Posts by bohm

36

What is Circular Reasoning?

by God_Delusion in

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.

bohm

Mad Dawg: It got a little better, but not a lot.

"I never said that evolution predicts extinctions."Good then we agree and i misunderstood your point about alligators. I thought you mentioned alligators because it had some impact on my claim that finding a bunny next to a T-rex would wreck havoc to evolution.

"Because we don’t have enough ancient DNA, we cannot draw any conclusions based on it" True and quite unfortunate. But we have DNA from all living creatures and some extinct and it keep bringing more evidence in favor of evolution all the time.

"And here is the circular reasoning.". Oh really? yes, the evolutionary tree is build on observations, ie fossils, but there is a lot more to it than that. We can see that mammals evolve, ie. change away from the dinos, and that the mamals become more rabbit-like the younger they are. A rabbit and a T-rex together would indeed wreck havoc to that, a gator and a dino do not. Furthermore, after all this work was done, genetics came along and offered yet another layer of proof.

"Lame? It is a standard overview of thescientific method. ". Im sorry for my poor choice of word. The scientific method is the way science usually operate, ie. a method. What i am talking about here is how to use evidence to reject or accept a hypothesis. Thats why i am talking about bayes law and i think you mix these two up.

I will review the 29 claims later. Perhaps you should post them as a topic on their own?

NEXT POST: Fun with numbers.

12

Tim Kilgore and E-Watchman square off on Charity....

by Tuesday in

jw
friends

hey folks, so i figured i'd give an update on the ongoing back and forths between myself and e-watchman.

this might help if you come in contact with the argument about jehovah's witnesses not giving to everyone but only to other jehovah's witnesses.

i also have one regarding why jehovah's witnesses are considered god's chosen people after splintering from associated bible students and finally a bunch regarding homosexuality in nature.

bohm

I think he is delibrately trying to bait you, but being subtle about it. For example i doubt it was a coinsidence he choose to mention the 'dog eating its own vomit', and there was also a lot of other comments made in that video that he made in order to bait you.

good work besides that. i liked your question 'who acted like a brother?'.

10

Congregation "Bible Study" Comments - Week Commencing 25 January 2010

by LUKEWARM in

*** lv chap.

16 pp.

183-195 oppose the devil and his crafty acts ***.

bohm

Lukewarm: If i may ask, what effect did it have on them that they read CoC and iSoCF?

36

What is Circular Reasoning?

by God_Delusion in

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.

bohm

Perry: Ill bring beer - but you better be right and the steak is less than 18 mio. years old or i will go Richard Dawkins on your ass! ;-)

36

What is Circular Reasoning?

by God_Delusion in

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.

bohm

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."

you are completely wrong

a) Evolution does not predict alligators, mosquitoes, etc. have died out. read any introductory text about evolution to see why you are wrong. 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).

b) The rabbit and T-rex example is still relevant. i mentioned them because everything indicates rabbits evolved LATER than the dinosauers, and therefore they could not live together. Thats what makes the theory falsifiable and there is very little room for add-hoc explanations there. So instead of introducing a red herring with the alligator, you should perhaps focus on how this does not make the theory falsifiable. Heck, if you dont like the example, talkorigins has a list of 29 falsifiable claims made by evolution that has been posted here to death.

c) Your definition of science is pretty lame. I can define 'wrong' to be anything that implies the existence of a God, but that would also be a stupid argument from definition. Science is ALL about making predictions, did you understand what i wrote about probabilities? Let me ask you this: Is it not correct to talk about the probability of eg. evolution or creation being true, rather than treating these as either completely true or false? if yes, do you disagree with the bayesian paradigm, or do you think i misapplies 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".

145

GETTING SUCKED IN? Ask the right questions to get the right answers.

by Terry in

it is too easy to get sucked in to the wrong argument at the wrong time.. asking the wrong question leads to the wrong answer.

a wrong answer does nobody any real good.. i once had a heated discussion with an old friend who is still an active jehovah's witness.. he came back at me with this:.

"okay, then--if jehovah's organization is a false religion, where is the true one?

bohm

Perry: If all i ever did was sitting in mom and pops basement watching reruns of friends and all of a sudden i had an idea for a scientific theory based on no evidence, just something i thought up. If that theory turned out to agree with some experiments i later did, that would be IDEAL and VERY strong evidence in favor of it. It does not matter where the theory originates from, in fact, the less data is avaliable when it is formulated, the better.

145

GETTING SUCKED IN? Ask the right questions to get the right answers.

by Terry in

it is too easy to get sucked in to the wrong argument at the wrong time.. asking the wrong question leads to the wrong answer.

a wrong answer does nobody any real good.. i once had a heated discussion with an old friend who is still an active jehovah's witness.. he came back at me with this:.

"okay, then--if jehovah's organization is a false religion, where is the true one?

bohm

Perry: The quote: "Even Einstein did mostly thought experiments using hypothetical data that RESULTED in testable proof", you do realize this is the strongest evidence one can have for a theory right? I mean, that it was build on very little data to begin with, and then data was introduced as a test afterwards?

36

What is Circular Reasoning?

by God_Delusion in

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.

bohm

Perry: if i didnt make it explicit, my answer to your question is a resounding YES! So let me ask you back: Is the global deluge a couple of thousands years ago a scientific theory, and if yes - well, you know what i would like to ask next ;-)

36

What is Circular Reasoning?

by God_Delusion in

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.

bohm

Perry: Its not just an oppinion. To me proving something is true in the natural world means you want to talk about the probability that it is true because thats really all we can do. This view is the same as advocated by eg. Jaynes if you want me to slap a fancy name on it.

As i wrote, probabilities is a subjective thing and depends on your priors. what we DO have is a method of combining probabilities, basically bayes law, and i can point you to various proofs that show why this is a pretty fundamental thing.

I hope you agree with me so far - eg. that when you/me are saying "creation/evolution is true!" we really mean "the probability that creation/evolution is true is very very close to 1" and that it makes sence to talk about probabilities of something being true.

Now, we cant calculate the likelihood of creation or evolution in exact numbers. But we can, at least qualitively, answer questions like: "Does this observation increase or decrease the likelihood of evolution/creation". It turns out that the property we are interested in, in order of making the evidense relevant, is loosely stated: a) Does the theory predict/exclude the observation and b) Is it non-trivial.

So thats just my view. I think this is pretty compatible with Popper, as i think that if a theory make any non-trivial predictions, it is also falsifiable. For example, if my theory said: "Bananas are made of wood", that would automatically make it falsifiable. But i am no expert here, and i dont know if i impose more loose or more strict restrictions on what you would call a scientific theory than Popper does.

37

What did Jesus mean by "this generation"?

by Doug Mason in

by looking at every occasion that jesus used the expression "this generation", it is possible to work out what he meant.. i have listed these occasions, along with some questions, at:.

http://www.jwstudies.com/this_generation.pdf.

i am interested to know what you think.. doug.

bohm

Doug: So simple, so easy, so convincing - that i would never have thought about it myself!