"What if I'm using terms that mean other than what you think they mean"
This is exactly the problem because you're vague language makes it impossible to argue with you because nobody knows what you're arguing about. all we have is the resolve and if the resolve doesn't mean what the resolve says then you're not being an intellectually honest debater
You should really attempt to engage the subject matter. it doesn't really matter what he names his argument because he has reasons listed that you're not engaging with
The argument from improbability there is something in a discussion about abiogenesis. But unfortunately, evolutionary theory and abiogenesis are separate theories.
Take your pick lol He gave me his book and I read half of it. But by the time i got the part i cared about, the evolution part, it was just so fractally wrong that every sentence was so loaded with fallacies it became unbearable.
Nobody is saying that absence of evidence is evidence of absense, just that absence of evidence is reason enough to not believe the claim immediately and investigate it. If it can't be investigated, it's useless and shouldn't be accepted as a provisionally true model of an aspect of reality.
"Tree exists" - testable and useful
"God exists" - not testable and useless
"What if I'm using terms that mean other than what you think they mean"
This is exactly the problem because you're vague language makes it impossible to argue with you because nobody knows what you're arguing about. all we have is the resolve and if the resolve doesn't mean what the resolve says then you're not being an intellectually honest debater
I hope this gets a vote or two soon. I'm impatient
What do you mean by "upon being demonstrated as such"
Almost tempted to take the low hanging fruit. But this is just....woof.
You should really attempt to engage the subject matter. it doesn't really matter what he names his argument because he has reasons listed that you're not engaging with
Lol you called the semantics argument right on
No, thank you.
I personally, haven't heard any argument for intelligent design that doesn't have critical mistakes.
Thank you
The argument from improbability there is something in a discussion about abiogenesis. But unfortunately, evolutionary theory and abiogenesis are separate theories.
Is this just about whether natural selection describes one mechanism of genetic changes in reproductive populations over time?
This will be fun to read
Faith without works is dead right?
Gross
I mean vote sorry
thank you for your thoughtful response just to clarify I only support trade schools as a replacement for 9 through 12th grade education
lol shot my first gun at 2
this seems a little inappropriate. Mall has his flaws, but he doesn't deserve to be slandered.
Hope this gets a vote soon
ran out of character space on my last response, will address more in the next
If you want, you could also send me a resolve since it would be better if you argued first as pro anyway
or*
If you pm me, (the little green message button), we can talk about a specific resolve. Like maybe deistic instead of theistic?
but u can respond
like a roast?
no man, what are you doing...?
Well i hope the two of you can work out a resolve sometime.
I mean the section that you had written in the debate format outlines you commented on my first debate
Thank you for your thoughtful vote ragnar, I read the section you had written on kritiks, but i perhaps don't fully understand it.
This one is right up your alley
Awe shucks, you flatter me
Ah crap I accepted before I read that technicality in the description about the word taught. I was thinking like in the science classroom
My pleasure
The term abolished doesn't really seem applicable in a stateless society.
well thanks man
It's probably gonna bite you with that word "likely" in there. Cuz by what metric of probability ya know?
did you mean to say "unlikely laws of physics"?
It wasnt by much though
Take your pick lol He gave me his book and I read half of it. But by the time i got the part i cared about, the evolution part, it was just so fractally wrong that every sentence was so loaded with fallacies it became unbearable.
I mean, which country walked on the moon?
Woops lol I guess I'm doing this
Franks argument is completely useless against agnostic atheists
Thirded
Juts the book title is a fallacy of projection and false equivalence. The whole book starts with straw manning the word atheist.
I have a feeling we're about to see some Frank Turek arguments. Here, https://www.academia.edu/21505705/I_Don_t_Have_Enough_Faith_to_Be_an_Atheist
Theres two resolves here. WHich will you be arguing?
yeah, im interested, but which side of the question are you trying to uphold?
oh thats weird im listening to em rn
Nobody is saying that absence of evidence is evidence of absense, just that absence of evidence is reason enough to not believe the claim immediately and investigate it. If it can't be investigated, it's useless and shouldn't be accepted as a provisionally true model of an aspect of reality.
"Tree exists" - testable and useful
"God exists" - not testable and useless
Wanted the resolve to be*