Evloution is not a valid scientific theory

No, thedope, that's not what you demand. What you demand is that we shut down our critical thinking and accept for a fact that darwinism is a scientifically valid theory, without any shred of relevant evidence or plausible argument to back it up.

As I said earlier, since I am not in the habit of insulting my own intelligence I will not take any tall tales for scientific fact.

If you make Positive Assertion go ahead and validate it.
Or else you have none to begin with.

Simple as that.

 

I demand it of your point #1

I demand it of your point #2

I demand it with the full force of proof of your point #3

 

You can demand nothing.

But one who makes positive assertion is obliged to back it up or else they have none to begin with.

Simple as that.

 

These are three positive assertions. Go ahead.

 

Nope, I will not, since it's not the subject matter being discussed under this thread.

 

The point is jumbuli is that we can't even get to the topic because your rules of debate are based on unsubstantiated positive assertions.

 

And the argument in support of darwinism is?

 

on the other thread.

 

Link please?

 

Some things never die. It's almost Halloween. The undead are among us--mindless, heartless, and thirsting for blood! Muhahahahahaha!

 

I question your souces, your knowledge, your credibility, and your sanity. Fair game all. You have exchanged nothing but your pomposity for the answers given.
All you've done is hold your breath and call me a liar, fail to present any case whatsoever, and deny to acknowledge the mountain of evidence that has fossilized your ignorance. Zero is the word that best describes your contribution to the discussion.

You've lost. You've lost the debate, you've lost credibility, and I personally fear you've lost your grip altogether.
You are without reason, logic, or purpose.

Give it up-- you're embarassing yourself.

pray to your creator, creationist.

 

That's what Jumbuli meant when he said "false dillema". It is not logical to say that he must be in support of creationism if he is not in support of evolution. That is to assume there are only two possibilities or that he cannot suspend his belief untill sufficiant proof has been made for one or the other.

To Jumbuli
You are mistaking if you do not think i have meant what i have said on this thread (for the most part). It's just that i dont take this sort of stuff seriously, it is still for fun none the less.

However for you to claim that my argument is illogical is very disappointing. It seems you only like logic when it applies to what you want to say. I would've hoped you would appreciate a little stimulating debate, but now i'm not so sure .

 

I never said he was a creationist for the reason cited.

Early on it was Reasonably established that jumbulli was preaching creationist dogma and reposting from creationist websites.
His words revealed his dogmatic belief system.

In any case, his insistence on labeling Science as something other than it what it is, coupled with his refusal to state a position and inability to present any credible evidence and/or argument whatsoever, strips him of the right to claim foul.
I for one, will not subscribe to his childish insistence on one set of rules for himself and another set for others.

He's lost this debate multiple times to multiple posters. Does any reasoning person say otherwise?

 

I agree, particularly since the affirmative position is (in Jumbuli's very own words) "Evolution is not a valid scientific theory". That sounds like an assertion to me, and the affirmative in a debate has the burden of proving the proposition posited. So it looks like the affirmative fails for lack of a serious effort to support it.

 

No, Mr Okiefreak Mountain Tall Tales Munchausen.

Jumbuli has repeatedly told you that to doubt Positive Assertion is not the equivalent of making one. And you already know that, it just serves your hoax perpetrating troll purposes to force me make an argument where I had none to begin with.

If you come and say you can become a Pope tomorrow and I am an idiot if I don't believe you, guess what?
Do you think I will be obliged to prove that you can't? Or that I would accept it as true, merely to avoid being called an idiot by you?

This is ridiculous and you know it! I am not one making a positive assertion to back it up. I merely doubt it and say go ahead and validate your own assertion.

How can you make an absurd, baseless claim and then expect me to seriously debate and argue against it? If that's what you truly expect of me then why don't you show some example of what you really mean and dispute my claim on parallel thread that UFO's are rocketplanes flying on a horsepoop?
Shall we now say that it's a proven scientific theory since you didn't go ahead and vigorously disprove it?

Learn the rules of logic and civilized discussion from monkey boy. I will gladly listen to his arguments on the subject and in the process, as he bring arguments in favor, I will look at those, study and think and respond along the way.

If you are interested you can participate as well, but be a grown up , be rational and follow the rules of argument and stop this ad hominem nonsense and silly trollings.

 

But YOU made the assertion; "Evolution is not a valid scientific theory." I was just quoting you. And the post specifically states that as the affirmative position. I haven't supported it. You haven't supported it. No one has supported it. Therefore, it fails.

 

No, Mr Munchausen

YOU made an assertion that Darwinism is valid when you also made fool of a guy who doubted it.
I said then, very well, that particular guy in question indeed could be a fool but how does it validate your own positive assertion?

After a while you started this thread (after arguing over this subject with me on Mind Fuck subforum and some other threads). This thread, along with it's title, is your creation, not mine.

As to my statement that positive assertion is not valid until proven to be so, it's just universal rule of logic and argument.
You can't arbitrarily change that if it doesn't suite your purpose.

That's just how it is.
If you make a Positive Assertion (Evolutionary theory is scientifically valid) then you are obliged to back it up.
If you don't then your positive assetion is by default invalid.
It just logically follows that your assertion is not valid if you can't back it up.
Simple as that.

 

Do you doubt that these are positive assertions?

 

You're very confused. The thread on which I made the original reference to Darwin (which you bizarrely mistook to be an assertion) was "Do you think less of Christians' intelligence". Somebody brought up the fact that people can be dumb in some areas and smart in others. I brought up the example of Charles Johnson, then president of the Discovery Institute (Is he the guy you said I "made a fool of"? He does it to himself; he needs no help.). I didn't say a thing about evolutionary theory, which would obviously be irrelevant and inappropriate on that site. I mentioned that he believed his stroke was God's wake up call for him to spend more time with his family. I made a joke that he overlooked the possibility that it was payback for dissing Darwin. If you think that's an assertion that the theory is valid, calling for all of the stuff you're demanding, you're in the same class with Johnson, further illustrating my original point that people can be smart on some things and dumb or nuts on others. You replied "Darwinism is not a valid scientific theory". When you persisted in bringing it up over and over again on that thread where it was inappropriate, I took your words and moved them over here to accommodate you and leave the other thread open for relevant posts. But obviously I have no interest in defending the statement, since I made clear I disagreed with it from the outset.

 

Not at all.
You begin your post with stating something which isn't true, but no surprise there

Pray to Darwin, Okiefreak, to get me confused so you can make yourself appear to be less of Munchausen than you are, but evidently your champion fraudster Darwin lacks any such omnipotence as to confuse me, along with overzealous hordes of his dogma worshippers.

If you didn't assert that Darwinism is a scientifically valid theory then what a fool you must have been to argue with me for tens of pages (including on Mind Fuck forum) that it was !

I don't have to assert it isn't valid theory to say it lacks validity, just as i don't need to prove non existense.

If you really believe what you say (that i must prove non-existence or vigorously argue and back up negative assertion to doubt positive assertion) then why don't you go to parallel thread and show me how you prove that UFO is not a rocketplane that flies of horsepoop? And if you don't, do i have a scientifically valid theory there?

Who can deny that the obligation is on the one who makes a positive assertion to back it up?

If you say you can become Pope tomorrow I am not obliged to prove you can't to doubt it and you can't say "Jumbuli, Okiefreak proved that he CAN become a Pope tomorrow because you didn't prove he can't!"

And you know it well by now [or you must be an imbecile if you still don't, after being told and explained at least 100 times why it is the obligation of one who makes positive assertion to back it up. But I don't think you are such an imbecile not to comprehend such a simple logical concept, I think you are a hoaxter who knows better but pretends not to for the sake of perpetrating a hoax].

And if you don't have a positive assertion to begin with, then what are you doing here, typing tens of pages on this forum while pretending that the hoax called darwinism has anything to do with the science?


As to Charles Johnson, I don't know who that man was but you may be surprised to find out that the term synchronicity was coined by Gustav Jung ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity ) and later the idea was developed by Vic Mansfield, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Colgate University (d.2008).

Yes, there are some physicists (and formerly a psychologist) who have this kind of world perception where they connect certain coinciding events as manifestation of invisible connection or meaning , and speaking from strictly scientific point of view it doesn't strike me as valid either.

Now all this stuff from psychology and physicists take on it may be fun to read, but what relevance does it bear on Darwin's theory being scientifically valid?