Science Disproves Evolution

[X]

What evidence do you have that he is wrong?

Oh no. No no no no no.

You made an appeal to authority.
See here.

I merely replied in kind.

If you accept his authority on the basis of his being an Engineer, then you must also accept my authority, on the basis of my having an engineering degree. Or you show yourself as a hypocrit.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

And I meant that he's just doing science fiction.

You're kind. I would classify it as trash.

 

[Dinwar]

Pahu, liquifaction does not mean anything like what you're talking about.

 

[Pahu]

To clarify, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy when it is argued that a statement is correct because the source is regarded as authoritative. Citing the credentials of one's source can help us weigh our decision to accept the assertion in the absence of further evidence, but ultimately, either an assertion is correct or it is not.

Here is the general structure of a fallacious appeal to authority:

1. Source A says that x is true.
2. Source A is authoritative.
3. Therefore, x is true.

With that said, arguments from authority are essential in situations of informal logic. Most people lack expertise in numerous fields, so we tend to rely on the judgments of experts in those fields. There is no fallacy in the proposition that an assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy comes about when one claims, or implies, that the cited authority is incapable of error in the subject under review, and is therefore immune to criticism.

So by your definition, are we to conclude that your authoritative assertions are not logical?

 

[Marduk]

So by your definition, are we to conclude that your authoritative assertions are not logical?

Pahu, you are the one claiming that what you are saying is true because someone who isn't qualified in any of these fields has said so

that is an excellent example of why an "appeal from authority" is a logical fallacy, i.e. its stupid and invalid
please look it up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

another example would be you taking the word of a farmer that you need an urgent medical operation.

Whats wrong with asking a real doctor, in your case its because all the really qualified people laugh at Brown that you can't do that

you are intellectually empty

 

[Pahu]

Link?

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.html

 

[Marduk]

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.html

that link isn't slightly credible
try this one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_liquefaction

 

[Pahu]

Pahu, you are the messenger of a single scientist, an engineer, Brown, whose conclusions have been shown to be erroneous within the larger context of the scientific method. If you would like to compare authority to authority, Brown is vastly outnumbered by the thousands of biologists, geneticists, geologists, paleontologists, archeologists etc. who strongly disagree with his opinions.

Since when are facts determined by popular opinion? In what way have Brown's conclusions been shown to be erroneous within the larger context of the scientific method?

 

[Simon39759]

Since when are facts determined by popular opinion? In what way have Brown's conclusions been shown to be erroneous within the larger context of the scientific method?

Well, I had no less than 4 fundamental objections to just the one paragraph I looked at...

And I posted a link about the hydroplate theory where Glenn R. Morton (both a geologist -relevant authority- and a former Creationist) blew, so to speak, Brown's conclusion out of the water...

 

[Pahu]

Your inability to address the logical counterarguments which completely destroy the theories you present is your problem. Not mine or anyone else's. You must ask yourself why you are so sure that your "experts" are just that? If you, as you clearly admit, are completely ignorant of what you post, how would you recognize the difference between sound science and pure drivel?

When did I admit I am completely ignorant of what I post? I consider the fact that the scientist who confirm Brown's conclusions are quoted from peer reviewed science journals. It is my understanding only scientists are allowed to publish in those journals.

 

[Dinwar]

In what way have Brown's conclusions been shown to be erroneous within the larger context of the scientific method?

Well, the fact that it contradicts physical evidence (the entire field of stratigraphy serves as references here) comes to mind....

 

[Marduk]

It is my understanding that limestone is laid down by sorting during liquefaction. We saw that happen within hours of the explosion of Mt. St. Helens. During the flood, multiple layers of strata containing different minerals, was laid down in days. For details, go to: "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown and click on "Part II: Fountains of the Great Deep."

recent plume experiments by creationist geologists at Creation Evidence Museum at Glen Rose, Texas, have shown that moving water always creates sedimentary layering and liquefaction always destroys layering. Given the vast amount of sedimentary layers around the world, liquefaction is argued to have played a very minor part in the geologic record

so this would be more updated evidence than you are supporting
theres even a video that proves that liquefaction destroys sedimentary layers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-8C4KFdx_4&feature=player_embedded
so are you saying that these creationist scientists are wrong Pahu ?

When did I admit I am completely ignorant of what I post? I consider the fact that the scientist who confirm Brown's conclusions are quoted from peer reviewed science journals. It is my understanding only scientists are allowed to publish in those journals.

argument from ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 

[Vortigern99]

So by your definition, are we to conclude that your authoritative assertions are not logical?

You appear to have a problem with reading comprehension. I explained in the first sentence of the quoted post that "an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy when it is argued that a statement is correct because the source is regarded as authoritative."

If you can point to any instance in which I, or anyone debating you, has contended that an assertion we've made is correct because the source is supposed to be authoritative, then we will have been guilty of committing this logical fallacy.

 

[joobz]

When did I admit I am completely ignorant of what I post?

What do you believe the phrase, " I am just the messenger" implies?

I consider the fact that the scientist who confirm Brown's conclusions are quoted from peer reviewed science journals.

What is the H-index for Brown? What were the scientists quoted for? What were the journal's impact factors? How rigorous was the review process and (most importantly) were they even relevant to the content of Brown's work.

It is my understanding only scientists are allowed to publish in those journals.

Your understanding is wrong. One doesn't need to be "a scientist" to publish in a scientific journal. One only needs to make a rational argument that is supported by evidence and meets the approval of external reviewers.
Best example of this is Emily_Rosa^WP, who was a 4th grader who published a study in JAMA (the journal of the american medical society).

This is an extremely important point. Science is made better by good science and NOT by some notion of appeal to authority. Emily Rosa did excellent work and was published for it.

 

[Pahu]

Um, your claim your burden!

how so is it based upon the 'laws of physics".

Have you ever compared evolution with the fundamental laws of physics? The first law of thermodynamics says that the actual amount or energy in the universe remains constant—it doesn't change. The second law of thermodynamics says that the amount of usable energy in any closed system (which the whole universe is) is decreasing. Everything is tending toward disorder and the universe is running down.

The law of causality tells us that every effect is caused, so what caused the universe to begin?

Organic evolution is the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth in conflict with the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, and for which there is no observable evidence.

There are two views of origins. One says that everything came about by natural causes; the other looks to a supernatural cause. The overwhelming evidence supports the Creationist view.

 

[Pahu]

Until you examine and explain the way it works, it is an appeal to authority.

Is that assertion your authoritative statement? Why do you reject information from those who have information?

 

[Marduk]

Is that assertion your authoritative statement? Why do you reject information from those who have information?

Why do you reject information from those qualified to state it ?

 

[Pahu]

Which ones?

You will find your answer here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.html

 

[Marduk]

You will find your answer here: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/PartII.html

yeah see there you go again with the circular reasoning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
Can you really not see why your presence here is backfiring badly Pahu ?

 

[Pahu]

If you don't have nothing to offer beyond posting a link to that website, then you have nothing to offer. The point is for you to discuss your ideas and present evidence, not just to spam somebody else's ideas. We can't have a conversation with somebody who is not here.

When someone asks a question, I assume they want the best answer I can come up with, so I refer them to those who can answer their question rather than giving them my ignorant opinion. What is wrong with that?