Reply With Quote
I was talking to Clipper Nation, as ya can see he's all excited about his Clippers.
Come on guy, who is the person in the video you posted?
I was talking to Clipper Nation, as ya can see he's all excited about his Clippers.
Last edited by Avante; 04-28-2015 at 10:41 PM.
When in walked Blake, they started trying to communicate...
Last edited by Avante; 04-28-2015 at 10:43 PM.
Never could figure out what the problem was. CN just rambling on about being short and gots, Blake complaining about being short and religion.
Obviously frustrating for me.
Last edited by Avante; 04-28-2015 at 10:41 PM.
Then in walked spurraider
And we all had to laugh.
Which stopped abruply when DJR arrived.
Last edited by Avante; 04-28-2015 at 11:05 PM.
Then in walked spurraider
oh look avante deflecting
140 pages and I'm defelecting? How many times have I bumped this thread up? Wrong as usual!
It's a fun topic, we get a chance to see just how wrong you can get.
When in walked Blake, they started trying to communicate...
Is it just me or does it appear spurraider has no sense of humor at all?
Yours is just bad
You don't have a sense of humor either half pint. You're either humping legs, or talking about religion and how it holds us back while never ever saying what is being held back.
Debunked.
Ish. Bad reasoning from start to finish.
Assertions without evidence and a basic argument from incredulity fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
We have discovered thousands and thousands of planets orbiting other stars. Planets are therefore common in our galaxy, and we have no reason to think this isn't the case in all of the billions of galaxies we can see.
It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the formation of planets is a naturalistic phenomenon. Once you get a enough planets in the universe, you have a LOT of chances for even fairly improbable things to happen.
Avante here actually does both forms:Arguments from incredulity take the form:
1) P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
or
2) I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true.
These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.
P= We are the result of random natural processes
P=We have a Designer
Wishful, flawed thinking and provably so.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
You're about as dumb as a rock aren't ya?
Like your chin, that was weak.
Dude, why try to peddle bull which is all you do. You can't prove a damn thing about anything, ok? If there were proof then everyone would believe the same thing, ok stupid?
Only one of us keeps reposting the same debunked bull over and over. Your bull is wrong, and that has been very clearly laid out. There are certainly some things that are easily enough disproved, such as your flawed argument from incredulity.
But, like a dog to his vomit, you return to it. So much so, it has become obvious to everybody you don't care about what is true and what isn't.
That is the difference between you and I. The truth matters to me.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-29-2015 at 04:16 PM.
The diffference between you and me is that I'm not dumb enought to think all this could possibly come about without a master plan a Designer. When have you ever debunked that, try.....never!
Debunked.
Ish. Bad reasoning from start to finish.
Assertions without evidence and a basic argument from incredulity fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
We have discovered thousands and thousands of planets orbiting other stars. Planets are therefore common in our galaxy, and we have no reason to think this isn't the case in all of the billions of galaxies we can see.
It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the formation of planets is a naturalistic phenomenon. Once you get a enough planets in the universe, you have a LOT of chances for even fairly improbable things to happen.
Avante here actually does both forms:Arguments from incredulity take the form:
1) P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
or
2) I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true.
These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.
P= We are the result of random natural processes
P=We have a Designer
Wishful, flawed thinking and provably so.
Quod Erat Demonstrandum
Continually returning to your own vomit, and too stupid to see how incompetently laid out your arguments are, even when shown their true form.
Just as I suspected ya can't prove a damn thing. Can't debunk .
I'll try again....Continually returning to your own vomit, and too stupid to see how incompetently laid out your arguments are, even when shown their true form.
Can you actually....PROVE....anything? That would be a....NOPE!!!!!!!!!!!!
So all ya do is foam at the mouth looking ing re ed.
I can prove you are full of . It has been demonstrated. QED
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post7975326
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
