Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Semantics and "Specificity"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Seeker View Post
    You didn't understand what I said. YOU said Spetner's rant was ''inchoerent'', which means you think what he argues is NOT EVEN CLEAR ENOUGH TO REFUTE. Thats why I used the word ''nonsense'' -- which means a meaningless bunch of words.

    So, I have to ask: do you think the author presents a clear, but wrong, argument, or that we cannot be sure of what he is even arguing?
    The statement NOT EVEN CLEAR ENOUGH TO REFUTE, is out of frustration that the ID proponents fail to provide a coherent argument on actual science. I believe this problem has been addressed earlier in this thread and others concerning the reliance on a highly flawed statistical argument for a p-value that makes it 'too improbaable' for abiogenesis and evolution to happen naturally.

    This thread:http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...the-same-again

    Yes they vary, from simple assertions by Gitt, with some reference to probability, to extensive math in a more involved work to justify ID like the work of Behe, they all share the same common denominator; the unethical misuse of statistics to justify a Creationist ID agenda.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-22-2019, 08:19 AM.
    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.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Seeker View Post
      You didn't understand what I said. YOU said Spetner's rant was ''inchoerent'', which means you think what he argues is NOT EVEN CLEAR ENOUGH TO REFUTE. Thats why I used the word ''nonsense'' -- which means a meaningless bunch of words.

      So, I have to ask: do you think the author presents a clear, but wrong, argument, or that we cannot be sure of what he is even arguing?
      Let me put it this way: the clear language is so obviously wrong that i have difficulty believing that's his actual argument. I can't rule out that his real argument is something different, and obscured by the language.
      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
        Let me put it this way: the clear language is so obviously wrong that i have difficulty believing that's his actual argument. I can't rule out that his real argument is something different, and obscured by the language.
        That's better.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          The statement NOT EVEN CLEAR ENOUGH TO REFUTE, is out of frustration that the ID proponents fail to provide a coherent argument on actual science. I believe this problem has been addressed earlier in this thread and others concerning the reliance on a highly flawed statistical argument for a p-value that makes it 'too improbaable' for abiogenesis and evolution to happen naturally.

          This thread:http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...the-same-again

          Yes they vary, from simple assertions by Gitt, with some reference to probability, to extensive math in a more involved work to justify ID like the work of Behe, they all share the same common denominator; the unethical misuse of statistics to justify a Creationist ID agenda.
          Nothing you said has anything whatsoever to do with what I wrote.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Seeker View Post
            Nothing you said has anything whatsoever to do with what I wrote.
            Originally posted by Seeker
            You didn't understand what I said. YOU said Spetner's rant was ''inchoerent'', which means you think what he argues is NOT EVEN CLEAR ENOUGH TO REFUTE. Thats why I used the word ''nonsense'' -- which means a meaningless bunch of words.

            So, I have to ask: do you think the author presents a clear, but wrong, argument, or that we cannot be sure of what he is even arguing?
            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.
            Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-24-2019, 07:04 AM.
            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.

            Comment


            • #21
              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.

              Comment


              • #22
                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.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Shunyadragon, can you explain the origin of new biochemical pathways by means of neodarwinism?
                  Last edited by Seeker; 09-12-2019, 01:46 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    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, 09:25 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.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        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.

                        Comment

                        Related Threads

                        Collapse

                        Topics Statistics Last Post
                        Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                        48 responses
                        135 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post Sparko
                        by Sparko
                         
                        Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                        16 responses
                        74 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post shunyadragon  
                        Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                        6 responses
                        46 views
                        0 likes
                        Last Post shunyadragon  
                        Working...
                        X