Posted on 10/01/2005 5:09:16 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
I named 3 or 4 fallacies in this thread. That's enough for now - until you people can solve those I need not list any more.
You still haven't addressed the alleged fallacy you cited that I pointed out was in error.
But, oh well, I guess we can conclude that the Intelligent Designer's prophet has spoken and we are left to attempt to interpret and understand the revealed wisdom on our own.
Really??
You know this how?? Your scientific education is what?? About an 8th grade education, I would guess.
The Grand Master is pleased.
You know, I don't even bother answering "ad hominem" posts to me. It's a waste of time. Ad hominem is usually an indicator of personality disorder, lack of argument and/or lack of vocabulary, or all three. Whichever, it always is a reflection on the perpetrator not the object.
And precisely how does that addition change the fact that Lewis refutes materialism? It doesn't. Materialism is fully refuted. If you like, I can post more proofs. I have a big library on philosophy. Materialism is indefnsible.
All you did was convolute the error. I'm not sure what error you refer to, but see my post 66.
All you did was convolute the error. I'm not sure what error you refer to, but see my post 66.
See post #51 and go from there.
I would love to see what the actual passages were, as this one appears to be very fragmented on the web, mostly on religious sites. Maybe I can find the text on Amazon.
Q represents a common relationship based on similarities. Therefore it has logical significance as follows:
Prediction: If X and Y share certain calculated similarities in their genetic codes, then they are of common descent.
Test: Compare the genomes of X and Y for predicted similarities.
Conclusion: X and Y do share the calculated similarities, therefore they are of common descent.
Corollary: If X and Y share common descent, it follows that they have a common ancestor, Q.
Here is another fallacy I didnt' mention: The attributes of a part cannot be applied to the whole.
For this to be the case, the statement would have to be 'X has Z attributes. X and Y are both part of Q. Therefore Y has Z attributes'. That is not what the statement says.
Notice the first part of the logical premise by evolutionistis: X is SIMILAR to Y in Z. Similar is not the same as IDENTICAL, so the fallacy of equovication also applies. Humans and giraffes have the same number of neck vertabrae - should we assume we share a common ancestor with them?
If this is a fallacy of equivocation, then what word was misconstrued? If you are claiming it is the use of the word 'identical' where 'similar' is meant, then I challenge you to show where I used the word 'identical'. And if you are saying 'similar' was used when 'identical' was meant, then allow me to clarify: Wherever I said 'similar' I MEANT 'similar'.
As for the giraffe, no we should not assume common ancestry based solely on the evidence you cite. But making such a claim after taking all of the evidence available into account is another story.
Here's another important point: The evolutionist is assuming that the existence of similarity in designs or processes is evidence AGAINST design, when in fact this type of evidence is perfectly consistent with a designer.
Scientifically, evolutionists don't care in the least if there was a designer or not. That of course isn't to say that there are no evolutionists out there that use evolution as a club to bash religion. Just that they are overstepping the realm of science when they do so.
Really, what about:
Ad hominem is usually an indicator of personality disorder, lack of argument and/or lack of vocabulary, or all three. Whichever, it always is a reflection on the perpetrator not the object.
Neowarwinists sure have rich imaginations. Too bad it has nothing to do with science
but you can drop the intellectually superior attitude
I think we are done since you are unable to coherently respond to the problem
Seems pretty ad hominem to me.
Hypocrite.
Two things:
1. Einstein helped us to understand that atomic measurements are relative. (i.e. During the Creative process, was the atomic clock clicking relative to the speed He produced the matter?)
2. Is light pliable in the hands of God (He instantly painted light across the heavens).
These are Biblical perspectives of the data. Scientists are considering these metaphysical possibilities as we speak. Remember, mankind is very stupid. That's why theories are ever changing.
Well, timing is everything. Anyway, CS Lewis is one of the most facile word-smiths who ever lived. He'll switch the meanings of words when you're distracted, and then he'll end up with a conclusion that seems okay, until you back up and trace his tricks. He's good. He's very good. (I'm not commenting on the quote in this thread, because before I could do that I would need to see a larger portion of the text.)
I made no claim about the reliability of math in the distant past. I claimed that Thane_Banquo based his use of math on a faulty premise.
I also fail to see the relationship between my challenge over statistical use and abiogenesis not being addressed by the ToE.
Say we have a one celled bacteria (laying aside problem of origins for a moment), I have yet to have an evolutionist explain to me precisely by what mechanism that information is added to the genome in order to "evolve" into the different phyla. Information MUST be a added. Where does it come from? How is it added?
Through heritable random mutations and changes in the allele frequencies of genetic traits, which through natural selection result in beneficial changes being encouraged through successful survival and reproduction, while detrimental or neutral changes are not so encouraged.
(Thane_Banquo pinged as a courtesy since I mentioned him in this post.)
And precisely how does that addition change the fact that Lewis refutes materialism? It doesn't. Materialism is fully refuted. If you like, I can post more proofs. I have a big library on philosophy. Materialism is indefnsible.
I have pieced together more of the Lewis quote. It is difficult, as many of the sites which have this quote do extensive piece-mealing, and almost all leave out the "nonsense" passage. The best I can do without my books (which are a thousand miles away at the moment), and by combining versions on two different sites, is:
if [naturalism] were true, every thing and event would, if we knew enough, be explicable without remainder as a necessary product of the system [But] all possible knowledge depends on the validity of reasoning. If the feeling of certainty which we express by words like must be and therefore and since is a real perception of how things outside our own minds really must be, well and good. But if this certainty is merely a feeling in our own minds and not a genuine insight into realities beyond them-if it merely represents the way our minds happen to workthen we can have no knowledge. Unless human reasoning is valid, no science can be true. It follows that no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be real insight. A theory, which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid, that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved that no argument was sound--a proof that there are no such things as proofs--which is nonsense. [pp. 11-26?]http://www.acton.org/publicat/m_and_m/2003_fall/cleveland.html and http://www.makeoutcity.com/Archives/2005/08/16/192933/But Naturalism, as commonly held, is precisely a theory of this sort. The mind, like every other particular thing or event, is supposed to be simply the product of the Total System. It is supposed to be that and nothing more, to have no power whatever of 'going on of its own accord'. And the Total System is not supposed to be rational. All thoughts whatever are therefore the results of irrational causes, and nothing more than that. [p. 28] [C.S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1953)].
Now that we have more of an idea of what the full passage says, let me ask something. Do you really expect one passage from a philosopher, loaded with opinion and "philosophy" to invalidate all of science? Especially when "if" is used at least six times?
I'll leave something to the other folks on the thread, but the passage "A theory, which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court" relies on the phrase "but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid." Where do you see this in science? Scientists go to great lengths to avoid errors of various kinds.
In some previous posts you indicate the bible is the primary or only source of wisdom for you, so I think I'll end my part in the discussion at this point.
Yes, it's real. It also isn't applicable of the statement that you want to use it on, as I pointed out in my direct reply to your post that makes that assertion. In fact it took me a while to decide if you were misapplying the fallacy of composition or had reversed the fallacy of division. I finally assumed the former, and apparently that bears out as correct.
If God did such a thing, then He is a liar for giving us a universe full of false information.
Let your brainwashing go through the dryer. It might work out the wrinkles. :-)
See post #92.
100
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.