Originally posted by lemon limeYou clearly misunderstood what I said.
Your own language is very revealing. You are able to claim knowledge in the absence of supporting evidence, because your knowledge is the supporting evidence. Some scientists apparently enjoy a sort of diplomatic immunity when using specious reasoning techniques like this.
My point is that the scientists in question are not trying to prove the validity of the theory of evolution. It is not something that is being claimed.
Therefore, they are not claiming something in the absence of supporting evidence because it is not what is being claimed. What they are claiming, is supported by the evidence.
I think this would be a good time to comment on something I have been thinking about since our previous discussions regarding abiogenesis.
You claimed that abiogenesis is in some way critical for the theory of evolution.
However, that is because, as above, you don't understand what the theory of evolution is seeking to explain or is claiming.
It is known that the earth is old, and it is known that there are fossils of many life forms that are now extinct and it is known that life forms we see today are related (ie common ancestry). It is known that life existed on the earth a long time ago and gradually became more complex. Much of the above was known before Darwin wrote his famous book. None of them are conclusions of the Theory of Evolution except in part the common ancestry claim.
What the theory of evolution does, is explain how life evolves.
So the existence of life on the early earth is not a conclusions of the theory of evolution at all, it is taken as a pre-known fact before one even starts to look at the theory of evolution. How life got there from non-life is the subject of abiogenesis, again, starting with the pre-known facts that there wasn't life originally and then there was life.
Originally posted by lemon limeAs I say above, it is all about what claims are being made. If a religious person is trying to show that the Christian God is Male rather than Female, I will not take it that he is trying to prove the existence of God, and I will generally stay out of the discussion.
Religious cults use this technique all the time... I wouldn't buy this coming from cults any more than I would buy it coming from a reputable and credentialed scientist.
If he then says "Because God is male, he must exist" then he has created a circular argument.
Similarly, I think you will find that there has not been one single scientific paper since not long after Darwin that tries to prove that evolution took place or that the earth is really millions of years old not thousands. Those questions were settled ages ago and do not need proving within the scientific community.
So it is perfectly reasonable to take them as a given in scientific articles, as they are not part of the conclusions, thus there is no circular reasoning involved.
4 edits
Originally posted by lemon limeI note you now made no comment on my total debunk of your logically flawed argument of PE being based on circular reasoning.
I meant what I've always meant by gaps. And it is what anyone for decades has ever meant when they talk about gaps. So no, I'm not redefining gaps, but if you are then maybe you should tell us what else it can mean.
Gaps are the imagined missing evidence of transitional species. It is the imagined transitional forms that create the gaps, and not the ac ...[text shortened]...
This is not a difficult concept, so I don't understand why you are having a problem with it.
Does that mean you have finally got it at last!!!!!?
Have you learned something here?
Or are you just going to repeat the same logical flaw over and over again so that I can demolish it over and over again?
Another logical flaw you have made only recently was to arbitrary equate the amount of genetic change, i.e. change in the DNA, with how far a species has changed towards becoming another species. I also note you now made no comment on my total debunk of that as well. Does that mean you have got that as well? if so, then ask yourself the question; "if I can be so fundamentally logically flawed by those two things (in addition to the two earlier logical flaws I made in this thread alone), could I be fundamentally logically flawed about virtually everything I say on these forums? and, if so, should I do something about that?"
1 edit
Originally posted by humyFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
... again, you have clearly demonstrated logical flaw and inability to handle deductive logic.
Jump to: navigation, searchCircular reasoning (also known as paradoxical thinking[1] or circular logic), is a logical fallacy in which "the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with".[2] The individual components of a circular argument will sometimes be logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, and will not lack relevance. Circular logic cannot prove a conclusion because, if the conclusion is doubted, the premise which leads to it will also be doubted.[3] Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.[4]
Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true." Circularity can be difficult to detect if it involves a longer chain of propositions. Academic Douglas Walton used the following example of a fallacious circular argument:
Wellington is in New Zealand.
Therefore, Wellington is in New Zealand.[5]
He notes that, although the argument is deductively valid, it cannot prove that Wellington is in New Zealand because it contains no evidence that is distinct from the conclusion. The context – that of an argument – means that the proposition does not meet the requirement of proving the statement, thus it is a fallacy. He proposes that the context of a dialogue determines whether a circular argument is fallacious: if it forms part of an argument, then it is.[5] Citing Cederblom and Paulsen 1986:109) Hugh G. Gauch observes that non-logical facts can be difficult to capture formally:
"Whatever is less dense than water will float, because whatever is less dense than water will float" sounds stupid, but "Whatever is less dense than water will float, because such objects won't sink in water" might pass.[6]
Circular reasoning and the problem of induction[edit]Joel Feinberg and Russ Shafer-Landau note that "using the scientific method to judge the scientific method is circular reasoning". Scientists attempt to discover the laws of nature and to predict what will happen in the future, based on those laws. However, per David Hume's problem of induction, science cannot be proven inductively by empirical evidence, and thus science cannot be proven scientifically. An appeal to a principle of the uniformity of nature would be required to deductively necessitate the continued accuracy of predictions based on laws that have only succeeded in generalizing past observations. But as Bertrand Russell observed, "The method of 'postulating' what we want has many advantages; they are the same as the advantages of theft over honest toil".[7]
See also[edit]Circular reference
Argument from authority
Coherentism
I'm entitled to my opinion
Polysyllogism
Self-reference
Tautology (rhetoric)
Woozle effect
Originally posted by humyYou haven't debunked anything I've said. Look at at the wikipedia page on circular reasoning I just now posted. How is that any different from what I was saying about circular reasoning? Or have you just been skimming my posts, and only looking for key words to base your so called debunking arguments on?
I note you now made no comment on my total debunk of your logically flawed argument of PE being based on circular reasoning.
Does that mean you have finally got it at last!!!!!?
Have you learned something here?
Or are you just going to repeat the same logical flaw over and over again so that I can demolish it over and over again?
Another logical fl ...[text shortened]... out virtually everything I say on these forums? and, if so, should I do something about that?"
You seem to be hung up on the use of terminology without even considering the concepts being discussed. These are not difficult concepts. I had no trouble explaining simple concepts like this to my kids when they were as young as 10 years old. If a ten year old can get it, then so can you.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat's close, but not quite right. I am not claiming abiogenesis is critical for the theory of evolution, I'm claiming it is critical for the presumed reality of evolution. I'm making a distinction between the theory and its presumed reality.
You claimed that abiogenesis is in some way critical for the theory of evolution.
1 edit
[ This post is actually part of my last one, but in the interest of trying to avoid any more confusion I think it's best I spread my responses out. ]
If you believe evolution occurred, and it's not just a theory for you, then you must necessarily acknowledge the presumed reality of it and not just its theoretical components.
The theory part of this can look at whatever you want to look at, and ignore any part of it you wish to ignore, but if you truly believe it happened then you cannot ignore how life began or whether life did begin.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI see where the confusion came from now. You believed I was saying evolution predicts what we will see in the fossil record. Again, this is close but not quite right.
Yes, you are right, any fool can, given the current evidence, trivially conclude that evolution theory is valid.
Evolution theory does not predict that anything will end up in the fossil record. The features of the species we do find in the fossil record can be explained using evolution theory, but in terms of supplying evidence they are not required; you don't need an apple falling from a tree to support the theory of gravity.
Evolution predicts transitional intermediate species. Whether these show up in the fossil record or not is a separate (although related) issue. We can assume transitional species are like will o the wisps that are able to briefly show up and then leave no evidence of their existence. This is the problem PE attempts to explain, and it attempts to do so without the need for physical evidence to verify its validity.
PE is its own separate supporting theory... if evolultion didn't need PE then you would have never heard of it, because no one would have ever needed for PE to happen. It exists for one and only one reason, to plug apparent and unexplainable (evolutionary) gaps in the fossil record.
Originally posted by lemon limeNot only did you fail to make that clear in the other thread, but some of your statements do not make sense if that was your meaning.
That's close, but not quite right. I am not claiming abiogenesis is critical for the theory of evolution, I'm claiming it is critical for the presumed reality of evolution. I'm making a distinction between the theory and its presumed reality.
Originally posted by lemon limeActually if you truly believe life exists, you cannot ignore how life began or whether life did begin. Its as simple as that. Why drag the theory of evolution into it? Why would you not say the same when discussing the theory of relativity?
The theory part of this can look at whatever you want to look at, and ignore any part of it you wish to ignore, but if you truly believe it happened then you cannot ignore how life began or whether life did begin.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe theory of evilution has everything to do with the evolving of life from it's beginnings. That is why how life started is important.
Actually if you truly believe life exists, you cannot ignore how life began or whether life did begin. Its as simple as that. Why drag the theory of evolution into it? Why would you not say the same when discussing the theory of relativity?
The theory of relativity deals with physics, not with biology, so the question of how life began is not important.
Biology has no need for the theory of evilution, if God created the first life forms. It has always been accepted that God is the Creator, so if this view is to be changed, then the burden of proof should be with the evilutionist to prove how life began other than by creation.
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsYour god could have started life on Earth 3 billion years ago and let evolution run the show since then, or it could even have created our universe with the right rules that natural processes inevitably leads to life.
The theory of evilution has everything to do with the evolving of life from it's beginnings. That is why how life started is important.
The theory of relativity deals with physics, not with biology, so the question of how life began is not important.
Biology has no need for the theory of evilution, if God created the first life forms. It has always b ...[text shortened]... ould be with the evilutionist to prove how life began other than by creation.
The Instructor
You cannot say that is impossible. You have only the words written in a book thousands of years old, where you think plants came first but we know for 100% sure bacteria came first, then insects and plants and so forth.
So your book is wrong on page one.
Of course you will just come up with another nonsensical retaliation.
Like God didit, neener neener neener I'm holding my thumbs in my ear, I can't hear you.
6 edits
Originally posted by lemon limepity you don't understand any of this.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, searchCircular reasoning (also known as paradoxical thinking[1] or circular logic), is a logical fallacy in which "the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with".[2] The individual components of a circular argument will sometimes be logically valid because if the premises are my opinion
Polysyllogism
Self-reference
Tautology (rhetoric)
Woozle effect
How is that any different from what I was saying about circular reasoning?
I have already clearly told you at least twice. Go back and read my posts again.
OK: As you pointed out from From Wikipedia:
“...Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true." ...”
-and this appears to be the form you claim the said "circular reasoning" is in. If you deny this, then please state exactly WHICH form you claim that so-called circular reasoning is in....
lets call "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true." statement (1).
so:
(1) = "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."
BUT, it is essential to note that (1) is ONLY circular reasoning if no OTHER premise is given for believing either A or B being true other than the reason stated in statement (1). If some evidence E is given for either A or B other than the reasoning in (1) i.e. evidence outside (1), then (1) COMBINED with that evidence E that is outside (1) is NOT circular reasoning.
Now, if what you claim is “circular reasoning” for PE, you should be able to not only substitute an assertion for “A” in (1) and an assertion for “B” in (1), but substitute both A and B for assertions that are not given any OTHER premise other than the reasoning contained entirely within (1).
OK, so PROVE that you are showing circular reasoning by restating your so-called “circular reasoning” by telling as what A and B is....
In other words, please JUST TELL US:
A = “...what statement goes here?....”
B = “...what statement goes here?....”
so that A and B can then be substituted for the above two statements in statement (1) below:
(1) = "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."
Remember, if A or B is given (explicitly or implicitly) another premise other than the reason stated in statement (1), then the reasoning is NOT circular.
I challenge you to do this!
If you now apparently refuse, then we can only assume you already know you are wrong.
If you do try and do this, you will find you WILL fail! -that's because what you say is “circular reasoning is nothing of the sort!
So, go on, try and prove yourself right and me wrong and tell us what A and B are....
Originally posted by lemon limeYour confusion arises from the fact that you can't seem to get it in to your head that evolution is an accepted part of science and has been for a very long time. Evolution or the theory of evolution doesn't 'need' anything. It is not being disputed.
PE is its own separate supporting theory... if evolultion didn't need PE then you would have never heard of it, because no one would have ever needed for PE to happen. It exists for one and only one reason, to plug apparent and unexplainable (evolutionary) gaps in the fossil record.
PE helps to explain patterns in the fossil record, it is not an attempt to prove the validity of the theory of evolution.
KazetNagorra gave an analogy of an apple and gravity. Maybe another analogy would be helpful:
The theory of gravity tells us how objects such as stars and planets move under the influence of gravity. When we look at large scale structures, it just doesn't add up. Therefore we invented 'dark matter' to explain what was happening. If dark matter exists, then there need be no adjustments whatsoever to the theory of gravity. If dark matter doesn't exist, then maybe some adjustments might be necessary.
But the existence of gravity itself is not in dispute, and I would go so far as to claim that the theory of gravity does not 'need' dark matter.
Originally posted by lemon limeThe reason we distinguish between the two theories is to try to prevent RJ from skipping between the two problems randomly. We can discuss abiogenesis if you like, that it's possible was demonstrated in the laboratory years ago. In a repeatable way. It's just tedious, because we end up having the same argument that has been raked over again and again.
[ This post is actually part of my last one, but in the interest of trying to avoid any more confusion I think it's best I spread my responses out. ]
If you believe evolution occurred, and it's not just a theory for you, then you must necessarily acknowledge the presumed reality of it and not just its theoretical components.
The [i]theory[/ ...[text shortened]... you truly believe it happened then you cannot ignore how life began or whether life did begin.
I don't understand your position though. Because there's incomplete evidence so the theory is only 99% certain (number picked from air) you point to the 1% and then claim this proves the theory that God exists, for which there is no scientific evidence whatsoever.