Author Topic: Public Charter Schools Teaching Creationism And Right-Wing Propaganda In Texas  (Read 18829 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6947
  • Darwins +940/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
^^^^^^

nogodsforme

I think BibleStudent mentioned some "Atheist Liberal Scientific Conspiracy" or something like that.

Apparently there is plenty of evidence for "God" except it is being covered up by Atheist Science.

Although, I think BibleStudent should be careful, he might find himself on the Atheist Science hit list.   ;)

Yeah, a conspiracy so large and all-encompassing that there is no sign of its existence! Christian and Jewish and Muslim and Hindu and Buddhist scientists worldwide would have to be brainwashed to go along--maybe by the CIA, or the Vatican, or the British Royal Family or demonic hip-hop artists--who knows?[1]

Once again, this conspiracy would have to produce ginormous amounts of fake results, results so carefully designed as to make it appear as if so-called global vaccination campaigns based on dawkinist evil-lution actually worked. People would be fooled into thinking they were being protected from smallpox, polio, measles and chickenpox all over the world.

That is how insidious the Atheist Liberal Scientific Conspiracy is. Even creationists would come to believe they were not getting these diseases! Despite concerted efforts by prayer warriors,  children stubbornly refuse to contract these medieval illnesses and plagues as they would have back in bible times....

Damn those evil-lutionists! (shaking fist)
&) ;D
 1. And Michael Jackson is really alive-- I just heard that one recently.... &)
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 570
  • Darwins +86/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
I never referred to any probability calculation. Your insistence along with jaimehler’s inplications that I am using a probability based argument is rather odd when I have indicated more than once that I am not.

But every time you say something is impossible, you are making a probability calculation. Saying something is impossible is just saying that something has 0% probability. We want to see how you make that calculation. Capiche?
If you keep on living your life as though your purpose is to be saved and go to heaven, you are missing the heaven that you are living in right now.

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
I never referred to any probability calculation. Your insistence along with jaimehler’s inplications that I am using a probability based argument is rather odd when I have indicated more than once that I am not.

But every time you say something is impossible, you are making a probability calculation. Saying something is impossible is just saying that something has 0% probability. We want to see how you make that calculation. Capiche?

I have doubts that BibleStudent understands what impossible means, or probability for that matter.

See following quote:

Getting back to the point, the problem isn't that you're unwilling to change your mind.  It's that you can and have declared that things that you disagree with were impossible or couldn't have happened, unless someone practically throws it in your face.  It's one thing to say that you don't agree with something or that you don't think it could have happened; it's quite another to say that it's impossible or that it cannot have happened.  The former is expressing your opinion; the latter comes across more as arrogance than anything.

Then, going forward, I will refrain from using the word “impossible.” Easy fix.

BibleStudent was true to his word, he stopped using the word "impossible" however he instead started saying things like "I do not consider it to be possible" and "no possible way", as well as asking questions like "Is it possible ..." and then answering his own question with "no".

I don't think BibleStudent understands that "not possible" and "impossible" are the same thing.

Or that saying "I think it is impossible" is the same as saying "I don't consider it to be possible".
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins

Instead of just referring to aposteriori knowledge, perhaps you could present us with this knowledge that you claim to have.


Well, for one I have direct empirical knowledge that your arguments are fallacious and that you refuse to admit your errors and correct them.

Quote
Secondly, as Jaime rightly noted in his rebuttal to you, since you have only one universe to examine (and one case of life),

Are you sure there is only one universe? Argument from ignorance…AGAIN !!

Can you even read? DO YOU even read what is written?? Read my post again! I said you have exactly one universe TO OBSERVE. You need to start studying your logical fallacies better b/c you are firing off charges of them in shotgun manner and it's bullshit b/c you're not even paying attention. I have made no argument from ignorance here. I have argued from what is known not from what is not known! But YOU HAVE committed another fallacy b/c you have misrepresented my position!! It's called a Strawman. Are you going to just keep doing that so dishonestly? Please think, read, and respond more carefully.


I never referred to any probability calculation. Your insistence along with jaimehler’s inplications that I am using a probability based argument is rather odd when I have indicated more than once that I am not.

Really...so let's get this straight then. You DO NOT think, then, that abiogenesis is basically impossible and that a divine creator is more likely to be the case?? You have implied this quite a few times (if not stated it outright).

Quote
'Where you sit' is on a bedrock of ignorance and incredulity (and gullibility mixed with pseudoscience).

Colorful….but senseless and rather adolescent.

Only an adolescent is required to note your string of fallacious arguments thus far.

Quote
You have not demonstrated that there are "insurmountable problems"

Yes, I have. You are just not reading my comments very carefully.

You are in error again. I have read them. You have not demonstrated anything of the kind you claim. You have just CLAIMED it (along with Meyer and the others). Those aren't the same things. I rebutted the fallacies you attempted to use and you just ignored the rebuttals, it seems.

Quote
And all "insurmountable" means is, "It's impossible without a God!"

Colorful…..but senseless and rather adolescent. I can only assume that you are trying to flaunt your ego rather than address the issues.

So then I am the adolescent now talking to the small child. "The word 'insurmountable' has many synonyms and one of them is 'impossible'. Do you know what impossible means Tommy? It means that something could not have happened."

Insurmountable at Dictionary.com ("Impossible" is a synonym)

So you are in fact using an argument from incredulity fallacy in an attempt to support your position, because you are saying "it could not have happened" (aka - It is insurmountable aka impossible). Are you now willing to admit you are using this argument and retract it?

Quote
The fact that you can't see this though is not surprising. Your continual use of the incredulity fallacy doesn't make it any less fallacious.

Do you know that an argument can contain fallacies and still be accurate?

Wow, a new tactic. Are you admitting now that your arguments contain fallacious reasoning?

Quote
Secondly, even if it were true that I had "no way of knowing" (and it's not) this would't get you even one step closer to proving your mere assertion of "It's impossible without magicYahweh

This is a statement of opinion and offers no substance to the discussion.

NOPE. It is not my opinion whatsoever. You really need to go back and do your logic homework more carefully. Take a junior course in Logic 100 or something. It is logically fallacious to state because a person does not know how a specific phenomena occurred that such a phenomena is impossible. I'm sorry that you have decided to shrug off any refutation of your fallacious arguments as "opinion" but your arguments are still in error.


Okay. If you say that you “made no argument stating abiogenesis happened” then I believe you.
Also, how can you know I am pretending? For someone who accuses of logical fallacies like they were raining from the sky, you sure make a lot fallacious arguments yourself.

If I had any confidence that you actually knew what you were talking about in regards to noting informal logical fallacies (and I don't) I might take this statement seriously. At least 3 times in this discussion you have pushed forward false charges against my rebuttals to you. I rebutted those false charges and still you will not correct your errors. Where is your intellectual integrity? I thought you were supposed to be a follower of Christ/God, who is supposedly watching your every thought, word, and action.

Faith is pretending to know what you don't know (or believing things without sound reason), and that is what I perceive you to be doing.

Quote
You just stated earlier that there is "no known natural law" that can explain abiogenesis. Is there some "known law" that explains your God?

All “known laws” of nature explain God.

That doesn't explain anything! Care to actually provide something more substantial than just "God didit" again? You didn't even bother to define what the crap it is you are talking about when you use the term "God" (first off), and you didn't do any work explaining how you think you know this alleged "God" thing provides a meaningful/useful/coherent explanation for any natural law. You might as well have said, "All known laws of nature explain blarkschmarbelfarben"

Quote
You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. My response was that even if this were true (and it's not) then it would also apply to YOUR argument as well. "Not known" = "We don't know" which means you don't get to just ASSERT some supernatural deity 'thing' and pretend it's "more plausible" or somehow scientific.

The “pretend” accusation again.  &)

The dismissal of my rebuttal and refusal to address it, again. This seems to be your MO. My point stands. If you do not currently know a law, or method, or pathway for life's origination on the earth then YOU TOO must admit ignorance. This whole time you have been practicing intellectual hypocrisy b/c you have, on one hand, accused many of us here of arguing from ignorance (Abiogenesis didit) but then a second later claim God didit. That doesn't explain anything. It has no explanatory power because it provides no new information of HOW (the pathway) life got here.

Stop pretending you know things you don't know.

Quote
We're back to the argument for Zeus from unknown lightening! If there was no known law, or no known rational explanation, then you too would be in that category of NOT KNOWING. But you're not, are you? You're not willing to admit ignorance on the subject. Due to your presuppositional confirmation bias (which is based in your assumed theology) you jump the gun and assert "magic is more plausible."

And still more logical fallacies and unsubstantiated accusations.

I'll take this as the admission of your defeat, since you didn't even bother to address the argument I made and instead just shrugged it off by making bald assertions with no backing. The argument I made was not fallacious (I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise - not just CLAIM as you always do) and it was in fact substantiated on it's own. If there is no known rational (aka - valid and sound) explanation for life's origins then you, also, would be in that category of "no known" (aka - no one knows).

Merely asserting "God didit" is akin to claiming magic (yes, more real than David Copperfield, David Blane, or Criss Angel - doing tricks that seem impossible).


Oh brother. The ToE may be the biggest shell game ever crafted and you are going to accuse IDT of that? Okay, now you are really demonstrating self deception and ignorance.

Keep telling yourself that, but it doesn't make it anymore true. Saying it is so doesn't make it so. Sorry dude. Care to actually demonstrate how the entire theory of evolution (including ALL of it's constituent parts - as you just claimed) are "the biggest shell game crafted"? Are you actually some conspiracy theorist who thinks biological organisms do not change the frequency of their alleles, or do you just have no clue WTF you're talking about b/c you haven't studied the science.

Quote
Are you really that dishonest so as to claim you're NOT making the "Goddidit" argument in one section of a post and then later do exactly that?

What? Please read what I am writing instead of what you THINK I am writing.


There is absolutely no convincing evidence for speciation so if you are clumping that into your argument that the ToE is a scientific theory then you are being willfully dishonest.

That's a funny statement because the overwhelming amount of scientists (many of whom are professing Christians btw) who have actually studied this stuff disagree with you and not only find the evidence quite convincing, but have also demonstrated speciation in a lab. Do you even know what speciation is according to the scientific community? There is no "willfully dishonest" in rebutting your nonsense claims based in your ignorance of the subject. But there is your dishonesty by continually using the argument from incredulity fallacy and refusing and admit and correct it.

Second, even if there was no evidence for speciation (and there is ample) you would still have to demonstrate your thesis (not just claim it). Your deity conjecture doesn't win by default. You need actual evidence in science.

Quote
Have you even bothered to take any biology courses? If so, which ones? Please name them specifically. In case you hadn't noticed, science doesn't deal in "absolute truth". It apportions understanding and knowledge based upon the preponderance of evidence (and often times that evidence takes many years to both study and understand - just like mathematics, physics, and many other disciplines). Does this really need to be pointed out to you? Your mere attempt of hole poking (just like Meyers and all the rest in the ID movement), along with the "It's impossible w/out a designer!" cry, displays quite clearly the anti-science agenda that lies just beneath the surface - oh the irony of those words: "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves..."

I’ll grant that you are gifted at commentary but not so gifted at making factual arguments.

I'll take that as a resounding "No" since you pulled a big fat dodge here and didn't answer my questions. So basically, you haven't taken any proper courses on the relevant subjects of which we are discussing (aka - any evolutionary biology, biological anthropology, or paleontology courses). Is this correct?


Yet another genuine display of ignorance and self-deception. You slithered right past the example I gave and didn’t even address it.

I actually already addressed this and you ignored it or forgot about it but I will address it again. First, abiogenesis is a separate domain from ToE (which deals with life as it is already found here) and the scientific community actually agrees with me. Have you bothered to ask actual biologists or paleontologists about this? I know at least six professional biologists (friends and acquaintances) working in the field right now (4 of whom believe in a God and ALL of whom have done post doctoral work), but facts just don't matter to you do they? I'm sorry, the ignorance and self-deception are yours.

Secondly, the analogy of abiogenesis and ToE to the steel industry with car making is an inaccurate one because we are talking about different domains of study and investigation (not artificial human invention pertaining to things we already understand). In the steel industry we have demonstrations of human designers poring steel (no study required). We do not, however, have this with life origin studies. Again, abiogenesis is a different domain of inquiry. It may be related to ToE but it is still a different subject with different competing hypotheses. They are not the same.


I did this earlier in the thread. You are more than welcome to browse back through my posts and find it.

No, you didn't. You did not provide a detailed explanation of what the ToE actually states, as stated by the biologists teaching it and working in the field themselves. You started off by merely claiming that ID is a "theory", when it's not. You then began criticizing a textbook for using the word "know". We rebutted that. Then you claimed that ID is science by copy/pasting evolution news alleged predictions (those claims were rebutted, as they were not specific to ID or post hoc). Then you went on to admit that your argument for ID is in fact a NEGATIVE argument (indicating that you have no positive evidence for ID - just claims). You then went on to claim that ID does just an "excellent job" of stating how a creator is possible (which still is not science but assertion without sound evidence). Then, in #95 you indicate that you are not a denier of the ToE (when just a few paragraphs back from here you implied that it was false and that speciation doesn't occur). Then you admit that it is just your opinion that ID is science and that it "pushes the boundaries" (no duh). Then in #152 you make arguments for God/Christianity (which clearly is not science and all of which I rebutted). You continue to equivocate on the word "know" as if it means absolute perfection of unchanging information (when it doesn't) and falsely claim we have "faith in science". Later you just claim (again) that the fine tuning argument is sound while claiming that we are "handcuffed" to naturalism (which are both false since many Christians accept ToE and the FT argument has been addressed). You then say "science is hopeless" to show abiogenesis true (another mere assertion of incredulity) claiming afterward that the scientific community has abandoned abiogenesis as possible (upon which you are rebutted and shown otherwise). After that you just start in with the "insurmountable" claim.

Nowhere in your posts have you actually properly demonstrated the ToE (detailed in your own words), as taught by mainstream biologists in the relevant fields. If I am wrong and missed a post where you did please demonstrate that.


I have already addressed this elsewhere in this thread, too.
You’re methods are just a little too obvious and I pointed that out earlier in the thread, too. You’re usefulness in discussions is limited to skimming through posts, locating a theist, and then aggressively pursuing that theist with some very immature and condescending  remarks.  There is simply no substance to your arguments. Frankly, to tell the truth, I find your posts rather comical and laugh through much of them.

Is that how you think your Jesus would have you respond? Is that the "fruit of the spirit" you are supposed to be showing? If you're just laughing then perhaps you don't really care if your beliefs are true. Maybe you're just not paying attention b/c my responses contain lots of substance.

The philosophical arguments you pointed to in other threads did not show how (specifically) they point to a God. All they did was CLAIM and those claims were rebutted. My response here was asking how exactly you think nature points to a deity. Is dodging

Quote
No, it is not my opinion.

Yes it is.

And you're calling me adolescent? This is childish, since this isn't the only thing I stated and went on to discuss the reasons why.

Quote
It is a fact that you are attempting to use logical fallacies to support your position, and then fallaciously trying to turn the tables (Tu Quoque fallacy), in an attempt to shift the burden of proof (another fallacy). There is no argument from ignorance in my rebuttal b/c I did not (and have not) attempted (as you are attempting) to use the lack of evidence as evidence to support an assertion (in your case the assertion is "God [whatever that means] did it").

Spewing a bunch of jumbled up gibberish does not make your argument any more accurate.

The fact that you would shrug my response off as "gibberish" is really telling of your whole attitude toward this entire discussion (that no matter what you won't be corrected or admit error). That's pretty prideful and arrogant. WWJD?

Quote
You really need to go back and study your informal logical fallacies a bit better.

Yes, I guess so if I am going to continue discussing anything with you. It seems that’s all you know.

This is more lying for Jesus b/c I've demonstrated having knowledge of other things besides only the informal logical fallacies. Carm.org (a Christian site) has a whole list of them. Why is it so hard for you to admit when you have (perhaps accidentally) used a fallacy and then retract or correct it?


Perhaps you just aren’t capable of comprehending what IDT has shown.

This is actually a funny statement b/c I was a Christian for nearly 20 years, and a strong proponent of ID for many years. I understand the arguments by Meyer, Behe, Johnson, Dembski, Wells, and others very well. I've read most of their books and argued from their POV for a long time. The difference is, I put truth and rationality above dogmatism and agenda and later realized the arguments are irrational (filled with fallacies as has been shown by many here).


I don’t recall Stephen Meyer saying that Goddit. You must be hearing things. At least you acknowledge that he identified the reasons IDT works.

Meyer has admitted elsewhere that this is his belief (some intelligent force beyond the universe - God - [for which he has no evidence] - did it) and the assertion of ID makes assumptions about what "intelligence" is (as if it is something beyond nature/supernatural). As noted before, Meyer makes lots more assumptions/mere assertions (It's nano technology! etc), none of which are substantiated. They are merely assumed. And this even came out in the Dover trial. Second, I have identified the mere assertions which amount a logical fallacious (argument from incredulity). ID does not "work" b/c it does not demonstrate it's intent. Like you are doing, it just ASSERTS by use of a fallacy that these things just cannot be explained naturalistically (not that they have not, but that they cannot - and that is a fallacy).

Besides that, as others have noted, science does not deal in the supernatural and cannot investigate such claims. So the assertions of ID can't get off the ground b/c they are positing the supernatural.

Quote
No, what Meyer is doing here is ASSUMING a definition of "information" (as if information is something magical - when it's not), and assuming what he is trying to prove (namely that there is "specificity" - which requires a mind - in molecules). His argument amounts to nothing more than, "We notice that things are happening with DNA. It just can't be the chemistry and physics that explains it. They can't explain it to my satisfaction. Therefore magic didit." This is all completely question begging and fallacious (argument from ignorance) - putting the cart before the horse. His argument comes right down to, "It just couldn't have happened naturally, therefore magicdesigner didit."

Well, until chemistry and physics can demonstrate otherwise, you really can’t falsify the claims of IDT, can you?


ID can't be falsified, period. It is unfalsifiable b/c it's proponents (like you) have too much at stake to allow it to be falsified. Instead, the goal post is moved each time a refutation is brought forth (like when Ken Miller refuted IC in the trial). And merely pointing out specific things within evolutionary biology that are not explained (to the satisfaction of the Christian ID community who can't stand ToE to be true) while dismissing the mountain of evidence we have for evolution is dishonest (especially since countless evolutionary biologists are professing Christians and disagree with you, Meyer, and the rest of them).

Quote
Sorry. Still not science! Have you actually researched the scientists who have responded to this assertion by Meyer? Have you actually looked into the scientific responses to these things?

Again, no need to apologize. And, no, I have done absolutely no research whatsoever regarding the arguments for and against IDT. Now you are just getting ridiculous.

This makes no sense. If you have researched the rebuttals to ID why have you not been honest enough to present them here and attempt to address them?

Quote
What a lie, you just did claim that God did it above!
You asked if a machine were invented that could create another machine if I would claim that God did it. I said no. Now, if you want to back that idea all the way up to the beginning of time and ask if God somehow hand a hand in it, then I would say yes…but that’s not what you asked.

Go back and read what you wrote. You contradicted yourself by claiming, out of one side of your mouth, that you were not claiming that God did it (or at least implying that), and then a moment later, out of the other side, saying that is exactly what you think (that God did it). So you just demonstrated a double standard. For you, it's not OK for anyone to say "abiogenesis did it", but it is OK for you to say, "God did it". Hypocrisy.

Why can't you actually be honest about this? Aren't you supposed to be a follower of Christ?

Quote
Secondly, you (like Meyer) have yet to actually demonstrate what "intelligence" actually is (except to imply that it is something magical, mystical, or supernatural). The burden of proof is on you to show that. Again, it does not logically follow that b/c humans can create computer programs capable of reproducing themselves that therefore humans must have had some divine supernatural creator.

The argument may not follow for you but who are you that the world should believe you?

The "who are you" argument, really? This isn't a rational response. It just sounds like you want to makeup your own logical rules to get around the fact that you are drawing conclusions that do not follow from the premises. That's a really dishonest tactic. It's like saying, "It may not follow for you that two plus two equals 5, but who are you that the world should believe you?"

The irrational argument which does not follow:

P1- Humans can create computer programs that can reproduce themselves
C - Therefore, there must have been an intelligence that created humans like humans create computer programs

This argument is unsound because there is no necessary connection between the premises and the conclusion.


It is most certainly NOT an argument from incredulity if IDT demonstrates that it CANNOT and, so far, they have made a VERY compelling case.

No, they haven't. They have not demonstrated ALL of the potential possibilities by which biological systems could have evolved naturally. This is what would have to be shown in order to right say that, something like the bacterial flagellum, could not have come about via the processes of evolution by natural selection. They are merely ASSERTING that it is impossible to explain naturalistically (just like the ancients did with lightening and Zeus). It's completely fallacious. At best you'd have to admit you don't know how it happened. No amount of rationalizing is going to get you to justify an argument from incredulity, especially since asserting a supernatural cause is not science.


More commentary with little substance. You keep asserting that IDT is not science but you never demonstrate it by referring to any specific claims IDT makes. You just make comments that, I hate to tell you, are just personal opinions you have.


Yes, I'm sure you "hate to tell" me. Right.

Arguments from incredulity and post hoc predictions are not science. If you think they are then please demonstrate that. Even in the Dover trial, Behe reluctantly admitted that his definition of science would include astrology (and henceforth alchemy and witchcraft, etc). Is this who you are believing for a definition of what science is?

ID does not focus upon the natural world or seek to actually explain details of the "hows and why" (it posits something beyond the natural order), does not have testable hypotheses b/c we cannot test the alleged "designer" (as noted by mainstream biologists in the related fields),  rarely publishes in peer reviewed journals and very rarely (if ever) modifies it's assertions from criticisms by those in the respective fields, has no ongoing research which has lead to any new discoveries, and does not build upon current scientific knowledge. I'm sorry, ID is just not science. It is conjecture toward the supernatural.

Median, if you want me to take you seriously, then tone it down with the verbal theatrics. Your posts are more of an ‘attack’ than an attempt at dialogue and I would really rather spend my time conversing about the issues than having to be your show audience.

If you want me to "tone down" then you need to start getting honest and admit that you are using logically fallacious arguments, as well as discontinue the flippant brushing off (and laughing off) of the rebuttals and expositions I have presented.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2014, 04:02:42 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
The dismissal of my rebuttal and refusal to address it, again. This seems to be your MO.
_________

I'll take this as the admission of your defeat, since you didn't even bother to address the argument I made and instead just shrugged it off by making bald assertions with no backing.
_________

The fact that you would shrug my response off as "gibberish" is really telling of your whole attitude toward this entire discussion (that no matter what you won't be corrected or admit error).
_________

If you have researched the rebuttals to ID why have you not been honest enough to present them here and attempt to address them?
_________

If you want me to "tone down" then you need to start getting honest and admit that you are using logically fallacious arguments, as well as discontinue the flippant brushing off (and laughing off) of the rebuttals and expositions I have presented.

This certainly sums up BibleStudent's MO.  He has regularly ignored valid arguments and responded or dismissed them with logical fallacies.  This entire thread demonstrates probably over a dozen unique logical fallacies, all used by BibleStudent (a few of which he uses repeatedly).  He appears to have no qualms about using logical fallacies in order to hold onto his false beliefs.



Well, until chemistry and physics can demonstrate otherwise, you really can’t falsify the claims of IDT, can you?


ID can't be falsified, period. It is unfalsifiable b/c it's proponents (like you) have too much at stake to allow it to be falsified. Instead, the goal post is moved each time a refutation is brought forth (like when Ken Miller refuted IC in the trial). And merely pointing out specific things within evolutionary biology that are not explained (to the satisfaction of the Christian ID community who can't stand ToE to be true) while dismissing the mountain of evidence we have for evolution is dishonest (especially since countless evolutionary biologists are professing Christians and disagree with you, Meyer, and the rest of them).

I really don't think BibleStudent understands how a hypothesis is falsified.  Several people have tried to explain this to him, notably was jaimehlers attempt.  I also don't think BibleStudent knows what the word "falsifiable" means either (which jaimehlers also tried to explain to BibleStudent but I'm not sure if he read it).

For example, the quote that you replied to median, BibleStudent seems to think it is a good thing that ID can't be falsified.  He thinks that some other theory or hypothesis is the only way to falsify a specific hypothesis.

The argument may not follow for you but who are you that the world should believe you?

The "who are you" argument, really? This isn't a rational response. It just sounds like you want to makeup your own logical rules to get around the fact that you are drawing conclusions that do not follow from the premises. That's a really dishonest tactic. It's like saying, "It may not follow for you that two plus two equals 5, but who are you that the world should believe you?"

The irrational argument which does not follow:

P1- Humans can create computer programs that can reproduce themselves
C - Therefore, there must have been an intelligence that created humans like humans create computer programs

This argument is unsound because there is no necessary connection between the premises and the conclusion.

Hehe, not that this means anything but I predicted he would do this back on page 6.

It doesn't really matter what I say does it.  No matter how convincing, sensible, rational, logical or correct I may be, you can just fall back on "SevenPatch is just some nobody on the Internet, I'll just keep believing the guy with a phd who says things that confirm my beliefs".

Although I'm surprised it took him so long.

EDIT: Spelling
« Last Edit: February 26, 2014, 05:45:33 PM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Well, for one I have direct empirical knowledge that your arguments are fallacious and that you refuse to admit your errors and correct them.

1. You are completely dodging what I asked.
2. You are spelling the word a posterior wrong. ParkingPlaces pointed this out to me in post #750 but elected, for some reason,
    to point it out to you. Go figure.
3. How is it that you can invoke rules of logic when you cannot even account for them. Isn't logic a process of the mind?  Yes. Isn't logical
    thought based upon the laws of logic?  If logic is conceptual (a process of the mind) and certainly appear to be universally true, then what
    are the conditions that must be in place in order for the laws of logic to be universally true so that you can cite them and use them?  How
    do the truth statements that we call the laws of logic obtain their universal nature? How do you know that the laws of logic are true?  Do
    you just assume they are true? (www.carm.org)

Quote
Can you even read? DO YOU even read what is written?? Read my post again! I said you have exactly one universe TO OBSERVE.

You never used the word “observe” anywhere in the post you are referring to.

Quote
You need to start studying your logical fallacies better b/c you are firing off charges of them in shotgun manner and it's bullshit b/c you're not even paying attention. I have made no argument from ignorance here. I have argued from what is known not from what is not known! But YOU HAVE committed another fallacy b/c you have misrepresented my position!! It's called a Strawman. Are you going to just keep doing that so dishonestly? Please think, read, and respond more carefully.

Until you can provide a reason why I should believe that your use of logic is valid, then your accusations are simply nonsensical and hold no weight whatsoever.

Quote
Really...so let's get this straight then. You DO NOT think, then, that abiogenesis is basically impossible and that a divine creator is more likely to be the case?? You have implied this quite a few times (if not stated it outright).

Abiogenesis is clearly not possible. I am aware of your contention that I am making an argument from incredulity but I submit that you are making the same logical blunder by declaring that He does not exist. Either Either He does or does not exist. There are no other alternatives. And, please do not respond by stating that you have never claimed He does not exist because I can clearly show that you have.

Quote
Only an adolescent is required to note your string of fallacious arguments thus far.
Again, I see no point in giving any credence to your charge of fallacious arguments since you have no way of claiming there are any absolute laws of logic.

Quote
You are in error again. I have read them. You have not demonstrated anything of the kind you claim. You have just CLAIMED it (along with Meyer and the others). Those aren't the same things. I rebutted the fallacies you attempted to use and you just ignored the rebuttals, it seems.

As I have stated before, there are impenetrable roadblocks to any sort of chemical evolution. Abiogenesis as any type of scientific hypothesis is undefendable. If, as you imply, God is a myth, then abiogenesis is a fairytale times 10. If I am wrong on this point, then please offer some evidence to demonstrate that abiogenesis is possible.

Quote
And all "insurmountable" means is, "It's impossible without a God!"

Quote
Colorful…..but senseless and rather adolescent. I can only assume that you are trying to flaunt your ego rather than address the issues.

Quote
So then I am the adolescent now talking to the small child. "The word 'insurmountable' has many synonyms and one of them is 'impossible'. Do you know what impossible means Tommy? It means that something could not have happened."

Insurmountable at Dictionary.com ("Impossible" is a synonym)

So you are in fact using an argument from incredulity fallacy in an attempt to support your position, because you are saying "it could not have happened" (aka - It is insurmountable aka impossible). Are you now willing to admit you are using this argument and retract it?

You are inserting a strawman into the argument. I have not stated that “abiogenesis is not possible, therefore God.” Even if were not possible, abiogenesis is still untenable.

Quote
Wow, a new tactic. Are you admitting now that your arguments contain fallacious reasoning?

Why did you not answer my question? I will ask it again: Do you know that an argument can contain fallacies and still be accurate?

Quote
NOPE. It is not my opinion whatsoever. You really need to go back and do your logic homework more carefully.

According to the rules of logic that you cannot provide a case for? If you could only really comprehend how saddening it is that you accuse me of something that your naturalistic worldview is incapable of explain.

Quote
If I had any confidence that you actually knew what you were talking about in regards to noting informal logical fallacies (and I don't) I might take this statement seriously. At least 3 times in this discussion you have pushed forward false charges against my rebuttals to you. I rebutted those false charges and still you will not correct your errors. Where is your intellectual integrity? I thought you were supposed to be a follower of Christ/God, who is supposedly watching your every thought, word, and action.

Faith is pretending to know what you don't know (or believing things without sound reason), and that is what I perceive you to be doing

Merriam-Webster will help you better define faith because you are creating your own bogus definition.

And, more irony. Proponents of the ToE use a form of faith to try and stabilize their belief but yet they are too fearful to admit it.

Quote
You just stated earlier that there is "no known natural law" that can explain abiogenesis. Is there some "known law" that explains your God?

Quote
All “known laws” of nature explain God.

Quote
That doesn't explain anything! Care to actually provide something more substantial than just "God didit" again? You didn't even bother to define what the crap it is you are talking about when you use the term "God" (first off), and you didn't do any work explaining how you think you know this alleged "God" thing provides a meaningful/useful/coherent explanation for any natural law. You might as well have said, "All known laws of nature explain blarkschmarbelfarben"

There is only one logical way to explain the existence of the laws of nature and that is that God created them. You are excluding God as the premise and instead placing Him in the conclusion and consequently you have robbed yourself from going where the evidence leads.


Quote
The dismissal of my rebuttal and refusal to address it, again. This seems to be your MO. My point stands. If you do not currently know a law, or method, or pathway for life's origination on the earth then YOU TOO must admit ignorance.

Rational arguments can be made in the complete absence of ignorance. You should know this. You employ this line of reasoning  repeatedly.

Quote
We're back to the argument for Zeus from unknown lightening! If there was no known law, or no known rational explanation, then you too would be in that category of NOT KNOWING. But you're not, are you? You're not willing to admit ignorance on the subject. Due to your presuppositional confirmation bias (which is based in your assumed theology) you jump the gun and assert "magic is more plausible."

Quote
And still more logical fallacies and unsubstantiated accusations.

Quote
I'll take this as the admission of your defeat, since you didn't even bother to address the argument I made and instead just shrugged it off by making bald assertions with no backing. The argument I made was not fallacious (I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise - not just CLAIM as you always do) and it was in fact substantiated on it's own. If there is no known rational (aka - valid and sound) explanation for life's origins then you, also, would be in that category of "no known" (aka - no one knows).

Merely asserting "God didit" is akin to claiming magic (yes, more real than David Copperfield, David Blane, or Criss Angel - doing tricks that seem impossible).

1. If you have an argument that you would like to make for the existence of Zeus, I am all ears.
2. I will not admit ignorance because ignorance Is not present in the rational argument to be for the existence of God.
3. Are you willing to admit to your presuppositional bias? I am…and I work very hard to tame it so as to avoid being persuaded by
    unsubstantiated claims. Do you?
4. Explain why you are asserting that there is no known rational explanation for life’s origins.
5. Your statement “merely asserting "God didit" is akin to claiming magic (yes, more real than David Copperfield, David Blane, or Criss Angel -
    doing tricks that seem impossible)” is an argument from ignorance. You are claiming that God does not exist absent any proof to support
    that claim. If God does exist, then He does not need to use magic.

Quote
Keep telling yourself that, but it doesn't make it anymore true. Saying it is so doesn't make it so. Sorry dude. Care to actually demonstrate how the entire theory of evolution (including ALL of it's constituent parts - as you just claimed) are "the biggest shell game crafted"? Are you actually some conspiracy theorist who thinks biological organisms do not change the frequency of their alleles, or do you just have no clue WTF you're talking about b/c you haven't studied the science.

If you inferred that I was referring to every aspect of the ToE, then you misunderstood.

This will do nicely:
http://creationwiki.org/Evolution_can%27t_be_falsified_%28Talk.Origins%29

Quote
That's a funny statement because the overwhelming amount of scientists (many of whom are professing Christians btw) who have actually studied this stuff disagree with you and not only find the evidence quite convincing,

What does that prove?
Argument ad populum.

Quote
but have also demonstrated speciation in a lab.

Please share an example of a confirmed snakes-from-lizards type example.

Quote
Do you even know what speciation is according to the scientific community?

Yes, but I reject the conclusions it draws to argue snakes-from-lizards.

Quote
There is no "willfully dishonest" in rebutting your nonsense claims based in your ignorance of the subject. But there is your dishonesty by continually using the argument from incredulity fallacy and refusing and admit and correct it.

There you go again….accusing me of logical fallacies with no way of demonstrating that you have a basis to do so.


Quote
Second, even if there was no evidence for speciation (and there is ample) you would still have to demonstrate your thesis (not just claim it). Your deity conjecture doesn't win by default. You need actual evidence in science.

Intelligent Design Theory demonstrates the existence of ‘complex specified information’ that is compelling evidence for an intelligent source. We’ve been over this.

Quote
I'll take that as a resounding "No" since you pulled a big fat dodge here and didn't answer my questions. So basically, you haven't taken any proper courses on the relevant subjects of which we are discussing (aka - any evolutionary biology, biological anthropology, or paleontology courses). Is this correct?

Yes, I have taken courses on the relevant subjects but what relevance does that have? Are you trying the old “you don’t have a PhD so you don’t know nothin’” angle?


Quote
I actually already addressed this and you ignored it or forgot about it but I will address it again. First, abiogenesis is a separate domain from ToE (which deals with life as it is already found here)

Again, this is just an absolutely ridiculous claim.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/pretending-that-evolutionary-theory-is-separable-from-abiogenesis/

Quote
and the scientific community actually agrees with me. Have you bothered to ask actual biologists or paleontologists about this? I know at least six professional biologists (friends and acquaintances) working in the field right now (4 of whom believe in a God and ALL of whom have done post doctoral work), but facts just don't matter to you do they? I'm sorry, the ignorance and self-deception are yours.

Argument ad populum.
If you are the type of individual who simply takes other people’s claims as gospel because they accredited somehow, then all the power to you. I prefer to make up my own mind based on facts, not people’s opinions and arm patches.

Quote
Secondly, the analogy of abiogenesis and ToE to the steel industry with car making is an inaccurate one because we are talking about different domains of study and investigation (not artificial human invention pertaining to things we already understand). In the steel industry we have demonstrations of human designers poring steel (no study required). We do not, however, have this with life origin studies. Again, abiogenesis is a different domain of inquiry. It may be related to ToE but it is still a different subject with different competing hypotheses. They are not the same.

Fail. Your ability to rationalize needs some work. This is one of the more desperate attempts to create separation that I’ve seen in a while. Now I can see why you deny any existence of overlap in abiogenesis and evolution. The fact that they are different domains of study is irrelevant. The analogy clearly depicts my point. I question your honesty on this one.

Quote
No, you didn't. You did not provide a detailed explanation of what the ToE actually states, as stated by the biologists teaching it and working in the field themselves. You started off by merely claiming that ID is a "theory", when it's not. You then began criticizing a textbook for using the word "know". We rebutted that. Then you claimed that ID is science by copy/pasting evolution news alleged predictions (those claims were rebutted, as they were not specific to ID or post hoc). Then you went on to admit that your argument for ID is in fact a NEGATIVE argument (indicating that you have no positive evidence for ID - just claims). You then went on to claim that ID does just an "excellent job" of stating how a creator is possible (which still is not science but assertion without sound evidence). Then, in #95 you indicate that you are not a denier of the ToE (when just a few paragraphs back from here you implied that it was false and that speciation doesn't occur). Then you admit that it is just your opinion that ID is science and that it "pushes the boundaries" (no duh). Then in #152 you make arguments for God/Christianity (which clearly is not science and all of which I rebutted). You continue to equivocate on the word "know" as if it means absolute perfection of unchanging information (when it doesn't) and falsely claim we have "faith in science". Later you just claim (again) that the fine tuning argument is sound while claiming that we are "handcuffed" to naturalism (which are both false since many Christians accept ToE and the FT argument has been addressed). You then say "science is hopeless" to show abiogenesis true (another mere assertion of incredulity) claiming afterward that the scientific community has abandoned abiogenesis as possible (upon which you are rebutted and shown otherwise). After that you just start in with the "insurmountable" claim.

See my post #533.


« Last Edit: February 26, 2014, 09:56:07 PM by BibleStudent »

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
You never used the word “observe” anywhere in the post you are referring to.

He did use the word "examine" though.

Merriam-Webster defines "examine" as:

1 a : to inspect closely b : to test the condition of c : to inquire into carefully : investigate 2 a : to interrogate closely <examine a prisoner> b : to test by questioning in order to determine progress, fitness, or knowledge

Merriam-Webster definition of "observe" relative to the discussion is:

4 a : to watch carefully especially with attention to details or behavior for the purpose of arriving at a judgment b : to make a scientific observation on or of

The point remains that your accusation, that median used an argument from ignorance, is false.

Stating that you only have one universe to either examine or observe is currently a fact and says nothing about the possibility of other universes existing or not.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2014, 11:46:00 PM by SevenPatch »
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 708
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
I actually already addressed this and you ignored it or forgot about it but I will address it again. First, abiogenesis is a separate domain from ToE (which deals with life as it is already found here)

Again, this is just an absolutely ridiculous claim.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/pretending-that-evolutionary-theory-is-separable-from-abiogenesis/

Your link doesn't prove anything, it's just creationist propaganda.

How do I know this?  It doesn't provide sources to scientific papers related to the ToE that link it to abiogenesis.  All the article provides is opinions based on misconceptions.
"Shut him up! We have a lot invested in this ride - SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry! Look at my big bank account, and my family! This just HAS to be real!" - Bill Hicks

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 570
  • Darwins +86/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Abiogenesis is clearly not possible.

Abiogenesis is a label we give to a phenomenon, that being the start of life. Unless you believe life has always existed, which would mean you'd also have to believe the universe has always existed, then abiogenesis is not just possible, but inevitable. It doesn't matter whether it's proposed as being caused naturally without a god or being caused naturally with a god, it's still labelled abiogenesis.

Quote
As I have stated before, there are impenetrable roadblocks to any sort of chemical evolution.

Then your god is weak.

Quote
Abiogenesis as any type of scientific hypothesis is undefendable.

From a theistic standpoint, any hypothesis for abiogenesis tries to explain the natural mechanism god used to start life.

Quote
There is only one logical way to explain the existence of the laws of nature and that is that God created them.

Then it follows that if you belief life had a starting point, then you believe that your god created the natural laws that allowed life to start.

Quote
You are excluding God as the premise and instead placing Him in the conclusion and consequently you have robbed yourself from going where the evidence leads.

I'm starting to think that you are actually a troll.

I'm also finding your appeals to logic while simultaneously questioning a basis for logic to be somewhat ironic.... to say the least.
If you keep on living your life as though your purpose is to be saved and go to heaven, you are missing the heaven that you are living in right now.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12674
  • Darwins +707/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
3. How is it that you can invoke rules of logic when you cannot even account for them. Isn't logic a process of the mind?  Yes. Isn't logical thought based upon the laws of logic?  If logic is conceptual (a process of the mind) and certainly appear to be universally true, then what are the conditions that must be in place in order for the laws of logic to be universally true so that you can cite them and use them?  How do the truth statements that we call the laws of logic obtain their universal nature? How do you know that the laws of logic are true?  Do you just assume they are true? (www.carm.org)

You think this is clever, but it is not.  It is a scorched-earth tactic commonly used by people who are losing an argument.  This is what Stephen Law calls "going nuclear".[1][2]  You have destroyed any ability to use reason or logic and in doing so, you have also destroyed every argument you have ever made. 

From this point on, you are forbidden from attempting to use logic or reason.  If you do want to use them, you must either justify it or withdraw this line of argument.

 1. http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2011/09/going-nuclear.html
 2. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/believing-bull/201109/kaboom-going-nuclear-in-argument
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
3. How is it that you can invoke rules of logic when you cannot even account for them. Isn't logic a process of the mind?  Yes. Isn't logical thought based upon the laws of logic?  If logic is conceptual (a process of the mind) and certainly appear to be universally true, then what are the conditions that must be in place in order for the laws of logic to be universally true so that you can cite them and use them?  How do the truth statements that we call the laws of logic obtain their universal nature? How do you know that the laws of logic are true?  Do you just assume they are true? (www.carm.org)

You think this is clever, but it is not.  It is a scorched-earth tactic commonly used by people who are losing an argument.  This is what Stephen Law calls "going nuclear".[1][2]  You have destroyed any ability to use reason or logic and in doing so, you have also destroyed every argument you have ever made. 

From this point on, you are forbidden from attempting to use logic or reason.  If you do want to use them, you must either justify it or withdraw this line of argument.
 1. http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2011/09/going-nuclear.html
 2. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/believing-bull/201109/kaboom-going-nuclear-in-argument

That is exactly right. I am not familiar with Stephen Law’s book but I had a slight suspicion my last response to Median might blow this thread up. I knew I might be opening up a can of worms by challenging the naturalists explanation for logic.

We’re going around in circles now and we’ve reached a point in this thread where we can safely conclude that justification for the opposing views are lacking in fact. No one has presented anywhere near enough evidence to convince me that a naturalistic worldview makes sense and I am, apparently, unable to convince that a non-naturalistic worldview makes sense. I strongly believe that I have a valid rational argument and so does the opposing view. No hard feelings. There is clearly no way for me to convince anyone here that IDT is science and after 27 pages of trying, it is probably time to pour water on the fire and move on.

Regardless, I have, as always, learned plenty.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12674
  • Darwins +707/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
I knew I might be opening up a can of worms by challenging the naturalists explanation for logic.

That's not what you did.  You attempted to blow up all explanation for logic, including your own. 

Regardless, I have, as always, learned plenty.

I'm not convinced that is true. 

In any event...

All,

Please post your final comments so we can lock this one up.  Thank you for your participation.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2782
  • Darwins +121/-1
  • Gender: Male
Well, I for one and glad this one is over. 27 pages of getting no where!

Biblestudent, I would just point out to you that the only things you have produced as evidence of ID is basically how some people feel about some structures Its the argument from incredibility and nothing  more. You have failed to show us, in short, anything that disturbs the way research is progressing but then, you probably knew that before you started.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5228
  • Darwins +596/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
3. How is it that you can invoke rules of logic when you cannot even account for them. Isn't logic a process of the mind?  Yes. Isn't logical thought based upon the laws of logic?  If logic is conceptual (a process of the mind) and certainly appear to be universally true, then what are the conditions that must be in place in order for the laws of logic to be universally true so that you can cite them and use them?  How do the truth statements that we call the laws of logic obtain their universal nature? How do you know that the laws of logic are true?  Do you just assume they are true? (www.carm.org)
Seriously, BibleStudent?

Very simply, how do you know that logic is universally true?  It could simply be a product of the human mind; we certainly have no empirical evidence to show that it truly is universal or even necessary.  So why, then, must the laws of logic be universal in order to be valid?

Using logic, we can prove things which are impossible.  For example, many of Xeno's paradoxes (such as what I call the "halfway paradox", the proposition that you can never get anywhere without getting halfway there, and so on, thus you can never get anywhere) are quite logical, yet they describe an impossibility that is quickly demolished if you attempt to test it in the real world.  This is ample evidence that logic is not actually a universal phenomenon, since it can be used to describe things that don't hold true.

But logic does not have to be universal in order to be useful.  All that matters for our purposes is that logic is a way to structure arguments to make them easily explainable to others.  So, it's far more important to show that logic generally facilitates communication than it is to show that it's some kind of universal phenomenon.  And it usually does.  But like with all forms of communication, it's possible for someone to use intentionally confounding arguments to prop up a weak argument - or to attempt to destroy the shared basis for communicating in the first place.

The only thing you accomplished with this argument is to show that you're most interested in 'winning', even if it's doing so by bringing the metaphorical temple down on everyone's heads (or by upending the game board so that nobody can 'win' because you were losing).  In fairness, this is a quality shared by much of the human race - many people will not mind screwing themselves over badly if it screws other people over worse (basically, they 'win' if they're ahead, even if both are way behind; or they win by making sure nobody can win, they change their objectives in the middle).  That's why we developed the concepts of fairness and justice, to discourage such self-destructive behavior and to encourage people to accept losing gracefully.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6947
  • Darwins +940/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Not to mention the fact that the ToE works in thousands of everyday real life applications. Case closed.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
The only thing you accomplished with this argument is to show that you're most interested in 'winning', even if it's doing so by bringing the metaphorical temple down on everyone's heads (or by upending the game board so that nobody can 'win' because you were losing).  In fairness, this is a quality shared by much of the human race - many people will not mind screwing themselves over badly if it screws other people over worse (basically, they 'win' if they're ahead, even if both are way behind; or they win by making sure nobody can win, they change their objectives in the middle).  That's why we developed the concepts of fairness and justice, to discourage such self-destructive behavior and to encourage people to accept losing gracefully.

For whatever it is worth, I do not feel like I "won" anything. I made plenty of mistakes. It is very difficult to come into a thread and contend with numerous individuals all at the same time and somehow "win."I know that from experience. Still, it is somewhat gratifying to challenge one's own worldview while in the process of making arguments against competing arguments.

The whole time I was typing my response to Median, something was telling me that I was being reckless but I let er' fly anyway because I really wanted to turn a corner. We've been going around in circles for many pages.


Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5228
  • Darwins +596/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Well, it might be for the best.  A topic like this that's gone on for 27 pages without much headway...

I have some constructive criticism for you, if you're willing to listen.

First, you have a tendency to rule out things based on how you currently understand them.  For example, your repeated statements that abiogenesis was impossible, among other things.  Even someone who was an acknowledged expert in a given field would not accomplish much by simply declaring that something was impossible and thus trying to quash argument about it.  That comes across as stonewalling.

Second, you don't seem to fully understand what science is about.  It isn't about trying to prove (or show) that something you already think is true actually is true.  It's about following the evidence.  Often that means you have to discard a hypothesis that you really like, because it doesn't fit the evidence, or worse, it only fits part of the evidence.  Why do I say that's worse?  Because human nature makes it easy for us to selectively filter out things which don't fit what we want to believe.  It's often those basic assumptions - the ones we don't think to question or just don't want to question - that trip us up.  It's something that scientists have to constantly work at in order to do their work effectively, and it holds just as true for discussing science.

Finally, as my martial arts teacher likes to say, "loosen up!"  It's very easy for people to mentally stiffen up when they encounter something they're not prepared to accept.  If you want to discuss things like this, you have to learn to relax and not attempt to imitate a hard rigid surface when it comes to those ideas.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Well, it might be for the best.  A topic like this that's gone on for 27 pages without much headway...

I have some constructive criticism for you, if you're willing to listen.
<snipped>

Thank you !!