How does your denomination cope with this?
>>18447292Evolution only applies to black and brown people who are made in the image of monkeys. White people are made in the image of God, that's why Jesus was white.
>>18447292This may shock you but in the first world (Europe, Japan) most people are atheist/irreligious and those that do have religion don't see any problem with evolution and science.American Christianity is very weird and anti-reality and unfortunately the heavy American bias of this board distorts perceptions of what Christianity actually entails.
>>18447297Jesus lived in 1st century Palestine
>>18447302Then how come he wrote the Bible in English?
Well... god created things like an enclosed system (earth) with self regenerating resources, repeated this by making fruit have feed and then gave living beings homeostasis Do you really think something like adaptation to an enclosed system disproves a god that created things such as physics and geometry?, youre retarded
>>18447310You think modus tollens is not a valid argument. You're beyond retarded.
>>18447304he knew corn syrup drinking amerikkkans would be too retarded to read it otherwise
>>18447292It’s fake
>>18447316it is absolutely possible for modus tollens to be invalid through an informal fallacy
>>18447328He thinks that modus tollens is invalid, period.
>>18447328Btw the only way for an informal fallacy to render it invalid is for it to make it so that it's not actually a modus tollens.
>>18447292Wonder if anyone else noticed that after the gorilla the skulls are literally all exactly the same
>>18447331That’s incorrect, informal fallacies are typically not expressible in symbolic logic and pertain to the content rather than the structure. For instance a modus tollens argument could be begging the question, but that wouldn’t somehow make it magically not a modus tollens structure anymore. If a, then b, but not b, therefore not a; but the truth of not b is contingent on the truth of not a.
>>18447331>the only way for an informal fallacy to render it invalidThe presence of a fallacy alone renders an argument invalid by definition
>>18447329Unlike you, i am educated on rethoric so i dont bother with pointless """arguments"""Lol
>>18447334Can you give an example of a question begging modus tollens? The example I was thinking of of an informal fallacy rendering it not actually a modus tollens was an equivocation fallacy (what's presented as "~B" in P2 is actually "~C").
>>18447336My point was that if there's a fallacy, it's not a modus tollens.
>>18447338>Can you give an example of a question begging modus tollens?Anon, I literally just described it. Slot in whatever meaning you want where the truth of not b is contingent on the truth of not a.
>>18447341So no example?
>>18447337>I don't need arguments when I have sophistry!Should be the /his/ banner.
>>18447344Fine, I’ll do your work for you>If the bible was the word of God the universe would be 6,000 years old, but the universe is not 6,000 years old, therefore the bible is not the word of GodAlthough this argument is typically presented with more of a modus ponens structure, it can have a tollens one as demonstrated above. However, the truth of P2 is contingent on the truth of C, since all generally valid justifications for the truth of P2 require presuppositions which contradict the biblical worldview at the outset. If the biblical worldview is instead presupposed P2 is false and the argument therefore begs the question.
>>18447354>If the bible was the word of God>the universe would be 6,000 years oldBased on what Lol
>>18447350>wahhh why dont you waste your time arguing inane bullshit i dont even know with me
>>18447357Based on the testimony of infallible scripture.
>>18447354>If the bible was the word of God the universe would be 6,000 years old, but the universe is not 6,000 years old, therefore the bible is not the word of GodThat's a valid argument.
>>18447361Huh?, where does the bible say the earth is 6000 years old sweatyYou live making baseless claims and shitting up the board, get a grip
If you take the Bible completely literally and add up all the dates of when people in it supposedly lived, then you typically end up on a number somewhere between 6,000 and 12,000. It varies though because protestant fundamentalists have arguements over how to count it since not all dates and ages are consistent or clear in the Bible.There's even one British woman protestant fundementalist who claims the world is 4,000 years old, which is younger than the pyramids...Anyways this is why young earth creationism is a thing. Anyone with an IQ above 70 can see it's nonsense, materially, scientifically, and even by traditional Christian standards.There are some of these schizos who post here too though who literally believe it.
>>18447364It is an invalid question-begging argument as demonstrated in that post.>>18447365The bible nowhere states the age of the world, but it can be inferred by good and necessary consequence from what it does state. The exegetical case for a young earth is therefore the same for other biblical truths like the Holy Trinity and infant baptism.>>18447366You are correct, there is not a single, settled precise conclusion about the age of the world, but it is certain that it is young, that is, measured in thousands rather than billions and that the secular chronology is incompatible. That much is certain about scripture. And I believe it with all my heart by the grace of God.
>>18447372>It is an invalid question-begging argument as demonstrated in that post.No, it's perfectly valid. You can dispute P2 but that doesn't make the argument invalid.The negation of B implies the negation of A in every single modus tollens argument, that's just how it works.
>>18447372>but it can be inferred by good and necessary consequence from what it does state.Well... according to genesis the world pretty much began with lightWhat does science say?, how old is the cosmic microwave background?. Nothing more to say, you havent read the bible nor educated yourself on science. Shut the fuck up.
>>18447373It is invalid not because I dispute P2 but because the truth of P2 is contingent on the truth of C (begging the question). >>18447374God bless you.
>>18447375>It is invalid not because I dispute P2 but because the truth of P2 is contingent on the truth of C (begging the question).C must be the case for P2 to be true in every modus tollens argument. You're just saying every modus tollens argument is question begging.
>>18447379No, this is a strawman. I am not saying it’s question-begging because it alleges the conclusion to be true but because P2 is true if and only if C is also assumed to be true. This is the difference between begging the question and a logically valid argument. Your straining and striving won’t change lead into gold, Anon.
>>18447381>I am not saying it’s question-begging because it alleges the conclusion to be true but because P2 is true if and only if C is also assumed to be trueThere's no difference between the two. If you know P1 is true, P2 will always assume C, by necessity.
>>18447357https://creation.com/en/articles/6000-years
>>18447386I am not gonna click a link, this is an image board. Your posts are really low quality and deserve no further response, stop shitting up the board.
>>18447372Young Earthism is easy to debunk and you don't need any tools whatsoever all you need are your eyes.Light travels, not instantaneously, but at a specific speed, known as "c" which in a vacuum equates to 299,792,458 meters per second - or approximately 1 billion kmh / 670 million mph.Therefore when you look at things you aren't seeing them as they are now, but as they were in the past, according for how long it takes the light which is emitted or reflected from an object to reach your eyes.So when we look at something we don't see it as it is now, but as it was in the past, equal to how many light seconds, light minutes, light years away it is.Some examples:The moon is 1.3 light seconds away, so we see it as it was 1.3 seconds in the past.The sun is 8 light minutes away, so we see it as it was 8 minutes in the past.Jupiter is roughly 40 minutes in the past.Pluto is roughly 4 hours in the past, from our perspective.You can extrapolate this further, by knowing how far away something is we can tell how old it is.You can look up at the night sky and see the stars and galaxies with your own eyes.You can see Andromeda with the naked eye, if you have good vision. It's 2.5 million light years away. That tells us it is at least 2.5 million years old.With binoculars you can see the star Methuselah which is 12.3 billion light years away, so the universe must be older even than that!So truly you have to deny your own eyes to be a Young Earth creationist. Even from a Christian perspective, how low must your opinion of God be to assume he can't make a Universe so ancient and so massive in scale!
>>18447385What you’re telling me is you are an irrational person with no objection to circular reasoning (and no understanding of formal logic). The difference between the two is that in a valid argument it is unnecessary for the conclusion to be accepted for the argument to be sound, while a circular argument no longer holds water when its conclusion is denied.
>>18447395Post an example of a modus tollens argument where P2 isn't true if and only if C is true. You can't, it's structurally impossible. That is why your next post will be a deflection.
>>18447393What are you talking about, retard? This is my first post itt.Add up the ages given herehttps://biblia.com/bible/esv/genesis/5
>>18447398>Add up the ages given here>>18447374>according to genesis the world pretty much began with light
>>18447354>all generally valid justifications for the truth of P2 require presuppositions which contradict the biblical worldview at the outset>If the biblical worldview is instead presupposed P2 is false>the argument therefore begs the question.Yes, denying reality makes an argument based in reality stop workinghow about you man up and stop denying reality instead?
Curious to know if the young earther here is also a geocentrist or a heliocentrist and how they justify either position. Since, of course, the Bible proclaims in Psalms 93:1 and 104:5 that the Earth is fixed and stationary which therefore requires a geocentrist model of the universe.Yet I don't see the fundementalists bring up geocentrism nearly as much as young eartherism. I get the feeling they believe that the latter is somehow more respectable or defendable? Even though it really isn't at all to anyone outside their cult lmao.
>>18447401So? Do you admit that the Bible says the world is 6000 years old?
>>18447403>the Earth is fixed and stationaryAre you retarded or something?, ancients knew astronomy 93:1 refers to how orbits work and how we havent seen an errant planet (the closest being atlas) God, youre all so damn stupid. Lol, no wonder they call you goy.
>>18447394Actually your argument relies on pre-Einsteinian physics because it assumes absolute time. If absolute time does not exist then there is no distant starlight problem. The reason being that because time is relative there is no absolute “right now” which is the same for all observers. Imagine an alien invasion fleet was launched from the andromeda galaxy to conquer earth, now, if two people were walking past each other on the sidewalk, then for one person the invasion fleet has already been launched on its way to earth, while the other person can say its plans of conquest have not even been conceived yet simply because they are walking in the other direction. This implies that whether or not two events are said to occur “at the same time” at a distance is contingent on reference frame (which we can assume to be earth) and synchrony convention, that is, how we choose to arbitrarily define the word “simultaneous” at a distance. In ancient times, when the bible was written, men operated on a visual synchrony convention. An event happened at the same time as when you saw it happen. Under this convention the one-way speed of light is defined to be infinite when traveling directly towards the observer and 1/2c when traveling away from them (resulting in a round-trip speed of light of c). On this visual synchrony convention the lights in the sky began to exist on day 4 of the creation week.
>>18447405Are you saying the Bible is wrong?>He has established the world; it shall never be moved;>You set the earth on its foundations, so that it shall never be shaken.For almost 2000 years these verses were used as proof of geocentrism by the Christian church.You, and all modern Christians are in the minority for believing in heliocentrism.
>>18447402Is this irrationality the fruit of atheism? Yes>>18447397This is again, a strawman. The problem is not that C is true but that C must be *assumed* to be true. You’re just defending circular reasoning openly btw
>>18447406>In ancient times, when the bible was written, men operated on a visual synchrony convention.LolYou've been psyopped, boy. Youre yakubs creation... a golem made without eyes or ears.
>>18447407The Psalms are poetry.
>>18447409>The problem is not that C is true but that C must be *assumed* to be true. You’re just defending circular reasoning openly btwI see that you can't provide a single modus tollens argument where P2 isn't true if and only if C is true. I'll take that as a concession.
>>18447407>Christian churchThe one you don't believe in so you don't know what they say?. Ok.But I'm not catholic nor goyim so why does your argument affect mine?. Lol what a dumbass, unable to make a coherent argument.
What's the matter, retard? Are you too afraid to answer >>18447404?
>>18447414I can’t find an example of a logically valid argument where the conclusion is not alleged to be true but I also can’t find a logically valid argument where the conclusion is necessarily assumed to be true. I accept your concession.
>>18447422You can't post a single modus tollens argument where C must not necessarily be true for P2 to be true. It's impossible, which is why you're not posting the example. You must be really angry right now lol.
>>18447412Damn you should try telling the inquisitors that in 15th century Europe when they torture you for your heliocentric heresy
>>18447415The Catholic church accepted geocentrism until 1992. You are ignorant of the facts.
>>18447423>I am a troll acting in bad faithI know you are, but I don’t know why it would make me mad when you are living proof the bible is true (Genesis 6:5, Matthew 7:6, Romans 1:28-32). But one day you will stand before a holy God who will demand from you an answer for every evil word, every evil thought, every evil deed, and there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. The only way to escape your just destruction is to repent and believe in Jesus Christ who paid the price for everyone who believes. If He does not take your sins, you will take them in yourself, and it is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
>>18447427What does this post have to do with history or humanities, insufferable namefaggot?
>>18447428>realizes he lost the argument>starts preachingEvery time.Remember, if you want to withdraw your concession, you can do it any time by posting an example of a modus tollens argument where it's not the case that C must necessarily be true for P2 to be true.
>>18447431Its the story of a human dog, seems very fitting Sad!, sad story.
>>18447424Bro, I’m a Protestant…
>>18447435Oh my bad, your religion didn't even exist back then LMAO
>>18447436My religion were the guys the inquisitors were torturing.
>>18447292>those that do have religion don't see any problem with evolution and scienceThis is called cognitive dissonance. You cannot simultaneously believe in Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel and think modern science is credible
