Question Evolution!

My opinion is that it is viable. But even that should be questioned if there are logical reasons to do so. I think it can be shown there are.But then, if evolution is truly a fact and I am wrong, then it is a fact. For me, staying away from hit-terms is a healthy thing, things like, "none-negotiable" or, "can't be debated" smell more of absolutes.I'm leaving it now, I feel I have explained myself enough.

I apreciate that. It's your thing, you want it accurate.But if you continue to bodaciously pig-squiffle my inner artichoke then I shall choke six demons out of your snozzcumber head, you babble-fed pinworm. Now look, you've broken mike, as Dan Carroll used to say.

Jar, the science is with you on stating something simple like that, the majority is with you. The people here are with you. The explanation that would do justice to that statement, I am sure would be interesting and perhaps even would have merit with me, but to introduce this new topic at this stage, by making that simple statement, which I am sure everyone will agree with you about, without you having to stress a muscle, is not really appropriate. Do you seriously think I could now, after all of these other issues, make some clad-iron statement against such a tidal wave of disgruntled disagreable folk?I have pretty much vowed to be quiet, so we will leave it. I think my muscle work would somehow have to be a lot stronger, I will use your own words; You don't think that's a little bit of a request? To come up with some argument on the spot that will do that, all on my own, without any kind of majority to perhaps add some information to my own arguments and help me?Why does a picture of a big lazy Horace Slughorn come to mind, making casual statements, knowing that 25 skillful wizards will back him up at any one time or another?

I do understand, Paul, in all honesty I feel that if that last explanation did not show you that, than nothing more I say will convince you. But by all means, believe me confused by my own thoughts.

Yes, I noticed you didn't jeer me, your powers of restraint are now complete, Jedi.

Part of being me, I will let you in on a secret, is that although individuals do not evolve, I am an exception.I admit that my own passion and zeal because of my Christian faith, can over-take me in the way a hard-core race-driver will burn out all his tyres in the first few laps.I am also convinced, that no matter what I say, it is impossible to change peoples minds when they are so convinced by something.So I am trying, and it is hard, you should try it, I am very much outnumbered and admittedly I do not have a thick skin.I also am feeling nine years of heat, perhaps some of that heat is my own fault. Soon I will be very quiet indeed, you will be pleased to know. (as in, lurker -quiet.)

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.

It's fairly obvious that evolutionists have that view. I know of it.

I agree. unfortunately, you, as a higher rank in this community, do not have to explain a thing, or prove anything you say, so I will do all the thinking for you, you just sit back and state the same ad-nauseum statements as though I didn't understand them in their entirety, the first time.Fortunately I know what facts and reality are, fully and in depth, and I also know that what you have stated about biological evolution being a fact, in and of itself is not a consequential statement. I can agree without it being a problem, which is a reality you are not aware of because you haven't thought of the logical implications whereas I have.Biological evolution is a fact. Reality is also not a matter of opinion.I agree on both counts with the overly simple statements that did not need to be voiced towards me, as though I needed to be educated on base-understandings. Nice try in making it look like I did, though.As you can see, I don't have to state anything else, both that fact and reality are not logically consequential.As you can see, for me, as a creationist to agree that evolution is a fact, might seem odd, but because I have a full understanding and I can differentiate between inferences/facts, premises and arguments in their various surreptitious forms then I can as a creationist state that biological evolution is a fact.You see, this in itself is a simple matter. But now you have to ask, "hang on a minute, if mike is saying biological evolution is a fact, and he is creationist, then doesn't he believe in evolution?"Logically, that is a question that must be asked. My answer is no, I do not believe in biological evolution in history, and yet I DO, because I believe evolution has acted on gene pools, (an example, an organism losing it's eye-sight as an advantageous evolution, as it lives in dark places). Is this what you were pressing me on?You see, the real question is, what do I mean when I say that evolution is a fact? Indeed, what do you mean, and do you know what you mean, specifically? The operative word, is specifically. Specific things fascinate me. Specifically, YOU mean that both a change in allele frequencies AND all lifeforms coming about because of this fact, are "fact". This is called, equivocation.When I say that evolution is a fact I mean that there is a change in allele frequencies in gene pools over generations. This fact does not mean I have to then believe that every organism on the planet it a result of biological evolution. As you can plainly see, to MERGE the two is fallacious. It's called, Bait and switch. Dawkins uses it on his proselytizing-quests, to bait the person listening, by showing the "fact" of evolution by appealing to a scientific bioloist. (Getting a Biologist to state, "evolution is fact") in the hope the person listening will then believe that they have to accept evolution in history.I can prove logically the two are merged, because when I make the following statement, it leads to confusion. (I am now using Reductio ad absurdum)Pay attention; (this requires some genuine thinking if you are not logically proficient) I believe (mike) evolution is a fact, I believe evolution did not happen.As you can see, the statement is either breaking the law of non-contradiction, OR I mean two things, because two things are conflated in the term, "evolution". For how could I state this without meaning two things? Therefore Jar, I will do your homework for you, since this oppressive debate-board only insists that Creationists defend what they say, and lazy thinkers that are evolutionist, can get away with stating anything, despite their lack of knowledge.You see, with that statement I made, I MUST define the term, "evolution" hyper-specifically, or the statement is a contradiction because I would be believing a fact and not believing a fact.So, yes, I agree, biological evolution is a fact, but logically it does not prove anything. You MUST infer/argue and put forward a syllogism, in order to state something MORE ABOUT that fact.Technically, there is no getting around it. That is reality. DISCLAIMER: If you want to make two separate claims, one that biological evolution, a change in gene pools, is a fact, and that lifeforms coming about because of this fact, is a fact, then that is okay, you can make those claims separately and fairly and make a topic defending YOUR claims, as you brought this subject up, not me.As you can see, in an oppressive atmosphere, the person kept under the thumb has to provide infinitely more effort, if he wants to make a simple statement, as the persons pushing the Rankism is basically the bully.

​

I remember when I was a child, a group of bullies would come to our doorstep. They were big bullies but one bully was very, very small. Now the big bullies were fascinated to watch this small bully bully us, knowing that if we contradicted the small bully, the big bullies would beat us black and blue. So the small bully looked very grand.

​

One day, the small bully came around without his friends, and I was sitting on the doorstep as we always did as children, and he started to bully me. I became afraid and punched him in the face.

​

You see, without his big bully friends, he wasn't that big a deal. Of course, his big bully friends thought it proved a great deal when he bullied us when he was with his bigger friends to protect him, but in the end a short sharp shock educated him.I will not be responding to the big bullies, concerning this post. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.