"The big bang is history"

[Bryan]

So what is pre-history?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What, you don't have a dictionary handy?

Nice additional attempt at distraction, Paul. It doesn't matter what "pre-history" means because "history" was fine as Paszkiewicz used it.

You thought you'd be clever by catching him in this supposed error, and you made a mistake (fallacy of equivocation). Game over. Time for you to move on.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=46829

[Bryan]

You're invited, nay encouraged to try to refute any of my arguments using the technique of reductio ad absurdum that you allude to above minus any representative example.

Paul said the Big Bang happened prior to human records, and you offer a 21-point argument on all manner of wrongness that engendered.

1) I wasn't responding to Paul with my review of the thread.

2) The 21 points represent my summary of the first 21 posts of the thread, not a 21 point argument on my part.

You're really off to a great start, "Guest." Two strikes already.

Call me simple-minded, but I find that bizarre.

The invitation is tempting.

The context of Mr P saying “[The Big Bang theory] is history, too, right, because history has a starting point, and people are divided over where it started and how it started, so it is history," is that Matthew says Mr. P does not seem qualified to speak on the Big Bang the way he did.

Right. So apparently you can read.

Mr. P says he *is* qualified because the Big Bang is history, and Mr. P is a history teacher.  If the definition of "history" is "stuff that happened," then yeah, Mr. P is can include the Big Bang, as he could include every other subject you can possibly think of.

His focus was epistemology, however, and as I've already pointed out, that topic has direct application on history throughout.

I should also note that you're proceeding as though Mr. LaClair's pathetic argument had never occurred. Thus you have the effect of running interference for him.

I'm sure he's grateful.

Even if you took the "narrow" definition of history, Mr. P is probably not qualified to speak on *all* history ranging from pre-Columbian America, exactly how the pyramids/Stonehenge were built, or all manners of human history that has no written record.  To try to stretch this to the Big Bang?  Well... it might strain credulity in some people.

You're right. It would strain the credulity of people who forget about the context almost instantly after reviewing it.

I would call Mr. P's ratonalization an example of bubble logic.  You may not agree, but I feel I have sound, valid footing to say so.

If Paszkiewicz was only using the fact that the big bang is history in the broad sense to justify talking about it in class, then the logic is shaky at best. Perhaps that's what he was doing, but his emphasis on epistemology would argue otherwise, IMO.

And your argument on this point does not resemble Paul's argument. You remember--the one for which this thread was designed?

[Guest Guest]

Just keep on drilling those holes Bryan. When the boat winds up sinking, you can always blame it on the fallacious thinking of the sailors.

After all the boat didn't really sink did it? It was merely a "redistribution of water levels".   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course you Looney Libs fail to blame the water!

[Strife767]

The context of Mr P saying “[The Big Bang theory] is history, too, right, because history has a starting point, and people are divided over where it started and how it started, so it is history," is that Matthew says Mr. P does not seem qualified to speak on the Big Bang the way he did.

Mr. P says he *is* qualified because the Big Bang is history, and Mr. P is a history teacher.  If the definition of "history" is "stuff that happened," then yeah, Mr. P is can include the Big Bang, as he could include every other subject you can possibly think of.

Even if you took the "narrow" definition of history, Mr. P is probably not qualified to speak on *all* history ranging from pre-Columbian America, exactly how the pyramids/Stonehenge were built, or all manners of human history that has no written record.  To try to stretch this to the Big Bang?  Well... it might strain credulity in some people.

I would call Mr. P's ratonalization an example of bubble logic.

Sounds right on to me. Paszkiewicz gave truly idiotic justification for (fallaciously, I might add) talking about the Big Bang in a US History class.

[Guest Steve_C]

Just keep on drilling those holes Bryan. When the boat winds up sinking, you can always blame it on the fallacious thinking of the sailors.

After all the boat didn't really sink did it? It was merely a "redistribution of water levels".   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So his dinosaurs on the Ark history... prehistory... or...

COMPLETE NONSENSE?!?!

Does Bryan ever manage to answer that question?

[Guest Paul]

What, you don't have a dictionary handy?

Nice additional attempt at distraction, Paul.  It doesn't matter what "pre-history" means because "history" was fine as Paszkiewicz used it.

You thought you'd be clever by catching him in this supposed error, and you made a mistake (fallacy of equivocation).  Game over.  Time for you to move on.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=46829

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In other words, you can't answer the question so you call me stupid for asking it.

[Bryan]

So his dinosaurs on the Ark history... prehistory... or...

COMPLETE NONSENSE?!?!

Does Bryan ever manage to answer that question?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you that desperate to distract from Paul's flop of an argument, still found leading off this thread?

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=46796

I think that it is unlikely that dinosaurs were on the ark--but you're so far off-topic that it's hilarious.

I had heard that fundies like to change the topic. So how long have you been a fundy, Steve_C?

Edited March 12, 2007 by Bryan

[Guest Dingo Dave]

So his dinosaurs on the Ark history... prehistory... or...

COMPLETE NONSENSE?!?!

Does Bryan ever manage to answer that question?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

According to David Paszkiewicz, it's history. But then again, maybe he thinks that 'The Flintstones' is history as well. "Yabba Dabba Doo".

I gave up trying to figure out how Bryan's mind works long ago.

[Guest Dingo Dave]

Of course you Looney Libs fail to blame the water! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why blame the water, when it's the leaking boat that's the problem?

Blaming the water, rather than fixing the boat, is exactly what I would expect from a 'Clueless Conservative'.

You remind me of the Persian king Xerxes, who had his slaves whip the sea with chains in order to teach it a lesson because it refused to remain calm enough for his invasion of Europe.

[Bryan]

In other words, you can't answer the question so you call me stupid for asking it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, in other words your question is a red herring because it doesn't matter what "pre-history" means because no matter what "pre-history" means, "history" still maintains the same breadth of meaning.

I don't think that necessarily makes you stupid, but it does make this defense of your argument no better than the original argument itself--and the original argument was a stinker.