Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A fatal logical flaw in creationism?
mark24
Member (Idle past 5225 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 176 of 214 (102268)
04-23-2004 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by desdamona
04-23-2004 6:43 PM


Re: There had to be a first!
desdemona,
Do you accept evolution or not. It is sciences CENTRAL theorem for biology.
Mark

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by desdamona, posted 04-23-2004 6:43 PM desdamona has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by desdamona, posted 04-23-2004 7:01 PM mark24 has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5225 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 181 of 214 (102276)
04-23-2004 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by desdamona
04-23-2004 7:01 PM


Re: There had to be a first!
desdemona,
At the stage I'm at now,I honestly do not accept it as fact in my own life.
And what evidential reason leads you to reject evolution?
Note; this requires a knowledge of logic & science to answer. My informed guess is that you will reject evolution for unscientific reasons. Meaning you DO have a problem with science. Prove me wrong.
Mark
[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-23-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by desdamona, posted 04-23-2004 7:01 PM desdamona has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by desdamona, posted 04-23-2004 7:17 PM mark24 has replied
 Message 186 by desdamona, posted 04-23-2004 7:19 PM mark24 has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5225 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 190 of 214 (102288)
04-23-2004 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by desdamona
04-23-2004 7:17 PM


Re: There had to be a first!
desdemona,
& what information (& I mean real verifiable information) do you have to conclude anthing else?
I've already given you scientifically valid evidence that shows cladistics matching stratigraphy beyond reasonable doubt ( & then some) The information has already been given.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by desdamona, posted 04-23-2004 7:17 PM desdamona has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by desdamona, posted 04-23-2004 9:40 PM mark24 has not replied
 Message 196 by desdamona, posted 04-23-2004 9:43 PM mark24 has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5225 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 191 of 214 (102289)
04-23-2004 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Asgara
04-23-2004 7:24 PM


Re: There had to be a first!
Good suggestion.
Perhaps, & I think this is true of all non-sciency fundies, a "what constitutes science" thread is in order (again).
There are far, far too many people declaring what is & isn't scientific without a Scoobies notion of what is & isn't.
A "how to be consistent/logic" thread, too.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Asgara, posted 04-23-2004 7:24 PM Asgara has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by desdamona, posted 04-23-2004 9:34 PM mark24 has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5225 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 198 of 214 (102380)
04-24-2004 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by desdamona
04-23-2004 9:34 PM


Re: There had to be a first!
desdemona,
however, lables and names you use when talking about those that disagree with you is not going to win converts or a willingness to change to your way of viewing things.It only inspires anger and yes, even christians will get upset and irritated at you. No one likes being treated ugly.
You are being treated exactly as you deserve.
I have caught you lying & being a hypocrite. You have hand waved away evidence simply by claiming "that's not evidence". No supporting argument, no reasons, just a dismissal.
If this is what Christians feel is acceptable behaviour then it's you who are unlikely to win converts, not me.
We cannot believe in every scientist,we have to choose which scientists we feel are best at presenting their views.
We don't "believe" scientists at all. We accept or reject proposed hypotheses & theories based upon their logical efficacy, evidential support, & falsifications realised or not. A scientists presentation skills are neither here nor there.
Science is not like being preached at from the pulpit.
How do you mean "evidence" and beyond resonable doubt?
You have not even given any names and sources.
Yes I did. See the link at the top of the post, there is a link in there which takes you back to Bentons study. How quickly you forget.
Mark
[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-24-2004]

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by desdamona, posted 04-23-2004 9:34 PM desdamona has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by desdamona, posted 04-24-2004 11:39 PM mark24 has replied
 Message 200 by desdamona, posted 04-24-2004 11:42 PM mark24 has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5225 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 210 of 214 (102570)
04-25-2004 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by desdamona
04-24-2004 11:39 PM


Re: There had to be a first!
desdemona,
At Sylas' request, I respond to your good, honest Christian invective here.
Mark

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by desdamona, posted 04-24-2004 11:39 PM desdamona has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024