Evolution: What The Fossils Say

[Subduction Zone]

An ape is one of the African Great Apes as they are refereed to, sometime including humans which is little more then semantics. A big hairy guy could be ape like, but humans are not apes not that calling them that makes any difference

Why do you claim that ? It seems that all that you have is blanket denial. In a debate .... well you are right there is no debate your side lost that over 100 years ago, one must support one's claims with evidence. The same applies to logical discussion, which if you can support your claims this could still qualify as being. Otherwise all that you are doing is having an old man's rant:

"Get off of my lawn!!"

 

[Subduction Zone]

No just bored with the fallacious rhetoric. In a thread entitled 'what the fossils say', nothing about fossils. What was the point of the video, if there was so much information then why are we just talking about one another?

If one does not understand the correct thing to do is to ask questions politely. What don't you understand about the fossil record?

 

[RickG]

Did you actually watch the video? Are are you just assuming you know what it claims and would rather accuse everyone of ad hom attacks?

The video gave one of the best descriptions of transition fossils and why we view them as transitional I have ever seen.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Your arguing in circles,

Used in names of macaque monkeys with short tails, e.g. Barbary ape.
(in general use) any monkey.An unintelligent or clumsy person.
archaic An inferior imitator or mimic.
‘cunning is but the ape of wisdom’ (Ape. Oxford Dictionaries)
​

6 Ad hominem, 2 begging the question and repeated equivocation of 'ape' and 'human'. Same old, same old.

....so, you don't know?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your arguing in circles,

Used in names of macaque monkeys with short tails, e.g. Barbary ape.
(in general use) any monkey.An unintelligent or clumsy person.
archaic An inferior imitator or mimic.
‘cunning is but the ape of wisdom’ (Ape. Oxford Dictionaries)
​

6 Ad hominem, 2 begging the question and repeated equivocation of 'ape' and 'human'. Same old, same old.

The word "ape" can be used as a personal insult. He was not doing so. So once again, no ad homs.

Simply claiming an ad hom does not make a post have one. If someone takes offense where no offense was meant it means that it is usually the offended parties fault.

 

[mark kennedy]

The word "ape" can be used as a personal insult. He was not doing so. So once again, no ad homs.

Simply claiming an ad hom does not make a post have one. If someone takes offense where no offense was meant it means that it is usually the offended parties fault.

No the ape thing was an equivocation. The ad hominem are biting personal remarks like someone who pretends to correct something not in error. Inevitably the ad hominem is a fatally flawed argument utterly irrelevant to the subject matter. Its pedantic banter.

 

[Speedwell]

Argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. Remarks which the person making the argument may find insulting but which are not made for the purpose of discrediting the argument itself do not constitute an argument ad hominem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No the ape thing was an equivocation. The ad hominem are biting personal remarks like someone who pretends to correct something not in error. Inevitably the ad hominem is a fatally flawed argument utterly irrelevant to the subject matter. Its pedantic banter.

No, the "ape thing" is not an equivocation. Once again you are using logical fallcies incorrectly And no one has "pretended" to correct you. You have made gross error after gross error. Correcting your errors is not an ad hom. You really need to learn how to use logical fallcies correctly. Merely mimicking those that do use them correctly will not help you in your debates.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, the "ape thing" is not an equivocation. Once again you are using logical fallcies incorrectly And no one has "pretended" to correct you. You have made gross error after gross error. Correcting your errors is not an ad hom. You really need to learn how to use logical fallcies correctly. Merely mimicking those that do use them correctly will not help you in your debates.

This post is a classic ad hominem, your preaching your opinion like it's gospel and feigning indignation. Once you guys start on them you will rarely post anything else. It's pure melodrama and you guys are performing in an empty theater. The culture wars are over, the Darwinian theater of the mind has moved on, Its been over since Dover but apparently the trollers never cared abut the issues anyway.

Ok So come on, let's have a big dramatic retort, about all you guys are doing anyway.

 

[Speedwell]

This post is a classic ad hominem, your preaching your opinion like it's gospel and feigning indignation. Once you guys start on them you will rarely post anything else. It's pure melodrama and you guys are performing in an empty theater. The culture wars are over, the Darwinian theater of the mind has moved on, Its been over since Dover but apparently the trollers never cared abut the issues anyway.

Ok So come on, let's have a big dramatic retort, about all you guys are doing anyway.

Sorry, it wasn't a "classical ad hominem" merely a response you found insulting.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This post is a classic ad hominem, your preaching your opinion like it's gospel and feigning indignation. Once you guys start on them you will rarely post anything else. It's pure melodrama and you guys are performing in an empty theater. The culture wars are over, the Darwinian theater of the mind has moved on, Its been over since Dover but apparently the trollers never cared abut the issues anyway.

Ok So come on, let's have a big dramatic retort, about all you guys are doing anyway.

To alter a quote from one of the best movies of all time: You keep using that term. I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This post is a classic ad hominem, your preaching your opinion like it's gospel and feigning indignation. Once you guys start on them you will rarely post anything else. It's pure melodrama and you guys are performing in an empty theater. The culture wars are over, the Darwinian theater of the mind has moved on, Its been over since Dover but apparently the trollers never cared abut the issues anyway.

Ok So come on, let's have a big dramatic retort, about all you guys are doing anyway.

Wrong again, correcting your gross errors does not make it an ad hominem.

An ad hominem attack is more on the order of "You are an idiotic poopyhead, that means that you are wrong". I have been merely pointing out your errors and have not questioned your intelligence at all nor have I implied that you are a "poopyhead".

Technically claiming an ad hom when there was not one would fall under the rules of personal attacks, but I really don't care that much. And in Dover your side lost big time. Why did you even refer to it? By the way, calling me a troller is a personal attack that I will not tolerate any longer. Name calling is a sign that you have no valid argument. Try to identify errors, as I have. Don't make the mistake of committing the sins that you accuse others of committing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, it wasn't a "classical ad hominem" merely a response you found insulting.

And there was no intent to insult. Merely to correct. Oh well, what can one do?

 

[JackRT]

A hominoid, commonly called an ape, is a member of the superfamily Hominoidea: extant members are the gibbons (lesser apes, family Hylobatidae) and the hominids (the great apes, family Hominidae). A hominine is a member of the subfamily Homininae: gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans (excludes orangutans).

 

[mark kennedy]

To alter a quote from one of the best movies of all time: You keep using that term. I don't think it means what you think it means.

That's ad hominem 5 and still nothing about fossils. Its Latin for to the man. Its generally the idea of attacking the person rather then offering a real argument. My experience, evolutionists resort to it when they have nothing left. You guys never had anything else.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's ad hominem 5 and still nothing about fossils. Its Latin for to the man. Its generally the idea of attacking the person rather then offering a real argument. My experience, evolutionists resort to it when they have nothing left. You guys never had anything else.

No, it's not an ad hominem. It's me stating the fact that you keep using that term when someone points out you are wrong in an attempt to avoid answering any issue. An ad hominem is an attack on the person's character instead of their argument, which no-one except you has done. And no, that's not an ad hominem either.

But you want fossils? Fine. Look at the chain of fossils from the ambulocetus to modern whales. You will distinctly see that, along with the body shape becoming more streamlined, you will see:

• that the hind limbs shrink through lack of use,
• the fingers elongate to form flippers,
• the tail flukes to provide better propulsion through the water,
• and the nose shifts position from the front of the snout to near the top of the head.

Evidence of evolution. *mic drop*

 

[Speedwell]

That's ad hominem 5 and still nothing about fossils. Its Latin for to the man. Its generally the idea of attacking the person rather then offering a real argument. My experience, evolutionists resort to it when they have nothing left. You guys never had anything else.

Argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. Remarks which the person making the argument may find insulting but which are not made for the purpose of discrediting the argument itself do not constitute an argument ad hominem.

However, an ad hominem rebuttal is valid when the person making the argument is arguing ad verecundiam, that is, making an argument from authority. In your last post, you presented a definition of argumentum ad hominem on the basis of ad verecundiam and your knowledge of the correct definition is being challenged, thus an argument ad hominem is an appropriate response for that purpose.

We have spent so much time on this that I have forgotten what your original argument even was. Why don't you make it again and I will help you defend it against inappropriate ad hominem rebuttals.

 

[mark kennedy]

A hominoid, commonly called an ape, is a member of the superfamily Hominoidea: extant members are the gibbons (lesser apes, family Hylobatidae) and the hominids (the great apes, family Hominidae). A hominine is a member of the subfamily Homininae: gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans (excludes orangutans).

Yea generally humans are associated with the African Great Apes as they are called. We really don't fit into any other category so its more for convience then anything else. I like taxonomy to, just don't put a lot of stock in semantics.

 

[mark kennedy]

Argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. Remarks which the person making the argument may find insulting but which are not made for the purpose of discrediting the argument itself do not constitute an argument ad hominem.

However, an ad hominem rebuttal is valid when the person making the argument is arguing ad verecundiam, that is, making an argument from authority. In your last post, you presented a definition of argumentum ad hominem on the basis of ad verecundiam and your knowledge of the correct definition is being challenged, thus an argument ad hominem is an appropriate response for that purpose.

We have spent so much time on this that I have forgotten what your original argument even was. Why don't you make it again and I will help you defend it against inappropriate ad hominem rebuttals.

I use ad hominem arguments almost exclusively, peer reviewed scientific journals are a source no self respecting evolutionist would reject. What they do is say I don't understand it and they very seldom read it. The topic isn't me, The topic is fossils, yet no one is talking about fossils because they are too busy correcting and criticizing me. That tells me they know very little or have on interest in fossils. What they like to do is insult Christians who actually believe the Bible.

 

[HitchSlap]

This post is a classic ad hominem, your preaching your opinion like it's gospel and feigning indignation. Once you guys start on them you will rarely post anything else. It's pure melodrama and you guys are performing in an empty theater. The culture wars are over, the Darwinian theater of the mind has moved on, Its been over since Dover but apparently the trollers never cared abut the issues anyway.

Ok So come on, let's have a big dramatic retort, about all you guys are doing anyway.

Dover is over... and ID/creationism/cdesign proponentsists are dead in the water. Indeed, Mark, it's time to accept reality and move on.