NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 16 2015,21:51) | | Quote (dazz @ Oct. 16 2015,09:10) | A recap of some of the fallacies Edgar incurs:
Anecdotal fallacy
When he claims that because he found an event where intelligence led to multiple solutions, multiple solutions must be the norm for intelligence to conclude that intelligence always implies multiple solutions
Affirming the consequent
When he claims that, because intelligence always implies multiple solutions, multiple solutions imply intelligence
False dichotomy
Claiming that because multiple solutions imply intelligence, one solution implies naturen. Ignores the case when no solution is found.
Circular logic / beg the question
He claims an experiment is "intellen", because he found multiple solutions, but he deduced that multiple solutions is intellen because experiments are "intellen / intelligently designed"
Appeal to authority
Resort to his (non-existing) credentials to validate his claims
False authority
He has no scientific credentials, yet he somehow considers himself an authority
Argument from ignorance
As pointed out by NoName, finding one solution and claim naturen, doesn't mean there aren't more unknown solutions
I'm sure there are many more, but that's just off the top of my head
Care to address those Edgar? |
Anybody can say negatives to me..I DON'T CARE...[/quote]
Both statements are correct. Anybody can say anything they like.
You manifestly do not care about what people say, regardless of content.
| Quote | | as long as you have no replacement for new intelligence, I consider that as a lie and moronic rants.. |
Seems to be true -- you have an insane and incorrect standard for how science works, and thus you make unsupported 'considerations' of reasonable rejections of your nonsense
| Quote | | Thus, this is a free world! |
Um, no, fallacy of over-generalization.
| Quote | | You can say anything you wanna say but in science, you must have a replacement if you want to topple new discoveries.. |
Absolutely false.
We have shown this to be true. You have not shown it to be false.
You simply repeat this false, unsupported, and unsupportable assertion.
Yes, you can say it. No, it is not true.
[quote]Thus, I have still the best science and you have nothing but rants.. |
False.
You have no science.
You have presented no justification for considering any of your work to count as science.
Your reasoning skills are missing as witnessed by the construction of this final sentence, to say nothing of the evidence provided by the rest of your posts.
"Thus" is properly used to indicate a conclusion. A logical conclusion that follows from premises.
You present not premises from which this follows.
You present no evidence to show that this is true.
|
