Re: Darwin misquoted on Wikipedia Natural Selection

backspace wrote, On 2007/09/14 15:41:
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.

Probably because it's some load of crapola you just made up.

And where did I say "according to science"? I didn't appeal to any authority. Not only did I not commit some pretend logical fallacy of yours, I didn't even do an ad hominem, since you don't even have an argument to begin with.

Plainly and simply, I insulted you by calling you an idiot.

Do you know what a Venn diagram is? ISTR them being done in grade 10 math. Each circle indicates a set of items. If the circles overlap, then some items are in both sets.

Finding a new term when reading, whether it's science, art, whatever, is like building up a a mental Venn diagram. So you read one author, and you see that to them <list-of-ideas> is part of <concept>, so that's your first circle. Read a second author, and to them <concept> has <second-list-of-ideas> and even though it's a different list many of its items are still the same and thus you make a second venn circle in your mind which overlaps the first and refines your knowledge of <concept>. Repeat each time you read a new author who discusses <concept>.

You seem to be the only person on the planet who is incapable of building up such mental venn diagrams to help them understand a topic.

In any case, to reinforce what I think of you:

http://images2.jokaroo.net/flash/youareanidiot.swf

Have a nice day. :-)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Darwin misquoted on Wikipedia Natural Selection
    ... science doesn't accord, say or hypothesize anything - only humans do. ... UC will neither confirm nor deny this logical fallacy - only the sound ... Do you know what a Venn diagram is? ... Each circle indicates a set of items. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • THE QUANTUM BRAHMAN
    ... THE QUANTUM BRAHMAN ... Quantum Theory and Vedic Cosmology ... "Science has missed something essential; ... Circle, a synthesis in the harmonies of the cosmos. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • THE QUANTUM BRAHMAN By Robert E Wilkinson
    ... THE QUANTUM BRAHMAN ... Quantum Theory and Vedic Cosmology ... "Science has missed something essential; ... Circle, a synthesis in the harmonies of the cosmos. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • 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: Real scientist (Einstein) versus fake scientists (neo-Darwinists)
    ... >>> Can you point out a single specific logical fallacy in the post you ... >>> DJT ... > snipping propaganda piece. ... it' is an attack against science as a whole". ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading