Posted on 11/10/2005 4:43:24 AM PST by Nicholas Conradin
Prove something cannot be explained. By what agency are you going to prove this? Prove that Leprechauns didn't build the process that cannot be "explained" by natural means.
Can't Prove a Negative. Until humanity explores every possible explanation of natural selection being responsible for that biological structure then a supernatural explanation is premature. Only problem is, you have to wait for eternity to exhaust all those options.
Yeah, you get it. Everything is now a "transitional" species. The fallacy of reification is what defines "species" as what exists now.
I asked one of those IDiots out there, who cowardly chose not to answer; are wolves, dogs, coyotes and dingos different species or just one specie? They can freely interbreed but they are considered separate species. Kind of destroys the concept, doesn't it?
Really, what evidence did He provide against a theory that didn't exist for another 1900 years?
The concept of species has never been firm, except in the minds of the ignorant. If you read anythin from the early history, even before evolution, you would know this.
I don't see an objective bit of difference between the strength of the beliefs of a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, etc. (& some of Coyoteman's favorites).
You believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God.
A Muslim believes the Koran is the inerrant word of God.
A Navajo believes his religion is inerrant.
A Hindu believes his scriptures are inerrant.
(fill in the blank on FSM).
In each case an adherant believes he is right and everyone else is wrong.
Since there is no objective proof for any of the world's great religions, there is no objective reason why only one or any one is correct.
In any case, at least 2/3 of the world is going to Hell by your reasoning. You are free to believe what you will, but you do not have the right to force other people to your beliefs, especially since the odds are that you are wrong. America is not a Theocracy.
Saying that the Koran is not the word of God is objectively baseless, just as Mohammed Ali of whereever would be wrong saying the Bible is not the word of God. The subjectivity of your opinion, as you so correctly pointed out with Mao's little red book, does not make your belief, the word of God.
This is just so blatant, I couldn't resist. The statement made was essentially "A" could not be explained by "B". You changed that to essentially "A" could not be explained. Well bread pudding does not explain why roses are red. I don't think that requires proof, except maybe to you.
P.S. I'll bet you confuse all and any
I have made no such reasoning. That is your problem.
I'll call you a liar on the FSM.
Why all this disdain re: the FSM? He seems harmless enough.
Will someone prove without using faith (i.e. objectively)that the bible is the word of God and the Koran isn't, or vice versus.
I don't think it can be done, but if someone has an answer I'd like to see it. We need all the help we can find against the islamowackos.
Well, gee, that is why it is called faith. By the way, what are your feelings about invisible green grues that haunt the planets on stars in the Andromeda Galaxy?
So it's just your word against Mohammed's. Sigh.
About the LGM - I know they exist. I've seen them.
Yeah, me too, hanging off of F-4's
Oh? Can you prove that?
A lot of folks love to toss that statement around. But simply to look at it is to recognize the claim as a very stupid one. Simple logic will tell you that it's either wrong, or unproveable.
As it happens, as a general statement it is wrong. For example, in math it is quite common to prove negatives (e.g., "non-existence" statements) by, for example, assuming the positive opposite and demonstrating that it leads to a contradiction. Also, it's quite obvious that a negative statement such as "there are no green mammals" can be refuted by the simple expedient of producing a green mammal.
"There exists at least one biological structure or process that cannot be explained by natural selection".
To which you responded:
This is just so blatant, I couldn't resist. The statement made was essentially "A" could not be explained by "B". You changed that to essentially "A" could not be explained.
The Negative proposition that:
There exists at least one biological structure or process that cannot be explained by natural selection
is unprovable BY DEFINITION.
The fact that something cannot be explained by something else does NOT demonstrate the existence of anything. In this case:
There exists at least one biological structure or process
The fact that this statement isn't negated doesn't make prove the existence of anything else. There is no proof for this statement: there exists. The Burden of Proof is incumbent upon the person making the Assertion. The Existence of such a biological structure or process that cannot be explained by natural selection is a matter of opinion, not science.
Logically it is an invalid proposition. One cannot prove what doesn't exist - only what does exist. That is what makes science science and faith faith. One is dependent upon evidence and the other needs none.
And you never seem to understand the difference.
It is fun playing in the sandbox with you from time to time though.
No I didn't. I responded to your mischaracterization of the statement. Pot!
A lot of folks love to toss that statement around. But simply to look at it is to recognize the claim as a very stupid one. Simple logic will tell you that it's either wrong, or unproveable.
What you prove is you don't understand the rules of logic.
What the Fallacy means is that you cannot prove that which does not exist. For example, I can prove the existence of a horse by providing one to your senses. I cannot prove the existence of a Unicorn because there is no such thing to prove it to you as an example of.
This is why science no longer considers the existence of the "ether" as a valid explanation of the propagation of light and energy. There is no evidence for it and that Einstein's Theories hold sway. You have to give some evidence to support your proposition.
As it happens, as a general statement it is wrong. For example, in math it is quite common to prove negatives
This is the Fallacy of Conflation. Math is a theoretical system, not a physical one. The rules are different. It is possible to prove a statement wrong but it is not possible to prove a fact wrong. Volcanoes exist. Rivers exist. Bears exist. Evolution exists.
ID cannot be prove to exist. By definition.
it's quite obvious that a negative statement such as "there are no green mammals" can be refuted by the simple expedient of producing a green mammal
This is known as the "White Crow Fallacy" since it would require examining every crow in the Universe to prove there are no "White Crows." This is why in logic the Burden of Proof is upon whoever is making the Assertion.
For example, the Assertion that Homosexuality is "unnatural" is refuted by examining the lives of Bonobo apes. They are very "perverted." If homosexuality is a moral issue then mere animals couldn't indulge in such behavior. If not, then the Fallacy holds.
One cannot prove one thing true by proving another thing false. Keep studying. You might understand this truth someday.
The Founder of the Baha'i.
OK the tumblers have fallen into place.
That's Dr. Coyoteman to you, son.
I like all your fallacies, but they are not necessary.
Any thinking person can see the virtual impossibility of proving a negative. Even with one variable, the number of possible permutations that would require testing become enormous and thus practically impossible.
That's why scientists always design their experiments to produce positive evidence for something. Creationists are always saying that Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation. But that was not his experiments. He proved that broths became turbid with bacterial growth because bacteria were present in air. That is a positive proof, not a negative one.
The only thing that can ever be proved about spontaneous generation is that it exists. When some scientist shows a process for "life" appearing from "non-life" then spontaneous generation will become fact. It will never be disproved, because it is impossible to test every possible scenario.
He, he, he. I don't suppose ol' Doc Savage is anything more than a cartoon character.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.