deadman_932
Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006
|
| Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 30 2009,10:35) | | Quote (deadman_932 @ April 28 2009,18:00) | .
You still need to give a detailed, coherent response to this post first, Denial (not that I expect anything but your usual fraud) :
| Quote (deadman_932 @ April 26 2009,19:57) | | Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 26 2009,18:57) | | Quote (deadman_932 @ April 26 2009,13:17) |
Two questions, then, Denial:
(1) Will you define "settled science" without asking someone else to do it for you?
(2) Will you flip-flop back and forth again on who determines "settled science?" Here, you've used mutually-exclusive tactics; claiming that scientists determine it, then in the next breath posing yourself as the one who decides.
|
1. Settled science = A hypothesis that is finely detailed, extensively tested, empirically verified by each test, and agreed "settled" by the experts in the field.
An example of settled science would be the hypothesis that the Earth orbits the Sun.
2. Settled science is determined by consensus of the experts in the field - never by internet posers.
Now - all you have to do is show me a detailed natural evolutionary pathway that meets these two criteria. Your aminosynthetic pathway does not qualify A) because it is a sketchy outline, and B) because you cannot show where the experts in the field have agreed - after extensive testing - that it is "settled science" to the same degree that it is settled that the Earth orbits the Sun. |
With your example of planetary orbits of the sun, you should have pointed to "origins" of that system...because it's there that your con-game is exposed. For example: is the ORIGIN of current planetary orbits "settled science," Denial? In all detail? Verifiably? Replicably? With consensus in the scientific community?
See, you're not just pointing to existing bio-genetic things and saying "I want to know a pathway for aminosynthesis." ....you're asking for the ORIGINS of that pathway.
You're using obvious fallacies (again!) in your con-game , Denial:
(1) You're trying to substitute a now-existing system (planetary orbits) for your actual previous request for the ORIGINS of a system ("show me how an aminosynthesis [or solar system] pathway evolved"). This is a "compositional fallacy." Or I could just call it a false analogy and leave it at that.
(2) With your example of planetary orbits, you're also using "begging the question" of such a system, because you're assuming facts not in evidence, like the ORIGINS of that system -- which is what you **REALLY** asked for about an evolutionary pathway. Try putting the EXACT same burdens of evidence on your own examples as you did on the examples of others, Denial. Don't try to substitute "existing " systems for "origins of" an existing system.
I could bother to point out how you're also employing a "cause and effect" fallacy, strawman,equivocation, etc., but I won't bother.
Now that you've dropped your other fake game of "final answers" in science, point to things in science that deal with what YOU actually asked for, Denial -- the ORIGINS of a system.
I want those examples to be as detailed as what your "definitional" criteria demands. Obviously you can find some that meet that level of " fine detail," testing, verification and agreed-upon acceptance. While you state just exactly, PRECISELY what criteria you use to determine EACH of those things.
See how easy it is to expose your con-game , Denial? |
When you answer this to my satisfaction, I might respond to your request, Denial.
But my guess is that you simply lack the personal honor or ethics ("christian" or otherwise) to do so in any significant way. |
My original argument states: | Quote | | if a God of infinite intelligence created something, we will never be able to explain its origins by natural means. |
This applies to the solar system as well.
Your admission that detailed origins for planetary orbits are unattainable enhances my argument. |
1. I didn't say that sufficiently-detailed evidence regarding the origins of planetary orbits (to satisfy anyone but the most lunatic creationist like yourself) is "unattainable." We are continuing to gather this data today.
2. Me pointing out your fallacious substitution of "current" planets orbiting the sun vs. your actual demand to see origins of phenomenon...had absolutely no effect on you. Not even an apology for your blatant attempt at your usual low-level trickery. This isn't a good sign at all, Denial. Your personal expectations for your own ethics has sunk to new depths.
3. My point was quite clear, as were my repeated requests for specifics of how you evaluate evidence regarding " fine detail," testing, verification and agreed-upon acceptance. You didn't bother with that, either.
4.
(a) You asked for an aminosynthesis pathway, because you say evolution can't account for the origins of such a pathway.
(b) You were given that.
( c) You say it's not good enough for you (though you also say it's scientists who judge that) because it's not detailed enough as a "final answer."
(d) I point out that science doesn't deal with final answers, but for fun, I ask you to point to one.
(e) You concede that science doesn't deal in immutable "final answers" but you point to planetary orbits as example of something "settled" ; agreed-on in all details, etc. by the scientific community.
(f) I point out (among other things) that your attempt to use the example of planetary orbits around the sun isn't the same as asking for the origins of such a system. Also, I could have mentioned that this "settled" knowledge could change tomorrow -- therefore it's not immutably settled. That's the way science is, due to the limits of induction --
(g) You seize on this and cry, "See?!?!111one! You can't know the origins of things in detail that satisfies my criteria, even if I say it's scientists who are to judge the validity of scientific claims, and no, I won't specify what criteria I use!!Bwahaha!! Therefore God exists!! "
Want me to list the fallacies you're employing now, Denial? The list is large.
Luckily, most of this can all be boiled down to the same infinite regress that I and others pointed out many times before -- All you have "discovered" is that Denial can reduce any phenomenon down to component parts and theoretically continue to ask indefinitely "but where did that come from?" -- and declare "victory" when an honest respondent eventually has to answer "well, we can't say at this time."
Hell, I could use your "method" to "prove" elves, too, if the "proof" is only contingent on someone saying "well, we don't know where the north pole 'comes from' "
For you that means "God." but for others -- more honest folks -- that simply means "God of the Gaps".
By the way, I have to marvel at the sheer dishonest duplicity of offering up planetary orbits as an example of "settled" science....and then your willingness to say "but I win if it's NOT "settled" science , even if **I** use it for an example of settled science, myself." Heads you win, tails everyone else loses? My. Even when YOU cite the example?
Does this sort of low-level fallacy-mongering work among your churchy brethren? One has to wonder why you keep trying it, even when you keep getting exposed using it.
To summarize: You still haven't pointed to anything that is deemed "settled science" regarding origins, because that's where you find the gaps to stick your god in when He isn't in the mirror. Nor have you cast any light on the criteria by which you evaluate evidence. It's put up or shut up tiime, Denial.
Try being honest and saying "well, the truth is that my criteria are only based on finding a point at which scientists say 'we don't know' and then I swoop in and prop my God up there."
--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism
|
