|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: flying spaghetti monster flap in kansas | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SuperNintendo Chalmers Member (Idle past 5862 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: |
Faith,
You have demonstrated on here time and time agian that you know little to nothing about geology, biology and science in general. You have been shown many, many times that there is a ton of evidence against the flood and almost none for it. This is the consensus of the experts in their respective fields. I'm shocked that you think you know more than people with PhDs in biology, geology, etc. proboards42.com is for sale | HugeDomains
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So you prefer the Standard Explanation about the ordering. That doesn't make what I said false. Uh, I think my post made it pretty clear that it does.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Dear dear dear. How the ad hominems do proliferate. I think if you're in shock you should probably lie down, keep warm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
You have been shown many, many times that there is a ton of evidence against the flood and almost none for it. You are too kind. I asked Faith why the flood, Faith replied, reply was unsatisfactory in the least IMHO. Outside of a too literal interpretation of the Bible, I don't see how there is any evidence for a flood. I believe the term "almost none for it" would be better stated "absolutely none for it outside of Biblical literalism." Just my personal opinion (based upon ovewhelming evidence).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I'm thinking about starting a topic on how the FSM is not the same sort of entity as God, since no one bothers to answer me on this topic.
The point of the letter was that it was the same sort of entity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You have been shown many, many times that there is a ton of evidence against the flood and almost none for it. You CANNOT prove a negative. The evidence for it is simply currently co-opted to other purposes, but there is plenty of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1494 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You CANNOT prove a negative. Isn't that a negative? And so, wouldn't you have to be able to prove a negative in order to actually prove that you can't prove a negative?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 864 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
"Are you talking to me?" - Robert DiNero, Taxi Driver
{abe} smiley This message has been edited by anglagard, 05-12-2006 02:32 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 822 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
How the ad hominems do proliferate. What ad hominems? There is not even one in SNC's post. It's a fact that "You have demonstrated on here time and time agian that you know little to nothing about geology, biology and science in general". Not only that, but seem proud of your ignorance. I think the general concensus is that SNC paints a very accurate picture of you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Irrelevant what the "general consensus" is -- and that's just conjecture on your part -- talking about ME instead of the topic is an ad hominem, and especially making my supposed failings the gist of the argument ABOUT the topic -- VERY bad form.
This message has been edited by Faith, 05-12-2006 11:17 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kjsimons Member Posts: 822 From: Orlando,FL Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
talking about ME instead of the topic is an ad hominem. Not necessarily, from Ad hominem - Wikipedia
Validity
Ad hominem is fallacious when applied to deduction, and not the evidence (or premise) of an argument. Evidence may be doubted or rejected based on the source for reasons of credibility, but to doubt or reject a deduction based on the source is the ad hominem fallacy. Premises discrediting the person can exist in valid arguments, when the person being criticized is the sole source for a piece of evidence used in one of his arguments. 1. A committed perjury when he said Q.2. We should not accept testimony for which perjury was committed. 3. Therefore, A 's testimony for Q should be rejected.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
In other words the only argument you have against my arguments is your personal assessment of my personal failings. You might want to rethink that.
ABE: AND, the assessment of my personal failings rests entirely on the position you and SNC hold with respect to these questions. That is, you are sure I'm wrong about the flood, because Geology says so. The fact that I defend my position against Geology means I disrespect geologists and other scientists (I don't) and my disrespecting geologists and other scientists means I'm a rotten person whose opinion shouldn't count, and so you buttress your argument by discrediting me personally on the basis of your argument. Neat. This message has been edited by Faith, 05-12-2006 11:34 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
This topic has long lost contact with the topic theme. As I recall, it was something about a Flying Spaghetti Monster picture on an office door.
Closing topic. Adminnemooseus New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024