Famous Scientists Reject Darwinian Evolution

Originally posted by RJHinds
Another strawman. I said GREAT scientist, that means the famous scientist, not the so-called atheist scientist of today.

The Instructor

And again you prove my point.

You have no clue what a strawman argument is...
It's just a buzz word you have seen others use and that you don't comprehend.


There is no "the famous scientist".

And as an ignoramus fundamentalist Christian you have no say on what constitutes
a real scientist.

You are never going to change your mind about evolution because you stupidly believe
based on faith rather than reason and evidence.

We are never going to change our minds about evolution because we believe based on
reason and evidence and reject faith.


Your thread and constant posts about evolution are thus a pointless waste of time and
effort.

You have lost man of the dark ages. We had the enlightenment, your time is centuries past.

You've lost.

Do so gracefully or silently or just elsewhere.

Originally posted by googlefudge
And again you prove my point.

You have no clue what a strawman argument is...
It's just a buzz word you have seen others use and that you don't comprehend.


There is no "the famous scientist".

And as an ignoramus fundamentalist Christian you have no say on what constitutes
a real scientist.

You are never going to change your mind about e ...[text shortened]... time is centuries past.

You've lost.

Do so gracefully or silently or just elsewhere.

He's a troll, he's not a Christian, I know some good Christians (from both sides of viewing what a Christian is) and he's not one of them. According to what I read in the chess thread he's an engine user, and if there is a God will be punished for it. Don't feed the troll.

Originally posted by DeepThought
He's a troll, he's not a Christian, I know some good Christians (from both sides of viewing what a Christian is) and he's not one of them. According to what I read in the chess thread he's an engine user, and if there is a God will be punished for it. Don't feed the troll.

Have you ever considered the possibility that one can be lucky and get some almost flawless looking wins without being an engine user during his games in progress.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Have you ever considered the possibility that one can be lucky and get some almost flawless looking wins without being an engine user during his games in progress.

The Instructor

Not that high a match. Not even Kasparov would rank that high a match against engines. You must think we are so stupid you want us to believe you are not using engines.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Not that high a match. Not even Kasparov would rank that high a match against engines. You must think we are so stupid you want us to believe you are not using engines.

You have already been accused of being one with the smallest amount of common sense and less than half a brain, so what could you know? Kasparov has beaten chess computers before. He beat IBM's Deep Blue in the first match by 2 points and only lost by one point in the second match.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_versus_Garry_Kasparov

You are implying that I am better than kasparov and anyone knows that is ridiculous, except one with the smallest amount of common sense and less than half a brain.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
You have already been accused of being one with the smallest amount of common sense and less than half a brain, so what could you know? Kasparov has beaten chess computers before. He beat IBM's Deep Blue in the first match by 2 points and only lost by one point in the second match.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_versus_Garry_Kasparov

You are ...[text shortened]... cept one with the smallest amount of common sense and less than half a brain.

The Instructor

So invite us up to your flat and let us see you make your perfect moves on your own.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So invite us up to your flat and let us see you make your perfect moves on your own.

I live in a 4 bedroom house and none of those rooms will I reserve for you numbnuts.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I live in a 4 bedroom house and none of those rooms will I reserve for you numbnuts.

The Instructor

I live in a 7 bedroom house and the same goes for you.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I live in a 7 bedroom house and the same goes for you.

Thanks!

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
You have already been accused of being one with the smallest amount of common sense and less than half a brain, so what could you know? Kasparov has beaten chess computers before. He beat IBM's Deep Blue in the first match by 2 points and only lost by one point in the second match.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_versus_Garry_Kasparov

You are ...[text shortened]... cept one with the smallest amount of common sense and less than half a brain.

The Instructor

No, we are not implying you are better than Kas. We are saying up front nobody can make moves in game after game that matches an engine/cpu combination, not even Kas. That just proves beyond a shadow of a doubt you use engines and we are just waiting for the day when you too follow the lead of Ironman31.

Originally posted by sonhouse
No, we are not implying you are better than Kas. We are saying up front nobody can make moves in game after game that matches an engine/cpu combination, not even Kas. That just proves beyond a shadow of a doubt you use engines and we are just waiting for the day when you too follow the lead of Ironman31.

This is way off topic. Is attacking my character the only way you have of responding to the the fact that famous scientist rejected Darwinian Evolution or what is also known as Evil-lution?

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
This is way off topic. Is attacking my character the only way you have of responding to the the fact that famous scientist rejected Darwinian Evolution or what is also known as Evil-lution?

The Instructor

Those 'famous' scientists reject evolution because they can't stand to have it replace the fairy tales in the bible, they don't have real data, just video's on you tube. That is not the way science works.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Those 'famous' scientists reject evolution because they can't stand to have it replace the fairy tales in the bible, they don't have real data, just video's on you tube. That is not the way science works.

Whatever.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Whatever.

The Instructor

Whatever? That's your big refutation? Why do you think it is science if a bunch of creationist's who happen to be scientists giving an opinion on a youtube video is science? That is not science. That is an individual giving an opinion.
Science is where you have a person or a team of people gathering data, sometimes for decades, coming to a conclusion with that data, publishing a reason for that data in the form of a hypothesis that other scientists can try to falsify and if the data holds up and the hypothesis is defended well by the scientists then it becomes the best theory to explain whatever phenomena the scientist has studied.

That kind of scientific effort uses the exact same sequence of data gathering, hypothesizing and so forth that any other scientific effort uses, the same for atmospheric phenomena, for astronomy, for math, for biology, for genetics, for evolution, for geology.

Timelines have to be computed using many different methods, in geology, there are something like 20 different methods that all converge on a date for ages of rocks and formations.

That is why creationists who happen to be scientists will never go beyond just voicing their opinion on a youtube video, not for science but for religious political reasons. There is no science in a youtube video, only opinions. You seem to think that actual science is being done on youtube but you are seriously mistaken about that.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Whatever? That's your big refutation? Why do you think it is science if a bunch of creationist's who happen to be scientists giving an opinion on a youtube video is science? That is not science. That is an individual giving an opinion.
Science is where you have a person or a team of people gathering data, sometimes for decades, coming to a conclusion with ...[text shortened]... think that actual science is being done on youtube but you are seriously mistaken about that.

The creation scientists also gather data over a period of time and do experiments and all that stuff too. They just come to different conclusions than the evilutionists.

I like their conclusions because it agrees with the way I think about it. Evilution seems stupid and not practical too me.

These videos of their work and opinions are sometimes posted as youtube videos by other people for all our benefit, so we are better informed than just having one side, like the Soviet Union used to do to their citizens. Now we don't want that, so that is why some of us believe the problems with evilution theory should be taught along with intelligent design.

The Instructor