|
Are humans.. (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Additionally; is this that dude that argued his experience shipping meat into Caribbean islands put him on equal grounds with an engineer on matters of physics in the 9/11 hoax thread? |
nah, but i can understand your confusion!! :stongue: but he does say the damndest things!
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Its called speculation, and the use of a mathmatical peice called probability. Its pretty logical to conclude that when an event happens, and someone gains a major advantage from it, that said event was caused in part by the one who gained the advantage. |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
You don't accept a theory as reality untill you have emperical proof that it is that way. If you don't have that proof, then its just another theory. |
this boy has his cake and eats it too! |
|
|
| cronodevir |
A clump of carbon is a rock, its called a diamond.
I'm saying evolutionary theory isn't a way the creator made things, because evolutionary theory doesn't work with logic. Period. The theory itself doesn't work.
My logic doesn't have holes, you are just nitpicking. I could write 5 pages of what evolutionary theory states and you would still say I'm "oversimplifing" it. All you want is for me to agree with it, and if I don't, you will throw out the same old excuses. Ive been debating most of my life, I know how debate works.
Thankfully, I don't really give a about you or others who speak. I only speak because I know others who don't speak will see what I write. Its about getting correct information out there, its not about convincing people who like to argue to accept my way.
Why else would anyone enter a debate they know will get no where? Do you all actually bull yourself into thinking you win all these debates in the politics forum? Lol. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| He did win the debate crono...and you have only embarrassed yourself by trying to participate. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| Not really, when you argue for evolution. You can't win. Its like arguing for christianity. They think they win, but everyone else looks and sees they lost. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
A clump of carbon is a rock, its called a diamond. |
Actually, a diamond is crystal comprised of carbon atoms... which is to say it is not a rock... additionally, as alluded to earlier; carbon is an element, an atom, which may be found in rocks (or crystals, or as free particles, or combined with other elements in a wide variety of molecules, etc) but is not in and of itself a rock. Seriously, you just keep showing your ignorance.
| quote: | | I'm saying evolutionary theory isn't a way the creator made things, because evolutionary theory doesn't work with logic. Period. The theory itself doesn't work. |
Indeed, that is what you're saying; however, you've thus far only managed to show that you do not have even a basic understanding of evolutionary theory; subsequently, you simply cannot support your statements. You can't state that you have proven something to be true or untrue through logical deduction based on a critically flawed understanding of those things upon which you are basing your arguments and expect anyone to accept your claim. Do you understand this? YOUR LOGIC IS UNRELIABLE BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
| quote: | | My logic doesn't have holes, you are just nitpicking. |
You've demonstrated that your logic is based on flawed assumptions; subsequently, your logic has holes. My suspicion is just about every rational person would agree with me on this one.
| quote: | | All you want is for me to agree with it, and if I don't, you will throw out the same old excuses. |
Absolutely not, what I want is for you to defend your position. I want you to convince me. Failing that I then wish to impress upon you that you would be well served to refine your position based upon real information rather then the misinformation you are presently working with. I have a pretty well established pattern of behaviour which indicates that I'm very tolerant of divergent positions provided that they are rational (PKC will back me up on that); unfortunately, yours is not (or at very least you have not demonstrated it to be).
| quote: | | Ive been debating most of my life, I know how debate works. |
Congratulations... now if you could only figure out how to engage in one.
| quote: | | Thankfully, I don't really give a about you or others who speak. |
Now now... don't you think that you're getting a might bit worked up for someone who professes to be indifferent to others.
| quote: | | I only speak because I know others who don't speak will see what I write. Its about getting correct information out there, its not about convincing people who like to argue to accept my way. |
If your goal is to reach the readers of this forum and disseminate "correct information" then you should understand the importance of being able to defend your position. If you cannot defend your position then any rational reader will largely disregard what you have written. This is why I stated earlier; you would be well served to refine your position based on real information rather then misinformation.
| quote: | | Why else would anyone enter a debate they know will get no where? Do you all actually bull yourself into thinking you win all these debates in the politics forum? Lol. |
It's not really about winning for me... it's about clearing up misconceptions and misinformation. For someone like me; the absurdity of the position you have posted is damaging because some who read it would falsely conclude that all theists are absolute loons; subsequently, it's important to me that idiotic arguments like yours are challenged... it shows that we're not all irrational. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
He is still talking lol.
I'm not attempting to defend this position. Because of one simple peice of wisdom. "You cannot win when you argue a fool"
So I am withdrawing myself from this debate. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
You don't have to prove logic, that is the point. The burdon of proof is on the statement that canniot be proven with logic. This is logic 101. |
then how do you know it is logical?
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
If logic dictates a thing must be true. Then there is no need for evidence to support its truth.
The daughter cannot give birth to her mother, this statement is true, based on logical deduction alone, and it requires no evidence what so ever to be true. |
One of two things is happening right now: (1) you aren't serious, or (2) you are serious, and are the father of all pseudo-intellectuals. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| Did you just ask how do you know logic is logical? |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Did you just ask how do you know logic is logical? |
yes - something isn't logical simply because we say it is. we need empirical evidence proving it to be logical. That is, we need evidence to show our logical assumptions hold true. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
Not really. You don't need evidence to know 8 and 8 make 16.
I know what 16 is, and I know what 8 is. Therefor to know that two 8's together makes 16, doesn't have to be demonstraited. Its an inate ability in every single person, to understand how things work using logic. You are only required to know the definition of the 8 and 16, and the function "add". But it doesn't have to be demonstraited for you to know how to use these things together.
Logic was not developed by us. It is part of our resoning process. Though many people ignore it. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
So I am withdrawing myself from this debate. |
In truth, you were never really in "this" debate. |
|
|
|
|
