Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 105

Thread: James Tour gets to debate origin-of-life chemist!

  1. #31
    tWebber lee_merrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,470
    Amen (Given)
    501
    Amen (Received)
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Seeker View Post
    Sarcasm and name-calling aren't ad hominems, Lee. I took me a while to learn that but it is true.
    Well, Merriam-Webster defines it as follows (definition 2): "ad hominem: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made."

    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

  2. #32
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,509
    Amen (Given)
    1741
    Amen (Received)
    1038
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Tour is not saying abiogenesis cannot happen, he does say the problem is hard, which I think is generally acknowledged. But he has published articles discussing these issues with biologists.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    An open letter proposing problems in the negative is not a dialogue with biologists. There has not been any proposals for a positive hypothesis nor published research to support his negative proposals, which cannot be considered a falsifiable hypothesis.

    For the ID crowd you need falsifiable hypothesis supporting their claims

    None, absolutely none have been presented,
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  3. #33
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    15,509
    Amen (Given)
    1741
    Amen (Received)
    1038
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Well, Merriam-Webster defines it as follows (definition 2): "ad hominem: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made."

    Blessings,
    Lee
    I prefer to demand science, which is lacking.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  4. #34
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,534
    Amen (Given)
    95
    Amen (Received)
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    Well, take me back to that other thread and correct my misunderstandings, then. Let's discuss Tour's debate in this thread, though.
    It's not my job to correct your misunderstandings. It's your job to make sure what you post is accurate.

    I'm posting this here because you decided to let someone else know his style of posting displeased you, and you wanted it to change. I found that somewhat ironic that you expect in others what you're not willing to deliver yourself.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

  5. Amen shunyadragon amen'd this post.
  6. #35
    tWebber HMS_Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Thinking
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,096
    Amen (Given)
    60
    Amen (Received)
    468
    Quote Originally Posted by lee_merrill View Post
    What points have you made, though?
    That Tour and Behe are both willful liars and are doing it to support their religious anti-science position. That's what the evidence presented shows. Ignoring the evidence like a good little Creationist won't make the evidence go away.

  7. #36
    tWebber HMS_Beagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Thinking
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,096
    Amen (Given)
    60
    Amen (Received)
    468
    Quote Originally Posted by Seeker View Post
    Sarcasm and name-calling aren't ad hominems, Lee. I took me a while to learn that but it is true.
    Falsely crying ad hom! is a standard Creationist defense to deflect criticism of the liars and charlatans who run the ID-Creationist movement.

  8. Amen Seeker amen'd this post.
  9. #37
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Faith
    Unspecified
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    214
    Amen (Given)
    192
    Amen (Received)
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Seeker View Post
    Sarcasm and name-calling aren't ad hominems, Lee. I took me a while to learn that but it is true.
    Sorry, I should have said ''it'' and not ''I'', i.e., ''[...]it took me a while[...]

  10. #38
    tWebber Roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,973
    Amen (Given)
    801
    Amen (Received)
    1531
    Quote Originally Posted by Seeker View Post
    When will creationists (and with that I also mean the ID community) understand that abiogenesis and evolution are separate fields, and the second doesn't depend on the first? Seriously, it's like saying the same thing 100.000 times over.
    Whenever they have an audience that doesn't see through their falsehoods about increases in information and complexity being impossible during evolution, so that they have no need to retreat to asking where the original information came from.
    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

    mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

    Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.

  11. #39
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Faith
    Unspecified
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    214
    Amen (Given)
    192
    Amen (Received)
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy View Post
    Whenever they have an audience that doesn't see through their falsehoods about increases in information and complexity being impossible during evolution, so that they have no need to retreat to asking where the original information came from.
    You mean like when they don't explain where ''God'' comes from or when they refuse to identify the ''Designer'' as the Christian God?

  12. #40
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,948
    Amen (Given)
    251
    Amen (Received)
    749
    Quote Originally Posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
    Falsely crying ad hom! is a standard Creationist defense to deflect criticism of the liars and charlatans who run the ID-Creationist movement.
    Well if we go back to the original post that seems to be under discussion (which required going back quite a bit), it does seem like it was ad hominem in the sense of being an attack on the person, as the attack was quite directly on James Tour, asserting he wasn't reliable because he had repeatedly made false statements.

    However... while it may have been ad hominem in the aforementioned sense, it's hard to say this is an ad hominem fallacy, as the ad hominem fallacy refers to making an attack on the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. But as far as I can tell, no arguments from James Tour have actually been posted in this topic, so one can't exactly complain about attacking James Tour instead of his argument when his arguments haven't been advanced. So the attacks on James Tour in this topic really can't be ad hominem fallacy because it's just an attack on James Tour, not an attack on him in lieu of attacking his arguments.

    It should be noted there is debate as to whether an ad hominem attack, even when doing so in lieu of answering an argument itself, is inherently an ad hominem fallacy if the attack on the person actually relates in some way to the argument. For example, if someone has a known history of making really poor arguments, that doesn't mean the current argument they're making is bad, but increases the odds so markedly that it isn't unreasonable to dismiss it on that basis.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •