Search results

If you don't know how it is formed, you are going to be a paperweight in the discussion.

It's clear that you've never read the Bible

Well, let me reassure you: Jesus' return ain't going to be on a campaign rally. Think sword.

Before anyone starts talking radioactivity, they have to answer the question of how such material is generated.

Guess what? "Billions of years" is just a theory. No, it's not. No, it doesn't. ...imply an explanation that represents a substantiated and not speculative idea. Darwinists love to pretend that it is others who misuse words when they can't get the simplest aspects of the philosophy of...

Lol. That's cute. You think democracy works.

OK. I can respect your analysis even if I don't share your apparent enamor for Bell. :) The point I'm trying to get across to the Darwin crowd is that there is no difference in the scientific process regardless of the power of the theory being discussed. They are never confirmed and they...

The same way I would approach any other idea: Does it seem reasonable? (No, in this case) Do I have reason to be skeptical of it? (Yes) Am I interested and capable of presenting a useful rebuttal or alternative? (not really) Why is Bell's idea in particular the one you ask this question with?

Time for some remedial classes. Nope. Instead of just insisting that I'm wrong, accept the invitation to explain why evidence can be appropriately used to solidify a theory. We know the part about how when evidence does not falsify a theory, we can be a little more confident that the theory...

The EU is thinking about boosting defense spending. :LOL:

The stunt of insisting on a coherent, rational philosophy of science? Nope. The key difference is that we are both likely to cede to the authority of the medical experts without one of us saying that the evidence shows their idea to be wrong. If I were to disagree with you on smoking, it would...

Logic must be your second language. Evidence can never improve or modify a theory. It can only ever falsify them.

Was that a retraction? Evidence never confirms a theory. It can only ever falsify them.

Nope. Evidence is used to overthrow theories. It never confirms them.

Get rid of the biologist and the philosopher both. To determine what was required for the fossil record to be created requires a geologist. And when it comes to how rocks were made, there's only one viable candidate: a global flood.

Second verse... It's not OK to be gay, It's not OK to be perverted, You shouldn't live that way, What you need is to be converted.

This is utterly unresponsive. Men can "draw conclusions" based on any amount of observations, including none. The idea that all life is descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection will never be anything greater than a theory.

Like I say. An appeal to authority cannot overthrow the simple assertion of the opposite. When there is a disagreement, it must be the evidence that is examined. A valid appeal to authority would require both sides to bow to that authority. It is indeed always fallacious to answer a...

"I don't like this cat. He reads minds." This is the logical fallacy of an appeal to popularity and authority. While it is true that most experts advocate Darwinism, that does nothing to establish the veracity of the theory. When you learn how to stop committing logical fallacies, perhaps you...

God said it's a real big no-no.