Which is why I cleverly called it a theory, see. I'm covering my bases here.

I pretty much agree with Felegund. Can't think of much more to add. Creationism isn't science at any level - if learning it is mandatory at any level, it's wrong. An elective, sure. 'Religious Ideas' or something like that. Otherwise... gogo Galilei Galileo (taught science, ignored religious nonsense).

No proof, sure.. But infinitely more evidence than for Creationism (because anything except zero is infinitely times bigger than zero!). You know how light works, right? Not instant, all that? Maybe the term 'speed of light' might have hinted to you that light isn't instant-traveling. Well, see, scientists really wanted to find out how the universe started, see, so they created this big big tube and put some glass and maybe even some other stuff in there to let them see far away! Anyway, this little tube sees light from far far far away, and because light doesn't travel instantly (or rather, because it travels, rather than teleporting), you literally see into the past! Well, for the last decades, scientists have been saying that what they see is evidence (if not conclusive) of the big bang, and since there were no real disagreements from other scientists, we think they might actually be right.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 12 2007, 9:48 pm by Centreri.

Thanks to a law passed in the supreme court Evolution cannot be taught in schools to be more than something that a bunch of people came up with. However, religion is the same way. But is is ironic, because the USA is built upon very religious ideas. We have "under God" in the pledge of alliegence.

Saying there is hard evidence supporting the big bang while not supporting creationism is just a mere observation based on the facts, which are correct. It does not imply atheism at all. Atheism is not the opposite of creationism. There are many theists who support evolution.

No, what I'm doing is reading your post thoroughly and looking at what you quoted and then basing my response off of that. It's your fault if you are replying to statement Y when quoting statement Z. Even when taking his whole post into account, however, my point still stands.
That's great if you could turn his argument the other way to go against atheism, but too bad he's not advocating that. As he is not talking about atheism, what you said does not still apply. His argument is that any type of religious belief shouldn't be pressed upon others in schools, whether it's theism or atheism. Therefore you can't twist his argument about pressing the belief of creationism on others the other way around to apply to not teaching either of them at all.

Committing a bunch of logical fallacies is bad arguing.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 12 2007, 10:07 pm by devilesk.

Ok then
Atheism is the opposite of Theism, which in turn is what creationism is.
He is pressing against creationism, but without also pressing against atheism, one can assume he supports it. As I have mentioned in my first post, my assumption is just based on what I read from his post, and if it's not what he meant, then he can just say so and disregard what I am arguing anyways.
Some inductive reasoning is safe to make when you are dealing with people in a forum. If I sound like I am referring to a point that is outside of a quote, it would only be reasonable to assume that I was referring to something else, You don't have to process a mechanical error like a computer does.
Even if I were to post logical fallacies all day, if it pertains to forum etiquette then it is merely my position and I'm fine to post it and you are fine to argue against it. It doesn't matter if you think it's bad arguing, it matters if it is bad posting.

You (pwnpirate) seem to be ignoring the most important part of his post, just in order to suit your arguements. As in, you like taking part of peoples arguements out of context to the whole, and then make your arguements against it. But in doing so your arguements become almost pointless. I acknowledge when you make good points, I don't know why you are so against admitting to anyone making good points against you.


No, no, no, you can't. First of all, he isn't pressing against creationism. He is pressing against its teaching in public schools. The latter is the not the opposite of atheism. Even if you mean to say by pressing against the teaching of creationism, and not against the teaching of atheism... it still doesn't work. A good example is escaping me as it is getting late here... but I don't think I should have to explain that just because someone is against one thing, they are automatically for the "opposite" of that thing (giving you atheism as opposite of creationism). They could easily be against both, and I don't know why you assume things so easily.


He wasn't saying that you were breaking any rules, he was simply giving you a dig towards your bad arguing seeing as how you want to do it to other people so consistently about other things; the example being the quote he took from you.

Fallacy of Composition

Bifurcation aka False dilemma

Audiatur et altera pars

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.

Not a logical fallacy, it is only borderline, so it doesn't mean anything if you state this alone.
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.
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.

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.

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.
It means your arguments and posts are irrelevant, off topic, and useless.

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:

That means your first post was useless and everything else which resulted from that.

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.

What is so hard about multi-quote?

Also, in my personal opinion, creationism should not be taught in school. Students should only be informed about what can actually be studied, and if the parents want to add "Oh by the way, god did it all." at home, then that's their choice.

Nothing is hard about multiquote. All you do is select the multiquote button for the people's posts you want to quote and then hit reply.

However, I didn't respond to those posts at the same time, and it's easier to just hit the quote button to make a new reply instead of editing.

I also don't see it as a real issue anyway since each post is a completely separate response to an entirely different person and point and are not related to eachother at all, unlike if I was to create a new post just to edit in information about a preceding post. There wouldn't be much difference if it was 4 posts made by me responding to 4 different people than if it was 4 posts made by different people responding to 4 different people. And if I can't multiple post responding to separate things, whats the point of allowing it? A restriction should be implemented then, I've seen it done before.

I've also read the rules and haven't found anything against double posting. I think your course of action was too strong and could have been handled better. Now you've just made those posts harder to read. If you had told me about it I could have just first edited them into the first post and then you could have deleted the remaining ones. Now if I seem very critical of your actions, it's because of this smiley Also, I believe IP/Moose should have a tiny bit of responsibility in shaping this situation's outcome, because I believe mods should have the ability to edit other's posts or merge them or whatever. The little moderation options that you have is their fault and lack of coding.

If I was looking to spam posts for post count I would just go to null where it counts.

I share your same stance, but I dislike your argument. Creationism can be studied.

Post has been edited 7 time(s), last time on Sep 13 2007, 7:22 am by devilesk.

Creationism (and I might as well throw in religion), can be studied, I'm not disputing that. But in order to study something, one must hold it at "arm's length" and make an objective analysis of it. That's something that you can't ask a lot of religious people to do when it comes to their beliefs. If Creationism were mandatory in schools, then they wouldn't actually be studying Creationism itself. From what I understand about Creationism (and I'll admit that I haven't looked into it too deeply), a science class would operate under an assumption that the student is not supposed to dispute. My stance is that you can't teach a class in which you should question everything with a religious undertone that is not supposed to be questioned. If the parents really want their children to believe that god's behind it all, then they can still enforce that on their own time.

By the way, I brought up what you said about deleting multiple posts in the staff forum, and other staff was in agreement with you. Deleting consecutive posts by the same member that remain on topic is pointless. So I won't be doing that anymore.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 13 2007, 11:26 am by Doodan.

Hell, I go to a Catholic school and they don't even teach us creationism.

I've never heard of a catholic school that teaches creationism. And there suppose to be those die hard ones.

I like your point at the end. I agree that's one of the differences between science and religion. In science you are always questioning something and it is always encouraged. In religion really the only way something established will change is if God were to appear and dispute it himself.
Thanks, Doodan. I love you.

they're*

You and Dapperdan keep attacking this point, even though I have already said more than once that I misunderstood and came to the wrong conclusion, which makes your arguments "irrelevant, off topic, and useless." Also, you fail to understand that I didn't post all of that as some sort of underground strategy, I just misread his post. There are no "tactics" in forum discussion, only reasoning.

I thought creationism was the belief that the Earth was created, I just looked it up and apparently it isn't. whoops

Your consistently faulty reasoning, interpretations and assumptions of other people's posts are your "tactics"

As far as teaching any religion in school goes, I believe that at most an elective can be given. I believe students can be resourceful enough to learn about a religion if they're curious about it during their free time.