If ... then ...

[lucaspa]

The heart of critical inquiry is the if ... then statement. That is, IF A is true, THEN we should see B.

I just did this in another thread: IF special creation of each species is true, THEN we should NOT FIND ANY TRANSITIONAL fossil sequence. None at all. Right?

So, if we find ONE transitional series, then the "IF" can't be true. (another if ... then statement). Transitional series are known, therefore special creation of each species is false.

This is elementary deductive logic. True statements can't have false or wrong consequences.

Now, what I am hoping for is that everyone will start testing their claims and statements BEFORE they post them by using this method. Ask yourself:if my statement is true, then what should I see? Make a list of everything that you should see, then start looking for things that would contradict your "thens".

When people reply to you, look for the "if ... then ... " statements and realize that people are testing the statements in your post.

 

[JohnR7]

The heart of critical inquiry is the if ... then statement. That is, IF A is true, THEN we should see B.

If A then B
If B then C
Therefore if A then C.

A we should find transitional fossils.
B Transitional fossils would prove evolution
C We found transitional fossils therefore evolution is true.

There are two obvious problems with this. First of all are the transitional fossils that evolutionist claim to have found, really transitional fossils.

Second of all is B really a true statement. Do so called transitional fossils really prove evolution.

The origional poster set you up petty good if he is willing to accept B as a true statement. That makes A very easy for you, because they would just about have to accept anything you said was a transition fossil.

Point, set, match: lucaspa

You would have to falsify B, that so called transitional fossils don't mean nothing. (does not mean anything)

 

[MartinM]

Do so called transitional fossils really prove evolution

Of course not! Did you even read the OP?

 

[lucaspa]

If A then B
If B then C
Therefore if A then C.

A we should find transitional fossils.
B Transitional fossils would prove evolution
C We found transitional fossils therefore evolution is true.

Notice, John, that this is NOT what I did. You never have an if ... then statement here. You have made a strawman argument and then claim this is what I said. Yes, there are several problems with your sequence above. Which is why I NEVER USED IT.

For those looking, this is a classic case of what is called a strawman argument. Misrepresent the original, then show flaws with the misrepresentation. Then cry: see, the original is wrong!

Now, if you want to follow what I said, you say: IF evolution happened, THEN there should be transitional fossils. We have found transitional fossils. However, all that has happened is that we have FAILED TO FALSIFY the "if" statement. We haven't shown it to be true.

Second of all is B really a true statement. Do so called transitional fossils really prove evolution.

And this is why I didn't use your argument. Transitional fossils SUPPORT evolution because they are a deduction of evolution. But deductive logic can never "really prove" because evolution may fail the next deduction.

There are two obvious problems with this. First of all are the transitional fossils that evolutionist claim to have found, really transitional fossils.

And you look at them. The answer, John, is yes. There are series of INDIVIDUALS laid down in the rock such that the sequence can be traced from individual to individual across changes leading to very different populations.

The origional poster set you up petty good if he is willing to accept B as a true statement.

But I didn't say B, therefore I never set anyone up. You set yourself up to provide the demonstration of a strawman argument. Thank you for that.

You would have to falsify B, that so called transitional fossils don't mean nothing. (does not mean anything)

No, you would have to falsify C.

Now, if you look, this is what evolutionists do in the creationism/evolution argument. For instance, creationists claim that a global Flood caused the sequence of fossils, not evolution. What do we do? We test the Flood by saying "if the Flood were true, then ... " and find observations that cannot be there if the Flood caused the fossil record. The lastest example was dino footprints in coal.

 

[ifriit]

The heart of critical inquiry is the if ... then statement. That is, IF A is true, THEN we should see B.

I just did this in another thread: IF special creation of each species is true, THEN we should NOT FIND ANY TRANSITIONAL fossil sequence. None at all. Right?

So, if we find ONE transitional series, then the "IF" can't be true. (another if ... then statement). Transitional series are known, therefore special creation of each species is false.

This is elementary deductive logic. True statements can't have false or wrong consequences.

Actually, to be pedantic, an if statement is true if both antecedent and consequent are false. In other words, if we find one transitional series, the "if" is true if special creation is false. Further, special creation is only logically proven false if the "if" statement is already known to be true.

Thus, someone arguing in favor of special creation could claim that it does not refuse the possibility of transitional fossil sequences to salvage the possible truth of special creation from this particular argument. This assumes, of course, that the assembled claims don't become self-contradictory at this point.

 

[lucaspa]

Actually, to be pedantic, an if statement is true if both antecedent and consequent are false. In other words, if we find one transitional series, the "if" is true if special creation is false. Further, special creation is only logically proven false if the "if" statement is already known to be true..

Wait a minute. An "if .... " is true if both the antecedent and consequent are false?? Run that by me again.

The orignal if ... then statement was: "IF special creation of each species is true, THEN we should NOT FIND ANY TRANSITIONAL fossil sequence."

Since the "if ... " was that special creation is true, there is no isolated "if" to be true "if special creation is false". Finding one transitional series shows special creation to be false.

The "if ...." is the statement being tested. That is, we are trying to determine if it is true, not that it is already known to be true. That is, we ASSUME the statement is true. Then there is the logical deduction.

Thus, "if A is true, then B must be seen".

You seem to have specially created a separate "if statement" separate from the "if ... " that we are talking about.

 

[MartinM]

Wait a minute. An "if .... " is true if both the antecedent and consequent are false?? Run that by me again

He's right. A conditional is false if the antecedent is true and the consequent false. A conditional is true if both antecedent and consequent are true. This is intuitively obvious. What is not so obvious is that if the antecedent is false, the conditional is true. This is the case regardless of the consequent, its truth value, or its relation to the antecedent. Consider that any statement can be derived from a contradiction. Thus, if we know that A is false, and nevertheless assume that A is true, we may derive any arbitrary statement B and, therefore, the conditional A -> B.

 

[lucaspa]

He's right. A conditional is false if the antecedent is true and the consequent false.

OK. That is what I am saying

A conditional is true if both antecedent and consequent are true.

This is what John is saying, although if one consequent is true doesn't mean the antecedent is absolutey true, because another consequent could show the antecedent to be false.

What is not so obvious is that if the antecedent is false, the conditional is true. This is the case regardless of the consequent, its truth value, or its relation to the antecedent.

OK, now I am following you. Instead of evaluating the truth value of the antecedent, you are evaluating the truth value of the conditional "if". That is, the "if" in the sentence is accurate.

While pendantically this is true, it is straying from the attempt to teach how to evaluate statements and claims. Instead of evaluating the antecedent "special creation is true" you are evaluating the "if".

You can also say "transitional series of fossils exist IF creationism is false" That "if" is still accurate, but you have reversed the truth value of the antecedent (creationism is true in the original to creationism is false in the revision).

Thus, if we know that A is false, and nevertheless assume that A is true, we may derive any arbitrary statement B and, therefore, the conditional A -> B.

In our example, let us say that (as was done historically) special creation was known to be false by biogeography, comparative morphology, and embryology. Scientists already knew it was false because of this data (consequents). You are saying they can find another way to test special creation by going back and assuming it is true and derive another deduction.

However, I disagree that B can be ANY arbitrary statement. For the testing to be valid, B has to be a logical consequence of A.

In other words, to say "if special creation is true, then water is wet" doesn't work.

 

[ifriit]

Thus, if we know that A is false, and nevertheless assume that A is true, we may derive any arbitrary statement B and, therefore, the conditional A -> B.

In our example, let us say that (as was done historically) special creation was known to be false by biogeography, comparative morphology, and embryology. Scientists already knew it was false because of this data (consequents). You are saying they can find another way to test special creation by going back and assuming it is true and derive another deduction.

Not quite. Effectively, science creates a number of conditional statements and evaluates all of them. As long as the consequent of those statements is true, the state of the antecedent is unknown. However, once any one of those conditionals has a false consequent, the antecedent must then be false. No matter how many other conditionals you create, the antecedent remains false. As you've mentioned before, science can only falsify, it can never prove true.

The only thing that can be done to defend the antecedent is to deny the conditional that falsified it.

However, I disagree that B can be ANY arbitrary statement. For the testing to be valid, B has to be a logical consequence of A.

In other words, to say "if special creation is true, then water is wet" doesn't work.

Effectively, you're saying that the conditional must be true for the test to be valid. This is not disagreeing with anything either of us has said.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Of course not! Did you even read the OP?

He never does.

 

[Nathan Poe]

What can we do with a conditional statement?
This is, as lucaspa said, elementary deductive reasoning, going back to Aristotle.

Given a conditional statement, we can prove truth or falsehood two ways:

1. If A, then B.
A is true,
therefore B is true.

--OR--

2. If A, then B.
B is false,
therefore A is false.

Now, lucaspa offered these values for A and B:
A= Special creation is true.
B= There are NO (count 'em, zero) transitional fossils.

The conditional fits: If A, then B.

Are there transitional fossils? Yes there are.
How many? Doesn't matter. One is all we need to prove B false.
(And we have found a lot more than one. )
Therefore, A is false.

Creartionist try to deny the existence of transitional fossils, but they're out there, so Special Creation goes out the window.

 

[ifriit]

What can we do with a conditional statement?
This is, as lucaspa said, elementary deductive reasoning, going back to Aristotle.

Given a conditional statement, we can prove truth or falsehood two ways:

1. If A, then B.
A is true,
therefore B is true.

--OR--

2. If A, then B.
B is false,
therefore A is false.

Now, lucaspa offered these values for A and B:
A= Special creation is true.
B= There are NO (count 'em, zero) transitional fossils.

The conditional fits: If A, then B.

Are there transitional fossils? Yes there are.
How many? Doesn't matter. One is all we need to prove B false.
(And we have found a lot more than one. )
Therefore, A is false.

Creartionist try to deny the existence of transitional fossils, but they're out there, so Special Creation goes out the window.

Again, this is only true if A -> B is true. If it is not the case--if the defender of special creation were to assert that transitional fossils are possible with special creation--then this does not prove special creation false.

This does, however, leave the creationist in the awkward position of trying to explain transitional fossils, but many do nonetheless; for example, there's the popular "Satan planted them" argument.

 

[JohnR7]

Creartionist try to deny the existence of transitional fossils, but they're out there, so Special Creation goes out the window.

IF there were transitional fossils. Sense there are no transitional fossils, then evolution goes out the window.

 

[ifriit]

IF there were transitional fossils. Sense there are no transitional fossils, then evolution goes out the window.

Sorry, John, but there are transitional fossils. Try to keep up.

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

 

[JohnR7]

Sorry, John, but there are transitional fossils.

There seems to be fossils of extinct species. But to say they are transitional is just pure imagination and desperation to try and prove something false to be true.

You could say a seal was as transitional animal if you wanted to. But just to call a seal a transitional animal would not make it true.

Two things are clear, there is lots of variation in the species, yet the basic skelton of all the various the species is very much alike.

For me, to take an extinct species and call it a transitional species between two other species is just not believeable. They are clearly just another of many variations.

 

[ifriit]

Perhaps if you actually read the FAQ, John, you'd have some understanding of what you're even talking about.

From the Author contact section of the FAQ:

1. "The FAQ doesn't have real transitional fossils"

If you have just skimmed part of the FAQ and concluded that it doesn't have what you consider to be "real" transitional fossils, go back to part 1 of the FAQ and carefully read the section titled "What is a transitional fossil?" Think about what you have read. Then read the rest of the FAQ, and pay particular attention to the "species-to-species" sections in part 2. If you still think the FAQ doesn't have "real" transitional fossils, chances are you have misunderstood the theory of evolution. Define what a "real" transitional fossil should be, and why you think the modern theory of evolution would predict such a thing. Then let's talk.

So, John, please define for us what a transitional fossil is before saying that they don't exist.

 

[JohnR7]

So, John, please define for us what a transitional fossil is before saying that they don't exist.

I just did, but I will be glad to repeat it for you. It is just another of the many variations that we find that make up the various and different species. To call it a transition is just the product of someones imagination.

 

[ifriit]

I just did, but I will be glad to repeat it for you. It is just another of the many variations that we find that make up the various and different species. To call it a transition is just the product of someones imagination.

John, that is telling us what a transitional fossil is not, not what one is. Try coming back to the topic when you have a definition to address. In the meantime, please stop derailing this topic. Start a new one.

 

[lucaspa]

Again, this is only true if A -> B is true. If it is not the case--if the defender of special creation were to assert that transitional fossils are possible with special creation--then this does not prove special creation false.

This does, however, leave the creationist in the awkward position of trying to explain transitional fossils, but many do nonetheless; for example, there's the popular "Satan planted them" argument.

At this point we need to remind everyone that the THEORY or statements are separate from the defendER or person advocating the theory. Statements are independent of the people making them.

What you have here is not a method of testing a claim or statement, which is what I started, but a way of trying to aviod falsification of the theory behind the statement.

By this I mean that special creation is still falsified. What we have is an conditional BEHIND special creation. And that is "if God is to exist, then special creation must have happened."

Now, if special creation did not happen, then the existence of God is threatened. Now, it can be seen that this conditional is not valid. The consequent isn't a valid logical deduction from the antecedent.

 

[lucaspa]

There seems to be fossils of extinct species. But to say they are transitional is just pure imagination and desperation to try and prove something false to be true.

You could say a seal was as transitional animal if you wanted to. But just to call a seal a transitional animal would not make it true.

John, this is why I post examples of SERIES OF TRANSITIONAL INDIVIDUALS, not just individual transitional fossils.

That is, a series of individual organisms lined up in time that link one species to another. Where you can SEE that they link in unbroken line one species to another. Or many times link several species across genera, family, and order to a different class.

Those series exist. If I could learn to post pictures I'd give you the picture of one of these series so you could look at it yourself online. Otherwise, you need to make the effort to find the books and articles I've given you so you can see for yourself. But they ARE there to be seen if you just open your eyes.