Reply With Quote
He said he has faith in scientist. Once again, it takes faith to believe in evolution.
Well, that solidifies it....I now have no clue as to why anyone would want to carry on an actual debate with you.
He said he has faith in scientist. Once again, it takes faith to believe in evolution.
No, it doesn't.
My trust is not complete. Sorry. Scientists get things wrong.
further you left out the second part of the deifnition that you are trying to attribute:
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
You are trying to equate the second part with the first.
As I said, I have a certain amount of earned trust.
When you get sick, do you go to a doctor, rather than a shaman?
bbl
I called him out early on. Did the same with Xmas. You cannot debate with them. They don't understand logical fallacies and the rules of debate so they use one after another since it seems like a good idea to them. They don't know anything about the Socratic method.
From Wiki
The Socratic method is a positive method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to contradictions. The Socratic method searches for general, commonly held truths that shape opinion, and scrutinizes them to determine their consistency with other beliefs. The basic form is a series of questions formulated as tests of logic and fact intended to help a person or group discover their beliefs about some topic, exploring the definitions or logoi (singular logos), seeking to characterize the general characteristics shared by various particular instances. The extent to which this method is employed to bring out definitions implicit in the interlocutors' beliefs, or to help them further their understanding, is called the method of maieutics. Aristotle attributed to Socrates the discovery of the method of definition and induction, which he regarded as the essence of the scientific method.
End Wiki quote
Instead of identifying and eliminating hypotheses that lead to contradictions, these two claim that there's no contradiction, or if there seems to be it's because humans are too stupid to understand the mind of God.
How can you move forward when your central theme is that neither party has the capacity for critical thinking?
So here we are, almost a month later and still no proof.
trust=faith, spin that any way you want so it can fit your theory but you know I am right
Trust = reasoning based on empirical evidence. You don't blindly trust a stranger, but you do trust a friend.
The onus of proof is upon you. The rest of us can take a siesta and call all claims bull without evidence to the contrary and never be guilty of being closed minded.
The argument is science v. faith. You are hung up on "trust".
So RandomGuy is friends with Darwin?
No, I am saying that evolution is not science. I am not arguing science. Science has to be observed, I ask once again, who has observed evolution?
RandomGuy trusts his understanding of science enough to be comfortable with the ToE. It doesn't mean he's religiously attached to it and would no doubt shift his thinking if evidence surfaced to warrant the shift. On the other hand, the religious crowd would just dismiss it with the wave of a bible and some creative exegesis.
Not that you will read or understand any of this, but . . .
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Believing in god is religious
re·li·gious***(r-ljs)adj.1.*Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
I've observed selective breeding. Same difference.
Already read this awhile back. Experiments done in the 90s?
This is, by the way, a strawman logical fallacy.
We are using the word in different ways. You may e the ball, kid, but you aren't in the endzone just because you say you are.
Sorry, you didn't read it.
Lying about research, lying about what i say, lying about the evidence, and nothing but a string of logically flawed "arguments".
Meh.
Go stand in the corner with the re who thinks the moon landings were faked, conspira .
Why so sad? Because you can't find any evidence?
Trust=faith. End of story.
I gave you list.
You ignored it.
Not my problem. If you really wanted to know you would go out and find it.
You asked a question and that study provides a definitive answer to your question. How old is the bible? They should update that thing, right?
No, they shouldn't.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
