Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
I disagree. Not possible.
"His friend?" I've never even talked to the guy. I can't even post on his visitor messages for some reason.
I'm surprised you got in in the first place to be quite honest.. you are still crying about me. Instead of refuting points. Lol. Factual? Do you not understand the fact that fossil evidence doesn't support your theory? Where are the billions of transitional fossils, and why are the fossils archeologists supposedly find hidden away on some random website and not in the newspapers or public eye?
Well lets see. Your fallacy: A believes C, B believes C, therefore A is B.
You didn't call out any logical fallacies. Quote or respost if you did, or just post new ones about my general ideas. I hardly even care anymore, it's just so tiring..
I'm going to quickly skim through your posts in this thread.
Appeal to Ignorance. Instead of trying to prove the creation story is right you merely suggest it's never been proven wrong (which it has).
appeal to popularity, just because something is popular doesn't mean it's correct. For hundreds of years it was very popular to string up blacks and hang them in trees.
If this was true Ronald Reagan should have never become president, and he wouldn't be regarded as one of the greats. The general population is resistant to sudden big change.
I would like to see some data to back this up.
I wouldn't know I'm old fashioned I don't ask people what they believe. However I think Del who's a theist believes in Evolution.
I wouldn't say you have the same information as everyone largely because you didn't seem to know about the existence of mammal-like reptile fossils. I would argue that your unshakable faith has driven you to see something that isn't there. Only reason I think this to be the case is because my faith use to be unshakable and I thought evolution was loaded as well.
I became an atheist after years and years of thinking about my own theistic beliefs. The overwhelming evidence for evolution, didn't play a role in my conversion from christian to atheist. In fact it was a slow process for me, It wasn't unshakable faith to disbelief. I've always been a thinker and a logical one, but I always assumed god had to exist because of my theistic up bringing, once I opened myself up to the possibility I might be wrong I began to see things more clearly.
Nope.
I'm bias toward ignorance and ideological assumptions. If you look at my posts in the DH you might be able to see that, I have an undying hatred toward institutions or anything for that matter that cause one to not think.
Tell that to Thomas Bradly. He was consistantly polling high numbers against his white rival. It was a given for him, that he was going to win. Up until election night the polls didn't change he was still in the lead.
Again I point the Bradly effect and how often it's reared it's ugly head.
Because my religious affiliation or lack there of should have no bearing on my ability to lead a country. This is why our found fathers said there will be no religious test on running for office. If I'm a well qualified person who policy decisions would benefit the US and yet I'm not elected because every Sunday I sleep in instead of praying, and appologizng to a man who I have no idea exists. That's a load of crap.
You could, you have the image for it.
That would account for about 10% of your funds, every major presidential hopeful gets their money for special interest groups and corporations. Both John McCain and President Obama recieved large amounts of funds from special interest groups.
Yeah because when I think of George Bush I think of Charisma.
Is that why every president before Obama has been a white guy?
True but india is a hindu state, which was my point. I'm not saying every Indian is I'm saying that since India is a hindu state indians will be associated with that. Much like how I'm an American will be associated with christianity.
Probably feel like bashing your head against the keyboard?
That's generally how it use to be done, the aggressive I hate everything Atheist use to be a minority.
I never said anything about whether it was right or not. I said
Ok. You and your entire squad of neo-darwinists were telling me that a majority of scientists believe it and that it was just a fringe theory.
By all means... if you can find one..
I'm making flashcards.. but I already rarely make any logical mistakes (and none that you've pointed out).
People hate having to change themselves in any way.
I'll respond with:
This is almost like an appeal to popularity as well, but not quite..
Well Miller does too. But "Scientists" in the way you meant it means more than two.
The problem is you don't have access to the same information either, because I've read over 20 books on the subject of God, creation, and evolution. So I know quite a bit more than you about this, don't you think? Plus I read from different perspectives.
I became a christian (for real) in like 8th grade. And even then I was shaky as anything.
That's good.
I hope this wasn't a slight on me or anything.
Today. not 20 years ago, when poll rigging was still possible.
I'm sure it has something to do with it.
Maybe because you have a need to tell everyone they're wrong and stupid (three of four atheists I talked with at my school told me just this).
I point to Democracy, and majority wins. Why should a minority rule over the majority? That's how revolutions start.
There are a lot of voters. Issue voters, party voters, etc. Most people vote for the person they identify with more, for better or for worse.
Religious beliefs affect your worldview, which affects your morality, which affects your political decisions on candidates and issues.
No.. you have to be a lot of things that I'm not. You also have to want the job. I personally think that God also chooses our Presidents, and I don't want to be one anyway, so it's all good.
Go look at his speeches when he was governor of Texas. He really was very charismatic and intelligent, I just think the stress of being President and campaigning wore him down a lot. He used to be a great speaker.
Yeah, and that's not an association anyone wants. I'm just trying to say that it's not a good thing to do. If you confused Hindu/Indian, whatever, I was just pointing it out, not trying to flame.
I'd like to see some data for this. (to quote you)
Appeal to popularity.....again.
Wrong you're using argument out of popularity to create doubt of the story being debunked.
The problem here is evolution has overwhelming evidence for one and two a scientific consensus usually isn't considered part of "Argument out of popularity"
No but you were alluding to it.
It was because you were using it's popularity to bring legitimacy to it's claims.
You've made quite a bit so far.
I suggest you brush up on your politics before you continue this any more.
Not even close, I'm showing you that god and evolution are not mutually exclusive. What is there to back up with data? YOu want an example? Miller is my example. He has every reason to believe in ID but he doesn't, because of the evidence for evolution.
Okay what are you getting at here?
So because you read 20 books on it, you're more qualified to debate these topics then? Or you're some how much smarter then me? And you called RDK an elitist.
I've already answered this it was in my post a page back. I linked various articles about the existence of these fossils, the fact that you're disputing their existence reinforces my initial statement that you know very little about evolution.
No I'm simply saying I've been in your position before. (not the exact position obviously but yeah.)
Didn't you just say god came into your life 3 months ago?
Sounds like your bias world view to me.
Looks like you'll be waiting millions and millions of years, because that's how long macro evolution takes.
The last results that day were on exit polls, those exit polls showed a huge advantage for Bradly, however he didn't win the election.
That's good to know, but you have people in town hall meetings flying off the deep end, because they're screaming at these things saying. "We want our country back." I'm sorry your country back from what? Obama hasn't done anything radical he's just your standard corporate democrat, the only difference between him and any other corporate democrat is he's half black.
Maybe if you didn't doubt well known scientific theories you wouldn't be called out on for those things.
I never doubt that, I'm calling it sham.
Because ones religion should have no bearing on their character.
Which is why I called it a sham.
Don't be a smartass you know what I meant.
Not true, this is only apparent in the Christian right, moderates, liberals, libertarians do not have the same point of view as that.
Which is why you have religious politicians who are against school prayer, for womans rights, against creation in public schools. Their religious beliefs haven't clouded their judgment.
you took it to personal I didn't specifically mean you I meant the image you have.
The Alcohol and drugs probably played a roll too.
It's a general association though.
Because Dawkins, Harris and all of them are positive atheists they affirm that there is no god and that religion is hateful and wants to kill your babies blah blah. Which has become the majority of atheists recently.
Can someone else please tell him that wasn't a fallacy? I wasn't saying "THis is popular so its right." I just said "This is popular so its not a fringe theory."
Lolz.. my politics are lacking? Where did this come from?
Yeah, and you just admitted pretty much that you can't prove your generalization.
To show a trend you need more than two scientists. An organization or interest group is usually cited to show specific trends in modern thought.
Assumption. You said I didn't have as many facts as you. I'm saying I have more, not that I'm smarter than you.
The fact that these missing links between humans and apes don't exist is interesting. Cause with all of them, the scientist came out later and said he filed the bone or used a bone from another creature.
Nope.
SO this guy might have got cheated at the polls.
Appeal to popularity...
And I call macroevolution a sham. Now we finally know what we believe..
Don't be a smartass you know what I meant. [/QUOTE]
I'm against school prayer.
It's easy to play the victim isn't it? Only 44 people have ever been president. statically, it is close to impossible for anybody to become President.
We disagree, whatever. But you can't argue that he didn't used to be very persuasive and smart. Just watch some youtube video of him as governor.
can you just get over it.. you made a dumb error.. who cares, stop trying to rationalize it..
Cool...
If you'll read my post I said I read from both sides.
So much for toning this down..
William Bennett, Jr., Scientific and Engineering Problem Solving With the Computer
This is a debate hall, is it not? If you want to withdraw from the argument, feel free to stop posting. Or reading. If not, feel free to continue. But, no one is forcing you to say anything in response. Just, for the record.
My understanding is that it is generally accepted that, a long while ago, there was a very large flood. Of course, I'm only telling you what I've heard. I do recommend not being so... acidic in your criticism of people, but rather pick at their arguments with that same tenacity. If you can find weaknesses in their arguments that are not "You can't prove this," then people will likely listen to your points more. Because, "You can't prove this" applies to both sides.
Really? 50? You want to be specific enough for people to hold you to no less than 40 other reasons? I'm not saying you're wrong about there being a flood. I'm saying 50 is a big number of things that prove it. Not unreasonable... but large.[/quote]
The idea of an Intelligent Designer, whom I shall assume is God, brings up an interesting theological point here. And, that point is that God is beyond proof, and only exists in faith. This completely makes God beyond the idea of evidence, or anything other than ourselves feeling fairly confident in His/Her/Its existence. It makes the idea of Intelligent Design, as a scientific theory, worthless. As a belief? Sure, it's fine. But, as a scientific theory, it becomes somewhat useless.
Mutations are not limited to being cancerous. A mutation is any time the original DNA of a cell changes its form. This can happen seconds after conception. That doesn't make a baby a form of cancer, suddenly. Though, it might have a really nasty disease.
Everything? Really? 120,000 years ago, everything stopped evolving? Wow. I better go start unmaking people's dogs, since 120,000 years ago, a good number of the breeds we have today didn't exist. Poor creatures. Never knew they didn't exist.
Isn't THAT the argument for ID? That's roughly my understanding of the argument.
Are you aware how fast cells divide after conception? I think they split in under a second for a good while. I might be wrong, and I'll double check that, but if I learned anything about reproduction, it's that babies grow REALLY fast. And, how would you know if something on a microscopic level was mutating. Let's take a single celled organism. Let's also say it splits once every hour. For no reason. If you're watching that thing, every second of those hours, and watching all the copies, there is still the chance that one of them, on a scale you cannot see, even with a microscope, has changed somewhat. Now, with single celled organisms, it's a smaller chance, since they have a tendency to reproduce asexually. But, even then, it's not unreasonable to assume that one out of every... let's say... 10,000 isn't exactly the same as the other 9,999 critters.
Who has been telling you Lucy was a fake? Because, in the 35 years since her discovery, I'm fairly certain that no one would have ever even bothered to mention her if she'd been debunked. And, I very strongly doubt she'd be touring the US if we had proof she was faked.
All facts are true. That's why they're facts. History can be falsified, but a fact, such as when on earth, objects tend to fall at roughly 9.81 meters per second squared, doesn't change.
Please. Over the top is this turning into a hockey game. Or a fist fight. I have difficulty telling the two apart. Anyways, the point is, a 12 page debate isn't that long. People have written books on one side of an issue, only to have someone else write a counter to their specific book. That's like... 800 (ish) pages of debate between the two guys. (I'm assuming roughly 400 pages a book.) So, 12 pages is really nothing big.
That is not a conclusion to your argument. That is called "Changing the subject." It's a tactic used by people that want to avoid a particular topic, because it somehow makes them uncomfortable.
He's a creationist. The answer is obvious.
Plenty of perfectly reasonable people of fairly high intellect are creationists. However, they view the creation differently than the way most IDers view it. It's unfair for you to imply that all creationists are... educated poorly. It is also unfair of you to attack GOD!s intelligence to make your point. That's a step below debating. That's politics. /zing
Mm. I was tired when writing that. Still, my point stands that attacking his character is something that people should be above.
You wanna get in? ThenSorry I haven't active here lately but between the internet not working and been on vaction there has just been no time for me to be active. I still think I am ready and able to become a Smash Debater. I am just feeling a litlle bit discouraged that I am not a Smash Debater yet. Mewter believes I am ready and hopefully you do too. Also if you still want to debate with me (Riddle), I am still willing too.
j/k
) of intelligence with each and every post, but the threads that I feel I debated well in are:
I will be running my analysis with inline quotes and critique where needed. I will also give you all appropriate criticism here.First off I would like to say that I attempt to post with the same level (being high
Atheism and "Forced" Conversion: http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=243926
j/k), there really isn't too much to debate well here. Moreover, you just give your two cents and let the argument take place. There was possibly some red meat in debunking the Little input put here as well. Sure, recidivism is a good look for this subject, but what about the other aspects? AltF4 and I hinted towards this, but didn't want to give the PGers the setup fully--after all, you are in the PG to show your competence in debating. Some topics that could have furthered the argument are the woes of the music industry (viz why pay $16 for a CD? Why pay iTunes 99 cents for an inferior copy of music? &c.).
Where's the beef? Good points raised, but could use more sources and such.
Nice debating here. Doesn't need many sources, but still debated fairly well.
Upshot:You have a lot of potential to be on the DH. However, you need to work on sourcing more. The more credible sources you have in an argument, the better your debating will be. If you have anymore questions, feel free to PM me.Please read all of my posts because I believe I have proven myself and I am 100% dedicated to these boards. Hopefully you see my potential and vote for me to become a Smash Debater!
You need to source more and not repeat points already made by others.
You live and you learn. Omnicron, find me on AIM and we can discuss how to further improve your debating...I think I need more time in the Proving Grounds, does anyone agree?
*sigh* That Atheism and "Forced" Conversion topic made me look like a fool. That was a bad performance on my part.
But focus on other ones!
You are knocking on heaven's door, Omni...
j/k
Not AIM, I don't have one. Gmail is a contact option however.
Dayum homes, you want your name pink that bad?
Good to see you are enthusiastic...
This site sucks. And two/three days. Two different topics.Dayum homes, you want your name pink that bad?
In all honesty, you are making good strides. However:
Cure these three maladies, and you're in.
- You have posted for one day! (as I type this)
- You have way too much clumped text. MOAR N-LNE QUOTIN PLZ?
- Not enough sources...
Cool story, bro.
yea...rules...maybe i should just forget this altogether.
Don't split hairs homes, you have been posting (as I type this) for 1 day, 9 hours, and 28 minutes. Get @ me.
Cooler story broham.
I use sources when I think they are necessary. Perhaps I don't know when and when not to use a source? I'm pretty sure I do, but then again my professor always deducted points off my grade because of sources. This is something that most likely won't change, I'm afraid .Don't split hairs homes, you have been posting (as I type this) for 1 day, 9 hours, and 28 minutes. Get @ me.
You are doing good. IMHO you can do better by taking my suggestions to heart. Just trying to help...
Cooler story broham.
