Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GourmetDan
"Are you trying to say that science is inherently based on logical fallacy"

If you are implying that scientific extrapolation equates to logical fallacy then there is no point trying to carry on a scientific discussion with you. BTW your citation affirms my point, thank you. In it the "He" Darwin refers to is God.

58 posted on 11/02/2009 6:47:20 AM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]


To: Natural Law
"If you are implying that scientific extrapolation equates to logical fallacy then there is no point trying to carry on a scientific discussion with you."

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?

61 posted on 11/02/2009 7:18:30 AM PST by GourmetDan (Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson