The Problem of evoL

[◊ Weezer ◊]

I think you guys must have awfully boring lives to be spending your time with this crap.  If this is what this forum is turning into, I'm out of here.

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

 

Precise answer of Dead On Arrival is correct?  3-sphere? 

 

Yes, providing that you...

 

1)  Accept that inference and deduction are valid.

 

and...

 

2)  Accept that Friedmann's solutions to general relativity are correct and apply to this universe.

 

and...

 

3)  Accept that Occam's Razor can be applied here.

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

 

 

 

What you are doing here is grappling.  Jockeying for position.  I'm sure there is a logical fallacy or two upset at you.

 

Even if I am, I shouldn't have to.

 

The fact that you are clearly avoiding answering my question tells me that you appreciate it's power.  This is the kind of tactic we see from cornered Christian apologists when they realize that to answer a question honestly is to lose face, lose credibility and lose the argument.  

 

So, this is dishonest behaviour from you Duderonomy.  You are well able to answer my question and you've had ample opportunity to do so.  You've simply chosen not to do so.  

 

Which is interesting, seeing that when you asked my 'what is truth?', I was honest enough to answer that I didn't know.  And this seems to be the difference between us.  I will answer a question honestly regardless of how bad it makes me look.  But you seem to have another agenda going.

 

Anyway, for the time being I will answer your questions and simply hope that you will answer mine.  But my patience with you won't last forever.  You seem to like duking it out and giving the rules of debate the finger.  But I'm a debater and I prefer to debate with others, as equals, on that basis.  

 

 

Walter.

[duderonomy]

On 9/17/2022 at 5:03 AM, walterpthefirst said:

 

This is very naughty, Duderonomy.

 

I asked you a question and emphasized that it was important.

 

But, instead of answering it, you've dodged AND asked me one.

 

A debate consists of the asking and answering of questions, therefore...

 

Please answer the question I put to you about about the centre of the Earth.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

In the spirit of you not wanting to bother to look for the thread of BAA and myself discussing relative motion, I have to ask you which question you emphasized as important. I remember there was one, but it didn't seem important to me at the time so I moved on.

 

No offense intended. A little sarcasm yes, but I don't remember the specific question. If I remember we were on about a couple of things at once. 

 

 

 

 

[duderonomy]

20 hours ago, Weezer said:

I think you guys must have awfully boring lives to be spending your time with this crap.  If this is what this forum is turning into, I'm out of here.

 

 

Weezer, the passive-aggressive tryouts have been postponed again due to the continuing COVID-19 pandemic emergency so we are unable to accept this entry at this time.

 

The Moose should have told you.

[walterpthefirst]

7 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

 

In the spirit of you not wanting to bother to look for the thread of BAA and myself discussing relative motion, I have to ask you which question you emphasized as important. I remember there was one, but it didn't seem important to me at the time so I moved on.

 

No offense intended. A little sarcasm yes, but I don't remember the specific question. If I remember we were on about a couple of things at once. 

 

 

 

I'm not offended Duderonomy and I did say that I would answer your questions, even if you wouldn't answer mine.

 

So, in that spirit of helpfulness let me remind you of certain things.

 

 

On Thursday you wrote...

Oh, and please present your evidence that Earth is not at the center of the Universe.

Before you do that though, find the thread where BAA and I argued over this very same thing and read it.

 

I refused to do that, not because I couldn't be bothered, but because you ordered me to do it.  Here in Ex-C we are equals and you have no right to order me to do anything.  As I said yesterday, I follow the rules of debate and this is one of the debating areas of this forum.  So no member has the right to order another to anything, unless they are a Moderator.  Are you a Mod?  No.  So I don't have to jump to do what you command.  But, if you had just asked...

 

However, I decided to let that pass and to do what you wanted provided that you did the necessary work.  So, when it comes to that thread about relative motion, you were the one who couldn't be bothered.

 

 

Anyway, here is the question (highlighted) you asked about, quoted in its full context.

 

You are all over the place here Walter.

I understand, so let me phrase it like this: You claim that Earth is not at the center of the Universe. Can your science show this?

 

That depends on what you mean by 'show' Duderonomy.

Science can show that the centre of the planet Earth is a hot, metallic core.  If you accept that, then you have accepted something from science that cannot be 'shown' by direct measurement and observation.  No scientist can journey there to take temperature readings.  Instead, science uses inference and deduction to arrive at the conclusion that the Earth's core is huge sphere of hot metal.

 

Do you accept that the Earth has a hot metallic core, just as science has 'shown'?

 

This is an important question, so please answer it.

If you answer was Yes, then you have expressed a secular confidence in the way science works. If you answered No, then how do you propose to find out if the Earth really has a hot metallic core?  If you reject the use of something but cannot replace it with a viable alternative then where can you go with your rejection?  I have no idea.

 

In the same way Duderonomy, using inference and deduction, science can 'show' that we are not at the centre of the universe.  Speaking for myself, I have secular confidence in the process I've described.  But that is a matter of personal choice.  If you can accept what science shows about about the core of the Earth but can't accept what it shows about us not being at the centre of the universe, then that's not my problem.

However, I would point out that I am being consistent.  If you can accept one thing that science can deduce but not another, are you being consistent?

Thank you,

Walter.

 

 

[duderonomy]

15 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Do you accept that the Earth has a hot metallic core, just as science has 'shown'?

 

Walter, this is the big question in question, is it not?

 

No I don't accept it, and you don't get to define what it means that I don't, or why. 

 

 

You need inference and deduction to show that the Earth is not the center of our universe and the best you can 'show' is relative motion.

 

 

 

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

I will ask both of you.  What will be accomplished by playing these mind games?  And, is it in the best interest of what this website was designed to do?  

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, Weezer said:

I will ask both of you.  What will be accomplished by playing these mind games?  And, is it in the best interest of what this website was designed to do?  

 

I'm sorry Weezer but Duderonomy has been forcing my hand here by hunting me down, trying to use my own words against me and challenging me over and over.

 

But I'm drawing this to close now.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Walter, this is the big question in question, is it not?

 

No I don't accept it, and you don't get to define what it means that I don't, or why. 

 

You need inference and deduction to show that the Earth is not the center of our universe and the best you can 'show' is relative motion.

 

 

And there we come to an end of it, Duderonomy.

 

You don't accept it.

 

Therefore, it's a matter of personal choice on your part.  The fact that the rest of the world happily accepts what science infers and deduces isn't up to me.  It's up to the rest of the world.  So, when I explain something in this forum that uses inference and deduction I'm doing no more than every scientist in the world does and accepting no more than everyone else who relies upon science does.

 

Now, if you're going to pounce on me every time I use inference and deduction why don't you explain to Weezer how doing this is in the best interests of this forum?  He's shown some interest in our exchanges.  Please explain your actions to him.

 

I'm out of here.  Bye!

 

Walter.

[duderonomy]

18 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

And there we come to an end of it, Duderonomy.

 

You don't accept it.

 

Therefore, it's a matter of personal choice on your part.  The fact that the rest of the world happily accepts what science infers and deduces isn't up to me.  It's up to the rest of the world.  So, when I explain something in this forum that uses inference and deduction I'm doing no more than every scientist in the world does and accepting no more than everyone else who relies upon science does.

 

Now, if you're going to pounce on me every time I use inference and deduction why don't you explain to Weezer how doing this is in the best interests of this forum?  He's shown some interest in our exchanges.  Please explain your actions to him.

 

I'm out of here.  Bye!

 

Walter.

 

This is so pitiful, but OK.

[midniterider]

On 9/19/2022 at 8:02 PM, duderonomy said:

 

Walter, this is the big question in question, is it not?

 

No I don't accept it, and you don't get to define what it means that I don't, or why. 

 

 

You need inference and deduction to show that the Earth is not the center of our universe and the best you can 'show' is relative motion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have faith that someday scientists will find the creamy whipped nougat at the center of the universe...because Science changes its knowledge as new evidence is uncovered. Nougat is one of the constituents of our planet. I have seen it and eaten it. It's just a matter of the James Webb telescope finding the motherlode.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

9 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

I have faith that someday scientists will find the creamy whipped nougat at the center of the universe...because Science changes its knowledge as new evidence is uncovered. Nougat is one of the constituents of our planet. I have seen it and eaten it. It's just a matter of the James Webb telescope finding the motherlode.

*Snickers*

 

...

 

*Then snickers again because it was a funny pun about nougat-filled candy bars.*

[midniterider]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

*Snickers*

 

...

 

*Then snickers again because it was a funny pun about nougat-filled candy bars.*

 

Rimshot.. badump tshhhh

[duderonomy]

On 9/21/2022 at 12:15 PM, midniterider said:

 

I have faith that someday scientists will find the creamy whipped nougat at the center of the universe...because Science changes its knowledge as new evidence is uncovered. Nougat is one of the constituents of our planet. I have seen it and eaten it. It's just a matter of the James Webb telescope finding the motherlode.

 

 

I used to argue politics here, and I don't want to again, but why don't we just drill for Nougat here when we know we have at least a five hundred year supply right under our feet?   

 

Also, and I know this is none of my business, but are you and the Prof sharing an inside joke with the Snickers nougat thing? Did I miss something?

[midniterider]

Drilling for nougat sounds like a yummy idea. The environmentalists may not agree. The noise would probably keep the spotted owls or the turtles or whales awake...

 

The Prof made a funny with the Snickers double entendre. But no, we are solo humorists....any perceived collaboration is purely coincidental. 

 

 

[duderonomy]

42 minutes ago, midniterider said:

Drilling for nougat sounds like a yummy idea. The environmentalists may not agree. The noise would probably keep the spotted owls or the turtles or whales awake...

 

The Prof made a funny with the Snickers double entendre. But no, we are solo humorists....any perceived collaboration is purely coincidental. 

 

 

 

 

OK. I guess I just don't get the Snickers joke then, but thanks for being clever.