 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7650
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:34 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| TBax wrote: |
I am beginning to agree that science could not prove you have a brain.
|
Personal attack. TBax, why do you insist on polluting our discussions with these? Do you realize how crass this is? It can ONLY drag down the level of conversation. When you insult people like this, it makes everyone else want to insult you as well.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7650
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TBax wrote: |
| P wrote: | This is just getting ridiculous... When quoting people, all you seem to be able to do is quote people who are saying things that have ABSOLUTELY NO scientific backing. Where is the part of 'Sir' Arthur Keith's quote where he explains WHY evolution is unproved and unprovable, and how on Earth could you NOT have quoted that part?
We obviously don't want to see just his introductory sentence! |
And if I found it, you would say it is not in a credible peer reviewed paper. Or possibly he is not the right kind of scientists. Or whatever other stuff you pull out to make it seem immaterial. Face it, it all boils down to, you don't want to beleive it so you don't. |
I don't think you get it; if a scientist proves (in this case disproves) something, and does so using SCIENCE, then NOBODY can argue with them. For example, almost NOBODY wanted to believe Einstein's theories, but they did a few tests, and after that, no reasonable person could disagree.
Go ahead and show us the experiment that Sir Arthur Keith or Lord Kelvin or any of the other people you are so fond of quoting performed which prove that evolution is fiction. If there were such experiments, then NOBODY could argue with them. IF their experiments are scientific, then the case is closed.
So where are these experiments?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6096
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TBax wrote: | | "Logical fallacy" is based upon the dictionary word fallacy. |
No, it isn't. "Logical fallacy" is based on what Aristotle pointed out as logical fallacies. Did Aristotle know English?
| TBax wrote: | | Adding the word "logical" to it doesn't change the definition of fallacy. |
No, but it changes what the whole word means by narrowing down the definition:
4. Logic. any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.
| TBax wrote: | | This is yet another example of how you like to twist things to appear like you are right. |
Uh, okay.
| TBax wrote: | | Yes, I just assume you are unreasonable. I certainly don't have proof. Oh, wait. |
 Your examples are flawed. It's a shame you don't understand.
| TBax wrote: | | Yea, there is no proof you are unreasonable. Please!!! Was this statement suppose to make you look more reasonable? It is exactly this type of stupidity that makes arguing with you pointless. |
And it's just this kind of removal of context that shows that you apparently know I'm being reasonable. Remember how right after that I said this? | FFT wrote: | | Unrealistic scenario? Definitely. But it's part of that whole "proof" thing. |
You know, showing that I'm perfectly aware that it's unrealistic? But that it's still part of the "proof" process?
Did you just not notice that or what?
| TBax wrote: | | Empirical logical proof can observe intelligent responces to stimuli. |
Hurr. Empirical logical proof can observe intelligent resoponses to stimuli, but this does not prove that the responses originate from a brain unless you assume that intelligence only originates from a brain.
TBax, I have a brain. I have never denied that I have a brain, only pointed out that science can not prove it. That you think this makes me unreasonable shows that you have no idea how science works.
| TBax wrote: | | Like in this case, empirical logical proof would not prove you have a brain. (Because your responces lacked intelligence, in case you couldn't tell. I wasn't agreeing with your point.) |
Hooray for fallacious ad homs.
Seriously, you seem to be pretty hypocritical.
| TBax wrote: | | Oh, really? Was this true of basic human anatomy? Science cannot prove that the heart pumps blood, that the stomach digests food, the muscles provide the ability to move ect... You are saying science hasn't proved any of this? There are an awful lot of doctors cutting into people when nothing has been proved. |
These things are accepted. But proof is not science, it is logic.
| TBax wrote: | | Yes, science certainly cannot provide validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions. Is this what you believe? Science cannot provide such validation? |
That definition refers to math and really only math.
| TBax wrote: | | Do you believe science cannot provide the evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. Is this what you believe, science cannot provide evidence, and in some cases overwhelming evidence? |
Evidence does not compel that much, or you wouldn't be arguing the side you're arguing.
Evidence is not proof.
| TBax wrote: | | FFT wrote: | | TBax wrote: | | Oh, and preemptively discounting any future responce is not at all closed minded, is it FFT. |
There's nothing at all wrong with discounting a future response when you already know it's not going to be valid. |
Nothing closed minded about that. :Crazy: Do you know what closed minded means? |
Did I ever say that it wasn't being closed minded for this? Please stop putting words in my mouth.
| TBax wrote: | | You don't like the fact that scientists said things that prove me true, so I have to stop using them. Sure, I'll do that. NOT |
Words of scientists prove nothing. Should I simply respond to every one of your quotes with a quote from someone else saying something different? No, that would be boring.
Stop using the words of others as if they actually prove anything, make an actual argument.
| TBax wrote: | | Pay attention to your silly philosophical word games? I don't think so. |
"Philosophical word games?" I give up, TBax. You won't even pay attention to what I'm actually saying but are perfectly willing to go on and on in longwinded posts about how wrong I must be. There's something seriously wrong with you but I'm done arguing with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7650
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TBax wrote: |
"Logical fallacy" is based upon the dictionary word fallacy. Adding the word "logical" to it doesn't change the definition of fallacy. "Logical" would be the modifier, not changing the word fallacy to mean something different. This is yet another example of how you like to twist things to appear like you are right. |
TBax, you are not allowed to use the word 'logic'. Of all the people I have ever argued with, NOBODY employs so much sophistry, so many rhetorical tactics, and so little logic in their debates as you do.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1970
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 2:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
FFT,
| FFT wrote: | No, it isn't. "Logical fallacy" is based on what Aristotle pointed out as logical fallacies. Did Aristotle know English?
--
No, but it changes what the whole word means by narrowing down the definition:
4. Logic. any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound. |
Oh, My, Goodness!!! How stupid would I have to be to continue discussing this with you. Do you actually think you are proving my explanation wrong? Aristotle didn't have a word in his language that meant fallacy?
Narrowing down the definition? Isn't that exactly the same as "logical" acting as a modifier to fallacy? 
| FFT wrote: | Hooray for fallacious ad homs.
Seriously, you seem to be pretty hypocritical. |
I was being sarcastic, genius.  That wasn't part of my argument. You seem to lack understanding of sarcasm as well.
| FFT wrote: | | Tbax wrote: | | Yes, science certainly cannot provide validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions. Is this what you believe? Science cannot provide such validation? |
That definition refers to math and really only math. |
Why would anyone try to reason with you anylonger?
Oh it seems like you done fighting reason, because you say "something is wrong with me". What is wrong with me is I actually use reason.
Goodbye unreasonable one.
_________________
Agape,
TBax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TBax
King of the Jungle
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 1970
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P wrote: | | For example, almost NOBODY wanted to believe Einstein's theories, but they did a few tests, and after that, no reasonable person could disagree. |
They actually observed a massive gravitational body causes light to alter coarse. THUS PROVIDING A PROOF OR VALIDATION OF EINSTEIN'S THEORY REGARDING SPACE TIME. The no proof thing is garbage. Does one piece of proof mean an extremely complex theory is correct? No. But enough of that proof validates it. Evolution fails in this.
| P wrote: | | Go ahead and show us the experiment that Sir Arthur Keith or Lord Kelvin or any of the other people you are so fond of quoting performed which prove that evolution is fiction. |
Sir Arthur Keith or Lord Kelvin do not need to prove something is fiction. Your evolutionary scientists proved it to be fiction through scientific method.
| P wrote: | | TBax, you are not allowed to use the word 'logic'. Of all the people I have ever argued with, NOBODY employs so much sophistry, so many rhetorical tactics, and so little logic in their debates as you do. |
This coming from the person that constantly makes baseless accusations about me. I proved he is a fraud as an expert on logical fallacies, and I proved his logic isn't sound and that he uses paraconsistant logic. All things he baselessly accuses me of, I actually proved he does. P, do you want me to provide the examples for the nice people?
P, your statements carry no weight. You continue to make accusations that are totally baseless, simply because I won't agree with you. P, you proved you cannot recognise logic.
_________________
Agape,
TBax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7650
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 5:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TBax wrote: | What is wrong with me is I actually use reason.
|
TBax, people could accuse you of a lot of things, but using reason is not one of them!
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7650
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TBax wrote: |
Sir Arthur Keith or Lord Kelvin do not need to prove something is fiction. Your evolutionary scientists proved it to be fiction through scientific method.
|
You just have no idea. You haven't cited a SINGLE experiment done by Kelvin or Keith. Not a single one.
| TBax wrote: |
I proved he is a fraud as an expert on logical fallacies, and I proved his logic isn't sound and that he uses paraconsistant logic. All things he baselessly accuses me of, I actually proved he does. |
You just have no idea at all. You haven't proven anything. You fundamentally disrespect science and logic, and I question whether you COULD prove anything. When arguing, you employ sophistry and rhetoric; you DON'T employ logic.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
