<"g...@risky-biz.com"> wrote: > On Nov 26, 8:22 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote: > > reading over the logical fallacy thread, I can see many of you do not > > understand just what a "logical fallacy" is.
> > In fact, I was surprised by how many and by who did not understand.
> > Your answers were ALL over the map.
> > Which means evolution is ALL over the map.
> > Which means evolution is a personal interpretation and is accepted on > > faith.
> > Like any other belief.
> Irony is best in it's purest form.
I really really really hope I don't have this guy in my Critical Reasoning class...
But then, my students have to at least be educable, or they wouldn't be at university level.
On Nov 26, 7:22 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> reading over the logical fallacy thread, I can see many of you do not > understand just what a "logical fallacy" is.
Since when are you "many of you"?
> In fact, I was surprised by how many and by who did not understand.
You being the one lacking in the understanding.
> Your answers were ALL over the map.
Probably because your attempts at logic went "Splat".
> Which means evolution is ALL over the map.
Yes, all over the map we find life, and that life all fits quite nicely withing a framework of evolution. You're just incapable of perceiving that simple fact. .
> Which means evolution is a personal interpretation and is accepted on > faith.
Nope. Again, your conclusion is based upon a logical fallacy: the "argumeent of bloody ignorant uneducated hill-billy ignorance".
> Like any other belief.
Except for all that evidence you deny exists, upon which the acceptance of evolution is based. It's not really a matter of faith, in teh context you are using.
John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote: > In article > <859da744-eb99-42d9-a08c-d27a05b28...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, > <"g...@risky-biz.com"> wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 8:22 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote: > > > reading over the logical fallacy thread, I can see many of you do not > > > understand just what a "logical fallacy" is.
> > > In fact, I was surprised by how many and by who did not understand.
> > > Your answers were ALL over the map.
> > > Which means evolution is ALL over the map.
> > > Which means evolution is a personal interpretation and is accepted on > > > faith.
> > > Like any other belief.
> > Irony is best in it's purest form.
> I really really really hope I don't have this guy in my Critical > Reasoning class...
Why? His whole point is being critical of reasoning.
-- macaddicted Wisdom is radiant and unfading and she is easily discerned by those who love her and is found by those who seek her. Wisdom 6:12 (NRSV)
> In article > <859da744-eb99-42d9-a08c-d27a05b28...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> <"g...@risky-biz.com"> wrote: > > On Nov 26, 8:22 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote: > > > reading over the logical fallacy thread, I can see many of you do not > > > understand just what a "logical fallacy" is.
> > > In fact, I was surprised by how many and by who did not understand.
> > > Your answers were ALL over the map.
> > > Which means evolution is ALL over the map.
> > > Which means evolution is a personal interpretation and is accepted on > > > faith.
> > > Like any other belief.
> > Irony is best in it's purest form.
> I really really really hope I don't have this guy in my Critical > Reasoning class...
He wouldn't last too long. Five minutes into the first lecture, he'd probably either burst into flames or his head would explode.
Hmmm, Seeing that would be worth the price of tuition.... :)
> But then, my students have to at least be educable, or they wouldn't be > at university level.
> > > On Nov 26, 8:22 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote: > > > > reading over the logical fallacy thread, I can see many of you do not > > > > understand just what a "logical fallacy" is.
> > > > In fact, I was surprised by how many and by who did not understand.
> > > > Your answers were ALL over the map.
> > > > Which means evolution is ALL over the map.
> > > > Which means evolution is a personal interpretation and is accepted on > > > > faith.
> > > > Like any other belief.
> > > Irony is best in it's purest form.
> > I really really really hope I don't have this guy in my Critical > > Reasoning class...
> Why? His whole point is being critical of reasoning.
All-Seeing-I wrote: > reading over the logical fallacy thread, I can see many of you do not > understand just what a "logical fallacy" is.
> In fact, I was surprised by how many and by who did not understand.
> Your answers were ALL over the map.
> Which means evolution is ALL over the map.
> Which means evolution is a personal interpretation and is accepted on > faith.
> Like any other belief.
Add in the mix the fact that most of the believers are yuppies that happen to abhor Christianity and would rather worship a Buddha because its in style and "in" plus the fact that new research reveals even more...questions to be answered and you get a religion best suited for the masses that want to be just like their heroes, the yuppies or dinks.
Evolution has failed to deliver the goods, remains useless and is hardly a rigorous science, in the same sense that physics or chemistry are sciences.
Followers make me ill to my stomach, but the world needs the burger flippers and the clueless that are only capable of uttering slogans.
On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:16:22 -0400, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote: >All-Seeing-I wrote: >> reading over the logical fallacy thread, I can see many of you do not >> understand just what a "logical fallacy" is.
>> In fact, I was surprised by how many and by who did not understand.
>> Your answers were ALL over the map.
>> Which means evolution is ALL over the map.
>> Which means evolution is a personal interpretation and is accepted on >> faith.
>> Like any other belief.
>Add in the mix the fact that most of the believers are yuppies that >happen to abhor Christianity
aint it wunnerful what paranoia creationism breeds?
how does he know this? where's his proof? how does he explain the acceptance of evolution by japanese and indian scientists who have, at most, a passing familiarity with christianity?
oh. he doesn't. he reads his church bulletin. it tells him scientists are atheists and hate his religion.
that's all he needs
>Evolution has failed to deliver the goods, remains useless and is hardly >a rigorous science, in the same sense that physics or chemistry are >sciences.
those of us who are chemists would disagree. but he's a religious fanatic so he must be telling the truth. after all look at what creationism was able to explain in its 2000 years...it explained...um...well, it explained.....hmmmmm....
nothing
>Followers make me ill to my stomach, but the world needs the burger >flippers and the clueless that are only capable of uttering slogans.
yeah like einstein, feynman, weinberg, etc. burger flippers, i suppose
Nashton wrote: > All-Seeing-I wrote: > > reading over the logical fallacy thread, I can see many of you do not > > understand just what a "logical fallacy" is.
> > In fact, I was surprised by how many and by who did not understand.
> > Your answers were ALL over the map.
> > Which means evolution is ALL over the map.
> > Which means evolution is a personal interpretation and is accepted on > > faith.
> > Like any other belief.
> Add in the mix the fact that most of the believers are yuppies that > happen to abhor Christianity
Which of course ignores the fact that most Christians accept evolution.
> All-Seeing-I wrote: > > reading over the logical fallacy thread, I can see many of you do not > > understand just what a "logical fallacy" is.
> > In fact, I was surprised by how many and by who did not understand.
> > Your answers were ALL over the map.
> > Which means evolution is ALL over the map.
> > Which means evolution is a personal interpretation and is accepted on > > faith.
> > Like any other belief.
> Add in the mix the fact that most of the believers are yuppies that > happen to abhor Christianity and would rather worship a Buddha because > its in style and "in" plus the fact that new research reveals even > more...questions to be answered and you get a religion best suited for > the masses that want to be just like their heroes, the yuppies or dinks.
Exactly right. Evolution as a "belief" did not catch on until Darwin s's book made it to France where the social elite and the rich made it popular. Darwin's "survival of the fittest" notion was appealing to the young and the rich who were bored with the Church and all of it's imposed social morality.
The History of evolution is not being fully told. There were many through history to propose an evolutionary process took place. I am surprised Darwin's version even became popular back then because Darwin's version is the only one that removed God from the equation. Challenging the Church back then was quite an endeavor for sure.
Empedocles, a Greek philosopher suggested that natural selection might explain why animals were adapted to their surroundings as far back as 500 BC. This is, of course, something that we can actually observe for ourselves. But it does not play God and produce a new species. al- Jahiz, a Muslim theologian and academic born in Basra around 776 AD also suggested more of the same.
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, a French naturalist proposed that traits could be inherited and that individual species lost characteristics that they did not and developed ones that they did which were passed to their offspring. However, while this is a nice idea, the suggestion is wrong. Acquired characteristics cannot be acquired in this way.
Then there is Thomas Malthus who wrote: “An Essay on the Principle of Population. In 1813, William Charles Wells, a Scottish doctor, had presented a paper on race to the Royal Society, in which he introduced the idea of natural selection.
So as one can see, Wallace and then Darwin (the late comer of the bunch; as usual) were not the first to propose an evolutionary process. In fact, they were last.
So why was Darwin's version more acceptable then all of the others? Because Darwin and Wallace are the naturalists of the bunch. Darwinism claims to have removed the need for divine explanations for creation and further suggests that the wider universe might also owe nothing to divine intervention but merely to the natural laws. The others did not go there.
So now that God is removed from the wquation, what was needed in the upcoming years? Big bang theories, Theories of Everything, etc etc to explain away the existence of God and allow evolution in it's current form to be true. The result of these exotic stories are vomited on this news group daily. A testimony to the fact that if one repeats a lie often enough it will become as if it were truth.
So. Man and all species do not need a creator now. Everything can be explained with natural laws alone. Quite an appealing idea to an atheist that would like to "abhor Christianity" but also needs something else to believe in. Right? Of course. The pieces of the puzzle fit.
> Evolution has failed to deliver the goods, remains useless and is hardly > a rigorous science, in the same sense that physics or chemistry are > sciences.
Yes. The only usefulness I see for evolutionary theory, that proposes man came from a single molecule which became self animated, is simple. It gives those that do not want to accept a "Creator" as the explaination for life and an alternate belief system to go to.
We all need belief systems
> Followers make me ill to my stomach, but the world needs the burger > flippers and the clueless that are only capable of uttering slogans
Yeah. But I kinda like them. Such an odd lot they are.
In fact, I did not know such people existed on the planet until I stumbled upon this NG.
How one can go through their entire life only believing and understanding in what can be measuered and tested is quite remarkable. Especially in the light of so much metaphysical evidence and written evidence that suggests there is something out there that we just have not figured out yet.
They claim to be SO edcuated yet they deny so many posibilities based on the mere fact that they have not figured out a way to test for it yet!
> In article > <859da744-eb99-42d9-a08c-d27a05b28...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> <"g...@risky-biz.com"> wrote: > > On Nov 26, 8:22 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote: > > > reading over the logical fallacy thread, I can see many of you do not > > > understand just what a "logical fallacy" is.
> > > In fact, I was surprised by how many and by who did not understand.
> > > Your answers were ALL over the map.
> > > Which means evolution is ALL over the map.
> > > Which means evolution is a personal interpretation and is accepted on > > > faith.
> > > Like any other belief.
> > Irony is best in it's purest form.
> I really really really hope I don't have this guy in my Critical > Reasoning class...
> But then, my students have to at least be educable, or they wouldn't be > at university level.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
That is quite a grammatically sound sentence you made. --> "really really" ?
Exactly HOW educated did you say you were?
Clue for the class: Some cops should not be allowed to carry a gun. Some people should never be allowed to own pets. And some people should not be allowed to teach.
> > All-Seeing-I wrote: > > > reading over the logical fallacy thread, I can see many of you do not > > > understand just what a "logical fallacy" is.
> > > In fact, I was surprised by how many and by who did not understand.
> > > Your answers were ALL over the map.
> > > Which means evolution is ALL over the map.
> > > Which means evolution is a personal interpretation and is accepted on > > > faith.
> > > Like any other belief.
> > Add in the mix the fact that most of the believers are yuppies that > > happen to abhor Christianity and would rather worship a Buddha because > > its in style and "in" plus the fact that new research reveals even > > more...questions to be answered and you get a religion best suited for > > the masses that want to be just like their heroes, the yuppies or dinks.
> Exactly right. Evolution as a "belief" did not catch on until Darwin > s's book made it to France where the social elite and the rich made it > popular. Darwin's "survival of the fittest" notion was appealing to > the young and the rich who were bored with the Church and all of it's > imposed social morality.
> The History of evolution is not being fully told. There were many > through history to propose an evolutionary process took place. I am > surprised Darwin's version even became popular back then because > Darwin's version is the only one that removed God from the equation. > Challenging the Church back then was quite an endeavor for sure.
> Empedocles, a Greek philosopher suggested that natural selection might > explain why animals were adapted to their surroundings as far back as > 500 BC.
Hardly. That's an extreme reading, and requires as much, if not more, "interpretative" reading than Genesis. And Empedocles' work can hardly be described as theist; more a form of animism.
> This is, of course, something that we can actually observe for > ourselves. But it does not play God and produce a new species. al- > Jahiz, a Muslim theologian and academic born in Basra around 776 AD > also suggested more of the same.
> Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, a French naturalist proposed that traits could > be inherited and that individual species lost characteristics that > they did not and developed ones that they did which were passed to > their offspring. However, while this is a nice idea, the suggestion is > wrong. Acquired characteristics cannot be acquired in this way.
And there was no theism involved in his theory of evolution.
> Then there is Thomas Malthus who wrote: “An Essay on the Principle of > Population. In 1813, William Charles Wells, a Scottish doctor, had > presented a paper on race to the Royal Society, in which he introduced > the idea of natural selection.
Wells didn't mention the supernatural once in his paper.
> So as one can see, Wallace and then Darwin (the late comer of the > bunch; as usual) were not the first to propose an evolutionary > process. In fact, they were last.
I think you may be mistaken here, as Darwin (and Wallace) did not have knowledge of genetics. That came later, and confirmed much of Darwin's work, while expanding on it in directions he would have found fascinating.
> So why was Darwin's version more acceptable then all of the others? > Because Darwin and Wallace are the naturalists of the bunch.
Hoooey. You're making this stuff up (as usual).
> Darwinism claims to have removed the need for divine explanations for > creation and further suggests that the wider universe might also owe > nothing to divine intervention but merely to the natural laws. The > others did not go there.
How much of the prior stuff did you read before posting this?
> So now that God is removed from the wquation, what was needed in the > upcoming years? Big bang theories, Theories of Everything, etc etc to > explain away the existence of God and allow evolution in it's current > form to be true. The result of these exotic stories are vomited on > this news group daily. A testimony to the fact that if one repeats a > lie often enough it will become as if it were truth.
> So. Man and all species do not need a creator now.
Never did.
> Everything can be > explained with natural laws alone. Quite an appealing idea to an > atheist that would like to "abhor Christianity" but also needs > something else to believe in. Right? Of course. The pieces of the > puzzle fit.
It's not just your religion, it's the need for any supernatural in this.
> > Evolution has failed to deliver the goods, remains useless and is hardly > > a rigorous science, in the same sense that physics or chemistry are > > sciences.
> Yes. The only usefulness I see for evolutionary theory, that proposes > man came from a single molecule which became self animated, is simple. > It gives those that do not want to accept a "Creator" as the > explaination for life and an alternate belief system to go to.
> We all need belief systems
Explain.
> > Followers make me ill to my stomach, but the world needs the burger > > flippers and the clueless that are only capable of uttering slogans
> Yeah. But I kinda like them. Such an odd lot they are.
> In fact, I did not know such people existed on the planet until I > stumbled upon this NG.
> How one can go through their entire life only believing and > understanding in what can be measuered and tested is quite remarkable. > Especially in the light of so much metaphysical evidence and written > evidence that suggests there is something out there that we just have > not figured out yet.
That's so true, and is one of the driving forces behind the inquisitive scientific mind. What have you done lately to understand it?
> They claim to be SO edcuated yet they deny so many posibilities based > on the mere fact that they have not figured out a way to test for it > yet!
> Ya gotta love them.
As above. It's not denial; goddidit just doesn't explain anything.
> On Nov 26, 8:11 pm, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> > In article > > <859da744-eb99-42d9-a08c-d27a05b28...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> > <"g...@risky-biz.com"> wrote: > > > On Nov 26, 8:22 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote: > > > > reading over the logical fallacy thread, I can see many of you do not > > > > understand just what a "logical fallacy" is.
> > > > In fact, I was surprised by how many and by who did not understand.
> > > > Your answers were ALL over the map.
> > > > Which means evolution is ALL over the map.
> > > > Which means evolution is a personal interpretation and is accepted on > > > > faith.
> > > > Like any other belief.
> > > Irony is best in it's purest form.
> > I really really really hope I don't have this guy in my Critical > > Reasoning class...
> > But then, my students have to at least be educable, or they wouldn't be > > at university level.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> That is quite a grammatically sound sentence you made. --> "really > really" ?
Repeating "really really" in a statemnt like that is grammatically premissible to add emphasis, you illiterate swine.
> Exactly HOW educated did you say you were?
I've yet to see you provide your educational background. But then again, who what's t brag about "None".
> Clue for the class: > Some cops should not be allowed to carry a gun. Some people should > never be allowed to own pets. And some people should not be allowed to > teach.
Advice for ASS-I(diot): Mark Twain: "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
>Clue for the class: >Some cops should not be allowed to carry a gun. Some people should >never be allowed to own pets. And some people should not be allowed to >teach.
On Nov 27, 5:11 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 11:42 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:22:43 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> > <allseei...@usa.com> wrote: > > >reading over the logical fallacy thread, I can see many of you do not > > >understand just what a "logical fallacy" is.
> > You're hardly in a position to judge such a thing.
> Actually. I am in the rare position of doing exactly that.
>Exactly right. Evolution as a "belief" did not catch on until Darwin >s's book made it to France where the social elite and the rich made it >popular. Darwin's "survival of the fittest" notion was appealing to >the young and the rich who were bored with the Church and all of it's >imposed social morality.
evolution is a 'belief' in the same way heliocentrism is a belief.
creationism is based on having faith in authority. and that authority is wrong
>The History of evolution is not being fully told
OOHHH!!! the great conspiracy! area 51! UFO's!!
.. There were many
>through history to propose an evolutionary process took place. I am >surprised Darwin's version even became popular back then because >Darwin's version is the only one that removed God from the equation. >Challenging the Church back then was quite an endeavor for sure.
actually he didn't remove god. he removed YOUR god. tough bananas, kid. go find another god.
>Empedocles, a Greek philosopher suggested that natural selection might >explain why animals were adapted to their surroundings as far back as >500 BC. This is, of course, something that we can actually observe for >ourselves. But it does not play God and produce a new species. al- >Jahiz, a Muslim theologian and academic born in Basra around 776 AD >also suggested more of the same.
irrelevant. democritus suggested that atoms existed about 2300 years ago.
but science requires EVIDENCE and that's what darwin provided....a mechanism. and EVIDENCE
to creationists, evidence is an impediment to faith so must be banned
>So why was Darwin's version more acceptable then all of the others? >Because Darwin and Wallace are the naturalists of the bunch. >Darwinism claims to have removed the need for divine explanations for >creation and further suggests that the wider universe might also owe >nothing to divine intervention but merely to the natural laws. The >others did not go there.
uh...no. a convenient myth for the weak minded, but the reason darwin succeeded was he provided EVIDENCE
the very fact you ignore the EVIDENCE shows that you don't think evidence plays a role in science. amazingly enough, it does.
no wonder creationism made no progress in 2000 years. without actually looking at the world and testing one's ideas, progress is impossible
>So now that God is removed from the wquation, what was needed in the >upcoming years? Big bang theories, Theories of Everything, etc etc to >explain away the existence of God and allow evolution in it's current >form to be true. The result of these exotic stories are vomited on >this news group daily. A testimony to the fact that if one repeats a >lie often enough it will become as if it were truth.
big bang theories have evidence. again and again what this post requires is suspension of logic and reason in favor of some paranoid view of science.
the big bang is tested.
creationism doesn't have a need for evidence so condemns those who try to test their ideas.
>> Evolution has failed to deliver the goods, remains useless and is hardly >> a rigorous science, in the same sense that physics or chemistry are >> sciences.
>Yes. The only usefulness I see for evolutionary theory, that proposes >man came from a single molecule which became self animated, is simple. >It gives those that do not want to accept a "Creator" as the >explaination for life and an alternate belief system to go to.
fine. you take your little fairy tale and suck your thumb. other christians seem to have a mature faith that does not require they park their brains at the church door.
your god is dead. that much is clear. it's been killed by evidence. and that's why you abhor science
it's why you haven't made progress in 2000 years.
>How one can go through their entire life only believing and >understanding in what can be measuered and tested is quite remarkable.
and for 2000 years people believed as you do
the human race festered in its own ignorance as a result
>Especially in the light of so much metaphysical evidence and written >evidence that suggests there is something out there that we just have >not figured out yet.
that's the problem. with 100,000 ancient texts you can find anything you want about anything you want
only science tells us about the natural world
creationism is useless.
>They claim to be SO edcuated yet they deny so many posibilities based >on the mere fact that they have not figured out a way to test for it >yet!
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Nov 27, 4:10 am, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote: > > On Nov 26, 8:11 pm, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> > > In article > > > <859da744-eb99-42d9-a08c-d27a05b28...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> > > <"g...@risky-biz.com"> wrote: > > > > On Nov 26, 8:22 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote: > > > > > reading over the logical fallacy thread, I can see many of you do not > > > > > understand just what a "logical fallacy" is.
> > > > > In fact, I was surprised by how many and by who did not understand.
> > > > > Your answers were ALL over the map.
> > > > > Which means evolution is ALL over the map.
> > > > > Which means evolution is a personal interpretation and is accepted on > > > > > faith.
> > > > > Like any other belief.
> > > > Irony is best in it's purest form.
> > > I really really really hope I don't have this guy in my Critical > > > Reasoning class...
> > > But then, my students have to at least be educable, or they wouldn't be > > > at university level.- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> > That is quite a grammatically sound sentence you made. --> "really > > really" ?
> Repeating "really really" in a statemnt like that is grammatically > premissible to add emphasis, you illiterate swine.
Did someone see a toothless lapdog gumming its way around here? I'm sure I felt a slight pressure on my ankles... ....
|
