Science isn't All That Reliable...

But I didn't. So, you are arguing a "what if?" situation that never occurred.

My integrity is questionable? At least I confront your arguments instead of hiding behind semantics. Why don't you confront the fact that evidence was provided by Darwin? That's a lie right there. You also lied about Darwin's work being 70-80 years old. That's a lie. See how this works? By your own standards you have lied more than me, here.

 

Now, getting back to the topic of this thread. No one desires to refute the evidence shown above how science is unreliable and untrustworthy?

 

Of course science isn't 100% reliable or 100% trustworthy, Incorporeal. Nobody here is arguing that. But, we aren't the ones lying here (or you're being willfully ignorant), nor are we the ones creating strawman arguments.

 

My links are not a part of a lie nor are they a part of any strawman argument. . . They are factual matters that have occurred within recent history... they involve the scientific community and clearly point in the direction of the topic of this thread.

 

When did I say I was discussing your links? Your links prove what, exactly? That there is debate in the scientific community? No, (*)(*)(*)(*), you just pointed out that science uses the scientific method, what a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing mind blowing fact.

Or what? That some people take advantage of the scientific method? Well, no (*)(*)(*)(*), humans aren't infallible.

Both facts are basically tautologies.

 

If you were not discussing my links, then your post here http://www.politicalforum.com/4342311-post128.html was off topic.

Science is not infallible either. Science in the hands of some people is also a crime... as pointed out in a couple of those links.

 

And your point is that it isn't 100% reliable, I get that. What is your MAIN point? Nobody in this thread has EVER made that argument. That is why it is a strawman argument.

 

Your opening statement above answers the question you ask. Therefore, your suggestion of a 'strawman argument' is in fact a 'strawman argument'.

 

Um, no. You provided evidence that science isn't 100% reliable. So what? Nobody here has said that? This entire thread started with a misguided attack on science through clear errors. Thanks for playing, but nobody really cares to take an argument from a creationist liar like yourself that hides behind tangential, and in fact inaccurate, attacks on me. Why can't you deal with the substance of issues you yourself brought up?

 

Arguing against the claim in the thread title 'Science isn't All That Reliable...'is not arguing that science is 100% accurate and reliable and has discovered everything.

Once again Inc displays why he's a creationist instead of a rational human being.

 

Correct! I brought up evidence to support the title of this thread. Now you say "So what?"

Did I suggest or say that someone had made such a declaration? No? Then your statements are tangential.

Specifically call out those "clear errors" and show the link to the suggested posting(s).

Talk about attacks on you. It is you who started the attacks by referring to me as 'stupid' along with my thoughts and opinions.

I have been dealing with the 'substance of the issues' it is you who have gone off on the tangents. Wanting to make an issue of my opinions.

 

Okay, well then to that I say: Oh well. You provided minimal evidence that science isn't reliable. I could do the exact opposite and we wouldn't get anywhere. Let me be the first to admit that science isn't 100% reliable.

They have nothing to do with the topic, though, according to you. Nor do they have anything to do with you, only Blackrook. So, no.

Are you still on that crap? Yeah, wow, I called your opinion stupid, go cry about it.

Really, when have you actually addressed my post about how Darwin did bring up evidence in his work? All you've done is called ME a liar. How is that better than me calling your ideas stupid? I even pointed out how according to your own logic, I didn't lie and YOU did.

 

The difference is in the fact that I showed you by linking back to your post and explained how your comments constituted a 'lie'. You did no such thing with regard to me... you just threw out the old antiquated Atheistic chant referencing a theist and called me a liar without showing any proof of where I have told a lie.

 

Inc you are a walking logical fallacy.

 

Considering that we are operating from the vantage of two differing forms of philosophy, I could and will call you a 'walking logical fallacy' from the perspective of that form of philosophy that I utilize. Now we are on equal grounding.

 

What? No laughing Invisible Pink Panda?

 

K.

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/202803-science-isnt-all-reliable-10.html#post4341783

Lie.

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/202803-science-isnt-all-reliable-9.html#post4341415

Lie.

Are we done here?

 

And in either of those two cases, you have not shown how you construe those statements to be a lie or a series of lies. You lose.

 

Sorry Inc, that's not how logical fallacies work. It's not a view point, it's a type of argument.

 

Since Inc doesn't "believe" in Evolution I guess he thinks that genetics is just something that scientists made up, that the frequency of genes in a population remains fixed, in other words if 25% of people have blond hair today then 25% of people will always have blond hair.

 

You think that Darwin lived 70-80 years ago? The man died in 1882 and On the Origin of Species was published in 1859:

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

And I already provided quotations from On the Origin of Species that contained evidence for his theory. What the (*)(*)(*)(*), do you have Alzheimers?

 

I believe in a lot of differing forms of evolution. Just not the one you bow down to. Evolution as you and others on this forum describe it is best described as a "best guess" scenario. Even genetics is not 100% accurate.... again, just a 'best guess'. Does science do anything that is 100% correct?

 

No, because it isn't a religion.

 

STRAWMAN ARGUMENT ALERT!

You're a worthless waste of oxygen. IL again you go. Arguing with you is as pointless as arguing with a cat.