Posted on 02/12/2006 10:32:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Speaking of which, while watching the same broadcast (I was rooting for the Dalmatian for Best of Show) it occurred to me that Havoc's stubborn insistence that "dogs only come from dogs, and thus were always dogs" can be turned around to demonstrate its absurdity and falseness...
The same argument could be used just as (il)logically to argue that "dachshunds only come from dachshunds, and thus were always dachshunds" -- and likewise for any other breed of dog or any other animal (or variety of plant, etc.).
Clearly, something's wrong with his line of "reasoning", because we *know* that dachshunds didn't always exist, and in fact did not exist until recently. Even though breeding dachshunds to dachshunds produce "only" more dachshunds, the same could be said (just as misleadingly) about the non-dachshund *ancestors* of the line of dogs which eventually became dachshunds. And yet, even so, it's not like the "pre-dachshund" breed one day *pop* gave birth to a dachshund, which in Havoc's limited imagination is the "only" alternative explanation.
Instead, the ancestral line picked up, over many generations, a trait here, a different trait there, which gradually made the lineage become more and more "dachshund-like", until eventually the modern dachshund as we know it today came to be.
(The smae case is true of countless other dog breeds. And most people would be surprised to learn that a great many modern dog breeds didn't even exist 200 years ago, they have arisen rather recently, relatively speaking.)
So contrary to Havoc's simplistic belief, that the only two conceivable possibilities are either a) "like" can only ever give birth to *exactly* the same "like" forever and ever, or b) an animal suddenly *pop* gives birth to an entirely different sort of animal... Instead there's a third option, which is actually far more in keeping with both "common sense" and ordinary day-to-day observations (at least to anyone who actually pays attention or lives on a farm) -- animals give birth to not to *exact* copies of themselves, but to *variations* of themselves, and so on for the next generation, and the next, etc., and over large numbers of generations, the end result can actually be quite different from the original animals N generations ago. In fact, it was *specifically* comparisons to what people were *very* familiar with via breeding of domestic animals and new varieties and so forth, which Darwin called upon in order to explain his new Theory in his 1859 book, as being the familiar (animal breeding and plant cultivation) carried out to its logical consequences over longer periods of time than just the few human lifespans which are within the scope of human observation.
What farmers and plant cultivators had long known in Darwin's own time 150 years ago, Havoc *still* hasn't managed to grasp even today -- his arguments about what "can" and "can't" happen when animals reproduce flies reveals a profound ignorance of things which the most illiterate farmer hundreds of years ago already knew full well.
You do know, don't you, that not everything found on line is correct; not even on GOOGLE.
The only dinosaurs that survived the global flood were the aquatic ones -- i.e. the giant squids etc, that the Japanese found a few years ago.
Makes sense to me every time I see the Grand Canyon.
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
And I'm NOT a Darwinists. *giggle*
So now squids are "dinosaurs" to the anti-evolution creationists? Oooookay...
Makes sense to me every time I see the Grand Canyon.
I'll just bet it does. "Look at the Grand Canyon, George, when I see that the squidly dinosaurs just all start to make sense..."
You are really reaching.
If one is in conversation or debate with a liar, how is that irrelevant? How, if this is a point of fact, is it an ad hominem?
Read this.
Other common forms of the abusive ad hominem argument don't usually resort to clear personal insults: 3. John has been proven to be a liar numerous times, so I don't accept John's arguments about abortion. 4. Well, we shouldn't be surprised that Senator Smith supports this new tax - considering how long he has been living in Washington D.C. and working in politics, it would be a shock if he didn't support it! With example #3, may be true that the person has lied repeatedly in the past - so saying so is stating a matter of fact, not an insult. And the fact that a person has lied in the past is, for most people, a reason to be skeptical of other things they say. But it is not a logical reason to conclude that they never tell the truth again. ... Ad Hominem Ad hominem is not a fancy Latin phrase meaning "nasty insult", it's the name of a rhetorical flaw in which, rather than addressing a person's arguments, one criticizes the person making the argument. In other words, instead of saying that a member's argument is invalid, one says that he's an idiot or a liar (insert your favorite here). A rhetorically valid argument is valid, or not, NO MATTER WHO MAKES IT. Focusing on who's making the argument rather than on the argument itself is "argumentum ad hominem", i.e., arguing "to the person" ("ad hominem"). http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_abusive.htm and http://www.beliefnet.com/boards/adhominem.html |
Well, that wouldn't be my line of reasoning for starters. Dachshunds may or may not have been around for whatever length of time, but they're a dog and since we can reasonably see that breeding creates all sort of variety in dogs, we can make a "reasonable" assumption based on what we do witness that the immediate ancester was a dog. It's where you start assuming that perhaps a horse or something else might have spawned dogs that you have a problem because nobody's ever witnessed that. Therein the question of origins arises; but, you guys have begged out of that one largely, so, elementary...
As for the number of dog breeds, I don't think most people are surprised that dogs produce dogs - even with variety. Only evolutionists seem amazed at that. Some of us are just thankful for the variety.
Please do not feed the color-fonted troll.
Really?? I thought everything you stated was the absolute truth /sarc
No, actually he isn't.
Do you make that claim because he agrees with your point of view on this topic?
If so, THAT is not germane to whether he is a liar or not.
Flew *right* over your head, I see...
Have you ever lied?
Everything on line, is not.
Your silogism doesn't work; dear. Did you just learn about that?
No it isn't.
And how do you differentiate the two cases?
No, I just have invoked the farmer argument before and evolutionists begged off like they'd never heard of a farmer before or that farmers know there are limits to what breeding can deliver for them. IE, farmers breed for the largest pigs they can raise in order to up their dollar value per head; but, they can only get hogs so big before running into limits as to what breeding will do, the rest is done with diet and again within limits. Evolutionists don't like the limits part as I note you seem to have left that part out.
It's hurting your pride, your ego, and goodness knows what else.
You posted a disgusting example, an example which did NOT work. You were called on it, and now, now you are in a snit. Pity that...................
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.