Posted on 11/13/2009 8:11:34 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
That’s another idea. o.k.
“It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life” (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 6th edition, 1882. p. 421).
Last time I checked it was a sin the bear false witness
"Evolution predicts 'change' (your quote), 'Change' is observed; therefore evolution is 'supported'."
"Although I agree with most of the content above, I'd like you to direct readers to the source of what you call "your quote.""
Now you say absolutely not. Do you think that ignoring logical fallacy means it doesn't exist? No?
I would like to reword that to:
You are a complete failure, and a laughingstock and an embarrassment.
Help my horse to win the race?"
LOL!
(1) If Fred wanted to get me sacked then he’d go and have a word with the boss.
(2) There goes Fred to have a word with the boss.
Therefore:
(3) Fred wants to get me sacked.
You claim …
The fallacy of affirming the consequent is structured as: P predicts Q, Q is observed; therefore P is supported
Whereas I’d claim …
The fallacy of affirming the consequent is structured as: P predicts Q, Q is observed; therefore P is conclusively proven.
Words mean things.
The fallacy of affirming the consequent is structured as: P predicts Q, Q is observed; therefore P is conclusively proven.
Words mean things."
Indeed they do.
Not only is P not conclusively proven by the fallacy of affirming the consequent, but P is not supported by the use of the fallacy either. Formal fallacies of this form are always fallacies because the conclusion is a non sequitur.
Trying to narrow the focus of the conclusion such that you think you can apply the fallacious logic without committing the error of the fallacy is simply amazing. It is fascinating to watch the lengths that evos will go through to cling to their fallacious logic.
You demand an answer to a question that is irrelevant to the theory of evolution, so I give you an irrelevant answer.
Evolution began the exact moment that the flying spaghetti monster says it began. I was not around when this happened, but if you give me a time machine necessary I’ll go make observations about it all and report straight to you.
Until then, you will get no speculation from me for you to kick around....so go kick the spaghetti monster a bit.
Darwin's theory has nothing to do with the origin of life because the "theory" has nothing to do with the origin of life. Doesn't have anything to do with thermodynamics either.
Baseless claims are so telling....but that's all you have when you don't have your own scientific theory to discredit a scientific theory.
Ad nauseum arguments never fly.
What you don’t seem to see,is my use of saying “The fallacy of affirming the consequent is structured as: P predicts Q, Q is observed; therefore P is conclusively proven.” to make a point regarding your misuse of the word “support.”
To wit ... There is no fallacy in saying: “When P predicts Q and Q is observed, then P is supported.”
“Darwinistic theory” does not speak of my relevance any more than it speaks of the origin of life.
Try again.
What you don't seem to see is that, "Trying to narrow the focus of the conclusion such that you think you can apply the fallacious logic without committing the error of the fallacy is simply amazing. It is fascinating to watch the lengths that evos will go through to cling to their fallacious logic."
I just posted this to you in the post you responded to and you seem to have ignored it. How?
Underlying that process is a theory that propositions enmpirically supported by high correlation coefficients indicates the presence of physical law.
In other words, Darwin's theory aobut evolution might someday be recognized and accepted as physical law.
“I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” -- Sir Isaac Newton (1642 – 1727)
Please look up the term, "problems of induction". The 'all swans are white' argument is 'truth by induction' until you find a black swan. The problem with induction is that it relies on the fallacy of affirming the consequent. This does not help you.
"Underlying that process is a theory that propositions enmpirically supported by high correlation coefficients indicates the presence of physical law."
Again, induction is based on the fallacy of affirming the consequent. There is 'strong induction' (which is basically technology or operational science) and there is 'weak induction' (which is evolution, abiogenesis and the big bang). The fact that you have never seen a black swan does not make the statement "all swans are white" actually true although it qualifies as 'truth by induction'.
"In other words, Darwin's theory aobut evolution might someday be recognized and accepted as physical law."
IOW, Darwin's theory of evolution is more likely to be overturned as fallacy than to be proven as 'physical law'.
Do you see the problem yet?
“I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” -- Sir Isaac Newton (1642 – 1727)
vos meditatus vestri consultum
Regarding your black/white swans, all it takes to disprove a theory is one contradiction.
Regarding physical law and correlation, all it takes to disprove a law is an absence of significant correlation in unbiased tests.
Correspondingly, good correlation is exactly what it takes to inductively show a theory correct.
It’s called the “Scientific Method.” Ref ... http://www.answers.com/topic/scientific-method
Let’s face it. The mountain of data supporting Darwin’s theory is now proving that theory.
Yep, and evolution has plenty of them. They are consistently 'explained away'. Like 'fossil reworking' to explain out-of-order fossils, 'unknown processes' to explain DNA preservation outside all known time frames, etc. This is how you know that evolution is fallacy-based and a philosophy. Contradictions don't disprove it.
"Regarding physical law and correlation, all it takes to disprove a law is an absence of significant correlation in unbiased tests."
Of course. 'Unbiased' being the operative term. They don't exist in a philosophically-based theory that is founded in fallacy. See above.
"Correspondingly, good correlation is exactly what it takes to inductively show a theory correct."
Nope, that's the theory of affirming the consequent. You need to learn that.
"It’s called the “Scientific Method.” Ref ... http://www.answers.com/topic/scientific-method"
Evolution has already been disproved according to the scientific method. What keeps it alive is fallacy and philosophical commitment to naturalism. Nothing more.
"Let’s face it. The mountain of data supporting Darwin’s theory is now proving that theory."
Let's face it. No contradictory evidence can ever disprove evolution. It is a theory grounded in fallacy and founded on the philosophy of naturalism (sweeping generalizations by believers notwithstanding).
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.