|
Author
|
Topic: Comparitive delusions
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
Message 71 of 216 (297084)
03-21-2006 2:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
03-21-2006 1:45 PM
|
|
Re: No that is not what I'm saying.
Faith,
That we all have ancestors way back is known. Of course there are thousands of repeatable experiments you can do for that sort of thing. What repeatable experiments do this? Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 69 by Faith, posted 03-21-2006 1:45 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
|
Message 76 of 216 (297253)
03-22-2006 8:44 AM
|
Reply to: Message 75 by Mammuthus
03-22-2006 3:51 AM
|
|
Re: No that is not what I'm saying.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 75 by Mammuthus, posted 03-22-2006 3:51 AM | | Mammuthus has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
|
Message 88 of 216 (297417)
03-22-2006 7:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 77 by Faith
03-22-2006 12:51 PM
|
|
Faith,
I myself have argued that there is no way to PROVE anything at all that is in the past, EXCEPT BY witness evidence. That's odd, Faith, because you also say:
That we all have ancestors way back is known. Of course there are thousands of repeatable experiments you can do for that sort of thing. What repeatable experiments, which by definition excludes eyewitnesses, do you have in mind? You'll have to excuse us, Faith, if it seems to us that you apply the "can't be known in the past" standard only to things you don't want to accept, yet relax that standard when the conclusion doesn't challenge your religious belief. Should all prisoners be pardoned where no eyewitnesses were present, as Jar says? You're in a bit of a consistency pickle, aren't you? Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 77 by Faith, posted 03-22-2006 12:51 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 91 by Faith, posted 03-22-2006 7:56 PM | | mark24 has replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
|
Message 94 of 216 (297433)
03-22-2006 8:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 91 by Faith
03-22-2006 7:56 PM
|
|
Faith,
Sometimes you have to let people go when there is no evidence, yes. That's not what I or Jar asked. They had evidence, DNA, fingerprints, etc. the stuff those silly, silly policemen are so easily fooled by. In crimes where there are no eyewitnesses should prisoners be released? Since you ignored the main thrust of my last post, I'll repeat it in its entirety:
I myself have argued that there is no way to PROVE anything at all that is in the past, EXCEPT BY witness evidence. That's odd, Faith, because you also say:
That we all have ancestors way back is known. Of course there are thousands of repeatable experiments you can do for that sort of thing. What repeatable experiments, which by definition excludes eyewitnesses, do you have in mind? You'll have to excuse us, Faith, if it seems to us that you apply the "can't be known in the past" standard only to things you don't want to accept, yet relax that standard when the conclusion doesn't challenge your religious belief. Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 03-22-2006 08:12 PM
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 91 by Faith, posted 03-22-2006 7:56 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 178 by Faith, posted 03-26-2006 8:34 PM | | mark24 has replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
|
Message 107 of 216 (297560)
03-23-2006 11:28 AM
|
Reply to: Message 106 by PaulK
03-23-2006 10:40 AM
|
|
Re: The heart of the problem
PaulK,
Remember how Randman was so adamant that his reasons for rejecting evolution were entirely rational ? And did you see his recent self-destruct ? Any chance of a link, please? Thanks, Mark
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-23-2006 10:30 AM
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 106 by PaulK, posted 03-23-2006 10:40 AM | | PaulK has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
|
Message 116 of 216 (297727)
03-24-2006 5:00 AM
|
Reply to: Message 111 by Faith
03-23-2006 11:26 PM
|
|
Inconsistency
Faith, Please address this post, please. Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 111 by Faith, posted 03-23-2006 11:26 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
|
Message 168 of 216 (298003)
03-25-2006 3:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 162 by Faith
03-24-2006 10:25 PM
|
|
Re: reptile-mammal transitionals
Faith, Please address this post, please. Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 162 by Faith, posted 03-24-2006 10:25 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
|
Message 176 of 216 (298372)
03-26-2006 4:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 171 by Faith
03-25-2006 9:31 AM
|
|
Faith, Please address this post, please. Mark
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 171 by Faith, posted 03-25-2006 9:31 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
|
Message 180 of 216 (298518)
03-27-2006 3:16 AM
|
Reply to: Message 178 by Faith
03-26-2006 8:34 PM
|
|
Faith,
See my answer to Trixie above for as much of an answer as I want to give to this post you keep insisting I answer. Why must you be so disingenuous all the time? These are responces to points YOU raised in THIS thread. Now you want to keep it on topic? Not good enough, you have been caught in the act of hypocrisy & inquiring minds want to know how you can hold contrary views. The real reason I have had to bump this so many times is because you actually do recognise you have been caught out, but are not intellectually honest enough to admit it. I draw your attention to forum guideline no.4:
Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions. So please follow forum guidelines & provide reasoned argumentation to the rebuttal. Here it is again:
Sometimes you have to let people go when there is no evidence, yes. That's not what I or Jar asked. They had evidence, DNA, fingerprints, etc. the stuff those silly, silly policemen are so easily fooled by. In crimes where there are no eyewitnesses should prisoners be released? Since you ignored the main thrust of my last post, I'll repeat it in its entirety:
I myself have argued that there is no way to PROVE anything at all that is in the past, EXCEPT BY witness evidence. That's odd, Faith, because you also say:
That we all have ancestors way back is known. Of course there are thousands of repeatable experiments you can do for that sort of thing. What repeatable experiments, which by definition excludes eyewitnesses, do you have in mind? You'll have to excuse us, Faith, if it seems to us that you apply the "can't be known in the past" standard only to things you don't want to accept, yet relax that standard when the conclusion doesn't challenge your religious belief. Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 178 by Faith, posted 03-26-2006 8:34 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
|
Message 188 of 216 (298669)
03-27-2006 12:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 183 by Faith
03-27-2006 9:24 AM
|
|
Re: This is Reasoning?
Faith,
How on earth can you all go on comparing the testable verifiable falsifiable useful products of science in the present to the purely invented fantasies of the OE and ToE about the distant past which cannot be tested and have no practical repercussions on the present whatever? I've made the distinction numerous times though it goes unnoticed. I have challenged the consistency of your position as to not being able to determine anything in the past whilst at the same time stating that you have experimental evidence of something that happened in the past. I have described, & repeatedly drawn your attention to this in post 88, post 94, post 116, post 168, post 168 & post 180. As Mammuthus said, you would check what an extinct sloth had for breakfast in exactly the same way you could check what Mammuthus had. It would take too long to compile a list in this thread of posts that actually deal specifically with the "distinction" that you laughably claim has gone unnoticed. What is wrong with you? Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 03-27-2006 12:21 PM
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 183 by Faith, posted 03-27-2006 9:24 AM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 189 by Faith, posted 03-27-2006 1:12 PM | | mark24 has replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
|
Message 190 of 216 (298722)
03-27-2006 2:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 189 by Faith
03-27-2006 1:12 PM
|
|
Re: This is Reasoning?
Faith,
Yes you can find out what an extinct sloth had for breakfast. There is no problem with that sort of thing. So you can infer the past from data, then?
What you cannot prove is that that sloth lived some particular number of years ago, or that that sloth supposedly descended from some other kind of creature, or that it lived among only certain kinds of animals and not others (all conjectures based on the fossil record) -- but these kinds of scenarios are nevertheless described as fact. Yes, we can. We don't have to block inferences from data because they contradict our favourite fairy tale. Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 189 by Faith, posted 03-27-2006 1:12 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 191 by Faith, posted 03-27-2006 2:21 PM | | mark24 has replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
|
Message 192 of 216 (298728)
03-27-2006 2:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 191 by Faith
03-27-2006 2:21 PM
|
|
Re: This is Reasoning?
Faith,
You have the evidence of the sloth's breakfast. No you don't, all you have is a pile of something you think is poop. That it came from a sloth & was it's first meal of the day is mere conjecture. A Grand Story, interpretation of a very vague class. "There is no way to PROVE anything at all that is in the past, EXCEPT BY witness evidence." Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 03-28-2006 03:28 AM
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 191 by Faith, posted 03-27-2006 2:21 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
|
Message 200 of 216 (299100)
03-28-2006 6:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 197 by Faith
03-28-2006 6:01 PM
|
|
Re: Faith's "Crap" reasoning
Faith,
That kind of sleuthing is not at all in question. But it is. YOU question it, do you want a quote? The rest of your post is irrelevant to the post you replied to. One wonders why you typed it. Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 197 by Faith, posted 03-28-2006 6:01 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
|
Message 206 of 216 (299203)
03-29-2006 2:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 205 by Faith
03-29-2006 12:53 AM
|
|
Re: Faith's "Crap" reasoning
Faith,
It IS obvious. But you all refuse to THINK about it. This is is Faithspeak for "I have no evidence so I'll just repeat my mantra". There is evidence of a 4.5 bn year old earth, & you counter that with your evidence-free opinion. Wow! Who's not thinking? Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 03-29-2006 02:52 AM
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 205 by Faith, posted 03-29-2006 12:53 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
|
Message 213 of 216 (299343)
03-29-2006 12:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 212 by Faith
03-29-2006 12:15 PM
|
|
Faith,
You are all right that as long as I don't have the energy or motivation to keep up with the demands for evidence I should leave EvC. May God give me strength to do so. Or just keep your nose out of science forums & discussions where evidence is implicitly required, & ad hoc hand waving means nothing, where you can't say "that doesn't count, but that does" despite exactly the same principles being involved. Not without exposing the hypocrisy of your worldview, anyway. Mark This message has been edited by mark24, 03-29-2006 12:44 PM
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 212 by Faith, posted 03-29-2006 12:15 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
