From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Sep 12 17:14:29 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07BEC37B400 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:14:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net (gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.84]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D5CD43E4A for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:14:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0015.cvx40-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([216.244.42.15] helo=mindspring.com) by gull.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17pe6C-0002jN-00; Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:14:17 -0700 Message-ID: <3D812D58.D30609F1@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:12:08 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Lawrence Sica , Giorgos Keramidas , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020912123152.B69462-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Neal E. Westfall" wrote: [ ... ] > > Would you quit pulling the word "random" out of your butt? > > Thanks. > > You are the one who tried to justify human reason by introducing > randomness. If you are dropping that belief, I won't talk about > it anymore. On the contrary; you are using your own assumptions to justify your own conclusions. The first use of the word "random" in this thread was in your posting of 29 August 2002, as an adjective to describe your *opinion* of a universe which did not attribute a continuing requirement for uniformity (a requirement which you also pulled out of thin air) to a creator. Here is the reference: [ ... ] > Well if this isn't the pot calling the kettle black! You haven't > done anything to show that my reasoning is fallacious other than > lots of assertions and impugning my understanding. Impugning > someone's understanding is not a valid argument. Until you can > show that my reasoning is fallacious there is no basis for > impugning my understanding at all. You have appealed to authority. You have appealed to a common belief. You have appealed to common practice. You have appealed to indirect consequences. You've argued from the specific to the general. You've generalized. You've demonstrated circular reasoning. You've proposed false dilemmas. You've attempted to create a burden of disproof. You've engaged in post hoc reasoning. All in all, you've committed most of the possible logical fallacies in your arguments. Mostly, your appeals have been to a common belief which is not, in fact, shared by everyone else, which you then justify by appealing to Biblical authority, which you justify by appealing to Divine authority, which you justify by appealing to Biblical authority. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message