hooberus
Its not "special pleading" nor a "a logical fallacy" to make a statements to the effect that "something that has always been there doesn't require a designer".
Hooberus, if one states "complex designs require an intelligent designer" and then cannot show how the designer came about, you are making a self-refuting hypothesis. If you add "... but the intelligent designer doesn't need a designer" you are, by definiton, using special pleading. If you additonally claim "... because it has always been there", you additonally add a postulation that cannot be proved.
It doesn't matter whether you, or Joe-Bob YeeeHaaa's website claim other wise. Each description is applied using standard definitons to part of what you say.
You might not like it, but it is of no more relevance than someone not liking having his cow described as a cow when he has a conceit it is a Unicorn. If you don't like having your cow described as a cow, sell the cow.
As Dan points out, you're repeating yourself, adding nothing new, either NOT understanding your cow is a cow even if you think it is a Unicorn, or ignoring it is a cow because it is so important to you it is a Unicorn.
I simply don't have the time to personally deal with every issue raised on these types of threads by the different posters, therfore I sometimes recommend sources for these points. Furthermore on other threads I have discussed some of the points in the afore mentioned book.
If you aren't willing to take the time to repsond to people's posts as you will note most do (providing condensed explanation), but instead c&p or refer people to books, why bother pretending to make a worthwhile contribution to these discussions. What point is there replying to you if a post time and effort is expended on, that raises problems with your claims, is just ignored at your whim because you don't have enough respect to start what you finish?
If you can't condense ReMine's stance into 150 words you are either
- incapable of doing it,
- too lazy to do it, or
- it isn't worth condensing.
Possibly you genuinely think it is a good book, but because it has tickled your ears, not because it contains one or two brilliant points that are easily consensed.
So do you expect me to respond directly to every point raised by every poster on threads that I start? Do you hold this same standard for yourself and for others on here?
Not every; but I think you need to take morte responsibility for threads you start, for example.
If you claimed 'Chocolate is made from ear wax' in a thread and then didn't respond to people pointing out no, it isn't.... and then a few weeks later you claim 'Chocolate is made from ear wax' without ever addressing all the point people made about it NOT being earwax... is this going to make you credible in anyway?
Or are you just playing to the gallary, quite possibly ONLY occupied by you?
When a poster perpetually doesn't finish off what he starts, doesn't respond to questions on a pretext, flips people off with a book reference they don't expand on to get out off dealing with major problems with their argument... and contiunes to claim that they and a bunch of rather unlikely candidates are right, and everyone else is wrong...
Say I thought swallows buried themselves in the mud for the winter (as people once did), and you and almost every expert in the world thought they migrated. I would quote old books that SAID this was so, even ones that reported SEEING it happen. I would point out HOW could such an unbelivable thing happen?, as 'intelligent travelling planning requires an intelligent travel planner'. I might say "Oh, well, look at this book this proves I am right". But you and the majority of the experts in the world would be right. No matter what I thought.
Just as in that scenario my claims, my conduct and the evidence I used would give me zero credibility, so to in the actual scenario we have at hand, do you have zero credibility.
Furthermore, I seee no need to discuss this issue further.
No? Saddam Hussain doesn't think he has anything to answer to. What you think or do not think is not relevent. You hoist your battle standard and then run when it suits you, and have the amasing gall to think people are stupid enough not to see your avoidance and disengagement for what it is.
