Bluejay wrote:
How is it pretentious to be confused by a self-contradictory statement?
Actually it is not self contradictory, I just read your rebuttal to cavediver's " Why The intelligent designer is so inept"[/qs]
You say that I believe in Intelligent Design, but am trying to disprove Christian creationism by appealing to evolution.
I don't understand what you mean!
Then let me explain. In another op I read that you still believe in a God, infact you counter cavediver's idea that the intelligent Designer is so inept. I think you are not a christian but a muslim, and trying to disprove creation account of christianity using evolution.
What gave you the impression that I believe in an Intelligent Designer?
Your rebuttal to cavediver's "why the intelligent designer is so inept."
Which of my beliefs does statement X challenge?
The belief that life originate from non-life.
You just told me above that I believe in an Intelligent Designer.
Yes, I told you.
Is this the belief you are speaking of?
Yes. I understand that you still believe in an designer that used Darwinian mechanism to produce organism. Your belief is like that of Asa D GRAY and Theodosius Dobhszanky. They are christian yet believe that God produced organism throuh Darwinian mechanism.
Or, are you admitting that you were wrong about me believing in an Intelligent Designer
I stand on my claimed.
No, this method is called induction, not deduction
You are right. I tried to change it, but as you see there is no edit. My grammar is sometimes inconsistent. I need your help. Where is the edit?
No, this method is called induction, not deduction.
Deductive reasoning goes like this:
All life comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.
Flies are a kind of life.
Therefore, flies come from pre-existing flies.
Inductive reasoning goes like this:
Flies come from pre-existing flies.
Therefore, all other life forms come from pre-existing life forms.
This is now the third logical term you have misused in as many posts
Oh dear I know all of this, this is just elementary logic you dont need to repeat it again. A person of my status who now focusing on complex reasoning and retrogade reasoning know all of this things.
Science uses what is called a "hypothetico-deductive" system of reasoning. An idea derived from inductive logic is called a "hypothesis." A hypothesis is not considered authoritative, and cannot be used as evidence. It must go through deductive testing before it becomes authoritative
You did it well. Good Job!! This is however inconflict with your previous stand.
The testing of the "omne vivum ex ovo" hypothesis includes Miller-Urey and other studies like it. In fact, this testing is still going on, and what that testing is showing is that a lot of things that we thought couldn't self-assemble actually can. This means that chemical systems can gain in complexity over time
Information update: Miller currently have said that " the origin of life is much more difficult than other people and I envision"
One science writer in Technology review wrote: " scientist are having to re - think some of there assumption little evidence has emerged to support the notion of hydrogen rich highly reducing atmosphere bur some evidence speak againts it"
The scientific american reported that:" Over the past decades or so doubts have grown about Urey and Miller experiment" .I will continue later its already time. I still have to study my math lesson.