Question for evolutionists

[CFM]

We know you cannot abide objective reality.

The objective reality is that no one saw happen what you say yet you expect people to believe it.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

The objective reality is that no one saw happen what you say yet you expect people to believe it.

I assure you I have no expectations of you whatsoever.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

You can't trigger or insult someone that is your superior boy. Trying to do so only proves you're triggered and you insult yourself. When are you going to accept your inferiority?

You're still hissyfitting .....

 

[CFM]

I haven't witnessed you play banjo so you can't?

Sure I can. The difference is I don't expect you to accept the claim if you choose not to. You can't say the same. If you do, you're a liar.

 

[CFM]

You're still hissyfitting .....

You're still inferior. Why do you choose to be that way or is it genetic with you?

 

[Fentoine Lum]

The trouble with any of these books, lectures, websites, etc. is that they are just opinions and arguments in and of themselves. They are written by people just like you. They may be quite wrong. Even school and college textbooks have been wrong from time to time.

Just because someone bound some written paper together or put up a website doesn't make it automatically True.

The question posed at the beginning of this thread is a valid one for discussion here. Copping out to point at the arguments of others is not a valid reference. That's just lazy thinking. It simply means you can't present an argument of your own on the matter.

Reality America, just make up your own.

 

[CFM]

I assure you I have no expectations of you whatsoever.

That's OK. I don't need an inferior, nigger lover to motivate me. I've done far better than you'll ever do and didn't get the help you did.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Sure I can.

And such is evolution.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Sure you do or you wouldn't get triggered when someone doesn't agree with you.

It really doesn't matter does it.

 

[CFM]

And such is evolution.

Not unless you have first hand proof. Do you?

 

[CFM]

It really doesn't matter does it.

To you it seems it does. To me, I don't have to have people agree with me. Your insecurity causes you to have to have it.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Not unless you have first hand proof. Do you?

Were you under the impression that I was attempting to educate you? We had a discussion going here before you tried to kill it again.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

To you it seems it does. To me, I don't have to have people agree with me. Your insecurity causes you to have to have it.

But of course Francis.

 

[CFM]

Were you under the impression that I was attempting to educate you? We had a discussion going here before you tried to kill it again.

Not at all. I'm fully aware you don't have the ability. You have to know something in order to do so.

 

[CFM]

But of course Francis.

It's funny to see you run from the discussion when you know your superior had bested you again.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

Not at all. I'm fully aware you don't have the ability. You have to know something in order to do so.

Well you sure don't understand enough to participate in the discussion. So you do this.

 

[Fentoine Lum]

It's funny to see you run from the discussion when you know your superior had bested you again.

Oh wonderful, another self-declared victor on an anonymous chat site who cannot discuss the thread topic.

 

[Into the Night]

Please do, you've obviously not understood what proving a negative is.



https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/145/Proving-Non-Existence

It is quite possible to prove a negative, but you can't use open sets to do it. In this case, however, your claim on the fallacy is valid. Attempted proof of a negative using open sets is also the fallacy known as the Argument of Ignorance.

If a set is closed, and you have examined each and every element of the set, you can indeed prove a negative. Example: If you have a bag of marbles of different colors except black, and you have examined each and every marble in the bag, you can conclusively prove there were no black marbles in the bag.

If a set is open, you can't examine each and every element in the set, so it is not possible to prove the negative. This is why it is not possible to prove whether any god or gods exist, or whether any god or gods does not exist. It is also why it is not possible to prove any theory about a past unobserved event False or True. Such a theory is necessarily not falsifiable. It therefore cannot be a theory of science, which is a set of falsifiable theories by definition.

 

[CFM]

Well you sure don't understand enough to participate in the discussion. So you do this.

As to your question, I know you can't learn much less teach anyone anything.

 

[Into the Night]

Because it was naturally selected as a superior adaptation.

Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, succinctly stated. Unfortunately, this theory has been falsified.