Posted on 08/30/2009 6:12:00 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Most people north of the equator have an observable suntan by August. Ironically, a desire to be outside is often coupled with another strong desire to get out of the sun, as indicated by sales of sun umbrellas and other types of sunshades.
From a biological standpoint, energy from the sun always needs to be controlled. This means that there is complex biological machinery in place to manage sunlight in some way. The machinery itself would not exist without information in DNA prescribing its materials, manufacture, and operation. Suntans result from this special biological machinery and function like the skin's own built-in umbrella to get skin cells "out of the sun." The process is so important that...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
By asking that question you have proven my point.
If you go and look up what an argument from personal incredulity is you just might realize how foolish you just made yourself look.
BTW you are now presenting a perfect example of an argument from ignorance…but do not feel bad you are just one of many who do that here.
I keep advising the id/creationists/ cdesign proponentsists that it helps to have at least a basic understanding of a topic prior to presenting an argument against it, lest you look foolish.
BTW, you are now presenting a perfect example of an argument from the fallacy of negative proof... but do not feel bad. You are just one of many who do that here.
I keep advising the naturalist/evolutionist proponents that it helps to have at least a basic understanding of critical-thinking skills to avoid presenting fallacious arguments in favor of evolution lest they confirm their foolishness. Alas, they continue to ignore me.
The problem is that the author presents zero, absolutely no evidence to support his assertion. So since he simply will not see any other alternative explanation because of his ignorance/misunderstanding/bias/belief that is what makes this a textbook example of an argument from personal incredulity.
It is too complicated for me to understand, so that proves that God did it is not a valid argument.
What evidence do you have of me presenting a fallacy of negative proof argument?
It’s not “de-evolution”. It’s adaption. Over time, beneficial mutations or variation in the genome give organisms a competitive advantage. They tend to survive and pass on those genes. Look at what humans have been able to do with dogs in a few hundred years by breeding for certain traits.
The problem is that evolutionists present zero, absolutely no evidence to support their assertion either. So since they will not see any other alternative explanation because of their ignorance/misunderstanding/bias/belief that is what makes their explanation a textbook example of an argument from person credulity.
It is too complicated for you to understand, so that proves that nature did it is not a valid argument.
The evidence for you engaging in the negative proof fallacy is the same evidence for the argument from ignorance claim.
I find it very telling that you never answer a direct question.
I guess when you do not have an answer this is the best that you can do.
See you fail because I did not present an argument, so there could be no negative proof fallacy, but then that little fact went right over your head just as many other facts have.
Evos posting self-portraits again.
Well, you guys do say that you’re apes, so it isn’t surprising.
I find it very telling that you never answer a direct question either.
I guess when you do not have an answer, that is the best you can do.
See, you fail because I merely asked you how an argument from personal credulity was preferable, so there could be no argument from ignorance, but that little fact went right over your head just as many other facts have.
I am growing tired of your little games,
Good by
Gee’s you Cretins can’t get anything right.
We aren’t apes, we evolved from a common ancestor.
Although in the case of the Cretins it’s seems to have
occurred in the more recent past.
See post # 7 and follow the link then you will understand who is looking foolish right now.
I keep telling you guys if you do just a minimal amount of research it would help you so much.
All I was doing was reflecting your own little game back at you.
Let’s see. You think your own game is ‘wonderful argument’ when you try to play it on others but quickly tire of it when it’s played back on you.
LOL!
You are incorrect I was asking pertinent questions, that you would not or most probably could not answer.
Again I will no longer play your little games,
Good by.
You are incorrect. I asked you how the argument from personal credulity was preferable, an extremely pertinent question that you would not or most probably could not answer.
You started playing games because you had no answer and now complain that your own game is being used on you.
You aren’t playing my game, you’re playing your own.
I will indulge you, one is an argument based on ignorance, not understanding of or failing to comprehend a topic. IE…it is too complex to for me to understand so that proves that God did it…………The other is an argument based on knowledge, research and understanding a topic. I prefer knowledge to ignorance, which is why I research both sides of a topic prior to forming an opinion. As to your feeling on this subject I can only guess, however your response and total lack of independent research does not leave much doubt.
Now it is your turn please cite exactly where in this article did the author provide any evidence to support his assertion?
I will indulge you. I agree that evolution is an argument based on personal credulity, equivocation, the fallacy of affirming the consequent, the appeal to the fallacy of negative proof, the ‘a priori’ assumption of naturalism, begging the question or any number of other fallacious lines of thought. I.E., it is too complex for you to understand, therefore that proves that nature must have done it.
The other argument is based on knowledge, research and understanding the topic. I prefer knowledge to personal credulity, which is why I research both sides of a topic prior to forming an opinion. As to your feeling on this subject I can only guess, however your response and total lack of independent research does not leave much doubt.
Now it is your turn, please cite exactly where in any article did any author provide any evidence not supported by fallacy to support the assertion that nature is responsible for the existence of this biological system?
Such a typical tactic. Which fallacy is this one, that of trying to redirect away from the topic at hand by introducing irrelevants? The colored fish-bait one? What’s the fallacy of taking one’s words and changing one word and throwing it back to sound like you’re sooooo wicked-smaht? The lack of capability of thought fallacy?
This particular article happens to have the agenda of taking a little research biology information coupled with the ignorance of the reader.....drawing the false conclusion that “See, they’re wrong...God did it”....while trying to claim that it’s a scientific conclusion.
Of course, he didn’t say how it leads to “Man walked with dinosaurs”....but ICR/YEC “scientists” don’t like talking about that one much.
what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Good by
Great movie.
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.