Search results

Ummm, it is pure fiction to suggest that Biden wants open borders.

You know they're doing wonderful things with psychotropics these days.

Medical experts are virtually unanimous that smoking causes cancer.

Fiction. Please provide a credible argument to defend your frankly absurd implication that the experts are guilty of the kind of circular reasoning you are suggesting they are.

In this retard-fest, we are getting the old "it's just a theory" diversion. The word "theory" is used in colloquial speech to denote a claim that has little or no support. In the domain of science, the term has a much different meaning. From wikipedia: The meaning of the term scientific...

Nice try. Let's review. In post 226, you posted this: There is TONS of evidence for a global flood. The fossil record itself is evidence for a global flood. You were then challenged in post 229 as follows: That is a good introductory sentence. You need to fill in the details and layer in the...

Let me get this straight. You claimed that there was a tons of evidence for a global flood. Since you made the claim, you bear responsibility for providing evidence, if you are so challenged. And now you insist that we find the evidence to support your claim? We'll be busy for a while...

Are you suggesting that there is evidence that undermines evolution? Well, where is it? In any event, it is beyond obvious that it is entirely reasonable to believe something on the basis of expert opinion. We do this all the time: - we believe that smoking causes cancer only on the basis of...

What, specifically, is wrong with my assertion that it is entirely rational to believe what trained experts tell us about evolution solely based on their say-so,

Yes, but surely you are not denying that it is entirely reasonable to believe that evolution is correct solely on the say-so of the experts?

I think you are not telling the whole story - yes, evidence that is at odds with the theory can "overthrow" a theory, but as Skeeter has correctly pointed out, usually this evidence only requires that the theory be modified. But the more evidence we have that coheres with the theory, the more...

You guys try this stunt all the time. It is as silly as saying that I am committing an "appeal to authority" fallacy if I argue that smoking causes cancer because medical experts agree that it does. Strictly speaking, yes, I am "appealing to authority". And if we were having a formal debate, it...

This is a common critique of evolution but I believe it is misguided. From Scientific American: Creationist Claim: 3. Evolution is unscientific because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created. This blanket dismissal of...

Nonsense. It is a gross misrepresentation to suggest that evolution is "popular", as if it were merely fashionable to believe it. What you have to hide, of course, is the uncomfortable fact that tens of thousands of highly trained experts are virtually unanimous in their agreement that the...

This is profoundly misleading. While technically true, at least in a sense, it is only peripherally relevant. Yes, the truth of a proposition P is not determined by who believes P, how many believe P, and what their credentials are. But you are obviously constructing a strawman - no one here...

Deeply misleading. Obviously we are being very reasonable, and in no sense illogical, when we adopt the views of qualified experts. It is in no way a "fallacy" or "illogical" to believe what trained experts almost unanimously believe to be the case about evolution. Just as it is eminently...

The Gateway Pundit? Come on, man. From wiikipedia: The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is an American far-right[2] fake news website.[1] The website is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories.[31]

And we should believe this merely on your say-so?

How? How do you know that genetic mistakes cannot result in such a thing. You are asking us to believe you - and I suspect that, like me, you are not an expert - over Scientific American, a high-reputable science publication?

No one, repeat no one, who is not otherwise already committed to the YEC position, would believe this. Using this line of reasoning, you can defend any absurd position, no matter the evidence that the real world throws your way. Suppose scripture said the moon was made of green cheese. If...