Bad Logic

[uke2se]

Posted by uke2se:

"The real world is a reference to the world were rational thinking and evidence counts for something."

Which only occurs where? Dawkins.net, MTV? Please, this open disdain for anything "god" cannot be masked by the use of a cheap metaphor.

I have no disdain for God. Mythical creatures normally don't make me feel anything.

And the debate may be over for you, but not everyone is so closed minded.

The debate is over for the scientific community, and I think you'll find that those are the people that matters when it comes to evolution.

 

[Gawron]

Posted by plindboe:

"Why do you call me that?"

Sorry, truly. I have occasional bouts with mild dyslexia, please take my word that I meant nothing personal by this mistake. In reference to your second question, there are many threads I have read over time on this forum but have not participated in, for varied reasons. Right or wrong I have seen a pattern emerge where certain members are concerned. Very early on after joining, you and I engaged in debate over some topic, and I learned then than you were a reasonable guy.

So yes, without naming any names, I do have a tendency to associate certain members with the "attack dog" mentality, but my comment was general, and not aimed at you.

 

[Naraoia]

well im just to lazy to spell correcty onsuch forums, it's not all that serious anyway. even if my posts are 5% typo's the message is still conveighed effectively enough.

FWIW, it takes a lot of effort for me to read posts like that. Dunno about the others, but I tend to get so tired of typo-laden posts that I start skimming or even scrolling past them.

Maybe that's just my attention span. I don't really have one.

There is that "real world" again.

Do you really think that everything in evolutionary science is settled? That would put a lot of people out of a job.

Apparently, he doesn't. I wonder where you think he implied that

 

[Split Rock]

Posted by Split Rock:

“You guys are so enamored with quote-mines that you have even created your own here from posts in this very thread... I am impressed!”

So let me get this straight. You quote me, and then accuse me of quote-mining? So if I respond to someone’s post and I quote them, then I am quote-mining, whereas if you respond to my post and quote me, you are not. Just so I am straight with the rules.

Do you understand what "quote mining" is? That is when you take only a small part of a post out of its context and then respond to that only. Therefore, simply quoting someone does not constitute "quote mining."

 

[Gawron]

Then why did you bring it up?

 

[marlowe007]

If probability is proof for evolution, then ERV sequencing is the best evidence we have (look up ERV's on youtube for a great video explaining the probabilities).

Since when did "youtube" become peer-reviewed, scientific data? I really wonder if scientific papers or respected biologists make the same claims about ERVs as the anti-creationists who post on internet forums and get their information from TalkOrigins. I've never heard Richard Dawkins mention them, for example....

 

[Cabal]

Since when did "youtube" become peer-reviewed, scientific data? I really wonder if scientific papers or respected biologists make the same claims about ERVs as the anti-creationists who post on internet forums and get their information from TalkOrigins. I've never heard Richard Dawkins mention them, for example....

It's not original research, that's why it's not peer reviewed.

Those little numbers in the text and the big numbered list at the end? References.

 

[marlowe007]

It's not original research, that's why it's not peer reviewed.

Those little numbers in the text and the big numbered list at the end? References.

Again, unless I read the "original research" for myself and understand it thoroughly, then I will never know if this cdk007 character hasn't simply cherry-picked or made exaggerated claims.

 

[Cabal]

Again, unless I read the "original research" for myself and understand it thoroughly, then I will never know if this cdk007 character hasn't simply cherry-picked or made exaggerated claims.

Indeed. But the internet is your friend. Can always watch the video and cross-reference after.

 

[plindboe]

Sorry, truly. I have occasional bouts with mild dyslexia, please take my word that I meant nothing personal by this mistake.

I believe you. You're not the only one who's called me that. It has happened on at least 5 other occasions.

In reference to your second question, there are many threads I have read over time on this forum but have not participated in, for varied reasons. Right or wrong I have seen a pattern emerge where certain members are concerned. Very early on after joining, you and I engaged in debate over some topic, and I learned then than you were a reasonable guy.

So yes, without naming any names, I do have a tendency to associate certain members with the "attack dog" mentality, but my comment was general, and not aimed at you.

Thanks for the compliment. I do my best. Of course I can get carried away at times too.

The only evoist I've noticed being constantly on the attack, without contributing much else is consol, and his various sock puppets (iremouth, random325nicaea a.o.). You'll notice he's disliked by many evos too, simply because he's an embarrassment.

The rest I think all make great points from time to time, with aggression ranging from none to attack dog mentality. Then there are some that are attack dogs some times and gentle and helpful other times.

In other words, we're dealing with an array of unique personalities.

Peter

 

[Belk]

Again, unless I read the "original research" for myself and understand it thoroughly, then I will never know if this cdk007 character hasn't simply cherry-picked or made exaggerated claims.

Uh... Yeah. Is this not how it works for pretty much everything which requires in depth knowledge? If you don't believe it you can look up the references to check the information. They have been provided for just such a purpose. Better then having a long screed with no way of verifying the information, yes?

 

[marlowe007]

Uh... Yeah. Is this not how it works for pretty much everything which requires in depth knowledge? If you don't believe it you can look up the references to check the information. They have been provided for just such a purpose. Better then having a long screed with no way of verifying the information, yes?

I'm willing to wager that nobody in this thread has sifted through the paper referenced. Most people blindly follow what they want to be true.

 

[random325nicaea]

I'm willing to wager that nobody in this thread has sifted through the paper referenced. Most people blindly follow what they want to be true.

"I'm willing to wager that nobody in this thread has sifted through the paper referenced."

how much u willing to bet?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm willing to wager that nobody in this thread has sifted through the paper referenced. Most people blindly follow what they want to be true.

I'm with you on this.

I often wonder if these people actually read Darwin's, The Preservation of Favoured Races.

 

[Split Rock]

I'm with you on this.

I often wonder if these people actually read Darwin's, The Preservation of Favoured Races.

Ad Hominem and Equivocation for the win!!

 

[Cabal]

I'm willing to wager that nobody in this thread has sifted through the paper referenced. Most people blindly follow what they want to be true.

Not really - most people here haven't watched the video yet anyway, I suspect.

Have you sifted through the papers? Most ToE supporters have read a lot more on evolution than your average creationist at any rate.

It's also worth bearing in mind that for a lot of journal articles, if you're not at college you have fork out a lot of cash to view them.

 

[Steezie]

I'm with you on this.

I often wonder if these people actually read Darwin's, The Preservation of Favoured Races.

Considering the actual title was "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" Darwin used the term "races" for what we now refer to as species.

 

[Belk]

I'm willing to wager that nobody in this thread has sifted through the paper referenced. Most people blindly follow what they want to be true.

feel free to shift through the papers, prove it wrong, and present your evidence here. Or you could blindly follow what you want to be true.

 

[Bombila]

Not really - most people here haven't watched the video yet anyway, I suspect.

Have you sifted through the papers? Most ToE supporters have read a lot more on evolution than your average creationist at any rate.

It's also worth bearing in mind that for a lot of journal articles, if you're not at college you have fork out a lot of cash to view them.

At least more papers are publicly available online now, and often one can find a fair summary where people with access are discussing a specific paper. Or have someone with access email you the paper needed. Good Google-fu can find you almost anything.

I've certainly read through quite a few relevant publications/papers since getting highspeed internet.

 

[Hespera]

Regards reading original research, there is no reason to put it in quotation marks.

And no you cant be sure what its about unless you go to the original soucce.

Does it REALLY matter what it says? Then read it. Would you be satisfied with someone elses version of it, as found on internet, if it concerned a child with cancer?


we'd guess not.

its called due diligence!