New Miss USA :"evolution should be taught in public schools." (best, facts)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have no problem believing God could work by evolution if he wanted to. There is not evidence that He did, though. The Genesis account contradicts it, as does natural evidence, such as the fossil record.
Leaving aside circular logic, what on Earth makes you think the fossil record contradicts ToE?
That is again assertion. You are asserting that it is the only logical conclusion... and in the process ignoring or dismissing those contrary to your usage. That exclusion combined with the assertion is why your argument is not logical.
You can not use the premise of creationism (that God is the cause) as justification for why it is accurate in stating that God is the cause because causality demands a cause
You missed the entire point. Your use of Ad Hominem and Poisoning the Well damages your argument because it means rather than address a claim or prove your own, you address the individual or attempt to discredit.
The problem is that your argument hinges on an assumptive leap supporting your belief rather than proving it or explaining why it is valid beyond the point of hypothesis.
Big Bang has support in physics and and mathmatics and so can be tested on standard scientific grounds. Assertion of a Higher being can not be tested and proven in the same way yet you attempt to use one to dismiss the other.
The supreme irony given your vehement insistance that others are in error and that God is the cause.... is there is no logical reasoning that implies the two premises are mutually exclusive. So you are actually demeaning other theories to dismiss them out of hand rather than even considering if they could be inclusive in some way.
Which illustrates an exisiting bias and trends to what is called "Exclusive Middle" which is to say you argue either or.... with no consideration for middle ground or inclusive reasoning.
Creationists often insist Evolution is wrong or vice versa, but the concept of a grand design is not mutually exclusive to something like an adaptive trait as such adaption can be part of a design. When you play a game of chess your strategy is a design, but that design includes the reaction and adaptive possibilities of your opponent.
The major flaw resulting in your arguments being circular or illogical is two fold. First the assertion of cause rather than proof of cause results in it being a circular argument. Second the fact that the exclusion of inclusive possibilities limits the outcome or cause unduly and turns your argument into Exclusive Middle... thus by ignoring or dismissing possibilities your leave gaps which prevent you from proving your own premise.
You really ought to get some logic training. You are making no sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Leaving aside circular logic, what on Earth makes you think the fossil record contradicts ToE?
Even if this is true, why should we listen to "Miss USA". Eww, wow, it's Miss USA! Let's all stand back in awe at her magnificence! Ha ha, what a joke.
An admission that your argument has failed. Congrats, you can join the rest of us in reality.
You mean the ones that are continually being filled by further investigations?
I'm honestly growing tired of trying to explain it to you guys. I don't think for a second that you actually want to understand it. There's just no reasoning with people that don't want to understand. So I'm done trying.
Run from what? You and the others whining because you can't or won't understand it? That's pretty typical atheist strategy. You guys whine and moan about the argument regardless of the facts....then claim victory when we grow tired of your stubborness.
The problem with your story is that there is nothing to understand. It's not testable, it's not logical. It's mere assertion.
liberals get it wrong AGAIN.. Kansas Board of education removed evolution from the standardization tests, but they did NOT remove it from being taught. Why do liberals always get things wrong?
Do you think it will be taught if it is not tested? Haven't you heard of the concept of schools "teaching to the test?" If the Kansas Board has set out all the standards they will test on in their biology class and evolution isn't on there, biology classes will focus on the areas that are being tested. This will, by necessity, to the detriment of teaching evolution, because there is only so much time in a school year to teach all the concepts that are tested by state exams.
The Kansas Board did an end run to diminish and minimize the teaching of evolution without directly forbidding the teaching of it. Either way, it's still grossly negligent of them and doing a disservice to young people in Kansas who will have an incomplete understanding of one of the most basic concepts in science. And I thought the US was trying to become a knowledge economy anyway.
I'll be here waiting for the "dude" to come up with a coherent response.
There are many valid points made every time this topic comes up but some refuse to think outside the box and continually spew others thoughts as if there are no other possibilities so don't hold your breath.
You really ought to get some logic training. You are making no sense.
So you not only resort to Poisoning the Well rather than actually backing your claims.... but you do so addressing me rather than the topic.... then question my logic?
Here, allow me to simplify it for you since you appear to have trouble with the more verbose approach.
Your argument proves nothing... you resort to fallacy to claim Creationism is valid based on the core premise of creationism itself.... then you resort to half a dozen other fallacious arguments to dismiss, justify, or discredit.
"God as cause" is a tenant of creationism regarding what or who created the universe... as such it is not a valid and logical justification for an argument in terms of proving it a valid theory.
The question is not "is there a cause" the question is "What can you illustrate via scientific method as a cause for a given event".... Origin of Species did lay down scientific documentation showing adaptation to environment and that has been tested and verified since then.... "God created the universe" is not something you can prove beyond assertion based on belief though.
I doubt anyone has issue with faith or belief, they have issue with presenting belief or ideology as fact.... or imposing that belief as part of an academic study if sciences without supporting scientific evidence or use of scientific method (which you can not apply to an unseen, unmeasured, unprovable entity such as God)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
