Topic: Evolution is a hoax - page 83. (Read 108046 times)

if evolution is a hoax .. then you will not grow up and there will be no such thing as this world

Yup. They make a "science" out of insulting the other people.

Ofcourse it is not science per se. It is an "art of being right" It should be double quotation mark there, as it is deeply duplicite language devised by Shoppenhauer. It is like the modus operandi of every evolutionist. I guess they use all of the intructions written there in our little dialogue.

This list is a list of a proffesional winner in dialogue by dirty dirty tricks:


Defense Through Subtle Distinction - It is not one gene it is 15. It could be 100000. It does not matter at all. It is all to make other people and the audience more aggresive because saying things that might be true but are irrelevant to the talk is just rude.
 Or thet say - Hemoglobine is a part of breathing, and not breathing in stand alone. Yes the essential part in it - so it could not be without most of the case. Such a behaviour makes no sense but to derail your opponents by dirty tricks and to make him angry.

Put His Thesis into Some Odious Category - They use it allllll the time they lose the argument. They laugh out of God. I could be as well an atheist denying evolution- it would not change anything. It is dirty and foul trick.

Make Him Exaggerate His Statement - like - you deny all science.... Ofcourse noone can deny irrefutable statements if they are irrefutable - thats so dirty and foul what they do...

Draw Conclusions Yourself - You see - they say? You do not know science - they say. And do not describe why you draw that conclusion. Those conclusions are not based on the dialogue it is just foul.... Just a trickery of language of applying to audience to slander people. You cannot argue with conclusion being your argument it is just a foul trickery language.

Or they say - it is not a circular logic - and does not argue why had he concluded that. That was his conclusion - it is not the conclusion of out the definition of the word or his reasoning behind it. While if one is dependant on each other to prove itself is a circular logic - he should have explain one can stand alone and would still be true.

Arguments Ad Hominem - self explanatory

Will is More Effective Than Insight - describtion of it:

"There is another trick which, as soon as it is practicable, makes all others unnecessary. Instead of working on your opponent's intellect by argument, work on his will by motive; and he, and also the audience if they have similar interests, will at once be won over to your opinion, even though you got it out of a lunatic asylum; for, as a general rule, half an ounce of will is more effective than a hundred-weight of insight and intelligence."

It is like they read their manual and apply it... They say you just want this that or other thing. You just want this or that is why you do not agree with me. What? How do you know what do I want?

Those snakey people know people will to be in the winning club. So they appeal to their emotions saying - everyone thinks like we do... That is just satanic you know?

Claim Victory Despite Defeat - Not just dirty and foul. It is weird thing to do as well.

Those are their favourite.

That's quite a profound religious statement you made there.

duping for evolution. we are perfect creation, from the beginning we are born already have the mind and the mind. if man is a monkey, how does it fit the story of the book, that we are the first creatures to occupy the earth. I do not agree that apes are the beginning of humans

It's an argument to show that only the most extremist religious nutjobs still deny evolution.

If the evolution teory is really true, it means the monkeys now have failure gen.
But i do agree with you, because monkeys are different with human and there's no way evolution teory is true from my oppinion

As an example of a fact. You know what example is right? Empiricism is the foundation of science mr. Science guy.


As an example. Have I said about empiricism? Oh yeah I had.


Zero amount is not an amount.


Why do you say that? Some amount of reasoning that is not zero?


What kind of logic? That if it is written in the peer-review it is a fact as you have stated? Well... It might be a fact about something, but it is not a fact of what you make it to be. It might be a conditional fact like any sentence is. For example an x stated that evolution is true - that is a conditional fact that x had said that sentence. It does not say if what he stated is true. It must be self-evident to state that his statement was true.


I asked for one and not even to prove evolution - to find a possitive mutation that bring new set of information to the table. The pre-requisite to make evolution even viable.


What kind of argument is that? Even a pope wears a hat. Why wouldnt you?

Actually the true god is Zeus, yours is actually Satan trying to deceive you.

Evolution isn't true because you cannot hold it. Dear lord.

So when faced with overwhelming evidence for evolution the responses we have had include:
1 - completely ignoring it
2 - writing it off without reading it
3 - imposing arbitrary constraints as to why it is not good enough
4 - more proof is somehow less proof
5 - nonsense statements like "You can not touch it"

The responses I had hoped for, asked for about twenty times, but received zero of:
1 - any considered response to the evidence whatsoever
2 - any valid criticism whatsoever
3 - any counter evidence whatsoever

No amount of evidence will ever be good enough for you. You don't understand science or the scientific process. You don't accept logic and reason. Therefore, there is nothing I can say and no evidence I can present that will change your mind. I'm done here. This is a complete lost cause. You are wilfully ignorant and seem keen to stay that way. Creationism indoctrination rates are falling. Even the Vatican has accepted evolution since the 1950s. You are fighting a losing battle.

Astargath, I'm afraid you are on your own from here.

And now you told the truth - it is your religion. Bravo. I knew you could do it.

You now need to pick the true God and not Satan who is not a God at all, althouh he is sure about that like you all about evolution.

Evolution is true because my god told me and I believe him until you can prove me wrong.

1. Ok. Paper says it evolved - and it probably says - maybe, if that and this is true, and if something else is truth it might be like that or maybe not. Do you know what is a self-evident truth? It is not what you gave me to read. It is not a self-evident. You can not touch it hold it, feel it, or anyhow experience it, it is just a thought process and abstraction - it is not a fact how ever you would demand it to be. You need a very good dictionary before you even come close to anything that suppose to be science.
2. Oh... Now you just pick on words I use..... Ok I should say - the reason you can breath as long as you are having a spine and not be one of that rare fish that have not haemoglobine.... Maybe you do not have a spine... So maybe I should reconsider my assumption I was talking to mammal and a human.
3. Evidence of evolution? Can I see it? Can I in any case experience it or is it self-evident? No ofcourse it is not. To the contrary you should prove the haemoglobin HAVE NOT been created otherwise to prove evolution - that is a way harder task. Have your research stated that it is the only way to have haemoglobin is by mutation? I highly doubt it.
4. Have you read everything in the world? People can read finite things in the world I doubt you had even read it and you say that I have not. And you do not even want to comment a short sentence because it was from the website you do not like, and then you say I have not read the whole publication. You are a hipocrite to the highest degree.

Honestly, I thought you will not make any progress, since I saw you ignore anything that does not suit you presupposition. And so far - I am right about that.

I know, I know. I don't have my picture posted in my preferences. So I can't very well say "read my lips."

Then again. It probably wouldn't do any good, considering how many times you have read my posts that state, "Evolution is a hoax."

An early form of human, you saying they... evolved?

You remember what makes up scientific proof, don't you? Among the requirements for proof is that experiment or operation it can be duplicated. So, duplicate just one, teensy, eensy, little, simple evolution proof and its references that say it is proof. If you can't do this, then you can't even prove that you have ever offered proof for evolution in the first place.

Actually, yes I have. It doesn't matter whether or not you like them. That's the good thing about science - it's true whether or not you believe in it.

Actually, no you haven't. You have presented points that somebody says are proof, but that nobody in the scientific community will acknowledge as proof. Just one, please... and its references where some scientist(s) proved that it was evolution.

That's literally exactly what I've been doing for the last 50 posts that you chose to ignore.