Logical Fallacy

[NomAnor15]

The greatest leap in logic fallacy I ever heard:

Missionary: "It seems that when tribes in the Amazon are introduced to the Church, they start using toothpaste and are generally more hygenic."

Any other good ones? Not made up to demonstrate a point, just ones you've actually heard.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I think that's a correlation=causation fallacy. Missionaries conveniently leave out the other trappings of modern civilization when attributing all these wonderful health benefits to the new religion.

What, do toothpaste, antibacterial soap, and shoes magically materialize when you say 'Jesus is Lord'? Wow, I didn't know you were a Jeannie

[NomAnor15]

Ah, you are correct. My mistake.

[Darth Wong]

The greatest leap in logic fallacy I ever heard:

Missionary: "It seems that when tribes in the Amazon are introduced to the Church, they start using toothpaste and are generally more hygenic."

Any other good ones? Not made up to demonstrate a point, just ones you've actually heard.

Yes, we all know how native American hygiene improved when the original missionaries arrived in the 15th century.

Seriously, it's always amazing what stupid bullshit fundies can say.

[vargo]

I'm not sure if you can find any Fallacy in this but, I've been following this small debate on another forum. Its funny how some fundies/IDers. They talk/type with strong convictions, that show no doubt at all in what they believe in.

I will post as if I'm the Fundie.

"...assumes the existence of life in order for it's mechanisms of modification and descent to take hold. Nowhere does evolution state that life comes from non-life - that would be abiogensis..."

Fundie (Noah12)- Wrong again. Evolution does not assume the existence of life. If this were true there would be no evolutionary biology book that attempts to explain life from nonlife. Obviously, this is not the case.

Show us.

Sure Pew: Each one of the biology books I list below mentions the Miller Urey Experiment as an example of how life's early building blocks could have come from nonlife.
Futyama, Evolutionary Biology, 1998, Third Edition

Guttman, Biology, 1999

Mader, Biology, 1998, Sixth Edition

Raven and Johnson, Biology, 1999, Fifth Edition

Schader and Stoltze, Biology: The study of Life, 1999.

Starr and Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, 1998, Eighth Edition

But it's not what I asked for. Now show me how these books make it a part of the theory of evolution. You probably can't since you rely on the Discovery Institute for this information - and they only thing they point out is that the Miller/Urey experiments were mentioned in Biology texts.

I rely on the discovery institute? Since when.

Since you got your entire booklist from them:
http://www.arn.org/docs/wells/jw_tbookreport900.htm

No I did not. While you might not be able to read, I can. I happen to own these books.
Nice try though

"But it's not what I asked for. Now show me how these books make it a part of the theory of evolution."

Because it happens to be presented in an evolutionary biology book? Duh.

There was only one book in your list that specifies itself as an evolutionary biology book. The rest are just plain ol' biology, and there is plenty more to biology than evolution. I thought you owned these books?

That happens to be the book I was speaking about when I posted this remark

So, you posted all of those examples, but are referring to only one?

In that statement, Yes. Are you challenging Futyama's credibility?

No but Why would you post all of those texts, when in fact, only ONE supports your argument that abiogensis and evolutionary theories are linked? Even this is arguable, since you've done nothing but say that the text mentions it. Please cite this and in context to show that this text links abiogenesis and evolution.

You are in a corner again and attempting to spin the subject.

The subject is I have definitively shown you an evolutionary biology book that uses the Miller Urey experiment as an attempt to explain the origin of life from nonlife.

Now are you challenging Futyama here?

Comeon I can see your squirming.

You only bring this up when you've been caught in your own lies. Hahaha - you own all of those books you posted and they all mention Urey/Miller, yet only one of them is actually an evolutionary biology book!

That totally made my evening.

Thanks for showing us what a 'tard you really are...

You are in a corner again and attempting to spin the subject.
Spin if you must...Call me a liar when it is you who is caught...

The bottom line is you are wrong and are caught in your own web of lies and deceit.

Unless of course, you are challenging Futyama.

I already told you this so I must assume that you are a selective reader. I'm not challenging the author of the ONE book you can actually use out of the several that you posted. I'm challenging the notion that abiogensis is linked to evolution.

You've failed to provide any evidence. You've simply posted a bibliography of a few books I doubt you've read, only one of which is an evolutionary biology book and more than likely cites the Miller-Urey experiment in a completely different context than evolutionary theory.

Call it spin, but you've got nothing.

From there on end they just go back and forth name calling[/b]

[Surlethe]

Evolution does not assume the existence of life. If this were true there would be no evolutionary biology book that attempts to explain life from nonlife. Obviously, this is not the case.

This has got to be the biggest non-sequitur I've seen this month.

[wautd]

Nuklear Power

[Darth Wong]

That is indeed one of the biggest problems with debating creationists; it is often very much like debating a precocious child. He is literally too ignorant to understand anything that you're saying; it would take years to bring him up to the level of knowledge he needs to even converse about the subject. Yet he is too arrogant to accept his own limitations, so that if you cannot explain the matter to him to his satisfaction, then he concludes that you must be wrong.

[R. U. Serious]

+ttp://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/the_ra ... _show/3582
At the bottom in the comments:

Why do atheists get all gooshy and emotional about people dieing or being killed? First off you begin with the assumption that it's bad to die. And then you conclude that if God causes people to die then God must be bad. The problem with this is that anything having to do with good or bad can be nothing but oppinion.

Talk about moral relativism...

Now for me, my concept of good and bad as a Christian is based on rights. God took away my right to kill therefore it's bad for me to kill. God didn't take away His own right to kill, LoL. Therefore there's nothing wrong with God killing people.

So as long as God talks to people from time to time, to re-grant them their right to kill, it's ok for them to kill.

My favourite though is:

Realy though I would like an atheists who realy believes it's bad to die to give a logical(not emotional) reason for believing this.

Wow, I can't think of a single reason...

[OmegaGuy]

One I've heard "All homosexuals are pedophiles because Michael Jackson is a pedophile."

Saw it on FSTDT.com

[R. U. Serious]

You don't have to refer to a an obscure website for that view. Anybody who has followed the Foley case, has seen plenty of statements in the news and by some politicians to the same effect, i.e. talking as if the actual problem in that case had been that Foley was homosexual...