|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 08/10/2009 : 16:33:16 [Permalink]
|
| Genetics and the fossil record “prove” common descent. |
You'll note that they conveniently leave out things like ERV insertions, human chromosome 2, HOX developemental genes(nearly identicle from fruit flies to humans), and the genes that give so many organisms (from bacteria to humans) the ability to carry out glycolysis.
Its easy when you get to pick and chose what evidence you want to argue against and ignore the stuff you can't respond to.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2009 : 17:54:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
You might hear them say something like, “Creationists are wrong because we can see evolution happening all the time. Organisms are constantly changing and adapting to their environment.” But, of course, the fact that animals change does not demonstrate that they share a common ancestor. I cannot overstate how common this fallacy is in evolutionary arguments. Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, speciation events, changes in the size and shape of finch beaks, the development of new breeds of dog, and changes in allele frequency are all examples of change, but none of them demonstrate that the basic kinds of organisms share a common ancestor. When you hear evolutionists cite these as examples of “evolution in action,” you need to politely point out that they have committed the fallacy of equivocation.
And I, not so politely, point out that none of this has to do with common descent It is merely micro-evolution within a population of a species. Get enough of it and you will have a new species, or even a genus or Family, descending from the previous one – which descended from something else. Straw Man. |
You missed it, filthy: Lisle himself said "speciation events." But if we have any documented speciation events (and we do), then we have evidence of common ancestry: the two species once had a common ancestor. What the good doctor means to say is that the small changes don't themselves demonstrate big changes. But since micro- and macro-evolution are driven by the same processes and we have no reason to think that those processes stop working at some scale, Lisle is insisting upon two different definitions for one word (evolution) where a single defintion works just fine.
He's also equivocating, making him a hypocrite (who'da guessed?). Common ancestry is not evolution, it is a prediction of evolutionary theory.| Another word on which people sometimes equivocate is the word science. Science commonly refers to the procedures by which we explore the consistent and predictable behavior of the universe today—the scientific method. This is operational science. But science can also refer to a body of knowledge (e.g., the science of genetics). Furthermore, science can also refer to models regarding past events; this is origins science. Or it can refer to a specific model. When any of these meanings are switched within an argument, it is an instance of the fallacy of equivocation. |
Now he's just demanding that these different kinds of science are so fundamentally different that we cannot trust the basic methods used in one sort to be useful in another type of science. And he clearly doesn't understand that the hypothesize-test-modify cycle is present and working in all of them, even the "origins" sciences. Heck, models are useless unless you test them against the real world. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/11/2009 : 03:11:50 [Permalink]
|
Hmm. I read it as a negative; Lisle pointing up evolutionist hand-waving -- although it's not really hand waving if you can deliver the goods, is it? Speciation events are a lot bigger than AiG would have us believe; Tiktaalik, for an example, a fish well on it's way to becoming an amphibian. So some of them, such as our undeniably transitional fish, take longer than others and those are the ones that are, or become, no longer "still a just bug (bird, lizard, whatever)."
Young Earth Creationists have no patience, They can't afford it because they have so little time to work with from the git-go.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 08/18/2009 : 07:15:07 [Permalink]
|
Begging the Question
Wherein Dr. Lisle begs the question so pitiously that I found myself looking for a tin cup to drop some coins in for him,.
"Logical Fallacies: The Fallacy of Begging the Question
by Dr. Jason Lisle, AiG–U.S. onAugust 17, 2009LaymanKeywords
author-jason-lislelogiclogical-fallacies-seriesLogical Fallacies
Logic can be a valuable tool for Christians to defend their faith. But mistakes in reasoning can derail even the best argument.
I once did a telescope session with a small group of people, including a four-year-old boy who was particularly interested in astronomy. I asked this young budding astronomer if he believed in alien spaceships. “Of course,” he said. I then asked him why he believed in alien spaceships. I'll never forget his clever response: “How else would the aliens get here?” Pretty logical isn't it? The aliens would never be able to get to earth without a spaceship. So, clearly, there must be alien spaceships!"
Anecdote and evidential of nothing.
"This is a wonderful example of a very common error in reasoning—the fallacy of begging the question. This fallacy is committed when a person merely assumes what he or she is attempting to prove or when the premise of an argument actually depends upon its conclusion. In this case, our young student was attempting to prove the existence of alien spacecraft by taking it for granted that aliens have traveled to earth. But that is essentially the point in question. This young aspiring astronomer was reasoning in a circle."
Uh-huh...
"Of course, we expect such humorous reasoning from a four-year-old. As we grow up, we are expected to become rational and not make these kinds of logical mistakes. That's why it is so disturbing to find that many adults commit the fallacy of begging the question in debates on origins. Some examples are obvious: “Evolution must be true because it is a fact.” But, more commonly, the fallacy is much more subtle. Consider some of the following arguments."
Sure, why not?
“The Bible cannot be true because it contains miracles. And miracles would violate the laws of nature!”
Yes, miracles can potentially involve a temporary suspension of the laws of nature (not that all of them necessarily do).1 Since the Bible makes it clear that God is beyond natural laws, He can suspend/violate them if He wishes to. But the critic's argument has simply taken it for granted that violations of the laws of nature are impossible. In other words, the arguer has already assumed that the Bible is false—in order to argue that the Bible is false. He has begged the question.
Begging the Question: it has yet to be demonstrated that God even exists.
You may have heard people argue:
“The Bible cannot be true because it teaches that the earth is only thousands of years old; whereas, we know the earth is billions of years old.”
All such arguments commit the fallacy of begging the question. Here is why. Old earth arguments are all based on the assumptions of naturalism (nature is all that there is) and a large degree of uniformitarianism (present rates and processes are representative of past rates and processes). Then, by extrapolating from present rates of various earth processes, the person estimates how long it would take to build up or erode certain geological features or how long it would take for a radioisotope to decay.
But the Bible denies naturalism and uniformitarianism (e.g., erosion rates during the global flood). By assuming naturalism and uniformitarianism, the critic has already merely assumed that the Bible is wrong. He then uses this assumption to conclude that the Bible is wrong. His reasoning is circular.
Begging the Question: Dr. lisle is assuming that God exists and that the Bible is accurate. He is further assuming that the science |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2009 : 08:00:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally quoted by filthy
Now, it's time to get a little philosophically deep. Brace yourself. Begging the question is a very strange fallacy because it is actually valid. Recall that a valid argument is one in which the conclusion does follow from the premises. Normally fallacies are not valid; the fact that their conclusion does not follow from the premise(s) is what makes them fallacies. But, oddly, with begging the question the conclusion does follow from the premise (because it is simply a restatement of the premise). So, the argument, “Evolution must be true because it is a fact,” is valid. But if it is valid, then why is it considered a fallacy?
The answer would seem to be that begging the question is a fallacy because it is arbitrary. |
Good grief, no. Dr. Lisle demonstrates his incompetence with logic. There are two things that every logical argument requires: validity and soundness. Valid arguments are those in which the conclusions correctly follow from the premises, as Dr. Lisle notes. But sound arguments are those with premises which are known to be true. The validity and soundness of an argument are independent of one another. Begging the question causes any argument to be unsound, because we cannot determine the truth value of the premise when it's also the conclusion.1.Without laws of logic, we could not make an argument.
2.We can make an argument.
3.Therefore, there must be laws of logic.
This argument is perfectly reasonable, and valid. But it is subtly circular. This argument is using a law of logic called modus tollens to prove that there are laws of logic. So, we have tacitly assumed what we are trying to prove. But it is absolutely unavoidable in this case. We must use laws of logic to prove anything—even the existence of laws of logic.
However, the above argument is not arbitrary. We do have a good reason for assuming laws of logic, since without them we couldn't prove anything. And perhaps most significantly, anyone attempting to disprove the existence of laws of logic would have to first assume that laws of logic do exist in order to make the argument. He would refute himself. |
Premise 1 is unsound. We could make arguments without "laws of logic," we just couldn't determine the truth values of any of the conclusions. And Dr. Lisle's argument is invalid because he is guilty of creating a false dichotomy by claiming that we need to assume that the laws of logic either exist or they don't, because we could simply just be unaware of their existence. There is no need to "disprove" the laws of logic, we just need to assume that they can be ignored. And Dr. Lisle provides plenty of empiricial evidence in his own posts that the "laws of logic" can and are ignored on a regular basis. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2009 : 09:56:18 [Permalink]
|
This guy should have his degree revoked by whatever institution gave it to him.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2009 : 10:31:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
This guy should have his degree revoked by whatever institution gave it to him. |
The University of Colorado gave Lisle both his masters and his PhD.
His bio there on AiG makes it clear that he's a silly po-mo presuppositionalist, but he's doing a good job of hiding it in these "logical fallacies" articles. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2009 : 11:38:33 [Permalink]
|
Lisle got his diploma from the University of Colorado at Boulder, a sad commentary on the academic standards, and/or gullibility of that institution.
Here's Happy Jihad's take on him:
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Jason Lisle: How better to punish myself for finishing a dissertation chapter?
Self-perpetuating embarrassment machine Jason Lisle, who appends his name with a "Dr." that nobody can take seriously because he works for Answers in Genesis, continues to spill noisome snippets of nonsense like so many maggots from the mouth of a corpse. (According to The Chronicle, if he tried that worthless credential shit in Germany, he'd be executed---go evangelize to the Germans, Jason...They need the soothing foot-balm of the Lord.) It's his..."book" seems too strong a word--let's try "detritus"...and it's called Taking Back Astronomy. Presumably, he means "from respected astronomers." At any rate, it is an instructive botch of the basic principles of astronomy. This week, Jason is talking about the age of the universe, which, as we all know is 6135 years old next week.
|
Pretty amazing,isn't it? But as I stated earlier, this is not a discussion of logical fallacies at all, but rather an inept attack on evolution. It is meant for the YEC believer and hence, it is merely preaching feel-good nonsense to the choir, which will suck it all up with neither a thought nor a belch.
The logical fallacies committed in his screed(s) are far more numerous than the few I've commented on. I'm not sure it's possible to write such tripe without committing them, if only because he's working from a false premise to begin with, and really doesn't have much going for him.
So, he fits right in at AiG, cheek by jowl, with Ken Ham, Scrooy Looy, and their fiberglass, paleontological kaleidoscope of hilarity.
Dog or Somebody bless 'em, for they provide amusing forum topics, now & again. 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2009 : 12:46:43 [Permalink]
|
On an unfortunately related matter: lie to 'em long, lie to 'em hard, and lie to 'em as young as possible.
AIG's Creation Science Fair
By Richard B. Hoppe on August 17, 2009
Answers in Genesis is gearing up for a science fair in February 2009 2010. The rules are here. Note that they are parasitic on the Intel Science and Engineering guidelines with two minor exceptions:
|
And what might those exceptions be, pray?
3, All projects should be clearly aligned with a biblical principle from a passage or verse.
The student should be able to explain why the verse or passage selected relates to their project. (Students should read the article “God and Natural Law” by Dr. Jason Lisle for an explanation of this concept.)
* Students should consider the context of the verse(s) they are using.
* The verse chosen does not have to directly apply to the project topic (e.g., Scripture does not directly address radio waves), but may simply relate the project to the Creator of the universe.
* Students should read the article “God and Natural Law.”
and
4. Students should be able, with a clear conscience, to sign the AiG Statement of Faith, which upholds the belief in the creation of the universe in six, twenty-four-hour days about 6,000 years ago by the Creator God as revealed in the Bible.
|
And thus, we witness the birth of the next generation of fundie ignoramuses, created in their own image.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 08/18/2009 12:47:59 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2009 : 13:27:27 [Permalink]
|
And here we go again, hiegh-ho!
Logical Fallacies: The Fallacy of the Question-Begging Epithet
by Dr. Jason Lisle, AiG–U.S.
August 24, 2009
One of the most common fallacies committed by evolutionists on the Internet is the fallacy of the question-begging epithet. This could be considered a specific sub-type of begging the question (the fallacy of merely assuming what one is trying to prove).
With the question-begging epithet, the arguer uses biased (often emotional) language to persuade people rather than using logic. For example, if a reporter said,
“This criminal is charged with violently murdering the innocent victim,”
she would be using a question-begging epithet because she has used biased language to make a case that is not yet logically established. It would have been more objective for her to say,
“This suspect is charged with killing the other person.”
This is one of my pet peeves as well.
Some great examples of question-begging epithets can be found on some evolution internet sites—particularly forums or blogs. I saw one example where an evolutionist wrote,
“Our department is becoming infested with creationists.”
The word infested is emotionally charged and portrays creationists in a bad light without making any argument for this. Another writer stated,
“To be a creationist, you'd have to ignore tons of scientific evidence.”
This remark is the fallacy of the question-begging epithet because it uses biased language (and not logic) to suggest that scientific evidence supports evolution.
Here we have statements that are anything but charged with emotion, but simple statements of fact. To be a young earth creationist, you do have to ignore a plethora of accurate, scientific data. And infested is merely a word describing a degree of circumstance. There is nothing inflammatory about it unless it is not accurate, Yet again, Dr.. Lisle indulges in a Straw Man. Or perhaps the Making Shit Up fallacy.
There is a place for emotional language. After all, language has other purposes than to make logical arguments. It can be used to inform, to question, to command, and to evoke. However, when people try to evoke an emotional response to persuade others of a point that is logically questionable, the fallacy of the question-begging epithet is committed.
Agree.
Yelling or vulgar language during a debate is always an example of this fallacy. Many times people will turn up the vocal volume to compensate for a lack of cogency in their argument. Ironically, many of those who use mocking or vulgar language in forums seem to think that their rhetoric constitutes a good argument. Far from it. Such language is an indication of a serious lack of critical thinking skills.
Agree. We see it all too often from those who have no argument nor the intellect to aquire one. But one must always consider context.
Question-begging epithets can be subtle. Consider this phrase: “evolution vs. creationism.” By attaching -ism to the end of creation but not to evolution, the person is subtly suggesting that creation is merely a belief, whereas evolution is not. But he or she has made no argument for this.
“Creationists believe that the universe is young, but the best scientists tell us that it is billions of years old.”
By using the adjective to describe those scientists who believe in an old universe, this argument uses biased language rather than logic to persuade. It is fallacious.
How so? It is entirely true. Another like that and I'll accuse him of whining.
Here is another example:
“The Creation ‘Museum' isn't about science at all, but is entirely about a peculiar, quirky, very specific interpretation of the Bible.”
The author provided no support for this opinion; it is simply an emotional reaction. He also attempts to deride the Creation Museum by putting the word museum in quotes. His claim is nothing but a fallacious epithet. When people use |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2009 : 14:51:50 [Permalink]
|
Of course Dr. Lisle can quote lots of non-arguments, because all he's quoting is the conclusions of arguments and asserting (without evidence) that no argument was made to support the quoted conclusions. It is, after all, AiG policy to not link to other Websites (they intend to be a "destination" on the Web), and so readers of these uncredited quotes cannot make sense of them except in the context in which Lisle provides them, unless they happen to have read the unnamed blogs Lisle mentions or get lucky with Google.
This is a simple case of Dr. Lisle lying through a big, smug, self-righteous grin. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2009 : 15:37:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Of course Dr. Lisle can quote lots of non-arguments, because all he's quoting is the conclusions of arguments and asserting (without evidence) that no argument was made to support the quoted conclusions. It is, after all, AiG policy to not link to other Websites (they intend to be a "destination" on the Web), and so readers of these uncredited quotes cannot make sense of them except in the context in which Lisle provides them, unless they happen to have read the unnamed blogs Lisle mentions or get lucky with Google.
This is a simple case of Dr. Lisle lying through a big, smug, self-righteous grin.
|
Indeed, but you've got to admit that he has a really great cartoon!
Why do I get the feeling that it's backward, somehow? 
The sad fact is that without lying and committing most of the logical fallacies extant, they got no argument at all.
But again, Lisle isn't aiming his articles toward anyone who might call him out on his nonsense, no. It's intended for those who never question the Bible and will soak it all up with nary a second thought.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2009 : 03:37:42 [Permalink]
|
I'm beginning to grow weary of this game, as Lisle is becoming ever more asinine.
Similar to the question-begging epithet is the fallacy called complex question. This is the interrogative form of begging the question—when the arguer attempts to persuade by asking a loaded question. A classic example is this: “Have you stopped beating your wife?” Either a yes or no answer would seem to imply that the person did in the past beat his wife, which may not be the case. The question is “complex” because it should be divided into two questions:
1.Did you ever beat your wife?
2.If so, have you now stopped doing this? |
I have never heard nor read of this question asked, in any of it's myriad forms, as anything but a drollery: “You still snortin' that wicked cocaine, bro?”
He's starting out with a False Premise and needs to demonstrate it's relevance.
| Here are some common evolutionary examples of the fallacy of complex question: |
Oh boy.....
“Why are creationists against science?”
This loaded question presumes that creationists are against science, which is not the case. It should have been divided:
1.Are creationists against science?
2.If so, why?
Since the answer to the first is no, the second question is not necessary. |
Outright lie, Red Herring. Anyone but another creationist knows perfectly well and accurately that they are rabidly opposed to evolutionary science. They do, however, approve of the sciences that produced microphones and keyboards.
| “Why is evolution so critical to our understanding of biology?” is fallacious because we should first ask, “Is evolution critical to our understanding of biology?” |
This is a legitimate question because the role played by evolution in biology has been documented and supported by all of the evidence to the point of irrefutable fact. Therefore, the “assumption” can be safely made.
Watch for leading questions in evolutionary literature such as, “How were dinosaurs able to survive for millions of years?” This is the fallacy of the complex question because it should be divided:
1.Did dinosaurs indeed survive for millions of years?
2.If so, how?
“What is the mechanism by which reptiles evolved into birds?”
“If the earth truly is 6000 years old as you creationists say, then why do we find rocks that are over 4 billion years old?”
“If creation is true, then why does all the scientific evidence point to evolution?”
These all are fallacious questions which used biased language to persuade rather than logic. |
Must I yet again mention the science of geology, the fossil record and radiometric daring techniques? Bullshit Fallacy.
| One time, after I give a presentation on creation, an atheist came up to me and asked, “Are you aware of the fact that . . . ?” Before he could complete the sentence, I strongly suspected that it was going to be the fallacy of the complex question. Sure enough, what he was rhetorically asserting to be a fact was not true at all. He had misunderstood some of the things I had presented and had committed some errors in reasoning as well. People sometimes use the formula “Are you aware of the fact that X?” to persuade others of X, when in fact X is logically unproved. |
Anecdote and therefore worthless as a supporting argument.
What people judge to be a fallacy often depends on their worldview. Consider this question:
"Have you repented of your sins?”
A non-Christian may consider this to be a complex question and would want it divided:
1.Have you ever sinned?
2.If so, have you repented?
From a Christian worldview, however, the question is not complex because we know that all have sinned (Romans 3:23). |
My point is made; the good doctor “assumes.” – Straw Man, Non Sequitur, Idiot's Delight.
| Along with the question-begging epithet, the complex question uses biased language in place of logical argumentation. When the evolutionists commit either of these fallacies, we must gently point out that they have not actually made a logical argument. They have rhetorically assumed what they are trying to prove and have, thus, begged the very question at issue. |
Making Shit Up Fallacy, showing an inability to answer the question.
What we have here is an inflated attempt to make a joke question into a serious debate. Hey Dr. Lisle, are you still lying to the faithful? And pissing in the coffee pot?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 09/02/2009 07:45:49 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2009 : 04:59:55 [Permalink]
|
Honestly, could this guy get any more retarded?
(it's a rhetorical question, but the literal answer os probably a yes)
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2009 : 07:38:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Honestly, could this guy get any more retarded?
(it's a rhetorical question, but the literal answer os probably a yes)
|
i
It's pretty amazing; he hasn't covered an actual logical fallacy yet. His whole dissertation, if you can call it that, is that the Theory of Evolution is no more than an assumption. I expect more of the same next week. If I bother with it next week -- I dunno. He's simply so mind-numbingly lame. 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Logical fallacies: this oughta be good!
