Evolutionists who reject God and miracles have some huge problems to explain....
...Atheistic evolutionists often try to duck this problem by saying that evolution is not concerned with the origin of life, only how life progressed after it appeared. But assuming the existence of an intricately working universe with some sort of life-forms already in it is not a minor assumption, and puts more faith in an unknown, counter-intuitive process than Christians put in God.
The bolded section is mine for reference.
This comment only works when you are discussing atheism COMBINED WITH evolution.
Is there some way we could make the topic of this thread more clear, or is this simply your way of answering my questions? I cannot help but note that Pantoufle's reading ability was at a similar level.
The problem with making this statement is you seem to expect everyone reading it to conveniently forget the both you and Russ have openly stated that belief in evolution is atheistic.
If we wanted folks to forget this alleged stuff, why would the thread have the title it has? (And I can't take credit for the title.)
Perhaps we are oversteping in our assumptions that these are declarations about evolution and not just about Atheistic evolutionists.
I wasn't aware of your assumptions in that respect. Do you mean to say these things would be problematic for ID-type people as well?
If it is not an arguement against atheism alone then I feel justified in separating the fields of study in Russ' original post.
I'm not Russ, but it would seem you can choose to support atheistic evolutionism or not support it. I had the impression you'd already made that choice, as a matter of fact.
Are you saying the various forms of evolutionism are immune to discussion? That one cannot discuss theistic evolutionism because one must either discuss theism or evolutionism but not both together? If so, I think you are mistaken.
BTW: The tone of your response indicates that you feel Pantoufle was a less-than-intelligent poster and Pwcca resembles someone who is less than intelligent. Certainly you wouldn't be insulting another poster. I must be misreading this as you would surely maintain the high standards that you are expected to enforce as a moderator.
I wrote of Pantoufle's reading capacity. Either you equate reading capacity with intelligence, or your own reading needs improvement. Oops! False dilemma. Could be both.
The only link that applies to anything here is the red herring. Your entire post is nothing but a red herring, and this constitutes trolling.
It could be considered trolling if you could provide evidence of intent through say...
I wasn't aware of any 'intent clause' in the trolling laws.
showing that Pwcca truly understands the meaning of all those fallacies.
Would his employment of them count?
I find your defense of Pwcca interesting. "Innocent by reason of utter incompetence", is that it?
Please explain your solution to feigned stupidity, in that case. Should people be permitted to get away with anything on the condition that they're willing to pretend to be stupid? If so, why? If not, how can there be any justice? They don't even have to fear being called 'stupid' too terribly much. There's no down side for miscreants.
But then what of the person who calls these people 'stupid', and then pretends to be too stupid, or just too incompetent, to know better? I don't think you've considered the implications of making stupidity into a "get out of jail free card". I can somewhat see how you'd desire this to become law, but I think you need to invest a little more time and reconsider.
You kept using "circular logic" inappropriately in another thread and no one accused you of trolling. Ignorance, yes...trolling, no.
I recall being accused of several things by those who have no trouble at all spotting the circular nature of circular reasoning unless it supports their most sacred religion.
