31 Dec 2007, 3:35 pm
31 Dec 2007, 3:47 pm
nominalist
Supporting Member
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)
31 Dec 2007, 4:06 pm
31 Dec 2007, 4:46 pm
31 Dec 2007, 5:36 pm
Nice to see logic and reason winning. 
31 Dec 2007, 8:36 pm
Lord_Leinad wrote:
Nice to see logic and reason winning.
My thoughts exactly.
01 Jan 2008, 9:18 pm
Gromit wrote:
1) The most likely candidate for what you considered a refutation is based on a logical error you committed, and accused me of.
Our 'little game' can go on forever,since ordinary language that we use in conversations and in forming of arguments is logically flawed as such.You can always find logical errors in my arguments,and me in yours.
Only language that is not logically flawed is language of formal logic,but we can never create discussion that is made just of formulas.
Science (in general) thus use language of mathematics in order to formulate its theories.
Second,I haven't accused you personally,nor it's not my intention to make you stupid in any shape and form.
Gromit wrote:
Your next “refutation” is rather out of date, superceded by what you quoted before, and even if we agreed it was a refutation, deals with only one of several examples I gave you, which you have ignored.
Same could be said to your position.I have illustrated to you problem of induction in making of hypothesis.And you obviously ignore it.
You can always force me to create a positive statement about something,that you can always negate with sets of skeptical alternatives.
You have defended induction as logically valid instrument of scientific knowledge,when since the time of Hume and onwards it has been established that induction as such is not logical in its basis,and that science should be deductive as much is possible.
Gromit wrote:
3) Your claim that science should be based only on deductive reasoning is logically incoherent.
Deduction,unlike Induction is logically consistent.
Gromit wrote:
5) You do not apply the same standards of debate to yourself as to others.
Same could be said to you as well.As 'evidence' of Evolution,you presented sets of claims,and evidences that are contradictory to that claims.
For example,as evidence for Evolution via mutation and natural selection,you presented example of hybridization that is opposite thing from evolutionary claim.
Gromit wrote:
You left out the context which made clear that I did not treat "may contribute" as definite evidence.
My point is that Karpechenko's claims were not tested again.He claimed to created a fertile hybrid.Besides his claim,I haven't seen examples successful recapitulation of this experiment.
Gromit wrote:
In deductive reasoning, it is important to remember the difference between universal statements that are supposed to apply to all exemplars of a category, and statements which apply only to some exemplars of a category. You knew that difference when you (falsely) accused me of making exactly that mistake:
You seems to consider our entire conversation and my arguments as personal attack on you.I say that Evolutionary theory is just one big induction.Only thing that is deductive about it is logical coherence of it.
If you consider yourself as same thing as Evolutionary theory (and possibility of it I don't ever deny),then so be it.
Gromit wrote:
The abstract you linked to previously was from 1972, and contains nothing to contradict Karpechenko’s claims. Taking Karpechenko’s earlier paper, to be generous to you, we have 26 years from Karpechenko to your reference, and 57 years since, with many more scientists active in more recent years. If you want to claim no replication, you really need more recent refferences.
Yes,you are right.Perhaps I was wrong about Karpechenko's claims.Therefore I accepted the possibility that Karpechenko was right:
Witt wrote:
But lets suppose that Karpechenko was telling the truth...
And even if his entire argument was corrected,he didn't proved Evolution,but something quite opposite from it.
However you have ignored that,in order to show me as unfair person.
Gromit wrote:
I followed your link and found that reference 138 is
Yes,this is reference 138 out of whole sets of references from this link.
I haven't checked main site,so I cannot say if this entire link is creationist one.If it is then I apologize,if I didn't say so.
You have tried to used unverified particular claim by Karpechenko as evidence for universal claim (Evolution).This is induction,and therefore you have made inductive claim.
However,I have used analysis of Hybridization theory presented in here and offered evidence that hybridization is logically contradictory to Evolution.All under assumption that Karpechenko's claims were right.You have ignore it,in order to prove something.
Off course,someone can always re-interpret Evolution so that it can fit into any scenario....which leads to metaphysics.
This is 'straw man argument' since I have never said that science should be based ONLY on deductive thinking,but that should be based MOSTLY on deductive thinking and as much as possible.
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf44082-0-75.html
Cosmological and Evolutionary theories are just one big induction.Only thing that could be deductive about them is their own coherence with themselves,and I don't deny that.
Yes,there are inductive reasoning in sciences in general,but most of its reasoning is deduction.
You consider science as some kind of unified and impartial force.
Amongst creationists there are people who are obviously scientists,and amongst Evolutionists as well.Who is in majority is not an issue.
I haven't abandoned discussion,I have presented that if science is based on logic,then this logical thinking must be deductive.
If one theory is almost solely based on induction,then its not logical as such,and therefore have not scientific rigidity,unlike common sense that we use everyday.
And in terms of empirical observation,all observations and facts are dependent on interpretations that are based on pre-established paradigms that are not rational as such.
The whole point of the natural sciences is to choose between possible explanations. If you want to abandon that, you abandon all attempts at natural sciences, and you abandon all attempts at using empirical evidence
Is evolutionary theory 'natural science' or metaphysical interpretation of origins?
It doesn't say what current organisms ARE(Biology),but what they have been,and what they should be.This is metaphysics,not natural science.
I haven't said that Evolution is 'not possible',only that is not logical,since is almost purely inductive.
And sure as hell,I'm not proponent of Creationism.
Theory of 'Morphogenesis' by Rupert Shaldrake is also possible.
Theory of Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel of development from general principle is possible as well (and its purely deductive).
And all these theories are even naturalistic in general.
Why is it logically impossible?
Have you heard of 'coherence theory of truth' in epistemology?
Its only important that premises are in accordance with each other.And relationship of premises depend of how these premises are interpreted.
Its only dependent on how you interpret 'universe in which we are living',since 'universe' means 'everything that exists',and this include your hypothetical universes...which is self contradictory.
What you said is not your opinion?
No,I don't accuse just Evolutionary biologists,I say that any theory about empirical world is circulatory in general.This is why I have said that we can never have 'objective truth',and I have NEVER said that I believe that science is objective as such.
'Objectivity' in here means strictly logical thinking about something,in formal sense.
If theory is properly logically formed,then it is 'objective' in formal sense.
I accuse Evolutionary biology to be almost entirely inductive and speculative....far more then it is allowed in epistemological and logical sense.
In logical sense Newtonian mechanics still works on ordinary level of observation and is still necessary in practical sense,since machinery that we use works on Newtonian,and not relativistic principle.
So in pragmatic sense Newtonian mechanics is still only possible mechanics for everyday life.
Newtonian mechanics gives us practical solutions that are useful for us in this 'ordinary world'.
Are you quantum physicist?
'Unpredictable' is falsifiable by 'Predictable'.
Chaos also have a pattern-of total randomness.This can be falsified with total order.
Statistic is falsifiable by certainty.
So,this claim is falsifiable.
However,in case of Quantum mechanics I may be wrong,and in strict sense it may be not scientific.
I'm not quantum physicist.
One thing is 'true' in formal logic sense(what I imply),and other in empirical (where it depends on content,that is subject of interpretation).
Empirical data are just contents of our formal system.If we have hypothetical,and not real data...than we cannot claim that logical form is implying on something empirical.
Agreed conclusion only exist amongst people that decided to agree on something.Problem exist when these people try to impose these premises on people that disagree with them (like in naturalist explanation of universe).
'Your message' could be written by several people at the same time.So sentence 'I really exist' would be a false one.
Wow,hold there buddy....
I mostly complained on OTHER thread about ad hominem attacks:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf50740-0-90.html
On this thread I just refuted personal attacks on my behalf,by person that label other people as intellectually inferior.
Let me refresh your memory....
Lets see your standards of debate:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf44082-0-255.html
Then this:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf44082-0-135.html
You have used Popper's falsiability theory at the beginning of discussion ,and then rejected it when I used popper as argument against Evolution theory...
In here you contradicted yourself,since you used Popper's ideas against Creationism,and then in here you actually presented evidence that Evolution is statistical,and therefore unfalsibiable.
If you prefer that,then your claim is not scientific,according to your own criteria.
Lets recapitulate this:
This is example of 'straw man' from you:
I have NEVER said that Popper was my authority,as a matter of fact you have used Popper's falsiability theory to prove Evolution.
Actually I have mostly presented Hume and Kant.
You have also used examples that does not have anything to do with this topic,to prove me wrong:
Perhaps you can also trace my posts about movies and music,and seek logical inconsistencies in them,but that's irrelevant to this discussion.
Let's see more of your inconsistencies:
How can you test something without experiment?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment
Lets return to your objections:
This was my own PERSONAL opinion,plus the fact that his claims were not duplicated by other independent researchers (creation of fertile hybrid).
Nevertheless,I accepted possibility that I'm wrong,and showed example of logical consequence of such claim.
Are you say that evolutionary thinking was not tradition of his family?
I presented evidence for that (which you haven't presented in your answer,off course).
That would be 'poisoning the well' in case that this was not confirmed.For every claim of mine,I present a link,as evidence.
'Piltdown man' was certified forgery,presented as 'scientific fact',and was accepted for over 50 years by most of scientific community at the time.
If paleontologists accepted skull of man with jaw of orangutan as example of evolution,then there is something problematic about impartiality of such people of science.
Well,this was not ridicule but example that 'MAY' claims MAY lead to all sorts of absurd claims (including 'Flying Spaghetti Monster').
'Flying Spaghetti Monster' is example used by naturalists against evidence of existence of God,in attempt to ridicule that idea.
Using their own argument against naturalist theories then seems to be quite sane.
Correlations between patterns of multiple variables are even more flawed then between two variables.
Patterns of correlations are results of interpretations.
In middle ages people have find patterns between spiked plants and horned animals,since they both have spiked-like objects in their anatomy,and concluded that there are causal relationships between them...
Patterns of correlations does not imply causality.If you don't believe me ask any epistemologist or logician.
Since you are so strongly committed to idea of Evolution,then surely you will always be able to 'refute' anything and rationalize your belief,no matter what this belief is.
Evolutionary biologists would always be satisfied with answers that support their views.
As a matter of fact this claim is a 'Straw man argument',since 'correlation does not imply causation' worksnot just in case of two variables.
Example of two variables is most simple one,if you put even more variables you have multiplied entire argument.
Well,then you are going against simple logic...
1+2=3
And you implied that 1+2=1
Evolution is splitting of one or more species,from common ancestor by mutation and natural selection,not merging of two species into one by hybridization.
Link,from wikipedia shows that this 'new specie' is not result of speciation,but merging of two specialized plants into mosaic plant that have both of their traits merged into mosaic form,with root of one,and leaves from another.
Phylogenetic tree of hybrids is Evolutionary phylogenetic tree turned upside down.
As Charles Darwin himself stated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
Thats why I have used the word 'PSEUDO-mosaic forms',and used the world 'SIMILAR'.
Your misquoting just shows how eager you are to show me as wrong.
Where have I said that this is true for ALL atheists?
Again 'Straw man' from your side.You force some conclusion about me,and then you try to refute your own construction.
You have never met one like this on THIS forum?
Have you ever been to 'Richard Dawkins forum?,have you ever talked to any self-confessed Atheist?
Equality of human races has not been considered as scientific 100 years ago.
Fascism based its ideology on 'natural selection'...
Quote:
W. J. Tinkle and W. E. Lammerts, "Biology and Creation" in Modern Science and Christian Faith, edited by Russell Mixter, Van Kampen Press, Wheaton, Illinois, 1950
Yes,this is reference 138 out of whole sets of references from this link.
I haven't checked main site,so I cannot say if this entire link is creationist one.If it is then I apologize,if I didn't say so.
Gromit wrote:
In deductive reasoning, it is important to remember the difference between universal statements that are supposed to apply to all exemplars of a category, and statements which apply only to some exemplars of a category. You knew that difference when you (falsely) accused me of making exactly that mistake
You have tried to used unverified particular claim by Karpechenko as evidence for universal claim (Evolution).This is induction,and therefore you have made inductive claim.
However,I have used analysis of Hybridization theory presented in here and offered evidence that hybridization is logically contradictory to Evolution.All under assumption that Karpechenko's claims were right.You have ignore it,in order to prove something.
Off course,someone can always re-interpret Evolution so that it can fit into any scenario....which leads to metaphysics.
Gromit wrote:
: Your claim that science should be based only on deductive reasoning is logically incoherent.
This is 'straw man argument' since I have never said that science should be based ONLY on deductive thinking,but that should be based MOSTLY on deductive thinking and as much as possible.
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf44082-0-75.html
Witt wrote:
Theories like origins of species,origins of universe...are all based on inductive thinking,while science in general is based on deductive thinking.
Cosmological and Evolutionary theories are just one big induction.Only thing that could be deductive about them is their own coherence with themselves,and I don't deny that.
Yes,there are inductive reasoning in sciences in general,but most of its reasoning is deduction.
Gromit wrote:
Since I joined this discussion, my two main disagreements with you have been that by the criteria that scientists use to decide what is scientific, evolutionary biology, geology and cosmology are scientific endeavours while creationism isn’t, and that your criteria for what is scientific exclude all the natural sciences, including those you still consider science. You abandoned discussion of the first point very quickly, and I think you have now provided information of the second.
You consider science as some kind of unified and impartial force.
Amongst creationists there are people who are obviously scientists,and amongst Evolutionists as well.Who is in majority is not an issue.
I haven't abandoned discussion,I have presented that if science is based on logic,then this logical thinking must be deductive.
If one theory is almost solely based on induction,then its not logical as such,and therefore have not scientific rigidity,unlike common sense that we use everyday.
And in terms of empirical observation,all observations and facts are dependent on interpretations that are based on pre-established paradigms that are not rational as such.
Gromit wrote:
The whole point of the natural sciences is to choose between possible explanations. If you want to abandon that, you abandon all attempts at natural sciences, and you abandon all attempts at using empirical evidence
Is evolutionary theory 'natural science' or metaphysical interpretation of origins?
It doesn't say what current organisms ARE(Biology),but what they have been,and what they should be.This is metaphysics,not natural science.
I haven't said that Evolution is 'not possible',only that is not logical,since is almost purely inductive.
And sure as hell,I'm not proponent of Creationism.
Theory of 'Morphogenesis' by Rupert Shaldrake is also possible.
Theory of Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel of development from general principle is possible as well (and its purely deductive).
And all these theories are even naturalistic in general.
Gromit wrote:
Taking this at face value, that is logically impossible, because you can have different coherent theories based on different premises.
Why is it logically impossible?
Have you heard of 'coherence theory of truth' in epistemology?
Its only important that premises are in accordance with each other.And relationship of premises depend of how these premises are interpreted.
Gromit wrote:
For example, string theory has several different solutions, only one of which describes the universe we live in. Other solutions are also coherent, they describe universes that may or may not exist.
Its only dependent on how you interpret 'universe in which we are living',since 'universe' means 'everything that exists',and this include your hypothetical universes...which is self contradictory.
Gromit wrote:
From context, I guess that is not what you had in mind, but I wanted to exclude it explicitly because your statement sounds rather like this is your opinion.
What you said is not your opinion?
Gromit wrote:
Your claim could be made to be true at the cost of accepting a circular process of verification, the very fallacy you accused evolutionary biologists of.
No,I don't accuse just Evolutionary biologists,I say that any theory about empirical world is circulatory in general.This is why I have said that we can never have 'objective truth',and I have NEVER said that I believe that science is objective as such.
'Objectivity' in here means strictly logical thinking about something,in formal sense.
If theory is properly logically formed,then it is 'objective' in formal sense.
I accuse Evolutionary biology to be almost entirely inductive and speculative....far more then it is allowed in epistemological and logical sense.
Gromit wrote:
You can find relativistic effects on time by sending a subsonic aeroplane round the globe carrying an accurate enough clock. I consider subsonic aeroplanes flying round the globe to be part of the normal world. So you end up saying Newtonian mechanics is true just as long as you don’t look at it closely enough. I agree that by this method, lots of hypotheses can be made to be true. But that method is not the scientific method.
In logical sense Newtonian mechanics still works on ordinary level of observation and is still necessary in practical sense,since machinery that we use works on Newtonian,and not relativistic principle.
So in pragmatic sense Newtonian mechanics is still only possible mechanics for everyday life.
Newtonian mechanics gives us practical solutions that are useful for us in this 'ordinary world'.
Gromit wrote:
That is a distortion of quantum mechanics.
Are you quantum physicist?
Gromit wrote:
The point is, even though you can’t predict where a single photon will go, you don’t have complete randomness. Quantum physics predicts a specific statistical pattern.But because the pattern is statistical, the prediction is not falsifiable by Popper’s criteria.
'Unpredictable' is falsifiable by 'Predictable'.
Chaos also have a pattern-of total randomness.This can be falsified with total order.
Statistic is falsifiable by certainty.
So,this claim is falsifiable.
However,in case of Quantum mechanics I may be wrong,and in strict sense it may be not scientific.
I'm not quantum physicist.
Gromit wrote:
You use “truth” here in a different sense than above, where you said a theory would be true if it could explain a strictly limited data set.
One thing is 'true' in formal logic sense(what I imply),and other in empirical (where it depends on content,that is subject of interpretation).
Empirical data are just contents of our formal system.If we have hypothetical,and not real data...than we cannot claim that logical form is implying on something empirical.
Gromit wrote:
As long as you get to choose the premises, and can change them any time you like. Deductive reasoning can only lead to an agreed conclusion if everyone involved agrees on the premises, so this is a rather important point that you didn’t mention.
Agreed conclusion only exist amongst people that decided to agree on something.Problem exist when these people try to impose these premises on people that disagree with them (like in naturalist explanation of universe).
Gromit wrote:
If we were to agree on these premises:
You only ask questions of people who really exist.
You asked me a question.
Then it follows that I really exist.
You only ask questions of people who really exist.
You asked me a question.
Then it follows that I really exist.
'Your message' could be written by several people at the same time.So sentence 'I really exist' would be a false one.
Gromit wrote:
Point 5: You do not apply the same standards of debate to yourself as to others.
You complained in this thread of ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments. I got curious about your standards of debate
You complained in this thread of ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments. I got curious about your standards of debate
Wow,hold there buddy....
I mostly complained on OTHER thread about ad hominem attacks:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf50740-0-90.html
On this thread I just refuted personal attacks on my behalf,by person that label other people as intellectually inferior.
Let me refresh your memory....
Lets see your standards of debate:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf44082-0-255.html
Gromit wrote:
It looks to me like the argument depends on perception directly reflecting what happens in the universe. That is not true. The currently best theories of sensory experience say a lot of it is statistical inference ....If you want to exclude statistical inference as a source of knowledge, you must remove perception as well.
Gromit wrote:
But because the pattern is statistical, the prediction is not falsifiable by Popper’s criteria.
Then this:
Gromit wrote:
If instead you found that the family trees reconstructed from different aspects of the phenotype are uncorrelated, or you find that similarities depend only on function, then evolutionary theory can't explain what is going on. You would have falsified the whole thing.
Gromit wrote:
Popper's ideas have two fundamental limitations, so I don't accept him as the last word on what is science.
Gromit wrote:
Not if you test it, if you try to falsify instead of only trying to verify. That's the whole point.
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf44082-0-135.html
Gromit wrote:
The predictions are specific enough that they can be falsified by the kind of data biologists collect,
You have used Popper's falsiability theory at the beginning of discussion ,and then rejected it when I used popper as argument against Evolution theory...
Gromit wrote:
Quoting Dobzhansky: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". I also claim cosmology is a science, for the same reason that evolutionary biology is: you make observations, you spot patterns, you come up with a possible explanation, you test that against new observations.
Gromit wrote:
But because the pattern is statistical, the prediction is not falsifiable by Popper’s criteria.
In here you contradicted yourself,since you used Popper's ideas against Creationism,and then in here you actually presented evidence that Evolution is statistical,and therefore unfalsibiable.
Gromit wrote:
But because the pattern is statistical, the prediction is not falsifiable by Popper’s criteria.
Gromit wrote:
I prefer to rely on data recording that has tested as reliable and formal methods of statistical inference, not just on perception and memory.
If you prefer that,then your claim is not scientific,according to your own criteria.
Lets recapitulate this:
Gromit wrote:
The predictions are specific enough that they can be falsified by the kind of data biologists collect,
Gromit wrote:
Do you rely entirely on Popper's criteria for what science is?
This is example of 'straw man' from you:
Gromit wrote:
That sounds like Popper, whom you quoted before as your authority on the scientific method. I have two questions for you:
I have NEVER said that Popper was my authority,as a matter of fact you have used Popper's falsiability theory to prove Evolution.
Actually I have mostly presented Hume and Kant.
You have also used examples that does not have anything to do with this topic,to prove me wrong:
Gromit wrote:
This is relevant to your argument in the thread A Morality Challenge for Theists:
Perhaps you can also trace my posts about movies and music,and seek logical inconsistencies in them,but that's irrelevant to this discussion.
Let's see more of your inconsistencies:
Gromit wrote:
By the way, you can generate and test predictions without doing experiments. Look at cosmology for examples. Cosmology is rather short of experiments, but lots of predictions get tested anyway.
How can you test something without experiment?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment
Quote:
In the scientific method, an experiment (Latin: ex- periri, "of (or from) trying") is a set of observations performed in the context of solving a particular problem or question, to retain or falsify a hypothesis or research concerning phenomena. The experiment is a cornerstone in the empirical approach to acquiring deeper knowledge about the physical world.
Lets return to your objections:
Gromit wrote:
That describes your attack on Karpechenko’s report because it comes out of the Soviet Union.
This was my own PERSONAL opinion,plus the fact that his claims were not duplicated by other independent researchers (creation of fertile hybrid).
Nevertheless,I accepted possibility that I'm wrong,and showed example of logical consequence of such claim.
Gromit wrote:
I think it also fits your comment on Darwin:
Quote:
Charles Darwin didn't discovered anything new,he just rationalized and articulated belief that was tradition of his family
Are you say that evolutionary thinking was not tradition of his family?
I presented evidence for that (which you haven't presented in your answer,off course).
Gromit wrote:
When I saw that, I immediately thought of this statement of yours:
Witt wrote:
First of all Evolutionists have certified history of forging empirical evidences,so that they can support their world view.
Most famous example was "Piltdown man'
Most famous example was "Piltdown man'
That would be 'poisoning the well' in case that this was not confirmed.For every claim of mine,I present a link,as evidence.
'Piltdown man' was certified forgery,presented as 'scientific fact',and was accepted for over 50 years by most of scientific community at the time.
If paleontologists accepted skull of man with jaw of orangutan as example of evolution,then there is something problematic about impartiality of such people of science.
Gromit wrote:
Here is your quote on the subject of “Appeal to ridicule”:
Witt wrote:
Yes,they MAY contribute to reproductive isolation and speciation,but they also MAY contribute to creation of 'Flying Spaghetti Monster'.... Laughing
This is not scientific statement,but soothsaying.
This is not scientific statement,but soothsaying.
Well,this was not ridicule but example that 'MAY' claims MAY lead to all sorts of absurd claims (including 'Flying Spaghetti Monster').
'Flying Spaghetti Monster' is example used by naturalists against evidence of existence of God,in attempt to ridicule that idea.
Using their own argument against naturalist theories then seems to be quite sane.
Gromit wrote:
I have known this for a very long time, took it into account when I wrote that paragraph, and very clearly did not refer to a correlation between two variables, but to patterns of correlation between multiple variables. My claim is that these multiple correlations can be parsimoniously explained by the common causal mechanism proposed by evolutionary theory, and that if these patterns of correlation did not exist, here and now, I would consider evolutionary theory to be refuted, despite all the fossils.
Correlations between patterns of multiple variables are even more flawed then between two variables.
Patterns of correlations are results of interpretations.
In middle ages people have find patterns between spiked plants and horned animals,since they both have spiked-like objects in their anatomy,and concluded that there are causal relationships between them...
Patterns of correlations does not imply causality.If you don't believe me ask any epistemologist or logician.
Gromit wrote:
You claimed evolutionary theory could not be refuted, I gave you a way of refuting it to my satisfaction, and I believe to the satisfaction of most evolutionary biologists.
Since you are so strongly committed to idea of Evolution,then surely you will always be able to 'refute' anything and rationalize your belief,no matter what this belief is.
Evolutionary biologists would always be satisfied with answers that support their views.
Gromit wrote:
You trying to turn this into an argument about a correlation between two variables is a straw man argument
As a matter of fact this claim is a 'Straw man argument',since 'correlation does not imply causation' worksnot just in case of two variables.
Example of two variables is most simple one,if you put even more variables you have multiplied entire argument.
Gromit wrote:
The title of one of the references I gave you offers a broad hint why this is also a straw man argument: “When two species becomes three”. You are talking about two populations merging into one. To see the distinction, go back over what I wrote on the subject.
Well,then you are going against simple logic...
1+2=3
And you implied that 1+2=1
Evolution is splitting of one or more species,from common ancestor by mutation and natural selection,not merging of two species into one by hybridization.
Link,from wikipedia shows that this 'new specie' is not result of speciation,but merging of two specialized plants into mosaic plant that have both of their traits merged into mosaic form,with root of one,and leaves from another.
Phylogenetic tree of hybrids is Evolutionary phylogenetic tree turned upside down.
Gromit wrote:
Another straw man argument. We have used the biological species definition, which says nothing about creation of new structures.
As Charles Darwin himself stated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
Quote:
Nevertheless, as Charles Darwin remarked,
I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other .... it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluxtuating forms. The term variety, again in comparison with mere individual difference, is also applied arbitrarily, and for mere convenience sake. [1]
I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other .... it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluxtuating forms. The term variety, again in comparison with mere individual difference, is also applied arbitrarily, and for mere convenience sake. [1]
Gromit wrote:
Another straw man argument, because in the hybrid plant, root and leaves have the same genome, but if you graft the stem of one plant onto the rootstock of another, stem and root have different genomes. Both process and outcome are totally different.
Thats why I have used the word 'PSEUDO-mosaic forms',and used the world 'SIMILAR'.
Your misquoting just shows how eager you are to show me as wrong.
Gromit wrote:
Another straw man argument. You argue as if this were true for all atheists.
Where have I said that this is true for ALL atheists?
Again 'Straw man' from your side.You force some conclusion about me,and then you try to refute your own construction.
Gromit wrote:
I am sure some exist who hold that opinion, but in my experience they have to be a tiny minority, because I never met one. Not a single one of the atheists I have met has ever made that claim.
You have never met one like this on THIS forum?
Have you ever been to 'Richard Dawkins forum?,have you ever talked to any self-confessed Atheist?
Gromit wrote:
I told you before, it’s the same reason why physicists dismiss the perpetual motion enthusiasts, because the objections are not based on scientific arguments.
Equality of human races has not been considered as scientific 100 years ago.
Fascism based its ideology on 'natural selection'...
Gromit wrote:
I spent so much time and effort on this debate in the hope that you would be the first exception I have come across, but I have now given up that hope and will therefore stop. I have seen in your arguments no better reason for your objections than the one you gave here:
Witt wrote:
I have developed personal animosity toward Darwinism (not towards Darwin as such) plainly because Darwinism became as 'evidence' presented by Atheists against existence of 'God','Highest Being' or 'Absolute' (or whatever).
This is 'Ad hominem'.
Anyway,, I presented this claim long before....it seems strange that you use it now.
Or perhaps you have nothing more to say?
Yes,I have personal animosity towards Evolution,but I also have personal animosity towards pollution that is caused by industry.But I don't deny necessity of existence of industry.
I didn't quoted Bible,I have just used rational arguments.
I'm not a Creationist.
At least I have been honest,how about you?
Last edited by Witt on 02 Jan 2008, 6:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
01 Jan 2008, 10:30 pm
One more thing:
Gromit wrote:
Another straw man argument. You argue as if this were true for all atheists. I am sure some exist who hold that opinion, but in my experience they have to be a tiny minority, because I never met one. Not a single one of the atheists I have met has ever made that claim.
How about Richard Dawkins?
Name of this topic is 'Darwin vs.Genesis',that should imply correctness of Evolution or Creationism.
You have claimed that Evolution does not imply Atheism.I tend to agree on that,since when Darwin created his theory it said nothing about existence of Deity as such,since is purely about origins of organisms.
Darwin's theory when it was formulated was valid theory that could be falsified.
Problem is that radical Atheists took this theory as a naturalistic gospel,and in attempt to prove that theory,they turned it into metaphysical system.
If there are gradual changes between organisms-thats evolution.
If there are sudden jumps between organisms-thats evolution.
If organisms were created by splitting from common ancestor-thats evolution.
If organisms were created by fusion of ancestors-thats evolution.
If organisms were more simple,then complex-this is evidence of evolution.
If organisms were more complex,then simple-thats evidence for evolution as well.
Same could be said about Marxism.
Marx predicted world revolution of proleteriat, and when this didn't happened Communists turned this into theory that could not be falsified,since any evidence would prove it,and any evidence could not disprove it.
Now this is claim of original poster that started this thread:
IpsoRandomo wrote:
DARWIN VS. GENESIS
It’s a near certainty present life forms evolved
It’s a near certainty present life forms evolved
And this is his Avatar:
Although this topic is about Evolution vs.Creationism,this is near reply:
Quirky_Girl72 wrote:
I can't even comprehend how an aspie could believe in god. At least in the style of some man sitting up in the clouds... It's akin to believing in Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny. Well, I can understand the belief in Santa Clause (lol)
digger1 wrote:
big-ups to you homegirl!
Quirky_Girl72 wrote:
LOL! You definitely have a valid point! Moreover, I can definitely understand that an aspie could have an obsession w/ their religion, esp the ritualistic aspect of it. However, I find it hard to fathom an aspie having an extreme level of faith w/ any concept as intangible as that of god.
Diamonddavej wrote:
Nature does all things spontaneously, by herself, without the meddling of the gods.
-- Lucretius (ca. 99 BC- 55 BC)
-- Lucretius (ca. 99 BC- 55 BC)
As a matter of fact,1/5 of this thread is about God,although its main theme is about theory of origins of organisms.
I have joined this discussion,mainly to show logical problems with Evolution(and Creation).
Now,Gromit....if you have read this thread you have surely have read its beginning.
I haven't noticed you refuting claims of Atheists against God in this thread.
They obviously use evolution as 'evidence' against God,by using biological theory against ONTOLOGICAL claim.
Why haven't you denied their claims?
Where have you been then?You just wanted to refute me.
Are you Atheist?
If so, are you just Atheist that plays 'good cop' game in here?
P.S
Which brings us to my points about you,Gromit:
1.You never even accepted possibility that you are wrong about anything.
2.You have patronizing attitude about every subject.
3.You want to push others into ditch,in conversation,by carefully selected questions.
4.You accuse others,for the things that you do yourself.
