[_ Old Earth _] Evolution is not based on empirical evidence

[keebs]

Ok in reality do you believe that there could be A infinate God? If you studied the law of chance youd find that there is more chance of an infanite God existing then the concepts of evolution be true. In reality Mans decisons and theories can be wrong and are subject to change yet they think they have a decant arguement against God

There's the same probably of an infinite God existing as there is of an infinite universe existing...what's your point? When you get into things like infinity you have to be careful. I could say that our universe has always existed, and that it keeps rewinding and replaying like a tape in a VCR...it is no more less possible than a God always existing.

The thing is...since there is already an equal chance of God always existing and our universe always existing without God, then when you add in all of the little possibilites of our universe coming into existence without God, you come to realize that it is more probable for a universe without God then a universe with God.

 

[Featherbop]

[quote="Darck Marck":16d53]Goliwog man: Thanks.

keebs: I'm not disscussing the meaning of evolution.

Tuatha'an: I don't care.

Then why exactly are you posting in an evolution/creationist forum?? If it's not to discuss evolution, or the meaning of it, then everything you say is pointless, meaningless, and inane.[/quote:16d53]

I post to share my opinions, and because the creation is a topic of interset, somewhat, for me.

I stated that I decide what evolution is or is not. If anyone claims something at variance to what I do/do not consider evolution, then I see if I am inncorrect, or if we both have opinions as to what it really is or isn't. We both have opinions. End of story.

 

[keebs]

I stated that I decide what evolution is or is not.

By that logic, let me state that I am God. You cannot argue against it because it is true via my defining it to be so.

 

[Asimov]

I post to share my opinions, and because the creation is a topic of interset, somewhat, for me.

Science deals with facts, not opinion. Your opinion is irrelevant to truth.

I stated that I decide what evolution is or is not. If anyone claims something at variance to what I do/do not consider evolution, then I see if I am inncorrect, or if we both have opinions as to what it really is or isn't. We both have opinions. End of story.

Like I said, your opinion is meaningless to truth. Evolution has a definition, this definition is not interchangeable relative to each persons bias or beliefs. If you think evolution is something when that is not what evolution is, then you aren't arguing against evolution, you are arguing against your own opinion, which isn't true in the first place.

In conclusion, what you say is meaningless, pointless, and inane.

 

[Featherbop]

I stated that I decide what evolution is or is not.

By that logic, let me state that I am God. You cannot argue against it because it is true via my defining it to be so.

It doesn't mean anything to me, because you [1] don't beleive that you are God, and [2] do not have any reason to define yourself as "God", you haven't given any observationof yours, evidence, etc, to have reason to beleive that.

I am simply saying that I have not been provided with evidence for the "evolution" to be condsidered evolution.

 

[Asimov]

I am simply saying that I have not been provided with evidence for the "evolution" to be condsidered evolution.

Of course not, because you change the definition of evolution!!

 

[keebs]

It doesn't mean anything to me, because you [1] don't beleive that you are God, and [2] do not have any reason to define yourself as "God", you haven't given any observationof yours, evidence, etc, to have reason to beleive that.

That is all completely irrelevent to my post. I could have sustituted any ludicrous idea in for my "being God". It makes difference. And, as side note, you haven't given any observation, evidence, or reason to believe that "your" definition of evolution is right.

 

[Featherbop]

[quote="Darck Marck":adcf9]I post to share my opinions, and because the creation is a topic of interset, somewhat, for me.

Science deals with facts, not opinion. Your opinion is irrelevant to truth.

I stated that I decide what evolution is or is not. If anyone claims something at variance to what I do/do not consider evolution, then I see if I am inncorrect, or if we both have opinions as to what it really is or isn't. We both have opinions. End of story.

Like I said, your opinion is meaningless to truth. Evolution has a definition, this definition is not interchangeable relative to each persons bias or beliefs. If you think evolution is something when that is not what evolution is, then you aren't arguing against evolution, you are arguing against your own opinion, which isn't true in the first place.

In conclusion, what you say is meaningless, pointless, and inane.[/quote:adcf9]

Your opinions are irrelevant and unimportant to me. You have your opinions, you stated them, I don't agree with you. I don't make myself clear about what I mean. I must sound from your perspective like I am completely saying the opposite of what I mean.

 

[Featherbop]

[quote="Darck Marck":3acf2]I am simply saying that I have not been provided with evidence for the "evolution" to be condsidered evolution.

Of course not, because you change the definition of evolution!![/quote:3acf2]

I just do not agree with other opinions of evolution is all. Don't get so worked up.

 

[keebs]

I just do not agree with other opinions of evolution is all. Don't get so worked up.

What do we have to say to get you to realize that we ARE NOT talking about the word, we are talking about the meaning. A good example of your logic is to say that barbie isn't a doll because barnie is a dinosaur.

 

[Asimov]

Your opinions are irrelevant and unimportant to me. You have your opinions, you stated them, I don't agree with you. I don't make myself clear about what I mean. I must sound from your perspective like I am completely saying the opposite of what I mean.

No, you're not making sense. The definition of a scientific theory is not subject to change, unless new evidence comes into play.

You have not provided evidence, therefore the definition stays the same, whether or not you or me don't agree.

 

[Asimov]

This is stupid

Darck Marck, what then, do you define evolution as?

 

[keebs]

Haha I agree...it was fun for a bit...but now it's old. Darck Marck has made it apparent that his pathos rules his logos.

 

[Asimov]

Haha I agree...it was fun for a bit...but now it's old. Darck Marck has made it apparent that he his pathos rules his logos.

I disagree, therefore you are wrong...relative to me. :roll:

 

[keebs]

Hahaha too bad that by my definition, I am never wrong :-D

 

[Asimov]

Hahaha too bad that by my definition, I am never wrong :-D

too bad, cuz I'M never wrong, and that's just your opinion, so it doesn't matter to me!!!

 

[goliwog man]

Get ya heads out of the text books. Its called an OPINION no facts needed. Darwinisms not a drug remember that. :-D

 

[keebs]

The point is that his opinion is irrelevant because it is not evolution. You cannot argue based on your own made up theories...

 

[goliwog man]

without opinion how can you have a forum

 

[keebs]

You can have your own opinion about evolution, you just can't have an opinion and say it is evolution...