How many users on these boards actually support "The Theory of Evolution"?

[Final-Fan]

ManusJustus said:

Viper1 said:

Midnight is a cat.
Cats can see in the dark.
Therefore Midnight can see in the dark.

Unless Midnight is blind.

 

You should never use baseline logic as valid fact for the absence of proof.  Read a basic forensic science book and you'll get what I'm saying.  What you are suggesting is a level of plausibility.   The curveball factor I just demonstrated prevents absolutes from being certain in logical equatiosn such as those.

The logic is not valid, so the conclusion you reached can be false even though both premises are true.  The statement would be valid if you said:

Midnight sees like a cat.

Cats see in the dark.

Midnight can see in the dark.

No, the logic was fine, but the premise was false.  ("Cats can see in the dark" was treated as "ALL cats can see in the dark", which was a false premise if Midnight is blind and cannot see at all, let alone in the dark.  The logic was only bad if that was a logical fault and not just an incompletely stated premise as I supposed.)