[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
--- John Bois <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> But George says the
> event did kill the dinosaurs because it killed most,
> but not all, the
> frogs. Yet he cites no evidence of frogs
> whatsoever. Instead, he uses
> the supposed fact of bolide-caused dinosaur
> extinction and frog survival,
> to validate the claim that most but not all frogs
> were killed. This is
> circular, I think.
I can't speak for George (I've tried, but he is
resistant to ventriloquism), but I was under the
impression that he was saying that a bolide which
caused the end of all species of non-avian dinosaurs
would have created quite a few crunchy frogs too, if
not all of them.
And even as you stated his argument, it's not
circular. It would be if he was stating his
assumption to prove his assumption, whereas you don't
even get good sophistry from what you've asserted he
Ah well, enough of this. I'm back to affixing horns
onto rabbit trophy heads to sell as curios.
"Atheism: a non-prophet organization."
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.