Jump to content
IGNORED

Living Fossil's


DARRELX

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

1 hour ago, Tristen said:


Only in terms of semantics.

Yes well, "Words...they mean things."  And especially in "Science"...

"Words have precise meanings in science."

 

Quote

The term “evolution” just means change

Well that's irrelevant since 'evolution' is allegedly the most Validated Scientific Theory in the History of Science, right?

But ACTUAL "Scientific Theories": "Explain" --- The How/WHY (mechanisms/process); e.g., Germ Theory.  Scientific Theories are the Result of Validated/Confirmed Scientific Hypotheses that have been rigorously TESTED...

 
A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {emphasis mine} 
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {emphasis mine} 
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/hypothesis-theory-or-law/

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. {emphasis mine} 
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

As opposed to the Colloquial 'theory' which means Abject Speculation

A complete and utter moron @ the beginning of time could have come to the "Change" conclusion by simply observing two successive generations of his family and a family of squirrels.

 

Quote

but it is most often used deceptively to imply the entire secular model – including cosmology.

Good!  Because cosmology, along with it's fairytale sisters -- astronomy and astrophysics along with their incoherent brethren: paleontology, anthropology, archaeology, geology, evolutionary biology (lol), theoretical physics 'non-experimental', isn't "Science" either.

 

Quote

Nevertheless, an honest ‘evolutionist’ could still claim to advocate for Common Ancestry. And using this more precise language would eliminate from the debate references to almost all claims of evidence for “evolution”.

Well you can't have 'evidence' for a Non-Existent Scientific Theory.

 

Quote

which are predominantly based in observations of Natural Selection and mutations etc.

Somebody has observed "Natural Selection" ??  If so, can you post a Picture of it...?  Chemical Structure...? Location...?

Mutations??  Of what, pray tell?  Where'd they get Genes?

 

Quote

As you are aware from previous discussions, I understand that historical claims are at-least one logical step removed from the scientific process.

Well let's have a look...

The Scientific Method:
 
Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results
 
Appears it's actually FIVE Logical Steps removed.

 

Quote

And so I understand why you see it as debatable whether the term “scientific” could legitimately be used of the theory.

I hope so, since we're discussing "Scientific Theories" and not Colloquial 'theories'.

 

Quote

I see this as mostly semantic.

This is like stating blue is a color.  Or do you think Colloquial 'theories' and Scientific Theories are the same and we shouldn't fret over it?

 

Quote

Some misuse the term “Scientific” as though science represents some unequivocal bastion of objective truth.

Well it does, it's denotes EMPIRICAL.  SEE: The Scientific Method, above.

And they merely slap the term in front of their Abject Speculation 'theory' by mere Ipse Dixit Fiat--- without any warrant whatsoever, to somehow assign a level of Veracity to their fairytale.

 

Quote

But ultimately, the secular scientific community does have a suite of theories (whether “scientific” or not).

Well there is no such thing as "The Scientific Community" save for some talking head Pseudo-Scientific Priests, and they surely don't have any REAL "Scientific Theories".

 

Quote

I would say that the translators who used the word “prove” in this verse had an incorrect or unsophisticated understanding of the concept of proof.

Really??  Based on what... besides your little Ipse Dixit (Fallacy) here? 

Greek is HIGHLY Precise.  Each Verb has 5 different parameters it has to satisfy.

 

Quote

Conceptually, I agree with translators who render the word “test” or “examine” rather than “prove”.

You just contradicted yourself:  You just said... "I would say that the translators who used the word “prove” in this verse had an incorrect or unsophisticated understanding of the concept of proof."

Then you agree with them ? :blink:

 

Let's resolve it:

Strong's Word #1381 "PROVE"   //  dokimazw  //  dokimazo   //  dok-im-ad'-zo  //  

from   1384  ; TDNT - 2:255,181; v 

AV - prove 10, try 4, approve 3, discern 2, allow 2, like 1, 
examine 1; 23 

1) to test, examine, prove, scrutinise (to see whether a thing 
is genuine or not
), as metals 
2) to recognise as genuine after examination, to approve, deem worthy

 

"PROVE" Synonyms:  TEST.  http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/prove

It's abundantly clear TEST and PROVE are used Interchangeably.

 

Quote

I include logical algorithm under the purview of mathematics.

For instance....?

 

Quote

And yes, correctly defined, proofs are only available in the abstract.

Hogwash!

Who's your surrogate 'correctly defining' "PROOF" ??

PROOF -  the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact.  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof

 

Quote

Proofs represent abstract absolutes not physical “Unequivocal TRUTH”.

Hogwash!  Say's who...?

What on Earth are Abstract Absolutes ?? :rolleyes:

Abstract -- Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept. 2. Not applied or practical; theoretical. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abstract

So Theoretical Absolutes, eh?  That'll give Married Bachelors a run for their money.

 

Quote

1.  Proof is not correctly used in the scientific sense – as though facts can render an issue logically beyond contention –

2.  which itself is logically contrary to the critical nature of scientific inquiry.

This is a Convoluted Mess.

1.  Really?  How so...?

2. Really?  How so...?

 

Quote

The term prove/proofs are commonly misused to artificially amplify confidence in ideas beyond what can be justified by the scientific method.

Really??  Well Prove/Proofs, as we've already established, are TEST/TESTS.  And Experiments ---part of The Scientific Method--- are TESTS.  

I really can't wait to see the mental gymnastics that have to be called upon to get out of this mess.  :D

 

Quote

The logic underpinning the scientific method is critical/skeptical. Correct scientific reasoning makes no provision for any idea being “unequivocal”.

Who says, and more importantly Shows...?

We don't TEST "Ideas".  We TEST 'Reality'.

And, the logical underpinning of The Scientific Method is "Hypothesis TESTING".

 

Quote

Observations in science are called facts.

False!

Observing Phenomena is merely the FIRST STEP in the Scientific Method. (SEE: above)

 

Quote

But, for a variety of reasons ranging between human error, mechanical error and natural variation, observation cannot always be trusted.

Yes, that's why we head to: Step 2 (Lit Review), then Step 3 (Hypothesis Construction), then Step 4 (TEST/Experiment).

 

Quote

Whilst I understand what you are saying, I think you are using incorrect terminology.

Based on what...?

 

Quote

Even confidence in natural laws is founded on having not observed any exceptions to the rule. If we claim it impossible for there to be inconsistency since we have only ever observed consistency, we commit the fallacy Affirming the Consequent.

Hogwash!  We eliminate the Fallacy of Affirming The Consequent by Repeatedly TESTING the Hypothesis.

You then commit an Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy by postulating the mere possibility of inconsistency by fiat innuendo that has never been witnessed or confirmed, only conjured!

Ya see, in "Science" we base our claims on what we DO KNOW... not on ambiguous appeals to what we don't know.

 

Quote

And so we cannot maintain logical consistency with the scientific method, whilst claiming absolutes.

Well your faulty conclusion here is premised on your Fallacy exposed above....Hence, it can be summarily dismissed as incoherent.

 

Quote

Science deals in confidence based on analysis of the facts – BUT NOT claims of ultimate truth (which is intrinsic to the terms proof/prove).

Science deals with "Hypothesis TESTING" and TEST/TESTS are = to Prove/Proofs, as thoroughly established above.

 

Quote

Some of your examples are general descriptions of facts. Some of them use absolutist terminology (i.e. “ALWAYS” and “ONLY”) which cannot be justified by scientific reasoning.

Baloney! For example...?

 

Quote

In the latter, scientific editors would require your language to be hedged to reflect what is actually observed.

Really?? Like which "Scientific Editors"...?  And what makes them "Scientific", specifically...?

 

Quote

For example for point g., “Biological life has been exclusively, abundantly, observed to arise from biological life, and has never been observed to arise independently of biological life”. That is scientifically accurate.

That's characterized as 'waffling'-- that has as it's basis the mere Absence of Observation.

Let's introduce some 'Cow Bell' thumbsup.gif  :  Life ONLY comes from Life.  

And I'll go even farther, since there are only 2 choices for LIFE'S Origins ( Nature--Unguided, God -- Guided):  It is Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE for ONE "Functional" DNA, 30 mer RNA or Protein to "Spontaneously" Form Naturally from their respective Building Blocks!  Let alone LIFE (!!) which constitutes literally THOUSANDS of these Functionally Sequentially Complex Molecules.   And if you can't get One Functional Molecule then it surely stands to reason you can't get thousands, eh?

 

1.  The Formation of Both "FUNCTIONAL" Proteins and Nucleic Acids (DNA/RNA) from their respective constituents --- the DeltaG is "Positive", that is... Non-Spontaneous.
 
 
Gibbs Free Energy:
  
gfe2.gif
 
These reactions are Endothermic (delta.gifHdegrees.gif +), and  (delta.gifSdegrees.gif - ) ....
 
"If a reaction is unfavorable for both enthalpy (delta.gifHdegrees.gif > 0 ) and entropy (delta.gifSdegrees.gif < 0 ) changes, then the reaction will be NON- Spontaneous at any Temperature."
 
 
2.  "Information".
 
Norbert Wiener Professor Mathematics MIT...
“Information is information, neither matter nor energy.”
Wiener, N., Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, Hermann et Cie, The Technology Press, Paris, 1948.
 
Scientific LAW: Information/"CODE"/Software is ONLY ever ever ever sourced by Intelligent Agency, Without Exception! (DNA)
 
That is...whenever we find INFORMATION existing and trace it back to it's source...it invariably leads to an Intelligent Agent EVERY SINGLE TIME!!

Null Hypothesis in Support: Nature/Natural Phenomena causation CAN NOT create Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes --- (INFORMATION).
 
If you can't FALSIFY the NULL (which Nobody on the Planet can/will EVER do), then Ya hear that Sound??? 
 
Just in case you're wondering...
 
"To do a hypothesis test, you will actual have two hypothesesthe null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis, which are stated in such a way that they are mutually exclusive (you can’t have both hypotheses be true). The null hypothesis is the conclusion that is considered the default – you will accept this hypothesis if you fail to find sufficient support for the alternative hypothesis."
 
 
Hope it helps
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,302
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

4 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

Yes well, "Words...they mean things."  And especially in "Science"...

"Words have precise meanings in science."

 

Well that's irrelevant since 'evolution' is allegedly the most Validated Scientific Theory in the History of Science, right?

But ACTUAL "Scientific Theories": "Explain" --- The How/WHY (mechanisms/process); e.g., Germ Theory.  Scientific Theories are the Result of Validated/Confirmed Scientific Hypotheses that have been rigorously TESTED...

 
A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {emphasis mine} 
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {emphasis mine} 
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/hypothesis-theory-or-law/

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. {emphasis mine} 
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

As opposed to the Colloquial 'theory' which means Abject Speculation

A complete and utter moron @ the beginning of time could have come to the "Change" conclusion by simply observing two successive generations of his family and a family of squirrels.

 

Good!  Because cosmology, along with it's fairytale sisters -- astronomy and astrophysics along with their incoherent brethren: paleontology, anthropology, archaeology, geology, evolutionary biology (lol), theoretical physics 'non-experimental', isn't "Science" either.

 

Well you can't have 'evidence' for a Non-Existent Scientific Theory.

 

Somebody has observed "Natural Selection" ??  If so, can you post a Picture of it...?  Chemical Structure...? Location...?

Mutations??  Of what, pray tell?  Where'd they get Genes?

 

Well let's have a look...

The Scientific Method:
 
Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results
 
Appears it's actually FIVE Logical Steps removed.

 

I hope so, since we're discussing "Scientific Theories" and not Colloquial 'theories'.

 

This is like stating blue is a color.  Or do you think Colloquial 'theories' and Scientific Theories are the same and we shouldn't fret over it?

 

Well it does, it's denotes EMPIRICAL.  SEE: The Scientific Method, above.

And they merely slap the term in front of their Abject Speculation 'theory' by mere Ipse Dixit Fiat--- without any warrant whatsoever, to somehow assign a level of Veracity to their fairytale.

 

Well there is no such thing as "The Scientific Community" save for some talking head Pseudo-Scientific Priests, and they surely don't have any REAL "Scientific Theories".

 

Really??  Based on what... besides your little Ipse Dixit (Fallacy) here? 

Greek is HIGHLY Precise.  Each Verb has 5 different parameters it has to satisfy.

 

You just contradicted yourself:  You just said... "I would say that the translators who used the word “prove” in this verse had an incorrect or unsophisticated understanding of the concept of proof."

Then you agree with them ? :blink:

 

Let's resolve it:

Strong's Word #1381 "PROVE"   //  dokimazw  //  dokimazo   //  dok-im-ad'-zo  //  

from   1384  ; TDNT - 2:255,181; v 

AV - prove 10, try 4, approve 3, discern 2, allow 2, like 1, 
examine 1; 23 

1) to test, examine, prove, scrutinise (to see whether a thing 
is genuine or not
), as metals 
2) to recognise as genuine after examination, to approve, deem worthy

 

"PROVE" Synonyms:  TEST.  http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/prove

It's abundantly clear TEST and PROVE are used Interchangeably.

 

For instance....?

 

Hogwash!

Who's your surrogate 'correctly defining' "PROOF" ??

PROOF -  the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact.  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof

 

Hogwash!  Say's who...?

What on Earth are Abstract Absolutes ?? :rolleyes:

Abstract -- Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept. 2. Not applied or practical; theoretical. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abstract

So Theoretical Absolutes, eh?  That'll give Married Bachelors a run for their money.

 

This is a Convoluted Mess.

1.  Really?  How so...?

2. Really?  How so...?

 

Really??  Well Prove/Proofs, as we've already established, are TEST/TESTS.  And Experiments ---part of The Scientific Method--- are TESTS.  

I really can't wait to see the mental gymnastics that have to be called upon to get out of this mess.  :D

 

Who says, and more importantly Shows...?

We don't TEST "Ideas".  We TEST 'Reality'.

And, the logical underpinning of The Scientific Method is "Hypothesis TESTING".

 

False!

Observing Phenomena is merely the FIRST STEP in the Scientific Method. (SEE: above)

 

Yes, that's why we head to: Step 2 (Lit Review), then Step 3 (Hypothesis Construction), then Step 4 (TEST/Experiment).

 

Based on what...?

 

Hogwash!  We eliminate the Fallacy of Affirming The Consequent by Repeatedly TESTING the Hypothesis.

You then commit an Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy by postulating the mere possibility of inconsistency by fiat innuendo that has never been witnessed or confirmed, only conjured!

Ya see, in "Science" we base our claims on what we DO KNOW... not on ambiguous appeals to what we don't know.

 

Well your faulty conclusion here is premised on your Fallacy exposed above....Hence, it can be summarily dismissed as incoherent.

 

Science deals with "Hypothesis TESTING" and TEST/TESTS are = to Prove/Proofs, as thoroughly established above.

 

Baloney! For example...?

 

Really?? Like which "Scientific Editors"...?  And what makes them "Scientific", specifically...?

 

That's characterized as 'waffling'-- that has as it's basis the mere Absence of Observation.

Let's introduce some 'Cow Bell' thumbsup.gif  :  Life ONLY comes from Life.  

And I'll go even farther, since there are only 2 choices for LIFE'S Origins ( Nature--Unguided, God -- Guided):  It is Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE for ONE "Functional" DNA, 30 mer RNA or Protein to "Spontaneously" Form Naturally from their respective Building Blocks!  Let alone LIFE (!!) which constitutes literally THOUSANDS of these Functionally Sequentially Complex Molecules.   And if you can't get One Functional Molecule then it surely stands to reason you can't get thousands, eh?

 

1.  The Formation of Both "FUNCTIONAL" Proteins and Nucleic Acids (DNA/RNA) from their respective constituents --- the DeltaG is "Positive", that is... Non-Spontaneous.
 
 
Gibbs Free Energy:
  
gfe2.gif
 
These reactions are Endothermic (delta.gifHdegrees.gif +), and  (delta.gifSdegrees.gif - ) ....
 
"If a reaction is unfavorable for both enthalpy (delta.gifHdegrees.gif > 0 ) and entropy (delta.gifSdegrees.gif < 0 ) changes, then the reaction will be NON- Spontaneous at any Temperature."
 
 
2.  "Information".
 
Norbert Wiener Professor Mathematics MIT...
“Information is information, neither matter nor energy.”
Wiener, N., Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, Hermann et Cie, The Technology Press, Paris, 1948.
 
Scientific LAW: Information/"CODE"/Software is ONLY ever ever ever sourced by Intelligent Agency, Without Exception! (DNA)
 
That is...whenever we find INFORMATION existing and trace it back to it's source...it invariably leads to an Intelligent Agent EVERY SINGLE TIME!!

Null Hypothesis in Support: Nature/Natural Phenomena causation CAN NOT create Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes --- (INFORMATION).
 
If you can't FALSIFY the NULL (which Nobody on the Planet can/will EVER do), then Ya hear that Sound??? 
 
Just in case you're wondering...
 
"To do a hypothesis test, you will actual have two hypothesesthe null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis, which are stated in such a way that they are mutually exclusive (you can’t have both hypotheses be true). The null hypothesis is the conclusion that is considered the default – you will accept this hypothesis if you fail to find sufficient support for the alternative hypothesis."
 
 
Hope it helps

 

Enoch,

Why the sudden descent into attack mode?

 

 

'evolution' is allegedly the most Validated Scientific Theory in the History of Science, right?

Surely you remember that I’m also a young-earth Biblical creationist. If so, who are you talking to? I don’t get it. I explicitly addressed the misuse of the term in my comments.

 

 

But ACTUAL "Scientific Theories": "Explain" --- The How/WHY (mechanisms/process)

All theories address the hows and whys – opposed to the empirical facts/observations.

 

 

Scientific Theories are the Result of Validated/Confirmed Scientific Hypotheses that have been rigorously TESTED...”

This (and your subsequent provided definitions) do not reflect the usage of theory in a scientific context. In my experience, these definitions are actually based on attempts to differentiate preferred scientific theories from being characterised as “just a theory”. In usage, debunked theories and even untestable theories are still labelled theories. The degree of testing or validation does not legitimately inform the definition of theory in any context.

 

 

As opposed to the Colloquial 'theory' which means Abject Speculation

Generally, theory is juxtaposed against practice – explaining how and why certain actions produce certain results. In science, theory is juxtaposed against observation – explaining the causal relationships leading to observed outcomes – i.e. how and why those resulting observations manifested.

 

 

A complete and utter moron @ the beginning of time could have come to the "Change" conclusion by simply observing two successive generations of his family and a family of squirrels

I’m not sure how this is relevant to anything I’ve claimed, or why it warrants such aggression.

 

 

Well you can't have 'evidence' for a Non-Existent Scientific Theory

evidence” just means facts which have been interpreted to support a particular position (i.e. as ‘evidence’ of that position). Clearly, certain facts have been interpreted to support the various ideas finding themselves under the umbrella of “evolution”.

 

 

Somebody has observed "Natural Selection" ??  If so, can you post a Picture of it...?  Chemical Structure...? Location...?

Yes – well done. This ridiculously aggressive approach you have adopted has justified you taking a hyper-critical, hyper-literal interpretation of my words. So now I am wondering if you are really here to participate in a discussion, or just out to put me in my place – because I don’t have much time for that.

Observations are of changing allele frequencies in populations statistically correlated to environmental factors. Natural Selection describes the theoretical mechanism by which environmental factors influence gene frequency.

 

 

Mutations??  Of what, pray tell?  Where'd they get Genes?”

What genes? All I said was mutations. I didn’t specify novel, additional, functional mutations – just mutations. The scientific literature is saturated with reports of mutations. In my lab, it is common to induce mutations in bacteria. They can be directly observed through sequence comparisons, or indirectly observed (for example in selective media).

You have oddly jumped to wrong conclusions – which is strange, given you are aware of my creationist position.

 

 

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon

The initial observation(s) (or facts) is the same, regardless of the underlying paradigm. A massive diversity of life coexists on earth.

 

 

Step 3: Hypothesis

This is where presupposition and paradigm start to play a role. If one assumes a naturalistic reality, then the current diversity of life on earth is hypothesised to be the result of millions/billions of years of ‘evolution’ from a Common Ancestor. The current theory is that, over time, the accumulation of genetic mutations produced novel, functional genes which were subsequently filtered for fitness by environmental pressures (i.e. Natural Selection).

Now before you get your panties in a twist – you know I don’t subscribe to this hypothesis or the subsequent theoretical framework. But the hypothesis exists – and so cannot be excluded from the secular model.

 

 

Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT

Some (such as mutation and Natural Selection) can be experimentally tested. They are ostensibly current, natural phenomena – and therefore available to experimental scrutiny. However, Common Ancestry is a claim about the past, and therefore not available for experimental scrutiny (as we cannot perform experiments in the past or go back in time to make the required observations – necessary to produce scientific confidence).

So this is where we have to depart from the scientific method. The best we can do with Common Ancestry is create a model of the past based on available facts, then test that model against new evidence. The weakness of this methodology is that we can only test the model, not the claim of Common Ancestry itself. So it is logically indirect; we therefore cannot legitimately claim scientific confidence in Common Ancestry without Affirming the Consequent. So the data can be analysed (Step 5) but Common Ancestry can never be validated scientifically (step 6). But the results can still be reported.

 

 

do you think Colloquial 'theories' and Scientific Theories are the same and we shouldn't fret over it?

My overriding passion is to see people come into fellowship with Christ – not to be validated as technically right. I find leading with the, “it’s not scientific” argument tends undermine that goal – especially when delivered in an obtuse manner. I think there are enough scientific processes followed when investigating Common Ancestry, that making the “scientific” distinction is less important than addressing the underlying logic of each claim.

 

 

Some misuse the term “Scientific” as though science represents some unequivocal bastion of objective truth.

Well it does, it's denotes EMPIRICAL.  SEE: The Scientific Method, above

Empirical is just a fancy way of saying that confidence can only be attributed to the degree that the claim is supported by observation. Scientific logic makes no provision for claims of truth – just claims of confidence.

 

 

I would say that the translators who used the word “prove” in this verse had an incorrect or unsophisticated understanding of the concept of proof.

Really??  Based on what... besides your little Ipse Dixit (Fallacy) here?

Greek is HIGHLY Precise.  Each Verb has 5 different parameters it has to satisfy.

Quote

Conceptually, I agree with translators who render the word “test” or “examine” rather than “prove”.

You just contradicted yourself:  You just said... "I would say that the translators who used the word “prove” in this verse had an incorrect or unsophisticated understanding of the concept of proof."Then you agree with them ? :blink:”

I think it was fairly obvious that I make a logical distinction between prove and test. Different words exist to designate different ideas. Just because the connotations of different words are close enough to appear on a synonyms list, or are sometimes used interchangeably – doesn’t alter the fact that different words are intended to reflect different ideas.

My claim was not Ipse Dixit. Translators of modern Bibles use “test”, not “prove”. I suspect that is to create separation between the absolutist nature of the modern connotation of prove and the non-absolutist intention of the author. I am happy to consider the possibility that prove may have had a different connotation in classical English – or perhaps they just used a too strong word. You yourself advocate for the absolutist concept of prove – which doesn’t make reasonable sense to me 1 Thessalonians context – unless it just means test.

 

 

Who's your surrogate 'correctly defining' "PROOF" ??

It’s an issue of logic – so I was hoping you’d have the capacity to give it fair consideration for yourself. But if you need an appeal to authority, I’ll start with science philosopher Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953

"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory"

 

 

What on Earth are Abstract Absolutes ??”

They are logical constructs (or algorithms) where the conclusion is absolutely true if the provided premise is true.

 

 

1.  Proof is not correctly used in the scientific sense – as though facts can render an issue logically beyond contention –

2.  which itself is logically contrary to the critical nature of scientific inquiry.

This is a Convoluted Mess.

1.       Really?  How so...?

Not sure exactly what you are asking here. It is simply an incorrect use of proof. It is admittedly a very common mistake – but an error nonetheless.

 

 

2. Really?  How so...?

Science operates under the auspices of critical reasoning. It is designed to be an intensely sceptical process. There can therefore be no logical provision in science for certainty – i.e. no provision for a claim to be established to the point of being beyond possible contention. All scientific ideas remain subject to scrutiny, even those we call laws.

 

 

Prove/Proofs, as we've already established, are TEST/TESTS.  And Experiments ---part of The Scientific Method--- are TESTS.  I really can't wait to see the mental gymnastics that have to be called upon to get out of this mess

we” haven’t “already established” anything. You presented an argument and assumed it was unequivocal based on nothing more than the fact that you presented it. I make a logical distinction between proofs (which are absolutist) and tests (which have no absolutist connotation). No mental gymnastics required. Different words have different (albeit in this case, similar) meanings.

 

 

We don't TEST "Ideas".  We TEST 'Reality'. And, the logical underpinning of The Scientific Method is "Hypothesis TESTING"

Now I think you are contradicting yourself. An hypothesis is a cognitive construct (i.e. an idea) formulated to explain the observation. If we are “hypothesis TESTING”, we are testing ideas.

 

 

Observations in science are called facts.

False!

Observing Phenomena is merely the FIRST STEP in the Scientific Method. (SEE: above)

So firstly nothing in this latter comment justifies your mindless exclamation of “false!”. You appear to have had a bit of a moment.

Secondly, observations/facts are the fundamental currency upon which all scientific confidence is based. They don’t merely occur at the “FIRST STEP” of the process. The primary outcome of experimentation is observation (i.e. results). It is the analysis of experimental observation that generates scientific confidence.

Facts can be direct, human observations, mechanical observations, or some other measure of recorded data.

 

 

Whilst I understand what you are saying, I think you are using incorrect terminology.

Based on what...?

Primarily based on the logical inconsistency between the absolutist concept of proof, and the skeptical nature of the scientific process. Secondarily based on philosophical authorities who have come to the same conclusion; such as Karl Popper (but before me - to be fair).

 

 

We eliminate the Fallacy of Affirming The Consequent by Repeatedly TESTING the Hypothesis

Until you have repeated the experiment in a manner that accounts for every possibility (including unknown possibilities) in the entire universe, claiming access to ultimate truth based on science Affirms the Consequent.

 

 

You then commit an Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy by postulating the mere possibility of inconsistency by fiat innuendo that has never been witnessed or confirmed, only conjured!

You have either misunderstood, or misapplied the Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy. An Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy occurs when a refutation/argument is founded on what is not known. It does not characterise acknowledging the limits of scientific logic. If limiting confidence to reflect the limits of logic is a fallacy, then logic itself is a fallacy. Which is getting ridiculous.

If your paradigm prohibits you from acknowledging the possibility of a future discovery overturning current knowledge, then you have departed from logic. No crying “Appeal to Ignorance” can belie that.

 

 

Ya see, in "Science" we base our claims on what we DO KNOW... not on ambiguous appeals to what we don't know

I am addressing the logic upon which the scientific process is founded. So attempts at empty, self-congratulatory ridicule are meaningless.

 

 

That's characterized as 'waffling'-- that has as it's basis the mere Absence of Observation. Let's introduce some 'Cow Bell' thumbsup.gif  :  Life ONLY comes from Life.”

My characterization is scientifically accurate. I agree that “Life ONLY comes from Life” – but phrased that way is a statement of faith, not science.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Graduated to Heaven
  • Followers:  57
  • Topic Count:  1,546
  • Topics Per Day:  0.21
  • Content Count:  10,320
  • Content Per Day:  1.42
  • Reputation:   12,323
  • Days Won:  9
  • Joined:  04/15/2004
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/05/1951

On 7/12/2016 at 4:02 PM, DARRELX said:
On 7/12/2016 at 4:52 AM, Bonky said:

Except that evolution does not insist that an organism MUST evolve morphologically.   

Of course it does unless you still think along the line's of Darwinism rather then Neo Darwinism. 

If random beneficial mutations occur as Neo Darwinist claim, then it would be impossible for any species living supposedly hundreds of millions of years ago, to not change. 

If evolution were true no species could be exempt. 

Since evolution never happened living fossils make perfect sense. 

Sorry, but you have some faulty reasoning there, and a misunderstanding of what evolution is about.

In any form of Darwinism, yes the mechanism for change is said to be mutations. When a mutation is beneficial to survival, then the offspring of such a mutation, might survive to pass on changes to future generations.

So, let's suppose that Joe the octopus, aquires a mutation, that allows him to change coloration, to more readily blend with his enviroment. Joe's kids get to benefit from that change, and Joe's descendants are the better for it, they have improved chances for survival, that is evolution. However, Joe the octopus has a twin brother, Randy. Randy was in deeper water that day, and missed the storm of solar particals, that affected Joe, and cuased his mutation. Randy got married to Suzy the octopus, and they had lots of octopuslettes. While Ramdy's kids do not enjoy the benficial mutation that Joes kids did, Randy's kids are still capable of survival, and so they do not evolve.

Millenia later, some marine biologists get together, and decide that the offspring of Randy, and the offspring of Joe, are separate species. Today, thanks to the Society of Marine Biologist Taxonomic Committee, we now have a catalog that includes Octopusus Josephi and Octopusus Randophi. 

That is how evolution supposedly works, and it is why things to not have to evolve. A lifeform only needs to be suitible for it's environment, well enough to avoid extinction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

6 hours ago, Tristen said:

Enoch,

Why the sudden descent into attack mode?

Attack?  I'm not 'attacking' you sir.  I'm challenging your baseless erroneous claims.

 

Quote

 

'evolution' is allegedly the most Validated Scientific Theory in the History of Science, right?

 

Surely you remember that I’m also a young-earth Biblical creationist. If so, who are you talking to? I don’t get it. I explicitly addressed the misuse of the term in my comments.

 

Yes, I'm aware you hold a Young Earth Creationist Position (Very Wise)...but I don't remember 'challenging' your stance here; Ergo, Red Herring Fallacy.

Yes, I'm talking to you.

 

Quote

 

But ACTUAL "Scientific Theories": "Explain" --- The How/WHY (mechanisms/process)

 

All theories address the hows and whys – opposed to the empirical facts/observations.

 

Well sorta.  The difference is ACTUAL "Scientific Theories" VALIDATE the How's/Why's through rigorous Hypothesis TESTING/Proving; whereas Colloquial 'theories' merely claim it via Ipse Dixits--- Baseless 'bare' Assertion (Fallacies).

And it's not merely 'Addressing' the how's/why's it's VALIDATING the How's/Why's by Proving/TESTING (Experiments).

All Theories?  There are only 2:

Colloquial 'theory' --- Abject Speculation.

Scientific Theories --- Validated/Confirmed via "Hypothesis TESTING".

 

Quote

 

This (and your subsequent provided definitions) do not reflect the usage of theory in a scientific context...

 

“Scientific Theories are the Result of Validated/Confirmed Scientific Hypotheses that have been rigorously TESTED...”

 

A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {emphasis mine} 
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {emphasis mine} 
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/hypothesis-theory-or-law/

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. {emphasis mine} 
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

Ahh, What on Earth??  So these aren't in a Scientific Context? :blink:

 

Quote

In my experience, these definitions are actually based on attempts to differentiate preferred scientific theories from being characterised as “just a theory”.

In your experience, eh?  Well that's why I provided CITATIONS so as to resolve your Ipse Dixit Baseless 'Bare' Assertion Fallacies from Reality.

 

Quote

In usage, debunked theories and even untestable theories are still labelled theories.

There is no such animal as a 'De-Bunked' Scientific Theory...because if it is 'De-Bunked', it was never a REAL Scientific Theory to begin with.

 

Quote

The degree of testing or validation does not legitimately inform the definition of theory in any context.

Oh goodness gracious sir,

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics)
 

"The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

"The best way not to worry about your own theories is to not do any Experiments, then we can go home."

Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale.  
Quantum Mechanics I: The key experiments and wave-particle duality. (3:02 minute mark.)
 
 
Quote

 

As opposed to the Colloquial 'theory' which means Abject Speculation

 

Generally, theory is juxtaposed against practice – explaining how and why certain actions produce certain results. In science, theory is juxtaposed against observation – explaining the causal relationships leading to observed outcomes – i.e. how and why those resulting observations manifested.

 

ahhh, FALSE!

A Colloquial 'theory' is Abject Speculation.

In Science, a "Scientific Theory is...

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. {emphasis mine} 
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

 

Quote

 

A complete and utter moron @ the beginning of time could have come to the "Change" conclusion by simply observing two successive generations of his family and a family of squirrels

 

I’m not sure how this is relevant to anything I’ve claimed, or why it warrants such aggression.

 

The relevance is you said evolution means 'Change'.  Then I gave the example above to show that 'Change' as "A Mechanism"---what Actual Scientific Theories Validate by Experiment--- is ambiguously incoherent; ERGO, evolution is not and never will be a Scientific Theory.

It's tantamount to asking someone what the Scientific Theory of a Hurricane is, and them replying: "it's a CHANGE in the Weather".  :blink:

How is this 'aggressive'??  

 

Quote

 

Well you can't have 'evidence' for a Non-Existent Scientific Theory

evidence” just means facts which have been interpreted to support a particular position (i.e. as ‘evidence’ of that position). Clearly, certain facts have been interpreted to support the various ideas finding themselves under the umbrella of “evolution”.

 

Well 'evidence' and 'Scientific Evidence' are two different animals.

'evidence' -- anything provided in support of an assertion.

'Scientific Evidence' -- MUST comport to and be in Accordance with The Scientific Method.

BIG difference.

 

Quote

 

Somebody has observed "Natural Selection" ??  If so, can you post a Picture of it...?  Chemical Structure...? Location...?

1.  Yes – well done.

2. This ridiculously aggressive approach you have adopted has justified you taking a hyper-critical, hyper-literal interpretation of my words.

3. So now I am wondering if you are really here to participate in a discussion, or just out to put me in my place – because I don’t have much time for that.

 

1.  Thanks, I thought so.

2. Aggressive again?? Well remember:  "Words have precise meanings in science."

3.  Appeal to Motive (Fallacy).

 

Quote

Observations are of changing allele frequencies in populations statistically correlated to environmental factors.

Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University (“Ernst Mayr, the world’s greatest living evolutionary biologist" -- Stephen Jay Gould)...

"I pointed out more than a decade ago (1977) that the reductionist explanation, so widely adopted in recent decades — evolution is a CHANGE IN GENE FREQUENCIES in populations — is NOT only NOT EXPLANATORY, BUT IS IN FACT MISLEADING."  {emphasis mine}
Mayr E. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge (MA): The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1988. p, 162.

 

Richard Lewontin PhD; Geneticist, Professor of Zoology and Biology at Harvard University...

 

"Indeed the entire science of statistics is designed to cope with the ambiguity of most scientific evidence, and my professor, Theodosius Dobzhansky, the most eminent experimental evolutionist of his day, used to say that “statistics is a way of making bad data look good.”
Response to critics March 6 1997; Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and Billions of Demons’, review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997), The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

Statistics/Correlations/Similarities et al do not = Causation.

 

Quote

Natural Selection describes the theoretical mechanism by which environmental factors influence gene frequency.

 

Natural Selection is a "Concept"; Non-Physical/Immaterial. "Concepts" aren't Mechanisms because the Non-Physical can't Manipulate the Physical. 
It's Tantamount to claiming that the "Race for Space" (Concept) was 'the Mechanism' for the Apollo 11 Lunar Module, or Freedom (Concept) developed the Battle Plans for the Revolutionary War.

William Provine, Cornell University Professor evolutionary Biology.....

"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. NATURAL SELECTION DOES NOTHING….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets."
Provine, W., The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, Re-issue 2001), pg. 199-200

 
"Natural selection does not shape an adaptation or cause a gene to spread over a population or really do anything at all. It is instead the result of specific causes: hereditary changes, developmental causes, ecological causes, and demography. Natural Selection is the result of these causes, not a cause that is by itself. It is not a mechanism."
Shermer, M., The Woodstock of Evolution (The World Summit on Evolution); Scientific American, 27 June 2005
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-woodstock-of-evolutio/

 

 

Quote

 

Mutations??  Of what, pray tell?  Where'd they get Genes?”

What genes? All I said was mutations.

 

Well you have to have GENES... so as to Mutate.  Isn't the Necessary Condition (Antecedent)---Genes, kinda Kung Fu Death Gripped to the The Consequent --- Mutations ??

 

Quote

I didn’t specify novel, additional, functional mutations – just mutations.

And I didn't request them, did I?

 

Quote

The scientific literature is saturated with reports of mutations.

Thanks, what's your point?

 

Quote

In my lab, it is common to induce mutations in bacteria. They can be directly observed through sequence comparisons, or indirectly observed (for example in selective media).

Oh brother.  That's great, what's your point?  Have I ever even Implied mutations don't exist?

 

Quote

 

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon

The initial observation(s) (or facts) is the same, regardless of the underlying paradigm. A massive diversity of life coexists on earth.

 

1.  Observations aren't Facts, they're merely Observations

2.  And 'Diversity of Life' is not Observing a Phenomena; it's Observing-- Post Hoc, Nouns.  

So unless you get a Time Machine (Please provide: Make, Model, and Serial#...?), then you can't even breach The FIRST STEP of the Scientific Method.

Of course, that makes your treatise on the subsequent Steps below Non-Sequiturs (Fallacies), IN TOTO 

 

Quote

 

Step 3: Hypothesis

This is where presupposition and paradigm start to play a role. If one assumes a naturalistic reality, then the current diversity of life on earth is hypothesised to be the result of millions/billions of years of ‘evolution’ from a Common Ancestor. The current theory is that, over time, the accumulation of genetic mutations produced novel, functional genes which were subsequently filtered for fitness by environmental pressures (i.e. Natural Selection).

 

You work in a Lab and don't even know what a Scientific Hypothesis (or Scientific Theory, SEE above and previous post) is ??

That's not a Scientific Hypothesis Sir!  I'll show you...

Please post the Independent and Dependent Variables for your above trainwreck...?  ;) Game Over.

That's not a 'current' Scientific Theory sir because you can't even get to the FIRST STEP of the Scientific Method (SEE: Above) let alone construct an Actual Scientific Hypothesis.

And since Scientific Theories are validated/confirmed Scientific Hypotheses, all you have here is a Colloquial 'theory' motif: aka: Fairytale "Just-So" Story.

 

Quote

Now before you get your panties in a twist – you know I don’t subscribe to this hypothesis or the subsequent theoretical framework. But the hypothesis exists – and so cannot be excluded from the secular model.

Too funny.  I know you don't subscribe to it but the EXTREMELY troubling matter is you 'believe' it's an Actual Scientific Hypothesis.

 

Quote

 

Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT

Some (such as mutation and Natural Selection) can be experimentally tested. They are ostensibly current, natural phenomena – and therefore available to experimental scrutiny.

 

Your Scientific Hypothesis is your Experiment Statement...and since you don't have one, you don't have a COHERENT Experiment.

 

Quote

So this is where we have to depart from the scientific method.

You have yet to enter the Universal Zipcode of "IT". 

 

Quote

The best we can do with Common Ancestry is create a model of the past based on available facts, then test that model against new evidence.

 
"The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity."
 
"A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a limitation on its validity." 
 
Allow me to translate: Pseudo-Science !! ... a "Model" is conjured when the 'alleged' Hypothesis is UN-TESTABLE!!! That means, there never was an 'ACTUAL' Scientific Hypothesis to begin with !!

You can't TEST 'Models'...what's your Independent Variable the Glue or your Imagination?  <_<


 

Quote

 

do you think Colloquial 'theories' and Scientific Theories are the same and we shouldn't fret over it?

My overriding passion is to see people come into fellowship with Christ – not to be validated as technically right.

 

Define Red Herring Fallacy...?

 

Quote

I find leading with the, “it’s not scientific” argument tends undermine that goal

Well because it's clear you don't what "Science" -- (The Scientific Method) is, so it's understandable you would steer clear from it.

And I don't recall asking you for your 'Opinion' on what to lead with.

 

Quote

I think there are enough scientific processes followed when investigating Common Ancestry

Really, Name One...?

"There is no tree of life....it's an artifact from early scientific studies that aren't holding up"
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics); Arizona State Origins Project; 12 February 2011

 

Quote

that making the “scientific” distinction is less important than addressing the underlying logic of each claim.

There is no 'Logic' to the claim.  So the only way to address it is to identify it's Fallacious attributes.

Watch, Post the Syllogism...?

And didn't you just say below that "Science" and "Logic" ("Scientific Logic") are more or less attached @ the hip??  So why the need for the distinction?

 

Quote

 

Some misuse the term “Scientific” as though science represents some unequivocal bastion of objective truth.

Well it does, it's denotes EMPIRICAL.  SEE: The Scientific Method, above

 

1.  Empirical is just a fancy way of saying that confidence can only be attributed to the degree that the claim is supported by observation.

2.  Scientific logic makes no provision for claims of truth – just claims of confidence.

 

1.  Empirical --- Observable, TESTABLE, Repeatable, Falsifiable.  It's the Hallmark Attribute/Consequent of The Scientific Method.

And Observation, as in Observing Phenomena (as stated previously), is merely the FIRST STEP of The Scientific Method.

2.  Post "Scientific Logic" and juxtapose it with just plain ole every day "Logic" and highlight the differences...?

And if the Scientific Method ("Science") makes no provisions for truth...then why BOTHER!!!

 

Quote

 

I would say that the translators who used the word “prove” in this verse had an incorrect or unsophisticated understanding of the concept of proof.

Really??  Based on what... besides your little Ipse Dixit (Fallacy) here?

Greek is HIGHLY Precise.  Each Verb has 5 different parameters it has to satisfy.

Quote

Conceptually, I agree with translators who render the word “test” or “examine” rather than “prove”.

You just contradicted yourself:  You just said... "I would say that the translators who used the word “prove” in this verse had an incorrect or unsophisticated understanding of the concept of proof."Then you agree with them ? :blink:”

I think it was fairly obvious that I make a logical distinction between prove and test. Different words exist to designate different ideas. Just because the connotations of different words are close enough to appear on a synonyms list, or are sometimes used interchangeably – doesn’t alter the fact that different words are intended to reflect different ideas.

 

You didn't make a "LOGICAL" distinction between 'prove' and 'TEST'...because, there is NONE!

Go ahead and post the Syllogism...?

Synonyms -- a word that has the same meaning as another word in the same language. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/synonym

 

Quote

My claim was not Ipse Dixit.

Yes, it surely was.

 

Quote

Translators of modern Bibles use “test”, not “prove”.

Argument to Age (Fallacy).

Do I need to post Strong's Definition again SHOWING you that "Prove" and "TEST" mean the same thing??  Or will you just continue to 'Whistle Past The Graveyard'??

 

Quote

I suspect that is to create separation between the absolutist nature of the modern connotation of prove and the non-absolutist intention of the author.

R-Ya-Kiddin Me??  You suspect, eh?  I strongly 'SUSPECT' (with 100% Certitude) that your incessant use of poorly contrived Ipse Dixit declarations are used as a clumsy cloaking device to veil plain apodictic "Stamp on the Forehead" TRUTHS.

 

I

Quote

am happy to consider the possibility that prove may have had a different connotation in classical English – or perhaps they just used a too strong word. You yourself advocate for the absolutist concept of prove – which doesn’t make reasonable sense to me 1 Thessalonians context – unless it just means test.

TEST ='s PROVE, professor.  In any and all "CONTEXTS".

 

Quote

 

Who's your surrogate 'correctly defining' "PROOF" ??

It’s an issue of logic – so I was hoping you’d have the capacity to give it fair consideration for yourself. But if you need an appeal to authority, I’ll start with science philosopher Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953

"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory"

 

Whenever I'm inclined to discuss 'Philosophy' I'll be sure and let you know.  You even admit this is a Fallacy (appeal to authority)...but dive right into it anyway. :rolleyes:

 

Quote

 

1.  Proof is not correctly used in the scientific sense – as though facts can render an issue logically beyond contention –

2.  which itself is logically contrary to the critical nature of scientific inquiry.

This is a Convoluted Mess.

  Really?  How so...?

1.  Not sure exactly what you are asking here.

2.  It is simply an incorrect use of proof. It is admittedly a very common mistake – but an error nonetheless.

 

1.  I'm asking you to SUPPORT what you say in lieu of an Ipse Dixit Fallacy.

2.  Then what do you give me (??), no less than Three More...Ipse Dixit Fallacies! :blink:

 

 

Quote

 

2. Really?  How so...?

1.  Science operates under the auspices of critical reasoning.

2.  It is designed to be an intensely sceptical process.

3.  There can therefore be no logical provision in science for certainty – i.e. no provision for a claim to be established to the point of being beyond possible contention. All scientific ideas remain subject to scrutiny, even those we call laws.

 

1.  Yes, it's called The Scientific Method.

2.  What do you mean by Skeptical Process...?  And does Skeptical Process Ipso Facto mean... "Skeptical Result"?

So your Syllogism is:

Premise 1: Science operates under critical reasoning.

Premise 2: It is designed to be a skeptical process.

Premise 3: Therefore, there's no provision in science for certainty.

Premise 2 is invalid:  Skeptical (whatever that means) process does not = Skeptical Result; Ergo, Your conclusion is Non-Sequitur (Fallacy), on Steroids.

 

Quote

 

Prove/Proofs, as we've already established, are TEST/TESTS.  And Experiments ---part of The Scientific Method--- are TESTS.  I really can't wait to see the mental gymnastics that have to be called upon to get out of this mess

1. “we” haven’t “already established” anything.

2. You presented an argument and assumed it was unequivocal based on nothing more than the fact that you presented it.

3.  I make a logical distinction between proofs (which are absolutist) and tests (which have no absolutist connotation).

4.  No mental gymnastics required.

5. Different words have different (albeit in this case, similar) meanings.

 

1.  Yes, we have.

2.  I not only 'presented' the claim, I SUPPORTED IT: SEE, Strong's Definition and Synonym/Definition and Citation.

3.  You didn't because there is none (SEE Response to this above).

4. You surely tried.

5.  They're are the same, CLEARLY...and SUPPORTED. 

 

Quote

 

We don't TEST "Ideas".  We TEST 'Reality'. And, the logical underpinning of The Scientific Method is "Hypothesis TESTING"

Now I think you are contradicting yourself. An hypothesis is a cognitive construct (i.e. an idea) formulated to explain the observation. If we are “hypothesis TESTING”, we are testing ideas.

 

Goodness Sir,

When I limit the amount of Insulin I give to Type 1 DM patients to TEST/PROVE it's "THE CAUSE" of Keto-Acidosis, is the Insulin an "IDEA" or does it have Chemical Structure/Physical Attributes??

 

Quote

 

Observations in science are called facts.

False!

Observing Phenomena is merely the FIRST STEP in the Scientific Method. (SEE: above)

1. So firstly nothing in this latter comment justifies

2. your mindless exclamation of “false!”.

3. You appear to have had a bit of a moment.

 

1.  Save for: “Observations in science are called facts."

2.  Mindless, eh?  Can you tell us what is the 'Mindless' part of my explanation here..."Observing Phenomena is merely the FIRST STEP in the Scientific Method. (SEE: above)” ??  

3.  You've had HOURS of it!

 

Quote

1.  Secondly, observations/facts are the fundamental currency upon which all scientific confidence is based.

2.  They don’t merely occur at the “FIRST STEP” of the process. The primary outcome of experimentation is observation (i.e. results). It is the analysis of experimental observation that generates scientific confidence.

1. Observations aren't Facts for like the 5th Time!!

e.g.,

I 'Observe' ships going over the Horizon.  Is this a Fact??

I 'Observe' a fish in direct line of sight in 3 feet of water.  Is this a Fact?

I 'Observe' the Sun @ a 45 degree angle (position xyz) from my position.  Is this a Fact?

2.  Errr, Observing Phenomena and 'LOOKING' @ the results of an Experiment are kinda different motifs separated by a Massive Abyss!

 

Quote

Facts can be direct, human observations, mechanical observations, or some other measure of recorded data.

You need to get your 'facts' straight.  Observations aren't TESTS sir.

 

Quote

 

Whilst I understand what you are saying, I think you are using incorrect terminology.

Based on what...?

1.  Primarily based on the logical inconsistency between the absolutist concept of proof, and the skeptical nature of the scientific process.

2. Secondarily based on philosophical authorities who have come to the same conclusion; such as Karl Popper (but before me - to be fair).

 

1.  I already pummeled this (SEE; above)

2. Yes, The (self-admitted) Fallacy.  ProTip:  Logical Fallacies...are Fallacious.  All you're doing incessantly, is 'Parroting' what you've read or been told without the least bit of scrutiny.

And if I want to hear the 'Opinions' of Philosophers, I'll pull up some: Dawkins, Krauss, Darwin, EinsHtein, ad nauseam.

 

Quote

 

We eliminate the Fallacy of Affirming The Consequent by Repeatedly TESTING the Hypothesis

Until you have repeated the experiment in a manner that accounts for every possibility (including unknown possibilities) in the entire universe, claiming access to ultimate truth based on science Affirms the Consequent.

 

Accounting for (unknown possibilities) --- is not only absurdly incoherent on it's face, it's a TEXTBOOK Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy.

Is there Absolute Truth??  If so, can you elucidate the Process that get's us there...?  Thanks

 

Quote

 

You then commit an Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy by postulating the mere possibility of inconsistency by fiat innuendo that has never been witnessed or confirmed, only conjured!

1.  You have either misunderstood, or misapplied the Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy.

2.  An Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy occurs when a refutation/argument is founded on what is not known.

 

1.  Na, I'm pretty sure I got it...

Argument/Appeal to Ignorance (Fallacy)--- is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it.  http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

2.  Here's the Poster Child: "Until you have repeated the experiment in a manner that accounts for every possibility (including unknown possibilities) "

Thanks for allowing me to illustrate it, EXPLICITLY.

 

 

Quote

It does not characterise acknowledging the limits of scientific logic.

It doesn't discuss the veracity of the GNP of the Netherlands either.

 

Quote

If limiting confidence to reflect the limits of logic is a fallacy, then logic itself is a fallacy. Which is getting ridiculous.

Straw Man Fallacy.  I never said or implied anything concerning 'limiting confidence'.  It was you who are blindly clinging to the notion, so you're arguing with yourself...and I agree, quite ridiculous.

 

 

Quote

If your paradigm prohibits you from acknowledging the possibility of a future discovery overturning current knowledge, then you have departed from logic. No crying “Appeal to Ignorance” can belie that.

Appealing to the 'Unknown'...is again TEXTBOOK Argument/Appeal to Ignorance (Fallacy).  And no matter how many times you Ipse Dixit "Na'ahh" in the face of apodictic FACTS...it matters not one iota.

 

Quote

 

Ya see, in "Science" we base our claims on what we DO KNOW... not on ambiguous appeals to what we don't know

1. I am addressing the logic upon which the scientific process is founded.

2. So attempts at empty, self-congratulatory ridicule are meaningless.

 

1.  Where did you address the Logic of which the Scientific Method was founded upon??

2. Non-Sequitur (Fallacy)

 

Quote

 

That's characterized as 'waffling'-- that has as it's basis the mere Absence of Observation. Let's introduce some 'Cow Bell' thumbsup.gif  :  Life ONLY comes from Life.”

My characterization is scientifically accurate. I agree that “Life ONLY comes from Life” – but phrased that way is a statement of faith, not science.

 

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: YE MUST HAVE FAITH. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with." {emphasis mine}
Max Planck, Nobel Prize Physics: WHERE IS SCIENCE GOING; 1932

1. You're feebly attempting to somehow Equivocate (Fallacy) "Faith".

2. False Dichotomy (Fallacy) Science vs Faith...

So either you haven't the First Clue what Faith or Science is, OR.... you're Right and Max Planck is Wrong. 

Guess which way I'm leaning (i.e., Betting The Farm) ??

 

regards

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  132
  • Content Per Day:  0.05
  • Reputation:   93
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/26/2016
  • Status:  Offline

9 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Sorry, but you have biologicalaulty reasoning there, and a mis understanding of what evolution is about.

In any form of Darwinism, yes the mechanism for change is said to be mutations. When a mutation is beneficial to survival, then the offspring of such a mutation, might survive to pass on changes to future generations.

So, let's suppose that Joe the octopus, aquires a mutation, that allows him to change coloration, to more readily blend with his enviroment. Joe's kids get to benefit from that change, and Joe's descendants are the better for it, they have improved chances for survival, that is evolution. However, Joe the octopus has a twin brother, Randy. Randy was in deeper water that day, and missed the storm of solar particals, that affected Joe, and cuased his mutation. Randy got married to Suzy the octopus, and they had lots of octopuslettes. While Ramdy's kids do not enjoy the benficial mutation that Joes kids did, Randy's kids are still capable of survival, and so they do not evolve.

Millenia later, some marine biologists get together, and decide that the offspring of Randy, and the offspring of Joe, are separate species. Today, thanks to the Society of Marine Biologist Taxonomic Committee, we now have a catalog that includes Octopusus Josephi and Octopusus Randophi. 

That is how evolution supposedly works, and it is why things to not have to evolve. A lifeform only needs to be suitible for it's environment, well enough to avoid extinction.

Variations in species is not evidence for evolution. 

 

Can you give examples of mutations that produce new biological traits?

 

According to Neo Darwinism, beneficial mutations are random and have nothing to do with the enviroment, so all species would change over time. 

 

Living fossils debunk that belief and you just present an argument from ignorance. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,302
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

3 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

Attack?  I'm not 'attacking' you sir.  I'm challenging your baseless erroneous claims.

 

Yes, I'm aware you hold a Young Earth Creationist Position (Very Wise)...but I don't remember 'challenging' your stance here; Ergo, Red Herring Fallacy.

Yes, I'm talking to you.

 

Well sorta.  The difference is ACTUAL "Scientific Theories" VALIDATE the How's/Why's through rigorous Hypothesis TESTING/Proving; whereas Colloquial 'theories' merely claim it via Ipse Dixits--- Baseless 'bare' Assertion (Fallacies).

And it's not merely 'Addressing' the how's/why's it's VALIDATING the How's/Why's by Proving/TESTING (Experiments).

All Theories?  There are only 2:

Colloquial 'theory' --- Abject Speculation.

Scientific Theories --- Validated/Confirmed via "Hypothesis TESTING".

 

Ahh, What on Earth??  So these aren't in a Scientific Context? :blink:

 

In your experience, eh?  Well that's why I provided CITATIONS so as to resolve your Ipse Dixit Baseless 'Bare' Assertion Fallacies from Reality.

 

There is no such animal as a 'De-Bunked' Scientific Theory...because if it is 'De-Bunked', it was never a REAL Scientific Theory to begin with.

 

Oh goodness gracious sir,

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Richard P. Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics)
 

"The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

"The best way not to worry about your own theories is to not do any Experiments, then we can go home."

Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale.  
Quantum Mechanics I: The key experiments and wave-particle duality. (3:02 minute mark.)
 
 

ahhh, FALSE!

A Colloquial 'theory' is Abject Speculation.

In Science, a "Scientific Theory is...

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. {emphasis mine} 
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

 

The relevance is you said evolution means 'Change'.  Then I gave the example above to show that 'Change' as "A Mechanism"---what Actual Scientific Theories Validate by Experiment--- is ambiguously incoherent; ERGO, evolution is not and never will be a Scientific Theory.

It's tantamount to asking someone what the Scientific Theory of a Hurricane is, and them replying: "it's a CHANGE in the Weather".  :blink:

How is this 'aggressive'??  

 

Well 'evidence' and 'Scientific Evidence' are two different animals.

'evidence' -- anything provided in support of an assertion.

'Scientific Evidence' -- MUST comport to and be in Accordance with The Scientific Method.

BIG difference.

 

1.  Thanks, I thought so.

2. Aggressive again?? Well remember:  "Words have precise meanings in science."

3.  Appeal to Motive (Fallacy).

 

Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University (“Ernst Mayr, the world’s greatest living evolutionary biologist" -- Stephen Jay Gould)...

"I pointed out more than a decade ago (1977) that the reductionist explanation, so widely adopted in recent decades — evolution is a CHANGE IN GENE FREQUENCIES in populations — is NOT only NOT EXPLANATORY, BUT IS IN FACT MISLEADING."  {emphasis mine}
Mayr E. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge (MA): The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1988. p, 162.

 

Richard Lewontin PhD; Geneticist, Professor of Zoology and Biology at Harvard University...

 

"Indeed the entire science of statistics is designed to cope with the ambiguity of most scientific evidence, and my professor, Theodosius Dobzhansky, the most eminent experimental evolutionist of his day, used to say that “statistics is a way of making bad data look good.”
Response to critics March 6 1997; Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and Billions of Demons’, review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997), The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

Statistics/Correlations/Similarities et al do not = Causation.

 

 

Natural Selection is a "Concept"; Non-Physical/Immaterial. "Concepts" aren't Mechanisms because the Non-Physical can't Manipulate the Physical. 
It's Tantamount to claiming that the "Race for Space" (Concept) was 'the Mechanism' for the Apollo 11 Lunar Module, or Freedom (Concept) developed the Battle Plans for the Revolutionary War.

William Provine, Cornell University Professor evolutionary Biology.....

"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. NATURAL SELECTION DOES NOTHING….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets."
Provine, W., The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, Re-issue 2001), pg. 199-200

 
"Natural selection does not shape an adaptation or cause a gene to spread over a population or really do anything at all. It is instead the result of specific causes: hereditary changes, developmental causes, ecological causes, and demography. Natural Selection is the result of these causes, not a cause that is by itself. It is not a mechanism."
Shermer, M., The Woodstock of Evolution (The World Summit on Evolution); Scientific American, 27 June 2005
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-woodstock-of-evolutio/

 

 

Well you have to have GENES... so as to Mutate.  Isn't the Necessary Condition (Antecedent)---Genes, kinda Kung Fu Death Gripped to the The Consequent --- Mutations ??

 

And I didn't request them, did I?

 

Thanks, what's your point?

 

Oh brother.  That's great, what's your point?  Have I ever even Implied mutations don't exist?

 

1.  Observations aren't Facts, they're merely Observations

2.  And 'Diversity of Life' is not Observing a Phenomena; it's Observing-- Post Hoc, Nouns.  

So unless you get a Time Machine (Please provide: Make, Model, and Serial#...?), then you can't even breach The FIRST STEP of the Scientific Method.

Of course, that makes your treatise on the subsequent Steps below Non-Sequiturs (Fallacies), IN TOTO 

 

You work in a Lab and don't even know what a Scientific Hypothesis (or Scientific Theory, SEE above and previous post) is ??

That's not a Scientific Hypothesis Sir!  I'll show you...

Please post the Independent and Dependent Variables for your above trainwreck...?  ;) Game Over.

That's not a 'current' Scientific Theory sir because you can't even get to the FIRST STEP of the Scientific Method (SEE: Above) let alone construct an Actual Scientific Hypothesis.

And since Scientific Theories are validated/confirmed Scientific Hypotheses, all you have here is a Colloquial 'theory' motif: aka: Fairytale "Just-So" Story.

 

Too funny.  I know you don't subscribe to it but the EXTREMELY troubling matter is you 'believe' it's an Actual Scientific Hypothesis.

 

Your Scientific Hypothesis is your Experiment Statement...and since you don't have one, you don't have a COHERENT Experiment.

 

You have yet to enter the Universal Zipcode of "IT". 

 

 
"The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity."
 
"A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a limitation on its validity." 
 
Allow me to translate: Pseudo-Science !! ... a "Model" is conjured when the 'alleged' Hypothesis is UN-TESTABLE!!! That means, there never was an 'ACTUAL' Scientific Hypothesis to begin with !!

You can't TEST 'Models'...what's your Independent Variable the Glue or your Imagination?  <_<


 

Define Red Herring Fallacy...?

 

Well because it's clear you don't what "Science" -- (The Scientific Method) is, so it's understandable you would steer clear from it.

And I don't recall asking you for your 'Opinion' on what to lead with.

 

Really, Name One...?

"There is no tree of life....it's an artifact from early scientific studies that aren't holding up"
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics); Arizona State Origins Project; 12 February 2011

 

There is no 'Logic' to the claim.  So the only way to address it is to identify it's Fallacious attributes.

Watch, Post the Syllogism...?

And didn't you just say below that "Science" and "Logic" ("Scientific Logic") are more or less attached @ the hip??  So why the need for the distinction?

 

1.  Empirical --- Observable, TESTABLE, Repeatable, Falsifiable.  It's the Hallmark Attribute/Consequent of The Scientific Method.

And Observation, as in Observing Phenomena (as stated previously), is merely the FIRST STEP of The Scientific Method.

2.  Post "Scientific Logic" and juxtapose it with just plain ole every day "Logic" and highlight the differences...?

And if the Scientific Method ("Science") makes no provisions for truth...then why BOTHER!!!

 

You didn't make a "LOGICAL" distinction between 'prove' and 'TEST'...because, there is NONE!

Go ahead and post the Syllogism...?

Synonyms -- a word that has the same meaning as another word in the same language. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/synonym

 

Yes, it surely was.

 

Argument to Age (Fallacy).

Do I need to post Strong's Definition again SHOWING you that "Prove" and "TEST" mean the same thing??  Or will you just continue to 'Whistle Past The Graveyard'??

 

R-Ya-Kiddin Me??  You suspect, eh?  I strongly 'SUSPECT' (with 100% Certitude) that your incessant use of poorly contrived Ipse Dixit declarations are used as a clumsy cloaking device to veil plain apodictic "Stamp on the Forehead" TRUTHS.

 

I

TEST ='s PROVE, professor.  In any and all "CONTEXTS".

 

Whenever I'm inclined to discuss 'Philosophy' I'll be sure and let you know.  You even admit this is a Fallacy (appeal to authority)...but dive right into it anyway. :rolleyes:

 

1.  I'm asking you to SUPPORT what you say in lieu of an Ipse Dixit Fallacy.

2.  Then what do you give me (??), no less than Three More...Ipse Dixit Fallacies! :blink:

 

 

1.  Yes, it's called The Scientific Method.

2.  What do you mean by Skeptical Process...?  And does Skeptical Process Ipso Facto mean... "Skeptical Result"?

So your Syllogism is:

Premise 1: Science operates under critical reasoning.

Premise 2: It is designed to be a skeptical process.

Premise 3: Therefore, there's no provision in science for certainty.

Premise 2 is invalid:  Skeptical (whatever that means) process does not = Skeptical Result; Ergo, Your conclusion is Non-Sequitur (Fallacy), on Steroids.

 

1.  Yes, we have.

2.  I not only 'presented' the claim, I SUPPORTED IT: SEE, Strong's Definition and Synonym/Definition and Citation.

3.  You didn't because there is none (SEE Response to this above).

4. You surely tried.

5.  They're are the same, CLEARLY...and SUPPORTED. 

 

Goodness Sir,

When I limit the amount of Insulin I give to Type 1 DM patients to TEST/PROVE it's "THE CAUSE" of Keto-Acidosis, is the Insulin an "IDEA" or does it have Chemical Structure/Physical Attributes??

 

1.  Save for: “Observations in science are called facts."

2.  Mindless, eh?  Can you tell us what is the 'Mindless' part of my explanation here..."Observing Phenomena is merely the FIRST STEP in the Scientific Method. (SEE: above)” ??  

3.  You've had HOURS of it!

 

1. Observations aren't Facts for like the 5th Time!!

e.g.,

I 'Observe' ships going over the Horizon.  Is this a Fact??

I 'Observe' a fish in direct line of sight in 3 feet of water.  Is this a Fact?

I 'Observe' the Sun @ a 45 degree angle (position xyz) from my position.  Is this a Fact?

2.  Errr, Observing Phenomena and 'LOOKING' @ the results of an Experiment are kinda different motifs separated by a Massive Abyss!

 

You need to get your 'facts' straight.  Observations aren't TESTS sir.

 

1.  I already pummeled this (SEE; above)

2. Yes, The (self-admitted) Fallacy.  ProTip:  Logical Fallacies...are Fallacious.  All you're doing incessantly, is 'Parroting' what you've read or been told without the least bit of scrutiny.

And if I want to hear the 'Opinions' of Philosophers, I'll pull up some: Dawkins, Krauss, Darwin, EinsHtein, ad nauseam.

 

Accounting for (unknown possibilities) --- is not only absurdly incoherent on it's face, it's a TEXTBOOK Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy.

Is there Absolute Truth??  If so, can you elucidate the Process that get's us there...?  Thanks

 

1.  Na, I'm pretty sure I got it...

Argument/Appeal to Ignorance (Fallacy)--- is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it.  http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

2.  Here's the Poster Child: "Until you have repeated the experiment in a manner that accounts for every possibility (including unknown possibilities) "

Thanks for allowing me to illustrate it, EXPLICITLY.

 

 

It doesn't discuss the veracity of the GNP of the Netherlands either.

 

Straw Man Fallacy.  I never said or implied anything concerning 'limiting confidence'.  It was you who are blindly clinging to the notion, so you're arguing with yourself...and I agree, quite ridiculous.

 

 

Appealing to the 'Unknown'...is again TEXTBOOK Argument/Appeal to Ignorance (Fallacy).  And no matter how many times you Ipse Dixit "Na'ahh" in the face of apodictic FACTS...it matters not one iota.

 

1.  Where did you address the Logic of which the Scientific Method was founded upon??

2. Non-Sequitur (Fallacy)

 

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: YE MUST HAVE FAITH. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with." {emphasis mine}
Max Planck, Nobel Prize Physics: WHERE IS SCIENCE GOING; 1932

1. You're feebly attempting to somehow Equivocate (Fallacy) "Faith".

2. False Dichotomy (Fallacy) Science vs Faith...

So either you haven't the First Clue what Faith or Science is, OR.... you're Right and Max Planck is Wrong. 

Guess which way I'm leaning (i.e., Betting The Farm) ??

 

regards

 

 

Hi Enoch,

Attack?  I'm not 'attacking' you sir.  I'm challenging your baseless erroneous claims

I am happy for you to “challenge” my claims. But you seem to find it difficult to provide a view without adding some form of meaningless verbal denigration. This is an attack/bullying strategy that speaks to your intent. It speaks to you being more concerned with dominating the conversation and putting me in my place than you are with having a respectful debate. I lack both the time and desire to engage with someone more interested in demonstrating how clever they are, than fairly considering the issues.

I am happy with the arguments I have provided. I think I have been respectful in my presentation. The only way for me to engage on your level would be for me to forego that respect and become more reactive. I appreciate your zeal, but I don’t want to play that game. I am mandated by 2 Timothy 2:24-25 not to go there.

I pray God’s favour over you in all your endeavours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

15 minutes ago, Tristen said:

 

Hi Enoch,

Attack?  I'm not 'attacking' you sir.  I'm challenging your baseless erroneous claims


I am happy for you to “challenge” my claims. But you seem to find it difficult to provide a view without adding some form of meaningless verbal denigration.

 

Generalized Sweeping Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy.  I call it as I see it then attempt to cogently SUPPORT everything I say...And, I never attacked you personally.

 

Quote

This is an attack/bullying strategy that speaks to your intent.

1.  It's Not.

2. Another, Appeal to Motive/Intent Fallacy.

3. And all these Red Herring 'hurt my feelings' Fallacies are clearly nothing more than a collective Appeal to Emotion (Fallacy); is this a surrogate so as to divert away from your indefensible arguments?

 

Quote

It speaks to you being more concerned with dominating the conversation and putting me in my place than you are with having a respectful debate.

Another, Appeal to Motive (Fallacy).

 

Quote

I lack both the time and desire to engage with someone more interested in demonstrating how clever they are, than fairly considering the issues.

I'm sure you do.  

Another Appeal to Motive (Fallacy).

How was I 'Unfair' or 'Unfairly' considered the issues...?

 

Quote

I am happy with the arguments I have provided.

Based on what??  The Majority were downright Fallacious, as I've Illustrated @ length.

 

Quote

I think I have been respectful in my presentation.

So have I...in the face of responses that clearly strained credulity well past critical mass.

 

Quote

The only way for me to engage on your level would be for me to forego that respect and become more reactive.

I don't see why.  Perhaps try to coherently SUPPORT your claims and things will resolve without incident.

 

Quote

I appreciate your zeal, but I don’t want to play that game.

Thanks, and I'm not Playing 'Games'.

 

Quote

I am mandated by 2 Timothy 2:24-25 not to go there.

(2 Timothy 2:24-25) "And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,  {25} In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;"

Perhaps try to disentangle yourself from the emotional attachment you have for your claims and just coherently SUPPORT them...you'll find the frustration level drops, exponentially.

 

Quote

I pray God’s favour over you in all your endeavours.

You also.

 

regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,302
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, Enoch2021 said:

Generalized Sweeping Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy.  I call it as I see it then attempt to cogently SUPPORT everything I say...And, I never attacked you personally.

 

1.  It's Not.

2. Another, Appeal to Motive/Intent Fallacy.

3. And all these Red Herring 'hurt my feelings' Fallacies are clearly nothing more than a collective Appeal to Emotion (Fallacy); is this a surrogate so as to divert away from your indefensible arguments?

 

Another, Appeal to Motive (Fallacy).

 

I'm sure you do.  

Another Appeal to Motive (Fallacy).

How was I 'Unfair' or 'Unfairly' considered the issues...?

 

Based on what??  The Majority were downright Fallacious, as I've Illustrated @ length.

 

So have I...in the face of responses that clearly strained credulity well past critical mass.

 

I don't see why.  Perhaps try to coherently SUPPORT your claims and things will resolve without incident.

 

Thanks, and I'm not Playing 'Games'.

 

(2 Timothy 2:24-25) "And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,  {25} In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;"

Perhaps try to disentangle yourself from the emotional attachment you have for your claims and just coherently SUPPORT them...you'll find the frustration level drops, exponentially.

 

You also.

 

regards

 

Hey Enoch,

You have reacted to my previous post as though I provided an argument for you to put down and destroy. Whereas I only wish to provide an explanation as to why I am disengaging.

 

God Bless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  738
  • Content Per Day:  0.21
  • Reputation:   346
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  05/28/2014
  • Status:  Offline

Enoch, I don't know if my comments will mean anything to you but I feel that you are really missing out.  I've had multiple discussions with Tristen recently and in the past and I've always learned something.   I disagree with Tristen on multiple areas but I've also learned a lot.  I agree with him/her, stop trying to score points and start trying to listen more.   It's much more refreshing and useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

16 hours ago, Bonky said:

Enoch, I don't know if my comments will mean anything to you but I feel that you are really missing out.  

On what, pray tell?

 

Quote

I've had multiple discussions with Tristen recently and in the past and I've always learned something.  I disagree with Tristen on multiple areas but I've also learned a lot.

Well that's good for you.  Personally (In this discussion and others in the past), I've learned to always be on high alert for 'Logical Fallacies' and 'Scientific Trainwrecks'...and my learning has not failed me (Just a cursory review of the exchange validates it).

 

Quote

I agree with him/her, stop trying to score points and start trying to listen more.

1.  Appeal to Motive (Fallacy).

2.  How do you know I'm trying to 'score points', what's the 'Objective' METHOD you used to arrive @ your 'Subjective' conclusion :rolleyes:: Crystal Ball, Dowsing Rods, Tea Leaves, ect Other...?

 

regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...