Except QualiaSoup's argument doesn't rest on ad hominem attacks. You're pointing to the single use of a word, "pseudoscientific," which in context (about 4:23) was used as "Some anti-evolutionists repeat an argument put forward by Michael Behe - an advocate of the pseudoscientific intelligent design movement..." (and again, no mention of the word fraud, that was your own addition). That is simply not an ad hominem fallacy, since he is not attacking Behe's character. Perhaps it's just you who interprets it as such? If we're going to debate semantics here, the word "pseudoscience" has a formal definition (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pseudoscience) that, while pejorative, is still not an ad hominem attack against Behe. QualiaSoup used it as an adjective to describe intelligent design, suggesting that it does not conform to the principles of the scientific method. Which is a true statement. It doesn't. QualiaSoup is not questioning Behe's wealth or IQ or sexuality or what Behe's mother did last night or any other personal quality completely unrelated to the issue at hand. Ad hominem = "to the man" - Behe the man is not under attack. Behe's beliefs/opinions are.

Behe's scientific knowledge and work can absolutely be isolated from his pseudoscientific beliefs/advocacy. Isaac Newton sought ways to perform alchemy, does that mean his contributions to fundamental physics are invalid or that it's an ad hominem attack against him personally if I were to say that alchemy is pseudoscience?

Also, would it help put your mind at ease that QualiaSoup isn't blowing smoke out of his ass if a noted and widely published evolutionary scientist like Richard Dawkins made the exact same argument years ago?

>> ^bmacs27:

There was a reason I put pseudoscientific in quotes, and left fraud out of quotes. Calling him pseudoscientific implies he is a fraud, as he claims to be a scientist. It is ad hominem. An appeal to accomplishment is a valid response to an argument that rests on ad hominem attacks.
Further, as far as logical fallacies go, particularly within science, an appeal to expertise hardly seems inappropriate. In fact happens all the time. That's why courts employ expert witnesses, and we accept the recommendations of grants reviewed by peers not laymen. While there is of course always room for arguments from evidence, in the absence of such we generally defer to the intuitions of experts.
There are plenty of arguments that suggest the biochemical mechanisms of phototransduction could have evolved. Why not make them?

Irrefutable evidence of intelligent design.>> ^MrLips:

Where did that fucking shirt evolve from?

>> ^blankfist:

^Yes, because a belief in an omnipotent god is exactly the same thing as belief in individuals interacting without coercion.
You forgot one: Democrats pray to an intelligently designed, centrally planned society.


Let me see if what I'm inferring about you from your sarcastic post is correct:

Your arguments against, what I think is pretty much socialism, don't have to do with not wanting to subsidize your dying neighbors cancer treatments, or believing big business should run wild and free, or an appreciation for the American dream wherein any man has the, albeit statistically irrelevant, chance to become a billionaire.

No, your problem with the idea of a strong, controlling, altruistic government that bends over backwards to improve the lives of it's citizenry, is that it's simply impossible.

You would insist that humans are too savage, animalistic and competitive for this kind of cooperation to last?

It's probably the best argument against wasting our time trying.

Meh, I dunno. I think we'll get there someday. I mean, we're already so much less savage than even 500 years ago.

P.S. I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouths. DFT, NetRunner are socialists, yes? blankfist is the opposite, which is a capitalist? It's funny, I think I've heard the term socialist used as an insult before. As in, you bastard socialist. Sup wit' dat?

You don't understand what 'intelligent designer' means.

1) God (from the point of view of a Christian)
2) A sentient being whom has designed something (from the point of view of science)
3) A skilled designer (from a literal point of view)

Renounce democracy and repent, godless liberals. Accept the market as your personal lord and savior and it shall self regulate. Thus sayeth the Fist of Nothingness! Hallelujah!

^Yes, because a belief in an omnipotent god is exactly the same thing as belief in individuals interacting without coercion.

You forgot one: Democrats pray to an intelligently designed, centrally planned society.

Natural adaptability trumps "intelligent design".

Obviously more supporting evidence that humans are "Intelligently Designed"

Did he ever use that evidence he kept claiming he was going to use?

Sounds a bit more like intelligent design to me.

We don't know how to fix what's wrong? Government did it!

Statism requires a central planner at the core of society. Sounds a lot like Intelligent Design to me. I'm joining the free Darwinians over here.

To be slightly pedantic, the scenario here doesn't really describe natural selection as much as intelligent design. Still, "not on my watch" is classic.

Is it really Bob Ross?

Or is it our deity, PROVING intelligent design?!??!!?
>> ^Stingray:

I used to watch Bob Ross on PBS when I was a kid. I was always intrigued how he made a blank canvas come to life.



Look: Proof! The canvas was inanimate, then it was born into life!

Yes. Thank God(tm). For we truly do not want to see what we really look like as the Creator(tm) intelligently designed us. LOL

>> ^pierrekrahn:

Anyone who believes in Intelligent Design should be pointed to this video.
Although, they'd probably just say that god was high for a moment.


Oh, come on! Spanish people aren't all that bad!

Anyone who believes in Intelligent Design should be pointed to this video.
Although, they'd probably just say that god was high for a moment.

Perfect... the google ad on the right has 'ladyboykisses' a shemale dating service LOL

Anyway. This is just more evidence that proves we are all intelligently designed.