Says who..you?!! Who makes the rules to determine who needs the provide burden of proof..certainly not yourself...nor Adam Poe..nor any other KMC poster..you all have been given many examples, as well as links to many websites..and you all have done the same...again...your FAITH in your beliefs is what determines the truth as you see it..and its obvious that you define the truth quite differently than myself....
The burden of proof falls on the person making positive claims. If you say "So and so is this or so and so exists" then it's up to you to prove your claim. Whereas someone saying "so and so is not this and so and so doesn't exist" does not have to provide proof. Not untill you have given your "proof" is it up to them to debunk it.
And as I've said before, biased websites are in no way proof of anything, which is what you've posted as your "proof". Cherry picked data isn't a valid source of information in a debate.
Originally posted by BackFire
The burden of proof falls on the person making positive claims.
And I've provided just as much proof as you all have...
If you say "So and so is this or so and so exists" then it's up to you to prove your claim. Whereas someone saying "so and so is not this and so and so doesn't exist" does not have to provide proof. Not untill you have given your "proof" is it up to them to debunk it.
Where's your proof on the missing link?
And as I've said before, biased websites are in no way proof of anything, which is what you've posted as your "proof".
Which is just as much proof as you all have...
Cherry picked data isn't a valid source of information in a debate.
I guess that kind of information is only valid when it's representing Darwinian theories...😆 😆 😆
how whobdamandog would reply to this:
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Riiiiiiight....... [b]defining what a word is not..is giving a definition of the word....key word in the sentence above is defining...lol....you guys are killing me with your keen rationale... [/B]
Originally posted by whobdamandog
And the difference being..that funny little man in a white robe and big hat...didn't make the foolish statement..."Christianity isn't a religion..it's a philosopy.."
nor did I make the statement..
Originally posted by whobdamandog
I don't have to ..you can read. Start from the beginning of the thread..and read up until the end. Plenty of information and weblinks have been posted on both topics. Research all the information presented before you, and then decide which religion you want to put your FAITH in...Keep the faith 😇
(as you can see, in true whob-style, I dodged it all. Btw, had to delete smilies cause there were too many)
Originally posted by yerssot
so he has said nothing? then he is nothing and you still follow him as your spiritual leader while it's not a religion but a way of life? 😆
I don't follow any man..I follow the one true God. The Pope is just another man to me.
Your God is Darwin and his principles. Adam Poe is polytheistic. He reveres Darwin/the Dalia Lama/and himself...😆😆
so you still haven't posted your proof here huh? while we have posted countless links and facts, and all you can do is keeping to your own faith not willing to look outside your own narrow vision 😆
I cut and pasted and provided links to websites..why are you guys the only ones able to use this debate style?
And I've provided just as much proof as you all have...
I haven't attempted to provide proof of anything, all I've done is give my opinion on the subject. Unlike you who is giving your opinion while referencing biased webpages and claiming it as undeniable proof. Big difference.
Where's your proof on the missing link?
Huh? I never claimed to have proof of that...
Which is just as much proof as you all have...
Not really, we do have the majority of scientists on our side, which is a far more valid and credible source then any website.
I guess that kind of information is only valid when it's representing Darwinian theories...
Nope, people who have referenced biased webpages for darwinian theories are at fault, just as you are.
Yerss - It's already been shown that he hasn't given any valid proof. He's wrong in claiming he has, simple as that.
Originally posted by BackFire
I haven't attempted to provide proof of anything, all I've done is give my opinion on the subject.
Which means that you have even less credability behind your argument than myself..😆😆😆 Credability sinking..
Huh? I never claimed to have proof of that...
Credability...sinking..even further...😆😆😆
Not really, we do have the majority of scientists on our side
How do you know this is true..if all your arguments are based on OPINION..
Credability...sunk...😆 😆
Nope, people who have referenced biased webpages for darwinian theories are at fault, just as you are.
That would include just about all the posters on this thread..excluding yourself of course..and as you have so humbly stated...YOU haven't based any of your arguments on references..you've based it on your own OPINION..thus you haven't given evidence of anything....
Credibility..dead....😆
keep the faith 😇
Me live in UK so me have to do RE to improve tolerance.
Me tolerance dwindles from RE. RE stupid.
I don't like religions. They advocate prejedice and therefore should be nullified as cults. I am reading the bible (no joke) so as to better understand how messed up it is. I have only gotten 11 chapters in but I wish to say something.
The first two chapters of the bible (the creation story) are contridictory. Just look for yourself.
Sorry if it has already been said.
Takk
Which means that you have even less credability behind your argument than myself..laughinglaughinglaughing Credability sinking..
I think you're confused, by giving soley my opinion I haven't been trying to give myself credibility, this is a message board, giving only an opinion is perfectly viable, seeing as I'm not attempting to prove anything.
Credability...sinking..even further..
Why? Explain yourself, why would I claim to have proof of something that can't be proven as of now? Sloppy logic you have. That would be stupid, like someone claiming biased web pages is proof that their argument is correct...oh wait.
How do you know this is true..if all your arguments are based on OPINION..Credability...sunk...laughing laughing laughing
Just because I'm good enough to admit that what I'm saying is merely my opinion doesn't mean I have no education or research in the matter. I know this to be true because in almost every interview or discussion involving this topic a scientist will take the side opposite to the one you are taking. In fact, I've never seen a scientist taking your side in this matter.
That would include just about all the posters on this thread..excluding yourself of course..and as you have so humbly stated...YOU haven't based any of your arguments on references..you've based it on your own OPINION..thus you haven't proven anything....
I've based it on my opinion that I've come to through my own research that doesn't include shitty web pages (such as the ones you've posted). Just because I don't falsely claim to have proof of something has nothing to do with credibility.
In fact, I'd say that blatantly lying about something (as you have) is far more hurtful to a person credibility then coming right out and saying that I'm not attempting to prove anything.
Though, your strategy is obvious, you've failed. You're attempting to lower my credibility (which I never claimed to have in the first place, and quote honestly, don't really care about) in a pathetically fallacious attempt to try and change the subject from your shitty sources which you falsely claimed to be fact and proof. Nice try, but I won't let that happen.
You claimed that you had proof of what you were saying, you are the one who claimed that your cut and pasted web pages prove that you are right, obviously you can't defend your biased web pages, so you fallaciously try to lower my credibility in a failed attempt to raise your own and get the attention off of your shitty references that you claimed to be "proof".
You think I have no credibility? Fine, no biggie. Think what you will. I'll let the others decide for themselves who has less credibility, me, who never attempted to prove anything in this thread because I know there is no proof of either side. Or you, who simply lied about your proof and committed argumentative fallacies which have been pointed out by numerous people.
Oh yes, one more thing. An overuse of patronizing smilies won't make your dimwitted statements any better. Many simpleminded people before you have tried it, it's a sign of desperation and, honestly, having nothing relevant to say anymore.
Your credibility = never existed.
Originally posted by BackFire
I think you're confused, by giving soley my opinion I haven't been trying to give myself credibility, this is a message board, giving only an opinion is perfectly viable, seeing as I'm not attempting to prove anything.Why? Explain yourself, why would I claim to have proof of something that can't be proven as of now? Sloppy logic you have. That would be stupid, like someone claiming biased web pages is proof that their argument is correct...oh wait.
Just because I'm good enough to admit that what I'm saying is merely my opinion doesn't mean I have no education or research in the matter. I know this to be true because in almost every interview or discussion involving this topic a scientist will take the side opposite to the one you are taking. In fact, I've never seen a scientist taking your side in this matter.
I've based it on my opinion that I've come to through my own research that doesn't include shitty web pages (such as the ones you've posted). Just because I don't falsely claim to have proof of something has nothing to do with credibility.
In fact, I'd say that blatantly lying about something (as you have) is far more hurtful to a person credibility then coming right out and saying that I'm not attempting to prove anything.
Though, your strategy is obvious, you've failed. You're attempting to lower my credibility (which I never claimed to have in the first place, and quote honestly, don't really care about) in a pathetically fallacious attempt to try and change the subject from your shitty sources which you falsely claimed to be fact and proof. Nice try, but I won't let that happen.
You claimed that you had proof of what you were saying, you are the one who claimed that your cut and pasted web pages prove that you are right, obviously you can't defend your biased web pages, so you fallaciously try to lower my credibility in a failed attempt to raise your own and get the attention off of your shitty references that you claimed to be "proof".
You think I have no credibility? Fine, no biggie. Think what you will. I'll let the others decide for themselves who has less credibility, me, who never attempted to prove anything in this thread because I know there is no proof of either side. Or you, who simply lied about your proof and committed argumentative fallacies which have been pointed out by numerous people.
Oh yes, one more thing. An overuse of patronizing smilies won't make your dimwitted statements any better. Many simpleminded people before you have tried it, it's a sign of desperation and, honestly, having nothing relevant to say anymore.
Your credibility = never existed.
Lots of interesting/contradictary conjecture you posted in there buddy..but it all looks like an OPINION to me.....a bad one...😆 😆 😆
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Summary...1. Creationsim is a "scientific theory"...
2. Darwinian "scientific theories" can be classified as a "religion"
3. Both should be allowed to be taught in science class..
keep the faith 😇
Bollocks. Which non-Christian scientists are putting forward the idea of Creationism?
As for the thousands of multi-racial scientists who concur that Darwin's theory of evolution is the most likely to have occured.
And even if you class Darwinism as religion, then what you're really saying is that neither should be included in a science class - both should be taught in Religous Studies.
I know BF, it was just a parody on how he dodges all the questions
Originally posted by whobdamandog
I don't follow any man..I follow the one true God. The Pope is just another man to me.Your God is Darwin and his principles. Adam Poe is polytheistic. He reveres Darwin/the Dalia Lama/and himself...😆😆
I cut and pasted and provided links to websites..why are you guys the only ones able to use this debate style?
ah yes, your idea that Darwin is a god... we do have statues of him everywhere and prey to him 😆 the primary definition of God is: A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The derived meaning can be used as an idol... but by that same definition, out of the billions of people on this planet, there are billions of "gods", we are talking however about the primary meaning of God 👆
whob, ... geocities-sites don't hold any credibility. As Silver said pages ago: try to find some ending with ".edu", cause I can make a page on geocities claiming the 12 foot long eclair created the universe and by your reasoning, it has to be the truth too.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
According to who..you?!! How does your opinion of him make him an authority? The Dalai Lama is only an authority in your eyes my friend...and all the "intelligent fools" who devout themselves to believing he is the Buddha incarnate...Anyway..your theistic views of a "funny little man in a red robe and hat" only help to support the fact that you have no substantive evidence supporting your claim.
Questioning whether the Dalai Lama is an authority on Buddhism is equivocal to questioning whether the Pope is an authority on Catholicism, or a U.S. Supreme Court Judge is an authority on interpreting the Constitution of the United States. 🙄
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Again Mr. Poe..please brush up on your knowledge of the words you use. Illogical is an adjective. Fallacy is a noun. In order to be redundant, I would have had to use 2 words of the same meaning/type..
il·log·i·cal adj. Contradicting or disregarding the principles of logic.
fal·la·cy n. A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.
“Illogical fallacy” is equivocal in redundancy to “erroneous mistake.” 😆
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Plenty of information has been given to you supporting Creationism, however, you refuse to have "faith" in it. Your "faith" resides in the pragmatic argument of "my opinion is fact", which is a very circular debating style, and that type of logic can easily be applied to any argument.
Where is the plentiful information you have provided to support Creationism? No one else seems to be able to find it. By all means, post it again for all to see.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
As far as attacking you goes. I don't believe I've ever done that, I merely stated the truth, however, as a wise man once said.."the truth hurts."
The truth does hurt; one who challenges the character of another does so because he cannot defeat his argument.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
You are. Just go back to page 14 of the thread. It's fairly obvious at this point. But again, you are welcome to have "faith" in and "teach" what you want...
I directly quoted the post that appears on page 14 of this thread in which you first provided a definition of Buddhism, and I also re-posted the link you provided from which you got your definition. A liar does not provide resources for others to investigate and corroborate his claims.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
No..the only ones that are authoritarian are the ones you selectively interperet to support your arguments... ...You initially stated the definition of Buddhism listed in "Dictionary.com" as not being the authority of the word..
then you validate the same definition of the word from "Dictionary.com", which you had originally discredited as an "authority" on said word..
...then you state that the definition of said word is not "authoritarian"...
..and then you go on to state that one of the definitions of said word from that same source... is "authoritarian"...lol..
You sound so foolish. It's like your cutting your nose off to spite your face...I can't believe you can't see the contradictions in your own arguments....
Nowhere in this thread or elsewhere have I stated that a dictionary definition is authoritarian. It is your argument however, that dictionary definitions are authoritarian. Therefore, I am exercising the philosophical Principle of Fidelity and holding you to your own argument:
If dictionary definitions are authoritarian, why did you selectively ignore the primary definition of Buddhism that does not define it as a religion in favor of a tertiary definition that does? Surely, if dictionary definitions are authoritarian, the primary definition would be correct, yet you chose to omit it because it contradicts your argument.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Please explain to me as to why I'm obligated to to accept the Dalai Lama's "authority"...and who validates this "authority" that he has..*note..This validation can not include the opinions of Adam Poe..or any other fool who worships the Dalai Lama...
The fact that this needs to be illustrated to you indicates that you are truly a world-class fool. 🙄
The Dalai Lama is an authority on Buddhism just as the Pope is an authority on Catholicism, and a U.S. Supreme Court Judge is an authority on interpreting the Constitution of the United States.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Annnyway...believing that only one theory should be taught about the "Origins of human life" in science class, is a very pragmatic opinion..and demonstrates just how "theistic" Darwinian supporters can be....
“I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms,” Stephen J. Gould.