I provided you a link to one of the most respected resources on logical fallacies.
Again, “most respected” is a fallacy. So either it’s wrong (which it is) or you read it wrong. Appeal to authority works like this:
A is an authority on a particular topic
A says something about that topic
A is probably correct
How could you possibly have read any actual resource on the subject that failed to tell you this? Or any actual resource that told you “only people who aren’t actually authorities” meet the fallacy? Come on.
Your personal assertions are not debate
That’s exactly what a debate is, but whatever you want to believe. We’ve established that you believe anything that any authority says, so I’m not surprised that you don’t understand the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity, as well as the situations in which either is relevant. What’s your criteria for ‘authority’, anyway, since you have an initially flawed viewpoint on the subject? Is an authority just anyone with whom you already agreed and then anyone who disagrees with you is either “not an authority and therefore wrong” or “an authority who is wrong because bigot racist backward”? Or do you have another criteria for determining “authority”?
Pro tip: You can give personal assertions as to the best implementation of objectivity in a debate or you can give personal assertions as to the best subjective statement in a debate. But a personal assertion of objectivity is just another phrase for “telling the truth”.
You already admitted that you ignored what I wrote: "I’ve not made any statement about it, either way. I’ve just ignored it..."
Yep. For that one thing (and then, you know, did reply to it). But everything else I replied directly to.
You accused me of misrepresenting your position and then, point by point, acknowledged the accuracy of my representation of your position.
Except THIS representation of my position differs from your initial representation, hence there is no lying except on your part. How’s this difficult for you to understand? The posts are all there. You can literally go back and read them. Even I’m not having trouble with this and I have no memory.
Your claim that "every single fiat currency in the history of human civilization eventually has its faith lost" is false.
Okay. Prove it. Here’s a starter list. The claim on the table is that ~3800 fiat currencies have collapsed. Show me one that didn’t. Should be pretty easy.
Almost all modern currency in use is fiat currency.
Do you not know what history is? This isn’t even a matter of pedantry. You’re literally saying that it is impossible to say that all nations rise and fall because some nations currently exist. This is more hilarious than shocking.
But unlike the beliefs of creationists, the beliefs of evolutionary biologists are supported by science, including a rich fossil record and DNA with which they can analyze differences between different species.
All that you've done is shown that creationists have a much weaker case. Not only have they never observed the creation of life, they don't even have evidence to support their views. When presented with the fossil record, they make up silly stories about God, or Satan, hiding fossils all over the Earth like the Easter Bunny hiding colored eggs.
No matter how many times I "try again," your "faith" will not be swayed by reason, evidence, facts, and logic, so there's really no point.
I considered your arguments and found them to be wholly unconvincing. But thank you for your time.
Science does in fact confirm the creation account.
Where are all the supposed transitional forms in the fossil record? The fossil record supports Genesis. What would you expect to see from a year long global flood: layers upon layers of deposited sediment with creature catastrophically buried.
Dating methods are based on a circular argument, and when dating things of known age (aka witnessed), they have proven to be unreliable, so how can we trust that they work for "deep time". When creationist bring the circular argument up its often swept under the rug, but many secularists are now recognizing this as a problem and realizing they need to provide a better account of their date ranges.
In terms of mathematics a probability less than 1/50,000 is considered a statistical impossibility. The actual probability for the creation of a cell in terms of molecules to man evolution is 1 X 10^-40000. Even on the timescale of billions of years this is next to impossible, yet here we are defying the odds.
Science does in fact confirm the creation account.
Where are all the supposed transitional forms in the fossil record? The fossil record supports Genesis. What would you expect to see from a year long global flood: layers upon layers of deposited sediment with creature catastrophically buried.
Dating methods are based on a circular argument, and when dating things of known age (aka witnessed), they have proven to be unreliable, so how can we trust that they work for "deep time". When creationist bring the circular argument up its often swept under the rug, but many secularists are now recognizing this as a problem and realizing they need to provide a better account of their date ranges.
In terms of mathematics a probability less than 1/50,000 is considered a statistical impossibility. The actual probability for the creation of a cell in terms of molecules to man evolution is 1 X 10^-40000. Even on the timescale of billions of years this is next to impossible, yet here we are defying the odds.
Just boldly proclaiming the truth and dispelling the myth that science and faith are contradictory! The plot, insinuating theres a story, has been lost by secularists. Why do secularists care so much about this issue if this is all there is (the here and now)? We all will eventually die, and in the atheistic worldview has a net effect of 0. So why argue your point when the heat death of the universe takes out all life and it will be as if none of us existed? Do you have to be right (which is a bit narcissistic)? Is that it? If all there is is the here and now, wouldn't you be better served doing other things than arguing on a forum? If there is life after this one, then I have reason to argue the point, for those who don't believe that Jesus died for their sin will spend eternity in hell. I don't want to see anybody go to hell so I disseminate the truth about Jesus. For all will have to give an account of their life after they die. Whether they accept the truth or not is up to the hearers.
So no, I have not missed the plot. I think it is you and many others that have. Having been an atheist for 6ish years, I fully understand the tenets of evolution and atheism and have since rejected them, because the evidence overwhelmingly points to a creator.
Just boldly proclaiming the truth and dispelling the myth that science and faith are contradictory! The plot, insinuating theres a story, has been lost by secularists. Why do secularists care so much about this issue if this is all there is (the here and now)? We all will eventually die, and in the atheistic worldview has a net effect of 0. So why argue your point when the heat death of the universe takes out all life and it will be as if none of us existed? Do you have to be right (which is a bit narcissistic)? Is that it? If all there is is the here and now, wouldn't you be better served doing other things than arguing on a forum? If there is life after this one, then I have reason to argue the point, for those who don't believe that Jesus died for their sin will spend eternity in hell. I don't want to see anybody go to hell so I disseminate the truth about Jesus. For all will have to give an account of their life after they die. Whether they accept the truth or not is up to the hearers.
So no, I have not missed the plot. I think it is you and many others that have. Having been an atheist for 6ish years, I fully understand the tenets of evolution and atheism and have since rejected them, because the evidence overwhelmingly points to a creator.
No one asked you. I could give a shit what you believe or how or what religion you choose to subscribe to. What I am against is preaching and using ridiculous personal allegories that some numnuts choose to subscribe to in order to justify denying groups of people their Civil Rights. Outside of those two things do whatever you want, believe whatever you want to believe. I only ask the same, but you claim to want to 'save' people. That is narcissistic buddy. If you only knew how many jokers tried to preach this or that religion to me. You all hang your hat on something different. Each of those different yet mutually contradictory 'truths' are supposedly 'the truth.' I hope the best for you too like I do everybody, but just practice your religion in privacy and let Tim Cook get his groove back just like Stella did.
Just boldly proclaiming the truth and dispelling the myth that science and faith are contradictory! The plot, insinuating theres a story, has been lost by secularists. Why do secularists care so much about this issue if this is all there is (the here and now)? We all will eventually die, and in the atheistic worldview has a net effect of 0. So why argue your point when the heat death of the universe takes out all life and it will be as if none of us existed? Do you have to be right (which is a bit narcissistic)? Is that it? If all there is is the here and now, wouldn't you be better served doing other things than arguing on a forum? If there is life after this one, then I have reason to argue the point, for those who don't believe that Jesus died for their sin will spend eternity in hell. I don't want to see anybody go to hell so I disseminate the truth about Jesus. For all will have to give an account of their life after they die. Whether they accept the truth or not is up to the hearers.
So no, I have not missed the plot. I think it is you and many others that have. Having been an atheist for 6ish years, I fully understand the tenets of evolution and atheism and have since rejected them, because the evidence overwhelmingly points to a creator.
No one asked you. I could give a shit what you believe or how or what religion you choose to subscribe to. What I am against is preaching and using ridiculous personal allegories that some numnuts choose to subscribe to in order to justify denying groups of people their Civil Rights. Outside of those two things do whatever you want, believe whatever you want to believe. I only ask the same, but you claim to want to 'save' people. That is narcissistic buddy. If you only knew how many jokers tried to preach this or that religion to me. You all hang your hat on something different. Each of those different yet mutually contradictory 'truths' are supposedly 'the truth.' I hope the best for you too like I do everybody, but just practice your religion in privacy and let Tim Cook get his groove back just like Stella did.
That's people with their own agenda. Christians are supposed to love everyone as they love themselves. Anyone that denies anyone their Civil Rights has hate in their heart and is a counterfeit Christian.
How could you possibly have read any actual resource on the subject that failed to tell you this? Or any actual resource that told you “only people who aren’t actually authorities” meet the fallacy? Come on.
Citing a respected authority on a topic is not a fallacy, as you can see by the three additional sources below. I realize that you want to turn this into nothing more than a childish test of who tires first when yelling "Nuh-uh!", "Uh-huh!" but I'm not permitting you to do that.
"A logically valid argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of one or more authoritative source(s), whose opinions are likely to be true on the relevant issue.
A logically fallacious argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of a source that is not authoritative. Sources could be non-authoritative because of their personal bias, their disagreement with consensus on the issue, their non-expertise in the relevant issue, or a number of other issues. (Often, this is called an appeal to authority, rather than argument from authority.)"
This is an argument in which the conclusion is supported by citing an authority. Since the argument is based on an appeal to the authority, the strength of the support depends on the quality of the authority in question. Given that no one can be an expert on everything and the fact that people regularly need reliable information, these arguments are very common. In fact, they are used so often that people generally do not even realize they are being used. For example, when a politician cites an economist to justify her policies, she is making an argument from authority."
Quote:
Or do you have another criteria for determining “authority”?
Given that you tried to use the discredited work of the discredited Dr. Paul Cameron to bolster your anti-gay agenda, it's obvious that it is you who do not know how to determine whether someone is an authority.
Quote:
That’s exactly what a debate is, but whatever you want to believe.
Your penchant for repeatedly asserting that something is true, while providing no evidence or rational argument to support that assertion, is not a debate. Neither are your repeated refusals to acknowledge, or to answer meaningfully, questions and points that your opponent makes.
Quote:
Pro tip: You can give personal assertions as to the best implementation of objectivity in a debate or you can give personal assertions as to the best subjective statement in a debate. But a personal assertion of objectivity is just another phrase for “telling the truth”.
You're not a "pro" at this, obviously. In fact, your attempt at debate is about the most inept, undisciplined, and juvenile that I have seen in quite a long time. Again, your continued assertions, devoid of either evidence or an articulated supporting argument from logic, are not debating.
Quote:
Yep. For that one thing (and then, you know, did reply to it). But everything else I replied directly to.
Just to cite a couple of examples, replies of "You’re joking, right? I mean, you’re legitimately just kidding here, yes?" or "Nope, that’s a consequence of the system itself, not the cause," do not constitute debate.
Quote:
Except THIS representation of my position differs from your initial representation, hence there is no lying except on your part. How’s this difficult for you to understand? The posts are all there. You can literally go back and read them. Even I’m not having trouble with this and I have no memory.
If "the posts are all there," then provide complete, in-context quotes. Or admit that you lied.
Quote:
Okay. Prove it. Here’s a starter list. The claim on the table is that ~3800 fiat currencies have collapsed. Show me one that didn’t. Should be pretty easy.
The Swiss Franc.
Quote:
Do you not know what history is? This isn’t even a matter of pedantry. You’re literally saying that it is impossible to say that all nations rise and fall because some nations currently exist. This is more hilarious than shocking.
No, that's not what I'm saying. You claimed, in your typical stunted English, that "every single fiat currency in the history of human civilization eventually has its faith lost." Fiat currencies are used throughout the world and you have no proof that "every single" one of them will fail.
I initially showed you the fallacy, or hypocrisy, of your claim when I responded "By that argument, you should be an atheist, since man has created more than 2,800 deities over time and civilization has eventually lost its faith in just about all of them."
So I guess that your God is destined for the big scrap heap of deities and the U.S. dollar is bound to fail, right? Based on history. You do know what history is?
That's people with their own agenda. Christians are supposed to love everyone as they love themselves. Anyone that denies anyone their Civil Rights has hate in their heart and is a counterfeit Christian.
But, as you know, if you provide a "missing link" to a creationist, his response is always, "Aha! Now there are two missing links!"
Quote:
Dating methods are based on a circular argument, and when dating things of known age (aka witnessed), they have proven to be unreliable, so how can we trust that they work for "deep time". When creationist bring the circular argument up its often swept under the rug, but many secularists are now recognizing this as a problem and realizing they need to provide a better account of their date ranges.
In terms of mathematics a probability less than 1/50,000 is considered a statistical impossibility. The actual probability for the creation of a cell in terms of molecules to man evolution is 1 X 10^-40000. Even on the timescale of billions of years this is next to impossible, yet here we are defying the odds.
I see no need to clutter up this forum by my trying to write pages of text on the fly when so much care and thought has been put into writing the documents to which I linked.
In terms of mathematics a probability less than 1/50,000 is considered a statistical impossibility. The actual probability for the creation of a cell in terms of molecules to man evolution is 1 X 10^-40000. Even on the timescale of billions of years this is next to impossible, yet here we are defying the odds.
There was an experiment done in the 1950 that supposedly demonstrates how the building blocks of life formed in a completely ideal situation in a lab. What they don't tell you about are all the catch 22's in the experiment that render the formation of life impossible.
Have you ever studied probability in any meaningful way? It hardly makes sense to consider that in the same way as you would flipping a coin. I'm suspicious that you don't understand your own words here. It's a very complex topic.
But, as you know, if you provide a "missing link" to a creationist, his response is always, "Aha! Now there are two missing links!"
Dating methods are based on a circular argument, and when dating things of known age (aka witnessed), they have proven to be unreliable, so how can we trust that they work for "deep time". When creationist bring the circular argument up its often swept under the rug, but many secularists are now recognizing this as a problem and realizing they need to provide a better account of their date ranges.
In terms of mathematics a probability less than 1/50,000 is considered a statistical impossibility. The actual probability for the creation of a cell in terms of molecules to man evolution is 1 X 10^-40000. Even on the timescale of billions of years this is next to impossible, yet here we are defying the odds.
I see no need to clutter up this forum by my trying to write pages of text on the fly when so much care and thought has been put into writing the documents to which I linked.
You do know that there's massive holes in the fossil record. So much so that evolutionists went from saying there were gradual changes to abrut ones.
You do know that there's massive holes in the fossil record. So much so that evolutionists went from saying there were gradual changes to abrut ones.
The theory to which you refer is called "punctuated equilibrium" and it came out more than four decades ago. It wasn't so much to explain gaps as to explain long periods of time during which little change in a species was observed via the fossils. But its hardly surprisung that the fossil record is incomplete. We're talking about animals that died million of years ago.
Citing a respected authority on a topic is not a fallacy
No, but claiming something is true because an authority said it is. As is claiming something is false because you don’t respect the authority of the person who said it.
I realize that you want to turn this into nothing more than a childish test of who tires first when yelling "Nuh-uh!", "Uh-huh!" but I'm not permitting you to do that.
Good for you. Keep your strawmen to yourself and actually have an argument before replying.
Given that you tried to use the discredited work...
OH GOOD. You’re finally starting to do literally the only thing that matters: discuss the content. Now disprove the content, if it is wrong.
...Dr. Paul Cameron...
Doesn’t matter. Don’t care. Genetic fallacy. Disprove the content.
...agenda...
Truth is not an agenda. Prove the content wrong if it is wrong.
it's obvious that it is you who do not know how to determine whether someone is an authority.
No, but it’s obvious that you STILL do not know what an appeal to authority is. Hint: It’s not what happens when the person in question isn’t an authority on the subject.
Again, your continued assertions, devoid of either evidence or an articulated supporting argument from logic, are not debating.
And yet you apparently have no rebuttal to them or the content presented, apparently. You refuse to answer questions directly pertaining to the topics. You ignore disproof when presented. We were having a good debate. If you had questions or refutations, you should have posted them. Don’t do this.
...do not constitute debate.
Which is why you pulled them out of the much larger list of things that do constitute debate, cherry picking them, as it were.
So WILL you answer my question regarding authority and what it is, or will you do what you claim I’m doing and just ignore it?
If "the posts are all there," then provide complete, in-context quotes.
It’s neither my responsibility nor my inclination to waste the energy to present to you that which you did not initially read anyway, as doing so with the expectation that you would read it this time is a fallacy.
The Swiss Franc.
Not an example. See the sentences subsequent to the one to which you replied.
You claimed, in your typical stunted English
How adorable. More ad-homs, while you try to take the high road of debate!
Fiat currencies are used throughout the world and you have no proof that "every single" one of them will fail.
I said nothing of will. Only of have. With a 100% failure rate for the concept itself throughout the entirety of human history, what do you imagine the future will hold? We cannot know the future; we can only predict based on past events. Past events give us a 100% failure rate. Going forward, and no pun intended, but where’s the smart money?
So I guess that your God is destined for the big scrap heap of deities and the U.S. dollar is bound to fail, right?
Still waiting for an answer to my question. If you have none, either say you have none or just silently drop the point of discussion entirely (without any mention to its claimed conclusion–in your favor or otherwise), and we can move on.
Based on history. You do know what history is?
Once again, as previously stated, you don’t have a clue, as evidenced by your existing responses to the matter.
No one asked you. I could give a shit what you believe or how or what religion you choose to subscribe to. What I am against is preaching and using ridiculous personal allegories that some numnuts choose to subscribe to in order to justify denying groups of people their Civil Rights. Outside of those two things do whatever you want, believe whatever you want to believe. I only ask the same, but you claim to want to 'save' people. That is narcissistic buddy. If you only knew how many jokers tried to preach this or that religion to me. You all hang your hat on something different. Each of those different yet mutually contradictory 'truths' are supposedly 'the truth.' I hope the best for you too like I do everybody, but just practice your religion in privacy and let Tim Cook get his groove back just like Stella did.
Only problem is Christ gave us the great commission, that is to spread the gospel to all nations. So no, I can't keep it private, and no, the Bible is not contradictory. You claim contradictions, but fail to provide in depth assertions as to where.
I have had many "jokers" "preach" this and that to me, namely from cults like jehovas witnesses or Mormons. I can agree here that these groups teach are contrary to what the bible actually teaches.
We all hang out hats on something different, including atheists. The question is though, is it the right place? Not all of them can be right, for if they were, well, that would be really weird since all religions will have some area where they will be diametrically opposed. So which one is true?
This [insert word other than civil] "rights" issue strikes at many different religions, and in the near future they will be required to do things they don't agree with. A fire chief in Georgia was fired JUST because he wrote a book that stated he was against homosexuality because it is against what the bible teaches. He had shown no discriminatory hiring practices, yet he was forced out for something he believed. This issue IS and WILL continue to step over the bounds of religious rights.
Only problem is Christ gave us the great commission, that is to spread the gospel to all nations. So no, I can't keep it private, and no, the Bible is not contradictory. You claim contradictions, but fail to provide in depth assertions as to where.
The Romans were exceptional record keepers, yet their history doesn't mention anyone similar to Jesus. It's possible that he never lived.
Quote:
I have had many "jokers" "preach" this and that to me, namely from cults like jehovas witnesses or Mormons. I can agree here that these groups teach are contrary to what the bible actually teaches.
You aren't any better than them. Get over yourself.
That's people with their own agenda. Christians are supposed to love everyone as they love themselves. Anyone that denies anyone their Civil Rights has hate in their heart and is a counterfeit Christian.
Loving and condoning action are 2 different things. God loves us, but being a good judge has to punish sin. But because God loves us he sent his only Son, Jesus, to suffer His wrath instead of us. You can either accept the punishment, or accept that Christ is willing to take that punishment for you.
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life."
John 3:16 ESV
God tells us to love our enemies as we love ourselves, and the best way to do that is to spread the gospel to them in hope that it'll save lives.
“but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
??Romans? ?5:8? ?ESV?? http://bible.com/59/rom.5.8.esv
That's people with their own agenda. Christians are supposed to love everyone as they love themselves. Anyone that denies anyone their Civil Rights has hate in their heart and is a counterfeit Christian.
Loving and condoning action are 2 different things. God loves us, but being a good judge has to punish sin. But because God loves us he sent his only Son, Jesus, to suffer His wrath instead of us. You can either accept the punishment, or accept that Christ is willing to take that punishment for you.
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life."
John 3:16 ESV
God tells us to love our enemies as we love ourselves, and the best way to do that is to spread the gospel to them in hope that it'll save lives.
“but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
??Romans? ?5:8? ?ESV?? http://bible.com/59/rom.5.8.esv
He never condoned sin, but He still loves us.
Then you know we're not to judge lest we be judged. Hate the sin, love the sinner. Sins aren't weighted so homosexuality is no more worse than any other sin.
Then you know we're not to judge lest we be judged. Hate the sin, love the sinner. Sins aren't weighted so homosexuality is no more worse than any other sin.
Agree. No sin is worse than another. They are all equal in severity.
Only problem is Christ gave us the great commission, that is to spread the gospel to all nations. So no, I can't keep it private, and no, the Bible is not contradictory. You claim contradictions, but fail to provide in depth assertions as to where.
I have had many "jokers" "preach" this and that to me, namely from cults like jehovas witnesses or Mormons. I can agree here that these groups teach are contrary to what the bible actually teaches.
We all hang out hats on something different, including atheists. The question is though, is it the right place? Not all of them can be right, for if they were, well, that would be really weird since all religions will have some area where they will be diametrically opposed. So which one is true?
This [insert word other than civil] "rights" issue strikes at many different religions, and in the near future they will be required to do things they don't agree with. A fire chief in Georgia was fired JUST because he wrote a book that stated he was against homosexuality because it is against what the bible teaches. He had shown no discriminatory hiring practices, yet he was forced out for something he believed. This issue IS and WILL continue to step over the bounds of religious rights.
You're totally out of your gizzard. Note my earlier comment that because people don't like you doesn't mean you're being discriminated against. That's being butt hurt, which means you might have more in common with Tim Cook than you're willing to admit.
Comments
Again, “most respected” is a fallacy. So either it’s wrong (which it is) or you read it wrong. Appeal to authority works like this:
A is an authority on a particular topic
A says something about that topic
A is probably correct
How could you possibly have read any actual resource on the subject that failed to tell you this? Or any actual resource that told you “only people who aren’t actually authorities” meet the fallacy? Come on.
That’s exactly what a debate is, but whatever you want to believe. We’ve established that you believe anything that any authority says, so I’m not surprised that you don’t understand the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity, as well as the situations in which either is relevant. What’s your criteria for ‘authority’, anyway, since you have an initially flawed viewpoint on the subject? Is an authority just anyone with whom you already agreed and then anyone who disagrees with you is either “not an authority and therefore wrong” or “an authority who is wrong because bigot racist backward”? Or do you have another criteria for determining “authority”?
Pro tip: You can give personal assertions as to the best implementation of objectivity in a debate or you can give personal assertions as to the best subjective statement in a debate. But a personal assertion of objectivity is just another phrase for “telling the truth”.
Yep. For that one thing (and then, you know, did reply to it). But everything else I replied directly to.
Except THIS representation of my position differs from your initial representation, hence there is no lying except on your part. How’s this difficult for you to understand? The posts are all there. You can literally go back and read them. Even I’m not having trouble with this and I have no memory.
Okay. Prove it. Here’s a starter list. The claim on the table is that ~3800 fiat currencies have collapsed. Show me one that didn’t. Should be pretty easy.
Do you not know what history is? This isn’t even a matter of pedantry. You’re literally saying that it is impossible to say that all nations rise and fall because some nations currently exist. This is more hilarious than shocking.
Science does in fact confirm the creation account.
Where are all the supposed transitional forms in the fossil record? The fossil record supports Genesis. What would you expect to see from a year long global flood: layers upon layers of deposited sediment with creature catastrophically buried.
Dating methods are based on a circular argument, and when dating things of known age (aka witnessed), they have proven to be unreliable, so how can we trust that they work for "deep time". When creationist bring the circular argument up its often swept under the rug, but many secularists are now recognizing this as a problem and realizing they need to provide a better account of their date ranges.
In terms of mathematics a probability less than 1/50,000 is considered a statistical impossibility. The actual probability for the creation of a cell in terms of molecules to man evolution is 1 X 10^-40000. Even on the timescale of billions of years this is next to impossible, yet here we are defying the odds.
https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/can-natural-processes-explain-the-origin-of-life/
There was an experiment done in the 1950 that supposedly demonstrates how the building blocks of life formed in a completely ideal situation in a lab. What they don't tell you about are all the catch 22's in the experiment that render the formation of life impossible.
Just boldly proclaiming the truth and dispelling the myth that science and faith are contradictory! The plot, insinuating theres a story, has been lost by secularists. Why do secularists care so much about this issue if this is all there is (the here and now)? We all will eventually die, and in the atheistic worldview has a net effect of 0. So why argue your point when the heat death of the universe takes out all life and it will be as if none of us existed? Do you have to be right (which is a bit narcissistic)? Is that it? If all there is is the here and now, wouldn't you be better served doing other things than arguing on a forum? If there is life after this one, then I have reason to argue the point, for those who don't believe that Jesus died for their sin will spend eternity in hell. I don't want to see anybody go to hell so I disseminate the truth about Jesus. For all will have to give an account of their life after they die. Whether they accept the truth or not is up to the hearers.
So no, I have not missed the plot. I think it is you and many others that have. Having been an atheist for 6ish years, I fully understand the tenets of evolution and atheism and have since rejected them, because the evidence overwhelmingly points to a creator.
That's people with their own agenda. Christians are supposed to love everyone as they love themselves. Anyone that denies anyone their Civil Rights has hate in their heart and is a counterfeit Christian.
How could you possibly have read any actual resource on the subject that failed to tell you this? Or any actual resource that told you “only people who aren’t actually authorities” meet the fallacy? Come on.
Citing a respected authority on a topic is not a fallacy, as you can see by the three additional sources below. I realize that you want to turn this into nothing more than a childish test of who tires first when yelling "Nuh-uh!", "Uh-huh!" but I'm not permitting you to do that.
http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/21-appeal-to-authority
"Definition: Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument."http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
"A logically valid argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of one or more authoritative source(s), whose opinions are likely to be true on the relevant issue.
A logically fallacious argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of a source that is not authoritative. Sources could be non-authoritative because of their personal bias, their disagreement with consensus on the issue, their non-expertise in the relevant issue, or a number of other issues. (Often, this is called an appeal to authority, rather than argument from authority.)"
https://reasonresources.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/argument-from-authority-non-fallacious/
"Argument from Authority (Non Fallacious)
Introduction
This is an argument in which the conclusion is supported by citing an authority. Since the argument is based on an appeal to the authority, the strength of the support depends on the quality of the authority in question. Given that no one can be an expert on everything and the fact that people regularly need reliable information, these arguments are very common. In fact, they are used so often that people generally do not even realize they are being used. For example, when a politician cites an economist to justify her policies, she is making an argument from authority."
Quote:
Given that you tried to use the discredited work of the discredited Dr. Paul Cameron to bolster your anti-gay agenda, it's obvious that it is you who do not know how to determine whether someone is an authority.
That’s exactly what a debate is, but whatever you want to believe.
Your penchant for repeatedly asserting that something is true, while providing no evidence or rational argument to support that assertion, is not a debate. Neither are your repeated refusals to acknowledge, or to answer meaningfully, questions and points that your opponent makes.
You're not a "pro" at this, obviously. In fact, your attempt at debate is about the most inept, undisciplined, and juvenile that I have seen in quite a long time. Again, your continued assertions, devoid of either evidence or an articulated supporting argument from logic, are not debating.
Just to cite a couple of examples, replies of "You’re joking, right? I mean, you’re legitimately just kidding here, yes?" or "Nope, that’s a consequence of the system itself, not the cause," do not constitute debate.
If "the posts are all there," then provide complete, in-context quotes. Or admit that you lied.
Quote:
The Swiss Franc.
No, that's not what I'm saying. You claimed, in your typical stunted English, that "every single fiat currency in the history of human civilization eventually has its faith lost." Fiat currencies are used throughout the world and you have no proof that "every single" one of them will fail.
I initially showed you the fallacy, or hypocrisy, of your claim when I responded "By that argument, you should be an atheist, since man has created more than 2,800 deities over time and civilization has eventually lost its faith in just about all of them."
So I guess that your God is destined for the big scrap heap of deities and the U.S. dollar is bound to fail, right? Based on history. You do know what history is?
Quote:
Science does in fact confirm the creation account.
Please provide a link to a peer-reviewed scientific paper that confirms that God created all life on Earth, including man.
Where are all the supposed transitional forms in the fossil record?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
But, as you know, if you provide a "missing link" to a creationist, his response is always, "Aha! Now there are two missing links!"
http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating
In terms of mathematics a probability less than 1/50,000 is considered a statistical impossibility. The actual probability for the creation of a cell in terms of molecules to man evolution is 1 X 10^-40000. Even on the timescale of billions of years this is next to impossible, yet here we are defying the odds.
http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html
I see no need to clutter up this forum by my trying to write pages of text on the fly when so much care and thought has been put into writing the documents to which I linked.
In terms of mathematics a probability less than 1/50,000 is considered a statistical impossibility. The actual probability for the creation of a cell in terms of molecules to man evolution is 1 X 10^-40000. Even on the timescale of billions of years this is next to impossible, yet here we are defying the odds.
https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/can-natural-processes-explain-the-origin-of-life/
There was an experiment done in the 1950 that supposedly demonstrates how the building blocks of life formed in a completely ideal situation in a lab. What they don't tell you about are all the catch 22's in the experiment that render the formation of life impossible.
Have you ever studied probability in any meaningful way? It hardly makes sense to consider that in the same way as you would flipping a coin. I'm suspicious that you don't understand your own words here. It's a very complex topic.
You do know that there's massive holes in the fossil record. So much so that evolutionists went from saying there were gradual changes to abrut ones.
The theory to which you refer is called "punctuated equilibrium" and it came out more than four decades ago. It wasn't so much to explain gaps as to explain long periods of time during which little change in a species was observed via the fossils. But its hardly surprisung that the fossil record is incomplete. We're talking about animals that died million of years ago.
Citing a respected authority on a topic is not a fallacy
No, but claiming something is true because an authority said it is. As is claiming something is false because you don’t respect the authority of the person who said it.
I realize that you want to turn this into nothing more than a childish test of who tires first when yelling "Nuh-uh!", "Uh-huh!" but I'm not permitting you to do that.
Good for you. Keep your strawmen to yourself and actually have an argument before replying.
OH GOOD. You’re finally starting to do literally the only thing that matters: discuss the content. Now disprove the content, if it is wrong.
Doesn’t matter. Don’t care. Genetic fallacy. Disprove the content.
Truth is not an agenda. Prove the content wrong if it is wrong.
No, but it’s obvious that you STILL do not know what an appeal to authority is. Hint: It’s not what happens when the person in question isn’t an authority on the subject.
And yet you apparently have no rebuttal to them or the content presented, apparently. You refuse to answer questions directly pertaining to the topics. You ignore disproof when presented. We were having a good debate. If you had questions or refutations, you should have posted them. Don’t do this.
Which is why you pulled them out of the much larger list of things that do constitute debate, cherry picking them, as it were.
So WILL you answer my question regarding authority and what it is, or will you do what you claim I’m doing and just ignore it?
It’s neither my responsibility nor my inclination to waste the energy to present to you that which you did not initially read anyway, as doing so with the expectation that you would read it this time is a fallacy.
Not an example. See the sentences subsequent to the one to which you replied.
How adorable. More ad-homs, while you try to take the high road of debate!
I said nothing of will. Only of have. With a 100% failure rate for the concept itself throughout the entirety of human history, what do you imagine the future will hold? We cannot know the future; we can only predict based on past events. Past events give us a 100% failure rate. Going forward, and no pun intended, but where’s the smart money?
Still waiting for an answer to my question. If you have none, either say you have none or just silently drop the point of discussion entirely (without any mention to its claimed conclusion–in your favor or otherwise), and we can move on.
Once again, as previously stated, you don’t have a clue, as evidenced by your existing responses to the matter.
I have had many "jokers" "preach" this and that to me, namely from cults like jehovas witnesses or Mormons. I can agree here that these groups teach are contrary to what the bible actually teaches.
We all hang out hats on something different, including atheists. The question is though, is it the right place? Not all of them can be right, for if they were, well, that would be really weird since all religions will have some area where they will be diametrically opposed. So which one is true?
This [insert word other than civil] "rights" issue strikes at many different religions, and in the near future they will be required to do things they don't agree with. A fire chief in Georgia was fired JUST because he wrote a book that stated he was against homosexuality because it is against what the bible teaches. He had shown no discriminatory hiring practices, yet he was forced out for something he believed. This issue IS and WILL continue to step over the bounds of religious rights.
Only problem is Christ gave us the great commission, that is to spread the gospel to all nations. So no, I can't keep it private, and no, the Bible is not contradictory. You claim contradictions, but fail to provide in depth assertions as to where.
The Romans were exceptional record keepers, yet their history doesn't mention anyone similar to Jesus. It's possible that he never lived.
You aren't any better than them. Get over yourself.
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life."
John 3:16 ESV
God tells us to love our enemies as we love ourselves, and the best way to do that is to spread the gospel to them in hope that it'll save lives.
“but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
??Romans? ?5:8? ?ESV??
http://bible.com/59/rom.5.8.esv
He never condoned sin, but He still loves us.
I've been praying all day that one of the mods takes pity on us and locks out this thread. It just isn't working. What am I doing wrong?
Then you know we're not to judge lest we be judged. Hate the sin, love the sinner. Sins aren't weighted so homosexuality is no more worse than any other sin.
Agree. No sin is worse than another. They are all equal in severity.