No, I just made an assumption that he invalidated, it was a mechanical error. Devilesk has only made points that my argument was unneeded, and not any actual points against it, so there's not much to say about it anymore.
I don't need to refute your arguments in this topic, because they are about something completely different and irrelevant to this discussion, and not only that your arguments are unsound as well.
Apparently Felagund is equally annoyed by your poor posting tactics.
Are you going to make any points against not teaching creationism in schools? You can continue to beat around the bush, but I've no idea what you're getting at.
Not a logical fallacy, it is only borderline, so it doesn't mean anything if you state this alone.
It means your arguments and posts are irrelevant, off topic, and useless.
I've stated in my later posts that he could come anytime and refute what I interpreted of his post, which means this doesn't apply either.
All of your interpretations and assumptions are always completely out of left field. Just stop posting if you're going to do that, because this is what happens:
Thanks for "putting words in my mouth" there, PwnPirate. Apparently, just because I'm against teaching any sort of religious curriculum in a science classroom makes me support teaching atheism. I said respect people's beliefs and don't try to preach to them in a public school. For #1, I said science supports those two theories, so that is an argument to teach them in a science classroom. On the other hand, I don't want to reiterate all of my points, so you can always go back and reread my first post yourself.
That means your first post was useless and everything else which resulted from that.
You've had your chance to state what exactly the opposite of Creationism is, but you haven't, so even this doesn't apply until you have.
It's not Fallacy of Composition if the statement is true.
Eg. A wheel moves, a bicycle has wheels, a bicycle moves.
I wasn't implying that one leads to another when I said that, I was saying three separate correct sentences.
Not stating what the opposite of creationism is doesn't matter (even though evolution is clearly the opposing theory) because your statement is false. There are theists who believe in evolution. You can be opposed to creationism and not be an atheist. Evolution does not support, need, or state anything about the existence/nonexistence of a god.
It's funny how you're trying to establish Atheism as the opposite of creationism (through fallacy of composition), and then using that to argue that being against the teaching of creationism means being for the teaching of atheism (an example of bifurcation). Also note that even if the former were true, the latter would still be false.
Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 13 2007, 6:12 am by devilesk.
None.