Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Will You Go on Record

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Roy View Post
    But what do the Cambrian rabbits they eat eat?

    Perhaps the rabbits at the base of the fluff chain were chemotrophic.

    Roy
    Rabbits all the way down . . .

    Leave a comment:


  • Roy
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Cambrian rabbits eat Cambrian rabbits.
    But what do the Cambrian rabbits they eat eat?

    Perhaps the rabbits at the base of the fluff chain were chemotrophic.

    Roy

    Leave a comment:


  • Cow Poke
    replied

    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    You dodged responding to the message (claim?), and 'shoot the messenger.'

    The DODGERinCHIEF accusing somebody else of dodging!

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Poor Debater View Post
    I wonder what those pre-Cambrian rabbits would be eating.

    Or why they would have rodent-like incisors, when there were no woody plants.

    So count me in as another one happily willing to take that bet.
    Cambrian rabbits eat Cambrian rabbits.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
    is that the fallacy shunyadragon was referring to.
    Because I didn't really have a conclusion to the message (the claim)
    You dodged responding to the message (claim?), and 'shoot the messenger.'

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Well, they'de be living in the ocean eating radiolaria.

    Duh.

    "Darwinists are so stupid." Right Jorge

    Leave a comment:


  • Poor Debater
    replied
    I wonder what those pre-Cambrian rabbits would be eating.

    Or why they would have rodent-like incisors, when there were no woody plants.

    So count me in as another one happily willing to take that bet.

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
    well
    .since you mention it ...
    ....as I sit here with my nachos and popcorn
    ....I do feel I can relate to early church martyrs
    Well, good for you.

    It's admirable to choose a hill to die on in a futile attack.

    The insurmountable hill of scientific evidence assailed by the pop-gun of one of many Genesis interpretations is brave even if stupid.

    But more power to ya.

    The Porcupine in the Paleozoic challenge was an noble effort.

    Fer suure.

    K54

    Leave a comment:


  • jordanriver
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    And here I figured you were more of a burning at the stake kinda guy
    well
    .since you mention it ...
    ....as I sit here with my nachos and popcorn
    ....I do feel I can relate to early church martyrs

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    And here I figured you were more of a burning at the stake kinda guy
    Methinks he is a she.

    And she made it clear she doesn't care about the evidence. Her interpretation of six pages of "history" is the Joker Get-out-of-Jail-Free Card for ignoring all the physical evidence (with which she apparently agrees!).

    She does get credit for a sense of humor and agreeing that there's no boundary between micro and macro evilution and that there's a haywagon load of evidence for deep time.

    Actually she might just be the prime example of origins theology cognitive dissonance.



    K54

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
    you are assuming it was because of the message (the bad news)
    Didn't you see the part where I said I didn't have a problem with the message

    ....look, if that was the case, I would be shooting everybody in natsci
    And here I figured you were more of a burning at the stake kinda guy

    Leave a comment:


  • jordanriver
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_the_messenger



    "Shooting the messenger" is a metaphoric phrase used to describe the act of lashing out at the (blameless) bearer of bad news.

    Until the advent of modern telecommunications, messages were usually delivered by a human envoy. Sometimes, as in war, for example, the messenger was sent from the enemy camp. An easily provoked combatant receiving such an overture could more easily vent anger (or otherwise retaliate) on the deliverer of the unpopular message than on its author.

    "Attacking the messenger" is a subdivision of the ad hominem logical fallacy

    © Copyright Original Source

    you are assuming it was because of the message (the bad news)
    Didn't you see the part where I said I didn't have a problem with the message

    ....look, if that was the case, I would be shooting everybody in natsci

    Leave a comment:


  • klaus54
    replied
    Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
    By the way, shunyadragon,
    ...which logical fallacy am I guilty of
    Ad hominem.

    "Obvious to all but the most ignorant."

    K54

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
    By the way, shunyadragon,
    ...which logical fallacy am I guilty of
    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_the_messenger



    "Shooting the messenger" is a metaphoric phrase used to describe the act of lashing out at the (blameless) bearer of bad news.

    Until the advent of modern telecommunications, messages were usually delivered by a human envoy. Sometimes, as in war, for example, the messenger was sent from the enemy camp. An easily provoked combatant receiving such an overture could more easily vent anger (or otherwise retaliate) on the deliverer of the unpopular message than on its author.

    "Attacking the messenger" is a subdivision of the ad hominem logical fallacy

    © Copyright Original Source

    Leave a comment:


  • jordanriver
    replied
    Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View Post
    is that the fallacy shunyadragon was referring to.
    Because I didn't really have a conclusion to the message (the claim)

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
48 responses
135 views
0 likes
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
16 responses
74 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
6 responses
48 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Working...
X