Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Dimensio; RunningWolf; metmom; taxesareforever

"The second definition would not. You are attempting "argue by dictionary" by claiming that you are allowed to select one of multiple definitions of a term as a means of disproving a claim. This is not logical; when a word is used in a context, you cannot redefine the word in that context to change the meaning as a valid counterargument."

**** Well, actually it is logical. Your examples are non-secuiter and certainly not cuter. The way you can tell is that the heat of the meat is equal to the temperature in the kitchen with the stove as the source of the heat. So, the meat would therefore equal the heat inside the stove minus the AC that might be on.

Now A counterargument would be, we are talking about validation and not verification. Validation has a meaning of many different kinds. I chose to accept the second one, as this applies to the theory of validation. Otherwise unless you specify which definition that you are referring. I am in fact allowed, as this is the example that I'm using and referring too.

Now, the first definition, and I quote:."

"In general, validation is the process of checking if something satisfies a certain criterion."

Which in fact Evolution does not, simply because there has not been one example save the fruity flies or whatever, and the fact those species thought evolved still exist today...... The second definition,

"To declare or make legally valid, to prove valid or confirm the validity of data, information or processes."

Now we are getting somewhere to the context that you were referring to. Therefore your assertion is incorrect as usual. So, as a caveat, if you refer to the definition(S), we are not talking about software, computer security, manufacturing, we are talking about validating a "theory" which I can't really bring myself to call, scientific, but a fabrication that is elaborate, I will have to admit. An "expert" in the theory of Evolution, is just that. An expert in ToE, but, in a flawed theory, he or she is a has flawed arguments and ill gotten facts that use as proofs for naught.......


670 posted on 06/19/2006 7:44:47 AM PDT by tgambill (I would like to comment.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 657 | View Replies ]


To: tgambill
Which in fact Evolution does not, simply because there has not been one example save the fruity flies or whatever, and the fact those species thought evolved still exist today...... The second definition,

I am unable to understand the meaning of this statement. If you are referring to fruit fly experiments, I do not understand how they falsify the theory of evolution. I also do not understand why you -- or any creationists -- believes that the existence of certain species once thought extinct is somehow a problem for the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution does not state that species must die out or evolved into a significantly different form within a specific timeframe.
687 posted on 06/19/2006 9:47:59 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 670 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


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