yxifix,
I'm sorry, honestly. But I can't see what you are talking about. That's why I need you to show me what exactly is wrong with my posts. Thank you.
You are not addressing my points with substance because;
1/
Unrepresentative Sample
There is no way we can talk about unrepresentative sample, mark. Pasteur did make his experiment on the whole sample (bacteria - each bacteria has the same way of reproduction, noone can just appears). Sorry, you are again wrong.
Firstly, Spontaneous Generation is NOT Abiogenesis. In Pasteurs day bacteria, rats, frogs etc. were thought to appear in any dirty old corner, & that this was a continual process. What pasteur showed was that this is in fact not the case. If he sterilised the sample, nothing appeared on it. Within the time that Spontaneous Generation was supposed to act, a few flasks & a couple of weeks would make for a representative sample.
Abiogenesis, on the other hand, asserts that life arose once (or a few times) in the earths 4.5 billion year history. Therefore a flask & a week tells you nothing. Pasteur falsified the idea that was Spontaneous Generation, but was utterly unable to shed any light on abiogenesis because of the time frame & vast area that was involved. It would be like looking for five minutes in the Sahara desert for a football, not finding it & declaring footballs are non-existent.
Hence the sample is not realistically going to tell you anything about what happens across an entire planet for 4.5 billion years, it is
unrepresentative.
You failed to substantively address my point because you failed to understand that everything that is possible, doesn't necessarily happen in a flask when
you want it to. And that in order to actually show what you want, you must deal with the geographical areas & time frames involved.
2/
Sorry. We are not talking about mutations or "evolution" of bacteria. But about a proof against spontaneous generation.
I then gave you a scenario in which the conclusions differed depending on sample size, ie 1 petri dish, or 100 petri dishes. The point is made regardless of what the scenario is about. I could have made exactly the same point using any example.
The conclusion differs depending on sample size. Ergo, a representative sample size should be chosen depending on what is hopefully to be demonstrated.
You completely failed to address the salient point, & attacked an irrelevant part of the scenario. In order to substantively address this point you need to show that sample size is irrelevant.
3/
Argument from ignorance
Pasteur's example did show and prove exactly what is true and what is false. So there is no way we can talk about argument from ignorance.
An argument from ignorance is made when you make an argument of the form,
"since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false", or,
"since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true". Just because abiogenesis didn't occur in Pasteurs flask, doesn't mean that it couldn't given enough time, or enough flasks. That is what you need to show.
In order to address this point, you need to show that you can at all times prove something is false because it hasn't been proven true, & vice versa.
4/
And you fail to address relevant points in general. Take the following for example, since it is relevant to the argument from ignorance claim, above.
quote:
I have asserted ,without any evidence at all there is a talking fish called Eric in the ocean, & you have no evidence to the contrary, then you if you are being consistent then you must accept that as a fact. YES OR NO?
If you can't prove that the fish doesn't exist, then it must! It is obviously nonsense to accept this reasoning. The burden of proof
must on me to show the fish exists.
This means that arguments of the form,
"since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false", or,
"since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true", are logically flawed, as shown to you in more than one cite.
Of course, this assumes that your answer to the question is "no", you do not accept the conclusion that a talking fish called Eric exists. If you answered "yes" on my mere say-so, then you are beyond help. But that's what you expect us to do.
In order to address the point substantively, you must answer the question, & then apply the same reasoning to your "proofs".
5/
You have repeatedly been cited relevant logic, & asked to do the same as regards your logic claims. You have repeatedly failed to do so. Given that is the case, how can you pretend to not understand why I think you haven't addressed the issue?
"
1/ Please provide a cite that deals with formal logic that supports your contention that I need to prove you wrong, otherwise you are right.
2/ Please provide a cite that deals with formal logic that supports your contention that when you make a positive assertion the burden of proof is on me.
3/ Please describe what you understand as "logic", & provide a cite supporting your definition."
In the light of the above, please go back to
post 231, & try again, this time address the relevant points.
Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
™ Version 4.2
