1,193
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 92:
Line 92: + + + + + + +
→Suggestions
::::::: That's enough to give you an idea. I skipped a few, mainly because the explanations would have been a bit longer. But essentially, they've said ''nothing'' accurate in those first few. The annotations have no credibility.
::::::: That's enough to give you an idea. I skipped a few, mainly because the explanations would have been a bit longer. But essentially, they've said ''nothing'' accurate in those first few. The annotations have no credibility.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:01, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:01, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::::::::I might take you seriously if you cited a single fallacy among those, Philip. But, in the interest of fairness, I'll go through and criticise your answers.
:::::::: 1: Yes. It goes against the way things are shown to have happened. How is that fallicious?
:::::::: 2: For one, humans can't, our glorious creations can. For two, yes, that's exactly what it is claiming.
:::::::: 3: No, it says that there was light, not a source of light-- Unless of course you count Yahweh.
:::::::: 4: Then pray tell, what does firmament mean?
:::::::: 5: Not very long. You see, Philip, plants use sunlight in combination with the chloroform in their leaves or needles to create a type of sugar which they use for food. Without this, they'll die rather quickly.
:::::::: Now then, can you please cite something that is actually a logical fallacy, complete with a mention of what logical fallacy it is? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:54, 5 March 2008 (EST)
== Correction and authorship ==
== Correction and authorship ==