Science Talk

Cory Albrecht · Guest

Gabriel wrote:

adman · Guest

"Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u1ad54p4naa0fm60smcuag3bl1pcnch5bp@4ax.com...
| On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:03:23 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
| <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
|
| [rest of insults deleted, so we can get to where you finally
| address the question after avoiding it many times]
|
| : > I ask you to verify what evolution claims. I pointed to the
| : > article that says exactly this:
| : >
| : > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_%28biology%29#Common_descent
| : > "All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor .."
| :
| : Cool. Unfortunately for you, that actually isn't the standard
| : *definition* of evolution, and it's certainly not the only definition
| : to begin with. In fact, it isn't even an actual definition. You've
| : had this repeatedly explained to you only for you to IGNORE it and
| : then LIE that it hasn't been addressed.
| :
| : But let's accept *this* definition for the sake of argument. Now show
| : me were it says that **a human being MUST DIRECTLY WITNESS THIS WITH
| : EYES ON THE LIVING ORGANISMS** in order for evolution to be a valid
| : scientific theory.
|
| So you mean no one has to "witness" something for something to be
| true?! In other words, no one has to observe what you claim is
| true for it to be true?! That's great, because using your logic,
| we can now claim it's fact that God created all of life, even
| though nobody "witnessed", or observed that, either.
|
| Of course, now you'll quickly point out how that logic can only
| be applied to your beliefs, which of course is hypocritical
| logic, nothing more.
|
| But at least you admit what you believe in has also never been
| observed or witnessed, either.
|
| What you believe is not observable, is not verifiable, is not
| testable. You can only test that some others have the same
| beliefs you do when looking at dead bones. You can only verify
| that others have the same beliefs you do when looking at DNA and
| homology and adaptation. But the fact is many come to quite
| different beliefs when looking at this exact same evidence. But
| no matter what beliefs anyone comes to (God, or evolutionism, or
| something else), such beliefs are of something not observable,
| not verifiable, not testable: not science. The only point.
|
| [remainder of insults deleted]

Aint it funny how observable evidence only works for proof of God and NOT
for proof of Scicentific bullshit?

<chuckle>

adman · Guest

"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:8dafebeb-b8f5-4b78-9216-ae3f60861af5@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
| On Jun 16, 1:02 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| > On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:03:23 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
| >
| > <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
| >
| > [rest of insults deleted, so we can get to where you finally
| > address the question after avoiding it many times]
| >
| > : > I ask you to verify what evolution claims. I pointed to the
| > : > article that says exactly this:
| > : >
| > : >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_%28biology%29#Common_descent
| > : > "All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor .."
| > :
| > : Cool. Unfortunately for you, that actually isn't the standard
| > : *definition* of evolution, and it's certainly not the only definition
| > : to begin with. In fact, it isn't even an actual definition. You've
| > : had this repeatedly explained to you only for you to IGNORE it and
| > : then LIE that it hasn't been addressed.
| > :
| > : But let's accept *this* definition for the sake of argument. Now show
| > : me were it says that **a human being MUST DIRECTLY WITNESS THIS WITH
| > : EYES ON THE LIVING ORGANISMS** in order for evolution to be a valid
| > : scientific theory.
| >
| > So you mean no one has to "witness" something for something to be
| > true?!
|
| You really are profoundly STUPID, aren't you?

Nope, YOU are.

God is real, regardless if your bullshit science can prove that or not with
observable methods.

God is not observable by physical standards of measurement, and neither is
your evolution even though you use physical standards to measure the
physical world.. How about THAT.

Get over it. Soo sad, too bad.

God laughs at y o u and so do I.

Ralph · Guest

"adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in message
news:WxD5k.6746$Nr.55@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

Gabriel · Guest

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:28:33 -0500, "adman" <72545@hottmail.et>
wrote:

:
: "Gabriel" <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: news:u1ad54p4naa0fm60smcuag3bl1pcnch5bp@4ax.com...
: | On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:03:23 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
: | <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
: |
: | [rest of insults deleted, so we can get to where you finally
: | address the question after avoiding it many times]
: |
: | : > I ask you to verify what evolution claims. I pointed to the
: | : > article that says exactly this:
: | : >
: | : > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_%28biology%29#Common_descent
: | : > "All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor .."
: | :
: | : Cool. Unfortunately for you, that actually isn't the standard
: | : *definition* of evolution, and it's certainly not the only definition
: | : to begin with. In fact, it isn't even an actual definition. You've
: | : had this repeatedly explained to you only for you to IGNORE it and
: | : then LIE that it hasn't been addressed.
: | :
: | : But let's accept *this* definition for the sake of argument. Now show
: | : me were it says that **a human being MUST DIRECTLY WITNESS THIS WITH
: | : EYES ON THE LIVING ORGANISMS** in order for evolution to be a valid
: | : scientific theory.
: |
: | So you mean no one has to "witness" something for something to be
: | true?! In other words, no one has to observe what you claim is
: | true for it to be true?! That's great, because using your logic,
: | we can now claim it's fact that God created all of life, even
: | though nobody "witnessed", or observed that, either.
: |
: | Of course, now you'll quickly point out how that logic can only
: | be applied to your beliefs, which of course is hypocritical
: | logic, nothing more.
: |
: | But at least you admit what you believe in has also never been
: | observed or witnessed, either.
: |
: | What you believe is not observable, is not verifiable, is not
: | testable. You can only test that some others have the same
: | beliefs you do when looking at dead bones. You can only verify
: | that others have the same beliefs you do when looking at DNA and
: | homology and adaptation. But the fact is many come to quite
: | different beliefs when looking at this exact same evidence. But
: | no matter what beliefs anyone comes to (God, or evolutionism, or
: | something else), such beliefs are of something not observable,
: | not verifiable, not testable: not science. The only point.
: |
: | [remainder of insults deleted]
:
: Aint it funny how observable evidence only works for proof of God and NOT
: for proof of Scicentific bullshit?
:
: <chuckle>
:
:

Well the beliefs of evolutionism are not even scientific: they're
not observable, testable or verifiable.

But yes, in spite of it being none of these things, they
unfortunately want to act like their beliefs are still true, and
no longer want to apply the rules of "oservable, testable,
verifiable" to their religious belief of evolutionism.

Mike Painter · Guest

Gabriel wrote:
<snip>

Budikka666 · Guest

On Jun 16, 11:10 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[rest snipped]

John Baker · Guest

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 23:05:08 -0400, Gabriel
<gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote:

Nobody needs to smear you, dickhead. You do a fine job of making a
complete ass of yourself without any help at all.

And you wouldn't know the truth if it crawled up your ass and lit a
fire.

Gabriel · Guest

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 14:01:35 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
<budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:

: On Jun 16, 1:02 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:03:23 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
: >
: > <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
: >
: > [rest of insults deleted, so we can get to where you finally
: > address the question after avoiding it many times]
: >
: > : > I ask you to verify what evolution claims. I pointed to the
: > : > article that says exactly this:
: > : >
: > : >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_%28biology%29#Common_descent
: > : > "All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor .."
: > :
: > : Cool. Unfortunately for you, that actually isn't the standard
: > : *definition* of evolution, and it's certainly not the only definition
: > : to begin with. In fact, it isn't even an actual definition. You've
: > : had this repeatedly explained to you only for you to IGNORE it and
: > : then LIE that it hasn't been addressed.
: > :
: > : But let's accept *this* definition for the sake of argument. Now show
: > : me were it says that **a human being MUST DIRECTLY WITNESS THIS WITH
: > : EYES ON THE LIVING ORGANISMS** in order for evolution to be a valid
: > : scientific theory.
: >
: > So you mean no one has to "witness" something for something to be
: > true?!
:
: You really are profoundly STUPID, aren't you?

It's unfortunate that insults are all you have left to debate
with. You've been called on the fact that you cannot show an
observation, cannot test and cannot verify what you believe is
true. Your lies have been addressed, and your biggest "comeback"
is only ever more insults and screaming "YOU LIE! YOU LIE!" :-(

: You're the one who is
: insisting on direct human observation over several million years of
: one individual of one species in order to see it change from one
: undefined "type" to another undefined "type".

No, you're unfortunately telling another lie. Sad

It's this simple: you claim something is true. In response,
people will rightly ask:

OTHERS: "Well has anyone ever observed such a thing?"
YOU: "Well, no."
OTHERS: "Is it testable at least so we can test that what you
believe will happen?"
YOU: "Well, no."
OTHERS: "Is it verifiable?"
YOU: "Well, no."
OTHERS: "Then it's not science and it's just a belief you have,
which you are of course free to have."
YOU: [insert screaming and raging and massive insults here]
YOU: "You liar! You told 527 lies and I keep repeating that you
have so it must be true! I've made a separate post about every
lie you told, so it must be true!" [insert more nonstop repeated
insults here to kick up smoke so no one will hopefully see the
truth you're trying to cover up]

All this to take the focus off the fact you know full well: you
believe something that's unobservable, unverifiable, and
untestable. You assume it's true and then throw insults as if
it's everyone else's fault that no one was around the "supposed"
millions of years to witness what is "supposedly" true and
"supposedly" takes that long, which is why it's "supposedly"
unobservable, unverifiable and untestable.

In the end, it doesn't matter *why* your beliefs are
unobservable, unverifiable, and untestable - the fact is that
they *ARE* unobservable, unverifiable, and untestable. Period.
End of story. Case closed. And the fact is, you run from this and
tell more lies and lace it with a few dozen insults, hoping no
one will notice. :-(

If it makes you feel better, I suppose you should continue
insulting to let off some steam. I'm sorry you're more interested
in that than in admitting the obvious. You make it clear you're
not interested in debating anything, but rather to go off on a
personal smear campaign.

[rest of insults deleted (which is pretty much all that you're
capable of) Sad

]

Gabriel · Guest

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:17:54 -0700, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

: Gabriel wrote:
: <snip>
: > Well the beliefs of evolutionism are not even scientific: they're
: > not observable, testable or verifiable.
: >
:
: All of science says it is science.

All of them? No, now you're telling a lie. Sad

Mike Painter · Guest

Gabriel wrote:
<snip>

Mike Painter · Guest

Gabriel wrote:

Dave Oldridge · Guest

Gabriel <gabriel_baptist@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:tm6m54h31tqrejv0dcjh3506p8mkqcdvf8@4ax.com:

Thurisaz, Germanic barbar · Guest

What does evolutionary theory (not) claim babbliel?

Come on morontheist, demonstrate your total fucking ignorance to the world
once again!

--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...

My personal judgment of monotheism:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus

Budikka666 · Guest

On Jun 19, 10:05 pm, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[prior snipped since Gabriel won't address issues questions of
challenges and simply runs form them]