|
Author
|
Topic: Why TOE is not accepted
|
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2919 days) Posts: 882 Joined: 06-22-2005
|
|
Message 301 of 318 (229151)
08-03-2005 12:05 PM
|
Reply to: Message 293 by Faith
08-03-2005 8:36 AM
|
|
Re: where's the evidence?
faith writes: If there's no logical way you can figure it happening at all, then a million years for it to happen in isn't going to change that What a perfect example of argument from incredulity!. And therefore, unfortunately for you Faith, a logical fallacy. Sorry.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 293 by Faith, posted 08-03-2005 8:36 AM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 302 by Faith, posted 08-03-2005 12:12 PM | | deerbreh has replied |
|
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 302 of 318 (229154)
08-03-2005 12:12 PM
|
Reply to: Message 301 by deerbreh
08-03-2005 12:05 PM
|
|
Re: where's the evidence?
You have a problem with
If there's no way for it to happen
Then there's no way for it to happen?
Interesting.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 301 by deerbreh, posted 08-03-2005 12:05 PM | | deerbreh has replied |
|
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2919 days) Posts: 882 Joined: 06-22-2005
|
|
|
Message 303 of 318 (229155)
08-03-2005 12:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 296 by Philip
08-03-2005 11:39 AM
|
|
Re: Rejecting ToE for Faith
Philip writes: When science (per se) supports *my faith* Sorry Philip, another oxymoron. If science supports your "faith", it's not faith is it?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 296 by Philip, posted 08-03-2005 11:39 AM | | Philip has not replied |
|
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2919 days) Posts: 882 Joined: 06-22-2005
|
|
|
Message 304 of 318 (229158)
08-03-2005 12:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 302 by Faith
08-03-2005 12:12 PM
|
|
Re: where's the evidence?
Faith writes: You have a problem with If there's no way for it to happen Then there's no way for it to happen? Interesting. No. Not what I said. I said you were arguing from incredulity, which means you could not figure out how it could happen, so therefore it couldn't have happened. Big difference between that and what you said. Here is a link if you want it further explained. CA100: Argument from incredulity edited for typo. This message has been edited by deerbreh, 08-03-2005 12:21 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 302 by Faith, posted 08-03-2005 12:12 PM | | Faith has replied |
|
Faith
Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: 10-06-2001
|
|
|
Message 305 of 318 (229159)
08-03-2005 12:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 304 by deerbreh
08-03-2005 12:19 PM
|
|
Re: where's the evidence?
I know what you said and what you meant and I answered you. I figured out that it COULDN'T happen, not that I couldn't figure out how it happened.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 304 by deerbreh, posted 08-03-2005 12:19 PM | | deerbreh has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 306 by CK, posted 08-03-2005 12:32 PM | | Faith has not replied | | | Message 309 by deerbreh, posted 08-03-2005 12:38 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
CK
Member (Idle past 4154 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: 07-04-2004
|
|
|
Message 306 of 318 (229164)
08-03-2005 12:32 PM
|
Reply to: Message 305 by Faith
08-03-2005 12:25 PM
|
|
Re: where's the evidence?
quote:
I figured out that it COULDN'T happen, not that I couldn't figure out how it happened.
Oh well that's it then - you got it right and everyone else got it wrong. You should get this stuff published.
quote:
Abstract: after examining the item for a few hours, I could not work out anyway that such a thing could be the product of evolution.Therefore it could not occur and was impossible.
You don't even need the standard 250-400 words needs for an abstract! You should get onto Creation Technical journal, they are always looking for material like this.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 305 by Faith, posted 08-03-2005 12:25 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 307 of 318 (229165)
08-03-2005 12:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 293 by Faith
08-03-2005 8:36 AM
|
|
Re: where's the evidence?
When I was about twenty I sat and studied the magnificent many-pointed antlers on a mounted deer head in a vacation house where a bunch of friends and I were staying until I nearly drove myself batty trying to understand how those things could have evolved, considering all the false starts with a couple of small bumps on the head I figured had to happen first, followed by slightly bigger bumps, all in keeping with the slow-buildup-of-small-increments idea I had of evolution, none of which bumps I could see would have any particular survival value that would cause them to be selected, and so on The bumps on the head may not have been the way the antlers evolved. Or if did evolve that way, perhaps the bumps had some benefit. Maybe it made the head harder and so more impervious to injury when battling with other deer. Maybe they provided a slight cushion. Maybe when the antlers evolved the head was not shaped as it is now. There are all sorts of scenarios.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 293 by Faith, posted 08-03-2005 8:36 AM | | Faith has not replied |
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 308 of 318 (229166)
08-03-2005 12:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 304 by deerbreh
08-03-2005 12:19 PM
|
|
Re: where's the evidence?
The argument from incredulity has to do with trying to prove that something else happened because of incredulity about another explanation. If Faith does not offer another alternative, then it is not an argument from incredulity.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 304 by deerbreh, posted 08-03-2005 12:19 PM | | deerbreh has replied |
|
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2919 days) Posts: 882 Joined: 06-22-2005
|
|
|
Message 309 of 318 (229168)
08-03-2005 12:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 305 by Faith
08-03-2005 12:25 PM
|
|
Re: where's the evidence?
Ok. Then I have assume that you are an evolutionary biologist and have the knowledge and training to come to such a conclusion. Is that true?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 305 by Faith, posted 08-03-2005 12:25 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
Wounded King
Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: 04-09-2003
|
Re: where's the evidence?
Surely the alternative is implicit in what we know of Faith's beliefs, that the antlers were a product of special creation or intelligent design. TTFN, WK
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 311 of 318 (229170)
08-03-2005 12:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 303 by deerbreh
08-03-2005 12:13 PM
|
|
Re: Rejecting ToE for Faith
If science supports your "faith", it's not faith is it? Not necessarily. It might partially support it, but not all the way.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 303 by deerbreh, posted 08-03-2005 12:13 PM | | deerbreh has not replied |
|
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2919 days) Posts: 882 Joined: 06-22-2005
|
Re: where's the evidence?
Faith is incredulous about the evolutionary explanation. She does not have to state it per se.
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
Re: where's the evidence?
Surely the alternative is implicit in what we know of Faith's beliefs, that the antlers were a product of special creation or intelligent design I don't think we want to be assuming things in this fashion, unless the poster actually says so. Faith might have other reasons for the belief other than just incredulity about evolution. Or Faith might be presenting a different type of argument, where special creation is not the conclusion. One might, for example, just be investigiating what appears to be difficulties in the theory of evolution--with no alternative explanation.
|
robinrohan
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 314 of 318 (229177)
08-03-2005 12:48 PM
|
Reply to: Message 312 by deerbreh
08-03-2005 12:42 PM
|
|
Re: where's the evidence?
Just being incredulous is not the argument from incredulity.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 312 by deerbreh, posted 08-03-2005 12:42 PM | | deerbreh has not replied |
|
Wounded King
Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: 04-09-2003
|
Re: where's the evidence?
But Faith is making is an explicit claim that antlers couldn't have evolve, base of Faith's own inability to image how it is possible. At the very least there are two explicit alternatives, that of the gradual evolution of antlers being possible and the other of it not being possible. Does the alternative really need to be so explicitly formulated as a statment for it to be an argument from incredulity? TTFN, WK
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 316 by robinrohan, posted 08-03-2005 1:55 PM | | Wounded King has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2