Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 5:55 AM
25 online now:
Heathen, PaulK, RAZD, Tangle (4 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,136 Year: 5,173/19,786 Month: 1,295/873 Week: 191/460 Day: 7/29 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56789
10
Author Topic:   flying spaghetti monster flap in kansas
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 3943 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 136 of 148 (311272)
05-11-2006 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Faith
05-11-2006 11:07 PM


Nice that you know
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.

http://templeofpolemic.proboards42.com/index.cgi?board=theo&action=print&thread=1130126466


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 05-11-2006 11:07 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Faith, posted 05-11-2006 11:29 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded
 Message 139 by anglagard, posted 05-12-2006 12:16 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded
 Message 141 by Faith, posted 05-12-2006 12:26 AM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 148 (311274)
05-11-2006 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Faith
05-11-2006 11:06 PM


Re: Faith's ordering
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 05-11-2006 11:06 PM Faith has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 30963
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 138 of 148 (311279)
05-11-2006 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
05-11-2006 11:21 PM


Re: Nice that you know
Dear dear dear. How the ad hominems do proliferate. I think if you're in shock you should probably lie down, keep warm.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 05-11-2006 11:21 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by kjsimons, posted 05-12-2006 10:24 AM Faith has responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2185
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 139 of 148 (311310)
05-12-2006 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
05-11-2006 11:21 PM


Re: Nice that you know
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).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 05-11-2006 11:21 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by robinrohan, posted 05-12-2006 12:21 AM anglagard has responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 148 (311311)
05-12-2006 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by anglagard
05-12-2006 12:16 AM


Re: Nice that you know
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by anglagard, posted 05-12-2006 12:16 AM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by anglagard, posted 05-12-2006 2:31 AM robinrohan has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 30963
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 141 of 148 (311313)
05-12-2006 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by SuperNintendo Chalmers
05-11-2006 11:21 PM


Re: Nice that you know
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 05-11-2006 11:21 PM SuperNintendo Chalmers has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by crashfrog, posted 05-12-2006 12:30 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 148 (311316)
05-12-2006 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Faith
05-12-2006 12:26 AM


Re: Nice that you know
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Faith, posted 05-12-2006 12:26 AM Faith has not yet responded

anglagard
Member
Posts: 2185
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 143 of 148 (311325)
05-12-2006 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by robinrohan
05-12-2006 12:21 AM


Re: Nice that you know
"Are you talking to me?" - Robert DiNero, Taxi Driver

{abe} smiley

This message has been edited by anglagard, 05-12-2006 02:32 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by robinrohan, posted 05-12-2006 12:21 AM robinrohan has not yet responded

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 665
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003


Message 144 of 148 (311377)
05-12-2006 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Faith
05-11-2006 11:29 PM


Re: Nice that you know
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Faith, posted 05-11-2006 11:29 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Faith, posted 05-12-2006 11:08 AM kjsimons has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 30963
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 145 of 148 (311388)
05-12-2006 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by kjsimons
05-12-2006 10:24 AM


Re: Nice that you know
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by kjsimons, posted 05-12-2006 10:24 AM kjsimons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by kjsimons, posted 05-12-2006 11:18 AM Faith has responded

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 665
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003


Message 146 of 148 (311390)
05-12-2006 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Faith
05-12-2006 11:08 AM


Re: Nice that you know
talking about ME instead of the topic is an ad hominem.

Not necessarily, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Faith, posted 05-12-2006 11:08 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 05-12-2006 11:25 AM kjsimons has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 30963
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 147 of 148 (311394)
05-12-2006 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by kjsimons
05-12-2006 11:18 AM


It's even a circular argument ad hominem
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by kjsimons, posted 05-12-2006 11:18 AM kjsimons has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 148 of 148 (311501)
05-12-2006 5:25 PM


Terminal topic abandonment - Topic closed
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


  
Prev1
...
56789
10
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019