Santorum: Don't put intelligent design in classroom

If evolution is science it rejects the notion of the supernatural as an explanation for natural occurances[sic].Evolution is science. Therefore:

Therefore what? Did you mean the colon at the end, or were you trying to tender this as some kind of argument, that concludes its own premise?

which was predicted by the postulate that it was created

From 354. The postulate of some ancient myth-making is not evidence, not even one wet iota.

Premise A) There is much more then "one iota" of evidence for the Big Bang theory (albeit not conclusive proof, the evidence could be interpreted a different way).

From 673. This is not a premise. Define the major and minor terms.

Any problem so far?

From 675 to which I replied: This not a premise.

It may not be a premise that you accept. I am trying to find a starting point that we can both agree on.

No, you are trying to be clever, which is evidently somewhat beyond you.

So shall I broadcast on later threads that LogicWings will not accept that there is an iota of evidence for the big bang?

Say whatever you like, the people who would consider your slander valid aren’t people of any interest to me anyway. I don’t have your fragile ego.

To return to the original formulation. There isn’t one wet iota of evidence for Intelligent Design. You never presented one. You presented a convoluted postulate that if the Big Bang were accurate then this somehow proves the “one wet iota” criteria but this is just a hypothetical supposition based upon pre-scientific mysticism. These same people used to think everything was made up of “earth, air, fire and water.” Proved to be a really useful theory for survival didn’t it?

. . . at the first sign of a logical argument?

Have yet to see one.

Therefore what? Did you mean the colon at the end, or were you trying to tender this as some kind of argument, that concludes its own premise?

What's the matter? Can't finish a Syllogism?

Just an aside, Dimensio, since you are one of the most stalwart defenders of rationality on Crevo threads, the Dover decision proved one thing:

it will not effect the length of Crevo threads on FR.

The IDers are obsessives. The will never quit regardless of how absurd the debate becomes.

If this issue comes up in six months in the MSM forum the GOP will run from it like the bird flu.

From 354. The postulate of some ancient myth-making is not evidence, not even one wet iota.

Insulting a postulate does not make it not a postulate. And I never said that the postulate was evidence.

From 673. This is not a premise. Define the major and minor terms

My Meriam-Webster dictionary defines a premise as:

a statement of fact or supposition made or implied as a basis for an argument.

There is no mention of defining major or minor terms in this definition. This is more or less the definition I am using when I ask if you accept this premise.

No, you are trying to be clever, which is evidently somewhat beyond you.

No, I was trying to reach a reasonable starting point. I want to ascertain whether you agree there is evidence for the big bang or not. I find it hard to be more straight forward and clear.

Have yet to see one [a logical argument].

Logical arguments start with a set of premises. If you simply refuse to acknowledge any premise, you will continue not to see a logical argument.

You presented a convoluted postulate that if the Big Bang were accurate then this somehow proves the “one wet iota” criteria but this is just a hypothetical supposition based upon pre-scientific mysticism.

I presented what seems to me a logical argument that you did not see. I am now trying to investigate where we disagree. To start off with, a straight forward question: Do you agree that there is more then an iota of evidence for the big bang?

What's the matter? Can't finish a Syllogism?

Not a word I recognize. I looked it up and got this:

a logical scheme of formal argument consisting of a major and a minor premise and a conclusion which must logically be true if the premises are true.

Hmmm so if each of these premises has a major and minor "term" that you need to define, then that would mean I would need to see at least the following defined:

1) a major-major term (major term for major premise)

2) a major-minor term (minor term for major premise)

3) a minor-major term (major term for minor premise)

4) a minor-minor term (minor term for minor premise)

But I suppose that your idea of premise and syllogism might be different then that of my Meriam-Webster dictionary.

So I will assume you mean the implied conclusion was that evolution rejects the supernatural. But your first premise:

If evolution is science it rejects the notion of the supernatural as an explanation for natural occurances.

Is a bit much to swallow for someone who does not already accept this conclusion? Also it would seem there were some weasel words added: "as an explanation for natural occurrences". Should I assume the same qualification belongs on the conclusion?