Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.atheism > #2120144 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-05 08:17 -0400 |
| Last post | 2016-06-05 15:15 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 98 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism
Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-06-05 08:17 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You John Locke <johnnydemon666@demonmail.com> - 2016-06-05 08:25 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-06-05 08:54 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-06-05 14:34 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Tim <cyfur12345@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 13:43 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-06-05 16:35 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-06-05 21:04 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-06-06 21:52 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-06-06 23:05 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You John Locke <johnnydemon666@demonmail.com> - 2016-06-06 13:02 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-06-06 23:03 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 16:24 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Vincent Maycock <vam100@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 15:26 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-06-05 15:47 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Vincent Maycock <vam100@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 16:27 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-06-05 17:34 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Vincent Maycock <vam100@aol.com> - 2016-06-05 18:29 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-06-05 18:44 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 23:41 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 12:54 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-06-05 21:03 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 16:02 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-06-05 20:08 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 20:06 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-06-06 00:07 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 08:41 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-06-06 14:25 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 20:50 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-06-07 00:25 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 10:54 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-06-07 16:03 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Vincent Maycock <vam100@aol.com> - 2016-06-07 17:46 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-06-07 14:53 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Vincent Maycock <vam100@aol.com> - 2016-06-07 18:08 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-06-07 15:29 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Vincent Maycock <vam100@aol.com> - 2016-06-07 19:00 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 16:05 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-06-07 17:18 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 18:21 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They ArenŽt Telling You Smiler <smiler@jo.king> - 2016-06-10 15:52 +0000
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-06-07 20:03 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-06-08 01:39 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Vincent Maycock <vam100@aol.com> - 2016-06-08 04:06 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-06-08 05:57 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 17:20 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-06-07 20:42 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 20:55 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-06-08 01:46 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 16:19 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Don Martin <drdonmartin@comcast.net> - 2016-06-07 19:09 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 16:15 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 16:08 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-06-06 21:56 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-06-05 21:03 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They ArenŽt Telling You Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 00:34 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They ArenŽt Telling You Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-06-06 07:06 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They ArenŽt Telling You Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 08:39 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren't Telling You Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-06-06 14:35 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren't Telling You Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2016-06-06 20:49 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren't Telling You Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-06-07 00:23 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren't Telling You Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 10:54 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren't Telling You Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-06-07 16:01 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren't Telling You Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 17:15 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren't Telling You Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-06-07 20:44 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren't Telling You John Locke <johnnydemon666@demonmail.com> - 2016-06-07 18:22 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren't Telling You Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-06-07 21:52 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren't Telling You Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 16:16 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren't Telling You John Locke <johnnydemon666@demonmail.com> - 2016-06-07 18:18 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren't Telling You Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-06-07 22:06 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren't Telling You Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 16:11 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They ArenŽt Telling You Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 15:56 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They ArenŽt Telling You "%" <persent@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 16:08 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-06-06 22:14 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-06-07 11:48 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-06-05 21:04 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 23:49 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-06-06 00:37 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 15:44 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-06-07 17:19 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Vincent Maycock <vam100@aol.com> - 2016-06-06 13:53 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> - 2016-06-06 14:45 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-06-06 22:48 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Tim <cyfur12345@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 13:43 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You hypatiab7 <hypatiab7@comcast.net> - 2016-06-05 16:33 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They ArenŽt Telling You MarkA <someone@somewhere.invalid> - 2016-06-06 19:32 +0000
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Arent Telling You Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2016-06-06 17:01 -0500
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You John Locke <johnnydemon666@demonmail.com> - 2016-06-06 12:58 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-06-06 23:05 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You "Syd M." <pauldavidwright@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-07 13:56 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> - 2016-06-07 14:47 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You "Syd M." <pauldavidwright@yahoo.com> - 2016-06-09 13:09 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 12:50 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 13:03 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> - 2016-06-18 12:30 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Davej <galt_57@hotmail.com> - 2016-06-05 08:44 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Jeanne Douglas <hlwdjsd2@NOSPAMgmail.com> - 2016-06-05 15:13 -0700
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 23:25 -0400
Re: Evolution Theory- What They Aren´t Telling You Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 15:15 -0700
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-05 21:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <25SdnQj-uM63a8nKnZ2dnUU7-afNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #2120454 |
"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:ti99lbheienp6qad5kriooo13rtt5qlvh9@4ax.com... > Robert Duncan wrote: >> Vincent Maycock wrote: >>> Robert Duncan wrote: >>>> Vincent Maycock wrote: >>>>> "Andrew" wrote: >>>>>> "John Locke" wrote: >>>>>>> Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpscMCV1osQ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...you've gotta be kidding. Your citing a lecture >>>>>>> on evolution theory from a guy who is a young creationist, fellow of >>>>>>> the Discovery Institute and a proponent of the very dead concept of >>>>>>> Intelligent Design. Your source has ZERO credibility with main stream >>>>>>> scientists. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your reply is ad hom and lacks any substance >>>>> >>>>> I don't know, Andrew. Had you been pretending that this guy was >>>>> unbiased? If so, it's hardly an ad hominem to point that that's >>>>> wrong. >>>> >>>> What is your source for the definition of "ad hominem"? >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem >>> >>> Notice how it says that an ad hominem attack is not always fallacious. >>> I think people abuse the ad hominem fallacy defense because they think >>> it refers to attacks coming from * any negative attribute* of one's >>> opponent -- but this is only true if the attack "against the man" is >>> *irrelevant.* >>> >>> That's not the case here, though. >> >>But you would first have to show, and prove, where Dr. Nelson's argument >>is based solely on his biased opinion, and not on his profession >>knowledge acquired at graduate school. >> >>That's something you haven't done. And I doubt you can do it. > > The degree in "Philosophy of Biology" that he has is hardly the > qualification one would need to determine whether the biological > evidence points away from evolution and towards Intelligent Design. He points out the falsehood of NS to be a mechanism for macro evolution. Also the falsehood of methodological naturalism as a framework to discover truth. Both errors which you have embraced, which explains your bias, and why you are deceived.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-05 16:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <llne2d-oqq.ln1@spanky.localhost.net> |
| In reply to | #2120396 |
[snips] On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 17:34:26 -0400, Robert Duncan wrote: > But you would first have to show, and prove, where Dr. Nelson's argument > is based solely on his biased opinion, and not on his profession > knowledge acquired at graduate school. The very fact he's a proponent of intelligent design suffices to demonstrate his argument is *not* based upon actual education; thus his apparent bias - his creationist leanings - are both sufficient to show him a loon and disregard his arguments. There's also a subtle, but distinct difference between "Your argument is wrong because you're a creationist loon" and "your argument isn't worth examining for any potential merit, because you're a creationist loon". Most arguments against creationist loons and their screeds fall afoul of the second of those.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-05 20:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4vqdnWPp39WTIsnKnZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #2120477 |
On 6/5/2016 7:02 PM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: > [snips] > > On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 17:34:26 -0400, Robert Duncan wrote: > >> But you would first have to show, and prove, where Dr. Nelson's argument >> is based solely on his biased opinion, and not on his profession >> knowledge acquired at graduate school. > > The very fact he's a proponent of intelligent design suffices to > demonstrate his argument is *not* based upon actual education; thus his > apparent bias - his creationist leanings - are both sufficient to show > him a loon and disregard his arguments. > > There's also a subtle, but distinct difference between "Your argument is > wrong because you're a creationist loon" and "your argument isn't worth > examining for any potential merit, because you're a creationist loon". > > Most arguments against creationist loons and their screeds fall afoul of > the second of those. > That's nothing more than your unsubstantiated, ad hominem, straw man opinion. Any fool can do one of those.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-05 20:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <au5f2d-vir.ln1@spanky.localhost.net> |
| In reply to | #2120543 |
On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 20:08:46 -0400, Robert Duncan wrote: > On 6/5/2016 7:02 PM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >> [snips] >> >> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 17:34:26 -0400, Robert Duncan wrote: >> >>> But you would first have to show, and prove, where Dr. Nelson's >>> argument is based solely on his biased opinion, and not on his >>> profession knowledge acquired at graduate school. >> >> The very fact he's a proponent of intelligent design suffices to >> demonstrate his argument is *not* based upon actual education; thus his >> apparent bias - his creationist leanings - are both sufficient to show >> him a loon and disregard his arguments. >> >> There's also a subtle, but distinct difference between "Your argument >> is wrong because you're a creationist loon" and "your argument isn't >> worth examining for any potential merit, because you're a creationist >> loon". >> >> Most arguments against creationist loons and their screeds fall afoul >> of the second of those. >> >> > That's nothing more than your unsubstantiated, ad hominem, straw man > opinion. > > Any fool can do one of those. Actually, it's not. Creationism rests, at its core, on magic - which it is absolutely unable to demonstrate, in any case, despite thousands of years of chances. If your position requires one to adopt magic, and be completely unable to actually show such magic, there is *no* fallacy involved in regarding you as a loon and writing your rantings off as unworthy of examination. There is a simple, trivial fix to this. Two, actually. One is to show the magic. The other is to stop pretending it exists. When these creationist nitwits pick one of those and apply it, we'll be here, ready to listen. Calling bullshit bullshit is not a fallacy. Nor is expecting the claimant of something to demonstrate that what he's claiming is *not* bullshit. These guys are cranks and loons, not deserving of the energy needed to pee on them when they're on fire. If and when they make a choice and stick to it - give up the magic, or demonstrate it - again, we'll be here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 00:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <FYCdnZcL5qN7a8nKnZ2dnUU7-IvNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #2120616 |
On 6/5/2016 11:06 PM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: > On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 20:08:46 -0400, Robert Duncan wrote: > >> On 6/5/2016 7:02 PM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >>> [snips] >>> >>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 17:34:26 -0400, Robert Duncan wrote: >>> >>>> But you would first have to show, and prove, where Dr. Nelson's >>>> argument is based solely on his biased opinion, and not on his >>>> profession knowledge acquired at graduate school. >>> >>> The very fact he's a proponent of intelligent design suffices to >>> demonstrate his argument is *not* based upon actual education; thus his >>> apparent bias - his creationist leanings - are both sufficient to show >>> him a loon and disregard his arguments. >>> >>> There's also a subtle, but distinct difference between "Your argument >>> is wrong because you're a creationist loon" and "your argument isn't >>> worth examining for any potential merit, because you're a creationist >>> loon". >>> >>> Most arguments against creationist loons and their screeds fall afoul >>> of the second of those. >>> >>> >> That's nothing more than your unsubstantiated, ad hominem, straw man >> opinion. >> >> Any fool can do one of those. > > Creationism rests, at its core, on magic....<snip> That's just your unsubstantiated opinion, for which you have no proof.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 08:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <37ig2d-f9b.ln1@spanky.localhost.net> |
| In reply to | #2120650 |
On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 00:07:08 -0400, Robert Duncan wrote: > On 6/5/2016 11:06 PM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 20:08:46 -0400, Robert Duncan wrote: >> >>> On 6/5/2016 7:02 PM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >>>> [snips] >>>> >>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 17:34:26 -0400, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>> >>>>> But you would first have to show, and prove, where Dr. Nelson's >>>>> argument is based solely on his biased opinion, and not on his >>>>> profession knowledge acquired at graduate school. >>>> >>>> The very fact he's a proponent of intelligent design suffices to >>>> demonstrate his argument is *not* based upon actual education; thus >>>> his apparent bias - his creationist leanings - are both sufficient to >>>> show him a loon and disregard his arguments. >>>> >>>> There's also a subtle, but distinct difference between "Your argument >>>> is wrong because you're a creationist loon" and "your argument isn't >>>> worth examining for any potential merit, because you're a creationist >>>> loon". >>>> >>>> Most arguments against creationist loons and their screeds fall afoul >>>> of the second of those. >>>> >>>> >>> That's nothing more than your unsubstantiated, ad hominem, straw man >>> opinion. >>> >>> Any fool can do one of those. >> >> Creationism rests, at its core, on magic....<snip> > > That's just your unsubstantiated opinion, for which you have no proof. Ah, I see you have completely abandoned the methods of science and reason. Very good, there is no further reason to chat with you. Should you decide to visit us in the realm of reality, do drop me a note. (Hint: we on the science side of the equation rarely involve "proof", as that is the realm of mathematics and alcohol. Which, had you any fucking clue whatsoever how the real universe works, you'd know.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 14:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <avCdnenON5u3XcjKnZ2dnUU7-eWdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #2120831 |
On 6/6/2016 11:41 AM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: > On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 00:07:08 -0400, Robert Duncan wrote: > >> On 6/5/2016 11:06 PM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 20:08:46 -0400, Robert Duncan wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/5/2016 7:02 PM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >>>>> [snips] >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 17:34:26 -0400, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> But you would first have to show, and prove, where Dr. Nelson's >>>>>> argument is based solely on his biased opinion, and not on his >>>>>> profession knowledge acquired at graduate school. >>>>> >>>>> The very fact he's a proponent of intelligent design suffices to >>>>> demonstrate his argument is *not* based upon actual education; thus >>>>> his apparent bias - his creationist leanings - are both sufficient to >>>>> show him a loon and disregard his arguments. >>>>> >>>>> There's also a subtle, but distinct difference between "Your argument >>>>> is wrong because you're a creationist loon" and "your argument isn't >>>>> worth examining for any potential merit, because you're a creationist >>>>> loon". >>>>> >>>>> Most arguments against creationist loons and their screeds fall afoul >>>>> of the second of those. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> That's nothing more than your unsubstantiated, ad hominem, straw man >>>> opinion. >>>> >>>> Any fool can do one of those. >>> >>> Creationism rests, at its core, on magic....<snip> >> >> That's just your unsubstantiated opinion, for which you have no proof. > > Ah, I see you have completely abandoned the methods of science and > reason. When it contradicts the Word of God, you bet I do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-06 20:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dssh2d-79d.ln1@spanky.localhost.net> |
| In reply to | #2120920 |
On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 14:25:46 -0400, Robert Duncan wrote: > On 6/6/2016 11:41 AM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >> On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 00:07:08 -0400, Robert Duncan wrote: >> >>> On 6/5/2016 11:06 PM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 20:08:46 -0400, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/5/2016 7:02 PM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >>>>>> [snips] >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 17:34:26 -0400, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> But you would first have to show, and prove, where Dr. Nelson's >>>>>>> argument is based solely on his biased opinion, and not on his >>>>>>> profession knowledge acquired at graduate school. >>>>>> >>>>>> The very fact he's a proponent of intelligent design suffices to >>>>>> demonstrate his argument is *not* based upon actual education; thus >>>>>> his apparent bias - his creationist leanings - are both sufficient >>>>>> to show him a loon and disregard his arguments. >>>>>> >>>>>> There's also a subtle, but distinct difference between "Your >>>>>> argument is wrong because you're a creationist loon" and "your >>>>>> argument isn't worth examining for any potential merit, because >>>>>> you're a creationist loon". >>>>>> >>>>>> Most arguments against creationist loons and their screeds fall >>>>>> afoul of the second of those. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> That's nothing more than your unsubstantiated, ad hominem, straw man >>>>> opinion. >>>>> >>>>> Any fool can do one of those. >>>> >>>> Creationism rests, at its core, on magic....<snip> >>> >>> That's just your unsubstantiated opinion, for which you have no proof. >> >> Ah, I see you have completely abandoned the methods of science and >> reason. > > When it contradicts the Word of God, you bet I do. You accept bronze-age fairy tales over reason, science and evidence? Just how fucking stupid *are* you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 00:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <246dncrbQbQ_0cvKnZ2dnUU7-L-dnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #2121222 |
On 6/6/2016 11:50 PM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: > On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 14:25:46 -0400, Robert Duncan wrote: > >> On 6/6/2016 11:41 AM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 00:07:08 -0400, Robert Duncan wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/5/2016 11:06 PM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 20:08:46 -0400, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/5/2016 7:02 PM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >>>>>>> [snips] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 17:34:26 -0400, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But you would first have to show, and prove, where Dr. Nelson's >>>>>>>> argument is based solely on his biased opinion, and not on his >>>>>>>> profession knowledge acquired at graduate school. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The very fact he's a proponent of intelligent design suffices to >>>>>>> demonstrate his argument is *not* based upon actual education; thus >>>>>>> his apparent bias - his creationist leanings - are both sufficient >>>>>>> to show him a loon and disregard his arguments. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There's also a subtle, but distinct difference between "Your >>>>>>> argument is wrong because you're a creationist loon" and "your >>>>>>> argument isn't worth examining for any potential merit, because >>>>>>> you're a creationist loon". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Most arguments against creationist loons and their screeds fall >>>>>>> afoul of the second of those. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> That's nothing more than your unsubstantiated, ad hominem, straw man >>>>>> opinion. >>>>>> >>>>>> Any fool can do one of those. >>>>> >>>>> Creationism rests, at its core, on magic....<snip> >>>> >>>> That's just your unsubstantiated opinion, for which you have no proof. >>> >>> Ah, I see you have completely abandoned the methods of science and >>> reason. >> >> When it contradicts the Word of God, you bet I do. > > You accept bronze-age fairy tales over reason, science and evidence? Where's your proof? Without any proof, that's just your opinion. Grow up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 10:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gcej2d-ua7.ln1@spanky.localhost.net> |
| In reply to | #2121236 |
On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 00:25:05 -0400, Robert Duncan wrote: > On 6/6/2016 11:50 PM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >> On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 14:25:46 -0400, Robert Duncan wrote: >> >>> On 6/6/2016 11:41 AM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >>>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 00:07:08 -0400, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/5/2016 11:06 PM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 20:08:46 -0400, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/5/2016 7:02 PM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >>>>>>>> [snips] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 17:34:26 -0400, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But you would first have to show, and prove, where Dr. Nelson's >>>>>>>>> argument is based solely on his biased opinion, and not on his >>>>>>>>> profession knowledge acquired at graduate school. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The very fact he's a proponent of intelligent design suffices to >>>>>>>> demonstrate his argument is *not* based upon actual education; >>>>>>>> thus his apparent bias - his creationist leanings - are both >>>>>>>> sufficient to show him a loon and disregard his arguments. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There's also a subtle, but distinct difference between "Your >>>>>>>> argument is wrong because you're a creationist loon" and "your >>>>>>>> argument isn't worth examining for any potential merit, because >>>>>>>> you're a creationist loon". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Most arguments against creationist loons and their screeds fall >>>>>>>> afoul of the second of those. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's nothing more than your unsubstantiated, ad hominem, straw >>>>>>> man opinion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any fool can do one of those. >>>>>> >>>>>> Creationism rests, at its core, on magic....<snip> >>>>> >>>>> That's just your unsubstantiated opinion, for which you have no >>>>> proof. >>>> >>>> Ah, I see you have completely abandoned the methods of science and >>>> reason. >>> >>> When it contradicts the Word of God, you bet I do. >> >> You accept bronze-age fairy tales over reason, science and evidence? > > Where's your proof? You yourself just "said" it. Just how fucking stupid *are* you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 16:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <68-dnfMTR8HltcrKnZ2dnUU7-UGdnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #2121534 |
On 6/7/2016 1:54 PM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: > On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 00:25:05 -0400, Robert Duncan wrote: > >> On 6/6/2016 11:50 PM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 14:25:46 -0400, Robert Duncan wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/6/2016 11:41 AM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 00:07:08 -0400, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/5/2016 11:06 PM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 20:08:46 -0400, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/5/2016 7:02 PM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >>>>>>>>> [snips] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2016 17:34:26 -0400, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But you would first have to show, and prove, where Dr. Nelson's >>>>>>>>>> argument is based solely on his biased opinion, and not on his >>>>>>>>>> profession knowledge acquired at graduate school. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The very fact he's a proponent of intelligent design suffices to >>>>>>>>> demonstrate his argument is *not* based upon actual education; >>>>>>>>> thus his apparent bias - his creationist leanings - are both >>>>>>>>> sufficient to show him a loon and disregard his arguments. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There's also a subtle, but distinct difference between "Your >>>>>>>>> argument is wrong because you're a creationist loon" and "your >>>>>>>>> argument isn't worth examining for any potential merit, because >>>>>>>>> you're a creationist loon". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Most arguments against creationist loons and their screeds fall >>>>>>>>> afoul of the second of those. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's nothing more than your unsubstantiated, ad hominem, straw >>>>>>>> man opinion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Any fool can do one of those. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Creationism rests, at its core, on magic....<snip> >>>>>> >>>>>> That's just your unsubstantiated opinion, for which you have no >>>>>> proof. >>>>> >>>>> Ah, I see you have completely abandoned the methods of science and >>>>> reason. >>>> >>>> When it contradicts the Word of God, you bet I do. >>> >>> You accept bronze-age fairy tales over reason, science and evidence? >> >> Where's your proof? > > You yourself just "said" it. That's not what I'm asking. Re-phrase your question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincent Maycock <vam100@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 17:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <2jfelbdieuog3rou4g9e7u0lhp360n7oui@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2121593 |
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 16:03:04 -0400, Robert Duncan <rob-duncan32@outlook.com> wrote: >On 6/7/2016 1:54 PM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >> On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 00:25:05 -0400, Robert Duncan wrote: >> >>> On 6/6/2016 11:50 PM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: >>>> On Mon, 06 Jun 2016 14:25:46 -0400, Robert Duncan wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/6/2016 11:41 AM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote: snip >>>>>> Ah, I see you have completely abandoned the methods of science and >>>>>> reason. >>>>> >>>>> When it contradicts the Word of God, you bet I do. >>>> >>>> You accept bronze-age fairy tales over reason, science and evidence? >>> >>> Where's your proof? >> >> You yourself just "said" it. > >That's not what I'm asking. > >Re-phrase your question. I have a question for you; do you make a habit of going places where you're not wanted? Or is your behavior confined to alt.atheism?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 14:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <semdnRyVfuXx38rKnZ2dnUU7-c3NnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #2121642 |
"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:2jfelbdieuog3rou4g9e7u0lhp360n7oui@4ax.com... > I have a question for you; do you make a habit of going places where > you're not wanted? Or is your behavior confined to alt.atheism? Do you feel uncomfortable at having your deceptions exposed?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincent Maycock <vam100@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 18:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <l9helbhpsau9lta45rf4bd05sla2u1b237@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2121647 |
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 14:53:47 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote: >"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:2jfelbdieuog3rou4g9e7u0lhp360n7oui@4ax.com... > >> I have a question for you; do you make a habit of going places where >> you're not wanted? Or is your behavior confined to alt.atheism? > >Do you feel uncomfortable at having your deceptions exposed? No, I have no deceptions to have exposed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 15:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <UKWdncYvGPxO18rKnZ2dnUU7-IfNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #2121654 |
"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:l9helbhpsau9lta45rf4bd05sla2u1b237@4ax.com... > "Andrew" wrote: >>"Vincent Maycock" wrote: >> >>> I have a question for you; do you make a habit of going places where >>> you're not wanted? Or is your behavior confined to alt.atheism? >> >>Do you feel uncomfortable at having your deceptions exposed? > > No, I have no deceptions to have exposed. Then why are you obviously uncomfortable? Also, the "goo to you" evolution story _is_ a --> deception. Yes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Vincent Maycock <vam100@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 19:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <dckelbp161nq0lsfgd4hjfv6e33iqokc6k@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #2121667 |
On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:29:38 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote: >"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:l9helbhpsau9lta45rf4bd05sla2u1b237@4ax.com... >> "Andrew" wrote: >>>"Vincent Maycock" wrote: >>> >>>> I have a question for you; do you make a habit of going places where >>>> you're not wanted? Or is your behavior confined to alt.atheism? >>> >>>Do you feel uncomfortable at having your deceptions exposed? >> >> No, I have no deceptions to have exposed. > >Then why are you obviously uncomfortable? Because I don't like being lied to (remember, Andrew, that you're known to be one of the worst liars at alt.atheism). >Also, the "goo to you" evolution story _is_ >a --> deception. No, it's well-supported by the data. >Yes. Why are you agreeing with yourself, here?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 16:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <260a4e05-3d15-41a8-9363-c69c953168f9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2121677 |
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 4:00:37 PM UTC-7, Vincent Maycock wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:29:38 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> > wrote: > > >"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:l9helbhpsau9lta45rf4bd05sla2u1b237@4ax.com... > >> "Andrew" wrote: > >>>"Vincent Maycock" wrote: > >>> > >>>> I have a question for you; do you make a habit of going places where > >>>> you're not wanted? Or is your behavior confined to alt.atheism? > >>> > >>>Do you feel uncomfortable at having your deceptions exposed? > >> > >> No, I have no deceptions to have exposed. > > > >Then why are you obviously uncomfortable? > > Because I don't like being lied to (remember, Andrew, that you're > known to be one of the worst liars at alt.atheism). > > >Also, the "goo to you" evolution story _is_ > >a --> deception. > .> No, it's well-supported by the data. > .> >Yes. > .> Why are you agreeing with yourself, here? That is kind of Gollum-esque, now that you mention it. Seth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 17:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <KoGdnUpUBZXL-crKnZ2dnUU7-enNnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #2121677 |
"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:dckelbp161nq0lsfgd4hjfv6e33iqokc6k@4ax.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
>>"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I have a question for you; do you make a habit of going places where
>>>>> you're not wanted? Or is your behavior confined to alt.atheism?
>>>>
>>>>Do you feel uncomfortable at having your deceptions exposed?
>>>
>>> No, I have no deceptions to have exposed.
>>
>>Then why are you obviously uncomfortable?
>
> Because I don't like being lied to (remember, Andrew, that you're
> known to be one of the worst liars at alt.atheism).
>
>>Also, the "goo to you" evolution story _is_
>>a --> deception.
>
> No, it's well-supported by the data.
Scientists in the field know differently. . . . . .
"We Paleontologists have said that the history
of life supports (the story of gradual adaptive
change), all the while really knowing that it
does not"
~ Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nature bats last <seqklogw@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-07 18:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <079075d4-de52-4559-bd28-5be1a5d7e706@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #2121718 |
On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 5:18:32 PM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:
> "Vincent Maycock" wrote in message news:dckelbp161nq0lsfgd4hjfv6e33iqokc6k@4ax.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >>"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
> >>> "Andrew" wrote:
> >>>>"Vincent Maycock" wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I have a question for you; do you make a habit of going places where
> >>>>> you're not wanted? Or is your behavior confined to alt.atheism?
> >>>>
> >>>>Do you feel uncomfortable at having your deceptions exposed?
> >>>
> >>> No, I have no deceptions to have exposed.
> >>
> >>Then why are you obviously uncomfortable?
> >
> > Because I don't like being lied to (remember, Andrew, that you're
> > known to be one of the worst liars at alt.atheism).
> >
> >>Also, the "goo to you" evolution story _is_
> >>a --> deception.
> >
> > No, it's well-supported by the data.
>
.> Scientists in the field know differently. . . . . .
>
.> "We Paleontologists have said that the history
.> of life supports (the story of gradual adaptive
.> change), all the while really knowing that it
.> does not"
.> ~ Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist
And people conversant with creationists know an intentionally
misleading quote mine when they see one.
Here's what follows that. Sound to you like Eldredge
is denying evolution?
"And part of the fault for such a bizarre situation
must come from a naive understanding of just what
adaptation is all about. We'll look at some of the
larger patterns in the history of life in the next
chapter -- along with the hypotheses currently
offered as explanations. Throughout it all,
adaptation shines through as an important theme;
there is every reason to hang on to that baby as we
toss out the bathwater. But before turning in depth
to these themes, we need to take just one more,
somewhat closer, look at the actual phenomenon of
adaptation itself: what it is and how it occurs."
"History of life". "Adaptation". "Adaptation". In a book
titled "Time Frames: the Evolution of Punctuated Equilibria".
Kindly point out exactly Eldredge "knows differently" about:
And lookie here, right in my bookshelf:
http://www.amazon.com/Fossils-Evolution-Extinction-Niles-Eldredge/dp/0810933055?ie=UTF8&psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=oh_aui_search_detailpage
So he "knows differently", does he?
So, have you checked out Romans 3 yet, like I suggested?
To see with what vehemence Paul denounces liars for Christ?
Seth
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Smiler <smiler@jo.king> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-10 15:52 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Evolution Theory- What They ArenŽt Telling You |
| Message-ID | <njenon$4a3$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #2121677 |
On Tue, 07 Jun 2016 19:00:36 -0400, Vincent Maycock wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:29:38 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> > wrote: > >>"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message >>news:l9helbhpsau9lta45rf4bd05sla2u1b237@4ax.com... >>> "Andrew" wrote: >>>>"Vincent Maycock" wrote: >>>> >>>>> I have a question for you; do you make a habit of going places where >>>>> you're not wanted? Or is your behavior confined to alt.atheism? >>>> >>>>Do you feel uncomfortable at having your deceptions exposed? >>> >>> No, I have no deceptions to have exposed. >> >>Then why are you obviously uncomfortable? > > Because I don't like being lied to (remember, Andrew, that you're known > to be one of the worst liars at alt.atheism). > >>Also, the "goo to you" evolution story _is_ >>a --> deception. > > No, it's well-supported by the data. > >>Yes. > > Why are you agreeing with yourself, here? It's the only way he can get someone to agree with him. -- Smiler, The godless one. aa #2279 Gods are all tailored to order. They are made to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism
csiph-web