The circular argumentation revisited
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-08-2016, 02:29 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(19-08-2016 03:21 AM)The Dark One Wrote:  
Quote:...or it's trophy someone won in a race through the Kegel Run.

in only 12 parsecs?

Which made no sense and drove me nuts...Big Grin
Bothered me more then went through the motions of making a reference to it where they could of noted the nonsense and corrected the claim but just doubled down on that.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2016, 06:10 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(10-08-2016 11:48 AM)theBorg Wrote:  The Creation Scientists are way too limited in the research area.
There is no such animal. "Creation Scientists" are people working backwards from a conclusion, and not forwards with the weight of the evidence. They are con men, and not scientists.

(10-08-2016 11:48 AM)theBorg Wrote:  Therefore, let us call a Science, which studies the metaphysical limits of the Secular Science, as the Creationism.
How about no, lets not. Creationism already has a definition and an accepted usage. Furthermore it does not IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER have the ability nor the inclination to study actual science (which you in your profound ignorance label "Secular Science"). It has no methodology, no evidence, no peer-review, no predictive power, no analytical tools, ans no worth.
There is no such thing as Creationist Science, because creationism is not a science. it is the opposite of a science had has exactly none of the various parts that make up the larger engine that is science and the scientific method. It is no less than a collection of ignorance masquerading as knowledge.

It's worthless.

(10-08-2016 11:48 AM)theBorg Wrote:  The Secular Science is based on the circular reasoning, e.g. "time is that what the clock measures, and the clock is what shows the time."
No it's not, actual science is based on the scientific method which has clear and well defined methodology that demonstrably works. What you have written above is a very good example that not only are you entirely wrong but your too stupid to even know why or where you are wrong. you are entirely unqualified to talk about this subject to put it bluntly.

(10-08-2016 11:48 AM)theBorg Wrote:  Therefore the Creationism can use following scientific baseground: "The Bible exists, because God thinks so, and God exists, because the Bible tells so."
No it can not, as anyone with an IQ over turnip can figure out.

(10-08-2016 11:48 AM)theBorg Wrote:  Your comments are welcome. What do the people think?
I think that if your not a troll you're an idiot. Your writings are nonsensical, follow no known rules of rationality or intelligence, and that you couldn't express a coherent thought if your life depended on it. I've dropped my phone on my keyboard and gotten more useful posts than what you write.

(10-08-2016 11:48 AM)theBorg Wrote:  The same way in Creationism: "The living objects exist, because God thinks so, and the God exists, because He is very first life in history."
Nonsense of no tangible value, and that would be my description if I had a bottle lodged in my frontal lobe. Given that I do not I'd classify it as "fucking stupid shit".

Kneel mortal before Whiskey I, Lord of Dalmore, Duke of Jameson, Defender of the Sloshed, and God-Emperor of Holy Terra.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
28-08-2016, 07:50 AM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
I saw the title and steered away from this, till now. I still have not and will not read through, but my analogy fits.
The toilet bowl. My cat would jump onto the seat and his head would follow the swirl till it was gone. Sort of shake his head and then get down, only to do it again. Just let this troll shit go.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: