Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 68
  1. #16
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Boring, Rincy. Try another record. You're happy to trust non-scientist senile bureaucrats instead.
    From a relevance to most of what you talk and write about, you are pretty boring and totally untrained in the biological sciences (unlike other members of this board).

    However, you will not I did not say to trust what was written on the site, just that it made interesting reading. Some of it must be true because it quotes you directly.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  2. #17
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    From a relevance to most of what you talk and write about, you are pretty boring and totally untrained in the biological sciences (unlike other members of this board).
    The million or so readers of my books don't think so, nor do most of those who hear my talks (some responses on file). One of my talks refutes chemical evolution, for which my extensive training in chemistry is most relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    However, you will not I did not say to trust what was written on the site, just that it made interesting reading.
    Like criticising a perfectly correct statement I made about the definition of validity?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Some of it must be true because it quotes you directly.
    Even a stopped clock is right twice a day
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  3. #18
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    One of my talks refutes chemical evolution, for which my extensive training in chemistry is most relevant.
    I would say somewhat relevant depending on the nature of your objection to chemical evolution. If it had something to do with high temperature superconductors...

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Like criticising a perfectly correct statement I made about the definition of validity?
    I had a quick look at that article since Manga brought it to my attention. I found it difficult to read but from what I could tell the author's primary beef was with you teaching modus ponens in one article and then misapplying it in another. Although I would reserve my judgment on whether you actual did abuse MP without reading your original article.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  4. #19
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    The following article also makes interesting reading...

    Young Earth Creationism
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  5. #20
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,488
    Quote Originally Posted by Axiom
    having been on the receiving end of a debate with a creationist , i am keen to see the 'definitive' argument on the subject which leaves the creationist with a puzzling , self reflective ,paradigm shifting experience.
    I don't see any evidence that how definitive an argument is has anything to do with how likely it is to shift the paradigm of a Christian creationist.

    Indeed, for Jono's group scripture is axiomatic so on that basis the only definitive argument (on their terms) would be one that convinced them to change their understanding of scripture.

    Having said that, while a person can say something is axiomatic for them, I find that one of the hardest things in these kinds of arguments is to know what your own underlying assumptions really are.

  6. #21
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    1,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    I had a quick look at that article since Manga brought it to my attention. I found it difficult to read but from what I could tell the author's primary beef was with you teaching modus ponens in one article and then misapplying it in another. Although I would reserve my judgment on whether you actual did abuse MP without reading your original article.
    It was a bit of a tu quoque accusation by me. I took the article to be saying, if Jono wants to set himself up as knowing something about logic, he shouldn't be making logical errors. But the author seems to set himself as knowing something about logic, since he is writing an article on the topic. As such, the fact that he makes an error (though of a different sort) as regards the topic seems to mean that he is making the same type of "pratfall" that he is accusing Jono of making.

    edit: And yes the main error he accuses Jono of is of denying the antecedent. That is to say, that is the supposed "pratfall". The bit I quoted was more a of a side-shot at Jono, it wasn't the main thrust of the article.
    Last edited by Aaron Guthrie; 15-08-2008 at 12:20 AM.

  7. #22
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    I would say somewhat relevant depending on the nature of your objection to chemical evolution. If it had something to do with high temperature superconductors...
    I have had both theoretical and practical experience involving condensation polymerization and homochirality, for example, both highly relevant to chemical evolution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    I had a quick look at that article since Manga brought it to my attention. I found it difficult to read but from what I could tell the author's primary beef was with you teaching modus ponens in one article and then misapplying it in another. Although I would reserve my judgment on whether you actual did abuse MP without reading your original article.
    It seems that the criticism that Manga highlighted was criticising my definition of validity, although it is the correct one.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  8. #23
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,368

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    The following article also makes interesting reading...
    Yeah, we all should know about Wiki's shortcomings by now.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  9. #24
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Yeah, we all should know about Wiki's shortcomings by now.
    Sorry that link was meant for Axiom, I should have made that clear.

    The "Criticism" section give a reasonably good appraisal of the scientific objections to creationism. Perhaps the theological criticisms are worthwhile too, I wouldn't like to comment.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  10. #25
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    I have had both theoretical and practical experience involving condensation polymerization and homochirality, for example, both highly relevant to chemical evolution.
    Both of those articles are from 1998! It would seem that it is not just Stear who needs to keep his site up to date.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  11. #26
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Both of those articles are from 1998! It would seem that it is not just Stear who needs to keep his site up to date.
    In what way, precisely, have these articles been superseded by new evidence? The fundamental chemical principles in these still stand.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  12. #27
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    In what way, precisely, have these articles been superseded by new evidence? The fundamental chemical principles in these still stand.
    Your article doesn't provide any evidence requiring superseding. You just give a potted summary of various theories of the origin of homochirality and conclude that none of them are certainties and therefore God exists! (Eureka, although hardly surprising since you begin with the premise that god exists, but I digress). The point is that there may be competing theories for various aspects of science at one time or another, this doesn't constitute evidence for your (or anyone else's) deity.

    Regarding the out-of-date issue: there seems to have been many articles on the origin of homochirality published in scientific journals in the last ten years. I was wondering if you have been keeping track of them all and writing one paragraph (or one sentence) rebuttals for each one. As you don't publish your writing in scholarly journals it is unlikely to come to the attention of scientists, surely the onus is on you to keep on top of these things.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  13. #28
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Your article doesn't provide any evidence requiring superseding. You just give a potted summary of various theories of the origin of homochirality and conclude that none of them are certainties and therefore God exists!
    Chemical evolutionists presuppose chemical evolution is a fact before examining the evidence, let alone solving the monstrous chemical problems.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    Regarding the out-of-date issue: there seems to have been many articles on the origin of homochirality published in scientific journals in the last ten years. I was wondering if you have been keeping track of them all and writing one paragraph (or one sentence) rebuttals for each one.
    All are fallacious. This is implicit in the claims that they have finally provided a possibility of solving the problem: i.e. the previous claim can't have solved it after all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    As you don't publish your writing in scholarly journals it is unlikely to come to the attention of scientists, surely the onus is on you to keep on top of these things.
    Of course, I do publish in the scholarly Journal of Creation. My chirality paper was reviewed by Ph.D. chemists working in secular chemical fields. Now, does Rincy have any actual evidence of error in my paper?
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  14. #29
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Chemical evolutionists presuppose chemical evolution is a fact before examining the evidence, let alone solving the monstrous chemical problems.
    That is a falsehood. Unlike the truth of your own assumption in the existence of your own god and the inerrancy of scripture.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    All are fallacious.
    Gee, thanks for the careful rebuttal. I was wrong, you have been doing your homework.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    This is implicit in the claims that they have finally provided a possibility of solving the problem: i.e. the previous claim can't have solved it after all.
    It's called competing hypotheses and is how science works. If you were a scientist and not a biblical literalist you would already know that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Of course, I do publish in the scholarly Journal of Creation. My chirality paper was reviewed by Ph.D. chemists working in secular chemical fields.
    You mean it was reviewed by someone who also believed that

    By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.


    Sounds like a good basis for a scholarly journal... NOT.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  15. #30
    CC Grandmaster Spiny Norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,437
    Jeepers RW, you're acting like one of Pavlov's dogs ... if you want to have a go at Jono, I suggest you go start your own thread and argue the case there, instead of hijacking Adamski's thread. You've not said anything particularly new (i.e. nothing you haven't already waffled on about in the Does God Exist or one of the creation threads). Get over yourself already.
    “As you perhaps know, I haven't always been a Christian. I didn't go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don't recommend Christianity.” -- C.S.Lewis

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •