Author Topic: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)  (Read 3599 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2571
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #29 on: March 01, 2014, 12:50:42 PM »
... or even why you think the bible is to be accepted as 'true' - whatever that might mean.
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)

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #30 on: March 01, 2014, 12:53:23 PM »
You know what BS? You are a frustration to me, and dare I say, to most of us here. You're obviously an intelligent person, able to grasp concepts, articulate your thoughts well, and have some critical thinking skills. That you are learned, there is little doubt. But all the information you take in is filtered through the lens of your belief.  So, the fact that some of it doesn't get through that lens is frustrating to us, to say the least.

The ToE is the unfettered truth about how life on this planet diversified. It's so painfully obvious to most of us, us being humans on the planet, that there is no question of its validity. Absolutely none. The science is solid. Further, just looking around curiously, seeing the diversity, observing the species that have been segregated and isolated from the rest of the planet, seeing the similarities between species, seeing the fossil record, seeing the anatomies of various species and their vestigials, is more than enough to warrant the conclusion that evolution occurs. And again, the science backs it up. And that, in and of itself, should lead you to question your own judgement on the matter. If you could somehow remove your god-glasses for a moment, and take a look at the bigger picture, I've little doubt that you would see it as we see it too.

That you cannot remove your filter is not your fault. I get it. You don't have a choice, because belief is not a choice.

So, I apologize for getting frustrated with you, and lashing out. It's not your fault.


Nice post.

No need to apologize, but thank you just the same. I apologize for being a source of frustration.

I really think that if the handful of jerks who find it necessary to inject unnecessary ridicule and condescension would just back off, most of the conversations wouldn’t get so poisoned. Problem is, I get caught right up in it sometimes and then things get out of control.

I realize that you accept everything you see in the world as being godless, natural, and explainable. Regardless of what some may think, I do not judge anyone for their beliefs. No one is any less of a human being just because they have a different woldview.

My area of interest is in evolution and the science that is used to legitimize its claims. That is where I spend the bulk of my time studying and reading and researching.  After spending countless hours poring over papers, articles, commentaries, blogs, and numerous debates, it is, in the view of myself and many others that there are holes in the ToE that are being filled with assumptions and speculation. You see them as inconsequential but I do not. There is simply too much storytelling going on and too many unsubstantiated conclusions being formed.

That is why I started the thread I did yesterday….to demonstrate that certain holes are being filled with unscientific claims. Frankly, I am often perplexed at the harsh and sudden  reactions that people have when the science is challenged….primarily because it is a central aspect of science…that it be challenged. I have saved that thread and plan to use it as part of my curriculum just so others can see what happens when challenges are made.

Again, I appreciate your post and your apology. Thank you !

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #31 on: March 01, 2014, 12:56:12 PM »

You just go ahead and continue to deceive yourself.

1500 posts and I get a thread locked when not a single one of the posted forum rules were violated?

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,26437.0.html


You’ll let the theist come on here and get his beliefs pummeled and not shut that down when the posters are clearly  “abuse[ing] this forum by deliberately ignoring and mischaracterizing actual science theism."

And you people wonder why so many others won’t take you seriously? Your science is like a ball of putty that you shape to fit your belief.

I exposed your enormous lie and the moderator didn’t like it so he/she arbitrarily locked it down. That is the epitome of cowardice.

Science is not a lie.

If you had really been interested in evolution you would have read as much as you could and made sure you understand it. There are libraries full of books on evolution alone. Your claim to superior knowledge should be a warning to you that you are not thinking clearly.

Why don't you start a thread on a subject you know something about? If you think theism is not being properly presented why don't you start a thread on your best reason for believing what you do or what you think is the most convincing evidence?

I have not claimed that "science is a lie." Not sure where you got that from but the claim that that is what I said is incorrect.

I am not wasting my time and starting anymore threads.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1477
  • Darwins +99/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #32 on: March 01, 2014, 01:49:12 PM »
I am not wasting my time and starting anymore threads.

You are too easily upset. Just keep to subjects you understand.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11045
  • Darwins +286/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #33 on: March 01, 2014, 02:02:18 PM »
You are too easily upset. Just keep to subjects you understand.

Must.resist.urge.to.make.comment.about.BibleStudent's.knowledge.

[serious mode on]
Anyway, BibleStudent, as you may recall, I posted an image a while back demonstrating the difference between what theists call "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Specifically, that there is none, other than the time frame. You never refuted it. I hereby challenge you to a debate about the theory of evolution. Put up or shut up. Debunk a well-thought out theory with whatever knowledge you may have of said theory, or accept its validity. I suspect you'll choose the third option: reject its validity and claim victory, even though you know full well it's not true.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #34 on: March 01, 2014, 02:17:23 PM »
I hereby challenge you to a debate about the theory of evolution.

No thanks. I'm not going to waste my time when a mod could come along and lock the discussion because I am being a "twit" and "mischaracterizing science."

Besides...I'd roast ya    8)
(^^^ just kidding)

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1477
  • Darwins +99/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #35 on: March 01, 2014, 02:34:50 PM »
When I was at school I did a project where I was given an ancient text on a stone and told to try to decipher it. I coded the the text and typed it into a computer. Then I adjusted the code to match the letters of the language which I thought was on the stone. I got everything to fit perfectly and got the message off the stone. My answer was completely wrong.

The mistake I made was to think I knew the answer to which language it would be. I did not follow the correct procedure. Since then I have always been careful not to be attached to any particular answer to a problem and I have especially been suspicious if I have found the answer I first thought of. I am not usually happy unless the answer I find is one I didn't want or expect.

So BS which parts of science do you deny are correct? Is it just evolution or biology in general? What about geology which deals with fossils and the age of the Earth? The problem is that once you deny evolution, it has implications for the accuracy of many other sciences. No science is totally isolated.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 02:38:27 PM by Foxy Freedom »
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11045
  • Darwins +286/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #36 on: March 01, 2014, 02:43:44 PM »
No thanks. I'm not going to waste my time when a mod could come along and lock the discussion because I am being a "twit" and "mischaracterizing science."

I'm sure the mods wouldn't do that unless you gave them a reason to. Are you so unsure of your knowledge that you can't handle a debate with little old me?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #37 on: March 01, 2014, 02:56:46 PM »
So BS which parts of science do you deny are correct?

I am not making a claim that science is incorrect. Rather, I have made a case that the word "science" or "scientific" is being used when it should not be. Scientific claims must be backed by scientific evidence. There are so-called "scientific" claims being made to support the ToE that are NOT scientific at all. I would like to elaborate further for you but, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I do not want to disrespect the mods and venture off into a discussion that was deemed unacceptable. Regardless of whether I think that decision was right or wrong, I prefer to just respect the decision that was made and avoid creating any additional stress.   


(edit: corrected a couple of words)
« Last Edit: March 01, 2014, 03:00:52 PM by BibleStudent »

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #38 on: March 01, 2014, 02:58:53 PM »
No thanks. I'm not going to waste my time when a mod could come along and lock the discussion because I am being a "twit" and "mischaracterizing science."

I'm sure the mods wouldn't do that unless you gave them a reason to.

That's the problem....I have no way of knowing whether I would be doing that or not.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11045
  • Darwins +286/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #39 on: March 01, 2014, 03:03:58 PM »
That's the problem....I have no way of knowing whether I would be doing that or not.

There's a very simple way: read about the ToE from scientific sources and find out what it says.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #40 on: March 01, 2014, 03:14:04 PM »
So let me get this straight - there are aspects of the ToE that aren't scientific.... but ID is....?

Pfffffff, hahahaha! Oh bravo. No, really, bra.fuckin.vo.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #41 on: March 01, 2014, 03:14:57 PM »
That's the problem....I have no way of knowing whether I would be doing that or not.

There's a very simple way: read about the ToE from scientific sources and find out what it says.

You seem to think (and I could be wrong) that if I read scientific sources that the blinders will come off and I will see the error of my ways. Well, I have done all that....and continue to do so.....and what you think is scientifically backed is not really scientifically backed. I'm telling you that everything you believe about common descent is NOT scientifically supported.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #42 on: March 01, 2014, 03:17:59 PM »
So let me get this straight - there are aspects of the ToE that aren't scientific.... but ID is....?

Pfffffff, hahahaha! Oh bravo. No, really, bra.fuckin.vo.

Come on, man....that's the kind of snobbery that pollutes a decent discussion.
In response to your comments, though, what I would say is that -->  IF the entirety of the ToE is scientific then, yes, so is ID.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11045
  • Darwins +286/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #43 on: March 01, 2014, 03:19:55 PM »
You seem to think (and I could be wrong) that if I read scientific sources that the blinders will come off and I will see the error of my ways. Well, I have done all that....and continue to do so.....and what you think is scientifically backed is not really scientifically backed. I'm telling you that everything you believe about common descent is NOT scientifically supported.

I'm just trying to get you to not misrepresent science so that we can have a formal debate. If you're not up for it, so be it.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #44 on: March 01, 2014, 03:23:54 PM »
You seem to think (and I could be wrong) that if I read scientific sources that the blinders will come off and I will see the error of my ways. Well, I have done all that....and continue to do so.....and what you think is scientifically backed is not really scientifically backed. I'm telling you that everything you believe about common descent is NOT scientifically supported.

I'm just trying to get you to not misrepresent science so that we can have a formal debate. If you're not up for it, so be it.

As much as I would like to respond to this, I can't. I do not want to piss off the mods.

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #45 on: March 01, 2014, 03:24:58 PM »
So let me get this straight - there are aspects of the ToE that aren't scientific.... but ID is....?

Pfffffff, hahahaha! Oh bravo. No, really, bra.fuckin.vo.

Come on, man....that's the kind of snobbery that pollutes a decent discussion.
In response to your comments, though, what I would say is that -->  IF the entirety of the ToE is scientific then, yes, so is ID.

No, what spoils a decent discussion is your ineptitude/trolling regarding the ToE.

....And if ID is scientific if the entirety of the ToE is scientific, then since you don't consider the entirety of the ToE to be scientific, if follows that ID isn't either. We've been telling you that for pages! Anyway, you finally got there... you took a wrong turn, but you got there.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2571
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #46 on: March 01, 2014, 03:27:14 PM »
You seem to think (and I could be wrong) that if I read scientific sources that the blinders will come off and I will see the error of my ways. Well, I have done all that....and continue to do so.....and what you think is scientifically backed is not really scientifically backed. I'm telling you that everything you believe about common descent is NOT scientifically supported.

I'm just trying to get you to not misrepresent science so that we can have a formal debate. If you're not up for it, so be it.

As much as I would like to respond to this, I can't. I do not want to piss off the mods.

Well choose a mod and agree how the debate will be run. Don't just miss the chance to show your knowledge about ToE that we don't know.
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)

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #47 on: March 01, 2014, 03:28:37 PM »
So let me get this straight - there are aspects of the ToE that aren't scientific.... but ID is....?

Pfffffff, hahahaha! Oh bravo. No, really, bra.fuckin.vo.

Come on, man....that's the kind of snobbery that pollutes a decent discussion.
In response to your comments, though, what I would say is that -->  IF the entirety of the ToE is scientific then, yes, so is ID.

No, what spoils a decent discussion is your ineptitude/trolling regarding the ToE.

....And if ID is scientific if the entirety of the ToE is scientific, then since you don't consider the entirety of the ToE to be scientific, if follows that ID isn't either. We've been telling you that for pages! Anyway, you finally got there... you took a wrong turn, but you got there.

That is perfectly acceptable to me. If you want to concede that significant aspects of the ToE are not scientifically supported (which is what you just implied) then I will concede that ID is also not scientific.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11045
  • Darwins +286/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #48 on: March 01, 2014, 03:30:59 PM »
As much as I would like to respond to this, I can't. I do not want to piss off the mods.

Speak up. I'm pretty sure the mods won't do anything unless a report is filed (or unless it's something like spam).
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1477
  • Darwins +99/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #49 on: March 01, 2014, 03:34:57 PM »
So BS which parts of science do you deny are correct?

I am not making a claim that science is incorrect. Rather, I have made a case that the word "science" or "scientific" is being used when it should not be. Scientific claims must be backed by scientific evidence. There are so-called "scientific" claims being made to support the ToE that are NOT scientific at all. I would like to elaborate further for you but, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I do not want to disrespect the mods and venture off into a discussion that was deemed unacceptable. Regardless of whether I think that decision was right or wrong, I prefer to just respect the decision that was made and avoid creating any additional stress.   


(edit: corrected a couple of words)

Apart from evolution which other parts of science do you think are affected by not being properly scientific or are based on evolution in some way?
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 525
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #50 on: March 01, 2014, 03:45:22 PM »
So let me get this straight - there are aspects of the ToE that aren't scientific.... but ID is....?

Pfffffff, hahahaha! Oh bravo. No, really, bra.fuckin.vo.

Come on, man....that's the kind of snobbery that pollutes a decent discussion.
In response to your comments, though, what I would say is that -->  IF the entirety of the ToE is scientific then, yes, so is ID.

No, what spoils a decent discussion is your ineptitude/trolling regarding the ToE.

....And if ID is scientific if the entirety of the ToE is scientific, then since you don't consider the entirety of the ToE to be scientific, if follows that ID isn't either. We've been telling you that for pages! Anyway, you finally got there... you took a wrong turn, but you got there.

That is perfectly acceptable to me. If you want to concede that significant aspects of the ToE are not scientifically supported (which is what you just implied) then I will concede that ID is also not scientific.

I don't have to concede anything. This has nothing to do with me but you. You already don't think certain aspects of the ToE are scientific, so by your own reasoning, you don't think ID is either. Congrats.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1801
  • Darwins +191/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #51 on: March 01, 2014, 04:55:10 PM »
I hereby challenge you to a debate about the theory of evolution.

No thanks. I'm not going to waste my time when a mod could come along and lock the discussion because I am being a "twit" and "mischaracterizing science."

A formal debate would be in a thread that can only be posted in by the debaters, and the mods stay out unless they are asked to intervene by a participant - in this case you or One. The forum actually has a space devoted to exactly that kind of exchange. Unless one of you actually break the rules the two of you agree to in advance, you can carry on as long as you both are willing to participate. There's considerably less risk of "wasting time" there than here.

A second commentary thread runs parallel to the debate thread, and everyone is welcome to post in that second thread. But the only posters in the debate itself would be you and One.

Your stated concern has now been addressed. Are you now ready to go forward with a debate?

If not, what other concerns do you have that would prevent you from participating?
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline SevenPatch

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 704
  • Darwins +108/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • A source will help me understand.
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #52 on: March 01, 2014, 05:34:02 PM »
That is perfectly acceptable to me. If you want to concede that significant aspects of the ToE are not scientifically supported (which is what you just implied) then I will concede that ID is also not scientific.

I'll take this as your concession of defeat.  You don't get to play this childish game of "well, if the ToE is science then ID is science".  You have to show why the ToE or any part of it is not scientific as we and the scientific community have done in regards to ID, but since you can't without destroying the scientific method, science itself and logic then you admit that the ToE in its entirety is scientific and since you cannot refute the challenges to to ID also without destroying the scientific method, science itself and logic then you admit that ID is not scientific or science thus should not be taught in public classrooms.
"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
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #53 on: March 03, 2014, 02:00:14 AM »

My area of interest is in evolution and the science that is used to legitimize its claims. That is where I spend the bulk of my time studying and reading and researching.  After spending countless hours poring over papers, articles, commentaries, blogs, and numerous debates, it is, in the view of myself and many others that there are holes in the ToE that are being filled with assumptions and speculation. You see them as inconsequential but I do not. There is simply too much storytelling going on and too many unsubstantiated conclusions being formed.

That is why I started the thread I did yesterday….to demonstrate that certain holes are being filled with unscientific claims. Frankly, I am often perplexed at the harsh and sudden  reactions that people have when the science is challenged….primarily because it is a central aspect of science…that it be challenged. I have saved that thread and plan to use it as part of my curriculum just so others can see what happens when challenges are made.

BS, what you seem to be missing is that your mere assertion of "designer" is not the default winner if somehow you manage to do a big 'take-down' on the whole of evolutionary biology. If you did that, you would still need actual evidence, not conjecture. That is how science works - admit you don't know until sufficient evidence is presented. Pretending that there are only two logical/philosophical possibilities is dishonest.

You allude to reading articles, blogs, and debates to learn about evolution. Not once do you actually mention any formal scientific education you have done, coursework on the subject, upper division textbooks or courses (such as those of biological anthropology), or ever having actually done formal peer reviewed homework in these subjects. You just site jaded websites that you think "do it". In short, in looks very much like you're just a Google/Wiki scholar (conspiracy guy) who's trolling to poke holes and act as if you know the science. That is likely a key factor in why so many here don't take you seriously. You really don't sound like you know what you're talking about (especially when you use X animal to Y animal arguments). Are you even open to having your assumptions overturned? Perhaps more importantly, are you open enough to admit that perhaps, just maybe, your expectations (and your arbitrary definitions) of what science is and does are in error? Look deep within your own self. Do you find yourself search, looking, digging to find articles that just refute these claims or are you actually truly looking to understand the science? From where we sit, the former looks to be very much the case. The way I know this is because you sound very much like me when I was a Christian apologist online trying to 'tear down' evolution (feeling on edge) and searching out the best arguments from my favorite apologists/IDers to protect what was being held inside. This is a very common theme amongst religious people and I don't think you are an exception.

If you had to choose between truth and protecting your current belief, which would it be?

I'd also like to know how much is at stake for you. If you stopped being a Christian today, and admitted to all your friends and family that you were having doubts and no longer knew if Christianity was true, what would be the likely consequence or fallout that would ensue?



 
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #54 on: March 03, 2014, 02:03:32 AM »

That is perfectly acceptable to me. If you want to concede that significant aspects of the ToE are not scientifically supported (which is what you just implied) then I will concede that ID is also not scientific.

If (hypothetically) you were to concede that ID is not scientific, what exactly about ID is not science? What specifically about it is not scientific?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #55 on: March 03, 2014, 02:31:02 PM »
BS, what you seem to be missing is that your mere assertion of "designer" is not the default winner if somehow you manage to do a big 'take-down' on the whole of evolutionary biology.

1. I am not interested in seeing the whole of evolutionary biology fall apart. There is an enormous amount of valuable knowledge connected to it. My interest is simply to see it presented in a more honesty and forthright manner.
2. In many ways, the Theory of Evolution provides valuable insight into why God is the more rational and plausible explanation for the world we live in. Still, it’s existence is inconsequential to whether a belief in God is accurate or not.

Quote
If you did that, you would still need actual evidence, not conjecture. That is how science works - admit you don't know until sufficient evidence is presented. Pretending that there are only two logical/philosophical possibilities is dishonest.

Your comment here seems to presume that non-natural causes can only exist if naturalistic evidence for them can be presented. There is no logical path available to form such a demand. In other words, there are many non-empirical aspects to our reality that point more in favor of God than they do to naturalistic causes.
 
Quote
You allude to reading articles, blogs, and debates to learn about evolution. Not once do you actually mention any formal scientific education you have done, coursework on the subject, upper division textbooks or courses (such as those of biological anthropology), or ever having actually done formal peer reviewed homework in these subjects. You just site jaded websites that you think "do it". In short, in looks very much like you're just a Google/Wiki scholar (conspiracy guy) who's trolling to poke holes and act as if you know the science. That is likely a key factor in why so many here don't take you seriously. You really don't sound like you know what you're talking about (especially when you use X animal to Y animal arguments).

In a way, I am thankful that it may seem that I do not know what I am talking about. I suppose that some of that stems from the fact that I do not accept the totality of the evidence in the same way that others do so my position is perceived as radical and borne out of ignorance. That is part of the reason I have come to simply accept the accusation that my position is based on a lack of knowledge. I understand that the opposing view would naturally formulate such an accusation since they are under the impression that anyone who doesn’t “get it” must necessarily be missing or misinterpreting key parts of the theory.

As for my educational background, I honestly cannot tell you which undergraduate coursework I may have completed. It’s been awhile and I would have to pull out my transcripts to see which courses I may have taken. I do recall taking an advanced biology class because I remember having a highly contentious discussion with the professor. Don’t ask me what it was about, though, because I honestly cannot remember.

What I have started doing is taking online tests to challenge my knowledge and understanding. Unless the subject is really complex, I’m usually falling somewhere between 80%-100%. I feel comfortable and confident discussing most aspects of evolution.

My arguments may not sound like they come from a very informed person. I get that. But, I really do think part of it is because what others see as “science” I see as made up stories so my arguments probably don’t seem scientific because I don’t think the topic is based on real science.

Despite what some may think, I am NOT this militant anti-evolution thug who thinks that the theory is a complete farce. Some of it is, indeed, a theory….and a solid one. Unfortunately, a lot of it is not theory and that is what I contend. Too much of it has a religious overtone to it. The ToE reminds me of one of those exploding golf balls. It looks like a real golf ball. It feels like a real golf ball….and it does good at tricking the ball striker into believing it is real. But, when you hit it, that mutha' blows up and you realize that what seemed real, was actually just an illusion. The inside was filled with a bunch of white powder that rendered the ball completely unfit for the game of golf…..just like a lot of the storytelling does to an otherwise good theory.

Quote
Are you even open to having your assumptions overturned?

Absolutely. All it would take is one confirmed trail of fossils that clearly depicted the transition of a dinosaur evolving into a bird.

Quote
Perhaps more importantly, are you open enough to admit that perhaps, just maybe, your expectations (and your arbitrary definitions) of what science is and does are in error?

Using the current demarcation criteria, probably not. The methods used to qualify some of the methods as scientific are disturbing. I know the following quote has probably been cited excessively but I think it describes how many of us see the science behind evolution:

1.   We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.  Lewontin, Richard, Review of The Demon-Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. In New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.


Quote
Look deep within your own self. Do you find yourself search, looking, digging to find articles that just refute these claims or are you actually truly looking to understand the science?

That may have been the case at one time. In fact, I’m sure it was. When I realized, though, that making an honest assessment of the opposing views required an unbiased examination of the evidence, I started doing what was fair for myself.

Quote
From where we sit, the former looks to be very much the case. The way I know this is because you sound very much like me when I was a Christian apologist online trying to 'tear down' evolution (feeling on edge) and searching out the best arguments from my favorite apologists/IDers to protect what was being held inside. This is a very common theme amongst religious people and I don't think you are an exception.

I understand.


Quote
If you had to choose between truth and protecting your current belief, which would it be?

Truth !!!
 
Quote
I'd also like to know how much is at stake for you. If you stopped being a Christian today, and admitted to all your friends and family that you were having doubts and no longer knew if Christianity was true, what would be the likely consequence or fallout that would ensue?

I think the fallout would be minimal. Many of the people I associate with are non-theists or ‘quiet” Christians anyway. I would probably be asked a lot of questions by fellow Christians but I am rather certain that I would not be ostracized.


Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1477
  • Darwins +99/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #56 on: March 03, 2014, 03:07:46 PM »

Quote
Look deep within your own self. Do you find yourself search, looking, digging to find articles that just refute these claims or are you actually truly looking to understand the science?

That may have been the case at one time. In fact, I’m sure it was. When I realized, though, that making an honest assessment of the opposing views required an unbiased examination of the evidence, I started doing what was fair for myself.

Quote
If you had to choose between truth and protecting your current belief, which would it be?

Truth !!!
 

What experiment would you suggest to test if your examination of the evidence is unbiased? Do you care enough about the truth to think about such an experiment?
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1313
  • Darwins +96/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Evolution and Logic (response to BibleStudent)
« Reply #57 on: March 03, 2014, 03:09:40 PM »
My area of interest is in evolution and the science that is used to legitimize its claims. That is where I spend the bulk of my time studying and reading and researching.  After spending countless hours poring over papers, articles, commentaries, blogs, and numerous debates, it is, in the view of myself and many others that there are holes in the ToE that are being filled with assumptions and speculation.

If this is true, why would you say/ask this??

Quote
Turn a cow into a bird and then you have a foundation to build on.
It's one of the reasons I'm an atheist today.  I decided to take my religion seriously, and that's when it started to fall apart for me.
~jdawg70