Welcome, newbies!

quote:

---

There are two evolutionist and two Creationist admins here at present.

---

Actually there are three evolutionist and ("in theory") two creationist admins here. For whatever reason, the creationist admins have chose to be inactive.There is not always a clear cut division between "admin mode" and "non-admin mode". For example, I started the "What is Salty's 'semi-meiotic hypothesis'" topic as Adminnemooseus. Perhaps it should have been as minnemooseus. But, as I see it, there was some admin content in the initial message of that topic.Adminnemooseus

quote:

---

Phillip Johnson are using you as pawns

---

Alrighty then... it's settled. Everyone who believes in creation is just a pawn of a world wide conspiracy led by Johnson. And no doubt Phillip Johnson is a dumbazz, right? Yeah, great argument. Fail to see how people who don't share the same beliefs as you are pawns though.If you could only see how stupid you look and foolish you sound, although such an epiphany would compromise the tomfoolery you project.As far as the truth is concerned, you couldn't accept anything other than evolution. Be nice to yourself and admit it. Ever considered Pangenesis though?Now run along little guy, and tell the world about how great atheism is, how open your mind is (except to creation), and how evolution is entirely consistent with your belief in no god.And get yourself a cookie for always following the status quo and jumping to conclusions so quickly.

Hi all... I've been lurking for at least a month, hopefully long enough not to look too dumb when I post. I've been really impressed by some of the arguments I've seen here thus far, and I've been learning a LOT. So thanks... and I'll be back.

That's not quite what I meant.What I meant was, anyone who parrots and accepts without question the so-called "proofs" of Kent Hovind and a number of other creationist figureheads is the victim of knowing falsehoods propagated by those figures. If somebody is using you to spread their lies, I'd say that makes you a pawn, doesn't it?I used to be a creationist. Now that I know better I see that people were using me. A number of other ex-creationists have come to the same conclusion. Pretty big talk from somebody who won't leave the newbie board. If you've got evidence for a better theory that evolution, please, by all means present it in the appropriate forum! If it explains as much as evolution, as well as things evolution can't explain, then I'll be the first to champion your theory. Seriously. If you can prove god exists I'll even believe in him again.I always entertain the possibility that I could be wrong. That's the scientific method. That doesn't mean I keep such an open mind that my brains fall out, though (to paraphrase Bertrand Russel). And that doesn't mean that I accept a model that contradicts all evidence simply on the say-so of a 2000-year-old book.If you've got some arguments, let's hear 'em. Stop with the name-calling because it makes you look petty and ignorant. I'm totally open to your arguments, although I will debate them. But I'd love to hear what you have so say. Please don't assume I have a closed mind until you've actually presented a case for your beliefs.

Im only 16, But I don't act this immature. Evolution vs. Creation *was* the main topic. But now were just bitchin' at each other. I don't have any religious beliefs, nor am I affiliated with any secret society. I believe the we evoloved from earlier life forms. And everyone is entitled to their own opinions...(Please excuse me if I spelled something wrong...)

Hello all A friend of mine referred me to this board, hope you don't mind if I join in. Looks like fun

quote:

---

That's not quite what I meant.

​

What I meant was, anyone who parrots and accepts without question the so-called "proofs" of Kent Hovind and a number of other creationist figureheads is the victim of knowing falsehoods propagated by those figures. If somebody is using you to spread their lies, I'd say that makes you a pawn, doesn't it?

​

I used to be a creationist. Now that I know better I see that people were using me. A number of other ex-creationists have come to the same conclusion.

---

YES!I see a support group in the making. Wednesday nights at 7 PM, tea and cookies served. Bring your Origin of Species and share your stories of liberation and recovery.* * * * * * * * *BTW, does anyone find "Inquisitor" an ill-advised choice of username?

Support group for ex-creationists... 'Creationists Anonymous?'

Zephyr and Crashandburn,Maybe one of you could back up your bold assertions per forum guidelines by showing the rest of us precisely how Phillip Johnson has lied. I see Crashandburn backpeddled a wee bit when he or she was called out on the carpet for LYING about Phillip Johnson.It was the old "bait and switch" routine:

quote:

---

What I meant was, anyone who parrots and accepts without question the so-called "proofs" of Kent Hovind and a number of other creationist figureheads is the victim of knowing falsehoods propagated by those figures

---

Stop the tape!I mentioned Phillip Johnson solely in response to your deliberate and unethical slander of his person, allegedly based on your failure to understand his logical analysis of evolution in which he found it wanting. You, in turn, "switched" the issue and made up a story that I was "parroting" the proofs of Kent Hovind and a number of "other creationist figureheads" when I DID NO SUCH THING! Moreover, that you assume I would "accept without question" was quite the misplaced insult, not to mention another deliberate act of defamation and bold faced LIE.I see you have an interest in the metaphysical, and the God of the Bible is constantly on your mind. But, if you please, the analysis is the argument for evolution, which takes into consideration the evidence and proofs, but does not consider God. So stick to the issue of evolution and leave God out of it. Or are you so consumed with the God of the Bible that you can't get Him off your mind?But, anyway, I am sure YOU aren't guilty of swalling hook, line, and sinker any evolutionist canard and parroting the same without further inquiry as an unwitting pawn in propagating well-established falsehoods. Phrenology and the Nebraska Man were, of course, before your time.However, one of the current LIES you believe and "propagate" is that Phillip Johnson is a liar. You said that here. But you most likely heard that from someone else as it is doubtful you came to that conclusion on your own. But I am very much interested in seeing you establish that Phillip Johnson is a liar as you say.Take it one sentence at a time. Quote Johnson, then in YOUR OWN WORDS, expose his lying ways. Put up or shut up that lying pie-hole of yours.Or craw back under the propaganda hole from whence you came.

quote:

---

Maybe one of you could back up your bold assertions per forum guidelines by showing the rest of us precisely how Phillip Johnson has lied.

---

I, for one, see no indication that they have done so. As you correctly indicate, crashfrog accused Kent Hovind and a number of others of knowing falsehoods. You may wish to conclude that this implies Philip Johnson, but it can hardly be construed by anyone as a "bold assertion." In fact, the most natural conclusion to draw would be that crashfrog, by not mentioning Philip Johnson in his "accusatory" post, while explicitly naming him in a previous post, was making a distinction between the two men on precisely the point of lying. Crashfrog has made no accusations, implied or otherwsie, of "knowing falsehood" against Philip Johnson. That a "bold assertion" of his lying was made is clearly a delusion.Crashfrog did accuse Kent Hovind of knowing falsehoods - an accusation which you, tellingly, do not take issue with, despite using nearly 400 words to defend Philip Johnson.With the exception of this accusation against Hovind, the only person making accusations of lying on this thread is you - four times in one post.Given your extremely poor standard of logic, your hotheaded resort to insult, and your somewhat incompetent use of English (how one can "craw" "under" a hole, I am not at all sure) I think we can see why you choose to remain on the beginners forum.[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-30-2003]

Crashfrog stated creationists were perpetuating lies and:

quote:

---

Phillip Johnson are using you as pawns

---

Mister Pamboli ignorantly responds:

quote:

---

Crashfrog has made no accusations, implied or otherwsie, of "knowing falsehood" against Philip Johnson.

---

I know, Pamboli doesn't see it, but in truth he does and rather DENIES seeing it in a continuing fabrication of so-so storytelling...
Guess Pamboli would agree that everything Johnson says about evolution is, in fact, not a lie at all. And that was my point. Thanks for making it for me!Wonder who we get next, AdminPamboli, the playground bully, or "Mister Pamboli", resident dumbazz?As to this being an alleged "beginners" forum, Pamboli sure made his presence known here in multiple split personalities. IF you guys suck this bad at debate on a "beginners" forum, you must be telling real whoppers in the "expert" forums. Hoo-boy BTW, Professor Pamboli, you're not as competent in the English language yourself, given that you misspelled "otherwise", supra, after at least one attempt at editing. In fact, I'd say your not competent at all to discuss with authority anything scientific unless you can prove you have the proper credentials and education, relevant experience, and published works from which one may conclude otherwise. Cut and paste, citing other websites, and general paraphrasing of others' ideas is not wholly impressive.And the funniest thing about it all is you truly DO NOT SEE how stupid and irrational you sound.Take a logic class, guy. Maybe you will wake up someday from that foggy delusion.

quote:

---

Take a logic class, guy.

---

Some logical fallacies:

quote:

---

If you could only see how stupid you look and foolish you sound, although such an epiphany would compromise the tomfoolery you project.

---

argumentum ad hominem

quote:

---

But, anyway, I am sure YOU aren't guilty of swalling hook, line, and sinker any evolutionist canard and parroting the same without further inquiry as an unwitting pawn in propagating well-established falsehoods. Phrenology and the Nebraska Man were, of course, before your time.

---

Undistributed Middle

quote:

---

Wonder who we get next, AdminPamboli, the playground bully, or "Mister Pamboli", resident dumbazz?

---

argumentum ad hominem

quote:

---

Guess Pamboli would agree that everything Johnson says about evolution is, in fact, not a lie at all. And that was my point. Thanks for making it for me!

---

Affirming the Consequent

quote:

---

And the funniest thing about it all is you truly DO NOT SEE how stupid and irrational you sound.

---

Prejudicial Language------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

Did you go there? Did you look? Or are you speaking from ignorance? I was just curious.I've stated that Kent Hovind is a liar, because I believe he willfully mistates information and repeats falsehoods he knows to be false. As for Phillip Johnson, I only believe he repeates other people's falsehoods. Does he know them to be false? I can't say, therefore I can't say he's a liar. But I do lump him in with people who spread falsehood, because he does.I think you mentioned his "logical" critique of evolution; it would be more accurate to say that he had a legalistic critique of evolution, and as far as scientists are concerned, that's an irrelavant position. Anyone who has observed the legal process knows that it is not a useful method for arriving at accurate, truthful accounts.If you want to debate evolution, I'll start. All you've done is call names and misrepresent my statements. (After all, I could hardly accuse YOU specifically of spreading Hovind's misstatements as you've made no statements of substance at all!)The evidence for evolution can be summarized into several points. Taken together, the simplest explanation is the scientific theory of evolution, that all life we see today is decended (with modification) from one original ancestor.1) The fossil record, which shows a development of modern taxa through various intermediate stages. In addition, the fossil record is sorted such that simpler organisms appear in the record earlier than more complex ones. For instance, no mammals are found in pre-cambrian rock.2) The similarity of modern organisms, morphologically and genetically, suggests a hierarchy of relationship. In general, these inferred relationships corellate strongly to the geographical distribution of species (i.e. species that are the most similar tend to be found closest to each other.)3) The robustness of natural selection acting on random mutation as a means of adaptation and speciation has been regularly observed countless times. It has been tested, modeled, and tested again, and is one of the more experimentally confirmed mechanisms in science.There's a number of further evidences against Young Earth Creationism, specifically:1) The apparent age of the earth, as well as the universe, inferred by a number of separate, unrelated dating mechanisms, appears far, far older that 6000 years.2) No global flood could have occured. The mere existence of areas such as the Canadian Shield, where no depositional rocks are found, proves that a global flood could not have occured.3) Populational genetics studies of animals are very good at finding bottleneck events (near-extinctions) in their past. The Ark story would have been a drastic bottleneck event, but no evidence for it exists in the genetics of the animals.4) No confirmable mechanisms for sudden creation. No god has ever been observed creating life.This is just a little of the evidence for evolution as well as against creation. I'm sure others could step in and fill in what I may have omitted. I await your rebuttal, if debate is truly what you're after. I predict, however, that you will ignore my evidence and continue to call us names, etc. Please, prove me wrong.

quote:

---

I know, Pamboli doesn't see it, but in truth he does and rather DENIES seeing it in a continuing fabrication of so-so storytelling...

---

It is good to see we finally have a psychic on the board - this should help us understand the thought processes of others a little better. It is probably a deficiency in my logical training, but I do not see, and can't find you demonstrating, that "using as a pawn" is equivalent to "propagating a known falsehood."

quote:

---

Guess Pamboli would agree that everything Johnson says about evolution is, in fact, not a lie at all. And that was my point. Thanks for making it for me!

---

I can't quite see anyone on claiming that "everything Johnson says about evolution" is a lie. Is there a reason for your hyperbole? I imagine there are many things Johnson says about evolution which are true. I also imagine there are many things he says about evolution which are deeply mistaken. I do not imagine for a minute that he knowingly promulgates falsehood.

quote:

---

Wonder who we get next, AdminPamboli, the playground bully, or "Mister Pamboli", resident dumbazz?

---

You'll hear from AdminPamboli if you breach forum guidelines. For now, AdminPamboli, is being a little tolerant because he feels you are struggling and he is giving you the benefit of the doubt, as he does for other newbies on this forum.Mister Pamboli, on the other hand, is puzzled by the phrase "dumbazz" which he has only heard from Inquisitor. He wonders what it could mean? Could it be a breach of rule 3 of the forum? If he thinks so, he'll fire some synaptic complaints to AdminPamboli demanding action.

quote:

---

BTW, Professor Pamboli, you're not as competent in the English language yourself, given that you misspelled "otherwise", supra, after at least one attempt at editing.

---

Oh, I make lots of spelling mistakes and I am of course open to correction. However, so far as I am aware, a spelling mistake is not a logical miscontruction or an egregiously constructed metaphor: that is to say, it shows no lack of facultative reasoning.

quote:

---

In fact, I'd say your not competent at all to discuss with authority anything scientific unless you can prove you have the proper credentials and education, relevant experience, and published works from which one may conclude otherwise.

---

I do not believe I have ever discussed a scientific matter in a manner that would claim personal authority on the subject. I cannot quite see how anyone could do so on this forum, as we are not really aware of the identities of other posters. Personally, I am always skeptical of authority, which is why I go to some length to support my lines of argument with quotations from primary soource material wherever possible. Would you have me do otherwise?

quote:

---

Cut and paste, citing other websites, and general paraphrasing of others' ideas is not wholly impressive.

---

Oh. You would have me do otherwise. Well, tell you what, Inquisitor, if you ever feel like taking part in the detailed topics on this forum, you can explain to us your bona fides. Of course, proving them may be a problem, this being the internet.

quote:

---

And the funniest thing about it all is you truly DO NOT SEE how stupid and irrational you sound.

---

That is why I am so glad we can have these little chats. Your ability to calmly, rationally and lucidly illuminate the logical of others without recourse to insult, fallacy or pretentions to authority are much appreciated.

Well, we can only hope that AdminMinisterPamboli will learn from your list. And each will apply it to his or herself.However, it goes too far to conclude that every noted phrase were viable logical fallacies. Affirming the consequence perhaps, but the others are my mere observations, not intended for logical argument, and labeling the same as the actual fallacies one must be on notice of when critically analyzing a text purporting to be a logical argument is quite the misnomer. The distinction is one of degree, and the umbrella of logic does not stretch over every written word. Consider it like poetry, and poetry, though it provokes THOUGHT, is not logical much less an argument.In short, your list would be helpful if only it were relevant. You did learn about relevance in your logic class? Isn't there some latin word for the official name of that oft repeated fallacy?Anybody gonna show me how Phillip E. Johnson is a liar, or are all you punks just P-O-S-E-R-S???