Bible Discussion: The Lie Of Evolution

The Lie Of Evolution
Posts: 46

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5   Next  (First | Last)

Bagman
2003-11-05 03:57:58 EST

Logical Fallacies used in support and defense of The Theory of Evolution

I will give some selected quotes from "The Origin of Life," by Mr. George
Wald,
Scientific American August 1954, p 44-53.

At the end of the selected quotes, I will make some comments, and include
some
Logical Fallacies from a previous post.

(Quote)

"About a century ago the question, How did life begin?, which has interested
men
throughout their history, (1a) reached an impasse. Up to that time two
answers
had been offered: one that life had been created supernaturally, the other
that
it arises continually from the nonliving. The first explanation lay outside
(1b)
science; the second was now shown to be untenable.

"Recently ways have been found again to consider the origin of life as a
scientific (2) problem--as an event within the order (3) of nature. In part
this
is the result of new information. But a theory never rises of itself,
however
rich and secure the facts. It is an act (4) of creation. "Our present ideas
in
this realm were first brought together in a clear and defensible (5)
argument by
the Russian biochemist A. I. Oparin in a book called "The Origin of Life,"
published in 1936.

"The attempt to understand how life originated raises a wide variety of
scientific questions, which lead in many and diverse directions and should
end
by casting light into many obscure corners. At the center of the enterprise
lies
the hope not only of explaining a great past event--important as that should
be--but
of showing that the explanation (6) is workable. If we can indeed come to
understand how a living organism arises from the nonliving, we should be
able (7)
to construct one--only of the simplest description, to be sure, but still
recognizably alive. This is so remote a possibility now that one scarcely
dares
to acknowledge it; but it is there nevertheless.

"One answer to the problem of how life originated is that it was created.
This
is an understandable confusion of nature with technology. (8)

"Most of the cultures we know contain mythical accounts of a supernatural
creation of life. (9)

"The more rational elements of society, however, tended to take a more
naturalistic view...." (10)

"But step by step, in a great controversy that spread over two centuries
this
belief was whittled away until nothing remained of it. (11)

"First the Italian Francesco Redi showed in the 17th century that meat
placed
under a screen, so that flies cannot lay their eggs on it, never develops
maggots. Then in the following century the Italian abbe Lazzano Spallanzani
showed that a nutritive broth, sealed off from the air while boiling, never
develops microorganisms, and hence never rots. Needham objected that by too
much
boiling Spallanzani had rendered the broth, and still more the air above it,
incompatible with life. Spallanzani could defend his broth; when he broke
the
seal of his flasks, allowing new air to rush in, the broth promptly began to
rot.
He could find no way, however, to show that the air in the sealed flask had
not
been vitiated. This problem finally was solved by Louis Pasteur in 1860,
with a
simple modification of Spallanzani's experiment. Pasteur too used a flask
containing boiling broth, but instead of sealing off the neck he drew it out
in
a long, S-shaped curve with its end open to the air. While molecules of air
could pass back and forth freely, the heavier particles of dust, bacteria
and
molds in the atmosphere were trapped on the walls of the curved neck and
only
rarely reached the broth. In such a flask the broth seldom was contaminated;
usually it remained clear and sterile indefinitely.

"This was only one of Pasteur's experiments. It is no easy matter to deal
with
so deeply ingrained and common-sense (12) a belief as that in spontaneous
generation. One can ask for nothing better in such a pass than a noisy and
stubborn opponent, and this Pasteur had in the naturalist Felix Pouchet,
whose
arguments before the French Academy of Sciences drove Pasteur to more and
more
rigorous experiments. When he had finished, nothing remained of the belief
in
spontaneous generation.

"The reasonable (12) view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only
alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation.
There
is no third position. (13)

"For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in
spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." (14) It is a symptom
of
the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer
appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the
downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept
the
alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.

"I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life
through a
hypothesis of spontaneous generation. (15)

"What the controversy reviewed above showed to be untenable is only the
belief
that living organisms arise spontaneously under present conditions. (16)

"We have now to face a somewhat different problem: how organisms may have
arisen
spontaneously under different conditions in some former period, granted that
they do so no longer. (17)

"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the
spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. (18)

"Yet here we are--as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. (19)

"It will help to digress for a moment to ask what one means by (20)
"impossible."

"With every event one can associate a probability--the chance that it will
occur.
(21) This is always a fraction, the number of times the event occurs in a
large
number of trials.

"We see therefore that it does not mean much to say that a very improbable
event
has never been observed. (22)

"A final aspect of our problem is very important. When we consider the
spontaneous origin of a living organism, this is not an event that need
happen
again and again. (23)

"The probability with which we are concerned is of a special kind; it is the
probability that an event occur at least once. (Italic emphasis his.) (24)

"However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it
involves,
given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once. And for
life as
we know it, with its capacity for growth and reproduction, once may be
enough. (25)

"Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal
is of
the order of two billion years. (26)

(End quote)

Comments:

1. a, Evolution is not new with Darwin. See: "The waters contained in
themselves
the seed of life" LAROUSSE WORLD MYTHOLOGY, trans. Gremal, Pierre, New York:
Putnam, 1981, p 65.

"Chaos of primeval waters... gods of chaos..." A History of the Sciences,
Stephen F, Mason New York: Collier Books, 1962 p 15-23

Thales (624-546 B.C., for example, influenced by traditional myths which
derived
all things from the primordial waters..."
"Ionian School ...Materialistic Nouism and Evolution were taught in 5th and
6th
century B.C. Greece."
Empedocles of Agrigentum taught that "...eyes and legs joined together by
accident..."
Jacques Maritain, "Introduction to Philosophy" New York: Sheed & Ward, Inc.
1947
p 47-50

1. b, "The first explanation lay outside science . . ." Mr. Wald
acknowledges
that some subjects lie outside Science. Now the question is, How do we
determine
the boundaries of Science?

2. What is Science? According to Dr. Jerry Bergman, "Science" is a method of
obtaining knowledge by: First, Observation. Second, Classification. Third,
Hypothesis. Fourth, Tests.

Bergman, Jerry, "What Is Science", CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY, V.
20, N.
1, June 1983, p. 39.

That is, Science is the study of that which is tangible and measurable by
controlled and repeatable experiment. The inherent nature of Science limits
it
to things which can be perceived by human senses (or instruments which
amplify
them) and to things which it can confine, control and manipulate in
contrived
and isolated tests and experiments.

To know what Science is, is to know what Science is not. If scientists
cannot
see or touch an object or get it to cooperate in repeatable experiments and
tests, it cannot be the subject of Scientific study. If scientists cannot
demonstrate that a thing has tangible attributes, they cannot prove its
existence. If scientists cannot show tangible evidence of the non-existence
of
an object, rather than just a lack of evidence of its existence, they cannot
prove its nonexistence by the scientific method. Scientists can only
demonstrate,
in this case, that Science cannot treat the subject: it is rightfully the
property of Philosophy or Theodicy.

Can the theory of evolution be tested and proven by the "scientific" method?
No.

3. Mr. Wald is suggesting that "Nature" or the "natural order" arose without
God.
He is using an unfounded (and unspoken) assumption, that "Nature" is a
result of
"Big Bang" and arose without Special Creation.

Begging the question: assuming as true at the outset that which must be
proved
as true

Forced Hypothesis: failure to consider other explanations for the evidence;
lack
of sufficient evidence to draw hypothesis

4. Mr. Wald admits that he believes in, and recognizes, "an act of
creation."
This he will accept of man; and so reveals that it is not "an act of
creation"
he cannot and will not accept. He reveals that his reluctance is that a
Being
other than man is able to create.

5. Whether it is "defensible" or not is not the question. By the misuse of
logic,
the misinterpretation of some evidence and the outright rejection of other
evidence, a hypothesis, not provable by the Scientific method, may be
"defensible"
however wrong it is.

6. Mr. Wald admits that the "theory of Evolution" has not yet been proven
"workable."

Hasty conclusion: reaching a conclusion based on relevant but insufficient
evidence

The evidence may seem relevant, since Biologists discuss the bones of
animals
that lived in the past. What is not relevant is that the bones might reveal
"the
origin of life."

Non sequitur: conclusion has no logical connection to evidence offered

The bones of the dead do not reveal the origin of life.

7. One must ask, What is the difference between 'construct' (as to build or
make
something which does not exist) and 'create?' They are synonyms. Mr. Wald
was
very careful not to use the word "create" here. Why? Could it be that while
he
will not admit that a "Supreme Being" can "Create," He believes man can?
Again,
he is not denying the act of creation; he is denying a Supreme Being did, or
can,
perform that act. Having rejected the idea that a Supreme Being can Create,
Mr.
Wald now suggests that he, or other biologists, may soon have the ability to
"construct"
life. Utterly amazing.

8. First, The belief in Creation is seven thousand years mature, and
'technology"
in not yet two hundred. Mr. Wald stoops to use of ridicule: belittling those
who
believe in God and His act of Creation by describing them as "confused."
There
are at least three variations of this practice:

Loaded language: abusively labeling persons or groups with sexual, racial,
ethnic, or other prejudicial terms

Ad hominem: an irrelevant attack on an individual's character that appeals
to
prejudice or emotion

Straw man: altering or exaggerating an opponent's position for the sake of
attacking it

9. Mr. Wald would rob the Scripture of its credibility by calling it "myth."

Poisoning the well: tainting or attacking information before presenting it
to an
audience; coercing the audience to accept or reject a position on an idea
before
presenting the idea

10. Again, ridicule; by the minor premise: He compliments those who accept
spontaneous generation by calling them "rational," and thus implies that
anyone
else is "not rational." See # 8.

11. This is to the glory of God. I will have more to say about this later.

12. This is the use of ridicule, "common sense, unreasonable." See # 8.

13. Mr. Wald acknowledges his dilemma.

14. He calls it a matter of choice, a "philosophical necessity."

15. Mr. Wald states that he "has no choice but to approach the origin of
life
through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation." That is, due to
"philosophical
necessity," he rejects the alternative possibility, and makes his choice to
believe in evolution.

Suppressed evidence: failure to present information relevant to the issue

16. Thus begins the shift to an unprovable hypothesis. This begins with an
incorrect conclusion: (". . . untenable is only the belief that living
organisms
arise spontaneously under present conditions.")

Actually, what the experiments of Pasteur proved is that spontaneous
generation
is impossible under any conditions.

17. Here is the full shift: "...how organisms may have arisen spontaneously
under different conditions in some former period." How can it be
scientifically
demonstrated what "different conditions" might have or could have existed?
How
can a scientist test or demonstrate something "supposed" or "imagined" to
have
occurred under unknown circumstances a thousand (let alone, a billion) years
ago?
It is a "Scientific" impossibility, and therefore biologists in particular,
and
those scientists who support this theory, have severed themselves from truth
and
reality.

Sir Frances Beacon said, "When philosophy is cut off from its roots in
experience, where it was born, it dies." Kepler said, "If a scientist's
hypothesis fit into a certain metaphysical theory, fine; but if not, then it
is
the metaphysics which must go."

Mason, Stephen F., A HISTORY OF THE SCIENCES New York: Collier Books, Inc.,
1962,
pp. 11-24, 136, 142.

18. Mr. Wald states, "The spontaneous generation of a living organism is
impossible." (* i.)

19. Once again, regardless of the proven impossibility, he states his choice
to
believe otherwise.

Begging the question: assuming as true at the outset that which must be
proved
as true

20. It is a practice of sophistry to debate the meanings of terms, then,
somewhere in the debate, to switch the meaning of terms.

Equivocation: ambiguous or inexact statements; changing the meaning of a key
term in the middle of an argument

21. Here is his twist of the meaning... ("With every event one can associate
a
probability ...") Without hesitation he abandons the literal meaning of
"impossible."
He says, "With every event..." However, with "impossible," there are no
events.
The Truth is that for impossible events, there is no probability.

22. Here again he demonstrates his shift to sophistry and the confusion of
terms,
and goes from "impossible" to "improbable." He does this without tangible or
objective evidence.

Statistical fallacy: the use of unprovable statistics as fact; the use of
statistics that are incomplete or that present a biased picture/result

Faulty sampling: a sample (statistic) too small to be reliable or a sample
that
is not representative of what it's supposed to measure.

Mr. Wald has employed both fallacies. First, the statistics he gives are not
proven, they are manufactured (i.e., "created") by him for his purpose, and
do in
fact "present a biased picture." Second, the lifetime of humankind, or the
history of the science of probability, is too small when compared (in his
own
words) to the time scale in his sample. In fact, he has no sample and no
verifiable proof of his time scale, only another unproven premise.

23. Here is an unsupported hypothesis: How can he support the belief that
the
very first living cell would have, or could have, survived to reproduce?
There
is no evidence on which to base this assumption. However, for those who
refute
the theory of evolution to argue this point is to grant the first and wander
off
into rabbit trails. The point is that there is no evidence that any living
thing,
single cell or other wise, has ever arisen from nothing.

Red herring: introducing a side issue or an irrelevant issue to divert
attention
from the real issue

24, 25, 26. He bases the possible success, of spontaneous generation arising
to
evolution, upon time. That time can make the impossible become possible, and
then inevitable, is the first unsupported and unproven foundation of
evolution.
The next unsupportable premise, which must follow the first in less than a
heartbeat, is that there has been enough time.

Non sequitur: conclusion has no logical connection to evidence offered

Questionable cause: a faulty cause/effect relationship

Questionable premise: accepting a proposition or concept without having good
reason to accept it

Proponents of Evolution and Big Bang theories know that their unproven
hypotheses are founded upon a 'billions of years' time scale, and they will
defend their belief to the death: ours.

The theory of evolution is only proven by--
Circular reasoning: proving a premise by rewording the premise in the
conclusion;
using part of all of a question as the answer to the question

To prove this, ask anyone who accepts the theory of evolution to prove it
"without
referring to the theory of evolution." They cannot. There is no proof
outside
the theory of evolution to prove it. It can only be proven by referring to
the
wrong conclusions and unfounded assumptions contained within it.

--*--

(* i. Impossible, im\ufffdpos\ufffdsi\ufffdble, adj.
Incapable of having existence or of occurring. Not capable of being
accomplished:
an impossible goal.
\Im*pos"si*ble\, a. [F., fr. L. impossibilis; pref. im- not + possibilis
possible. See Possible.] Not possible; incapable of being done, of existing,
etc.;
unattainable in the nature of things, or by means at command; insuperably
difficult under the circumstances; absurd or impracticable; not feasible.
With
men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. --Matt. xix.
26.
Without faith it is impossible to please him. --Heb. xi. 6.

Impossible quantity (Math.), an imaginary quantity. See #22.

Please allow me to offer two examples of the meaning of "impossible." First:
take a die as used in various games. The die has six spots, numbering the
sides
of the die from one to six. It is possible in any fair test to roll all the
numbers from one to six. The number of rolls and the time limit can be as
many
or as long as required. We may add constraints or requirements such that the
numbers must be rolled in consecutive order, or all odd numbers must be
rolled
first. No matter, given time the possible can be achieved. However, it is
impossible to roll a nine. Why? There is no number nine on the die. Let us
extend the number of allowed rolls to infinite, and the time limit to 4
billion
years. Is it now more probable that we will roll a number nine? No,
extending
the time limit does not change the definition of the term "impossible," nor
will
it allow the die to mutate so that it contains nine numbers.

Second: Stand on a chair. Lean forward so that you balance on your toes.
Begin
to flap your arms in a bird-like manor. Flap your arms faster and faster
until
you begin to feel light on your toes, now push off and fly like a bird. You
may
need to practice flying like a bird until you get it right. You may need to
close your eyes and meditate on flying like an eagle, and believing in your
ability. You have plenty of time--the rest of your life--so feel free to
practice until you achieve flight. It is "impossible" for a man, unassisted
by
his mechanisms and technologies, under his own power, to fly like an eagle,
sparrow or butterfly. Bird-like flight is impossible for human kind
regardless
of the number of attempts, of the years spent in the attempt, of the belief
or
faith or a positive mental attitude.

Pasteur demonstrated that life cannot arise from a sterile substance, and
this
remains true.

It is impossible for life to arise from nothing, or from a sterile medium,
as
proven by Pasteur. It does not matter that the medium is altered from one
broth
to another. It matters not at all that the liquid consist of these chemicals
or
those, or some other formula. Changing the atmosphere from oxygen to
hydrogen or
helium will not change the outcome. Reconciling the temperature of the
broth, or
allowing a spark of lightning, will not change the results. Standing guard
over
the sterile broth and watching hopefully for hours or years or millions or
billions of years will not change the reality that life cannot arise from
lifelessness.

What is possible, is. What is not possible, is not, and cannot be.

To be continued.

http://www.xprt.net/servitum/main/Logic.html

--
Bagman
______

"He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be
destroyed, and that without remedy." Solomon.



Al
2003-11-05 11:13:25 EST

"Bagman" <bagman@nospam.gte.net> wrote in message
news:vqhesptjdek58e@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Logical Fallacies used in support and defense of The Theory of Evolution
>
> I will give some selected quotes from "The Origin of Life," by Mr. George
> Wald,
> Scientific American August 1954, p 44-53.
>
> At the end of the selected quotes, I will make some comments, and include
> some
> Logical Fallacies from a previous post.
>
> (Quote)
>
> "About a century ago the question, How did life begin?, which has
interested
> men
> throughout their history, (1a) reached an impasse. Up to that time two
> answers
> had been offered: one that life had been created supernaturally, the other
> that
> it arises continually from the nonliving. The first explanation lay
outside
> (1b)
> science; the second was now shown to be untenable.
>
> "Recently ways have been found again to consider the origin of life as a
> scientific (2) problem--as an event within the order (3) of nature. In
part
> this
> is the result of new information. But a theory never rises of itself,
> however
> rich and secure the facts. It is an act (4) of creation. "Our present
ideas
> in
> this realm were first brought together in a clear and defensible (5)
> argument by
> the Russian biochemist A. I. Oparin in a book called "The Origin of Life,"
> published in 1936.
>
> "The attempt to understand how life originated raises a wide variety of
> scientific questions, which lead in many and diverse directions and should
> end
> by casting light into many obscure corners. At the center of the
enterprise
> lies
> the hope not only of explaining a great past event--important as that
should
> be--but
> of showing that the explanation (6) is workable. If we can indeed come to
> understand how a living organism arises from the nonliving, we should be
> able (7)
> to construct one--only of the simplest description, to be sure, but still
> recognizably alive. This is so remote a possibility now that one scarcely
> dares
> to acknowledge it; but it is there nevertheless.
>
> "One answer to the problem of how life originated is that it was created.
> This
> is an understandable confusion of nature with technology. (8)
>
> "Most of the cultures we know contain mythical accounts of a supernatural
> creation of life. (9)
>
> "The more rational elements of society, however, tended to take a more
> naturalistic view...." (10)
>
> "But step by step, in a great controversy that spread over two centuries
> this
> belief was whittled away until nothing remained of it. (11)
>
> "First the Italian Francesco Redi showed in the 17th century that meat
> placed
> under a screen, so that flies cannot lay their eggs on it, never develops
> maggots. Then in the following century the Italian abbe Lazzano
Spallanzani
> showed that a nutritive broth, sealed off from the air while boiling,
never
> develops microorganisms, and hence never rots. Needham objected that by
too
> much
> boiling Spallanzani had rendered the broth, and still more the air above
it,
> incompatible with life. Spallanzani could defend his broth; when he broke
> the
> seal of his flasks, allowing new air to rush in, the broth promptly began
to
> rot.
> He could find no way, however, to show that the air in the sealed flask
had
> not
> been vitiated. This problem finally was solved by Louis Pasteur in 1860,
> with a
> simple modification of Spallanzani's experiment. Pasteur too used a flask
> containing boiling broth, but instead of sealing off the neck he drew it
out
> in
> a long, S-shaped curve with its end open to the air. While molecules of
air
> could pass back and forth freely, the heavier particles of dust, bacteria
> and
> molds in the atmosphere were trapped on the walls of the curved neck and
> only
> rarely reached the broth. In such a flask the broth seldom was
contaminated;
> usually it remained clear and sterile indefinitely.
>
> "This was only one of Pasteur's experiments. It is no easy matter to deal
> with
> so deeply ingrained and common-sense (12) a belief as that in spontaneous
> generation. One can ask for nothing better in such a pass than a noisy and
> stubborn opponent, and this Pasteur had in the naturalist Felix Pouchet,
> whose
> arguments before the French Academy of Sciences drove Pasteur to more and
> more
> rigorous experiments. When he had finished, nothing remained of the belief
> in
> spontaneous generation.
>
> "The reasonable (12) view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the
only
> alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation.
> There
> is no third position. (13)
>
> "For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief
in
> spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." (14) It is a
symptom
> of
> the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer
> appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the
> downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept
> the
> alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.
>
> "I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life
> through a
> hypothesis of spontaneous generation. (15)
>
> "What the controversy reviewed above showed to be untenable is only the
> belief
> that living organisms arise spontaneously under present conditions. (16)
>
> "We have now to face a somewhat different problem: how organisms may have
> arisen
> spontaneously under different conditions in some former period, granted
that
> they do so no longer. (17)
>
> "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that
the
> spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. (18)
>
> "Yet here we are--as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. (19)
>
> "It will help to digress for a moment to ask what one means by (20)
> "impossible."
>
> "With every event one can associate a probability--the chance that it will
> occur.
> (21) This is always a fraction, the number of times the event occurs in a
> large
> number of trials.
>
> "We see therefore that it does not mean much to say that a very improbable
> event
> has never been observed. (22)
>
> "A final aspect of our problem is very important. When we consider the
> spontaneous origin of a living organism, this is not an event that need
> happen
> again and again. (23)
>
> "The probability with which we are concerned is of a special kind; it is
the
> probability that an event occur at least once. (Italic emphasis his.) (24)
>
> "However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it
> involves,
> given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once. And for
> life as
> we know it, with its capacity for growth and reproduction, once may be
> enough. (25)
>
> "Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal
> is of
> the order of two billion years. (26)
>
> (End quote)
>
> Comments:
>
> 1. a, Evolution is not new with Darwin. See: "The waters contained in
> themselves
> the seed of life" LAROUSSE WORLD MYTHOLOGY, trans. Gremal, Pierre, New
York:
> Putnam, 1981, p 65.
>
> "Chaos of primeval waters... gods of chaos..." A History of the Sciences,
> Stephen F, Mason New York: Collier Books, 1962 p 15-23
>
> Thales (624-546 B.C., for example, influenced by traditional myths which
> derived
> all things from the primordial waters..."
> "Ionian School ...Materialistic Nouism and Evolution were taught in 5th
and
> 6th
> century B.C. Greece."
> Empedocles of Agrigentum taught that "...eyes and legs joined together by
> accident..."
> Jacques Maritain, "Introduction to Philosophy" New York: Sheed & Ward,
Inc.
> 1947
> p 47-50
>
> 1. b, "The first explanation lay outside science . . ." Mr. Wald
> acknowledges
> that some subjects lie outside Science. Now the question is, How do we
> determine
> the boundaries of Science?
>
> 2. What is Science? According to Dr. Jerry Bergman, "Science" is a method
of
> obtaining knowledge by: First, Observation. Second, Classification. Third,
> Hypothesis. Fourth, Tests.
>
> Bergman, Jerry, "What Is Science", CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY, V.
> 20, N.
> 1, June 1983, p. 39.
>
> That is, Science is the study of that which is tangible and measurable by
> controlled and repeatable experiment. The inherent nature of Science
limits
> it
> to things which can be perceived by human senses (or instruments which
> amplify
> them) and to things which it can confine, control and manipulate in
> contrived
> and isolated tests and experiments.
>
> To know what Science is, is to know what Science is not. If scientists
> cannot
> see or touch an object or get it to cooperate in repeatable experiments
and
> tests, it cannot be the subject of Scientific study. If scientists cannot
> demonstrate that a thing has tangible attributes, they cannot prove its
> existence. If scientists cannot show tangible evidence of the
non-existence
> of
> an object, rather than just a lack of evidence of its existence, they
cannot
> prove its nonexistence by the scientific method. Scientists can only
> demonstrate,
> in this case, that Science cannot treat the subject: it is rightfully the
> property of Philosophy or Theodicy.
>
> Can the theory of evolution be tested and proven by the "scientific"
method?
> No.
>
> 3. Mr. Wald is suggesting that "Nature" or the "natural order" arose
without
> God.
> He is using an unfounded (and unspoken) assumption, that "Nature" is a
> result of
> "Big Bang" and arose without Special Creation.
>
> Begging the question: assuming as true at the outset that which must be
> proved
> as true
>
> Forced Hypothesis: failure to consider other explanations for the
evidence;
> lack
> of sufficient evidence to draw hypothesis
>
> 4. Mr. Wald admits that he believes in, and recognizes, "an act of
> creation."
> This he will accept of man; and so reveals that it is not "an act of
> creation"
> he cannot and will not accept. He reveals that his reluctance is that a
> Being
> other than man is able to create.
>
> 5. Whether it is "defensible" or not is not the question. By the misuse of
> logic,
> the misinterpretation of some evidence and the outright rejection of other
> evidence, a hypothesis, not provable by the Scientific method, may be
> "defensible"
> however wrong it is.
>
> 6. Mr. Wald admits that the "theory of Evolution" has not yet been proven
> "workable."
>
> Hasty conclusion: reaching a conclusion based on relevant but insufficient
> evidence
>
> The evidence may seem relevant, since Biologists discuss the bones of
> animals
> that lived in the past. What is not relevant is that the bones might
reveal
> "the
> origin of life."
>
> Non sequitur: conclusion has no logical connection to evidence offered
>
> The bones of the dead do not reveal the origin of life.
>
> 7. One must ask, What is the difference between 'construct' (as to build
or
> make
> something which does not exist) and 'create?' They are synonyms. Mr. Wald
> was
> very careful not to use the word "create" here. Why? Could it be that
while
> he
> will not admit that a "Supreme Being" can "Create," He believes man can?
> Again,
> he is not denying the act of creation; he is denying a Supreme Being did,
or
> can,
> perform that act. Having rejected the idea that a Supreme Being can
Create,
> Mr.
> Wald now suggests that he, or other biologists, may soon have the ability
to
> "construct"
> life. Utterly amazing.
>
> 8. First, The belief in Creation is seven thousand years mature, and
> 'technology"
> in not yet two hundred. Mr. Wald stoops to use of ridicule: belittling
those
> who
> believe in God and His act of Creation by describing them as "confused."
> There
> are at least three variations of this practice:
>
> Loaded language: abusively labeling persons or groups with sexual, racial,
> ethnic, or other prejudicial terms
>
> Ad hominem: an irrelevant attack on an individual's character that appeals
> to
> prejudice or emotion
>
> Straw man: altering or exaggerating an opponent's position for the sake of
> attacking it
>
> 9. Mr. Wald would rob the Scripture of its credibility by calling it
"myth."
>
> Poisoning the well: tainting or attacking information before presenting it
> to an
> audience; coercing the audience to accept or reject a position on an idea
> before
> presenting the idea
>
> 10. Again, ridicule; by the minor premise: He compliments those who accept
> spontaneous generation by calling them "rational," and thus implies that
> anyone
> else is "not rational." See # 8.
>
> 11. This is to the glory of God. I will have more to say about this later.
>
> 12. This is the use of ridicule, "common sense, unreasonable." See # 8.
>
> 13. Mr. Wald acknowledges his dilemma.
>
> 14. He calls it a matter of choice, a "philosophical necessity."
>
> 15. Mr. Wald states that he "has no choice but to approach the origin of
> life
> through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation." That is, due to
> "philosophical
> necessity," he rejects the alternative possibility, and makes his choice
to
> believe in evolution.
>
> Suppressed evidence: failure to present information relevant to the issue
>
> 16. Thus begins the shift to an unprovable hypothesis. This begins with an
> incorrect conclusion: (". . . untenable is only the belief that living
> organisms
> arise spontaneously under present conditions.")
>
> Actually, what the experiments of Pasteur proved is that spontaneous
> generation
> is impossible under any conditions.
>
> 17. Here is the full shift: "...how organisms may have arisen
spontaneously
> under different conditions in some former period." How can it be
> scientifically
> demonstrated what "different conditions" might have or could have existed?
> How
> can a scientist test or demonstrate something "supposed" or "imagined" to
> have
> occurred under unknown circumstances a thousand (let alone, a billion)
years
> ago?
> It is a "Scientific" impossibility, and therefore biologists in
particular,
> and
> those scientists who support this theory, have severed themselves from
truth
> and
> reality.
>
> Sir Frances Beacon said, "When philosophy is cut off from its roots in
> experience, where it was born, it dies." Kepler said, "If a scientist's
> hypothesis fit into a certain metaphysical theory, fine; but if not, then
it
> is
> the metaphysics which must go."
>
> Mason, Stephen F., A HISTORY OF THE SCIENCES New York: Collier Books,
Inc.,
> 1962,
> pp. 11-24, 136, 142.
>
> 18. Mr. Wald states, "The spontaneous generation of a living organism is
> impossible." (* i.)
>
> 19. Once again, regardless of the proven impossibility, he states his
choice
> to
> believe otherwise.
>
> Begging the question: assuming as true at the outset that which must be
> proved
> as true
>
> 20. It is a practice of sophistry to debate the meanings of terms, then,
> somewhere in the debate, to switch the meaning of terms.
>
> Equivocation: ambiguous or inexact statements; changing the meaning of a
key
> term in the middle of an argument
>
> 21. Here is his twist of the meaning... ("With every event one can
associate
> a
> probability ...") Without hesitation he abandons the literal meaning of
> "impossible."
> He says, "With every event..." However, with "impossible," there are no
> events.
> The Truth is that for impossible events, there is no probability.
>
> 22. Here again he demonstrates his shift to sophistry and the confusion of
> terms,
> and goes from "impossible" to "improbable." He does this without tangible
or
> objective evidence.
>
> Statistical fallacy: the use of unprovable statistics as fact; the use of
> statistics that are incomplete or that present a biased picture/result
>
> Faulty sampling: a sample (statistic) too small to be reliable or a sample
> that
> is not representative of what it's supposed to measure.
>
> Mr. Wald has employed both fallacies. First, the statistics he gives are
not
> proven, they are manufactured (i.e., "created") by him for his purpose,
and
> do in
> fact "present a biased picture." Second, the lifetime of humankind, or the
> history of the science of probability, is too small when compared (in his
> own
> words) to the time scale in his sample. In fact, he has no sample and no
> verifiable proof of his time scale, only another unproven premise.
>
> 23. Here is an unsupported hypothesis: How can he support the belief that
> the
> very first living cell would have, or could have, survived to reproduce?
> There
> is no evidence on which to base this assumption. However, for those who
> refute
> the theory of evolution to argue this point is to grant the first and
wander
> off
> into rabbit trails. The point is that there is no evidence that any living
> thing,
> single cell or other wise, has ever arisen from nothing.
>
> Red herring: introducing a side issue or an irrelevant issue to divert
> attention
> from the real issue
>
> 24, 25, 26. He bases the possible success, of spontaneous generation
arising
> to
> evolution, upon time. That time can make the impossible become possible,
and
> then inevitable, is the first unsupported and unproven foundation of
> evolution.
> The next unsupportable premise, which must follow the first in less than a
> heartbeat, is that there has been enough time.
>
> Non sequitur: conclusion has no logical connection to evidence offered
>
> Questionable cause: a faulty cause/effect relationship
>
> Questionable premise: accepting a proposition or concept without having
good
> reason to accept it
>
> Proponents of Evolution and Big Bang theories know that their unproven
> hypotheses are founded upon a 'billions of years' time scale, and they
will
> defend their belief to the death: ours.
>
> The theory of evolution is only proven by--
> Circular reasoning: proving a premise by rewording the premise in the
> conclusion;
> using part of all of a question as the answer to the question
>
> To prove this, ask anyone who accepts the theory of evolution to prove it
> "without
> referring to the theory of evolution." They cannot. There is no proof
> outside
> the theory of evolution to prove it. It can only be proven by referring to
> the
> wrong conclusions and unfounded assumptions contained within it.
>
> --*--
>
> (* i. Impossible, im\ufffdpos\ufffdsi\ufffdble, adj.
> Incapable of having existence or of occurring. Not capable of being
> accomplished:
> an impossible goal.
> \Im*pos"si*ble\, a. [F., fr. L. impossibilis; pref. im- not + possibilis
> possible. See Possible.] Not possible; incapable of being done, of
existing,
> etc.;
> unattainable in the nature of things, or by means at command; insuperably
> difficult under the circumstances; absurd or impracticable; not feasible.
> With
> men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. --Matt. xix.
> 26.
> Without faith it is impossible to please him. --Heb. xi. 6.
>
> Impossible quantity (Math.), an imaginary quantity. See #22.
>
> Please allow me to offer two examples of the meaning of "impossible."
First:
> take a die as used in various games. The die has six spots, numbering the
> sides
> of the die from one to six. It is possible in any fair test to roll all
the
> numbers from one to six. The number of rolls and the time limit can be as
> many
> or as long as required. We may add constraints or requirements such that
the
> numbers must be rolled in consecutive order, or all odd numbers must be
> rolled
> first. No matter, given time the possible can be achieved. However, it is
> impossible to roll a nine. Why? There is no number nine on the die. Let us
> extend the number of allowed rolls to infinite, and the time limit to 4
> billion
> years. Is it now more probable that we will roll a number nine? No,
> extending
> the time limit does not change the definition of the term "impossible,"
nor
> will
> it allow the die to mutate so that it contains nine numbers.
>
> Second: Stand on a chair. Lean forward so that you balance on your toes.
> Begin
> to flap your arms in a bird-like manor. Flap your arms faster and faster
> until
> you begin to feel light on your toes, now push off and fly like a bird.
You
> may
> need to practice flying like a bird until you get it right. You may need
to
> close your eyes and meditate on flying like an eagle, and believing in
your
> ability. You have plenty of time--the rest of your life--so feel free to
> practice until you achieve flight. It is "impossible" for a man,
unassisted
> by
> his mechanisms and technologies, under his own power, to fly like an
eagle,
> sparrow or butterfly. Bird-like flight is impossible for human kind
> regardless
> of the number of attempts, of the years spent in the attempt, of the
belief
> or
> faith or a positive mental attitude.
>
> Pasteur demonstrated that life cannot arise from a sterile substance, and
> this
> remains true.
>
> It is impossible for life to arise from nothing, or from a sterile medium,
> as
> proven by Pasteur. It does not matter that the medium is altered from one
> broth
> to another. It matters not at all that the liquid consist of these
chemicals
> or
> those, or some other formula. Changing the atmosphere from oxygen to
> hydrogen or
> helium will not change the outcome. Reconciling the temperature of the
> broth, or
> allowing a spark of lightning, will not change the results. Standing guard
> over
> the sterile broth and watching hopefully for hours or years or millions or
> billions of years will not change the reality that life cannot arise from
> lifelessness.
>
> What is possible, is. What is not possible, is not, and cannot be.
>
> To be continued.
>
> http://www.xprt.net/servitum/main/Logic.html
>
> --
> Bagman
> ______
>
> "He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be
> destroyed, and that without remedy." Solomon.
>
>



Al
2003-11-05 11:15:28 EST

A lot of words about nothing. Science can not prove their theories. God
does. We are living examples of God's work.

"Bagman" <bagman@nospam.gte.net> wrote in message
news:vqhesptjdek58e@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Logical Fallacies used in support and defense of The Theory of Evolution
>
> I will give some selected quotes from "The Origin of Life," by Mr. George
> Wald,
> Scientific American August 1954, p 44-53.
>
> At the end of the selected quotes, I will make some comments, and include
> some
> Logical Fallacies from a previous post.
>
> (Quote)
>
> "About a century ago the question, How did life begin?, which has
interested
> men
> throughout their history, (1a) reached an impasse. Up to that time two
> answers
> had been offered: one that life had been created supernaturally, the other
> that
> it arises continually from the nonliving. The first explanation lay
outside
> (1b)
> science; the second was now shown to be untenable.
>
> "Recently ways have been found again to consider the origin of life as a
> scientific (2) problem--as an event within the order (3) of nature. In
part
> this
> is the result of new information. But a theory never rises of itself,
> however
> rich and secure the facts. It is an act (4) of creation. "Our present
ideas
> in
> this realm were first brought together in a clear and defensible (5)
> argument by
> the Russian biochemist A. I. Oparin in a book called "The Origin of Life,"
> published in 1936.
>
> "The attempt to understand how life originated raises a wide variety of
> scientific questions, which lead in many and diverse directions and should
> end
> by casting light into many obscure corners. At the center of the
enterprise
> lies
> the hope not only of explaining a great past event--important as that
should
> be--but
> of showing that the explanation (6) is workable. If we can indeed come to
> understand how a living organism arises from the nonliving, we should be
> able (7)
> to construct one--only of the simplest description, to be sure, but still
> recognizably alive. This is so remote a possibility now that one scarcely
> dares
> to acknowledge it; but it is there nevertheless.
>
> "One answer to the problem of how life originated is that it was created.
> This
> is an understandable confusion of nature with technology. (8)
>
> "Most of the cultures we know contain mythical accounts of a supernatural
> creation of life. (9)
>
> "The more rational elements of society, however, tended to take a more
> naturalistic view...." (10)
>
> "But step by step, in a great controversy that spread over two centuries
> this
> belief was whittled away until nothing remained of it. (11)
>
> "First the Italian Francesco Redi showed in the 17th century that meat
> placed
> under a screen, so that flies cannot lay their eggs on it, never develops
> maggots. Then in the following century the Italian abbe Lazzano
Spallanzani
> showed that a nutritive broth, sealed off from the air while boiling,
never
> develops microorganisms, and hence never rots. Needham objected that by
too
> much
> boiling Spallanzani had rendered the broth, and still more the air above
it,
> incompatible with life. Spallanzani could defend his broth; when he broke
> the
> seal of his flasks, allowing new air to rush in, the broth promptly began
to
> rot.
> He could find no way, however, to show that the air in the sealed flask
had
> not
> been vitiated. This problem finally was solved by Louis Pasteur in 1860,
> with a
> simple modification of Spallanzani's experiment. Pasteur too used a flask
> containing boiling broth, but instead of sealing off the neck he drew it
out
> in
> a long, S-shaped curve with its end open to the air. While molecules of
air
> could pass back and forth freely, the heavier particles of dust, bacteria
> and
> molds in the atmosphere were trapped on the walls of the curved neck and
> only
> rarely reached the broth. In such a flask the broth seldom was
contaminated;
> usually it remained clear and sterile indefinitely.
>
> "This was only one of Pasteur's experiments. It is no easy matter to deal
> with
> so deeply ingrained and common-sense (12) a belief as that in spontaneous
> generation. One can ask for nothing better in such a pass than a noisy and
> stubborn opponent, and this Pasteur had in the naturalist Felix Pouchet,
> whose
> arguments before the French Academy of Sciences drove Pasteur to more and
> more
> rigorous experiments. When he had finished, nothing remained of the belief
> in
> spontaneous generation.
>
> "The reasonable (12) view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the
only
> alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation.
> There
> is no third position. (13)
>
> "For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief
in
> spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." (14) It is a
symptom
> of
> the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer
> appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the
> downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept
> the
> alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing.
>
> "I think a scientist has no choice but to approach the origin of life
> through a
> hypothesis of spontaneous generation. (15)
>
> "What the controversy reviewed above showed to be untenable is only the
> belief
> that living organisms arise spontaneously under present conditions. (16)
>
> "We have now to face a somewhat different problem: how organisms may have
> arisen
> spontaneously under different conditions in some former period, granted
that
> they do so no longer. (17)
>
> "One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that
the
> spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. (18)
>
> "Yet here we are--as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. (19)
>
> "It will help to digress for a moment to ask what one means by (20)
> "impossible."
>
> "With every event one can associate a probability--the chance that it will
> occur.
> (21) This is always a fraction, the number of times the event occurs in a
> large
> number of trials.
>
> "We see therefore that it does not mean much to say that a very improbable
> event
> has never been observed. (22)
>
> "A final aspect of our problem is very important. When we consider the
> spontaneous origin of a living organism, this is not an event that need
> happen
> again and again. (23)
>
> "The probability with which we are concerned is of a special kind; it is
the
> probability that an event occur at least once. (Italic emphasis his.) (24)
>
> "However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it
> involves,
> given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once. And for
> life as
> we know it, with its capacity for growth and reproduction, once may be
> enough. (25)
>
> "Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal
> is of
> the order of two billion years. (26)
>
> (End quote)
>
> Comments:
>
> 1. a, Evolution is not new with Darwin. See: "The waters contained in
> themselves
> the seed of life" LAROUSSE WORLD MYTHOLOGY, trans. Gremal, Pierre, New
York:
> Putnam, 1981, p 65.
>
> "Chaos of primeval waters... gods of chaos..." A History of the Sciences,
> Stephen F, Mason New York: Collier Books, 1962 p 15-23
>
> Thales (624-546 B.C., for example, influenced by traditional myths which
> derived
> all things from the primordial waters..."
> "Ionian School ...Materialistic Nouism and Evolution were taught in 5th
and
> 6th
> century B.C. Greece."
> Empedocles of Agrigentum taught that "...eyes and legs joined together by
> accident..."
> Jacques Maritain, "Introduction to Philosophy" New York: Sheed & Ward,
Inc.
> 1947
> p 47-50
>
> 1. b, "The first explanation lay outside science . . ." Mr. Wald
> acknowledges
> that some subjects lie outside Science. Now the question is, How do we
> determine
> the boundaries of Science?
>
> 2. What is Science? According to Dr. Jerry Bergman, "Science" is a method
of
> obtaining knowledge by: First, Observation. Second, Classification. Third,
> Hypothesis. Fourth, Tests.
>
> Bergman, Jerry, "What Is Science", CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY QUARTERLY, V.
> 20, N.
> 1, June 1983, p. 39.
>
> That is, Science is the study of that which is tangible and measurable by
> controlled and repeatable experiment. The inherent nature of Science
limits
> it
> to things which can be perceived by human senses (or instruments which
> amplify
> them) and to things which it can confine, control and manipulate in
> contrived
> and isolated tests and experiments.
>
> To know what Science is, is to know what Science is not. If scientists
> cannot
> see or touch an object or get it to cooperate in repeatable experiments
and
> tests, it cannot be the subject of Scientific study. If scientists cannot
> demonstrate that a thing has tangible attributes, they cannot prove its
> existence. If scientists cannot show tangible evidence of the
non-existence
> of
> an object, rather than just a lack of evidence of its existence, they
cannot
> prove its nonexistence by the scientific method. Scientists can only
> demonstrate,
> in this case, that Science cannot treat the subject: it is rightfully the
> property of Philosophy or Theodicy.
>
> Can the theory of evolution be tested and proven by the "scientific"
method?
> No.
>
> 3. Mr. Wald is suggesting that "Nature" or the "natural order" arose
without
> God.
> He is using an unfounded (and unspoken) assumption, that "Nature" is a
> result of
> "Big Bang" and arose without Special Creation.
>
> Begging the question: assuming as true at the outset that which must be
> proved
> as true
>
> Forced Hypothesis: failure to consider other explanations for the
evidence;
> lack
> of sufficient evidence to draw hypothesis
>
> 4. Mr. Wald admits that he believes in, and recognizes, "an act of
> creation."
> This he will accept of man; and so reveals that it is not "an act of
> creation"
> he cannot and will not accept. He reveals that his reluctance is that a
> Being
> other than man is able to create.
>
> 5. Whether it is "defensible" or not is not the question. By the misuse of
> logic,
> the misinterpretation of some evidence and the outright rejection of other
> evidence, a hypothesis, not provable by the Scientific method, may be
> "defensible"
> however wrong it is.
>
> 6. Mr. Wald admits that the "theory of Evolution" has not yet been proven
> "workable."
>
> Hasty conclusion: reaching a conclusion based on relevant but insufficient
> evidence
>
> The evidence may seem relevant, since Biologists discuss the bones of
> animals
> that lived in the past. What is not relevant is that the bones might
reveal
> "the
> origin of life."
>
> Non sequitur: conclusion has no logical connection to evidence offered
>
> The bones of the dead do not reveal the origin of life.
>
> 7. One must ask, What is the difference between 'construct' (as to build
or
> make
> something which does not exist) and 'create?' They are synonyms. Mr. Wald
> was
> very careful not to use the word "create" here. Why? Could it be that
while
> he
> will not admit that a "Supreme Being" can "Create," He believes man can?
> Again,
> he is not denying the act of creation; he is denying a Supreme Being did,
or
> can,
> perform that act. Having rejected the idea that a Supreme Being can
Create,
> Mr.
> Wald now suggests that he, or other biologists, may soon have the ability
to
> "construct"
> life. Utterly amazing.
>
> 8. First, The belief in Creation is seven thousand years mature, and
> 'technology"
> in not yet two hundred. Mr. Wald stoops to use of ridicule: belittling
those
> who
> believe in God and His act of Creation by describing them as "confused."
> There
> are at least three variations of this practice:
>
> Loaded language: abusively labeling persons or groups with sexual, racial,
> ethnic, or other prejudicial terms
>
> Ad hominem: an irrelevant attack on an individual's character that appeals
> to
> prejudice or emotion
>
> Straw man: altering or exaggerating an opponent's position for the sake of
> attacking it
>
> 9. Mr. Wald would rob the Scripture of its credibility by calling it
"myth."
>
> Poisoning the well: tainting or attacking information before presenting it
> to an
> audience; coercing the audience to accept or reject a position on an idea
> before
> presenting the idea
>
> 10. Again, ridicule; by the minor premise: He compliments those who accept
> spontaneous generation by calling them "rational," and thus implies that
> anyone
> else is "not rational." See # 8.
>
> 11. This is to the glory of God. I will have more to say about this later.
>
> 12. This is the use of ridicule, "common sense, unreasonable." See # 8.
>
> 13. Mr. Wald acknowledges his dilemma.
>
> 14. He calls it a matter of choice, a "philosophical necessity."
>
> 15. Mr. Wald states that he "has no choice but to approach the origin of
> life
> through a hypothesis of spontaneous generation." That is, due to
> "philosophical
> necessity," he rejects the alternative possibility, and makes his choice
to
> believe in evolution.
>
> Suppressed evidence: failure to present information relevant to the issue
>
> 16. Thus begins the shift to an unprovable hypothesis. This begins with an
> incorrect conclusion: (". . . untenable is only the belief that living
> organisms
> arise spontaneously under present conditions.")
>
> Actually, what the experiments of Pasteur proved is that spontaneous
> generation
> is impossible under any conditions.
>
> 17. Here is the full shift: "...how organisms may have arisen
spontaneously
> under different conditions in some former period." How can it be
> scientifically
> demonstrated what "different conditions" might have or could have existed?
> How
> can a scientist test or demonstrate something "supposed" or "imagined" to
> have
> occurred under unknown circumstances a thousand (let alone, a billion)
years
> ago?
> It is a "Scientific" impossibility, and therefore biologists in
particular,
> and
> those scientists who support this theory, have severed themselves from
truth
> and
> reality.
>
> Sir Frances Beacon said, "When philosophy is cut off from its roots in
> experience, where it was born, it dies." Kepler said, "If a scientist's
> hypothesis fit into a certain metaphysical theory, fine; but if not, then
it
> is
> the metaphysics which must go."
>
> Mason, Stephen F., A HISTORY OF THE SCIENCES New York: Collier Books,
Inc.,
> 1962,
> pp. 11-24, 136, 142.
>
> 18. Mr. Wald states, "The spontaneous generation of a living organism is
> impossible." (* i.)
>
> 19. Once again, regardless of the proven impossibility, he states his
choice
> to
> believe otherwise.
>
> Begging the question: assuming as true at the outset that which must be
> proved
> as true
>
> 20. It is a practice of sophistry to debate the meanings of terms, then,
> somewhere in the debate, to switch the meaning of terms.
>
> Equivocation: ambiguous or inexact statements; changing the meaning of a
key
> term in the middle of an argument
>
> 21. Here is his twist of the meaning... ("With every event one can
associate
> a
> probability ...") Without hesitation he abandons the literal meaning of
> "impossible."
> He says, "With every event..." However, with "impossible," there are no
> events.
> The Truth is that for impossible events, there is no probability.
>
> 22. Here again he demonstrates his shift to sophistry and the confusion of
> terms,
> and goes from "impossible" to "improbable." He does this without tangible
or
> objective evidence.
>
> Statistical fallacy: the use of unprovable statistics as fact; the use of
> statistics that are incomplete or that present a biased picture/result
>
> Faulty sampling: a sample (statistic) too small to be reliable or a sample
> that
> is not representative of what it's supposed to measure.
>
> Mr. Wald has employed both fallacies. First, the statistics he gives are
not
> proven, they are manufactured (i.e., "created") by him for his purpose,
and
> do in
> fact "present a biased picture." Second, the lifetime of humankind, or the
> history of the science of probability, is too small when compared (in his
> own
> words) to the time scale in his sample. In fact, he has no sample and no
> verifiable proof of his time scale, only another unproven premise.
>
> 23. Here is an unsupported hypothesis: How can he support the belief that
> the
> very first living cell would have, or could have, survived to reproduce?
> There
> is no evidence on which to base this assumption. However, for those who
> refute
> the theory of evolution to argue this point is to grant the first and
wander
> off
> into rabbit trails. The point is that there is no evidence that any living
> thing,
> single cell or other wise, has ever arisen from nothing.
>
> Red herring: introducing a side issue or an irrelevant issue to divert
> attention
> from the real issue
>
> 24, 25, 26. He bases the possible success, of spontaneous generation
arising
> to
> evolution, upon time. That time can make the impossible become possible,
and
> then inevitable, is the first unsupported and unproven foundation of
> evolution.
> The next unsupportable premise, which must follow the first in less than a
> heartbeat, is that there has been enough time.
>
> Non sequitur: conclusion has no logical connection to evidence offered
>
> Questionable cause: a faulty cause/effect relationship
>
> Questionable premise: accepting a proposition or concept without having
good
> reason to accept it
>
> Proponents of Evolution and Big Bang theories know that their unproven
> hypotheses are founded upon a 'billions of years' time scale, and they
will
> defend their belief to the death: ours.
>
> The theory of evolution is only proven by--
> Circular reasoning: proving a premise by rewording the premise in the
> conclusion;
> using part of all of a question as the answer to the question
>
> To prove this, ask anyone who accepts the theory of evolution to prove it
> "without
> referring to the theory of evolution." They cannot. There is no proof
> outside
> the theory of evolution to prove it. It can only be proven by referring to
> the
> wrong conclusions and unfounded assumptions contained within it.
>
> --*--
>
> (* i. Impossible, im\ufffdpos\ufffdsi\ufffdble, adj.
> Incapable of having existence or of occurring. Not capable of being
> accomplished:
> an impossible goal.
> \Im*pos"si*ble\, a. [F., fr. L. impossibilis; pref. im- not + possibilis
> possible. See Possible.] Not possible; incapable of being done, of
existing,
> etc.;
> unattainable in the nature of things, or by means at command; insuperably
> difficult under the circumstances; absurd or impracticable; not feasible.
> With
> men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. --Matt. xix.
> 26.
> Without faith it is impossible to please him. --Heb. xi. 6.
>
> Impossible quantity (Math.), an imaginary quantity. See #22.
>
> Please allow me to offer two examples of the meaning of "impossible."
First:
> take a die as used in various games. The die has six spots, numbering the
> sides
> of the die from one to six. It is possible in any fair test to roll all
the
> numbers from one to six. The number of rolls and the time limit can be as
> many
> or as long as required. We may add constraints or requirements such that
the
> numbers must be rolled in consecutive order, or all odd numbers must be
> rolled
> first. No matter, given time the possible can be achieved. However, it is
> impossible to roll a nine. Why? There is no number nine on the die. Let us
> extend the number of allowed rolls to infinite, and the time limit to 4
> billion
> years. Is it now more probable that we will roll a number nine? No,
> extending
> the time limit does not change the definition of the term "impossible,"
nor
> will
> it allow the die to mutate so that it contains nine numbers.
>
> Second: Stand on a chair. Lean forward so that you balance on your toes.
> Begin
> to flap your arms in a bird-like manor. Flap your arms faster and faster
> until
> you begin to feel light on your toes, now push off and fly like a bird.
You
> may
> need to practice flying like a bird until you get it right. You may need
to
> close your eyes and meditate on flying like an eagle, and believing in
your
> ability. You have plenty of time--the rest of your life--so feel free to
> practice until you achieve flight. It is "impossible" for a man,
unassisted
> by
> his mechanisms and technologies, under his own power, to fly like an
eagle,
> sparrow or butterfly. Bird-like flight is impossible for human kind
> regardless
> of the number of attempts, of the years spent in the attempt, of the
belief
> or
> faith or a positive mental attitude.
>
> Pasteur demonstrated that life cannot arise from a sterile substance, and
> this
> remains true.
>
> It is impossible for life to arise from nothing, or from a sterile medium,
> as
> proven by Pasteur. It does not matter that the medium is altered from one
> broth
> to another. It matters not at all that the liquid consist of these
chemicals
> or
> those, or some other formula. Changing the atmosphere from oxygen to
> hydrogen or
> helium will not change the outcome. Reconciling the temperature of the
> broth, or
> allowing a spark of lightning, will not change the results. Standing guard
> over
> the sterile broth and watching hopefully for hours or years or millions or
> billions of years will not change the reality that life cannot arise from
> lifelessness.
>
> What is possible, is. What is not possible, is not, and cannot be.
>
> To be continued.
>
> http://www.xprt.net/servitum/main/Logic.html
>
> --
> Bagman
> ______
>
> "He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be
> destroyed, and that without remedy." Solomon.
>
>



Grantco
2003-11-05 12:09:48 EST
"Bagman" <bagman@nospam.gte.net> wrote in message news:<vqhesptjdek58e@corp.supernews.com>...
> Logical Fallacies used in support and defense of The Theory of Evolution


> To prove this, ask anyone who accepts the theory of evolution to prove it
> "without
> referring to the theory of evolution." They cannot. There is no proof
> outside
> the theory of evolution to prove it. It can only be proven by referring to
> the
> wrong conclusions and unfounded assumptions contained within it.

How ridiculous can your "theory" be? Using your own "logic" PROVE that
creationist theory is correct WITHOUT mentioning God or the bible. As
you said above, you "cannot." There is no proof outside the bible to
"prove" your theory of creationism.



> It is impossible for life to arise from nothing, or from a sterile medium,
> as
> proven by Pasteur. It does not matter that the medium is altered from one
> broth
> to another. It matters not at all that the liquid consist of these chemicals
> or
> those, or some other formula. Changing the atmosphere from oxygen to
> hydrogen or
> helium will not change the outcome. Reconciling the temperature of the
> broth, or
> allowing a spark of lightning, will not change the results. Standing guard
> over
> the sterile broth and watching hopefully for hours or years or millions or
> billions of years will not change the reality that life cannot arise from
> lifelessness.
>
> What is possible, is. What is not possible, is not, and cannot be.

You erroneously presuppose that one should consider the ingredients of
early earth to be "sterile."


>
> To be continued.

But of course.... :-)


>
> http://www.xprt.net/servitum/main/Logic.html

Richard Smol
2003-11-05 13:18:47 EST
Al wrote:
> A lot of words about nothing. Science can not prove their theories. God
> does. We are living examples of God's work.

Science is not about proof anyway, but about evidence. Evolution
is an observed fact. The theory of evolution is the best explanation
of that fact, since it has a massive load of evidence in its favor.
That scientists don't know for sure yet how the first life
started doesn't change that one little bit.

And talking about evidence: where is the evidence for god?
"We are living examples" is not evidence, since it's just
an assertion.

RS


FP
2003-11-05 13:32:47 EST
> And talking about evidence: where is the evidence for god?

Richard, it is in the miracles He does in each life when He becomes their
Savior. It is miraculous when drugs, alcoholol and addictions, party life,
abuse, etc., are taken away in an INSTANT! Then the continual changing,
molding into Christ-likeness until we reach the other side of eternal life.

peace


"Richard Smol" <jazzcat_nospam_@dds.nl> wrote in message
news:babqb.3238$di.1390181@amsnews02.chello.com...
> Al wrote:
> > A lot of words about nothing. Science can not prove their theories.
God
> > does. We are living examples of God's work.
>
> Science is not about proof anyway, but about evidence. Evolution
> is an observed fact. The theory of evolution is the best explanation
> of that fact, since it has a massive load of evidence in its favor.
> That scientists don't know for sure yet how the first life
> started doesn't change that one little bit.
>
> And talking about evidence: where is the evidence for god?
> "We are living examples" is not evidence, since it's just
> an assertion.
>
> RS
>



Bagman
2003-11-05 17:10:01 EST
"Richard Smol" <jazzcat_nospam_@dds.nl> wrote in message
news:babqb.3238$di.1390181@amsnews02.chello.com...
> Al wrote:
> > A lot of words about nothing. Science can not prove their theories.
God
> > does. We are living examples of God's work.
>
> Science is not about proof anyway, but about evidence. Evolution
> is an observed fact.

Who did you say 'obsserved' this fact? Please, give me the name of your
'witness'


>The theory of evolution is the best explanation
> of that fact, since it has a massive load of evidence in its favor.

There is no evidence to prove evolution. There are tons of dead bones, but
not one bone to prove evolution.

> That scientists don't know for sure yet how the first life
> started doesn't change that one little bit.
>
> And talking about evidence: where is the evidence for god?
> "We are living examples" is not evidence, since it's just
> an assertion.
>
> RS
>

That you exist is proof of Creation, and a "Creator"

--
Bagman
______

"He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be
destroyed, and that without remedy." Solomon.



Bagman
2003-11-05 17:15:43 EST
"grantco" <grantco@greenbaynet.com> wrote in message
news:b51015e1.0311050909.4a88201a@posting.google.com...
> "Bagman" <bagman@nospam.gte.net> wrote in message
news:<vqhesptjdek58e@corp.supernews.com>...
> > Logical Fallacies used in support and defense of The Theory of Evolution
>
>
> > To prove this, ask anyone who accepts the theory of evolution to prove
it
> > "without
> > referring to the theory of evolution." They cannot. There is no proof
> > outside
> > the theory of evolution to prove it. It can only be proven by referring
to
> > the
> > wrong conclusions and unfounded assumptions contained within it.
>
> How ridiculous can your "theory" be? Using your own "logic" PROVE that
> creationist theory is correct WITHOUT mentioning God or the bible. As
> you said above, you "cannot." There is no proof outside the bible to
> "prove" your theory of creationism.
>

I don't need the Bible to prove the existence of God.
Everything which exists proves a Creator.

>
>
> > It is impossible for life to arise from nothing, or from a sterile
medium,
> > as
> > proven by Pasteur. It does not matter that the medium is altered from
one
> > broth
> > to another. It matters not at all that the liquid consist of these
chemicals
> > or
> > those, or some other formula. Changing the atmosphere from oxygen to
> > hydrogen or
> > helium will not change the outcome. Reconciling the temperature of the
> > broth, or
> > allowing a spark of lightning, will not change the results. Standing
guard
> > over
> > the sterile broth and watching hopefully for hours or years or millions
or
> > billions of years will not change the reality that life cannot arise
from
> > lifelessness.
> >
> > What is possible, is. What is not possible, is not, and cannot be.
>
> You erroneously presuppose that one should consider the ingredients of
> early earth to be "sterile."
>
>

Big Bang theory states that the first bodies condensed from hot gasses...
much hotter, I might add, than boiling broth.
Big Bang proves that all bodies existing as a result of Big Bang are sterile

> >
> > To be continued.
>
> But of course.... :-)
>
>
> >
> > http://www.xprt.net/servitum/main/Logic.html

--
Bagman
______

"He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be
destroyed, and that without remedy." Solomon.



Libertarius
2003-11-05 18:27:44 EST
===>Is that Creationist Newspeak?
Truth is a lie
and
biblical fantasy is the truth?



Libertarius
2003-11-05 18:31:24 EST


Al wrote:

> A lot of words about nothing. Science can not prove their theories. God
> does. We are living examples of God's work.

===>Sorry example of the "work" of a sorry deity.
(Genesis 6:7
The LORD said,
"I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land,
from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky;
for I am sorry that I have made them.")


Page: 1 2 3 4 5   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron