well. I must report the bad news.
All-Seeing-I
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.
g...@risky-biz.com
Irony is best in it's purest form.
John Wilkins
<859da744-eb99-42d9...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
<"g...@risky-biz.com"> wrote:
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.
Boikat
> 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.
Boikat
heekster
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>reading over the logical fallacy thread, I can see many of you do not
>understand just what a "logical fallacy" is.
No you don't, you're projecting.
>
>In fact, I was surprised by how many and by who did not understand.
>
Just you, ament, just you.
>Your answers were ALL over the map.
>
What map, ament?
>Which means evolution is ALL over the map.
>
What map, ament?
>Which means evolution is a personal interpretation and is accepted on
>faith.
>
Your learning disability is once again manifest. No doubt you have
soiled yourself as well.
>Like any other belief.
>
Your beliefs constitute lies, apostasies, half-truths, omissions and
imbecilities.
macaddicted
> In article
> <859da744-eb99-42d9...@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)
Boikat
> 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.
Boikat
John Wilkins
macaddicted <macad...@REMOVETHISca.rr.com> wrote:
> John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <859da744-eb99-42d9...@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.
Errr, yessss....
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
what it means is you're so wrong your viewpoint is open to attack from
many, many angles
Davej
> reading over the logical fallacy thread, I can see many of you do not
> understand just what a "logical fallacy" is.
Your "logical fallacy" was an irrelevant load of crap.
Nashton
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.
Free Lunch
talk.origins:
>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
I realize that ignorance is a point of pride for folks like you, but
people do not worship a Buddha, Buddhists in particular.
...
bpuharic
>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
raven1
<allse...@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.
VoiceOfReason
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
> 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!
Ya gotta love them.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - 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
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:22:43 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>
> >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.
Not by choice though.
I was happier being blissfully ignorant. Like you.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>I am happier being blissfully ignorant.
Text corrected.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
alextangent
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.
Boikat
> 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."
Boikat
bpuharic
>
>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.
and religion, it seems, prevents learning
all seeing is a great example
Boikat
> 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.
No, you're not.
>
> Not by choice though.
Oh?
>
> I was happier being blissfully ignorant.
You're still blissfully ignorant.....
> Like you.
...and stop projecting.
Boikat
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>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!
yeah go figure. evidence. that's all we require.
and that makes all the difference
John Wilkins
<0d640f6e-ace3-406d...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Did someone see a toothless lapdog gumming its way around here? I'm
sure I felt a slight pressure on my ankles...
....
raven1
<allse...@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.
Considering that you display the reasoning skills of a mayfly, that
might not be a good thing on your part.
>Not by choice though.
>
>I was happier being blissfully ignorant.
And nothing has changed.
>Like you.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Of course, when you cannot attack the information you can alwaya atack
the poster.
All-Seeing-I
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:11:50 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>
As usual.
You. Just. Don't. Get. It.
>
>
>
> >Like you.- Hide quoted text -
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
ooopsie!
I lefty out one of the clues for the class
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.
And some people should never be allowed internet access.
Such as boikat
Boikat
What information? The subject of the reply was my reply to your
stupid "gramatical" comment, dipshit.
Boikat
Boikat
Like you?
>
> Such as boikat-
Gee, and you're the cretin that just posted, "Of course, when you
cannot attack the information you can alwaya atack
the poster. ".
From the T. O. Lexicon:
"Hypocrite" n: See All Seeing-I(diot)
"All Seeing-I(diot) n: See Hypocrite
Boikat
Desertphile
> reading over the logical fallacy thread, I can see many of you do not
> understand just what a "logical fallacy" is.
This is why I have my irony filter on automatic circuit protection
mode (ACPM).
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Boikat
Projection
Boikat
Desertphile
> 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
Most "believers" in science *ARE* Christians, you silly Cretard. r
Desertphile
<boi...@bellsouth.net> 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...
> He wouldn't last too long. Five minutes into the first lecture, he'd
> probably either burst into flames or his head would explode.
Actually, I suspect his fat ass would explode due to all that shit
he's been holding in via his version of "logic."
> Hmmm, Seeing that would be worth the price of tuition.... :)
Wear a flack jacket.
Desertphile
wrote:
Worse, religion removes learning.
Desertphile
<allse...@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 -
> That is quite a grammatically sound sentence you made. --> "really
> really" ? Exactly HOW educated did you say you were?
The Hebrew Testament does it all the time, in several hundred
places, because that is how the Hebrews emphasized a point they
wished to make. If you knew anything about ancient texts you would
have known this.
Desertphile
<allse...@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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Desertphile
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
> Exactly right. Evolution as a "belief"
In the same sense that gravity as a "belief"
> did not catch on until Darwins's book made it to France
Er, you do realize that evolution was known to have occurred long
before Darwin was born, right? And that Charles Darwin was the
first (along with Wallace) to correctly explain (with a few
mistakes also ) how evolution works?
Oh, wait. You're a Creationist: you are learning impaired. Never
mind....
John Stockwell
> reading over the logical fallacy thread, I can see many of you do not
> understand just what a "logical fallacy" is.
>
>
> 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.
You really haven't an understanding of anything. You have only
demonstrated
that you can deny anything.
heekster
What you do does not constitute an attack; rather, it is more of a
leg-humping type event.
Really.
heekster
>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
No one worships Buddha, moron.
Learn something for a change, before you stick both feet in your mouth
again.
raven1
Of course I get it. You're an ignorant yahoo who knows nothing about
any field of science, and wouldn't be able to recognize logic if we
spotted you "L_GIC" and let you buy a vowel. Despite those monumental
handicaps, you insist on debating people who actually know what
they're talking about. That about sums it up, actually.
TomS
<fn70h51ialhqgodmq...@4ax.com>, raven1 stated..."
>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:11:50 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>>>
>>> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>> >> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:22:43 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>>>
>>> >> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>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.
>>>
>>> Considering that you display the reasoning skills of a mayfly, that
>>> might not be a good thing on your part.
>>>
>>> >Not by choice though.
>>>
>>> >I was happier being blissfully ignorant.
>>>
>>> And nothing has changed.
>>
>>As usual.
>>You. Just. Don't. Get. It.
>
>Of course I get it. You're an ignorant yahoo who knows nothing about
>any field of science, and wouldn't be able to recognize logic if we
>spotted you "L_GIC" and let you buy a vowel. Despite those monumental
>handicaps, you insist on debating people who actually know what
>they're talking about. That about sums it up, actually.
>
Hardly. The lack of knowledge is not confined to science. And, when
the mood strikes, there is just plain making stuff up.
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Paul J Gans
>In article
><859da744-eb99-42d9...@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.
Ah, but what is not widely known, is that there is usually a
limit to educability. After that limit is reached, nothing new
is assimiliated.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Ye Old One
You provide so many openings for attack - it is your own fault
dipshit.
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>And some people should never be allowed internet access.
If we could find out what institution you were confined in I would
certainly try to stop yours.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by All-Seeing-I
<allse...@usa.com>:
>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.
Thank you for demonstrating by example a logical fallacy.
Yours is quite good, if somewhat blatant.
>Like any other belief.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Walter Bushell
Desertphile <deser...@invalid-address.net> wrote:
> The Hebrew Testament does it all the time, in several hundred
> places, because that is how the Hebrews emphasized a point they
> wished to make. If you knew anything about ancient texts you would
> have known this.
Infamously, Jesus rides into Jerusalem (to suicide by centurion) on two
animals because the writer didn't understand Jewish poetry.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> my students have to at least be educable, or they wouldn't be at
> university level.
Not necessarily so. Some high schools have a policy of making
coursework so easy that just about anyone can pass them, and
graduate, even somebody who doesn't even know how to read at a
near-adult level much less actually understand any of the course
work that went in one ear and out the other. A student can graduate
from such a high school with a "glowing" record (B average or
higher) without being competant at the high school level much less
the college admission level.
Some colleges/universities protect themselves from wasting their
resources on such students, by requiring *all* new students to take
a pre-admission comprehensive exam to evaluate whether they really
learned the material indicated by their high-school record of
courses taken and grades achieved, and won't admit them unless they
achieve a score above a threshold. But not all
colleges/universities require such pre-admission exams, so not all
colleges/universities are exempt from having such students appear
in their classes.
I'm curious: Does *your* university have such an exam and score
threshold as requirement for admission?
John Wilkins
http://tinyurl.com/uh3t <seeWeb...@rem.intarweb.org> wrote:
I'll soon find out. I don't start there for another fortnight.
Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> 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.
Evolution has delivered a unifying understanding which aids
understanding of virtually every aspect of biology. It has also
enabled the first deliberate engineering of new traits by means of
newly designed genes. What *other* "goods" did you expect it to
deliver, which it has failed (yet) to deliver?
The main place where evolution helps is in understanding why
various living beings have such a large number of beneficial
traits. Without evolution, the question would have to be why some
supernatural being would decide to put *this* particular
combination of traits in *this* particular animal, *that*
particular combination of traits in *that* particular animal, etc.
etc. etc., questions multiplied tens of millions of times. Or
alterately, why would atoms spontaneously assemble to form such a
wide variety of very well adapted organisms. But with evolution,
the generic answer for each favorable trait is that there's an
evolutionary path from more primitive traits to this current trait,
and that at each stage along that path either the new version of
that trait was more favorable than its ancestral trait, or the two
were of approximately equal favor but by random drift the new trait
replaced the ancestral trait. Then the unresolved question is to
find that path if possible and explain why at each stage either the
new trait was more favorable or about the same. In come cases we've
already used comparative genomics to determine what the ancestral
DNA sequence was, and we've identified how the mutation was
beneficial. This kind of evolutionary-path finding is very very
much easier to work out than the "why goddiddit" or "why atoms fell
together". We actually have a chance to work out the details of the
evolutionary history of many different current traits by means of
our understanding of evolution, whereas we could never make any
progress in the "why goddiddit" or "why atoms fell together"
question. Thus evolutionary theory is valuable as an aid to
research into the cause of various modern beneficial traits.
> Followers make me ill to my stomach, but the world needs the
> burger flippers and the clueless that are only capable of
> uttering slogans.
Followers of religious dogma, such as the Holy Bible and related
Creationism, sorta make me sick too. But followers of scientific
theory, in the sense of being able to follow trains of logic, and
being able to follow (understand) programs of research and the
incremental results thereby obtained and the way that research data
supports the conclusions, don't make me sick, and I see no reason
they should make you sick either, except if they make you get a
sick feeling from realizing your whole life was wasted on worthless
religion, and it would take you another fifty years to catch up
with science if you started now, but you don't expect to live that
long, so it's already too late for you to start.
Is that what you're sick (ill to your stomach) about?
Perhaps you would feel less ill if you could learn some very small
part of evolutionary theory and do some original research in that
area, so that you could contribute in that narrow area despite your
general lack of understanding, so then your life wouldn't be
entirely wasted? May I suggest you learn how to write computer
software, then develop a genetic algorithm for producing barriers
to incoming gliders in Conway's "life" cellular automaton, and/or
develop a genetic algorithm for optimizing the pattern of outgoing
gliders to most effectively penetrate any given defensive
formation. You might start with a small configuration such as:
DD
DD..
DD....
DD......
DD.......O
DD.......OO
D.......OO
......OO
....OO
..OO
OO
where D represents defensive cells directly controlled by the
defensive genome and O represets offensive cells directly
controlled by the offensive genome, and . represents cells governed
by Conway's cellular generation algorithm. The objective of the
defense is to construct some stable formation out to the third
diagonal of Conway-generation dots, just before the halfway point
towards the offense, such that it will withstand against glider
penetration, protecting the *first* diagonal from any change, as
long as possible. The offense starts after the defense declares it
has finished the set-up. The objective of the offense is to emit
gliders, one at a time, in such a pattern as to penetrate the
defensive barrier and modify at least one first-diagonal cell as
quickly as possible. The only feedback either genetic algorithm
gets is the number of clock cycles from the start of the offense to
the first first-diagonal change-of-state. In particular, the
offense can't see what defensive barrier has been set up, and the
defense can't see what glider sequence achieved penetration, nor
even which first-diagonal cell got state-changed first.
Walter Bushell
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
If they do, here's hoping you pass.
John Wilkins
<pr...@panix.com> wrote:
I'd like to thank you on behalf of the band and myself, and I hope we
passed the audition...
chris thompson
> On Nov 27, 6:58 am, John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <0d640f6e-ace3-406d-ae8d-25467f845...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > 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:
> > > > > > > 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.
>
>
> > > > > > 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...
> > ....- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Of course, when you cannot attack the information you can alwaya atack
> the poster.
Now I've seen everything. The standard claim of "no new information"
is common among creationists. Here we see "information" being used as
a synonym for "nothing at all".
Chris
Mike Lyle
[...]
> But not all
> colleges/universities require such pre-admission exams, so not all
> colleges/universities are exempt from having such students appear
> in their classes.
>
> I'm curious: Does *your* university have such an exam and score
> threshold as requirement for admission?
Under British-derived systems, secondary-school exams have traditionally
been set and graded by external bodies, not by the schools themselves. I
think it's still similar in Oz, though I went through the English system
myself. Oxford and Cambridge colleges, but I think nobody else, used to
set their own entrance exams, but stopped doing so a while back. But
it's generally agreed that, in Britain at least, the school exam
standards have dumbed down; so that elite universities may soon return
to setting their own entrance tests.
--
Mike.