Evolution vs Creationism---Is there a God? Or is it all just random chance?

[PostmodernProphet]

So you say, but so far as I've already noted you never back it up. This is your hobby I know.

you think I haven't backed it up?........of course I have........you simply ignore fact.....

 

[gfm7175]

This is not a debate

Yes it is. That's the very purpose of this forum. If you wish not to debate ideas, then you're in the wrong place.

or logic class.

Correct, this is not a logic class. You'll learn a lot more about logic from what I presented here than you will in most logic classes. The "logic class" that I was in (to get my degree) was really bad. It was basically just a Christianity bash-fest that made numerous logical errors while bashing it. Unfortunately I was not that literate in logic at the time, and much more reserved, so I didn't challenge any of what was being taught. If I were in that class now, I would be intellectually mopping the floor with that "teacher".

Void does not mean "wrong".

Void simply means invalid and/or completely empty.

An argument can contain fallacies and still be right.

Nope. An argument that contains a fallacy is in error, thus rendering the argument to be invalid. Now, the CONCLUSION itself might still be a True (even though one formed an invalid argument to reach said conclusion), but the argument itself is invalid since it contains a fallacy, and thus it can be completely dismissed as fallacious.

That is what I cited in the source I provided.

The source you provided has no idea what a Fallacy Fallacy is. They stumbled upon one specific form that the fallacy can take, but they have no understanding of the other forms it can take.

 

[Casual Leftist]

Yes it is. That's the very purpose of this forum. If you wish not to debate ideas, then you're in the wrong place.

Contextual fallacy. Strawman fallacy. You broke apart the sentence to suggest we're debating in a snide attempt to ignore the context of 'debate class' - I never denied that we're debating, conversing, chatting etc. - but the point is you're playing school yard games and I'm not interested in it. You took my position out of context thus a false position to criticize.

Correct, this is not a logic class. You'll learn a lot more about logic from what I presented here than you will in most logic classes. The "logic class" that I was in (to get my degree) was really bad. It was basically just a Christianity bash-fest that made numerous logical errors while bashing it. Unfortunately I was not that literate in logic at the time, and much more reserved, so I didn't challenge any of what was being taught. If I were in that class now, I would be intellectually mopping the floor with that "teacher".

Anecdotal Evidence. False claim to authority. Irrelevant back story. You have not presented evidence of your certification, and the nature of your so proposed study seems fictitious.

Void simply means invalid and/or completely empty.

It would mean that in .. wait for it .... THE CLASSROOM.

But in casual conversation, which is what this non-regulated chat forum is - out right disregarding what a person is saying by calling it a fallacy is not a way to go about what's being asked or talked about. This isn't an academic debate for judges. Debates are about points and arguing that your side is correct regardless of probably truth.

Nope. An argument that contains a fallacy is in error, thus rendering the argument to be invalid. Now, the CONCLUSION itself might still be a True (even though one formed an invalid argument to reach said conclusion), but the argument itself is invalid since it contains a fallacy, and thus it can be completely dismissed as fallacious.

Invalid in a classroom. You don't attempt to actually disprove my claims regardless of sources, you just say they're fallacious. You even acknolge my point - it still might be true. You, like into the night, never actually try to say anything of fact to the point of the topic. You're just in an academic pursuit of playing fallacy.

The source you provided has no idea what a Fallacy Fallacy is. They stumbled upon one specific form that the fallacy can take, but they have no understanding of the other forms it can take.

False Authority Fallacy. You have no creditably to judge a source that's sole purpose is to document fallacies. See how easy and unproductive this line of rebuttal is?

 

[Casual Leftist]

you think I haven't backed it up?........of course I have........you simply ignore fact.....

No really, you never provided a source. You quoted the bible sure, but that's only credible amonst Christians, and the bible is known for its easy to use soundbites for interpretation and you gave very short quotes..

 

[PostmodernProphet]

No really, you never provided a source. You quoted the bible sure, but that's only credible amonst Christians, and the bible is known for its easy to use soundbites for interpretation and you gave very short quotes..

/shrugs......like I said.......you ignore fact........besides, as I recall this argument was about what Jesus said.........can you think of a source besides the Bible that we should use?....

 

[Iolo/Penderyn]

You quoted the bible sure, but that's only credible amonst Christians, and the bible is known for its easy to use soundbites for interpretation and you gave very short quotes..

Surely it depends what bit of that anthology we are talking about? Like, for instance, there were both a Babylonian and a Persian Empire, and the second had a much more tolerant policy. Does that matter for Christians? Only fundamentalists, and to them not much. Like any other series of historical documents, it is full of interesting material to be interpreted, but anyone who sees 'it' as infallible must be Postmodernprofiteer or someone similar.

 

[Casual Leftist]

/shrugs......like I said.......you ignore fact........besides, as I recall this argument was about what Jesus said.........can you think of a source besides the Bible that we should use?....

I'm so feeble I know. Won't you help me by providing those sources? What sources should we use when discussing the philosophical ramifications of abortion? Pragmatism? Science? Religion?

I personally prefer pragmatism. Studies show that countries that allow more women freedom are generally more prosperous. Historically speaking, women have always had that choice. https://allthatsinteresting.com/silphium

 

[Casual Leftist]

Surely it depends what bit of that anthology we are talking about? Like, for instance, there were both a Babylonian and a Persian Empire, and the second had a much more tolerant policy. Does that matter for Christians? Only fundamentalists, and to them not much. Like any other series of historical documents, it is full of interesting material to be interpreted, but anyone who sees 'it' as infallible must be Postmodernprofiteer or someone similar.

Anthology from an anthropological sense, but if we're to take their claims seriously that requires theology.

If you're worried about the similarities between the biblical 'tax' scene and modern society then perhaps I can put you at ease by saying tropes transcend time.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm so feeble I know. Won't you help me by providing those sources? What sources should we use when discussing the philosophical ramifications of abortion? Pragmatism? Science? Religion?

if you want to argue what humanists say I expect you would use humanist sources........since the discussion was centered around what Jesus said......well, I guess the source is obvious, isn't it......

Historically speaking, women have always had that choice.

except well, you know.....no......historically speaking, in the US.....pretty much from 1492 until the 1970s, neither women or men had a legal right to kill their unborn children....

 

[Casual Leftist]

if you want to argue what humanists say I expect you would use humanist sources........since the discussion was centered around what Jesus said......well, I guess the source is obvious, isn't it...

Uh what? it wasn't "centered" around what Jesus said. Your Bible quotes weren't even from Jesus.

except well, you know.....no......historically speaking, in the US.....pretty much from 1492 until the 1970s, neither women or men had a legal right to kill their unborn children....

My sweet summer child. As if the law has command over nature. But go ahead thinking that just because the law said so it never happened.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Uh what? it wasn't "centered" around what Jesus said. Your Bible quotes weren't even from Jesus.

they weren't from Jesus if you refuse to believe that Jesus was God incarnate.......I do not share your refusal, nor do the other 3 billion Christians.......

As if the law has command over nature.

don't be silly........killing your unborn child is not natural......

 

[Iolo/Penderyn]

Anthology from an anthropological sense, but if we're to take their claims seriously that requires theology.

If you're worried about the similarities between the biblical 'tax' scene and modern society then perhaps I can put you at ease by saying tropes transcend time.

Why should I be worried?

 

[gfm7175]

Contextual fallacy. Strawman fallacy.

Fallacy Fallacy.

You broke apart the sentence to suggest we're debating in a snide attempt to ignore the context of 'debate class'

No, just responding directly to what you said.

However, I am open to the possibility that when you said "debate or logic class" that you meant "debate [class] or logic class" instead of "debate [itself] or logic class". You would have to clarify what you meant there, and I could adjust my response accordingly.

I never denied that we're debating, conversing, chatting etc.

I will take this to mean that you meant "debate [class] or logic class" instead of "debate [itself] or logic class". So good, then you're not denying that we're debating. That's a good start!

but the point is you're playing school yard games and I'm not interested in it. You took my position out of context thus a false position to criticize.

I'm playing no games. You just needed to further clarify that you meant debate class instead of debate itself.

Anecdotal Evidence. False claim to authority. Irrelevant back story.

Fallacy Fallacy. I wasn't using my anecdote as evidence of anything other than my own personal experience with a particular logic class, and I have never claimed to be the authority on logic.

You have not presented evidence of your certification, and the nature of your so proposed study seems fictitious.

Correct usage and understanding of logic does not require any certification.

It would mean that in .. wait for it .... THE CLASSROOM.

Not just in the classroom, but everywhere. Logic applies everywhere.

But in casual conversation, which is what this non-regulated chat forum is

Does Mathematics only hold meaning in the classroom?? Likewise, logic fully applies in casual conversation as well. This forum IS regulated, actually. It has rules, and it is organized and has order.

out right disregarding what a person is saying by calling it a fallacy is not a way to go about what's being asked or talked about.

No, it's precisely the way to go about it. Any argument that contains a fallacy can be completely discarded on sight, as it is erroneous akin to how 2+3=4 (under base 10 mathematics) can be completely discarded on sight as erroneous. Just like you would need to "try again" in mathematics, you also need to "try again" in logic. These are closed systems, you know.

This isn't an academic debate for judges.

Correct.

Debates are about points and arguing that your side is correct

In part, yes.

regardless of probably truth.

What is "probably truth"?

Invalid in a classroom.

Paradox. Make up your mind. Does logic apply in a classroom or not?

You don't attempt to actually disprove my claims regardless of sources, you just say they're fallacious.

...because they ARE fallacious. You need to present valid arguments. You need to follow the rules of logic.

You even acknolge my point - it still might be true.

Sure, but you cannot use erroneous reasoning to reach your conclusion. That erroneous reasoning will continue to get called out and discarded as such. You need to form valid arguments.

You, like into the night, never actually try to say anything of fact to the point of the topic. You're just in an academic pursuit of playing fallacy.

Calling out a fallacy IS a direct counterargument to the argumentation that one has presented. It takes the logical form A->B, C->!A.

False Authority Fallacy.

Fallacy Fallacy. I have claimed no such authority over logic. The authority over logic is its own axioms. Anyone can learn them and make proper use of them.

You have no creditably to judge a source that's sole purpose is to document fallacies.

What credibility do I need to judge? How do I obtain said credibility? Their purpose is irrelevant.

See how easy and unproductive this line of rebuttal is?

Nope. It's not easy. You merely failed at it numerous times, since you are very illiterate in logic.

 

[Into the Night]

This is not a debate or logic class. Void does not mean "wrong". An argument can contain fallacies and still be right. That is what I cited in the source I provided.

If an argument is based on an error of logic, it is invalid. All fallacies are invalid arguments. Yes...that DOES affect any debate when they occur.
A void argument fallacy is not an argument. It is not anything. It is trying to argue about nothing. This can occur, for example, when someone tries to use a meaningless buzzword as the basis of their argument. In some cases, it can happen when someone tries to make a big deal about no subject at all.

Depending on an outside source for your argument is simply stealing someone else's argument as your own. You are not making an argument at that point, you are merely mindlessly echoing the argument of someone else...someone that isn't here to present their argument for themselves.

 

[Into the Night]

So you say, but so far as I've already noted you never back it up. This is your hobby I know.

Logic needs no 'backup'. There is no 'official list' of fallacies. Logic is like mathematics, a closed functional system. You just keep making errors in it.

 

[Into the Night]

Contextual fallacy. Strawman fallacy.

Fallacy fallacies. No context change occurred. No strawman was constructed to tear down.

You broke apart the sentence to suggest we're debating in a snide attempt to ignore the context of 'debate class' - I never denied that we're debating, conversing, chatting etc.

Yes you have, liar.

but the point is you're playing school yard games and I'm not interested in it.

It is YOU that is trying to deny logic and the role it has in any conversation.

You took my position out of context thus a false position to criticize.

Lie. He has not changed context at all.

Anecdotal Evidence.

What anecdote? He never used one!

False claim to authority.

He never claimed one in his post.

Irrelevant back story.

He never made one in his last post.

You have not presented evidence of your certification,

He doesn't need one.

and the nature of your so proposed study seems fictitious.

He never claimed a study.

It would mean that in .. wait for it .... THE CLASSROOM.

He never claimed this was a classroom.

But in casual conversation, which is what this non-regulated chat forum is - out right disregarding what a person is saying by calling it a fallacy is not a way to go about what's being asked or talked about.

A fallacy is an error in logic. It renders any argument invalid.

This isn't an academic debate for judges.

No one ever said it was.

Debates are about points and arguing that your side is correct regardless of probably truth.

You can't make a point with an invalid argument.

Invalid in a classroom.

No one said we are in a classroom.

You don't attempt to actually disprove my claims regardless of sources, you just say they're fallacious.

A fallacious claim is an invalid argument. The claim is therefore rendered void.

You even acknolge my point - it still might be true.

An invalid argument makes no point. You can't make a True out of a void.

You, like into the night, never actually try to say anything of fact to the point of the topic. You're just in an academic pursuit of playing fallacy.

It is not academics. There is no classroom. A fallacy renders an argument invalid. That affects any point you are trying to make. Stop making fallacies and he and I will stop calling you out on them.

False Authority Fallacy.

Contextomy fallacy. There is no authority, other than the rules of logic. There is no 'official list' of fallacies.

You have no creditably to judge a source that's sole purpose is to document fallacies.

There is no 'official list' of fallacies.

See how easy and unproductive this line of rebuttal is?

You are not rebutting anything. You are simply denying logic. You might as well deny mathematics as a whole.

 

[Into the Night]

No really, you never provided a source. You quoted the bible sure, but that's only credible amonst Christians, and the bible is known for its easy to use soundbites for interpretation and you gave very short quotes..

The Bible is a source and a valid reference for questions about Christianity.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm so feeble I know. Won't you help me by providing those sources? What sources should we use when discussing the philosophical ramifications of abortion? Pragmatism? Science? Religion?

You might try philosophy, but you probably deny that too.

I personally prefer pragmatism.

Define 'pragmatism'.

Studies show that countries that allow more women freedom are generally more prosperous.

What studies? Who conducted these studies? You are making blanket claims with no reference.

Historically speaking, women have always had that choice.

True. They've also always had to live with the consequences of that choice.

 

[Into the Night]

Uh what? it wasn't "centered" around what Jesus said. Your Bible quotes weren't even from Jesus.

I suspect that you are trying to deny what you said again.

My sweet summer child. As if the law has command over nature. But go ahead thinking that just because the law said so it never happened.

What about 'natural law'?