Posted on 10/30/2009 11:01:32 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
If you are implying that evolution is scientific because it is based on untestable logical fallacy and an assumed ability to extrapolate into unobservable, assumed history while science uses testable logical fallacy extrapolated into future observable time, then there is no point trying to carry on a scientific discussion with you. You simply do not understand the difference between science and philosophy.
"BTW your citation affirms my point, thank you. In it the "He" Darwin refers to is God."
Actually, it does not affirm your point. You said, "Nowhere in the six editions of "The Origin of Species" does Darwin ever state or suggest what the origin of life was other than frequently using the word "Creator".
To say that Darwin made no statement or suggestion other than frequently using the word 'Creatory' is simply wrong. He clearly does state that the 'Deity' created his assumed, unobserved 'simple' life forms. Darwin then continued with the pagan idea of spontaneous generation of life by applying the concept to all subsequent life forms. He just made his original, assumed forms 'simple', unidentified and created by a Deity and pushed them back into unobservable, assumed history from which all observed life forms then presumably 'evolved'. This supposedly resolved his problem of using pagan ides by using the Hegelian technique of synthesis while making his assumption scientifically untestable (and therefore philosophical) and subject to the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Now, you may equate the terms 'creator' and 'deity' but that is not necessary. Dawkins' extraterrestrials would certainly qualify as 'creator' while not being 'deity'. You then need to equate non-deity with deity to have a point.
BTW, how you coming with that reference for using the scientific term "Bullsh*t" for the group of interbreeding canid species commonly called the coyote, wolf, dog and jackal?
How you coming with that reference for using the scientific term "Bullsh*t" for the group of interbreeding canid species commonly called the coyote, wolf, dog and jackal?
If Baramin is a scientific term so is "abracadabra". It is nothing but a pseudo-scientific fig leaf. When creationists finally acquiesced to the voluminous evidence that species had not remained absolutely fixed and unchanged since creation, they lost their war against the concept of evolution. Because the direct evidence for species divergence or speciation, is so abundant and straightforward, "scientific" creationists had to accept it or appear as irrational as those who use the Bible to argue that the earth is flat.
I suppose that the more troubling thing is that the evolutionary process has not stopped and that there will be further changes to be explained away. All available evidence suggests that, as long as living things reproduce, as long as their genes mutate, and as long as they are subjected to selection, species will continue to diverge, essentially without limit.
Nice way to chop out half a sentence to manufacture a quote. You sure are working hard to avoid admitting that your scientific term "Bullsh*t" for the group of interbreeding canid species commonly called the coyote, wolf, dog and jackal is what is BS.
Of course you want to claim the 'war against the concept of evolution' is over even though science has no term for interbreeding species and you feel you need to label the evidence BS and abracdabra.
Never claimed it was. Unlike you who said, "How about "Bullsh*t", it seems to suit the concept pretty well." when asked for science's term for a group of interbreeding species.
How are you coming with that reference for science's term for a group of interbreeding species?
Hybrid.
“Unfortunately all interpreted through the fallacy of affirming the consequent and untestable otherwise because of billions of years of assumed history, assumed life forms and assumed processes.”
—In what sense is it interpreted through that fallacy?
And it is testable: Any number of potential fossil discoveries or discoveries from DNA could disprove the theory.
“As I said, Darwin simply made these ancient pagan ideas (spontaneous generation of maggots from carcasses and rats from garbage) untestable by making the organisms ‘simple’ and pushing them back into unobservable, assumed time frames. Thus making his theory unfalsifiable and dependent on the fallacy of affirming the consequent.”
—True, the theory of evolution can’t be tested by how life began, because the theory isn’t dependent on how life began – whether life through divine creation, as the quote you gave mentions, or spontaneous generation, or abiogenesis, or aliens, or smurfs, it doesn’t affect the theory.
You are confused. A hybrid is the offspring of two or more species, not the name for the group of interbreeding species that you previously provided.
You are the one who said, "How about "Bullsh*t", it seems to suit the concept pretty well." when asked for science's term for a group of interbreeding species.
How are you coming with that reference for science's term for a group of interbreeding species?
The fallacy of affirming the consequent.
"And it is testable: Any number of potential fossil discoveries or discoveries from DNA could disprove the theory."
Uh no. Out-of-order fossils are attributed to 'fossil reworking' and ancient DNA is assumed to have survived millions of years through unknown processes based on the 'a priori' assumption of millions of years. This is also known as the fallacy of cherry picking for appealing to unobserved evidence against the theory even as all evidence falsifying the theory is explained-away. Such a 'theory' is impossible to falsify since it is a philosophy, not a theory.
"—True, the theory of evolution can’t be tested by how life began, because the theory isn’t dependent on how life began – whether life through divine creation, as the quote you gave mentions, or spontaneous generation, or abiogenesis, or aliens, or smurfs, it doesn’t affect the theory."
Again, Darwin merely used Hegelian dialectic to synthesize the incompatible pagan beliefs of spontaneous generation of life (e.g., maggots from carcasses and rats from garbage) and the Judeo-Christian belief in a Creator into a 'theory' that contained elements of both. Creation of 'simple' life forms and spontaneous generation of all subsequent life forms from those.
The theory is unaffected because it is not predictive of anything and is based on logical fallacy. It is impossible to falsify.
Baramin is a made-up word for a made-up grouping. No scientific word exists because it isn't necessary. If a populations can interbreed and product fertile offspring they are by definition not true species. If you insist in having a unique name for them, for all intents and purposes, we can just as easily call them dragons and unicorns.
There is not a thread of evidence to suggest that. You do realize that bearing false witness is breaking the 9th Commandment, don't you?
Evolution is interpreted through the fallacy of affirming the consequent because all present observations are interpreted through the form: if P, then Q. Q is observed therefore P. That is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Evolution (Q) predicts 'change'. 'Change' is observed therefore evolution is true. Substitute other alleged attribute of evolution for 'change' and the fallacy still holds.
Well, previously you said that "Bullsh*t" was the term when I asked you what science's term for a group of interbreeding species was. Remember? "How about "Bullsh*t", it seems to suit the concept pretty well." Then you said 'Hybrid' in error and I corrected you for that.
" If a populations can interbreed and product fertile offspring they are by definition not true species."
Now you want to claim that no term is necessary because they aren't 'true' species. Well, if they aren't 'true' species why does science call them that? What is the definition of a 'true' species and shouldn't you be yelling from the rooftops if science has their definition wrong?
" If you insist in having a unique name for them, for all intents and purposes, we can just as easily call them dragons and unicorns."
Well, previously you had preferred "Bullsh*t", then 'Hybrid', then 'not necessary', then 'true' species. It's pretty clear that you are the one who is desperately making it up as you go along.
Well, technically a thread isn't evidence as it is used for sewing. However 6 Editions of Origin of Species isn't thread either. It's evidence.
You do realize that bearing false witness is breaking the 9th Commandment, don't you?
Actually, if you understood the subject matter rather than simply parroting you would recognize that all of my answers are correct. The whole concept is "Bullsh*t", it is an attempt to make up a patch to explain how the diversity in the world today far exceeds the capacity of the Ark to carry it. If the offspring of interbreeding species is sterile it is a hybrid. If the offspring is fertile the parents were by definition not different species.
I have a first and a sixth edition in my library and neither contain any suggestion as to the origin of life, only to the origin of species and diversity of life. In fact the final paragraph of the sixth edition concludes with:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. [Emphasis added by me.]
Actually, none of your answers are correct. They are all BS themselves.
"The whole concept is "Bullsh*t", it is an attempt to make up a patch to explain how the diversity in the world today far exceeds the capacity of the Ark to carry it. If the offspring of interbreeding species is sterile it is a hybrid. If the offspring is fertile the parents were by definition not different species."
Your explanation is what is "Bullsh*t". Wolves are canis lupus, coyotes are canis latrans and jackals are canis aureus et al. If they are not scientifically different species, why are they differentiated so by species name? They produce fertile offspring when hybridized. Don't you need to tell the scientific community that they have it all wrong, according to Natural Law?
I am not trying to convince you, I don't care that you will wander through the rest of your life in ignorance. You are certainly not going to convince me. What ever the genus canis might be it certainly isn't a Baramin. That ain't a word and that dog don't hunt.
It doesn't take too much effort to look back and see that the issue was, "Again, Darwin merely used Hegelian dialectic to synthesize the incompatible pagan beliefs of spontaneous generation of life (e.g., maggots from carcasses and rats from garbage) and the Judeo-Christian belief in a Creator into a 'theory' that contained elements of both. Creation of 'simple' life forms and spontaneous generation of all subsequent life forms from those."
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. [Emphasis added by me.]"
Apparently, we need to re-post the quote we were discussing. Not the quote you wish to use to justify your statement.
You said, "Nowhere in the six editions of "The Origin of Species" does Darwin ever state or suggest what the origin of life was other than frequently using the word "Creator".
I posted. He said, "I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory as showing how transient such impressions are to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man namely the law of the attraction of gravity was also attacked by Leibnitz as subversive of natural and inferentially of revealed religion. A celebrated author and divine has written to me that he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self development into other and needful forms as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws."
Darwin merely used Hegelian dialectic to synthesize the incompatible pagan beliefs of spontaneous generation of life. To say that Darwin made no statement or suggestion other than frequently using the word 'Creatory' is simply wrong. He clearly does state that the 'Deity' created his assumed, unobserved 'simple' life forms. Darwin then continued with the pagan idea of spontaneous generation of life by applying the concept to all subsequent life forms. He just made his original, assumed forms 'simple', unidentified and created by a Deity and pushed them back into unobservable, assumed history from which all observed life forms then presumably 'evolved'. This supposedly resolved his problem of using pagan ides by using the Hegelian technique of synthesis while making his assumption scientifically untestable (and therefore philosophical) and subject to the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Again, Darwin merely used Hegelian dialectic to synthesize the incompatible pagan beliefs of spontaneous generation of life (e.g., maggots from carcasses and rats from garbage) and the Judeo-Christian belief in a Creator into a 'theory' that contained elements of both. Creation of 'simple' life forms and spontaneous generation of all subsequent life forms from those.
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.