A proper understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debate

I realise that you meant well, but Granny was being sarcastic (ironic?) - referring to the OP's repeated use of the word 'inconceivable' in the thread that originated this 'spin-off' thread.Other than that: nice post. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Which moves us nicely into the various fallacies of definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_definition

quote:

---

Definitions can go wrong by using ambiguous, obscure, or figurative language.

---

...or an Argument From Popularity perhaps?

quote:

---

a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it

---

(I am not sure what you call an argument that concludes a proposition to be true because a few people believe it. An Argument From Lack of Popularity?)But anyway, your repeated examples of supposed conversions are not going to get you anywhere.
Half of them are quote-mined and what you have left is anecdotal evidence which requires you to switch between an argument from authority and an argument from popularity.If I was to produce a matching list of scientists that were not converted by the Big Bang theory, would it counter your claims?

So, you have already decided that the scientists I was intending to quote are unable to adjust their views when confronted with new evidence.
How did you form that opinion? Ah - so you are capable of correcting your views but the many scientists I was going to list aren't.Anyway, all you have is anecdotal evidence which requires you to switch between an argument from authority and an argument from popularity.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

You are not going to support your claim that the scientists I was going to list are inferior to you?
Perhaps you realised that you were Poisoning The Well by making a Hasty Generalisation... So, this is where you switch it to an Argument From Authority (and Cherry Picking).There is no purpose in posting a short list of scientists that agree with you unless you want to Appeal To Authority.
And if your intention is to provide a long list of scientists that agree with you then that will also be an Appeal To Popularity. I sense an Argument From Authority - or maybe an ad hominem. So now you claim that your 2 (or is it 3?) scientists are a "significant movement of opinion"? Really?
And how do you know if this is a "most are" or a "not every" opinion? Oh yes - you use your a priori belief.This is also where you have switched back to an Argument From Popularity. I sense another Argument From Authority... Perhaps if you could provide some kind of argument that doesn't rely on so many fallacies, then your arguments might be considered less ... fallacious.On the plus side: this thread is about logical fallacies and you have used 'provided examples of' a wide variety of them!
Unfortunately, you do not show any eagerness to gain a proper understanding them.

While DT continues to provide coherent responses, I will never lose hope! I've never seen an intentional word salad from DT.
If I did I expect it would be the kind we all occasionally fall foul to.

Also, notice he doesn't say "Big Bang never happened"...
Hawkings thinks the Big Bang happened without a singularity - but he still thinks the Big Bang happened.
He has definitely not turned his back on it.Further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2%80%93Hawking_state
(They repeatedly refer to the Big Bang...)Edited by Panda, : No reason given.