I see what you were trying to say. You were equivocating the phenomenon of evolution with the theory that explains it.
No. You had them confused. Evolution is an observable fact. Evolutionary theory is the way we explain how it works.
No. I told you that it could. Did you not read it? I told you:
Science requires that one be willing to drop any theory in favor of one that better describes reality.
I don't think there's a way to make it any easier to understand.
Which is why I cited it, like I explained...Maybe it is you who doesn't understand? Wouldn't be the first time.
If you had seen it, you wouldn't have denied that I said it.
Checking for duari91 saying he denied it: Nope, doesn't seem to exist.
You seem to be changing the story as you go. I merely pointed out that ignorance is less harmful if one realizes one's ignorance.
I don't think it qualifies as a story. Maybe we can say I was elaborating.
Never said it, just "alluded", now is it?
Looking at my above post, I never said that you made that claim. I was merely poking fun. It is funny how your tone changed though, isn't it?
I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything nice about ignorance...(Barbarian checks) No, it was you, wasn't it?
Uh oh, doesn't look like you understand. Maybe you do, but there is another logical fallacy. It is called a Red Herring. Would you like me to keep this quoted for future use?
Maybe if you'd just read more carefully, it would go better for you.
With further detail I see what you are saying.
I was claiming evolutionary theory is correct, because most people believe it? (Barbarian checks) Nope. Didn't say that, either. You seem to be arguing with yourself, mostly.
Looking back at some of your other posts, there may be a chance that you could understand that. It's okay though, there is a learning curve.
If a man is presented as a reliable person, the fact that he was caught lying is relevant to the discussion. If someone presents a man as qualified to speak on a subject, his experience and credentials become an issue. That's how it works.
Barbarian said: "For the same reason orange leprechauns don't fool anyone. Unless you can find one of those "logical fallacies" for us."
Does that mean orange leprechauns DO fool people? Or does that mean that you committed multiple fallacies? With the Red Herring now included, would you like me to quote those logical fallacies?
I think you have, although possibly not the way you were expecting to do it.
Doesn't matter how much someone kicks and screams, they are still wrong. Funny how that works. I think I'll leave the people on this forum to sort that one out.
