Replies

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.

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.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that in logic, the opposite of truth, is lying. It is not. In fact, the concept of lying is nowhere to be found in logic...only in the minds of amateur logicians like yourself.

I said:
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.

You said:
"All Evo's are Athiests/Nazis/Athiest Nazis" isn't intimidation??????

I wasn't aware that Atheist was an undesireable character trait. Be that as it may though, the key word here is campaign, and any reasonable person reading these threads, would agree that there is an organized effort to impugn the dignity of adversaries.

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.

Whatever you say...

I said:
I'll let the reader decide whether Ichneumon, lied, misrepresented, or proffered the truth.

I have no idea what you're rambling on about here...especially given your peculiar use of the term "esoteric" in relation to a public debating forum....and neither do I care.

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.

I admitted no such thing, which is part of your problem: reading comprehension. Other than that, one doesn't need to be an expert to judge whether he represented the research correctly. Logic and reason will suffice, which is probably why it eludes you.