(October 31, 2015 at 2:41 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Here again you show yourself to be demonstrably and provably wrong - for the same reason as before.

im demonstrably wrong and you can prove it wrong ? ok then please prove that God did not influence evolution through intelligent design

---

(October 31, 2015 at 2:50 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Because it's invalid fucking inference, you jackass.   I literally -just- explained it.  Are we back to pretending that this thread doesn't exist?  If you don't understand logic, and you don't know the rules of inference, just say so.  Would that be so hard?

Just say so..because I do...and not only that, I can lead you to a place where you could learn them for yourself, if you, a fucking demonstrable liar, would have the audacity to cast aspersions about my reliability.

i disagree i do think its a very valid inference

(October 31, 2015 at 2:51 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: im demonstrably wrong and you can prove it wrong ? ok then please prove that God did not influence evolution through intelligent design

Strawmanning shitposter.   Your apologies are as insincere as your beliefs.

---

Quote:i disagree i do think its a very valid inference

It isn't open for debate.  Neither you nor I define the rules of inference. Either you adhere to the system, self stated, or stop claiming to have used it.

(October 31, 2015 at 2:51 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: im demonstrably wrong and you can prove it wrong ? ok then please prove that God did not influence evolution through intelligent design

Here's why it's wrong:

Quote:im demonstrably wrong and you can prove it wrong ? ok then please prove that Xenu did not influence evolution through body thetans

That's your exact quote, letter for letter, modified to fit the beliefs of the Scientologists.

You do not get to simply make an assertion, and then tell people "prove it's not true or else it may be true!"

Either positive evidence OF that thing is provided, showing that thing is even possible, or it is just random speculation.

Evolution has mountains of positive evidence, enough that I could never learn it all in my lifetime. Enough that all of us specialize in smaller areas while having a decent knowledge of the overall field of biology/biochem. There is nothing, repeat nothing, in the way of positive evidence showing Intelligent Design.

Until you (or anyone) shows positive evidence of ID, I'm going to continue treating you like I treat someone who tells me about my thetans and what Xenu wants from me.

It's simpler than that.  It's wrong because she's asking me to prove a position of her choosing, having nothing to do with the conversation we're having.  Real dirtbag we've got on our hands.  Don't need to know anything about evolution or biology to handle this, no facts are required.   It's not an issue of the truth of assertions or even of whether or not there's a god out there, somewhere™.  

Just another troll in a long line of trolls who will eventually crash and burn, and frankly...I've seen better.

Ehm, dirtbag's a bit harsh. Just common thinking errors that almost everyone has, if they have not been taught about human errors like confirmation bias, etc., and learned to screen out those basic errors. It seems reasonable to them, therefore it is reasonable.

The entire field of illusion ("magic") is centered around the idea that people will believe what their eyes tell them reasonably happened, except it's not at all what happened; the tricks are all designed to take advantage of the erroneous ways we tend to process information, of how our pattern-seeking brains form their particular patterns. (Sorry for the alliteration. Unintentional.)

Edit to Add: I've heard that the smarter a person is, the MORE likely they are to be taken-in by an illusion, because it is designed to trick our pattern-seekers, and a smarter brain is more likely to leap to the conclusion the illusionist wants them to draw, whereas a dimwit won't be fooled by the trick and will keep watching the hand that palms the dove instead of the distraction.

60 pages says it accurate, not harsh. No avenue of excuse has been left open.

(October 31, 2015 at 2:56 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(October 31, 2015 at 2:51 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: im demonstrably wrong and you can prove it wrong ? ok then please prove that God did not influence evolution through intelligent design

Strawmanning shitposter.   Your apologies are as insincere as your beliefs.

---

Quote:i disagree i do think its a very valid inference

It isn't open for debate.  Neither you nor I define the rules of inference.  Either you adhere to the system, self stated, or stop claiming to have used it.

i dont need to follow the rules of inference unless i choose to follow them your insistence that i must follow some kind of rules with my comments doesnt matter , you can choose to follow any rules you want in your own comments but dont dictate the rules i need to follow your no regulator of comments although you might proclaim the position as some kind of  rules of debate police officer doesnt mean you are in reality or that anyone must obey your dictates . im making an assumption based on observation and my opinion is that intelligence creates complex systems based on observation , you cant prove me wrong and i cant prove im right . some things are not proveable either way so noone can have anything other than opinions.

If you claim reason, you need to follow them.  If you use the word prove...you need to follow them. That's what reason means.  That's what proof means. Tell me that you have no reason, no proof....and I'll loosen my teeth.

But forget all that. Are you, here and now.....insisting that you do not need to adhere to logical standards for your belief? Isn't that what I just mentioned..a few posts back......? That I don't hold you to them in justification? I;d just like to see an ounce of honesty, an ounce of consistency. Can you manage that, or is that yet another standard you don't feel compelled to adhere to?

(October 31, 2015 at 3:23 pm)Rhythm Wrote: If you claim reason, you need to follow them.  If you use the word prove...you need to follow them.  That's what reason means.  That's what proof means.  Tell me that you have no reason, no proof....and I'll loosen my teeth.

But forget all that.  Are you, here and now.....insisting that you do not need to adhere to logical standards for your belief?  Isn't that what I just mentioned..a few posts back......?  That I don't hold you to them?

yes thats correct i do not need to adjust my comments or adhere to any logical standards at all my opinion alone is sufficient without meeting any standards that you believe i need to meet unless i myself choose to . in my opinion and reason for believing in intelligent evolution is observation whether it meets any standard isnt important , i said i had no proof just like you dont have any proof that God did or did not contribute to evolution . there is no proof that evolution was entirely random and natural no scientific studies were done either way

You have to adhere to the standards of reason, to claim reason. Otherwise you don't have reason...you have a belief.....which is what I keep telling you. If the proof you're requesting is important to you...again, you'll have to adhere to the standard of proof.

This has been a banner thread. You argue against science while, ironically, showing contempt for the standard of reason. Is there anything left to say about your belief......and is there anything that -could- be said about your belief that you haven't already handled? You've declined the invitation to present evidence, and you've stated, in no uncertain terms...that you aren't willing to be reasonable.