To:creation_evolution_debate@yahoogroups.com
From:"Leon Albert" <lalbert>
Date:Wed, 31 Mar 2004 02:07:36 -0000
Subject:[creation_evolution_debate] Re:
Neanderthal continued.....

And you could not determined I was talking about the
subject at hand? If I was looking at the fossil
record, why would I add oceanography?

this an anolog to your aunt leg illustration.

Leon: No it's not, and my criticism was aimed at your
assertion on
its face. "ANYthing" CANNOT be inferred from
observation!"

but can you honestly say, that this is a fact?

beyond

doubt?

Leon: Indeed, to the extent that anything can be

said

to be a reasonable inferrence.

circular reasoning. define "reasonable" and in what
context.

Leon: "Reasonable" = a conclusion logically follows

from

stated
premises and those premises are empirically valid.

empirically valid until proven otherwise?

Leon: LOGICAL "inferrence" ASSUMES the validity of the
premises from
which conclusion are inferred. Logic per se has zilch to
do with
empirical validity. Fundamentalists invariably have very
little
comprehension of the nature of formal logic (the Bible
is jam-packed
with ILLOGIC).

look at evidence in the world of trial lawyers.
Evidence is there. How will it be interpreted?
before what audience the evidence will be

presented

to

make a judgement..

a Lawyer may have a convincing argument for

evidence

presented. He also knows a jury capacity for

either

accepting it, or not. Science is not different

in

this

regards.

Leon: Lawyers are concerned with establishing the

truth

for purposes
that are far different from the concerns of

scientists.

Scientists
are solely concerned with arriving at the best
scientific explanation
of phenomena.

But in the case of evolution. It is taught as a
bottomline fact.
Have you ever seen a nature documentary?

(rhetorical

question).
every animal behaviour is describe as end results

of

ongoing evolution. When I applied this to humans, I
got banned from the
evolution debate groups, as well as Talk.Origins.

It

seems to me that Facts hurt in the wrong context

eh?

Leon: When a scientific theory is very well and very
widely
supported, it is commonly TREATED as an "established
fact" even
though IN PRINCIPLE no theory is ever proven in an
absolute sense.

such as?

Leon: Contending that the scientific theory of
biological evolution
is a "religion," for one.

I have been blacklisted, because I was wrongly

accused

of somebody suicide. If I've argued badly, I would

not

be considered a threat to the Talk.Origin crowd,

nor

would I've be censored in various groups.

Leon: Creationists ALSO love to play the role of

being

martyrs for
their "obviously good arguments," when in fact their
anti-
evolution "arguments" aren't worth diddly-squat.

That just does not follow, A person doesn't get
blaclisted for presenting a wrong argument. He would
get squashed.. but not blacklisted or his material
censored and considered dangerous.

Leon: The justifications given for "blacklisting" are as
varied as
the "blacklisters."

Witness
your OWN above movement from recognizing that nothing

is

"proven" in
science to demanding "proofs" of evolution, jabriol.

Leon Albert
Prof. of Anthropology, ret.

No different, tha scientist demanding concrete proof
of creationism.. (no I am not defending creationsm).

Leon: This is another STRAWMAN misconception. No
scientists
demand "proof" of creationism.

How could they? They
realize that even
their OWN theories can't be "proven," as you've ALREADY
pointed our
YOURSELF, jabriol! Do TRY for at least a modicum of
consistency in
your anti-evolution, anti-science arguments.

The central
flaw in
creationism, from a scientific perspective, is that the
theory is
inherently incapable of DISPROOF in-so-far as it appeals
to a
SUPERNATURAL creator.