A proper understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debate

That is not the form of the argument. Otherwise I would argue that a sculpture had coded information. Lol.It is as follows; If something has information, it has been put there by something mindful, an intelligent agency. (which self-evidently follows)

​

Life has complex, mind blowing information and info-density, therefore has been put there by an intelligent agency.If X then P
Z has X therefore P.Afterall that's why the evolutionist contingency have to cast doubts upon it being information. (You should read the book, called; In the Beginning was Information By Werner Gitt, to get a better understanding of the fullness of the argument from information.Another common error evolutionists make, is to falsely accuse those of the design contingency that they are committing the God of the Gaps fallacy, but the form of the Argument-from-design is not the form of the GOTG. I explained this here; BLOGPlease read carefully.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Two relevant points. The latter showing an induction of information is "weak". It is incredibly hard to get people to believe that evidence, in particular, confirmation evidence, is astoundingly logically, WEAK, even if you have millions of confirming evidences, because unless you have 100% of the induction, then as you say, we are basically be making a fallacy.I need to read more about abductive inferene, I THINK the following might qualify;If balls are round we will find round balls.We find A round ball, therefore all balls are round.Logically, totally not sound, but ofcourse, roundness is inherent to all balls. (Good to read you again.) Hope you're doing ok.

We show the credence of the premise by showing that things with information require designers. The only things we find with information in them are designed, which is not begging the question. It is a reasonable premise given the evidence.Even what we write is information, not because of the pixels, but because of how they are arranged. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

That was the point. To show something could be true yet not valid in logical form.It is because it is predetermined that there is not a non sequitur.By the way, the distraction did not work, you said that we are arguing that if something is designed it has information, and therefore I would be stating that a sculpture has coded information.You have changed the goal posts, because I shown that the argument from information does not have the form you stated it had.I don't know if evolutionists realize this, but if you correct them, they quickly try and badger you again, ignore what you said and try and dig for another fault. I was correcting your logical error, yo were not correcting me, as I did not argue anything, you did, I responded to what you said, which was not logical therefore why should I now defend design? If anything you should defend yourself.Please answer, do you believe we state that there is coded information in sculptures?(By the way Taq, Hi! - I forgot it was you (we debated ERVs), sorry if I got a bit frustrated there, it just seems that as A creationist I get badgered, but I guess that's because we are few and you can't help but debate them when they come along. )Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

No, that's not correct. To state that if something has information then it requires a designer, is what must be stated in order to prove it.It's how the induction is then observed that supports the proposition. I am not assuming there is design, we are observing the information which abundantly allows us to infer design.Sure - we already believe in a designer, but that's got nothing to do with it. That is YOUR strawman statement.I would not argue that life is designed therefore it has information. You have now changed YOUR original statement which was what I originally replied to in this thread, which was;TAQ said; If I was arguing that something designed had coded information, I would be stating that a sculpture has coded information. Nobody arguing information would argue that. I have never heard one Creationist argue your strawman fallacy. Ofcourse. But I never argued anything, I only gave a counter-claim that IDists and creationists do not argue that design = coded information.Your fallacy was one of composition. You stated something about Creationists/IDists generally that you not even proved in the first place, as you have not SHOWN that a creationist or IDist has said that sculptures have coded information.I used reductio ad absurdum upon your original statement, because if your form of argument about information was true, then I could be able to find Creationists and IDists that state that if there is design, there is coded-information, such as a sculpture having coded information.To prove the argument from information uses this reasoning, the burden of proof is upon you to show that we state that all designs will have coded information.I myself have done nothing, I responded to an argument, a strawman you aimed at me and all creationists, I have not done anything other than correct the mistaken form you provided.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : Neatness, grammar,etc.

It does not make my statement false because I believe you have conflated/equivocated with the term, "information", in this example. I would say you are describing what thoughtful people can INFER or extrapolate from facts. There is no information within and in the rock itself of the type Creationists/ID ists are talking about.For example, writing, is information. I believe the definition of information we use would not incorporate such crude examples.What is information? I would say that the inferences a mindful person gleans from facts is the information,(but I haven't thought it out in depth as that was not my motive here) rather than the facts themselves otherwise logically, we would not have to INFER anything.If we don't understand a code it is still a code, but with blood spatter, it does not give us direct information, if we do not infer it.From the definition of information used by Dr Werner Gitt for example, code is incorporated.I would say your examples are examples of vacuous truths. A vacuous truth has not merit even though it is true. For example;"If I was superman I would fly to the moon."But I think it is silly that an admin has not stopped the excessive demands upon me for merely making one opinion, which was logical, concerning the false strawman form aimed at people such as me. I think by default everyone's comments should be deemed as automatically incorrect because they are using this topic to try and make me defend design. I did not argue information, I only stated that it was falsely represented. I was correct.As to whether any theory or argument from information is brilliant, or poor - is irrelevant to the point I was making. I was only making an observation.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

I agree with you Para. It's a shame that even someone such as yourself did not recognize that I was not arguing for information. I was not making a defense of the argument from information, I was making a logical statement as to what that argument is NOT. The topic is about logic, which interests me academically, as for a syllogism or conditional implication having to back up it's premises, that is elemental and I find it genuinely remarkable that you think I would not know that.A fallacy is a fallacy IF the form is not valid, or the premise is not true or the premise is potentially not true.A potential non sequitur is the problem. I would argue that, but I was not arguing that here. I was arguing that the form of the argument from information was not the form Taq said it was, because I shown reductio ad absurdum.If Taq was right, Creationists would have to argue that artwork and sculptures have coded information within them. Which is ludicrous, I have never heard of informed Creationists making such an error, THEREFORE Taq is not right. (Reductio ad absurdum)I DID NOT give a definition for information, therefore to "refute" what I meant by information without knowing what I specifically WOULD mean if I were arguing it, is a strawman people have erected in order to shoot down.All I said in this thread was what we do NOT argue, not what we do argue. If you are honest with yourself, you would re-read everything I have stated without jumping to any conclusions about what you think I MAY be saying.This is the prime element of logical thinking, to isolate information in the strictest, most objective possible manner.I would be happy to give OPINIONS about the argument from information, but be under no delusions, I have not given any lengthy claims or counter claims to any proposals here in this thread.

Can you show me where I said I would defend the information-argument to the hilt? my objective was to say what it was not.It's a fair comment to say that the definition might in itself be problematic. I must confess that I am a little rusty, personally, upon the exact definition, but I believe it definitely had merit, as it seems to tally with reality.Again, you can't see me here as the great defender of the information argument, I can only guide you as personally I do not value it to a magnificent degree. Indeed, only now am I musing upon it because of all of the drama caused by my statement.I believe the essentials, and this is a very vague explanation, from foggy memory, is that for something to qualify as a full and meaningul term as "information" and for it not to be special pleading we have to show that we are dealing with the very sophisticated.So to fully describe what writing is, for example, you need;1. Code. Syntax. (It has to have a meaningful code)
2. Pragmatics. There has to be meaning to the code. For example;And did they you, fat evo.No meaning you see, dear chap, only syntax and code.Then, you have to achieve what the information sets out to achieve. In this case, namely making sense to a recipient.The examples given such as blood spatter being information etc.....that is a bit of an equivocation, a superbly simplistic example of what we are talking about.For if we are trying to describe the reality of what writing is, these definition describe it's information in a very clear way. But if writing was just information, as blood spatter was, then the definition would fully meet that of what it is to describe what writing FULLY is.I believe it is reasonable therefore, to provide a definition.Writing is the kind of information that exists in reality, which such a definition fully described. Therefore writing would have to NOT be what we are stating it to be within our definition.These are my preliminary and unformed thoughts in regards to the objections to what can described to at best, as my initial allusions. But they weren't even allusions, I did say at best!

To state that you did not use the word, "sculptures" is a moot point. It shows that you did not understand what I was saying.If you say that I am claiming that all animals wear clothes, then if you are an animal, you wear clothes, then it follows logically that I would be arguing that a Cheetah wears clothes.Now although you did not mention the animal called, "Cheetah", is irrelevant and a moot point BECAUSE if FOLLOWS that I would HAVE TO state and propose that such animals did wear clothes.Now we are discussing logic, which is the topic and which I enjoy.You see, logical fallacies only tell us what is not sound, but the true joy is when we can infer what is sound, and what we can deduce. In this example I am using logical thinking to show what is called reductio ad absurdum, which takes the following form;X state that Bob is saying Y.Bob states that if he was stating Y then absurd thing P would be true.Since absurd thing P is false, X is incorrect. Again I must actually USE logic. This is an example of a false dichotomy.A. I use the form of argument you presented, which I never claimed to present.
B. I can re-form the argument I never did use to submit another type of argument?I think I will take option C. I will state what I have always stated, that the argument from information does not take the form you said it did.You are saying that Creationists argue P, which they don't, I have shown they argue Y, and now you want me to say that I am changing the argument P we never argued and I am going to create a new argument which is argument Y which involves altering the argument we never argued.Sheesh.Taq, I will concede one point, there may be creationists that argue that all designs have coded information, I can only state that I have never met one. I have never read on AIG or other creation websites, Creationists stating that sculptures have coded information in them.I apreciate that you think this is true. Really you need to admit that the form of the syllogism is that of a conditional implication.IF information THEN design.This in itself is a modus ponen which is allowed to be used in an argument, as long as you don't affirm the consequent. The antecedant to the consequent inference is valid as long as you evidence the proposal.

I think you've misunderstood. You want the syntax to say, "I am code?". For example, if what you are saying is true, then the structure you get from DNA, for an arm would not beAn arm.It would be;Na rma.The syntax is what is used in CATG. In binary code it would be 10101010101010101010101010010101011 or whatever.The syntax is the CATG, (four elements) it has pragmatics, because otherwise you could scramble any combination and get the same thing.I admit this post is very, very outlined, probably with mistakes because I am literally typing as I think - I am not getting into a massive defense of DNA as information, but I believe that if DNA shows the same purpose, if it has pragmatics and apobetics, and code like writing and if it gets the job done, then it has the same type of information as writing.You can say it is information and does not require a designer, I would say it is unrealistic to say it is not information, when it fulfills the criteria, but that is my opinion, I am going no further in this topic.

You see, I am a Creationist, and while I think the argument from information is compelling, the miraculous nature of all things with DNA impresses me enough, within the category of, "Faith and Belief". It's not argument there, it's a matter of faith, and personal proof. On a personal level, I have got to the stage were all Creationist or design arguments could be conquered and I would still be utterly convinced of God's existence, for personal reasons.I defend creationists because I know and have heard them speak, I regularly study their work. Of course I am going to defend what we are saying, and oppose a strawman of what we are not saying, but you are basically handcuffing me and putting me in a corner, and shouting, "NOW ANSWER FOR CREO' CLAIMS of information".You said some things a while back that led me to think that your thinking wasn't as clear as I thought it was.The fairy tree, or whatever it was called, you excelled in regards to objectivity, but I noticed you became a lot more hard-nosed, going towards "new atheism". I respect the old atheism because it doesn't involve anywhere near as much epithets or animosity.

Ok - have at me. I don't have the ability to keep up with the responses, and it is not fair for me to take over this thread simply to defend everything I say. I know you are all passionate materialists and evolutionists, I know you don't accept information. I am not dogmatic, but nobody has shown me any strictly logical reasons to give up the belief in information showing a designer. There are some salad-logics that are worthy, but they are mostly tenuous compared to the reasoning the Creation Scientists have shown, in my clear judgement.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Thanks for this post, Taq. Good form, I tip my baba-wiz hat to you. Yes, you have to logically back up the first premise, because of a potential non sequitur.The non sequitur would be that of assuming the first premise is correct without knowing 100% of the induction. An example to the contrary would falsify the premise, OR, the premise could be altered ad hoc. The counter-example also would have to be scrutineered, to see if it was pedantically vacuous.I don't think anyone would claim that this argument from information is an absolutely sound, perfect syllogism, that's not really how it works, one can only really make a reasonable case for it based on the evidence. I think that is what the majority of Creationists do, they make a compelling case. It can't be proved.Working out the rest of the logic would take an intricate knowledge of all of the variables involved;- Finding out whether there are examples of information, as defined, that are potentially existent without a designer.
- Comparing real-life examples.I did not make the argument from information but if it was me I would make it more specific, with a full explanation of the definition.From the evidence I have looked at, personally I believe the argument has merit. Looking into what makes something a design is also important.For example, what makes a wall and a pile of bricks different? Writing on a page can be scrawl or a code, the amount of matter on the page does not change, the information is somewhere between the lines.I admit I do not know of examples of complex information, such as binary code or writing, having NOT the need for a designer. Thus far the objections seem to be based on simplistic examples, that are not equal.I would be convinced DNA did not need a designer if it could be show that you could get a sophisticated system that needs no designer.We can't use animals as they are the subject in question. But we can reasonably speculate upon the likely hood of finding a sophisticated example of information without the need for a designer.I am not saying an example does not exist, I believe reality, at this time, favours a designer. (An argument from Incredulity is when somebody can not accept that a certain proposal is true because they disbelieve it.)I appreciate your reasonable post. (think that's all I have to say.) Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

I for one don't recall defending a fallacy? I would defend a fallacy though, as examples have been given of a fallacious argument with a true conclusion.An appeal to authority, for examples, as Paul K said, is to state that the earth is 6,000 years old because the bible says so, but if the bible is true, then I don't care that it's a fallacy. If you knew that God existed, would you stop to tell him he is fallacious if you were to heed His authority?For example, Ad Logicam is the fallacy of saying that somebody's argument or conclusion is false, because it shares the conclusion of another, popular argument that they deem false.For example, if I concluded there was a designer because of the marvelous complexity in organisms, I would be told that irreducible complexity by Michael Behe, has been refuted, therefore I am wrong. However, an argument can have false premises and a true conclusion. Even if my argument was false, my conclusion could still be accidentally correct.So it is not entirely illogical to favour a fallacy. I love logic, but truth matters more to me, because if something is true, it is completely irrelevant to me that it is illogical.If you analyze the bible with Greek classic thinking for example, according to logic, then logically you are bound to not come to the correct conclusion, because the Hebrews thought very differently from the Greeks, and their language is correspondingly different. They will write with the style of saying something, then apparently contradicting it in the next sentence. Naturally, they were not stupid people, so critical thinking becomes silly and useless.Generally though, I would not defend a fallacy unless I knew that the non sequitur was removed from it. I.e. I knew it was true despite being unsound.

This is why I usually prefer operational science.With a claim as LARGE as macro-evolution, logically speaking, you are stating something very, very great.I disagree that scientists all proceed logically, I am not convinced that perfect objectivity is born out.For example, falsification evidence is found, concerning the ToE, which should logically be regarded as highly important to the vague claim that all and every extant and extinct organism stemmed from the first organism through common ancestry.Such a massive claim, can never be logically "proved" or called, a "fact", because of the potential non sequitur. From what Zen Deist said, we know that a theory proceeds as a fallacious illogical suggestion, this is why the theory can only be "viable" through confirmation evidence, with a very heavy logical emphasis upon the falsification evidence. This is because inductive reasoning is flawed. Even if you find a million birds that can't fly, that will not prove that birds can't fly. Only 100% of all birds in existence will push you into the realms of deductive certainty.The tollens produces bricks, the ponen produces feathers.The main argument from the mainstream evolutionists, seems to be that because they have a hundred thousand feathers, that this proves something, but when we find pollen in the Pre-Cambrian or preserved amber deposits in the carbiniforous, then these falsifications represent maybe the weight of a high-rise building. Therefore, tollens-falsification, even one piece, will trump thousands upon thousands of feathers, simply because the claim of the ToE is so very astoundingly great, LOGICALLY speaking. The greater the claim, (and this is the biggest claim ever), the greater the evidence must be.The science of evolution, the facts, the experiments, the sophistication compared to creationism, is brilliant, but unfortunately, scientists don't seem to realize that logically this does not matter in the least in a logical context.Therefore the truly rational and logical person is not obliged to favour a particular theory, even if they do not support a competing theory.There are some that take an ultra-logical approach, believing that a lack of evidence is what is most important. I.e. What we do not know.I think, as a person of logic, that what we do not know is nearly always more important than what we do know. When it comes to origins, it is not a non sequitur, to say that X is X. (Law of identity), because we are simply stating a reality.Therefore macro-evolution, even if it was the most proven of all theories, would LOGICALLY have the burden of proof upon it. It always will, because reality dictates what is true - that X is essentially X. I do not have to prove that humans will produce humans over time, because they simply do, but you as evolutionary scientists have to prove that they don't, and you can't prove that they don't, logically, as it is not possible according to the notation of logic, therefore you can only evidence that they don't over time.Unfortunately, this is not a matter of intellect, it is a matter of the heart. Scientists are still human. I have read scientific information, which assumes the truth of macro-evolution, instead of concentrating upon the topic in hand.I think macro-evolution is the biggest example of bad science because if you are going to state, on every level, that something is evidence of evolution, then divergence and convergence, logically, CAN, ONLY show evolution, whereas the facts themselves, logically, only show that you can get a morphologically identical or very similar or homologous form WITHOUT there being a relations.This is why Dawkins states that the eye evolved separately some 40-odd times, therefore, how can we falsify such an example?If logically, we can prove similar structure WITHOUT evolution, then how on earth does that not show logically, that organisms do not have to be related?The logic is just ignored in favour of hand-selected falsifications instead of logical falsifications.Example, finding a human in the Cambrian. But this posteriori monstrosity is only proposed as falsification evidence BECAUSE EVOLUTIONISTS KNOW they will not find such examples. But when we find pollen in the Pre-Cambrian, or the massive falsification evidence of every major phyla preserved in the Cambrian, with the cherry on top of no previous gradations from one type of animal to the next, what happens? Instead of heeding logic, ad-hoc explanations are invoked, or paradigms such as punctuated equilibrium or the hard-type hypothesis.This is logic being completely ignored because of the heart, not the head.mikey..............out.