Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Strawman arguments are valid arguments.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Gottservant" data-source="post: 34189830" data-attributes="member: 158134"><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>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.</p><p> </p><p>Strawmen are innocent until <em>proven</em> guilty.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Gottservant, post: 34189830, member: 158134"] 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. 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. Strawmen are innocent until [I]proven[/I] guilty. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Strawman arguments are valid arguments.
Top
Bottom