Rumraket wrote:How about you try to explain why you think it's a poor argument then? You haven't actaually done this yet.

I did. In the other thread.
creationism/frequently-occuring-fallacies-t1121-40.html
Please try to keep up.

YanShen wrote:Surely it must be possible to evaluate an argument on its own merits, regardless of whether or not it's formally considered a fallacy. I think this is the first time I've encountered a person who refused to debate whether an argument had merit or not, until it could first be established that it was considered a formal fallacy. I think that the anthropic principle is probably highly relevant to this particular discussion as well.

They are two different questions, and have been dealt with in two different threads.

Can you post your objections here Rainbow? A simple cut and paste of what you stated in the other thread would put all of the ignorant atheists on this forum to shame. Nothing should be sacrificed for the glory of God! If you have a chance to convert ignorant atheists and win them over to Jesus Christ, then spending a tiny fraction of time cutting and pasting your argument against the so called serial trials fallacy, must be worth it.

Uh you didnt really say anything in that other thread Rainbow.

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:How about you try to explain why you think it's a poor argument then? You haven't actaually done this yet.

I did. In the other thread.
creationism/frequently-occuring-fallacies-t1121-40.html
Please try to keep up.

This is not an argument against the serial trials fallacy, but an argument against the specific example used to demonstrate it. So again, I ask, can you provide us with an explanation for why you think it is a poor argument? I'm not talking about the made-up example cali provided, but the actual essentials or the argument. Please try to keep up.

Edited post, and ignore any modnotes that were here, as Yanshen's post was sarcasm, not preaching.

This thread reminds me of another debate on this forum involving consciousness. Some guy just repeatedly stated one thing over and over again. I'm afraid the quality of theists on this forum is a bit disappointing. I've had much more spirited debates with some of my religious friends, who are by far more intelligent than the riff raff theists you find on this forum...

darkchilde. that post was pure sarcasm.. come on now

Rumraket wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:How about you try to explain why you think it's a poor argument then? You haven't actaually done this yet.

I did. In the other thread.
creationism/frequently-occuring-fallacies-t1121-40.html
Please try to keep up.

This is not an argument against the serial trials fallacy, but an argument against the specific example used to demonstrate it. So again, I ask, can you provide us with an explanation for why you think it is a poor argument? I'm not talking about the made-up example cali provided, but the actual essentials or the argument. Please try to keep up.

You may ask as many times as you want, but if you want answers to points raised in that thread, then detail your arguments there.

LOL. it seems as if people did raise points in that other thread, which you couldnt address, so you simply created this new thread which tried to focus on the actual that the serial trials fallacy wasn't formally recognized as a fallacy.
rainbow, you're just joking around with us right. this is all just a ruse.

I love this tactic. Make a bad argument in thread A, get called out. Run off to Thread B, make the same bad arguments and when people call you out on it, direct them to thread A. When they then call out your bad arguments again on thread A, im guessing you'll just redirect them to thread B. it's kind of a like a perpetual motion machine...

YanShen wrote:darkchilde. that post was pure sarcasm.. come on now

Smileys are good. I had to look through some of your previous posts to ascertain that this was a joke.

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:How about you try to explain why you think it's a poor argument then? You haven't actaually done this yet.

I did. In the other thread.
creationism/frequently-occuring-fallacies-t1121-40.html
Please try to keep up.

This is not an argument against the serial trials fallacy, but an argument against the specific example used to demonstrate it. So again, I ask, can you provide us with an explanation for why you think it is a poor argument? I'm not talking about the made-up example cali provided, but the actual essentials or the argument. Please try to keep up.

You may ask as many times as you want, but if you want answers to points raised in that thread, then detail your arguments there.

Useless goalpost shifting.

Please, once again, submit an actual argument against the serial trials fallacy. Can you do this?

I don't care about Cali's hypothetical calculation. I don't care about formal or informal reckognition. I want to see what you think is wrong with the fallacy itself. Will you be kind enough to explain this to me? You still haven't done so.

I think he'll redirect you to the other thread Rumraket. And then when you post on the other thread, he'll just redirect you back to this one

Come to think of it, this isn't a bad debating tactic, redirecting people back and forth between two threads, so that you can basically avoid having to say anything of substance.

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:How about you try to explain why you think it's a poor argument then? You haven't actaually done this yet.

I did. In the other thread.
creationism/frequently-occuring-fallacies-t1121-40.html
Please try to keep up.

This is not an argument against the serial trials fallacy, but an argument against the specific example used to demonstrate it. So again, I ask, can you provide us with an explanation for why you think it is a poor argument? I'm not talking about the made-up example cali provided, but the actual essentials or the argument. Please try to keep up.

You may ask as many times as you want, but if you want answers to points raised in that thread, then detail your arguments there.

You can hand wave all you want, but by not pointing out where you supposedly made a successful argument against the Serial Trials Fallacy, you make it painfully clear that you have no argument. You can show me wrong by posting a) what you perceive to be the the Serial Trials Fallacy, and b) your motivation as to why it is "a bad argument" here. Until you are able to do so, I'll consider everything you say to be evasive bullshit.

Perhaps Rainbow lacks a basic understanding of statistics and probability and is ill-equipped to debate the argument on its own merits.

Rumraket wrote:
Please, once again, submit an actual argument against the serial trials fallacy. Can you do this?

I've done so. You know what you need to do if you want your answers.

This is too comedic. Rainbow, don't you think that Jesus Christ himself is embarrassed by how pitiful your defense of him is? He must be having fits up in Heaven.

YanShen wrote:This is too comedic. Rainbow, don't you think that Jesus Christ himself is embarrassed by how pitiful your defense of him is? He must be having fits up in Heaven.

As much as I have no desire to defend Rainbow, it is perhaps worth mentioning that he catagorically denies being a creationist. His evasive bullshit is for some purpose that has has not yet chosen to share with us (although Spearthrower seems to have a pretty good idea).

Perhaps he considers himself a theistic evolutionist. Abiogenesis and evolution are in fact distinct fields of study... If he is attacking merely abiogenesis, but not evolution, then perhaps theistic evolutionist would aptly describe his philosophical orientation.

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
Please, once again, submit an actual argument against the serial trials fallacy. Can you do this?

I've done so. You know what you need to do if you want your answers.

You most certainly have not. That thread doesn't contain an argument against the Serial Trials Fallacy. To say that you have shown it to be a poor argument is a lie, plain and simple. Show me wrong.

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:
Please, once again, submit an actual argument against the serial trials fallacy. Can you do this?

I've done so. You know what you need to do if you want your answers.

Lets proceed on the assumption that I'm too stupid and/or somehow disabled to a degree where I can't find where you have submitted this actual argument. Will you now be kind and just link it (directly, not just an entire thread), or quote it, in here in the thread that actually, specifically addresses the purported issue you have with the fallacy, for me?

Thx in advance.