createdtoworship
In the grip of grace
- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
already answered this, please read the posts.My site, and if you read yours more carefully it actually agrees with me. It says:
"The expert, of course, may not be expert,"
The same thing that I said. The appeal to authority error occurs when the "expert" that you appeal to is not an expert in the field of study being discussed.
LOL. Please, don't kid yourself. You have been exposed for using bogus sites and going back on your word so far.I am juggling about five of you, without a sweat.
unqualified authority was a change later made. not originally by john locke did appeal to authority involve an unqualified authority....
Argument from authority - Wikipedia
focus on your off topic discussion, or the fact that the op is about evolution?
Nope, you failed again. In fact you shot yourself in the foot.already answered this, please read the posts.
And there are only two of us right now actively debating.
but you didn't do that...let me help you...Correct, people realized that Locke was in error in this case. There are times when it is valid to appeal to an authority that is an expert in the area being discussed.
Now you know your error. Try not to repeat it.
just read it for crying out loud. it has specified complexity. Thats all I claimed. Now move on, geesh.I'm not even really debating. I just want them to show me where the evidence is contained in that article they linked. Not an unreasonable request, I'd wager.
a response to a question that is on topic, does not merit twenty or thirty post discussion that's off topic. the bird thing was a response.Uh, you're the one who provided a link to that article about purported design in birds, not me. I was merely responding to your linking of it by pointing out that it is a crap article that fails to provide said evidence.
At this point you seem to be doing everything you can to distance yourself from talking about it.
just read it for crying out loud. it has specified complexity. Thats all I claimed. Now move on, geesh.
a response to a question that is on topic, does not merit twenty or thirty post discussion that's off topic. the bird thing was a response.
but you didn't do that...let me help you...
Argumentum ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority). “Accept this because some authority said it.” As we all know, “authorities” can be wrong, and often are. Furthermore, there are conflicting authorities. Which one should I accept? The mere appeal to authority should never be substituted for evidence or a good argument.
...
[1] Geisler, N. L., & Brooks, R. M. (1990). PhD philosophy. Come, let us reason: an introduction to logical thinking (pp. 98–99). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.
Then stay out of the maters of science. It is really that simple. You want it both ways. That is more than bit hypocritical.
Good point. Why do fundamentalists even care about Creation Science since they disdain science to begin with?
Creation science is a contradiction in terms.Good point. Why do fundamentalists even care about Creation Science since they disdain science to begin with?
Either that, or it's a contradiction in terms.I have a feeling that many of them fear that if they can't believe everything they can't believe anything. Creationists seem to have an all or nothing attitude. Their beliefs are threatened by the tiniest possible flaw in the Bible.
Creation science is a contradiction in terms.
you got it, specified complexity, mentioned a few times, even once is evidence of it existing.Nope, not letting you off the hook yet.
Yes, the author makes reference to specific complexity (actually "specified functional complexity" in their words). But so what? Specified complexity (per Dembski's concept) is of dubious validity to begin with, so we're on shaky ground from the get-go.
Furthermore, the author doesn't actually demonstrate anything with respect to that concept. They merely assert it a few times. Big deal. Anyone can do that.
So I'm still waiting. The article claims to show evidence for design in birds, but utterly fails to do so. Maybe you can demonstrate something, because that author clearly cannot.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?