Doubting Didymus

Well, if junior evolutionary studies is dogma because of rote learning, then so is gravity, chemistry and helocentrism. Why pick on evolution specifically, is my question for DK.

dk

Because evolution doesn't have any of its own intrumentation, and is virtually dependent upon the other sciences as independent sources of data.

monkenstick

what?

Dr Rick

fallacy of ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion: Salad-dressings and the contents of the Earth's core are not predicted by evolution.

<strong> Non sequitor and fallacy of the undistributed middle : Evolution is science. Doctrines are not necessarily dogma.

<strong> Equivocation fallacy: evolution is science, and teaching science is not teaching dogma.

<strong> Fallacy of division; besides, evolution is taught in life sciences courses.

<strong> non sequitor

<strong> ditto

dk

rbochnermd: rbochnermd
dk: The blue cheese hypothesis can be proven false by science, so I’d say it’s an appeal to ridicule. I was making fun of the standard evolution sets for itself i.e. the particulars of evolution are unimportant where they can’t be proven false. If you want to argue the standard I’d be happy to, but I wouldn’t fly on a plan, ride an elevator or bike designed to such a standard.
dk: I agree doctrine isn’t dogma, so its wrong to teach scientific doctrine as dogma. I’ve accused public schools of teaching evolution as dogma k0-k8. I’m explaining why creationism is a red hearing, the real problem being ignorant teachers with their handy dandy teachers guide teaching the material word for word.
dk: I’ve used the words doctrine and dogma consistently throughout the argument, and have defined them more than once in the course of this thread.
dk: Fallacy of division!!!! So do you feel the geological column and the fossil record diverge and oppose one another, or independently confirm the same conclusion? I assume the former, but would lay waste to the theory of evolution. The most persuasive evidence for evolution entails sources that independently confirm the same conclusion.
dk: You guys love evolution like dogs making puppies, you’re locked in so tight you’ve lost your sense of direction. When I argue for evolution you object more vehemently than when I argue against evolution. Mike H hit the mark, people don't object to science, and creationism is a political response to poor public schools.

[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

Dr Rick

Just how were we supposed to know that? Your gibberish was no more incoherent in that post than any of the other irrational ones you've made.

<strong> Gosh, I hope your just making fun again, as this statement makes no more sense that your "blue cheese" rantings.

<strong> What are you babbling about, now?

<strong> You've defined and used them idiosyncratically, interchangeably, and incorrectly through-out this thread.

<strong> If the motor is off, how can the car be running?! Your bringing color to the dining table, and you really don't want to go there. Joy is not science, but she may still believe in it.

<strong> You drink milk like my dead grandmother rides roller-skates; you're like a bath-towel stuck on the spin cycle in an oven.

<strong> So now you want to take God out of the churches and schools? It's seems obvious that a bad thing isn't worse, but you argue that it is. That's why there shouldn't be any confusion.

Rick

[ October 18, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

dk

rbochnermd: rbochnermd

dk: I though you might have heard of seismic waves generated by earthquakes, sorry.

dk: A scientific model can’t be proven, only disproved, a fundamental fact of science. Do you think Newton proved his model by testing every ‘body in motion’? Of course not! Newton demonstrated (didn’t prove) his model by reducing “motion’ into basic units of mass, length and time. The model of Evolution has to date defied reduction, so the best evidence for evolution is evolution. When a particular part of evolution proves false, it is discarded, and what remains becomes a better Theory of Evolution.

dk: I’m explaining proof of concept, proof of design, and proof of reliability apart from science, as in applied science. For example there are a number of empty buildings constructed by the government to process toxic waste, on the basis of science. The engineers and architects were commissioned to disregard proof of concept and design, but when the buildings were completed they remained empty because the science proved unreliable.

dk: Then you should have corrected me with an authoritative source. I defined the terms in the sense I used them. Doctrine is a body of principles in a branch of knowledge. Instead of principles I said concepts, structures and forms. Dogma fixes the essential and necessary principles of a particular body of knowledge, for example Catholic Dogma, Secular Dogma, Humanist Dogma. I doubt even now you’ll offer any substantive argument. Every word that ends in “ism” is a source of doctrine, including scientism, positivism, humanism, and secularism. I do agree it is a waste of time to argue about such fundamentals.

dk: Don’t be so agrumentive, I just threw you a bone.

dk: How dare you call me a milk drinker!

dk: I don’t think anyone can succeed by being dishonest.

[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]

[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>