More proof evolution fails

[saxitoxin]

.

[Metsfanmax]

It appears you've committed a logical fallacy, Mets, what we refer to in the Latin as argumentum ad misericordiam.

Again, you keep on referring to this "we." Are you perhaps suffering from some disorder where you find yourself dealing with multiple personalities? I believe there is medication for that.

[King Doctor]

Again, you keep on referring to this "we." Are you perhaps suffering from some disorder where you find yourself dealing with multiple personalities? I believe there is medication for that.

By 'we' he clearly means 'educated fellows, usually from the medical community, who are well schooled in the languages of our forefathers; such as Latin'.

I, for one, am proud to be counted in this number and glad to be refered to in the collective noun that you appear to be so vexed by.


Take it from me, squire*, that when Saxi says 'we', he is thoroughly justified in doing so.












*Also, just so you know, people will henceforth be referring to you as 'The Squeaky Squire'. Thought I ought to give you a quick 'heads up' about that one.

[Metsfanmax]

I doubt that you, or the moron, are actually "well schooled" in Latin. And if the moron has had formal education in Latin, apparently it had no effect, since he uses these phrases without any apparent understanding of what they mean.

[saxitoxin]

I doubt that you, or the moron, are actually "well schooled" in Latin. And if the moron has had formal education in Latin, apparently it had no effect, since he uses these phrases without any apparent understanding of what they mean.

you seem upset/loud

[Metsfanmax]

I doubt that you, or the moron, are actually "well schooled" in Latin. And if the moron has had formal education in Latin, apparently it had no effect, since he uses these phrases without any apparent understanding of what they mean.

you seem upset/loud

[saxitoxin]

I doubt that you, or the moron, are actually "well schooled" in Latin. And if the moron has had formal education in Latin, apparently it had no effect, since he uses these phrases without any apparent understanding of what they mean.

you seem upset/loud

This JPG is a classic example of argumentum ad populum, a logical fallacy. In this instance, the arguer - Metsfanmax - is making the statement "Me, Picard and that Other Star Trek Guy are palming their face, therefore you should also palm your face."

classsssic argumentum ad populum! cllaassssssic!

[Metsfanmax]

This JPG is a classic example of argumentum ad populum, a logical fallacy.

[saxitoxin]

Oh well, this is getting old. Fun, though.

What trick do you guys want me to get Metsfanmax to do next?

I only have him trained to do this one, and it will require a "synapse lapse" via time break to get him oriented to a new one but get your suggestions in now via PM.

I'll pick the best one by EOW and do it in a few months. (PS - keep it realistic. This Pavlovian dog routine is about as complex as I can engineer over a message board.)

[Woodruff]

Except, that is the kind of "evidence" ICR uses frequently.

In truth, here is how they will see this:

To them, evolution is dependent upon the idea that ALL previous forms MUST be inferior to all later forms. Sometimes they even refer to "complexity" or such. So, to them anything that shows that things perhaps did not evolve as quickly or even reversed is considered "proof" that evolution fails.

It is just one more example of why the Institute for Creation Research depends upon MISunderstanding evolution to put forward their ideas, why it is absolutely critical that kids be taught real science and not this fakery.

I'm not too familiar with the the institute in question, but based on the quick search I just did it seems like your assessment of them is correct; I don't want to unfairly judge them, though. Is it true that they base their arguments on misconceptions of evolutionary science, instead of outright rejection of it?

That depends on your idea of what "misconceptions" means. I am of the opinion that the ICR INTENTIONALLY MISLEADS...I don't believe THEY have a misconception (though those who follow their lead probably do).

[saxitoxin]

Oh shoot, one more - I can't help myself.

Mestfanmax - your last JPG was also an example of argumentum ad populum, a logical fallacy. In this instance, the arguer - you - are making the statement "Me and the first bird are expressing disgust, therefore you should also express disgust."

(speak, now)

[Metsfanmax]

Oh well, this is getting old. Fun, though.

What trick do you guys want me to get Metsfanmax to do next?

I only have him trained to do this one, and it will require a "synapse lapse" via time break to get him oriented to a new one but get your suggestions in now via PM.

I'll pick the best one by EOW and do it in a few months. (PS - keep it realistic. This Pavlovian dog routine is about as complex as I can engineer over a message board.)

[King Doctor]

Dear Mr Squeaky Squire,





Saw this and thought of you.

Love and huggles,
The King (of Doctors)




Or, in Latin, El Kingo del Doctoriosos

[Woodruff]

Who cares?

People who understand that science is critical to our society.

If it really was critical I'd rather focus on the now then our past, dismiss religion and the theories of how we came about and have people start working on my flying car.

The problem is that many children are being educated OUT of science. Thanks to that, your flying car becomes more distant!

Oh no! After all this you're really still seeing these phantasms? We've demonstrated, repeatedly, your situational application of logic in ways that confound the imagination and accost the reasoned senses. But still you're convinced you are a purveyor of Reason?
Mets - you're really Dr. John Nash, aren't you?
(BTW, with a tedious heart I feel it necessary to point-out your most recent logical fallacy. It's a logical fallacy - an amphiboly to be exact - to assume that "roller-coaster of emotion" equals "mutual exclusion of emotion and logic.")

Metsfanmax has really gotten to you, hasn't he? <laughing>

[saxitoxin]

Who cares?

People who understand that science is critical to our society.

If it really was critical I'd rather focus on the now then our past, dismiss religion and the theories of how we came about and have people start working on my flying car.

The problem is that many children are being educated OUT of science. Thanks to that, your flying car becomes more distant!

Oh no! After all this you're really still seeing these phantasms? We've demonstrated, repeatedly, your situational application of logic in ways that confound the imagination and accost the reasoned senses. But still you're convinced you are a purveyor of Reason?
Mets - you're really Dr. John Nash, aren't you?
(BTW, with a tedious heart I feel it necessary to point-out your most recent logical fallacy. It's a logical fallacy - an amphiboly to be exact - to assume that "roller-coaster of emotion" equals "mutual exclusion of emotion and logic.")

Metsfanmax has really gotten to you, hasn't he? <laughing>

He sure has! <giggle>

[Metsfanmax]

Dear Mr Squeaky Squire,





Saw this and thought of you.

Love and huggles,
The King (of Doctors)




Or, in Latin, El Kingo del Doctoriosos

Thank you! You see, it was only through saxitoxic's wisdom that I learned how to troll - by making all my posts non sequiturs. I really do think it's a clever technique.

[Woodruff]

I just want to say...outside of this whole thread...that is an outstanding picture. Has had me laughing at it all day.

[Woodruff]

Metsfanmax has really gotten to you, hasn't he? <laughing>

He sure has! <giggle>

It's pretty obvious. You should work on that.

[saxitoxin]

I just want to say...outside of this whole thread...that is an outstanding picture. Has had me laughing at it all day.

Not to nit-pick, Dubya, but he only posted it 20 minutes ago, per the time stamp.

Gang, first one to complete this analogy wins a $10 iTunes gift card. I'll submit the winner for inclusion in the '12 edition of the MAT.

Topic:
Woodruff
Equation:
All Day : 20 Minutes :: "I'm Leaving and Never Coming Back to Conquer Club" : ?

[Army of GOD]

All Day : 20 Minutes :: "I'm Leaving and Never Coming Back to Conquer Club" : He returns a few days later

[Woodruff]

All Day : 20 Minutes :: "I'm Leaving and Never Coming Back to Conquer Club" : He returns a few days later

I believe we have a winner.

[natty dread]

What trick do you guys want me to get Metsfanmax to do next?

Can you get him to fetch my slippers?

[Maugena]

Evolution:
A genetic change in an organism per generation.

• Evolution does not necessarily mean advancement.
• Evolution on the smallest scale is the next generation.

This is the definition that I've come to accept and fully believe in.

[Maugena]

Not to nit-pick, Dubya, but he only posted it 20 minutes ago, per the time stamp.

Gang, first one to complete this analogy wins a $10 iTunes gift card. I'll submit the winner for inclusion in the '12 edition of the MAT.

Topic:
Woodruff
Equation:
All Day : 20 Minutes :: "I'm Leaving and Never Coming Back to Conquer Club" : ?

See you tomorrow!

Edit: Saxi, are you getting paid to advertise in your signature? XD

[King Doctor]

Thank you! You see, it was only through saxitoxic's wisdom that I learned how to troll - by making all my posts non sequiturs. I really do think it's a clever technique.

Is it a non-sequitur, Mr Squeaky Squire, or is it just that you do not understand the joke being had at your expense?


On this one Captain Kirk agrees with moi.