Since you are not willing to counter the point, I suppose it stands. Pity. I was enjoying the debate. It does get rather amusing when an opponent dismisses an argument as 'silly' when it is beyond their comprehension. Especially when I tried to use layman's terms to describe the issue.
I do dislike it when an argument that claims to stand as a judgment of philosophical rationality falls down on so basic an issue an improper comparison fallacy. Of course the 'standards of proof' for evolution and god are different, evolution and god are entirely separate concepts as I have already addressed.
Claiming the use of the Nirvana fallacy as a reason to claim evolution is not true and then turning around and saying well that means you must accept something other than actual proof of god's existence that god is real? Bullshit.
Proving something does or does not exist is a wholly different manner than proving whether or not something works a particular way. That they would use such a blatant example of the is-ought fallacy while setting themselves up as the authority over whether or not someone is philosophically consistent is preposterous.
I do dislike it when an argument that claims to stand as a judgment of philosophical rationality falls down on so basic an issue an improper comparison fallacy. Of course the 'standards of proof' for evolution and god are different, evolution and god are entirely separate concepts as I have already addressed.
Claiming the use of the Nirvana fallacy as a reason to claim evolution is not true and then turning around and saying well that means you must accept something other than actual proof of god's existence that god is real? Bullshit.
Proving something does or does not exist is a wholly different manner than proving whether or not something works a particular way. That they would use such a blatant example of the is-ought fallacy while setting themselves up as the authority over whether or not someone is philosophically consistent is preposterous.
