The Other Intelligent Design Theories

Skeptic Online ^ | May 2006 | David Brin

[Dimensio]

But I know and believe the truth and in the end that is all that will matter. I am sure you know what I mean by "the end". It deserves contemplation.

This is not an argument. This is a restatement of your position. Restating your position does not demonstrate that your position is correct.

[taxesareforever]

This is not an argument.

You are right. It was not meant as an argument. There is no reason to argue the Truth. Once stated an individual will either act on it or not. Like they say about laws. Ignorance is no excuse.

[Dimensio]

You are right. It was not meant as an argument. There is no reason to argue the Truth.

Asserting that your claims are "Truth" does not actually demonstrate that they are truthful.

[taxesareforever]

Asserting that your claims are "Truth" does not actually demonstrate that they are truthful.

Oh, but you are wrong. Jesus said, "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free".

I am free because I don't fear the hereafter.

[RunningWolf]

Well one thing seems to be the 'truth' and that is you operate from a place of no truth, and only talking points as in 'talk-origins' talking points.

And once you take a look at talk-origins talking-pointsyou there is in fact no fact and no science there either.

Take any page, and it is only a couple of sentences or maybe a paragraph before they are into their diatribe on the 'creationist'

Yep, talk-origins brings about as much 'science' to the table as the fr evos.

But perversely, it must be recognized toward you evo dudes,that there are a few (perhaps a very very select few) weak minded individuals that you do sway in some way.

Wolf

[Dimensio]

Oh, but you are wrong. Jesus said, "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free".

You are employing circular reasoning, a logical fallacy. Moreover, the reasoning that you offer is itself a non-sequitur.

[taxesareforever]

I'll employ my reasoning and you can employ your defective reasoning.

[taxesareforever]

You are incorrect. Nowhere in your cited excerpt was a claim that the question is settled based upon "non-data".

Oh but I'm not. They don't provide data to settle it so it is settled on non-data. Circular reasoning. In other words the head bites the tail and it all becomes a non-issue. Evos sure get away (or try to) a lot.

[Dimensio]

I'll employ my reasoning and you can employ your defective reasoning.

You have not demonstrated that my reasoning is "defective".

They don't provide data to settle it so it is settled on non-data. Circular reasoning.

You apparently are unaware of the definition of "circular reasoning". You have also failed to show that no data has been provided.

[taxesareforever]

You have also failed to show that no data has been provided.

Your comment is beyond ridiculous. Tell me computer geek how do you demonstrate no data? If its there show it to me.

[Dimensio]

Your comment is beyond ridiculous. Tell me computer geek how do you demonstrate no data? If its there show it to me.

I already have shown you the data. I have provided a reference to documented cases of observed speciation events. The exceprt from the article that you cited referred to the infrequency of such reports. You appear to be attempting to claim that there is "no data" on the subject of speciation based upon the fact that there are not many observed instances. However, that there are any at all, rather than none, demonstrates that you are incorrect.

[taxesareforever]

You appear to be attempting to claim that there is "no data" on the subject of speciation based upon the fact that there are not many observed instances

If speciation is the backbone of evolution I would think that you could provide me with innumeral instances of viewing it happening. Since you can't, it's based on non-data.

[Dimensio]

If speciation is the backbone of evolution I would think that you could provide me with innumeral instances of viewing it happening.

Speciation is the end-result of evolution over long periods of time with sufficient genetic isolation. There is no reason to expect it to be observed with great regularity.

Since you can't, it's based on non-data.

That it has been observed in the past demonstrates that there exists data, and your claim is thus false.

[taxesareforever]

That it has been observed in the past demonstrates that there exists data,

Then provide it. What so hard about that? You claim it has been observed. Give me the facts not a bunch of "it happened".

[Dimensio]

Then provide it. What so hard about that? You claim it has been observed. Give me the facts not a bunch of "it happened".

I have provided references to this effect already.

[taxesareforever]

You haven't given me squat. I already saw thru this word play. One reference for so may cases. You should feel like you are in a corner being kicked.

[RunningWolf]

That it has been observed in the past demonstrates that there exists data, and your claims(by inference) are thus false

Your assertions do not make fact, observation is subjective, your data points are theoretical, therefore any claims you have made inversely are false.

Now since you have corrected on this for countless times, it can only be concluded that you knowingly make false claims in the hope that you wont get caught.

Dimensio, How do you keep so many falsehoods spinning at the same time??

Wolf

[RunningWolf]

Google link to talk-origins talking-points placemarker

[Dimensio]

You haven't given me squat. I already saw thru this word play. One reference for so may cases.

I have provided two references for multiple observed instances. That is sufficient to counter the claim that no instances of speciation have been observed at all, which was a claim made by your reference. It would appear that you are attempting to avoid acknowledging that you have presented a false claim.

[aNYCguy]

Your assertions do not make fact, observation is subjective, your data points are theoretical, therefore any claims you have made inversely are false.

You might want to learn what the inverse of a proposition is before you embarrass yourself again attempting to look smart.