11 Jul 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think I've been clear enough. It's been made very clear to me that I need to be extra careful in what I say and how I say it because you are not looking for sensibility, you are looking for anything you can disagree with. And you have consistently been finding what you've been looking for whether it's actually there or not. How long do you think it takes for anyone to recognise the semantics games being played here?
Not 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.
11 Jul 13
Originally posted by humyA and B are 1. and 2. Go back and look at what I said about PE explaining the gaps and the gaps validating PE. 1. is true because 2. is true and 2. is true because 1. is true. Circular reasoning.
pity you don't understand any of this.
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 be ...[text shortened]... o, go on, try and prove yourself right and me wrong and tell us what A and B are....
11 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm well aware that "evolution is an accepted part of science and has been for a very long time." There is no confusion about that. So is there anything else you believe I may be confused about?
Your 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 helps to explain patterns in the fossil record, it is [b]not an attempt to prove the validity of t I would go so far as to claim that the theory of gravity does not 'need' dark matter.[/b]
I intentionally listed the names of other logical fallacies at the end of the wiki post on circular reasoning. The one you are now employing is called Argument from authority.
See also[edit]Circular reference
Argument from authority
Coherentism
I'm entitled to my opinion
Polysyllogism
Self-reference
Tautology (rhetoric)
Woozle effect
11 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat does relativity have to do with evolution?
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?
If you are referring to my time is a variable comment, that was before I was aware of the semantics game you and your cohorts enjoy playing here. I assumed you knew what that meant. And you assumed I didn't know what it meant. Sometimes the assumptions are aggravating, but most of the time it's amusing.
11 Jul 13
4 edits
Originally posted by lemon lime
A and B are 1. and 2. Go back and look at what I said about PE explaining the gaps and the gaps validating PE. 1. is true because 2. is true and 2. is true because 1. is true. Circular reasoning.
A and B are 1. and 2.
Nope; try again.
Once again, you show your illogic.
Clarify:
you said:
“...1. gaps in the fossil record validating punctuated equilibrium and 2. punctuated equilibrium validating gaps in the fossil record. ...”
so if A and B are 1. and 2. then we have:
A = “gaps in the fossil record validating punctuated equilibrium”
And
B = “punctuated equilibrium validating gaps in the fossil record”
which is not allowed here because A ITSELF is implicitly in the form “something (PE in this case) is true because something is true (the 'gaps' in this case) ” and B ITSELF is implicitly in the form “something is true (the 'gaps' in this case) because something (PE in this case) is true”
This is because A “gaps in the fossil record validating punctuated equilibrium” is just another way of saying "punctuated equilibrium is true because there being gaps in the fossil record is true" and B “punctuated equilibrium validating gaps in the fossil record” is just another way of saying "there being gaps in the fossil record is true is because punctuated equilibrium is true"
thus it cannot validly be substituted into (1) below:
(1) = "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."
In other words, you must make A and B NOT the argument but rather JUST the subjects (i.e. the thing you are talking about) of the premise and the conclusions and NOT themselves imply 'therefore' or 'validates' or anything deductive because A and B are not supposed to be the argument parts but rather JUST the subjects assertion parts.
11 Jul 13
Originally posted by lemon limeAnd I think you are looking for and finding 'semantic' where there are none. I usually ask for clarification when things are not clear, and try my best to address what I believe is being put forward.
IAnd you have consistently been finding what you've been looking for whether it's actually there or not. How long do you think it takes for anyone to recognise the semantics games being played here?
In my defense, I am clearly not the only person having difficulty understanding you, in fact, nearly every poster who has responded to you has expressed difficulty in understanding what exactly you are trying to say.
11 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadGravity is present in the here and now. Its effect has always been present and it is testable and provable. No one disputes its existence now or in the past. So the question of gravity is not that it exists, the question that remains unanswered is what it is.
Your 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 helps to explain patterns in the fossil record, it is [b]not an attempt to prove the validity of t I would go so far as to claim that the theory of gravity does not 'need' dark matter.[/b]
The difference between gravity and evolution (as far as being immediately apparent and testable) should be apparent to anyone, whether they are a scientist or a layman.
11 Jul 13
Originally posted by lemon limeYou are still, clearly, not understanding what I am saying. I am saying that because it is an accepted part of science, nobody is trying to provide supporting evidence/hypotheses/claims.
I'm well aware that "evolution is an accepted part of science and has been for a very long time." There is no confusion about that. So is there anything else you believe I may be confused about?
I intentionally listed the names of other logical fallacies at the end of the wiki post on circular reasoning. The one you are now employing is called Argument from authority.
So you know how to read wiki, but can't seem to apply what you read. Where have I used an argument from authority? I haven't tried to claim that the theory of evolution is true because the scientific establishment says so, if that is what you think. I haven't even in this thread provided any argument that the theory of evolution is true. What I stated was that PE is not an argument for the theory of evolution, it is a hypothesis used to explain some aspects of the fossil record - with the assumption that evolution was taking place. Hence it is not a circular argument because it is not trying to prove the assumption.
11 Jul 13
Originally posted by lemon limeAnd evolution is immediately apparent and testable. I believe here in SA the basics start getting taught in High school or earlier, so no one who has passed grade 12 should claim not to understand the basics.
The difference between gravity and evolution (as far as being immediately apparent and testable) should be apparent to anyone, whether they are a scientist or a layman.
I know I understood it by grade 12.
I realize that religion has the capacity to stop people from understanding certain things, which is one of my main objections to religion.
So, since you say the differences between gravity and evolution are immediately apparent to you, please go ahead and explain them. You should have no problem.
11 Jul 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell no kidding! Nearly every poster who has responded to me has somehow managed to misunderstand or misinterpret nearly everything I've said, because nearly every poster who has responded to me has a vested interest in disqualifying nearly everything I have said. Should I expect the people who disagree with me to not managle what I'm saying to the point it becomes unrecognizable even to me?
And I think you are looking for and finding 'semantic' where there are none. I usually ask for clarification when things are not clear, and try my best to address what I believe is being put forward.
In my defense, I am clearly not the only person having difficulty understanding you, in fact, nearly every poster who has responded to you has expressed difficulty in understanding what exactly you are trying to say.
I commented on you playing a semantics game, and what do you do? You respond by playing more of the semantics game. Is it your purpose to verify what I said, or to argue against it?
So why not just say the people who disagree with me are not agreeing with me? Same difference.
11 Jul 13
12 edits
lemon lime
OK, I take it you have not responded to my last post because you have insufficient intelligence to know how to do this.
So let me help you out just a bit here:
perhaps you MAY be tempted to say:
A = “there being gaps in the fossil record”
and
B = “punctuated evolution”
this would at least be allowed here! This is because the above can validly be substituted into (1) below:
(1) = "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."
and if we make those substitution in (1), we get:
"punctuated equilibrium is true because there being gaps in the fossil record is true; there being gaps in the fossil record is true is because punctuated equilibrium is true"
BUT, remember the essential fact I pointed out that:
“ 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. “
But there IS another premise for A in this case! And this other premise is OUTSIDE (1). This premise is the observations of there being gaps in the fossil record because those observations do NOT depend on punctuated evolution being true! And it is this outside premise, NOT PE being true, that we base our belief that those gaps exist. Thus, the reasoning we use in this case, contrary to your claim, is NOT circular reasoning.
So, can you give another VALID substitution of A and B that DOES demonstrate we are using circular reasoning?
If so, what are those substitutions?
If not, this is proof you have not shown circular reasoning and there is nothing circular about our reasoning for PE.
I think you understand what I am talking about here. Your silence says it all.
11 Jul 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWhere have you seen me talking about a theory that proves God exists? It's because as you say there is no scientific evidence of Gods existence that I haven't said that. There are however scientists who have put forth some very good arguments that do just that, but I haven't been involved in anything like that here. I believe I've been staying within the very narrow limits of natural science.
The 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. ...[text shortened]... his proves the theory that God exists, for which there is no scientific evidence whatsoever.
I think you are making the same mistake other evolutionists on this board have been making, you are assuming that because I doubt evolution then I must necessarily be attempting to prove Gods existence. But let's turn this around for a moment and assume it's true. If so, then I must necessarily believe the purpose of evolution is to prove God doesn't exist. You can't have it both ways... either this is about proving or disproving evolution or God or it isn't.
In other words, you can't just turn this into a religious argument based solely my disagreement with evolution, otherwise you are admitting evolution is not so much about science as it is about disproving God.
11 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by lemon limeWell, if it's not abiogenesis and evolution, and if it's not God then what caused the diversity of life we see? Unless you're going to advocate Lamarckism there aren't a huge number of other candidates.
Where have you seen me talking about a theory that proves God exists? It's because as you say there is no scientific evidence of Gods existence that I haven't said that. There are however scientists who have put forth some very good arguments that do just that, but I haven't been involved in anything like that here. I believe I've been staying within the ou are admitting evolution is not so much about science as it is about disproving God.