Is the Bible Reliable? Science and Scripture

Setanta wrote:

Baddod resembles "real life" more and more as time goes on. The member "real life" has his mantras which he repeats endlessly, without reference to the number of times it is shown that he doesn't know what he is talking about. The member "real life" plays with the definitions of words, making wild, extravagant claims about the meanings of words constantly, ignoring the hundreds of incidences when it is shown that he mis-applies definitions in making his arguments.

Baddog has now adopted this pattern with regard to "evidence." In this thread, and in the thread about proof for creationism, he is whining about what constitutes evidence. In the other thread, he himself stated that lots of evidence had been provided for creationism. When he was asked to link posts in which that evidence was given, he reverted to whining about what constitutes evidence. I suspect we'll have this whine served us again and again from Baddog. After all, he doesn't have a leg to stand on, so he is learning the "real life" technique of diverting embarrassing discussions by quibbling about what the meaning of "is" is.

Ad hominems, non sequiturs, strawman tactics, ad nauseums, cherry picking... but no answer!

Baddog seems to have stumbled on a site which lists rhetorical fallacies--not that there's any reason to assume that he knows how properly to use the concepts.

Hey, BD, you betcha, i am attacking you personally as a dim-witted, bible-thumping liar. That's a personal attack. But it is not argumentum ad hominem, because i'm just making the observation that this is the type of idiot you are. I dispose of what passes for argument on your part with reference to your failure to substantiate your hilarious claims.

The personal attacks are just icing on the cake.

One answer to your assertion; ..And the scientific community doesn't take an antagonistic stance against religion..., is provided by ehbeth's link to the NY Times article.

baddog1 wrote:

One answer to your assertion; ..And the scientific community doesn't take an antagonistic stance against religion..., is provided by ehbeth's link to the NY Times article.

Try reading the article, instead of stopping at the intro - which the rest of the article argues against.

Setanta's right. What a putz.

baddog1 wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

...And the scientific community doesn't take an antagonistic stance against religion...

Sure about that?

Actually quite sure. There are numerous studies about scientists who are religious. Google it up sometime.

I'll give you a starter ...

Quote:

Yet scientists may be just as likely to believe in God as other people, according to surveys. Some of history's greatest scientific minds, including Albert Einstein, were convinced there is intelligent life behind the universe. Today many scientists say there is no conflict between their faith and their work.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html

Quote:

But disdain for religion is far from universal among scientists. And today, as religious groups challenge scientists in arenas as various as evolution in the classroom, AIDS prevention and stem cell research, scientists who embrace religion are beginning to speak out about their faith.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html

You continually demonstrate that you don't know what ad hominem means. ehBeth explained why you are a putz, therefore, it doesn't qualify as an argumentum ad hominem.

false allegations of strawman arguments ........"real life" is fond of falsely alleging that.

Setanta wrote:

You continually demonstrate that you don't know what ad hominem means. ehBeth explained why you are a putz, therefore, it doesn't qualify as an argumentum ad hominem.

Provide proof of your assertion about an ad hominem. Oh wait - that would involve providing a definition. Oops - sorry about that request set.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. (emphasis added)

Since you clearly did not read the articles the first time round, why not give it a try this time

ehBeth wrote:

baddog1 wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

...And the scientific community doesn't take an antagonistic stance against religion...

Sure about that?

Actually quite sure. There are numerous studies about scientists who are religious. Google it up sometime.

I'll give you a starter ...

Quote:

Yet scientists may be just as likely to believe in God as other people, according to surveys. Some of history's greatest scientific minds, including Albert Einstein, were convinced there is intelligent life behind the universe. Today many scientists say there is no conflict between their faith and their work.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion.html

Quote:

But disdain for religion is far from universal among scientists. And today, as religious groups challenge scientists in arenas as various as evolution in the classroom, AIDS prevention and stem cell research, scientists who embrace religion are beginning to speak out about their faith.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html

Cherry-picking what you did proves that you didn't read the articles, or chose to ignore what they were about.

Either way, no respect for you in this round.

baddog1 wrote:

Setanta wrote:

You continually demonstrate that you don't know what ad hominem means. ehBeth explained why you are a putz, therefore, it doesn't qualify as an argumentum ad hominem.

Provide proof of your assertion about an ad hominem. Oh wait - that would involve providing a definition. Oops - sorry about that request set.

Quote:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. (emphasis added)

Source

A search on Google yielded 21,900 results in .26 seconds. You could have done that yourself. Note the portion which i have highlighted with bold-faced text--so long as someone explains precisely why your latest idiotic post reveals you to be a dim-witted, clueless bible-thumper, it is not an argumentum ad hominem to point out that you are a dim-witted, clueless bible-thumper.

I have no problem providing definitions, so long as it is not part of your game playing. I provided an example of the stupidity of the claim about hydrology from your brain-dead, bible-thumper web site. I pointed out that if you intend to use scriptures as "evidence" of science in the Bobble, it needs to say what you claim it means, rather than being subjected to a tortured interpretation, such as that tripe about hydrology.

You're the one who dances around, unable to put your money where your big mouth is.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than[/b] by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. (emphasis added)

By the way, "real life," if "strawman" appears in 1% of your more than 6500 posts, that's at least 65 times. That hardly constitutes a rare occurence.

producing evidence against the claim.

Setanta wrote:

By the way, "real life," if "strawman" appears in 1% of your more than 6500 posts, that's at least 65 times. That hardly constitutes a rare occurence.

Actually I said that it is in LESS THAN 1% of my posts.

baddog1 wrote:

producing evidence against the claim.

Technically, you provided the evidence against yourself. I just pointed it out.

You claimed I am 'fond' of using the word, which implies that I use it frequently.

You simply popped off without checking the facts. Simple as that.

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:

By the way, "real life," if "strawman" appears in 1% of your more than 6500 posts, that's at least 65 times. That hardly constitutes a rare occurence.

Actually I said that it is in LESS THAN 1% of my posts.

True that. 58 appearances. Not 65.