Intelligent Design is not creationism

kjkent1 · Jan 19, 2007

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

(We see a lot of this in this thread)

Argument from ignorance

The two most common forms of the argument from ignorance, both fallacious, can be reduced to the following form:

* Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently explained, so it was not (or could not be) true.
* Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.

An adage regarding this fallacy from the philosophy of science is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence": Not having evidence for something is not proof that something is not or cannot be true. Similarly, merely not having evidence for a particular proposition is not proof that an alternative proposition is instead the case - it is in fact simply lack of evidence, and nothing more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

I'll say we do. This is where you live.

ZZZzzzzzzz · Jan 20, 2007

Hey, attorney's win cases when the jury is too stupid to understand logical fallacy, same with the sheeple who buy into people like Hannity, Coulter, Limfat, etc.

I don't mind your beliefs at all, your right, but please don't confuse them with logical truths...

and I quote:

"There is only the illusion of design."

Logical fallacy, argument from ignorance.

Quote from kjkent1:

I'll say we do. This is where you live.

kjkent1 · Jan 20, 2007

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Hey, attorney's win cases when the jury is too stupid to understand logical fallacy, same with the sheeple who buy into people like Hannity, Coulter, Limfat, etc.

I don't mind your beliefs at all, your right, but please don't confuse them with logical truths...

and I quote:

"There is only the illusion of design."

Logical fallacy, argument from ignorance.

Like I said, this is where you live.

ZZZzzzzzzz · Jan 20, 2007

Like I have said before to others, pure materialists have the depth of imagination and philosophical development of a piece of wood. They often make successful attorneys or insurance salesmen, but they rarely make great art.

Shakespeare understood human nature perhaps better than anyone, apparently you reject that human nature in others, and even perhaps in yourself.

A person can live in LA, but his heart can be in San Francisco...

Quote from kjkent1:

Like I said, this is where you live.

kjkent1 · Jan 20, 2007

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Like I have said before to others, pure materialists have the depth of imagination and philosophical development of a piece of wood. They often make successful attorneys or insurance salesmen, but they rarely make great art.

Shakespeare understood human nature perhaps better than anyone, apparently you reject that human nature in others, and even perhaps in yourself.

A person can live in LA, but his heart can be in San Francisco...

Well, I've never worked with Tony Bennett. But, I've worked with Cold Blood and Tower of Power -- both from the Bay Area.

So, like I said, argument from ignorance is where you live.

ZZZzzzzzzz · Jan 20, 2007

non sequitur

Quote from kjkent1:

Well, I've never worked with Tony Bennett. But, I've worked with Cold Blood and Tower of Power -- both from the Bay Area.

So, like I said, argument from ignorance is where you live.

stu · Jan 20, 2007

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
H2O becomes water?
LOL, you really are as dumb as you write...
Your appeal is to scientists, which is an appeal to authority.
Why you shy away from that, is beyond me.

It is beyond you?
Well it seems there is much which is beyond you, including an appropriate use for the term non sequitur.
For instance it is beyond you that your own appeal to have me appeal to something I do not appeal to, serves more to demonstrate you have no argument.

So you changed your beliefs in water? Then even your own appeal to gaumlessness is not working all that well .

stu · Jan 20, 2007

Quote from I am...:

Who expressed this?

You did. All you need do is go back and read .

Unless you want to remove the thing you call God from the "core of the Universe" , you expressed It as something vain and conceited.
You also expressed math wrongly as I pointed out to you.
Hope this helps.

stu · Jan 20, 2007

Quote from jem:

Stu you reason like a turd. susskind did not contradict his own book and writings on the radio.

try using your brain. the guy is one of the smartest guys around he did change the thesis of his book on the radio.

jem, your argument is so f*kd up at this stage, in comparison to it, a turd would give Einstein a run for money.

I am... · Jan 20, 2007

Quote from stu:

Gilbert is God +1

Quote from I am...:

Who expressed this?

Quote from stu:

You did. All you need do is go back and read .

Unless you want to remove the thing you call God from the "core of the Universe" , you expressed It as something vain and conceited.

Quote from I am...
The desire to be special is at the core of the making of this universe.

In Heaven, all are equal to each other and to God the Father. In Heaven, all have everything - are everything - in which not even the Father considers Himself special.

Quote from stu:
Unless you want to remove the thing you call God from the "core of the Universe" , you expressed It as something vain and conceited.

Gilbert is God +1

Quote from I am...
The desire to be special is at the core of the making of this universe.

Quote from stu:

Gilbert is God +1

Relying on every one else being wrong so that a special invisible Creator can be right, is nothing more than your own argument from personal authority.

Quote from I am...
... not even the Father considers Himself special.

Quote from stu:

Funny how there is no "math" for it, that will be because quite frankly it doesn't add up.