The Monkey argument: Valid? not valid?

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Speakpigeon, Aug 1, 2019.

?

Do you accept the Monkey argument as valid?

Poll closed Aug 29, 2019.
  1. Yes, I accept it is valid.

    14.3%
  2. No, I think it is not valid.

    85.7%
  3. I don't know.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. The argument doesn't make sense.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,719
    I’m fairly sure that walking doesn’t have particularly different notions of what it means in different contexts. So thanks for your counter example, just a pity it’s a fail.
    Oh, I’m aware, but it just confirms that your entire reason for thread is, as was suspected, a straw man, based on the assumption that mathematicians, in their criticisms (criticisms that you have yet to actually provide examples of, btw), are using the same notion of validity as you are. Different notions, different results, different claims etc. Not a difficult matter to get one’s head around, is it?
    So you’ve set up a test to help you prove something that it can’t prove due to the different notions of validity being used by either side. And you put yourself up as not being stupid? And understanding logic, perchance?
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2019
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Saint Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,839
    • Plagiarism is a breach of our site posting guidelines. Avoid.
    A small lesson on dating illustrates how off evolutionary dating is: a man brought some bones to a scientist and asked him to date the bones; the scientist determined they were about 10,000 years old. That’s funny, said the man; this is a chicken I bought at the grocers only weeks before.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,732
    Do you have a reference for that?
    Personally, I think it is total bullshit.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,903
    You are reposting creationist lies again Saint! What website did you copy that from?

    Edited to add - found it. Saint plagarized that from Rick Wellman. He was replying to an essay by Rick Plasterer, a writer at a religious institute. Here's Rick's entire response:

    ========
    Long ago I dismissed the theory of evolution as not only incompatible with the Bible but also seriously lacking in scientific evidence, which consistently points toward belief in the Biblical account, and not in other ‘hominid’ species preceding modern man. Neanderthals were most likely fully human and descended from Adam, therefore Christ died for them. Evolution’s dates are out of whack and Neanderthals could not have preceded Adam, not more than 10,000 years ago. A small lesson on dating illustrates how off evolutionary dating is: a man brought some bones to a scientist and asked him to date the bones; the scientist determined they were about 10,000 years old. That’s funny, said the man; this is a chicken I bought at the grocers only weeks before.
    =========

    So interesting claim there - Adam and Eve were Neanderthals!
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2020
    exchemist likes this.
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,732
    Thanks for that confirmation. So we have another dishonest christian/religious person.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,419
    Moderator note: Saint has been warned for plagiarism.

    One would expect a university academic to know better than to do that.
     

Share This Page