Oh goody, another response from baddog1. I predict: no substance. Let's see how it works out!
baddog1 wrote:Shirakawasuna wrote:Twice? In 200 pages? Is this supposed to be impressive? Haven't I presented exactly that many in ~10 and properly defended them?
There was no mention or thought of being impressive until your rant. Non sequitur. It was informative and if you were as impressive as you imply - you would've studied the material prior to chiming in, thus having the knowledge of each player's position.
Of course, that's why I wrote
supposed. Two points is almost nothing in regards to this issue so it's amazing that you even brought it up in your defense. Feel free to bring them up again if you'd like, I'm still waiting for either of the people attacking my point of view (apparently asking for evidence is waaaaaaaaaaay too much) to do so.
Have I implied that I'm impressive? I think I just equated the number of points I had made to yours and implied that that number was
not impressive. Silly people, always trying to add a little barb when they don't have a leg to stand on. As for my knowledge of each "player's" opinion, I think I have plenty to go on, if by the 'material' you mean the last 200 pages of what seems to be a couple creationists avoiding questions and everyone else fuddling around, sometimes making bad arguments, sometimes making goods ones and getting ignored (that's the best way to argue!).
baddog1 wrote:Shirakawasuna wrote: Sheesh. You make awfully strong claims considering your unwillingness to ever back them up. "Fundamentally questionable", eh? On what grounds?
Your claim of my dishonesty based on "switching topics" is without merit and another non sequitur. "Switching topics" in the fashion that you descibe implies evasiveness, which is/was not my intent. I clearly stated my intent a number of times - and evasiveness was never a consideration.
What funny ideas you have. Have you already forgotten why I called you a liar?
Shirakawasuna wrote:baddog1 wrote: We are clearly at an impasse, and although the reasons you provide are typically biased; I see no reason to continue. You will maintain that your definition of 'evidence' is sufficient - until which time/situation you feel it is not. Then you will alter your definition to fit whatever situation is in question at that time. That's been the theme of this thread so nothing has changed.
And you, my friend, are a liar. Good riddance!
That was after about the 7th or 8th time you claimed I was changing definitions without backing it up after I repeatedly explained how I hadn't and wouldn't. The claims of dishonesty in regards to swtiching topics in order to avoid answering a question were all put to 'real life', and you took issue with them. You gave a single response (I guess it's something) and I've issued another one.
Perhaps you've gotten mixed up. I don't believe I've ever claimed that you switched topics in order to avoid answering a question, although you have done a fantastic job in never answering my challenges for you to support your claims about me or really any of the things you assert (zing!).
baddog1 wrote:Shirakawasuna wrote: Note the synonym of deceptive. The type of attempt at switching topics (usually attempting ot shift the burden of proof at the same time) I've described is not simply, 'hey, let's talk about X', but implicitly diverging from the topic at hand, usually in the form of non sequitur, asking a straw man question, etc. Hopefully I don't need to explain what evasiveness is.
"Evasiveness" does not apply. Focus - it does not apply!
I think we've been over this: simple assertions to the contrary don't count as argument. They amount to the equivalent of more verbose renditions of "nuh-uh!" and it's why I keep asking you to support your claims. The quote above is a perfect example: I tell you why you're wrong and then I explain precisely why. If you had included more context, I even cited m-w.com. You respond with a vague claim that ""Evasiveness""does not apply". Note that I don't know what it's not supposed to be applying to nor how you back up that assertion given my explanations.
baddog1 wrote:Shirakawasuna wrote: You must have missed the part where I said to use your own definition, so long as it isn't terribly vague. Of course, if your evidence for creationism, which almost always depends on establishing existence, constitutes an emotional feeling, it operates on no way equivalent to merely establishing 'love' between to people - the people exist already, we don't prove their existence through the love.
30 topics - thirty definitions of evidence? Hey I've got an idea! How about you go back to Webster's and post their definition of 'evidence' for creationism and then post their different definition of 'evidence' for love between 2 or more people? Speaking of candyland & fancy!!!
Dictionaries can be vague as these words have been used in different contexts. Had you checked Webster's, you'd realize that it gets even worse. Here's the only version of evidence relevant to this discussion at m-w.com: "b: something that furnishes proof"
Now that's pretty vague, but like I said it gets worse. Here's the first definition of 'proof': "1 a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact". If we used that one, it'd be circular. Thanks, Webster's! (this is often how dictionaries work. In my old pocket dictionaries, hills are defined as shorter than mountains, mountains as taller than hills)
The second option of proof is more clear: "b: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning". By substitution, evidence is then: "something which furnishes [the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning.".
The disappointing part here (for you) is that this version of 'proof' is essentially equivalent to a mathematical or logical proof, meaning it's even more strict that the one I originally offered.
As a side note, there is also the third definition: ": something that induces certainty or establishes validity". But it's pretty darn relative. That which induces certainty can certainly be fallacious and thus we'd arguably disclude it as admissable evidence for any arguments for the existence of observational phenomena.
As for your attempt at sarcastic criticism, if you'd actually like to get back into the points about evidence for loving one's mother, you can go back and read what I originally wrote to you. You barely touched on my explanations and replied primarily through merely asserting the original claim.
Now, read above, baddog1. That's what an actual reply looks like and it's what happens when you treat your 'opponent' with a slight amount of decency. I may bash you guys, but it's far more respectful to take apart your reasoning, show you how you're wrong, and be willing to back up those statements, than for someone to poke holes, complain without warrant, ignore substantive responses, and what really seems to resolve into an
argumentum ad hominem (the bit about me supposedly changing the definition of 'evidence' in the future).
