|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why TOE is not accepted | |||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2923 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
faith writes: If there's no logical way you can figure it happening at all, then a million years for it to happen in isn't going to change that What a perfect example of argument from incredulity!. And therefore, unfortunately for you Faith, a logical fallacy. Sorry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You have a problem with
If there's no way for it to happen Then there's no way for it to happen? Interesting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2923 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
Philip writes: When science (per se) supports *my faith* Sorry Philip, another oxymoron. If science supports your "faith", it's not faith is it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2923 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
Faith writes: You have a problem withIf there's no way for it to happen Then there's no way for it to happen? Interesting. No. Not what I said. I said you were arguing from incredulity, which means you could not figure out how it could happen, so therefore it couldn't have happened. Big difference between that and what you said. Here is a link if you want it further explained. CA100: Argument from incredulity edited for typo. This message has been edited by deerbreh, 08-03-2005 12:21 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I know what you said and what you meant and I answered you. I figured out that it COULDN'T happen, not that I couldn't figure out how it happened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4158 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: Oh well that's it then - you got it right and everyone else got it wrong. You should get this stuff published.
quote: You don't even need the standard 250-400 words needs for an abstract! You should get onto Creation Technical journal, they are always looking for material like this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
When I was about twenty I sat and studied the magnificent many-pointed antlers on a mounted deer head in a vacation house where a bunch of friends and I were staying until I nearly drove myself batty trying to understand how those things could have evolved, considering all the false starts with a couple of small bumps on the head I figured had to happen first, followed by slightly bigger bumps, all in keeping with the slow-buildup-of-small-increments idea I had of evolution, none of which bumps I could see would have any particular survival value that would cause them to be selected, and so on The bumps on the head may not have been the way the antlers evolved. Or if did evolve that way, perhaps the bumps had some benefit. Maybe it made the head harder and so more impervious to injury when battling with other deer. Maybe they provided a slight cushion. Maybe when the antlers evolved the head was not shaped as it is now. There are all sorts of scenarios.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
The argument from incredulity has to do with trying to prove that something else happened because of incredulity about another explanation. If Faith does not offer another alternative, then it is not an argument from incredulity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2923 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
Ok. Then I have assume that you are an evolutionary biologist and have the knowledge and training to come to such a conclusion. Is that true?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Surely the alternative is implicit in what we know of Faith's beliefs, that the antlers were a product of special creation or intelligent design.
TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
If science supports your "faith", it's not faith is it? Not necessarily. It might partially support it, but not all the way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
deerbreh Member (Idle past 2923 days) Posts: 882 Joined: |
Faith is incredulous about the evolutionary explanation. She does not have to state it per se.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Surely the alternative is implicit in what we know of Faith's beliefs, that the antlers were a product of special creation or intelligent design I don't think we want to be assuming things in this fashion, unless the poster actually says so. Faith might have other reasons for the belief other than just incredulity about evolution. Or Faith might be presenting a different type of argument, where special creation is not the conclusion. One might, for example, just be investigiating what appears to be difficulties in the theory of evolution--with no alternative explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Just being incredulous is not the argument from incredulity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
But Faith is making is an explicit claim that antlers couldn't have evolve, base of Faith's own inability to image how it is possible. At the very least there are two explicit alternatives, that of the gradual evolution of antlers being possible and the other of it not being possible.
Does the alternative really need to be so explicitly formulated as a statment for it to be an argument from incredulity? TTFN, WK
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024