Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks for your valiant effort is doing a sort of psychological analysis, and a free one at that! of me. I
know of no one who is perfect and has absolutely no issues at all so I would be the first one to tell you
I'm not perfect. That being said, I get along well with everyone in the town I live. I'm president of a
board of directors here in town and get along well with the board members, get along well with the police
in town, as well as everyone in our fellowship. I make friends wherever I go. You can call one of the local
restaurants here in town and just ask if they know me. I'm sure you'll get glowing reports. You can call
the local cop shop, library, town hall. I'll bet you'd be hard pressed to hear one negative thing about me.
Just don't confuse my reluctance to accept the magic of evolution as a sort of psychological malady. But
I do question someone's ability to rationally think correctly who does accept evolution. However, that
being said, I would never question their psychological makeup. But that's just me.
Well, you DID win that one. And I accept what you say. You are perfectly normal and a nice guy. It is just that you believe the Bible is literally true (give or take some original interpretations of Genesis) and you are into the not uncommon fixity of belief that we find in UFO and crop-circle enthusiasts and indeed the few remaining flat earthists.
Actually, how life began is off-topic in a thread about evolutionary scientists. Evolution is about how things change, not how they began.
I'm sure that's been said several times already.
I started the thread: Why listen to evolutionary scientists. It is about how they got it all wrong, how they are biased, how they are threatened if they don't toe the currently accepted fallacy. Besides, I make the rules in my thread
I started the thread: Why listen to evolutionary scientists. It is about how they got it all wrong, how they are biased, how they are threatened if they don't toe the currently accepted fallacy. Besides, I make the rules in my thread
That's pretty much the answer I expected. None. All you've done is ignore what you are told by people who understand this stuff.
Well, you DID win that one. And I accept what you say. You are perfectly normal and a nice guy. It is just that you believe the Bible is literally true (give or take some original interpretations of Genesis) and you are into the not uncommon fixity of belief that we find in UFO and crop-circle enthusiasts and indeed the few remaining flat earthists.
When I was in college I did a short thesis on UFO's. Back then I stated that since there are two atoms of hydrogen per cubic centimeter of space, any craft going to the speed of light would have it's occupants fried inside, unless, of course, they were able to counter the extreme radiation. However today, with Einsteinium theories and quantum physics of being able to bend space and time thus allowing one to get from one point of space to another point almost instantly, I'm beginning to wander about my thesis. Until then, I'd have to take UFO's by faith. My one friend had a cigar shaped Unidentified Flying Object land right next to a school ground where he went to school. The army or air force came and ushered everyone inside (they were outside during recess) and began the arduous task of deprogramming teachers and children. Later someone did research on the children of that incident for a book and the writer found many of the children had abnormal cancers. But it may have been a test craft testing anti-gravity or some such craft. Who knows?
I've never personally seen a crop circle nor seen one formed so don't know.
Flat earth? In some places in the USA the earth is pretty flat.
She was using the non sequitur fallacy. It really does not follow, logically, that since Mathematics lies at the heart of most everything, it means everything is unbelievable at best.
I at first thought you might have a point - just because other science is right doesn't mean evolution is- but then it does follow. Why is evolution not right and it doesn't follow that other science is equally to be dismissed as invalid as sweepingly as you do? She was bang on:because they don't conflict with your Bible-Faith. It is NOTHING to do with the evidence.
Quote:
She is also using the "appeal to ridicule" fallacy: an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.
No.She has a style that is frankly sarcastic. Shirina would probably not deny that. The point she is making does not rely on sarcasm to make its point, so the sarcasm is incidental Sorry, chum. Another wrecked box-cart.
Quote:
I would even include stra man fallacy: an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
You would be wrong. Not unusually. And here, we do in fact, spell it 'Straw'.
Originally Posted by Eusebius Here we spell it "recognized."
Here we spell a lot of things correctly.
Quote:
Shirina was who I was answering to:
I know.
Quote:
Quote:
She was using the non sequitur fallacy. It really does not follow, logically, that since Mathematics lies at the heart of most everything, it means everything is unbelievable at best.
Quote:
Iat first thought you might have a point - just because other science is right doesn't mean evolution is- but then it does follow. Why is evolution not right and it doesn't follow that other science is equally to be dismissed as invalid as sweepingly as you do? She was bang on:because they don'tconflict with yourBible-Faith. It is NOTHING to do with the evidence.
It does not logically follow that if science proves we can make a space ship to go to the moon that it also can explain to us how everything evolved from single cells. When everyone rode horses before the automobile, scientists back then were saying if you drove faster than 30 miles per hour the skin would rip off your face. And scientists are always getting it wrong on the latest pill to take for this malady or that malady.
Quote:
Quote:
She is also using the "appeal to ridicule" fallacy: an argument is made by presenting the opponent's argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.
Quote:
No.She has a style that is frankly sarcastic. Shirina would probably not deny that. The point she is making does not rely on sarcasm to make its point, so the sarcasm is incidental Sorry, chum. Another wrecked box-cart.
No matter the style one has, it is improper, even for me to do it (I have used it before) to use the "appeal to ridicule" fallacy.
Quote:
Quote:
I would even include straw man fallacy: an argument based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.
Quote:
You would be wrong. Not unusually. And here, we do in fact, spell it 'Straw'.
No I wouldn't be wrong. She was misrepresenting my understanding of scientists and mathematics and using that as a straw man fallacy.
I started the thread: Why listen to evolutionary scientists. It is about how they got it all wrong, how they are biased, how they are threatened if they don't toe the currently accepted fallacy. Besides, I make the rules in my thread
No you don't. The only rules are in the Tos and stickies, and you can be infringed as much as any.
We are well aware of the topic, and we are well aware - if you are not, that the origins of life and whether DNA could possibly come about naturally, though related to the evolution debate-as indeed is Cosmic origins, and for that matter the Genesis-literalist Ark and Eden - enthusiasts - is not what evolution- theory is about. I suppose you harp on it because you know very well that we have no evidence about abiogenesis, which is of course why you craftily and dishonestly tried to draw me into a 'Either explain "without wind" how life started or admit that ...evolution is wrong."..(now that IS a non -sequitur) I suppose.
Of course (it really is like a chess game ) you would, if I played to your rules and gave an explanation, demand hard proof.
"Probably God started it." That's about the wisest thing I've read from you in quite a while.
Another one for the Theist = English dictionary. 'A wise thing'= 'something I agree with'. Eusebius, it will be a long time before I take seriously your opinion on what's wise or not.
Quote:
However, the scientists I quoted or rather linked to, you know, the ones who are tenured at major universities but don't know anything (why do they pay these guys anyway?) said it is impossible for single cells to lump together to form species other than what they originally are. Single cells in a scum pond cannot get together and create a bird. I know, I know, I know, someone will just say how ignorant I am, that it doesn't work that way.
Not only ignorant but with a poor memory. Mine is better. I recall that these people had no expertise in a relevant field.
Quote:
Yet they never seem to have the guts to tell me just exactly how the next step occurred. It is always mental gymnastics or putting the other down that dares to question.
So, do you know exactly how the next step occurred?
Again, your memory seems poor. Given that we have never, ever, claimed to know or even have direct hard evidence about how life started up to cells, though we have indirect evidence, some lab work and some plausible mechanisms,while Creationism has only a mythical magic wand, the next step is found in the pre-cambrian fossil record.
Even there,to ask HOW it happened is not why we should listen to evolutionists - it is because they can show what happened. All that Creationism can do is ignore and deny it and, as we have seen, using arguments that are at best irrelevant, at worst dishonest or ignorant.
Originally Posted by Eusebius Here we spell it "recognized."
Here we spell a lot of things correctly.
Quote:
Shirina was who I was answering to:
I know.
Quote:
It does not logically follow that if science proves we can make a space ship to go to the moon that it also can explain to us how everything evolved from single cells. When everyone rode horses before the automobile, scientists back then were saying if you drove faster than 30 miles per hour the skin would rip off your face. And scientists are always getting it wrong on the latest pill to take for this malady or that malady.
Well, you do have a point. But it's the wrong one. While we may change our mind about the best nutrition, the best rocket propulsion, whether a Black Hole sucks in light or chucks it out or indeed whether a Pterodactyl could fly or just glide, the basics are reliable. Antibiotics cures disease, rockets can get to the moon, there are actually black holes and indeed life developed over millions of years and natural selection is the evident method.
And there are those who may think that you cannot cure disease with a bit of tree and you cannot get to the moon because a rocket would have no air to push against or that life cannot have evolved over millions of years because Genesis says it was all done in one go.
Quote:
No matter the style one has, it is improper, even for me to do it (I have used it before) to use the "appeal to ridicule" fallacy.
Just as well she wasn't using it then.
Quote:
No I wouldn't be wrong. She was misrepresenting my understanding of scientists and mathematics and using that as a straw man fallacy.
If she was saying that you seemed to have it all back to front, she probably wasn't misrepresenting you at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
