Mad Dawg

Joined

• started 43 topics
• posted 1,003 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Mad Dawg

• 
  36

  What is Circular Reasoning?

  by God_Delusion in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i know what circular reasoning is because i wrote about it, so i know i'm right .

  http://www.jehovahswitnessblog.com/2010/01/what-is-circular-reasoning.html.

  carlos.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mad Dawg

  Assumption one: Evolution would produce simultaneous, unique life forms. Assign it a value of 0.5

  Assumtion two: We know that designers use common design elements. Assign it a value of 1

  Where's the problem?
• 
  36

  What is Circular Reasoning?

  by God_Delusion in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i know what circular reasoning is because i wrote about it, so i know i'm right .

  http://www.jehovahswitnessblog.com/2010/01/what-is-circular-reasoning.html.

  carlos.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mad Dawg

  Your probability statements have no bearing on whether or not X is true - only whether or not you can accept it as true. Our understanding of germ theory had no bearing on the validity of spontaneous generation. As your equation is based on your assumptions, all that is needed to change the outcome is to say "I am not so sure" about one of the statements. Your equation is the epitome of circular reasoning: I have faith in evolution. Hey look! My equation proves me right! I can write the same equation with a revision of the premises and swapping out the variables. Viola! Creation probably happened.

  Science is what it is, we can't redefine it to include our pet theory.
• 
  36

  What is Circular Reasoning?

  by God_Delusion in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i know what circular reasoning is because i wrote about it, so i know i'm right .

  http://www.jehovahswitnessblog.com/2010/01/what-is-circular-reasoning.html.

  carlos.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mad Dawg

  Bohm said:

  First some more silly remarks: Because we cannot determine a number does not mean it does not exist.

  True. We should be able to determine a number within some margin of error. To claim there is a number and then say the sum of our knowledge of that number is comprised of the null set effectively negates the existence of that number.

  yes i happily admit that i just think there is a high probability that evolution is true and creation is false - there is no admission there.

  Let me see if I understand you here:

  Ø The probability of evolution being true is <1.

  Ø The probability of creationism being true is >0.

  Ø YET, you state you do not admit that evolution is partially false and creationism is partially true.

  Ø Would you agree that, given the first two statements, that “possibly” can be used instead of “partially” in the third statement above?

  Keep in mind that in point C of your earlier post you expressed a preference of probabilities “rather than treating these as either completely true or false”.

  Just wondering:

  Ø If a rabbit were found next to a T-Rex, would you then assign a possibility of zero to evolution?

  o Do you understand that the lack of rabbits proves nothing?

  o Would you simply say that rabbits evolved earlier than we thought?

  Ø Do you realize that all the DNA in the world tells us exactly nothing of the DNA of animals that exist only as fossils?

  Ø What is this talk of genetic proof when you claim there are only probabilities?

  Ø The scientific method requires that something be observable, measurable, and reproducible.

  o Everyone agrees that there is at least a small degree of change in organisms. This does not prove horses evolved from dogs. Such a large degree of change has never been observed.

  o Probability applies to historical events.

  o Historical events cannot be tested.

  "Well, life can certainly have originated more than once so it is possible the statement is not true. But its billions of years since life originated, so it is likely one kind of life would have evolved some superior trait, for example the ability to replicate quickly, early on and driven the other into extinction.

  Ummm… earlier you stated that evolution does not require the extinction of earlier life forms, are you now saying it does? How can we have organisms with similar traits today it the superior ones “drive(n) the other into extinction”? Sounds like an ad hoc explanation for what is seen in nature.

  In all cases a Mitochondrial-Eve style ARGUMENT (not observation!) show that all sexual animals must be related".

  Mitochondrial Eve deals only with humans – nothing else. Other species would have their own Mitochondrial Eve’s.

  In fact, i will challenge you to find anything else which will change the probability.

  You really make this too easy. Because you arbitrarily assigned values to the variables in the equation, all that needs to be done is to assign different, equally arbitrary, values. It would also help you to understand what they say about common design.

  You would do well to actually read up on what creationists say about c 14 rather than trying to argue against a caricature of their arguments.
• 
  36

  What is Circular Reasoning?

  by God_Delusion in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i know what circular reasoning is because i wrote about it, so i know i'm right .

  http://www.jehovahswitnessblog.com/2010/01/what-is-circular-reasoning.html.

  carlos.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mad Dawg

  Bhom said:

  mad dawg: "If finding a creature from today next to a dinosaur falsifies evolution, you have a problem. There are many critters (alligators, mosquitoes, cockroaches, certain fish) that are found next to dinosaurs. Just that every time something falsifies evolution, an ad hoc excuse is created. So-called predictions are not the basis of science. In order for it to be science, it must be: measureable, verifiable and repeatable. As origins deals with history, neither idea qualifies as science."

  you are completely wrong

  Really? Completely and totally? You should reread your own point d.

  a) Evolution does not predict alligators, mosquitoes, etc. have died out… I never said that evolution predicts extinctions. read any introductory text about evolution to see why you are wrong. You need to read your own point d again.

  It does predict a number of things, for example that there will be some significant changes in their DNA, especially the non-coding parts. It even give some numbers on that based on mutation rates, population size, etc. that in principle can be tested (provided one could find ancient DNA). Because we don’t have enough ancient DNA, we cannot draw any conclusions based on it. Therefore, this is an evolutionary prophecy in search of a fulfillment.

  b) The rabbit and T-rex example is still relevant. i mentioned them because everything indicates rabbits evolved LATER than the dinosauers, I mentioned the ‘gators and such because if we don’t find a particular known contemporary of the dinos side by side with the dinos, the lack of rabbits prove nothing.

  and therefore they could not live together. And here is the circular reasoning. I know that C supports my position because A and B do. How do I know that A supports my position? Because B and C do. How do I know that B supports my position? Because A and C do.

  talkorigins has a list of 29 falsifiable claims made by evolution ... This article addresses all 29 claims.

  c) Your definition of science is pretty lame. Lame? It is a standard overview of thescientific method.

  Science is ALL about making predictions, Only in that it provides some guidance on where to apply the scientific method. Evolutionary “predictions” are not predictions at all. They are bootstrap explanations to what has been previously observed in nature. From Talk Origins’ claim 1 of 29:

  Ø If universal common ancestry is true, then all organisms will have one or more traits in common. (How do you know? Prove that a unique form of life can’t arise.)

  Ø OMG! All organisms have something in common. We MUST have evolved! There can’t be any other explanation.

  Let me ask you this: Is it not correct to talk about the probability of eg. evolution or creation being true, Could you put a number to the probability?

  rather than treating these as either completely true or false? Is this an admission that evolution is at least partly false and creationism is at least partly right?

  if yes, do you disagree with the bayesian paradigm, or do you think i misapplies it? You misapplied it.

  d) I think all creationists should read this scripture before getting themselves into trouble: Proverbs 18:13 "When anyone replies to a matter before he hears it, that is foolishness on his part, and a humiliation". You would do well to heed your own advice here.
• 
  33

  What I'm Going to Do About Climate Change!

  by frankiespeakin in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i know many here are very passionate about this subject, and i must admit both sides have made me think about it more than i would have normally.. but in the final analysis i'm disposed to do absolutely nothing about it and this is my reasoning on it.. we are all going to die some day, and realistically there is not much we can do about it, so why worry about some future time when the planet might have less space on it for humans to live there is nothing i can do to make a difference anyway.

  what is going to happen will happen my worrying about it isn't going to change anything.. the planet is already over populated because of our longer life span and medical advancements.

  we can't keep multiplying like we have and expect things to just keep on going like they are going without any serious repercussions to our species.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mad Dawg

  So Villa,

  Please tell how you plan to usher in the New Utopia?
• 
  36

  What is Circular Reasoning?

  by God_Delusion in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i know what circular reasoning is because i wrote about it, so i know i'm right .

  http://www.jehovahswitnessblog.com/2010/01/what-is-circular-reasoning.html.

  carlos.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mad Dawg

  If finding a creature from today next to a dinosour falsifies evolution, you have a problem. There are many critters (alligators, mosquitoes, cockroaches, certain fish) that are found next to dinosours. Just that every time something falsifies evolution, an ad hoc excuse is created. So-called predictions are not the basis of science. In order for it to be science, it must be: measureable, verifieable and repeatable. As origens deals with history, neither idea qualifies as science.
• 
  100

  Has Global Warming Reached The Tipping Point of No Return?

  by frankiespeakin in

  1. jw
  2. friends
  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mad Dawg

  Come on now cutey, you know who I am talking about.

  I’ll give you a hint though, it is the same moron that said this:

  Every aspect of its (this civilization) existence, from architecture to governance repugns me. I do not want to reform it, I want nothing but its demise.
• 
  100

  Has Global Warming Reached The Tipping Point of No Return?

  by frankiespeakin in

  1. jw
  2. friends
  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mad Dawg

  And Villian is just drooling, waiting for the day we all die. Still a Dub at heart.
• 
  57

  Right to Die Issue Terminally Ill, Hopelessly Paralized, Etc..What Are Your Thoughts?

  by frankiespeakin in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  first off let me say this is not about me, i'm happy and healthy.

  it really about all the suffering i see people going thru.

  examples in my family over the years have caused me to think very seriously this.. i could give you a couple of examples and i'm sure some of our posters can tell other horror stories they'd witnessed where perhaps it would have been much better for them and their family if they could have passed away painlessly and with much more dignity.. one of my sisters developed breast cancer and died after about a 12month struggle, we saw her waste away to just skin and bones, it was hard on me as well as her two young children and husband.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mad Dawg

  After working two weeks in a nursing home, I told my wife to pull the plug if I ever end up in a wheel chair staring at the ceiling. Not for me, but for her. The problem is when the decision is left to someone else. The farther from the patient the more dangerous.
• 
  100

  Has Global Warming Reached The Tipping Point of No Return?

  by frankiespeakin in

  1. jw
  2. friends
  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Mad Dawg

  Don't ya just love people who want to force everyone else into their vision of society?