shipofthesun: CDP: Well, Mars was once sterile, but it is not sterile now. The rovers and other probes sent to Mars have contaminated the plant with bacteria, viruses and other possible organisms. This contamination has destroyed the possibility of proving that these life forms evolved on Mars.The chance of finding evidence of past life forms on Mars seems very remote, but even if life were found, it does not prove that life evolved any more than life on Earth proves evolution. It simply does not. Evolutionists have struck out again.So no matter what we find on Mars, or any other planet, evolutionary theory is wrong because...you say so? I would just like to point out the methane plumes that have been found with no sign of chemical origin, and the fact that the rovers and all probes are cleanroom bacteria and virus free, and...aw, who am I kidding? You lack the capacity to understand the most basic of scientific ideas, dismissing them out of hand, or you are a troll, either way, get up, take off all your clothes, and go lie down in field. Every single other thing in your life is based on science, and the true faith based approach involves some lilies and a field, if I'm not mistaken. So go, and be true.
idsfa: Argumentum ad Imaginibus
zeph`: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Trolling or not, it's not evident in your post.No, it really isn't.
bobbette: Right. Which is why right after I posted that comment, I pointed out that your entire argument is tautological. Which is not an implication, but a direct statement, that your posts are incorrect.
chef_riggy: Or Goddesses NSFW (new window)
Ludovicus: Tiamat's a real goddess, dumbass.
idsfa: A flawed observation, since I created the images ...
zeph`: idsfa: A flawed observation, since I created the images ...The words "generally" and "probably" obviously mean something different to you than they do to me.
zeph`: Not necessarily. I just generally disagree with the whole idea of too-easy-counter-arguments. If you can't construct a valid counter-argument yourself you might as well not argue, because you probably don't understand what's actually wrong with the argument.
Kali-Yuga: ARGUMENT FROM INTERNET AUTHORITY(1) There is a website that successfully argues for the existence of God.(2) Here is the URL.(3) Therefore, God exists.ARGUMENT FROM IDENTITY (PC ARGUMENT)(1) Believing in God is a central part of my identity.(2) You don't mean to deny my identity do you?(3) Therefore, God exists.
CDP: And this shouldn't be surprising, since the very basis for scientific research is biblical creation.
Vangor: If the person can post the corresponding image to demonstrate the fallacy of an argument
Pharque-it: zeph`: 4. If a god comes to exist at any time he will exist in all times.This was a great pull out of your ass!TOTAL FAIL!
zeph`: bobbette: Right. Which is why right after I posted that comment, I pointed out that your entire argument is tautological. Which is not an implication, but a direct statement, that your posts are incorrect.Besides the fact that nothing I posted was done with any amount of conviction or belief in its truth or validity: Tautological reasoning - valid or no?
Befuddled: So if an intelligent designer made the whole universe, why did he bother making anything other than the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon? Couldn't we do quite nicely without all the rest of that stuff which makes up far and away the vast majority of the observable universe? It's not like we have any real hope of reaching any other inhabitable planets as the distances are just too great. Wouldn't God's chosen beings be better off without comets and asteroids which have the potential to wipe out all life on Earth?
Wonko Fortytwo: CDP = Bevets (abbreviated)Bevets devolved into CDP.
idsfa: I haven't had time to make a good "weasel words" graphic. Your response was clearly directed at me, so your attempt to legitimize your failed argument also fails.
zeph`: heinekenftw: Then what caused God to exist?1. All existing things are were either caused to exist or not caused to exist.2. God is not uncaused.2. A god has the power to bring himself into existence.3. God caused God to exist.
zeph`: ninjakirby: www.roflcat.comHehe. This thread evolved very quickly from an 'evolution and science education' thread into an 'incredibly bad logic and the people who can't stand it' thread.
Finger51: Wonko Fortytwo: CDP = Bevets (abbreviated)Bevets devolved into CDP.Not even close. Bevets used much more linking and scripture citation.
zeph`: Pointing out logical fallacies does nothing to deny a fallacious argument's conclusion, only to point out (correctly) that that conclusion is not directly entailed by the premises - the truth or falsity of the conclusion remains unestablished.
zeph`: The observation isn't flawed though, and my comment didn't attempt to legitimize my obviously ridiculous arguments. Pointing out that you do not conform to my observation when I made the non-universality of my observation explicit does nothing.
eggrolls: There's a reason Texas has to guarantee a place in their own state colleges for any high school 'graduate'.
zeph`: Somacandra: WIki misunderstand1. Wikipedia understands everything.2. Therefore you are wrong.That was too easy.
bobbette: Because you were trying to prove an assertion with a tautology as evidence, it is invalid.
zeph`: Not necessarily. I just generally disagree with the whole idea of too-easy-counter-arguments. If you can't construct a valid counter-argument yourself you might as well not argue, because you probably don't understand what's actually wrong with the argument.Just an observation.
zeph`: So if I say something like:1. A implies B2. A implies ~B3. A implies (B and ~B)4. ~(B and ~B) (Tautology)Therefore,5. ~AHave I not constructed a valid argument using a tautology as evidence for the truth of the conclusion?
idsfa: You're not even trying anymore. :-(
zeph`: idsfa: You're not even trying anymore. :-(Huh? I'm being honest now.Me: I observe that generally A.You: Well I'm a case of ~A, therefore that observation is incorrect!Me: It was qualified with "generally"...
PC LOAD LETTER: A and B were not even acceptable premises.
PC LOAD LETTER: Because they are.
CDP: The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.Intelligent design begins with observations...
CDP: The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.
PC LOAD LETTER: How much time until I can have slippery shower sex with Salma Hayek, Penelope Cruz, Christina Ricci and Monica Bellucci?
gimpols1908: CDPThe planet has had all of the conditions necessary to provide the "spark" of life according to the evolutionary theory. Yet, there is no life on Mars.So the fact that my head has all the conditions necessary to provide lice with the spark of live, and yet there are no lice present at this time means that there were never and never will be lice? In fact that would mean that if my hair follicles were people they would believe that lice could never exist...But then again look at all the people around you, some of them have lice, can we take that as proof they exist? Or is that person just Intelligently Gifted?
zeph`: bobbette: Because you were trying to prove an assertion with a tautology as evidence, it is invalid.So if I say something like:1. A implies B2. A implies ~B3. A implies (B and ~B)4. ~(B and ~B) (Tautology)Therefore,5. ~AHave I not constructed a valid argument using a tautology as evidence for the truth of the conclusion?
Vangor: ninjakirby: I mean, he's really, seriously, implying that spells in DnD are REAL MAGICAL SPELLS. And that's just farking hilarious.I absolutely love this one. My nerdom practically rages at all of the problems associated with this, at least according to 3.5 rules. Not locating a trap doesn't automatically trigger it, DMs don't "declare" people dead, any person attached to their character probably has someone in party capable of resurrection or the ability to pay a priest elsewhere, poisons don't do damage, she'd get a reflex roll from any sort of poisonous trap anyway, yadda yadda yadda.
ninjakirby: Renart: ninjakirby: HAH YOU DOGMATIC FOOL YOU HAVE FINALLY REVEALED TO US THE RELIGION THAT IS DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS. ONLY A PRIEST OF HIGH KNOWLEDGE ARCANA COULD HAVE ASCERTAINED THIS TRUTH SO QUICKLY.[Satanic D&D Ritual Panel]Easily my favorite Chick tract!This is my favorite panel from that tract:I mean, he's really, seriously, implying that spells in DnD are REAL MAGICAL SPELLS. And that's just farking hilarious.
zeph`: Unfortunately, pointing out logical fallacies is a lazy and generally unconvincing way of refuting argument, because they don't direct establish the falsity of the conclusion of the original argument
Want the rest of the Farking story? Try
More threads. More community. More Farking.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Sep 21 2017 03:29:22
Runtime: 0.856 sec (856 ms)