So as to avoid turning my yes into a no, I here reproduce the conversation Kemanorel and I had, which began and ended with his childish playground taunts. I know, an amazing surprise, given the level of discourse at which virtually every ERV posse-member operates...
45, ME: Kemanorel,
If you're itching to talk evolution-y stuff with a fundy, feel free to drop by my blog. See ya.
47, Kemanorel: I'll be glad to... but not on your blog. You have the conversation here, where I know you can't moderate the comments, and I know ERV won't moderate yours.
Ask anyone - I don't moderate comments on my blog. And I've already entertained dozens of commenters against me at a time here. My blog is plenty neutral. See you there, or not.
Not a fan of logical examination of your chosen field? Typical. Suit yourself.
The funnier thing is that you don't realise it, which raises serious questions about your intellectual honesty (and capacity, but that's a different story).
OK, looking. Now what? ... Um, no, PEOPLE and ROBOTS have.
Tell you what. Read this on the inherent fallacy in science and get back to me.
BTW, you can't use science to tell good from bad. You're appealing to something else here. My guess is that it's just your personal preferences, and that's no basis for any objective value judgment.
Ooooh, testy already. You're not brittle like Tyler, are you? ... Tommy, if there's one thing I've learned about this place, it's to expect cheap playground tauting from the get-go.
Oh, so you're satisfied with "to a certain degree", are you? Neato. How does this solve the problem of induction?
1) Prove that it never comes from religious revelation.
2) Why restrict knowledge, BTW, to materialistic, scientific knowledge? Other things are knowledge too, you know.
You like making these sorts of arguments:
"This thing is somewhat true, therefore God."
2) Nice dodge of the "science always commits the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent" argument. I'd love for you to deal with it.
You forgot where you said "GOOD charity work". I was calling into question your use of "good". Now please answer the question.
Please provide your standard for knowing what is progress, what is the goal toward which we are advancing, how we know it, who set the goal and when, and how you know advancing toward that goal is good.
Actually, yes you did use a childish retort.
which raises serious questions about your intellectual honesty (and capacity, but that's a different story).
How about you answer the problem, how science affirms the consequent.
Since you apparently didn't read the post to which I referred you
The forgiveness of sin in Jesus' name.
No interaction with what I've said. Just cheap mockery. Thanks yourself.
Kemanorel did not return. One can only guess why, but it's of course instructive to see atheists' failure over and over again to back up their big talk and gratuitous Hitchensian assertions with real argumentation. Did he ever even get past step 1?