Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Semantics and "Specificity"

  1. #21
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Faith
    Unspecified
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    246
    Amen (Given)
    232
    Amen (Received)
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    I liked The Lurch's post. Your trying to make sense of explanations by Creationist proponents arguments that do not make sense in terms of science.

    I believe what I posted was relevant, because ALL the Creationist arguments have similar theme as far as misusing probability, Some go to more effort than others, but they all are basically incoherent as far as legitimate science is concerned.
    You said something about p-value, yet nowhere before your post was p-value mentioned. Along with a couple other points.

  2. #22
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,267
    Amen (Given)
    1857
    Amen (Received)
    1101
    Quote Originally Posted by Seeker View Post
    You said something about p-value, yet nowhere before your post was p-value mentioned. Along with a couple other points.
    The calculation of p-values of probability is at the heart of the argument of the misuse of statistics by Creationist scientists, and in one way or another all the Creationists in this thread use the unethical calculation of p-values to justify their claims. I referred to it in post #16. This thread is worth reading to understand the problem.

    http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ity-quot/page3
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  3. #23
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Faith
    Unspecified
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    246
    Amen (Given)
    232
    Amen (Received)
    18
    Shunyadragon, can you explain the origin of new biochemical pathways by means of neodarwinism?
    Last edited by Seeker; 09-12-2019 at 11:46 AM.

  4. #24
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,267
    Amen (Given)
    1857
    Amen (Received)
    1101
    Quote Originally Posted by Seeker View Post
    Shunyadragon, can you explain the origin of new biochemical pathways by means of neodarwinism?
    First the term NeoDarwinism is not a good term, in fact a bad personification of Darwin as responsible for the science of evolution, and sometimes idolized and Demonized. and too oft used by Creationists arguing against the science of Evolution. Simple the 'Science of Evolution and Abiogenesis' are the correct scientific designations. It is a matter of fact that many scientists before and after Charles Darwin are responsible for developing the science of evolution.

    Nonetheless, yes, contemporary bio chemistry has developed biochemical pathways for the origins of RNA and DNA, but yes the research is not complete and there are unknowns as to all the steps from inorganic origins of organic chemistry. There have been threads in the past documenting the advances in the chemistry of abiogenesis, and I may resurrect my last thread on the subject. Nonetheless science has explained a number of pathways from inorganic chemicals to organic chemicals, and found natural sources, needed for the development of RNA and DNA

    The argument of many Creationists is a fallacious 'argument from ignorance' like in evolution the perpetual motion missing link argument despite the continual new finds of missing links. The Creationist will argue, because all the steps in the process have not been found ah . . . than abiogenesis, and of course evolution cannot be proven. but . . . ah, of course science does not prove anything,
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-12-2019 at 07:25 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  5. #25
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Faith
    Unspecified
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    246
    Amen (Given)
    232
    Amen (Received)
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    than abiogenesis, and of course evolution cannot be proven. but . . . ah, of course science does not prove anything,
    Abiogenesis has NOTHING to do with current evolutionary theory. They are two separate fields. This is a common mistake creationists usually make.

  6. #26
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    16,267
    Amen (Given)
    1857
    Amen (Received)
    1101
    Quote Originally Posted by Seeker View Post
    Abiogenesis has NOTHING to do with current evolutionary theory. They are two separate fields. This is a common mistake creationists usually make.
    This is a yes and no proposition. As the evidence and research accumulates the evolving from non-life chemicals to organic chemicals to life forms that evolve is one continuous process evolution. The mistakes of Creationists os more involved in an over all combative dishonest process to selectively use out of context citations to reject both abiogenesis and evolution.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •