Replies

Not really. I'm attacking the fact that the supposedly most big-name "scientific" journal in the country is threatened by this film. Therefore, for it to provoke such rage, it must really be on target. If it was just silly, no one would pay any attention to its arguments.

And I'm not a professional debater either, but I think that's called "logic."

You're begging the question, too. How do you know that anyone is threatened by this film? I'm guessing the authors are attacking the film because they it is untrustworthy in the way it communicates its message, not because they feel "threatened". for instance, suppose your spouse lies to you about something. Do you just let the lie pass, merely because it doesn't "threaten" you?

Also, would you like to point out some of the "rage" in the article?

Hey! I've got an even better idea! Let's discuss the points in the actual article, not the manner of the arguer! Seriously. To do otherwise is fallacious and disingenuous to the argument.

79 posted on 04/17/2008 12:10:53 PM PDT by Boxen (If we can hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards...Checkmate!)

Hey, you know what’s ironically funny?

Homosexuals at Scientific American defending evolution.

80 posted on 04/17/2008 12:12:11 PM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)

“Not really. I'm attacking the fact that the supposedly most big-name "scientific" journal in the country is threatened by this film. Therefore, for it to provoke such rage, it must really be on target.”

Maybe you can show me the “rage” part of this article…

Assuming Popular Science promotes science, the relevance of it exposing a much advertised film promoting such a non-scientific assertion as ID as a science is a no-brainer.

118 posted on 04/17/2008 4:01:50 PM PDT by elfman2 ("As goes Fallujah, so goes Central Iraq and so goes the entire country" -Col Coleman, USMC ,4/2004)