When I read that I couldn't stop laughing for 10 minutes straight. Seriously.
Lol...
Lol...
I think that because most of the YECs hide away on the Origins Theology board where the cold, harsh realities of modern science cannot reach them, many people on this board are willing to engage with any Creationist, no matter how Poe-tacular.
The only place where science is not allowed is the Creationists Only forums. Posts are deleted for giving correct scientific information on that board. That's where you'll find the Creationists.
It seems pretty obvious that science wouldn't be allowed in the Creationist only forum. All science points away from Creationism, so anything countering Creationism (science) appears as a banned type of debate (instead of honesty), thus scientific information is deleted.Are you serious?!
Before I start: submitted!You laugh but by definition "that argument is a strawman argument" is a strawman argument. Strawman arguments can't not be valid if that is the case.
Its unrealistic to think that every possible angle on an opponent's theory will be covered by an argument.
It seems pretty obvious that science wouldn't be allowed in the Creationist only forum. All science points away from Creationism, so anything countering Creationism (science) appears as a banned type of debate (instead of honesty), thus scientific information is deleted.
You laugh but by definition "that argument is a strawman argument" is a strawman argument. Strawman arguments can't not be valid if that is the case.
Its unrealistic to think that every possible angle on an opponent's theory will be covered by an argument.
Strawmen are invalid because by definition they involve a mischaracterization of the opposing side to make one's point.
Yep.Is it just me that has the feeling he has no idea what a strawman argument is?
That's quite different from saying "evolution says we descended from monkeys."There's a big difference between a mischaracterisation and a false characterisation. A mischaracterisation is one that simply exaggerates the truth and false characterisation is a lie. If evolution had never said our ancestors even looked like apes, I might agree that blaming evolution for that was mistaken. The fact is that evolution does paint our ancestors as ape-like, so its quite valid to say evolution claims that we descended from apes if your prepared to call the pictures of ape-like people apes. I am.
And so am I. And so are you, for that matter.Lucy is an ape.
Nobody has a problem with your "all species will develop massive numbers of offspring" idea; in fact, to some extent, it's true. The only thing is that natural selection weeds out most of the offspring so not many survive to the next generation.Its all very well for people to shout "strawman this" and "strawman that" but half the time the characterizations are quite accurate. There's nothing wrong with characterization being used in an argument, that's why I call strawman arguments valid. If I say evolution seems to predict that all species will develop massive numbers of offspring at every possible opportunity and someone say "strawman", why should I care? I have characterized evolution as best I can and have subsequently made an interesting finding: so be it.
As is so often said on these boards, proof is for mathematics (and alcohol). But we've been happily demonstrating your straw men to be "guilty" for quite some time now.Strawmen are innocent until proven guilty.
There's little difference between a mischaracterization and a false characterization. You're mischaracterizing characterizations and building a strawman argument in the process.There's a big difference between a mischaracterisation and a false characterisation. A mischaracterisation is one that simply exaggerates the truth and false characterisation is a lie. If evolution had never said our ancestors even looked like apes, I might agree that blaming evolution for that was mistaken. The fact is that evolution does paint our ancestors as ape-like, so its quite valid to say evolution claims that we descended from apes if your prepared to call the pictures of ape-like people apes. I am. Lucy is an ape.
But the best you can do mischaracterizes evolution and builds a strawman argument in the process. If you feel that your characterizations are accurate then argue that and not that strawmen arguments are valid...Its all very well for people to shout "strawman this" and "strawman that" but half the time the characterizations are quite accurate. There's nothing wrong with characterization being used in an argument, that's why I call strawman arguments valid. If I say evolution seems to predict that all species will develop massive numbers of offspring at every possible opportunity and someone say "strawman", why should I care? I have characterized evolution as best I can and have subsequently made an interesting finding: so be it.
It appears that you don't understand the etymology of the term if you think this sentence helps your case. Strawmen are the opponents that you are attacking instead of attacking your opponent. So, if strawmen are "innocent" until proven "guilty," why are you attacking it?Strawmen are innocent until proven guilty.