birdog1960 Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) By definition, the evidence isn't overwhelming. Literal creationism is itself a process by which all said evidence can be created. You logic skills are pathetic. only if you completely disregard science which requires disregarding one of a few (most would say 3) basic tenets. the most likely invoked philosophy being solipsism. one cannot logically utilize science (in this case neuroscience) while disregarding its basic tenets simultaneously. He already has a cult and it sounds like you're a member as for killing it hasn't been for lack of trying just ineptitude, thick skulls, poorly made knives and massive belt buckles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLe_Soe19IQ Edited November 18, 2015 by birdog1960
DC Tom Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 only if you completely disregard science which requires disregarding one of a few (most would say 3) basic tenets. the most likely invoked philosophy being solipsism. one cannot logically utilize science (in this case neuroscience) while disregarding its basic tenets simultaneously. Therein lies your logical fallacy: you're calling Biblical creation science. It's not science. It's faith. You can't scientifically disprove a constructed tautology that by definition is unfalsifiable. I've already explained this multiple times.
Doc Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 He already has a cult and it sounds like you're a member as for killing it hasn't been for lack of trying just ineptitude, thick skulls, poorly made knives and massive belt buckles LOL! If you say so, lybob.
birdog1960 Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 Therein lies your logical fallacy: you're calling Biblical creation science. It's not science. It's faith. You can't scientifically disprove a constructed tautology that by definition is unfalsifiable. I've already explained this multiple times. no. you cannot disprove solipsism. you can however reject it. I do. there are many other things that can't be disproven that I reject. leprachaun's for example. unicorns. yetis. the easter bunny...
Doc Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) I know Carson scares the **** out of you libs. Fiorina also for that matter. No longer will cries of "racism" or "sexism" hurled at Repubs be able to stick. And unlike the current clown in the WH, Carson actually has some accomplishments under his belt, and about the same political experience before first getting elected. Edited November 17, 2015 by Doc
DC Tom Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 no. you cannot disprove solipsism. you can however reject it. I do. there are many other things that can't be disproven that I reject. leprachaun's for example. unicorns. yetis. the easter bunny... You can reject it. I reject it too. You just can't say it's wrong.
birdog1960 Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) You can reject it. I reject it too. You just can't say it's wrong. the caveat being that to accept solipsism requires rejecting science. you can prove that an idea is incompatible with current scientific knowledge. you can't do science if the world outside your mind doesn't exist or if you can't accurately observe and measure said world. you can't accept science and solipsism simultaneously. this is what carson is trying to do. Edited November 17, 2015 by birdog1960
....lybob Posted November 17, 2015 Posted November 17, 2015 I don't think you know what "cult" means... while a more modern definition "a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing" I think this fits nicely
DC Tom Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 the caveat being that to accept solipsism requires rejecting science. you can prove that an idea is incompatible with current scientific knowledge. you can't do science if the world outside your mind doesn't exist or if you can't accurately observe and measure said world. you can't accept science and solipsism simultaneously. this is what carson is trying to do. True. But that doesn't mean it's wrong. It means it's unscientific. while a more modern definition "a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing" I think this fits nicely In other words, "obsession." Except that "cult" gives the connotation of slavish devotion and group uniformity of thought and deed. So you choose to redefine it as "obsession," because it reinforces your world-view. Which is ironically cultish.
....lybob Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 True. But that doesn't mean it's wrong. It means it's unscientific. In other words, "obsession." Except that "cult" gives the connotation of slavish devotion and group uniformity of thought and deed. So you choose to redefine it as "obsession," because it reinforces your world-view. Which is ironically cultish. if by redefine you mean used a definition from the Oxford dictionary http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/cult then you caught me ace.
DC Tom Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 (edited) if by redefine you mean used a definition from the Oxford dictionary http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/cult then you caught me ace. Yes, yes I did. I knew where you copied it from. And it's a ****ty definition. Edited November 18, 2015 by DC Tom
Doc Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 The irony is that by lybob's definition, those who continue to follow that clown Barry are part of the biggest cult of all.
....lybob Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 Yes, yes I did. I knew where you copied it from. And it's a ****ty definition. Well you should take it up with the Oxford dictionary, and if you knew where I got the definition from why did you say I choose to redefine the word "cult" are you saying I work for Oxford dictionary or are you redefining the word redefine.
....lybob Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 The irony is that by lybob's definition, those who continue to follow that clown Barry are part of the biggest cult of all. Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. So pray unceasingly for all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior. So are you saying that God doesn't appoint human authority or are you just resisting God's will
Doc Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. So pray unceasingly for all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior. So are you saying that God doesn't appoint human authority or are you just resisting God's will Who put God in charge?
DC Tom Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. So pray unceasingly for all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior. So are you saying that God doesn't appoint human authority or are you just resisting God's will Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme, or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. (Context matters, moron.)
birdog1960 Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 Yes, yes I did. I knew where you copied it from. And it's a ****ty definition. see this is where it gets maddening but of course that is by design. you cons are losing the argument and therefore resort to bs like this. almost any fool can see it even those on ppp. carson holds many beliefs that the average american will find highly suspicious. he's been, at the very least, less than fully honest about his past. he has a snowballs chance in hell of winning the prez race. the earth is not 6000 years old and literal interpretation of genesis is silly.
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 see this is where it gets maddening but of course that is by design. you cons are losing the argument and therefore resort to bs like this. almost any fool can see it even those on ppp. carson holds many beliefs that the average american will find highly suspicious. he's been, at the very least, less than fully honest about his past. he has a snowballs chance in hell of winning the prez race. the earth is not 6000 years old and literal interpretation of genesis is silly. Silly because God lacks the power to have created the universe 6000 years ago?
....lybob Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 Silly because God lacks the power to have created the universe 6000 years ago? TYTT do you believe the Universe is only about 6000 years old ?, do you believe the earth is only 6000 years old ? these are yes or no questions
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 18, 2015 Posted November 18, 2015 TYTT do you believe the Universe is only about 6000 years old ?, do you believe the earth is only 6000 years old ? these are yes or no questions I believe that it is possible for the Earth, and the Universe, to be 6000 years old because I believe in an all-powerful God; and an all-powerful God would, of course, have the ability to make that so.
Recommended Posts