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.
Hard to prove as I'd have to present every single recognized definition. Would be much much easier if you could present just one single counter example.
The people who say evolutionary models are better nowadays are the exact same people who found the flaws in the original in the first place. It’s not as though we’re just receiving these models from a mysterious well that just keeps contradicting itself, there’s an entire community of scientists researching and reviewing each other’s work in order to draw the most accurate conclusions possible, and that changes whenever new information is found. So saying that modern models of evolution are just as likely to be false as the original Darwinian models is like saying the flat earth models of the Earth were wrong back in the day, so our oblate spheroid model is just as likely to be wrong. It doesn’t work that way.
I sure when removing the biased part of it, it will reduce your pool by 99%. so I think your ok. And no we don't need every definition, just one that proves your point. Again, preferably unbiased. Which will be a problem for you, as you believe in establishment science. Or science that is accepted by government and thus must be true. But using that fact, is basically an appeal to the populus, or aka the bandwagon fallacy.
that would be true, if what I said was inaccurate. But what I said is that darwins views of classifying animals based on evolution has flaws, and so why should I believe modern views shouldn't. Or something to that matter. What I mean is if the foundation has flaws, anything built on that foundation is flawed. And darwin was not the foundation, evolution was the foundation I was getting at. So for example quoting more biased scientists who have already decided that evolution is true are going to of course select quotes for their peer reviews and source material that promotes said world view. Why wouldn't they? So I am admitting that. But again if the foundation is flawed. Building a perfect third floor, with all the modern technology is not going to matter.
no sir that is not what I said, I said quoting from a source claiming it's true simply because "every body says it is" is considered the bandwagon fallacy. Just because a majority of people believe something does not make it true. People used to believe blood letting would make you heal faster, and the majority of scientists also believed the world was flat and on the backs of giant elephants. So saying that logic has proven your case but not quoting the logic involved and simply stating, everyone believes this said theory does not work.
So if I cant quote the majority science opinion the definition of "animal", then what?
As definitions are simply labels, they are inherently arbitrary. So no, logic hasn’t got anything to do with it.
No you can quote whomever you wish, hopefully an article that makes it's own logical arguments and does not rely on fallacies such as bandwagon and others. I am not discouraging you from posting from biased sites that believe in evolution, as I realize in the world that is predominantly what exists. And if that was the case there would be no discussion at all. I quote from my sources and you quote from yours. But to say yours is better than mine because the establishment accepts it, well that would be a fallacy.
so try to communicate without using your brain. Try to remove all logic from your thoughts and form a coherent sentence. It is impossible. Logic is in everything we do.
As I said before, I was not saying they were built on darwins errors, I said they were built on evolution, and before proving evolution as a theory, they assumed it valid because they had no alternative, not because it was a fact, and thus the following complex levels of classifications of animals and phylogenetic classifications carried on the original error. Or for sake of this conversation I cannot call it an error, but I can call it unsubstantiated. So they carried on something that was supposed to be a constant, and it was not. For example there are some saying the speed of light is slowing down. I don't know if I agree, but I think it's interesting. IF that is the case most of modern physics would be in error, because they would carry forth a constant value that was not a constant, or substantiated value.
Using the word “logic” in a colloquial manner now obviously isn’t the same as using it in the manner you did previously. You’re just reaching at this point, and it’s very transparent...
That’s not true and I don’t debate the validity of the theory of evolution, so it looks like we’re done here. There’s a whole other sub forum for this kind of discussion.
so again you cannot remove logic from every other function of the brain. And so your comment fails .
I stopped going to evolution threads as well. It gets old. And people are not very nice. But some of this overlaps slightly. I don't mind debating it in a few posts, just not for very long. Anyways, thanks for the contribution. I appreciate the feed back.
So your response to me calling out your equivocation fallacy is to commit the same fallacy again?
how is saying that every function of the brain uses logic equivocation? As far as I know equivocation would apply if logic was not used in every function of the brain.
