Please, most logical fallacies have absolutely nothing to do with formal logic. They're simply made up by the skeptical community, and anyone who's spent a significant amount of time within that community, like I have, knows exactly what I'm talking about.
That said, I'm proud to announce that those on my side of the aisle, generally do not engage in intimidation campaigns, parading about with liar lists and such.
As to your point about lying per se, I personally never try to accuse anyone of such, since intent is a quality that is extremely difficult to demonstrate. However, misrepresentation is an entirely different story, and to that end, I offer the following from a post by Ichneumon:
Yes, VESTIGIAL FEATURES do indeed provide evidence of evolution "either way", because if they linger from a common ancestor, they indicate the link to that common ancestor, and if they have been "de-selected" as you say, they also provide evidence for evolution because they leave traces of their passing, such as the fact that birds do not have teeth, but still have "broken" genes to produce teeth (which can and have been chemically triggered to produce chicks with reptile-like teeth). Even though birds have lost the teeth of their reptile ancestors, they retain clear evidence that they *did* have teeth in a distant ancestor. source
The impression here, amongst others, is that the teeth producing gene(s) were inherently avian,and that they were reptilian...both of which is incorrect.
Here's a media report:
CNN.com
and a couple of critiques:
critique
critique
For further information, the title of the research paper is:
Development of Teeth in Chick Embryos after Mouse Neural Crest Transplantations
I'll let the reader decide whether Ichneumon, lied, misrepresented, or proffered the truth.
Logical fallacies -- espcially non sequiteurs and strawmen as well as misrepresenting BASIC facts -- repeatedly posted when they have been demonstrably and clearly exposed move from "misunderstanding" to "flat-out-lie."
Once someone posts misinformation (a classic example is Darwin's supposed deathbed refutation of evolution) and is clearly and factually corrected, the next time they make the same post they are lying.
That said, I'm proud to announce that those on my side of the aisle, generally do not engage in intimidation campaigns, parading about with liar lists and such.
"All Evo's are Athiests/Nazis/Athiest Nazis" isn't intimidation?????? Those of us on the Evo side of the aisle believe in truth and science's continued search for it. We offer up facts and research and conclusions, arrived at (and constantly refined) by the scientific method.
As to your point about lying per se, I personally never try to accuse anyone of such, since intent is a quality that is extremely difficult to demonstrate.
As I said, a corrected misrepresentation posted a second time is a lie. A purposeful non-sequiteur is a lie. A strawman is a lie.
However, misrepresentation is an entirely different story, and to that end, I offer the following from a post by Ichneumon....
I'll let the reader decide whether Ichneumon, lied, misrepresented, or proffered the truth.
This is a very esoteric discussion between competing camps about the evolutionary source of vestigal organs. It is analagous to a discussion about what the implications of St. John contradicting St. Timothy. Posting up support for St. John that may be contreverted elsewhere is NOT lying. It is impossible to post up every side of some of the more interesting debates in the Evo community, which includes some well-read Creos who at least are arguing on a science plane.
And even by your own last line in the post you admit that you can;t tell whether Ichneumon posted up something he knows to be true, which could quickly degenerate into battling experts.
But nowhere do the critiques say "God gave us vestigal organs - {poof}."
So strike 2 on CRIDers showing a single lie by an Evo.