Evolution Vs. God

daskakik
reply to post by Prezbo369

 

Yes, it was picked apart in another thread.

It sure didn't need to be reposted.

I'm sure it wasn't in that other thread.

mrphilosophias
I'm sure it wasn't in that other thread.

But it was in the "Dishonest Creationist Tactics= Bad Religion" thread.

Reposting and starting a thread on it doesn't fix its logical flaws.

daskakik

mrphilosophias
I'm sure it wasn't in that other thread.

But it was in the "Dishonest Creationist Tactics= Bad Religion" thread.

Reposting and starting a thread on it doesn't fix its logical flaws.

It is not the same essay. After conceding arguments from probability the discourse was heavily edited and revised. This revision is what I have presented in the form of a thread of its own.

And evidence shows that the essay presented in that thread was not picked apart, but on the contrary brought the very premises and veracity of the thread into question, as anyone interested can see for themselves.

The lack of capacity for intellectual intercourse and integrity in investigations of truth demonstrated in that thread are the reason it needed a thread of its own. The propagation and perversion on this board, and in the world, of that implausible intellectual perversion known as nihlism, begs the question of a conspiracy in the noosphere, but it is not of the sort that you suggested earlier.

reply to post by mrphilosophias


Then what is your purely logical and factual basis for defending creationism? Let's stick with the bullet points version.

reply to post by mrphilosophias

It takes off from the same flawed premise.
Original:

This implicit rejection, by science, of that which is metaphysical, or beyond that which is physical, may prove it's greatest short sight, and its most glaring fundamental flaw.

Revised:

This a priori rejection by science of that which is metaphysical, while propagating notions that are indifferentiable from metaphysics in such a way as to obfuscate this conflation, is worse than duplicity, it is intellectually dishonest.

This was pointed out to be a logical fallacy in that thread but it seems you chose to ignore it.

reply to post by daskakik


So he tried to wrap it in prettier paper, but it's still just as broken as it was the first time.

daskakik
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

It takes off from the same flawed premise.
Original:

This implicit rejection, by science, of that which is metaphysical, or beyond that which is physical, may prove it's greatest short sight, and its most glaring fundamental flaw.

Revised:

This a priori rejection by science of that which is metaphysical, while propagating notions that are indifferentiable from metaphysics in such a way as to obfuscate this conflation, is worse than duplicity, it is intellectually dishonest.

This was pointed out to be a logical fallacy in that thread but it seems you chose to ignore it.

What you are calling a flawed premise is actually the hypothesis of the discourse. The veracity of the hypothesis is later explored and corroborated with evidences of intelligent design derived from science and reason that undermines the very foundation of scientific materialism. Consequently the notion that strict scientific materialism is an unfounded bias is supported, and as such there is no logical fallacy.

reply to post by mrphilosophias

It was explained to you but you either can't grasp the meaning of a logical fallacy or you choose to ignore it. Either way, your essay has them and it is a waste of time.

daskakik
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

It was explained to you but you either can't grasp the meaning of a logical fallacy or you choose to ignore it. Either way, your essay has them and it is a waste of time.

Given that your accusations of fallacy have been demonstrated to be unfounded, without premise or argument, leads me to question whether you know how logic works, let alone identify or rebut a logical fallacy.

What has proven thus far to be a waste of time is an attempt to be rational here, but I have faith that reason will prevail.

mrphilosophias
Given that your accusations of fallacy have been demonstrated to be unfounded, without premise or argument, leads me to question whether you know how logic works, let alone identify or rebut a logical fallacy.

It is easy for you to say that you have demonstrated that the accusations are unfounded but that doesn't mean that other people won't see that you are mistaken.

What has proven thus far to be a waste of time is an attempt to be rational here, but I have faith that reason will prevail.

It will continue to be a waste of time if you keep rehashing the same flawed logic.

daskakik

mrphilosophias
Given that your accusations of fallacy have been demonstrated to be unfounded, without premise or argument, leads me to question whether you know how logic works, let alone identify or rebut a logical fallacy.

It is easy for you to say that you have demonstrated that the accusations are unfounded but that doesn't mean that other people won't see that you are mistaken.

What has proven thus far to be a waste of time is an attempt to be rational here, but I have faith that reason will prevail.

It will continue to be a waste of time if you keep rehashing the same flawed logic.

It is a matter of fact that you have not demonstrated with premise or argument what you wish you establish. If you have demonstrated fallacy in my reasoning then show me. Until then you are only proving my point.

reply to post by mrphilosophias

That seems to be your tactic, claim that something hasn't been shown, saying "show me" and then dismissing when it is shown, rinse and repeat.

At this point I have no interest in trying to prove anything to you. I think others can plainly see what has been shown.

daskakik
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

That seems to be your tactic, claim that something hasn't been shown, saying "show me" and then dismissing when it is shown, rinse and repeat.

At this point I have no interest in trying to prove anything to you. I think others can plainly see what has been shown.

edit on 22-9-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

You cited two brief excerpts from my discourse and said these are fallacy. I then proceed to demonstrate that this is not the case and point out that you have not shown how these excerpts in any way constitute logical fallacy. Rather then prove me wrong by citing where you have demonstrated the fallacy in my logic, or making a case for the accusation, you defeat your own position as a result of either an inability to fashion a proof of my fallacy, or because of sheer laziness.

reply to post by mrphilosophias

Say whatever you want. I'm not playing your game.

What if Evolution is and has been God this entire time?

reply to post by Davian

What if Evolution is and has been God this entire time?

What if evolution isn't and has never been God this entire time? See how effective that question is? Rhetorical answer: not very.

reply to post by mrphilosophias


Okay, here's what I'm going to ask you, and I'm asking you this for very specific reasons: in layman's terms, describe your premise and the basis for your argument. I get the feeling you are deliberately using flowery language in order to obscure the details of your case, thereby disguising the weaknesses of your argument so as to thwart the discerning minds of this thread.

So if you would kindly use PLAIN ENGLISH, I would appreciate it. Any refusal to do so will be acknowledged as an admission of the suspicions I've described above. I see no reason why you cannot comply.

Davian
What if Evolution is and has been God this entire time?

Real question regarding creator is who really creator was:

Did God create humans in his image, or on the other hand, did humans create God in their image?!

Evolution of religion is easy to follow, from earlier polytheistic religions into monotheism religion.

It is either evolution of religion, or someone could not make up 'his' mind... you pick...

AfterInfinity
reply to post by Davian

 

What if Evolution is and has been God this entire time?

What if evolution isn't and has never been God this entire time? See how effective that question is? Rhetorical answer: not very.

reply to post by Davian


This is not the jokes forum. Thus, I should expect the subject to be taken seriously.