Barry Arrington fails at logic again

Posted on by

Here’s Barry’s latest:

Fred, Bob and Saber-Toothed Tigers

I’ve saved the web page in case he ‘disappears’ it, as he tends to do.

Barry is making the case that some irrational beliefs may cause outcomes that are still beneficial and so are not selected against (religion, anyone?).

He does this in reply to Piotr’s comment:

“As far as I can see, thought processes which allow us to understand the world and make correct predictions (and so are empirically “true”) are generally good for survival.”

Please note “GENERALLY good for survival”

gen·er·al·ly
ˈjen(ə)rəlē/
adverb
1.
in most cases; usually.

(from google search)

Barry, its time for you to learn about ‘distributions’. Do you think the correctness of belief is orthogonal to taking an action that is likely to improve survival chances?

I think given this and yesterdays comment:

“Your comment is classic.

ID Supporter: You can’t make a dog from a finch.

Darwinist: Yeah, but some finches are really really different from each other. I have now refuted your point.”

(Dogs don’t give birth to finches, Checkmate evolution!) – You should actually take some biology and logic classes. Spend less time on your apologetics and ‘rules of logic’ and actually learn something about biological origins.

56 thoughts on “Barry Arrington fails at logic again”

  2. Richardthughes: He’s doing a good job! Can you feel your love growing, Keiths?

    Do you think you can post your porn fantasies of keiths in a more appropriate place?

  3. Rich:

    He’s doing a good job! Can you feel your love growing, Keiths?

    Well, “love” is an awfully strong word :-), but I do agree with what he’s written so far in that thread.

  4. Phoodoo thinks ‘love’ = ‘porn’. Well done Phoodoo, never pass up an opportunity to look stupid.

  5. Joe Felsenstein:
    It was a little more complicated than that.The first and only time Barry commented here, the poster of the thread in which he was commenting got angry and, overreacting, used his moderation powers to delete Barry’s comment.After Barry complained at UD, everyone else here was unhappy with the deletion, Barry’s comment was restored and the overreactor’s powers of moderation were removed by mutual agreement of the TSZ regulars. An apology was issued to Barry and he was invited to comment further.

    Barry, of course, took this mistreatment as an excuse never to return and to take permanent offense.

    Here is Barry drawing dramatic conclusions afterwards.


    Further discussion of the incident here.

    Taking Offense is a major tactic in the ID/creationist arsenal.They do much more banning and censoring in their own forums and do not see any contradiction in doing that.I wish we would leave them to do the banning and censoring, but that time we did not, and of course it handed them ammunition.

    That’s all correct. I was the person who over-reacted, and I still regret that because it was wrong of me, and because it gave Arrington more ammunition. We made the right decision that I shouldn’t have moderator powers. I don’t wish to dwell on my mistake — just confirming Joe’s recollection.

  6. More Banny logic fails!

    Larry Moran to Barry:

    “I am absolutely certain that I am able to articulate ID’s real claims better than you. I know this because I read your posts.”

    Barry Replies to Larry Moran:

    “Which sets up a binary function:

    (1) This statement is true. In which case the straw man caricatures you always trot out are an act of affirmative deceit; or

    (2) This statement is false. In which case you are just a just a blowhard ass.

    Not looking good for you either way Larry.”

    THINK, BANNY!

    If in (1) Larry has a better understanding of ID, how can you be sure he uses “strawman caricatures” given that your knowledge of ID is less than his?

    Given this violation of elementary logic, something you should be well versed in given your lawyering and identifying that circles aren’t squares, does this mean you, Barry Arrington, are engaged in “an act of affirmative deceit”?

Leave a Reply