CONSPIRIOLOGY: Con, you have no need to apologize or offer disclaimers about going off topic on this thread any longer. What you have been trying to say since the very beginning of this thread only to be bullied into silence was extremely relevant as this post will prove.
It all finally just hit me.
ASTYANAX: Way back in the thread, Con tried to discuss falsifiability with you. You should have taken him up on it. I didn't understand what he was trying to imply at the time but now I do.
You see, as Con had desperately tried to mention since first joining this thread only to be harassed, he wanted to set the boundaries for the standard of falsifiability because he saw the contradictions long before we did of assuming the consequent. Therefore, he saw the need in setting a different foundation for testing since we could not avoid assuming the consequent by the very way the thread was set up.
Here I was thinking I was so clever to have discovered it a little bit at a time but there he was sitting pretty knowing all along. Massive kudos to Con. I have never been so impressed with and proud of him. However, he was shut down and accused of being off topic although I assure you it was very much on topic as you now realize.
Then, he tried to explain the fallacy of assuming the consequent. Not just the fallacy itself that had already been brought up in the thread, but how the actual steps outlined in the OP was an assumption of the consequent. He was ignored and ridiculed by all sides once again.
Then, he did what I refused to do: And that is, give you the benefit of the doubt that you really were that smart, that cunning to have set up your OP on what I already referred to as a 'heads I win, tails you lose' basis.
This is where Con and I disagree yet it shows for the third time he has been 'the good guy.' Why? Because he was generous enough to believe you knew what you were doing all along in THIS post (only to be criticized by you). I, however, will not give you the benefit of the doubt as it is my observation you goofed and didn't begin to realize this thread's test for the series of fallacies it was later proven to be until about halfway through the thread.
WHAT THE PROBLEM IS
Fallacy One. Regardless of our answer, we'd be left assuming the consequent due to the way the OP is set up. Oops!
Fallacy Two. The actual steps in the OP are a false dichotomy by assuming only evolution or ID can be true. Oops!
Fallacy Three. Not even evolutionary theory could have completed the OP had the situation been reversed. Oops!
Fallacy Four. God of the Gaps. The OP asks us to find a flaw that science cannot answer so it must be a divine/intelligent act. Oops!
Fallacy Five. No standard was set for falsifiability to offset the inevitable fallacy of assuming the consequent. Oops!
This brings us back to the predicament you put me in before, Astyanax, where you accused me of either being dishonest or stupid (both false). However, now it's your turn and this time there are only two options. There is no option of 'misunderstanding.' You were either:
As Con believes, that cunning to create a no-win scenario: "Dishonest."
As I believe, had no idea your process was as full of contradictions as it has been proven to be: "Being Very Stupid."
You decide. I will withhold judgement.
Many apologies to Con. He was ridiculed by Asty for not providing actual evidence of ID. But not because he doesn't know what the evidence is- rather, because he was the only, yes only, one who saw the set up for what it was from the very start:
A mind-
-ing farce of fallacy. Even though much evidence was provided in this thread in support of ID, Con knew and was the only one who did know that it could never be conformed to the construct of the OP. And I also need to apologize to him because I thought he was off base when he accused me of 'not getting it,' in essence, when he turned out to be absolutely correct: I didn't get it. Until now.
AND HERE IS THE PROOF IN THE PUDDING HOW IT ALL TIES IN TOGETHER
That is why I finally submitted my actual Eight Answers to this thread even after the standards set in this thread had been proven to be Fundamentally Flawed. I did it on purpose to show even when the eight steps were answered even as requested, it was still flawed in every way possible and violated the fallacies mentioned above. My post was subsequently critiqued by Asty and Mel for violating the very fallacies we have been warning about as was then explained in my My Follow-Up Reply to their critique.
Insidiousness at its finest. The player got played.
[edit on 5/11/2008 by AshleyD]
