NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 24 2016,03:16) | | Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 24 2016,01:39) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 24 2016,01:16) | | Quote (Texas Teach @ Aug. 23 2016,15:58) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 23 2016,06:52) | | Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 23 2016,06:38) | | Talk about starting with your desired conclusions! Gary, can you see the weaknesses of that approach when someone else does it? |
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Even you start off with conclusions. |
Oh the humanity!
Gary, this is why you don't understand science. |
Did you or did not at some point in your sordid life conclude that given the evidence you were given Darwinian theory makes more sense than what Ken Ham and others have been trying to teach you? |
And what does that have to do with anything?
Check the evidence. Ham is untruthful about stuff and is wrong in his claims, and the evidence again and again supports standard geological interpretations and evolutionary theory, so we draw conclusions from that, as is appropriate. |
Oh, so you too regularly start off with a conclusion.
And you think it's appropriate to draw from it even more conclusions, just because they make sense to you. How sad. |
Gary, this is quite possibly the stupidest thing you have ever asserted.
Is it possible for you to lay out your reasoning, or whatever passes for 'reasoning' in your world, to justify this absurdity?
Do you understand that words have meanings, and that it matters?
Do you understand the meanings of 'assumption', 'presupposition', 'hypothesis', 'premise', and 'conclusion'?
Do you understand how a conclusion can be used as a premise once it has been established?
Well, of course you don't.
Justify your assertions, tell us what these words mean, and show where and how anyone here, other than yourself, starts with their conclusion and then proceeds to find evidence for it. But you don't even see what's wrong with that approach.
Contemptible.
|
