Scoring the arguments for and against
Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip
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.
laklak wrote:Well, all the points for ID should score 0, the others should score 1.
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.
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.
Wortfish wrote:
I have lots of points to evolutionist arguments. My scoring was fair, balanced and objective.
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.
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.
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
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_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?
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
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
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?
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests