You're using the fallacy definition wrong. A fallacy is an obstacle to knowledge that may seem true while it is not (logical inconsistency). I don't see where the fallacies are here.

(July 21, 2014 at 3:28 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(July 21, 2014 at 2:23 pm)SteveII Wrote: biological case a
Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Ann K. Gauger, Robert J. Marks II, "Time and Information in Evolution," BIO-Complexity, Volume 2012 (4).

The "peer reviewed" journal cited is Bio-complexity.org. It isn't really a peer reviewed journal in the ordinary sense of the word. It's dedicated to a particular point of view: Intelligent Design. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/BIO-Complexity Although it claims to be neutral, all of it's editors are pro Intellegent Design. http://www.jackscanlan.com/2010/12/bio-c...t-complex/
And it's had trouble getting enough articles to stay afloat. Consequently, it's had to frequently publish articles by it's own board of editors. The journal itself does not list the editors credentials--always a bad sign.

If there were a controversy, you'd think there would be scientists flocking to publish there. You'd also think that finding a editorial board with credentials to be proud of would be easy too.

So, the technical information in the article must be incorrect because of the beliefs of those that wrote it? Should we toss out all of Newton's contributions to science...he believed in God?

You did not comment on the contents.

(July 21, 2014 at 3:44 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 21, 2014 at 3:28 pm)Jenny A Wrote: The "peer reviewed" journal cited is Bio-complexity.org. It isn't really a peer reviewed journal in the ordinary sense of the word. It's dedicated to a particular point of view: Intelligent Design. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/BIO-Complexity Although it claims to be neutral, all of it's editors are pro Intellegent Design. http://www.jackscanlan.com/2010/12/bio-c...t-complex/
And it's had trouble getting enough articles to stay afloat. Consequently, it's had to frequently publish articles by it's own board of editors. The journal itself does not list the editors credentials--always a bad sign.

If there were a controversy, you'd think there would be scientists flocking to publish there. You'd also think that finding a editorial board with credentials to be proud of would be easy too.

So, the technical information in the article must be incorrect because of the beliefs of those that wrote it? Should we toss out all of Newton's contributions to science...he believed in God?

You did not comment on the contents.

Firstly Newton lived in a time where not believing was not advisable. Secondly, you're committing an appeal to authority fallacy...

(July 21, 2014 at 3:38 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(July 21, 2014 at 3:34 pm)SteveII Wrote: So the person that had the thoughts that were written down for all to read must be wrong because he/she believes something you do not. Isn't that a genetic fallacy? What did you think of the arguments that seem to be well reasoned (more so than the original article proclaiming enough time)?

You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

No but really, the reason it's wrong is because it's scientifically and factually wrong. They start with the premise that their creationism is true, and they look for bits and pieces of evidence that can maybe be twisted to fit into their viewpoint, while outright ignoring the vast, vast majority of evidence that refutes their conclusion on this topic. That's is not science. It's pseudoscience. It's the same tactic used by woo-doctors psychics and homeopathy. Science draws conclusions based on where the evidence leads, creationists grab and twist evidence to fit their pre-drawn conclusion.

I don't remember them mentioning God when they pointed out all the problems with the math, the unrealistic assumptions that were made, etc. So if an atheist had written the same exact words down on paper, what would be the difference? You are giving typical AF vague objections and attacking the source and not the content.

(July 21, 2014 at 3:51 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 21, 2014 at 3:38 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

No but really, the reason it's wrong is because it's scientifically and factually wrong. They start with the premise that their creationism is true, and they look for bits and pieces of evidence that can maybe be twisted to fit into their viewpoint, while outright ignoring the vast, vast majority of evidence that refutes their conclusion on this topic. That's is not science. It's pseudoscience. It's the same tactic used by woo-doctors psychics and homeopathy. Science draws conclusions based on where the evidence leads, creationists grab and twist evidence to fit their pre-drawn conclusion.

I don't remember them mentioning God when they pointed out all the problems with the math, the unrealistic assumptions that were made, etc. So if an atheist had written the same exact words down on paper, what would be the difference? You are giving typical AF vague objections and attacking the source and not the content.

You're willfully ignoring the source, which is important. And no, before cling to your genetic fallacy teddy bear, its not a fallacy to to note that these people are arguing from a position that is pre-drawn and in direct contradiction to the article they're analyzing. They are starting from a point that is scientifically laughable and has zero evidence and has never been seriously proposed by any real scientist, AND they make it clear they hold these views on that same website. You want us to just ignore that while they 'analyze' a scientific article? Nope, sorry. Its like listening to an anti-vaxxer criticizing an article that says vaccines are useful. We cant ignore the lens through which these people are operating, and its a lens that's utterly deformed and corrupted through willful ignorance, manipulation of data, unscientific practices, and dogmatism.

And yes, if an atheist were to engage in this kind of huckster-like pseudoscience crap they would be called out just as much.

(July 21, 2014 at 3:47 pm)Blackout Wrote:

(July 21, 2014 at 3:44 pm)SteveII Wrote: So, the technical information in the article must be incorrect because of the beliefs of those that wrote it? Should we toss out all of Newton's contributions to science...he believed in God?

You did not comment on the contents.

Firstly Newton lived in a time where not believing was not advisable. Secondly, you're committing an appeal to authority fallacy...

It seems to me that the four authors have more than enough credentials to test the application of math against the knowledge of biological processes. I believe I saw degrees from MIT, Princeton, Northwestern University, University of Chicago, some other engineering and mathematics degrees. The AF out-of-hand dismissal of their paper is amusing.

(July 21, 2014 at 4:00 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: You want us to just ignore that while they 'analyze' a scientific article? Nope, sorry. Its like listening to an anti-vaxxer criticizing an article that says vaccines are useful. We cant ignore the lens through which these people are operating, and its a lens that's utterly deformed and corrupted through willful ignorance, manipulation of data, unscientific practices, and dogmatism.

And yes, if an atheist were to engage in this kind of huckster-like pseudoscience crap they would be called out just as much.

For example: http://atheistforums.org/thread-22331-page-35.html There are pages and pages of an atheist being called out for citing pseudo science.

(July 21, 2014 at 4:14 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(July 21, 2014 at 3:47 pm)Blackout Wrote: Firstly Newton lived in a time where not believing was not advisable. Secondly, you're committing an appeal to authority fallacy...

It seems to me that the four authors have more than enough credentials to test the application of math against the knowledge of biological processes. I believe I saw degrees from MIT, Princeton, Northwestern University, University of Chicago, some other engineering and mathematics degrees. The AF out-of-hand dismissal of their paper is amusing.

If you think that's amusing, try posting this on an evolutionary biology forum, or I dunno...a legitimate peer-reviewed journal.

(July 21, 2014 at 4:00 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(July 21, 2014 at 3:51 pm)SteveII Wrote: I don't remember them mentioning God when they pointed out all the problems with the math, the unrealistic assumptions that were made, etc. So if an atheist had written the same exact words down on paper, what would be the difference? You are giving typical AF vague objections and attacking the source and not the content.

You're willfully ignoring the source, which is important. And no, before cling to your genetic fallacy teddy bear, its not a fallacy to to note that these people are arguing from a position that is pre-drawn and in direct contradiction to the article they're analyzing. They are starting from a point that is scientifically laughable and has zero evidence and has never been seriously proposed by any real scientist, AND they make it clear they hold these views on that same website. You want us to just ignore that while they 'analyze' a scientific article? Nope, sorry. Its like listening to an anti-vaxxer criticizing an article that says vaccines are useful. We cant ignore the lens through which these people are operating, and its a lens that's utterly deformed and corrupted through willful ignorance, manipulation of data, unscientific practices, and dogmatism.

And yes, if an atheist were to engage in this kind of huckster-like pseudoscience crap they would be called out just as much.

Ah, so evolution is true because there is no scientific information to suggest otherwise. Oh, and by the way, if you have some scientific information that suggests a problem, it won't be considered because evolution is true. Sound reasoning. You have illustrated the bias that many scientist have--thank you.

(July 21, 2014 at 4:14 pm)SteveII Wrote: It seems to me that the four authors have more than enough credentials to test the application of math against the knowledge of biological processes. I believe I saw degrees from MIT, Princeton, Northwestern University, University of Chicago, some other engineering and mathematics degrees. The AF out-of-hand dismissal of their paper is amusing.

But they're criticizing the biological presumptions not the math. And while I'm sure neither you nor I have the credentials to argue the math, I can tell you even from what little I know that the authors of your paper are attacking a straw man when it comes to the biological process being modeled. It's full of statements like all genetic mutations result in lost genetic data.

More importantly they can't get it published in a real journal.