Yes, I have studied logic and its limitations, Dr. Spock.
Logic must accept the existence of alternative explanations when there =
is no dispositive empirical proof. How does one prove that the ancient =
creatures classed as hominids were not merely men, or animals who failed =
to compete with man? We have gone around and around about the =
acceptable variation in the human genome.
Logic is not the sine qua non of all theological truth. It is of the =
scientific method. Logic includes the existence of mystery and the =
unexplained by concluding that some things cannot be logically explained =
within our frame of refernce. Logic in man's eyes is not the same as it =
is in God's eyes. Yes, I have already quoted the Bible for that premise =
in this line.
You have dispositive proof of natural selection/microevolution which you =
illogically allege is dispositive proof of macroevolution. As your =
arguments are not without basis in empirical fact, your conclusions are =
illogical when they categorically exclude alternative explanations.
You are falling prey to the same tactic I have read being used against =
you, unless I can point to specific courses in logic I have taken at the =
post graduate level, you assume that my mind does not work logically.
Logic is our desperate effort to understand our existence, some aspects =
of which we will not understand this side of the veil, per, yes, another =
Bible verse already cited.
For instance, a philosophy course I took at Duke was on the structure of =
aesthetics. There is a subject amenable to only a very "soft" =
application of logic.
I have also previously pointed out to you how in your website you make =
educated guesses friendly to your pet hypothesis as to the cause of =
various geologic features or parts of the fossil record and then =
illogically conclude that those interpretations are proof positive of =
your hypothesis.
When I assert that isotope decay rates may not be constant and that =
creation may have resulted in isotopes in various states of decay, the =
response is, if God did not create something a scientific, logical =
method can readily describe and and explain as truth then God is is =
deceiving me and must be Satan. =20
Your logical syllogism seems to say "God's mind conceived and created =
the earth. My mind can understand all there is to know about the earth. =
I can understand the mind of God."
I do not believe that the mind of man can understand all there is to =
know about the earth. =20
Where does that leave faith and hope in things not seen? Yes, another =
verse, hang it all.
I am sure the old serpent fools me, too. I never said I was right and =
you were wrong. What I did say was we are probably arguing about =
endless genealogies.
Jay
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------
From: "Glenn Morton" <glenn.morton@btinternet.com>
=20
> This statement just begs that someone ask you how you view logic =
itself. Is
> logic not the sine qua non of all knowledge, including theological
> knowledge? Is logic only a troublesome thing one can discard, =
streaking
> naked through life in the ecstasy of illogic? Logic requires that what =
you
> apply to your opponent can be applied to you. Have you not learned =
that in
> law courts?
>=20
> I have a real question. Have you ever actually taken a logic course--I =
mean
> a full semester dose of syllogisms, Venn diagrams and the many logical
> fallacies? David is a philosopher who would have taught the stuff, I =
did
> grad work in philosophy where I took Logic, Symbolic Logice,and Logic =
and
> the Scientific method etc. What you have commited is an advocation of =
an ad
> hoc hypotheses, (i.e., the Devil fools everyone on Earth except me). =
Logic
> isn't dogma, it is fundamental.
>=20
>=20
> I didn't get the impression you were condemning me. I thought you =
were
> being excessively illogical, which may be oxymoronic, for how can one =
be
> moderately illogical? It is like being moderately pregnant.
>=20
>=20
> glenn
>=20
------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C23339.6A643620
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4916.2300" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>
<DIV>Yes, I have studied logic and its limitations, Dr. Spock.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Logic must accept the existence of alternative explanations when =
there is=20
no dispositive empirical proof. How does one prove that the =
ancient=20
creatures classed as hominids were not merely men, or animals who =
failed to=20
compete with man? We have gone around and around about the =
acceptable=20
variation in the human genome.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Logic is not the <EM>sine qua non</EM> of all theological=20
truth. It is of the scientific method. Logic includes =
the=20
existence of mystery and the unexplained by concluding that some things =
cannot=20
be logically explained within our frame of refernce. Logic in =
man's eyes=20
is not the same as it is in God's eyes. Yes, I have already quoted =
the=20
Bible for that premise in this line.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You have dispositive proof of natural selection/microevolution =
which=20
you illogically allege is dispositive proof of macroevolution. As =
your=20
arguments are not without basis in empirical fact, your conclusions are=20
illogical when they categorically exclude alternative =
explanations.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You are falling prey to the same tactic I have read being used =
against you,=20
unless I can point to specific courses in logic I have taken at the =
post=20
graduate level, you assume that my mind does not work logically.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Logic is our desperate effort to understand our existence, some =
aspects of=20
which we will not understand this side of the veil, per, yes, another =
Bible=20
verse already cited.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>For instance, a philosophy course I took at Duke was on the =
structure=20
of aesthetics. There is a subject amenable to only =
a very "soft"=20
application of logic.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I have also previously pointed out to you how in your website you =
make=20
educated guesses friendly to your pet hypothesis as to the cause of =
various=20
geologic features or parts of the fossil record and then illogically =
conclude=20
that those interpretations are proof positive of your hypothesis.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>When I assert that isotope decay rates may not be constant and that =
creation may have resulted in isotopes in various states of decay, the =
response=20
is, if God did not create something a scientific, =
logical method can=20
readily describe and and explain as truth then God is is deceiving =
me and=20
must be Satan. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Your logical syllogism seems to say "God's mind conceived and =
created=20
the earth. My mind can understand all there is to know about the=20
earth. I can understand the mind of God."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I do not believe that the mind of man can understand all there is =
to know=20
about the earth. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV> Where does that leave faith and hope in things not =
seen? Yes,=20
another verse, hang it all.</DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I am sure the old serpent fools me, too. I never said I was =
right and=20
you were wrong. What I did say was we are probably arguing about =
endless=20
genealogies.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Jay</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<HR>
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>From: "Glenn Morton" <<A=20
href=3D"mailto:glenn.morton@btinternet.com">glenn.morton@btinternet.com</=
A>></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV> <BR>> This statement just begs that someone ask you =
how you=20
view logic itself. Is<BR>> logic not the sine qua non of all =
knowledge,=20
including theological<BR>> knowledge? Is logic only a =
troublesome thing=20
one can discard, streaking<BR>> naked through life in the ecstasy of =
illogic?=20
Logic requires that what you<BR>> apply to your opponent can be =
applied to=20
you. Have you not learned that in<BR>> law courts?<BR>> =
<BR>> I=20
have a real question. Have you ever actually taken a logic course--I=20
mean<BR>> a full semester dose of syllogisms, Venn diagrams and the =
many=20
logical<BR>> fallacies? David is a philosopher who would have =
taught=20
the stuff, I did<BR>> grad work in philosophy where I took Logic, =
Symbolic=20
Logice,and Logic and<BR>> the Scientific method etc. What you =
have=20
commited is an advocation of an ad<BR>> hoc hypotheses, (i.e., the =
Devil=20
fools everyone on Earth except me). Logic<BR>> isn't dogma, it =
is=20
fundamental.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> I didn't get the impression you =
were=20
condemning me. I thought you were<BR>> being excessively =
illogical,=20
which may be oxymoronic, for how can one be<BR>> moderately =
illogical? It is=20
like being moderately pregnant.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> glenn<BR>>=20
<BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C23339.6A643620--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 24 2002 - 22:35:32 EDT