Feelings are observable.
Anyway, you are not smart enough to poke fun at "meta", but I'm smart enough to use it correctly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta
Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.
- Thread starter peilthetraveler
- Start date
Feelings are observable.
Anyway, you are not smart enough to poke fun at "meta", but I'm smart enough to use it correctly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta
well that is the work of genius.
in response to the quotes of top scientific mines...
1. you call it quote mining. Why don't you prove the quotes are out of context.
2. You say that the appearance is not evidence --- but you have it wrong.... the evidence is what creates the appearance... which in absence of the multiverse speculation.. which be much close to the fact of design.... again you need to understand the science.
3. You have not explained one iota... what the hell you mean quantum mechanics and chaos theory. I have invited you to explain it... all you seem capable of is a sound bite about randomness appearing like design.
i realized you did not know what the heck you were talking about but rather than saying you are stuck on stupid like stu...
I tried to give you a direction by explaining that currently for cosmologists and the origin of the universe arguments--- quantum mechanics arguments have given way to string theory arguments. A professor named Polchinsky from Stanford calculated that string allowed for 10 to the 500 universes... which allowed Susskind via Weinberg's Anthropic Principle ideas to speculate about trillions and trillions of other universes.
Apparently your mind is stuck in an endless STUpidity loop because you keep spewing the same mindless drivel.
You "reasoned" before that Russell's teapot and God are equally implausible BECAUSE they're equally unfalsifiable.
Of course that's nonsense like almost everything else you write and of course you've never explained why because you can't, except for making STUpid assumptions like they're both mythical which would make your "logic" circular.
So instead of assuming and claiming, how about explaining, SPECIFICALLY, why you think both are "equally unfalsifiable?" And SPECIFICALLY, why you think that equal unfalsifiability means equal implausibility?
Please be as specific as possible because the more specific you are, the more STUpid I will make you look. Thanks
You "reasoned" before that Russell's teapot and God are equally implausible BECAUSE they're equally unfalsifiable.
Of course that's nonsense like almost everything else you write and of course you've never explained why because you can't, except for making STUpid assumptions like they're both mythical which would make your "logic" circular.
So instead of assuming and claiming, how about explaining, SPECIFICALLY, why you think both are "equally unfalsifiable?" And SPECIFICALLY, why you think that equal unfalsifiability means equal implausibility?
Please be as specific as possible because the more specific you are, the more STUpid I will make you look. Thanks
Yes because you're just throwing a whole bunch of quotes at me as if that is proof enough. FYI, it isn't. Can't you say what you want to say without resorting to copy & paste dialogue??? It just reeks of laziness...
I didn't know feelings were evidence of anything. That's something new to me. It appears the earth is flat, so it must be so right? The sun, stars, and planets appear to orbit the earth, so it must be so, too, right? You talk about science yet, your only proof is your feeling of the appearance of design. You talk about evidence, yet, provide none. So, the appearance comes from the evidence? So why don't we see some evidence. Still waiting. Your cosmological constants argument is pretty much shot. So what if they APPEAR fine-tuned? That is again, your feeling on the matter, not actual evidence.
I have explained numerous times. Here it is again. Quantum mechanics demonstrates that the universe is at its most fundamental level, completely random. Ever studied the Uncertainty Principle? That's only the beginning. Chaos theory further expounds on the fact that ordered structures can come from completely random processes such as a sand dune which forms from randomly moving sand grains.
You accuse me of "sound bites", but you are the one throwing quotes around indiscriminately. I can do the same thing. Hey, we can both throw quotes at each other and see who wins. At least I construct my own arguments. Sheesh.
Wow, I don't know what I'm talking about, but you do? LOL. Get off your high horse.
I don't need your direction. Just pointing out feelings and appearances aren't evidence of anything. The fine-tuning that is apparently evident in the cosmological constants sounds great but answers absolutely nothing. It's the newest flavor of the "God did it" argument.
Well, I can think of many less "rational" excuses, that's for sure... At least there's some logic to the one in question.
Oh you silly muffins (and I mean both sides), still arguing about evolution/religion?
Like anyone ever changed their mind because of an internet message board argument. What's wrong with leaving everyone to his/her beliefs? I mean in you want to castrate yourself, because a spaceship riding the tail of a comet is going to take you away, here is a knife. Or of you want to drink the Jonestown koolaid, have a drink on me!
As long as you don't force your moral system that is based on 2000 years old fairy tales on me, we are going to get along just fine. Everyone is entitled to their own stupidity, who are we to tell you otherwise?? As long as you are content and happy with it, good for you and enjoy your life!
And before some braindead is going to say that I was here arguing too, no I wasn't. I never took a stand on the issue, just pointed out 2 facts:
1. The most famous and influental religious leader in charge of 1 billion believers has embraced evolution.
2. Fainting goats are not an evidence against evolution.
But please don't mind me, argue away! It increases the page views and ultimately is good for the website...
There is also a thing outside called summer, you guys might want to check it out. After all, god must have put creatures like this on Earth for a purpose:
Like anyone ever changed their mind because of an internet message board argument. What's wrong with leaving everyone to his/her beliefs? I mean in you want to castrate yourself, because a spaceship riding the tail of a comet is going to take you away, here is a knife. Or of you want to drink the Jonestown koolaid, have a drink on me!
As long as you don't force your moral system that is based on 2000 years old fairy tales on me, we are going to get along just fine. Everyone is entitled to their own stupidity, who are we to tell you otherwise?? As long as you are content and happy with it, good for you and enjoy your life!
And before some braindead is going to say that I was here arguing too, no I wasn't. I never took a stand on the issue, just pointed out 2 facts:
1. The most famous and influental religious leader in charge of 1 billion believers has embraced evolution.
2. Fainting goats are not an evidence against evolution.
But please don't mind me, argue away! It increases the page views and ultimately is good for the website...
There is also a thing outside called summer, you guys might want to check it out. After all, god must have put creatures like this on Earth for a purpose:
You've been given plenty of specific logical, rather obvious reasons why Russell's Teapot and God are equally implausible and why they are therefore, as unfalsifiable as each other. You haven't been able to refute them.
Apparently immature response is all you have.
Apparently immature response is all you have.
Quote from Trader666:
Apparently your mind is stuck in an endless STUpidity loop because you keep spewing the same mindless drivel.
You "reasoned" before that Russell's teapot and God are equally implausible BECAUSE they're equally unfalsifiable.
Of course that's nonsense like almost everything else you write and of course you've never explained why because you can't, except for making STUpid assumptions like they're both mythical which would make your "logic" circular.
So instead of assuming and claiming, how about explaining, SPECIFICALLY, why you think both are "equally unfalsifiable?" And SPECIFICALLY, why you think that equal unfalsifiability means equal implausibility?
Please be as specific as possible because the more specific you are, the more STUpid I will make you look. Thanks