New Model of Evolution Finally Reveals How Cooperation Evolves

[Shadow Wolf]

The go burn any book that says science does not prove/disprove things.

We're pretty much done. Any suggestion of book burnings shows just how unwilling you are to learn and take in things that you don't agree with (don't bother replying because you're on my ignore list now).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Reminds me in one of myriad Trump threads when I said his diet and lack of exercise on top of his age might do him in early. Sure, there is plenty of evidence that gallons of soda, buckets of KFC, Whoppers and Big Macs are some of the worst things you can put into your body, and lots of evidence that not exercising and being sedentary promotes poor cardiovascular health and increases the chances of heart disease, especially when you're 70-years-old. But, despite this evidence, I did not say it will do him in because it may not. Despite the evidence, there is no proof this will happen.
Sort of like how cigarette package warning labels say things like "may cause" or "increases the chances of" or "known to cause." Of course there is a great amount of evidence to suggest these things can happen, but there is no proof they will happen, even though every smoker out there has lungs full of tar.

 

[omega2xx]

They've been trying to explain to you how science operates, but you refuse to take it in. You'd rather rely on creationist bilge, for some reason.

It is hilarious that when you evos have no answer, you try to link what I say to my religion.

That there is more than one blood type does not come from the Bible. It comes from what real science HAS PROVED, and it can't be fasified.

I still think you're a POE, anyway.

That is another common comment made by those who have no meaningful response to the comments of others.

 

[omega2xx]

Funny how everyone educated on the subject seems to understand it, except for you. Everyone educated on the subject has tried to explain it to you numerous times. If it were me, I'd take that to mean there was something I was misunderstanding and I'd probably look into it some more. Not you though. Hey, to each his own, I guess.

They, like you, have explained without offering any evidence. Explanations without evidence are only opinions.

 

[omega2xx]

Absolutely false. Evidence can never prove or disprove something, it can only make something more or less likely to be true. That is the one and only thing evidence can ever do. Basic epistemology.

Pass the mustard, it makes the bolony taste better. Why hasn't any of you deniers of real science explained how we know there is more than one blood type?

One of you experts should have falsified it by now, but you can't.

 

[omega2xx]

You are completely wrong. Most things I know are not subject to proof at all. They are simply the most likely to be true given the evidence one has compared to alternative proposition. I know proposition X if, given all evidence E, Probability that X is true P(X) is much greater than probability that X is false P(X'). Thus roughly X is known to be true if P(X|E) >>P(X'|E). For people actually interested in how science works from evidence to determining which hypothesis about reality is likely to be true, see link below.
Hypothesis Testing

How sad

 

[omega2xx]

We're pretty much done. Any suggestion of book burnings shows just how unwilling you are to learn and take in things that you don't agree with

When you can proe Iam wrong, get back tdo me.

(don't bother replying because you're on my ignore list now).

Thank you.

 

[sayak83]

How sad

Your state of complete deliberate ignorance has my compassion. Remain ignorant by all means. What a sad waste of a life.

You are now on ignore list.

 

[omega2xx]

Your state of complete deliberate ignorance has my compassion. Remain ignorant by all means. What a sad waste of a life.

You are now on ignore list.

Good.Now I get a free shot at your remarks. You are not on mine and I will try to correct you when you make untrue statements about the Bible or Christianity.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Good.Now I get a free shot at your remarks. You are not on mine and I will try to correct you when you make untrue statements about the Bible or Christianity.

Every once in awhile I'll click the show ignored content button for usually one of two reasons (irrelevant to the discussion), but, in this instance, oh my god am I so glad I clicked so I could witness a Christian saying they are going to gladly and proudly take vocal "free shots" from behind a one-way window.
And FYI, you may respond to our posts, but we can still see what people post to you, and may still end up debating against you without even actually saying anything directly to you.

 

[omega2xx]

Every once in awhile I'll click the show ignored content button for usually one of two reasons (irrelevant to the discussion), but, in this instance, oh my god am I so glad I clicked so I could witness a Christian saying they are going to gladly and proudly take vocal "free shots" from behind a one-way window.
And FYI, you may respond to our posts, but we can still see what people post to you, and may still end up debating against you without even actually saying anything directly to you.

Embellishing what I say is dishonest. I didn't say I was going to take free shots, I said I could--strike one.

I didn't say I would do it gladly---strike 2

I didn't say I would do it proudly---strike 3

I am sure you know what 3 strikes means

 

[SkepticThinker]

They, like you, have explained without offering any evidence. Explanations without evidence are only opinions.

Actually, many people have put plenty of evidence right in front of your face for you. That's the saddest part about your posts, really.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is hilarious that when you evos have no answer, you try to link what I say to my religion.

That there is more than one blood type does not come from the Bible. It comes from what real science HAS PROVED, and it can't be fasified.

You said you take your scientific information from ICR. That is creationist bilge. Maybe don't bring things into the conversation you're not prepared to stand behind. Just saying.

That is another common comment made by those who have no meaningful response to the comments of others.

I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

 

[omega2xx]

Actually, many people have put plenty of evidence right in front of your face for you. That's the saddest part about your posts, really.

The saddest part of your post is that you do not understand what qualifies as scientific evidence.

 

[omega2xx]

You said you take your scientific information from ICR. That is creationist bilge. Maybe don't bring things into the conversation you're not prepared to stand behind. Just saying.

The scientist at ICR have PHd's in various scientific field. They are better qualified to comment on the lack of science in evolution , than anyone in this forum

I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

Perhaps an optrometrist could help you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The scientist at ICR have PHd's in various scientific field. They are better qualified to comment on the lack of science in evolution , than anyone in this forum

"The Institute for Creation Research is unique among scientific research organizations. Our research is conducted within a biblical worldview, since ICR is committed to the absolute authority of the inerrant Word of God. The real facts of science will always agree with biblical revelation because the God who made the world of God inspired the Word of God."

How We Do Research | The Institute for Creation Research


No. No, they're not.

 

[omega2xx]

"The Institute for Creation Research is unique among scientific research organizations. Our research is conducted within a biblical worldview, since ICR is committed to the absolute authority of the inerrant Word of God. The real facts of science will always agree with biblical revelation because the God who made the world of God inspired the Word of God."

That simply isn't true, When writing about science matters, they seldom mention the Bible and NEVER give it as the reason for rejecting the evolutionary view. Some of the evolutionists in this forum accuse me of the same thing, but I also never mention the Bible. It should not be part of any discussion about science. I do occasionally mention "after it kind, because that is prove thousands of times every day and can't be falsified.

No. No, they're not.

The explain why, why they are not.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That simply isn't true, When writing about science matters, they seldom mention the Bible and NEVER give it as the reason for rejecting the evolutionary view. Some of the evolutionists in this forum accuse me of the same thing, but I also never mention the Bible. It should not be part of any discussion about science. I do occasionally mention "after it kind, because that is prove thousands of times every day and can't be falsified.

It's true. It's on the mission statement page. It's undeniable.

The explain why, why they are not.

It's pretty obviously self-explanatory.

 

[omega2xx]

It's true. It's on the mission statement page. It's undeniable.

It's pretty obviously self-explanatory.

You are misreading the statement. They NEVER say they will compromise science because of their religion. I challenge you to post one fact they said that is not based on real science.