Soapy Sam
Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012
|
Maus - he's always good for a laugh too, innee? (sorry, no time for fiddling with long urls - it's the luskin/zimmer thread linked above). Have a good laugh at Joe's version of Occam's Razor on the way to the pudding.
| Quote | Joe: “But anyway I would say that one common design- or a design based on one standard- is more parsimonious than millions of just-so magical mystery mutations.”
Evolution is precisely ‘millions of just-so magical mystery mutations’. Take up HGT and Retrovirii before disagreeing too strongly.
timothya: “… is evidence that supports common descent.”
Flag thrown for Affirming the Consequent. You have two choices of Not Even Thinking available here. You can take Affirming the Consequent in that the existence of the consequent proves the antecedent. Or you can either take Raven’s Paradox and state that the failure to find the consequent proves that this proves that the antecedent that doesn’t exist proves the consequent that doesn’t either. Which is simply Affirming the Counterfactual Consequent. Both are mouth-breathing lackwit garbage that are necessary for stating ‘evidence of [insert random boggled nonsense here] proves unprovable thing’ as a portion of your metaphysical narcissism.
Please do not do this.
|
The Darwinist hangs his head, beaten by sheer intellect. "...evidence that supports ID" is exempted from this pseudo-intellectual asswipery by special dispensation, presumably.
--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G
BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington
|
