nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 113:
Line 113: + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Suggestions: Trying to refute an allegation of begging the question by begging the question!
:::::::::: ... How do any of them fall under excluded middles? :/ Red herring, maybe, but so much of the Bible is.
:::::::::: ... How do any of them fall under excluded middles? :/ Red herring, maybe, but so much of the Bible is.
:::::::::: Finally, RE: Skeptic "rubbish." Yeah, darn dissenters have never done anything good. Earth's flat, just so you know. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:09, 6 March 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Finally, RE: Skeptic "rubbish." Yeah, darn dissenters have never done anything good. Earth's flat, just so you know. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 15:09, 6 March 2008 (EST)
(unindent)1. When two people disagree, the only way to get agreement is to argue from common ground. Arguing that the other's view is wrong because it doesn't fit with your own view is the fallacy of begging the question. I have pointed out above that the first point listed is a case of begging the question, because it is arguing that the Bible is wrong because it doesn't fit with the evolutionary view. Yet your answer, that one (evolution) is science supported by much research, and the other (creation) is based a book written by primitive people, is not an argument from common ground, but from ''claims'' of evolutionists. That is, the claims that evolution is science and is supported by much research ''are not facts, but evolutionary arguments''! The same applies to your claim about the Bible. So your attempted rebuttal of my claim that the argument is fallacious because it begs the question also ''begs the question''!
2. Your reply is to try and mock because you have no argument. As you have no argument, you've effectively conceded that the Skeptic argument is invalid.
3. Even if it ''could'' be interpreted that way, it doesn't rule out that it ''can'' be read another way, so the argument fails. Proposing another possible way of understanding something does not mean that the first way is wrong, yet the skeptic argument ''requires'' the first way to be wrong.
4. If you are going to make the claim (which you are implicitly doing by endorsing the Skeptic claim), then yes, it is ''your'' job to justify the claim. We are not talking about ''my terms'', but about the correct meaning of a Hebrew word. You (implicitly) claim it to be one thing, so the onus is on you to substantiate that claim, not on me to refute it.
5. I will remind you that I gave ''two'' answers to this one. That is, two ''independent'' answers. So answering one still leaves the other to be answered before the claim is substantiated. But as for your attempt to refute ''one'' of the answers, [http://www.teachersdomain.org/resources/tdc02/sci/life/stru/methusweb/index.html this site] indicates that "most plants [can't] live for more than ''a few days'' without at least some light" (my emphasis).
I wouldn't try and use the flat Earth argument if I were you. It doesn't show evolutionists in a particularly flattering light, given that they effectively ''invented'' the story to discredit creationists! (Read the [[Flat Earth]] article for more.)
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 6 March 2008 (EST)
== Correction and authorship ==
== Correction and authorship ==