(December 19, 2016 at 11:34 am)Faith No More Wrote:(December 17, 2016 at 5:35 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: As I suspected... nothing specific, just begging the question.
Lol, it's not begging the question, you dolt. If you can't identify the common cold, it is perfectly reasonable for me to deny that you're a doctor, just like it's perfectly reasonable for me to say that if you think ID is science, you don't understand science.
(December 17, 2016 at 5:35 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: 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.
What makes sense to you has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's true or not. It's impossible to explain quantum mechanics in a way that makes sense. It must not be true, then? Why would you expect something as complex as genetics to be easy to explain? Nothing can be true unless the great RoadRunner can comprehend it?
This almost appears to be an admission that you prefer easy answers like "God did it" as opposed to something you might have to work to understand.
(December 17, 2016 at 5:35 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: 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).
Jesus Christ, what drugs are you on? In what world can you just call something a fallacy and move on like you've addressed it? It's all actually very relevant to the discussion, but I can understand why it makes you uncomfortable.
Criticize everything but the subject matter? I already gave you one example of why ID is not scientific (they assume a conclusion and refuse to accept anything that contradicts that conclusion no matter what), and you just ignored it and whined about me not being able to prove you don't understand science while mindlessly tossing out some fallacy names. If you continue to pretend I'm not making any points by erroneously claiming "that's a fallacy," I'm done here. I mean, not only can you not properly identify a fallacy, you're either too lazy or stupid to even try to defend why you think something is a fallacy.
So far, all you've shown here besides that you lack a basic understanding of science is that talking to you is a lost cause.
Well, I do agree, I don't think that the current course of the conversation is getting us very far. I would much rather discuss about the reasons for and evidence for the claims. I am happy to do this.
Perhaps part of the problem is that we are mixing up a couple of conversations. I am perfectly willing to give my reasons and evidence for my claims. Whether you want to talk about evolution or I.D.
This conversation was about evolution, and the only reason that I brought up I.D. at all, was in response to someone's question. Otherwise, I addressed fallacies, where I.D. was brought up and fallacies followed. And if one of us think that the reasoning is fallacious, I don't see why we can't discuss that as well (like grown up's, without resorting to name calling)!
If you would like to have a civil conversation... I'm game.
