Posted on 08/03/2005 5:58:11 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
Here's the line you speak of:
"ID is a fixed belief impervious to any conceivable evidence to the contrary."
So where did I say ID is "still a belief, just like evolution"?
I have to disagree with the 2+2=4 though.
So you don't believe that 2+2=4? You don't think ANYONE believes that 2+2=4?
how would anyone know that a belief corresponds to the truth?
If you don't care about truth, then don't sweat it. For those who do care about truth, how one arrives at and defends one's beliefs is important. Some beliefs are reasonable, some are not.
You didn't, I did. You said it is a fixed belief. You said 2+2=4 is a belief, and some stuff about 2+2=5. Of course I believe 2+2=4, I don't think it is a belief, I think it is a fact.
Your last paragraph did not answer how anyone would know that a belief corresponds to the truth. As you say, some beliefs are reasonable, some are not, but that does not make that belief a truth.
That doesn't make sense.
I don't think it is a belief, I think it is a fact.
So now you don't think people believe facts?
Let's see if this helps:
define:belief
"any cognitive content held as true"
If you didn't restrict your quotes to partial sentences, then it would make sense. You also know that I never said anything about not thinking people believe facts.
mark
That's exactly what you said. Let me quote you again:
I don't think it is a belief, I think it is a fact.
Need I parse your own words for you? --
1. You don't think it is a belief.
2. For something to not be a belief, means that nobody believes it.
3. You therefore think that nobody believes it.
4. Why do think nobody believes it? Because "it is a fact".
5. You therefore think that nobody believes facts.
And your other sentence made just as little sense in its complete form. I hoped by highlighting the nonsense, you would actually recognize it. I was wrong.
It's late, and I have no desire to play your petty word games. Whatever you want to gain, it's yours, you get the last word, you win. I will try to remember not to respond the next time I see your name.
I don't play word games. I only ask that you attempt to make as least superficial sense. Since you can't even do that, it is best that you do not respond to me.
But thanks for transforming your inadequacies into a personal insult. I guess when one cannot think, one instead lashes out.
You know, if anyone had 29 positive unassailable proofs of macroevoltion leading to the emergence of man, the debate would be over.
I don't post the exact same thing twice, I continually adjust and modify it. Often I just link to a prior one, but when I have enough new material, and/or enough people cluelessly claim that there's "no evidence" for evolutionary biology, it's time to post a full updated copy and show them just how incredibly false and ignorant their "no evidence" rants are.
and how many people do you think have actually read it.
I have, for one, and far more than I post.
And frankly, any moron who wants to try to refute 150 years of biology *should* read it before they attempt to attack a very solid, very well established, very well validated, very well supported field of science. The first prerequisite for critiqueing a field is to have a clue what it actually consists of.
Furthermore most biologists these ignoramuses are trying to disagree with have read far, far, far more than just what I've posted here, and have *personally* added vastly more evidence to the pile than these kooks will ever bother to read before they go off on a "evolution is crap!" screed.
You know, if anyone had 29 positive unassailable proofs of macroevoltion leading to the emergence of man, the debate would be over.
This is demonstrably false. There is a vast amount of unassailable evidence for evolutionary biology, which is why 99% of biologists and almost all science-literate laymen accept its validity, and yet the debate is not over because a) there's a dedicated propaganda machine cranking out various kinds of lies and misrepresentations in order to confuse the public about the actual state of the science, and b) there are huge numbers of people (you'll see many of them on this very thread) who either don't bother to even examine the evidence before simply declaring "it's bunk!", or who keep grasping for any rationalizations they can find to cling to their current beliefs and refuse to follow the real-world evidence wherever it most obviously leads.
Hey, if capitalism is a demonstrably good system, no one would advocate socialism/communism, right? Wrong. Never understimate the power of self-deception.
Come on, the left isn't the only political group with a lot of people who will believe whatever they most want to believe, evidence be damned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.