Originally Posted by Ragdollmaster
No, and I didn't say that. Now a scientist claiming to have indisputable proof that evolution happened in such and such a way (and not broad things like "itz happend becuz we come from apez" but things like "THIS GENUS CAME RIGHT AFTER THE SPECIES-DEVELOPMENT OF ITS FOURTH COUSIN IN THE EVOLUTIONARY CHAIN WHICH HAPPENED DUE TO THE FACT THAT A MAGNETIC REVERSAL OF THE EARTH'S POLES TOOK PLACE AT THE TIME AND THE AMOUNT..."
Indisputable proof like transitional fossils, atavisms, fused chromosomes etc.
Originally Posted by Ragdollmaster
In other words; "HEY BRO EVEN THOUGH WHAT YOU SAY IS PRETTY MUCH TRUE I'M GOING TO TRY AND DISREGARD IT BECAUSE I REALLY HAVE NOTHING TO SAY IN REPLY TO THIS."
No, you said science was assumptions based on assumptions. I replied to your whole post and I said that comment was a load of rubbish. Don't try and strawman what I said.
Originally Posted by Ragdollmaster
You're incredibly thickheaded, hope you've realized this by now. Funnily enough, scientists don't. Evolution in its entirety, in other words, its occurrence (fuck those words were too big for you; OK, evolution happening), is fact; how it precisely happened and all the events leading through the course of evolution up to present time is widely disputed.
What? how evolution precisely happens is disputed? Natural selection, population drift, speciation, genetic mutations etc.
From Berkeley university's website (Basic but it should be at your level):
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...e/0_0_0/evo_14
Originally Posted by Ragdollmaster
No scientist can thoroughly and accurately document evolution's course save for broad, sweeping generalizations like "WELP OBVIOUSLY THE BACTERIA WERE HERE DEN THE DINOSAURS AND DEN WE HUMANS EVOLVED FROM PRIMATES". There's even debate about the stuff that's easier to pin down, like which animal came first in a chain of evolution. "WAS IT DE ALLIGATORS OR DE CROCODILES WHO CAME FIRST WEL I PERSONALLY THINK THE GECKO TBH"
You consistently strawman science, please stop it, you look exceptionally stupid.
Originally Posted by Ragdollmaster
Observations lead to hypotheses (aka an assumption or idea based upon evidence) Did you know you can't observe evolution, unless you're able to physically compare two animals from different time periods? Charles Darwin's initial theory of evolution was based upon real-time observations of animals in the Caribbean; he was only seeing the results, not the process, of evolution. That's not evidence of anything. So uh, "if you are going to say that Evolution etc. is built from assumptions and ideas then you aren't very smart to say the least" True, I have an IQ of 60, and yet I'm smearing you all over this issue- what's that say about you? Enjoy your fail.
Yeah you can. Didn't you read the link I gave you regarding the evolution of E.Coli bacteria? Fruit flies are also used regularly because of their small gestation period.
Originally Posted by Ragdollmaster
Also...
"Science can be disproven at any time by contradictory evidence"
That's what I said.
"...ideas and assumptions that we have to conceive as true until they're proven otherwise."
and you called that bull, rubbish, and garbage. Hurhurhurhurhur.
Assumptions are baseless, assumptions are not based on evidence. Therefore you said science isn't based on evidence. Which it clearly is.
Originally Posted by Ragdollmaster
My, my. I love arrogance. You know why? Because you, while being arrogant, end up seeming dim-witted (actually, I've observed this enough times to factually conclude that you don't SEEM dumb, but rather, you are) and extremely self-contradictory. I wonder what's going to happen when you seize that keyboard in a fit of rage after you realize how badly you just messed up? I'd better go prepare some counter-insults for your witty retorts. (Now watch as he denies his self-contradiction)
Lovely slanted comment there. If I deny my self-contradiction then I am following your comment. If I don't then it seems like I am admitting I contradicted myself.
So you have come to the conclusion I am dumb because of this debate yet you are the one coming up with false claims such as science isn't based on evidence.
Originally Posted by Ragdollmaster
Which is funny as you have no basis for it.
Well I would argue that.
Originally Posted by Ragdollmaster
Pfft, birthdays and law papers, what an excuse. Get to work instead of throwing up other scientists' papers. Feel free to cite them so long as you don't just copy/paste. Also, you're not writing this by hand, so the inebriation doesn't really matter- MS word will fix your drnk speling unles ur ttly dkrned leiki meannoengou
I would rather go out with my flatmates and friends than write up some paper.
Originally Posted by Ragdollmaster
tl;dr: Thanatos12 is an arrogant, ignorant, self-contradictory fool, which is pretty ironic considering he'd like to fancy himself as some god of debating with totally indisputable arguments. He'll also probably reply to this post and state that he did not contradict himself (despite the fact that he did) and then completely go off-topic by saying "DUDE EVOLUTION HAPPENED AND OK SO WHY DON'T YOU JUST GO AWAY BECAUSE YOU ARE DUMP FOR SAYING IT DID NOT" in a fruitless effort to distract everyone from his fail.
tl;dr the tl;dr: Thanatos12 generally sucks at this :|
Nice, I accept the arrogant part, but I can't say the same for the ignorant and self-contradictory. Can you quote SPECIFIC parts where I have contradicted myself or I have ignored evidence contrary to anything I have said. "God of Debating" I like that title...thanks.
Dear sir or madam;
I was recently reading one of your most recent posts THANATOS12 when I came to the conclusion that I really didn't give two shits about your misguided opinion(s) and that it was an inefficient use of my time to try and educate you about said misguided opinion(s). As a result, you have received this copy-pasted template response THANTOS12. In short,
Please enjoy a blissful day.
I was recently reading one of your most recent posts THANATOS12 when I came to the conclusion that I really didn't give two shits about your misguided opinion(s) and that it was an inefficient use of my time to try and educate you about said misguided opinion(s). As a result, you have received this copy-pasted template response THANTOS12. In short,
Please enjoy a blissful day.
How to complain in style: GG, Mahulk.
Originally Posted by Ragdollmaster
Dear sir or madam;
I was recently reading one of your most recent posts THANATOS12 when I came to the conclusion that I really didn't give two shits about your misguided opinion(s) and that it was an inefficient use of my time to try and educate you about said misguided opinion(s). As a result, you have received this copy-pasted template response THANTOS12. In short,
Please enjoy a blissful day.
Cool, that refuted all my points nicely.
Seems to me Thanatos12 and Ragdollmaster have different standards for "absolute certainty" or "absolute proof" and should have established a common definition prior to further exchanging replies.
EDIT: from now on i expect not to see bullshit posts full of butthurt and insults.
EDIT: from now on i expect not to see bullshit posts full of butthurt and insults.
Last edited by Odlov; Oct 20, 2009 at 02:48 AM.
Surely something other convinces you of christianity.
Yes, and some of those arguments are this!-
Although i thought we talked a lot about morals and "problem of evil" before, but i wouldn't mind repeating if you find them convincing enough.
I have since educated myself more on those arguments and I think another discussion would be very interesting
