Denial of evolution III

[Saquist]

But evolution has nothing to do with atheism.

You can still have god(s) and evolution, they aren't mutually exclusive. So the argument that evolution must disprove god in order to disprove creationism is a non sequitur.[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure I never said that Theism and Evolution were mutually exclusive.
Last time I checked it's not a fallacy to speak within the Context of the current social norms. Atheism is a rapidly spreading philosophy in the world as it becomes more secularized, particularly among the young and scientifically inclined. It's not accidental. Thesis are being challenged ridiculed and persecuted on both the political and scientific fronts. It would be naive or dishonest to pretend social lines are being drawn in the US and Western Europe on this very point.

I did say Christianity and Evolution are mutually exclusive.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Last time I checked it's not a fallacy to speak within the Context of the current social norms. Atheism is a rapidly spreading philosophy in the world as it becomes more secularized, particularly among the young and scientifically inclined. It's not accidental. Thesis are being challenged ridiculed and persecuted on both the political and scientific fronts. It would be naive or dishonest to pretend social lines are being drawn in the US and Western Europe on this very point.

In this context its irrelevant: persecution of theists (perceived or real) is of no consequence to determining the validity of evolution.

I did say Christianity and Evolution are mutually exclusive.

Again I disagree, anyone that has faith can do the mental gymnastics to believe in one god and that Jesus was his son AND yet accept evolution. You can cut out Genesis and believe in all the other mumbo-jumbo, many theist already pick and choose what they want to believe from their holy scriptures.

You're jumping on the negative proof fallacy but you're missing the point that it can't be a factual fallacy if it hasn't been proven wrong. The Earth has been proven to be a sphere and not flat. Flat Earth Theory has been proven wrong. This is very straight-forward.

Evolution has been proven to have occurred, ergo creationism is proven wrong. Now if you want to believe some god set it in motion or has been pulling the strings of fate for all these eons, sure what ever, but the evidence proves the all animals and plants and humans were not forced into being in their present form (creationism). The only way to still believe in creationism is to accept all this evidence was and is (for evolution observed to be occurring today) planted by a malevolent god at which point you past the threshold into the previous mentioned solipsism: now you can't believe any thing in reality, all of existence filled with memory and all was created just seconds ago by a god intent with omnipotent jerkiness to make it appear existence is billions of years old, you can't disprove it!

 

[GeoffP]

I did say Christianity and Evolution are mutually exclusive.

Well, they're not.

 

[iceaura]

The Earth has been proven to be a sphere and not flat. Flat Earth Theory has been proven wrong. This is very straight-forward.

Not by your criteria for science, proof, etc, as applied to evolutionary theory. Please demonstrate how anyone has proven the earth to be a sphere without using theory piled on theory, or some other invalid - according to you - approach.

The possibility that the earth is flat - or maybe dumbbell shaped, etc - is one you must continue to excogitate, if you wish to remain consistent with your earlier assertions.

i'm not a biologist, so i don't have the knowledge base to judge evidence for or against which is viable and which isn't. but the tooth and nail attitude the "scientific community" has towards evolution sure makes the whole business a bit shady..

So the fact that the overwhelming majority of people who do have the requisite knowledge have become sufficiently fed up by a century of ignorant mucking around in the public discourse that they fail to verbally defer to bizarre bullshit the fiftieth time it comes flying out the back of the Abrahamic manure spreader,

that they no longer respect the barrage, no longer treat it as legitimate argument, no longer even attempt to persuade the benighted that have proven themselves immune to reason, fact, argument, circumstance, and their own repeated refutation in every new event and discovery of every year's actual research,

is evidence against evolutionary theory?

 

[Saquist]

Not by your criteria for science, proof, etc, as applied to evolutionary theory.Please demonstrate how anyone has proven the earth to be a sphere without using theory piled on theory, or some other invalid - according to you - approach.

What exactly is my criteria for science, proof and etc, iceaura?

The possibility that the earth is flat - or maybe dumbbell shaped, etc - is one you must continue to excogitate, if you wish to remain consistent with your earlier assertions.
So the fact that the overwhelming majority of people who do have the requisite knowledge have become sufficiently fed up by a century of ignorant mucking around in the public discourse that they fail to verbally defer to bizarre bullshit the fiftieth time it comes flying out the back of the Abrahamic manure spreader,

Perhaps it is my failing but I did not understand how continuing to consider Flat Earth as a viable in the presence of direct contradictory evidence. Could you be more explicit in what you think that I think and could you further explicitly layout your deductions and inference and be more coherent?

Well, they're not.

I understand why many feel that way, but that's why I posted certain facts concerning Luke and Jesus' statements referring to creation.

In this context its irrelevant: persecution of theists (perceived or real) is of no consequence to determining the validity of evolution.

You didn't ask me about the validity of evolution. Evolution is not the context. You asked why are not creationism views factual fallacies. But you accused me of fallacy,sayin; atheism has nothing to do with evolution ; and that is not true. There is a real association between them and I cannot be accused of fallacy simply because I choose not to ignore that association. Evolution is the chief tenant of atheism.

So really you created a tangent and I followed you, yet you accused me of a contextual error when there was none. I'm simply answering your questions, sir.

Again I disagree, anyone that has faith can do the mental gymnastics to believe in one god and that Jesus was his son AND yet accept evolution. You can cut out Genesis and believe in all the other mumbo-jumbo, many theist already pick and choose what they want to believe from their holy scriptures.

I know, and those are arbitrary selections.

Evolution has been proven to have occurred, ergo creationism is proven wrong.

I am obliged by logic to remain parralel with the known definition of proof.
Information which tends to determine or demonstrate the truth of a proposition. Demonstration is a direct observance and while micro evolution has been observed, larg scale changes have not been observed at all. Once that occurs it would directly oppose the Biblical account of creation and the Hebraic view of their lineage.

 

[ElectricFetus]

You didn't ask me about the validity of evolution. Evolution is not the context. You asked why are not creationism views factual fallacies. But you accused me of fallacy,sayin; atheism has nothing to do with evolution ; and that is not true. There is a real association between them and I cannot be accused of fallacy simply because I choose not to ignore that association.

An association does not mean causality! Just like atheism has nothing to do with heliocentric model. One can believe the planets move and still believe in god, even a christian god, the same for evolution, you merely need to pick and choose what you want to believe, most faithful do it.

Evolution is the chief tenant of atheism.

Gee, really, how then did atheism exist before evolution? It was a philosophy held by many Greek philosophers for example. The chief tenant of atheism to them was that the world was a shit hole, bad things happen at random and payers were answered at the same rate as coincidence, these being the chief tenant today as well! People don't become atheist because of evolution anymore then they become atheist because the earth moves! They become atheist because of all the pain and suffering and random events of the world that happen to the faithful and unfaithful alike.

Information which tends to determine or demonstrate the truth of a proposition. Demonstration is a direct observance and while micro evolution has been observed, large scale changes have not been observed at all. Once that occurs it would directly oppose the Biblical account of creation and the Hebraic view of their lineage.

Macroevolution has been observed in our time, we have seen the speciation of multiple cellular organism, mind you insects and worms. More so evolution observed today does not contradict the bible as the bible says nothing of life remaining static, what contradicts the bible is all the evolution in the past, which shows that animals and plants did not all come into being in one day.

 

[Saquist]

An association does not mean causality!

You don't have to convince me. Not only do I know there is no causality I never said there was.

One can believe the planets move and still believe in god, even a christian god, the same for evolution, you merely need to pick and choose what you want to believe, most faithful do it.

It's not logical so I don't do it.

Gee, really, how then did atheism exist before evolution?

Am I going to have to chase another tangent again?
Can I ask you why are you asking this question...what is the relevancy? It appears you're attempting to contradict the assertion that evolution is a chief tenant of athesim.

How is the past relevant to the validity of my statement of the present?
It seems that you're jumping to some mighty large conclusions about my statement. Remember I'm only giving you direct replies.

People don't become atheist because of evolution anymore then they become atheist because the earth moves! They become atheist because of all the pain and suffering and random events of the world that happen to the faithful and unfaithful alike.

Hmmm.
I never said people become atheist because of evolution.

From my experience and my interviews of others I've found that many atheist, like most humans have emotional views that lead them to the rejection of God or gods, namely the hypocrisy of the religious, life syle preferences, abuse and oppression and as you say pessimism. Being a much smaller segment of the population, many Scientist find their is enough evidence to suggest life required no creator. And an even smaller group of people merely have never entertained the existence of a god or Gods.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

I'm glad you've convinced yourself of all that but I'm not going to fight your opinion and your value judgments.

Its not a value judement - its a pragmatic and practical one - despite decades and billions in private funding to organisations like Intitute for Creation Reasearch and The Discovery Institute - creationism has yielded nothing useful.

Creationism has not made a single contribution to agriculture, medicine, conservation, forestry, pathology, or any other applied area of biology. Creationism has yielded no classifications, no biogeographies, no underlying mechanisms, no unifying concepts with which to study organisms or life. In those few instances where predictions can be inferred from Biblical passages (e.g., groups of related organisms, migration of all animals from the resting place of the ark on Mt. Ararat to their present locations, genetic diversity derived from small founder populations, dispersal ability of organisms in direct proportion to their distance from eastern Turkey), creationism has been scientifically falsified

http://www.botany.org/outreach/evolution.php

There is a fundamental schism here in the very vocabulary we are using and we seem unable to bridge it to any meaningful understanding.

well naturally if you chose to use a definition of logic that is different from the accepted one then yes - we will struggle to understand one-another

 

[George1]

i'm new to this, but i have only one question:is it even worth writing on a matter that has so much proof behind it, only a low caveman-lever mind would deny and not see the proof behind it?
i mean, the denialist' have zero of everything to back up their words.
like the transitional fossils denial. that' probably the most stupid claim they ever made. they fail to understand what a transitional fossil is (i.e. every single fossil ever found) nor they even try. then they go ahead yelling evolution isn't real. is there any practical use in such a debate? there is no way such a person will ever change his/her mind on this topic.
but don't matter me, i just ask. i went to other sites with this debate, and all of them kinda end in the same matter: the denialists get pwed every single time, but they don't back up.
by the way, is there anyone on this site that denies evolution?

 

[ElectricFetus]

You don't have to convince me. Not only do I know there is no causality I never said there was.

Then why mention the association? The association is inconsequential, I'm sure wine and liberals are associated as well but they have nothing to do with each other.

It's not logical so I don't do it.

Its perfectly logical, its illogical to assume literal interpretation of the bible. For example I Kings 7:23 "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." This means pi = 3 according to the bible, you have to do some interpretation to account for this. And then why not do some interpretation to account for the fact the earth moves and life evolves and the age of the earth and universe?

Am I going to have to chase another tangent again?
Can I ask you why are you asking this question...what is the relevancy? It appears you're attempting to contradict the assertion that evolution is a chief tenant of athesim.

Bingo

How is the past relevant to the validity of my statement of the present?
It seems that you're jumping to some mighty large conclusions about my statement. Remember I'm only giving you direct replies.

The past is an example that before the theory of evolution atheism existed, how if evolution is a chief tenant? Well for the same reasons it exist today, because the chief tenant of atheism is not evolution, it is the problems of pain and evil.

Hmmm.
I never said people become atheist because of evolution.

If evolution is the chief tenant of atheism, then how would people become atheist without evolution?

From my experience and my interviews of others I've found that many atheist,

From my personal experience and my interviews of others aliens visit us and probe our anuses regularly. Personal experience is not valid evidence, it is not a statistical survey nor does it directly lead to viable evidence. So from this point on I don't need to accept your observations as valid evidence, but I will entertain this.

like most humans have emotional views that lead them to the rejection of God or gods, namely the hypocrisy of the religious, life syle preferences, abuse and oppression and as you say pessimism. Being a much smaller segment of the population, many Scientist find their is enough evidence to suggest life required no creator. And an even smaller group of people merely have never entertained the existence of a god or Gods.

and thus where does evolution come in as the chief tenant to this lack of belief?

 

[Saquist]

Its not a value judement - its a pragmatic and practical one - despite decades and billions in private funding to organisations like Intitute for Creation Reasearch and The Discovery Institute - creationism has yielded nothing useful.

If...I may be so bold.Pragmatic is defined as : Dealing or concerned with facts or actual occurrences; practical. It has been likened to the phrase a-matter-of-fact which implies...just the facts. Continuing:"but to-date creationism has made no progress whatsoever since the original arguments were put forward - and there were never useful pro-creationism arguments anyway - they were simply ignorant anti-evolution creeds."The bold parts are definitely value judgments: To-date creationsim has not been socialy worthwhile - it has been ethically and morally bankrupt in its practices and through its practitioners and socially devisive: "Worthwhile" is a value judgment.

To-date nothing practical has come from creationism - not one single thing.

Until its advocates begin to even attempt to meet the standards you yourself have set for it it can be safely ignored.

And I would tend to agree with that but I would have left my personal view
on the lack luster results if I wanted to be perceived as truly pragmatic.

well naturally if you chose to use a definition of logic that is different from the accepted one then yes - we will struggle to understand one-another

I have chosen the Webster definition:
Logic a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning. As a result I also am well versed in argumentation theory. You said QED after a pretty...erroneous syllogism and then you attempted to.....beg-off the fallacies as one of my possessions.

Bear with me as I precisely lay this out.

THE STATEMENT IN QUESTION

Using your own logic - "truth is useful" - creationism has proven itself to be incontravertably useless - conversely the understanding of evolution has proven itself to be incredibly useful.

therefore creationism is a falsehood

Premise One of your syllogism:
"truth is useful"

Premise Two of your syllogism:
"creationism has proven itself to be incontravertably useless "

The conclusion:
"therefore creationism is a falsehood"

This is a Fallacy of Necessity. You assume that all things truthful must be useful. That's not necessarily true nor absolute. Then assigning my ownership to the thought completes a strawman fallacy. Just previously you said you were being pragamatic so does that mean that you believe moral and ethical considerations are factual concerns? We're having a problem with the very vocabulary post after post. I have to be honest, if there is a common ground here I don't think we'll ever find it. If it pleases you believe all the fault lies with me, by all means feel free to do so, I'm far from perfect and quite fallible. My ego get's run-over everyday what's one more time?

 

[GeoffP]

I understand why many feel that way, but that's why I posted certain facts concerning Luke and Jesus' statements referring to creation.

Would you be so good as to repost those statements or direct me to the post in which they were made? My expectation is that they will be nebulous.

 

[Saquist]

Then why mention the association? The association is inconsequential, I'm sure wine and liberals are associated as well but they have nothing to do with each other.

Does it really matter? The tangent was inconsequential and I made a current sociological reply to the tangent. There was no inference on my part but you took it that way and so here we are.

Its perfectly logical, its illogical to assume literal interpretation of the bible. For example I Kings 7:23 "And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." This means pi = 3 according to the bible, you have to do some interpretation to account for this. And then why not do some interpretation to account for the fact the earth moves and life evolves and the age of the earth and universe?

That's the second time I've seen this accusation.
The 10 cubits is the inside of the sink.
The 30 cubits is the outside rim.

Bingo

Okay....I don't agree.

If evolution is the chief tenant of atheism, then how would people become atheist without evolution?

I don't know you tell me.
I'm not saying evolution created atheism.

Personal experience is not valid evidence, it is not a statistical survey nor does it directly lead to viable evidence. So from this point on I don't need to accept your observations as valid evidence, but I will entertain this.

"Excellent" Cried I. "Elementary," said he.

and thus where does evolution come in as the chief tenant to this lack of belief?

As the very nature of the skepticism.
Likely the majority of atheist are Religious discontents. It's metaphysical just like religion..."Who am?" "What's my purpose here?"," What is the meaning of Life?" Evolution makes it possible not only to answer these questions but to self determine the answers as well. I have never meat a practical atheist. All that I've met have had a religious chip on their shoulder and like all stereo types it's well justified. And it's a shame that the name of science gets dragged along for the ride. Maybe that will change in the future but I project growing animosity between theist and atheist as time wears on. Maybe the change for the better for both sides starts on this forum...or maybe the war...after all we are the future.

 

[synthesizer-patel]

THE STATEMENT IN QUESTION



Premise One of your syllogism:
"truth is useful"

Premise Two of your syllogism:
"creationism has proven itself to be incontravertably useless "

The conclusion:
"therefore creationism is a falsehood"

This is a Fallacy of Necessity. You assume that all things truthful must be useful. That's not necessarily true nor absolute. Then assigning my ownership to the thought completes a strawman fallacy. Just previously you said you were being pragamatic so does that mean that you believe moral and ethical considerations are factual concerns? We're having a problem with the very vocabulary post after post. I have to be honest, if there is a common ground here I don't think we'll ever find it. If it pleases you believe all the fault lies with me, by all means feel free to do so, I'm far from perfect and quite fallible. My ego get's run-over everyday what's one more time?

slight problem - it is YOUR proposition not mine, it is YOUR necessity that truth must always be useful - not mine
I merely decided to cut to the heart of the matter by examining one of your propositions - applying logic to it - and blowing the entire argument out of the water in a single shot.

here it is again just in case you forgot what you said:

logic compels that truth will always be useful.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2669978&postcount=787

Therefore - examining this statement logically - there are a number of outcomes:
1. if something is useful it must therefore be the truth
2. If something is not useful it must therefore be false
3. The proposition is entirely wrong

on the assumption that your proposition is correct, creationism must - as a result of its complete impotence in the field of applied and theoretical biology - be a falsehood.
on the assumption that your proposition is correct, creationism must - as a result of its inability to be socially cohesive - be a falsehood

The other alternative of course is that it is not necessarily logical to assume that what is truthful is also always useful.

which of these ironclad logical answers do you prefer?

either way - true or false - creationism proves itself to be useless.

Logic also dictates that; that which serves no useful purpose may safely be ignored until such a time that it proves itself to be of use - true or otherwise

 

[ElectricFetus]

Does it really matter? The tangent was inconsequential and I made a current sociological reply to the tangent. There was no inference on my part but you took it that way and so here we are.

You took us on the tangent not me, your the one that brought atheism into this.

That's the second time I've seen this accusation.
The 10 cubits is the inside of the sink.
The 30 cubits is the outside rim.

Ah but that is a matter of interpretation isn't it? Here another:

Matthew 4:8 "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;"

Tell me what this one means? Can I take it at face value that there is a mountain from which I can see the whole of the earth?

Okay....I don't agree.

You don't agree that evolution is not a "chief tenant" of atheism, or that it is or what?

I don't know you tell me.
I'm not saying evolution created atheism.

No but your saying atheism relies on it, why else would you call it a "chief tenant"?

As the very nature of the skepticism.
Likely the majority of atheist are Religious discontents. It's metaphysical just like religion..."Who am?" "What's my purpose here?"," What is the meaning of Life?" Evolution makes it possible not only to answer these questions but to self determine the answers as well.

Wait, evolution answers these questions? Holy shit please do tell me how to use evolution to derive these answers and what the answers are according to evolution!

I have never meat a practical atheist. All that I've met have had a religious chip on their shoulder and like all stereotypes it's well justified. And it's a shame that the name of science gets dragged along for the ride. Maybe that will change in the future but I project growing animosity between theist and atheist as time wears on.

You should read the Future Shock trilogy by Alvin Toffler: its a up hill battle as ever faster progressing science and technology grinds against culture, tradition, theology, philosophy and morality.

Maybe the change for the better for both sides starts on this forum...or maybe the war...after all we are the future.

Oh the internet is serious business now? Shit I better wear a tie while posting, or at the very least some cloths.

 

[Saquist]

You took us on the tangent not me, your the one that brought atheism into this.

I'm pretty sure It was not me that raised the question of the association of evolution and atheism.
I'm just along for the ride. That's the advantage of playing defense.

Ah but that is a matter of interpretation isn't it? Here another:

Indeed.
However objectively I will not evoke a fallacy based on an interpretation.

Matthew 4:8 "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;"

Tell me what this one means? Can I take it at face value that there is a mountain from which I can see the whole of the earth?

Does a spirit creature have this capacity?
I don't know. There have certainly been cases of visions in the bible before. The benefit of objectivity is the ability to not jump to snap conclusions just because of incredulity. It allows me to entertain not only the metaphor but the literalism of the testimony.

You don't agree that evolution is not a "chief tenant" of atheism,

That would be correct.

No but your saying atheism relies on it, why else would you call it a "chief tenant"?

I'm fairly certain I never said "rely".
Evolution is a prominent fixture of atheism, is that more clear?

Wait, evolution answers these questions? Holy shit please do tell me how to use evolution to derive these answers and what the answers are according to evolution!

Sorry, no spoilers.

You should read the Future Shock trilogy by Alvin Toffler: its a up hill battle as ever faster progressing science and technology grinds against culture, tradition, theology, philosophy and morality.

I'll look it up.
I hope it worth the time.

Oh the internet is serious business now? Shit I better wear a tie while posting, or at the very least some cloths.

By 2012 it will double it's size every 2 days.

 

[iceaura]

What exactly is my criteria for science, proof and etc, iceaura?

You have posted several versions, mutually incoherent and in total essentially gibberish, but all agreeing on the relevant point here in this thread:

Judicial and Scientific Rules

PROOF is observable reproducible Facts.
EVIDENCE in it's broadest meaning is anything which can support a claim.
SUPPORT defines speculation based on evidence.
CONJECTURE is baseless speculation

No Theory Based on another Theory can be considered properly supported.

Perhaps it is my failing but I did not understand how continuing to consider Flat Earth as a viable in the presence of direct contradictory evidence.

There is no direct, contradictory evidence except of kinds you have rejected as invalid when the subject is evolution. See your post as quoted: theory based on another theory is not properly supported.

If you do not understand why and how consistency is important in reasoning, that is even less fortunate a symptom than conflating judicial and scientific rules.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I'm pretty sure It was not me that raised the question of the association of evolution and atheism.
I'm just along for the ride. That's the advantage of playing defense.

Post 787,

Unless you prove theist wrong then you would have me indulge in factual fallacies simply to favor atheistic views which would be the antithesis of objective logic.

You started this, evolution is not "atheistic", nor is lack of belief in creationism.

Indeed.
However objectively I will not evoke a fallacy based on an interpretation.

So than your saying you would not evoke creationism base on biblical interpretation?

Does a spirit creature have this capacity?
I don't know. There have certainly been cases of visions in the bible before. The benefit of objectivity is the ability to not jump to snap conclusions just because of incredulity. It allows me to entertain not only the metaphor but the literalism of the testimony.

Oh snap the bible has metaphors in it? If you were in fact objective than you would have no problem playing with when its metaphorical and when its literal to achieve results that are within logic and evidence.

That would be correct.

So then we are back to square one, I repeatedly laid down arguments to how evolution is not a chief tenant of atheism and you refuse to even listen let alone counter argue.

I'm fairly certain I never said "rely".
Evolution is a prominent fixture of atheism, is that more clear?

Again its neither reliant or a component of atheism, and if your saying their associated well so is wine to liberals, but association is irrelevant, it does not make one a categorical item of another: Liberals tend to drink wine, that does not mean wine is liberalistic!

Sorry, no spoilers.

Again no evidence from you, I will just assume your wrong until you show me how evolution answers those questions.

By 2012 it will double it's size every 2 days.

So?

 

[scifes]

So the fact that the overwhelming majority of people who do have the requisite knowledge have become sufficiently fed up by a century of ignorant mucking around in the public discourse that they fail to verbally defer to bizarre bullshit the fiftieth time it comes flying out the back of the Abrahamic manure spreader,

that they no longer respect the barrage, no longer treat it as legitimate argument, no longer even attempt to persuade the benighted that have proven themselves immune to reason, fact, argument, circumstance, and their own repeated refutation in every new event and discovery of every year's actual research,

and so... they fake their evidence?
is that how right and fact-backed up they are?

is evidence against evolutionary theory?

evidence is against scientists neutrality when it comes to evolution.

and that effects any evidence regarding evolution, which is a scientific matter, and so its evidence is to be decided by scientists. which makes judging the whole thing very hard. it's like i first said, evolution is to be decided by scientists, and if you deny evolution you're not a scientist.

 

[spidergoat]

If you deny evolution without any adequate evidence to do so, you are not a scientist. How can scientists be neutral about the most successful theory in all of biology?