Pink flamingos prove Creationism.

[Desert Snake]

If the is the case, then pink flamingos do not prove a creator exists. Otherwise, there would no need to assume a creator.

Pink flamingos prove creationism by default hence directly. It isn't my problem if people are not reading proposals analytically.

 

[leibowde84]

Pink flamingos prove creationism by default hence directly. It isn't my problem if people are not reading proposals analytically.

Can you support this? Keep in mind that flamingos are only pink because of the shrimp they eat.

 

[Desert Snake]

This is exactly what I have been pointing out this whole time. You are assuming that, because there is no currently known alternative, your claim must be true. This is the "god of the gaps" argument.

No, for a couple reasons. First, I have sufficient evidence to present my belief in a 'most likely format'. This does not mean that the onus is on me to present evidence in order to convince other people. So, you are making an assumption, there. Secondly, 'god of the gaps', is a silly concept. What gaps, etc., it has no place in a serious dialogue. Basically, merely because someone makes a thread concerning one topic, does not mean that they must prove the pre-suppositional argument, to others. That's impractical and the reason why we have separate topics, etc.

 

[dust1n]

Pink flamingos prove creationism by default hence directly. It isn't my problem if people are not reading proposals analytically.

If pink flamingos prove creationism, that means pink flamingos prove a creator. No creator means no creationism.

You just said "We assume a creator, with no logical 'other option' The other options don't work, imo. so, yes, a creator is assumed, as per my position."

Just because there is "no logical other option" as you put it, doesn't change the fact that you are assuming there is a creator.

If pink flamingos prove creationism, then what you are saying is that there is no other logical option other than a creator. So then why would you need to assume a creator?

Why would you need to assume the existence of something you think is already proven?

 

[Desert Snake]

Can you support this? Keep in mind that flamingos are only pink because of the shrimp they eat.

This does not refute my op premise, imo. You are assuming I take it that somehow the pink nature of the flamingos is random? I sort of doubt this, tbh.

 

[leibowde84]

No, for a couple reasons. First, I have sufficient evidence to present my belief in a 'most likely format'. This does not mean that the onus is on me to present evidence in order to convince other people. So, you are making an assumption, there. Secondly, 'god of the gaps', is a silly concept. What gaps, etc., it has no place in a serious dialogue. Basically, merely because someone makes a thread concerning one topic, does not mean that they must prove the pre-suppositional argument, to others. That's impractical and the reason why we have separate topics, etc.

The god of the gaps is a logical fallacy where one erroneously assumes that the absence of an alternative theory somehow provides support for their claim.

Also, to your comment about topics, if you are assuming the existence of God, shouldn't this be in the theism DIR thread?

 

[Desert Snake]

If pink flamingos prove creationism, that means pink flamingos prove a creator. No creator means no creationism.

You just said "We assume a creator, with no logical 'other option' The other options don't work, imo. so, yes, a creator is assumed, as per my position."

Just because there is "no logical other option" as you put it, doesn't change the fact that you are assuming there is a creator.

If pink flamingos prove creationism, then what you are saying is that there is no other logical option other than a creator. So then why would you need to assume a creator?

Why would you need to assume the existence of something you think is already proven?

Assume doesn't mean not ''proven'' to us. We assume many things from evidence; I think that your argument is using an arbitrary usage of assume.

 

[leibowde84]

This does not refute my op premise, imo. You are assuming I take it that somehow the pink nature of the flamingos is random? I sort of doubt this, tbh.

Why would you have said "pink" flamingos instead of just flamingos?

 

[dust1n]

Assume doesn't mean not ''proven'' to us. We assume many things from evidence; I think that your argument is using an arbitrary usage of assume.

Oh I see. Assume doesn't mean

"as·sume/əˈso͞om/
verb

1. suppose to be the case, without proof."

to creationists. So that's the misunderstanding.

So how do creationists define "assume"?

 

[Desert Snake]

The god of the gaps is a logical fallacy where one erroneously assumes that the absence of an alternative theory somehow provides support for their claim.

Also, to your comment about topics, if you are assuming the existence of God, shouldn't this be in the theism DIR thread?

But that position has not been claimed. You mean prove, btw, as opposed to support, I think.

No, I don't think so. Most people responding to the thread OP already have a position regarding creationism.

 

[Desert Snake]

Oh I see. Assume doesn't mean

"as·sume/əˈso͞om/
verb

1. suppose to be the case, without proof."

to creationists. So that's the misunderstanding.

So how do creationists define "assume"?

Dude, you ''assume'' that because xmas is always on the same date each year, it's going to be on the same date this year. It's a different usage of the word.

 

[leibowde84]

But that position has not been claimed. You mean prove, btw, as opposed to support, I think.

No, I don't think so. Most people responding to the thread OP already have a position regarding creationism.

Nope. I definitely don't mean prove. It is a fallacy to think that the absence of an alternative to your theory supports your theory in any way shape or form.

 

[leibowde84]

Dude, you ''assume'' that because xmas is always on the same date each year, it's going to be on the same date this year. It's a different usage of the word.

There is support for Christmas happening on the same day each year. Proof does not mean absolute proof necessarily.

 

[leibowde84]

But that position has not been claimed. You mean prove, btw, as opposed to support, I think.

No, I don't think so. Most people responding to the thread OP already have a position regarding creationism.

You made this exact claim about 15 minutes ago, BTW.

 

[Desert Snake]

Nope. I definitely don't mean prove. It is a fallacy to think that the absence of an alternative to your theory supports your theory in any way shape or form.

That defies basic logic, sorry. Your theory only makes sense in the absence of any reasoning for my position, or belief. Since that is not the case, it doesn't apply.

 

[leibowde84]

That defies basic logic, sorry. Your theory only makes sense in the absence of any reasoning for my position, or belief. Since that is not the case, it doesn't apply.

No, it just means that the absence of an alternative to your theory that God had something to do it doesn't support your claim at all.

 

[leibowde84]

That defies basic logic, sorry. Your theory only makes sense in the absence of any reasoning for my position, or belief. Since that is not the case, it doesn't apply.

This is a well known, basic rule of logic.

 

[Desert Snake]

Not really. There is an assumption of no creator as well. We assume a creator, with no logical 'other option'; the other options don't work, imo. so, yes, a creator is assumed, as per my position.

do you mean this?...

You made this exact claim about 15 minutes ago, BTW.

No, you are getting ''your incorrect so i'm correct'', /your false assumption of my position,/ mixed up with ''your position is less likely than my position, so I am adhering to my more likely position;/without other arguments presented''.

this is why there is specificity in the OP in the first place, to avoid debate context that isn't relevant, or on topic, etc.

 

[Desert Snake]

This is a well known, basic rule of logic.

I just explained why it is incorrect in this context.

 

[leibowde84]

do you mean this?...


No, you are getting ''your incorrect so i'm correct'', /your false assumption of my position,/ mixed up with ''your position is less likely than my position, so I am adhering to my more likely position;/without other arguments presented''.

this is why there is specificity in the OP in the first place, to avoid debate context that isn't relevant, or on topic, etc.

"we assume a creator because of the absence of no other logical option." This is what is meant by the God of the gaps logical fallacy.