evolution: 1 creationism: 0

[Sardo_Numspa]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

Are computers logical and rational?

Yes.

Are they impatient?

No.

See, your basic problem here is you don't know how to construct a proper syllogism, i.e., two or more premisses and a conclusion.

What I think you are trying to come up with is a version of validating form modus tollens, i.e., if p then q, not q, therefore not p. Example:

If you are rational, you are patient.
You are not patient.
Therefore, you are not rational.

Unfortunately the first premiss is false so that doesn't really work.

Of course, you are trying to equate computers with patience (and rationality) to show I am not. Fine but the logical construction would then be:

Computers are patient.
Sardo Numspa is not patient.
Therefore, Sardo Numspa is not a computer.

Well, you've proven I'm not a computer so far. The problem I think is you're trying to horn in an illogical conclusion from disjoined premisses. The syllogism you tried to put forth goes something like this:

Computer are both rational and patient.
Sardo Numspa is not patient.
Therefore, Sardo Numspa is not rational.

But again the conclusion does not flow from the premisses. At best again you could conclude that I'm not a computer.

And just for fun, here's a more complex syllogism for you.

God is omniscient and knows evil exists.
God is omnipotent and therefore has the power to destroy evil.
God is all loving and should therefore want to destroy evil.
Evil exists.
Therefore, God does not exist.

 

[ARogueTrader]

My basic problem?

More hubris from "the teacher" giving lessons.

Quote from Sardo_Numspa:

See, your basic problem here is you don't know how to construct a proper syllogism, i.e., two or more premisses and a conclusion.

What I think you are trying to come up with is a version of validating form modus tollens, i.e., if p then q, not q, therefore not p. Example:

If you are rational, you are patient.
You are not patient.
Therefore, you are not rational.

Unfortunately the first premiss is false so that doesn't really work.

Of course, you are trying to equate computers with patience (and rationality) to show I am not. Fine but the logical construction would then be:

Computers are patient.
Sardo Numspa is not patient.
Therefore, Sardo Numspa is not a computer.

Well, you've proven I'm not a computer so far. The problem I think is you're trying to horn in an illogical conclusion from disjoined premisses. The syllogism you tried to put forth goes something like this:

Computer are both rational and patient.
Sardo Numspa is not patient.
Therefore, Sardo Numspa is not rational.

But again the conclusion does not flow from the premisses. At best again you could conclude that I'm not a computer.

And just for fun, here's a more complex syllogism for you.

God is omniscient and knows evil exists.
God is omnipotent and therefore has the power to destroy evil.
God is all loving and should therefore want to destroy evil.
Evil exists.
Therefore, God does not exist.

 

[ArchAngel]

jem - did you read the quote you posted in the context it was written?

Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails

Again, that's - The argument AGAINST macroevolution FAILS!!

With a mass of fossil and genetic evidence to trace species to species evolution, it is NOT a mere matter of "faith" as you suggest.

On the whole, it matters not whether the exact same processes involved in intraspecies evolution (microevolution) also account for interspecies evolution (macroevolution) or there are some additional processes involved - that interspecies evolution occurs on a broad basis is demonstrable and scientifically traceable.

The depth of information for example allows anthropologists to trace the evolutionary chain of homo sapiens and even demonstrate that the Neanderthal was actually a parallel path of humanoid development that coexisted for a time with current human's evolutionary ancestors of that time period.

However, for a variety of reasons (not the least of which was the Neanderthal's non-migratory nature) Neanderthal's failed to adequately adapt and eventually died out.

 

[stu]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

My basic problem?

You've just been wrecked by axeman AND Sardo_Numspa

 

[ARogueTrader]

More scorekeeping?

Game players....

Quote from stu:

You've just been wrecked by axeman AND Sardo_Numspa

 

[axeman]

Once again you commit the same nonsequitur.

Here you set up a STRAWMAN by FALSELY ASSUMING
that the synthesists claim of extrapolation is the ONLY
evidence available for macroevolution.


You have repeated this FALSEHOOD so many times now
I can only conclude you wish to continue to delude yourself
because it makes you feel better.


peace

axeman



JEM:"I am not here telling you that evolution did not occur. I am telling you your faith is based on the guesses of true believers (synthesists) guessing that the process would be the same for species to species evolution as they are for within species evolution. "

 

[axeman]

Whats worse Stu, is that he also has completely IGNORED
your perfect "Gilbert" attack.

He obviously knows he has no ground to stand on.


peace

axeman

Quote from stu:

You've just been wrecked by axeman AND Sardo_Numspa

 

[jem]

Axe the point is that they do not know what causes species to species evolution becaue they can not prove it. They are extrapolating guessing from their observations.

 

[ArchAngel]

Quote from jem:
Axe the point is that they do not know what causes species to species evolution becaue they can not prove it. They are extrapolating guessing from their observations.

You keep saying that they can't prove species to species evolution - but that is NOT correct.

Repeatedly saying it, doesn't make it so.

They have a load of fossil and genetic evidence that traces the evolutionary chain. They also have identified processes that are consistent with the evidence and which so far have not been found to have a problem. Whether the presumed process is subsequently found to need adjustment - that species to species evolution occurs is clearly demonstrated.

 

[axeman]

ArchAngel,

The problem is that jem continues to take the statement
the synthesists made about the mechanism for microevolution
also being valid for macroevolution as an admission that
they have no evidence for macroevolution.

For some reason, he is making some kind of crazy assumption
that this is their ONLY evidence (which equates to nothing)
for macroevolution. As if this ONE statement constitutes
their ENTIRE set of evidence for macroevolution.


I dont know HOW you can make such an incredible leap, but
he did it

I dont know how else to get through to him.


peace

axeman

Quote from ArchAngel:

You keep saying that they can't prove species to species evolution - but that is NOT correct.

Repeatedly saying it, doesn't make it so.

They have a load of fossil and genetic evidence that traces the evolutionary chain. They also have identified processes that are consistent with the evidence and which so far have not been found to have a problem. Whether the presumed process is subsequently found to need adjustment - that species to species evolution occurs is clearly demonstrated.