Author Topic: Public Charter Schools Teaching Creationism And Right-Wing Propaganda In Texas  (Read 18202 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2690
  • Darwins +114/-1
  • Gender: Male
Can you explain how you eliminated the possibility of many designers?

From a scientific ID standpoint, that would be difficult to do....unless it were possible to observe and conclude that patterns (for lack of a better word) in nature could have only originated from a single source.

If IDT demonstrated that multiple sources were at work in the design of living structures then I would have to give that finding some very careful thought.

Good question.

Perhaps you wish to amend and/or correct the following then:

The answer to that is quite simple. Intelligent Design Theory does an excellent job of scientifically demonstrating how a Designer could be the cause of the beginning of life.

Why would individuals who have written off any hope of discovering a Creator be interested in supporting it?

If you feel there is a contradiction, then please point it out.

You have said and other ID people say that there is no identification of the designer yet you have managed in two sentences to say creator and designer as equivalent. This was the problem with 'On Pandas and People' which had errors like that leaving it obvious that ID is creationism wrapped in pseudo-science.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 706
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
"It's faith, Hawkgirl SevenPatch.  You're not supposed to understand it." - Aquaman, JLU

Righty-o-then!  "Wonder twins power activate!" "Form of steam!"
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
I am not referring to organisms.  Have ID'ers uncovered evidence that the universe itself had to have been designed?  That is what I mean by "nature".  It is also how you had used the word "nature" in the post I was responding to.

The argument based on "fine tuning" is the most significant one that compliments my belief.

Quote
That's an enormous problem for you, then.  Because it means you can't tell the difference between the two.  You are automatically unqualified to say that nature is or is not designed, because there is nothing you can point to about nature that indicates design over undesign.  If there was, then you would be able to conceive of an undesigned nature.

If the arguments I use to form a logical and rational belief in God are confined to a single possible source for the origin of the world with a single possible outcome from that origination, then I can logically eliminate any other possibilities.


Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
He is an Uncaused Cause. Are you familiar with the arguments?

So then, Uncaused Causes are something we can get from nothing, according to you.  It is not from something, it is from nothing.

The reason you cannot make sense of this is because you have handcuffed yourself to naturalism as the only source of whatever it is that you believe.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
He is an Uncaused Cause. Are you familiar with the arguments?

So then, Uncaused Causes are something we can get from nothing, according to you.  It is not from something, it is from nothing.

So BibleStudent believes undesigned nature is inconceivable yet an uncaused cause is conceivable.  If that isn't a case of doublethink, I don't know what is.

This has the appearance of 'doublethink' to you because you have convinced yourself that naturalistic causes are the only means for forming a rational belief.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
You did not answer the question I actually asked.

I asked you why all of the people who actually support intelligent design are religious (specifically, Christians).  Please answer that this time.

I do not know for a fact that all of the people who actually support ID are religious. Is this accurate or are you assuming that to be the case?

Online Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2241
  • Darwins +74/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
He is an Uncaused Cause. Are you familiar with the arguments?

So then, Uncaused Causes are something we can get from nothing, according to you.  It is not from something, it is from nothing.

So BibleStudent believes undesigned nature is inconceivable yet an uncaused cause is conceivable.  If that isn't a case of doublethink, I don't know what is.

This has the appearance of 'doublethink' to you because you have convinced yourself that naturalistic causes are the only means for forming a rational belief.

Nope, that's not it. It is doublethink because your beliefs aren't reasonable, across the board. You don't apply the same standards to everything. You can't fathom how the 'verse couldn't be created, but you don't hold the same standards to your god. Hence, doublethink.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Darwins +84/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
That is the whole point. This is why ID is not an alternative to any natural process you can come up with - whether it's abiogenesis, evolution or gravity. ID is still believed to be the cause of all of these natural processes, which is why it is outside the purview of science.


Then, once again, I will ask:

How does science employ the scientific method as a mean for discovering the validity of an hypothesis for abiogenesis?

And please don't think that I am looking for an extensive answer here. I realize a thorough answer to that question would require a large amount of text but I believe you can answer it adequately enough in an abbreviated form.

You're not going to get any answer because, if you'd bothered to include and take into account the rest of my post that you failed to respond to, you'd have seen that it doesn't matter what discovery is made or isn't made regarding abiogenesis or any other scientific discipline because you believe that ID is behind nature.

It's really simple - if you believe a god is the "cause" of nature and all of the natural processes that it encompasses, then god isn't natural because nature cannot create itself. Agreed? So if god isn't natural then science cannot falsify god and therefore cannot falsify ID. That's why ID isn't, and never will be, science.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline RED_ApeTHEIST

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 77
  • Darwins +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Hyperintelligent Orangutan
The uncaused cause argument has a few flaws. The most most well known (and bloody obvious) two are as follows.

1: It assumes that we cant have an infinite regress. Since there is nothing to indicate that we cant have an infinite regress, or some form of non-linear existence (cyclical time for example) the whole thing is hinged on an unproven assumption.

2: There is no reason to attribute any attributes to an uncaused cause except for existence. You have provided no reason to attribute it intelligence, or power, or anything else, except existence. So even if an uncaused cause were accepted, it still would in no way indicate a deity.


Are you familiar with the argument? This is not new information. The flaws in that argument have been well known since the 1600's.
The relevant equation is: Knowledge = power = energy = matter = mass; a good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows how to read." - Terry Pratchet

Online jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2269
  • Darwins +411/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
You did not answer the question I actually asked.

I asked you why all of the people who actually support intelligent design are religious (specifically, Christians).  Please answer that this time.
I do not know for a fact that all of the people who actually support ID are religious. Is this accurate or are you assuming that to be the case?

This is a valid question.  From what I've seen, jaimehlers is (basically) correct and the vast, vast, vast majority of ID proponents are religious.  I honestly cannot identify a single individual or organization that is not religious and supports ID.  But that's from my general, and certainly not thorough, observations.  While I hesitate to say that every ID supporter is religious, the evidence seems to suggest it.  To me, it seems reasonable to accept that claim as true.

Easiest way out of this predicament is to provide an example of a non-religious proponent of ID.  That would falsify jaimehler's claim.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Online wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2690
  • Darwins +114/-1
  • Gender: Male
maybe one bgets round it by combining two of the traditional proofs of god's existence. I.e

Quote
2) The ontological argument

God is the perfect being. As He is most perfect, He must have all perfections. If God lacked existence He would not be perfect, as He is perfect he must exist.

3) The cosmological argument (God as "First cause")

Everything that exists has a cause. However, there must at some time have been a cause prior to all other causes. This 'prime mover' or first cause is necessary to explain existence. This first cause is God.

Quoted from here

Clearly the latter is the one BS is using and the forumer allows the two together to show that the first cause is god. Is that right, Biblestudent?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Darwins +84/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
The uncaused cause argument has a few flaws. The most most well known (and bloody obvious) two are as follows.

1: It assumes that we cant have an infinite regress. Since there is nothing to indicate that we cant have an infinite regress, or some form of non-linear existence (cyclical time for example) the whole thing is hinged on an unproven assumption.

God in no way bypasses the assumption that we can't have inifinite regress. I mean, what has god supposed to have been doing for eternity - sat in some sort of stasis? No, if god is this thinking intelligent being then his thoughts regress to infinity.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
You're not going to get any answer because, if you'd bothered to include and take into account the rest of my post that you failed to respond to, you'd have seen that it doesn't matter what discovery is made or isn't made regarding abiogenesis or any other scientific discipline because you believe that ID is behind nature.

It's really simple - if you believe a god is the "cause" of nature and all of the natural processes that it encompasses, then god isn't natural because nature cannot create itself. Agreed? So if god isn't natural then science cannot falsify god and therefore cannot falsify ID. That's why ID isn't, and never will be, science.

Based on your distorted view of science, Einstein would not have been given the time of day by you when he first began crafting the thought experiments he had which eventually led to his theories on relativity. Einstein made no ‘observation.’ I suspect that you would have been the first in line to tell him that he was losing his mind by toying with the creation of hypothesis about forces that could not be seen.

The same holds true for abiogenesis but who in your world of science is going to argue that the scientific method is capable of determining whether it is valid or not. You are willing to skip right past the ‘observation’ part and move into hypotheses so you can try and back into your view about God.

Your version of science is not a pure form of science. It is more appropriately referred to as ‘atheistic science.’

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
You did not answer the question I actually asked.

I asked you why all of the people who actually support intelligent design are religious (specifically, Christians).  Please answer that this time.
I do not know for a fact that all of the people who actually support ID are religious. Is this accurate or are you assuming that to be the case?

This is a valid question.  From what I've seen, jaimehlers is (basically) correct and the vast, vast, vast majority of ID proponents are religious.  I honestly cannot identify a single individual or organization that is not religious and supports ID.  But that's from my general, and certainly not thorough, observations.  While I hesitate to say that every ID supporter is religious, the evidence seems to suggest it.  To me, it seems reasonable to accept that claim as true.

Easiest way out of this predicament is to provide an example of a non-religious proponent of ID.  That would falsify jaimehler's claim.

Even if it were true, what does it prove?....that because 99% of the ID proponents are religious, ID is somehow invalid?

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Darwins +84/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
You're not going to get any answer because, if you'd bothered to include and take into account the rest of my post that you failed to respond to, you'd have seen that it doesn't matter what discovery is made or isn't made regarding abiogenesis or any other scientific discipline because you believe that ID is behind nature.

It's really simple - if you believe a god is the "cause" of nature and all of the natural processes that it encompasses, then god isn't natural because nature cannot create itself. Agreed? So if god isn't natural then science cannot falsify god and therefore cannot falsify ID. That's why ID isn't, and never will be, science.

Based on your distorted view of science, Einstein would not have been given the time of day by you when he first began crafting the thought experiments he had which eventually led to his theories on relativity. Einstein made no ‘observation.’ I suspect that you would have been the first in line to tell him that he was losing his mind by toying with the creation of hypothesis about forces that could not be seen.

The same holds true for abiogenesis but who in your world of science is going to argue that the scientific method is capable of determining whether it is valid or not. You are willing to skip right past the ‘observation’ part and move into hypotheses so you can try and back into your view about God.

Your version of science is not a pure form of science. It is more appropriately referred to as ‘atheistic science.’

Excuse me, but before you start to berate "my view", please point to where I've stated that a scientific hypothesis must be based on observation?

When you've done that, then you can address my post and the point that no scientific hypothesis or theory destroys ID.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Online jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2269
  • Darwins +411/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Even if it were true, what does it prove?....that because 99% of the ID proponents are religious, ID is somehow invalid?

Of course not.  It does give more credence to the claim that ID is religiously motivated though.  One would assume that if ID had nothing to do with religion then you would find more variety in the religious/lack of religious backgrounds of the adherents.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Online wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2690
  • Darwins +114/-1
  • Gender: Male
Even if it were true, what does it prove?....that because 99% of the ID proponents are religious, ID is somehow invalid?

Of course not.  It does give more credence to the claim that ID is religiously motivated though.  One would assume that if ID had nothing to do with religion then you would find more variety in the religious/lack of religious backgrounds of the adherents.

Only 99% of ID proponents are religious? Come on, Biblestudent, if it isn't 100%, show us any prominent person who is atheist and supports ID.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 706
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
He is an Uncaused Cause. Are you familiar with the arguments?

So then, Uncaused Causes are something we can get from nothing, according to you.  It is not from something, it is from nothing.

So BibleStudent believes undesigned nature is inconceivable yet an uncaused cause is conceivable.  If that isn't a case of doublethink, I don't know what is.

This has the appearance of 'doublethink' to you because you have convinced yourself that naturalistic causes are the only means for forming a rational belief.

Exactly how have I convinced myself that naturalistic causes are the only means for forming a rational belief?

Now you are shifting the burden of proof onto me, as if I have to prove that naturalistic causes are the only means of forming a rational belief.  2ND EDIT: This is also a straw-man as I made no such claim.

In this thread you have used many irrational arguments and logical fallacies, specifically; straw-man arguments, presuppositionalism (shifting the burden of proof), arguments from incredulity, equivocation arguments, argumentum ad hominem, balance fallacy, doublethink fallacy and special pleading.  You've been close to committing other logical fallacies such as non-sequitur, begging the question fallacy, false cause, false dilemma, ad hoc fallacy and argument by assertion.  EDIT: It appears while I was writing this, you've now employed the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy as well.  2ND EDIT: Ad hoc fallacy and/or argumentum ex culo is also being used.

People make mistakes and it is not uncommon for even a rational person to mistakenly use an irrational argument or logical fallacy on occasion.  You, BibleStudent however have almost exclusively used irrational arguments and/or logical fallacies.  It is almost as if you are a POE, but I would say it is more likely that you, BibleStudent are simply trying to convince yourself without any regard to rationality.

As Jag so eloquently put it:

You've been told repeatedly. Given your inability to grasp what you are being told, I can only draw a few potential conclusions. You aren't actually reading the replies you are getting (but you do quote them, so maybe you are reading them); you don't actually understand what is written (more likely than the previous), or you are willfully resisting understanding what is being written (which is pretty dishonest). In any case, I have to drop out of this discussion before I forget to resist the urge to speak to you contemptuously.

Enjoy your stay.

I have been waiting patiently for you, BibleStudent to provide any evidence that supports your claims that ID is scientific, is a theory, uses the scientific method, or as you put it "does an excellent job of scientifically demonstrating how a Designer could be the cause of the beginning of life".

BibleStudent, you can keep claiming that your previous replies in this thread provided that evidence all you want however all of the supposed evidence you have provided so far has been refuted here in this thread (not to mention by the scientific community and the United States judicial system).  Until you actually address the problems with your evidence, they are unacceptable as evidence of your claims.  If you continue to reference your previous replies as evidence then you will be engaging in an argument by assertion logical fallacy.  Your other option is to provide different evidence.

I for one would be interested in what predictions are made by ID?  The previous predictions you posted in this thread from evolutionnews.org are very poor examples and can hardly be considered actual predictions since they are predictions of known observations.

If you would like a good example of a prediction, why don't we take a look at a prediction made by an abiogenesis hypothesis.

Research into one abiogenesis hypothesis has made the prediction that glycine would be present on Saturn's moon of Titan even though glycine has not yet been discovered on Titan.  If glycine is discovered on Titan, then that would confirm a prediction made by the particular abiogenesis hypothesis.  If it can be reasonably confirmed that glycine is not present on Titan then the prediction was incorrect and the hypothesis or tests made will have to be reviewed and either revised or abandoned.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2014, 04:04:28 PM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12447
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
The argument based on "fine tuning" is the most significant one that compliments my belief.

That's a shitty argument, and one that doesn't even explain anything.  Why are physical constants the way they are, instead of some different way?  Apparently because a designer preferred them that way.  But what designed that preference into the designer?  Or was it just random?  And if just random, then why include a designer in the first place?

Like I said, just a shitty argument from beginning to end.

Quote
That's an enormous problem for you, then.  Because it means you can't tell the difference between the two.  You are automatically unqualified to say that nature is or is not designed, because there is nothing you can point to about nature that indicates design over undesign.  If there was, then you would be able to conceive of an undesigned nature.

If the arguments I use to form a logical and rational belief in God are confined to a single possible source for the origin of the world with a single possible outcome from that origination, then I can logically eliminate any other possibilities.

Heh, logical.  Amusing to hear you claim that.  Anyway, you acknowledge that your belief stems from religious faith.  Why pretend it has any backing in science?
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12447
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Einstein made no ‘observation.’

Others did, though, and he was able to use theirs.  That's how science works.  Had he not had anyone's observations to work off of at all, then he would have had no way to relate his ideas to the real world, and would have been unlikely to come up with them in the first place.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Excuse me, but before you start to berate "my view", please point to where I've stated that a scientific hypothesis must be based on observation?

I am not going to go looking for a post which contains such a claim but, for the sake of argument, I will concede that you did not. Now what?

Quote
When you've done that, then you can address my post and the point that no scientific hypothesis or theory destroys ID.

I do try to avoid using links to answer questions or counter arguments but perhaps if you hear it from someone else, it may be more convincing:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/04/is_intelligent_design_falsifia005061.html

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Even if it were true, what does it prove?....that because 99% of the ID proponents are religious, ID is somehow invalid?

Of course not.  It does give more credence to the claim that ID is religiously motivated though.  One would assume that if ID had nothing to do with religion then you would find more variety in the religious/lack of religious backgrounds of the adherents.

So, if I could demonstrate that a certain percentage of the proponents of the ToE were non-theists, then I could conceivably be demonstrating that it is motivated by non-theism? What percentage of a theory's proponents are necessary to conclude such a thing?

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Darwins +84/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Excuse me, but before you start to berate "my view", please point to where I've stated that a scientific hypothesis must be based on observation?

I am not going to go looking for a post which contains such a claim but, for the sake of argument, I will concede that you did not. Now what?

I dunno, you could start by not jumping the gun and building straw men?

Quote
Quote
When you've done that, then you can address my post and the point that no scientific hypothesis or theory destroys ID.

I do try to avoid using links to answer questions or counter arguments but perhaps if you hear it from someone else, it may be more convincing:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/04/is_intelligent_design_falsifia005061.html

Whatever the hell Darwinism is, it doesn't falsify ID. ID can be behind the "Darwinist" mechanism. If you think it can't, then you'll have no problem explaining the limitations of your god on his own creation of nature.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Darwins +84/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
I am not referring to organisms.  Have ID'ers uncovered evidence that the universe itself had to have been designed?  That is what I mean by "nature".  It is also how you had used the word "nature" in the post I was responding to.

The argument based on "fine tuning" is the most significant one that compliments my belief.

All theistic arguments are useless, but the fine-tuning one takes the biscuit. Jeez, even Christianity refutes it. I'd be happy to have a formal debate with you over it.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Online jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2269
  • Darwins +411/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Of course not.  It does give more credence to the claim that ID is religiously motivated though.  One would assume that if ID had nothing to do with religion then you would find more variety in the religious/lack of religious backgrounds of the adherents.

So, if I could demonstrate that a certain percentage of the proponents of the ToE were non-theists, then I could conceivably be demonstrating that it is motivated by non-theism? What percentage of a theory's proponents are necessary to conclude such a thing?

Well, it would go a ways in helping to demonstrate that the notion that it is religiously motivated is incorrect.  I'd be hesitant to establish a line of what percentage would sway me.  More hesitant to say what percentage would sway jaimehlers.

How about starting with "greater than 0".
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 706
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
You are willing to skip right past the ‘observation’ part and move into hypotheses so you can try and back into your view about God.

Who skipped right past the observation part?  Is chemistry not a science of observation?  Is cosmology not a science of observation? Is geology not a science of observation?  It has been observed that the building blocks of life form by themselves under various different conditions.  Many observations have been made of what happens under a broad spectrum of possible condidtions on the surface of the Earth, under the surface of the Earth, in space, on other planitary bodies in our solar system.

Do you not understand anything about the various abiogenesis hypotheses?

You seem to think abiogenesis rests on actually needing to go back in time to physically observe how life formed.  It appears, you then assert that because we can't physicaly observe how life formed at the specific point that it did then ID must be true.  Why stop with abiogenesis if this is the case.  We can't physically observe the instant the Sun, Earth, moon or planets in our solar system formed either, it must have been ID.

We didn't actually observe the Grand Canyon form either, it must have been ID.

Even if is it proven that life can arise from natural causes over a long period of time, that does nothing to disprove the existance of any god or even ID.  Do you think that it does?  If so, why?


Your version of science is not a pure form of science. It is more appropriately referred to as ‘atheistic science.’

LOL.  What exactly is a pure form of science?  You're now officially using an ad hoc argument or quite possibly just argumentum ex culo.

« Last Edit: February 13, 2014, 03:59:27 PM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
In this thread you have used many irrational arguments and logical fallacies, specifically; straw-man arguments, presuppositionalism (shifting the burden of proof), arguments from incredulity, equivocation arguments, argumentum ad hominem, balance fallacy, doublethink fallacy and special pleading.  You've been close to committing other logical fallacies such as non-sequitur, begging the question fallacy, false cause, false dilemma, ad hoc fallacy and argument by assertion.  EDIT: It appears while I was writing this, you've now employed the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy as well.  2ND EDIT: Ad hoc fallacy and/or argumentum ex culo is also being used.

Amusing. This is the best you've got? You think I haven't been subjected to this moronic slop before? If you're a theist participating in an informal discussion on this board, this angle is as predictable as the sun rising in the morning. If we were engaging in a formal debate, then okay....but geez, man, come on.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 706
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
In this thread you have used many irrational arguments and logical fallacies, specifically; straw-man arguments, presuppositionalism (shifting the burden of proof), arguments from incredulity, equivocation arguments, argumentum ad hominem, balance fallacy, doublethink fallacy and special pleading.  You've been close to committing other logical fallacies such as non-sequitur, begging the question fallacy, false cause, false dilemma, ad hoc fallacy and argument by assertion.  EDIT: It appears while I was writing this, you've now employed the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy as well.  2ND EDIT: Ad hoc fallacy and/or argumentum ex culo is also being used.

Amusing. This is the best you've got? You think I haven't been subjected to this moronic slop before? If you're a theist participating in an informal discussion on this board, this angle is as predictable as the sun rising in the morning. If we were engaging in a formal debate, then okay....but geez, man, come on.

Considering you insist on continueing to use logical fallicies and don't seem to care if you do, I wouldn't be surprised if you've been subjected to this "moronic slop" before.

This angle is only predictiable if the theist knowingly uses logical fallicies.  Why would you knowingly use logical fallicies?  I've proposed a hypothesis that you are simply trying to convince yourself that your beliefs are rational when they are not.  I predict that you will not provide a different prediction made by ID, while also explaining why the prediction has predictive power.  EDIT: A theist could be aware of logical fallacies and not use them.  There are theists on this forum who are very good at not using logical fallacies.

If you provide a different prediction made by ID and explain its predictive power, then you will falsify my prediction and quite possibly falsify my hypothesis.

Perhaps you would also like to explain why logical fallacies are acceptable arguments when we are not engaging in a formal debate.  What exactly do you got other than logical fallacies?

You are the one claiming that ID is scientific and should be taught in public schools, yet you have not offered any evidence as to why your claim is accurate.

« Last Edit: February 13, 2014, 04:46:00 PM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
This angle is only predictiable if the theist knowingly uses logical fallicies.  Why would you knowingly use logical fallicies?  I've proposed a hypothesis that you are simply trying to convince yourself that your beliefs are rational when they are not.  I predict that you will not provide a different prediction made by ID, while also explaining why the prediction has predictive power.  EDIT: A theist could be aware of logical fallacies and not use them.  There are theists on this forum who are very good at not using logical fallacies.

If you provide a different prediction made by ID and explain its predictive power, then you will falsify my prediction and quite possibly falsify my hypothesis.

Perhaps you would also like to explain why logical fallacies are acceptable arguments when we are not engaging in a formal debate.  What exactly do you got other than logical fallacies?

This is the kind of stuff, though, that turns these discussions into a circus. Pointing them out on occasion is one thing but making them a focal point is unnecessary. Like I said, if this was a formal debate, then okay....but these are open and informal discussions where the posters should not have to worry that everything they say is going to be run through the logic filter.

Quote
You are the one claiming that ID is scientific and should be taught in public schools, yet you have not offered any evidence as to why your claim is accurate.

I thoroughly disagree. I have shown how ID follows the rules of science. You don't agree and that is fine.