Carico said:
I realize that logic doesn't count in the theory of evolution, but I say his post is based on the truth because of the Illogical Premise of Evolution.
An argument is logical if the deduction follows from the premises by valid logical operations that can be shown valid by truth tables and Venn diagrams.
Some operations are:
Modus Ponens
Premise 1. All men are mortal.
Premise 2. Socrates is a man.
Deduction: Socrates is mortal.
Modus Tolens
Premise 1. All men are mortal.
Premise 2. Socrates is not mortal.
Deduction: Socrates is not a man.
Disjunctive Syllogism
Premise 1. Unicorns are pink or unicorns are blue.
Premise 2. Unicorns are not pink.
Deduction: Unicorns are blue.
Note that the last argument
is valid, because the deduction follows from the premises, but the deduction may not have a truth value because we may not accept that all unicorns are pink or blue. Some may be green. The deduction may be true even if the premises are false. Or the deduction may be false because one or more of the premises is false.
And if there are in fact no unicorns, the deduction may be in the strict sense, neither true or false. We can make any claim at all about unicorns, but unless we can demonstrate any real unicorns or any evidence that our premises are valid, we cannot rely on the logical validity of the argument to prove our deduction correct.
Carico said:
Please study Logic before attempting to debate so you can understand why illogical premises produce illogical conclusions.
Premises are not illogical. They may be irrational. If you use premises about non-existent or problematical entities such as unicorns or gods you may reach a deduction that is false or meaningless. You are correct that even a logical deduction may be irrational if based on contradictory, false, or indeterminable premises.
This is the danger inherent in basing your deductions on premises derived from your bible.
Carico said:
You have to have EVIDENCE, not hypothetical assertions, in order to back up your premise that humans came from apes.
Actually, that humans are apes is a matter of observation and classification. It is a matter of terminology, or definition. It is a deduction only in the sense that biologically humans are very similar to a group of animals we call apes. The classification predates the theory of evolution.
Science is about testing deductions against reality. If evolution is true, it explains nested hierarchical taxonomy, the fossil record, and the differential matching of DNA. It explains what we know of endogenous retroviral insertions. Evolution has been repeatedly tested against reality in areas of knowledge that had not even been conceived when Darwin and Wallace proposed the mechanism of natural selection.
wardpossy said:
I will not try to defend my self, I have told you Im trying to learn something here,
If you don't acknowledge your ignorance, you can't learn. If you rule out the truth a priori, you can't learn. Learning requires humility. And you have to learn what is taught before you can refute it.
And exactly
what are you trying to learn?
wardpossy said:
If thats not good enough for YOU go to another thread and bother someone else,
Actually, it seems to be you that can't take the criticism.
You are free to leave at any time. If you are going to post however, you should not expect anyone else to grovel when you roar your pronouncements from your heavenly throne.
wardpossy said:
Its these kind of responses that make people like us just shut up and continue our thoughts about people like these,
Feel free. But those of us who enjoy PRATT-falls would miss you.
wardpossy said:
Certainly not, although it is amazing how often stupid people say exactly that.
wardpossy said:
You might like to think so but were arent.
Actually, I don't like to think so. But many things are as I would not want.