If man is to best understand and dominate the world God created for him, it follows that only the greatest reasoning and logic will empower him to do so.
Throughout history, Man has ended up devoting much of his time using that God given logic to try and understand the circle. In the end all who have contemplated it's design have come to appreciate the circle as a symbol of perfection.
This is due to the circle's mysterious bond to an unending number known only as "pi". This unbreakable connection seems to prove the circle's connection to divinity, for man will never fully comprehend pi but some greater force MUST understand it for the circle to exist at all.
The circle's connection to God and perfection is also exhibited through its modelling of the universe we see (his creation). All heavenly objects are round and so made up of many circles. Space is curved. The "circle of life": life to death to life to death unending.
Given the importance of attaining the greatest level of logic and reason, and given the highest perfection (the divine qualities) of the circle, is not the best or most divine logic and reasoning circular in nature?
And since man has been given this most ultimate tool of reasoning (circular logic), which can only have come from God since only God may truly understand circles, does this not prove that God not only exists but that he is most good and merciful?
What's more, certainly no other creature on the face of the planet... no mere animal... can use circular logic. Does this not show God's greatest love is for man and how important he is above all others? Does this not show how man alone is made in His image as only he can use the greatest logic used by God?
I think the answers to these questions lay in the questions themselves.
"[ka-ching ka-ching ka-ching]... look guys, I'm handing out wings." --- Bartender from It's a Wonderful Life and an inspiration to ID evidence creators everywhere---
[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-05-2003]
[This message has been edited by holmes, 02-05-2003]
You guys are good at this type of logic: eg: - Natural Selection translates into survival of the survivors or the fitness of the fit - Using index fossils to date the rock layers, and then using the rock layers to date the fossils they contain - Using homology both as explanation of evolution and proof for it - Using the geologic column as descriptive of evolution and also as evidence for it - Assuming long ages for radioactive half-lives, then using them to prove long ages. - Inventing a term as if it explains something: e.g., convergent evolution used as an explanation and an evidence for a Darwinian origin of like characteristics in unlike organisms. - Cohen’s Law: What really matters is the name you succeed in imposing on the facts – not the facts themselves.
quote:Using index fossils to date the rock layers, and then using the rock layers to date the fossils they contain
Nope. Rocks of certain ages have been found to contain fossils so reliably in rocks of said age, that they can be considered indicators of the age of the rock without independent dating of the rocks.
The dates of the rocks that contain the fossils are derived independently of the fossils to begin with. It is not circular.
If independently dated Cretaceous rocks contained only nuts, & Jurassic only bolts, & there were found to be no exceptions, then it can be reliably inferred that rocks containing bolts are of Jurassic age, & those containing nuts are of Cretaceous age.
quote:You guys are good at this type of logic:
Glad you see it that way. The above is a perfectly logical inference. Perhaps you would like to point out the illogic, without forcing me to repeat myself? To be a circular argument, you have to accept the conclusion in order to accept the premises. It goes like this:
1/ In any given column, certain fossils are only found in certain strata. 2/ This is true of the same fossils around the world. 3/ The rocks are independently dated & agree that said fossils are of the same age range, wherever they were tested.
The fossils in question can be considered tied to the age range given by the independent dating.
Index fossils are reliable indicators of the potential age range of the rock.
I can't see any circular reasoning, can you?
------------------ Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
TB: - Natural Selection translates into survival of the survivors or the fitness of the fit.
Except that one can determine ability to survive and reproduce with experiments and observations, and one finds that those organisms one sees are exactly those that are good at surviving.
- Using index fossils to date the rock layers, and then using the rock layers to date the fossils they contain.
Except that there are ways to escape this circularity.
The Law of Superposition states that in the absence of disturbance, rocks will always be in older-below-younger order.
This law can be tested by checking on the orientation of features with well-defined vertical orientations, like mud cracks, footprints, tree stumps, etc. And those features are always oriented in the "right" direction.
Also, radioisotope dates have exactly the order expected from this law.
- Using homology both as explanation of evolution and proof for it.
Homology is structural similarity that is greater than what is justified by functional necessity.
- Using the geologic column as descriptive of evolution and also as evidence for it.
No circularity here. The ordering of the geological column is worked out completely independent on hypotheses of what fossil creature is descended from what other fossil creature. Thus, trilobites are found only in Paleozoic rocks and teleost fish only in Mesozoic and Cenozoic rocks, and their order is useful even though teleosts are not descended from trilobites.
- Assuming long ages for radioactive half-lives, then using them to prove long ages.
Except that there is no good reason to suppose their decay rates to be variable in exact proportion. Different radionuclides decay by different processes and with different parameter values, meaning that decay-rate variation can be detected by looking for systematic discrepancies between different radionuclides' apparent ages -- discrepancies which are zero to within the accuracy of the measurements.
- Inventing a term as if it explains something: e.g., convergent evolution used as an explanation and an evidence for a Darwinian origin of like characteristics in unlike organisms.
Except that that is a very reasonable explanation. Flightlessness has evolved numerous times in birds, for example.
- Cohen?s Law: What really matters is the name you succeed in imposing on the facts ? not the facts themselves.
Sonnikke, everyone else has done a good a job of rightly taking your examples apart (and that last one I have no idea what you are talking about) so I am going to do something really bizarre and agree with one of your points!
Oh people are probably going to jump on me for this, but I'd welcome a true rebuttal of Sonnikke's position on homology.
Unlike all of the other examples--- which have not one bit of circular reasoning in them--- homology has been used by some scientists in a very circular way.
While a person can use homology to build a theory of evolutionary development (creating a model to explain what is seen), one cannot then say "look at the similarity of these things, that proves evolution is true."
I wish scientists, especially those writing ToE stuff, would watch their philosophy.
That said, not all scientists use this logic (even niles eldredge pointed this problem out in his latest book), and just because some do does not reduce the ToE itself.
ToE is the best model so far for explaining the "likenesses" we find, and the changes in these likenesses through time.
I have yet to hear a Creationist or ID model which gives an adequate explanation of anything we have found, especially with regards to the changes of likenesses through time (this may be why Behe admits ToE... it IS the best current model).
Sonnikke, now that I have admitted there is some bad circular reasoning made by some ToE scientists, and you did not deny my point that Creationists use circular logic (merely stating "nyah nyah, you gus do it too"), can we both agree that circular logic is BAD, and so you not use it anymore?
I'll be posting replies to your "evidence" posts, and I'd love for you to respond without the circularity.
quote:While a person can use homology to build a theory of evolutionary development (creating a model to explain what is seen), one cannot then say "look at the similarity of these things, that proves evolution is true."
Totally correct. This is the fundamental argument (now mostly resolved, afaik) between the old systematists who were basically assuming ancestry from similarity, and then assuming phyletic evolution from the inferred ancestry! IOW, the systematists assumed the lineage and then constructed the trees. The reason I say it has been mostly resolved is that the science of cladistics starts with relationships of derived characteristics, not inferred ancestry. Here's a fairly easy-to-read overview: Basics of Cladistic Analysis that takes you step by step through the process.
Basically, sonnike isn't far off (although out of date by at least 25 years) - the old-style systematists HAD got themselves into the bind where evolution was inferred from an inferred ancestry which was used as evidence of evolution... Doesn't mean, of course, that anyone still does this. One more example of creationist projection - they assume simply because anything any theist has ever written is utterly unchangeable, they assume that science operates the same way.
Quetzal, I think you are misrepresenting systametist taxonomy.
Their taxonomy was based on classifying various taxa based on morphological criteria. It seems (as an outsider) that the adoption of cladistics has not dramatically changed taxonomy at the higher levels. The changes are more at the species / genus level. So the morphological classifications have been generally confirmed by the more recent evidence available to biologists such as genetic analysis.
Actually, traditional taxonomy is a mixture of cladistic and phenetic approaches; several traditional taxa, like Pisces and Reptilia, are cladistically illegitimate on account of their being paraphyletic, but are justified on phenetic grounds. However, traditional classifications agree with cladistics in rejecting polyphyletic groups like Haemothermia (warm-blooded vertebrates: birds + mammals).
I agree that it hasn't changed the taxonomy - although a few lineages have been re-sorted. The argument was about epistemology, not classification. I think it came down to assuming evolution vs inferring evolution from relationships based on derived characteristics (synapomorphies). Cladists claim their approach is "purer", and that they could derive evolutionary relationships from the data, rather than going from what was supposed to be an a priori assumption. To be honest, it's almost too esoteric an argument for me to follow closely. A cladist would rather be boiled in oil than claim a particular organism represented an ancestor. Like I said, most of this was resolved a quarter century ago.