Motifake
politics
epic fail
military funny
stupid human
ufo
MAD
politifake

Latest comments




PREV PAGE

fauxnews - May 30, 2015 2:14am, #76595

#76589 P.S. You certainly shouldn't live your life based on faith from a dusty old fairy tale book like the Bible. If you have to have faith in something, better from research and findings of fact that can illuminate the unknown. They are no guarantees...

fauxnews - May 30, 2015 2:09am, #76594

#76591 It is a statement of fact to say that the scientific community supports MMCC theory. Not sure what your philosophical problem is with that mate.

fauxnews - May 30, 2015 2:08am, #76593

Given the data and mountain of independent findings/evidence, the probability is so high that MMCC is true that it is reasonable to infer it is true. (2/2)

fauxnews - May 30, 2015 2:06am, #76592

#76589 Never said that. It is the facts and the findings of FACT that debunk or support a theory. However, for practical purposes, logic dictates, it is reasonable to infer something is true or false after an exhaustive investigation has concluded.(1/2)

RKEastland - May 30, 2015 2:06am, #76591

So it is a fact and not a theory?

fauxnews - May 30, 2015 2:05am, #76590

Until then, it is a statement of fact to say "the findings of science says MMCC" is unequivocal. WE are just telling you what the science says. You can either deny it or accept.(2/2)

RKEastland - May 30, 2015 2:03am, #76589

Why then do we need to treat theories as facts?

fauxnews - May 30, 2015 2:03am, #76588

Unless you are alleging a hoax or a conspiracy, there are too many independent studies and scientists to discount on MMCC. The scientific community is practically unanimous in its support of MMCC. They closed the scientific debate, for now.(1/2)

fauxnews - May 30, 2015 1:59am, #76587

#76586 Who said it couldn't? Hence the word "theory." But just because it 'could' be wrong, doesn't mean it's unreasonable to infer it is true. It would like saying, if it can't be 100% accurate, then why believe in it? Rubbish.

RKEastland - May 30, 2015 1:56am, #76586

Then why couldn't the data be wrong about MMGW?

fauxnews - May 30, 2015 1:56am, #76585

Nope. The propaganda you spouted in #76558 is what makes you a denier. Wanna guess where that misinformation came from? Here's a hint, it wasn't from reputable scientists. ;-) And you still didn't provide your proof for that. A mulligan?

fauxnews - May 30, 2015 1:55am, #76584

#76582 Of course. And, again, it wasn't the science was wrong. It's tools were just USED wrong and created bad data. In the end, it was the science that was ultimately right which exonerated the wrong culprit. :-)

RKEastland - May 30, 2015 1:54am, #76583

So by accepting that science isn't always right, I am considered a denier?

RKEastland - May 30, 2015 1:52am, #76582

Sometimes science can also point to the wrong culprit, they could have the same blood type, or hair color that can lead someone looking at the limited evidence to come to the wrong conclusion.

fauxnews - May 30, 2015 1:52am, #76581

You are spazzing out. Anyways, to finish my point on #76565, science doesn't claim to be infallible. That is what religion is for, denier.

fauxnews - May 30, 2015 1:51am, #76580

Sure, countless examples... And statistically speaking, those countless examples account for about 2% of the cases whereby you can count on the doctors being right about 97% of the time. The exception to the rule is called that for a reason.

fauxnews - May 30, 2015 1:49am, #76579

Science is about findings of fact. eg. In forensics, if a person is wrongly convicted, it is the science that eventually shows him to be innocent. In the end the science was right, it was just "wrongly used" in the beginning (2/2)

RKEastland - May 30, 2015 1:49am, #76578

There are countless examples of people being told by nearly all doctors they see that they will die within 3 years, and they go on to live for decades after. the reason? the 2% or so that said they weren't and they followed the 2% that gave them a chance.

fauxnews - May 30, 2015 1:47am, #76577

#76575 It's an obtusely antiquated example that no intelligent scientific person would use to indict science. It doesn't show that "science gets things wrong." Science isn't about right or wrong. It's about empiricism and empirical findings (1/2)

fauxnews - May 30, 2015 1:45am, #76576

*expect* = accept

RKEastland - May 30, 2015 1:45am, #76575

"idiotic example"? how is showing that even science can get stuff wrong be idiotic? The modern science you esteem so highly of, was based off of the science of the 1780's and before.

fauxnews - May 30, 2015 1:45am, #76574

If something has a high probability, say that 97 doctors out of a hundred give you 3 years to live, trust me when I say you will listen to them. You won't care what the other three say. With a high probability, even if not 100% accurate...

fauxnews - May 30, 2015 1:43am, #76573

(C) Who says "science is 100% accurate"? Certainly not the scientist. Again, hence the word theory. The classic denier argument: well, if it only a theory, then what's the point of believing in it with certainty? Well, you can thank probabilities for that

RKEastland - May 30, 2015 1:42am, #76572

Except wen it comes to their own deductions

fauxnews - May 30, 2015 1:42am, #76571

*change* = chance

fauxnews - May 30, 2015 1:41am, #76570

It means science is working. Sure, there is a remote change that MMCC theory could be disproven. But at the moment, it has not. Until then, for practical purposes, science supports it as true. You can either except it or deny it.

fauxnews - May 30, 2015 1:39am, #76569

(B) Phlogiston remained the dominant theory until the 1780s. So it's an idiotic example. Let's stay in the realm of modern science. Even then, science disproving theories is what science is for. We don't need deniers. Science is the art of skepticism

RKEastland - May 30, 2015 1:38am, #76568

The same law that says animal fetuses like the Piping Plover, Loggerhead SeaTurtle, or Humpback Chubfish should be protected have no right to say that what is inside a mother's womb is not life.

fauxnews - May 30, 2015 1:37am, #76567

*world* = word

fauxnews - May 30, 2015 1:37am, #76566

(A) No one said it is. Hence the world theory. But, for practical purposes, it is reasonable to infer that MMCC is unequivocal given the exhaustive investigation conducted and concluded.

RKEastland - May 30, 2015 1:34am, #76565

Science is never 100% accurate on all it's findings. people who think that science is infallible will only lead themselves up to get hurt at some point.

RKEastland - May 30, 2015 1:32am, #76564

Science isn't always unequivocal. Ever heard of the Phlogiston theory? Science said for years that fire burned because of this mysterious element. It wasn't till someone actually really studied it that they found that they were wrong.

fauxnews - May 30, 2015 1:28am, #76563

P.S. Comment #76559 would make a great counter point poster for the other side of the debate. :-) You, or whoever reads this, should make your comment into a Pro-life poster. Have a good one.

fauxnews - May 30, 2015 1:11am, #76562

According to American law it is not a baby. Otherwise it would be murder. Until the constitution changes that, it's your belief vs. the reality. Cheers.

fauxnews - May 30, 2015 1:09am, #76561

That said, "you do realize" you are denying science in favor of an already debunked classic denier argument that holds no water. WE are just telling you what the science says. But, yes, you are free to deny it. P.S. Welcome to the site, denier. Cheers :-)

fauxnews - May 30, 2015 1:07am, #76560

Proof? Though a combination of oversimplification and fallacy, you are basing your argument (intentional or otherwise) a false equivalency logical fallacy. There are tens of thousands of vetted independent studies that show MMCC is unequivocal.

RKEastland - May 30, 2015 12:47am, #76559

What about the baby's mind, the baby's body, and the baby's choice?

RKEastland - May 30, 2015 12:44am, #76558

You do realize that out of those 97%, less than 2% have actually done a study on the issue. the other 95% simply agree without checking to see if the data is correct. The same thing happened with the stem cell research and it turned out they were wrong.

rebeccaolsen - May 29, 2015 10:55pm, #76557

Well, the thread #76545 you started mentioned GW. It's your fav debate topic as of late. It was reasonable to infer you were speaking about that and now moving the goal posts to suit your needs. But sure - I will play along. Where was I "wrong" hun? :)

OTC - May 29, 2015 9:27pm, #76556

Did I specify where you're wrong, or did you wrongly as.sume?

NEXT PAGE


Skip to page

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560 570 580 590 600 610 620 630 640 650 660 670 680 690 700 710 720 730 740 750 760 770 780 790 800 810 820 830 840 850 860 870 880 890 900 910 920 930 940 950 960 970 980 990 1000 1010 1020 1030 1040 1050 1060 1070 1080 1090 1100 1110 1120 1130 1140 1150 1160 1170 1180 1190 1200 1210 1220 1230 1240 1250 1260 1270 1280 1290 1300 1310 1320 1330 1340 1350 1360 1370 1380 1390 1400 1410 1420 1430 1440 1450 1460 1470 1480 1490 1500 1510 1520 1530 1540 1550 1560 1570 1580 1590 1600 1610 1620 1630 1640 1650 1660 1670 1680 1690 1700 1710 1720 1730 1740 1750 1760 1770 1780 1790 1800 1810 1820 1830 1840 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990