Creationist and Evolutionist hypotheses put to the test

laklak · **#121** by **laklak** » Jul 02, 2020 5:50 pm

Well, all the points for ID should score 0, the others should score 1.

felltoearth · **#122** by **felltoearth** » Jul 02, 2020 7:06 pm

Fallible wrote:
Wortfish wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
Wortfish wrote:My scoring was fair, balanced and objective.

Yes, we know you think that but, anyone reading your post can see that is not the case. Most of your pro-creationist points hinge on appeals to incredulity and your pro-evolution points demonstrate your lack of understanding of the science.

Regardless of what you think, it is clear that you are neither qualified enough nor impartial enough to carry out this exercise with any credibility.

Fine. You weigh the 7 arguments and score each accordingly. Don't just tell me I am wrong and not provide an alternative.

You troll badly. You know no one has to provide an alternative. No one agreed to do that. You started a thread unprompted to offer this bilge. That’s it.

"OK, YOU TAKE MY SHIT SOUP AND MAKE A MEAL OUT OF IT THEN!!11!!!!!!!1111!!!!"

felltoearth · **#123** by **felltoearth** » Jul 02, 2020 7:08 pm

laklak wrote:Well, all the points for ID should score 0, the others should score 1.

"Is the claim logical and evidenced?"

Yes/No.

Yep, pass/fail is really all they need.

Blackadder · **#124** by **Blackadder** » Jul 02, 2020 9:05 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Blackadder wrote:What Wortfish and his fellow apologists will never admit (possibly not even to themselves) is that they do not approach evolution, or indeed any science, with an objective mind.

Everything they look at is seen through the lens of pre-conceived bias towards Godditit. Every disingenuous selection of facts, every breathtaking dismissal of a mountain of evidence against their proposition, every desperate clutching of straws that may support their drowning philosophy, every tortuous argument erected in defiance of Occam, all of it demonstrates their utter lack of objectivity. It’s so glaringly obvious to everyone who isn’t pre-conditioned to look for God’s hand everywhere. Obvious to everyone except the poor sap who is trapped in a mental prison of their own making.

They can never look at the world around them with an open mind and grasp how much more amazing our world is than the pathetic, tiny celestial village dreamt up by the limited imagination of Bronze Age peasants. See how they squirm and twist to try to convince us that this sad, desultory excuse for a universe ruled by an invisible psychopath is the best explanation we have. I feel sorry for them, I truly do.

I have lots of points to evolutionist arguments. My scoring was fair, balanced and objective.

Those whose minds have been infected by religion are incapable of understanding the meaning of “balanced” and “objective”, as you have so perfectly demonstrated many times on this forum. Until you learn to step outside of your belief system, you will never understand the meaning of “objective”. You keep failing at this stuff. Even kindergarten level objective thinking appears to elude your grasp. A human tragedy, unfolding before our eyes. I would weep. But I have better things to do.

OlivierK · **#125** by **OlivierK** » Jul 02, 2020 9:17 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
Wortfish wrote:My scoring was fair, balanced and objective.

Yes, we know you think that but, anyone reading your post can see that is not the case. Most of your pro-creationist points hinge on appeals to incredulity and your pro-evolution points demonstrate your lack of understanding of the science.

Regardless of what you think, it is clear that you are neither qualified enough nor impartial enough to carry out this exercise with any credibility.

Fine. You weigh the 7 arguments and score each accordingly. Don't just tell me I am wrong and not provide an alternative.

I couldn't be arsed going through your trainwreck of arbitrarily chosen points, but I'll do the one I quoted earlier, about the explanation of geographic diversity.

Evolution: I'm perfectly happy with your evaluation that evolution satisfactorily explains geographic diversity. Therefore 5 points.

Creationism: You posit the possibility that kangaroos being native to only Australia could be explained by migration (zero evidence/0 points) or that they may have once been found everywhere, but became extinct outside Australia (zero evidence/0 points).

The points methodology itself is still sketchy as fuck, but it's not so utterly unfit for purpose that it wouldn't give a massive win for evolution if impartially scored by someone less credulous.

If you want to go full creationist, you might just as well say that God put kangaroos in Australia because He thought they'd look pretty here. It actually makes more sense than what you posted, and has the same amount of evidence to back it up.

laklak · **#126** by **laklak** » Jul 02, 2020 9:27 pm

Noah had a Star Trek transporter on the Ark, and he sent the kangaroos and wombats and whatnots back to Oz. Unfortunately, there was a transporter buffer malfunction and a duck and a beaver got scrambled and came out a platypus.

Prove me wrong.

OlivierK · **#127** by **OlivierK** » Jul 02, 2020 10:53 pm

Once Wortfish gets backed into enough corners, you just know that we'll get to the old favourite:

God is all powerful and could create a planetworth of life that looks exactly like the product of evolution, down to the very finest detail. So that's what must have happened. Take THAT, atheists!

laklak · **#128** by **laklak** » Jul 03, 2020 2:29 am

Could have done it in 6000 years, too. Hell, he could have done it this morning. You can't prove that's wrong, therefore God.

SafeAsMilk · **#129** by **SafeAsMilk** » Jul 03, 2020 4:22 am

Wortfish wrote:
I have lots of points to evolutionist arguments. My scoring was fair, balanced and objective.

You clearly don't know what "fair" "balanced" or "objective" mean. Try "arbitrary".

Svartalf · **#130** by **Svartalf** » Jul 03, 2020 10:39 am

laklak wrote:Could have done it in 6000 years, too. Hell, he could have done it this morning. You can't prove that's wrong, therefore God.

There are bones buried all over the backyard, therefore dog.

Alan C · **#131** by **Alan C** » Jul 06, 2020 2:35 am

Them light-sensing things that many animals have look like they've become more complex.

That and the giant red flag assertion that creationist 'hypotheses' enjoy any empirical support at all. It's a bit like a world champion team playing against a dozen drunken fat sods from a pub.

campermon · **#132** by **campermon** » Jul 06, 2020 3:28 pm

Alan C wrote:Them light-sensing things that many animals have look like they've become more complex.

That and the giant red flag assertion that creationist 'hypotheses' enjoy any empirical support at all. It's a bit like a world champion team playing against a dozen drunken fat sods from a pub.

Did someone mention the pub?

Looks like this thread is evolving nicely. 10/10

:cheers:

The_Metatron · **#133** by **The_Metatron** » Jul 06, 2020 7:50 pm

campermon wrote:
Alan C wrote:Them light-sensing things that many animals have look like they've become more complex.

That and the giant red flag assertion that creationist 'hypotheses' enjoy any empirical support at all. It's a bit like a world champion team playing against a dozen drunken fat sods from a pub.

Did someone mention the pub?

Looks like this thread is evolving nicely. 10/10

The OP created it this way, doncha know?

campermon · **#134** by **campermon** » Jul 06, 2020 8:02 pm

The_Metatron wrote:
campermon wrote:
Alan C wrote:Them light-sensing things that many animals have look like they've become more complex.

That and the giant red flag assertion that creationist 'hypotheses' enjoy any empirical support at all. It's a bit like a world champion team playing against a dozen drunken fat sods from a pub.

Did someone mention the pub?

Looks like this thread is evolving nicely. 10/10

The OP created it this way, doncha know?

Fallible · **#135** by **Fallible** » Jul 06, 2020 8:54 pm

campermon wrote:
Alan C wrote:Them light-sensing things that many animals have look like they've become more complex.

That and the giant red flag assertion that creationist 'hypotheses' enjoy any empirical support at all. It's a bit like a world champion team playing against a dozen drunken fat sods from a pub.

Did someone mention the pub?

Looks like this thread is evolving nicely. 10/10

Do you have Schloer? Red grape?

campermon · **#136** by **campermon** » Jul 07, 2020 3:28 pm

Fallible wrote:
campermon wrote:
Alan C wrote:Them light-sensing things that many animals have look like they've become more complex.

That and the giant red flag assertion that creationist 'hypotheses' enjoy any empirical support at all. It's a bit like a world champion team playing against a dozen drunken fat sods from a pub.

Did someone mention the pub?

Looks like this thread is evolving nicely. 10/10

Do you have Schloer? Red grape?

Ooooh! Nice! Yes :cheers:

I always feel that Schloer benefits from a shot of vodka :grin:

Fallible · **#137** by **Fallible** » Jul 07, 2020 3:38 pm

I can’t!

Virgin for me, please. :cheers:

Alan C · **#138** by **Alan C** » Jul 12, 2020 11:23 pm

Been dying to go to the pub to get a nice meal but have been waiting for this bastard tooth replacement process to conclude [healing up before the screw goes in]. Now it appears I've cracked a molar on the opposite side. Fuck.
:whine:

theropod_V_2.0 · **#139** by **theropod_V_2.0** » Jul 12, 2020 11:48 pm

Super glue!

No. Sorry, AlanC, major suckage!

RS

laklak · **#140** by **laklak** » Jul 13, 2020 4:41 am

Fucking teeth. Seriously. Sharks get replacements, but us? Apple of God's eye, made in His image? Nope. One set. Don't last. He probably contracted them out to China.

I have spent more money on teeth maintenance than I have on boat maintenance.

Creationist and Evolutionist hypotheses put to the test

Re: Creationist and Evolutionist hypotheses put to the test

Ads by Google

Re: Creationist and Evolutionist hypotheses put to the test

Re: Creationist and Evolutionist hypotheses put to the test

Re: Creationist and Evolutionist hypotheses put to the test

Re: Creationist and Evolutionist hypotheses put to the test

Re: Creationist and Evolutionist hypotheses put to the test

Re: Creationist and Evolutionist hypotheses put to the test

Ads by Google

Re: Creationist and Evolutionist hypotheses put to the test

Re: Creationist and Evolutionist hypotheses put to the test

Re: Creationist and Evolutionist hypotheses put to the test

Re: Creationist and Evolutionist hypotheses put to the test

Re: Creationist and Evolutionist hypotheses put to the test

Re: Creationist and Evolutionist hypotheses put to the test

Re: Creationist and Evolutionist hypotheses put to the test

Re: Creationist and Evolutionist hypotheses put to the test

Ads by Google

Re: Creationist and Evolutionist hypotheses put to the test

Re: Creationist and Evolutionist hypotheses put to the test

Re: Creationist and Evolutionist hypotheses put to the test

Re: Creationist and Evolutionist hypotheses put to the test

Re: Creationist and Evolutionist hypotheses put to the test

Who is online