To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Originally Posted by
Statler Waldorf
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Fallacy of appealing to ridicule.
Yes, I can prove it. Yes, I did prove it. Yes knowledge exists, and yes my indirect syllogism proves that knowledge could only exist if God exists, you whining about that doesn’t change anything.
Actually it is demonstrable; I am not sure why you find this so difficult to understand. I can account for all of the preconditions of knowledge with God’s existence, you can’t account for any of them with your naturalism or any other religion for that matter; therefore God’s existence is demonstrated to be necessary for their existence since all other explanations fail, it’s proof through negation and it’s completely logically valid.
I already did, see my syllogism that you have yet to refute.
If knowledge is possible then yes He must, so you either have to assert that knowledge is not possible which of course is a self-refuting position or you have to concede God exists.
Actually that is how proof works, appealing to any other explanation that has not yet been found is a fallacious appeal to ignorance, so you’re trying to argue against my valid syllogism by committing a logical fallacy, that doesn’t work I am sorry.
Where’s your proof to back up this assertion?
No I didn’t forget to mention that, I chose not to.
Why is that funny? She made a scientific blunder; she used non-empirically tested assumptions to alter her emperically verified dates, of course that’s absurd. You could just admit you were wrong about people never finding soft tissue in dinosaur fossils but I think you have too much of an ego for that.
That’s funny considering that five days ago you asserted soft tissue has never been found in fossils (simply because you know that it couldn’t survive for millions of years), and yet I proved you wrong. I didn’t ignore anything that doesn’t support my theory, she believes the fossils are millions of years old because of radiometric dating, since I have consistently asked for verification on that dating method and received nothing from you guys I am not ignoring anything, just merely waiting for you to back up your position…still waiting.
Please provide me with the quotation where I said it would be impossible to find them together. I simply said I would not expect to find them fossilized together because they wouldn’t have lived near one another, that doesn’t mean that they didn’t coexist and interact on occasion. So what’s your explanation for all of the evidence I provided? You seem to be strangely silent on the whole matter.
Not at all, where did I say anywhere that the people who found the soft tissue didn’t believe the earth was old? They merely altered the interpretation of the evidence to support their conclusion. There is zero evidence to suggest soft tissue could last for millions of years, this is exactly why so many “old earthers” completely rejected the notion it was soft tissue for the longest time, they knew what the implications of it were. It’s also why the article is called “dinosaur shocker”; if we thought soft tissue could last that long then why would we be so “shocked” when we found it? Sadly, people would rather embrace complete absurdities (i.e. soft tissue lasting for millions of years) rather than alter their presupposed views about the earth’s history.
I admire her for discovering something creationists have asserted was completely possible and your crowd asserted was impossible; I do not admire her for her ignorance when it comes to how faith, proof, and evidence relate. So you’re really proving nothing. Where is your evidence that soft tissue can last millions of years?
Only if you consider animals long thought to be extinct being found alive as part of cryptozoology, which I think that’s a bit of a stretch.
You seeming to fail in the area of reading comprehension in no way proves that I am on both sides of the fence on this. I was quite clear in my position, go back and re-read it, slowly and maybe even aloud this time.
It doesn’t mean bi-pedal reptile, sometimes the people described a dragon that was a reptile on two legs and sometimes they described one that was on all four legs (such as the one in southern France I mentioned). Sometimes they had scales and sometimes they had plated armor- just like many dinosaurs. Why would some of the greatest historians we know, historians that we base our entire understanding of the Roman Empire on throw in mythical creatures out of the blue in their writings? These had to be real creatures that people interacted with; their descriptions are too consistent to be mythology. You just want to believe they were mythological because it challenges everything you want to believe about the earth’s history, that’s what this comes down to.
You just committed the straw-man fallacy, it’s not just one biologist; I mentioned several biologists, including the group from the Smithsonian Institute and the University of Chicago. Either way, scientific fact is not determined by majority or consensus so your argument fails either way.
Actually most of the people I have talked to who believe in aliens are actually atheists, so I am not sure why you’d try to bring that up right now.
Yeah because taking the position that dinosaurs are still alive today (a position you all called me crazy for believing) is a great way to advance your career in academia! So first dinosaurs couldn’t have lived with people because there were no accounts of them, and now when I provide accounts of large ferocious reptiles that fit the description of dinosaurs you call all of those people liars. It must be amazing knowing you can just dismiss evidence like that in order to preserve your preconceived notions about the earth’s history.
Wrong, the syllogism I provided was formally valid, and thus far un-refuted so also sound, so what you or I think about it is irrelevant, it is what it is.
This never happened! Please point to where you or anyone else has demonstrated how the syllogism is either flawed in form or commits a logical fallacy. All you have done is say you don’t like it, or have asserted it doesn’t work, neither of which proves a thing.
More like I state a position, I back the position up with a valid and sound syllogism and you all proceed to whine about it. Of course whining doesn’t get you anywhere in logic, so by all means continue doing it.
You mean that article that proved soft tissue had actually been found in dinosaur fossils nearly 20 years before you asserted it had never been found? Yeah, that was pretty funny alright. What this discussion has certainly proven if nothing else is that you all need to brush up on your facts, I have one guy asserting that brontosaurus existed and another asserting that soft tissue had never been found in dinosaur fossils nearly two decades after it was first discovered! Now that is actually funny stuff.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks