For some months I've been trying to apply the rigors of logic to the Origins debate. In this post I want to look at the fallacy of suppressed evidence. (As Hurley tells us, logic is the process of examining arguments, for the purpose of determining their validity or falsity.)
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Chapter 1 explained that a cogent argument is an inductive argument with good reasoning and true premises. The requirement of true premises includes the proviso that the premises not ignore some important piece of evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and entails a very different conclusion. If an inductive argument does indeed ignore such evidence, then the argument commits the fallacy of suppressed evidence. - Hurley/164
- Evolutionists continually commit the fallacy of suppressed evidence. (This is one of the fallacies of presumption.) They give arguments for the truth of evolution, but ignore the unwanted evidence from OOL experiments, and ignore the fact life only comes from life (Pasteur). Scientists know of no way simple chemicals can spontaneously arrange themselves into living organisms. This important piece of evidence leads to the conclusion evolution is impossible. i.e. if it can't get started how can it be a valid idea? (e.g. if X never came into being, X doesn't now exist.)
- The E. is actually saying; since we don't have any idea how simple chemicals can spontaneously arrange themselves into living organisms, we know that evolution (M2M) is true. (Doesn't look like a good argument to me.)
Notes;
1. 'This fallacy is classified as a fallacy of presumption because it works by creating the presumption that the premises are both true and complete when in fact they are not.
- the argument pretends that all you need to do to prove evolution is to show some kind of change. No. To prove E. you also have to show how the whole show got started. (This the E.s don't do.)
2. M2M = molecules to man (evolution)
3. A common e. argument goes like this; 'if we look at the fossil record we see that the life forms of the past were superseded by those that came later. We assume the earlier ones were transformed into those we now see. This change (or transformation) is conclusive evidence that e. is a fact. The fallacy here is suppressed evidence. Evolution (M2M) can't be a fact if simple chemicals can't spontaneously arrange themselves into living organisms; and as far as we know they cannot. (This has been admitted by most e.s and atheists; including Dawkins.)
- for this reason E.s don't like to talk about OOL issues; and if pinned down will simply shrug and say; 'we know it happened, we just don't know how.' That isn't science; that's merely their metaphysical bias. (Which we all have.)
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Creation, Evolution, and seduction
Quotes and comments;
1. 'In this fascinating volume, Mike Hansell [Built by animals] looks at the extraordinary structures that animals build--whether homes, traps, or courtship displays--and reveals what science can tell us about this incredible behavior. We look at wasp's nests, leaf-cutting ants, caddis flies and amoebae, and even the extraordinary bower bird, who seduces his mate with a decorated pile of twigs, baubles, feathers, and berries.'
- Gee Mike. Why would a male bird need to 'seduce' a female bird? (These are real birds right? not chicks from the 60's?) Is it trying to get the female to act in an immoral way? to get her to leave her family? to violate tradition? to commit a self-destructive act? Maybe the 'rascal' is trying to corrupt her?
- I don't get it. Animals don't need to be seduced; they are instinctually driven to procreate. (Again we see how E.s abuse language; how they shamelessly speak of animals in human terms; how they engage in equivocation.) Birds need to be seduced to mate about as much as they need to be seduced to fly. [Darwinism works to destroy the truth, the rationality and the usefulness of language.]
- one wonders who is being seduced; birds or modern day collegiates :=)
- I often wonder how it is our educated class have been persuaded to abandon the priceless heritage of Christianity for the 'baubles, twigs and feathers' of Darwinism. (Maybe it's the berries.) They get so very little for 'coming across.' About all that they get is sexual licence; and perhaps a rationale for nihilism. (But maybe that's all they want.)
- The spirit of the age has seduced them; but having said that I don't know how helpful it is. (It's almost impossible for the young person of today to resist this call. I suppose it will have to run its course. In time I'm confident people will see the absurdist implications of Reductionism and will rebel against the project... but until then we'll have to content ourselves with pointing out the obvious.) [1.]
Notes;
1. Evolution theory is a subset of Reductionism, which is a deduction from Materialism.
1. 'In this fascinating volume, Mike Hansell [Built by animals] looks at the extraordinary structures that animals build--whether homes, traps, or courtship displays--and reveals what science can tell us about this incredible behavior. We look at wasp's nests, leaf-cutting ants, caddis flies and amoebae, and even the extraordinary bower bird, who seduces his mate with a decorated pile of twigs, baubles, feathers, and berries.'
- Gee Mike. Why would a male bird need to 'seduce' a female bird? (These are real birds right? not chicks from the 60's?) Is it trying to get the female to act in an immoral way? to get her to leave her family? to violate tradition? to commit a self-destructive act? Maybe the 'rascal' is trying to corrupt her?
- I don't get it. Animals don't need to be seduced; they are instinctually driven to procreate. (Again we see how E.s abuse language; how they shamelessly speak of animals in human terms; how they engage in equivocation.) Birds need to be seduced to mate about as much as they need to be seduced to fly. [Darwinism works to destroy the truth, the rationality and the usefulness of language.]
- one wonders who is being seduced; birds or modern day collegiates :=)
- I often wonder how it is our educated class have been persuaded to abandon the priceless heritage of Christianity for the 'baubles, twigs and feathers' of Darwinism. (Maybe it's the berries.) They get so very little for 'coming across.' About all that they get is sexual licence; and perhaps a rationale for nihilism. (But maybe that's all they want.)
- The spirit of the age has seduced them; but having said that I don't know how helpful it is. (It's almost impossible for the young person of today to resist this call. I suppose it will have to run its course. In time I'm confident people will see the absurdist implications of Reductionism and will rebel against the project... but until then we'll have to content ourselves with pointing out the obvious.) [1.]
Notes;
1. Evolution theory is a subset of Reductionism, which is a deduction from Materialism.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Al Gore and the new Indulgences scam
Al Gore, and Johann Tetzel; soul brothers [3.]
The charade of the wealthy buying 'carbon credits' is a new version of an old game; namely the practice [popularized by the old Catholic church] of buying indulgences. It's the game of paying for the right to sin; paying for the right to be immune from any penalty for sin; the game of allowing the rich to say one thing and do another. In my opinon, 'cap and trade' is a re-run of an old game.
- An example of this is Al (the hockey stick) Gore.... (with his super sized mansion, super sized houseboats, supersized lifestyle; supersized ego, etc.) He (or his pr firm) pretends his decadent and ultra wasteful lifestyle is made clean and noble by buying a few carbon credits. This strikes me as little more than comical.
We're staring at hypocricy the size of a 100 foot yacht. It all boils down to saying 'if you're rich you can live like an jerk and yet brag about being righteous. (And thus in Orwellian double speak; bad is really good.) So in the language of long ago, you can sin as you please and still get to heaven. (Nice work if you can get it I guess.)
- In my view scare mongering (lies, hype, deceit and b.s.) is a poor way to encourage a responsible attitude toward environmental concerns. In my opinion the eco movement has made a serious mistake with their decision to rely upon Socialism and the mega state as an approach to stewardship. In my opinion the better approach is to favor a widely dispersed private ownership and local government. I think that a belief in Creation is the foundation for responsible behavior. In biblical terms; the world was created by an all wise, all intelligent God. It belongs to God, and man is but a steward under god... and man must act in terms of conformity to God's law. This is the biblical approach; and sadly it's one that most people (even Christians) seem to have rejected.
- Al Gore is quite the guy; first he invented the internet, and then he invented global warming.
Notes;
1. If he really cared for protecting the environment we'd see evidence of it in his private life; but we don't. [Throw a few coins to the poor and wave like royalty.] As played by people like Gore environmentalism is just another socialist scam; whereby politicians gain more power and wealth.
2. If the planet does not belong to God it belongs to man. If it wasn't created by god it just happened by accident. The implications of this are immense. If it just happened by accident it doesn't matter what human beings do to it; how they change it; or even if they destroy it. (eg. genetic engineering is founded on the 'accidentalism' of Materialism. i.e. if no one created the world no one can be harmed by human intervention into the genetic process.)
3. Johann Tetzel was the famous monk who sold indulgences
- Johann Tetzel (1465 – 11 August 1519) was a German Dominican preacher remembered for selling indulgences and for a couplet attributed to him, "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings / the soul from purgatory springs. - Wiki
- Because of the great demand from associations that their favorite prayers, devotions, places of worship or pilgrimage, their processions and meetings, be enriched with indulgences, there was a tendency to forge documents declaring that such indulgences, sometimes of extraordinary character, had been granted. Indulgences were attached to many works that were not only good but also served the common good, both religious and civil: churches, hospitals, leprosaria, charitable institutions and schools, and also roads and bridges. - Wiki
The later Middle Ages saw the growth of considerable abuses, such as the unrestricted sale of indulgences by professional "pardoners"[3] (quaestores in Latin), who were sent to collect contributions to the project. In many cases the preaching of these, out of ignorance or shrewdness, went far beyond dogmatic teachings; some of them even dared to promise that the damned would be released from hell. Permission began to be granted to Catholic kings and princes, particularly on the occasion of Crusades, to retain for themselves a rather considerable part of the alms collected for the gaining of indulgences. The most well-known and debated question is the indulgence granted for building the new St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. - Wiki
5. If it weren't for the indulgences scheme Al Gore would be villified; but thanks to PC buffoonery he's claimed a champion of all the right causes. Nice trick.
- as a clever twist on all this, it now turns out Gore himself is in the business of selling indulgences. (Nice work if you can get it.)
6. It's not true by the way, that Gore invented the hockey stick; that was invented by a guy from Canada. (As I recall it was a fellow named Moose Lafleur :=)
The charade of the wealthy buying 'carbon credits' is a new version of an old game; namely the practice [popularized by the old Catholic church] of buying indulgences. It's the game of paying for the right to sin; paying for the right to be immune from any penalty for sin; the game of allowing the rich to say one thing and do another. In my opinon, 'cap and trade' is a re-run of an old game.
- An example of this is Al (the hockey stick) Gore.... (with his super sized mansion, super sized houseboats, supersized lifestyle; supersized ego, etc.) He (or his pr firm) pretends his decadent and ultra wasteful lifestyle is made clean and noble by buying a few carbon credits. This strikes me as little more than comical.
We're staring at hypocricy the size of a 100 foot yacht. It all boils down to saying 'if you're rich you can live like an jerk and yet brag about being righteous. (And thus in Orwellian double speak; bad is really good.) So in the language of long ago, you can sin as you please and still get to heaven. (Nice work if you can get it I guess.)
- In my view scare mongering (lies, hype, deceit and b.s.) is a poor way to encourage a responsible attitude toward environmental concerns. In my opinion the eco movement has made a serious mistake with their decision to rely upon Socialism and the mega state as an approach to stewardship. In my opinion the better approach is to favor a widely dispersed private ownership and local government. I think that a belief in Creation is the foundation for responsible behavior. In biblical terms; the world was created by an all wise, all intelligent God. It belongs to God, and man is but a steward under god... and man must act in terms of conformity to God's law. This is the biblical approach; and sadly it's one that most people (even Christians) seem to have rejected.
- Al Gore is quite the guy; first he invented the internet, and then he invented global warming.
Notes;
1. If he really cared for protecting the environment we'd see evidence of it in his private life; but we don't. [Throw a few coins to the poor and wave like royalty.] As played by people like Gore environmentalism is just another socialist scam; whereby politicians gain more power and wealth.
2. If the planet does not belong to God it belongs to man. If it wasn't created by god it just happened by accident. The implications of this are immense. If it just happened by accident it doesn't matter what human beings do to it; how they change it; or even if they destroy it. (eg. genetic engineering is founded on the 'accidentalism' of Materialism. i.e. if no one created the world no one can be harmed by human intervention into the genetic process.)
3. Johann Tetzel was the famous monk who sold indulgences
- Johann Tetzel (1465 – 11 August 1519) was a German Dominican preacher remembered for selling indulgences and for a couplet attributed to him, "As soon as a coin in the coffer rings / the soul from purgatory springs. - Wiki
- Because of the great demand from associations that their favorite prayers, devotions, places of worship or pilgrimage, their processions and meetings, be enriched with indulgences, there was a tendency to forge documents declaring that such indulgences, sometimes of extraordinary character, had been granted. Indulgences were attached to many works that were not only good but also served the common good, both religious and civil: churches, hospitals, leprosaria, charitable institutions and schools, and also roads and bridges. - Wiki
The later Middle Ages saw the growth of considerable abuses, such as the unrestricted sale of indulgences by professional "pardoners"[3] (quaestores in Latin), who were sent to collect contributions to the project. In many cases the preaching of these, out of ignorance or shrewdness, went far beyond dogmatic teachings; some of them even dared to promise that the damned would be released from hell. Permission began to be granted to Catholic kings and princes, particularly on the occasion of Crusades, to retain for themselves a rather considerable part of the alms collected for the gaining of indulgences. The most well-known and debated question is the indulgence granted for building the new St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. - Wiki
5. If it weren't for the indulgences scheme Al Gore would be villified; but thanks to PC buffoonery he's claimed a champion of all the right causes. Nice trick.
- as a clever twist on all this, it now turns out Gore himself is in the business of selling indulgences. (Nice work if you can get it.)
6. It's not true by the way, that Gore invented the hockey stick; that was invented by a guy from Canada. (As I recall it was a fellow named Moose Lafleur :=)
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Criticism of the death penalty as evidence of man's uniqueness
There is much campaigning nowadays about the evils of the death penalty; how it is cruel, inhuman, etc. and should be abolished. Much of this strikes me as hypocritical. Never in human history have so many claimed to believe man is just an animal; but yet here's a denial of the implications of such a claim.
- If man is just an animal, as the e.s claim, how can the death penalty be wrong. After all; animals kill animals all day long (handing out the death penalty as it were). No one says that's wrong. Therefore to say the death penalty is wrong one has to also claim that man is not an animal. This is the clear implication; but how many people are willing to admit this.
- Can you imagine an animal making such a claim? Animals (as far as we know) just accept the world as it is (even the human world it would seem) but human beings don't. Here's one more radical difference between man and the animals.
- If man is just an animal what foundation is there for being against one animal killing another? (The logical deduction is that man is not an animal; or killing an animal isn't wrong.)
- The irony here (if that's not too tame a word) is that on the one hand the materialist (E.) wants to claim man is just an animal so he can escape the limits of acting in a moral way; but then he finds he wants to insist on certain moral absolutes after all. He seems to 'forget' that if he is indeed just an animal he can't use moral arguments. Finding himself in such a bind he hopes people won't realize he's contradicting himself. What else can he do?
- In my opinion, the campaign to eliminate the death penalty is evidence man is not an animal; and that the people involved know (on some level) that this is the case. (You will notice that they don't try to get the State to prevent wolves from eating deer.) In other words, their actions give them away.
Notes;
1. Evolutionists rarely define what they mean by an animal; but a tentative definition is a creature that has no free will. (If man then is an animal, he has no free will. If he has no free will he can do no wrong. Therefore the death penalty isn't wrong.)
- and you see why the pc professor doesn't like logic.
- If man is just an animal, as the e.s claim, how can the death penalty be wrong. After all; animals kill animals all day long (handing out the death penalty as it were). No one says that's wrong. Therefore to say the death penalty is wrong one has to also claim that man is not an animal. This is the clear implication; but how many people are willing to admit this.
- Can you imagine an animal making such a claim? Animals (as far as we know) just accept the world as it is (even the human world it would seem) but human beings don't. Here's one more radical difference between man and the animals.
- If man is just an animal what foundation is there for being against one animal killing another? (The logical deduction is that man is not an animal; or killing an animal isn't wrong.)
- The irony here (if that's not too tame a word) is that on the one hand the materialist (E.) wants to claim man is just an animal so he can escape the limits of acting in a moral way; but then he finds he wants to insist on certain moral absolutes after all. He seems to 'forget' that if he is indeed just an animal he can't use moral arguments. Finding himself in such a bind he hopes people won't realize he's contradicting himself. What else can he do?
- In my opinion, the campaign to eliminate the death penalty is evidence man is not an animal; and that the people involved know (on some level) that this is the case. (You will notice that they don't try to get the State to prevent wolves from eating deer.) In other words, their actions give them away.
Notes;
1. Evolutionists rarely define what they mean by an animal; but a tentative definition is a creature that has no free will. (If man then is an animal, he has no free will. If he has no free will he can do no wrong. Therefore the death penalty isn't wrong.)
- and you see why the pc professor doesn't like logic.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Language; its many uses prove human uniqueness
As I study the Origins debate, I repeatedly come across the claim by Evolutionists that there is no difference between human beings and animals. Though I believe this is an absurd claim, I think it's necessary to address it. Today I want to look at some evidence from language.
Quotes and comments;
1. - 'Ordinary language, as most of us are at least vaguely aware, serves various functions in our day-to-day lives. The twentieth-century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein thought the number of these functions to be virtually unlimited.
Thus, among other things, language is used to;
- ask questions
- tell stories
- tell lies
- guess at answers
- form hypotheses
- launch verbal assaults
- tell jokes
- flirt with someone
- give directions
- sing songs
- issue commands
- greet someone... and so on.' [1.]
- When you stop to think about all the things you can do with language, it truly is amazing how flexible language is.
- To be able to claim there is no difference between animals and human beings you have to be able to use language. (No animal can make such a claim or deny such a claim.)
- Animals don't use language to do any of these things. (At least not in the same way human beings do.) Imagine not being able to tell stories; not being able to sing songs; not being able to tell jokes; not being able to ask questions, etc. (And what would our pols do if they couldn't lie :=)
- The following is a partial list of some more things we can do with language; be sarcastic; use irony; form puns; form symbols; create metaphors; form analogies; write poetry; create rhymes; form equations; demonstrate logic; demonstrate illogic; criticize bad theories; do thought experiments; express worship; form arguments; form faulty arguments; to pretend we believe one thing when we believe another; to read; to write; to denounce religion; to praise political schemes; to write history; to offer evidence for metaphysical positions; to plagiarize; construct cosmologies; and so on.
- to insist, in the face of this evidence, there is no difference between human beings and animals would appear to be nothing more than ideological bias. (i.e. an exercise in buffoonery.)
Notes;
1. the above comes from; 'A concise introduction to logic' - Hurley p/78
2. And what would evolutionists do if they couldn't slander creationists? How poor Mr. Dawkins would suffer :=)But does anyone imagine animals engage in slandering other animals for their metaphysical views?
Quotes and comments;
1. - 'Ordinary language, as most of us are at least vaguely aware, serves various functions in our day-to-day lives. The twentieth-century philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein thought the number of these functions to be virtually unlimited.
Thus, among other things, language is used to;
- ask questions
- tell stories
- tell lies
- guess at answers
- form hypotheses
- launch verbal assaults
- tell jokes
- flirt with someone
- give directions
- sing songs
- issue commands
- greet someone... and so on.' [1.]
- When you stop to think about all the things you can do with language, it truly is amazing how flexible language is.
- To be able to claim there is no difference between animals and human beings you have to be able to use language. (No animal can make such a claim or deny such a claim.)
- Animals don't use language to do any of these things. (At least not in the same way human beings do.) Imagine not being able to tell stories; not being able to sing songs; not being able to tell jokes; not being able to ask questions, etc. (And what would our pols do if they couldn't lie :=)
- The following is a partial list of some more things we can do with language; be sarcastic; use irony; form puns; form symbols; create metaphors; form analogies; write poetry; create rhymes; form equations; demonstrate logic; demonstrate illogic; criticize bad theories; do thought experiments; express worship; form arguments; form faulty arguments; to pretend we believe one thing when we believe another; to read; to write; to denounce religion; to praise political schemes; to write history; to offer evidence for metaphysical positions; to plagiarize; construct cosmologies; and so on.
- to insist, in the face of this evidence, there is no difference between human beings and animals would appear to be nothing more than ideological bias. (i.e. an exercise in buffoonery.)
Notes;
1. the above comes from; 'A concise introduction to logic' - Hurley p/78
2. And what would evolutionists do if they couldn't slander creationists? How poor Mr. Dawkins would suffer :=)But does anyone imagine animals engage in slandering other animals for their metaphysical views?
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Chimp charity and other circus tricks
A couple years ago the popular science mags were all a gaggle over an experiment that supposed demonstrated a selfless act of charity by one chimp to another. [1.]
Comments;
Problem. You can prove almost anything you want with an experiment; especially one that is designed to prove some point; especially with convoluted and contrived (i.e. unnatural) situations.
- one wonders how this experiment is any different from teaching a bear to ride a bicycle. Does getting a bear to ride a bicycle prove bears like riding bikes? does it prove they build them? does it prove they enjoy recreational activities? does it prove they enjoy entertaining humans? does it prove they enjoy showing off? does it prove that they are by nature circus performers?
- i.e. In these kinds of experiments, you're manipulating the animal to act in the way you want.
Notes;
1. Chimp altruism; is it all true? Creation/Evolution Headlines 06/27/2007
2. The philosophy of experiments (experimentation) is a little studied subject. I can't find a single book on the subject. I can't even recall reading a single essay on the subject. (Is it a taboo subject or something :=)
- after more search I came across a title called 'The philosophy of Scientific Experimentation' - by Radder
3. - The question I have is this; just what do experiments prove? (especially those with animals or human beings) The more important question (and the more complex one) is this; 'what does a particular experiment prove?' (If anything.)
Comments;
Problem. You can prove almost anything you want with an experiment; especially one that is designed to prove some point; especially with convoluted and contrived (i.e. unnatural) situations.
- one wonders how this experiment is any different from teaching a bear to ride a bicycle. Does getting a bear to ride a bicycle prove bears like riding bikes? does it prove they build them? does it prove they enjoy recreational activities? does it prove they enjoy entertaining humans? does it prove they enjoy showing off? does it prove that they are by nature circus performers?
- i.e. In these kinds of experiments, you're manipulating the animal to act in the way you want.
Notes;
1. Chimp altruism; is it all true? Creation/Evolution Headlines 06/27/2007
2. The philosophy of experiments (experimentation) is a little studied subject. I can't find a single book on the subject. I can't even recall reading a single essay on the subject. (Is it a taboo subject or something :=)
- after more search I came across a title called 'The philosophy of Scientific Experimentation' - by Radder
3. - The question I have is this; just what do experiments prove? (especially those with animals or human beings) The more important question (and the more complex one) is this; 'what does a particular experiment prove?' (If anything.)
Thursday, May 21, 2009
The search for the god gene; and other bits of comedy
On the cover of a popular science magazine, not too long ago, I saw a headline, "Scientists search for the cause of religious faith." I'm sure you've seen similar article titles floating around.
Comments;
- In my opinion this kind of reductionism is absurd. Were the editors so blind they don't realize this means there's physical cause for a belief in Darwinism as well? Don't they see it? or do they pretend they don't?
- The dirty little secret of reductionism is this; not only would there have to be a material cause for belief in God, but there would have to be a cause for all beliefs; in aliens, monsters, reincarnation, astrology, Communism, the eternal universe, etc. This would include not merely 'big' beliefs, but would necessitate there being a physical cause of all human thoughts.
- This kind of radical reductionism means there there would even have to be a cause [a gene] for a belief in reductionism.
- The ancient philosopher Pyrrho said we should keep an open mind on things; because for every statement [A] that men make, we can find a corresponding non-A. that is also claimed. In other words, you will find men on both sides of every argument. (Gee; I wonder what gene explains that? Maybe the contrarian gene :=)
Notes;
1. Does anyone really believe you can explain the fact we have evolutionists and creationists on the basis of DNA?
Comments;
- In my opinion this kind of reductionism is absurd. Were the editors so blind they don't realize this means there's physical cause for a belief in Darwinism as well? Don't they see it? or do they pretend they don't?
- The dirty little secret of reductionism is this; not only would there have to be a material cause for belief in God, but there would have to be a cause for all beliefs; in aliens, monsters, reincarnation, astrology, Communism, the eternal universe, etc. This would include not merely 'big' beliefs, but would necessitate there being a physical cause of all human thoughts.
- This kind of radical reductionism means there there would even have to be a cause [a gene] for a belief in reductionism.
- The ancient philosopher Pyrrho said we should keep an open mind on things; because for every statement [A] that men make, we can find a corresponding non-A. that is also claimed. In other words, you will find men on both sides of every argument. (Gee; I wonder what gene explains that? Maybe the contrarian gene :=)
Notes;
1. Does anyone really believe you can explain the fact we have evolutionists and creationists on the basis of DNA?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
