Oolon Colluphid

Hi folks

Over on the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/h2/h2.cgi?state=threads&board=science.created&" target="_blank">BBC's E/C boards</a>, I've been hammering away (insofar as one can nail jelly ) at one smarmy piece of work called Chris Groves with my design oddity list. Now I've just been told, having related how bats have the mammalian tidal respiratory system while birds have a superior through-flow one, that:

So, which fallacies is that? Ad hominem, distraction.. but I feel there's something more...? Any other thoughts? To be fair, this isn't a line I've heard before...

Cheers, Oolon

Kevin Dorner

Ever cut a finger? Did it heal? Then you have created cells. Congrats!

Ab_Normal

If film critics *watch* films, then Creator critics *watch* creation, which is precisely what you did to create your wonderful list. What's that have to do with *actually* creating anything? Sounds like a "smarmy piece of work" indeed. Good luck!

Vanderzyden

And how shall we categorize these colorful comments?

Oolon, please stop and think for a moment. In the face of a good question, you falter. Instead of addressing the question--instead of considering that it is something worthwhile to think about--you come back here (with the proverbial tail between legs) and proceed to wonder aloud to your sympathizers here if an ad hominem attack has been committed upon you. From what I've seen in your replies, it is clear that it is a primary characteristic of your engagements.

I realize that I'm the new guy on the block, but may I emplore you to withhold such peripheral commentary and attempt to provide DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE? As with fossils, homology, "fusion", etc., your "design critique" is highly subjective and without factual basis. (Just take one of items and attempt to provide a detailed, convincing argument!)

It is immensely difficult to take you seriously when you choose to dialogue in such fashion. Most certainly, it is difficult to find you persuasive.

FYI, your opponent's challenge...

...is reminiscent of this:

Take a guess where it comes from! (Hint: an authority much more reliable than you)


Vanderzyden

[ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]

[ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p>

Clutch

Whatever fallacy it is, it cuts both ways. If you can't judge something undesigned without having created a cell, neither can your interlocutor judge something *designed* without having created a cell.

Kevin Dorner

Your "reliable authority" thinks the earth is flat. If not, how does one "lay the foundation" for a spheroid supported by nothing in a near-vacuum and bound to a larger spheroid by gravity?

Yes, I know fully well who it is.

You'll probably answer that this passage was not meant to be taken literally, but then answer later that the passages that you say are to be taken literally are to be taken literally because you say so.

[ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

Vanderzyden

Permit me to rephrase it:

Why is there SOMETHING rather than nothing?

-RRH-

Job 38:2-4 New International Version

Viti

Why not?

ps418

Uh huh. And I guess I'll have to create a ford Pinto before I can criticize their crappily designed features. And I guess I'll have to create my own operating system before I can criticize windows 95.

[ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]</p>