Judge Rules in "Intelligent Design" Case

Originally posted by Coletti
TOE played no necessary or useful part in either.

absolutely not true. Virus' become immune to anti-viral treatments (although bacteria are a better model), likewise, new pesticides have to be developed all the time, because the pests are becoming resistant. TOE predicts they will. Creationism or ID cannot make that prediction.

Originally posted by Coletti
That's called the fallacy of asserting the consequent.

I'm glad you're here Coletti, I'm fresh out of hallucinogens.

Originally posted by Coletti
All English kids love the game of marbles. From this I predict that you will find a white marble in almost every home with children in England. Now, if you find a white marble in 99% of the homes with children in England, this proves my premise?

A implies B,
and B is true,
then A is true.

That's called the fallacy of asserting the consequent.

You are clueless. Experimental science does not proceed via deduction, so it cannot make deductive fallacies. The experiment you describe is a fine example of inductive reasoning, and one you apply every time you take an umbrella when you see clouds in the sky.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
absolutely not true. Virus' become immune to anti-viral treatments (although bacteria are a better model), likewise, new pesticides have to be developed all the time, because the pests are becoming resistant..

A little bird from China told me so, before it coughed pathetically & died in my arms.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
The experiment you describe is a fine example of inductive reasoning, and one you apply every time you take an umbrella when you see clouds in the sky.

Am I being more or less assertive of my fallacy if I carry an umbrella beneath a cloudless sky?

Originally posted by Coletti
The fact the real scientist DO know that the rules may change is why we've been able to make new discoveries and advances. They predicted that if you sailed too far in one direction, you'd fall of the side of the earth. They said that heavier than air flight was impossible, but that did not stop real scientist and innovators. Newton, Einstein, Plank, etc ...[text shortened]... c laws are sacred.

And as far as useful predictive value goes, TOE does not supply any.

Who is the 'they' who said anything? 'They said heavier than air flight was impossible'. Funny that, Da Vinci didn't think so.

Just because a hypothesis (or even a theory) is later proved to be wrong it doesn't mean that the universe has changed in any fundamental way - just that the idea was wrong. TOE has never been disproved, and, as the Journal 'Science' states, TOE underlies all of modern biology. If it were wrong, so many things that currently make perfect sense, such as bacterial resistance to drugs, would not make sense anymore.

Originally posted by Coletti
All English kids love the game of marbles. From this I predict that you will find a white marble in almost every home with children in England. Now, if you find a white marble in 99% of the homes with children in England, this proves my premise?

A implies B,
and B is true,
then A is true.

That's called the fallacy of asserting the consequent.

Nope. Not the way science works.

Your example.
"A implies B,
and B is true,
then A is true."

The way science works.
"A implies B,
and B is true.
therefore A may not be false"

You know better than this. Stop trying to mislead people with your twisted versions of scientific reasoning.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Stop trying to mislead people with your twisted versions of scientific reasoning.

Coletti is no Mephisto, as far as I can tell. Watch his hands...

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Coletti is no Mephisto, as far as I can tell. Watch his hands...

Bosse,

I'm not sure if you mean the chess playing automoton, the demon / marvel comics character, the aussie security guard or the brand of shoes. (I'm thinking the shoes myself).

btw, where did you get a picture of my ex?

Originally posted by Coletti
All English kids love the game of marbles. From this I predict that you will find a white marble in almost every home with children in England. Now, if you find a white marble in 99% of the homes with children in England, this proves my premise?

A implies B,
and B is true,
then A is true.

That's called the fallacy of asserting the consequent.

Would you please complete this post for the slow ones like myself by connecting your example directly back to the discussion? Just point out exactly how TOE is also asserting the consequent.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Bosse,

I'm not sure if you mean the chess playing automoton, the demon / marvel comics character, the aussie security guard or the brand of shoes. (I'm thinking the shoes myself).

btw, where did you get a picture of my ex?

Try the security guard wearing the shoes and reading the comic with one eye while he keeps the other on a CCTV screen showing the chess-playing automaton in a high security cell.

You're a 50,000-year-old homosexual?

Originally posted by no1marauder
.... Mutation and natural selection are the key to both.

You can have both mutations and natural selection, and not TOE. So TOE still played no role. TOE is a theory for explaining how life as we know it came to be. Mutations are observable phenomena. TOE still plays no necessary role. There are no laws of TOE required for the development of pesticides or vaccines. These developments happen in spite of TOE.

Originally posted by telerion
Would you please complete this post for the slow ones like myself by connecting your example directly back to the discussion? Just point out exactly how TOE is also asserting the consequent.

TOE predicts there was once some bird/reptile creature.

( A implies B )

A bird/reptile creature's fossil is discovered,

( B is true )

Therefore TOE is true

( A is true. )

A classic fallacy.

Originally posted by Coletti

A classic fallacy.[/b]

Thank you. As others have pointed out, the TOE does not do this. A scientific theory becomes as well-accepted as the TOE by making many successful predictions and not failing by making incorrect ones.

As scott or scribs pointed out earlier, the reasoning really goes as follows:

TOE predicts there was once some bird/reptile creature.

( A implies B )

A bird/reptile creature's fossil is discovered,

( B is true )

Therefore TOE may be true

( A may be true. )

As more and more independent predictions are confirmed without definitive predictive failures, we become more and more confident that the theory is actually true. Nevertheless, we recognize that the data comes first and that no theory should be accepted if it blatantly violates what we observe.