Exactly!
-
It's totally irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion is not about whether some religious persons subscribe to the unfounded assumptions of evolutionism. The discussion is not even about whether I am wrong in believing that the assumptions of evolutionism are unfounded and unsupportable. The discussion is about the fact that even given the assumptions of evolutionism, evolutionists do not reason in accord with logic. It's a different thing altogether, you see.
Tell me, if evolution is wrong, then why do humans have embryonic gill slits and a cloaca and a postanal tail, just like all Chordates?
-
Tell me, if evolution is wrong, then why do humans have embryonic gill slits and a cloaca and a postanal tail, just like all Chordates?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Tell me, if evolution [evolutionism] is wrong, then why do humans have embryonic gill slits and a cloaca?
Non-exhaustively: question-begging, appeal to ignorance, appeal to faith (specifically, yours), appeal to "authority," an implied 'argument from adverse consequences,' a red herring --- and falsehood (on both assertions).
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Tell me, if evolution [evolutionism] is wrong, then why do humans have embryonic gill slits and a cloaca?
Non-exhaustively: question-begging, appeal to ignorance, appeal to faith (specifically, yours), appeal to "authority," an implied 'argument from adverse consequences,' a red herring --- and falsehood (on both assertions).
Red herring? Au contraire, these are things very adequately explained by evolution. Evolution explains why we're able to classify organisms the way that we do, and also explains the limitations that we encounter doing such a thing. If evolution is obviously false, then what is obviously true? I'm all ears.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
But you are correct, I don't know how old the Earth is... Beyond 3.5 billion years that is.
But you *don't* know that; you don't even yourself reason to that figure. You take someone else's word for it: you don't test the reasoning, not nor the assumptions, from which that figure derives. Hell! you're not even curious about how it is that the earth has aged about 2.5 billion years in the time since I was a lad (when I was a child, the earth was only 2 billion years old). Pssst: today's "scientific truth" about the earth's age is that it is about 4.5 billion years old. I've also, somewhere, seen the figure 4.65 billion (which number is obviously more accurate than 4.5 :laugh: ).
BoneSoft wrote:
But here's the thing, the article says that one of the major reasons they believe that birds couldn't have evolved from dinosaurs is because many bird fossils predate dinosaurs. If you say you don't know how old the world is, then you obviously have no confidence in their dating methods. So, why are you willing to accept this article as some sort of proof of your stance, when you have no confidence in how they came to that conclusion?
If you really were into logical reasoning, then you'd not bother even to ask such a question, for you'd understand already that my distrust of the unsupported assumptions of evolutionism has no effect, one way or another, on the faulty reasoning advanced in support of evolutionism. It doesn't matter that I distrust their dating scheme. What matters is that given their dating scheme, they are declining to reason properly and in accord with that scheme. Your very question betrays you.
BoneSoft wrote:
Instead of always only saying something similar to that, why not try reasoning. Do that and then we'll work on validity.
Dewd! You judge an act of reasoning to be valid by the conclusion reached (just look at the content of the very post I'm responding to). There is no way in Heaven that you and I can reason together; not until you fix that. edit:
BoneSoft wrote:
Neither is mine.
Then why does it always appear to threaten you so that I don't trust and believe the content of evolutionism? Why do you generally call me stupid because I point to the illogic and inconsiste
Ilíon wrote:
Hell! you're not even curious about how it is that the earth has aged about 2.5 billion years in the time since I was a lad
I'm well aware of the things they've discovered in recent decades to refine their understanding.
Ilíon wrote:
Pssst: today's "scientific truth" about the earth's age is that it is about 4.5 billion years old.
Yes, roughly. The oldest rocks on earth are about 3.5 billion years old. So we're pretty sure it's at least that old. And I don't know what all factored into the estimate of how long it was too molten to allow solid rocks to survive into the distant future, but they came up with around a billion. No, I didn't personally, which doesn't matter since, thanks to the scientific method, I can safely take the word of many many independent verifications. 4.5, 4.65, it's pretty damn hard to get more specific with that kind of number and this specific scenario.
Ilíon wrote:
Then why does it always appear to threaten you so that I don't trust and believe the content of evolutionism?
I'm not threatened in the least. Just trying to talk some sense into you.
Ilíon wrote:
Why do you generally call me stupid because I point to the illogic and inconsistencies of evolutionism?
When have I ever called you stupid?
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy' until you can find a rock." - Mark Twain "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." - Mark Twain "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." - Groucho Marx
-
Ilíon wrote:
Hell! you're not even curious about how it is that the earth has aged about 2.5 billion years in the time since I was a lad
I'm well aware of the things they've discovered in recent decades to refine their understanding.
Ilíon wrote:
Pssst: today's "scientific truth" about the earth's age is that it is about 4.5 billion years old.
Yes, roughly. The oldest rocks on earth are about 3.5 billion years old. So we're pretty sure it's at least that old. And I don't know what all factored into the estimate of how long it was too molten to allow solid rocks to survive into the distant future, but they came up with around a billion. No, I didn't personally, which doesn't matter since, thanks to the scientific method, I can safely take the word of many many independent verifications. 4.5, 4.65, it's pretty damn hard to get more specific with that kind of number and this specific scenario.
Ilíon wrote:
Then why does it always appear to threaten you so that I don't trust and believe the content of evolutionism?
I'm not threatened in the least. Just trying to talk some sense into you.
Ilíon wrote:
Why do you generally call me stupid because I point to the illogic and inconsistencies of evolutionism?
When have I ever called you stupid?
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy' until you can find a rock." - Mark Twain "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." - Mark Twain "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." - Groucho Marx
-
BoneSoft wrote:
When have I ever called you stupid?
Please! It's bad enough that you consistently decline to reason properly about certain subjects, but then to baldly lie to my face and expect that I'm not going to call it a lie!?
Constantly questioning everybody else's powers of reason is your schtick, not mine. I'm not lying, and I defy you to find an example that says otherwise. Go ahead puddin, prove me wrong. I'll be awaiting your apology with baited breath.
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy' until you can find a rock." - Mark Twain "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." - Mark Twain "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." - Groucho Marx
-
Constantly questioning everybody else's powers of reason is your schtick, not mine. I'm not lying, and I defy you to find an example that says otherwise. Go ahead puddin, prove me wrong. I'll be awaiting your apology with baited breath.
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy' until you can find a rock." - Mark Twain "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." - Mark Twain "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." - Groucho Marx
-
Constantly questioning everybody else's powers of reason is your schtick, not mine. I'm not lying, and I defy you to find an example that says otherwise. Go ahead puddin, prove me wrong. I'll be awaiting your apology with baited breath.
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy' until you can find a rock." - Mark Twain "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." - Mark Twain "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." - Groucho Marx
BoneSoft wrote:
I'm not lying ....
But you are a liar ... or you have a very defective memory.
BoneSoft wrote:
... and I defy you to find an example that says otherwise.
Sometimes, "You can't prove it!" doesn't work. your behavior in this thread (i.e. multipls posts)[^] goober[^] horseshit[^] Ain't it a bummer, Puddin, when not all the past gets wipped out with the periodic resets of the forum URLs?
BoneSoft wrote:
Go ahead puddin, prove me wrong. I'll be awaiting your apology with baited breath.
And there you go again, displaying you disinclination to think ... or perhaps imagining that I can't think. "Presumed innocent until proven guilty" is only for a court of law. This is realy life, and I know what I know ... even if the evidence has vanished.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Constantly questioning everybody else's powers of reason is your schtick, not mine.
And asserting that someone who doesn't bow down to "science" is stupid is your schtick. ps: you don't quite have my schtick correct.
Unadulterated steaming BS. Where have I ever done that?
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy' until you can find a rock." - Mark Twain "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." - Mark Twain "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." - Groucho Marx
-
BoneSoft wrote:
I'm not lying ....
But you are a liar ... or you have a very defective memory.
BoneSoft wrote:
... and I defy you to find an example that says otherwise.
Sometimes, "You can't prove it!" doesn't work. your behavior in this thread (i.e. multipls posts)[^] goober[^] horseshit[^] Ain't it a bummer, Puddin, when not all the past gets wipped out with the periodic resets of the forum URLs?
BoneSoft wrote:
Go ahead puddin, prove me wrong. I'll be awaiting your apology with baited breath.
And there you go again, displaying you disinclination to think ... or perhaps imagining that I can't think. "Presumed innocent until proven guilty" is only for a court of law. This is realy life, and I know what I know ... even if the evidence has vanished.
Yep, as I thought, not once did I ever call you stupid. But that was a weird way to apologize.
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy' until you can find a rock." - Mark Twain "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." - Mark Twain "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." - Groucho Marx
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
But you're so fun to bother! You fancy yourself an intellectual but you know very little.
More of your ingorance, on both counts. I don't fancy myself an intellectual X|, but I know quite a bit (and far more than you do). However, keep in mind what you've said next time you whinge at me, demanding that I justify why I torment you kiddies in your self-satisfied ignorance.
Ilíon wrote:
I know quite a bit (and far more than you do).
Ummm, I know I am kind of sticking my head out here, but how can you possibly quantify knowledge? Or compare the quantities known by two different people? The fields of knowledge and experience are (in my limited understanding) too broad to find a simple quantification for them. So, with that long introduction, how can you possibly say that you know more (in general terms) than someone else. Your knowledge of a particular field may be more complete, but it is arrogance to say simply "I know more".
-
Yep, as I thought, not once did I ever call you stupid. But that was a weird way to apologize.
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy' until you can find a rock." - Mark Twain "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." - Mark Twain "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." - Groucho Marx