Pink flamingos prove Creationism.

[leibowde84]

Claim that I'm making some assumption, sort of off topic, then another claim that your statement is fact.


This is an interesting one. Here, the ''research'' conforms to your subjective premise, ie it's a statement of personal belief presented as fact. In other words, the research could back my proposal as well, /design.


Here is a claim that materialism is very different from evolution.



Here you are positing that I'm making an unfalsifiable claim, hence it's not a claim(?). This still has to be explained, because that would mean that everything that you cannot falsify, is not a claim, essentially.


Here you are positing that although theism is a claim, atheism is not. This is actually a position that atheism is the basis of truth by which one would compare theism. Which is a claim of course, and you haven't proven that, or even provided a reasonable explanation.


Claim/Here you equate complicated patterns /as per the op subject/, as something to be ''expected''. It's an interesting argument from inference, but it's unsupported. Ie it has to relate to the op proposition, and it clearly wouldn't.



Claim


Claim/ this seems to ignore the context, which would not infer an isolated sequence of coin flips probability, hence changing the probability. As per the OP, it's completely incorrect, as shown by reality.


Claim/Some reference to creationists all saying something.


Here you are making the claim that I'm assuming things, by which you are claiming I arrived at my conclusions/ argument whatever. This is essentially meaningless.



Unsupported claim


Unsupported claim made from personal belief.

Claim based on subjective belief.




Here are some claims, whether inferred or not. You seem to be using a personal and arbitrary format by which to judge what is a claim, and what isn't.

I never said that I didn't make any claims at all. Just that the question you pointed to wasn't a claim, but, instead, a question used to point out an assumption. This was in response to you calling someone else out for basing his claim on another assumption.

 

[Desert Snake]

I never said that I didn't make any claims at all. Just that the question you pointed to wasn't a claim, but, instead, a question used to point out an assumption. This was in response to you calling someone else out for basing his claim on another assumption.

You aren't pointing out assumptions. You are making claims as to what is being assumed, and even ''why'', with no evidence of such. It's fiction. And yes if I say that you assumed such and such,, it's a claim, that I therefore would have to argue. You have not presented any argument for your claims, you are merely claiming that they aren't claims.

 

[leibowde84]

You aren't pointing out assumptions. You are making claims as to what is being assumed, and even ''why'', with no evidence of such. It's fiction. And yes if I say that you assumed such and such,, it's a claim, that I therefore would have to argue. You have not presented any argument for your claims, you are merely claiming that they aren't claims.

I did point out how the ID theory makes a huge assumption.

 

[leibowde84]

You aren't pointing out assumptions. You are making claims as to what is being assumed, and even ''why'', with no evidence of such. It's fiction. And yes if I say that you assumed such and such,, it's a claim, that I therefore would have to argue. You have not presented any argument for your claims, you are merely claiming that they aren't claims.

I am happy to support any of the claims I've made. But, which one would you like me to begin with specifically?

 

[Desert Snake]

I did point out how the ID theory makes a huge assumption.

This doesn't mean anything, though. Assumption by whose standard, yours? And by what definition does ''assumption'', match any id or creationist proposal. This is why it is a meaningless statement that is not backed up by anything. It is being used as an argument, when it is irrelevant and subjective.

 

[leibowde84]

This doesn't mean anything, though. Assumption by whose standard, yours? And by what definition does ''assumption'', match any id or creationist proposal. This is why it is a meaningless statement that is not backed up by anything. It is being used as an argument, when it is irrelevant and subjective.

Here is one example:
You assume that the complexity of life cannot occur by natural means. And, if natural means could not be responsible, that God is the only plausible alternative. It seems very possible that this assumption is merely due to our limited minds and our extremely limited scientific understanding.

 

[Desert Snake]

I am happy to support any of the claims I've made. But, which one would you like me to begin with specifically?

That isn't my responsibly to format your claims. This is part of the problem; If you don't know the arguments for or against the claims you are making, or even recognize that your making claims, how are you going to argue them? This is the most common problem in these debates, but the fact is, it is not my responsibility to argue against my own position, it's yours, if you want to argue against it. That being said, if you haven't done your homework, it isn't my problem, it merely means that you don't know the subject.

 

[Curious George]

That isn't my responsibly to format your claims. This is part of the problem; If you don't know the arguments for or against the claims you are making, or even recognize that your making claims, how are you going to argue them? This is the most common problem in these debates, but the fact is, it is not my responsibility to argue against my own position, it's yours, if you want to argue against it. That being said, if you haven't done your homework, it isn't my problem, it merely means that you don't know the subject.

Your position is wrong.

 

[Desert Snake]

Here is one example:
You assume that the complexity of life cannot occur by natural means.

You are making a claim that I assumed something, this is your position; you have to back up that claim with an argument.

And, if natural means could not be responsible, that God is the only plausible alternative. It seems very possible that this assumption is merely due to our limited minds and our extremely limited scientific understanding.

 

[dust1n]

This doesn't mean anything, though. Assumption by whose standard, yours? And by what definition does ''assumption'', match any id or creationist proposal.

assumption
noun as·sump·tion

a : an assuming that something is true

b : a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assumption

Here's one example:

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Here's another example:

Obviously pink flamingos prove creationism. The odds of something like that in a materialist zeitgeist are laughably small. Actually, the ''odds'' of plain materialism are laughably small in general. ''Oh but it could happen''. Well, purple unicorns on Mars could happen as well.

 

[Curious George]

Your position is wrong.

@q konn

And the best part is, flamingos prove it.

 

[Desert Snake]

assumption
noun as·sump·tion

a : an assuming that something is true

b : a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assumption

Here's one example:

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Here's another example:

therefore...?

 

[leibowde84]

That isn't my responsibly to format your claims. This is part of the problem; If you don't know the arguments for or against the claims you are making, or even recognize that your making claims, how are you going to argue them? This is the most common problem in these debates, but the fact is, it is not my responsibility to argue against my own position, it's yours, if you want to argue against it. That being said, if you haven't done your homework, it isn't my problem, it merely means that you don't know the subject.

OK ... I'll ask again. I'm happy to provide additional support for any claim I've made. I understand the subject, but I need to know what claim you would like me to support specifically. As I said, I acknowledge making claims.

 

[dust1n]

therefore...?

I was just answering your question?

"Assumption by whose standard, yours?"

Answered.

"And by what definition does ''assumption'', match any id or creationist proposal."

Answered.

You wanted an example of a creationist proposal and how it fits a definition of "assumption"? Did I misunderstand something?

 

[Curious George]

OK ... I'll ask again. I'm happy to provide additional support for any claim I've made. I understand the subject, but I need to know what claim you would like me to support specifically. As I said, I acknowledge making claims.

No, no. That is not how this thread works. One doesn't support their claims. It is up to your opponent to argue against your claims. But remember, they don't have to support their claims against your claims. It is up to each side to know the argument. This is because of, well-- reasons (of which if you don't know, it is your fault and not my job to explain...you should do your own research).

Consequently, if you are not shouting rhetoric, you are showing your inability to grasp this sophisticated style of debate.

 

[leibowde84]

You are making a claim that I assumed something, this is your position; you have to back up that claim with an argument.

Here are your claims to be clear:
1. Pink Flamingos prove creationism.
2. In your words, creationism means "God created everything as is"
3.

Obviously pink flamingos prove creationism. The odds of something like that in a materialist zeitgeist are laughably small. Actually, the ''odds'' of plain materialism are laughably small in general. ''Oh but it could happen''. Well, purple unicorns on Mars could happen as well.

4. Thus, you are assuming that the complexity of life means that there must have been a designer and God has to be that designer.

 

[Desert Snake]

I was just answering your question?

"Assumption by whose standard, yours?"

Answered.

"And by what definition does ''assumption'', match any id or creationist proposal."

Answered.

You wanted an example of a creationist proposal and how it fits a definition of "assumption"? Did I misunderstand something?

Yeah, you missed the context. Of course people make ''assumptions'', that occurs all the time, you wouldn't be able to figure anything out without making assumptions. However, in this case, the user is saying that I made an assumption for deity, because of this and that reason/s/. That was essentially fiction. That's a claim regarding a subject that the user has to back up, not merely claim. The op is a claim, on the other hand, and gives reasons for such; the assumptions if any, would be my own assumptions. apples and oranges.

 

[leibowde84]

Yeah, you missed the context. Of course people make ''assumptions'', that occurs all the time, you wouldn't be able to figure anything out without making assumptions. However, in this case, the user is saying that I made an assumption for deity, because of this and that reason/s/. That was essentially fiction. That's a claim regarding a subject that the user has to back up, not merely claim. The op is a claim, on the other hand, and gives reasons for such; the assumptions if any cannot be incorrect because they would be my own assumptions. apples and oranges.

I did back it up. It seems like you just don't want to admit it.

 

[Desert Snake]

I did back it up. It seems like you just don't want to admit it.

no you didn't. You're writing fiction, and presenting it as fact.

 

[dust1n]

Yeah, you missed the context. Of course people make ''assumptions'', that occurs all the time, you wouldn't be able to figure anything out without making assumptions. However, in this case, the user is saying that I made an assumption for deity, because of this and that reason/s/. That was essentially fiction. That's a claim regarding a subject that the user has to back up, not merely claim. The op is a claim, on the other hand, and gives reasons for such; the assumptions if any, would be my own assumptions. apples and oranges.

So is your belief of a deity a fact that is taken for granted, premised on other assumptions like "pink flamingos" are rare, and "rare things prove creationism" like in your OP or is it a Holy Spirit thing that no else is going to get see and we'll just have to take your word for it?