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.
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.
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.
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.
OK, let's all do reading comprehension. I specifically said that when it is purposeful (OK, I will help you: with the intent to deceive) or repeated when exposed is when it becomes a lie. A simple mistaken impression is just that. Intent to decieve or repeating an exposed fallacy is a lie. Which is exactly what I said in my post.
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.
To suggest that Evolutionists are any less Christian is an affront, period. It is a put-down and you are disingenuous for suggesting otherwise. And lets not forget the "Nazi" thing, which you KNOW has been used (and skipped in your rebuttal).
If someone posts a lie on a thread, then it is wrong to let that stand. I issued a challenge that is as of yet unmet: Show me a lie or even a logical fallacy from an Evo (for you followers at home I won't forget this part again). 1,300+ posts and no one can find one.
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...
OK, I say so. Or is deceit anything other than a lie where you come from? If not, what role does deceit play in your version of morality?
I said: 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.
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.
OK, I will use little words. Ichneumon was responding to posts about vestigial organs by citing references. The rebuttal references suggested different theories about vestigial organs. This was merely debate about one small part of the whole TTOE and the battling references were at least on a scientific level (as opposed to the CRIDer myth vs. TTOE science discussion). OK, you can now reference me as an Evo liar. I used big words in this explanation.
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.
Ahem: "I'll let the reader decide whether Ichneumon, lied, misrepresented, or proffered the truth.
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.
IOW you can't actually engage the argument, so you leave with a thinly veiled "only smart people like me can see this. In fact I am so smart I don't even have to tell you my logic. I am so smart that the very implication that this is what I say it is replaces any actual argumentation."
I love it. End with an ad hominem instead of a real argument. I like it when CRIDers reinforce their own inadequacies since, as usual, you can't debate straight up.