RE: creationist tried to tell me embrology doesn't support evolution.
April 18, 2013 at 9:49 pm
(This post was last modified: April 19, 2013 at 2:18 pm by Jackalope.)
Now hold one on minute, Statler. I'm not attacking the validity of your argument, I'm attacking it's soundness.
You've asserted (amongst other things) the premise that "[t]he Biblical conceptual scheme and view of reality is logically cogent and consistent". You've also asserted that your argument is sound, which requires your premises to be true. By your own admission, you know this to be the case.
Yet, you've not made any attempt to demonstrate that the aforementioned premise is true, and as far as I can tell it's nothing but a presupposition.
As the truth value of that premise is not readily apparent (and in fact has the appearance to be manufactured from whole cloth), I cannot accept it as axiomatic. Therefore, the truth of it is going to need to be demonstrated in order to accept the soundness of your argument. Your protestations notwithstanding, it is your responsibility to demonstrate it's truth if you expect anyone to be convinced of it's soundness.
In addition, you've made no attempt to enumerate what your "Biblical conceptual scheme" encompasses. As there are numerous Biblical interpretations, all claiming to be true, without a thorough inventory of the specific claims that your view holds... Well, let's just say that it would be unreasonable to expect someone to attempt to refute an unknown set of claims. You yourself have said as much. (And before you start, I have made no claims, and have asked you to refute nothing, only to support your own claims.)
If you're unwilling or unable to do so, then this discussion is fruitless, as you've given me nothing but assertions, and nothing to argue against.
Your move, Statler.
You've asserted (amongst other things) the premise that "[t]he Biblical conceptual scheme and view of reality is logically cogent and consistent". You've also asserted that your argument is sound, which requires your premises to be true. By your own admission, you know this to be the case.
Yet, you've not made any attempt to demonstrate that the aforementioned premise is true, and as far as I can tell it's nothing but a presupposition.
As the truth value of that premise is not readily apparent (and in fact has the appearance to be manufactured from whole cloth), I cannot accept it as axiomatic. Therefore, the truth of it is going to need to be demonstrated in order to accept the soundness of your argument. Your protestations notwithstanding, it is your responsibility to demonstrate it's truth if you expect anyone to be convinced of it's soundness.
In addition, you've made no attempt to enumerate what your "Biblical conceptual scheme" encompasses. As there are numerous Biblical interpretations, all claiming to be true, without a thorough inventory of the specific claims that your view holds... Well, let's just say that it would be unreasonable to expect someone to attempt to refute an unknown set of claims. You yourself have said as much. (And before you start, I have made no claims, and have asked you to refute nothing, only to support your own claims.)
If you're unwilling or unable to do so, then this discussion is fruitless, as you've given me nothing but assertions, and nothing to argue against.
Your move, Statler.
