The Truth (As I see it)

Except there's no such thing as an "evolutionist". Not really. Not any more than there are "Einsteinists". An "Einsteinist" would be someone who studies physics. But the name for that is a "physicist". An "evolutionist" would be someone who studies biology. But the name for that is a "biologist".

You're trying to create a distinction where none exists, by applying an inappropriate label. What's worse, you're lumping other fields in with it, such as geology. Someone who studies geology is a "geologist".

 

Actually, I had a similar discussion with someone, the other day, about something like this, when I heard the term 'Darwinism' for the first time. I said I didn't know a lot about it, but it seemed an odd term to me, since it's (as far as I know) a mere propounding of the theory of evolution; so it seemed to be akin to calling gravity 'Newton's force' or something like that (not that gravity is a force!).

 

I am referring to your claims that "God told me". It contradicts your position of Reason. And not only that, your God-told-me arguments always depict a God that is contrary to the God that I believe rendering your words unacceptable to me even at my most gullible moments. And I can be very gullible at times. "Charity believes all things." 1 Corinthians 13 something. (No time to look up the passage.)

Shot straight. I have difficulty comprehending beating-around-the-bush arguments. Directness doesn't bother me.

(Read you tomorrow.)

 

I must confess, I'm a bit perplexed at your position. Contradicts my position of Reason? Are you therefore saying that all prophets of the Bible were incapable of reason? and so, speech, deduction, induction, abduction, perception of perception, synthesis, understanding, &c.? I also find difficulty with your rejecting my claim that I hear God, simply because you do not believe it (or so you say yourself), since this would produce an odd epistemology. Finally, I conclude with my confusion of your failing to answer my question regarding your defective induction, and am eager that you give me your answer, so that I can understand your position, which remains in the dark, to me, at present.

 

Alright, I cant find what I saw originally; it's possible it was a fabricated memory, but on youtube I could swear there was a video of a Shaolin monk boiling water with his chi.

 

An error occurred. Please try again later.

 

Man, you guys are crazy.

 

There's nothing like a nice, hot cup of chi.

 

There's also a video on YouTube of people microwaving popcorn using their mobile phones. I expect both videos use the same trick.

My favourite YouTube video about mystic Eastern martial arts (which of course I can't find right now) is the one that shows an old "Telekinesis master". First it shows his loyal students running one by one towards him, and he does a "force push" motion with his hands, and they fall over. Ooh! He's a master of telekinesis! Then it shows him in a fight with some doubting fool who knows a bit of karate or something. The fight starts. The master starts moving his hands around. The doubting fool calmly walks over to him and thumps him in the head.

Conclusion: There ain't no Santa Claus.

 

Oooh, I remember that one! Fairly certain the old guys nose started bleeding like hell.

I pity the fool.

 

Sounds like fun. Don't hesitate to share if you succeed at finding it.

 

• "Non sequitur, in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises." & "Many types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many different types of logical fallacies."
  -- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)
  
  "The faculty of reason, rationality, or the faculty of discursive reason (in opposition to "intuitive reason")..."
  -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason
  
  "Mysticism is the phenomenon of having a unique experience of communion with God, an ultimate reality, divinity, or insight into spiritual truths."
  -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism

Question: Any arguments against these quotes before I base anything on them?

 

That argument is Ad Wikipedium.

 

But are the definitions or concepts provided wrong?

This argument by wayne-scales is also a logical fallacy. The first wiki quote provides another's use of the term logical fallacy. If you follow the link provided with the quote, you can follow the links on that page to learn more about logical fallacies.

 

I don't have any objections!

Brilliant!

Firstly, it's not an argument.
Secondly, Wikipedia is not an authoritative source, in any case.
Thirdly, mostly, whenever it refers to the term 'logical fallacy', it prudently mentions that it properly refers to formal fallacy (which is contrasted with an informal fallacy, though, technically, there is no such thing as an informal fallacy, and a formal fallacy is just a descriptive tautology, because fallacies must be formal, by definition of the word, though this is usually ignored).
Fourthly, even ignoring this, and assuming that your conceptions of what you're talking about were correct, what I said above would not be a 'logical' fallacy.
Lastly, it was a fucking joke; of course I knew what you were talking about; and since a 'logical' fallacy means a deductive or formal fallacy, an appeal to authority is not a 'logical' fallacy; so you were wrong there, too.

 

Except when the emotions are heavy with sarcasm, I have never been able to determine when a person is being sarcastic, either.

-----------

@Smuelissimo

Paleontology and the fossil record, the cross point between Geology and Biology. Think Jurassic Park. Paleontologists are the scientists that creationists refer to as evolutionists, for the most part.

And Aren't fossils rocks?

 

Not all of them, no.

 

Isn't an appeal to the Bible the fallacy of appealing to authority?

 

Sure, fossils are rocks, if you want to be a dick about it. They're more like sparse evidence of evolution. I admit that the fossil record isn't conducive to your standard Darwinian theory of evolution, but there is evidence of punctuated equilibrium. Another problem with the fossil record is that we don't see things actively fossilizing these days, which is perplexing. One would assume that, within the proper circumstances, anything would fossilize. Another thing that's peculiar is the evidence of Ediacarans, soft-bodied organisms that thrived before the Cambrian explosion. Nothing alive today seems to be related to them, and it's perplexing that such creatures, with no skeletal remains to speak of, would be preserved in such coarse grained items as sandstone without completely destroying whatever could be described as a body or trail.

 

Dude, we know you're completely bat-shit. I, for one, just figure when you say something crazy you can't help it and you're being you. Even if you can help it, it still provides me with amusement.