Circular Reasoning

[whois]

Are you claiming that there is no science behind creationism? If so you are correct. Creationism is not a scientific belief. That is why not even most Christians believe it worldwide.

i'm not claiming ANYTHING about creationism, you are the one that brought the subject up.
i have sated it over and over and over and over and over and over and over I AM NOT A CREATIONIST ! ! ! ! ! !

 

[Subduction Zone]

i'm not claiming ANYTHING about creationism, you are the one that brought the subject up.
i have sated it over and over and over and over and over and over and over I AM NOT A CREATIONIST ! ! ! ! ! !

Then why do you use creationist sources?

 

[whois]

Then why do you use creationist sources?

prove it invalid and i'll remove it.

sorry, your word for it is useless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

circular reasoning:
interpreting the fossil record in terms of evolution, then using that interpretation as proof.

If you are not a creationist then why this post that is obviously in error?

 

[Subduction Zone]

prove it invalid and i'll remove it.

sorry, your word for it is useless.

I already explained how the initial ratio of potassium to argon is not assumed. Did you not understand that explanation?

 

[whois]

If you are not a creationist then why this post that is obviously in error?

dictionary.reference.com/browse/Circular+reasoning

 

[whois]

I already explained how the initial ratio of potassium to argon is not assumed. Did you not understand that explanation?

did you miss the post where i said "your word for it" is useless?

 

[Subduction Zone]

did you miss the post where i said "your word for it" is useless?

Now now, that is bordering on breaking the new rules on flaming. You could ask nicely for references that support my claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

dictionary.reference.com/browse/Circular+reasoning

That is not an explanation. It seems that you do not know what circular reasoning is. What I described on how scientific ideas are tested was not an example of circular reasoning.

 

[RickG]

circular reasoning:
interpreting the fossil record in terms of evolution, then using that interpretation as proof.

My objection there is the use of the word proof, which science does not deal with, rather facts. Proofs are a function of mathematics.

I am not concerned whether anyone accepts evolution or not. My only concern is when they accept or reject it for the wrong reasons. That is through information that either lacks scholarly substance or is deliberately misrepresented. Probably the three most abused fields of science are climatology, and the biological and geological sciences; with most of the skepticism against the mainstream findings actually coming non professionals. They get by with much of this because their target audience is not the scientific community, rather a political, consumer, or religious audience, who will never fact check their source because those audiences are hearing what they want to hear. Even if they did, most do not have the expertise to understand what they are looking at.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My objection there is the use of the word proof, which science does not deal with, rather facts. Proofs are a function of mathematics.

I am not concerned whether anyone accepts evolution or not. My only concern is when they accept or reject it for the wrong reasons. That is through information that either lacks scholarly substance or is deliberately misrepresented. Probably the three most abused fields of science are climatology, and the biological and geological sciences; with most of the skepticism against the mainstream findings actually coming non professionals. They get by with much of this because their target audience is not the scientific community, rather a political, consumer, or religious audience, who will never fact check their source because those audiences are hearing what they want to hear. Even if they did, most do not have the expertise to understand what they are looking at.

People who have never done science do not seem to understand the importance of this. A hypothesis is formed from the evidence. This idea is then tested with the available evidence. The hypothesis can be shown to be in error. I suppose for the lay person this could be considered to be "disproved". But the hypothesis itself is never proven. One can find more and more evidence for the idea and show that it passes test after test. That does not mean that it has been "proven". People love to point at the law of gravity as real "proven" science, not realizing that it has been shown to be incorrect in certain instances. And that error has been know for well over 100 years. In fact most people do not even know how to test simple Newtonian gravitation. What would one observe to conclude that F = GMm/r^2? I know that Newton figured this out from planetary motions. A falling apple does not get that point across.

 

[whois]

My objection there is the use of the word proof, which science does not deal with, rather facts. Proofs are a function of mathematics.

it's still circular reasoning to interpret the record in terms of evolution, then using that interpretation as proof.

I am not concerned whether anyone accepts evolution or not. My only concern is when they accept or reject it for the wrong reasons. That is through information that either lacks scholarly substance or is deliberately misrepresented.

exactly. it seems we are definitely on the same page here.
i want the truth, and i really don't care which side "wins".

Even if they did, most do not have the expertise to understand what they are looking at.

that's probably the biggest problem with evolution.

 

[RickG]

Sorry, but your writer is not fully aware of what is assumed in dating methods.

Did you notice that the writer of that article was an M.D., not a Geochemist.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

My guess it's probably a CF problem. When I click the quote button on his original and duplicate posts, it doesn't quote anything, just a blank page. However when I click the quote button on his post recognizing the duplicates it works. Go figure.

Possibly it has something to do with the volume and quality of cut 'n pasted quotes. (perhaps CF is evolving)

 

[RickG]

it's still circular reasoning to interpret the record in terms of evolution, then using that interpretation as proof.

Please understand that science does not provide proofs. The proper word there would be "fact", which is not circular reasoning. Can you describe how the fossil record is distributed through sedimentary strata without evolution?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

 

[whois]

Please understand that science does not provide proofs.

i understand that.

The proper word there would be "fact", which is not circular reasoning.

okay, how's this:
it's a FACT that interpreting the fossil record in terms of evolution, then using that interpretation as proof, is circular reasoning.
it's a simple factual statement.

Can you describe how the fossil record is distributed through sedimentary strata without evolution?

the fossil record does not prove evolution.
there is no empirical evidence that accumulating genetic mutations result in increased complexity, nor is there a theory that describes how it could happen.
that is also a fact.

 

[RickG]

i understand that.
okay, how's this:
it's a FACT that interpreting the fossil record in terms of evolution, then using that interpretation as proof, is circular reasoning.
it's a simple factual statement.

No, that is not circular reasoning. The error is that you still use the word proof. Science does not provide proof. Mathematics provides proofs.

the fossil record does not prove evolution.
there is no empirical evidence that accumulating genetic mutations result in increased complexity, nor is there a theory that describes how it could happen.
that is also a fact.

No, that is your opinion which is incorrect. The fossil record does not deal with genetics. Describe how all the fossils distributed through sedimentary strata got where they are in the strata without evolution.

For evolution to be false, we would find all forms of life that ever existed throughout in all layers of strata. Why are there no tigers, dinosaurs, or birds in Devonian strata? Why are there no trilobites in Cretaceous strata? And moving back to the topic explain index fossils. Why are they found only in specific layers of strata only within a relative time period?

 

[lasthero]

Let me get some of that.

Also, welcome back, Rick!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did you notice that the writer of that article was an M.D., not a Geochemist.

Yep, I noticed that and chuckled the first time I followed the link. I pointed out an obvious error, though whois did not like my answer.