Replies

You've retracted two of your hasty smartass remarks in this thread already, would you like to make it three?

No, your move.

Is it so implausible?

Nestled safely inside the belly of a comet orbiting some unknown star, a microscopic alien sits dormant. Somewhere in this vast universe -- perhaps a place like Earth -- a greater destiny awaits the microbe. A place to flourish, become a nematode or a rose or a teenager.

http://www.space.com/searchforlife/aliens_all_001027-1.html

[You've retracted two of your hasty smartass remarks in this thread already, would you like to make it three?]

No, your move.

You took your definition from dictionary.com. But you only posted the #1 entry, in a childish attempt to make it look as if I had used a word inappropriately.

The #3 entry in the definition, which you dishonestly left off, is as follows:

3. A form of logical inference or an instance of it, based on the assumption that if two things are known to be alike in some respects, then they must be alike in other respects.

The analogy you were making in post #354 was:

Wind and a little time turns sandstone into arches that resemble flying buttresses. It does not follow, to many people, that more time using the same process will result in the formation of Notre Dame Cathedral.

This was in reply to StolarStorm's:

If you have a creature and you make minor changes (micro-evolution) eventually you will have so many changes that you can't recognize what the creature looked like in the beginning... that is macro evolution.

You were comparing two things (erosion and evolution) by saying that since the processes were alike in some respects (both can craft something new through the continued application of small changes) then since erosion can't result in something as complicated as Notre Dame Cathedral, then a reasonable inference for many people is that evolution might not proceed to intricate complexity either.

This is a classic analogy -- reasoning by analogy. Using knowledge of one process to presume things about another process believed to be somewhat similar.

I wouldn't have thought my use of the word to describe your example would be in any way remarkable, but apparently I underestimated your desire to dig really deep for a dishonest excuse to make a cheap shot.

So rather than deal with the substance of my post, you chose to go off on a classicly childish and completely unfounded "dictionary flame" (2), one of the lowest forms of cheap shots.

I even gave you an opportunity to reconsider and retract it, and you refused. This is, I must say, typical of you.

Now -- would you care to retract your trollish implication that *I'm* the one who needs to "make sure [they] understand the English language"? Or are you going to continue to act like an ass?