LOL, he'll get tired of saying a skeleton is not proof of a living creature, or it might be a rock formation, at some point.

You'll be surprised at how long he will argue against facts in evidence.

The funny thing is that if Waldork had a fossil relating to his fucking jesus he'd be waving it around as if it were the greatest thing going.

HEYITSAREALARTIFACTNOTJUSTAPIECEOFCLOTH!

(November 22, 2011 at 10:01 pm)Epimethean Wrote: You'll be surprised at how long he will argue against facts in evidence.

Nothing suprises me any more.

Statler Wrote:No they are not, empirical science is based on direct observation and repeatability, you only have direct observation that my posts exist, not that I exist.

The direct evidence is that you post your rants here. That is a direct, repeatable observation. Now, what you exist as, be it a jesusbot, a lying sack of shite, or what have you is another issue altogether.

Statler Wrote:Wrong, I reasoned from the particular to the general which is what inductive reasoning is.

You rode a slippery slope, which is a logical fallacy. The fact is that faith is belief in something unproven, and is always based on personal, subjective revelation. Period. End of story.

Quote:I don’t even know who that is a picture of, I said name one.

Somehow I doubt that. Ever hear of Ken Hovind? I'm certain you have.

---

(November 22, 2011 at 9:26 pm)Epimethean Wrote: Stat, I asked the question because you do not appear to be a scientist in any way. Perhaps you do work with the USDA, but from the way you abuse science and misuse the scientific method, logic in general, and substitute faith-based, scriptural arguments for science, I have to tell you, my "belief" is that you are perhaps a bean counter, a secretary, or perhaps a courier. That was what I was playing on. I didn't expect you to get that, because, quite frankly, you have been faced with many facts, a great deal of science, and a vast amount of legitimate criticism of your lack of evidence, poor single primary (if it can be called such) source, and constantly tautological goddiditthebiblesaysso shtick, and you haven't seemed to get that, either.

You don't debate. You masturbate.

He certainly is a master(de)bater, isn't he?

(November 22, 2011 at 9:26 pm)Epimethean Wrote: Stat, I asked the question because you do not appear to be a scientist in any way. Perhaps you do work with the USDA, but from the way you abuse science and misuse the scientific method, logic in general, and substitute faith-based, scriptural arguments for science,

Actually what this post has demonstrated is that I have a stricter definition of what science is than all of you, which of course is a good thing. You sir would never make it in the scientific community; you try to pass off storytelling as science.

Quote: You don't debate. You masturbate.

Call it whatever you want, I still school you at it.

(November 22, 2011 at 9:40 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: No, I'll just hit you with the same one, because I don't need to take another one. Dinosaur skeletons are, you know, the skeletons of creatures that we decided to call dinosaurs. No logic required in this instance, no waffle needed.

Proof requires logic by definition; if you are not going to provide the syllogism then you have no proof of what you are asserting.

(November 22, 2011 at 10:02 pm)Minimalist Wrote: The funny thing is that if Waldork had a fossil relating to his fucking jesus he'd be waving it around as if it were the greatest thing going.

What? Lol. No I wouldn’t, you would because you would say that proved he didn’t rise from the dead.

(November 23, 2011 at 12:27 pm)orogenicman Wrote: The direct evidence is that you post your rants here. That is a direct, repeatable observation. Now, what you exist as, be it a jesusbot, a lying sack of shite, or what have you is another issue altogether.

Please demonstrate how posts are direct evidence for someone’s existence.

Quote:You rode a slippery slope, which is a logical fallacy. The fact is that faith is belief in something unproven, and is always based on personal, subjective revelation. Period. End of story.

It was not a slippery slope; it was a valid inductive syllogism. You have done nothing to refute it. You can only refute it by either providing examples where information didn’t arise from a mind or that DNA does not in fact hold information. Those are your only two options.

Quote:Somehow I doubt that. Ever hear of Ken Hovind? I'm certain you have

I have heard of him, but I didn’t know what he looked like. Ok, so where is your evidence demonstrating that Kent Hovind believes that the cartoon the Flintstones is actually a documentary?

(November 22, 2011 at 9:26 pm)Epimethean Wrote: He certainly is a master(de)bater, isn't he?

Depends on who I am debating, you guys certainly make me look like a master at debating.

I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about to be honest.

Fossilised bones = proof that there was a creature. That is the end of it. You've asked for proof that dinosaurs existed, you've got it - not my fault if YOU won't accept it.

Stat has a stricter definition of science, alright: Goddidit or bust.

Guys, he may be so stupid that his whole existence is not worth the split second it might take you to spit on him, but he is still managing to spend an hour to waste three of yours.

Take him at his word, his existence is unproven, let him wallow by himself in his own ambigious existence.