Author Topic: The Impossibility Argument  (Read 13340 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1548
  • Darwins +157/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • Belief is not a choice.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #957 on: October 28, 2013, 11:56:58 PM »


That Mann professor at Penn state,  his hockey stick thing was exposed as a fraud.  Do you not know anything about the ClimateGate scandal?   Nobody believes global warming is legit in the States anymore after that.   I don't know where you live but that issue is dead here.

I think if you are going to argue that CO2 leads to global warming and we look at the temperature data vs the CO2  data and it does not correlate and sometimes one is going up while the other is going down,  then we are logical in our conclusion there is no direct impact on the environment by CO2.

Yet another subject (added to the pile) of which you are ignorant and have not done the research or spoken with actual scientists in the field.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Add Homonym

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2274
  • Darwins +186/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #958 on: October 28, 2013, 11:57:40 PM »

IC isn't a theory, it is an observation of the state of a system. 


You can't observe the state of the system, because you were not there when it didn't happen.

Quote
All it means if a system were to lose one part, it would immediately become non-functional.

Today, yes. But removing parts today, doesn't show anything.

Quote
   So God doesn't have anything to do with simply determining is it IC or not.

You can't determine IC.

Quote
   IC could not have been done by Darwin evol
 because nature needs a function to select along a continuum in a gradual incremental way and given an IC fails when one part is removed, we know that there is nothing for nature to select until the entire system is together performing the function.

Assumes you've proven IC, when there is no way to.

Quote
No the point is to prove that the complex molecular machinery in cells and various biological systems had to be designed because random mutations coupled with natural selection do not account for them.

Your guess.

Quote
   You could argue that random freaks of nature lead to the IC systems but we would be challenging laws of probability again.

Prove it's improbable, using correct accounts of what happened in the past.

Quote
Again, I think you let your disbelief in God become a constraint on being open minded on this.   An implication of an observation that you don't like does not mean the observation is not legit.

Reverse applies to you.
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11399
  • Darwins +272/-76
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #959 on: October 29, 2013, 12:00:13 AM »
START BY READING HERE: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB902.html

Hide this, quick! Skeptic believes demons live there.

;)

-Nam

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1548
  • Darwins +157/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • Belief is not a choice.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #960 on: October 29, 2013, 12:02:43 AM »

Again, I think you let your disbelief in God become a constraint on being open minded on this.   An implication of an observation that you don't like does not mean the observation is not legit.

I think you let your disbelief in Santa Claus become a constraint on being open minded on presents under the tree. How did they get there? It must have been Santa! You can't tell me otherwise cause you didn't see it!!  I can't hear you!! LALALALALALA!!!

You are irrational. Plain and simple. You keep trying to use logical fallacies to support your bias. The burden of proof is on you - not us - b/c you are making the positive claim to "designer". Your argument is a designer of the gaps fallacy (Argument from Ignorance).

Every time you open your proverbial 'mouth' here is shows.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2013, 12:04:25 AM by median »
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Add Homonym

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2274
  • Darwins +186/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #961 on: October 29, 2013, 12:02:56 AM »

That Mann professor at Penn state,  his hockey stick thing was exposed as a fraud.  Do you not know anything about the ClimateGate scandal?   Nobody believes global warming is legit in the States anymore after that.   I don't know where you live but that issue is dead here.

I think if you are going to argue that CO2 leads to global warming and we look at the temperature data vs the CO2  data and it does not correlate and sometimes one is going up while the other is going down,  then we are logical in our conclusion there is no direct impact on the environment by CO2.   

The funny thing is the global warming doomsday scenarios are essentially the same thing as various religios people's predictions forever that The End of The World is coming.    It is manufactured hysteria and Democrats in America do it because they don't like corporations and they want more regulations on them, and taxes for their domestic pet projects.  It is rooted in anti-capitalism because it is only liberals who believe it is true.   Some Republicans like Mccain like to pander on it because they think it is a good way to get the young vote.  lol

Once again, you ignored the direct effect of CO2 on coral and plant growth.

Quote
The funny thing is the global warming doomsday scenarios are essentially the same thing as various religios people's predictions forever that The End of The World is coming.    It is manufactured hysteria and Democrats in America do it because they don't like corporations and they want more regulations on them, and taxes for their domestic pet projects.  It is rooted in anti-capitalism because it is only liberals who believe it is true.   Some Republicans like Mccain like to pander on it because they think it is a good way to get the young vote.  lol

So, you've rejected global climate change and CO2 acidification, [because of] your hate of the left wing. Doesn't sound very open minded to me.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2013, 12:13:47 AM by Add Homonym »
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #962 on: October 29, 2013, 12:12:47 AM »
i don't hate liberals, most friends are liberal.   Doesn't mean they are right and their anti-capitalism views do jive with their views on the environment. 

We been hearing about global warming for 25 years and we still here.  It's the end of the world, and I feel fine.   Fearmongering always gets exposed in the end, all you have to do is wait.  lol

Mann is actually suing Mark Steyn of National Review for calling his hocky stick thing a lie.  lol  Your science isn't legit if you want to punish people for criticism.

CO2 is needed by plants for cellular respiration.   So you could argue increase in CO2 is good for the enviroment. 

I think CO2 is a small percentage of greenhouse gases, most of which is water vapor.  What can we do about water vapor in the environment?   Water vapor tax?  lol
« Last Edit: October 29, 2013, 12:14:36 AM by DrTesla »
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11399
  • Darwins +272/-76
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #963 on: October 29, 2013, 12:14:33 AM »
[You, on the other hand, rattle on and on as if you know what you're talking about and even a person like me, with the lack of knowledge, knows you don't know anything about it but what is spoofed to you by your religion, and fellow Christians.

Compared yo me, the High School dropout: YOU'RE AN IDIOT!

-Nam

You are actually a slave to Christians and by default their God that you claim you don't believe in,  because they live in your head rent free.   

I don't understand atheists who feel like they have to attack Christians.  They have a belief about our origin and the afterlife that you don't. So what?   How does that impact your life.   Seems like more interesting things to think about then  ridiculing Christians. 

I've already said that I'm not a Christian but that I believe in an "intelligent designer" but I don't believe there is a heaven or hell or anything that I am supposed to do or not do to make the designer happy.    So I am a half Christian half atheist.   I am a complex kid.  lol

Why do you care so much if we evolved randomly or we designed to the point you get angry about it.  We are here either way.   I just like talking about it,  this isn't some vast conspiracy to "brainwash" people into agreeing with me. 

No. I am here to argue. I don't even spend most my time here, I spend more time at funtrivia.com. Everyone here knows I am only here to argue; and I have argued with atheists. A good many of my negative karma are from atheists.

You think you know me, or all atheists. I have attacked atheists on this website. You think I am not equal in me being an asshole? You are wrong. I have argued against many people on this website, not just the religious.

But you are easy targets because you make yourself easy targets. You think all Christians who come here end up on the Warning list? I don't believe magicmiles, a Christian, has been on it. There was a regular here years back, OldChurchGuy, I don't believe he was ever on it.

You came into this website with a closed mind. You want respect from us then you respect us back. You have never respected us; and despite what people, or you, think of me: I give respect first then turn the asshole on for those with no respect. And you have none.

You have disrespected almost everyone on this website; and while I may do it occasionally, I try to remain respectful when I can, and retract when shown I am wrong, or say I am wrong. You do nothing but insult, ignore, deny, lie, etc.,

I don't do any of those things. If anyone has Christians on their minds all the time is you, and those like you.

You say you like talking about this; I believe you: you are all talk.

-Nam

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11399
  • Darwins +272/-76
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #964 on: October 29, 2013, 12:16:19 AM »
*retraction: I do insult, at times.

-Nam

Offline Add Homonym

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2274
  • Darwins +186/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #965 on: October 29, 2013, 12:16:34 AM »
i don't hate liberals, most friends are liberal.   Doesn't mean they are right and their anti-capitalism views do jive with their views on the environment. 

We been hearing about global warming for 25 years and we still here.  It's the end of the world, and I feel fine.   Fearmongering always gets exposed in the end, all you have to do is wait.  lol

Mann is actually suing Mark Steyn of National Review for calling his hocky stick thing a lie.  lol  Your science isn't legit if you want to punish people for criticism.

You still haven't addressed ocean acidification, woody thickening, aberrant plant growth, because there is no cut and paste auto-response you are supposed to have from the climate denier lobby.
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2274
  • Darwins +186/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #966 on: October 29, 2013, 12:20:06 AM »
CO2 is needed by plants for cellular respiration.   So you could argue increase in CO2 is good for the enviroment. 

C4 plants don't need it, which is some of our food crops. Gates Foundation is trying to make rice a C4 plant.

C3 plants will be most affected in semi-arid to arid areas, where woody thickening is occurring, leading to more explosive bush fires. The denier attitude i sthat we can afford to pump another 200ppm into the atmosphere.

Belief in climate change is not anti-capitalism, but it is anti oil and coal products.

I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #967 on: October 29, 2013, 12:20:26 AM »
magic miles never says anything and when he does he doesn't take an opinoin on anything.  I'm not sure why he even comes on here. 

I think that I have respected all of you by not insulting you and calling you names and stupid, etc.

I just say what I think and I ignore the insults because I know you guys don't mean it.

You are obsessed with Christians,  like Bill Maher.   I don't know if you had some bad experiences with Christians when you were young but vast majority of them are nice, good people who would give you their shirt off their back if you needed it.   

I always thought it was weird how atheists tend to congregate on the internet and elsewhere, almost like there is a Church of Atheism.  It is not like you are called to spread the Good News of Disbelief in God but yet some of you are more committed to that end than most Christians are ot their cause.

 Sometimes it seems like Darwin serves as the biblebook of atheists sometimes.

I think Darwin's theory is total crap, it has nothing to do with atheists.  This isn't a Christian vs atheist issue, unfortunately most of you present it that way.

You guys have called me a creationists a million times on here yet you guys are the ones quoting tons of Scripture on here and I have not done that once and I don't think I could outside of maybe John 3:16.   lol
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline Add Homonym

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2274
  • Darwins +186/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #968 on: October 29, 2013, 12:22:21 AM »
Your science isn't legit if you want to punish people for criticism.

I'm sure Galileo and Copernicus thought that.
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #969 on: October 29, 2013, 12:24:09 AM »

You still haven't addressed ocean acidification, woody thickening, aberrant plant growth, because there is no cut and paste auto-response you are supposed to have from the climate denier lobby.

Ok, when I see a fool like Algore ranting about global warming, I head the other way.  That dude failed out of God school.   I don't like gloom and doom prophecy and that is what global warming is.   Temperature data should correlecate to CO2 levels and it clearl ydoesn't and in fact they are often inverse.   To me, that is all I need to nuke the theory.

The earth seems to be doing just fine,  it only us that are temporary. 
« Last Edit: October 29, 2013, 12:26:30 AM by DrTesla »
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1548
  • Darwins +157/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • Belief is not a choice.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #970 on: October 29, 2013, 12:25:23 AM »
^^^Yes, we know you often like to "nuke" ideas and subjects for which you have not studied.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #971 on: October 29, 2013, 12:27:17 AM »
^^^Yes, we know you often like to "nuke" ideas and subjects for which you have not studied.

Median didn't you or some others argue that humans are not more complex than other animals.  Yet now you are saying humans have the ability to essentially control the climate.   lol  there is a disconnect there.
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline Add Homonym

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2274
  • Darwins +186/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #972 on: October 29, 2013, 12:27:47 AM »
I think Darwin's theory is total crap,

You are entitled to think that, but you haven't got any tools to show that it is anything other than a working theory.
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #973 on: October 29, 2013, 12:29:34 AM »
I think Darwin's theory is total crap,

You are entitled to think that, but you haven't got any tools to show that it is anything other than a working theory.
ok let's agree to disagree, it isn't personal. Nothing hangs in the balance regardless of who is right.

I think there needs to more proof than just suggesting one fossil looks like another so evolution.  A kid could do that kind of thing.
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11399
  • Darwins +272/-76
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #974 on: October 29, 2013, 12:31:01 AM »
magic miles never says anything and when he does he doesn't take an opinoin on anything.  I'm not sure why he even comes on here. 

I think that I have respected all of you by not insulting you and calling you names and stupid, etc.

I just say what I think and I ignore the insults because I know you guys don't mean it.

You are obsessed with Christians,  like Bill Maher.   I don't know if you had some bad experiences with Christians when you were young but vast majority of them are nice, good people who would give you their shirt off their back if you needed it.   

I always thought it was weird how atheists tend to congregate on the internet and elsewhere, almost like there is a Church of Atheism.  It is not like you are called to spread the Good News of Disbelief in God but yet some of you are more committed to that end than most Christians are ot their cause.

 Sometimes it seems like Darwin serves as the biblebook of atheists sometimes.

I think Darwin's theory is total crap, it has nothing to do with atheists.  This isn't a Christian vs atheist issue, unfortunately most of you present it that way.

You guys have called me a creationists a million times on here yet you guys are the ones quoting tons of Scripture on here and I have not done that once and I don't think I could outside of maybe John 3:16.   lol

You respect us by ignoring probably every single refutation, with evidence to back it up, that shows your wrong?

You respect us by ignoring many of the things that people here are attempting to educate you on, who know all the proponents of ID/Creationism and Evolution?

You respect us by admittedly lying to us?

You respect us by not actually debating a subject but to continuously state everyone here is wrong, and you are right?

No. You have shown no respect. A person, even religious, who comes here and treats people with respect doesn't get so many people, including staff, to say vulgar things to you. That, usually, is my job to people like you. Probably why they keep me around because I can be so vulgar without regret of being so vulgar. They are better people than I am, and for a person like me--you have no respect for anyone here.

You're full of shit.

-Nam

Offline Add Homonym

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2274
  • Darwins +186/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #975 on: October 29, 2013, 12:31:21 AM »
The earth seems to be doing just fine,  it only us that are temporary.

You should perhaps have a look at the state of the northern oceans. I was OK with it being full of plastic, but I didn't know how full of shit it was. In the last 15 years or so, the ocean is turning into something dire.

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1848433/the-ocean-is-broken/

I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline Add Homonym

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2274
  • Darwins +186/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #976 on: October 29, 2013, 12:33:20 AM »
I think there needs to more proof than just suggesting one fossil looks like another so evolution.  A kid could do that kind of thing.

That's a very denigrating bit of hyperbole, followed after a misunderstanding that it will get you nowhere, if you don't have your own working theory.

Exactly how old would a kid need to be, to come up with IC?
I strive for clarity, but aim for confusion.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #977 on: October 29, 2013, 12:34:48 AM »
Nam,

you don't even try to debate the issues.  you've also said several times you don't understand science and you dropped out of high school so why is it credible that you know more than me on this topic?   

All your posts are the same vague empty rhetoric that I could just as easily say about you.  But, in addition to that,  any casual persusal of your posts it is clear you use ad hominem attack over and over.   Show me where I have done that.   I don't even curse on here.   You could say I am kind of an internet Jesus in some ways because I'm so clean cut.
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11399
  • Darwins +272/-76
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #978 on: October 29, 2013, 12:34:58 AM »
I got a little emotional saying that last bit (about people here) -- that isn't good. Oh, well. It didn't last very long. Half a second at most. It's gone.

-Nam

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #979 on: October 29, 2013, 12:35:51 AM »
I think there needs to more proof than just suggesting one fossil looks like another so evolution.  A kid could do that kind of thing.

That's a very denigrating bit of hyperbole, followed after a misunderstanding that it will get you nowhere, if you don't have your own working theory.

Exactly how old would a kid need to be, to come up with IC?
I guess as old as Darwin was when he wrote in Origin that IC would break down his theory.   lol

Boom.  next.
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #980 on: October 29, 2013, 12:37:52 AM »
@ Add

Most glaciers are not melting which was a central tenet of global warming for a long time.

One of the biggest impacts on ttemperature is the urban island effect,  the concrete jungles of large cities  absorbe more heat and the tempature increases. 
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #981 on: October 29, 2013, 12:39:51 AM »
Alright guys I need to get my beauty sleep.  I enjoyed the debate, even you Nam.  lol

"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1548
  • Darwins +157/-14
  • Gender: Male
  • Belief is not a choice.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #982 on: October 29, 2013, 12:42:41 AM »
^^^Yes, we know you often like to "nuke" ideas and subjects for which you have not studied.

Median didn't you or some others argue that humans are not more complex than other animals.  Yet now you are saying humans have the ability to essentially control the climate.   lol  there is a disconnect there.

As usual, you are quite confused and going off topic. Maybe you're just senile.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11399
  • Darwins +272/-76
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #983 on: October 29, 2013, 12:46:43 AM »
Nam,

you don't even try to debate the issues.  you've also said several times you don't understand science and you dropped out of high school so why is it credible that you know more than me on this topic?   

All your posts are the same vague empty rhetoric that I could just as easily say about you.  But, in addition to that,  a

ny casual persusal of your posts it is clear you use ad hominem attack over and over.   Show me where I have done that.   I don't even curse on here.   You could say I am kind of an internet Jesus in some ways because I'm so clean cut.

Adding words, what respect. I have never said that I don't know science. What I said was that I didn't know much about Evolution. I read a wiki article on it once, that's about my knowledge on it; and sometimes when reading posts here, most of which go over my head, doesn't mean I do not research those that peak my interest. But I never said I don't know anything about science, that's you saying it, not me. -1 for disrespecting me by saying something I never said.

Yes, I dropped out of HS because I am poor at math. That's all I am poor at. When I do science, I am about average; history, literature, English, and other subjects I excel at. And I think many here know these things about me.

If you check this topic, I mainly stayed out of it until you said something I had to respond to but I didn't really respond to anyone but the topic itself. Then you started disrespecting people here, and I gave back what they, probably, wanted to do but held back. I obliged, and I wasn't wrong.

I have already shown, relatively, how you have been disrespectful, and have "attacked" others and just like with them attempting to show you, repetitively, you ignore it.

You're the poor victim here. Wrong.

-Nam

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #984 on: October 29, 2013, 12:47:55 AM »
^^^Yes, we know you often like to "nuke" ideas and subjects for which you have not studied.

Median didn't you or some others argue that humans are not more complex than other animals.  Yet now you are saying humans have the ability to essentially control the climate.   lol  there is a disconnect there.

I
As usual, you are quite confused and going off topic. Maybe you're just senile.

I have epilepsy so I def. have some issues.  lol  really messes up my brain even though I don't have many seizures.   Ironically,  I was not intelligenty designed but I think we were intelligent designed.   lol

 I thought atheists were supposed to be non-judgmental though,  you guys are tough as nails.

ok, good night.   I might take a week off to let everybody cool down because this is obviously an issue you guys are passionate about and I'm no trying to be all up in your face on it.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2013, 12:49:33 AM by DrTesla »
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4288
  • Darwins +441/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #985 on: October 29, 2013, 12:49:04 AM »
"argument from incredulity"  sounds an awful like healthy skepticism.  lol   can somebody explain the difference to me.   I am a layman at rhetoric and debate trickery.
An argument from incredulity is basically saying that because you can't understand how something can be true, that it can't be true, because if it were true, you could understand how it was true.  The fallacy comes from the assumption that it can't be true because you don't understand it.  A person's lack of understanding doesn't mean anything but that they don't understand.

By contrast, a skeptic is unwilling to accept an argument unless there's solid evidence to back it up.  But they aren't taking the position that it can't be true just because they can't imagine it being true or can't understand why it's true.
Worldviews:  Everyone has one, everyone believes them to be an accurate view of the world, and everyone ends up at least partially wrong.  However, some worldviews are stronger and well-supported, while others are so bizarre that they make no sense to anyone else.