"The_Sage" <specialoffers@CityBend.com> wrote in message
news:pr35q0lk5gvvhpj8nuqo0jfb1cp0vj849o@4ax.com...

Reply to article by: "rick nielsen" <rnielsen@centurytel.net>
Date written: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 00:06:19 -0500
MsgID:<0fSdnXWJfLU46zzcRVn-iw@centurytel.net>

Laughable coming from a man who didn't recognise the scientific method

when

it was presented to him, and can't discern between his subjective opinion
and objective fact>

That in no way addresses the argument. Try another logical fallacy.

Nice try at creative snipping  You claimed quote"there has to be some actual
evidence or testimoney is worthless from a scientific and logical point of
view" I was addressing this argument by pointing out that as you cannot
recognise the scientific method when it is plainly presented to you ,then
why would anyone take your word on what is and is not  worthless from a
scientific point of view, no logical fallacy there, eyewitnessing is
observation and observation is what the scientific method is based on,
Bubba, and as you have repeatedly shown that you cannot discern between your
subjective philosophical ideas and objective fact(often claiming that they
are exactly opposite) that you would also be a poor choice to make
judgements on what is and is not "logical"

The Sage

=============================================================
My Home Page      :           http://members.cox.net/the.sage

"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
=============================================================