My Life Being A Teenage Robot

Hi everyone! It's your hero and favorite robot girl Jenny Wakeman!! When I'm not saving the world from random villains, stupid overthrown queens, or cute but evil Killgore, I hang with Brad and Sheldon at Mezmer's and sometimes Youtube. Keep me alive! Support and contribute to the MLAATR Fandom.

MLAATR Forum:
http://tremorton.proboards.com/index.cgi?

Watch MLAATR episodes:
http://www.veoh.com/users/DarkFang177

Some of my fans on DevianArt:
http://14-bis.deviantart.com/
http://xjkenny.deviantart.com/
http://blank-existence.deviantart.com/
http://cyber-murph.deviantart.com/
http://shelltoontv.deviantart.com/

"I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations." -Albert Einstein, Mom's (My mom) greatest inspiration

To Atheists:
THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR A CREATOR is a scientifically inept statement. Science assumes all things have naturalistic explanations in accord with Occams Razor. Claims that science has found no evidence for a Creator implies that scientists are engaged in research to prove or disprove a Creator. Dogmatic atheists peddling this slogan open themselves up to a simple question that exposes their ignorance and presumptions: What scientific research going on now is specifically looking for evidence of a Creator? (The answer is none.)

Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority) is a fallacy which occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes.

At least in some forms of debate, quoting various sources to support one's position is not just acceptable but mandatory. In general, there is nothing wrong with doing so. Even if the person quoted has no particular expertise in the area, he may have had a particularly eloquent way of saying something that makes for a more persuasive speech. In general, debaters should be called down for committing argumentum ad verecundiam only when (a) they rely on an unqualified source for information about facts without other (qualified) sources of verification, or (b) they imply that some policy must be right simply because so-and-so thought so.

less