Evangelical Scientists Refute mavity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

Biohazard said:
Seems to be a few of these 'straw men' cop out phrases about :p

Does america even have to bother thinking about reconciling the two different ideologies being spread?
Click to expand...

Just out of interest, why do you think highlighting that someone's argument is a fallacy is a 'cop out'?

In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g. appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure the logical argument, making fallacies more difficult to diagnose. Also, the components of the fallacy may be spread out over separate arguments.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

If you rely on a fallacy to make your argument, then your argument is flawed. Trying to argue against a flawed argument is somewhat difficult because it hasn't been reached through correct and logical thought processes, and you can't reason someone out of an argument they haven't reasoned themselves into...
 
How can you people be so sceptical when they have such compelling and irrefutable evidence.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some mavity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If mavity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."
Click to expand...

:p
 
JonJ678 said:
Every time I hear "scientific fact" I wince. The whole point to science is that it's a continually evolving (meaning "to roll out", iirc) model, as soon as you enshrine something as factual people stop questioning it and things tend to stagnate. Describing evolution as a fact before it is even a completed theory strikes me as particularly premature. Or perhaps this is just another case of the public using terms vaguely when they have specific definitions in the sciences.
Click to expand...

Bam0 is right in this case. It is true that very few things in science can be regarded as factual, but observed data, is one of them in the vast majority of cases cases. Whether that equation that predicts the observation actually describes what occurs, or just provides an accurate prediction, is where the theory part comes in, because that is the part that you cannot demonstrate to be accurate.
 
The Onion, that great purveyor of “news”, “fact” and opinion, you just have to believe it, well may be you don’t. :D
 
Beerbaron said:
Huge gap in religion as no proof god exists. FAIL
Click to expand...

The level of proof required varies with discipline.

Mathematics - Absolute and in accordance with axioms.
Court of Law - Beyond a reasonable doubt.
Religion - Touched with his noodley appendage is more than adequate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom