Evloution is not a valid scientific theory

A closing statement as good as any.

But I'll give you 9 to 2 that it ain't good enough!

 

It is the fundamental tip of an ice berg if you want to roll the dice.

 

Evolution - It is fact not theory...

 

You'd think that, wouldn't you?
But stick around.

 

I thought this thread died already....

 

This guy is kidding and openly admits to do so.
Hence "I hope you don't always find it pointless replying to my posts, i do try "

Inconsistencies and logical fallacies are so obvious that, needless to say, the poster is just playing around and lets everyone , except the most egregiously dimwitted, readers know it.

Takes an idiot to take it seriously or to praise it as a brilliant proof of validity of evolutionary theory.

 

You're grasping at straws.
It's over.
Creationist lose by concensus.
Now go Evolve!

 

Just because in your convoluted dreams you imagine yourself to be clever enough to put a trap of a false dilemma here doesn't mean I will be the one falling for it.

I noted earlier that if I were stauch Darwinist and there were no "Creationists" around I would pay to create one.

It makes so much easier to make people accept that UFO flies on Horsepoop if the only other alternative is that some bearded magic man in the skies manipulates it.

No, geckopelli, you won't get this trick of yours through with me, for I see it for what it is too clearly.

I know what my position is - it is that we simply don't know the mechanism responsible for the evolution of a single simple archaic cell into homo sapience.

It doesn't matter how many times you imply that I said bearded magic man in skies made us into what we are, the fact is I never said such thing.

Likewise, no matter how many times you type same Positive Assertion about validity of Darwinism, it won't become valid simply because you type so.

 

Your obsession with horsepoop and your delusions of godhood have blinded you.
You stand alone in a multitude.

You have successfully martryed yourself on the cross of creationism.

 

I guess you fail to recognize that this thread is not about me or my individual characteristics or whatever you may think I am but rather about Darwinism being or not being scientifically valid theory.

How could one continue a reasonable exchange with an opponent who doesn't even know what the subject matter of discussion is

 

I am unaware of a time when I was not.

 

Seems the loss is yours.

 

First, I can't lose even if someone successfully proved validity of the theory. I would simply cease doubting it.

Second, I observe that no one was yet able to back up their own Positive Assertion about validity of the theory , ergo those who merely repeat the assertion without backing it up indeed lose their argument.

 

By your measure to make the assertion is enough to maintain the argument.

 

But I never said that. In fact my insistence to contrary is what upsets all these hoax perpetrating Darwinists.

Munchausen would be proud of these hoax perpetrating Darwinists!

 

If they proved it to you, then they will have lost their argument.

 

Their argument is that Darwinism (or whatever they please to call it) is a scientifically valid theory.
If they proved their argument they wouldn't lose it by definition.
It is lack of plausible argument to back up their Positive Assertion that makes them lose.

 

If they are arguing, that constitutes plausible argument. Supporting argument is the same as initiating argument. Proofing in the case of you ceasing to doubt would end their argument thus they loose their argument.

 

I know you are a troll, so I don't respond to your posts for the sake of responding to nonsence , rather to show other readers how convoluted the logic of your statements is.

1.Any argument can't be equated to plausible argument.
If someone argues that elephants can fly, such argument can't be said to be as plausible as an argument in favor of airplanes being able to fly.

2.Supporting argument is not the same as initiating it.
You can initiate argument by stating something, like "Darwinism is scientifically valid theory".
You can't say your argument is supported merely because you have initiated it.

3.Noone argues for the sake of endless argument. To do so would be a useless waste of resources with no practical goal achieved. In fact, it is the best and most efficient to end argument as quickly as possible by establishing validity of it's premises as firmly as possible.

 

Argument and proof are two different entities.

Initiation and support share a common impetus.

That is why I am demanding integrity from your first premises.