That's OK. Your opinion isn't the arbiter of science.
But that doesn't bother me at all. Unlike you, I'm not demanding my faith based beliefs be taught without an alternative.
I could just as easily state that the complexity of man provides a preponderence of evidence that Intelligent Design is the only possible origin.
You could, but the statement would simply be false
No, it would simply be a theory that you would choose not to accept.
<>I've asked you several times now where on earth you got this idea that just because you say something means you have to be taken seriously.Honestly, it doesn't. You could just as easily state that the ubiquity of fecal matter provides a preponderance of evidence that you pulled the universe out your @$$. Who cares what it looks like to you? The only thing that matters is what it looks like. Period.
Science at one time accepted that the earth was the center of the universe. You'll have to excuse me for realizing that today's belief on the origion of the species is based on acceptence of something that is not provable. It's rather comical that I have to keep saying this, because those on your side keep reiminding me that in science nothing is provable.
I don't seek to make that case.
Why not? If that's what the preponderance of the evidence shows, then make the case. I strongly encourage you to do so.
The preponderence of the evidence reveals that we do not know where man came from conslusively. That statement is scientificly sustainable and you know it.
Your side does seek to claim that your theory is the only possible origin based on the evidence.
Based on the evidence, evolution is the only plausible explanatory model.
Based on the evidence, evolution is not far removed from Saturday morning cartoon plot lines.
Well, I disagree.
Here's a cookie.
It's certainly your perogitive to claim falsity and inanity.
Yeah, but I don't rely on merely my say so.
So what you are saying is that when the United States voted for Clinton twice, everyone should have adopted the majority opinion? There you go again...
I'm sorry, but I can't buy into your last statement.
That's OK.
Threads like this refute that perception. Some of you folks are willing to compare others and myself to the Taliban...
I wasn't talking about "us folks" but rather just about me. Nothing I've posted in this thread refutes my statement, which would be unlikely if for no other reason than that it's true
Since your theory cannot be proven, and the preponderence of evidence doesn't sustain what you say it does, then I can come to no other conclusion that that your statement was false.
Your own words have betrayed you. Based on flimsy evidence you have opted to believe the theory of evolution based on faith. That may be acceptable to you, but it's hardly an example of scientific purity. The evidence does not prove what you believe. Why are you having such a hard time with this concept?
...just because we don't buy into your theories lock stock and barrel, and do not think exclusivity should be yours any more than ours.
I am not a relativist, and never will be. If you want any claim to 'inclusivity' then support your position. Otherwise, you can spout whatever nonsense makes you happy, just don't expect to be taken seriously, at least not by me.
...at least by me. LMAO, look I'm not particularly interested whether you take me serioiusly or not. For a guy that has expressed his belief in something that is not sustainable, but gets upset when others don't, I find it rather cute what you're trying to pass off as reasoned.
If you were genuinely concerned about scientific progress, you'd be willing to take a look at the 'evidence', and see two possible conclusions based on the evidence that exists and the evidence that doesn't.
I have taken a look at the evidence, and I even see multiple potential conclusions based upon it. Intelligent design isn't one of them.
Well you're welcome to you own conclusions on that. For what they're worth.
Your conclusions concerning the evidence, are all focused on accepting what you cannot prove. What bothers you is that I have also elected to accept something I cannot prove.
That is false. What bothers me is that you have elected to equate fantasy with science.
Is it scientific to have some evidence, then extrapolate that man evolved from a single celled organism? LOL, very impressive. Talk about fantasy...
The holes in your evidence don't dissuade me.
Gosh, I'd hope not. It's the evidence itself that's persuasive, not whatever holes might be in it.
Isn't it interesting, you are impressed by the evidence and I'm impressed by the lack of it.
The holes in my evidence should not disuade you.
You have no evidence at all. In fact, you explicitly stated above that you don't even seek to make the case.
Hmmm, afraid to acknowledge my complete comment? Evidently so.
This leaves us both unable to categoricly prove the other wrong.
Umm, no it doesn't. My position is that you have no evidence. If you disagree with that, then unless you come up with some you are categorically wrong.
I'm categoricly wrong when you can provide the complete lineage of mans evolution from a single cell. You can't even muster the courage to admit you can't even prove without a doubt how the first single celled organism came into being, but trash me for not following the idiotic pipe dream that is faith based evidence very lite.
None the less, your belief is teachable and my belief, both based on the uprovable, is not.
Your belief is definitely teachable as whatever it is, which isn't science.
Okay, me beliefs are not science and your beliefs are not supportable. I can live with that.
Down through the ages, there have been many people judged to be heritics.
Yes, well, the most common reason for that is because they were.
If that's the case you'd like to make, I'm willing to let that premise stand. I'm not buying into it.
Today the scientific community is the one making that charge, all the while claiming the high moral ground. Science is not faith-based. What on earth makes you think that just because you represent it that way means anyone has to take you seriously?
This from a person who cannot prove his theory, cannot disprove anyone elses theory, and is wasting more time than is necessary to admit to it.
Excellent! We seem to be reaching a consensus that you need not be taken seriously. You are correct, however, I am not demanding faith-based beliefs to be taught at all.
No, it would simply be a theory that you would choose not to accept.
Umm, no. Actually, your statement would simply be false.
Science at one time accepted that the earth was the center of the universe.
Science corrected itself based on evidence.
You'll have to excuse me for realizing that today's belief on the origion of the species is based on acceptence of something that is not provable.
It's based on evidence; the same basis on which the heliocentric solar system is based. And, no, there's no acceptable excuse for your misconception.
It's rather comical that I have to keep saying this, because those on your side keep reiminding me that in science nothing is provable.
No, they don't. I haven't seen anyone remind you of that. What I have seen is people waste their time trying to explain to you what a theory is. That's their prerogative, but my conclusion based on the evidence is that you are incapable of understanding what a theory is, and so I haven't tried to explain it to you.
The preponderence of the evidence reveals that we do not know where man came from conslusively. That statement is scientificly sustainable and you know it.
I have already conceded that, but it has nothing to do with the debate at hand. That statement is also scientifically sustainable, and you should know it. (I won't hold my breath.)
Based on the evidence, evolution is not far removed from Saturday morning cartoon plot lines.
What evidence? Oh, that's right. You don't have any. So, whatever.
So what you are saying is that when the United States voted for Clinton twice, everyone should have adopted the majority opinion? There you go again...
LOL! You would be amusing if your incapability to think rationally was unique.
Since your theory cannot be proven, and the preponderence of evidence doesn't sustain what you say it does, then I can come to no other conclusion that that your statement was false.
What on earth are you babbling about?
Your own words have betrayed you. Based on flimsy evidence you have opted to believe the theory of evolution based on faith.
The evidence supporting the theory of evolution is overwhelming. What your silly version of unreality makes of it is of no consequence to me.
That may be acceptable to you, but it's hardly an example of scientific purity.
It's also acceptable to the scientific community, which actually matters to me infinitely more than your opinion.
The evidence does not prove what you believe. Why are you having such a hard time with this concept?
Because you forgot the part where you don't need to be taken seriously unless you come up with evidence to support what you're saying. To be honest, I'm unsure why I'm even humoring your inanity. It's very out of character for me. (Just being honest!)
...at least by me. LMAO, look I'm not particularly interested whether you take me serioiusly or not.
That is good, because if you were interested in being taken seriously you are most definitely going about it the wrong way.
For a guy that has expressed his belief in something that is not sustainable, but gets upset when others don't, I find it rather cute what you're trying to pass off as reasoned.
What's cute is that you don't realize what a spectacle of ignorance this statement is.
Well you're welcome to you own conclusions on that. For what they're worth.
My conclusions are supported by evidence, which makes them far more worthy than your baseless assertions.
Isn't it interesting, you are impressed by the evidence and I'm impressed by the lack of it.
No doubt. I imagine you must be extraordinarily impressed with yourself then.
You can't even muster the courage to admit you can't even prove without a doubt how the first single celled organism came into being, but trash me for not following the idiotic pipe dream that is faith based evidence very lite.
Another characteristic lie on your part. I admit that I can't prove without a doubt how the first single-celled organism came into being. I have never denied it or pretended otherwise.
This from a person who cannot prove his theory, cannot disprove anyone elses theory, and is wasting more time than is necessary to admit to it.
All I am trying to prove here is that you need not be taken seriously. So far, it's looking pretty good.
Otherwise, you haven't presented a theory, so there's nothing to disprove.
And I've not wasted any time admitting anything you've asked me to admit.