(August 11, 2012 at 7:51 pm)padraic Wrote:Quote:How did he know something was there without the technology beats me.
Argument from incredulity. (look it up) Science makes no claims of perfection. Such discoveries do not change the basics of evolutionary theory. Nor did discovering and mapping the human genome.
It seems to me that you're really stretching the meaning of that sentence to see an argument from incredulity or ignorance in it.
From Wikipedia:
Quote:Arguments from incredulity take the form:
P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true.
freedomfighter wasn't appealing to his ignorance of Einstien's methods to reach his conclusion. His conclusion was basically "we should keep an open mind." His supposed "appeal to incredulity" was merely meant to set aside irrelevant objections that would miss his point.
My ignore list
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
"The lord doesn't work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his nonexistence."
-- George Yorgo Veenhuyzen quoted by John W. Loftus in The End of Christianity (p. 103).
