designtheorist writes:
Regarding the issue of traction, the thread has generated a lot of interest. No atheist has decided to believe in God, but that was not the goal. People have new information about the big bang and the history of big bang theory. As a result, people are thinking about the big bang in a new and different way whether they want to admit it or not. That's progress.
I'll ask again: do you know what traction is? Interest is
not traction. Progress is
not traction.
*sigh* As Percy says: "If you are having to explain the meaning of common-place words, then it is probably time to give up."
designtheorist writes:
A claim that I am presenting an Argument from Authority does not defeat the argument. After all, the expert I am quoting could be correct. None of my arguments have been defeated. They may have been named or misnamed, but that is not the same thing.
Wrong - again. It
does defeat your argument. Showing that your argument is fallacious proves it is false.
Does it show that there is no god? No. But you can't prove that something doesn't exist. The onus is on the person (you) claiming that something (god)
does exist.
But your continued reliance on flawed, faulty, fallacious arguments is not getting you anywhere.
designtheorist writes:
Here's a quote for you: "Appealing to authority is frequent in common discourse where providing complete evidence is rarely possible, and in many cases is a weak form of evidence rather than a logical fallacy."
‘Jl‘TI—oCg
I would say in many cases it is even strong evidence. If the question is "What did Albert Einstein say about x?" then quoting Albert Einstein is the strongest form of evidence possible (as long as it is a relevant quote and not out of context to change the meaning).
And here's a quote for you: "Arguments based on [quote-mining can be] an appeal to authority, it involves quoting an authority on the subject out of context, in order to misrepresent that authority as supporting some position." (
Wiki) - and that is exactly what you did.
Your inability to understand what an Argument From Authority is, does not make your arguments valid.
For every scientist you name that changed to religion I could show one that changed to atheism or didn't change at all. This shows how flawed your argument is. But if you want to continue using logical fallacies then I will happily continue to point out that you are wrong.
designtheorist writes:
I did copy and paste one sentence as it contained the quote I was looking for and saved me keystrokes, but it is too short to be considered plagiarism.
You knowingly copied and pasted it and pretended it was your own work. That is plagiarism.
designtheorist writes:
Here is a definition of quote-mining from RationalWiki: "Quote mining is the deceitful tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint."
I did not quote Burbidge out of context. For example, I did not claim Burbidge held to the Big Bang theory. Burbidge was a witness to the impact the big bang had on astronomers and physicists and it bothered him. Like Fred Hoyle, Burbidge was a steady state guy (who had to keep changing his view because observations kept disproving his theory). I hate to sound like I'm ragging on Burbidge because he was a brilliant guy, but his strident atheism kept him from embracing Big Bang Theory.
As you have finally admitted (in
Message 233), you
did quote-mine. You quoted him out of context and misrepresented what he was saying.
You need to stop blindly believing those creationist web-sites you are relying on.
designtheorist writes:
As to honesty and logic, these are two of my strong points.
Really? The evidence so far is inconclusive.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue
™ Version 4.2
(1)