Explanation from Creationists?

[steen]

A) Human Peruvian Female Skull with Cranial Binding.....

Yes, all obviously of the same species. So?

 

[Bork]

Yes, all obviously of the same species. So?

I was just saying that there seems to be a lot of differences and anomalies in skulls right now. These differences don't need to necessarily be due to evolution.

Basically, I am just saying why can't you doubt evolution as much as creationism?

 

[Willtor]

I was just saying that there seems to be a lot of differences and anomalies in skulls right now. These differences don't need to necessarily be due to evolution.

Basically, I am just saying why can't you doubt evolution as much as creationism?

You are encouraged to doubt evolution. However, that doubt needs to flow from (and be expressed as) thoughtful discourse. It's not enough to be incredulous. The reasons for and against a thing need to be challengeable, themselves. This is true of any exercise of the mind, scientific or otherwise.

 

[random_guy]

I was just saying that there seems to be a lot of differences and anomalies in skulls right now. These differences don't need to necessarily be due to evolution.

Basically, I am just saying why can't you doubt evolution as much as creationism?

I think because scientists do look for signs of disease, age, etc... in accounting for differences. Like other posters have said, they are have features that are common to human skulls. The other skulls show features that are different in human skulls. The key is to examine similarities and differences. You must look at both to deteremine which species the skulls may belong to.

 

[Manning]

I was just saying that there seems to be a lot of differences and anomalies in skulls right now.

The variation in the modern human skulls you posted is negligible relative to the orignal post which featured numerous human ancestors as I pointed out before.

You showing that there is variation within modern human populations in no way disproves the common accepted view of human evolution.

 

[steen]

Careful, you are treading on assumptions and on the grounds of the unreasonable. Are you assuming I do these things?

No, I KNOW that creationists in general do these things. They admit that themselves. They admit to presuppose the Bible as fact and work backwards from there, trying to fit the data into their already made-up conclusion. Nearly every creationist organization has this stated as some form of statement of belief somewhere on the site. Nearly every creationist poster makes claims based on the idea that the Bible must be factually right in all details. So yes, what you described is indeed the self-professed M.O. of creationism. Are you saying that you are different? I haven't seen that from you yet. On the contrary.

Irony is only valid if one is guilty. Besides, I have also described the MO for many evolutionists, so what is your point?

Hmm, so when you say "evolutionists, you are not talking about scientists, obviously! Now, you didn't exactly elaborate, so at this point, your claim is nothing but a "just because I say so" postulation.

Why is that, just because you say so? Do you mean "this is not how science is 'supposed' to be conducted"?

No, I meant exactly what I said, so you can stop trying to twist my posts, thank you very much.

Some "science" IS conducted exactly the way I have stated.

Ah, in quotation marks and all. A fudge claim so you can run from it when challenged? Well, start producing your evidence of where the Scientific Method yields results as you claim. No? So it really is nothing but a "just because I claim so" postulation? Uhum. Are you done with your flame baiting yet?

Specifically, what facts am I denying? Where did I say Creation is/is not a science? Where did I say Evolution is/is not a science?

What you claimed was this:
Sure, the species pictured existed, but there is no strong evidence one existed prior to the other.

And that, of course is outright false without you even bothering to check out that evidence. I bet you don’t even know what the evidence is, yet you claim it is not strong. That’s starkly dishonest.

Aspects of both can fit into both categories, so neither is pure science and both involve some faith.

More fudge terms. Please provide the evidence that the Scientific Method involves the use of Faith. And no, I have yet to see your evidence of creationism utilizing the Scientific Method. So your claim is flat-out false.

Cast aside your presumptions, you are on the assumption train.

Another falsehood.

Ok, I will. Let me pull together the data. Just a precursor- it will include scientific sampling theory, hypothesis testing (confidence intervals), sample size and characteristics among other factors and demonstrate there is not sufficient evidence to strongly support the claims.

Good. I shall look forward to your evidence. And yes, I am entirely comfortable dealing with the statistical analysis you propose to put together.

Can you demonstrate, other than saying well, I have samples and pictures, as to why you think there is strong evidence?

Yes, of course. Science doesn’t operate on faith, but rather on the data. It will not be difficult to dig out factual evidence from the Scientific Literature which I fortunately have access to.

 

[steen]

That's intersting.

But why is the thought that these forms evolved better then the thought that these are just variations of a kind?

What do you mean with "better," and what is a "kind"?

 

[steen]

What is the proper scientific term for variations of kinds of tigers?

Are you saying that there are different Biblical "kinds" of tigers, or are you merely talking about sub-species?

cool. so all that would have to be done is find out what "kind" of animal these skulls belong to, correct?

Well, they are hominids and chimps. What Biblical "kind" are they?

 

[steen]

I was just saying that there seems to be a lot of differences and anomalies in skulls right now.

Not in the ones you listed.

These differences don't need to necessarily be due to evolution.

right. they could be due to magical, supernatural events. On the other hand, science certainly has shown a clear and connected pattern consistent with all other patterns seen in Evolution. Ever heard of Occam's Razor?

Basically, I am just saying why can't you doubt evolution as much as creationism?

You "can" doubt anything you want. But it gets harder when the data is supported by interconnected evidence from multiple sources. This happens to be the case with Evolution, and is NOT the case with creationism.

 

[shinbits]

A question I forgot to ask:

Oh, I see. The term you're looking for is subspecies. As far as tigers go, there are six of them: Bengal tiger, Indochinese tiger, Malaysian tiger, Sumatran tiger, Siberian tiger, and South China tiger. There are three other known subspecies that have already gone extinct.

Is subspecies an applicable term for different "kinds" of apes as well? Or do we just use species?


In simplest terms, is there a valid term for different kinds of apes?

 

[steen]

Is subspecies an applicable term for different "kinds" of apes as well? Or do we just use species?

In simplest terms, is there a valid term for different kinds of apes?

Well, we don't know what you mean with "kinds"? As in the biblical use? As in different species? As in different orders? What is the biological science context here?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

*MOD HAT ON*

Thread closed for review

*MOD HAT OFF*

 

[ChristianCenturion]

*MOD HAT ON*

There are many posters in this thread that would have otherwise received Contacts or Warnings, but since the thread was basically a mess and with the exception of the few, not many hands were clean. I've gone through the thread and tried to clean up or remove those posts that were the most obvious violations. I highly recommend that EVERYONE review the forum rules.

In particular, I would like the participants of this thread to be familiarized with these rules:

2.1 No Flaming
You will not "flame" other members or groups of members. Flaming includes, but is not limited to:
Ridiculing, insulting, or demeaning another member or group of members; Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian; Using sarcasm to attempt any of the above; Threats of any sort.

2.2 No Baiting
You will not bait other members. "Baiting" is an attempt to anger another member. Baiting includes, but is not limited to:
Making comments designed to elicit responses that violate the rules; Asking "loaded" questions of another member in an attempt to disguise a flame; Ridiculing or insulting the beliefs of another member.

2.5 No Defamation of Members or Non-Members
You will not deliberately make posts you know are untrue about any other living person, whether or not that person is a member.
And one I think many don't realize:

2.8 No Leeching
You will not use tags to link to images on external sites if you do not have permission to use that site's bandwidth. Please either use a site that allows you to use its bandwidth or upload the image to CF as an attachment.


I didn't realize the amount of work I was getting into when I started cleaning up the thread. Next time a moderator may not be so generous. DO try to discuss the topics with respect and focus. The violations will only be a waste of time and may earn future consequences.

Thank you,

ChristianCenturion
Debate Team Moderator

Thread Re-opened.

[SIZE=4][COLOR=red][B]*MOD HAT OFF*[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]

 

[TeddyKGB]

Is subspecies an applicable term for different "kinds" of apes as well? Or do we just use species?


In simplest terms, is there a valid term for different kinds of apes?

An ape is any member of the superfamily Hominoidea. A "kind" of ape might thus be a family, subfamily, genus, or species.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

I want to apologize to Jan87676 - that was uncalled for. Sorry.

 

[Kahalachan]

The 2 enclosed pics, plus the link pretty much sum it up.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex3


other pic: http://www.theistic-evolution.com/pages5455.jpg

Web Link: http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html

Well, how can you explain the visual evidence which is backed up by tangible evidence (fossils), and still say that God created us in the manor which is described in the old testament.

I, personally, have more respect for God, knowing that he put this intricate process of evolution in place, rather than just going on believing that blew into some magic dirt and made dust puppets out of us.

What do you guys think?

I'm not creationist but I'll take a crack at this.

 

[gwilenius]

No, they don't.

Yes, they do. Check out:


http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

It is from the Smithsonian Institution Human Origins Program, and shows one current perception of human ancestry based on phylogenetic differentiation. Notice the following:

1. It is NOT conclusively known what the ancestry of h. ergaster is.
2. h. sapiens and h. neanderthalenis coexisted, h. erectus possibly coexisted.
3. h. rudolfensis, h habilis, australopithicus africanus, and paranthropus aethiopicus coexisted
4. h. erectus died out and did not lead to h. sapiens, but rather, possibly, to H. floresiensis (Science, Vol 312 May 19, 2006 p.983) – but there is not agreement on this among paleoanthropologists.

According to the Smithsonian site, the following do not even belong in our lineage:

australipithecus anamensis, a. africanus (maybe), a. aethiopicus, a. boisei, a. robustus, homo erectus, h. antecessor, h. neanderthalensis.

Based on this phylogeny and the dates provided, many of these species did coexist. The images provided in the original post are not lineages, but appear to be an order of brain-cavity size.

 

[gwilenius]

My original response was that these images represented different species which may or may not have coexisted. That claim is substantiated on the basis that the images presented appear to be based on morphology - brain cavity size. However, some of the species represented are not in the lineage of homo sapien according to information from the Smithsonion Institution's web site, in Part B (this was a long post, so I had to break it into two parts). First, I would like to reply to some of the responses I have recieved from others.

Rather than address each of the responses I have received individually, they are included here collectively. Notice how all the responses have a pattern: they all attempt to discredit my person with statements such as “lies,” “misrepresentations,” “half-truths,” and outright sarcasm, rather unprofessional in context in that none of them substantiate their statements. However, I will admit that I made my original comments without providing evidence, as I have assumed there would be an awareness of the historical progression of Darwin’s theories along with his, and his contemporaries’ beliefs and comments concerning it. Alas, I was mistaken; there seemed to be no such awareness so I answered what I needed to and provided relevant quotes to minimally substantiate my claims. There are much more available, but I provided references for anyone to browse and see for themselves. I also though there was some familiarity, or at least an understanding, that the images presented in the original posting were not universally accepted as THE ancestry tree. Again, I was mistaken so I provided the links and a brief summary of the Smithsonian’s phylogeny which is quite different than the suggested ancestry presented by miniverchi. That information is near the end of this post.

This reply is structured as follows: My original comments are at the first indentation level, followed by the reply to that comment from different individuals at the next level. The third indentation level is my reply to their comment.

For the purist who may be slightly offended at my use of a little sarcasm in reply to the unsubstantiated accusations against me, please try to ignore them – I couldn’t resist.

My comment on ad hominen arguments: No, ad hoc is not what I was looking for. Evolution is based on attacks against creation and creationists, of which Darwin was among the strongest and most vocal.

From Steen: this si the worst case of projection I have seen here. Science is based on looking at the evidence. Creationisms attacks on science, on the other hand have nothing to do with the data and is solely based on "evolution is wrong, so we got to find a way to show it."


​

My response: Really? A projection? I am only bringing forward what these people have said themselves. If Creationists attack science, then they are simply following in the footsteps of evolution advocates, see the references I provide in my response to TeddyKGB below. Here are two relating to faith, rather than evidence:


​

Thomas Huxley (“Darwin’s Bulldog”): “I by no means suppose that the transmutation hypothesis is proven or anything like it.”

-Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol I, p. 252

William Bateson: “When students of other sciences ask us what is now currently believed about the origin of species we have no clear answer to give. Faith has given place to agnosticism for reasons which on such an occasion as this we may profitably consider…. Meanwhile, though our faith in evolution stands unshaken, we have no acceptable account of the origin of species.”
-William Bateson, F.R.S. Naturalist. His Essays and Addresses Together with a Short Account of His Life, Cambridge University Press, 1928, p. 391, 398


​

From Steen: Your misrepresenting attack on science is unwarranted and unacceptable. It is flat-out a lie. Please retract it.​

​

My response: What are you talking about? I am not attacking science, I am criticizing the Darwin’s theory of evolution was propagated. Read your history, it is quite obvious I am not telling lies. I have provided references for your convenience – it seems you have not studied the history of this field. If you read the letters, comments, and various accounts of the pioneers of evolution theory, you will discover, quite easily, that they did not have evidence for the Darwin’s theories, but relied on faith that this evidence will be found in future generations. As for Darwin himself, he admitted:

“I, for one, can conscientiously declare that I never feel surprised at any one sticking to the belief of immutability; though I am often not a little surprised at the arguments advanced on this side. I remember too well my endless oscillations of doubt and difficulty.”

-Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. II pp. 210-211


​

From TeddyKGB: You are utterly mistaken. Your claims are not even reasonably defensible.

My response: Ok, here is a reasonable defense- a quote from Thomas H. Huxley concerning the “myths of Genesis” which provides evidence that creation is attacked. Notice how Huxley calls those who believe the Genesis account as “fools:”

“But my sole point is to get the people who persist in regarding them as statements of fact to understand that they are fools.”

-Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol II, p. 429

I have many more “reasonable defenses” from the roots of Evolution, showing an open bias against and rejection of scriptural creation, some of these are also mentioned below. To say I am utterly mistaken to say that evolutionists attack creation and creationists is, well, utterly mistaken.


​

My comment: In the context of my sentence, I admit ad hoc may not be the correct choice, though it is appropriate to a degree. The arguments are based more on a priori statements with a foundation of argumentum ad hominen. None of these is entirely correct in the full perspective, but the arguments for Evolution (as well as for Creation) involve a mess of genetic fallacies, and very poor science. Granted, there is some good science, and that is where you find those who question Evolution as well as Creation.

From TeddyKGB: Evolution is no more a priori than any other science. And this "ad hominem" business is just bizarre. What on Earth are you talking about?

My Response: The Scientific Method works on observation and evidence, not on a priori suppositions. An a priori hypothesis is one made without evidence but on assumed or deduced conclusions – the Scientific Method is very effective at proving, or disproving a priori arguments, it is not intended to make use of them. What I mean in this case by “argumentum ad hominen” is an attack of an argument based on the source of information. I make this statement based on history, particularly in relation to the stance Thomas Huxley took against creationism. The “Darwinian Hypothesis” as Huxley called it, was the only alternative to creation, even though there was not strong evidence for evolution (another of Huxley’s admissions). Herbert Spencer also outright rejected a supernatural creation, as did Alfred Wallace. In fact, most early evolutionists admitted there was no direct proof of Darwin’s theory, but they outright rejected creationism so they asserted there was no other “reasonable” alternative. The arguments they made against creationism are some very good examples of this logical fallacy. Do you need references and quotes for the statements these people made? Here’s one from Herbert Spencer who had a significant influence in favor of Darwin’s theories:
“Save for those who still adhere to the Hebrew myth, or to the doctrine of special creations derived from it, there is no alternative but this hypothesis or no hypothesis. The neutral state of having no hypothesis, can be completely preserved only so long as the conflicting evidences appear exactly balanced: such a state is one of unstable equilibrium, which can hardly be permanent. For myself, finding there is no positive evidence for special creations, and that there is some positive evidence of evolution – alike in the history of the human race, in the modifications undergone by all organisms under changed conditions, in the development of every living creature – I adopt the hypothesis until better instructed….”

-The Principles of Psychology, H. Spencer, Vol. I, p. 466 footnote


​

My Comment: The latin terminology cast aside - BOTH side are plagued with bias, assumptions, presumptions, opinions, and collections of observations spattered with a few findings whcih support EITHER view; you pick your side and pick your evidence, and then you can discredit the other based on your bias and personal collection of "facts and observations" (you = general, not you personally).

From Steen: Ah, that serious misunderstanding about science and the Scientific Method may be why you make the claims you do. Science is NOT about picking a side. It is about looking At the evidence and see what it says. It is not creationism which operates on forming the conclusion first. Your claim and misrepresentation is starkly offensive and dishonest.

My Response: No, it just demonstrates that I have a deeper understanding of how science is practiced than you care to admit. There is nothing wrong with the scientific method, just with those who try to abuse and circumvent it. Fortunately, most unsubstantiated or fraudulent theories get weeded out in the scientific process. Remember Cold Fusion? Unfortunately, Darwin had enough support in popular opinion among his peers to allow his theory to take root without substantial evidence. It would be interesting to see what would have happened if his peers would have insisted on empirical evidence and data to the extent we demand today, rather than aligning with his agnostic views. Too bad the Scientific Method wasn’t refined enough at the time. You failed to state what and exactly what way I am misrepresenting, so I doubt you even know. Sometimes, truth can be offensive. The one who cries “liar” without substantiation is often the one in the weaker position.


​

From TeddyKGB: Not remotely true. Empirical science so strongly favors an evolutionary framework that creationists are left with only the Morris-era bits and pieces that show up time and again only to be refuted time and again.

My response: On the contrary, there is much truth to my statements. I agree that empirical science strongly favors an evolutionary framework – but not the details. I also agree with an evolutionary framework – God certainly works within it. Concerning assumptions, bias, and so on; see my previous and subsequent comments on Darwin, Spencer, Huxley, and others. Don’t get me wrong, the same statements can be said for Creation arguments – my point is that NEITHER side is without fault.


​

My comment: It seems the past century has erroded the art of effective and rational discourse between the two sides, not unexpected because the extremes are often the most vocal.

From Steen: What is there to suggest that there ever was "effective and rational discourse"? Creationism is bad science now as it was 100 years ago. Would that creationists come to understand this.

My response: Look to particle physics, chemistry, biology, genetics and the discussions between opposing sides. A particular example were the exchanges between Bohr and Einstein who strongly opposed aspects of their views, yet never once resorted to terms such as “liar,” “scoundrel,” “uneducated,” and other personnal attacks which are so prevalent in debates and discussions between Creationists and Evolutionists. Such tactics are juvenile, irrational, and plagued with emotional outbursts which are unrepresentative of an unbiased, purely scientific endeavor to investigate the issues.


​

​

 

[gwilenius]

My comments: As for me, to clarify, I am a Creationist. (Ah! I knew it! Comes the cry of the Evolutionist). However, evolution does play a role in my views, but not to the degere that men descended from apes. Microevolution is highly supported, and proven. However, there are many questions Creation has yet to answer, just as there are many which Evolution has to answer. Why am I a Creationist? First, I have personally experienced the power of the Word of God, and there would be no power in it if it was full of lies, half-truths, assumptions, or contradictions (oh-oh, I just opened another box).

But, since God said it, it must be true. So, pick my theory. Evolution doesn't fit, there are too many inconsistencies, and too many assumptions. The current Creation theories don't entirely fit, also too many assumptions and inconsistencies. I am more of a proponent of "mature-earth" creation; albeit still a theory, but one which still fits observation just as well as does evolutionary theory (refering to old-earth evolution).

From TeddyKGB: I am deeply skeptical that you are in possession of sufficient empirical resources to qualify you to reject modern evolutionary theory wholesale.​

​

My response: By empirical resources, do you mean direct, first-hand experimentation or field-work? If so, then you are correct. If by resources you mean data, evidence, technical literature, access to equipment, experience in scientific research, ability to obtain resources – then you are mistaken. As long as the raw data or first-hand accounts from those who do have these empirical resources are available, then one does not need it oneself. That is part of the purpose of peer review. My skepticism is if you have actually studied the shortcomings of evolution, or, like Herbert Spencer, you have chosen to outright disregard any material to which you have objection (Spencer actually admitted to not even reading them).

​

My comment: oh, give me a little more credit than stuffing me in a box with "those Creationists,"

From Steen: Why? You haven't said anything that warrants anything else. Same tired old misrepresentations, half-truths and vague, unsubstantiated "just because I say so" attacks. You have done NOTHIng that sets you apart from "those creationists." It is the same old stuff that I have seen for decades. You didn't even repackage it in different terminology.

My comment: Give me some examples of what I have misrepresented, and what half-truths? It is easy for you to say these things as a scapegoat, but as a supposedly educated person stop it with these juvenile “bashing tactics” and give some examples. If all you can say is that I am a liar, misrepresenting science, telling half-truths, etc. etc,. don’t even bother replying unless you can be more specific.

​

My comment: Irony is only valid if one is guilty. Besides, I have also described the MO for many evolutionists, so what is your point?

From Steen: Hmm, so when you say "evolutionists, you are not talking about scientists, obviously! Now, you didn't exactly elaborate, so at this point, your claim is nothing but a "just because I say so" postulation.

​

My comment: Why is that, just because you say so? Do you mean "this is not how science is 'supposed' to be conducted"?

From Steen: No, I meant exactly what I said, so you can stop trying to twist my posts, thank you very much.

My response: You’re welcome, but I twisted nothing; just asked some questions for clarity and hoping that you, as I have, would provide some evidence to back up your claims that I lie, misrepresent, tell half-truths, etc. etc.

​

My comment that some science is conducted inappropriately: Some "science" IS conducted exactly the way I have stated.

From Steen: Ah, in quotation marks and all. A fudge claim so you can run from it when challenged? Well, start producing your evidence of where the Scientific Method yields results as you claim. No? So it really is nothing but a "just because I claim so" postulation? Uhum. Are you done with your flame baiting yet?

My response: My claims have concerning how evolutionary theory started have nothing to do with the scientific method. If you have not read Darwin’s, Huxley’s, Spencer’s, Wallace’s, Bateson’s and other admissions that evolution is not a proven fact – that evolution is a faith, a belief, and a hope left for future generations to prove, then I understand completey that you have no basis for stating I am making “fudge claims.” However I am quite justified in referring to evolution as a “science” in quotation marks, because it is, in fact, a pseudo-science based on the underlying principle of uniformity – itself unproven and unprovable. I say it is a pseudo-science because it is not proving it’s claims through experimentation – there is no experimentation which can prove evolution, there is just observation. The scientific method demands that observation be used for forming the hypothesis, and experimentation be used to prove it. Evolution is just gathering data (specimens) and experimenting ON that data and attempting to use the experimental results and measurements (i.e. further observations) to substantiate the hypothesis. In what way is finding a fossil, dating it, and classifying it experimentation? It is not, it is observation – observing (measuring) the properties, and classifying the results. Is for the results I claim concerning the pictures from the original post: My claim was the fossils pictured are different species which may or may not have coexisted, here is my proof:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
It is from the Smithsonian Institution Human Origins Program, and shows one current perception of human ancestry based on phylogenetic differentiation. Notice the following:
1. It is NOT conclusively known what the ancestry of h. ergaster is.
2. h. sapiens and h. neanderthalenis coexisted, h. erectus possibly coexisted.
3. h. rudolfensis, h habilis, australopithicus africanus, and paranthropus aethiopicus coexisted
4. h. erectus died out and did not lead to h. sapiens, but rather, possibly, to h. floresiensis (Science, Vol 312 May 19, 2006 p.983) – but there is not agreement on this among paleoanthropologists.
Obviously, my claims are substantiated and your claims that I am making fudge claims are not. As for your comments on flame baiting, you are entitled to an opinion. Clear your throat some more… uhum.

​

My comments: Specifically, what facts am I denying? Where did I say Creation is/is not a science? Where did I say Evolution is/is not a science?

From Steen: What you claimed was this:

​

Sure, the species pictured existed, but there is no strong evidence one existed prior to the other.
And that, of course is outright false without you even bothering to check out that evidence. I bet you don’t even know what the evidence is, yet you claim it is not strong. That’s starkly dishonest.

​

My response: Again, you have been proven wrong. See my comment on the Smithsonian phylogeny. Because there is disagreement, this demonstrates the evidence is not strong. Because the lineage implicated in the original post does not correlate well with an accepted phylogeny, that also indicates the evidence is not strong. My original statement that the images A through M present different species of hominids which may or may not have coexisted is entirely accurate based on the information from Smithsonian’s site, as well as other classifications. I leave you to reference and compare among Meave Leakey, Ian Tattersall, Tim White, available at http://www.mos.org/evolution which demonstrates more variation in how human ancestry is structured.

​

Any more replies should not include the words “lies,” “half-truths,” “misrepresentation,” and so on, unless you can give specific examples and explanations for your reasoning. Otherwise, consider yourself at the same level as my 3-year old, who just mastered the taunt “liar, liar, pants on fire” (point being – anyone can say it, but you look very foolish if that’s all you can come up with.)