Thief
Rogue Theologian
i need no one else's approval
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Verifiable evidence for creationism?
- Thread starter leibowde84
- Start date
Then you should probably stop making yourself a fool in the eyes of others with your inane logic.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
now you transgress the rules
So. You can attack my beliefs with threats of oblivion.
I can't call your logic unsound or you're going to cry to the moderators. Classy.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
This isn't as much about me as you think. I was here trying to make you answer a question directed at you instead of trying to use the good old fashioned(and highly dishonest) tactic of aversion:
If your stance and knowledge is so great, why can't you answer simple questions without breeding a few more random unrelated questions into the mix? Your spirit vs substance thing for example. You put way too much credit into that question. You haven't even tested its premise yet: Whether there is spirit, and if there is, whether it's separate from substance, because all evidence would tend to point out that there is only substance...
If you have no evidence, then your argument can be dismissed without evidence. It's that simple.
Objectively? Go to the last page. While i might not be at my best, my intention is to show this: Yours is so inadequate and terrible that all you need from me is this: As long as there are no serious mistakes, there is no chance that your logic is greater than mine. Seems like your default stance is logical mistakes all abound.
Another fatal mistake for your logic is that you assert that you can know something with 100% certainty. But none of your opponents do this.
I'm prepared to stand by this fully: Even if my logic is at best average, you are still far off. You are illogical, plain and simple.
Last edited:
Sapiens
Polymathematician
That has already been done ... in spades.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
show it to me again
Thief
Rogue Theologian
good reasoning will do
Most of your posts make no sense logically. They are not "proven" to hold true. Your points can be argued without evidence, by using logic. And you are unable to continue, you just shift attention to somewhere else.
But the EVIDENCE for my claims is on the last page. You cannot hold your own against a logical argument. You backpedal, use distraction and plain ABANDON YOUR OWN STANCE when faced with enough opposition.
Almost never?
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Your insistence on ducking my question says it all: "The real question is how many times has science effectively falsified a claim of religion and how many times has religion effectively falsified a claim of science?"
Last edited:
Thief
Rogue Theologian
your question is poorly phrased
a shallow attempt to exalt science .......assuming science to be a trump card
it is not
science can lead you to the 'point' of decision
it cannot make the choice for you
Spirit first?
or substance?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
a question?
answer it yourself
you are your own handiwork?
say it......please......
It most certainly isn't. I know, that's just my subjective assessment. But i understand the question. You don't. What gives?
It's not assuming anything. It's a valid, fair question. YOU are assuming here. This thread is about verifiable evidence after all, and under THAT context: You either verify or you make empty unsubstantiated claims. Falsifying is a necessary element in an argument for creationism, when talking about verifiable evidence.
You made an assumption, then based your conclusion on said assumption, without evidence. You are actually arguing FOR the side opposite of yours with this kind of behavior. Again, debate forum, again, the topic is about verifiable evidence.
And you SPECIFICALLY try to keep it faith-based.
You accused others of assuming science to be a trump card. Yet the premise for your claim here is that your claim must be true without question. You assert. Without evidence. You assume.
But you're right in theory: Science isn't a conscious intelligence. It won't make choices. People make choices.
This thread isn't about your stupid question. It remains stupid unless you can verify its premise. You are ASSUMING spirit. You haven't evidenced it. This thread is about verifiable evidence for creationism. NOT your faith-based question. NOT your faith-based argument.
Furthermore, you refuse to give definitions when asked. You specifically ask people to answer BLINDLY; without knowing what they're supposed to answer. ONLY for you to THEN make up the criteria by which you will judge our answers. You refuse to submit your criteria beforehand: It weakens your point.
You expect people to answer randomly almost, you said so much yourself: Just pick one, don't think about it. That makes the question meaningless. You just want to have an excuse to proselytize.
You using a faith-based argument when you're specifically asked for an evidence based one shoots your OWN STANCE IN THE FOOT.
Last edited:
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Why can't you just admit that religion has not ever falsified a claim of science? It doesn't even matter that much. Just be honest.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I don't have a religion
that misconceptions come and go....is a fault to religion AND science