See someone try to defend creationism honestly

[australopithecus]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Inferno]

I knew there was an xkcd about this... Dotoree, before you stay up until 4am again, consider this:

 

[scalyblue]

Didnt someone much smarter than i say that atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby?

 

[Yfelsung]

Didnt someone much smarter than i say that atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby?

If atheism is a religion, the following is also true:

not collecting stamps is a hobby.
not drinking is a substance abuse problem.
not believing in manticores is a religion.
not speeding is a traffic violation.
not voting is a civic duty.

and so on

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Didnt someone much smarter than i say that atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby?

Yeah, that was me. You're welcome.

 

[Stadred]

The fact that this guy thinks airplanes violate gravity should be telling. He clearly has a limited grasp on reality. I can deal with the whole "No, it r Miracle, not magic!" is splitting hairs. Miracles and true magic (Not sleight of hand) violate natural laws. Conversely, if something is really violating natural laws, it's considered magic, or a miracle. He wants to call it a miracle, let him.
But let him get away with the 'airplanes violate gravity' failure? Hell no.
Tell me, Bryan, why can't our 747's go into orbit? Pretend that we could seal them up and maintain internal pressure.
What's that? Because they can't go fast enough?
Fast enough for what?
Orbital velocity?
Because escape/orbital velocity over a given body is dependent on the force of gravity it exerts.
An airplane flies because of the force it exerts using the atmosphere of the Earth.

His previous actions of covering up posts have proven that he can't hold an honest discussion. And now he thinks that high technology somehow violates physics, and thus even higher tech would be able to create the godlike magic/miracle he believes to have occurred. If we're uncovering all these failures in understanding before the 'real' debate begins- Aaron, you're my hero, because I don't think I'd be able to slog through the sewage this person is going to start spewing, to say nothing about confronting the problems contained in said drek.

 

[masterjedijared]

Bald is a hair color.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

We're NEVER going to get that honest defense of creationism, are we?

 

[australopithecus]

We're NEVER going to get that honest defense of creationism, are we?

But then we already knew that, didn't we?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

But then we already knew that, didn't we?

I tend to get into trouble when I use the phrase "lying shit-weasel"... but when talking about creationists, that is the first thing that comes to mind.

It is almost as though they can't help it. I guess they can't. When you have based your worldview on a collection of really obvious lies, I guess the only way to defend that worldview is with an even greater assortment of lies. I guess when your life's foundation is built of the flimsy structure of dishonesty, the only thing light enough to be built on top of that foundation is a house of cards.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

adj.
1. Of, relating to, or invoking the supernatural: "stubborn unlaid ghost/That breaks his magic chains at curfew time" (John Milton).
2. Possessing distinctive qualities that produce unaccountable or baffling effects.


Austro,
Even those definition would at best be partially accurate, which for all intensive purposes is inaccurate. Can you read it? It says INVOKING the supernatural. That means ASKING the supernatural for something. Creation is the supernatural DOING something, not receiving a request. The 2nd is just as problematic. Please people stop reading superficially.

You dare to speak of reading comprehension? That's rich:
Of, relating to, or invoking. Notice the 'or.' Meaning that magic is also defined as of or relating to the supernatural.

I have a fairly high opinion of your inteligence; either I am wrong or you are deliberately being dishonest.

--
Out of 6-7 definitions, that on: of, relating to, the supernatural; would be about the only one that could possibly be somewhat close and #2 could be a bit too, but neither conveys what Christianity actually believes in this area even close to fully. Miracle does far better. Magic simply does not esp. since most people have such strong associations with the the other much, much more common definitions including deceit, sleight of hand, etc. The reason atheists want to use this word is because they wish to demean Christianity and associate it with deceit. Due to the popular understanding of this word, the use this word creates a false impression in people's minds of what the creation and Christian view really is and so I will not accept the use of it in reference to Christianity. Further use of it will consistently be labeled as straw manning and intentional misrepresentation. It's similar to calling a black person a nigger.

You notice how your rebuttal has absolutely nothing to do with my actual criticism?

You see, I was calling you out on your intentional misreading of the above definition, I said nothing regarding whether said definition is accurate.

So let me say it again, this time more forcefully, you are either an imbecile or dishonest. Which is it?

 

[ragnarokx297]

Ragnarok,
Would you by any chance be the same Ragnarok that used to play Evony? Just curious.

Magic is almost always connected with magic shows, black hats, rabbits popping out of hats, David Copperfield, wizards, genies, sorcery/witchraft (which are both very seriously condemned in the Bible), etc. I actually like Copperfield type magic and can do a couple simple tricks and went to a couple shows recently. But, this concept which is for SURE the main understanding of the word has absolutely nothing to do with what God does, which is why I MUST reject it. Magicians are using ILLUSIONS that they are creating rabbits and pulling them out of hats, etc. Creationists have the view that God did it for REAL and we have significant evidence for that. There is no comparison possible.

Sheesh you people have extremely thick skulls on this. This is the most basic aspect of any formal debate that you are explicitly violating. The ISSUE here is that I get to determine the definition of MY VIEWS, PERIOD. You don't have a SMIDGEN of a right to do that. You can't use double standards. PERIOD. If you want to define my views in even a WORD, you MUST accept this definition for atheist.

...

I'm not going to dignify further nonsense in this area with a response other than the above. It's been dealt with. Stop being irrational and immoral unless you are prepared to fully accept the definition above as defining your view. I'll just keep copying and pasting the above again and again whenever you try to define my views immorally.
Bryan

No sorry, I've never heard of Evony.

But what the hell? Is the rest of the response even for me? It's like you didn't read my comment at all, but noticed it was about the definition of magically and wrote a generic response. What I start off my response to was the point that instead of what is more common, the context is about what matters here, and base the entirety of my response to the context. And instead of even responding to my first point, you completely disregard it and continue on about how your definition is more common? What the hell man?

Even though whats more common in general doesn't matter, I find your claim that "Magic is almost always connected with magic shows" to be wrong. I have heard the word magic used way more often when someone's not talking about a magician they saw before, when im not at a magic show or watching one on tv, or when a person is not showing me their magic trick. These situations are pretty rare, in my life at least, and the definition of magic you think is the main definition isn't used outside of these situations. Maybe its just where we live though that we find different usages of the word magic.

"Creationists have the view that God did it for REAL and we have significant evidence for that."
Again, disregarding the fact that you didn't read my first response, this is what people want to imply when they say god did it magically, that he did it for real in a supernatural way. Would you not even admit that the definition of magic people want you to accept actually applies to how you think your god did it, supernaturally in a real way?

"Sheesh you people have extremely thick skulls on this. ..."
Don't worry, I think the same about you. I find it hilarious that your bringing your whole 'stop defining my view' claim in this defining magically situation. Because people are trying to define magically to describe what you assuming already think about how god created life, in the supernatural sense, and instead you are arguing that by using magically we really mean it in the non supernatural sense that actually would fall into your whole 'stop defining my view' claim. Its like someone calling you smart, then you say 'why did you insult me', the somebody says smart means intelligent, while you say it means stupid. The point being that you maintain that the person insulted you even though you know that he thinks and is arguing that the word smart means something positive instead of negative.

But regardless, please go read my first post that you "responded to" and either actually respond to the point I was making or don't respond at all.

 

[kenandkids]

No sorry, I've never heard of Evony.

Evony is a very time intensive "real time" strategy game populated almost exclusively by 14-20 year olds and consists of trying to crush each others castles. I had to quit in order to have more time for study. I'm certain that a "busy" person like this guy wouldn't have time to play... if any of his claims about his personal life are true.

 

[scalyblue]

No sorry, I've never heard of Evony.

Evony is a very time intensive "real time" strategy game populated almost exclusively by 14-20 year olds and consists of trying to crush each others castles. I had to quit in order to have more time for study. I'm certain that a "busy" person like this guy wouldn't have time to play... if any of his claims about his personal life are true.

That's kinda like saying "I don't have a good imagination, let me get back to my game of dwarf fortress"

 

[dotoree]

No sorry, I've never heard of Evony.

Evony is a very time intensive "real time" strategy game populated almost exclusively by 14-20 year olds and consists of trying to crush each others castles. I had to quit in order to have more time for study. I'm certain that a "busy" person like this guy wouldn't have time to play... if any of his claims about his personal life are true.

Sorry, but I've met very few kids there in the world I used to play in (I quit in May this year). I've met major professors, including a very famous one who edits academic journals and won one of the biggest prizes in America for that last year and I think he was a kidney surgeon as well. I met another professor who was the #1 player in the game, financial advisors, company CEOs and more. There are a few kids true...but far more adults where I played...I actually detested the game itself even though I was in the top 50-100 out of some 15,000. I preferred the discussions, which often turned to topics like we are discussing here. That's the ONLY reason I played it for most of the time I did. My university has most of its classrooms wired to the internet..so I could get things going during the breaks (and some of my responses here are during those breaks as well..like this one).

All your attacks on my personal life are ad hominem attacks and have absolutely nothing to do with the topic. Furthermore, I could prove everything I say, but it would be very time consuming and wouldn't do diddly squat to advance knowledge on the topic we are supposed to be discussing. Here are a few examples of ad hominem attacks so you know what they are:

AD HOMINEM ARGUMENTS/CHARACTER ASSASINATION/SHOOTING THE MESSENGER: This is a very commonly used method of attack. You don't like the theory or claims of person A. It's hard to argue against their ideas though. So, instead you attack their character and try to find some crime or mistake that they have made. Then you focus on that and make people doubt their claims. This is wrong reasoning because sometimes even very evil people might be telling the truth. So this does not cancel the argument that they make. It has the basic form:
1. A makes claim B;
2. C says that As character is unethical in some way
3. So, C says that claim B is false.

EXAMPLES
"¢ "You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since you are a criminal as well."
"¢ "You feel that abortion should be illegal, but I disagree because you are uneducated and poor."
"¢ "Candidate Jane Jones' proposal X is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003."
"¢ "You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, therefore you are a communist"
"¢ Conservatives are against abortion, but let us not forget that Hitler was also against abortion, therefore conservatives are Hitlers-in-training."

If you want to be guilty of using logical fallacies, you can continue with these meaningly character attacks. I really could care less. My character is established solidly with people who know me and I really don't care much what some internet strangers think of it. Furthermore this has NOTHING to do with the topic we are SUPPOSED to be discussing.
Bryan
P.S. I strongly recommend NEVER starting Evony. It was fun to meet people, but the game is stupidly unrealistic and far more work than fun.

 

[monitoradiation]

Wait, are we even taking about evidence yet? I come back to this thread and it's still talking about definitions and No True Scotsman. Can anyone point me somewhere where Dotoree had presented some evidence....??

Oh.. wait... He's talking about MMORPGs? For crying out loud. This is such a yawnfest.

 

[scalyblue]

"¢ "You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since you are a criminal as well."
"¢ "You feel that abortion should be illegal, but I disagree because you are uneducated and poor."
"¢ "Candidate Jane Jones' proposal X is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003."
"¢ "You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, therefore you are a communist"
"¢ Conservatives are against abortion, but let us not forget that Hitler was also against abortion, therefore conservatives are Hitlers-in-training."

Really?


"¢ "You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since you are a criminal as well."
This is non-fallacious argumentum ad hominem. There is a reasonable expectation that a felon is more likely to have contempt for the judicial system, and a felon's testimony would be hardly be a strong mitigating factor. Besides, many countries observe ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. There is nothing that *you* have proven beyond a reasonable doubt, for what it's worth.

fail.

"¢ "You feel that abortion should be illegal, but I disagree because you are uneducated and poor."
Someone can feel that abortion can be illegal and someone can disagree all they want. There is no fallacy here. Social status is most certainly relevant to the idea of abortion's legality. There is nothing at stake in this debate, though. I, for one, could give less than a shit about how somebody feels about abortion as long as they're not making a law about it. This is also another attempt to derail the conversation with a weighty assertion. The only fallacy is in the actual construction of your example, where an appeal to emotion is being used to demonstrate your point in the form of a complexly constructed example.

fail

"¢ "Candidate Jane Jones' proposal X is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003."
Again, this is a non-fallacious use of argumentum ad hominem. Candidate Jane Jones' is not credible in public office because she committed tax fraud The fact that she is a candidate in anything is what is rediculous, not her unspoken proposal. Since she is a candidate she is not in a position to be making a proposal, anyway.

fail.

"¢ "You say the gap between the rich and poor is unacceptable, but communists also say this, therefore you are a communist"
Somebody who believes that a gap between rich and poor is unacceptable typically *is* a communist. Communist is not a derogatory term, unlike creationist. Defining something as it is is not argumentum ad hominem.

fail

"¢ Conservatives are against abortion, but let us not forget that Hitler was also against abortion, therefore conservatives are Hitlers-in-training."
That is not an argumentum ad hominem because the person in question is not being invoked to disqualify their statement. Conservatives may very well be hitlers in training. (how precisely does one train to be hitler, fight in world war 1 and be a mediocre artist?) Aside from the point, the comparison to hitler is not being used as an attempt to (falsely or truly) refute conservative's position on abortion. Perhaps maybe a non sequitur

Fail.

Dotoree's knowledge of logical fallacies?

--edit 1: forgot a fail. Fail on my part. ^.^

 

[scalyblue]

Dotoree, let me lay out what I've seen in this thread.

Oh, by the way, yes I screw around, post image macros, and let my /b ness show at times. I'm not the one trying to present myself as a pastor, teacher, and font of all correct knowledge about reality, so go fuck yourself ^.^

You are not prepared to hold a debate. With anyone.

Your case statement is "aronra is wrong"

Here are the arguments you have alluded to for your case.
practical: ""aronra is wrong"
philosophical: "aronra is wrong"
legal: "aronra is wrong"
economic gain: "aronra is wrong"
personal gain: "aronra is wrong"

Your evidence?

You have shown us nothing evidential, or substantiative, empirical, or worthwhile.

Nothing.

You are purposefully trying to mire this discussion in the pedantic dismantling of cherry-picked definitions, because you know that if you dared to use the definitions that all of us use, you would have no ground to stand on at all.

When you speak about your hard life,®, your financial troubles,®, your lack of sleep,®, or your discomfort at being "ganged up on" you are committing the logical fallacy of argumentum ad misericordiam, an appeal to pity.

When you assert that your god is real because it hasn't proven not to be real, you are committing the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam, an argument to ignorance. For an existence posit, the burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion.

You are trying to commit argumentum ad logicam, an argument to logic, when you assert that "Aronra's argument is invalid, therefore my position is correct." Even if you were correct in calling out the validity of his argument, that does *not* make your position correct. We work from a NULL hypothesis here, that needs falsifiable evidence. A posit that nothing can falsify is a USELESS POSIT with NO practical application, NO logical ground, and NO testable methods. On the same line of thought, if Darwin was wrong about something that does NOT affect anything in the modern day any more than henry fucking ford's metallurgical experience affects modern day automotive design.

When you summon your supposed experts, you are committing the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam, an argument to authority. I'm not talking about kent hovind, or bob barker, or whoever the fuck you're invoking. I'm talking about the dictionary. As somebody who claims to be a linguist, you should know that a dictionary is HARDLY, HARDLY a terminal source of the definition of a word. To truly *define* a word, you must take into account connotation, denotation, etymology, inflection, context, subject, object, clause, and participle. ALL OF THESE THINGS.

You seem to want to be an insufferable pedant about definitions. I can see why, it's how you 'win' debates. It's like if I'm trying to roll for attack in dungeons and dragons, and my die comes up as a 16, I'll just tell my DM "No, I do critical damage, that roll was in octal so it actually rolled a 20"

What you describe as "creation science" is a prime example of the logical fallacy of circulus in demonstrando (a circular argument) In other words, these scientists are trying to show that creation is true because the bible says that creation is true, and because creation is true, the bible is a valid source of information.

You commit the logical fallacy of petitio principii (begging the question) when you assert that there is proof of intelligent creation. In other words, you are claiming that because you see what you believe indicates intelligent creation, that intelligent creation has occurred. Considering that you don't even know how airplanes work, you probably don't have the scientific understanding necessary to observe intelligent creation even if you see it.

You are committing the straw man fallacy when you are accusing us of attempting to change your position by correctly defining your incorrect definitions. This is not the case. Your definitions are either incorrect in a way that favors your position, or the parts of the definitions that don't favor your position are omitted from your position. Lies of omission are also lies, and somebody who doesn't lie can still deceive.

and most of all.

Red herring
Attempting to throw out valid definitions because they don't fit your argument, attempting to derail the conversation away from rebutting you by including flamebait and trollbait.

I sense great fail in this one.

/Apologies if I'm not as cogent as I could be, wasting time on this prick makes my pandas cry.
//plays fallout 3

 

[dotoree]

Dotoree, let me lay out what I've seen in this thread.

Oh, by the way, yes I screw around, post image macros, and let my /b ness show at times. I'm not the one trying to present myself as a pastor, teacher, and font of all correct knowledge about reality,

Straw man. I NOWHERE ssaid that I am the font (I think you mean fountain) of all correct knowledge about reality. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

You are not prepared to hold a debate. With anyone.

You have no clue about what information I have, since I haven't presented hardly ANY evidence due to Aronra's efforts to straw man my views. So this is an argument from complete ignorance.

Your case statement is "aronra is wrong"

Wrong. I do think that yes. But, I don't expect anyone to agree with me, for sure not in this biased environment before I've presented a lot of evidence (I've not presented even 1% of what I have).

None of your fallacies or explanations are correct. Most of the examples I used for ad hominem were gotten from NON-Christian sites which deal explicitly with false logic. You would do well to go there and educate yourself on what logical fallacies really are. You are only demonstrating your ignorance of what they are and your willingness to use them. It's sad that you're misusing the amazing mind you were given so badly
Bryan

 

[scalyblue]

Dotoree, let me lay out what I've seen in this thread.

Oh, by the way, yes I screw around, post image macros, and let my /b ness show at times. I'm not the one trying to present myself as a pastor, teacher, and font of all correct knowledge about reality,

Straw man. I NOWHERE ssaid that I am the font (I think you mean fountain) of all correct knowledge about reality. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

You are not prepared to hold a debate. With anyone.

You have no clue about what information I have, since I haven't presented hardly ANY evidence due to Aronra's efforts to straw man my views. So this is an argument from complete ignorance.

Your case statement is "aronra is wrong"

Wrong. I do think that yes. But, I don't expect anyone to agree with me, for sure not in this biased environment before I've presented a lot of evidence (I've not presented even 1% of what I have).

None of your fallacies or explanations are correct. Most of the examples I used for ad hominem were gotten from NON-Christian sites which deal explicitly with false logic. You would do well to go there and educate yourself on what logical fallacies really are. You are only demonstrating your ignorance of what they are and your willingness to use them. It's sad that you're misusing the amazing mind you were given so badly
Bryan

You don't know what a font is? Linguistics fail, and christianity fail. This cinches it for me, you're not anything you claim you are.

Your views aren't being strawmanned. They are not. No. They. Are. Not. You are confusing somebody correcting your definitions with strawmanning. Since your views are only valid when you use your own cherry-picked and fallacious-by-omission definitions, I'll keep calling critical hits on 16's because those rolls were in oct.

You don't have any evidence to present, that's why you keep dangling this pretend evidence like a twit. The sad thing is that you actually think what you have is evidential. It's not. As of yet you have not provided even a single shred of evidence. Not one iota. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nein. Rei.

If you honestly believe that anything you have presented in this thread comprises evidence in any form, it is because you are wrong. Since 1% of nothing is nothing, I don't think you're lying when you say you've presented 1% of what you've had.

Where you got your examples is irrelevant, they are wrong. What you posted was as I said it was. When they did contain arguments, they didn't comprise fallacious ones. There is no logical fallacy in requiring verification of the testimony of a felon, or obviating a known tax defrauder from holding public office. The only thing I am demonstrating is how little you seem to cognate what you are responding to. I will define argumentum ad hominem for you, from both my own colloquial sense, and from the university of phoenix. Any emphasis will be mine.

This is when you attack the character or motives of a person made a statement, rather than the statement itself.

This is uncommonly could be character malignment (e.g, "My opposition is a fascist!") ( I will note that fascist is derogatory, while communist isn't )

If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without verification. You can also dump an ad homimem against an idea instead of a person., such as by replacing "My opponent is fascist" with "My opponent's argument is fascist.

More commonly, it's like saying that "Here's a nixon quote about chinese trade freedom, nixon was a liar, therefore we shouldn't believe him."
This is fallacious ad hominem

"Here's a nixon quote denying watergate, nixon was a liar therefore we shouldn't believe him"
This is not fallacious ad hominem

So, if someone said "Dotoree is an idiot, therefore his argument about science is invalid" that would be a fallacious ad homimem
If somebody says "Dotoree is ignorant regarding science, therefore his argument about science is invalid." would not be a fallacious ad homimem.

Idiot.

Ad Hominem (Personal Attack)
Explanation
It is important to note that the label "ad hominem" is ambiguous, and that not every kind of ad hominem argument is fallacious. In one sense, an ad hominem argument is an argument in which you offer premises that you the arguer don't accept, but which you know the listener does accept, in order to show that his position is incoherent (as in, for example, the Euthyphro dilemma). There is nothing wrong with this type of argument ad hominem.
The other type of ad hominem argument is a form of genetic fallacy. Arguments of this kind focus not on the evidence for a view but on the character of the person advancing it; they seek to discredit positions by discrediting those who hold them. It is always important to attack arguments, rather than arguers, and this is where arguments that commit the ad hominem fallacy fall down.
Example
(1) William Dembski argues that modern biology supports the idea that there is an intelligent designer who created life.
(2) Dembski would say that because he's religious.
Therefore:
(3) Modern biology doesn't support intelligent design.
This argument rejects the view that intelligent design is supported by modern science based on a remark about the person advancing the view, not by engaging with modern biology. It ignores the argument, focusing only on the arguer; it is therefore a fallacious argument ad hominem.

Of course, Dembski's statements have been refuted in many other ways that do not involve his character, but you wouldn't care because you'll just ignore that too.

You want to present evidence, dotoree? Present something concrete and independantly verifiable. Not through the bible, which can't even get its shit straight. Not through josephius. Show me replicable transubstantiation, or how prayer is a metric in the healing of illnesses. Hell, show me an amputee who has prayed for his limb to be healed in full and had his prayers answered. Demonstrate whether hell is endothermic or exothermic. Demonstrate the veracity of souls. Quantify a soul. Quantify life. Demonstrate a machine that operates on the energy of prayer. Show me a reputable peer reviewed paper that demonstrates a global flood, where the water went to, and why its presence didn't incinerate us all. Posit another explanation for the chixulub crater, or the C/T boundry event. Produce supernatural phenomina on undoctored, independantly verified video. Show me a fossilized bunny rabbit in the Cretaceous.

And while you're at it, elucidate how your information is special, and all of the taoists, buddhists, shintoists, jews, muslims, and hindus, moroms, and scientologists have it wrong and you have it right.

You may not cite the bible or josephius.

_________________
悪夢の王の一片よ
空のいましめ解き放たれし
凍れる黒き虚無の刃よ
我が力　我が身となりて
共に滅びの道を歩まん
神々の魂すらも打ち砕き