Search results

Impeaching a source is not a fallacy and noting a consensus is not a fallacy -- unless it is the sole means of supporting a contention. Try not to commit the fallacy of being overly literal with fallacies.

So, suggesting a little skepticism in a supposed authority based on past behavior is a fallacy, but making a sweeping generalization about an entire group based a minor point of contention with one group member is sound logic? You are a trip.

You are being a noodge. You think you have upper hand by asking questions and not answering them. That is probably because you know that the case you hope to make is inherently weaker. Last try: Do Christians have a very solid general consensus about what is moral based on the Bible? How do...

You often commit the fallacy of the fallacy list. You accept someone else's list of fallacies without understanding many of the fallacies. The most prominent example is when you call out someone for saying I do not believe as a pleading based on incredulity. Trouble is the phrase has other...

You should win an award for the most substance free responses. You would do well to describe WHY following each response because it could move things forward.

Not after the third time on the same exact issue. You are playing games.

It appears he was involved in domestic violence and tax fraud. The latter is more relevant. He does not have a reputation for accuracy.

makes sense

Is Kent Hovind on this forum?

Darwin lived in the 19th century, dude. He was still a better scientist than any modern day creationist. Our understanding of evolution has dwarfed Darwin's ideas. Who in their right mind would immortalize and worship one man? The creation model adds one non-parsimonious element: a...

First, there are no Darwinists in the world today. The theorem of evolution today includes natural selection and genetics. Apes and Humans had a common ancestor.

Photosynthesis of plants eaten by herbivores eaten by carnivores. Grade school stuff. They exist now, yes. Purely chemical processes lead to the molecules that support life. They are self-assembling.

Then you are not Gilligan. You are more like the ape or one of the head-hunters to be most accurate. You are not in the main cast and say little of consequence.

If I wanted your particular input on this matter I would have drawn your attention to it. Your post was a good jumping off point to a discussion which you repeatedly refuse to have. Sorry, to have addressed your name directly. That was a rhetorical devise. You are welcome here if you choose to...

I misjudged the Bible. I thought nothing was said about trans rights.

Also as yet unproven. Religious books carry no weight outside the religion. Placing an explanation outside the bounds of our understood reality is no explanation at all. It's just a hypothesis with no operational definitions.

Look inward. You could understand if you wanted to.

Here is something Huck Finn demonstrated that the Bible did not do as well on: Slavery is wrong; racism is wrong.

The current energy system of life on earth is not closed. The sun impacts the ecosystem in a fashion that reduces entropy. See above. Also, chemical reactions can in a limited way produce temporary increases in energy withiin a particular interaction ( though waste products and overall...

I challenge you to steel-man my position!