While we’re on the subject of fallacies, here’s one that basically sums up this video. Now he’s saying he believes in natural selection but not that nature selects anything… He is attacking simple statements which allude to more complex concepts like “evolution solved x problem” claiming they imply natural selection has a conscious mind when in reality they’re just the only way you can explain complex ideas because otherwise you would have to explain everything over and over again. We say things like “oxygen wants to bond with iron” as a shorthand for the concept of valence. It’s a way to convey a simple idea the reader already understands without repeating a chapter on valence every time you refer to it. These people are dishonest and are just playing word games. It’s akin to me attacking this blog by saying “Every evolutionist in the world did not co-author a book called Blunders Of Reason, so your title is wrong and foolish!” He is deliberately taking statements and figures of speech the wrong way to attack a meaning that he is inventing.This guy is also using ignoring the fact that logic alone is meaningless, a statement can be logically correct but based on false premises and that how we test premises is through science, ie predictions and experimentation. He is pretending there is only logic in order to ignore evidence.I just googled one of the quotes he is attacking:”science is atheistic in it’s outlook and procedures”and I got six results, all from him or other creationists repeating his drivel. These words have literally never been uttered by anyone else even once and are by definition a strawman. As is everything else in this video. He can’t debunk actual science so he has to make up weak fallacies to attack. Similarly you haven’t replied to my long comment in your anti-evolution blog and you post this instead…

@mtngirlsouth - ”I’m sorry. Did you actually expect me to reply? You should really stop doing that.” Well since you posted a public blog and responded to everyone else who left a comment (some of them pretty long), uh, yeah.”I will reply to direct questions.” I asked direct questions. You didn’t reply.”I have no intentions of replying to your long drawn out blog length comments though.” My comment is only long because half of it is quoting your blog. If you cut those bits out it’s roughly the size of the back and forth comments you were having with other people. And you don’t have to reply to every letter of it, but blowing it off is kind of rude.”The answers to all of those things are out there, but you don’t care about that.” I’ve done nothing to deserve your insults. You are the one who proclaims herself closed-minded and proud of it, not me. I would actually want to know if my views were wrong, that is why I’ve changed them in the past.”Why should I waste my time with such a thing when it will do nothing but waste my time?” What you get out of it is up to you. You seem to want to waste your time with the subject a lot though.”I have already looked into everything you say and it just doesn’t hold water.” I thought your mind was “shut like a steel trap”. You seem to want to say you’re open-minded and right while ignoring other peoples’ ideas when it suits you.”You are still saying it so it must be enough for you. I’m not still wondering about them and neither are you. If you have a question for me, ask it. Otherwise, don’t expect a reply.”I did ask questions, you ignored them.

@mtngirlsouth - ”I will still answer direct questions, but not when I have to sift through a blog length comment to find them. Not worth my time. And I won’t answer a list of a bunch of questions that will take lots and lots of my time either. Because I don’t believe answering them for you will accomplish anything.” If you could at least read the comment I would appreciate it. It may be long, but it is thoughtful and not hostile and brings up some interesting ideas. There’s no malice or condescension in there at all. For most of it I’m not even arguing with you, just talking about the things you were talking about.”But if you ask one or two honest questions, I’ll answer. There is no reason for me to waste a bunch of time writing out long answers to you when I see no accomplishment in it.” Is it so inconceivable that you might get something out of a conversation with an atheist other than converting them? We do have something to offer you know. And even a broken clock is right twice a day.”I honestly believe the reason you do this is just to waste my time, or pick out things you can run to your blog with to make yourself believe you have outsmarted me or some other such silliness.” If I’m not mistaken I’ve generally only mentioned you by name in my blog when you’ve blocked me. I sometimes copy/paste comments into my blog but it’s because I think the conversation is interesting or important, not to get confirmation from others. People agreeing with me doesn’t make me right any more than people disagreeing makes me wrong. If my copying/pasting past conversations has hurt your feelings I apologize, that was not my intention.”Have at it. I can only surmise that you are unsure of your standing from this, as you seem to be so concerned with what I say to the point that you must run to your own blog and get the reassurance from all your little cronies. Or you just want to give me a hard time. I see nothing productive from any of this though. If you do, please point it out to me. Otherwise, I’ll not bother.”I was honestly just after an interesting conversation.

@Ghillies_guide - Who exactly are you trying to shit on with your stereotypical comment?

@Ghillies_guide - Yes, well you certainly aren’t being pseudo-intellectual, low-class or just annoying people and you are certainly engaging in fruitful discussion.I suggest you look in the mirror.

@coolmonkey - I had already decided not to respond.

@mtngirlsouth - ”You have in the past. It is not the “Christian” thing to do. Forgiveness is not synonymous with “clean slates”. Far too many jerks attempt to take advantage of good people with that twist of Christianity. Being wise as a serpent would not permit such a thing. I can give you a fresh start though, because I actually prefer that when possible, and you asked. ”I agree that forgiveness should not be absolute and automatic, and “forgive and forget” should be reserved for people who are not malicious or dangerous (like an abusive spouse for instance). I think “forgive your neighbor 7 and 70 times” is maybe more meant to be inspirational than to be literally followed, though ghandi-like love and forgiveness in the face of real abuse and persecution could have a profound effect, but most people don’t live in that kind of environment in our part of the world today.”My ultimate goal is to please God. I have discovered that it is difficult to be politic or PC when doing this. What He says is the authority though. I already know about all the arguments about the validity of scripture and books being thrown out and all of that, and am not interested in hearing anymore about it. I have spent many hours settling that for myself. And it is to be expected that as much discord would be thrown in there as possible if what I believe were true. The way to know what to believe is to be very familiar with His Word, which I am. Matter settled.”Translation and interpretation are still problematic when it comes to understanding god’s word, assuming there is a god and the bible is his word etc. And in my long comment I was mainly discussing a non-literalist theology which I think is viable. In fact the kind of biblical literalism we have today is, I have heard people claim, a relatively recent theological development, perhaps a reaction to the age of modern science.”Evolution from goo to you is a lie.” The distinction I am trying to make is between something being incorrect and it being dishonest. I don’t think there are a bunch of biologists who know for a fact that single-cellular organisms didn’t develop into multi-cellular organisms and are trying to deceive people into thinking they did. I can’t even fathom why they would do that, especially since most scientists in most fields related to evolution are theists. If only atheist scientists accepted evolution or something that would imply an ideology or conspiracy or something, but it’s not the case.”I do think everyone who accepts evolution is lying – whether they are aware of that or not depends on each case.” I don’t know what you mean by “lying” then. Do you mean lying to themselves? Why would we do that?”I have no idea what Darwin was thinking, but I am fairly sure hos motives had something to do with a negative notion towards God.” He started out as a young earth creationist (and changed his mind due to studying geology) but believed in a creator his entire life. What makes you think he had something against god?”He stole ideas from Blythe and took credit for them himself,” He really didn’t, Blythe had already published his ideas and darwin, like all great scientists, was building on many ideas of his peers. As I believe isaac newton said, “if I have seen far it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants”. The reality is that great discoveries and inventions tend to happen in clusters and if someone like darwin hadn’t been around the discoveries would have been made a few months or years later. Look into the development and invention of things like telephones, computers, etc, sometimes rival patents for essentially identical devices are submitted within hours of each other. “and the only degree he ever received was in theology. (which makes me laugh because nowadays he is revered as some great wonderful scientist, and yet, any scientist with actual SCIENTIFIC degrees who deny evolution are cast out.)”He was a great scientist. Socrates was a great philosopher – he didn’t have a degree in philosophy though. A degree proves what you know, but the reverse is not true – not having one does not prove that you know nothing, or that you understand a subject less than someone with a degree.”I admit I mostly just skimmed through your comments because I figured you just want to give me a hard time and I don’t have time for that anymore.”Thanks for admitting it, I appreciate it. Feel free to give it a read if you have the time.”You are not just an atheist. I have had plenty a conversation with you. All I ever got from you was a bad attitude and a direct determination to be offended find offense, and never be straight. So I gave up.” I apologize if I was a dick in the past. Though you may have been crummy too.”Converting atheists is a noble pursuit, but I’m not really trying to do that. I spent a long time struggling with “being chosen” vs. free will, and have concluded that a person is going to have to want Christ and nothing I say or do will have any affect on that over all.”I don’t think you can logic your way to believing something that is not logical or believe something based on evidence that must be taken on faith. Most religious conversion happens at a very young age when children have no capacity for skepticism and just accept what they’re taught as true – born-again conversion usually happens (as far as I can tell) when people are going through a very hard time in their lives and they think (or are told by someone else) that faith is the only way out, the only way to feel good about themselves or be a better person or have hope or fix whatever it is that’s tearing them apart inside.”It has only irritated me in the past, but I no longer care. Hence the words, “Have at it.” I no longer believe anything I have to say makes any difference to most people.”If you brought it up it must’ve mattered on some level, so I still apologize.