• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:926]The central evolution problem

Re: The central evolution problem

zyzygy said:
They very rarely get there terms right. See what comes from ignoring dictionaries?
Click to expand...

"I read this book on logic, but I think it was upside down and maybe backwards. Hope I'm using this term in the right way!"
 
Re: The central evolution problem

zyzygy said:
An inversion fallacy is denying the antecedent but he wouldn't know that.
Click to expand...
So Google is your friend. Bene. Now Google "antecedent."
 
Re: The central evolution problem

Tanngrisnir said:
"I read this book on logic, but I think it was upside down and maybe backwards. Hope I'm using this term in the right way!"
Click to expand...

If only there was a way that they could check the meanings of words.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

zyzygy said:
If only there was a way that they could check the meanings of words.
Click to expand...
Did you look up "antecedent"? There'll be a pop quiz on conditional arguments in the morning. Be prepared.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

Good4Nothin said:
Believing that intelligence is a natural property of the universe has nothing to do with belonging to clubs or believing in a sky daddy. It has nothing to do with being angry or frightened. It is a valid philosophical/scientific perspective.
Click to expand...

Begging your pardon, but it is not a scientific perspective. There are missing pieces before it could become scientific. .. such as a model where that can exist, and a way to test that model, or any evidence for it what so ever that isn't full of confirmation bias.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

Good4Nothin said:
It wasn't drivel. I posted an article about the work some very well known physicists have been doing on the brain and consciousness. And it explained the evidence for their theory.
Click to expand...

What you don't seem to understand just because some physicists have come up with an idea doesn't mean it's true. There is a difference between an essay and wishful thinking from someone (even if they are a scientist) verses actually doing science.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

gfm7175 said:
Evidence doesn't get 'demonstrated' into existence. It simply IS...

Beginners guide for how to provide evidence for something:
1) Form an argument.
2) Make a statement that supports your argument from #1.
3) BAM! You have evidence for your argument.

Evidence doesn't magically stop being evidence simply because you don't like it or find it to be convincing...
Click to expand...



You have redefined the concept of "evidence" by claiming it's just a 'statement' - any old statement will do as long as it's a 'statement'.

Lets have a look by using your uhh... "logic" shall we?

1) The world is flat. (Argument)
2) The world is flat because Science says it is. ('Statement' to support argument 1)
3) BAM! I have evidence for my argument!

This is pretty much how you seem to err.... 'argue'
 
Last edited:
Re: The central evolution problem

Tanngrisnir said:
It's simply extraordinary how often, just like another poster in this very thread, he'll toss out terms he is completely ignorant of.

He's guilty of the Three-Tiered Double Bang Bang Fallacy!
Click to expand...

I think it's more the Phallus Head fallacy.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

Good4Nothin said:
Nothing I said here was ripped apart by you or anyone else. All you do is repeat your unthinking dogma, never with relevant evidence.
Click to expand...

Then, with confidence, you can expalin your clear, supported by real world evidence, point.

Go for it!
 
Re: The central evolution problem

Tim the plumber said:
My evidence is the success of science and the continued working of the natural world
Click to expand...
.What the hell???

Evidence of what for what?
Click to expand...
Brilliant! You don't even know what we're talking about! You ask for evidence and don't know what you're asking for evidence for!
The DP "Skeptic" in a nutshell!
 
Last edited:
Re: The central evolution problem

RAMOSS said:
What you don't seem to understand just because some physicists have come up with an idea doesn't mean it's true. There is a difference between an essay and wishful thinking from someone (even if they are a scientist) verses actually doing science.
Click to expand...
"What you don't seem to understand" is just how much you don't seem to understand, or just how little you do understand.
As a secret follower of Spinoza you've made a mockery of Spinozism -- it does not mean Spin.
By all means keep pontificating. That's your right. But that doesn't mean you're right. And that's "what you don't seem to understand."
 
Re: The central evolution problem

Angel said:
Brilliant! You don't even know what we're talking about! You ask for evidence and don't know what you're asking for evidence for!
The DP "Skeptic" in a nutshell!
Click to expand...

To do this debating thing you have to present arguments that hold together.

If you present something as evidence you have to say what it is evidence of and how this evidence shows the thing you are trying to support with the evidence.

You have to explain the mechanism.

Otherwise you will make yourself look a complete idiot.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

zyzygy said:
An inversion fallacy is denying the antecedent but he wouldn't know that.
Click to expand...
Did you look up "antecedent" in one of the many dictionaries lining your walls?
It's morning, little buddy, and time for the pop quiz I promised you last evening.
Here's your question:
Whenever gfm7175 calls a member out on the Inversion Fallacy, besides "denying the antecedent," what else is that member denying?
 
Re: The central evolution problem

Tim the plumber said:
To do this debating thing you have to present arguments that hold together.

If you present something as evidence you have to say what it is evidence of and how this evidence shows the thing you are trying to support with the evidence.

You have to explain the mechanism.

Otherwise you will make yourself look a complete idiot.
Click to expand...

All we know at the moment is that it is a vague "higher intelligence". We await proof or even a logical and reasoned argument.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

Angel said:
Did you look up "antecedent" in one of the many dictionaries lining your walls?
It's morning, little buddy, and time for the pop quiz I promised you last evening.
Here's your question:
Whenever gfm7175 calls a member out on the Inversion Fallacy, besides "denying the antecedent," what else is that member denying?
Click to expand...

You dont accept dictionaries so why are you asking Zyg to use one?

Still waiting for you to support these claims:
1. Evolution is evident.
2. Evolution is evidence of the natural order.
3. The natural order is evident.
4. The natural order is evidence of design.
5. Design is evident.
6. Design is evidence of intelligence.
7. Therefore, evolution is evidence of intelligent design.

Waiting, waiting, waiting...…
 
Re: The central evolution problem

Quag said:
You dont accept dictionaries so why are you asking Zyg to use one?
...
Click to expand...
Because zyz swears by 'em. I respect all faiths and denominations.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

zyzygy said:
All we know at the moment is that it is a vague "higher intelligence". We await proof or even a logical and reasoned argument.
Click to expand...
Pull that head out from under the sheets. This boogeyman asked you a question.

Angel said:
Did you look up "antecedent" in one of the many dictionaries lining your walls?
It's morning, little buddy, and time for the pop quiz I promised you last evening.
Here's your question:
Whenever gfm7175 calls a member out on the Inversion Fallacy, besides "denying the antecedent," what else is that member denying?
Click to expand...
 
Re: The central evolution problem

Angel said:
Because zyz swears by 'em. I respect all faiths and denominations.
Click to expand...

But you wont accept the definitions in them, so its pointless
 
Re: The central evolution problem

Quag said:
But you wont accept the definitions in them, so its pointless
Click to expand...

I refer to them now and again. We don't know what he means when he says faith and denominations.
 
Re: The central evolution problem

zyzygy said:
I refer to them now and again. We don't know what he means when he says faith and denominations.
Click to expand...
"We"? Is that the Royal We, your majesty?
 
Re: The central evolution problem

Quag said:
But you wont accept the definitions in them, so its pointless
Click to expand...
Don't tell me what I will or won't accept and I won't tell you what you don't know and haven't a clue about, yes?
 
Re: The central evolution problem

Angel said:
Don't tell me what I will or won't accept and I won't tell you what you don't know and haven't a clue about, yes?
Click to expand...

Are you using those words in their dictionary definitions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom