Evil Atheists

[Statler Waldorf]

Stat, how does YEC accord to logic?

Actually it is very logical. Unlike Darwinism, Creationism is not solely based off of the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Every proposed “evidence” for common descent I have seen commits this fallacy. Creationism works from the top down just like logical reasoning should. Creationists realize that evidence is interpreted according to one’s presuppositions, so the exact same evidence you present as evidence for common descent, can also be used as evidence for creation. This is a battle of worldviews, not evidence. I can throw evidence at you all day long that you won’t accept as evidence and you can throw evidence at me all day long that I won’t accept as evidence; where does that really get us though?

Statler, there is no evidence of magic, so even if you are able to prove evolution wrong, which you cannot, that does not automatically make ID correct, because... It's magic.

I am not a member of the ID movement, I am a creationist. Nor do I believe in “magic”. The ID movement has done an amazing job blowing huge holes in Darwinism, but unfortunately their refusal to address the nature of the designer does not really get us anywhere.

Evolution has an enormous amount of evidence supporting it.

Really? Like what?

There is an immense amount of evidence that your god is no different than Zeus or Ra, and that your bible is a compendium of bronze age superstitions and middle ages politics.

Please provide this evidence too.

Even if everything we know about biology, geology, astronomy, physics and history is wrong, you are not right by default because you have no evidence.

Actually this statement is in error, if all the naturalistic theories of origins do fail, then a supernatural explanation is right by default. It’s called a disjunctive syllogism and it is completely valid to use.

Stat, can you say I-r-o-n-y?

Can you say baseless assertion? Can you point to one instance where I have used fallacious logic rather than just asserting I have?

But it comes to quantum system, logic alone is useless.

Logic alone is useless? Are you trying to make a logical argument that logic is useless?

The first thing you should learn is that atheists don't have to 'prove' their position, because it's not a positive statement.

That’s the oldest trick in the book. The burden of proof lies on both sides because you can certainly make any position a positive claim.

Don't be jealous just because my wife isn't some sniveling shitwit and can actually contribute to the household Stat. (your mother would be ashamed of you for using housewife as an insult)

I was insulting you, not your wife. My mama has a doctorate and was also a housewife, so she would have no issue with me poking fun at you for not having a career or education.

You keep talking about deductive proof, but I haven't seen any.

You ignoring the arguments presented is not my problem.

You say you have evidence, but I haven't seen any.

You ignoring the evidence provided is not my problem either.

Here's some info on the Cambrian for you, cause I know how you loves the wiki. You're an absolute moron btw.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian

That’s supposed to be evidence? I would think that the person who thinks that just because Wiki says something happened it therefore happened and is true would be the moron in the conversation, but oh well.

Right, so I'm guessing it's your english here that makes you sound like a heavy breathing religious nutjob?

English is not his first language you dingleberry. Why don’t you debate him in his native language and then he can call you a nitwit for sounding like a complete dunce?

I knew it was a hit and runner. Another one signed up last night. Fucking cunts.

I thought you took pride in being the “civil atheist” on here? So much for rational integrity I suppose, that’s unfortunate you let these guys rub off on you.