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

Science is not about proofs.

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

The internet is a human construct, a method of communication and information exchange. While it is true that there are also internet bots (semi-autonomous computer code that simulates human communication) trolling various bulletin boards, the probability that you are a webot posting here is likely very small - primarily because you are just not that interesting. Judging from your responses, it is obvious that you are a human being, although some here might take exception to that notion. If you are a human being, and are responding to posts made here, then it goes without question that you exist. Now, you might want to try to argue that existence itself can be questioned, and indeed, anything can be questioned. But then, the probability that we would have sensory apparatus that allows us to detect the universe in which we reside given said questioned existence is exceedingly low.

I post, therefore, I am.

You post, therefore you are, such as you are, whatever you are.

---

Statler Wrote: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?

Ahem:

Quote:primarily because you are just not that interesting.

I continue to wish stat were just a PoE, but I am coming to fear he is simply a troll.

(November 24, 2011 at 11:47 am)Epimethean Wrote: I continue to wish stat were just a PoE, but I am coming to fear he is simply a troll.

No, he's been here for over a year, he has been consistently exactly this stupid, obstinate, and cantankerous. One supposeS that if person could have been helped, he would not have either become a Calvinist or an YEC in the first place.

Care to repeat some "creation science" for me then Statler? BTW, regarding Kent Hovind and your little bullshit defense, let me show you what demonstrates that he subscribes to the "Flintstones as Documentary" school of thought....
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=triceratops+with+a+saddle

You get chastised for making arguments from abject idiocy Statler.

Anytime you'd like to stop pretending that you're even capable of intelligent thought or research on any topic whatsoever, you just go ahead and say so.

(embarrassing isn't it, well, that's creation science and creation scientists for you)

(December 2, 2011 at 8:17 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Care to repeat some "creation science" for me then Statler?

What would you like to know?

Repeat......creation...science. Take your pick, repeat the "experiment", and report your findings, to us, or a peer reviewed journal, whichever you like. I would ask you a question if I had any confidence that you had an answer. I don't.

Did you have anything to say about the Creation Museum btw? Any comment you'd like to retract?

(December 2, 2011 at 8:30 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Repeat......creation...science. Take your pick, repeat the "experiment", and report your findings, to us, or a peer reviewed journal, whichever you like. I would ask you a question if I had any confidence that you had an answer. I don't.

Did you have anything to say about the Creation Museum btw? Any comment you'd like to retract?

So you are admitting that both Creation and Evolution are empirically unscientific because they are not based on direct observation or repeatability? This could be a major step for you in your progression.

What was that about the creation museum, Kent Hovind, and some comment you may have made? Tired of you shitting on the boards and then moving on like no one will look behind the curtain.

Here, lemme get you started.

"I stand corrected, Kent Hovind appears to be a complete fucking moron and this "museum" is a joke. I can't believe that anyone would represent christianity and creation science to the world in such an idiotic way. I was wrong for insinuating that people were smearing his name by making baseless accusations. The gentleman who made the reference to him believing that the Flintstones was a documentary was absolutely correct."