Re: Darwin misquoted on Wikipedia Natural Selection

On Sep 14, 9:41 pm, backspace <sawireless2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 14, 3:58 am, Cory Albrecht <coryalbre...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



backspace wrote, On 2007/09/13 14:23:

There is no person by the name of "evolution". I am not asking some
abstract undefined 'evolution' concept but a human being to explain me
the origin of life. If you as a human can't even begin to explain
where life came from then how do you know that the common descent
hypothesis explains anything. The mechanism that is responsible for

That's a load of manure, and you know it.

What you are suggesting is similar to saying:

Because scientists can't prove how gravity is transmitted
how can they even begin to explain that things will fall
down when you drop them.

I'd really love to know your pragmatics in playing out this "I'm to
dense to understand what everybody has written about it" game. Either
you truly are that stupid and cannot pick up what a term means through
context, or you are deliberately being deceptive. Which would you prefer
I think?

I have posted this probably 10 times now. You are committing a logical
fallacy known as *Appeal to Abstract Authority*. For the record
science doesn't accord, say or hypothesize anything - only humans do.
There is no such person by the name of science and thus there is no
such thing as "...according to science...", no it is according
somebody with this person particular pragmatics and aphobetics or
agenda. We all have agendas. What is interesting is that Wilkins and
UC will neither confirm nor deny this logical fallacy - only the sound
of silence from them, just watch and see. And Dr.Wilkins is great fan
of exposing logical fallacies, on his blog he probably goes through
over 20 but he dares not touch the Appeal to abstract authority.

Cory Albrecht didn't say "according to science" anywhere in his post
as far as I can see. You've gone from taking a short sentence in a
long post and going on a total tangent from it, to not saying anything
relevant at all. It's sad.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Darwin misquoted on Wikipedia Natural Selection
    ... the origin of life. ... science doesn't accord, say or hypothesize anything - only humans do. ... Typically in science the agenda is to understand. ... UC will neither confirm nor deny this logical fallacy - only the sound ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwin misquoted on Wikipedia Natural Selection
    ... the origin of life. ... science doesn't accord, say or hypothesize anything - only humans do. ... agenda. ... UC will neither confirm nor deny this logical fallacy - only the sound ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Darwin misquoted on Wikipedia Natural Selection
    ... the origin of life. ... science doesn't accord, say or hypothesize anything - only humans do. ... agenda. ... UC will neither confirm nor deny this logical fallacy - only the sound ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Ethical Relativism (Cultural Differences Argument)
    ... There is some science behind your statement. ... I don't think there is any reason to get nasty, ... >> logical fallacy is still a logical fallacy. ... I get enjoyment from life? ...
    (sci.logic)
  • FIVU: New, "then and now" ( THEORETICAL COMMENTARY)
    ... The structural antropology and social science theories are to the ... ontological Theory of Process as the nano hole to its product ... the exact nature of that influence is not easy to define. ... element of social and psychological life has meaning only in relation ...
    (soc.culture.usa)
Loading