Zhang Heng is better known for his invention of the rectangular
grid or coordinate system that was used for terrestrial maps in the
same way as Marinus of
Tyreand Ptolemy, who were
contemporaries.[56] Cullen
comments:
Likewise, the 13th century scholar Li Ye, arguing that
the movements of the round heaven would be hindered by a square
Earth,[50] did
not advocate a spherical Earth, but rather that its edge should be
rounded off so as to be circular.[58]
As noted in the book Huai
Nan Zu,[59] in
the 2nd Century BC Chinese astronomers effectively inverted
Eratosthenes' calculation of the curvature of the earth in order to
calculate the height of the sun above the earth. By assuming the
earth to be flat, they arrived at a distance of
100,000 li, a
value short by three orders of
magnitude.
"4. Like it or
not, you were wrong. An argument is actually a SERIES of statements
called premises and conclusion. You can of course choose not to
take my word for it, just go check a dictionary or any book on
critical thinking if letting someone else correct you makes you
feel better."
In other words, no source, no basis for your above arguments.
What a poor loser attitude... Come on... you are the one accuse me
that my English is bad... Try harder!
"5. Yes, you
heard me right, the Bible teaches that Adam’s sin brought death
into the world. The consequences of one man’s actions are not
limited to just himself. You should have lived long enough to know
this. This is not about God being cruel, it is about the wide
reaching effects of sin. BTW, to judge God is to presuppose a
basis, a moral standard, for making moral judgement. From where
does an atheist get this moral standard?"
I did not judge as I know "cruel" is subjective. So according to
you, God is loving when He supposedly made
the other lifeforms to suffer mortality
when the 1st man made his 1st mistake because banishment is not
enough. Remember God is Omnipotent/present/benevolence. That
actually meant, God intended the various lifeforms to have
mortality. Which is no support to your original claim
that" There
was no death before sin."
"6. You missed
the whole point and is now fixated with splitting hairs here. I am
saying that the coney and the rabbits have been classified in the
OT law as animals that “chew the cud” because the phrase simply
means “to bring up” which is good information enough for the
Israelites without having to know the digestive distinctions
between cows and coneys. I also mentioned that coney was an old
English word for rabbit and I am not wrong.
(see http://www.rabbit.org/links/history.html )
Anyway, the Hebrew word is shaw-fawn', a species of rock rabbit
(from its hiding), i.e. probably the hyrax. Some Bible versions
translate it as rock badger while others as hyrax. But whatever it
was, it was a rabbit-like rodent."
Appeal to
ignorance... must be appealing to the ignorant...
"7. I am
taking issue with YOUR fallacious statement that the creationists
are not credible. You then said I am appealing to authority here?
You are diverting the issue by throwing a red herring accusation at
me. But like it or not, many creation scientists have PhDs from
world class universities. If that does not qualify them as
authorities in their respective fields of study, then what
does?"
Creationists are just people who belief in a created
world.
cre·a·tion·ism
(kr
-
sh
-n
z
m)
Yet you refer them as if they are any kind of authority. Yes
there are phd's and whatnot, you just commited a fallacy of
composition...
Please...
A red
herring is a clue which is intended to be
misleading, or distracting from the actual issue.
P.S: I have 5 kids. Educating them proved to be easier on my
patience.... at least I know their innocence...
"8. You are
flogging a dead horse. I already made it clear that my “gay”
example was an illustration. I did not say you made that claim. I
even made it clear with an “IF”. And now you then went on an
irrelevant exposition of what a strawman argument is."
Wanna point out that the "gay" example is a red herring... as it
could meant from sexual preference to elation where "chewer of the
cud" refers to behaviours. The "if" you said in :" It's
like you telling me that if the word
"gay..." was refering to the word "gay" not the
"you", which is me. Its a strawman because your English is bad or
you don't know how to posit yourself or you just can't stand
correction. I just hate to be corrected
incorrectly.
"9. I’m not
asking you to check out another website on fallacies! But then
again, I think you do need to brush up on them anyway. When it
comes to stereotyping the village atheists, OK guilty as charged!
But you should find out more for yourself what characterizes the
village atheists."
You misunderstood. I just don't wanna see a website full of
fallacious conclusions. I don't religously discriminate like you
do... Not in sync with Jesus's Beautitudes.... Sorry to reject your
sincere offer.
Tcms said that truth changes. If that is not holding to the
notion of subjective truth, then what is it? Those who hold to
relativism do hold to a warped notion of truth, and I have already
explained why it is so. Your failure to discern it and instead to
confuse it with circular reasoning does not render my case against
relativism invalid. Any bloke can cut and paste chunks of WOT on
informal fallacies, but not everyone can identify them
correctly.
You claimed that it is circular reasoning for me to argue that
relativism is self-defeating, yet you were unable to point out
where the circular reasoning is. In the first place did you even
understand the point I was making? Let me again show you how
self-defeating relativism is. If you claim that relativism is true,
then is it ABSOLUTELY true, or relatively true? Think hard, don’t
just give a knee-jerk response. Can God exists and God does not
exist be both true? Relativists say “can” and thus violate the law
of non-contradiction. Not only did you also fail to understand the
contradictory nature of relativism, you still erroneously think
this is circular reasoning on my part. Wait, there’s more. You also
failed to see how relativism has no basis to judge. If what’s true
is true for you and what’s true is true for me, then how can anyone
be wrong? Relativism self-destructs when it is applied onto itself
but instead of realising the absurdity of relativism you again
accused me of circular reasoning. Thus you can’t fault me for
noticing that you don’t know what circular reasoning is. See
http://carm.org/refuting-relativism
Yes, I affirm that objective truth does not change with time and
you still failed to demonstrate how my statement committed the
fallacy of affirming the consequent. Good try though, but no
cookies. If you were born in Singapore, then one hundred years
later the truth would still be that you were born in Singapore. So
pray tell where’s the fallacious part?
Concerning the flat earth myth, not everyone believed that the
earth was flat. And the irony is that you failed to see within the
wiki link you gave that there is this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth
as well. Oh and let me spoon feed you with this http://nabataea.net/flatearth.html
Your refusal to accept the truth that an argument consists of a
series of statements reflects your stubborn ego than any alleged
“loser attitude” by me to produce evidence for something so
self-evident. And since you refuse the less embarrassing
alternative of self-correction and prefer to be corrected by me, so
for what it’s worth here goes, “An argument is a connected series
of statements or propositions, some of which are intended to
provide support, justification or evidence for the truth of another
statement or proposition. Arguments consist of one or
more premises and a conclusion.” See
http://www.iep.utm.edu/argument/
Looks like I am not the one with the
loser attitude.
The very fact that you accused God of being cruel is already a
moral judgement, yet now you deny that you made any judgement?
Special pleading fallacy spotted! Not only that, you made a
fallacious strawman argument. God was JUDGING the sin of Adam’s
rebellion, and that meant subjecting the entire created universe to
the curse of death. BTW, since you claim to be a parent of five
kids (kudos to you for making govt very proud), isn’t punishment
for wrong doing also an expression of love? And sometimes the
consequences of punishment extends beyond the wrongdoer
himself?
Concerning chewing the cud, I was not appealing to ignorance,
but correcting YOUR ignorance.
Yes, creationists are people who believe God created. But that
by itself does not mean that creationists are not credible. To
claim that would be to invoke the genetic fallacy. And mind you, I
was also talking about creationists who are also scientists. And
then you throw out another alleged fallacy of composition, no doubt
trying to sound impressive but perhaps without much substance.
I certainly didn’t miss the personal dig that you find it easier
on your patience to teach them, but then again it's easier to
educate kids since you probably fare better with them being more
impressionable and less equipped to wear you down with well-honed
critical thinking skills. Oh, and did you know that teaching kids
the wrong things is also very easy too?
And the gay thingy? It wasn’t a red herring. As mentioned, it
was simply another example to further illustrate a point I was
trying to clarify with you. When I said “it’s like you saying...”
it is not the same as saying “You said....” In any case, I wasn’t
attributing that argument to you. I could well have mentioned “Ah
Kow” in place of “you” and the point still remains.
On what basis do you conclude that the websites I suggested were
full of fallacious conclusions? That’s the fallacy of cavalier
dismissal and/or the genetic fallacy you committed. And talking
about religious discrimination, who was it who said
that that creationists are not credible?