The words «chance» and «accidents» are not part of the equation; they are only used when the dishonest party wishes to put forth an easy target --- they are part
of strawman fallacies, not genuine debate.
as far as I know, your comment is the equivalent
of a strawman fallacy.
«According to you, no babies have ever died in the hospital for unforseen reasons...» Thank you for showcasing your inability to formulate a logical argument and lack of reading comprehension, and providing us with a textbook example
of the strawman fallacy.
Not exact matches
Difficult to read; even harder to comprehend; and full
of fallacies and
strawmen if you go to effort to translate it.
«Willis builds a
strawman Willis makes a logical
fallacy known as the
strawman fallacy here, when he says: The current climate paradigm says that the surface air temperature is a linear function
of the «forcing»... Change in Temperature (∆ T) = Change in Forcing (∆ F) times Climate Sensitivity What he seems to have done is taking an equation relating to a simple energy balance model (probably from this Wikipedia entry) and applied it to the much more complex climate system.