Welcome, newbies!

quote:

---

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.

---

You included your insults as part of an argument speech. That makes them fair game.Or do you only want logic to apply when you are being logical?

quote:

---

Anybody gonna show me how Phillip E. Johnson is a liar, or are all you punks just P-O-S-E-R-S???

---

Another fallacy. Complex question. (In which two otherwise unrelated points are conjoined and treated as a single proposition.)

Since nobody made the assertion "Phillip Johnson is a liar" I don't see why it is incumbent that we do so.I did say that he spreads falsehoods. I don't know that he does so knowingly. I do have reason to believe that Kent Hovind (as well as Duane Gish) spread knowing falsehoods, which makes them "liars", I believe.Now, are you going to respond to my evidence of evolution?

Just for reference, in this insult: ...the term is "poseur". Just trying to be helpful. After all, if you're going to posture, you might as well get the insults correct. Otherwise someone might mistake you for a poseur, n'est-ce pas?

quote:

---

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

---

This certainly confirms my suspicion that only Inquisitor can tell when Inquisitor is trying to be logical.Inquisitor's tone is indeed very similar to Zephan, the soi disant expert who appeared to muddle "standards of proof" with "burden of proof." I wonder if they are, by any chance, related?[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 04-30-2003]

There's certainly a similarity in writing styles and word choice. If they are, as you imply, the same person, then Inquisi-Phan has much catch-up to do, starting with all the arguments he was ignoring before his suspension...I'd settle for a response to my list of evidence. Honestly, if I had a dime for all the people that demanded evidence, and then disappeared when it was presented to them, I'd probably have a lot of dimes. It's not like we're going to think less of someone who says "Gosh, no one had ever presented the evidence to me before, so I assumed there wasn't any. Thanks for the heads-up." If anything, we'd hold such an intellectually honest person in higher esteem...

because our Inquisitor isn't responding allow me to take up a YEC point of view... the one of the postmodern creationist.Your science is not objective, My God is. Your personal predjudices scew your reality.Don't try to call me on any logical fallicies now (including why I'm typing on this computer), because I reject logic also.

I've tried to argue the other side before too. It's just so hard. You don't quite sound convincing. I think the problem is that the flaws are too "in your face". You have to hide them a bit better.

lol, I'll try harder next time. Maybe I can get booboo to teach me a few tricks....------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

Interesting, you claim to be able to read Duane Gish's mind, and also Kent Hovinds', but Phillip E. Johnson's you cannot. Yet, YOU (not the "we" you attempt to diffuse the situation into) still proclaim Johnson spreads "falsehoods".Again, what precisely are they? I would really like to know because I believe YOU DON'T KNOW and are quite the pawn of pawns. Be specific by quoting his very words one sentence at a time and demonstrate, in your own words, his assertions and analysis are false. It is becoming increasingly obvious you never actually read any of Johnson's work, and are "parroting" what others have told you. That would mean you are participating in the same behavior you despise in others. It would mean you are simply defaming, slandering, and generally spreading false rumors about Johnson without backing up your assertions per forum guidelines.Even better idea: I bet we could hook you up with an online debate with Johnson if your analysis warrants any further thought. I can get his email address for you. He teaches at UCLA. Seeing you eat some crow would be grand. As you are neither a scientist nor a lawyer, your analysis must be taken in context of your education and experience. In other words, Johnson is smarter than you by many leaps and bounds, and you sound rather silly to allege Johnson is far beneath your randomly given powers of intellectual prowess by lacking the cognitive discernment to distinguish a "known" falsehood.As to your so-called evidence "for" evolution, you got a little too excited a little too fast by getting the cart before the horse. This is so because, obviously, I don't know what evolution is, and it would therefore behoove you to define "evolution" before you get started on proving it. Until then, your "evidence" is meaningless. Make sure it's one of those definitions of evolution that all evolutionists agree on so you might have to cite a peer reviewed journal on that one. (btw, on at least one of your alleged "evidences" *for* evolution, you pit yourself against a false dilemma, and then go on to cite an observation of "no evidence" for a flood in a certain geographical region on the planet as valid evidence for evolution! Non-sequitur, my man).I'm STILL waiting for you to show me how Johnson is a liar, or, as you succinctly stated in another way during one of your signature backpeddling events, "spreading falsehoods"(as you recall, this was the reason I chimed in). Unless you wish to be recognized as one who "spreads falsehoods", you best get started on showing the world how Johnson is a liar. So far you've refused.PS to Quetzel:Thank you for helping me with my insults. However, "poser" means "one who poses" and the term is interchangeable with "wannabe". It applies to people like Crashfrog who poses as a know-it-all and makes unfounded assertions about people they don't know and have never met "spreading falsehoods". "Posers" never actually do get around to showing us HOW they know-it-all however...

Inquisitor:
Anybody gonna show me how Phillip E. Johnson is a liar...?Crashfrog:
"Since nobody made the assertion "Phillip Johnson is a liar" ...I did say that he spreads falsehoods"

quote:

---

Oxford American Dictionary(ISBN:0-380-60772-7):

​

false'hood n. 1. a lie
2. telling lies

​

liar n. a person who tells lies.

---

Now Crashfrog, you can continue to argue along for argument's sake, but you will look like a complete fool for doing so unless you first admit your error.Thanks for playing.

I stand corrected. Turns out the two words are synonymous. I'd never seen "poser" used that way before. Thanks for the enlightenment. I'll stick with "poseur" variant, however. It's closer to the original French insult and has essentially the same meaning.As to the substance of your post, I'll go out on a limb here and say that it's unlikely Johnson could ever be found guilty of a blatant lie. He's quite good as a lawyer. "Darwin on Trial", for instance, is as well-written a polemic as you could ask for. He's ever so much better at using rhetorical devices, vague or undefined philosophical or metaphysical concepts and statements, and subtle strawmen to lead his readers on to the exact stance that he wants them to adopt. He never actually lies, afaik. I also don't think he has ever - not once - made an actual postive claim in favor of creationism, which for me would be much more compelling. Most of what I've read of his rely on negative argumentation against evolutionary theory - and he's very careful never to actually use specific cases in his arguments that could be refuted by appeal to actual scientific literature. In short, as a lawyer he's pretty good. As a philosopher he's pretty fair. As a "scientific creationist" he's abysmal, but then he's not alone in that.BTW: he's at UC Berkley, not UCLA.

quote:

---

I stand corrected. Turns out the two words are synonymous.

---

Most dictionaries I checked-- about 15-- define 'poser' as 'a difficult or perplexing question.' Several others reference the French word 'poseur,' the implication being that 'poser' is a debased form or slang. A few define 'poser' as 'one who habitually pretends to be something he's not.' So the words are synonymous, but you are more right than he. ( Sorry for the diversion. I like words very much. )------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

false'hood n. 1. a lie

---

So?One can spread lies without being a liar. One can simply be wrong, and not know it.

I don't have to read their minds, I only have to read accounts of scientists presenting them with clear evidence of the flaws in their arguments, and their subsequent refusal to modify or correct those arguments. Most of Gish's and Hovinds arguments are even refuted by the Answers In Genesis people. If other creationists won't even trust them, why should anyone? 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. I never said I was smarter than Phillip Johnson. Clearly he's smart enough to get books published. I'm not. Please quote me where I said he was less smart than me, or denigrated his intelligence in any way.But unlike you, apparently, I don't automatically and dogmatically accept the views of people with more degrees than me. I don't summarily dismiss them, as I might your arguments, but I don't turn my brain off when somebody flashes a goatskin, either.It's entirely possible to be highly intelligent and accept falsehoods. In fact, there's a positive corellation between tested IQ and willingness to accept outlandish propositions. I take this into account before I decide to believe something. Do you? Why would you expect to find a definition of a term in a peer-reviewed journal? Have you ever read a peer-reviewed biology journal? This statement makes it pretty clear you haven't.If you don't know what evolution is, pick up a textbook. It's clear you have no interest or ability to debate this topic or else you'd already know. I'm not likely to be too interested to discuss evidence for evolution if you feel that you can simply dismiss it by playing dictionary games, Zephan. You tried this before, rememeber? To the contrary, I specifically deliniated the difference between evidence FOR evolution and the evidence AGAINST young-earth creationsim, the main competing theory on this board. This was done to give you context.So, are we going to talk about evolution, or are you going to just call me names? Really, by now it's making you look petty. You've pretty much revealed your true identity, anyway, which means you're posting under mutliple ID's, which I think the forum rules frown upon. Perhaps not. Anyway, I'm disappointed. In the weeks of your absence one would have hoped that you could have come up with something better than your tired, weak protestations and word games.

Johnson isn't telling them. He's just spreading them.