Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ericmurphy · 07-07-2007, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Occam's Aftershave

Are you the same samurai who posts at RD.net, and who has had multiple threads there locked for repeated spamming of these same goofy claims and refusing to look at all the contrary evidence presented?

Just curious.

Yes.

ericmurphy · 07-08-2007, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

Evolution Theory (ET) is not natural science. It is supernatural, fable, mythological, and pokemon-styled- science.

I can prove it.

Now, I am a Christian.

You prove evolutionary theory is incorrect by asking us to prove it is correct? Is that your "proof"?

Or does the fact that you are a Christian constitute proof in your view that evolutionary theory is not natural science?

I question your ability to construct a coherent argument that the theory is incorrect, let alone your ability to support such an argument.

c davis · 07-08-2007, 12:17 AM

"Go on impress me" picture above- is proof of "evolution" itself! I think the cat wins!

I think samurai has lost the argument.

David B · 07-08-2007, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gullwind

Please go right ahead. Your Nobel prize awaits.

Of course, you might want to make sure you are referring to the actual Theory of Evolution, rather than the ridiculous caricature that is presented by biblical creationists. There is a huge difference.

Before I prove it, let me ask you some questions.

1. Do you believe that Evolution Theory is really basing its explanation naturally? I mean, is ET (Evolution Theory) really the sole natural explanation of nature?

2. If you say yes, then, do you have a concrete and hard evidences for ET, to be labeled as "naturalistic" science?

I can not find one.

No-one except the ill informed believe that the ToE is the sole natural explanation of nature. The ToE is concerned with, to quote one of its discoverers, the origin of species.

I have another quote from Darwin on my hard drive, which I'll quote in a minute. Before doing so, I'll just note that it is incomplete, since DNA was not understood in Darwin's day. Nonetheless, the following quote does seem to me to sum up evolutionary theory in a nutshell.

I'd certainly be interested in seeing your attempts to show it to be wrong, because it looks fine to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darwin

If during the long course of ages and under varying conditions of life, organic beings vary at all in the several parts of their organisation, and I think this cannot be disputed; if there be, owing to the high geometrical powers of increase of each species, at some age, season, or year, a severe struggle for life, and this certainly cannot be disputed; then, considering the infinite complexity of the relations of all organic beings to each other and to their conditions of existence, causing an infinite diversity in structure, constitution, and habits, to be advantageous to them, I think it would be a most extraordinary fact if no variation ever had occurred useful to each being's own welfare, in the same way as so many variations have occurred useful to man. But if variations useful to any organic being do occur, assuredly individuals thus characterised will have the best chance of being preserved in the struggle for life; and from the strong principle of inheritance they will tend to produce offspring similarly characterised. This principle of preservation, I have called, for the sake of brevity, Natural Selection.

OK - where is the above quote wrong?

David B

Jet Black · 07-08-2007, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coragyps

Welcome to Internet Infidels, Samurai! You may well have an interesting time here.....

BEHAVE, folks! And exercise all the self-control you can muster so we don't get a huge dogpile here! In fact, let's see how it goes if, for five hours or so, we limit ourselves to the three(?) posters who are here already - or single replacements for them if they state they are leaving.

Give it a try.....

Thanks, Moderator.

There is no bad in trying. There is also no bad in questioning old Theories and debunking them and replacing with new and logical scientific explanation.

Besides, if truth is out there, it will surely comes out.

hold on, you started this thread saying that you had proof, and you haven't backed it up, and are now changing the topic. If you can't keep the original OP going then we'll lock the thread and you can try again.

I'm sure everyone else can stick to the OP too.

Jet Black.

Jo · 07-08-2007, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

Evolution Theory (ET) is not natural science. It is supernatural, fable, mythological, and pokemon-styled- science.

I can prove it.

Now, I am a Christian.

Proper acronym is ToE (Theory of Evolution). But I can't type yet, I'm still laughing at "I can prove it. Now, I am a Christian" give me a few minutes hahaha.

Jo · 07-08-2007, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

Before I prove it, let me ask you some questions.

1. Do you believe that Evolution Theory is really basing its explanation naturally? I mean, is ET (Evolution Theory) really the sole natural explanation of nature?

2. If you say yes, then, do you have a concrete and hard evidences for ET, to be labeled as "naturalistic" science?

I can not find one.

That's not proving it, thats shifting the burden. You make the assertion that you can prove it, then expect everyone else to give you answers hahaha. C'mon!

Jo · 07-08-2007, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

Yes, I am the same person. Since I am not convince logically with your fellow ET believers there, then, I had to ask others to present me the real and hard evidences of Evolution Theory as presented by ET proponents as "natural" explanaton of nature.

Appeal to Disbelief does not prove it hahaha

Quote:

Because basically, we had to deal and teach science in naturalistic way. And by doing this, logically ET fails.

And those logistics are what per se?

Quote:

If you consider it as spam, then, prove to me: WHERE ARE THOSE HARD EVIDENCES of Evolution Theory to be considered it as "naturalistic" scence?

You were the one that said "I can prove it"

Quote:

I've proven it there in RD.net. I will prove it here, too!

Goodie, so in what decade will that be?

Quote:

Since they can't give me the EVIDENCES, they had resorted in ad hominem. I did not use ad hominem there. I cannot use it if logical argument and debate and if truth is at stake.

So back to the proving it part....

Quote:

It is good that you are here. You can help others to add some additional information about DEBUNKING Evolution Theory.

Just PROVE IT already.

Quote:

I knew that you are very afrdaid that your ET will be debunked by the same logic and reason that you are using to deceive the public.

Didn't you just complain about ad hominems then now you make one YOURSELF.

Quote:

IT is good. Now let us talk about science...real naturalistic science.

Exactly! Now start with your "proving it"

Jo · 07-08-2007, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jet Black

hold on, you started this thread saying that you had proof, and you haven't backed it up, and are now changing the topic. If you can't keep the original OP going then we'll lock the thread and you can try again.

I'm sure everyone else can stick to the OP too.

Jet Black.

Thank you Jet, hopefully this is brought on track - hopefully with the "proof"

Asha'man · 07-08-2007, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

Before I prove it, let me ask you some questions.

1. Do you believe that Evolution Theory is really basing its explanation naturally? I mean, is ET (Evolution Theory) really the sole natural explanation of nature?

I think you are stalling, you don't have any proof, or even an idea of what you are trying to prove.

I know this is the case because you clearly don't know what Evolution is. It's a biological process. It does not explain geology, chemistry, astronomy, physics, meteorology, or any of the dozens of other aspects of nature that are studied by science. I'll bet $100 that your so-called proof will invoke misconceptions of geology, physics, or astronomy before you are done (presuming that you ever offer your proof, which seems increasingly unlikely)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-08-2007, 12:17 AM	#33
c davis Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: australia Posts: 129	"Go on impress me" picture above- is proof of "evolution" itself! I think the cat wins! I think samurai has lost the argument.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.