Evloution is not a valid scientific theory

Okiefreak,

Stop arguing with your bitch.
It would be more productive if you go stand in the corner and read Lewis Carrol to the wall.

Horsepoop,
Since you will no longer address my posts, I, (and the rest I suspect), will consider that I have made my point that your souces, your knowledge, your credibility, and your sanity, are of questionabe value.

 

And the pot called the kettle black.

 

No Xac ,
no matter how many times you repeat that making Positive Assertion is an equivalent of Doubting it just won't be so.
Nor do I have to mount Negative Assertion to prove non-existence.
It's the obligation of one who makes Positive Assertion to also back it up.
Simple as that.
It's the universal law of logic, you can check , cross reference and read about Positive Assertion and Doubt of such on your own free time (evidently you don't know the difference nor do you know what PA is as opposed to Doubting such).

.

 

I like your new signature, it really expresses the real you!

 

Speaking in a language more suitable to a hoodlum on the street corner may get your steam off for a little while, but i don't see how it proves the point that what the hoax perpetrating darwinists call "evolutionary theory" has anything to do with the science.

I will not return the favor and call you names, that's not the subject of discussion here.

What matters is that darwinism is a religion andl dogma worshippers had failed so far to produce anything but insults, ad hominem or inverse ad hominem arguments in it's support.

Simple as that.

:cheers2:

 

Do you doubt that these are possitive assertions?

 

I will not waste my time on mere digression.

What I DO DOUBT is that darwinism has anything to do with science.

To be precise, I doubt the assertion that the modern evolutionary theory is sceintifically valid.

Those who assert it is also have obligation to back it up.

The rest is digression and I won't waste any time on it.

Next!

 

That you fail to address a point of order, is not a digression, it is out right self proclaimed ignorance.

 

No, thedope, it's not about semantics as you wish to make it appear by repeating questions that have already been clearly and accurately answered by me.

The way you construct your questions is one of the reasons I initially assumed you were alter ID of Okiefreak, who in his dimwitted mind may have created you to attack me "from opposite side" as it would appear to him, since he was always assuming that my criticism of his arguments in favor of New Synthesis were pure semantics, wordplay and manipulation of word definitions rather than reasonable questioning of logic applied in reaching an arbitrary conclusion.

Even if you are not Okiefreak, I must say your IQ level is close to if not equal to that of Okiefreak and must be measured in single digits, because you ,just as Okiefreak,fail to distinguish and discriminate between reasonable questioning of logic applied in reaching an arbitrary conclusion vs semantics, word play and word manipulation used to invalidate otherwise logically consistent and plausible conclusion.

Since you are a troll, I am not answering your posts for the sake of educating you (as a troll, you have no interest in knowing the subject only posting to disrupt and diverge attention), but I have to reply to your nonsense posts from time to time to make it clear for other readers that you are a mere troll who has no argument to begin with and no amount of nonsense you post will make the original assertion of the grandest Troll Baron Tall Tales Okiefreak Munchausen's that darwinism is scientifically valid theory

Simple as that

 

When you call me a troll you assign to me motives which I do not possess.
You defend yourself against imaginary creatures and deny the reality and salience of my posts.
As for readers I can assure you that they do not require your remedial instruction.

 

And you can type all you want, it won't make Positive Assertion about darwinism being scientifically valid theory anymore valid.

 

No, but it would lend enormous validity to your claims.

 

But you fail to notice that I am not willing to make any claim in regards to the mechanism responsible for evolutionary processes.
Darwinists do.

As such , they are the ones obliged to back up their own claim, I have no obligation to prove non-existence and mount Negative Assertion to Doubt what they claim to be a scientifically valid theory.

In the process of exchange of their arguments and my responces to those, I do come up with logical statements questioning the logic the Asserting party employs to come to certain conclusions and to validate their claims.

Someone says Munchausen flew to Moon on cannonball because some other people whom they hold in high esteem said so.
In such instances I question the logic and method of arrival at such conclusion and say it's an Inverse Ad Hominem Argument which does not validate Munchausen's initial claim.

Then you come up with very obviously fallacious charge of "But you do Assert that Inverse Ad Hominem Argument is an Inverse Ad Hominem Argument which is not self-evident to me, so let's now leave aside the whole topic of darwinism and focus instead on your self evident asseretion being what you say it is".

Now what kind of argument is that? You really believe I will fall for it ?
Or are you attempting to insinuate that the self-evident assertion of calling Inverse Ad Hominem argument what it is is an equivalent of Positive Assertion that has nothing but Inverse Ad Hominem argument to back it up?

Who are you trying to confuse here?

If me, then you fail, as usual.

If readers, then that's doomed to fail as well because (as said earlier) i will respond to your posts from time to time to clarify things for those readers who may otherwise get confused by convoluted logic and nonsense you post that never has anything to do with subject of discussion but always seek to serve diversionary tactics.

 

I have indeed notice your reluctance to participate in a meaningful manner to the discussion. You do make positive assertions in your points of order in regards to,
What level of participation is required by you.
What level of participation is required by others.
Who is qualified to speak.
What they may speak about.
What the name of the thread "should be".
What constitutes evidence.
and on




.

Absolutely no one.

 

Prove the assertion that darwinism is scientifically valid theory !
Do you have any argument to back up such positive assertion?
If yes proceed!
If not then you have no argument to begin with.
Simple as that. The rest is diversion.

 

Jumbulli, why are you here?

this is the one night you don't have to put on a costume. you can go out as the Troll you really are!

Happy Halloween!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Thats your response? When i said "the pot calling the kettle black" what i meant, is you are in the same position that you were criticizing Okiefreak about.

It's an old saying that means you're a hypocrite, i said it in regards to you calling Okiefreak a fool for arguing for pages on end.

My logic is so sharp it looks like you just got cut by it because your response failed to adress me criticisim what so ever, but your rhetoric is good.

Having said that Jumbuli, if you think i am wrong, that must mean you think you are not wasting your time and are actually proving something. The results of this discussion will determine who was right about that one, and i think that will be me... good luck :cheers2:

 

I thought you denied that assertion? Anyway, that assertion has been thoroughly destroyed by yours truely, so give that one up.

 

No, Xac
I didn't begin a thread or start discussion saying i doubt something to say later i didn't doubt anything all along.
It was Okiefreak who after dosens of pages of arguing in support of his own assertion and opening two threads dedicated to it suddenly said that he had nothing to assert in the first place.
In fact I am consistent in my position and as of now it's evident to me that these darwinists are bunch of hoax perpetrating Munchausens or dogma worshipping zealots who don't even have a clue about subject they attempt to discuss.

I have yet to hear anyone back up positive assertion made in regards to theory in question (that includes you).

You can not arbitrarily say I am just as inconsistent as Okiefreak when observable facts point to the contrary.

You could say i am foolish enough to waste my time with bunch of Munchausens here , but then it's up to me to make an individual choice on how to manage my time and besides i do it solely for my own entertaintment and for fun in general (not to confuse with trolling).

Since this activity entertains me [and consequently makes me feel good] i don't think it is such a foolish decision to engage in it.

Your logic may be razor sharp in your imagination but i don't observe it to be so as i read your posts. Sometimes i don't even comment - so obvious [and needless to comment] logical fallacies in your responces are.
I also consider you to be a half troll or somewhat funny troll , so i don't spend as much time showing fallacies in your statements as i do when baron Okiefreak Munchausen starts to perpetrate his usual hoaxes while putting on a straight face.

Well, I have written and explained it numerous times before but let me be clear on this once again.

I do not mount Negative Assertion but I do Doubt the Positive Assertion made by some other posters and question them when they attempt to back up their assertion with illogical and unsupported by plausible arguments conclusions.I kept doing so as long as they continued repeating "this is so just because it must be so and there is no way it could be any other way" mantra.
Perhaps those who made an assertion and then argued endlessly in favor of subject they evidently have no clue about are the ones who really wasted their time on it ? Regardless, it's up to each individual to decide how to manage their own time and is irrelevant to subject matter of discussion.

Now, is there still anyone who maintains that Darwin's Religious Theory of Evolution has anything to do with the Science?

:cheers2:

 

Xac,

You are now an official member of the "I squashed jumbulli's ignorant rant like a bug club".

Welcome, fellow traveler!