Welcome, newbies!

Besides atacking his experience, why don't we attack his arguement? After all, with his lack of skooling all his arguements must be easily brushed aside, right?By your logic, because I'm a sophmore Environmental Studies major, I can't argue with "Dr." Dino. I have arguements that are more than valid with him. Most of which are carefully researched by people much smarter than I am.

quote:

---

"Posers" never actually do get around to showing us HOW they know-it-all however...

---

Describes Inquisitor to a T don't you think? Can anyone find an example of Inquisitor supporting a single line of argument except from their own authority?For my part, I am convinced this is the same person who posted here as Zephan - the same insistent appeal to arguments from authority, the same inability to support any argument, the same frequent reference to terms of rhetoric and informal logic, with the same lack of application of principles of informal logic and rhetoric in their own posts.Let's see if Inquisitor can actually graduate to posting anything substantial. I think they have nothing to say, in fact I'm just about sure of it. I predict that given a detailed discussion on a matter of substance Inquisitor will resort to name-calling, argument from pretended authority, and what L. Susan Stebbing used to call the inverse argument from authority - the latter rather nicely exemplified by Inquisitor's insistence that the others look or sound stupid.So, Inquisitor, why not register and open a thread on the main board? There's a wide variety of forums. You could open a topic on the application of logical argument in the Coffee House thread, where I would be delighted to cross swords.

Crashfrog on Phillip Johnson, in response to me asking for the specific falsehood Phillip Johnson is parroting:

quote:

---

Well, for instance, creationism, which is false in my belief, and therefore to spread it is to spread a falsehood. That's why I said I believe he spreads falsehood. Also he appears to believe that science can be accurately judged on legal grounds - another falsehood.

---

You've never read Phillip Johnson, have you? Thus, under your reasoning, it is unfair to continue calling you a liar, since you are merely "spreading falsehoods" about Johnson and are just ignorant of what you are saying. If it pleases you to be this ignorant about perpetuating lies, why should I engage in further debate on your alleged 100% proof of evolution? Especially since you won't define the term.Unlike you, I consider having an agreed upon definition of a theoretical concept nailed down prior to engaging in critical analysis of your so-called undisputable evidence for the theoretical concept. Such is the foundation of critical thinking. So don't define evolution, fine by me. You are one hell of a critical thinker. Gives you an easy way out of the debate, doesn't it? Feels good to bow out for a reason other than being exposed as a pawn parroting UNTRUE things about Phillip Johnson, solely because he makes a rather compelling argument against the viability of evolution and you heard some other evolutionist talk smack about him.Show me where Johnson spread creationism. I recall Johnson specifically stating in Darwin on Trial that he was NOT arguing for creation. The position he took was that evolution was an invalid conclusion based on what was being alleged as evidence. You therefore err in your thinking that someone is arguing for creation by exposing the fallacy of evolution. Evolution is either correct or not, and stands or falls on its own; creation is irrelevant to the ToE. You are just too insecure to be left without a pet theory. Unfortunately, you won't even define the theory. Evolution is not as self-evident as you have led yourself to believe, unless you define the theory as such, which is what I expect in a future definition if you ever get around to working one up.Show me as well where Johnson "appears to believe" science can be judged on legal grounds, and please articulate precisely those legal grounds because I don't recall him saying that either. Even if he did say that, you would call that a falsehood? Have you never heard of Forensic Evidence? Everyday, science IS ACCURATELY judged on what you call legal grounds, whatever it is you mean by "legal grounds". So, you are quite wrong again, and you are being used as a pawn to spread another falsehood. I sense you are a very dishonest person who doesn't even know what evolution truly means, and certainly is clueless as to Johnson's argument.Why you called Johnson a liar is the real question...To any reasonable person, saying that one is "spreading falsehoods" would mean the same thing. Didn't anyone ever tell you that telling another lie to cover up the first one doesn't work very well?

I don't recall establishing "100%" proof. No such thing could exist in science. But as for definitions: Propose a definition. We'll debate it. Why should I have to do your basic scholarship for you?You already know what evolution is, or else you wouldn't be here.Please, propose a definition. I am not a biologist and therefore cannot be the authority as to what constitutes evolution and what does not. You don't appear to be troubled by that, though. By all means, why don't you tell us what evolution is? Of course, for all the times you've demanded definitions of words, you've never yourself provided any.Clearly you're some kind of language perscriptionist, a linguistic position totally at odds with the way langauge is used. If your critique of scientific theory stems from an inability to agree on basic definitions, then surprise! You can't know anything because no definition can ever totally encompass the meaning of words. Honestly, a basic course in semiotics would teach you this truth about language. Johnson is a lawyer by training and trade, and the title of his book is "Darwin on Trial." Can you honestly argue he's not approaching the question from a legal background? To the contrary, he's arguing against philosphical naturalism. Therefore, he must be taking a position of supernatural causation, because naturalism is simply the position that supernatural agents have no effect on the observed universe. In any form, the belief that a supernatural being created the universe et al. is by definition, creationism. A number of reasonable people just on this board have argued otherwise. To date you're the only person who argues that an unknowing falsehood constitutes a lie. Reasonable people know that lying requires a knowing act of dishonesty. Please, enlighten me. I would point out that you have yet to respond to any of the evidence I have outlined - you've merely postponed its analysis to cloud the issue with your dictionary games.

Ok, Crashfrog. Read Johnson's book and get back to me. It would've been nice to debate with you the precise words of Johnson you take issue with but, alas, you are content with speculation, mere beliefs, guesswork, and ignorance, failing to quote a single word of Johnson.You've raped the word liar by diminishing the depravity of someone who "spreads falsehoods", aka lies, saying they aren't really liars if they are ignorant of the lie. In other words, Ignorant Liars aren't really liars...Finally, you admit you couldn't tell me what scientists agree evolution is or even define the theory yourself, but you are ready to show me all this undisputed, undeniable, and uncontested evidence of evolution??? You evos play the semantics game all the time, and it is hardly unreasonable to define the very thing you are debating. As I mentioned before, it does give you an easy way out to state that defining evolution is not important and it is just a game of mine. Whatever.Be gone now son. You are the weakest link.

No, I said I wouldn't tell you what evolution is, because it's not my job to do your thinking for you. If you want to know, crack open Gould's "Structure of Evolutionary Theory" or something.Do you have a definition or not? It sounds like you don't. Why would I bother to debate with someone so obviously ignorant of what we would be debating? If only now have you bothered to ask "what is evolution?", why would I want to talk to you about it? What could you possibly bring to a debate if you don't even know what we're talking about?Like I said, that you're here at all suggests you know what we're talking about. I don't play games with someone so obviously duplicitous. Why don't you suggest a definition that we can agree on?My evidence has been presented; you have not addressed it. Can I then assume you grant it credence? If you ignore my evidence, how can I assume you won't ignore my definition?

Crash, Inquistor aside, why don't we start a topic that is just for defining what is meant by "evolution". I'm a bit tired of being asked the same thing but I'm willing to find a few site references and do a little of my own words kind of thing.

Sure. I'll do it in this forum so Inquisitor doesn't have to register.

Thanks, guys, for taking care of the topic drift. I moved the new topic to the Free For All forum, which also requires no registration.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

A while back, we changed the "Free For All" forum to requiring registration.Adminnemooseus

Ooops! My bad!Gee, I seem to have forgotten how to move topics...------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator