Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Herald,

Quote:

O.K. How much is 1% over 70,368,744,177,664?

Where did you get this number from?
70,368,744,177,664

There are actually only 3 billion base pairs in the human genome.
3,000,000,000

70,368,744,177,664 - 3,000,000,000 means you are off by 70,368,741,177,664 base pairs in your DNA argument.

That means your math is off by factor of over 80,000 before we even start to do any calculations.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

There are actually only 3 billion base pairs in the human genome.

... encoded as DNA sequences into 23 pairs - 46 chromosomes in each somatic cell. The possible gametes combinations are 2^23 ... in case you intend to make the brand new species alone. In case you decide to take a partner for the purpose the possible combinations become 7 x 10^13 or s.th.
The question is: if you want some 1% change in the combinations (and their functionality, incl. heredity), can you name an example of a positive mutation able to make that change of 7 x 10^11 ... with a jump (in one generation), as your favorite theory is trying to convince us?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

parados wrote:
There are actually only 3 billion base pairs in the human genome.
... encoded as DNA sequences into 23 pairs - 46 chromosomes in each somatic cell. The possible gametes combinations are 2^23 ... in case you intend to make the brand new species alone. In case you decide to take a partner for the purpose the possible combinations become 7 x 10^13 or s.th.
The question is: if you want some 1% change in the combinations (and their functionality, incl. heredity), can you name an example of a positive mutation able to make that change of 7 x 10^11 ... with a jump (in one generation), as your favorite theory is trying to convince us?

It doesn't work like that.

Not every gene is active and not every gene is dominate. Some times two active recessive genes can trigger a new trait in the species that were previously dormant.

To give you an example of this. Most Asians have black hair. You don't often see a naturally occurring blonde asian. However they do have genes for blonde hair. The reason they don't come up has to do with the dominate genes over-riding the recessive blonde genes. However in caucasians you don't have this strong recessive blonde gene and that is why it appears.

It is more complex than I have explained, but I was attempting to make it more simplistic so you could understand that there is another factor involved that you ignored. It has to do with active genes verses dormant genes.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

It doesn't work like that. Not every gene is active and not every gene is dominate.

     O.K. Why don't you explain to us how exactly some of the chimps started evolving into humans, and some of them are remaining with recessive genetics all the time? How does that happen? Why some of the worms have evolved into higher species and evolutionary developments ... and some are remaining the lowest worm species on the ocean bed of the Atlantic? How has the PNA 'evolved' into DNA - this is brand new set of algorithms and methods of bio-encoding and bio-decoding ... and how does that happen by preserving the ancient PNA code to the present day, BTW? ... just in case we will desperately need some cyanobacteria some day, as we obviously will.
     The evolution can explain minor changes - thicker fur, greener eyes, sharper vision, etc. It cannot in any way explain the quality jumps in the development of the species.
     Most of the species can't interbreed at all and if they have developed gradually from each other there would be no species at all - we all would live in a common bisophere continuum like the bacteria, without any distinct taxonomy ... and how did you come to know that it is not the new virus strains that are forcing the DNA to evolve, but are those hypothetical 'positive mutations' (whatever that might mean) ... that nobody can give an example of?

0 Replies

The only "argument" Herald has ever produced:

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/9148130.jpg

0 Replies

It's just pseudoskepticism used to fallaciously create a gap for pseudoscience.

Quote:

Manufacturing doubt is not difficult, because in science all conclusions are provisional, and skepticism is intrinsic to the process. But as Oreskes notes, “Just because we don't know everything, that doesn't mean we know nothing.” We know a lot, in fact, and it is what we know that some people don't want us to know that is at the heart of the problem. What can we do about this pseudoskepticism?

In Merchants of Doubt, close-up prestidigitator extraordinaire Jamy Ian Swiss offers an answer: “Once revealed, never concealed.” He demonstrates it with a card trick in which a selected card that goes back into the deck ends up underneath a drinking glass on the table. It is virtually impossible to see how it is done, but once the move is highlighted in a second viewing, it is virtually impossible not to see it thereafter. The goal of proper skepticism is to reveal the secrets of dubious doubters so that the magic behind their tricks disappears.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-can-be-done-about-pseudoskepticism/?WT.mc_id=SA_Facebook

So that little sleight-of-logical fallacy, ie, pointing to limits in science as justification for a preferred wild-ass guess, is a magic trick that's been exposed. The only person who doesn't know it is the person who keeps trying to trick us it. Denialism. It's not helping your case, Herod.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

It's just pseudoskepticism used to fallaciously create a gap for pseudoscience.

Why don't you tell us something about your 'genuine' science: What is the physical interpretation of the Infinite Gravity? How can your Infinite Gravity exist ... and appear in reverse? How can your Infinite Gravity exist without the Time component and without any force carrier, whatsoever? How can your Infinite Gravity appear out of Nothing and out of Nowhere? How can your Infinite Gravity create 3-D space out of whatever? Why don't you tell us something about the authenticity of your 'genuine' & 'scientific approach'?

3 Replies

@Herald,

Same tired old fallacy once again? Even after you've just been shown in plain detail how it's a fallacy?

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/hehe.gif

No wonder it's still:

4:0

This thread is full of links to evidence for the scientific process. It's also full of evidence for your morbid denialism and abject science illiteracy. What it lacks is a single scrap of evidence for your "personal 45% alien/ILF/god-of-the-gaps."

1 Reply

@Herald,

In simple terms, just for you, Herod:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/introtof.html

Quote:

What is a logical fallacy?

El sueño de la razon produce monstruos.
A "fallacy" is a mistake, and a "logical" fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. There are, of course, other types of mistake than mistakes in reasoning. For instance, factual mistakes are sometimes referred to as "fallacies". However, The Fallacy Files is specifically concerned with logical errors, not factual ones.

A logical error is a mistake in an argument, that is, a mistake in an instance of reasoning formulated in language. As the term is used in logic, an "argument" is a group of statements one of which is called "the conclusion" and the rest are called "premisses"―by the way, I spell "premiss" with two esses instead of one, for reasons explained in the Glossary; in other words, this is not a spelling mistake.

There are two types of mistake that can occur in arguments:

A factual error in the premisses. As mentioned above, factual "fallacies" are not usually a question of logic; rather, whether a premiss is true or false is a matter for history or a science other than logic to determine.
The premisses fail to logically support the conclusion. A logical fallacy is usually a mistake of this type.
In logic, the term "fallacy" is used in two related, but distinct ways. For example:

"Argumentum ad Hominem is a fallacy."
"Your argument is a fallacy."
In 1, what is called a "fallacy" is a type of argument, so that a "fallacy" in this sense is a type of mistaken reasoning. In 2, it is a specific argument that is said to be a "fallacy", so that in this sense a "fallacy" is an argument which uses bad reasoning.

Clearly, these two senses are related: in 2, the argument may be called a "fallacy" because it is an instance of Argumentum ad Hominem, or some other type of fallacy. In order to keep these two senses distinct, I restrict the term "fallacy" to the first sense. For me, a fallacy is always a kind of argument.

For the second sense, I will say that a specific argument "commits" a fallacy, or is "fallacious". So, in my terminology, 2 above commits a category mistake, for there is no way that your specific argument could be a fallacy. I would say, instead: "Your argument commits a fallacy" or "it's fallacious."

However, not just any type of mistake in reasoning counts as a logical fallacy. To be a fallacy, a type of reasoning must be potentially deceptive, that is, it must be likely to fool at least some of the people some of the time. Moreover, in order for a fallacy to be worth identifying and naming, it must be a common type of logical error.

To sum up, in these Fallacy Files a logical fallacy is a common, deceptive type of error in arguments.

Quote:

God of the gaps
...
Philosophy

The God of the Gaps argument finds what is perhaps its most popular manifestation in ideas about first cause. Ultimately, some people will always believe that something cannot come from nothing, and that any scientifically explained manifestation/creation of our universe will require that something "caused" it to exist. (There is, of course, rarely if ever a serious question of what caused the causer.)
Amusingly, Gödel's incompleteness theorems prove that God will always have a little gap left to hide in, no matter how much humanity learns.
[edit]The O'Reilly Paradox

Because many of the people using this tactic are fundies they often have a loose understanding of modern science. This produces an interesting phenomenon where the person trying to discredit science refers to a scientific principle that is well understood. A famous example of this is Bill O'Reilly's declaration that ocean tides were an unexplained phenomenon, implying the Almighty willed the oceans to move.[2] This error is made hilarious as the cause of tidal movement is well understood. Another less famous, but still incredibly hilarious example comes from one of SpiritScience's videos.[3] Here we see a mixture of falsehoods and facts that could easily be explained by a ten second google search, such as capillary action or surface tension.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

Quote:

Logically Fallacious

ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE
Ad Ignorantium

(also known as: appeal to ignorance, absence of evidence, argument from personal astonishment, argument from Incredulity)

Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Logical Form:

X is true because you cannot prove that X is false.
X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.
Example #1:

Although we have proven that the moon is not made of spare ribs, we have not proven that its core cannot be filled with them; therefore, the moon’s core is filled with spare ribs.
Explanation: There is an infinity of things we cannot prove -- the moon being filled with spare ribs is one of them. Now you might expect that any “reasonable” person would know that the moon can’t be filled with spare ribs, but you would be expecting too much. People make wild claims, and get away with them, simply on the fact that the converse cannot otherwise be proven.

Example #2:

To this very day (at the time of this writing), science has been unable to create life from non-life; therefore, life must be a result of divine intervention.
Explanation: Ignoring the false dilemma, the fact that we have not found a way to create life from non-life is not evidence that there is no way to create life from non-life, nor is it evidence that we will some day be able to; it is just evidence that we do not know how to do it. Confusing ignorance with impossibility (or possibility) is fallacious.

Exception: The assumption of a conclusion or fact deduced from evidence of absence, is not considered a fallacy, but valid reasoning.

Jimbo: Dude, did you spit your gum out in my drink?
Dick: No comment.
Jimbo: (after carefully pouring his drink down the sink looking for gum but finding none...) Jackass!
Tip: Look at all your existing major beliefs and see if they are based more on the lack of evidence than evidence. You might be surprised as to how many actually are.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/54-argument-from-ignorance

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Same tired old fallacy once again?

     By definition (from the Wikipedia): 'A fallacy is incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric resulting in a lack of validity, or more generally, a lack of soundness. Fallacies are either formal fallacies or informal fallacies.'
     The Infinite Gravity of your Big Bang 'theory' can be obtained by a collapse of a Netron star (fact, validated by evidence), where as a result of an implosion of the matter a Black Hole is obtained (which is not entirely verified). The Infinite Gravity cannot exist and cannot appear just so - out of Nothing and out of Nowhere (you have never had any evidence about the opposite) ... and it is not even clear whether it can exist at all or not without a force carrier, but this is another issue.
     So you will have to prove that the question: 'Do you have any justified physical interpretation (backed-up by observations) of the reverse process?' is invalid as a question.
     You will have to prove that either the question is irrelevant to the theme: asking about the assumptions is irrelevant to the formal model; or that asking about the truth value of the assumptions (formal fallacy?!) is invalid argument as math logic; or you will have to prove that disputing the validity (informal fallacy?!) of the inference by analogy here - if a collapse of the matter can create a Black Hole then a Black Hole appearing out of Nothing and out of Nowhere can cause the emergence of matter - is incorrect as logic. In other words the reversing of the processes and making inference by analogy on the thus inverted fake processes is valid for any interpretation of the world. Can you prove that or not ... and do you understand at all half of the things said here?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Class time! Get yer thinkin' cap, Herod! Logic 101 is about to begin! Very Happy

You've been linked to everything you need to answer your own questions. Asking loaded questions and meaningless questions are two more fallacies, by the way. Just as the red herrings you disguise as legitimate questions are there to throw us off the trail of your ridiculous claims about your "personal 45% ILF/alien/god-of-the-gaps." And shifting the burden of proof is yet another. You make the wild claims about alien/god/ILFs and want us to believe that it's as "validly plausible" as the scientific models. It's up to you to prove that, and you have continued to fail embarrassingly and flamboyantly at it. Laughing

There is also the fallacy of misleading vividness. You disguise your science illiteracy by copying some minute details from elsewhere, probably an ID fallacy bank, in order to attempt to overshadow the fatal statistical flaws in your argument, viz, that you have zero evidence to provide for your ILF/alien/god-thing. Wink

You fallaciously appeal to ignorance once when you suggest that if Random Guy on the Internet can't explain every minute detail of every aspect of every science known to mankind, then science doesn't work and you can make any fantastic claim you like and afford it equal weight. Wrong.

Another one comes in when you attempt to use the limits of scientific knowledge as support for your calim that your "personal 45% ILF/alien/god-of-the-gaps" is equally or comparably as strong as the models made by the scientists. You're selectively, willfully blind to that bit of logic, so you keep repeating the same old fallacy over and over and over and over again. And you're wrong over and over and over and over again.

Quote:

Argument from Ignorance: The fallacy that since we don’t know (or can never know, or cannot prove) whether a claim is true or false, it must be false (or that it must be true). E.g., “Scientists are never going to be able to positively prove their theory that humans evolved from other creatures, because we weren't there to see it! So, that proves the Genesis six-day creation account is literally true as written!” This fallacy includes Attacking the Evidence, e.g. "Your arguments are false! That proves I'm right!" This usually includes “Either-Or Reasoning:” E.g., “The vet can't find any reasonable explanation for why my dog died. See! See! That proves that you poisoned him! There’s no other logical explanation!” A corrupted argument from logos. A fallacy commonly found in American political, judicial and forensic reasoning.
...
The Complex Question: The fallacy of demanding a direct answer to a question that cannot be answered without first analyzing or challenging the basis of the question itself. E.g., "Just answer me "yes" or "no": Did you think you could get away with plagiarism and not suffer the consequences?" Or, "Why did you rob that bank?" Also applies to situations where one is forced to either accept or reject complex standpoints or propositions containing both acceptable and unacceptable parts. A corruption of the argument from logos.
...
Shifting the Burden of Proof. (see also Argument from Ignorance) A fallacy that challenges opponents to disprove a claim, rather than asking the person making the claim to defend his/her own argument. E.g., "Space-aliens are everywhere among us masquerading as true humans, even right here on campus! I dare you prove it isn't so! See? You can't! That means what I say is true."
...
Snow Job: The fallacy of “proving” a claim by overwhelming an audience with mountains of irrelevant facts, numbers, documents, graphs and statistics that they cannot be expected to understand. This is a corrupted argument from logos. See also, "Lying with Statistics."

http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm

*Ding! Ding! Ding!* Class over. I hope you took notes, Herod! This will be on the test! Laughing

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herod, by your own (attempt at) reasoning, if you can't personally give me all the details about why greenhouse gases emit and absorb radiation in the thermal infrared range, and then explain all the assumptions scientists have to make in order to construct that explanation and a hundred other random questions I can come up with, then global warming isn't real.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

You've been linked to everything you need to answer your own questions.

     No, that is not true. Where have you explained, or provided a link, or whatever, that the Infinite Gravity can appear in reverse - out of Nothing and out of Nowhere and can start creating space and matter, etc.
     Where have you explained that Gravity (no matter whether infinite or finite) can exist out the Time, can launch the Time and can create 3-D space out of Singularity or whatever?
     Where is your 15-page math proving that inference by analogy on reverted processes of the source model is a valid logical inference ... and not logical fallacy, for example?
     Where is your evidence that the Universe has been created at all, and has not always existed? ... moreover that the physical laws for conservation of energy and the second law of thermodynamics show that it is much more probable for the Universe to have always existed than to have been created by what-/whomsoever.

FBM wrote:

Asking loaded questions and meaningless questions are two more fallacies, by the way.

Which exactly are the 'loaded questions' (with controversial or unjustified assumptions)?
As far as the 'meaningless questions' is concerned, the standard term is invalid question. You will have to prove that anything has been able to exist at all 'before Time'. If Nothing has ever existed (for existence is a process and requires Time) before the Singularity there is no way for the Singularity to have acquired Infinite Temperature and Infinite Gravity out of Nothing. Onto the time zero none of the physical laws is applicable, which means that you will never be able to collect any evidences about the assumptions of the Big Bang - ever.

FBM wrote:

Just as the red herrings you disguise as legitimate questions are there to throw us off the trail of your ridiculous claims about your "personal 45% ILF/alien/god-of-the-gaps."

The question with the existence and non-existence of Intelligent Designer to arrange the rules of the Time for example has nothing to do with the question whether the Universe has been created or has always existed. Anyway. It becomes evident that you will hardly ever be able to start understanding such questions.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

Herod, by your own (attempt at) reasoning, if you can't personally give me all the details about why greenhouse gases emit and absorb radiation in the thermal infrared range

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-intermediate.htm

FBM wrote:

... and then explain all the assumptions scientists have to make in order to construct that explanation

If you can't explain the greenhouse effect, start growing more plants and not to burn the biomass after that, or you may start driving a car with cleaner fuel and even consider buying a car with less fuel consumption. When you start understanding why the CO2 story is a one way thicket the biosphere of the Earth will be long ago gone in the Dimension X.

FBM wrote:

... and a hundred other random questions I can come up with, then global warming isn't real.

Can you give an example - where, what and how?

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

The question with the existence and non-existence of Intelligent Designer to arrange the rules of the Time for example has nothing to do with the question whether the Universe has been created or has always existed. Anyway. It becomes evident that you will hardly ever be able to start understanding such questions.

What's the title of the thread? Incidentally, it's a false dilemma. Laughing

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
Herod, by your own (attempt at) reasoning, if you can't personally give me all the details about why greenhouse gases emit and absorb radiation in the thermal infrared range
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-intermediate.htm

That doesn't explain anything. It doesn't give any of the details that I asked for. Also, it's somebody else's work. What can YOU PERSONALLY explain about it?

Quote:

If you can't explain the greenhouse effect, start growing more plants and not to burn the biomass after that, or you may start driving a car with cleaner fuel and even consider buying a car with less fuel consumption. When you start understanding why the CO2 story is a one way thicket the biosphere of the Earth will be long ago gone in the Dimension X.

Why would I go to all that trouble if you can't even prove to me that global warming is a problem? You can't personally explain all of the assumptions that went into making the claim, then your argument falls apart and global warming is just a work of fiction, a hoax perpetrated by scientists who just want to tell lies and control people. You haven't explained anything and you sure haven't proved anything.

FBM wrote:

... and a hundred other random questions I can come up with, then global warming isn't real.

Quote:

Can you give an example - where, what and how?

How about answering the questions I've already put to you before we move to other questions. Exactly why do greenhouse gases emit radiation in the thermal infrared range? You can't even prove that it's true. What are all the assumptions that climatologists have to make to justify their story about anthropogenic global warming? If you can't personally explain it, then it's all a lie.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

What's the title of the thread? Incidentally, it's a false dilemma.

There are 268 pages of text after the title ... in case you haven't noticed. Besides for that period of time (more than an year or so) most of the views of the people here, with rational justification of their beliefs, have changed more or less - except for your beliefs, which are not based on the reality, but on the beliefs of people who are presenting themselves to know everything.
Your beliefs will never be changed in that way for there always will exist and will be people, presenting themselves to possess the knowledge of the last resort.

1 Reply

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

What can YOU PERSONALLY explain about it?

I have what to explain but I am not sure that you are the person that will understand it.
People like you are the most dangerous case scenario - you are not discussing the problem, you are not able to look at the things objectively, and the things are always mispresented on the scheme 'there is no enough evidence' or 'it is either this or nothing'.

FBM wrote:

Why would I go to all that trouble if you can't even prove to me that global warming is a problem?

This thread is not about climate change and to people like you nothing should be explained. People like you should be watched indifferently how they are carried away by the flood and how they will go eating to infinity fish stuffed with Hg, Pb, and Cd.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
What's the title of the thread? Incidentally, it's a false dilemma.
There are 268 pages of text after the title ... in case you haven't noticed. Besides for that period of time (more than an year or so) most of the views of the people here, with rational justification of their beliefs, have changed more or less - except for your beliefs, which are not based on the reality, but on the beliefs of people who are presenting themselves to know everything.
Your beliefs will never be changed in that way for there always will exist and will be people, presenting themselves to possess the knowledge of the last resort.

Last I heard from any of the others who've been posting, they thought you were a flake from page 1 and haven't changed their view about that at all. Much less their view of your multi-fallacious arguement. Laughing

The only belief I've stated is that your argument is **** compared to that for the scientific models. Get some evidence to show us something about your god/alien/ILF hypothesis, then you'll have something to stand on besides stubborn denialism and logical fallacies.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
What can YOU PERSONALLY explain about it?
I have what to explain but I am not sure that you are the person that will understand it.

"I have what to explain..." True, I sure can't understand that version of English. Don't know any native speaker who could.

Quote:

People like you are the most dangerous case scenario - you are not discussing the problem, you are not able to look at the things objectively, and the things are always mispresented on the scheme 'there is no enough evidence' or 'it is either this or nothing'.

I have objectively observed the evidence presented for the scientific worldview and compared it to the abject lack of evidence that you have presented for your god/alien/ILF and reported those observations. A freshman in Logic 101 would be more than qualified to ascertain that your claim is ****.

FBM wrote:

Why would I go to all that trouble if you can't even prove to me that global warming is a problem?

Quote:

This thread is not about climate change and to people like you nothing should be explained. People like you should be watched indifferently how they are carried away by the flood and how they will go eating to infinity fish stuffed with Hg, Pb, and Cd.

So you can't bring any evidence for your so-called global warming? It's pure fiction. You don't know anything about it, but you blindly believe in it. You're a sucker for Big Science, full of faith and hot air. (See what I did there? Wink

)

And in case you weren't paying attention again, my approach to the global warming issue is a mirroring of your approach to the scientific cosmological model. It is relevant in that it demonstrates how fatally flawed your attempts at making a valid argument are. You can't explain the science behind the greenhouse gases emitting and absorbing radiation in the infrared thermal spectrum, nor can you explain the assumptions scientists have to make to validate their model. Therefore, you're wrong and global warming is a fiction.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know