tas8831
Well-Known Member
It matters a lot if you are making an argument that you cannot get from one to the other within given parameters without disclosing one of them.Doesn't matter, point A is point A and point B is point B
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It matters a lot if you are making an argument that you cannot get from one to the other within given parameters without disclosing one of them.Doesn't matter, point A is point A and point B is point B
Interesting you reply, but do not address the point of the post you replied to.Person X is not in possession of the necessary details, yet believes their argument to have merit.
LOL!
Whatever, man.
It matters a lot if you are making an argument that you cannot get from one to the other within given parameters without disclosing one of them.
No point worth addressing.Interesting you reply, but do not address the point of the post you replied to.
Still don't know where point A is.Still point A is point A and point B is point B
Still don't know where point A is.
If the guy knows where point A is but won't say, the outcome is the same. Without being told or knowing where point A is, one CANNOT say whether or not one can get to point B by only travelling X distance.
Not sure why this is so difficult.
One reason why it's difficult for me: when someone describes someone else's argument as irrational, one question that I always want to answer for myself is whether the person is describing the argument accurately or they misunderstood the argument in some way.Still don't know where point A is.
If the guy knows where point A is but won't say, the outcome is the same. Without being told or knowing where point A is, one CANNOT say whether or not one can get to point B by only travelling X distance.
Not sure why this is so difficult.
And you still had to reply...No point worth addressing.
As already stated, nothing worth replying to.And you still had to reply...
Interesting.
Evidence For And Against Evolution:One reason why it's difficult for me: when someone describes someone else's argument as irrational, one question that I always want to answer for myself is whether the person is describing the argument accurately or they misunderstood the argument in some way.
This anonymous Person X's argument as you understand it is irrational. Was it actually irrational or did you just mishear it or miss some nuance? I'm not sure how to tell.
and again you could not stop yourself from replying.As already stated, nothing worth replying to.
What's irrational about that?Evidence For And Against Evolution:
The argument is based on 2 premises
1 that even assuming optimal circumstances at most humans could have accumulated a few thausand positive mutations (say 500,000 assuming the best scenario) after they diverged from the LCA 5M years ago
2 that 500,000 benefitial mutations are not enough to explain the differences between chimps and humans
Don't blame us for your failure to express yourself properly.From that, I concocted my scenarios, just to 'take a pulse.'
Pedants missed the forest.
Bye.and again you could not stop yourself from replying.
Interesting how you reply, but your replies are the very thing you whine about.
What's irrational about that?
I think the premises are probably incorrect (or at least wrong-headed), but if you take them as a given, you can make inferences from them.
I'm guessing you don't have much of a biology background?Don't blame us for your failure to express yourself properly.
LOL!And having seen that quote, I do think that my suspicion was correct: I think you've misunderstood what was told to you. What you gave in the OP wasn't a fair analogy for the argument you say it represents.
rotflmaoBye.
YOU can't explain it and you were there.Well then, master of all, explain what was told to me.
I'm sure it will be entertaining.