"'I'm not a proponent of ID, but it seems you're too eager to dismiss it that you can't see your own fairly obvious logical fallacy.'
I have no desire to turn this article's discussion into an anti-religion debate, but if you want to talk 'obvious logical fallacies,' may I direct your attention to the fact that 'The Bible is God's own Word, because the Bible says it is,' as well as that 'The Bible is true, because the Bible says the Bible is true.'
From everything I've seen and/or read, proponents of Evolutionary Theory do not use circular-arguments to 'prove' what they say is true.;)"
If you are going to attack people for what they've said, kindly include the entire quote, not just the part you take issue with, out of context.
Nowhere did I say anything about -you- or your father. As such, it cannot be called slander(particularly as it would actually be libel), as that would have required me to single you or him out.
My comments about the bible being true "because the bible says the bible is true" is, in general, what the religious folks, Christians in particular, bring up whenever anyone questions the validity or reality of the book.
Also, you'll note that I was responding to someone else's assertion(s) being called a "logical fallacy."
"Some religious people are pretty smart. Some of them are pretty liberal and modern in their thinking."
You are correct. Some of them are. 'Some' being the operative word. However, that is neither here nor there, since the post your replied to was not a commentary on how many religious believers may or may not be "religious right" nuts.
"I would appreciate it if people like you would stop putting words in their mouth and thinking that they all believe the same thing."
I have put zero words in -anybody's- mouth. As I said above, "the Bible is true because it says it is" are words out of their own mouths. Paraphrased or no, that is what they insist, more often than not.
You, however, are trying to put words into -my- mouth with your diatribe. Thanks. 'Preciate it.:)
"In actuality religion is about nothing of the sort, and you're only demonstrating your ignorance on the topic."
Religion is nothing of -what- sort? I didn't call it anything of any sort at all. Again, I offered a retort to someone else's claim of "logical fallacy" (which, by the way, would be that slander --sorry, libel-- you mentioned), and provided a relevant example of such.
Kindly keep your self-righteous indignation to yourself, if all you can do is jump down other people's throats over what you apparently perceive to be a personal attack upon you.
Particularly when the comments you're attacking have nothing to do with what you're ranting about.
The e-mail trying to sell me various sexual-/personal-enhancement aids/creams/pills/etc in Russian and/or Chinese was sent to -me-, and claiming to be a -targeted advertisement-.
"Targeted," in this case, supposedly meaning "aimed specifically at customers who are in need of such items or services."
I wouldn't mind the spam so much if ANY of it actually WAS "targeted."
Unfortunately, that would require actual research and stuff to find people who might actually be interested in pills/creams/patches to enlarge their breasts and penises, pills/creams/patches to help them get their newly-enlarged penises up and keep them up so they can make use of all the great deals on dating/get-more-sex-NOW services, cheap cigarettes to smoke after all that sex, patches/creams/pills to help them with that new smoking habit, miracle diet pills/patches that let them eat as much as they want and never gain an ounce, and miracle weight-loss pills/patches/creams/magic spells to lose the weight they subsequently gain from all that eating.
So, to recap: I'm male. I don't smoke. I don't drink. I weigh 125lbs, and am lucky to keep myself from dropping below that. I don't want to meet anyone, for sex or otherwise.
Targeted? Hardly. I'm a victim of some idiot firing off shotguns in a crowd.
"OK. But religions certainly don't say that man is perfect."
No, but religion DOES state, matter-of-factly, that God -is- perfect, and incapable of making a mistake. That includes creating anything that is less than perfect because, by definition, that would be an imperfection on His part.
"God can be perfect and create something imperfect."
See part A., above.:)
"I'm not a proponent of ID, but it seems you're too eager to dismiss it that you can't see your own fairly obvious logical fallacy."
I have no desire to turn this article's discussion into an anti-religion debate, but if you want to talk "obvious logical fallacies," may I direct your attention to the fact that "The Bible is God's own Word, because the Bible says it is," as well as that "The Bible is true, because the Bible says the Bible is true."
From everything I've seen and/or read, proponents of Evolutionary Theory do not use circular-arguments to 'prove' what they say is true.;)
"The two different designs have different purposes for different conditions. A squids eye would perform very poorly under the conditions humans live in, and vice versa."
So, basically, they -evolved according to their circumstances and environmental needs-?:)
"Yeah I was just thinking that. Squid eyes are radically different to our own. Saying that having a blind spot is a design flaw isn't necessaryily true - the designer might look at the problem and decide that an eye with a blind spot still qualifies as "good"."
However, by the religious folks' own argument, "God is perfect," and, as such, cannot make mistakes. Therefore, God is incapable of making anything that is imperfect or simply "good enough".
The process of evolution, however, IS capable of making "mistakes," which manifest themselves as such potentially-dangerous things as not being able to see anything in a certain spot, or susceptibility to the tiniest organisms in the environment. Heck, even differentiation in coloration could be construed as an evolutionary "mistake.";)
The last I knew, Gates was shown a prototype of the soon-to-be-released MacOS, then coincidentally stole Apple's thunder by jumping their release-date with the amazingly-similar Windows.
I wonder about the spam mails I get in Chinese and Cyrillic...
And the ones trying to sell me breast-enlargment creams/patches/pills/magic spells and stop-smoking-now miracles in conjunction with ads for cheap cigarettes, then mentioning at the bottom that they are all about "focused marketing".
I don't speak Russian or Chinese, I'm male, and I don't smoke.
Obviously, I'm the target audience.:P
Armada was not "true to the old one" because it WASN'T the old one. It was a whole new series, set in its own continuity.
Megatron was the big green tank leading the Decepticons, until he got "powered up" and turned into a big white tank.
Also, Armada was preceded by Robots in Disguise (which would be the crappy 90s version you're thinking of), which was also set in its own little universe.
Energon followed Armada, and was a direct "sequel" series. Both of them sucked, although Energon was by far the worse of the two.
Now we have Transformers: Cybertron, which is a lot better than the previous three.
The green combiner was Devastator, and was composed of 6 smaller robots. I believe Predaking was also a 6-bot combiner, and the ones who followed were 5-bots.
The robot who replaced Optimus Prime was Hot Rod, who became Rodimus Prime after he took the Matrix from Galvatron and opened it during the climactic battle inside Unicron. He's not in the newer series because, again, they are not part of that continuity.
Oh, and the live-action movie is (loosely) based on the 1980s Generation 1 version.
Slashdot Mirror
"Just because someone charges a lot for something doesn't mean that they are price-gouging."
No, but charging a lot for something simply because you can, because you have no competition to prevent it, does.
This comment reminded me of an episode of Futurama, wherein Fry fell in love with a Lucy Liu android.
Woohoo! Bring on the hot Lucy Liu bots!!!
er.. *ahem*
"' I'm not a proponent of ID, but it seems you're too eager to dismiss it that you can't see your own fairly obvious logical fallacy.'
;)"
:)
:)
I have no desire to turn this article's discussion into an anti-religion debate, but if you want to talk 'obvious logical fallacies,' may I direct your attention to the fact that 'The Bible is God's own Word, because the Bible says it is,' as well as that 'The Bible is true, because the Bible says the Bible is true.'
From everything I've seen and/or read, proponents of Evolutionary Theory do not use circular-arguments to 'prove' what they say is true.
If you are going to attack people for what they've said, kindly include the entire quote, not just the part you take issue with, out of context.
Nowhere did I say anything about -you- or your father. As such, it cannot be called slander(particularly as it would actually be libel), as that would have required me to single you or him out.
My comments about the bible being true "because the bible says the bible is true" is, in general, what the religious folks, Christians in particular, bring up whenever anyone questions the validity or reality of the book.
Also, you'll note that I was responding to someone else's assertion(s) being called a "logical fallacy."
"Some religious people are pretty smart. Some of them are pretty liberal and modern in their thinking."
You are correct. Some of them are. 'Some' being the operative word. However, that is neither here nor there, since the post your replied to was not a commentary on how many religious believers may or may not be "religious right" nuts.
"I would appreciate it if people like you would stop putting words in their mouth and thinking that they all believe the same thing."
I have put zero words in -anybody's- mouth. As I said above, "the Bible is true because it says it is" are words out of their own mouths. Paraphrased or no, that is what they insist, more often than not.
You, however, are trying to put words into -my- mouth with your diatribe. Thanks. 'Preciate it.
"In actuality religion is about nothing of the sort, and you're only demonstrating your ignorance on the topic."
Religion is nothing of -what- sort? I didn't call it anything of any sort at all. Again, I offered a retort to someone else's claim of "logical fallacy" (which, by the way, would be that slander --sorry, libel-- you mentioned), and provided a relevant example of such.
Kindly keep your self-righteous indignation to yourself, if all you can do is jump down other people's throats over what you apparently perceive to be a personal attack upon you.
Particularly when the comments you're attacking have nothing to do with what you're ranting about.
Have a nice day.
And that has no bearing on my comment.
The e-mail trying to sell me various sexual-/personal-enhancement aids/creams/pills/etc in Russian and/or Chinese was sent to -me-, and claiming to be a -targeted advertisement-.
"Targeted," in this case, supposedly meaning "aimed specifically at customers who are in need of such items or services."
I wouldn't mind the spam so much if ANY of it actually WAS "targeted."
Unfortunately, that would require actual research and stuff to find people who might actually be interested in pills/creams/patches to enlarge their breasts and penises, pills/creams/patches to help them get their newly-enlarged penises up and keep them up so they can make use of all the great deals on dating/get-more-sex-NOW services, cheap cigarettes to smoke after all that sex, patches/creams/pills to help them with that new smoking habit, miracle diet pills/patches that let them eat as much as they want and never gain an ounce, and miracle weight-loss pills/patches/creams/magic spells to lose the weight they subsequently gain from all that eating.
So, to recap: I'm male. I don't smoke. I don't drink. I weigh 125lbs, and am lucky to keep myself from dropping below that. I don't want to meet anyone, for sex or otherwise.
Targeted? Hardly. I'm a victim of some idiot firing off shotguns in a crowd.
Heh. Touche. :P
Haven't you seen/heard of/played "Run Like Hell" for PS2? Bawls machines and ads throughout--it's a healing item. :)
"OK. But religions certainly don't say that man is perfect."
:)
;)
No, but religion DOES state, matter-of-factly, that God -is- perfect, and incapable of making a mistake. That includes creating anything that is less than perfect because, by definition, that would be an imperfection on His part.
"God can be perfect and create something imperfect."
See part A., above.
"I'm not a proponent of ID, but it seems you're too eager to dismiss it that you can't see your own fairly obvious logical fallacy."
I have no desire to turn this article's discussion into an anti-religion debate, but if you want to talk "obvious logical fallacies," may I direct your attention to the fact that "The Bible is God's own Word, because the Bible says it is," as well as that "The Bible is true, because the Bible says the Bible is true."
From everything I've seen and/or read, proponents of Evolutionary Theory do not use circular-arguments to 'prove' what they say is true.
"The two different designs have different purposes for different conditions.
:)
A squids eye would perform very poorly under the conditions humans live in, and vice versa."
So, basically, they -evolved according to their circumstances and environmental needs-?
"Yeah I was just thinking that. Squid eyes are radically different to our own. Saying that having a blind spot is a design flaw isn't necessaryily true - the designer might look at the problem and decide that an eye with a blind spot still qualifies as "good"."
;)
However, by the religious folks' own argument, "God is perfect," and, as such, cannot make mistakes. Therefore, God is incapable of making anything that is imperfect or simply "good enough".
The process of evolution, however, IS capable of making "mistakes," which manifest themselves as such potentially-dangerous things as not being able to see anything in a certain spot, or susceptibility to the tiniest organisms in the environment. Heck, even differentiation in coloration could be construed as an evolutionary "mistake."
"Licensed"? Did I miss a memo somewhere?
The last I knew, Gates was shown a prototype of the soon-to-be-released MacOS, then coincidentally stole Apple's thunder by jumping their release-date with the amazingly-similar Windows.
*shrug*
So, then, you're saying I should invest in this "L34rn t0 br34th3 N1tr0g3N t0d4y!" spam?
I wonder about the spam mails I get in Chinese and Cyrillic... And the ones trying to sell me breast-enlargment creams/patches/pills/magic spells and stop-smoking-now miracles in conjunction with ads for cheap cigarettes, then mentioning at the bottom that they are all about "focused marketing". I don't speak Russian or Chinese, I'm male, and I don't smoke. Obviously, I'm the target audience. :P
Armada was not "true to the old one" because it WASN'T the old one. It was a whole new series, set in its own continuity. Megatron was the big green tank leading the Decepticons, until he got "powered up" and turned into a big white tank. Also, Armada was preceded by Robots in Disguise (which would be the crappy 90s version you're thinking of), which was also set in its own little universe. Energon followed Armada, and was a direct "sequel" series. Both of them sucked, although Energon was by far the worse of the two. Now we have Transformers: Cybertron, which is a lot better than the previous three. The green combiner was Devastator, and was composed of 6 smaller robots. I believe Predaking was also a 6-bot combiner, and the ones who followed were 5-bots. The robot who replaced Optimus Prime was Hot Rod, who became Rodimus Prime after he took the Matrix from Galvatron and opened it during the climactic battle inside Unicron. He's not in the newer series because, again, they are not part of that continuity. Oh, and the live-action movie is (loosely) based on the 1980s Generation 1 version.