659 by bluegenes, posted 09-11-2011 11:09 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1673 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2011 6:08 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 1674 by bluegenes, posted 09-12-2011 7:31 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1688 of 1725 (633448)
09-14-2011 5:23 AM


Support
Before this forum goes bye bye I'd like to get this in.
I think more theists/deists/creationists on here need to support eachother.
Some support goes a long way.
It would make the experience here much more rewarding if people would support one another. The atheists here as well as the evolutionists all support eachother religiously(sorry). Im sure it's a great experience for them all.
I've been guilty of disagreeing with other theists here almost as much as I do with the atheists and evolutionists.
That's going to change on my part. It's difficult debating 8 different people at a time. A lot of theists/deists here do it. None of us are RAZD for gods sake. It's hard to do. It happens on every single thread. Sometimes it's nice when another member can take some heat off of you.
I hope more theists/deists can start supporting eachother like the rest of the members here do. Im going too. Atleast we can try to find some common ground with one another.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 1689 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-14-2011 6:18 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 1690 by fearandloathing, posted 09-14-2011 6:58 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 1691 by Theodoric, posted 09-14-2011 8:29 AM Chuck77 has replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 1698 of 1725 (633601)
09-15-2011 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1691 by Theodoric
09-14-2011 8:29 AM


Re: Support
Theodoric writes:
Chuck writes:
Before this forum goes bye bye I'd like to get this in.
Percy must be absolutely thrilled with making you an Admin after seeing this statement. I don't know how old you are but this site and its predecessor have probably been around longer than you have been an adult and is going to be around a lot longer after you whimper away with your tail between your legs.
Wow. I wasn't actually talking about EvCforum. I was talking about the Peanut Gallery forum Message 255
Do you have some sort of a crush on me? You've been following me around a lot latley for some reason. Is there something I can help you with?
If you actually are going to keep biting at my ankles try not to misrepresent me, ok pal?
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1691 by Theodoric, posted 09-14-2011 8:29 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1701 by Panda, posted 09-15-2011 5:24 AM Chuck77 has replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 1702 of 1725 (633618)
09-15-2011 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1701 by Panda
09-15-2011 5:24 AM


Re: Support
I think it will be based on all the posts where you claim that a man fancies you.
That was the first one actually. Jealous?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1701 by Panda, posted 09-15-2011 5:24 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1704 by Panda, posted 09-15-2011 6:49 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 1703 of 1725 (633622)
09-15-2011 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1691 by Theodoric
09-14-2011 8:29 AM


Theo the town crier
Theodoric writes:
I don't know how old you are but this site and its predecessor have probably been around longer than you have been an adult and is going to be around a lot longer after you whimper away with your tail between your legs.
***content deleted***
Give this comment by RAZD a whirl Message 273
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : content deleted

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1691 by Theodoric, posted 09-14-2011 8:29 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1705 by Panda, posted 09-15-2011 6:51 AM Chuck77 has replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 1706 of 1725 (633627)
09-15-2011 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1705 by Panda
09-15-2011 6:51 AM


Re: Theo the town crier
You should try reading this message from RAZD too Message 273
As you i've also given you no reason to harass me here like you are and stalk me from thread to thread. It's quite rediculous.
There's are tons of posts where your acting like theo too, including your last two here. How you havnt been suspended yet to harassing new members is beyond me.
Are you guys the welcoming commity for EvCForum? To harass all Creationists for no reason?
Do you like harassing new members at EvCforum? Are trying to represent the site in your own special way?
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1705 by Panda, posted 09-15-2011 6:51 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1707 by Panda, posted 09-15-2011 7:15 AM Chuck77 has replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 1708 of 1725 (633629)
09-15-2011 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1707 by Panda
09-15-2011 7:15 AM


Re: Theo the town crier
Your pathetic and a complete embarrasment to this site. You act like a child from thread to thread.
You are only here to harass people. I don't have time to post all the posts with you doing it but im going too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1707 by Panda, posted 09-15-2011 7:15 AM Panda has not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1721 of 1725 (633898)
09-17-2011 2:01 AM


Summation; Bluegenes and myself on both ends of extreme
Hundreds of posts/comments and the discussion is stuck right here where blugenes gleefully claims:
bluegenes writes:
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".
This is a high level of confidence theory. The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, just as adult rabbits are the only known source of baby rabbits.
It is falsified by the demonstration of the existence of just one supernatural being beyond all reasonable doubt.
It is not falsified by unsupported assertions like "a supernatural being can exist".
If anyone does not agree that this is a strong theory, I'd be happy to participate in a one on one debate on the subject, and support the theory with plenty of evidence.
-Bold Mine-
Well, somehow bluegenes has gotten a lot of support for this belief/faith/claim of His.
It is truly amazing and quite mind boggling to me the bias that is being displayed here. After all if it were ME or RAZD or another "believer" that made such a CLAIM only in reverse Straggler would be over in the PNT's putting together a thread for whomever the statement came asking for evidence for such.
Strangly tho, bluegenes is not required to do so. Why? Because he is not a believer or an open minded skeptic.
In this case bluegenes and myself are claiming the same exact things. We both are making predictions that are unprovable scientifically, which was precisly the entire point of the Great Debate thread.
It has been said that the pen will fall to the ground like it always has therefore the pen will fall to the ground therefore.
That would be great if we were testing for falling pens. Tho, curiously (in honor of RAZD ) we are not. We are in actuality testing for the Super Natural which as far as I know, as of right now, in this present time, here on earth, cannot be done.
Therefore, RAZD has successfully demonstrated and debated that what bluegenes has claimed is exactly as RAZD puts it in Message 1:
RAZD writes:
What you have is wishful thinking and confirmation bias coupled to the logical fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.
Enjoy

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024