reply to post by edmc^2
Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by WfknSmth
So per msKailassa, if I quote an “ Argument from authority" it “is an illogical approach to debate".
....yes, it's an illogical approach. Things aren't true because authorities say them.
Linus Pauling was a 2 time Nobel prize winner. He believed DNA had a triple helix structure. He was wrong.
Because according profSmth the:
“Definition of an Argument from Authority:
1. Person A claims that P
2. Person A is a respected scientist or authority.
3. Therefore, P is true. “
Anymore rules that I need to be aware of profSmth?
It's not according to any individual, it's according to the rules of logic.
Here's a list of logical
fallacies with a nice breakdown of why they are fallacies.
BTW, who established these rules anyway? Is this a universal rule that MUST be followed in order to consider a statement or a quote valid?
Logicians established the rules by working them out. You can actually prove that logical fallacies are logical fallacies with absolute certainty.
Again, Linus Pauling has two Nobel prizes to his name, but did that make his claims about DNA being a triple helix valid?
So if I say that Jesus was not only a real person but the greatest man who ever lived based on statements made by historians, scientists, scholars,
writers, political leaders, and others — past and present, their statements are invalid per you and msKailassa's rules, correct?
Yep. Unless you can give us historical evidence of his existence you can't say that he really existed. As for being the greatest man who ever lived,
you can't really do that without providing a standard and a lot of evidence to show that he was so great. Of course, you have to prove he was great
after you prove he existed.
Thus whatever they said/say about that same person, that is, the man from Nazareth, Jesus Christ is invalid. Correct?
Of course, it's the argument from authority.
Hey look, a bunch of random preaching that is
entirely off-topic to the thread's title from the same person who started the thread.
Of course, I can't really expect that you wouldn't just take this opportunity to preach the 'good word', not surprised in the least that you're
diverging to talk about how great Jesus is no matter how off-topic.
That is:
“It would require much exotic calculation, however, to deny that the single most powerful figure—not merely in these two millenniums but in
all human history—has been Jesus of Nazareth.”—Reynolds Price, American writer and Bible scholar.
Saying it doesn't make it true. Where's his evidence?
Also, a Biblical scholar saying that Jesus is real?
Oh my I'm so surprised.
Clear case of foundational bias.
“A man who was completely innocent offered himself as a sacrifice for the good of others, including his enemies and became the ransom of the
world. It was a perfect act.”—Mohandas K. Gandhi, political and spiritual leader of India.
Gandhi may have been a great guy, but he was no historian. Hell, he was a lawyer and political leader.
Again, where's the evidence for his existence?
“As a child, I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the
Nazarene.”—Albert Einstein, German-born scientist.
Yes, Einstein liked the
character of Jesus, there's no evidence that Einstein considered him as anything more than an interesting mythic
character.
Hell, I am enthralled by the luminous figure of Odin, that doesn't mean I think he exists.
Again, Einstein was an agnostic by his own admission.
And Einstein wasn't a historian. And there's no evidence of a historical Jesus.
Also, source?
“Jesus Christ, to me, is the outstanding personality of all time, all history, both as Son of God and as Son of Man. Everything He ever said or
did has value for us today, and that is something you can say of no other man, alive or dead.”—Sholem Asch, Polish-born essayist as quoted in
Christian Herald.
So a Catholic essayist quoted by a Christian publication is saying that Jesus was awesome and existed? Again, foundational bias.
Also, not a historian nor an individual who has any historical evidence of the existence of Jesus.
“For thirty five years of my life I was, in the proper acceptation of the word, nihilist, a man who believed in nothing. Five years ago my faith
came to me. I believed in the doctrine of Jesus Christ and my whole life underwent a sudden transformation.”—Count Leo Tolstoy, Russian novelist
and philosopher.
Source for this one? I can't find it on any non-Christian websites.
And again, no evidence provided.
“[Jesus’] life is the most influential ever lived on this planet and its effect continues to mount.”—Kenneth Scott Latourette, American
historian and author.
...a Christian missionary, foundational bias.
No evidence.
Though finally a historian.
“Shall we suppose the evangelic history a mere fiction? Indeed, my friend, it bears not the marks of fiction. On the contrary, the history of
Socrates, which nobody presumes to doubt, is not so well attested as that of Jesus Christ.”—Jean-Jacques Rousseau, French philosopher.
...Socrates? Socrates had contemporary critics. There's actually not
a single contemporary account of the life of Jesus.
And once more, source?
Seriously, a source on these. All of them. Follow the T&C. If you're going to use external sources you have to provide them.
And again, there are actually historians that doubt the existence of Socrates and think he was merely a fictional character created by Plato to use as
a sock puppet in his writings.
As for the accuracy of the Bible, noted archaeologist, W. F. Albright, wrote in his book Archaeology and Israel:
“No major contention of Scripture has been proved unhistorical.”
....really?
Here's something that's easy to find from Wikipedia...
In the years since his death, Albright's methods and conclusions have been increasingly questioned. William Dever notes that "[Albright's] central
theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger
Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum ... The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer
"secular" archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not "Biblical archaeology."[9]
Thomas L. Thompson strongly criticises his methods: "[Wright and Albright's] historical interpretation can make no claim to be objective, proceeding
as it does from a methodology which distorts its data by selectivity which is hardly representative, which ignores the enormous lack of data for the
history of the early second millennium, and which wilfully establishes hypotheses on the basis of unexamined biblical texts, to be proven by such (for
this period) meaningless mathematical criteria as the 'balance of probability' ..."[10]
From wikipedia, there are sources for all claims in the article
As to small details such as chronological and geographical statements in the Bible, Professor R. D. Wilson writes in A Scientific Investigation of the
Old Testament:
“Whenever there is sufficient documentary evidence to make an investigation, the statements of the Bible in the original text have stood the
test. . . . The chronological and geographical statements are more accurate and reliable than those afforded by any other ancient
documents.”
Who? I'm sorry, I looked up the guy on Google and came up with nothing. Also, his claims add nothing, where is the evidence for his claims, yadda
yadda yadda.
So none of these well recognized persons is a valid authority on the authenticity of Jesus Christ or the Bible per your rules, correct profSmth?
...authority doesn't amount to a hill of beans...hell, why am I bothering? You've ignored most of my posts thus far.
Of course they aren't valid. Aside from the fact that, if they were correct, you could simply provide us with the direct evidence of their claims,
most of them
aren't historians. You aren't even quoting an authority in the correct field of study!
It would still be wrong to quote the authority simply because it's a logical fallacy, but at least quote an authority in the correct field of
study.
What's the point of quoting Einstein on his preference in movies?
Or what about these authorities who questioned the truthfulness of the "evolution theory"? Do you also invalidate them according to you or
msKailassa's rules?
....there are more scientists named
Steve that accept evolutionary biology than there are
scientists in total that reject it.
Quote:
The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out:
“Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a
very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not
strictly true. . . . the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive
evolution.”—January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 22, 23.
...
suspicious ellipses, no full quote, no source link.
And again, where's the direct evidence? Why provide a quote when you can just provide direct evidence?
"The record of the rocks contains very little, other than bacteria and one-celled plants until, about a billion years ago, after some three
billion years of invisible progress, a major breakthrough occurred. The first many-celled creatures appeared on earth.”-- The Enchanted Loom: Mind
in the Universe, by Robert Jastrow, 1981, p. 23.
...again, mountains of evidence directly contradict him. He's just arguing from personal incredulity.
From The New Evolutionary Timetable:
“The record now reveals that species typically survive for a hundred thousand generations, or even a million or more, without evolving very
much. . . . After their origins, most species undergo little evolution before becoming extinct.” p. xv
...quote mine!
After that first sentence, you can find the following sentence:
We seem forced to conclude that most evolution takes place rapidly
...in that exact same book...
So this was basically an argument against
gradualism. It's not an argument against evolution.
At least quote people who are opposed to evolution.
Regarding the finding of a fossil fly that was labeled “40 million years old,” Dr. George Poinar, Jr., said:
“The internal anatomy of these creatures is remarkably similar to what you find in flies today. The wings and legs and head, and even the cells
inside, are very modern-looking.” - The New York Times, “Prehistoric Gnat,” October 3, 1982, Section 1, p. 49
...Yes, they are modern
looking. That doesn't mean they didn't evolve. It doesn't mean that evolution doesn't happen.
Now you're just grasping at straws, using people who support evolution to attempt to demean it.
I feel like getting my old friend
melatonin back on O&C, it's just like old times on here with quote mines and arguments from authority
throughout.
Or the origin of life:
...which isn't evolution....
In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz stated that over the last 50 years
“no empirical evidence support the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no
significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction” How Life Began - Evolution's Three Genesis, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by
Daniel Simberloff, 2008 pp. 30, 33, 45.
I'll let Professor Meinesz speak for himself:
rofesseur Meinesz contacted by email 24/08/2010 5:31 pm (French Hour)
* Did you authorize the Watchtower to make reference to your book ? Of course, not !
* Do you support the creationist view of JW ? Absolutly not !
* Is this quote correct? They’re making reference to my book on page 32 to 60 but this is not what I wrote. The sentence they are mentioning appears
on page 47 but taken out of its context. They made an amalgam starting on a discussion where I examined 2 possibilities of life rising up on earth :
(cells coming from space or cells formating on earth) and I develop my opinion supported by numerous current datas (for me there is no evidence that
it happened on earth so it's the other hypothesis (life began elsewhere) which should be considered as well as the other hypothesis. That's it !
On the contrary, I'm opposed to creationists but also to the ID movement (several paragraps on the subject). I am very clear in my book and a chapter
underlines the contingency factor in all the process of evolution (with pictures to support on page 186 !).
They’re promoting my book in their publications but if Jehovah's followers will read it, they will be very very disappointed !
Please be aware that my book is a very serious work very well documented (nearly 1000 references) and it passed through the filter of 8 referees
before being edited in USA (University of Chicago Press !)
So you are authorized to publish my words!
What would you advise me to do to counterfact those lies? I'm ready to sue them ! Therefore I would need their brochures and documents in order to
prove through the huge publication of their craps, the damage caused to my reputation
A. Meinesz
-- Professeur Alexandre MEINESZ
Source
So you just posted a blatant misquote.
With regards to the Miller-Urey experiment, Robert Shapiro from New York University says:
“Some writers have presumed that all life's building blocks could be formed with ease in Miller- type experiments and were present in
meteorites. This is not the case.” Scientific American - “A Simpler Origin for Life by Robert Shapiro, June 2007 p 48.
Hey look,
another misquote that I can refute from the exact same source as my last one.
Man, there's a quote-mine goldrush going on over here!
The opposing model of abiogenesis, the ‘metabolism first’ idea, attempts to avoid complicated RNA formation and polymerization and instead
focuses on energy production. A prominent advocate of this theory is Robert Shapiro of New York University. .He is also a vocal critic of ‘genes
first’. In this capacity, TOL exploits his quotes to attempt to tear down ‘genes first’ while failing to explain the model he does support. In
‘metabolism first’, a particular mineral like iron disulfide catalyzes certain key biochemical reactions. This mineral is commonly found in deep
sea vents. These vents also release gases that can be broken down by certain chemical processes to release energy. The metabolism of these gases
produces organic compounds that could serve to further increase the efficiency of the original reaction. A possible clue to this ancient process is
the presence of iron sulfide in several important enzymes used in cells today. From there, a cell membrane can be formed in a similar manner to that
mentioned above. The introduction of RNA and genetic replication happens at a later stage after metabolizing units with a vesicle exist. This last
step may end up including ideas from the competing ‘genes first’ hypothesis. Advocates of this model claim that the development of catalytic
networks is a simpler and more robust starting point then genetic material. Ongoing research will surely throw light on this topic.
The conclusion of the article ends:
The small-molecule alternative, however, is in harmony with the views of biologist Stuart Kauffman: “If this is all true, life is vastly more
probable than we have supposed. Not only are we at home in the universe, but we are far more likely to share it with as yet unknown companions.”
Source: Scientific American, "A Simpler Origin Tor Life." by Robert Shapiro. June 2007. p. 47-53
Same source
...so again, this was an issue over whether it is metabolic function or genetic function first, not a question of whether or not a naturalistic origin
of life can occur.
Are they also invalid authority on the subject per your rules?
Well, I think I've already addressed that...you misquoted people.
Or as madness put it:
And an 'argument from authority' is a known logical fallacy. It's not a proof of anything. We tend to provide evidence not opinions from
authorities.
Still true. We need to provide evidence for our claims, not just the opinions of individuals.
What an interesting way to avoid and face the facts!
Nope, not a way to avoid facts. Provide all the facts you want. However, the ideas of an authority cannot be considered facts.
Also, the
blatant misquoting of individuals to make them support a position they are entirely against cannot be seen as facts.
Might it be that the foundation of the "evolution theory" is so flimsy that it need rules as way to to eliminate any opposing POV - a view that will
centainly make it weak? The uneducated me think so.
Well, I guess you should stay proud of your ignorance. We don't need to eliminate the opposing POV, it's silly and doesn't hold any water. Evolution
is not flimsy, it's actually one of the most robust scientific theories there is.
All that we're asking is that the opponents of evolution follow the same rules as its proponent.
Arguments from authority do not change the validity of claims. If I say that honey is green and then I quote the Illiad about it, it's not going to
change the fact that honey is not green.
Yet when “a proponent of evolution” or “people who believe in evolution theory” quote or state something like the following, it is considered
valid, the truth and nothing but the truth. Anyone who disagree is considered ignoramus. Correct?
...we quote and state things with direct evidence. If I provide a quote, it's a listing of evidence. Just like I quoted in full what you quoted in
parts earlier. I showed you were wrong by going back to the original source.
Note: (I'll just quote one here from the hundreds of imagined statements - based on a very flimsy evidence)
Oh, I just realized something.
You're recycling old material
I tried searching the following quote (as you didn't provide a source for it) and found the above thread as one of the first sources.
“Evolution of Elephants”:
Obviously, there came a point at which these absurdly mutated teeth had become useless for feeding, which forced them to use their already-flexible
noses to rake and trowel food into their mouths the same way modern elephants still do today. Initially, both the top and bottom incisors grew out as
well as the lower jaw. I will use this Deinotherium to represent the point at which that trend came to an end, when the lower jaw sort of "dropped
off" so to speak, leaving one now-very-long nose, which was out there by itself as it is on modern elephants...
Well, it seems you love quote mining, as you took two entirely separate articles on separate topics and threw them together. I separated them for
you.
Article one, which is about the evolution of elephants.
“Solenodonsaurus janenschi is a transitional species between basal anthracosaurs and their apparently non-amphibious descendants. Known from a
single, incomplete fossil, it shows loss of the lateral line on the head, which was present in amphibians, but still has the single sacral
vertebra of the amphibian. Two other specimens known from the early Pennsylvanian period, (Hylonomus and Paleothyris) also show the sort of
half-amphibian / half-reptile features which anti-evolutionists keep saying could not exist.
Article two, which is title
One subset of Gnathostomata is Osteichthyes, bony vertebrates
Here's a picture of the “proponent of evolution” was talking about.
...yes, it's from what I sourced as 'Article one' above. It's an
artistic rendering
So the quote above and artwork are factual according to you, correct?
...no, the article you quoted pertaining the evolution of elephants doesn't provide a single reference and the artwork is an artistic rendering.
Neither of those can be considered factual at face value.
Btw, do you know where the “proponents of evolution” based their conclusions that the ancestors of elephants looked liked the figure shown above?
Scientific facts or plane imagination?
...I don't know if they have flat or very robust imaginations, but I think they made inference from scientific data.
And who verified it? Was is verified by a neutral scientific community or verified, approved and peer reviewed by (sorry to use this term - getting
tired of the long description) “evolutionist”? Renowned scientist who is also a “proponent of evolution theory”?
...science is a self-regulating process. I've given up on explaining this to you in detail, as you ignore it.
(tip: next thread)
Great, more ignorant anti-scientific nonsense for me to use to pad my star count.
But more importantly do you really believed that modern elephants “evolved” that way? Based on what? Based on this evidence?
Known from a single, incomplete fossil,
I'm sorry, but that's not what the article says about the elephant, it's talking about Solenodonsaurus janenschi. I just caught you
lying. You
took two different articles, one that was about elephants and the other which was about "One subset of Gnathostomata is Osteichthyes, bony
vertebrates" and took the part where it says "Known from a single, incomplete fossil" to verify your elephant claims.
The article about elephants doesn't contain that statement.
In addition, we know for a fact that the “people who believe in evolution theory” or those whom you claim to be 'authority' on evolution theory
were not present when this purported “evolution” happened.
*headdesk*
...*reread*
......*headdesk**headdesk**headdesk**headdesk**headdesk**headdesk*....
I'm sorry, for those of you unaware, "*headdesk*" refers to the action of slamming your head against your desk when you read something unimaginably
ignorant.
1: I do not claim them as authority.
2: Of course they weren't present, but presence doesn't add to veracity of claims. Witness bias is useless in science. We can piece together events
without actually being there. *sigh* To repeat an example: If you walked into your house and found that the window was broken, the TV, DVD player,
jewelery, and cash was missing from it would you not be able to piece together a working hypothesis as to what happened?
3:
Evolution still happens, I've personally provided you ample evidence of it that you never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever have
acknowledged.
4: You're really testing my sanity.
So where then did they based their entire evolution theory?
Genetic information, observed speciation, the fossil record, phylogenetics, etc.
Darwin's findings?
Well, that's how Darwin himself first proposed it. He used his own observations to put together a working concept.
Fossil records?
Part of it.
If so, again how solid are these purported evidence? Are they 100% trustworthy? That is, what they said really happened, unfalsifiable, infallible?
More ignorance? Really?
Rambling on in question of claims doesn't invalidate them.
Also "unfalsifiable" is a term that means that a claim cannot be tested, it is not a claim as to validity. Any good scientific claim is falsifiable.
Evolutionary claims are falsifiable. One easy way to falsify evolution using the fossil record would be to provide a fossil of a modern rabbit among
Cambrian fossils.
If not, on what basis then is your belief founded on? Their statements? Really the “evolution theory” when it's studied with an open eye boils
down to no other than based on “FAITH” on the words imperfect men.
...no, it's based on the rigors of the scientific method and mountains of evidence that you have clearly chosen to ignore.
But of course since “evolutionist A” was confirmed by “evolutionists B” then “evolutionists B” must be true. After all they are both
“evolutionists”. Right?
...nope, nice straw men throughout this post though.
You've engaged in so many logical fallacies that I'm not even going to bother listing them all...
1) I find nothing wrong with “Newton was a 'gravitist' and Einstein a 'reltavist'.
since one defined/formulated a precise mathematical description of the universal law (gravity) and the other discovered that gravity not only shapes
the universe but also governs the way we see and measure it - why gravity even affects the way time is measured (relativity).
...yes, but they aren't a belief system. It would be silly to label them as such. They're scientific theories, not terms descriptive of
individuals.
btw:
2) If “evolutionists” seems “stupid” to you then what is the correct description for ““people who believe in evolution theory”.
Meriam-Webster Dictionary:
Evolutionist = a student of or adherent to a theory of evolution.
Another reason why I don't put too much stock in most dictionaries to define scientific terms.
edit on 5/12/10 by madnessinmysoul because: Fixed a formatting mistake
i swear when i started to write my reply your posts werent there yet
