|
Argument #1: Transitional Fossils
|
 Argument #1: Transitional Fossils
May 2, 2014 at 2:30 pm
(This post was last modified: May 2, 2014 at 2:31 pm by Rampant.A.I..)
It's almost as if there is no argument #2, and we're just going around in circles with someone who refuses to admit they've been proven wrong.
 (May 2, 2014 at 2:30 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: It's almost as if there is no argument #2, and we're just going around in circles with someone who refuses to admit they've been proven wrong. Ok, fine. I'll be the bigger man. I admit, here and now, that Rev has been proven wrong. HAPPY?? Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
 (May 2, 2014 at 2:34 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(May 2, 2014 at 2:30 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: It's almost as if there is no argument #2, and we're just going around in circles with someone who refuses to admit they've been proven wrong. I believe that it's been more than adequately demonstrated that he's not even wrong. 
In the interest of fairness and charity, I've given Rev the benefit of the doubt up to this point and simply assumed he is too blinkered by his religion to deal with reality, but the longer this goes on the harder it is to avoid the conclusion that he is just a troll.
Perhaps he'll surprise me, but I really expect nothing more from him regardless of the topic.   (May 2, 2014 at 2:07 pm)Revelation777 Wrote:(May 2, 2014 at 1:49 pm)orogenicman Wrote: Bump I just want you to give me a cogent answer to my considered response to your OP and prove to me that you are actually here to debate the issues.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens "I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations". - Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) "In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! " - Dr. Donald Prothero 
See what I mean?
![[Image: thumb-zbordeasupra.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=veiozaarte.ro%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F07%2Fthumb-zbordeasupra.png)
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
![[Image: tupene3a.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=img.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F05%2F03%2Ftupene3a.jpg)
 (May 2, 2014 at 2:07 pm)Revelation777 Wrote:(May 2, 2014 at 12:02 pm)pocaracas Wrote: So, rev, which is it? Valid? There are different types of validity. It's clear that your sources are not scientifically valid. They are not logically valid. They lack internal consistency and come no where near external consistency. Perhaps there is some special way that these creationist dope pushers are somehow 'valid.' In what way are they valid, as in, what qualities to they possess that gives them validity? Get real, Rev., the only reason you consider those sources to be "valid" is because they tell you the lies you want to hear and keep repeating even after you have been corrected. Knowingly repeating other peoples' lies is lying.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste -- don't pollute it with bullshit.
 (May 2, 2014 at 10:46 pm)Godlesspanther Wrote:(May 2, 2014 at 2:07 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: I believe the sources I used are valid Tell that to Ben Stein. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
