Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-20-2019 7:09 AM
22 online now:
Meddle, Percy (Admin), Tangle (3 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,858 Year: 4,895/19,786 Month: 1,017/873 Week: 373/376 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
25NextFF
Author Topic:   Was there a worldwide flood?
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4020 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 91 of 372 (411695)
07-21-2007 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Repzion
07-21-2007 9:11 PM


Re: Here's more Stuff.
website writes:

Most of the earth's crust consists of sedimentary rocks.

iceage writes:

Well duh! large deposits of sedimentary rocks is *outstanding* evidence of a very old earth. It is hard to have a 5 billion year old planet with a vigorous atmosphere and not have a lot of sedimentary rock.

Vast deposits of this sedimentary rock such as sandstone consists of very fine particles that also was solid rock of a different composition at one time. Wearing done this material to fine particles takes a very long time and is not the work of a super flood. Other sedimentary rock consists of microfossils such as chalk and diatoms that could not have come from a super flood.

The Matt and Percy are correct on this the crust proper only consists of a small amount of sedimentary rock concentrated as expected on the surface. I was responding to the surface and near surface composition which large deposits of sedimentary rock is what would be expected on a old planet.

Rep I encourage you to do your digging and check out the validity of their claims.

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Repzion, posted 07-21-2007 9:11 PM Repzion has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Repzion, posted 07-22-2007 12:10 AM iceage has responded

edge
Member
Posts: 4510
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 7.9


Message 92 of 372 (411698)
07-21-2007 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Repzion
07-21-2007 9:11 PM


Re: Here's more Stuff.
I see evidence for a worldwide flood in these links.

Of course you do, that is what they are telling you to think. Rep, if I seriously read the entirety of these two links, my brain would implode under all of the ignorance displayed there. And you would be responsible. If you have a favorite piece of evidence, please discuss it.

ETA: Rep, one note of caution. These guys are basically relying upon your ignorance of the topic to make outlandish arguments. My advice is to ignore it.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Repzion, posted 07-21-2007 9:11 PM Repzion has not yet responded

bdfoster
Member (Idle past 2984 days)
Posts: 60
From: Riverside, CA
Joined: 05-09-2007


Message 93 of 372 (411701)
07-21-2007 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Percy
07-20-2007 7:43 PM


Re: Please Explain the Following Evidence From Geology
Hi Everybody
Sorry I didn't get back before now. I was off line for a while. I hate to hit and run but I can just make a few comments and then I have to go again. As for the ledges, differential resistance to erosion is usually offered as the explanation. It is far easier to demonstrate than differential rates of uplift. Almost all rocks have differing resistance to erosion, and over time it doesn't take much of a difference in hardness for one rock to "win the race" of erosion. If the upper unit erodes faster it forms a ledge. If the lower one erodes faster it undermines the upper and a tallus would probably form. Rates of uplift are more difficult to establish. And it depends on what time scale you want to consider. On the finest scale all uplift is episodic, resulting from individual earthquakes. Sorry, gotta go now.

Edited by bdfoster, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Percy, posted 07-20-2007 7:43 PM Percy has not yet responded

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


Message 94 of 372 (411703)
07-22-2007 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Repzion
07-21-2007 9:11 PM


Re: Here's more Stuff.
I read the entirety of both and all I see is a combination of PRATTs (points refuted a thousand times), absurdities, and bald face lies. Please feel free to try to support any one claim concerning science from these lists and see how rapidly it evaporates under scrutiny. Repeat for the next claim and the next and perhaps you may eventually discover why YECs are currently the laughingstock of comedians on Comedy Central, and just tonight, by Bill Maher.

You have a lot to learn if you think the sources of these PRATTs such as Morris, Gish, or Bowdin (who demands the universe rotates around the earth), are exemplary scientists or even for that matter, exemplary Christians.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Repzion, posted 07-21-2007 9:11 PM Repzion has not yet responded

  
Repzion
Member (Idle past 3523 days)
Posts: 22
From: Renton,Wa
Joined: 12-04-2006


Message 95 of 372 (411704)
07-22-2007 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by iceage
07-21-2007 10:27 PM


Re: Here's more Stuff.
Which provides the answer that is opposite of the uninformed conclusion that they are trying lead people to! This is not only willful ignorance but willful deceit.

Can you prove its deceit? Trust me i've been searching.

At 5 mm per year would take around 15 million years for Everest to gain its height. Assuming that half of this is eroded each year that is 30 millions years - a trifling in geological terms.

Why couldn't it take thousands Such as 6,000- 12,000?

I'm just curious. Agr, I'll be back on friday... I'm going to camp tomorrow.

Edited by Repzion, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by iceage, posted 07-21-2007 10:27 PM iceage has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by iceage, posted 07-22-2007 12:38 AM Repzion has not yet responded

  
Repzion
Member (Idle past 3523 days)
Posts: 22
From: Renton,Wa
Joined: 12-04-2006


Message 96 of 372 (411705)
07-22-2007 12:19 AM


and bald face lies.

You guys keep saying everything I present are lies. I'd like to see them as lies, but you haven't shown me that they're all wrong yet.
I don't mind ya guys bashing me down, its I just want to see evidence that shows, that it is ALL wrong. Instead of just saying, I'm WRONG. You don't see me telling you guys, " Your dead wrong " Do you? I want to learn, and listen. I don't want to listen to people who say " Your wrong " " The flood is silly" " Your arrogant for beliving such a thing" Anyways, I need to get to bed.

Edited by Repzion, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by edge, posted 07-22-2007 12:55 AM Repzion has not yet responded
 Message 101 by anglagard, posted 07-22-2007 1:34 AM Repzion has not yet responded
 Message 102 by anglagard, posted 07-22-2007 5:01 AM Repzion has not yet responded
 Message 104 by Percy, posted 07-22-2007 9:12 AM Repzion has not yet responded
 Message 109 by Nuggin, posted 07-22-2007 4:44 PM Repzion has not yet responded

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4020 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 97 of 372 (411707)
07-22-2007 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Repzion
07-22-2007 12:10 AM


Re: Here's more Stuff.
Rep writes:

Can you prove its deceit?

Well the second item has an external link that provides a rational and reasonable explanation that destroys their implied conclusion. If not deceit then willful ignorance.

Rep writes:

Why couldn't it take thousands Such as 6,000- 12,000?

Sure it is possible. It is probably an error and a bad assumption to assume present day uplift rates. To get to the bottom of the actual rates would take investigating other source of evidence and look for corroboration of data. The uplift rates could have been much faster or slower in the past. However take 25000 ft / 12000 yr gives around a 2 ft per year, double it to account for erosion and you have 4 ft/year. That is very geological active that is not noted in historical time by the surrounding civilizations. I believe that such wild runaway uplift would leave other forms of evidence.

Further such rapid uplift rates and young age would result, I believe, in much more uniform geology. Take any surface geology map for any mountaineous area and I am always amazed at the complexity with dozens of different formations of widely different composition. If you research these different formations you learn that they were each formed is widely different conditions. This complexity and diversity argues for an old earth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Repzion, posted 07-22-2007 12:10 AM Repzion has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by NosyNed, posted 07-22-2007 1:23 AM iceage has responded

edge
Member
Posts: 4510
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002
Member Rating: 7.9


Message 98 of 372 (411708)
07-22-2007 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Repzion
07-22-2007 12:19 AM


Well, near as I can tell, all you've done is refer us to a bunch of websites that recycle all of the old YEC arguments we've refuted before. Why not find one you like and we can actually discuss it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Repzion, posted 07-22-2007 12:19 AM Repzion has not yet responded

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 99 of 372 (411713)
07-22-2007 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by iceage
07-22-2007 12:38 AM


Accounting for erosion
However take 25000 ft / 12000 yr gives around a 2 ft per year, double it to account for erosion and you have 4 ft/year.

That isn't correct, I don't think, erosion rates don't necessarily double just because uplift rates do. In fact, I think erosion rates are very limited by particular things (rock hardness being one and the eroding mechanism being another). I'd guess rock hardness predominates but even if (for some reason) doubling the uplift doubled the amount of, say, water flowing down the mountain I don't think that would double the erosion. My reasoning goes; only the water in contact with the rock erodes it. If you have a much deeper layer of water than the turbulent contact zone then no additional depth will bring more erosive force against the rock.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by iceage, posted 07-22-2007 12:38 AM iceage has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by iceage, posted 07-22-2007 1:30 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4020 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 100 of 372 (411716)
07-22-2007 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by NosyNed
07-22-2007 1:23 AM


Re: Accounting for erosion
NosyNed writes:

That isn't correct

No doubt. That's only a wild guess and is very much incorrect.

The point is that if these mountains ranges are as young as suggested the uplift rates would be very large. Erosion is a factor that only increases the necessary uplift rates to reach the elevations of such ranges and makes claims of a young age only more fanciful and unrealistic.

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by NosyNed, posted 07-22-2007 1:23 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

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


Message 101 of 372 (411717)
07-22-2007 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Repzion
07-22-2007 12:19 AM


It's Business Not Personal
Repzion writes:

You guys keep saying everything I present are lies. I'd like to see them as lies, but you haven't shown me that they're all wrong yet.

Let's start with a few for now.

From the first site you listed: http://www.calvaryag.org/apologetics/apologetics_11-evidence_flood.htm

quote:
The random order of the fossils. The fossils within the sediments do not exhibit strong evidence of a record of evolution with simple animals at the bottom, progressing type by type up to more and more complex animals. The order is often random or completely upside down or out of order for evolution. But this would be expected in a global flood catastrophe. Fossils from the supposed different 'ages' are often found mixed together. This indicates a huge mixing of animal bones that is not consistent with a local flood.

The statement "fossils from the supposed different 'ages' are often found mixed together" and "The order is often random or completely upside down or out of order for evolution" is essentially a bald face lie. The source is Morris, quoting another source I would have to look up who refused to take overturned layers into account and just made the blanket statement that "the fossil layers are all mixed up" when in reality the 600,000 categorized fossils are virtually universally consistent with geology, so much so they are part of dating correlations.

quote:
Also, if the sediment did not harden fairly soon after entombing the fish, oxygen and bacteria could still get at the specimens, causing decay and ruining the features.

Do you know what an anaerobic environment is? It means without oxygen. The statement above is a lie because it says oxygen would get to all dead matter, that is not true under anaerobic conditions, which is the condition under which many, if not most, aquatic fossils form.

That makes two lies therefore the term lies as plural is justified. To me two lies in so short a space would be enough to discredit the entire site. Are your standards for YEC claims so low as to have to show every statement made in each site is untrue according to evidence?

Please don't take this discussion personally. As best I can tell you have not been exposed to either the pertinent science or the refutation of YEC claims until you stumbled upon this site. It is not your personal fault that you or the people you know have been misled and even lied to by some pretty disreputable individuals.

At least you haven't run away once challenged as so many have before and that shows character. Stick around, we (just about) all learn a lot from each other.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Repzion, posted 07-22-2007 12:19 AM Repzion has not yet responded

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


Message 102 of 372 (411727)
07-22-2007 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Repzion
07-22-2007 12:19 AM


A Suggestion
OK, I read your suggested websites, would you consider returning the favor?

Read this first:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

This one addresses most the PRATTs that have come up:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

Here is another one that deals more specifically with geology from the same source as the first:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/dmd.htm

Read these and you may be able to better understand the other side of the issues. It's common practice to study the enemy, I did when I was in intelligence and I do so today in regard to AIG, ICR, and the general history of the YEC movement.

As has been pointed out, we don't debate by using links to websites here because one is expected to put their arguments in their own words. I simply offer these links as a bit of background to the debate topic.

Never give up on your desire to acquire more knowledge :)


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Repzion, posted 07-22-2007 12:19 AM Repzion has not yet responded

  
The Matt
Member (Idle past 3647 days)
Posts: 99
From: U.K.
Joined: 06-07-2007


Message 103 of 372 (411734)
07-22-2007 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Repzion
07-21-2007 9:11 PM


Re: Here's more Stuff.
I've read your first link, and the writer is either ignorant or lying.
quote:
Most of the earth's crust consists of sedimentary rocks.

Not true in the slightest. Sedimentary rocks, though most common at the surface form a thin veneer on top of mainly igneous rock. 70% of earth's crust was NOT laid down by water.

quote:
Sedimentary rock was originally formed in almost all cases under water

There is some truth in this. Much sedimentary rock is formed by water, but this ignores 2 things. The first is the rocks that aren't water deposited. Windblown deposits and glacial deposits also exist, and couldn't be deposited in a flood. The second is just how the water derived deposits are formed. Water does not nessecarily mean flood. To give a couple of examples: there are rocks that seem to have been deposited by river deltas, and a number of times their upper surfaces have been exposed long enough to be colonised by vegetation and resubmerged. This doesn't exactly seem consistent with a flood. Another example is evapourites. These form when water evapourates and the minerals & salts precipitate out, just like if you left a cup of salty water out in the sun. The order in different minerals precipitate is well understood- those that are less soluable first, followed by those that are more soluable. In evapourite sequences we can see repeating sequences of mineral deposition formed as pools of saline water slowly dry up and are then subsequently refilled, then drying again,etc... This doesn't seem to suggest a flood either.

If you have a serious interest in furthering your knowledge of this subject, I suggest you start following this thread, which I will progressively build on: www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=206&m=1 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=206&m=1">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=206&m=1


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Repzion, posted 07-21-2007 9:11 PM Repzion has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18368
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 104 of 372 (411744)
07-22-2007 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Repzion
07-22-2007 12:19 AM


Repzion writes:

I don't mind ya guys bashing me down, its I just want to see evidence that shows, that it is ALL wrong.

That's the right way to approach this, but becoming convinced by the evidence requires thinking about it and figuring out for yourself what must have happened in order to produce that evidence. With geological events that happened thousands, millions and billions of years ago, none are ever captured on camera. We have to infer what happened from the evidence left behind that still exists today.

It also matters whether you want firsthand evidence or not. For instance, the first point from your list says:

website writes:

Most of the earth's crust consists of sedimentary rocks.

You can find the information that this isn't so at many, many websites and in geology textbooks. For instance, this Wikipedia section on the Earth's Surface says at one point:

Wikipedia writes:

Nearly 75% of the continental surfaces are covered by sedimentary rocks, although they form only about 5% of the crust.

Is that good enough evidence? Or do you want to see the original geology papers that from thousands and thousands of pieces of field data pieced together this information? Or do you want to actually gather the evidence yourself? (This last isn't a real possibility, since the earth is far too big a place for one person to personally gather sufficient evidence to determine how much of the earth's crust is sedimentary rock.)

Science makes a direct connection between theory and the real world by formulating its theories based on evidence from the real world. Because creationist theories are based upon accounts in the Bible, which at the detailed level required by science is not consistent with the real world, their theories tend to have a poor correspondence with the real world.

The question of why sincere Christians would utter obvious falsehoods is a complex one. Glenn Morton, a former creationist, gradually realized the falseness of creationist ideas through his studies as a geologist working for oil companies. In his tale of conversion he hints that much of creationist acceptance of their oddball ideas is an unwillingness to consider implications of the evidence that contradict a young earth. Such evidence becomes just one more item to be set aside for now because it is not yet properly understand. So, for example, creationists reason that sea shells atop mountain peaks is evidence for a young earth, and true these layers go deep into mountains in a way completely inconsistent with the possibility of a young earth or deposition by a global flood, but one day we'll understand this evidence, too. In the meantime it is sufficient just to consider the sea shells on the very top of the mountain.

So if you want to know what really happened in the real world, just make sure your ideas are connected to the real world through evidence gathered from the real world. That would be all the evidence, not just the part atop mountain peaks.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Repzion, posted 07-22-2007 12:19 AM Repzion has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19811
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 105 of 372 (411749)
07-22-2007 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Repzion
07-21-2007 9:11 PM


Re: Here's more Stuff.
Hello Repzion, glad your still working on this.

Several people have pointed out the issue of using websites as whole arguments. The reasons that we don't debate websites are (1) that it is hard to get them to respond, (2) the person who posts such as arguments rarely knows enough to respond to refutations as well, and (3) they can just keep posting more links and more links without having to answer anything (this is similar to what is known as the Gish Gallop).

Some other people have also pointed out some of the more blatant errors in your latest links. While the issue of lies is sensitive (it is hard to prove intent to deceive) there is no question that many of the things listed are falsehoods and that the publishers of such lists are relying on the gullibility and ignorance of the common audience to accept such evidence without question.

This gets us to the issue of critical thinking in education and learning to think for yourself as well as how to evaluate information you are being presented. As an example I'd like to focus on the "logic" arguments from your second link:

(1) For rain to fall for forty uninterrupted days on one localized area is currently close to impossible.

There are several logical fallacies built into this one argument: assumption of the conclusion (assumes the 40 days flood story is true, therefore the flood story is true) and it is conflating "close to impossible" with "impossible" rather than just improbable BUT possible. Check the rainfall periods for rainforests during the rainy ("monsoon") season. This also assumes that the climate we know today prevailed in the past, when in fact we know that it went from ice-age to warm and wet and then to dryer based on analysis of plants and pollen and such.

(2) A rainbow appeared for the first time after the flood, indicating a radical change in atmospheric conditions as a consequence of a cataclysmic event.

This again assumes the story is true to show that the story is true. There is no evidence that rainbows did not occur millions of years ago. There are also no observations from other cultures (including all those other myths about floods) for any such change (remember when I said the details would be contradictory?).

Note, there was a physical change in the atmosphere, but this was due to the first life releasing oxygen into the atmosphere and making aerobic life possible (you and me). This was not "cataclysmic" but occurred over many millions of years and it happened before multicellular life evolved, hardly in time to be observed by any flood survivor. Since then the atmosphere has been similar to what we know today. Before that change light would still be refracted by droplets in the manner that rainbows are created: this is a physical property of light, not of the atmosphere.

(3) The waters remained for over a year. This would not occur in a local flood.

Assertion of the conclusion without supporting argument. We saw with the Missoula Flood that there could be reasons for a flood to occur over extended periods of time.

(4) To be higher than the highest mountains, the flood could not have been local.
(5) To cover the mountains continually for 9 months, the flood could not have been local.

This assumes the highest mountains were actually covered (ie - once again that the story was true). Not everyone can see the peak of Everest where they live. Note that these two are really the same argument.

(6) The purpose of the flood was to destroy all human beings. This could only refer to a worldwide flood.

Assumes the story is true to show the story is true. Also missing logical steps and asserts the conclusion (it only needed to flood where the people were eh?)

(7) If the flood was local, people living elsewhere in the world would have escaped.

Assumes they didn't escape (ie - once again that the story is true), when their is no evidence that other people did not escape (what about all those other flood myths eh?).

(8) The enormous size of the ark (equivalent to the capacity of 500 railroad freight carriages) would hold much more than local species of animals.

Not only does this assume that the ark could hold ALL species (ie - once again that the story is true), but this is an argument from incredulity. Let me word it another way: the extremely small size of the ark (equivalent to less than 0.001% of the capacity of the surface of the earth) would keep it from holding all but a small (highly localized) fraction of the species on the face of the earth. As you can see both of these statements can't be true, but both of them use the same kind of argument.

(9) The purpose of the ark to "keep seed [species - NKJ] alive upon the face of the earth" is only rational if the flood was global.

Another argument from incredulity, plus lack of imagination AND and argument from ignorance. Why could not the same god that created life re-create it? What about all the species in the fossil record that are not alive upon the face of the earth -- many hundreds times the number of current living species? Doesn't this also contradict #6 (you can only have one "the purpose" ...)?

(10) Noah and his family could have migrated to a locality away from the local area to be flooded. There would have been no need to spend 120 years building an ark.
(11) Many of the animals in the flooding area could have easily migrated to escape the deluge if the flood was local. There would have been no need to build an ark to provide them with a safe haven.

Sigh (assumes the story is true to show that the story is true again). Again these are the same argument rather than different points.

(12) If God made a promise based on a lie (ie. that the flood being local rather than global), then he can't be trusted to save us from our sins.

This is known as the argument from consequences, another logical fallacy that does not prevent it from being false.One can easily believe that this story is allegory rather than verbatim truth. This is one of the big falsehoods of fundamentalism: that only their interpretation can be true.

Not one of these arguments is actually based on logic, in spite of the claim. This too is a falsehood. Not one of them show that the conclusion cannot be false, which is what an argument based on logic does. The normal structure is:

Premise 1: IF {A}
Premise 2: IF {B}
Conclusion: THEN {C}
where IF {A} and {B} are true then {C} must be true. One of the unstated premises (another logical fallacy) is that the story is true, and this is begging the conclusion (another logical fallacy) that the story is true.

If you want to learn more about logic, I suggest reading some books on it. You can also look through
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
http://theautonomist.com/aaphp/permanent/fallacies.php

I'm sure you will recognize most of the methods used by advertisements to pusuade? deceive? people into buying the product advertised. And in politics.

One can certainly conclude that any person or website that lists a bunch of statements like this and that calls them logical is either (a) stupid (doesn't understand logic), (b) ignorant (has not learned about logic), (c) deluded (think they know what logic is) or (d) malicious (intentionally misrepresenting logic to deceive the gullibles), and that it cannot be trusted to tell you the truth.

Using logic correctly is one of the basic elements of critical thinking. Learn this and you will go far.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Repzion, posted 07-21-2007 9:11 PM Repzion has not yet responded

Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
25NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019