evolution

[The_Barbarian]

Regarding Gaping Flaws in Previous Posts.

Are those the mathematical statistics regarding “chance” as proposed by Richard Dawkins?

Since petey has made it clear he’s not going to back up his claims about the gaps, do you think you could do it?

 

[hecd2]

thats the problem, you did just make it up. you and barbarian parsed entire arguments out of 5 words.

her is the pertinent post #21 where you will see that none of the structure of assertions are made. no premise, no argument, and no logical inference from those structures.

therefore there was no argument, no actual claim. nothing but an observation of others arguments concerning evolution.

when i actually make an assertion, you know, one with a premise, an argument, and a logical inference, not one parsed from 5 words and then posted out of context, i will.

Here is an assertion of four words: “Petey knows his stuff”. If I were actually to make that assertion, I would expect to be challenged. I would then either have to find evidence to support my assertion (which in this particular example would be impossible), or retract it. Those would be the only routes, provided I meant to act honourably.

You see, it’s not just that you don’t understand cosmology or evolutionary biology or the nature of proof or the philosophy of science. It’s not just that you glory in ignorance, as here:

or i could just think back to high school biology, where evolution is taught. or college biology I or II, or even more embarrasing , anthropology, or anatomy. of course the first stretch started in the summer of 1990, so forgive my ignorance of such things they did start more than 18 years ago. and i didnt really care about them then either.

Not just those things but you don’t even understand the meaning of quite simple words. An assertion does not include “premise”, “argument” and “logical inference”. An assertion is a bare statement of supposed fact and if you make one, you’d better be prepare to back it up.

You made an assertion: “be careful of scientific orthodoxy, it sounds very correct, but there are gaping flaws, which are somehow impolitic to mention” - many more than five words, but nevertheless an assertion. You have been unable to support it and you have done everything possible to wriggle out of retracting it. Disgraceful.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[M0nkey]

that people were monkeys to cave men and to human ?? Should we believing in this??

No. You are not an animal. You have never been an animal neither will you ever be one. Otherwise, social Darwinism would have you believe that the life a human being in akin to the life of an animal which is egregious.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Regarding Gaping Flaws in Previous Posts.

Are those the mathematical statistics regarding “chance” as proposed by Richard Dawkins?

I may not be correct above, but there was information about the flaws in evolutionary theory in the paperback “Answering the New Atheism, Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God” by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wilker. These authors skipped the spice of Mr. Dawkins’ inflammatory rhetoric so the book is only 151 pages long.

Blessings,
grannymh (evolutionary descendant of Thomas the Apostle )

sorry regardless of what the condescension club thinks, i dont happen to be much on this subject. if your interested in intelligent design or creationism googling those terms will probably be more help than the forums, those tend to be protestant driven arguments, you will, of course find Catholics involved but there are dedicated websites for interested parties

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Ignorance is curable. Stupidity is not.

rossum

can you support this assertion, seeing as how its obviously a serious assertion of fact, i assume you have evidence to offer?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Since petey has made it clear he’s not going to back up his claims about the gaps, do you think you could do it?

you gave the evidence of the existence of these counter arguments yourself when you said you saw them and they were hooey.

which is it? i made some claim concerning non-existent arguments, or you saw those arguments and dismissed them?

 

[Namesake]

No. You are not an animal. You have never been an animal neither will you ever be one. Otherwise, social Darwinism would have you believe that the life a human being in akin to the life of an animal which is egregious.

Humans are animals, in fact apes. That’s just the fact of the matter.

 

[redneck22]

Humans are animals, in fact apes. That’s just the fact of the matter.

Why don’t apes have human rights?

 

[Namesake]

Why don’t apes have human rights?

Some apes do have human rights, us humans. Others don’t because they aren’t human.

All humans are apes, but not all apes are humans.

Only humans have human rights. Simple, really.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Here is an assertion of four words: “Petey knows his stuff”. If I were actually to make that assertion, I would expect to be challenged.

who could possibly take that for an actual assertion of some argument?, most people would take it as as an observation. maybe not an astute one, yet not an actual assertion of an argument.

I would then either have to find evidence to support my assertion (which in this particular example would be impossible), or retract it.

Those would be the only routes, provided I meant to act honourably.

:crying:

You see, it’s not just that you don’t understand cosmology or evolutionary biology or the nature of proof or the philosophy of science

.

:bighanky:

It’s not just that you glory in ignorance, as here:
Not just those things but you don’t even understand the meaning of quite simple words. An assertion does not include “premise”, “argument” and “logical inference”. An assertion is a bare statement of supposed fact and if you make one, you’d better be prepare to back it up.You made an assertion: “be careful of scientific orthodoxy, it sounds very correct, but there are gaping flaws, which are somehow impolitic to mention” - many more than five words, but nevertheless an assertion. You have been unable to support it and you have done everything possible to wriggle out of retracting it. Disgraceful.

Assert
Assert As*sert", v. t. [imp. & p. p. Asserted; p. pr. & vb.
n. Asserting.] [L. assertus, p. p. of asserere to join or
fasten to one’s self, claim, maintain; ad + serere to join or
bind together. See Series.]

1. To affirm; to declare with assurance, or plainly and
   strongly; to state positively; to aver; to asseverate.
   [1913 Webster]

Nothing is more shameful . . . than to assert
anything to be done without a cause. --Ray.
[1913 Webster]

1. To maintain; to defend. [Obs. or Archaic]
   [1913 Webster]

That . . . I may assert Eternal Providence,
And justify the ways of God to men. --Milton.
[1913 Webster]

I will assert it from the scandal. --Jer. Taylor.
[1913 Webster]

1. To maintain or defend, as a cause or a claim, by words or
   measures; to vindicate a claim or title to; as, to assert
   our rights and liberties.
   [1913 Webster]

To assert one’s self, claim or vindicate one’s rights or
position; to demand recognition.
[1913 Webster]

Syn: To affirm; aver; asseverate; maintain; protest;
pronounce; declare; vindicate.

Usage: To Assert, Affirm, Maintain, Vindicate. To
assert is to fasten to one’s self, and hence to claim.
It is, therefore, adversative in its nature. We assert
our rights and privileges, or the cause of tree
institutions, as against opposition or denial. To
affirm is to declare as true. We assert boldly; we
affirm positively. To maintain is to uphold, and
insist upon with earnestness, whatever we have once
asserted; as, to maintain one’s cause, to maintain an
argument, to maintain the ground we have taken. To
vindicate is to use language and measures of the
strongest kind, in defense of ourselves and those for
whom we act. We maintain our assertions by adducing
proofs, facts, or arguments; we are ready to vindicate
our rights or interests by the utmost exertion of our
powers.
[1913 Webster]

wow, so i strongly, positively, and with assurance, made a claim, concerning arguments of evolution, then i denounced that assertion a couple sentences later by agreeing with evolutions generalities? that doesnt seem to fit the definition at all

thats reading an awful lot in those 5 little words, and then ignoring the context of the rest of the post, seems pretty convenient

as to me being disgraceful, your right. my ego cannot handle being questioned, i inform them of their ignorance, i explain how they dont know what they actually said, i let them know how weak their command of the language is, i let them know that they dont really understand the fields they discuss. if they continue to disagree then i accuse them of wriggling out of their duty to admit my correctness. then i impugn their honor and call them disgraceful.

yes, you are right, i am the disgraceful one.

 

[Namesake]

who could possibly take that for an actual assertion of some argument?, most people would take it as as an observation. maybe not an astute one, yet not an actual assertion of an argument.



:crying:

.

:bighanky:

Assert
Assert As*sert", v. t. [imp. & p. p. Asserted; p. pr. & vb.
n. Asserting.] [L. assertus, p. p. of asserere to join or
fasten to one’s self, claim, maintain; ad + serere to join or
bind together. See Series.]

1. To affirm; to declare with assurance, or plainly and
   strongly; to state positively; to aver; to asseverate.
   [1913 Webster]

Nothing is more shameful . . . than to assert
anything to be done without a cause. --Ray.
[1913 Webster]

1. To maintain; to defend. [Obs. or Archaic]
   [1913 Webster]

That . . . I may assert Eternal Providence,
And justify the ways of God to men. --Milton.
[1913 Webster]

I will assert it from the scandal. --Jer. Taylor.
[1913 Webster]

1. To maintain or defend, as a cause or a claim, by words or
   measures; to vindicate a claim or title to; as, to assert
   our rights and liberties.
   [1913 Webster]

To assert one’s self, claim or vindicate one’s rights or
position; to demand recognition.
[1913 Webster]

Syn: To affirm; aver; asseverate; maintain; protest;
pronounce; declare; vindicate.

Usage: To Assert, Affirm, Maintain, Vindicate. To
assert is to fasten to one’s self, and hence to claim.
It is, therefore, adversative in its nature. We assert
our rights and privileges, or the cause of tree
institutions, as against opposition or denial. To
affirm is to declare as true. We assert boldly; we
affirm positively. To maintain is to uphold, and
insist upon with earnestness, whatever we have once
asserted; as, to maintain one’s cause, to maintain an
argument, to maintain the ground we have taken. To
vindicate is to use language and measures of the
strongest kind, in defense of ourselves and those for
whom we act. We maintain our assertions by adducing
proofs, facts, or arguments; we are ready to vindicate
our rights or interests by the utmost exertion of our
powers.
[1913 Webster]

wow, so i strongly, positively, and with assurance, made a claim, concerning arguments of evolution, then i denounced that assertion a couple sentences later by agreeing with evolutions generalities? that doesnt seem to fit the definition at all

thats reading an awful lot in those 5 little words, and then ignoring the context of the rest of the post, seems pretty convenient

as to me being disgraceful, your right. my ego cannot handle being questioned, i inform them of their ignorance, i explain how they dont know what they actually said, i let them know how weak their command of the language is, i let them know that they dont really understand the fields they discuss. if they continue to disagree then i accuse them of wriggling out of their duty to admit my correctness. then i impugn their honor and call them disgraceful.

yes, you are right, i am the disgraceful one.

Could you maybe try not being so cutesy and just argue ideas, or maybe even facts?

 

[grannymh]

Since petey has made it clear he’s not going to back up his claims about the gaps, do you think you could do it?

Regarding my post #77 which was the FYI type.

I referred to claims made by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker. My suggestion is that you or anyone else should read their book yourselves. First hand knowledge would be best.

Blessings,
grannymh

book: Answering the New Atheism, Dismantling Dawkins’ Case Against God.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Could you maybe try not being so cutesy and just argue ideas, or maybe even facts?

i thought i was arguing facts, in as much as anything so far has been about facts. i offered a definition, and used it to explain why i feel that no claim was made.

that would be great, but i am not arguing about evolution, only the idea that i made some assertion as to support for a specific argument against it.

as to the cutesy thats my reaction to being bullied, its a function of my fundamental nature, i aint got no ‘run’ in me as my friends would tell you.

 

[hecd2]

“Petey knows his stuff”. as an example of an assertion

who could possibly take that for an actual assertion of some argument?, most people would take it as as an observation. maybe not an astute one, yet not an actual assertion of an argument.

You really don’t understand the meaning of the word, do you? An assertion is not an logical argument, but a bare statement of a supposed fact:

• a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason - Dictionary.com Unabridged based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc., 2006
• Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
  Copyright © 2006
• *a declaration that is made emphatically (as if no supporting evidence were necessary) * WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
• *The act of asserting, or that which is asserted; positive declaration or averment; affirmation; statement asserted; position advanced. There is a difference between assertion and demonstration. --Macaulay. * Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998
• *The act of asserting: to state or declare positively and often forcefully or aggressively *Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary, 2008
• …assertion is a propositional act in that it relates the speaker to a proposition, or is an act with propositional content. On the other hand, an assertion is made by means of an utterance. I utter the sentence* (1) The cat is on the mat **and by means of the utterance of that sentence, I have (for some time, cat and mat) asserted that the cat is on the mat. Typically, we make an assertion by means of uttering a declarative sentence - *Stanford Encyclopaedia of philosophy, 2008.
  The fact is that you made an assertion:

“be careful of scientific orthodoxy, it sounds very correct, but there are gaping flaws, which are somehow impolitic to mention”

All that you have been asked to do is to support that assertion or to retract it.

wow, so i strongly, positively, and with assurance, made a claim, concerning arguments of evolution,

You did. You said: "“be careful of scientific orthodoxy, it sounds very correct, but there are gaping flaws”

then i denounced that assertion a couple sentences later by agreeing with evolutions generalities?

The latter statement does not retract the former. All it says is that you accept some undefined “generalities” of evolution - it doesn’t contradict your assertion that there are gaping flaws in it. If you were confused when you were writing and you don’t really think there are gaping flaws in the Theory of Evolution, then say so. If, on the other hand, you have said what you mean, then you really ought to back it up.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[The_Barbarian]

Regarding my post #77 which was the FYI type.

I referred to claims made by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker. My suggestion is that you or anyone else should read their book yourselves. First hand knowledge would be best.

If you don’t know enough about them to present their ideas here, why would we imagine your recommendation was worth following up on?

There’s all kinds of garbage out there about science, and a multitude of rants against Richard Dawkins. Fact is, there’s no need to do either. Dawkins is a brilliant scientist who does some very good work, but who has this fixation about the supposed evils of Christianity. His colleagues read his papers, and ignore his fulminations against faith. It would be best if everyone did the latter.

 

[The_Barbarian]

you gave the evidence of the existence of these counter arguments yourself when you said you saw them and they were hooey.

I said I had seen the claims before, and they were clearly wrong. I’m asking you to present the ones you think have some substance to them.

i made some claim concerning non-existent arguments, or you saw those arguments and dismissed them?

You claimed “gaping gaps in the theory”, and when challenged to support them, first evaded, and later misrepresented what I wrote in order to avoid it.

If you plan on spending some time here, that was probably not a good idea. I gather you’ve realized the “gaping gaps” you claimed don’t exist, and are trying for a graceful exit. Not possible now.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You really don’t understand the meaning of the word, do you?

funny that, i posted a definition already. maybe i misspelled it

An assertion is not an logical argument, but a bare statement of a supposed fact:

• a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason - Dictionary.com Unabridged based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc., 2006
• Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
  Copyright © 2006
• *a declaration that is made emphatically (as if no supporting evidence were necessary) * WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
• *The act of asserting, or that which is asserted; positive declaration or averment; affirmation; statement asserted; position advanced. There is a difference between assertion and demonstration. --Macaulay. * Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998
• *The act of asserting: to state or declare positively and often forcefully or aggressively *Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary, 2008
• …assertion is a propositional act in that it relates the speaker to a proposition, or is an act with propositional content. On the other hand, an assertion is made by means of an utterance. I utter the sentence* (1) The cat is on the mat *and by means of the utterance of that sentence, I have (for some time, cat and mat) asserted that the cat is on the mat. Typically, we make an assertion by means of uttering a declarative sentence - Stanford Encyclopaedia of philosophy, 2008.
  The fact is that you made an assertion:

i already defined the word, and i didnt make an assertion according to that definition. according to some of the above i didnt make an assertion.

but still you want to use the word ‘assertion’ we could just as easily use the word ‘observed’ or any numbers of other words. you are incorrectly defining the situation

“be careful of scientific orthodoxy, it sounds very correct, but there are gaping flaws, which are somehow impolitic to mention”

All that you have been asked to do is to support that assertion or to retract it.
You did. You said: "“be careful of scientific orthodoxy, it sounds very correct, but there are gaping flaws” The latter statement does not retract the former

.

now that sounds like an assertion without evidence, not that i count the following statement as evidence

All it says is that you accept some undefined “generalities” of evolution - it doesn’t contradict your assertion that there are gaping flaws in it.

the post is a statement as a whole, not to be parsed into individual parts to find some nonexistent argument, assertion, claim, et al.

If you were confused when you were writing and you don’t really think there are gaping flaws in the Theory of Evolution, then say so. If, on the other hand, you have said what you mean, then you really ought to back it up.

i wasnt confused when i wrote that, i wrote the whole post exactly as i meant it

further if i was making a serious argument, why wouldnt i support it?i dont have a problem making and supporting arguments, as you have seen before.why would i choose not to do so here?

simple, because i made no such argument, assertion, claim, et al.

i observed the the existence of counter arguments to evolution, thats it

and my opinion that anything more could be drawn from it?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If you don’t know enough about them to present their ideas here, why would we imagine your recommendation was worth following up on?

There’s all kinds of garbage out there about science, and a multitude of rants against Richard Dawkins. Fact is, there’s no need to do either. Dawkins is a brilliant scientist who does some very good work, but who has this fixation about the supposed evils of Christianity. His colleagues read his papers, and ignore his fulminations against faith. It would be best if everyone did the latter.

why would it be best that everyone do the latter? is Dawkins untouchable? is he the preeminent biologist of his time?

does granny need to be an expert in evolutionary biology in order to post? is that the standard by which the forum operates?

only experts on a subject are allowed to speak? who decides what an expert is?

maybe we should all just send in our degrees in order to apply to post on a subject.

petey observes: one cant quash opposition simply by claiming that they aren’t expert enough to speak on the subject.

 

[garysibio]

Should catholic believers believe in evolution??? that people were monkeys to cave men and to human ?? Should we believing in this?? As most of it sounds very correct

The problem with this is that we are really only getting one side of the issue. Evolution is not nearly as established as most people think it it. I would suggest you check out some of the following:

• “Darwin’s Black Box” by Michael Behe
• “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” a video by Ben Stein
• kolbecenter.org/

Behe is a Catholic, a biochemist by profession. He shows from science how the theory of evolution is incapable of explaining life as we know it.

The Web site is for the Kolbe Center, a Catholic creationist group which offers a lot of good material.

Gary

 

[garysibio]

You are allowed to. I’m Catholic and I accept evolution.You certainly shouldn’t believe that.It is correct, so you are allowed to accept evolution. You are also allowed to not accept evolution. The Church doesn’t require you to go either way.

Peace

Tim

Acceptance of evolution rules out God having any role in the creation of the universe. Either life arose by natural selection acting on chance mutations or by God. God acts with a purpose, not randomly. The two options are mutually exclusive.

Gary