I quoted a complete sentence. I assumed it represented a complete thought--they usually do. The rest of your paragraph explains why you think the scientific process is a logical fallacy, but it hardly misrepresents you to quote the sentence where you say that you do.
Again, this is simply your inability to understand the ramifications of the scientific process being based on a logical fallacy. You lack the critical-thinking skills to understand that all of your beliefs are therefore based in logical fallacy and though you think it allows you to 'no longer care', the fact of the matter is that you should care very much.
Is there an actual argument in there somewhere? All I see is a series of assertions. Critical thinking is more than the ability to recite a list of logical fallacies--as one of the sites I read put it, there's a difference between logic and reason. You can cling to your puny "it's a fallacy!" objections, I'll go with something that's been shown to work.
So, we can assume that as long as creationists quote complete sentences the evos can never claim out-of-context quoting ever again? That's great news!
"I assumed it represented a complete thought--they usually do. The rest of your paragraph explains why you think the scientific process is a logical fallacy, but it hardly misrepresents you to quote the sentence where you say that you do."
Which is why I reposted the rest of the idea for context. So that you couldn't misrepresent my point.
"Is there an actual argument in there somewhere? All I see is a series of assertions. Critical thinking is more than the ability to recite a list of logical fallacies--as one of the sites I read put it, there's a difference between logic and reason."
Yes, the argument is that this is simply your inability to understand the ramifications of the scientific process being based on a logical fallacy. You lack the critical-thinking skills to understand that all of your beliefs are therefore based in logical fallacy and though you think it allows you to 'no longer care', the fact of the matter is that you should care very much.
"You can cling to your puny "it's a fallacy!" objections, I'll go with something that's been shown to work."
Which is the logical fallacy of composition, i.e., assuming that something that is true for a part is true of the whole. Evos always assume that since applying the philosophical assumption of naturalism works for technical experiments (e.g., chemistry), that is also works for imaginary scenarios based on mental extrapolations (e.g., evolution, big bang, etc).
Just another way the naturalists deceive themselves with fallacious thinking.