| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"oldwetdog" |
| Date: |
05 Nov 2003 02:30:38 AM |
| Object: |
RE: desiease of Evolution |
Logical Fallacies
used in support and defense of
The Theory of Evolution
I will give some selected quotes from "The Origin of Life," by Mr. George
Wald,
Scientific American August 1954, p 44-53.
At the end of the selected quotes, I will make some comments, and include
some
Logical Fallacies from a previous post
(Quote)
"About a century ago the question, How did life begin?, which has interested
men
throughout their history, (1a) reached an impasse. Up to that time two
answers
had been offered: one that life had been created supernaturally, the other
that
it arises continually from the nonliving. The first explanation lay outside
(1b)
science; the second was now shown to be untenable.
"Recently ways have been found again to consider the origin of life as a
scientific (2) problem--as an event within the order (3) of nature. In part
this
is the result of new information. But a theory never rises of itself,
however
rich and secure the facts. It is an act (4) of creation. "Our present ideas
in
this realm were first brought together in a clear and defensible (5)
argument by
the Russian biochemist A. I. Oparin in a book called "The Origin of Life,"
published in 1936.
"The attempt to understand how life originated raises a wide variety of
scientific questions, which lead in many and diverse directions and should
end
by casting light into many obscure corners. At the center of the enterprise
lies
the hope not only of explaining a great past event--important as that should
be--but
of showing that the explanation (6) is workable. If we can indeed come to
understand how a living organism arises from the nonliving, we should be
able (7)
to construct one--only of the simplest description, to be sure, but still
recognizably alive. This is so remote a possibility now that one scarcely
dares
to acknowledge it; but it is there nevertheless.
"One answer to the problem of how life originated is that it was created.
This
is an understandable confusion of nature with technology. (8)
"Most of the cultures we know contain mythical accounts of a supernatural
creation of life. (9)
"The more rational elements of society, however, tended to take a more
naturalistic view...." (10)
"But step by step, in a great controversy that spread over two centuries
this
belief was whittled away until nothing remained of it. (11)
"First the Italian Francesco Redi showed in the 17th century that meat
placed
under a screen, so that flies cannot lay their eggs on it, never develops
maggots. Then in the following century the Italian abbe Lazzano Spallanzani
showed that a nutritive broth, sealed off from the air while boiling, never
develops microorganisms, and hence never rots. Needham objected that by too
much
boiling Spallanzani had rendered the broth, and still more the air above it,
incompatible with life. Spallanzani could defend his broth; when he broke
the
seal of his flasks, allowing new air to rush in, the broth promptly began to
rot.
He could find no way, however, to show that the air in the sealed flask had
not
been vitiated. This problem finally was solved by Louis Pasteur in 1860,
with a
simple modification of Spallanzani's experiment. Pasteur too used a flask
containing boiling broth, but instead of sealing off the neck he drew it out
in
a long, S-shaped curve with its end open to the air. While molecules of air
could pass back and forth freely, the heavier particles of dust, bacteria
and
molds in the atmosphere were trapped on the walls of the curved neck and
only
rarely reached the broth. In such a flask the broth seldom was contaminated;
usually it remained clear and sterile indefinitely.
"This was only one of Pasteur's experiments. It is no easy matter to deal
with
so deeply ingrained and common-sense (12) a belief as that in spontaneous
generation. One can ask for nothing better in such a pass than a noisy and
stubborn opponent, and this Pasteur had in the naturalist Felix Pouchet,
whose
arguments before the French Academy of Sciences drove Pasteur to more and
more
rigorous experiments. When he had finished, nothing remained of the belief
in
spontaneous generation.
"The reasonable (12) view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only
alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation.
There
is no third position. (13)
"For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in
spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." (14) It is a symptom
of
the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer
appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the
downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept
the
alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.
"I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life
through a
hypothesis of spontaneous generation. (15)
"What the controversy reviewed above showed to be untenable is only the
belief
that living organisms arise spontaneously under present conditions. (16)
"We have now to face a somewhat different problem: how organisms may have
arisen
spontaneously under different conditions in some former period, granted that
they do so no longer. (17)
"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the
spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. (18)
"Yet here we are--as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. (19)
"It will help to digress for a moment to ask what one means by (20)
"impossible."
"With every event one can associate a probability--the chance that it will
occur.
(21) This is always a fraction, the number of times the event occurs in a
large
number of trials.
"We see therefore that it does not mean much to say that a very improbable
event
has never been observed. (22)
"A final aspect of our problem is very important. When we consider the
spontaneous origin of a living organism, this is not an event that need
happen
again and again. (23)
"The probability with which we are concerned is of a special kind; it is the
probability that an event occur at least once. (Italic emphasis his.) (24)
"However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it
involves,
given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once. And for
life as
we know it, with its capacity for growth and reproduction, once may be
enough. (25)
"Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal
is of
the order of two billion years. (26)
(End quote)
Comments:
1. a, Evolution is not new with Darwin. See: "The waters contained in
themselves
the seed of life" LAROUSSE WORLD MYTHOLOGY, trans. Gremal, Pierre, New York:
Putnam, 1981, p 65.
"Chaos of primeval waters... gods of chaos..." A History of the Sciences,
Stephen F, Mason New York: Collier Books, 1962 p 15-23
Thales (624-546 B.C., for example, influenced by traditional myths which
derived
all things from the primordial waters..."
"Ionian School ...Materialistic Nouism and Evolution were taught in 5th and
6th
century B.C. Greece."
Empedocles of Agrigentum taught that "...eyes and legs joined together by
accident..."
Jacques Maritain, "Introduction to Philosophy" New York: Sheed & Ward, Inc.
1947
p 47-50
1. b, "The first explanation lay outside science . . ." Mr. Wald
acknowledges
that some subjects lie outside Science. Now the question is, How do we
determine
the boundaries of Science?
2. What is Science? According to Dr. Jerry Bergman, "Science" is a method of
obtaining knowledge by: First, Observation. Second, Classification. Third,
Hypothesis. Fourth, Tests.
Bergman, Jerry, "What Is Science", CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY, V.
20, N.
1, June 1983, p. 39.
That is, Science is the study of that which is tangible and measurable by
controlled and repeatable experiment. The inherent nature of Science limits
it
to things which can be perceived by human senses (or instruments which
amplify
them) and to things which it can confine, control and manipulate in
contrived
and isolated tests and experiments.
To know what Science is, is to know what Science is not. If scientists
cannot
see or touch an object or get it to cooperate in repeatable experiments and
tests, it cannot be the subject of Scientific study. If scientists cannot
demonstrate that a thing has tangible attributes, they cannot prove its
existence. If scientists cannot show tangible evidence of the non-existence
of
an object, rather than just a lack of evidence of its existence, they cannot
prove its nonexistence by the scientific method. Scientists can only
demonstrate,
in this case, that Science cannot treat the subject: it is rightfully the
property of Philosophy or Theodicy.
Can the theory of evolution be tested and proven by the "scientific" method?
No.
3. Mr. Wald is suggesting that "Nature" or the "natural order" arose without
God.
He is using an unfounded (and unspoken) assumption, that "Nature" is a
result of
"Big Bang" and arose without Special Creation.
Begging the question: assuming as true at the outset that which must be
proved
as true
Forced Hypothesis: failure to consider other explanations for the evidence;
lack
of sufficient evidence to draw hypothesis
4. Mr. Wald admits that he believes in, and recognizes, "an act of
creation."
This he will accept of man; and so reveals that it is not "an act of
creation"
he cannot and will not accept. He reveals that his reluctance is that a
Being
other than man is able to create.
5. Whether it is "defensible" or not is not the question. By the misuse of
logic,
the misinterpretation of some evidence and the outright rejection of other
evidence, a hypothesis, not provable by the Scientific method, may be
"defensible"
however wrong it is.
6. Mr. Wald admits that the "theory of Evolution" has not yet been proven
"workable."
Hasty conclusion: reaching a conclusion based on relevant but insufficient
evidence
The evidence may seem relevant, since Biologists discuss the bones of
animals
that lived in the past. What is not relevant is that the bones might reveal
"the
origin of life."
Non sequitur: conclusion has no logical connection to evidence offered
The bones of the dead do not reveal the origin of life.
7. One must ask, What is the difference between 'construct' (as to build or
make
something which does not exist) and 'create?' They are synonyms. Mr. Wald
was
very careful not to use the word "create" here. Why? Could it be that while
he
will not admit that a "Supreme Being" can "Create," He believes man can?
Again,
he is not denying the act of creation; he is denying a Supreme Being did, or
can,
perform that act. Having rejected the idea that a Supreme Being can Create,
Mr.
Wald now suggests that he, or other biologists, may soon have the ability to
"construct"
life. Utterly amazing.
8. First, The belief in Creation is seven thousand years mature, and
'technology"
in not yet two hundred. Mr. Wald stoops to use of ridicule: belittling those
who
believe in God and His act of Creation by describing them as "confused."
There
are at least three variations of this practice:
Loaded language: abusively labeling persons or groups with sexual, racial,
ethnic, or other prejudicial terms
Ad hominem: an irrelevant attack on an individual's character that appeals
to
prejudice or emotion
Straw man: altering or exaggerating an opponent's position for the sake of
attacking it
9. Mr. Wald would rob the Scripture of its credibility by calling it "myth."
Poisoning the well: tainting or attacking information before presenting it
to an
audience; coercing the audience to accept or reject a position on an idea
before
presenting the idea
10. Again, ridicule; by the minor premise: He compliments those who accept
spontaneous generation by calling them "rational," and thus implies that
anyone
else is "not rational." See # 8.
11. This is to the glory of God. I will have more to say about this later.
12. This is the use of ridicule, "common sense, unreasonable." See # 8.
13. Mr. Wald acknowledges his dilemma.
14. He calls it a matter of choice, a "philosophical necessity."
15. Mr. Wald states that he "has no choice but to approach the origin of
life
through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation." That is, due to
"philosophical
necessity," he rejects the alternative possibility, and makes his choice to
believe in evolution.
Suppressed evidence: failure to present information relevant to the issue
16. Thus begins the shift to an un-provable hypothesis. This begins with an
incorrect conclusion: (". . . untenable is only the belief that living
organisms
arise spontaneously under present conditions.")
Actually, what the experiments of Pasteur proved is that spontaneous
generation
is impossible under any conditions.
17. Here is the full shift: "...how organisms may have arisen spontaneously
under different conditions in some former period." How can it be
scientifically
demonstrated what "different conditions" might have or could have existed?
How
can a scientist test or demonstrate something "supposed" or "imagined" to
have
occurred under unknown circumstances a thousand (let alone, a billion) years
ago?
It is a "Scientific" impossibility, and therefore biologists in particular,
and
those scientists who support this theory, have severed themselves from truth
and
reality.
Sir Frances Beacon said, "When philosophy is cut off from its roots in
experience, where it was born, it dies." Kepler said, "If a scientist's
hypothesis fit into a certain metaphysical theory, fine; but if not, then it
is
the metaphysics which must go."
Mason, Stephen F., A HISTORY OF THE SCIENCES New York: Collier Books, Inc.,
1962,
pp. 11-24, 136, 142.
18. Mr. Wald states, "The spontaneous generation of a living organism is
impossible." (* i.)
19. Once again, regardless of the proven impossibility, he states his choice
to
believe otherwise.
Begging the question: assuming as true at the outset that which must be
proved
as true
20. It is a practice of sophistry to debate the meanings of terms, then,
somewhere in the debate, to switch the meaning of terms.
Equivocation: ambiguous or inexact statements; changing the meaning of a key
term in the middle of an argument
21. Here is his twist of the meaning... ("With every event one can associate
a
probability ...") Without hesitation he abandons the literal meaning of
"impossible."
He says, "With every event..." However, with "impossible," there are no
events.
The Truth is that for impossible events, there is no probability.
22. Here again he demonstrates his shift to sophistry and the confusion of
terms,
and goes from "impossible" to "improbable." He does this without tangible or
objective evidence.
Statistical fallacy: the use of unprovable statistics as fact; the use of
statistics that are incomplete or that present a biased picture/result
Faulty sampling: a sample (statistic) too small to be reliable or a sample
that
is not representative of what it's supposed to measure.
Mr. Wald has employed both fallacies. First, the statistics he gives are not
proven, they are manufactured (i.e., "created") by him for his purpose, and
do in
fact "present a biased picture." Second, the lifetime of humankind, or the
history of the science of probability, is too small when compared (in his
own
words) to the time scale in his sample. In fact, he has no sample and no
verifiable proof of his time scale, only another unproven premise.
23. Here is an unsupported hypothesis: How can he support the belief that
the
very first living cell would have, or could have, survived to reproduce?
There
is no evidence on which to base this assumption. However, for those who
refute
the theory of evolution to argue this point is to grant the first and wander
off
into rabbit trails. The point is that there is no evidence that any living
thing,
single cell or other wise, has ever arisen from nothing.
Red herring: introducing a side issue or an irrelevant issue to divert
attention
from the real issue
24, 25, 26. He bases the possible success, of spontaneous generation arising
to
evolution, upon time. That time can make the impossible become possible, and
then inevitable, is the first unsupported and unproven foundation of
evolution.
The next unsupportable premise, which must follow the first in less than a
heartbeat, is that there has been enough time.
Non sequitur: conclusion has no logical connection to evidence offered
Questionable cause: a faulty cause/effect relationship
Questionable premise: accepting a proposition or concept without having good
reason to accept it
Proponents of Evolution and Big Bang theories know that their unproven
hypotheses are founded upon a 'billions of years' time scale, and they will
defend their belief to the death: ours.
The theory of evolution is only proven by--
Circular reasoning: proving a premise by rewording the premise in the
conclusion;
using part of all of a question as the answer to the question
To prove this, ask anyone who accepts the theory of evolution to prove it
"without
referring to the theory of evolution." They cannot. There is no proof
outside
the theory of evolution to prove it. It can only be proven by referring to
the
wrong conclusions and unfounded assumptions contained within it.
--*--
(* i. Impossible, im·pos·si·ble, adj.
Incapable of having existence or of occurring. Not capable of being
accomplished:
an impossible goal.
\Im*pos"si*ble\, a. [F., fr. L. impossibilis; pref. im- not + possibilis
possible. See Possible.] Not possible; incapable of being done, of existing,
etc.;
unattainable in the nature of things, or by means at command; insuperably
difficult under the circumstances; absurd or impracticable; not feasible.
With
men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. --Matt. xix.
26.
Without faith it is impossible to please him. --Heb. xi. 6.
Impossible quantity (Math.), an imaginary quantity. See #22.
Please allow me to offer two examples of the meaning of "impossible." First:
take a die as used in various games. The die has six spots, numbering the
sides
of the die from one to six. It is possible in any fair test to roll all the
numbers from one to six. The number of rolls and the time limit can be as
many
or as long as required. We may add constraints or requirements such that the
numbers must be rolled in consecutive order, or all odd numbers must be
rolled
first. No matter, given time the possible can be achieved. However, it is
impossible to roll a nine. Why? There is no number nine on the die. Let us
extend the number of allowed rolls to infinite, and the time limit to 4
billion
years. Is it now more probable that we will roll a number nine? No,
extending
the time limit does not change the definition of the term "impossible," nor
will
it allow the die to mutate so that it contains nine numbers.
Second: Stand on a chair. Lean forward so that you balance on your toes.
Begin
to flap your arms in a bird-like manor. Flap your arms faster and faster
until
you begin to feel light on your toes, now push off and fly like a bird. You
may
need to practice flying like a bird until you get it right. You may need to
close your eyes and meditate on flying like an eagle, and believing in your
ability. You have plenty of time--the rest of your life--so feel free to
practice until you achieve flight. It is "impossible" for a man, unassisted
by
his mechanisms and technologies, under his own power, to fly like an eagle,
sparrow or butterfly. Bird-like flight is impossible for human kind
regardless
of the number of attempts, of the years spent in the attempt, of the belief
or
faith or a positive mental attitude.
Pasteur demonstrated that life cannot arise from a sterile substance, and
this
remains true.
It is impossible for life to arise from nothing, or from a sterile medium,
as
proven by Pasteur. It does not matter that the medium is altered from one
broth
to another. It matters not at all that the liquid consist of these chemicals
or
those, or some other formula. Changing the atmosphere from oxygen to
hydrogen or
helium will not change the outcome. Reconciling the temperature of the
broth, or
allowing a spark of lightning, will not change the results. Standing guard
over
the sterile broth and watching hopefully for hours or years or millions or
billions of years will not change the reality that life cannot arise from
lifelessness.
What is possible, is. What is not possible, is not, and cannot be.
To be continued.
http://www.xprt.net/servitum/main/Logic.html
.
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: desiease of Evolution |
06 Nov 2003 02:25:07 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:30:38 -0800, "oldwetdog" <oldwetdog@gte.net>
wrote:
Logical Fallacies
The Improbability of God by Richard Dawkins
The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine,
Volume 18, Number 3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do people believe in God? For most people the answer is still some
version of the ancient Argument from Design. We look about us at the
beauty and intricacy of the world - at the aerodynamic sweep of a
swallow's wing, at the delicacy of flowers and of the butterflies that
fertilize them, through a microscope at the teeming life in every drop
of pond water, through a telescope at the crown of a giant redwood
tree. We reflect on the electronic complexity and optical perfection
of our own eyes that do the looking. If we have any imagination, these
things drive us to a sense of awe and reverence. Moreover, we cannot
fail to be struck by the obvious resemblance of living organs to the
carefully planned designs of human engineers. The argument was most
famously expressed in the watchmaker analogy of the eighteenth-century
priest William Paley. Even if you didn't know what a watch was, the
obviously designed character of its cogs and springs and of how they
mesh together for a purpose would force you to conclude "that the
watch must have had a maker: that there must have existed, at some
time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers, who
formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who
comprehended its construction, and designed its use." If this is true
of a comparatively simple watch, how much the more so is it true of
the eye, ear, kidney, elbow joint, brain? These beautiful, complex,
intricate, and obviously purpose-built structures must have had their
own designer, their own watchmaker - God.
So ran Paley's argument, and it is an argument that nearly all
thoughtful and sensitive people discover for themselves at some stage
in their childhood. Throughout most of history it must have seemed
utterly convincing, self-evidently true. And yet, as the result of one
of the most astonishing intellectual revolutions in history, we now
know that it is wrong, or at least superfluous. We now know that the
order and apparent purposefulness of the living world has come about
through an entirely different process, a process that works without
the need for any designer and one that is a consequence of basically
very simple laws of physics. This is the process of evolution by
natural selection, discovered by Charles Darwin and, independently, by
Alfred Russel Wallace.
What do all objects that look as if they must have had a designer have
in common? The answer is statistical improbability. If we find a
transparent pebble washed into the shape of a crude lens by the sea,
we do not conclude that it must have been designed by an optician: the
unaided laws of physics are capable of achieving this result; it is
not too improbable to have just "happened." But if we find an
elaborate compound lens, carefully corrected against spherical and
chromatic aberration, coated against glare, and with "Carl Zeiss"
engraved on the rim, we know that it could not have just happened by
chance. If you take all the atoms of such a compound lens and throw
them together at random under the jostling influence of the ordinary
laws of physics in nature, it is theoretically possible that, by sheer
luck, the atoms would just happen to fall into the pattern of a Zeiss
compound lens, and even that the atoms round the rim should happen to
fall in such a way that the name Carl Zeiss is etched out. But the
number of other ways in which the atoms could, with equal likelihood,
have fallen, is so hugely, vastly, immeasurably greater that we can
completely discount the chance hypothesis. Chance is out of the
question as an explanation.
This is not a circular argument, by the way. It might seem to be
circular because, it could be said, any particular arrangement of
atoms is, with hindsight, very improbable. As has been said before,
when a ball lands on a particular blade of grass on the golf course,
it would be foolish to exclaim: "Out of all the billions of blades of
grass that it could have fallen on, the ball actually fell on this
one. How amazingly, miraculously improbable!" The fallacy here, of
course, is that the ball had to land somewhere. We can only stand
amazed at the improbability of the actual event if we specify it a
priori: for example, if a blindfolded man spins himself round on the
tee, hits the ball at random, and achieves a hole in one. That would
be truly amazing, because the target destination of the ball is
specified in advance.
Of all the trillions of different ways of putting together the atoms
of a telescope, only a minority would actually work in some useful
way. Only a tiny minority would have Carl Zeiss engraved on them, or,
indeed, any recognizable words of any human language. The same goes
for the parts of a watch: of all the billions of possible ways of
putting them together, only a tiny minority will tell the time or do
anything useful. And of course the same goes, a fortiori, for the
parts of a living body. Of all the trillions of trillions of ways of
putting together the parts of a body, only an infinitesimal minority
would live, seek food, eat, and reproduce. True, there are many
different ways of being alive - at least ten million different ways if
we count the number of distinct species alive today - but, however
many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain that there are
vastly more ways of being dead!
We can safely conclude that living bodies are billions of times too
complicated - too statistically improbable - to have come into being
by sheer chance. How, then, did they come into being? The answer is
that chance enters into the story, but not a single, monolithic act of
chance. Instead, a whole series of tiny chance steps, each one small
enough to be a believable product of its predecessor, occurred one
after the other in sequence. These small steps of chance are caused by
genetic mutations, random changes - mistakes really - in the genetic
material. They give rise to changes in the existing bodily structure.
Most of these changes are deleterious and lead to death. A minority of
them turn out to be slight improvements, leading to increased survival
and reproduction. By this process of natural selection, those random
changes that turn out to be beneficial eventually spread through the
species and become the norm. The stage is now set for the next small
change in the evolutionary process. After, say, a thousand of these
small changes in series, each change providing the basis for the next,
the end result has become, by a process of accumulation, far too
complex to have come about in a single act of chance.
For instance, it is theoretically possible for an eye to spring into
being, in a single lucky step, from nothing: from bare skin, let's
say. It is theoretically possible in the sense that a recipe could be
written out in the form of a large number of mutations. If all these
mutations happened simultaneously, a complete eye could, indeed,
spring from nothing. But although it is theoretically possible, it is
in practice inconceivable. The quantity of luck involved is much too
large. The "correct" recipe involves changes in a huge number of genes
simultaneously. The correct recipe is one particular combination of
changes out of trillions of equally probable combinations of chances.
We can certainly rule out such a miraculous coincidence. But it is
perfectly plausible that the modern eye could have sprung from
something almost the same as the modern eye but not quite: a very
slightly less elaborate eye. By the same argument, this slightly less
elaborate eye sprang from a slightly less elaborate eye still, and so
on. If you assume a sufficiently large number of sufficiently small
differences between each evolutionary stage and its predecessor, you
are bound to be able to derive a full, complex, working eye from bare
skin. How many intermediate stages are we allowed to postulate? That
depends on how much time we have to play with. Has there been enough
time for eyes to evolve by little steps from nothing?
The fossils tell us that life has been evolving on Earth for more than
3,000 million years. It is almost impossible for the human mind to
grasp such an immensity of time. We, naturally and mercifully, tend to
see our own expected lifetime as a fairly long time, but we can't
expect to live even one century. It is 2,000 years since Jesus lived,
a time span long enough to blur the distinction between history and
myth. Can you imagine a million such periods laid end to end? Suppose
we wanted to write the whole history on a single long scroll. If we
crammed all of Common Era history into one metre of scroll, how long
would the pre-Common Era part of the scroll, back to the start of
evolution, be? The answer is that the pre-Common Era part of the
scroll would stretch from Milan to Moscow. Think of the implications
of this for the quantity of evolutionary change that can be
accommodated. All the domestic breeds of dogs - Pekingeses, poodles,
spaniels, Saint Bernards, and Chihuahuas - have come from wolves in a
time span measured in hundreds or at the most thousands of years: no
more than two meters along the road from Milan to Moscow. Think of the
quantity of change involved in going from a wolf to a Pekingese; now
multiply that quantity of change by a million. When you look at it
like that, it becomes easy to believe that an eye could have evolved
from no eye by small degrees.
It remains necessary to satisfy ourselves that every one of the
intermediates on the evolutionary route, say from bare skin to a
modern eye, would have been favored by natural selection; would have
been an improvement over its predecessor in the sequence or at least
would have survived. It is no good proving to ourselves that there is
theoretically a chain of almost perceptibly different intermediates
leading to an eye if many of those intermediates would have died. It
is sometimes argued that the parts of an eye have to be all there
together or the eye won't work at all. Half an eye, the argument runs,
is no better than no eye at all. You can't fly with half a wing; you
can't hear with half an ear. Therefore there can't have been a series
of step-by-step intermediates leading up to a modern eye, wing, or
ear.
This type of argument is so naive that one can only wonder at the
subconscious motives for wanting to believe it. It is obviously not
true that half an eye is useless. Cataract sufferers who have had
their lenses surgically removed cannot see very well without glasses,
but they are still much better off than people with no eyes at all.
Without a lens you can't focus a detailed image, but you can avoid
bumping into obstacles and you could detect the looming shadow of a
predator.
As for the argument that you can't fly with only half a wing, it is
disproved by large numbers of very successful gliding animals,
including mammals of many different kinds, lizards, frogs, snakes, and
squids. Many different kinds of tree-dwelling animals have flaps of
skin between their joints that really are fractional wings. If you
fall out of a tree, any skin flap or flattening of the body that
increases your surface area can save your life. And, however small or
large your flaps may be, there must always be a critical height such
that, if you fall from a tree of that height, your life would have
been saved by just a little bit more surface area. Then, when your
descendants have evolved that extra surface area, their lives would be
saved by just a bit more still if they fell from trees of a slightly
greater height. And so on by insensibly graded steps until, hundreds
of generations later, we arrive at full wings.
Eyes and wings cannot spring into existence in a single step. That
would be like having the almost infinite luck to hit upon the
combination number that opens a large bank vault. But if you spun the
dials of the lock at random, and every time you got a little bit
closer to the lucky number the vault door creaked open another chink,
you would soon have the door open! Essentially, that is the secret of
how evolution by natural selection achieves what once seemed
impossible. Things that cannot plausibly be derived from very
different predecessors can plausibly be derived from only slightly
different predecessors. Provided only that there is a sufficiently
long series of such slightly different predecessors, you can derive
anything from anything else.
Evolution, then, is theoretically capable of doing the job that, once
upon a time, seemed to be the prerogative of God. But is there any
evidence that evolution actually has happened? The answer is yes; the
evidence is overwhelming. Millions of fossils are found in exactly the
places and at exactly the depths that we should expect if evolution
had happened. Not a single fossil has ever been found in any place
where the evolution theory would not have expected it, although this
could very easily have happened: a fossil mammal in rocks so old that
fishes have not yet arrived, for instance, would be enough to disprove
the evolution theory.
The patterns of distribution of living animals and plants on the
continents and islands of the world is exactly what would be expected
if they had evolved from common ancestors by slow, gradual degrees.
The patterns of resemblance among animals and plants is exactly what
we should expect if some were close cousins, and others more distant
cousins to each other. The fact that the genetic code is the same in
all living creatures overwhelmingly suggests that all are descended
from one single ancestor. The evidence for evolution is so compelling
that the only way to save the creation theory is to assume that God
deliberately planted enormous quantities of evidence to make it look
as if evolution had happened. In other words, the fossils, the
geographical distribution of animals, and so on, are all one gigantic
confidence trick. Does anybody want to worship a God capable of such
trickery? It is surely far more reverent, as well as more
scientifically sensible, to take the evidence at face value. All
living creatures are cousins of one another, descended from one remote
ancestor that lived more than 3,000 million years ago.
The Argument from Design, then, has been destroyed as a reason for
believing in a God. Are there any other arguments? Some people believe
in God because of what appears to them to be an inner revelation. Such
revelations are not always edifying but they undoubtedly feel real to
the individual concerned. Many inhabitants of lunatic asylums have an
unshakable inner faith that they are Napoleon or, indeed, God himself.
There is no doubting the power of such convictions for those that have
them, but this is no reason for the rest of us to believe them.
Indeed, since such beliefs are mutually contradictory, we can't
believe them all.
There is a little more that needs to be said. Evolution by natural
selection explains a lot, but it couldn't start from nothing. It
couldn't have started until there was some kind of rudimentary
reproduction and heredity. Modern heredity is based on the DNA code,
which is itself too complicated to have sprung spontaneously into
being by a single act of chance. This seems to mean that there must
have been some earlier hereditary system, now disappeared, which was
simple enough to have arisen by chance and the laws of chemistry and
which provided the medium in which a primitive form of cumulative
natural selection could get started. DNA was a later product of this
earlier cumulative selection. Before this original kind of natural
selection, there was a period when complex chemical compounds were
built up from simpler ones and before that a period when the chemical
elements were built up from simpler elements, following the
well-understood laws of physics. Before that, everything was
ultimately built up from pure hydrogen in the immediate aftermath of
the big bang, which initiated the universe.
There is a temptation to argue that, although God may not be needed to
explain the evolution of complex order once the universe, with its
fundamental laws of physics, had begun, we do need a God to explain
the origin of all things. This idea doesn't leave God with very much
to do: just set off the big bang, then sit back and wait for
everything to happen. The physical chemist Peter Atkins, in his
beautifully written book The Creation, postulates a lazy God who
strove to do as little as possible in order to initiate everything.
Atkins explains how each step in the history of the universe followed,
by simple physical law, from its predecessor. He thus pares down the
amount of work that the lazy creator would need to do and eventually
concludes that he would in fact have needed to do nothing at all!
The details of the early phase of the universe belong to the realm of
physics, whereas I am a biologist, more concerned with the later
phases of the evolution of complexity. For me, the important point is
that, even if the physicist needs to postulate an irreducible minimum
that had to be present in the beginning, in order for the universe to
get started, that irreducible minimum is certainly extremely simple.
By definition, explanations that build on simple premises are more
plausible and more satisfying than explanations that have to postulate
complex and statistically improbable beginnings. And you can't get
much more complex than an Almighty God!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Dawkins is Oxford's Professor of Public Understanding of
Science. He is the author of The Blind Watchmaker (on which this
article is partly based) and Climbing Mount Improbable. He is a Senior
Editor of Free Inquiry.
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1998-sumimprobabilityofgod.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "oldwetdog" |
|
| Title: Re: desiease of Evolution |
06 Nov 2003 02:11:18 PM |
|
|
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u41kqvchq6dohmqduq3b2i4qg4doges6ku@4ax.com...
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:30:38 -0800, "oldwetdog" <oldwetdog@gte.net>
wrote:
Logical Fallacies
The Improbability of God by Richard Dawkins
<snip>
Trash proves nothing but the existence of trash.
Truth Is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doug" |
|
| Title: Re: desiease of Evolution |
06 Nov 2003 03:32:37 PM |
|
|
"oldwetdog" <oldwetdog@gte.net> wrote in
news:vqlan7ruhbrtb4@corp.supernews.com:
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u41kqvchq6dohmqduq3b2i4qg4doges6ku@4ax.com...
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:30:38 -0800, "oldwetdog" <oldwetdog@gte.net>
wrote:
Logical Fallacies
The Improbability of God by Richard Dawkins
<snip>
Trash proves nothing but the existence of trash.
Now support your assertion. What of the article was "trash". (Did you even
read it?)
.
|
|
|
| User: "oldwetdog" |
|
| Title: Re: desiease of Evolution |
08 Nov 2003 04:22:23 AM |
|
|
"Doug" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942B74FDC903Anoennonecom@66.75.162.196...
"oldwetdog" <oldwetdog@gte.net> wrote in
news:vqlan7ruhbrtb4@corp.supernews.com:
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u41kqvchq6dohmqduq3b2i4qg4doges6ku@4ax.com...
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:30:38 -0800, "oldwetdog" <oldwetdog@gte.net>
wrote:
Logical Fallacies
The Improbability of God by Richard Dawkins
<snip>
Trash proves nothing but the existence of trash.
Now support your assertion. What of the article was "trash". (Did you even
read it?)
Did you read my original post?
Try again.
Logical Fallacies
used in support and defense of
The Theory of Evolution
I will give some selected quotes from "The Origin of Life," by Mr. George
Wald,
Scientific American August 1954, p 44-53.
At the end of the selected quotes, I will make some comments, and include
some
Logical Fallacies from a previous post
(Quote)
"About a century ago the question, How did life begin?, which has
interested
men
throughout their history, (1a) reached an impasse. Up to that time two
answers
had been offered: one that life had been created supernaturally, the other
that
it arises continually from the nonliving. The first explanation lay
outside
(1b)
science; the second was now shown to be untenable.
"Recently ways have been found again to consider the origin of life as a
scientific (2) problem--as an event within the order (3) of nature. In
part
this
is the result of new information. But a theory never rises of itself,
however
rich and secure the facts. It is an act (4) of creation. "Our present
ideas
in
this realm were first brought together in a clear and defensible (5)
argument by
the Russian biochemist A. I. Oparin in a book called "The Origin of Life,"
published in 1936.
"The attempt to understand how life originated raises a wide variety of
scientific questions, which lead in many and diverse directions and should
end
by casting light into many obscure corners. At the center of the
enterprise
lies
the hope not only of explaining a great past event--important as that
should
be--but
of showing that the explanation (6) is workable. If we can indeed come to
understand how a living organism arises from the nonliving, we should be
able (7)
to construct one--only of the simplest description, to be sure, but still
recognizably alive. This is so remote a possibility now that one scarcely
dares
to acknowledge it; but it is there nevertheless.
"One answer to the problem of how life originated is that it was created.
This
is an understandable confusion of nature with technology. (8)
"Most of the cultures we know contain mythical accounts of a supernatural
creation of life. (9)
"The more rational elements of society, however, tended to take a more
naturalistic view...." (10)
"But step by step, in a great controversy that spread over two centuries
this
belief was whittled away until nothing remained of it. (11)
"First the Italian Francesco Redi showed in the 17th century that meat
placed
under a screen, so that flies cannot lay their eggs on it, never develops
maggots. Then in the following century the Italian abbe Lazzano
Spallanzani
showed that a nutritive broth, sealed off from the air while boiling,
never
develops microorganisms, and hence never rots. Needham objected that by
too
much
boiling Spallanzani had rendered the broth, and still more the air above
it,
incompatible with life. Spallanzani could defend his broth; when he broke
the
seal of his flasks, allowing new air to rush in, the broth promptly began
to
rot.
He could find no way, however, to show that the air in the sealed flask
had
not
been vitiated. This problem finally was solved by Louis Pasteur in 1860,
with a
simple modification of Spallanzani's experiment. Pasteur too used a flask
containing boiling broth, but instead of sealing off the neck he drew it
out
in
a long, S-shaped curve with its end open to the air. While molecules of
air
could pass back and forth freely, the heavier particles of dust, bacteria
and
molds in the atmosphere were trapped on the walls of the curved neck and
only
rarely reached the broth. In such a flask the broth seldom was
contaminated;
usually it remained clear and sterile indefinitely.
"This was only one of Pasteur's experiments. It is no easy matter to deal
with
so deeply ingrained and common-sense (12) a belief as that in spontaneous
generation. One can ask for nothing better in such a pass than a noisy and
stubborn opponent, and this Pasteur had in the naturalist Felix Pouchet,
whose
arguments before the French Academy of Sciences drove Pasteur to more and
more
rigorous experiments. When he had finished, nothing remained of the belief
in
spontaneous generation.
"The reasonable (12) view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the
only
alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation.
There
is no third position. (13)
"For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief
in
spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." (14) It is a
symptom
of
the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer
appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the
downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept
the
alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.
"I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life
through a
hypothesis of spontaneous generation. (15)
"What the controversy reviewed above showed to be untenable is only the
belief
that living organisms arise spontaneously under present conditions. (16)
"We have now to face a somewhat different problem: how organisms may have
arisen
spontaneously under different conditions in some former period, granted
that
they do so no longer. (17)
"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that
the
spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. (18)
"Yet here we are--as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. (19)
"It will help to digress for a moment to ask what one means by (20)
"impossible."
"With every event one can associate a probability--the chance that it will
occur.
(21) This is always a fraction, the number of times the event occurs in a
large
number of trials.
"We see therefore that it does not mean much to say that a very improbable
event
has never been observed. (22)
"A final aspect of our problem is very important. When we consider the
spontaneous origin of a living organism, this is not an event that need
happen
again and again. (23)
"The probability with which we are concerned is of a special kind; it is
the
probability that an event occur at least once. (Italic emphasis his.) (24)
"However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it
involves,
given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once. And for
life as
we know it, with its capacity for growth and reproduction, once may be
enough. (25)
"Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal
is of
the order of two billion years. (26)
(End quote)
Comments:
1. a, Evolution is not new with Darwin. See: "The waters contained in
themselves
the seed of life" LAROUSSE WORLD MYTHOLOGY, trans. Gremal, Pierre, New
York:
Putnam, 1981, p 65.
"Chaos of primeval waters... gods of chaos..." A History of the Sciences,
Stephen F, Mason New York: Collier Books, 1962 p 15-23
Thales (624-546 B.C., for example, influenced by traditional myths which
derived
all things from the primordial waters..."
"Ionian School ...Materialistic Nouism and Evolution were taught in 5th
and
6th
century B.C. Greece."
Empedocles of Agrigentum taught that "...eyes and legs joined together by
accident..."
Jacques Maritain, "Introduction to Philosophy" New York: Sheed & Ward,
Inc.
1947
p 47-50
1. b, "The first explanation lay outside science . . ." Mr. Wald
acknowledges
that some subjects lie outside Science. Now the question is, How do we
determine
the boundaries of Science?
2. What is Science? According to Dr. Jerry Bergman, "Science" is a method
of
obtaining knowledge by: First, Observation. Second, Classification. Third,
Hypothesis. Fourth, Tests.
Bergman, Jerry, "What Is Science", CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY, V.
20, N.
1, June 1983, p. 39.
That is, Science is the study of that which is tangible and measurable by
controlled and repeatable experiment. The inherent nature of Science
limits
it
to things which can be perceived by human senses (or instruments which
amplify
them) and to things which it can confine, control and manipulate in
contrived
and isolated tests and experiments.
To know what Science is, is to know what Science is not. If scientists
cannot
see or touch an object or get it to cooperate in repeatable experiments
and
tests, it cannot be the subject of Scientific study. If scientists cannot
demonstrate that a thing has tangible attributes, they cannot prove its
existence. If scientists cannot show tangible evidence of the
non-existence
of
an object, rather than just a lack of evidence of its existence, they
cannot
prove its nonexistence by the scientific method. Scientists can only
demonstrate,
in this case, that Science cannot treat the subject: it is rightfully the
property of Philosophy or Theodicy.
Can the theory of evolution be tested and proven by the "scientific"
method?
No.
3. Mr. Wald is suggesting that "Nature" or the "natural order" arose
without
God.
He is using an unfounded (and unspoken) assumption, that "Nature" is a
result of
"Big Bang" and arose without Special Creation.
Begging the question: assuming as true at the outset that which must be
proved
as true
Forced Hypothesis: failure to consider other explanations for the
evidence;
lack
of sufficient evidence to draw hypothesis
4. Mr. Wald admits that he believes in, and recognizes, "an act of
creation."
This he will accept of man; and so reveals that it is not "an act of
creation"
he cannot and will not accept. He reveals that his reluctance is that a
Being
other than man is able to create.
5. Whether it is "defensible" or not is not the question. By the misuse of
logic,
the misinterpretation of some evidence and the outright rejection of other
evidence, a hypothesis, not provable by the Scientific method, may be
"defensible"
however wrong it is.
6. Mr. Wald admits that the "theory of Evolution" has not yet been proven
"workable."
Hasty conclusion: reaching a conclusion based on relevant but insufficient
evidence
The evidence may seem relevant, since Biologists discuss the bones of
animals
that lived in the past. What is not relevant is that the bones might
reveal
"the
origin of life."
Non sequitur: conclusion has no logical connection to evidence offered
The bones of the dead do not reveal the origin of life.
7. One must ask, What is the difference between 'construct' (as to build
or
make
something which does not exist) and 'create?' They are synonyms. Mr. Wald
was
very careful not to use the word "create" here. Why? Could it be that
while
he
will not admit that a "Supreme Being" can "Create," He believes man can?
Again,
he is not denying the act of creation; he is denying a Supreme Being did,
or
can,
perform that act. Having rejected the idea that a Supreme Being can
Create,
Mr.
Wald now suggests that he, or other biologists, may soon have the ability
to
"construct"
life. Utterly amazing.
8. First, The belief in Creation is seven thousand years mature, and
'technology"
in not yet two hundred. Mr. Wald stoops to use of ridicule: belittling
those
who
believe in God and His act of Creation by describing them as "confused."
There
are at least three variations of this practice:
Loaded language: abusively labeling persons or groups with sexual, racial,
ethnic, or other prejudicial terms
Ad hominem: an irrelevant attack on an individual's character that appeals
to
prejudice or emotion
Straw man: altering or exaggerating an opponent's position for the sake of
attacking it
9. Mr. Wald would rob the Scripture of its credibility by calling it
"myth."
Poisoning the well: tainting or attacking information before presenting it
to an
audience; coercing the audience to accept or reject a position on an idea
before
presenting the idea
10. Again, ridicule; by the minor premise: He compliments those who accept
spontaneous generation by calling them "rational," and thus implies that
anyone
else is "not rational." See # 8.
11. This is to the glory of God. I will have more to say about this later.
12. This is the use of ridicule, "common sense, unreasonable." See # 8.
13. Mr. Wald acknowledges his dilemma.
14. He calls it a matter of choice, a "philosophical necessity."
15. Mr. Wald states that he "has no choice but to approach the origin of
life
through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation." That is, due to
"philosophical
necessity," he rejects the alternative possibility, and makes his choice
to
believe in evolution.
Suppressed evidence: failure to present information relevant to the issue
16. Thus begins the shift to an un-provable hypothesis. This begins with
an
incorrect conclusion: (". . . untenable is only the belief that living
organisms
arise spontaneously under present conditions.")
Actually, what the experiments of Pasteur proved is that spontaneous
generation
is impossible under any conditions.
17. Here is the full shift: "...how organisms may have arisen
spontaneously
under different conditions in some former period." How can it be
scientifically
demonstrated what "different conditions" might have or could have existed?
How
can a scientist test or demonstrate something "supposed" or "imagined" to
have
occurred under unknown circumstances a thousand (let alone, a billion)
years
ago?
It is a "Scientific" impossibility, and therefore biologists in
particular,
and
those scientists who support this theory, have severed themselves from
truth
and
reality.
Sir Frances Beacon said, "When philosophy is cut off from its roots in
experience, where it was born, it dies." Kepler said, "If a scientist's
hypothesis fit into a certain metaphysical theory, fine; but if not, then
it
is
the metaphysics which must go."
Mason, Stephen F., A HISTORY OF THE SCIENCES New York: Collier Books,
Inc.,
1962,
pp. 11-24, 136, 142.
18. Mr. Wald states, "The spontaneous generation of a living organism is
impossible." (* i.)
19. Once again, regardless of the proven impossibility, he states his
choice
to
believe otherwise.
Begging the question: assuming as true at the outset that which must be
proved
as true
20. It is a practice of sophistry to debate the meanings of terms, then,
somewhere in the debate, to switch the meaning of terms.
Equivocation: ambiguous or inexact statements; changing the meaning of a
key
term in the middle of an argument
21. Here is his twist of the meaning... ("With every event one can
associate
a
probability ...") Without hesitation he abandons the literal meaning of
"impossible."
He says, "With every event..." However, with "impossible," there are no
events.
The Truth is that for impossible events, there is no probability.
22. Here again he demonstrates his shift to sophistry and the confusion of
terms,
and goes from "impossible" to "improbable." He does this without tangible
or
objective evidence.
Statistical fallacy: the use of unprovable statistics as fact; the use of
statistics that are incomplete or that present a biased picture/result
Faulty sampling: a sample (statistic) too small to be reliable or a sample
that
is not representative of what it's supposed to measure.
Mr. Wald has employed both fallacies. First, the statistics he gives are
not
proven, they are manufactured (i.e., "created") by him for his purpose,
and
do in
fact "present a biased picture." Second, the lifetime of humankind, or the
history of the science of probability, is too small when compared (in his
own
words) to the time scale in his sample. In fact, he has no sample and no
verifiable proof of his time scale, only another unproven premise.
23. Here is an unsupported hypothesis: How can he support the belief that
the
very first living cell would have, or could have, survived to reproduce?
There
is no evidence on which to base this assumption. However, for those who
refute
the theory of evolution to argue this point is to grant the first and
wander
off
into rabbit trails. The point is that there is no evidence that any living
thing,
single cell or other wise, has ever arisen from nothing.
Red herring: introducing a side issue or an irrelevant issue to divert
attention
from the real issue
24, 25, 26. He bases the possible success, of spontaneous generation
arising
to
evolution, upon time. That time can make the impossible become possible,
and
then inevitable, is the first unsupported and unproven foundation of
evolution.
The next unsupportable premise, which must follow the first in less than a
heartbeat, is that there has been enough time.
Non sequitur: conclusion has no logical connection to evidence offered
Questionable cause: a faulty cause/effect relationship
Questionable premise: accepting a proposition or concept without having
good
reason to accept it
Proponents of Evolution and Big Bang theories know that their unproven
hypotheses are founded upon a 'billions of years' time scale, and they
will
defend their belief to the death: ours.
The theory of evolution is only proven by--
Circular reasoning: proving a premise by rewording the premise in the
conclusion;
using part of all of a question as the answer to the question
To prove this, ask anyone who accepts the theory of evolution to prove it
"without
referring to the theory of evolution." They cannot. There is no proof
outside
the theory of evolution to prove it. It can only be proven by referring to
the
wrong conclusions and unfounded assumptions contained within it.
--*--
(* i. Impossible, im·pos·si·ble, adj.
Incapable of having existence or of occurring. Not capable of being
accomplished:
an impossible goal.
\Im*pos"si*ble\, a. [F., fr. L. impossibilis; pref. im- not + possibilis
possible. See Possible.] Not possible; incapable of being done, of
existing,
etc.;
unattainable in the nature of things, or by means at command; insuperably
difficult under the circumstances; absurd or impracticable; not feasible.
With
men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. --Matt. xix.
26.
Without faith it is impossible to please him. --Heb. xi. 6.
Impossible quantity (Math.), an imaginary quantity. See #22.
Please allow me to offer two examples of the meaning of "impossible."
First:
take a die as used in various games. The die has six spots, numbering the
sides
of the die from one to six. It is possible in any fair test to roll all
the
numbers from one to six. The number of rolls and the time limit can be as
many
or as long as required. We may add constraints or requirements such that
the
numbers must be rolled in consecutive order, or all odd numbers must be
rolled
first. No matter, given time the possible can be achieved. However, it is
impossible to roll a nine. Why? There is no number nine on the die. Let us
extend the number of allowed rolls to infinite, and the time limit to 4
billion
years. Is it now more probable that we will roll a number nine? No,
extending
the time limit does not change the definition of the term "impossible,"
nor
will
it allow the die to mutate so that it contains nine numbers.
Second: Stand on a chair. Lean forward so that you balance on your toes.
Begin
to flap your arms in a bird-like manor. Flap your arms faster and faster
until
you begin to feel light on your toes, now push off and fly like a bird.
You
may
need to practice flying like a bird until you get it right. You may need
to
close your eyes and meditate on flying like an eagle, and believing in
your
ability. You have plenty of time--the rest of your life--so feel free to
practice until you achieve flight. It is "impossible" for a man,
unassisted
by
his mechanisms and technologies, under his own power, to fly like an
eagle,
sparrow or butterfly. Bird-like flight is impossible for human kind
regardless
of the number of attempts, of the years spent in the attempt, of the
belief
or
faith or a positive mental attitude.
Pasteur demonstrated that life cannot arise from a sterile substance, and
this
remains true.
It is impossible for life to arise from nothing, or from a sterile medium,
as
proven by Pasteur. It does not matter that the medium is altered from one
broth
to another. It matters not at all that the liquid consist of these
chemicals
or
those, or some other formula. Changing the atmosphere from oxygen to
hydrogen or
helium will not change the outcome. Reconciling the temperature of the
broth, or
allowing a spark of lightning, will not change the results. Standing guard
over
the sterile broth and watching hopefully for hours or years or millions or
billions of years will not change the reality that life cannot arise from
lifelessness.
What is possible, is. What is not possible, is not, and cannot be.
To be continued.
http://www.xprt.net/servitum/main/Logic.html
Now, the original post is about the logical fallacies used in the support
and defense of the lie of evolution.
Rather than discuss those fallacies, you continue to use them.
You did not dispute my definition of Science. (Which proves it correct.)
You did not question my References. (Which proves them correct.)
You did not dispute the logical fallacies, nor that Mr. Wald did in fact use
them. (They are, after all, printed on the pages of Scientific American!)
You did not supply the bones of any creatures which make the transition
between known species (not even one!)...(Which proves there are none!)
However, you do continue to employ illogic and sophistry .(You do know what
'sophistry' is, right?).
(If not, try http://www.dictionary.com )
If you continue to use logical fallacies, red herrings, wrong assumptions
and non-sequitur conclusions, then that proves the uselessness in continuing
a discussion with you.
Question: Do you wish to discuss the logical fallacies listed in the
original post?
Would you like to discuss the scientific (mathematical/statistical)
improbability that life can arise from nothing?
If not, why waste your time posting trash?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: desiease of Evolution |
08 Nov 2003 11:34:02 AM |
|
|
Is oldwetdog a troll? Do fat dogs fart?
"oldwetdog" <oldwetdog@gte.net> wrote in message news:<vqpgv7omvv1g40@corp.supernews.com>...
"Doug" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942B74FDC903Anoennonecom@66.75.162.196...
"oldwetdog" <oldwetdog@gte.net> wrote in
news:vqlan7ruhbrtb4@corp.supernews.com:
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u41kqvchq6dohmqduq3b2i4qg4doges6ku@4ax.com...
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:30:38 -0800, "oldwetdog" <oldwetdog@gte.net>
wrote:
Logical Fallacies
The Improbability of God by Richard Dawkins
<snip>
Trash proves nothing but the existence of trash.
Now support your assertion. What of the article was "trash". (Did you even
read it?)
Did you read my original post?
Try again.
-=snip=-
Now, the original post is about the logical fallacies used in the support
and defense of the lie of evolution.
His original post is an attack on a 50 year old article:
"The Origin of Life," by Mr. George Wald, Scientific
American August 1954, p 44-53.
Exhibit A in the case for Doggie being a troll:
The article wasn't about evolution at all--it doesn't
mention--or even use the word-- "evolution" in any of
the text that Doggie quotes. The article is about
biogenesis and the possibility that mankind will at
some point be able to create life.
Could Doggie sincerely be that dumb not to know the
article wasn't even about evolution? To give him the
benefit of the doubt would be to conclude he is a
troll.
Exhibit B in the case for Doggie being a troll:
Rather than discuss those fallacies, you continue to use them.
Doggie's correspondent said:
"Now support your assertion. What of the article
was "trash". (Did you even read it?)"
Could Doggie sincerely be that dumb to seriously
claim that the above represents a fallacy? Again
to give him the benefit of the doubt would be to
conclude he is a troll.
Exhibit C in the case for Doggie being a troll:
You did not dispute my definition of Science. (Which proves it correct.)
Could Doggie sincerely be that dumb to seriously
believe that if someone does not dispute his
"definition of science" that "proves" it is
correct?
Likewise:
You did not question my References. (Which proves them correct.)
You did not dispute the logical fallacies, nor that Mr. Wald did in fact use
them. (They are, after all, printed on the pages of Scientific American!)
You did not supply the bones of any creatures which make the transition
between known species (not even one!)...(Which proves there are none!)
I guess, then, that because I disputed his assertions
(and he failed to respond) that must prove his
assertions are incorrect.
Exhibit D in the case for Doggie being a troll:
However, you do continue to employ illogic and sophistry .(You do know what
'sophistry' is, right?).
(If not, try http://www.dictionary.com )
If you continue to use logical fallacies, red herrings, wrong assumptions
and non-sequitur conclusions, then that proves the uselessness in continuing
a discussion with you.
Could Doggie sincerely be that dumb to seriously
claim that this:
"Now support your assertion. What of the article
was "trash". (Did you even read it?)"
....represents a continued use of "logical fallacies,
red herrings, wrong assumptions and non-sequitur
conclusions"?
Or do we give him the benefit of the doubt and conclude
he is a troll, posting idiotic flame-bait?
I therefore submit that reason, and the weight of evidence,
dictates that we provisionally conclude that Doggie is a
troll until or unless he can prove that he is sincerely
that dumb.
.
|
|
|
| User: "oldwetdog" |
|
| Title: Re: desiease of Evolution |
08 Nov 2003 08:17:14 PM |
|
|
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1902ce50.0311080934.790ecb6d@posting.google.com...
Is oldwetdog a troll? Do fat dogs fart?
"oldwetdog" <oldwetdog@gte.net> wrote in message
news:<vqpgv7omvv1g40@corp.supernews.com>...
"Doug" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942B74FDC903Anoennonecom@66.75.162.196...
"oldwetdog" <oldwetdog@gte.net> wrote in
news:vqlan7ruhbrtb4@corp.supernews.com:
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u41kqvchq6dohmqduq3b2i4qg4doges6ku@4ax.com...
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:30:38 -0800, "oldwetdog" <oldwetdog@gte.net>
wrote:
Logical Fallacies
The Improbability of God by Richard Dawkins
<snip>
Trash proves nothing but the existence of trash.
Now support your assertion. What of the article was "trash". (Did you
even
read it?)
Did you read my original post?
Try again.
-=snip=-
Now, the original post is about the logical fallacies used in the
support
and defense of the lie of evolution.
His original post is an attack on a 50 year old article:
"The Origin of Life," by Mr. George Wald, Scientific
American August 1954, p 44-53.
Exhibit A in the case for Doggie being a troll:
The article wasn't about evolution at all--it doesn't
mention--or even use the word-- "evolution" in any of
the text that Doggie quotes.
You need to re-read the article. tell me the page on whcih he uses the word
"biogenesis" because I couldn't find that word. I did find 'spontaneous
generation'
The article is about
biogenesis and the possibility that mankind will at
some point be able to create life.
Is this interesting, or what?
Mr. Wald denies that a Supreme Being could Create, but Del said the he (Mr
Wald) wrote about mankind being able to "create" Life -- BUT MR. WALD DID
NOT USE THOSE WORDS!!
Could Doggie sincerely be that dumb not to know the
article wasn't even about evolution? To give him the
benefit of the doubt would be to conclude he is a
troll.
Exhibit B in the case for Doggie being a troll:
Rather than discuss those fallacies, you continue to use them.
Doggie's correspondent said:
"Now support your assertion. What of the article
was "trash". (Did you even read it?)"
Could Doggie sincerely be that dumb to seriously
claim that the above represents a fallacy? Again
to give him the benefit of the doubt would be to
conclude he is a troll.
Exhibit C in the case for Doggie being a troll:
You did not dispute my definition of Science. (Which proves it correct.)
Could Doggie sincerely be that dumb to seriously
believe that if someone does not dispute his
Poor soul... I wrote about non sequitur conclusions... Then use them myself!
You can't take a joke?
"definition of science" that "proves" it is
correct?
Likewise:
You did not question my References. (Which proves them correct.)
You did not dispute the logical fallacies, nor that Mr. Wald did in fact
use
Yes, Let's discuss the use of logical fallacy in science--biology in
particular, but cosmology will do too.... What? no takers?
them. (They are, after all, printed on the pages of Scientific
American!)
You did not supply the bones of any creatures which make the transition
between known species (not even one!)...(Which proves there are none!)
I guess, then, that because I disputed his assertions
(and he failed to respond) that must prove his
assertions are incorrect.
Exhibit D in the case for Doggie being a troll:
However, you do continue to employ illogic and sophistry .(You do know
what
'sophistry' is, right?).
(If not, try http://www.dictionary.com )
If you continue to use logical fallacies, red herrings, wrong
assumptions
and non-sequitur conclusions, then that proves the uselessness in
continuing
a discussion with you.
Could Doggie sincerely be that dumb to seriously
claim that this:
"Now support your assertion. What of the article
was "trash". (Did you even read it?)"
...represents a continued use of "logical fallacies,
red herrings, wrong assumptions and non-sequitur
conclusions"?
Or do we give him the benefit of the doubt and conclude
he is a troll, posting idiotic flame-bait?
I therefore submit that reason, and the weight of evidence,
dictates that we provisionally conclude that Doggie is a
troll until or unless he can prove that he is sincerely
that dumb.
Well, well, your words reveal your spirit...
you engage in sophistry, ridicule, name calling, slander and etc,
Why? Because, like your father, you lie
and cannot win a argument using Truth.
Your mind is darkened by the rejection of Truth
and when you cannot win with lies you become angry
then call your opponent names
consider this:
Logical Fallacies used in Biology, Spontaneous Generation, Evolution and all
or any science which rejects God
Quoting Mr. George Wald, "The Origin of Life" Scientific American, Sept.
1954 p. 45.
(as examples previously posted)
"The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only
alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation.
There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago
chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical
necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that
this necessity is no longer appreciated.
"I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life
through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation.
"Yet, here we are--as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation...
"However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it
involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once.
End quote.
First Mr. Wald engages in subtle Ad Hominem [ridicule] by stating that the
belief in spontaneous generation is 'reasonable,' thus inferring that the
alternative is unreasonable. Then he exerts pressure on the reader by use of
the False dilemma, suggesting that the reader must choose between the
'reasonable' spontaneous generation or the unreasonable special creation
because there is no other choice.
"For this reason..." The False Dilemma, Mr. Wald wants you to choose the
"philosophical necessity."
He states that he "believes" in the origin of life due to spontaneous
generation.
He goes on, in his discussion on statistics and probability, to an Wrong
Assumption that "it will almost certainly happen at least once." Notice he
said "almost...' This is not proof, it is an assumption. This is not the
result of scientific tests and experiment. It is Begging The Question. He
goes on to base his conclusions in favor of spontaneous generation on this
unfounded assumption, which, in fact, falsifies it.
Here, in his own words, is the truth. The belief in spontaneous generation
is a matter of Choice, the "philosophical necessity" .
The belief in the theory of evolution is a Choice; just as all and every
belief is a result of Choice.
You make this choice--not because spontaneous generation and evolution are
proven, in fact they are not--but because you refuse the choice to believe
in God (the 'philosophical necessity.')
It is your choice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: desiease of Evolution |
09 Nov 2003 06:12:52 PM |
|
|
Doggie sez:
Quoting Mr. George Wald, "The Origin of Life" Scientific American, Sept.
1954 p. 45.(as examples previously posted)
"The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only
alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation.
There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago
chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical
necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that
this necessity is no longer appreciated.
"I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life
through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation.
"Yet, here we are--as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation...
"However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it
involves, given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once.
End quote.
First Mr. Wald engages in subtle Ad Hominem [ridicule] by stating that the
belief in spontaneous generation is 'reasonable,'"
Doggie doesn't know what ad hominem is. It isn't
ridicule:
"The argumentum ad hominem, meaning 'argument directed
to the man,' is the kind of argument that criticizes
the arguer rather than his argument." -- Walton,
Douglas N. Informal Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1989 p. 134.
Note, especially, the words: "rather than his
argument." Ad hominem is called a fallacy of
irrelevance because it evades *arguments*. If the
argument is dealt with or if the person criticized has
offered no argument then attacking the person cannot be
ad hominem.
Doggie puts words in Wald's mouth and quotes him out of
context, sometimes not even allowing Wald to complete
sentences without cutting him off ("Yet, here we are--
as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation...").
For this reason it is not clear what Wald is saying.
thus inferring that the alternative is unreasonable."
Apparently Doggie confuses "infer" with "imply." In any
event Doggie just asserts (and does not argue for) this
conclusion. Since he doesn't bother to offer evidence
for his assertions it is unnecessary to refute them.
But more to the point this claim indicates that Doggie
is ignorant of what the Bible says.
The word "reasonable" means:
Capable of reasoning; rational: a reasonable person.
Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound
thinking: a reasonable solution to the problem.
Yet Paul specifically denies reason, calling Christians
to [bring] every thought into captivity to the
obedience of Christ." -- II Corinthians 10:5.
He said that "...it pleased God, through the
foolishness of the message preached, to save those who
believe." --I Corinthians 1:19
"God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put
to shame the wise..." --I Corinthians 1:27
So even if Wald actually said what Doggie falsely
claimed, it is in agreement with the Bible. It is not
surprising that Doggie is completely uninformed about
this.
Then he exerts pressure on the reader by use of
the False dilemma, suggesting that the reader must choose between the
'reasonable' spontaneous generation or the unreasonable special creation
because there is no other choice.
It is ironic that Doggie chronically commits logical
fallacies in the process of falsely accusing his
target(s) of commiting them. In the above, he commits
the fallacy of begging the question: Doggie assumes as
true the very accusation it is his job prove: that Wald
commits a false dilemma.
The false dilemma fallacy is defined as "the
presentation of a situation or condition with only two
alternatives, whereas in fact other alternatives exist
or can exist."
If there are more than 2 possible explanations for the
the creation of life: either supernatural or natural,
either "God" or spontaneous generation, then why hasn't
Doggie stated them?
And if there *are* only two choices then the delemma
isn't false, is it?
So Doggie is a false witnesse once again.
He states that he "believes" in the origin of life due to spontaneous
generation.
Doggie continues his attack on the author of this 50
year old article. He says:
[Wald} goes on, in his discussion on statistics and probability, to an Wrong
Assumption that "it will almost certainly happen at least once."
Apparently Doggie thinks that if he doesn't want to
believe something it must be a "Wrong Assumption"
[sic]. He offers no evidence whatsoever for his
accusation, as if merely stating it is sufficient
"proof" his accusation is true.
Notice he
said "almost...' This is not proof, it is an assumption.
Likewise what Doggie says about Wald's statement being
a "Wrong Assumption" is not proof--it is an assumption.
This is just a manifestation of Doggie's hypocritical
double standards. Doggie grants himself the right to do
what he attacks others for doing.
The difference is that Wald is careful to qualify his
claims, allowing that he could be wrong ("almost...')
whereas Doggie pretends his evidence-free claims are
infallibly true.
This is not the result of scientific tests and experiment.
As I demonstrated in a previous post:
<1902ce50.0311070405.1b634a16@posting.google.com>
....Doggie is unqualified to pass judgement on science
or about scientific procedures.
It is Begging The Question.
He is also unqualified to judge or identify logical
fallacies.
[...]
The belief in the theory of evolution is a Choice; just as all and every
belief is a result of Choice.
You make this choice--not because spontaneous generation and evolution are
proven, in fact they are not--but because you refuse the choice to believe
in God (the 'philosophical necessity.')
Would someone intentionally embarrass himself by
knowingly practicing the very logical fallacies he
falsely accuses others of committing? Doggie commits a
false dichotomy here, the same fallacy he falsely
accuses Wald of. Clearly Doggie is clueless about
fallacies.
As noted elsewhere biogenesis is not a part of the
theory of evolution and it is not necessary to choose
between believing in evolution and believing in a god.
In fact, the majority of Christian sects have accepted
evolution. See Theology Today 10-82: The Beginning.
In his above statement "Doggie pretends to be a mind
reader: "You make this choice...because you refuse the
choice to believe in God" which is one more example of
him violating one of the 10 Commandments (#9).
He says--as if a startling revelation--that spontaneous
generation and evolution are not proven. If Doggie had
a clue about science he would already know that
NOTHING, no-thing, in science is EVER proven.
Science freely admits this. On the other hand, Doggie's
God isn't proven--not even close--while Doggie pretends
that it is.
Doggies dual standards:
Doggie thinks he should have the special privilege of
making any claim he wants without any responsibility to
show it true. He should be allowed to make false
accusations and to witness falsely in accusing others
of practicing these very things that he grants himself
the right to practice.
Doggie is saying that he knows he cannot prevail in a
debate unless this "affirmative action" is granted him.
He knows the weakness of his position--as well he
should.
And now we do too.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alberich" |
|
| Title: Re: desiease of Evolution |
09 Nov 2003 12:52:13 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 18:17:14 -0800, "oldwetdog" <oldwetdog@gte.net>
wrote:
Yes, Let's discuss the use of logical fallacy in science--biology in
particular, but cosmology will do too.... What? no takers?
Here I am. Try me. Where would you like to start?
Alberich
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: desiease of Evolution |
08 Nov 2003 08:32:47 PM |
|
|
On 8 Nov 2003 09:34:02 -0800, (Del) wrote:
Is oldwetdog a troll? Do fat dogs fart?
"oldwetdog" <oldwetdog@gte.net> wrote in message news:<vqpgv7omvv1g40@corp.supernews.com>...
"Doug" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942B74FDC903Anoennonecom@66.75.162.196...
"oldwetdog" <oldwetdog@gte.net> wrote in
news:vqlan7ruhbrtb4@corp.supernews.com:
Could Doggie sincerely be that dumb to seriously
claim that this:
"Now support your assertion. What of the article
was "trash". (Did you even read it?)"
...represents a continued use of "logical fallacies,
red herrings, wrong assumptions and non-sequitur
conclusions"?
Or do we give him the benefit of the doubt and conclude
he is a troll, posting idiotic flame-bait?
I therefore submit that reason, and the weight of evidence,
dictates that we provisionally conclude that Doggie is a
troll until or unless he can prove that he is sincerely
that dumb.
The content of his/her posts suggests that doggie is both.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: desiease of Evolution |
09 Nov 2003 06:09:02 PM |
|
|
LP <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<jc8rqv0fpq0024ujtijot7kgh8mb9ievd9@4ax.com>...
On 8 Nov 2003 09:34:02 -0800, (Del) wrote:
Is oldwetdog a troll? Do fat dogs fart?
"oldwetdog" <oldwetdog@gte.net> wrote in message news:<vqpgv7omvv1g40@corp.supernews.com>...
"Doug" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:Xns942B74FDC903Anoennonecom@66.75.162.196...
"oldwetdog" <oldwetdog@gte.net> wrote in
news:vqlan7ruhbrtb4@corp.supernews.com:
Could Doggie sincerely be that dumb to seriously
claim that this:
"Now support your assertion. What of the article
was "trash". (Did you even read it?)"
...represents a continued use of "logical fallacies,
red herrings, wrong assumptions and non-sequitur
conclusions"?
Or do we give him the benefit of the doubt and conclude
he is a troll, posting idiotic flame-bait?
I therefore submit that reason, and the weight of evidence,
dictates that we provisionally conclude that Doggie is a
troll until or unless he can prove that he is sincerely
that dumb.
The content of his/her posts suggests that doggie is both.
Certainly this is a hypothesis that demands consideration.
For instance, in response to the following:
-= Begin Quote =-
Exhibit A in the case for Doggie being a troll:
The article wasn't about evolution at all--it doesn't
mention--or even use the word-- "evolution" in any of
the text that Doggie quotes.
-= End Quote =-
Doggie says
"You need to re-read the article. tell me the page on whcih he uses
the word
'biogenesis' because I couldn't find that word. I did find
'spontaneous
generation'"
Doggie has no explanation for the embarrassing absence
of the word "evolution" in an article he claims is
about evolution. So what does Doggie do (no pun)? He
ignores this fact and tries to shift the burden to me.
This is dishonest and gives readers an idea of his
level of dedication to accuracy and truth.
Biogenesis addresses the origin of life and that is
the subject the author is discussing. He says:
"Recently ways have been found again to consider the origin of life as
a scientific problem..."
Thus the hypothesis that Doggie is a troll does
not exclude the possibility (or even the likelihood)
that he is as ignorant as a box of rocks on the
subject of science and especially evolution. We could
expand this to say that it also doesn't exclude the
possibility (or deny the strong evidence) that
Doggie is a dishonest, ignorant troll.
The evidence for including the "dishonesty" attribute
to a concise description of Doggies method of operation is
impressive. For instance, in response to the statement:
"The article is about biogenesis and the possibility
that mankind will at some point be able to create life."
Doggie says:
"Is this interesting, or what?
Mr. Wald denies that a Supreme Being could Create, but Del said the he
(Mr
Wald) wrote about mankind being able to "create" Life -- BUT MR. WALD
DID
NOT USE THOSE WORDS!!"
I submit that this is an example of the dishonesty
component and not the ignorance or troll components.
I conclude this because Doggie quotes the author of
this 50 year old article as saying:
"If we can indeed come to understand how a living organism arises from
the nonliving, we should be able to construct one-..."
-----
Which is the very claim that Doggie would attempt to
deny here.
Notice also the statement from Doggie: "Mr. Wald
denies that a Supreme Being could Create..."
Yet previously Doggie said, in this regard:
"Could it be that while he will not admit that a 'Supreme
Being' can 'Create,' He believes man can?"
So not only has Doggie changed his unsupported assertion
from "will not admit..." to "Mr. Wald denies"
(quite different things) this statement shows that
Doggie is well aware of what Wald has said. Thus
the incredulity he feigns:
"but Del said the he (Mr Wald) wrote about mankind being able to
'create' Life."
....is patently dishonest, fake, and insincere.
This Doggie person is a chronic and serial false witness
at the same time he pretends to be the spokesmodel for
"God" and Christianity. Clearly "What Would Jesus Do?"
is not a question that concerns him or colors his behavior.
It is doubtful that the same person who said:
"Let your light so shine before men, that they may
see your good works, and glorify your Father which
is in heaven." (Matthew 5:16) would appreciate this
Doggie person pretending to speak for Christians
or Christianity. Whoever Doggie is working for,
it clearly isn't Jesus.
But I digress. I will continue to examine the evidence
for the inclusion of dishonesty and ignorance to the
troll hypothesis, next post
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: desiease of Evolution |
07 Nov 2003 10:29:43 PM |
|
|
"oldwetdog" <oldwetdog@gte.net> wrote in message news:<vqlan7ruhbrtb4@corp.supernews.com>...
"LP" <whirl_pool@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u41kqvchq6dohmqduq3b2i4qg4doges6ku@4ax.com...
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:30:38 -0800, "oldwetdog" <oldwetdog@gte.net>
wrote:
Logical Fallacies
The Improbability of God by Richard Dawkins
<snip>
Trash proves nothing but the existence of trash.
This is the guy who falsely accuses the author of that 50
year old article (that Doggie thought was about evolution
but wasn't) of commiting logical fallacies. The above is
a combination ad hominem & false analogy.
What did Jesus say about hypocrisy?
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's
eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own
eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out
the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam [is] in
thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam
out of thine own eye; and then shall thou see clearly
...." -- Matthew 7: 2-5
Truth Is.
"He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments,
is a liar, and the truth is not in him." -- I John 2:4
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
