[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
--- John Bois <email@example.com> wrote:
> Circularity: frog survival is a challenge to
> asteroid-kills-all non-avian
> dinosaurs hypothesis. But, because it did kill all
> dinosaurs, it must
> have had an effect on frogs--"it just didn't kill
> >all< of them."
I'm having a hard time seeing the circularity in the
statement of George's that you cited:
>> It probably >did< kill frogs and turtles and
>and birds. It just
>>didn't kill >all< of them.
1) Frog survival may very well be a challenge to the
idea that it was an exploding bolide that terminated
all species of non-avian dinosaurs.
2) Nonetheless, if a bolide hit, and apparently one
quite definitely did, there were a lot of unlucky
frogs on that day.
3) Perhaps the bolide killed all of the dinosaurs but
not all of the frogs. This is not, as far as I can
tell, a physical impossibility.
In the law, circular argument is called "begging the
question." (People misuse the phrase all the time, to
mean "raises a follow-up question." It is irritating.)
"Abortion is murder, and so is morally wrong." (Sorry
to give a political example, Mickey.)
I only say all this, and rather tediously too, to
point out that I don't feel that the statement *as you
cited it* may be attacked on the grounds you used. It
seems like a perfectly reasonable, non-circular
statement to me. But maybe you will elaborate and
clear this up for me.
"Atheism: a non-prophet organization."
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.