Re: Extinction

[Larry Dunn <majestic_cheese@yahoo.com>]

--- John Bois <jbois@umd5.umd.edu> wrote:

> Circularity: frog survival is a challenge to
> asteroid-kills-all non-avian
> dinosaurs hypothesis.  But, because it did kill all
> dinosaurs, it must
> have had an effect on frogs--"it just didn't kill
> >all< of them."

I'm having a hard time seeing the circularity in the
statement of George's that you cited:

>> It probably >did< kill frogs and turtles and
mammals
>and birds. It just 
>>didn't kill >all< of them.   

1) Frog survival may very well be a challenge to the
idea that it was an exploding bolide that terminated
all species of non-avian dinosaurs.

2) Nonetheless, if a bolide hit, and apparently one
quite definitely did, there were a lot of unlucky
frogs on that day.

3) Perhaps the bolide killed all of the dinosaurs but
not all of the frogs.  This is not, as far as I can
tell, a physical impossibility.

In the law, circular argument is called "begging the
question."  (People misuse the phrase all the time, to
mean "raises a follow-up question." It is irritating.)


"Abortion is murder, and so is morally wrong." (Sorry
to give a political example, Mickey.)

Bad logic.

I only say all this, and rather tediously too, to
point out that I don't feel that the statement *as you
cited it* may be attacked on the grounds you used.  It
seems like a perfectly reasonable, non-circular
statement to me.  But maybe you will elaborate and
clear this up for me.



=====
Larry

"Atheism: a non-prophet organization."

http://members.tripod.com/~megalania/index.html

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com