Irony of the evolutionary belief

[leroy]

No, logical necessity is a different branch of philosophy and the concept is not relevant to this discussion.

Well then join me and explain that to @TagliatelliMonster …….he is the one who made the claim that predictions *must* logically follow from the hypothesis/model/theory/.

He is the one that introduce that philosophical concept……(that accordign to you is irrelevant)

However the main issue is not whether if it is relevant or not, the issue is that the statement is false………….. predictions don’t have to follow logically from the theory.

 

[Pogo]

Simple

1 if predictions follow logically from the theory (as you affirm)

yes we use the logic of the theory to make predictions, your sentence doesn't really make sense.

And

2 the discovery of tiktaalik is a prediction of the theory of evolution (as you affirm)

No the discovery is not a prediction, the prediction was that there should be a creature like Tiktaalik.

It follows

3 that the discovery of tiktaalik logically follows from the ToE (which means that evolution could have not been true without the discovery of tiktaalik.)

Since the first two sentences are wrong, nothing follows your logi

Obviously indigo and I disagree with conclusion (we disagree with point 3)…………. Which means that one of the 2 points has to be wrong…….. (hint point 1 is incorrect)

The discovery of Tiktaalik is a result of a prediction that logically followed from the theory of evolution. however if the discovery was not made, that has nothing to do with the validity of the theory. Nor the logic of the prediction.
You have this all mixed up in your head.
Are you possibly dyslexic? Serious question.

 

[Pogo]

Well then join me and explain that to @TagliatelliMonster …….he is the one who made the claim that predictions *must* logically follow from the hypothesis/model/theory/.

He is the one that introduce that philosophical concept……(that accordign to you is irrelevant)

However the main issue is not whether if it is relevant or not, the issue is that the statement is false………….. predictions don’t have to follow logically from the theory.

logical necessity is a part of metaphysics. Predictions that do not logically follow from the hypothesis/model/theory/ are just garbage statements and thus not predictions hence the must. Nothing to do with logical necessity. You can't just string words together in your own way and expect to be understood and in fact your conclusions are just false.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Simple

1 if predictions follow logically from the theory (as you affirm)

And

2 the discovery of tiktaalik is a prediction of the theory of evolution (as you affirm)

It follows

3 that the discovery of tiktaalik logically follows from the ToE (which means that evolution could have not been true without the discovery of tiktaalik.)



Obviously indigo and I disagree with conclusion (we disagree with point 3)…………. Which means that one of the 2 points has to be wrong…….. (hint point 1 is incorrect)

Please never complain about someone else using a strawman argument again.

 

[leroy]

yes we use the logic of the theory to make predictions, your sentence doesn't really make sense.

Then contact and tell him that his sentence doesn’t make any sense………..he is the one who made the statement

No the discovery is not a prediction, the prediction was that there should be a creature like Tiktaalik.

Ok, change point 2 for whatever you said

Since the first two sentences are wrong, nothing follows your logi

Ok finally we agree…………… point 1 is wrong …………predictions don’t have to follow logically…….

The discovery of Tiktaalik is a result of a prediction that logically followed from the theory of evolution. however if the discovery was not made, that has nothing to do with the validity of the theory. Nor the logic of the prediction.
You have this all mixed up in your head.
Are you possibly dyslexic? Serious question.

That is because you are using wrong language………. Yes tiktaalik is a prediction that follows inductively…………… but it doesn’t follow logically

 

[leroy]

Please never complain about someone else using a strawman argument again.

Support your claim…………..please quote the alleged straw man

 

[Pogo]

Then contact and tell him that his sentence doesn’t make any sense………..he is the one who made the statement



Ok, change point 2 for whatever you said




Ok finally we agree…………… point 1 is wrong …………predictions don’t have to follow logically…….


That is because you are using wrong language………. Yes tiktaalik is a prediction that follows inductively…………… but it doesn’t follow logically

Induction is a form of logic. You really need to stop telling us we are using language wrong.

 

[McBell]

(which means that evolution could have not been true without the discovery of tiktaalik.)

This add on has not been shown to be true.
Logically or otherwise.

This is the part in contention.
A part you sometimes include and sometimes leave out.
Which is another point of contention.

 

[YoursTrue]

By whose measure and what definition of information?
Though in general Yes though significantly less than in an adult.

You gotta be kidding with your first question..
And your second statement is -- ridiculous unless you can back it up with reason...yikes, and thanks for such an answer.

 

[YoursTrue]

Induction is a form of logic. You really need to stop telling us we are using language wrong.

With your last reply to my question about information in a zygote, you have completely eradicated yourself as any source of knowledge. Thank you very much.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes.
Because there is a lot of information packed in an atom.
And since a zygote is made of a bunch of atoms...

OK, I'll go with that...

 

[YoursTrue]

Evolution predicted that such a creature would exist. Therefore, having found the fossil, we are not surprised.

That is correct. There are enough instances of other transitional forms being found, as well as supporting evidence from other fields such as genetics, to make evolution unquestionable.

shalom to you too and hope the wars stop soon, maybe you think when the Messiah comes...
but in reference to evolution predicting anything -- gotta wonder -- guess it predicted land animals that arose (evolved) from water dwelling would go back to water dwellers... Hey! have a good one!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Simple

1 if predictions follow logically from the theory (as you affirm)
And
2 the discovery of tiktaalik is a prediction of the theory of evolution (as you affirm)

Right

It follows

3 that the discovery of tiktaalik logically follows from the ToE (which means that evolution could have not been true without the discovery of tiktaalik.)

And here is where I disagree. You can have the facts right, but still reach illogical, fallacious conclusions. It simply doesn't follow point 1 and point 2 that therefore the discovery of tiktaalik was NECESSARY to prove evolution.

Let me give you a rather obvious example of having correct facts but fallacious reasoning: Dogs are mammals. Dogs like to play fetch. Therefore mammals like to play catch. The two facts are correct, but the conclusion is unwarranted.

Obviously indigo and I disagree with conclusion (we disagree with point 3)…………. Which means that one of the 2 points has to be wrong…….. (hint point 1 is incorrect)

No, its not because point 1 or point 2 has to be wrong. It is due to fallacious thinking. IOW the fault lies not with the facts, but with the flawed, defective reasoning arriving at a false conclusion.


Wikipedia has a good article on Fallacy if you are interested.

 

[Charles Philips]

I've explained multiple times what a transitional is.
It's not my fault that you are to obtuse to correct your own mistakes.

No you haven't explained it at all. All you did was confirm that creationist scientists are correct, as we have found that species can show slight changes in order to adapt to their changing environment. This is far from the absurd theory which claims that a species can evolve to became a different species.
Do you even know what "species" actually means. I find it very frustrating teaching people about their false religion, you're supposed to be teaching me about it.

 

[Pogo]

You gotta be kidding with your first question..
And your second statement is -- ridiculous unless you can back it up with reason...yikes, and thanks for such an answer.

There are several different useful definitions of information and even more worthless ones like the discotutes CSI. That you don't know this explains why you don't understand the second statement.
Learning reduces ignorance, you should try it.

Information - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Charles Philips]

There is nothing there to "duck and weave and sidestep".
Strawmen don't require refuting. They only require being pointed out.

I can only repeat myself: there are no crockoducks in evolution. If a crockoduck were found, evolution would in fact be disproven.



No. Only your strawmen does.


Lines like this just make me more and more convinced that you are in fact a Poe.

So, now you admit that evolution is a fake theory. You clearly stated that you don't believe in it above. End of debate goodbye

 

[Pogo]

Right




And here is where I disagree. You can have the facts right, but still reach illogical, fallacious conclusions. It simply doesn't follow point 1 and point 2 that therefore the discovery of tiktaalik was NECESSARY to prove evolution.

Let me give you a rather obvious example of having correct facts but fallacious reasoning: Dogs are mammals. Dogs like to play fetch. Therefore mammals like to play catch. The two facts are correct, but the conclusion is unwarranted.


No, its not because point 1 or point 2 has to be wrong. It is due to fallacious thinking. IOW the fault lies not with the facts, but with the flawed, defective reasoning arriving at a false conclusion.


Wikipedia has a good article on Fallacy if you are interested.

Yup, that is another way that @leroy was wrong but now he will come back and claim that he just proved himself right because we disagreed with you when in fact we agree he is wrong but for so many reasons. LOL

 

[Dan From Smithville]

By whose measure and what definition of information?
Though in general Yes though significantly less than in an adult.

For humans, a single cell compared to 28-36 trillion cells in an adult with differentiation into complex tissues with a complex biochemistry and physiology. Even with the same genome, the zygote may be packed with a little less information. Much like comparing my bank account to Fort Knox.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are several different useful definitions of information and even more worthless ones like the discotutes CSI. That you don't know this explains why you don't understand the second statement.
Learning reduces ignorance, you should try it.

Information - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Right now, unfortunately, based on your answers, you have completely eliminated yourself as any source of reasonableness or accurate knowledge and information. But thanks anyway and hope things go well for you. Take care.

 

[Pogo]

So, now you admit that evolution is a fake theory. You clearly stated that you don't believe in it above. End of debate goodbye

Another comprehension fail followed by more assertions without evidence.