guys you can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into.

i'd rather put my faith in the scientific method than a 3,000 year old jewish fairytale.

basically in this thread we've had climbtree show his blatant lack of knowledge on evolution and equate it with just about every stereotypical smear and misunderstanding of evolution in the past 150 years. congratulations climbtree, you're dumb as hell.

and we see yet again reizhan demonstrate his complete understanding of the world (nothing at all). i'm criticising evolution from the standpoint of the scientific method that you'd rather put your faith in, but nice work using 'jewish' to discredit the religion.

omcifer i don't know what you're doing, and flowerpower this is reason. this is what reason is! this is reasoning! you're reasoned into reason, you're not born with it. look at reizhan!

you're criticizing evolution from an incredibly ignorant and nonsensical standpoint.

you really don't know what you're talking about! go read a few books.

"IF A THEN B
B B B B B B B B B B B B B
THEREFORE, A"

"that's logically invalid"

"YOU JUST DON'T KNOW JACK ABOUT A AND B"

keep reading, you'll get it eventually

No ryan I think you need to keep reading because you keep falling deeper and deeper into the climbtroll's trap

my personal belief is that everything in the bible is true, we might just not know how or why yet.

I think this did it for me. Or maybe the part where he repeatedly states that the theory of evolution is racist and flawed but doesn't explain why.

idk, if he's trolling he's just making himself look like an enormous retard so w/e! he's not RILING ME UP or whatever so either way he's just really dumb and annoying.

keep reading, you'll get it eventually

o king of the academy

No ryan I think you need to keep reading because you keep falling deeper and deeper into the climbtroll's trap

I think this did it for me. Or maybe the part where he repeatedly states that the theory of evolution is racist and flawed but doesn't explain why.

this is a weird summary of what i was saying and i don't know how you got here. i said the logical basis of evolution is flawed (this doesn't mean it doesn't 'make sense') and explained why, it's unfalsifiable and primarily post hoc (in use at least in light of the citrate experiment). with regards to racism i said it justifies and encourages racism, unless you adopt some weird mind-body stuff. differences between groups become genetically determined adaptative differences, i didn't think i'd have to back this up. here's an example, men are explained as having better spacial awareness than women because men needed the skills while hunting, while women didn't. i used a similar example earlier except said critical reasoning to make it more ludicrous. i thought these arguments were widely enough known that people would pick up on them but instead i've got steel telling me that actually there's a cultural component to mathmatics.

climbtree, did you write the ending of t4?

Those are the bones of satan, therefore it just proves the bible was right.

I guess it's just not "cool" or "edgy" to believe in young earth theory anymore ¬¬

and we see yet again reizhan demonstrate his complete understanding of the world (nothing at all). i'm criticising evolution from the standpoint of the scientific method that you'd rather put your faith in, but nice work using 'jewish' to discredit the religion.

omcifer i don't know what you're doing, and flowerpower this is reason. this is what reason is! this is reasoning! you're reasoned into reason, you're not born with it. look at reizhan!

Since when did using 'Jewish' make something less credible than 'christian' or any other mythology for that matter?

Since when did using 'Jewish' make something less credible than 'christian' or any other mythology for that matter?

exactly. if i called you a jewish piece of shit, why didn't i just call you a piece of shit? in this context i'm using jewish as a derogatory

Yes, read all preceding posts by climbtree for an accurate depiction of the evolution deniers' diatribe.

At the end of the day, he still thinks he's right about evolution being either unverified or unverifiable (or even that it's unfalsifiable), despite not even knowing the most basic of facts about the natural sciences.

i didn't deny anything and i said it's too verifiable. you can find countless things to verify it but logically that's not good enough. when someone asked me specifically about whether or not i believed it i said i was wary of passion cause there's a lot of stuff i don't know, but it's not logically sound and i don't know what uses it really has apart from gross explanations.

i've already used this example so here it is again, the modern day car evolved from the horse. as the horse's environment changed from dirt tracks to roads, horses with wheel mutations had an advantage in breeding. horses still on dirt tracks remained unchanged, while those on the roads became more and more car like. this is supported by finding more and more cars and more and more horses. furthermore there are horse skeletons with shortened and missing legs, and cars with horse like skin.

there's no way to prove this wrong! granted cars don't have dna so natural selection for gene spread wouldn't be an issue but imagine anything similar. if the only reason to disregard an example like this is because it's unbelievable, well believability isn't a science at all.

now i'm basing my responses on the grounds that you're not understanding where i'm comming from. if you're trying to twist my words as a rhetorical technique to 'defend your faith' or whatever that's fine, but i'd like to know so i don't have to continually repeat myself.

Well.. the problem here is that cars and horses aren't really the same thing.
I get your point that everything's just theories, but you got to agree that the current evolution theory is way more.. accurate-sounding than the bible one. Now if there suddenly popped up a undeniable "truth" about some whacky bible stuff, it would be a different story, but now.. you're just babbling about.

exactly. if i called you a jewish piece of shit, why didn't i just call you a piece of shit? in this context i'm using jewish as a derogatory

Huh?  That's not what I was referring to.  You were the one who was bothered by someone calling it 'Jewish'. 

Why would that bother you, especially since it IS Jewish?  'Jewish' doesn't discredit religion.  The guy wasn't using it in a derogatory way.  I was annoyed that you were bothered by it, not that the other guy said it.

Well.. the problem here is that cars and horses aren't really the same thing.
I get your point that everything's just theories, but you got to agree that the current evolution theory is way more.. accurate-sounding than the bible one. Now if there suddenly popped up a undeniable "truth" about some whacky bible stuff, it would be a different story, but now.. you're just babbling about.

this is dumb but i'm going to address it so you come back and mostly to make myself feel like a Big Guy. if you think cars and horses aren't really the same thing then wait until you get a load of this: neither are people and dinosaurs. you can use evolutionary theory to link the both of them though. i already said just because it sounds reasonable doesn't mean it's using sound reason, and neither does sounding way less.... accurate change anything at all. this is close mindedness that is but isn't supposed to be characteristic of the scientific method. maybe ulcers are caused by bacteria? POPPYCOCK

i also never made a point that everything was just theory so i don't know what you're getting

Huh?  That's not what I was referring to.  You were the one who was bothered by someone calling it 'Jewish'. 

Why would that bother you, especially since it IS Jewish?  'Jewish' doesn't discredit religion.  The guy wasn't using it in a derogatory way.  I was annoyed that you were bothered by it, not that the other guy said it.

here's a little language lesson:
"i'd rather put my faith in the scientific method than a 3,000 year old jewish fairytale."

this isn't a statement this is an argument. first and foremost it's a personal reference, ryan does this fairly often. "i'd rather have no morals than have your disgusting teeth" - he's comparing his beliefs to mine. to give his more weight he establishes a dichotomy between science and creation (hint: the judeo-christian creation narrative isn't the only creation story), discredits creation and privileges science. how does he do this? glad you asked. he elevates science by drawing on discourses of 'progress,' it's not 'science' or 'a scientific theory' it's 'the scientific method.' method implies an ongoing process that is contrasted with the '3,000 year old' creation tale, favouring the new. It's fairly obvious why he used 'fairytale' rather than 'idea,' 'story,' or 'narrative,' it's also to discredit.

so why did he use 'jewish?' are you really so daft to think it was as a simple identifier? that we might not have understood what he meant if he said '3,000 year old fairytale.' it's drawing on racism. "i'm not going to do what some jew tells me," pure and simple that's what it is. i wasn't bothered by it, i pointed it out. i'm not jewish, i could care less that he's a racist. i was pointing it out in retaliation for the character call (belief in fairytales) and because i know he'll care.

you're really dumb.

that would mean more coming from anyone else, or maybe if i was talking about guitars or marxism.