Religion II

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

... he's an eminent (typo corrected, thank you) scientist in the class of Galileo, Newton, etc.

Thomas Cech and Sidney Altman shared the 1989 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their discovery of the catalytic properties of RNA. Cech discovered that RNA could itself cut strands of RNA, which showed that life could have started as RNA.

The bold part is what I've been trying (between interruptions) to say all along.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Thomas Cech and Sidney Altman shared the 1989 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their discovery of the catalytic properties of RNA. Cech discovered that RNA could itself cut strands of RNA, which showed that life COULD have started as RNA. (emphasis added)

The bold part is what I've been trying (between interruptions) to say all along.

Coulda, woulda, shouda. For life to exist it must possess those seven properties. Only free-living cells qualify.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Coulda, woulda, shouda.

What part of "Nobel Prize" did you not understand.

Originally Posted by boxcar

For life to exist it must possess those seven properties. Only free-living cells qualify.

Even if, for the sake of argument, I grant you that, such life could have arisen from non-living, but self replicating, molecules (i.e., RNA). That's the thrust of Cech and Altman's work. It's also the current prevailing view of the biological science community.

[Actor]

Logic 102

INFORMAL LOGIC is designed to persuade. It has a legitimate use in situations where are no clear-cut conclusion can be reached. For example, our of several available possibilities, which course of action should be taken? What brand of car should I purchase?

Informal logic is more subject to abuse than formal logic. Such abuse may or may not be deliberate. Forms of possible abuse include, but are not limited to

• Failure to explicitly state all premises, A.K.A., tacit assumptions.
• Stating premises in an ambiguous manner.
• Equivocation, in effect, changing the definition of a word as the argument progresses.
• Failure to define terms.
• Unsupported generalities.
• Outright lying.
• Use of logical fallacies. Logical fallacies are the subject of a later post.
• Etc.

Formal logic is preferable to informal logic for reasons given in the previous post, viz., it’s mathematical rigor. Those lacking expertise in mathematics or the subject under discussion are forced to employ informal logic.

Take the case of AGW. To tackle this subject using formal logic one must be willing to do the science and the math. Data is available on the amount of fossil fuel which the human race burns each year. This would give us the amount of carbon dioxide such burning produces. Similar data is available on the amount of carbon dioxide produced by animals, including humans. The bottom line is that the total amount of greenhouse gases produced each year is known. The amount absorbed by plant life is also known giving us the net increase per year. Formulae are known which give us the resulting temperature rise expected over time.

Lacking the expertise to do the science or the math, and falling for the fallacy of negative consequences (I don’t like the conclusion so your argument must be false) those with an economic, political, emotional interest in disproving the conclusion are forced to fall back on informal reasoning, employing all the abuses available in the process. They claim it’s a hoax but identify no hoaxer (only the ubiquitous “they”) and offer no proof. The claim the data is fake or non-existent but offer no data on their own.

Next: the four elements of logic.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Perhaps Dispensationalists think the bible is a big inkblot needing psychological interpretation but I don't. I see words that I interpret. And it's not as I say, for the context of the passage in Revelations 4 has absolutely nothing to do with the Second Coming, which is quite odd since this is when the rapture will occur.
And both passages I quoted establishes this truth.

It goes to show just how gullible literal minded Christians will swallow anything and chastise each other for differing Rorschach test interpretations. As I said the "Left Behind" movies and books are absurd and these rapture ready adherents are responsible for turning aspects of Christianity into "cargo culters".....

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...lts-melanesia/

.....Patrols of the Australian Government venturing into the "uncontrolled" central highlands of New Guinea in 1946 found the primitive people there swept up in a wave of religious excitement. Prophecy was being fulfilled: The arrival of the Whites was the sign that the end of the world was at hand. The natives proceeded to butcher all of their pigs-animals that were not only a principal source of subsistence but also ,symbols of social status and ritual preeminence in their culture. They killed these valued animals in expression of the belief that after three days of darkness "Great Pigs" would appear from the sky. Food, firewood and other necessities had to be stock-piled to see the people through to the arrival of the Great Pigs. Mock wireless antennae of bamboo and rope had been erected to receive in advance the news of the millennium. Many believed that with the great event they would exchange their black skins for white ones."

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

It goes to show just how gullible literal minded Christians will swallow anything and chastise each other for differing Rorschach test interpretations. As I said the "Left Behind" movies and books are absurd and these rapture ready adherents are responsible for turning aspects of Christianity into "cargo culters".....

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...lts-melanesia/

.....Patrols of the Australian Government venturing into the "uncontrolled" central highlands of New Guinea in 1946 found the primitive people there swept up in a wave of religious excitement. Prophecy was being fulfilled: The arrival of the Whites was the sign that the end of the world was at hand. The natives proceeded to butcher all of their pigs-animals that were not only a principal source of subsistence but also ,symbols of social status and ritual preeminence in their culture. They killed these valued animals in expression of the belief that after three days of darkness "Great Pigs" would appear from the sky. Food, firewood and other necessities had to be stock-piled to see the people through to the arrival of the Great Pigs. Mock wireless antennae of bamboo and rope had been erected to receive in advance the news of the millennium. Many believed that with the great event they would exchange their black skins for white ones."

Slow day, Mr. Antichrist? Can't find a Dispensationalist to mock so you post your drivel here to vent your hatred toward all Christians?

On top of this you post junk a about some weird cultic religious beliefs of primitive people in New Guinea?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Logic 102

INFORMAL LOGIC is designed to persuade. It has a legitimate use in situations where are no clear-cut conclusion can be reached. For example, our of several available possibilities, which course of action should be taken? What brand of car should I purchase?

Informal logic is more subject to abuse than formal logic. Such abuse may or may not be deliberate. Forms of possible abuse include, but are not limited to

• Failure to explicitly state all premises, A.K.A., tacit assumptions.
• Stating premises in an ambiguous manner.
• Equivocation, in effect, changing the definition of a word as the argument progresses.
• Failure to define terms.
• Unsupported generalities.
• Outright lying.
• Use of logical fallacies. Logical fallacies are the subject of a later post.
• Etc.

Formal logic is preferable to informal logic for reasons given in the previous post, viz., it’s mathematical rigor. Those lacking expertise in mathematics or the subject under discussion are forced to employ informal logic.

Take the case of AGW. To tackle this subject using formal logic one must be willing to do the science and the math. Data is available on the amount of fossil fuel which the human race burns each year. This would give us the amount of carbon dioxide such burning produces. Similar data is available on the amount of carbon dioxide produced by animals, including humans. The bottom line is that the total amount of greenhouse gases produced each year is known. The amount absorbed by plant life is also known giving us the net increase per year. Formulae are known which give us the resulting temperature rise expected over time.

Lacking the expertise to do the science or the math, and falling for the fallacy of negative consequences (I don’t like the conclusion so your argument must be false) those with an economic, political, emotional interest in disproving the conclusion are forced to fall back on informal reasoning, employing all the abuses available in the process. They claim it’s a hoax but identify no hoaxer (only the ubiquitous “they”) and offer no proof. The claim the data is fake or non-existent but offer no data on their own.

Next: the four elements of logic.

Kool. You have violated all 8+ (the Etc.) at one time or another. But then...I think many of us know you have been estranged from Logic most likely since birth.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Kool. You have violated all 8+ (the Etc.) at one time or another.

#6. Outright lie!.

Originally Posted by boxcar

But then...I think many of us know you have been estranged from Logic most likely since birth.

#7 Ad hominem!.

[porchy44]

Originally Posted by hcap

It goes to show just how gullible literal minded....

I hit superfecta's once in a blue moon. I went to the store yesterday. it was crowded. I think the whole town was there.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

#6. Outright lie!.

#7 Ad hominem!.

Whatever, you say, Mr. Imminent Scientist.

[Actor]

Logic 103

THE FOR ELEMENTS OF LOGIC

• Primitive terms.
• Definitions.
• Axioms.
• Theorems.

PRIMITIVE TERMS It is impossible to define every word in a language. Any attempt to do so results, sooner of later, in a circular definition. There are three ways to deal with this. One is to keep the circle as small as possible, e.g., define slithy: something that is brillig. Define brillig: something that is slithy. You cannot get smaller than that but, obviously, the two definitions impart no information. The second way to deal with the problem is to go the opposite route and make the circle extremely large in the hope that the meaning will somehow sink in, but again no new information is imparted. The third approach is to acknowledge that not all words can be defined and to leave some limited set of words undefined. These are called PRIMITIVE TERMS. Some mathematicians claim that only two words need be left as primitives (POINT and BETWEEN) in order to derive all geometry.

DEFINITIONS With primitive terms in place other words can be defined. Definitions are descriptive only. They are neutral as far a logic goes.

PROPOSITIONS, A.K.A., THEOREMS are statements whose truth value is to be determined. Propositions are usually stated in the affirmative, particularly if the proposition is a claim. However, it sometimes makes more sense to state a proposition in the negative, e.g., “there is no rational number whose square is 2.0”.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Logic 103

THE FOR ELEMENTS OF LOGIC

• Primitive terms.
• Definitions.
• Axioms.
• Theorems.

PRIMITIVE TERMS It is impossible to define every word in a language. Any attempt to do so results, sooner of later, in a circular definition. There are three ways to deal with this. One is to keep the circle as small as possible, e.g., define slithy: something that is brillig. Define brillig: something that is slithy. You cannot get smaller than that but, obviously, the two definitions impart no information. The second way to deal with the problem is to go the opposite route and make the circle extremely large in the hope that the meaning will somehow sink in, but again no new information is imparted. The third approach is to acknowledge that not all words can be defined and to leave some limited set of words undefined. These are called PRIMITIVE TERMS. Some mathematicians claim that only two words need be left as primitives (POINT and BETWEEN) in order to derive all geometry.

DEFINITIONS With primitive terms in place other words can be defined. Definitions are descriptive only. They are neutral as far a logic goes.

PROPOSITIONS, A.K.A., THEOREMS are statements whose truth value is to be determined. Propositions are usually stated in the affirmative, particularly if the proposition is a claim. However, it sometimes makes more sense to state a proposition in the negative, e.g., “there is no rational number whose square is 2.0”.

Hey, Ape Man, neither "slithy" or "brillig" is a word.

BETWEEN these two words you utterly failed to make your POINT.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Hey, Ape Man, neither "slithy" or "brillig" is a word.

They are now. Your objection is vorpal.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

They are now. Your objection is vorpal.

Pretty pathetic when you have to use non-words to define primitive terms.

By the way, was your last post peer-reviewed?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

By the way, was your last post peer-reviewed?

Yes. For over two thousand years.

Please hold all questions until I have finished the series.