RE: POLITICS - Evolution | Creation |LOGIC CONTRAPOSITIVE

[Guest guest]

********

Macroevolution does not occur observationally, therefore it

does not happen and there is no reason to believe that it has

happened or that it will happen. - Marla

*******

Dear Marla,

This statement is in the classic modus ponens form. If it were true, then

the contrapositive of the statement would also be true. First, let's

explain the English in the classic form (which it is, anyway, except for the

if-then):

" IF Macroevolution does not occur observationally, THEN (therefore) it

does not happen [and there is no reason to believe that it has

happened or that it will happen.] "

Okay, the contrapositive of any true statement will be true according to

God's logic. That means we negate the conclusion and make it the

supposition. The original supposition is negated and made the conclusion.

If the original statement was true, then the contrapositive will reinforce

that truth, else it will sink it. The [] part of the conclusion above is

fluff that is there maybe to act as the clincher. But it is still fluff.

You see, ALL true science is based on mathematics. Observations serve

mostly to confirm the mathematics. If logic can be used to prove a point,

observation is not necessary (as claimed by you, dear Marla). Thus we have:

IF it (macroevolution) does happen, THEN Macroevolution does occur

observationally.

In this example it was easy to negate, as the original had negatives in it,

and two negatives make a positive. So, if something does happen, then it

occurs observationally. Therefore, if God created the earth, then it must

have been observed. If life on other planets exists, then it occurs

observationally. IF Atoms, neutrinos and quarks exist then we observe them.

If the center of the earth exists, then it must occur observationally. IF

God exists THEN we can and/or must observe Him. If other galaxies exist,

then we must observe them. If a tree falls in the forest, then someone must

be there or be able to be there to sense it.

FALSE FALSE FALSE! And if a claim can be proven false without observation

(as is often the case in science) or delving into claims of speciation, then

why bother?

Deanna

[Guest guest]

> ********

Cut here by Dennis

I don't follow the thought in a whole bunch of these discussions

however I'd like to tell you I do observe God's handiwork

everyday. Dr Kent Hovind sp? loves to answer questions and

debate creation vs. evolution. He is located at www.drdino.com. He

explains that God created dinosaurs.. Dennis

IF

> God exists THEN we can and/or must observe Him. If other galaxies

exist,

> then we must observe them. If a tree falls in the forest, then

someone must

> be there or be able to be there to sense it.

>

> FALSE FALSE FALSE! And if a claim can be proven false without

observation

> (as is often the case in science) or delving into claims of

speciation, then

> why bother?

>

> Deanna

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

*******

I don't follow the thought in a whole bunch of these discussions

however I'd like to tell you I do observe God's handiwork

everyday. - Dennis

*******

Yes, Dennis, I observe God's handiwork too. But I don't observe God in the

measurable, quantifiable sense. I think God is much more than my little

sense organs could fathom. By Marla's logic, if something exists then it

must do so observationally. I was only stating examples that would

demonstrate the falsity of such logic.

The evidence is strong even without observation that life exists outside of

earth. Its existence is certainly not dependent upon our observation, and

in fact it would be impossible for us to observe all of it. But observe its

evidence we may indeed do even on Mars! We don't have to be able to observe

something to make it a reality, as was Marla's argument.

Marla's big claim does not hold up. However, when I said the contrapositive

would either support or sink her claim, I failed to mention that it might do

neither. In other words, we might not arrive at the truth or falsity, we

still might not know. But in this case, it is false.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/2/04 11:04:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,

dkemnitz2000@... writes:

> I don't follow the thought in a whole bunch of these discussions

> however I'd like to tell you I do observe God's handiwork

> everyday. Dr Kent Hovind sp? loves to answer questions and

> debate creation vs. evolution. He is located at www.drdino.com. He

> explains that God created dinosaurs.. Dennis

I observe the result of evolution every day. Marla's (utterly fallacious)

argument was that in order for a phenomenon to be true, it must be directly

observed with sensory perception. So it isn't enough to observe " God's

handiwork "

every day-- you must see or here, that is, " observe " God. And since he isn't

" observed " , by Marla's argument, he doesn't exist.

Why anyone would discuss anything with " Dr " Kent Hovind is beyond me. Did

you read the post I made with links several days ago about his fake PhD?

Chris

[Guest guest]

>Why anyone would discuss anything with " Dr " Kent Hovind is beyond me. Did

>you read the post I made with links several days ago about his fake PhD?

>

>Chris

More to the point, have you ever OBSERVED the good " Dr " ? Perhaps he

does not exist at all. You have no proof whatever that Kent Hovind

exists, just some words on a CRT.

-- Helga

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/4/04 2:26:01 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> More to the point, have you ever OBSERVED the good " Dr " ? Perhaps he

> does not exist at all. You have no proof whatever that Kent Hovind

> exists, just some words on a CRT.

Watch it Heidi, I don't know if YOU exist either! In fact, I really don't

have any scientific " proof " that my sensory perception has any reliability at

all. While I can use it to " observe, " I cannot " observe " the fact that my

" observations " through sensory perception are reliably conveying reality to my

brain. Therefore, the fact that " observation " indicates reality is " unobserved "

and therefore false. Thus, whatever I observe must be false. Uh-oh...

Chris

[Guest guest]

>I cannot " observe " the fact that my

> " observations " through sensory perception are reliably conveying reality to my

>brain. Therefore, the fact that " observation " indicates reality is

" unobserved "

>and therefore false. Thus, whatever I observe must be false. Uh-oh...

>

>Chris

Uh-oh is right! Keep that up and you'll end up being Buddhist!

-- Heidi (Who is not sure if she exists or not)

[Guest guest]

>

> >Why anyone would discuss anything with " Dr " Kent Hovind is beyond

me. Did

> >you read the post I made with links several days ago about his

fake PhD?

> >

> >Chris

>

> More to the point, have you ever OBSERVED the good " Dr " ? Perhaps he

> does not exist at all. You have no proof whatever that Kent Hovind

> exists, just some words on a CRT.

>

> -- Helga

<><<><<><><>><><><That's a bit scary too. Dennis