- * (n)
[FAQ] 1. The development of life from non-living systems via natural
mechanisms. [den., science] cf. creation. 2. The early part of
evolution(3) that the Second Law of
Thermodynamics(2) shows is impossible. [conn., SciCre] 3. Spontaneous generation,
which Louis Pasteur showed to be impossible. [conn., TAE]
- (n) 1. Appellative of
Augusta, Countess of Lovelace, the prototypical programmer. 2.
Appellative of horribly kludged, defined by committee, systems
programming language that threatens to be as popular and widely used as
COBOL, mainly due to the US armed forces mandating it for military
systems. Also the object of Ted
Holden's ire when he is not bashing EMTs. The Lady Augusta would be
- Ad hominem
- (np) [FAQ] 1. An argument which relies upon
denigrating the opponent and then asserting or implying that such an
unworthy arguer could not have a valid argument. "Gould is a Marxist,
and thus we can ignore punctuated
equilibria," would be an example of an ad hominem argument. Of
course, Gould's personal politics have nothing at all to do with the
validity of his arguments concerning punctuated equilibria. See fallacy.
- (n) 1. Someone
who defers belief or non-belief in a god until the evidence is in.
Usually accompanied by the assertion that the evidence is not in.
- (n) 1. One of two
or more forms [of a gene] that can
exist at a single locus. [den., from Suzuki et al. 1989] "If one of
your parents has blue eyes and yours are brown, then you have two
different alleles of the eye color gene -- one for blue and one for
- (np) 1.
Continental land area about the South Pole that is completely
glaciated. [den., science] 2. A boring place where nobody interesting
ever lived. [conn., Ted Holden] This is a rare instance where Ted
Holden forwards an opinion which Velikovsky didn't.
- Argument from
- (np) 1. An argument of the form "the
proposition X must be true because Y, a recognized authority, says it
is true," as a substitute for actual evaluation of X. In conjunction
with other evidence, the
argument can help support a conclusion by demonstrating that others
have come to the same result. Often involves quoting the "authority"
in a field outside of their actual field of expertise.
(d) The authority actually is speaking on a topic well outside his
field of expertise. Example: "William Shockley said, Nature has
color-coded groups of individuals so that statistically reliable
predictions of their adaptability to intellectually rewarding and
effective lives can easily be made and profitably be used by the
pragmatic man in the street." While Shockley worked wonders in
semiconductor technology, his acumen in sociology was not high.
See fallacy. 2. Absolute,
incontrovertible evidence for the truth of X, provided Y is God or the
Bible. [conn., SciCre, TAE] 3. Absolute, incontrovertible
evidence for the truth of X, provided Y is Krishna or the Rig-Vedas.
[conn., Kalki] 4. Absolute,
incontrovertible evidence for the truth of X, provided Y is Velikovsky
or _Aeon_ magazine. [conn., Ted Holden]
- Argument from
- (np) [FAQ] 1. An argument most notably
forwarded by the Reverend Paley which brought us the "watchmaker"
analogy. At basis, this argues that the complexity and good design
seen in natural systems could only be attributed to a superlative
designer. Centuries ago, David Hume argued that one can only separate
designed from non-designed entities via experiential comparison and
contrast. Hence, since we only have one universe, we have no point of
reference to argue that the universe is designed (or not designed).
More recently, Richard
Dawkins has written an excellent summary of at least one way in
which good design does not imply the existence and action of a
designer. See fallacy. 2. A
self-evidently true proposition which evolutionists(2) seem unable
to comprehend. [conn., TAE]
- Argument from
- (np) [FAQ] 1. An argument which arrogates
omniscience to the arguer, who claims that because he or she cannot
postulate a mechanism for a phenomenon that no such mechanism can
exist. Omniscience is not an attribute of any current or past
participants on talk.origins or the Evolution Echo, so those employing
the AfI are usually met with much skepticism or flames. See fallacy.
- Argument from
- (np) 1. Style of argumentation
which relies upon endlessly claiming faults on the part of one's
correspondent on irrelevant or non sequitur points, and consistently
refusing to support any claims made. Calls to support a previously
made point make for new points of digressive departure, especially via
claiming that the correspondent made his statement due to improper
assumptions. One noted user of this technique was Darius Lecointe, whose
bizarrely styled digressions gave rise to a quantitative measure, the
milliDarian, which would describe the Dariosity of a post. The
milliDarian scale is sometimes seen applied in responses to newbie SciCre or TAE posters. 1000 milliDarians is the
standard Dariosity of the "typical" Darius Lecointe post.
- Argumentum ad
- (np) 1. The argument that what one
says is self-evidently, irrefutably true, and therefore one need
provide no supporting evidence. Often combined with Argumentum ad
CAPSLOCK, and/or as the opening shot in a round of A
rgumentum ad Assertion Repetitio ad Nauseam.
ad Assertion Repetitio ad Nauseam
- (np) 1. Argument
premised on the basis that any assertion repeated often enough is,
perforce, true. This rhetorical mode is a frequent companion of Argumentum ad
CAPSLOCK, or denigrations of correspondents. There exists great
variability in the frequency and timing of the repetitions.
- Argumentum ad
- (np) 1. The LACING of prose text with
capitalization used as a HIGHLIGHTING method to demonstrate the INNATE
SUPERIORITY of one's own logic over those whose TOUCH-TYPING abilities
are WEAKER. Also known as "McElwaine-ization" or erroneously as
"Larsonization", after an early post by McElwaine the subject of which
was a physicist named Larson. See fallacy.
- (n) 1.
Someone who is happy to get the order of magnitude correct in the
exponent. 2. Someone who often has a pain in the neck while practicing
to become one. [conn.]
- (n) 1. One who
has no belief in a god. 2. One who believes that there is no god. 3.
An evilutionist. [conn.,
TAE] 4. A keyword which indicates
that something is being inappropriately cross-posted to or from one of
the religion groups.
- (n) 1. One
who couldn't care less whether there is a god or not.
- (n) 1. A method of reproduction in which
the genetic material of the new organism(s) is obtained from that of a
single existing organism. See sexual reproduction.