|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,315
Master Elite Member
|
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. Certainly you can discuss the two but belief in one does not necessitate belief in the other. So it would be incorrect if you should speak as if it did. You spend a lot of words on an "hypothetically incorrect" situation. And yet with so many words you do not begin to demonstrate that a requirement exists to at all times speak in hypothetical terms. You need to do so in this case, because if discussion of the practical real world is permissible, your assertion fails. Practically speaking, evolutionism is a prerequisite for atheism. Who's ever encountered an atheist who didn't believe in it? Ever? 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. I thought that even the master of obfuscation would understand that trolling is an intentional act so evidence of intent is required to convict someone of such. Perhaps you do understand but are unable to remove yourself from your online persona long enough to admit it. Actions are almost universally considered to be evidence of intent. People don't usually do things the don't set out to do. The burden of proof falls to the one who claims the action is unintentional. showing that Pwcca truly understands the meaning of all those fallacies. Would his employment of them count? No, since you still don't seem to know the criteria for circular reasoning and you tried, erroneously, to accuse the theory of evolution of employing it. It is clearly you who were in error. How amusing this is. You'll back-n-forth on this like a small child, won't you? You can't get away with other false accusations, so you treasure the circumstance that allows you to pretend you don't know any better. Here's the thread in question, so all can see just who "doesn't understand" circular reasoning, and under what circumstances the lack of understanding manifests. I find your defense of Pwcca interesting. "Innocent by reason of utter incompetence", is that it? Lack of knowledge isn't "utter incompetence". Why would you think so? Have you been accused of utter incompetence many times? I think an extensive enough lack of knowledge renders one utterly incompetent. Lacking a single fact can render one incorrect. Lacking capacity to read tends to result in lacking many facts. And given the means of communication we use here, I'd say one who can't read is utterly incompetent to participate. 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. So you are in favor of ridding the world of the mentally challenged...Down's Syndrome sufferers and the like? I wouldn't have thought you to be so Machiavellian. Putting words in my mouth does not explain your solution. ...or does it? 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. Ignorance is not stupidity but I guess your English comprehension is a little lacking. Since you consider a person with a lack of knowledge to be "stupid", maybe I should consider all those times you accused me of a lack of knowledge as intentional insults to my character. For one who advocates speaking in hypothetical terms, you don't seem to recognize them when you encounter them. One need not equate ignorance with stupidity either, as you falsely imply I have done. When's the last time you even considered generating replies to what I actually say? I get the impression that refusing to do so is considered virtuous in some circles. 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. Do you actually consider that statement a response to what I said? Try a reading comprehension course or something. Accurate history is always an appropriate response to antihistory. I suggest you'd do well to address such arguments to the readership at large rather than to me personally. I happen to know you know I know your game, so there really isn't much point.
Last edited by CTD; 11/22/08 04:45 AM. Reason: punctuation
Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
