Argument by bad analogy

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think you guys put JW to shame on doctrine. 🙂

I should certainly hope that science puts JW doctrine to shame, but science is not doctrine.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I would imagine we're as 'tight' on the theory of evolution as much as we are tight on the Theory of Gravity and Newtons Laws of Motion to name a few.

I think F=(0.999999)*ma

Let the debate begin! 🙄

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Your equating established scientific fact with JW literature?

Not the truth of science with the truth of JW literature, but between the
ears of the true believers they are very close.

Originally posted by C Hess
Science is the one human endevour where challenges to any idea is welcome, and where empirical evidence, not opinion, has the last word. It's why I love it. Evolution is one of those theories that has so much empirical evidence speaking for it that most intelligent people accept it as fact now.

Some don't (for religious reasons, I take it?), but most do.

This coming from the one who said he got mad when people didn't see eye
to eye with him?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Not the truth of science with the truth of JW literature, but between the
ears of the true believers they are very close.

So basically you are using a bad analogy argument?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Not the truth of science with the truth of JW literature, but between the
ears of the true believers they are very close.

Okaaaaaaaaaay...........

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Okaaaaaaaaaay...........

Come now you cannot see it? Shoot you disagree enough with the party line
you could lose your reputation maybe even your job. I guess that is another
form of shunning. The mocking of people who disagree with your points of
view is standard operational process, it goes both ways! I think that is mainly
due to the fact it is always people being people on both sides of the issue.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Shoot you disagree enough with the party line you could lose your reputation maybe even your job.

Actually scientists often get Nobel prizes for disagreeing with the party line once they prove their case. Luckily, with science, one can prove ones case. With religion, one cannot.
Scientists do not loose their jobs for disagreeing with the party line. That is a myth cooked up by creationists.

Originally posted by KellyJay
This coming from the one who said he got mad when people didn't see eye
to eye with him?

That's not what I said. Are you an imbecille?

Originally posted by C Hess
That's not what I said. Are you an imbecille?

Can you have a discussion without insulting someone who disagrees with you?

Originally posted by C Hess
That's not what I said. Are you an imbecille?

"I was once told that the reason I get frustrated and a tad angry everytime someone compares cellular DNA to computer programming, or complex human-built objects to living things, in an attempt to demonstrate the need for a creator, is because deep down inside I know they're right, and I just don't want to admit it. To which I sighed and walked away. I didn't have the energy to explain myself that day."

Okay you said you get "frustrated and a tad angry" not mad when they are
not agreeing with you and attempt to demonstrate why.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Can you have a discussion without insulting someone who disagrees with you?

Though it was a perfectly legitimate question in response to your comment, I can see how it came across as unnecessarily insulting. Let me rephrase that:

Are you daft?

Originally posted by KellyJay
"I was once told that the reason I get frustrated and a tad angry everytime someone compares cellular DNA to computer programming, or complex human-built objects to living things, in an attempt to demonstrate the need for a creator, is because deep down inside I know they're right, and I just don't want to admit it. To which I sighed and walked away. I didn ...[text shortened]... ed and a tad angry" not mad when they are
not agreeing with you and attempt to demonstrate why.

As the rest of that post explains, I'm not opposed to people not agreeing with me (it's an excellent way of learning new things). It's poor use of analogies that bothers me. There's a difference, you know?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Come now you cannot see it? Shoot you disagree enough with the party line
you could lose your reputation maybe even your job. I guess that is another
form of shunning. The mocking of people who disagree with your points of
view is standard operational process, it goes both ways! I think that is mainly
due to the fact it is always people being people on both sides of the issue.

Are you referring to established scientific fact as the 'party line'? If you are then of course you can question it, you question the 'party line' by making a case, presenting your evidence and submitting your work for peer review. That's how science works.

You on the other hand are questioning the party line with nothing, I started another thread, at your request nonetheless, for you to present your evidence for your worldview. You admit to having nothing. You're questioning the party line with nothing but hot air.

Originally posted by C Hess
Though it was a perfectly legitimate question in response to your comment, I can see how it came across as unnecessarily insulting. Let me rephrase that:

Are you daft?

You just cannot stop yourself I guess?