Last Reminder (Probably XD)

Followers Say is this Saturday. Be sure to email me if you want to participate. I'll probably send out the invitation to post on Friday night.

~Kendra

Second Biannual Followers Say

The second biannual Followers Say is coming up on March 27. It seems like it came fast, doesn't it?

Most of you probably remember what this is about, but for those of you who weren't here back in September, let me explain this a little by reposting the original announcement (dates and some specifics modified):

On Saturday March 27th there is going to be a special edition of Carpe Noctem: "Followers Say..." You will be granted access to posting on Carpe Noctem from midnight on the 25, to 11:59pm on the 26. You will be allowed to post up to three times during that twelve hours, on three separate topics of your choice.

I know my awesome followers have lots to say on lots of issues, and it's difficult to fully explain your point just through commenting.

Suggested Topics:
1. "I believe/disbelieve Evolution because..."
2. "I believe/disbelieve in God because..."
3. "My opinion on our president is..."
4. "I am a republican/democrat because..."
5. "My view on political-correctness is..."
6. "What I think God meant in Genesis is..."
7. "I think global warming..."
8. "I believe homosexuality is a choice/is not a choice because..."
9. An in-depth critique or response to any of my previous posts.
10. An idea of your own. (Please email me your idea ahead of time.)

"Rules":
-You can chose 1-3 topics from the above list.
-If you have another topic you would like to discuss, please shoot me an email just so I'll know.
-You can post up to 3 times during the 12 hour period.
-Profanity is discouraged, but if that's the only way you can think to express yourself, go right ahead. Hopefully, though, we're all articulate enough to avoid that whenever possible.
-Preferably, you must be a follower of Carpe Noctem to participate, but you don't *have* to be. I'd appreciate it, though :)

Preferred formatting of your post(s):
-Please put your name and the title of your post in the title.
-Please state which idea you chose at the beginning of your post.
-Please address one idea per post. (Don't address all the possible ideas in a single post.)

This is an extremely laid-back kind of thing. I'm not going to remove part or all of your post because it offends me. Even if it does, this is your time to share, not mine.

If you or someone you know would like to participate in Followers Say, email me at livinglovinglaughinglearning@gmail.com and I'll send you the link to join Carpe Noctem for the day of March 27. Hope you decide to join!

This time around, I plan to have an award for all those who participate in Followers Say.

As always, questions, comments, concerns, or Hey-How-Are-Yous can be sent to that email, too :)

More On Followers Say...

A few quick reminders and things to say about Followers Say:

1. Make sure you've emailed me if you want to participate. I still need an emails from Katrien Scarlet and Lisabailey (not a follower), but I think everyone else has emailed me.

2. You can post up to three times on up to three different topics.

3. Posts will not be removed due to profanity or insults. I don't believe in removing comments and posts because of that. If you want to sound like an insecure fool, that is up to you.

Topics that I know will be covered:
1. Political correctness
2. "I am a democrat/republican because..."
3. Word Inflation commentary
4. Global Warming
5. Health/food
6. Freedom
7. Our President

Looking forward to hearing what you all have to say this Saturday!!

Announcement

This is a reminder to all participants of Followers Say! In one week, I will send you an email invitation to post on the blog. You can post up to three posts on up to three different subjects. See the earlier post if you want more information.

For you to participate, I have to have your email address, so if you want to post, please email me at livinglovinglaughinglearning@gmail.com if you haven't already.

The people I have already "signed up" are:
1. Cavender James
2. Katrien Scarlet
3. Einar
4. Christopher
5. Alex Floyd
6. Bethany
7. Muse of Randomness

I'm very sorry I haven't been posting at all lately. I've been trying to decide if I want to continue my series on Evolution, and my conclusion is: no.

My passion is with the Evolution debate partly, but I didn't start this blog to get into science and politics. I started this blog to voice my new and different thoughts and philosophies on life.

I may post on Evolution from time to time, but for now, I'm just going to post the way I used to.

Er, starting NEXT Saturday XD

Posts 8-12 In One

I'm a week late posting. I apologize.

I'm beginning to re-think my series. I plan to finish it, but since I did not start this blog for political reasons, I'd like to get through those debates and get back to the things I really want to post about (see my earlier posts).

To do this, I'm going to combine the rest of the Logic posts into this one.

Also, don't forget about Followers Say coming up in just two weeks!

Logical Fallacies to Watch Out For (continued):

8. Straw Man Argument:

Another personal favorite. This occurs when someone distorts their opponent's oppinion to make it easier to attack.

Christians are especially vulnerable to this. This is partly due to the "Inherit the Wind" standard set up, and partly because of the truly stupid arguments some Christians have made.

Darwinists like to make the public think that only the most extreme religious fundamentalists disagree with their theory. This is simple not true. (If you think it is, please provide some evidence.)

A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "just 32% of the public accepts [Evolution] as true."

I find it hard to believe that all 68% of America are extreme religious fundamentalists.

Why do Darwinists like to portray the argument as Science vs. the Bible?

Because, guess what? When the debate is set up that way, science always wins.

Despite what many Darwinists say, the evidence for Evolution is shakier than they would like. To draw attention away from this, they set up the Straw Man Argument.

9. Begging the Question:

An argument is said to be begging the question if it assumes the answer to the inquiry in question.

Example:
Question: Why should we believe what the Bible says?
Answer: Because the Bible says so.

Question: What evidence proves that life evolved from non-living molecules?
Answer: Don't reject a scientific theory just because of religious bias.

The latter answer assumes what is in dispute: that the evidence for chemical Evolution is so strong that only prejudiced people would be skeptical.

In arguments that beg the question, answers usually assume that science and reason are always on the same side.

This fallacy ties in to the Straw Man as well. If you let a Straw Man define the terms, you will always lost.

10. Lack of Testability:

We must learn to distinguish between theories that put themselves at risk (can be tested) and ones that cannot be show to be either true OR false.

Not everything a scientist says is scientific, and some theories coming from eminent scientists might be about as accurate as musings about Heaven. Both Creationism and Evolution can be stated in safe or risky ways.

If a Creationist says that they believe in Creation on faith, then there's nothing we can do to prove or disprove the theory. However, if a Creationist says that the evidence says taht living organisms are the product of intellegent life and could never have come into being by completelyl natural means from a probiotic soup of chemicals, that statement invites scientific testing.

Darwinism was first stated in a testable, risky way. It predicted that fossil hunters would eventually discover a great number of transitional intermidiates between the major groups (they didn't) and that animal breeders would succeed in creating distinct species (they didn't).

Today, Darwin's theory is stated in a risk-free way. Naturalistic evolution is identified with science itself, and any different theories or suggestions are immediately disqualified as "religion". This makes it impossible to have a scientific debate over whether the theory is true.

11. Vague and Shifting Definitions:

When debating, people (unfortunately mainly Darwinists) like to use the "bait and switch" strategy. They will lead you to agree to a harmless definition, and then use teh definition later in a very different way. Terms that are commonly subjected to this switch are "science" and "e/Evolution".

Someone might lead you to agree that dog breeding is evolution. Well, you might agree with that. Sure. If what "evolution" means is that there are variations within speicies, sure. (By the way, dog breeding is guided, and only variation, not evolution.)

The correct answer, then, for when someone asks you if you believe in evolution is:

"Define 'evoulution'."

12. Original Sin:

We need to look at all the facts with an open mind (not so open that your brain falls out, of course). Beware the original sin: believing what we want to believe. We are all guilty of this. It's human nature.

In the words of Richard Feynman: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool."

Thank you, and talk to you next time!