Sorry that link isn't made to flame-throw Percy though reading my message it might have sounded that way. I say "daft" in regards to my personal reasonings about it, I'm not saying that scientists or evolutionists are daft. I won't make any more comments here, just "sorry" I should have wrote that message more patiently, I tend to rush things.
I updated my blog with some conversational-ponderings about the probabilities of abiogenesis and intelligent design. That latest blog isn't written with any great intellectually ambitious gusto and verve, it's just the stream of intangible mikey-thoughts that propagated forth from my weird and wonderful mikey-brain.
"There probably is no blob". That is to say - a blob isn't how life began! Do not be offended, if I do not believe your ancestors were blobs!!
I experience a lot of personal remarks, allusions, and epithets, agressivity towards me by the evolution side. I have noticed this since 2003, which shows there is a generally low IQ at these types of forums which could represent a kind of condensed group of bullies, you could say.
Not all evolutionists are the same of course, I would never argue that. There are certainly the eloquent few that have a good grasp of reasoning and tend to not fall into the trap of emotive language or caustic cursing.
One of the most common fallacies committed by evolutionists on the Internet is the fallacy of the question-begging epithet
I would agree, that has been my experience.
J. Lisle writes:
Yelling or vulgar language during a debate is always an example of this fallacy. Many times people will turn up the vocal volume to compensate for a lack of cogency in their argument
Ironically, many of those who use mocking or vulgar language in forums seem to think that their rhetoric constitutes a good argument. Far from it. Such language is an indication of a serious lack of critical thinking skills
There are several evolution blogs that consist of virtually nothing but emotionally charged language. The authors make no logical case for their position, and students of logic will easily recognize that such rhetoric is nothing more than emotional venting (much like a child throwing a tantrum.)
That's a prime example of a question-begging-epithet, thanks. But did you know that, or did you read the link? In the link he gives examples just like your one.
Because this is a way of accusing me using rhetorical words, instead of a cogent argument. That's the exact rhetoric Jason Lisle expounds. He gives examples from real forums/blogs. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your knew what you were saying.
Of course, I personally don't see what the big deal is in admitting that the warm-pond was Darwin's idea. It only has relevance to evolution. Now if evolutionists were to say, "yes, we have to argue abiogenesis, because we accept evolution" then I would be okay with that.
It seems to me, people want to disassociate themselves from abiogenesis, because it is a poor explanation of specified complexity and is basically a belief, which draws people away from the power of the epithetical value the word, 'science' can gain, for their materialistic worldview.
I shall shut up now, since this is only a thread for links.
It would be impolite for me to not share this link to Phat and the members of EvC, since I gave mention of him and EvC forum, at another site. It could be deemed to be very rude to mention people behind their back, so here is the link if you would like to read it: it is my examination of the study by evolutionist that told unbelievers in evolution to, "think harder".
It would seem as though the writer of the study doesn't have any knowledge of potential errors that can be inferred from her study.
Just posted this at EFF. It's not a refutation of human evolution, it actually isn't a study of human evolution at all, it is just a logical evaluation of similar shapes/structures. It's just for reading, you don't have to, "hate" on me, just read it or don't. I think the points I have made are pretty unavoidably true, it seems to me that showing anatomies that "evolve" is easier to do if two anatomies are already similar. Obviously it is begging-the-question to assume that those similarities are because of evolution if that is what you are trying to prove. (evolution)
But that's exactly my point. A whale is a mammal, with mammalian-bones by design, so to find bones of land-mammals that look similar to it is tautologous.
Indeed, shapes similar to eachother being more similar is tautologous.
The term you were looking for was, "tautologous".
The point is - it is then easy to make it look like there was an evolution even if there was not.
Have you noticed there isn't anything really all that similar to a seahorse and so there are no ancestors for that fish.
Why is it that where there is dissimilarity, there tends to be no evolution-story? I don't see you providing a whole selection for platypus evolution, unless you are going to use ducks as your transitionals.
Perhaps NoNukes, you should put your brain into gear next time - everything you have just said supports the whole point of what I am saying. In a world where there are millions of organisms you are going to be able to create transitionals for many of them, even if evolution had not happened, because mathematically and logically, it is GUARANTEED that you have an anatomical smorgasboard.
You should also realize that a, "rebuttal" could be regarded as a, "response" to an argument. Merely responding to an argument can be be done by anyone, even a five year old. But an actual refutation is an entirely different matter.
Please now REFRAIN from trying to debate me in the links and information thread. I only responded to your post because you gave me permission by responding to a link, with an argument.
Oh, look. Your post already has a rebuttal that is a pretty good start on why your point is pretty silly
Ahh but the problem with saying these things about someone far cleverer than you will ever be, is that they can actually make you look silly, rather than just calling you silly(or your points at least). some epithets such as, "silly", "rebuttal" and "good start", won't wash with me. Those are just empty-headed, bare-assertions, and tomato-throwing.