SteeleRedux,

<<By its very definition Ad Homenim (sic) is an attack on the PERSON not the ARGUMENT. I directly spoke to NNS's argument calling it twaddle and then explicitly stating the reasons why.>>

That's only one kind of Ad Hominem fallacy, Ad Hominem (Abusive), http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Ad-Hominem-Abusive. You attacked NNS by calling her argument 'twoddle'. Instead of dealing with her argument/reasoning you attacked the person with a word that was completely irrelevant to the argument NNS was making.

There are also:

+ Ad Hominem (Circumstantial), http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Ad-Hominem-Circumstantial. You regularly use this one against me by claiming my argument is biased or predisposed to take a particular Christian stance, and therefore, the argument is necessarily invalid. The is illogical reasoning.

+ Ad Hominem (Guilt by association), http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Ad-Hominem-Guilt-by-Association. You do this to me when you the view my statements negatively because of their association with another group (Christianity) that you also view negatively.

+ Ad Hominem (Tu Quoque), http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Ad-Hominem-Tu-quoque. This claims the argument is flawed by pointing out that the one making the argument is not acting consistently with the claims of the argument.

.

To all and sundry,

.

A coalition of 62 countries backs joint Australian, EU push for an independent inquiry into “why the good God allows COVID-19 …

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-17/coronavirus-inquiry-world-health-assembly-china-covid-19/12256910

.

Banjo Paterson,

The news this morning has said that China has agreed to the proposed investigation but only after the coronavirus has been brought under control.

I assume that means that investigators will be able to carry out their investigations inside China after the Chinese government has got rid of all of the evidence that China is responsible for the global pandemic.

Mr Opinion,

<<I see you are trying to avoid a debate on the topic I raised. If you don't feel confident about putting forward an argument then I'm not one to pressure you other than to say I accept your acquiescence.>>

STRAW MAN Fallacy

To Toni Lavis,

I haven't seen you on OLO for a while, now. I'm glad to see you're ok and still around. Sorry for how things ended last time I saw you here. Hoping for a fresh start.

As for entropy, you likely studied the topic in a great deal, and know it better then I do. However, it does seem off to say disorder turning into order is included and acknowledged in the theory. I don't disagree that this happens like the example of snow firming out of cold and crystallization of water. But I find it at odds that these things are included in the theory. If I'm wrong about it, then I'm wrong about it, but I figured like some theories have only a limited scope for the theory (such as a subject matter, or under a certain range of temperatures or other factors), and outside of that most theories let it go. Therefore if there is something within the theory of entropy that acknowledges and allows an explanation for order out of disorder, I'm all ears.

That said I don't think the starting or continuation of life on earth can be sold as a universal equation on positive and negative entropic energy. I think it has to be a bit more local then disorder on another planet allows complex life to begin on earth. Hoping you or thinkabit, can say how it's possible with such a large vacuums of space between earth and any other place to collect the positive entropy displacement.

To Banjo Paterson.

I don't know anyone who is resigning to the fate of the corona virus, because it's God's will. Though perhaps you know people that I don't with this stance

To OzSpen

Have to correct you on this now if I can. I'm a guy not a gal. On another point though, I know how much logical fallacies bug you. But some of them might just be part of how people reason. Several people use mismanaged logic all the time here on OLO, but I doubt it's on purpose ( at least not all the time). As for SR, don't worry about it. He showed his stance on twiddle meaning foolish. After thinking about it I've come to the conclusion that the conversation between him and I is really foolish. Continuing in the same direction that started as a criticism would be a foolish path. Time to move on and learn that this is the conversation tree when Steele hears criticism, correction, or is just disagreed with. No point in dwelling on it and feeding that side conversation more fuel.

To Opinion.

If the topic is approved, then there should be a spot in the general section asking about what life is. Hopefully I can give you my opinion of that there tomorrow, if you are still interested in an answer or even a debate. I'm actually really glad to see you contribute to that question yourself so that your answer is out on the floor also. Do that more often instead of trying to speak for others and my opinion of you might change.