Basic Straw-man Fallacy… They put up this stupid straw-man that nobody in their right mind would believe in(Pastafarian Religon) and then falliciously equate it to a real belief(Intelligent Design) that is supported by many scientists, in an attempt to refute that belief.
-vashsunglasses
The Church is funded entirely by your purchases of FSM merchandise. Thank you for your support.
An elaborate spoof on Intelligent Design, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is neither too elaborate nor too spoofy to succeed in nailing the fallacies of ID. It's even wackier than Jonathan Swift's suggestion that the Irish eat their children as a way to keep them from being a burden, and it may offend just as many people, but Henderson, described elsewhere as a 25-year-old "out-of-work physics major," puts satire to the same serious use that Swift did. Oh, yes, it is very funny. -- Scientific American
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License. This means you're free to use the content but not sell it. More Details |
“this torture and unfair treatment†Jeeze, a little dramatic, aren’t we, doc? A scientist such as yourself should be used to arguments, no? And btw, athiesm is the third largest ‘religion’ (or to be more exact, third largest group of people that feel a certain way, since I don’t think you can really classify the disbelife in god as a religion…Maybe you can, whatever) in the world, and growing. Dunno where you got your stats from, buuut…. I’m trying to demonstrate that you are not being intellectually honest with my arguments. It has nothing to do with drama. It is what it is. Disbelieving is believing that something is not. Thus, to state that I disbelieve would be to believe in that something in a negation of the thing, thus a disbelief is self defeating and false. The Atheist claim becomes, I believe that there is no God. How can he know this? He must look over every piece of evidence within the universe, which is Philosophically impossible, thus a reductio ad absurdum. We have no reason to take the Atheist seriously.
-
Also, agreeing with Davey on this one. Me thinks this ‘debate’ isn’t worth the effort, truthfully. (And to help the good doktor out, this post was a) self-defeating, b)pointless, and/or c)flawed. See, doc? Now you can skip right over it without your facinating commentry.) Or just assert that this affirms the consequent. Thats good enough.
-
Sincerly, the heathen Jew who’s looking foward to a good roast in hell when she dies. Well, hell isn’t a place of fire at all. Its actually shame and disgrace, eternal separation from God. So when man goes to hell, he gets exactly what he wants. Eternal separation from knowing God (i.e. good or the provider of hope).
“All we need to do to refute Evolution is show it for what it truly is. Its Philosophy states that something can evolve from nothing.â€
.
What???
You don’t know a hell of a lot about evolutionary theory do you?
Darwin’s attempt to make a Philosophical argument out of Naturalism through the use of the Sciences of Natural Selection, Variation and Speciation is what Evolutionary Theory IS all about.
“I’m a research Scientist, who is paid to delve into debates on the Evolution/Creation Science side of things over at AIG.”
.
Well, now things become very clear. You come to us from Answers In Genesis. This explains a lot.
.
I’m glad you shared this with us because I have a question you may be able to answer. What is the scripture reference that is posted on the glass door to Creation Museum office? I believe it was from proverbs. I thought I had bookmarked a video that shows it, but I can’t locate it.
.
OEJ
@ DJH and Penne. Yes. I’m afraid Nikkiee was right - he is too far up his own chocolate starfish to hear anything but his own colon (she probably put it better than me though).
Well, this is attacking the man….and, okay. I’ll go ahead and grant you this. But, what to say regarding my arguments?
.
Dr. Martin - I do know what ‘obfuscating’ means and I thank you for the vote of confidence re. my intelligence. It means you are confusing the issue of what I’m trying to say here. You are not fully understanding what I’m conveying to you. Its a logical fallacy. An error in reasoning.
.
What are you researching now by the way?
Basic Evolutionary argumentation. Nothing exceptional at the moment. At times, we research actual items of interest within the YECS debate…such as lab research on different types of organisms and such. Not much different from any other type of organization really. We also have a much more difficult job though, in that we have to cover the debate with Evolution and Creation Science. The Evolutionist side (having actually been on both) is a piece of cake compared to what this side of the coin does.
“I’m a research Scientist, who is paid to delve into debates on the Evolution/Creation Science side of things over at AIG.â€
.
Well, now things become very clear. You come to us from Answers In Genesis. This explains a lot.
.
I’m glad you shared this with us because I have a question you may be able to answer. What is the scripture reference that is posted on the glass door to Creation Museum office? I believe it was from proverbs. I thought I had bookmarked a video that shows it, but I can’t locate it.
.
OEJ
Proverbs…let me see here. I’ve been there but I do not work there. I’m not exactly sure.
Guys…by the way, please point out where the Bible ever states, “Blessed are the gullible, for they will believe anything?”
I don’t recall that verse. I do recall “Critically Analyze Everything…hold onto the Good.”
Which one makes more sense?
So…I’m not asking you to become a Christian until you critically analyze all of the evidence! Meaning, hold onto what makes sense, and get rid of the garbage perse.
Do your homework. Educate yourselves. Don’t take what people tell you at face value (people can say contradictory things, I’m sure we’re all aware of this).
Dr. M - you really are a sanctimonious tit.
.
your quote “…I’m trying to demonstrate that you are not being intellectually honest with my arguments. It has nothing to do with drama. ”
.
If you want us to read and understand your arguments, without obfuscation then stop the floccinaucinihilipilification. It does not become you (and yes I do know what it means).
.
AArgh, I’m so biddable. Wish I’d had a Yale education instead of the second rate English University I went to.
Alchemist, don’t feel bad. all that the doctor does is restate his own points over and over again, and attacks the wording of those staements whose points he cannot refute.
.
so much for thinking he was a worthwhile visitor here. he’s just another creationist who cannot accept the notion, even for a moment, that he is wrong and someone else may be right.
If you want us to read and understand your arguments, without obfuscation then stop the floccinaucinihilipilification. It does not become you (and yes I do know what it means). Interesting, its not in my standard dictionary :).
AArgh, I’m so biddable. Wish I’d had a Yale education instead of the second rate English University I went to.
What university did you go to? What were your credentials? I’m not writing you off because of that at all. Just, I don’t see you addressing my major argument. I don’t regard anybody as less credible than me solely on credentials. If you have a respect for my credentials, I’m honored, but…I see them as irrelevant myself.
”We also have a much more difficult job though, in that we have to cover the debate with Evolution and Creation Science. The Evolutionist side (having actually been on both) is a piece of cake compared to what this side of the coin does.”
The reason for this is likely to be that evidence for evolution actually exists…
Could you please type and quote less please? The length and obscurity of your posts is making them pretty much unreadable.
Although this may explain why ID has such a following among the American public, do people follow it because it suits them and sounds so intelligent?
Alchemist, don’t feel bad. all that the doctor does is restate his own points over and over again, and attacks the wording of those staements whose points he cannot refute.
I might add, how are you doing anything differently here? It appears to me that I’ve been able to refute the points that I’ve needed to refute. The fact that you can’t understand this in no way invalidates my arguments. The principles of logic are still self evident in themselves. Perhaps a careful analyzation would help you out. Here we go:
Law of noncontradiction: One can not say of something that it is and is not at the same time in the same respect.
Law of identity: a=a
Law of excluded middle: Either a or non-a. Not both. Nothing in the middle.
These are first Metaphysical laws of the universe and of those which govern reality. They are then Epistemologically relevant.
Restate my own points over and over again…because people don’t know how to address them, so I have to keep repeating them. Okay…obviously you’re missing the point of debate. I would refer you to actually do the same linguistic study that I mentioned to the gentleman above, then coming back to actually participate in a real debate with me. All I’m doing is showing how we can logically demonstrate a statement to be false, and therefore, have no reason to take it seriously in the very least. Thats what I’m really doing. Any logician would be able to identify this. If you prefer not using logic to address evidence, then thats not my problem is it?
.
so much for thinking he was a worthwhile visitor here. he’s just another creationist who cannot accept the notion, even for a moment, that he is wrong and someone else may be right.
‘’We also have a much more difficult job though, in that we have to cover the debate with Evolution and Creation Science. The Evolutionist side (having actually been on both) is a piece of cake compared to what this side of the coin does.’’
The reason for this is likely to be that evidence for evolution actually exists…
Could you please type and quote less please? The length and obscurity of your posts is making them pretty much unreadable.
Although this may explain why ID has such a following among the American public, do people follow it because it suits them and sounds so intelligent?
I’ve already demonstrated above that I do not agree with the Intelligent Design Movement (hence the reason I call them the IDiot movement). Keep up here would ya?
No Dr. M I don’t understand.
.
As has been stated before - make clear your statements from those of others!
.
Use ** or “”. It really does help (I’m not being silly).
.
Use line breaks to make your post easier to read (thanks again to Nikkiee who (unknowingly) let me in on that one)
.
And don’t cut and paste the whole bloody post. We wrote it. Our attention spans are not that bad.
.
@Penne - damn, damn, damn. He’s winning isn’t he?
Ever been to Virtual Salt gill? Interestingly enough, its the only website I ever remember stating, “You could be wrong” and that actually ENCOURAGES Christians to look at every side of the debate. Find an Atheistic website that does that.
Secondly, I also recall a YECS site that listed all 5 of the prominent movements best sites “Intelligent Design” “Theistic Evolution” “Humanistic Evolution” “Progressive Creationism” “Young Earth Creation Science.” Again, the evidence was presented in a non-biased manner. Find an Evolutionist website that does the same for me please!
If these petty things are all that are bothering you, fine. I will at random address points in hopes you will know what I am talking about and what I’m referring to.
Is it a matter of who’s winning or who’s right? Which is most important? To me, winning means nothing. One can win an argument and still be wrong. But, when presenting the truth, one can NOT go wrong. In which case, the truth should pass just about every standard imagineable in order for it to be the true Truth, right? Find an objective set of standards to use to evaluate evidence. Then be consistent about it. I guarantee you’ll be a Christian in no less than 3 weeks if you do this.
What evidence for Evolution exists that YECS does not accept to be valid?
Dr MM - oooh are we playing? MIOSH. MIBiol, C.Chem. MRSC. Just taking my LLM - won’t know for a while yet (as in haven’t sat my exams yet).
.
Your turn