There's the Theory of Evolution and the Interpretation of Evolution

originally posted by: chr0naut
You call things that have not ever been resolved "fallacies" without any capability of knowing if they are false, or not.

A fallacy is a logical flaw, it has nothing do with capabilities of knowing if things are true or false. It's about logical reasoning.

And please stop the libelous defamation. I am not a troll, never have been.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
You call things that have not ever been resolved "fallacies" without any capability of knowing if they are false, or not.

A fallacy is a logical flaw, it has nothing do with capabilities of knowing if things are true or false. It's about logical reasoning.

And please stop the libelous defamation. I am not a troll, never have been.

fallacy
ˈfaləsi/
noun
noun: fallacy; plural noun: fallacies

a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound arguments.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
You call things that have not ever been resolved "fallacies" without any capability of knowing if they are false, or not.

A fallacy is a logical flaw, it has nothing do with capabilities of knowing if things are true or false. It's about logical reasoning.

And please stop the libelous defamation. I am not a troll, never have been.

Internet Troll from Wikipedia

so...um...have we been presented with a theory more reliable than modern evolutionary synthesis? through this and many other threads i have seen countless attacks on evolution but no one has a better suggestion. no one has a more viable theory we can test? if your response does not elucidate a more viable theory then please reconsider answering me.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
You call things that have not ever been resolved "fallacies" without any capability of knowing if they are false, or not.

A fallacy is a logical flaw, it has nothing do with capabilities of knowing if things are true or false. It's about logical reasoning.

And please stop the libelous defamation. I am not a troll, never have been.

fallacy
ˈfaləsi/
noun
noun: fallacy; plural noun: fallacies

a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound arguments.

Having an unsound argument is not the same as having the capability to know if something is true or false.

Very smart and capable people can engage in fallacious arguments.

originally posted by: chr0naut
fallacy
ˈfaləsi/
noun
noun: fallacy; plural noun: fallacies

a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound arguments.

Did you miss the "especially one based on unsound arguments" part?

Logical fallacy
n. A fallacy; a clearly defined error in reasoning used to support or refute an argument, excluding simple unintended mistakes.

fallacy (fălˈə-sē)►
n. A false notion.
n. A statement or an argument based on a false or invalid inference.
n. Incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness.

This is why I say you argue deceptively. You cherry picked one single version of the definition and tried to pretend it conflicted with what I said. I even named the specific fallacy you used, so there should be no question as to what was meant by Logical Fallacy. This is just more evidence that justifies everything I said about your deceptive arguments, exploiting semantics and misrepresenting my points. Thanks for providing direct evidence of that. Do you do it on purpose or are you genuinely confused as to what constitutes a logical fallacy?

List of Logical Fallacies

In reasoning to argue a claim, a fallacy is reasoning that is evaluated as logically incorrect and that undermines the logical validity of the argument and permits its recognition as unsound.

Internet Troll from Wikipedia

After accusing me of libel, it's simply hilarious that you continue to use libel against me.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
You call things that have not ever been resolved "fallacies" without any capability of knowing if they are false, or not.

A fallacy is a logical flaw, it has nothing do with capabilities of knowing if things are true or false. It's about logical reasoning.

And please stop the libelous defamation. I am not a troll, never have been.

fallacy
ˈfaləsi/
noun
noun: fallacy; plural noun: fallacies

a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound arguments.

Having an unsound argument is not the same as having the capability to know if something is true or false.

Very smart and capable people can engage in fallacious arguments.

The definitions of a "fallacy" and a "logical fallacy", are different (a "logical fallacy" being one type of "fallacy" as indicated by the modifier word).

In the posts that were being referenced, the wording in contention was "fallacy" and BARCS provided, in his defense, the definition for "logical fallacy", which carries a specific and different meaning to the wording in the way it was used in context. It stands as an example of BARCS trying to play semantics and hoping that no one will recognize the 'switcheroo' (and apparently I cherry picked the definition of the word. LOL).

But surely making a statement that something is "factual", when the subject of the statement is known to not be a fact, makes the statement itself (not its subject) false.

Consider the statement: "All cars ever made are red, without exception", is that a factual statement or is it a falsehood? It is fairly obvious that if such a statement was presented in argument, it is a 'fallacy', because its premise is false, but it is not necessarily a 'logical fallacy'.

This has gone way off topic, can we revert to the topic of the OP?

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: turbonium1

The moon is simultaneously moving past and away from the earth and at the same time being pulled toward the earth, it fall's but is moving fast enough that it never reaches the ground this is called a stable orbit and it work's.

The fact is that the time we live, the moon earth and sun and all those mysteriously almost perfect ratio's is far too unlikely to just be chance so the solar system in at least some measure show's the presence of an intelligence behind it's form.

Gravity is real, the moon is a separate body from the earth but has a necessary stabilizing effect upon our climate and rotation, it is however the most unlikely moon in our solar system BUT then there are the mysterious moon'let's of mars which also defy standard model's with one having to be a hollow body to account for it's orbit and having all those lovely perfectly linear scar features on it's surface?.


When you fire a bullet it does not immediately fall to the ground or gun's would not work, if the bullet was moving fast enough then it would simply never reach the ground as it would fall at the same rate as the curve of the earth's surface fell away beneath it - of course a bullet would slow down because of wind resistance so it would never maintain such an orbit and our ground is not level so it would hit terrain at some point but the argument stand's.

The moon is like that bullet, it is passing the ground at the right speed so that it follow's the curve of the earth and never reaches the ground, it is both large enough and there sufficiently little impedance to it's motion in space were there is very little gas that it's inertia is not slowing down, in fact the moon may be receding from us about 1 meter per year which will actually slowing increase over the millions of years until it break's away from the earth's orbit entirely and goes off on it's own path through the solar system but that is a very long time from now AND if it's orbit was engineered then it is possible that some unknown force would once again intervene.

An unknown force, right!!

What happened to gravity, after Earth orbit, up to the point it holds the moon??

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: turbonium1

The moon is simultaneously moving past and away from the earth and at the same time being pulled toward the earth, it fall's but is moving fast enough that it never reaches the ground this is called a stable orbit and it work's.

The fact is that the time we live, the moon earth and sun and all those mysteriously almost perfect ratio's is far too unlikely to just be chance so the solar system in at least some measure show's the presence of an intelligence behind it's form.

Gravity is real, the moon is a separate body from the earth but has a necessary stabilizing effect upon our climate and rotation, it is however the most unlikely moon in our solar system BUT then there are the mysterious moon'let's of mars which also defy standard model's with one having to be a hollow body to account for it's orbit and having all those lovely perfectly linear scar features on it's surface?.


When you fire a bullet it does not immediately fall to the ground or gun's would not work, if the bullet was moving fast enough then it would simply never reach the ground as it would fall at the same rate as the curve of the earth's surface fell away beneath it - of course a bullet would slow down because of wind resistance so it would never maintain such an orbit and our ground is not level so it would hit terrain at some point but the argument stand's.

The moon is like that bullet, it is passing the ground at the right speed so that it follow's the curve of the earth and never reaches the ground, it is both large enough and there sufficiently little impedance to it's motion in space were there is very little gas that it's inertia is not slowing down, in fact the moon may be receding from us about 1 meter per year which will actually slowing increase over the millions of years until it break's away from the earth's orbit entirely and goes off on it's own path through the solar system but that is a very long time from now AND if it's orbit was engineered then it is possible that some unknown force would once again intervene.

An unknown force, right!!

What happened to gravity, after Earth orbit, up to the point it holds the moon??

Gravity doesn't have a cut-off point. It extends out forever but gets weaker and weaker with increasing distance between the attracted masses. The size of the gravitational force is also dependent upon the size of the masses involved. Bigger masses attract more.

The current definition of gravity is that masses distort spacetime. This changes the relative paths of moving masses (and all things are moving from some frame of reference) such that, if they started moving in parallel to each other, the curvature of the space between the masses changes their paths towards each other.

When we are in the frame of reference of one of the masses, we are unable to perceive it as moving because we are moving with it at exactly the same rate and direction. So we interpret the tendency of the motion of the masses towards each other as an apparent attraction, i.e: gravity.

a reply to: chr0naut

The current definition of gravity is that masses distort spacetime.

No. The definition of gravity is that it is something that appears to attract masses to each other.

The theory of general relativity says that attraction is actually due to the distortion of spacetime by those masses.

The there's the law of gravity.

In discussions like this it's important to keep our terms straight.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut

The current definition of gravity is that masses distort spacetime.

No. The definition of gravity is that it is something that appears to attract masses to each other.

The theory of general relativity says that attraction is actually due to the distortion of spacetime by those masses.

The there's the law of gravity.

In discussions like this it's important to keep our terms straight.

Fair enough.

We can also describe gravity through field, quantum, string, dark energy and scalar-tensor theories/hypotheses but they don't have the acceptance that GR has.

I should have described it as "the current favorite definition" of gravity.

a reply to: chr0naut

And you still would be wrong.

It is not a definition, it is a theory about its cause. A theory that works pretty damned well.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut

And you still would be wrong.

It is not a definition, it is a theory about its cause. A theory that works pretty damned well.

OK, a theory (and/or hypothesis, guess or supposition) that explains something doesn't define it at all.

I'd ask you to define 'definition' but we'd both end up trapped in the old Chinese mirror trick until we vanished up our fundamental paradigms!

a reply to: chr0naut

You missed the point.

In discussions like this it's important to keep our terms straight.

A theory one thing, a hypothesis another, a law yet another. A definition something else still, but perhaps somewhat like a law.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut

You missed the point.

In discussions like this it's important to keep our terms straight.

A theory one thing, a hypothesis another, a law yet another. A definition something else still, but perhaps somewhat like a law.

Yes, I do actually see, but is "Cheese Wiz" actually cheese? If it isn't, then is "I Can't Believe it's Not Butter" in fact butter?

There is also a definition of 'human life' as a sexually transmitted disease with a nearly 100% fatality rate!

The whole applicability of 'definition definition' breaks down well before the quantum™ level.

a reply to: chr0naut

Good reply.

Quite awesome, really.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: turbonium1
We have never, ever, found a single species, on Earth, to show any indication of 'evolving' into a different species.

Not over 10,000 years.

Complete nonsense. Everything evolves constantly. Thre is no end goal of "evolving into" anything. Organisms just slowly change.

Let's consider the odds...

Every species is evolving, continually, into different species, and we are all evolving now...

About 8.7 million different species exist on Earth, today, by current estimates.

That's a fairly decent sample size, to find 'evolution' of just one, single species.... isn't it?

Over 10,000 years, nothing.

Evolution is measurable and testable. It has been seen dozens upon dozens upon dozens of times. Why make a dishonest argument like that? The genetic mutations can be measured in every single replication.

How many thousands of years does it take before they finally have no choice but to admit 'evolution' was all made up, it's just a bunch of BS, and how sorry, and ashamed, they all are?

As soon as somebody can falsify ALL the evidence and come up with a better or more accurate explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

You don't have to explain a theory.... just invent them!

When they think a pile of crap, over billions of years was how all life began, on Earth, or anywhere else life is/was/shall exist, it's all formed in piles of crap, too!

And it takes a very long time, obviously!


When 'science' became God.

Science knows everything, speaks all of it, as truth, as factual!

There is no reason to ever doubt our 'experts', now!

No scientists have ever created life.

Science makes a claim, and tries to prove the claim is true. And if they find no proof, or not enough valid proof, as yet, then the claim is not used as if it were proven true. Nor is it IMPLIED to be true, either.


Evolution and gravity are both theories, taken true, as if they were 100% fact.

As children, to adulthood, why would gravity, and evolution, be considered - by most people - as a 100% proven fact, on anything, not even the slightest of doubts?

Indoctrination of theories given over and over again -

Being theories, they actually DO appear to us, same as all other 'well-established facts'.


And that's why I was taught 'evolution', and 'gravity', all the way back in Grade 2-3, and many times afterwards!

a reply to: turbonium1

When they think a pile of crap, over billions of years was how all life began, on Earth, or anywhere else life is/was/shall exist, it's all formed in piles of crap, too

There is no theory about the origin of life, not that it has anything to do with evolution.

But there are hypotheses, including things like panspermia, which technically, is not an origin.

Evolution and gravity are both theories, taken true, as if they were 100% fact.

There are theories about both evolution and gravity. Neither are taken as "fact". A "fact" would be a law. There is a law of gravity (not to be confused with the theories). There is no law of evolution as such, other than the fact that it happens.

Humans build many things.

Advancing our knowledge has allowed more advanced, intricate, complex, ideas....


If one looks at the most advanced computers built today, then looks at the most advanced computers built 50 years ago, it's very obvious that an advanced intelligence was needed in building the more advanced computers, of today.

Biological knowledge has also advanced, as well.

So advancing in knowledge of biological sciences, to this point, is a small step closer in knowing how life itself is/was/could be... created.


Creating a biological life form, is NOT from sciences having more and more understanding of it's structural design, which is known to greater degree, all the time.

But here's a big pile of crap, somehow 'creating life' on Earth!!

Evolution begins with one life form, which evolves all other life forms, afterwards, right?

So what's different, then?