[exmarine]

You are half-educated in logic. When I say "gee, doesn't this here thing look pretty similar to that there thing, I am drawing on the powers of analogy to suggest a possible relationship. This is called analogical reasoning, and is not subject to the law of the excluded middle.

I see your method of argumentation is similar to tpaine's - ad hominems galore. That's to your detriment. Powers of analogy - that is really a euphemism for "wild guess" isn't it, because there is no reason to reach that conclusion. The conclusion DOES NOT FOLLOW FROM THE PREMISE. Period. No amount of insults will change that fact jack.

[Aric2000]

It is obvious to me that you have NO scientific training whatsoever. Or you would know that that is indeed the scientific method.

Just because you choose to ignore the facts that put those conclusions together, does not make the prmise itself false.

When you IGNORE the facts, the premise does indeed fall apart, because without those facts, that you ignore, the premise is nothing.

The fact is that the Theory of Evolution has been questioned and studied by innumerable amount of scientists using this method. They have all come to the same conclusion, The Theory of Evolution is the closest theory we have that explains all the facts in hand.

You don't like it, then go into science and do your best to undermine it. You can't of course, so it ain't gonna happen.

If you wish to become a scientist, get your PHD, and then study and double check, and question etc. You will NOT find that evolution is false, better minds then yours have tried, all they come up with is Goddidit, in order to compete. Well, sorry, that's religion, NOT SCIENCE!! And therefore does NOT compete with evolution.

[donh]

I see your method of argumentation is similar to tpaine's - ad hominems galore.

An ad hominem is an irrelevant insult. This is a relevant insult. You have a poor education regarding when logic is relevant to an argument. I recommend a little research before you pop off again on a subject you know little about.

That's to your detriment. Powers of analogy - that is really a euphemism for "wild guess" isn't it,

No, it's a euphemism for "guess". The entire function of the modern paraphenalia of journals, referees, microscopes, telescopes and critical experimental scruteny is the make the guesses less wild.

because there is no reason to reach that conclusion.

Sure there is, it's just not an iron-clad guarantee.

The conclusion DOES NOT FOLLOW FROM THE PREMISE. Period. No amount of insults will change that fact jack.

You need to find an academic text of the scope and limits of logic, jack. Jefferies is a good one.

[tpaine]

"I see your method of argumentation is similar to tpaine's - ad hominems galore." -Lies galore from exmarine-

See 3521, from Junior.