RE: Dinosaur tail found preserved in amber!
December 17, 2016 at 5:35 pm
(This post was last modified: December 17, 2016 at 5:52 pm by RoadRunner79.)
edit... removed double post
As I suspected... nothing specific, just begging the question.
I do go to the doctor and I do rely quite a bit on what they say. And if they are not producing results, and what they explain doesn't make sense, then I go to another doctor. Similarly, I rely on biologist, geneticist, chemist, and what they say in regards to evolution and intelligent design. I don't understand everything, and certainly am not qualified to do the work myself. But I find that I am drawn more to those who can explain things in a way that makes sense, rather than those who just insult, and demand everything be taken on faith.
This is just incorrect as well as non-sequitur. Also, if you looked into it, you may find, that a number changed their religious beliefs after. I for one, would fall into your group, that it doesn't matter one way or the other. All I ask is that you give reasons for your claims and allow all the information into evidence. Frankly; conversations like this, just make me think that there is less behind the reasoning, then I previously thought (when you criticise everything but the subject matter).
(December 17, 2016 at 4:54 pm)Faith No More Wrote:(December 17, 2016 at 3:12 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Thanks, I think you confirmed quite a bit with the bolded section above. It explains the shifting the goal posts, and question begging.
And I'm not making any arguments for or concerning AIG. As to not understanding what constitutes science, I normally ask what you are basing that conclusion on? (and rarely get an answer). I don't feel that I cherry pick science, but look to what is the best logical explanation given the evidence and the reasons given for the claims being made. I don't feel that I am the one dismissing the evidence, and appealing to the source of the arguments, rather than the reasons given for the arguement. If you feel otherwise, please feel free to point it out.
Lol, you can't just throw out the names of logical fallacies with no explanation like it means anything. But congratulations, you know the names of two fallacies.
You want to know what I base that conclusion on? That you think ID is science. That's basically a litmus test for a person's understanding of the process.
As I suspected... nothing specific, just begging the question.
Quote:Are you a biologist? Or a geneticist? Then why do you think you are qualified to come to a better logical conclusion than they are? I'm sure when you're sick you go to a doctor instead of trying to diagnose and treat yourself, yet you somehow think that you know more about biology than the people that spend their lives studying it. That is why you're a cherry-picker.
I do go to the doctor and I do rely quite a bit on what they say. And if they are not producing results, and what they explain doesn't make sense, then I go to another doctor. Similarly, I rely on biologist, geneticist, chemist, and what they say in regards to evolution and intelligent design. I don't understand everything, and certainly am not qualified to do the work myself. But I find that I am drawn more to those who can explain things in a way that makes sense, rather than those who just insult, and demand everything be taken on faith.
Quote:Let me ask you this. Have you ever noticed that the only people that think that ID is science are people that have a vested interest in it being true, i.e. Biblical literalists? And how come there are Christian scientists out there that think ID is junk? It doesn't matter to them whether evolution is true or not, but they are unimpressed with ID. Take my dad, for example. He's an organic chemist and a Christian, so he would have no problem accepting that god created the world as it is. Yet not only does he think ID is hogwash, he refuses to acknowledge it as science. So on one side the only people claiming it's science are people that want it to be true, while many people that have nothing to lose one way or the other think it's unscientific. Funny how that works.
This is just incorrect as well as non-sequitur. Also, if you looked into it, you may find, that a number changed their religious beliefs after. I for one, would fall into your group, that it doesn't matter one way or the other. All I ask is that you give reasons for your claims and allow all the information into evidence. Frankly; conversations like this, just make me think that there is less behind the reasoning, then I previously thought (when you criticise everything but the subject matter).
