|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 4494 days) Posts: 2 From: Livermore, CA, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Question Evolution! | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
Neither Paul.
Nice false dichotomy though. It is a misunderstanding of what I am saying. The whole point of the conditional implication is not to set up rules for what science says, or say anything about limits. It is simply to provide a simple way of putting the burden of proof upon the person's theory. I said it before, if I state that theory P should show evidence X and you confirm this, from a logical point of view, you are forcing the theorist, you are disarming him, he has no way to infer, VALIDLY, that this evidence would make his theory true. (your syllogism allowed the affirmation of the consequent, simply because it was not a relevant form of syllogism) Believe it or not, I first read about this on an evolutionist website. It is not trivial because the modus tollens has the power to deductively falsify a simple theory like that. Now obviously a simple modus ponen leaves us to make the terminology fairly vague, but as I said before, it is just a neat way of showing that confirmation evidence is tentative, because to affirm the antecedant is not necessarily a big deal. Personally I value logic more than an induction of confirmation evidence because no matter how impressive the picture of evidence is, technically it CAN, logically be NOT true, (the theory). Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
It's fairly obvious that evolutionists have that view. I know of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It is not a matter of point of view Mike, it is fact and reality.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No, that's a misunderstanding. If all of the available evidence supported evolutio, you would be making a LAW of evolution. No, that's not the distinction between a law and a theory. A law is a theory which describes a simple regularity: "As the tension, so the extension"; "the sun rises in the East"; "F = m1m2/r2, "I'm only happy when it rai-ins" (Shirley Manson's Law). If you had been paying attention in science class, you'd know that the distinction between law and theory can't be what you think it is, because there are theories which consist of nothing but laws, e.g. Maxwell's theory consists entirely of Maxwell's four laws.
The most I can make of your ideas is that you're trying to say: "You only believe it because all the available evidence supports it". No, I would say of you as an evolutionist, that you have a justified true belief that evolution is true, as far as the evidence can help you on thatparticular path of knowledge/truth. I don't see what distinction you're trying to draw between my statement and yours. Yours is longer ... --- As to the rest of your post, if you think you can come up with evidence against evolution, start a thread, let us know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Personally I value logic more than an induction of confirmation evidence because no matter how impressive the picture of evidence is, technically it CAN, logically be NOT true, (the theory). But this is true of all science. In effect, what you are saying here is that you don't trust any science.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3744 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
chuckles writes: Yes. These are your answers?And you are unable to refute a single one of them. chuckles writes: *opens google* Embarrassed?*types Chuck77* HAHAHAHAH! If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6
|
quote: None of that contradicts my impression in the slightest.
quote: Which ignores the fact that scientific argument is NOT restricted to false logic (and ignores the fact that in my syllogism, there is no error because the evidence implies the truth of the theory - in the strict logical sense of implication)
quote: Thanks for confirming that I had it right. That's exactly the trivial point that I referred to.
quote: No logical conclusion is more certain than it's premises. Which can't be established by logic. Even deductive arguments can only deliver real certainty in specialised cases. And personally I'm not impressed by the low, low standard of logical possibility. A good inductive argument is far better.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Personally I value logic more than an induction of confirmation evidence because no matter how impressive the picture of evidence is, technically it CAN, logically be NOT true, (the theory). If you could find a theory which was logically inconsistent, then you could use that criterion to dismiss it, yes. But for obvious reasons there aren't many of those around. Apart from that, it's not much use to you. The consistency of a theory obviously can't confirm it, so logic is no use there. So apart from this one special case that doesn't come up very often you have to look at the evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foreveryoung Member (Idle past 613 days) Posts: 921 Joined: |
I guess you must be the stark raving lunatic because you cannot show me why my reasoning is wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I guess you must be the stark raving lunatic because you cannot show me why my reasoning is wrong. Very difficult to show why someone's reasoning is wrong when they don't display any reasoning. Just saying.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Anel Vadren Junior Member (Idle past 4494 days) Posts: 2 From: Livermore, CA, USA Joined: |
This irrelevant insult has little standing point, even as difficult as EvC's e-mail system is to operate. I herein disregard it. Notwithstanding, I do have a very important response: quit arguing here!
If you want a debate, contact the blog I mentioned: Question evolution - creation.com Now, I would also like to apologize as I misrepresented my cause. I had meant Creation Ministries International (CMI), not "Christian" Ministries International. That was a bad typographical error, and I apologize. I do not plan to twiddle long in this thread since I already pointed to my reference. However, I will bring up the major issue with evolution. The ultimate crux of evolution is its illogical standing - Darwinian natural selection. Natural Selection is a classic circulum in probando (the child of the petitio principii) wherein the claim of science is used as scientific evidence for itself; it is thus known, colloquially, as begging the question. Natural Selection is described in a few different patterns of the petitio principii but the most recent monster of nonsense is that fitness is found within the genes of those who survive (go on to reproduce). This is openly justified, with acceptance from evolutionist biologists, by the fact that those who survive vindicate fit genes. Let us review:A. Fitness is the circumstance of containing genes from those who have survived. B. Survival is reproducing (implying lack of death) to spread fitness. Now, Natural Selection: 1. The fittest are those who inherent fit genes from previously surviving individuals (i.e. those who reproduce and propagate fitness). 2. Surviving individuals are those who are fittest; that is, survival indicates fitness. Laughable... Now, of course, some pedantic pedant will reply with pseudoscientific pish posh by rephrasing the argument of Natural Selection which will undoubtedly alter its standing in semantics but will only further spruce up the fallacy. I have no time for such idiocy; Evolution is hereby debunked because it rests upon the atrocious fallacy of Natural Selection. Natural Selection does NOT exist. It is an illogicality and that word itself denotes nothing. Illogical things are not things, it is lack thereof. Logic IS reality. Too bad biologists are into fairy tails built on nothing. Edited by Anel Vadren, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Reality and fact trump logic every time.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3992 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.5
|
pish posh writes: Too bad biologists are into fairy tails built on nothing. What are fairy tails? Edited by Omnivorous, : T for too Edited by Omnivorous, : Oh the question... Edited by Omnivorous, : Tails, that is...now I've got it. This kid is sharp."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
If you want a debate, contact the blog I mentioned: Question evolution - creation.com You came to our debate site, you debate here. We can show you where you are wrong, but only if you stick around.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Natural Selection does NOT exist. Even most other creos recognize that descent with modification is an observed phenomenon. That's why we so often see the frivolous distinction between micro and macroevolution.
I do not plan to twiddle long in this thread since I already pointed to my reference. This is a debate forum, Jimmy. You are expected to respond to the points that others make with further argument or evidence supporting your position. It's apparent from your participation so far that neither argumentation nor evidentiary support are your strong suits, so I can understand your reluctance to participate. However, if all you intend to do is link to other sites and refuse to reply to others, there's really little point in your being here.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024