[Dimensio]

That is the whole point of while you are here to begin with, isn't it? You are here to bash the religionists.

No. I am here to correct the logical fallacies and factual errors often presented by creationists. Their religious affiliation, or lack thereof, is not my concern. You will note that I do not go on the offensive against religious posters who do not misstate the theory of evolution, misrepresent fundamentals of the scientifc method or appeal to logical fallacies in their reasoning.

Why do you assume that this has anything to do with hostility toward religion? It appears that you have a preconceived notion of some sort of bias against religion, yet you don't actually have any evidence to show for it. Almost like you're here trying to prove something you already believe to be true and declaring victory even though you've not found a single bit of evidence for your assertions.

It only frustrates you that it doesn't work with an atheist.

What, having you ignore the fact that you're clearly wrong about what is and is not science? That's no different than when creationists get the scientific method completely wrong.

argumentum misericordian - - latin - - appeal to sympathy

Wrong. I am not appealing to the fact that you are poisoning the well by asserting up-front that anyone who disagrees with you is a "dope" as evidence for my position. I am merely pointing out that you are appealing to logical fallacies. You are again misrepresenting my statements. Why? Do you not have a logical and valid argument to support your claims?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

* Posted by ml1954 to Sir Francis Dashwood

Math is abstract. Science attempts to describe reality.

Mathematics is reality, while your version of science is just a pitiful human attempt to describe it...

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

* Posted by Dimensio to Sir Francis Dashwood

I am here to correct the logical fallacies and factual errors often presented by creationists.

That is just my point, neither the so-called Big Bang or evolution theories are proven truth...

Just because you claim they are by your religious faith in them does not lessen the validity my criticism. I'm not an ecumenical or an orthodox atheist. Nothing is sacred to me. Your appeal to false authority is categorically no more true than what you accuse creationists of doing...

Your only purpose here is to advance a religious attack on the godists, your own holy war. This crusade is as illogical as is your lack of evidence in defense of the Big Bang and the evolution of human beings.

The “missing link” is missing still, as is any logic to your arguments. (Don't try to tell me Louis Leaky didn't spend decades looking for the “missing link” when he found Homo habilis and Zinjanthropus either.)

Your version of logic isn't even close to Boolean logic, categorical logic or prepositional logic...

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Both of you are attempting to “cloud the issue” with ancillary and unrelated topics...

The original article that began this thread, one poster pointed out, contains a statement by the author about the “design” of DNA. Logic suggests that would mean some sort of designer, wouldn't it? Not that I would agree, but I do see the fallacy embedded in the story, as I see the fallacies promoted with unproven theories as the sole basis for their use as the only course of research.

What the both of you are doing makes about as much sense as the idiot Pax Macian on the drug threads trying to tell an atheist like me that God wants people to be drug addicts and then giving me long Biblical litanies that have nothing to do with drugs...