Quote from OPTIONAL777:
So I make the sentence once ever and you repeat it six times in one post. That means by your faith and belief styled logic system, it's me with a finger on the repeat button.
Yes, you have your finger on the repeat button.
You've sent that critical thinking and rigorous examining of issues logically straight out the window already.
Make it about me is to deny your lack of rigorous examining of issues logically.
Childish way of not responding to my claim.
The same nonsensical argument you use for intelligent design creationism is used to this day by flat earthers trying to prop up their ridiculous claims too.
I'm not making an argument for creationism. I'm making an argument that non ID has no logical foundation when the cornerstone is an assumption of blind ignorant chance, an assumption lacking falsification, direct evidence, or knowledge of how, why, or where this imagined force of blind random chance works.
Simply claiming "it must be an accident" because of ignorance is sloppy stuff.
Like you , they seem to think it is intelligent to just ignore, dispute, deny and decry science along with any fact that get in the way of their beliefs.
Again, the pattern repeats. You have no defense nor actual rebuttal, buy make up some lie that I am denying science.
Repeatedly I have asked for fact and proof of random ignorant blind chance, and the atheists just go mute and then begin with the ad hominems.
Rigorous logic? Don't be absurd.
Your so called logic would have you moaning whenever you get your sums wrong
Non responsive.
..."math is littered with more unproved, improvable, and replaced theories than are currently in favor"
So you are suggesting that math is blah, blah, blah.
My comments went to the history of theories in science, not math.
The current love affair with a theory that is not self evident nor founded on fact, but appeals to atheists.
There is no critical thinking in faith and belief.
Then suspend your belief in random ignorant chance, or stay in your faith and belief. Your option.
That's the idea, there is no thinking, you get to flunk class altogether.
Correct, the thinking ended with assuming something that is a modus tollens fallacy.
If random ignorant chance, then blind evolutionary process.
Since I believe blind evolutionary theory is true therefore random ignorant chance is a fact.
It is so fundamentally flawed. Beginning with an assumption, then a second assumption of a theory then claimed to be a fact, not one possible theory. Then the the first assumption is claimed to be true without doubt because the assumed theory now stated as fact proves that random ignorant chance is fact.
It really shows the strength of faith, than even when presented with the logical fallacy, the only response I have seen is repeated claim and testifying that "evolution is a fact."
Appraisal based on careful analytical evaluation to show up error, to guide discovery of fact, that's critical thinking.
There has been no discovery or any fact of a force or process of blind ignorant random chance. It is just one possibility, and a guess.
Of course using it will leave the place littered with the unproved and improvable and the plain wrong.
Yes, assuming something as fact, when fact is not proved does belong in the litter box.
But thatâs the point. Those things are able to be firmly identified by critical thinking , as science and fact also do .
Blind random ignorant chance has not been firmly identified, by either critical thinking, or science, and as such is not fact.
They are not, nor are they intended to be identified, by faith and belief.
Yes, science doesn't intend scientists to be willfully ignorant or to assume some force or pattern of random ignorant chance. It can be proposed as a possibility, but a fact?
Not a fact.
I suggest you try beliefing your next response by faith, and not at the speed of light by the discoveries of science littered with all those improvables. That way cyber space will be saved from one less absurd remark of yours.
More blather.
Intelligent design creationism.
You are really hung up with creationism, which I'll repeat, is not what I am suggesting. I suggest non design is not a fact, but rather a belief.
Flat earthersâ logic - only less so.
Yes, I know your opinion. Now how about some fact for a change.
