Posted on 03/01/2004 1:02:07 PM PST by Mr. Silverback
That's a one good - pointing out fallacious logic is akin to assuming the "voice of God" or claiming to be the spokesperson for Logic.
I just explained the fallacious logic, I did not claim to speak for all of logic (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean) or the I am GOD because took a few logic classes.
Keep digging.
OK
(#857)js1138: You must understand that I don't believe you are telling the truth here. It will take some time for me to go back over your history of posting. In the meantime I will not be responding to you, lest I mistake you for someone who simply enjoys misunderstanding science for no apparent reason.
1. You have admitted you were wrong about the "don't believe you are telling the truth" accusation.
2. You said you were going to look back through my history of posting yet you presented nothing.
3. You claim you would stop responding to me "lest I mistake you for someone who simply enjoys misunderstanding science for no apparent reason" - and then immediately you continued to respond to me.
I was just before the Evo-Reactionaries started your Insult-a-thon.
If you guys are done with the insults, I will stop rubbing your noses in your misstatements.
Ah, yes. The Pee Wee Herman Retort "I know you are, but what am I"
You must be the big man on the playground.
You are delusional, I did no such thing. The context was logic not the nature of knowledge.
Your silly comment reeks of desperation.
In the Paleolithic era there were no spokesmodels and yet for all that enough knowledge slowly accumulated to get us into the Neolithic era.
That simply does not makes since. The context of spokesmodel was somebody claiming in a statement that they know what an entire group of people think when in fact they do not. I have no idea what you are rambling about.
VadeRetro must be running out material - he is now playing the role of "Grammar and Usage Policeman"
By Golly you are good at it - ya got me - I used the wrong word.
You have been twisting everyone's words on this thread so much that you can't even keep track of what has been said anymore.
How about this:
IF the theory of evolution is so contreversial among scientists...THEN it should be easy to find an example of said contreversy.
Either you are just playing dumb...
No. That's your specialty.
Utterly false and ridiculous. No one ever made the claim that mountains didn't exist under your window. "All Victoria's Secret Models wished they lived in the mountains of West Virginia." There is no possible way of knowing this. And who said anything about a sky or even the color blue? WRONG. I have all of the Victoria's Secret catalogs under my bed. So you have no way of knowing.
This is elementary logic. Are you sure you are VadeRetro or are you just playing dumb? I have doubts that you are even registered on FreeRepublic.
Utterly ridiculous and false. You obviously know nothing about logic or philosophy.
Whatever. I posted your entire statment, no twisting needed.
IF the theory of evolution is so contreversial among scientists...THEN it should be easy to find an example of said contreversy.
OK. Thanks for sharing. (have I ever claimed the theory of evolution was contreversial? No.)
Care to back up that statement? Or is this more of your empty rhetoric?
Are you having fun with this?
have I ever claimed the theory of evolution was contreversial? No.
So you agree with me?
I am looking at this from a philosophers point of view. It is clear from your posts that you have no respect whatsoever for logic or philosophy.
I have no idea what the hell he is saying. I think we might be talking to a computer running a simple language algorithm. Kind of like the "PostModernism" generator.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.