The circular argumentation revisited
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-08-2016, 04:01 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(11-08-2016 01:34 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 11:37 AM)theBorg Wrote:  Why there is no huge memorial for the very first living Darwinian cell? The source of all life, in the fantasy of Darwinists, must be respected on the highest international level!

What the hell is a Darwinian cell?
Why do you place the source of all life at a cell?
By the way, "Darwinist" is a thing only to theists. Nobody who understands even the basics of evolution by natural selection and Darwin's contribution to the science worships him in any meaningful sense of the word.

I bet that he's never even heard of the word abiogenesis. These theists think that scientists believe that that life started with Darwinian evolution. It shows how little they understand about what they dismiss out of hand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mathilda's post
11-08-2016, 04:10 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(11-08-2016 01:53 PM)theBorg Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 12:19 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  Explain.
Definition:
The FFF is the very first life in history.

Consequences:
1) The FFF does exist, 2) The FFF am the Life: without it no life is possible.

Now, simply write down FFF=GOD. Scary, isn't it?

Are you a real human bean?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 04:56 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(10-08-2016 11:48 AM)theBorg Wrote:  The Secular Science is based on the circular reasoning, e.g. "time is that what the clock measures, and the clock is what shows the time."

So either all of physics is wrong or your definition is lacking. Hmmm... Let me ponder that one. I'll give you a hint, you've made one statement twice using different words and are claiming that it is circular. It has the form of X is what Y measures, and Y measures X.

So you see, your statement isn't even circular, it's a single unsupported premise.

Quote:Therefore the Creationism can use following scientific baseground: "The Bible exists, because God thinks so, and God exists, because the Bible tells so."

Sorry, but that's two unsupported premises.

(10-08-2016 09:49 PM)theBorg Wrote:  The time is a thing.

Your scientific acumen is astounding. Facepalm

(11-08-2016 01:53 PM)theBorg Wrote:  Definition:
The FFF is the very first life in history.

Consequences:
1) The FFF does exist, 2) The FFF am the Life: without it no life is possible.

Now, simply write down FFF=GOD. Scary, isn't it?

Consequences: God is dead.

Again, I think you might want to work on your definitions. They're lacking a certain je ne sais quoi.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
11-08-2016, 08:38 PM (This post was last modified: 11-08-2016 08:48 PM by theBorg.)
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(11-08-2016 04:56 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  So either all of physics is wrong or your definition is lacking. Hmmm... Let me ponder that one. I'll give you a hint, you've made one statement twice using different words and are claiming that it is circular. It has the form of X is what Y measures, and Y measures X.
Definition A:
What is time?
Einstein: "the time is a physical object, which is measured by clock."

Definition B:
What is clock?
"clock is the unchanging Metrology Standard for measuring time."

These definitions are circular connected: in A the word "clock" is explained in B, and in B the word "time" is explained in A. Not all circular arguments are wrong: "temperature is what thermometer measures, and the thermometer is designed to measure the temperature."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 08:53 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(11-08-2016 08:38 PM)theBorg Wrote:  Definition A:
What is time?
Einstein: "the time is measured by clock."

Definition B:
What is clock?
"clock is the instrument for measuring time."

Congratulations. Your definitions are circular. This demonstartes that your logic is faulty.

Quote:These definitions are circular connected: in A the word "clock" is explained in B, and in B the word "time" is explained in A.

No, time was neither explained nor defined in premise A. A relationship to the clock was established, that is all. It is the same relationship stated in B. Once again you have one unsupported premise:

(A) Time is measued by clock
(B) Clock measures time

A = B

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
11-08-2016, 09:09 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(11-08-2016 08:53 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  ....
Why are you using my old text? I have already changed the text.
Here is it:

Definition A:
What is time?
Einstein: "the time is a physical object, which is measured by clock."

Definition B:
What is clock?
"clock is the unchanging Metrology Standard for measuring time."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 09:12 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
How does a circular definition relate to a circular argument? Am I missing something?

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 09:14 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(11-08-2016 09:12 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  How does a circular definition relate to a circular argument? Am I missing something?
Yeah, it is the circular definition. Thank you. You have the negative reputation, nice done.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 09:16 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(11-08-2016 09:14 PM)theBorg Wrote:  
(11-08-2016 09:12 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  How does a circular definition relate to a circular argument? Am I missing something?
Yeah, it is the circular definition. Thank you. You have the negative reputation, nice done.

We're still not connecting. I have negative reputation because I had a history of religious fanaticism.

Truth seeker.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2016, 09:18 PM
RE: The circular argumentation revisited
(11-08-2016 09:16 PM)diddo97 Wrote:  I had a history of religious fanaticism.
Perhaps not the sinful fanaticism, but the holy fundamentalism?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: