Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question Evolution!
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 91 of 235 (647008)
01-07-2012 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by PaulK
01-07-2012 5:33 PM


Re: 6 answers
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by PaulK, posted 01-07-2012 5:33 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by subbie, posted 01-07-2012 6:07 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 97 by PaulK, posted 01-07-2012 6:15 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-07-2012 7:26 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 92 of 235 (647009)
01-07-2012 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by jar
01-07-2012 5:38 PM


Re: Why Creationism and Intelligent Design will not be taken seriously.
It's fairly obvious that evolutionists have that view. I know of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by jar, posted 01-07-2012 5:38 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by jar, posted 01-07-2012 5:59 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 93 of 235 (647010)
01-07-2012 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by mike the wiz
01-07-2012 5:57 PM


Re: Why Creationism and Intelligent Design will not be taken seriously.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by mike the wiz, posted 01-07-2012 5:57 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by mike the wiz, posted 02-01-2012 5:02 AM jar has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 94 of 235 (647011)
01-07-2012 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by mike the wiz
01-07-2012 4:21 PM


Re: The tentativity of science
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by mike the wiz, posted 01-07-2012 4:21 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 95 of 235 (647012)
01-07-2012 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by mike the wiz
01-07-2012 5:56 PM


Re: 6 answers
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by mike the wiz, posted 01-07-2012 5:56 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 96 of 235 (647013)
01-07-2012 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Chuck77
01-07-2012 4:24 AM


Re: What is this?
chuckles writes:
These are your answers?
Yes.
And you are unable to refute a single one of them.
chuckles writes:
Embarrassed?
*opens google*
*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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Chuck77, posted 01-07-2012 4:24 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 97 of 235 (647014)
01-07-2012 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by mike the wiz
01-07-2012 5:56 PM


Re: 6 answers
quote:
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.
None of that contradicts my impression in the slightest.
quote:
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)
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:
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.
Thanks for confirming that I had it right. That's exactly the trivial point that I referred to.
quote:
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).
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by mike the wiz, posted 01-07-2012 5:56 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 98 of 235 (647020)
01-07-2012 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by mike the wiz
01-07-2012 5:56 PM


Re: 6 answers
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by mike the wiz, posted 01-07-2012 5:56 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 583 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 99 of 235 (647025)
01-07-2012 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr Adequate
01-06-2012 7:25 PM


Re: 6 answers
I guess you must be the stark raving lunatic because you cannot show me why my reasoning is wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-06-2012 7:25 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by subbie, posted 01-07-2012 7:52 PM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 109 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2012 12:03 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 100 of 235 (647027)
01-07-2012 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by foreveryoung
01-07-2012 7:44 PM


Re: 6 answers
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by foreveryoung, posted 01-07-2012 7:44 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Anel Vadren
Junior Member (Idle past 4464 days)
Posts: 2
From: Livermore, CA, USA
Joined: 01-06-2012


Message 101 of 235 (647028)
01-07-2012 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by subbie
01-06-2012 10:13 AM


LOL!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by subbie, posted 01-06-2012 10:13 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by jar, posted 01-07-2012 8:01 PM Anel Vadren has not replied
 Message 103 by Omnivorous, posted 01-07-2012 8:01 PM Anel Vadren has not replied
 Message 104 by Coyote, posted 01-07-2012 8:03 PM Anel Vadren has not replied
 Message 105 by subbie, posted 01-07-2012 8:05 PM Anel Vadren has not replied
 Message 106 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-07-2012 8:08 PM Anel Vadren has not replied
 Message 107 by Modulous, posted 01-07-2012 8:13 PM Anel Vadren has not replied
 Message 108 by Trixie, posted 01-07-2012 10:17 PM Anel Vadren has not replied
 Message 110 by Butterflytyrant, posted 01-08-2012 5:44 AM Anel Vadren has not replied
 Message 130 by Admin, posted 01-08-2012 8:04 AM Anel Vadren has not replied
 Message 139 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-09-2012 3:06 PM Anel Vadren has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 102 of 235 (647030)
01-07-2012 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Anel Vadren
01-07-2012 7:54 PM


Re: LOL!
Reality and fact trump logic every time.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Anel Vadren, posted 01-07-2012 7:54 PM Anel Vadren has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


(1)
Message 103 of 235 (647031)
01-07-2012 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Anel Vadren
01-07-2012 7:54 PM


Re: LOL!
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Anel Vadren, posted 01-07-2012 7:54 PM Anel Vadren has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 104 of 235 (647032)
01-07-2012 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Anel Vadren
01-07-2012 7:54 PM


Re: LOL!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Anel Vadren, posted 01-07-2012 7:54 PM Anel Vadren has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 105 of 235 (647034)
01-07-2012 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Anel Vadren
01-07-2012 7:54 PM


Below average, even for a creo
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Anel Vadren, posted 01-07-2012 7:54 PM Anel Vadren has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024