YEC Evidentialist Article: Evidence for a young world

Page 4 of 10 [ 145 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

08 Feb 2010, 2:33 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

I'm probably too tired to notice anything in the first two paragraphs which would be a problem for the young-earth paradigm, but the third paragraph-sentence is basically ad populum if it is held as evidence. As a statement of statistical polling for a *giving time, fine, certainly that may be true that most people consider the YEC position to be falsified by the evidence. However, also statistically true, the vast majority of Muslims believe, essentially, that the Qur'an has trumped the New Testament and Tanakh.

Edit: sorry, I meant the forth one not the third.
Edit: *given time, not giving time.

I wasn't providing an argument about the YEC position, but rather about the nature of scientifici inquiry.

The fourth paragraph though? Um..... I wasn't really making much of an argument in the fourth paragraph. Rather I was skirting that rather messy issue, I am tempted to say something, but it would likely make this thread into more of a theology/history thread than about creationism in general.

If somebody else wants to attack creationism on whatever grounds you like, go right in for it.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

08 Feb 2010, 2:45 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

If somebody else wants to attack creationism on whatever grounds you like, go right in for it.

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

08 Feb 2010, 2:49 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

If somebody else wants to attack creationism on whatever grounds you like, go right in for it.

Awesomelyglorious (and Orwell) have spent whole hours and countless text in other threads debating the merits of "scientific creationism" - only to be pulled into debates on the philosophy of science and be baffled by the lack of appreciation for Quinean coherentism and its centrality to science. Awsomelyglorious doesn't seem to be surrendering so much as giving up on such an unawesome and inglorious task in epistemological instruction.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

08 Feb 2010, 2:57 am

Master_Pedant wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

If somebody else wants to attack creationism on whatever grounds you like, go right in for it.

Meh, he's better at economics anyway. That's a subject he knows more about and seems to love. A subject that I abhor.

As for the "Do not like" lolcat poster, it is in reference to the phrasing of "if someone ... wants to attack ...." not that he's leaving for now.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

08 Feb 2010, 3:04 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

As for the "Do not like" lolcat poster, it is in reference to the phrasing of "if someone ... wants to attack ...." not that he's leaving for now.

You attacked me for not getting involved with falsifying creationism. I said I was tempted to type something but that it would cause the thread to most likely leave the more directly scientific issues. I left this open because you seemed to want a person to falsify this matter, rather than dismissal. I figure that there are a number of science minded people here who can do this better than me, so I left it open.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

08 Feb 2010, 3:06 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

As for the "Do not like" lolcat poster, it is in reference to the phrasing of "if someone ... wants to attack ...." not that he's leaving for now.

Wait, what? I attacked you? How? Do you take contradiction of an argument as an attack or not replying to each point you make as an attack? Huh?

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

08 Feb 2010, 3:19 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Wait, what? I attacked you? How? Do you take contradiction of an argument as an attack or not replying to each point you make as an attack? Huh?

I don't really care about specific word use. I certainly didn't mean *ATTACK* kind of attack, but you were certainly quite negative towards this issue. So, if someone else wants to give it a shot and provide information falsifying creationism in some field or another, let them go for it. After all, the issue isn't whether evolution is right by *all* of the facts, but rather whether it is best.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

08 Feb 2010, 3:27 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

I can only congratulate you on the intricacy of your delusions.

Sorry, you don't exist, therefore you can't congratulate anyone because that is an action that only those who exist can perform.

Please stop muttering to yourself in public.

After you, good sir. I insist.

But I don't deny your existence. If you deny I exist and still reply to my posts you only confirm you are delusional which now seems likely.

Nah, sometimes when I'm bored I talk with other robots anyway.

Robots which do or do not exist?

It depends on what your definition of "is" is.

I would rather not steer this interchange into sexual matters.

Who said anything about White House interns and presidents from Arkansas?

Now you're even unconscious of what you're saying. If you mutter, you should listen.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

08 Feb 2010, 3:33 am

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

I can only congratulate you on the intricacy of your delusions.

Sorry, you don't exist, therefore you can't congratulate anyone because that is an action that only those who exist can perform.

Please stop muttering to yourself in public.

After you, good sir. I insist.

But I don't deny your existence. If you deny I exist and still reply to my posts you only confirm you are delusional which now seems likely.

Nah, sometimes when I'm bored I talk with other robots anyway.

Robots which do or do not exist?

It depends on what your definition of "is" is.

I would rather not steer this interchange into sexual matters.

Who said anything about White House interns and presidents from Arkansas?

Now you're even unconscious of what you're saying. If you mutter, you should listen.

Is that a rabbit over there?

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

08 Feb 2010, 3:33 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

I can only congratulate you on the intricacy of your delusions.

Sorry, you don't exist, therefore you can't congratulate anyone because that is an action that only those who exist can perform.

Please stop muttering to yourself in public.

After you, good sir. I insist.

But I don't deny your existence. If you deny I exist and still reply to my posts you only confirm you are delusional which now seems likely.

Nah, sometimes when I'm bored I talk with other robots anyway.

Robots which do or do not exist?

It depends on what your definition of "is" is.

I would rather not steer this interchange into sexual matters.

Who said anything about White House interns and presidents from Arkansas?

I see my EXCELLENT IDEA FOR NEW, RELEVANT, CLINTON SEX JOKES have yet to take ahold.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

08 Feb 2010, 3:39 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

I can only congratulate you on the intricacy of your delusions.

Sorry, you don't exist, therefore you can't congratulate anyone because that is an action that only those who exist can perform.

Please stop muttering to yourself in public.

After you, good sir. I insist.

But I don't deny your existence. If you deny I exist and still reply to my posts you only confirm you are delusional which now seems likely.

Nah, sometimes when I'm bored I talk with other robots anyway.

Robots which do or do not exist?

It depends on what your definition of "is" is.

I would rather not steer this interchange into sexual matters.

Who said anything about White House interns and presidents from Arkansas?

Now you're even unconscious of what you're saying. If you mutter, you should listen.

Is that a rabbit over there?

First its imaginary robots, now rabbits. We seem to be in the "r" category of mirages. Can I interest you in a little rationality?

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

08 Feb 2010, 3:54 am

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

I can only congratulate you on the intricacy of your delusions.

Sorry, you don't exist, therefore you can't congratulate anyone because that is an action that only those who exist can perform.

Please stop muttering to yourself in public.

After you, good sir. I insist.

But I don't deny your existence. If you deny I exist and still reply to my posts you only confirm you are delusional which now seems likely.

Nah, sometimes when I'm bored I talk with other robots anyway.

Robots which do or do not exist?

It depends on what your definition of "is" is.

I would rather not steer this interchange into sexual matters.

Who said anything about White House interns and presidents from Arkansas?

Now you're even unconscious of what you're saying. If you mutter, you should listen.

Is that a rabbit over there?

First its imaginary robots, now rabbits. We seem to be in the "r" category of mirages. Can I interest you in a little rationality?

Sure. What do you wish to teach me? Star Trek? Time Travel? Universal Atheism? Argumentum ad Vericundium? Working for the "greater good"? Xenophobia? To become part of Visitor Youth? Evolutionary zoology? Abiogenesis? Argumentum ad Baculum? Crafty word games? More assertions of delusions because my view isn't yours nor is it popular and of course because it isn't "scientificalistic" sounding enough?

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

08 Feb 2010, 5:48 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

I can only congratulate you on the intricacy of your delusions.

Sorry, you don't exist, therefore you can't congratulate anyone because that is an action that only those who exist can perform.

Please stop muttering to yourself in public.

After you, good sir. I insist.

But I don't deny your existence. If you deny I exist and still reply to my posts you only confirm you are delusional which now seems likely.

Nah, sometimes when I'm bored I talk with other robots anyway.

Robots which do or do not exist?

It depends on what your definition of "is" is.

I would rather not steer this interchange into sexual matters.

Who said anything about White House interns and presidents from Arkansas?

Now you're even unconscious of what you're saying. If you mutter, you should listen.

Is that a rabbit over there?

First its imaginary robots, now rabbits. We seem to be in the "r" category of mirages. Can I interest you in a little rationality?

I'm a bit leery about Star Trek and time travel, and universal atheism is a bit ambitious. First lets turn you into an atheist and then move on from there.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

08 Feb 2010, 5:56 am

Sand wrote:

I'm a bit leery about Star Trek and time travel, and universal atheism is a bit ambitious. First lets turn you into an atheist and then move on from there.

Nah, I rather wear putrescine and hydrogen sulfide as cologne first.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

08 Feb 2010, 6:23 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

I'm a bit leery about Star Trek and time travel, and universal atheism is a bit ambitious. First lets turn you into an atheist and then move on from there.

Nah, I rather wear putrescine and hydrogen sulfide as cologne first.

That's a good start. A kind of baptism of stench so that when you wash yourself clean of silly fantasies you will feel so much better. Evidently you have started to cooperate.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

08 Feb 2010, 6:41 am

Sand wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Sand wrote:

I'm a bit leery about Star Trek and time travel, and universal atheism is a bit ambitious. First lets turn you into an atheist and then move on from there.

Nah, I rather wear putrescine and hydrogen sulfide as cologne first.

That's a good start. A kind of baptism of stench so that when you wash yourself clean of silly fantasies you will feel so much better. Evidently you have started to cooperate.

You seem to specialize in both reducio ad ridiculum and ad hominem. Perhaps even more specifically, Bulverism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism

Page 4 of 10 [ 145 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10 Next

Jump to:

Similar Topics
Astronomer has unambiguous evidence of UFOs in News and Current Events	21 Sep 2024, 1:08 am cyberdad
Article on Being Flaky in Social Skills and Making Friends	11 Oct 2024, 8:56 am Summer_Twilight
Nice article about Daryl Hannah in Autism Politics, Activism, and Media Representation	22 Nov 2024, 6:39 pm ASPartOfMe
Interesting article about "four core subtypes" of autism in General Autism Discussion	13 Oct 2024, 10:44 am nca14

YEC Evidentialist Article: Evidence for a young world Post Reply New Topic

YEC Evidentialist Article: Evidence for a young world