Oh, NOW I get it. Thank you so much for explaining it to me!
One logical fallacy proves nothing. But a large number of logical fallacies proves neo-Darwinism.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Wait, wait, wait... let me get this straight.
We are talking about two essays, each of which has been produced by an intelligent actor. In fact, one might say that they have been intelligently designed. Then, we determine that they are extremely similar.
Excuse my bluntness, but what the heck...
This is a stupid argument that presupposes the truth of its conclusion.
It is not different from someone saying, "Oh yeah? If you don't believe in Zeus, God of lightning, then why do you use electricity?"
Oh, I know exactly how science is done. That's why I call it a crock of shoot.
Don't forget that more than 80 percent of published scientific research findings are false.
I'll take that as an admission that you have no rebuttal.
Now who's making the straw man argument, eh? I have criticized...
According to which of the species concepts. Surely not based on the recognition concept. Surely not based on the biological concept. It must be based on the phenetic concept. I guess one out of three isn't bad.
I agree that atheism is not a belief system. You, however, have a belief system that is not atheism. Then you try to pass it off as atheism. It's intelectually dishonest.
I think it is you who does not understand what faith is. Everything that everyone does is based on faith. If I didn't...
Two major mistakes with your rebuttal (so-called). The first mistake is that my post clearly said: "If theist is defined as a person who believes in one single God, the creator of the universe..."
You do know the meaning of the word "if," don't you?
The second mistake you are making is that we...
You're wrong. I am an authority. I should also point out the irony of a person correcting someone's grammar in run-on sentences.
You may not grasp this explanation, and that's fine. I'm going to make it anyway and just leave you to understand or not.
Let's take a simple sentence:
That red...
First of all, in English, we say a person who rather than a person that.
Second, had I quoted Wiktionary, I might have agreed with you. After all, Wiktionary is put together by a team of unpaid volunteers who are experts at nothing. Dictionary.com, however, is drawn from the Random House...
Wonky definition? It's the definition provided at dictionary.com
You do know how to use reference works such as dictionaries, don't you?
I do not.
I do.
Exactly.
No, I think YOU need to understand the argument.
What else were we expecting? Perhaps a logical argument.
So far what I have seen is this:
A bird flew to an island and had babies with another bird.
Therefore, it's not COMPLETELY impossible that an amoeba COULD become a dinosaur given billions of years.
Therefore, it's CERTAIN that this is...
Your argument presupposes that polar bears and brown bears are different species. And please don't quote Wikipedia as though it were authoritative. It is not.
No, I understand your argument (if we can call it that) perfectly.
One human chromosome has what scientists believe is the remnant of a centromere in one human chromosome. Scientists reason: If there was a fusion, we would see this. Since we do see this, there must have been a fusion.
This is...
Nonsense.
If theist is defined as a person who believes in one single God, the creator of the universe AND
if atheist is defined as a person who is without such a belief.
Then Evangelicalhumanist is not an atheist, full stop.
It is not that he lacks such a belief but rather that he spends an...
More garbage.
If the birds were really of two different species, then interbreeding would not be possible as that's the very definition of the word.
You might as well argue that John Smith, a different species, arrived in America and successfully wooed Pocahontas, thus creating offspring of a...
Melons also have 24 chromosomes. Obviously, humans are descended directly from melons and suffered a fusion event in the past, thus reducing the number of human chromosomes to 23.
Ridiculous. Seriously, I would love to see your face right now, because I find it hard to believe that you can spout such rubbish with a straight face.
Even assuming that all of this nonsense were some sort of a theory that could stand up to the most elementary scrutiny, are you not the one who...
It would be helpful if you read the question, understood it, and then responded appropriately.
The question has two parts:
1. HOW did sexual reproduction evolve
and
2. WHY did sexual reproduction evolve
Even assuming that your long cut-and-paste answered the latter part of the question, it...
Yes, Sayek -- I have a simple question about evolution.
How and why did sexual reproduction evolve? Asexual reproduction is an extremely effective method of reproducing. Yet 99.99% of eukaroytes engage in sexual reproduction. However, there is good reasons to believe that sexual reproduction is...
This is, of course, pure nonsense. We need look no further than this post to see what atheism is. It's the assertion that there is nothing there.
Theism is the assertion that there is something there.
Agnosticism is just honestly admitting that one does not know and, indeed, that one cannot...