FMA:
><< I am here to discuss as well and you mentioned "ad hominem". I asserted
>that
>it was not an ad hominem and asked you why you thought it was an ad hominem?
>
>Nelson:
>In my post I discussed exactly why it was an ad hominem. Susan seemed to
>agree and turned the attention back to the evidence for design. Susan's
>statement was:
> >>
>FMA:
>Did Susan state that she agreed with your inference or is this just a hunch?
>
>Nelson:
>She replied by asking me about what I consider designed and what I
>considered "natural". Thus she returned to the main point. I took that as an
>agreement that she was being "ad hominim"
I think I ignored it. An ad hominem statement would have been "Their
arguments are useless because they are bankrolled by the Discovery
Institute." I think it has been abundantly proved that ID has no
scientific merit. I was discussing the motives behind advocating a
scientifically discredited idea. Your statement about ad hominem was a non
sequitur.
Susan
----------
The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our
actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only
morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.
--Albert Einstein
http://www.telepath.com/susanb/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 13 2000 - 12:58:26 EDT