Viva la Evolution?

CreationOnTheWeb ^ | September 3, 2008 | David Anderson

[GourmetDan]

"Of course not. This “house of cards” you speak of all came about quite by accident, I’m sure."

So any opposition to your beliefs means that I 'want to start a religious war', 'burn heretics' and 'believe in massive conspiracies' by definition?

[tacticalogic]

No, that’s your arguments doing that.

[GourmetDan]

"No, that’s your arguments doing that."

No, that's your delusions doing that.

[tacticalogic]

Wave that hands and declare it all a delusion. That’ll fix it.

[GourmetDan]

"Wave that hands and declare it all a delusion. That’ll fix it."

Wave that hands and declare it all opponent's arguments. That'll fix it.

[tacticalogic]

Do you have any arguments of your own, or do you just want the last word?

[GourmetDan]

"Do you have any arguments of your own, or do you just want the last word?"

Just 5 posts ago, it was supposedly my arguments that were responsible for your paranoia.

My experience is that people who charge others with wanting the last word really want it for themselves.

[tacticalogic]

About 5 posts ago you started the “I know you are, but what am I” tactics. It appears that’s all you’ve got left, and that’s the way the thread will end.

[GourmetDan]

"About 5 posts ago you started the “I know you are, but what am I” tactics."

You are the one who started making irrational claims saying I wanted to 'start a religious war' and 'burn heretics'. You were completely out of line and now you complain that it got thrown back in your face?

All I did was start reflecting intellectually-bankrupt comments back at the originator.

Continuing...

[tacticalogic]

It's a disagreement over creation doctrine between you and anyone who doesn't subscribe to your specific interpretation of the Book of Genesis. You're after anyone who doesn't agree with your religios beliefs.

You try to claim that science is a religion, because for you this is about getting other people to comply with and accept your religious beliefs as scientifically authoritative, and your religion dictates that you do everything you can to bring them into compliance with those beliefs and accept that authority.

[GourmetDan]

"It's a disagreement over creation doctrine between you and anyone who doesn't subscribe to your specific interpretation of the Book of Genesis. You're after anyone who doesn't agree with your religios beliefs."

No, it's a disagreement over origins doctrine between you and anyone who doesn't subscribe to your specific interpretation of naturalism. You're after anyone who doesn't agree with your philosophical beliefs.

"You try to claim that science is a religion, because for you this is about getting other people to comply with and accept your religious beliefs as scientifically authoritative, and your religion dictates that you do everything you can to bring them into compliance with those beliefs and accept that authority."

You try to pretend that your beliefs aren't based on the philosophy of naturalism, because for you this is about getting other people to comply with and accept your philosophical beliefs as scientifically authoritative, and your philosophy dictates that you do everything you can to bring them into compliance with those beliefs and accept that authority.

[tacticalogic]

Scientific inquiry follows the evidence. Is that what you’re calling “a philosophy of naturalism”?

[GourmetDan]

"Scientific inquiry follows the evidence. Is that what you’re calling “a philosophy of naturalism”?"

Demonstrably false.

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism." Richard Lewontin

[tacticalogic]

You have to do better than a little quote mining.

Are you disagreeing with the statement that scientitific inquiry follows the evidence?

[GourmetDan]

"You have to do better than a little quote mining. Are you disagreeing with the statement that scientitific inquiry follows the evidence?"

To those who care nothing for the truth; no truth is ever relevant.

And science cares nothing for the truth, only consistency with the philosophy of naturalism, as Lewontin noted.

[tacticalogic]

Then you and Lewontin can go live in a cave somewhere and not be bothered by science or anything that ever came from it.

[GourmetDan]

"Then you and Lewontin can go live in a cave somewhere and not be bothered by science or anything that ever came from it."

Falsely equating technology with the philosophy of naturalism.

Also known as the Fallacy of False Cause.

[tacticalogic]

Take it up with Lewinton.

[GourmetDan]

"Take it up with Lewinton."

Falsely equating technology with the philosophy of naturalism through the Fallacy of False Cause was your error, not Lewontin's.

[tacticalogic]

You hand me a quote that amounts to someone else’s opinion, taken of context, expect me to accept that as some kind of definitive “proof” that what you say is true, and then proceed to lecture me about “logical fallacies”. I’ll give that all the consideration it’s due.