Arrogance of Elitism

An example of logic for readers; Whereas the Big Bang theory can still be regarded as incredulous, by a Theist who certainly does know what the theory says.Evidence for theories in itself is not that important because of the fallacy of exclusivity.This means that one impressive falsifying evidence can trump a thousand pieces of evidence.So one falsifying evidence of the Big Bang could come to pass in a year or two, like it did for steady state.THIS IS WHY we don't place our faith in theories. For GENUINE logical reasons!

With that attitude no wonder you are so wrong so often.
Logic based on false premises leads to false conclusions.
Obviously. No matter how logical or perceptive one may be false conclusions will be derived from false information. How can the information on which conclusions are based be irrelevant to the conclusions themselves. That is illogical. Well if you think that scientific investigation is the same as reading Harry Potter it is little wonder that you are so confused. Science tests conclusions regarding nature against nature in order to obtain the most reliable information possible on which to base further conclusions. That, in a nutshell, is the scientific method. This is obviously not a viable means of investigation as regards fictional characters (sorry Harry). The other thing you have in common with Buz is continually asserting to everyone how well you are doing in a debate............

The "Buz" problem is not new, and I have observed it for many years. Newcomers like bluejay and others will not know, but your arguments about Buz's lack of understanding aren't new.The real problem isn't his knowledge or lack of it. Why? Because when I became atheist evolutionist at this very site, I was, all of a sudden, an expert who made exceptional points.The core problem here is INFACT, disagreement.Here is a man who will not change his position, no matter how many times you expound your own.So you have to ask yourself; "Just why should I expect a person of equal rights to change their beliefs anyway, unless I am a perfect omniscient being?"Listen, I have blasted away loads of atheists at forums. Trust me, there are lots who know close to zero and merely jump on the bandwagon of popular theories, having done no work themselves.Honestly - lose the, "Buz doesn't understand" argument. If anything, it just reveals what this very topic is about.If you were a YEC Bluejay - understand why someone else is having experienced the conviction they once had. Is it so hard to understand, that we disagree with one another?

Which other evidence based theories do you refute with this rationalist nonsense? Flight? Medicine? Solid State Physics? Electromagentism?Every piece of technology you use is a testament to your irrational hypocrisy.

You are arguing with logic itself now - which states, in any notation found, that a person's knowledge is not relevant to the claim.You are now under strawman, by claiming I am stating that; I KNOW false premisses lead to false conclusions.That isn't what I said. A persons education are not his "premisses". You didn't understand what I said it seems.And infact an argument WITH false premisses CAN HAVE A TRUE CONCLUSION.Example;Pigs are disgusting
I hate pigsTherefore pigs are animals.This is why I told you of the fallacy of ad logicam.This suggests you haven't learnt what it means yet.

Are all points of view regarding the workings of nature equally valid?If not what makes one more valid than another?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Audiatur et altera pars.Jumping to conclusions about me AGAIN, Straggler?Do you know what the fallacy of exclusivity is? I infact only state that I don't place my faith in theories. What would it look like now if a scientist placed his faith in steady state and spontaneous generations, such as maggots coming onto dead bodies from nothingness?Those theories, accepted once, now seem almost silly to modern scientists. I only employ that I would rather place faith in facts. Time for me to remain silent, as you seem to be getting into the ad hominem stages. I am not interested in mud-throwing. I allow sin against me, but will not tolerate sin against you.

If the conclusion is not logically derived from the premise maybe. Exactly. False premise + False logic can potentially (if rarely) = true conclusion. So two wrongs can make a right after all.Are you claiming that creationists not only have false premises but are also applying logic falsely to draw true conclusions? This is a very novel approach to logic I must say!! If someone has insufficiant knowledge on which to make reliable conclusions then they are hardly equivelant to someone who draws different conclusions from superior information are they?To assert otherwise is just silly.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So on which facts do you base your faith in the computer in front of you? Or are you overcome with shock everytime you switch it on and connect to the internet?You can dress up your brand of nonsense with all the logical and philosophical terms you like. This does not make your arguments any more logical or philosophical. They are still nonsense. This thread is aptly named. You are one delusionally arrogant SOAB.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

It's a fact that it works. (Although mine hardly does at times.)Hey Straggler, seriously though - I only doubt theories for specific reasons. With evolution for example, I accept most of it. I accept natural selection.As for macro-evolution, I find the claim that it happened is merely a statement, as the fossils themselves are not fully predictable.I would say that the fallacy of composition is relevant to macro-evolution because processes of irrelevant magnitude, such as a bacteria flagellum, are not equivalent to the full claim of the ToE, which states that every single design in the fossils, and in present species, evolved with NS + mutation.The facts, (that I have seen), show mutations to be beneficial, but not as an added information, and mostly NOT beneficial, showing either less limbs (designs) or diseases and deformity.I am truly open to any other facts that will show me an, ADDED, BENEFICIAL, UNPRECEDENTED design, or part of a new design.But evolution, as one theory, is a possibility I consider seriously.

Why does such an obviously superior rational being feel the need for such statements? Can we remain rational and friendly? I would prefer it.I am not out to get you. Calm down, take a stress pill and think things over. It is not my fault that Informed Theists exist, and that they annoy you in this manner, for being so able to produce a can of whoop-ass on yo' baba,.

It works because the people who designed and built it have theories as to how nature works. Tested theories. Everytime you use your computer you put your faith in the theories that they applied.Whether you believe it or not you have faith in quantum theory. Likewise everytime you use GPS you put your faith in the theory of General Relativity.I agree that we have "faith" because "It's a fact that it works".What you seem to be missing is it is these very facts that Buz was effectively denying. Hence the inferiority of his position. And yours.

I don't really place my faith in those theories, because ofcourse they work. Sophisticated theories are EXPECTED to work, but that doesn't mean they are true, except for in the computer.I don't jump off of a cliff because of the theory of gravity, I don't jump off because I know I will go "splat" at the bottome. JUST AS CAVEMEN wouldn't jump off a cliff BEFORE the theory of gravity existed!There have been computer programs that simulate the ToE. Logically, this doesn't prove the ToE actually happened, it just means that it will work on a computer program, and it therefore a clever human invention.

quote:

---

The "Buz" problem is not new, and I have observed it for many years. Newcomers like bluejay and others will not know, but your arguments about Buz's lack of understanding aren't new.

---

And the problem is Buzsaw's pride. He sees himself as some sort of superior being who doesn't have to do any real work. He can just magically come to the right answer by skimming sources he happens to like. He doesn't have to even bother to read or understand the responses he gets.Who's being arrogant ? Buzsaw for pretending to expertise and understanding he doesn't have and isn't prepared to work for ? Or the people who HAVE done the work and point out Buzsaw's many errors, irrationalities and fabrications ?

For one so "logical" you have a very poor sense of comparison. Empirical evidence of splatting after cliff jumping is obviously possible without understanding gravity. Hence the cavemen. However the design of GPS is most definitely not possible without a theory of gravity. Hence the GPS example. Nobody claims that scientific theories are indisputably true. All evidence based investigation is necessarily tentative. But when the evidence is overwhelming and unrefuted only the stubborn, churlish and philosophically opposed deny it as the closest approximation to truth available. Forget computer programmes. The ToE has directly resulted in numerous predictively based discoveries. ID, for example, has never once ever resulted in a single discovery. Why, based on this is it not right to conclude that the ToE has a greater degree of veracity than ID?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.