The Dixie Challenge....

...and NOW, you want to try and cling to the word "fully" and show where I don't "fully" agree with your idiotic notions of evolution, which are void of fact and unprovable, and in some cases, not even related to the bio-genetic theories of evolutionary process.

Well, if that is what you are trying to argue, I wholeheartely agree, and I was completely wrong, I don't fully believe in a theory of evolution as interpreted by a fucking idiot moron!
 
On another thread today you were chortling about humans and apes not being evolutionary relations.

Can you provide proof that they are?

Wait one minute, don't you advocate ID? Which states 'because life appears amazingly complex, we can only ASSUME that it is the work of a deity'?

It's okay to assume logic.

Sounds like something you'd say....

But I didn't, and that was the claim. It was a LIE.
 
If, as AOI and I have pointed out, you don't even accept the evolutionary relationship between the great apes, and homo sapiens, then you don't even accept some of the basic tenets of evolutionary theory.

In short, you're a scientific illiterate.
 
Well, that wasn't part of the challenge. And it wasn't part of this thread.

No, that was the lie you told, and couldn't back up.

I freely admit you probably never said the exact words "evolution in an evil liberal theory". that was hyperbole on my part. I plead guilty to hyperbole.

Well, at least you'll admit you lied about me.

Now, as for the assertions and challegnes made in this thread (from post number one), you've been owned. And badly, I might add.

No, I am afraid you didn't own me. You defined the word "fully" to include some warped wrongheaded view that is not a part of the scientific findings in the theory of evolution. IF you stated you "fully" believe in evolution, and I find some jerkwater idiot who thinks we evolved from aliens, and you refute that argument, can I claim you don't "fully" believe in evolution, and therefore lied?

Man... for people who claim to oppose discrimination and oppression, you people certainly do like to claim 'ownership' of others a lot!

By the way, I think there is a rule that you can't "own" another person unless you can spell better than they do. Technically, you are not smart enough to own me! Sorry!
 
Dixie said:
On another thread today you were chortling about humans and apes not being evolutionary relations.

Can you provide proof that they are?

Wait one minute, don't you advocate ID? Which states 'because life appears amazingly complex, we can only ASSUME that it is the work of a deity'?

It's okay to assume logic.

Sounds like something you'd say....

But I didn't, and that was the claim. It was a LIE.
Click to expand...
No one can "prove" that we and the apes are close evolutionary kin. That's not how science works. It certainly can't be disproven and the body of evidence in support of the theory is enormous. It includes the now extensive fossil record, the amazingly close genetic codes of the two genera -- we and chimpanzees share as much as 98% of our genetic heritage and, at minimum, even by the estimates of the most outrageously wacko skeptics, about 96% -- and the striking similarities of behavior between us.
 
Can you provide proof that they are?

Dixie, remember the times when me and AC spent all day ripping you to pieces on this subject.

Remember us dicussing the epistemological impossibility of proof?

There is substantial evidence, from genetic comparisons to ethological studies. But to prove is impossible. I'll put money on it that you couldn't prove gravity exists.....

Wait one minute, don't you advocate ID? Which states 'because life appears amazingly complex, we can only ASSUME that it is the work of a deity'?

It's okay to assume logic.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha. I love our little talks...

Its ok to assume if something is logical?

P. All that eats grass is green
P. Cows eat grass
Ergo cows are green.

This syllogism is logically valid, the conclusion is reached by the premises, should we assume it to be true?

The ID concept doesn't even have the credibility of being based on deductive logic, it is based on induction..

'We've seen complex things that are designed, ergo all complex things are designed.'

And how about a little consistency? You said 'Asking questions is part of science, not assuming.', now you say that assumption is ok, if you can provide some a priori justification?

Bet you wished you'd paid attention at school now, eh Dixie? (They do have schools in Alabama, right? (Joking))
 
If, as AOI and I have pointed out, you don't even accept the evolutionary relationship between the great apes, and homo sapiens, then you don't even accept some of the basic tenets of evolutionary theory.

In short, you're a scientific illiterate.

No, actually, I believe you and Arnold are scientific illiterates, because you do "accept" without question. Science is the art of questioning, it always has been and will forever be. You don't question a damn thing, you present it as definitive fact, which it's not. Those of us who question things and search for answers, are the ones practicing science, those of you who have made your minds up and just accept things as fact that haven't been proven, are the idiots of the world. You are destined to follow blindly, whatever someone says, without question, because you lack the mental capacity to question it.

I've never stated that I didn't accept the premise we share common ancestry with the apes, I stated that it is unknown, and it is! You can't argue that something is fact and I am stupid because I don't accept it, when it hasn't been proven as fact! You are the stupid one, you believe in something that is not proven and not a fact, and you continue to make assumptions that are not based in fact, and refuse to open your mind to any other possibility.
 
No one can "prove" that we and the apes are close evolutionary kin.

Well, that's what I said too! You need to explain this to Arnold and Prissy, because they are under some dilusion that this is a proven fact that I have refused to accept.
 
No, actually, I believe you and Arnold are scientific illiterates, because you do "accept" without question. Science is the art of questioning, it always has been and will forever be.

You talk some drivvel, Dixie, you really do... lol

Science isn't the art of questioning. Science is understanding through repeated questions.

After repeated observation, we discovered how gravity works.

It isn't scientific to then state... 'Are you sure it isn't the weight of the heavens pushing them down' when, through repeated observation you there is no evidence to support the assertion.

You really don't understand the scientific method or much about epistemology Dixie. And you are the only person who has claimed that knowledge can be absolute..

All you have mate, is empty rhetoric, which you're half decent at, but not good enough to not look a plonker in debate..

Laters.....
 
P. All that eats grass is green

illogical!

No, it is unsound, not invalid or illogical. Please, study philosophy for the next time we debate...

 
The ID concept doesn't even have the credibility of being based on deductive logic

Oh yes, it certainly is based on deductive logic. If I find a watch on the beach, I can deduce that someone must have created the watch, that the elements which comprise the watch, most likely did not just randomly come together and make the watch. That would be illogical and void of common sense. I don't have to prove that someone made the watch, I don't have to discover the date it was made, I don't have to find the person who made the watch, I can use deductive logic to conclude the watch didn't just form itself, and was most likely the product of a creator at some point in time.

Now... your premise that we all evolved from a single cell... that is not deductive logic or reasoning, that is speculation based on a theory you have formed.
 
Science isn't the art of questioning. Science is understanding through repeated questions.

You contradicted yourself here. You are essentially saying, Black is not Black, it's the opposite of White!
 
AnyOldIron said:
P. All that eats grass is green

illogical!

No, it is unsound, not invalid or illogical. Please, study philosophy for the next time we debate...

Click to expand...

No, it's illogical, invalid, and unsound. It's also idiotic, moronic, and pinheaded. There are any number of words we can use to describe this conclusion, but "logical" is not one of them. Therefore, all the assumptions and conclusions which followed, are illogical as well.
 
After repeated observation, we discovered how gravity works.

Really? I thought an apple fell on Newton's head, and that's how we discovered gravity? (that was a joke)
 
It isn't scientific to then state... 'Are you sure it isn't the weight of the heavens pushing them down' when, through repeated observation you there is no evidence to support the assertion.

So the argument that we certainly evolved from apes, is a false argument. There is no evidence to support that assertion, there is a theory, but it has yet to be proven. It's just as 'unscientific' to conclude this, as it is to conclude the heavens cause gravity.

You really don't understand the scientific method or much about epistemology Dixie. And you are the only person who has claimed that knowledge can be absolute..

I think I understand it better than you. I have never stated that knowledge is always absolute. I believe some knowledge is absolute, and some isn't. You believe theoretical knowledge is absolute, whether you can prove it or not, because you've formed a theory. I refute that logic and argue that it defies science to make such conclusions.
 
Dixie, remember the times when me and AC spent all day ripping you to pieces on this subject.

LMAO... No, I can't keep track of all the times pinheads thought they "owned" me... but I wish I had a nickel for every one!
 
h yes, it certainly is based on deductive logic. If I find a watch on the beach, I can deduce that someone must have created the watch, that the elements which comprise the watch, most likely did not just randomly come together and make the watch.

Ok, Philosophy 101 for Dixie.

Deductive logic is an argument where the conclusion is reached (deduced) from two or more premises.

Inductive logic is argument based on a single premise, and that premise is spread to all within a catergory.

An example of deductive logic could be...

'P. All that eat grass is green
P. Cows eat grass
Ergo cows are green'

This syllogism is a valid, logical argument, because if you follow the premises, the conclusion is reached. It may be unsound, because the first premise is something undemonstratable a posteriori.

An example of inductive logic could be....

'Complex things made by man are designed, therefore all complex things are designed.'

Inductive argument is weak because it is reductionist, based on the assumption that what fits for one in a catergory (in this case complex things) applies to all in the catergory.

Your comment on common sense is also telling of your philosophical illiteracy, common sense is, as Einstein said, 'the accumulation of prejudices acquired by age 18.'

ID concepts are based on inductive argument, the inductive argument I mentioned above. It is based on the ASSUMPTION that, because all complex things made by man are designed, all complex things must be designed.

Hope this little philosophy lesson helps...
 
Science isn't the art of questioning. Science is understanding through repeated questions.

You contradicted yourself here. You are essentially saying, Black is not Black, it's the opposite of White!

No, I didn't. Explain the contradiction you think you see... lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top