First of all, none of your arguments use Bayesian statistics. I have yet to see even one calculation done.
Second, yes, Bayesian inference is illogical and unworkable because of the New Riddle of Induction and the Problem of the Priors.
No, it's more than that. It's also a claim that gravity occurs because space is curved. Newton, on the other hand, never attempted to explain why gravity occurred.
Yes, I know you cum in your pants at the name of Einstein, but in reality his theory is not all you have it cracked up to be. Yes...
How did you learn to walk?
You were young, probably even less than one year old. All the evidence seemed to indicate that you could not walk. You had tried, unsuccessfully, multiple times. Nevertheless, you persisted. Perhaps your parents reassured you that you could do so. Perhaps you made the...
No. See the Quine-Duhem Thesis.
This should be interesting. Please indicate the amount of confidence I should have in the theory of evolution. Use actual numbers. Show your math.
You are obviously ignorant of the Quine-Duhem thesis. If you had heard of it, you wouldn't be making such foolish claims.
Let's take a simple example. Let's say that we propose to test the speed of light. We set up a simple experiment and we measure the speed of light, but surprisingly it comes...
Well, it's obvious that you don't know what the heck you're talking about. Therefore, I refer you to Is Gravity a Theory or a Law? | The Happy Scientist , which explains the difference between a theory and a law.
Well, that sounds great in a textbook, but it doesn't actually work in the real...
Where do I get this stuff from? Well, I get it from Stanford University. Have you ever heard of it?
No, what you are arguing is that a scientific theory is a mystic thing that deserves special consideration. You believe that it deserves to be believed and accepted as real. this is called...
What wonderful hypocrisy on your part! Here you complain that creationists require you to post evidence when it is freely available at the touch of the Google button. Yet you require me to provide "proof of one" when anyone with Google can see that what I am saying is 100% correct.
Let's start...
So your argument, in a nutshell, is that one logical fallacy proves nothing, but when you put a large number of them together, as Sayak has, they prove evolution?
You really don't get it, do you? All right. Let's establish the argument simply so that you can follow it.
When you say that theory...
All right. Why don't you explain what the argument is. If you could use symbols such as the ones at Symbolic Logic { Philosophy Index } that would be great.
No, you didn't give any reason. Yes, you spouted some ideas about how atheists don't need evidence (special pleading) but every argument...
Yeah, because that's all there was. Here—why don't we try this? Construct some sort of an argument that you think supports the idea of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (hereinafter called "neo-Darwinism" or just "Darwinism"). Additionally, if you could use logical symbols such as the ones at...
I don't have time to waste on your post as you didn't bother to address any of the points I made. I imagine that you didn't understand them. So I'll just address your link to Sayak:
Okay, so if Darwinism=="TRUE" then Biological Similarities will == "TRUE"
Evidence of Biological Similarities...
Here's a friendly tip. A closed mouth doesn't catch flies. So if you have nothing to add, maybe you should keep that mouth shut and the flies in the world safe.
Oh, here we go. You cannot come up with your own wrong things to say so you need to quote an expert on wrongness. Let's start here...
All right. It's obvious that I need to dumb it down for you. I could probably explain it till I'm blue in the face and you still wouldn't get it, but let's give it a go.
Imagine that you have some Evangelistic Bible Thumper guy who wants to prove that the Bible is true and thereby that the...
Well, yes, it certainly is surprising considering that the data are totally irrelevant to the discussion although neither they nor you seem to realize that. I suspect that it's some kind of a stalling tactic or a knee-jerk response. They sense that you're wrong, but you're probably talking about...
Well, have you tried using a dictionary? It's a book that tells you what words mean. Here's an online version:
Definition of ORTHODOX
Orthodox = traditional view conforming to established doctrine.
What is the authoritative body that determines the established doctrine? Well, it depends...
There's no reason it should. Orthodox comes from two Greek words: orthos, meaning straight, and doxa, meaning opinion or notion. I use it to mean the approved point of view.
No, I use it to refer to the decision that came out of the Council of Trent, the 19th ecumenical council of the Roman...
Well, I have already done so elsewhere in the thread, but I will accommodate you.
It is the standard orthodox Christian view that there was no death until after the fall. Even carnivorous animals did not eat meat before that time (same link). Presumably, after the second coming of Christ, it...