RE: Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)
December 16, 2010 at 4:27 am
(This post was last modified: December 16, 2010 at 4:34 am by Statler Waldorf.)
(December 16, 2010 at 4:12 am)theVOID Wrote: I've missed some of this back-and-forth, what have the Pyramids got to do with anything? And more importantly why is that a prerequisite for you giving an argument for the existence of God?
I can't show that that the Pyramids were necessarily built by humans, the only sort of argument would be as follows:
1. The pyramids are stone buildings.
2. These pyramids could have been built by an ancient culture.
3. There is an ancient culture that claims credit for the buildings (the Egyptians).
4. There exists no evidence of intervention from any other cultures or beings, Therefore:
5. The only justified conclusion is that the pyramids were built by the ancient Egyptians.
I'm not sure how solid it is seeing as it was off the top of my head but it seems at first glance to be sound and valid. If it is possible for P to be built by x, x claims credit for P and there is no evidence for participation from any non-x entity in the creation of P then only justified conclusion is that x built P.
You'll see where I am going in a second. So how do you know the Egyptians claimed to build the pyramids?
Quote: Don't humour him Void. He has asserted supernatural creation is true and when asked for evidence and argument FOR supernatural creation rather than evidence AGAINST evolution (which are just the usual rants from creationists), he then says he won't provide evidence/argument until someone proves the pyramids were built by humans. Its just beyond contempt. He's holding an empty sack and erecting strawmen to protect his position. Yawn.
Easy there Cap'n. You are not in my head, I have a very logical reasoning for seeing the pyramid proof. I know it is something we both accept, the pyramids were built by humans. So I want to see what he accepts as logical proof for this belief before I move on to the God proof. Although I do love how what you call "rants" is known by logicians as a very valid form or argumentation. Oh well, guess that just goes to show you are not a logician.
