Jump to content


Photo

What Is The "scientific" Theory Of Evolution....?


  • Please log in to reply
99 replies to this topic

#81 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,007 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 03 February 2016 - 03:12 PM

You really need to stop quoting things out of context.

The full article is available online, there's no excuse for this kind of shenanigan.
 

 

oh brother, here we go again.  Thanks for the "FULL" article;  Ahhh, where do you suppose I got it from initially?

 

 

First, genetic change is random.

 

 

Begging The Question Fallacy:  where'd you get Genes??  Start Here...

 

1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from: Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!
 
To refute, Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin !
 
Then the WOOLLY Mammoth in the Room... 
 
2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....? In other words, show how Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules can Author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints...?

 

 

Second, genetic change is gradual.

 

 

Begging The Question Fallacy:  SEE Above

 

 

Third, following genetic change

 

 

Begging The Question Fallacy.  SEE: above, above.

 

 

natural selection leads to particular gene variants (alleles) increasing in frequency within the population.

 

 

Reification Fallacy: "Natural Selection is a "CONCEPT" i.e., "Non-Physical".  It doesn't: lead, dance the hootchy cootchy, smile, swim, play cards, run, dream, direct, eat, drive, make bread boxes, stumble, read, see, hear, taste, predict, ad nauseam.

 

If you consider natural selection "Physical", then please post it's: Chemical Formula/Structure, Dimensions (L/W/H), and Location...?

 

 

I'll leave it as an exercise to you to actually read the specifics of how and to what degree those things were disproved

 

 

Doesn't something have to "Proved" first to then avail the opportunity to be "Disproved" ??

 

So before you go in detail about the Rib Eye Steak, please establish the existence of the cow first.  (SEE: first response.)

 

 

but I'll spoil for you that nowhere in that article does it say that mutations and natural selection don't happen, just that they don't happen in the specific ways that the modern synthesis held they did.

 

 

Ergo... it's a Rescue Hypothesis (Quintessential Characteristic of Pseudo-Science) in a feeble attempt to save the previous fairytale, right?  Thanks for pointing that out.

 

Is it now gonna be the "Modern--Modern Synthesis" ??  And 'synthesis' of exactly what, pray tell....?



#82 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 03 February 2016 - 04:20 PM

oh brother, here we go again.  Thanks for the "FULL" article;  Ahhh, where do you suppose I got it from initially?

I assumed you just didn't bother to read the rest once you'd found a sentence you liked, rather than that you'd read and understood the whole thing and were being intentionally dishonest. My bad, I guess?
 

Begging The Question Fallacy:  where'd you get Genes??  Start Here...

No, let's start with the fact that the ideas "That is not what the article says" and "What the article says is correct" are two different things. I am only here about one of those ideas.

Doesn't something have to "Proved" first to then avail the opportunity to be "Disproved" ??

First, no, not at all. Second, you were the one who brought "disproved" in to the conversation.

#83 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,007 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 04 February 2016 - 09:08 AM

I assumed you just didn't bother to read the rest once you'd found a sentence you liked, rather than that you'd read and understood the whole thing and were being intentionally dishonest. My bad, I guess?
 

 

You know what happens when you "assume", right?

 

I read, in it's entirety...multiple times if need be, every single last Citation I reference.  

 

 

No, let's start with the fact that the ideas "That is not what the article says" and "What the article says is correct" are two different things. I am only here about one of those ideas.

 

 

It does say that....

 

"In this article, I will show that all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been DISPROVED. Moreover, they have been disproved in ways that raise the tantalizing prospect of a totally new synthesis; one that would allow a reintegration of physiological science with evolutionary biology."---Denis Noble

 

The Modern Synthesis introduced several changes in how evolution and evolutionary processes were conceived. It proposed a new definition of evolution as "changes in allele frequencies within populations , " thus emphasizing the genetic basis of evolution. (Alleles are alternate forms of the same gene, characterized by differences in DNA sequence that result in the construction of proteins that differ in amino acid composition.) Four forces of evolution were identified as contributing to changes in allele frequencies. These are random genetic drift, gene flow, mutation pressure, and natural selection . {Emphasis Mine}

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Modern_Synthesis.aspx

 

 

First, no, not at all. 

 

 

 

Really??  So you can "Disprove" something that hasn't be Proved.  Give an example...?

 

 

Second, you were the one who brought "disproved" in to the conversation.

 

 

Na, Denis Noble did.

 

Moreover, let's take a look @ what you said your last post...

 

Popoi-- "but I'll spoil for you that nowhere in that article does it say that mutations and natural selection don't happen...." just that they don't happen in the specific ways that the modern synthesis held they did."

 

I NEVER said or Implied that the Article says that Mutations and Natural Selection don't happen.  I was using the Quote to quite plainly say.... that in "The Context" of  "The Modern Synthesis" (Neo-Darwinism) they have been DISPROVED.

 

 

MOREOVER, This is quite telling...

 

Popoi- ".... just that they don't happen in the specific ways that the modern synthesis held they did."

 

So ahhh, if now the paper is discussing Natural Selection and Mutations OUTSIDE the framework of the "The Modern Synthesis"....Which by definition is OUTSIDE THE CONTEXT of  "The Modern Synthesis".... can you tell me, How on Earth I "Quote Mined" it, since "Quote Mining" by definition...is taking it "OUT OF CONTEXT".....??

 

Can't wait to hear your answer to that one.  :gotcha:



#84 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 04 February 2016 - 10:36 AM

It does say that....
 
"In this article, I will show that all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been DISPROVED. Moreover, they have been disproved in ways that raise the tantalizing prospect of a totally new synthesis; one that would allow a reintegration of physiological science with evolutionary biology."---Denis Noble

The Modern Synthesis introduced several changes in how evolution and evolutionary processes were conceived. It proposed a new definition of evolution as "changes in [/size]allele frequencies within [/size]populations , " thus emphasizing the genetic basis of evolution. (Alleles are alternate forms of the same gene, characterized by differences in DNA sequence that result in the construction of proteins that differ in amino acid composition.) Four forces of evolution were identified as contributing to changes in allele frequencies. These are random genetic drift, gene flow,[/size] mutation pressure, and [/size]natural selection . {Emphasis Mine}[/size]
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Modern_Synthesis.aspx[/size]

Why are you trying to use a different source's definition of the Modern Synthesis? The article explains exactly what the author is talking about when he says "all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis". The statement you quoted is only a reflection of the author's views and expertise within the context of those definitions.
 

Really??  So you can "Disprove" something that hasn't be Proved.  Give an example...?

I am a cat.
Dogs do not exist.
The Earth is hollow and there's another civilization living inside.

Why on earth would you think you have to prove something true before you can prove it false?
 

Na, Denis Noble did.

Why would you post someone claiming to have disproved something if you think it had to be proved first?
 

Moreover, let's take a look @ what you said your last post...
 
Popoi-- "but I'll spoil for you that nowhere in that article does it say that mutations and natural selection don't happen...." just that they don't happen in the specific ways that the modern synthesis held they did."
 
I NEVER said or Implied that the Article says that Mutations and Natural Selection don't happen.  I was using the Quote to quite plainly say.... that in "The Context" of  "The Modern Synthesis" (Neo-Darwinism) they have been DISPROVED.

This is what you said:

"Neo-Darwinism" ='s Natural Selection and Mutations. They,"have been DISPROVED".

Natural selection and mutations haven't been disproved, at least not as far as the article is concerned. Specific elements of those things that were held true by the Modern Synthesis have.
 
If you intended to say the latter, I am willing to downgrade my objection to your post to "your statement was poorly phrased and misleading".
 

MOREOVER, This is quite telling...
 
Popoi- ".... just that they don't happen in the specific ways that the modern synthesis held they did."

So ahhh, if now the paper is discussing Natural Selection and Mutations OUTSIDE the framework of the "The Modern Synthesis"....Which by definition is OUTSIDE THE CONTEXT of  "The Modern Synthesis".... can you tell me, How on Earth I "Quote Mined" it, since "Quote Mining" by definition...is taking it "OUT OF CONTEXT".....??

Can't wait to hear your answer to that one.  :gotcha:

The article is making a statement about the Modern Synthesis, which it goes on to define. If you're taking the statement and presenting it without that definition, you are exactly taking it out of its original context.

#85 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,007 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 06 February 2016 - 11:24 AM

Why are you trying to use a different source's definition of the Modern Synthesis? 
 

 

1.  I only used ONE source.

 

2. You just unwittingly imploded the entire fiasco.  Why on Earth would there be different definitions of " The Modern Synthesis" (aka: neo-darwinism) to begin with??  :think:

 

Can you tell me how this is not Equivocating (Fallacy)?

 

 

 

The article explains exactly what the author is talking about when he says "all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis". The statement you quoted is only a reflection of the author's views and expertise within the context of those definitions.

 

 

Let's play the Equivocation Fallacy Game.

 

 

ENOCH 2021 ---   So you can "Disprove" something that hasn't be Proved.

 

 

Popoi---

 

1. I am a cat.

2. Dogs do not exist.
3. The Earth is hollow and there's another civilization living inside.

 

 

1.  Was it ever "Proved" you were a Cat, first?

 

2. ???

 

3. Was it ever "Proved" that the Earth was hollow, first? 

 

 

Why on earth would you think you have to prove something true before you can prove it false?

 

 

Because "DIS"- PROVE is the Antithesis of "PROVE" i.e., to disprove something it has to have some modicum of proof to begin with.

 

You can't "DIS-embark" before you have "EMBARKED".

 

You can't "DIS-connect" before you have "CONNECTED". 

 

"True/False" is a Straw Man Fallacy.  Something can be flat out False, that has never been remotely proven....  Like "Pigs Fly"...that's just false, it has never been remotely proven to begin with, so as to attempt to disprove.

 

 

This is what you said: "Neo-Darwinism" ='s Natural Selection and Mutations. They,"have been DISPROVED".
 

1. Natural selection and mutations haven't been disproved, at least not as far as the article is concerned. 2.  Specific elements of those things that were held true by the Modern Synthesis have.

 

 

Well I was speaking to #2 and never remotely implied that DENIS NOBLE (The Article) said any such thing as it relates to #1.

 

However, In the "Context" of REALITY: Natural Selection is a Refication Fallacy and Mutations are a Begging The Question Fallacy.

 
 

If you intended to say the latter, I am willing to downgrade my objection to your post to "your statement was poorly phrased and misleading".

 

 

It wasn't, it was just 'Head-Space and Timing' of the Operator.

 

"The article is making a statement about the Modern Synthesis, which it goes on to define. If you're taking the statement and presenting it without that definition, you are exactly taking it out of its original context."

 

 

So there's more than 1 Definition, eh?  SEE: Equivocation Fallacy above.

 

I suppose the reason there's different definitions is directly due to not having a Viable "Scientific Theory" of evolution.

 

regards



#86 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,444 posts
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 06 February 2016 - 12:39 PM

 

 

Enoch:I suppose the reason there's different definitions is directly due to not having a Viable "Scientific Theory" of evolution

 

Mostly it is a chronological failure of evolution, a failure to explain the facts. By toying with what it means that acts as a red-herring to take away the obvious conclusion that evolution has to evolve in order to survive as a theory. Let's face it, that is the only thing that has ever evolved. :D

 

More gas goes into evolution than there does cars in your town. That;s how it works - people treated it as a proven fact in history, which basically means they created a neurotic scientific agreement that it was factual and Darwin had found it out. 

 

So it was, "accepted" then any problems with it are explained by the following rhetoric; "well we know we evolved it's just not always easy to say how".

 

That is the type of sophistry they use to cover over the fact that these problems actually falsify evolution. The facts point away from evolution, generally yet they all agree neurotically with each other that it is a proven fact.

 

Why do they do that? I think they believe they "have enough" to conclude evolution happened but logically they don't have 1% of "enough", in actual fact, because the burden-of-proof is very great pertaining to great claims. 

 

It really is a case of people talking themselves into evolution being a fact.



#87 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 06 February 2016 - 01:11 PM

1.  I only used ONE source.

And that source was different than the source of your quote.

 

2. You just unwittingly imploded the entire fiasco.  Why on Earth would there be different definitions of " The Modern Synthesis" (aka: neo-darwinism) to begin with??  :think:
 
Can you tell me how this is not Equivocating (Fallacy)?

It seems like you're the one equivocating by assuming that anything that claims to be a definition of the modern synthesis will apply to a specific quote, as opposed to using the explicit definition that the source of that quote used. How do we know that Denis Noble would agree with the definition you posted?
 

Because "DIS"- PROVE is the Antithesis of "PROVE" i.e., to disprove something it has to have some modicum of proof to begin with.
 
You can't "DIS-embark" before you have "EMBARKED".
 
You can't "DIS-connect" before you have "CONNECTED". 
 
"True/False" is a Straw Man Fallacy.  Something can be flat out False, that has never been remotely proven....  Like "Pigs Fly"...that's just false, it has never been remotely proven to begin with, so as to attempt to disprove.

I would have thought you of all people would consult a dictionary before you pursued this tangent.

Simple Definition of disprove
: to show that (something) is false or wrong

See also: disallow, dislike, distrust.
 

Well I was speaking to #2 and never remotely implied that DENIS NOBLE (The Article) said any such thing as it relates to #1.

You posted the quote from Noble immediately before your conclusion. It's pretty difficult not to see that as intending for one to imply the other.
 

So there's more than 1 Definition, eh?  SEE: Equivocation Fallacy above.

If there's more than one definition, attempting to use a different one than the source of a quote intended is equivocation, yes. I am attempting to correct that error on your part.
 

I suppose the reason there's different definitions is directly due to not having a Viable "Scientific Theory" of evolution.

Different statements of a theory can be useful for different purposes. The laws of thermodynamics can be stated a bunch of different ways depending on what you're talking about and from what perspective, even though they're all at least attempting to talk about the same things.

In this case, I'm not sure that Noble was attempting to provide the be-all end-all definition of the modern synthesis, just enumerating the claims it contains that he thinks have been refuted.

#88 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,007 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 06 February 2016 - 04:17 PM

And that source was different than the source of your quote.
 

 

Why would there be 'Different Definitions' for "The Modern Synthesis" (neo-darwinism) to begin with??

 

 

 

It seems like you're the one equivocating by assuming that anything that claims to be a definition of the modern synthesis will apply to a specific quote, as opposed to using the explicit definition that the source of that quote used. How do we know that Denis Noble would agree with the definition you posted?

 

 

So there are 2 or more definitions for the same words/phrase and....I'm Equivocating?  :crazyguy:

 

 

I would have thought you of all people would consult a dictionary before you pursued this tangent.
See also: disallow, dislike, distrust.

 

 

Well to DIS-allow don't you have to have the "ALLOW" condition to exist, BEFOREHAND?

 

To DIS-like don't you have to have the "LIKE" condition existing, BEFOREHAND?

 

To DIS-"Trust" don't you to have the "TRUST" condition existing, BEFOREHAND?

 

 


You posted the quote from Noble immediately before your conclusion. It's pretty difficult not to see that as intending for one to imply the other.

 

 

And I like jogging in the rain... which has about as much relevance as your point here.

 

And why didn't you bring up the 'slap in the face' conclusion from Professor Provine concerning the impotence of Natural Selection only to Quibble (Fallacy) over a Procedural Argument rather than One of actual "Substance" ? 

 

 

If there's more than one definition, 

 

 

Then it's Equivocating and it's a Fallacy.

 

 

attempting to use a different one than the source of a quote intended is equivocation, yes. I am attempting to correct that error on your part.

 

 

Attempting??  How could it even be possible to "Attempt" to begin with?  i.e., Begging The Question (Fallacy) How could there be a Different Definitions to begin with?

 

 

Different statements of a theory can be useful for different purposes. 

 

 

For instance...?

 

 

The laws of thermodynamics can be stated a bunch of different ways depending on what you're talking about and from what perspective, even though they're all at least attempting to talk about the same things.

 

 

You can describe their affects in different situations...but the laws don't change.

 

You're putting the wRONg emPHASis on the wRONg syLLAbLe.

 

 

Let's get to the Specificsshall we....How on Earth can a "Non-Physical" CONCEPT (Natural Selection) CAUSE anything or be a MECHANISM...?

 



#89 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 06 February 2016 - 05:59 PM

Why would there be 'Different Definitions' for "The Modern Synthesis" (neo-darwinism) to begin with??

Different authors may phrase things in different ways. If you're going to take a definition from one work and apply it to another, you need to make sure they're in agreement first or you risk losing meaning.
 

Well to DIS-allow don't you have to have the "ALLOW" condition to exist, BEFOREHAND?

Simple Definition of disallow
: to refuse to allow (something) : to officially decide that (something) is not acceptable or valid

Nope.

To DIS-like don't you have to have the "LIKE" condition existing, BEFOREHAND?

Simple Definition of dislike
: to not like (something or someone)

Nope again. 
 

To DIS-"Trust" don't you to have the "TRUST" condition existing, BEFOREHAND?

Simple Definition of distrust
: to have no trust or confidence in (someone or something)

Is English your first language? I can understand being confused if not. Prefixes don't always work the same way for every word they get applied to.
 

And why didn't you bring up the 'slap in the face' conclusion from Professor Provine concerning the impotence of Natural Selection only to Quibble (Fallacy) over a Procedural Argument rather than One of actual "Substance" ?

The Noble quote jumped out at me as one I had seen before. I'm sorry if you feel like your quote mining is just a procedural issue and not a serious flaw, but I disagree.

That aside, your whole argument about natural selection seems like a quibble over phrasing rather than anything substantial, and your quotes pretty much say the same.
 

Then it's Equivocating and it's a Fallacy.

Incorrect. The fallacy of equivocation is when you're using the ambiguity in a term to make an argument. There's nothing wrong with a word or term having multiple definitions. It just means that you may have to be more explicit about what you mean when you use a certain term, as Noble was.
 

For instance...?

If you're talking about gas molecules, you may state things in terms of microstates. If you're talking about heat transfer, you may state things in terms of a heat engine.
 

You can describe their affects in different situations...but the laws don't change.

Nobody said they did.

#90 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,007 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 06 February 2016 - 07:18 PM

Different authors may phrase things in different ways. 
 

 

Ahhh sorry, that flee ridden mutt doesn't hunt here...

 

"Words have precise meanings in science." ---chemabout  

 

Why would I even need to post this, isn't it apodictic??  It's like supporting by Citation that Rib Eye Steaks come from Cows.

 

 

Nope.
Nope again. 

 

 

So your rebuttal is "Na'ahh"?  
 

 

Is English your first language? I can understand being confused if not. Prefixes don't always work the same way for every word they get applied to.

 

 

:burp:

 

The Noble quote jumped out at me as one I had seen before. I'm sorry if you feel like your quote mining is just a procedural issue and not a serious flaw, but I disagree.

 

 

It wasn't a Quote Mine.  duh

 

Your's is a Procedural Argument floating around an established Equivocation Fallacy.
 

That aside, your whole argument about natural selection seems like a quibble over phrasing rather than anything substantial, and your quotes pretty much say the same.

 

 

Generalized Sweeping Baseless Assertion Fallacy.

 

Speaking of "Substance", show some: Chemical Formula/Structure, Dimensions (L/W/H), and Location for "Natural Selection".....?

It's a child-like Reification Fallacy, tantamount to claiming....

 

"Freedom" (CONCEPT) wrote (Mechanism) the Battle Plans for the Revolutionary War.  :laugh_point:  

 

 

Incorrect. The fallacy of equivocation is when you're using the ambiguity in a term to make an argument. There's nothing wrong with a word or term having multiple definitions.

 

 

I see the problem, you don't have the first clue of what you're talking about....

 

Equivocation (Fallacy)---"The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument."

http://www.logicalfa...y/equivocation/

 

 

If you're talking about gas molecules, you may state things in terms of microstates. If you're talking about heat transfer, you may state things in terms of a heat engine.

 

 

Just like I said...

 

"You can describe their affects in different situations...but the laws don't change.

You're putting the wRONg emPHASis on the wRONg syLLAbLe."



#91 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 06 February 2016 - 07:58 PM

Ahhh sorry, that flee ridden mutt doesn't hunt here...
 
"Words have precise meanings in science." ---chemabout  
 
Why would I even need to post this, isn't it apodictic??  It's like supporting by Citation that Rib Eye Steaks come from Cows.

I don't disagree that your quote should be true, but that doesn't mean it always is. Sometimes terms are imprecise. You don't get to pretend they aren't just because you can find something on the internet that says so.

When Noble says "In this article, I will show that all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been DISPROVED." and goes on to enumerate those assumptions explicitly, you can't just roll in with a completely different source that says something different and still try to fit it in with the original quote.
 

So your rebuttal is "Na'ahh"?

My answer to your questions is "no". Those words do not mean what you think they mean.
 

It wasn't a Quote Mine.

It was. You've spent this whole time essentially arguing that you don't have to use the original context of the quote. If you'd actually engage with the original context and show that what you posted is equivalent, I'd have nothing left to say. The problem of course is that it isn't the same.
  
 

I see the problem, you don't have the first clue of what you're talking about....
 
Equivocation (Fallacy)---"The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument."
http://www.logicalfa...y/equivocation/

Which part of that is supposed to indicate that what I said is wrong?

#92 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,329 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 07 February 2016 - 02:16 PM

Enoch:

 

 

So your rebuttal is "Na'ahh"?  

 

:burp:

 

 

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. that one tickled me. Enoch, you really know how to have fun with the knuckle.....er, uh,  draggers, don't you? I'm still laughing. You keep this board alive.

 

It wasn't a Quote Mine.  duh

 

Say, did our resident professor come up with proof of his charge that you 'quote mined'? Did he even try? If so then give me the post # please. Thanks.

 

Quote: "Gee, uncle Jed, that professor is plum crazy. He said, 'pi are squared'! But everbody knows that pi are round!" Jethro Bodine.



#93 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,007 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 07 February 2016 - 04:21 PM

Sometimes terms are imprecise. 
 

 

Not in "Science", they are UBER Precise. It's one of the attributes that makes Science, "Science".

 

 

It was. You've spent this whole time essentially arguing that you don't have to use the original context of the quote. If you'd actually engage with the original context and show that what you posted is equivalent, I'd have nothing left to say. The problem of course is that it isn't the same.

 

 

I've argued quite explicitly that the Term/Phrase, much like the "alleged" theory that it supports...is an Equivocation Fallacy IN TOTO.  Ergo...I need not Beg the Question Fallacy chase "Denis Noble's Definition" because it's Fallacious to begin with.

 

 

Popoi --- There's nothing wrong with a word or term having multiple definitions.

 

Enoch2021 --- Equivocation (Fallacy)---"The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument."

http://www.logicalfa...y/equivocation/

 

 
Popoi ---  Which part of that is supposed to indicate that what I said is wrong?

 

 

It's in the red underlined vicinity.



#94 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,007 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 07 February 2016 - 04:24 PM

 

Say, did our resident professor come up with proof of his charge that you 'quote mined'? Did he even try? If so then give me the post # please. Thanks.

 

 

 

What's your guess? :)  It would be tantamount to posting the Wavelength and Frequency of "The Wave Function" in QM.  :gigglesmile:



#95 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 07 February 2016 - 04:25 PM

Say, did our resident professor come up with proof of his charge that you 'quote mined'? Did he even try? If so then give me the post # please. Thanks.

See post 80.

#96 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 07 February 2016 - 04:34 PM

Not in "Science", they are UBER Precise. It's one of the attributes that makes Science, "Science".

If you can prove your definition is the correct one, feel free.n Even if you can, you're still left with the problem that correct or not, it wasn't the definition Noble was using, which means you've taken his statement out of its context.
 

I've argued quite explicitly that the Term/Phrase, much like the "alleged" theory that it supports...is an Equivocation Fallacy IN TOTO.  Ergo...I need not Beg the Question Fallacy chase "Denis Noble's Definition" because it's Fallacious to begin with.

So? Taking a quote out of context is still taking it out of context, even if you believe the context contains a fallacy.
 

It's in the red underlined vicinity.

Enoch2021 --- Equivocation (Fallacy)---"The fallacy of equivocation is committed when a term is used in two or more different senses within a single argument."

Hey, why didn't you underline the rest of the sentence? That "within a single argument" part is of critical importance. It doesn't matter how many definitions "Modern Synthesis" has, it only matters that its use within a single argument is consistent with a single definition. Dennis Noble was consistent in his work. When you took his definition out and substituted your own, you introduced a different sense of the term, and created the equivocation.

#97 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,007 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 07 February 2016 - 05:20 PM

 

 

I'm sorry, it's well past absurd to continue.  Make a formal charge and stop wasting my time.

 

ps. Cal was talking about another trainwreck Quote-Mining charge not your Trainwreck.



#98 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 07 February 2016 - 05:27 PM

I'm sorry, it's well past absurd to continue.  Make a formal charge and stop wasting my time.

You're welcome to stop if you feel actually defending your point is a waste of your time. As far as I know, nobody's forcing you to continue. It's going to keep coming up if you keep using that quote out of context though.

#99 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,329 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 07 February 2016 - 07:43 PM

I'll let you duke it out with that time-waster but I was asking about piasan's charge, not popoi. Where did piasan quote you making a quote-mined statement by proving with the full context of the article in question? Shall I conclude that your answer means he didn't even try? Since I have him on ignore I didn't see it and I only have the option to go by your exchanges with him.

 

The time waster said, 

 

I assumed you just didn't bother to read the rest once you'd found a sentence you liked, rather than that you'd read and understood the whole thing and were being intentionally dishonest. My bad, I guess?

 

 

Those mind controlled drones of Neo-Darwinian fantasy cannot handle having their beliefs in accidentalism exposed for what it is......soooooo....the 'quote-mine!' reply is one of the only tactics they have to deny the reality we lay before them.
 



#100 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,329 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 07 February 2016 - 07:46 PM

I'll let you duke it out with that time-waster but I was asking about piasan's charge, not popoi. Where did piasan quote you making a quote-mined statement by proving with the full context of the article in question? Shall I conclude that your answer means he didn't even try? Since I have him on ignore I didn't see it and I only have the option to go by your exchanges with him.

 

The time waster said, 

 

 

Those mind controlled drones of Neo-Darwinian fantasy cannot handle having their beliefs in accidentalism exposed for what it is......soooooo....the 'quote-mine!' reply is one of the only tactics they have to deny the reality we lay before them.

 

If popoi or piasan both really believe that you are guilty of quote-mining then they should turn you over to the administration and put their money where their mouths are....or shut up.
 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users