Evolution? How?

Unpleasant is in the eye of the beholder. If one finds the shoe does not fit, one may blame no-one but oneself for discomfort incurred through forcing one's foot into it.

I submit, Anonymouse, that I have engaged in no ad hominem attack, for I direct my approbation and ridicule to an argument, tenet, proposition and/or philosophy in general, without specific individual personal attribution of any sort, whereas in your emotional defense of the proposition you champion you have done so specifically with your statements to me:

Anonymouse wrote:

... Of course, there is a bit of induction which you forgot ... You seem to miss the nature of my criticism and instead resort to the typical clash of Manichaean assumptions that if someone is not with your ideological camp, they must ipso facto be of the opposing camp. I don't understand the need for personal attacks, unless of course criticism of your beloved dogma is uncomfortable and gives one a crack in their edifice of thought ... Ad hominems are a fallacy. Try to avoid them.

You are welcome to include yourself or exclude yourself reference the adherents to and supporters of the designated proposition as you find fitting in your own individual case and circumstance.

Indeed, " ... Ad hominems are a fallacy. Try to avoid them." is good advice. Also useful in forensics is knowing how to recognize and determine what constitutes such fallacies.

... So no comments about the rest of my last response to you?

I

Whether one wishes to assume affinity with the group is irrelevant to my point.

The group exists only because it has individual members - members which share a certain set of beliefs about origins.

... Comments made about that group apply to all members of that group specifically because a group is comprised of individuals. The notion of a group sans members is meaningless.

... Yer just baitin ole Timber and hes got a bigger pack a wolves than you . SAFE BET>

Implicator wrote:

The group exists only because it has individual members - members which share a certain set of beliefs about origins.

What any group may or may not espouse or endorse is irrespective of one's choice re affiliation with said group. One may say brown haired or Spanish speaking or left-handed people merit approbation for that particular attribute, but unless an individual within that group is specifically identified and indicated as sharing that attribute, no personal pejoration has occurred. Such might be inferred, perhaps, but that remains a matter of personal choice and perception.

"So much for science and deduction."

Is that all you can offer? As a matter of fact, it's all about science and deduction, and not "creationism" or ID. The correct statement is "so much for creationism and deduction" since none exists.

cicerone imposter wrote:

"So much for science and deduction."

Is that all you can offer? As a matter of fact, it's all about science and deduction, and not "creationism" or ID. The correct statement is "so much for creationism and deduction" since none exists.

What is your point? I never mentioned creationism or ID, therefore you are engaging in a strawman.

Furthermore, there is alot of induction involved in science, as I mentioned, that you cannot absolve, and alot that is taken by a grain of faith.

This argument is one of feigned indignation and its getting a bit over the top mouseman. Yer just baitin ole Timber and hes got a bigger pack a wolves than you . SAFE BET>

Anonymouse wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

"So much for science and deduction."

Is that all you can offer? As a matter of fact, it's all about science and deduction, and not "creationism" or ID. The correct statement is "so much for creationism and deduction" since none exists.

What is your point? I never mentioned creationism or ID, therefore you are engaging in a strawman.

Furthermore, there is alot of induction involved in science, as I mentioned, that you cannot absolve, and alot that is taken by a grain of faith.

As is induction itself

I

I've got a question for the deranged freaks (you know who you are). Exactly how old do you believe this planet is?

It's more truth than fiction - like the bible's age of the earth.

Quote, "Furthermore, there is alot of induction involved in science, as I mentioned, that you cannot absolve, and alot that is taken by a grain of faith."

Be more specific about what you mean when you say "alot that is taken by a grain of faith." Are you talking about the bible or science?