Originally posted by Time Immemorial
So just coincidence?
And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat (Genesis 8:4)
Notice how it says "mountains", who is to say the "mountains of Ararat" of the Bible is what we now know as Mt. Ararat today. Seems more to me that Gen 8:4 is referencing a mountain range; which could or could not include Mt. Ararat. So yeah, most likely a coincidence.
edit: That's not taking into account the very good chance that the passage I quoted from the NIV is not in sync with the original account from thousands of years ago.
Originally posted by Robtard
And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat (Genesis 8:4)Notice how it says "mountains", who is to say the "mountains of Ararat" of the Bible is what we now know as Mt. Ararat today. Seems more to me that Gen 8:4 is referencing a mountain range; which could or could not include Mt. Ararat. So yeah, most likely a coincidence.
edit: That's not taking into account the very good chance that the passage I quoted from the NIV is not in sync with the original account thousands of years ago.
Are you a believer or atheist?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Let me show people what bluewaterrider is doing.Here is the original post that I made:
"Point one: Maybe if you apologized for falsely accusing me of having JIA banned, then things would be better between us.
Point two: Being called a sock can lead to being banned, but I've been here so long that no one would believe you. I don't recall, but I was probably joking around."
Here is what bluewaterrider quoted:
"Maybe if you apologized ... things would be better between us."
You can see how the original meaning has been changed.
Then he takes posts from years ago, and completely different context, and adds that. I'm not sure why. I suspect it somehow furthers his false position.
You were never taught what an "Ellipsis" is used for, were you?
The three dots that go like so ... ?
The three dots that signal to a reader that SOMETHING IS INTENTIONALLY BEING OMITTED from the original sentence being quoted?
And the original text being something I provide for readers by having click-able links to the pages the original text appears on?
You point two was meaningless in the context of my statements.
I never accused you of being a sock. You took it that way, but I never did.
Nor is the original meaning changed in the context I was pointing out.
It's not true that you don't care about my responses. You wouldn't be seeking an apology from me unless you felt I and it were worth something.
You call "mental flaming hoops" what really does not require much exertion at all on my part, but, understandably, could not help but pose a challenge to you attempting the same.
Young Shakyamunison was able to admit: dyslexia is the reason for the short responses and part of the frustration he often felt in responding.
Young Shakyamunison was also able to admit: Christians inspired anger in him.
So he had two reasons for it.
In the intervening years, the dyslexia has NOT gone away.
That much even current Shakyamunison will admit on occasion.
Does the anger remain, too?
Originally posted by Robtard
The panda being specialized to its current diet ... does nothing to prove your proposal that carnivores of today could have lived [in] harmony in the Garden of Eden ...I used the source you cited as proof against your position ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Circular reasoning and the problem of induction
Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer-Landau note that "using the scientific method to judge the scientific method is circular reasoning". Scientists attempt to discover the laws of nature and to predict what will happen in the future, based on those laws. However, per David Hume's problem of induction, science cannot be proven inductively by empirical evidence, and thus science cannot be proven scientifically. An appeal to a principle of the uniformity of nature would be required to deductively necessitate the continued accuracy of predictions based on laws that have only succeeded in generalizing past observations. But as Bertrand Russell observed, "The method of 'postulating' what we want has many advantages; they are the same as the advantages of theft over honest toil".[7]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Begging the question means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)", a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Robtard
stop cherry-picking just the parts that fit your narrative and deal with it ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aristotle’s advice in S.E. 27 for resolving fallacies of Begging the Question is brief. If one realizes that one is being asked to concede the original point, one should refuse to do so, even if the point being asked is a reputable belief ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
Originally posted by Robtard
Congrats?
Thank you.
Because anyone who actually paid attention will note you're trying to force me to accede YOUR view as MY starting point, which, by definition, is the fallacy of circular reasoning.
Nevertheless, I thank you for the discussion to this point.
For I begin to understand now why science and religion debates shape up the way do. Far from being backed up by fact where questions of history are concerned, many critical points in science are simply assumed rather than proven. I was led to believe it was only religion that could be justly credited with that initially, but I was wrong. I was genuinely surprised to find so frank an admission of that as I got yesterday.
Of course, the other thing I have to that you for is re-introducing me to Jared Diamond. He is far more than I knew when I brought that "Worst Mistake of the Human Race" article to you.
Nice to meet a man, frankly, who thinks much along the lines that I do.
Think I'll spend some more time this week investigating his work ...