RE: Detecting design or intent in nature
February 6, 2015 at 6:09 pm
(This post was last modified: February 6, 2015 at 6:13 pm by Chas.)
(February 6, 2015 at 6:06 pm)Heywood Wrote:(February 6, 2015 at 6:01 pm)Chas Wrote: You did not quote my entire response.
"You have that inverted. Everything true about all polygons is true for all triangles and all rectangles and all the rest.
However, what is true for all triangles is not necessarily true for all polygons nor all rectangles."
You keep asuming that your subset is equivalent to the whole set when that is what you are trying prove. Fallacy city.
I quoted the relevant part. Reading the fucking exchange you mental munchkin. I said what is true of all polygons is true of all triangles. Simonmoon replied "true" and then you replied "false". Your claim that my true statement is false is a monumental failure.
Except the context was everything.
What you said was "Chas is wrong because something true about all polygons would be true of all triangles. I can't make his error any more clear than that."
What was false was the "Chas is wrong because". Your reason was specious.
Your logic skills suck.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
